James and Intent

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 186987

> > Carol responds:
> > No one is arguing that James didn't choose the right side. Some of us just see nothing in canon (except playing with his baby) that makes him look like a good man--no indication that he ever stopped being an "arrogant berk."
> 
> Pippin:
> He was friends with Hagrid, who, the CoS film to the contrary, is not popular with students in canon. Most of the students would not think sharing their quarters with a werewolf was cool either. James could be cruel to people outside his  circle, but he was willing to include people in it that many others would have shunned. 
> 

Montavilla47:
That doesn't sound very different from anyone else, including people
like Lucius and Narcissa.  They are cruel or indifferent to people outside
their particular circle.  A circle which includes a werewolf and a mass-
murderer.  

Also people that many others would shun.


Pippin:
> It's not a given that he would be on the good side in the war. When Dumbledore was James's age, he was supporting Grindelwald.
> 
> Isn't giving your life for the good side and being a good husband and father enough to make a person a good man, even if he was an arrogant berk sometimes? Or are you saying you don't see how anyone who could find it in himself to do those things could ever act like an arrogant berk?   I think JKR shows us that very well through her other characters.  
> 

Montavilla47:
I agree that it would make someone a good person, even if he was 
sometimes an arrogant berk.  But I doubt it would make people
forget he was an arrogant berk--unless he at some point made a 
huge change and stopped being one.

Being on the good side didn't stop Sirius from being manic-depressive.  
Even though Harry loved him and wanted to think of the best of Sirius,
he never forgot that that was part of Sirius's character.

The disconnect comes from Hagrid (and others) speaking about James
as if he were the greatest guy in the world--when we can see very 
clearly that he wasn't.  

I was pretty shocked by the Prince's Tale, mainly because of the timing
between the Prank the SWM.  Like most people, I thought that the Prank
was a turning point for James and the reason he grew up.  That he 
behaved so disgustingly afterwards knocked him down a few pegs in my 
mind (and he was never that high to begin with for me).  I was also
pretty disgusted with Lily and Hogwarts after realizing the true context 
for SWM.  

But, I like that James and Lily *aren't* the saints that were depicted in
that statue in Godric's Hollow.  It's natural for people to only tell 
Harry the nice things about their parents and leave out the flaws--
and I'm glad that we got to see them as fairly ordinary, flawed human
beings in the end.  

After all, it was harder and harder to think about Lily's sacrifice as 
"special" when we saw that every other mother in the book would
do the same for her children.  In the end, it turned out the special
magic of her sacrifice came not from her act, but from Voldemort's
broken promise.

It's not as nice a story as the one Harry was first told, but that's 
all right.  It's sort of like Harry himself.  Harry isn't a saint.  He 
isn't particular smart, or clean, or even that interested in other
people.  But, through luck, courage, and a willingness to sacrifice
for others, he became a true hero.

James wasn't particular good either.  But, he chose the side that
would make him a hero and it did.  Same with Lily.


Pippin:
> It seems to me you're setting a standard for James that's beyond what is expected of a normal human. Acting scary and rude to policemen is not admirable, but it's not a crime either, except in places where policemen have way too much power.

Montavilla47:
I guess that in the U.S. policemen have too much power?  Because 
acting scary and rude to a policemen can definitely get you arrested.
Although, maybe it's a misdemeanor and not a crime?  I'm unclear on
the specifics, but I know that it can be and is interpreted as assault.

I was just hearing on the radio that people have been charged with
assault with a deadly weapon for spitting at policemen (this started
because of the AIDS epidemic).

Pippin:
> It's true that we don't get to know James the way that all the people who admired him  must have known him. But that's because Harry doesn't. That's the tragedy of his loss, that he can never really know his parents. But for those few little glimpses, Harry has to take it on faith that his father became a better person than he was in SWM, and so do we. It becomes part of Harry's willingness to see the good in people. 
> 

Montavilla47:
Right.  But I don't think it's a tragedy.  I think it's better that Harry 
know that James wasn't the person who was toted as Quidditch
whiz and Head Boy.  Or rather, he was those things *and* he was
an arrogant berk.

That helps him to (eventually) understand that "epitome of 
goodness" Dumbledore was severely flawed, and that severely
flawed Snape was good and couragous, too.