A James Rant - Who was This Guy?

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 181412

> Pippin:
> The thing you're not taking into account is  that the James who 
picked on
> people and the James that people trusted -- the one who, even Snape
> admits, saved Snape's life, who would have spared Pettigrew, 
rescued 
> Sirius, refused to suspect a friend, who refused to see Lupin as a 
werewolf 
> first and a person second -- existed simultaneously.
> 
>  James didn't have to stop being who he was, he just had to get more
> control of his aggressive impulses and find a more  acceptable 
outlet 
> for them. JKR doesn't have to show how James did that because she 
> showed Harry doing it all through the last three books. 

Magpie:
I don't think I'm not taking into account--I have always considered 
that part of James' personality and thought his "bad side" was just 
the other side of his good side. But I can understand the view of 
people who ultimately had a problem with the character. (And I do 
think it was a bad idea to appoint him Head Boy without his even 
proving himself as Prefect--that seems like a flat-out example of 
giving the popular jock special treatment he really shouldn't get.)

As for Harry, he never has to get control of much. His hexing people 
in the hallways (like James') was just fine as far as I can see. Boys 
will be boys. So what if he cast a torture spell? It was gallant and 
besides, he's never been a saint--he's cool!

Pippin:
> 
> JKR's target isn't individual morality -- Harry doesn't stop doing
> toenail hexes when he realizes that toenail hexes are wrong, he
> stops doing them when he's no longer in an environment where
> people think toenail hexes are cool. But  Harry never did a toenail
> hex in front of Hermione, just like James stopped hexing people
> when Lily was around -- and I'm sure he never hexed people when
> Dumbledore was around either. 
> 
> It's the social responsibility for bullying that concerns JKR, IMO.
> The books seem to say that if we don't want kids to be bullies,
> we have first got to admit that "good" kids can be bullies, and
> then we have to find them a healthy outlet for their aggression.
> Sports doesn't work for everybody.

Magpie:
Oh, I'm not so sure at all she's telling me that even "good" kids can 
be bullies. I get exactly the opposite impression. Good kids can't be 
bullies. They're just protectors of others who sometimes let off a 
little steam. Harry doesn't need a healthy outlet for aggression, his 
aggression is the fault of those bullies that he beats down. Stuff 
like toenail hexing is just cool and funny. Harry and James might not 
have hexed people much in front of Lily, Hermione or Dumbledore, but 
all three of those people are clearly fine with that stuff in 
general. The one James/Lily scene we see is James bullying somebody 
and Lily having to fight to hide a smile. You don't fall in love with 
a bully if you truly hate what you consider his bullying.

-m