Conspiracies and re-assessments

[quigonginger]

No: HPFGUIDX 111969

Pippin, I apologize on behalf of myself and my computer.  I had sent 
a reply which my computer apparently thought delicious and ate.  Or 
Yahoo!Mort ate it, in which case it can take its own lumps.

> Pippin:
> Ahhhh...community standards. Okay, but the community which 
> should apply is not yours, or mine, but Hogwarts. Is 'pantsing' 
> normal student fun at Hogwarts? Have we ever seen anybody 
> 'pantsed'  at Hogwarts before? Lupin says they were out of line 
> and he ought to know. This is not considered a bit of dirty fun. 
Lily 
> doesn't tell Snape to be a good sport and buck up, does she?

Ginger:
It's hard to tell where the Hogwarts standards lie, but you have an 
excellent point in using their mores rather than our own when viewing 
the situation.  It is one of my pet peeves in others.  Thanks for 
pointing out that I am doing it myself.

On one hand, no one showed concern when F&G turned Neville into a 
canary.  He just molted and laughed.  On the other hand, Harry 
stepped in to defend Neville and his rememberall.  No one was too 
concerned with Neville's Leg Locker Curse.  It was fixed in a trice.  
Malfoy and Co. dressing as dementors caused an outcry among the staff.

Those last two seem almost contradictory in our world, but in the WW, 
it seems to me that if it can be fixed, it's not a big deal.  If it 
can cause great physical harm (which differs from our world in how 
easily it can be fixed) or property damage, it is.  There's not much 
canon to go on with this.  Maybe Hogwarts is as diverse on social 
mores as we are here.  

As to whether it is common, again, not enough canon, but I would 
imagine that with all that newfound hexing skill in a population of 
teens that there would be quite a few whose maturity hadn't reached a 
point where they would use it wisely.  Like the DA, I mean.  Maybe 
not specificly "pantsing" (robing?), but certainly quite a bit of 
mischief, in varying degrees, including those that cross the line 
into bad behaviour.  

Pippin:
> My dictionary says that 'evil' adds to 'bad'  "connotations of 
> depravity and corruptive influence."  I think that adult Sirius and 
> Lupin were cognizant of those elements. Sirius says that they 
> were berks, a word with an obscene derivation, which concedes 
> depravity even as it masks it.
> 
> Lupin says he knew at the time they were out of line, so that's 
> corruptive influence, especially since James tries to get the 
> community to approve his actions, "Who wants to see me take 
> off Snivelly's pants?"

Ginger:
Interesting.  My dictionary is more vague.  "Sinful and wicked" 
and "disagreeable" are 2 of the definitions it gives.  I must say I 
think more like yours.  

Again we run into the problem of shades.  Adult S&L saw that what 
they did was wrong.  You have backed up your dictionary definition 
well.  But then we have to ask, how far down is "depraved" 
and "corrupt".  According to my dictionary, S&J would fit the 
definition for corrupt.  So would I.  Come to think of it, so would 
Hermione.  It simply defines it as doing wrong.  Heck, there goes the 
whole planet!

Depraved is defined as evil and perverted.  I don't think S&J fit 
that bill.  The problem, of course, is that we are back to square one 
in defining evil.  I think of evil as like that thing that killed 
Tasha Yar (if you're into Star Trek: TNG).  A total disregard for 
*everyone* with focus only on onesself.  I see very few people I know 
as evil.  On the flip side of the coin, I see very few as good.  We 
are all in the grey area, hopefully leaning more towards good.

Oh, and I wouldn't be too hard on Sirius for using "berk".  In my 
social circle (offline) f***ing is the adverb of choice.  Not that 
all my friends are depraved, it is simply common usage.  Not 
something I use in all aspects of my life, but if it is/was common 
usage for Sirius' social circle, it doesn't make him depraved for 
using it.  Or, possibly, he chose the word as the harshest he could 
think of to drive it home to Harry that they really weren't proud of 
what they did.  In my circle of friends we would have used a phrase 
that is not printable here.  It involves the adverb of choice and 
anatomical parts.  'Nuff said.  At least Sirius' was printable ;o)

Pippin:
> But perhaps you think canon takes a different view of evil? Are 
> you saying that in the Potterverse,a  person who does evil and 
> repents of it is not only evil no longer, but never was evil in the 
> first place? 

Ginger:
If we are interpreting canon correctly, I think this would be more of 
a question for Snape.  Assuming that as a DE he commited atrocities 
and had no qualms about doing it, but is now truly on DD's side, then 
he would qualify as "evil at one time, but now changed".  Redeemed, 
if you will.  I would not go as far as to say that he had never been 
evil.  Bellatrix seems to fit the bill as evil.  She enjoys what she 
does.

To apply your question to S&J:  Again, we're back to square one.  
Your question assumes that they were evil, but changed.  I don't 
think they were evil, but did bad things and showed bad judgement.  
By that definition, we'd all be evil.

I think of evil as a state of being.  Actions are a state of doing.  
What I came away with from reading the Penseive section was that good 
people can do bad things.  It doesn't make the actions right, but it 
doesn't wholly condemn the doers.  It just shows that we are all 
fallible.  And we all have skeletons in our closets.

James fell from sainthood in Harry's eyes.  That's a long fall 
whether you are falling to "just human" or "evil".  Or somewhere in 
between.  I would need a lot more canon to believe that S&J were 
evil.  As it is, I see them as using bad judgement, on more than one 
occasion, with the focus on self-amusement rather than causing harm.  
In other words, they didn't consider other people's feelings.  They 
didn't think things through.  I have seen a lot of this behaviour 
from good people at that age and, for some, even later.  I have seen 
it far too often in myself.  Act on the spur of the moment, and later 
realize that it hurt someone, and feel bad about it.  The realization 
may take a while, as it seems to have for S&L.  I think James had 
that same realization, but we have no canon for that, unless you see 
his saving Snape from Werewolf!Lupin as wholly altruistic.     

To the original question: were S&J evil?  You say yes, I say no.  
(You say why, I say I don't know.)  I would love to ask JKR.  Maybe 
they were, and I am just reluctant to paint myself with the same 
brush.  I would hope not.

Thanks for this interesting discussion.  It is hard to put an 
abstract idea like evil into words.  I really had to work at it.  

Ginger, who can't believe that she has spent 3 hours total between 
the 2 posts coming up with this!