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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 123369


>>Betsy:
>Yes, but I think this scene shows us that *at this point* James has 
not put much thought into his ideology. <snip>

>>Nora: 
>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.<

Betsy:
Erm.  Yes.  I'm not sure what the argument is here.  James follows 
the letter of his ideology while essentially breaking his ideology. 
Wrong clothed in right.  He's like the Spanish Inquisition (and also 
unexpected).

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
But you are assuming a depth of conviction that frankly, James does 
not express here.  Yes, he knows that "mudblood" is a bad word.  This 
suggests that he was raised right.  But he flips Snape over in 
retaliation for the slash to his face, and he threatens to remove 
Snape's underwear because Lily turns him down.  None of that points 
to a deeper ideological reason for picking on Snape. And nothing in 
the text of this scene suggests any purer motive.

>>Betsy:
>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.<

>>Nora:  
>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.<

Betsy:
I'm just wondering how far down the road to Death Eaterdom Snape is 
at this point.  Nothing in the scene gives us a clue.  There's been a 
lot of back and forth on ages, but I have the impression that Lucius 
et al are older than Snape, and I think Bella may be as well.  But 
certainly, at some point they are friends with Snape. (Could they be 
seventh years at this time?)

>>Nora: 
>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:
I'll admit that I find it hard to believe that an eleven year old can 
have such an altering break.  Not much canon to say either way.  But 
though they might not have approved of the victim choice (though 
Snape may well not be "pure" in the strictest sense) I'm sure the 
Black family would have loved Sirius's methods. 
 
>>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.<

>>Nora: 
>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:
But I don't need to. It's very obvious that James would argue that 
he's correct ideologically because he uses the proper language and 
weapon.  But his actions are not those of his ideology.  His argument 
is childish.  That James at fifteen is less mature than Harry at 
fifteen is quite apparent.  Of course, I don't think James has been 
tested when this memory takes place, and at some point James does 
mature.  But at this point in time James does not understand what is 
right and what is wrong.

 
>>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.<

>>Nora: 
>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.<

Betsy:
I would argue that it's *not* isolated textually.  We have long known 
that Snape and James did not get along (I think we learn that all the 
way back in PS/SS when Dumbledore tells Harry about the life debt).  
We know how Snape views James.  We've been given some hints about the 
Mauraders from Lupin, Sirius, McGonagall, and the map itself.  And 
though we're horrified by the fact that James *did* behave as badly 
as Snape suggested he did (even worse actually), this event doesn't 
come completely out of the blue.  So I would say that the 
representative argument is actually stronger than the future 
modification argument.  This is how James was.  He will change.  Here 
is what Snape endured.  Does he rise above it?  (I'm assuming that by 
future modification you mean that we'll learn something that puts a 
whole new spin on this scene.)

>>Nora:
>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:
A dangerous game though.  With so little time and so many characters, 
will JKR really lead us so far down a false path? And why put all 
this effort into painting characters such an intriguing shade of grey 
to end up throwing a can of white paint over your work?   

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

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
Please don't make me explain my view of the interviews again.  This 
quote doesn't change it.  Very little information shared, so very 
many ways to read the quote... blah, blah.  (I'll assume it was a 
speaking interview too, which is just... yeah.) 

>>Betsy:
<snip> 
>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.<

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
Actually, I'd say that since James is Harry's hero, and Snape is 
Harry's nemisis, the most obvious structural parallel would be more 
dark to light rather than dark to dark.

>>Betsy:
>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).<

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
GOD!  Not the damn interviews!!  Right, I will not use interviews to 
try and predict the overall arc of a continually developing character 
like Snape.  Because I hope with all that's holy that JKR would not 
give away the future development of the character in some damn book 
signing in Bristol! *pants a little, stops strangling the bunny, 
aaaand is calm again*

Yes, there is a reason that Dumbledore doesn't give Snape the DADA 
position.  No, I don't think there's enough in the books to suggest 
why Dumbledore decides against it.  Yes, Dumbledore *does* trust 
Snape.  In OotP he states this with such clarity it's almost an 
oath.  So yes, I'm eager to learn more about this - and I will not 
look to interviews!!  This I swear!  As God as my witness! *eats raw 
root vegtable - no not really*

>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
I agree that Snape isn't *that* complex.  He was raised to believe 
one way - went that way for a while (maybe helped along by the sadism 
of James and Sirius - Yeah, I said it!).  Recognizes that the way 
he's going is wrong, changes to other side.  He's a spy - but even 
that isn't that complex a role.  All the way along he's had a snarky 
personality.  It doesn't change.  Maybe he tweaks it a bit 'cause of 
his spy gig, but I do think the whole, "mwwaahaha - I'm eeevil!" is a 
little over the top.  I also doubt he's barely holding himself back 
from hexing all the students.

Betsy