The Marauders: Group Character Analysis

Remember, the Potters had to die in the scope of the story. It didn't matter what they tried to do to protect themselves, it would not have worked because JKR would have found a way to kill them - that is how the story had to go.

It wouldn't have mattered, imo, because it wouldn't have worked, they had to die for the storyline. JKR didn't want to write out a long tale of all they did, she just wanted to indicate what happened. That is why we don't have all the details. :)

:tu:

Remus agreed in DH - he thought James was too trusting. He thought Harry was too trusting too. Harry disagreed. I personally believe that distrusting your friends would be the height of dishonor, so I agree with Harry and James. :)

We have had this discussion before and I just learnt you dislike arguing in circles ;) so I'll be very brief.

I agree with you that distrusting close friends is a very dishonourable thing to do; almost like cheating actually. But then again I think the situation also matters. If it were only James then I would agree with what you say. But when it involves his wife and a small baby that cannot decide for itself; I think James cannot think independently, thinking only of his friends and his own relationship to them IMO.

To James they are best friends; what about Harry? What about the information about a traitor that one of the 3 may be? Can James just say I trust my friends and let it be? Can he just depend on Sirius and allow himself to be persuaded to do the switch? I respectfully disagree.

Though I do think James heeded Dumbledore's words, I think he did not go about them in the right manner. He went about it in the wrong way IMO.

Dumbledore told them at the time he suggested the fidelius, so I believe it was only possible for the mutual distrust between Sirius and Remus to have endured one week. Remus continued believing Sirius the spy for 12 years after that, but Sirius of course knew the truth right after the Potters were killed.

If this is true, then it is another mistake IMO. Sirius suddenly decides that Remus is the traitor and then persuaded James to do the switch and James agrees to everything without thinking it through, and without checking for himself. How do you think they decided that?

I think Sirius and Remus were suspicious of each other. McGonagall says that Dumbeldore had been suspicious of a spy in the Order for some time; and it may be possible that Sirius and Remus suspected each other for more than a week IMO.

There is also the letter Lily wrote Sirius, where she never mentions Remus. All the others including Dumnbeldore and Bathilda are mentioned. Only snape and Remus are excluded IMO.

I don't think their friendship was strained. Remus said he laughed with all of the others in the aftermath of the close encounters they had while running around where Remus nearly attacked people. I feel he would take the same stance in the aftermath of the werewolf incident; Remus also said that he disliked Snape as much as his friends did back then and I would imagine them re-creating Snape's fear and laughing about it (I don't think that is a good thing, but that is how Remus said they looked at it when they were 15).

I need to think a bit about this; I am not sure of my answr. :)

Right now, I think the Marauders were not as close most of us think IMO. I think there were a lot of cracks. James and Sirius best friends. Remus comes after Sirius. Peter no where in the picture; they make fun of him in a pretty harsh manner IMO. :)

------------------

Another thing just struck me. If Sirius thought Remus was the spy, then would he not have told Dumbeldore about it? The Order also needed that information. Argghhh! It is so confusing. :)

Did Sirius tell the Order? Tell Dumbeldore about his suspicions? Did Dumbeldore confront Remus and told him to stay away from Harry later, because of the past? What do you guys think?

We have had this discussion before and I just learnt you dislike arguing in circles ;) so I'll be very brief.

:rotfl: - If you mean my blog, I said "circular reasoning". I only dislike it because it is very difficult to explain. Arguing in circles is something else. :)

Circular reasoning is like: I think, therefore I am. Because if you "think" then "I am" is implied otherwise you couldn't think, so you are really just saying "I am, because I am". Too hard to explain, :lol:.

I agree with you that distrusting close friends is a very dishonourable thing to do; almost like cheating actually. But then again I think the situation also matters. If it were only James then I would agree with what you say. But when it involves his wife and a small baby that cannot decide for itself; I think James cannot think independently, thinking only of his friends and his own relationship to them IMO.

I don't feel James thought independently; Lily was in on all decisions too, imo. Sirius said he had to convince both. James and Lily selected from people they trusted. They just placed their trust in the wrong person. :)

To James they are best friends; what about Harry? What about the information about a traitor that one of the 3 may be? Can James just say I trust my friends and let it be? Can he just depend on Sirius and allow himself to be persuaded to do the switch? I respectfully disagree.

What if James and Lily decided to trust no one and they didn't know that they themselves could be the secret keeper. Then what could they do?

Though I do think James heeded Dumbledore's words, I think he did not go about them in the right manner. He went about it in the wrong way IMO.

Well I think in hindsight, everyone agrees that their decision to switch keepers didn't work out.

If this is true, then it is another mistake IMO. Sirius suddenly decides that Remus is the traitor and then persuaded James to do the switch and James agrees to everything without thinking it through, and without checking for himself. How do you think they decided that?

I think the only thing they had to think through was who would Voldemort approach first of James' best friends. The figured it would be Sirius or Remus, so they decided Peter would be the best secret keeper. Don't you feel that would be a good idea if Peter had been loyal? If you asked anyone in the wizard world at that time who knew the Marauders "Who will James and Lily make secret keeper of their friends?" I bet most people would say Sirius.

I think Sirius and Remus were suspicious of each other. McGonagall says that Dumbeldore had been suspicious of a spy in the Order for some time; and it may be possible that Sirius and Remus suspected each other for more than a week IMO.

Well I don't think anyone suspected anyone at all until the Potters had moved a couple of times and their location discovered. We don't know how long they had been at Godric's Hallow, but Lily wrote the letter from there after Harry's birthday - likely in August, and two months later they were killed.

There is also the letter Lily wrote Sirius, where she never mentions Remus. All the others including Dumnbeldore and Bathilda are mentioned. Only snape and Remus are excluded IMO.

Don't you feel that Remus gave Harry a small present too? Lily likely wrote him as well. It is possible that Sirius and Remus were together on a mission at the time, so there was no need to mention Remus. My impression was Lily likely just sent the letters to their homes so they would have it when they returned from missions.

Right now, I think the Marauders were not as close most of us think IMO. I think there were a lot of cracks. James and Sirius best friends. Remus comes after Sirius. Peter no where in the picture; they make fun of him in a pretty harsh manner IMO. :)

James, Sirius and Peter cared for Remus enough to be animagi for him and it took them 3 years to do it. I would say that they would have to all be quite close and tight to go to such lengths. Remus called them "great friends" in POA and they had nicknames for one another that they continued to use as adults. I would opine that they were all very close, and James and Sirius even more so.

Did Sirius tell the Order? Tell Dumbeldore about his suspicions? Did Dumbeldore confront Remus and told him to stay away from Harry later, because of the past? What do you guys think?

Dumbledore believed the spy was Sirius after the Potters died. Why would he think Remus was also the spy?

:rotfl: - If you mean my blog, I said "circular reasoning". I only dislike it because it is very difficult to explain. Arguing in circles is something else. :)

Circular reasoning is like: I think, therefore I am. Because if you "think" then "I am" is implied otherwise you couldn't think, so you are really just saying "I am, because I am". Too hard to explain, :lol:.

Ahh, I have misunderstood you. ;) :lol: I am sorry for that and no, I did not understand what you meant by circular reasoning. I think it is different from what we are doing, yes? :D

I don't feel James thought independently; Lily was in on all decisions too, imo. Sirius said he had to convince both. James and Lily selected from people they trusted. They just placed their trust in the wrong person. :)

I agree; only I add, without checking IMO.

What if James and Lily decided to trust no one and they didn't know that they themselves could be the secret keeper. Then what could they do?

Go to Dumbledore. It was not as if they were alone. There was Dumbeldore. He was the one who got them this information in the first place. Go to him IMO.

Well I think in hindsight, everyone agrees that their decision to switch keepers didn't work out.

I agree. But the most important thing for me in hindsight is, when I look back at my actions, would I have acted in the same way. If yes, was the answer, then in hindsight, I don't feel guilty, don't feel bad for the outcome, even if the said outcome was bad IMO. But if I could have changed so many things and could have made the outcome so much better, then it is my wrong choices that have landed me in this predicament, and I have only myself to blame. Like Snape, like Dumbeldore (people who repented and people who probably wished at least a few times everyday that they could turn back the clock so that they could choose differently; like Sirius for persuading James and Lily, without any proof that Remus was the traitor, and had James lived by a miracle and Lily died, like James too, who would have repented everyday that he should have made the right choices) IMO.

What I am trying to say here, is their choices were not the best choices in a given situation. They were not choices that had to be taken; choices that were actually not choices at all; the situation was not like that; James and Lily had a choice, had many choices in fact; only they chose wrongly IMO.

I think the only thing they had to think through was who would Voldemort approach first of James' best friends. The figured it would be Sirius or Remus, so they decided Peter would be the best secret keeper. Don't you feel that would be a good idea if Peter had been loyal? If you asked anyone in the wizard world at that time who knew the Marauders "Who will James and Lily make secret keeper of their friends?" I bet most people would say Sirius.

The best idea IMO would have been Dumbeldore or a witch or wizard the other 3 had not seen at all, like Moody, McGonagall, Diggle etc. They had the mirrors; they could keep in touch with each other with that. All the 3 friends were known to Voldemort and many other DEs. Voldemort would have moved against all of them IMO. But if they never knew the secret, then they could not betray James & Co. at all IMO. Voldemort would naturally assume the SK to be Dumbeldore and fume, but would not be able to do anything else IMO.

Don't you feel that Remus gave Harry a small present too? Lily likely wrote him as well. It is possible that Sirius and Remus were together on a mission at the time, so there was no need to mention Remus. My impression was Lily likely just sent the letters to their homes so they would have it when they returned from missions.

Per haps he did, but with what we have in DH and the conversation in POA, it looks like Remus was suspected a little before the last week, when the Fidelus was cast IMO.

James, Sirius and Peter cared for Remus enough to be animagi for him and it took them 3 years to do it. I would say that they would have to all be quite close and tight to go to such lengths. Remus called them "great friends" in POA and they had nicknames for one another that they continued to use as adults. I would opine that they were all very close, and James and Sirius even more so.

Yes, I agree, but I am begining to think that their friendship developed cracks from the werewolf incident. Gosh! I think the werewolf memory/incident was very important for many reason and affected the lives of many people IMO.

Dumbledore believed the spy was Sirius after the Potters died. Why would he think Remus was also the spy?

No, what I meant was, if Sirius had doubted Remus, did he go to Dumbeldore and warn him. He should have, should he not? The same goes for Remus IMO. And James. The Order too, needed to know about the traitor and take measures against him. But none of them tell the Order or Dumbeldore, which IMO is another mark against them, for it looks as if they did not care about the Order members IMO.

Unless Remus shared his suspicions with Dumbeldore and that was why Dumbeldore was worried even when James swore by Sirius IMO.

But after the switch was made, why did not Sirius tell Dumbeldore about the traitor, whom he thought was Remus?

If James did not know and believe that Remus was the traitor, then James is guilty of a few things. 1) He has not made the effort to flush out the spy and like my posts long back, he was guily of allowing the traitor to spy on him. In a situation like the one they were living in, James simply not doing anything to protect himself from the traitor, when the said traitor was someone close to them (and I mean everyone close from Order members, Bathilda Bagshot and the 3 friends) he and Lily were pretty careless with the life of his child; that he put something else be it trust, friendship or whatever over it IMO.

You are being a bit harsh on James there, I mean agreed that he had full knowledge of the fact that they had a spy but what could James do...he was trapped in his house in Godric Hollow and had limited connectivity with the outside world to do anything that would help him track down the rat. For he trusted whoever was really close to him and he couldn't just start acting oddly towards them...moreover the fact that a spy was real close to him was known only a week before he went into complete hiding (Secret Keeper)...and its not that nothing was being done about it...Dumbledore would have been working on it...but the truth is, when it comes down to finding out the traitor amongst your own people its a real hard thing to do. :sigh:


That would mean he loved Lily and Harry less than he trusted his friends.
I don't get the logic of that...I mean they are entirely different aspects to be compared like that...there is no doubt that James loved his family more than anything in the world...but he also didn't like the fact that one of his close friends, who had been with him for more than the time he had his family, would betray him. He had to decide on whom to trust and who not to and in the end he trusted Sirius....his closest and best mate...so eventually all that he did was perfectly right for a man in his position.

The mistake that he made was take Sirius's word and make the switch...he showed disrespect towards Lupin by taking Sirius's word against him, which eventually proved fatal...but otherwise I don't see any error in his judgment. :no:

I think James took seriously the threat of a spy, and coupled with Sirius's suspicions agreed and made the switch IMO.

I don't understand why would he switch the SK for the fear of a Spy...if there was a spy then it was even more of a reason not to trust anyone....for James trusted Sirius enough to know that he would rather die than betray the secret which IMO was more than enough to stick with Sirius...clearly the switch was Sirius's stunt of defying Voldemort and nothing else...

It's in his nature, as I see it. Remus doesn't consider himself worthy to be in anyone's life. He never pushes himself into the limelight.*

And what else can you expect from him, with the curse of being a werewolf and all, he lost all his close friends because they suspected him to be a spy, what else can be more devastating to a person...

Remus and Harry were getting close in PoA but we don't really see him or hear from him in GoF.

One reason for that can be the werewolf fiasco at the end of PoA where he started considering himself a threat for Harry and all...similar to what he must have felt in his early life before Sirius and James showed him otherwise...:sigh:

No, what I meant was, if Sirius had doubted Remus, did he go to Dumbeldore and warn him. He should have, should he not? The same goes for Remus IMO. And James. The Order too, needed to know about the traitor and take measures against him. But none of them tell the Order or Dumbeldore, which IMO is another mark against them, for it looks as if they did not care about the Order members IMO.


You know on this point, as far as I remember, a healthy discussion had taken place long back and Meesha (if I am not wrong) had given a wonderful explanation on the whole event. What she had said was that once it was known that someone very close to the Potters was the spy, then what happened was Peter convinced Sirius that Remus was the rat...for Peter under Voldemort's order knew that it was Sirius only who could somehow convince the Potters to make him the Secret Keeper...once Sirius started believing that Remus was the rat, he convinced James and then further convinced him to make the switch...so basically the whole thing was set up by Voldemort using Peter and Sirius...also its relevance here is that, it would be Peter who would be telling Dumbledore about the switch (as he was the secret keeper and needed to tell Dumbledore the secret of where to find the Potters) and about the suspicion on Remus...which he conveniently forgets so that Voldemort has a clear shot and the entire blame goes on Sirius who would be proclaimed Secret Keeper and would be gone into Hiding....

Go to Dumbledore. It was not as if they were alone. There was Dumbeldore. He was the one who got them this information in the first place. Go to him IMO.
I think DH sort of explain why they didn't, though. They had been getting information about Dumbledore that would have been slightly unsettling, as it was to Harry, enough to perhaps leave their trust for Dumbledore slightly shaken. The information that Dumbledore had once nearly meddled with the Dark Arts would have been a huge blow at this point when it wasn't safe to trust people too blindly. I'm sure they still trusted him, but not as whole-heartedly as they did before, perhaps.



What I am trying to say here, is their choices were not the best choices in a given situation. They were not choices that had to be taken; choices that were actually not choices at all; the situation was not like that; James and Lily had a choice, had many choices in fact; only they chose wrongly IMO.
To be fair, in hindsight these things are always much more obvious than they are at the time of the decision making. Of course now we think "Peter was obviously the culprit! Look at how he was at Hogwarts" but to one of his best friends, it wouldn't even be an option. If James and Lily were to suspect anyone, I'm sure they would have suspected other people within the Order so their choice to use Peter as Secret Keeper seemed as safe a choice as choosing Dumbledore would have been.



The best idea IMO would have been Dumbeldore or a witch or wizard the other 3 had not seen at all, like Moody, McGonagall, Diggle etc. They had the mirrors; they could keep in touch with each other with that. All the 3 friends were known to Voldemort and many other DEs. Voldemort would have moved against all of them IMO. But if they never knew the secret, then they could not betray James & Co. at all IMO. Voldemort would naturally assume the SK to be Dumbeldore and fume, but would not be able to do anything else IMO.
I think if I were in James and Lily's position, I would never dream of putting my family's life in the hands of someone I don't know too well when someone who is like family is there to offer. The traitor could well have been Moody or McGonagall or Diggle, too - and James and Lily probably suspected someone like them considering they were in the order and therefore in a position to leak information to DEs, but they weren't close enough to the Potters to escape suspicion. From an outsider who knows who is the guilty party it's extremely easy to point out a million better decisions than the one that was carried out; but looking at it from their point of view, Sirius's plan was extremely good and nearly foolproof - if Peter had only been loyal.


No, what I meant was, if Sirius had doubted Remus, did he go to Dumbeldore and warn him. He should have, should he not? The same goes for Remus IMO. And James. The Order too, needed to know about the traitor and take measures against him. But none of them tell the Order or Dumbeldore, which IMO is another mark against them, for it looks as if they did not care about the Order members IMO.
I don't think Sirius actively suspected Remus. By that I mean he trusted Remus, but when it came down to a process of elimination, between Remus and Peter he felt Remus the more capable of the two of being a spy and so he entertained the idea of Remus being a spy and followed the hunch. I think Remus felt the same way about Sirius; it was against logic to suspect Sirius, but because Peter didn't seem powerful enough to be a spy, he used the process of elimination.

I think DH sort of explain why they didn't, though. They had been getting information about Dumbledore that would have been slightly unsettling, as it was to Harry, enough to perhaps leave their trust for Dumbledore slightly shaken. The information that Dumbledore had once nearly meddled with the Dark Arts would have been a huge blow at this point when it wasn't safe to trust people too blindly. I'm sure they still trusted him, but not as whole-heartedly as they did before, perhaps.*
Thats a nice point there...surely the Potters would have become friends with Bathilda and would have learned quite a bit about Dumbledore, but I don't see them doubting him as a spy, for the respect they had for him was way too much to give in to.

I don't think Sirius actively suspected Remus. By that I mean he trusted Remus, but when it came down to a process of elimination, between Remus and Peter he felt Remus the more capable of the two of being a spy and so he entertained the idea of Remus being a spy and followed the hunch. I think Remus felt the same way about Sirius; it was against logic to suspect Sirius, but because Peter didn't seem powerful enough to be a spy, he used the process of elimination.*
Thats a very lucid way of putting things up. :tu:

In all honesty, I cannot blame James for not listening to Dumbledore when he said a traitor was close to him. James loved his friends and had known them for ten years. How many people are that easy to jump to the idea that someone they had known that long would be assisting Voldemort in getting them dead? When Harry was told that there was likely a traitor close to him, he had the same reaction that James did. It isn't arrogance, IMO. It's called trust.

In all honesty, I cannot blame James for not listening to Dumbledore when he said a traitor was close to him. James loved his friends and had known them for ten years. How many people are that easy to jump to the idea that someone they had known that long would be assisting Voldemort in getting them dead? When Harry was told that there was likely a traitor close to him, he had the same reaction that James did. It isn't arrogance, IMO. It's called trust.:tu: :agree: :clap:

I don't get the logic of that...I mean they are entirely different aspects to be compared like that...there is no doubt that James loved his family more than anything in the world...but he also didn't like the fact that one of his close friends, who had been with him for more than the time he had his family, would betray him. He had to decide on whom to trust and who not to and in the end he trusted Sirius....his closest and best mate...so eventually all that he did was perfectly right for a man in his position.

Yes, but just because he hated the fact that one of his close friends could be a traitor, could James simply ignore it or go about it in the wrong way? That is where I feel he should have verified IMO. The problem was not in trusting sirius, because james was more than confident, more sure than his own life, that Sirius would not betray him; the problem was when they made the switch; James did not feel that way about Peter; then when he did not feel the way he felt about Sirius, I think James should have checked or told Sirius to check Peter for the dark mark or with the veritaserum IMO.

The mistake that he made was take Sirius's word and make the switch...he showed disrespect towards Lupin by taking Sirius's word against him, which eventually proved fatal...but otherwise I don't see any error in his judgment. :no:

What you have said is the error of judgement IMO, for which they paid with their lives. :)

I don't understand why would he switch the SK for the fear of a Spy...if there was a spy then it was even more of a reason not to trust anyone....for James trusted Sirius enough to know that he would rather die than betray the secret which IMO was more than enough to stick with Sirius...clearly the switch was Sirius's stunt of defying Voldemort and nothing else...

The switch was to keep Remus out IMO, so that he would not come into Godric's Hollow and take Harry away to Voldmeort. While Remus could not reveal the secret as long as he was not SK, he could still cause harm, as long as he had access to GH was my theory. :)

And what else can you expect from him, with the curse of being a werewolf and all, he lost all his close friends because they suspected him to be a spy, what else can be more devastating to a person...

And it was because he was devastated by the lack of trust and felt betrayed that I believe he did not go to meet Harry.

You know on this point, as far as I remember, a healthy discussion had taken place long back and Meesha (if I am not wrong) had given a wonderful explanation on the whole event. What she had said was that once it was known that someone very close to the Potters was the spy, then what happened was Peter convinced Sirius that Remus was the rat...for Peter under Voldemort's order knew that it was Sirius only who could somehow convince the Potters to make him the Secret Keeper...once Sirius started believing that Remus was the rat, he convinced James and then further convinced him to make the switch...so basically the whole thing was set up by Voldemort using Peter and Sirius...also its relevance here is that, it would be Peter who would be telling Dumbledore about the switch (as he was the secret keeper and needed to tell Dumbledore the secret of where to find the Potters) and about the suspicion on Remus...which he conveniently forgets so that Voldemort has a clear shot and the entire blame goes on Sirius who would be proclaimed Secret Keeper and would be gone into Hiding....

But canon (POA) does not say Peter was responsible for this. Sirius acknowledges that he did suspect Remus and Remus, Sirius IMO.

In all honesty, I cannot blame James for not listening to Dumbledore when he said a traitor was close to him. James loved his friends and had known them for ten years. How many people are that easy to jump to the idea that someone they had known that long would be assisting Voldemort in getting them dead? When Harry was told that there was likely a traitor close to him, he had the same reaction that James did. It isn't arrogance, IMO. It's called trust.

I agree with you; to not trust close friends is the height of disrespect that can be shown to them IMO. But at that point of time it was not the trust of James that was an issue, but Harry's life. The choice was between trusting his friends whom he knew for over 10 years and acting upon an information that Dumbledore brought them; that one of the 3 may be a traitor. I feel James and Lily should have chosen their child over trusting their friends, simply because there was information that one friend should not be trusted. James, by saying he trusted Sirius and then by allowing himself to be persuaded by Sirius to make the switch, all because of suspicions rather than facts, says that he chose wrongly and did not take the right steps to protect his family IMO.

Sirius was just as pig-headed at the time, and we know he changed. Is it really that hard to believe that James was capable of maturing as well? Besides, we already have the biggest proof that James did mature - Lily married him. Knowing what a feisty, stand-up-for-what-she-believes-in type of girl she is, I just can't imagine why she would decide to go out with James if he hadn't. :)

See, that's the question I have been asking. In what way did James mature? How did he change?

And I am not sure Sirius changed either. He felt no remorse to his actions in the werewolf prank IMO. I am not sure James changed as well.

And I would not say that Lily marrying James should be used as a yardstick for measuring James's maturity. I think Lily fell in love and she married James. It was love that brought her to him; not his qualities, if they are supposed to be made for each other and soulmates and all that IMO.

Love does not come seeing quality IMO. That for me would be liking. I would say to like is because of; and to love is in spite of, despite something. That for me is true love.

That is what Snape felt for Lily; he lover her despite the fact she did not love him and she married a man he disliked. Snape could not stop loving her after she broke off with him, nor could he start hating her for marrying James IMO.

Like wise, I think Lily married James, because she happened to fall in love with him. That IMO does not say anything about James.

The problem was not in trusting sirius, because james was more than confident, more sure than his own life, that Sirius would not betray him; the problem was when they made the switch; James did not feel that way about Peter; then when he did not feel the way he felt about Sirius, I think James should have checked or told Sirius to check Peter for the dark mark or with the veritaserum IMO.

How do you know that James did not trust Peter completely? Yes, he and Sirius were closest, but he trusted all of the Marauders. I doubt that Sirius had been telling James and Lily about his suspicions in regard to Remus in advance. He probably warned them and convinced them to go with Peter the day they made the switch. Moreover, what proof did Dumbledore have? He suspected someone close to the Potters, that is all. If James and Lily knew about his time with Grindelwald by then, it's very understandable that they questioned his judgement before questioning their friends.

Ahh, I have misunderstood you. ;) :lol: I am sorry for that and no, I did not understand what you meant by circular reasoning. I think it is different from what we are doing, yes? :D

Correct. No worries. :)

Go to Dumbledore. It was not as if they were alone. There was Dumbeldore. He was the one who got them this information in the first place. Go to him IMO.

I meant trust no one at all, not even Dumbledore. In my view, they could have portkeyed off to the Americas; gone underground and garnered the protection of the werewolves; become friendly with the Centaurs and hid in the forest by way of James' Animagi form; searched the world for another brilliant wizard like Dumbledore/Voldemort and asked him to protect them. So in real life, the options were unlimited. But we come back to the same problem every time: JKR wanted them to die. So nothing I have proposed would have worked either.

I agree. But the most important thing for me in hindsight is, when I look back at my actions, would I have acted in the same way. If yes, was the answer, then in hindsight, I don't feel guilty, don't feel bad for the outcome, even if the said outcome was bad IMO. But if I could have changed so many things and could have made the outcome so much better, then it is my wrong choices that have landed me in this predicament, and I have only myself to blame. Like Snape, like Dumbeldore (people who repented and people who probably wished at least a few times everyday that they could turn back the clock so that they could choose differently; like Sirius for persuading James and Lily, without any proof that Remus was the traitor, and had James lived by a miracle and Lily died, like James too, who would have repented everyday that he should have made the right choices) IMO.

I agree that James and Lily probably stood in the afterworld and wished that they had not selected Peter, but they understood that a greater being was in control of their destiny (JKR) and they had been fated to die. But they had trusted Sirius, Remus and Peter and I don't think they regretted their trust, they simply regretted that Voldemort had gotten to Peter and Snape.

What I am trying to say here, is their choices were not the best choices in a given situation. They were not choices that had to be taken; choices that were actually not choices at all; the situation was not like that; James and Lily had a choice, had many choices in fact; only they chose wrongly IMO.

But we can only say that in hindsight because their plan failed. It is not fair to judge in hindsight in this case because we were not given any details. What if James and Lily had given all of their friends Veritaserum, but Voldemort helped Peter defeat the potion? We just don't know and I feel it is unfair to judge based on our guesses.

The best idea IMO would have been Dumbeldore or a witch or wizard the other 3 had not seen at all, like Moody, McGonagall, Diggle etc. They had the mirrors; they could keep in touch with each other with that. All the 3 friends were known to Voldemort and many other DEs. Voldemort would have moved against all of them IMO. But if they never knew the secret, then they could not betray James & Co. at all IMO. Voldemort would naturally assume the SK to be Dumbeldore and fume, but would not be able to do anything else IMO.

Why would they place their trust in people they didn't know as well? Again, I believe this is hindsight judgment because you are naming a lot of people that we know were not Voldemort's men. But what if they had gone with Moody and it had turned out to be Crouch Jr.? That was the mistake that Dumbledore made later and he never checked on all of his professors with Veritaserum even though he knew something was wrong (Harry's name in the cup). Or did he check and we just don't have it on page? I think it is a similar situation, do you see what I mean?

But mostly, nothing would have worked, so any plan you have that you think would have worked better, JKR would have found a way to kill them anyway. :)

Yes, I agree, but I am begining to think that their friendship developed cracks from the werewolf incident. Gosh! I think the werewolf memory/incident was very important for many reason and affected the lives of many people IMO.

Well if that idea makes you happy then I feel you have every right to believe it. Personally, there is too much canon for me to consider it; I feel canon shows they were the best of friends for a very long time after the incident. I even feel that Peter loved his friends, but felt a bit sidelined at times. I don't think his friends even realized it and Peter never said anything. So he was lulled by Voldemort, the bigger man on the block, who also wanted to be his friend. I feel it made him feel special. But it is interesting to note that Peter never said one negative word against his old friends in POA when they discovered him. Not one.

No, what I meant was, if Sirius had doubted Remus, did he go to Dumbeldore and warn him. He should have, should he not? The same goes for Remus IMO. And James. The Order too, needed to know about the traitor and take measures against him. But none of them tell the Order or Dumbeldore, which IMO is another mark against them, for it looks as if they did not care about the Order members IMO.

How do you know they did not speak to Dumbledore and James & Lily of their fears? I would imagine they did. Dumbledore suspected everyone, imo. James suspected none of them and I believe that is when he told them both, individually: "I would find it the height of dishonor to distrust any of you." So Sirius and Remus would both be chastened and realize that it was a no go with James. I feel Lily felt the same way because her letter indicated that she was having a hard time believing the tales about Dumbledore. But I think eventually she and James lost some faith in Dumbledore.

But after the switch was made, why did not Sirius tell Dumbeldore about the traitor, whom he thought was Remus?

I feel he had already told him, but Dumbledore didn't do anything about that because he suspected them all. At the same time, he knew it was not all of them and he had reasons for trusting all of them as well; they had worked at his side for many years. It would seem that Peter was able to fool everyone.

See, that's the question I have been asking. In what way did James mature? How did he change?

I don't understand what exactly you're trying to ask. :) Canon already states that James deflated his head and shed some of his arrogance and conceit. He stopped hexing people randomly just for fun and was selected Head Boy. I see it as a huge change from SWM; he just grew up IMO. Usually a healthy dose of reality is enough to bring one down from the pedestal they've set themselves upon. That is a clear cut change in my view.

And I am not sure Sirius changed either. He felt no remorse to his actions in the werewolf prank IMO. I am not sure James changed as well.

Sirius had some issues of his own that he needed to deal with, but honestly, can you blame him? He lost what he considered his entire family and was stuck in Azkaban for twelve years, forced to face the consequences of his actions (convincing James and Lily to switch the SK). Frankly, I found him remarkably level-headed, in spite of all he went through. That said, there is a streak of recklessness in him that still persisted throughout the years and into adulthood.

Coming back to his teenage years, I don't think I can objectively state that he felt no remorse for the werewolf prank. It's highly complicated, but I feel that it's possible he could have been ashamed of his actions and yet, his loathing of Snape (remember they don't stop hexing each other in seventh year, and remain to be mutual enemies) could have conflicted with that. I am aware that he stated harshly in PoA about how Snape deserved that prank because he kept poking his nose into their business, trying to get them in trouble, but that, instead of trying to show that Sirius was an intentionally cruel person and a potential murderer, simply opened my eyes to the extent of mutual enmity between them. That said, Sirius could have been aware that Snape had joined the Death Eater ranks and had been actively working for Voldemort before he went to Azkaban (I'm not sure he knew Snape had turned back to the Light, but even if he did, I think Sirius would have been highly contemptuous and disbelieving), and that might have further fueled his hatred towards Snape. It's not that hard to believe that all these things might have contributed to Sirius's feeling (in PoA) that Snape had deserved that prank.

Like I said, it's all very complicated IMO. I happen to think Sirius is a very complex character and all the little nuances and shades of his character are important as well. That said, even if he did not feel any remorse for the werewolf prank (which completely nullifies my argument above :p), I can still see a big difference between SWM Sirius and PoA- and post PoA-Sirius. SWM Sirius had many of the same flaws James had; he was arrogant, thought he was on top of the world, hexed people just for fun, was a bully. We can discount most of these flaws in adult Sirius; he did not flaunt his brilliance or show off his wizarding skills at every opportunity (frankly, that wouldn't have seemed quite adult-like, IMO, further proving to me that it was simply a matter of growing up), nor did he consider himself to be the best in everything or show extreme arrogance. It really does seem to me like a simple matter of growing up.

I am not sure James changed as well. And I would not say that Lily marrying James should be used as a yardstick for measuring James's maturity. I think Lily fell in love and she married James. It was love that brought her to him; not his qualities, if they are supposed to be made for each other and soulmates and all that IMO. Love does not come seeing quality IMO. That for me would be liking. I would say to like is because of; and to love is in spite of, despite something. That for me is true love. That is what Snape felt for Lily; he lover her despite the fact she did not love him and she married a man he disliked. Snape could not stop loving her after she broke off with him, nor could he start hating her for marrying James IMO. Like wise, I think Lily married James, because she happened to fall in love with him. That IMO does not say anything about James.

I think 'like' has to take place first before it turns to 'love'. :lol: From what we see in SWM and can also glean from JKR's interview, Lily had a sort-of crush on James but absolutely despised him for his pigheadedness. She stated herself that she wouldn't go out with him if there was a choice between him and the giant Squid, and she seems the type of girl to me who takes her words seriously. Once James grew up though, I can see her giving him a chance and getting to know him, liking him, and then falling in love with him; it usually doesn't take place within a few minutes. All in my opinion, of course, but that's how I see it. :)

BTW, thanks for bringing this to the Marauder thread. I think the discussion (especially about Sirius) fits better here than in the James thread.

Sirius had some issues of his own that he needed to deal with, but honestly, can you blame him? He lost what he considered his entire family and was stuck in Azkaban for twelve years, forced to face the consequences of his actions (convincing James and Lily to switch the SK). Frankly, I found him remarkably level-headed, in spite of all he went through. That said, there is a streak of recklessness in him that still persisted throughout the years and into adulthood.

Coming back to his teenage years, I don't think I can objectively state that he felt no remorse for the werewolf prank. It's highly complicated, but I feel that it's possible he could have been ashamed of his actions and yet, his loathing of Snape (remember they don't stop hexing each other in seventh year, and remain to be mutual enemies) could have conflicted with that. I am aware that he stated harshly in PoA about how Snape deserved that prank because he kept poking his nose into their business, trying to get them in trouble, but that, instead of trying to show that Sirius was an intentionally cruel person and a potential murderer, simply opened my eyes to the extent of mutual enmity between them. That said, Sirius could have been aware that Snape had joined the Death Eater ranks and had been actively working for Voldemort before he went to Azkaban (I'm not sure he knew Snape had turned back to the Light, but even if he did, I think Sirius would have been highly contemptuous and disbelieving), and that might have further fueled his hatred towards Snape. It's not that hard to believe that all these things might have contributed to Sirius's feeling (in PoA) that Snape had deserved that prank.

Like I said, it's all very complicated IMO. I happen to think Sirius is a very complex character and all the little nuances and shades of his character are important as well. That said, even if he did not feel any remorse for the werewolf prank (which completely nullifies my argument above :p), I can still see a big difference between SWM Sirius and PoA- and post PoA-Sirius. SWM Sirius had many of the same flaws James had; he was arrogant, thought he was on top of the world, hexed people just for fun, was a bully. We can discount most of these flaws in adult Sirius; he did not flaunt his brilliance or show off his wizarding skills at every opportunity (frankly, that wouldn't have seemed quite adult-like, IMO, further proving to me that it was simply a matter of growing up), nor did he consider himself to be the best in everything or show extreme arrogance. It really does seem to me like a simple matter of growing up.

I think that is an extremely good analysis. :)

Honestly, when I first read POA, I was listening to Sirius and Remus tell their tale of days of old and I thought it was pretty exciting. When Sirius said, 'he deserved it' - I agreed with him within the context of his viewpoint. Snape hadn't died, in fact, nothing had happened to him at all; he'd just gotten a scare and I assumed he meant, Snape deserved what he had gotten. I've discussed it a lot since then, but I am realizing now that my young mind got it right and I feel that is what Sirius meant.

Sirius did not have a Death Eater mentality ever - so that was not something he was working through. He didn't want to see undeserving people die, but in terms of Lupin's tale he felt Snape deserved a scare because in his youth, Snape had been molesting them. I think if Snape had died, Sirius would have sung a different tune. :)

I think that is an extremely good analysis.

Thanks! :)

Honestly, when I first read POA, I was listening to Sirius and Remus tell their tale of days of old and I thought it was pretty exciting. When Sirius said, 'he deserved it' - I agreed with him within the context of his viewpoint. Snape hadn't died, in fact, nothing had happened to him at all; he'd just gotten a scare and I assumed he meant, Snape deserved what he had gotten. I've discussed it a lot since then, but I am realizing now that my young mind got it right and I feel that is what Sirius meant. Sirius did not have a Death Eater mentality ever - so that was not something he was working through. He didn't want to see undeserving people die, but in terms of Lupin's tale he felt Snape deserved a scare because in his youth, Snape had been molesting them. I think if Snape had died, Sirius would have sung a different tune.

Incidentally, this is how I saw it as well, especially when I read PoA years back. I agree with you about how Sirius would probably have regretted making his prank if Snape had been killed; I don't think those were his intentions at all. He had most likely been intending to give Snape a scare, simply to shake him so that he would butt out of their business. However, he should have realised how wrong it could have all gone, again, his streak of recklessness shows. It doesn't excuse him of his behaviour, but it does show IMO that he was not a deliberately bad person or with Death Eater like tendencies, like you said. :tu:

I think DH sort of explain why they didn't, though. They had been getting information about Dumbledore that would have been slightly unsettling, as it was to Harry, enough to perhaps leave their trust for Dumbledore slightly shaken. The information that Dumbledore had once nearly meddled with the Dark Arts would have been a huge blow at this point when it wasn't safe to trust people too blindly. I'm sure they still trusted him, but not as whole-heartedly as they did before, perhaps.


Bathida Bagshot, herself was not aware of the whole story at the time GG and DD were friends; and I think she would have told James and Lily exactly that IMO. She would have told Lily and James stories about Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald because that is what they were at that time; not aspiring dark lords. They were just very good friends in her opinion and would have also told them that once day they had a fight and then GG left, never to return again. We ourselves learned the other details from Dumbeldore and Aberforth only. Even his idea of greater good could not be taken in the wrong way by either the Potters or Bagshot, becuase Dumbeldore defeated GG in an epic battle. That was a fact no one could refuse as was the fact that Dumbeldore was the leader in the war against Voldemort IMO.

They may have wondered at his friendship with GG, but would have concluded that Dumbeldore learned the truth about GG and confronted him. GG left.

The other reason this may not be very important was because James trusted Dumbeldore to give him his invisibility cloak and allowed Dumbeldore to access their home; Hagrid came on Dumbeldore's orders to GH, because Dumbledore was able to know about their deaths. That he would have known only if he had some kind of a charm that would inform him if the wards fell or anything like that IMO.

They may have speculated about his friendship with GG, but I don't think they suspected him IMO.

Another reason for this is, Sirius allows Hagrid to take Harry away. Now if James, Lily and Sirius suspected Dumbeldore, Sirius, especially after the death of James, would never hand Harry over to Hagrid, who was there only on Dumbledore's orders IMO.

I agree that James and Lily probably stood in the afterworld and wished that they had not selected Peter, but they understood that a greater being was in control of their destiny (JKR) and they had been fated to die. But they had trusted Sirius, Remus and Peter and I don't think they regretted their trust, they simply regretted that Voldemort had gotten to Peter and Snape.

:lol:

Why would they place their trust in people they didn't know as well? Again, I believe this is hindsight judgment because you are naming a lot of people that we know were not Voldemort's men. But what if they had gone with Moody and it had turned out to be Crouch Jr.? That was the mistake that Dumbledore made later and he never checked on all of his professors with Veritaserum even though he knew something was wrong (Harry's name in the cup). Or did he check and we just don't have it on page? I think it is a similar situation, do you see what I mean?

:tu:


But mostly, nothing would have worked, so any plan you have that you think would have worked better, JKR would have found a way to kill them anyway. :)

:lol: :lol:

Well if that idea makes you happy then I feel you have every right to believe it. Personally, there is too much canon for me to consider it; I feel canon shows they were the best of friends for a very long time after the incident. I even feel that Peter loved his friends, but felt a bit sidelined at times. I don't think his friends even realized it and Peter never said anything. So he was lulled by Voldemort, the bigger man on the block, who also wanted to be his friend. I feel it made him feel special. But it is interesting to note that Peter never said one negative word against his old friends in POA when they discovered him. Not one.

This I respectfully disagree with. I definitely don't think Peter loved his friends at all. That would re-write the meaning of love for me. Peter was a tag along, who refused to move away even when he was spoken to badly (SWM), until the bloody rat thought he had a more powerful protector in Voldmeort and took off after him. He probably sat there in Godric's Hollow, until the very last day, playing with Harry, chatting and laughting with James and eating the food Lily cooked him and then went and told Voldmeort the secret. If he had even liked his friends, he would not do that, let alone loved them IMO.

I don't understand what exactly you're trying to ask. :)

Well, you have given an account of deflating his head and maturing enough to become Head Boy; I agree with you on that, because James could hardly go around hexing people for the fun of it when he was 18 or so years. And yet they still did that with Snape IMO.

But leaving aside Snape and the hex wars; how and in what way did James change as a person was what I was asking. I cannot say he developed into a good friend, a man who chose to fight for the Light and eschewed the dark; he was all this before the SWM, was what I meant. :)

How do you know that James did not trust Peter completely?

The very fact Sirius had to persuade James to make the switch suggests to me that James did not see Peter in the same light as Sirius.

Dumbledore suspected one of the 3 friends, because Fudge says, Voldmeort was receiving information about the Potters movements and some one in the Order was providing that. The moment the Potters went under the Fidelus with only 3 friends + Dumbeldore knowing about the secret, they were safe from any other traitor apart from these 3 freinds in the Order IMO.

Then they made the switch, which Dumbledore and Remus were not aware of; which means they either thought Dumbeldore or Remus to be the traitor. Dumbeldore was not because 1) he still had the invisibility cloak, which James trusted him to have; 2) Dumbeldore had some way of knowing if any harm would come to the Potters (Sending Hagrid) by means of a spell which James allowed him to Place on them or on their house, and 3) Sirius allowed Hagrid, Dumbeldore's representative to walk away with Harry, which he surely would not have done, if James though of Dumbledore as the spy IMO.

Snape hadn't died, in fact, nothing had happened to him at all; he'd just gotten a scare and I assumed he meant, Snape deserved what he had gotten.

If Sirius assumed Snape deserved what he got, then that reflects Sirius in a very, very poor light IMO. Can Sirius actually justify that another student, how much ever of a nuisance he may have been deserved to be bitten or killed? And yet Sirius never seems to feel any remorse for his actions IMO.

Sirius sent Snape into the shack knowing there was a werewolf and Snape could get bitten or killed IMO. So if Sirius would feel remorse and repentance only if someone died because of his actions, and did not care about his actions if those affected by them lived, I really don't know what to say of Sirius.

Sirius did not have a Death Eater mentality ever - so that was not something he was working through. He didn't want to see undeserving people die, but in terms of Lupin's tale he felt Snape deserved a scare because in his youth, Snape had been molesting them. I think if Snape had died, Sirius would have sung a different tune. :)

But are you saying that Sirius had the right to decide who could live and who could die (for Sirius's actions could have resulted in a death)? That Sirius could decide who deserved death and life?

Then would you say Snape's had the right too and he need not feel for James or for any others he may have harmed, because he disliked James and muggles at the time he was a DE? And that Voldemort and Bellatrix were justified in killing muggleborns because they felt that all muggles and muggleborns deserved to die IMO.

I respectfully disagree with you wicked!!

I actually think Sirius as culpable as Snape and think less of Sirius, because he never feels remorse for his actions that would have harmed not only a boy he hated, but also a friend he considered very close IMO.

The remorse I think Sirius should feel for his actions, not for Snape's death; just like for Snape I used to say and still feel the same; remorse is not for the other person; it is IMO for one's own actions that harmed another. Snape could have lived, died, got bitten or whatever. Sirius's remorse should have been for his own actions that were not correct IMO.

And I also respectfully disagree with Snape deserving a scare that could have killed him or turned him into a werewolf because he was following them around. I don't think Snape was molesting them; I don't think Snape quite thought of them on those terms. :)

The entire post is my opinion only.

If Sirius assumed Snape deserved what he got, then that reflects Sirius in a very, very poor light IMO. Can Sirius actually justify that another student, how much ever of a nuisance he may have been deserved to be bitten or killed? And yet Sirius never seems to feel any remorse for his actions IMO.

I believe you misunderstood what I meant. Sirius felt Snape deserved to be given a scare in light of the fact that he was rescued and not harmed in any way. :)

Sirius sent Snape into the shack knowing there was a werewolf and Snape could get bitten or killed IMO. So if Sirius would feel remorse and repentance only if someone died because of his actions, and did not care about his actions if those affected by them lived, I really don't know what to say of Sirius.

I don't feel we don't know any of this based on the canon. I don't feel this is what Sirius was addressing when he spoke. That would mean Sirius had a death eater mentality and in my judgment, that is not what JKR was attempting to show.

But are you saying that Sirius had the right to decide who could live and who could die (for Sirius's actions could have resulted in a death)? That Sirius could decide who deserved death and life?

While I think there are some people who have likened Sirius to a god in the social threads (:lol:) no, that is not what I was saying. No one has that right.

Then would you say Snape's had the right too and he need not feel for James or for any others he may have harmed, because he disliked James and muggles at the time he was a DE? And that Voldemort and Bellatrix were justified in killing muggleborns because they felt that all muggles and muggleborns deserved to die IMO.

I am not sure what I said that made you feel this is what I was saying, but no I was not indicating that individuals have a right to decide who lives or dies.

I respectfully disagree with you wicked!!

Okay, but I didn't say any of that, so I don't think we are in disagreement. :lol:.

I actually think Sirius as culpable as Snape and think less of Sirius, because he never feels remorse for his actions that would have harmed not only a boy he hated, but also a friend he considered very close IMO.

I agree they are both culpable. I did not understand Sirius to mean that he didn't feel remorse for his action that would have possibly harmed his friend and Snape. I understood his comment to mean that he felt Snape deserved to be scared out of his wits in light of the fact that he was rescued and came to no harm.

The remorse I think Sirius should feel for his actions, not for Snape's death; just like for Snape I used to say and still feel the same; remorse is not for the other person; it is IMO for one's own actions that harmed another. Snape could have lived, died, got bitten or whatever. Sirius's remorse should have been for his own actions that were not correct IMO.

I agree. :tu:

And I also respectfully disagree with Snape deserving a scare that could have killed him or turned him into a werewolf because he was following them around.

I respect your opinion. In my judgment, Sirius felt that Snape deserved a scare, because he came to no harm and was rescued, imo, but the fact is, Snape didn't have a scare because he was expecting there to be a werewolf inside and there was. But Sirius didn't know that.

I don't think Snape was molesting them; I don't think Snape quite thought of them on those terms. :)

I don't understand what you mean by this. Both Sirius and Lupin said they disliked Snape back then - and agreed that Snape was sneaking around trying to find what they were up to and trying to get them expelled (POA). I feel that would greatly molest/annoy/bother the Marauders. I think James in particular would not like it that Lily hung around Snape at times. Also, I feel that Snape's activities in association with the dark interests he and his friends shared would bother the Marauders. Finally, I feel they would especially not like it that Snape followed Remus to watch where he went on the full moons. I have always wondered exactly what was Snape planning to do to Remus inside of the tunnel.

On the other hand, I would imagine that the Marauders bothered/molested/annoyed Snape and his friends as well because they were all enemies and likely got into verbal battles and occasional hex wars (Dumbledore said it was like the Harry and Draco groups). Plus the Marauders were popular and in particular James was a Quidditch hero and likely cracked jokes that got people laughing (like in the lunch hall and such) and Snape would not be pleased because I feel he would see Lily laughing with the rest and admiring his Quidditch prowess believe that she liked James. Too, when he was personally around Lily, he may have determined from her statements that she liked James (even if she would not admit it straight out) and/or caught her looking at James.

So I feel the animosity was on all sides and everyone was feeling molested. :lol:.

Well, you have given an account of deflating his head and maturing enough to become Head Boy; I agree with you on that, because James could hardly go around hexing people for the fun of it when he was 18 or so years. And yet they still did that with Snape IMO. But leaving aside Snape and the hex wars; how and in what way did James change as a person was what I was asking. I cannot say he developed into a good friend, a man who chose to fight for the Light and eschewed the dark; he was all this before the SWM, was what I meant.

Now I understand. :) So you're asking that since James was already a loyal friend and a firm defender of muggles and muggleborn equality in the wizarding world before SWM and after that too, how has he changed?

I'll ask you this. Why does he need to change his views anyway? He was already on the good side; there was no need for him too. Unless you're suggesting he should have become a death eater. ;) I know you're not, so I'm wondering why you would assume that James would change in those categories in the first place. Nobody (including Harry, Remus or Sirius) implied that he underwent any sort of change in that aspect of his character.

James' flaws were not these things. The faults in his teenage character included an extreme sense of self-importance and conceit; something he had to overcome before he could truly become a better person. Harry was not bothered about James being a good friend or a staunch opposer of the Dark Arts; he was upset because he couldn't believe James had been every bit as arrogant as Snape had described him. To be honest, had I not known James grew up and became more sensible, I wouldn't like his character either. It is a change, a very profound one at that IMO.

(Pssst: neither Harry nor Ron nor Hermione nor a lot of other characters ever underwent any change in character in that sense either. They were all loyal and brave and opposed to the Dark Arts and firm supporters of blood equality from the very beginning. I don't know why James would have to go through that change when so many other characters in the series didn't. :))

In all honesty, I cannot blame James for not listening to Dumbledore when he said a traitor was close to him. James loved his friends and had known them for ten years. How many people are that easy to jump to the idea that someone they had known that long would be assisting Voldemort in getting them dead? When Harry was told that there was likely a traitor close to him, he had the same reaction that James did. It isn't arrogance, IMO. It's called trust.

:tu:

James did not feel that way about Peter; then when he did not feel the way he felt about Sirius, I think James should have checked or told Sirius to check Peter for the dark mark or with the veritaserum IMO.

The reason why Sirius felt so guilty for the Potter's murder was exactly this. James never questioned his belief that switching to Peter was a great idea. Agreed that James should have, but in a situation like this when you don't know who the mole is, you have to trust your friends and not start suspecting them. Moreover as far as I believe the idea of the switch was infact concocted by Peter (which came from Voldemort himself) so they wouldn't have suspected him in that case, thinking that he (Peter) had their best interest at heart...for clearly the idea of the switch, if it would have worked, was a brilliant plan...and when you are threatened by a person like Voldemort...and you have a full proof way out of it, then you don't tend to suspect the person who came up with it...and that is what always happens...look at the Order not suspecting Mundungus at all, when he came up with the Seven Potter plan (for them, he was the source). So clearly I don't blame James when he decided that Peter was clean and someone who could be trusted. He did what was best for him and his family.

As far as checking Peter is concerned, using Veritaserum was out of question as it would be more than suspecting a friend which James despised. And for checking for the Dark Mark I don't think that Peter had one at that moment. ;)

What you have said is the error of judgement IMO, for which they paid with their lives.

Actually after saying all that I have said above...I don't think he made any mistake that he could have prevented. We on the other hand have the benefit of knowing the entire fact and solid presumptions which make James action seem faulty, otherwise I, you and even the best minds in the world would have committed the same mistake (history is the proof for that).

The switch was to keep Remus out IMO, so that he would not come into Godric's Hollow and take Harry away to Voldmeort. While Remus could not reveal the secret as long as he was not SK, he could still cause harm, as long as he had access to GH was my theory.

Well even if the switch wasn't made, Remus couldn't have come in and taken Harry away to Voldemort because he didn't knew who the secret keeper was in the first place...he as well as many didn't know that Sirius indeed was the secret keeper...so that still doesn't make any difference. :no:

But canon (POA) does not say Peter was responsible for this. Sirius acknowledges that he did suspect Remus and Remus, Sirius IMO.

Canon I am afraid to say doesn't tell us much about the whole Secret Keeper thing and the switch...so whatever we have is just logical deduction. Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=96598&page=57) go through this page and a couple before and after and you might find something interesting.Read this (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=4363528&postcount=1125) post in particular. ;)


The choice was between trusting his friends whom he knew for over 10 years and acting upon an information that Dumbledore brought them; that one of the 3 may be a traitor.

Dumbledore never laid down a message saying that one of the Marauders was a mole...all he said was that someone close to the Potters was...

I feel James and Lily should have chosen their child over trusting their friends, simply because there was information that one friend should not be trusted. James, by saying he trusted Sirius and then by allowing himself to be persuaded by Sirius to make the switch, all because of suspicions rather than facts, says that he chose wrongly and did not take the right steps to protect his family IMO.

Like I said, its easier for us to say that now. :relax:

In what way did James mature? How did he change?


He took on the responsibility of becoming a married man and as far as I can see he did pretty well with it. So that shows some change...:lol:

On a more serious note, he stopped his usual pranks and became more serious with the Order work...he and Lily together thrice defied Voldemort and that says something about the kind of character the man must have developed. Clearly for me he had become a more mature and better man quite early in life as he was only 21 when he died.

And I am not sure Sirius changed either.

Umm...no he didn't and why should he have. He was responsible when he needed to be...being a bachelor around the age of 20s you wouldn't expect him to become as thoughtful and serious as an aged man like Albus Dumbledore...after all he had a flying motorcycle. All that being said, he was still a man whom I would trust any day if I were his best friend. :)

The very fact Sirius had to persuade James to make the switch suggests to me that James did not see Peter in the same light as Sirius.

IMO no one would have equaled Sirius, no one. So for me atleast there is no question of seeing Peter in the same light as Sirius. :)

Yes, but just because he hated the fact that one of his close friends could be a traitor, could James simply ignore it or go about it in the wrong way? That is where I feel he should have verified IMO. The problem was not in trusting sirius, because james was more than confident, more sure than his own life, that Sirius would not betray him; the problem was when they made the switch; James did not feel that way about Peter; then when he did not feel the way he felt about Sirius, I think James should have checked or told Sirius to check Peter for the dark mark or with the veritaserum IMO.

Honestly, for me, this isn’t even just an issue of whether or not he could trust his friends, it is a matter of choosing the right person for the job. They chose Peter because they assumed no one would even think that Peter would be chosen. Added on top of that, Sirius, the assumed real Secret Keeper, was running around playing Super Spy and having the time of his life. (Sirius says that he went to check up on Peter the night James and Lily died) Would it not have been more reasonable and safe to have both of them safely hidden? What if Sirius was captured and it was realized that he wasn’t the Secret Keeper? What if (instead of Peter coming to them) they went after Peter, or even just found him randomly, and tortured him for the information?

The fact is, between the plan of a friend that you know to be rash and impulsive versus the plan of the only man Voldemort ever feared, who would you pick to protect your wife and son? Yes, I’m sure James would have hated to offend his friend, but when it comes to the life of one’s family wouldn’t you do everything you could? And if Sirius couldn’t accept that, then maybe he wasn’t the great and understanding friend James thought he had.

In the end, it isn’t about whether or not you trust your friend to have your best interest at heart; it is whether or not that friend is suitable for the job-- and someone as rash and impulsive as Sirius isn’t that sort of man. Albus Dumbledore would have been the perfect choice, there was no logical reason to go against him.

I believe you misunderstood what I meant. Sirius felt Snape deserved to be given a scare in light of the fact that he was rescued and not harmed in any way. :)

I feel that is still wrong, because of the means he used to give Snape a scare. That prank had it been successful, would have destroyrd the lives of 2 individuals and the life of the prankster as well IMO.

I don't feel we don't know any of this based on the canon. I don't feel this is what Sirius was addressing when he spoke. That would mean Sirius had a death eater mentality and in my judgment, that is not what JKR was attempting to show.

I think Sirius was a reckless person. The comparison was drawn by JKR between Bellatrix and Sirius, right at the moment they fell/died; I think she was trying to show that the Black family had it in a certain recklessness that both sirius and Bellatrix had and exhibited IMO. Both of them IMO had the same attitude to life; careless, reckless, very loyal, powerful and extremely intelligent. They were both also over confident and uncaring of consequences of their actions IMO.

I agree they are both culpable. I did not understand Sirius to mean that he didn't feel remorse for his action that would have possibly harmed his friend and Snape. I understood his comment to mean that he felt Snape deserved to be scared out of his wits in light of the fact that he was rescued and came to no harm.

I understood exactly that; that Sirius did not have any remorse, when he said that it served Snape right, in POA IMO.


I think James in particular would not like it that Lily hung around Snape at times.

I don't understand this. :) Did you mean that James would be jealous?

I'll ask you this. Why does he need to change his views anyway? He was already on the good side; there was no need for him too. Unless you're suggesting he should have become a death eater. ;) I know you're not, so I'm wondering why you would assume that James would change in those categories in the first place. Nobody (including Harry, Remus or Sirius) implied that he underwent any sort of change in that aspect of his character.

Because this was the James, Lily found despicable, and told him that she would rather go out with the Giant Sqid than James IMO. It was from this James, that James had matured. It was this James that Sirius and Remus told Harry in OOTP that matured and became an allround nice guy whom Harry could be proud of IMO. :)

Dumbledore never laid down a message saying that one of the Marauders was a mole...all he said was that someone close to the Potters was...

He did not; but as I have written before, the first time they went under the Fidelus took care of all the outside traitors. The switch was because they suspected the mole to be on the inside IMO.

[SIZE=2]In the end, it isn’t about whether or not you trust your friend to have your best interest at hear; it is whether or not that friend is suitable for the job-- and someone as rash and impulsive as Sirius isn’t that sort of man. Albus Dumbledore would have been the perfect choice, there was no logical reason to go against him.

:tu:

I feel that is still wrong, because of the means he used to give Snape a scare. That prank had it been successful, would have destroyrd the lives of 2 individuals and the life of the prankster as well IMO.

I respect your view, but what that does have to do with Snape being scared? I think Sirius would agree with you, but I don't think that is what he was referring to.

I understood exactly that; that Sirius did not have any remorse, when he said that it served Snape right, in POA IMO.

I feel he didn't have any remorse because nothing happened to Snape. I don't believe one need have remorse for something that could have happened to someone. Sirius' remorse was connected to his own act which he did not disagree with Remus when he put the story in terms of Sirius having done something reckless and wrong - so I think Sirius agreed with that. Sirius just added in that he had no remorse for scaring Snape.

I don't understand this. :) Did you mean that James would be jealous?

Well JKR said: "James always suspected Snape harboured deeper feelings for Lily, which was a factor in James' behaviour to Snape." (Bloomsbury Chat). It is not jealousy since it was suspicion of the way Snape felt, rather than how Lily felt. I presume he didn't want Snape feeling that way about the girl he liked.

I definitely don't think Peter loved his friends at all.I think I'd have to agree with this. In addition to being a tag-along or a hanger-on, I think Peter's nature was such that he had to be allied with those more powerful than he was. I believe this could have stemmed from a lack of self-confidence coupled with a desire for power. In general, Peter is what I would call very opportunistic - taking advantage of whichever side or group could offer the greatest advantage for him. This also makes him rather egocentric. So in relation to his friends at Hogwarts, though Peter never speaks ill of them in PoA, I think this shows that he didn't hate them, but also that he didn't necessarily like them either. I think he liked them insofar as they provided him with what he needed, but didn't necessarily like them for who they were.

Given that Peter was pretty much "what you see is what you get" (cowardly tag-along with sadistic tendencies), how come the other Marauders couldn't see right through it?

As for the whole Secret-Keeper thing, instead of showing Sirius for the umpteenth time how much he trusts him James should have understood that there was something in his life which was billion times more important than his relationship with his friends - and that was his son's life. And the best candidate possible for being the Secret Keeper was Dumbledore because he was the most powerful and clever wizard of that time. All IMO, of course.

I feel he didn't have any remorse because nothing happened to Snape.
And possibly also because a large factor in what happened was initiated by Snape himself, by actually listening to Sirius. It's like if Sirius had told Snape to go jump off a bridge because there was something interesting at the bottomg of the water, and Snape actually did it and nearly drowned; Sirius would be thinking "Why did he listen to me, his enemy, to go do something that was likely really dangerous?" I'd bet Sirius never expected Snape to actually follow his instructions (I still cannot understand what would have motivated Snape to do it, either).

Well JKR said: "James always suspected Snape harboured deeper feelings for Lily, which was a factor in James' behaviour to Snape." (Bloomsbury Chat). It is not jealousy since it was suspicion of the way Snape felt, rather than how Lily felt. I presume he didn't want Snape feeling that way about the girl he liked.
I agree. If he assumed Snape felt that way about Lily, James would have felt some form of jealousy at Snape being friends with Lily.

The fact is, between the plan of a friend that you know to be rash and impulsive versus the plan of the only man Voldemort ever feared, who would you pick to protect your wife and son? Yes, I’m sure James would have hated to offend his friend, but when it comes to the life of one’s family wouldn’t you do everything you could? And if Sirius couldn’t accept that, then maybe he wasn’t the great and understanding friend James thought he had.
Sirius was rash and impulsive, but his plan wasn't bad at all. Say the plan went, instead, to use Remus as the Secret Keeper instead of Peter. The idea would go that everyone would assume it was Sirius, and he would play the part by going into hiding. In the case that he got caught and tortured for the information, there would be no way of retrieving the secret from him because he wasn't the secret keeper. But any DE doing their job right would know Sirius was incredibly loyal and would die for Lily, James, and Harry in a heartbeat, and this inability to give away the information could pass off as pure loyalty (Hermione was capable of lying under the influence of torture, I'm sure Sirius could do it too). That would leave Remus completely safe, in turn leaving the Potters safe.

Say the DEs somehow found out that Sirius wasn't just being loyal and keeping his mouth shut for the Potters but just wasn't the secret keeper at all; the DEs would then have to find the real secret keeper, which wouldn't just be in a matter of minutes. All of this would be one major heads up to the Potters and the real secret keeper. Their first defence would be broken down but they'd still have the biggest one still intact. Sirius was putting his own life and security in danger just to be a decoy (which is why I'm guessing James and Lily had to be pursuaded in the first place). The only reason this plan did not work was because Peter just so happened to be the spy. The one weak link in the chain was the most important one and the whole plan collapsed. But the plan itself was really good IMO. At the time, they had no way of knowing the weak link was Peter, and it only seems obvious to us because we know what happened.

Given that Peter was pretty much "what you see is what you get" (cowardly tag-along with sadistic tendencies), how come the other Marauders couldn't see right through it?
It's easy to see the cause of it all now that we know the outcome, but at the time it's never obvious. Say Ron were to go and betray Harry; at the time, we'd be thinking "What? Yeah, right." But then later on we could say "But there was always that jealousy, maybe that's what did it." Say Hermione were the betrayer, we could say "She was so intelligent, of course she could deceive them all! Look at how she deceived Umbridge so easily in OotP." It's easy to say after the fact, but Peter's flaws probably didn't make him look like traitor material at the time.

It's easy to say after the fact, but Peter's flaws probably didn't make him look like traitor material at the time.This is especially true since Peter's demeanor indicated that he worshiped James and Sirius. I'm not sure they could have deduced that Peter was really worshiping James and Sirius' "aura" if you will, rather than who they were as people.

Because this was the James, Lily found despicable, and told him that she would rather go out with the Giant Sqid than James IMO. It was from this James, that James had matured. It was this James that Sirius and Remus told Harry in OOTP that matured and became an allround nice guy whom Harry could be proud of IMO.

I've lost you again, sorry. :lol: Lily did not find despicable that part of James which was brave and loyal and opposed to prejudice against muggleborns; all she despised was his arrogance. But whatever, I'm repeating myself again. I'd like to ask you though, what you might think would be a suitable change in James' character from SWM? James' behaviour in SWM was completely unadmirable, I agree wholeheartedly. If say, you had a reason to like his character, what do you think would have changed in SWM James?

After this post, I think we might have to switch this argument either to the James' thread or discuss it privately through owls. We're digressing from the topic on hand, I think. :)

I feel he didn't have any remorse because nothing happened to Snape. I don't believe one need have remorse for something that could have happened to someone. Sirius' remorse was connected to his own act which he did not disagree with Remus when he put the story in terms of Sirius having done something reckless and wrong - so I think Sirius agreed with that. Sirius just added in that he had no remorse for scaring Snape.


This is were we disagree. Simply because nothing bad happened doesn't mean that Sirius is any less responsible for his actions. (This reminds me of a random Sideshow Bob quote: "Attempted murder? What is that? Do they give out Nobel prizes for attempted Chemistry?") The fact of the matter is, something could have happened and Sirius would have known that.

Given that Peter was pretty much "what you see is what you get" (cowardly tag-along with sadistic tendencies), how come the other Marauders couldn't see right through it?

Because Peter played his part well. In SWM we see him gleefully watching Severus get attacked-- he was the Marauder cheerleader and ego boost. No person, especially a teenaged boy, is going to question the motives behind large doses of boosted ego. :)

Sirius was rash and impulsive, but his plan wasn't bad at all. Say the plan went, instead, to use Remus as the Secret Keeper instead of Peter. The idea would go that everyone would assume it was Sirius, and he would play the part by going into hiding. In the case that he got caught and tortured for the information, there would be no way of retrieving the secret from him because he wasn't the secret keeper. But any DE doing their job right would know Sirius was incredibly loyal and would die for Lily, James, and Harry in a heartbeat, and this inability to give away the information could pass off as pure loyalty (Hermione was capable of lying under the influence of torture, I'm sure Sirius could do it too). That would leave Remus completely safe, in turn leaving the Potters safe.


I disagree with this. The decision is still reckless and, quite frankly, born out of Sirius undying belief that he was invincible and that he was better than Albus. Not only did they choose to not use Albus, they never informed him of the plan-- assuming they were much to clever to even let him know what happened.

A better option would be to go through with the plan, but using Albus instead of Peter. The fact is, when you've got the only man that Voldemort ever feared offering to protect your life, you take the offer-- especially when your wife and son's lives are hanging in the balance.

This is were we disagree. Simply because nothing bad happened doesn't mean that Sirius is any less responsible for his actions. (This reminds me of a random Sideshow Bob quote: "Attempted murder? What is that? Do they give out Nobel prizes for attempted Chemistry?") The fact of the matter is, something could have happened and Sirius would have known that.

I don't know how to make myself clearer, but we are in agreement on that point. :rotfl:. I feel Sirius should have and did have remorse for his act. I think he had remorse because he recognized that Snape would behave in a more foolish manner than he had originally believed and that would have possible consequences for both Snape and Remus. However, in the reality of the aftermath (in which Snape had not been harmed at all) I do not feel he had any remorse whatsoever that Snape had been scared out of his wits.

If Sirius had realized Snape knew with near certainty that Remus was a werewolf at the time he entered the shack, he may have felt Snape acted in even more of a foolish manner than what he already figured (because the whole school knew there was some "danger" just not what it was). But he'd still feel the same way, imo.

I disagree with this. The decision is still reckless and, quite frankly, born out of Sirius undying belief that he was invincible and that he was better than Albus. Not only did they choose to not use Albus, they never informed him of the plan-- assuming they were much to clever to even let him know what happened.

A better option would be to go through with the plan, but using Albus instead of Peter. The fact is, when you've got the only man that Voldemort ever feared offering to protect your life, you take the offer-- especially when your wife and son's lives are hanging in the balance.

I disagree. At the time, there is canon showing that James and Lily had information indicating Dumbledore had been friends with Voldemort I (Grindlewald) and all knew Grindlewald stutted his stuff for 5 years before Dumbledore stepped in to do anything about it (Lily's letter DH). Perhaps that would not make all readers feel less trust for Dumbledore, but personally, it would have given me great pause and I truly doubt I'd trust the man with the job of Secret Keeper over my trusted friends.

Also, they all knew that Dumbledore could have the wool pulled over his eyes easy enough for another reason; they'd done it themselves for some 6 years as he had no clue they were animagi. Finally, he'd taken a great hiding device from them while they were trying desperately to hide which meant they could not leave the house to check things out for themselves (the invisibility cloak). So I would disagree that Albus was their top choice for saftey man under the circumstances. :lol:.

But as I suggested to Green; it wouldn't have mattered because no matter what they did, JKR was going to ensure their plans were foiled and kill them. They could have left England and hid underground in the far reaches of the USA using polypotion juice every day and never using magic to leave no trace for example - but JKR didn't make them totally invulnerable because she needed them to die. She gave few details, and called them both brave which in my judgment implies she feels they used their best efforts and failed within the scope of her plot. Of the three villains involved, only Voldemort and Snape commented upon their vulnerabilities and attempted to shed some of their own blame on the victims - even Peter did not attempt to do that (DH/POA). I don't recall anyone else even suggesting such a thing. Sirius blamed himself as well as two of the villains and Remus blamed the two villains he knew about entirely. When accused, I feel Dumbledore in his normal manner attempted to shuffle the blame a bit from himself, but also by heaping it upon the two villains he knew about.

I don't know how to make myself clearer, but we are in agreement on that point. :rotfl:. I feel Sirius should have and did have remorse for his act. I think he had remorse because he recognized that Snape would behave in a more foolish manner than he had originally believed and that would have possible consequences for both Snape and Remus. However, in the reality of the aftermath (in which Snape had not been harmed at all) I do not feel he had any remorse whatsoever that Snape had been scared out of his wits.

If Sirius had realized Snape knew with near certainty that Remus was a werewolf at the time he entered the shack, he may have felt Snape acted in even more of a foolish manner than what he already figured (because the whole school knew there was some "danger" just not what it was). But he'd still feel the same way, imo.

Lol :D And I really don't think Severus knew that Remus was a werewolf-- that was why he went down there in the first place, because he wanted to try and figure out what was going on with the Marauders. Sirius, as far as I remember, only told him how to enter the Willow. And, if he was clever enough, I can see Sirius getting himself into a sort of situation where he makes Snape think he has the upper hand. If Severus thinks he forced Sirius into telling him about the Willow, he would be more likely to use the information to his advantage. That, however, is all speculation-- but it is a plausable idea and it is what I think must have happened.

Finally, he'd taken a great hiding device from them while they were trying desperately to hide which meant they could not leave the house to check things out for themselves (the invisibility cloak). So I would disagree that Albus was their top choice for saftey man under the circumstances.

I would see this more as stopping James from having his adventures he was so used too. They shouldn't be leaving the house at all, no matter how hidden they may have been.

But as I suggested to Green; it wouldn't have mattered because no matter what they did, JKR was going to ensure their plans were foiled and kill them.

True, however I think this is a bit of a sloppy answer. ;) Simply because it isn't the fact that they died, but the manner in which they died. For example; I have a character who has dinner plans with her boyfriend, but she needs to be late because a robber comes through and kills him and she can't be anywhere around to see it. Now, no matter what I write she has to be late, but I can make her late for a variety of different reasons. Reason #1: There is a car crash on the road she is on and she gets caught in traffic. Reason #2: She oversleeps and tries to speed to make up for lost time, and gets pulled over. Reason #3: She gets into a car crash herself because she ran a red light.

As you can see, each one of these ends up with the same effect; she is late for her date. However, each different reason shows her in a different light as a character. #1 is just a normal thing-- being caught in traffic-- and bears no real reflection on her own character. #2 may indicate that she isn't very good with schedules. And #3 may say that she is reckless to the point of endagering her and others lives when she is in a hurry.

So it isn't just the fact that something needs to happen, but how it happens. Using your logic, Severus Snape shouldn't be blamed for being a Death Eater or calling Lily a Mudblood, because it was needed for the plot to progress. We can't blame the Dursley's, Barty Crouch Jr., or Voldemort either, because those were all plot points needed for the novel. A good writer doesn't make things happen because they need to, they create plausable character actions that result in the desired effect.

The switch was to keep Remus out IMO, so that he would not come into Godric's Hollow and take Harry away to Voldmeort. While Remus could not reveal the secret as long as he was not SK, he could still cause harm, as long as he had access to GH was my theory. :)

Where does it say that in the books? I don't see how Lily and James ever thought Remus was to be mistrusted. That would go against what Remus himself said James was like.

I agree with you; to not trust close friends is the height of disrespect that can be shown to them IMO. But at that point of time it was not the trust of James that was an issue, but Harry's life. The choice was between trusting his friends whom he knew for over 10 years and acting upon an information that Dumbledore brought them; that one of the 3 may be a traitor. I feel James and Lily should have chosen their child over trusting their friends, simply because there was information that one friend should not be trusted.

Not only Harry's life, actually, all of their lives. And I disagree; I don't see how the choice was between his friends or his family's lives. He didn't trust his friends from before Dumbledore warned him that here was likely a traitor that was close to them. James' thoughts at the moment weren't concerning on how to be a good friend, it was finding the best person suitable to be the person to keep their secret. He chose Sirius initially because he was his best friend and he knew that Sirius would rather die than betray them. James trust in his friends doesn't have a direct relation to the Secret Keeper switch. James trusted all of them and likely didn't think any of them to be on Voldemort's side because he had known them for so long.

Dumbledore said that someone close to them was likely a traitor. That could have meant anyone, actually. It doesn't necessarily have to mean someone that was one of the Marauders. It could have been another Order member that was a likely candidate as well. James trusted the Marauders because he knew them the longest and deemed them trustworthy.

James, by saying he trusted Sirius and then by allowing himself to be persuaded by Sirius to make the switch, all because of suspicions rather than facts, says that he chose wrongly and did not take the right steps to protect his family IMO.

James and Lily only agreed to change Peter to be Secret Keeper because Sirius insisted on doing so. I doubt there was any suspicion involved, rather Sirius' insistence that Voldemort wouldn't guess that Peter could be Secret Keeper. And Sirius never confesses that he didn't take the right steps to protect the family but that he was mistaken in his judgment of Peter's character.

See, that's the question I have been asking. In what way did James mature? How did he change?

He matured by losing some of his arrogance and stopped hexing random people that annoyed him just because he could. This was said in Career's Advice.

And I am not sure Sirius changed either. He felt no remorse to his actions in the werewolf prank IMO. I am not sure James changed as well.

But what does Sirius have to do with James? :huh: James and Sirius weren't the same person.

And I would not say that Lily marrying James should be used as a yardstick for measuring James's maturity. I think Lily fell in love and she married James. It was love that brought her to him; not his qualities, if they are supposed to be made for each other and soulmates and all that IMO.

But Lily is proof that James must have changed somehow. Lily had a lot of integrity, proven in how she dropped the friendship because of how Snape was turning down the wrong path. It makes so much sense that Lily would end up with James after he matured and end the friendship between herself and Snape because Snape was unwilling to change.

Like wise, I think Lily married James, because she happened to fall in love with him. That IMO does not say anything about James.

Her falling in love has nothing to do with it, but her decision to go on a date with him does. It was said in canon that Lily only went out with James when he matured. I see no canon to contradict this, so Lily is some form of proof that James did change, IMO.

But leaving aside Snape and the hex wars; how and in what way did James change as a person was what I was asking. I cannot say he developed into a good friend, a man who chose to fight for the Light and eschewed the dark; he was all this before the SWM, was what I meant. :)

Yes, he didn't develop into a person that loved his friends and hated the Dark Arts. But how does that mean he didn't change? Not everyone undergoes dramatic changes in character such as Snape and Dumbledore. Harry, for instance, had completely different behavior in OotP compared to his behavior in DH. But he was still just as loyal then and against the Dark Arts in his fifth year as he was when he faced Voldemort. Does that mean he didn't change? No, it just means that some parts of his character were always there, even when he wasn't behaving his best. Everyone matures in his or her own way, and not everyone has a lot of changes to undergo.

The very fact Sirius had to persuade James to make the switch suggests to me that James did not see Peter in the same light as Sirius.

The only difference, IMO, was that Sirius was his best friend. Sirius was like a brother to James. I would choose my brother to protect me rather than a best friend, but does that mean that best friend isn't trusted by me? No, not really. It just means that my brother is much closer to me and I feel more secure with him since he knows me best. That's how I think James may have felt.

Dumbledore suspected one of the 3 friends, because Fudge says, Voldmeort was receiving information about the Potters movements and some one in the Order was providing that. The moment the Potters went under the Fidelus with only 3 friends + Dumbeldore knowing about the secret, they were safe from any other traitor apart from these 3 freinds in the Order IMO.

It never specifies that is one of the three friends. It just says that it was someone close to them.

Then they made the switch, which Dumbledore and Remus were not aware of; which means they either thought Dumbeldore or Remus to be the traitor.

I don't think Lily and James thought either of them were traitors. There was no canon that they thought Remus was the traitor.

Where does it say that in the books? I don't see how Lily and James ever thought Remus was to be mistrusted. That would go against what Remus himself said James was like.
They thought Remus was the traitor and didn't trust him. Sirius and Remus talk about it in the shack scene and then Sirius apologizes for thinking that.

I don't know how to make myself clearer, but we are in agreement on that point. :rotfl:. I feel Sirius should have and did have remorse for his act.

:) Ok I may be being dense but could you clarify for me what you mean by ‘his act’?

(because the whole school knew there was some "danger" just not what it was).

:) The only danger that the whole school might know of that I can think of here is getting hit by a rather aggressive tree – is that what you mean?? Again I maybe missing the point

I disagree. At the time, there is canon showing that James and Lily had information indicating Dumbledore had been friends with Voldemort I (Grindlewald) and all knew Grindlewald stutted his stuff for 5 years before Dumbledore stepped in to do anything about it (Lily's letter DH).

The letter, imo, is also rather clear about how seriously they took that piece of information; they thought Bathilda was going nutty! I think that a fair indication that they didn’t take it very seriously, therefore I doubt that they took it into consideration in deciding how much to trust Dumbledore.

Finally, he'd taken a great hiding device from them while they were trying desperately to hide which meant they could not leave the house to check things out for themselves (the invisibility cloak)

But he didn’t take it he asked to borrow it and James said yes. To me this indicates several things 1) Dumbledore didn’t force them into it / it was lent willingly 2) they didn’t think it would be much help, or at least it wouldn’t make any deference in the short term 3) I always took it as a sign that James had become more mature & sensible and had given up taking dangerous jaunts under the cloak.

None of these reflect poorly on their willingness to trust Dumbledore, in fact I feel that their decision to lend him such a unique item rather shows trust not a lack of it.

They thought Remus was the traitor and didn't trust him. Sirius and Remus talk about it in the shack scene and then Sirius apologizes for thinking that.

If I remember correctly, it never says that Lily and James thought that Remus was the traitor. It just shows Sirius apologizing to Remus for not trusting him and Remus doing the same. Lily and James weren't mentioned in that scene.

If I remember correctly, it never says that Lily and James thought that Remus was the traitor. It just shows Sirius apologizing to Remus for not trusting him and Remus doing the same. Lily and James weren't mentioned in that scene.
You're right that James and Lily weren't explicite mentioned in that scene, but as Sirius was the best buddy of James I doubt that they wouldn't share this thought and them choosing Peter over Remus, shows to me that even James didn't trust him.

You're right that James and Lily weren't explicite mentioned in that scene, but as Sirius was the best buddy of James I doubt that they wouldn't share this thought and them choosing Peter over Remus, shows to me that even James didn't trust him.

That's where my opinion differs. I think it would be really possible that Sirius wouldn't voice his opinion about believing Remus to be the traitor. He knew James well, and likely knew that James would consider it horrible to not trust a close friend. I always figured that Sirius tried to convince James to make Peter, the least likely suspect in Voldemort's eyes, to be the Secret Keeper, without confessing that he thought Remus was the traitor.

But aside from speculation, I can't agree that James thought Remus was the traitor because it was given in canon that James would have considered it to be the height of dishonor to not trust a friend. I don't see why that would be the case if he still didn't trust Remus, and we know that Remus was one of his best friends.

That's where my opinion differs. I think it would be really possible that Sirius wouldn't voice his opinion about believing Remus to be the traitor. He knew James well, and likely knew that James would consider it horrible to not trust a close friend. I always figured that Sirius tried to convince James to make Peter, the least likely suspect in Voldemort's eyes, to be the Secret Keeper, without confessing that he thought Remus was the traitor.

But aside from speculation, I can't agree that James thought Remus was the traitor because it was given in canon that James would have considered it to be the height of dishonor to not trust a friend. I don't see why that would be the case if he still didn't trust Remus, and we know that Remus was one of his best friends.
When Sirius thought that Peter was the traitor, why would he suggest him as new Secret Keeper? I agree that they switched to confuse Voldemort, but then would be Remus much better than Peter. Remus wasn't as close as Sirius either, so why not chosing him? Why laying your live in the hand of Peter, who proved several times that he's not able to bear this responsibility. Remus would be definitely a better choice there, but still they didn`t chose him or even included him in their switch plan. They didn`t want him to be involved at all.

But Lily is proof that James must have changed somehow. Lily had a lot of integrity, proven in how she dropped the friendship because of how Snape was turning down the wrong path. It makes so much sense that Lily would end up with James after he matured and end the friendship between herself and Snape because Snape was unwilling to change.

I’m afraid I disagree. As I stated before, to Lily, who never knew the whole involvement of the Werewolf prank, simply saving Severus’ life could have been enough to win her affection. It does not mean that he really did grow up-- in fact we know he didn’t because SWM happens right after that.

The fact is, no matter how much integrity or stronghold on her own moral values Lily had, she is only human. Her marrying James isn’t really a good way to measure James’ character. She may have loved him, but that doesn’t mean he really changed. We see even in SWM that she has something of a crush on him, but is trying to deny it-- and he has definitely not changed by then.

So much as Jo tries to deny it, Lily did fall for the ‘bad boy’ of the series. Jo herself says that Sirius is her favorite character. How much more ‘bad boy’ can you get than a flying motorbike? Yet it was Jo herself that is always harping on the Draco fangirls for loving the 'bad boy'. Something of a double standard, there.

If I remember correctly, it never says that Lily and James thought that Remus was the traitor. It just shows Sirius apologizing to Remus for not trusting him and Remus doing the same. Lily and James weren't mentioned in that scene.

No, but at the time it can be assumed that they believed Sirius. Lily does not make any mention of Remus in her letter to Sirius-- but she mentions just about everyone else.


That's where my opinion differs. I think it would be really possible that Sirius wouldn't voice his opinion about believing Remus to be the traitor. He knew James well, and likely knew that James would consider it horrible to not trust a close friend. I always figured that Sirius tried to convince James to make Peter, the least likely suspect in Voldemort's eyes, to be the Secret Keeper, without confessing that he thought Remus was the traitor.

But aside from speculation, I can't agree that James thought Remus was the traitor because it was given in canon that James would have considered it to be the height of dishonor to not trust a friend. I don't see why that would be the case if he still didn't trust Remus, and we know that Remus was one of his best friends.


The crazy thing about people is that we tend to be very hypocritical about things at times-- look at Sirius Black! He comments about a man’s character being based on the way they treat their inferiors, yet treats Kreature with disdain. Simply because they say James’ trusted his friends to an extreme, it does not mean he really did. Also, a blanket statement by Sirius to Harry does not a canon fact produce-- that is all conjecture and opinion made by a man who is trying to leave a good impression of a father on his son.

Regarding the reasons why James and Lily decided to go with Peter as SK, the two main possibilities seem to be:

1. James and Lily agreed with Sirius's judgment that Peter would be the perfect bluff and didn't explicitly distrust Remus (in this case, Sirius didn't tell James of his suspicions toward Remus)
2. James and Lily were suspicious of Remus for some reason (either Sirius voiced his concerns or they suspected him for other reasons), and thus trusted Peter over Remus

I'd like to think that James didn't single Remus out as a possible traitor, but if Sirius did indeed voice his concerns to James about Remus, then James may have felt they were noteworthy concerns. It is possible for Sirius to have discussed the traitor with James, since they were pretty much brothers. But then there is the fact that James would likely considered it dishonorable to distrust a close friend. In light of this, it may be a tad more likely for James and Lily to have merely agreed with Sirius' plan to use Peter as a bluff rather than explicitly distrusting Remus - where Sirius' reasons for using Peter were not based on the fact that Remus wasn't trustworthy, but rather based on Peter being rather unremarkable when it came to magical talent.

So much as Jo tries to deny it, Lily did fall for the ‘bad boy’ of the series. Jo herself says that Sirius is her favorite character. How much more ‘bad boy’ can you get than a flying motorbike? Yet it was Jo herself that is always harping on the Draco fangirls for loving the 'bad boy'. Something of a double standard, there.I think what she finds worrying is that Draco was an explicitly malicious character while Sirius and James were not. Sirius's type of "bad boy" was different than Draco's IMO due to the fact that they never joined Voldemort and never held intolerant views toward those who were not pureblooded wizards.

I feel he didn't have any remorse because nothing happened to Snape. I don't believe one need have remorse for something that could have happened to someone. Sirius' remorse was connected to his own act which he did not disagree with Remus when he put the story in terms of Sirius having done something reckless and wrong - so I think Sirius agreed with that. Sirius just added in that he had no remorse for scaring Snape.

I respectfully disagree with this. I wrote before and I feel that just because Snape lived, does not IMO absolve Sirius of his guilt and remorse and the wrongness (is this a word?) of his actions. Sirius sent Snape into the tunnel, telling him the means to freeze the tree and go inside. I would call it a deliberate action, with no care for consequences and no care for both friend (Remus) and foe (Snape) IMO.

Sirius did not feel remorse for his actions because his words in POA don't say he fels sorry for what happened. On the contrary he says Snape deserved it. Which might also mean IMO that Sirius still did not care about what maight have happend to Remus as well IMO.

It was not a scare IMO; because the result of the prank had it been successful would not have scared Snape; it might have killed him or turned him inot a werewolf, and it would have surely meant death for Remus. That was what Sirius was uncaring of IMO.

In general, Peter is what I would call very opportunistic - taking advantage of whichever side or group could offer the greatest advantage for him.

Iagree. I also see Peter like this. He has no shame, no self respect and certainly no affection for the friends he spent 7 years with. But, his attitude which was not upright, not deservring of respect, trust or confidence also made James and Sirius treat him in a way, they would probably not treat each other or Remus. I feel it was a cycle of sorts, started by Peter's own attitude. I really wonder how on earth the 3 friends and Lily later did not see through him. He is so pathetic, so wrong in comparison to them, so lacking I think is the word and yet they trust this to be the SK and do the switch IMO.

As for the whole Secret-Keeper thing, instead of showing Sirius for the umpteenth time how much he trusts him James should have understood that there was something in his life which was billion times more important than his relationship with his friends - and that was his son's life. And the best candidate possible for being the Secret Keeper was Dumbledore because he was the most powerful and clever wizard of that time. All IMO, of course.

I agree. This is what I have been saying as well. I felt James had to choose between his friends and his family; I cannot help but feel, he chose wrongly IMO.

This is especially true since Peter's demeanor indicated that he worshiped James and Sirius. I'm not sure they could have deduced that Peter was really worshiping James and Sirius' "aura" if you will, rather than who they were as people.

I respectfully disagree with this. I think all the more if someone was worsshiping them, they had to be aware of such a person. It is different to be thought of as *cool*; but it is a completely different thing to suck up, which is what I think Peter was doing. It portarys James and Sirius ias very arrogant and foolish IMO and Lily as simply trusting James on Peter and looks like she never tried to see through his mask IMO.

Remus, I would say was not very impressed by Peter (I don't have canon for this) but I feel so, because he himself was in the grateful position of being accepted and he would not call on James and Sirius about the other friend IMO.

Where does it say that in the books? I don't see how Lily and James ever thought Remus was to be mistrusted. That would go against what Remus himself said James was like.

The reason they made the 2nd switch was for Remus IMO.

Not only Harry's life, actually, all of their lives. And I disagree; I don't see how the choice was between his friends or his family's lives.

I think it was. Because they did the switch; they were sure that one among the 3 was a traitor. At that point I think James's only thought should have been for his family and not on thinking that it would be the height of dishonour to distrust his friends IMO. For, one of those friends was already dishonourable and James knew it too IMO. Otherwise the switch need not have been made at all.

James and Lily only agreed to change Peter to be Secret Keeper because Sirius insisted on doing so.

But this means James had no mind of his own and the responsibility was all sirius's. While it was Sirius who persuaded James and Sirius who probably suggested Peter; the final decision was James and Lily's. It was their responsibility to see that they protected Harry well and this was the method they chose to go about it; when IMO they could have chosen other methods, namely DUmbeldore IMO.

But Lily is proof that James must have changed somehow. Lily had a lot of integrity, proven in how she dropped the friendship because of how Snape was turning down the wrong path. It makes so much sense that Lily would end up with James after he matured and end the friendship between herself and Snape because Snape was unwilling to change.

I don't agree swith this; I cannot take any one person's opinion (Lily)as the yardstick for change IMO. The change in James IMO is not measured by Lily's acceptance of him; if that were the case, just to sound argumentative, I who takes the other side and think better of Snape than James can say that Lily was wrong in marrying James. But I would not say that. What happened between James and Lily was love. They loved each other, vibed well with each other and wanted to be with each other IMO.

I think what she finds worrying is that Draco was an explicitly malicious character while Sirius and James were not. Sirius's type of "bad boy" was different than Draco's IMO due to the fact that they never joined Voldemort and never held intolerant views toward those who were not pureblooded wizards.

No, he didn't join Voldemort, but he was still intolerant of Slytherin House in general. Yes, he may have his reasons, but surely Draco had his? Being raised in a family that hated them it was sure to rub off on him, and then unless he ever met a Muggle or muggle-born to prove what his family told him is wrong, he has nothing else to go on.

The fact is, so much as he tried, Draco couldn't be a murderer. He isn't nearly as dark as you make him out to be and is much closer to Sirius than one may think.

on top of that, Sirius, the assumed real Secret Keeper, was running around playing Super Spy and having the time of his life.
Sirius was risking his life by openly being a decoy. He wasn't running around playing superspy. The idea was that DEs would be drawn to him, making Sirius the target since no one would think to look at Peter who could hide as rat if he was in danger.

I still reckon due to the Whomping Willow incident that Remus and Sirius had a falling out - they may have become friends again (with alot of help from James) but I think the fight still shook up their friendship really badly - I personally don't think Remus would have ever really forgiven Sirius and Sirius would have been angry at Remus for taking it so seriously, so when it came to choosing SK due to the spy Remus and Sirius suspected each other leaving the way open for Pettrigrew - I don't think Pettigrew would have taken the initiative. I think Sirius would have had the idea - Pettigrew would have thoroughly agreed and then due to Peter being the last person the DEs would expect of being SK James and Lily allowed themselves to be persuaded. Although I don't think James and Lily thought any of the marauders was a spy - I think they thought it was someone else in the order and that's why they agreed to make Pettigrew SK.

Sirius was risking his life by openly being a decoy. He wasn't running around playing superspy. The idea was that DEs would be drawn to him, making Sirius the target since no one would think to look at Peter who could hide as rat if he was in danger.

I actually think that was very wrong and foolish of Sirius. Mainly because I don't think any of the Marauders could hold out against the torture that Voldmeort and DEs could hand out. What if they were force fed veritaserum (Assuming they did not know about Voldemort's Legilimency skills) and they either blurted out the secret or told Voldmeort who the SK was? It would have been more prudent to hide IMO.

I still reckon due to the Whomping Willow incident that Remus and Sirius had a falling out - they may have become friends again (with alot of help from James) but I think the fight still shook up their friendship really badly - I personally don't think Remus would have ever really forgiven Sirius and Sirius would have been angry at Remus for taking it so seriously, so when it came to choosing SK due to the spy Remus and Sirius suspected each other leaving the way open for Pettrigrew - I don't think Pettigrew would have taken the initiative. I think Sirius would have had the idea - Pettigrew would have thoroughly agreed and then due to Peter being the last person the DEs would expect of being SK James and Lily allowed themselves to be persuaded. Although I don't think James and Lily thought any of the marauders was a spy - I think they thought it was someone else in the order and that's why they agreed to make Pettigrew SK.

:tu: I think all of this could be very possible. :)

I’m afraid I disagree. As I stated before, to Lily, who never knew the whole involvement of the Werewolf prank, simply saving Severus’ life could have been enough to win her affection. It does not mean that he really did grow up-- in fact we know he didn’t because SWM happens right after that.
As you mentioned, SWM came after the werewolf incident. Lily clearly was not won over by James just because of the werewolf incident considering she so vocally turned him down in SWM. Lily was rather stubborn, as we saw in SWM and TPT, and I highly doubt she'd just simply change her opinion on dating James for no reason if he didn't change one bit. That wouldn't make any sense with her character.

The fact is, no matter how much integrity or stronghold on her own moral values Lily had, she is only human. Her marrying James isn’t really a good way to measure James’ character. She may have loved him, but that doesn’t mean he really changed. We see even in SWM that she has something of a crush on him, but is trying to deny it-- and he has definitely not changed by then.
She might have had a crush but she was really clear about not wanting to date him. We have Sirius and Remus's word that he did mature, the fact that Dumbledore made him Head Boy, and Lily's opinion on dating him taking a 180; there is no canon to oppose any of these three things so I don't see any reason think James did not mature at all. Not to mention, it's natural for someone to grow out of this sort of thing and I don't see why James would be immune to growing up, like everyone else.

So much as Jo tries to deny it, Lily did fall for the ‘bad boy’ of the series. Jo herself says that Sirius is her favorite character. How much more ‘bad boy’ can you get than a flying motorbike? Yet it was Jo herself that is always harping on the Draco fangirls for loving the 'bad boy'. Something of a double standard, there.
I disagree. Lily was actually one character we see following Jo's opinion on not dating the bad boys. Lily, even if she was attracted to James in SWM, turned him down very publically because of how he was acting. Even if she found him slightly funny, she didn't just fawn over him for being a "bad boy". Also, Jo criticized girls for wanting to "change the bad boy"; Lily wasn't like that considering she dropped her friendship with Snape once he was clearly down a bad route and she knew when it wasn't healthy for her to stick around. And to be fair, James and Sirius weren't the same kind of bad boys as Draco was. Draco was bad in morals and such, whereas James and Sirius were mainly bad in not following the rules/laws. Even Harry, Ron, and Hermione broke the rules and laws. :lol:


No, but at the time it can be assumed that they believed Sirius. Lily does not make any mention of Remus in her letter to Sirius-- but she mentions just about everyone else.
I don't see how not mentioning Remus means she distrusted him. Not mentioning Remus could be because none of them had seen him for a while because he was doing his own duty for the Order, for example.



The crazy thing about people is that we tend to be very hypocritical about things at times-- look at Sirius Black! He comments about a man’s character being based on the way they treat their inferiors, yet treats Kreature with disdain. Simply because they say James’ trusted his friends to an extreme, it does not mean he really did. Also, a blanket statement by Sirius to Harry does not a canon fact produce-- that is all conjecture and opinion made by a man who is trying to leave a good impression of a father on his son.
Again, I don't see how this is any reason to believe James mistrusted one of his best friends. Just because people can be hypocritical does not mean it was so in this case with James. James and Harry were often compared and Remus actually did compare them in this respect in DH, when Harry refused to believe any of his friends could betray him. Harry really did trust his friends entirely, and he was compared to James. There's nothing in canon whatosever to negate it so I see no reason to assume he didn't trust Remus. There are plenty of other possibly reasons for why he agreed on Peter instead. One possible reason could be that Remus was out doing something for the Order, and could therefore not be used as a Secret Keeper. This would make sense, given that this was his full-time job, and that it does not contradict anything we have in canon (as far as I know).

From the Snape and Lily thread

It was Remus' good fortune that he ran into people who did not aspire to be DEs. Otherwise, his lycanthropy could easily have embittered him like so many werewolves before him.

:tu:

I also found a few similarities between Snape and Remus, but on the whole feel Snape to be a much stronger character than Remus IMO. Remus appears weak at times, while I think weakness was one fault Snape never had IMO.

I actually think that was very wrong and foolish of Sirius. Mainly because I don't think any of the Marauders could hold out against the torture that Voldmeort and DEs could hand out. What if they were force fed veritaserum (Assuming they did not know about Voldemort's Legilimency skills) and they either blurted out the secret or told Voldmeort who the SK was? It would have been more prudent to hide IMO.

:tu: I couldn't have said this any better myself!

As you mentioned, SWM came after the werewolf incident. Lily clearly was not won over by James just because of the werewolf incident considering she so vocally turned him down in SWM. Lily was rather stubborn, as we saw in SWM and TPT, and I highly doubt she'd just simply change her opinion on dating James for no reason if he didn't change one bit. That wouldn't make any sense with her character.

Lily kept her attention soley on James, ignoring Sirius completely. I think it is a bit obvious that she fancied him at that point, even just a little bit, but was trying to fight it off. Added to that, if he joined the Order, managed to be made Head Boy and did other 'noble' things I can see Lily deciding he was changed. It doesn't mean he was any less reckless or any more mature than before.

She might have had a crush but she was really clear about not wanting to date him. We have Sirius and Remus's word that he did mature, the fact that Dumbledore made him Head Boy, and Lily's opinion on dating him taking a 180; there is no canon to oppose any of these three things so I don't see any reason think James did not mature at all. Not to mention, it's natural for someone to grow out of this sort of thing and I don't see why James would be immune to growing up, like everyone else.

the fact is that everything JKR has written, including her new prologue, has shown James in the light of a reckless, disrespectful, and immature person. Sirius and Remus give us nothing more than conjecture and opinion-- not something that one can base a character analysis on-- unless you mean to anylize Sirius or Remus. Albus made him Head Boy, but he still didn't know about half the activities that the Marauders got up to. His praises of James aren't much to go on, imho. And, it may be assumed that he was just trying to get the Marauders in line. It didn't work with Remus because he didn't have the stamina to stand up to his friends, nor did he have the sway Albus hoped he would. So he went with the next best choice and picked James.

James may not have been immune to growing up, but he certanly acted reckless in his last days. I do have some respect for James, and I think he grew up some (definetly more than Sirius and even (in some respects) Remus) but he still had much more growth left in him.

The problem (for me) with James is that we know so little of him, that it is hard to really understand his character. I think that Jo genuinly thinks he changed, but she never actually showed us any growth-- and the little that she did show us only paints him in a negative light. I would really love to believe that James grew up, but from the canon we've been given I can't.

the fact is that everything JKR has written, including her new prologue, has shown James in the light of a reckless, disrespectful, and immature person.
The short story showed James and Sirius being pursued by DEs. Unfortunately, the muggle police saw them and took chase down an alley that their car shouldn't have even fit into. Then, James and Sirius acted cheeky, obviously stalling for time until the DEs caught up. Otherwise they could have easily flown away, or they could have stunned the cops or immobilized them, but all they did was act cheeky to keep the cops busy, without alarming them, until the DEs showed up. Had they not stayed around, the cops would have been in danger from the DEs. And had they not kept the mood light, the cops might have become alarmed and taken more drastic action. Then James and Sirius were instantly all business when the DEs showed, incapacitated them. While they were being cheeky, they were bantering in a stereotypical buddy team manner. At no moment did they act irresponsibly or recklessly. In fact, they endangered themselves by waiting around for the DEs to show up. But obviously they realized the police were in great danger from the DEs, so they stayed around.

Their banter was supposed to be amusing, since this was a lighthearted little piece.

Yet, when it was all over, they simply rode off into the sunset with no concern what-so-ever as to the state of mind the Muggle police would now be in-- nor did they fix the car-- leaving them alone in an alley-way with no explanation that anyone in their right mind would believe.

If they were looking to protect the police, there were better ways of going about it. And if JKR wanted to make it funny, she could have done so without making James and Sirius disrespectful as well.

The problem (for me) with James is that we know so little of him, that it is hard to really understand his character. I think that Jo genuinly thinks he changed, but she never actually showed us any growth-- and the little that she did show us only paints him in a negative light. I would really love to believe that James grew up, but from the canon we've been given I can't.

I respect your view, but I feel it be expecting quite a lot from JKR to give us a ton of details and information about a person who was dead when the series began. We got the basics and I feel we are supposed to simply go with that because that is all that is pertinent to the storyline. You can only have hearsay statements and opinions about James because he is dead and I believe JKR was hopeful that her audience would realize that Snape (who disliked James greatly) would not present him in the best light. That is, why would Snape hide the scene of his rescue by James in a pensieve? Or James doing a great Quidditch move? Or James defending a person that had been called a Mudblood? Those would not be among Snape's worst memories by far, imo and like his Death Eater days, they could be buried away by Snape himself, deep within his mind because they are not poignant at all for him, in my judgment.

When you consider it, when could JKR have Sirius or Remus show Harry a memory of the past with James (and Lily) that would be shared with readers? They may have done this off page, but on page it would be totally extrinsic to the storyline because the two people are no longer living in the earthly wizard world. Sort of like Grindlewald - what if he also did some super wonderful things in life? We don't hear about them because they don't make a difference to the story, but can we be sure he was always a horrible piece of work?

With James and Lily, we got a bit more background and an overwhelming number of people spoke positively about them, especially about James. The only negativity comes from Snape; even Bella and Lucius who knew James had nothing negative to say - even Voldemort except to chastise him for not having a wand and that I believe JKR specifically did to tie it in to the Resurrection Stone scene where Harry had to face Voldemort without a wand as well knowing he would die (hence James being the only one in that scene in his clothing from the night of his death).

So I believe JKR was just furnishing us with information to let us know that Harry's dad and mum were normal folk, immature in their youth, matured into brave, hardworking adults and died in sacrifice for their son. They were only 21, so sure, they would still have maturing to do, but they were parents and a great amount of maturity comes with parenthood. ;)

How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?
I think Remus probably felt a bit left out at times, and Peter probably felt more left out than Remus. Peter desperately wanted to be like them, he looked up to them, so that tells me he probably also felt that they were superior and cooler than him.

Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?
I think it was as described in PoA. It was the process of elimination. James and Lily knew that there was a spy within their inner circle, and James trusted Sirius more than anyone else, so he didn't believe it was him. And as for Peter, as Sirius said in PoA, no one believed that Voldemort would ever use someone weak like him, or that Peter had the guts to be a spy for Voldemort in the first place. I'm sure that James and Sirius didn't want to believe Remus was the spy, and they had a difficult time accepting that conclusion.

James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?
I think it was both.

What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
I don't think they really cared much. I don't think he was obsessed with her either, he just liked her, and then eventually fell in love with her later.

How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?
She probably made them all grow up a bit and start acting more mature, which was most likely to Remus' relief.

James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?
They probably never really thought about it. I don't think it was exactly a secret that James was closest to Sirius out of the three of his friends, so it was probably expected.

Peter betrayed his friends. Was he ever happy with this decision and do you think that his friends would be able to forgive him if they had the chance?
I don't think he was ever happy with his decision. He was afraid of Voldemort. He didn't go to Voldemort for the reasons that people like Bellatrix had. He went to Voldemort because he was frightened of him, cowardly, and thought he would be safe if he joined the Dark side. He was as cowardly as they come, but I don't think he was ever happy with the decision to betray his friends.
I also don't think that his friends would ever be able to forgive him. How could they? He was responsible for the death of James and his wife Lily, almost responsible for the death of James' son Harry, and responsible for the fact that Sirius was locked away in Azkaban for twelve years though he was innocent. Years later, he was also responsible for bringing Voldemort back to power, who nearly killed Harry again. No, they could never forgive him. Show him mercy, perhaps. But not forgive.

Was joining the Order a joint decision or was peer pressure involved? For instance, did James and Sirius lead the way and Remus and Peter follow?
I think that James, Sirius, and Remus probably all joined willingly. Peter most likely followed. I don't think it was in Peter's nature to go to war, for he is cowardly. He was just doing what he always did -- following James and Sirius.

The Marauders had a very hostile relationship with Snape. Would this have been different if Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor? Did the Marauders antagonise other students that were into the Dark Arts as well or did they single out Snape from the start?
I think they singled Snape out from the start. I think they definitely had rivalries with other students, but Snape was a special case. Maybe they would have treated him a bit better if he was in Gryffindor, but I doubt it, since they both disliked each other even before they were sorted.

How do the Marauders compare to Fred and George? Do you think that they, and especially James and Sirius, were worse or just as funny as the Weasley twins?
I think they were quite similar.

Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?
No, DH didn't change my mind about any of the Marauders very much. If anything, I liked them a bit more, especially James.

Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?
I like Remus the most. I like him because he was kind to Harry, he was a good teacher, and he didn't partake in the bullying at school that James and Sirius did when they were young. He also had a caring, soft-spoken nature, but he was brave when he needed to be.

Yet, when it was all over, they simply rode off into the sunset with no concern what-so-ever as to the state of mind the Muggle police would now be in-- nor did they fix the car-- leaving them alone in an alley-way with no explanation that anyone in their right mind would believe.

If they were looking to protect the police, there were better ways of going about it. And if JKR wanted to make it funny, she could have done so without making James and Sirius disrespectful as well.It was only 800 words, and she could barely fit it in the space provided. It was just a quick fun piece. If you want to extend the circumstances, let's just assume that they sent off a Patronus and the Ministry or Order could apparate instantly and arrest the DEs.

There was no other reason for them to stay in the alley, since they could have flown away. They kept it light to keep the police from becoming alarmed. That would have put the police at more risk when the DEs showed up.

It was fun. The banter was harmless and not disrespectful. It was cheeky. It would have been disrespectful if they had insulted or made fun of the police, and they didn't.

The problem I had with the small prequel was that it did not show James and Sirius developed the responsibility and matured; they told Harry in OOTP that James changed, that he was mature and was less arrogant and had deflated his head and all that; but the prequel brought up a lot of things that were not very nice about them IMO. The first thing which struck me was that their arrogance.

What was shocking to me was the way they treated the muggles. Now they attacked the DEs and flew away. But they did not bother to conceal their magical status, which itself was a crime and they sped away not minding the plight of the muggles, who were at the mercy of those who were attacked by James and Sirius with the car. If the DEs (I assume they were DEs) were not badly hurt or if they were not unconcious or if they were unconcious and woke up quickly, then what would happen to the muggle policemen? James and sirius did not seem to bother about that IMO.And they also did not heed the statute of secrecy; did not care about consequences IMO.

To me it showed only irresponsibility and arrogance that made me feel sure that James had not changed and if they were concealing all this from Lily, then I think James was at fault there too IMO.

And after reading the prequel, I wondered whether this meant that James's change itself was only equal to concealing hex wars and the like from Lily more than an actual change in his character.

The entire post is my opinion.

That is how all shorts end - it is assumed that Sirius and James alert the Order or Ministry to take care of the muggles and DEs. Have you ever read batman comics or seen the cartoons? Batman is always zooming off from the scene of his handiwork, the thugs piled up or tied up and they don't always show the police arriving to take them away. I suppose because it is uninteresting to most people and one just assumes that is what happens. JKR wrote her short little scene in the same way; use cunning and outsmart the bad guys even though road blocks like muggle police get in the way. :) This made me recall all of the police that Batman has actually shoved out of his way (and out of the way of danger, at times knocking them out). It is funny to think of him as being irresponsible. I never thought of it in that light. :lol:. But we aren't supposed to in my view.

And they also did not heed the statute of secrecy; did not care about consequences IMO.
The police chased them. How could they avoid the statute of secrecy?

To me it showed only irresponsibility and arrogance that made me feel sure that James had not changed and if they were concealing all this from Lily, then I think James was at fault there too IMO.There was no arrogance. They stayed with the police because they knew DEs were coming right behind them and they wanted to protect the police.

That is how all shorts end - it is assumed that Sirius and James alert the Order or Ministry to take care of the muggles and DEs. Have you ever read batman comics or seen the cartoons? Batman is always zooming off from the scene of his handiwork, the thugs piled up or tied up and they don't always show the police arriving to take them away. I suppose because it is uninteresting to most people and one just assumes that is what happens. JKR wrote her short little scene in the same way; use cunning and outsmart the bad guys even though road blocks like muggle police get in the way. :) This made me recall all of the police that Batman has actually shoved out of his way (and out of the way of danger, at times knocking them out). It is funny to think of him as being irresponsible. I never thought of it in that light. :lol:. But we aren't supposed to in my view.

Batman comics, yes. :)

James and Sirius would have just had to press the invisibility buttons on the bike and they would not have been seen by either the Policemen or the DES. It looks like they were deliberately allowing the Policemen to chase them in a muggle area IMO.

The DEs were not attacking the Policemen, they were chasing James and Sirius and who were so far behind the 2 Marauders that James and Sirius could have just gone away IMO. They had time for a conversation with the policemen and it was after that they finished their interaction with the DE and took off; the DEs, if they gained their senses fast, would probably hex those 2 muggles before they went on their way as well, and before the MInistry came probably IMO.

The police chased them. How could they avoid the statute of secrecy?

There was no arrogance. They stayed with the police because they knew DEs were coming right behind them and they wanted to protect the police.

There was the invisibility button; they could have used that IMO. Or they could have used the disiilusionment charm on themselves and the bike, before the muggles came around the corner. And then flown away IMO. :)

From the James thread:

I know and I agree with that; not as arrogant as he was; but IMHO, I still think James was on the too arrogant side, that's all. His inability to see through Peter;

Arrogant that no one could cheat him; foolish enough to believe Peter's falseness, (THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED FOR US AS WE WOULD HAVE DIED FOR YOU!) screams Sirius in POA, showing that he was completely taken in and deluded about Peter and the Marauders never really saw through Peter for what he was IMO. I am a great believer in thinking that people cannot cheat forever; and their true colours are exhibited sooner rather than later if such false people move closely with those they are cheating (this falseness of character is also cheating IMO). Peter was with them day in and day out for 7 years; except the summer vacation, easter and christmas. If the sum total of all these holidays was some three months in a year, then Peter was with the other Marauders for almost 9 months continously. And once they joined the Order Peter also joined Voldmeort and then too they were still moving in close quarters with James and Lily and Sirius and Remus. But none of them saw through him. I find it very surprising and I can call it only arrogance or foolishness that they were taken in by his false words for a period of 10 years of almost daily interaction IMO.

So, in your opinion, they were all arrogant and foolish? Lily and Remus too, who were shown to be more sensible than James and Sirius in their teenage years? Remus did not think of suspecting Peter until PoA, since he had most of his suspicions on Sirius. I have never thought of him as arrogant, in fact, I have seen him more or less humbled due to the circumstances of his life (being a werewolf and being discriminated against). I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point because I do not believe this at all.

I don't think Peter was cheating them all along; I think he was genuinely a part of their group (taking part in pranks and general fun) for a very long time. Granted, we see in SWM that he adored James and Sirius in a somewhat servile manner. But I have always seen Peter as showing a certain amount of loyalty to his friends, but loving himself far, far more than that, so much that his loyalty to himself was much greater. He was extremely selfish IMO, and if given a choice between saving his own neck and risking his life for his friends, he'd choose to do the former. However, I don't think any of the others saw this; they had been a group for so long, with Peter being on their side all that time, and the idea of betraying one of their friends was so inconceivable to James, Sirius and Remus that they didn't think Peter was capable of that either. I think Peter was aware of this, but he didn't care. He valued his own hide more than anything else in the world and that is why I think he switched sides a year before James and Lily's death: because he felt that there was nothing to be gained by fighting for his friends.

Batman comics, yes. :)

James and Sirius would have just had to press the invisibility buttons on the bike and they would not have been seen by either the Policemen or the DES. It looks like they were deliberately allowing the Policemen to chase them in a muggle area IMO.

The DEs were not attacking the Policemen, they were chasing James and Sirius and who were so far behind the 2 Marauders that James and Sirius could have just gone away IMO. They had time for a conversation with the policemen and it was after that they finished their interaction with the DE and took off; the DEs, if they gained their senses fast, would probably hex those 2 muggles before they went on their way as well, and before the MInistry came probably IMO.

In my view, James and Sirius knew they were being chased by DEs. We have no canon as Sirius adding invisibility buttons and on top of that the bike was fairly new as this was a full 3 years before Harry was born. I feel that if their plan was to escape the DEs they would have used any invisibility buttons he had on the ground, so in my view, they were not installed on the bike. Also Harry would have used them in 7 Potters if the bike had one.

I feel that James and Sirius were not flying in the air because the DEs were on brooms and they had to fly in the air (apparently even Voldemort was not keen on Muggles learning about wizards.) An airborn battle could have spelled doom for Sirius and James, but they were fairly safe on the ground. However, the police got in the chase, so Sirius realized that they would have to stop per Magic/Muggle rules. But they didn't want to stop out in the open where the DEs could strike them from the sky, so they remained a moving target and the police began chasing them.

Sirius finally found a narrow alleyway that he believed would be too small for the police car to fit into. Howeer, the policeman scraped up his car anyway and forced his way in. Meanwhile James and Sirius see the Muggle police doing this and have to form a new plan. So they do (the plan we saw). The police come in and Sirius and James know it is only a matter of time before the DEs will arrive. So they do not want to allow the police to arrest them and take them back out into the open, nor do they wish to leave the policemen in the alley, alone, where the DEs will likely harm them. So they start cheekily chatting away in a nonsensical manner with the police in order to stall for time.

So the DEs come and Sirius and James, without communication, without even looking at one another, raise their wands and perform the same spell. Hence we know it was pre-planned. The car raises up, the DEs smack into it and fall unconscious to the ground. This was not a little hit, this was a very hard hit because the brooms busted up into pieces and fell all about the area. They would remain unconscious for some time. So Sirius and James would have ample time to get out of there, alert the ministry who could apparate there in seconds and obliviate the muggles and arrest the DEs.

There was the invisibility button; they could have used that IMO. Or they could have used the disiilusionment charm on themselves and the bike, before the muggles came around the corner. And then flown away IMO. :)

I am pretty sure there was no invisibility button or they would have used it much sooner so the muggle police would not get involved - actually, so no one else would get involved. But they were left without a choice in that regard imo. Further, once it was clear that the Muggle Police were going to fit into the alleyway, they could not leave - so they did not want to put a charm on the bike. Instead they put the charm on the police officers to ensure they remained - and importantly - the car remained in the alleyway so they could carry out their plan. Finally, JKR wanted to involve the Police and give us a story from a Muggle point of view (their bafflement adds an element of humor), so she could not have James and Sirius use trickery to hide or disguise the bike or her whole story line would be ruined as the police would not be able to see them.

Think if she had written the story you propose, it would have been 2 lines: "James and Sirius drove on their bike through the streets, charmed the bike, and the exhaust was the only way to tell they had flow away!" That would not make for a very entertaining story in my opinion, :lol:.

There was the invisibility button; they could have used that IMO. Or they could have used the disiilusionment charm on themselves and the bike, before the muggles came around the corner. And then flown away IMO. :)What invisibility button? I only remember one on the Ford Anglia. They certainly didn't use it on the cycle when they were being pursued by DEs in the Seven Potters. Nor was there any mention of it.

They didn't just fly off because they knew the DEs were coming. Odds are they were out in the open just to lure the DEs in the first place. Otherwise there would have been no reason to stay around at all. They stayed because they didn't want the DEs to attack the police. If they had vanished, the DEs might have taken out their anger on the cops.

Sorry! :blush: :blush: I got confused with the Ford Anglia, that was the one that had the invisibility buttons. But what about the disillusionment charms; the notice-me-not charms on themselves and the bike; they could have zoomed off safely IMO?

If they were there to lure the DEs in the first place, then I think it is their responsibility to make sure the DEs are bound, and Sirius or James should have stood guard over them while the other should have gone off or at least sent a message to the Ministry to arrest them. The way they just zoomed off, not caring that the DEs too may escape, tells me that they did not care and very irresposible IMO.

From the James thread:

So, in your opinion, they were all arrogant and foolish? Lily and Remus too, who were shown to be more sensible than James and Sirius in their teenage years? Remus did not think of suspecting Peter until PoA, since he had most of his suspicions on Sirius. I have never thought of him as arrogant, in fact, I have seen him more or less humbled due to the circumstances of his life (being a werewolf and being discriminated against). I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point because I do not believe this at all.

I am confused about Remus actually. Lily, I am sure was taken in IMO. I think all of them had a common opinion that Peter was so incapable that he being a traitor never occured to them. They thought he was weak, misfit and a pitiable little thing, that it never crossed their minds to check him. This was after they knew there was a traitor IMO.

But before that; Peter was not a true friend; he put up with more than a friend would; he simply tagged along and had no problem if they spoke down to him; I don't think it was a friendship between equals, and such friendships generally tend to suffer IMO. For the inequality tends to come between friends IMO.

I don't think Peter was cheating them all along; I think he was genuinely a part of their group (taking part in pranks and general fun) for a very long time.

I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think Peter was a true friend at all. If he was he would not have betrayed James and Lily IMO (even as a DE) IMO.

Snape was a DE; but he would have sold his soul before he betrayed Lily to Voldmeort, and Lily had broken off with him and married his enemy, was best friends with the man who sent Snape into the tunnel to be bitten or killed IMO. And still Snape would not have betrayed Lily, and for Lily's sake James and Harry to Voldemort IMO.

The moment he knew Lily was targeted; he begged Voldemort for her life and came running to Dumbeldore to double protect Lily and to tell him to save Harry and James as well IMO.

Peter was best friends with James and Lily for over 10 years, and if he was a genuine friend, I don't think he could have turned over the Potters to Voldemort IMO.

EDIT:: posted by WWB
Finally, JKR wanted to involve the Police and give us a story from a Muggle point of view (their bafflement adds an element of humor), so she could not have James and Sirius use trickery to hide or disguise the bike or her whole story line would be ruined as the police would not be able to see them.

I agree; but opnly feel she could have had the muggles, James and Sirius in an exercise that made James and Sirius look better than uncaring of their actions IMO

I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think Peter was a true friend at all. If he was he would not have betrayed James and Lily IMO (even as a DE) IMO.

Snape was a DE; but he would have sold his soul before he betrayed Lily to Voldmeort, and Lily had broken off with him and married his enemy, was best friends with the man who sent Snape into the tunnel to be bitten or killed IMO. And still Snape would not have betrayed Lily, and for Lily's sake James and Harry to Voldemort IMO. The moment he knew Lily was targeted; he begged Voldemort for her life and came running to Dumbeldore to double protect Lily and to tell him to save Harry and James as well IMO. Peter was best friends with James and Lily for over 10 years, and if he was a genuine friend, I don't think he could have turned over the Potters to Voldemort IMO.

I never said Peter was a true friend; I said he had been a part of the Marauders ever since its inception and thus was a genuine member of that group. I really do not think that he cheated on the group before, did not, for example, run off to the Slytherins (comprising Snape, Avery and all the future DEs) and tell them all the Marauder secrets he knew, or leak out any of the pranks that they might have been planning to the teachers just to get in their good books. Mostly, I think, it was because James and Sirius and Remus were more than capable of defending themselves (and Peter) against the Slytherin group, and smart enough to avoid detection, except when they openly did their pranks, of course (think of how they kept their Animagus secret even from Dumbledore, but also think of James and Sirius' detention record ;)). So as far as they knew, Peter wasn't exactly the most powerful wizard, but he had never done anything to show that he would be disloyal to the group and therefore they had no reason to suspect him in the first place.

They thought he was weak, misfit and a pitiable little thing, that it never crossed their minds to check him. This was after they knew there was a traitor IMO.

I actually don't think they had such a derogatory opinion of him. Even McGonagall admits that Peter wasn't quite in the league of the other Marauders talent-wise, and obviously the other Marauders knew it too. I don't think they deliberately rubbed it in or anything of the sort. They simply assumed that because of this, Voldemort wouldn't employ Peter into his ranks, an underestimation that cost them greatly.

Other than that, I agree with you about the inequality in their friendships thing. Though I think Peter was a bit too obvious with his adoration in SWM; he might have refined his habits somewhat as he grew older. I don't think the others would have fallen for it so much if he hadn't.

Other than that, I agree with you about the inequality in their friendships thing. Though I think Peter was a bit too obvious with his adoration in SWM; he might have refined his habits somewhat as he grew older. I don't think the others would have fallen for it so much if he hadn't.

I disagree, what was SWM? Fifth or sixth year, I believe. He would have had plenty of time up until them to 'refine' his technique, and yet they still believed him. I think James and Sirius ate up all the attention and fangirling that Peter gave them.

I actually don't think they had such a derogatory opinion of him. Even McGonagall admits that Peter wasn't quite in the league of the other Marauders talent-wise, and obviously the other Marauders knew it too. I don't think they deliberately rubbed it in or anything of the sort. They simply assumed that because of this, Voldemort wouldn't employ Peter into his ranks, an underestimation that cost them greatly.


LOLZ, it probably wasn't intentional, but the way this is worded it seems as if you are implying that James and Lily knew that Peter wasn't a good friend, and that he would betray them, but that they thought Voldemort would never accept him. XD

I never said Peter was a true friend; I said he had been a part of the Marauders ever since its inception and thus was a genuine member of that group. I really do not think that he cheated on the group before, did not, for example, run off to the Slytherins (comprising Snape, Avery and all the future DEs) and tell them all the Marauder secrets he knew, or leak out any of the pranks that they might have been planning to the teachers just to get in their good books.

Exactly, because he would have had nothing to gain by doing so. The Marauders gave him protection, he had no reason to betray them at Hogwarts. But out in the real world, it was dangerous, and Peter percieved Voldemort to be stronger and more likely to win-- so he switched sides.

Sorry! :blush: :blush: I got confused with the Ford Anglia, that was the one that had the invisibility buttons. But what about the disillusionment charms; the notice-me-not charms on themselves and the bike; they could have zoomed off safely IMO?

But that is not what JKR wanted. She wanted a fun story not a boring mundane one. Where is the excitement in that tale?

It was an auction, imagine paying 25,000 pounds and getting 2 lines about how the two put on a notice me not charm and flew away. The buyer would be livid! :rotfl:

If they were there to lure the DEs in the first place, then I think it is their responsibility to make sure the DEs are bound, and Sirius or James should have stood guard over them while the other should have gone off or at least sent a message to the Ministry to arrest them. The way they just zoomed off, not caring that the DEs too may escape, tells me that they did not care and very irresposible IMO.

Well we did only see it from the Muggles point of view. James and Sirius may have bound the DEs with magic invisibility ropes and the Muggle Police would be none the wiser. Or they could have called the Ministry and the Aurors arrived within seconds. Since there is nothing to indicate that didn't happen, I feel that it is possible to take a positive view of the ending if one wishes to do so. :huh:

I am sure was taken in IMO. I think all of them had a common opinion that Peter was so incapable that he being a traitor never occured to them. They thought he was weak, misfit and a pitiable little thing, that it never crossed their minds to check him. This was after they knew there was a traitor IMO.

I respect your view, but I think this is a great exaggeration over even the very angry terms Sirius used, 'weak and untalented'. He didn't call him a pitiable misfit. I feel that the worse you make him sound, the more ludicrous his friends look for believing he could be honest. In my view that is unfair to Peter and his friends.

I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think Peter was a true friend at all. If he was he would not have betrayed James and Lily IMO (even as a DE) IMO.

In my opinion, Peter did not turn out to be a good friend. But I don't feel it can be cannot assumed that he was always a poor friend. I think he loved his friends in his youth.

Snape was a DE; but he would have sold his soul before he betrayed Lily to Voldmeort, and Lily had broken off with him and married his enemy, was best friends with the man who sent Snape into the tunnel to be bitten or killed IMO. And still Snape would not have betrayed Lily, and for Lily's sake James and Harry to Voldemort IMO.

I don't think this analogy works. I feel Snape had already betrayed his friendship with Lily when he chose the DEs over her. His chosing to being a DE is what I feel led him to unknowingly betray her again when he delivered the prophecy. That prophecy could have applied to anyone in the world and Snape had the opportunity to consider that included Lily prior to his turning it over. Finally his motivation, in my opinion, was to be with Lily and have her husband and son die which is why Dumbledore was disgusted with him; he was willing to exchange the mother for the son. So I do not believe that Snape comes out looking any better than Peter in this situation. Peter was behaving in an equally wrongful manner in my judgment as was Voldemort.

Peter was best friends with James and Lily for over 10 years, and if he was a genuine friend, I don't think he could have turned over the Potters to Voldemort IMO.

I believe that all canon truly provides is that Peter was not a good friend at the time he jumped on board with Voldemort. Prior to that, I don't feel there is sufficient canon to ascertain his level of friendship other than it was not as tight as some of the others in the group. :)

I agree; but opnly feel she could have had the muggles, James and Sirius in an exercise that made James and Sirius look better than uncaring of their actions IMO

I respect your view, but your view extends the story to include that James and Sirius did nothing and that is not written in the prequel. In my opinion, they would not leave the situation without alerting the authorities and they may have bound the captives. You realize there was a long period during which the Muggle Policeman's eyes were not upon James and Sirius, he didn't notice them again until their engine roared. What were they doing all of that time? Perhaps signaling the authorities. :)

I disagree, what was SWM? Fifth or sixth year, I believe. He would have had plenty of time up until them to 'refine' his technique, and yet they still believed him. I think James and Sirius ate up all the attention and fangirling that Peter gave them.

I think in SWM James and Sirius were so arrogant they did eat up all the attention they got; not just from Peter, but everyone else too.

By refining his technique, I mean that Peter would have become a few degrees subtler than what he appeared to be in SWM. By the time James grew up and let go of some of his arrogance, I think Peter wouldn't be quite so obvious in his 'fangirling' (as you call it, excellent word, btw :lol:). He may have played the part of being a good friend a little better and with a little less flattery, as I see it. If not James, then at least Lily would have seen through it otherwise IMO.

LOLZ, it probably wasn't intentional, but the way this is worded it seems as if you are implying that James and Lily knew that Peter wasn't a good friend, and that he would betray them, but that they thought Voldemort would never accept him. XD

I'm obviously terrible at wording what I'm trying to say. :lol:

I mean it never occurred to them that Peter would be the traitor because they underestimated him so greatly. ;)

I respect your view, but I think this is a great exaggeration over even the very angry terms Sirius used, 'weak and untalented'. He didn't call him a pitiable misfit. I feel that the worse you make him sound, the more ludicrous his friends look for believing he could be honest. In my view that is unfair to Peter and his friends.

In my opinion, Peter did not turn out to be a good friend. But I don't feel it can be cannot assumed that he was always a poor friend. I think he loved his friends in his youth.

I believe that all canon truly provides is that Peter was not a good friend at the time he jumped on board with Voldemort. Prior to that, I don't feel there is sufficient canon to ascertain his level of friendship other than it was not as tight as some of the others in the group. :)

I agree. I may despise what Peter did as an adult but I like to think that, at Hogwarts, he still had a lot of innocence. I don't believe he was ever evil, just a complete coward with horrible judgement and selfish desires. I've thought about it a lot and I think the reason he was put in Gryffindor, despite being so cowardly, was because he wanted to be in Gryffindor. I have a feeling he might have wanted to be brave and great, and perhaps that's one reason he fawned over James and Sirius so much. I don't think it was totally because they were the most powerful kids around that he stuck with them. I think, to an extent, he truly did value them as friends. I believe he valued Remus enough not to tell a single person of his lycanthropy, and to not cower away from him at simply knowing what he was. He took part in all their adventures, co-wrote the map, and became an animagus with them. Even if he was a coward, those kinds of things still stick with people and I find it extremely hard to believe Peter felt nothing at all for any of his friends after all those shared experiences.

One thing to note is that it took him a week to reveal to Voldemort the location of the Potters. A full week, by my calculations (and those of the Lexicon). There could be many reasons why it took him so long to reveal it to Voldemort but I think that it's rather human that after seven years of being friends with James he did feel for him, and he did feel guilt for what he was to do, and that might be partly why.

But that is not what JKR wanted. She wanted a fun story not a boring mundane one. Where is the excitement in that tale?

Sure have excitement in the telling of a fun story! Make james and Sirius look the *height of cool*. IMHO, I still think JKR could have achieved all this without making James and Sirius look irresponsible IMO.

Well we did only see it from the Muggles point of view. James and Sirius may have bound the DEs with magic invisibility ropes and the Muggle Police would be none the wiser. Or they could have called the Ministry and the Aurors arrived within seconds. Since there is nothing to indicate that didn't happen, I feel that it is possible to take a positive view of the ending if one wishes to do so. :huh:

But that did not happen. Because we saw them flying off into the air, laughing IMO.

I respect your view, but I think this is a great exaggeration over even the very angry terms Sirius used, 'weak and untalented'. He didn't call him a pitiable misfit. I feel that the worse you make him sound, the more ludicrous his friends look for believing he could be honest. In my view that is unfair to Peter and his friends.

Wicked I actually mean it the way I have written and you have correctly analysed what I meant. It was not trusting Peter for ordinary things; I would not have done that even; but they were thinking of trusting Peter to take on Voldmeort, if he were captured and still not betray James? Voldemort and his DEs knew who were Jame's close friends. Logically, the Potters and Sirius should have thought that Voldemort would first go for the weakest link; not the strongest one. Capture Peter, find out who how the Potters hid themselves and where, and then go after them. How could James and Lily think Peter would be the best SK IMO?

I believe that all canon truly provides is that Peter was not a good friend at the time he jumped on board with Voldemort. Prior to that, I don't feel there is sufficient canon to ascertain his level of friendship other than it was not as tight as some of the others in the group. :)

That it was not tight enough is more than enough when you are looking at a SK with whom lies not only your life but the life of your child IMO.

WWB, have already answered part of your post in the Snape and Lily thread; since I was the last poster, it got added to my post, I made yesterday.

Sure have excitement in the telling of a fun story! Make james and Sirius look the *height of cool*. IMHO, I still think JKR could have achieved all this without making James and Sirius look irresponsible IMO.[quote]

I felt they were no more irresponsible than all my favorite superheroes; all of whom leave the scene without me actually seeing them bind and jail the villains, but I always assume they take care of it off page. So I guess that is why I loved it. :)

[quote]Wicked I actually mean it the way I have written and you have correctly analysed what I meant. It was not trusting Peter for ordinary things; I would not have done that even; but they were thinking of trusting Peter to take on Voldmeort, if he were captured and still not betray James? Voldemort and his DEs knew who were Jame's close friends. Logically, the Potters and Sirius should have thought that Voldemort would first go for the weakest link; not the strongest one. Capture Peter, find out who how the Potters hid themselves and where, and then go after them. How could James and Lily think Peter would be the best SK IMO?

Ah I see what you are saying, you didn't like the plan. Well I am not sure why JKR went with it, but I don't feel it is a bad plan at all. Kind of like the trio at Gringotts, I felt like that was a pretty bad plan, but it did allow for an emotional read. Perhaps that is what she was going for here too, because it did allow for an emotional story. :)

Make james and Sirius look the *height of cool*. IMHO, I still think JKR could have achieved all this without making James and Sirius look irresponsible IMO.

Irresponsibility is an important character trait that dominates James and Sirius's teenage half (i.e. when they are at Hogwarts) and it has been so portrayed to, like you say, to make them look like the height of cool. Its not that they were the only one who made things exciting for everyone, surely there were other mischief makers as well, but what set them apart was fearlessness towards rule breaking...everyone desires to break rules but very few have the guts to do so, and that is what sets them apart and appear to be irresponsible.

Now why were they shown irresponsible?

For several reasons...

They made the Marauders Map- one of the coolest stuff you would come across in Potter world and it would be kinda boring if a group of geeks came up with it...rather than a group of clever minded cool guys. They are what many people want to be, what many people especially teenagers idolize to be.
They became unregistered Animaguses- If they were responsible they wouldn't have tried it out, for clearly it was breaking the rules, but they did it, in order to make life more cheerful for their friend Lupin.
They had their constant rivalry with Snape- This entertained everyone, had they been responsible, there would have been less show and more cold war, which wouldn't have been much of a fun.
They are perfect examples of how Time and Events matures people and make them responsible, inspite of having a youth as they have had. ;)


but they were thinking of trusting Peter to take on Voldmeort, if he were captured and still not betray James?

IMO they never expected Voldemort to go after Peter. For the switch was made for the very reason. It would act as a diversion does, Voldemort would go after Sirius whilst all the time the true secret keeper would be safe and well into hiding. ;)

Voldemort and his DEs knew who were Jame's close friends. Logically, the Potters and Sirius should have thought that Voldemort would first go for the weakest link; not the strongest one. Capture Peter, find out who how the Potters hid themselves and where, and then go after them.

IMO if Voldemort didn't have the intelligence that Sirius wasn't the Secret Keeper then he would have obviously gone after him only, as it was the general knowledge that Sirius would have been the Potter's first and foremost choice.

Having said that, what intrigues me is How did Dumbledore know for sure that Sirius was the Secret Keeper?

Having said that, what intrigues me is How did Dumbledore know for sure that Sirius was the Secret Keeper?

I think both Remus and Dumbledore were aware of the secret when Sirius was made the SK. Dumbledore probably had some spells on Godric's Hollow, so that he would know if the protective spells fell down IMO (in the event the Potters were attacked, telling me he was not very happy with the SK; believing that the Potters could still be betrayed and so he would know at once if something like that happened). Once the Fidelus was cast, Dumbledore and Remus knew who the SK was and the secret as well, which would make them accecible to Godric's Hollow. Then the switch was made and both of them would not have known, so either Dumbledore and Remus were aware that James had recast the SK, else switched Sk IMO.

Or Peter probably went to Voldemort that day itself with the secret and that night it was all over and the Potters were dead IMO.

Dumbledore and Remus believed Sirius, because Sirius as good accepted the crime, saying he had killed James and Lily; while he was probably crying in despair; others took that to mean he was guilty and carted him off to Azkaban IMO.

I felt they were no more irresponsible than all my favorite superheroes; all of whom leave the scene without me actually seeing them bind and jail the villains, but I always assume they take care of it off page. So I guess that is why I loved it. :)


But that is just the thing, James and Sirius are not superheroes, but they are trying to play them, to have amazing adventures, and just masterfully get themselves into an out of danger. James and Sirius are just two teenaged boys 'out for a romp', be it an Order mission or just them 'playing the Order' until they can really join. This isn't a comic book adventure either-- its a totally different medium-- the comparison seems a bit void.


They made the Marauders Map- one of the coolest stuff you would come across in Potter world and it would be kinda boring if a group of geeks came up with it...rather than a group of clever minded cool guys. They are what many people want to be, what many people especially teenagers idolize to be.
They became unregistered Animaguses- If they were responsible they wouldn't have tried it out, for clearly it was breaking the rules, but they did it, in order to make life more cheerful for their friend Lupin.
They had their constant rivalry with Snape- This entertained everyone, had they been responsible, there would have been less show and more cold war, which wouldn't have been much of a fun.
They are perfect examples of how Time and Events matures people and make them responsible, inspite of having a youth as they have had. ;)

And this is supposed to justify their being irresponsible? Because they were 'the height of cool'? I don't quite make the connection. Are you trying to say all of the cool people are irresponsible? Well, what about Cedric Diggory? Everyone was supposed to have liked him, but he seemed to me to be a very mature and responsible young man. And even if you have to be irresponsible to be 'cool'-- how important would 'being cool' become? I would think that 'being cool' is a terrible reason for justification of irresponsibility.

Dumbledore and Remus believed Sirius, because Sirius as good accepted the crime, saying he had killed James and Lily; while he was probably crying in despair; others took that to mean he was guilty and carted him off to Azkaban IMO.

I believe that JKR said that Sirius didn't stand a chance at being found innocent because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence against him. The only thing for him was finding Peter Pettigrew again. Because the Marauders didn't think it necessary to inform Albus of the switch, he still believed it was Sirius at the time of their deaths. Ironically, it was their belief that they didn't need Albus that sent Sirius to jail.

But that is just the thing, James and Sirius are not superheroes, but they are trying to play them, to have amazing adventures, and just masterfully get themselves into an out of danger. James and Sirius are just two teenaged boys 'out for a romp', be it an Order mission or just them 'playing the Order' until they can really join. This isn't a comic book adventure either-- its a totally different medium-- the comparison seems a bit void.

Huh? They are wizards so have a super power like the Jedi, not normal teenage boys. I wasn't thinking only in terms of superheros like Batman (who by the way has no super power), but also like Jax Paven, Valenthyne Farfalla, or Tash Arranda, normal except for something like magic or the force ability. One left an entire planet of evil behind which could have killed anyone flying onto it and it wasn't until much later in the series we heard that it had been destroyed after the fact - when? by who or how? who knows! :lol:. So I am used to short stories and adventures that leave an open end in this regard as well as comics. I felt that it was the same with James and Sirius here; we just get to see the exciting part - the heroes adventure - that was the fun part to me, and I guess because I've read so many shorts, it seemed like a normal ending. :)

I believe that JKR said that Sirius didn't stand a chance at being found innocent because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence against him. The only thing for him was finding Peter Pettigrew again. Because the Marauders didn't think it necessary to inform Albus of the switch, he still believed it was Sirius at the time of their deaths. Ironically, it was their belief that they didn't need Albus that sent Sirius to jail.

I always felt that it was James and Lily's less than full faith in Dumbledore which kept them from telling him. If he'd been friends with Grindlewald who is to say what his connection with Voldemort might be. When you think about it, everyone knew how powerful Dumbledore was and many probably wondered why he didn't confront Voldemort. James and Lily after hearing how he'd not confronted Grindlewald for 5 years for personal reasons may have wondered if Dumbledore wasn't behaving in the same manner with Voldemort. They were all (the Order) fighting the DEs, but not cutting the evil off at it's root; Voldemort.

How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior? I think Remus was secure enough to know he had friends that if he needed their help or if he joined in, they wouldn't mind. However, I think that Peter was a little insecure, and probably almost always felt inferior, but that he was so happy to have such popular friends, he probably was just happy to be in a group of people and somewhat accepted by him that I think he felt the opposite of left out....whatever that is....:D
James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous? I think it was somewhat both. They did it to help him, which was noble, but I also think they thought it was an adventure too.
What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily? I'm not sure they really minded, because it was kind of like him having a crush, and I think they supported it, just that it probably annoyed them from time to time.
How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders? Since none of the other Marauders really really liked her besides James, I don't think she affected them much until after James started going out with her. Then, she probably got in the way of some of their secret affairs from time to time.
James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision? I think both of them knew how close they both were, and how they were better fit for each other, so I don't think they were too hurt by it.
Peter betrayed his friends. Was he ever happy with this decision and do you think that his friends would be able to forgive him if they had the chance? I don't think he was ever happy betraying them, and living through all the suffering he did, he probably would make a different decision if he could go back in time. I don't know if his friends would ever be able to really forgive him, just because he never seemed to be one of their dearest and closest friends.
Was joining the Order a joint decision or was peer pressure involved? For instance, did James and Sirius lead the way and Remus and Peter follow? I think it was a joint decision, and that all of them wanted to fight. I don't think that peer pressure was ever an issue in the group except for Peter.
The Marauders had a very hostile relationship with Snape. Would this have been different if Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor? Did the Marauders antagonise other students that were into the Dark Arts as well or did they single out Snape from the start? I think that they might not have picked on Snape as much if he was in Gryffindor, because then that would have kind of been like going back on someone in their family, because that's what a house was. Like, no one in Gryffindor really turned their backs on Neville, even though he was such an outcast to everyone else. I don't think they really antagonized any other Dark Arts people besides Snape. He was singled out because he was a friend of Lily's, and I don't think James thought he was a good person for Lily and he was jealous of him. He probably also thought he was weak and easy to pick on, and so they singled him out because of it.
How do the Marauders compare to Fred and George? Do you think that they, and especially James and Sirius, were worse or just as funny as the Weasley twins? I think that they were more daring and adventurous than Fred and George. Fred and George were mostly pranksters and comedians, while the Marauders were more daring, and did more to provoke trouble than the Weasley Twins did.
Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly? I think that they were shown as real people who got into trouble more in the Deathly Hallows then how they were depicted more as heroes in the other books.
Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits? I think that, while James was bigheaded, I think that he was my favorite. He was the leader, and he took that position of leadership well. I think his trait of being such a leader is what is so endearing to me, personally, just because he was able to take charge, even thought I do think that his bigheadedness was annoying. I think that Sirius's and Remus's laid-back kind of style is what makes me not like them as much, because they always just seemed to go with the flow.

I think both Remus and Dumbledore were aware of the secret when Sirius was made the SK. Dumbledore probably had some spells on Godric's Hollow, so that he would know if the protective spells fell down IMO (in the event the Potters were attacked, telling me he was not very happy with the SK; believing that the Potters could still be betrayed and so he would know at once if something like that happened). Once the Fidelus was cast, Dumbledore and Remus knew who the SK was and the secret as well, which would make them accecible to Godric's Hollow. Then the switch was made and both of them would not have known, so either Dumbledore and Remus were aware that James had recast the SK, else switched Sk IMO.

Or Peter probably went to Voldemort that day itself with the secret and that night it was all over and the Potters were dead IMO.

Dumbledore and Remus believed Sirius, because Sirius as good accepted the crime, saying he had killed James and Lily; while he was probably crying in despair; others took that to mean he was guilty and carted him off to Azkaban IMO.

I don't believe that Sirius was ever actually the SK; that was the story which would be given out with Peter being the real SK.

Now why were they shown irresponsible?

Mu guess would be as animagi they had many *near misses* and laughed them off, even though had one such near miss happened, then Remus's life would be forfeit, not to mention what would have happened to the others IMO.

The werwolf incident was another example of irresponsibility of Sirius towards his own friend, let alone Snape IMO.

IMO they never expected Voldemort to go after Peter. For the switch was made for the very reason. It would act as a diversion does, Voldemort would go after Sirius whilst all the time the true secret keeper would be safe and well into hiding. ;)

IMO instead of being overconfident and assured about what Voldeort would think and how he would act, I think it would have been better for them, had they covered all bases IMO.

By being sure that Peter was the best bet, because Voldmeort would never think of going after him, they were placing a lot on not only Peter's weak shoulders but also were assuming too much about Voldmeort and the way he would act IMO.

Had they thought logically they would not have chosen Peter, because everyone knew that James Potter had three friends and Peter was one of them. And Voldmeort knowing that Sirius and Remus were strong, would surely go after Peter IMO.

I don't believe that Sirius was ever actually the SK; that was the story which would be given out with Peter being the real SK.

I don;t think this happened, because Sirius told Harry and other is POA that he was the SK and he persuaded James to do the switch IMO. :)

By being sure that Peter was the best bet, because Voldmeort would never think of going after him, they were placing a lot on not only Peter's weak shoulders but also were assuming too much about Voldmeort and the way he would act IMO.

I respect your view, but in my judgment, there is not any warrior worth his salt who does not consider how the enemy will think, reach a conclusion based on the circumstances and plan accordingly. ;)

Had they thought logically they would not have chosen Peter, because everyone knew that James Potter had three friends and Peter was one of them. And Voldmeort knowing that Sirius and Remus were strong, would surely go after Peter IMO.

I respect your view, but logically, Voldemort would not waste his time going after Peter in my opinion because Voldemort would feel that he could torture Peter to death and still not receive any information. Remember that even if Peter knew where they were, he would not be able to reveal it no matter what. Knowing that, Voldemort would go after the individual who was likely to be the secret keeper, that is the only individual who could be tortured for information. That is why everyone felt he would go after Sirius or Remus first. Volemort's mentality was not based on wasting time; in my opinion this was shown in the DH-Elder Wand chapter. He could have attempted to disarm Snape of the Elder Wand as Dumbledore had done with Grindlewald in order to become the master (thus allowing his right hand man and faithful servant, Snape to live). But instead, Voldemort bypassed attempting this and simply killed him, because that would work for certain.

I Remember that even if Peter knew where they were, he would not be able to reveal it no matter what.

Voldemort would go after Peter, get the information about how and where the Potters were hiding and in the case of the Fidelus who the SK was. While Peter could not reveal the secret, he could tell Voldemort who the SK was and with some additional torture, peter could also reveal where Sirius could be found. And with all this information, Voldemort could go after Sirius or who ever the SK was, except Dumbledore, perhaps IMO. Taht was why using Peter was not a very well thoughout or a good plan IMO. And James and Lily too, must have thought this way IMO; they were pretty careless is what I cannot help feel, not only with their lives but also with Harry's IMO.

Voldemort would go after Peter, get the information about how and where the Potters were hiding and in the case of the Fidelus who the SK was. While Peter could not reveal the secret, he could tell Voldemort who the SK was and with some additional torture, peter could also reveal where Sirius could be found. And with all this information, Voldemort could go after Sirius or who ever the SK was, except Dumbledore, perhaps IMO. Taht was why using Peter was not a very well thoughout or a good plan IMO. And James and Lily too, must have thought this way IMO; they were pretty careless is what I cannot help feel, not only with their lives but also with Harry's IMO.

They were all to have gone into hiding after the switch. Why would Voldemort waste time searching for Peter instead of Sirius? Especially since Voldemort could not be certain that Peter would even know where Sirius was. In my judgment, Voldemort would immediately search for Sirius.

I have to confess that I haven't read all of the previous posts on this topic.

1) How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?

I think Remus basked in the glory of being not only accepted--something he seldom if ever experienced--but accepted by the coolest guys in his House. I think Peter may have felt left out. He was a cleverer wizard than anyone suspected and I think he was put in the role of the stupid tag-along. In no sense am I blaming Sirius and James for this, nor does it justify what he did. But it might have influenced his decision to betray the Potters.

2) Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?

No way were Sirius and James going to suspect each other, and I don't think they thought of Peter as able to be much of a threat. So that sort of left Remus. I think, too, that it was easy for Sirius to blame Remus because of the Werewolf Incident. Sirius intentionally lured Snape into the tunnel leading to the Shack and a werewolf who didn't know that was going to happen. If Lupin had attacked Snape, the consequences for him would have been horrible--expulsion at least, and perhaps death (considering the Ministry's later attitude towards Buckbeak). When we've treated someone badly, sometimes we tend to work it out in our minds so that they deserved it. I think Sirius might have done that.

3) James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?

A bit of both. It certainly was adventurous, and the fact that they worked to manage such a difficult transformation clearly was very important to Remus, who had known such little acceptance in his life. In the Shack in PoA he refers to it as the best time of his life.

4) What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?

Hard to say what they thought, since James was interested in her for quite awhile. My guess is that at first they teased him about it while at the same time rooting for him. That may have influenced their attitude towards Snape, since Snape and Lily were good friends for most of their time at Hogwarts. I don't know how much Lily hung around them while they were all at Hogwarts. Her letter to Sirius (found by Harry in Sirius' old bedroom at 12G in Deathly Hallows) certainly indicates that he and she were on very good terms--and Peter also dropped by, although probably for less friendly motives.

It's interesting that James' relationship with Lily didn't move any of the other Marauders to acquire girlfriends. Remus' reluctance is understandable--it affects his relationship with Tonks in HBP and DH. It's hard to imagine Peter being all that successful at picking up women. I don't know why Sirius didn't.

5) James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?

I think they'd've been stunned if James had chosen anyone else. I don't think it would occur to Remus that he might have been chosen. Peter might have been upset; I don't know.

6) Peter betrayed his friends. Was he ever happy with this decision and do you think that his friends would be able to forgive him if they had the chance?
Was joining the Order a joint decision or was peer pressure involved? For instance, did James and Sirius lead the way and Remus and Peter follow?

7) In the Shack in PoA Peter tries to defend what he did on the basis of self-preservation. He never claims to have liked Voldemort's agenda. Nor does he blame the other Marauders for his decision ("You made fun of me," "You never thought I was a good wizard")--one of the few things I can think of that's to his credit. I don't know if he was "happy" with it--but he never apologized or asked for forgiveness for it, as far as we know.

I think probably James and Sirius led the way. Remus may have joined just because they did--and for Peter, as Voldemort's agent, being in the Order was a very smart move.

8) Forgiveness. Tough one. In DH, Harry doesn't forgive Voldemort but he has enough concern for him to urge him to experience remorse to keep from living as the "flayed baby" Harry saw in Kings Cross. I thought that was amazing. Perhaps his father would have had enough strength to forgive Peter for taking action that led to his death; I think forgiving Peter for Lily's death and Harry's orphan status would be much harder. I really don't get the impression there was that much Remus/Peter interaction. I don't think Remus would have been the first to forgive Peter--Remus didn't have as much to forgive him for. But if James did, I think Remus would have as well.


9) The Marauders had a very hostile relationship with Snape. Would this have been different if Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor? Did the Marauders antagonise other students that were into the Dark Arts as well or did they single out Snape from the start?

Well, in a sense the Marauder/Snape relationship was doomed from the beginning, much like the Harry/Draco one: they hated each other pretty much on sight. I think Snape was brave and could have been sorted into Gryffindor, but he also had an interest in the Dark Arts that made Slytherin a better place for him. If he had been put in Gryffindor, I think James and Sirius would have made his life miserable. I don't think we hear about the Marauders going after other students who were interested in the Dark Arts, although they might have; we're told that James always hated the Dark Arts. I think the fact that James and Snape both developed interests in Lily may have been what made their antagonism so personal.

10) How do the Marauders compare to Fred and George? Do you think that they, and especially James and Sirius, were worse or just as funny as the Weasley twins?
The Marauders and the twins were very gifted wizards. I think the twins were funnier--but then all our glimpses of the Marauders' Hogwarts years were during the First Vold War, and Voldemort didn't return until the end of GoF, when the twins were within a year of graduating. If they'd graduated. That probably affects the humor quotient between the two groups.

11) Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?

I didn't like the initial meeting among James/Sirius and Snape. I didn't think any of them were very admirable there. I was shocked--as was Harry--by Remus' idea of leaving the pregnant Tonks to go on an adventure with the Trio. I was expecting Peter's life-debt to Harry to pay off a bit more--but at least he didn't want to kill Harry. I suppose that's something.

12) Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?

Remus was my favorite. I liked the way he mentored Harry in PoA. He also was interested in Neville, who often seems to be so alone. And he's a teacher, and so am I (although I don't teach DADA). It bothered me that, as he himself admits, he allowed James and Sirius to get away with a lot when he was a prefect. I think THAT trait was appreciated by James and Sirius.

WimbleMimble, why is Snape glad he wasn't killed by draperies?

I have to confess that I haven't read all of the previous posts on this topic.

1) How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?

I think Remus basked in the glory of being not only accepted--something he seldom if ever experienced--but accepted by the coolest guys in his House. I think Peter may have felt left out. He was a cleverer wizard than anyone suspected and I think he was put in the role of the stupid tag-along. In no sense am I blaming Sirius and James for this, nor does it justify what he did. But it might have influenced his decision to betray the Potters.
Remus seemed to be comfortable around James and Sirius and enjoyed there companion, but he didn't seem like the guy who enjoyed the adventureness of the others. He didn't say anything against it, but it seemed that he didn't fully support their way of thinking and handling.


2) Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?

No way were Sirius and James going to suspect each other, and I don't think they thought of Peter as able to be much of a threat. So that sort of left Remus. I think, too, that it was easy for Sirius to blame Remus because of the Werewolf Incident. Sirius intentionally lured Snape into the tunnel leading to the Shack and a werewolf who didn't know that was going to happen. If Lupin had attacked Snape, the consequences for him would have been horrible--expulsion at least, and perhaps death (considering the Ministry's later attitude towards Buckbeak). When we've treated someone badly, sometimes we tend to work it out in our minds so that they deserved it. I think Sirius might have done that.

Werewolf Incident? The one that involved Snape? Why should they blame REmus for that. It was Sirius fault, and only his. There is no reason to suspect Remus because of that.


3) James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?

A bit of both. It certainly was adventurous, and the fact that they worked to manage such a difficult transformation clearly was very important to Remus, who had known such little acceptance in his life. In the Shack in PoA he refers to it as the best time of his life.

I dare say that every kind of good treatment of him, would make him say that.


5) James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?

I think they'd've been stunned if James had chosen anyone else. I don't think it would occur to Remus that he might have been chosen. Peter might have been upset; I don't know.

But how can he truly expect that they would choose him?

They were all to have gone into hiding after the switch. Why would Voldemort waste time searching for Peter instead of Sirius? Especially since Voldemort could not be certain that Peter would even know where Sirius was. In my judgment, Voldemort would immediately search for Sirius.

Because Peter was the weakest link IMO. Peter may not know where Sirius was and he may not be able to reveal the secret if he was not the SK, but he could very easily tell Voldmeort who the SK was; or what kind of wards the Potters had placed on their house and then Voldmeort may seriously start after the actual Marauder who held the keys. In this case, since it was peter, he woudl have known the secret straight away. That was why I felt that none of the 3 should have been involved in the SK, because all three of them were at risk and Peter being the weak, talentless thing would be IMO the first person Voldemort would go for.

Because Peter was the weakest link IMO. Peter may not know where Sirius was and he may not be able to reveal the secret if he was not the SK, but he could very easily tell Voldmeort who the SK was; or what kind of wards the Potters had placed on their house and then Voldmeort may seriously start after the actual Marauder who held the keys. In this case, since it was peter, he woudl have known the secret straight away. That was why I felt that none of the 3 should have been involved in the SK, because all three of them were at risk and Peter being the weak, talentless thing would be IMO the first person Voldemort would go for.

Well that you can only blame JKR for :lol:. She had to come up with a way for the Potters to die and that was the one she settled on. As you indicated, even if Voldemort found a loyal Peter first, the friends believed that he would die rather than betray their trust. He would simply die quicker because he was less talented - but Peter expressed a willingness to be secret keeper.

Well that you can only blame JKR for :lol:.

:lol:

As you indicated, even if Voldemort found a loyal Peter first, the friends believed that he would die rather than betray their trust. He would simply die quicker because he was less talented - but Peter expressed a willingness to be secret keeper.

But if Voldemort had found loyal Peter first and tortured him and performed Legilimency upon him, he would not be able to find the secret if Peter did not know it; if any of the 3 did not know it IMO.

It is how they decided to do the switch that amazes me. Their opinion of Peter is a weak, talentless poor thing and then they make him SK?

James, Lily and Sirius are not only poor judges of character in the way they decide on Peter to be loyal and trustworthy after moving with them for 10 years, they also take wrong decisions on important issues without much thought IMO. That is what I think the switch of SK shows me.

1. How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?

I don't think Remus felt left out. He was happy to be part of the group, happy to be accepted among his peers in spite of him being a werewolf. He had the spirit and cleverness to understand James and Sirius' closeness. He knew that, as they lived together since Sirius left Grimmauld Place, they spent more time together, and I don't think he ever doubted of their friendship to him.

Peter, on the other hand, not only felt left out, but singled himself out. I don't think he could understand why James and Sirius were so close and I even think this is part of what led him to betray James and Lily's trust, but also Sirius' and Lupin's friendship.

2. Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?

I think James, Remus, and Sirius were so used to seeing Peter as the "weakest" of them that they were too confident about him. James and Lily chose to trust Peter because they thought he was too weak to betray them. Remus was respected for his cleverness. I think that's why he was suspected. He could have hidden everything he really was, he could have hidden his supposedly trust towards Voldemort.

3. James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?

Both. To me, noble and adventurous are exactly the two adjectives that suits best to the Marauders. They wanted a way to help their friend and they knew that, by becoming Animagi, they would be able to do everything they wanted once a month.

4. What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?

I think they understood. When James began to date Lily, Sirius was surely mad about it in the beginning, he had the impression to lose his best friend. But then he understood that Lily wouldn't steal his friendship to James.

6. James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?

I don't think Remus was. Otherwise he surely wouldn't have chosen Harry as Teddy's godfather. I don't know why I'm saying that though. I just feel that Lupin understand everything better than anyone. That's what makes him the best of friends.
Peter, well, I think he was hurt. But I also think that he was beginning to understand he had always been the weakest link so he understood better why James didn't chose him.

10. How do the Marauders compare to Fred and George? Do you think that they, and especially James and Sirius, were worse or just as funny as the Weasley twins?

I don't think they are exactly the same. James and Sirius grew up in a darker time than Fred and George. That must have influenced them and maybe that's why they decided to be funny: to make people (and themselves) forget about what was happening. Fred and George are funny for fun's sake: making jokes is part of their personality. I think it may have been a burden sometimes, maybe they are funny to hide a more profund aspect of their personality. Even in the darkest of times, they make fun of people and situations, only to hide their true feelings, their fears, and their love of people and of each other (see the moment when Fred sees George without his ear for the first time).

11. Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?

It didn't change my vision of them. I was surprised, but I didn't stop loving them. Everybody has his dark side.

12. Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?


Sirius his my favourite. I like his funny side, and most of all his loyalty to his friends. I like how, thanks to his friends, he forgot the dark side of himself and of his family, and used their friendship to become a better man. I like his beauty (well, as I portray him in my head).
I think the other like Sirius precisely because he got the guts to become a totally different man, just for friendship's sake.

:lol:
But if Voldemort had found loyal Peter first and tortured him and performed Legilimency upon him, he would not be able to find the secret if Peter did not know it; if any of the 3 did not know it IMO.

It is how they decided to do the switch that amazes me. Their opinion of Peter is a weak, talentless poor thing and then they make him SK?

James, Lily and Sirius are not only poor judges of character in the way they decide on Peter to be loyal and trustworthy after moving with them for 10 years, they also take wrong decisions on important issues without much thought IMO. That is what I think the switch of SK shows me.

But then what if JKR made Peter loyal and had Voldemort seek out Sirius first and kill him? Apparently, JKR believed that is what would happen under normal circumstances, because she knew the mind of her creation Voldemort.

However, Voldemort did not appropach Peter only to find out information about the Potters. At the time, he wanted to get someone to join him and participate as a Death Eater, not only against the Potters, but as a spy (remember he spied for a year). Voldemort knew he could only approach a weak person to do all that he wished. He could never get Remus and Sirius to join him and he knew that, so he chose Peter to serve both roles. Voldemort could easily build up Peter's ego, teach him things and congratulate him on his prowess, drawing him further into his fold. At first, I would imagine he threatened Peter's life and that of his family to win him over, and then just used manipulation as always. He had to stop Peter from going to Dumbledore for an entire year - because Voldemort would realize that Dumbledore was another "big man" that Peter might seek protection from.

Peter was likely given trivial jobs at first to warm him up to the betrayal of his friends. I imagine he betrayed the Order in small ways and told Voldemort of the movements of the Potters and possibly the Longbottoms. When Voldemort definitively decided on the Potters, Snape found out and he went to Dumbledore and then Dumbledore told the Potters to put on the Fidelius Charm. But this all happened in a weeks time. Neither Voldemort nor Peter expected that Peter would be named secret keeper, but when he was, the DEs found out about Peter being on their side, except Snape who had taken up the job at Hogwarts during that week as Voldemort had asked him to, so he couldn't tell Dumbledore who the spy was because he didn't know.

Dumbledore had other spies, but apparently they were at lower levels and did not know Voldemort's spy ring as his inner circle did, except Snape, also in the inner circle with the mark, but who switched sides 1 week before the Potter's died just prior to the revelation. So there was no one to ferret out Peter during that week. Peter, like Sirius, went into hiding, so Dumbledore, the Potters and all of the Order members never saw him and would not suspect he was 'the one' because he was not involved.

Peter ended up looking brave for attempting to confront Sirius in the wake of the Potter's death. However, only to mainstream society; both the inner circle of Death Eaters and Sirius knew the truth about him. The DEs in prison also knew the truth about Sirius which is why when they all finally met up in GoF, no one was surprised to see Peter and in OOTP, no one was surprised to see Sirius fighting against them - even though the Ministry still believed he was the mass murderer and a Death Eater.

I dunno, I think it was a pretty good tale that JKR came up with. It is entertaining, has betrayal, emotional draw, trust issues and paved the way for a massive reunion of friends in Peter and Remus and also built up the emotional pull for the deaths of Sirius and Remus - which all led to the overwhelming emotional pull of the resurrection stone scene (she hoped :lol:). It also actually pulled some emotion when Harry spared Peter's life and especially when Dumbledore indicated that James would have done the same (and I figure Lily as well). Finally, it even gave Peter's death scene some emotional pull especially after his antics in GoF.

It worked for me; I enjoyed the Marauders arc storyline and it was a highlight for others as well. Here and at other sites, the prequel was a mainstream hit because of her emotional Marauders arc storyline told within the series. And JKR too apparently enjoys the pranking, cheeky characters as she went on to make Fred and George and later began anew with James Sirius Potter (Harry's kid). But I feel all of that was dramatically rendered a highlight due to her initial emotional tale of the Marauders - all explicitly and profoundly connected to the hero of her tale. In the end, she could not help but infuse Harry with a little of the Marauder; his plans for his adventures smacked of his forefathers and in the end, she had created a second "trio" (which the Marauders turned out to be as well), following in the footsteps of the former: Order business, taking risks and putting their lives on the line. :)

But then what if JKR made Peter loyal and had Voldemort seek out Sirius first and kill him? Apparently, JKR believed that is what would happen under normal circumstances, because she knew the mind of her creation Voldemort. :)

I understand they had to die for the storyline and even that they had to be betrayed; byut I also think the betrayal and the deaths could have been written in another way; without making james, Sirius and Lily look rather bad and hopeless at decision making; somehow I cannot think that James and Lily would place "trusting" their friends over their child and lives; it seems very off IMO.

So I wonder at the motives that made JKR do as she did; she made one of the 4 friends a traitor; still she could have done a better job than making the other three take a decision that is obviously not correctly planned IMO.

But she did not and I feel it is deliberate; that she wanted the Marauders to be portrayed this way IMO, and I feel that she has portrayed the Marauders as not very good judges of character and I include Lily among them as well IMO.

Their actions looked iresponsible to me; the prequel convinced me(about their attitude) and I feel that they took the most important decision of their lives at that time (the switch), without careful analysis and thought. They also did not take Dumbledore into confidence before they did the switch, another hasty and thoughtless act IMO. JKR has written them acting IMO carelessly and rather over confidently giving me an impression that the Marauders were carried away by their confidence in a time when they should have exercised their prudence IMO.

I think they should have been more careful, more cautious and surely thought out the whole thing so much better than they did, which IMO was hasty and not very well planned IMO. And sadly, they paid the price IMO.

posted by WWB from the Snape thread

I respect your view, but lifting Snape up with his own spell which he had to have introduced to the school - and was there with Lupin watching dozens being lifted up by his spell all suffering the same fate as him, likely including the Marauders (Lupin HBP - you couldn't walk 5 feet without someone lifting you up) - hardly exemplifies a devastatingly wronged individual, in my opinion.

You couldn't wlk 5 feet without someone lifting you up -- that is fun; the SWM IMO was not an exercise in fun; at least it looked that way to me. It was not generally everyone hanging everyone else upside down and Snape happened to be hung upside down by James; this looked like it was something completely different IMO.

The entire post is my opinion only.

Their actions looked iresponsible to me; the prequel convinced me(about their attitude) and I feel that they took the most important decision of their lives at that time (the switch), without careful analysis and thought. They also did not take Dumbledore into confidence before they did the switch, another hasty and thoughtless act IMO. JKR has written them acting IMO carelessly and rather over confidently giving me an impression that the Marauders were carried away by their confidence in a time when they should have exercised their prudence IMO.
:tu: I agree absolutely.

I'm still convinced that the best two options for SK were Dumbledore (the most powerful and intelligent wizard of that time) or James/Lily themselves. I don't understand how they could expect that they'd be able to get away with Peter (or Sirius, for that matter) being the SK. There were all chances that Peter could have been caught by the Death Eaters, even if he was very good at hiding. But Voldemort and his followers surely weren't that stupid. They would have found enough information about James' friends, and it would have been a piece of cake for them to figure out where they should search for the SK. A bit of torture, and Peter would have blabbed the secret for everyone to hear. He wasn't the most stoic person, after all. Beseids, Peter's life was in danger and it could have been avoided easily.
All in all, I just don't see the reasoning behind James and Lily's choice. It really does have a lot to do with overconfidence, IMO.

I'm also surpised that Dumbledore hadn't insisted on another, more thought-out and clever plan. But on the other hand, Dumbledore is big on letting people do things their own way and not interfering even if interfering is absolutely necessary.

This decision about SK switch also tells loads about Lily. Either she was as reckless and careless as the rest of the Maradeurs (which is strange, given that the life of her child was at stake), or she didn't have much say on this matter. Or maybe she was just naive. :shrug:

You couldn't wlk 5 feet without someone lifting you up]-- that is fun; the SWM IMO was not an exercise in fun; at least it looked that way to me. It was not generally everyone hanging everyone else upside down and Snape happened to be hung upside down by James; this looked like it was something completely different IMO.
The entire post is my opinion only.
Agreed. Besides, what is fun for some people isn't fun for others. I have no doubt that James and Sirius saw their pranks as highly amusing, but at the same time I'm not sure that some Bertram Aubrey was that excited when they had made his head twice normal size. It just doesn't stike me as a pleasant experience. :lol:

I understand they had to die for the storyline and even that they had to be betrayed; byut I also think the betrayal and the deaths could have been written in another way; without making james, Sirius and Lily look rather bad and hopeless at decision making; somehow I cannot think that James and Lily would place "trusting" their friends over their child and lives; it seems very off IMO.

So I wonder at the motives that made JKR do as she did; she made one of the 4 friends a traitor; still she could have done a better job than making the other three take a decision that is obviously not correctly planned IMO.

I don't feel that is a fair assessment of JKR's work because she has not told anyone what her idea was - as you pointed out, most of what you believe is what you "guess" must have happened. She may have done a much better job than the way you figure it occurred and in that case she would surprise you :D. Thus, I feel it is best to reserve an opinion on the author until she tells us definitively what really happened. For example, JKR may believe that Dumbledore gave everyone in the Order Veritaserum and Voldemort prepared Peter with an antidote for it. You see what I mean? So I don't feel it is fair to judge her when we only have an overall scenario and no details.

But she did not and I feel it is deliberate; that she wanted the Marauders to be portrayed this way IMO, and I feel that she has portrayed the Marauders as not very good judges of character and I include Lily among them as well IMO.

What JKR did was deliberately not give the details, imo. That is because it was not important to the story. It was only important that the Potters be killed and that Peter be able to pull off a betrayal so that Sirius could end up in Azkaban. She also had to have distrust in Remus so that he would not fight at anytime during the 12 years to free Sirius and Peter be revealed early on in the story. But beyond that, she didn't give details and the details you are "guessing" may not be the ones that JKR believes to be correct. Thus, I would disagree that we can draw conclusions that are certain. :)

Their actions looked iresponsible to me; the prequel convinced me(about their attitude) and I feel that they took the most important decision of their lives at that time (the switch), without careful analysis and thought. They also did not take Dumbledore into confidence before they did the switch, another hasty and thoughtless act IMO. JKR has written them acting IMO carelessly and rather over confidently giving me an impression that the Marauders were carried away by their confidence in a time when they should have exercised their prudence IMO. I think they should have been more careful, more cautious and surely thought out the whole thing so much better than they did, which IMO was hasty and not very well planned IMO. And sadly, they paid the price IMO.

I respect your view and I feel it is every reader's right to fill in their own details. The details I came up with do not leave me with the idea that the Marauders acted recklessly or over-confidently, however, my details may not be what JKR came up with either. :lol:. So I cannot really agree or disagree with you about your details and I respect your opinion that the details you came up with leave you feeling negative about the actions of the group. If you want to feel positive, you could use my details. :)

You couldn't wlk 5 feet without someone lifting you up -- that is fun; the SWM IMO was not an exercise in fun; at least it looked that way to me. It was not generally everyone hanging everyone else upside down and Snape happened to be hung upside down by James; this looked like it was something completely different IMO. The entire post is my opinion only.

James was acting in retaliation for Snape's cutting curse, so I agree that he was not doing it to have "fun" in that instance. But my point was that the spell is humiliating when used in public even by someone having good hearted fun because it sends a person's robes over their heads and reveals their under-clothing. This was happening all over the school and Snape introduced the spell. In my opinion, he should have realized that his spell would eventually be used on him and likely by his enemies who were likely the only people in the school who were bold enough to use it on him. In my view, most students were afraid to practice spells on the budding Death Eaters for fear of dark arts retaliation, so I believe normally Snape did not have his spell used against him which is why he merely wore undergarments in a time when the spell was being frequently used.

James was in the wrong to be engaged in a hex war (as was Sirius) and to have started it. I feel too that Snape was in the wrong to have joined in rather than leaving at his first opportunity to warn a professor - which would have served to only get those in trouble who were trying to start things. That is the general way it is seen by professors in all schools. Everyone gets in trouble for participating, not just those who start it, and they all get detention. But if you do not participate, only those who try to start it will get in trouble. :)

Haven't been around in FOREVER. When I found this thread, I did a bit of a jig. The Marauders have always fascinated me and I pray every night that Jo does a 7 volume prequel.


1. How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?
-I don't think Remus was hurt by it really. I think within all groups of friends, you have have a duo who just relate to one another a little better than the others. Not to take away from other members of the group, but that's just how it is. Everyone within the group has their purpose. Maybe James saw Sirius as someone who he could have really incredible adventures with and Remus was more of the reliable, helpful, calming one, while Peter boosted the ego and was good for a laugh, etc.

2. Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?
-I don't think James suspected Remus as Remus points out in DH that James would have thought it dishonorable to not trust ones' friends. I think I saw someone relate Peter to Iago in Othello...I do think Peter poisoned Sirius and Remus against one another. And from a logical standpoint...if James supported Remus (ie, gave him food, clothes, money) why would Remus eliminate his only benefactors? Doesn't make much sense to me...I doubt Voldemort would have supplied him with such things.

3. James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?
-Both. I think James and Sirius loved the challenge of becoming Animagi and it just happened to be noble to do such magic for their friend.

4. What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
-I bet they found it amusing. I don't imagine there was much jealousy once Lily became James' squeeze. Remus, Sirius, and Peter still had one another.

5. How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?
-I don't imagine it changed TOO much when she came around.

6. James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?
I think Remus understood. I mean, he had no job, no money. He couldn't give Harry much of a life if Lily and James were to die.

7. Peter betrayed his friends. Was he ever happy with this decision and do you think that his friends would be able to forgive him if they had the chance?
-Peter had been spying for a year before the Potters died. He said he was afraid of Voldemort, which I think is a weak excuse. Any of the order members were targets for Voldemort and took refuge in the organization and one another. Why Peter couldn't have done the same, I don't know why.

8. Was joining the Order a joint decision or was peer pressure involved? For instance, did James and Sirius lead the way and Remus and Peter follow?
-I'm sure James, Sirius and Remus joined because they felt it was the right thing to do...Peter tagged along, wanting to be around the big boys.

9. The Marauders had a very hostile relationship with Snape. Would this have been different if Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor? Did the Marauders antagonise other students that were into the Dark Arts as well or did they single out Snape from the start?
-I don't think Remus particularly had a "hostile" relationship with Snape (from what's Canon anyway). I don't think James and Sirius would have felt differently about Snape if he was in Gryffindor. It was the man they hated, not necessarily the House.

10. How do the Marauders compare to Fred and George? Do you think that they, and especially James and Sirius, were worse or just as funny as the Weasley twins?
-I think the Marauders were definitely crueler. Fred and George were just clowns. I think James and Sirius had mean streaks against certain students (ie Snape) and really let him have it on several occasions. Fred and George never seemed to have anyone that they bullied.

11. Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?
-I think Remus started to go a little crazy, which is understandable considering his situation. Peter had a small moment of decency when he hesitated to kill Harry...but that doesn't make up for what he did years ago.


12. Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?
Take a wild guess! Haha, Remus Lupin of course. I don't like loud, arrogant, ringleader types. Not to say I dislike James and Sirius, cause I don't! They're humor certainly makes up for the negative points. I am just drawn to Remus. I liked that when we first met him, he was always smiling. 90% of the time, when Jo writes Remus, he was thoughtful, smiling, and quiet. I just prefer those types over the brasher ones.
I imagine the others were drawn to him because he was just a nice person who liked a good laugh and was a jokester like them to certain extents. And being boys, I bet they thought it was super cool that their best bud was a werewolf!

Agreed. Besides, what is fun for some people isn't fun for others. I have no doubt that James and Sirius saw their pranks as highly amusing, but at the same time I'm not sure that some Bertram Aubrey was that excited when they had made his head twice normal size. It just doesn't stike me as a pleasant experience. :lol:

Pranks are not for the enjoyment of the recipient of the prank; no one pranked by Fred and George much liked it either. But those watching on thought it was funny. They made a lot of sales which means that others obviously felt that pranking others was fun as well - but you can be sure that people breaking out with hair all over their body or suddenly finding themselves puking were not laughing - just those watching them. That is why some people, like Hermione, didn't enjoy pranking. But others saw the funny side of it like Ron and Harry. Fred and George seemed to feel anyone was game - even the professors, and I imagine that is how the Marauders were too. But Fred and George reserved the rather more humiliating ones for those they didn't like - like making Dudley's tongue grow or shoving that fellow in the closet, or all of the damaging ones they pulled on Umbridge. I'd imagine the Marauders did the same. But other kids did it too, like Harry trying out the toe nail growing hex he discovered on Goyle, but the lifting spell that wasn't so bad on Ron. Goyle of course was unhappy about it and humiliated, but Harry and Ron thought it was funny as did many of those watching. It is just something you like or you don't, but as long as you don't use dark curses, it is really not harmful in the long run - you just get a nice detention if caught. :lol:.

How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?

I don't think they at all felt left out. If anything they were both extremely grateful to be friends with James and Sirius. Peter was the little fat boy with very little talent who you wouldn't expect to have much friends. Remus is a werewolf and he felt sure that he'd have no friends. Werewolves were usually exiled or they separated themselves from wizards. He was afraid they'd abandon him when he found out. They were both, I'm sure, happy just to be part of this group and feel included.

Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?

As a werewolf for some reason I think he might have been suspected. Despite knowing Remus so well, werewolves after all supported Voldemort. For whatever reason they suspected him it was stupid IMO. They ought to have realized Peter was the spy.

James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?

Both. I think they certainly felt bad for Remus and his loneliness when becoming a werewolf. They were his friends and I think they became animagi mostly for him as their friend. Still I'm sure the idea appealed to James and Sirius being troublemaker and their knack for rule breaking and adventure.

What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?

I don't think they were unsupportive but I think they may have had doubts that she would ever get together with him, just based on how much she disliked James for a while.

James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?

I think they must have understood. James and Sirius were best best friends, Remus and Peter were both very good friends but it was obviously Sirius that James was closest to.

Peter betrayed his friends. Was he ever happy with this decision and do you think that his friends would be able to forgive him if they had the chance?

Nope. I don't think he cared about his decision. Very selfish. He willingly went to Voldemort and handed the Potters over. He was a coward and obviously felt like he'd be better off on Voldemort's side.

Was joining the Order a joint decision or was peer pressure involved? For instance, did James and Sirius lead the way and Remus and Peter follow?

I think so. I have the feeling that Peter only joined because the rest of them joined. I doubt he'd have done so if he wasn't friends with them. I think Remus must have joined because he had no one else, did he?

The Marauders had a very hostile relationship with Snape. Would this have been different if Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor? Did the Marauders antagonise other students that were into the Dark Arts as well or did they single out Snape from the start?

I think they singled out Snape. Right from the moment they met Snape on the train. It could have been the same even if he was somehow and Gryffindor and entranced with the Dark Arts. I'm sure they must have antogonized others involved in the Dark Arts but Snape mostly.

How do the Marauders compare to Fred and George? Do you think that they, and especially James and Sirius, were worse or just as funny as the Weasley twins?

I think they had just as much humor as the Weasley's but they were more out of control. Even the Weasley's never dared to go as far as becoming animagi, running around school grounds during the night, attacking people for no good reason.

Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?

I think they showed obvious flaws. They were both likeable and unlikeable. I disliked them attacking people for no reason, attacking Snape out of boredom. I didn't like James and Sirius's extremely smug and arrogant personalities. But there were many things to admire about them as well.

Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?

I like Remus the best. He was a werewolf but was determined none the less to live a seemingly normal life and have friends. He wasn't like Sirius and James in that he generally wasn't a mean person. He was very kind, a rule breaker and rebel sure but none the less he had very positive personality traits. I honestly think he is one of the kindest and most caring individuals in the entire series. I think the other Marauder's admired him but I think James or Sirius may have scorned the fact that he didn't want to attack people and hex them for fun or take part in making Snape's life miserable.

What I really wondered about the Marauders is where they got Pettigrew from. Why couldn't they figure out that he would choose life over trust? I think he was acting in a quite cowardly manner.

I think they had just as much humor as the Weasley's but they were more out of control. Even the Weasley's never dared to go as far as becoming animagi, running around school grounds during the night and attacking people for no good reason.

Well I would just say that the Weasleys' multi-colored fire blowing dragon, lake Hogwarts they created in the hallways and the fireworks display that accompanied their send off (which happened only before they were kicked our of school) beat the once a month wanderings in my book. :lol: We don't know that the Marauders attacked people for no good reason. They had a good reason to attack Snape (to them in their minds at that time) and while they were "bored" at that moment, that is not why they chose Snape - they would have chosen him sitting all alone even if they weren't bored. JKR gave us one reason in POA, but since that had been a while, she reiterated that one and gave us more in DH (the stalking, and the bullying of muggleborns, for James the fact that Snape liked Lily), plus Snape's own attacks on them (7th year hexing via Sirius; relationship like Harry/Draco via Dumbledore). This was much like Fred and George's attack on Dudley, growing his tongue out of proportion when he'd done nothing to them at that moment. But they'd heard of the things he'd done to Harry in the past. Lily said James hexed those who molested him - you know, those calling him Blood Traitor or telling him he sucked at Quidditch - and we saw the Weasley twins were not against doing this either (the all out brawl they started when Draco called them poor, stuffing that poor fellow in the toilet chamber, etc.). And as for hexing for fun, that was the pranking they did regularly like the Weasleys did. So I would not be so quick to say that they were much different at all. I could easily see Fred and George using the tricks and hexes at their disposal if someone called them Blood Traitors or if a student had the nerve to say the team they played on sucked.

I personally like Lupin, he seemed like a really humble person, probably because of all the suffering he had undergone. His 'furry little problem' was quite an interesting twist in his life.

I personally like Lupin, he seemed like a really humble person, probably because of all the suffering he had undergone. His 'furry little problem' was quite an interesting twist in his life.

What I liked about Lupin is that he is very strong. What he goes through every month...I dont think anyone can imagine the pain that he has to go through.

What I liked about Lupin is that he is very strong. What he goes through every month...I dont think anyone can imagine the pain that he has to go through.

You present a very valid point- Lupin does have some serious monthly problems. I feel bad because he was bitten when he was very young, and therefore, he felt as if he had ever lost the chance at achieving a normal lifestyle. In the eye of the beholder, this lively request was quite fulfilled, but not in his. He probably felt like an outsider-like nobody understood.

His loss of his best friends wasn't much of a morale-pump either. He was probably the Marauder with the most to worry about. James may have been marked to death by Voldemort, but Voldemort didn't know abou the prophecy James' whole life, because it wasn't even created yet! Therefore, James was able to lead a normal life-to be a normal wizard teenager. He was handsome and popular and very happy. It wasn't until the prophecy was overheard that he actually had something to worry about.

Lupin leaded his whole life with the worry about what he would do each month. It shocks me to discover that he was able to keep his werewolf form from being discovered by other members at Hogwarts. Had he not ONCE accidently went to the school and attacked a student? There is always the question of memory modification-but I highly doubt that. His WHOLE life, or at least most of it, was droned by sadness and feat. It's a surprise that he didn't fall into a deep depression. He was clearly ashamed by who he was, even turning away love to him. In the end, he did give in, but even so it was difficult for him.

The loss of the support of his friends was probably devastating. The betrayal of Peter-the loss of James, the imprisonment of Sirius & later the death. If I had a glass in my hand, I would raise it to Remus Lupin!

Well I would just say that the Weasleys' multi-colored fire blowing dragon, lake Hogwarts they created in the hallways and the fireworks display that accompanied their send off (which happened only before they were kicked our of school) beat the once a month wanderings in my book. :lol: We don't know that the Marauders attacked people for no good reason. They had a good reason to attack Snape (to them in their minds at that time) and while they were "bored" at that moment, that is not why they chose Snape - they would have chosen him sitting all alone even if they weren't bored. JKR gave us one reason in POA, but since that had been a while, she reiterated that one and gave us more in DH (the stalking, and the bullying of muggleborns, for James the fact that Snape liked Lily), plus Snape's own attacks on them (7th year hexing via Sirius; relationship like Harry/Draco via Dumbledore). This was much like Fred and George's attack on Dudley, growing his tongue out of proportion when he'd done nothing to them at that moment. But they'd heard of the things he'd done to Harry in the past. Lily said James hexed those who molested him - you know, those calling him Blood Traitor or telling him he sucked at Quidditch - and we saw the Weasley twins were not against doing this either (the all out brawl they started when Draco called them poor, stuffing that poor fellow in the toilet chamber, etc.). And as for hexing for fun, that was the pranking they did regularly like the Weasleys did. So I would not be so quick to say that they were much different at all. I could easily see Fred and George using the tricks and hexes at their disposal if someone called them Blood Traitors or if a student had the nerve to say the team they played on sucked.
I think they are different. The Marauders did indeed attack for petty reasons. It wasn't only Snape. James and Sirius were constantly hexing people for fun. Snape had about 50 cards of their misdeeds, one of which was James and Sirius hexing a kid so that his head doubled in size and earned them detentions. Not to mention Sirius wanted a good laugh and nearly sent Snape to his death by sending him to the Shrieking Shack where Lupin had transformed into a werewolf. So Sirius thought the idea of Snape being killed was funny. Don't tell me the Weasley's would ever have had the gall and stupidity to do something like that.

Weasley's "attacks" on others:

- Tricked Dudley into eating the Ton Tongue Toffey. Pretty immature I'll admit that but it wasn't too serious and Arthur would be able to fix it in a few seconds. Then again they didn't tell Dudley to eat it, did they?

- George and Harry attacked Malfoy due to him relentlessly insulting their parents. I thought it was a loss of temper but also well deserved on Malfoy's part, the idiot.

- Shoved Montague into a Vanishing Cabinet. He was stupidly trying to mess around with the Weasley's and tick them off. I don't think Fred and George had any idea that Montague was in serious danger.

Thats all that we know that they did to others.

The Marauders:

- Unprovoked attack on Snape because they were "bored". I think it was really messed up on their part. Snape was in love w/the dark arts and was their enemy but that doesn't call for an attack on him and to humiliate him while he is studying for his OWLs.

- James and Sirius...hexed another student, making his head swell twice its size. Probably for a good laugh. I'm sure there were many more where that came from.

- Sirius trying to get a laugh by sending Snape right into an encounter with a werewolf which could have been fatal.

----

I'd say that the Marauders were easily a more aggressive group and they cursed and hexed other students for enjoyment, often times without any provocation or good reason.

Not to mention Sirius and James were very arrogant and full of themselves. Fred and George had no such personalities in my opinion.

I mean you say that Fred and George would probably hex people if they were provoked. Probably true but the Marauders often did it without provocation.

Without a doubt the twins pranks weren't on the scale of the Marauders IMO. James and Sirius weren't bad people but they were more immature than the Weasley's and more aggressive for that matter. The Weasley's would prank but there was a line that they at least didn't cross and knew when too much was too much. The Marauders didn't seem to restrict themselves.

I think they are different. The Marauders did indeed attack for petty reasons. It wasn't only Snape. James and Sirius were constantly hexing people for fun. Snape had about 50 cards of their misdeeds, one of which was James and Sirius hexing a kid so that his head doubled in size and earned them detentions. Not to mention Sirius wanted a good laugh and nearly sent Snape to his death by sending him to the Shrieking Shack where Lupin had transformed into a werewolf. So Sirius thought the idea of Snape being killed was funny. Don't tell me the Weasley's would ever have had the gall and stupidity to do something like that.

Weasley's "attacks" on others:

- Tricked Dudley into eating the Ton Tongue Toffey. Pretty immature I'll admit that but it wasn't too serious and Arthur would be able to fix it in a few seconds. Then again they didn't tell Dudley to eat it, did they?

- George and Harry attacked Malfoy due to him relentlessly insulting their parents. I thought it was a loss of temper but also well deserved on Malfoy's part, the idiot.

- Shoved Montague into a Vanishing Cabinet. He was stupidly trying to mess around with the Weasley's and tick them off. I don't think Fred and George had any idea that Montague was in serious danger.

Thats all that we know that they did to others.

The Marauders:

- Unprovoked attack on Snape because they were "bored". I think it was really messed up on their part. Snape was in love w/the dark arts and was their enemy but that doesn't call for an attack on him and to humiliate him while he is studying for his OWLs.

- James and Sirius...hexed another student, making his head swell twice its size. Probably for a good laugh. I'm sure there were many more where that came from.

- Sirius trying to get a laugh by sending Snape right into an encounter with a werewolf which could have been fatal.

----

I'd say that the Marauders were easily a more aggressive group and they cursed and hexed other students for enjoyment, often times without any provocation or good reason.

Not to mention Sirius and James were very arrogant and full of themselves. Fred and George had no such personalities in my opinion.

I mean you say that Fred and George would probably hex people if they were provoked. Probably true but the Marauders often did it without provocation.

Without a doubt the twins pranks weren't on the scale of the Marauders IMO. James and Sirius weren't bad people but they were more immature than the Weasley's and more aggressive for that matter. The Weasley's would prank but there was a line that they at least didn't cross and knew when too much was too much. The Marauders didn't seem to restrict themselves.

I respect your view. I think all the stuff Fred and George did has been forgotten and the fact that Hagrid said they could give the Marauders a run for their money. Let me refresh our memories: A swim down lake Hogwarts anyone? You now can, just jump in your swim suit because Fred and George have flooded the hallways and so deep, the professors have had to use boats to travel. Friend getting you down? Just let Fred and George know! Harry did and now look at Dudley's tounge, fat and falling down to the floor! Of course Dudley didn't do anything to them and was doing nothing at that moment, it was just for fun and a high five for Harry! Slytherins upsetting you? No problem, Fred and George can handle it, stuffed Montigue into the vanishing chamber and he wasn't found for some time - and then he wasn't around for a while because he was in the hospital - lesson: don't tick them off. And sorry, but that is just as dangerous as telling Snape how to stop the willow tree - in fact - it is much, much worse. Montigue could have died - as it was he was seriously injured - he was missing so long his parents came to Hogwarts. And don't call the Weasley family poor, or Super George and Batman Fred will jump you and your entire group of friends. Yes they did just that, George and Harry starting an all out brawl on the Quidditch pitch that looked so fun, Ron and Fred had to join in as well. And they are inventors too! They come up with all types of delightful pranking pills and other oddities and guess who they test them out on? Students! Usually young, unsuspecting first and second years. Harry didn't put his name in the Triwizard Tournament Goblet of Fire. But guess who tried? Right again friends! Fred and George, three times even! Not only do these boys have their own collection of detention slips that is as weighty as that of the Marauders, they didn't stop there, they went hunting around in...YES....Filch's office to find all of the good old pranking devices he'd confiscated over the years and one of the things they came up with: The Marauder's Map! Yes you can find Fred and George in every crevice of the castle, just as the Marauders were. And of course don't call Fred and George or any of their friends Blood Traitors or Mudbloods because they will show you just how many pranks they have up their sleeves. Puking Pastille's, Canary Creams, Fake Wands, Extendable Ears, Vomit Pills, or and let us not forget the one that causes hair to grow all over the body. And if you are a professor, as we've mentioned, you are not safe; especially if you are a mean professor. Fire breathing Dragon hexes and flying school work for Umbridge's pleasure was the beginning and of the end when George and Fred said their fond farewell to Hogwarts, flying out by breaking up the castle wall and freeing their brooms to leave in a wonderous fireworks display - and this before they could be expelled from school - a height the Marauders never attained, the Marauders did graduate. And there is more - confiscations by Mum Molly and such, but we can't cover it all right now - the skivving snackboxes and dungbombs are just a starting point. And as for putting others down; sure Sirius made a negative comment about Snape dripping grease on his exam when he and James started things with Snape - on the grass, not too many to hear at that point. Fred and George topped that though; they made a comment about Snape's hair and the need for shampoo on the goodsider's public radio show for everyone's ears.

Now with our memory refreshed we run a quick comparison from what we know. Sure Fred and George humiliating Dudley and picking on him with their magical advantage for something he'd done to another was just as bad as James and Sirius picking on Snape - and we know from canon he'd done stuff to others, at the very least, lashing out calling people mudbloods and using his favorite curse Sectumsempra. But he'd also skulked around after the Marauders and attempted to expose Lupin - I'd say they'd gotten into a fair share of battles before SWM. The Marauders too would likely hex if you called them blood traitors or mentioned that Gryffindor's Quidditch team sucked. But otherwise, I am assuming that they mostly pranked just as Fred and George did in the examples I gave above and the kids at Hogwarts, most of them liked it.

As Snape pointed out to Lily: "I am just trying to show you that [the Marauders] are not as wonderful as everyone seems to think" That was the impression of them, popular, likeable and well liked because of it. I feel that their hexing Snape, who was unpopular, would only make them more likeable, and the same goes for other Slytherins because people generally didn't like them. Those who were pranked weren't happy when it happened to them, but could laugh when it happened to others and overall wouldn't dislike them anymore than kids disliked the twins. There will always be some like Hermione who didn't like pranking at all - but most do. Finally, Lily said that James hexed those who annoyed him - well so don't call him a Blood Traitor; don't tell him his hair looks like he's been elecrocuted; don't tell him that Gryff's Quidditch team is a bunch of pansies, or yeah, the pranker will pull out a fun little hex for you - just like Fred and George did. The Marauders too were well respected by their peers - this even Snape admits, he is the only one who says anything negative about them in canon. Hagrid, Dumbledore, Rosmerta, McGonagall, Dumbledore, Kingsley and Moody all said positive things about them when they were young. Lily herself nearly laughed at James retailiating for getting his face sliced and lifting Snape up - and it seems to me she only didn't like the fact that James would use one of his pranking hexes when someone merely called him four eyes. But that is who he was, and much like Fred and George who also didn't take kindly to derogatory remarks - Hermione wouldn't approve either, but Ron would and much of the student body understood too - and I feel that is how it was in James and Sirius time. Lily was your Hermione. They were wild, but well liked - but not by Snape, who hated them. Don't forget much of the crowd was cheering in SWM behind the Marauders - and no one intervened except Lily. In my view, Snape wasn't just an outcast, he was also hanging around with a dangerous and bad group and likely participating in their activities (at least standing laughing) - and we know that included doing dark magic against others. Finally, Lily defended the Marauders, to her friend, Snape, saying to him "at least they don't use dark magic" when Snape complained of their pranking and such in DH. That is not the type of thing one says to a friend who is one of many victims of a group of mean spirited bullies that no one likes, in my judgment.

We simply don't have enough canon to make judgments as to whether or not James and Sirius were leaps and bounds more arrogant - they were different people and their arrogance may have just come out in different ways. But I feel George and Fred were arrogant in their own right; you have to be to pull some of that stuff off especially experimenting on young kids and doing those wild pranks in the face of teachers. And as you mentioned George with Harry attacked for what you indicate was a good reason - in fact you have pretty good reasons for all of George and Fred's "non fun" attacks. But you have "no" reason for James and Sirius' attacks and for some reason you seem to feel that means they had none. That doesn't make sense to me. I am sure they had their reasons that were good to them.

Finally, "Hexing for fun" is pranking - nothing more, nothing less. George and Fred hexed for fun as well and slipped pills in drinks for fun and used all types of gadgets and other sorts of things against others 'for fun'. I think you are trying to differentiate between hexing for fun, and hexing for a reason such as being molested (which was what Lily accused James of and was upset about). But what the Marauders mostly did, imo, was to hex for fun - or prank.

I think they are different. The Marauders did indeed attack for petty reasons. It wasn't only Snape. James and Sirius were constantly hexing people for fun. Snape had about 50 cards of their misdeeds, one of which was James and Sirius hexing a kid so that his head doubled in size and earned them detentions. Not to mention Sirius wanted a good laugh and nearly sent Snape to his death by sending him to the Shrieking Shack where Lupin had transformed into a werewolf. So Sirius thought the idea of Snape being killed was funny. Don't tell me the Weasley's would ever have had the gall and stupidity to do something like that.

Weasley's "attacks" on others:

- Tricked Dudley into eating the Ton Tongue Toffey. Pretty immature I'll admit that but it wasn't too serious and Arthur would be able to fix it in a few seconds. Then again they didn't tell Dudley to eat it, did they?

- George and Harry attacked Malfoy due to him relentlessly insulting their parents. I thought it was a loss of temper but also well deserved on Malfoy's part, the idiot.

- Shoved Montague into a Vanishing Cabinet. He was stupidly trying to mess around with the Weasley's and tick them off. I don't think Fred and George had any idea that Montague was in serious danger.

Thats all that we know that they did to others.

The Marauders:

- Unprovoked attack on Snape because they were "bored". I think it was really messed up on their part. Snape was in love w/the dark arts and was their enemy but that doesn't call for an attack on him and to humiliate him while he is studying for his OWLs.

- James and Sirius...hexed another student, making his head swell twice its size. Probably for a good laugh. I'm sure there were many more where that came from.

- Sirius trying to get a laugh by sending Snape right into an encounter with a werewolf which could have been fatal.

----

I'd say that the Marauders were easily a more aggressive group and they cursed and hexed other students for enjoyment, often times without any provocation or good reason.

Not to mention Sirius and James were very arrogant and full of themselves. Fred and George had no such personalities in my opinion.

I mean you say that Fred and George would probably hex people if they were provoked. Probably true but the Marauders often did it without provocation.

Without a doubt the twins pranks weren't on the scale of the Marauders IMO. James and Sirius weren't bad people but they were more immature than the Weasley's and more aggressive for that matter. The Weasley's would prank but there was a line that they at least didn't cross and knew when too much was too much. The Marauders didn't seem to restrict themselves.
I disagree. From what we know was Snape the preferred object, I don't think you can say that they ran around and jinxed everyone just for the fun of it. McGonagall and others stated good things about them. If they really did go around and were such horrible people why would others think good things about them? The Marauder's went out of the row sometimes, for example with the werewolf thing, but on the other hand weren't the Twins not caring much about the health of the vicitims either. They all enjoyed doing pranks for no reason.

Pranks are not for the enjoyment of the recipient of the prank; no one pranked by Fred and George much liked it either. But those watching on thought it was funny. They made a lot of sales which means that others obviously felt that pranking others was fun as well - but you can be sure that people breaking out with hair all over their body or suddenly finding themselves puking were not laughing - just those watching them. That is why some people, like Hermione, didn't enjoy pranking. But others saw the funny side of it like Ron and Harry. Fred and George seemed to feel anyone was game - even the professors, and I imagine that is how the Marauders were too. But Fred and George reserved the rather more humiliating ones for those they didn't like - like making Dudley's tongue grow or shoving that fellow in the closet, or all of the damaging ones they pulled on Umbridge. I'd imagine the Marauders did the same. But other kids did it too, like Harry trying out the toe nail growing hex he discovered on Goyle, but the lifting spell that wasn't so bad on Ron. Goyle of course was unhappy about it and humiliated, but Harry and Ron thought it was funny as did many of those watching. It is just something you like or you don't, but as long as you don't use dark curses, it is really not harmful in the long run - you just get a nice detention if caught. :lol:.

That's really going to depend on the individual though - specifically on whether or not they are able to laugh at themselves - as well as the circumstances involved. Take Neville for example - victim of a canary cream planted by the twins. He sprouted feathers - which would have been embarrassing - but, once the shock wore off, he thought it was funny. And Ron is another example - Harry used Levicorpus on him, which was not only a really shocking way to be woke up, it was embarrassing and the other boys "roared with laughter". However, once the shock wore off, Ron thought it was funny and even defended Harry to Hermione for using it.

Someone who lacks the ability to laugh at themselves would be angry and offended by those events and focus on the embarrassment of it. Personally, I don't see that as a positive trait. The world would be a better place if more people were able to laugh at themselves, IMO.

I think they are different. The Marauders did indeed attack for petty reasons. It wasn't only Snape. James and Sirius were constantly hexing people for fun. Snape had about 50 cards of their misdeeds, one of which was James and Sirius hexing a kid so that his head doubled in size and earned them detentions. Not to mention Sirius wanted a good laugh and nearly sent Snape to his death by sending him to the Shrieking Shack where Lupin had transformed into a werewolf. So Sirius thought the idea of Snape being killed was funny. Don't tell me the Weasley's would ever have had the gall and stupidity to do something like that.

Weasley's "attacks" on others:

- Tricked Dudley into eating the Ton Tongue Toffey. Pretty immature I'll admit that but it wasn't too serious and Arthur would be able to fix it in a few seconds. Then again they didn't tell Dudley to eat it, did they?

- George and Harry attacked Malfoy due to him relentlessly insulting their parents. I thought it was a loss of temper but also well deserved on Malfoy's part, the idiot.

- Shoved Montague into a Vanishing Cabinet. He was stupidly trying to mess around with the Weasley's and tick them off. I don't think Fred and George had any idea that Montague was in serious danger.

Thats all that we know that they did to others.

The Marauders:

- Unprovoked attack on Snape because they were "bored". I think it was really messed up on their part. Snape was in love w/the dark arts and was their enemy but that doesn't call for an attack on him and to humiliate him while he is studying for his OWLs.

- James and Sirius...hexed another student, making his head swell twice its size. Probably for a good laugh. I'm sure there were many more where that came from.

- Sirius trying to get a laugh by sending Snape right into an encounter with a werewolf which could have been fatal.

----

I'd say that the Marauders were easily a more aggressive group and they cursed and hexed other students for enjoyment, often times without any provocation or good reason.

Not to mention Sirius and James were very arrogant and full of themselves. Fred and George had no such personalities in my opinion.

I mean you say that Fred and George would probably hex people if they were provoked. Probably true but the Marauders often did it without provocation.

Without a doubt the twins pranks weren't on the scale of the Marauders IMO. James and Sirius weren't bad people but they were more immature than the Weasley's and more aggressive for that matter. The Weasley's would prank but there was a line that they at least didn't cross and knew when too much was too much. The Marauders didn't seem to restrict themselves.

I would have to disagree with that. There is nothing in canon to support the idea that James and Sirius attacked people without provocation. They played pranks and were known to use hexes and jinxes, but we don't know the circumstances for all of those things - and I wouldn't call a prank an attack. In fact, canon shows just the opposite, IMO. Even with SWM. Sure Snape wasn't doing anything in that moment, but the evidence shows that there was a history of a rivalry there with both sides attacking each other - Snape in particular never missed an opportunity to try to curse James. We don't know what Snape had done prior to that and it is very likely that he had attacked one of the Marauders prior to that. It's equally likely that they had found out about Snape and/or his future Death Eater buddies attacking another student. That was a mutual rivalry with both sides attacking each other whenever they could. They felt it was provoked.

The other examples you give for the Marauders are incomplete. We don't have enough information to just assume they did anything without provocation - or that it was even an attack. They hexed another student to make his head swell up - Harry reads that much on a detention card. But the card doesn't reveal why they did it or whether or not it was provoked. For all we know, that student could have attempted to attack them and they were defending themselves - or they were attacking another student and they intervended - or it was a harmless prank and the other student laughed with them when it was all over just as Neville laughed with Fred and George over the canary cream. Fred and George's detention records most likely read along the same lines. Those descriptions were written by Filch after all. He had no sense of humor and would describe a harmless prank as an attack.

And Sirius did not send Snape to the Whomping Willow "for a laugh". That is an incorrect statement. Sirius felt that Snape deserved that so it is clear that Snape had done something to provoke that, IMO - at least as far as Sirius was concerned. We were never given the full details as to what that was. We were supposed to find out more about that in DH, but Jo apparently changed her mind because she didn't include it - though she did reveal that Sirius and Snape loathed each other. But there was a reason behind that and Sirius felt that it was provoked because he felt that Snape deserved it.

Even Harry notes that the twins would do something like that to people they really hated or if they felt the person deserved it - and after talking to Sirius and Lupin, he realizes that James and Sirius really hated Snape and did feel that he deserved that - and the feeling was mutual. I think the twins were a lot like the Marauders overall - and I think that Jo included the twins in Harry's generation as an example of what the Marauders were like as students. That's why there are so many references in the text comparing the twins to the Marauders, IMO. Hagrid in particular says that the twins could give James and Sirius a "run for their money". I'd say that - at the very least - puts them on the same level, but strongly indicates that the twins were actually considered to be bigger troublemakers.

I respect your view. I think all the stuff Fred and George did has been forgotten and the fact that Hagrid said they could give the Marauders a run for their money. Let me refresh our memories: A swim down lake Hogwarts anyone? You now can, just jump in your swim suit because Fred and George have flooded the hallways and so deep, the professors have had to use boats to travel. Friend getting you down? Just let Fred and George know! Harry did and now look at Dudley's tounge, fat and falling down to the floor! Of course Dudley didn't do anything to them and was doing nothing at that moment, it was just for fun and a high five for Harry! Slytherins upsetting you? No problem, Fred and George can handle it, stuffed Montigue into the vanishing chamber and he wasn't found for some time - and then he wasn't around for a while because he was in the hospital - lesson: don't tick them off. And sorry, but that is just as dangerous as telling Snape how to stop the willow tree - in fact - it is much, much worse. Montigue could have died - as it was he was seriously injured - he was missing so long his parents came to Hogwarts. And don't call the Weasley family poor, or Super George and Batman Fred will jump you and your entire group of friends. Yes they did just that, George and Harry starting an all out brawl on the Quidditch pitch that looked so fun, Ron and Fred had to join in as well. And they are inventors too! They come up with all types of delightful pranking pills and other oddities and guess who they test them out on? Students! Usually young, unsuspecting first and second years. Harry didn't put his name in the Triwizard Tournament Goblet of Fire. But guess who tried? Right again friends! Fred and George, three times even! Not only do these boys have their own collection of detention slips that is as weighty as that of the Marauders, they didn't stop there, they went hunting around in...YES....Filch's office to find all of the good old pranking devices he'd confiscated over the years and one of the things they came up with: The Marauder's Map! Yes you can find Fred and George in every crevice of the castle, just as the Marauders were. And of course don't call Fred and George or any of their friends Blood Traitors or Mudbloods because they will show you just how many pranks they have up their sleeves. Puking Pastille's, Canary Creams, Fake Wands, Extendable Ears, Vomit Pills, or and let us not forget the one that causes hair to grow all over the body. And if you are a professor, as we've mentioned, you are not safe; especially if you are a mean professor. Fire breathing Dragon hexes and flying school work for Umbridge's pleasure was the beginning and of the end when George and Fred said their fond farewell to Hogwarts, flying out by breaking up the castle wall and freeing their brooms to leave in a wonderous fireworks display - and this before they could be expelled from school - a height the Marauders never attained, the Marauders did graduate. And there is more - confiscations by Mum Molly and such, but we can't cover it all right now - the skivving snackboxes and dungbombs are just a starting point. And as for putting others down; sure Sirius made a negative comment about Snape dripping grease on his exam when he and James started things with Snape - on the grass, not too many to hear at that point. Fred and George topped that though; they made a comment about Snape's hair and the need for shampoo on the goodsider's public radio show for everyone's ears.

Now with our memory refreshed we run a quick comparison from what we know. Sure Fred and George humiliating Dudley and picking on him with their magical advantage for something he'd done to another was just as bad as James and Sirius picking on Snape - and we know from canon he'd done stuff to others, at the very least, lashing out calling people mudbloods and using his favorite curse Sectumsempra. But he'd also skulked around after the Marauders and attempted to expose Lupin - I'd say they'd gotten into a fair share of battles before SWM. The Marauders too would likely hex if you called them blood traitors or mentioned that Gryffindor's Quidditch team sucked. But otherwise, I am assuming that they mostly pranked just as Fred and George did in the examples I gave above and the kids at Hogwarts, most of them liked it.

As Snape pointed out to Lily: "I am just trying to show you that [the Marauders] are not as wonderful as everyone seems to think" That was the impression of them, popular, likeable and well liked because of it. I feel that their hexing Snape, who was unpopular, would only make them more likeable, and the same goes for other Slytherins because people generally didn't like them. Those who were pranked weren't happy when it happened to them, but could laugh when it happened to others and overall wouldn't dislike them anymore than kids disliked the twins. There will always be some like Hermione who didn't like pranking at all - but most do. Finally, Lily said that James hexed those who annoyed him - well so don't call him a Blood Traitor; don't tell him his hair looks like he's been elecrocuted; don't tell him that Gryff's Quidditch team is a bunch of pansies, or yeah, the pranker will pull out a fun little hex for you - just like Fred and George did. The Marauders too were well respected by their peers - this even Snape admits, he is the only one who says anything negative about them in canon. Hagrid, Dumbledore, Rosmerta, McGonagall, Dumbledore, Kingsley and Moody all said positive things about them when they were young. Lily herself nearly laughed at James retailiating for getting his face sliced and lifting Snape up - and it seems to me she only didn't like the fact that James would use one of his pranking hexes when someone merely called him four eyes. But that is who he was, and much like Fred and George who also didn't take kindly to derogatory remarks - Hermione wouldn't approve either, but Ron would and much of the student body understood too - and I feel that is how it was in James and Sirius time. Lily was your Hermione. They were wild, but well liked - but not by Snape, who hated them. Don't forget much of the crowd was cheering in SWM behind the Marauders - and no one intervened except Lily. In my view, Snape wasn't just an outcast, he was also hanging around with a dangerous and bad group and likely participating in their activities (at least standing laughing) - and we know that included doing dark magic against others. Finally, Lily defended the Marauders, to her friend, Snape, saying to him "at least they don't use dark magic" when Snape complained of their pranking and such in DH. That is not the type of thing one says to a friend who is one of many victims of a group of mean spirited bullies that no one likes, in my judgment.

We simply don't have enough canon to make judgments as to whether or not James and Sirius were leaps and bounds more arrogant - they were different people and their arrogance may have just come out in different ways. But I feel George and Fred were arrogant in their own right; you have to be to pull some of that stuff off especially experimenting on young kids and doing those wild pranks in the face of teachers. And as you mentioned George with Harry attacked for what you indicate was a good reason - in fact you have pretty good reasons for all of George and Fred's "non fun" attacks. But you have "no" reason for James and Sirius' attacks and for some reason you seem to feel that means they had none. That doesn't make sense to me. I am sure they had their reasons that were good to them.

Finally, "Hexing for fun" is pranking - nothing more, nothing less. George and Fred hexed for fun as well and slipped pills in drinks for fun and used all types of gadgets and other sorts of things against others 'for fun'. I think you are trying to differentiate between hexing for fun, and hexing for a reason such as being molested (which was what Lily accused James of and was upset about). But what the Marauders mostly did, imo, was to hex for fun - or prank.

Wow. Well let me just say thats a heck of a post that has me rather stumped for a good argument. :lol:

For the Vanishing cabinet and Montague, how on earth is that much much worse than Sirius knowingly sending Snape into serious danger that could very possibly resulted in death? Yes Snape was a nosy git but Sirius willingly and happily sent Snape on his way to meet a werewolf which probably would have slaughtered him had he fully encountered it. And Sirius never regretted doing it, he said it served him right for being nosy. Fred and George wanted to punish Montague for trying to screw over Gryffindor but I highly doubt that they thought any serious danger would come to him, nor that he nearly got killed.

Well as for me not thinking they had any reason for some of their attacks. I really don't think their attack on Snape in SWM was at all adequate. Yes they certainly loathed each other but I think it was cowardly of the Marauders, Sirius and James in this case to double team Snape and go after him when he hasn't shown any aggression at the time.

You're right though, some of their attacks had reasons behind them. The twins and the Marauders did do a lot of pranks which mostly weren't terribly harmful. In fact I now realize that Harry did hex people in corridors, did it to Goyle I think as well as Filch twice with the Prince's spells for amusement and experimentation.

meesha about Sirius and the Whomping Willow. Lupin himself said that Sirius thought it would be amusing to tell Snape that to find out what Lupin was up to, he had to prod the knot on the whomping willow and go down into the Shrieking shack. Sirius also noted that it served him right for being nosey but I wouldn't say that there wasn't amusement among Sirius's reasons for sending Snape down there because even Lupin said there was.

Well you all bring up some very good points to contradict me. I stand by my argument but I am stumped for a very good response. :p

meesha about Sirius and the Whomping Willow. Lupin himself said that Sirius thought it would be amusing to tell Snape that to find out what Lupin was up to, he had to prod the knot on the whomping willow and go down into the Shrieking shack. Sirius also noted that it served him right for being nosey but I wouldn't say that there wasn't amusement among Sirius's reasons for sending Snape down there because even Lupin said there was.

What confuses me about this is what Lily says in The Prince's Tale:


"They sneak out at night. There something weird about that Lupin. Where does he keep going?
"He's ill," said Lily. "They say he's ill-"
"Every month at the full moon?" said Snape.
"I know your theory." said Lily, and she sounded cold. "Why are you obsessed with them, anyway? Why do you care what they are doing at night?


In this discussion, they go on to mention James saving Snape the other night which seems to imply that it happened recently (I think within a few days).

Based on what Snape says about the full moon and Lily mentioning that she knows his theory, I think that Snape already long suspected that Lupin was a werewolf. Can anybody think of what else he might be implying with the full moon stuff? If he thought Lupin was a werewolf, why would he go into the tunnel during a full moon? Was he willing to risk his life to prove his theory? Did Sirius really trick him into going in there? Or was it more like he dared Snape into trying to prove his theory?

I suppose that Snape could have developed that theory after that night, but, in my opinion, that doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the conversation? If Lily knew his theory, why would she be saying that she "heard" what happened the other night? Wouldn't she have already discussed the matter with Snape when he explained his theory?

I'm not excusing Sirius for the danger he may have put Snape under, I'm just confused as to what Snape suspected and when he suspected it.

What confuses me about this is what Lily says in The Prince's Tale:


"They sneak out at night. There something weird about that Lupin. Where does he keep going?
"He's ill," said Lily. "They say he's ill-"
"Every month at the full moon?" said Snape.
"I know your theory." said Lily, and she sounded cold. "Why are you obsessed with them, anyway? Why do you care what they are doing at night?


In this discussion, they go on to mention James saving Snape the other night which seems to imply that it happened recently (I think within a few days).

Based on what Snape says about the full moon and Lily mentioning that she knows his theory, I think that Snape already long suspected that Lupin was a werewolf. Can anybody think of what else he might be implying with the full moon stuff? If he thought Lupin was a werewolf, why would he go into the tunnel during a full moon? Was he willing to risk his life to prove his theory? Did Sirius really trick him into going in there? Or was it more like he dared Snape into trying to prove his theory?

I suppose that Snape could have developed that theory after that night, but, in my opinion, that doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the conversation? If Lily knew his theory, why would she be saying that she "heard" what happened the other night? Wouldn't she have already discussed the matter with Snape when he explained his theory?

I'm not excusing Sirius for the danger he may have put Snape under, I'm just confused as to what Snape suspected and when he suspected it.
Good questions, that confuses me as well. I'm tempted to say that Snape further developed his theory on it after he caught a glimpse of Lupin, I think it was Lupin's eyes or something down in the tunnel, I think it said that in PoA. Lupin said that from that point on Snape knew but was forbidden to tell by Dumbledore....it seems to contradict his conversation with Lilly about it just being his theory.

Wow. Well let me just say thats a heck of a post that has me rather stumped for a good argument. :lol:

For the Vanishing cabinet and Montague, how on earth is that much much worse than Sirius knowingly sending Snape into serious danger that could very possibly resulted in death? Yes Snape was a nosy git but Sirius willingly and happily sent Snape on his way to meet a werewolf which probably would have slaughtered him had he fully encountered it. And Sirius never regretted doing it, he said it served him right for being nosy. Fred and George wanted to punish Montague for trying to screw over Gryffindor but I highly doubt that they thought any serious danger would come to him, nor that he nearly got killed.

I don't think Sirius was thinking that Snape would die. I believe he thought he'd see the werewolf and get a grand scare and run out of there. It was a very foolish thing to do. However, note also that Sirius likely had his doubts that Snape would actually listen to him (seeing as they were enemies) and if he did stop the tree, he may have further doubted Snape would actually venture into the tunnel because all of the students knew to stay away from there becasue it was dangerous. Snape did have the choice to actually take Sirius' advice and walk down there, break school rules by stopping the tree and then choose to walk into the tunnel. But the twins putting Montigue in a vanishing cabinet gave the kid no choice at all. He was doomed and where exactly did he vanish to - was it for a week? How did they know he'd survive? As it was he was hospitalized because he happened to turn up. But they didn't even look for him or tell anyone. That is what I meant by worse - they thrust this boy into unknowable danger; it wasn't like they told him how to get inside and he went for it.

But overall, in my view, both acts were foolish on everyone's part - except Montigue who had no choice in the matter.

Good questions, that confuses me as well. I'm tempted to say that Snape further developed his theory on it after he caught a glimpse of Lupin, I think it was Lupin's eyes or something down in the tunnel, I think it said that in PoA. Lupin said that from that point on Snape knew but was forbidden to tell by Dumbledore....it seems to contradict his conversation with Lilly about it just being his theory.

Snape said he'd been following Lupin for months, because he knew that he traveled to the shack on several full moons which only occur once a month. He had shared his theory with Lily that Lupin was a werewolf and imo, he saw an opportunity to prove it when he found out how to stop the tree. Snape wished to get the Marauders expelled, which is why he followed them around so much according to canon, so this I suppose was his plan. I would imagine that like Sirius, he hoped to be able to peep inside and run out again - unless he had some kind of magic at the ready to subdue Lupin. But Snape knew he was walking into danger and he was highly certain it was a werewolf. I believe JKR included that fact because it was something Snape had not admitted to Harry when he told the story, and it would help gain his trust because Snape was coming clean on that and other issues. Because Sirius didn't know that Snape knew, it did not lessen the foolishness of Sirius' act, imo, but it did take away from the idea of 'innocent victim' Snape.

Wow. Well let me just say thats a heck of a post that has me rather stumped for a good argument. :lol:

For the Vanishing cabinet and Montague, how on earth is that much much worse than Sirius knowingly sending Snape into serious danger that could very possibly resulted in death? Yes Snape was a nosy git but Sirius willingly and happily sent Snape on his way to meet a werewolf which probably would have slaughtered him had he fully encountered it. And Sirius never regretted doing it, he said it served him right for being nosy. Fred and George wanted to punish Montague for trying to screw over Gryffindor but I highly doubt that they thought any serious danger would come to him, nor that he nearly got killed.

Actually, I would put that at least on the same level - if not slightly worse. The twins had no idea what would happen to Montague when they shoved him into that cabinet - against his will - and they didn't care. They didn't know where he would end up - and they didn't care. They didn't know how long it would take for him to turn up or be found - and they didn't care. When he did show up - in a toilet no less - he was injured and Madame Pomfrey couldn't do anything for him. He had to be removed from school. The twins didn't care and they showed no regret. Now, I should note that I'm not assigning fault or blame - I absolutely adore the twins - it wasn't good behavior, but they were retaliating against an enemy. I wouldn't expect anyone to care all that much about an enemy.

Now, compare that to Sirius sending Snape to the Whomping Willow. First - as wickedwickedboy pointed out - Snape had a choice. Sirius only told Snape how to get past the Whomping Willow - he didn't force Snape to go in there. Lupin knew that - had Snape gotten all the way in - he probably would have killed him, but can we honestly say that Sirius thought that when he was 15-16? I don't think we can. Lupin was his friend and he had been safely running around with him as a werewolf for quite some time. He didn't see Lupin as "dangerous". And we don't know the motivation behind that - we never got all the details. We know that they loathed each other and that Sirius felt that Snape deserved it so we do know that there was some provocation, but that's all we know. Without knowing all of the details, we really can't make an accurate assessment of this incident.

Well as for me not thinking they had any reason for some of their attacks. I really don't think their attack on Snape in SWM was at all adequate. Yes they certainly loathed each other but I think it was cowardly of the Marauders, Sirius and James in this case to double team Snape and go after him when he hasn't shown any aggression at the time.

I would have to disagree. It was bad behavior, but I would not classify this as an attack. I see this as a prank. They chose spells to cause embarrassment rather than spells to cause harm. And Lupin tells Harry in HBP that students were using Levicorpus on each other like this all the time - it became a fad. And - since Snape actually invented this spell - it is most likely that he started this particular fad. Nor do I believe it was entirely unprovoked. We are given enough evidence to know that Snape took advantage of any opportunity to curse James and that he was most likely using the Dark Arts to attack other students with his future Death Eater buddies. The only way that anyone could know that Snape knew more curses than half the seventh years in his first year is if he was actually using those curses. This was a mutual rivalry with bad behavior occurring on both sides. And I think it is significant that James and Sirius chose generally harmless spells that would cause embarrassment whereas Snape chose a spell that would very likely kill - and probably would have if Sirius hadn't called out warning so James moved.

You're right though, some of their attacks had reasons behind them. The twins and the Marauders did do a lot of pranks which mostly weren't terribly harmful. In fact I now realize that Harry did hex people in corridors, did it to Goyle I think as well as Filch twice with the Prince's spells for amusement and experimentation.

Exactly. And we are shown that this sort of thing goes on all the time at Hogwarts - particularly when a big Quidditch match is coming up. Harry often describes such incidents - students sprouting antlers, skin looking like cornflakes, hair growing uncontrollably, etc... In the wizarding world, these things are harmless and easily fixed. Really I would put this kind of behavior on the same level as someone in real life giving you a stick of gum that turns your tongue blue or a pair of binoculars that leaves rings around your eyes. It's embarrassing, but no lasting harm is done.

meesha about Sirius and the Whomping Willow. Lupin himself said that Sirius thought it would be amusing to tell Snape that to find out what Lupin was up to, he had to prod the knot on the whomping willow and go down into the Shrieking shack. Sirius also noted that it served him right for being nosey but I wouldn't say that there wasn't amusement among Sirius's reasons for sending Snape down there because even Lupin said there was.

Lupin's being careful about what he says there though.

“We were in the same year, you know, and we — er — didn’t like each other very much. He especially disliked James. Jealous, I think, of James’s talent on the Quidditch field … anyway Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madam Pomfrey one evening as she led me toward the Whomping Willow to transform. Sirius thought it would be — er — amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree trunk with a long stick, and he’d be able to get in after me."

Lupin is trying to be fair to both Sirius and Snape here. Whatever happened in the past, Snape is their teacher now - as is Lupin. And he has just found out that Sirius is innocent - and he knows that Sirius is Harry's godfather. But we know that "we — er — didn’t like each other very much" is a huge understatement - particularly with Sirius and Snape. They loathed each other. Giving the same hesitation before "amusing" reveals the same thing. Lupin doesn't want to tell Harry and his friends exactly how much they hated each other or how extensive that rivalry was. I think it is clear that Lupin is not saying that it was done for laughs - and Sirius' comment that Snape deserved it shows that it wasn't something he thought was funny - it was something he felt Snape deserved.

We don't get the full explanation here - and people have asked Jo about it many times because it was obvious that Lupin wasn't telling the whole story. Jo revealed that Sirius and Snape loathed each other and that there was more to this incident. The significant factor for me is the fact that Sirius felt that Snape deserved it.

All in all, I really don't see much difference between the Marauders and the twins. The twins could be just as aggressive when they were provoked - nobody would have wanted Fred and George to be their enemies, IMO. Most of the time they were just joking around. I see the Marauders along the same lines. Most of the time they were just playing around, but they could be aggressive when provoked. As I said before, I think Jo included the twins and made so many comparisons between them and the Marauders to give the readers an idea of what the Marauders were like as students.

Well I hate to be the one to bring up the same old argument but they weren't provoked on at least one occasion. Lupin and Sirius claimed that Snape never passed off on oppurtinity to jinx James but he was walking behind them peacefully for a good 15 minutes. They were worse then twins if only a little.

Well I hate to be the one to bring up the same old argument but they weren't provoked on at least one occasion. Lupin and Sirius claimed that Snape never passed off on oppurtinity to jinx James but he was walking behind them peacefully for a good 15 minutes. They were worse then twins if only a little.

Provocation does not have to occur simultaneously. We discussed that point earlier. The fact is, we don't know what happened prior to SWM. Snape wasn't doing anything at that moment, but whose to say he hadn't done something to James - or one of the other Marauders - that morning - or even the day before - or a few days before? We know that Snape never missed an opportunity to hex James so it is just as likely that SWM was in retaliation to something Snape had done previously. What is significant there is that it was a mutual rivalry with bad behavior happening on both sides.

In fact, we are presented with something that Snape was doing that the Marauders would have considered provocation. In spite of his promise to Dumbledore not to tell anyone about Lupin, Snape was going around presenting his "theory" that Lupin was a werewolf and trying to get other students to figure it out. He didn't directly break his word and outright tell, but he didn't exactly keep his word either because he was spreading the rumor around. Even Lily had heard about it. Lupin was their friend and - had anyone took Snape seriously - that could have caused a lot of problems for him as a student. I would consider that provocation for retaliation. It's still bad behavior, but we cannot say that it was not provoked in any way.

Actually, I would put that at least on the same level - if not slightly worse. The twins had no idea what would happen to Montague when they shoved him into that cabinet - against his will - and they didn't care. They didn't know where he would end up - and they didn't care. They didn't know how long it would take for him to turn up or be found - and they didn't care. When he did show up - in a toilet no less - he was injured and Madame Pomfrey couldn't do anything for him. He had to be removed from school. The twins didn't care and they showed no regret. Now, I should note that I'm not assigning fault or blame - I absolutely adore the twins - it wasn't good behavior, but they were retaliating against an enemy. I wouldn't expect anyone to care all that much about an enemy.

So much so that they don't care whether he dies? :no: I find this quite serious, actually. It's the twins' lowest moment in the series and I find it astounding that there is no moral commentary on their behaviour in the text. And the reason I think that is not because I want the Harry Potter books to be preachy but because I think there would be moral disapproval expressed from the Gryffindors if a Slytherin had done a similar thing. It only serves to reinforce the uncomfortable impression I get at times (and I really don't like thinking this) that JKR allows her Gryffindors to get away with blue murder, whereas the Slytherins would be roundly condemned in the text for similar behaviour. When a Gryffindor does anything wrong, do we ever see them suffer comeback for it?

Now, compare that to Sirius sending Snape to the Whomping Willow. First - as wickedwickedboy pointed out - Snape had a choice. Sirius only told Snape how to get past the Whomping Willow - he didn't force Snape to go in there. Lupin knew that - had Snape gotten all the way in - he probably would have killed him, but can we honestly say that Sirius thought that when he was 15-16? I don't think we can. Lupin was his friend and he had been safely running around with him as a werewolf for quite some time. He didn't see Lupin as "dangerous". And we don't know the motivation behind that - we never got all the details. We know that they loathed each other and that Sirius felt that Snape deserved it so we do know that there was some provocation, but that's all we know. Without knowing all of the details, we really can't make an accurate assessment of this incident.

I pretty much agree with this, actually -- Snape must bear some culpability because he already suspected Remus to be a werewolf, so what on earth was he thinking?

Not that this lets Sirius off the hook, IMO. In my opinion, both he, and Fred and George, were as bad as each other in these two separate incidents, the cabinet incident with Montague and the werewolf prank.

I would have to disagree. It was bad behavior, but I would not classify this as an attack. I see this as a prank. They chose spells to cause embarrassment rather than spells to cause harm.

When we see Snape choking after James says 'Scourgify!', I would disagree that the spells used were entirely harmless. And both James and Sirius do seem to be going for something rather stronger than embarrassment: they're going for outright humiliation. Two-on-one looks like an attack to me. :cool:

And I think it is significant that James and Sirius chose generally harmless spells that would cause embarrassment whereas Snape chose a spell that would very likely kill - and probably would have if Sirius hadn't called out warning so James moved.

Personally I think that is a huge exaggeration of what we see in the text, to imply that Snape had murder in mind. He was fighting back, and who can blame him, in that particular instance? Of course I am not justifying the fact that he drew blood from James: it was not right for him to use a cutting spell. Neither do I think that Snape was always a victim in all his dealings with the Marauders. But if Sirius and James had thought for one moment that Severus was trying to kill James, surely they'd have reported him at once to Dumbledore!

All in all, I really don't see much difference between the Marauders and the twins. The twins could be just as aggressive when they were provoked - nobody would have wanted Fred and George to be their enemies, IMO. Most of the time they were just joking around. I see the Marauders along the same lines. Most of the time they were just playing around, but they could be aggressive when provoked. As I said before, I think Jo included the twins and made so many comparisons between them and the Marauders to give the readers an idea of what the Marauders were like as students.

I mostly agree with this: surely SWM is at least one incident when the Marauders were not provoked, in that particular instance they were clearly the instigators (as I say, I don't regard Snape as blameless in other instances). But I do agree that the twins are not necessarily always more benign than the Marauders. Sometimes they're charming (twins and Marauders), sometimes they're prats ... and sometimes they are just plain callous, as we see in the twins' attitude towards Montague and Sirius in things Snape-related.

Just a reminder: This must not turn into another version of Snape vs. Marauders -who is evil incarnate!

Sorry, Moriath. :blush:

I am trying to avoid that. :whistle:

(The Gryffindor/Slytherin thing does bug me. That is a separate discussion though.)

So much so that they don't care whether he dies? :no: I find this quite serious, actually. It's the twins' lowest moment in the series and I find it astounding that there is no moral commentary on their behaviour in the text. And the reason I think that is not because I want the Harry Potter books to be preachy but because I think there would be moral disapproval expressed from the Gryffindors if a Slytherin had done a similar thing. It only serves to reinforce the uncomfortable impression I get at times (and I really don't like thinking this) that JKR allows her Gryffindors to get away with blue murder, whereas the Slytherins would be roundly condemned in the text for similar behaviour. When a Gryffindor does anything wrong, do we ever see them suffer comeback for it?

I respect your view and I believe the text definitely could come across that way. I think one reason is that we have a Gryffindor POV almost entirely, so if Harry is not feeling in a particularly fair mood or he misreads a situation, we are gifted with his slanted feelings at the time. Hermione sometimes invited us to see another point of view on those occassions, but other times I would agree we are left to work that out on our own. I feel that is rather true to life however, because there are times when people simply don't suffer comeback for things. I loved Slytherin house from the start, so I did notice the phenomenon you are speaking of; but I too realized that I was seeing an incomplete picture and that I'd have to 'write in' the Slytherin view.

In this particular situation, I have to imagine Montague would tell his parents and what happened after his hospitalization and disorientation, but the twins I think were long gone from Hogwarts by then or they would have been expelled. In fact they were on the point of being expelled when they left. I think that highlights the reason Hagrid made his comment that the twins could give the Marauders a run for their money; as I pointed out, the Marauders did graduate. :lol:.

When we see Snape choking after James says 'Scourgify!', I would disagree that the spells used were entirely harmless. And both James and Sirius do seem to be going for something rather stronger than embarrassment: they're going for outright humiliation. Two-on-one looks like an attack to me. :cool:

In a real analysis sense, I think JKR did something quite prolific here and I am still unsure if it was intentional. I felt there were two ways that readers could see this scene from the start. Harry represented one view and the other view would be a natural one that would arise within those readers who had been, and continued to relate to the character of Snape as written in the books up to that point - which really didn't require an on page expressed view. I fell in with this latter group; as I pointed out above, I often 'wrote in' Slytherin, Ravencaw and Hufflepuff and other's views in my head because they were often missing due to our having Harry's POV. So I was used to taking Harry's views with a grain of salt. Here, I only saw Snape as the character we'd be introduced to up to that point and the washing out of the mouth with soap bit I interpreted as a complete reversal to the traditional professor doing this to his students as in this case, I felt the professor had ill-used his authority in the classroom. As to the point relating to choice of spells; having had my own mouth washed out with soap when young and come to no lasting harm even after gagging, wretching, etc., I knew it wouldn't have any lasting harmful consequences. :lol: I believe JKR took into consideration that professors do this to their students in classrooms and in that light would not be seen as an overly abusive spell.

A further analysis point here, I believe was to show that under no circumstances would the Marauders resort to using dark magic. Thus reinforcing Sirius' assertion that James detested the dark arts (OOTP) and Lily's future declaration "they don't use dark magic though." (DH). The twins too were never accused of using dark magic (which is something Hermione would have readily pointed out if that were the case in my judgment), but both the Marauders and the twins use of hexes and jixes whether in a hex war or pranking were delinquent in nature, in my opinion and I believe that was provided for in the hefty number of detention cards both groups received - as well as Hermione and Lily's complaining in that regard.

The levicorpus spell received a very less than warm reaction in forums, due to it's exceedingly humiliating nature in that it exposes the undergarments of a person. Whether it was dark or light in nature was rather immaterial in light of the potential affect it could have on a person. In my opinion, JKR realized this and that is why she did three things. First, she indicated it was used by many students on a frequent basis (you couldn't move 5 feet without someone attempting or succeeding at lifting you up with the spell). So it's popularity reduced the overall impact of it being used by James in SWM in that this was something that was happening to everyone on a daily basis, making Snape one of a large number of people to feel this humiliation. Second, she made Snape the inventor of the spell which almost entirely removed the idea that he could be taken by surprise at its use upon him by another student - allowing for the consideration that he should have expected as much due to its popularity after his introducing it. Third, she included in Harry's POV the idea that he could see Fred and George using the spell on Draco - note the use of the "other Marauders" in Harry's reactionary POV. I believe that was an initial attempt to lighten the impact, but it didn't serve, so the other factors were later included, imo. I feel JKR included these ideas purposely to reduce the impact of James use of the spell because of its exceedingly humiliating nature if it were a Marauders specialty spell used against others. In that light it would have been on the outskirts of delinquency and moving into viciousness, imo. However, the three factors I named (the frequency of use, the commonplace occurence of students seeing this and likely having had it done to them and Snape himself being the creator), I feel were specifically included to intentionally take some of the heat off of its use in this situation. Again, I feel this is only important in association with the Marauders limits on choice of spells when engaged in hex wars or pranking.

In DH, it is further interesting to the analysis of this scene that in it's replay, Harry doesn't wish to see what happened after James performed levicorpus. That was Lily demanding Snape's release, James releasing him, Sirius performing petrificus totalus and Lily demanding the curse removed at wand point, James reluctantly doing so and remarking Snape ought to be glad Lily was present, Snape's response and then James and Lily's final interaction. But the highlighted portion is "he watched as Lily joined the group and went to Snape's defense. Distantly he heard Snape shout at her in his humiliation and his fury, the unforgiveable word: "Mudblood." Note the portion of this scene that Harry focuses on has changed since OOTP where his focus had been upon his father. He is now focusing on the interaction of Snape and Lily in light of the previous revelations in the memories to that point, imo. This was a final, more subtle, take on the scene, in my judgment; not only relevant to Harry's progression in thought, but also inviting the reader to look at the scene distinctively, imo.

I mostly agree with this: surely SWM is at least one incident when the Marauders were not provoked, in that particular instance they were clearly the instigators (as I say, I don't regard Snape as blameless in other instances). .

I agree there can be no doubt that the Mauraders instigated things in SWM. I believe the point being made was that in an ongoing rivalry, the 'start of things' in general is relative - which is distinct from starting a specific confrontation. ;)

So much so that they don't care whether he dies? :no: I find this quite serious, actually. It's the twins' lowest moment in the series and I find it astounding that there is no moral commentary on their behaviour in the text. And the reason I think that is not because I want the Harry Potter books to be preachy but because I think there would be moral disapproval expressed from the Gryffindors if a Slytherin had done a similar thing. It only serves to reinforce the uncomfortable impression I get at times (and I really don't like thinking this) that JKR allows her Gryffindors to get away with blue murder, whereas the Slytherins would be roundly condemned in the text for similar behaviour. When a Gryffindor does anything wrong, do we ever see them suffer comeback for it?

I would have to disagree with that - specifically with Harry's generation because we are shown that it is actually the Slytherins who get away with pretty much anything due to Snape showing favoritism and the Gryffindors have McGonagall who does not show favoritism and punishes everyone equally. The outrage expressed is not from a moral standpoint, IMO - it is due to the favoritism the Slytherins enjoy. Harry acknowledges hexes and jinxes occurring on all sides - particularly when a big Quidditch match is coming up - the focus is on the difference in how these situations are handled by the teachers.

We also see this difference with Slughorn in HBP - who was head of Slytherin house during the Marauder's time. Slughorn differs slightly in that his favoritism is not limited to Slytherin house - but it was directed towards the "Slug Club" - or those students that he wanted to be in his club. But we are shown that Slughorn would also have overlooked or excused bad behavior from his favorites.

Within Harry's generation we are shown that it is the Gryffindors who suffer the consequences - detentions, etc... - while the Slytherins sit back, pointing and laughing because they got away free and clear. When Umbridge comes into Hogwarts, that only increases - she even goes so far as to give certain Slytherins positions of authority that gives them clearance to essentially do whatever they want to the other students without fear of retribution. The twins shoving Montague into the Vanishing cabinet was in retaliation to all of that - specifically provoked by Montague in that situation.

I don't see this as a low point - particularly considering the circumstances. The twins knew that Montague would eventually turn up. Nobody really cared all that much what happened to him, but given the circumstances, I'd say that's to be expected. Montague was an enemy.

This is an interesting angle though - is there a thread discussing the issue of favoritism between the houses?

I pretty much agree with this, actually -- Snape must bear some culpability because he already suspected Remus to be a werewolf, so what on earth was he thinking?

Not that this lets Sirius off the hook, IMO. In my opinion, both he, and Fred and George, were as bad as each other in these two separate incidents, the cabinet incident with Montague and the werewolf prank.

Snape was thinking he'd be able to get evidence to get his "enemies" punished/expelled from school. ;) I think it is significant that Snape had already formulated his "theory" that Lupin was a werewolf. He had a good idea what was down there and chose to go anyway. All Sirius really did was tell him how to get past the Whomping Willow. It was up to Snape whether or not he went down there or not.

So I do see a difference in these two incidents. The twins didn't give Montague a choice - they shoved him into the cabinet against his will. Sirius gave Snape a choice. However, I don't see either incident as a reason to condemn the characters. I think this type of irresponsible behavior is normal for teenage boys - particularly in situations where there is a rivalry involved. We see much worse behavior than this throughout the series, IMO.

When we see Snape choking after James says 'Scourgify!', I would disagree that the spells used were entirely harmless. And both James and Sirius do seem to be going for something rather stronger than embarrassment: they're going for outright humiliation. Two-on-one looks like an attack to me. :cool:

Parents have been washing kids' mouths out with soap for generations with no harm so I don't see that as harmful either. Snape wasn't hurt by that and he recovered from it on his own. Soap tastes nasty so of course you're going to gag, but it's not going to hurt you in small doses like that.

As I said above, the reaction is going to depend on the individual on the receiving end. Whether they're going to see the humor in the situation or just be angry over it depends on whether or not they can laugh at themselves. Seamus and Dean roared with laughter when Harry hung Ron upside down, but Ron wasn't angry - he saw the humor in it and thought it was a good laugh.

This type of thing really is typical behavior in teenagers - and even young adults. My husband was just telling me the other day about his "initiation" into high school - a couple of boys stripped him down to his underwear, pushed him around school grounds in a shopping cart, and then tied him to the flag pole. He could barely tell me the story because he was laughing so hard - he thought it was hilarious. The boys who did it became his best friends. In my high school we had initiations into various clubs - most notable was the French and Spanish clubs. The one being initiated was the "slave" and they had to do whatever their "master" told them to. The goal was to make the initiation as humiliating as possible. One guy was made to wear a dress, wig, and full makeup for the entire day - another was dressed as a diapered baby and carried a bottle and had to suck on a pacifier. At any given point, someone would be made to stand up on a table and sing the French National Anthem - in French of course - or recite a poem in French or Spanish - the more embarrassing the better. College Fraternities and Sororities do these types of things during rush week. My husband and my father have told me stories like this from being in the military. My dad and his best friend did these kind of pranks all the time - they even had the Vice Principal of their high school helping them with some of them. My dad has all kinds of hilarious stories about prank wars from when he was in high school and college - and a few from later cause he still loves a good prank even now.

Sure, it's embarrassing and people are going to laugh at you. But if you can laugh at yourself it's not a big deal, IMO. From what we're shown of the Marauders, I'd be willing to bet they did that kind of thing to each other for a laugh as well. And Lupin does tell Harry later that there was a point in time where you couldn't go anywhere at Hogwarts without someone hanging you upside down. It's comical. I've always told my kids that the trick to dealing with things like this is to find the humor and laugh along with everyone else. You're either going to make some new friends - as my husband did - or the people teasing you will get bored with it and eventually leave you alone.

Personally I think that is a huge exaggeration of what we see in the text, to imply that Snape had murder in mind. He was fighting back, and who can blame him, in that particular instance? Of course I am not justifying the fact that he drew blood from James: it was not right for him to use a cutting spell. Neither do I think that Snape was always a victim in all his dealings with the Marauders. But if Sirius and James had thought for one moment that Severus was trying to kill James, surely they'd have reported him at once to Dumbledore!

Why would they report it to Dumbledore? :huh: Did Harry run to Dumbledore every time Draco threatened or attacked him? No, he handled it himself - sometimes with help from others, but none of them felt it necessary to go to Dumbledore - not even when Draco threatened to kill Harry in OOTP. The Marauders would have dealt with it themselves just as Harry did, IMO. This is typical for teenagers - they want to deal with things on their own. We also see that with Hermione - trapping Rita in a jar and blackmailing her for example.

What stands out to me with this is the fact that James had his back to Snape and Sirius called out warning - causing James to move so Snape's spell did not hit him in the back as he was aiming. The spell only grazed him and it still gashed him bad enough to spatter blood. The spell was most likely Sectumsempra and we know what the effect would have been if it had hit James full in the back because we saw what happened to Draco in HBP. I don't think it's a coincidence that Jo included that in HBP. I think she wanted us to see exactly what that spell would do when it connected. That is most likely what would have happened to James had the spell hit him in the back as Snape was aiming.

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate over whether one of them was evil incarnate - I see this as a mutual rivalry with both sides exhibiting bad behavior - but I do see this as a significant difference in regards to their attitudes and beliefs. James and Sirius went for embarrassment - Snape went for serious injury, possibly death. Going back to the example of what happened to my husband in high school - I think this would be the equivalent of him getting angry, pulling a knife, and attempting to stab one of those boys - had he done something like that I would consider his behavior much worse than theirs. But he didn't get angry - he saw the humor in the situation and walked away from it with two new friends.

I mostly agree with this: surely SWM is at least one incident when the Marauders were not provoked, in that particular instance they were clearly the instigators (as I say, I don't regard Snape as blameless in other instances). But I do agree that the twins are not necessarily always more benign than the Marauders. Sometimes they're charming (twins and Marauders), sometimes they're prats ... and sometimes they are just plain callous, as we see in the twins' attitude towards Montague and Sirius in things Snape-related.

I don't believe the incident with SWM was entirely unprovoked. As I mentioned before, we are shown later that Snape was already going around presenting his "theory" about Lupin. Provocation doesn't always occur simultaneous to the retaliation. I can see where James and Sirius would be angry with Snape for trying to get people to realize that Lupin was a werewolf - and I can see where they would want to retaliate against him over that. And I can see where they wouldn't tell anyone - such as Lily - because they didn't want anyone to find out Lupin's secret. Since this was a mutual rivalry with both sides doing bad things, I think it would be more accurate to say that this sort of thing went back and forth - each side considering the acts as provocation for the next one.

So I would still say that the twins and the Marauders were essentially the same overall. I do think Jo included the twins in Harry's generation as an example of what the Marauders were like as students - hence all the comparisons between them made in the text. Sometimes they're charming, sometimes they're prats, and sometimes they're callous - which is basically true for everyone - particularly during the teenage years.

It makes me sad to see the last of the Marauders go. I was always thinking in the back of my head if all of them would end up passing. I just couldn't imagine it happening. They were so young too! What are your thoughts on the loss of the last of the Marauders.

I would have to disagree with that - specifically with Harry's generation because we are shown that it is actually the Slytherins who get away with pretty much anything due to Snape showing favoritism and the Gryffindors have McGonagall who does not show favoritism and punishes everyone equally.

0_o really? That isnt' how I remember the books at all! When has Severus ever given the Slytherin points when they don't deserve it? Heck, when has he ever given them House points at all? The only time I can ever recall him 'favoring' anyone was in CoS when he let the Slytherin Quidditch team practice on 'Gryffindor time.' And I'm not even sure that counts.

Other than that, it has been the Gryffindors that have been given free passes. Harry is allowed a broom his first year, despite school rules against such a thing. And it is Minerva that purchases it. Harry and Ron are given a free pass in CoS after they crash the car because 'term hadn't started yet'. In all honestly, if anyone favors anyone else, it is Minerva favoring her own students.

As I said above, the reaction is going to depend on the individual on the receiving end. Whether they're going to see the humor in the situation or just be angry over it depends on whether or not they can laugh at themselves. Seamus and Dean roared with laughter when Harry hung Ron upside down, but Ron wasn't angry - he saw the humor in it and thought it was a good laugh.

There is also a difference between a friend hanging you upside down and an enemy doing the same thing. Not many people can have an enemy who intent is to humiliate you and then laugh the whole thing off with them, as if they are your best friend and you are all just having a spot of fun.

I honestly don't see how friends reacting to something as nothing more than innocent fun means that Severus must see things the same way when an enemy is doing this to him. Heck, even if it were Severus' friends doing it, it doesn't mean he had to enjoy it or find the humor in it.

As a personal example, the only reason I laugh at myself was that, early on, I learned that when you laugh at yourself the bullying student finds less 'fun' in the whole incident if you don't seem to be upset. Now, years later, I can't stop laughing at myself and tend to be rather self-deprecating to the point of extremes. 'Laughing along' isn't always going to be the best answer to such things. In fact, I don't think there really is any good answer-- because it isn't a good situation you are being put into in the first place.

Other than that, it has been the Gryffindors that have been given free passes. Harry is allowed a broom his first year, despite school rules against such a thing. And it is Minerva that purchases it. Harry and Ron are given a free pass in CoS after they crash the car because 'term hadn't started yet'. In all honestly, if anyone favors anyone else, it is Minerva favoring her own students.

There is also Hermione's time turner in third year, which McGonagall gave and which Dumbledore encouraged 2 Gryffindor students to use out of context IMO.

There is also a difference between a friend hanging you upside down and an enemy doing the same thing. Not many people can have an enemy who intent is to humiliate you and then laugh the whole thing off with them, as if they are your best friend and you are all just having a spot of fun.

:tu: Harry hung Ron upside down and they laughed about it; had Harry done that to Draco, I don't think anyone would have laughed good humouredly IMO.

There is also a difference between a friend hanging you upside down and an enemy doing the same thing. Not many people can have an enemy who intent is to humiliate you and then laugh the whole thing off with them, as if they are your best friend and you are all just having a spot of fun.

I agree. I don't think the point was that Snape would laugh; but rather that he was laughing when he introduced it to the school and it was done to others. If Snape, Mulciber or another Slytherin did it to Sirius, for instance, I am sure Snape and his friends found it it humorous - although Sirius would not have.

Why would they report it to Dumbledore? :huh: Did Harry run to Dumbledore every time Draco threatened or attacked him? No, he handled it himself - sometimes with help from others, but none of them felt it necessary to go to Dumbledore - not even when Draco threatened to kill Harry in OOTP. The Marauders would have dealt with it themselves just as Harry did, IMO. This is typical for teenagers - they want to deal with things on their own. We also see that with Hermione - trapping Rita in a jar and blackmailing her for example.

This is true; we saw this again and again in HP. The trio never took things to Dumbledore unless it was life and death pretty much - or even a professor. They tended to handle things themselves. That is what I believe happened in the earlier generation as well. Like Fred and George, the Marauders would have likely had a number of pranks up their sleeves for various occassions of this type. There is the idea among kids of going to a professor making one a ratfink or crybaby - and even between enemies it is rarely done.

0_o really? That isnt' how I remember the books at all! When has Severus ever given the Slytherin points when they don't deserve it? Heck, when has he ever given them House points at all? The only time I can ever recall him 'favoring' anyone was in CoS when he let the Slytherin Quidditch team practice on 'Gryffindor time.' And I'm not even sure that counts.

Other than that, it has been the Gryffindors that have been given free passes. Harry is allowed a broom his first year, despite school rules against such a thing. And it is Minerva that purchases it. Harry and Ron are given a free pass in CoS after they crash the car because 'term hadn't started yet'. In all honestly, if anyone favors anyone else, it is Minerva favoring her own students.

Malfoy wasn't punished over the broom incident either - and he was the one who instigated that by taking Neville's Remembrall and flying off with it. It's not Harry's fault that Malfoy didn't demonstrate enough talent to be considered for the Quidditch team in his first year. Nor is there any evidence that McGonagall paid for Harry's broom herself. It's most likely that she sent the order with instruction for them to take the money from Harry's vault. Allowing a first year student who demonstrated a natural ability to fly as well as talent for the game to play Quidditch isn't the same thing - and by Harry's sixth year, we are shown that first years are allowed to try out for Quidditch. And Harry and Ron were punished over the flying car - they both got detention for it. Why should McGonagall take points away from Gryffindor house for something that Harry and Ron did on their own before term had officially started? And the circumstances have to be taken into consideration as well - they were trying to get to school because they had missed the train and didn't know what had happened with the barrier. I wouldn't call any of those things favoritism. McGonagall was shown to be strict, but fair. She punished students from Gryffindor when they deserved it and took points away from Gryffindor house when it was deserved.

Examples of favoritism - when Harry and Malfoy got into the fight in GOF and tried to hex each other. Both were equally wrong - both hit other students with their hexes - both deserved to be punished. Yet it was Harry and Ron who received detention and lost house points while Snape cruelly mocked Hermione and let Malfoy off without any punishment whatsoever (GOF pg 299-300, US). Or how about Snape insisting that Alicia Spinnet must have attempted a hair thickening charm on herself and ignoring fourteen eyewitnesses who saw the Slytherin keeper hex her from behind? (OOTP, pg 400, US) Snape never gave points to anyone - but he certainly took them away from students in the other houses. He never took any points away from Slytherin - even when they deserved it. I could go on and on - but this is not the thread for it.

Does anyone know if there is a thread where we can discuss the issue of the houses and favoritism? If not, perhaps one should be started. It's an interesting topic.

There is also a difference between a friend hanging you upside down and an enemy doing the same thing. Not many people can have an enemy who intent is to humiliate you and then laugh the whole thing off with them, as if they are your best friend and you are all just having a spot of fun.

I honestly don't see how friends reacting to something as nothing more than innocent fun means that Severus must see things the same way when an enemy is doing this to him. Heck, even if it were Severus' friends doing it, it doesn't mean he had to enjoy it or find the humor in it.

I really don't see the difference to be honest. As I said above, something very similar happened to my husband when he was in high school. He wasn't friends with the boys when they did it - but they became friends afterward because they all had a good laugh over it. My husband could have been bitter and angry because those boys put him in a very embarrassing predicament, but he wasn't. He still laughs about it today.

If you get hung upside down, it's going to be embarrassing no matter who does it - particularly if you're wearing something that will flop over your head and expose your underwear. It's something funny so people are going to laugh no matter who does it. The only difference is whether they are laughing at you or laughing with you - and that is for you to decide. I'm using "you" generally here by the way. The aftermath is going to be the same as well - it doesn't matter who pulled the prank or did the teasing, people will still talk about it for days/weeks afterward - which typically results in even more teasing. Whether it's done by a friend or not, it's embarrassing and people will laugh and you'll get teased about it.

Not everyone has the ability to be able to laugh at themselves. That's a pity, but it's a sad fact of life. Snape did not have the ability to laugh at himself and, instead, let his bitterness and anger over silly things like this fester and grow until it essentially controlled him. I think he would have been better off all the way around if he had been able to laugh at himself - that's all I was saying.

As a personal example, the only reason I laugh at myself was that, early on, I learned that when you laugh at yourself the bullying student finds less 'fun' in the whole incident if you don't seem to be upset. Now, years later, I can't stop laughing at myself and tend to be rather self-deprecating to the point of extremes. 'Laughing along' isn't always going to be the best answer to such things. In fact, I don't think there really is any good answer-- because it isn't a good situation you are being put into in the first place.

I don't see being able to find the humor in such situations as self-deprecating to be honest. If I'm in a situation that is funny and I come off looking foolish, I have a choice - I can laugh at myself and go on with my life or I can be miserable and angry and let bitterness consume me. I prefer to laugh and move on. It's much healthier, IMO. I've seen this from both sides - I've been on the receiving end of such teasing and pranks and I was raised by a man who engaged in such teasing and pranks with his best friend. I've even pulled a few myself - with helpful advice from my father on how to pull it off. Looking at it from both angles, I really don't see that it's a big deal unless the person on the receiving end makes it a big deal. When someone does something funny, people are going to laugh. You can either let that be at your expense or find the humor and join in the laughter. Whether or not you are humiliated is up to you, IMO. Again, speaking generally with "you". Two rules in life that I live by - 1. Don't sweat the small stuff. 2. Everything is small stuff.

I agree. I don't think the point was that Snape would laugh; but rather that he was laughing when he introduced it to the school and it was done to others. If Snape, Mulciber or another Slytherin did it to Sirius, for instance, I am sure Snape and his friends found it it humorous - although Sirius would not have.

I think Sirius would have been able to find the humor in it to be honest - if it were the same harmless spells and teasing that is - and you just know that the rest of the Marauders would have as well. I can just hear James taking the mickey out on Sirius over something like that. :lol: Though I have no doubt that Sirius would have retaliated in kind - and I'd say Snape probably did retaliate at some point.

But this is really straying from the topic and getting too much into Snape. Trying to bring it back around to the comparison between the Marauders and the twins - I don't see much difference between the twins and the Marauders. On the whole, they were very similar - they enjoyed a good prank and were fiercely protective of their friends and family. But they managed to keep their sense of humor as they grew up and became more responsible - even in dark times. I think that's why I love these characters so much.

This is true; we saw this again and again in HP. The trio never took things to Dumbledore unless it was life and death pretty much - or even a professor. They tended to handle things themselves. That is what I believe happened in the earlier generation as well. Like Fred and George, the Marauders would have likely had a number of pranks up their sleeves for various occassions of this type. There is the idea among kids of going to a professor making one a ratfink or crybaby - and even between enemies it is rarely done.

Exactly. :agree: And even when they did eventually go to Dumbledore - or another teacher - it wasn't until they had exhausted every option in terms of handling the situation himself. Going to Dumbledore - or another teacher - was always a last resort.

I think that's true for teenagers in general - even in real life. I know my kids don't come to me with every problem they have. And even when they do, it's always a last resort. I think Jo did a good job in portraying these things realistically in regards to how teenagers would handle such situations - for both generations.

I think Sirius would have been able to find the humor in it to be honest - if it were the same harmless spells and teasing that is - and you just know that the rest of the Marauders would have as well. I can just hear James taking the mickey out on Sirius over something like that. :lol: Though I have no doubt that Sirius would have retaliated in kind - and I'd say Snape probably did retaliate at some point.

Well I was thinking of the house rivalry and how that might play into it. Slytherins and Gryffindors hated one another on principle and so there would always be that animosity present that might supercede normal behavior. However, your point is altogether valid because loving pranks, when one was played on me, even by an enemy, if it was funny, I would crack up laughing and plan retaliation afterward. So it is possible that Sirius would react that way as he loved pranks and could appreciate them. JKR just stressed the house rivalry so much, I figured it might be an overriding factor. I was in a house system, but the distinctions between houses wasn't so great; we hated all the other houses equally. :lol:. But it was an easy going rivalry, people had friends in other houses and such and it was no big deal, so I am unsure how much impact it would have in a situation such as they had at Hogwarts. If that factor wasn't present, then I would not have any reservations agreeing because a good prank is a good prank.

Trying to bring it back around to the comparison between the Marauders and the twins - I don't see much difference between the twins and the Marauders. On the whole, they were very similar - they enjoyed a good prank and were fiercely protective of their friends and family. But they managed to keep their sense of humor as they grew up and became more responsible - even in dark times. I think that's why I love these characters so much.

Exactly, and one would hope they didn't grow up too much in that regard because 'fun' people are great at any age. I think responsible is a good word because I feel they did become more responsible people, but without becoming dry and humorless.

Malfoy wasn't punished over the broom incident either - and he was the one who instigated that by taking Neville's Remembrall and flying off with it. It's not Harry's fault that Malfoy didn't demonstrate enough talent to be considered for the Quidditch team in his first year. Nor is there any evidence that McGonagall paid for Harry's broom herself. It's most likely that she sent the order with instruction for them to take the money from Harry's vault. Allowing a first year student who demonstrated a natural ability to fly as well as talent for the game to play Quidditch isn't the same thing

Why would Minerva take money from Harry's vault without his permission? It is much more likely that she bought it herself. And, quite frankly, it isn't about whether or not Harry is allowed on the team, but the fact that he was allowed to own a broom despite it being against the rules.

I don't have my books handy with me now, but I shall have to take those indicendts of Severus' favoritism at your word-- not that I doubt you anyway. (Who would post page numbers and then not have anything to back that up :lol:) Do we hear of any favoritism from Sprout or Flitwick? I'm not sure they are mentioned much at all, really-- Harry tends to focus on Minerva and Severus, afterall. But it seems to me, from those two, that the House Heads are more likely to let little things slip by when it comes to their own House. We know that Severus and Minerva had their own (assumed friendly-- for the most part) rivalary that went above what the students would feel. Just think, the adults taking such things far more seriously than the students would. XD Who has the signiture of them fighting each other with House Pride?

I really don't see the difference to be honest. As I said above, something very similar happened to my husband when he was in high school. He wasn't friends with the boys when they did it - but they became friends afterward because they all had a good laugh over it. My husband could have been bitter and angry because those boys put him in a very embarrassing predicament, but he wasn't. He still laughs about it today.

There is a distinct difference between someone you don't know tripping you or playing a prank on you, and someone you already are enemies with doing the same thing. One doesn't generally have a good laugh with those they don't like. I can't see Harry just 'laughing it off' after Draco attacks him, nor do I see anyone thinking that Harry should just laugh it off. The fact is, what you are suggesting goes beyond all natural instincts. It isn't a character flaw that Severus couldn't laugh at himself-- that he let his bitternes grow to the degree that it did was, of course, a flaw. But his initial inability to laugh at himself is not.

But my overall point is that there is a difference between you tripping down the hallway-- and laughing along with those who saw it happen-- and being tripped. When that happens you know that someone is using you to get a laugh. And, just knowing that, the instinct is to let them know you are not amused that they are, in fact, being quite rude. If they are your friends, or even just happen to be aquaintances of yours-- the intent behind it is lighter and less hostile and gives way to friendlier reactions. For example, I would never go and trip someone just walking down the sidewalk and expect them to get up laughing along with me before asking if I'd like to get a cup of coffee with them. That just isn't the way the people work. However, if it is a friend of mine, and I trip them from behind before they know I'm there, they are more likely to laugh-- because they recognized me.

I think Sirius would have been able to find the humor in it to be honest - if it were the same harmless spells and teasing that is - and you just know that the rest of the Marauders would have as well. I can just hear James taking the mickey out on Sirius over something like that. :lol: Though I have no doubt that Sirius would have retaliated in kind - and I'd say Snape probably did retaliate at some point.

I don't think so. Yes, they are fun-loving, but I doubt they are fun-loving to that extreme. I knew kids like them in high school, and their friends could tell jokes or pull pranks that lacked any sort of good taste, and they didn't care. But if someone they didn't like tried a joke, even a little one, they wouldn't mess around. It is just human nature to act hostily when an enemy or someone you don't know starts to mess with you-- and it would be a very abnormal person indeed to just 'go with the flow' and 'take it as it is' like that. Especially since we know how Sirius feels about the Slytherins, it seems so out of character for him to just 'accept' any sort of hexing they might give.

Well I was thinking of the house rivalry and how that might play into it. Slytherins and Gryffindors hated one another on principle and so there would always be that animosity present that might supercede normal behavior. However, your point is altogether valid because loving pranks, when one was played on me, even by an enemy, if it was funny, I would crack up laughing and plan retaliation afterward. So it is possible that Sirius would react that way as he loved pranks and could appreciate them. JKR just stressed the house rivalry so much, I figured it might be an overriding factor. I was in a house system, but the distinctions between houses wasn't so great; we hated all the other houses equally. :lol:. But it was an easy going rivalry, people had friends in other houses and such and it was no big deal, so I am unsure how much impact it would have in a situation such as they had at Hogwarts.

Oh, I agree. I'm thinking more along the lines of being able to laugh after the fact actually. When it's happening, mostly you're going to be shocked. ;) We see that with Ron and Neville as well - they're shocked at first, but then laugh about it afterward.

I think the house rivalry would actually work towards making him more determined to just laugh it off. We see that with Harry in OOTP - and Harry really was a lot like Sirius, as you and I discussed before. But we see the Slytherins taunting him and trying to embarrass him over Quidditch, but he doesn't let it get to him. He just laughs it off and quips right back at them. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Exactly, and one would hope they didn't grow up too much in that regard because 'fun' people are great at any age. I think responsible is a good word because I feel they did become more responsible people, but without becoming dry and humorless.

Exactly. :agree:

I don't think so. Yes, they are fun-loving, but I doubt they are fun-loving to that extreme. I knew kids like them in high school, and their friends could tell jokes or pull pranks that lacked any sort of good taste, and they didn't care. But if someone they didn't like tried a joke, even a little one, they wouldn't mess around. It is just human nature to act hostily when an enemy or someone you don't know starts to mess with you-- and it would be a very abnormal person indeed to just 'go with the flow' and 'take it as it is' like that. Especially since we know how Sirius feels about the Slytherins, it seems so out of character for him to just 'accept' any sort of hexing they might give.

I think it depends; I recall my enemy doing a sball refill on me during practice and I couldn't help but laugh. Sure it was humiliating, and he wasn't at all trying to hide the fact he'd done it, but it was so funny at the time, I cracked up - then planned a retaliatory prank. :lol:. But I think as Meesha was saying, sometimes in the moment it is happening the shock factor keeps you from laughing, but afterward you might laugh it off and can even appreciate the humor talking about it with your buddies. I agree with you that Snape would not see it this way though; he did not appear to be able to laugh at himself.

Speaking of keeping one's fun nature; I enjoyed POA where Remus suddenly broke out and shoved Peeves bubble gum up his nose. To me that was very refreshing because the professors at Hogwarts did seem rather dry on the whole with Binns classes putting people to sleep and whatnot. Trelawny and Lockheart were highlights, but the kids were mostly laughing at them rather than with them. It was great that Lupin retained his Marauder nature when he grew up. Sirius too retained his fun nature and considering he'd been shut away for 12 years, that was pretty remarkable. I feel JKR did a good job at showing it come through despite his depressive moments.

wimblemimble - I sent you an owl responding to the points about favoritism since it is off topic here. I'm looking for a thread where that can be discussed, but I haven't found one yet. :)

There is a distinct difference between someone you don't know tripping you or playing a prank on you, and someone you already are enemies with doing the same thing. One doesn't generally have a good laugh with those they don't like. I can't see Harry just 'laughing it off' after Draco attacks him, nor do I see anyone thinking that Harry should just laugh it off. The fact is, what you are suggesting goes beyond all natural instincts. It isn't a character flaw that Severus couldn't laugh at himself-- that he let his bitternes grow to the degree that it did was, of course, a flaw. But his initial inability to laugh at himself is not.

But my overall point is that there is a difference between you tripping down the hallway-- and laughing along with those who saw it happen-- and being tripped. When that happens you know that someone is using you to get a laugh. And, just knowing that, the instinct is to let them know you are not amused that they are, in fact, being quite rude. If they are your friends, or even just happen to be aquaintances of yours-- the intent behind it is lighter and less hostile and gives way to friendlier reactions. For example, I would never go and trip someone just walking down the sidewalk and expect them to get up laughing along with me before asking if I'd like to get a cup of coffee with them. That just isn't the way the people work. However, if it is a friend of mine, and I trip them from behind before they know I'm there, they are more likely to laugh-- because they recognized me.

Well, first off, I'm not talking about someone being attacked. Tripping someone, playing a joke or a prank, or doing something that causes embarrassment is not an attack, IMO. The intent of an attack is always to cause harm. The intent of a prank or teasing is to cause embarrassment. Harry doesn't laugh when Malfoy attacks him - he retaliates. But he does laugh it off when Malfoy tries to embarrass him.

I don't think I made myself clear though. I'm looking at this from two angles. In general, if you are the person being pranked or teased, then everyone around is going to be laughing because that's going to make you look foolish. It's going to be embarrassing. Whether or not the people are laughing at you or laughing with you is up to you. And that's not going to change on the basis of who does the prank - whether it's a friend, someone you don't know, or a rival - that result will always be the same. The intent is always going to be to cause embarrassment. And it's going to be embarrassing regardless because the other people around are going to laugh and you're probably going to be teased about it for some time afterward. From that angle, it doesn't matter who does the pranking or teasing - the result will always be the same because the intent is always the same - to cause embarrassment.

I do agree that most people are going to handle it differently on the basis of whether it's a friend, someone they don't know, or a rival. If it's a friend, it could actually go either way - if you can see the humor and laugh at yourself, then you and your friend will both get a good laugh out of it. If you can't laugh at yourself, then that could potentially cause problems with the friendship - I've seen good friendships end because one of them let something silly like this come between them. And sometimes it's a lot harder to laugh it off when it is a friend because their opinion matters to you.

If it's someone you don't know - or don't know very well - it could also go either way. If you can laugh at yourself, you could potentially become friends and share a good laugh. If you can't, then you could potentially become rivals - or enemies. How that ends up is up to you to decide. Are you going to hold a harmless prank against someone and hate them because of it or can you see the humor in it and laugh at yourself along with everybody else?

If it's someone that you already don't like - there's a rivalry or you just hate each other - then friendship is not an option. However, you can still laugh it off or turn it around to your favor. We see Harry do that quite a bit actually - in OOTP for example.

Harry, of course, had endured their snide comments for over four years, so whispers of, “Hey, Potty, I heard Warrington’s sworn to knock you off your broom on Saturday”, far from chilling his blood, made him laugh. “Warrington’s aim’s so pathetic I’d be more worried if he was aiming for the person next to me,” he retorted, which made Ron and Hermione laugh and wiped the smirk off Pansy Parkinson’s face.

And Hermione -

“You’re joking, Weasley!” said Malfoy, behind them. “You’re not telling me someone’s asked that to the ball? Not the long-molared Mudblood?”

Harry and Ron both whipped around, but Hermione said loudly, waving to somebody over Malfoys shoulder, “Hello, Professor Moody!”

Malfoy went pale and jumped backward, looking wildly around for Moody, but he was still up at the staff table, finishing his stew.

“Twitchy little ferret, aren’t you, Malfoy?” said Hermione scathingly, and she, Harry, and Ron went up the marble staircase laughing heartily.

That's the type of thing I'm talking about. When you get put into an embarrassing situation, it's up to you to decide how that turns out. Personally, I prefer using humor to diffuse a situation like that rather than violence. And how do you deal with it afterward - when it's all over and other people tease you about it? Again, that's up to you to decide. You can accept the fact that it was funny and you ended up looking foolish or ridiculous - or you can brood about it and be angry and resentful. Personally, I think it's better to accept that it was funny and move on - it's healthier, IMO.

In that same scene with Hermione, the hex that Malfoy used that made her teeth grow is brought up. That was embarrassing for Hermione - and her teeth were a sensitive issue with her. She was embarrassed and hurt when that happened. But she was able to joke about it later and she was able to turn that around and use the situation to her advantage.

“Hermione,” said Ron, looking sideways at her, suddenly frowning, “your teeth …”

“What about them?” she said.

“Well, they’re different … I’ve just noticed … .”

“Of course they are - did you expect me to keep those fangs Malfoy gave me?”

“No, I mean, they’re different to how they were before he put that hex on you … . They’re all … straight and - and normal-sized.”

Hermione suddenly smiled very mischievously, and Harry noticed it too: It was a very different smile from the one he remembered.

“Well … when I went up to Madam Pomfrey to get them shrunk, she held up a mirror and told me to stop her when they were back to how they normally were,” she said. “And I just … let her carry on a bit.” She smiled even more widely. “Mum and Dad won’t be too pleased. I’ve been trying to persuade them to let me shrink them for ages, but they wanted me to carry on with my braces. You know, they’re dentists, they just don’t think teeth and magic should - look! Pigwidgeons back!”

Of course, in any circumstance, the initial reaction is going to be shock and embarrassment. I'm talking about once that initial shock wears off - which is generally after the incident. Neville didn't laugh when he sprouted feathers after eating the canary cream - he laughed after the feathers were gone and the shock wore off. Ron didn't laugh right away when Harry hung him upside down - he laughed after the shock wore off. Hermione certainly didn't laugh right away when Malfoy hit her with the hex that made her teeth grow - but she made a joke about it later.

I don't think so. Yes, they are fun-loving, but I doubt they are fun-loving to that extreme. I knew kids like them in high school, and their friends could tell jokes or pull pranks that lacked any sort of good taste, and they didn't care. But if someone they didn't like tried a joke, even a little one, they wouldn't mess around. It is just human nature to act hostily when an enemy or someone you don't know starts to mess with you-- and it would be a very abnormal person indeed to just 'go with the flow' and 'take it as it is' like that. Especially since we know how Sirius feels about the Slytherins, it seems so out of character for him to just 'accept' any sort of hexing they might give.

Oh, I didn't mean he would "accept" it - or take it lying down. But I think he would have been able to laugh about it later and joke about it. I think he would have been able to accept that he looked ridiculous hanging upside down with his robes over his head - and I'm sure the other Marauders would have teased him mercilessly over something like that because it is funny. :lol: Of course, he would retaliate - so would James or Lupin for that matter - but I think he would have been able to laugh about it as well. Just as Hermione can joke about the fact that Malfoy once made her teeth grow into "fangs".

I think it depends; I recall my enemy doing a sball refill on me during practice and I couldn't help but laugh. Sure it was humiliating, and he wasn't at all trying to hide the fact he'd done it, but it was so funny at the time, I cracked up - then planned a retaliatory prank. :lol:. But I think as Meesha was saying, sometimes in the moment it is happening the shock factor keeps you from laughing, but afterward you might laugh it off and can even appreciate the humor talking about it with your buddies. I agree with you that Snape would not see it this way though; he did not appear to be able to laugh at himself.

That's exactly what I was talking about. :agree:

I hope you got him back good. ;)

Speaking of keeping one's fun nature; I enjoyed POA where Remus suddenly broke out and shoved Peeves bubble gum up his nose. To me that was very refreshing because the professors at Hogwarts did seem rather dry on the whole with Binns classes putting people to sleep and whatnot. Trelawny and Lockheart were highlights, but the kids were mostly laughing at them rather than with them. It was great that Lupin retained his Marauder nature when he grew up. Sirius too retained his fun nature and considering he'd been shut away for 12 years, that was pretty remarkable. I feel JKR did a good job at showing it come through despite his depressive moments.

I loved that! So much more entertaining than "I'll tell the Bloody Baron!" :lol:

I think that's what made Lupin such a great teacher though. He grew up and became a responsible adult, but he retained his sense of humor and used that to earn the students' respect. I also loved how he stood up for Neville and helped him build his confidence - and that particular lesson is a good example of being able to laugh things off and what a positive force laughter can be.

Well, first off, I'm not talking about someone being attacked. Tripping someone, playing a joke or a prank, or doing something that causes embarrassment is not an attack, IMO. The intent of an attack is always to cause harm. The intent of a prank or teasing is to cause embarrassment.

Doesn't this depend though?When you say harm I think your getting at is physical harm yes?What if you do something and it emotionally scars a person?What if you deeply hurt their feelings?Isn't that as bad as physically hurting someone?Some goes for emabaressing?Is publically embaressing someone hurting them?(or at least their feelings?)
I know general opinion is ,you should put up with embarresment and emotional pain because life's like that and you just have to get used to it,but I always wonder why the stress is people to 'get used to ' rather then people to 'change thier behaviour' and be more considerate to others.

Doesn't this depend though?When you say harm I think your getting at is physical harm yes?What if you do something and it emotionally scars a person?What if you deeply hurt their feelings?Isn't that as bad as physically hurting someone?Some goes for emabaressing?Is publically embaressing someone hurting them?(or at least their feelings?)
I know general opinion is ,you should put up with embarresment and emotional pain because life's like that and you just have to get used to it,but I always wonder why the stress is people to 'get used to ' rather then people to 'change thier behaviour' and be more considerate to others.

I believe we are responsible for our own emotional pain - it stems from our reaction to the event in question. We are in control of whether or not such an event leaves an emotional scar. Wise words to live by - "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - Eleanor Roosevelt. Nobody can cause you emotional pain - i.e. hurt your feelings, humiliate you, etc... - unless you allow it.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer devoted an entire episode to this issue with Xander - the "ordinary" friend in the group. The episode opens with a dramatic scene in which they Scooby Gang defeats a group of baddies and Xander wasn't able to help. Cordelia takes a lot of pleasure in taunting Xander about how "ordinary" he is compared to his friends - Buffy is the Slayer with all her "super" abilities, Willow is a powerful witch, Oz is a werewolf, Angel is a vampire with a soul - etc... And Xander is the ordinary guy with no special powers who gets sent to get the snacks. The next big crisis comes up and his friends decide it's probably too dangerous for Xander to be involved. So he's feeling pretty down about himself. He allows Cordelia's taunts to cause him emotional pain and that seeps into everything.

The episode focuses on Xander - the big crisis that Buffy and the others are dealing with is only shown in the background. Xander ends up having his own adventure that night, defeating his own set of baddies, and he learns that important lesson - no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. In the end, while the rest of the gang are talking about their crisis and what an ordeal it was, Cordelia again tries to taunt Xander about how "ordinary" he is. But Xander has learned the lesson and he just smiles at her - then walks away. And that drives her nuts. She can't cause him any emotional pain because he doesn't allow it.

We can't control how other people behave. We can control how we let that affect us. Taunts, insults, practical jokes, pranks, teasing - these are harmless things. Sure, they can be embarrassing - but embarrassment is brief and fleeting. It can't hurt you if you don't allow it. I feel that the healthier response - emotionally speaking - is simply to accept it and move on. In the grand scheme of life, things like this are not important at all. These are moments we should be able to look back on and laugh about, IMO.

None of this excuses bullying or insensitive behaviour. Not in the slightest. You can't humiliate someone and then tell them they have only their unstable interior to blame. This is cynical and abominable in my opinion.

Moreover, we are not talking about stable, emotionally mature adults here, we are talking about teenagers - who are extremely sensitive and insecure, and haven't formed their identity or found their place yet.

What the Marauders did to Snape was cruel and in no way excusable, no matter how you slice it, or how much you want to dismiss it.

None of this excuses bullying or insensitive behaviour. Not in the slightest. You can't humiliate someone and then tell them they have only their unstable interior to blame. This is cynical and abominable in my opinion.

I'm not sure that this is what people are saying. I think that they are suggesting that when one is treated badly, it's one's own choice how to respond. One fundamentally cannot expect to change how others behave, but one can change the way one reacts to them. That is the safest way to protect one's own emotional well-being. It doesn't justify bullying in anyway, it just suggests a healthier way of dealing with it when one is the victim.

Ron is a prime example. During the "Weasley is our King" bullying, he lets it get to him. It totally feeds into his inferiority complex and it makes his playing worse. He is emotionally damaged by the entire experience. But, when he decides that he's not going to listen to them, he turns out to give a masterful performance and the other Griffyndor's turn the taunt into an ode.

In my opinion, the way Ron initially reacts makes the impact of the bullying even worse for himself. I don't think his reaction is healthy for him even though I completely understand how his reaction is reasonable and I feel great sympathy for him. I think that he starts to learn better coping strategies and others are not able to harm him as badly with their bullying. He can't stop how Draco behaves, but he can stop Draco from harming his self-esteem.


Moreover, we are not talking about stable, emotionally mature adults here, we are talking about teenagers - who are extremely sensitive and insecure, and haven't formed their identity or found their place yet.

Very true. I agree that it is much worse to bully children because they are still growing emotionally. But, children frequently aren't yet aware of the consequences of their actions. They can be quite insensitive due to their own immaturity and insecurities. One hopes that as they mature, they better learn under what circumstances and whom they can tease without causing damage. Fifteen year olds can still be pretty thoughtless and impulsive (that does not excuse their actions, but it does, in my opinion, allow me to forgive them where I might have more trouble forgiving an adult behaving in the same manner). I do think that we see adult versions the Marauders (and even the twins) who have learned to at least not bully children and are actually quite nurturing of them.


What the Marauders did to Snape was cruel and in no way excusable, no matter how you slice it, or how much you want to dismiss it.

In my opinion, James and Sirius ought not to have done what they did to Snape. In my opinion, even with provocation, they should have found a different way to respond. In my opinion, if they were doing it to get Snape to stop spreading theories about Lupin, it was not an effective way of dealing with the problem because it likely only escalated matters. But, I will temper this by saying that I don't feel I have the proper context for these events so I'm not willing to say that James and Sirius are in general cruel or even if this was an unusual lapse for them. It may have been that this type of behaviour had gradually become an established pattern with both Snape/his friends and the Mauraders treating each other in the same way. If that were the case, in my opinion, it's more of an unfortunate situation of Hatfield/McCoys than a case of true bullying.

I think it depends; I recall my enemy doing a sball refill on me during practice and I couldn't help but laugh. Sure it was humiliating, and he wasn't at all trying to hide the fact he'd done it, but it was so funny at the time, I cracked up - then planned a retaliatory prank. :lol:. But I think as Meesha was saying, sometimes in the moment it is happening the shock factor keeps you from laughing, but afterward you might laugh it off and can even appreciate the humor talking about it with your buddies. I agree with you that Snape would not see it this way though; he did not appear to be able to laugh at himself.

I can see this sort of thing, where the person laughs it off afterwards. I had originally thought you meant the people would be laughing about it just as it happened, which I can't see happening very often.

However, while Severus isn't one to laugh at himself, I don't understand why that would be a bad thing? What is wrong with being a more serious person? I agree that 'fun-loving' people can be more fun (... way to use the word in the definition. >.>), but the serious people can be fun as well, in their own strange way. I just don't understand why it would be an assumed character flaw of Severus to not be able to laugh at himself. (... Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding this)

If it's someone you don't know - or don't know very well - it could also go either way. If you can laugh at yourself, you could potentially become friends and share a good laugh. If you can't, then you could potentially become rivals - or enemies. How that ends up is up to you to decide. Are you going to hold a harmless prank against someone and hate them because of it or can you see the humor in it and laugh at yourself along with everybody else?

I agree and yet sort of disagree to the (supposed) implications as stated above, but thinking on it now, I'm not even entirly sure where this whole conversation is going or how it is helping in a character analysis. The silly things I banter over when its midnight. :lol:

Oh, and Meesha, I'm afraid I never recieved your PM. Do you think a new thread about House Rivalry and House Heads favoring their own House would be able to hold a discussion? :hmm:

I'm not sure that this is what people are saying. I think that they are suggesting that when one is treated badly, it's one's own choice how to respond. One fundamentally cannot expect to change how others behave, but one can change the way one reacts to them. That is the safest way to protect one's own emotional well-being. It doesn't justify bullying in anyway, it just suggests a healthier way of dealing with it when one is the victim.

I agree with this and the assumption that you control your own feelings, but I don't think that this is enough justification to tell someone who has been through a traumatic experience 'Hey! Everything you feel right now is your fault because you can't come to terms with yourself, ect.'

To use Sirius Black as an example, so many people justify his childish behavior from PoA to OotP (Although, oddly enough, not very much in GoF) to his having spent 14 years in Azkaban. But by the standards Meesha has brought for Severus, Sirius shouldn't have let anything get to him. He should have just let James and Lily's death, Peters betrayal, and his wrongful imprisonment go and just be happy with everything because he was only making himself bitter. He should have just sucked it up and gotten along with Kreature and his mother's house, because despite the memories it brought he was just making himself bitter. Yet, I don't think you can outright and ask someone to do this. (... well, I had my own theories on Kreature, and they were proved correct in DH-- but the house itself is still a sore point)

I believe we are responsible for our own emotional pain - it stems from our reaction to the event in question. We are in control of whether or not such an event leaves an emotional scar. Wise words to live by - "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - Eleanor Roosevelt. Nobody can cause you emotional pain - i.e. hurt your feelings, humiliate you, etc... - unless you allow it.

I can't say I agree with that but what about things other then humiliation?Are you saying that you should never be offended by what someone says no matter how mean or insensitive it is?


We can't control how other people behave. We can control how we let that affect us.

Others behaviour no,but are own behaviour we can control.If you say something to someone and it upsets them ,yes they could control their emotions,but you too can control what you say.Actions are easier to control then feelings.If you hurt or embaress someone it's your fault,not the other persons.

That's exactly what I was talking about. :agree: I hope you got him back good. ;)

Um...in a manner of speaking. We ended up both making the team and he became my best mate and has had to put up with me ever since. :lol:.

I'm not sure that this is what people are saying. I think that they are suggesting that when one is treated badly, it's one's own choice how to respond. One fundamentally cannot expect to change how others behave, but one can change the way one reacts to them. That is the safest way to protect one's own emotional well-being. It doesn't justify bullying in anyway, it just suggests a healthier way of dealing with it when one is the victim.

I agree. JKR showed this again and again. The Marauders approached Snape and the first thing Snape did was pull his wand. In HBP, Sectumsempra; Harry came upon Draco and already humiliated by Harry's mere appearance, the first thing Draco did was pull his wand. Harry should have immediately left when he saw Draco standing there crying talking about someone planning to kill him, but he was in shock at the sight. Nonetheless, when Draco pulled his wand, the shock dissipated and Harry should have left or said something conciliatory, instead he pulled his own wand. The Marauders should have just left Snape alone. Snape and Draco should not have pulled their wands; Snape should have left and Draco should have just told Harry to leave him alone. Draco could not control Harry's stalking him anymore than Snape could control the Marauders approching him, but both could control their own responses. But in both cases you are dealing with teenagers and they simply don't react in ways more mature people act.

The problem with this comparison is that we have context for Harry and Draco and none for SWM in as far as what came before and after. Nonetheless, that does not change in terms of proper responses based on how the specific events started and escalated.

This is why school authorities punish all participants in a school yard fight; they take a 'he started it, you finished it' mentality because starting things is wrong, but retaliation is as well because it only escalates the problem.

In my opinion, James and Sirius ought not to have done what they did to Snape. In my opinion, even with provocation, they should have found a different way to respond. In my opinion, if they were doing it to get Snape to stop spreading theories about Lupin, it was not an effective way of dealing with the problem because it likely only escalated matters. But, I will temper this by saying that I don't feel I have the proper context for these events so I'm not willing to say that James and Sirius are in general cruel or even if this was an unusual lapse for them. It may have been that this type of behaviour had gradually become an established pattern with both Snape/his friends and the Mauraders treating each other in the same way. If that were the case, in my opinion, it's more of an unfortunate situation of Hatfield/McCoys than a case of true bullying.

This is something I have said from the start. Without context, it is impossible to fully understand this situation. Some context came along in later chapters and books, but it still leaves an incomplete picture in my opinion. Nonetheless, I agree; even acting in the sense of the Hatfields and McCoys, the Marauders' action was inappropriate and uneffective because it is escalatory in nature as was Snape's response. This was true of Harry's action and Draco's response as well. But again, we are talking 15-16 year olds here and not mature, more rational thinking and responsible individuals, so that has to be taken into consideration, imo.

staff edit: referred to deleted post

I respect your view, but we actually do have some of the context for that particular aspect. I agree under normal circumstances what you say would be accurate. But this was happening frequently and on a daily basis to individuals all over the school. Either you had individuals weeping in every corner of Hogwarts daily due to their undergarments being exposed, or it was something that was laughed off by most. I would assume the latter because that many crying individuals would cause the school authorities to step in before the spell became a fad at Hogwarts. I feel Snape was able to take that part of the scenario with a grain of salt since he'd invented the spell and introduced it to the school - likely via his friends - and they were first to witness the humiliation of others. It was the fact that it was in the scope of a hex war with his enemies that made the difference to him, imo, and why his response was distinct from what the likely response of others came to be by that time. I believe this is why Lily almost cracked a smile; it wasn't anything new and it had apparently become something humorous among the student body because it was done on a regular basis.

I agree with this and the assumption that you control your own feelings, but I don't think that this is enough justification to tell someone who has been through a traumatic experience 'Hey! Everything you feel right now is your fault because you can't come to terms with yourself, ect.'

I'm not trying to suggest that the victim be blamed. I merely think that it is healthier for the victim to learn how to cope. Not so that they can continue to be a victim, but to simply reduce the scope of the damage being done.

Perhaps I could try an analogy that occured to me. In the jurisdiction where I live, pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks. Cars must stop when they see people enter the crosswalk. I attended a safety talk with a police officer where he suggested that we not teach our children this rule. That, instead, it is far safer to teach them that they have no rights in the crosswalk and they must make certain that a car is stopped waiting for them before they enter the crosswalk (or that there are no cars at all). He promised that if a child is run over in a crosswalk, the police will do their best get the driver prosecuted, but that doesn't change the fact that the child is already severely injured or dead. It's better for the child to teach them extra protection than to put trust in drivers who may be distracted, drunk, callous, clueless or whatever. It's better to remain healthy.

I think this follows through to bullying. Let me be perfectly clear: I have no tolerance for bullying and will try to stop it when I see it happening. I have somebody very close to me who suffered greatly from an epic amount bullying that started in kindergarten. This person suffered from huge amounts of verbal abuse and almost daily beatings. By the age of 10, he attempted to suicide for the first time and by age 16 he had a complete mental breakdown from the bullying and ended up hospitalized. His parents and the teachers were unable to stop the bullying (it just tended to make the bullying more covert and vicious). Even transfering him to new schools did not help. What helped him get healthy was how he learned to deal with the bullying. How he internalized it and how he reacted to it. He is now a happy and functioning adult. The bullies were dead wrong in how they behaved, but they didn't win. The victim saved himself and sometimes that's as much as a victory as one can get.


To use Sirius Black as an example, so many people justify his childish behavior from PoA to OotP (Although, oddly enough, not very much in GoF) to his having spent 14 years in Azkaban. But by the standards Meesha has brought for Severus, Sirius shouldn't have let anything get to him. He should have just let James and Lily's death, Peters betrayal, and his wrongful imprisonment go and just be happy with everything because he was only making himself bitter. He should have just sucked it up and gotten along with Kreature and his mother's house, because despite the memories it brought he was just making himself bitter. Yet, I don't think you can outright and ask someone to do this. (... well, I had my own theories on Kreature, and they were proved correct in DH-- but the house itself is still a sore point)

Well, I tend to differ. I don't think somebody should have asked Sirius to stop being so bitter, I think somebody should have advised him to become less bitter. There is absolutely nothing Sirius could do to change the past. James and Lily were not going to come back to life. Sirius was not going to get his 14 years back, ever. It's done. Certainly, if somebody could be made to pay for this, by all means, make them pay. But staying bitter, in my opinion, is not a healthy choice to make. Most people are unhappy being bitter. It would seem to me that Sirius was unhappy. So, I think he should have accepted what happened and moved on. I know, that is easier said than done, but I think that one must work at it.

Harry is a prime example of this. He had a lot of lemons thrown his way. His parents were killed, he had to live with (in my opinion) his horrible and abusive relatives, he had almost yearly battles with his parents' murderer, his mentor set him up to be killed, the Ministry waged several propaganda campaigns against him, his godfather was killed and I could go on and on. In my opinion, Harry has as much right to be bitter as Sirius, but he choses not to dwell on that and he ends up with what appears to be a happy life.

I don't think James wouldn't have wanted Sirius to remain bitter. I think that James would have wanted his friend to try to move on. He wouldn't want to Sirius to dwell on the past, but to enjoy what life still had to offer. In my opinion, one doesn't have to forget, but one should try to forgive. I think that forgiving not only helps the one who is forgiven, but it also greatly helps the one who forgives. Perhaps that is a Pollyanna attitude and I cannot claim that I'm always able to follow my own suggestion, but I find that I end up happier when I am able to forgive. I also feel that forgiveness is one of the themes that JKR explores in the books.

I'm not trying to suggest that the victim be blamed. I merely think that it is healthier for the victim to learn how to cope. Not so that they can continue to be a victim, but to simply reduce the scope of the damage being done.

I agree and this works both ways. I feel canon makes it clear that there were issues between the Marauders and Snape. However, when Lily was yelling at James in SWM, she said 'walking down corridors and hexing anyone who annoys you just because you can'. This is something else; and here there is James hexing, but there is the fact that someone is annoying him as well. When I consider based on his character what might annoy him, it would not be merely because someone is wearing oxfords or a blue shirt. That type of person is just a consumate thug who has no values and little care for anyone at all. I believe canon shows James was not that type of person because that type of person would not rescue their enemy; become an animagi for a friend and take 3 years hard work doing so; take in a buddy who'd run away from home or get upset because someone called another a mudblood. So if I assume James was an arrogant, cheeky and impertinent lad with values, then the things that would annoy him, based on his character would likely be blows to his self esteem, deriding him or others and the like. So for example, if you call him 4 eyes Potter, that would annoy him.

Now James is in the same position we were speaking of earlier with the other kids. Sure, the person should not have annoyed him doing whatever they did, but James has the responsibility to make the right choice in his response. He chose the more bullying response of hexing - but he could have ignored them, gave a dirty look, responded with a comment or some other response. Still, one cannot blame the person who annoyed James for his response to their behavior or words; if he responds wrongfully, the responsibility lies completely with him and he needs to accept that and change his manner of response.

But that is different than hexing for fun or pranking, like Harry making Goyle's toe nails grow or levitating Ron. The Marauders, like the twins did this too and while some people don't like pranks at all (see Hermione), most find them humorous. That is also different than what was going on between the Marauders and Snape in the main, in my opinion, although all of these things may have been a part of that as well. The three things are distinct; an ongoing animosity, escalatory in nature; someone who you hold no particular animosity for being annoying; and wishing to pull a prank where no other party is drawn in for any particular reason. Again, there is overlap; Harry chose Goyle for the toe nail prank because he didn't like him - but Fred and George (and likely the Marauders) were more random at times (although not always).

I think this follows through to bullying. Let me be perfectly clear: I have no tolerance for bullying and will try to stop it when I see it happening. I have somebody very close to me who suffered greatly from an epic amount bullying that started in kindergarten. This person suffered from huge amounts of verbal abuse and almost daily beatings. By the age of 10, he attempted to suicide for the first time and by age 16 he had a complete mental breakdown from the bullying and ended up hospitalized. His parents and the teachers were unable to stop the bullying (it just tended to make the bullying more covert and vicious). Even transfering him to new schools did not help. What helped him get healthy was how he learned to deal with the bullying. How he internalized it and how he reacted to it. He is now a happy and functioning adult. The bullies were dead wrong in how they behaved, but they didn't win. The victim saved himself and sometimes that's as much as a victory as one can get.

That's a really sad story and I'm happy your friend was able to deal with the situation in the end,but I find it sad that it was your friend that had to change and the bullying itself couldn't be stopped.It should have been the otherway round.I know that's and idealistic view.It just seems people always have to accommodate for negatives in society instead being able to eliminate them.I've gone off topic here.Getting back to my initial point,emotional harm can be just as damaging as physical harm.No matter how a person interprets your actions,you ultimately hold either all or a great part of the responsibility for them.

Others behaviour no,but are own behaviour we can control.If you say something to someone and it upsets them ,yes they could control their emotions,but you too can control what you say.Actions are easier to control then feelings.If you hurt or embaress someone it's your fault,not the other persons.

Absolutely; the person making an embarassing comment is completely responsible for their poor behavior. If I tell someone on a crowded elevator that their toupee looks funny, that is inappropriate behavior on my part. But the person I was speaking to is then responsible for any actions they take as a result of feeling embarrassed. They can return a nasty comment, ignore me, shoot me, punch my lights out, report me to some authority (if applicable), etc. And that person is wholly left to make a choice as to how my comment will influence them to respond - and they are wholly responsible for that response.

This is where kids often make poor choices, on both sides of the coin. We saw this happen a lot in the series. Adults do as well at times. Overall though, I feel that the Marauders were pretty good at making and taking an embarassing laugh relative to a prank. Here we just get the three different issues crossed up in conversation I believe. One sets out to have a laugh with a prank; one sets out in a bullying manner if they engage in a hex war; and one sets out with mal intent if they make an unpleasant/annoying comment.

This is where kids often make poor choices, on both sides of the coin. We saw this happen a lot in the series. Adults do as well at times. Overall though, I feel that the Marauders were pretty good at making and taking an embarassing laugh relative to a prank. Here we just get the three different issues crossed up in conversation I believe. One sets out to have a laugh with a prank; one sets out in a bullying manner if they engage in a hex war; and one sets out with mal intent if they make an unpleasant/annoying comment.

We see that adults don't do that as much as children do, though. I mean, one odd glance from Snape and Sirius is off plotting a way to throw him to the Giant Squid when they were younger. When they grew older, if Sirius was in a good mood, he'd probably laugh it off. *herm herm* forget the incident with Snape in the kitchen at Grimmauld place *herm herm* So maybe Sirius wasn't the greatest example.

Absolutely; the person making an embarassing comment is completely responsible for their poor behavior. If I tell someone on a crowded elevator that their toupee looks funny, that is inappropriate behavior on my part. But the person I was speaking to is then responsible for any actions they take as a result of feeling embarrassed. They can return a nasty comment, ignore me, shoot me, punch my lights out, report me to some authority (if applicable), etc. And that person is wholly left to make a choice as to how my comment will influence them to respond - and they are wholly responsible for that response.

This is where kids often make poor choices, on both sides of the coin. We saw this happen a lot in the series. Adults do as well at times. Overall though, I feel that the Marauders were pretty good at making and taking an embarassing laugh relative to a prank. Here we just get the three different issues crossed up in conversation I believe. One sets out to have a laugh with a prank; one sets out in a bullying manner if they engage in a hex war; and one sets out with mal intent if they make an unpleasant/annoying comment.

I see what you mean.What I was saying really wasn't related to the marauder incident,I was refering to peoples general behaviour.But getting back to SWM, the Marauders were responsible for their intial actions,but Snape is also responsible for his reaction.I believe this is the point you were making right?I suppose the main point of dispute is ,how do you see the Maruaders intial actions?Prank or abuse?
My personal opnion is this,I really can't see anything funny in what they did.

I see what you mean.What I was saying really wasn't related to the marauder incident,I was refering to peoples general behaviour.But getting back to SWM, the Marauders were responsible for their intial actions,but Snape is also responsible for his reaction.I believe this is the point you were making right?I suppose the main point of dispute is ,how do you see the Maruaders intial actions?Prank or abuse?
My personal opnion is this,I really can't see anything funny in what they did.

I think by the SWM, many the Marauders were influenced by many things; James and Sirius in particular.

I think James's main anger, irritation and hatred against Snape was Snape's friendship with Lily. I think he was scared that Snape and Lily would become a couple and I think Sirius pitched in fully with him. They probably took the "pranks" to a level that may have been beyond funny IMO.

Snape too, I think, realised that James was fancying Lily and for Snape it was probably worse, because he felt that Lily was also falling for James and so, while I don't think Snape instigated any hex wars (mainly because of the numbers the Marauders had) I do think he tried to give as good as he got. Only I don't think he managed to win against them at all, and once Lily started moving away from him, I think the dislike and hate between James and Sirius, and Snape never went away.

James and Sirius, confident in the numbers they had, did not mind meeting Snape as we saw in the SWM, where they went out of their way to hex Snape, which may have been another grouse for Snape, because he could not start hex wars; he did not have the numbers IMO.

So I think the hex wars between Snape and the Marauders was not fun at all; it was outwardly called a prank IMO, but it was something else, perhaps James and Snape fighting for the girl both of them loved, with Sirius, Remus and Peter taking James's side IMO.

I see what you mean.What I was saying really wasn't related to the marauder incident,I was refering to peoples general behaviour.But getting back to SWM, the Marauders were responsible for their intial actions,but Snape is also responsible for his reaction.I believe this is the point you were making right?I suppose the main point of dispute is ,how do you see the Maruaders intial actions?Prank or abuse? My personal opnion is this,I really can't see anything funny in what they did.

My view: that was not a prank. That was a hex war and James, Sirius and Snape were all acting like bullies. I feel the Marauders started things on that occassion and picked on Snape, and I feel their choice of spells was less deleterious in nature than Snape's. I think James chose decidedly prankish spells (mouth washing; levicorpus); Sirius chose spells that were a bit more flat out hex war style (totalus petrificus and impedimenta); and Snape I feel chose a harmful dark spell (Sectumsempra) - to be fair, he also tried unknown hexes earlier on, but his wand was too far away for them to work.

I'm not sure that this is what people are saying. I think that they are suggesting that when one is treated badly, it's one's own choice how to respond. One fundamentally cannot expect to change how others behave, but one can change the way one reacts to them. That is the safest way to protect one's own emotional well-being. It doesn't justify bullying in anyway, it just suggests a healthier way of dealing with it when one is the victim.

Exactly. :agree:

Very true. I agree that it is much worse to bully children because they are still growing emotionally. But, children frequently aren't yet aware of the consequences of their actions. They can be quite insensitive due to their own immaturity and insecurities. One hopes that as they mature, they better learn under what circumstances and whom they can tease without causing damage. Fifteen year olds can still be pretty thoughtless and impulsive (that does not excuse their actions, but it does, in my opinion, allow me to forgive them where I might have more trouble forgiving an adult behaving in the same manner). I do think that we see adult versions the Marauders (and even the twins) who have learned to at least not bully children and are actually quite nurturing of them.

I agree. The fact that they were teenagers goes both ways because they were all teenagers there. They're still learning those life lessons - they're still growing and maturing. We're shown one example of the Marauders behaving immaturely - engaging in a "hex war" with Snape, but we're also given a lot of information in the text as a whole that shows they did grow up and mature. They moved past this type of childish behavior - though they retained their sense of humor. We see that Sirius is able to admit that this type of behavior was wrong - that he and James were "arrogant berks" when they were 15. And Lupin was able to admit that he had done wrong as well by not intervening in any way - though Sirius tells him that he did make them feel guilty for their behavior at times so that was something. Overall, we are presented with a very realistic view of teenagers growing up and learning what is acceptable behavior and what is not. And the fact that all of them grew up to be very nurturing towards children as opposed to bullying children says a lot, IMO.

I can see this sort of thing, where the person laughs it off afterwards. I had originally thought you meant the people would be laughing about it just as it happened, which I can't see happening very often.

However, while Severus isn't one to laugh at himself, I don't understand why that would be a bad thing? What is wrong with being a more serious person? I agree that 'fun-loving' people can be more fun (... way to use the word in the definition. >.>), but the serious people can be fun as well, in their own strange way. I just don't understand why it would be an assumed character flaw of Severus to not be able to laugh at himself. (... Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding this)

I think we were shown the extreme of how unhealthy that can be through Snape. The fact that he was unable to laugh at himself was a big part of that, but there were other factors involved. The end result was a man who - as an adult - was still essentially the same bitter, vengeful person he was at the age of 15 because he was never able to move past this. The fact that he never learned how to laugh at himself contributed to him becoming an emotionally stunted adult who abused his authority as a teacher to bully children - per Jo.

I agree and yet sort of disagree to the (supposed) implications as stated above, but thinking on it now, I'm not even entirly sure where this whole conversation is going or how it is helping in a character analysis. The silly things I banter over when its midnight. :lol:

Oh, and Meesha, I'm afraid I never recieved your PM. Do you think a new thread about House Rivalry and House Heads favoring their own House would be able to hold a discussion? :hmm:

I resent the owl - hopefully you got it this time. :) I don't know if a thread like this would be successful or not - but it's certainly an interesting discussion I think. There was a thread about the houses at one point - specifically Gryffindor and Slytherin - but I haven't been able to find it. I'm still looking. :)

I agree with this and the assumption that you control your own feelings, but I don't think that this is enough justification to tell someone who has been through a traumatic experience 'Hey! Everything you feel right now is your fault because you can't come to terms with yourself, ect.'

To use Sirius Black as an example, so many people justify his childish behavior from PoA to OotP (Although, oddly enough, not very much in GoF) to his having spent 14 years in Azkaban. But by the standards Meesha has brought for Severus, Sirius shouldn't have let anything get to him. He should have just let James and Lily's death, Peters betrayal, and his wrongful imprisonment go and just be happy with everything because he was only making himself bitter. He should have just sucked it up and gotten along with Kreature and his mother's house, because despite the memories it brought he was just making himself bitter. Yet, I don't think you can outright and ask someone to do this. (... well, I had my own theories on Kreature, and they were proved correct in DH-- but the house itself is still a sore point)

I would have to disagree with you here. What happened to Sirius was truly traumatic. That wasn't just a case of trivial public embarrassment. Sirius lost everything and blamed himself for that. His best friend was murdered, one of his other friends led to that happening by betraying them, it was Sirius' plan that put Pettigrew in the position of being able to betray them, and his own mistakes enabled Pettigrew to frame him for that betrayal. He spent 12 years locked up in Azkaban for a crime that he did not commit - continually exposed to creatures who drain all happiness and hope out of a person. That was truly traumatic and, quite frankly, it's a miracle that Sirius was able to come through that with any semblance of sanity at all. He was emotionally damaged, but he was also very strong in character and I think - had he not been killed himself - he eventually would have recovered from it.

That's not the same thing at all, IMO. Being embarrassed in public doesn't even begin to compare with something like that - that is trivial by comparison, IMO. Sirius wasn't emotionally damaged because he wasn't able to laugh at himself - there was nothing there for him to laugh at. Your best friend being murdered is not funny - feeling responsible for that is not funny.

I see what you mean.What I was saying really wasn't related to the marauder incident,I was refering to peoples general behaviour.But getting back to SWM, the Marauders were responsible for their intial actions,but Snape is also responsible for his reaction.I believe this is the point you were making right?

Exactly. :agree:

I suppose the main point of dispute is ,how do you see the Maruaders intial actions?Prank or abuse?
My personal opnion is this,I really can't see anything funny in what they did.

I see it as a mutual rivalry - a "hex war" as wickedwickedboy put it - with both sides engaging in equally immature and aggressive behavior. Snape never missed an opportunity to curse James - the Marauders stood together and never missed an opportunity to pick on Snape. It was mutual and there were no victims because they were all willing participants. Any one of them had it within their power to put a stop to it and none of them did.

In terms of the incident with SWM - I do see the humor in that. I imagine what I would look like if I were hung upside down and my dress flopped over my head to reveal my under garments - and I have to concede that I would look ridiculous and people are going to laugh at that because it does look ridiculous - particularly teenagers. Same thing for having my mouth washed out with pink soap - it would look ridiculous and people are going to laugh because it looks ridiculous. I can accept that it would look ridiculous so I know I could laugh at myself if I were in that position. Of course, I can also admit that I would get revenge for that as well - though I would choose my revenge on the same ridiculous standards rather than seeking to physically harm someone who merely embarrassed me.

My view: that was not a prank. That was a hex war and James, Sirius and Snape were all acting like bullies. I feel the Marauders started things on that occassion and picked on Snape, and I feel their choice of spells was less deleterious in nature than Snape's. I think James chose decidedly prankish spells (mouth washing; levicorpus); Sirius chose spells that were a bit more flat out hex war style (totalus petrificus and impedimenta); and Snape I feel chose a harmful dark spell (Sectumsempra) - to be fair, he also tried unknown hexes earlier on, but his wand was too far away for them to work.

That's what stands out to me as well. The Marauders chose spells that were essentially harmless - even Petrificus Totalus and Impedimenta are not going to cause physical harm and we see those used a lot. They could be used to cause physical harm - say using Petrificus Totalus and then dropping the person in the lake - but Sirius didn't use them that way. Their goal was to cause embarrassment rather than physical harm. It was immature and aggressive behavior, but on the whole, it was trivial because they were only seeking to cause embarrassment. On the whole, I find Snape's violent reaction more disturbing. The Marauder's behavior is childish and immature, but I would expect that sort of thing from teenage boys - I've got two teenage sons so I see this type of thing with them as well as their friends a lot. And I've heard far too many stories from my father and his best friend to think otherwise.

I think the Hatfield/McCoy analogy works really well here because we are shown that it was a mutual rivalry - it was a continually ongoing feud with both sides doing wrong.

I would have to disagree with you here. What happened to Sirius was truly traumatic. That wasn't just a case of trivial public embarrassment. Sirius lost everything and blamed himself for that. His best friend was murdered, one of his other friends led to that happening by betraying them, it was Sirius' plan that put Pettigrew in the position of being able to betray them, and his own mistakes enabled Pettigrew to frame him for that betrayal. He spent 12 years locked up in Azkaban for a crime that he did not commit - continually exposed to creatures who drain all happiness and hope out of a person. That was truly traumatic and, quite frankly, it's a miracle that Sirius was able to come through that with any semblance of sanity at all. He was emotionally damaged, but he was also very strong in character and I think - had he not been killed himself - he eventually would have recovered from it.

I agree. In my view what Sirius went through cannot be compared in any way to a person suffering an embarrassing situation of any type. When you are locked up in prison, your choice of responses is greatly reduced which is the whole point of prison; a phenonmenal reduction of one's freedom and rights. Sirius was written to have come through like a trooper; but we know from canon others were not so lucky - and some never made it out at all. I feel we saw recovery by Sirius even in the short time he was in the series and I agree that speaks to the strength of his character.

That's not the same thing at all, IMO. Being embarrassed in public doesn't even begin to compare with something like that - that is trivial by comparison, IMO. Sirius wasn't emotionally damaged because he wasn't able to laugh at himself - there was nothing there for him to laugh at. Your best friend being murdered is not funny - feeling responsible for that is not funny.

Exactly. And as a matter of fact didn't lose that ability despite Azkaban. :tu:

I see it as a mutual rivalry - a "hex war" as wickedwickedboy put it - with both sides engaging in equally immature and aggressive behavior. Snape never missed an opportunity to curse James - the Marauders stood together and never missed an opportunity to pick on Snape. It was mutual and there were no victims because they were all willing participants. Any one of them had it within their power to put a stop to it and none of them did.

Actually it would seem that eventually, the Marauders did. However, I agree that the potential for any of them to do so was there from the start and no one did. You know, it pays to be nice because you never know who you are dealing with or what their responses might be. For the Marauders, they were dealing with Snape and his response lasted 20 years and Harry ended up having to deal with it. In that light, it would have been better for them to have put a stop to it sooner; however, that is a lot to ask of a young male teen - I know, I was one. :lol:.

In terms of the incident with SWM - I do see the humor in that. I imagine what I would look like if I were hung upside down and my dress flopped over my head to reveal my under garments - and I have to concede that I would look ridiculous and people are going to laugh at that because it does look ridiculous - particularly teenagers. Same thing for having my mouth washed out with pink soap - it would look ridiculous and people are going to laugh because it looks ridiculous. I can accept that it would look ridiculous so I know I could laugh at myself if I were in that position. Of course, I can also admit that I would get revenge for that as well - though I would choose my revenge on the same ridiculous standards rather than seeking to physically harm someone who merely embarrassed me.

I agree. But this goes to the character of the person. Like you said, if one of the Marauders were lifted, and I am sure they were since it was such a fad spell, I could see them laughing at one another over it and laughing at themselves as well. It is funny. But some people are not able to do that. This was a hex war though, so you don't expect laughter during it - but there was in this case because of the circumstances surrounding the spell - even Lily's lips twitched. People dwell on that spell as if it were the most humiliating thing in the word; but in this situation it was not. It was done too frequently and to too many people for that to be the case - beside the fact that Snape and his pals introduced it. It was the overall experience that was humiliating, and not just for Snape. In the end Lily and James were also deeply humiliated - only Sirius got off scot free. But that is where the ability to laugh something off or laugh at yourself later truly helps you through such a situation. Sirius began doing just that right in the scene with his "reading between the lines..." statement; but he didn't have the shock of humiliation stage to move through.

That's what stands out to me as well. The Marauders chose spells that were essentially harmless - even Petrificus Totalus and Impedimenta are not going to cause physical harm and we see those used a lot. They could be used to cause physical harm - say using Petrificus Totalus and then dropping the person in the lake - but Sirius didn't use them that way. Their goal was to cause embarrassment rather than physical harm. It was immature and aggressive behavior, but on the whole, it was trivial because they were only seeking to cause embarrassment. On the whole, I find Snape's violent reaction more disturbing. The Marauder's behavior is childish and immature, but I would expect that sort of thing from teenage boys - I've got two teenage sons so I see this type of thing with them as well as their friends a lot. And I've heard far too many stories from my father and his best friend to think otherwise.

It is all about choice as JKR has said dozens of times. How you respond, which spells you will use, and the like. In the scope of a hex war, no spells are good, that is a given. However, even within the scope of a hex war there is a choice and that determination is an important one. I think this point was reiterated in the Sectumsempra chapter of HBP. On that occassion we see Draco deeply embarrased by Harry's presence and Harry should have left. But Draco drew his wand and Harry did too. However, Draco's choice of spells was dark in nature and Harry attempted to remain focused on light spells. That fact in itself saved him when he whipped out a spell he'd never tried, because readers could believe he'd assumed it would be light in nature and that his attitude wasn't "I don't care what type of spell it is". This is why I feel JKR addressed the leviorpus spell in depth; not only making Lily (of all people) almost crack a smile; but indicating it was frequently used against many people and Snape had introduced it. This was important to the point of James being judicious in his choice of spells. It doesn't make the hex war or starting one any better, but it is an important character point, imo.

I think the Hatfield/McCoy analogy works really well here because we are shown that it was a mutual rivalry - it was a continually ongoing feud with both sides doing wrong.

I agree. Hexing was only only one action of many that went on between these individuals. I think sometimes that fact is overlooked.

I agree. In my view what Sirius went through cannot be compared in any way to a person suffering an embarrassing situation of any type. When you are locked up in prison, your choice of responses is greatly reduced which is the whole point of prison; a phenonmenal reduction of one's freedom and rights. Sirius was written to have come through like a trooper; but we know from canon others were not so lucky - and some never made it out at all. I feel we saw recovery by Sirius even in the short time he was in the series and I agree that speaks to the strength of his character.

I agree. And we do see that Sirius was recovering from that remarkably well - specifically in GOF. OOTP brings a bit of a setback for him with the added stress of having to stay cooped up in the childhood home that he hated, but I think the bigger issue for him was the fact that he couldn't be out there fighting and helping the Order like he wanted to because of his circumstances. I do think that Sirius would have eventually completely recovered from that if he had not been killed - and I do think that says a lot about his strength of character.

Exactly. And as a matter of fact didn't lose that ability despite Azkaban. :tu:

Agreed. I got the impression that his humor was a bit darker after all that, but that makes sense. Harry's sense of humor grew darker as the series progressed because of everything that happened to him as well. I think that's to be expected. When you're facing such dangerous "life and death" situations, I think it does help to be able to break the tension with humor if you can.

Actually it would seem that eventually, the Marauders did. However, I agree that the potential for any of them to do so was there from the start and no one did. You know, it pays to be nice because you never know who you are dealing with or what their responses might be. For the Marauders, they were dealing with Snape and his response lasted 20 years and Harry ended up having to deal with it. In that light, it would have been better for them to have put a stop to it sooner; however, that is a lot to ask of a young male teen - I know, I was one. :lol:.

Oh, I agree. I was referring specifically to the teenage years actually. I think that it is pretty clear in the text that, by the time they left Hogwarts, they put all that behind them. Sirius didn't even know about Snape becoming a Death Eater so that was a rivalry that did not continue for the Marauders once school was over. They moved on with their lives and focused on fighting against Voldemort. It's a bit ironic that this meant they were still fighting against Snape too since he was a Death Eater, but they weren't aware of that.

But you make a good point there. You have to wonder if any of the Marauders would have handled the situation differently if they had known Snape would hold on to that grudge for 20 years and take it all out on their children. It's hard to say because teenagers do tend to have that mindset of living in the moment and not thinking too much about the future. I know I did - and my teenage sons certainly do.

I agree. But this goes to the character of the person. Like you said, if one of the Marauders were lifted, and I am sure they were since it was such a fad spell, I could see them laughing at one another over it and laughing at themselves as well. It is funny. But some people are not able to do that. This was a hex war though, so you don't expect laughter during it - but there was in this case because of the circumstances surrounding the spell - even Lily's lips twitched. People dwell on that spell as if it were the most humiliating thing in the word; but in this situation it was not. It was done too frequently and to too many people for that to be the case - beside the fact that Snape and his pals introduced it. It was the overall experience that was humiliating, and not just for Snape. In the end Lily and James were also deeply humiliated - only Sirius got off scot free. But that is where the ability to laugh something off or laugh at yourself later truly helps you through such a situation. Sirius began doing just that right in the scene with his "reading between the lines..." statement; but he didn't have the shock of humiliation stage to move through.

Absolutely. :agree: That's one of the things I like about this scene actually. Jo did a good job in setting that up because you could tell that Sirius was going to take the mickey out on James for what happened with Lily at every opportunity. And she comes back in HBP to show that Levicorpus was a fad at that time and a lot of people were using it to embarrass each other. And I like the irony that a spell that Snape invented for such a purpose ended up being used against him. There's a sense of justice in that - particularly when you consider how the Death Eaters used that spell to terrify innocent muggles.

It is all about choice as JKR has said dozens of times. How you respond, which spells you will use, and the like. In the scope of a hex war, no spells are good, that is a given. However, even within the scope of a hex war there is a choice and that determination is an important one. I think this point was reiterated in the Sectumsempra chapter of HBP. On that occassion we see Draco deeply embarrased by Harry's presence and Harry should have left. But Draco drew his wand and Harry did too. However, Draco's choice of spells was dark in nature and Harry attempted to remain focused on light spells. That fact in itself saved him when he whipped out a spell he'd never tried, because readers could believe he'd assumed it would be light in nature and that his attitude wasn't "I don't care what type of spell it is". This is why I feel JKR addressed the leviorpus spell in depth; not only making Lily (of all people) almost crack a smile; but indicating it was frequently used against many people and Snape had introduced it. This was important to the point of James being judicious in his choice of spells. It doesn't make the hex war or starting one any better, but it is an important character point, imo.

Exactly. :agree:

I agree. Hexing was only only one action of many that went on between these individuals. I think sometimes that fact is overlooked.

I agree. I think the situation should be examined as a whole because there was more involved than just this one incident. The teasing and taunting - Snape following them around and spying on them to try and get them into trouble - Snape passing his "theory" about Lupin around - hexing and cursing - there are a lot of things involved there.

Again, I think Jo used the current generation to show the reader how that situation was for the previous generation. Dumbledore makes the comparison between the rivalry between Snape and James to the rivalry between Malfoy and Harry in the first book. As the series progressed, we see that the rivalry includes their friends as well. Malfoy emulates a lot of Snape's behavior in spying on the trio and trying to get them into trouble - particularly Harry. He uses his network of friends to spread tales about the trio - particularly in GOF, using Rita Skeeter as an outlet for that. It eventually evolves into a hex war. There are a lot of parallels between the two generations with regard to these two rivalries. I think Jo did that deliberately so the reader could figure out what things were like between Snape and the Marauders during their time at Hogwarts. Though I still think Fred and George were included to show what the Marauders were like in terms of their characters.

I see it as a mutual rivalry - a "hex war" as wickedwickedboy put it - with both sides engaging in equally immature and aggressive behavior. Snape never missed an opportunity to curse James - the Marauders stood together and never missed an opportunity to pick on Snape.

It's a hard situation to judge,one point made before in other discussions was that we don't have many incidents for examples and that any of the maruaders when on thier own(which I don't really think happened much) ,could have been attacked in similars ways.This is possible as we don't really know much else,but judging SWM as an isolated incident,most of the blame,IMO goes on the maruaders.I'm not justifying Snapes more violent response,but the marauders knew Snape,they knew he would fight back and quite possible use dark magic,isn't that after all one of the reasons they hated him?They knew what they were getting into tbh.

It was mutual and there were no victims because they were all willing participants. Any one of them had it within their power to put a stop to it and none of them did.
This is true,but I wonder if one party had stopped would the other had followed?I doubt it.

In terms of the incident with SWM - I do see the humor in that.
I can't ,I really can,it was nasty,vicious and comepletly insensitive.I think we have to agree to disagree here.

My main problem SWM is if you see it as any of the behaviour as okay,then you condoning it.Between close friends this is fine,you understand each others humour.To treat anyone like this is unacceptable,you have no idea how what you do could effect people,or how much it could hurt them.I know you said before people are responsible for thier own feelings but I disagree,people are responsible for their actions.

My main problem SWM is if you see it as any of the behaviour as okay,then you condoning it.Between close friends this is fine,you understand each others humour.To treat anyone like this is unacceptable,you have no idea how what you do could effect people,or how much it could hurt them.I know you said before people are responsible for thier own feelings but I disagree,people are responsible for their actions.

And even between friends, I donlt think they would have done it with the whole school watching and laughing. They would have stopped the moment they see their friend has a problem with it. The major difference here is that the Marauders didn't care how Snape felt, they wanted the fun regardless. And it's a very significance difference in my opinion, to hexing each other in good humour and with mutual understanding.

A side note: to me, to say that Snape should be held more accountable for his feelings of humiliation and anger than the Marauders should be held responsible for their actions, is completely absurd.

Well I wouldn't say "the wanted fun regardless" I mean they were amused but they really hated Snape's guts. James hated the Dark arts and Snape openly loved them, James was in love with Lily and Snape was her best friend and in love with her too.

Well I wouldn't say "the wanted fun regardless" I mean they were amused but they really hated Snape's guts. James hated the Dark arts and Snape openly loved them, James was in love with Lily and Snape was her best friend and in love with her too.

I don't think having a "right" cause or being on the "right" side gives you the right to bully the ones who disagree with you.

Nor does jealousy.

It's a hard situation to judge,one point made before in other discussions was that we don't have many incidents for examples and that any of the maruaders when on thier own(which I don't really think happened much) ,could have been attacked in similars ways.

I respect your view, but I feel it is a little unrealistic to imagine that the Marauders stuck together like glue througout their entire career. I mean unless somehow they all had the urge to use the restroom at the same time daily; trailed behind James to every Quiddicth practice, all professors wished to meet with them together always, etc. That doesn't seem very realistic to me; for the most parts, students spend a lot of time with their friends, but there are always solo projects, meetings, and personal necessities that require privacy. :lol:

This is possible as we don't really know much else,but judging SWM as an isolated incident,most of the blame,IMO goes on the maruaders.I'm not justifying Snapes more violent response,but the marauders knew Snape,they knew he would fight back and quite possible use dark magic,isn't that after all one of the reasons they hated him?They knew what they were getting into tbh.

I agree and this is I feel an important point. We don't have the context for SWM, but I feel all of the other information that we were provided with, indicates this was a mutual rivalary - with the exception of two comments by Snape (his version of the werewolf prank in POA which was later proven inaccurate and incomplete both by Lupin and Sirius in POA and Snape himself in DH- TPT; and his 4 on 1 comment in HBP which I feel SWM proved untrue). I also agree that the Marauders would have known exactly what they were getting into and were wholly responsible for starting things in SWM. One of the contextual indicators we have, Snape following them around trying to get them expelled POA (and to the level of obession DH - TPT), I interpret as Snape provoking encounters as well (as you point out; like the Marauders knew what they were getting into, Snape too would know what he was getting into if he was discovered tailing them.) Too, we were told in OOTP that Snape was the sole starter of things in 7th year.

However, to me, when it comes to an ongoing rivalry of this sort, it is less important who starts or provokes encounters (because the other always finishes it), and more important that no one was interested in stopping the encounters altogether. In my judgment, this was similar to Harry v. Draco, because while it is nice to think that if Draco and gang just left the trio alone the confrontations would end; we saw that even when they picked on others, the trio would involve themselves anyway (i.e., Draco taunting George about his family's wealth and style, etc.) We saw that if either Draco or Harry found a reason to stalk the other, they would do so (recall initially Draco following the trio and then Harry following Draco). I believe rivalries of this sort have a snowballing affect and generally carry on until maturity sets in and the parties realize the futility of the exercise.

This is true,but I wonder if one party had stopped would the other had followed?I doubt it.

I would agree with you in the main. These things I feel take on a life of their own and cessation is a part of that. I think maturity caused this particular rivalry to slow tremendously through 6th year, likely to a halt, but unfortunately picked up on a smaller scale again in 7th because James and Lily got together. I would have to imagine that did not last all that long either based on the circumstances at that time.

I can't ,I really can,it was nasty,vicious and comepletly insensitive.I think we have to agree to disagree here.

Again, I feel we lack context. All of the memories we saw of that era were provided by Snape and I feel it is very notable that those memories are not of admission for the most part. I believe even the DH memories are revelation in nature; with others speaking for Snape about his life and he himself only says that his father yelled at his mother; he was knowledgable of the magical world when young; he felt dark magic used on others just a laugh; he felt used by Dumbledore and he ultimately saved those he could rather than watched them die. Everything else we learned was inferred by his actions or words but not definitively stated (i.e., he was jealous of James, he loved Lily, he didn't wish to hear the word Mudblood, his remorse for his actions, how he was as a little boy, etc.). Most of the time in the memories, those around Snape like Dumbledore and Lily are presenting the home truths and Snape is either silent or disputing them at the time. So Snape's memories and Snape himself never actually admitted much from his personal POV, nor did he in life in canon admit things of a personal nature. Thus our context is very limited and with respect to Snape's personal activities in relation to the Marauders (and in fact his life as a DE or working for Dumbledore) remain a mystery, imo.

My main problem SWM is if you see it as any of the behaviour as okay,then you condoning it.Between close friends this is fine,you understand each others humour.To treat anyone like this is unacceptable,you have no idea how what you do could effect people,or how much it could hurt them.I know you said before people are responsible for thier own feelings but I disagree,people are responsible for their actions.

In my judgment, hex wars are never "okay" - that is to say, they are wrongful in nature. That underlies everything and my comments are all based on that premise. So if I find the levicorpus spell funny in my imagination, or laugh when reading Snape and Lily's reaction in canon, it does not mean that the hex war is suddenly okay, it just means that JKR has a knack for humor in the way she makes people speak and behave. But this is distinct from the students (including Lily) finding the levicorpus spell humorous in story. That I believe was because of the frequency of use of the spell as it was so popular as to be quite normative. Although as a reader, the ironic humor of Snape having created the spell is another aspect, but that has nothing to do with my in story analysis except for from Snape's point of view.

I respect your view, but I feel it is a little unrealistic to imagine that the Marauders stuck together like glue througout their entire career. I mean unless somehow they all had the urge to use the restroom at the same time daily; trailed behind James to every Quiddicth practice, all professors wished to meet with them together always, etc. That doesn't seem very realistic to me; for the most parts, students spend a lot of time with their friends, but there are always solo projects, meetings, and personal necessities that require privacy. :lol:

Fair point :lol: . If not all of them together then at least two.But I agree there would have been time when they would have been alone.


In my judgment, hex wars are never "okay" - that is to say, they are wrongful in nature. That underlies everything and my comments are all based on that premise. So if I find the levicorpus spell funny in my imagination, or laugh when reading Snape and Lily's reaction in canon, it does not mean that the hex war is suddenly okay, it just means that JKR has a knack for humor in the way she makes people speak and behave. But this is distinct from the students (including Lily) finding the levicorpus spell humorous in story. That I believe was because of the frequency of use of the spell as it was so popular as to be quite normative.

It's not the intial levicorpus that bothered me as much(though I don't find that funny either),its the spells that follow,the body binding,the soap,these two to me are just vicious.If it was just a prank or harmless fun why not just stop there?The last two spells make it more of an attack IMO.

I respect your view, but I feel it is a little unrealistic to imagine that the Marauders stuck together like glue througout their entire career. I mean unless somehow they all had the urge to use the restroom at the same time daily; trailed behind James to every Quiddicth practice, all professors wished to meet with them together always, etc. That doesn't seem very realistic to me; for the most parts, students spend a lot of time with their friends, but there are always solo projects, meetings, and personal necessities that require privacy. :lol:

I agree. We see that with the trio as well. They spend a lot of time together, but they do things on their own as well. The Marauders would have been the same. And we do see that Sirius was most likely alone when he told Snape how to get into the Whomping Willow - James found out about that after the fact and went to stop Snape - also alone. So it seems very likely that there were opportunities where the Marauders found themselves in similar situations.

And, to be fair, being together wouldn't offer complete protection. We see a couple of occasions where Malfoy attempts to curse Harry from behind - and it's not Ron or Hermione who see him and stop him. And Harry notes other students who were cursed from behind - such as Alicia Spinnet being cursed by the Slytherin keeper from behind. And Lupin talks about Levicorpus being used excessively in their fifth year - saying "you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle" - indicating that it had been done on all of them at some point.

I agree and this is I feel an important point. We don't have the context for SWM, but I feel all of the other information that we were provided with, indicates this was a mutual rivalary - with the exception of two comments by Snape (his version of the werewolf prank in POA which was later proven inaccurate and incomplete both by Lupin and Sirius in POA and Snape himself in DH- TPT; and his 4 on 1 comment in HBP which I feel SWM proved untrue). I also agree that the Marauders would have known exactly what they were getting into and were wholly responsible for starting things in SWM. One of the contextual indicators we have, Snape following them around trying to get them expelled POA (and to the level of obession DH - TPT), I interpret as Snape provoking encounters as well (as you point out; like the Marauders knew what they were getting into, Snape too would know what he was getting into if he was discovered tailing them.) Too, we were told in OOTP that Snape was the sole starter of things in 7th year.

I agree. I think the text as a whole reveals that this was a mutual rivalry with both sides guilty of wrongdoing. And you make an excellent point on how Snape exaggerated these things in taunting Harry. From what we are shown in the text, the Marauders were never as bad as Snape tried to make them out to be.

However, to me, when it comes to an ongoing rivalry of this sort, it is less important who starts or provokes encounters (because the other always finishes it), and more important that no one was interested in stopping the encounters altogether. In my judgment, this was similar to Harry v. Draco, because while it is nice to think that if Draco and gang just left the trio alone the confrontations would end; we saw that even when they picked on others, the trio would involve themselves anyway (i.e., Draco taunting George about his family's wealth and style, etc.) We saw that if either Draco or Harry found a reason to stalk the other, they would do so (recall initially Draco following the trio and then Harry following Draco). I believe rivalries of this sort have a snowballing affect and generally carry on until maturity sets in and the parties realize the futility of the exercise.

Exactly. :agree:

Again, I feel we lack context. All of the memories we saw of that era were provided by Snape and I feel it is very notable that those memories are not of admission for the most part. I believe even the DH memories are revelation in nature; with others speaking for Snape about his life and he himself only says that his father yelled at his mother; he was knowledgable of the magical world when young; he felt dark magic used on others just a laugh; he felt used by Dumbledore and he ultimately saved those he could rather than watched them die. Everything else we learned was inferred by his actions or words but not definitively stated (i.e., he was jealous of James, he loved Lily, he didn't wish to hear the word Mudblood, his remorse for his actions, how he was as a little boy, etc.). Most of the time in the memories, those around Snape like Dumbledore and Lily are presenting the home truths and Snape is either silent or disputing them at the time. So Snape's memories and Snape himself never actually admitted much from his personal POV, nor did he in life in canon admit things of a personal nature. Thus our context is very limited and with respect to Snape's personal activities in relation to the Marauders (and in fact his life as a DE or working for Dumbledore) remain a mystery, imo.

That's a good point. And that is something that I find disappointing in how all of this was written because we really don't get anything regarding Snape's activities or how he truly felt about his own actions in all of this. We're presented with a one-sided argument from Snape's perspective. So we have to take the textual clues given to attempt to put it together to find the truth. The text shows us that Snape exaggerated about the Marauders - they were never as bad as he tried to make them out to be. Even Lily points out that the Marauders bad behavior is trivial compared to what Snape's friends are doing - which he refers to as "just a laugh". So we're given this skewed perspective where using the Dark Arts to hurt someone is "just a laugh", but pulling a prank on someone that causes embarrassment is an unpardonable sin. I think we have to try to put that into the proper context because the reverse is what is actually true.

In my judgment, hex wars are never "okay" - that is to say, they are wrongful in nature. That underlies everything and my comments are all based on that premise. So if I find the levicorpus spell funny in my imagination, or laugh when reading Snape and Lily's reaction in canon, it does not mean that the hex war is suddenly okay, it just means that JKR has a knack for humor in the way she makes people speak and behave. But this is distinct from the students (including Lily) finding the levicorpus spell humorous in story. That I believe was because of the frequency of use of the spell as it was so popular as to be quite normative. Although as a reader, the ironic humor of Snape having created the spell is another aspect, but that has nothing to do with my in story analysis except for from Snape's point of view.

Exactly. :agree:

That was the point I was trying to make earlier. It was a mutual rivalry with both sides doing things wrong throughout. It wasn't good behavior from any of them. But the Marauders actions were very trivial because they did go for the laugh rather than seeking to cause harm, IMO. I look at it from both angles - the text shows us that this type of thing was happening all the time at Hogwarts during the Marauders fifth year and the students in general found it to be funny. And I also enjoy the irony of it being a spell that Snape invented. In the grand scheme of things - particularly with what all of these characters were put through in later years - this incident is very trivial and wasn't worth holding onto for 20 years, IMO.

It's not the intial levicorpus that bothered me as much(though I don't find that funny either),its the spells that follow,the body binding,the soap,these two to me are just vicious.If it was just a prank or harmless fun why not just stop there?The last two spells make it more of an attack IMO.

The way those spells were used was harmless though. The images that invokes - a person hanging upside down with their robes over their head, the pink soap bubbles - I do see where people would find that funny and laugh because it is going to look ridiculous. That doesn't excuse the fact that it was immature behavior, but I really don't see any point in trying to pretend that there was no humor in that. I picture myself in that position and I just have to laugh because I know I would look ridiculous - so I accept that others would laugh too for the same reason.

I don't see any of this as vicious. Using a spell to intentionally cause physical harm - i.e. cutting someone so they bleed, causing tortuous pain, or other injury - is vicious. Using a spell that causes no physical harm to create an embarrassing situation is trivial in comparison. It's not mature behavior and it was mean - but there was humor in it and it is trivial. That's the sort of thing that one should eventually be able to look back on and laugh about, IMO. If I couldn't look back on my high school years and laugh at all the embarrassing things that happened to me - and were done to me because I have been the butt of the joke on many occasions - I'd be a basket case.

It's not the intial levicorpus that bothered me as much(though I don't find that funny either),its the spells that follow,the body binding,the soap,these two to me are just vicious.If it was just a prank or harmless fun why not just stop there?The last two spells make it more of an attack IMO.

Well yeah; SWM wasn't a big planned prank for fun. I feel that was a hex war and they are never sanguine. Hex wars always involve attacks; I believe we are in agreement on that point. I was only talking about why people found the one spell funny, the one were Lily's lips twitched and why. But that does not change the entire thing into a prank by any means, imo.

The way those spells were used was harmless though. The images that invokes - a person hanging upside down with their robes over their head, the pink soap bubbles - I do see where people would find that funny and laugh because it is going to look ridiculous. That doesn't excuse the fact that it was immature behavior, but I really don't see any point in trying to pretend that there was no humor in that.

Harmeless??I just don't understand that ,you throw a spell at someone,they become distraught ,this is pretty obvious when Snape starts swearing at them.So why continue?It's a nasty attack aimed at causing someone grief,that not funny.The soap spell is just continuing it.If you find causing a person to become distressed and angry funny then that's fine,but theres not humour in abusing people IMO.
I'm not turning Snape into the victim here,disputes take two people,as WWb said,but each party is responsible for thier own actions.

I don't see any of this as vicious.
Again ,I can't see how intentionally causing people pain(by an act that you may see as not be so bad) is not Vicious.We're going to have to disagree .

It's not mature behavior and it was mean - but there was humor in it and it is trivial.
Again a matter of opnion.

That's the sort of thing that one should eventually be able to look back on and laugh about, IMO. If I couldn't look back on my high school years and laugh at all the embarrassing things that happened to me - and were done to me because I have been the butt of the joke on many occasions - I'd be a basket case.

If you deal with situation like that it's fine,but you can't turn around a force sometime to be the same.If one person should control their feelings then why shouldn't the other control their actions?Why are they excused?

I doubt we'll agree on this,I'm not in favour of people being hurt for others enjoyment.Again we'll just have to disagree.Lets leave it there,

Harmeless??I just don't understand that ,you throw a spell at someone,they become distraught ,this is pretty obvious when Snape starts swearing at them.So why continue?It's a nasty attack aimed at causing someone grief,that not funny.The soap spell is just continuing it.If you find causing a person to become distressed and angry funny then that's fine,but theres not humour in abusing people IMO.
I'm not turning Snape into the victim here,disputes take two people,as WWb said,but each party is responsible for thier own actions.

Snape got angry because he was embarrassed. He wasn't physically hurt by any of that. I don't see it as nasty or an attack. I see it for what it was - a petty, juvenile prank brought on by a mutual rivalry.

Again ,I can't see how intentionally causing people pain(by an act that you may see as not be so bad) is not Vicious.We're going to have to disagree .

What pain? He was embarrassed. Embarrassment only causes pain if you let it. Doing something to cause embarrassment is not vicious. Doing something to cause physical harm is vicious, IMO.

If you deal with situation like that it's fine,but you can't turn around a force sometime to be the same.If one person should control their feelings then why shouldn't the other control their actions?Why are they excused?

I doubt we'll agree on this,I'm not in favour of people being hurt for others enjoyment.Again we'll just have to disagree.Lets leave it there,

I don't see where Snape was hurt. He was embarrassed, but not physically hurt in any way. He was made to look ridiculous. The healthy response would have been for him to have eventually let that go and laugh about it. You can't control what other people do, but you can control how you respond to it. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

I'm not excusing the Marauders' actions. I don't see what they did as vicious because they chose spells that did not cause physical harm and went for embarrassment instead. I do think that it was mean and it was juvenile, but overall it was harmless - a trivial incident that should have eventually been laughed over. But the Marauders did grow up and stopped doing that kind of thing.

Emotional and psychological damaged is seen as just as serious as physical damage for a very long time now.

They could see he was humiliated and angry. Yet they continued. I personally see that as cruel.

What pain? He was embarrassed. Embarrassment only causes pain if you let it. Doing something to cause embarrassment is not vicious. Doing something to cause physical harm is vicious, IMO.

I don't see where Snape was hurt. He was embarrassed, but not physically hurt in any way. He was made to look ridiculous.

The healthy response would have been for him to have eventually let that go and laugh about it. You can't control what other people do, but you can control how you respond to it. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.


Thats the thing ,we have different views on embarressment.Yes it's somthing people should shrug off,but that's not easy for everyone,if they can't you can't hold them at fault.People can't make you feel infrerior,but they can hurt your feeling.If your in total control of your feeling and nothing effects you then your lucky,not all people are.
Emabarrment for enjoyment is vicous if the other person is hurt(not physically emotionally).If you act regardless of other peoples feelings,just to serve you own means then that IMO is vicious.

You can't control what other people do, but you can control how you respond to it.
So people should go around doing whatever they like,and the rest of the wrold should just like it or lump it?No one has a right to turn to someone and say what their doing is wrong?I accept you can't force people to change.If you can control how you respeond then you also can control how you act in the first place,if you choose to act regardless of others feelings,then you should accept the responsibility.

Emotional and psychological damaged is seen as just as serious as physical damage for a very long time now.

They could see he was humiliated and angry. Yet they continued. I personally see that as cruel.
Agreed

So how come snape's psycholgical and emotional abuse of children 20 years younger is not seen as serious damage or cruel but it is instead understandable or justified or simply forgiven? couldnt snape see that his students were humiliated or angry?
And what is most surprising is everyone who says james' actions were unforgivable are snape fans who find reasons to justify snape's behavior towards little children but refuse to see anything in a mutual hatred between two boys of same age who BOTH never lost a chance to hex each other.

So how come snape's psycholgical and emotional abuse of children 20 years younger is not seen as serious damage or cruel but it is instead understandable or justified or simply forgiven? couldnt snape see that his students were humiliated or angry?
And what is most surprising is everyone who says james' actions were unforgivable are snape fans who find reasons to justify snape's behavior towards little children but refuse to see anything in a mutual hatred between two boys of same age who BOTH never lost a chance to hex each other.

I'm defending Snape,I'm not a huge Snape fan(infact I'm not a fan at all really),I'm just discussing SWM and the nature of what happened.No ones saying what Snapes done is okay,what you said about his treatement of the students it completely true.But to be fair In SWM,none of that has happened yet so it's irrelevent to that incident.

Last time I checked this thread was about the Marauders, not Snape or his fans.

If you have any problems with any member's posts, please use the Report Button located at the top of every posts. There's never a reason to lead a thread any further off-topic or to happily join a discussion about groups of members. Thanks.

So people should go around doing whatever they like,and the rest of the wrold should just like it or lump it?No one has a right to turn to someone and say what their doing is wrong?I accept you can't force people to change.If you can control how you respeond then you also can control how you act in the first place,if you choose to act regardless of others feelings,then you should accept the responsibility.

I don't think that is what JKR is showing us with SWM. I don't think that the Maurader's actions are being condoned. We see Lily step forward and say that the actions are wrong. I think that we are led to believe that Sirius and James do change their ways and do not spend their adult years exposing people's underwear.

I don't know of many people who think that they can do whatever they like and the rest of the world can lump it. I think that most people consider people who stand up for others and say "what you are doing is wrong" are very brave and should be applauded. I think this is pretty normative behaviour. Most people are pretty decent, but we all have our faults.

The thing is, I don't think that many people manage to make it to adulthood without suffering some form of emberrasment or what they consider to be mental abuse. You can't un-ring a bell. So, given that events have occured, how do you move forward? A person is perfectly within their rights to spend their entire lives obsessing over the fact that their underwear was exposed when they were 15 (and I'm not saying that Snape did that, I'm just going hypothetical here). A person can decide to become bitter about it and become a grumpy old person with no friends. But, I would suggest that one would be better off getting over it and deciding to live a happy life. Salvage what one can. And I admit that not everybody is going to be able to do this, but I suggest that it is better for the victim to do so.

What Sirius and James do to Snape in SWM is wrong, in my opinion. Were they evil incarnate? No, I don't think so. They could have done a lot worse. But they should also have behaved a lot better, in my opinion. I think they should regret what they have done and change their ways. Does Snape have a right to be somewhat upset? Yes, in my opinion, he was treated badly. Should he allow it to ruin his life? No, in my opinion, he should get over it because you only get the one life so try not to let others ruin it for you.

I think Neville is a shining example of what I suggest. I think that he was treated horribly in his younger years. We see several examples of him being bullied by another student and a teacher (and random pixies). In my opinion we are given examples that his grandmother, while probably not trying to be malicious, also manages to cause him mental trauma. And, for a time, this affects him. In the end, though, he manages to throw off the trauma and live a happy life. He becomes a hero of Hogwarts and a seemingly well-liked professor. Does this mean that I approve of Snape trying to poison Neville's toad? No, it does not. Does this mean that I approve of Draco telling Neville that he had "no brains"? No. But I do approve of Neville's ultimate response to this. I don't say that he had to do get over his mental abuse, but I do approve that he did.

I don't think that suggesting that people go on to live a happy life means that I condone what happened to them. I don't think people should endlessly dwell on the bad which happens to them. I just don't think it's productive.

Caveat:
And, I'm sorry, but I do think that if there was a hex war going on, that it does mitigate things. If one willingly gets into a street fight with somebody else, one shouldn't feel ill-used when one gets punched in the head, in my opinion. One can complain that it hurts, but one should really have kind of expected it. Don't get into a hex war if you don't want to end up being hexed (IMO). This is why I'm not even harsher on James and Sirius. For example, I do feel less bad for Draco when he is turned into a ferret because he had just attempted to curse somebody behind their back. If Moody had chosen to do the same to Neville just because he considered him to be a "wimp", I would have been COMPLETELY outraged.

Thus, my reactions to the Mauraders in this case is tempered. I really just don't think they are all that evil. I think Sirius and James are "toerags" during their teenage years, but not evil.

Try gorgling soap when hanging upside-down. It's not just embarrasing.

I don't think that suggesting that people go on to live a happy life means that I condone what happened to them. I don't think people should endlessly dwell on the bad which happens to them. I just don't think it's productive.

I think I'm not explaining my point very well so I'll make this my last post on the matter,I don't believe in dwelling either,I just think if people were more considerate about things they say and do ,there's be less things for people to 'have to get over'.

Okay I'm done,I'm saying no more from now on . :)

Try gorgling soap when hanging upside-down. It's not just embarrasing.

The soap came before Levicorpus so he was not upside down. As for gargling soap - I have. That was my mother's favorite punishment for swearing. Tasted nasty and it was very embarrassing with my little brother pointing and laughing, but it didn't hurt.

I don't think that is what JKR is showing us with SWM. I don't think that the Maurader's actions are being condoned. We see Lily step forward and say that the actions are wrong. I think that we are led to believe that Sirius and James do change their ways and do not spend their adult years exposing people's underwear.

I don't know of many people who think that they can do whatever they like and the rest of the world can lump it. I think that most people consider people who stand up for others and say "what you are doing is wrong" are very brave and should be applauded. I think this is pretty normative behaviour. Most people are pretty decent, but we all have our faults.

The thing is, I don't think that many people manage to make it to adulthood without suffering some form of emberrasment or what they consider to be mental abuse. You can't un-ring a bell. So, given that events have occured, how do you move forward? A person is perfectly within their rights to spend their entire lives obsessing over the fact that their underwear was exposed when they were 15 (and I'm not saying that Snape did that, I'm just going hypothetical here). A person can decide to become bitter about it and become a grumpy old person with no friends. But, I would suggest that one would be better off getting over it and deciding to live a happy life. Salvage what one can. And I admit that not everybody is going to be able to do this, but I suggest that it is better for the victim to do so.

What Sirius and James do to Snape in SWM is wrong, in my opinion. Were they evil incarnate? No, I don't think so. They could have done a lot worse. But they should also have behaved a lot better, in my opinion. I think they should regret what they have done and change their ways. Does Snape have a right to be somewhat upset? Yes, in my opinion, he was treated badly. Should he allow it to ruin his life? No, in my opinion, he should get over it because you only get the one life so try not to let others ruin it for you.

I think Neville is a shining example of what I suggest. I think that he was treated horribly in his younger years. We see several examples of him being bullied by another student and a teacher (and random pixies). In my opinion we are given examples that his grandmother, while probably not trying to be malicious, also manages to cause him mental trauma. And, for a time, this affects him. In the end, though, he manages to throw off the trauma and live a happy life. He becomes a hero of Hogwarts and a seemingly well-liked professor. Does this mean that I approve of Snape trying to poison Neville's toad? No, it does not. Does this mean that I approve of Draco telling Neville that he had "no brains"? No. But I do approve of Neville's ultimate response to this. I don't say that he had to do get over his mental abuse, but I do approve that he did.

I don't think that suggesting that people go on to live a happy life means that I condone what happened to them. I don't think people should endlessly dwell on the bad which happens to them. I just don't think it's productive.

Completely agree. :agree: That is precisely what I was trying to say.

Caveat:
And, I'm sorry, but I do think that if there was a hex war going on, that it does mitigate things. If one willingly gets into a street fight with somebody else, one shouldn't feel ill-used when one gets punched in the head, in my opinion. One can complain that it hurts, but one should really have kind of expected it. Don't get into a hex war if you don't want to end up being hexed (IMO). This is why I'm not even harsher on James and Sirius. For example, I do feel less bad for Draco when he is turned into a ferret because he had just attempted to curse somebody behind their back. If Moody had chosen to do the same to Neville just because he considered him to be a "wimp", I would have been COMPLETELY outraged.

Thus, my reactions to the Mauraders in this case is tempered. I really just don't think they are all that evil. I think Sirius and James are "toerags" during their teenage years, but not evil.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :agree: :tu:

The soap came before Levicorpus so he was not upside down. As for gargling soap - I have. That was my mother's favorite punishment for swearing. Tasted nasty and it was very embarrassing with my little brother pointing and laughing, but it didn't hurt.

Me too, but by a professor and I lost my lunch as a result, but it is nothing new and I think that was the point. JKR could have had James resort to dark magic after Snape hit him with the cutting spell, but she had made a point about his character; he detested the dark arts, so he stuck to light, but embarrassing spells even while in a hex war. It was the same for Sirius - he too remained set on using only light spells.

There were just certain things that JKR stuck by and one was the choice of spells the Marauders would use. At the same time, knowing that Snape introduced it and everyone was doing it frequently, reduced the 'trauma' that would be felt by Snape. He would be no more embarassed at being lifted than anyone else would because it was seen too often for anyone to do anything but sigh and beg to be released by that point I would think. The overall experience would be embarassing due to the circumstances however. But that is how it is in a hex war; and James too got hit - but from behind and with a spell that would not be embarassing because I feel it isn't funny to see someone's face cut and blood drawn. But even after that, James remained bent on using only light magic.

It was a clear mark of the characters of the individuals involved in my opinion and JKR topped it off by having Snape use the unforgivable racial slur against Lily - and adding the word 'filthy' to it which together with his choice of spell, showed his character as well. The Marauders were certainly not angels, and behaved wrongfully in engaging in hex wars and at least James in being too quick on the draw to hex when annoyed, but I truly feel that even in those situations, ethics are important and speaks positively of one's underlying character.

So they were doing it because everyone else weere doing it? I don't that speaks positively of their character.

I don't think that is what JKR is showing us with SWM. I don't think that the Maurader's actions are being condoned. We see Lily step forward and say that the actions are wrong. I think that we are led to believe that Sirius and James do change their ways and do not spend their adult years exposing people's underwear.

I don't know of many people who think that they can do whatever they like and the rest of the world can lump it. I think that most people consider people who stand up for others and say "what you are doing is wrong" are very brave and should be applauded. I think this is pretty normative behaviour. Most people are pretty decent, but we all have our faults.

The thing is, I don't think that many people manage to make it to adulthood without suffering some form of emberrasment or what they consider to be mental abuse. You can't un-ring a bell. So, given that events have occured, how do you move forward? A person is perfectly within their rights to spend their entire lives obsessing over the fact that their underwear was exposed when they were 15 (and I'm not saying that Snape did that, I'm just going hypothetical here). A person can decide to become bitter about it and become a grumpy old person with no friends. But, I would suggest that one would be better off getting over it and deciding to live a happy life. Salvage what one can. And I admit that not everybody is going to be able to do this, but I suggest that it is better for the victim to do so.

What Sirius and James do to Snape in SWM is wrong, in my opinion. Were they evil incarnate? No, I don't think so. They could have done a lot worse. But they should also have behaved a lot better, in my opinion. I think they should regret what they have done and change their ways. Does Snape have a right to be somewhat upset? Yes, in my opinion, he was treated badly. Should he allow it to ruin his life? No, in my opinion, he should get over it because you only get the one life so try not to let others ruin it for you.

I think Neville is a shining example of what I suggest. I think that he was treated horribly in his younger years. We see several examples of him being bullied by another student and a teacher (and random pixies). In my opinion we are given examples that his grandmother, while probably not trying to be malicious, also manages to cause him mental trauma. And, for a time, this affects him. In the end, though, he manages to throw off the trauma and live a happy life. He becomes a hero of Hogwarts and a seemingly well-liked professor. Does this mean that I approve of Snape trying to poison Neville's toad? No, it does not. Does this mean that I approve of Draco telling Neville that he had "no brains"? No. But I do approve of Neville's ultimate response to this. I don't say that he had to do get over his mental abuse, but I do approve that he did.

I don't think that suggesting that people go on to live a happy life means that I condone what happened to them. I don't think people should endlessly dwell on the bad which happens to them. I just don't think it's productive.

Caveat:
And, I'm sorry, but I do think that if there was a hex war going on, that it does mitigate things. If one willingly gets into a street fight with somebody else, one shouldn't feel ill-used when one gets punched in the head, in my opinion. One can complain that it hurts, but one should really have kind of expected it. Don't get into a hex war if you don't want to end up being hexed (IMO). This is why I'm not even harsher on James and Sirius. For example, I do feel less bad for Draco when he is turned into a ferret because he had just attempted to curse somebody behind their back. If Moody had chosen to do the same to Neville just because he considered him to be a "wimp", I would have been COMPLETELY outraged.

Thus, my reactions to the Mauraders in this case is tempered. I really just don't think they are all that evil. I think Sirius and James are "toerags" during their teenage years, but not evil.

wingardium, this is an excellent post and it has made me think quite a bit. :)

Honestly what you have said makes an awful lot of sense and I like what you have said about Neville, which is quite true. I also agree that those agreeing to fight should not mind the punches and Snape was willing to give as good as he got. So I agree with that as well.

But I would not compare Snape to neville. For Neville had his Gran and a a backing from his family, even though they may have felt that he fell very short to his father, Frank.

But for Snape there was no support from anywhere, his home life looks unhappy to say the least IMO.

From a Snape fan point of view, where I think I differ (and I am talking only for myself and not others) is in that I feel it was just not a hex war, pure and simple; like it was with Betram Aubrey (HBP, where James and Sirius hexed his head to swell twice the size or other hex wars, that the Marauders surely would have indulged in, if the number of detentions are any clue.)

Interestingly, Harry never saw any card where the Marauders and Snape had hex wars. So it looks like that this was a war where teachers never knew or turned a blind eye to what was happening IMO.

With Snape, I think there were other fators involved. First and initially it would have been for "fun", I presume and also an indignant feeling that Snape was friends with one of theirs (Lily) but I think the stakes changed from being merely fun to have hex wars against a Slytherin odd ball, to something else IMO.

That probably happened, becauase of the continued friendship of Snape with Lily and the rivalry deepened when James fell for her.

So the fights may have been more than just hex wars and may have had a deeper meaning than just hexing a Gryffindor or Slytherin on principle, like Ron/Draco do in the books.

Snape was defeated in almost all levels, another factor why he, I think could not get up, heal and waqlk away. I think it is to his credit that he pushed it down and went on, not only to help Harry who was not only Lily's son, but also James's and Sirius's Godson; two people I think Snape felt took everything away from him IMO.

That the "hex" wars were personal and it was not only Snape who did not move past, but also Sirius and Remus who I felt still played by the old rules IMO.

And those rules revolved around Lily IMO. She was central to both Snape and James and the wars I feel were for her and because of her. I think Snape could not move past because he lost a lot more than just losing hex wars to the Marauders and showing underpants or even more to the whole school IMO.

From the Sorting Hat Mis sort Key Characters? thread

He wanted to be with the biggest bully in the schoolyard, just like he tagged along with the Marauders because they were the cool group to be with. Why they tolerated him is beyond me.


I am also baffled by this. For 10 long years the 3 Marauders never realised that Peter was a traitor and a git? They were completely taken in by him and his false show of friendship. And Lily too, seems to have fallen for it; I don;t know, but this makes me feel that they were very poor judges of character.

This decision about SK switch also tells loads about Lily. Either she was as reckless and careless as the rest of the Maradeurs (which is strange, given that the life of her child was at stake), or she didn't have much say on this matter. Or maybe she was just naive. :shrug:


Will answer in the Lily Potter thread. :)

Me too, but by a professor and I lost my lunch as a result, but it is nothing new and I think that was the point. JKR could have had James resort to dark magic after Snape hit him with the cutting spell, but she had made a point about his character; he detested the dark arts, so he stuck to light, but embarrassing spells even while in a hex war. It was the same for Sirius - he too remained set on using only light spells.

There were just certain things that JKR stuck by and one was the choice of spells the Marauders would use. At the same time, knowing that Snape introduced it and everyone was doing it frequently, reduced the 'trauma' that would be felt by Snape. He would be no more embarassed at being lifted than anyone else would because it was seen too often for anyone to do anything but sigh and beg to be released by that point I would think. The overall experience would be embarassing due to the circumstances however. But that is how it is in a hex war; and James too got hit - but from behind and with a spell that would not be embarassing because I feel it isn't funny to see someone's face cut and blood drawn. But even after that, James remained bent on using only light magic.

It was a clear mark of the characters of the individuals involved in my opinion and JKR topped it off by having Snape use the unforgivable racial slur against Lily - and adding the word 'filthy' to it which together with his choice of spell, showed his character as well. The Marauders were certainly not angels, and behaved wrongfully in engaging in hex wars and at least James in being too quick on the draw to hex when annoyed, but I truly feel that even in those situations, ethics are important and speaks positively of one's underlying character.

Exactly. :agree:

When you look at all the information we're given about this in conjunction with what we're shown in SWM, I think Jo did a very good job in setting the tone for the rivalry between the Marauders and Snape and using that to define their characters and show the differences between them.

On the one side you have Snape - famous for his fascination with the Dark Arts, inventing his own Dark Arts spells, feeling that using the Dark Arts against other students was "just a laugh", revealing his prejudice towards muggles/muggleborns with an unforgivable racial slur towards someone who was supposed to be his friend, and never missing an opportunity to curse James. SWM demonstrates that Snape went for the more violent, dark curses - which goes along with Sirius telling Harry that Snape knew more curses in his first year than half the seventh years.

On the other side, you have the Marauders - fun loving, a certain disregard for the rules, confident to the point of arrogance, hating the Dark Arts and everything they stood for, and deeply offended by pure-blood snobbery. I think these differences were at the heart of that rivalry - it is very similar to the rivalry between Draco and the trio in the current generation, as Dumbledore pointed out in PS/SS. Both sides keep it going while they are in school - both exhibit bad behavior. And I don't feel that any of them would have the right to complain because they were all willing participants. As wingardium713 pointed out, if you willingly participate in a rivalry like this, then it's to be expected that you will be on the receiving end at some point.

But I think Jo did a good job in defining the differences between them by demonstrating that there was a line that the Marauders would not cross. James didn't come out of that unscathed - he had his face cut open and the girl he fancied raked him over the coals. Still, he didn't feel the need to resort to using the Dark Arts or unforgivable racial slurs. Neither did Sirius. They're behavior was bad, but I think it does say a lot about them that they both focused on lighter spells designed to embarrass rather than actually trying to cause physical harm.

Exactly. :agree:

When you look at all the information we're given about this in conjunction with what we're shown in SWM, I think Jo did a very good job in setting the tone for the rivalry between the Marauders and Snape and using that to define their characters and show the differences between them.

On the one side you have Snape - famous for his fascination with the Dark Arts, inventing his own Dark Arts spells, feeling that using the Dark Arts against other students was "just a laugh", revealing his prejudice towards muggles/muggleborns with an unforgivable racial slur towards someone who was supposed to be his friend, and never missing an opportunity to curse James. SWM demonstrates that Snape went for the more violent, dark curses - which goes along with Sirius telling Harry that Snape knew more curses in his first year than half the seventh years.

On the other side, you have the Marauders - fun loving, a certain disregard for the rules, confident to the point of arrogance, hating the Dark Arts and everything they stood for, and deeply offended by pure-blood snobbery. I think these differences were at the heart of that rivalry - it is very similar to the rivalry between Draco and the trio in the current generation, as Dumbledore pointed out in PS/SS. Both sides keep it going while they are in school - both exhibit bad behavior. And I don't feel that any of them would have the right to complain because they were all willing participants. As wingardium713 pointed out, if you willingly participate in a rivalry like this, then it's to be expected that you will be on the receiving end at some point.

But I think Jo did a good job in defining the differences between them by demonstrating that there was a line that the Marauders would not cross. James didn't come out of that unscathed - he had his face cut open and the girl he fancied raked him over the coals. Still, he didn't feel the need to resort to using the Dark Arts or unforgivable racial slurs. Neither did Sirius. They're behavior was bad, but I think it does say a lot about them that they both focused on lighter spells designed to embarrass rather than actually trying to cause physical harm.

Precisely. That is a more subtle point, but one JKR knows that those concerned about it in the least will immediately notice - or upon reflection. I feel it is very clear the choices made by those involved if one takes the time to notice. And also, it was right in line with the rest of those person's characters, imo.

What none of what we are talking about in these last couple of (posts hexing when someone annoys you or in a hex war) is 'pranking per se', we see that pranking (embarassing) spells are used - James for example, but non embarassing ones too, like Sirius' impedimenta or Ginny's bat bogey hex (although again, because all of these are used a lot, they may be construed by other students as funny in the circumstances). But the whole reason they are funny at all is due to 'pranking'.

Pranking is hexing or handing out devices and pills, etc., purely for fun. Generally, the pranked person is innocent, but sometimes one might choose someone who has done something in the past to pull the prank on. But the thing is, I take the Marauders, the Twins, Ron and Harry's view; pranking is just funny and those pranked, like we said with a sense of humor and can laugh at themselves will find it funny too. The thing is, JKR wished to introduce another viewpoint - that of Hermione (I would say Lily, but her lip twitch gave her away :lol:). Hermione saw the reason why the school gave detention for pranks; she felt embarassing someone (including herself) wasn't funny and didn't like the idea of those innocents, like first and second year unwary students, suffering pranks. But it is a point of view because in interview, JKR herslef admitted she loved pranks and based Harry (and his dad and friends) on her neighbor who was a father and loved to pull pranks - even at his mature age.

So I think it is good that JKR showed not everyone loves them or can laugh at others or themselves in the midst of a prank because those people do exist and their point of view deserves air. And she was very fair about it, imo, because she used a beloved character to make her point (Hermione) - and also showed that she had a sense of humor - but that it simply didn't extend to pranking. But an overwhelming number of students could laugh at themselves and others and did enjoy pranking. I feel that is true to life based on my own experience; it adds an element of pleasure to school life and life in general if you like it. When I was going out a lot before this boring law period, we'd do little pranks on our friends in the midst of a night out - more mature of course, but they were a good group and everyone could laugh at themselves, so it only added to the whole night. And there is one other great thing about it, people can learn to laugh at themselves when previously they would only become angry - I've seen that happen before my eyes. :tu:

1. How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior? I honestly don't know, I'm not in their heads, but I think, that at least to some degree that Peter, at least, must have. He was the one who betrayed them after all, maybe this resentment made it easier for him to do this.

2. Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all? I think this did happen - It's just the kind of slimey, evil thing that Peter would do. He might have been jealous of Remus as well as James and Sirius - think about it: they are all more talented than him, and better looking. Remus gets a lot more attention from the other two than he does.

3. James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous? I'd say Noble. This was risky and they knew it, but they did it anyway because they wanted to help Remus.

4. What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily? Probably just shrugged it off.

5. How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?For awhile it must have been odd, but it seems like they learned to love her too...or Remus and Sirius learned to love her too at least.

6. James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision? Peter, probably yes. Remus, I'd say no - he probably figured it was because of some stupid ministry law about werewolves adopting.

7. Peter betrayed his friends. Was he ever happy with this decision and do you think that his friends would be able to forgive him if they had the chance? I think that when Voldemort was happy with him - he was happy with his actions. He was obviously happy to be alive. I honestly don't think they could.

8. Was joining the Order a joint decision or was peer pressure involved? For instance, did James and Sirius lead the way and Remus and Peter follow? Probably joint decision, with Peter following.

9. The Marauders had a very hostile relationship with Snape. Would this have been different if Snape had been sorted into Gryffindor? Did the Marauders antagonize other students that were into the Dark Arts as well or did they single out Snape from the start? I think the feeling with Snape might have changed had he been in Gryffindor, but I dont' think that it was purely them antagonizing him, I think both parties were responsible for the fighting. It takes two to tango...and Snape didn't just sit there helplessly. He fought back. I think there probably was some incident early on...Snape made a snide comment or something and it all went downhill from there.

10. How do the Marauders compare to Fred and George? Do you think that they, and especially James and Sirius, were worse or just as funny as the Weasley twins? Oh, probably about the same. Some of the twin's pranks could have counted as mean too....trying to shut Percy in a pyramid, experimenting on first years, more things they probably did to Percy.

11. Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly? Not really, there really wasn't much discussion of them at all, which disappointed me. I wanted more back story on them specifically and nope, didn't get much. I did get to know Snape's point of view better though. I was also pretty upset when Remus died.......I cried alot over that one. To think he didn't even earn and on screen death.....and that Teddy was left all alone.

12. Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?
Hmmm....let me think...Remus, duh! I like him because hes a sweetie! I just, I've always liked him best, how he didn't really participate in the mean pranks, how he taught Harry the patrounus charm (and yet JKR doesn't tell us his Patrounus......). I loved how good he was with Neville, and I like to think that Neville based his teaching styles after Remus.... wishful thinking
I think that the others probably did, but not always realized it. Kinda like how much Harry and Ron realize they love Hermione the day before the term paper is due.

Hi! :wave: I'm pretty wary of coming in here, but I do have a good talking point you guys might want to consider. We were talking in the Snape thread about what would have happened if Snape had been included by the Marauders.
One question did spring to my mind, but I wanted to put it here rather than the Snape thread because it has more to do with the Marauders than Snape.


How would accepting a Slytherin into their group have affected the Marauders' overall view of that House?
James appears to despise the House, going so far as to join Sirius in mocking someone who wants to join it. Had they learned to swallow their pride and accept Snape despite their feelings about his House, would they have eventually seen the value in Slytherin? Or would they have considered Snape a "special case"?
Thoughts?

How would accepting a Slytherin into their group have affected the Marauders' overall view of that House?
James appears to despise the House, going so far as to join Sirius in mocking someone who wants to join it. Had they learned to swallow their pride and accept Snape despite their feelings about his House, would they have eventually seen the value in Slytherin? Or would they have considered Snape a "special case"?
Thoughts?That's a very interesting question. I think the only way for this to have worked hypothetically is if: 1) as you say, James and Sirius shed their prejudice toward Slytherin; AND 2) if Snape had not been so engaged in the Dark Arts. Otherwise, I don't believe the Marauders could ever have accepted Snape, nor could Snape ever accept the Marauders. But assuming these two conditions, I think it more likely James and Sirius would only have deemed Snape a "special case" who was different from the other Slytherins (I'll leave what I think about Snape's opinions of the Marauders for the Snape thread). Sirius comes from a family of Slytherins who embody everything that Sirius hates, so I cannot ever seeing him having positive feelings toward that house in any circumstances. There's not much more possibility of James seeing Slytherins in a positive light either, in my opinion. Remus seems the most tolerant of the four to me, especially given the negativity he endures from society. I don't believe he ever explicitly hated Snape as James and Sirius did, so I think it's possible that he could have shed any bias toward Slytherin house. As for Peter, I think he would have gone along with the opinions of Sirius and James. Of the four, he was the least independent thinker. Thus I believe his thoughts and opinions were always aligned to match whomever was the most powerful and the most "in charge".

How would accepting a Slytherin into their group have affected the Marauders' overall view of that House?

If their encounter on the Hogwarts was anything to go by, I think James and Sirius would not have accepted Snape at all. And I don't think their overall opinion of that House would change at all.

James and later, Sirius seem to have the same prejudice the death eaters did; that is, what the DEs thought of Gryffindors and their attitude towards muggleborns and the like, James and Sirius seem to think of Slytherin House and its members; as evil and believed no one sorted into it could come to any good IMO. It was not an opinion that only James and Sirius shared, it was also shared by many pople, Hagrid for example, Ron for another.

All of these people are very much on the side of the Light and yet they are in a way as prejudiced as the Slytherins IMO.

If their encounter on the Hogwarts was anything to go by, I think James and Sirius would not have accepted Snape at all. And I don't think their overall opinion of that House would change at all.

James and later, Sirius seem to have the same prejudice the death eaters did; that is, what the DEs thought of Gryffindors and their attitude towards muggleborns and the like, James and Sirius seem to think of Slytherin House and its members; as evil and believed no one sorted into it could come to any good IMO. It was not an opinion that only James and Sirius shared, it was also shared by many pople, Hagrid for example, Ron for another.

All of these people are very much on the side of the Light and yet they are in a way as prejudiced as the Slytherins IMO.

Respecting your view, in my opinion, that is a mischaracterization of the Gryffindors. Sirius knew for a certainty that all Slytherins house members were not evil; Andromeda, P. Black, his uncle and others who were burnt from the taspestry were not evil in his eyes and they had all been Slytherins. Futher, those Slytherins who did not become budding Death Eaters would gain the respect of James, Sirius and other Gryffindors while they were at Hogwarts (although there would still be the 'hating on principle' like we saw with Blaise v. Harry).

I agree that James likely felt anyone who 'wanted' Slytherin was favorable to the dark arts at first; but I would imagine his ideology changed when he was actually immersed in the situation - remember that prior to that, he had no experience, he merely went on what he'd been taught at home.

I would respectfully disagree that the Marauders and Gryffindors were prejudiced in the same way that the Slytherin budding Death Eaters were. House rivalry aside, those Slytherins disliked muggles and muggleborns, no matter who they were, in other words, because of an immutable trait. The Gryffindors disliked the Slytherins because of their pervasive views in that regard and the dark arts - that is not an immutable trait as we saw, some Slytherins gave up those ideologies and beliefs - some never held them.

From the Snape thread
I would respectfully disagree because we could say the same for Sirius based on their behavior as adults toward one another. I agree both had wounds that cut deep, but in my judgment, they were self-propagated.

In what way do you think Sirius had wounds created by Snape?

From the Snape thread


In what way do you think Sirius had wounds created by Snape?

In terms of what I felt Dumbledore was speaking about; Sirius refused to believe Snape was reformed and considered he was likely still a Death Eater - plus the two battled verbally on a consistent basis evidencing Sirius' deep dislike of Snape. So apparently, old wounds they both had regarding the other were fostered and a grudge was held instead of either letting things go, imo. Apart from their old hex wars, Snape stalked Sirius and tried to get him expelled for wrongdoing, extolled the virtues of everything Sirius believed to be evil, including a public showing of racism and showed a lack of respect for the dead with respect to James, belittling and blackening the character of the man who had been his best friend in life. In addition, Snape accused him of betraying his best friends, the Potters, like others were doing, with no trial, but additionally, Sirius (and Remus) personally pled with Snape to listen to his story and Snape refused; bascially in Sirius' eyes, Snape was declaring himself jury and judge and once again, giving Sirius no chance to speak regarding the charges against him. Finally, Sirius was livid about Snape's treatment of Remus, even though Remus took it with a grain of salt - both in the S. Shack and exposing him in POA (this all based on his own comments in POA, OOTP and GoF). So from Sirius' point of view, those wounds cut too deep for him to forget and forgive and let the past go, in the same way Snape felt toward him.

I feel they both needed to let go of the old grudges as well as any new ones because it is unhealthy and can result in misjudgments, unnecessary anger and a continued building of unwarranted animosity. But admittedly that is easier said than done at times.

In terms of what I felt Dumbledore was speaking about; Sirius refused to believe Snape was reformed and considered he was likely still a Death Eater - plus the two battled verbally on a consistent basis evidencing Sirius' deep dislike of Snape. So apparently, old wounds they both had regarding the other were fostered and a grudge was held instead of either letting things go, imo.

But these are not wounds. I don't think Sirius was wounded by Snape; Sirius and Snape hated each other, but Snape wounding Sirius, I respectfully disagree. We don't see that at all. Never are James and Sirius wounded. James was jealous though, and Sirius took his side, I suppose.

Plus, Sirius hated Slytherin and he also associated that House with evil, probably because of his home life. I do think you are right about the fact they harboured a grudge against each other.

showed a lack of respect for the dead with respect to James, belittling and blackening the character of the man who had been his best friend in life.

But Snape, never spoke about James to Sirius.

In addition, Snape accused him of betraying his best friends, the Potters, like others were doing, with no trial, but additionally, Sirius (and Remus) personally pled with Snape to listen to his story and Snape refused; bascially in Sirius' eyes, Snape was declaring himself jury and judge and once again, giving Sirius no chance to speak regarding the charges against him.

Snape missed out the main portions of the story, naturally he like Dumbledore and others thought Sirius to be the killer.

Finally, Sirius was livid about Snape's treatment of Remus, even though Remus took it with a grain of salt - both in the S. Shack and exposing him in POA (this all based on his own comments in POA, OOTP and GoF). So from Sirius' point of view, those wounds cut too deep for him to forget and forgive and let the past go, in the same way Snape felt toward him.

Where is this? Can you say? I need to read this before I answer, I just can't remember this.

I don't think Sirius was wounded by Snape. But I do agree that they had a lot of hate and dislike because of their past. :)

But these are not wounds. I don't think Sirius was wounded by Snape; Sirius and Snape hated each other, but Snape wounding Sirius, I respectfully disagree. We don't see that at all. Never are James and Sirius wounded. James was jealous though, and Sirius took his side, I suppose.

I was speaking of emotional wounds, like Dumbledore commented about Snape. I don't believe that Snape had the full copyright and patent on being emotionally wounded; others carried scars from their youth as well. They responded in various ways, but the emotional carry over was the same, imo.

But Snape, never spoke about James to Sirius.

Never say never! :lol:. OOTP: Occlucmency: "How touching," Snape sneered. "But surely you have noticed that Potter is very like his father?" "Yes I have," said Sirius proudly. "Well then, you'll know he's so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him," Snape said sleekly. That was when Sirius pulled his wand and confronted Snape.

Snape missed out the main portions of the story, naturally he like Dumbledore and others thought Sirius to be the killer.

Well note that I was not speaking about how you and I might look at this, or Snape. But rather I was speaking from Sirius' point of view. He and Lupin were pleading with Snape to listen to them about the truth of what had happened that fateful night, but Snape refused to listen. Sirius' reaction is in canon - he walked Snape out of the shack via magic and did not take care to ensure that his head didn't bump on the walls. If that makes you feel bad for Snape, I understand, but remember that Snape had earlier declared he was going to have Sirius kissed and Lupin for good measure without hearing their side of the story at all. They saw Snape as trying to be judge, jury and executioner - Snape repeated the bit about the rat to the Minister, so he heard, he just turned a blind eye. I would opine that JKR wrote this response in Sirius to help us understand his feelings toward Snape. Indeed no one mentioned a thing about Snape bumping his head - not Lupin, Harry, Hermione nor Ron. I think they were all feeling about the same about Snape at that point. But for Sirius, it just added to the animosity he already felt for Snape.

Where is this? Can you say? I need to read this before I answer, I just can't remember this.

Remember Snape bound Lupin, hand, foot and mouth and then allowed him to fall flat on his face to the floor. Sirius' response was livid. Snape then declared he was going to "drag the werewolf" to be kissed, gripping the ends of the rope. Sirius would likely view that as a great amount of disrespect shown to Remus, merely because he was a werewolf. (Remember, it is Sirius' point of view I am discussing, not mine, yours or Snape's. :))

I don't think Sirius was wounded by Snape. But I do agree that they had a lot of hate and dislike because of their past. :)

Well as I stated; Snape was not the only one to carry wounds and scars from the past. Clearly Sirius did too or he would not have shown instant dislike of Snape at the mention of his name (POA). He had not seen Snape for 17 or 18 years at that point, so there would be no reason for him to still harbor feelings of deep dislike if he too did not carry wounds and scars that refused to heal from their past encounters. These wounds are of course emotional based, imo, like those Snape held toward Sirius. If you feel that Sirius didn't think Snape had wronged him in the past, we would have to agree to disagree on that. Those things I listed in my last post were things that Sirius would have considered terribly wrongful and taken personally when they concerned him and/or his friends, acquaintances and other students at Hogwarts.

I think Snape was able to push Sirius' buttons, especially in OotP while he was holed up in Grimmauld Place. Snape said just want Sirius was thinking and yet could do nothing about - namely that he was useless for the Order. But at the same time, Sirius was goading Snape equally, and that's when the argument starts.

Well as I stated; Snape was not the only one to carry wounds and scars from the past. Clearly Sirius did too or he would not have shown instant dislike of Snape at the mention of his name (POA). He had not seen Snape for 17 or 18 years at that point, so there would be no reason for him to still harbor feelings of deep dislike if he too did not carry wounds and scars that refused to heal from their past encounters. These wounds are of course emotional based, imo, like those Snape held toward Sirius. If you feel that Sirius didn't think Snape had wronged him in the past, we would have to agree to disagree on that. Those things I listed in my last post were things that Sirius would have considered terribly wrongful and taken personally when they concerned him and/or his friends, acquaintances and other students at Hogwarts.

I disagree that any hatred that Sirius had towards Severus automatically means that Severus had to have caused him deep emotional pain. I'm sure that their years of unresolved rivalry had everything to do with Sirius' feelings towards Severus, rather than any single 'life ruining' sort of action on the part of Severus-- more likely it was a series of smaller things, and the hexing that Severus obviously exchanged with the Marauders.

I think Snape was able to push Sirius' buttons, especially in OotP while he was holed up in Grimmauld Place. Snape said just want Sirius was thinking and yet could do nothing about - namely that he was useless for the Order. But at the same time, Sirius was goading Snape equally, and that's when the argument starts.

I agree. As a Severus fan I must admit that this is one of my favorite scenes in the books, because we see that the 'tables of turned' so to speak. Take the teenaged that we see in SWM; twitchy and fairly inarticulate. He didn't have very much control over his emotions in regards to what he would say-- which resulted in his insulting Lily with the mudblood comment. Now compare that Severus to the one we see in this scene in OotP, where Severus has a powerful mastery over his words.

If you watch the exchange closely you can see who clearly has the upper hand-- Severus. Sirius darts randomly from topic to topic in his insults-- and even reverts back to the childish nicknames from his schooldays. But when Severus counters these shots they are always on the same topic, but turned around against Sirius.

I disagree that any hatred that Sirius had towards Severus automatically means that Severus had to have caused him deep emotional pain. I'm sure that their years of unresolved rivalry had everything to do with Sirius' feelings towards Severus, rather than any single 'life ruining' sort of action on the part of Severus-- more likely it was a series of smaller things, and the hexing that Severus obviously exchanged with the Marauders.

I didn't say anything about a single life ruining sort of event. I specified the many reasons in the previous post. It was the same for Snape, imo.

I agree. As a Severus fan I must admit that this is one of my favorite scenes in the books, because we see that the 'tables of turned' so to speak. Take the teenaged that we see in SWM; twitchy and fairly inarticulate. He didn't have very much control over his emotions in regards to what he would say-- which resulted in his insulting Lily with the mudblood comment. Now compare that Severus to the one we see in this scene in OotP, where Severus has a powerful mastery over his words.

If you watch the exchange closely you can see who clearly has the upper hand-- Severus. Sirius darts randomly from topic to topic in his insults-- and even reverts back to the childish nicknames from his schooldays. But when Severus counters these shots they are always on the same topic, but turned around against Sirius.

I do understand. As a Harry James Potter fan, I cheered when I saw the Marauders giving it to Snape in SWM after all of his abuse of Harry throughout the series, based on Snape's transference of his feelings for James - another "tables turned type event". Of course Harry was in a much worse position because Snape was in a position of authority over him. But I do feel that in that scene, Sirius held the most straight forward dislike of Snape and I think that animosity was perpetuated by Snape's behavior, attitude and acts back in those days (in Sirius' view). So I believe that is why he carried emotional wounds/scars from the past that cut too deep for him to overcome in the short period of time during which he was in society after Azkaban. I feel that Sirius was unable to let go of his grudge in the same way Snape could not, based on their Hogwarts past, and that was my only point. To his credit, I feel Sirius showed signs of being able to eventually overcome his problem with Snape in this regard. I think he would have continued to dislike Snape, but he was starting to be able to ignore Snape's, in my judgment, immature barbs, provocations and button pushing. Dumbledore expressed this view of Sirius as well at the end of OOTP - The Lost Prophecy. (Speaking with regard to Snape goading Sirius: "Sirius was much to old and clever to have allowed such feeble taunts to hurt him, Said Dumbledore")

I didn't say anything about a single life ruining sort of event. I specified the many reasons in the previous post. It was the same for Snape, imo.



I do understand. As a Harry James Potter fan, I cheered when I saw the Marauders giving it to Snape in SWM after all of his abuse of Harry throughout the series (and other children), based on Snape's transference of his feelings for James. Of course Harry was in a much worse position because Snape was in a position of authority over him.

But Sirius too had emotions pent up from the past and that was the topic here in line with this thread. :lol:. I feel that Sirius was unable to let go of his grudge in the same way Snape could not, based on their Hogwarts past, and that was my only point.

I agree. There's a lot of history there - more than we're even aware of at this point because Jo has yet to explain exactly what was going on with the whole werewolf prank. These two men loathed each other - and from what we are shown, that loathing went even deeper that Snape's hatred of James and vice versa.

Too, I think Snape's abusive treatment towards Harry is also a factor. Sirius knows about that - and he knows that Harry is going to be alone with Snape for those Occlumency lessons. That's why he gave Harry the mirror in the first place - he was concerned about how Snape would treat Harry - possibly even worried about what Snape would do to Harry - and he wanted Harry to have a way to contact him if Snape got out of line. Sirius did not fully believe that Snape was on their side. It was also implied that Sirius knew something significant on that level as well with the whole "well why don't you tell Dumbledore" exchange.

So Sirius had genuine concerns for Harry in regards to Snape, but he's powerless to protect Harry because he's still wanted for a crime he didn't commit. Dumbledore has requested Snape be the one to give Harry those lessons and there's nothing he can do. On top of everything else - his frustration with not being able to really help the Order and fight, having to stay shut up in Grimmauld Place with only Kreacher and his mother's portrait for company most of the time, etc... - the additional concern for Harry having to be alone with Snape for difficult Occlumency lessons would have increased his anger and frustration a great deal, IMO - especially towards Snape.

To his credit, I feel Sirius showed signs of being able to eventually overcome his problem with Snape in this regard. I think he would have continued to dislike Snape, but he was starting to be able to ignore Snape's, in my judgment, immature barbs, provocations and button pushing. Dumbledore expressed this view of Sirius as well at the end of OOTP - The Lost Prophecy.

Do you happen to have the quote with you, by chance? I think we can safely say that both men were moving on with their lives, albeit very slowly-- they both shook hands in PoA, after all. And I think it would be unfair to call Severus out on his immature provocation without noting that Sirius did the same (and without the same articulate prose that Severus is so well known for, too :whistle:).

And one of the biggest ironies of the series, in my opinion, is just how alike Sirius and Severus are in many degrees. Their inability to let go of the past is just one of these similarities. (However, granted, when they differ they really differ. In Sirius' impulsive thrill-seaking versus Severus' more introverted, to himself manner.)

Another irony, which relates here, is that in OotP it seems that the roles that Severus and Sirius want are switched. Sirius wants nothing more than to be right out in the thick of the battle, while I'm sure Severus would prefere a more behind the scenes sort of job. But it is Sirius who is stuck at home while Severus is out in the middle of the danger.

Do you happen to have the quote with you, by chance? I think we can safely say that both men were moving on with their lives, albeit very slowly-- they both shook hands in PoA, after all. And I think it would be unfair to call Severus out on his immature provocation without noting that Sirius did the same (and without the same articulate prose that Severus is so well known for, too :whistle:).


I added the quote, but I had to look it up and I am a bit slow at that. :lol:. In my view, Sirius felt that Snape was behaving in a provocative and goading manner and not in the least articulate (in an academic - direct and to the point way), but rather as childish. However, he did finally react in anger when Snape, belittled James, who was dead and like a brother to Sirius. I feel Sirius saw that as hitting below the belt and disrespectful too boot for Snape to have said that in front of him and Harry. I believe that is why he was finally goaded to act. As for my personal opinion, I do feel Snape was behaving immaturely, disrespectful and provocative from the beginning of the encounter and I felt Sirius reacted admirably until goaded into a fight (I feel he should have controlled the urge to battle) - but I respect your view if you saw it distinctly.

Ok guys, let's not turn this into Snape vs Sirius, please. Back to The Marauders!

Ok guys, let's not turn this into Snape vs Sirius, please. Back to The Marauders!


:blush: Forgive me, I didn't see it as a Snape V. Sirius so much as a basic compare/contrast as one might do in their High School English classes. However, if the topic must be dropped let's move on...

I agree. There's a lot of history there - more than we're even aware of at this point because Jo has yet to explain exactly what was going on with the whole werewolf prank. These two men loathed each other - and from what we are shown, that loathing went even deeper that Snape's hatred of James and vice versa.

Too, I think Snape's abusive treatment towards Harry is also a factor. Sirius knows about that - and he knows that Harry is going to be alone with Snape for those Occlumency lessons. That's why he gave Harry the mirror in the first place - he was concerned about how Snape would treat Harry - possibly even worried about what Snape would do to Harry - and he wanted Harry to have a way to contact him if Snape got out of line. Sirius did not fully believe that Snape was on their side. It was also implied that Sirius knew something significant on that level as well with the whole "well why don't you tell Dumbledore" exchange.

So Sirius had genuine concerns for Harry in regards to Snape, but he's powerless to protect Harry because he's still wanted for a crime he didn't commit. Dumbledore has requested Snape be the one to give Harry those lessons and there's nothing he can do. On top of everything else - his frustration with not being able to really help the Order and fight, having to stay shut up in Grimmauld Place with only Kreacher and his mother's portrait for company most of the time, etc... - the additional concern for Harry having to be alone with Snape for difficult Occlumency lessons would have increased his anger and frustration a great deal, IMO - especially towards Snape.

I agree. Sirius had loved his little godson as a baby and despite the fact that he had only just initiated a relationship with Harry again, I feel he brought those feelings with him. In addition, Sirius loved Lily and James very much, and that love too was transferred to Harry, imo. Not to mention Harry was so like James to him and that would only add to Sirius' feelings of protectiveness, love and a desire for a close relationship with him, imo. In the end, I think James and Lily selected a perfect godfather for their son.

I was speaking of emotional wounds, like Dumbledore commented about Snape. I don't believe that Snape had the full copyright and patent on being emotionally wounded; others carried scars from their youth as well. They responded in various ways, but the emotional carry over was the same, imo.

No of course Snape does not have the copyright and I also think Sirius was wounded, only I don't think those wounds came from Snape.

Never say never! :lol:.

I'll never say never. ;)

OOTP: Occlucmency: "How touching," Snape sneered. "But surely you have noticed that Potter is very like his father?" "Yes I have," said Sirius proudly. "Well then, you'll know he's so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him," Snape said sleekly. That was when Sirius pulled his wand and confronted Snape.

These are incidents where he angers Sirius, makes him furious, but I don't know if Sirius was wounded; wounding someone is hurting them deeply and I don;t think Sirius cared enough about Snape to be hurt by him IMO.

And in the examples you have given below too, are incidents where Sirius was furious, raging, angry and hateful towards Snape. They are really not incidents that wounded him IMO.

I'll not go into comparing both of them because of the in-thread. :D

I think Snape was able to push Sirius' buttons, especially in OotP while he was holed up in Grimmauld Place. Snape said just want Sirius was thinking and yet could do nothing about - namely that he was useless for the Order. But at the same time, Sirius was goading Snape equally, and that's when the argument starts.

Yes, but wounded means something else IMO. It is a feeling of hurt that would not leave in a hurry, a feeling which has gone deep inside a person and left a mark. Humiliating experiences, insults in front of those who matter I think would count.

Sirius would have been wounded by his familiy's attitude towards his ideas. That was why he was unable to treat Kreacher properly, even though Kreacher was only a slave and every member of his family was dead and there was no one to hurt him any more.

But still Grimmauld Place held only revulsion for Sirius even though he had left that place when he was 16 and had not stayed there all the year round since he was 11, and probably also stayed away during the holidays with James, once they became friendly.

But still, Sirius was hurt and wounded by his past that he hated GP and all that it stood for, hated Kreacher that he was cruel to him, knowing that Kreacher was totally at his mercy.

Wounds like these are hard to heal.

It was wounds like these that Dumbledore also meant I think when he spoke to Harry in OOTP about Snape's feelings for James.

No of course Snape does not have the copyright and I also think Sirius was wounded, only I don't think those wounds came from Snape.

Oh I agree that Sirius had other deep wounds in his life that hampered him - he was working through many issues. I was only speaking of the enduring emotions that made him retain animosity for Snape in particular. :)

I'll never say never. ;)

:lol:. That was a great 007 Bond movie, btw. Have you seen it?

These are incidents where he angers Sirius, makes him furious, but I don't know if Sirius was wounded; wounding someone is hurting them deeply and I don;t think Sirius cared enough about Snape to be hurt by him IMO.

I was speaking about the on going animosity with those examples. However, in a previous post I spoke of the issues that occurred at Hogwarts which I felt led to Sirius' emotions he was unable to let go of.

I'll not go into comparing both of them because of the in-thread. :D

Well this particular aspect of the conversation is not Snape v. Sirius - but rather how they both had the holding of grudges in common and what grudges might be based on in general.

Yes, but wounded means something else IMO. It is a feeling of hurt that would not leave in a hurry, a feeling which has gone deep inside a person and left a mark. Humiliating experiences, insults in front of those who matter I think would count.

The thing is, everyone is different. Something that wounds one person deeply may have no affect on another and visa versa. So I feel there are no universal events, ideas or interactions that can be said to cause emotional wounds for people. For instance, being fired from a job can cause a person to be deeply wounded for many years, even for life; whereas others take it in stride and move on - finding a new position after time. So it really just depends on how things impact a person. Sirius held onto his animosity and grudge because of things that had occurred in his past. As you mentioned, it came out in his behavior toward his Mum and Kreacher and he was the same way with Peter and Snape. All of those people cause him to feel certain emotional wounds that ran too deep for the healing because of the impact they had on his psyche in general, imo.

Again, I think this is something Sirius had to work through because it is all about his response to the past, imo (i.e., Sirius had to be the one to let it go - just as Lupin and Harry did.) I think he had begun to do so at the time of his death. :) This is kind of more appropriate for the Sirius thread I would think. :lol:.

The thing is, everyone is different. Something that wounds one person deeply may have no affect on another and visa versa. So I feel there are no universal events, ideas or interactions that can be said to cause emotional wounds for people. For instance, being fired from a job can cause a person to be deeply wounded for many years, even for life; whereas others take it in stride and move on - finding a new position after time. So it really just depends on how things impact a person.

This goes the other way too, though, and mitigates Snape's behaviour towards Sirius as well. Or Snape's behaviour towards the students. Many students would't have been hurt, right? So we can't actually call any of Snape's actions universally causing emotional wounds for pople, to use your words.

However, he was nasty and hurtful towards the students, as is plain in the books, in my opinion, which undermines your theory. There are indeed things which can be reasonably predicted to hurt, and Sirius was perfectly aware of that in his conversations with Severus. I doubt he called Severus Snivellus just because he liked the sound of it. He obviously did it to sting.

And when the Marauders picked on Snape, they knew that was painful for him, and they knew very well they were causing him emotional pain, yet they continued. Calling them oblivious of the impact of their actions, or blaming it on the receiver's disposition that he just can't handle that type of "humour" is quite misplaced, in my opinion, and ignores the core of the issue - there was intentional psychological pain inflicted. The Marauders could see how it affected Severus, and yet they did do it. I see no mitigating factors whatsoever (apart from the fact taht they were 15 - but even so, they were 15-year-old bullies to me).

This goes the other way too, though, and mitigates Snape's behaviour towards Sirius as well. Or Snape's behaviour towards the students. Many students would't have been hurt, right? So we can't actually call any of Snape's actions universally causing emotional wounds for pople, to use your words.

I agree for the most part. I have long stated exactly that; everyone will be impacted distinctly by all events and interaction with others - and how one responds to that is what is important. I would make an exception when it comes to adult treatment of children however, because of the position of authority they have over them and the frequency that they interact. Because of the way children regard adults in general and the fact that they are still developing, I think that puts more onus on the adult teachers (and similar professionals that work with children) to behave appropriately.

Just to clarify; I was not attempting to mitigate anyone's behavior. I feel that negative behavior by all parties impacted the others in one form or another. However, the person impacted cannot choose to change what another has said or done to them, but they can make a choice as to how they will respond - even in the long term, imo. Sirius holding a grudge was something he chose to do and could change that and let it go, but it would be completely up to him to do so.

However, he was nasty and hurtful towards the students, as is plain in the books, in my opinion, which undermines your theory. There are indeed things which can be reasonably predicted to hurt, and Sirius was perfectly aware of that in his conversations with Severus. I doubt he called Severus Snivellus just because he liked the sound of it. He obviously did it to sting.

Agreed - but here we have two adults. That is distinct from adult - child interaction in my opinion. I am not certain what your point is, but I agree that in sum, both men showed their grudges in the end.

And when the Marauders picked on Snape, they knew that was painful for him, and they knew very well they were causing him emotional pain, yet they continued. Calling them oblivious of the impact of their actions, or blaming it on the receiver's disposition that he just can't handle that type of "humour" is quite misplaced, in my opinion, and ignores the core of the issue - there was intentional psychological pain inflicted. The Marauders could see how it affected Severus, and yet they did do it. I see no mitigating factors whatsoever (apart from the fact taht they were 15 - but even so, they were 15-year-old bullies to me).

I think it makes a huge difference that all of the participants were 15. None of them were fully developed and that is why I feel people with characters like Sirius and Snape could be so impacted that their characters would not let the grudges go for a long time - in contrast, Lupin was able to do so to some degree; he could have held a grudge as well. In my view, the Marauders are completely ignored here; the emotional pain and trauma they endured as a result of these youthful interactions is completely disregarded or discounted - perhaps because it was not visually described as SWM was - but for me, it being stated was enough. However, I respect your view, and we would likely have to agree to disagree on the first portion of your statement as I feel that all went both ways. I would expand on that, but it gets into Snape v. the Marauders and so I won't here; but I'm happy to owl if you like. :)

I agree. Sirius had loved his little godson as a baby and despite the fact that he had only just initiated a relationship with Harry again, I feel he brought those feelings with him. In addition, Sirius loved Lily and James very much, and that love too was transferred to Harry, imo. Not to mention Harry was so like James to him and that would only add to Sirius' feelings of protectiveness, love and a desire for a close relationship with him, imo. In the end, I think James and Lily selected a perfect godfather for their son.

Completely agree. :agree:

Oh I agree that Sirius had other deep wounds in his life that hampered him - he was working through many issues. I was only speaking of the enduring emotions that made him retain animosity for Snape in particular. :)

I was speaking about the on going animosity with those examples. However, in a previous post I spoke of the issues that occurred at Hogwarts which I felt led to Sirius' emotions he was unable to let go of.

Well this particular aspect of the conversation is not Snape v. Sirius - but rather how they both had the holding of grudges in common and what grudges might be based on in general.

The thing is, everyone is different. Something that wounds one person deeply may have no affect on another and visa versa. So I feel there are no universal events, ideas or interactions that can be said to cause emotional wounds for people. For instance, being fired from a job can cause a person to be deeply wounded for many years, even for life; whereas others take it in stride and move on - finding a new position after time. So it really just depends on how things impact a person. Sirius held onto his animosity and grudge because of things that had occurred in his past. As you mentioned, it came out in his behavior toward his Mum and Kreacher and he was the same way with Peter and Snape. All of those people cause him to feel certain emotional wounds that ran too deep for the healing because of the impact they had on his psyche in general, imo.

I agree. Sirius was emotionally damaged and there were a lot of factors involved in that. After Harry, I find Sirius to be one of the most sympathetic characters in the story - followed closely by Lupin because some of these experiences were shared. Like Harry, they both had genuine traumatic childhoods. Sirius being ostracized by his family and hating everything they stood for and Lupin having to deal with hiding his "furry little problem" because of the prejudice against werewolves. They both lost their best friends - James was murdered and Pettigrew betrayed them leading to that murder. For 12 years, they didn't even have each other as friends because Sirius was locked up in Azkaban for a crime he didn't commit. They were alone and isolated. They were both emotionally damaged from these truly traumatic experiences - though I feel that Sirius suffered the most damage because of Azkaban. I have a lot of sympathy for both of them because of everything they went through.

The situation with Snape highlights the difference in the amount of emotional damage Sirius and Lupin suffered, IMO. Lupin didn't spend 12 years in Azkaban surrounded by the dementors sucking every happy thought out of him, being left with only his worst memories. I think that shows in the fact that Lupin was more mature as an adult. He was able to let go of that childhood rivalry. He understood that he and Snape would never be good friends - there was too much history there - but he also understood that it was pointless to hold onto bitterness because of it.

Sirius did spend those 12 years in Azkaban and that left a lot of scars. Where Lupin was free to put aside such memories and concentrate on the future, Sirius was trapped in a place where he had nothing but those memories. The situation with James being murdered and Pettigrew betraying them was the primary source of that, but I think other bad memories from school would also be a factor in that as well. Where Lupin could forget and move on, Sirius relived those memories over and over again because of the effect of the dementors. So I don't find it surprising that Sirius was still holding on to that grudge after he escaped Azkaban. I do think he would have eventually gotten over it though - I think he was well on that path in OOTP actually. Eventually, he would have healed.

I agree for the most part. I have long stated exactly that; everyone will be impacted distinctly by all events and interaction with others - and how one responds to that is what is important. I would make an exception when it comes to adult treatment of children however, because of the position of authority they have over them and the frequency that they interact. Because of the way children regard adults in general and the fact that they are still developing, I think that puts more onus on the adult teachers (and similar professionals that work with children) to behave appropriately.

Just to clarify; I was not attempting to mitigate anyone's behavior. I feel that negative behavior by all parties impacted the others in one form or another. However, the person impacted cannot choose to change what another has said or done to them, but they can make a choice as to how they will respond - even in the long term, imo. Sirius holding a grudge was something he chose to do and could change that and let it go, but it would be completely up to him to do so.



Agreed - but here we have two adults. That is distinct from adult - child interaction in my opinion. I am not certain what your point is, but I agree that in sum, both men showed their grudges in the end.



I think it makes a huge difference that all of the participants were 15. None of them were fully developed and that is why I feel people with characters like Sirius and Snape could be so impacted that their characters would not let the grudges go for a long time - in contrast, Lupin was able to do so to some degree; he could have held a grudge as well. In my view, the Marauders are completely ignored here; the emotional pain and trauma they endured as a result of these youthful interactions is completely disregarded or discounted - perhaps because it was not visually described as SWM was - but for me, it being stated was enough. However, I respect your view, and we would likely have to agree to disagree on the first portion of your statement as I feel that all went both ways. I would expand on that, but it gets into Snape v. the Marauders and so I won't here; but I'm happy to owl if you like. :)

Completely agree. :agree:

Ok guys, let's not turn this into Snape vs Sirius, please. Back to The Marauders!

I don't really see why an Auror's in-thread should be ignored. This is not the thread to discuss who had or inflicted deeper wounds - Snape or Sirius? In fact, Snape is not the topic at all! :wow: Let's get back to discussing the Marauders! Last warning, folks!

:scared:

Was joining the Order a joint decision or was peer pressure involved? For instance, did James and Sirius lead the way and Remus and Peter follow?
I don't think the group would have sat together and decided to join the Order. I was under the impression that Dumbledore asked people he thought would support the cause to join. I mean, Dumbledore probably didn't have ads in The Daily Prophet about joining. So I think that the Marauders were likely approached to join because Dumbledore was aware of how they were against Voldemort. I think James, Sirius and Remus joined because they wanted to be part of the Order, not because they were pressured to do so. They have already demonstrated in the series that they were against Voldemort, so I see no reason why Remus would only join through peer pressure. Peter, on the other hand, likely just joined because he saw his friends doing so and followed their decision.

I posted a link to this analysis once and I think it bears another look: Interior/Exterior in the Harry Potter Series: Duality Expressed in Sirius Black and Remus Lupin (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3708/is_200801/ai_n25139249/pg_2) . It's a piece on the internal and external motivators of both Sirius Black and Remus Lupin and it makes many arguments which, while I disagree with some in point, are nonetheless very well supported. I should point out here that I don't really want to discuss Lupin too much here, since he has his own character analysis thread ;)...

But of Sirius, and the interaction between him and Lupin in terms of the latter's tendency to be commanded by his situation rather than the master of it, I think we can safely get into those waters, provided the emphasis is still on Sirius. (:love:)

:

Remus's friendship with Sirius, James, and Peter during his school days functions in much the same way. Although the four of them comprise a tight-knit group, a clear hierarchy exists, with Peter in the position of adoring follower of Sirius and James and Remus as the one in need of tight controls and parameters, including the expectation he will not speak out against the antics of the others. Even once Sirius, James, and Peter master the Animagus spell to spend full moons safely with Remus, their primary mission focuses on keeping Remus under control. Sirius in dog form and James as a stag are of adequate size to contain a werewolf if need be, but danger still exists. Remus recalls how their group spent full moons wandering around the area surrounding Hogwarts and the nearby village of Hogsmeade and acknowledges their recklessness, saying, "And there were near misses, many of them. We laughed about them afterwards. We were young, thoughtless-carried away with our own cleverness" (Azkaban 355). Remus also fails to put a stop to the constant tormenting of Snape by James and Sirius. As Head Boy, Remus held a position of authority and, as such, should have put a stop to such cruelty. He fails to do so, reminiscing later to Sirius, "Did I ever have the guts to tell you I thought you were out of order?" (Phoenix 671).

My point here is to enforce that Sirius was, in his youth and pre-Azkaban days, the master of his own life direction. He wrote the rules and then followed them as they suited his mood and purpose, which often put him at odds with others and, indeed, sometimes even threatened his safety and that of others, whereas others,

I agree with your assessment of Sirius here. :tu: I would only add that James was known to be the ringleader, so there was some give and take with respect to the whole situation, imo.

Lupin in particular, were more likely to allow themselves to be led, and when a situation arose that impacted him, he was more likely to roll with it than challenge it.

This is where I would have to disagree. I believe while at Hogwarts Lupin was willing to 'roll' with somethings, but I don't believe he left everything unchallenged. He spoke up to both Sirius and James in SWM, the former in disagreement and the latter in admonishment. When it came to his position as prefect and exerting hardline control over his best friends, however, he was definitely more willing to roll with their behavior he disagreed with, occassionally making them feel ashamed of themselves, but bascially doing nothing more. Kind of like Ron with Harry and the twins. I am not sure it would be called 'being led' though; both Remus and Ron were understood to know that they were letting poor behavior slide - which means they made a conscious decision to do little or nothing about it. It was not that Sirius and James were pressuring Remus not to say anything to them or write them up; it was an autonomous decision on Remus' part - just as it was on Ron's.

I am not certain how the animagus roamings would fit into this. The only reason Remus required control was because they all decided (Remus included) to leave the shack and go wandering about. Remus - as quoted by Green - did not say that he tried to stop his friends from doing this or that he even objected to it. He said he laughed at the close calls and disregarded them in the excitement of planning their subsequent excursion. That does not sound like he is being led to do anything - or rolling with anything either to me. In my judgment, it sounds like he was in on it.

Remus was listed on the prank cards, and we see this continued behavior in him as an adult (the Peeves bubble gum up the nose event.) Remus never objected to mischief and pranking in canon - he did object to hex wars though. So Green's bit about the expectation of James and Sirius that Remus would not speak out against their 'antics' is in my opinion incorrect because Remus was a willing participant in them. Note that I don't consider hex wars getting up to "antics", so if they are included, then I would say it only applied to that aspect because Remus too was a prankster. I think Remus would have sided with James on the pranks that went too far and I suspect Sirius would often like to carry them to that extent - but there too, Remus would not be led into participation, imo - James wasn't either.

Remus always had concerns when his werewolf state was at issue - but it seems to me that he didn't have a problem challenging his friends when it came to that - not at Hogwarts and indeed, not througout his life. In fact, his challenges were almost constant in the series, imo.

So I still remain unconvinced that Remus was prone to be led - although I agree that he 'rolled' with the hex wars his friends got into, but for reasons of his own, not because he was being led to do so. :)

In all, it is understandable that Sirius' incarceration and his later cloistering in Grimmauld Place would be so damaging to his spirit, leaving him drowning in the loss of control over his own life.

Agreed.

:lol:. That was a great 007 Bond movie, btw. Have you seen it?

I have seen only 3 movies of Bond. One was with Roger Moore and another with Sean Connery and one with Timothy Dalton (I think). I don't remember Never, Never. :D

From the Sirius Black thread

In some ways, that is correct. Sirius, like many other characters who go through similar suffering, did not choose for that suffering to happen. However, James and Lily's deaths and his subsequent incarceration were the results of a terrible mistake of his: Sirius and James underestimated Peter, turned down Dumbledore as SK, and chose a complicated plan which could easily go wrong and did.

Sirius himself admits in PoA that he "as good as killed [the Potters]", revealing to us that on some level, even he understands that he made a mistake.

I think James, Lily and Sirius were to blame for underestimating Peter. It merely shows that they were poor judges of character, for they were unable to see through Peter and his act. And they made another mistake by deciding to make the switch based on their thoughts that Remus was the traitor and Peter was not, instead of checking them for the dark mark or asking Dumbledore to check both Peter and Remus, before they went ahead IMO.

The very word betrayal means that the person had to be trusted or there would be nothing to betray, right? And that is what Peter's action was called in canon - and in interview by JKR - a betrayal. Peter betrayed Sirius (and his friends') trust.

For a person to be trusted Wicked, there must be something more than an opinion of a "weak, talentless thing" IMO.

They thought Peter was a weak, talentless thing and decided to switch; they did not think Peter was trusted and capable, that was the mistake and IMO it was abad one. You don;t choose people because they are weak and talentless as the SK against a person like Voldemort, you choose someone like Dumbeldore, the only one Voldemort actually feared IMO.

But they chose for all the wrong reasons and paid for it as well IMO. It was more than a mistake; it was their attitude that finally cost them. Their attitude of arrogance that Peter was incapable, their attitude of over confidence in their assumptions that Remus had to be the spy and so Peter could not. Sadly they paid for it and Harry too IMO.

For a person to be trusted Wicked, there must be something more than an opinion of a "weak, talentless thing" IMO.

There was. First, that is the way an irate, nearly out of his mind with fury, Sirius described Peter. Second, JKR said Peter had been a hero; so there is apparently much more to Peter than meets the eye. Third, Peter was their friend and so they would know much more about him than we could even guess at. They felt he was a loyal friend and I would opine that back in those days he would be described as less talented, but a real trouper that comes through - considering he was a hero and all.

But they chose for all the wrong reasons and paid for it as well IMO. It was more than a mistake; it was their attitude that finally cost them. Their attitude of arrogance that Peter was incapable, their attitude of over confidence in their assumptions that Remus had to be the spy and so Peter could not. Sadly they paid for it and Harry too IMO.

Well I addressed this is part above. In my opinion, you are making a lot of assumptions that to me, are not supported by the canon and/or directly contradict it, so I would have to respectfully disagree with your view of this. My view is entirely distinct. As I said, it was a betrayal - that word means that the betrayer is trusted, because if they are not, then their averse actions would not be a betrayal, but expected.

Everyone trusted Peter, Dumbledore, the Order, his friends and even Snape, who would have suggested him as the possible betrayer if he believed it. Peter fooled them all with Voldemort's help. Your point ignores that in my opinoin. Canon says that Sirius felt Remus was the spy (and visa versa) and that James trusted all of his friends, including Remus (who said it) and your point contradicts that assertion. Peter had shown himself to be less talented in canon (he required a lot of assistance to become an animagi and fell to Voldemort) and so no one felt he was a highly capable wizard, but that does not mean anyone felt he was useless and totally incapable of being trusted and remaining loyal - which your point appears to ignore, imo. The Potters wished for all of their friends and themselves (including their son) to live above all things - but your point appears to insinuate that all of them (Lily/James/Sirius) valued arrogance over their own lives and the well being of their friends and family. If JKR meant to show them as so arrogant as to be negligent, she would have had them declare they didn't need to go into hiding at all and sat with their baby on the front porch, boldy awaiting Voldemort to arrive so they could arrrogantly take him out.

Finally, I would disagree with your view because it blames the victims and ignores the villains, Voldemort, Snape and Peter, who planned, colluded, conspired and participated in carrying out the Potter's deaths - including Harry. These people were hunting down the Potters to kill them (although Snape attempted to backtrack a week before the murders; which does not exculpate him, but does help to mitigate his wrong), and they are the sole guilty and blameworthy parties in this scenario, imo. If these people had not so conspired to kill the Potters, they and their friends would not have had to do anything to protect themselves.

In any case, I respect your view, but we will have to agree to disagree. I believe we have discussed this before and it does not appear that either of us has changed our stance on the topic. :)

I think James, Lily and Sirius were to blame for underestimating Peter. It merely shows that they were poor judges of character, for they were unable to see through Peter and his act.

With all due respect, so was Dumbledore.

I think too much is being read into the narrative here. :) We have, in fact, hardly any canon to go on regards Peter and why his friends trusted him the way they did. (I even find his motive for betrayal not very convincingly put forward in the story, but that's another issue).

They thought Peter was a weak, talentless thing and decided to switch;

It never states in the text that James, Remus and Sirius (let alone Lily) thought that Peter was a 'weak, talentless thing'. Those are words that, as Wicked points out, Sirius flings at Peter in the Shack 13 years later: words filled with bitterness and venom from a Sirius wild with murderous rage (understandably so. ;) )

So I don't think we can extraploate from Sirius's words spoken in 1993 that in 1981 the Marauders thought that Peter was a 'weak, talentless thing': for one thing, that was purely Sirius's judgement, uttered many years later in hatred and anger ... and for another, surely Peter in 1981 must have given his fellow Marauders an impression of reliability and trustworthiness -- otherwise why would James and Lily have made him SK? It doesn't make sense otherwise. :)

There was. First, that is the way an irate, nearly out of his mind with fury, Sirius described Peter. Second, JKR said Peter had been a hero; so there is apparently much more to Peter than meets the eye. Third, Peter was their friend and so they would know much more about him than we could even guess at. They felt he was a loyal friend and I would opine that back in those days he would be described as less talented, but a real trouper that comes through - considering he was a hero and all.

Well, it is never stated in canon that Peter was a hero, and it is certainly not obvious to me that he was, so I am not sure about that argument. ;) But I do agree with you that there must have been something about Peter which made his friends trust him. Although canon is completely silent on what those qualities actually are, :whistle: nonetheless I feel that is a reasonable assumption to make. ;) Otherwise the implication is that James et al are stupid for trusting Peter, and I don't think people are stupid to trust close friends. The fault is the betrayer's alone. :cool:

Well, it is never stated in canon that Peter was a hero, and it is certainly not obvious to me that he was, so I am not sure about that argument. ;) But I do agree with you that there must have been something about Peter which made his friends trust him. Although canon is completely silent on what those qualities actually are, :whistle: nonetheless I feel that is a reasonable assumption to make. ;) Otherwise the implication is that James et al are stupid for trusting Peter, and I don't think people are stupid to trust close friends. The fault is the betrayer's alone. :cool:

I agree with you - I was just speaking in terms of what JKR was thinking as she wrote, based on what she said in that interview I posted about it. Nonetheless, I also agree with the rest of your points; especially the last because trusting someone you felt was solely weak and talentless and nothing else (friend or aquaintance), would not be arrogant, it would be utterly stupid.

I agree with you - I was just speaking in terms of what JKR was thinking as she wrote, based on what she said in that interview I posted about it. Nonetheless, I also agree with the rest of your points; especially the last because trusting someone you felt was solely weak and talentless and nothing else (friend or aquaintance), would not be arrogant, it would be utterly stupid.I don't agree. They must have liked Peter at least a little bit, because they let him hang around with them. I think all that mattered was the fact that Peter was their friend, so James, Lily, and Sirius really believed they could trust him. Since he was weak and talentless Voldemort would never suspect him so he was much safer a bet than Sirius. But James' problem was that he was too proud not to trust his friends. He also didn't care that Peter was weak and talentless because he was his friend. That was the bottom line.

I think at the first stage of the three Marauders' friendship with Peter, they probably just hung out with him because they felt bad for him, because I wouldn't think he was super-popular like they were. But at some point, after he had been around them for a long time, that must have turned into real friendship, therefore the trust in him as Secret Keeper. We never hear Remus say anything about him until the Shrieking Shack scene, and by that point they've figured out he wasn't really dead. So we don't know for sure what he thought of Peter, although whatever he thought of him would have been changed by his death.

I haven't debated with anyone for a while around these threads. Miss me? :evil:

I think James, Lily and Sirius were to blame for underestimating Peter. It merely shows that they were poor judges of character, for they were unable to see through Peter and his act. And they made another mistake by deciding to make the switch based on their thoughts that Remus was the traitor and Peter was not, instead of checking them for the dark mark or asking Dumbledore to check both Peter and Remus, before they went ahead IMO.

I disagree. I don't see why the victims should be blamed for who Peter was. No one knew that Peter was like that - even Dumbledore. IMO, they weren't underestimating him, they were overestimating his loyalty and sense of justice.

Furthermore, there is no canon that Remus was not trusted by James and Lily. We only know that Sirius felt that way. In that conversation in PoA, it was never mentioned that Lily and James felt that way. And, as I have said multiple times, if they didn't trust Remus, then it would make Remus' line in DH about how James belief in trusting friends useless.

They thought Peter was a weak, talentless thing and decided to switch; they did not think Peter was trusted and capable, that was the mistake and IMO it was abad one. You don;t choose people because they are weak and talentless as the SK against a person like Voldemort, you choose someone like Dumbeldore, the only one Voldemort actually feared IMO.


I think Sirius was exaggerating when he was talking about that in PoA. I go the impression that his words were mixed with his bitterness that formed over twelve years in Azkaban. His main point was that he didn't think Voldemort would fathom James trusting someone other than Sirius, who was well known to be James' closest friend.

But they chose for all the wrong reasons and paid for it as well IMO. It was more than a mistake; it was their attitude that finally cost them. Their attitude of arrogance that Peter was incapable, their attitude of over confidence in their assumptions that Remus had to be the spy and so Peter could not. Sadly they paid for it and Harry too IMO.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree. They must have liked Peter at least a little bit, because they let him hang around with them. I think all that mattered was the fact that Peter was their friend, so James, Lily, and Sirius really believed they could trust him. Since he was weak and talentless Voldemort would never suspect him so he was much safer a bet than Sirius. But James' problem was that he was too proud not to trust his friends. He also didn't care that Peter was weak and talentless because he was his friend. That was the bottom line.

I think at the first stage of the three Marauders' friendship with Peter, they probably just hung out with him because they felt bad for him, because I wouldn't think he was super-popular like they were. But at some point, after he had been around them for a long time, that must have turned into real friendship, therefore the trust in him as Secret Keeper. We never hear Remus say anything about him until the Shrieking Shack scene, and by that point they've figured out he wasn't really dead. So we don't know for sure what he thought of Peter, although whatever he thought of him would have been changed by his death.

:agree: Well said. Sirius said it clearly in PoA - they would have died for Peter. I doubt anyone who looks at a friend just as a "weak, talentless thing" would care enough to die for him or her. That line alone shed light onto the loyalty that James, Sirius and Remus possessed, a quality that Peter obviously lacked.

I don't agree. They must have liked Peter at least a little bit, because they let him hang around with them.

I wasn't saying they didn't like Peter. I feel they loved him as a friend.

I think all that mattered was the fact that Peter was their friend, so James, Lily, and Sirius really believed they could trust him. Since he was weak and talentless Voldemort would never suspect him so he was much safer a bet than Sirius.

But you are using the term "weak and talentless" - used by Sirius in a moment when he wanted to kill Peter. Don't you think he would use the most horrible language he could think up in those circumstances? I don't feel they would have described him that way in 1981.

But James' problem was that he was too proud not to trust his friends. He also didn't care that Peter was weak and talentless because he was his friend. That was the bottom line.

I would disagree because I see nothing in what you are stating James believed that speaks to being "proud or arrogant". What is there about being proud that relates to trusting your friends? If James and Lily placed their trust in Peter that means they had faith in him, despite his lesser ability as a wizard. If they did not, then selecting him would be stupid - not arrogant, imo. (Note JKR had Snape suggest this about his enemies, which to me indicates it is likely a mischaracterization in and of itself. And like you, he only mentions James, but Lily too took part in the decision - Sirius says this in POA. She was shown as an independent thinker and not exceedingly arrogant, so this doesn't square. Also, James head shrunk, so he too would not have been swayed by arrogance - but I don't see how arrogance fits in this situation in any case.) They were well aware that Voldemort might approach Peter first - they just felt it very unlikely. However that did not mean they believed Peter would betray them if he was approached, only that he would likely die. But what they believed would happen was that Sirius or Remus would be approached first and they too would likely die - first. That is why they were all in hiding, not just the Potters.

I wasn't saying they didn't like Peter. I feel they loved him as a friend.



But you are using the term "weak and talentless" - used by Sirius in a moment when he wanted to kill Peter. Don't you think he would use the most horrible language he could think up in those circumstances? I don't feel they would have described him that way in 1981.



I would disagree because I see nothing in what you are stating James believed that speaks to being "proud or arrogant". What is there about being proud that relates to trusting your friends? If James and Lily placed their trust in Peter that means they had faith in him, despite his lesser ability as a wizard. If they did not, then selecting him would be stupid - not arrogant, imo. (Note JKR had Snape suggest this about his enemies, which to me indicates it is likely a mischarization in and of itself. And like you, he only mentions James, but Lily too took part in the decision - Sirius says this in POA. She was shown as an independent thinker and not exceedingly arrogant, so this doesn't square. Also, James head shrunk, so he too would not have been swayed by arrogance - but I don't see how arrogance fits in this situation in any case.) They were well aware that Voldemort might approach Peter first - they just felt it very unlikely. However that did not mean they believed Peter would betray them if he was approached, only that he would likely die. But what they believed would happen was that Sirius or Remus would be approached first and they too would likely die - first. That is why they were all in hiding, not just the Potters.

Exactly. :agree:

I think they did see Pettigrew as being weaker overall - things did not come as easily to him as they did to James and Sirius and they knew that. He had more trouble with the academics and we see that in SWM with Pettigrew confessing that he had trouble with the werewolf question on their OWL in spite of the fact that one of his best friends was a werewolf. He had more difficulty with magic in general - demonstrated by the fact that James and Sirius had to give him a lot of help in becoming an animagus. The teachers recognized that as well - we hear McGonagall saying that Pettigrew was less talented as a wizard.

However, that doesn't factor in to their friendship. The friendship wasn't based on whether or not Pettigrew was as talented as they were or even how much talent he had as a wizard. We see Lily and James sitting with Pettigrew in the picture of the original Order that Moody showed Harry - they have their arms around him and they're smiling. They cared about him and liked him. We see Lily worrying about Pettigrew in the letter she wrote to Sirius - he was her friend and she didn't want him to be sad. They cared about him for the person they thought he was - not his magical ability. They would have protected him and given their lives for him because they loved him like a brother.

Sirius presents his opinion very harshly in POA. He's had 12 years to think about everything that happened and figure out what kind of person Pettigrew actually was. He's giving Harry his view with the benefit of hindsight and he holds himself responsible for not figuring out what kind of person Pettigrew was sooner. They chose Pettigrew for the switch because they knew he was not as talented as they were and believed that Voldemort would never expect them to choose Pettigrew because of that. Sirius is telling the truth there - he's just saying it much more harshly than he and James would have 12 years before when they believed him to be their friend. His anger is as much towards himself as it is Pettigrew because they believed that. They were deceived and betrayed by someone they believed to be their friend - someone they cared about and would have protected to the end even if it meant dying for them. They believed Pettigrew cared about them on the same level and it was a painful realization with a heavy price for Sirius to learn that Pettigrew had deceived them all.

But you are using the term "weak and talentless" - used by Sirius in a moment when he wanted to kill Peter. Don't you think he would use the most horrible language he could think up in those circumstances? I don't feel they would have described him that way in 1981.I think there is a bit of canon to back it up. Wormtail, from what we saw of him in SWM, didn't seem like a genius. He was trying to look on someone else's paper during the OWL, which says that he either didn't know the answers (about werewolves, no less) or that he wasn't confident in his talents. The other three are all talented wizards, and we see that Peter was "tagging along" after them. I never got the impression that he was too powerful. They wouldn't have made fun of Peter for not being as talented, but they probably still knew he was. He just seemed like the less likely person to choose as Secret Keeper, 1. because Sirius was James' closest friend, and 2. because Sirius was a more talented wizard than Peter.
I would disagree because I see nothing in what you are stating James believed that speaks to being "proud or arrogant". What is there about being proud that relates to trusting your friends? If James and Lily placed their trust in Peter that means they had faith in him, despite his lesser ability as a wizard. If they did not, then selecting him would be stupid - not arrogant, imo. (Note JKR had Snape suggest this about his enemies, which to me indicates it is likely a mischarization in and of itself. And like you, he only mentions James, but Lily too took part in the decision - Sirius says this in POA. She was shown as an independent thinker and not exceedingly arrogant, so this doesn't square. Also, James head shrunk, so he too would not have been swayed by arrogance - but I don't see how arrogance fits in this situation in any case.) They were well aware that Voldemort might approach Peter first - they just felt it very unlikely. However that did not mean they believed Peter would betray them if he was approached, only that he would likely die. But what they believed would happen was that Sirius or Remus would be approached first and they too would likely die - first. That is why they were all in hiding, not just the Potters.Sorry, maybe I worded my statement incorrectly- James would consider it a dishonor not to trust his friends. I agree with you that they trusted Peter; he was their friend after all and James trusted his friends. Despite Peter not being as talented as Sirius, they still felt they could trust him. Also he was less likely to be approached by Voldemort like you said. :)

I think there is a bit of canon to back it up. Wormtail, from what we saw of him in SWM, didn't seem like a genius. He was trying to look on someone else's paper during the OWL, which says that he either didn't know the answers (about werewolves, no less) or that he wasn't confident in his talents. The other three are all talented wizards, and we see that Peter was "tagging along" after them. I never got the impression that he was too powerful. They wouldn't have made fun of Peter for not being as talented, but they probably still knew he was. He just seemed like the less likely person to choose as Secret Keeper, 1. because Sirius was James' closest friend, and 2. because Sirius was a more talented wizard than Peter.
Sorry, maybe I worded my statement incorrectly- James would consider it a dishonor not to trust his friends. I agree with you that they trusted Peter; he was their friend after all and James trusted his friends. Despite Peter not being as talented as Sirius, they still felt they could trust him. Also he was less likely to be approached by Voldemort like you said. :)

Ah, I think I misunderstood you too, sorry. I think we pretty much agree. I also feel they believed him less talented, I just didn't think they'd of put it in the terms Sirius did in the shack back when they were friends. :lol:

BY MEESHA: However, that doesn't factor in to their friendship. The friendship wasn't based on whether or not Pettigrew was as talented as they were or even how much talent he had as a wizard. We see Lily and James sitting with Pettigrew in the picture of the original Order that Moody showed Harry - they have their arms around him and they're smiling. They cared about him and liked him. We see Lily worrying about Pettigrew in the letter she wrote to Sirius - he was her friend and she didn't want him to be sad. They cared about him for the person they thought he was - not his magical ability. They would have protected him and given their lives for him because they loved him like a brother.

I agree. Ironically, James and Lily were sacrificed for their friends by Peter's betrayal -because Voldemort knowing their whereabouts meant he would not go after Sirius or Remus. Of course in the aftermath, everyone's lives were a shambles anyway, so anyway things turned out it would have pretty much been a sad story for all. But that is the case in this type of situation where you have people conspiring to kill you - and by any means necessary - including the killing of your friends to find you.

There was. First, that is the way an irate, nearly out of his mind with fury, Sirius described Peter.

It also seems to be the truth because there isn't anything to contradict that in the books IMO.

Second, JKR said Peter had been a hero; so there is apparently much more to Peter than meets the eye.

Well I don't know; if she had meant to make Peter the Hero! I think she kind of failed IMO. :D

Third, Peter was their friend and so they would know much more about him than we could even guess at.

I agree, and I also think Peter knew tons about the Order, information which he used to pass on information to Voldemort for more than a year. That was also said by Sirius in a fury and I don't think he was wrong because those words were uttered in anger IMO. I think Sirius was stating the facts angrily more than anything else IMO.

They felt he was a loyal friend and I would opine that back in those days he would be described as less talented, but a real trouper that comes through - considering he was a hero and all.

This is where I doubt their sense of judgement. Including Lily's. For Peter to have joined Voldemort and stayed a DE for nearly 20 years; he went back; he did not want to accept his mistakes and repent for them; he went back to Voldemort saw Cedric killed and took Harry's blood (the son of his dearest friend whom he had already betrayed, but he was not averse to killing Harry at all) to resurrect Voldemort and was ready to choke Harry to death in DH.

Heroes don't do that. Mistakes and wrong choices everyone makes. I am a supporter of one such man who was a DE, who took the Prophecy to Voldemort knowing full well that a baby and a family would be killed. I call him a Hero because of not what he did as a DE but because of what he tried to do to remove the dirt attached to him for his acts as a DE.

Peter's choices were deliberate and Peter wantonly and deliberately and intentionally sold out his best friend's family to Voldemort and also ensured Sirius's arrest for his act and placed him in Azkaban.

These acts along with actions of passing on information to Voldemort for over an year before the Potters were killed was very much by choice and not because of anything else. These are not what a loyal friend does and these character traits don;t develop in a day IMO.

Lily, who "knows" Snape would become a DE some 2 years later and James and Sirius who have moved with Peter for more than 10 years could not see through him, is indicative of their arrogance that Peter was incapable of being a DE. That's how it looks to me IMO.

As I said, it was a betrayal - that word means that the betrayer is trusted, because if they are not, then their averse actions would not be a betrayal, but expected.

I agree; the betrayer is trusted. I am questioning the 3's basis for such trust more than anything else IMO.

Everyone trusted Peter, Dumbledore, the Order, his friends and even Snape, who would have suggested him as the possible betrayer if he believed it. Peter fooled them all with Voldemort's help. Your point ignores that in my opinoin.

I agree, Dumbledore was mistaken too IMO. He should have flushed out the spy; if he tried, we don;t see that in canon. Because the spy existed, many Order memebers died IMO.

I was talking about the switch in which Dumbeldore was not involved.

Canon says that Sirius felt Remus was the spy (and visa versa) and that James trusted all of his friends, including Remus (who said it) and your point contradicts that assertion.

Yes canon through Remus says that James thought it the height of dishonour to distrust (or mistrust?) his friends. And yet, canon also shows that James and Lily went ahead and made the switch without Remus's knowledge and with information from Sirius that he and Remus thought each other as the spy, James agreeing to the switch without telling Remus, shows that he aslo agreed with Sirius about the identity of the spy and traitor IMO.

Peter had shown himself to be less talented in canon (he required a lot of assistance to become an animagi and fell to Voldemort) and so no one felt he was a highly capable wizard, but that does not mean anyone felt he was useless and totally incapable of being trusted and remaining loyal - which your point appears to ignore, imo.

All the more reason IMO, that Peter should have never been chosen as SK.

The Potters wished for all of their friends and themselves (including their son) to live above all things - but your point appears to insinuate that all of them (Lily/James/Sirius) valued arrogance over their own lives and the well being of their friends and family.

I don't think I ever said they valued arrogance.

But I do feel that James and Sirius were arrogant enough to think that they were right simply because they felt they had all the answers. It shows when they don't take Dumbeldore into confidence and also decide without proper checking that one (Remus) could be the traitor and the other (Peter) is not IMO.

If JKR meant to show them as so arrogant as to be negligent, she would have had them declare they didn't need to go into hiding at all and sat with their baby on the front porch, boldy awaiting Voldemort to arrive so they could arrrogantly take him out.

This was almost tantamount ot that IMO. James and Lily did not even have their wands, so confident they were in a man, who they made SK without checking IMO. They were not betrayed after they checked and double checked and took the best possible steps; they were betrayed after decided that Peter was the best, even when they had Dumbledore's warning. I cannot but feel it was arrogance on part of James and Sirius and that Lily too was fooled and did not check Peter, Sirius, Remus or Dumbeldore properly.

Finally, I would disagree with your view because it blames the victims and ignores the villains, Voldemort, Snape and Peter, who planned, colluded, conspired and participated in carrying out the Potter's deaths - including Harry.

Is there any canon proof that Snape was also in the conspiracy to kill the Potters? Peter and Voldemort yes; Snape, I don't think so.

In any case, I respect your view, but we will have to agree to disagree. I believe we have discussed this before and it does not appear that either of us has changed our stance on the topic.

:tu:


With all due respect, so was Dumbledore.

Not on the switch, which is what we were discussing.

But Dumbledore was IMO certainly culpable by not taking adequate steps (we don't see in canon at least) to flush out the traitor.

But the switch was very much James, Sirius and Lily. And I do feel that the decision, in the light of Dumbledore's offer to be SK and warning about someone close to the Potters giving information about their whereabouts, was taken without proper verification.

I think too much is being read into the narrative here. :) We have, in fact, hardly any canon to go on regards Peter and why his friends trusted him the way they did. (I even find his motive for betrayal not very convincingly put forward in the story, but that's another issue).

I respect your opinion, but I feel that we have enough about Peter to know he was a traitor through and through. He is a DE from before betraying the Potters (Sirius says he was passing information to Voldmeort one year before he betrayed the Potters) until the time he chokes Harry and then dies IMO.

While his motives and reasons have not been stated clearly, I feel that Peter was a climber, creeper who grew on the support of those who were stronger than him and also choked them in the process. Peter never felt for any one of his crimes, at least not in canon.

IMO such people are also not very good friends and over a period of 10 years of moving in close contact with them would show that. Even if it did not and Peter was able to conceal his natural tendencies, I feel that James and Lily should have taken more care to choose the SK; more verification and more checking IMO.

Peter's character IMO did not change suddenly, because we have nothing in canon to tell us that something made Peter a DE. Peter tells Sirius that the DL was taking over everywhere, which I took to mean that Peter thought that the DL would win and so chose him over Dumbeldore and the Order.

James and Lily completely failed to assess his character in my opinion, for they went ahead with the switch.

The entire post is my opinion only.

I agree, and I also think Peter knew tons about the Order, information which he used to pass on information to Voldemort for more than a year. That was also said by Sirius in a fury and I don't think he was wrong because those words were uttered in anger IMO. I think Sirius was stating the facts angrily more than anything else IMO.

Actually, I think I would go along with that. I don't think that while they were still all friends, James, Sirius and Remus would ever have passed judgement on Peter as a "weak, talentless thing" : on the contrary, they accepted him into the group, even though they might have teased him a bit.

These acts along with actions of passing on information to Voldemort for over an year before the Potters were killed was very much by choice and not because of anything else. These are not what a loyal friend does and these character traits don;t develop in a day IMO.

I agree completely about such character traits not developing in a day. I don't believe in Peter being a brave hero and fighter for the Order one week and suddenly becoming a betrayer the next. That does not ring true at all! The fatal weakness in his character must have been there for years, and I think we have a strong hint of that, in canon.

Lily, who "knows" Snape would become a DE some 2 years later and James and Sirius who have moved with Peter for more than 10 years could not see through him, is indicative of their arrogance that Peter was incapable of being a DE. That's how it looks to me IMO.

I do agree with you that the Marauders and Lily had a blind spot regarding Peter. I truly hesitate to call it "arrogance" because that seems so harsh. Peter was obviously able to fool a lot of people, not just his closest friends.

I agree, Dumbledore was mistaken too IMO. He should have flushed out the spy; if he tried, we don;t see that in canon. Because the spy existed, many Order memebers died IMO.

Dumbledore makes a huge amount of mistakes, IMO, in canon, but that is for another thread. ;)

While his motives and reasons have not been stated clearly, I feel that Peter was a climber, creeper who grew on the support of those who were stronger than him and also choked them in the process. Peter never felt for any one of his crimes, at least not in canon.

I agree completely with this character assessment: that's how Rowling presents Peter in canon, to my mind.

Which is why I can't buy her statements about his ever having been a hero. At all. ;) I don't buy it. :) People just don't turn from being heroes into cowards overnight. You can't lay your life on the line for a cause one week and then be prepared to sell out your closest friends the next.

IMO such people are also not very good friends and over a period of 10 years of moving in close contact with them would show that. Even if it did not and Peter was able to conceal his natural tendencies, I feel that James and Lily should have taken more care to choose the SK; more verification and more checking IMO.

Actually, I think this is more the result of Rowling using Peter purely as a plot device, rather than it reflecting badly on James and Lily. ;) But I agree: it doesn't really add up and I think it's a big weakness in the plot because psychologically it just doesn't hang together.