James and Intent

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 186995

> 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. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> To me the difference is that the people with whom Narcissa and Lucius keep company would be shun by most people because they are criminals first and foremost, and people with whom James kept company would be shunned for completely different reasons.
> 
Montavilla47;

Oh, I agree that there is a big difference, although at the time that
James was befriending Hagrid, the conventional wisdom was that 
Hagrid was a murderer (although it could not be proven), since
people thought that Aragog had killed Myrtle.

So, people weren't shunning Hagrid simply because of his 
heritage, but because of his reputation--which included 
periodically getting drunk and setting his house on fire.


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> 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.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> We can't see? I think some people and some people cannot see that.

Montavilla47:
Would you call the person who bullied another student for at least
five years the greatest guy in the world?

Alla:
> I do not think even Hagrid talks about him as greatest guy in the world, just the good guy and that I can definitely see, which of course does not mean that he was only good all the time.

Montavilla47:
Hagrid doesn't qualify his praise of James in any way, as well he 
shouldn't.  There's no reason to tell an 11-year-old kid who is 
learning about his father for the first time that his father was 
actually a bully.  

But it definitely gave the impression that James was an 
extraordinarily good person.  Which I don't think he was.

He was a slightly more than ordinarily good person.  And the
only real evidence that he ever changed from the "biggest
bully" in the yard was the report from Sirius and Lupin
 that he stopped hexing people in front of Lily.


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> 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. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, sure. Funny thing is I come to like care about James **only** after I saw SWM. No, not because I liked what he did in there, but because it gave him a flaw. Before that he was just that, a Saint to me and not the character I cared for at all.

Montavilla47:
I agree.  James was much more interesting after SWM.  I think I probably
liked him better after SWM, simply because we saw him as having this
really cute crush on Lily and looking like an idiot in front of her.  (This
is a great way to generate sympathy for a character--the movies did
the same thing on a smaller scale when Harry does a spit take after 
Cho smiles at him.)


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> James wasn't particular good either. But, he chose the side that
> would make him a hero and it did. Same with Lily. <SNIP>
> 
> < BIG SNIP>
> That helps him to (eventually) understand that "epitome of
> goodness" Dumbledore was severely flawed, and that severely
> flawed Snape was good and courageous, too.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> It is of course your right and privilege to decide that James was not particularly good, but I cannot help but be amused at the choice of words there. And I did not mean to disrupt the meaning here, I deliberately cut everything else out just to see the contrast between James and Snape.

Montavilla47:
I think I was a bit unclear, but I see you focusing in the word "good" 
as though I were saying that James wasn't a good person.  What I mean
was that James wasn't *particularly* good.  Just like Sirius wasn't 
particularly good.  They were both more good than bad, but not 
necessarily more good than, say, Moody or Shacklebolt, or, for
that matter, Dorcas Meadows, about which we know nothing beyond
her involvement in the Order and subsequent death.

What happened in the wizarding world was that the Potters were 
elevated, by accident almost, into semi-divine status. At least, that's 
how I read the whole memorial statue thing.  Which is completely
understandable.  

What I always thought was curious was the way that many fans
bought that story and created a fanon idea that James and Lily's
was a love for the ages--that James was a great hero and that
Lily's love and courage and were so extraordinary that they invoked
a magic akin to the deep magic created by Aslan's sacrifice in 
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

In DH, I think anyway, we found out that they were really more
ordinary and that the blood protection, while definitely triggered
by Lily's love for Harry, was also triggered by Voldemort's 
faithlessness and Snape's love for Lily.  In other words, it was 
a pretty unique set of circumstances, and, had Snape been in 
love with Alice Longbottom instead, and Voldemort more fearful
of pure-bloods than half-bloods, it might have been Neville
with no parents and a scar.

None of which has anything to do with James being a great 
guy.  He could as easily stayed the stuck-up jock that he was
in school and things would have been the same.  

Alla:
> James, whom we see act as a bully to Snape once was not particularly "good" but only chose the right side. Snape, who was at some point a member of gang of criminals, who is guilty of being complicit in three deaths at least, who mistreated Harry for years (to me abused), who as a death eater could have done god only knows what is "good" though, but severely flawed.

Montavilla47:
In addition to seeing James act as a bully to Snape (not once, but 
twice), we have the evidence of the detention cards that James 
regularly hexed other students.  

I think you're being a bit easy on Snape here.  He wasn't just
complicit in the deaths of three people.  He killed someone with
the Unforgiveable curse.  He stood by and watched many die.  
He gave information that was helpful in the deaths of Emmeline
Vance and Sirius Black.

Thing is, most of that was when he was in Dumbledore's 
service.  And, given their relationship in the Prince's Tale,
it's pretty obvious that he was acting under Dumbledore's
orders when he did so.  

So, it's not like being a member of the Order of the Phoenix
creates less opportunity for killing or other illegal activity than
being in the Death Eaters.


Alla:
> As I said, I cannot argue with interpretation, but I cannot help but wonder how the guy whose only offense was bullying scene deserves the description "good but flawed" any less than Snape.

Montavilla47:
I was trying not to directly compare James to Snape.  It 
gets a bit tiresome to keep doing that.  It's obvious that
James was a better person than Snape at the time that
James died.

But it's kind of odd to me that I'm supposed to disregard
James's behavior at 15 on the implication that he grew up
to be a better person, and yet Snape's implied (never shown
or stated) Death Eater crimes from a period of about two
years remain as the most important aspect of his character.

As someone else said, the books show that James was
an arrogant bully from 11-15, a criminal from about 
15 onwards, and a member of the Order from 18-21.

Snape was a snide, anti-social person his whole life,
he was an associate with bullies and future criminals from
11 onwards, a member of the Death Eaters from perhaps
18-20, and a member of the Order from 20-37.

I hold that they are both flawed individuals, and that 
they both ended up on the side of the angels.