bullies? twins, padfoot and prongs

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118743


Carol earlier:
> > I read Nora's argument and understand her perspective, but even if
she's right that the Dark Arts, the pureblood ideology, and  Voldemort
go together, there's no evidence that *James* was thinking in those
terms at this time, or that he assoiciated Severus and Slytherin with
the mindset that Nora calls "fascist."
> 
Nora responded:
> He does freak out when Snape uses 'Mudblood', though.  The bullying
started before then, but that seems to be what really keeps it going
and even ups the ante.  The essence of the ideology argument with kids
is that it's there and influencing their actions, even if it's not
something that they are openly thinking in terms of. <snip>

Carol again:
But Ron also "freaks out" when Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood." Can
we conclude from that reaction that Ron has a fully developed
anti-Slytherin, anti-Voldemort philosophy? I don't think so, based on
his reaction to finding out that Lupin was a werewolf and his (mostly
true) assumptions about giants and house-elves. James is reacting to
an insult to a girl he likes and to a word he would never use to
describe her. It's similar, IMO, to the Weasley twins' reaction when
Draco insults their family, particularly their mother, IIRC, in OoP.
None of it is philosophical or ideological; it's all personal.

Carol earlier:
> > Any particular reason why? Surely this is not the same James we
hear calling to Lily that he'll hold off Voldemort while she takes
Harry and runs? The James who died trying to fight for his family is
admirable and courageous. The James who bullied Severus for the
entertainment of his bored friend is arrogant and egotistical. James
did a lot of growing up, IMO, in the years between the Pensieve
incident and Godric's Hollow.
> 
Nora responded:
> That's a fairly strict dichotomy to be observing, painting James 
> solely in one set of terms in the past and then marveling "Where did 
> those other things come from?"  Given JKR's fairly essentialist 
> metaphysics, I think that the seeds of the latter, and probably at 
> least some expression thereof, was always there.  We need to
remember all of the fond comments made by people about James Potter at
school, and try to figure out exactly how they connect with the
obvious negatives.  To fail to do so is to commit deliberately
one-sided analysis.  People develop, as well, without the need for
sudden traumatic events.  The Big BANG is only one paradigm amongst
many, after all.

Carol again:
I omitted the so-called Prank for the sake of brevity. Clearly that
was a step toward maturity. I didn't say anything about a Big BANG;
only that there's a great difference between James at fifteen or
sixteen and James at twenty-two. And we do know that terrible things
happened during that period. We also know that some time after Sirius
left home at sixteen and spent summers with the Potters and before
Godric's Hollow, James's parents died. If indeed they were murdered by
the Death Eaters, that murder would have impelled the previously
charming but self-centered James either to seek revenge or to act on
his previously latent convictions--possibly even to put two and two
together and oppose Voldemort's philosophy along with his actions. I'm
not talking about a dichotomy; I'm talking about a progression, which
also considers the civilizing influence of Lily and his desire to
please her: Pensieve James, Prank James, the James who marries Lily,
James as Order member, James as hero. It is not unreasonable to
include other motivating factors such as the probable murder of his
parents and the canonical murder of various Order members as
motivating factors in this progression.

Carol, who is posting one last time to this thread because she can't
help herself but knows she should be editing instead