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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 123282



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.<
 
Betsy:
To top off the discriptive difference between Snape and James/Sirius 
we have an unprovoked attack in which two boys ambush one.  So it's 
fairly obvious (to me at least) that JKR meant for readers to be 
repulsed by the behavior of James and Sirius and she meant for 
readers to feel sympathy for Snape.
 
But then JKR throws us a curve.  First, when Snape hits back he 
actually draws blood rather than hexing away James' and Sirius' 
wands.  It's a telling choice.  And then JKR adds in the "mudblood" 
word.  And, as you point out, Nora, having Snape use that particular 
word says something about his background and ideology, just as 
James' dislike of that word says something about his.
 
But is JKR really saying, "Don't worry about it folks.  Snape's 
still a baddie, James is still good.  Please ignore everything 
leading up to this point!" ?  It doesn't make sense.  Not when she's 
worked so hard to turn the readers *away* from James and Sirius in 
the scene setup.  There must be more to it than can simply be judged 
by who will say "mudblood" and who won't.  And I wonder if JKR is 
suggesting that perhaps there is more to a person than their family 
background.


Alla:

Ummm, I will be speaking for myself, but I will be bold enough to 
predict that Nora has similar POV on it, since indeed that was done 
many many times. :o)

Betsy, there is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that scene by itself 
is very bad and James and Sirius are set up as bullies .

It is even hard to read so ugly it looks. All that we are saying ( 
sorry, Nora if you are not) that we don't know the whole backstory 
yet and there is also a possibility that one of the reason behind 
James bullying was the fact that Snape was connected to DA and James 
hated dark Arts. Don't forget that according to Lexicon Voldemort 
already rose at that time and it is quite possible that ideological 
stakes were quite clear. Does it excuse what they did? NO, of course 
not. May it help to explain some things? Yes, of course, IMO.

And yes, set up of the scene is VERY clever. Up to Snape 
screaming "Mudblood" he had my complete sympathy and then - here we 
go - hint that Snape may not have been as innocent as it looks.

There is more to person indeed than their family background as 
Sirius clearly demonstrates by rejecting his family Dark heritage.

Let me say again, Snape is not the only character who may have 
unknown facts hidden in his past, IMO.

Just my opinion,

Alla