James Potter: Character Analysis

Well again, I respect your opinion. But it would seem that even if Snape continued into 7th year thinking nothing had changed, he would eventually see that it had...why keep taking every opportunity to strike when your opponent has clearly given that up?


Because everytime Snape hexed James I'm sure Sirius and James hexed him right back, so the cycle continued.

I think it more likely that they were bullying one another all along. We just happened to see a time when James started it. But other times Snape started it. And at the start of 7th Snape just went on with things the way that they had been going. James wished to stop, but I doubt he liked Snape at that point, so continuing would not be that difficult. Still, starting things was no longer his thing, so he was mostly retaliator then.

I suppose it doesn't matter, it just seems more logical to me that there would be mutual hexing all along.

I don't see being a bully as one of James' general characteristics. I see him more like a prankster (making heads grow and other fred/george like stuff) and only a bully when it came to Snape and visa versa as well.

My only problem with thinking that they both bullied each other is that we only see one memory. Had JKR wanted us to think that Snape activly went after James as well, why didn't she use that? Or why didn't she have Lily mention that Snape was bullying James?

I think this is an important point. A victim avoids bullies whenever he can, but Snape was actively seeking the Marauders out and following them in an attempt to get them into trouble. Basically, he stalked them, which might explain "It's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean" - They knew that he followed them around, and probably wanted to "teach him a lesson". If you look at it this way, perhaps it's Snape who was passive-aggressively starting it most of the time.

But with the Marauders map they should have been able to avoid Snape easily. And if Snape was trying to get them expelled (which I think he was) perhaps he thought the risk of getting attacked was worth it if it meant that the Marauders would be kicked out of school forever.

My only problem with thinking that they both bullied each other is that we only see one memory. Had JKR wanted us to think that Snape activly went after James as well, why didn't she use that? Or why didn't she have Lily mention that Snape was bullying James?

Well my impression was that she did when Remus and Sirius were explaining that they were all enemies in Hogwarts - and later when DD told Harry that James and Snape had the same deal going on as Harry and Draco.

It is my impression that JKR knew most of her readers would either be in school or have gone to school and would recognize the situation - even if Harry didn't. But at the same time, she realized some might not get that - so she added the talk with Sirius, Remus and Dumbledore.

What I was saying about the 1 scene is this: we only have 1 scene where Snape calls Lily a Mudblood; then he says he didn't mean it. Do we assume after that he called her a Mudblood at every opportunity followed by finding her to tell her he didn't mean it? I don't. And yet no character in the book tells us that he didn't. He may well have, but it is unlikely that he would as upset as it made her.

Well in a school yard, it is unlikely that when two people dislike each other, only 1 of them will play the bully when they are equally matched. James wasn't with his friends 24/7 that we know of. Just like Harry when he found Draco alone in the bathroom for the sectumsempra event.

But as always everything is left up to interpretation and that is just my view.

It is my impression that JKR knew most of her readers would either be in school or have gone to school and would recognize the situation - even if Harry didn't. But at the same time, she realized some might not get that - so she added the talk with Sirius, Remus and Dumbledore.


The problem is that Sirius and Remus aren't just defending James-- they are defending themselves.

Besides, I don't think we have Harry (Snape) hexing Draco or his 'henchmen' (the Marauders,) at every opportunity, but rather having him be on his gaurd whenever they came around. So really, Dumbledor's words counter what Remus and Sirius say.

What I was saying about the 1 scene is this: we only have 1 scene where Snape calls Lily a Mudblood; then he says he didn't mean it. Do we assume after that he called her a Mudblood at every opportunity followed by finding her to tell her he didn't mean it? I don't. And yet no character in the book tells us that he didn't. He may well have, but it is unlikely that he would as upset as it made her.

The logic is flawed. That would be like saying that SWM is repeated over and over again in a loop. The exact actions are not the same, but the general idea of them is.

Besides, I'm sure Lily would have left him long before SWM if he called her a mudblood every time James attacked and she stepped in. The fact is that we are shown one scene where Snape is alone, and attacked four on one. Later on, in HBP, Snape brings it up, saying James was a coward for only attacking while he had his friends with him. So this implies that it was the same every time, with Snape being outnumbered.

I don't think anyone thinks that Snape didn't play some part, especially later on, in egging the attacks on. But I don't think that justifies the Marauders behavior.

The problem is that Sirius and Remus aren't just defending James-- they are defending themselves.

Besides, I don't think we have Harry (Snape) hexing Draco or his 'henchmen' (the Marauders,) at every opportunity, but rather having him be on his gaurd whenever they came around. So really, Dumbledor's words counter what Remus and Sirius say.



The logic is flawed. That would be like saying that SWM is repeated over and over again in a loop. The exact actions are not the same, but the general idea of them is.

Besides, I'm sure Lily would have left him long before SWM if he called her a mudblood every time James attacked and she stepped in. The fact is that we are shown one scene where Snape is alone, and attacked four on one. Later on, in HBP, Snape brings it up, saying James was a coward for only attacking while he had his friends with him. So this implies that it was the same every time, with Snape being outnumbered.

I don't think anyone thinks that Snape didn't play some part, especially later on, in egging the attacks on. But I don't think that justifies the Marauders behavior.

I respect your opinion. But I think you misunderstood me. I was merely trying to show an example of generalizing based on one scene. You indicated that Remus and Sirius had to defend themselves and that is why they might be less than honest about the SWM scene. But the same could be said for Snape.

We have just the one scene as you indicate in SWM, where it is actually 2 on 1 [James and Sirius v. Snape]. Later, Snape defending himself when called a coward declares that Harry's filthy father never attacked him unless it was 4 on 1 (which was from what we saw in the scene not true - Remus was not participating and Peter was not either).

We have here, someone as reliable as Remus and Sirius were when they were speaking to Harry. If they had a motive to defend themselves, well so did Snape in the HBP scene - against being called a coward. What makes Snape's word more trustworthy than theirs? And Snape was speaking in anger which would be even more reason he might be exaggerating - as he did about the 4 on 1 from what we saw in the scene.

Again, I value your opinion, but my impression was that all of the boys were fighting equally and I still feel that James' character was not of the bullying sort.

Could we focus on James again?

Could we focus on James again?

Ok subject back to James...:lol:...
What makes James a perfect Gryffindor??? Do you think the sorting hat made the right choice?:love::rockon::lol:

But with the Marauders map they should have been able to avoid Snape easily.
They might not have always had it on them- there were four of them, after all, and only one Map.
As for James, I'd say he certainly belonged in Gryffindor- and if the Sorting Hat took his choice into account as it did Harry's, it's no surprise- he clearly idolised his father (wonder what house Mrs potter was in?), wanting to get into his old House.

We have just the one scene as you indicate in SWM, where it is actually 2 on 1 [James and Sirius v. Snape]. Later, Snape defending himself when called a coward declares that Harry's filthy father never attacked him unless it was 4 on 1 (which was from what we saw in the scene not true - Remus was not participating and Peter was not either).

Yes, Peter is not attacking, but he is participating by cheering James and Sirius on. Remus is also participating subtly, by not stepping in and stopping the whole thing.

What makes James a perfect Gryffindor??? Do you think the sorting hat made the right choice?

Well, he has shown his courage by standing against Voldemort, and his attempting to hold off Voldemort. (I still can't get over the fact that he doesn't have his wand. Have we ever seen another wizard just leave it lying around in another roon?) Then we have his reckless behavior, which I come to associate with Gryffinor as well. It is a direct result of their courage.

I really can't see him in any other houses. Although he might have done well in Hufflepuff, his loyalty to his friends was strong.

James doesn't have to be a PERFECT Gryffindor. Nobody in Gryffindor has to be PERFECT.

But he was brave, bold and everything else. I think he suited Gryffindor well.

James best fit was certainly Gryffindor. From his idealistic if mischievious youth to his young death, he was unafraid of confrontation and showed much bravery. He was also smart and loyal to his friends, but his overwhelming traits were his bravery and the decisions it led him to. So, Gryffindor was certainly his best fit.

I would like to point out that Snape wasn't the only target of the Marauders. Other students suffered at their hands, though not as often as Snape. It seems James Potter hexes anyone who annoys him, based on Filch's records. And that is not much like a Gryffindor, when he has Sirius and Peter. Lupin kind of just stands there, not interfering.

I would like to point out that Snape wasn't the only target of the Marauders. Other students suffered at their hands, though not as often as Snape. It seems James Potter hexes anyone who annoys him, based on Filch's records. And that is not much like a Gryffindor, when he has Sirius and Peter. Lupin kind of just stands there, not interfering.

Well Fred and George did the same thing as Gryffindors - jinxing and hexing for fun or when molested. James' school records show jinxes much like theirs - causing one's head to grow and the like (Fred and George making people vomit, etc). My impression it was not because Fred, George and the Marauders were in Gryffindor, but merely because they happened to like pulling pranks. Remus was named on the records as well from time to time. They were all mischief makers.

Exactly most of the pranks that the marauders played were very similar to pranks Fred and George and Peeves played. Throwing stinking pellets on people and turning a school corridor into a swamp. They were harmless pranks which gave the onlookers a laugh. Remus too was a marauder. He was as much a part of the pranks as anyone else. He seems to be more of the planner than the executioner; which explains why his name appears a fewer number of times in the detention records. Harry thinks that the reasons why Sirius and James were given detention were petty.
This proves that James wasn't a bully. He was just having some fun. The duels with Snape weren't one sided. Thats why we can't compare their normal antics to his animosity with Snape.
In the first book Malfoy challenged Harry to a duel and never turned up. Instead he instigated Filtch and tried to get Harry caught.
It's the kind of thing Severus would have done.
On the other hand, the marauders strike me as the type who would challenge someone for a midnight duel and turn up. They gave people a fair chance. They could take a joke as well as they could play pranks.

They gave people a fair chance.

Where was Snape's fair chance? Two on one or four on one, he is still outnumbered.

And don't forget that James points Snape out to Sirius to keep him from picking on Remus. (He wanted a full moon so he could have some fun, which is something Remus obviously isn't looking forward too.)

So it had nothing to do with Snape following them, he was too ingrossed in his lessons, but rather with James seeking him out.

Besides, what is the point of shades of grey, if the worst thing the 'good guy' did was pull a few pranks. The point (that I got anyway) is that appearances are decieving. The cool, happy, cute guys (who happen to like the hero) aren't all they seems. Sure, they are good people, but they have a darker past.

Then the greasy, ugly, unhappy guy (who doesn't like the hero) isn't all he seems. He isn't as evil or horrible as people thought. No, he wasn't turne into a fluffy bunny at the end, and he still did, and should be responsible for, his actions. In the same way, the Marauders were not fluffy bunnies, and should be responsible for their actions.

JKR took an old children's book cliche and turned it on its head. The person who hated Harry is the one who, in the end, gave him everything he needed to win.

Where was Snape's fair chance? Two on one or four on one, he is still outnumbered.

And don't forget that James points Snape out to Sirius to keep him from picking on Remus. (He wanted a full moon so he could have some fun, which is something Remus obviously isn't looking forward too.)

I would respectfully disagree that Sirius was picking on Remus - but that is off topic here. This is currently under discussion in the Sirius thread however :)


JKR took an old children's book cliche and turned it on its head. The person who hated Harry is the one who, in the end, gave him everything he needed to win.

I would respectfully disagree. James character as reflected on by Harry was loving, caring and devoted to assisting his son. In GoF, James actually did so. Many other characters did the same thing, most notably, Dumbledore. There was not just one person who gave Harry everything he needed to win IMO. But rather many and I think JKR showed us James Character was so strong, that even from the beyond he was able to give such assistance to his son.

We see many of James' characteristics in Harry - as discussed previously - loving, trusting and braveness, loyalty, honesty and a passion for goodness. I think it is actually quite correct in analysing James character to look to Harry to find many of the traits they share.

I would respectfully disagree. James character as reflected on by Harry was loving, caring and devoted to assisting his son. In GoF, James actually did so. Many other characters did the same thing, most notably, Dumbledore. There was not just one person who gave Harry everything he needed to win IMO. But rather many and I think JKR showed us James Character was so strong, that even from the beyond he was able to give such assistance to his son.


I would respectfully say that you mis-interpreted my sentence. I said that in the end it was Snape who gave Harry everything he needed to win. Yes, James' support in GoF and Dumbledore's guidance helped him through life. But when Harry got to the final battle it was Snape who came to save the day.

I would respectfully say that you mis-interpreted my sentence. I said that in the end it was Snape who gave Harry everything he needed to win. Yes, James' support in GoF and Dumbledore's guidance helped him through life. But when Harry got to the final battle it was Snape who came to save the day.

Ah, sorry, I did misunderstand - I thought we were talking about James' character. Well we could discuss that in the Snape thread if you like. I take the opposing view. :)

Ok subject back to James...:lol:...
What makes James a perfect Gryffindor??? Do you think the sorting hat made the right choice?:love::rockon::lol:

As Harry explains to Albus Severus, the Sorting Hat puts kids where they want to be. It might be better ask why James wants to be in Gryffindor. The answer to that is that he wants to be in his father's house, and at age 11, he fantasizes about smiting people with the big Sword of Gryffindor. I can't think of a better place for James than Gryffindor.

But with the Marauders map they should have been able to avoid Snape easily. And if Snape was trying to get them expelled (which I think he was) perhaps he thought the risk of getting attacked was worth it if it meant that the Marauders would be kicked out of school forever.
Perhaps using the Marauders Map ensured that a) they knew Snape was stalking them, and b) they were able to avoid him. It must have inconvenienced them a lot, though. Imagine if poor Remus had to transform alone because the others couldn't get past Snape. I imagine that the frustration had built up quite a lot by the time Sirius (casually) mentioned to Snape that if he prodded the knot on the willow, he could get into the tunnel.

I really can't see him in any other houses. Although he might have done well in Hufflepuff, his loyalty to his friends was strong.
Hufflepuffs seem to be a rather dull (though worthy) lot. I can't see the energetic James fitting in very well there!"

The answer to that is that he wants to be in his father's house, and at age 11, he fantasizes about smiting people with the big Sword of Gryffindor.

How ironic then, that Snape is the one who actually gets to have the sword!

Perhaps using the Marauders Map ensured that a) they knew Snape was stalking them, and b) they were able to avoid him. It must have inconvenienced them a lot, though. Imagine if poor Remus had to transform alone because the others couldn't get past Snape. I imagine that the frustration had built up quite a lot by the time Sirius (casually) mentioned to Snape that if he prodded the knot on the willow, he could get into the tunnel.

But they shouldn't be out of bounds anyway, so his inconvienencing them shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. I realize it would annoy the Marauders, but I don't see why it should be held against Snape. They were sneaking out of bounds to release a werewolf onto school grounds. And as Remus said, there were many close calls.

The answer to that is that he wants to be in his father's house

I agree. I think family plays a huge role into what house a person is sorted into. Neville wanted Gryffindor because he wanted to please his Gran. (or did I just make that up?) Ron didn't want to be the only Weasly not in Gryffindor. Malfoy wanted to be in Slytherin with his father. Sirius chose Gryffindor so as to go against what his parents wanted.

How ironic then, that Snape is the one who actually gets to have the sword!


Unfortunately he couldn't use it as only a true Gryffindor could do that. But bringing the conversation back to James' character, I think he fit perfectly into Gryffindor from what we knew of his characteristics. Bravery, daring nerve and chivalry. This we see in James' part in the Marauders becoming Animagi (in figuring it, in carrying it out and with the Motive to make things easier for and in a show of loving friendship to Remus). And his protection of his family when Voldemort attacked; his invitation for Sirius to stay at his home when he ran away from his own; his continued trust in his friends to his death and his continued care for his son once he left the earthly wizard world.

James character showed compassion and that IMO played a large role in his popularity. Just being good at Quidditch would not gain him popularity (although it can help initiate it), even in our own society, school football stars who are absolutely horrible people only become 'notoriously popular'.

Crowds do not stand around and cheer when notoriously popular people do things to others. But when Snape was lifted by the ankle, cheers resounded, evidently because the crowd was happy with the arrangement. The popular James getting revenge for them all from Snape who was in with the unpopular dark arts group that issued dark curses upon them. Whereas they stood behind James whose character they approved of - not just popular - but compassionate and popular, someone they could relate to and felt good enough to stand behind.

That is my impression of James' character in this respect, as shown in the series.

Crowds do not stand around and cheer when notoriously popular people do things to others. But when Snape was lifted by the ankle, cheers resounded, evidently because the crowd was happy with the arrangement. The popular James getting revenge for them all from Snape who was in with the unpopular dark arts group that issued dark curses upon them. Whereas they stood behind James whose character they approved of - not just popular - but compassionate and popular, someone they could relate to and felt good enough to stand behind.


[little too much sarcasm here]

The thing is, that is simply not true. Within the Potterverse we see Harry being left out, bullied, and friendless at his Muggle school because of Dudley. No one wanted to be friends with the kid who was being beat up by the school bully.

If James were getting revenge for the things Snape has done then I don't think Lily would have defended him, nor do I think James would have cited Snape's existance as the reason. He would have played the crowd, and reminded them (and more importantly Lily) of all the things that Snape has done.

As more of a real life example, I see unpopular kids, who are awkward and gawky, or have strange sounding voices, or crazy hair, or whatever it is that makes them stand far apart from the rest of the school, get picked on ruthlessly all of the time. There are times that the crowd simply ignores the bullying and moves on (playing the part of Remus in SWM) or gather around to watch. Every time there is a fight at our school a huge crowd gathers around it, and 'traffic' stops for as long as it takes for a teacher to break it up. People chant, laugh, cheer, whatever. It is the same as in SWM. People didn't need to know Snape to 'appreciate' the fight going on, they just have to know that they themselves aren't going to be beaten up.

(EDIT: To whomever it may have been that edited my post. As suprising as it may seem, I was actually not being sarcastic there. *gasp* I know, it's hard to believe that mimble was being serious about something, but I was, in fact, being serious. I think it is amazing if WickedWickedBoy really did attend a school where bullies weren't applauded for their actions.)

How ironic then, that Snape is the one who actually gets to have the sword!
Ah - but Snape didn't earn it. Harry and Neville, both true Gryffindors, were able to pull it out of the Sorting Hat, and Ron won it by taking it from the pool. Snape was only ever entrusted with the sword, and therefore never really owned it. (Dumbledore had left it to Harry in his will, and Snape was just looking after it.)

Did James know about the Sword of Gryffindor? Perhaps he saw in it Dumbledore's office if he was sent there for misbehaviour?

Ah - but Snape didn't earn it. Harry and Neville, both true Gryffindors, were able to pull it out of the Sorting Hat, and Ron won it by taking it from the pool. Snape was only ever entrusted with the sword, and therefore never really owned it. (Dumbledore had left it to Harry in his will, and Snape was just looking after it.)

One could assume that the trust Dumbledore had in him is what 'earned' Snape the right to have the sword.

But I agree. Snape wasn't (and isn't) Gryffindor material. Yes, he was brave, but not in a showy Gryffindor way. Too me, he really is a Slytherin, or a Ravenclaw. Intelligent, calculating, and shrewd. He didn't go out with a bang, but rather slowly, bitten by a snake in a dirty old shack. He wasn't reckless, but was crafty, which is the only reason he was able to be a spy for so long.

I still find it ironic that James had to suffice with an invisible sword, while Snape got to hold the real deal. I'm not trying to say that Snape made a better Gryffindor than James, or anything like that.

I still find it ironic that James had to suffice with an invisible sword
Sorry - I don't understand this part.

Sorry - I don't understand this part.

Oh, sorry. In DH we see a young James holding up an invisible sword, to represent Gryffindor. But, also in DH, it is Snape who gets to actually hold it. Probably something other, more normal, people don't find amusing. But irony has always been my favorite form of humour. :err: (And that is usually how I look too. XD Once I find something ironic I have to contemplate it for a while, and then I laugh. It helps that irony tends to be 'darker' humor, which is what I love. Catch-22 = :love:)

Anyway, enough of my ramblings, and back onto James Potter!

Oh, sorry. In DH we see a young James holding up an invisible sword, to represent Gryffindor. But, also in DH, it is Snape who gets to actually hold it. Probably something other, more normal, people don't find amusing. But irony has always been my favorite form of humour. (And that is usually how I look too. XD Once I find something ironic I have to contemplate it for a while, and then I laugh. It helps that irony tends to be 'darker' humor, which is what I love. Catch-22 = )
I missed that completely! Was that on the train?

I missed that completely! Was that on the train?

Yes, it was. James was talking about how he wanted to be in the house of the brave, and drew the invisible sword. I believe it was right after this that Snape said "so you want to be brawny rather than brainy" - you might have focused on that line :lol:

so you want to be brawny rather than brainy
Tell that to Hermione!

Tell that to Hermione!

But I think this underscores the biases people have about each house. People in Hufflepuff are 'weak', Ravenclaws are 'stuck-up', Slytherin is 'evil', and Gryffindor is 'arrogant'.

Severus obviously thought that the intelligent house was Slytherin (which in a way, it is. I associate Ravenclaw and Slytherin with intelligence-- only different sorts. and Gryffindor and Hufflepuff with bravery-- again different sorts) and that being put there defined who you are. Which is something I think a lot of younger kids think, and even the older students. Heck, even the readers! But the thing it, many of the students have more than one quality to them, and Hermione is a good example of this.

Please focus on James Potter, not what Snape thought about him and Gryffindor while mentioning James only in passing.

Maybe to give this another turn, ('cause I think there's more to James life than his relation to good ol' Sevy) what do you think about James as a Head boy? Do you think he would have been more of a Ron style (relying the main responsability on Lily) or more of a Percy (really strict with rules)? Or some kind of Bill? (Responsable but cool with rules when necessary)

How ironic then, that Snape is the one who actually gets to have the sword!
I certainly don't see James's not getting the sword as an aspersion on his bravery, or a reiteration of Snape's (amazing as that is). It stays in Snape's custody for a little while, but he was keeping it for Harry to use. It was never Snape's to call on for help, not being a Gryffindor and all. And wielding the sword of Gryffindor must be a common enough dream for most Gryffindors, if what the Grey Lady says about students asking her about Ravenclaw's diadem can be said to apply to Gryffindor too.


But they shouldn't be out of bounds anyway, so his inconvienencing them shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.
And why on earth should an action of that kind have endeared Snape to the Marauders, especially James? It's much like Hermione following Harry and Ron out of the common room the night they met Fluffy- they shouldn't have been doing it, fine, but having a sanctimonious prig going on at you about it isn't something anyone would welcome, even when the advice is well-meant, as Hermione's was (she didn't intend to go with them, she only did so after getting locked out). And what the Marauders seemed to specifically resent was Snape's sneaking- it's much like what Malfoy did in PS, when he tried to tell McGonagall about Norbert. Technically, Harry and Hermione were breaking school rules then, but they weren't doing it just for the fun of it. Same goes for James, Sirius and Peter- if their presence was to be all that helped Remus get through a transformation and not go completely wolfish, a rule or two could be broken without too many qualms. And Snape was very definitely not acting out of benevolent motives, towards Remus or anyone.


Neville wanted Gryffindor because he wanted to please his Gran. (or did I just make that up?
Canon gives us no idea what houses Frank and Alice Longbottom were in at school, or which one Augusta belonged to, or what the Sorting Hat said in the time it spent on Neville's head. So until JKR says something about it, I'll just continue believing that Neville sat on that stool without any idea where he wanted to go (except, possibly, to pray that it wasn't Slytherin).
As for the Head Boy question, I suspect James leaned a bit towards the Bill Weasley school of Prefecthood/Head Boydom- preferred to be lenient, wasn't too up himself about binding people to rules, but good at cracking down on hexing in the hallways. Head Boys don't need to do much else, we don't even have any idea who they are in any of the years Harry is at Hogwarts (except in his third year, when it's Percy).

Maybe to give this another turn, ('cause I think there's more to James life than his relation to good ol' Sevy) what do you think about James as a Head boy? Do you think he would have been more of a Ron style (relying the main responsability on Lily) or more of a Percy (really strict with rules)? Or some kind of Bill? (Responsable but cool with rules when necessary)

I see him as a Bill type, with touches of Ron - but not the relying on Lily touches, the extreme loyalty to friends Ron. I think James may not have been a great Head Boy at first - after all, he didn't have prefecting to fall back on, apparently - but he probably learned fast. James was smart and was rapidly maturing at the time, IMO. Plus, I suspect that DD and James had some sort of relationship at this point, so I'm sure DD would have helped him out in terms of figuring out how to be a head boy.

Where was Snape's fair chance? Two on one or four on one, he is still outnumbered.

Snape was outnumbered in that particular instance.
Snape with his other death eater cronies often ganged up on other innocent victims. Lily described their pranks as evil. If Snape and his friends could use dark and evil magic on Mary McDonald they would have definitely done the same to James. Lupin tells us that Snape never missed an oppurtunity to hex James. There have probably been countless incidents where James was the one who was outnumbered.
When I said that they gave people a fair chance, I meant that they never attacked people from behind their backs. They did what they had to do openly.

Snape was outnumbered in that particular instance.

To be accurate, however, we have to admit that we haven't seen even one instance where Snape outnumbered James, whike we do have one in which James outnumbered Snape. That's the canon we have.

Snape with his other death eater cronies often ganged up on other innocent victims.

That's not exactly true. We only know Mulciber and Avery bullied students with Dark Magic, but we don't know whether Snape participated at all. We just know he was friends with them. So saying he ganged up on other innocent victims is an assumption.

Lily described their pranks as evil. If Snape and his friends could use dark and evil magic on Mary McDonald they would have definitely done the same to James. Lupin tells us that Snape never missed an oppurtunity to hex James. There have probably been countless incidents where James was the one who was outnumbered.

Again, we don't know whether Snape participated. And you're right, Lupin does say Snape never missed an opportunity to hex James - which doesn't equal Snape AND his cronies. I think Lupin would have said it if that were the case. And now we know Snape had a very personal reason to hex James, I doubt he shared it with his Slytherin friends or wanted anyone else to be involved. I'd rather think he perceived it as something that was only about James and himself, and wanted personal revenge. So I don't think it's probable at all that he and his cronies outnumbered James on countless incidents. I don't see any clue or hint to that, and if there was no hint, then it probably didn't happen.

When I said that they gave people a fair chance, I meant that they never attacked people from behind their backs. They did what they had to do openly.

Well, seeing as they were four, and could watch each other's backs, they didn't really need to resort to attacking people from behind their backs.

Neville wanted Gryffindor because he wanted to please his Gran. (or did I just make that up?)
But Neville was extremely brave. The 7th book gives us neough cannon for that. Even in the first book Dumbledore says that it takes more courage to stand up to your friends than to stand up to your enimies. Neville tried to the best of his abilities to stop Harry from going out of the common room that night because he didn't want Gryffindor to lose any more points.
I think Neville was in Gryffindor because he had the charecteristics you expect to see in a true Gryffindor.

I think James would have been a great Head-boy and a lot like Bill. He wouldn't get too heated up about breaking petty rules like making a trip to the kitchens in the middle of the night. He would have understood better than anyone else the sense of adventure and thrill that lures many of us into wandering the school past curfew time.
But he was brave, intelligent and very loyal. He'd know when to step in and how, when things got too serious. Also, people liked James. They would have found it easy to come and talk to him. James would have been able to build a personal relationship with a lot of students. This would havve definitely helped him to handle things better.


That's not exactly true. We only know Mulciber and Avery bullied students with Dark Magic, but we don't know whether Snape participated at all. We just know he was friends with them. So saying he ganged up on other innocent victims is an assumption.

Well in DH Snape responds to Lily's complaints by syaing that what Mulciber and Avery did was just a laugh. We know he hung around with them most of the time. I get the impression that he was involved in what he thought was just a laugh. We know that Snape knew more dark spells than anyone in their year. I'm pretty sure Mulciber and Avery picked up a few spells from Snape.
We don't have cannon for the fact that Snape was physically involved in the prank. But directly or indirectly he was definitely involved.
Just as Remus was also involved in the feud between the mareauders and Snape. Remus never hexed Snape himslef. But he was a part of it.

Snape had personal reasons for attacking James. But James epitomised the type of people Slytherin hated. He was a pureblood who hung around with riffraffs and mudbloods. His best friend a blood traitor. The slytheirns would have definitely had their go at James whenever an oppurtunity presented itself.
If the rest of the rest of the house was preparing to get a shot at James, Snape wouldn't have backed down from supporting and helping them.





Well, seeing as they were four, and could watch each other's backs, they didn't really need to resort to attacking people from behind their backs.

In SWM they didn't need to resort to attacking people from behind their backs.
But I was making a general comment on James' overall charecter. He doesn't seem the type who would do something as low as that.

I see him as a Bill type, with touches of Ron - but not the relying on Lily touches, the extreme loyalty to friends Ron. I think James may not have been a great Head Boy at first - after all, he didn't have prefecting to fall back on, apparently - but he probably learned fast. James was smart and was rapidly maturing at the time, IMO. Plus, I suspect that DD and James had some sort of relationship at this point, so I'm sure DD would have helped him out in terms of figuring out how to be a head boy.
I agree, I also see him more as a Bill type.

I also think that at first he might have been not the best Headboy and I can picture that Lily had the bigger part of responsability in their team. But also that he rapidly grew into it (probably partly also because he wanted to make a good impression ;) )

James picked on Snape because he knew that he like Lily, Snape hates James because he is also in love with Lily. Houses may have instigated it but I don't think it's the main point.

Whether or not the Slytherins had a go at James isn't really the point, personally, I wouldn't hold Snape responsible if they did. We know they were friends with Snape but whether they were part of a gang? I can't see Snape in a gang of any sort. Nor would they have wholly permitted him to be a real friend since he hanged primarly with a Mudblood from Gryffindor.

Next one coming back on topic gets a bar of chocolate.

Seriously, you already had a moderator warning reminding you that this thread is not about Snape's, but James Potter's character analysis. Please refresh yourself (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=110755) with our rules if needed.



Back to James:
I also think that at first he might have been not the best Headboy and I can picture that Lily had the bigger part of responsability in their team. But also that he rapidly grew into it (probably partly also because he wanted to make a good impression ;) ) That's likely. But I also believe he already had some great potential, which just finally came to view then.

I agree, I also see him more as a Bill type.

I also think that at first he might have been not the best Headboy and I can picture that Lily had the bigger part of responsability in their team. But also that he rapidly grew into it (probably partly also because he wanted to make a good impression ;) )

Agreed; and I think James learned fast, too. :agree:

Next one coming back on topic gets a bar of chocolate.
Back to James:
That's likely. But I also believe he already had some great potential, which just finally came to view then.

:agree:

Owl me to find out my address :lol:

Next one coming back on topic gets a bar of chocolate.
HEY! THAT'S NOT NICE! *starts talking about Grawp* :p

But I also believe he already had some great potential, which just finally came to view then.

Oh I agree totally. I didn't mean to say that he was only a good Headboy because of Lily, I merely meant that in addition to his development the fact that he fancied her made him probably make an even greater effort :)

He had potential of course. Highly intelligent and a good leader I'd say.

Agreed; and I think James learned fast, too.
Well, he was certainly bright- learning to perform the Animagus transformation by age fifteen might be a good indicator of magical ability :) I've always though the only reason James was never in old Sluggy's club in his schooldays was because he didn't really care for it, and the same goes for Sirius- they'd rather have been running around invisible, stealing food from the kitchens :lol:

Well, he was certainly bright- learning to perform the Animagus transformation by age fifteen might be a good indicator of magical ability :) I've always though the only reason James was never in old Sluggy's club in his schooldays was because he didn't really care for it, and the same goes for Sirius- they'd rather have been running around invisible, stealing food from the kitchens :lol:

Also I think Slughorn was all about 'famous connections'. I don't know if James had those. But I agree, James character was such that he would have likely scoffed at belonging to an elitest club of that sort - just as his son did.

I think he got into too much trouble to beasked for it, tha and Slughorn's two favorites disliked him passionatly.

I tend to think that James in fact was in the Slug club, he reunites several requisites:

Talented
Old and Rich wizarding family (Zabini was only invited because his mums is beautiful and rich)

I also think that he might have done the same thing like Harry, to try to not go pretending Quidditch or similar in order to make his other friends (Remus and Peter) not feel excluded.

I also think that he might have done the same thing like Harry, to try to not go pretending Quidditch or similar in order to make his other friends (Remus and Peter) not feel excluded. I also get the impression that James wouldn't have liked Slughorn very much. And Slughorn certainly wouldn't have boasted about past students who rejected him.

And why on earth should an action of that kind have endeared Snape to the Marauders, especially James? It's much like Hermione following Harry and Ron out of the common room the night they met Fluffy- they shouldn't have been doing it, fine, but having a sanctimonious prig going on at you about it isn't something anyone would welcome, even when the advice is well-meant, as Hermione's was (she didn't intend to go with them, she only did so after getting locked out).

I didn't mean that James and Sirius shouldn't have been upset at Snape's actions, but the readers.

Also I think Slughorn was all about 'famous connections'. I don't know if James had those. But I agree, James character was such that he would have likely scoffed at belonging to an elitest club of that sort - just as his son did.
Well the Potters are an old family name so I can see him being invited to it, like Sirius or Regulus but turning it down. I'm sure he wouldn't have minded going to the Slug Club parties to attempt to flatter Lily though :lol:

Well the Potters are an old family name so I can see him being invited to it, like Sirius or Regulus but turning it down. I'm sure he wouldn't have minded going to the Slug Club parties to attempt to flatter Lily though :lol:

LOL...very good point and you are right. It is a good possibility.

What makes James a perfect Gryffindor??? Do you think the sorting hat made the right choice?:love::rockon::lol:

Though I really don't picture James anywhere but in Gryffindor, Ravenclaw could be a distant second choice.

These are the primary characteristics I associate with each House, in both their positive and negative aspects (written as "the positive/the negative"):

Gryffindor--"Courageous/Reckless"
Ravenclaw--"Intellectual/Arrogant"
Hufflepuff--"Loyal/Dull"
Slytherin--"Ambitious/Untrustworthy"

There are several characters I can imagine fitting into some other House than what the Sorting Hat chose, on the basis of their positive/negative aspects. For instance:

*Cedric Diggory--has a Hufflepuff's steadfastness but also a Gryffindor's courage, while at the same time lacking both the complacency of a Hufflepuff and the mischief of a Gryffindor. I believe he could fit equally well in either House for he shares the positive traits of both and has neither of their negatives.
*Hermione--has the nerve of a Gryffindor though she lacks the recklessness, but also has the intellect of a Ravenclaw and even some of the condescension of that House. Ravenclaw would have been a predictable placement but the Hat recognized in her the intense desire for justice of a true Gryffindor.
*Neville--has a Gryffindor's capacity for courage, though not their usual tendency to take risks, while also possessing the gentle heart and humility of a Hufflepuff. I have no trouble at all seeing Neville as a Hufflepuff, but his stoic bravery when all odds are against him is a Gryffindor trait.
*Percy--with his attention to rules and rather prosaic approach to life, he might have been more comfortable in Hufflepuff, but it took unusual courage to go against his family (misguided though he was) and even more to admit he'd been wrong...so maybe that's why he's a Gryffindor.
*Dumbledore--has the fierce thirst for knowledge of a Ravenclaw...and the disregard for personal safety more typical of a Gryffindor
*McGonagall--is exacting and competitive and mentally gifted, so I can definitely see her in Ravenclaw...but I suspect she secretly admires those with an adventuresome spirit, which could be why she is really a Gryffindor

And so on. Now having said all that I apply the same criteria to James.

I see James as possessing the courage and thrillseeking of a Gryffindor, but he's also as smart and as prideful as a Ravenclaw, which so far makes either House equally fitting for him, but what tips him into Gryffindor is his need for adventure and disregard for rules. Ravenclaws seem to have more respect for protocol and are more likely to weigh pros and cons before taking action. Also, the gallantry James showed in befriending Lupin and the lengths to which he went for his sake seems more like a Gryffindor characteristic. And he doesn't have the cool detachment more typical of a Ravenclaw, so I have to say I really can't see him anywhere but in Gryffindor.

I didn't mean that James and Sirius shouldn't have been upset at Snape's actions, but the readers.
Well, I'd be upset if a not particularly likeable character was walking around trying to get one or all of the protagonists of the novel I'm reading, expelled. As I said, Snape wasn't acting out of any benevolent or even rule-upholding motives, all he wanted was to get the Marauders- especially James- booted out of Hogwarts, so I find it difficult to applaud him for this action.

Back on the subject of James Potter, I sincerely believe he wasn't in the Slug Club. Not that he couldn't have been, he was certainly talented enough (something we know Slughorn appreciates), as was Sirius- and they both had the 'old wizarding family' connections Slughorn so likes going on about, quite aside from being rich (as the Blacks seem to have been, and the Potters probably were if James's inheritance allowed him not to work). But I do suspect they kept away from it because they didn't want Remus to feel left out, maybe not consciously but it seems to be a likely motive nonetheless. At any rate, Slughorn certainly seems to have thought Sirius was talented, he wanted him for Slytherin when he first joined school.

I too don't think James was in the Slug Club - Slughorn would have mentioned something to Harry. Lily may have been invited (and may have even come), but somehow James missed out. Perhaps Slughorn had a bit more common sense and didn't want James or Sirius mixing with the Slytherins in the club.

I liked the idea that James and SIrius didn't join because Remus wasn't invited.

I too don't think James was in the Slug Club - Slughorn would have mentioned something to Harry. Well he doesn't really seem to mention James at all. It's like he doesn't exist! It's all Lily Lily Lily Lily Snape Lily Lily Lily Lily Lily Lily :lol: So I don't think that's the best indication of whether or not he was at least invited to be in it.

Well he doesn't really seem to mention James at all. It's like he doesn't exist! It's all Lily Lily Lily Lily Snape Lily Lily Lily Lily Lily Lily :lol: So I don't think that's the best indication of whether or not he was at least invited to be in it.

Touche'. James got the "Ron" treatment.

I was a bit disapointed about how little we were told about James in DH. I know it probably would have been difficult to add in, but I feel he was given the short end of the stick. [removed - talking about other members]

Okay, sure, James was a bully while he was at school, but he grew out of it. Snape grew into it. He bullied students who had done nothing to him while he was a teacher. And all of a sudden, fans are completely disregarding that because they feel bad for him. Yes, he deserves pity, but he doesn't deserve to be called "a great man".

James is a figure of hope and strength for Harry. [removed] he did when he was really young and stupid. You can't judge someone based on a couple of memories. We've heard enough from great characters that James was a wonderful person, despite his bad tendencies.

[removed]. Jo said it herself: Snape isn't a hero, and he's not a good person. He was very, very brave, but he's still bitter and cruel to students. [removed]

Bah. I had to get that off my chest.

I was a bit disapointed about how little we were told about James in DH. I know it probably would have been difficult to add in, but I feel he was given the short end of the stick. [removed - talking about other members]

Okay, sure, James was a bully while he was at school, but he grew out of it. Snape grew into it. He bullied students who had done nothing to him while he was a teacher. And all of a sudden, fans are completely disregarding that because they feel bad for him. Yes, he deserves pity, but he doesn't deserve to be called "a great man".

James is a figure of hope and strength for Harry. [removed] he did when he was really young and stupid. You can't judge someone based on a couple of memories. We've heard enough from great characters that James was a wonderful person, despite his bad tendencies.

[removed]. Jo said it herself: Snape isn't a hero, and he's not a good person. He was very, very brave, but he's still bitter and cruel to students. [removed]

Bah. I had to get that off my chest.

I'm more disappointed in that Harry didn't take some kind of interest inwhat his mother was like earlier in his life.

I liked the idea that James and Sirius didn't join because Remus wasn't invited.
I like that too! And Peter as well - Slughorn would never have invited him! However, I also think James would have disdained the mutual back-scratching and sucking up that went on there. As a wealthy pure-blood, and a talented student he was sure to have been invited. And I don't think Slughorn would have held the bullying against him, since Ginny was invited on the strength of her Bat Bogey hex!

I'm more disappointed in that Harry didn't take some kind of interest inwhat his mother was like earlier in his life.

I'm shocked he didn't. If I were Harry, I would have been bombarding Sirius and Remus with questions about James and Lily. But I suppose if he had found out more, it would kind of kill the thrill of finding out about Lily in DH.

But I just feel Jo accidentally made James out to be this almost too flawed person in the end... just the way Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry turned out more like his mother than his father sounds like James wasn't someone you'd want to turn out to be like. Understandably, Snape didn't like anything about James, but instead of saying Harry wasn't like his father, Dumbledore could have pointed out the shared qualities they had, and kill two birds with one stone.

That's just my crazy little opinion though. I would have loved to find out more about James, but I guess I'll live with my imagination and fanfiction (and eventually the Encyclopedia).

I like that too! And Peter as well - Slughorn would never have invited him! However, I also think James would have disdained the mutual back-scratching and sucking up that went on there. As a wealthy pure-blood, and a talented student he was sure to have been invited. And I don't think Slughorn would have held the bullying against him, since Ginny was invited on the strength of her Bat Bogey hex!

I think it is the kind of kindness that James (and Sirius) would show Remus and Peter. They were a pretty tight knit group from what we saw and seemed to share things together. What I really think though, is that they WOULD go, just for fun and sneak Remus and Peter in under the invisibility cloak - then have a mischief - making blast of fun....that is until they were all summarily kicked out. It would make for a great laugh.

I think it is the kind of kindness that James (and Sirius) would show Remus and Peter. They were a pretty tight knit group from what we saw and seemed to share things together. What I really think though, is that they WOULD go, just for fun and sneak Remus and Peter in under the invisibility cloak - then have a mischief - making blast of fun....that is until they were all summarily kicked out. It would make for a great laugh.
Yeah - that's just the sort of thing I'm sure they might have done!

I think James was the most underdeveloped character in Harry's immediate family/group of friends. Therefore, we got only a skewed view of his actions through Snape's memories and the recollections of his friends. These snippets of him as a person didn't present a really favorable overall view of him. His death was truly an act of bravery - trying to protect his wife and infant son. But for me, it didn't change the opinion I had formed of him from what we had been shown. Maybe JKR wanted to leave it that way for her own reasons.

I think we got both a good depiction of him, and a bad one. His influence on Harry in PoA was nothing but pure and good. His appearances in OotP and DH showed his downside.

Still, we've heard great things about him from respectable characters - even McGonagall seems to admire him, and she's very strict, and sometimes seems cold.

But yeah, I agree that he was the most underdeveloped. Maybe Jo will expand on him in the encyclopedia, considering she has backstory for Dean...

And Wickedwickedboy, I love that idea. I could really just picture them doing that. Makes me smile. =)

I think we got both a good depiction of him, and a bad one. His influence on Harry in PoA was nothing but pure and good. His appearances in OotP and DH showed his downside.

Still, we've heard great things about him from respectable characters - even McGonagall seems to admire him, and she's very strict, and sometimes seems cold.

But yeah, I agree that he was the most underdeveloped. Maybe Jo will expand on him in the encyclopedia, considering she has backstory for Dean...

And Wickedwickedboy, I love that idea. I could really just picture them doing that. Makes me smile. =)

I disagree. I think Lily was the most under-developed of the characters, and it is her that I hope we see a lot of in this Encyclopedia.

I think we've seen enough of James to come up with a decent idea of his character. We simply need to know, 'DId James truly mature for Lily, or did she simply think he did' before we know pretty much everything we need to about his general character.

However, for Lily, we know next to nothing. Except that she was friends with Snape and died for Harry.

I disagree. I think Lily was the most under-developed of the characters, and it is her that I hope we see a lot of in this Encyclopedia.

I think we've seen enough of James to come up with a decent idea of his character. We simply need to know, 'DId James truly mature for Lily, or did she simply think he did' before we know pretty much everything we need to about his general character.

However, for Lily, we know next to nothing. Except that she was friends with Snape and died for Harry.

I disagree; there's still much left unknown about James. How exactly he managed to get the Head Boy badge, for one. I mean, I wouldn't believe Dumbledore would simply give it to him because he wasn't being stupid anymore. There were definitely other candidates that would have done better if that was the only reason. Remus could have done it (though I think Dumbledore chose not to do this for similar reasons he didn't make Harry a prefect: he thought Remus had enough on his mind already).

As for Lily, we learned quite a bit about her between HBP and DH. We don't know nearly as much as we'd like to, but I think it's the same as James's situation.

If she does make the encyclopedia, I'm positive we'll learn more about them. There's definitely loads left to find out about them.

But that is another question we could answer with a simply 'did James really mature'. We don't need that much information to really understand his character. Yes, we dont' know a lot of specifics about him. But we don't know about Sirius, Remus, or Lily specifically either. (School days at least)

But of all of them we know the least about Lily's character.

All in all, I guess I just don't find James all that interesting. XD

For a character who died before the timeline of the books began, I think we know relatively a lot about James. It is relative though, and there are many many gaps to be filled in by fans.

I find James fascinating. And I think I notice how much is missing about his character because of that :lol:. Same with Lily; there's so much I'd love to find out. Sadly, they died so young, there won't be nearly as much to them as to other characters. But there's still loads missing.

I don't think we could answer the Head Boy thing with a simple "James matured" thing. Bad boy gone neutral doesn't sound like the best candidate for Head Boy. I'm sure there were some very rule-abiding, intelligent Ravenclaws that could have taken it. I think Dumbledore had a good reason, as he always does, for making James Head boy.

I really don't think we saw James in that bad of a light in DH. I mean sure we saw him pulling a Malfoy at one point but the other two moments with James we saw him playing with baby!Harry and congratulating his son. Honestly, we stronger, more powerful moments of James being caring and a good person than a pratty little 11 year old boy.

I really don't think we saw James in that bad of a light in DH. I mean sure we saw him pulling a Malfoy at one point but the other two moments with James we saw him playing with baby!Harry and congratulating his son. Honestly, we stronger, more powerful moments of James being caring and a good person than a pratty little 11 year old boy.

Yeah, I think people put a little too much importance on his young self, in the memories. I can think of many great things about him that far outweigh his bullying.

The moment whe he was blowing smoke rings for Harry... that was really touching. James would have been very irritated about being cooped up, like Lily said, and it shows a lot that he took time to amuse Harry like this.

Then in "The Forest Again". "Until the very end" - that always makes me cry, and I've read that chapter a dozen times already... His presence is Harry's strength, his courage to go on.

Those are two of the best moments of James. I think another great one is in PoA, when Harry casts his patronus... "Prongs rode again last night."

Actually, relating to his stag form: I posted this in the "Lily and James" thread, but I'll mention it here, as well, considering it's very relevant to James's character.

I always feel uncomfortable bringing up religious views on public forums, but because we know quite plainly that Jo is a Christian, this point can be made easily.

In Christian beliefs, the stag is very often associated with Christ. The unicorn is another symbol of Christ, and funny enough, when Harry first sees his Patronus take a shape, he thinks it's a unicorn - then he see's it better and realises it's a silver stag (I have to credit John Granger for figuring this one out). Knowing Jo, this wasn't a coincidence. She wanted to represent that even in death, James came back to help his son through the worst moments of his life.

Even as someone without any religious beliefs, I find that's a very touching comparison for Jo to make. It's really made me realise that James's qualities far outweigh his faults, and that would easily explain how Lily was able to fall in love with him.

Those were great scenes with James. I really liked GoF when James came out of the wand. He was explaining what Harry had to do and I remember being quite confused while reading wondering how this ghostly James could talk - but I suppose it was infused with his dad's spirit from the afterworld aventure James was upon. It was when he asked Harry if he understood and waited for Harry's response that I realized there was more to it than a ghostly figure. Then Cedric doles out further instructions...it was wild at the time - really dug it for some reason. But the other scenes with James were also all very cool.

My viewpoint of SWM didn't change what I thought of James from previous books. I don't look at hex wars between kids as any big deal, so the whole thing was just amusing to me - kids on a playground type of thing. I found James witty, funny and intelligent in that scene - up to stuff that kids will do at that age. So my overall image of James' character is great.

But I realize others see all of the various scenes in the book from different perspectives and I can respect those even if they don't coincide with my view of it all.

Oh gosh, yeah, I forgot that scene in GoF. That was great... seeing Lily and James for the first time like that was amazing and emotional (I won't lie, I choked up during that scene... even in the movie).

I think everyone's had their own version of SWM, without the magic of course. I mean, I've done some things I'm not proud of (I've excluded people for stupid reasons, I've even made fun of someone that really didn't deserve it) but I feel bad for doing them. I've grown up from those stupidities. And I'd hate for people to judge me based on those moments, because I try really hard now to include and be nice to everyone.

I think James deserves some slack; he was still a great husband, father, and friend. And he fought for the right side from square one.

I think James deserves some slack; he was still a great husband, father, and friend. And he fought for the right side from square one.

:tu: Even after SWM, I never stopped thinking James was a good character. (It actually made me like him as a character!) He made mistakes when he was a teenager, but he grew out of it.
I have both bullied and been the target of bullying. When I think back when I bullied someone, I feel ... ashamed. It's one of my worst memories, actually. I have grown up since then and I am a completely different person. Someone did bully me and it definitely hurt. A lot. But I've seen that person since then and she is no longer the person I knew. She has changed for the better too. So I forgave her.
In my opinion, judging a character on how they acted like as a teenager isn't fair. Everyone matures in their own way, and if they become a better person in the end, that's what matters most.
But if someone still dislikes James, I respect their opinion.

How exactly he managed to get the Head Boy badge, for one. I mean, I wouldn't believe Dumbledore would simply give it to him because he wasn't being stupid anymore. There were definitely other candidates that would have done better if that was the only reason. Remus could have done it (though I think Dumbledore chose not to do this for similar reasons he didn't make Harry a prefect: he thought Remus had enough on his mind already).


I have no idea why James was chosen as Head Boy, either. I mean, in sixth year he probably wasn't that mature as he was said to be by seventh year, so why him? The reason why Remus wasn't picked for Head Boy may be because he didn't stop James and Sirius from getting into trouble as much as they did. James showed much more qualities of a leader than Remus did, probably.

:tu: Even after SWM, I never stopped thinking James was a good character. (It actually made me like him as a character!) He made mistakes when he was a teenager, but he grew out of it.
I have both bullied and been the target of bullying. When I think back when I bullied someone, I feel ... ashamed. It's one of my worst memories, actually. I have grown up since then and I am a completely different person. Someone did bully me and it definitely hurt. A lot. But I've seen that person since then and she is no longer the person I knew. She has changed for the better too. So I forgave her.
In my opinion, judging a character on how they acted like as a teenager isn't fair. Everyone matures in their own way, and if they become a better person in the end, that's what matters most.
But if someone still dislikes James, I respect their opinion.



I agree - and so did Harry. Immediately after SWM, Harry wonders if anything people had told him about his father was true. He recalls Minerva saying that his father and Sirius were like Fred and George. Then Harry thinks, but Fred and George wouldn't dangle someone like that unless they really deserved it - someone like Draco Malfoy.

But at that point Harry didn't realize that Snape and James did have a relation ship like Harry and Draco's. Later DD pointed out to Harry that James and Snape's relationship was indeed like Harry and Draco's. Then Harry understood why James dangled Snape and that it wasn't for "no reason" like James had off handedly stated in the memory. Harry never liked the whole scenario, but he finally understood it.

James, as Harry indicated, was just a normal guy, much like Harry himself - very similar characteristically.

I just thought of something rather symbolic about James. We know he was very talented at Transfiguration (as shown by his wand, and his ability to become an animagus); I think this symbolizes the fact that James transformed out of immaturity, and became much more respectful and admirable. He always had it in him, he just needed to tranfigure himself fully into that person - much like his animagus form. He was always a stag at heart (in characteristics, I don't mean he really was a stag), he just needed to become an animagus for it to become apparent.

Could be a coincidence, or I'm just looking too deeply into it, but I find it a rather nice connection.

I just thought of something rather symbolic about James. We know he was very talented at Transfiguration (as shown by his wand, and his ability to become an animagus); I think this symbolizes the fact that James transformed out of immaturity, and became much more respectful and admirable. He always had it in him, he just needed to tranfigure himself fully into that person - much like his animagus form. He was always a stag at heart (in characteristics, I don't mean he really was a stag), he just needed to become an animagus for it to become apparent.

Could be a coincidence, or I'm just looking too deeply into it, but I find it a rather nice connection.

That is an excellent point and I don't think it's a coincidence at all. After all, even the wood of the wands have a deep significance in the books! You can say the same thing about Lily. She's excellent in Charms and Charms is, according to the HP Lexicon, enchanting an object to act in a different way than it is supposed to. Well, look at Snape!

That is an excellent point and I don't think it's a coincidence at all. After all, even the wood of the wands have a deep significance in the books! You can say the same thing about Lily. She's excellent in Charms and Charms is, according to the HP Lexicon, enchanting an object to act in a different way than it is supposed to. Well, look at Snape!

Very true! She affected James, too: he always made a fool of himself around her - she charmed the pants off him. ;)

I just thought of something rather symbolic about James. We know he was very talented at Transfiguration (as shown by his wand, and his ability to become an animagus); I think this symbolizes the fact that James transformed out of immaturity, and became much more respectful and admirable. He always had it in him, he just needed to tranfigure himself fully into that person - much like his animagus form. He was always a stag at heart (in characteristics, I don't mean he really was a stag), he just needed to become an animagus for it to become apparent.

Could be a coincidence, or I'm just looking too deeply into it, but I find it a rather nice connection.
So, since you said in an earlier post that the stag was associated with Christ, then you think of James as a Christ-like figure? Yet Harry is the one who died and "rose again from the grave," so isn't the stag more a symbol of Harry than James?

What other qualities do you associate with a stag, since you believe James was a "stag" at heart? :huh:

So, since you said in an earlier post that the stag was associated with Christ, then you think of James as a Christ-like figure? Yet Harry is the one who died and "rose again from the grave," so isn't the stag more a symbol of Harry than James?

What other qualities do you associate with a stag, since you believe James was a "stag" at heart? :huh:

I don't think of him as a "Christ-like figure". Perhaps Jo did when she chose the animal he turned into, but I'm not assuming anything about this. I'm just passing on an interesting point by John Granger.

However, I do believe that James does have a quality that Christians see in Christ: he helps the living even after he has died. James comes back many times as Prongs, in Harry's patronus, to save him from losing his soul, and in GoF, to help him fight Voldemort, and then in DH, to give him courage and strength to walk into the forest.

I wouldn't say Harry "rose from the grave" - he never actually died. He was in a sort of limbo between the dead and the living. But that's not a discussion for this thread.

Well, the stag has many symbols, and I believe Jo picked that specific animal because of them. It's clear enough from all the other symbols in the books that Jo's a genius and she took her time to think these things over.

The stag is the enemy of the snake. Voldemort = snake, anyone? James was definitely an enemy of Voldemort, having defied him three times and all.

The stag is also associated with healing, because it shakes off the hunter's arrows. It's also a symbol of purity, hope, and happiness, in a variety of different cultures. The antlers (prongs heh) are a symbol of strength. There's also a strong association between the stag and the afterlife. Supposedly the stag is supposed to help others into the afterlife as it "crosses the river" (for some reason that reminds me of PoA when Harry's patronus charges across the lake).

In my opinion, James does embody these things. He does give Harry hope and happiness, and strength (especially in The Forest Again - not to mention, James is pretty much helping Harry go on into the afterlife by that point). He also sort of "heals" Harry with the protection he gives Harry from the Dementors, and all the love he had for him while Harry grew up in a relatively loveless home.

I don't pretend I knew all this before this thread. I got all this info off a google search :P. But it was all very interesting.

I'm more disappointed in that Harry didn't take some kind of interest inwhat his mother was like earlier in his life.
Well, Harry's a boy, so being more curious about his father isn't really all that anomalous. Added to which, he'd been living with Lily's sister for all but a year of his life- but he didn't meet anyone who knew James well at all till he was at Hogwarts. And people do keep going on about how like James he is (which I think he is, too).

Well, Harry's a boy, so being more curious about his father isn't really all that anomalous. Added to which, he'd been living with Lily's sister for all but a year of his life- but he didn't meet anyone who knew James well at all till he was at Hogwarts. And people do keep going on about how like James he is (which I think he is, too).

Alright, maybe Lily was indeed a bit dull but Harry wouldn't have known that.

Alright, maybe Lily was indeed a bit dull but Harry wouldn't have known that.

Is that constructive to the discussion? :huh:

Character Bashing/Worship: aka Shades of Gray (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=4370151&postcount=1)

Is that constructive to the discussion? :huh:

Character Bashing/Worship: aka Shades of Gray (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=4370151&postcount=1)

Dull isn't an insult. I was making a point.

Alright, maybe Lily was indeed a bit dull but Harry wouldn't have known that.

I disagree that Lily was dull. She was a fiery redhead, passionate about defending the weak, compassionate, brave, talented ... I'm not at all surprised that James loved her.

I disagree that Lily was dull. She was a fiery redhead, passionate about defending the weak, compassionate, brave, talented ... I'm not at all surprised that James loved her.

I agree completely.

But since this is a James Potter thread... ;)

Hey - I mentioned James! :p

I'm not quite sure what's happening...but yes, back to James, I think :)

I was reading parts of Order of the Phoenix last night and it's funny how my reactions to James kind of mirrored Harry's... when he sees SWM and thinks his dad is "kind of an idiot" or whatever he says to Sirius and Lupin. And then later when Ron ruffles his hair like James did when Lily was around, I smiled at that similarity because Ron is such a lovable character (to me at least) and even he can be vain and silly sometimes. Anyway. :)

Didn't Harry also run his hand through his hair a bit? I think you are right that James and his son are a like in that way. JKR said Harry was arrogant and his father appeared to also be arrogant (a trait I personally admire) so they were probably reflecting that sameness.

Yes I think he did say 'kind of an idiot' - but all kids are. It is funny that Harry kind of forgets all of his encounters with Malfoy when he is watching that scene. Even after watching it, he admits that if Snape were like Malfoy, Snape would have deserved the treatment. But he didn't realize at that time that Snape hexed the Marauders as well - he thought he was only being bullied upon, so he didn't think of him in terms of Malfoy. He only did after DD explained that that was what had been going on. Sirius and Lupin hadn't made the correlation in his head for him, but perhaps they didn't recognize the similarity as DD did.

But there is no discounting that James was a little fred-george-harry all mixed up in one person characterwise - at least that was my overall impression.

Yes I think he did say 'kind of an idiot' - but all kids are.

I don't think that all kids are idiots, in real life or in the world of Harry Potter. For example, I don't think that Luna L. is an idiot. :cool: Honestly, I kind of think that more adults are idiots than kids. hehe.

Even after watching it, he admits that if Snape were like Malfoy, Snape would have deserved the treatment.

Personally, I don't think that anybody deserves the type of treatment Snape got in SWM. I don't think that James deserved any awful treatment Snape gave to him, either. And I don't think that Harry deserved any awful treatment given to him by Snape or Malfoy. And I don't think Malfoy deserved any awful treatment either. But that's just me. :tu:

Anyway, I think it is pretty endearing how James was over the top around Lily in the beginning. It's interesting how people express their insecurities. I also really feel for Harry when he is questioning his father's morality and it warms my heart that he ultimately came to a loving understanding about the intricacies of so many peoples' emotions and issues. One thing I love about the series is that, as much as Harry suffers throughout his life, he rises above... he is, in my opinion, able to reach a level of understanding about humanity, love, and life which many of those before him did not reach. And in that understandind he honors those before him. Anyway, this is kind of veering away from James, but yeah... it did make me smile when the comparison was made between James and Ron and the hair-ruffling.

I can remember many idiotic moments in my teens. I can remember many friends with idiotic moments. Kids are socially awkward and do still have a lot to learn about the world, and especially interpersonal relationships. They do eventually, and that is reflected in James getting his head shrunk by his seventh year and earning Head Boy.

Ron's a great example of someone who was completely clueless about girls. He was fortunate that the twins gave him that book. James went through a phase where he thought acting obnoxious would get Lily's attention. It did, but not the way he would have wanted.

Astrology time anybody? I did it for Sirius and now it's James's turn. Snape is next and then Remus and Peter if I can find birth dates. Hey, I'm bored :p

Here's what I get from this link: http://www.spenecial.com/birdsofafeather/astrology.htm

James was an Aries Gryffindor:

The Gryffindor Aries is extremely idealistic, and has a tendency to fight hard for many causes - the more lost, the better. Gryffindors born under this sign will also have very short fuses, and can be expected to fight regularly with other students, over ethical questions or over anything else that makes a good excuse. Since Mars is a planet that encourages war games and competition and bursts of hard physical activity, there may be many Quidditch players born under these aspects. A Gryffindor Aries is an open book; a truth potion would never be needed on one, because they are hopelessly honest and open. These wizards will display uncanny charisma and leadership ability, and will be among the most popular within their class.

I was going to make a thread just for astrology, so it could all be compared. =)

I love the Ron/James similarities. I think SWM ruined James for a lot of people, which I understand, but I don't think it was Jo's intention. I think she just wanted to show he was human, like everyone else. Comparing him to Ron makes me smile because I see the similarities, myself, and I love Ron. I also just so happen to love James. ;)

LilyDreamsOn went ahead and opened Astrology - How do the characters relate to their zodiac signs? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=111586)
So we may use this for astrology speculation and can come back to the character analysis as provided in JK's series in here. Thanks! :)

I love the Ron/James similarities. I think SWM ruined James for a lot of people, which I understand, but I don't think it was Jo's intention. I think she just wanted to show he was human, like everyone else. Comparing him to Ron makes me smile because I see the similarities, myself, and I love Ron. I also just so happen to love James.

Exactly. Before SWM, Harry idolized his father and couldn't believe he had any flaws. Whenever Snape brought up how arrogant James was, Harry never listened. Watching SWM made Harry realize that his father was only human.

SWM reminds me very much of learning about Dumbledore's past. At both times Harry gets irritated about how the people he admired have made some mistakes. When a person tries to use his excuse as an age, Harry gets angry because he is the same age as the person. (When he found out about James, he was fifteen and when he found out about Dumbledore he was eighteen.) I think Jo's intention was to make the characters more real because, after all, no one is perfect.

Adolescence, to me, seems like the first few steps to attain wisdom and maturity. Everyone goes through different paths in their lives and those experiences teach people lessons and it's up to them to use those rules and apply it to life. Remus and Sirius said James matured and stopped bullying people for the sake of it. James needed those years in his life in order to become a better person. And, in the end, Lily saw this and fell in love with the man he became.

Adolescence, to me, seems like the first few steps to attain wisdom and maturity. Everyone goes through different paths in their lives and those experiences teach people lessons and it's up to them to use those rules and apply it to life. Remus and Sirius said James matured and stopped bullying people for the sake of it. James needed those years in his life in order to become a better person. And, in the end, Lily saw this and fell in love with the man he became.


I agree. James seems like he was a fairly ordinary bloke when it came to maturing. Most are crazy in youth and grow up to be more sedate as adults. He clearly took his responsibilities seriously when he was older. I would say he perhaps he matured a bit faster than the other marauder's due to having a baby - but Remus would give him a run for his money as he seemed more mature even in youth. But we saw so little of them all, it is hard to tell. Still, I think he grew to be a mature and good person at heart which was all that was important to the story.

SWM reminds me very much of learning about Dumbledore's past. At both times Harry gets irritated about how the people he admired have made some mistakes. When a person tries to use his excuse as an age, Harry gets angry because he is the same age as the person. (When he found out about James, he was fifteen and when he found out about Dumbledore he was eighteen.) I think Jo's intention was to make the characters more real because, after all, no one is perfect.

Great comparison to Dumbledore!

I personally feel it's somewhat unhealthy to see someone as purely good. That's why I was glad to see Dumbledore's past was a bit stained, just as James's was. It makes them both much more human, and therefore much more deserving of the praise they got as matured adults. The effort the two men put into changing their behaviour says enough - after all, it is our choices and not our abilities that define who we are, à la Dumbledore. ;)

Exactly! And the potential to change goes both ways- for evil as well as for good, look at Peter Pettigrew- which makes James, as a mature (as mature as a twenty-one-year-old could have been, anyway) adult that much more praiseworthy. Harry himself accepts what Sirius and Lupin tell him about James in the fireplace and is able to think of his father with affection after that, I don't see it as impossible for a reader to do.

You guys have echoed exactly what I feel as well! I don't think anyone is perfect in any sense. Everyone comes with their own baggage and their own set of flaws and faults. That is what makes us human beings. Taking responsibility for our faults makes us more commendable. James and Dumbledore are perfect examples of that. Sirius had his flaws but he did the best that he could and that makes him a good human being..... James, Dumbledore and Sirius were flawed human beings... There is no Gandalf in this story and I am glad.

1. James is Harry’s father but he died before Harry had the chance to get to know him. Is he a good role model? Would he have become a good father? How has he influenced Harry’s present life?

I believed he would have been. He would have been able to provide a good, healthy family enviroment filled with love and care. He may have spoilt Harry and bit, but I think both he and Lily would never allow Harry to get out of hand, eg. Malfoy and Dudley.

2. Why did James chose Sirius over Dumbledore as Secret Keeper? Didn’t he trust Dumbledore with his life?

I don't think that it was a matter or being able to trust Dumbledore, but rather that he was close to Sirius as they were practically brothers (like Fred and George extremely close in a good way).

3. James made Sirius Harry’s godfather. Was this a good decision?

Again, he made his decision based on his closeness with his friend. I also think that it wasn't just James' decision by Lily's as well. They both loved Sirius and I guess thought that having a son like figure that he may mature a bit more. :D I do think it was a good decision, though do to unforseen events, Sirius was unable to fulfill his duty for Harry until the end. But I think Sirius' protective and loyal nature would have been the main reason why, that Sirius would do everything within his power to protect Harry and love him.

4. We got bits and pieces of James’ life. Has he matured over the years and become a better person?

I think so, he was a doting father who was no longer selfish, but cared a great deal for those he loved and did his best to keep them safe and happy.

6. How much of James' hatred of Snape do you think was jealousy over his friendship with Lily? Do you think he redeemed himself by saving his life in spite of this jealousy?

Yes, though unfortunately not his Snape's eyes, he didn't want to see James in a good light.

I personally feel it's somewhat unhealthy to see someone as purely good. That's why I was glad to see Dumbledore's past was a bit stained, just as James's was. It makes them both much more human, and therefore much more deserving of the praise they got as matured adults. The effort the two men put into changing their behaviour says enough - after all, it is our choices and not our abilities that define who we are, à la Dumbledore.

I agree. No one is all good or all bad (well, except for Voldemort). Both James and Dumbledore need the "darker" parts of their past in order to be whole people to us. And both put aside their weaknesses, as far as that is possible, to become good, brave and unselfish men.

Exactly. Before SWM, Harry idolized his father and couldn't believe he had any flaws. Whenever Snape brought up how arrogant James was, Harry never listened. Watching SWM made Harry realize that his father was only human.

Yes, and it prepared both Harry and us to see shades of gray in the characters. SWM gives us <gasp> a James who has flaws and <oh-my!> a Snape who garners sympathy. Prior to that they'd both been pretty one-dimensional.


[/QUOTE]<snip>(When he found out about James, he was fifteen and when he found out about Dumbledore he was eighteen.)[/QUOTE]

Great points!! But wait, there's more:

BECAUSE...during the time he's finding out about James he's also wrestling with some anger management issues within himself...and along comes a scene where he sees a James who lets animosity control his actions, so Harry learns something about self-control from observing his father's mistakes.
PLUS...whiles he's finding out about DD, Harry is struggling with the whole Hallows-or-Horcruxes choice...and along come the scenes where he sees DD making poor choices and suffering the consequences, so Harry learns more about self-control and also something about priorities from DD's mistakes.

Both these sets of circumstances are very artfully conceived, I think. And if you accept this explanation of their specific importance to Harry's development, you'll see why SWM is so pivotal, and why we're allowed to glimpse James portrayed in so unflattering a light. It always seemed a rather extreme treatment of James to me until I read DH and saw the whole picture.

Yes, and it prepared both Harry and us to see shades of gray in the characters. SWM gives us <gasp> a James who has flaws and <oh-my!> a Snape who garners sympathy. Prior to that they'd both been pretty one-dimensional.


(When he found out about James, he was fifteen and when he found out about Dumbledore he was eighteen.)

Great points!! But wait, there's more:

BECAUSE...during the time he's finding out about James he's also wrestling with some anger management issues within himself...and along comes a scene where he sees a James who lets animosity control his actions, so Harry learns something about self-control from observing his father's mistakes.
PLUS...whiles he's finding out about DD, Harry is struggling with the whole Hallows-or-Horcruxes choice...and along come the scenes where he sees DD making poor choices and suffering the consequences, so Harry learns more about self-control and also something about priorities from DD's mistakes.

Both these sets of circumstances are very artfully conceived, I think. And if you accept this explanation of their specific importance to Harry's development, you'll see why SWM is so pivotal, and why we're allowed to glimpse James portrayed in so unflattering a light. It always seemed a rather extreme treatment of James to me until I read DH and saw the whole picture.

Excellent points Nutmeg. I think those were the lessons Harry gleaned - although it generally took him time to glean lessons. Too, there is the fact that some readers like me didn't see James in an unflattering light in that scene, I saw Snape in an unflattering light.

I think James marauder character was highlighted - his acts were nothing extraordinary for a magical school. I was surprised at Harry's reaction. The things that Fred and George had done would have appalled anyone in a normal school. But that was my perspective. James character came across as strong, arrogant, witty, determined and a good friend. So I was rather pleased with him in the scene.

]1. James is Harry’s father but he died before Harry had the chance to get to know him. Is he a good role model? Would he have become a good father? How has he influenced Harry’s present life?

I believe he wa a good role model in the sense that the idealized version of James that Harry had in his head for many years cuased Harry to have high aspirations. To what extent those ideas were accurate is not, in my opinion, well-established in canon.

2. Why did James chose Sirius over Dumbledore as Secret Keeper? Didn’t he trust Dumbledore with his life?

I think James probably trusted Sirius more than any other human being in the world, and I think that trust was well-placed. This would seem a good reason to choose him as a Secret Keeper. Peter, on the other hand... :lol:

3. James made Sirius Harry’s godfather. Was this a good decision?

I feel we lack the information to answer this. What other options were available? Peter and Lupin would have been even worse choices. Peter for his lack of character, Lupin for his lack of resources. Sirius was, at least, devoted to James and his family, and possessed independent means.

4. We got bits and pieces of James’ life. Has he matured over the years and become a better person?

I see no evidence that he became a better person. Presumably, he matured, most people do. This is not to say that he was a bad person, just that I don't think the flaws he had as a teen went away. Like Sirius but to a lesser degree, he cared little about the consequences of his actions for people he did not like. Unlike Sirius, when those consequences seemed likely to be deadly, he was able to get a clue even as a teen. So, he rescued Snape, for example, but continued the dangerous trips out with Lupin on full moon nights.

5. What was James’ relationship to Lily Evans/Sirius Black/Peter Pettigrew/Remus Lupin/Albus Dumbledore/Minerva McGonagall/Frank and Alice Longbottom?

Lily: They fell in love and married.

Sirius: They were best friends, as close as brothers.

Peter Pettigrew: James liked having a little admirer. It seems he did not give his biggest fan much thought, though, and it came back to bite him.

Remus Lupin: They were friends. James was supportive of his problems with werewolfism, and enjoyed the adventure of having such an unusual friend.

6. How much of James' hatred of Snape do you think was jealousy over his friendship with Lily? Do you think he redeemed himself by saving his life in spite of this jealousy?

We see that the antagonism developed before James took an interest in Lily. However, I think that once he did, it definitely caused an escalation in hostilities. To me, the 'Worst Memory' tends to smell a bit of a set-up, now that we know the whole story.

I don't really get the 'redeemed himself' question. For what? We have no indication he ever wanted Snape dead. On the other hand, he seems clearly never to have had any regrets about his behavior towards Snape, before or after the rescue.

Further, as things stand in canon, I think it is entirely possible that James went into the tunnel after Snape thinking of nothing but the possible consequences to Lupin and Sirius of Snape's death.

Further, as things stand in canon, I think it is entirely possible that James went into the tunnel after Snape thinking of nothing but the possible consequences to Lupin and Sirius of Snape's death.

I think that is a reasonable interpretation from the reading. I don't think that would be a bad thing though; I would do the same for my friends. If that was the reason, he just also had the benefit of saving Snape from possible harm, being turned into a werewolf (actually a beautiful thing from my point of view :)) or in a unlikely 'carried away' mauling by Remus, death.

Excellent points Nutmeg. I think those were the lessons Harry gleaned - although it generally took him time to glean lessons. Too, there is the fact that some readers like me didn't see James in an unflattering light in that scene, I saw Snape in an unflattering light.

I think James marauder character was highlighted - his acts were nothing extraordinary for a magical school. I was surprised at Harry's reaction. The things that Fred and George had done would have appalled anyone in a normal school. But that was my perspective. James character came across as strong, arrogant, witty, determined and a good friend. So I was rather pleased with him in the scene.

Yeah, I have to admit, when I first read SWM, I didn't completely understand Harry's reaction. I wasn't angry at James, like I wasn't ever angry at Dumbledore when I found out about his past.

And yeah, it's like when Fred drops the Tongue Ton Toffee on purpose, knowing Dudley would eat it... that was pretty terrible, to be honest, but I think many found it funny in some way. The twins were always risk takers, too - they stole the map from Filch; they bet all their money on an unlikely turnout for the Quidditch game; they took the car to save Harry without telling Molly or Arthur; they evidently snuck around the school and the passage ways enough to not need the map anymore... Which is why I'd say McGonagall compared the Marauders to Fred&George, and another reason why the Marauders (well mostly James and Sirius) were so well liked; they were the funny pranksters of their own time.


Further, as things stand in canon, I think it is entirely possible that James went into the tunnel after Snape thinking of nothing but the possible consequences to Lupin and Sirius of Snape's death.

I think that might have been his primary motive, but I think that's still a really good thing. He didn't want Sirius to become a conscious murderer/werewolf-maker (couldn't think of a better word *facepalm*) and face a life of guilt, and he didn't want Remus to find out the next morning that he'd attacked a student, which would have seriously haunted him the rest of his life, as well.

However, I do believe that it was also a parallel betwen James and Harry, for their "saving people thing". They might have both had a sort of hero-complex, but... again, I see that as a good thing. The brave may die but the cowardly do not live at all!

I see no evidence that he became a better person. Presumably, he matured, most people do. This is not to say that he was a bad person, just that I don't think the flaws he had as a teen went away. Like Sirius but to a lesser degree, he cared little about the consequences of his actions for people he did not like. Unlike Sirius, when those consequences seemed likely to be deadly, he was able to get a clue even as a teen. So, he rescued Snape, for example, but continued the dangerous trips out with Lupin on full moon nights.

I think that just shows how good a friend he was (that he continued going with Remus). He took so many risks and would have faced expulsion and getting his wand snapped if he'd been found out (perhaps worse, cause it wasn't only against the rules, but against the law) - but he did it all to spare his friend from the absolute torment that transforming was. Remus said it himself - transforming was horrible, but with the help of the other Marauders, the full moon soon became fun. James didn't really have any way of knowing how fun it would be when he became an animagus.

But I agree, I don't think his flaws ever truly disappeared, because I believe people are born with certain characteristics that develop into flaws/qualities depending on their upbringing. But I'll compare him to Dumbledore again: Dumbledore recognized his own flaws and learned how to control them and become a better person in the end because of it, while still having such flaws. He knew he was untrustworthy when given power, and restrained himself, and he turned out to be the kind, loving person we knew him for years. I think that's kind of what happened with James. He was still arrogant, an attention-seeker, and he was prejudiced against certain people i.e. Slytherins (I wouldn't say he was all-around prejudiced, because he didn't reject Remus for his condition, where the majority would have, and have done), but I believe that over time and help from friends and situations in his life, he learned how to control his flaws rather than let them dominate, and turned out to be the person who got the Head Boy badge, and the man Lily fell in love with. =)

Anyways, that's my take on it!

Which is why I'd say McGonagall compared the Marauders to Fred&George, and another reason why the Marauders (well mostly James and Sirius) were so well liked; they were the funny pranksters of their own time.

It was not McGonagall. Hagrid, if I am not mistaken.

However, I do believe that it was also a parallel betwen James and Harry, for their "saving people thing". They might have both had a sort of hero-complex, but... again, I see that as a good thing. The brave may die but the cowardly do not live at all!

I see a parallel with Snape-on-the-hill, myself. He was risking his life tp save Lily - James and Harry were just along for the ride. ;)

He took so many risks and would have faced expulsion and getting his wand snapped if he'd been found out (perhaps worse, cause it wasn't only against the rules, but against the law) - but he did it all to spare his friend from the absolute torment that transforming was.

Remus could have enjoyed the company of his friends inside the safety of the Shack. That they left is the only part of the proceeding to which I object. It placed others at risk.

But I'll compare him to Dumbledore again: Dumbledore recognized his own flaws and learned how to control them and become a better person in the end because of it, while still having such flaws.

I see no evidence that he was capable of that level of introspection. I think it is likely Lily married him because he has some good points to go with those flaws, not because he toned them down. I would guess Dumbledore may have been impressed enough by the rescue of Snape to look at James as Head Boy material. Dumbledore is, after all, a Gryffindor, and that was brave.

he cared little about the consequences of his actions for people he did not like.

I Respect your opinion. But to me, that sounds like James has Snape-on-the-hill's character. Do you think that they were a like in this way? I would have to respectfully disagree, that was not the impression I got of James' character.

I see no evidence that he became a better person. Presumably, he matured, most people do. This is not to say that he was a bad person, just that I don't think the flaws he had as a teen went away. Like Sirius but to a lesser degree, he cared little about the consequences of his actions for people he did not like. Unlike Sirius, when those consequences seemed likely to be deadly, he was able to get a clue even as a teen. So, he rescued Snape, for example, but continued the dangerous trips out with Lupin on full moon nights.

Hm. When James was young, I interpreted his behavior as spoiled and sheltered from the harsh realities of the world. But, deep down, I think he did have good qualities that may have surfaced later on in his life. He went through a stage when he bullied, but by seventh year he matured. Lily recognized this and Dumbledore did too.
But I do agree that some of his negative qualities may have stayed. He could've remained arrogant, but not nearly as arrogant as he was before. Lily probably would've seen these qualities and accepted them because she knew that he was a good person over all.
I do think James's main focus when he saved Snape was on Remus and Sirius. However, I don't see him as the type of person to watch people die and not care at all. James would have done the same thing for Wormtail, so I think he didn't take murder lightly.

It was not McGonagall. Hagrid, if I am not mistaken.

Yeah, it was, sorry - point was, the connection was made.

I see a parallel with Snape-on-the-hill, myself. He was risking his life tp save Lily - James and Harry were just along for the ride. ;)

Well, that's always a matter of interpretation. I think she left it that way for us to decide. So who knows! I personally don't think that, but I can see why you would. =)

Remus could have enjoyed the company of his friends inside the safety of the Shack. That they left is the only part of the proceeding to which I object. It placed others at risk.

That's true, and there were close calls, as Remus put it. That's what made the Marauders marauders in the first place, though - it was definitely risky and pretty stupid of them to do, but they wouldn't be the characters we know them to be if they didn't take those chances. They were naive enough to think that Prongs and Padfoot would be able to control him - which they were, as they effectively stopped him from doing anything - but I agree it wasn't fair on those who could have been bitten. But then they wouldn't have made the Marauder's Map and we wouldn't have had that whole plot line... so it's hard for me to frown upon it, lol.

I see no evidence that he was capable of that level of introspection. I think it is likely Lily married him because he has some good points to go with those flaws, not because he toned them down. I would guess Dumbledore may have been impressed enough by the rescue of Snape to look at James as Head Boy material. Dumbledore is, after all, a Gryffindor, and that was brave.

We know he deflated his head - so he knocked down his arrogance, for one. That was one of his flaws... so I believe, if he could get rid of his arrogance (for the most part), he'd be more likely to acknowledge the other bad things about his personality. And acknowledging them is definitely the first step to correcting them. That's how I can believe that he did try very hard to change his flaws.

I personally feel there is a strong connection to Dumbledore, and how he changed his past. Harry's reaction to finding out about both James and Dumbledore's past was the same - he was angry and he felt misled - and in the end he got over his initial reactions and accepted the two father figures as good people, despite those flaws they had. I feel that connection says that James did do something about his flaws - we know he stopped hexing people for fun, which would correspond with him no longer seeking for attention all the time.

I do agree that he had qualities Lily valued highly, otherwise she would not have had a child with him. But she would only go out with him once he "deflated his head a bit".

Again though, it's up to everyone's own interpretation, until Jo tells us the answers flat out.

He was still arrogant, an attention-seeker, and he was prejudiced against certain people i.e. Slytherins (I wouldn't say he was all-around prejudiced, because he didn't reject Remus for his condition, where the majority would have, and have done), but I believe that over time and help from friends and situations in his life, he learned how to control his flaws rather than let them dominate, and turned out to be the person who got the Head Boy badge, and the man Lily fell in love with. =)
I agree :) I doubt that James' unpleasant character traits were gone for good but they had to have simmered a bit for Lily to accept him and fall in love with the guy.

I think James character remained the same but he grew up in a lot ways. That is very clearly shown when he marries and has a child at such a young age. I am the same age as Lily was when she was pregnant and I am a bigger idiot than James and Sirius were when they were sixteen. So James did grow up. His parents had probably died by then, he saw all the sufferings as a member of Order and he had no choice but to leave his childhood whims behind and become a grown up. But a cool grown up at that. I think that is why he chooses Sirius as Harry's godfather. Sirius is a lot like James and through him Harry would get a glimpse of the person James was....

James' personality was always the same, but he was forced to grow up. When he and Lily joined the Order and found out that Voldemort was after them, he had no choice but to grow up, be sensible...
but he was always...James.

I Respect your opinion. But to me, that sounds like James has Snape-on-the-hill's character. Do you think that they were a like in this way? I would have to respectfully disagree, that was not the impression I got of James' character.

Well, for James the list of people he cares about would be rather longer. :) And, as I said in that post, James as a teen was already drawing a line at taking someone's life. But with those caveats, sure, I see a similarity.

Hm. When James was young, I interpreted his behavior as spoiled and sheltered from the harsh realities of the world. But, deep down, I think he did have good qualities that may have surfaced later on in his life. He went through a stage when he bullied, but by seventh year he matured. Lily recognized this and Dumbledore did too.

It is left to our imaginations. We don't see this change, and I personally find it is not necessary to imagine that he did, for the story to make sense. Lily as she is shown us, is someone I could see marrying an 'unimproved' James. As for his good qualities, they did not need to surface. His actions towards Sirius and Lupin indicate that he already had them as a teen.

Yeah, it was, sorry - point was, the connection was made.

McGonagall is the one character in that scene that does not seem to be fondly amused by her memories of James and Sirius. She describes them, with no smile or twinkle, as 'ringleaders of their little gang', which if it was describing people we readers did not already like, would seem a negative description. I think this means she may not have entirely approved of them as students.

But then they wouldn't have made the Marauder's Map and we wouldn't have had that whole plot line... so it's hard for me to frown upon it, lol.

Yeah, and if Voldemort had not tried to kill Harry, or Snape had not been a Death Eater, we would have no story at all. :)

We know he deflated his head - so he knocked down his arrogance, for one.

We know that this is the opinion his best friends communicated to Harry, when Harry was very upset at what he had learned about James. We do not know that it happened. The whole secret keeper fiasco could be seen as a continuation of that arrogance.

And acknowledging them is definitely the first step to correcting them. That's how I can believe that he did try very hard to change his flaws.

We are never shown, or even told, that James acknowledged his flaws.

I personally feel there is a strong connection to Dumbledore, and how he changed his past.

If you mean this in a literary sense of seeing a parallel, it is certainly possible you might get this from the books. I tend to see Dumbledore as more of a parallel for Snape, because of the similarity in the way they each fell. (Falling in with a charismatic pureblood fanatic megalomaniac, and bearing partial responsibility for the deaths of loved ones as a result).

If you mean in the actual sense of James learning from Dumbledore's mistakes, I think canon shows that is very unlikely. Shortly before her death, Lily was dismissing, with some amusement, the idea that Dumbledore was ever friends with Gellert Grindelwald.

I feel that connection says that James did do something about his flaws - we know he stopped hexing people for fun, which would correspond with him no longer seeking for attention all the time.

On the other hand, we are given an obvious ulterior motive for this action - Lily might have changed her mind about dating him if he had not.

Again though, it's up to everyone's own interpretation, until Jo tells us the answers flat out.

Rowling can't tell us "James was a good person". That is not a fact, it is a value judgment. If she explains how, in terms of things we know about him, SHE feels he is a good person, we can then choose to agree or disagree with her.

(I already agree).

I see no evidence that he was capable of that level of introspection. I think it is likely Lily married him because he has some good points to go with those flaws, not because he toned them down.

I've been wondering this,it's a matter of opinion whether or not Lily liked James at the time of SWM(I myself am not sure,but if it's so Lily's opinion will hold little value for me),but if she did then it raises the question how much would he have had to change if she already liked him despite those negative qualities?

I think zgirnius makes a good point that she might have just got to know his good side.

Well, we know that James's biggest secret, and the one that showed him in the best light (taking the trouble to learn the Animagus transformation for Lupin's sake) was something Lily had no idea about at least as of SWM- all she knew was Snape's suspicions about Remus's condition. And she might not have even admitted the fact that she didn't hate him, even to herself, if he hadn't toned down the things she tells him off for. In addition to which, the maturity that comes with age and experience (I'd call having your best friend run away from his nut job pureblood family and come straight to you, a bit of an experience all right), counted for quite a bit.

McGonagall is the one character in that scene that does not seem to be fondly amused by her memories of James and Sirius. She describes them, with no smile or twinkle, as 'ringleaders of their little gang', which if it was describing people we readers did not already like, would seem a negative description. I think this means she may not have entirely approved of them as students.
Harry was hidden at the time, so he had no way of seeing just what the expression on her face was. And she has used a positive tone while speaking of his father as a student at least once (when Harry got on to the Gryffindor Quidditch team- she needn't have told him that his father was a Quidditch player too)- so I suspect she did feel quite a bit of affection towards James Potter even if she told him off a lot (see: Fred and George Weasley, Peeves, chandelier :)).

As for his good qualities, they did not need to surface. His actions towards Sirius and Lupin indicate that he already had them as a teen.

When I mentioned that, I meant it probably surfaced more fully to Lily's eyes. James saved Snape before SWM, so he continued his bullying habits. But, according to Sirius and Remus, he stopped bullying people for the sake of it and matured. Lily would've seen the change in him.

The whole secret keeper fiasco could be seen as a continuation of that arrogance.

Actually, I think the secret keeper fiasco was more about his willingness to trust. Remus did say that James would never mistrust his friends. I think that applies here, as well.

Yeah, I have to admit, when I first read SWM, I didn't completely understand Harry's reaction. I wasn't angry at James, like I wasn't ever angry at Dumbledore when I found out about his past.

I reread this scene again today just to see if maybe I remembered it worse then it was,but I found it just as bad as I did before(if not worse).Magical school at not,I can't see how a situation like this cannot be emotionally scarring and deeply upsetting.I'm find it very strange that some think that it wasn't so bad.

I reread this scene again today just to see if maybe I remembered it worse then it was,but I found it just as bad as I did before(if not worse).Magical school at not,I can't see how a situation like this cannot be emotionally scarring and deeply upsetting.I'm find it very strange that some think that it wasn't so bad.

When I read it, I do think that what James did was bad, especially since I've been in a similar place as Snape. However, some fans, such as myself, don't hold Snape's Worst Memory against James. People make mistakes in their lives. Like I said in an earlier post, everyone matures in their own way. According to Remus and Sirius, he did change. Some may disagree and say that they were biased, but I choose to trust their judgement. I seriously can't imagine Lily continuing to go out with James if he acted the way he was when he was fifteen.
The point of SWM - besides it showing the ending of Lily and Snape's friendship - was to show Harry that James was not a perfect character. He was flawed in his own way, but he was a good person overall.

he cared little about the consequences of his actions for people he did not like.

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy
I Respect your opinion. But to me, that sounds like James has Snape-on-the-hill's character. Do you think that they were a like in this way? I would have to respectfully disagree, that was not the impression I got of James' character.


Well, for James the list of people he cares about would be rather longer. :) And, as I said in that post, James as a teen was already drawing a line at taking someone's life. But with those caveats, sure, I see a similarity.

Respecting your opinion, but per canon, wasn't Snape the only person we knew of that James didn't like? So wouldn't his list include everyone else? But maybe I misunderstand what you mean. What similarities do you see?

I don't think we have any one else specific that James didn't like, but he would likely have also battled against Avery and Mulciber, had he been given the chance. I imagine that James and Slytherin house had running disputes throughout all of their schooling, with James (and Sirius) vs Snape just being the most prominent. It was a time of war in the outside wizarding world, and I imagine Hogwarts reflected that.

The above, plus the knowledge that Slughorn likely had a lot of Slytherins in the Slug Club, makes me think that James was never invited or declined his invite, even though he likely was talented and connected enough for Slughorn.

I don't think we have any one else specific that James didn't like, but he would likely have also battled against Avery and Mulciber, had he been given the chance. I imagine that James and Slytherin house had running disputes throughout all of their schooling, with James (and Sirius) vs Snape just being the most prominent. It was a time of war in the outside wizarding world, and I imagine Hogwarts reflected that.

The above, plus the knowledge that Slughorn likely had a lot of Slytherins in the Slug Club, makes me think that James was never invited or declined his invite, even though he likely was talented and connected enough for Slughorn.

I would say that is a good guess. As we saw in Harry's day, Slytherin v. Gryffindor seemed to be a fairly normal rivalry - even notwithstanding the war. I would imagine that it was not only the Marauders, but all Gryffindors, had most of their flare-ups with the Slytherins. However, I would not say that James held all of the Slytherins in the same amount of dislike as Snape. I think most Slytherins for him, like other Gryffindors, were merely competitive rivals (in every sense) whereas James (and the Marauders) had a special disliking for Snape - kind of like Harry & Gang v. Draco and Gang - #1 enemy type deal. The others would be more like Harry v. Blaise - suspicious of one another and hexing only on rare occassions - probably mostly threats.

But James, with his gang, was also a prankster. So everyone, including Slytherins likely fell victim to those pranks - just like Fred and George - James and Gang were not likely very picky :)

I would say that is a good guess. As we saw in Harry's day, Slytherin v. Gryffindor seemed to be a fairly normal rivalry - even notwithstanding the war. I would imagine that it was not only the Marauders, but all Gryffindors, had most of their flare-ups with the Slytherins. However, I would not say that James held all of the Slytherins in the same amount of dislike as Snape. I think most Slytherins for him, like other Gryffindors, were merely competitive rivals (in every sense) whereas James (and the Marauders) had a special disliking for Snape - kind of like Harry & Gang v. Draco and Gang - #1 enemy type deal. The others would be more like Harry v. Blaise - suspicious of one another and hexing only on rare occassions - probably mostly threats.

But James, with his gang, was also a prankster. So everyone, including Slytherins likely fell victim to those pranks - just like Fred and George - James and Gang were not likely very picky :)

I think I agree with most of this :). The big difference is that I think Snape was more of a loner versus Draco having Crabbe and Goyle.

Oh, wait, James thread...right. Yeah, James seemed to be a cross between Harry, Fred, George, and others I can't think of now. Harry was more reserved than James. Their different upbringing probably contributed to this. We also have the problem of not knowing too much about James other than just a few memories and some recollections which have to be taken with a grain of salt, considering the source.

I think I agree with most of this :). The big difference is that I think Snape was more of a loner versus Draco having Crabbe and Goyle.

Oh, wait, James thread...right. Yeah, James seemed to be a cross between Harry, Fred, George, and others I can't think of now. Harry was more reserved than James. Their different upbringing probably contributed to this. We also have the problem of not knowing too much about James other than just a few memories and some recollections which have to be taken with a grain of salt, considering the source.

I dunno if Snape was a loner - he just happened to have been alone in that memory and we don't have the other incredible amount of school time shown to us. In contrast, James we know was buddy buddy with his three friends, but we met them in canon and they verified all of that for us (and others who knew them as well). I agree with you on the rest though.

James was definitely less reserved and more carefree in character than Harry - I think that had a lot to do with the fact that Harry had to face so much in school. James didn't have Voldy on his tail and such. It was easier for him to be a normal, happy-go-lucky child.

McGonagall is the one character in that scene that does not seem to be fondly amused by her memories of James and Sirius. She describes them, with no smile or twinkle, as 'ringleaders of their little gang', which if it was describing people we readers did not already like, would seem a negative description. I think this means she may not have entirely approved of them as students.

Again, I see this as a similarity to Fred and George. They do things that highly displease the teachers/Molly, but they're not bad people. I'm sure McGonagall got rather frustrated with James and Sirius at school, like when she tells Harry and Ron off for dueling with the fake wands... but I think that by the time James was an adult, he'd matured and we can see that McGonagall was pretty upset by his and Lily's death (beginning of PS, her talk with Dumbledore) - her voice even trembled. I just see her having a very teacher-troublemaker relationship with him while at school, until he grew up, like most troublemakers do. I'm sure she got to know him better while in the Order!


We know that this is the opinion his best friends communicated to Harry, when Harry was very upset at what he had learned about James. We do not know that it happened. The whole secret keeper fiasco could be seen as a continuation of that arrogance.

Well, even Sirius was able to admit that he and James were "arrogant little berks" when they were fifteen... so I take it he changed enough to look back and realise his own mistakes, and thus be able to tell Harry the truth. And Remus is constantly shown as a very fair person - I don't think he'd lie just to make Harry feel better. I don't think Jo would make them say these things if they weren't true. She's never shown us any evidence that James did not change, but we do have reason to believe he did change based on what Sirius and Remus said, and on the fact that Dumbledore made him Head Boy, and that Lily married him.


We are never shown, or even told, that James acknowledged his flaws.

To go with what I said in my previous paragraph, I feel that if Jame did indeed change, he would have needed to recognize his own flaws. How can you change if you don't know what's bad in the first place? We learn from our mistakes, and I don't see why James should be an exception.


If you mean this in a literary sense of seeing a parallel, it is certainly possible you might get this from the books. I tend to see Dumbledore as more of a parallel for Snape, because of the similarity in the way they each fell. (Falling in with a charismatic pureblood fanatic megalomaniac, and bearing partial responsibility for the deaths of loved ones as a result).

If you mean in the actual sense of James learning from Dumbledore's mistakes, I think canon shows that is very unlikely. Shortly before her death, Lily was dismissing, with some amusement, the idea that Dumbledore was ever friends with Gellert Grindelwald.

I meant it in a literary sense. I think it was clear that no one knew about Dumbledore's past, like you said. I agree that there are similarities between Snape and Dumbledore, but I do also see some between James and Dumbledore. If I'm the only one who sees it, I'm fine with it, because it's just my personal view of the two characters. =)


Rowling can't tell us "James was a good person". That is not a fact, it is a value judgment. If she explains how, in terms of things we know about him, SHE feels he is a good person, we can then choose to agree or disagree with her.

(I already agree).

Well, no, but she could tell us what exactly happened in his life at Hogwarts. I feel if we were given much more backstory, we'd be able to make up a better judgment on James. Who knows? He and Sirius could have been the Fred and George of their time, like I see it, but they could have been entirely different, too...

But yeah, I usually agree with her views on characters. I mean, it's Jo - if she says someone's good or bad, or stupid or smart, she must have reasons behind it, and I trust her judgment.

To go with what I said in my previous paragraph, I feel that if Jame did indeed change, he would have needed to recognize his own flaws. How can you change if you don't know what's bad in the first place? We learn from our mistakes, and I don't see why James should be an exception.

He didn't seem to learn anything from the 'willow incident',his behaviour was completely unchanged,this is one of the reason I believe that he really didn't change all that much later in life.
Rowling could have illustrated a positive change in James by SWM happening before the prank(it would have been something),but it didn't,this goes against him IMO.

He didn't seem to learn anything from the 'willow incident',his behaviour was completely unchanged,this is one of the reason I believe that he really didn't change all that much later in life.
Rowling could have illustrated a positive change in James by SWM happening before the prank(it would have been something),but it didn't,this goes against him IMO.

Er, I'm not entirely sure what he could have learned from the Whomping Willow incident. He heard Sirius played a stupid prank on Snape that endagered his life, and without a second thought he went down to pull Snape back. I take it he would have done what he did at any time in his life, before or after he changed. I think Sirius learned something from it, though, and I personally believe Snape should have learned from it, too; but that's not for this thread. But I don't quite understand what James had to take from it - could you clarify that?

Harry was hidden at the time, so he had no way of seeing just what the expression on her face was. And she has used a positive tone while speaking of his father as a student at least once (when Harry got on to the Gryffindor Quidditch team- she needn't have told him that his father was a Quidditch player too)- so I suspect she did feel quite a bit of affection towards James Potter even if she told him off a lot (see: Fred and George Weasley, Peeves, chandelier :)).

The scene does include these sorts of postive descriptors in describing the comments of the other participants in the conversation. To me this rather flagged her lack of such characterization.

Well, we know that James's biggest secret, and the one that showed him in the best light (taking the trouble to learn the Animagus transformation for Lupin's sake) was something Lily had no idea about at least as of SWM-

Asociated with that were also his biggest downside, the nightime marauding. ;) Prior to SWM, Lily was already aware of the Willow incident, and knew James had saved Snape's life. I would say that is actually a bigger deal.

Actually, I think the secret keeper fiasco was more about his willingness to trust. Remus did say that James would never mistrust his friends. I think that applies here, as well.

Under the circumstances, I find it arrogant. It was known there was a traitor.

ATTENTION!

I'd like to direct your attention to:

REVISED: Character Bashing/Worship: aka Shades of Gray (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108021)

Please read it carefully and post accordingly!

I don't think we have any one else specific that James didn't like, but he would likely have also battled against Avery and Mulciber, had he been given the chance. I imagine that James and Slytherin house had running disputes throughout all of their schooling, with James (and Sirius) vs Snape just being the most prominent. It was a time of war in the outside wizarding world, and I imagine Hogwarts reflected that.

There are also all those kids he hexed in the hallways for a laugh. I doubt he liked them (which is not the same as hating them). We have the evidence of both the detention cards in HBP, and Lily's statements in OotP that such hexing did go on.

Respinding to WWB here, for James, there were people he liked (Marauders, Lily, Order memers, Quidditch teammates, etc.), people he disliked (Snape, probably other Slytherins and people he associated with Dark Arts, DEs) and the rest of the world. And I believe he was only reliably nice to the first group.

It's that great quote someone said about indifference to keep in mind, love and hate are not the only two options (I think it was Dumbledore, unless it was, ironically, Sirius).

But James, with his gang, was also a prankster. So everyone, including Slytherins likely fell victim to those pranks - just like Fred and George - James and Gang were not likely very picky :)

To make my position clear - you are not going to win me over by comparing anyone to the Twins. I reluctantly admit that are 'good people', but they neither know nor care about whose feelings they hurt with their 'pranks'. So yes, I DO see the similarity to James. ;)

Well, even Sirius was able to admit that he and James were "arrogant little berks" when they were fifteen... so I take it he changed enough to look back and realise his own mistakes, and thus be able to tell Harry the truth.

I am sorry, I do not see the change. In fact, Sirius, who you want me to believe has 'changed' needs to be shut up by Lupin so he does not go into another anti-Snape rant at one point. ;)

She's never shown us any evidence that James did not change, but we do have reason to believe he did change based on what Sirius and Remus said, and on the fact that Dumbledore made him Head Boy, and that Lily married him.

She's given all the explanations we need to see why Lily married him and why he became Head Boy. To me, this means I do not have to invent transformations in his character that we were not shown, which I might concede is necessary if these things were not explained.

We learn from our mistakes, and I don't see why James should be an exception.

What mistake did James make in canon, that he acknowledged? I don't mean vague platitudes about 'I was arrogant', I mean something specific he DID.

I meant it in a literary sense.

As I said, that makes perfect sense to me. :) Thanks for the clarification.


Well, no, but she could tell us what exactly happened in his life at Hogwarts. I feel if we were given much more backstory, we'd be able to make up a better judgment on James. Who knows?

Yes, this is exactly my point. I was expecting we might get this, specifically some indication of how/why/when James changed, but we did not. However, the additional insights into Lily and Dumbledore that we got, and my general sense of what Rowling is doing with her characters and their morality, were more than enough for me to decide this is because James did not need to change to become Head Boy and marry Lily. Again, I am not saying he is a bad person, I am saying he had a streak of cruelty and arrogance along with the good stuff, that he never acknowledged, and never lost.

If she wants to write a short story set in the Marauder Era, I'd be happy to read it. :)

What mistake did James make in canon, that he acknowledged? I don't mean vague platitudes about 'I was arrogant', I mean something specific he DID.
Since the little we see of James is mostly anecdotal and glimses via Voldemort's and Snape's memories, James never gets a chance to speak for himself in that way. However, the long list of characters who clearly loved and respected him says it all, IMO.

Since the little we see of James is mostly anecdotal and glimses via Voldemort's and Snape's memories, James never gets a chance to speak for himself in that way. However, the long list of characters who clearly loved and respected him says it all, IMO.

For me, my liking of James and my trust that he was a "good person" relies on the assessments of Lupin, MM, and Dumbledore, all of whom liked him. Since I happen to trust all three of them, I think that the adult James was a good husband and father.

Er, I'm not entirely sure what he could have learned from the Whomping Willow incident. He heard Sirius played a stupid prank on Snape that endagered his life, and without a second thought he went down to pull Snape back.

This is what I expected to see as well, so I shall endeavour to explain. SWM and swelling people's heads to twice their size, and other random acts of jollity could have been seen by James to lead, in the extreme, to the "Prank", an incident that had the potential of ending in a death. He might have seen (and shared) Severus's fear. Sirius, if we are to believe him, did think of it as a pretty funny joke that Severus 'deserved', James saw it all up close and this could have been life-altering.

It could have served as a sobering realization that inspired James to stop and think about hexing people for fun, how the other guy felt about it, etc. Only, it did not. Soon after, he was at it again.

For me, my liking of James and my trust that he was a "good person" relies on the assessments of Lupin, MM, and Dumbledore, all of whom liked him. Since I happen to trust all three of them, I think that the adult James was a good husband and father.

I also think the adult James was a good husband and father. Nothing I learned about him as a teenager sugegsted to me that he would be anything else, to the woman he loved and a son he adored.

This is what I expected to see as well, so I shall endeavour to explain. SWM and swelling people's heads to twice their size, and other random acts of jollity could have been seen by James to lead, in the extreme, to the "Prank", an incident that had the potential of ending in a death. He might have seen (and shared) Severus's fear. Sirius, if we are to believe him, did think of it as a pretty funny joke that Severus 'deserved', James saw it all up close and this could have been life-altering.

It could have served as a sobering realization that inspired James to stop and think about hexing people for fun, how the other guy felt about it, etc. Only, it did not. Soon after, he was at it again.

I respect your interpretation - I think it is a fair assessment. It may come down to viewpoints on some of the activities. I found Fred and George's hexing (akin to James hexing for fun) funny and harmless in the main. So I approached the matter from that view and didn't want James character to lose all of its 'fun' due to the Shack incident. James obviously didn't see the Shack incident as 'fun', so my impression was that he knew where to draw the line as George and Fred did - even though at times, they might all step over it a bit, but never to the level of the Shack incident - risking harm and doing irreparable physical damage to a person.

I also believe that, like in Harry's time at Hogwarts, when James was attending, lots of kids were playing pranks and throwing jinxes and hexes for fun. Tons of students bought George and Fred's little pranking goods and I imagine it was the same back in James' time. Lupin said there was a time you couldn't walk a few meters without being lifted up by the ankle - so it seems like lots of kids enjoyed pranking back then just as they did in Harry's time.

I think James and his friends enjoyed it regularly, like Fred and George and so their antics were more well known as a group, but I didn't look upon it as anything bad at all.

So that may be why I got a distinct impression from that whole idea about James. I thought he was drawing a proper line in the Shack incident, but apart from that, I saw no reason for him to change. What James did to Snape in SWM was what all of the students were doing to one another on a wide scale at that time - following Snape introducing the spell to the students. So I didn't see it as anything distinctly different from the general pranking and jinxing going on.

The only difference was that they were enemies. Snape used Sectumspectra which was darker than most students used and James and Sirius used a number of common jinxes. I would imagine that SWM was something indicative of the behavior of these boys toward one another in general during the course of their attendance. At various times one group or the other would have the advantage.

There are also all those kids he hexed in the hallways for a laugh. I doubt he liked them (which is not the same as hating them). We have the evidence of both the detention cards in HBP, and Lily's statements in OotP that such hexing did go on.
Well, Fred and George confess to similar pranking, and we seem to think no less of them for it. I doubt it was entirely inspired by malevolence, too.

James obviously didn't see the Shack incident as 'fun', so my impression was that he knew where to draw the line as George and Fred did - even though at times, they might all step over it a bit, but never to the level of the Shack incident - risking harm and doing irreparable physical damage to a person.

I don't think anyone but a death eater would think of the werewolf prank as fun, and James was definately not a death eater. And yeah, James never did cause physical harm. It was Snape who used sectumsempra, and it's a good thing the spell didn't work properly, because we saw what it did to Malfoy.

It was Snape who used sectumsempra, and it's a good thing the spell didn't work properly, because we saw what it did to Malfoy.
It was certainly a very dangerous spell to use in a playground duel! Even if Snape didn't intend to cause serious injury, we can probably assume that he didn't practise Sectumsempra all that much on other students (wonder what he did use for practice?), and that he could very easily have caused serious damage to James, eg hitting him in the eye or worse. As we saw with George, the spell causes damage that cannot be repaired. So I don't see the fight in SWM as one-sided bullying, even though I don't condone what James did.

Sirius chose Gryffindor so as to go against what his parents wanted.

I don't think Sirius had to "choose" to be in Gryffindor. Hermione was muggle born and therefore we can infer that family doesn't play that important a role. Sirius was a loyal, brave and reckless man. He couldn't have possibly fit in Slytherin even if he wanted to. Lily sort of wanted to go to Slytherin as well but she was sorted to be in Gryffindor. If the sorting hat listened to everyone while sorting then there won't be as many Hufflepuffs....

I guess my real question would be, how could James' treatment of Snape be characterized as poor in SWM if he was using one of Snape's own spells against him? (A spell which all of the other students were pranking with on a regular basis.)

In the seventh book Remus says "Sectumsempra was always a speciality of Snape's." That means he probably used it a lot back in school. Lily says that James and Sirius never used dark magic against anyone. And in the sixth book we discover that Sirius and James were mostly given detention for petty crimes so we can infer that they were a lot more like Fred and George than Draco Malfoy. So while what James and Sirius did to Snape in SWM is despicable I don't get how it can be such a big deal. They played petty pranks and grew out of it. Whereas the other cursed....

Levicorpus doesn't have the power to cause someone to call another by a demeaning name, wash their mouth out with soap, embarass them in front of their best friend and the rest of the students around, say they're a bother because they exist, or pull down their pants.

ETA: And since we see what Harry does to Draco with Sectumsempra, and what Snape does to James and George- and the fact he knew how to help Draco when it happened... I'd say Snape knows how to control that spell and did so both times.

I guess my real question would be, how could James' treatment of Snape be characterized as poor in SWM if he was using one of Snape's own spells against him? (A spell which all of the other students were pranking with on a regular basis.)
Lupin said that Levicorpus was a fad at that time, and that "there were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle". So it wasn't a very dreadful thing to do - Ron even thought it was funny when it happened to him.

Levicorpus doesn't have the power to cause someone to call another by a demeaning name, wash their mouth out with soap, embarass them in front of their best friend and the rest of the students around, say they're a bother because they exist, or pull down their pants.

ETA: And since we see what Harry does to Draco with Sectumsempra, and what Snape does to James and George- and the fact he knew how to help Draco when it happened... I'd say Snape knows how to control that spell and did so both times.

Yeah what Sirius and James did was bad but Snape wasn't the poor old victim. When things didn't go his way he did horrible things. Am I the only one who thinks making a tree branch fall on a young girl is far worse than anything James and Sirius did?

PS: I really like your avatar but I was under the impression that you had to be third year or more to have an avatar of your own....:love: :love:

I kinda think the branch falling on Petunia's head was the sort of accidental magic Harry was prone to.

I didn't say Snape was a poor old victim, but in that scene, I didn't see anything he did that would cause the actions on James' part.

And Ignisia made the avatar for me... I'm helpless when it comes to those sorts of things. I just tried it out one day when CoS was back after DH and could, but since I got into Hogsmeade right at that time I assume I was able to because I had gotten into Hogsmeade.

PS: I really like your avatar but I was under the impression that you had to be third year or more to have an avatar of your own....
I think there have been some thread deletions recently. You need 300 posts or more(in the qualifying areas) to get into Hogsmeade, but if your post count falls because of thread deletion and you are already in Hogsmeade, you do not lose your Hogsmeade status because of it.

I kinda think the branch falling on Petunia's head was the sort of accidental magic Harry was prone to.
It wasn't accidental- the scene seems to imply as much, and Lily makes the inference for herself.
Back to James, now....I do wonder why his parents didn't have him till they were as old as JKR says they were ('elderly', she called them)- I think it's a safe assumption that he was an only child, given that Sirius went to stay with the Potters and spoke of being like a second son to them- and didn't mention any other siblings.

Yup James was the only child. He has that classic one child syndrome too. They tend to trest their friends like how one would treat their siblings. Kinda explains James's relationship with Sirius and Remus and Peter... To him they are his brothers.... My cousin who is an only child tends be that way. I am very close to my friends but no one will ever take the place of my sister. I already have a sister with whom I fight constantly... and who also happens to be my friend.

He has that classic one child syndrome too. They tend to trest their friends like how one would treat their siblings.
I've noticed that I tend to do that too...at least with the people to whom I'm closest (and there aren't a lot of those). James was close to all the Marauders, but his closest bonds were formed with Sirius- who seems to have seen James as more of a brother to him than Regulus was.

I've noticed that I tend to do that too...at least with the people to whom I'm closest (and there aren't a lot of those). James was close to all the Marauders, but his closest bonds were formed with Sirius- who seems to have seen James as more of a brother to him than Regulus was.

I totally get what you are saying! Sometimes I think Sirius and James were closer than Harry and Ron. Don't get me wrong Harry and Ron would give up their lives for one another and they are the best of friends and very very close. But they are prone to having these nasty fights. There is also some underlying jealousy issues that would rear its ugly head at the most unwelcome times. I don't think it was like that at all with James and Sirius. They both were equals in all aspects and therefore no body was the other's "sidekick". Their relationship echoes more of Fred and George than it does Harry and Ron.

Er, I'm not entirely sure what he could have learned from the Whomping Willow incident. He heard Sirius played a stupid prank on Snape that endagered his life, and without a second thought he went down to pull Snape back. I take it he would have done what he did at any time in his life, before or after he changed. I think Sirius learned something from it, though, and I personally believe Snape should have learned from it, too; but that's not for this thread. But I don't quite understand what James had to take from it - could you clarify that?

What he should have learned was their enmity had led to a prank which could have ended very nastily.SWM shows me that James didn't really regret the willow incident at all.

What he should have learned was their enmity had led to a prank which could have ended very nastily.SWM shows me that James didn't really regret the willow incident at all.

Why should he??? Harry doesn't really regret what he did to Malfoy... He is more concerned about the upcoming Quidditch match. James saved Snape's life and both still hated each other... Nothing really had changed... But why should it?

Why should he??? Harry doesn't really regret what he did to Malfoy... He is more concerned about the upcoming Quidditch match. James saved Snape's life and both still hated each other... Nothing really had changed... But why should it?

Why should anything have changed?I'm sorry but I can't explain that if it's not clear.

Why should anything have changed?I'm sorry but I can't explain that if it's not clear.

You didn't get what I was saying. They just went back to hating each other after that incident. No real damage was done so Sirius and James did not really walk around with a guilty conscience... I mean Harry doesn't really care about Malfoy after the sectumsempra incident does he? Too much of hatred existed between them to become chums again. And lets not forget that it was an equal playing field where both parties tried destroy one another... Also it is not like Snape was even grateful to James....

Yeah, James and Sirius were more then happy to go back to hating Snape... Until the next near-fatal prank they pull.

Yeah, James and Sirius were more then happy to go back to hating Snape... Until the next near-fatal prank they pull.

It takes two to tango. Remus says in the seventh book "Sectumsempra had always been a speciality of Snape's." So we can infer that Snape used dark magic where as Sirius and James pranked and used light magic. Snape is a brilliant man and is capab;e of taking care of himself. Their fights were not one sided...

Right, it was 2 to 1.

All's fine with going back to hating eachother - no one ever expected Harry and Draco to be friends, or James and Snape. But when Lily says James had saved Snape, not knowing it was James' friends that had put him in danger, that's definately presenting yourself in a flattering light. He'll take the good stuff, none of the bad. And he uses Light spells in a Dark way (Where is the debate on that? I haven't see it.). Doesn't Molly Weasley use Scourgify to clean dishes? James uses it for Snape's mouth. Is that not an inappropriate way to use the spell? Where was this transformation of character from bullying toerag? I don't doubt it was there, because of the way he interacted with Harry at GH, and Lily ended up marrying him, but it's hard for me to see.
Why should anything have changed?I'm sorry but I can't explain that if it's not clear.
Exactly. :tu:

Right, it was 2 to 1.



I see your point and I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint...
"I don't like the people you're hanging around with! I'm sorry , but I detest Avery and Mulciner! Mulciber! What do you see in him, Sev? He's creepy! D'you know what he tried to do to Mary Macdonald the other day?"
"That was nothing", said Snape "It was a laugh, that's all-"
"It was dark magic and if you think that's funny"
"What about the stuff Potter and his mates get up to?"
"They don't use Dark Magic though".....

Well there you have it... James and Sirius were the regular old pranksters and trust me they would never do anything nasty to a girl.... I am willing to bet that whatever Mulciber did was something horrible and Snape thought it was a laugh. Say what you will about Sirius and James but they detested dark magic who would never over step the line too much. They were like Fred and George... In the fifth book Fred and George throw Montague into the Vanishing cabinet and Montague resurfaces several days later completely disoriented... That IMHO was far worse than what happened in the SWM... And Snape hung out with future deatheaters all the time... So do you really think his cronies would not have fought against Sirius and James.. It wasn't two against one... Not always

And lets not forget that it was an equal playing field where both parties tried destroy one another... Also it is not like Snape was even grateful to James....And Snape hung out with future deatheaters all the time... So do you really think his cronies would not have fought against Sirius and James.. It wasn't two against one... Not always
Maybe this is just a gut feeling but Mulciber and Avery didn't really give off a true friend vibe. They seem more of the "kick you when you're down 'hey show me that dark spell again, Severus!'" type of "friends" rather than having a special bond like James and Sirius or even Snape and Lily. I personally don't see the Maruaders really having another group of people to go up against James and co. at Hogwarts and I don't really think there is much proof of that either. And can somebody find the quote that I think exists? Either Snape or somebody was saying that the Maruaders only did such and such when it was 4 against 1? Or do you mean it was equal in terms of skill rather than quantity?

Anyway I'm getting a bit off topic...

That IMHO was far worse than what happened in the SWM... And Snape hung out with future deatheaters all the time... So do you really think his cronies would not have fought against Sirius and James..
I don't know. Public humiliation for a guy like Snape is utterly horrible. I mean he was 16 years old, hanging upside down with his underwear showing and possibly taken off. That's pretty horrible. I don't think that Sirius or James would use any incredibly dark magic but I don't think their acts were exactly innocent and free of harm.

But James grew out of stuff like that anyway so that's good. I mean, I'm sure he still liked mischief and such but just didn't really act on it as often/so maliciously.

I don't know. Public humiliation for a guy like Snape is utterly horrible. I mean he was 16 years old, hanging upside down with his underwear showing and possibly taken off. That's pretty horrible. I don't think that Sirius or James would use any incredibly dark magic but I don't think their acts were exactly innocent and free of harm.


I respect your opinion, but shouldn't Snape have thought about that when he created the spell and introduced it to the school? Everyone used it. If it was horrible, then Snape as its inventor would be the source of the problem.

James' character is such that he would not go in search of a dark spell to use. He hated the dark arts. He used known light spells. Washing out one's mouth with soap is done in our day, so scourgify is the same thing. In my opinion it isn't fun, but it is quite normal behavior for someone to do it to you when you are using swear words. :)

Why should he??? Harry doesn't really regret what he did to Malfoy... He is more concerned about the upcoming Quidditch match. James saved Snape's life and both still hated each other... Nothing really had changed... But why should it?
He did regret it - in fact he was stunned and horrified by what he had done, but thankfully there was no lasting harm done. In comparison, James had no reason to regret the Shack incident, unless it was to regret saving Snape's life! James wasn't the culprit - it was Sirius who thought it would be a great idea to tell Snape what he was trying so hard to find out - James ran to save Snape as soon as he heard about it. If James really wanted to harm Snape, he didn't need to bully him - he could just have done nothing and let him go to the Shack.

Yeah, James and Sirius were more then happy to go back to hating Snape... Until the next near-fatal prank they pull.

Sorry - I can't think of another near-fatal prank. What are you referring to?

I've read some of the previous posts based on the Whomping Willow incident. I can see how Sirius is at fault, but what did James do? I thought the story was that Sirius thought it would be amusing to lead Snape down there and when James found out, he saved Snape.
Sorry, but could someone please clarify?

I've read some of the previous posts based on the Whomping Willow incident. I can see how Sirius is at fault, but what did James do? I thought the story was that Sirius thought it would be amusing to lead Snape down there and when James found out, he saved Snape.
Sorry, but could someone please clarify?

Yes that is the story according to canon. James only participation was to rescue Snape. (POA and I believe it was in OOTP where Dumbledore confirms the tale - I might have that wrong)

Yes that is the story according to canon. James only participation was to rescue Snape. (POA and I believe it was in OOTP where Dumbledore confirms the tale - I might have that wrong)

You are right. It was Sirius who told Snape how to freeze the whomping willow... We were just discussing the lack of remorse James and Sirius showed after the incident...

You are right. It was Sirius who told Snape how to freeze the whomping willow... We were just discussing the lack of remorse James and Sirius showed after the incident...

Oh okay, thanks! I was getting confused.
When I read The Prince's Tale, I was surprised that The Whomping Willow incident was before SWM. I always imagined it to be during sixth year and that's what made Dumbledore appoint James as Head Boy.
I guess James, though he saved Snape, wasn't out of his bullying habits. Part of the reason why he continued to bully Snape was because he wanted to impress Lily.

We were just discussing the lack of remorse James and Sirius showed after the incident...
We don't really have proof that there was a lack of remorse from James. He just didn't stop bullying Snape. He was still an enemy of his and also compition for Lily's desires. Typical stupid teenage boy stuff :lol:

He did regret it - in fact he was stunned and horrified by what he had done, but thankfully there was no lasting harm done. In comparison, James had no reason to regret the Shack incident, unless it was to regret saving Snape's life! James wasn't the culprit - it was Sirius who thought it would be a great idea to tell Snape what he was trying so hard to find out - James ran to save Snape as soon as he heard about it. If James really wanted to harm Snape, he didn't need to bully him - he could just have done nothing and let him go to the Shack.


Sorry - I can't think of another near-fatal prank. What are you referring to?

Nothing, James got his act together not to long after that, didn't he?

I don't think anyone but a death eater would think of the werewolf prank as fun, and James was definately not a death eater. And yeah, James never did cause physical harm.

According to Lupin, Sirius did.

James did cause physical harm. What do you expect happens to a person when he is dropped from a hanging upside-down position onto the ground? (Snape is dropped and knocked over some 4-5 times in the 'Worst Memory' scene, by both James and Sirius). It hurts, and it causes bruising, which is physical harm.

I guess my real question would be, how could James' treatment of Snape be characterized as poor in SWM if he was using one of Snape's own spells against him? (A spell which all of the other students were pranking with on a regular basis.)

Are you using Severus Snape as the yardstick for moral behavior? James was good because he was no worse than Severus?

According to Lupin, Sirius did.

James did cause physical harm. What do you expect happens to a person when he is dropped from a hanging upside-down position onto the ground? (Snape is dropped and knocked over some 4-5 times in the 'Worst Memory' scene, by both James and Sirius). It hurts, and it causes bruising, which is physical harm.

That is why I keep asking what Snape was thinking when he invented the spell and then showed it around? James was merely using a spell that was well known. Snape's spell, if it caused bruising and physical harm I don't think would have been used so much by others. I don't think the students would find that amusing, so I don't think it did that much damage.

James didn't appear to be amused by the S. Shack incident, that is why he saved Snape. James couldn't change into an animagus in front of Snape, so his act was pretty brave. That is, unless you were like me and wouldn't mind being a werewolf ;)

It takes two to tango. Remus says in the seventh book "Sectumsempra had always been a speciality of Snape's." So we can infer that Snape used dark magic where as Sirius and James pranked and used light magic. Snape is a brilliant man and is capab;e of taking care of himself. Their fights were not one sided...

The one we saw, was. Severus was lucky to get the one spell in, because James and Sirius were distracted by James' flirtation with Lily. Harry, who should if anything be biased in favor of James, objects to this argument when Sirius tried to present it:

And Snape was just this little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts, and James - whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry - always hated the Dark Arts.'

'Yeah,' said Harry, 'but he just attacked Snape for no good reason, just because - well, just because you said you were bored,' he finished, with a slightly apologetic note in his voice.

'I'm not proud of it,' said Sirius quickly.

It sounds to me like even Sirius recognizes the lameness of the excuse he offered. Harry does not accept Snape's Dark Artsness as a reason for what is, quite clearly, an unprovoked attack, and apparently motivated by Sirius's boredom.

The one we saw, was. Severus was lucky to get the one spell in, because James and Sirius were distracted by James' flirtation with Lily. Harry, who should if anything be biased in favor of James, objects to this argument when Sirius tried to present it:

And Snape was just this little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts, and James - whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry - always hated the Dark Arts.'

'Yeah,' said Harry, 'but he just attacked Snape for no good reason, just because - well, just because you said you were bored,' he finished, with a slightly apologetic note in his voice.

'I'm not proud of it,' said Sirius quickly.

It sounds to me like even Sirius recognizes the lameness of the excuse he offered. Harry does not accept Snape's Dark Artsness as a reason for what is, quite clearly, an unprovoked attack, and apparently motivated by Sirius's boredom.

In my opinion, Harry was being a little naive because he was reaching a conclusion based on one memory. That was the first thing Remus said - don't judge on one memory, Harry. I mean James and Snape spent 7 years together, so it only makes sense that you can't piece together every day of that time from 1 memory - that would be like judging Harry's daily actions at Hogwarts on the day of Sectumsempra had you seen a memory of that which ended right after he cast it. Harry wasn't worried about James' character on that day, he was worried about it in general.

More James and less Marauders vs. Snape please!

Are you using Severus Snape as the yardstick for moral behavior? James was good because he was no worse than Severus?
I've seen that argument used in relation to other characters too. ;) I don't think it's valid in most cases, but in this particular case it is extremely relevant that this was a two-way feud, not one-sided bullying. In once case James is a normal boy who engages in playground fighting (not admirable, but pretty common), in the other he is a bully who picks on defenceless geeks. Now we all know Snape was by no means defenceless, since two of the spells we saw used in that scene were of his own invention (Levicorpus and Sectumsempra). So, while I do not condone the attack on Snape in SWM, I don't see it as entirely one-sided.

Oh okay, thanks! I was getting confused.
When I read The Prince's Tale, I was surprised that The Whomping Willow incident was before SWM. I always imagined it to be during sixth year and that's what made Dumbledore appoint James as Head Boy.

I doubt it. Dumbledore knew that a large portion of why James rescued Snape had to do with saving both Remus' and Sirius' necks. Obviously he didn't want Snape dead. But the Remus and Sirius were also dominant factors when James made the decision to go after Snape.
Dumbledore wouldn't have made James head boy only because he had enough courage and nerve to save Snape. I'm sure he saw other capabilities as well when he made that decision. Leadership qualities, loyalty, the capibility to forgive, and the ability to trust. I think we find these qualities in Dumbledore as well.
James was also not like Percy. He didn't follow the book at all times. He knew when to bend them and let people enjoy themselves. Dumbledore never gets too angry about nightime walks to the kitchen either.
Also James hated the dark arts and would have done anything to protect innocent people. I think that to a large extent made him save Snape. Snape in this case was inocent.
Also James like Harry, would always remain loyal to Hogwarts.

I guess James, though he saved Snape, wasn't out of his bullying habits. Part of the reason why he continued to bully Snape was because he wanted to impress Lily.

James knew Lily and Snape were friends. SWM was just one altercation that we have witnessed. There have obviously been more. Bullying her friends could have never impressed her. Lily was too loyal for that. And James was too clever not to have realised that. Bullying Snape was a lot more personal. Snape's passion for the dark arts had not escaped Lily's notice. His friends practised the dark arts. James would not let that pass. Their mutual dislike and biterness begins from their first day at school; long before Lily became an important figure in the picture. Also James was slightly jealous of the fact that Snape was friends with Lily. This could have prompted his bullying tactics. But he didn't bully Snape in order to impress Lily.

It just struck me that Harry named his first son James. He had his doubts about James after witnessing SWM. His respect and admiration for Dumbledore and Snape had increased tenfold by the end of DH. Yet when Harry was at his most vulnerable position, when he needed the support more than ever before, it was his father that came back to him in the forest. Dumbledore and Snape who had done so much for him did not.
Harry named his first son James because James meant more to him than anyone else.

I doubt it. Dumbledore knew that a large portion of why James rescued Snape had to do with saving both Remus' and Sirius' necks.

Er, what I meant as that before DH I assumed James saving Snape was one of the most impotant factors in his desicion. James was not the kind of person to watch someone else die and not care. James risked his life for Snape. (Yes, I do think his main concerns were about Remus and Sirius, but I also think that James never actually wanted Snape dead.)
I was just saying that before seventh year that's what I thought one of the main reasons Dumbledore made James Head Boy.

James knew Lily and Snape were friends. SWM was just one altercation that we have witnessed. There have obviously been more. Bullying her friends could have never impressed her. Lily was too loyal for that. And James was too clever not to have realised that. Bullying Snape was a lot more personal. Snape's passion for the dark arts had not escaped Lily's notice. His friends practised the dark arts. James would not let that pass. Their mutual dislike and biterness begins from their first day at school; long before Lily became an important figure in the picture. Also James was slightly jealous of the fact that Snape was friends with Lily. This could have prompted his bullying tactics. But he didn't bully Snape in order to impress Lily.

Yes, I am sure that James's main reasons for bullying Snape were out of his dislike for him. However, I always assumed that James thought it would impress Lily. During SWM, he constantly looks over to where Lily is in case she was looking.
She was friend with Snape, but that year their friendship was a bit rocky. James may have assumed that they ended their friendship.
Isn't it common for boys to do stupid things in order to impress the ones they are infatuated with? James may have thought that bullying made him seem clever and impressive.
Anyway, that's one idea. He may or may not have tried to impress Lily. But if he did, he definitely didn't know her well then. I do agree though that the bullying was mainly about the dislike James and Snape shared.

I totally get what you are saying! Sometimes I think Sirius and James were closer than Harry and Ron. Don't get me wrong Harry and Ron would give up their lives for one another and they are the best of friends and very very close. But they are prone to having these nasty fights. There is also some underlying jealousy issues that would rear its ugly head at the most unwelcome times. I don't think it was like that at all with James and Sirius. They both were equals in all aspects and therefore no body was the other's "sidekick". Their relationship echoes more of Fred and George than it does Harry and Ron.
You're right, because when Harry overheard Hagrid, McGonagall and Co. talking about his father and Sirius, the comparison to Fred and George was made there too. And he himself likens what James did to a Fred-and-George prank after watching SWM.

I totally get what you are saying! Sometimes I think Sirius and James were closer than Harry and Ron. Don't get me wrong Harry and Ron would give up their lives for one another and they are the best of friends and very very close. But they are prone to having these nasty fights. There is also some underlying jealousy issues that would rear its ugly head at the most unwelcome times. I don't think it was like that at all with James and Sirius. They both were equals in all aspects and therefore no body was the other's "sidekick". Their relationship echoes more of Fred and George than it does Harry and Ron.

I agree! James and Sirius weren't just best friends, they were like brothers. Some characters consider Harry as the leader and Ron as the sidekick. But with James and Sirius, they were both leaders of the Marauders.
The two of them are very similar to Fred and George. Fred and George and James and Sirius were very mischevious! Also, when Fred died Jo said that George never got over it. And when James died Sirius probably didn't get over it. In PoA, Sirius cries when he talks about how the Secret Keeper switch! :upset:

Are you using Severus Snape as the yardstick for moral behavior? James was good because he was no worse than Severus?

I agree,I don't understand the why Snape justifies James behaviour.

Yes, I am sure that James's main reasons for bullying Snape were out of his dislike for him. However, I always assumed that James thought it would impress Lily. During SWM, he constantly looks over to where Lily is in case she was looking.

I think that it was mainly to do with Lily.Yes Snape was into dark arts but so was the rest of the Slytherin house,why would his enmity with Snape be greater?James didn't choose him out of any noble reason,it was mainly becasue of Lily(IMO).

I think that it was mainly to do with Lily.Yes Snape was into dark arts but so was the rest of the Slytherin house,why would his enmity with Snape be greater?James didn't choose him out of any noble reason,it was mainly becasue of Lily(IMO).

The reason why James detested Snape more than the other Slytherins is similar to how Harry disliked Draco more than other Slytherins, such as Nott. James and Snape disliked each other from the first day they met each other due to house rivalry. Their relationship is more personal than with the other Slytherins, I think. Plus, Snape was always trying to find out what the Marauders were up to on the full moon. It probably annoyed James.

I agree! James and Sirius weren't just best friends, they were like brothers. Some characters consider Harry as the leader and Ron as the sidekick. But with James and Sirius, they were both leaders of the Marauders.
The two of them are very similar to Fred and George. Fred and George and James and Sirius were very mischevious! Also, when Fred died Jo said that George never got over it. And when James died Sirius probably didn't get over it. In PoA, Sirius cries when he talks about how the Secret Keeper switch! :upset:

I don't think they are as close as Ron and Harry. I mean, sure they didn't have fights because they were so alike but that doesn't make them brothers. Harry and Ron understand know each other better because they fight, not in spite of it.

I don't think they are as close as Ron and Harry. I mean, sure they didn't have fights because they were so alike but that doesn't make them brothers. Harry and Ron understand know each other better because they fight, not in spite of it.

I respect your opinion and those going before. I think it is another case of us not having enough information to really know one way or the other so we can only speculate. James and Sirius were close - whether or not their relationship was like Ron and Harry we don't know because we never saw it.

Getting back on topic, I think characterwise, James is the type of person to be an extraordinary good friend. He is incredibly trusting of his friends according to Remus and his actions proved that. He also goes the extra mile for them, as he showed by working with Sirius to become an animagi and helping Peter do so. He shows them compassion - as was shown in his having Sirius come and live with him when he ran away from home, and he shows love for them all, which is shown in the loyalty and love they retain for him even after his death.

I don't think they are as close as Ron and Harry. I mean, sure they didn't have fights because they were so alike but that doesn't make them brothers. Harry and Ron understand know each other better because they fight, not in spite of it.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear in my post. I was agreeing on the similarities between Fred and George and James and Sirius. :)
But I wouldn't say they weren't as close as brothers. JKR said that Sirius loved James as a brother and a character (Flitwick, I think) said they were as close as brothers, too.
I don't know if Sirius and James did/didn't fight. Everything about James is really vague.

Getting back on topic, I think characterwise, James is the type of person to be an extraordinary good friend. He is incredibly trusting of his friends according to Remus and his actions proved that. He also goes the extra mile for them, as he showed by working with Sirius to become an animagi and helping Peter do so. He shows them compassion - as was shown in his having Sirius come and live with him when he ran away from home, and he shows love for them all, which is shown in the loyalty and love they retain for him even after his death.

I agree! It's one of his good qualities.

Getting back on topic, I think characterwise, James is the type of person to be an extraordinary good friend. He is incredibly trusting of his friends according to Remus and his actions proved that.

Why do you suppose he never confided in Remus about the Secret keeper switch?(assuming he didn't suspect Remus himself)

I don't think they are as close as Ron and Harry. I mean, sure they didn't have fights because they were so alike but that doesn't make them brothers. Harry and Ron understand know each other better because they fight, not in spite of it.
But there was a lot in James and Sirius's personal circumstances that might have contributed to their closeness. Ron grew up very much part of the Weasley family unit. But Sirius wasn't anywhere near as close to his own family, and James was an only child. I'd certainly see that as a factor in their being as joined-at-the-hip as they seem to have been.

But there was a lot in James and Sirius's personal circumstances that might have contributed to their closeness. Ron grew up very much part of the Weasley family unit. But Sirius wasn't anywhere near as close to his own family, and James was an only child. I'd certainly see that as a factor in their being as joined-at-the-hip as they seem to have been.

Exactly. Plus we know that they were equals in their gang. So there would not have any inferiority complex at play in their friendship. Harry has always been the leader of the trio... Ron and Hermione sort of always saw Harry that way as well. This led some major tiffs between Ron and Harry... James and Sirius were always on an equal footing... I am in no way saying that Ron and Harry are not the greatest best friends in the whole world. But in the case of James and Sirius... well their friendship was their whole world. There is a small difference...

Why do you suppose he never confided in Remus about the Secret keeper switch?(assuming he didn't suspect Remus himself)

I always assumed this was because the Potters were cooped up in the house all day. I mean, how many people would go out and visit a friend if they knew Voldemort was after them? Plus, In PoA when Sirius is explaining about the Secret Keeper switch, he says that he convinced them to switch it to Peter at the last moment. If they did still leave the house, they probably didn't have enough time to inform Remus of the switch.

I always assumed this was because the Potters were cooped up in the house all day. I mean, how many people would go out and visit a friend if they knew Voldemort was after them? Plus, In PoA when Sirius is explaining about the Secret Keeper switch, he says that he convinced them to switch it to Peter at the last moment. If they did still leave the house, they probably didn't have enough time to inform Remus of the switch.

Plus it is thought Remus was away a bit on Order business because he was also not there the night of their deaths (that we know of) - which for all practical purposes he would be. That night he would have suspected Sirius had been the traitor and I am sure wonder what became of Harry. The whole world seemed to know Harry had defeated Voldy, so I am sure Remus found out as well.

You know - it is more than just not informing Remus of the SK switch. Either Remus was never told the secret (and so would not be able to go visit them until he was given the secret) -or- he was purposely misled to believe Sirius was the SK - in other words IF Remus WAS told the secret, then it had to be done in such a way that he believed Sirius was the SK - perhaps Peter under polyjuice? Forgery of Sirius' handwriting - no - couldn't be a note sent to him - too risky that he would take it to Voldy.

So, either the plan was that Remus would not be given the location at all, or they would lie to Remus about the SKs identity (and back it up by tricking him)

You know - it is more than just not informing Remus of the SK switch. Either Remus was never told the secret (and so would not be able to go visit them until he was given the secret) -or- he was purposely misled to believe Sirius was the SK - in other words IF Remus WAS told the secret, then it had to be done in such a way that he believed Sirius was the SK - perhaps Peter under polyjuice? Forgery of Sirius' handwriting - no - couldn't be a note sent to him - too risky that he would take it to Voldy.

So, either the plan was that Remus would not be given the location at all, or they would lie to Remus about the SKs identity (and back it up by tricking him)

I think Sirius was Secret-Keeper at first, but at last minute he told Lily and James to make Peter the SK. Remus might've known where they were at first, but when Peter became the SK, he didn't.

But, anyway, this is supposed to be a discussion on James's character.... Unless this is important to his personality in some way?

I think Sirius was Secret-Keeper at first, but at last minute he told Lily and James to make Peter the SK. Remus might've known where they were at first, but when Peter became the SK, he didn't.

I think the Fidelius Charm was only performed once. Sirius was intended to be the Secret-Keeper, but the switch was done just before the spell was performed. So Sirius was never the Secret-Keeper, but people were supposed to think that he was. It would have worked perfectly if Wormtail hadn't been such a rat!

I think the Fidelius Charm was only performed once. Sirius was intended to be the Secret-Keeper, but the switch was done just before the spell was performed. So Sirius was never the Secret-Keeper, but people were supposed to think that he was.
He implies as much in PoA, I was under the impression that the Charm was performed only once, with Wormtail- and James and Lily died a week later. It's possible that they were in touch with Remus during that time, and that Sirius was given the secret by Peter so he'd be able to contact the Potters if he needed to. As for contact with the outside world, we know that Ron and Hermione, who were under the protection of a Fidelius Charm (though indirectly) in OotP, could send owls to Harry, who hadn't been told the secret yet. So James and Lily could well have told Dumbledore they were in hiding under the Fidelius Charm, but not told him of the switch.

Please get back to analysing James' character. Thanks.

Levicorpus doesn't have the power to cause someone to call another by a demeaning name, wash their mouth out with soap, embarass them in front of their best friend and the rest of the students around, say they're a bother because they exist, or pull down their pants.

My impression of James in this scene is merely that of a lad who was upon the business of taunting his enemy who'd happened upon the scene. Character-wise, I think it shows nothing more than him being a normal kid as was Snape - involved in mutual hexing.

James merely said 'all right, Snivellus?' and Snape drew his wand. James removed the wand from his hand and Snape dove for it when Sirius intervened.

It began like school yard fighting does and then built up from there. Snape starts cursing and you get the classic 'wash your mouth out with soap'. Lily interrupts and Snape when he recovers does not run away like a child who is bullied and escapes as soon as possible, he takes hold of his wand when James is inattentive and strikes back with his dark arts curse. It goes on and on.

Again a build up of circumstances. I feel it was merely one of many times the rival parties fought. As talented as Snape was, I am sure he had the advantage at times - especially if his friends were with him. We didn't see James pull down Snape's pants - he likely didn't do it; that would spell extreme trouble.

But the point is, it is only one memory and I don't think we can based James' entire 'youthful' character on just the one. Lily tells us in PTA that he was arrogant, but she never calls him a bully. I think if that were his main characteristic, she would have mentioned it - in fact, I doubt seriously if she would bother defending him at all if he were Bullying Snape constantly without provocation. That is not what a friend does; they will take your side certainly if you are being treated unfairly. Instead she tells Snape that he is the one obsessed with them. I think that was to help us see that James' character was not as Snape was holding it out to be.

I think it is just reflective of that particular association. I would say apart from that, James was indeed arrogant - he was handsome, a Quidditch champ and intelligent - he had many things to be big headed about. But eventually he came to realize that those things are not what is most important to one's character - and his evolved, obviously or Lily wouldn't have ever dated him :)

Actually - my point about Remus not being told the secret (or having been lied to about the SK) IS pretty much about James' character.

And - no - Sirius was never the SK. He was originally going to be SK, but convinced them to use Peter. Once you have made the Fidelius, you cannot just 'switch' the secret from one soul to another - at least not without Sirius having first died.

It does however prove just how sure they were that Remus was the spy - they not only did not trust him with the info that the SK was Peter (something which IF he had been the spy he could immediately reveal to Voldy) but they also apparently did not trust him with the secret of where they were hiding - something which Remus would NOT have been able to tell Voldy (as we hear from Snape in SpinnersEnd, when he reminds Bella how HE isn't the SK for Order Headquarters).

After all - IF they had told Remus the secret of their location, then there would have had to have been additional exposition in the Shack in PoA. Remus believed Sirius was the spy who betrayed the Potters - IF he believed it because he believed it was Sirius who actually TOLD him the secret, then it would need to be mentioned - of course the use of polyjuice then might blow the plot of GoF, but... could have used a note with Peter forging Sirius' handwriting instead.

So - James shows great trust in Sirius, but not in Remus. I am unsure whether he trusted Peter in reality or just that he trusted that Peter would not have been capable of fooling them for the previous year. It isn't as if the plan was for Peter to go on living normally - he was supposed to go into hiding. They did not seem to believe Peter would be capable of withstanding Voldy IF he was captured (and they would have been right there - even IF Peter HAD been loyal, he would not have been able to keep the secret from Voldy - since he wasn't an occlumens)

Actually - my point about Remus not being told the secret (or having been lied to about the SK) IS pretty much about James' character.

And - no - Sirius was never the SK. He was originally going to be SK, but convinced them to use Peter. Once you have made the Fidelius, you cannot just 'switch' the secret from one soul to another - at least not without Sirius having first died.

It does however prove just how sure they were that Remus was the spy - they not only did not trust him with the info that the SK was Peter (something which IF he had been the spy he could immediately reveal to Voldy) but they also apparently did not trust him with the secret of where they were hiding - something which Remus would NOT have been able to tell Voldy (as we hear from Snape in SpinnersEnd, when he reminds Bella how HE isn't the SK for Order Headquarters).

After all - IF they had told Remus the secret of their location, then there would have had to have been additional exposition in the Shack in PoA. Remus believed Sirius was the spy who betrayed the Potters - IF he believed it because he believed it was Sirius who actually TOLD him the secret, then it would need to be mentioned - of course the use of polyjuice then might blow the plot of GoF, but... could have used a note with Peter forging Sirius' handwriting instead.

So - James shows great trust in Sirius, but not in Remus. I am unsure whether he trusted Peter in reality or just that he trusted that Peter would not have been capable of fooling them for the previous year. It isn't as if the plan was for Peter to go on living normally - he was supposed to go into hiding. They did not seem to believe Peter would be capable of withstanding Voldy IF he was captured (and they would have been right there - even IF Peter HAD been loyal, he would not have been able to keep the secret from Voldy - since he wasn't an occlumens)

Lupin said - 'you switched and didn't tell me'. If you cast the charm it does not remain for life (until the SK dies). It only need remain as long as whoever is in hiding needs to remain hidden (#12 was to always remain hidden). Otherwise, if they had killed Voldy in the meanwhile, James and family would be hidden for life for no good reason. I believe that first Sirius was the secret keeper and then he disengaged the spell and Peter became the secret keeper.

If you have the F. charm placed, you cannot tell another where the place is while it is in effect unless they are allowed to know the secret as well by the secret keeper himself (like in #12 G with the paper slips written by DD). They switched 1 week prior to the Potter's death - the F. Charm had been in place before that. Remus was not told by Peter or Sirius of the switch and James and Lily could of course not tell. Peter told Sirius where the house was, but was likely told not to tell Remus (by Sirius).

Remus later said that James trusted all of his friends completely - intimating that he did so mistakenly. He would be the last person on earth to say that if James had showed distrust of him, imo. It would completely falsify his words. But more than that, he was trying to teach Harry a lesson. It would have been easier to do if Remus could point out that James had not trusted him - that even the too-trusting James had allowed himself to distrust his closest friend when it mattered most. But Remus couldn't say that to Harry. Sirius distrusted Remus and Remus distrusted Sirius. We've never heard anyone say "we" or "James" or "we all" distrusted Remus - or even that James thought it best Remus didn't know.

James too trusting nature may be seen as a fault or as a strong point depending on one's view, but imo, canon indicates that all of his friends were included in that trust.

We didn't see James pull down Snape's pants - he likely didn't do it; that would spell extreme trouble.

I wouldn't put it past him,I suspect the comment was to imply to us that further things happened,but as we learn the real reason for why it's SWM,they became less relevant.I don' see how the fight was stopped,I can't see James or Sirius letting up,I assume that Remus finally put an end to it.

It's not so much exactly what they did that's the problem,it's the emotional distress it created.Snape is obviously angery and upset,James and Sirius seem to be enjoying his torment,this to me is very wrong.I know alot of people will say that Snape may have been the same,but that doesn't hold to well with me either,to me it doesn't justify their actions.Harry no matter how much he hates Draco,never seems to enjoy his(or anyones) distress.But as always ,this is just my personal opinion.

So - James shows great trust in Sirius, but not in Remus.

This is the conclusion that I came too aswell.It seems that Remus was un-informed about most of the secret keeper issues.Considering how very close they were supposed to be in Hogwarts,it's very strange that he was kept out of everything.

I wouldn't put it past him,I suspect the comment was to imply to us that further things happened,but as we learn the real reason for why it's SWM,they became less relevant.I don' see how the fight was stopped,I can't see James or Sirius letting up,I assume that Remus finally put an end to it.

It's not so much exactly what they did that's the problem,it's the emotional distress it created.Snape is obviously angery and upset,James and Sirius seem to be enjoying his torment,this to me is very wrong.I know alot of people will say that Snape may have been the same,but that doesn't hold to well with me either,to me it doesn't justify their actions.Harry no matter how much he hates Draco,never seems to enjoy his(or anyones) distress.But as always ,this is just my personal opinion.

I guess it is just one's perspective. I can respect the fact that you saw it that way, I think it is understandable. I guess the difference is that I saw the whole thing as just a playground fight like one might see at a high school with the new 9th graders or 10th graders. Pantsing was so popular at my school, James' remark merely made me smile in memory. I wasn't fun when it happened to you - but we all laughed at ourselves anyway. So maybe it was just my environment was so distinct, I can't see the whole thing in any kind of real serious light. It was Snape's spell, he'd used it, everyone else was using it according to Remus, so it didn't affect my vision of James' character. But I realize and respect the fact others may see the one memory as reflective of James' total personality.


This is the conclusion that I came too aswell.It seems that Remus was un-informed about most of the secret keeper issues.Considering how very close they were supposed to be in Hogwarts,it's very strange that he was kept out of everything.

What do you mean by secret keeper issues? I respect your opinion, but we only know of 1 change that occurred in the final week. Remus was in the know about everything except the final secret keeper change and any private Order business of Sirius'. And Remus was likely keeping things from Sirius as well about his Order business. They didn't trust one another in the end because one of the four, they knew, was passing info - and both couldn't fathom it being Peter.

James wasn't mentioned, so we can only speculate what he felt. I believe Remus; he said James would have felt it was the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends - he said it as if that was not a good thing. So if James had mistrusted him, he could have been more convincing to Harry by saying, "look, even your dad knew that there were times when no one, even your best friends, could be trusted". But he didn't - he had to use the opposite ploy because James was too trusting.

Nonetheless, I don't see the impact of that on James' overall character. Even if James had doubted Remus for a week of his life (which is unlikely), we still know he was too trusting of his friends overall. Or are you saying he wasn't too trusting and Remus was wrong?

But I realize and respect the fact others may see the one memory of reflective of James' total personality.

I suppose it's just how we see it,I think acting towards someone in such a way that you make them cry( or make their distress very apparent) and then continuing to do so is just cruel ,it's just how I feel.

What do you mean by secret keeper issues? I respect your opinion, but we only know of 1 change that occurred in the final week.

Sorry I think that was a poor choice of words,maybe the 'secret keeper incident' would have been better.All I meant were the decisions in question (which I was too lazy to write),I didn't mean any big by it.

I just thought that if they had changed the plan they could have informed him,so then it might have been possible that they didn't want too,I'm just speculating.

I suppose it's just how we see it,I think acting towards someone in such a way that you make them cry( or make their distress very apparent) and then continuing to do so is just cruel ,it's just how I feel.

I can totally understand that. You know it is funny because when I first read it, my mind leaped immediately to the conclusion that they were all doing that type of thing to one another all of the time. So I didn't even really consider it in terms of James until Harry mentioned it.

I just think if James' overall character was of that sort (pick constantly on Snape and Snape never retaliated) Lily would have been more defensive of her friend. In the memories she takes sides with the Marauders and calls Snape obsessive over them.

That makes me think that James character was more Fred/George normally when it came to pranks, and the way we saw him characterwise in the memory was how he was with Snape. But I still see it as a two-way thing, so it doesn't make me think negatively of James' character.

I just think if James' overall character was of that sort (pick constantly on Snape and Snape never retaliated) Lily would have been more defensive of her friend. In the memories she takes sides with the Marauders and calls Snape obsessive over them.

No even I don't think it was one way,but James treating Snape the same(or worse ) just puts him on the same level as Snape for me,he's not better IMO.Also there's the unresolved(and never will be resolved issue) of who stared it all.Lily doesn't exactly take sides with the marauders though.

But I still see it as a two-way thing, so it doesn't make me think negatively of James' character.

It's not just because James doing these thing,I dislike this behaviour in general,so my opinion would be the same who ever it was.