Did Harry Notice?

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182862

Mike quoted:
>
> "... pulled out the wand beneath his cloak and pointed it at the 
door, which burst open."
> "He was over the threshold as James came sprinting into the hall. It
was easy, too easy, he had not even picked up his wand...."
> ....
> Hold him off, without a wand in his hand!..."
> ....
> "She had no wand upon her either.... How stupid they were, and how 
trusting, thinking that their safety lay in friends, that weapons 
could be discarded even for moments...."
> <DH pp. 343-4, US Ed.>

Mike commented: 
> So maybe JKR wanted to make a point; James and Lily were *too* 
trusting of friendship, loyalty, courage, and those things that they
themselves  seemed to be born with. Was this a logical way to make 
that point? IMO, no. 
> 
> I can't see James, who moments before was entertaining Harry with
his wand and had just dropped it on the sofa he was sitting on,
respond to the door bursting open without snatching up his wand. <snip>
> 
> After the things Voldemort had told Harry about his dad in PS/SS and
in the graveyard of GoF, we and Harry were under the impression that
James had put up a *good* fight, or at least had represented himself 
well. I don't see how standing in front of Voldemort, wandless, 
waiting to be AKed can be construed, as Voldemort himself said in PS:
"Yes, boy, your parents were brave... I killed your father first, 
> and he put up a courageous fight..." <SS p.294, US> OK, brave, umm 
> yeah, I can see that. A kind of thoughtless bravery. But "put up a 
> courageous fight"? How? With what?

Carol responds:

I'm with you here. I've read Steve's argument and I agree that
Voldemort is a liar and that he was psychologically manipulating
Harry, but there's no reason for the lie to last for six books and
then be overturned. It's *Lily* who needs to be wandless for her
sacrifice to be a sacrifice (that plus the choice she was given). This
moment of bravely standing up to Voldemort, of "holding him off," is
supposed to be James's moment, when he ceases to be an "arrogant berk"
and a bully and becomes the hero everyone--not just Voldemort, who
could be lying--remembers him as being. And he's reduced to shouting
that he'll hold Voldemort of and then dropping dead? Why would JKR
write it this way, especially given that a lot of readers, including
me, needed a reason to change our minds about James, and all we get is
him playing with his baby son and throwing his wand on the sofa as
Voldemort bursts in? It's not like the case of Snape, whom JKR *has*
to leave ambiguous for most of seven books. Why *not* give James a
chance to at least cast a Stupefy (which Voldie would laughingly
deflect)--some real show of resistance? What a letdown! And what would
be the point of having Voldie lie to Harry twice, once directly and
once by implication, about his father's courageous last stand? There
go the last vestiges of the pedestal on which Harry has placed James,
crumbling to dust. And there go the hopes of many readers who either
liked or wanted to like James. Instead of being a hero, he's a loving
father but also the trusting fool that Voldemort sees him as being.

Mike: 
> But that wasn't my question, was it? Did Harry notice? I don't see
how he couldn't have noticed, Voldemort made a point of noticing it 
twice with James and once with Lily. It was the basis for his 
stricture on trusting. So it must not have mattered. 

Carol responds:
It's true that he repeats the point, and Harry himself (along with
Draco) has accused *Dumbledore* of being too trusting, so you'd think
that Harry would notice. You'd also think he'd notice that what really
happened conflicts with what Voldemort has told him and with what he
must have imagined in his mind when he remembered his parents' last
words. (Interesting that the Dementors gave him only the soundtrack
and not the video of the memory. They would, of course, being lblind
themselves, but it leaves the way open for Harry to imagine the
accompanying action for himself--and for the reader to do likewise.)

But Harry is not the most observant person at the best of times, and
as he's experiencing the horror of Voldemort's memory--which is, of
course, horrible for LV, too, for different reasons) he's lying in a
tent suffering from the wound that Nagini gave him and hallucinating.
He may not remember it clearly when he wakes up (especially since he
learns soon afterward that his wand has been destroyed, which becomes
the focus of his thoughts).

Maybe what mattered to Harry in that memory was his father playing
with Baby!Harry and showing him the pretty lights from his wand. At
any rate, Harry has no hesitation later in summoning up his father as
one of the loved ones he's about to join when he uses the Resurrection
Stone later. So, whether it matters to the individual reader or not,
it doesn't matter to *Harry,* who may not even remember that part of
the memory given the circumstances under which he experienced it.

Mike:
But how could it not matter? And how could James be credited by
Voldemort himself with putting up *any* fight? Is this bad writing,
forgeting the previous backstory given us, or am I missing something?

Carol:
I read it as a flaw in the books, JKR forgetting or neglecting to go
back and reread the earlier versions of the story. As for his last
words, she apparently did have *those* in her notes. But *saying* that
he'll hold Voldemort off and telling Lily to take Harry and run is not
the same as actually putting up a fight. (And, yes, Steve, I do
understand your argument. It just don'w agree with it.) But, as I
said, maybe ostensibly holding Voldemort isn't the most important part
of the memory. Maybe what matters is James's love for his wife and
child. And I'm speaking as someone who's not a fan of James.

Mike: 
<snipping the part about DD possibly telling the Potters the Prophecy
because I don't have any views on that topic at the moment>
 
> The second thing is a line after the GH reminiscing is done, but 
while Harry is still in Voldemort's mind:
> 
> "The snake rustled on the filthy, cluttered floor, and he had killed
the boy, and yet he *was* the boy...."  <DH p.345, US>
> 
> I'm confused by this line. If we are in Harry's mind while Harry is
in Voldemort's mind (but about to come out of LV's mind), then I sort
of see the "he *was* the boy" making sense. But what does the "he had
killed the boy" mean from anybody's point of view? Who had killed 
what boy? In the preceeding lines, part of LV's reminiscing, 
Voldemort was broken and planning on fleeing from house where the 
*screaming* (very much alive Harry) was trapped. So Harry can't be 
the "killed boy", can he?
> 
> Mike, not sure what he's missing here, but knowing he's missing
something :-?

Carol:
that line confused me the first time I read it and continues to
confuse me. I'm not sure whether Harry somehow gets temporarily into
Harry's mind as he loses the soul bit--an accidental Horcrux
communicating with its master as it's created without the bodiless and
agonized Voldemort realizing what's happening, or whether it's Harry
who's "the boy," which doesn't seem likely because of the italics
indicating Voldemort's point of view. Voldemort himself is definitely
confused, caught between the present reality of Bathilda's house and
Nagini and the hair-breadth escape of "the boy" and the agonizing
memory of the back-fired AK. It's even possible that, with his
emotions and memories out of control, he floats for a second, via the
scar connection, into Harry's mind.

As for "killed the boy," I'm sure he thought at the time that he had
actually killed Baby!Harry in his crib. He had, after all. hit him
with a Killing Curse, and no one had ever survived a Killing Curse (or
lived when LV decided to kill them). He doesn't know what has caused
his own transformation to "less than spirit." It must have taken
Vapor!mort awhile to figure out what had happened--Lily's sacrifice
had caused the AK to rebound on the caster like some ultrapowerful
Protego. And even if, on one level, he registers the screaming of the
child as background noise, it might be awhile before he realized, not
being rational at the time, that the child he had "killed" wasn't
dead. It's sort of like Harry thinking that if he could just bring
Snape and Dumbledore together, he could bring Dumbledore back to life.
I suppose the irrationality of this desperate thought is the result of
denial, and Voldemort might well be in a state of denial, too. "I
killed him. He must be dead. And I can't be bodiless and suffering
this pain. This can't be happening.")

Anyway, I agree that it's confusing, mixing up past and present, Harry
and Voldemort, along with the confusion and agony LV felt when it
first happened. Of course, he starts to come out of the trance (Harry
is still in one) when he sees Nagini, drifts back into the memory, and
then sees the photo of Grindelwald that provides the key to the
identity of the golden-haired young thief. (If only Harry hadn't
dropped it!)

Carol, just offering her own responses to this confusing scene