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

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 123359


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Betsy:
> Yes, but I think this scene shows us that *at this point* James has 
> not put much thought into his ideology.  He knows what he stands 
> for, and he knows what the opposite side looks like, but he chooses 
> an action that as readers we'd recognize the "Death Eater Quidditch 
> Hooligans" using on Muggles in the beginning of GoF.  To corrupt a 
> much used phrase in my area, "What would Dumbledore do?"  I assure 
> you, not hang Snape upside down and show off his undies to the 
> world. (And though I don't believe in Perfect!Dumbledore, he is 
> representative of James's stated ideology.)

But you've already admitted to a split between motivations (read: 
ends, goals...all the things we talk about as being 'ideological') 
and actions.  That means, by your own criteria, that you can know 
what the right thing is but still go about it the wrong way.

As I posted back in 118630, 118617, and 118670 (some light reading, 
natch), James is not a little Marxist walking around carrying his 
Little Red Book, but if we, say, take Ron in CoS as our parallel 
model, he does know what those things mean at a surprising level of 
sophistication and conviction--it's that he uses some pretty crappy 
methods to carry it out.  His motivation that is better (noting that 
NOT ALL of his motivations in this scene are good by ANY means) is 
the attack on the use of "Mudblood"; his crappy methods are the 
turning of people upside down.

> Of course, we don't learn anything about Snape's commitment to 
> *his* ideology at this time.  He may well be a true believer by 
> this time, eagerly awaiting his cool new skin art.  There's no real 
> hint on him.  

No, strictly speaking, there's not.  But it is, again, suggestive in 
the use of words, and we have the infamous 'gang of Slytherins' yet 
to account for.  I *will* bet that they play a role in this, 
somehow.  Too careful set up for dear Bella to have nothing to do, 
you know.

> We also know that Sirius is going to have such a large crisis of 
> conscience fairly soon.  He leaves his family at 16 IIRC, and that 
> certainly speaks to him making his ideology his own (especially 
> considering that he'd broken family tradition by going into 
> Gryffindor in the first place).

I admit to having had the perspective that Sirius had some major 
break beforehand, via the going into Gryffindor, and the running away 
from home as the ultimate result of that; less than it being a 
genuine crisis of conscience, it was an inevitable fait accompli.

> Betsy:
> Ah yes, but in this scene James uses the right methods (all white 
> magic) to achieve an inpure motive - the humiliation of another 
> student.  It's fairly clear that James and Sirius are not reacting 
> defensivly at this point.

See above: I think that conception of motives and methods is more 
narrow than what I was getting at, and if you're going to play with 
such Kantian terms, play on the larger scale.
 
> Betsy:
> There is something to be said, however, for what the author chooses 
> to show us.  I don't think this is an isolated event, no matter 
> that this is the only such event we witness.

Problem is, it is currently *textually* an isolated event.  No 
seriation.  The argument that it is shown to us as representative is 
equally as weak as the argument that it is there for future 
modification.

> I think it's also a quick way to point out that the attack on Snape 
> took place because Sirius was bored.  If JKR wanted to throw Harry 
> (and us) a bone (don't worry - your Dad wasn't *that* bad), there 
> may have been talk of a recent wrong they needed to avenge. She 
> could have had Snape idly hexing a younger student or even a fly - 
> James and Sirius ride to the rescue.  But JKR specifically sets up 
> that Sirius is bored and Snape is avaliable.

There's the ever-intriguing existence line, though.  And from a 
literary perspective, so much more effective to let Harry and us see 
such a strong one side, before pulling out the other half of the 
dialectic.

> Betsy:
> I would like to learn what made Snape change his mind about 
> Voldemort, and why Dumbledore seems to trust him so completely.  

You are aware of the interview where she says "Snape told Dumbledore 
his story and Dumbledore believed it", right?  I am also firmly 
agnostic here, but that doesn't inspire grand confidence in lil' me.

> And I think to learn what caused his change we will have to be 
> shown what he was like pre-ideological shift.  I do not expect it 
> to be pretty.  Actually - I think I'll feel a little let down if it 
> turns out Snape was on the softer side of the Death Eater 
> movement.  However, if JKR plays to theme, showing us the darker 
> side of James would suggest we're going to learn (with Harry) the 
> lighter side of Snape.

Not necessarily; it may equally as well suggest that it's Snape's 
turn to be dragged through the dirt.  That's the more obvious 
structural parallel.

> I am eager to learn why exactly Dumbledore feels Snape as DADA 
> professor is a bad thing.  No guesses of my own though I don't 
> think it's simply, Snape is so good at Potions, nor do I think 
> it's, but you scare the children so (hello Professor Moody).

I think it's that he's been Dark on a level that Moody never has.  
Not to mention that it points towards a suggestion that Dumbledore 
*still*, to this very day, worries about Snape's inclinations if 
offered a particular position.  "Bringing out the worst" is the 
interview language, after all.  I think if you're disinclined to take 
her sadism comment seriously, you have more trouble coming up with 
scenarios.

> I agree that Snape is not a fluffy little bunny (sudden hilarious 
> idea for Snape's animagus), but I do think he's *already* made his 
> choice.  Dumbledore's stong confidence in Snape leads me to believe 
> that Snape's choice was consciously and willingly made.  I don't 
> get the sense that he looks at other Death Eaters, like Lucius 
> Malfoy, and think, "Oh, why can't I...?".  Of course, I also 
> believe that Snape has several different motives that require his 
> methods - but that's a whole 'nother post. :)

I believe that we-the-fandom *massively* overestimate the actual 
complexity of Snape, and there is going to be a lot of "That's it?" 
in the long run.  I think that a theme for Snape is the continual 
struggle against cynicism and the particular mutation of arrogance 
that is its inevitable companion; take "I see no difference" as 
thematic for that.  [And that post is WAY back in the archives--I'm 
not digging that far tonight.  To summarize; Snape consistently does 
not make the differentiations that he should, does not exercise the 
willingness to listen and rethink positions that marks Dumbledore's 
actions...]  That's why I like Diana so much as a theory, the idea 
that the essence of the conversion was the realization that there are 
standards of right and wrong, and that there is NOT "no good and 
evil, only power and those...".  The issues represented by Diana are 
the ones that he still obviously struggles with.

IMO.

-Nora reaffirms a professional agnosticism, and looks around for the 
similarly inclined