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

nrenka nrenka at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 29 14:45:26 UTC 2005


No: HPFGUIDX 123383


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

> 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).

He follows the end-goals ideas of his ideology while breaking the 
methodological concerns of the ideology.  Bifurcated ideology doesn't 
invalidate the general existence of said ideology.  And I'm not sure 
that JKR is holding anyone to a Kantian level of "means are ends" 
that I might.  Sneaky of me to go meta there, I know, but it's 
revealing.

> 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.

But it's also only after Snape pulls out "Mudblood" that James seems 
to get really upset.  It's compounded with his annoyance about Lily, 
but I read that as being one of the primary motivators.  I do this, 
in part, because I suspect that the 'gang of Slytherins' is hanging 
over this encounter even if they are now currently departed.  There's 
also the comment that some have been quick to discount, that "James 
hated the Dark Arts"; easy (if possibly idiotic, and not justified 
anyways) to see Young!Snape as a representative of such, no?  And we 
know that the Dark Arts, pureblood ideology, and becoming a Death 
Eater all walk hand in hand in one looped nexus.  I admit that I can 
see a young jerk Vigilante!James coming out of an opposition to all 
those attitudes.

Just because it's not written out or even fully conscious doesn't 
mean that it's not operating on a profound level.

> 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?)

Per interview (hehehehe), Snape is "35 or 36" in GoF.  Lucius Malfoy 
is 41, in OotP.  But being as you refuse to use interviews, that 
source of enlightenment is right out, no? :)

> 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. 

But at least in JKR's essentialist world, the choice to go into 
Gryffindor instead of into Slytherin is a very profound one.  (We may 
not *like* that it is, but so far, it just is, end stop.)  

It speaks to an already-formed concept of self and relations that is 
at odds with that of the family, that far along.  Perhaps somewhat 
like how Harry, even at 11, rejects Draco because he reminds him of 
Dudley--that's not only a knee-jerk reaction, that's a choice with 
principles lurking but simply as of yet unstated behind it.  (He 
seems to have pegged canon!Draco quite well from the beginning, as 
well.)

> 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.)

But then you have the problem of accounting for the good ways that 
people speak of James; the affection of Rosemerta and somewhat from 
McGonagall, Hagrid telling Harry there's no higher praise, etc.  And 
again, reported hints and snippets about a character are not quite 
the same thing as what we got--yes, they hinted that the 'James, 
perfect angel' was not going to turn out--not a hard prediction to 
have made, if you're paying attention.  But there are still a lot of 
dissonant elements.

Not so much whole new spin, but I think we may get things of either 
of two classes: Things that seriously complicate what we took as 
straightforward, or situations that present another scene that is 
strongly contradictory.  As a complete hypothetical, say we get a 
scene with older Slytherins bullying MWPP and Young!Snape 
enjoying/joining in/instigating/whatever.  (Given Bellatrix's 
sometimes presence here, it's not TOO far flung.)  Doesn't excuse 
James, no.  Does it give some reasons for background?  Yep.
 
>> 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?   

You misunderstand the nature of dialectic. :)  Even with some white 
paint, it's then going to blend with the black--but yank us towards a 
synthesis.  What has been presented to us cannot be fully reversed at 
all, nor do I think JKR is going to.  It can, however, be profoundly 
complicated, as we've got a few major events of the past that 
explication has been promised for.

Frankly, it could take very little space and time for us to get 
enough information to have to re-read that scene at least partially.  
We still need answers about a number of events.  And here I am 
talking *actual* answers, not reported hearsay.  There is a different 
textual/ontological level of existence for actions that we actually 
*see*, and actions that we have some cryptic comments about from 
Snape.

> 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.) 

Just sayin'.  It's not the sort of thing to inspire grand confidence, 
and ignoring what has been hinted at as a possible possibility...is 
not for me, at least.  I don't like getting whacked.  *waves at all 
the Vampire!Snape theorists out there*
 
> 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.

But Snape is currently the sympathetic one, in terms of the 
James/Snape conflict--and if we find out why he converted, we should 
also find out the deep dirt.
 
> Betsy:
>
> 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*

Okay, don't freak out.  I'm just saying here that the interviews can 
be used as a useful regulation--one has every reason to expect a 
clarification of the line of reasoning, really.  So here's some in-
books reasoning for you: it is strongly hinted at the end of CoS that 
Dumbledore knows Lockhart is a fraud.  Given the combination of 
interview and in-book revelation of Snape's continual application for 
the position, it seems telling that Dumbledore would hire a worthless 
egoist for this position over his *trusted* man.  The interview 
provides a nice solution to the 'why?', and a telling one.

I'll be over here petting the bunny iff'n it comes out right, of 
course.

Even though I'm not a believer in ESE!Snape, you have to admit that 
it has been set up cleanly to go either way.  Hermione could be right 
(that Dumbledore trusts Snape and we should trust Dumbledore), being 
as she is usually right.  However, Ron could be right (not trusting 
Snape), as Dumbledore has now been kicked off of his pedestal and 
shown to be fallible, and it would be very nice for *Ron* to be right 
and Hermione wrong.

Toss a coin, kids.

-Nora hums and reads some more of Uncle Carl







More information about the HPforGrownups archive