Did Harry Notice?

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182891

Jack-A-Roe
> I apologize for not making myself clearer. I agree that the pensieve
shows us things as accurate. What I was saying about Snape's memories
are that he chose them. It wasn't only for lack of time. We don't get
to see the memories that Lily had to defend him from time and again.
We are told that the people he hangs around with are borderline dark.
Are we supposed to assume that Snape wasn't participating at all? 
Lily already tells us no, that she has made excuses for him. Without
descriptions we don't get to see what had been building between the
two until the final SWM.

Carol responds:
True, it wasn't *just* lack of time though tiem was limited. Snape
could only select those memories that served his purpose, which was to
establish his own trustworthiness so that he could convery the message
that would send Harry to sacrifice himself. He does not come across as
wholly innocent in those memories (though I do think he comes across
as sympathetic and Harry empathizes with him for a number of reasons);
memories that showed him in a wholly bad light would defeat his
purpose. He *does* show himself as not only a Death Eater but the
eavesdropper who had told LV the Prophecy, and what, in Harry's eyes,
could be worse than that?

If you mean that we never get James's side of the story, we see him
entirely objectively in SWM (the only interpretations are Harry's; the
scene is presented as it happened--and it happened *after* James's
rescue of Severus from werewolf!Remus--which was motivated, as you
say, more by a desire to keep his friends out of trouble than to save
Severus's life.

We don't have James's or Lily's memories. We never get to see Remus's
or Sirius's before they die. Until James's death scene, Snape's
memories and the photograph that fell out of Lily's letter to Sirius,
along with the letter itself (never mind the improbablities attached
to that letter) give us our only view of James. That is, of course, no
fault of Snape's; he has no good memories of James to include, even if
they were relevant to his purpose. Maybe it's JKR's. She could, at
least, have had James's friends talk about him in something other than
general terms. And it would be nice to know what is meant by "defied
Voldemort three times." Does joining the Order count as one of those
times? That seems like a defiance to me.

Jack-A-Roe: 
> Voldemort's viewpoint is subjective and tells us that James is 
foolish and while the reader may agree or disagree they aren't really
given the chance. 

Carol:
Sure we are. You and I are disagreeing on the matter right now. We can
agree with Voldemort or not. What *isn't* subjective or distorted is
the depiction of the events themselves. Just as in the Pensieve
visits, we're shown what really happened. And just as we can
distinguish between Harry's interpretation of the Pensieve memories
and the words and actions of the characters in those memories, along
with descriptions of the setting, etc., we can distinguish between
Voldemort's thoughts and interpretations and what is actually happening.

Jack-A-roe:
Voldemort surprises them in their safe house, which is protected by
one of their best friends, and kills James before he can defend himself. 

Carol:
"Fictional fact," right?

Jack-A-Roe:
James is made to look foolish because startled he goes to see what the
problem is, and as I mentioned probably realized that he didn't have
his wand a second too late (assuming that the house is as small as I
think). 

Carol responds:
I don't see the relevance of the size of the house though I believe
that it's referred to at some point as a cottage. But "made to look
foolish" is Voldemort's interpretation, and any reader can decide for
him- or herself whether Voldemort is right. You think it wasn't
foolish; I disagree. We both know that we're interpreting, agreeing or
disagreeing with Voldemort. (Not that it matters in terms of James's
survival; he would have died whether he had his wand or not.)

Jack-A-Roe:

If I put myself in that position, I know my first thought would be to
see what is going on (it is Halloween) before going and getting my
Browning. <snip>

Carol:
It took me a moment to understand that a Browning is a gun. I was
wondering why you needed a book of poetry, which is what "Browning"
means to me! (Was it Robert or EBB? ;-) ) Joking aside, James is in no
position to "see what's going on" before picking up his wand. He
should have it with him at all times, Fidelius Charm or no Fidelius Charm.


> Jack-A-Roe:
> I was highly disappointed that James didn't get to fight with 
Voldemort because it would have made his death seem that much more
heroic. 

Carol responds:

So was I. That was the main point of my post, and Mike's, as well.

Jack-A-Roe:
> 
> I think part of the problem that people have with James is how he
was presented. It's like a movie that start's with the ending. We are
told by everyone what a great guy James is, etc., etc. Then we only 
get to see the parts that take away his sainthood. We never get to 
see the parts that build him up (other than saving a snooping Snape)
so we are left feeling down on him. Although, almost all of the 
negative thoughts of James come from Snape. 

Carol responds:
I actually agree with what you're saying here except for one detail.
The "negative thoughts" that come from Snape--the accusations of
arrogance and so forth--are backed up by the objective evidence of the
Pensieve memories. (Snape has no good memories of James to include
even if he had a reason to do so.) All we have is the word of the
other characters, none of them objective, that James was wonderful.
(Well, McGonagall views him as a talented troublemaker.) But we barely
glimpse that admirable James. JKR has not allowed us inside the
memories of anyone who would see him in a more favorable light and
present objective evidence that (as Mike mentions) James deserved to
be made Head Boy or that he did anything for the Order. We could at
least have learned in what way the Potters and the Longbottoms defied
Voldemort three times. Going into hiding certainly wasn't one of them
(though it *was* the right thing to do, for Harry's sake).

 Jack-A-Roe:
> When it comes down to it, James defied Voldemort three times as we
are told in the prophecy. 

Carol:
But we're not told how. And Lily and the Longottoms also defied
Voldemort three times. I'd say that Gideon and Fabian Prewett defied
him twice, the second time fatally. And they weren't alone. We just
have to take James's defiance on faith. And that, too, is
disappointing. As I said, I wanted him to redeem himself, to be
*shown* as something other than an arrogant bully. I wanted to have a
reason to forgive him or even like him. And the vague "defying
Voldemort three times" doesn't do that for me.

Jack-A-roe:
James rescued Snape (although he was probably also trying to protect
Lupin/Sirius from the ramifications. 


Carol responds:
Exactly. And we never learn whether he was himself involved, as Snape
thought, so he may really have gotten cold feet, as Snape said. And
since we know that, as an Animagus, he was in no danger from the
werewolf, the heroism of the act is rather dimmed. (How could he
transform without Sevrus seeing him? Did he Stupefy or Obliviate him?)
And the heroism of the act is further dimmed by the fact that it
occurred *before* the SWM and does not signify a more mature
perspective on James's part. (What is DD *doing* making this boy Head
Boy? The change must have occurred in his sixth year, which we don't
get to see.)

Jack-A-Roe:
> Yet when the situation is turned around, Snape only tries to protect
Lily and it's Dumbledore who tells him that he is disgusting. 

Carol:
Interesting comparison, although I'm not quite sure that I see your
point in making it. And not one of my favoorite Dumbledore moments.
Snape does, however, beg DD to protect them all. He's not in a
position to rescue Lily himself, but he believes that Dumbledore can,
and he shows himself willing to do "anything" to bring that about. and
he continues to do it so that Lily won't have died in vain after DD's
attempts to protect her fail. (Not DD's fault, but I don't want to
talk about the Secret Keeper change at this point.)

Jack-A-Roe:
James did those things before he died (age 21?).

Carol:
Yes, twenty-one. the birth and death dates are given in DH. Lily,
James, Remus, and Severus were all twenty-one at the time. Peter and
Sirius would have been either twenty-one or twenty-two, depending on
whether they had birthdays in September/October or in some other
month. BTW, James was sixteen, not fifteen, during SWM (he was born in
March), but JKR either hadn't yet assigned him a birth month or forget
to do the math in OoP.

Jack-A-Roe:
> Imagine what else he could have done if he had lived.

Carol responds:
But that's the point. We don't get to see him doing anything else. The
Animagus form and the Marauders Map are the height of his career.
After that, he's an Order member (whom we never see fighting) and a
dad who doesn't need to work because his parents left him gold--and
can't work in any case because he and his family have to go into
hiding. Imagination is all we have; we don't get anything solid on his
accomplishments or his character. (Imagine what Severus Snape could
have done if he'd been recruited by the MoM instead of the DEs. But we
don't get that, either, alas!)

Jack-A-Roe: 
> I agree that the scene in Godric's Hollow was well done and the
question of trust does puzzle me. Is JKR saying you should only trust
someone if you have proof. That seems to go against the very nature of
the term trust.

Carol:
Exactly. All that talk in HBP about Dumbledore's "foolish" trust in
snape and his tendency to give second chances, and it turns out that
his trust was justified and the second chances he gives are few and
far between. (Hagrid, Snape, perhaps Trelawney?). was James right or
wrong to trust Wormtail? (Certainly, he was wrong to listen to
Sirius's brilliant suggestion to change Secret Keepers, but that's not
quite the same thing.

Does Harry need proof to trust Hermione and Ron? He certainly seems to
be searching for proof ("the truth") about Dumbledore in DH. And he
does come around to trusting Neville and the DA with part of the truth
about his mission.

And yet false trust, trusting the wrong person, led to James's and
Lily's deaths. It's just confusing.

Carol, not sure whether to blame the limited point of view or JKR's
forgetfulness