Did Harry Notice?

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 182899

> Mike:
> I see your point and I agree. Voldemort will lie whenever it suits 
> him and possibly even when the truth would be more to his advantage, 
> being the contrarian that he is. 
> 
> But there is more at stake here than whether Voldemort is/was lying. 
> As Carol correctly pointed out, this was the chance for James to 
> redeem himself from the bad press he'd gotten since PoA. It wasn't 
> just whether Voldemort lied about James's "courageous fight", it was 
> whether James was more than the trusting fool.

Pippin:
We should have already learned, from Harry's adventures, that the
hero's one true accomplishment is his choice to face the enemy against
the odds.  All the rest he owes to providence. 

This is our final exam, our chance to find out if we've internalized
what we've been told. Are we ready to think the same of James' bravery
knowing how easily he was beaten? I guess for some of us the answer is
'no'. <g> But in that case, IMO, JKR would like us to see that we
weren't really admiring heroism. We were only admiring luck. James'
luck ran out that night, but IMO that did not make him less valiant.

We should also know better by DH than to think we can take someone's
choices for granted because that someone is a Gryffindor; wasn't that
part of James's mistake?

Peter Pettigrew was a Gryffindor too. 

As to whether James was a talented fighter or not, I think there is
indirect evidence that he was. Voldemort surely did not linger at the
window out of sentiment. He waited until James had put down his wand,
and did not advertise the fact. If he feared  having it look as if
he'd only beaten James because he'd caught him with his wand down,
then James must have been formidable indeed.

Mike:
 It was whether James  had really graduated from that brash, bullying
young man into a more  responsible adult.

Pippin:
But that's just backwards, IMO.  No one in canon has to be a
responsible adult to be a hero -- Harry was a hero in his own right at
the age of eleven.  You have to be a responsible adult to be a kind
and loving father, to find it more important and more rewarding  to
sit on the sofa and play with your child than to slay a legion of
dragons or to save the world from Voldemort. Yes, we need heroes to
fight the Voldemorts of this world, but canon seems to imply there
might be fewer  Voldemorts if we valued men less for their heroic
prowess and more for their love and dedication to fathering.


Mike:
> First, a correction, you had quoted me and not Shelley in this post. 
> Geez, first James gets credit then Shelley gets credit for my words. 
> Hey, at least I'm being quoted by real people now. ;-)
> 
> To your point; Pippin, I would think you would most appreciate the 
> symbology of this scene. I've always found your analogies and 
> allegories to be most insightful. So maybe I should ask you, am I
all  wet when it comes to my reading? Is my desire for a meaningful 
> progression from James misguided?

Pippin:
Sorry for the misquote  --  And thanks for the compliments! 
I don't think your desire for a meaningful progression is misguided,
but  I think we're supposed to look at *all* the characters to see a
meaningful progression. It's our desire to see progress demonstrated
in our particular favorites that's frustrated. 

Instead of watching each character take each step from irresponsible
student to caring adult (or fail to take it), we see each step
examined through a different character. 

We don't see how James grows out of hexing people for fun,
but we see how Harry does -- nothing dramatic, no realization that
he'd even done it. He just stopped as he developed a taste for more
mature activities, such as snogging Ginny and took on a   man's job
(in the colloquial sense) of hunting for horcruxes. 

We don't see James getting a handle on his thrill-seeking behavior,
but we watch Sirius struggle with it in OOP. We don't see James trying
to make the transition from Order member to family man, but we see
Lupin in DH. And we don't see Lupin enjoying life with his wife and
son, but we do see James. James goes from a braggart whose idea of
bravery is brandishing an imaginary sword at a non-existent foe to
someone who faced a deadly enemy bare-handed and unflinching. 

Besides which, if he'd had a chance to fight and still failed,
wouldn't we see  inferior magical skills rather than betrayal as the
cause of his death?  Perhaps that is why people are so reluctant to
abandon the idea of James falling with his wand in hand -- it's too
uncomfortable to think that his trust in his friends betrayed him. 

But I wouldn't say that it was trust that betrayed him, it was failing
to see that he had grown and Peter had not. 
  

IMO, the epic is not one of sin and redemption but of moral and
emotional growth, from Voldemort and his fellow baby-heads, who never
get the better of their aggressive impulses and are eventually doomed
by them, to Harry who learns the full power of love at Dobby's grave,
and thus  can choose to offer a second chance to the man who killed
his parents even after years of seeking   revenge on him,  and  who
can choose to return good for evil in giving honor to the memory of a
man who never honored him in life.


Mike: 
> Furthermore, if there is even a possibility that James thought this 
> could be a prank by one of his friends, doesn't that prove that
these  are still a bunch of boys playing in a man's world? 


Pippin:
Hmmm, I can't speak from personal experience, but judging from my
father's stories, men at war play as hard as they fight. 
 
> 
> > Pippin:
> > I think JKR knew exactly what she was doing in DH, foreshadowed
> > it with the scene from PS/SS, and always intended to show James
> > facing Voldemort without his wand. Isn't that braver than facing
> > him with one?
> 
> Mike:
> Braver, not in my way of thinking. Facing Voldemort, knowing he is 
> more powerful than you and that you are going to die is bravery. 
> Facing him without your wand, is resignation to your fate. Not 
> bringing your wand in the first place is foolish, just as Voldemort 
> noticed. 

Pippin:
Foolish? Or just tired and accident prone? Dumbledore made the same
kind of mistake on the Tower -- he  froze Harry instead of dealing
with Draco first. I'm sure he realized it was a mistake as soon as
he'd done it, but it was too late by then. James always had fast
physical reflexes, but that means the body moves before the brain has
finished analyzing the situation, not good in this case. James had
also spent days on end with an active, housebound toddler -- I'm
worn out just thinking about that. No wonder he was tired!   

I'd bet he   didn't realize he'd left his wand on the sofa till he was
halfway to the hall --  and then what? Go back? Whatever was coming,
it was already in the house, and moving towards him; if he turned back
for the wand, then it would meet Lily and Harry first. 


Pippin