Harry being like James/In defense of DD

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 158810

> Alla: 
> > Oh, and I wonder if you could point me to canon for James being 
> > spoiled, please? In fact in the interview JKR said that James 
and 
> > Lily worked when they really did not need to, that suggest to me 
> > that James was taught the value of hard work, but that is just 
me 
> of course.
> 
> D:
> I remember JKR saying in interview that James (and Lily) did not 
need to work because of his wealthy inheritance from his rich 
parents, not he's a hardworker even though he didn't need to, hence 
she never tell us what their job profession because they didn't 
work. 

Alla:

I am not sure if this is the same quote you are thinking about, but 
here is the one I had in mind ( it seems to be the same)


"What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive? 

Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find 
out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he 
didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both 
Harry's parents later."

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm


Alla:

I don't know I interpet it as that James indeed did not need well 
paid profession, hence he was doing something that he was not being 
well paid for, sort of the public service kind of stuff.

Because the question is phrased as what did James and Lily do, not 
whether they worked or not. So I see the answer as not saying what 
they did, but that they definitely did something. But this is of 
course just my interpretation.

 
> Potioncat, jumping in: 
> I found this at Quick Quotes, from a 16 July 2005 interview:
> >>>>James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he 
> was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-
late-
> in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think.<<<<
> 
> Pampered may not be spoiled--but it certainly is a nod in that 
> direction. 

Alla:

Absolutely, it is a nod in that direction. I don't know for some 
reason spoiled carries more negative connotation for me. So, since I 
often get into misunderstandings over just the wrong understanding 
of the meaning of the word, I went to  yahoo dictionary site to be 
sure. Here is what I found.

Pamper:

 To treat with excessive indulgence: pampered their child. 
To give in to; gratify: He pampered his ambition for wealth and 
fame. 
Archaic To indulge with rich food; glut. 

Spoil:

On this site is listed as actually listed as one of the synonyms, 
**but** in the clarification of the meanings "spoil" is explained as 
"excessive indulgence that adversely affects the character, nature, 
or attitude". 

So, yeah, James' parents indulged their only kid, but whether it 
adversely affected his character, I am not sure about.


> 
>  D:
>  Great find. 
> 
> And funny how "pampered" is always THE word I see used in 
describing Dudley. 
> So yeah there you go. 

Alla:

Well, maybe that will foreshadow that Dudley ends up like James - 
making a great girl fall in love with him, and fighting against 
evil, good for him then. :)


> Tonks:
> I will add to that. In RL if you are called into court to testify 
> you must tell what you know. You do not have a choice to go or not 
> go or about what you will say. You must tell "the truth, the whole 
> truth and nothing but the truth"  You might have to testify 
against 
> someone you care for. It makes no difference. I don't see how 
anyone 
> can even think that DD is to blame for anything by his giving 
> testimony. I know the WW court system is not the same as ours, but 
> still I am sure that DD was required to tell the truth. And DD 
told 
> the truth as he knew it, just as anyone would have to do. There is 
> just no logial way anyone can blame him for doing that. 
> 

Alla:

Sigh. I am not blaming Dumbledore for telling the truth as he knew 
it if he was indeed telling the truth as he knew it. I am not even 
blaming him for testifying per se, if Fudge called him to testify. 
Meaning if he was to use a loose analogy to Rl a **subpoenaed 
witness**, but if Dumbledore decided to testify out of his own 
volition, meaning that he came to Fudge or Barty and offered his 
testimony, then yeah, he better check his sources before offering 
the testimony as far as I am concerned.

We see in PoA how easy the true story came to light and all that was 
needed is for Dumbledore to talk to Sirius.

So, again if Dumbledore offered his testimony without being called 
to testify then absolutely he should have talked to Sirius IMO.

If he was asked to come, then he gets more slack ( not gets off the 
hook, because I still stand by that the commander of Order owns one 
of his own more thorough investigation), but sure then he has to 
tell the truth as he knows it ( but again, that does not make not 
investigating look better in my eyes)