James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 123248



Nora:
This is, of course, round 1984765903 on this argument, but what the 
heck?

Carol adds:
I think that James's admirers are generally the same people who like
(I won't say admire) Sirius. They praise James for his "values" or
"principles" because he would never call Lily a "mudblood." (He 
didn't say that he wouldn't use the term to insult a Muggleborn he 
didn't like, but I suppose it's fair to say that he wouldn't do so, 
just as some people would never call a girl a b***ch even if they 
hated her. It's just a word that he's been taught not to use and so 
he doesn't.)

Nora:
 
Yes, but...from the perspective of literary economy (and there is a 
bunny sitting next to me at the present, a soft, fluffy bunny), 
there's something very significant about that whole scene.

To be direct: JKR likes to use little shorthand things and 
descriptions that, when we think about them, tell us a whole lot 
more about a person.  "Mudblood" seems to certainly be one of them.  
It is not a word that travels alone; it immediately labels someone 
who uses it as of a certain ideological bent.  And as I've argued 
before, *everyone* has ideology whether they are conscious or not of 
it--and this was an era where ideology seems to have mattered, 
greatly.
 
It *is* a strong insight into how James has been raised that he 
reacts so categorically to the word, just as it's an insight into 
Draco, Young!Snape, and Voldemort--the three people (I think...) 
we've heard use it.  It's been so reserved in actual use in the 
series that it really hits you when you hear it--and it tells you 
something fundamental about the user.

Alla:

Absolutely, Nora. I actually think JKR uses those "shorthands" 
absolutely brilliantly. This "just a word" surely envokes a million 
of RL associations in my mind and ALL of them have ideological 
subtext. I cannot stop being suprised as how well it works as 
metaphor of hating people who have different blood in them. I 
mentioned it already, but I'll say it again . When character 
in "potterverse' says "mudblood", I almost always can easily 
substitute it for " zhid or zhidovka" ( derrogatory " common speak" 
name for jews in former soviet union), since we hear this name 
mostly from dear Draco, no wonder I don't like him much. :)


And canon supports that people who say "mudblood" usually have in 
mind some evil things to do to them. Therefore, yes, the fact that 
James refuses to speak such word IS to his credit, IMO. Just as  the 
fact that Snape chooses this name from all others to call Lily - not 
much to his credit.
 

Carol:

James bases his dislike of the studious Severus on the mere fact 
that he exists. 

Alla: 

Well, it is " because he exist, if you know what I mean" So, since 
it is not the first time in "potterverse" that we don't hear the 
full account of the events, I'd like to know what the second part of 
the sentence means.


Nora:

See, I don't want to dispute the account given--and I'm not going 
to, on a certain factual level.  But I want to throw a very 
particular wrench into the works, and it's a comparative one.
We always go, in the evaluation of Snape's various actions, "But we 
don't KNOW, there could be so much more going on", etc., ad nauseam.
Is it too much to suspect that we have a moderate case of that 
situation going on here as well?


Alla:

NO, Nora, James and Sirius cannot have hidden reasons for his 
actions, only Severus can. (just kidding)


Just my opinion,

Alla