Political positions of the characters/James reacting to Remus' lycanthropy.

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 150513

Ceridwen:
Just to be sure we're on the same page, I looked up rivalry at
dictionary.com.  Sometimes, the *feel* of a word is different to
different people, so I thought it would be a good precaution.
Rivalry can be competing, emulating, or a competitive or antagonistic
state (condensed from the various sources).  There can be friendly
rivalries, and deadly serious rivalries.

a_svirn:
Yes, that would be my "feel" of the word too.

Ceridwen:
Someone (Tonks?) mentioned
that James doesn't want to fight someone weaker than himself - that
would make him look bad.  

a_svirn:
Are we discussing the same James? It was not a wizarding duel we 
witness in the Pensieve, but a bunch of bullies ganging up on one 
Snape. And although it *does* look decidedly bad, this is one 
consideration that did not occur to James. Also Rowling specifically 
brought to our attention the fact that Snape wasn't James match even 
when they one-to-one. James reflexes are quicker. 

Ceridwen:
And I think it was the same post that
suggested that James got carried away because Snape continued to get
up, to come back for more.  It appears to me that neither James nor
Snape is going to let the other win if he can help it.  

a_svirn:
That's an interesting way of reasoning. So what does a not-
antagonistic Dark Arts lover normally do as to prevent a good guy 
from "carrying away"?  Does he fall on his knees upon being 
assaulted and ask for quarter? Maybe licks his boots for good 
measure? Oh, wait it sounds more like a DE's norm of etiquette, 
although I can see how he can get somewhat confused. 

Ceridwen:
That sounds
like a rivalry to me.  They certainly had an antagonistic state 
going.

a_svirn:
True. But it is also a rather mild way of putting it.  You can call 
a world war II "hostilities" or "conflict" for instance and although 
it wouldn't be a mistake per se, it would not give you the 
right "feel" of the thing. The scene in Pencieve is too ugly and 
appalling to be referred as "rivalry".

Ceridwen:

And, James's dislike for/hatred of/knee-jerk reaction to Snape's
supposed expertise in the Dark Arts puts it at an idological level,
at least on James's part.


a_svirn:
If it does than he's no better than those hates. 

Alla:
Yes, "Malfoy lapdog" IS an insult, but when you take an insulting
part out of it, you WILL get some factual information from it. What
information? That Snape is close with Malfoys for the reason
unknown. You are free to disbelieve such information of course, I
see no reason to not believe it.

I will take emotions, insults out of Sirius statements toward Snape,
of course, if there is a factual information left, I believe it. If
it is not, well... then of course it is not a factual statement.

a_svirn:
We don't need to hear this "lapdog" comment to surmise that Snape 
and Malfoy are closely acquainted. But if you try to scratch it for 
any more "factual information" you find it misleading, I am afraid. 
As far as I am aware of there can be two possible interpretation 
of "lapdog". One is a kind of a servile subordinate, a "yes-man". 
This interpretation is rather at variance with everything we've 
learned of Snape so far. Even though he has managed to acquire 
himself no fewer than two masters, Malfoy is not one of them. 
Another interpretation is something like "sexual plaything". Well, I 
really don't think that we need to give it any serious 
consideration. 

In truth I do not believe that insults can be treated as "reliable 
sources" or any sources at all. This "no-smoke-without-fire" 
attitude is not conductive for sound judgment. Or next we'll have to 
discuss has Harry or has he not an aversion for bathing, and it 
there anything peculiar about muggle-borns' blood. 

Alla:

Okay, if you don't see how their mindsets could be affected by war,
I really have nothing to say, but agree to disagree. Voldemort is on
the rise, their families ARE affected, Hogwarts does not exist in
the vacuum, IMO.

a_svirn:

I do not disagree with the fact that sun rises on the east and sets 
on the west and that war can affect people. I would like to repeat 
my question (slightly amended) though: in what way did the war 
affect the Marauders and James in particular? It's not like his 
parents (at that point of time) had been killed like Harry's or 
tortured into insanity like Neville's. It's not like his friends 
were rotting away in Azkaban, or skulking in caves. No, he and his 
friends were healthy, sound and not particularly troubled. They were 
bored, true, but they solved this particular problem in their 
customary way.

As for "mindsets", well, I, fortunately, was spared the experience 
of war, but I would venture a guess, that in troubled times violent 
types thrive on violence, while decent people suffer and ... stay 
decent. 

Alla:

It is NOT an excuse for bullying, it is not, it is not, it is not. I
really don't know how to make myself any clearer, sorry. :-)

a_svirn:
Then what are we arguing about?

Alla:

What I do disagree with you quite strongly is that hatred of Dark
Arts played no part in their relationships. I think it did play a
very big one.

a_svirn:
Like what? The only part we've seen so far was that of a convenient 
excuse for bullying. But you yourself say that it's not an excuse
 

>a_svirn
> And, you know, no one is more affected by the war
> than Harry, but we don't see him being *vigilante*, do we?
>

Valky:
Yes we do, he's all over Malfoy like a pool of sick in HBP. ;)

a_svirn:
I guess that's the difference between being *vigilante* and 
*vigilant*. He's suspicious about Malfoy but we don't see him 
condemn him, much less punish him without any prove.