Head Boy an' Girl

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Now, yer mum an’ dad were as good a witch an’ wizard as I ever knew. Head boy an’ girl at Hogwarts in their day!

--PS chapt. 4 Many of us have questioned how James (and, to a lesser extent, Lily) could have been head boy, given everything we've been told about his behavior as a teenager. But I'm wondering... are we absolutely certain that he actually was head boy?

It occurred to me this morning that the only mention of James and Lily as having been head boy and girl in the entire series is Hagrid's statement above, which he makes soon after delivering Harry his Hogwarts letter. We are told multiple times in multiple books that Tom, Bill, and Percy were all head boys, but it is never once stated again that James and Lily were head boy and girl, not even when the trio is looking through an old list of head boys in chapter 13 of CoS.

We know that Hagrid is not the most reliable source of information. Just a few hours later, he will tell Harry, "There’s not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn’t in Slytherin," completely glossing over the fact that man who betrayed Harry's family was a Gryffindor. When he declares that James and Lily were head boy and girl, he is in the midst of countering Petunia's claims that they were strange and abnormal freaks who got themselves blown up. Could he be lying here... or, umm, exaggerating the truth a bit? (They weren't really head boy and girl, but they should've been, given how totally awesome they were).

After all, it is Hagrid's assigned duty to make sure that Harry agrees to go to Hogwarts and follows in his parents' footsteps... including, eventually, the whole getting themselves blown up part.

Comments

The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

I think the Best Revenge premise, that the Potters expended nearly everything in the magical war makes sense. It would also explain why James was made head boy when Lily was head girl. Dumblesnore probably manipulated them into becoming an item so that James would have more of an incentive to be in the Order (being the spouse of a muggle born whom the Death Eaters hated) and this also fits with Sirius getting away with trying to kill Snape - Dumblesnore would have been currying favour with James in order to eventually get him in the Order and ready to expend everything he had.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

It makes a *vast* difference to be writing a fic that you *know* from the get-go is going to be read by a primarily adult audience and subjected to adult scrutiny -- as every fanfic ultimately is -- opposed to one that the author knows is going to be deliberately marketed to an audience which will purchase the book to give to their children and may never even glance at it themselves. With the publishers' marketing department trumpeting to the skies that the book is *for children* all the while. Rowling seems to have used the difference as an excuse for lazy scene-setting.

The point of the Potter's vault of gold was to underscore the classic Cinderlad of the opening of the story. The child with nothing, living on the grudging charity of his nasty relatives turns out to have a vault of gold to supply all of his worldly needs. It also eliminates any point in the later part of the series where something might need to be dealt with, but can't because there is no money. But the vault of gold is not a major element of the *story*. It's just another of her "use once and dispense with" bits of scene-dressing. Once we get the punch line, we scarcely ever hear of it again. Nor should we. The story isn't about Harry's fortune.

Tucked away in the official site are statements which strongly indicate that James supported himself, Lily, Remus, and even Sirius during the years that they were Order members, and that none of them had outside employment. They were "full time fighters" of the Order. Never mind that Rowling has never given us a plausible reason for why Albus should even have an Order to duplicate the efforts of the Ministry, except to stand in symetrical opposition to Tom's Death Eaters. And given that they were fighting a shadow enemy who was always the one in charge of choosing the ground, I don't see what was so "full time" about it, either.

But Arsinoe de Blasenville extrapolated what really was at least a plausible explanation for what happened to the Potter fortune -- assuming that it was ever as large as fanon makes it. Rather a lot of the readers/reviewers of the fic waxed wroth over it though.

But in canon Harry has never been stated as having any more money than would get him comfortably through school. And, after all, up until Tom used his blood to resurect himself, Albus undoubtedly supposed that that would be all the boy would ever need.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[stephanie-draws.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the plot-device and cool children's dream (A mountain of money, all for himself! And no one to tell him how to spend it! Awesome! Harry's sooo lucky!) promptly forgotten later seems the most likely explanation. However, if we take Rowling be her word:

Not sure about Sirius needing support - unlike the female rebel version among his relatives (interesting that it's just the banned men who inherit fortunes from sympathetic relatives, isn't it?) he had Uncle Alphard conveniently jump in. It might not have been enough to live in luxury for the rest of his natural life but I doubt Sirius had James paying once he had "his" own money.

And for the last year or so both James and Sirius believed Remus the traitor. They weren't shy about voicing their suspicions. Remus suspected Sirius in turn, but we all know who made the decisions among the Marauders and who was their meek pet. Would James have continued to finance Remus under that circumstances?

The few dozen at most Order-people can't have used much money, most of them professionals earning income. And it's not as if the Order had the need to buy weapons or other expensive war equipment. What have we ever seen expended or heard about that could have cost big sums of money in Dumbledore's little magical war with Tom? Nothing, really. Aside from a possible safe-house or two: but those seem all of the inherited kind, already in someones possession and ready to be used. Not even renovating Grimauld was shown as a financial drain: they did everything on their own, using magic.

If James and Lily wouldn't have needed to work but their son would have to, despite the family-fortune only 4-5 years at the most in the hands of the J+L Potter, they must have blown a lot of money in an incredibly short time!

What I find at least as likely as financed war-efforts is that James - spoiled and never having had to think about money - freshly orphaned either last year at Hogwarts or not long after, and Lily - as much as a social climber as her sister apparently and certainly not used to managing anything other than pocket money - spent the seemingly endless resource left and right.
Barely out of school, never worked nor planning to (OotP never seemed a full-time-job for ANY member we ever heard about, so there's little reason not to choose a profession solely for the Orders sake) and a fortune all to themselves, no older adults in sight: a boy who had no idea about its value since it had been always there in abundance and a girl from the lower middle class suddenly having a LOT, practically a "marrying the prince"-dream coming true.... I really can't see either of them being remotely frugal with their finances, carefully assessing them or setting themselves limits.

Even if it had not been the fanon!fabulous!fortune but a more reasonable sum: with the situation JKR presents, Lily and James must have squandered a good part of the inheritance astonishingly quick. Though I'm sure she would be shocked if one asked her about the implications of her writing.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. Frankly, I'm more inclined to think it was bad managment amplified by no really clear idea of the value of money than anything to do with the "war effort".

Sirius probably blew most of his legacy on his flat (which was probably purchased rather than rented) and the motorcycle.

James probably dropped a bundle on purchasing and/or setting up the house in Godric's Hollow to his and Lily's liking. The notion that there was an Potter ancestral family estate appears to be *pure* fanon, and I suspect that there wasn't anything of the sort. There was a vault full of gold, certainly. There *might* have been an income, but the fact that Harry's fortune was described (in canon or not, but certainly by Rowling) as being enough to see him through school suggests that if there ever was, it ended with James.

What appears clear from the glimpses we got of them, they were young, and feckless, and disinclined to take advice from elders. Financially, that's a remedy for disaster.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[oryx_leucoryx]

The notion that there was an Potter ancestral family estate appears to be *pure* fanon, and I suspect that there wasn't anything of the sort.

It comes from Albus implying that the Potters came by the cloak by inheritance, all the way back from Ignotus, who canonically was buried in Godric's Hollow.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I was thinking that as well, but then I remembered that the Gaunts had the locket and the ring, but their fortune was otherwise long gone.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[oryx_leucoryx]

Regardless of fortune, there must have at least been the home, and enough to support not just their own son but for a couple of summers also accomodate his friend who was used to Black family standards.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Yes. And doesn't translate out in into anything like an estate. Athough it is possible that the cottage where they died was family property.

Of course, a large part of the part of the "estate" conviction was generated by Albus's observation that Harry and Draco's having taken each other in instant dislike mirrored of James and Severus's relationship. Knowing what we know now, James would have been playing the Draco role in that generation. And the Malfoys *do* have an estate. It doesn't really follow that the Potters did as well, but James was certainly playing the priviliged pureblood card, on stage where we all saw him do it, and it contributes toward the impression that *of course* there was a mansion.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----ing. The notion that there was an Potter ancestral family estate appears to be *pure* fanon, and I suspect that there wasn't anything of the sort.

I think fans got the notion from the first movie. The amount of gold in Harry's vault in the first movie would lead one to believe that he was filthy rich.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Perhaps her inconsistency about the size of the Potter fortune are due to her having ambiguous feelings about her own wealth. She started off as middle class and believing that being ridiculously wealthy is a "bad" thing, and then she became ridiculously wealthy herself, so she has conflicting feelings about whether or not it's good to be so rich that you don't have to work.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

I suspect that that might enter into the equation, but of course she also, from lack of forethought and poor choices, managed to slide to just about as close to the bottom as is it is possible to do under the British social system. Nice young girls with good educations are not supposed to end up on welfare with a child to raise, and no qualifications for a proper job.

Plus, although the series seems to have taken off like a bomb and started doing very well for her, fairly quickly, it didn't generate that much actual money until the 2nd or 3rd book was out, and the *real* money only started rolling in once Warners started courting her. I suspect she feels she *earned* her money.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----I suspect she feels she *earned* her money.

Probably true. But if she manages the money well, her children will never have to work.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Well, gosh, she's a billionaire. Even with poor management, it would be hard to blow through that much money in one lifetime, unless she starts buying jets right and left or financing expensive movies all on her own.

Which reminds me--the thing I found most annoying about that interview Oprah did with her last year was the sight of these two billionaires commiserating with each other about how hard it was to *sob* get used to the idea that *boo hoo* they'd never have to worry about money again! Doesn't your heard just bleed for them?

Let me be clear: I don't begrudge either JKR or Oprah their wealth and success. They've both worked hard for what they have, and they earned their money honestly in our capitalist system. What I do object to is their acting like being fabulously wealthy is some kind of burden. That comes particularly ill when millions of people are losing everything they own and can't even find a job because of the worldwide financial collapse that isn't their fault, and that they can't do anything to fix.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Let me be clear: I don't begrudge either JKR or Oprah their wealth and success. They've both worked hard for what they have, and they earned their money honestly in our capitalist system. What I do object to is their acting like being fabulously wealthy is some kind of burden. That comes particularly ill when millions of people are losing everything they own and can't even find a job because of the worldwide financial collapse that isn't their fault, and that they can't do anything to fix.

Wow... that's sickening in so many ways, isn't it? Poor, poor billionaires. As an impoverished grad student that kind of thing makes me want to give these people a good slap.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Amen, sister, testify! I'm an impoverished middle aged woman who was out of work for over a year because I couldn't even get a job at Walmart or McDonald's. Where I live, those places won't hire you if you're even slightly overqualified (college degree, management experience, worked in a bank or office, etc). My formerly impeccable credit was destroyed because I had to live on my credit cards. When I finally got a job, it didn't pay enough for me to live on and pay them back, so I had to default on all of them. I wanted to slug Oprah when I watched her final show and she started prating about how we're all entirely responsible for our own lives, and whatever you give out is what you get back. Right. She's a billionaire and we're not because she gave so much more than you or I or billions of other people. It has nothing to do with being extremely charismatic, or having a gift for tapping into what the public wants to see, or being in the right place at the right time, none of which anyone has any control over. The first and second you're born with, and the last is just an accident.

One of the reasons I'm a fan of Trent Reznor is because he acknowledges the impact luck had on his success. In an interview in 1994 he said, "Sometimes I want to complain about how hard it is to be rich and famous, but I have to stop myself because it's such bullshit. I know how lucky I am to have gotten a record deal. I know how lucky I am to have had a platinum album." Now that is a rich, famous person I can respect for his integrity and honesty.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I can definitely relate to that- my mom was actually in a similar situation for several years, though thank God my grandmother left her some money to live on. I don't begrudge rich people their money if they earned it, but if they start whining about how HAAAARD it is to be wealthy and expect to get sympathy, they sure won't get it from me.
Of course, I have always been annoyed by Oprah- she seems very condescending and has a weird sort of sentimentalism that I can't quite put my finger on. Oh, and apparently she had a whole show a few years back on how to harass salespeople into giving you a discount. As a former Macy's sales associate, I do not approve, and neither did my coworkers who told me about it. I wonder if she does that at whatever ridiculously overpriced stores she shops at? ;-)

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

With the publishers' marketing department trumpeting to the skies that the book is *for children* all the while. Rowling seems to have used the difference as an excuse for lazy scene-setting.

It seems kind of a pity that "oh it's just for kids so it's OK if everything isn't internally consistent" seems to be a pretty common excuse among a lot of children's writers. Kids can actually be pretty sharp, and to shrug off this sort of thing seems a bit patronizing, really.

Re: The Potter fortune, plugging the plothole

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's a lazy writer's cop-out. One of the things I liked about the Warrriors series is that, while not great literature for the ages, it's as intelligent, well-written, and internally consistent as the vast majority of adult mysteries and thrillers I've read, sometimes more so. And the Series of Unfortunate Events is positively ingenious: Violet's inventions are always creative, unusual, and make use of the materials at hand. And the overall story is tightly-plotted, with clues sprinkled throughout the 13 books, every one of which eventually pays off in some way intrinsic to the plot. Most adult writers could learn a lot about mystery and series writing from Lemony Snicket.