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

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182889

Carol earlier:
> 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.

Carol again:
"Bought" should be "fought" and the slash a question mark. Sorry!
> 
> 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. <snip>

Carol responds:
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that Voldie is a liar, but I
don't see what having him in lie accomplishes in this instance.
Needless to say, my expectations *weren't* fulfilled, nor do I see any
foreshadowing at all of a wandless James.
 
> 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:
I flet the same way about DD trusting Snape even if Snape turned out
not to deserve it. and yet trust in an unworthy person, one whoma a
wiser James would have seen through, led to his death (and Lily's). I
think that the whole trust motif, like the mother love motif, goes in
a variety of directions without providing any clear answers. I'd like
to know what others think on this point.

lla:
> 
> 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?

Carol responds:
sorry to be unclear. I just meant that risk makes life exciting to
James (and Sirius), as we see with the werewolf adventures and risking
detention as a teenager and joining the Order in the first place. (the
words are Sirius's, not mine, and he's talking in this instance about
the risk of defying Delores Umbridge.) The only explanation that I can
find for James's tossing the wand on the couch, other than naive trust
in a sychophantic follower whom he mistakes for a friend, is
recklessness. It's one thing to risk your own life (setting aside
those of the people of Hogsmeade, which I don't think he considered)
to have adventures with a werewolf, or even to risk your own life by
joining the Order in the hope of fighting evil (too bad we never see
him doing it), and another thing altogether to drop your wand and run
to the door without it, knowing that not only you but your wife and
child are in grave danger. First, he lends the Invisibility Cloak to
Dumbledore (who could and should have examined it without taking it
from them, but never mind that!). And then he drops his wand and his
guard and faces the enemy unprepared. Recklessness, in a way, is his
downfall, as it was Sirius's--though James could not have saved
himself in any case.

Alla: 
> 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:
I suppose. But it would have been smarter to stay on his guard and
keep the wand with him at all times. Certainly, it's more admirable to
die bravely than to die begging for mercy. But, still, his death
accomplished nothing. It didn't even buy Lily time to find her own
wand (which would have been worse for Harry, actually, since an armed
Lily wouldn't have been given that all-important chance to live). If
you don't see the difference between James's death, which is just
another murder by Voldemort, however brave the wandless victim, and
Lily's death, which saves Harry and gives him the protection of her
love and all that, I don't know what else to say. It's his mother's
death, not his father's that Harry speaks of as he faces Voldemort for
the last time.

I used to think that the distinction between Lily's death and James's
was that he was a hero, fighting the enemy to the death against
hopeless odds, and she was a martyr, saving her son with her
self-sacrifice. Now I can't even grant James the status of hero (in
contrast to Neville, whose unarmed defiance earns him the Sword of
Gryffindor and the right to kill Nagini). Dobby's death, too, as I
said earlier, is generally heroic. James's, like Cedric's, is merely
sad (at least for those who liked James in the first place).

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. 

Carol responds:
Is innocence relative, at least in the WW? Or maybe Dumbledore was
using "innocent" to mean "not guilty" rather than blameless or free
from sin or unacquainted with evil? James (the boy) may not be as bad
as Draco, but he knows that he's breaking rules and bullying people.
There's nothing innocent about sneaking up on someone you don't like
and attacking him tow on one. there's nothing innocent about the
bullying that Draco does, either, much less working to get DEs into
Hogwarts and attempting in increasingly desperate ways to kill Dumbledore.

I don't know what DD meant by calling Draco "innocent," nor do I think
that Harry, who has already attempted at least one Crucio, is quite as
"pure" as Dumbledore thinks. But setting aside DD's opinion, if we
compare Cedric Diggory to James Potter, I think it's clear which is
the more innocent. And there's no question that Baby!Harry is truly
innocent in every sense of the word. James is, I suppose, intended to
be an ordinary young adult--by no means sinless or flawless but
essentially good. It's just that we never get to *see* that goodness
or learn how it developed. I do consider it a greater accomplishment
to overcome our faults and become good than to be good to begin with
and have no faults to overcome (not that any characters except perhaps
Luna fit that pattern), but we never see the "arrogant berk" evolving
into the loving (but careless) father. We never even get to see him
fighting a Death Eater. Essentially, he made an enemy of Snape, did a
few clever things and got into a lot of trouble at Hogwarts, acted
like an arrogant bully, joined the Order, married Lily, fathered
Harry, made Peter the Secret Keeper, and got killed. The only time we
really see him is when he's at his worst.

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

Carol responds:
Me, too. Alla. Me, too.

Carol, who also expected the Giant Squid and the link between
Durmstrang and Hogwarts to play a role in DH ;-)