deathtocapslock | Head Boy an' Girl

danajsparks.livejournal.com posting in

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

danajsparks.livejournal.com

Yeah, that's true. I'm mostly just disagreeing with the opinion that it makes *perfect sense* that Rowling still envisioned James and Lily as head boy and girl in the later books because many of the authority figures are cast as the "bad guys" and the rejection of power is often seen as a sign that someone is one of the "good guys."

I think it would make just as much sense for James to have refused to be head boy if he had been offered the position.

From:

stephanie-draws.livejournal.com

Actually what JKR marks her "bad" and uncool guys with imo is not having authority - it's USING it and, even more, openly WORKING TO EARN it! That's bad and evil. And it's practically the ultimate mark of shame to use said authority in any form against Harry, no matter how sensibly or justified.

For all of his being and behaving like a thoughtless, erratic chaot sneering at law and order - Dumbledore himself had a ~whole collection~ of pompous titles which all denoted positions (as opposed to say honorary titles) of power! Established right at the beginning. And he uses them all: even if the task he is on has nothing to do with a specific authority invested in him! See signing letters written as Headmaster with his other positions that have nothing to with managing a school at all.
We don't see AD doing much with the power he wielded, let alone anything productive to end Riddle's threat. But the possibility would certainly have been there. Don't tell me "Head of Wizengamot" doesn't carry a bucket full of authority and power in the Ministry! And his other titles ditto. Having authority and titles marking powerful positions is perfectly fine for Rowlings "wonderful", embodiment of Good TM hero. As is having people defer to him because of them.

Harry is made Quidditch captain. Being the best flyer on the vastly best broom, especially one whose job is set apart from the rest of the team, isn't necessary for becoming team captain. We certainly never saw Harry investing time and energy as obsessively as Wood into thinking about training, strategies etc. Yet, Harry is OF COURSE made captain: has anyone reading the books had the slightest hint of doubt that would occur?
Note also, that Harry didn't - again - work for the position or apply to it or court his team mates or Head of Houses favour in any kind. Actively pursuing becoming captain is evil! Getting it handed as a matter of fact, whether for performance or out of favoritism, is fine.

The "bad" head boys:
Tom "cheated" his way to the head boy position: by framing Hagrid, by hiding his true evil nature. Hell, he possibly even worked for it by having excellent grades and networking and charming the staff! Him making head boy showed that he duped people aside from Albus - and that he was a super-villain in the making as a student: intelligent, socially savvy, ruthless, obsessed with glory and power....

Percy worked for and openly wanted it! He made his ambitions clear, crammed, read up, scrupulously fulfilled his prefect role even down to disciplining his own House and family. That this is the height of stuffy, toadying and uncool has been long established by Rowling. Not becoming head boy: see cool, laid back, handsome brother Bill. Nobody questioned how he could have been made head boy or "accused" him of working towards it.

You can see that even her author-avatar Hermione gets minus points in awesomeness, as well as ridicule from hero and friends for her dogged pursuit of honor positions.
Ron, as "default-prefect if not Harry", doesn't get ridicule for getting the job: he gets it for being proud of it (from the twins and from Harry resentment for being handed "his" supposed honor) and for thinking he could use it against family bullying him. You certainly later don't see indications that being prefects is a strike against those two in Rowling's narrative. Not, if you don't take it too seriously or try to discipline the cool hero-kids....

But in Rowling's world you can have and hold positions of authority without actually doing the job (Remus, Ron, Hermione in several instances, Dumbledore) or being blatantly partisan and that's quite alright. As long as you aren't a Slytherin - or openly ambitious.

From:

oneandthetruth.livejournal.com

[He] "cheated" his way to the head boy position:...by hiding his true evil nature. Hell, he...even worked for it by having excellent grades and networking and charming the staff! Him making head boy showed that he duped people...-and that he was a super-villain in the making as a student: intelligent, socially savvy, ruthless, obsessed with glory and power....

You do realize that with my slight alterations, you've perfectly described Head Boy Albus Dumbledore, right? ;-) Remember he openly courted powerful witches and wizards all over the world, too. We don't even have evidence of Tom going that far in his quest for glory and power.

From:

stephanie-draws.livejournal.com

Yupp! ^_^ The parallels between Tom and Albus are many and obvious if you discount looks and superficial personality. The utter lack of empathy, delusions of grandeur and superiority, ruthlessness, vanity, always having to be the one in charge, sacrificing people without qualms, surrounding themselves with much younger, comparatively inexperienced persons to admire them and do their bidding.....

But I doubt JKR would agree with us. No matter that she wrote them so very similar in their actions: one is evil and the other the embodiment of Good to her. As I understand her views Albus was flawed/bad in his youth but then repented and for the next 120 years or so became wise saint!Dumbeldore who simply made a few harmless mistakes while always wanting the best.

From:

oneandthetruth.livejournal.com

Don't forget lack of remorse, superficial charm and "niceness," manipulativeness, pathological dishonesty, complete selfishness...and that is why I say Dumbledore is not just a narcissist, but also a psychopath.

Not just Rowling thinks DD is a paragon. Her Butt Buss Brigade members also twist themselves into pretzels excusing his awful behavior. For instance, I saw one of them insist that the reason he gave Gryffindor the House cup in book 1 at the last minute wasn't to stick it to and humiliate Slytherin. That was just an unfortunate side effect. No, no, he was trying to encourage Gryffindor to work harder to improve. Because, y'know, they weren't getting enough privileges already. And he did it at the last minute because he just didn't have time to change the arrangements beforehand.

If anybody believes that, I have a retirement home in the Everglades I'd like to sell you.

From:

oryx_leucoryx

That was just an unfortunate side effect. No, no, he was trying to encourage Gryffindor to work harder to improve. Because, y'know, they weren't getting enough privileges already. And he did it at the last minute because he just didn't have time to change the arrangements beforehand.

Because he couldn't have done so in the 3 days between the trio's adventure and the feast?

From:

danajsparks.livejournal.com

----Actually what JKR marks her "bad" and uncool guys with imo is not having authority - it's USING it and, even more, openly WORKING TO EARN it! That's bad and evil.

This is an excellent point. I see what you're saying here.