Case for Marauders (was Re: Marauders, Voldemort and the Map)

[ohneill_2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 109985

RMM wrote:

> My only point is that "hating something" does not necessarily mean 
> that one "will not" or "has not performed" that something.
> When someone shows me canon to the effect that James Potter never 
> performed Dark Arts, then I will pack my "James Potter, DE" bags 
and 
> leave town.

Now Cory:

The reality is, there's no canon either way on the question of 
whether James performed Dark Arts.  The definition of the term "Dark 
Arts" is a bit of a point of contention; we know that he became an 
unregistered animagus and that he helped create the Marauder's map.  
If those two things are considered "Dark Arts," then yes, he he has 
performed them.  I personally would argue that they are not, but the 
term "Dark Arts" is not defined anywhere in canon either, so we could 
debate that point to eternity.  Given that we do not know whether any 
of the things he *did* do would be considered "Dark Arts," and that 
there is no canon to support a conclusion that he did any of the 
things that we *do* know constitute Dark Arts, I think we can agree 
that there is no canon - positive or negative - as to whether James 
ever performed any Dark Arts.  Agreed?

So what canon *do* we have?  We know that he "hated" the Dark Arts.  
We know that he was close to Dumbledore.  We know that he ultimately 
died fighting against Voldemort.

Now -- based on all of the above (which, to summarize, consists of 
substantial canon that he hated the Dark Arts and fought Dumbledore's 
fight, and no canon that he ever performed any Dark Arts), you are 
prepared to conclude, not only that James performed some Dark Arts, 
but that he was a Death Eater. (!)  To slightly mis-quote the old 
joke about the economist stranded on the deserted island: "You can't 
assume a can opener."

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  I won't stand here and tell you that 
there's no possible way you could be right; maybe you will be, but 
right now I think your argument flies in the face of substantial 
canon, and is supported by very little.

--Cory