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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 182887

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.

Alla:
I meant that I initially was not sure what Voldemort would have 
wanted to accomplish by lying in GoF scene. I think that lying in PS 
would be actually very consistent with all that occurred.

I do see how it can be explained that Voldemort wanted to play with 
Harry emotions and lie in GoF as well. I was saying that the line 
which Harry hears "take and run" is IMO consistent with him being 
without a wand, so the only source of saying otherwise is Voldemort, 
who is a liar.

And my expectations were fulfilled.


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. <SNIP>

Alla:

That's my point – it does not contradict my expectations and as I am 
sure I mentioned before I cannot ever consider loyalty and trust in a 
friend to be a bad thing.


Carol responds:
<SNIP>
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?)

Alla:

Risk made it what worthwhile to James? Going under Fidelius? I do not 
understand what you mean here.  How is he risking his child's life 
anymore than it is already at risk? He went into hiding to protect 
his child as you said before, no?

How to put it? I think JKR is going here for bravery of the soul and  
the message (IMO) is stronger when one is ready to fight even without 
a weapon.

Carol:
<SNIP>
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.)


Alla:

Did his death accomplish nothing? Or as it was said it may have given 
Lily extra minute to stand for Harry, maybe if James was not here, 
Voldemort would have gone straight after her and no sacrifice would 
have happened.

Carol:
<SNIP>
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. <SNIP>

Alla:

He is most definitely an innocent to me. As somebody, I believe Betsy 
used to argue the standard of innocence in Potterverse seems to be 
very high. Dumbledore refers to Draco in HBP as innocent despite 
murder attempts. I do not recall James doing anything remotely as bad 
as what Draco did in HBP. 

I really do not know what else to say, we just see this scene too 
differently