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

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 123417


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

> >>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.

I agree that she does--hence the presentation-cum-condemnation of the 
Slytherin "any means to achieve their ends".  (It is decidedly not a 
good thing to be Slytherin in that way--it's a short step to "...only 
power".)  But I'm not sure that she's going so far to endorse 
the "means ARE ends" position which is one way of interpreting a 
strict Kantian approach.  Strict Kantian readings condemn breaking 
rules for a greater good, for example (the famous example of it being 
immoral to lie to someone who has come to kill your friend, because 
you must treat every action of means as a perfect end-in-itself)--and 
I get the feeling that Rowling wholeheartedly endorses Harry et al's 
breaking of rules in pursuit of what is actually right.

> 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.

"Apologize to Evans!" James roared at Snape, his wand pointed 
threateningly at him.
...
"What?" yelped James.  "I'd NEVER call you a --- you-know-what!"

The hanging upside down is an immediate reaction to the slash on the 
face, although it does escalate from there--after Lily's intervention 
is over.

On the existence, though...if your ideology is "Dark Arts suck" and 
not a more nuanced/Dumbledorean approach to it, you have every reason 
to be offended by the existence-and-therefore-presence of a partisan 
of said Dark Arts.  That's what I keep harping on with the blah blah 
ontology blah blah--it can be read as not a small thing at all.  [I 
also think the Dark Arts thing is important--that's the thing that 
Sirius and Remus harp upon, when Harry confronts them.  Why?  
Possibly because for they who lived through it, that was one of the 
most important things; less important to Harry who hasn't had to 
confront it as directly in daily life through school.  That is to 
say, my hypothesis is that issues like blood purity and the Dark Arts 
were *more* publicly aired when MWPP were in school, with the rise of 
Voldemort being something that had public support.  In the present, 
you can't say it anymore; it's present, but less public.]

> 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.

Excuse, no.  I'm looking for explanations that tap into the cultural 
circumstances of the time and go deeper than just bullying.  That's 
part of it, but hints suggest it might not be the whole.

> 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. :)  

There's the 'lapdog' comment, which suggests something that happened 
in the past--a charge designed to sting.  There's the mention of the 
gang as being at least partially contemporaneous.  And Lucius is 
easily the most overrated character in the fandom--smoove he is not, 
per the evidence.  He's the kind of person that everyone *knows* what 
he is, except those who choose not to (Fudge).

> 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.

Repercussions, maybe not...but in this essentialist cosmology, it 
indicates something deep and lasting about him.  And given that JKR 
is a big fan of Jessica Mitford, she seems wholly approving of the 
tosing over of your family if they're a bunch of fascists. :)

> 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.

What I'm objecting to is the caveat that it *must* be the improval 
that has everyone remebering him so fondly.  Instead of a pure 
diachronic model (James the berk becomes James the great guy), I'm 
suggesting something more synchronic--that James the great guy was 
present at the same time as James the berk.
 
> 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.

She's promised an explication of the so-called Prank.  It'd be nice 
to get an accounting of the above-mentioned gang.  Oh, no, there's 
lots of new information to add...

> 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.

But throwing some white paint on him wouldn't negate that--you can't 
negate it.  You can't get rid of that scene, but you can qualify it.  
He's never going to be pure again in the reader's mind, but the 
balance can shift.  I'm not proposing full-out contradiction.  The 
essence of dialectic is that these things co-exist, and together form 
a synthesis.  Decidedly grey.

> 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.

I think her comments can be taken broadly enough to be non-
determinative, but she seems intent upon dispelling 
certain 'insights' into his character.  Of course she's playing with 
us, but I will up and bet you here and now that comments like "Who on 
earth would want Snape in love with them?" are going to get some very 
real bearing out.

I'd also like to note that the interview comments where she describes 
Snape asking for DADA and Dumbledore turning him down don't include a 
great deal of interpretation, but are rather more like the recounting 
of an event, giving a plain description of Dumbledore's reasoning.  
She's telling us WHAT happened and a bit of why from DD's 
perspective.  Close enough to fall into the 'just plain fact 
category?'  Good enough to say that postulating a scenario that 
cannot account for that is likely to end in 'oops'.

> Betsy:
> 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.

Her answer left the mystery of "What the heck has Snape done to make 
Dumbledore think that way?"  But she's always been pretty explicit in 
interview that Snape has a skeezy past, which is something that comes 
out of the books as well.  [Side note: perhaps, methinks, we are 
sometimes quick to go "Well, he changed sides--that makes up for it 
all, right?"  We discount the true horror of what having been a DE 
likely entailed because it's Snape, and he's interesting, and on the 
side of the angels now.  I think this tendency confuses her, hence 
the "You forget that Snape was a DE..." etc. things that pop up oh so 
frequently.]

> 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.

Ah, but you see--it can still work either way perfectly.  

Option one: Snape isn't evil because he's been set up for us to think 
of him as evil; it's so obvious that it would never work out.  
Besides, he's been cleared book after book.

Option two:  Snape is evil because it's brilliant to have him 
*really* be evil--he's hiding in plain sight.  Everyone thinks it 
won't happen because it would be too obvious--which makes it the 
perfect plan!  The mistaken suspicions against him book after book 
are a fabulous setup for the BANG!-y revelation.

Same arguments of pro and con go for "Is Snape actually physically 
spying on Voldemort?"  I can argue convicingly for either option.  
[On request: payment in advance, please.]

-Nora hangs out with Faith, taking potshots at the ships in the Bay