The Marauders: Group Character Analysis

[QUOTE]

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.






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.



So people are at fault if they don't go stand up to their friends? Does this apply to all characters, or just the Marauders?

Since others on this thread were arguing that James was possibly joking, which I quite strongly doubt, I countered that Snape's one remark could also be interpreted as his rather lame attempt at a joke. You should notice that I said could to offer something to think about, not definitely.

[QUOTE]So people are at fault if they don't go stand up to their friends? Does this apply to all characters, or just the Marauders?

It does apply to all the characters. IMHO. Remus felt that his friends did wrong things, but never did anything to show them clearly his opinion, although he was a Prefect. Of course, Sirius says they felt "a little ashamed", but never considered their behaviour as really wrong. Years later, he still considered the Werewolf Prank as a joke. After reading the whole series, I consider Remus as a gentle and likeable character, but extermely weak, when it comes to the moral standards.

It's my opinion, of course.:relax:

After reading the whole series, I consider Remus as a gentle and likeable character, but extermely weak, when it comes to the moral standards.

It's my opinion, of course.:relax:

Aww, I think that's a little harsh. :( I think Remus tends to be overly hard on himself, rather than having any real confusion about moral issues. He strikes me as the kind of guy who has a very clearly defined sense of what is right and wrong, but is always in two (or three) minds about how he should act from there- usually because he's being too considerate of other people's feelings. While that, as lack of decision, is definitely a fault, I find it to be a much more likable fault than those displayed by, say, Snape or James. Lupin spent almost his entire life being shunned, and therefore it was a very excruciating dilemma when he finally found people who loved and accepted him, but who were lacking in moral grounding in other areas. He was wary of standing up to them and telling them they were being jerks, because then they'd be upset at him and he'd see himself as an ingrate who didn't deserve their acceptance. But at the same time, he knew he was being a coward, and that he could prevent what they were doing if he really tried, so he was tormenting himself for that.

In a way, he's very like Dobby. :lol: Always punishing himself for whatever he does, and wishing he could do something different, but never being able to for one reason or another.

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.

You see him as an approving, admiring bystander even when the books explicitly say he did not approve? Well, by this same assumption, we can go ahead and say that Snape was an admiring, approving bystander at Charity Burbage's murder, shall we? I can't see many people being happy with that; however, the situations make it clear, in both cases, that Snape and Lupin did not approve or endorse the wrong being done- but both had their reasons, good or bad, for staying silent.

I read some of these post and I am honestly amazed. One would think that James. Sirius and Lupin became mass murderers. Oh wait, that little job was filled by Snape's companions. The Marauders, even Peter at first became warriors for the Light and fought against LV.
The Marauders were children, and yes they did not like Snape. Yes, they were horrible to him to the point of being bullies. Snape retaliated as best he could and as he was a fairly powerful young wizard who was very good at creating nasty spells, I don't doubt that he held his own. It was a schoolyard grudge match that the Marauders grew out of and Snape did not.
I have always found it ironic that Snape was hoisted by his own spell, kind of gives a whole new meaning to hoisted by your own petard.
IMO, tormenting Snape was not the be all and end all of what the Marauders did to pass the time. They were too popular with the rest of the school. I refuse to believe that all the students thought that they were really cool because they targeted Snape all the time. I don't believe that bullies are well liked by the majority. Look at LV, who apart from Bella wanted to be near him just for the joy of his company?
If The Marauders were popular because they targeted Snape, it makes one wonder why he was so universally disliked?
I don't excuse what The Marauders did in SWM, far from it I think it is dispicable behaviour but I don't think it typical either. Lupin was a Prefect, James became Head Boy. I have to have faith in Dumbledore's judgement of character. After all he trusted Snape.

And you know which topic is still out of bounds?



Yes, the correct answer is Snape vs. Marauders.

And you know which topic is still out of bounds?



Yes, the correct answer is Snape vs. Marauders.

I apologise, Moriath. I will now go beat my head against the desk.

And iron your hands while you're at it. :elaugh:

Kidding. :scared:

And iron your hands while you're at it. :elaugh:

Kidding. :scared:

Do I have to? I'm out of iron cleaner, the iron has sprung a leak and my niece has the ironing board.

Do I have to? I'm out of iron cleaner, the iron has sprung a leak and my niece has the ironing board.

I'll settle for closing my ears in the oven door. :lol:

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.

And we don't forgive any of them for their mistakes, even though given a chance none of them would choose the way they did IMO. We say they should have known better; they should have listened to others who were advising them, they chose the wrong way and suffered for it ..... I apply the same rule to Sirius and the Potters.

And we don't forgive any of them for their mistakes, even though given a chance none of them would choose the way they did IMO. We say they should have known better; they should have listened to others who were advising them, they chose the wrong way and suffered for it ..... I apply the same rule to Sirius and the Potters.

Who doesn't forgive them for not being omniscient? Nobody knows everything. To forgive implies the penitent has committed a sin. Harry was foolish and out of his mind with worry about Sirius and he made a mistake. Dumbledore spent his life atoning for loving and trusting the wrong person, he made a mistake. Sirius and the Potters didn't make any mistakes. They were betrayed. Telling someone they should of known better is IMO the biggest waste of time in the world. If we all knew better there would be no mistakes made by anyone, ever.

Who doesn't forgive them for not being omniscient? Nobody knows everything. To forgive implies the penitent has committed a sin. Harry was foolish and out of his mind with worry about Sirius and he made a mistake. Dumbledore spent his life atoning for loving and trusting the wrong person, he made a mistake. Sirius and the Potters didn't make any mistakes. They were betrayed. Telling someone they should of known better is IMO the biggest waste of time in the world. If we all knew better there would be no mistakes made by anyone, ever.

I interpreted TGW to mean some people don't forgive Severus for his sins, although it's canon that he regrets and does redeem himself, but are quite willing to overlook the mistakes (sins) of Gryffindors. Of course Severus should have known better than to join the DEs; I don't know whether to call the time I spend discussing him a waste of said time.

I interpreted TGW to mean some people don't forgive Severus for his sins, although it's canon that he regrets and does redeem himself, but are quite willing to overlook the mistakes (sins) of Gryffindors. Of course Severus should have known better than to join the DEs; I don't know whether to call the time I spend discussing him a waste of said time.

This is the Marauders thread, so I will only refer to the Marauders when I say this: James, Sirius, and Remus (more so James and his family) were victims of someone's betrayal. To say that they should have known better is to put blame on the victim. I have to say that's very unfair given that they were betrayed by someone who they were friends with for years. Plus, these kinds of betrayals happen all the time in real life, so blaming the victim may strike a nerve with some.

Again, I am only referring to the Marauders.

This is the Marauders thread, so I will only refer to the Marauders when I say this: James, Sirius, and Remus (more so James and his family) were victims of someone's betrayal. To say that they should have known better is to put blame on the victim. I have to say that's very unfair given that they were betrayed by someone who they were friends with for years. Plus, these kinds of betrayals happen all the time in real life, so blaming the victim may strike a nerve with some.

Again, I am only referring to the Marauders.

As TGW specifically mentioned the Potters and Sirius, and that this is the Marauders thread I too meant just them and I mentioned DD as he too had just been referred to in the post previous to TGW's.

Harry was foolish and out of his mind with worry about Sirius and he made a mistake. Dumbledore spent his life atoning for loving and trusting the wrong person, he made a mistake. Sirius and the Potters didn't make any mistakes. They were betrayed.

Harry believed his vision - and made a mistake.

Dumbledore loved and trusted the wrong person - and made a mistake.

Sirius and the Potters trusted the wrong person - and there was no mistake? :hmm: I see no difference.

Harry believed his vision was real, Dumbledore believed Grindewald was great, the Potters believed Peter was a loyal friend. No one of them would choose this path, if they had known, so I think they can't be blamed.

Harry believed his vision - and made a mistake.

Dumbledore loved and trusted the wrong person - and made a mistake.

Sirius and the Potters trusted the wrong person - and there was no mistake? :hmm: I see no difference.

Harry believed his vision was real, Dumbledore believed Grindewald was great, the Potters believed Peter was a loyal friend. No one of them would choose this path, if they had known, so I think they can't be blamed.

Perhaps I worded it wrongly. I think you are agreeing with me. What I meant was that Sirus and the Potters trusted the wrong person and were betrayed. So yes, they were mistaken in their trust but that is not something that they can be blamed for. They did not err, but were erred against. I hope that makes sense.

Who doesn't forgive them for not being omniscient? Nobody knows everything. To forgive implies the penitent has committed a sin. Harry was foolish and out of his mind with worry about Sirius and he made a mistake. Dumbledore spent his life atoning for loving and trusting the wrong person, he made a mistake. Sirius and the Potters didn't make any mistakes. They were betrayed. Telling someone they should of known better is IMO the biggest waste of time in the world. If we all knew better there would be no mistakes made by anyone, ever.

Well I answered so, because while Dumbledore's mistake is seen as such and so is Harry's somehow Snape at 16 is supposed to have known better and his actions are seen as more deliberate than those of the others at the same age. Harry, Dumbledore, Regulus and Draco at the same age made mistakes from which they learnt their lessons in the hardest way possible. Just as Snape did IMO. As I understood it, that the SK switch and trusting Peter for which the Potters suffered is not seen as a mistake and is explained as in hindsight everything is more clear, then I presume it was the same for Snape, Draco, Regulus and Dumbledore, not to mention Harry as well, because all of them regretted their choices and wished to undo their mistakes more than anything else IMO.

posted by Snapes_witch
I interpreted TGW to mean some people don't forgive Severus for his sins, although it's canon that he regrets and does redeem himself, but are quite willing to overlook the mistakes (sins) of Gryffindors. Of course Severus should have known better than to join the DEs; I don't know whether to call the time I spend discussing him a waste of said time.

:agree:
=====

They should have known better; all of them, but they were young and they were misled and mistaken. If the Marauder's could be arrogant idiots who thought sending people into tunnels to face werewolves was fun, surely others at the same age could be mistaken about other things as well, thinking it to be the height of cool or something that would give them power IMO.

Well I answered so, because while Dumbledore's mistake is seen as such and so is Harry's somehow Snape at 16 is supposed to have known better and his actions are seen as more deliberate than those of the others at the same age. Harry, Dumbledore, Regulus and Draco at the same age made mistakes from which they learnt their lessons in the hardest way possible. Just as Snape did IMO. As I understood it, that the SK switch and trusting Peter for which the Potters suffered is not seen as a mistake and is explained as in hindsight everything is more clear, then I presume it was the same for Snape, Draco, Regulus and Dumbledore, not to mention Harry as well, because all of them regretted their choices and wished to undo their mistakes more than anything else IMO.
=====

They should have known better; all of them, but they were young and they were misled and mistaken. If the Marauder's could be arrogant idiots who thought sending people into tunnels to face werewolves was fun, surely others at the same age could be mistaken about other things as well, thinking it to be the height of cool or something that would give them power IMO.

When James, Lily and Sirius devised the SK plan with Peter the only ones who were affected was them. When Peter betrayed them, he betrayed only them. Snape, Regelus, and Draco were willing members of a murderous cult. Dumbledore planned to establish his own murderous cult. Their mistakes affected other people and in the case of Snape and Regulus resulted in pain and hurt to others. Yes, they were young, but not to young to know the differance between right and wrong. This Snape and Regulus demonstrated when they turned on LV. I'm not to sure about Draco, he did do his best to kill Harry in the ROR. Dumbledore never actually put his plan into action and he did bring down Grindelwald.
To be fair to the Marauders, Sirius was the only one who thought that it would be fun for Snape to find what he had spent so long looking for. James was the one who actually pulled him out of the tunnel. Something that he seems to be castigated for instead of praised.

When James, Lily and Sirius devised the SK plan with Peter the only ones who were affected was them.

I disagree. They were not the only ones who were affected. Harry was IMO.

James was the one who actually pulled him out of the tunnel. Something that he seems to be castigated for instead of praised.

Yes. But it is not clear whether James came for Snape or for Sirius and Remus. I, personally think it was for Sirius and Remus and so I see no need to praise him for rescuing Snape. For saving Sirius and Remus, certainly. They probably owed him a bunch of life debts IMO.

[QUOTE=The_Green_Woods;5491014]I disagree. They were not the only ones who were affected. Harry was IMO.

I thought that went without saying. I'll say next time.

[QUOTE]Yes. But it is not clear whether James came for Snape or for Sirius and Remus. I, personally think it was for Sirius and Remus and so I see no need to praise him for rescuing Snape. For saving Sirius and Remus, certainly. They probably owed him a bunch of life debts IMO.QUOTE]

Well if Snape was dead, who was going to tell Sirius had told him how to get into the tunnel, and if he had been killed would it matter to him why James was there. The fact cannot be changed, James pulled him out, at great risk to his own neck. And I cannot for the life of me see James as a potential murderer by conspiring to kill Snape.

I really don't think Dumbledore would allow a student's death to go unpunished and allow those who were involved in such an action to get away. (I am really hoping he won't.)

Shouldn't he have been in the Slytherin Common room or even tucked up safely in his bed?

Yes. Though, I think he was trying to prove to Lily that there was not much difference between the Marauder's and the Slytherins. (not taking into account Voldmeort and DEship). I believe he was of the opinion that there was nothing to choose at that time between the evil pranks of Avery and Mulciber and the Marauder's and I think he wanted to show Lily that.

2. Why is Severus so concerned with Remus?

Because he was a part of the Marauders and he was part of the 4 on 1, even if he may not have participated every time IMO.

Does his suspicions warrant his actions?

Answered in question 1.

Now as to Snape's assumption that the Marauder's were working as a group in an attempt to murder him. These are schoolchildren, not Murder Inc.

As school children in a magical school they knew the danger of sending a fellow student to meet a fully grown werewolf for a prank.

The thought never seems to cross his mind that it was a murder attempt when he goes into the tunnel, it only occurs after James has risked his life to save him?

I think he gave that much credit to the Marauders. They may have in his opinion played nasty pranks but I don't think Snape felt they would send him to meet werewolves, who were not chained. Once he did; he revised that opinion IMO.

How did Snape come to dominate the discussion of this thread once again?

How did Snape come to dominate the discussion of this thread once again?

I don't know. All I'm trying to say is the Marauders were not murderers in training. I swear that is it.

I think the scene in PoA, where Harry tells Sirius and Remus that he doesn't think his father would want them to become murderers (of Peter) is our sign from JKR as to James' actions on the night of the Werewolf Incident. IF James was saving Snape because he believed even Snape had the right to live, then he would not make the comment about Snape's 'existence' in SWM.

I think the scene in PoA, where Harry tells Sirius and Remus that he doesn't think his father would want them to become murderers (of Peter) is our sign from JKR as to James' actions on the night of the Werewolf Incident. IF James was saving Snape because he believed even Snape had the right to live, then he would not make the comment about Snape's 'existence' in SWM.

I don't think James and Sirius were trying to murder Severus in SWM, so I can't see the parallel you are drawing. I don't think wanting to save one's friends from trouble and wanting to save one's enemy from harm is mutually exclusive.

Lupin and Sirius were reacting to Peter, who was a Death Eater, mass murderer, and traitor who gave information to Voldemort and got people he pretended to like killed. I don't think Severus at 16 was equivelant to Peter in PoA, so again, I don't think the parallel works. If the Marauders were actually murderous I don't see why they would try to off Severus and then wait another 12 years before picking Peter as their victim. That just makes no sense to me.

I can see that the Marauders would look down on someone who was affiliated witht he Dark Arts and hung around with Death Eater wannabes, and would act harshly because of that. But I don't see anywhere that James approved of murder or would shrug off murder if it didn't involve his friends directly. I think joining the Order showed that he did care if people got murdered, even complete strangers who were not his friends.

Because he was a part of the Marauders and he was part of the 4 on 1, even if he may not have participated every time IMO.


Could you give me one canon example where Remus participated in the other Marauders' persecution of... certain people they didn't like? His being a part of the Marauder clique does not automatically translate into responsibility for James and Sirius' less-than stellar actions and attitudes. I feel like people lump Remus up into one "Marauder-element" with James and Sirius and Peter without acknowledging the fact that he wholeheartedly deplored their actions. Nowhere in canon does it state that Remus "may not have participated every time"- what is stated is that he never participated in what they did, and if he failed in any way, it was in not being outspoken enough against their actions. Omission rather than commission, as I said above. Therefore, stating that he was "part of the four-on-one" is not only unfair, but strictly against canon.

I don't think James and Sirius were trying to murder Severus in SWM, so I can't see the parallel you are drawing. I don't think wanting to save one's friends from trouble and wanting to save one's enemy from harm is mutually exclusive.

Lupin and Sirius were reacting to Peter, who was a Death Eater, mass murderer, and traitor who gave information to Voldemort and got people he pretended to like killed. I don't think Severus at 16 was equivelant to Peter in PoA, so again, I don't think the parallel works. If the Marauders were actually murderous I don't see why they would try to off Severus and then wait another 12 years before picking Peter as their victim. That just makes no sense to me.

I can see that the Marauders would look down on someone who was affiliated witht he Dark Arts and hung around with Death Eater wannabes, and would act harshly because of that. But I don't see anywhere that James approved of murder or would shrug off murder if it didn't involve his friends directly. I think joining the Order showed that he did care if people got murdered, even complete strangers who were not his friends.

What can I say Madame Elder Crow, except that I could not have put it better myself.

Could you give me one canon example where Remus participated in the other Marauders' persecution of... certain people they didn't like? His being a part of the Marauder clique does not automatically translate into responsibility for James and Sirius' less-than stellar actions and attitudes. I feel like people lump Remus up into one "Marauder-element" with James and Sirius and Peter without acknowledging the fact that he wholeheartedly deplored their actions. Nowhere in canon does it state that Remus "may not have participated every time"- what is stated is that he never participated in what they did, and if he failed in any way, it was in not being outspoken enough against their actions. Omission rather than commission, as I said above. Therefore, stating that he was "part of the four-on-one" is not only unfair, but strictly against canon.

In the specific instance of Sirius's little joke, Remus materially assisted Sirius by providing him with information necessary to make the joke work. (That is, with the information on how to get into the passage under the Whomping Willow).

In the specific instance of Sirius's little joke, Remus materially assisted Sirius by providing him with information necessary to make the joke work. (That is, with the information on how to get into the passage under the Whomping Willow).

And James and Sirius could not have followed Poppy and Remus under the Invisibilty Cloak and seen for themselves? If Remus told Sirius how to get in, did he do it for the purpose of luring Snape into the tunnel so that the werewolf could finish him off? I just don't see Remus as the cold-blooded murdering maniac such a proposition would call for.

In the specific instance of Sirius's little joke, Remus materially assisted Sirius by providing him with information necessary to make the joke work. (That is, with the information on how to get into the passage under the Whomping Willow).

This argument is just... a complete red herring. The statement you made above ("Because he was a part of the Marauders and he was part of the 4 on 1, even if he may not have participated every time IMO.") implied that Remus routinely participated in James and Sirius' public persecutions of Snape and that Snape was justified in resenting this imaginary participation.

The fact that Remus gave Sirius a fact and that Sirius decided to make an undoubtedly nasty use of it does not cast any blame on Remus. He does bear his fair share of the blame for the totally separate issue of James, Sirius, and Peter becoming Animagi in the first place, but that is not the topic being discussed. For the purposes of this conversation, Remus gave his fellow Marauders a neutral fact, and one of them took it upon himself to abuse that knowledge. I, personally, feel that Sirius used Remus just as shabbily as he did Snape in the Werewolf Incident; manipulating someone into the position of an unwitting accomplice to murder is just as wrong as attempting to murder someone. And that's what Remus was- a used and unwitting accomplice. He was completely out of commission at the time when Snape came down the tunnel, and the fact that Snape came down the tunnel is ultimately no one's fault but Snape's. Sirius didn't force him to go. Remus had no idea what was going on, and James was actually the hero of the situation. The incident bore no resemblance or connection to the constant, petty persecution James and Sirius kept up against Snape, and in which Remus was never involved. Therefore, I still fail to understand your statement about Remus being a part of the "four-on-one".

How did Snape come to dominate the discussion of this thread once again?

Apparently informally phrased reminders do not work.

Enough of Snape and the question whether Snape or the Marauders are more culpable. Snape vs. Marauders - who was meaner is the only banned topic we have here. For good reason. You all know it. Everyone ignoring this simply guideline will get some time to internalise it.

Thank you very much, Moriath. It was time.

Could you give me one canon example where Remus participated in the other Marauders' persecution of... certain people they didn't like? His being a part of the Marauder clique does not automatically translate into responsibility for James and Sirius' less-than stellar actions and attitudes. I feel like people lump Remus up into one "Marauder-element" with James and Sirius and Peter without acknowledging the fact that he wholeheartedly deplored their actions. Nowhere in canon does it state that Remus "may not have participated every time"- what is stated is that he never participated in what they did, and if he failed in any way, it was in not being outspoken enough against their actions. Omission rather than commission, as I said above. Therefore, stating that he was "part of the four-on-one" is not only unfair, but strictly against canon.

I don't want to mention the Forbidden Subject, but we actually see the Marauders as the group all the time, and Remus participated in most of their actions and pranks (the Map, their excursions on full-moon nights, etc.) After that, hard to separate him suddenly from the rest of them. Maybe he just followed them, but also never openly opposed to them.

And I never really saw him "deploring" his actions. A little ashamed, maybe. But not deploring.

Thank you very much, Moriath. It was time.



I don't want to mention the Forbidden Subject, but we actually see the Marauders as the group all the time, and Remus participated in most of their actions and pranks (the Map, their excursions on full-moon nights, etc.) After that, hard to separate him suddenly from the rest of them. Maybe he just followed them, but also never openly opposed to them.

And I never really saw him "deploring" his actions. A little ashamed, maybe. But not deploring.

We see one occasion when they are all together. When we see and hear Remus and Sirius talking about what they got up to, they don't mention being joined at the hips.
When Harry is going through the boxes it is James and Sirius' names that come most of the time. And I have to say that the 'crimes' committed by James and Sirius are a long way short of planning their next murder.
They seem to be high spirited schoolboys who enjoyed pranking. Pranking does seem to to be the thing to do at Hogwarts. Sort of like Fred and George and their pranks.

I feel like people lump Remus up into one "Marauder-element" with James and Sirius and Peter without acknowledging the fact that he wholeheartedly deplored their actions. Nowhere in canon does it state that Remus "may not have participated every time"- what is stated is that he never participated in what they did, and if he failed in any way, it was in not being outspoken enough against their actions. Omission rather than commission, as I said above. Therefore, stating that he was "part of the four-on-one" is not only unfair, but strictly against canon.

I could not agree more with you.

Remus's fault, which he freely admits to Harry, is not having the courage to stand up to James and Sirius whenever he felt they were behaving wrongly or picking on other people. Both Remus and Sirius confess this to Harry when they are both adults.

... I, personally, feel that Sirius used Remus just as shabbily as he did Snape in the Werewolf Incident; manipulating someone into the position of an unwitting accomplice to murder is just as wrong as attempting to murder someone. And that's what Remus was- a used and unwitting accomplice.

Again, I completely agree.

The Marauders all have quite distinct personalities. James and Sirius are the closest: close as brothers, so it seems. Both Remus and Peter can be 'outsiders', in a way. Sirius, much as I like him, to me seems out of all of them to have the greatest potential for cruelty. James seems to me to be guilty of a careless, unthinking sort of arrogance at times, as a child and teenaged boy.

Other people might well have perceived the Marauders as 'four against one', which is stated in canon but is coming from a particular ... viewpoint. :whistle: But in my opinion James and Sirius are the instigators (with James at least on the occasion which I dare not name :D involved in a 'damage limitation' operation :whistle: ) ... with Peter as an unpleasantly avid sort of looker-on and Remus as a deeply reluctant looker-on -- because he was, at the time, too wimpy to stand up to James and Sirius because he prized their friendship so much.

The Marauders all have quite distinct personalities. James and Sirius are the closest: close as brothers, so it seems. Both Remus and Peter can be 'outsiders', in a way. Sirius, much as I like him, to me seems out of all of them to have the greatest potential for cruelty. James seems to me to be guilty of a careless, unthinking sort of arrogance at times, as a child and teenaged boy.


Yes, I think that's a necessary realization to make if you're trying to understand the Marauders. They weren't all carbon-copies of one another because they were good friends from the same house, any more than Harry, Ron, and Hermione were. And yet, somehow, I feel like the Marauders get stereotyped and have unfounded assumptions made about them right and left, while the Trio almost never does.

However, based on my many readings, I would say that the Marauders have even more distinctly-drawn personalities and origins than the Trio.


Sirius was a rebel, born into a position of corrupt power from which he recoiled on every level of his being, resulting in rejection and anger from his bigoted family.
James was as different from Sirius as possible; the cherished only-child of a wealthy family, accustomed to getting his way from birth, and slightly full of himself.
Remus, again, was totally different, coming to Hogwarts on the grace and tolerance of the Headmaster, shunned from childhood, never having had friends or many normal relationships at all.
We know the least about Peter's origins; however, based on the fact that his mother was "deeply comforted" by receiving his posthumous Order of Merlin, I'd be inclined to think that she was both a witch and a loving mother.


And these four boys from completely divergent backgrounds, and with personalities all over the chart, happen to come together at the Gryffindor table in their first year at Hogwarts. James and Sirius grow very close, Remus gratefully accepts their friendship, and Peter is just happy to have found people with stronger personalities to follow around. And somehow, within five years of this unlikely and somewhat unbalanced friendship being forged, people seem to have trouble distinguishing between the motives and personalities of the four. :huh: If James and Sirius allowed their cleverness and arrogance to get the better of them, resulting in acts of petty cruelty, Remus should not be automatically included in the incidents simply because he was their friend- especially when all the canon evidence, as well as outright statements on the part of the characters and author, point away from the idea that he was ever involved in them. If you don't like James and/or Sirius, that's perfectly fine and I don't blame you- however, Remus wasn't just Marauder Number Three. He has his own personality and his own beliefs and his own failings. So does James, and Sirius, and even Peter. They aren't carbon copies of each other, as I said above, and to look at their personalities as if they are carbon copies is to cheapen and disrespect the years of work JK put into her characters.

If James and Sirius allowed their cleverness and arrogance to get the better of them, resulting in acts of petty cruelty, Remus should not be automatically included in the incidents simply because he was their friend- especially when all the canon evidence, as well as outright statements on the part of the characters and author, point away from the idea that he was ever involved in them.

Well not all the cannon evidence denies this - the phrase '4 - 1' is used about certain actions of the marauders - that is cannon and it contradicts the claim that 'all the canon evidence points away from the idea that he was ever involved in them' :)

If you don't like James and/or Sirius, that's perfectly fine and I don't blame you- however, Remus wasn't just Marauder Number Three. He has his own personality and his own beliefs and his own failings.

The thing is one of those failing is that he stood by at watched the marauders do things that he disliked and disapproved of and did nothing - he basically says this himself. And when someone is being mistreated bystanders are involved and lack of action tends to look like approval to both the victim and the perpetrators

They aren't carbon copies of each other, as I said above, and to look at their personalities as if they are carbon copies is to cheapen and disrespect the years of work JK put into her characters.

No you’re right they are not carbon copies of each other but they were all part of a group and group actions – even if they didn’t like them and surely that also has to be recognised. :)

Well not all the cannon evidence denies this - the phrase '4 - 1' is used about certain actions of the marauders - that is cannon and it contradicts the claim that 'all the canon evidence points away from the idea that he was ever involved in them' :)



The thing is one of those failing is that he stood by at watched the marauders do things that he disliked and disapproved of and did nothing - he basically says this himself. And when someone is being mistreated bystanders are involved and lack of action tends to look like approval to both the victim and the perpetrators



No you’re right they are not carbon copies of each other but they were all part of a group and group actions – even if they didn’t like them and surely that also has to be recognised. :)

Kittling, not long ago I got my knuckles severly rapped for a black and white defense of canon. Quite rightly, I was being a right smart mouth. The reason I got my knuckles rapped was for defending Sirius when he made a comment about, an enemy. Now if Sirius' words cannot be taken literally as the truth about this other person, then I wold say that we cannot take 4 on 1 as the literal truth because of the state of mind etc that this person was in when he made the statement. Sauce for the goose and the gander should be the same.

They seem to be high spirited schoolboys who enjoyed pranking. Pranking does seem to to be the thing to do at Hogwarts. Sort of like Fred and George and their pranks.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm not really able to compare the Weasleys with the Marauders. Fred & George never put anyone's life in danger, never are cruel or dismissing... let's say that "prankers" can be the word for the Weasley twins, but not enough for the Marauders. Letting loose a werewolf near the school and other people's houses doesn't seem to me a simple "prank" (without speaking of The One That Mustn't Be Named).

And yes, it was "four against one": distinct personalities don't stop them from acting as one group.

No, I'm sorry, but I'm not really able to compare the Weasleys with the Marauders. Fred & George never put anyone's life in danger, never are cruel or dismissing... let's say that "prankers" can be the word for the Weasley twins, but not enough for the Marauders. Letting loose a werewolf near the school and other people's houses doesn't seem to me a simple "prank" (without speaking of The One That Mustn't Be Named).

And yes, it was "four against one": distinct personalities don't stop them from acting as one group.

What about when Fred and George shoved that kid into the broken Vanishing Cabinet? He was in there for days and could have died. The WW on the whole seems to be remarkabley careless with themselves and others.
The Marauders were always with Remus when he was loose and kept him under control. Yes, there were close calls but no one was injured, so IMO that's a non starter. If Remus had injured someone I might be more sympathetic to your point, but no one was injured so I can't see the point in dragging it up years after it happened.

I don't give much credence to 4 on 1. The person who said was not in control of himself and was in an extreme case of anxiety. What he said then, IMO cannot be trusted. He wanted to lash out at Harry and say the most hurtful thing he could think of.

What about when Fred and George shoved that kid into the broken Vanishing Cabinet? He was in there for days and could have died. The WW on the whole seems to be remarkabley careless with themselves and others.
The Marauders were always with Remus when he was loose and kept him under control. Yes, there were close calls but no one was injured, so IMO that's a non starter. If Remus had injured someone I might be more sympathetic to your point, but no one was injured so I can't see the point in dragging it up years after it happened.

Actually, I find both the Twins and the Marauders deeply culpable in both those incidents. (I really don't like Fred and George's callousness there. :td: )

The Marauders were not guilty of callousness when it came to Remus's condition, IMO, but they were astoundingly careless. Hermione (ever the voice of reason) expresses shock at their irresponsibility in PoA:

"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 ..."

Chapter 18, Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs

The irony is that Lupin repeats the 'near miss' that very same night. :yuhup:

I admire the way the other Marauders identified with Remus by turning themselves into Animagi. But I do think they were incredibly irresponsible in the way they behaved about his condition, as well.

Actually, the Marauder's recklessness with Remus' condition reminds me of some teenage boys when they first start driving. They think it's exciting to drive as fast as they can and take risks behind the wheel. Similar to what the Marauders did wandering around at full moon. It doesn't make them evil, bad people. It does mean they're immature, reckless, foolish and irresponsible. The Marauders were just very lucky that Remus didn't bite anyone on one of those trips. I don't believe there was any malice to their full moon activities, just immaturity and recklessness.

Actually, the Marauder's recklessness with Remus' condition reminds me of some teenage boys when they first start driving. They think it's exciting to drive as fast as they can and take risks behind the wheel. Similar to what the Marauders did wandering around at full moon. It doesn't make them evil, bad people. It does mean they're immature, reckless, foolish and irresponsible. The Marauders were just very lucky that Remus didn't bite anyone on one of those trips. I don't believe there was any malice to their full moon activities, just immaturity and recklessness.

IMO, that's exactly what they were like. Arrogant and careless. They were not malicious. I think arrogance is endemic in the WW, though. It's a symptom of the underlying predjudice that Wizards display to the surrounding world, ie. the Muggle world.

Except for the fact that sometime during the very same year as the Werewolf Incident THEY had to go risk the possibilty of Werewolf attack themselves to find out whether their animagus forms would fool the werewolf.

Is one really expected to believe that NONE of them were afraid that it MIGHT not work? That they themselves might be bitten?

This happens in the very SAME year - IF they found out it worked on the first full moon of the year and the werewolf incident happened on the last one of the school year (which seems unlikely considering what is said during SWM) then that means running with a werewolf at most 9 times. And it is likely to be even fewer moons that that (otherwise SWM takes place only a week or two after the werewolf incident - which makes it look even worse)

So, it only took them 9 outings (at MOST) to totally forget the fear they might have felt the first time? Or are we supposed to believe that they never felt any fear at all that it wouldn't work? That they really were SO reckless that they never even once thought THEY might be turned?

Then we have the fact that they CONTINUED to let Remus out even after having to save Snape. That James 'supposedly' saves Snape's life, but doesn't actually even think that Remus might be a danger to all of Hogsmeade? Even after the Werewolf Incident there was MORE than one close call - IF I recall correctly Remus actually said MANY. Just how many is MANY? Certainly more than a 'few' - so more than twice a year. Which puts it at happening at roughly at least once out of 4 times.

To continue the 'driving' analogy - this is the equivalent of playing 'chicken' with those cars (not merely speeding). There were 'many' 'close calls' - so equal to 'many' times where the cars came close to a head-on collision with someone pulling off at the very last moment (and one time - in the first year they began this - with the equivalent of an actual crash, which miraculously didn't result in a death). And yet they continued repeatedly to drive in exactly the same manner figuring that if they were lucky that once then they will always be so lucky.

That's not 'reckless' - that's pushing your luck

Except for the fact that sometime during the very same year as the Werewolf Incident THEY had to go risk the possibilty of Werewolf attack themselves to find out whether their animagus forms would fool the werewolf. ...[cut for brevity]

Still, they were just having mischievious fun. That is way better than what they were fighting against. What they hated was the use of dark magic on others and calling others bigoted terms like "mudblood" and "blood traitor" merely because the kid happened to have been born to muggle parents. JKR only had to inform us of the minimum here - we saw it play out over the course of 7 books with Harry and friends and those he was against.

Nobody got hurt as a result of the Marauders excursions. But many people were hurt by what those they were against were doing and saying to others. That is what marks the difference between them and others. I see a very clear line - it is like those who use drugs and guns versus those who pin water balloons to a doorway. Night and day.

Brilliant post hwyla! :)

I am kind of confused about werewolves roaming free in the villages filled with people and sending students into the tunnel where there are fully grown werewolves as mischievous fun. I mean if what Avery and Mulciber did to Mary McDonald (and we don't know what that was; it was apparently not something serious enough to be reported to McGonagall, because Lily is only talking to Snape about it; she is not mentioning her satisfaction at the punishment they got for such a so called prank) is dark magic, then is not showing a tendency of being capable of murder dark magic?

The AK is the worst of the unforgivables because it is a curse that causes a harm which cannot be repaired. A person capable of it ETA :: (without just cause) is dark; can an action deliberately made, knowing it could cause the death of another student or cause harm to people in Hogsmeade be called mischief and fun?

I don't think so; that fun is IMO dark magic and if the Marauders thought it was fun, then they were dark too; it did not matter they died fighting Voldemort and his DE; they were still as dark as the people they stood against IMO.

The AK is the worst of the unforgivables because it is a curse that causes a harm which cannot be repaired. A person capable of it is dark; can an action deliberately made, knowing it could cause the death of another student or cause harm to people in Hogsmeade be called mischief and fun?

I don't think so; that fun is IMO dark magic and if the Marauders thought it was fun, then they were dark too; it did not matter they died fighting Voldemort and his DE; they were still as dark as the people they stood against IMO.

I would disagree that a person capable of the AK is dark. The AK is an unforgivable for most members of the Wizarding Community... in times of peace. But it is not unforgivable for Aurors, and it's not unforgivable in times of war. When McGonnagall says "we duel to kill," she is saying the AK is on the table. The very person against whom the werewolf trick was played was capable of casting an effective AK, but I doubt you would say he was "dark" by the time he cast it.

I don't find the werewolf trick to be harmless fun. And I don't find it to be merely reckless. Sirius as much as says, about 2 decades later, that Severus would have deserved to be attacked by the werewolf for following the Marauders around and trying to get them into trouble. But I also think that we need to be careful about applying terms like "dark" here to the Mauradiers.

In the werewolf incident, at least one Marauder acts like an arrogant bullying toerag. But I don't think the term "dark magic" quite applies. For starters, where's the magic? There's a magical creature involved. But did Sirius use magic to lure Severus to the Whomping Willow? I don't recall any indication in the text that he did.

I think we're going down a bit of a slippery slope when we start saying that a dangerous, vicious, wicked prank (or at least something that I regard as such) was actually "dark magic" when there's little indication that there was any real magic involved.

I wasn't referring to one incident. That would be like trying to sum up Harry's overall behavior using only the incident in which he used Sectumsempra on Draco. Makes no sense to me. My comment was general - the Marauders, like Harry and friends, surely had their days where they did things that went over the line. But in general, they were against truly harmful stuff like black magic and bigotry and their fun was just general mischief in line with what we saw with the trio/twins. That was my only point.

I would disagree that a person capable of the AK is dark. The AK is an unforgivable for most members of the Wizarding Community... in times of peace.

I totally agree. I should have written without just cause in my post, which is what I meant. (will edit it out now, thanks :))

But it is not unforgivable for Aurors, and it's not unforgivable in times of war. When McGonnagall says "we duel to kill," she is saying the AK is on the table. The very person against whom the werewolf trick was played was capable of casting an effective AK, but I doubt you would say he was "dark" by the time he cast it.

Yes; and Lupin in DH is also not wrong IMO when he tells Harry that he should start casting stronger spells than the expelliarmus.

I don't find the werewolf trick to be harmless fun. And I don't find it to be merely reckless. Sirius as much as says, about 2 decades later, that Severus would have deserved to be attacked by the werewolf simply for following the Marauders around and trying to get them into trouble. But I also think that we need to be careful about using terms like "dark" here.

The intent was to teach a lesson for snooping after the Marauders, and being utterly uncaring about the consequences even after knowing they may be terrible. That qualifies this action as dark for me.

The Marauders are, imo, arrogant bullying toerags. But I don't think the term "dark magic" quite applies. For starters, where's the magic? There's a magical creature involved. But did Sirius use magic to lure Severus to the Whomping Willow? I don't recall any indication in the text that he did.I think we're going down a bit of a slippery slope when we start saying that a dangerous, vicious, wicked prank was "dark magic" when there's little indication that there was any real magic involved.

I think you have a point about Dark Magic in the werewolf incident; though I called it dark magic because the werewolf transformation was magical; which is pretty lame I agree. :) Though I do think it was a dark action; if not dark magic. I agree with Snape when he told Dumbledore that Sirius was capable of murder at 16; IMO that makes Sirius and his actions dark IMO. This is one instance and if the mind set of the Marauders (especially James and Sirius) which was to play pranks (that very much involved magic; Bertram Aubrey's head being enlarged was by means of an illegal hex) that could harm others, then really I think they are dark magic and persons casting them are not very Light either. Even though they fought for the Order and against Voldemort and sacrificed their lives too.

I think the Marauders show that just because one fights against Voldemort or takes a position against the DE's they need not necessarily be good.

Are illegal hexes dark magic? I think they are.

He pulled out a card from one of the topmost boxes with a flourish and read .... 'James Potter and Sirius Black. Apprehended using an illegal hex upon Bertram Aubrey. Aubrey's head twice normal size. Double detention.'

What is dark magic? For me any magic used (instigated) with intent to harm is dark magic. In that respect I think the Marauders in School were as dark as the Slytherins they looked down upon as dark and evil IMO.

Nobody got hurt as a result of the Marauders excursions.

So, it is alright to behave in a reckless manner which endangers the lives of others, as long as you are having fun and are lucky not to hurt anyone? It was only by pure luck that no one was ever hurt. Yes, they didn't set out with the intention of putting people in danger, but that doesn't make their actions right. It is like playing with a loaded gun.
Taking the driving analogy again, that would mean it is ok to drive at ridiculous speeds without due care and attention, as long as no one gets hurt. As I see it not getting caught out doesn't make an action acceptable.

EDIT: What makes it worse for me is that they knew it was dangerous, as by Lupin's own admission there were many near misses. Enough to frighten anyone into realising what they were doing was dangerous to others, and therefore wrong. But what did they do after these near misses....laugh.

So, it is alright to behave in a reckless manner which endangers the lives of others, as long as you are having fun and are lucky not to hurt anyone? It was only by pure luck that no one was ever hurt. Yes, they didn't set out with the intention of putting people in danger, but that doesn't make their actions right. It is like playing with a loaded gun.

Or like Formula One racing. Sure people die, but it is not in one's heart to kill them. Apparently adults enjoy reckless fun also - for pure sport no less - similar to Pro Quidditch in the WW back in the days before the safety rules.

The Marauders were young boys out kicking it and having fun. We can't place our adult - stick in the mud - standards on them - as safe and good as we realize they are. Adults are less reckless in general, and every child in the book was shown to be reckless at one time or another - bar none that I recall. However, the Marauders also took the precaution of going out with 2 large animals to control the third - that worked, so I don't think they were as reckless and your post seems to suggest.

Taking the driving analogy again, that would mean it is ok to drive at ridiculous speeds without due care and attention, as long as no one gets hurt. As I see it not getting caught out doesn't make an action acceptable.

I don't feel that is a fair estimation. They had 2 large animals to control Remus' tendencies as a werewolf - they were not acting without *a care in the world* or complete *lack of attention*. They were young and their decision making in the realm of reckless - like everyone else in the book - but nothing out of hand considering that they had a plan in place to control the situation.

And again - one can't say that much for adults who wish to engage in sports - reckless cars at reckless speeds, people die - but March 14, many of us will be running into the stands to watch. Precautions are taken, but there is always a risk and that is what lends to the exictement and fun. Still some controls are in place to minimize the danger - it is the same thing with the Marauders situation - a good analogy you came up with in the driving :tu:.

EDIT: What makes it worse for me is that they knew it was dangerous, as by Lupin's own admission there were many near misses. Enough to frighten anyone into realising what they were doing was dangerous to others, and therefore wrong. But what did they do after these near misses....laugh.

That would be irrelevant for them because they had a plan worked out that they felt would keep the situation from being terribly dangerous. They were lucky no one got hurt - but since that is true, there is no need to cry over milk that didn't even spill - right? It would be like having long conversations about what would have happened if the Giant Balisk had killed Harry in the chamber - well yeah even more reckless of him to go in there alone, bad stuff and he couldn't have easily been killed, but it didn't happen.

When they're all grown up, they themselves qualify their teenage antics as reckless and seem to regret them (Sirius and Remus, at least). That's enough evidence for me to make up my mind about the light they're presented in.

Or like Formula One racing. Sure people die, but it is not in one's heart to kill them. Apparently adults enjoy reckless fun also - for pure sport no less - similar to Pro Quidditch in the WW back in the days before the safety rules.


The difference with official and professional Formula One racing is this takes place on a purposely built track, surrounding area and training, all the drivers (teams) have made the choice to participate. Like professional Quidditch. It also still doesn't stop people feeling regret and saddness when someone is gravely hurt or killed. However, they are not resklessly risking the lives of people casually passing by like on a public road. That's why the analogy for careless driving on a public road works well for what the Marauder's did, they had close calls with people who were just going about their everyday lives and placed them in danger. Imo.

I think the fact that Lupin regrets his actions shows that they were reckless and careless with the safety of others. I think it speaks very well of him, that he recognises and regrets his actions. Imo. :)

Don't missunderstand me though, I do think it was admirable of the other three Marauders to study and become Animagi to keep Lupin company duing the very difficult transformations, so he didn't feel alone. Imo.

Or like Formula One racing. Sure people die, but it is not in one's heart to kill them.

Which doesn't really do much for Senna's family, does it now? :relax:

However, the Marauders also took the precaution of going out with 2 large animals to control the third - that worked, so I don't think they were as reckless and your post seems to suggest.

So, you don't think risking an all-out life-or-death fight with your best friend and the safety of other students on the hope a group of teenagers were right in their prediction is 'as reckless as her post seems to suggest'?

Sure, it was brave... but was it smart? :huh:

They had 2 large animals to control Remus' tendencies as a werewolf...

...one of which is habitually on a wolf's menu. Very reassuring. :tu:

Still some controls are in place to minimize the danger - it is the same thing with the Marauders situation - a good analogy you came up with in the driving :tu:.

Not really. The driving 'controls in place to minimize the danger' are instituted and overseen by an official authority - not a group of teenage enthusiasts.

That would be irrelevant for them because they had a plan worked out that they felt would keep the situation from being terribly dangerous. They were lucky no one got hurt - but since that is true, there is no need to cry over milk that didn't even spill - right?

Wrong. Because luck -and milk - tends to run out eventually, as Sirius came to find out.

It would be like having long conversations about what would have happened if the Giant Balisk had killed Harry in the chamber - well yeah even more reckless of him to go in there alone, bad stuff and he couldn't have easily been killed, but it didn't happen.

I'm sure Snape covered it, so I'm not going to waste anyone's time... ;)

If the fact that nobody died makes their actions ok, then the fact that neither Neville nor Harry were traumatised by Snape's treatment should make that treatment perfectly acceptable.

...one of which is habitually on a wolf's menu. Very reassuring. :tu:



I must admit I was under the impression that while they were in Animagus form the three Marauders were relatively safe, whether dog, stag or rat. They were companions to the werewolf, as long as no humans were about mind due. Antlers can do a lot of damage. Werewolves, in the Potterverse, go for the nearest human being to bite or kill. No humans nearby to attack, or other animals to occupy it (which is what the Animagi did) the werewolf would turn on itself due to frustration. This might be why the Marauders slightly lost sight of how dangerous a werewolf is because he was mostly harmless with them in Animagus form. Imo.

I must admit I was under the impression that while they were in Animagus form the three Marauders were safe, whether dog, stag or rat. Antlers can do a lot of damage. Werewolves, in the Potterverse, go for the nearest human being to bite or kill. No humans nearby to attack, or other animals to occupy it (which is what the Animagi did) the werewolf would turn on itself due to frustration. This might be why the Marauders lost sight of how dangerous a werewolf is because he was playful and harmless with them in Animagus form. Imo.

Yes I had the impresion too but the fact that Remus attacks Siruis while in wolf-form in PoA doesn't quite fit with this :hmm:

Yes I had the impresion too but the fact that Remus attacks Siruis while in wolf-form in PoA doesn't quite fit with this :hmm:

Perhaps this instance is because there were humans directly in Lupin's presence while his werewolf instincts had taken over completely. So, Sirius had to stop him and drive him back. Maybe this in an example of what could have happened during their excursions in their student days, when they had many close calls with a human. Or one of the Marauders was effectively a lookout, and were able to drive him away before he picked up on the human presence near by. :hmm:

Or one of the Marauders was effectively a lookout, and were able to drive him away before he picked up on the human presence near by. :hmm:

And how exactly would 'the one' be able to drive them back without getting aggressive? People don't usually run in the other direction when spotting a dog or a stag...

And how exactly would 'the one' be able to drive them back without getting aggressive?

:) Please read my other post. :relax:

I do apologize for the oversight... :agree:

It was the werewolf they were supposed to 'drive away'.

So, I guess my question still stands: how?

I do apologize for the oversight... :agree:

It was the werewolf they were supposed to 'drive away'.

So, I guess my question still stands: how?

:lol: Unfortunately, I can only guess as JKR hasn't really provided us with much of a complete answer. Something must have been possible because of the many close calls they had. Antlers can do a lot of damage and so can a huge dog, so they may have used that barrier method of persuasion to steer him to change course, before he picked up on the human presence. If not, I guess it would be a PoA-like scenerio. Either way, it was extremely and potentially dangerous. Imo.

:lol: Unfortunately, I can only guess as JKR hasn't really provided us with an answer.

Hey, if it was good for Dumbledore... :lol:

It must have been possible because of the many close calls they had. Antlers can do a lot of damage and so can a huge dog, so they may have used that barrier method of persuasion to steer him to change course, before he picked up on the human presence.

The part I'm having problem with is the proposed lack of adverse reaction from the transformed Lupin - wouldn't a werewolf resent such... persuasion? Or, if he was actually intimidated by it (however improbable it may seem) wouldn't he be a bit reluctant to continue frolicking around with the same group?

And how in Merlin's name did they manage to get him to return to the Shack in the first place? :lol:

The part I'm having problem with is the proposed lack of adverse reaction from the transformed Lupin - wouldn't a werewolf resent such... persuasion?
Or, if he was actually intimidated by it (however improbable it may seem) wouldn't he be a bit reluctant to continue frolicking around with the same group?

Depends if he saw it as part of a game on the part of his companions. He may have trusted his companions on some level as they came to let him out and spend time with him. We know werewolves will turn on themselves in frustration if alone.

If not, I guess it would be a PoA-like scenerio.

It still had a lot of potential danger, either way. Imo.



And how in Merlin's name did they manage to get him to return to the Shack in the first place? :lol:

Well yes indeed, it seems to indicate some level of companionship and amount of persuasion on where to travel, going on there. I can't imagine them letting Lupin transform naked just anywhere.

...Antlers can do a lot of damage and so can a huge dog, so they may have used that barrier method of persuasion to steer him to change course, before he picked up on the human presence. If not, I guess it would be a PoA-like scenerio. Either way, it was extremely and potentially dangerous. Imo.It has to be the PoA-like Scenario - they cannot have always steered him away from humans before he notices. IF they had been able to do so, then Remus would not actually KNOW about the close calls at all. Besides, it IS likely that Remus was seen on occasions - that would give validity to the rumor of werewolves in the forbidden forest (Draco in Bk1)

And how in Merlin's name did they manage to get him to return to the Shack in the first place? :lol:

Perhaps at dawn and in human form?

It has to be the PoA-like Scenario - they cannot have always steered him away from humans before he notices. IF they had been able to do so, then Remus would not actually KNOW about the close calls at all.

Indeed, but what makes me hesitate is we don't see or hear about James or Sirius getting any cursed wounds due to such a fight. Although, I agree it does seem very likely to be the PoA-like scenerio.


Besides, it IS likely that Remus was seen on occasions - that would give validity to the rumor of werewolves in the forbidden forest (Draco in Bk1)

That's true. :)

Indeed, but what makes me hesitate is we don't see or hear about James or Sirius getting any cursed wounds due to such a fight. Although, I agree it does seem very likely to be the PoA-like scenerio.

In PoA - we never hear, after, that the wounds Sirius received in his fight with Lupin were cursed. So I would conclude that the whole "cursed wound" thing only applies to humans, in human form. A human victim bitten by a human werewolf ends up like Bill, a human victim bitten by a transformed werewolf ends up a werewolf, and an animal bitten by a werewolf in whatever form, heals as it would from any other bite.

and an animal bitten by a werewolf in whatever form, heals as it would from any other bite.

:lol: I usually find that bit confusing to honest because the saliva (or how its past on when bitten) from the bite would still be in the victims blood and the wound, so why wouldn't it take affect when an Animagus becomes human again.

They may have sustains cuts from his claws though should such a fight take place, that they were able to heal okay in time.

In regards to the wounds Sirius received while fighting WereLupin in PoA - we cannot know whether a bite would heal differently on an animagus, since he was not bitten in that scene. All his wounds were from werewolf claws. It is the saliva that makes the difference.

However, one must wonder whether or not a werewolf would eventually 'bite' in a fight since he was 'clawing'. I certainly wouldn't put it past two dogs in a fight, so I DO think it was always a possibility that Prongs or Padfoot could have been bitten while fighting to control the werewolf - depends upon how 'frenzied' the werewolf was over sighting a 'human' and trying to get to it. True the natural prey was human, but that doesn't mean a werewolf would not bite to get past an animal keeping it from that 'human prey'. I think in PoA, that a bite to Padfoot was a real danger, if Hermione (time-turned) had not let out that howl.

It was however different when Prongs was around as well. A werewolf would have been more likely to run from 2 animals than solely Padfoot (as in PoA)

Depends if he saw it as part of a game on the part of his companions. He may have trusted his companions on some level as they came to let him out and spend time with him. We know werewolves will turn on themselves in frustration if alone.

If not, I guess it would be a PoA-like scenerio.

It still had a lot of potential danger, either way. Imo.




Well yes indeed, it seems to indicate some level of companionship and persuasion going on there. I can't imagine them letting Lupin transform naked just anywhere.

Isn't there a passage where Remus says that the presence of the Marauders helped him remember who he was? They stopped him fromm becoming entirely wolfish.

Isn't there a passage where Remus says that the presence of the Marauders helped him remember who he was? They stopped him fromm becoming entirely wolfish.

I think this might be the passage you're thinking of from PoA, in the Shrieking Shack:


“But how did that help you?” said Hermione, sounding puzzled.

“They couldn't keep me company as humans, so they kept me company as animals,” said Lupin. “A werewolf is only a danger to people. They sneaked out of the castle every month under James's Invisibility Cloak. They transformed... Peter, as the smallest, could slip beneath the Willow's attacking branches and touch the knot that freezes it. They would then slip down the tunnel and join me. Under their influence, I became less dangerous. My body was still wolfish, but my mind seemed to become less so while I was with them.”

“Hurry up, Remus,” snarled Black, who was still watching Scabbers with a horrible sort of hunger on his face.

“I'm getting there, Sirius, I'm getting there... well, highly exciting possibilities were open to us now that we could all transform. Soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the school grounds and the village by night. Sirius and James transformed into such large animals, they were able to keep a werewolf in check. I doubt whether any Hogwarts students ever found out more about the Hogwarts grounds and Hogsmeade than we did... And that's how we came to write the Marauder's Map, and sign it with our nicknames. Sirius is Padfoot. Peter is Wormtail. James was Prongs.”

“What sort of animal —?” Harry began, but Hermione cut him off.

“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.”

I think this might be the passage you're thinking of from PoA:


“But how did that help you?” said Hermione, sounding puzzled.

“They couldn't keep me company as humans, so they kept me company as animals,” said Lupin. “A werewolf is only a danger to people. They sneaked out of the castle every month under James's Invisibility Cloak. They transformed... Peter, as the smallest, could slip beneath the Willow's attacking branches and touch the knot that freezes it. They would then slip down the tunnel and join me. Under their influence, I became less dangerous. My body was still wolfish, but my mind seemed to become less so while I was with them.”

“Hurry up, Remus,” snarled Black, who was still watching Scabbers with a horrible sort of hunger on his face.

“I'm getting there, Sirius, I'm getting there... well, highly exciting possibilities were open to us now that we could all transform. Soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the school grounds and the village by night. Sirius and James transformed into such large animals, they were able to keep a werewolf in check. I doubt whether any Hogwarts students ever found out more about the Hogwarts grounds and Hogsmeade than we did... And that's how we came to write the Marauder's Map, and sign it with our nicknames. Sirius is Padfoot. Peter is Wormtail. James was Prongs.”



Yes, that's the one.

Or like Formula One racing. Sure people die, but it is not in one's heart to kill them.
As Annie has already said, Formula One racing is not the same as driving on a public road, where innocent people do get killed because of the recklessness of some drivers. When the Marauders went frolicking into Hogsmeade with a werewolf they were taking a big chance and risking the lives of the residents there, just for the fun of it.


I don't feel that is a fair estimation. They had 2 large animals to control Remus' tendencies as a werewolf - they were not acting without *a care in the world* or complete *lack of attention*. They were young and their decision making in the realm of reckless - like everyone else in the book - but nothing out of hand considering that they had a plan in place to control the situation.

But that plan of action almost failed on many occasions according to Lupin.

PoA Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs
'What if you had 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.'

Yet, they still continued, which imo shows a lack of concern for others. As next time they might not be so lucky, and someone might have been hurt. It seems to me, that either they never considered this as a possibility, or didn't care. I prefer to think the former, but their lack of concern for the near misses does not put them in a good light imo. :relax:


And again - one can't say that much for adults who wish to engage in sports - reckless cars at reckless speeds, people die - but March 14, many of us will be running into the stands to watch. Precautions are taken, but there is always a risk and that is what lends to the exictement and fun. Still some controls are in place to minimize the danger - it is the same thing with the Marauders situation - a good analogy you came up with in the driving :tu:.

:no: No I don't agree here, it is not the same. The residents of Hogsmeade were completely unaware that a werewolf was regularly romping around the village every month. Adults who knowingly take calculated risks endangering their own lives is a very different matter to anyone taking a calculated risk that could endanger the lives of an innocent.

They were lucky no one got hurt - but since that is true, there is no need to cry over milk that didn't even spill - right?

Sorry, :hmm: but that doesn't make sense to me. That is like saying that it is alright to do anything that may put others lives at risk as long as you don't get caught out. Being lucky does not justify the action itself or make it acceptable, imo.

As Annie has already said, Formula One racing is not the same as driving on a public road, where innocent people do get killed because of the recklessness of some drivers. When the Marauders went frolicking into Hogsmeade with a werewolf they were taking a big chance and risking the lives of the residents there, just for the fun of it.

First, some Formula One and many Indycar races are held on public roads - and innocent people DO get killed because of the inherent recklessness of the sport (Monaco is my favorite of the GP's actually). But since that is besides the point, I'll move along.

The point is, the Marauders were not going out on public thoroughfares when others were out or they would have had a lot of notoriety. They went out after hours when your few drunks and stragglers would be out -and they protected those people in a way they believed was adequate. As it turned out, it was.

But that plan of action almost failed on many occasions according to Lupin.

"Almost" is the important word there. Harry "Almost" died tangling with Quirrell, then with the Balisk, then with Voldemort, then at Gringotts and so on. But he didn't and the first event didn't stop him from running headlong into the second and so forth. It is a book of reckless people doing reckless things for our pleasure - falling into the category of adventure. I see little point in reading an adventure story and then admonishing the characters for having them. It would be an otherwise very boring series if they were not recounted to us - be it Harry, the Marauders or the Malfoys.

Yet, they still continued, which imo shows a lack of concern for others. As next time they might not be so lucky, and someone might have been hurt. It seems to me, that either they never considered this as a possibility, or didn't care. I prefer to think the former, but their lack of concern for the near misses does not put them in a good light imo. :relax:

I guess I am not getting your point. You would have rather had a series where there was no adventure - and everyone behaved like careful, saints? Well I am sure there is literature of that nature out there, but usually in magical adventure tales, it is one adventure after another throughout.


Sorry, :hmm: but that doesn't make sense to me. That is like saying that it is alright to do anything that may put others lives at risk as long as you don't get caught out. Being lucky does not justify the action itself or make it acceptable, imo.

Well yeah, if I wanted to find fault with the adventure in an adventure story - I guess that would be how I'd go about it. But it seems a little pointless to me, that is all I'm saying. If you wish to do that, be my guest and go right ahead, but my opinion in terms of an adventure story is that this particular one rated near the top in terms of excitement and good times in reading. JKR didn't make anyone get hurt, so I see no point in dwelling in long-faced "what if" scenarios. Same with all of Harry's adventures. I'm not into regarding the book in that light, sorry.

I guess I am not getting your point. You would have rather had a series where there was no adventure - and everyone behaved like careful, saints? Well I am sure there is literature of that nature out there, but usually in magical adventure tales, it is one adventure after another throughout.

First of all - what adventure? :huh: We never see the Marauders do anything. We hear one-paragraph stories about it, and pretty dry stories, too, peppered with guilt.

Secondly, you're sliding in and out between analysing the characters and the genre. Sure, adventure is fun and necessary in the genre in question, but how exactly does that make the Marauders' actions any less reprehensible from a acharacter analysis point of view? It's two separate things you're talking about.

First of all - what adventure? :huh: We never see the Marauders do anything. We hear one-paragraph stories about it, and pretty dry stories, too, peppered with guilt.

How we feel about the stories as readers may differ - but JKR did write them all as tales of adventure. We hear of what Lucius is doing through his son - it's interesting to me - adventurous - not on the up and up in the wizard world of course, but an adventure nontheless. If other readers don't find that adventure interesting as related, what can I say? It is the same with this tale. I found Lupin's whole speech an interesting adventure tale - some may have been bored and drooled on it while trying to stay awake, that is something I cannot address.

Secondly, you're sliding in and out between analysing the characters and the genre. Sure, adventure is fun and necessary in the genre in question, but how exactly does that make the Marauders' actions any less reprehensible from a acharacter analysis point of view? It's two separate things you're talking about.

Yes we were speaking of both things becuase they seemed to tie in together. The tale is related as a past recollection instead of an ongoing adventure. So JKR is just adding an exciting tale in the past for use to read. She could have left it out. But my point is she didn't put it in for ME to sit around criticizing the adventure. That wasn't its purpose as I see it. But if people get off criticizing, great - just don't ask me to join in. I liked the adventure, I don't see anything rephrehensible - no one got hurt, a young boy who was going thru lots of pain was granted a small amount of reprieve and joy at a time when he would otherwise feel incredible pain and spend the time harming himself.

I would never support the argument that Harry should be ashamed of himself for confronting the balisk - so why would I do that in this case? Go for it if you want, but I just don't read the story in that light and don't want to discuss it in that light either. If I saw it as evil deeds (Lupin killing time after time and their continuing to go out) - I wouldn't call it a fun filled adventure. Same with the Balisk or the run at Gringotts or at Luna's house - they were fun to read because nobody died or was horribly injured. 7 Potters wasn't a fun filled adventure for that reason - it was a harrowing adventure.

I guess I am not getting your point. You would have rather had a series where there was no adventure - and everyone behaved like careful, saints? Well I am sure there is literature of that nature out there, but usually in magical adventure tales, it is one adventure after another throughout.

I am not expressing an opinion of the writing, which I love btw, but attempting to analyse the actions of the Marauders. That includes trying to understand their behavior and their attitudes to the way they behaved as this is an analysis thread. And,in my analysis of them I happen to think they did not take seriously the fact that they could easily have hurt someone during their jaunts.

I would never support the argument that Harry should be ashamed of himself for confronting the balisk - so why would I do that in this case? Go for it if you want.
:lol: Well, yes that would be silly as Harry didn't put anyone elses life in danger by confronting the Basilisk. In fact quite the opposite..

But if people get off criticizing, great - just don't ask me to join in.

Um... if you say so.

What I meant was that first you say there's nothing wrong with endangering people's lives if nobody's life was taken in the end, and then you turn around and say how it's out of bounds for crtiticism (for you) because it's good writing and fun to read. Well, these are two separate things and posters argued against the first one. No-one said or even suggested that the writing was lame or that they were bored with it. For the most part, they were saying that getting lucky enough not to kill anyone doesn't make your life-endangering actions ok.

I am not expressing an opinion of the writing, which I love btw, but attempting to analyse the actions of the Marauders. That includes trying to understand their behavior and their attitudes to the way they behaved as this is an analysis thread. And,in my analysis of them I happen to think they did not take seriously the fact that they could easily have hurt someone during their jaunts.

Well I disagree. I think they took it seriously which is why they held Lupin off.

:lol: Well, yes that would be silly as Harry didn't put anyone elses life in danger by confronting the Basilisk. In fact quite the opposite..

That wasn't my point though. If the only point you are concerned about it the lives of "others" then we are speaking at cross purposes. I happened to feel that Harry's life was equally valuable to all others. So his placing himself at dire risk was nuts - sure - but in terms of an adventure story, it had to be done. Same with the Marauders adventure tale, their lives as well as others lives were at risk, reckless, nothing happened, great adventure, move on. I just don't think JKR's point in either case was for me to sit around thinking about the negative results of the 'what if scenarios'. That is just me though.

Um... if you say so.

What I meant was that first you say there's nothing wrong with endangering people's lives if nobody's life was taken in the end, and then you turn around and say how it's out of bounds for crtiticism (for you) because it's good writing and fun to read. Well, these are two separate things and posters argued against the first one. No-one said or even suggested that the writing was lame or that they were bored with it. For the most part, they were saying that getting lucky enough not to kill anyone doesn't make your life-endangering actions ok.

Oh but it is though - if JKR wanted it to happen, it would have. That is my point. If she had made Hermione drown during the Goblet of Fire, instead of being rescued by Viktor - we'd condemn the whole school, Dumbledore, the Wizard World and perhaps even Viktor if he'd been negligent in his rescue. But nothing happened, so it was just a fun filled adventure - because JKR wanted it that way. That is the case here. If she wanted us to heap condemnation, she would have written something for us to condemn.

In other words, 70% of all actions taken in the book were life endangering or reckless in some way shape or form. I don't want to discuss the "what if's" associated with them, because for me it Destroys the Fun and Adventure. I am done speaking about it.

If she had made Hermione drown during the Goblet of Fire, instead of being rescued by Viktor - we'd condemn the whole school, Dumbledore, the Wizard World and perhaps even Viktor if he'd been negligent in his rescue. But nothing happened, so it was just a fun filled adventure - because JKR wanted it that way. That is the case here.

It's not. Dumbledore had made absolutely sure that nobody would drown, so he's not irresponsible - as a character. The Marauders, in my opinion, were (when they were teenagers). Because they got away with all of it on pure luck, as per the text and their own confessions. It's characterisation that's the issue here, and what makes these two cases different, not outcome.

If she wanted us to heap condemnation, she would have written something for us to condemn.

Who's heaping condemnation? It's analysis. Like the title of the thread says.

Well I disagree. I think they took it seriously which is why they held Lupin off.

So, why did they laugh the near misses off? Why did they not consider seriously the possible consequences of continuing with these jaunts after having near misses? I can only conclude they never took the risk seriously.


That wasn't my point though. If the only point you are concerned about it the lives of "others" then we are speaking at cross purposes. I happened to feel that Harry's life was equally valuable to all others. So his placing himself at dire risk was nuts - sure - but in terms of an adventure story, it had to be done.

We all have points to make. Sorry, but Harry putting his own life at risk is very different to the Marauders putting others lives at risk which I think was reckless and thoughtless. If you can not differentiate between the two then I really see no point in continuing this discussion.

If I saw it as evil deeds (Lupin killing time after time and their continuing to go out) - I wouldn't call it a fun filled adventure. Same with the Balisk or the run at Gringotts or at Luna's house - they were fun to read because nobody died or was horribly injured. 7 Potters wasn't a fun filled adventure for that reason - it was a harrowing adventure.

But there is judgment in the books about the Marauders after PoA.

In HBP we have two things that Harry learns about them:

1) Lupin mentions that James called being a werewolf a "furry little problem," and Lupin tells Harry that it is naive to think of it that way.

2) Right after that, Harry returns to school and discovers that two sisters have lost a little brother to "death by werewolf." Harry says something like "Werewolves don't kill people, do they?" which shows that he is as naive as James and doesn't have enough knowledge to judge his father's friends until he is also sixteen or seventeen.

So to me, just those two bits about werewolves alone (even disregarding the werewolf prank on Snape) display a sort of judgment in the canon on the Marauders, that it wasn't all fun and adventure, and that as Harry grew older he understood the danger in what they were doing.

1) Lupin mentions that James called being a werewolf a "furry little problem," and Lupin tells Harry that it is naive to think of it that way.

2) Right after that, Harry returns to school and discovers that two sisters have lost a little brother to "death by werewolf." Harry says something like "Werewolves don't kill people, do they?" which shows that he is as naive as James and doesn't have enough knowledge to judge his father's friends until he is also sixteen or seventeen.Actually, when these two are combined with the Werewolf Incident, it shows James as LESS naive. He KNOWS Werewolves can kill - otherwise he wouldn't have let slip about saving Snape's LIFE.

So - during 5th year - sometime before OWLs - JAMES at least is perfectly aware that Werewolves can kill. IF he isn't then he couldn't have saved Snape's LIFE, because Snape was therefore not in danger of losing his life - since werewolves don't kill.

In other words - at least one of the main leaders of the group releasing WereLupin (I prefer to leave the name Remus for his 'friendlier' side) was well aware that IF they couldn't contain WereLupin he COULD kill someone. And had been fully aware of this fact during 6th & 7th year, while they HAD been releasing him anyways.

The ONLY way this would not be true would be if one of the OTHER Marauders was the one to let slip about saving Snape's life. Either way - that means at least ONE Marauder was well aware that werewolves can kill.

Actually, when these two are combined with the Werewolf Incident, it shows James as LESS naive. He KNOWS Werewolves can kill - otherwise he wouldn't have let slip about saving Snape's LIFE.

So - during 5th year - sometime before OWLs - JAMES at least is perfectly aware that Werewolves can kill. IF he isn't then he couldn't have saved Snape's LIFE, because Snape was therefore not in danger of losing his life - since werewolves don't kill.

In other words - at least one of the main leaders of the group releasing WereLupin (I prefer to leave the name Remus for his 'friendlier' side) was well aware that IF they couldn't contain WereLupin he COULD kill someone. And had been fully aware of this fact during 6th & 7th year, while they HAD been releasing him anyways.

The ONLY way this would not be true would be if one of the OTHER Marauders was the one to let slip about saving Snape's life. Either way - that means at least ONE Marauder was well aware that werewolves can kill.

Good point :tu:

I just can't workout which I find more scary; the person who is too nieve to workout just how dangerous what he is doing really is, or the one who's worked it out but keeps on doing it anyway. :hmm:

Just in case you're wondering, yes, the personal attacks have to stop. It should really not be necessary to remind you of this every few pages.

However, one must wonder whether or not a werewolf would eventually 'bite' in a fight since he was 'clawing'. I certainly wouldn't put it past two dogs in a fight, so I DO think it was always a possibility that Prongs or Padfoot could have been bitten while fighting to control the werewolf - depends upon how 'frenzied' the werewolf was over sighting a 'human' and trying to get to it. True the natural prey was human, but that doesn't mean a werewolf would not bite to get past an animal keeping it from that 'human prey'. I think in PoA, that a bite to Padfoot was a real danger, if Hermione (time-turned) had not let out that howl. (emphasis added)

Sorry but that's movie contamination.:relax:

Thanks Snape's Witch! I really hate it when that happens! Do you remember what stopped the fight between Padfoot and WereRemus?

However, I remember going over this in detail on these forums that Sirius wasn't bitten, only clawed. Am I wrong on that as well? Anyone have the quote?

It makes a big difference, since IF the animagi forms prevent infection even if bitten then the Marauders were never in danger themselves (not that they would know that without one of them actually getting bit).

Personally, I think they were all aware of just how dangerous it could be - otherwise where is the adventure in a full-moon night compared to running as animagi on a non-full-moon night? IF they could teach Peter to transform, they could surely teach it to Remus. Then they could run around as animals without the danger.

And there HAD to be MORE adventure on the full-moon nights or we wouldn't have Sirius wishing for one when he was bored. He certainly wasn't thinking of it as just 'helping Remus' when he said that.

I've always thought James' calling Remus' werewolfism a 'furry, little problem' to be less about naivety and more about trying to make Remus feel better. Part of 'being a pal'

However, I remember going over this in detail on these forums that Sirius wasn't bitten, only clawed. Am I wrong on that as well? Anyone have the quote?

PoA, The Dementor's Kiss
There was a howl and a rumbling growl; Harry turned to se the werewolf taking flight; it was galloping into the Forest -
'Sirius he's gone, Pettigrew transformed!' Harry yelled.
Sirius was bleeding: there were gashes across his muzzzle and back, but at Harry's words he scrambled up again, and in an instant, the sound of his paws was fading to silence as he pounded away across the grounds.

Thanks so much Treacle! Gotta admit this was one of Sirius' finest moments ever! Right up there with living in a cave off rats, just to be nearby if Harry needed him.

I suppose that's how he ended up over by the lake, surrounded by dementors - since the lake is actually even closer to the forest than the willow. I still think 'gashes' sounds more like clawing - and I'm pretty sure we had gone over the fight word by word before - without actual bites being mentioned.

Thanks so much Treacle! Gotta admit this was one of Sirius' finest moments ever! Right up there with living in a cave off rats, just to be nearby if Harry needed him.

I suppose that's how he ended up over by the lake, surrounded by dementors - since the lake is actually even closer to the forest than the willow. I still think 'gashes' sounds more like clawing - and I'm pretty sure we had gone over the fight word by word before - without actual bites being mentioned.

Yes, no bites are actually mentioned.

As the werewolf wrenched itself free of the manacle binding it, the dog seized it about the neck and pulled it backwards, away from Ron and Pettigrew. They were locked, jaw to jaw, claws ripping at each other.


EDIT:

Personally, I think they were all aware of just how dangerous it could be - otherwise where is the adventure in a full-moon night compared to running as animagi on a non-full-moon night? IF they could teach Peter to transform, they could surely teach it to Remus. Then they could run around as animals without the danger.

And there HAD to be MORE adventure on the full-moon nights or we wouldn't have Sirius wishing for one when he was bored. He certainly wasn't thinking of it as just 'helping Remus' when he said that.

Well, if we go on what Sirius said to Harry; James seemed to enjoy taking risks.

You're a lot less like your father than I thought," he said finally, a definite coolness in his voice. "The risk would've been what made it fun for James." (OotP,Percy and Padfoot)

It's not. Dumbledore had made absolutely sure that nobody would drown, so he's not irresponsible - as a character.

Well that point I feel can be shown with positives or negatives. I used a positive scenario, being a glass half full kind of person (others at risk all saved). But I could have referenced the Maze Challenge which led to Harry's adventure in the graveyard. In that scenario, one could find Dumbledore irresponsible or reckless with respect to the champions because JKR set it up that way. He knew Voldy was back and that his agents were already working in ways against them (including getting Harry involved). In that scenario "others" were at risk - all the kids at the school as well as the other champions and Cedric died. JKR decided upon making that risky adventure go that way. She could have made it all work out and the meeting with Voldemort happen completely outside of the challenge - Cedric could have lived and we wouldn't be able to say anything about Dumbledore's arrangements. But she elected not to. That is the point. Dumbledore was reckless in the championship which should have been cancelled under the circumstances; Harry was reckless in those I named, the Marauders running around, Draco on the Tower - they all could have gone awry like Dumbledore's situation if JKR wanted, but she decided to have them turn out fine. I don't want to discuss the what if's in order to try to pin characteristics on the Marauders. Maybe if we had more details, but we don't - we just have what JKR gave us. As I say, if I did that regarding all of the adventures in the book - regardless of the outcome - I would consider every single character in the book a complete loser for their adventure - it isn't a helpful or elucidating exercise, imo.

As I say, if I did that regarding all of the adventures in the book - regardless of the outcome - I would consider every single character in the book a complete loser for their adventure - it isn't a helpful or elucidating exercise, imo.

I think you're saying that every plotline in the books is risky in some way, therefore whatever the Marauders did shouldn't be judged too harshly.

But I would say that the point of discussing the Marauders isn't just to slam them for their adventures. It is to discuss how those adventures fit into the context of the books, and what effect the knowledge of the Marauders had on Harry - the main character.

Almost every time Harry does something in the books, it is compared to what James or Sirius would do. Sometimes he acts exactly the way he father would have - he spares Peter and rushes to the Ministry to save Sirius. Other times, he acts in ways that are probably the opposite of what James would do - he always obeys Dumbledore, for instance, and feels pity for Snape.

I think those are valid things to discuss beyond just the idea of being fun party boys. JMO

Thanks Snape's Witch! I really hate it when that happens! Do you remember what stopped the fight between Padfoot and WereRemus?

It's a confusing scene, but I'd say it was Hermione's scream when she sees Peter grabbing for Lupin's dropped wand. This is right after the paragraph describing Padfoot and wereLupin clawing each other. The werewolf ran off during the distraction of Peter becoming Scabbers/Wormtail.

ill bet James would have had a heart attack if he heard that Harry named his kid severus, but even though the marauders were the coolest guys in school, they were kinda bullies, so im not sure that i think they were honestly all the good of guys in Hogwarts, even though they did become brave and i think nicer after they all graduateddd

It makes a big difference, since IF the animagi forms prevent infection even if bitten then the Marauders were never in danger themselves (not that they would know that without one of them actually getting bit).

I don't think they needed to get bitten to know this - Remus says in the shack that they couldn't keep him company as humans, so they did so as animals, because a werewolf is only a danger (contamination-wise) to humans. Which is why they decided to become Animagi. I'd imagine the books on the Animagus transformation would let them know that a werewolf bite wouldn't infect a transformed Animagus.

Personally, I think they were all aware of just how dangerous it could be - otherwise where is the adventure in a full-moon night compared to running as animagi on a non-full-moon night? IF they could teach Peter to transform, they could surely teach it to Remus. Then they could run around as animals without the danger.

Presumably a werewolf can't become an Animagus. Or, at least, he can't transform into the Animagus form at full moon.

And there HAD to be MORE adventure on the full-moon nights or we wouldn't have Sirius wishing for one when he was bored. He certainly wasn't thinking of it as just 'helping Remus' when he said that.

Perhaps not, but it wasn't just for fun- they wouldn't go through all the additional study purely for fun. Helping Remus was the main motivation and if they had fun, all the better. I'm not condoning running around with a werewolf, I'm just saying the adventure wasn't the only motivation.

I've always thought James' calling Remus' werewolfism a 'furry, little problem' to be less about naivety and more about trying to make Remus feel better. Part of 'being a pal'

That's how I saw it as well. Just like Harry telling Lupin he's normal, and just has a problem. Especially as that's what prompts Lupin to tell Harry about James' referring to the "furry little problem".

I don't think they needed to get bitten to know this - Remus says in the shack that they couldn't keep him company as humans, so they did so as animals, because a werewolf is only a danger (contamination-wise) to humans. Which is why they decided to become Animagi. I'd imagine the books on the Animagus transformation would let them know that a werewolf bite wouldn't infect a transformed Animagus.



Presumably a werewolf can't become an Animagus. Or, at least, he can't transform into the Animagus form at full moon.
Wow! That sure isn't what I thought Remus said. The way I read it he said that werewolves didn't see 'animals' as prey, only humans. I don't recall anyone ever saying that an animagi was safe from a werewolf bite IF one is bitten.

I read it as the 'safety' was in the idea that the werewolf would not see them as prey and so would not attack them. Yet, when they must prevent him from attacking someone else, they could themselves been endangered - depending upon just how the werewolf would fight them.

This just blows entirely my last bit of respect for them. To believe that they KNEW they were never in danger and risked everyone else? Sirus wasn't in the least bit in danger when he fought WereLupin in PoA? James was perfectly safe while he saved Sev?

I cannot convey how utterly disappointed I am. That takes away their bravest acts and reduces them to _________. I can't say what - it would probably be considered bashing. I just cannot comprehend then why anyone would ever admire their characters.

As for Remus learning to be an animagus - I didn't mean he could do that instead of turning into a werewolf. My point was that they could have had the same kind of fun (roaming as animals, chasing each other's tail, howling at the moon) on the nights he wasn't a werewolf - unless, of course, the fun was all in the danger that Remus might get loose and actually bite someone?

But I suppose that was the point - the 'danger'. But apparently only the danger to others - never any actual danger to themselves. I'm ashamed to think I ever saw anything worthwhile in them.

This just blows entirely my last bit of respect for them. To believe that they KNEW they were never in danger and risked everyone else? Sirus wasn't in the least bit in danger when he fought WereLupin in PoA? James was perfectly safe while he saved Sev?

We don't have enough detail about it all to know what they thought about WereLupin's attack on BuddingDeathEaterSnape. But I think everyone is entitled to their opinion on that. Nonetheless, despite their negative opinion of BuddingDeathEaterSnape, James in particular did rescue him - which is quite similar to Harry's later rescue of Draco in the ROR.

Why would you be ashamed of that? James and the Marauders were portrayed as the people whose example Harry strove to follow. So, from the purely objective side, you are supposed to look up at them through Harry. However, from the character side, I don't see anything wrong with finding the Marauders people worthy of admiration. First off, whatever they may have been at Hogwarts, the Marauders (sans Peter) risked their lives to fight Voldemort. James died in a desperate attempt to save his wife and infant son. Sirius died in the Department of Mysteries because he rushed there as quickly as he could because he heard Harry was in danger. He lived off rats in a cave for a year just to make sure he could keep Harry safe. Peter was a loathsome little coward and all, but whatever. Lupin also really can't be blamed as he was forced to become a werewolf. He didn't have a choice in the matter. Bear also in mind that the reason James and Sirius became illegal, unregistered Animagi solely to make their friend's affliction less devastating to him. They risked imprisonment for their friend. There's a lot that was admirable about them, the least of which being that they actually reached out to a werewolf despite the prejudices of the day. They were good people, if maybe a bit foolish. Sure, they got carried away a bit, but in all honesty, they were worthy of Harry's admiration. There is nothing wrong with admiring them.

Reading through these posts, sometimes I think that the main problem with the Marauders is that they didn't like a certain pupil who was destined to become a Death Eater, who also loved and created Dark Magic spells. Just focusing on the recklessness of their actions is ignoring why they took the actions. They did it to support Remus during a very hard time. Their precautions worked because no one was injured of even suspected what was happening. Remus was going through horrific experiences every month and suffering severe injuries from the experiences. Yes they were reckless, but they did it for their friend who deserved a lot more compassion than he received. The fact that that lack of compassion led another pupil to try and get him expelled seems to be ignored.

I don't think anyone is questioning the compassion they are showing for their friend. I've already mentioned I find it admirable they studied and trained to become Animagi in order to make Lupin's transformation more bearable, and have companions helping him feel accepted. However, on the flip-side, feeling and showing compassion for someone, doesn't give them the right to endanger other peoples lives during their excursions. A fear of Lupin's was biting or killing another, that's why the thought still haunted him as an adult. To me, this shows Lupin has matured and grown, which speaks well of him, imo, that he can see that while his friends went to extraordinary lengths to make his life more bearable, he can recognise how carried away and thoughtless they became in regards to the safety of other people. So, what is being discussed are both the virtues and flaws of these characters - character anaylsis. Imo.

The fact that that lack of compassion led another pupil to try and get him expelled seems to be ignored.

Their lack of compassion to towards another student had repercussions, too.

I don't think anyone is questioning the compassion they are showing for their friend. I've already mentioned I find it admirable they studied and trained to become Animagi in order to make Lupin's transformation more bearable, and have companions helping him feel accepted. However, on the flip-side, feeling and showing compassion for someone, doesn't give them the right to endanger other peoples lives during their excursions.

Yes, there are two sides to consider here. They did show much compassion towards Remus which is indeed admirable, but as I see it they didn't fully take into consideration the possile consequences, ie. that they were endangering lives. If they took those consequences seriously, particularly after having some near misses they could have still transformed and stayed within the Shack as they were doing previously.


A fear of Lupin's was biting or killing another, that's why the thought still haunted him as an adult. To me, this shows Lupin has matured and grown, which speaks well of him, imo, that he can see that while his friends went to extraordinary lengths to make his life more bearable, he can recognise how carried away and thoughtless they became in regards to the safety of other people.

:agree:

[QUOTE=Annielogic;5493740]I don't think anyone is questioning the compassion they are showing for their friend. I've already mentioned I find it admirable they studied and trained to become Animagi in order to make Lupin's transformation more bearable, and have companions helping him feel accepted. However, on the flip-side, feeling and showing compassion for someone, doesn't give them the right to endanger other peoples lives during their excursions. A fear of Lupin's was biting or killing another, that's why the thought still haunted him as an adult. To me, this shows Lupin has matured and grown, which speaks well of him, imo, that he can see that while his friends went to extraordinary lengths to make his life more bearable, he can recognize how carried away and thoughtless they became in regards to the safety of other people. So, what is being discussed are both the virtues and flaws of these characters - character anaylsis. Imo.

I agree with you that as an adult Remus recognizes that the Marauders behaved with recklessness. I think so to, but I am bearing in mind how young they were. I can't speak for anyone else but I recall times when I was young and I did some supremely stupid things and I feel bad about them now. But when I was young I felt that bad things happened to other people, not to me. Bad things were done by other people, not by me. Now I did not roam the streets of town luring innocent bystanders to be harrassed or robbed. I mean roaming beach fronts and the hills for hours at a time, by myself and then getting home and being grounded by my mother for worrying her, and yes looking back there were things that happened that were dangerous. Wondering to close to a steep hill, going out to swim on my own in the North Sea. All of these could have ended in disaster, not only to me but to the people who would have had to try and rescue me from my folly. Did I try to create a bad situation? No, I was young and thoughtless. To quoted Wicked, I was having an adventure. This I think is being missed, That young and reckless sense of invincibleness that young people have. I don't think that the Marauders realized at that time that it could be disastrous, when you are that age you don't. Remus only shudders as an adult, but that's called growing up.

Their lack of compassion to toward another student had repercussions, too.

IMO each was as black as the other in the compassion stakes.

I think so to, but I am bearing in mind how young they were. I can't speak for anyone else but I recall times when I was young and I did some supremely stupid things and I feel bad about them now. But when I was young I felt that bad things happened to other people, not to me. Bad things were done by other people, not by me. Now I did not roam the streets of town luring innocent bystanders to be harrassed or robbed. I mean roaming beach fronts and the hills for hours at a time, by myself and then getting home and being grounded by my mother for worrying her, and yes looking back there were things that happened that were dangerous. Wondering to close to a steep hill, going out to swim on my own in the North Sea. All of these could have ended in disaster, not only to me but to the people who would have had to try and rescue me from my folly. Did I try to create a bad situation? No, I was young and thoughtless. To quoted Wicked, I was having an adventure. This I think is being missed, That young and reckless sense of invincibleness that young people have. I don't think that the Marauders realized at that time that it could be disastrous, when you are that age you don't. Remus only shudders as an adult, but that's called growing up.

I agree, a quite a lot of young people don't realise potential danger or realise how precarious mortality truely is. :agree: There are youngsters though who perhaps have maturity beyond their years, for various reasons whether it be personality or something they have experienced, and sometimes tend to be the voice of reason for the others, sometimes getting laballed as a "stick in the mud". But, their advice can be very important. Hermione realised straight away the possible consequences and she was younger then they would have been at the time. Imo.


IMO each was as black as the other in the compassion stakes.

Indeed. :)

[QUOTE=Annielogic;5493748]I agree, a lot of young people don't realize the potential danger or realize how precarious mortality truly is. :agree: There are youngsters though who perhaps have maturity beyond their years, and sometimes tend to be the voice of reason for the others, sometimes getting labeled as a "stick in the mud". But, their advice can be very important. Hermione realized straight away the possible consequences and she was younger then they would have been at the time. Imo.QUOTE]

You know I have always felt sorry that Hermione was the voice of reason as you put it. I think that to be that young and careless is not always a bad thing. The Marauders all died young, I for one am glad they had that time together. They had so much pain in their short lives. When they roamed the woods with Remus no one was hurt, so they could not have been totally careless, so why begrudge them the experience. The other student, I feel sorry for him because he never had that. I cannot think that the budding DE's at Hogwarts would have had any joyous experiences like the Marauders had and that to me is extremely sad. If you can't do at least one crazy thing when you are young, when can you?
I do love that sense of crazy joy that the Maraudes had. Yes, they were not always the nicest kids on the playground, (to say the least.) But, you know I think if the other student had met them half-way, it would have been so different. Ifs, ifs, ifs. I suppose it would have been a different book.

I think that to be that young and careless is not always a bad thing.

Indeed, it is often a learning curve. Sometimes it takes severe consequences for that learning to take place, other times people are lucky and just get a scare for the learning to take place. The Marauders in this instance, had scares but never seemed to learn anything from them as they continued behaving in the same way.

The Marauders all died young, I for one am glad they had that time together. They had so much pain in their short lives. When they roamed the woods with Remus no one was hurt, so they could not have been totally careless, so why begrudge them the experience.

It is not about begrudging an experience, but about what their behaviour tells us about the characters at that time.

If you can't do at least one crazy thing when you are young, when can you?

Well, there are crazy things, and there are crazy things; not all necessarily endanger others lives.
But, you know I think if the other student had met them half-way, it would have been so different. Ifs, ifs, ifs. I suppose it would have been a different book.

I think they would also have had to have budged a bit too. I certainly wouldn't put the onus all on one side.

The Marauders in this instance, had scares but never seemed to learn anything from them as they continued behaving in the same way.

I disagree. James had changed enough by his 7th year to become Head Boy. He also agreed to hide his family from Voldemort, even though he hated being penned up, as Lily said in her letter. Those are two things that I felt showed he had changed, grew up, and became more responsible. I will acknowledge that he was probably always slightly reckless. It was probably the adrenaline rush of the whole thing that got to him. Although that would be total speculation. :)

Sirius improved, too, in my opinion, but maybe not as much as James did. Sirius obeyed Dumbledore's orders to stay in the house at Grimmauld Place (most of the time) even though he could hardly stand to be inactive. I interpreted that to mean that he had changed his behavior and became less reckless.

And the fact that they fought Voldemort and the Death Eaters without getting killed in the first war must mean something, in my opinion.

Sirius improved, too, in my opinion, but maybe not as much as James did. Sirius obeyed Dumbledore's orders to stay in the house at Grimmauld Place (most of the time) even though he could hardly stand to be inactive. I interpreted that to mean that he had changed his behavior and became less reckless.

And the fact that they fought Voldemort and the Death Eaters without getting killed in the first war must mean something, in my opinion.

I was only referring to their behaviour whilst running around with a werewolf at Hogwarts. I agree they eventually improved to some extent, but in the short term they laughed off their close calls instead of doing anything to minimise the risks.

PoA, Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs
A thought that still haunts me, said Lupin. 'And there were near misses , many of them. We laughed about them afterwards.'

[QUOTE=TreacleTartlet;5493758]Indeed, it is often a learning curve. Sometimes it takes severe consequences for that learning to take place, other times people are lucky and just get a scare for the learning to take place. The Marauders in this instance, had scares but never seemed to learn anything from them as they continued behaving in the same way.

Susan Bones answered that in her extremely good post.

It is not about begrudging an experience, but about what their behaviour tells us about the characters at that time.

It tells us they were young and careless, but not totally careles as no one is harmed.

Well, there are crazy things, and there are crazy things; not all necessarily endanger others lives.

No one died. What's the old saying, no harm, no foul.

I think they would also have had to have budged a bit too. I certainly wouldn't put the onus all on one side.

Yes, they would have had to meet in the middle.

I disagree. James had changed enough by his 7th year to become Head Boy.

I'm afraid I disagree with your disagreement... :lol:

James was described as a good student, talented Quidditch player, and a popular boy. His... escapades with the Marauders were never common knowledge and therefore not likely to affect his standing with the teachers.

Hex wars went on through his dating Lily (presumably unreported to the teachers), which also took place in the 7th year. And Lupin was still at school and still a werewolf...

And the fact that they fought Voldemort and the Death Eaters without getting killed in the first war must mean something, in my opinion.

Again I don't see how it signifies any change of the characters. Young Black resented his brother's choice to join DEs, Potter 'always hated the Dark Arts', and Lupin was the Switzerland even then. The only Marauder we do get to see change in that time frame is Wormtail... and the change is not for the better.

Now, I do understand the allure of 'eternally young' characters... but that doesn't mean I have to share it, does it? ;)

Susan Bones answered that in her extremely good post.
Replied in previous post.
No one died. What's the old saying, no harm, no foul
Sorry, but I totally disagree with this, as it just excuses any type of behaviour as long as you don't get caught. I don't see that as a good message to be sending out to anyone myself.

[QUOTE=Daggerstone;5493777]I'm afraid I disagree with your disagreement... :lol:

James was described as a good student, talented Quidditch player, and a popular boy. His... escapades with the Marauders were never common knowledge and therefore not likely to affect his standing with the teachers.

Hex wars went on through his dating Lily (presumably unreported to the teachers), which also took place in the 7th year. And Lupin was still at school and still a werewolf...

Dumbledore must have known about the Werewolf incident, and he was the person who made James head boy. James was defending himself in the hex wars. I for one would think less of him if he just allowed him self to be attacked arbitrarily, and did not defend himself.

Again I don't see how it signifies any change of the characters. Young Black resented his brother's choice to join DEs, Potter 'always hated the Dark Arts', and Lupin was the Switzerland even then. The only Marauder we do get to see change in that time frame is Wormtail... and the change is not for the better.

I think 'resenting' is a poor choice of words to describe Sirius' reaction to his brother joining a bunch of murderers. Appalled, disgusted and very angry would be the words I would choose. James always hated the Dark Arts-sounds like a healthy attitude to me. Wormtail is ......Wormtail, and best left alone.

Now, I do understand the allure of 'eternally young' characters... but that doesn't mean I have to share it, does it?

No, but James is about the only one who died very young. Sirius and Remus both had heartbreak and pain before them. So, no I don't think I begrudge them their adventures.

I'm afraid I disagree with your disagreement... :lol:

James was described as a good student, talented Quidditch player, and a popular boy. His... escapades with the Marauders were never common knowledge and therefore not likely to affect his standing with the teachers.

Hex wars went on through his dating Lily (presumably unreported to the teachers), which also took place in the 7th year. And Lupin was still at school and still a werewolf... I agree that many of the reckless activities were unknown to the teachers. And I agree that the hex wars may have slipped under the radar, too, since we see that happen in the Harry years. But we also see that there were a whole lot of detentions handed out to Sirius and James. Harry spent hours rewriting the cards, so it had to be activities that the staff were aware of. I can only conclude that if the same level of bad behavior had continued, then James would never have been made Head Boy. James was highly regarded by many of the characters, too many in fact to have it be a prejudiced viewpoint, in my opinion.

Again I don't see how it signifies any change of the characters. Young Black resented his brother's choice to join DEs, Potter 'always hated the Dark Arts', and Lupin was the Switzerland even then. The only Marauder we do get to see change in that time frame is Wormtail... and the change is not for the better. Here I disagree. :) I see James the married man as a more mature character than James the teenager. But then, that is just my personal point of view. I see Lupin as older and wiser, almost too old for his relatively young years. Sirius is a different matter.

Now, I do understand the allure of 'eternally young' characters... but that doesn't mean I have to share it, does it? ;) I don't understand the allure of "eternally young characters", either, so I agree with you here.

I don't really like the young Marauders. I know that a lot of people assume that if someone doesn't like Snape, they love the Marauders. It isn't true. I really don't like teenage James and Sirius at all. I lost a little respect for Lupin, and Wormtail became even more disagreeable. All in my opinion, of course.

I don't really like the young Marauders. I know that a lot of people assume that if someone doesn't like Snape, they love the Marauders. It isn't true.

Word. :tu: And the opposite is also true. I think this bears repeating on a regular basis actually...

This is a long post - sorry. :scared:

One thing that always puzzled me is this: if being an Animagus was such a valuable thing to become and could give protection from werewolves, then why was Harry never tempted to become one? Especially since McGonagall is also an Animagus and doesn't try to hide it from the students. One would almost expect Hermione to be the one to figure out the Animagus spell and become another cat woman.

But I think there are mixed messages about becoming Animagi in the books. On the one hand it helps Lupin to have these animal-form friends. On the other hand, it is illegal, yet McGonagall is able to register herself and show her animagus form to young children.

"Yes, indeed," said Lupin. "It took them the best part of three years to
work out how to do it. Your father and Sirius here were the cleverest
students in the school, and lucky they were, because the Animagus
transformation can go horribly wrong -- one reason the Ministry keeps a
close watch on those attempting to do it.

So one strike against becoming an Animagus is that you can't choose your form, so it could be a horrible surprise. JKR mentioned turning out as a warthog, which no one wants to do. There's more about that in Beedle the Bard as well.

Of course, while the Marauders had fun, it is questionable whether a dog, stag, or rat has the same judgment or power as a wizard in human form. We know that Sirius could still think in animal form, but he also describes his emotions as simple, and that he felt weak. He points out that he couldn't use a wand in that form:

Dementors can't see, you know...." He swallowed. "They feel their way
toward people by feeding off their emotions.... They could tell that my
feelings were less -- less human, less complex when I was a dog... but
they thought, of course, that I was losing my mind like everyone else in
there, so it didn't trouble them. But I was weak, very weak, and I had
no hope of driving them away from me without a wand...."

So Sirius is saying that the Animagus state of mind is similar to a human who has lost their mind to Dementors. Therefore . . . how can that be a good frame of mind for young people running around with a werewolf? By Sirius's own definition of the Animagus state, they wouldn't have good judgment when in their animal forms, and I think that's why they had close calls.

Or maybe the message is just that Sirius was in his Animagus form too long in Azkaban, which is why he seems happier when withdrawing into that state when he returns. JKR sort of plays that up in GoF, when Sirius is happily living in a cave eating rats on top of a pile of newspapers, and later at Grimmauld Place when he carries around a bag of dead rats. He also enjoys sitting around with Buckbeak, a rather simple creature, instead of people at times. So I think JKR is showing some of the dangers of preferring the Animagus state to the human state.

Sirius seems like an extreme case, but he isn't - Peter does the same thing to stay alive. James is the only one whose animagus form didn't help him survive the first Voldie War - but he died without a wand, which is similar to being in the Animagus form.

The other difference with James is that because he was a wild stag, and not a domestic pet or small rodent, his Animagus form was really no help at all in coping with his situation at Godric's Hollow. He couldn't transform inside a house with a small baby, and even if they could set aside a room for him to do so, he needed to be more alert, not less alert. JMO

Just focusing on the recklessness of their actions is ignoring why they took the actions. They did it to support Remus during a very hard time. Their precautions worked because no one was injured of even suspected what was happening. Remus was going through horrific experiences every month and suffering severe injuries from the experiences. Yes they were reckless, but they did it for their friend who deserved a lot more compassion than he received.


I agree they were good friends to Remus. I think our problems is: should they do this risking the other people's lives? I think they were really lucky, running with him without anybody being hurt. But does it make their actions less reckless?

I agree they were good friends to Remus. I think our problems is: should they do this risking the other people's lives? I think they were really lucky, running with him without anybody being hurt. But does it make their actions less reckless?

What I always wonder about is why they needed to let Remus out of the Shack? Why couldn't they just stay in there with him, if their idea was to "keep him company"?

I guess it is mainly because James was such a large animal and couldn't be confined. Any other reasons out there?

What I always wonder about is why they needed to let Remus out of the Shack? Why couldn't they just stay in there with him, if their idea was to "keep him company"?

I guess it is mainly because James was such a large animal and couldn't be confined. Any other reasons out there?

They were young kids. How many young kids do you know that like to be confined in a dirty, broken down shack. Of course they wanted outside. And it must kept in mind that it was late at night when all this went on and no one was hurt by it.

They were young kids. How many young kids do you know that like to be confined in a dirty, broken down shack. Of course they wanted outside. And it must kept in mind that it was late at night when all this went on and no one was hurt by it.
Then what did Lupin feel so guilty about? :huh:

"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."

I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust, of course... he had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other headmaster would have done so, and he had no idea I was breaking the rules he had set down for my own and others' safety. He never knew I had led three fellow students into becoming Animagi illegally. But I always managed to forget my guilty feelings every time we sat down to plan our next month's adventure. And I haven't changed..."

No one was forcing the kids into that Shack. It was their idea to go in there in the first place.

And my point was that it wouldn't seem so reckless if they were just spending time trying to help Lupin - which is the excuse they used at the time, the end justifying the means. But in actuality, they did much more than that just for the heck of it.

They were young kids. How many young kids do you know that like to be confined in a dirty, broken down shack. Of course they wanted outside.
Yes, they were young and I can completely understand them wanting to have an adventure, it is only natural. But what I don't get, is that after they had some close calls, they still never thought that maybe they should stop and modify their behaviour in case someone did get hurt.

And it must kept in mind that it was late at night when all this went on and no one was hurt by it.

But they didn't know that no one was going to be hurt. They were bright students, so they must have realised that they couldn't guarantee that no one would be hurt, particularly after they had some near misses.

On the other hand, it is illegal, yet McGonagall is able to register herself and show her animagus form to young children.

I’m pretty sure that being an animagus is not illegal – but not registering that you are attempting to or have managed to learn how to become one is.

I don’t think the marauders did anything wrong in trying to become animagi, reckless to try it alone without any help or guidance, yes; but not illegal. However their decision not to tell anyone was.

By Sirius's own definition of the Animagus state, they wouldn't have good judgment when in their animal forms, and I think that's why they had close calls.

I think that would have happened even if they had their normal level of judgment, the book seems to me to give a fairly strong sense that what they were doing was risky (& that was part of the reason they did it apparently) - if you do something that risky even with the best judgment there are going to be close calls; however I think you have a point when you say that it didn’t help the situation, undoubtedly it made things even more risky.

Or maybe the message is just that Sirius was in his Animagus form too long in Azkaban, which is why he seems happier when withdrawing into that state when he returns. JKR sort of plays that up in GoF, when Sirius is happily living in a cave eating rats on top of a pile of newspapers, and later at Grimmauld Place when he carries around a bag of dead rats. He also enjoys sitting around with Buckbeak, a rather simple creature, instead of people at times. So I think JKR is showing some of the dangers of preferring the Animagus state to the human state.

Interesting – I hadn’t thought of that, you could have a good point there imo. :)

I’m pretty sure that being an animagus is not illegal – but not registering that you are attempting to or have managed to learn how to become one is.

I don’t think the marauders did anything wrong in trying to become animagi, reckless to try it alone without any help or guidance, yes; but not illegal. However their decision not to tell anyone was.

Point taken. :tu: :agree: I didn't express that very well.

And my point was that it wouldn't seem so reckless if they were just spending time trying to help Lupin - which is the excuse they used at the time, the end justifying the means. But in actuality, they did much more than that just for the heck of it.

So what, they were just having fun. As I see it, at least their hearts were in a good place and that is what matters. They had to deal with Snape, whose heart was in a very bad place the whole time they were all in school. Just like Draco's with Harry. That is the point I feel JKR was trying to get across. The Marauders and everyone else had a hard time dealing with budding Death Eaters like Snape and his gang who behaved like bullies - using dark magic on others, calling others biggoted names - looking down on people because the support muggleborns, planning to join up with Voldemort and behaving just like the other Slytherins we saw in the series. I am really tired of listening to people put the Marauders down left and right becuase of things they did that might have impacted their enemy or his ilk negatively. Their enemies deserved it - their enemies were more reckless, unkind, and behaved in a more nefarious manner than they could ever dream of doing. The reckless deeds they did on their own - the only two we know of - turned out fine. Leave them alone.

That is my honest opinion - I've read all the nasty things said about the Marauders. I disagree - I don't think it takes into account what they were up against. I have not and will never forget just how god awful the Slytherins in the series were portrayed and those in the Marauders years were worse from what we saw. In Harry's year they weren't creating dark spells and using dark magic spells on others and all that - the Marauders had it very rough becuase in their years, the kids were more cutthroat, imo.

Anyway, I can only defend what I see is a lot of bagging on the Marauders for what to me is petty stuff - in comparison to the really horrible stuff going on - all of which they were combatting, even back then. That is why they attacked Snape in SWM - and you know what I have to say about that? My honest opinion? Good for them. I am sorry that doesn't mesh with the "reprehensible, horrid, dirty scoundrals" they've been called in this thread, but now you know - there are those of us with a very different opinion of the Marauders. I'm very proud of them and their arrogance when it came to the Budding Death Eaters, especially their enemy, because I think that is what galvanized them to fight the big fight in the end against Voldemort, when their enemy and his gang of friends were supporting the dark lord - and got the Marauders all killed in the end (except Peter). That is the legacy - that is why I can say that as characters I love the Marauders and support them 100% - and I hate their enemies and find them 100% in the wrong and deserving of any negative thing that happened to them - at the Marauders hands or otherwise. JMO.

Just a reminder: Snape if off topic in the Marauders thread, since Snape is not a Marauder.

I keep seeing the "it's okay to do something stupid, dangerous, reckless, etc., if you're young and seeking adventure, and, if no one gets hurt" theme in a lot of posts.

But, there is never a guarantee that no one will get hurt -- there wasn't even a guarantee in the magical world.

You can't excuse all reckless and dangerous acts just by writing it off to someone being young, or adventuresome, or not wanting to be penned up. Putting yourself and other people at risk is irresponsible, and, the Marauders never seemed to learn this, even after several close calls.

And, IMO, the "recklessness" was magnified by the fact that they all knew once they changed into Animagi they would not have the same level of judgement as they did as humans. So, on top of the normal risks, they were adding the additional risks of poorer judgement than usual.

IMHO, the stupid decisions of youth can be understood and, in the best case scenario, forgiven, but not excused or forgotten-- that rather takes away the point of making mistakes in the first place. Not admitting it is a mistake just prevents one from learning to not repeat the behavior and maturing into a responsible adult.

I believe that in PoA, when Lupin exposits on the subject, he partially understands what he and his friends risked and the danger they put others in. He agrees with Hermione that it was dangerous, the near misses "haunt" him, and he calls the behavior "thoughtless." Since Lupin has the dubious honor of being portrayed as the most reasonable Marauder, and Hermione, one of the characters JKR uses as the voice of reason criticizes the excursions, I can only suppose that the nighttime wanderings are meant to be perceived as the irresponsible actions of a group of overconfident (to use kind, Lupinesque adjectives) teenagers. And I would agree with that assessment. :)

I think by the end of the series, most of Harry's illusions about the Marauders have been shattered. They were not always the height of cool, and Harry learns in HBP that they had as many or more detentions as Harry, Ron, and the Weasley Twins. Not everything they did was out of love for Lupin either, and some of it just wasn't funny to Harry, or in general. JMO

Adult Lupin is the last member of the group to disappoint Harry when he nearly leaves his pregnant wife at home by herself to go off on another teenage adventure. Harry has come of age, but Lupin is still trying to relive his glory days. Harry is the voice of reason when he tells Lupin what would be best for his child. Of course Lupin does the right thing and goes home but why does Harry have to shame him into doing that? Maybe for the same reason that child-Harry has to stop Lupin and Sirius from killing Peter in PoA - there's a lack of impulse control going on in the Marauders, even as adults. JMO

Arrogance may just be hyper-self-confidence, and it may be cool for teenagers, but it might not be the best trait for a healthy family life. JMO

In spite of all the wrong things they did, Harry called upon them when he was going to his death in the forest. It was the three Marauders and his mother who he wanted to see, who he needed to help him at the end.

I think that there are many characters who made mistakes, who had flaws and who regretted some of the things that they did wrong.

ETA: It doesn't condone the wrong things that the Marauders did. I don't know why anyone would assume that saying that Harry got comfort from them as he walked to his death would imply that it condones the Marauders wrong actions in their youth.

I think that there are many characters who made mistakes, who had flaws and who realized that they made mistakes in life. The Marauders weren't unique in that regard, in my opinion.


That's true. But no other characters were as idealized by Harry as his parents, Lupin, and Sirius. I think an important part of his coming-of-age story is recognizing their particular flaws because that helps him become his own person instead of following directly in their footsteps. I think there's a message in the books that while Harry loved them, he didn't have to be just like any of them, but had to become his own person. JMO

I think by the end of the series, most of Harry's illusions about the Marauders have been shattered. They were not always the height of cool, and Harry learns in HBP that they had as many or more detentions as Harry, Ron, and the Weasley Twins. Not everything they did was out of love for Lupin either, and some of it just wasn't funny to Harry, or in general. JMO

I would add that in the greater scheme of the series, this is important because despite all that, Harry still loves them no matter what. As he matures, he no longer looks to them as paragons. In fact, the way Harry views many of the adults in his life changes as he comes to a greater understanding of the world around him. It's no longer black and white: Dumbledore's not the clear cut grandfatherly mentor, Snape's not out to kill him in his eeeevolness, Sirius and Lupin have their own demons to face, etc. And he ultimately grapples with these changes by coming to understand and love them not as shining images of good/pure evil, but as themselves.

ETA: What you both said. :rotfl:

[QUOTE=silver ink pot;5493980]I think by the end of the series, most of Harry's illusions about the Marauders have been shattered. They were not always the height of cool, and Harry learns in HBP that they had as many or more detentions as Harry, Ron, and the Weasley Twins. Not everything they did was out of love for Lupin either, and some of it just wasn't funny to Harry, or in general. JMO

Yes, Harry comes to see that the Marauders are not perfect, that's part of growing up. However, Lily and the Marauders are still the ones closest to his heart (among the deceased, that is), the ones he summons with the Resurrection Stone to draw strength and comfort from. That says to me that he sees their flaws and still loves them as his family and extended family.

Adult Lupin is the last member of the group to disappoint Harry when he nearly leaves his pregnant wife at home by herself to go off on another teenage adventure. Harry has come of age, but Lupin is still trying to relive his glory days. Harry is the voice of reason when he tells Lupin what would be best for his child. Of course Lupin does the right thing and goes home but why does Harry have to shame him into doing that? Maybe for the same reason that child-Harry has to stop Lupin and Sirius from killing Peter in PoA - there's a lack of impulse control going on in the Marauders, even as adults. JMO

I don't believe Lupin was trying to relive his glory days by leaving Tonks. I think it was a faulty decision, but I don't see teenage adventure as the reason. I think he felt guilty for marrying Tonks, guilty at the prospect that their child might inherit his condition and dealt with it by running away. A bad decision, but not related to trying to relive his glory days by a longshot, imo.

As for Peter - the same Harry who stopped them had not so long before been on the verge of trying to murder Sirius. The Marauders and Harry were hardly the only characters to act rashly in a tense situation, and this was a highly fraught situation - they'd been reunited as friends after twelve years, and the reason for the Potter's deaths, Sirius' imprisonment and Remus' isolation was here in front of them? I'm not saying they should have killed Peter, but feelings were running high. As for impulse control, they did explain everything to Harry and co. and elicit a poor explanation from Peter for what happened. It's not as though they forced him to transform and immediately prepared to shoot AKs.

Arrogance may just be hyper-self-confidence, and it may be cool for teenagers, but it might not be the best trait for a healthy family life. JMO

I get the impression James had matured by the time he and Lily were married - she wanted someone mature, not the immature showoff we see after their OWLs, so that suggests he did grow out of it.

I disagree. James had changed enough by his 7th year to become Head Boy.

I find this particular evidence problematic, because the behavior to which people on the thread object, the endangering of bystanders with Lupin - is one that so far as we hear in canon never changed even in ear 7, and was unknown to Albus, who made the decision to pick James.

Adult Lupin is the last member of the group to disappoint Harry when he nearly leaves his pregnant wife at home by herself to go off on another teenage adventure. Harry has come of age, but Lupin is still trying to relive his glory days. Harry is the voice of reason when he tells Lupin what would be best for his child. Of course Lupin does the right thing and goes home but why does Harry have to shame him into doing that? Maybe for the same reason that child-Harry has to stop Lupin and Sirius from killing Peter in PoA - there's a lack of impulse control going on in the Marauders, even as adults. JMO

SIP - I'm going to disagree with you a bit here on Lupin's motivations (though not on Harry's disappointment). I think Lupin's motive is a lot more complex than simply a desire to relive his glory days. Maybe it's time to watch some classic monster movies from the 1940s. :)

Lupin is the most haunted of the Marauders because he's the most dangerous. He has a lot of self-loathing over being a werewolf. JKR, in my opinion, borrowed from some very classic werewolf tropes - in particular the Lon Chaney, Jr. characterization of Larry Talbot in The Wolf Man and its various Universal Studios sequels. Larry Talbot is the classic "haunted werewolf," who wants to be anything but what he is and who is tormented over what he is capable of.

In my opinion, by incorporating the "haunted werewolf" trope, JKR is reversing the classic scenario in which a man becomes convinced that his marriage is all wrong because he is restless and needs adventure. Rather, Lupin's desire for a teenage adventure is driven by terror that the werewolf part of his nature will win out in his family. This is consistent with how Lupin has been portrayed since PoA.

Lupin is driven by fear that he has wronged Tonks by the very fact of marrying her and that he has wronged his child-to-be by the very act of fathering him. He is filled with terror that his child will become a werewolf and is full of self-loathing for being so "weak" as to allow himself to marry. In the classic "haunted werewolf" trope that I think JKR is using, these would not be mere excuses for wanting to go on an adventure. These would be his honest personal nightmares... and they are what is driving his desire to go on the adventure.

You ask why teenage Harry has to shame him into doing the right thing. It's because Lupin's terror of his werewolf nature is making him irrational. All he can see is gloom ahead for his family. Of course, Harry is right. No matter how irresponsible Lupin may believe he was to marry, he did marry. He is about to become a father. And his responsibilities are to his family. He should not run away.

To his credit, once Lupin has come to his senses, he later acknowledges that Harry is right - after he whips him across the room, of course. :D

I find this particular evidence problematic, because the behavior to which people on the thread object, the endangering of bystanders with Lupin - is one that so far as we hear in canon never changed even in ear 7, and was unknown to Albus, who made the decision to pick James.

Well, we know he became Head Boy. So, maybe the thing he did was to stop getting so many detentions.

In the classic "haunted werewolf" trope that I think JKR is using, these would not be mere excuses for wanting to go on an adventure. These would be his honest personal nightmares... and they are what is driving his desire to go on the adventure.

I would agree with this. The best days of Lupin's life were during his adolescence. I think his fear of the inner wolf caused him to want to recapture those moments of "freedom" he experienced during the nighttime, ah, maraudings. :whistle: In fact, the moment Harry hits on what is truly motivating Lupin-- calling him a coward-- Lupin hexes him. IMO, those words had a bigger impact on Lupin than Harry calling him a daredevil or saying he's ashamed of Lupin because they really hit the mark.

There's definitely an element of wanting to relive the glory days (something I think always stayed with Lupin to a lesser degree, but was nowhere near as pronounced until DH) but that feeling is mainly brought into sharper relief when Lupin is afraid and longs for his "comfort zone."

Well, we know he became Head Boy. So, maybe the thing he did was to stop getting so many detentions.

It's funny to think that the person with the least detentions might win Head Boy by default. :lol:

More seriously, it's odd that being Head Boy seemed so important at the beginning of Book One, but in the year when Harry might have been Head Boy, none of that even matters.

Lupin is driven by fear that he has wronged Tonks by the very fact of marrying her and that he has wronged his child-to-be by the very act of fathering him. He is filled with terror that his child will become a werewolf and is full of self-loathing for being so "weak" as to allow himself to marry. In the classic "haunted werewolf" trope that I think JKR is using, these would not be mere excuses for wanting to go on an adventure. These would be his honest personal nightmares... and they are what is driving his desire to go on the adventure.

You ask why teenage Harry has to shame him into doing the right thing. It's because Lupin's terror of his werewolf nature is making him irrational. All he can see is gloom ahead for his family. Of course, Harry is right. No matter how irresponsible Lupin may believe he was to marry, he did marry. He is about to become a father. And his responsibilities are to his family. He should not run away.
I admit I was being a little flippant that Lupin was seeking his glory days.I can see your point and I love the "haunted werewolf" idea. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/sip44/Smileys/lupin.gif

But I think there is a reason that Lupin's first impulse was to go off with the kids instead of going it alone or with adults his own age. He probably thought the kids would be less judgmental of his situation, just as his own friends might have been at that age, but he was wrong.

I wasn't commenting earlier on Harry's admiration or love of his parents, and Sirius, and for they were the ones he would have "summoned" or, who would have come to his aid as he faced death. I was only pointing out that the reckless and dangerous actions of the Marauders could not be dismissed just by saying, "they were young and that's what young people do." Or, worse, "what was the difference if they were reckless since no one got hurt?" Irresponsibility cannot be totally dismissed because of age, or because of boredom (i.e., Luping going to the train station with Harry and being spotted by Lucius Malfoy, therefore risking the whole group).

I'm sure that, in a time of such stress, just about anyone would turn to those closest to them, and, his parents and Sirius were the ones Harry loved and looked up to. This is very understandable.

As for Lupin's being the tortured werewolf, that is a good point. I hadn't thought about that, but, it does put a new light on his behavior in DH.

I wasn't commenting earlier on Harry's admiration or love of his parents, and Sirius, and for they were the ones he would have "summoned" or, who would have come to his aid as he faced death. I was only pointing out that the reckless and dangerous actions of the Marauders could not be dismissed just by saying, "they were young and that's what young people do." Or, worse, "what was the difference if they were reckless since no one got hurt?" Irresponsibility cannot be totally dismissed because of age, or because of boredom (i.e., Luping going to the train station with Harry and being spotted by Lucius Malfoy, therefore risking the whole group).

I'm sure that, in a time of such stress, just about anyone would turn to those closest to them, and, his parents and Sirius were the ones Harry loved and looked up to. This is very understandable.

As for Lupin's being the tortured werewolf, that is a good point. I hadn't thought about that, but, it does put a new light on his behavior in DH.

They were young and reckless. There is nothing wrong with that. No one was hurt and quite frankly a lot of what I'm reading is coming across like a lot of old ladies tut-tutting behind their curtains about the youth of today. They shouldn't have done it, it was dangerous and they could have hurt someone. They did it, they didn't hurt anyone and they had a good time as well as helping out their friend. They also grew up and grew out of it. As for Dumbledore not knowing, that I don't believe for a moment. The only wizard LV was afraid of, the greatest wizard of his age not know what was going on ih his school. Please. He didn't make a fuss about it, more like.

As Wicked was saying there was a lot more going on at the time that was a whole lot worse than some kids who had taken precautions running around in the woods once a month.

How to have a pleasant conversation on any topic. (”http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108019”)

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

Read them, understand them and please post according to them! Quite frankly, I'm not feeling the love in here right now.

They were young and reckless. There is nothing wrong with that. No one was hurt

I don't know, I've heard a lot of talk about the emotional scars of bullying being a type of hurt - given the fact that Remus says he is still haunted by the thought of what might have gone wrong so it seems to me that he was hurt, all be it not physically, but what happened. There is also another incident of someone having an incredibly close call but I'm not sure how much we're allowed to talk about that incident - sufficed to say something happened. :whistle:

Given the fact that we are told nothing about the many close calls that happened and we can see that 2 people were hurt I'm left wondering how all those other people who had close calls dealt with them. Meeting a werewolf is supposed to be really scary to say the very least -the difference is that no-one gets to speak for all the people who did have close calls (except the unmentionable one of course! :)). However rumours are still strong about both the shack being haunted & that werewolves roam the forbidden forest despite the fact that neither have shown any evidence of werewolves or being haunted for 11 years - to me that says something about the impact that those close calls had on the members of the public who were involved with them.

They shouldn't have done it, it was dangerous and they could have hurt someone.

:agree:

They also grew up and grew out of it.

I would definitely agree that some of them grew out of it but not all of them (sorry)- I'm sorry but I feel that Sirius at the least did not grow out of it. he moved away but spent the part of his adult life that we get to see still reliving & glorying in the past; he also seems rather unrepentant to me jmho :)

But we agree some of the marauders did grow out of it. :)

As Wicked was saying there was a lot more going on at the time that was a whole lot worse than some kids who had taken precautions running around in the woods once a month.

I have problems with the idea that if others were doing worse stuff then the bad stuff another group were doing is not worth worrying about - to me it feels like saying lets not worry about burglars because there are murders around. Both need to be dealt with and just because one is worse than the other doesn't make it ok imo. (unless I have misinterpreted the idea being put forward in which case I apologise most sincerely) :)

[QUOTE=kittling;5494089]I don't know, I've heard a lot of talk about the emotional scars of bullying being a type of hurt - given the fact that Remus says he is still haunted by the thought of what might have gone wrong so it seems to me that he was hurt, all be it not physically, but what happened. There is also another incident of someone having an incredibly close call but I'm not sure how much we're allowed to talk about that incident - sufficed to say something happened. :whistle:

If we are not made of stone everyone has moments when we are haunted by the things we did when we were young and foolish. As I said earlier, I do. It's part of life experience in my view.

Given the fact that we are told nothing about the many close calls that happened and we can see that 2 people were hurt I'm left wondering how all those other people who had close calls dealt with them. Meeting a werewolf is supposed to be really scary to say the very least -the difference is that no-one gets to speak for all the people who did have close calls (except the unmentionable one of course! :)). However rumours are still strong about both the shack being haunted & that werewolves roam the forbidden forest despite the fact that neither have shown any evidence of werewolves or being haunted for 11 years - to me that says something about the impact that those close calls had on the members of the public who were involved with them.

Remus, as far as we know never bit anyone. As for the rumours they were started and encouraged by DD as a safety precaution. They worked because there were no Remus related injuries. Once that type of rumour starts it takes on a life of it's own and people being people will attribute any noise in the woods to these, well we would call them urban myths. The thing is in the WW urban myths do turn out to be real.

I would definitely agree that some of them grew out of it but not all of them (sorry)- I'm sorry but I feel that Sirius at the least did not grow out of it. he moved away but spent the part of his adult life that we get to see still reliving & glorying in the past; he also seems rather unrepentant to me jmho :)

But we agree some of the marauders did grow out of it. :)

Yes, Sirius is a case of arrested development. He is also someone who has beeen badly damaged for something he didn't do. I have a lot of sympathy for Sirius. IMO he is much more sinned against than a sinner.


I have problems with the idea that if others were doing worse stuff then the bad stuff another group were doing is not worth worrying about - to me it feels like saying lets not worry about burglars because there are murders around. Both need to be dealt with and just because one is worse than the other doesn't make it ok imo. (unless I have misinterpreted the idea being put forward in which case I apologise most sincerely)

I am not saying that the Marauders were the WW's version of the Famous Five and we should pat them on the head and say 'boys will be boys'. I am saying let's use a little perspective. Yes, they were reckless...but no one was injured. They did what they did to help Remus, so as far as I am concerned, their hearts, (even Peter's then) were in the right place. They were not evil little gits out for world domination, (that would have been the other side), they were boys who were trying to help a friend and got carried away with what they actually found they were good at.

That is my honest opinion - I've read all the nasty things said about the Marauders. I disagree - I don't think it takes into account what they were up against. I have not and will never forget just how god awful the Slytherins in the series were portrayed and those in the Marauders years were worse from what we saw.

We have some slight evidence that the Slytherins were worse than Draco's generation, but not much. It does seem to be the case that some Slytherins were going round calling other kids 'Mudbloods'. Other than that, the only textual evidence we have is of Mulciber and Avery doing something nasty to Mary Mcdonald (Lily calls it ‘evil’), but we have no clue as to what that actually was, because Rowling doesn’t tell us. I don’t dispute Lily’s opinion because the author is obviously telling us something significant through Lily’s comment -- albeit of a generic, not specific, nature. We also pick up that some Slytherin kids in the 1970s had ambitions to become Death Eaters – which is, of course, disturbing. But the only Slytherin kids we ever see for the entirety of the series with truly murderous impulses are Crabbe and Goyle. (Draco, for one, takes no pleasure in the thought of Harry’s death.)

I do draw a distinction between the Slytherin schoolchildren and the adults here. I think that’s really important, especially as we are shown far more in the books about the activities of the adult Death Eaters. It does seem to be the case that the First War was probably worse than the Second, in the number of disappearances and murders. But that was all caused by adult Death Eaters.

Therefore talk to me about the threat that James and his friends faced after they left Hogwarts, and I will listen with respect … especially as James and his wife were actually murdered by a brutal, racist psychopath.

But I totally dispute that the pranks of the Marauders during their school years are supposed to be taken by me, the reader, as some sort of serious comment on their alleged feuds with Death Eaters. I’m simply not buying it. Because we are not ever shown the teenaged Marauders doing righteous battle with a bunch of evil wannabe DE teenagers.

All we’re told is that James ‘hated the Dark Arts’. OK, fine. :) Of course I can see that principle in adult James's life with his resistance to Voldemort. What that had to do with schoolboy James blowing up Bertram Aubrey’s head for a laugh is anybody’s guess. :lol: It’s the sort of silly thing the Twins might do, but what it has to do with fighting the good fight against injustice beats me. ;)

In Harry's year they weren't creating dark spells and using dark magic spells on others and all that - the Marauders had it very rough because in their years, the kids were more cutthroat, imo.

As I say above … I don’t believe we are ever shown much solid evidence in the text that the majority of Slytherin kids in the Marauder era were really worse than Draco’s generation. :cool:

And I don’t see where the Marauders in general had it rough at all. They are shown in the text to be a popular gang, led by two charismatic, glamorous Alpha males. It was Remus who had it rough, because of his condition – I totally agree with you on that one. The other Marauders protected him, hence the strong feeling of brotherhood between them. And I think Sirius had it rough too, in terms of his family’s rejection of him – but that’s a discussion more for his thread. I don’t see him having it rough as far as his school career was concerned. He was popular, handsome and had close friends who meant a great deal to him (the gang seems to have been his surrogate family, and he and James seemed to have loved each other like brothers).

Where the rest of the Marauders had it rough (not just Remus) was after they all left school … when they all got caught up in the war and the tragedy that eventually affected all of them. Not one of them escape its dreadful consequences, including the one responsible (Peter).

As for Dumbledore not knowing, that I don't believe for a moment.

He did not know about them being Animagi. Lupin says so in POA.

He did not know about them being Animagi. Lupin says so in POA.

Lupin doesn't know everything that DD knows.

Lupin doesn't know everything that DD knows.

Dumbledore mentioned to Harry that he did not know. :)


Last night Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi,” said Dumbledore, smiling. “An extraordinary achievement—not least, keeping it quiet from me.

Dumbledore mentioned to Harry that he did not know. :)


Last night Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi,” said Dumbledore, smiling. “An extraordinary achievement—not least, keeping it quiet from me.

He said that they kepr it quiet from hm, not that he didn't know. DD plays his cards very close to his chest.

Anyway I thinks it's time to lighten up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inS5YKSYOtc&feature=related.

Well I laughed.

He said that they kepr it quiet from hm, not that he didn't know. DD plays his cards very close to his chest.


Keeping something quiet from someone is another way of saying they kept it secret/hidden from them. Maybe this is a language thing.

I am really tired of listening to people put the Marauders down left and right becuase of things they did that might have impacted their enemy or his ilk negatively.

I thought we were discussing the relative merits of letting a fully transformed werewolf run loose on school grounds... Are you saying Werewolf!Lupin somehow focused on Marauders' enemies alone? I didn't get that impression from the books, could you share a quote with us please?

I have not and will never forget just how god awful the Slytherins in the series were portrayed and those in the Marauders years were worse from what we saw.

Now, which shade of gray would 'god awful' be, hmm? :lol:

That is why they attacked Snape in SWM - and you know what I have to say about that? My honest opinion? Good for them.

Condoning attacking others because one is bored, wwb? What makes the Marauders' motives so different from Mulciber and Avery's, so that we may say 'good for them'? :huh:

Now, I'll probably end up covered with rotten tomatoes, but I don't think the Teen!Marauders were much different from Teen!Enemy&HisIlk - peer support tends to bring out the worst in them. IMO, of course...

I am sorry that doesn't mesh with the "reprehensible, horrid, dirty scoundrals" they've been called in this thread, but now you know - there are those of us with a very different opinion of the Marauders.

:wow:
I hope you reported that particular post, wick. I might dislike the idea of the fight against the Dark Arts tendencies justifying the means of combat, but such descriptors are out of line. :no:


I love the Marauders and support them 100% - and I hate their enemies and find them 100% in the wrong and deserving of any negative thing that happened to them - at the Marauders hands or otherwise. JMO.

*takes notes on expressing one's opinion without receiving warning owls* :tu:

My view of Marauders as a group actually differs from my view of individual characters belonging to that group. What canon offers beyond their teenage years are glimpses into individual characters' actions, and (see 'peer support' comment above) I can't really go into a group analysis of Adult!Marauders - we never get to see them as a group of adults in the books.

Dumbledore mentioned to Harry that he did not know. :)


Last night Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi,” said Dumbledore, smiling. “An extraordinary achievement—not least, keeping it quiet from me.

Thanks for the quote Annie. :)

I also think Dumbledore did not know. If he did, I doubt he would have allowed the Marauders to go roaming around the villages, when there was always a danger of Lupin biting or hurting someone. I don't think he'd take it as fun or as a harmless prank.

Plus, Dumbledore would also have been on the lookout of an Animagus trying to enter the School all through third year, if he was aware of the Marauders becoming Animagi.

Keeping something quiet from someone is another way of saying they kept it secret/hidden from them. Maybe this is a language thing.

No, IMO it's a Dumbledore thing.

Also, IMO WWB makes extremely good points.

He said that they kepr it quiet from hm, not that he didn't know. DD plays his cards very close to his chest.


Lupin also confirms that Dumbledore knew nothing about the other three Marauders being Animagi:

From PoA:

I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust, of course...he had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other headmaster would have done so, and he had no idea I was breaking the rules he had set down for my own and others' safety. He never knew I had led three fellow students into becoming Animagi illegally.

And Dumbledore says that Sirius confessed to him about it, and I don't see why that wouldn't be true

Last night Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi," said Dumbledore, smiling. "An extraordinary achievement -- not least, keeping it quiet from me.

I see no reason why Dumbledore would be lying with that statement. He never once warned Harry about avoiding animals that year, nor does he seem to have asked Lupin about Sirius's form as an animagus.

Harry heard the door of the hall creak open again, and more footsteps.
"Headmaster?" It was Snape. Harry kept quite still, listening hard. "The whole of the third floor has been searched. He's not there. And Filch has done the dungeons; nothing there either."
"What about the Astronomy tower? Professor Trelawney's room? The Owlery?"
"All searched."
"Very well, Severus. I didn't really expect Black to linger."
"Have you any theory as to how he got in, Professor?" asked Snape. Harry raised his head very slightly off his arms to free his other ear.
"Many, Severus, each of them as unlikely as the next."

I take that to mean that Dumbledore was guessing how Sirius entered the school. Being an animagus might have been one guess, but he clearly didn't know since Snape and Filch were searching for a man, not a dog.

Come to think of it, I don't understand why Sirius never admitted to Fudge or someone else that he and Peter were Animagi? :relax: What did he have to lose? He was already in prison, after all.

Lupin also confirms that Dumbledore knew nothing about the other three Marauders being Animagi:

From PoA:



And Dumbledore says that Sirius confessed to him about it, and I don't see why that wouldn't be true



I see no reason why Dumbledore would be lying with that statement. He never once warned Harry about avoiding animals that year, nor does he seem to have asked Lupin about Sirius's form as an animagus.



I take that to mean that Dumbledore was guessing how Sirius entered the school. Being an animagus might have been one guess, but he clearly didn't know since Snape and Filch were searching for a man, not a dog.

Come to think of it, I don't understand why Sirius never admitted to Fudge or someone else that he and Peter were Animagi? :relax: What did he have to lose? He was already in prison, after all.

DD never comes out and says he didn't know. He makes very ambiguous statements. I think he knew.

I see no reason why Dumbledore would be lying with that statement. He never once warned Harry about avoiding animals that year, nor does he seem to have asked Lupin about Sirius's form as an animagus.

:agree: Yes, and nobody was looking or asking for a big black dog seen near the school.


Come to think of it, I don't understand why Sirius never admitted to Fudge or someone else that he and Peter were Animagi? :relax: What did he have to lose? He was already in prison, after all.

Oh, you know, SIP, my impression is that he was just thrown into the prison -without a trial, do you remeber?- and nobody asked him anything more: being a bloody murderer, he just deserved the Dementors as his only company... (I must admit my opinion about the justice in the WW is very, very low... :grumble:)

http://i808.photobucket.com/albums/zz7/capslock_enthusiasm/0013tq84.gif

Locked until you remember your age.