A James Rant - Who was This Guy?

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 181415

> > 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. 
> 
> Pippin:
> But Harry is sickened by James's bullying when he first sees it, and
> again in DH.  How you can take that for JKR's approval is beyond me.

Magpie:
Harry says after the scene, that he would be perfectly okay doing 
that to somebody who "deserved it" like Draco. He didn't have all the 
information about Snape.

Obviously she's using that scene with James to say James isn't doing 
good here and Harry--awesome as he is--naturally knows it. But the 
never applies anything about that scene to himself so I don't see how 
it's making much of a point about that. I think as usual, JKR's just 
doing what she wants or needs from scene to scene without good guys 
having to conform to a strict code of behavior--that would make 
them "plaster saints." But he's not like a DE.

Pippin:
I just don't see 
> much support for the view that people don't fall in love with 
bullies 
> if they really care about the victim, either in canon or real life.

Magpie:
Lily is fighting to hide a smile at James' antics with Snape. She's 
not turned off by his cruelty. This type of cruelty, when turned 
against bad guys, is generally enjoyed by good guys in canon, or at 
least they're not all that bothered by it. The author has been known 
to smile about it in retrospect, and readers can enjoy it. 

Pippin: 
> Harry doesn't in the end see either Snape or Kreacher as people who 
> needed to be beaten down. That didn't mean he had to stop loving 
> Sirius and James. He didn't make excuses for them, he just accepted 
> that they weren't perfect. JKR asks us to accept that Harry isn't
> perfect either. Though he is horrified when anyone else
> does a cruciatus curse, he isn't horrified by his own. He
> can't see the beam in his own eye.  What does that make him,
> except human?

Magpie:
Yes, I know. The constant refrain about how this makes them so 
wonderfully not perfect and human. It's not a flaw, it's a plus. Who 
wants them to be plaster saints? How brave of Rowling allowing not to 
force any self-reflection about this sort of stuff.

I just don't think it's any deep message about anything. I think she 
does what she enjoys from one scene to another, and she's defensive 
of challenges to her characters behaving this way in interviews. I 
don't think there's any lesson to be learned from any of it. Of 
course I know Rowling would take a strong stand against bullying if 
asked. That doesn't mean, imo, that she thinks there's anything 
Harry's done that made him a bully, or that there was any need for 
James to have any sort of moment of self-reflection to change. Harry 
didn't have all the information in that scene after all. That scene 
didn't end Lily's relationship with James, she wasn't sickened by it, 
it ended her relationship with Snape because he called her a 
Mudblood. He was the guy who needed to change his behavior because he 
was on the wrong path. James, obviously, would just grow up and no 
longer be in an environment where this sort of thing was fun.

Pippin: 
> Who in canon ever says that James was a protector of others who 
> was just letting off a little steam? It's Snape who says of Mulciber
> and Avery that it's just a bit of fun.

Magpie:
James was a protector of others, he was in the Order and he really 
hated the Dark Arts and he died protecting his family. Yet he also 
sometimes just acted like an idiot.

Pippin:
> 
> The only explanation offered for James is that he was fifteen and 
> didn't have anything better to do. When he got older and had more 
> important things to do than bully, he stopped doing it. 

Magpie:
Uh, yeah. He could just grow out of it so what's the problem? No need 
to think about what he's done or see anything bad in it. Bullying 
really wasn't a problem for him or for Harry. He could just be let 
alone and grow up like good people do.

Pippin:
> 
> There is a difference in canon, IMO, between people who are 
bullying to
> get attention from others and people are who doing it in response to
> some other drive. For James it's all about the audience, for 
Voldemort,
> and maybe for Snape, the audience is incidental -- I can't see 
Voldemort 
> asking,  "Who wants to see me torture Potter?" It's still bullying. 
But
> one kind of bully is going to be a lot more responsive to social 
pressure
> than the other kind. 

Magpie:
James didn't get any pressure at all (he got rewarded with the power 
of being Head Boy), and I'm not even seeing this much thought going 
into "how to deal with bullies" in canon. I know there's a difference 
between James and somebody like Voldemort. I think the difference is 
the only thing that mattered. The version where James actually learns 
something from the Prank and changes speaks more to this kind of 
cruelty being a problem for everyone. But throughout the series she 
makes the distinction between good people being able to flirt with 
this stuff with little effect and bad people being all about. 

Perhaps I was wrong in phrasing it by saying she's not saying good 
kids can be bullies, because I assumed that "bully" would always be a 
bad thing. I'm willing to concede your right--she is saying good kids 
can be bullies. Bullying isn't the problem, it's being a bad person. 
There's no more self-reflection required in thinking about bullying 
than there is in thinking about racism. It's always forgivable if 
you're one of the good guys and not if you're one of the bad guys. 
Our pov character doesn't need to worry about it at all, because he's 
so good. So good that sometimes he's the one who'll do the forgiving 
of those on his side who weren't qiute as good, like James and 
Sirius. But I still don't come away with any real thoughtful point 
about the subject. "Good kids can bully" actually does, now I think 
about it, sound like the message, but that doesn't leave me feeling 
like the author's so sickened by the kind of thing. 

-m