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

horridporrid03 horridporrid03 at yahoo.com
Sun Jan 30 02:43:28 UTC 2005


No: HPFGUIDX 123410


>>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: 
>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.<

Betsy:
But it does suggest the imperfect understanding of said ideology.  As 
I've said, in this scene James is a child.  He sees someone that his 
parents have examplified as "not our kind" (wrong vocabulary, wrong 
magic training)  and acts out his sadistic impulses upon 
that "other".  He completely misses the foundation of his ideology 
which, as per the actions of Dumbledore, shuns might makes right, 
humiliation of those you've defeated, and most importantly hatred of 
the "other".

That Harry is horrified by his actions speaks to Harry's stronger 
grasp of their shared ideology.  (Harry would *never* ambush Draco in 
a similar way - not without acknowledging a break with his code of 
behavior.)

>>Nora:
>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:
And yet her depiction of the Crouch family tragedy suggests that she 
*does* place a strong importance on means.

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
I disagree with your reading here. The attack on Snape is vicious 
before Lily gets involved (Snape chokes on the soap James conjures 
into his mouth - there is already a laughing crowd).  James hangs 
Snape upside down before "Mudblood" is thrown out.  And it seems to 
me that James gets really upset when Lily tells James that he's as 
bad as Snape is.  There's nothing in the text that suggests to me 
that James is *furious* about the word, or even of its affect on 
Lily.  He's furious that she turned him down and compared him to 
someone he despises. James is not primarily motivated by Snape's 
vocabulary - I think he's perfectly honest when he states that his 
prime motivation is Snape's existence.  Which, again, does not fit 
well with his stated ideology.

>>Nora:
>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 don't discount James hating the Dark Arts.  I perfectly agree that 
James sets Snape up in his mind as the epitome of the Dark Arts and 
therefore feels perfectly justified in torturing him.  This does 
nothing to excuse his behavior, however.  Especially in an unprovoked 
attack in which numbers and surprise are on his side.

You spoke of the Slytherin gang, and if Snape had been with the gang 
at the time, or if there were any hints in the books that Lucius et 
al had taken on the Mauraders while at Hogwarts, that may have given 
this scene a different spin.  There have been no hints along those 
lines, however (and honestly, Lucius is too political a beast to so 
publically state his opposition to the powers that be, IMHO) and I 
doubt future books will add it in.  I could be wrong though. :)  

>>Nora:
>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:
Ah, but this is the type of info I will take. :)  Basic, doesn't 
effect the story line, facts are fine.  It's when ongoing characters 
with ambiguous motives are discussed with press and fans that I 
discount JKR's remarks.  (Oh yes, Snape?  Perfectly evil - wait 'til 
book 7 and it will all become clear.  Actually - don't bother reading 
it, I'll just give you the dirt right now.)

So a five year difference, which suggests that Lucius (who I'm sure 
led his own little band of brothers) probably had little to do with 
the snot-nosed Mauraders.  Snape may have been his... I can't recall 
the term, but an underclassman who becomes a sort of servant to the 
upperclassmen - if Hogwarts even had such a tradition.

>>Betsy:
>I'll admit that I find it hard to believe that an eleven year old 
[Sirius] can have such an altering break. <snip>

>>Nora: 
>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 agree it's a profound choice, I just wonder if Sirius had a full 
understanding of the repercussions of such a choice.  Who knows, 
maybe he did.  He just strikes me as someone who doesn't sit around 
mulling over the effects his decisions will have.  As with James, I 
think Sirius may have had a good instinct without fully understanding 
what he was signing on for.

>>Nora: 
>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.<

Betsy:
James in the memory is not the end of that character arc.  It ends in 
GH, and that James is *very* different from the James in the memory.  
James will grow up.  The friendly charm that's displayed before the 
following cruelty does suggest that there is a goodness to this boy, 
and so of course, since he improves, he is remembered fondly.

And of course, Snape does not come across as a boy people would be 
quick to sympathize with (even Lily starts to laugh when he's turned 
upside down).  He's ugly and angry and he is steeped in Dark Arts.  
James would be forgiven fairly easily I would imagine.

>>Nora: 
>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.<

Betsy:
I doubt we will get such a scene because I don't think it really adds 
new information.  The background is already there.  Snape does use 
Dark Arts, James is against that ideology.  That Snape is friendly 
with Lucius, that he became a Death Eater, is already known.  What we 
might be shown, what I hope we'll learn, is how James grew up and 
became the man chosen by Lily and fondly remembered by so many.  I 
also hope we'll learn why Snape left the Death Eaters.

>>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?<   

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
But James has been so white for so long that to negate the black that 
was added in the memory scene would have the effect of yanking his 
character back into flat purity.  Full out contradiction would not 
serve the process.  No, this black needs to stay.  However, we know 
James changes, and I think by showing us that change, Harry will get 
his father back, and we will have a larger understanding of the full 
character of James.

>>Nora:
>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:
It's important to remember that this is Snape's memory - not James'.  
I doubt that this memory was as important to James as it was to 
Snape, so I imagine that new information will give us a different 
spin on Snape rather than James.  (I theorize that this is the moment 
Snape decides to join the Death Eaters, thus the "you wait" said to 
James.  If true, that would throw a new light on the scene but not 
change the fact that James behaved badly.)

>>Nora: 
>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:
Yes, but JKR can state, "Snape is not a vampire," without ruining the 
mystery of the character.  Actual insight into his character makeup 
would lessen the mystery, so I doubt she'd shed any light on that 
subject.  And since I do see a lot of ambiguity in her statements on 
such subjects, I don't take them seriously. IMO of course.

>>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.<

>>Nora:
>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:
Not per Harry, and also not per some folks on this list. (Denial she 
do run deep.)  And I do agree that we will learn about Snape as a 
Death Eater, and that it won't be pretty.  Usually a crisis of 
conscience occurs when hitting rock bottom.

>>Nora:
>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.

Betsy:
Freak out?  Whatever do you mean?  *eyes bunny carcass nervously*  I 
do agree that there must a be a strong reason for Dumbledore not to 
give Snape the DADA job considering some of the DADA professors 
hired.  Even Quirrell, pre-Voldemort, was said to be a fairly weak 
teacher, and I'm sure that Dumbledore sees this as a very important 
course.  I hope that the answer does give us some greater insight 
into Snape's character. JKR has said that the next two books should 
answer a lot of questions raised by the previous five, so I expect we 
will learn the reason.  I just doubt that she'd answer the mystery in 
an interview.

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy:
Will Dumbledore be *that* fallible though?  It'd be a major blow to 
the Order if their source of Death Eater information is less than 
trustworthy (which would make for high drama I admit).  Plus, if 
there will be a traitor - which is another running theme - it should 
be someone unexpected.  Snape, as Quirrell pointed out in the 
beginning, makes a wonderful red herring, swooping about the 
dungeons, scaring small children, and that in itself may be his best 
protection against ending up evil.

And Ron has been right.  He called Lockhart from the get go. :)

Betsy, who admits to sailing her own little boat







More information about the HPforGrownups archive