Lupin-James switch (was: Re: a Lupin and a werewolf question)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 98316

> Siriusly Snapey Susan:
> I guess my whole problem with the Lupin-James switch idea is...to 
> what END would this have been done?  Why would Lupin have 
> been "expendable" and James not?  If a switch did happen and Lupin 
> died, why continue to keep James undercover--why not let him "come 
> back" and raise his son?  And KEY, for me, is this:  If it's 
*Harry* 
> who's the one who has the power to vanquish the Dark Lord, then 
why 
> would James be necessary to keep alive?  Surely continuing a ruse 
> like that for all those years...allowing Harry to believe his 
father 
> was dead when he wasn't...there would have to be a HUGE reason why 
> James had to be kept alive?  But what would that reason be, if 
> Harry's "the one"??
> 
> I'm curious why--other than the mere fact of those interesting 
> comments from canon that *could* support it--this is such a 
popular 
> theory.  Anyone care to chime in or to answer the questions I have?

Jen: The only reason I can think of to justify the Lupin-James 
switch theory would be if the "Potter line" is somehow the important 
factor. I can't buy that idea though, because it would promote blood-
elitism in a different way from LV's pure-blood mania. *And* change 
the whole force behind the story! 

Nah, I'm with you Susan. It doesn't further the story, and would 
fall under the conned-not-tricked assumption that JKR uses for her 
readers. 

"Readers loved to be tricked, but not conned" JKR, Reader's Digest, 
2000

Jen
For more HP discussion, visit the friendly neighborhood pub at:  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/