bullies? twins, padfoot and prongs

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 118745


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

> 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?

Hence the "even if it's not something that they are openly thinking 
in terms of".  Ron clearly has been taught "Don't call people 
Mudblood".  This is the basis for his freaking out--it's part of his 
inculcated ideology, not to believe in the pureblood stuff. 

> 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.

Ideology is often a deeply personal thing!  It's what people deeply 
believe in, and there is no reason to separate 'personal' 
and 'ideological' in this case.  James would never use that word to 
describe Lily--this tells us something fundamental about James' 
worldview.  Severus Snape *does* use it--this is telling us something 
about the terms in which he thinks.  It's not only that Ron likes 
Hermione (or James likes Lily), it's that he knows that is a term 
which one doesn't use because it's nasty and vile in what it says 
about another human being, and how one perceives that person.

> 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.

You have been postulating great traumatic events, and that James 
wouldn't have thought at all about what was going on around him 
before then.  At least that is how I am reading your comments that 
James was snug and secure in Hogwarts, with nary a care, until his 
parents got offed.  If anything is BANG-y, that line of thought is.

> 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... <snip>

Okay.  Then the basis of my argument is that his convictions are 
quite possibly not as latent as you think they are.  This is only 
settleable by cold hard authorial-given fact, in the end.

It's perhaps a little bit like Harry.  I would argue that he rejects 
Draco in the beginning not merely out of personal reasons, but with 
the glimmering of conviction behind it--it's Draco's insulting of 
Hagrid, who has been kind to Harry, that really seems to get to him.  
Harry rejects Draco's talk of the right and wrong sort because he 
doesn't want to desert his friends, but there are also principles 
underlying it, such as a distaste for how Draco talks about other 
people.

You don't have to walk around quoting Kant to be acting with 
principle or ideology as an informing factor in your life.  It's the 
job of growing up (and taking a few philosophy classes :) to make 
things like that more explicit.  We're charting Harry's progress 
towards understanding why he needs to do what he needs to do (made 
when he does things like think about the Longbottoms, and what 
Voldemort took away from them); I don't see any reason not to 
postulate that James had issues of his own (different, natch) that 
were informing some of his own actions.

-Nora thinks that children should not be underestimated as to their 
ability to think about principles--hence JKR's comments one time that 
children are not fooled by the rationalizations for unfair behavior 
that adults often make