James' death WAS: Lily had a chance to live thanks to Snape WAS :Re: Did Harry

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182885

Carol earlier:
> <HUGE SNIP>
> Even though I knew that it was Lily's sacrifice that saved Harry
(and vaporized Voldemort and all the rest), I didn't want James's
death to be the meaningless murder that it was depicted in this scene.
I wanted him to show the heroism that we'd been led to expect of him.
I thought that you felt the same way
> <HUGE SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Did I feel same way? Not quite. I commented in the past that from
the first glance I totally see James' not having a wand versus what we
hear in the past about GH as inconsistent. Having said that, James 
putting up courageous fight is coming only from Voldemort's mouth,
isn't it? I think take Harry and run absolutely does not contradict 
> James' being without a wand.
> 
> So, Pippin and Zara convinced me why Voldemort could have lied
second time. 

Carol responds:
Do you mean that he could have lied in GoF, or that "straight-backed
and proud" isn't inconsistent with wandless and unprepared and overly
trusting? But what about SS/Ps, in which he actually says that James
bought courageously/ That line, in addition to the way James is
remembered by many other characters, sets up the reader's expectations
in a way that isn't fulfilled.

However, as I said in an earlier post in this thread, "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."

So, while I do find it annoying and disturbing that she shaped our
expectations of James in a certain way--"arrogant berk" turned
hero--and then pulled the rug out from under us by having him
wandless, she does at least show him as a nice, if overly trusting,
young father who loves his wife and child. (we've known his last words
since PoA--the difference is that we thought he actually *made* the
attempt to hold LV off rather than claiming to do so without a wand).

Alla: 
> Now am I absolutely sure that JKR meant to portray James without a 
wand? NO, of course not. Somebody said in the past something along 
the lines that we can explain away any inconsistency in the book, but
that is happening too many times.

Carol responds:
I think that's Steve (bboy_minn). I'm with you here; there are far too
many inconsistencies to explain away.

Alla:
 So, while I love Pippin's explanation, I really would not put  past
JKR to just not check what she wrote and forget about it, sorry, love
the books and think that it is really a shame if she goofed that much
in one of the pivotal scenes, but I would not put it past her. <snip>

Carol responds:
Nor would I. She's even admitted that she hasn't reread any of the
books since they were published. I enjoy the books, but I'd enjoy them
more if there weren't so many careless errors and inconsistencies that
could have been prevented if she'd checked her own fictional facts.
And, as you say, this is a pivotal scene.

Alla:
> But if I accept that she knew what she was doing in that scene, do I
regret in any way that she did not portray James' without a wand? And
the answer would be – no way.

Carol:
Even though it contradicts the view of him that has been previously
established and even though it's Lily's death, not his, that protects
Harry? I think I'd be more likely to share your view if JKR hadn't led
me to expect otherwise. And there *is* the whole question of trust and
loyalty to friends seeming, in this case, to be a bad thing.

Alla: 
> I think his death makes me hurt so much more **as it was portrayed
in book 7**, his death makes me sad so much more **as it was portrayed
in book 7**. Twenty one year old who plays with his son and trusts in
his friends too much and still tries to make sure his wife and his son
will escape. Would I mind seeing James trying to curse Voldemort with
the wand? No, of course not.

Carol responds:
It's the difference between pathos and tragedy. Had he fought
heroically and died as LV said he did, he'd be a tragic hero. As it
is, the most a reader can feel is pity and sadness--that is, a reader
who likes James would feel that way. I wanted more of his
transformation, more reason to like and admire him, and I have to
settle for playing with his baby son. (Is love of family more
important than protecting that family? and what is courage without
preparedness and common sense? He doesn't even get to fight a losing
battle, only to die without expressing fear. That's something, I
suppose. But I also keep remembering that it was the *risk* that made
it worthwhile to James. It's one thing to risk your own life, but that
of your child?)

So, is James's death "tragic" in that it was the result of his own
character flaws, arrogance, carelessness, and trust in an unworthy
friend and a spell that wasn't, after all, infallible? Or was it just
pathetic, in the sense of instilling pathos in the reader (some
readers, at least)?

Alla: 
> But I think that one of the points that books make is to show that
old magic, magic of the heart, magic of love is so much stronger than
any fighting magic, any complicated curse, you know?

Carol:
Yes, of course. That's why *Lily's* death is significant. *she's* the
one with the chance to live and the choice to die, a chance and choice
not available to James, who would have died whether he fought or ran
blindly into danger or fell on his knees and begged for life. (At
least he didn't act like Wormtail!) But James's death, unlike Lily's,
accomplished nothing. He didn't protect his wife even though he wanted
to. She died, too. And he didn't protect Harry. It was *Lily's* death,
imbued with ancient magic through the combination of Snape's request,
Voldemort's offering her the chance to stand aside, and her own choice
to die instead of Harry that gave her death the power of ancient
magic. (Just standing in front of her child with her arms spread to
protect him would not have been enough, as we see with the German
mother.) 

I agree that the power of love and magic of the heart is more powerful
than complicated curses. But love alone isn't always enough. Both
James and Snape loved Lily, but their love couldn't save her. And
Lily's love for Harry could not have saved him had it not been for the
chance she was given to live, her choice *not* to take it, and (I
think) Voldemort's own broken word. (What would have happened if he
had honored her choice to die instead of her son, I wonder? But that
was never a possibility since it was always Harry that LV was after.
But what would have happened if she had stepped aside as requested
seems clear. Lily would have lived (most unhappily) and Harry would
have died. No Chosen One, and LV would have thwarted the Prophecy.) 

Alla: 
> So, no I do not see James' death as meaningless murder at all. I see
it as full of poignancy portrayal of death of innocence, both 
figuratively and literally. I do not need to see him with a wand to 
like him better, if anything I like him more after that scene.
> 
> I hope that JKR knew what she was doing here, I really do.

Carol:
I'm glad that the scene affected you that way, regardless of JKR's
intentions. And, as I said, James's death does reflect Cedric's in a
way. But Cedric was truly innocent and truly good. He never bullied or
tormented anyone, and he was a champion of the whole school, not just
of his own house. He never let his accomplishments as Quidditch
captain or as TWT champion go to his head. So Cedric's death, quick
and unexpected and wholly undeserved, the result of accidentally being
where he wasn't supposed to be, moves me in a way that James's does
not. For one thing, James, unlike his infant son (whose innocence
doesn't really die that day, either--I think it dies with the death of
Hedwig in DH) is not an innocent.

I wanted more from him. I was led to expect more from him. And I see
no meaning in his murder at all except that it, along with Lily's,
made Harry an orphan. Lily's death, in contrast, gave Harry the
protection that saved his life and led, through the rebounding of the
AK and the vaporization of Voldemort, to his becoming the Chosen One.

Compare James's death, which accomplished nothing except to allow him
to die "straightbacked" and wandless, to Dobby's. Dobby has returned
to the home of his old masters, whom he still fears, to rescue Harry
and his friends. He has just saved Luna, Dean, and Mr. Ollivander, and
he returns to save Harry and the goblin Griphook. (Ron at this point
can Disapparate with Hermione because Dobby has caused a chandelier to
fall on Bellatrix.) He is fatally wounded in the act of rescuing them.
Dobby's death accomplishes something important. His last acts are
truly heroic. Nothing of the sort can be said for James, who doesn't
even go down fighting, as Sirius does. The best that can be said is
that he doesn't die ignominously like Wormtail.

Carol, who would rather have seen James futilely throwing curses at
Voldemort as Harry does with Snape in HBP