The Marauders: Group Character Analysis

I don't understand the view that Lily and James should be blamed for what happened on Halloween 1981. It's not fair, IMO, to suggest that they are to blame for what happened to themselves and their son. Snape has more reason to be blamed because he told Voldemort the prophecy and was aware that a family would die. Yet I don't think he's to blame either. The only two people that should be blamed are Peter and Voldemort, and to put the blame on the victims rather than the people who are truly responsible is, IMO, unfair.

Of course the Potters were trusting. They didn't lose their head in the war which I find is an admirable trait. If they continued to have suspicion, then their relationship with Sirius, Remus, and Peter wasn't a friendship at all. Dumbledore did voice his concerns that someone close to them may be betraying them, but for all we know they could have assumed it was someone else in the Order. Even if that wasn't the case, then Harry is just as arrogant and foolish for trusting everyone in DH.

The Marauders were like family for Lily and James. If there were some people they could never bring themselves to be suspicious of, it was them. I'm sure many people wouldn't assume that their siblings or parents would want them dead, and the Potters are no exception.

Even if that wasn't the case, then Harry is just as arrogant and foolish for trusting everyone in DH.

But Harry did not. He talks a good game about no one being a traitor, but that's just a good leaderly reassurance to the others. Since he plans to go off on his own, and trust none of the Order with the thing he knows matters most.

But Harry did not. He talks a good game about no one being a traitor, but that's just a good leaderly reassurance to the others. Since he plans to go off on his own, and trust none of the Order with the thing he knows matters most.

I respectully disagree. Harry wasn't portrayed as the type to believe that just because the traitor wouldn't affect him (but could kill Lupin, Ron, Hermione, Molly...and um... his precious Ginny and others), he would just talk trust to act "leaderly" in a situation where he was clearly not the leader (7 Potters).

Harry, like his parents, truly was trusting of his friends. He knew that kind of person that Hagrid was, and it wasn't that he believed he was absolutely trustworthy (his POV tells us he got angry that he let himself remember the blabbermouth Hagrid could be) - but he refused to believe that Hagrid or anyone else present would purposely betray him (or even do so by "slipping up" and then not mention it).

That was the lesson JKR wanted to leave us with; not Lupin's "once bitten twice shy" message where one lowlife friend betrays and you lose faith in all your other friends. Lupin's my man, intelligent and a thinker; admittedly he was often "right on" the money with his remarks - but he was wrong that round. And they were betrayed by their own: Dumbledore - so having Harry become distrustful and start handing out polypotion juice to Ron and Hermione would have totally vindicated Lupin's idea and had some merit in the fact that one of their own had betrayed them. But that wasn't the message that prevailed. Harry demanded of himself that he trust everyone in the room, including Hagrid (blabbermouth and all) and he also trusted Hermione and Ron completely when they demanded to go on his adventure with him. Even when Ron left and returned (without them knowing what he'd really been doing other than what he told them) she had Harry and Hermione retain their trust in him. They did not test him for Polyjuice, imperious or anything else; they did not suspect him of betrayal or bewilderment/bewitching - they simply trusted Ron.

So it was the outstanding lesson she presented in the story of the Marauders as well. They also had reason to doubt their friend; like Hagrid, they knew he was the weak link - but unlike Hagrid, Peter fell and betrayed. Yes, sometimes you will get burned, but 99% of the time you won't (as 99% of James and Lily's friends did not betray them - and 99% of Harry's didn't betray him either, only Dumbledore.) She even had Remus and Sirius suspecting one another as the spy (as Bill, Fluer and Lupin were less trusting in 7 Potters) - but James, Lily and Harry were the people of focus and their message of trust prevailed over that of the others, who were proven mistaken for tossing mistrust in every direction, despite the people being close to them. I am not saying all readers will see it that way; but my impression was that was JKR's prevailing message because she always had Harry make them for us (either by willfully sticking to his guns and being right; or later recognizing he was wrong. Here, he stuck to his guns and was not shown to be wrong or even think he might be wrong to ever distrust his friends.) The irony is that people say the Potter's should have placed their trust in Dumbledore and they would not have been betrayed - which is true - but JKR then slaps that notion down by having Dumbledore be the betrayer of Harry. :lol:. Yes, even the presumably wisest and most saintly wizard can betray for their own reasons. But that speaks to the character and morality of the betrayer, not the good friends who placed their trust.

Peter and Dumbledore were both looking at the "big Picture" to justify their betrayal and both instances resulted in the deaths of people very close to them (Peter/the Potters; Dumbledore/Moody), plus collateral damage (Dumbledore/George's ear, Hedwig; Peter/Sirius Jail, etc.) Some might see Dumbledore's greater good as a better justification than Peter's greater good via Voldemort - but it all boils down to the same thing in the end to me. Betrayal of trust and death as a result - equally horrible in my eyes on both the parts of Peter and Dumbledore with the immaterial exception of Peter having the intent to cause death and Dumbledore recklessly disregarding the high risk of death - but at law, there is little practical difference between the two.

I don't understand the view that Lily and James should be blamed for what happened on Halloween 1981. It's not fair, IMO, to suggest that they are to blame for what happened to themselves and their son.

IMO they are to be blamed, because they did not do their best.

Snape has more reason to be blamed because he told Voldemort the prophecy and was aware that a family would die.

I don't know about more blame, but I would say that Snape was indeed culpable the moment he took the Prophecy to Voldemort, knowing that it would result in the death of a child and its family. That family happened to be the Potters.

Yet I don't think he's to blame either. The only two people that should be blamed are Peter and Voldemort, and to put the blame on the victims rather than the people who are truly responsible is, IMO, unfair.

Snape's actions were that of a loyal DE at that time. He was culpable to the extent that he did not care a baby/family could die because of his actions.He was punished IMO when that family happened to be the Potters. He realised his mistakes at that time and then until his death, worked against the evil he was part of at one time IMO.

Voldemort was evil; he did not care for lives; he cared only for power and sought it any way he could. He had no right and wrong, only actions based on their result. He was a Dark Lord, who saw Harry as a threat because of the Prophecy and sought to remove that threat by any means.

Peter was not like Snape or Voldemort. He was a friend. He knew. And then he betrayed.

Foe example would Snape have taken the Prophecy to Voldemort had he known it was Lily and her son the Prophecy mentioned or that Voldemort would choose? I think Snape would die and sell his soul rather than do that and at that time, Lily had broken with him and had married his hated enemy and was very happy with him.

Peter on the contrary was a trusted friend, who took that trust and abused it. I think he was the worst because he betrayed.

And when the Potters came to know of a traitor who was "close" to them, they IMO disregarded it and by doing so paid for it.

Of course the Potters were trusting.

The Potters were not trusting. They understood the need for going into hiding to avoid capture/killing by Voldemort. They trusted wrongly though IMO.

They didn't lose their head in the war which I find is an admirable trait. If they continued to have suspicion, then their relationship with Sirius, Remus, and Peter wasn't a friendship at all. Dumbledore did voice his concerns that someone close to them may be betraying them, but for all we know they could have assumed it was someone else in the Order.

For someone else in the Order the switch need not have been made. It was to protect the Potters against Remus that the switch was made IMO.

Even if that wasn't the case, then Harry is just as arrogant and foolish for trusting everyone in DH.

zg's already answered this. To add to her point, had Harry been in charge of his family/friends at that time and he made a statement like this, I think I would call him foolish, arrogant and totally unable to see facts. For in the 7 Potters they were betrayed and if Harry wanted to close his eyes on that fact, well I would think less of him for that.

Lupin and Kingsley are not thought of badly for wanting to check Harry and others in the Fallen Warrior. I only think it adds to their respect.

The Marauders were like family for Lily and James. If there were some people they could never bring themselves to be suspicious of, it was them. I'm sure many people wouldn't assume that their siblings or parents would want them dead, and the Potters are no exception.

And yet the switch was made to keep Remus out of it IMO.
--------------

@Eliza101, I agree we don't know if Peter was marked at that time, but we do know that there was a traitor close to the Potters at that time. And that traitor was working was Voldemort, whether he was marked or not. Personally, I think he was marked, but I agree there isn't any canon about this.

I don't understand the view that Lily and James should be blamed for what happened on Halloween 1981. It's not fair, IMO, to suggest that they are to blame for what happened to themselves and their son.

It's completely unfair and no one who has suggested it is fair to blame them, has provided any canon proof to back up their assertion, imo. JKR had Snape make this remark in canon; it was done in bad taste and he was summarily slammed into a wall and left unconscious with no one caring that he lay bleeding and possibly dead. That is her canon response to his suggestion - and no one ever brought it up again or attempted to defend it because, imo, it is an invalid exercise to blame victims in general, but more so for people who don't have all of the facts, like Snape. (POA, Servant of Lord Voldemort)

She did this with Voldemort also - having him say that both James and then Lily were careless and stupid, respectively, for trusting their friends and putting their wand down even for a second. But he was then summarily dusted in a "look who's stupid now" move on JKR's part for arrogantly trusting that all the dark magic and such he knew was enough - it wasn't - and his plans for attack failed. She then went on to rub his face in it by having Harry trust his friends to the end - despite being betrayed - and despite having a loving good person suggest otherwise this time - showing that in the end, trusting ones friends is the better way to go about life, imo. (DH)

Criminals often try to reduce their guilt by blaming the victims (they left the front door unlocked!); but the courts take a very dim view of this and not only completely thrust the defense aside, but go on to condemn the criminal for even suggesting it in their written opinions; declaring it a deplorable means of attempting to mitigate their culpability.



zg's already answered this. To add to her point, had Harry been in charge of his family/friends at that time and he made a statement like this, I think I would call him foolish, arrogant and totally unable to see facts. For in the 7 Potters they were betrayed and if Harry wanted to close his eyes on that fact, well I would think less of him for that.

Lupin and Kingsley are not thought of badly for wanting to check Harry and others in the Fallen Warrior. I only think it adds to their respect.

But Zg said the opposite; she said Harry was making a 'leaderly statement' as if he were one. While I agree with you he was not; he didn't check Hagrid, the person he suspected might be the betrayer if anyone was - even if inadvertently. He refused to check him however, despite Lupin's words. I respect your right to call it foolish, but I would fervently disagree. I think it is living the life of one who is fooling yourself if you claim to call someone a friend and then don't place your trust in them - especially in life and death situations. There was a good basis for Hagrid being guilty; but it comes down to 'would he do it or not?' If it is truly believed to be a beloved friend, then the answer is no, he would not imo. One is not always going to be correct perhaps, but better to be burned than distrustful of all the friends you claim to love; imo, our world would be a very unhappy place if that were the case.

I

@Eliza101, I agree we don't know if Peter was marked at that time, but we do know that there was a traitor close to the Potters at that time. And that traitor was working was Voldemort, whether he was marked or not. Personally, I think he was marked, but I agree there isn't any canon about this.

I reread the GOF 'The Death Eaters' and you are correct, Peter has the mark, but we don't know for sure when he got it. It could have been after he proved his loyalty to LV when he brought the information about where the Potters were, or equally it could have been earlier. The reason I don't think it could have been earlier is because he was mixing with the Order at the time and I don't think having LV's mark on his arm would have been a great thing to wear. As to the assertion that Lily and James were careless and gave LV the opening to kill them, I do not think that flies. For all the reasons I gave earlier and also for the moral reason that to blame the victim is just plain wrong, IMO. Stretch this out and you can blame someone for carrying a lot of money and then being robbed, or a girl for wearing a short skirt and then being assualted. Any wrongdoer can find an excuse for his wrongdoing and blaming the victim is an old method of misdirecting the culpability in a crime. That does not make it right. IMO, Lily and James took stringent measures to stay alive but the truth of the matter is that they could not live under house arrest forever. They were under for over a year, it was in a way like being in a prison, and they were innocent. They cannot be blamed for searching with their freinds for a way to end it. They must have discussed it thoroughly with Sirius and probably Peter. Lupin, for whatever reason was not there. Dumbledore could have been more open with them and told him of his suspicions about the Horcruxes. Or had he figured them out at that time? Anyway, IMO they were not careless, arrogant or slipshod in the plan. They were extremely unlucky and betrayed.

I don't understand the view that Lily and James should be blamed for what happened on Halloween 1981. It's not fair, IMO, to suggest that they are to blame for what happened to themselves and their son. Snape has more reason to be blamed because he told Voldemort the prophecy and was aware that a family would die. Yet I don't think he's to blame either. The only two people that should be blamed are Peter and Voldemort, and to put the blame on the victims rather than the people who are truly responsible is, IMO, unfair.

I could not agree more. :)

IMO they are to be blamed, because they did not do their best.

Do you think that's how Harry sees it? Do you think he thought that his parents didn't do their best and were to be blamed for what happened to them, and himself? :huh:

For someone else in the Order the switch need not have been made. It was to protect the Potters against Remus that the switch was made IMO.

What canon evidence is there for this, though? :huh: All we have to go on is Sirius saying in PoA that he suspected Remus and Remus saying he had suspected Sirius. That's it. There is no evidence elsewhere that Lily and James had also suspected Remus, is there? Or have I missed something? What other textual evidence is this theory based on? :)

Personally, I find this whole plot convoluted and confusing. For me, one of the most infuriating things in the Potterverse is the glaring lack of a truly convincing motive for the depth and horror of Peter's betrayal. Peter is a Plot Device, when all's said and done. He's simply not a three-dimensional character in the way the other Marauders are. We get quite a vivid impression of James from the brief little glimpses we get of him. Sirius and Remus are both well-drawn, complex characters.

Peter is not. :) Even when we see him at 15, in SWM, he comes across as utterly creepy and obnoxious and I have no idea what the other Marauders ever saw in him and why the heck they allowed him into the gang, because we sure aren't shown any convincing traits of Peter's in canon. :) He even fails to convince me as a villain ... what does he get out of serving Voldemort, again? ;) Precisely nothing. :lol: Oh, and having to serve Severus, Cissy and Bella wine. :evil:

The one, single, positive thing we ever see of Peter is when Lily refers to him in the letter to Sirius and it's obvious he seemed like a close friend. Although he might have had a grudge against Lily for her questionable taste in nicknames, I suppose. :whistle: ('Wormy'??????? :huh: I ask you. :lol: )

That's it. There's nothing more in canon which paints a solid, believable friendship. That's because Peter is, as I say, a Plot Device whose sole purpose in the story is to betray Lily and James. He is not, IMO, a convincing character in his own right.

However. Be that as it may, I really don't see what point is served by blaming Lily and James for their own deaths. They made a catastrophic mistake in trusting Peter, but the notion of blaming victims for their own betrayals and murders is quite foreign to me, I'm afraid. :)

I don't see the point in blaming Lily and James for a Plot Device either. ;)

But Zg said the opposite; she said Harry was making a 'leaderly statement' as if he were one. While I agree with you he was not; he didn't check Hagrid, the person he suspected might be the betrayer if anyone was - even if inadvertently. He refused to check him however, despite Lupin's words. I respect your right to call it foolish, but I would fervently disagree. I think it is living the life of one who is fooling yourself if you claim to call someone a friend and then don't place your trust in them - especially in life and death situations. There was a good basis for Hagrid being guilty; but it comes down to 'would he do it or not?' If it is truly believed to be a beloved friend, then the answer is no, he would not imo. One is not always going to be correct perhaps, but better to be burned than distrustful of all the friends you claim to love; imo, our world would be a very unhappy place if that were the case.

I can't speak for zg, but I thought she meant leaderly in reference to being the Chosen One and so Harry's comments would reassure others. But I may be wrong about understanding her post. :)

Her other point I agree with as well; Harry for all the saying he trusts everyone, does not trust even Lupin, with information about horcruxes and the work Dumbeldore left him. Not even Arthur Weasley and not Ginny IMO.

I would not say that Harry did grave wrong to those people who were willing to die for him, fight for him, by not sharing with them what Dumbelore said he could not. I would say Harry commanded onl;y more respect, as I feel Lupin and Shaklebolt did in the 7 Potters. Such checking never took anything away from them IMO.

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

I think it depends on what is more important to a person. To me, even with having best friends (I mean friends who are very close and not casual friends) whom I can count on one hand and have a couple of fingers left over, I know what I would do, if I were in James's position. To trust my friends or not would be a relatively easy decision, for the guilt of not trusting 2 (the third is a traitor anyway) for the rest of my life and since I am also crazy, I would probably punish myself by making sure I would not have close friends because I hurt these 2; the choice would be my family. I would not trust any of these 3 friends; I would take my family far away without anyone's knowledge and try my best to keep them safe IMO. Because one of them was a traitor and they could kill me and my family.

I feel it was the same for James and Lily too. Where they made their mistake was in trusting Sirius's suspicions without basis. Because James trusted Sirius. But as an adult with a responsibility to save himself and his family can he and Lily simply trust one friend, when they were still not sure which friend was the traitor? That was their mistake IMO.

It was Sirius who suspected Remus. It was Sirius who pesuaded James and Lily to make the switch. James and Lily were persuaded. I feel that was the mistake. For we don't have anything in canon to tell us Remus was in any way acting suspicious. On the other hand, we have Lily's letter to tell us Peter was not himself right from the time around HArry's birthday IMO.

Stretch this out and you can blame someone for carrying a lot of money and then being robbed, or a girl for wearing a short skirt and then being assualted.

When one is travelling in an area where one knows there are thieves, it is caution not to take a lot of money or least make sure if carrying a huge amount of money is unavoidable, to protect it.

In a state in India, there is an area, through which if one would go, would mean being robbed 5 times out of 10. Anyone going that way would make sure they had no valuables and money.

Those who did not know about the robbers in that area, would be robbed, and it was not their fault, but if a guy who knows about the thieves and still carries cash with him, thinking he can cheat them, could be lucky or he could get caught. If he escaped, he's saved, if he's caught, he has only himself to blame IMO.

Of course the robbers, the state Government and the police whose duty to catch those robbers are to be blamed too, as would be the robbers themselves, who are doing so much wrong, but this guy also shares the blame for being over confident/reckless or careless IMO. He should have exercised more caution IMO.

Any wrongdoer can find an excuse for his wrongdoing and blaming the victim is an old method of misdirecting the culpability in a crime.

Blaming the Potters as I am, I also am not taking the blame away from Voldemort, Peter and Snape.

Lily and James took stringent measures to stay alive but the truth of the matter is that they could not live under house arrest forever. They were under for over a year, it was in a way like being in a prison, and they were innocent. They cannot be blamed for searching with their freinds for a way to end it.

I only differ with the opinion that they did not do the searching throughly.

Do you think that's how Harry sees it?

No. :) This is how I see it. :)

Do you think he thought that his parents didn't do their best and were to be blamed for what happened to them, and himself? :huh:

I don't know how Harry sees it. I would presume that he would feel that they should have taken up on Dumbeldore's offer, but I really don't know.

What canon evidence is there for this, though? :huh: All we have to go on is Sirius saying in PoA that he suspected Remus and Remus saying he had suspected Sirius. That's it. There is no evidence elsewhere that Lily and James had also suspected Remus, is there? Or have I missed something? What other textual evidence is this theory based on? :)

What Sirius and Remus say are canon. Peter does not dispute it as well. If Sirius suspected Remus (this is canon) why would he not share his suspicions with James and Lily? If he did, as I think he did, had James not agreed, it would have been a huge point IMO, and one which would have found place in canon, for it shows that James and Lily never believed as Sirius did that Remus could be a traitor. But that point is not there IMO.

Remus's words in POA says that he was not told about the switch because he was suspected to be the traitor, is also canon IMO.

What is an assumption and a reasonable one in my opinion is that Sirius would have told James and Lily about suspicions he had about Remus. Sirius was not Remus's friend at that time and he was James's. So I feel he would have shared his suspicions about Remus to James and Lily. That James and Lily went ahead with the switch makes me feel that they too agreed.

Had they not, I think Sirius would have told Remus so, for it would be cruel of him to make Remus feel that James and Lily too did not trust him.

But in canon all we have is Sirius feeling guilty that he "persuaded" the Potters. And that they were persuaded to make the switch IMO.

I feel it was the same for James and Lily too. Where they made their mistake was in trusting Sirius's suspicions without basis. Because James trusted Sirius. But as an adult with a responsibility to save himself and his family can he and Lily simply trust one friend, when they were still not sure which friend was the traitor? That was their mistake IMO.
I'm sure that James and Lily would have thought about it too.Its not like they blindly trusted and accepted whatever Sirius said.Of course, the fact that Sirius felt so may have influenced them.But,I'm of the opinion that James and Lily had enough sense to think it over too.Something as big and crucial as this, I'm sure they would have put their heads together and talked about it.Its not just going on what Sirius said.

It was Sirius who suspected Remus. It was Sirius who pesuaded James and Lily to make the switch. James and Lily were persuaded. I feel that was the mistake. For we don't have anything in canon to tell us Remus was in any way acting suspicious. On the other hand, we have Lily's letter to tell us Peter was not himself right from the time around HArry's birthday IMO.
Sirius did suspect Remus, but there is NO canon that says that James and Lily didnt.There is nothing in the book which says that James and Lily did not suspect Remus and believed in Remus' guilt, only because Sirius said so.Just because he persuaded them doesnt mean that they didnt think over it.Therefore, with that vital piece of information not with us, I wouldnt speculate and say that Sirius was the reason the switch occured.Atleast thats my opinion:)

Therefore, with that vital piece of information not with us, I wouldnt speculate and say that Sirius was the reason the switch occured.Atleast thats my opinion:)

"Harry...I as good as killed them,' he croaked. 'I persuaded Lily and James to change to Peter at the last moment, persuaded them to use him as SK instead of me...I'm to blame, I know it...'

"Wouldn't Sirius have told you they'd changed the plan?'

'Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter,'

We have canon Remus was thought the spy by Sirius. I feel this is what he persuaded James and Lily to believe and because they made the switch without Remus's knowledge, I think they were persuaded IMO. :)

What we don't have is the reason why Sirius suspected Remus.

Of course the robbers, the state Government and the police whose duty to catch those robbers are to be blamed too, as would be the robbers themselves, who are doing so much wrong, but this guy also shares the blame for being over confident/reckless or careless IMO. He should have exercised more caution IMO.This is totally an exercise in circular reasoning, IMO.

Which came first, chicken or egg?; Little old lady assualted for walking home after the sunset, just asking to be attacked, and got what she deserved; People leave their doors unlocked, get broken into and are rob/assaulted/killed, they were just asking for it because they should have locked their doors; People taking money out of an ATM get robbed at knife point, should have known better, should have conducted their transaction in the safety of the bank with lots of people and security around; If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.

All of the above are illogical circular arguments.

The Potters were killed because they put their trust in someone and that person betrayed them. Yes, it was terrible, but hardly their fault. I'm sorry but I so completely disagree with the illogical reasoning used to determine that the victims of the crime, in this case cold-blooded murder, bear responsibility for their own deaths.

James trusted Sirius, Remus, and Peter. All of them were in the Order. Remus was supported financially by James because he couldn't get a job due to his status as a werewolf and James would mention Remus's "furry little problem" to him.

Sirius was a bold risk taker; Pettigrew set him up to take the fall. Was it his fault that Pettigrew was so very good at lying that when Sirius was captured no one, no one believed him, not even Dumbledore {who gave testimony against him to the Ministry}, or Remus? No, that wasn't Sirius's fault.

Peter was a weak hangers-on who just happened to be much more talented at keeping secrets, and lying, and doing bits of magic than anyone, the Maruader's, McGonagall, Lily, Rosmerta, or Dumbledore ever expected or believed.

The established facts are that there was a prophecy made prior to Harry's birth. Snape overheard the prophecy and revealed it to Voldemort. Voldemort watched and waited to see if the part he'd heard came to fruition. Voldemort then interpreted it to mean the Potters. Then he put into motion the plan of getting the Potters; he recruits Wormtail a year prior to the Potters murders. About a week prior to their deaths, Harry'd be about fifteen months old, they took Dumbledore's advice and used the Fidelius Charm, choosing Pettigrew rather than Sirius as Secret Keeper, at Sirius's insistance. Peter betrayed the Potters to Voldemort and Voldemort killed them.

They were at war. Didn't know who to trust. Knew someone close to the Potters was passing info. It was reasonable to assume anyone who was close to them could have been passing that info: Bathilda Bagshot {visited the Potters}; the cat {could have been part-kneazle, animagus, etc}; Sirius; Remus; Peter; and a miriad of others, such as some of Lily's close friends {of whom we hear little} or other members of the Order.

The Potters were killed because they put their trust in someone and that person betrayed them. Yes, it was terrible, but hardly their fault. I'm sorry but I so completely disagree with the illogical reasoning used to determine that the victims of the crime, in this case cold-blooded murder, bear responsibility for their own deaths.

I respectfully disagree. Everything including your comments about circular illogical resoning would have been true, had Dumbeldore not got the information of a traitor and passed it on to them. The moment he did and when we have canon that Sirius suspected Remus to be that traitor and that was the reason he did not know about the switch, everything changes IMO.

Do you feel James and Lily trusting their friends in the light of this information is correct?

I don't and I respectfully disagree with you if you feel it was indeed correct of them to go on trusting their friends with this kind of information in their hand IMO.

We have canon Remus was thought the spy by Sirius. I feel this is what he persuaded James and Lily to believe and because they made the switch without Remus's knowledge, I think they were persuaded IMO. :)

What we don't have is the reason why Sirius suspected Remus.
I agree that he persuaded them..but that doesnt mean that James and Lily couldnt think for their own and decide.Thats why I feel and repeat that such an important decision as this wouldnt have been taken just due to persuasion.It would have been well analyzed and thought about by James and Lily,IMO.Sirius wasnt the sole reason for the switch..I'm pretty sure James knew the risks he was taking and he would have certainly thought about it too.



Sirius was a bold risk taker; Pettigrew set him up to take the fall. Was it his fault that Pettigrew was so very good at lying that when Sirius was captured no one, no one believed him, not even Dumbledore {who gave testimony against him to the Ministry}, or Remus? No, that wasn't Sirius's fault.
Exactly my point.:agree:


They were at war. Didn't know who to trust. Knew someone close to the Potters was passing info. It was reasonable to assume anyone who was close to them could have been passing that info: Bathilda Bagshot {visited the Potters}; the cat {could have been part-kneazle, animagus, etc}; Sirius; Remus; Peter; and a miriad of others, such as some of Lily's close friends {of whom we hear little} or other members of the Order.
Yup.Thats even more reason for me to think that James and Lily considered and thought a lot before the infamous 'switch'.

I respectfully disagree. Everything including your comments about circular illogical resoning would have been true, had Dumbeldore not got the information of a traitor and passed it on to them. The moment he did and when we have canon that Sirius suspected Remus to be that traitor and that was the reason he did not know about the switch, everything changes IMO. We also have canon that Remus suspected Sirius. That the entire wizarding world suspected Sirius after the fact. Were they right? NO! We also have canon, several pieces of which clearly tell us that the wizarding world was at war and they, the magical populace, didn't know who to trust. Trust they did. Were they wrong? NO!

Based upon that flawed line of reasoning, James and Lily had absolutely no reason to believe in and trust in Dumbledore when told they were in grave danger. They would never have gone into hiding, would never have trusted his judgement regarding the Fidelius Charm. In fact, they would have and should have promptly dropped each and every one of their friends due to utter distrust of them all.

Yet we know that they did, indeed, believe Dumbledore. They took his concerns to heart. They did use the Fidelius Charm to protect themselves and their small child. James believed that Sirius would never betray him, which is why he was chosen as Secret Keeper, initially. Was James wrong to have trusted Sirius? NO! Sirius would never have betrayed James and Lily and his godson. Sirius suggested using Peter as Secret Keeper while allowing everyone to believe he, Sirius, was the Keeper so as to draw people to him and hopefully flush out the traitor. Was this wrong? Obviously it had disastrous consequences.

Victim blaming simply demonizes the individuals who've suffered by blaming wholly or partially for their suffering, while diverting culpability from the actual perpetrator(s) of the crime. I totally disagree with it.

Do you feel James and Lily trusting their friends in the light of this information is correct?

I don't and I respectfully disagree with you if you feel it was indeed correct of them to go on trusting their friends with this kind of information in their hand IMO.Yes, I do, and I respectfully disagree with the argument of pro-victim blaming.

Yet we know that they did, indeed, believe Dumbledore. They took his concerns to heart. They did use the Fidelius Charm to protect themselves and their small child. James believed that Sirius would never betray him, which is why he was chosen as Secret Keeper, initially. Was James wrong to have trusted Sirius? NO! Sirius would never have betrayed James and Lily and his godson. Sirius suggested using Peter as Secret Keeper while allowing everyone to believe he, Sirius, was the Keeper so as to draw people to him and hopefully flush out the traitor. Was this wrong? Obviously it had disastrous consequences.
.

I tend to agree with this paragraph :agree:.Sirius did it all for the good of his friend.He suspected Remus and probably had his reasons to do so.But that doesnt mean that he was the only one to suspect Remus.That is why I said we do not have enough canon that Sirius was the only person to suspect Remus.A lot of others may have done so too.And that is why I believe that Sirius wasnt the only reason for the "switch".

P.S.Sorry if I've been repetitive, I just want to get my point through:)

I can't speak for zg, but I thought she meant leaderly in reference to being the Chosen One and so Harry's comments would reassure others. But I may be wrong about understanding her post. :)

Her other point I agree with as well; Harry for all the saying he trusts everyone, does not trust even Lupin, with information about horcruxes and the work Dumbeldore left him. Not even Arthur Weasley and not Ginny IMO.

I would not say that Harry did grave wrong to those people who were willing to die for him, fight for him, by not sharing with them what Dumbelore said he could not. I would say Harry commanded onl;y more respect, as I feel Lupin and Shaklebolt did in the 7 Potters. Such checking never took anything away from them IMO.

I respect your view; but you changed the entirety of what was being "trusted" in order to make your point. Harry didn't trust certain people with "information" - well neither did his parents - they didn't tell everyone who the secret keeper was, or even that Voldemort was hunting them. But Harry did place his "trust" in his friends, as his parents did with respect to the idea that they would not betray him (meaning agree to work Voldemort and not tell him, but rather help kill him.) He never tested Lupin for polyjuice or the imperius curse when he came by #12G, he only heard him declare who he was to the spell - and Lupin told him it wasn't good enough. It didn't matter what Lupin said, the next time Harry was confronted with the issue he still trusted. Harry never checked Ron when he returned to the camp to ensure he hadn't actually cut a deal with Voldemort in his absence, he simply trusted that Ron as a friend, would not do that. Harry didn't check Neville at the final battle, even though Neville had been tortured by DEs and could have been made to cut a deal with Voldemort in his absence from Harry; Harry trusted him with the act of killing Nagini, just because he was a friend.

So you would have to provide an example of Harry not placing his trust in a friend for your point to be valid imo, because I feel one cannot distinguish on the mere fact that Harry did not share information with everyone, because his parents didn't either.

Harry told Ron and Hermione after Dumbeldore told Harry he may tell them, when Harry asked him after their first lesson. Even with respect to the Prophecy, Harry does not tell Ron and Hermione until Dumbeldore tells him to tell them in the Burrow Shed (I think) IMO.
-----------

I don't think I am posting that everyone should be checking everyone else all the time. I am sorry if my posts sounded so.

I am making a point of trusting if and when there is specific information that a traitor is among the friends. How does one go about that? Well IMO one tries and finds out who the traitor is and takes care of them, or one protects oineself from all the friends, because the traitor is still hidden.

What happened here was James and Lily trusted 2 of their friends for no apparent reason and shunned another for no reason in canon.

While there may have been genuine reasons, it does not find place in canon and had there been genuine reaosn I think those reaosns would have found place in canon and Sirius would not have been so guilty, for he went ahead with information available to him at that time IMO.

But that was not Sirius's reactions. His reactions were of guilt and horror. "I as good as killed them" was what he said. Not "what could I do? There was so much evidence against Remus that I was taken in as were James and Lily" IMO.

I am making a point of trusting if and when there is specific information that a traitor is among the friends. How does one go about that? Well IMO one tries and finds out who the traitor is and takes care of them, or one protects oineself from all the friends, because the traitor is still hidden.From my perspective, Sirius and James knew each other a heck of a lot better than Dumbledore, just as Harry knew Dumbledore a whole heck of a lot better than Ron and Hermione did. We're told that the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore was unique, not truly Headmaster/student but actual friendship, respect, and love.

I really don't see why blind, wholehearted trust should be awarded Dumbledore over that of people that James knew better and trusted as much, if not more so.

To me, you seem to be saying that Dumbledore told the Potters they were in danger and so all of the Potters friends/associates should have been suspect and broken off contact with. However, this misses the forest for the trees, as Dumbledore was also a "friend". So it would logically follow that Dumbledore should also have been suspect, his information questioned, and his "friendship" terminated.

Then we know that he totally got his information from a known enemy, too, a Death Eater. Info from a person that James would never have trusted, someone he loathed. What Dumbledore did and didn't tell them regards the prophecy, we don't know. Dumbledore most assuredly, though it's just my opinion, withheld the fact that the information he was working upon came from Snape.

Was this withheld because Dumbledore didn't trust the Potters and the rest of the Marauders and members of the Order? Or because he rightfully knew that it would be questioned and discarded as unreliable and that people would begin to think that he, Dumbledore, was cracked?

What happened here was James and Lily trusted 2 of their friends for no apparent reason and shunned another for no reason in canon.They also trusted Dumbledore, another friend, on upon what evidence did they have to work with to do that?

Harry told Ron and Hermione after Dumbeldore told Harry he may tell them, when Harry asked him after their first lesson. Even with respect to the Prophecy, Harry does not tell Ron and Hermione until Dumbeldore tells him to tell them in the Burrow Shed (I think) IMO.

This was prior to 7 Potters; there was no suspected traitor during the time you are speaking about here, as I recall.

I don't think I am posting that everyone should be checking everyone else all the time. I am sorry if my posts sounded so.

I am making a point of trusting if and when there is specific information that a traitor is among the friends. How does one go about that? Well IMO one tries and finds out who the traitor is and takes care of them, or one protects oineself from all the friends, because the traitor is still hidden.

I respect your view, but you said that Harry behaved correctly and the Potters did not. But I don't see any difference. Harry trusted Ron and Hermione, but he knew there was a traitor among the friends. They had been betrayed in 7 Potters, by someone close to them who knew all about them. Everyone admitted that, even Harry. And yet he continued to trust that none of his friends would betray him. He did not protect himself from his friends; he went on a quest with them and when Ron went away and came back, he continued to trust him, without protecting himself from Ron or trying to figure out if he'd been the traitor. And Ron could have been convinced by Voldemort to betray Harry in his absence; Harry didn't check for that either or protect himself from it. I don't see how you are distinguishing this from Harry's parents' behavior. They too knew there was a traitor, but they didn't believe it was their friends, so they trusted them all.

Why do you feel JKR brought the issue up in Deathly Hallows? Why did she have Lupin bring it up and declare that James trusted all his friends? Why did she have him tell Harry he was just like his father in that regard? Why did she have Lupin make Harry feel like he thought it a bad thing? And why did she have Harry ignore what Lupin had said and go on trusting everyone anyway, knowing there was a traitor among them and it was someone close to them? Why did Harry think of Peter Pettigrew (who had weaknesses) and then think about Hagrid (who also had weaknesses) and still decide not to heed Lupin's advice?

I would like to hear your answers, but imo, it was precisely because she wanted to show that people like the Potters, including Harry, are simply going to trust their friends, even when there is information that there is a traitor among them that is someone close to them. The message to me is loud and clear: don't lose faith in all of your friends merely because of one bad apple who betrays you - because trust between friends is both admirable and honorable. :)

I really don't see why blind, wholehearted trust should be awarded Dumbledore over that of people that James knew better and trusted as much, if not more so.

Because one among the close friends was a traitor IMO.

So it would logically follow that Dumbledore should also have been suspect, his information questioned, and his "friendship" terminated.

Sure! And Bathilda Bagshot as well and any others who would come to Godric's Hollow IMO. (though DD and BB were not close friends as is mentioned in canon).

Then we know that he totally got his information from a known enemy, too, a Death Eater.

A DE turned spy. DD got the information from a man who was a spy at that time. But all that James and Lily don't know IMO.

Info from a person that James would never have trusted, someone he loathed.

I don't understand this. Are you saying that James and Lily knew that Snape was the person who delivered the mesage about the traitor and that's why James and Lily disregarded it?

Was this withheld because Dumbledore didn't trust the Potters and the rest of the Marauders and members of the Order? Or because he rightfully knew that it would be questioned and discarded as unreliable and that people would begin to think that he, Dumbledore, was cracked?

I think it was because a good leader does not reveal his spy, especially when he also had a traitor in the Order, who would tell that infoamtoion to voldemort, which would mean the end of the spy and the information for Dumbledore IMO.

I respectfully disagree with your points Kat_Suki, because I understand from your last 2 posts that even if the Potters knew of a traitor among their friends they were still correct in trusting their friends (Please correct me if I have understood your posts wrongly). I cannot agree with that. :)

Perhaps I think differently, for me James and Lily would have been in the right, if they 1) they tried their best to flush out the traitor (I don't see that in canon) and 2) after taking such steps, they were still betaryed ( I don't see evidence for this in canon as well).

I respect your view, but you said that Harry behaved correctly and the Potters did not. But I don't see any difference. Harry trusted Ron and Hermione, but he knew there was a traitor among the friends.

As I wrote before Harry was not in charge. Had he been and had he spoken those words, he would have been very, very irresponsible to take lightly the events of the 7 Potters that lost them Moody, George's ear and Hedwig. And I have said so before as well.

Why do you feel JKR brought the issue up in Deathly Hallows?

ETA :: Have deleted this answer which was totally different to the question. Will answer this tomorrow. :)

Why did she have Lupin bring it up and declare that James trusted all his friends? Why did she have him tell Harry he was just like his father in that regard?

I thought Lupin was talking about James's trust in Sirius; when Dumbedlore was worried James stated that Sirius would die than betray him. I think that statement was reserved for Sirius, whom I think was far closer to James than Remus and Peter.

Why did she have Lupin make Harry feel like he thought it a bad thing?

If I understood the question correct, here goes; I think it was because they were in a war and people were killing left, right and center for Harry and harry was saying he would not cast anything except the expellarmus, which IMO was rather unfair to those who killed for the Light, the war and Harry.

And why did she have Harry ignore what Lupin had said and go on trusting everyone anyway, knowing there was a traitor among them and it was someone close to them?

That was wrong on Harry's part, but I think that was to draw a parallell towards James. And James died. Because he trusted Sirius, who persuaded them to switch SK. Sirius was so guilty that he spent 13 years in Azkaban for his mistake IMO. He cried that he killed them, when he was the friend who would have died for them. And yet, because he mistrusted wrongly, because yhe persuaded James and Lily wrongly on his suspicion, all of them paid the price. I think that's what Lupin was trying to point out to Harry.

And I really think Harry should have taken that message far more seriously than he did LOL.

Why did Harry think of Peter Pettigrew (who had weaknesses) and then think about Hagrid (who also had weaknesses) and still decide not to heed Lupin's advice?

I am lost here. Where did Harry think of Peter and Hagrid? In 7 Potters?

I would like to hear your answers, but imo, it was precisely because she wanted to show that people like the Potters, including Harry, are simply going to trust their friends, even when there is information that there is a traitor among them that is someone close to them. The message to me is loud and clear: don't lose faith in all of your friends merely because of one bad apple who betrays you - because trust between friends is both admirable and honorable. :)

That's an admirable point WWB and I like it a lot. But I still disagree with it. Harry, when he spoke was a boy still. He did not have Ginny, james, Albus and Lily to consider. (He publicly broke off with Ginny to protect her)

James when he spoke had his wife and son to consider. That makes it a lot different. As a single person, (even then if I am with a group, I must abide by its rules so that I don't place any member in danger through my actions) I can take a diferent call; as a man/woman who has kids to protect and when I know this madman is coming after my kids only to kill, I think everything takes a different perpective.

I love it that your point of view is what it is, but I just cannot see myself trusing my friends when I know one will betray me and my kids, just so that I don't hurt the other 2, because I am betraying the friendship (which would hurt me all my life BTW). In this circumstance, for me there is no choice and perhaps that's why I cannot see James or Harry say they will trust their friends, even if one of them will kill not only them but their 15 month old baby.

The entire post is my opinion only.

Because one among the close friends was a traitor IMO.Where in canon does it say it was one of the other three Maruaders that was suspected by Dumbledore or James? It doesn't. It simply tells us that Dumbledore "...was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements." It tells us that Remus suspected Sirius, that Sirius suspected Remus. The truth, however, is that it totally could have been anyone who they had contact with. So they were to totally cut themselves off from everyone and everything due to lack of trust? Sorry, that's not reasonable, IMO.

Voldemort had been keeping tabs on the Potters. The traitor had been leaking info for more than a year. Yet it wasn't until about a week before the Potters died that they took the steps to protect themselves with the Fidelius Charm, that's canon. Anyone during that entire year leading up to that charm being cast could have been passing info on, either willingly or not so willingly.

And again, the argument you're using is that the Potters should have suspected everyone, but then you say that they should have trusted Dumbledore despite the fact that they shouldn't trust anyone. Their trust in him should have been absolute and completely overroad years and years and years of close personal friendships, with people that James knew well, had lived with off and on for years, and loved as brothers.

"I think you are like James," said Lupin, "who would have regarded it as the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends."

See, here we have knowledge that Sirius suspected Remus, Remus suspected Sirius, but that James trusted them both. He'd have found it the height of dishonor not to trust his friends and that includes Pettigrew.

A DE turned spy. DD got the information from a man who was a spy at that time. But all that James and Lily don't know IMO. I don't understand this. Are you saying that James and Lily knew that Snape was the person who delivered the mesage about the traitor and that's why James and Lily disregarded it?[/We know after the fact that he's a Death Eater. No one in the Order knew it for sure, except Dumbledore. Sirius, in Goblet of Fire, said that Snape had never been suspected as a Death Eater.

Dumbledore took a very terrible risk in listening to Snape, IMO, a risk that was absolutely worth it, though. Dumbledore extended his trust. Should he have done? If James had known of this would James have been correct in trusting/distrusting Dumbldore's 'trust in Severus'?

I don't believe he'd have told James where his info'd come from, not least of which because James would have immediately discarded the info as untrustworthy.

I respectfully disagree with your points Kat_Suki, because I understand from your last 2 posts that even if the Potters knew of a traitor among their friends they were still correct in trusting their friends (Please correct me if I have understood your posts wrongly). I cannot agree with that. :)Dumbledore knew that "somebody close to the Potters" was a traitor. Based upon your reasoning, shouldn't Dumbledore have distrusted everybody? Shouldn't he have disbanded the Order, stopped sharing vital info? Bit much, IMO.

I too, respectfully disagree with you. Again, the position you hold is that the victims, James and Lily Potter, are culpable for their own demise. I heartily disagree with the victims precipitive blame argument, whether applied to real life or to fictional characters. 'Victim blaming' or 'victim proneness' is a moralistic justification so as to allow one to pass judgement and assign blame to the victims of crimes, rather than assigning blame to the perpetrator(s) of the crime. It's totally wrong, IMO. :no:

It also negates the fact that Voldemort was not an easy person to hide from or that he had an absolutely singular obsessive intent to hunt and kill the Potters and wouldn't rest until it was accomplished. A stumbling block of a plot device.

That was wrong on Harry's part, but I think that was to draw a parallell towards James. And James died. Because he trusted Sirius, who persuaded them to switch SK. Sirius was so guilty that he spent 13 years in Azkaban for his mistake IMO. He cried that he killed them, when he was the friend who would have died for them. And yet, because he mistrusted wrongly, because yhe persuaded James and Lily wrongly on his suspicion, all of them paid the price. I think that's what Lupin was trying to point out to Harry.

.

Sirius was not guilty of killing James and Lily, He FELT guilty because he survived and they did not. Sirius came up with a plan that he felt would help James and Lily live a normal life, not one where they would be imprisoned for years possibly in their home. They agreed to it and they were all betrayed by Peter. We can discuss this back and forwards (well we have, haven't we.) but I have to say that I do not read an interpretation in the books that say,

A: Sirius was guilty of killing his best friend and his wife,

B: James and Lily were careless in regard to their safety and Harry's.

James and Lily could not live hermatically sealed forever, someone had to get the groceries after all. Magic can't conjure food and they did have to eat.
I think what this discussion comes down to is this. Either life is worth living and that includes trusting your friends, or you give up, build a wall and you don't let anyone through. James and Lily chose trust and were betrayed, but I still think they were right.

Sirius was not guilty of killing James and Lily, He FELT guilty because he survived and they did not. Sirius came up with a plan that he felt would help James and Lily live a normal life, not one where they would be imprisoned for years possibly in their home. They agreed to it and they were all betrayed by Peter. We can discuss this back and forwards (well we have, haven't we.) but I have to say that I do not read an interpretation in the books that say,

A: Sirius was guilty of killing his best friend and his wife,

B: James and Lily were careless in regard to their safety and Harry's.

James and Lily could not live hermatically sealed forever, someone had to get the groceries after all. Magic can't conjure food and they did have to eat.
I think what this discussion comes down to is this. Either life is worth living and that includes trusting your friends, or you give up, build a wall and you don't let anyone through. James and Lily chose trust and were betrayed, but I still think they were right.

Excellently put.:agree::tu:

Where in canon does it say it was one of the other three Maruaders that was suspected by Dumbledore or James? It doesn't. It simply tells us that Dumbledore "...was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements." It tells us that Remus suspected Sirius, that Sirius suspected Remus. The truth, however, is that it totally could have been anyone who they had contact with. So they were to totally cut themselves off from everyone and everything due to lack of trust? Sorry, that's not reasonable, IMO.

Voldemort had been keeping tabs on the Potters. The traitor had been leaking info for more than a year. Yet it wasn't until about a week before the Potters died that they took the steps to protect themselves with the Fidelius Charm, that's canon. Anyone during that entire year leading up to that charm being cast could have been passing info on, either willingly or not so willingly.

And again, the argument you're using is that the Potters should have suspected everyone, but then you say that they should have trusted Dumbledore despite the fact that they shouldn't trust anyone. Their trust in him should have been absolute and completely overroad years and years and years of close personal friendships, with people that James knew well, had lived with off and on for years, and loved as brothers.

"I think you are like James," said Lupin, "who would have regarded it as the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends."

See, here we have knowledge that Sirius suspected Remus, Remus suspected Sirius, but that James trusted them both. He'd have found it the height of dishonor not to trust his friends and that includes Pettigrew.

We know after the fact that he's a Death Eater. No one in the Order knew it for sure, except Dumbledore. Sirius, in Goblet of Fire, said that Snape had never been suspected as a Death Eater.

Dumbledore took a very terrible risk in listening to Snape, IMO, a risk that was absolutely worth it, though. Dumbledore extended his trust. Should he have done? If James had known of this would James have been correct in trusting/distrusting Dumbldore's 'trust in Severus'?

I don't believe he'd have told James where his info'd come from, not least of which because James would have immediately discarded the info as untrustworthy.

Dumbledore knew that "somebody close to the Potters" was a traitor. Based upon your reasoning, shouldn't Dumbledore have distrusted everybody? Shouldn't he have disbanded the Order, stopped sharing vital info? Bit much, IMO.

I too, respectfully disagree with you. Again, the position you hold is that the victims, James and Lily Potter, are culpable for their own demise. I heartily disagree with the victims precipitive blame argument, whether applied to real life or to fictional characters. 'Victim blaming' or 'victim proneness' is a moralistic justification so as to allow one to pass judgement and assign blame to the victims of crimes, rather than assigning blame to the perpetrator(s) of the crime. It's totally wrong, IMO. :no:

It also negates the fact that Voldemort was not an easy person to hide from or that he had an absolutely singular obsessive intent to hunt and kill the Potters and wouldn't rest until it was accomplished. A stumbling block of a plot device.

Wow, good job!:clap: Nicely put.

I don't know what it's like to have the paranoia or a surviving victim, but it must be horrible.:tu:

Sirius was not guilty of killing James and Lily, He FELT guilty because he survived and they did not.

Precisely. It's a classic case of Survivor's Guilt.

We can discuss this back and forwards (well we have, haven't we.) but I have to say that I do not read an interpretation in the books that say,

A: Sirius was guilty of killing his best friend and his wife,

B: James and Lily were careless in regard to their safety and Harry's.

Could not agree more.

I've never read this particular plot that way, and I'm not starting now.

Precisely. It's a classic case of Survivor's Guilt.


:agree: Exactly.Thats why I wouldnt take what Sirius said there absolutely literally.And thats why I wouldnt blame him for the "switch".Nobody knew what was coming and they wanted to stay safe.Their plan, unfortunately didnt work-and thats all there is to it.I wouldnt blame one person for the entire mishap.

Sirius was not guilty of killing James and Lily,

I agree.

Sirius came up with a plan that he felt would help James and Lily live a normal life, not one where they would be imprisoned for years possibly in their home.

I think Sirius agreed to Dumbledore's plan of going under the Fidelus and started planning for that. Idon't think that he was planning for a normal life for James and his family at that time, but a safe one, certainly.

They agreed to it and they were all betrayed by Peter.

I agree. I also think James and Lily agreed with Sirius and were betrayed by Peter.

We can discuss this back and forwards (well we have, haven't we.)

Yes. :)

but I have to say that I do not read an interpretation in the books that say,

A: Sirius was guilty of killing his best friend and his wife,

I agree. And I don't think I have said anything to the effect that Sirius killed James and Lily.

Sirius said that in POA, though crying with guilt.

B: James and Lily were careless in regard to their safety and Harry's.

I certainly got it from canon. POA mostly.

James and Lily could not live hermatically sealed forever, someone had to get the groceries after all.

I agree and they could have been killed anytime; I agree with that as well.

I think what this discussion comes down to is this. Either life is worth living and that includes trusting your friends, or you give up, build a wall and you don't let anyone through.

Well, do you think that James and Lily should have trusted their friends, when one very close friend who James told Dumbledore, would die for him, was suspecting another friend as the traitor?

Do you think Sirius was not loyal to James, that at a time when there was a serious threat, he would have hidden his suspicions about Remus to James?

Don't you feel that as the good friend who wanted to die and had the worst case of Survivor's Guilt and who was prepared to spend 13 years in Azkaban for a murder he did not commit, Sirius would have told James and Lily about his suspicions?

I feel Sirius was loyal, he would not have hidden serious information about a traitor to the man who took him in at 16, who was family to him and would have surely told James about his supicions.

Then IMO James would have done the 2 things.

1) He would have also accepted Sirius's suspicions and made the switch.

2) He would have refused to believe Sirius's suspicions and yet would have agreed to the switch, which would in effect mean that he refused to take Dumbeldore's warning seriously.

What do you think James and Lily did?

@WWB, to answer the question I did not yesterday, I think JKR was trying to tell Harry to take the war more seriously, not to trust simply during the war, just as he told Harry to cast stronger curses IMO.

The entire post is my opinion only.

Well, do you think that James and Lily should have trusted their friends, when one very close friend who James told Dumbledore, would die for him, was suspecting another friend as the traitor?You're making the assumption that James knew Sirius suspected Remus. This is great speculation, but we also have canon that says James would have considered it the height of dishonor to distrust his friends.

It is just as plausible for Sirius to have had his concerns but left them unvoiced, instead convincing James to let him substitute Wormtail (no one would suspect Wormy as the Secret Keeper, no more than they'd have expected Hagrid to retrieve the Sorcerer's Stone from Gringott's). That way, they would be protected and could be proactively trying to flush out and catch the traitor.

Do you think Sirius was not loyal to James, that at a time when there was a serious threat, he would have hidden his suspicions about Remus to James? But, how is that disloyalty? Biting your tongue rather than stirring the pot with ungrounded and unfounded accusations? There was no direct or indirect evidence that Remus was the traitor. There was no direct/indirect evidence that Sirius was the traitor. There was no direct/indirect evidence that Pettigrew was the traitor.

Don't you feel that as the good friend who wanted to die and had the worst case of Survivor's Guilt and who was prepared to spend 13 years in Azkaban for a murder he did not commit, Sirius would have told James and Lily about his suspicions? Who wanted to die! Who wants to die? No one! Who knew that there were some things worth dying for, yeah, totally! Wanted to die? No.

Prepared to spend time in Azkaban? Who is ever prepared to spend time in a horrible stone edifice with evil, soul sucking Dementors? He was forced there, without trial. He could have spoken up. He didn't. Jo tells us he'd become "unhinged" by the murders of James and Lily. That does not scream to me "I'm prepared to rot in Azkaban, just on prinicple alone!"

No, I don't think he'd have confided his suspicions to James. I think he'd have thought he was really rather clever, and if he caught the traitor and it did turn out to be Remus, then he'd have confessed all. But not before.

The books are all about 'love and trust', whether that love is obsessive or true or detrimental; whether that trust is true or false or misplaced.

What do you think James and Lily did?

I think they carefully weighed their options, planned for the worst, hoped for the best, and were betrayed. I think it did not ocurr to them to doubt a close friend such as Peter. They for sure did not doubt Sirius or Remus, IMO.
They probably wanted to live a fairly normal life, and planned as best they could to do that. They wanted the best for their child, what else would they want? I also do not think that Sirius willing spent all those years in Azkhaban. It was a maximum security prison, They are not the easiest of places to break out of, when the chance came, he broke out.
Oh Good Lord, I'm writing like they were real people. I mean of course that that is how the books read to me.

You're making the assumption that James knew Sirius suspected Remus. This is great speculation,

Well, I may be wrong of course, but I really thought Sirius would voice his concerns to James, for he had no reason not to, when James and Lily would give anything to know who the traitor was so that they could protect themselves. I could not see information of this type kept from James and Lily by Sirius. By Dumbeldore I may have thought it possible (but even he told them as soon as he knew about a traitor and gave them the idea for the Fidelus), but Sirius, I don't think so.

It is just as plausible for Sirius to have had his concerns but left them unvoiced,

Personally I hope Sirius did not leave them unvoiced, for it would mean he was taking a decision for James and his family to swtich SK based upon his suspicion which he would not voice. It would lower him in my eyes, for whatever his faults, I think he valued his friendship to James above his family and even his life and I would not like him to take such an important decision all by himself.

(no one would suspect Wormy as the Secret Keeper, no more than they'd have expected Hagrid to retrieve the Sorcerer's Stone from Gringott's). That way, they would be protected and could be proactively trying to flush out and catch the traitor.

Hagrid was controlled by Dumbeldore. Here Sirius would be taking steps based on his suspicions alone; he did not even have facts (we don't see it in canon) and without informing James and Lily. I cannot see that as anything but wrong.

Who wanted to die! Who wants to die? No one! Who knew that there were some things worth dying for, yeah, totally! Wanted to die? No.

Prepared to spend time in Azkaban? Who is ever prepared to spend time in a horrible stone edifice with evil, soul sucking Dementors? He was forced there, without trial. He could have spoken up. He didn't. Jo tells us he'd become "unhinged" by the murders of James and Lily. That does not scream to me "I'm prepared to rot in Azkaban, just on prinicple alone!"

I am sorry, but I do not understand this.

No, I don't think he'd have confided his suspicions to James. I think he'd have thought he was really rather clever, and if he caught the traitor and it did turn out to be Remus, then he'd have confessed all. But not before.

If Sirius did not confide his suspicions I would think him a poor friend. I very much think he told James and Lily about his suspicions and that was how he persuaded them to change SK..

I understand the speculation and respect your opinion The_Green_Woods, I just have a different opinion.

Disloyalty to me, is deliberate and callous betrayal of one's trust. This is what Peter is guilty of. But let me ask, do you believe that Remus voiced his concerns about Sirius being the traitor to James? If not, would you consider that disloyal, that he was a poor friend, that he was untrustworthy?

If both Sirius and Remus had each confessed their concerns regarding the other to James, who would James believe? Who would he distrust? Why would he place one friend's concerns over the other?

Does that make sense? To me there is a difference between holding your tongue about something to which you have zero evidence on, or to restrict a confidence if/when asked, and that of the deliberately cold, calculated, callous commission of betrayal of one's friends to their deaths.

I see none of that with regards to Sirius and Remus, I see no disloyalty or lessening of value of their friendships. Only with Pettigrew can I ascribe that behavior.

In Order of the Phoenix, Harry is furious with Dumbledore's silence, so much so that when things are happening he tells Ron and Hermione, but withholds the info from Dumbledore. Was he being disloyal? The Boy Who Lived, Dumbledore's man through and through? No, not IMO. When Mrs. Weasley cornered Harry and asked him about what task Dumbledore set him, was he being disloyal by not telling her? No, of course not, no more than Ron or Hermione were.

Imagine, just imagine the conversation:
---------
Sirius: 'I think it's Remus who's the traitor.'
James: 'What? How could you think that? What proof do you have, evidence to support your claims?'
Sirius: '.....'
James: 'I can't believe you! You're telling me that I should distrust Remus? On the basis of nothing! How can you even begin to think something like that?
Sirius: 'Well, it's got to be someone close to you and it sure as heck isn't me!'
James: 'It could be anybody, Sirius! We KNOW Moony, for Merlin's sake! We've lived with him, we've roamed with him, heck, I even support him. How could you even suspect Remus would betray me, my wife, my son?'
---------
To me, it's just implausible, unthinkable to express that type of serious allegation with zero supporting evidence to back it up. I do think, though it's certainly all just speculation, that Sirius would have held his tongue, set the trap, and waited for it to spring.

As for Hagrid, well, yeah, he's totally Dumbledore's man. It still doesn't prevent him from making enormous mistakes, does it, letting secrets slip and the like?

I am sorry, but I do not understand this.Sorry about that. You'd said that Sirius had "wanted to die" and had been "prepared to spend 13 years in Azkaban". I was simply disputing that conclusion.

No one wants to die, not even Sirius. He knew that "there are some things worth dying for" and if that happened to him, so be it, but no - he did not "want" to die.

Regarding Azkaban, there too, he was not "prepared" to face years in that horrible, horrible place. He was "unhinged". Mentally unbalanced by the deaths of James and Lily. He wasn't prepared to go to Azkaban, and I'd argue that no one truly is "prepared" for such a punishment either.

I think Sirius agreed to Dumbledore's plan of going under the Fidelus and started planning for that. Idon't think that he was planning for a normal life for James and his family at that time, but a safe one, certainly.

Actually, James agreed that Dumbledore's suggestion of the Fidelius Charm was a good one and planned accordingly with his friends. Sirius had only agreed to be secret keeper at that point. And Lupin wasn't completely out of the loop at that point either. He knew they were going to use the Fidelius Charm and was in on the initial stages of that plan and knew that James intended to use Sirius as secret keeper. That's why he believed - along with Dumbledore and everyone else who knew about the Fidelius Charm - that Sirius had betrayed the Potters. And that is what Lupin was apologizing for in POA - believing that Sirius would have betrayed James and Lily after the attack had happened.

Sirius came up with the idea to switch secret keepers at the last minute - just before the charm was done. Sirius decided not to tell Lupin about the switch because - for whatever reason - he had become suspicious and thought Lupin might be the one passing information to Voldemort. And that is what he was apologizing for in POA.

I agree. I also think James and Lily agreed with Sirius and were betrayed by Peter.

Canon tells us just the opposite though. Lupin himself reveals in DH that James would have considered it the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends - as Kat_Suki quoted above and we have discussed many times. Lupin knew that it was Sirius who doubted him whereas James trusted all of his friends without question. That's why he made the comparison between Harry and James in DH - he was concerned about Harry being too trusting.

Sirius said that in POA, though crying with guilt.

Sirius felt responsible because it was his idea to use Pettigrew as secret keeper and Pettigrew betrayed them. Logically, he knew that it wasn't his fault because none of them could have known or predicted that Pettigrew would have betrayed them, but emotions are not logical and hindsight is 20/20. Sirius was riddled with "if only" guilt. If only he hadn't come up with that idea - if only he had not underestimated Pettigrew - and so on. It's very easy to look back after the fact and see where you went wrong and think "if only". But at the time it was all happening, there was no way for any of them to know that Pettigrew would betray them.

Well, do you think that James and Lily should have trusted their friends, when one very close friend who James told Dumbledore, would die for him, was suspecting another friend as the traitor?

Absolutely. There was no reason for them not to trust their friends. According to Lupin in DH, James was not suspicious of any of his friends, but even if he had been suspicious of Lupin, that would not give him any reason not to trust Pettigrew. If anything, suspecting that Lupin was the spy would only have served to give them even more reason to trust Pettigrew because they would have thought they had it all figured out.

That's where this line of reasoning falls apart. Canon tells us that James trusted all of his friends because there was no reason for him not to. Dumbledore's vague suspicions had no evidence to back them up - and without evidence, James had no reason to turn against any of his friends. Sirius came to suspect Lupin for unknown reasons and he may or may not have discussed that with James. Either way it really does not matter because the end result would be the same - complete trust in Pettigrew.

Do you think Sirius was not loyal to James, that at a time when there was a serious threat, he would have hidden his suspicions about Remus to James?

Don't you feel that as the good friend who wanted to die and had the worst case of Survivor's Guilt and who was prepared to spend 13 years in Azkaban for a murder he did not commit, Sirius would have told James and Lily about his suspicions?

I feel Sirius was loyal, he would not have hidden serious information about a traitor to the man who took him in at 16, who was family to him and would have surely told James about his supicions.

Sirius didn't want to die. He was willing to risk his own life to protect James and was prepared for the possibility that he might die, but that's not the same thing as wanting to die. Once he was locked up in Azkaban, he couldn't see any way out. As Jo said, he was unhinged for a while because of what happened - shock, disbelief, anger, survivor's guilt. He wasn't in his right mind and he made mistakes that led to him being locked up - and the state of the Ministry at that point in time led to him being locked up with no trial so he was unable to even try to prove his innocence once he had recovered from the initial shock. But he didn't expect Pettigrew to stick around - he figured Pettigrew would run. So he receives another shock 12 years later when he sees Pettigrew in that picture of the Weasleys and realizes that he did stick around and was in a good position to hurt Harry if Voldemort came back. That spurs him into action and helps him clear his mind from the effect of the dementors - they didn't effect him as badly when he was in dog form, but he couldn't stay like that all the time so he was effected by them. But it took that shock to make him realize that the situation was not hopeless and find a way out of it.

Whether or not Sirius would have discussed his suspicions with James and Lily would depend on the circumstances and whatever made Sirius suspicious. Like Lupin, Sirius would have known that James would consider it the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends and that is a factor that must be considered. They had just discovered that Voldemort had chosen Harry so he was going to come after the Potters specifically. That was not the time for arguing about who to trust or not to trust - getting the Potters set up under the Fidelius Charm had to take first priority.

From what we are shown in canon, Lupin was not around when that was done. We aren't given any information as to why that was or where he might have been. There are several possibilities. If Sirius did discuss his suspicions with James, it is possible that he could have convinced him to hold off on telling Lupin about the switch. However, I think that is highly unlikely given what we know about James. Since James considered it the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends, it would have taken a lot of arguing and that would have wasted time that they did not have. It's also possible that Sirius made sure Lupin was not there and simply did not address the issue with James either way - planning to investigate himself and discuss it later after he had ascertained the truth. And it is also possible that Lupin was working undercover with the werewolves during the first war as well and simply was not around when all that happened - which would also make it more difficult for Sirius to investigate the situation to find out the truth.

I think it is more likely that Sirius would have wanted to wait until he was completely sure and had evidence before discussing it with James because he knew James so well. He would have known that James would accept nothing less than concrete evidence to prove it. And that is consistent with what we're told in POA. Sirius made the decision not to tell Lupin about the switch because Sirius thought Lupin was the spy - that is what Lupin tells us. It is most likely that his plan was to investigate the situation thoroughly to be completely sure before he told James because he would have known that James would not believe it without concrete evidence to prove it. Had he had the time to investigate, he would have discovered that Lupin was not spying and told him about the switch. Sirius simply never got the chance to find out the truth because it all happened so quickly.

We see Hermione do the same thing in regards to the Firebolt in POA. She suspects that Sirius sent the broom and thinks it might be dangerous because everyone thinks that Sirius is trying to kill Harry. But she doesn't discuss that with Harry. She blurts out that she doesn't think anyone should ride the broom, but she never explains to Harry or Ron why. She never gives them the chance to decide for themselves because she doesn't tell them about her suspicions. Based on what she knows about them at that point, she assumes that they simply would not listen to her and she goes behind Harry's back to McGonagall. Now, this wasn't the best choice on Hermione's part - and I would say the same for Sirius as well - but it certainly does not make her disloyal or any less of a friend to Harry. She knew Harry would be furious, but she put keeping Harry safe first.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Jo put the trio in a situation so similar to what happened with the Marauders back then. She does that sort of thing quite a bit in the series - creating a similar situation in the present to explain how things happened in the past. Through Hermione's predicament with the Firebolt and thinking Sirius was trying to kill Harry, she shows us how Sirius would have felt knowing that Voldemort was trying to kill the Potters and thinking that Lupin might be giving him information. Through Hermione's predicament with the Firebolt, she shows us how difficult such a decision would be for Sirius and how easy it is to handle that type of situation badly due to fear. When you know - or think you know - that your friend will not listen to you or believe you, then what do you do? Hermione chose not to take the chance and went behind Harry's back because she felt that would guarantee his safety. It is most likely that Sirius did the same thing with James.

However, as I said above, I really don't think that it matters if Sirius discussed his suspicions with James or not. If he didn't discuss it, then James continued to trust all of his friends implicitly. If he did discuss it and James agreed, then they would have felt that they knew who the spy was and that would only have strengthened the trust they had in Pettigrew. Either way, the end result would be the same because Pettigrew had fooled all of them. James and Lily didn't do anything wrong. Pettigrew did.

Then IMO James would have done the 2 things.

1) He would have also accepted Sirius's suspicions and made the switch.

2) He would have refused to believe Sirius's suspicions and yet would have agreed to the switch, which would in effect mean that he refused to take Dumbeldore's warning seriously.

What do you think James and Lily did?

From what we are shown in canon, James and Lily took the warning that Voldemort had targeted Harry specifically seriously and did everything they could to protect themselves and their son. However, they did not believe that any of their friends would betray them because Dumbledore did not have any evidence to support his vague suspicions there.

These are two completely different things. They are connected by the situation, but are different in nature. Dumbledore could prove that Voldemort had chosen Harry because he was given that information directly. He could not prove that someone close to the Potter's was giving information to Voldemort because he had no evidence at all. He was not told that someone was passing information and he did not see anyone passing information. He merely suspected that because Voldemort seemed to know so much. Since there was no evidence to support that, there was no reason for James and Lily to believe him.

@WWB, to answer the question I did not yesterday, I think JKR was trying to tell Harry to take the war more seriously, not to trust simply during the war, just as he told Harry to cast stronger curses IMO.

I have to agree with wickedwickedboy there. If Jo was trying to say that people shouldn't trust their friends just because there's a war going on, then she would have shown Harry not trusting Ron and Hermione for that reason. Instead, she shows us that Harry continues to trust his friends. He knows that someone betrayed them about him being moved from Privet Dr., but he doesn't interrogate anyone. He doesn't isolate himself. He maintains his trust in his friends. In contrast, she shows that Dumbledore did not trust anyone and did isolate himself - and she showed that was not a good thing in the long run. If Dumbledore had been more trusting, things would have gone much more smoothly for Harry.

That is the message being sent here. You have to be able to trust people. There's always a risk involved when you put your trust in someone - particularly in a war - but it is a risk worth taking because the alternative is to be alone. James and Lily did not do anything wrong by trusting their friends. Pettigrew was the one in the wrong for betraying the trust they placed in him.

I think they carefully weighed their options, planned for the worst, hoped for the best, and were betrayed. I think it did not ocurr to them to doubt a close friend such as Peter. They for sure did not doubt Sirius or Remus, IMO.

Then, they did not take Dumbedlore's warning seriously, or took Dumbledore's warning but found it unnecessay, because none of them could be traitors? Is this what you meant?

If it is, then James and co. need not have gone under the Fidelus; they were already in hiding and Voldemort had yet to find them. It was to protect themselves from a person they thought close enough to know the location of GH to betray it to Voldemort that they went into hiding IMO.

I also do not think that Sirius willing spent all those years in Azkhaban. It was a maximum security prison, They are not the easiest of places to break out of, when the chance came, he broke out.

Have answered it below in Kat_Suki's post.

Oh Good Lord, I'm writing like they were real people. I mean of course that that is how the books read to me.

I am sure they are real people. :D I would not spend time on this forum writing the same things a million times if they were not. :D

But let me ask, do you believe that Remus voiced his concerns about Sirius being the traitor to James? If not, would you consider that disloyal, that he was a poor friend, that he was untrustworthy?

Well since meesha convinced me that Remus thought of Sirius as the traitor only after the Potters were murdered, I don't think Remus thought Sirius was the traitor before. If Remus thought Sirius was the traitor, then I do think he should have voiced it to James and Lily. He would not be a good friend, if he had a reason to suspect Sirius and not share that with James at a time, they were under threat of being betrayed by some one.

Before I did think Remus had also concerns about Sirius, but James chose Sirius over Remus, which was the reason Remus never visited Harry in Privert Drive and for 2 years in Hogwarts.

If both Sirius and Remus had each confessed their concerns regarding the other to James, who would James believe? Who would he distrust? Why would he place one friend's concerns over the other?

I think James would believe Sirius. Sirius and James IMO were a level apart from the other 2. Remus came next and Peter I think was tolerated by the other 3, simply because he refused to go away IMO.

I don't think all the 4 friends were equal. To Sirius too, James came frinst, Remus way behind and I don't know if he considered Peter as a close friend or someone who admired them and wanted to hang around with them IMO.

Does that make sense? To me there is a difference between holding your tongue about something to which you have zero evidence on, or to restrict a confidence if/when asked, and that of the deliberately cold, calculated, callous commission of betrayal of one's friends to their deaths.

To hold something back if there is zero evidence is okay when it is of little consequence and when sharing that infoamtion would cause only ill. In a matter like this though, where it is literally a matter of life and death, to hold back, however small, is something I cannot agree with. As a friend I think Sirius and Remus and anyone for that matter, if they thought well for the Potters, should have come forward with what they had, so that the Potters could evaluate the information and take a decision, which could save their lives.

If Sirius had not told James that he suspected Remus to be the traitor, then I would say it was gross negligence on Sirius's part. I think he did. The problem was he had nothing on why he thought Remus was the traitor.

Close friends of the Potters in canon are only the 3 Marauders. Lily does not seem to have any close friend that we see in canon after Snape. So one among the close friends probably mean one among the 3 Marauders. Not Bathilda, Dumbledore or anyone else IMO.

I see none of that with regards to Sirius and Remus, I see no disloyalty or lessening of value of their friendships. Only with Pettigrew can I ascribe that behavior.

Sirius suspected Remus as the traitor. Which means that Sirius viewed Remus as he did the DEs at that time. Of course he realised that Remus was not the culprit but Peter, once the Potters died, but I am sure, when Sirius says in canon that he suspected Remus, he was at that time surely not feeling anything remotely friendly towards him.

And it is that feeling he would have shared with James, because as a good friend, he would have wanted to warn him against Remus. Why should he not do so?

Imagine, just imagine the conversation:
---------
Sirius: 'I think it's Remus who's the traitor.'
James: 'What? How could you think that? What proof do you have, evidence to support your claims?'
Sirius: '.....'
James: 'I can't believe you! You're telling me that I should distrust Remus? On the basis of nothing! How can you even begin to think something like that?
Sirius: 'Well, it's got to be someone close to you and it sure as heck isn't me!'
James: 'It could be anybody, Sirius! We KNOW Moony, for Merlin's sake! We've lived with him, we've roamed with him, heck, I even support him. How could you even suspect Remus would betray me, my wife, my son?'
---------

So you are saying that even though Dumbledore got information of a traitor being some one "close" to the Potters, James disregarded it and refused to suspect anyone?

To me, it's just implausible, unthinkable to express that type of serious allegation with zero supporting evidence to back it up. I do think, though it's certainly all just speculation, that Sirius would have held his tongue, set the trap, and waited for it to spring.

Yes! Sirius did suspect Remus and did not have much to back it up. That was why he felt guilty IMO.

As for Hagrid, well, yeah, he's totally Dumbledore's man. It still doesn't prevent him from making enormous mistakes, does it, letting secrets slip and the like?

For which Dumbledore is responsible. Can and should Sirius take on the responsibility of not voicing his concerns to James, when it was James and his family who were targeted? I don't think so. And I don't think Sirius refrained from voicing his concerns.

Sorry about that. You'd said that Sirius had "wanted to die" and had been "prepared to spend 13 years in Azkaban". I was simply disputing that conclusion.

No one wants to die, not even Sirius. He knew that "there are some things worth dying for" and if that happened to him, so be it, but no - he did not "want" to die.

Sure Sirius wanted to die. As much as Snape did, when he heard that Lily had died. Sirius felt the same way. He allowed himself to be taken to Azkaban and for 13 years, he spent in that prison, because he felt he deserved it. For persuading James and Lily to switch to Peter, because he thought and convinced them that Remus was the spy. James trusted Sirius's suspicions and agreed to the switch and was killed.

Sirius came out to kill Peter, not to say he was innocent. If he wanted to get out of Azkaban, he could have at any time, asking for Dumbeldore, saying that he had "information" to give Dumbedlore. Dumbeldore would have surely come to Azkaban and would have listened and believed Sirius as well and have donme something for him.

But Sirius did not do that. He sat in Azkaban because like he said in POA that he "as good as killed them." James and Lily trusted him. And agreed to the switch and died.

Siirus was that kind of a friend. He would have killed for James (he wanted to kill Peter as did Remus) and he would have died for them. That was why he felt guilty. Because he suspected Remus and James trusted him so much that he went along "being persuaded" and switched SK.

That was what Lupin was referring to in DH. In situations like this; in a war, trust should be carefully given, for even if the friedn is loyal, he could be under the imperius. James and Lily should not have blindly believed Siirus, especially when Sirius could not offer proof of his suspicion. But they did and they lost their lives IMO.

Sirius came up with the idea to switch secret keepers at the last minute - just before the charm was done. Sirius decided not to tell Lupin about the switch because - for whatever reason - he had become suspicious and thought Lupin might be the one passing information to Voldemort. And that is what he was apologizing for in POA.

I agree.

Canon tells us just the opposite though. Lupin himself reveals in DH that James would have considered it the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends - as Kat_Suki quoted above and we have discussed many times. Lupin knew that it was Sirius who doubted him whereas James trusted all of his friends without question. That's why he made the comparison between Harry and James in DH - he was concerned about Harry being too trusting.

I have answered this above in Kat_Suki's post.

Absolutely. There was no reason for them not to trust their friends.

I respectfully disagree. They had information one aqmong their close friends was a traitor and I think they should have taken that warnoing seriously. I think they did.

However, as I said above, I really don't think that it matters if Sirius discussed his suspicions with James or not. If he didn't discuss it, then James continued to trust all of his friends implicitly. If he did discuss it and James agreed, then they would have felt that they knew who the spy was and that would only have strengthened the trust they had in Pettigrew. Either way, the end result would be the same because Pettigrew had fooled all of them. James and Lily didn't do anything wrong. Pettigrew did.

If Sirius did not tell James, then I think he was disloyal to the friendship he had with James. If Sirius did tell James and he disregarded it, then I feel James was very careless of the danger that surrounded not only him, but his family at that time.

The entire post is my opinion only.

If it is, then James and co. need not have gone under the Fidelus; they were already in hiding and Voldemort had yet to find them. It was to protect themselves from a person they thought close enough to know the location of GH to betray it to Voldemort that they went into hiding IMO.I don't remember reading any canon for that. Anyone could have known where they were. And again, that could have included anyone in the Order or their families.

Close friends of the Potters in canon are only the 3 Marauders. Lily does not seem to have any close friend that we see in canon after Snape. So one among the close friends probably mean one among the 3 Marauders. Not Bathilda, Dumbledore or anyone else IMO.They were friendly with the entire Order, which might have included some family members of the Order since we saw how they associated with each other in Voldwar II.

They had information one aqmong their close friends was a traitor The quote was "somebody close" not a close friend.

BTW, we didn't see any details about Lily's friends since they had no impact on the plot. Lily was a popular girl. We saw her with a group of friends right before SWM. I find it rather hard to believe that she had no friends.

I think James would believe Sirius. Sirius and James IMO were a level apart from the other 2. Remus came next and Peter I think was tolerated by the other 3, simply because he refused to go away IMO. I don't think all the 4 friends were equal. To Sirius too, James came frinst, Remus way behind and I don't know if he considered Peter as a close friend or someone who admired them and wanted to hang around with them IMO.
I agree that they were not on the same level and I'd put them in the order you did. but then I always wondered why they didn't expect Peter to be the traitor, when he was viewed as low class Marauder. The only explaination I have is that they maybe considered the warning and looked which of their friends could be the potencial traitor and they ruled out Sirius, because he's the best friend (which I find riddiculous, never trust anybody except yourself) and Peter, probably because they thought that he's not capable of doing such things.
On one hand do I agree that they should have considered other people as traitor and not trust everyone, even not Dumbledore or Sirius, but then when you have the feeling that you can't trust anyone, I think then you go crazy and see traitors everywhere.

I think that the reason they never suspected Peter was the traitor is because of the way Peter "hero worshiped" James. I think James and Sirius were too complacent, thinking that Peter would never betray someone he idolized. That's just my take on it.

I don't remember reading any canon for that. Anyone could have known where they were. And again, that could have included anyone in the Order or their families.

They were friendly with the entire Order, which might have included some family members of the Order since we saw how they associated with each other in Voldwar II.

The quote was "somebody close" not a close friend.

James and Lily were already in hiding. They were not found out by Voldemort, who they had defied 3 times before they went into hiding. So they were safe from those who did not know their location. It was from someone close to them who knew where they lived that they had to protect themselevs from. Those people that we know in canon are the 3 friends, Dumbledore and Bathilda Bagshot. We don't know if the Order had access to them; I would not think so. They were in hiding, which meant very few people knew precisely where they lived.

The moment Dumbledore came to know of a traitor "close to the Potters" he warned them and told them to go under the Fidelus. He must have also had some spell on their cottage (I think) or on themselves to know if something would happen to them. That was how he must have known to send Hagrid, when the spell collapsed either when James died or when GH's collapsed.

I think the spell may have been on James, which would make more sense.

So the Potters went under the Fidelus to save themselves from those who had access to them, not everyone generally. And since they were in hiding, I think those who had access to them were those who must have been very close to them IMO.

BTW, we didn't see any details about Lily's friends since they had no impact on the plot. Lily was a popular girl. We saw her with a group of friends right before SWM. I find it rather hard to believe that she had no friends.

She may have had a lot of casual friends, but there is no mention of a close friend of a Snape/Sirius types in canon for Lily. No one who came and went to GH's regularly IMO.

On one hand do I agree that they should have considered other people as traitor and not trust everyone, even not Dumbledore or Sirius, but then when you have the feeling that you can't trust anyone, I think then you go crazy and see traitors everywhere.

I agree with this. But the problem for me is their action when they know one close to them is a traitor. I agree that to go on suspecting everyone as a possible traitor would drive them nuts but what I cannot accept is the trust when one of their friends may have turned traitor/been under the imperius/forced by Voldemort and was in a position where he could betray them.

Then they should be more aware, should be more careful and should protecte themselves better by trying their best to flush out the spy.

I think that the reason they never suspected Peter was the traitor is because of the way Peter "hero worshiped" James. I think James and Sirius were too complacent, thinking that Peter would never betray someone he idolized. That's just my take on it.

I think this was what drove Sirius crazy. He suspected Remus only because he knew he was not the spy, he thought Peter utterly incapable (he says so in POA) weak and was unable to see him as a traitor, which left Remus.

That was how he suspected and that must have been the reasoning behind his convincing James IMO. And when he realised it had been Peter all along, it broke him so much that went to Azkaban and stayed there filled with guilt of James and Lily's deaths until he found a purpose in his life. that was when he saw Peter and from then on the burning to kill Peter helped him escape and come to Hogwarts IMO.

I think that the reason they never suspected Peter was the traitor is because of the way Peter "hero worshiped" James. I think James and Sirius were too complacent, thinking that Peter would never betray someone he idolized. That's just my take on it.

That's a very plausible explanation, in my opinion.

My take on the whole betrayal situation is that it was necessary for a major plot point, and not thought out too well on other levels. That's why it's so problematic, I think. I also think it could have been easily remedied by a few extra ot different strokes in Peter's character and his interaction with the other three (like making him seem cunning and cleverly manipulative in his youth as opposed to blatantly pathetic). But, that's how we have it at present, unfortunately.

I think James would believe Sirius. Sirius and James IMO were a level apart from the other 2. Remus came next and Peter I think was tolerated by the other 3, simply because he refused to go away IMO.

I don't think all the 4 friends were equal. To Sirius too, James came frinst, Remus way behind and I don't know if he considered Peter as a close friend or someone who admired them and wanted to hang around with them IMO.
I agree. From OotP:
Harry had the distinct impression that Sirius was the only one for whom James would have stopped showing off.
As we see in The Prince's Tale, James met Sirius first, and I believe the close bond began there. Remus and Peter came to their gang later; while they were friends, I do not think the original relationship between James and Sirius could be disrupted.
I think that the reason they never suspected Peter was the traitor is because of the way Peter "hero worshiped" James. I think James and Sirius were too complacent, thinking that Peter would never betray someone he idolized. That's just my take on it.
I would agree with this, but add that their friendship caused some blindness. James and Sirius did know that Peter used to "hero worship" them, in an effort to gain power. If they were completely sensible, they would have guessed that Peter had changed his allegiance to gain more power. However, their friendships with Peter, I believe, blinded them of the possible treachery of their friend.

I have wondered why James and Sirius seem to be closer to each other than any of them is to the other two. I don't think the plot necessitates it, nor could I see any other, less crucial reason for it to be so. Or maybe it's just an impression, not a deliberate effect.

I have wondered why James and Sirius seem to be closer to each other than any of them is to the other two. I don't think the plot necessitates it, nor could I see any other, less crucial reason for it to be so. Or maybe it's just an impression, not a deliberate effect.

I think they hit off in the train with both of them having a dislike for Slytherin and making fun of Snape's desire to get into that House. And then they probably became friends when they got sorted into Gryffindor and went on from there. Remus they may have befriended on an equal basis, but Remus's attitude made Remus grateful for acceptance as a person than simply accepting the fact they would be friends. He lacked that confidence to be on equal terms with them IMO.

And I also think Remus was not into their pranks all the way through; in the SWM he does not participate, but he is also unable to stand up to them, because he was all the time reminded of what they had given him. Friendship, an identity of his own and respecting him as a person rather than treating him like a creature that must be put down. In HBP too, we see evidence that Sirius and James played the "pranks" for they were the ones who got regular detention; Remus and Peter were caught only occassionally, not all the time (Harry's detention with Snape) IMO.

Another point that Sirius and James were closer are the mirrors; Remus and Peter did not seem to have them; only James and Sirius, implying a close relationship inside a friendship of 4. Sirius and James were the ideal friends, those who were equal, who cared for each other, loved each other and sinply understood and accepted each other for what they were warts and all. Remus and Peter were not in that circle IMO.

Had Remus not been a werewolf I think the Marauders would have been 3 than 4.

Had Remus not been a werewolf I think the Marauders would have been 3 than 4.
Which Marauder did you leave out now?

Which Marauder did you leave out now?

Remus. :D :lol:

Had Remus not been a werewolf I think the Marauders would have been 3 than 4.
While I agree on your other points, I disagree with this one. James and Sirius had already befriended Remus before they found out he was a werewolf. They did not simply befriend Remus because he was a werewolf, bringing ideal occasions to sneak around the castle and Hogsmeade. Lupin said that he expected their desertion after James and Sirius revealed Lupin's mystery of being a werewolf, but, instead, it strengthened their friendship. I cannot imagine James and Sirius abandoning Remus simply because he was not as much of a troublemaker. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are the perfect example. Harry and Hermione did not desert Hermione simply because she did not seek out trouble and mysteries. Friendship is much more than that. I believe Remus' friendship with Sirius and James was genuine, werewolf or not; oftentimes, a group of friends needs someone like Lupin or Hermione to keep the others in check (occasionally; Sirius said Lupin made he and James feel bad sometimes).

While I agree on your other points, I disagree with this one. James and Sirius had already befriended Remus before they found out he was a werewolf.

I meant from Remus's point of view rather than James and Sirius. I agree with you that those 2 would not and did not break the friendship because Remus was a werewolf, but I was talking about Remus.

Remus was for the first time in his life after being bitten having the novel experience of being treated like an equal. And that gratitude only increased when they found out he was a werewolf and still remained friends with him and even started their animagi work to join him. That made Remus view them, their character, their attitudes and everything actually on a totally different level IMO.

But there is something to show us that the things Sirius and James thought funny, hilarious or pranking Remus did not think so. But he was always with them and on their side, for his sense of right and wrong were overruled by his gratitude and his acceptance. The SWM is one such instance and also in OOTP ( Career's Advice) where Sirius says that Remus's attitude made them feel ashamed of themselves at times and Remus himself says that he did not have the guts to stop them, even when they were going over the top. That I think was because of his curse.

Since we also have canon to show us Remus was slightly different, I felt that had he not the curse, Remus would be vastly different and at that time he would not have cut them so much slack and he would have been the Prefect in the SWM, instead of looking down at his notes with a frown on his face IMO.

I was looking at it from Remus's side and not James and Sirius. About them I agree with you.

The_Green_Woods, I'm sorry, but I think you're unfairly narrowing the field of suspects.

The Potters were in hiding yes, and probably for more than a year, considering they were in hiding when Harry was christened. We're told that. We're also told that the Fidelius Charm wasn't performed until a week prior to the Potters deaths.

We know that they were in contact with Bathilda Bagshot, Dumbledore, Remus, Wormtail, Sirius. We don't know that they weren't in contact with other friends though, or that they had no other 'close' friends. We do know that they had friends enough that Hagrid wrote to them requesting photos of James and Lily so that he could make a photo album for Harry. We know that Lily allowed others into their home {Bathilda/Wormy} and was not adverse to communicating with others via owl {letter to Padfoot}. Not even mentioning the witch/wizard who actually performed Harry's christening much less the other members of the Order and unnamed friends.

We're told someone was leaking info on the Order; we're told that someone was keeping Voldemort informed on the Potters whereabouts. That does not equate to the only suspects being Moony, Padfoot, or Wormtail. Don't you think that if it were that horribly easy, that Dumbledore would have figured it out? Or do you think he did and not said anything, and allowed the Potters to be murdered by default?

a group of friends needs someone like Lupin or Hermione to keep the others in check (occasionally; Sirius said Lupin made he and James feel bad sometimes).

Well, making someone 'feel bad' sometimes is not the same as "keeping them in check" by any degrees.

Since we also have canon to show us Remus was slightly different, I felt that had he not the curse, Remus would be vastly different and at that time he would not have cut them so much slack and he would have been the Prefect in the SWM, instead of looking down at his notes with a frown on his face IMO.

I agree with your point here completly. Very well said. :D

I meant from Remus's point of view rather than James and Sirius. I agree with you that those 2 would not and did not break the friendship because Remus was a werewolf, but I was talking about Remus.

Remus was for the first time in his life after being bitten having the novel experience of being treated like an equal. And that gratitude only increased when they found out he was a werewolf and still remained friends with him and even started their animagi work to join him. That made Remus view them, their character, their attitudes and everything actually on a totally different level IMO.

But there is something to show us that the things Sirius and James thought funny, hilarious or pranking Remus did not think so. But he was always with them and on their side, for his sense of right and wrong were overruled by his gratitude and his acceptance. The SWM is one such instance and also in OOTP ( Career's Advice) where Sirius says that Remus's attitude made them feel ashamed of themselves at times and Remus himself says that he did not have the guts to stop them, even when they were going over the top. That I think was because of his curse.

Since we also have canon to show us Remus was slightly different, I felt that had he not the curse, Remus would be vastly different and at that time he would not have cut them so much slack and he would have been the Prefect in the SWM, instead of looking down at his notes with a frown on his face IMO.

I was looking at it from Remus's side and not James and Sirius. About them I agree with you.

I respect your view, however, I believe you have mischaracterized Remus on several fronts.

First, Remus (according to JKR) was mischievous. He loved pranking and he loved roaming about the grounds even though it was a great risk to others (POA). Imo, the latter proves he was not a super cautious child who only took risks because his friends did and he wanted to be a part of the group. He said himself that he laughed carelessly and planned their outings with enthusiasm. With respect to his prankster attitude, that came directly from the author, who indicated he retained that nature throughout his life. He matured into a person who was a warrior and thus, had to set his love of pranks aside (like Sirius), but she still wrote it into his character, as we saw in his adult treatment of shoving bubble gum up Peeves nose before the class, returning the Marauders Map to Harry and as you mentioned, his name also on the detention slips.

What canon provides, imo, is that Remus did not like hex wars. Hex wars are not pranking; there is a mean-sprirted motivation behind hex wars that is not associated with pranking to a prankster. Pranks are all in fun and consist of laughing at others, with others and at ones self. There is certainly wrongfullness associated with pranking from an authoritative view - that is why kids who pull pranks get detention. Not everyone likes pranks and they lack the ability to see them as funny, but many do enjoy them. Like when Fred and George flooded the hallways; sure it upset Umbridge and it inconvenienced people who had to take boats to cross the hall; but it made a lot of people laugh. Some people merely saw it as destruction of property and an inconvenience and didn't laugh. But this is the type of thing Remus could laugh at according to JKR. He didn't like SWM precisely because it was a hex war and not a "prank". While James and Sirius, being pranksters, may have used some of their pranking spells in a hex war, there was a marked difference in their attitudes when they were engaged in a hex war rather than pranking and that is what Remus didn't like, imo.

Finally, from James and Sirius' point of view; they were best mates, but they apparently did not hold Remus in the "way" lesser regard you indicate, imo. There is no way that they would struggle 3 years to become animagi to accompany him, protect his secret, and allow views taught to them since children to be completely over written in their hearts if they merely considered him "some guy that hung with them", imo. They loved Remus as a friend, but merely were closer to one another. I don't know about everyone else, but I also had a best friend among a group of best mates and it doesn't mean you hold your other friends in less regard in an overall sense, you simply have a best mate among them. As we saw in canon, that didn't mean that James and Sirius were always allied and the others secondary - James allied himself with Remus and rescued Snape, disregarding Sirius' viewpoint on the matter to let matters run their course (POA).

I feel it does Remus' character a great disservice to use the fact that he cops his friends a break to further conclude that he would not be friends with them at all if he was not a werewolf. In my view, he would have simply been a more outspoken friend, much like Hermione, but a friend nonetheless. As Mr. Sleepyhead mentioned; Hermione did not abandon Ron and Harry merely because she was in constant disagreement with the plans they made and ideas they had - she simply voiced her more conservative viewpoint. When they disregarded it and went through with their plans, she often joined them, despite her reservations. :lol:. And recall she was a prefect too - as was Ron.

I think that the reason they never suspected Peter was the traitor is because of the way Peter "hero worshiped" James. I think James and Sirius were too complacent, thinking that Peter would never betray someone he idolized. That's just my take on it.This makes a lot of sense to me as well. Peter's demeanor around James (and Sirius) had thus far indicated that he was devoted to them, and would never do anything against them. I don't think Sirius realized until after he betrayed them that Peter was only interested in hanging around with he and James because they were popular. I think the main reason why Peter was not suspected as the traitor was because his friends had misjudged his true nature - that of a self-serving person who was only interested in allying himself with those who could provide him with power and protection.

wickedwickedboy, I agree with your entire post. :tu:

First, Remus (according to JKR) was mischievous. He loved pranking and he loved roaming about the grounds even though it was a great risk to others (POA). Imo, the latter proves he was not a super cautious child who only took risks because his friends did and he wanted to be a part of the group. He said himself that he laughed carelessly and planned their outings with enthusiasm. With respect to his prankster attitude, that came directly from the author, who indicated he retained that nature throughout his life. He matured into a person who was a warrior and thus, had to set his love of pranks aside (like Sirius), but she still wrote it into his character, as we saw in his adult treatment of shoving bubble gum up Peeves nose before the class, returning the Marauders Map to Harry and as you mentioned, his name also on the detention slips.

Perfectly written, wick:tu:.

Remus wasnt the goody-two-shoes while Sirius and James played their pranks.Remus did like his share of fun, and I mean, someone who helped make the Marauders Map can hardly be someone who isnt mischievous.So that straight away says how Remus was.

I'd also like to bring here Neville's boggart in PoA Chapter-"The Boggart in the Wardrobe"-once Remus got to know Snape was the person Neville feared the most, he asked Neville to think of his Grandmother's clothes.

'If all goes well, Professor Boggart Snape will be forced into that vulture-topped hat, that green dress, that big red handbag"

Someone who says this can hardly be not michievous;)

This is canon enough for me,that Remus loved fun and mischief as much as Sirius and James did.

He didn't like SWM precisely because it was a hex war and not a "prank". While James and Sirius, being pranksters, may have used some of their pranking spells in a hex war, there was a marked difference in their attitudes when they were engaged in a hex war rather than pranking and that is what Remus didn't like, imo.

Again, perfectly pointed out.Remus hated pranks crossing the line-something that James and Sirius didnt really care.That was the difference between them.

Finally, from James and Sirius' point of view; they were best mates, but they apparently did not hold Remus in the "way" lesser regard you indicate, imo. There is no way that they would struggle 3 years to become animagi to accompany him, protect his secret, and allow views taught to them since children to be completely over written in their hearts if they merely considered him "some guy that hung with them", imo. They loved Remus as a friend, but merely were closer to one another. I don't know about everyone else, but I also had a best friend among a group of best mates and it doesn't mean you hold your other friends in less regard in an overall sense, you simply have a best mate among them. As we saw in canon, that didn't mean that James and Sirius were always allied and the others secondary - James allied himself with Remus and rescued Snape, disregarding Sirius' viewpoint on the matter to let matters run their course (POA).
I'd already written about this and I agree:agree:.Becoming an animagi is a tough task and the fact that Sirius and James strived to become animagi for the sake of Remus, tells me there is no doubt that Sirius and James loved him as a very dear friend.Just because James and Sirius were closer doesnt mean that Remus was a "secondary" friend or anything,IMHO.

Becoming an animagi is a tough task and the fact that Sirius and James strived to become animagi for the sake of Remus, tells me there is no doubt that Sirius and James loved him as a very dear friend.Just because James and Sirius were closer doesnt mean that Remus was a "secondary" friend or anything,IMHO.Definitely a tough job, and for two school friends to struggle for three years to learn it so they could be there for their friend, shows how much they valued his friendship.

The Animagus transformations weren't initially for 'pranking' or 'roaming' behavior as canon says they didn't immediately being taking excursions out of the Shack. Every month they'd sneak out of Hogwarts under the Invisibility Cloak and keep Remus company in the Shack and "under their influence, I became less dangerous". Finally, at some point, one of the Marauders (and I speculate heavily that it was Padfoot), decided to totally exploit the "highly exciting possibilities that were open to us" and "soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the grounds and village by night".

.

The Animagus transformations weren't initially for 'pranking' or 'roaming' behavior as canon says they didn't immediately being taking excursions out of the Shack. Every month they'd sneak out of Hogwarts under the Invisibility Cloak and keep Remus company in the Shack and "under their influence, I became less dangerous". Finally, at some point, one of the Marauders (and I speculate heavily that it was Padfoot), decided to totally exploit the "highly exciting possibilities that were open to us" and "soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the grounds and village by night".

:lol: I can see Padfoot doing that too...but yeah,the underlining fact is that they helped a friend placing their lives at a lot of risk.Meaning,they valued his friendship immensely-that could have lead to a lot of pranking and roaming, but it all began with the purpose of helping a friend,no matter what.

I think that the reason they never suspected Peter was the traitor is because of the way Peter "hero worshiped" James. I think James and Sirius were too complacent, thinking that Peter would never betray someone he idolized. That's just my take on it.
I agree that this is possible and do I think that his hero worshiping could have resulted in this debacle. Worshipping can lead to aggressiveness behaviour and rejection to hate. You see how many stalkers are convicted because of this. I am not saying that Peter was a stalker, as the others do not mind him beeing there. But who knows how Peter felt about all this teasings and not being taken, maybe it lead to his dragging to the bad side.


I agree with this. But the problem for me is their action when they know one close to them is a traitor. I agree that to go on suspecting everyone as a possible traitor would drive them nuts but what I cannot accept is the trust when one of their friends may have turned traitor/been under the imperius/forced by Voldemort and was in a position where he could betray them.

Then they should be more aware, should be more careful and should protecte themselves better by trying their best to flush out the spy.
I agree that you should be as wary as possible, but don't think that they weren't. Maybe they looked at all the possible people and then were sure to have the right person. Their decision infected themselves and also their baby son, that's why I don't think that they took this lightly and played with their lifes.

Well, making someone 'feel bad' sometimes is not the same as "keeping them in check" by any degrees.
I totally disagree with what "Tenshi" *cough* was saying as well. :whistle:

The_Green_Woods, I'm sorry, but I think you're unfairly narrowing the field of suspects.

No. I am merely taking only those mentioned in canon. The Potters were in hiding, which means they were already not accessible to many. If they were accessibly to everyone, being in hiding would not be of much use. The Fidelus was to protect themselves from the few among which one was the traitor. Not from the many IMO.

Don't you think that if it were that horribly easy, that Dumbledore would have figured it out?

He suspected Sirius (POA - The Mrauder's Map) IMO. James told him that Sirius would rather die than betray him.

Or do you think he did and not said anything, and allowed the Potters to be murdered by default?

Dumbeldore's offer to be SK was rejected by James. James and Lily should have exercised more caution is what I have been saying all along. They trusted Sirius, who was the best friend they could have, but unfortunately, his suspicions about Remus were without basis or fact IMO and James who trusted Sirius so much went along with his idea to switch. That was the mistake they made, which Lupin pointed out to Harry in DH. Even with friends you know wuill never betray you, you must take their advice with caution and make the decision yourself. James simply accepted Sirius reasoning as true, because he trusted Sirius IMO.

James and Lily made 2 mistakes which cost them IMO.

1) To trust Sirius's suspicions implicitly.

2) To go ahead with the switch with Peter without checking him to the best of their ability, like checking for the Imperius, truth spell, veritaserum or what have you. While we may say, they would have done all this, we don't see that in canon. Had they done all this Sirius would not have felt so guilty. Had they reason to suspect Remus, Sirius would not ahve felt that he killed James and Lily IMO.

But it was not only Sirius's fault for suspecting, it was James and Lily's fault for not doing their best. Sure even after all this Peter may have cheated his way out of everything. Then it becomes a misfortune, not negligence IMO.

First, Remus (according to JKR) was mischievous. He loved pranking and he loved roaming about the grounds even though it was a great risk to others (POA). Imo, the latter proves he was not a super cautious child who only took risks because his friends did and he wanted to be a part of the group. He said himself that he laughed carelessly and planned their outings with enthusiasm.

Yes, Remus went because his curse was for the first time bearable IMO. He says so himself. While he probably knows that it was dangerous, the joy of having someone with him at what was the worst time of his life probably took away the caution and everything IMO> I won't say this about James and Sirius; for them it would have been gloriously dangerous and they may have revelled in it, but for Remus it was a blessing that he had someone with him when he became a monster and if they wanted to roam, well of course he would too IMO.

Remus as the friend of the 2 Marauders is all about gratitude and compromise. He swallows everything, inclusing the werewolf prank that would have got him killed and the name of traitor from Sirius, all because he is grateful to them. That's how much he was shunned by the world; that's how much he needed acceptance IMO.

What canon provides, imo, is that Remus did not like hex wars. Hex wars are not pranking; there is a mean-sprirted motivation behind hex wars that is not associated with pranking to a prankster.

Remus did not participate in the war against Snape and possibly the others too (the detention cards only occassionally coughed up Remus's name in HBP), because I think he was different from Sirius and James, who thought all this was great fun.

Remus did not. While he never went against them and he would always stand by them if needed, he was not with them in his mind or heart IMO. He was different. And this was with the curse when he was willing to even let go of the werewolf incident.

Had he not been cursed, I think we would have seen a Remus who was strong and powerful, but a boy who would stop the Marauders in their excessive pranking IMO.

And I think they would have their fallout the first time Remus did it, for James and Sirius may not have agreed IMO.

I think if it were not for the curse, Remus would be a totally different person and one that may not be very friendly with James and Sirius IMO.

I agree that you should be as wary as possible, but don't think that they weren't. Maybe they looked at all the possible people and then were sure to have the right person. Their decision infected themselves and also their baby son, that's why I don't think that they took this lightly and played with their lifes.

They went about it in the wrong way IMO. They did not take it lightly, like you said they had their baby to think of. But their suspicions of who the traitor was, was concluded wrongly IMO. I have answered this in this post itself.

The entire post is my opinion only.

No. I am merely taking only those mentioned in canon. The Potters were in hiding, which means they were already not accessible to many. If they were accessibly to everyone, being in hiding would not be of much use. The Fidelus was to protect themselves from the few among which one was the traitor. Not from the many IMO.I'm sorry, but I disagree. The Potters were in hiding for more than a year but didn't use the Fidelius until a week prior to their deaths, and during that whole year could have {and we've seen that they did} have people over to their home. 'Someone close to the Potters' and 'someone on our side" does not equate to the just the three known friends of James Potter: Remus, Sirius, Peter

He suspected Sirius (POA - The Mrauder's Map) IMO. James told him that Sirius would rather die than betray him.??? Let's see what the canon says?"...and yet he remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret Keeper himself."
"He suspected Black?" gasped Madam Rosmerta.
"He was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements," said Professor McGonagall darkly. "Indeed, he had suspected for some time that someone on our side had turned traitor and was passing a lot of information to You-Know-Who."There is no clearly stated canon to say that he suspected "Black" specifically. Knowing that James had told him Sirius was the Secret Keeper, it was only reasonable to assume that Sirius was the traitor, but only after the fact, after the murders of James and Lily.



Dumbeldore's offer to be SK was rejected by James. James and Lily should have exercised more caution is what I have been saying all along.To me the argument is that they should have put every ounce of belief into Dumbledore and totally cut themselves off from everyone they knew and because they didn't they as good as killed themselves. I disagree. This is victim blaming.

They trusted Sirius, who was the best friend they could have, but unfortunately, his suspicions about Remus were without basis or fact IMO and James who trusted Sirius so much went along with his idea to switch.We don't know why Sirius suspected Remus so there's no way to know whether they were justified or not, or IF he ever confided his concerns to James.

That was the mistake they made, which Lupin pointed out to Harry in DH. Even with friends you know wuill never betray you, you must take their advice with caution and make the decision yourself. James simply accepted Sirius reasoning as true, because he trusted Sirius IMO. Okay, that's a fair statement. So let's put it in another context. "Even with friends you know will never betray you, like Dumbledore, you must take their advice with caution and make the decision yourself."

That's exactly what James and Lily did. Took the advice of Dumbledore under advisement and placed their trust as Secret Keeper in Sirius, who incidentally would never have betrayed the Potters.

James and Lily made 2 mistakes which cost them IMO.

1) To trust Sirius's suspicions implicitly.

2) To go ahead with the switch with Peter without checking him to the best of their ability, like checking for the Imperius, truth spell, veritaserum or what have you. While we may say, they would have done all this, we don't see that in canon. Had they done all this Sirius would not have felt so guilty. Had they reason to suspect Remus, Sirius would not ahve felt that he killed James and Lily IMO.Their only mistake was trusting Pettigrew. I see no mistake in trusting Sirius at all.

As for checking Peter, how were they to do that while in hiding, and further, why would they ever have suspected him in the first place? Lastly, Veritaserum can be gotten round {Slughorn?}, just as Legilimency can too {Draco/Snape--Dumbledore/Slughorn?}.

I totally disagree with what "Tenshi" *cough* was saying as well. :whistle:

*facepalm* Did I misquote someone again? >.>

I respect your view, however, I believe you have mischaracterized Remus on several fronts.

First, Remus (according to JKR) was mischievous. He loved pranking and he loved roaming about the grounds even though it was a great risk to others (POA). Imo, the latter proves he was not a super cautious child who only took risks because his friends did and he wanted to be a part of the group. He said himself that he laughed carelessly and planned their outings with enthusiasm. With respect to his prankster attitude, that came directly from the author, who indicated he retained that nature throughout his life. He matured into a person who was a warrior and thus, had to set his love of pranks aside (like Sirius), but she still wrote it into his character, as we saw in his adult treatment of shoving bubble gum up Peeves nose before the class, returning the Marauders Map to Harry and as you mentioned, his name also on the detention slips.

What canon provides, imo, is that Remus did not like hex wars. Hex wars are not pranking; there is a mean-sprirted motivation behind hex wars that is not associated with pranking to a prankster. Pranks are all in fun and consist of laughing at others, with others and at ones self. There is certainly wrongfullness associated with pranking from an authoritative view - that is why kids who pull pranks get detention. Not everyone likes pranks and they lack the ability to see them as funny, but many do enjoy them. Like when Fred and George flooded the hallways; sure it upset Umbridge and it inconvenienced people who had to take boats to cross the hall; but it made a lot of people laugh. Some people merely saw it as destruction of property and an inconvenience and didn't laugh. But this is the type of thing Remus could laugh at according to JKR. He didn't like SWM precisely because it was a hex war and not a "prank". While James and Sirius, being pranksters, may have used some of their pranking spells in a hex war, there was a marked difference in their attitudes when they were engaged in a hex war rather than pranking and that is what Remus didn't like, imo.

Finally, from James and Sirius' point of view; they were best mates, but they apparently did not hold Remus in the "way" lesser regard you indicate, imo. There is no way that they would struggle 3 years to become animagi to accompany him, protect his secret, and allow views taught to them since children to be completely over written in their hearts if they merely considered him "some guy that hung with them", imo. They loved Remus as a friend, but merely were closer to one another. I don't know about everyone else, but I also had a best friend among a group of best mates and it doesn't mean you hold your other friends in less regard in an overall sense, you simply have a best mate among them. As we saw in canon, that didn't mean that James and Sirius were always allied and the others secondary - James allied himself with Remus and rescued Snape, disregarding Sirius' viewpoint on the matter to let matters run their course (POA).

I feel it does Remus' character a great disservice to use the fact that he cops his friends a break to further conclude that he would not be friends with them at all if he was not a werewolf. In my view, he would have simply been a more outspoken friend, much like Hermione, but a friend nonetheless. As Mr. Sleepyhead mentioned; Hermione did not abandon Ron and Harry merely because she was in constant disagreement with the plans they made and ideas they had - she simply voiced her more conservative viewpoint. When they disregarded it and went through with their plans, she often joined them, despite her reservations. :lol:. And recall she was a prefect too - as was Ron.

Well said!:tu::agree:

Remus did not. While he never went against them and he would always stand by them if needed, he was not with them in his mind or heart IMO. He was different. And this was with the curse when he was willing to even let go of the werewolf incident.

Had he not been cursed, I think we would have seen a Remus who was strong and powerful, but a boy who would stop the Marauders in their excessive pranking IMO.

And I think they would have their fallout the first time Remus did it, for James and Sirius may not have agreed IMO.

I think if it were not for the curse, Remus would be a totally different person and one that may not be very friendly with James and Sirius IMO.

I think if Remus hadn't been a werewolf, he would have been a lot more like James and Sirius. IMO, the curse forced him to become very responsible a lot earlier than he otherwise would have. I don't think he would have liked what they did to Snape in SWM any better, but I think he would have been a lot more obviously mischievous (I just mentioned this in the Remus/Tonks relationship thread, so I won't go into detail here). And I'm far too tired to be thinking coherently right now, so apologies if this post doesn't make sense.:)

Their only mistake was trusting Pettigrew. I see no mistake in trusting Sirius at all.


I agree:agree:They made absolutely no mistake in trusting Sirius.I'm surprised that we need to even debate that fact:no:

And besides how does James check his friends? Calls them all, gives them Veritaserum and interrogates them?

Sirius would not have felt that he killed James and Lily IMO.

He felt so because it was "survivors guilt" more than anything else as had been previously discussed.I dont think Sirius literally meant everything he said there in the chapter in PoA.He was trying to get Harry to understand the story.And besides Sirius was obviously emotional to see James' son and again survivor's guilt crept up..IMHO Sirius was not the reason the switch took place.James and Lily didnt switch only because Sirius persuaded them too..

Long time no link to How to have a pleasant conversation on any topic (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108019).

You may not agree with another poster but his or her opinion is as valid as yours.

They went about it in the wrong way IMO. They did not take it lightly, like you said they had their baby to think of. But their suspicions of who the traitor was, was concluded wrongly IMO. I have answered this in this post itself. The entire post is my opinion only.
But we don't know what reasons they had to mistrust Remus or better said to trust Peter. We only know they did and the reasons are speculations.

Number seven, "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 hope he wasn't happy with the decision.:grumble:

I don't think so, but they might. If you had a friend that did something so unforgivable would you forgive them? It would probably be the best thing.

James->:cool:
Sirius->;)
Remus->:agree:
Peter->:scared:

Number seven, "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 hope he wasn't happy with the decision.:grumble:

I don't think so, but they might. If you had a friend that did something so unforgivable would you forgive them? It would probably be the best thing.

James->:cool:
Sirius->;)
Remus->:agree:
Peter->:scared:

I think that Peter should be forgiven no matter what. If I had a friend that did that, I would forgive them.

James->:cool:
Sirius->;)
Remus->:agree:
Peter->:scared:

:rotfl:

I think that Peter should be forgiven no matter what. If I had a friend that did that, I would forgive them.
Someone who betrays you, sends your worst enemy after you accepts the fact that you will be killed is NO friend and should not be forgiven.

Also does the whole book 3 show how his "friends" think about him. Sirius only went to Hogsmeade to kill him. Also was Remus supporting him in the end. There was no forgiveness. And I don't believe that James, the one that was betrayed would forgive him either.

Someone who betrays you, sends your worst enemy after you accepts the fact that you will be killed is NO friend and should not be forgiven.

Also does the whole book 3 show how his "friends" think about him. Sirius only went to Hogsmeade to kill him. Also was Remus supporting him in the end. There was no forgiveness. And I don't believe that James, the one that was betrayed would forgive him either.

I would agree; Harry never forgave him for that either. Harry and James would not have killed him per the canon, but they would have sent him to Azkaban which is a fate similar to death (and many do die there). Peter's act was quite unforgivable, imo as well. However, there is a distinction between unforgivable behavior and general human forgiveness. In the long run, Harry (as well as Lily/James and the rest) would have to forgive in terms of general humanity, if not the act, or it would be embittering and I think they would do that. But no one is going to forgive the deed - it was nefarious, imo. It is the same with Voldemort - he did zillions of horrendous acts, including killing James and Lily, and the acts are unforgivable - but as a general matter of principle, Harry cannot seethe with hatred for Voldemort his whole life or he will become bitter and it will only be harmful to him in the end. So he has to forgive in terms of humanity and its plethora of flawed individuals so that he can let it go.

From the Snape and Lily thread
The thing is, logically, if Snape had never called her a Mudblood before, but did so at that time - what was to stop him from using his cutting curse on her the next time he got angry?

Sirius had also never done this before but this time when he got irritated sent a atudent into the tunnel to be bitten. Sirius like Snape would not have wanted to harm his friend Remus I pesume, but he quite "meant" it towards Snape; he says "Snape deserves it" (not the exact words) some 20 years later in POA IMO. How would you view this? IMO Sirius was culpable of sending 2 students (Remus and Snape) to death; can we say because of this Sirius was never to be trusted at all? I won't say that, though I think he was very reckless and his lack of remorse or care for a student's life even when he was an enemy is appalling; but I would not say Sirius should not be trusted as a friend (he would have also apologised to Remus and James would have also pitched in for him IMO) , because he endangered a friend IMO. I think it all depends on the said friends as well. James and Remus were willing to forgive Sirius; Snape was not so lucky IMO.

Sirius was reckless. But to say that he was culpable of murder is a bit too harsh, IMO. He got carried away and later I'm sure understood that.

Sirius hated Snape and the feeling was entirely mutual. Yes, he thought Snape deserved it at that point of time in PoA when he was mentally and physically in great pain and torture. Snape wasnt exactly an angel. He was willing to kill Sirius in PoA without even waiting for any explanation. IMO, he was just waiting for a chance to duel with and kill Sirius. The scene in the #12 G Kitchen where they both got ready to duel clearly shows that though Sirius may have been more open of his hatred for Snape, Snape wasnt innocent either. I could bet anything that they would duel to kill.

Oh! This is not a comparison between Snape and Sirius. :scared: I will not do that. This was a comparison about progressively evil acts by people just because they allowed their frustration, irritation and the like to make one action that was pretty evil. The whole post is there in the Snape and Lily thread; I could not write this there; so I came here.

Oh thanks for explaining that TGW.:)

Because when I read your previous post, it looked to me like a sort of comparison between Snape and Sirius and hence my reply.

From the Snape and Lily thread


Sirius had also never done this before but this time when he got irritated sent a atudent into the tunnel to be bitten. Sirius like Snape would not have wanted to harm his friend Remus I pesume, but he quite "meant" it towards Snape; he says "Snape deserves it" (not the exact words) some 20 years later in POA IMO. How would you view this? IMO Sirius was culpable of sending 2 students (Remus and Snape) to death; can we say because of this Sirius was never to be trusted at all? I won't say that, though I think he was very reckless and his lack of remorse or care for a student's life even when he was an enemy is appalling; but I would not say Sirius should not be trusted as a friend (he would have also apologised to Remus and James would have also pitched in for him IMO) , because he endangered a friend IMO. I think it all depends on the said friends as well. James and Remus were willing to forgive Sirius; Snape was not so lucky IMO.

I answered you. JKR said there was danger in Sirius' character. So would he possibly place his friends in danger again after that incident, albeit inadverently? My answer: you betcha. Of course he would not ever dream of hurting a hair on their heads, but his nature is such that he might well invite them into a dangerous situation of his making.

From the Fidelus Charm thread in the Stone forum
But Dumbledore did not suggest that, he suggested he be the secret keeper and he is the one who told them about it. But that gets into issues that belong in the character threads. For purposes of how the charm works, it is known that one can be their own secret keeper, so I feel if it were a possible solution (in terms of the storyline) back when the Potters used it, Dumbledore would have suggested it. Thus, I don't think the full contours of the charm could be said to be known or the very wise Dumbledore would not have overlooked one of the easiest and best solutions.

LOL! Maybe Dumbledore suggested that himself, James or Lily be SK, since one of their close friends was a traitor.

I think JKR made Sirius/Peter the SK for the story which needed James/Lily killed and Sirius away. The purpose of that particualar event was to break up the Marauders.

Peter the actual traitor; Sirius the thoughtless but extremely loyal friend, James and Lily who agreed with Sirius instead of Dumbeldore and Remus suspected by Sirius and the Potters IMO.

For that the Fidelus charm could not be with James or Lily IMO.

LOL! Maybe Dumbledore suggested that himself, James or Lily be SK, since one of their close friends was a traitor.

Or maybe James and Lily suggested that they use polyjuice forever and go live in Russia with their friend Boris, the airplane wing designer with his wife and 12 children. I mean if we are going to invent canon, I can be very creative...:lol:.

I think JKR made Sirius/Peter the SK for the story which needed James/Lily killed and Sirius away. The purpose of that particualar event was to break up the Marauders.

Peter the actual traitor; Sirius the thoughtless but extremely loyal friend, James and Lily who agreed with Sirius instead of Dumbeldore and Remus suspected by Sirius and the Potters IMO.

For that the Fidelus charm could not be with James or Lily IMO.

Well I don't understand this. What do you mean by 'break up the Marauders'? What purpose would that serve? Peter was a traitor, Sirius went to Azkaban, Lupin traveled the world looking for work that we know of and James and Lily died. Seems to me JKR broke them up just fine without any need for a Fidelius Charm.

Sirius and Remus were perhaps quick to deduce that the other was the 'traitor', but you note how quickly they deduced one another's innocence in the shack. Considering they'd been apart 12 years, that was extremely fast and I think it spoke to the closeness of their friendship, despite the intervention of time and the doubts they'd had during that period when they were young.

Nonetheless, they all died and the 4 faithful friends were reunited in DH for us - Peter of course was out. So in the end, JKR's purpose was not to break up the faithful four, rather to show that they moved onward as friends for eternity (with Tonks to join in for the fun). The "motto" is that one can place their trust in their friends and faith and love can be everlasting (shown again in Hermione, Harry and Ron - despite their friendships breaking up and their distrust of one another at points during the series). The other 'motto' is that one bad apple (Peter), doesn't spoil the whole bunch, so don't let yourself get sour and untrusting due to one person's nefarious behavior. You can still trust all of your other friends, because most (the majority in the story) are true, good hearted people.

The reason the Marauders had to die was so that Harry would go it alone (Dumbledore too) - that is what JKR said. That makes sense, but I think the unity of this group of people, through thick and thin, moments of weakness and suffering flaws and criminal injustice, were given the most happy ending of all. Reunited in the happiest place about, the afterworld, looking young, happy and healthy once more.

But maybe I am missing your point?

Well I don't understand this. What do you mean by 'break up the Marauders'? What purpose would that serve? Peter was a traitor, Sirius went to Azkaban, Lupin traveled the world looking for work that we know of and James and Lily died. Seems to me JKR broke them up just fine without any need for a Fidelius Charm.

The 4 friends had different levels of friendships IMO. James and Sirius on one; there was true trust and a friendship among equals, a true friendship in every way. But Remus and Peter did not come under that and that is what the SK incident showed.

Remus was not trusted by James and Sirius and Peter was nver thought their equal. He went on to betray the Potters, because he was never their friend and Sirius suspected Remus for reasons unknown. That time saw the Marauders break up, Remus going away because he was not considered trustworthy and Peter going away because he was a traitor.

The purpose of this was I feel to make Harry completely alone in his formative years.

Sirius and Remus were perhaps quick to deduce that the other was the 'traitor', but you note how quickly they deduced one another's innocence in the shack. Considering they'd been apart 12 years, that was extremely fast and I think it spoke to the closeness of their friendship, despite the intervention of time and the doubts they'd had during that period when they were young.

I think this was because they had Peter in fornt of them. Sirius's and Remus's innocence could not be doubted by each other.

Nonetheless, they all died and the 4 faithful friends were reunited in DH for us - Peter of course was out. So in the end, JKR's purpose was not to break up the faithful four, rather to show that they moved onward as friends for eternity (with Tonks to join in for the fun). The "motto" is that one can place their trust in their friends and faith and love can be everlasting (shown again in Hermione, Harry and Ron - despite their friendships breaking up and their distrust of one another at points during the series). The other 'motto' is that one bad apple (Peter), doesn't spoil the whole bunch, so don't let yourself get sour and untrusting due to one person's nefarious behavior. You can still trust all of your other friends, because most (the majority in the story) are true, good hearted people.

I don't know if they were the faithful 4. Faithful 2, I very much agree. Peter was never a friend, and Remus was not inside the Inner circle which consisted of only James and Sirius.

James and Sirius were closer to each other than they were to Remus, even thouugh I feel the 3 enjoyed a friendship of equals than Peter who they never respected and so always disregarded and which proved to be their downfall. Remus too, on his side I think did not consider himself on par with Sirius and James. His feeling towards Sirius and James was one of extreme gratitude first and friendship next. Time and again he forgives Sirius because Sirius accepted him as a werewolf IMO, but I think the closeness probably dimished after the werewolf incident and a little more after being suspected as a traitor.

Remus's actions also show he was not quite the close, faithful friend. He never visited Harry at Privet Drive and he never bothered to visit Harry during the first 2 years at Hogwarts, never bothered to tell a child starved of information about his parents, that he knew tham in Harry's third year; never owned up about Sirius's animagus even after Sirius came into Gryffindor tower and never wrote to Harry in Harry's 6th year after Sirius's death IMO.

I think they came through the Stone, because they were connected in one way or the other to Harry. James and Lily because they were his parents, Sirius because he was the Godfather and Remus because he made Harry Godfather to Teddy IMO.

But the most important reason why they came through the Stone and not Dumbledore and Snape, was because Harry loved them at that time more than their closeness to Harry IMO.

The 4 friends had different levels of friendships IMO. James and Sirius on one; there was true trust and a friendship among equals, a true friendship in every way. But Remus and Peter did not come under that and that is what the SK incident showed.

Remus was not trusted by James and Sirius and Peter was nver thought their equal. He went on to betray the Potters, because he was never their friend and Sirius suspected Remus for reasons unknown. That time saw the Marauders break up, Remus going away because he was not considered trustworthy and Peter going away because he was a traitor.

Well I believe you already are aware that I disagree with your speculation and interpretation in that regard. So we'd have to agree to disagree on this. But I don't see how you are linking that to the Fidelius Charm, which I thought was your point.

I think this was because they had Peter in fornt of them. Sirius's and Remus's innocence could not be doubted by each other.

No, it was prior to the materialization of Peter - quite a while before actually. Remus stood and made himself reason through the evidence, something people who have no basis for trust might not bother doing (like Snape did not upon his arrival). I believe it was their old friendship that formed that basis for trust and caused Remus to immediately reason before acting, reaching unfounded conclusions or otherwise.

James and Sirius were closer to each other than they were to Remus, even thouugh I feel the 3 enjoyed a friendship of equals than Peter who they never respected and so always disregarded and which proved to be their downfall.

We'd have to agree to disagree on this point too. I think they underestimated and perhaps disregarded Peter at times, but friends do not betray you for these reasons. They simply end friendships if it is one they do not enjoy being a part of. Peter adapted to the friendship in his own way, proving himself slow and needing help; not everyone has the eternal patience to deal with people of that nature and I think that is a point overlooked. JKR wrote from two sides of the pen; on the one hand, Goyle and Crabbe are deserving of Harry and Ron's degrading comments because of their slowness and stupidity; on the other, the three Marauders were to treat slow and stupid Peter with utter patience. While you have the distinction of friends and enemies there, Harry and Ron were not speaking in terms of enemies when dealing with Crabbe and Goyle. For example, when they drugged them with the sweets and then replaced them in polyjuice form - taking advantage of their ignorance. One cannot say they were holding them as equals and treating them with even the respect that one normally holds for an enemy. :lol:. So I think even JKR's assessment is contradictory in this instance, but that may well be based on the fact that she was generalizing and she may have made the same comment about Ron and Harry. In a narrative sense, however, it was Crabbe who paid for his own stupidity and Goyle whose outcome was left completely out of the series. So she never really put a period on her point - if she was trying to make one.


Remus too, on his side I think did not consider himself on par with Sirius and James. His feeling towards Sirius and James was one of extreme gratitude first and friendship next. Time and again he forgives Sirius because Sirius accepted him as a werewolf IMO, but I think the closeness probably dimished after the werewolf incident and a little more after being suspected as a traitor.

I respect your view, but I feel that Remus considered all of the circumstances and would blame Snape for the werewolf incident, principally for stopping the tree on Sirius' advice and then attempting to enter the tunnel. He was likely very angry at the notion that Snape wished to expose him and have him sanctioned or worse and I feel that would lessen his annoyance with Sirius to a great extent. I figure they grew even closer in the wake of that incident. Of course while suspecting one another, their closeness would be lessened to some degree - but as I pointed out, it came back in full force in the shack, which does indicate something as well although your point of view doesn't seem to include it and I am unsure why.

Remus's actions also show he was not quite the close, faithful friend. He never visited Harry at Privet Drive and he never bothered to visit Harry during the first 2 years at Hogwarts, never bothered to tell a child starved of information about his parents, that he knew tham in Harry's third year; never owned up about Sirius's animagus even after Sirius came into Gryffindor tower and never wrote to Harry in Harry's 6th year after Sirius's death IMO.

IMO you ask too much of a werewolf. :lol:

I think they came through the Stone, because they were connected in one way or the other to Harry. James and Lily because they were his parents, Sirius because he was the Godfather and Remus because he made Harry Godfather to Teddy IMO.

I wasn't talking about "why" they came through the stone. That was because Harry wanted his loved ones to be with him before he crossed over into the afterworld - to give him courage. I was speaking about what JKR showed us with their youthful, healthy and happy appearance. The unity they showed as a group set on encouraging Harry and showing him their love. That is the final legacy.

But the most important reason why they came through the Stone and not Dumbledore and Snape, was because Harry loved them at that time more than their closeness to Harry IMO.

I don't understand what Snape and Dumbledore have to do with it. Harry didn't love Snape and he was angry at Dumbledore - he didn't want them around as they could not offer him encouragement, love, security or any of the other requirements he had at the time. The four who returned were "a part of Harry" according to the canon - you can't get much closer than that, imo. So I am unsure what you are trying to say in terms of closeness. :huh:

No, it was prior to the materialization of Peter - quite a while before actually. Remus stood and made himself reason through the evidence, something people who have no basis for trust might not bother doing (like Snape did not upon his arrival). I believe it was their old friendship that formed that basis for trust and caused Remus to immediately reason before acting, reaching unfounded conclusions or otherwise.

It was when Remus saw the name Peter Pettigrew on the Map which never lies. Until then Remus was quite convinced Sirius was a DE.

I don't understand what Snape and Dumbledore have to do with it. Harry didn't love Snape and he was angry at Dumbledore - he didn't want them around as they could not offer him encouragement, love, security or any of the other requirements he had at the time. The four who returned were "a part of Harry" according to the canon - you can't get much closer than that, imo. So I am unsure what you are trying to say in terms of closeness. :huh:

Harry did not love Snape and Dumbledore at the time he walked to the Forest. Snape and Dumbledore were 2 other people, who were closely involved with Harry and who gave their lives for him IMO. Harry came to have great affection for Dumbledore, I also think he came to accept Snape as his own.

Posted from the Fidelus charm thread in the Stone

posted by Willfitz
With regards to your first comment there ^, I still don't think that James would put making Sirius feel appreciated above the absolute safety of his family. IMO this is not a reasonable argument.

I feel James disregarded Dumbledore's offer to be SK by saying Sirius would rather die than betray him, as implicit trust in Sirius. James was that sure Sirius would never betray him. And he was right IMO. When Dumbledore came with the information that some one close to the Potters (who were already in hiding, just not under the Fidelus at that time and so the people they came in contact were very few, possibly only the 3 close friends and Dumbledore and Bathilda Bagshot) was a traitor and he offered to become their SK when they went under the Fidelus, James told Dumbledore that he was sure Sirius would never betray them. So James wanted Sirius, feeling that the traitor was not Sirius.

Like I wrote James was right; but still someone close to the Potters was a traitor according to Dumbledore and Sirius thought it was Remus and persuaded James to make the switch to Peter at the last moment without telling Remus. Remus knew Sirius was innocent only in POA.

But I feel James went about determining the traitor incorrectly (mostly I feel he listened to Sirius, who persuaded them to change SK at the last moment); while showing the enormous trust he had in Sirius, it also makes me feel he did not look into the fact if Remus was actually a traitor and if Peter was safe (both were close friends too; if not as close as Sirius). He preferred to simply trust Sirius. While I feel trusting Sirius for the SK is one thing, going along with Sirius to agree with his assessment that Remus was a traitor, without much proof and that Peter was safe is another thing entirely. James was sure about Sirius; he was not as close to Remus and Peter as he was to Sirius and he was ready to suspect Remus and change to Peter because Sirius said so, because he trusted Sirius so much. It was under this circumstance I feel the Fidelus charm was made with Peter as SK, on Sirius's suggestion, which James agreed. That action compromised his and his family's safety IMO.

Well the Marauders were popular, pranking about like the twins and apparently fun people to be around and funny as well. Also, you have Sirius advising that at least and James were arrogant and we know James was a Quidditch hero. But despite these things, JKR did not write these guys like stereotypical popular students (totally disregarding of others)or jocks (who hang with jocks). Instead I think it was a more realistic rendering, because popular kids in real life do not all fall into some type of stereotypical bag. While being good at extracurricular activities can increase popularity, so can simply being in the forefront of the student body (class presidents, student body queens, kings and the like), or pranksters, or those who have ready answers for professors, etc. I feel like JKR wrote in enough to allow us to see that while these boys were popular, there were many other sides to their characters as well. Their little werewolf buddy, their other little rather odd buddy, Sirius' lack of interest in all the girls laying at his feet, the 3 becoming animagi for their friends, James saving Snape's life, Sirius' troubled homelife and running away, etc. So I think there was a lot more to this group than mere popularity, which makes them a lot more interesting to me.

I voted for Remus. I was quite surprised that he has the most votes! I was sure it would be Sirius!


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

I dont think it really effected Remus, but possibly Peter would have felt inferior - but I have the feeling that he felt that way all the time. I think that Remus would have been alright knowing that James and Sirius were closer. He probably felt like - not in a bad way - that of course they would prefer each other over a werewolf. But I dont think he would have held it against them, if it were the case. At the same, I feel as though he knew that they would always be there for him. And I guess the same goes for Peter.

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

I dont understand, what do you mean by main suspect? For betraying the Potters?

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

Oh, I definatly think it was a mixture of both. But I do think the main reason was to be there for their friend. But the possible adventures probably gave them that little extra push.

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

I doubt that either of them would have been resentful. They had always known that they were each others best friends. Anyways, I'm sure that Lily and james were planning on having more children. I dont understand why they wouldn't have. Maybe James told Remus he could be the godfather of the next kid!

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 dont really know if James ever could. Peter sold his family to Voldemort, and that just is something that you cannot forgive. I think that Peter was just in it for personal gain. But I do think it was a shame, because he obviously had it in him to be brave etc, otherwise the sorting hat wouldnt have put him in gryffindor. Something obviously went wrong in that little ratty head of his.

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 not sure when they joined the order. Was it before, or after they found out Voldy was after them? But I think that either way - James, Sirius and Lupin could not have stood by and let all those innocent people die etc. So as far as those three were concered, it was joint, and I feel as though Peter would have goe anywhere the others went, weither or not they asked him to, or told him.

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?

Hmmm... Im trying to remember that bit in Snapes memories...
I cant... But I think that, even if they were in the same house, they still wouldnt have gotten along. Maybe it wouldnt have been as bad as it was, but they clearly didnt like each other and Im not sure if it has anything to do with houses. Snape would still have been an odd ball, and James would still have been popular and good at Quidditch etc, and Snape would still have loved Lily - so would have James. Maybe Lily would have liked him more though.

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?

Im not really sure. I have a feeling that James and Sirius were more cocky than the Weasley twins. But I dont really think they were mean - well not intentually. ~Or maybe they were,but they were kids after all. Not that thats any excuse for bullying.

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

I think they looked worse in OotP than DH.

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 I like Lupin best. Mainly because he's just a nice guy. He's had a tough time of it, and he is still lovely. His slip in DH did upset me a bit, but he defo redeemed himself in my eyes, because he did the right thing in the end. He wasnt horrible at all, he left because he was worried for his wife and unborn child. He thought he had condemed him to the same life he led. And knowing that made me less mad at him. I love Remus!

From the Severus Snape thread
posted by WWB
I would respectfully disagree because I apply the same reasoning to everyone. I am not going to accuse Sirius of joining the Order because he was pushed into it or forced. It was a choice that he had to risk his life to undertake, so whatever his motive or influence, in the end, he had to make the choice to do it. I feel the same way about Snape.

This is an interesting point. Sirius did take a choice which would cost him his family and that was a big thing; but Sirius by the time he joined, had a firm anchor in James, James who did not stop his friendship with Sirius even when Sirius exhibited such recklessness that almost got 2 boys killed. James was the best friend, really. That was why Sirius was so heartbroken by his death, in which he had a hand by switching SK IMO.

That anchor called James helped Sirius take the right actions. Snape IMO did not enjoy such things. His best friend left him, when he called her a mudblood; Snape took choices he repented for eventually, but unlike Sirius who was blessed with a friend who just about overlooked everything, even incidents like the werewolf one, Snape had nothing in comparison IMO.

If Sirius did not have James's friendship, if James had done the Lily thing, if James had stopped being Sirius's friend for the werewolf incident, I wonder how Sirius's life would have turned out.

From the Severus Snape thread

This is an interesting point. Sirius did take a choice which would cost him his family and that was a big thing; but Sirius by the time he joined, had a firm anchor in James, James who did not stop his friendship with Sirius even when Sirius exhibited such recklessness that almost got 2 boys killed. James was the best friend, really. That was why Sirius was so heartbroken by his death, in which he had a hand by switching SK IMO.

That anchor called James helped Sirius take the right actions. Snape IMO did not enjoy such things. His best friend left him, when he called her a mudblood; Snape took choices he repented for eventually, but unlike Sirius who was blessed with a friend who just about overlooked everything, even incidents like the werewolf one, Snape had nothing in comparison IMO.

If Sirius did not have James's friendship, if James had done the Lily thing, if James had stopped being Sirius's friend for the werewolf incident, I wonder how Sirius's life would have turned out.

First of all, you and I do not look at the werewolf incident the same way - so our "starting point" in this conversation is completely different.

I do not think any friend of Sirius' would give a single thought to the werewolf incident after about 2 days. This event was nothing - Snape was behaving in a foolish manner and was to blame in the eyes of the Marauders, imo, because he walked into the tunnel following the advice of his enemy on how to stop the willow to do so. Snape broke school rules in doing so - and his purpose was exposure of Sirius and his friends to get them in trouble. James would in no way stop being Sirius' friend as a result, and neither would Remus or Peter, or Lily, imo. They wouldn't even consider it. It simply did not have the same importance to them or show the horribleness of Sirius in the way you indicate, in my opinion. They did not believe Sirius was an attempted murderer - that was how Snape felt, not Sirius and his friends. Sirius had merely done a dangerous prank - but it only became dangerous because Snape followed the advice of his enemy, broke school rules and behaved foolishly by walking into danger - and it was reversed by James. So we are in disagreement about what the Marauders would think.

Hence, the importance you place on that event, I do not - thus, we don't see that the same and that is the basis of your reasoning here in relation to anyone not being a friend of Sirius'.

However, leaving that aside, what I meant was that it doesn't matter what influences or motives Sirius had for joining the Order. I don't care if he was influenced by Dumbledore or James or Remus or his parents badness, or his brother joining the DEs or Snape's behavior or because his motorcylce was cool :lol:. Whatever his reasons - he joined - and that was his final decision that he had to make for himself. And he knew what the Order did - it was dangerous and they were trying to take out Voldemort and the DEs - and Save the Muggles and Muggleborns. That is all that matters to me. That is what is important. So that is how I judge everyone.

I do not think any friend of Sirius' would give a single thought to the werewolf incident after about 2 days. This event was nothing - Snape was behaving in a foolish manner and was to blame in the eyes of the Marauders, imo, because he walked into the tunnel following the advice of his enemy on how to stop the willow to do so.

Assuming James had not got there in time and Lupin had bitten/killed Snape, would it have been just a casual prank which everyone would have forgotten after 2 days?

I think the werewolf incident is not important for what happened; it is actually important for what could have happened had James not arrived there in time.

From that point of view, I don't think this incident is casual.

Snape broke school rules in doing so - and his purpose was exposure of Sirius and his friends to get them in trouble.

Okay let Snape be punished for breaking School rules. What punishment should Sirius get for sending Snape into the tunnel? In the books I don't think he got any.

James would in no way stop being Sirius' friend as a result, and neither would Remus or Peter, or Lily, imo. They wouldn't even consider it. It simply did not have the same importance to them or show the horribleness of Sirius in the way you indicate, in my opinion.

James was a brilliant friend to Sirius. In my mind there is no doubt about it. I don't think Remus and Peter had the same place as Sirius did to James. For Sirius, I think James would do anything and I think Sirius would return the compliment.

It was James's friendship that kept Sirius's recklessness in place IMO. And even then there was the werewolf incident and the suggestion of switching SK's.

Had James stopped his friendship with Sirius, because he was reckless enough to send a student to death (and he never repents or feels remorse for it 20 years later, (it serves him right he says) which I find appalling); then I am sure Sirius's recklessness and callous attitude would have landed him in a lot of trouble.

They did not believe Sirius was an attempted murderer - that was how Snape felt, not Sirius and his friends. Sirius had merely done a dangerous prank - but it only became dangerous because Snape followed the advice of his enemy, broke school rules and behaved foolishly by walking into danger - and it was reversed by James. So we are in disagreement about what the Marauders would think.

I think the words "James saved Snape's life" would not have been written, unless Snape's life was in danger in the first place. That danger was because of Sirius, who did not care about the repercussions of his actions. That is what makes Sirius a callous man; he loves, he cares and he is loyal to a fault to those he loves and cares about; to others; well he need not care or be loyal to them, but he needs to have a line between actions that show his lack of care or indifference and actions that are downright dangerous, where he can be accused of serious mistakes and even crime (which is what the werewolf incident would have been had James not come in at that point). Sirius does not repent. At all. And personally that's scary.

Whatever his reasons - he joined - and that was his final decision that he had to make for himself. And he knew what the Order did - it was dangerous and they were trying to take out Voldemort and the DEs - and Save the Muggles and Muggleborns. That is all that matters to me. That is what is important. So that is how I judge everyone.

Yes he joined and yes, he would have given in a moment his life to save James's. I don't disagree with that. Sirius was a great friend to James as well.

But his recklessness had repercussions; his recklessness clouded his ability to think clearly; one act of that recklessness resulted one in an almost death of 2 boys and another which was accepted by James because if was offered by Sirius, resulted in the Potters deaths IMO.

Sirius was able to stay within the parameters of the Light, because of his anchor which was James, who continued in that role even after his death. Otherwise, whatever side Sirius chose, he would have still found himself on the wrong side of the right, because of his reckless attitude IMO.

I think there's a reason Jo lined up these particular characters and placed them into the "Marauder" drawer. Black had this "recklessness" thing going, Potter wasn't above bullying, Lupin was a werewolf and Peter turned a traitor. Without the childhood background snippets, not really a stellar example of "good guys" for a story. :lol:

I think there's a reason Jo lined up these particular characters and placed them into the "Marauder" drawer. Black had this "recklessness" thing going, Potter wasn't above bullying, Lupin was a werewolf and Peter turned a traitor. Without the childhood background snippets, not really a stellar example of "good guys" for a story. :lol:

I would respectflly disagree. I mean, Harry is just like them in all ways except for Peter and his betrayal. He is like his father in having a #1 in Draco, and has his tempered fault of arrogance, etc., and reckless/impetuous at times like Sirius and also has something "special" about him that holds him apart from others, bringing both their condemnation (like Remus) and praise (like his dad) - that he inherited from birth and the whole Voldy thing (like Remus was bitten through no fault of his own). And Harry is the main hero or "good guy". So I think that JKR was just giving all of the "good guys" stories, to help give them a little girth in the tale. If she hadn't flushed it out and given them characteristics other than benevolent do-gooders, it would be even more fairy-tale in nature, imo. Even the man believed to hold that role - Dumbledore - didn't in the end.

So the point was that no one is perfect, and for the trio and the Marauders, they had to grow into their maturity and into a more 'good guy' stance that we are all more familiar with (veritable prince charming in a fairy tale who could do no wrong - JKR never actually went that far thank goodness :lol:). These were not contrasted with the bad guys, in my judgment - some of the bad guys were flushed out also - we learned a lot about Lucius and even saw the changes that took place in his son, Draco. So, I don't think the point was to try to make "good guys" in a fake sense, but in a more real sense, showing that they too have to mature into their values so that they meet their views. We see that contrast in Draco and actually he was an even broader example in a sense - our most detailed study, because we saw him grow into his dark views and then struggle out of them. To me, the distinction was the core values that the various individuals had throughout - Harry pulled out some non-good guy acts and such, but he never followed them with a value change in order to justify his behavior, which was similar to all of the other good guys. The bad guys would retain their core values as well and justify their bad acts as good, imo. So we see with Draco, but then he reached the point where he could not do that any longer - even in defiance of his parents and it was Voldy threatening their lives that cause Draco's change of heart in the first place. Standing behind them to protect them no longer functioned and it became necessary for him to stand against them to protect them. And we get a limited viewing of Peter's growth in the other direction, but JKR didn't seem keen on detailing the 'falls' into darkness as much as the 'rises' out of it.

So bottom line, it is a story of growth in all directions for a myriad of characters. :lol:.

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

I believe Remus felt sometimes inferior and sometimes superior. Meaning that, he must have felt somewhat more 'mature' seeing that he never picked on others or Snape 'just becouse they were there' but at the same time he had no courage to tell them off in fear for loosing respect, or closeness. Peter is the eternally overshadowed, but I don't believe it hurt his feelings that much. It wasn't his nature to feel ashamed too much.

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

Hm, maybe I woke up too early, but I don't really get this question...

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

It was both. Noble is not really the word I'd have chosen, I'd rather say it was an act of friendship and understanding, but of course it was also adventurous.

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

Probably that it was a lost cause. I cannot decide for myself wether James' initial interest in Lily was sheer coincidence or it was becouse she hung around with Severus.

5. How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?

I don't think we have seen too much of this canonwise to respond accurately, but I guess it somewhat made James more decided to be 'cool' and that wasn't necessarely a good thing...

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

If I remember it correctly James and Sirius were the first two friends of the quartet, and they were always a bit closer to each-other than the rest of the marauders. I believe they understood it.

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 don't think he was happy with it, for I don't think he really cared. He goes where the wind blows, and at that time the wind was blowing in that direction.
He would've earned forgiveness maybe if he did something to righten his deed. But that must be something really big... No, probably not...

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?

It is only Peter I think who simply just 'followed'. I don't really see Remus as one who might even consider the other side.

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?

It probably would have been different if Snape was in Gryffindor. THeir first ever encounter and the starting point for all was exactly about this: Severus saying to Lily that he hopes she's Slytherin. We don't really know wether they picked on other Slytherins too, but they surely picked on Snape, and the reason for that was not just the fact that 'he was up to his eyeballs in the dark arts' as Sirius said. They did single out Snape from the start.

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 believe they were worse. James was a pampered little prince (IMO) at home, and came to school as something of a spoiled brat. I am not denying that he was basically good at heart, but it was definitely easier for him to be good at heart than for Severus, or even Sirius, for that matter. It is true that they didn't use dark magic, but if I had a choise between having used dark magic on and being undressed suspended upside down in front of a whole school I am not sure I wouldn't pick the first. He decided that Snape deserved this only becouse he was Slytherin, and never stopped to think that behaviour like this can actually push someone further down a bad path. Sirius went along maybe in a desire to prove that despite his family he wasn't Slytherin and he despised the dark arts. He chose a wrong way of showing it IMO.

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

No, I always had the same opinion about them. They weren't portrayed too favourably IMO. Obviously they didn't want to hurt people, but I believe they didn't really stop to think before acting most of the times. Harry was much more mature at that age than his father IMO.

12. 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 Lupin best for he is a person who can learn from his mistakes, he is sympathetic, probaly becouse of his own problematic childhood (at which Sirius could also have been, but wasn't) and he is more willing to forget but harsh if necessary.

I liked being a Marauder. Sometimes James and Sirius laughed at me, but mostly they were nice.

You only liked it because it gave you a chance to be the sadistic git you are to and cling to the legs of others like a lost puppy. :rolleyes:

I believe they were worse. James was a pampered little prince (IMO) at home, and came to school as something of a spoiled brat. I am not denying that he was basically good at heart, but it was definitely easier for him to be good at heart than for Severus, or even Sirius, for that matter. It is true that they didn't use dark magic, but if I had a choise between having used dark magic on and being undressed suspended upside down in front of a whole school I am not sure I wouldn't pick the first. He decided that Snape deserved this only becouse he was Slytherin, and never stopped to think that behaviour like this can actually push someone further down a bad path. Sirius went along maybe in a desire to prove that despite his family he wasn't Slytherin and he despised the dark arts. He chose a wrong way of showing it IMO.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it is possible that Snape introduced the spell to the school in order to push all of the students down the dark path - seeing as they were all humiliating one another in the hallways. But in that case, I feel it was likely good that the Marauders and others used it back on those who initiated it, to counter that movement and show that those planning to fight Voldemort could push as well. I would imagine that is probably why Snape's spell didn't end up causing everyone to change sides.

I think the Marauders spent most of their time focused on their own interest, focusing on the budding Death Eaters only as they crossed them; like in Harry's day. They enjoyed pranking and becoming animagi, inventing their map, studying, engaging in school pursuits like Quidditch, plus all the normal teen stuff like dating and kicking around doing stuff around the campus. I am glad they were not pushovers, like Harry and the trio or the twins, and stood up for themselves. I think you needed leader types on campus to combat the underlying growth of evil that was spreading within the wizard world at that time - and during part of Harry's time too. It would be interesting to find out the distinctions between those years and Harry's in greater detail, but I have a feeling the times were just as exciting in their own way.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it is possible that Snape introduced the spell to the school in order to push all of the students down the dark path - seeing as they were all humiliating one another in the hallways. But in that case, I feel it was likely good that the Marauders and others used it back on those who initiated it, to counter that movement and show that those planning to fight Voldemort could push as well. I would imagine that is probably why Snape's spell didn't end up causing everyone to change sides.


Hmm, I don't really understand what you mean... How can a spell push anyone down a 'dark path'??
And incidentally, I was always curious how came the Marauders to know the levicorpus spell since it was invented by Snape and it's a noverbal...

I hadn't thought of it that way, but it is possible that Snape introduced the spell to the school in order to push all of the students down the dark path - seeing as they were all humiliating one another in the hallways. But in that case, I feel it was likely good that the Marauders and others used it back on those who initiated it, to counter that movement and show that those planning to fight Voldemort could push as well.

Ok, so first of all, I clearly remember your persistent opposition to using Levicorpus being called humiliation. You kept insisting it was just good fun and James and Sirius playing a prank on Snape with it rather than publicly humilating him. Why the change in definition?

And secondly, how come it's "humiliating" when Snape and his lot use it, but it's all good and justified when the Marauders use it in exactly the same way? This way it seems it's not the spell that's dark, it's who uses it. Sounds like the Marausers are excused just by being the Marausers (and therefore "good"), while Snape is culpable just by being Snape! That seems plenty biased to me.

Also, I find the idea that it's noble and a good idea to "counter" the dark ways by the exact same means they employ absurd and obviously nonsensical. It's like, we can humiliate/kill/torture people if we define ourselves like "the good guys", but if others do it to us, they're evil. I don't think so.

Ok, so first of all, I clearly remember your persistent opposition to using Levicorpus being called humiliation. You kept insisting it was just good fun and James and Sirius playing a prank on Snape with it rather than publicly humilating him. Why the change in definition?

And secondly, how come it's "humiliating" when Snape and his lot use it, but it's all good and justified when the Marauders use it in exactly the same way? This way it seems it's not the spell that's dark, it's who uses it. Sounds like the Marausers are excused just by being the Marausers (and therefore "good"), while Snape is culpable just by being Snape! That seems plenty biased to me.

Also, I find the idea that it's noble and a good idea to "counter" the dark ways by the exact same means they employ absurd and obviously nonsensical. It's like, we can humiliate/kill/torture people if we define ourselves like "the good guys", but if others do it to us, they're evil. I don't think so.


Oh, thank you, I thought I was missing something here.

I have to agree, it's not the spell, it's what you do with it. I can imagine that levicorpus could be used as the source of fun, but in that specific event we got to know it it really was abused: to hoist someone up and to take off his pants or threaten to is not really decent.

Ok, so first of all, I clearly remember your persistent opposition to using Levicorpus being called humiliation. You kept insisting it was just good fun and James and Sirius playing a prank on Snape with it rather than publicly humilating him. Why the change in definition?

And secondly, how come it's "humiliating" when Snape and his lot use it, but it's all good and justified when the Marauders use it in exactly the same way? This way it seems it's not the spell that's dark, it's who uses it. Sounds like the Marausers are excused just by being the Marausers (and therefore "good"), while Snape is culpable just by being Snape! That seems plenty biased to me.

Also, I find the idea that it's noble and a good idea to "counter" the dark ways by the exact same means they employ absurd and obviously nonsensical. It's like, we can humiliate/kill/torture people if we define ourselves like "the good guys", but if others do it to us, they're evil. I don't think so.

I haven't changed my mind at all. I was entirely making the very point you are with that statement. Because the point is, everyone was using it and "humiliating" one another - and to me what eventually happens is the "humiliation" wears off from the use of the spell per se with it happening to everyone so frequently. It is unreasonable to me that Snape's introduction of the spell could push kids toward the dark path, but equally unreasonable to me that having his own spell done to him, when it was done to everyone else frequently and daily, would send him reeling to the dark path.

Snape's humiliation, imo, was a result of the specific circumstances he was in and in my opinion, had nothing at all to do with the spell used. He was equally humiliated by the mouth-wash-your-soap out spell as he was with Levicorpus, as with Lily telling him off, imo. To me, James was humiliated getting his face cut from behind the back, being told off and having Sirius dog him out. And Lily was humiliated by being called a Mudblood, imo, but none of these things had anything to do with spell work, imo, you could substitute an entirely different onslaught of spells during the scene and the humiliation factor would remain the same, imo. And humiliation doesn't send anyone reeling toward any path, imo - I don't buy the idea that it reinforced the Marauders idea to join the Order any more than I'd buy the idea that it reinforced Snape's ideas about joining Voldemort.

So no, I haven't changed my reasoning at all, I was just carrying the thought raised to a conclusion I felt would help show why the thought wasn't very likely. And one last thing is that I have never said that James and Sirius were not attempting to humiliate Snape and visa versa - I think that did play a role in all of their behavior that day - I have merely stood by the idea that Levicorpus was not some grand humiliating moment for Snape because it was done to so many people so often. I doubt he was the only one who didn't wear pants under his robes and I also doubt that everyone was always wearing underwear perfect for show to the world at large. So that is the only aspect I have constantly been countering. And I also stand by the idea that Snape's spell was not dark - in my opinion, it could not be if it was picked up and used by the entire school. That is highly improbable, imo. :)

Copied from the Severus Snape thread

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods
Once Snape along with the Order knew the truth, Sirius had no trouble from Snape. On the contrary, it was Sirius who accused Snape of stiull being a DE in OOTP. Which makes me wonder that if Sirius really though Snape to be a DE, then why on earth did he allow Harry to study Occlumency from Snape? Wasn't he worried about what Snape would do to Harry or did he not care? Or would he as Harry's Godfather allow even a DE to teach Harry Occlumency, just because Dumbledore wanted it? After Snape stopped the classes, Sirius is angry enough to want to come to Hogwarts to argue with Snape to get him to continue. I wonder why, if Sirius really thought Snape to be a DE.

I think this raises a very good point. But not in terms of Sirius, rather in terms of Snape, because I think he too would ask this very question. The thing about Sirius was that despite his beliefs, he was able to give way to the idea that he might be mistaken - as others had been mistaken in him, imo. He wasn't going to ever like Snape in the least, imo, or treat him like anything but dirt pretty much, but he wasn't going to demand that Snape was a Death Eater in the face of evidence to the contrary. However, I feel that Snape didn't really understand that, because he himself would never take that stance and give Sirius a chance - as shown in the shack. It took incontrovertable evidence for him to come to grips with the idea that Sirius was not guilty as charged by the ministry.

But Sirius did. In the face of evidence to the contrary, Sirius accused Snape of still being a DE and even thought Dumbledore was mistaken. It was Snape who believed in Dumbledore's words. The same Dumbledore had thought Sirius to be guilty for 13 years along with Snape and the whole WW. But when Dumbledore was assured of Sirius's innocence and of the fact that Sirius was no DE, Snape accepted it. It was Sirius looked as if he was unable to see past the enmity IMO

I think Snape came to regard Sirius with a certain amount of ideological jealousy. He was from a pureblood family, the noble house of Black - that had numerous ties and connections to Voldemort through various family memebers. In addition, Sirius was reckless, dangerous and basically all set to become a formidable DE. Yet Sirius hadn't - instead, he'd joined the Order and fought against Voldemort; his best friends were the Potters (which included Lily from Snape's view), and she'd agreed to have Sirius as godfather of her child. For Snape, that would be impactual after her keen rejection of him, imo, because Sirius was her new best male friend - as he was James best friend, imo.

What does this have to do with how Sirius regarded Snape. He said he still suspected Snape of being a DE and yet, he went on to allow Snape to have access to Harry's mind, knowing of the link with Voldemort. I am amazed that Sirius could allow Snape to teach Harry about the mind arts when he thought Snape was a DE.

If he did not mean it and spoke to Snape because he hated Snape, then Sirius is an example of how Snape was treated by the Light/Gryffindors etc. They all needed Snape's spying, but they were reluctant to give the respect to a man who risked his life every time he went to Voldemort IMO.

So I think when Snape changed sides, he realized that Sirius had had the right of it all along - that Voldemort should die, and despite being a prime candidate to become a DE, Sirius had blown that path off with seemingly little struggle (from Snape's point of view because he wouldn't likely get the low down on Sirius' private life). I think that ate away at Snape, because he did not like considering his enemy had made better choices within the framework of more daunting circumstances, early on, when it would be most helpful to him. So I think Snape had a lot of jealousy for Sirius in that regard which blinded him to some home truths about Sirius. The foremost being that Sirius had a good heart - which Snape did not, imo, and which Snape did not understand or believe that Sirius could have, imo. And I think that is why he would not be able to see that Sirius would give him a chance, despite his beliefs and despite his words. Snape had already proven he would not return the favor in the shack, imo (POA) - and it took incontrovertible evidence for Snape to even consider that Sirius was not guilty as charged, imo.

But it was not Snape who accused Sirius. It was the other way around. So, are you saying it could be that Sirius was jealous of Snape, because Snape had found a way to correct his mistakes, and he was working, placing his life on the line all the time to work away his guilt, but Sirius was unable to work off the guilt of switching SKs and suspecting another innocent friend (Lupin), which resulted in the deaths of his close friend and his wife and in suspecting an innocent man as a DE. I think it could very well be the jealousy Sirius had for Snape, which resulted in that outburst.

Copied from the Severus Snape thread But Sirius did. In the face of evidence to the contrary, Sirius accused Snape of still being a DE and even thought Dumbledore was mistaken. It was Snape who believed in Dumbledore's words. The same Dumbledore had thought Sirius to be guilty for 13 years along with Snape and the whole WW. But when Dumbledore was assured of Sirius's innocence and of the fact that Sirius was no DE, Snape accepted it. It was Sirius looked as if he was unable to see past the enmity IMO

In my view, Sirius could not see past the enmity - he hated Snape, imo. That wasn't going to change no matter what. I do feel he thought Snape was a death eater - but what I think he also believed was that there was the smallest of chance that he was mistaken. Sirius had a good heart, he allowed for the chance that he was mistaken where others might not, imo.

But I don't think that mattered at all in this case. Snape had been at Hogwarts 4 years teaching Harry, private detentions, etc., and he hadn't attacked Harry to Sirius' knowledge. In his eyes, he felt Snape was trying to fool Dumbledore - a bigger plan that Voldemort had arranged - this entailed getting Dumbledore's trust - killing Harry would not help in that regard at all. So I don't think he was worried that Snape would try to kill Harry, just mistreat him, imo.

What does this have to do with how Sirius regarded Snape. He said he still suspected Snape of being a DE and yet, he went on to allow Snape to have access to Harry's mind, knowing of the link with Voldemort. I am amazed that Sirius could allow Snape to teach Harry about the mind arts when he thought Snape was a DE.

He was teaching him occlucmency. To hide his thoughts. Harry didn't have any information that everyone in the world didn't already know. How could Snape teaching Harry possibly hurt? The worst he could possibly do is not teach him and mistreat him while he was at it. I don't know what possible harm Sirius would believe Snape could do...perhaps you could explain.

If he did not mean it and spoke to Snape because he hated Snape,

Oh no, I think he meant it. Every word. I think he simply allowed for the fact that he might be wrong - otherwise I feel he would have tried to kill Snape. Since he was making the allowance, he'd just look at every situation as it came. In his view, Snape was trying to fool Dumbledore into trusting him. As I said, a big picture plan. Killing Harry would not be a part of that plan or Harry would already be dead.
Snape had made just such an, imo, unreasonable accusation about Lupin, remember? He said that Lupin wanted to kill Harry - yet he could not explain why Lupin hadn't killed him when they were alone together tons of times during the year. So Sirius wasn't going to make that unreasonable accusation, imo - he knew the plan was not for Snape to kill Harry - at that point, he felt that if Snape was a DE (and he was pretty certain he was), then he would simply try to gain their trust, imo. But using Snape to teach Harry occlucmency was fine - Harry was protected at Hogwarts - except for mistreatment - and Sirius warned Snape that if he mistreated Harry, he'd have to answer to Sirius - like any good parent would, imo. But Sirius never found out about the mistreatment in canon.

then Sirius is an example of how Snape was treated by the Light/Gryffindors etc. They all needed Snape's spying, but they were reluctant to give the respect to a man who risked his life every time he went to Voldemort IMO

Agreed, nobody really trusted him - they only tried to do so because Dumbledore told them to. But I don't think they ever really trusted him because they had no reason to, imo. He wasn't nice to them, he behaved like a DE too remember, he was still meeting with Voldemort and hobnobbing with other DEs (which we know was spying, but they had a different perspective). The order had to go on total faith, imo - simply Dumbledore's word. But they had no reason to have any faith - and it seems to me that Snape didn't care whether they had any or not - he did not behave in a manner that would garner their trust, imo. He did not want friends - that is just who he was, imo, so I don't think it mattered much to Snape.

But it was not Snape who accused Sirius. It was the other way around.

In canon? First Snape was doing all of the accusing - in POA. In GoF, they were not together except to shake hands and in OOTP, Snape was taunting Sirius about having to stay home. Sirius told Snape he believed him a DE in OOTP.

So, are you saying it could be that Sirius was jealous of Snape,

Sirius, imo, was jealous of every free man that walked the streets, including Snape. Everyone except him got to go out freely and assist the Order, or Voldemort, or to a restaurant for dinner. He was stuck at #12G, a place he hated.

because Snape had found a way to correct his mistakes, and he was working, placing his life on the line all the time to work away his guilt,

But you have to remember that Sirius didn't see it this way. He didn't believe Snape was correcting his mistakes. He believed he was working on fooling Dumbledore and the rest of the Order. He made the allowance that he might be wrong - but that in no way meant he believed he was wrong. He felt he was right. In his head, he had no reason to envy Snape for his acts, because they were on behalf of Voldemort (to Sirius, although he was only 98% sure, and he would not act without 100% certainty, for example, because he had a good heart, imo) However, Sirius had reason to envy Snape's freedom - he envied everyone's freedom - he was totally jealous of that. Of course, Sirius would hate Snape more for it because Snape taunted him about it, in the scene we saw (5 times on 2 pages), and also Sirius said Snape made taunting snide remarks in the meetings (OOTP), plus Sirius hated him, imo.

In my view, Sirius could not see past the enmity - he hated Snape, imo. That wasn't going to change no matter what. I do feel he thought Snape was a death eater - but what I think he also believed was that there was the smallest of chance that he was mistaken. Sirius had a good heart, he allowed for the chance that he was mistaken where others might not, imo.

By allowing a DE to teach Harry? When Sirius displays a pretty callous attitude towards the brother who died; when he knew that Regulus tried to back out from the DEs it hardly seemed to affect Sirius? I don't think Sirius worked with a good heart towards those he thought were DEs. With the kind of feeling Sirius had for Snape, if he did have a doubt that Snape was indeed a DE, I very doubt he would have allowed Snape into Grimmauld Place, let alone teach Harry.

In his eyes, he felt Snape was trying to fool Dumbledore - a bigger plan that Voldemort had arranged - this entailed getting Dumbledore's trust - killing Harry would not help in that regard at all. So I don't think he was worried that Snape would try to kill Harry, just mistreat him, imo.

And he allowed such a man to teach his Godson, thinking it was okay if Harry was mistreated? I am doing something I never thought I would, defending Sirius. :D I just don't think Sirius would allow any DE anywhere near Harry.

I just think Sirius was being extraordinarily rude and hateful IMO to Sirius.

He was teaching him occlucmency. To hide his thoughts. Harry didn't have any information that everyone in the world didn't already know. How could Snape teaching Harry possibly hurt? The worst he could possibly do is not teach him and mistreat him while he was at it. I don't know what possible harm Sirius would believe Snape could do...perhaps you could explain.

Every lesson could hurt; every lesson Snape could open Harry's mind wider to Voldemort. I don't think Sirius even thought Snape was aiding Voldemort, I'm sure he knew Snape was on their side and he was very much working for Harry and the Light. I don't think Sirius would allow Snape anywhere near Harry otherwise.

Oh no, I think he meant it. Every word. I think he simply allowed for the fact that he might be wrong - otherwise I feel he would have tried to kill Snape.

Then I think this reflects very, very poorly on Sirius; if he really believed Snape to be a DE and still allowed him to teach Harry, allowed him to have a chance to open Harry's mind to Voldemort, whereby Harry could see Voldemort torturing and murdering others and also giving Voldemort a chance to manipulate Harry's mind, I don't know what to say of Sirius.

But then I don't believe that Sirius really thought Snape to be a DE; but he did hate Snape and he allowed himself to speak words that could hurt and anger, because he's always been that way, pretty reckless IMO. After Azkaban, that recklessness probably increased.

Since he was making the allowance, he'd just look at every situation as it came. In his view, Snape was trying to fool Dumbledore into trusting him. As I said, a big picture plan. Killing Harry would not be a part of that plan or Harry would already be dead.

And Sirius would take that risk? At the possible cost of Harry's mind? I respectfully disagree.

Snape had made just such an, imo, unreasonable accusation about Lupin, remember? He said that Lupin wanted to kill Harry - yet he could not explain why Lupin hadn't killed him when they were alone together tons of times during the year.

When was this? I don't remember, sorry.

So Sirius wasn't going to make that unreasonable accusation, imo - he knew the plan was not for Snape to kill Harry - at that point, he felt that if Snape was a DE (and he was pretty certain he was), then he would simply try to gain their trust, imo. But using Snape to teach Harry occlucmency was fine - Harry was protected at Hogwarts - except for mistreatment - and Sirius warned Snape that if he mistreated Harry, he'd have to answer to Sirius - like any good parent would, imo. But Sirius never found out about the mistreatment in canon.

Again, I disagree. Snape could have destroyed Harry's mind and Sirius you say, thought Snape was indeed a DE and allowed him to play with Harry's mind?

In canon? First Snape was doing all of the accusing - in POA. In GoF, they were not together except to shake hands and in OOTP, Snape was taunting Sirius about having to stay home. Sirius told Snape he believed him a DE in OOTP.

Seeing Sirius's outbursts in OOTP, I wonder what Sirius said to make Snape taunt him. Snape never seems to open any verbal or physical warfare, while Sirius does not seem to be able to stop it IMO.

Sirius, imo, was jealous of every free man that walked the streets, including Snape. Everyone except him got to go out freely and assist the Order, or Voldemort, or to a restaurant for dinner. He was stuck at #12G, a place he hated.

I think Sirius at that point was very jealous of Snape; Snape had found a way to undo his mistakes, to work to undo his guilt; Sirius was not able to do that IMO.

Mods, I hope this post's alright. I've not done much comparing; if anythings wrong, please, I'll edit it out.

With the kind of feeling Sirius had for Snape, if he did have a doubt that Snape was indeed a DE, I very doubt he would have allowed Snape into Grimmauld Place, let alone teach Harry.

Well you and I would have to agree to disagree on this point. I happen to believe Sirius was the type of person who would always give the benefit of the doubt. But he was also the type of person to express his doubt - he wasn't like the other Order members, who pretended to trust Snape - he spoke his mind.

He didn't say Snape was a DE (if I said that eariler, I was mistaken) - he said he 'thought' - which is a statement indicating he was guessing (his opinion)- he could not know for certain of course, he was not a mind reader.

And he allowed such a man to teach his Godson, thinking it was okay if Harry was mistreated?

Not at all - recall in that scene he threatened Snape that he'd have to answer to him if he heard of any mistreatment. He suspected Snape might attempt to behave in a negative manner with Harry - but Harry was rather tight-lipped about that for whatever reason. I suppose he didn't want Sirius and Snape to fight.

Every lesson could hurt; every lesson Snape could open Harry's mind wider to Voldemort.

You have to give me a detailed explaination here I feel, in order for me to understand what you are trying to say. Harry's mind was wide open to Voldemort at the time. There was no way on earth Snape could widen it more, imo. So this is not a possibility, imo. I do not see any way in which Snape could cause harm here. Either he would do nothing and Harry's mind would remain as it was, or it would actually teach him the art. Clearly if Snape were to harm Harry, the entire Order and Dumbledore would know about it and demolish Snape - but frankly I don't see how he could have via simple reading of Harry's mind. Snape had no grand powers of destroying brains - he was not a macabre dark lord of the head or anything. :lol:. All he could do was read minds or block others from reading his - and he couldn't do even that against Harry 100%. So there is no danger here that I can see Sirius would legitimately have.

Again, I disagree. Snape could have destroyed Harry's mind and Sirius you say, thought Snape was indeed a DE and allowed him to play with Harry's mind?

I would appreciate a detailed explanation of what you are referring to here. Snape had no power to destroy minds - where in canon did you come up with this? I do not recall Snape using Legilimency or Occlumency to destroy anyone's mind - in fact - I don't recall anyone using them to that purpose, even Voldemort. It is merely a way to obtain or block information. What harm could Sirius possibly consider?

Honestly James has to be my favorite Marauder. He's so conceited. (sigh) James.

Plus I think it was great that he finally matured and got Lily to go out with him in their seventh year, isn't it? :)

This is an essay, a very interesting, thought provoking one by SIP. She wrote a couple of years ago and I think this explains not only the Marauders mindset, but also explains why they took such unilateral decisions to switch SK and why James did not accept Dumbeldore's offer to be SK, in which event the Potters would be saved. It explores the Marauders minds and offers a fascinating view of why they were the way they were. :)

Was Groupthink the Downfall of the Marauders?

by Silver Ink Pot
Many readers see the Marauders as the ultimate circle of close friends. Remus Lupin, James Potter, Sirius Black, and Peter Pettigrew knew how to act in unison for a common goal. For instance, three of them secretly taught themselves to become Animagi in order to keep Lupin, a werewolf, company during each full moon. Then they kept their illegal status a secret for years out of loyalty to each other. Even the Headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, never knew about all of their activities until years later.

But we know that over time, something happened to the Marauders, and one of them betrayed James Potter in the worst possible way -- by telling Lord Voldemort the location of the Potter family so he could find them and kill them. That happened in spite of the trust James placed in his closest friends, who were in charge of a Secret Keeping plan that seemed “foolproof.”

How could such a calamity happen to great friends who had grown up together? Was it merely a case of an evil friend with no conscience? Was it just the fact that Voldemort was determined to find Harry and would let no one stop him? Or were choices made by the Marauders under stress that led to a worse case scenario?

While Voldemort is the sole reason the Potters died, I believe the Marauders were in some ways victims of their own risky decisions due to a phenomenon called "Groupthink." I am not a sociologist, but this theory is fairly simple and seems to describe traits of behavior we can see in the Marauders.

Defining Groupthink

Groupthink is a phrase used by psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970’s to refer to a process of decision-making, in which small groups make bad choices in spite of their intelligence. He studied historical events caused by disastrous decisions, such as the Vietnam War and the events leading up to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Janis wondered how such things could happen. Shouldn't close and friendly groups make all the right decisions? Shouldn't listening to intelligent group leaders lead straight to success every time?

No, not really, because leaders sometimes squelch any idea that is “outside the box,” and people are pressured to go with the flow. The smaller the group, the less likely anyone is to "rock the boat." And anyone outside the group who tries to play “Devil’s Advocate” is seen as a threat and a common enemy to be shunned. Janis discovered that many small groups share certain traits in making decisions:


•An illusion of invulnerability
•Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group
•Collective rationalization of the group's decisions
•Shared stereotypes of an outgroup, particularly opponents
•Self-censorship with members withholding criticisms
•Illusion of unanimity and consensus
•Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
•Self-appointed "mindguards" who protect the group from negative information

He explained the way groups see themselves: “The belief that ‘we are a wise and good group’ extends to any decision the group makes: ‘Since we are a good group,’ the members feel, ‘anything we decide to do must be good.’” (Janis, 1972) Janis felt that the pressures within such a group were similar to society’s pressures described by George Orwell in his book 1984. Therefore, Janis coined the phrase “Groupthink” to sound like negative Orwellian words such as “doublethink” or “crimethink.”

The Risky Shift

One result of following a leader without question is called the “Risky Shift,” which means that members do things together which they would consider too risky to do alone. It is the “risky shift” that often leads to tragedy or failure. It helps to visualize the risky shift as someone leading a trusting group up a tree and then out on a narrow limb that cannot support them all. Everyone suffers “when the bough breaks.” I especially like that lullaby symbolism in the case of Harry Potter, who was left orphaned as a baby despite the efforts of adults to keep him safe. “When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall,” as the old song says.

The Marauders first exhibited "risky shift" behavior as students at Hogwarts. They made three risky choices: first to become illegal Animagi, second, to meet Lupin in the Shrieking Shack as Animagi, and secondly, to set Werewolf/Lupin free from the Shack each month. Lupin would not, and could not, have done this alone because the Whomping Willow locked him in, but with the help of the other three, his freedom was assured each full moon. Lupin says he always felt guilty in betraying Dumbledore's trust, since the Willow enabled Lupin to attend school. But somehow the Groupthink mentality gave all the friends the "illusion" that they had things under control.

PoA, Chapter 17

Quote
(Hermione) "That was still really dangerous! Running around in the dark with a werewolf! What if you'd given the others the slip, and bitten somebody?"

"A thought that still haunts me," said Lupin heavily. "And there were near misses, many of them. We laughed about them afterwards. We were young, thoughtless -- carried away with our own cleverness."

The idea that they were the "cleverest” students at Hogwarts gave them a feeling of invulnerability, and the group shared the belief that "helping" Lupin was worth any trouble that might occur. Therefore, the Marauders believed they had a moral duty and a shared consensus, and that led them to believe everything was worth the risk. Though Lupin says he knew they were “carried away,” Lupin still joined in the plans. He practices a form of "self-censorship" that is often found in Groupthink situations. Perhaps that is what JKR is referring to when she mentions Lupin’s “literal and metaphorical” flaws:

Quote
“That’s where he slips up – he’s been disliked so often he’s always pleased to have friends so cuts them an awful lot of slack.” (Royal Albert Hall, 2003)

Anyone curious about Lupin would be seen as a "outgroup threat" to the "ingroup." That is reflected in the Marauder’s reaction to Severus Snape. In PoA, Lupin mentions the fact that Snape was extremely curious about him. Eventually Sirius Black took another “risky shift” in trying to deal with Snape. He decided to play a “trick” on Snape, and tell him how to enter the tunnel under the Whomping Willow. When Snape reached the end of the tunnel, he saw LupinWolf and might have been hurt or killed if James Potter had not rescued him in the nick of time. Sirius still felt justified years later: "It served him right," he (Sirius) sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to... hoping he could get us expelled..."

Snape saw the incident as attempted murder on himself, and believed James only saved him to protect his group of friends. According to Groupthink theory, Snape may have been right.

The Outsiders

In Groupthink theory, Snape was seen as part of the “outgroup,” or as a “shared threat” to the Marauders. He was considered a dabbler in the Dark Arts, while Sirius says James “always hated the Dark Arts.” (OotP, Chapter 29) In “Snape’s Worst Memory,” OotP, Chapter 28, we see the Marauders attack Snape on the school grounds, turning him upside down and threatening to “depants him.” Most of the insults thrown by James and Sirius towards Snape had to do with his personal appearance – his nose, his hair grease, and his nickname, “Snivellus.” All of these insults, which resemble the insults from the Marauder’s Map in PoA, have to do with “outgroup stereotyping.” Snape is disliked by the group, therefore, as Janis might say, it is “good” to attack him because they are a “good group.” They believe they are morally correct in what they are doing. While the attack occurs, Lupin remains passive and unquestioning. Peter is silent though he is clearly enjoying the attack. They are both playing follow the leader in a risky shift situation.

Lily Evans plays the role of Devil’s Advocate in SWM, questioning James about his treatment of Snape, but he makes light of her view, flirting with her and teasing her. When she walks away in anger, after being insulted by Snape, James escalates his attack out of anger at Lily’s rejection. I think at that point another “risky shift” has occurred and James continues to go too far, showing a marked lack of good judgment.

Peter Pettigrew was never treated as an "equal" by the other Marauders. He was made to conform through taunting and bullying. James chides Peter for being "thick" after the OWL exam; Sirius berates Peter for his hero-worship of James, suggesting that he will "wet his pants" out of admiration. (OotP, Chapter 28) That sort of bullying in Groupthink terms is a way to make sure Peter will not criticize his leaders, because he'd be too intimidated. Peter accepts his status because he is the type who seeks protection from stronger people. Unfortunately, James and Sirius also groomed Peter to seek out the next big bully on the playground, who was Lord Voldemort.

The Risky Switch

Now lets move on to the heart of the matter: the ill-fated Secret Keeper Switch between Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew.

Sirius Black "chose" Peter to be Secret Keeper for the Potters, and he also chose not to be the Secret Keeper himself. Why were those “decisions” up to him? In PoA, Professor McGonagall discusses the decision-making process about the Potter’s Secret Keeper:

PoA, Chapter 10
Quote
"So Black was the Potters' Secret-Keeper?" whispered Madam Rosmerta.

"Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself... and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper himself."

James must have dismissed the need for Dumbledore’s protection because he trusted Sirius with his life. But after leaving Dumbledore, the plan was changed due to the influence of Sirius Black, who had a different plan. Dumbledore had warned the Potters that a traitor was lurking, and Cornelius Fudge says in PoA that Dumbledore had some “useful Spies” who were the source of the information. (PoA, Chapter 10) Speculation by readers has been that Severus Snape might have provided the information about the traitor. In PoA he says:

Quote
“You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black.” (PoA, Chapter 19)

The implication of that line is that Snape tried to warn James about a threat from within his group, and Snape thought Sirius was the spy. We also know from HBP that Snape was the one who overheard the Prophecy about Harry, and that became the reason he returned to spy for Dumbledore and "the greatest regret of his life." However, in questioning the loyalty of Sirius, Snape was a threat to the "In-Group" in his role as Devil's Advocate.

James still viewed Snape as a member of an “outgroup” and a “rival,” and was totally loyal to Sirius. Snape would never be trusted enough to act as the Devil’s Advocate for the Marauders, even in he time of war, and even with the backing of Dumbledore. Rejection and dismissal of these outside opinions is one clear sign that James and his group were using Groupthink, and putting loyalty ahead of reason.

Pressure

Sirius tells Harry in PoA that:

Quote
"I as good as killed them. I persuaded Lily and James to change to Peter at the last moment, persuaded them to use him as Secret-Keeper instead of me... I'm to blame, I know it..." (PoA, Chapter 19)

Sirius had to "persuade" James and Lily to reject the advice of Dumbledore, and also to accept that Sirius would not be Secret Keeper after all. He had to convince the Potters that Peter was the right choice for Secret Keeper. In Groupthink terms, Sirius pressured James and Lily to “conform to the group” and reject the “outsider advice” of a Devil’s Advocate. He wanted them to go out on a limb and follow him towards the “risky shift.” It was perhaps the riskiest thing the Marauders had ever tried.

Sirius also acted as “mindguard” for the group – possibly making the decision to reject any spy evidence, and to keep the plan secret even from Lupin and Dumbledore. He had the best intentions in the world, but there is no doubt that he made a huge blunder in not becoming the Secret Keeper himself. However, James also bears some of the blame because we also know that he rather enjoyed an element of risk.

In OotP, Chapter 14, Sirius is disappointed with Harry’s caution, and says, “You’re less like your father than I thought . . . The risk would have been what made it fun for James.” James may indeed have enjoyed the idea of Peter becoming the Secret Keeper in order to fool Voldemort. And we know that keeping secrets from Dumbledore was no problem for the Marauders. Even adult Lupin hesitated to tell Dumbledore about Sirius and Peter becoming Animagi, though Sirius was in prison, so great was the pressure of the group even then.

To Trust or Not to Trust

Peter was never suspected of being a spy, probably because of the “illusion of consensus” among the group. When Sirius shouts in the Shrieking Shack that Peter should have died rather than betray his friends, there is no doubt that Sirius truly believes that. However, the assumption that Peter shared the same values was totally wrong. Peter didn’t love his friends as James and Sirius believed – he cared more about protecting himself. But Peter was able to fool everyone by pretending to be "nice." Because he was so compliant, they thought he was their friend, and they were fooled.

It's hard to understand why Lupin would be suspected as a spy over Peter, however Lupin did belong to a definite “outgroup” -- he was a Werewolf. Though James had joked about Lupin’s “furry little problem” in the past, he may have seen things differently under stress, on the run from Voldemort, and with a wife and child to protect. After Hogwarts, there would surely have been some drifting apart, since Lupin was limited by his werewolf status and poverty, while James and Sirius were Purebloods with inherited wealth.

We don’t know the complete story of what happened after Harry was born, but there seems to have been some sort of rift among the group, which made the Marauders even smaller and more isolated.. By the time the Potters went into hiding, their group consisted of James, Lily, Baby Harry, Sirius, and Peter.

Sirius had total confidence in his plan. He says in PoA that he believed his plan was the "perfect bluff" to lead Voldemort astray. Voldemort would chase after him, knowing he was James’s best friend and the obvious choice for Secret Keeper, and all the while the real Secret Keeper would be Peter Pettigrew, the “weak, talentless” friend who would remain hidden. (PoA, Chapter 19)

Yet the plan failed miserably and tragically, because Peter was actually a spy for Voldemort. He had been turning over secrets about his friends for a year before the Potters died, and betrayed them less than a week after becoming the Secret Keeper. (PoA, Chapter 10) Sirius and James were dismissive of Peter, but Voldemort found the way to use Peter’s talents. JKR said in a recent interview that

Quote
“Pettigrew, who they, in a slightly patronizing way . . . James and Sirius . . . allowed to hang round with them, it turned out that he was a better wizard than they knew. Turned out he was better at hiding secrets than they knew.” (Mugglenet Interview, 2005)

Lily and the Group

In closing, I’d like to say a few words about Lily. What was her role as the only “wife” in the Marauders group? Did she remain outspoken towards her husband? Was she pressured to be a team player and accept group decisions? Did she smooth things over to prove herself, since in the past she was seen as a Devil's Advocate and possible "friend" of Snape?

We know she and James made Sirius Black the godfather to baby Harry. In an interview, JKR spoke of Harry’s christening ceremony:

Quote
“When Harry was born, it was at the very height of Voldemort fever last time so his christening was a very hurried, quiet affair with just Sirius, just the best friend. At that point it looked as if the Potters would have to go into hiding so obviously they could not do the big christening thing and invite lots of people. Sirius is the only one, unfortunately. I have got to be careful what I say there, haven’t I?” (Edinburgh Book Festival, 2004)

“The only one, unfortunately.” I’ve always thought that was a strange thing to say. Obviously Peter wasn’t invited, and Lupin wasn’t there. We don’t know of any female friends of Lily’s from that time, and both their families were dead, except for Petunia, a Muggle. JKR definitely draws attention to the isolation of the small group. Isolation makes Groupthink even more of a reality, and enlarges the stress factor on the decision making process.

Did Lily have misgivings about the Secret Keeper Switch? Did she try to play Devil's Advocate once again, and ask questions, or did she go along with the group out of trust? Obviously she must have trusted Peter as much as James or Sirius did. They were all Order members, and all from Gryffindor House; Peter was almost like extended family. In Moody's photo of the original Order, Peter sits in between James and Lily and they are all smiling, a scene which disturbs Harry in OotP ("Woes of Mrs. Weasley).

Conclusion

While the Marauders were a symbol of friendship, they also displayed unfortunate signs of Groupthink and the Risky Shift that led to tragedy. The canon tells us that the Secret Keepers were secretly switched, Lupin was considered a spy, Peter betrayed the group then fled, Sirius was falsely accused of Peter’s death and went to Azkaban, Dumbledore testified that Sirius was guilty, James was killed by Voldemort, and Lily died sacrificing herself for Harry. These outcomes might have been different if they had listened to Dumbledore’s advice and criticism, but the pattern of trust in the small group was so ingrained that the Marauders felt they were invincible. Alas, they were not.

Any thoughts?

From the Sirius Black thread

In the big picture, Regulus didn't realize all he was getting into once he was a death eater and eventually betrayed the dark lord, hoping to help bring him down. But prior to that, Regulus was the 'good son' who collected pictures of Voldemort like a fan boy and readily joined Slytherin and took the dark mark at 16 according to the canon.

In light of the fact that Sirius was rejecting all of that nonsense from the start, I really do not see how one can construe him as the villainous son and Regulus as the angel. Sirius was against Voldemort and fought against him AND Regulus in the Order. Regulus supported the blood prejudice of his parents and by joining Voldemort's regime - he knew what that was all about well before joining up.

I feel this is oversimplifying things. Does this mean everyone who did not join Voldemort was automatically considered good? Perhaps they were in one way because they chose to join the light; but as people, I think one cannot automatically say that one boy was better than another because he did not collect Voldemort posters.

The same boy also stole a horcrux, when he realised he was mistaken; he had the power and courage to change. Sirius on the other hand, was brave, was a loyal friend, but was also reckless and rather thoughtless at important times IMO.

What I like about Sirius was his guilt for his mistakes of the SK switch. He was genuinely horrified and felt enormous remorse IMO.

But at the same time, Sirius also felt Snape deserved what he might have received from Lupin, had James not gone in, which I did not like.

So I don't know if Sirius was an angel; Regulus may not have been angel in the beginning; he stood tall in the end IMO.

Sirius never chose Voldemort, was never influenced by DE, and yet I feel he was not an angel either.

Another thing which baffled me about Sirius was why he did not feel any sympathy for Regulus once he turned away from Voldemort. What I find lacking in Sirius's character is that while he is passionate for what he believes in and the people he likes, he is indifferent to the point of being almost callous about other things.

From the Sirius Black thread

I feel this is oversimplifying things. Does this mean everyone who did not join Voldemort was automatically considered good? Perhaps they were in one way because they chose to join the light; but as people, I think one cannot automatically say that one boy was better than another because he did not collect Voldemort posters.

Well, Sirius didn't join the DEs either, nor join them in the killing sprees and torture and all that - which would be a pretty hard act to follow in terms of behaving worse than Regulus, imo.

The same boy also stole a horcrux, when he realised he was mistaken; he had the power and courage to change. Sirius on the other hand, was brave, was a loyal friend, but was also reckless and rather thoughtless at important times IMO.

Ah well I don't think they can be compared personality wise because we know nothing at all about Regulus' personality, imo. But I agree Regulus came around in the end, I just believe that overall, Sirius was the definite good guy, whereas Regulus was only a good guy at the very end of his life (in terms of Voldy v. Dumbledore / good v. evil side).

What I like about Sirius was his guilt for his mistakes of the SK switch. He was genuinely horrified and felt enormous remorse IMO.

I respect your view, but I felt that was a complete waste of time on his part because he tried his very best and that is all anyone can do. That wasn't his fault at all and so he had nothing to feel guilty or bad for, imo. But I think he was progressing well after he got out of Azkaban - he was just damaged (unbalanced) as a result of being in there, imo.

But at the same time, Sirius also felt Snape deserved what he might have received from Lupin, had James not gone in, which I did not like.

Well I agreed with Sirius on that (and I interpret his comment distinctly), so I guess we'd have to agree to disagree on that point.

So I don't know if Sirius was an angel; Regulus may not have been angel in the beginning; he stood tall in the end IMO. Sirius never chose Voldemort, was never influenced by DE, and yet I feel he was not an angel either.

Well I wasn't saying Sirius was an angel - far from it, :lol:. But I think he stood up for the right side all of his life, and really tried to do the right thing. To me that was his legacy. The love, respect and honor he showed Harry was something that Harry would treasure forever, because he had no one to call his own before that who felt that way about him since his parents died. I liked that aspect of the story.


Another thing which baffled me about Sirius was why he did not feel any sympathy for Regulus once he turned away from Voldemort. What I find lacking in Sirius's character is that while he is passionate for what he believes in and the people he likes, he is indifferent to the point of being almost callous about other things.

I thought he sounded very sympathetic and regretful (from his brother's point of view) when he described how he felt Regulus tried to escape Voldemort's clutches and was killed as a result. Why didn't you think so? But I think he was scathing about Regulus having joined up and I can understand that because his brother would have been among those to have left the dark mark over the homes the Order members found the dead in - and among those killing his friends in the Order and basically aiding Voldemort - who'd killed those he considered family (from his view, imo).

I thought he sounded very sympathetic and regretful (from his brother's point of view) when he described how he felt Regulus tried to escape Voldemort's clutches and was killed as a result. Why didn't you think so? But I think he was scathing about Regulus having joined up and I can understand that because his brother would have been among those to have left the dark mark over the homes the Order members found the dead in - and among those killing his friends in the Order and basically aiding Voldemort - who'd killed those he considered family (from his view, imo).


Exactly. Sirius did show the slightest shade of love when he mentioned regulus turning against the dark side. But I perceived that Sirius' attitude was more, 'He should have known before signing up.' And of course, Sirius would not accept his brother back knowing that he prejudiced against those of a lower blood status and murdered friends, allies and the second family to him.:cool:

Well, Sirius didn't join the DEs either, nor join them in the killing sprees and torture and all that - which would be a pretty hard act to follow in terms of behaving worse than Regulus, imo.

Yes he stood firmly on the side of the light, but the point I was trying to make was that those who choose the Light and fight and die for it, are always not good people. (Fudge, Umbridge being examples of non DEs who were not good at all)

Ah well I don't think they can be compared personality wise because we know nothing at all about Regulus' personality, imo. But I agree Regulus came around in the end, I just believe that overall, Sirius was the definite good guy, whereas Regulus was only a good guy at the very end of his life (in terms of Voldy v. Dumbledore / good v. evil side).

Yes; we don't have much about Regulus, but what we do have is of a boy who was misguided enough to join Voldemort for whatever reason, but also had the courage to not only walk away, but also try and pull Voldemort down as he did. He partially succeeded in it too (stealing a horcrux).

Regulus joined Voldemort, but Kreacher's account shows that he was not okay to follow Voldemort at any cost like Bellatrix or even Lucius Malfoy; maybe he was misguided like Snape about what Voldemort represented and he wanted to please his parents, preferring to avoid the fights Sirius had with them. He was kind to his house elf; he was horrified by the way Kreacher was treated by Voldemort.

'If you want to know what a man's like, look at the way he treats his inferiors, not his equals.'

'She was quite right, Harry,' said Dumbledore. 'I warned Sirius when we adopted 12 GP as out Headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think Sirius took me very seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's...'

....and Whatever Kreacher's fault, it must be admitted that Sirius did nothing to make Sirius's lot easier.'

Sirius's careless treatment of Kreacher ended in him betraying Sirius.

I think Sirius' outlook refused to let him believe that Kreacher could work against him. I think this speaks of an arrogance that that cost him his life in the end IMO.

I respect your view, but I felt that was a complete waste of time on his part because he tried his very best and that is all anyone can do. That wasn't his fault at all and so he had nothing to feel guilty or bad for, imo. But I think he was progressing well after he got out of Azkaban - he was just damaged (unbalanced) as a result of being in there, imo.

Well he obviously did not feel so. He felt very guilty and he knew he should have done more, and if he and James and Lily had, they would have still been alive. That is what I understood from the way he cried.

Well I agreed with Sirius on that (and I interpret his comment distinctly), so I guess we'd have to agree to disagree on that point.

I see it very differently. After seeing Remus suffer month after month, after seeing Remus treated they way he was in the WW and the life of secrecy he was forced to take in order to remain in the school; after seeing what a werewolf bite can do to a person, Sirius not only in a fit of recklessness sent Snape inside the tunnel, but never felt remorse for that act some 20 years later saying that Snape deserved it.

There is a slight similarity between Snape's actions of taking the prophecy and Sirius's actions of sending Snape into the tunnel IMO.

Snape took the prophecy to Voldemort uncaring of the life of an innocent baby and its family, because he wanted to show his Master that he had succeeded in his task of eavesdropping/following/trying to find out something about Dumbledore, even if he failed to get the teaching job.

When Snape realised that the baby was Lily Potter's son, a girl he was best friends with and a girl he loved, it brought him to Dumbledore to do 'Anything!'

Sirius was uncaring of 2 human lives, one a very close friend and another an enemy when he sent Snape into the tunnel. And 20 years down the line, when he says Snape deserved it, I think he is also uncaring of the fate which Remus as his friend would have suffered had Snape been bitten or killed.

And I see how different Snape and Sirius are, one turns away from darkness when a close friend/love is harmed and one is uncaring of what it would mean to the close friend, because the enemy would in his opinion get what he thought Snape deserved, while all the time fighting only for the Light and against Voldemort.

Snape came running to Dumbledore because Lily was in danger; if that meant his hated enemy James Potter was saved, he did not mind or care. If that meant Harry would live and Voldemort would be vanquished he did not mind or care.

Sirius on the other hand I feel was okay with the punishment Remus would face, because he felt and said Snape deserved it.

I think it was this reckless attitude which also made him lose his cautiousness when he needed to exercise utmost caution (the SK switch) IMO.

I thought he sounded very sympathetic and regretful (from his brother's point of view) when he described how he felt Regulus tried to escape Voldemort's clutches and was killed as a result. Why didn't you think so?

Because of this.

'But he died' said Harry.

'Yeah,' said Sirius, ' Stupid idiot ... he joined the DE.'

.......

'Oh no,' said Sirius, 'No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's order's more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, than he panicked about what he was asked to do and tried to back out. Well, you don't hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death.'

Yes he stood firmly on the side of the light, but the point I was trying to make was that those who choose the Light and fight and die for it, are always not good people. (Fudge, Umbridge being examples of non DEs who were not good at all)

Well I agree, but I felt Sirius was good people.

Yes; we don't have much about Regulus, but what we do have is of a boy who was misguided enough to join Voldemort for whatever reason, but also had the courage to not only walk away, but also try and pull Voldemort down as he did. He partially succeeded in it too (stealing a horcrux).

Agreed, but I was saying we don't know anything about his personality - like if he was reckless like so many in his family, or a fun loving boy, a boy with a bad attitude or, disdainful, pert, cheeky, funny, - you know, his characteristics, so in that regard I can't legitimately compare him to Sirius.

I agree he did a great thing at the end of his life - but to me, Sirius did lots of great things, for a longer period of time - and suffered more keenly for a longer amount of time in Azkaban as well, imo.

He was kind to his house elf; he was horrified by the way Kreacher was treated by Voldemort.

Well Regulus may have been horrified, but he had no right to be, imo, because what would he expect Voldemort to do with his house elf? They were lower on the totem pole than Muggles, imo. It would be like sending your beloved Muggle neighbor to Voldemort and saying you had good faith in doing so, and then crying foul when he strung your neighbor up and tortured him then fed him to Nagini, like he did Charity, imo. Regulus knew what kind of individual Voldemort was by then and he knew how he felt about magical creatures too, imo.


'If you want to know what a man's like, look at the way he treats his inferiors, not his equals.'

'She was quite right, Harry,' said Dumbledore. 'I warned Sirius when we adopted 12 GP as out Headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think Sirius took me very seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's...'

....and Whatever Kreacher's fault, it must be admitted that Sirius did nothing to make Sirius's lot easier.'

Sirius's careless treatment of Kreacher ended in him betraying Sirius.

Well to be honest, we might not wish to discuss Kreacher because my opinion of him is the lowest of all the characters in the book, based on my reading of the canon. So I disagree with Dumbledore completely and I thought Sirius treated him as fairly and justly as possible under the circumstances.

I agree with Sirius' statement about inferiors - but not to the point where your inferiors should be allowed to treat you and everyone else in a despicable manner and be allowed to get away with it, imo. It would be different if Sirius was ordering Kreacher around or making him clean and do stuff, but he didn't ask him to do anything - and Kreacher didn't, iirc. So there was no relationship between them of superior to inferior in that regard, imo, only in terms of society, but it wasn't played out in the working relationship, imo. I feel they just lived in the same house and Kreacher behaved in a horrible manner, imo, and Sirius ordered him out, told him to shut up, or grasped him and made him leave when Kreacher acted that way (which was the only type of order Sirius tried to give - and totally righteous in my view in response to Kreacher's behavior).

Finally, Kreacher had no right to betray Sirius, imo, based on my interpretation of that situation. So I see Kreacher as totally in the wrong and have an extremely low opinion of his character. He made me love Dobby and Winky :lol:.

I think Sirius' outlook refused to let him believe that Kreacher could work against him. I think this speaks of an arrogance that that cost him his life in the end IMO.

Well what Sirius might have believed canon doesn't say, but in my opinion, it has no bearing on what Kreacher did.

Well he obviously did not feel so. He felt very guilty and he knew he should have done more, and if he and James and Lily had, they would have still been alive. That is what I understood from the way he cried.

I agree - Sirius was wrong to feel that way though, imo.

I see it very differently. After seeing Remus suffer month after month, after seeing Remus treated they way he was in the WW and the life of secrecy he was forced to take in order to remain in the school; after seeing what a werewolf bite can do to a person, Sirius not only in a fit of recklessness sent Snape inside the tunnel, but never felt remorse for that act some 20 years later saying that Snape deserved it.

Well we interpret that scene differently, so I appreciate your opinion, but I don't believe Sirius was referring to that in the shack. I think he was speaking strictly about Snape. And I don't think he meant he deserved to be attacked by a werewolf (imo).

There is a slight similarity between Snape's actions of taking the prophecy and Sirius's actions of sending Snape into the tunnel IMO.

Snape took the prophecy to Voldemort uncaring of the life of an innocent baby and its family, because he wanted to show his Master that he had succeeded in his task of eavesdropping/following/trying to find out something about Dumbledore, even if he failed to get the teaching job.

When Snape realised that the baby was Lily Potter's son, a girl he was best friends with and a girl he loved, it brought him to Dumbledore to do 'Anything!'

Sirius was uncaring of 2 human lives, one a very close friend and another an enemy when he sent Snape into the tunnel. And 20 years down the line, when he says Snape deserved it, I think he is also uncaring of the fate which Remus as his friend would have suffered had Snape been bitten or killed.

Well I appreciate your opinion, but I don't feel Sirius sent Snape into the tunnel. I feel Snape walked into the tunnel of his own free will and desire. That is very different, imo, from giving a prophecy to a Dark Lord, knowing he would seek and attempt to kill any person who might challenge his immortality - the thing he most quested for, imo.

And I see how different Snape and Sirius are, one turns away from darkness when a close friend/love is harmed and one is uncaring of what it would mean to the close friend, because the enemy would in his opinion get what he thought Snape deserved, while all the time fighting only for the Light and against Voldemort.

Well I appreciate your view, but I don't see it this way. So I would disagree with that characterization of events.

Snape came running to Dumbledore because Lily was in danger; if that meant his hated enemy James Potter was saved, he did not mind or care. If that meant Harry would live and Voldemort would be vanquished he did not mind or care.

In my view, he also didn't care if James and Harry died and Voldemort lived, just so Lily survived - he went to Voldemort first, and I think that indicates his preference for this idea, but when he began to doubt it might work, he went to Dumbledore for extra protection for Lily, imo.

Sirius on the other hand I feel was okay with the punishment Remus would face, because he felt and said Snape deserved it.

Well in contrast to the analogy you used above, I think Sirius did care about Remus' welfare. But again, I view this scenario distinctly.

I think it was this reckless attitude which also made him lose his cautiousness when he needed to exercise utmost caution (the SK switch) IMO.

Well we have discussed this and I still disagree. I think Sirius attempted to do what he felt would be the safest and best thing. However, I think he was reckless when he should have been cautious at the MOM when fighting Bella.

'But he died' said Harry.

'Yeah,' said Sirius, ' Stupid idiot ... he joined the DE.'

.......

'Oh no,' said Sirius, 'No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's order's more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, than he panicked about what he was asked to do and tried to back out. Well, you don't hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death.'

That is what I recalled too. As I said, I feel he was scathing about Regulus joining up, but he stopped his talk of idiots and such when he went on to speak about his panicked back out - because I think he understood that Regulus, like his parents, backed out because it was too much, imo, and so I felt like Sirius was showing some sympathy for Regulus' regret. He obviously cared enough to try and find out what happened to his brother as he indicated in the quote you provided. But I feel Sirius' sympathy was limited because the Death Eaters were doing really horrible, terrible and diabolic things to people Sirius knew, liked and loved. I would have very little nice to say about a relative who had participated with the group who had killed my loved ones, so it makes perfect sense to me.

Ah, I think I'll jump into this thread. :D

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

I think Remus was not a peripheral member of the Marauders. He was probably at the same level academically; James and Sirius are mentioned as being exceptionally bright by McGonagall in PoA, and Lupin seems like he'd be a fellow traveler with those two when it came to talent. So, being three young Gryffindors with extraordinary talent, it's likely that they were very close while at school. I think that James and Sirius may have met him after his Sorting, because that is when they are all together. Also, James and Sirius wouldn't have gone through the risks of Animagus transformations if Lupin wasn't a close friend. The fact that they risked so much is a mark of their camaraderie. I think James and Remus had a great friendship. Not every friend is going to be like your best friend. James met Sirius first and they bonded immediately. I don't think Remus was jealous of it, because they made every effort to include him.

Peter's character is a little more difficult to sift through. He's full of contradictions and is used more as a plot point than a true character. Anyway, from what we know of him, he was a mediocre student and terrible at dueling. He was also a bit of a follower, and not very bright (or appeared so) in general. I think the other three took pity on him. They all had good hearts, and I think growing up as Gryffindors, they helped him along, as he evidently wasn't a high-flier. I think Peter was so desperate for friendship and/or protection that he didn't think of resentment. Once he was an adult, however, and the four students went out into the wider world, I think Peter was looking for bigger men to follow around.

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 it had a lot to do with his lycanthropy. Remus is naturally a quiet, withdrawn sort, and I think his assignment during the First War was to infiltrate the werewolves, like he did in the Second War. Spending such a long time surrounded by enemies who have something in common with you can change you. Deep cover operatives are often viewed with suspicion after fraternizing with the enemy for long periods of time. And I think the war was getting to Sirius. The Order was getting massacred - sometimes, whole families were being killed. I think the suspicion of Remus mostly originated from Sirius, possibly egged on by Peter. I highly doubt James would suspect him. He never mistrusted his friends - he thought such an act was dishonorable. I don't think Remus was told, "We can't tell you, we don't trust you." But he was obviously left out of the loop. Or perhaps he was busy working for the Order. We may never know.

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

Both. They're the Marauders. They're all about adventure! :D But the Animagus transformations were noble in that James and Sirius in particular were willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to help their best friend. That's a highly admirable trait, in my opinion.

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

I think they found it amusing. I don't think it was an obsession at all. James was smitten by her, but he didn't have a slavish infatuation with her. I think she was a challenge for him, and that's what attracted her to him. I think the Marauders were all behind James 100% in his pursuits with Lily. :D

5. How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?

I think she made them a little...tamer, if that's the word. She certainly was part of what made James smooth out his rougher character traits. She was James's girlfriend for the seventh year, so I don't doubt she'd be a welcome addition. In turn, I think the Marauders, and James in particular brought out more of her humor. Also, notice that she uses their nicknames in the letter from DH. That shows that she grew very close to all of them - to know those names was to know their greatest secret, after all.

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

Sirius was like a brother to James. I don't think there was any question in their mind who would become godfather to his son, his firstborn, and ultimately his only child. Had more children been born, I think Remus might have been godfather to one of them. Even Peter, if he hadn't gone so astray, might have gotten such an honor eventually.

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 a small part of him, the part that almost every human being has: his conscience, the part that was not governed by fear or a desire for power, regretted that decision for the rest of his life. It was hidden down beneath his acts of unspeakable evil and cowardice. If there was no regret, if he had no compunction to think twice about anything he did, then he would have mercilessly strangled Harry. But he didn't, which makes me think that a tiny, tiny, tiny part of him wished things had gone differently.

As for his forgiveness...I don't think it would come just like that. He'd need to show his friends genuine repentance before they could forgive him. He ruined all of their lives.

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 think Remus joined willingly. Peter probably joined to be with his friends. He might have wanted to keep the four man Marauder dynamic going. It's tough once school friends leave school and go their separate ways, especially for the more vulnerable types like Peter, who was always a follower. I don't think they would have pressured him into it. I think his desire to follow them was his motivation. Plus, Dumbledore wouldn't have wanted him in the Order if James or Sirius cajoled him into joining.

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 think because of Snape's disdain for Gryffindor House, and James and Sirius's disdain for Slytherin House, they immediately got off on the wrong foot. Then there was Snape's fascination with the Dark Arts, which James was particularly miffed by. Later on, Snape's relationship with Lily started a whole new, more personal conflict between the two. I think the Marauders disliked the Slytherins, and given they went to school with future Death Eaters, I don't doubt that it might sometimes have come to blows. But I don't think that it was ever as personal as with Snape.

Snape in Gryffindor. That's a nice, neat thought, and perhaps he might have been on better terms with the Marauders, but the fact that he was so close to Lily would have irked James. But for Snape to be in Gryffindor, he would have needed to be a very different person at a fundamental level.

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 that the Weasley twins are like the heirs to the Marauders' legacy. After all, they did retrieve the Marauder's map from Filch, showing they had the guts to be real troublemakers, and this brought their own work to a whole new level. I think James and Sirius were a bit rougher than Fred or George, but otherwise very similar in terms of their senses of humor.

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

Arrogant or not, I've always been a fan of the Marauders. It didn't blemish my view of them at all.

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

James. He was a very loyal, very brave man who placed his family's safety above his own life. He took care of his friends when life threw them a curve ball, and he trusted them implicitly. And did what he felt was right. I think the other Marauders definitely admired him for this. It's no surprise that Harry continually uses his memory for inspiration, despite his flaws The arrogance simply proves that even the great and good have flaws they have to sort out before they can reach their true potential.

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

I don't think it bugged Remus too much because I think that he was just glad to have close friends. Peter was probably glad because it meant double the protection.

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

As many have already said, he had the most contact with the enemy. It's natural to suspect someone in that position. While I don't think that Peter started it, I can't imagine he went to Remus's defence.

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

I think when they started, it was intended to be very noble. They were trying to help Remus through his transformations. After they had done it, I think that they say an opportunity to go places they wouldn't normally be able to.

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

I bet they found it kind of funny. Entertaining at the least.

5. How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?

I don't think they were able to do as much as they used to. But they may have already been starting to give up some of the old ways because Sirius and Remus said that Lily only went out with James after his head and shrunk a little.

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

I think that Remus was very understanding in this decision. James and Sirius had always been exceptionally close. Around their third years, Sirius even ran away from home and lived with the Potters. Plus Remus has always had this tendency to believe himself very dangerous.

I don't think Peter really cared.

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 he only regretted it after Voldemort fell. I wouldn't have forgiven him.

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 think that for James, Sirius, and Remus, it was a joint decision. As for Peter,
he was probably a little hesitant at the thought of risking his own neck, but decided to join in the end.

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 believe things would have been different had Snape been placed in Gryffindor, although, his close relationship with Lily would have driven James nuts.

I think they went after all the "Dark Arts nuts" but they were particularly bad to Snape.

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 that the Marauders, especially James and Sirius, were the early, more intense version of the twins.

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 really change my view of them. I was always a fan of the Marauders (except Peter).

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

I had a hard time choosing between Remus and Sirius. Remus had that respectful thoughtfulness about him. Sirius, on the other hand, was more of the fighting type. He hated sitting still for too long. I think that they worked really well together because the helped balance each other out.

Hmmm, revisiting this thread ... :D I'll answer a few questions.

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 that the Marauders, especially James and Sirius, were the early, more intense version of the twins.

That's a very good description of them. :cool: Darker and more intense, yes.

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

I was never that much of a fan of the Marauders to begin with. Probably because JKR really doesn't sketch in their characters that much. I am so-so about them. :cool:

I like the backstory: I like the Gothic tragedy of it all, the fact that Lily, Snape and the Marauders all all end up dead. It's a powerful background to Harry's story.

And I like the fact that Harry called forth his parents, Remus and Sirius through the Resurrection Stone: his 'family of shadows', as I saw someone describe it. That was very moving. Also seeing them reunited in death, after the painful way their lives ended on earth.

But I will never be a Marauders fangirl. ;)

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

Once upon a time, I would have said Remus. But I went off him after DH. :D A lot. :shrug: I loved Remus in PoA but it was downhill after that. :sigh:

The Marauder I now like best is Sirius. Not only does JKR give him an unbelievably blighted life, poor guy, :yuhup: but he's a very well drawn character with very believable character flaws.

Like Snape, he has a dark side ... and I like characters with dark sides. :tu:

That's a very good description of them. :cool: Darker and more intense, yes.

Actually, I think that would be cool because the twins seemed to look up to them as forerunners. But in reality, we never heard of the Maruaders as a group stuffing people into vanishing cabinets or setting the school hallway into a lake or setting off in-school fireworks displays; so I am not sure they were actually as intense as the twins as a group in an overall sense. Based on the descriptions we got in canon, I felt he twins were much more elaborate and crazed - more intense and if pranking is considered dark, then darker too. But I don't consider it dark, just fun and funny. :p

Actually, I think that would be cool because the twins seemed to look up to them as forerunners. But in reality, we never heard of the Maruaders as a group stuffing people into vanishing cabinets or setting the school hallway into a lake or setting off in-school fireworks displays; so I am not sure they were actually as intense as the twins as a group in an overall sense. Based on the descriptions we got in canon, I felt he twins were much more elaborate and crazed - more intense and if pranking is considered dark, then darker too. But I don't consider it dark, just fun and funny. :p

Simply put, the Marauders and the Twins are fellow travelers in troublemaking. :lol:

George and Fred were more elaborate and inventive, but the Marauders were the trailblazers - they wrote the Marauder's Map, after all, the map that the twins used so often in their early years at Hogwarts. I have no doubt that James or Sirius would have loved the idea of conjuring a swamp in the middle of a vital corridor in the castle, though.

They totally would have loved that, I agree - and all the other stuff as well I figure. They may have done similar stuff, we just didn't get the low down in the canon about it.

You know, I'd much rather like to leave the Marauders' time in my imagination. I wouldn't mind a sequel for the Next-Gen, but it's more fun to theorize on the Marauders era in my own head :p. (I only said this because there were some people who wanted a prequel.) How about you guys?

Anyway, Remus' leading in the polls for favourite Marauder! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Actually, I think that would be cool because the twins seemed to look up to them as forerunners. But in reality, we never heard of the Maruaders as a group stuffing people into vanishing cabinets or setting the school hallway into a lake or setting off in-school fireworks displays; so I am not sure they were actually as intense as the twins as a group in an overall sense.

Really? :) The Animagus thing seems very dark and intense to me. :cool: That's on a different level to anything the Twins got up.

Based on the descriptions we got in canon, I felt he twins were much more elaborate and crazed - more intense and if pranking is considered dark, then darker too. But I don't consider it dark, just fun and funny. :p

I regard the Twins as somewhat 'lighter' because we never see them bully people.

Their lowest point is their utter thoughtlessness over the Vanishing Cabinet. :no: But that was thoughtlessness. I never see the Twins as malicious.

Just (sometimes) annoying. ;)

Really? The Animagus thing seems very dark and intense to me. That's on a different level to anything the Twins got up.

Becoming an animagus was dark? :whistle: I agree that it's intense, though I would add it was for a noble reason.

Sirius and Remus are my favourites.

I don't have an opinion either way on James since we don't really know much about him, due to his deadness.

I don't like Peter Pettigrew. He was a untrustworthy coward.

Someone please, refresh my memory, what house at Hogwarts was he a member of?

Someone please, refresh my memory, what house at Hogwarts was he a member of?

They were all members of Gryffindor. :) (Yes, even Peter!)

Becoming an animagus was dark? :whistle: I agree that it's intense, though I would add it was for a noble reason.

I don't mean 'dark' as in 'evil'. It's cool. :) But it's always struck me as a rather weird thing to want to do, turn yourself into an animal. :yuhup: Although I realise why they did it -- to make Remus feel that he was not alone.

I don't like Peter Pettigrew. He was a untrustworthy coward.

Someone please, refresh my memory, what house at Hogwarts was he a member of?

Somebody is being a wag, methinks. :D

I don't mean 'dark' as in 'evil'. It's cool. :) But it's always struck me as a rather weird thing to want to do, turn yourself into an animal. :yuhup: Although I realise why they did it -- to make Remus feel that he was not alone.

Hey, being able to do that - essentially proving one's prowess at Transfiguration - is highly impressive. Really, James and Sirius were willing to do what they could, once they realized what Remus's condition was, to help him cope with the transformations. In fact, the animagus transformations represent one of the best elements of their characters - that they'd do anything they could to help a friend in need.

How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?
Well, I believe that Remus really didn't mind. He was just glad to have fiends who accepted him for what he was. And Peter always felt left out or inferior, so it really doesn't matter.
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 know, I suppose it was just the 'werewolf thing'.
James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?
I believe it was both. It meant a lot to their friend, and they got to go on some adventures along the way.
What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
Well, Sirius was probably encouraging it. But, as for the others, I have no clue.
How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?
Once again, I don't know.
James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?
I think they understood. They knew that there was a special bond between James and Sirius.
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 that he was happy about it, but I don't think they would ever forgive him.
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 everyone but Peter was willing to join.
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, from the moment they met, they didn't like each other. I believe Snape was their victim of choice.
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 if they had all been in the same year, It would be one hell of a school.
Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?
Huh?
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 best, that whole werewolf thing is just too cool for school! Plus, he marries Tonks!

They were all members of Gryffindor. (Yes, even Peter!)

But....wait a minute.

One of them was a bully. Two of them were silent enablers, and the other one was a cowardly betrayer.

Surely this could not happen in the house of courage....and bravery....and chivalry!!!!

In case I missed any cause this is kinda long - all my opinion. :)

No. I am merely taking only those mentioned in canon. The Potters were in hiding, which means they were already not accessible to many. If they were accessibly to everyone, being in hiding would not be of much use. The Fidelus was to protect themselves from the few among which one was the traitor. Not from the many IMO.

The Potters were keeping a low profile, but as we see in DH, they never left their home so anyone they had associated with prior to learning about the prophecy would still know where they lived. That would include everyone in the Order, Bathilda Bagshot, and any friends Lily stayed in contact with when they finished school. They weren't actually in hiding at that point - though they were prepared for the possibility that they might have to go into hiding. From what we are shown, they were taking similar precautions to what we see the Weasleys take in HBP with Harry staying with them - extra security on the house, using the apparition jinx so nobody could apparate directly in the house, staying at home, etc... They were still accessible to the Order and friends at that point.

They went into hiding when they used the Fidelius Charm - about one week before they died. They still stayed in their home, but people could not get to them unless they were told the secret. Who was told the secret was not gone into in any detail, but the purpose of the Fidelius Charm was to hide them from Voldemort - not members of the Order or their friends. So it is most likely that everyone in the Order and friends they trusted had either already been told or were going to be told. That was the whole point of the Fidelius Charm - being able to hide from Voldemort without having to completely isolate themselves.

He suspected Sirius (POA - The Mrauder's Map) IMO. James told him that Sirius would rather die than betray him.

Actually, Dumbledore did not suspect anyone specifically. He suspected that "someone close to the Potters" was passing information - someone on their side. That was all very vague and Dumbledore had no way of knowing who it could be or even if his suspicion that someone was passing information was right. The list of potential suspectes was fairly long. It could have been anyone in the Order or anyone who had contact with the Potters - i.e. Bathilda Bagshot - or it could have been no one at all. He suggested himself as secret keeper because, if there was a spy, there was no way for him to know who it would be.

But it was not only Sirius's fault for suspecting, it was James and Lily's fault for not doing their best. Sure even after all this Peter may have cheated his way out of everything. Then it becomes a misfortune, not negligence IMO.

There was no negligence, IMO. I see absolutely no reason to blame the victims when they did everything they could possibly do on the basis of the information they had at that point in time. James had no reason to think that any of his friends would ever betray him. He agreed with Dumbledore that the Fidelius Charm was the best option and they decided to use that, but he was under no obligation to do everything that Dumbledore or even agree with everything Dumbledore believed. Dumbledore couldn't say with any certainty that there even was a spy let alone identify one. He suspected that there was, but he was not certain and he had no idea who it might be if he was right.

James had known Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew for around 10 years at that point. They had been through a lot together, had kept each others secrets, and to that point, not one of them had ever done anything that would give cause for James to be suspicious of them. As Lupin explained to Harry in DH, James would have considered it the height of dishonor to mistrust any of his friends. He trusted all of them implicitly because - as far as he was concerned - they had proven themselves in the 10 years that he had known them.

For some unknown reason, Sirius came to suspect that Lupin might be the spy. We do not have enough information to make any definitive judgment on that. And since Pettigrew actually was the spy, it is most likely that he did something to throw suspicion towards Lupin to protect himself. Whatever the situation was at that time, Lupin fully understood it and immediately forgave Sirius when the truth was revealed 12 years later. I think that does tell us that there was a legitimate reason for that misunderstanding. I don't believe that Lupin would have immediately forgiven Sirius if there had not been a reason for the misunderstanding that made sense.

Still, that was limited to Sirius. In POA, Lupin was very specific in saying that Sirius would not have told him if he believed that Lupin was the spy - and Sirius confirmed that and asked Lupin to forgive him. Pettigrew limited that to Sirius as well.

“Remus!” Pettigrew squeaked, turning to Lupin instead, writhing imploringly in front of him. “You don’t believe this . . . wouldn’t Sirius have told you they’d changed the plan?”

“Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter,” said Lupin. “I assume that’s why you didn’t tell me, Sirius?” he said casually over Pettigrew’s head.

“Forgive me, Remus,” said Black.

“Not at all, Padfoot, old friend,” said Lupin, who was now rolling up his sleeves. “And will you, in turn, forgive me for believing you were the spy?”

“Of course,” said Black, and the ghost of a grin flitted across his gaunt face.

That is very specific and tells us that it was Sirius who thought Lupin was the spy - not James. Look at what Pettigrew says - not wouldn't James have told you or wouldn't they have told you - wouldn't Sirius have told you. It was down to Sirius to inform Lupin of what was going on and he decided on his own not to because he suspected Lupin was the spy.

Lupin has figured that out and is also specific - not if he thought I was the spy - that's why you didn't tell me. No mention of James and he's not saying they - Lupin knows that it was Sirius who thought he was the spy and that's why Sirius never told him about the change in the plan. He also understands there was a reason for that and immediately forgives Sirius - he doesn't even take time to think about it. Sirius does the same for Lupin believing that he was guilty for all those years because he understands that the evidence was against him.

At that point, James and Lily were going into hiding - the Fidelius Charm would hide their home. With the plan to switch secret keepers, it came down to Sirius and Pettigrew working together to tell the people who needed to know where the Potters were - i.e. Dumbledore, members of the Order, etc... They would have to be careful with that to make sure nobody figured out that Pettigrew was actually the secret keeper - which was easy enough because they could simply have Pettigrew write it down and Sirius could give the note to be read - like we saw in OOTP with Dumbledore writing down the secret for the Order headquarters and Moody giving it to Harry to read. James and Lily had no part in that aspect of it - neither of them could tell anyone themselves. That came down to Sirius and he made a unilateral decision there - not to tell Lupin about the change in the plan because he thought Lupin was the spy.

Which brings us to why Sirius wouldn't discuss that with James. Lupin explains that to Harry in DH - James felt it would be the height of dishonor to mistrust his friends. Sirius would have known that about James as well, IMO. From what Lupin tells Harry, James would never have agreed to that because he trusted all of his friends implicitly. Sirius and James were very similar in personality and they agreed most of the time, but they were not carbon copies of each other and did not agree all of the time. In this case, I can see where Sirius would want to avoid argument and be cautious because it was his friends lives - and the life of their child, his godson - at stake. It makes sense that Sirius would not be as trusting as James because he comes from a completely different background than James did. So, after the charm was performed, he made the decision not to say anything to Lupin.

However, that does not mean he never intended to tell Lupin anything. We have to remember that James and Lily were killed within one week of the charm being performed. It is most likely that Sirius simply decided to do some investigating first. Whatever reason he had for suspecting Lupin and however that came about, I think it is likely that he would investigate. If Lupin was the spy, then they needed to confirm that so something could be done about it. If he could find evidence to clear any suspicion of Lupin being a spy, then Lupin could be told. But James and Lily were killed within a week and Pettigrew framed Sirius for it so that never happened.

That was the best they could do with the information they had at that point in time, IMO. None of them were seers and - as far as we are shown - none of them knew how to do Legillimancy. There was no way for them to know that Pettigrew would betray them. Dumbledore's vague suspicions that there might be a spy were not enough for James to feel justified in betraying his friends. Lily agreed with him on that. Plus, Lily had just recently discovered that Dumbledore had associated with Grindelwald in his youth so they had been given good reason to question Dumbledore - how could they be sure that Dumbledore could be trusted? James did not have 10 years of friendship to draw on in regards to Dumbledore after all - neither did Lily. When it comes right down to it, who are you going to trust the most - friends who have been loyal and stood by your side for 10 years or your former headmaster that you barely know?

Hindsight is 20/20. It's very easy to look back on a situation after the fact and see how things could have been done differently. It's impossible to do that at the time that situation is happening because you cannot predict what is going to happen. Pettigrew was going to find a way to betray them whether they made him secret keeper or not. If he couldn't find a way to tell Voldemort how to get to them directly, he would have found a way to lure them out instead. The Fidelius Charm broke when James and Lily died so that was also an option for Pettigrew - luring James and Lily out so Voldemort could kill them would break the charm so he could then get to Harry. There was nothing they could do to prevent Pettigrew betraying them and no way they could have known that he would.

Remus as the friend of the 2 Marauders is all about gratitude and compromise. He swallows everything, inclusing the werewolf prank that would have got him killed and the name of traitor from Sirius, all because he is grateful to them. That's how much he was shunned by the world; that's how much he needed acceptance IMO.

Lupin's life was never in danger from the werewolf prank. A werewolf is extremely hard to kill - not to mention they recover from any injury at an accelerated rate. Unless Snape was packing silver, he was no threat to Lupin whatsoever. And if he was packing silver, then it was Snape who was planning murder, IMO. Lupin's friendship with the Marauders was not based on gratitude - the text shows us just the opposite, IMO. They became friends before they knew he was a werewolf so there was a lot more to their friendship than that. Lupin didn't get mad at Sirius over the werewolf prank because there was nothing for him to be mad at Sirius about. Sirius didn't force Snape to go down there. That was Snape's choice. He didn't get mad at Sirius for thinking he was the spy because they were in the middle of the war and it turned out there was a spy. Lupin didn't swallow anything because there was never anything for him to be upset with his friends over in that regard, IMO.

I think if it were not for the curse, Remus would be a totally different person and one that may not be very friendly with James and Sirius IMO.

Lupin would be a totally different person if he had not been bitten as a small child. However, I think it is more likely that he would have been even more like James and Sirius than he already was in that event. Lupin enjoyed the pranks as much as they did. He enjoyed the adventures. He tells Harry that himself - and we also see that with his teaching methods in POA with things like shooting gum up Peeves' nose and having Neville dress boggart Snape in his grandmothers clothes - which was hilarious. :lol: He didn't approve of the hex war with Snape, but I think that was due to his condition forcing him to mature sooner than most boys his age. If you remove him being a werewolf, then it is more likely that he would have been a larger part of that hex war - actually participating rather than just standing by - because he would not have been as mature at the age of 15 without being a werewolf, IMO. Lupin was a great deal like James and Sirius - the main difference was that he was more cautious and mature than they were because he was a werewolf.

Disagreements or arguments would not end a friendship that strong, IMO. James and Sirius did not always agree - they still remained loyal, steadfast friends. Lupin did not always agree with them and Sirius does say that Lupin spoke out and made them feel bad about some of the things they were doing. They stayed friends with him. We see that with the trio as well - Hermione frequently lectures Harry and Ron or tries to stop them from doing something, but that doesn't make them hate her to stop being friends with her. They have their disagreements and arguments just as all friends do, but they always make up and come back together in the end. It would have been no different for the Marauders, IMO. Disagreements and arguments are part of life - they occur among the best of friends. That doesn't mean the friendship is weak or will end because of them. It's just a normal part of life.

Assuming James had not got there in time and Lupin had bitten/killed Snape, would it have been just a casual prank which everyone would have forgotten after 2 days?

I think the werewolf incident is not important for what happened; it is actually important for what could have happened had James not arrived there in time.

From that point of view, I don't think this incident is casual.

It was still Snape's choice whether or not to actually go down there that night. And considering that the Marauders and Snape had been rivals since day one, that was a foolish thing for Snape to do. The logical course of action would have been for Snape to ignore Sirius because they were enemies and the smart thing to do in a situation like that was not to do anything at all.

If Draco gave Ron a potion and told him something interesting would happen if he drank it, do you think Ron would actually drink it? Likewise, if Snape had told Sirius to do something, do you think he would have actually done it? I don't because that would be foolish. If Ron drank a potion that Draco gave him and died, he would have done that to himself because he made the choice to ignore good sense and do something stupid. The choice to go down to the Whomping Willow was Snape's - he was not forced to do that.

Lupin explained in POA that Snape had already seen Madame Pomfrey taking him down to the Whomping Willow so the odds were that he was going to go down there that night regardless no matter what Sirius did. And, while it is true, that it is unlikely that Snape would have had any success that night if Sirius had not told him how to get past the Whomping Willow, that would still have been another piece of the puzzle for Snape. He already believed that there was something up with Lupin and was determined to prove it. Whether it was that night or he had to wait another month didn't really matter, IMO. If Sirius hadn't told him then, it is most likely that Snape simply would have waited and followed Madame Pomfrey and Lupin the next full moon - in which case he would have seen her use the long stick to prod the knot so Lupin could go in and known how to get in there himself.

In that event, there would have been no one to save Snape from his own foolishness because nobody would have known he was there. He would have encountered the werewolf and been killed. The decision to go into the Whomping Willow was one that Snape had already made when he saw Madame Pomfrey taking Lupin down there, IMO. It was only a matter of time before he figured it out on his own. Really, I'd say Sirius telling him how to do it on that night contributed to Snape's life being saved because that took control of the situation in that there was at least one person who knew that Snape might go down there that night - which allowed James to find out and save Snape's life.

Okay let Snape be punished for breaking School rules. What punishment should Sirius get for sending Snape into the tunnel? In the books I don't think he got any.

But what rule did Sirius break? Is there a rule at Hogwarts that says a student cannot talk to another student? Is there a rule at Hogwarts that says a student cannot share information with another student? Sirius told Snape that prodding the knot on the Whomping Willow would enable him to get past it. He did not force Snape to actually do it. Sirius didn't break any rules there - he was not out after curfew, he didn't drag Snape down to the Whomping Willow and shove him into the tunnel against his will - as far as we are shown, Sirius never even left the castle that night. Snape went down to the Whomping Willow of his own free will.

But his recklessness had repercussions; his recklessness clouded his ability to think clearly; one act of that recklessness resulted one in an almost death of 2 boys and another which was accepted by James because if was offered by Sirius, resulted in the Potters deaths IMO.

Sirius was able to stay within the parameters of the Light, because of his anchor which was James, who continued in that role even after his death. Otherwise, whatever side Sirius chose, he would have still found himself on the wrong side of the right, because of his reckless attitude IMO.

Sirius stayed on the good side because he was a good person with a good heart, IMO. I think his recklessness was something that he would have eventually outgrown if things had been different in his life - I'd say the same for James because he was rather reckless himself. Sirius is not to blame for James and Lily being killed, IMO. He did everything he could to protect them and was willing to use himself as a decoy to draw the Death Eaters attention to him as a means to do so. Pettigrew would have found a way to betray them whether he was made secret keeper or not. The reality was that, since Pettigrew was the spy and so good at it that nobody suspected him, there was absolutely nothing that James and Lily could do to avoid what happened. They did everything they could do, but there was no hope of them ever succeeding because Pettigrew would have found a way around it no matter what they did, IMO.

The only people to blame for James and Lily being killed are Snape, Pettigrew, and Voldemort, IMO. Snape told Voldemort about the prophecy knowing full well that he was condemning an innocent child to death, Pettigrew betrayed his friends and told Voldemort how to get to them knowing full well they would be killed, and Voldemort killed them. Nobody else is to blame for what happened that night, IMO.

I think the Marauders spent most of their time focused on their own interest, focusing on the budding Death Eaters only as they crossed them; like in Harry's day. They enjoyed pranking and becoming animagi, inventing their map, studying, engaging in school pursuits like Quidditch, plus all the normal teen stuff like dating and kicking around doing stuff around the campus. I am glad they were not pushovers, like Harry and the trio or the twins, and stood up for themselves. I think you needed leader types on campus to combat the underlying growth of evil that was spreading within the wizard world at that time - and during part of Harry's time too. It would be interesting to find out the distinctions between those years and Harry's in greater detail, but I have a feeling the times were just as exciting in their own way.

I agree. I have never seen anything wrong with people standing up for themselves. And with the circumstances that Jo set up with certain students already planning to join Voldemort and acting against other students along that vein, that makes even more sense to me. With both generations it was more complicated than just your average rivalries between houses or students not liking each other very much. The lines were drawn between those aspiring to join Voldemort as one of his Death Eaters and those aspiring to fight against Voldemort because that was the right thing to do.

I think it was natural that some of that enmity spilled over into things like the house cup competition and Quidditch. It was more than just winning the Quidditch cup because those lines were so clearly drawn. Students like Snape, Mulciber, and Avery - or Draco and his gang - were setting out to prove that pure-bloods were superior in any way they could. A mudblood beating them at anything was a personal affront. We see that with how Lucius criticized Draco because Hermione got better grades than he did. It wasn't about whether Draco was intelligent or how well he had done - it came down to the fact that a mudblood had done better than a pure-blood and that simply was not acceptable to someone like Lucius. That was the attitude they were dealing with. For those aspiring to fight against Voldemort it's not just a matter of winning the Quidditch cup or getting good grades either - it becomes a matter of proving their worth - proving that the purity of blood doesn't matter. You don't have to be a pure-blood or wealthy to be a good witch/wizard.

The issues ran deeper than your normal school rivalries and competitions because the war with Voldemort spilled into their day to day lives. In a sense, that was the students' way of fighting for what they believed in before they were allowed to participate in the actual war.

Well I agree, but I felt Sirius was good people.

Agreed.

Agreed, but I was saying we don't know anything about his personality - like if he was reckless like so many in his family, or a fun loving boy, a boy with a bad attitude or, disdainful, pert, cheeky, funny, - you know, his characteristics, so in that regard I can't legitimately compare him to Sirius.

I agree he did a great thing at the end of his life - but to me, Sirius did lots of great things, for a longer period of time - and suffered more keenly for a longer amount of time in Azkaban as well, imo.

That's true. We don't really know enough about Regulus to make any determination. Even his decision to take the Horcrux and sacrifice himself is somewhat of a mystery because Kreacher doesn't know the whole story. Did Regulus actually come to realize that the pure-blood ideology his parents were always spouting was wrong? Did he realize that he had made a bad choice in joining Voldemort and accept that what Voldemort was doing was wrong? Or did he simply get ticked off because Voldemort tried to kill his beloved house-elf and decide to get revenge? We can't say one way or the other because Kreacher doesn't know. The act itself was good and that does help Harry in terms of gaining Kreacher's cooperation, but the reasons/intention behind the act are murky because Kreacher doesn't know why Regulus did it.

With Sirius, we know. We know that he hated the Dark Arts and everything that stood for. We know that he was a good person with a big heart. We know that he was willing to risk his own life fighting for what was right - as well as to protect his friends. We know that his emotional development was stunted by those 12 years suffering in Azkaban - as well as the deaths of James and Lily and Pettigrews betrayal. In spite of all that, Sirius remains true to himself though. He remains a good person with a big heart. He was still willing to risk his own life to fight for what was right and grew increasingly frustrated at his inability to help the Order more actively. He was willing to sacrifice himself to save Harry. And, yes, we know that he could be reckless - particularly when he was frustrated. But we also know that he was a good person overall.

Well what Sirius might have believed canon doesn't say, but in my opinion, it has no bearing on what Kreacher did.

I agree. Kreacher made his own choice there. I think the general point of all that was to show how wizards in general underestimated house-elves. They knew house-elves had strong magic, but the general belief was that they could not use their magic without permission from their owner. That was first established in COS when Harry told the twins and Ron about Dobby's warning. The figured that whoever owned Dobby must have sent him so it was probably a joke of some kind. But Harry finds out that Dobby was able to do it by punishing himself for it - as the Malfoys required. That would have been even easier for Kreacher because Sirius did not require Kreacher to punish himself - in all the times Kreacher disobeyed Sirius, he never beat his head on the wall or hit himself or anything like that. Sirius did not expect him to. So he was able to slip off and go see Narcissa without repercussion - and Sirius saying "get out" made that even easier for him. What we're shown overall with that - as well as Dobby in COS - is that wizards in general underestimated house-elf magic. That was a key element in Voldemort's defeat in regards to the locket.

I agree - Sirius was wrong to feel that way though, imo.

Absolutely. Sirius didn't have anything to feel guilty for because he had done everything he could to protect James and Lily - really, he went above and beyond, IMO. As I said above, it is very easy to look back at a situation after the fact and see where things could have been done differently and kick yourself for not figuring something out. But the reality was that there was no way for Sirius to know that Pettigrew would betray them. Pettigrew fooled everyone and Sirius had no reason to feel guilty about that. I think he would have accepted that eventually if he'd had more time to recover from everything that had happened to him.

Well in contrast to the analogy you used above, I think Sirius did care about Remus' welfare. But again, I view this scenario distinctly.

I agree. Lupin was never in any danger so it wasn't a matter of his welfare, IMO. I think the general idea was simply to teach Snape a lesson by giving him a good scare. I don't think it was the best idea Sirius ever had, but from everything we are shown in the text, I don't think he was trying to kill Snape either. Snape made that choice on his own. In that regard, it did serve him right, IMO. If one chooses to do something so foolish, then one deserves the consequences, IMO. I would say the same for Harry in PS/SS when he accepted Malfoy's challenge for the Midnight Duel. That was very foolish of him. He nearly got caught, which would have landed him in detention and losing a lot of points, and then encountered Fluffy, which could easily have resulted in all four of them being killed. Harry would have had nobody to blame but himself in either event because he made the choice to accept Malfoy's challenge, IMO.

Well we have discussed this and I still disagree. I think Sirius attempted to do what he felt would be the safest and best thing. However, I think he was reckless when he should have been cautious at the MOM when fighting Bella.


I see that more as overconfidence rather than being reckless. Jo draws the comparison to that with Bella in turn being overconfident when she dueled Molly in DH. Being overconfident made them careless and they both lost those duels.

However, I agree on the first - the plan for the secret keeper switch was very clever and well thought out, IMO. It was Pettigrew's betrayal that ruined things, but there was no way that any of them could know Pettigrew would betray them. If he'd been the kind of man they thought he was, that would have worked exactly as Sirius thought it would, IMO. Everyone would have believed he was the secret keeper and he could have led Voldemort and the Death Eaters on a merry chase while the Potters and Pettigrew remained safely hidden.

That is what I recalled too. As I said, I feel he was scathing about Regulus joining up, but he stopped his talk of idiots and such when he went on to speak about his panicked back out - because I think he understood that Regulus, like his parents, backed out because it was too much, imo, and so I felt like Sirius was showing some sympathy for Regulus' regret. He obviously cared enough to try and find out what happened to his brother as he indicated in the quote you provided. But I feel Sirius' sympathy was limited because the Death Eaters were doing really horrible, terrible and diabolic things to people Sirius knew, liked and loved. I would have very little nice to say about a relative who had participated with the group who had killed my loved ones, so it makes perfect sense to me.

I agree. Sirius' comments here are actually very similar to McGonagall talking about Pettigrew in POA - when it was still believed that Pettigrew was a hero - “Stupid boy . . . foolish boy . . ." But she wasn't insulting him - she was actually grieving over his death. Sirius did feel that Regulus was stupid for joining the Death Eaters. But there is a difference in the tone of the conversation when he talks about Regulus coming to his senses. He doesn't think Regulus was important enough among the Death Eaters to have been killed by Voldemort personally, but he does believe that Regulus came to realize that what he was doing was wrong and tried to get out of it. I think he did have sympathy for his brother in that respect and he did want to know what had happened to him - I think he did love his brother even though he did not agree with all of the choices his brother made.

Actually, I think that would be cool because the twins seemed to look up to them as forerunners. But in reality, we never heard of the Maruaders as a group stuffing people into vanishing cabinets or setting the school hallway into a lake or setting off in-school fireworks displays; so I am not sure they were actually as intense as the twins as a group in an overall sense. Based on the descriptions we got in canon, I felt he twins were much more elaborate and crazed - more intense and if pranking is considered dark, then darker too. But I don't consider it dark, just fun and funny. :p

I agree. But we don't really hear too much about the Marauder's exploits in comparison - not in those terms. Becoming animagi was on a different scale that the twins' excellent fireworks or the swamp. That was more of a personal thing for them and nobody knew about it. We don't learn a great deal about the types of pranks they pulled on the whole - though I am fascinated by how they made the one guy's head swell up. I bet that was hilarious. :lol: Still, I've always envisioned the Marauders and the twins to be very similar in their exploits overall because there were so many comparisons drawn between them. Hagrid says the twins could have given James and Sirius a run for their money so I've always had the impression that the Marauders were actually doing pranks on a grander scale and the twins came in a close second - very close.

I've never seen any of that as dark either - fun and funny would be an apt description, IMO. In a world where a cracked skull can be mended in a few seconds and only requires an overnight stay in the hospital wing at the school, there's not very much in the way of pranks that could be considered too dark, IMO. And what could be considered dark would be things that I don't think either the Marauders or the twins would have done because that would have been delving into the Dark Arts. The Marauders and the twins struck me as dealing only with spells that would have a countercurse or could be reversed easily - or would reverse on their own like the Canary Creams the twins invented.

You know, I would have loved to see some interaction between the twins, Lupin, and Sirius when they were all staying at Grimmauld Place in OOTP. Sirius and Lupin frequently referred to each other as Padfoot or Moony so the twins had to realize they were the inventors of the Marauder's Map at some point. You have to wonder if the four of them ever talked about pranks or if Lupin and Sirius ever contributed ideas for the joke shop. That would have been cool - a bit like passing the torch in a way. :lol:

You know, I would have loved to see some interaction between the twins, Lupin, and Sirius when they were all staying at Grimmauld Place in OOTP. Sirius and Lupin frequently referred to each other as Padfoot or Moony so the twins had to realize they were the inventors of the Marauder's Map at some point. You have to wonder if the four of them ever talked about pranks or if Lupin and Sirius ever contributed ideas for the joke shop. That would have been cool - a bit like passing the torch in a way. :lol:

It makes you wonder what would've happened if James had lived and had met the Weasley twins. :lol:

But....wait a minute.

One of them was a bully. Two of them were silent enablers, and the other one was a cowardly betrayer.

Surely this could not happen in the house of courage....and bravery....and chivalry!!!!

Absolutely astonishing! :relax:

How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?
Maybe at first. Remus was sort of surprised at being in the gang at first right? He would have just shrugged it off, accepting his position as their makeshift conscience.
Wormtail idolised them . He wouldnt expect to be anymore than what he already was to them.

Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?
He probably planted doubt in Sirius's mind. Sirius , like James wouldnt have doubted his friends on his own.
James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?
Both. Noble because they didnt shrink away from him the minute they found out.
Adventurous because , well, they're the Marauders. WHo else could think of doing something this illegal and dangerous right under Dumbledore's nose without his permission?
What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
THey understood . Remus would have . Sirius would have laughed his head off

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?
No. Remus maybe but Sirius never. He might forgive him if he had sold Sirius off, but not James and Lily. I dont think James would truly be able to forgive him.He trusted him so much , it would have been a great shock to him just to realise that Peter was capable of betraying his friends . He would never get over it

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 loyalty , understanding , recklessness everything

One of them was a bully.

I hardly think that's James dominant characteristic seeing as he grew out of that.

Two of them were silent enablers,

Sirius participated in bullying Snape in SWM, too, but he admitted that they were idiots at that age. Remus was the silent one, but for understandable reasons, IMO (not that I'm condoning his behavior).

With the exception of Peter, they are perfectly suited for Gryffindor.

James went to save Snape from Remus at great risk to his own life. He joined the Order and defied Voldemort thrice. And he died "straight back and proud" for his family by letting Voldemort kill him in an attempt to give his wife and son time to escape; even Voldemort says he was brave in how he died. I believe JKR also said before that James was immensely brave.

Sirius had shades of gray, but I think it's clear he was suited for Gryffindor. He joined the Order of the Phoenix - a huge indicator that one is brave - and was always looking sense of adventure. He said that if he and James had Umbridge, they would refuse to tolerate her behavior and would stand up to her. Sirius was uncomfortable being stuck in Grimmauld Place not only because of what it represented to him, but also because he hated being passive in a war when he could be fighting Voldemort up front as he was used to.

Remus is brave but not in a very showy way, I think. Like the others, he joined the Order. He wasn't the stereotypical Gryffindor that James and Sirius were more like. He was brave in other ways; he kept going on trying to live life normally even though he was shunned by the world instead of going the route that Greyback went; in this way he made the choice between what was right and what was easy. A lot of people see Remus as a bookwormish Ravenclaw but he was not like this at all, even though he was keen on studying in SWM. In his first lesson with Harry's class, he told them to put their books away and gave them a practical, hands-on lesson. Even in the exam, rather than having them sit down and write an essay, he arranged an obstacle course and graded them based on that. That's screams Gryffindor to me!

The point with the houses is that there is not one that is extremely good or extremely horrible. The Marauders were in Gryffindor and were well suited for it, though they had some personality flaws, as all other people do.

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

Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?
No.

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

What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
I think they probably thought it was sort of annoying, but they never said so

How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?
I think she may have pulled them apart. Unintentionally, of course

James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?
I think they were understanding, but they may have been a little bit hurt.

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 he regretted it, and I think it would be very hard for his friends to forgive him.

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 they all really wanted to be in it. Except in Peter's case. I think he was just tagging along.

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 still would have hated him :(

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 love Sirius and I love Fred, and I think they are very similer.

Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?
I tried not to let DH influence my opinions on the characters very much.

Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?
Sirius is my favorite because he is funny but he is also caring. And I think the others did appreciate that. SIRIUS FTW!!!! :D

How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?
Remus' relationship with the other Marauders was always tinged with obligation; they had accepted him for what he was, were probably the first people in his recollection ever to do so, and he was willing to grab at any love and friendship offered to him with both hands. This being so, I doubt he ever felt anything lacking in his relationship with Sirius and James - or, being a humble person, probably attributed any such feeling to his own supposed deficiencies and not to anyone else's actions.
Peter is a different matter; he was a good few points below the other three Marauders on the intelligence scale, a fact James and Sirius were none too tactful in reminding him about. Although it's never stated in the text, I've always assumed that the four of them were the only male Gryffindors in their year, and that if that hadn't been the case, Peter would never have been a part of the Marauder clique - and he probably knew it. It's always unpleasant spending time with people who have some kind of advantage over you, and Peter probably felt constantly overshadowed by the respectively brilliant, athletic, and attractive boys he was always associating with. I can easily see him being jealous and resentful of anything James, Sirius, and Remus had which he lacked, and the close friendship in question might have been one of those things.

Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?
Where in canon does it ever state that Remus was the main suspect? It says that Sirius didn't trust him, but we have no further information as far as his reasons, nor do we know whether anyone else shared his suspicions. However, Peter is really a very good explanation - I can just see him oozing around planting little falsehoods in people's minds... :grumble:

James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?
I think that James and Sirius (and Peter by extension) were probably just waiting for an excuse to to something cool and dangerous, and the discovery of Remus' condition gave them a nudge in that particular direction. However, their years of dedication to the task seem to indicate that they really cared about him and weren't just doing it for a thrill.

What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
I've always seem them as viewing it with a sort of benevolent interest and amused tolerance; though I certainly think that if they ever had any chance to help him win her favor they would have taken it, because they wanted him to be happy.

How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?
I doubt she had all that much influence until she and James got together; that would certainly have introduced a new dynamic, and maybe caused them to drift apart a bit, since so much of James' attention would now be focused outside their own little bubble.

James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?
I doubt Peter wanted to be; it would have been an extensively awkward situation to be asked to be Godfather to a boy whose death you're plotting! As for Remus, he would have been pleased if James had asked him, but I don't think he would have accepted the position; he wouldn't have trusted himself, and probably would have hauled out the old 'too poor and too dangerous' argument he used on Tonks.


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 was a coward who began passing information to Voldemort because he was under the impression that his own safety was imperiled if he didn't. Whether this was actually the case we aren't told, but the point was that he chose his own skin over the lives of an old friend and the friend's wife and baby. He had no commitment to Voldemort, only joining him out of cowardice and a hope for personal gain he did not receive, and I can't see him looking back on his action with any kind of pride or satisfaction. No matter how hard he may have tried to justify it.
As for his friends forgiving him, Lupin and Sirius were given every opportunity to bury the hatchet in PoA, and showed no inclination to forgive and forget.


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?
Remus would have joined regardless of what the others chose to do; as for Peter, he probably joined either because 1) everything the other Marauders did was still cool to him, or 2) because Voldie was already breathing down his neck and the Order was a golden opportunity to get inside information. Or maybe both?


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?
We know for a fact that a part (maybe a large part?) of Snape's hatred for James was the latter's obvious crush on Lily. To what extent the same issue had to do with James' feelings about Snape, I'm not sure... but I definitely think that the Marauder's animosity towards Snape came entirely from James and Sirius; Remus hated their treatment of Snape and never participated in it, and Peter was simply a spectator. As for Snape being sorted into Gryffindor, that would alter the course of the story to such an extent that I can't apply it to just one issue; but we do know James and Sirius clashed harshly with Snape before any of them were Sorted - although House preferences did play into that argument a good deal.


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 the Marauders were much more balanced and had a more whole dynamic than Fred and George. The latter pair were twin brothers who looked identical, grew up in the same environment, had the same experiences, etc. I honestly don't think JK developed them beyond a pair of funny guys who like practical joking, whereas the Marauders were four completely different people from different backgrounds who played different roles in the series than Fred and George did. James and Sirius were, if you will, the Fred-and-George-ish element, Lupin was the conscience, and Peter, while he didn't contribute much to the Marauders, contributed enormously to the story. As far as how they compare in the role as Hogwarts Mischief-makers in Chief, I prefer Fred and George; all you see of this aspect of the Marauders is Snape's Worst Memory, and James and Sirius' mischief-making in that episode has a distinctly malicious taint which Fred and George's good-natured escapades never have.


Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?
It influenced my opinion of Remus, Sirius, James, and Peter as individuals, and certainly changed my opinion of Snape. It did not influence my opinion of the Marauders as a group of students at Hogwarts.


Which Marauder do you like best and what are the traits that endear him to you? Did the other Marauders appreciate these traits?
Lupin! He has just about every quality I appreciate. As I said above, he's the conscience and steadying influence of the Marauders; and he has come through the poverty, discrimination, and physical pain of his life without allowing it to embitter him. Someone who has gone through that many hardship has two options: to become resentful and warped like Snape, and to take it out on others; or to learn from his experiences and allow them to make him more sympathetic to other people's problems, which Lupin did. And I think that takes a lot of character.
I'm not sure the other Marauders appreciated these qualities at the time, but Sirius certainly did later on in his life, as is evidenced by his conversation with Harry in OotP. "We were all idiots.... well, not Moony so much." My thoughts exactly! :)

1. How did James' and Sirius' particularly close friendship influence Remus and Peter? Did they feel left out or inferior?
-I would expect that Peter felt left out a lot...James and Sirius were openly impatience with him when he was doing something stupid or annoying, see Snape's Worst Memory. Lupin maybe not so much. I think that he knew he was accepted, seeing as his best friends became Animagi for him and that he was constantly trying to act as their conscience, which is tough to do if you feel like an outsider.

2. Why was Remus the main suspect in 1981? Did Peter have a walk-over to discredit Remus if he did so at all?
-Everyone was suspicious of everyone. It never says that Remus was the chief suspect, only that Sirius suspected him. Obviously, he wouldn't suspect James, and he'd think that Peter was too devoted to James to do anything wrong. Logic dictates he'd suspect Lupin.

3. James, Sirius and Peter became Animagi for Remus. Was this noble or adventurous?
-I think that there was an adventurous aspect to it, but I think the main purpose was to try to make Lupin's transformations more bearable for him.

4. What did the other Marauders think about James' obsession with Lily?
-I think they realized that James really did like Lily, and they filed it away as a fact. Just a dispassionate fact; nothing more to it. James likes Lily. It happens at some point in everyone's lives. There's really nothing more to it in the books, besides Sirius possibly suggesting that James be less of an arrogant blowhard around her in Snape's Worst Memory.

5. How did Lily influence the dynamics within the Marauders?
-I don't think she did that much. There was no jealousy involved, unlike with Ron and Hermione, so I think they'd just accept that he had a girlfriend now. It's not like they'd never see him, as they spent all of their time at a boarding school. I think James would make a concerted effort to spread his time equally among Lily and the Marauders.

6. James chose Sirius as godfather. Were Remus and Peter understanding or hurt by this decision?
-I don't think that either of them were particularly hurt by the decision. James and Sirius were already on talking terms when they arrived at Hogwarts, and Remus and Peter came later. I think they accepted that Sirius was James's closest friend. Lupin, at the very least, knew that James cared for him very much. I think he'd understand. I don't think Peter ever even cared.

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 he did sincerely regret his decision. He didn't make his decision out of hatred toward the Marauders, but out of self-preservation.

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 a joint decision. James, Sirius and Remus all detested the Dark Arts. Peter would've whined about the danger, but gone along with it.

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?
-It probably would've been different. I don't think that they would have been close friends, though. They probably would have tolerated each other until it became obvious that James liked Lily, and that would have started a feud amongst the boys.

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 they were about the same. Snape was just as inclined to attack the Marauders as they were to attack him. Each party took turns taking swipes at the other. I think that the Marauders just got caught up in their popularity and took it a bit farther. If Fred and George had an enemy like Snape, I can see them reacting similarly.

11. Did Deathly Hallows change your mind about the Marauders? Do you think that they were portrayed favourably or came out badly?
-It really didn't change my opinion at all.

12. 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 Sirius the best. We really just don't see enough of James for me to list him as a favorite character. I like the fact that Sirius can be this laid-back, arrogant kind of guy, the cool kid in the corner, but at the same time, he has a powerful loyalty to his friends and I admire that.

This is an essay, a very interesting, thought provoking one by SIP. She wrote a couple of years ago and I think this explains not only the Marauders mindset, but also explains why they took such unilateral decisions to switch SK and why James did not accept Dumbeldore's offer to be SK, in which event the Potters would be saved. It explores the Marauders minds and offers a fascinating view of why they were the way they were. :)

Was Groupthink the Downfall of the Marauders?

by Silver Ink Pot
Many readers see the Marauders as the ultimate circle of close friends. Remus Lupin, James Potter, Sirius Black, and Peter Pettigrew knew how to act in unison for a common goal. For instance, three of them secretly taught themselves to become Animagi in order to keep Lupin, a werewolf, company during each full moon. Then they kept their illegal status a secret for years out of loyalty to each other. Even the Headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, never knew about all of their activities until years later.

But we know that over time, something happened to the Marauders, and one of them betrayed James Potter in the worst possible way -- by telling Lord Voldemort the location of the Potter family so he could find them and kill them. That happened in spite of the trust James placed in his closest friends, who were in charge of a Secret Keeping plan that seemed “foolproof.”

How could such a calamity happen to great friends who had grown up together? Was it merely a case of an evil friend with no conscience? Was it just the fact that Voldemort was determined to find Harry and would let no one stop him? Or were choices made by the Marauders under stress that led to a worse case scenario?

While Voldemort is the sole reason the Potters died, I believe the Marauders were in some ways victims of their own risky decisions due to a phenomenon called "Groupthink." I am not a sociologist, but this theory is fairly simple and seems to describe traits of behavior we can see in the Marauders.

Defining Groupthink

Groupthink is a phrase used by psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970’s to refer to a process of decision-making, in which small groups make bad choices in spite of their intelligence. He studied historical events caused by disastrous decisions, such as the Vietnam War and the events leading up to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Janis wondered how such things could happen. Shouldn't close and friendly groups make all the right decisions? Shouldn't listening to intelligent group leaders lead straight to success every time?

No, not really, because leaders sometimes squelch any idea that is “outside the box,” and people are pressured to go with the flow. The smaller the group, the less likely anyone is to "rock the boat." And anyone outside the group who tries to play “Devil’s Advocate” is seen as a threat and a common enemy to be shunned. Janis discovered that many small groups share certain traits in making decisions:


•An illusion of invulnerability
•Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group
•Collective rationalization of the group's decisions
•Shared stereotypes of an outgroup, particularly opponents
•Self-censorship with members withholding criticisms
•Illusion of unanimity and consensus
•Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
•Self-appointed "mindguards" who protect the group from negative information

He explained the way groups see themselves: “The belief that ‘we are a wise and good group’ extends to any decision the group makes: ‘Since we are a good group,’ the members feel, ‘anything we decide to do must be good.’” (Janis, 1972) Janis felt that the pressures within such a group were similar to society’s pressures described by George Orwell in his book 1984. Therefore, Janis coined the phrase “Groupthink” to sound like negative Orwellian words such as “doublethink” or “crimethink.”

The Risky Shift

One result of following a leader without question is called the “Risky Shift,” which means that members do things together which they would consider too risky to do alone. It is the “risky shift” that often leads to tragedy or failure. It helps to visualize the risky shift as someone leading a trusting group up a tree and then out on a narrow limb that cannot support them all. Everyone suffers “when the bough breaks.” I especially like that lullaby symbolism in the case of Harry Potter, who was left orphaned as a baby despite the efforts of adults to keep him safe. “When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall,” as the old song says.

The Marauders first exhibited "risky shift" behavior as students at Hogwarts. They made three risky choices: first to become illegal Animagi, second, to meet Lupin in the Shrieking Shack as Animagi, and secondly, to set Werewolf/Lupin free from the Shack each month. Lupin would not, and could not, have done this alone because the Whomping Willow locked him in, but with the help of the other three, his freedom was assured each full moon. Lupin says he always felt guilty in betraying Dumbledore's trust, since the Willow enabled Lupin to attend school. But somehow the Groupthink mentality gave all the friends the "illusion" that they had things under control.



The idea that they were the "cleverest” students at Hogwarts gave them a feeling of invulnerability, and the group shared the belief that "helping" Lupin was worth any trouble that might occur. Therefore, the Marauders believed they had a moral duty and a shared consensus, and that led them to believe everything was worth the risk. Though Lupin says he knew they were “carried away,” Lupin still joined in the plans. He practices a form of "self-censorship" that is often found in Groupthink situations. Perhaps that is what JKR is referring to when she mentions Lupin’s “literal and metaphorical” flaws:



Anyone curious about Lupin would be seen as a "outgroup threat" to the "ingroup." That is reflected in the Marauder’s reaction to Severus Snape. In PoA, Lupin mentions the fact that Snape was extremely curious about him. Eventually Sirius Black took another “risky shift” in trying to deal with Snape. He decided to play a “trick” on Snape, and tell him how to enter the tunnel under the Whomping Willow. When Snape reached the end of the tunnel, he saw LupinWolf and might have been hurt or killed if James Potter had not rescued him in the nick of time. Sirius still felt justified years later: "It served him right," he (Sirius) sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to... hoping he could get us expelled..."

Snape saw the incident as attempted murder on himself, and believed James only saved him to protect his group of friends. According to Groupthink theory, Snape may have been right.

The Outsiders

In Groupthink theory, Snape was seen as part of the “outgroup,” or as a “shared threat” to the Marauders. He was considered a dabbler in the Dark Arts, while Sirius says James “always hated the Dark Arts.” (OotP, Chapter 29) In “Snape’s Worst Memory,” OotP, Chapter 28, we see the Marauders attack Snape on the school grounds, turning him upside down and threatening to “depants him.” Most of the insults thrown by James and Sirius towards Snape had to do with his personal appearance – his nose, his hair grease, and his nickname, “Snivellus.” All of these insults, which resemble the insults from the Marauder’s Map in PoA, have to do with “outgroup stereotyping.” Snape is disliked by the group, therefore, as Janis might say, it is “good” to attack him because they are a “good group.” They believe they are morally correct in what they are doing. While the attack occurs, Lupin remains passive and unquestioning. Peter is silent though he is clearly enjoying the attack. They are both playing follow the leader in a risky shift situation.

Lily Evans plays the role of Devil’s Advocate in SWM, questioning James about his treatment of Snape, but he makes light of her view, flirting with her and teasing her. When she walks away in anger, after being insulted by Snape, James escalates his attack out of anger at Lily’s rejection. I think at that point another “risky shift” has occurred and James continues to go too far, showing a marked lack of good judgment.

Peter Pettigrew was never treated as an "equal" by the other Marauders. He was made to conform through taunting and bullying. James chides Peter for being "thick" after the OWL exam; Sirius berates Peter for his hero-worship of James, suggesting that he will "wet his pants" out of admiration. (OotP, Chapter 28) That sort of bullying in Groupthink terms is a way to make sure Peter will not criticize his leaders, because he'd be too intimidated. Peter accepts his status because he is the type who seeks protection from stronger people. Unfortunately, James and Sirius also groomed Peter to seek out the next big bully on the playground, who was Lord Voldemort.

The Risky Switch

Now lets move on to the heart of the matter: the ill-fated Secret Keeper Switch between Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew.

Sirius Black "chose" Peter to be Secret Keeper for the Potters, and he also chose not to be the Secret Keeper himself. Why were those “decisions” up to him? In PoA, Professor McGonagall discusses the decision-making process about the Potter’s Secret Keeper:



James must have dismissed the need for Dumbledore’s protection because he trusted Sirius with his life. But after leaving Dumbledore, the plan was changed due to the influence of Sirius Black, who had a different plan. Dumbledore had warned the Potters that a traitor was lurking, and Cornelius Fudge says in PoA that Dumbledore had some “useful Spies” who were the source of the information. (PoA, Chapter 10) Speculation by readers has been that Severus Snape might have provided the information about the traitor. In PoA he says:



The implication of that line is that Snape tried to warn James about a threat from within his group, and Snape thought Sirius was the spy. We also know from HBP that Snape was the one who overheard the Prophecy about Harry, and that became the reason he returned to spy for Dumbledore and "the greatest regret of his life." However, in questioning the loyalty of Sirius, Snape was a threat to the "In-Group" in his role as Devil's Advocate.

James still viewed Snape as a member of an “outgroup” and a “rival,” and was totally loyal to Sirius. Snape would never be trusted enough to act as the Devil’s Advocate for the Marauders, even in he time of war, and even with the backing of Dumbledore. Rejection and dismissal of these outside opinions is one clear sign that James and his group were using Groupthink, and putting loyalty ahead of reason.

Pressure



Sirius had to "persuade" James and Lily to reject the advice of Dumbledore, and also to accept that Sirius would not be Secret Keeper after all. He had to convince the Potters that Peter was the right choice for Secret Keeper. In Groupthink terms, Sirius pressured James and Lily to “conform to the group” and reject the “outsider advice” of a Devil’s Advocate. He wanted them to go out on a limb and follow him towards the “risky shift.” It was perhaps the riskiest thing the Marauders had ever tried.

Sirius also acted as “mindguard” for the group – possibly making the decision to reject any spy evidence, and to keep the plan secret even from Lupin and Dumbledore. He had the best intentions in the world, but there is no doubt that he made a huge blunder in not becoming the Secret Keeper himself. However, James also bears some of the blame because we also know that he rather enjoyed an element of risk.

In OotP, Chapter 14, Sirius is disappointed with Harry’s caution, and says, “You’re less like your father than I thought . . . The risk would have been what made it fun for James.” James may indeed have enjoyed the idea of Peter becoming the Secret Keeper in order to fool Voldemort. And we know that keeping secrets from Dumbledore was no problem for the Marauders. Even adult Lupin hesitated to tell Dumbledore about Sirius and Peter becoming Animagi, though Sirius was in prison, so great was the pressure of the group even then.

To Trust or Not to Trust

Peter was never suspected of being a spy, probably because of the “illusion of consensus” among the group. When Sirius shouts in the Shrieking Shack that Peter should have died rather than betray his friends, there is no doubt that Sirius truly believes that. However, the assumption that Peter shared the same values was totally wrong. Peter didn’t love his friends as James and Sirius believed – he cared more about protecting himself. But Peter was able to fool everyone by pretending to be "nice." Because he was so compliant, they thought he was their friend, and they were fooled.

It's hard to understand why Lupin would be suspected as a spy over Peter, however Lupin did belong to a definite “outgroup” -- he was a Werewolf. Though James had joked about Lupin’s “furry little problem” in the past, he may have seen things differently under stress, on the run from Voldemort, and with a wife and child to protect. After Hogwarts, there would surely have been some drifting apart, since Lupin was limited by his werewolf status and poverty, while James and Sirius were Purebloods with inherited wealth.

We don’t know the complete story of what happened after Harry was born, but there seems to have been some sort of rift among the group, which made the Marauders even smaller and more isolated.. By the time the Potters went into hiding, their group consisted of James, Lily, Baby Harry, Sirius, and Peter.

Sirius had total confidence in his plan. He says in PoA that he believed his plan was the "perfect bluff" to lead Voldemort astray. Voldemort would chase after him, knowing he was James’s best friend and the obvious choice for Secret Keeper, and all the while the real Secret Keeper would be Peter Pettigrew, the “weak, talentless” friend who would remain hidden. (PoA, Chapter 19)

Yet the plan failed miserably and tragically, because Peter was actually a spy for Voldemort. He had been turning over secrets about his friends for a year before the Potters died, and betrayed them less than a week after becoming the Secret Keeper. (PoA, Chapter 10) Sirius and James were dismissive of Peter, but Voldemort found the way to use Peter’s talents. JKR said in a recent interview that



Lily and the Group

In closing, I’d like to say a few words about Lily. What was her role as the only “wife” in the Marauders group? Did she remain outspoken towards her husband? Was she pressured to be a team player and accept group decisions? Did she smooth things over to prove herself, since in the past she was seen as a Devil's Advocate and possible "friend" of Snape?

We know she and James made Sirius Black the godfather to baby Harry. In an interview, JKR spoke of Harry’s christening ceremony:



“The only one, unfortunately.” I’ve always thought that was a strange thing to say. Obviously Peter wasn’t invited, and Lupin wasn’t there. We don’t know of any female friends of Lily’s from that time, and both their families were dead, except for Petunia, a Muggle. JKR definitely draws attention to the isolation of the small group. Isolation makes Groupthink even more of a reality, and enlarges the stress factor on the decision making process.

Did Lily have misgivings about the Secret Keeper Switch? Did she try to play Devil's Advocate once again, and ask questions, or did she go along with the group out of trust? Obviously she must have trusted Peter as much as James or Sirius did. They were all Order members, and all from Gryffindor House; Peter was almost like extended family. In Moody's photo of the original Order, Peter sits in between James and Lily and they are all smiling, a scene which disturbs Harry in OotP ("Woes of Mrs. Weasley).

Conclusion

While the Marauders were a symbol of friendship, they also displayed unfortunate signs of Groupthink and the Risky Shift that led to tragedy. The canon tells us that the Secret Keepers were secretly switched, Lupin was considered a spy, Peter betrayed the group then fled, Sirius was falsely accused of Peter’s death and went to Azkaban, Dumbledore testified that Sirius was guilty, James was killed by Voldemort, and Lily died sacrificing herself for Harry. These outcomes might have been different if they had listened to Dumbledore’s advice and criticism, but the pattern of trust in the small group was so ingrained that the Marauders felt they were invincible. Alas, they were not.

Any thoughts?

I finally got round to reading this essay by SIP and I think it's very perceptive and well argued. I don't have much to say in response, really, except that this paragraph struck me in particular ...

Defining Groupthink

… anyone outside the group who tries to play “Devil’s Advocate” is seen as a threat and a common enemy to be shunned. Janis discovered that many small groups share certain traits in making decisions:

•An illusion of invulnerability
•Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group
•Collective rationalization of the group's decisions
•Shared stereotypes of an outgroup, particularly opponents
•Self-censorship with members withholding criticisms
•Illusion of unanimity and consensus
•Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
•Self-appointed "mindguards" who protect the group from negative information

I can't help thinking this could describe certain aspects of fandom. :evil: But I digress ...!

What occurred to me recently was the subject of arrested development in the surviving Marauders, i.e. Sirius and Remus. (I am more interested in them than in Peter, whom I find one-dimensional: I just can't find a satisfying hook in canon on which to hang the reasons for the enormity of his betrayal).

In Sirius's case, his emotional immaturity is particularly understandable, given what he endures. Not only are his best friend and wife murdered through a spectacular breach of security on the Marauders' part (and I am not the least bit interested in assigning blame here); in addition, he is framed for this murder by the erstwhile friend who had betrayed them, and thrown into jail without trial, thanks to the corruption which seems inherent in the Wizarding World.

Small wonder that when Sirius escapes to find and protect Harry, his long-lost and beloved godson, that this thirtysomething man wants to recover something of his lost years, e.g. sometimes reverting to teenage daredevil behaviour and castigating Harry when he refuses to play along with it (Molly Weasley is right, Sirius can't help reacting as if Harry is James), and becoming depressed in OotP when he is cooped up in Grimmauld Place (having been incarcerated in Azkaban for twelve years, this would be difficult to deal with indeed).

Remus is outwardly the more mature of the two, but he too has issues, in his case the cruel rejection he experiences from society because of his condition (which is hardly something he can help). This has left huge scars on his psyche, resulting in his eventual panic after marrying Tonks and wanting to bail on her and their unborn child because those unresolved feelings of hurt, rejection and insecurity come to a head. So he simply wants to run: a common reaction when we are faced with something we don't want to face. Thankfully, when we see him later on in DH, he seems to have faced up to reality and is reconciled with Harry.

Ironically, it is James and Lily, so brutally snuffed out at such a young age, who seem to be the most mature ones of the gang, accepting the responsibilities of parenthood and trying to deal with the harsh reality of having to be in hiding.

Given what happened to them all on the night of 31 October, 1981, it is little wonder that Sirius and Remus never quite got over it. Who could?

I wonder how the Marauder's would have seen Snape after the war and after Albus Severus?

Um, not to drag the whole discussion we're having in the S/L thread over here, but I think the answer to that question heavily depends on whether we're talking about living or departed Marauders and how much wisdom/knowledge the afterlife affords people.

Only the Marauder's in the Afterlife. :D The Snape/Lily discussion about the resurrection stone gave me the idea to post my question here. :)

I wonder how the Marauder's would have seen Snape after the war and after Albus Severus?

Astonished? :p

I also wonder how Snape would have seen the Marauders in the afterlife. :whistle:

:D

From the Snape and Lily thread.

DD had good reasons to feel guilty over Ariana's death. The difference between Snape and Dumbledore's guilt and Sirius' guilt is that they had genuine reasons for their's and Sirius had no reason at all to feel guilty. He was innocent in any culpability for their deaths and Snape wasn't.

IMO Sirius had good reasons to feel guilty too. He persuaded the Potters to choose Peter, when they would have happily gone with him and paid the price for it. Of course I also hold the Potters themselves responsible to an extent (only from their side, please note and I am NOT saying it takes away anything from Voldemort, Peter, Snape or any other DE) for not checking their friends, but I do believe Sirius' guilt was very real and he felt he killed James and Lily. That's a huge statement IMO and for anyone to say it, shows how deeply they felt for their actions.

I think Sirius realised how wrong he was; how wrongly he, James and Lily concluded who the traitor was which made them choose the other friend and it was that mistake that cost all of them everything. While it was not Sirius who cast the AK or betrayed the Potters, he felt very deeply about the mistake he made, because it was a costly one IMO.

IMO Sirius had good reasons to feel guilty too. He persuaded the Potters to choose Peter, when they would have happily gone with him and paid the price for it. Of course I also hold the Potters themselves responsible to an extent (only from their side, please note and I am NOT saying it takes away anything from Voldemort, Peter, Snape or any other DE) for not checking their friends, but I do believe Sirius' guilt was very real and he felt he killed James and Lily. That's a huge statement IMO and for anyone to say it, shows how deeply they felt for their actions.

I think Sirius realised how wrong he was; how wrongly he, James and Lily concluded who the traitor was which made them choose the other friend and it was that mistake that cost all of them everything. While it was not Sirius who cast the AK or betrayed the Potters, he felt very deeply about the mistake he made, because it was a costly one IMO.

Well, yes, I think anyone in Sirius's position would have felt guilty, and agonisingly so. :cool:

But I wouldn't say that trusting Peter was some kind of moral failure on Sirius's part (and you'll note that he doesn't blame James and Lily for anything). For me the real moral fault lies solely with Peter, and Peter alone.

From the Snape and Lily thread.



IMO Sirius had good reasons to feel guilty too. He persuaded the Potters to choose Peter, when they would have happily gone with him and paid the price for it. Of course I also hold the Potters themselves responsible to an extent (only from their side, please note and I am NOT saying it takes away anything from Voldemort, Peter, Snape or any other DE) for not checking their friends, but I do believe Sirius' guilt was very real and he felt he killed James and Lily. That's a huge statement IMO and for anyone to say it, shows how deeply they felt for their actions.

I think Sirius realised how wrong he was; how wrongly he, James and Lily concluded who the traitor was which made them choose the other friend and it was that mistake that cost all of them everything. While it was not Sirius who cast the AK or betrayed the Potters, he felt very deeply about the mistake he made, because it was a costly one IMO.

I agree. :tu: He felt responsible. With the marauders, it was always win together, lose together. It was a big step for James and Sirius to suspect a friend at all, and when they did, it was a huge mistake.
He felt that he had wronged remus, let to James' murder, wasnt there to fight with James and most importantly, couldnt avenge him. That was all he wanted to do and prove when he came out of Azkaban. JMO tho

From the Snape and Lily thread.



IMO Sirius had good reasons to feel guilty too. He persuaded the Potters to choose Peter, when they would have happily gone with him and paid the price for it. Of course I also hold the Potters themselves responsible to an extent (only from their side, please note and I am NOT saying it takes away anything from Voldemort, Peter, Snape or any other DE) for not checking their friends, but I do believe Sirius' guilt was very real and he felt he killed James and Lily. That's a huge statement IMO and for anyone to say it, shows how deeply they felt for their actions.

I think Sirius realised how wrong he was; how wrongly he, James and Lily concluded who the traitor was which made them choose the other friend and it was that mistake that cost all of them everything. While it was not Sirius who cast the AK or betrayed the Potters, he felt very deeply about the mistake he made, because it was a costly one IMO.

My problem with this line of theory is the plain and simple fact that Sirius did not conspire with anyone to kill James and Lily. He made an error in judgement about a friend. This is not a crime and it is not a sin. It's a mistake. The only Marauder guilty in the death of the Potter's was Peter. The one who killed them was not connected to Sirius and James at all, and the one who provided the motive was Snape. Sirius did not have anything to be guilty about. He was the victim as well as Lily and James. His 'guilt' IMO was the result of grief, anxiety, and wrongful imprisonment. Just because someone ssaid they 'feel' guilty does not make them guilty of anything.

My problem with this line of theory is the plain and simple fact that Sirius did not conspire with anyone to kill James and Lily. He made an error in judgement about a friend. This is not a crime and it is not a sin. It's a mistake. The only Marauder guilty in the death of the Potter's was Peter. The one who killed them was not connected to Sirius and James at all, and the one who provided the motive was Snape. Sirius did not have anything to be guilty about. He was the victim as well as Lily and James. His 'guilt' IMO was the result of grief, anxiety, and wrongful imprisonment. Just because someone said they 'feel' guilty does not make them guilty of anything.

Of course, Sirius wasn't guilty of James' death, but he felt responsible. He and James made just a mistake, a false judgement of Peter's character, and that lead to the Potter's death.

I think J&S' common flaw was the fact of ignoring other people's feelings and purposes. In SWM, we can see Sirius treating Peter rather unkindly; he surely considered him as weak (but still believed he will be loyal). Then, Peter betrayed them.

Ironically, Sirius repeats the same mistake with Kreacher - a weak being, treated unkindly, takes his revenge and betrays him.

Of course, Sirius wasn't guilty of James' death, but he felt responsible. He and James made just a mistake, a false judgement of Peter's character, and that lead to the Potter's death.

I think J&S' common flaw was the fact of ignoring other people's feelings and purposes. In SWM, we can see Sirius treating Peter rather unkindly; he surely considered him as weak (but still believed he will be loyal). Then, Peter betrayed them.

Ironically, Sirius repeats the same mistake with Kreacher - a weak being, treated unkindly, takes his revenge and betrays him.

Yes Sirius made mistakes, that does not absolve those who are guilty and it does not transfer their guilt onto Sirius' shoulders. Peter was responsible for his crimes and I like to think that Kreacher sorrowed over what he did to Sirius. To cut Sirius some slack with Kreacher he did not abuse him, he just didn't want to be around him.

Yes Sirius made mistakes, that does not absolve those who are guilty and it does not transfer their guilt onto Sirius' shoulders. Peter was responsible for his crimes and I like to think that Kreacher sorrowed over what he did to Sirius. To cut Sirius some slack with Kreacher he did not abuse him, he just didn't want to be around him.

Of course, it doesn't transfer Peter's guilt to Sirius - but Sirius and James mistakes made Peter's betrayal far easier.

Sirius didn't actually abuse Kreacher, I've said he treated him unkindly - and that also made easier his decision to go to Narcissa. Srius was betrayed by an elf whom he didn't considder worthy of his attention.

The betrayal was Peter's - and Kreacher's, after - but Sirius and James' flaws contributed to this. Without these mistakes, many disasters wouldn't never have happened...

Sirius didn't actually abuse Kreacher, I've said he treated him unkindly - and that also made easier his decision to go to Narcissa. Srius was betrayed by an elf whom he didn't considder worthy of his attention.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that Sirius did abuse Kreacher. *hides from Harry's wrath* He is noted several times as kicking him, throwing him, etc, not to mention the number of times that he is verbally cruel and humiliating towards the elf. I don't know about you guys, but I would call that abuse. :) I'm not suggesting that Sirius had no reason at all for his rough manners, or that Kreacher was a picnic to live with, but objectively, I would say that the treatment we see in the books is indeed abuse.

I also wonder how Snape would have seen the Marauders in the afterlife. :whistle:

:D

I feel he would have viewed them exactly the same. It's not like they had any deep, dark secrets.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that Sirius did abuse Kreacher. *hides from Harry's wrath* He is noted several times as kicking him, throwing him, etc, not to mention the number of times that he is verbally cruel and humiliating towards the elf. I don't know about you guys, but I would call that abuse. :)

Errr... I didn't even remember the physical abuse. :hmm: (Must re-read OotP, definitely!) I remembered he shouted at him and called him names. And we know after DH, that Kreacher can be very different, when treated fairly. And he was loyal to Regulus, long after his death. That's why I say Sirius' flaws contributed to what happened after.

Errr... I didn't even remember the physical abuse. :hmm: (Must re-read OotP, definitely!) I remembered he shouted at him and called him names. And we know after DH, that Kreacher can be very different, when treated fairly. And he was loyal to Regulus, long after his death. That's why I say Sirius' flaws contributed to what happened after.

I definitely remember Sirius kicking him once. I don't remember any instances of throwing.

My problem with this line of theory is the plain and simple fact that Sirius did not conspire with anyone to kill James and Lily. He made an error in judgement about a friend.

An error of judgement can be a serious one really. As I believe Sirius found to his cost.

He made an error in judgement about a friend.

About 2 friends. He thought Peter was good to be SK, which was a error of judgement in more ways than one and he thought Remus was the traitor, another error of judgement. Both together proved disastrous to the Potters and himself, not to mention Harry IMO.

This is not a crime and it is not a sin. It's a mistake.

There are m mistakes and then there are mistakes. Snape joining the DEs was a mistake. He realises it himself later on. But that mistake was a huge, huge one when compared to hexing another student in a fight. So, I think Sirius made a mistake too and so did the Potters. Sirius repented and felt guilty when he realised what that mistake cost him.

It was certainly not a crime like the actions of Voldemort and Peter, but to Sirius in a way they were worse because he loved James IMO.

Just because someone ssaid they 'feel' guilty does not make them guilty of anything.

In the eyes of the law, perhaps. But IMO certainly not in his own eyes. From what I understood of the text, I really thought he felt guilty and I really thought he felt bad he made such a huge mistake and felt responsible for the Potters deaths.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that Sirius did abuse Kreacher.

:tu: I agree.

[QUOTE=The_Green_Woods;5488289]An error of judgment can be a serious one really. As I believe Sirius found to his cost.

He paid a high price for being betrayed, that is true. At least he had the comfort of knowing that he never betrayed anyone. As he said, he knew he was innocent.

About 2 friends. He thought Peter was good to be SK, which was a error of judgment in more ways than one and he thought Remus was the traitor, another error of judgment. Both together proved disastrous to the Potters and himself, not to mention Harry IMO.

It is terrible when you are lied too and betrayed, poor Sirius.

There are m mistakes and then there are mistakes. Snape joining the DEs was a mistake. He realizes it himself later on. But that mistake was a huge, huge one when compared to hexing another student in a fight. So, I think Sirius made a mistake too and so did the Potters. Sirius repented and felt guilty when he realized what that mistake cost him.

Of course Snape felt it was a huge mistake to join a gang of murderers. I would hope that he did feel remorse and guilt even though we never actually hear him say so. I always felt it strange that Sirius, who had not committed any crime felt guilty for surviving and Snape who was part of the criminal gang for at least 2 years never actually states his sorrow for being part of them. I have to state that Sirius did not kill anyone nor was he responsible for killing anyone, not even a DE.

It was certainly not a crime like the actions of Voldemort and Peter, but to Sirius in a way they were worse because he loved James IMO.

Any crimes committed were committed against Sirius, James and Lily.

In the eyes of the law, perhaps. But IMO certainly not in his own eyes. From what I understood of the text, I really thought he felt guilty and I really thought he felt bad he made such a huge mistake and felt responsible for the Potters deaths.

But that does not make him responsible, LV, Peter and Snape were the conspirators. The culpability lies on their shoulders.

I genuinely did not think that Sirius struck Kreacher either. If he did that, it certainly was wrong and he did deserve to feel guilty for harming another.

I definitely remember Sirius kicking him once. I don't remember any instances of throwing.

Sirius grabs him by the back of his loincloth and hurls him out of a room at one point. :)

Sirius grabs him by the back of his loincloth and hurls him out of a room at one point. :)

I remeber that. Wasn't it just after Kreacher called Hermione a Mudblood?

I remeber that. Wasn't it just after Kreacher called Hermione a Mudblood?

I'm not sure when exactly it occurs, but Kreacher was definitely being rude. Like I said, I know Kreacher wasn't easy to live with, but that doesn't make abuse anything but abuse.

I'm not sure when exactly it occurs, but Kreacher was definitely being rude. Like I said, I know Kreacher wasn't easy to live with, but that doesn't make abuse anything but abuse.

I found this passage in TOOTP,

Harry felt a powerful jerk behind his navel, the ground vanished from beneath his feet, his hand was glued to the kettle; he was banging into the others as they all sped forwards in a swirl of colours and a rush of wind, the kettle pulling them onwards… until his feet hit the ground so hard his knees buckled, the kettle clattered to the ground, and somewhere close at hand a voice said:
ʹBack again, the blood‐traitor brats. Is it true their fatherʹs dying?ʹ
ʹOUT!ʹ roared a second voice.
Harry scrambled to his feet and looked around; they had arrived in the gloomy basement kitchen of number twelve, Grimmauld Place. The only sources of light were the fire and one guttering candle, which illuminated the remains of a solitary supper. Kreacher was disappearing through the door to the hall, looking back at them malevolently as he hitched up his loincloth; Sirius was hurrying towards them all, looking anxious.

This is the only passage I could find with Sirius and Kreacher together with a mention of a lioncloth. When Sirius shouts 'OUT!', Kreacher leaves the house and goes to Narcissa and Bella. He does not come back till Harry and Co are back at Hogwarts after Christmas. There is no grabbing him and throwing, and certainly no kicking.

This was the passage I was referring to:

Sirius went so far as to threaten him with clothes, but Kreacher fixed him with a watery stare and said "Master must do as Master wishes," before turning away and muttering very loudly, "but Master will not turn Kreacher away, no, because Kreacher knows what they are up to, oh yes, he is plotting against the Dark Lord, yes, with these Mudbloods and traitors and scum...."
At which Sirius, ignoring Hermione's protests, seized Kreacher by the back of his loincloth and threw him bodily from the room.

Found in Order of the Phoenix, "The Ancient and Most Noble House of Black".

The marauders were great except Peter.

In re-reading the series, when I had time to really take a look at the characters, I began to wonder whether the Marauders weren't a bit like Dudley's gang. James, as a pampered only child, led a group that bullied others because of the way they dressed or because they "existed." Sirius, who seemed to learn abusiveness at an early age, treated his house-elf pretty much the same way Lucius Malfoy did Dobby. IMO, Lupin and Pettigrew were just glad to have a group to belong to. Lupin didn't seem to be as much into the bullying, but, Pettigrew, IMO, would have gone along with most things just to be part of a group that wasn't bullying him.

When I got to the re-reading of DH and James' first encounter with Snape on the Hogwarts' Express, I was struck by the similarity of his manner to that of Draco Malfoy. Malfoy puts Ron down because of his name and his hand-me-down robes. James puts Snape down for his appearance and his affinity to Slytherin House. Neither waited to really get to know the other person and what they were like. Just judgement on appearance and association.

This was the passage I was referring to:



Found in Order of the Phoenix, "The Ancient and Most Noble House of Black".

Yes I found it after I posted my last post and you can.t double post. I just love having my e-copies on my desktop.

treated his house-elf pretty much the same way Lucius Malfoy did Dobby.

Please substantiate this. Where does he force Kreacher to punish himself? Where does he force Kreacher to do anything?


This was the passage I was referring to:

Sirius went so far as to threaten him with clothes, but Kreacher fixed him with a watery stare and said "Master must do as Master wishes," before turning away and muttering very loudly, "but Master will not turn Kreacher away, no, because Kreacher knows what they are up to, oh yes, he is plotting against the Dark Lord, yes, with these Mudbloods and traitors and scum...."
At which Sirius, ignoring Hermione's protests, seized Kreacher by the back of his loincloth and threw him bodily from the room.
Found in Order of the Phoenix, "The Ancient and Most Noble House of Black".

So eliza101 was right. It was after he called Hermione a Mudblood.

Please substantiate this. Where does he force Kreacher to punish himself? Where does he force Kreacher to do anything?

I think MinervasCat was referring to the physical abuse here, which certainly looks remarkable similar to me. Kicking, throwing, etc., were all favorite methods of punishment employed by Lucius Malfoy towards Dobby.

So eliza101 was right. It was after he called Hermione a Mudblood.

See what I said before. :) If the object of the abuse is being difficult or irritating, that does not negate the fact that abuse is going on.

I think MinervasCat was referring to the physical abuse here, which certainly looks remarkable similar to me. Kicking, throwing, etc., were all favorite methods of punishment employed by Lucius Malfoy toward Dobby.



See what I said before. :) If the object of the abuse is being difficult or irritating, that does not negate the fact that abuse is going on.

This is the only time that it could be said that excessive force was used. Kreacher was being very verbally abusive. So the question could be posed is, did his verbal abuse give Sirius reason enough to physically remove him from the room? Does this prove physical abuse was habitually used by Sirius? Was the force that Sirius used enough to cause actual harm to Kreacher? Please understand I am not excusing Sirius for using physical force on a creature over whom he had control, I am asking if Kreacher provoked Sirius' reaction? Was the provocation severe enough to warrant said reaction? ?

I really don't think that it is entirely fair to Sirius to condemn him so wholeheartedly. There were extenuating circumstances and I think we should consider them. Sirius was not a Lucius Malfoy who seemed to take malicious pleasure in abusing Dobby and I think it very unfair to say it.

I also think it unfair to compare James to Draco in the railway carriage. Neither James or Sirius refer to Snapes clothing in any way. We don't know how Snape was dressed because it is not mentioned. The only appearance that is mentioned is James, who seems to be committing the cardinal sin of being well cared for. What on earth were his parents doing sending him out clean and well dressed? Tch, tch.

So the question could be posed is, did his verbal abuse give Sirius reason enough to physically remove him from the room?

No. All he had to do was order him out.

No. All he had to do was order him out.

Isn't it possible tha he just snapped and went too far by the very real provocation Kreacher delivered? Snape snapped when he called Lily a Mudblood, can't some understanding be given to Sirius as well as Snape? Would ordering him out shut him up when all orders to so had already failed?

Isn't it possible tha he just snapped and went too far by the very real provocation Kreacher delivered? Snape snapped when he called Lily a Mudblood, can't some understanding be given to Sirius as well as Snape? Would ordering him out shut him up when all orders to so had already failed?

He may have snapped or he may have doing things as usual. Either way, he was wrong. Sirius and Snape were both wrong. They both let their emotions get the best of them.

Isn't it possible tha he just snapped and went too far by the very real provocation Kreacher delivered? Snape snapped when he called Lily a Mudblood, can't some understanding be given to Sirius as well as Snape? Would ordering him out shut him up when all orders to so had already failed?

Thank you. Dumbledore himself says that Sirius was not a cruel man, and that he was kind to house-elves in general. I know he was trying to comfort Harry at that time, but Dumbledore doesn't seem to be the type to lie just to make people feel better IMO.

All we know is that Sirius physically threw Kreacher out of a room once. With Dobby, we have evidence of habitual abuse by all of his masters who would "remind [him] to do extra punishments." I just don't see how you can put how Sirius treated Kreacher on a level with how the Malfoys treated Dobby.

The Malfoys abused Dobby out of arrogance and cruelty. Sirius's abuse was mainly a result of being stuck in his family's old house and the constant reminders of his past. The fact that Kreacher was still there and still as unpleasant as ever just made Sirius feel worse about it.

The Malfoys abused Dobby out of arrogance and cruelty. Sirius's abuse was mainly a result of being stuck in his family's old house and the constant reminders of his past. The fact that Kreacher was still there and still as unpleasant as ever just made Sirius feel worse about it.

Abuse is abuse, whether one "justifies" it or not. As Severus Snape cannot be justified in abusing Harry because he reminds him of James, IMO, Sirius cannot be justified in abusing Kreacher because he reminds him of is own situation.

As for how Snape was dressed on the train, based on previous descriptions:
At 9-years old: "sallow, small, stringy." "His black hair was overlong and his clothes were so mismatched that it looked deliberate: too short jeans, a shabby, overlarge coat that might have belonged to a grown man, an odd smocklike shirt." (Harry Potter Lexicon)

We also are told about his "graying" underwear, which is exposed when James hangs him upside down. What would lead us to believe he would be dressed any better on the train. Harry wasn't. He was still wearing Dudley's castoffs when he boarded the Express. What would lead us to believe that Severus' parents would dress him any better than usual to ride the train?

I also think it unfair to compare James to Draco in the railway carriage. Neither James or Sirius refer to Snapes clothing in any way. We don't know how Snape was dressed because it is not mentioned. The only appearance that is mentioned is James, who seems to be committing the cardinal sin of being well cared for. What on earth were his parents doing sending him out clean and well dressed? Tch, tch.

I think it was mentioned that Severus was wearing his robes on the train-- in other words, normal every day attire for wizards.

If Lily and Severus' trip was the same as Harry's, the students didn't put their robes on until they were near the school. But, I'll make this a bit simpler: James bullying of Snape, which is mentioned several times, especially in DH, reminds me of Draco, Crabbe and Goyle bullying Ron and Harry. But, then Draco never hung Ron upside down so his underwear showed, or bullied him just because "he exists," so, I guess they are different.

If Lily and Severus' trip was the same as Harry's, the students didn't put their robes on until they were near the school.

Snape was wearing his robes on the train. It says so in canon, in "The Princes Tale".

Please, forgive me. I guess the bullying didn't start until after they reached Hogwart's. But, the Marauders still remind me of Draco and his cronies.

I was thinking about that train ride - somebody mentioned it on another thread. Sirius probably got to Hogwarts and sat on that stool, completely convinced he was going to hear "Slytherin". And Everyone who knew the Black name was thinking they were going to hear "Slytherin" from the hat also - Bella was there, etc. And prolly most of the professors as well as Dumbledore were all expecting to hear "Slytherin". I have to imagine it would be a pretty big shocker when it called out Gryffindor, LOL. That actually prolly happened from time to time in association with all of the houses - but it is something funny to think about - everyone's mouth gaping and whatnot. JKR came up with a pretty good idea in all of that.

Of course Snape felt it was a huge mistake to join a gang of murderers. I would hope that he did feel remorse and guilt even though we never actually hear him say so.

Will answer in the Snape thread.

I always felt it strange that Sirius, who had not committed any crime felt guilty for surviving and Snape who was part of the criminal gang for at least 2 years never actually states his sorrow for being part of them. I have to state that Sirius did not kill anyone nor was he responsible for killing anyone, not even a DE.

Sirius speaks his sorrow and Snape IMO showed it in his actions.

Any crimes committed were committed against Sirius, James and Lily.

Is an error in judgement a crime at such a serious time, when a small mistake could cost lives? If it is, then from their side, Sirius, James and Lily were guilty of it.

But that does not make him responsible, LV, Peter and Snape were the conspirators. The culpability lies on their shoulders.

That does not make him responsible in whose eyes? The reader's? I agree. No one says Sirius murdered the Potters or betrayed them, or took the prophecy and allowed Voldemort to choose Harry or allowed a DE to go away when it was known he had heard something as he eavesdropped outside the door, which in turn allowed him to go to Voldemort with his information IMO.

But in his own eyes, Sirius was very, very guilty. He felt he was responsible for their deaths when he could have kept them safe and alive. That guilt hurt him and 13 years later, he could not take comfort in his innocence, but weep at his folly IMO.

Sirius' abuse of Kreacher :: Dumbledore had this to say in OOTP.

'She was quite right, Harry,' said Dumbledore. 'I warned Sirius when we adopted GP as our Headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think Sirius took me seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's -'

and Hermione in DH.

'Sirius was horrible to Kreacher, and it's no good looking like that, you know it's true.'

I think Sirius did not care that he abused Kreacher and he died for that, making Harry suffer once again IMO.

===============

I think there are a lot of similarities between Sirius and Bellatrix, (even in the way they died) even though Sirius was on this side and Bellatrix was right on the other.

Both could be cruel and uncaring of others; very, very loyal to theirs and willing to die for those who they loved, willing to do anything for the cause they believed in, and, were arrogant and reckless to sometimes an alarming degree IMO.

Please, forgive me. I guess the bullying didn't start until after they reached Hogwart's. But, the Marauders still remind me of Draco and his cronies.

And that's fine. Jo is constantly holding up mirrors you might say, and those mirrors distort what they reflect back. We see one episode of bullying, it occurs after the Shrieking Shack episode when Snape went into that tunnel to try and get the evidence to get Lupin expelled. (That's a classic case of being careful what you ask for.) I expect feelings were running high. I'm afraid I cannot cast James as the devil incarnate because he did not behave well in school. He grew out of it and he did it because he wanted to. That's pretty common. Children grow up and mature, Draco did.

Reply to GreenWoods, Sorry you must have posted while I was writing.

Is an error in judgment at a time of crisis a crime.
Good heavens, of course not. To tell the truth that's probably when most errors of judgment occur. A crime is when someone deliberately sets out to harm another person. Sirius was trying to put himself in harm's way to save his friends. It is tragic, not a crime.

Feeling guilty when you haven't done anything is one of the most common emotions to the human family. My mother could make me feel guilty with a look. It always left me wondering what I had done wrong. When I asked her about years later, she said it was in case I ever did.

As to the abuse of Kreacher: You are quite right. Sirius was not nice to him. DD says he did not treat him well and Hermione says he was horrible to Kreacher. Did this treatment habitually include physical abuse? I don't know, we see one episode when Kreacher was actually behaving very badly, that's it. Sirius at this time is being imprisoned in the house that he hated and cannot get away. He is under a great deal of stress. Harry mentions this to DD at the end of the passage you quoted. Sirius is far from perfect, but he is not a ravenning monster either.

Just a reminder: Snape is not part of the Marauders. Please don't discuss his character here.

_______________________________________


About Kreacher: I think Sirius treated him very, very wrongly. But I would never compare Sirius to Lucius because they were in completely different positions. Sirius was almost a prisoner at Grimmauld Place. He couldn't just leave and go for a walk when Kreacher went on his nerves. He was severely damaged by his years in Azkaban and now he was imprisoned again, in a house that haunted him with memories. It must have been hell. So in my view, Sirius was Kreacher's master but he wasn't in control nor did he have the liberty to put some distance between them. Did that justify his abuse of Kreacher? Of course not. But I believe that Sirius, had he not been locked up at 12GP, would not have lashed out like that.

And does anyone have a great idea how we could tie this in with the other Marauders? :rotfl:

About Kreacher: I think Sirius treated him very, very wrongly.

I agree. :D

Sirius was almost a prisoner at Grimmauld Place. He couldn't just leave and go for a walk when Kreacher went on his nerves.

He could tell Kreacher to sit a particular place (maybe where he sleeps) for the rest of the day for example. Sirius was the Master and he could just order Kreacher to do anything.

But I believe that Sirius, had he not been locked up at 12GP, would not have lashed out like that.

I am not too sure. Unless James was there. James could help keep Sirius on the straight and the narrow, but I think Sirius was hopelessly lost without James. It was not just Azkaban, but I think there was a recklessness inside him that was apparent even before Azkaban (the werewolf incident springs to mind) and without James, Sirius never really knew or recognised the line he should not cross IMO. I don't think Remus could do it or Peter, but James somehow reached out to him in a way no one else was able to. And Sirius' real madness was not Azkaban as much as it was the loss of James and the guilt he bore because he felt he played a part in their deaths IMO.

Sirius at this time is being imprisoned in the house that he hated and cannot get away. He is under a great deal of stress. Harry mentions this to DD at the end of the passage you quoted. Sirius is far from perfect, but he is not a ravenning monster either.

I disagree. Stress cannot be an excuse for abuse. I can't for example say students can be abused in Hogwarts because their teachers are stressed out for example. No one would agree. Being stressed is sad and I agree Sirius suffered in Azkaban, but I am afraid that is not an excuse for his actions.

Is an error in judgement a crime at such a serious time, when a small mistake could cost lives? If it is, then from their side, Sirius, James and Lily were guilty of it.

Uh ... an error in judgment is most certainly not a crime. :whistle:

But in his own eyes, Sirius was very, very guilty. He felt he was responsible for their deaths when he could have kept them safe and alive. That guilt hurt him and 13 years later, he could not take comfort in his innocence, but weep at his folly IMO.

Yes, we know that. :) It's obvious that he feels guilty, and we all understand why he did. This hardly puts him in the same moral bracket as Voldemort and Peter, for what they did to Sirius's best friends. :yuhup:

I think Sirius did not care that he abused Kreacher and he died for that, making Harry suffer once again IMO.

Where does the 'blaming characters' thing ever end? Seriously? :) Harry was also at fault in that situation, in his reckless decision to go haring off to the Ministry of Magic. Should we start blaming him completely for Sirius's death? :hmm:

I think there are a lot of similarities between Sirius and Bellatrix, (even in the way they died) even though Sirius was on this side and Bellatrix was right on the other.

Both could be cruel and uncaring of others; very, very loyal to theirs and willing to die for those who they loved, willing to do anything for the cause they believed in, and, were arrogant and reckless to sometimes an alarming degree IMO.

I think this is a really perceptive point. :) I'll answer in the Sirius thread. Otherwise there will be too much Bella in my answer and we don't want to crowd this thread with too many off-topic characters. ;)

About Kreacher: I think Sirius treated him very, very wrongly. But I would never compare Sirius to Lucius because they were in completely different positions. Sirius was almost a prisoner at Grimmauld Place. He couldn't just leave and go for a walk when Kreacher went on his nerves. He was severely damaged by his years in Azkaban and now he was imprisoned again, in a house that haunted him with memories. It must have been hell. So in my view, Sirius was Kreacher's master but he wasn't in control nor did he have the liberty to put some distance between them. Did that justify his abuse of Kreacher? Of course not. But I believe that Sirius, had he not been locked up at 12GP, would not have lashed out like that.

I agree with this. :tu: Mind you, I do think there is a bit of a cruel streak in Sirius as well. Which is why he is intriguing, as a character.

And does anyone have a great idea how we could tie this in with the other Marauders? :rotfl:

Uh ... :whistle: I would say that none of the Marauders -- save Remus, possibly -- were overburdened with self-awareness. But that is pretty typical for a) boys their age; and b) a lot of other characters in the Potterverse. :D

[QUOTE]Harry was also at fault in that situation, in his reckless decision to go haring off to the Ministry of Magic. Should we start blaming him completely for Sirius's death? :hmm:

Will answer in the Harry Potter thread. :)

Isn't it possible tha he just snapped and went too far by the very real provocation Kreacher delivered? Snape snapped when he called Lily a Mudblood, can't some understanding be given to Sirius as well as Snape? Would ordering him out shut him up when all orders to so had already failed?

The opposite can be asked as well - shouldn't the same unforgiving judgement applied to Snape be applied to Sirius as well? It looks liek both "sides" are guitly of favoritism, if we must be very precise.

The opposite can be asked as well - shouldn't the same unforgiving judgement applied to Snape be applied to Sirius as well? It looks liek both "sides" are guitly of favoritism, if we must be very precise.

You have a point.

I was thinking about that train ride - somebody mentioned it on another thread. Sirius probably got to Hogwarts and sat on that stool, completely convinced he was going to hear "Slytherin". And Everyone who knew the Black name was thinking they were going to hear "Slytherin" from the hat also - Bella was there, etc. And prolly most of the professors as well as Dumbledore were all expecting to hear "Slytherin". I have to imagine it would be a pretty big shocker when it called out Gryffindor, LOL. That actually prolly happened from time to time in association with all of the houses - but it is something funny to think about - everyone's mouth gaping and whatnot. JKR came up with a pretty good idea in all of that.

That is rather amusing to consider. Too bad Harry didn't see Sirius being sorted as well. The reactions from people who knew about the Black family were probably interesting.

Is an error in judgement a crime at such a serious time, when a small mistake could cost lives? If it is, then from their side, Sirius, James and Lily were guilty of it.

Sirius, James, and Lily were not guilty of anything, IMO. They trusted a friend who had given them absolutely no reason not to trust him up to that point. They had known him for about 10 years and he had been loyal to their friendship up until that final year. Pettigrew was very clever and gave them no reason to be suspicious of him. I don't see where blaming the victims for crimes committed by others accomplishes anything.

That does not make him responsible in whose eyes? The reader's? I agree. No one says Sirius murdered the Potters or betrayed them, or took the prophecy and allowed Voldemort to choose Harry or allowed a DE to go away when it was known he had heard something as he eavesdropped outside the door, which in turn allowed him to go to Voldemort with his information IMO.

But in his own eyes, Sirius was very, very guilty. He felt he was responsible for their deaths when he could have kept them safe and alive. That guilt hurt him and 13 years later, he could not take comfort in his innocence, but weep at his folly IMO.

Sirius had a misplaced sense of guilt because of what he realized after the fact, IMO. He faulted himself for something that he could not have known or done anything about at the time. A lot of people feel a misplaced sense of guilt in situations like that because hindsight is 20/20. It's very easy to look back on such a tragedy after the fact and see what could have been done differently to possibly prevent the tragedy from occurring. But what people in such situations eventually realize - given time to heal - is that they did what they could with what they knew at the time and could not have done anything more. I believe Sirius would have eventually healed and come to accept that he was not guilty of anything if he had not been killed. Sirius had nothing to feel guilty for because there was no way that he - or any of them - could have known that Pettigrew had betrayed them, IMO.

Sirius' abuse of Kreacher :: Dumbledore had this to say in OOTP.

'She was quite right, Harry,' said Dumbledore. 'I warned Sirius when we adopted GP as our Headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think Sirius took me seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's -'

and Hermione in DH.

'Sirius was horrible to Kreacher, and it's no good looking like that, you know it's true.'

I think Sirius did not care that he abused Kreacher and he died for that, making Harry suffer once again IMO.

Dumbledore also tells Harry that Sirius was not a cruel person and the situation with Kreacher was unique because of their history.

“Sirius was not a cruel man, he was kind to house-elves in general. He had no love for Kreacher, because Kreacher was a living reminder of the home Sirius had hated.”

Sirius did not abuse Kreacher, IMO. He was not nice to him, but Kreacher was not nice to Sirius either. Every instance we see of Sirius snapping at Kreacher - even the one time he throws him out of a room - comes about because of the way Kreacher is behaving. They were horrible to each other because of their history. To Sirius, Kreacher was a constant reminder of his miserable childhood and how his parents had treated him. Kreacher had been told repeatedly by Walpurga that Sirius was the "bad son" and reacted accordingly.

I think we see the opposite actually. Kreacher was not physically abused in any way - we can compare the situations presented with Dobby and Kreacher to know that. In COS, Dobby is frequently bandaged due to being forced to punish himself with self-inflicted injury by the Malfoys. Kreacher is never shown to be injured or bandaged - Sirius did not force Kreacher to injure himself as punishment for disobeying like the Malfoys did with Dobby. We also see that Sirius did have some level of sympathy when it came to Kreacher as well. The main reason he could not free Kreacher was because of the risk he presented to the Order, but Sirius also tells Hermione that the shock would kill him so he's not completely uncaring.

I agree that Sirius could have been nicer to Kreacher, but the same holds true for Kreacher as well. He disobeyed, rebelled, and was generally nasty to everyone staying at Grimmauld Place - especially Sirius. I think that, given time, it is possible that Sirius would have eventually found a way to improve the situation with Kreacher, but I think Sirius would have needed to recover from what he'd been through in order to accomplish that. Of course, that's not definitive by any means because their history is a factor as well. But I think it would have been a possibility if Sirius had not been killed.

I think there are a lot of similarities between Sirius and Bellatrix, (even in the way they died) even though Sirius was on this side and Bellatrix was right on the other.

Both could be cruel and uncaring of others; very, very loyal to theirs and willing to die for those who they loved, willing to do anything for the cause they believed in, and, were arrogant and reckless to sometimes an alarming degree IMO.

I have to disagree. Sirius was not a cruel or uncaring person by nature, IMO. He did not take pleasure in hurting, torturing, or killing people the way Bellatrix did. He did not judge people on their bloodline or financial status - he judged people on the basis of their actions, which is as it should be, IMO. He was rebellious and mischievous - as was James - and they sometimes got carried away in their youth, but I wouldn't say that either of them was cruel or uncaring by nature. I see James and Sirius as being a lot like the Weasley twins myself. They were very confident in themselves, fun loving, witty, intelligent, and enjoyed taking risks.

They were also very caring and had good hearts - cruel and uncaring people would not have become friends or stayed friends with Lupin or Pettigrew, IMO. They did not know that Lupin was a werewolf when they became friends with him and they did not abandon him when they found out - as a lot of people would have. They remained friends with him and found a way to help him with the trauma of his transformations each month. That's not to say that everything they did was right - they certainly made mistakes and got carried away with themselves at times. But they also learned from the mistakes of their youth and grew out of such behavior - though the trauma that Sirius suffered with his misplaced sense of guilt over the Potters being killed and the years he spent in Azkaban damaged him. But he would have eventually recovered from that if he had not been killed, IMO.

About Kreacher: I think Sirius treated him very, very wrongly. But I would never compare Sirius to Lucius because they were in completely different positions. Sirius was almost a prisoner at Grimmauld Place. He couldn't just leave and go for a walk when Kreacher went on his nerves. He was severely damaged by his years in Azkaban and now he was imprisoned again, in a house that haunted him with memories. It must have been hell. So in my view, Sirius was Kreacher's master but he wasn't in control nor did he have the liberty to put some distance between them. Did that justify his abuse of Kreacher? Of course not. But I believe that Sirius, had he not been locked up at 12GP, would not have lashed out like that.

And does anyone have a great idea how we could tie this in with the other Marauders? :rotfl:

I agree. Though I don't feel he abused Kreacher - as I said above. I think Sirius and Kreacher were both guilty in that situation because they both let the past affect how they treated each other in the present. There are understandable reasons for that and mitigating factors with both as well though and I think that it might have been possible for them to eventually overcome that if Sirius had not been killed and had the time he needed to heal emotionally. Sirius being forced to stay at Grimmauld Place without any reprieve - i.e. using a disguise so he could help the Order at times or even just get out of the house for a bit - exacerbated the situation.

There are two things that I wonder about with that situation though. One is why Dumbledore didn't just have Sirius send Kreacher to Hogwarts like he did with Harry in HBP. Two - as an alternative - why didn't Dumbledore give Sirius the job of DADA professor and disguise him? I understand why Jo didn't do either of those things for the purposes of the plot, but I don't think either would have changed too much with the story. For the first - Kreacher could have found a way to leave Hogwarts to go to Miss Bella and Miss Cissy the same as he could from Grimmauld Place. For the second - Umbridge would still be a factor because Fudge created the High Inquisitor position separately and Umbridge took that on in addition to the teaching position. The story would still work with her being brought into the school as the High Inquisitor and using the numerous educational decrees from Fudge to prevent them from being able to practice defensive spells in class, etc... I wonder if Jo considered those options or not.

I'm not sure how that would tie in with the other marauders specifically. Generally, I think we could correlate that James and Lupin were also the type of people who would be kind to house-elves in general. Though Kreacher would probably be an exception for them as well because of their friendship with Sirius. Really - prior to his transformation in DH - Kreacher was an exception for everyone because of his horrible behavior. Even the Weasley twins and Ron - who demonstrated genuine caring about house-elves in general - couldn't stand Kreacher.

The opposite can be asked as well - shouldn't the same unforgiving judgement applied to Snape be applied to Sirius as well? It looks liek both "sides" are guitly of favoritism, if we must be very precise.

I don't see where that logic would apply because Sirius never claimed to be Kreacher's best friend or tried to deceive his friends about who he really was and what he was really into from what we are shown. Sirius would not have metaphorically slapped James with the most vicious racial slur in the wizarding world when James was only trying to help him and did nothing to provoke him, IMO.

The situation with Kreacher was very different, IMO. Sirius did not hate Kreacher, but Kreacher was a constant reminder of his miserable childhood and that added to his stress and frustration at being forced to stay cooped up in a house that he hated. And Kreacher did do things wrong and provoke Sirius whenever he could get away with it. It was not a situation where Kreacher actually cared and was trying to help only to get slapped down with a vicious racial insult. There was wrong done on both sides there.

We could apply that logic to Pettigrew because he actually did betray his friends in that manner - only he did it behind their backs without them being aware of it. If you are genuinely friends with someone and really care about them, there are some lines that you just do not cross no matter what, IMO.

“Sirius was not a cruel man, he was kind to house-elves in general. He had no love for Kreacher, because Kreacher was a living reminder of the home Sirius had hated.”[/fieldset]

Sirius did not abuse Kreacher, IMO. He was not nice to him, but Kreacher was not nice to Sirius either. Every instance we see of Sirius snapping at Kreacher - even the one time he throws him out of a room - comes about because of the way Kreacher is behaving. They were horrible to each other because of their history. To Sirius, Kreacher was a constant reminder of his miserable childhood and how his parents had treated him. Kreacher had been told repeatedly by Walpurga that Sirius was the "bad son" and reacted accordingly.

I think we see the opposite actually. Kreacher was not physically abused in any way - we can compare the situations presented with Dobby and Kreacher to know that. In COS, Dobby is frequently bandaged due to being forced to punish himself with self-inflicted injury by the Malfoys. Kreacher is never shown to be injured or bandaged - Sirius did not force Kreacher to injure himself as punishment for disobeying like the Malfoys did with Dobby. We also see that Sirius did have some level of sympathy when it came to Kreacher as well. The main reason he could not free Kreacher was because of the risk he presented to the Order, but Sirius also tells Hermione that the shock would kill him so he's not completely uncaring.

I agree that Sirius could have been nicer to Kreacher, but the same holds true for Kreacher as well. He disobeyed, rebelled, and was generally nasty to everyone staying at Grimmauld Place - especially Sirius. I think that, given time, it is possible that Sirius would have eventually found a way to improve the situation with Kreacher, but I think Sirius would have needed to recover from what he'd been through in order to accomplish that. Of course, that's not definitive by any means because their history is a factor as well. But I think it would have been a possibility if Sirius had not been killed.



I have to disagree. Sirius was not a cruel or uncaring person by nature, IMO. He did not take pleasure in hurting, torturing, or killing people the way Bellatrix did. He did not judge people on their bloodline or financial status - he judged people on the basis of their actions, which is as it should be, IMO. He was rebellious and mischievous - as was James - and they sometimes got carried away in their youth, but I wouldn't say that either of them was cruel or uncaring by nature. I see James and Sirius as being a lot like the Weasley twins myself. They were very confident in themselves, fun loving, witty, intelligent, and enjoyed taking risks.

They were also very caring and had good hearts - cruel and uncaring people would not have become friends or stayed friends with Lupin or Pettigrew, IMO. They did not know that Lupin was a werewolf when they became friends with him and they did not abandon him when they found out - as a lot of people would have. They remained friends with him and found a way to help him with the trauma of his transformations each month. That's not to say that everything they did was right - they certainly made mistakes and got carried away with themselves at times. But they also learned from the mistakes of their youth and grew out of such behavior - though the trauma that Sirius suffered with his misplaced sense of guilt over the Potters being killed and the years he spent in Azkaban damaged him. But he would have eventually recovered from that if he had not been killed, IMO.



I agree. Though I don't feel he abused Kreacher - as I said above. I think Sirius and Kreacher were both guilty in that situation because they both let the past affect how they treated each other in the present. There are understandable reasons for that and mitigating factors with both as well though and I think that it might have been possible for them to eventually overcome that if Sirius had not been killed and had the time he needed to heal emotionally. Sirius being forced to stay at Grimmauld Place without any reprieve - i.e. using a disguise so he could help the Order at times or even just get out of the house for a bit - exacerbated the situation.

There are two things that I wonder about with that situation though. One is why Dumbledore didn't just have Sirius send Kreacher to Hogwarts like he did with Harry in HBP. Two - as an alternative - why didn't Dumbledore give Sirius the job of DADA professor and disguise him? I understand why Jo didn't do either of those things for the purposes of the plot, but I don't think either would have changed too much with the story. For the first - Kreacher could have found a way to leave Hogwarts to go to Miss Bella and Miss Cissy the same as he could from Grimmauld Place. For the second - Umbridge would still be a factor because Fudge created the High Inquisitor position separately and Umbridge took that on in addition to the teaching position. The story would still work with her being brought into the school as the High Inquisitor and using the numerous educational decrees from Fudge to prevent them from being able to practice defensive spells in class, etc... I wonder if Jo considered those options or not.

I'm not sure how that would tie in with the other marauders specifically. Generally, I think we could correlate that James and Lupin were also the type of people who would be kind to house-elves in general. Though Kreacher would probably be an exception for them as well because of their friendship with Sirius. Really - prior to his transformation in DH - Kreacher was an exception for everyone because of his horrible behavior. Even the Weasley twins and Ron - who demonstrated genuine caring about house-elves in general - couldn't stand Kreacher.



I don't see where that logic would apply because Sirius never claimed to be Kreacher's best friend or tried to deceive his friends about who he really was and what he was really into from what we are shown. Sirius would not have metaphorically slapped James with the most vicious racial slur in the wizarding world when James was only trying to help him and did nothing to provoke him, IMO.

The situation with Kreacher was very different, IMO. Sirius did not hate Kreacher, but Kreacher was a constant reminder of his miserable childhood and that added to his stress and frustration at being forced to stay cooped up in a house that he hated. And Kreacher did do things wrong and provoke Sirius whenever he could get away with it. It was not a situation where Kreacher actually cared and was trying to help only to get slapped down with a vicious racial insult. There was wrong done on both sides there.

We could apply that logic to Pettigrew because he actually did betray his friends in that manner - only he did it behind their backs without them being aware of it. If you are genuinely friends with someone and really care about them, there are some lines that you just do not cross no matter what, IMO.

A very good post, full of points I wish I had made.:tu:

Sirius may not have been cruel, but, his treatment of Kreacher was abusive. There is no excuse for treating anyone like that, no matter how frustrated you are. Then, Kreacher truned to Bella and Cissy. I'm not sure it can be considered betrayal, since 1) as is mentioned earlier, Sirius and Kreacher were not best of friends, and 2) Kreacher was loyal to the House of Black and viewed Sirius as a traitor. But, this should be discussed on the Sirius thread.

TWas the provocation severe enough to warrant said reaction? ?
There were extenuating circumstances and I think we should consider them. Sirius was not a Lucius Malfoy who seemed to take malicious pleasure in abusing Dobby and I think it very unfair to say it.

We can consider these circumstances, and there are big differences between Malfoys and Sirius, of course. Still, he's treatening badly the elf who is entirely dependant on him, who can't say "I leave this house", and who lived a quite extenuating and hard life, too, stuck with Mrs. Portrait-Black.

Sirius is clearly a product of a pureblood family, seeing house-elves as inferior creatures. When his goodness prevents him from being cruel to them, confronted with this one he shows rather nasty side of his nature. And this had bad consequences...

IMHO, James in the train, talking about Slytherin seems surprisingly similar to Draco talking about Huflepuff...

IMHO, James in the train, talking about Slytherin seems surprisingly similar to Draco talking about Huflepuff...

I don't think JK was implying that the two are alike in every respect, but the fact that the two phrase their sentence using the exact same words is too pat to be a coincidence. If by some off-chance she used the same word combination twice, with no similarity in mind, I'm sure it would have been pointed out to her by her editors. But I don't think she works that way. If there's a similarity between two of her characters so striking that it is immediately noticeable on one reading of the series, then I highly doubt it's there by chance. James and Draco are strikingly similar in some ways, and in other ways negatives of one another, polar opposites. And I do believe JK meant it that way.

If there's a similarity between two of her characters so striking that it is immediately noticeable on one reading on the series, then I highly doubt it's there by chance. James and Draco are strikingly similar in some ways, and in other ways negatives of one another, polar opposites. And I do believe JK meant it that way.

No, I don't believe it's there by chance, either. Of course, James never joined Voldemort... but I think that JKR shows us the same kind of prejudice and self-rghteousness, present already in young kids, probably due to their background, in both cases (wealthy pureblood family).

No, I don't believe it's there by chance, either. Of course, James never joined Voldemort... but I think that JKR shows us the same kind of prejudice and self-righteousness, present already in young kids, probably due to their background, in both cases (wealthy pureblood family).

I'm afraid I never saw anything like prejudice or self-righteousness in James at all. He was full of himself at 11, but most kids who are loved by their families have a level of self-confidence. It's not a fault on James' part that his parents loved him. I think it was his right. He was self-confident but not spoiled like Draco. I think Jo was showing us the best part of the pure blood families. A child who did not think his blood status meant anything at all.

I think Jo was showing us the best part of the pure blood families. A child who did not think his blood status meant anything at all.

Yes he didn't have the blood prejudice. Still, he was prejudiced against Slytherins, and he showed it when he first met Severus.

To me, the best of pure blood families are the Weasleys. And the parents, in this family, love their children very much, without making them "full of themselves" (but of course, they are poor, and James was the only child of a rich family - that's why he is quite similar to Draco, IMHO).

Yes he didn't have the blood prejudice. Still, he was prejudiced against Slytherins, and he showed it when he first met Severus.

To me, the best of pure blood families are the Weasleys. And the parents, in this family, love their children very much, without making them "full of themselves" (but of course, they are poor, and James was the only child of a rich family - that's why he is quite similar to Draco, IMHO).

Ron is prejudiced against Slytherin when he and Harry first arrive at school. He is the one who influences Harry. The only similarity I can see between Draco and James at this time is that they are both well dressed.

Ron is prejudiced against Slytherin when he and Harry first arrive at school.

But he doesn't taunt anybody because of it, and doesnt show any contemptuous behaviour towards any new classmate before he knows them.

But he doesn't taunt anybody because of it, and doesnt show any contemptuous behaviour towards any new classmate before he knows them.

Maybe because he wasn't alone with one before he got to school?

Maybe because he wasn't alone with one before he got to school?

Neither was James. Lily and Sirius were both present, and that did not deter him from acting rudely towards Snape. :)

Sirius speaks his sorrow and Snape IMO showed it in his actions.

Sirius also showed his sorrow- he risked life and soul to keep Harry safe. He would also have preferred to play an active part in the war rather than being cooped up in 12GP. Also, Sirius didn't have as much to feel sorry for, imo, even if he believed he did.


I think there are a lot of similarities between Sirius and Bellatrix, (even in the way they died) even though Sirius was on this side and Bellatrix was right on the other.

Both could be cruel and uncaring of others; very, very loyal to theirs and willing to die for those who they loved, willing to do anything for the cause they believed in, and, were arrogant and reckless to sometimes an alarming degree IMO.

I can see that they were both loyal and reckless. I think the similarities end there. While Sirius tends to talk and act without thinking, Bella is a sadistic bigoted person who revels in torture and mayhem.



I disagree. Stress cannot be an excuse for abuse. I can't for example say students can be abused in Hogwarts because their teachers are stressed out for example. No one would agree.

Er, no comment! :whistle: :lol:


I was thinking about that train ride - somebody mentioned it on another thread. Sirius probably got to Hogwarts and sat on that stool, completely convinced he was going to hear "Slytherin". And Everyone who knew the Black name was thinking they were going to hear "Slytherin" from the hat also - Bella was there, etc. And prolly most of the professors as well as Dumbledore were all expecting to hear "Slytherin". I have to imagine it would be a pretty big shocker when it called out Gryffindor, LOL. That actually prolly happened from time to time in association with all of the houses - but it is something funny to think about - everyone's mouth gaping and whatnot. JKR came up with a pretty good idea in all of that.

I think the reactions would have been interesting. I'd imagine Sirius got Howlers from his dear old Mum after that. And if Bella was still in school at that point, her reaction in the Great Hall would have been priceless!

Sirius, James, and Lily were not guilty of anything, IMO. They trusted a friend who had given them absolutely no reason not to trust him up to that point. They had known him for about 10 years and he had been loyal to their friendship up until that final year. Pettigrew was very clever and gave them no reason to be suspicious of him. I don't see where blaming the victims for crimes committed by others accomplishes anything.

I agree wholeheartedly, blaming the victims for their decisions in this scenario is like trying to absolve the truly guilty parties of responsibility. It also reminds me in an unpleasant way of real-life situations where victims are blamed.


I agree that Sirius could have been nicer to Kreacher, but the same holds true for Kreacher as well. He disobeyed, rebelled, and was generally nasty to everyone staying at Grimmauld Place - especially Sirius. I think that, given time, it is possible that Sirius would have eventually found a way to improve the situation with Kreacher, but I think Sirius would have needed to recover from what he'd been through in order to accomplish that. Of course, that's not definitive by any means because their history is a factor as well. But I think it would have been a possibility if Sirius had not been killed.

Yep, Kreacher could have avoided the people he disliked at GP, and stayed in a different part of the house. Instead, he went out of his way to go to the rooms they were in and spout what he had been told about "Mudbloods, blood traitors and filth"


They were also very caring and had good hearts - cruel and uncaring people would not have become friends or stayed friends with Lupin or Pettigrew, IMO. They did not know that Lupin was a werewolf when they became friends with him and they did not abandon him when they found out - as a lot of people would have. They remained friends with him and found a way to help him with the trauma of his transformations each month. That's not to say that everything they did was right - they certainly made mistakes and got carried away with themselves at times. But they also learned from the mistakes of their youth and grew out of such behavior - though the trauma that Sirius suffered with his misplaced sense of guilt over the Potters being killed and the years he spent in Azkaban damaged him. But he would have eventually recovered from that if he had not been killed, IMO.

Good point, the Marauders were very, very immature in many ways during their school years, but it showed maturity in another way to accept Remus once they discovered his secret. As purebloods, James may have grown up hearing negative things about werewolves and I've no doubt that Sirius did. Yet they looked past these to see that this was still their friend Remus. That takes openmindedness, imo.
.

IMHO, James in the train, talking about Slytherin seems surprisingly similar to Draco talking about Huflepuff...

I'm afraid I never saw anything like prejudice or self-righteousness in James at all. He was full of himself at 11, but most kids who are loved by their families have a level of self-confidence. It's not a fault on James' part that his parents loved him. I think it was his right. He was self-confident but not spoiled like Draco. I think Jo was showing us the best part of the pure blood families. A child who did not think his blood status meant anything at all.

There may be a similarity on the surface, but I think the differences are greater than the similarities.
While James outwardly expresses dislike of Slytherins, I have to note his reaction to Sirius' revelation about his family all being Slytherin. He comments "Blimey, and I thought you seemed all right". Sirius' response, a grin and a joke about breaking with tradition says that James said this in a jokey tone rather than a "Don't come near me again" tone. Sirius wouldn't have grinned if James had been vicious in that statement. Plus, even expecting Sirius to be a Slytherin, James presumably stayed with Sirius throughout the trip. Despite his dislike of Slytherin, James was happy to continue talking and joking with Sirius. Even though we know Sirius became a Gryffindor, the boys didn't know that on the train, despite Sirius' remark. I see James being very different to Draco in this regard - I can't imagine him spending time talking and joking with someone whose entire family had been in Hufflepuff. I also can't see 12/13 year old Draco standing by a friend who he'd discovered was a werewolf, not with his pureblood prejudices.

Ron is prejudiced against Slytherin when he and Harry first arrive at school. He is the one who influences Harry. The only similarity I can see between Draco and James at this time is that they are both well dressed.

Even before he met Ron, Hagrid had told Harry that Voldemort had been a Slytherin, and that a lot of dark wizards had been in Slytherin. I don't think we can say it's only Ron who influenced Harry in this regard.

A very good post, full of points I wish I had made.:tu:

Thank you. :)

We can consider these circumstances, and there are big differences between Malfoys and Sirius, of course. Still, he's treatening badly the elf who is entirely dependant on him, who can't say "I leave this house", and who lived a quite extenuating and hard life, too, stuck with Mrs. Portrait-Black.

Sirius is clearly a product of a pureblood family, seeing house-elves as inferior creatures. When his goodness prevents him from being cruel to them, confronted with this one he shows rather nasty side of his nature. And this had bad consequences...

IMHO, James in the train, talking about Slytherin seems surprisingly similar to Draco talking about Huflepuff...

I don't think anyone is denying that Sirius treated Kreacher badly - I'm certainly not. But I think we have to look at the situation from both sides because Kreacher's behavior was certainly a factor. Sirius got angry with Kreacher because of his behavior and reacted accordingly. Kreacher hated Sirius because of everything he had heard from Walpurga over the years and reacted accordingly. Sirius' behavior towards Kreacher was reactive to provocation - not intentionally cruel.

However, I think the text does show us that Kreacher was the exception for Sirius because of their history and not representative of his views about house-elves in general. Dumbledore explains that to Harry in OOTP, but we also see that with Sirius himself in GOF when he tells Ron that Hermione is right about how Mr. Crouch treated Winky.

I'm afraid I never saw anything like prejudice or self-righteousness in James at all. He was full of himself at 11, but most kids who are loved by their families have a level of self-confidence. It's not a fault on James' part that his parents loved him. I think it was his right. He was self-confident but not spoiled like Draco. I think Jo was showing us the best part of the pure blood families. A child who did not think his blood status meant anything at all.

I agree. I don't see any similarity between James and Draco beyond the surface commonalities that they both came from wealthy pureblood families and were only children - which would apply to many students at Hogwarts and is not reflective of what kind of people they were, IMO.

I think this was just a coincidence because Jo frequently used similar phrasing with various characters. I remember one theory in particular presenting the idea that one character had used polyjuice to impersonate another that was almost entirely based on the fact that Jo had used a similar phrase with both characters dialog. It's very easy to find such similar phrasing throughout the series.

Slytherin house had a bad reputation and was viewed negatively by a lot of people because of that. James wasn't the only person who didn't want to be sorted into Slytherin. Ron was also horrified by the thought of that and even Hagrid expressed the view of "better Hufflepuff than Slytherin". I also thought it was clear that James wasn't being entirely serious there because he follows that by joking with Sirius when he says that all of his family had been in Slytherin with the "I thought you were all right" comment. The possibility that Sirius might be sorted into Slytherin didn't deter James from wanting to be friends with him.

Ron is prejudiced against Slytherin when he and Harry first arrive at school. He is the one who influences Harry. The only similarity I can see between Draco and James at this time is that they are both well dressed.

That's true, but it wasn't just Ron. Meeting Draco in Diagon Alley - as well as the second meeting on the train - left Harry with a very negative view about Slytherin house and Hagrid's comments about it added to Harry's concerns - particularly the knowledge that Voldemort had been in Slytherin when he was at Hogwarts. And there was also the impression he had when looking at the Slytherins as a group while waiting to be sorted - they looked like unpleasant people to him.

Sirius also showed his sorrow- he risked life and soul to keep Harry safe. He would also have preferred to play an active part in the war rather than being cooped up in 12GP. Also, Sirius didn't have as much to feel sorry for, imo, even if he believed he did.

I agree. I think his misplaced sense of guilt demonstrates what a good person he really was. He didn't do anything wrong, but he still blamed himself because the switch had been his idea. Objectively, we can see that there was no way for Sirius, James, or Lily to know that Pettigrew would betray them because Pettigrew never gave them any reason to be suspicious. But Sirius was looking at what happened through hindsight. He felt that he should have known Pettigrew would betray them even though there was no way for him to know that. Basically, he was blaming himself for not being psychic.

I think the reactions would have been interesting. I'd imagine Sirius got Howlers from his dear old Mum after that. And if Bella was still in school at that point, her reaction in the Great Hall would have been priceless!

I hadn't thought about Walpurga sending him a Howler for getting sorted into Gryffindor. That would have been funny. :lol:

The timeline presented is a bit off with their ages, but Sirius does tell Harry that Bellatrix was at Hogwarts when he was there in GOF. I think she would have had to be in her seventh year when he was sorted though - and even then I think she would have had to have repeated a year somewhere along the line given her age. That's from memory though - I haven't looked at the Black Family Tree in a while.

I agree wholeheartedly, blaming the victims for their decisions in this scenario is like trying to absolve the truly guilty parties of responsibility. It also reminds me in an unpleasant way of real-life situations where victims are blamed.

Absolutely. It was not a situation where Voldemort or another Death Eater told them to use Pettigrew as their secret keeper and they decided to do it against their better judgment. They didn't have any reason not to trust Pettigrew so why would they have objected to using him as secret keeper? As far as they knew, Pettigrew was their friend and cared about them.

Yep, Kreacher could have avoided the people he disliked at GP, and stayed in a different part of the house. Instead, he went out of his way to go to the rooms they were in and spout what he had been told about "Mudbloods, blood traitors and filth"

Kreacher's behavior in OOTP was certainly offensive and rude - which is another reason I don't see the way Sirius treated him as abuse. It wasn't like Kreacher was just standing there, not doing anything wrong and Sirius yelled at him or threw him out of a room just for kicks. Kreacher made offensive, nasty remarks - Sirius got mad and yelled at him over it. Really, I don't think that is any different than one of the Weasley kids doing something wrong and Molly yelling at them for it. She even threated to stick Ron's fingers together once because he made a rude hand gesture. Kreacher was doing that kind of thing constantly and almost everyone was offended and angered by his behavior.

I think that would be another factor in demonstrating that Sirius was not abusive towards Kreacher because he could have forced Kreacher to punish himself the way the Malfoys did with Dobby for any infraction. With the way Kreacher behaved, he would have been covered in bandages from head to toe is Sirius had done that. There were a lot of things that Sirius could have legally done to Kreacher as punishment because he was Kreacher's master. But he chose to reprimand and yell at Kreacher instead of making him do things like slam his ears in the oven door, iron his hands, hit himself over the head with heavy objects, etc... And he demonstrated at least some level of sympathy towards Kreacher when he told Hermione that one of the reasons he couldn't free Kreacher was because the shock would kill him.

Good point, the Marauders were very, very immature in many ways during their school years, but it showed maturity in another way to accept Remus once they discovered his secret. As purebloods, James may have grown up hearing negative things about werewolves and I've no doubt that Sirius did. Yet they looked past these to see that this was still their friend Remus. That takes openmindedness, imo.

Exactly. I think it is likely that James and Sirius would both have grown up hearing negative things about werewolves - particularly in those days because the wolfsbane potion had not been invented yet. A lot of people would have done exactly as Lupin expected and dropped him like a hot potato when they found out he was a werewolf, but James and Sirius chose to stay friends with him. And they spent the next few years learning a difficult and dangerous piece of magic so they could help him during his transformations. I doubt that the work they put into those three years in learning how to do that was much fun - it would take very hard work for younger students to learn and master the animagus transformation. From what Lupin told Harry in POA, they would have been in second or third year when they started learning how to do that. Human transfiguration isn't even covered in the curriculum until sixth year. That was not only risky and dangerous because the animagus transformation can go horribly wrong, it would also have been very difficult and a lot of hard work to put in without any guarantee that they would be able to manage it. I think that says a lot for how much they cared about Lupin to go through all of that just to help make his transformations more bearable.

There may be a similarity on the surface, but I think the differences are greater than the similarities.
While James outwardly expresses dislike of Slytherins, I have to note his reaction to Sirius' revelation about his family all being Slytherin. He comments "Blimey, and I thought you seemed all right". Sirius' response, a grin and a joke about breaking with tradition says that James said this in a jokey tone rather than a "Don't come near me again" tone. Sirius wouldn't have grinned if James had been vicious in that statement. Plus, even expecting Sirius to be a Slytherin, James presumably stayed with Sirius throughout the trip. Despite his dislike of Slytherin, James was happy to continue talking and joking with Sirius. Even though we know Sirius became a Gryffindor, the boys didn't know that on the train, despite Sirius' remark. I see James being very different to Draco in this regard - I can't imagine him spending time talking and joking with someone whose entire family had been in Hufflepuff. I also can't see 12/13 year old Draco standing by a friend who he'd discovered was a werewolf, not with his pureblood prejudices.

Exactly! :agree:

I think it is significant that Jo demonstrated that James had a negative view of Slytherin house in general and then demonstrated that he still wanted to be friends with Sirius in spite of the possibility that he might be sorted into Slytherin. That demonstrates that, while James did have a negative view of Slytherin house in general, he was not prejudiced or judgmental and was willing to give someone a chance to be friends regardless of what house they might get sorted into.

That is a huge distinction from what we are shown with Draco, IMO. Draco was very concerned with not making friends with the "wrong sort". He wouldn't have wanted to be friends with someone who was not likely to be sorted into Slytherin - not to mention his views about purity of blood and financial status/power. He was willing to make an exception for Harry Potter because he was famous, but that is the only exception indicated in the text.

Sirius, James, and Lily were not guilty of anything, IMO. They trusted a friend who had given them absolutely no reason not to trust him up to that point. They had known him for about 10 years and he had been loyal to their friendship up until that final year. Pettigrew was very clever and gave them no reason to be suspicious of him. I don't see where blaming the victims for crimes committed by others accomplishes anything.

They also had Dumbledore's information about a traitor and they believed Remus was the traitor IMO. They made a mistake in selecting the traitor as it were; it was a mistake because they did not use proper methods of discerning the traitor (none that we see in canon anyway); they concluded Remus was the traitor and chose Peter for the switch IMO.

They took Dumbledore's words seriously; they acted wrongly on it, without informing anyone IMO. They suffered the consequences of their mistaken loyalty towards a friend they thought without reason was loyal and also caused suffering to another friend they suspected without reason of being a traitor and also paid for it with the Potters lives and 13 years in Azkaban for Sirius, not to mention the suffering Harry went through IMO.

I blame them for the mistakes I see in their choices. I can't say that they were blameless because they died or spent 13 years in Azkaban.

Of course that does not mean others were less to blame or some of their blame shifted to the Marauder's. I see the mistakes of the Marauder's especially Sirius, James and Lily quite separately from Voldemort, Peter and Snape.

Dumbledore also tells Harry that Sirius was not a cruel person and the situation with Kreacher was unique because of their history.

“Sirius was not a cruel man, he was kind to house-elves in general. He had no love for Kreacher, because Kreacher was a living reminder of the home Sirius had hated.”

I think Sirius was cruel and reckless; if he were to judge himself by his own words, he'd fall very short of his opinion of what a man should be.

'If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.'

IMHO, James in the train, talking about Slytherin seems surprisingly similar to Draco talking about Huflepuff...

James and Draco were remarkable similar. Both were only children; both were loved by their families; both came from wealthy backgrounds; Draco after a point chose to break away from the path he had chosen because he believed his parents, while James did not IMO.

Draco had contempt for Gryffindor/Hufflepuff; while James expresses the same for Slytherin. Draco talks down Hermione and calls her a mudblood because she is muggleborn and Ron because he is poor and a blood traitor; James talks down Snape because he is socially awkward and is a Slytherin and dares to be friends with a Gryffindor IMO.

Their attitudes are also similar IMO. Both are loyal to their friends. Draco would not leave without Goyle and he tried to stop Crabbe from killing Harry in DH (IIRC) and James was very loyal to Sirius.

Draco was a bully initially and James was also called a bully by Lily. I think there are a lot of similarities between them, though I would conclude Draco was better, because he changed his attitude when he realised he was wrong. Canon does not show that with James IMO.

Yes he didn't have the blood prejudice. Still, he was prejudiced against Slytherins, and he showed it when he first met Severus.

:agree: Personally I don't see any difference between a Slytherin saying muggleborns are inferior because they are not pure in blood and a Gryffindor who carries the attitude that he is superior to everyone because he does not look down upon a muggleborn. In effect both Slytherins and Gryffindors are prejudiced IMO.

James and Draco were remarkable similar. Both were only children; both were loved by their families; both came from wealthy backgrounds; Draco after a point chose to break away from the path he had chosen because he believed his parents, while James did not IMO.

I have to agree with this. James never had to deviate from his path because he never left the correct one. James followed his heart which was always in the right place.
Sorry Greenwoods, I just don't agree with your other points. at all.

They suffered the consequences of their mistaken loyalty towards a friend they thought without reason was loyal and also caused suffering to another friend they suspected without reason of being a traitor and also paid for it with the Potters lives and 13 years in Azkaban for Sirius, not to mention the suffering Harry went through IMO.

How was any of this without reason? They trusted Peter because they didn't consider him capable of lies and deceit. Even Dumbledore didn't suspect him. And frankly, hardly anyone seems capable of betrayal until they do it. We do not know why Sirius mistrusted Remus. In a war like this, with people being betrayed and killed left and right, there could have been many reasons. Perhaps he was doing secret work for Dumbledore among the werewolves, about which he was not allowed to talk. Perhaps Sirius just gave him more credit than Peter. But in my view, neither decision was made without reason.

How was any of this without reason? They trusted Peter because they didn't consider him capable of lies and deceit.

How did they come to that conclusion? In POA Sirius says they thought Peter was a weak and talentless thing, not a person incapable of lies and deceit IMO. I think Peter was selected because Sirius and the Potters thought he did not have the guts to become a DE IMO.

Even Dumbledore didn't suspect him.

I think Dumbledore did not suspect him and the others until Snape probably came with the information that a close friend of the Potters was a traitor, mainly because the Potters and their friends were not touched. They were in hiding and were safe.

Moody says that they were picked off one by one; I presume information was given by Peter about others and they were attacked. Voldemort never came after the Potters during that time; I speculate he would have never come until he destroyed the Order. This way Dumbledore would never suspect any of the Marauder's because the Potters who had defied Voldemort 3 times were still safe in their hiding place. Voldemort must have decided that he could get to them any time he wanted.

I think that was why Dumbledore never suspected Peter or indeed any of them as the spy.

Perhaps Sirius just gave him more credit than Peter.

To be a DE IMO. I think this is why Sirius suspected Remus too. Sirius knew he was not the traitor; he thought Peter incapable of it (he says so in POA) which left Remus.

IMO it was the wrong way to go about it, they thought Peter was loyal, without any reason to think so (thinking he was weak and incapable IMO is not a reason to conclude he was loyal) and they suspected without reason, Remus, to be the traitor and all of them suffered for it IMO.

But in my view, neither decision was made without reason.

Well in POA, Remus simply said that he was not told because he was thought to be the traitor; Remus gives no reasons and Sirius offers nothing either. He merely apologises. Which makes me feel that there was no reason except that it could not have been Sirius and Peter can't, so that left Remus, which was a poor way to choose a traitor or a SK IMO.

They also had Dumbledore's information about a traitor and they believed Remus was the traitor IMO. They made a mistake in selecting the traitor as it were; it was a mistake because they did not use proper methods of discerning the traitor (none that we see in canon anyway); they concluded Remus was the traitor and chose Peter for the switch IMO.

They took Dumbledore's words seriously; they acted wrongly on it, without informing anyone IMO. They suffered the consequences of their mistaken loyalty towards a friend they thought without reason was loyal and also caused suffering to another friend they suspected without reason of being a traitor and also paid for it with the Potters lives and 13 years in Azkaban for Sirius, not to mention the suffering Harry went through IMO.

I blame them for the mistakes I see in their choices. I can't say that they were blameless because they died or spent 13 years in Azkaban.

Of course that does not mean others were less to blame or some of their blame shifted to the Marauder's. I see the mistakes of the Marauder's especially Sirius, James and Lily quite separately from Voldemort, Peter and Snape.

That makes no sense to me because they had no reason to suspect Pettigrew of anything. Nobody - not even Dumbledore - ever suspected Pettigrew of any kind of wrong doing. Pettigrew was lauded as a hero for 12 years by the entire wizarding community. He fooled everybody. So I don't see why anyone would blame Sirius, James, and Lily for being fooled by him when everyone else was fooled as well.

We don't know why Sirius came to suspect Lupin of being the spy, but there is nothing in canon to suggest that there was no reason for it. It is most likely that Dumbledore also asked Lupin to work undercover with the werewolves in the first war as well and - depending on whether anyone was told what Lupin was doing - that would result in suspicious behavior in regards to him being gone a lot of the time. And we cannot discount Pettigrew's influence in all that - he needed them to trust him and make him secret keeper. Sirius was not the type of person to make blind assumptions, IMO. Whatever the reasons were for that, Lupin understood and forgave Sirius for it immediately. Lupin's own reaction to realizing that Sirius had suspected him proves that Sirius had good reason to suspect him, IMO. If there was no reason or cause for him to be suspicious, it would have been much more difficult for Lupin to forgive him.

We see the same thing in regards to Lupin believing that Sirius was the spy after the fact. He had good reasons for believing that because the evidence was against Sirius. Sirius understood that and forgave Lupin immediately for believing that he was the spy. Whatever reason Sirius had for suspecting Lupin, it was good enough for Lupin to understand and forgive him for it.

People make mistakes all the time. The Potters and Sirius are not alone in that. Dumbledore made a lot of mistakes. Harry made mistakes. Lupin and Sirius made other mistakes. In this case, the mistake was made because there was information that they did not know and had no means to find out at that point in time. There was no way that any of them could have known or discovered that Pettigrew was spying on them. So - as I see it - they cannot be blamed for making that mistake.

I think Sirius was cruel and reckless; if he were to judge himself by his own words, he'd fall very short of his opinion of what a man should be.

'If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.'

In regards to Kreacher, that is true to some extent. However, I refuse to label a person losing their temper with someone who is deliberately being mean and nasty to them and everyone around them as intentionally cruel. Harry lost his temper a lot too - particularly in OOTP - but he was not a cruel person.

Sirius was not a cruel person by nature - as Dumbledore said himself. The situation with Kreacher was an exception because there was a long history there and Kreacher was a constant reminder of his miserable childhood - along with his frustration at being forced to stay cooped up in the house that he hated so much. He was frustrated and irritable and that made it easy for Kreacher to deliberately provoke him. That does not justify it, but it is understandable. There was wrong done on both sides and that is not a reflection of who Sirius was as a person. It's only a reflection of one bad relationship with mitigating factors.

James and Draco were remarkable similar. Both were only children; both were loved by their families; both came from wealthy backgrounds; Draco after a point chose to break away from the path he had chosen because he believed his parents, while James did not IMO.

Draco had contempt for Gryffindor/Hufflepuff; while James expresses the same for Slytherin. Draco talks down Hermione and calls her a mudblood because she is muggleborn and Ron because he is poor and a blood traitor; James talks down Snape because he is socially awkward and is a Slytherin and dares to be friends with a Gryffindor IMO.

Their attitudes are also similar IMO. Both are loyal to their friends. Draco would not leave without Goyle and he tried to stop Crabbe from killing Harry in DH (IIRC) and James was very loyal to Sirius.

Draco was a bully initially and James was also called a bully by Lily. I think there are a lot of similarities between them, though I would conclude Draco was better, because he changed his attitude when he realised he was wrong. Canon does not show that with James IMO.

James and Draco were nothing alike, IMO. Superficial similarities like being an only child and having wealthy parents do not show anything about what kind of person they were. Draco was prejudiced to an extreme and took pleasure in being deliberately cruel to others - not to mention being manipulative, lying, and cheating to get what he wanted. In the end, Draco remained firmly on Voldemort's side - demonstrating that with his attempt to capture Harry and hand him over to Voldemort. Draco is more like Snape, IMO.

James was spoiled and arrogant, but he was not a cruel person and had no prejudice at all, IMO. He befriended Sirius in spite of the possibility that Sirius might be sorted into Slytherin so we know that he was not adverse to being friends with someone in Slytherin. He befriended Lupin in spite of him being poor and having no other friends - and stayed friends with him after he found out that Lupin was a werewolf. He had no prejudice against muggles or muggleborns. He was always against the Dark Arts - a huge plus for him in my book - and he devoted his life to fighting against people like Voldemort. James didn't dislike Snape because he was in Slytherin. Snape hadn't even been sorted when they met. James disliked Snape because he was rude, insulting, and did not know how to take a joke. Later, that was exacerbated by them learning that Snape was heavily into the Dark Arts and Snape being friends with all the Future Death Eaters of Britain was not going to earn him any points either. James had a lot of very good reasons not to like Snape.

Dumbledore compares the rivalry between James and Snape to the rivalry between Harry and Draco. Like James with Snape, Harry took an instant disliking to Draco because he was rude and insulting. Like James with Snape, Harry's dislike of Draco increased as he learned more about what kind of person Draco was with his prejudice against muggleborns, love of the Dark Arts, cruel nature, etc... Like James with Snape, Harry had to put up with Draco following him around and constantly trying to get him in trouble and/or expelled.

The parallel drawn was not from James to Draco. The parallels drawn there were from James to Harry and Snape to Draco, IMO. To try and say that James and Draco were anything alike is a huge stretch and not supported by canon at all, IMO. They were completely different from what we are shown in the text.

:agree: Personally I don't see any difference between a Slytherin saying muggleborns are inferior because they are not pure in blood and a Gryffindor who carries the attitude that he is superior to everyone because he does not look down upon a muggleborn. In effect both Slytherins and Gryffindors are prejudiced IMO.

You think Gryffindors are prejudiced? :huh: I don't get that at all. Gryffindors were the least prejudiced of any characters in the story, IMO. A lot of people had a negative view of Slytherin house because it had a bad reputation - which was earned. Nobody made anything up about Slytherin house that was not true. The Sorting Hat reveals that Salazar Slytherin did require that students sorted into his house be similar to him - prejudiced, power hungry, etc... Salazar Slytherin did leave a monster hidden in the school for the sole purpose of killing muggleborn students - innocent children who had done nothing to deserve such enmity. Slytherin house did produce a lot of Dark Wizards and witches like Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Lucius Malfoy, etc... Pretty much every known Death Eater was in Slytherin. The Slytherin students in Harry's time were shown to be - as a group - rude, insulting, manipulative, cruel, and prejudiced to varying degrees. Not to mention the rampant cheating, lying, and negative propaganda they attempted to spread through Rita Skeeter. People have a negative view of Slytherin house because Slytherins present themselves in a negative manner, IMO. Slytherin house earned its bad reputation and it's going to take a lot more than one Dark Wizard being defeated to change that. Personally, I don't think that will ever change because Slytherin will always be the house that people like Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Lucius Malfoy, etc... were sorted into. And it is most likely that the students sorted into Slytherin will continue to behave in the same negative manner as their predecessors because they will have the same combination of personality traits, IMO.

In my view, that is not prejudice. That is a justified dislike based on a lot of supportive evidence. That's not the same thing as vilifying an entire group of people solely based on their bloodline or judging someone solely based on how much money they have or whether or not they are influential in the government. Prejudice is an adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts - or ignoring the facts in favor of a single, superficial trait. The facts about Slytherin house were known and they were mostly negative. The facts about muggleborns did not coincide with the prejudicial views held by pureblood supremacists like the Malfoys. That is a significant distinction, IMO.

James had a negative view of Slytherin along with a lot of people. I don't hold that against him - or anyone else - because that negative view was supported by historical facts as well as the behavior of Slytherins he met in his days at Hogwarts - and in Harry's time as well. In other words, there was a solid basis of fact to cause James - and others - to have a negative view of Slytherin. There was no solid basis of fact to cause anyone to have a negative view of muggleborns, IMO.

I have to agree with this. James never had to deviate from his path because he never left the correct one. James followed his heart which was always in the right place.
Sorry Greenwoods, I just don't agree with your other points. at all.

Exactly. :agree:

How did they come to that conclusion? In POA Sirius says they thought Peter was a weak and talentless thing, not a person incapable of lies and deceit IMO. I think Peter was selected because Sirius and the Potters thought he did not have the guts to become a DE IMO.

Actually, Pettigrew was selected because they did not think that Voldemort would ever suspect him. The perception that he was weak and talentless - which was held by a lot of people - was part of their reasoning for that, but they were trying to look at it from Voldemort's point of view - which of James' friends would he be most likely to go after? Logically, that would have been Sirius because he was James' best friend out of the group and Pettigrew was perceived to be weak and talentless by a lot of people - including his teachers. Sirius was planning to be the decoy in order to protect Pettigrew - he was willing to put himself at risk and die if necessary in order to protect Pettigrew as much as James and Lily.

They never thought Pettigrew would become a Death Eater because they all believed that he was a good person. They believed that he was their friend and cared about them. They believed that he would die for them - just as any of them would have died for him. Everyone believed that Pettigrew was a good person. He was a member of the Order, believed to be a loyal friend to James, and had never given anyone any reason to suspect him of any wrong doing. As I said above, Pettigrew fooled everyone.

I think Dumbledore did not suspect him and the others until Snape probably came with the information that a close friend of the Potters was a traitor, mainly because the Potters and their friends were not touched. They were in hiding and were safe.

Moody says that they were picked off one by one; I presume information was given by Peter about others and they were attacked. Voldemort never came after the Potters during that time; I speculate he would have never come until he destroyed the Order. This way Dumbledore would never suspect any of the Marauder's because the Potters who had defied Voldemort 3 times were still safe in their hiding place. Voldemort must have decided that he could get to them any time he wanted.

I think that was why Dumbledore never suspected Peter or indeed any of them as the spy.

Dumbledore did not have any specific suspects because there was no evidence as to who the spy might be. He didn't even have any evidence to know if there actually was a spy. All he had was a vague suspicion that someone close to the Potters was passing information.

Snape didn't give Dumbledore any information to confirm that there was a spy as far as we are shown in the text. I think it is most likely that Snape did know there was a spy and that it was Pettigrew because they were all connected by the Dark Mark and had those "staff meetings", but he never told Dumbledore about that. That's why Dumbledore offered to be the secret keeper himself - he couldn't be sure that there was a spy or, if there was, who it might be.

To be a DE IMO. I think this is why Sirius suspected Remus too. Sirius knew he was not the traitor; he thought Peter incapable of it (he says so in POA) which left Remus.

IMO it was the wrong way to go about it, they thought Peter was loyal, without any reason to think so (thinking he was weak and incapable IMO is not a reason to conclude he was loyal) and they suspected without reason, Remus, to be the traitor and all of them suffered for it IMO.

That is not what is shown in canon. Pettigrews abilities as a wizard are not significant to whether or not he was trustworthy. They believed they could trust him because they had been friends with him for around 10 years and he had never given them any reason not to trust him. He had kept their secrets, participated in their adventures, and always shown himself to be a loyal, caring friend. Everyone perceived Pettigrew as weak and talentless as a wizard, but they also all believed that he was a good person and a good friend to James.

As I said before, all that shows is how clever Pettigrew was at fooling everyone. Sirius, James, and Lily cannot be blamed for that, IMO. There was no way for them to know that Pettigrew had betrayed them and no reason for them not to trust him at that time.

Well in POA, Remus simply said that he was not told because he was thought to be the traitor; Remus gives no reasons and Sirius offers nothing either. He merely apologises. Which makes me feel that there was no reason except that it could not have been Sirius and Peter can't, so that left Remus, which was a poor way to choose a traitor or a SK IMO.

I covered Lupin above so I won't repeat myself except to say that, whatever reason Sirius had for thinking that Lupin was the spy was good enough for Lupin to understand and forgive him immediately. That's good enough for me to know that Sirius had a very good reason for thinking that.

Lupin would not have forgiven Sirius so easily if there had not been a very good reason for him to be suspicious, IMO. Nor was Sirius the type of person to just make blind assumptions - he would not have suspected Lupin if there had not been some kind of evidence to suggest that Lupin was the spy, IMO.

It is most likely that Pettigrew influenced this - possibly by planting evidence or telling Sirius things about Lupin to raise suspicion. If Lupin was working undercover with the werewolves then - like he did in the second war - that would have made it easy for Pettigrew to do that. Pettigrew needed them to continue to trust him so he could keep getting information. And when James and Lily decided to use the Fidelius Charm, it was imperative that he become the secret keeper. If he couldn't tell Voldemort how to get to James and Lily, then he would no longer be useful and would likely be killed. Pettigrew was a coward, but he was also desperate to keep himself alive and acting out of fear that Voldemort would kill him. He was also more clever than anyone gave him credit for and he had known James and Sirius long enough to know how to manipulate them. I believe all of that came about due to Pettigrew's influence.

I'm really not sure how you came to these conclusions though. They are not supported by the text at all, IMO. You keep going on about how James and Lily didn't go about it the "proper way", but you never say what you think that was. There was no way for them to know that Pettigrew had betrayed them and they had no reason not to trust him so I have no idea why you would think that.

You think Gryffindors are prejudiced? :huh: I don't get that at all. Gryffindors were the least prejudiced of any characters in the story, IMO. A lot of people had a negative view of Slytherin house because it had a bad reputation - which was earned. Nobody made anything up about Slytherin house that was not true. The Sorting Hat reveals that Salazar Slytherin did require that students sorted into his house be similar to him - prejudiced, power hungry, etc... Salazar Slytherin did leave a monster hidden in the school for the sole purpose of killing muggleborn students - innocent children who had done nothing to deserve such enmity. Slytherin house did produce a lot of Dark Wizards and witches like Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Lucius Malfoy, etc... Pretty much every known Death Eater was in Slytherin. The Slytherin students in Harry's time were shown to be - as a group - rude, insulting, manipulative, cruel, and prejudiced to varying degrees. Not to mention the rampant cheating, lying, and negative propaganda they attempted to spread through Rita Skeeter. People have a negative view of Slytherin house because Slytherins present themselves in a negative manner, IMO. Slytherin house earned its bad reputation and it's going to take a lot more than one Dark Wizard being defeated to change that. Personally, I don't think that will ever change because Slytherin will always be the house that people like Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Lucius Malfoy, etc... were sorted into. And it is most likely that the students sorted into Slytherin will continue to behave in the same negative manner as their predecessors because they will have the same combination of personality traits, IMO.

In my view, that is not prejudice. That is a justified dislike based on a lot of supportive evidence. That's not the same thing as vilifying an entire group of people solely based on their bloodline or judging someone solely based on how much money they have or whether or not they are influential in the government. Prejudice is an adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts - or ignoring the facts in favor of a single, superficial trait. The facts about Slytherin house were known and they were mostly negative. The facts about muggleborns did not coincide with the prejudicial views held by pureblood supremacists like the Malfoys. That is a significant distinction, IMO.

I've made a response to this in the Slytherin House analysis thread. :)

James and Draco were remarkable similar. Both were only children; both were loved by their families; both came from wealthy backgrounds; Draco after a point chose to break away from the path he had chosen because he believed his parents, while James did not IMO.

Draco had contempt for Gryffindor/Hufflepuff; while James expresses the same for Slytherin. Draco talks down Hermione and calls her a mudblood because she is muggleborn and Ron because he is poor and a blood traitor; James talks down Snape because he is socially awkward and is a Slytherin and dares to be friends with a Gryffindor IMO.

Their attitudes are also similar IMO. Both are loyal to their friends. Draco would not leave without Goyle and he tried to stop Crabbe from killing Harry in DH (IIRC) and James was very loyal to Sirius.

Draco was a bully initially and James was also called a bully by Lily. I think there are a lot of similarities between them, though I would conclude Draco was better, because he changed his attitude when he realised he was wrong. Canon does not show that with James IMO.

I don't see that much in common between James and Draco. Both were from wealthy families and both expressed a dislike of one house. For different reasons- James disliked Slytherin because of its reputation for producing Dark wizards, while Draco thought Hufflepuff was beneath him.

James was a spoilt brat, while Draco was a racist. James needed to grow up, like most teenage boys. I'm inclined to think he did- nothing contradicts Sirius' statement that James grew up a bit in 7th year, and I doubt Lily would date, much less marry someone she still felt was immature. James never wished to, nor did he join a group of bigoted murderers. He joined a group fighting said prejudiced murderers.

Draco had a much bigger change to make, which he only did partially, imo. At the end, while Draco realised Voldemort was evil and a threat to his family, we see no indication that he lost his blood prejudice views. Of the three Death Eaters we see who turned against Voldemort, Snape is the only one we see abandoning those views as well.

I have to agree with this. James never had to deviate from his path because he never left the correct one. James followed his heart which was always in the right place.
Sorry Greenwoods, I just don't agree with your other points. at all.

:tu: Agreed.

[QUOTE=The_Green_Woods;5489230]How did they come to that conclusion? In POA Sirius says they thought Peter was a weak and talentless thing, not a person incapable of lies and deceit IMO. I think Peter was selected because Sirius and the Potters thought he did not have the guts to become a DE IMO.

Sirius called Peter a weak, talentless thing after he'd spent twelve years in Azkaban dwelling on it. As often happens when one falls out so badly with someone, they dwell only on that person's negative points. I don't think Sirius in 1981 saw Peter in that light.


IMO it was the wrong way to go about it, they thought Peter was loyal, without any reason to think so (thinking he was weak and incapable IMO is not a reason to conclude he was loyal) and they suspected without reason, Remus, to be the traitor and all of them suffered for it IMO.

They though Peter was loyal because he was their friend, imo. James, who we are told by Lupin trusted his friends implicitly. People don't expect to be stabbed in the back by a friend. Especially one who seemed to look up to them in the way Peter did.

I disagree. Stress cannot be an excuse for abuse. I can't for example say students can be abused in Hogwarts because their teachers are stressed out for example. No one would agree. Being stressed is sad and I agree Sirius suffered in Azkaban, but I am afraid that is not an excuse for his actions.
Erm.......okay. :whistle:

James was spoiled and arrogant, but he was not a cruel person and had no prejudice at all, IMO. He befriended Sirius in spite of the possibility that Sirius might be sorted into Slytherin so we know that he was not adverse to being friends with someone in Slytherin.

The problem is, Sirius never was in Slytherin. He was Sorted to be a Gryffindor. I do have my doubts about how long this friendship would last if Sirius had been in Slytherin. The "possibility" never came to be a fact.


James disliked Snape because he was rude, insulting, and did not know how to take a joke.

If anybody was rude here, it was James. He entered the conversation between Lily and Snape, where he wasn't concerned, talking badly of Slytherin House. Then, Sirius insulted Snape. I can't see any joke here.

Re-reading the scene on the train, I thought, how surprisingly JKR gives us a rather unpleasant view of Harry's father and godfather, when they were young, every time she shows them. (SWM, also) And, that this scene shows us the dynamics of their friendship: James starts, Sirius makes it worse. I think it worked that way during their whole schooltime. Remus and Peter were there to watch and admire them.

Just my opinion, of course. :relax:

Honestly, I don't think there were any jokes from neither James nor Sirius, meesha. After re-reading the entire chapter, here's how the scene went: Snape expressed a friendly desire to see Lily in Slytherin, James rudely broke into their conversation, and then he proceeded to say the first insult before Snape had even addressed him by claiming that he would rather leave Hogwarts than see himself sorted into Slytherin. You could argue that Snape's first words to the two ("brainy rather than brawny") were meant to be taken lightly, but Sirius taunted him with the demeaning nickname of Snivellus, mocking Lilly after she told her friend to head to another compartment with her.

So, in that entire first scene, James did the following:

1) Rudely broke into a conversation -- uninvited -- before Snape had even said a word to him.
2) Made a comment about how he would rather leave than see himself in Slytherin.
3) Rudely mocked Lily's supposed affection for Snape.

Snape only uttered the "brawny" comment, which sounded more joking than anything that James did with Sirius on the Hogwarts Express. Besides the sarcastic back-and-forth that they made strictly between themselves, the comments that were addressed to both Snape and Lily struck me as genuine insults and arrogance as opposed to innocent jokes. Considering that James was quite arrogant during many of his years at Hogwarts, I can imagine how hard it would be to differentiate between his insults and his jokes. Besides, since Snape had most likely endured so many insults from his sour father, I can't blame him for not wanting to take personal jokes that sounded like insults.

Sirius called Peter a weak, talentless thing after he'd spent twelve years in Azkaban dwelling on it. As often happens when one falls out so badly with someone, they dwell only on that person's negative points. I don't think Sirius in 1981 saw Peter in that light.

Which was why he was fuming in the Shack IMO. He was beating himself up because he felt he should have seen through Peter long, long ago IMO.

They though Peter was loyal because he was their friend, imo. James, who we are told by Lupin trusted his friends implicitly. People don't expect to be stabbed in the back by a friend. Especially one who seemed to look up to them in the way Peter did.

And yet Sirius suspected Remus and persuaded James to do the switch; (so in effect persuaded James to see that Remus was the traitor) IMO.

Re-reading the scene on the train, I thought, how surprisingly JKR gives us a rather unpleasant view of Harry's father and godfather, when they were young, every time she shows them. (SWM, also) And, that this scene shows us the dynamics of their friendship: James starts, Sirius makes it worse. I think it worked that way during their whole schooltime. Remus and Peter were there to watch and admire them.

Just my opinion, of course. :relax:

I agree with everything you said here- except for your assessment of Remus' role in the Marauders' group dynamic. In my opinion, Peter was the one who was there to gape and admire and offer that mindless hero-worship to two people who were sadly lacking in deserving it; Remus was disapproving and heartily ashamed of James and Sirius' exploits every single time JK shows us such a situation. His was a sin of omission rather than commission; he lacked the courage to address the problem without contributing to the problem. None of the four comes off with a very admirable image, but Remus' is the best in my opinion. For example, in SWM, while James, Sirius, and even Peter are portrayed as contributing very actively to Snape's humiliation, Lupin is the one sitting there, pretending to read, without the courage to look up or tell them to stop. This paragraph is, at least symbolically, a good assessment of their roles during the incident:

Snape was getting to his feet again, and was stowing the O.W.L paper back in his bag. As he emerged from the shadows of the bushes and set off across the grass, Sirius and James stood up. Lupin and Wormtail remained sitting; Lupin was still staring down at his book, though his eyes were not moving and a faint frown had appeared between his eyebrows. Wormtail was looking from Sirius to James to Snape with a look of avid anticipation on his face.

James and Sirius are the ones out there in the thick of it, actively offering the insults and humiliation; Peter is more passive, still sitting, but egging them on and eager to see Snape get the worst of it; and Lupin is just sitting there, probably stewing in his own guilt, but never offering Snape any provocation, even a laugh at his expense.

And later, from the next chapter:

"Of course he was a bit of an idiot!" said Sirius bracingly. "We were all idiots! Well - not Moony so much," he said fairly, looking at Lupin, but Lupin shook his head.
"Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?" he said. "Did I ever have the guts to tell you I thought you were out of order?"
"Yeah, well," said Sirius, "you made up feel ashamed of ourselves sometimes... that was something..."

There you have it again; James and Sirius doing their thing, and Lupin wishing he had the courage to stand up to them about it, but definitely never participating. Based on this, I do think that your statement about Remus "watching and admiring" them was a bit unfair. :)

I agree with everything you said here- except for your assessment of Remus' role in the Marauders' group dynamic. In my opinion, Peter was the one who was there to gape and admire and offer that mindless hero-worship to two people who were sadly lacking in deserving it; Remus was disapproving and heartily ashamed of James and Sirius' exploits every single time JK shows us such a situation.

Well, maybe he wasn't "admiring", I agree, but what did he do to change the situation? Did he anything "real" to show his disapproval? Look at Neville: a humiliated boy had enough strength to face his best companions, because he felt it right. Lupin had never enough moral strenght to do so. That's why I see him as a approving (or even admiring) bystander.

[QUOTE=SwedishSkinJer;5490105]Honestly, I don't think there were any jokes from neither James nor Sirius, meesha. After re-reading the entire chapter, here's how the scene went: Snape expressed a friendly desire to see Lily in Slytherin, James rudely broke into their conversation, and then he proceeded to say the first insult before Snape had even addressed him by claiming that he would rather leave Hogwarts than see himself sorted into Slytherin.
You could argue that Snape's first words to the two ("brainy rather than brawny") were meant to be taken lightly, but Sirius taunted him with the demeaning nickname of Snivellus, mocking Lilly after she told her friend to head to another compartment with her.

So James' insults are the height of rudeness, yet Snape's are to be taken lightly?! :hmm: I think in this situation Severus gave as good as he got.




Which was why he was fuming in the Shack IMO. He was beating himself up because he felt he should have seen through Peter long, long ago IMO.

Hindsight is 20/20, as more characters than Sirius found out to their cost. Dumbledore with Grindelwald, Snape with the prophecy, Harry with the vision of Sirius.

Well, maybe he wasn't "admiring", I agree, but what did he do to change the situation? Did he anything "real" to show his disapproval? Look at Neville: a humiliated boy had enough strength to face his best companions, because he felt it right. Lupin had never enough moral strenght to do so. That's why I see him as a approving (or even admiring) bystander.

So people are at fault if they don't stand up to their friends? Does this apply to all characters, or just the Marauders?