James Potter: Character Analysis v.3

[CrimsonZephyr]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I liked young James' character. He wasn't a perfect boy, he could behave in a bullying manner at times, but he also showed compassion for his friends, like becoming an animagus, and his enemies, like saving them; he disliked the dark arts and blood purism, he was athletic and bright and liked to make others laugh. He seemed to have a good sense of humor and good leadership qualities. His arrogance didn't bother me. James reminded me of Harry with some Ron and the Twins thrown in and I like that characterization, so I liked James' characterization overall.

Yeah, I think that, because we're looking at James throughout the series from Harry's perspective, we end up gauging his personality with impossible standards. James's upbringing was exactly the opposite of Harry's. He was born to elderly, wealthy parents who had him later in life and treated him like an extra treasure. Harry was born to parents who died young and was sent to live with abusive relatives. Ergo, James ended up a bit spoiled and arrogant, while Harry ended being a very introverted child early on. And really, people are far more likely to be like James than Harry. The thing is that James's arrogance, bravado, and obnoxiousness masked his best qualities. And even then, there's no denying that he had an excellent sense of humor. If we were to judge James based on his actions at age fifteen, we'd be disregarding the description of a brave, selfless man that is provided by literally everyone who knew him in life, sans Snape. And Snape only ever knew him as a teenager, from what we know, so is his viewpoint really all that accurate?

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

Not necessarily. Ron for example was made prefect, because Dumbledore felt Harry had too much on his hands at the time. Ron was not the natural choice for Prefect. So a prefect or Head Boy/Girl need not be because they are suited to the job IMO.

In James' case I speculate that since Remus had failed as Prefect to control his friends, Dumbledore made James Head Boy to see if that would make him responsible.

Ron was not Dumbledore's first choice, but that does not mean that Dumbledore did not feel he was suited for the job. There are five boys in Gryffindor for Harry's year - Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, and Seamus. Harry was Dumbledore's first choice and he decided against that because he felt Harry had too many other things to worry about to add to it, but that still left him four other boys to choose from. Of those four, Dumbledore felt that Ron was best suited.

Lupin was a werewolf and was out of school for 3 days every month - and it was also implied that it took him a while to recover after the transformation as well. While that wouldn't prevent him from being a prefect because the duties there were pretty basic and not set with any kind of scheduled patrols or meetings, I think it would prevent him from being Head Boy. Everything I've read about the prefect system describes the Head Boy/Head Girl positions as much more involved - meetings with the teachers, planning/organizing school activities, being in charge of the prefects, etc... It sounds a bit similar to the class president we have in high schools in the US. Lupin being out of school 3 days each month would likely interfere with scheduled activities the Head Boy would be required for. That would draw more attention to his absences and put Dumbledore in the position of having to explain them - as well as why he would choose someone for Head Boy who would be unavailable for certain days each month.

Making someone Head Boy requires them to already be responsible, IMO. There was emphasis put on the fact that James did improve his behavior so I would say that he was given the position of Head Boy because he earned it.

It is canon James was a stag animagus at the time. And as a stag he was not in danger; he romped the grounds and Hogsmeade as a stag with Remus every month. So James was never in danger, for if the werewolf would come near him, all he needed to do was to turn into a stag.

James would not have been able to turn into a stag within the confines of the tunnel because it was such a small space and the stag was a very large animal. Harry had to crouch to walk through it at the age of 13 - by the age of 17, he had to get down and crawl through it. There is no way that the stag would have fit in that tunnel, IMO.

James put his life in danger because he had no other option but to go into the tunnel to get Snape in human form - Snape was far enough in that he saw Lupin at the end of it. There was no way for James to transform in the tunnel so Lupin could have killed James just as easily as he could have killed Snape.

So, James went in as himself and got Snape out, for had Snape died that would mean Remus' death and Sirius in Azkaban. So, I do think James went there for Sirius and Remus, for they were his friends. For Snape, I suppose it depends on how each person views it.

I learned about something earlier this summer that somewhat correlates. I took my kids to an amusement park and one of the roller coasters had been shut down for the day. Turned out there had been a terrible accident the day before and a young man had been killed. He had ridden the roller coaster and his cap fell out of his back pocket in one of the turns. The attendant informed him that they would not be able to retrieve anything from the ground until the next morning - prior to the park opening. The young man was from another state and was leaving that night so he was not going to be able to come back to see if they found his cap. As they walked away from the ride, one of his friends noticed a gap in the fence and said something about it. The young man decided to slip through the gap and try to find his cap on his own - ignoring the danger signs posted all around the fence as well as his friends begging him not to do it. Long story short - he got in and found his cap - just as the roller coaster came around the same turn. The young man was beheaded and killed instantly. His parents were furious, but there was nothing they could do because it was the young man's fault - he chose to go in there in spite of there being danger signs posted.

That's how I view the werewolf incident because Snape made that choice of his own free will. Lupin was never in any danger. Dumbledore had taken the necessary precautions and the students had been forbidden to go near the Whomping Willow so Lupin could not be blamed if a student willfully avoided the protections that Dumbledore put in place and was injured/killed as a result. Lupin was not breaking any rules there - he was precisely where he was supposed to be at that time to separate him from the other students. Sirius didn't break any rules and he didn't force Snape to go down there so that wasn't an issue either. Snape made the choice to go down to the Whomping Willow of his own free will and broke school rules in the process so whatever happened to him would be his fault.

In going after Snape, James actually put his friends at risk because that revealed that they knew about the Whomping Willow when it was supposed to be a secret that only Lupin and certain members of the staff knew about. That would not result in them being expelled or even getting detention because there was no rule against them knowing, but that would have been awkward for Lupin because he wasn't supposed to tell anyone. And that did present a risk of it being discovered that they had become animagi illegally - which would have been a bigger issue. Once Dumbledore was aware that they knew about the tunnel, it is likely that he would have kept a closer eye on it. So James wasn't doing his friends any favors by saving Snape. He risked his own life as well as getting himself and his friends in trouble to save Snape's life. He did that simply because it was the right thing to do, IMO.

Harry was a lot self centred and arrogant at times. But seeing how much he faced, makes these characteristics not much of an issue with me. James IMO had no such excuse IMO.

The issues that Harry faced were not what made him arrogant though. That was something he inherited from his father and would have been part of his personality regardless. He's not quite as arrogant as James because he was neglected and abused, but there are moments where he is arrogant and self centered.

James was arrogant and self centered because his parents spoiled him and because he was good at a lot of things - which is also similar to Harry because Harry was generally only arrogant about things he was genuinely good at.

I don't feel either of them need an excuse to explain why they were arrogant as teenagers - a lot of teenagers are arrogant. Even Ron had his moments where he was arrogant and self centered. They grew out of that as they matured for the most part - though I would say that they would always have been proud in regards to the things that they were good at. I don't see that as a bad thing though.

Harry irrespective of all that he had to face would never laugh at Neville ot Ron like James laughed at Peter. I don't think they are alike at all.

Actually, Harry and Ron did laugh at Neville at times - like when he got the Canary Cream and sprouted feathers. They laughed at Hermione too - when Ron mentioned that Neville had asked Hermione to the Yule Ball, when she got a Quidditch term wrong, and they teased her about her study habits - not to mention her boggart. They also gave Neville encouragement and praised Hermione for her accomplishments. I would say the same was true for James and Sirius when it came to Pettigrew. They laughed when he did something they found amusing, but they also helped him and supported him when he needed it - i.e. with learning to do the animagus transformation. James and Sirius mocked each other as well - like when Sirius was amused after Lily tore into James during SWM.

Friends tease each other. It's generally not a big deal. It might have been for Pettigrew because he was never really James' friend, but I don't fault James for that. Pettigrew put on an act so they would see him a certain way. I don't blame James for falling for that act when everyone else fell for the act as well.

Originally Posted by CrimsonZephyr

I really, really need to ask, but do you expect teenage boys to behave like angels? James was a troublemaker! Hexing people is something that probably wasn't outside the realm of the Weasley twins, either. After all, they shoved Montague into a broken Vanishing Cabinet, a pretty great ordeal considering he was stuck in a limbo for weeks. I mean, when Harry finds the Half-Blood Prince's book, even he engages in a bit of pranking, hexing an unsuspecting and unmagical Filch with the toenail-growth hex.

I agree. I think Jo does make a significant distinction between the types of pranks we see from the Marauders and the twins - and even Harry using the potions book - and attacks done against other students with malicious intentions. The Marauders and the twins are presented as engaging in juvenile behavior and they certainly deserved the detentions they received for such behavior - as did Harry for being irresponsible with the spells he found in the potions book. But they were not evil and they were never trying to hurt anyone, IMO. Irresponsible and immature to be sure, but not evil.

Honestly, I wouldn't consider inflating one's head to be Dark Magic, which is what Snape's Slytherin gang was up to. From what we understand, James's actions were extremely juvenile, but evil, certainly not. I wouldn't label the actions of the Harry-era Slytherins evil, either, until Draco joins the Death Eaters and nearly murders several people.

I agree. We see examples of a lot of different types of pranks involving hexes and curses and they're nearly all things that Madame Pomfrey is able to take care of fairly quickly - or the students themselves if they know the countercurse. That type of juvenile, immature behavior is normal in teenagers, IMO. It is something that requires discipline so they learn not to do that kind of thing, but it pales in comparison to malicious attacks done with the specific goal of hurting someone, IMO.

It must have improved tremendously if Dumbledore passed over every other prefect in the school, including Lupin, and made him Head Boy instead. I think Lily tearing him a new one in SWM really humiliated him, to some extent. He asked her up front whether she'd go out with him, and she said that, not only would she refuse, but that he made her sick. And from what Sirius and Lupin say, James's behavior really improved, as he stopped hexing bystanders for fun (with the exception of Snape, who never wasted an opportunity to attack him), and eventually won Lily over.

That's a good point. Dumbledore had 4 prefects to choose from for the position of Head Boy for James' seventh year. And, since James got it and was never a prefect, we can add the rest of the male students in James' seventh year to that as well since that was not a choice limited among the existing prefects. I don't believe that Dumbledore would have given that position to James over all of those other students if he had not earned it.

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I liked young James' character. He wasn't a perfect boy, he could behave in a bullying manner at times, but he also showed compassion for his friends, like becoming an animagus, and his enemies, like saving them; he disliked the dark arts and blood purism, he was athletic and bright and liked to make others laugh. He seemed to have a good sense of humor and good leadership qualities. His arrogance didn't bother me. James reminded me of Harry with some Ron and the Twins thrown in and I like that characterization, so I liked James' characterization overall.

Completely agree.

[CathyWeasley]

Originally Posted by Beatifically

However, not to be argumentative, but is it clear that James changed only because of Lily? I dunno, to me it seemed more likely that he matured naturally as all people do. Lily may have been a factor, but I don't know if she was the only one in his change of behavior.

Interesting question. It is very difficult IMO to seperate out what was due to Lily's rejection and what was due to him growing up. We do see that he had a certain level of sense and that there were lines he wouldn't cross from the Whomping Willow incident. The trouble is I've got it stuck in my head that Lily and James are kind of like Lizzie and Darcy from Pride and Prejudice. I cannot help but compare the conversation in SWM between Lily and James with Darcy's first proposal. "You are the last man I could ever be prevailed upon to marry" does sound to me like an earlier version of "I'd rather go out with the giant squid" As such I don't feel that I can view this subject with anything akin to objectivity!
Any other Jane Austen fans see a similarity?

Originally Posted by crimsonZephyr

The thing is that James's arrogance, bravado, and obnoxiousness masked his best qualities. And even then, there's no denying that he had an excellent sense of humor.

Yeah I totally agree with this.

If we were to judge James based on his actions at age fifteen, we'd be disregarding the description of a brave, selfless man that is provided by literally everyone who knew him in life, sans Snape. And Snape only ever knew him as a teenager, from what we know, so is his viewpoint really all that accurate?

Well I think Snape is entitled to his opinion of James as much as anyone else. Given that James married the woman he loved it is unlikely that Severus could be objective in his opinion of James - and IMO he certainly wasn't, but I don't think he was inaccurate. Severus did not see the best in James because James did not show Severus his best side. Most other characters did see the best side of James and perhaps (with the exception of Lily) did not see his worst behaviour. So IMO Severus's opinion of James adds balance to the readers view of him. Most other characters think he was great - and mostly he was. But Severus (one character) thought he was a nasty piece of work and very occasionally he could be a nasty piece of work. That is the way I see it anyway.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

The (somewhat) ambivalent canon we have is that James matured after SWM. We either take that statement at face value or we don't.

I don't set much store by it, because it came from Sirius and Remus. Did Dumbledore say something positive about James anywhere? (I can't remember).

I don't think we can say he would exactly have been delighted at the prospect of a fellow student, even a student he disliked, meeting a bloody and violent death.

I never said he would be delighted that Snape would be chewed inside out by Remus. I feel that James went inside primarily for Sirius and Remus than Snape.

If she wanted to paint James in a good light, that is.

I actually think she does not want to paint James in a good light, for all the sweet things she says about him in her interviews.

James, Sirius, Remus and Peter all have serious flaws and I think JKR means to say that simply fighting on the side of the Light or because one does not take the Dark Mark, one is not automatically good. I've seen that in in her portrayal of the Marauder's, Lily, Dung, Umbridge, Fudge and others, who are not good people, and yet (some of them) were brave, and would never think about taking the Dark Mark and were prepared to fight to the death for their cause.

And she shows the contrast in Snape, Narcissa, Draco and Regulus, when she says DEs too can change, they too love and would die for their child, the child of a DE and a DE himself too, was unable to kill, even when he knew it would probably mean the death of his parents and that a DE could protect his House elf, when an Order member would die because he did not treat his House elf better IMO.

If she made Snape hand over the Prophecy, she also made James and Lily take stupid decisions; if she made Regulus a DE, she made Sirius guilty of the werewolf incident. If she made Peter betray the Potters, she also showed how poor judges of people the Potters were, in trusting a boy who showed time and again he was never their friend.

Likewise, while she says glowing things about the Marauders in her interviews, I think she has not portrayed them so in her Books in my opinion. James and the other Marauder's have faults, a lot of them, and some of them go towards making James and the others not very nice people at all.

Did he grow up? Sirius says so, but then he goes on to say in the same breath that Lily never knew about James hexing Snape. So I am not sure James grew up, really, but I do think he grew up enough to hide from Lily, what she would disapprove. Which IMO does not make him changed at all.

Originally Posted by eliza101

it seems quite clear to me that Remus and Sirius felt bad about the distrust the sprang up over the Potter's deaths and were only too glad to forgive each other.

I am not very sure. I think Remus was hurt very badly that he was thought a traitor because of his curse. I think that was why he never went to see Harry and he never told Harry he was James' friend.

Meesha has already pointed out the difficulties with that theory so I won't go into that except to say that I thought it would be highly improbable as well.

Why is James turning into a stag if there was danger improbable?

Originally Posted by Beatifically

But of all the males in their year, he chose James. It's not as if he had to choose between the Marauders on who should be Head Boy; he had to choose with a handful of students.

Remus, one of the Marauders was unable to control the others IMO. And the Marauders could not be controlled by other students. I think Dumbledore chose James, because he knew Remus was not up to it and he would not choose Sirius after the werewolf incident. I think he picked James so that James would pipe down and become more responsible.

Er, when did Harry laugh at Peter? The only thing close to that would be how James couldn't understand why Peter couldn't identify qualities of a werewolf, but he wasn't mocking him then.

posted by Me
Harry irrespective of all that he had to face would never laugh at Neville ot Ron like James laughed at Peter. I don't think they are alike at all.

I never said Harry laughed at Peter. I said Harry would have never treated his friends, like James treated his.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

I don't set much store by it, because it came from Sirius and Remus.

Right, so because Remus and Sirius were a couple of prats in 1975, anything they have to say in 1995 (the timeline of OotP) is suspect.

Did Dumbledore say something positive about James anywhere? (I can't remember).

He may have said a few nice words to Harry ...

I never said he would be delighted that Snape would be chewed inside out by Remus. I feel that James went inside primarily for Sirius and Remus than Snape.

You may well be right.

I actually think she does not want to paint James in a good light, for all the sweet things she says about him in her interviews.

I don't think any of us can claim to read her mind.

James, Sirius, Remus and Peter all have serious flaws and I think JKR means to say that simply fighting on the side of the Light or because one does not take the Dark Mark, one is not automatically good. I've seen that in in her portrayal of the Marauder's, Lily, Dung, Umbridge, Fudge and others, who are not good people, and yet (some of them) were brave, and would never think about taking the Dark Mark and were prepared to fight to the death for their cause.

Well ... yeah. That's what I take from the Potterverse too.

If she made Snape hand over the Prophecy, she also made James and Lily take stupid decisions; if she made Regulus a DE, she made Sirius guilty of the werewolf incident. If she made Peter betray the Potters, she also showed how poor judges of people the Potters were, in trusting a boy who showed time and again he was never their friend.

Well, again ... yeah.

But this thread is about James ... his character flaws, and, just maybe, why he isn't a total dead loss.

I am not very sure. I think Remus was hurt very badly that he was thought a traitor because of his curse. I think that was why he never went to see Harry and he never told Harry he was James' friend.

I'll answer this in the Remus thread ...

[padfootmarauder]

What do you think about James throwing himself in Voldemort's way and dying wandless? Foolish or very brave or both?
My answer: Brave. James was desperate. He never expected that he was going to be betrayed so he wasnt on his guard with his wand on him. By the time he realised it was too late so he tried to protect his wife and son any way he could. I think that's the sort of bravery that got him in Gryffindor.
James is Harry’s father but he died before Harry had the chance to get to know him. Is he a good role model? Would he have become a good father?
Ans: Yes he is. By the time he became a father he was an ideal, mature role model who knew what it was like to have to "deflate his head"


How has he influenced Harry’s present life?
Ans: By his friends. Almost every one he met liked him. He had two very good friends who helped him from when they met him to the time he had to face Voldemort in the Forest. Besides, where would Harry be without the Marauders Map??

Why did James chose Sirius over Dumbledore as Secret Keeper? Didn’t he trust Dumbledore with his life?
Ans: Of course he trusted Dumbledore but Sirius was his best friend. It's only natural


James made Sirius Harry’s godfather. Was this a good decision?
Ans: Of course it was. I love Padfoot and i think he was the one who helped Harry understand his dad the most because Sirius was exactly like him. He matured over time too and he was the one who helped Harry remove the doubts Snape's worst memory awoke in him


We got bits and pieces of James’ life. Has he matured over the years and become a better person?
Ans : Yes, otherwise Lily would'nt have married him


What was James’ relationship to Lily Evans/Sirius Black/Peter Pettigrew/Remus Lupin/Albus Dumbledore/Minerva McGonagall/Frank and Alice Longbottom?
Ans: Though different to all , all of them knew him as a person to be respected and loved, as a brave man whom you could trust with your life.


How did DH change your view on James Potter?
Ans:Not much at all. In fact it boosted my view of him as the ideal Gryffindor


How did Lily's friendship with Snape influence James' behaviour?
Ans : He just liked Snape less, i guess


James supported his friend Remus Lupin financially after school. How do you interpret this piece of information?
Ans: I would expect nothing less of him. He would do anything and everything to help his friends out


James and Lily were full-time Order members. How long do you think they kept fighting before they went into hiding? What does this say about James' character?
Ans: Knowing James , he would stay till the very end . We saw how restless he got stuck in the house. He would have done everything he could before he couldnt do anymore

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

I don't set much store by it, because it came from Sirius and Remus. Did Dumbledore say something positive about James anywhere? (I can't remember).

James was regarded as a hero by the wizarding world in general and was generally thought highly of. Hagrid speaks well of James and Lily, as did McGonagall and Dumbledore. We have no reason not to believe Sirius and Lupin - particularly when they both admitted that they were all prats when they were 15, IMO.

I never said he would be delighted that Snape would be chewed inside out by Remus. I feel that James went inside primarily for Sirius and Remus than Snape.

But James going down there to save Snape put himself and his friends at risk for getting in trouble because that revealed they knew about the Whomping Willow - which Lupin was not supposed to tell anyone about - and that meant that Dumbledore would likely keep a closer eye on it so that put them at risk for being caught in regards to becoming animagi illegally. If James wanted to avoid that, the logical thing would have been for him to stay out of it and let Snape be killed - nobody would have known what happened, how Snape got past the Whomping Willow, or that the Marauders knew anything about it. I don't see where you get the idea that he went down there for Sirius and Lupin when he was putting them all at risk by doing so.

If she made Snape hand over the Prophecy, she also made James and Lily take stupid decisions; if she made Regulus a DE, she made Sirius guilty of the werewolf incident. If she made Peter betray the Potters, she also showed how poor judges of people the Potters were, in trusting a boy who showed time and again he was never their friend.

I don't recall Jame and Lily making any stupid decisions, Sirius didn't force Snape to go down to the Whomping Willow, and Pettigrew had proven time and time again that he was a loyal friend to James over the 10 years that they knew each other. So I'm not certain what you are referring to with all of that.

Likewise, while she says glowing things about the Marauders in her interviews, I think she has not portrayed them so in her Books in my opinion. James and the other Marauder's have faults, a lot of them, and some of them go towards making James and the others not very nice people at all.

Having faults doesn't make them bad people - it makes them more realistic characters, IMO.

Did he grow up? Sirius says so, but then he goes on to say in the same breath that Lily never knew about James hexing Snape. So I am not sure James grew up, really, but I do think he grew up enough to hide from Lily, what she would disapprove. Which IMO does not make him changed at all.

Dumbledore made James Head Boy in his seventh year - he would not have done so if James was still going around hexing people just for the fun of it, IMO. And James was regarded quite highly as an adult within the Order. I think we are shown that James did grow up and stop the immature behavior that Lily criticized him for when they were 15 years old. That doesn't mean he lost his sense of humor or became staid and dull - just more responsible in how he handled himself.

I am not very sure. I think Remus was hurt very badly that he was thought a traitor because of his curse. I think that was why he never went to see Harry and he never told Harry he was James' friend.

That couldn't have had anything to do with why he never visited Harry because Lupin never had any reason to think that Sirius suspected him of being a spy before that night in the Shrieking Shack. It was realizing that Pettigrew was alive and they had switched secret keepers without telling him that led to him figuring it out that night. He didn't know about it before.

There are a lot of reasons why Lupin would not have visited Harry, IMO. Losing his closest friends in that manner would have been very painful for him - James and Lily murdered by Voldemort, Sirius appearing to have betrayed them and sent to Azkaban, Pettigrew apparently murdered by Sirius - Lupin lost every close friend he had within 24 hours. I think it would have been very painful for him to visit Harry and be reminded of what he had lost. In addition, we have to consider the Dursleys - the protection charm that Dumbledore placed on #4 Privet Dr. was contingent upon Petunia agreeing to let Harry live there. Would she have continued to let Harry live there if it meant accepting visits from wizards? Mrs. Figg was instructed to not be too nice to Harry so the Dursleys would continue to allow her to babysit for him. It's just as likely that Dumbledore asked Lupin not to visit Harry to avoid upsetting Petunia and risking her refusing to let Harry live there, IMO.

There is no evidence that Lupin was hurt by that at all, IMO. Lupin was very matter of fact about that when he mentioned it in the Shrieking Shack and he forgave Sirius for it immediately. I would say that it's fairly obvious that Lupin felt that Sirius had a good reason for believing that and that's why he forgave him. Just as Sirius forgave Lupin immediately because he understood that the evidence had been against him at the time.

Why is James turning into a stag if there was danger improbable?

Because the tunnel was too small for him to be able to transform into the stag. At the age of 17, Harry had to crawl through it. It would be impossible for a large stag to fit in that tunnel, IMO. James went in the tunnel to get Snape knowing that he would be unable to transform in there, IMO.

Remus, one of the Marauders was unable to control the others IMO. And the Marauders could not be controlled by other students. I think Dumbledore chose James, because he knew Remus was not up to it and he would not choose Sirius after the werewolf incident. I think he picked James so that James would pipe down and become more responsible.

I find that illogical. If James had not already proven himself to be responsible, then making him Head Boy would only give him more freedom to be irresponsible and get away with it, IMO. I think Dumbledore was much smarter than that. He would not have made James Head Boy if James had not proven himself to be responsible enough to handle the position, IMO.

I never said Harry laughed at Peter. I said Harry would have never treated his friends, like James treated his.

But we are shown similarities in that regard. Harry and Ron frequently teased Hermione in a similar manner to how James and Sirius teased Pettigrew. They rolled their eyes at each other when she said something they didn't agree with, they mocked her study habits, laughed at her about her boggart, laughed when she got Quiddich terms wrong, etc... They laughed about Neville asking Hermione to the Yule Ball, the three of them mocked Luna's odd ideas - though Hermione was more rude about that than Harry and Ron were - and so on and so forth. Friends often tease each other or laugh at each other when they do something silly or amusing. That's normal, IMO. It doesn't mean the friendship is weak. It just means they are comfortable with each other, IMO.

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

James was regarded as a hero by the wizarding world in general and was generally thought highly of. Hagrid speaks well of James and Lily, as did McGonagall and Dumbledore. We have no reason not to believe Sirius and Lupin - particularly when they both admitted that they were all prats when they were 15, IMO.



But James going down there to save Snape put himself and his friends at risk for getting in trouble because that revealed they knew about the Whomping Willow - which Lupin was not supposed to tell anyone about - and that meant that Dumbledore would likely keep a closer eye on it so that put them at risk for being caught in regards to becoming animagi illegally. If James wanted to avoid that, the logical thing would have been for him to stay out of it and let Snape be killed - nobody would have known what happened, how Snape got past the Whomping Willow, or that the Marauders knew anything about it. I don't see where you get the idea that he went down there for Sirius and Lupin when he was putting them all at risk by doing so.



I don't recall Jame and Lily making any stupid decisions, Sirius didn't force Snape to go down to the Whomping Willow, and Pettigrew had proven time and time again that he was a loyal friend to James over the 10 years that they knew each other. So I'm not certain what you are referring to with all of that.



Having faults doesn't make them bad people - it makes them more realistic characters, IMO.



Dumbledore made James Head Boy in his seventh year - he would not have done so if James was still going around hexing people just for the fun of it, IMO. And James was regarded quite highly as an adult within the Order. I think we are shown that James did grow up and stop the immature behavior that Lily criticized him for when they were 15 years old. That doesn't mean he lost his sense of humor or became staid and dull - just more responsible in how he handled himself.



That couldn't have had anything to do with why he never visited Harry because Lupin never had any reason to think that Sirius suspected him of being a spy before that night in the Shrieking Shack. It was realizing that Pettigrew was alive and they had switched secret keepers without telling him that led to him figuring it out that night. He didn't know about it before.

There are a lot of reasons why Lupin would not have visited Harry, IMO. Losing his closest friends in that manner would have been very painful for him - James and Lily murdered by Voldemort, Sirius appearing to have betrayed them and sent to Azkaban, Pettigrew apparently murdered by Sirius - Lupin lost every close friend he had within 24 hours. I think it would have been very painful for him to visit Harry and be reminded of what he had lost. In addition, we have to consider the Dursleys - the protection charm that Dumbledore placed on #4 Privet Dr. was contingent upon Petunia agreeing to let Harry live there. Would she have continued to let Harry live there if it meant accepting visits from wizards? Mrs. Figg was instructed to not be too nice to Harry so the Dursleys would continue to allow her to babysit for him. It's just as likely that Dumbledore asked Lupin not to visit Harry to avoid upsetting Petunia and risking her refusing to let Harry live there, IMO.

There is no evidence that Lupin was hurt by that at all, IMO. Lupin was very matter of fact about that when he mentioned it in the Shrieking Shack and he forgave Sirius for it immediately. I would say that it's fairly obvious that Lupin felt that Sirius had a good reason for believing that and that's why he forgave him. Just as Sirius forgave Lupin immediately because he understood that the evidence had been against him at the time.



Because the tunnel was too small for him to be able to transform into the stag. At the age of 17, Harry had to crawl through it. It would be impossible for a large stag to fit in that tunnel, IMO. James went in the tunnel to get Snape knowing that he would be unable to transform in there, IMO.



I find that illogical. If James had not already proven himself to be responsible, then making him Head Boy would only give him more freedom to be irresponsible and get away with it, IMO. I think Dumbledore was much smarter than that. He would not have made James Head Boy if James had not proven himself to be responsible enough to handle the position, IMO.



But we are shown similarities in that regard. Harry and Ron frequently teased Hermione in a similar manner to how James and Sirius teased Pettigrew. They rolled their eyes at each other when she said something they boggart, laughed when she got Quiddich terms wrong, etc... They laughed about Neville asking Hermione to the Yule Ball, the three of them mocked Luna's odd ideas - though Hermione was more rude about that than Harry and Ron were - and so on and so forth. Friends often tease each other or laugh at each other when they do something silly or amusing. That's normal, IMO. It doesn't mean the friendship is weak. It just means they are comfortable with each other, IMO.

I have to agree with all your points here. You have said them much better than I ever could.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

I don't set much store by it, because it came from Sirius and Remus. Did Dumbledore say something positive about James anywhere? (I can't remember).

Dumbledore said at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban:

"I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry. He would have saved Pettigrew too, I am sure of it."
American Edition, page 427.

This is the one direct quote I could find. Harry doesn't ask Dumbledore about his parents often. It's mostly Lupin and Sirius who tell him about his parents because they knew, at least James, best. That doesn't necessarily make their information false.

But this quote essentially says that James was essentially a very merciful man. Even if he had survived, he wouldn't have killed Peter for his betrayal.

I never said he would be delighted that Snape would be chewed inside out by Remus. I feel that James went inside primarily for Sirius and Remus than Snape.

With all due respect, I don't think this is true, and there's no canon to support that this is true. Only Snape would share your opinion, actually, and his view of James is slanted so far in the negative direction that you have to question the veracity of most of his rants against James, because although he was right about James's arrogance, he never saw any of James's great good qualities, and therefore he was determined - nay, desperate - to find even the slightest negative pretext for any act of heroism James showed him.

With that in mind, let's step back and look at the situation from square one. Sirius told Snape how to get past the Whomping Willow. Remus was, at the time, transformed within the Shack. Throughout the series, we get glimpses of Sirius having a slight vicious streak that comes out in times of great anger. We never see that with James. He was immature and juvenile, but would he knowingly dare a fellow student to do something that would likely result in their death? I think not. James's pranks were practical jokes; physically harmless harassment that never went to Sirius's level. Sirius wasn't in danger of being expelled because only Snape knew Sirius had told him. If Snape had died, Remus probably would have been forced out of the school because of the anti-werewolf furor that would have followed, but I don't believe for a second that James would have willingly let another student go to their death, even if the dangerous werewolf at the end was his best friend. Let's go back to the Shrieking Shack, and Dumbledore's thoughts on how James would have reacted. We're seeing a contrast between James and Sirius. While they're like brothers, Sirius is more ruthless than James. James would have saved Pettigrew, while Sirius was more than ready to kill him with Remus.

And, in the end, a life saved is a life saved. It's just my opinion, but I think you're setting too much store by Snape's assessment of the situation, even though his viewpoint is tinged with hatred. Therefore, it has to be a part of a larger body of evidence or tossed, because the only things his opinions provide is a lifetime's worth of vitriol when taken alone.

I actually think she does not want to paint James in a good light, for all the sweet things she says about him in her interviews.

James, Sirius, Remus and Peter all have serious flaws and I think JKR means to say that simply fighting on the side of the Light or because one does not take the Dark Mark, one is not automatically good. I've seen that in in her portrayal of the Marauder's, Lily, Dung, Umbridge, Fudge and others, who are not good people, and yet (some of them) were brave, and would never think about taking the Dark Mark and were prepared to fight to the death for their cause.

And she shows the contrast in Snape, Narcissa, Draco and Regulus, when she says DEs too can change, they too love and would die for their child, the child of a DE and a DE himself too, was unable to kill, even when he knew it would probably mean the death of his parents and that a DE could protect his House elf, when an Order member would die because he did not treat his House elf better IMO.

I vehemently disagree. This could not be further from the truth. Throughout the story, we see examples of people speaking fondly of Lily and James, as though they were fallen martyrs, heroes who gave their lives so that others could live a better life and so that their son could live in a more peaceful world. SWM prevents them from being Mary Sue'd. She shows that even the greatest people had to overcome flaws and shortcomings to become the exceptional people that they're capable of being.

And I think it's a bit insulting to the Marauders (minus Peter) and Lily to compare them to Mundungus Fletcher, Cornelius Fudge, and Dolores Umbridge. Dung and Fudge are abject cowards and supremely selfish people, caring only for their personal enrichment and, in Fudge's case, high offices, while the wizarding world burned around them. Dung left Mad-Eye Moody to be killed mercilessly in DH, and throughout the series he was nothing more than a common criminal. And Umbridge...I doubt you can find anything good about her. She was a sadistic, bureaucratic old fool who took pleasure in controlling and torturing the students of Hogwarts, and later Muggle-borns. These three people are so far from what James, Lily, Remus, and Sirius represent, and it's frankly a false comparison, in my opinion. JLRS are fundamentally good people but with flaws that they address.

I simply cannot support, however, the further comparison and veneration of Snape, Narcissa, Draco, and Regulus. Let's start with Snape. In his early life, we are shown that he has a passion for the Dark Arts and that he and his gang of Slytherin friends (including Rosier, Wilkes, Avery, and Mulciber) utilized Dark Magic against students for amusement. Then, Snape becomes a Death Eater with these very same people, supporting an ideology and leader who advocates the eradication of Muggle-borns. Throw in the fact that he had a strong infatuation for Lily Evans, but this soured because of his fascination for the Dark Arts, and you have the gist of Snape's childhood. Overall, by this point, he was not a good man. Then we have the prophecy. Honestly, if it had referred to the Longbottoms, I highly doubt that Snape would have budged. The only person he gave a damn about was Lily. It even took Dumbledore's prodding to agree that James and Harry should be protected as well. If you re-read The Prince's Tale, it shows that Snape requested that Lily be saved. Only her. But what if Voldemort had decided Neville must die? Snape wouldn't have cared. It would not have affected him personally, so he would have let an innocent child die. That's my opinion of it, at least.

Then we have Narcissa, Draco, and Regulus. For the longest time, they supported Voldemort. They were all right with the killing of Muggle-borns and the reworking of the wizarding community by Voldemort. It was only when they fell from grace did the Malfoys have a change of heart. It was only when they were personally affected did they recant their previous association with Voldemort. The same largely goes for what we see of Regulus. Voldemort personally affected him, and he turned. Before then, however, he was perfectly happy to support him.

Bringing this back to James Potter, Lily Potter, and the Order at large, there is a huge difference. They were always opposed to Voldemort. They fought him not because they were finally negatively affected by him, but because it was simply the right thing to do. Morally, in my opinion, that shows a great deal more heroism than four characters who start their lives supporting evil only to turn when they realize that things are turning against them. It's a matter of selflessness versus selfishness, in my opinion.

If she made Snape hand over the Prophecy, she also made James and Lily take stupid decisions; if she made Regulus a DE, she made Sirius guilty of the werewolf incident. If she made Peter betray the Potters, she also showed how poor judges of people the Potters were, in trusting a boy who showed time and again he was never their friend.

Again, the callousness in this comparison is kind of sad, to be honest. As I said before, Snape handed in the Prophecy willingly to his master, and it was only when Voldemort's decision personally affected him did he have a moment's contrition. If the prophecy was interpreted to refer to the Longbottoms, then he would have remained apathetic, a loyal Death Eater. Well, apathy breeds death, destruction, and suffering. If human beings were only to do the right thing when it benefited, or mattered to, them, we would be in a truly sorry state of affairs.

And honestly, you speak of Lily and James's actions in a moment of deperation with 20/20 retrospective vision. The point of her writing their deaths was not to show that they were stupid people. These were people who skilled enough to escape Voldemort three times, a feat only the Longbottoms were known to have matched, and one that only their son surpassed. At Godric's Hollow, chaos theory and Murphy's law got the better of them. At one precise moment, everything went wrong. But did they hide or bow before Voldemort? No, they sacrificed themselves for their only son, and that should be praised, not torn down while we critique their lives in hindsight with perfect retrospection.

Regulus was a DE because he started out life as a person of questionable morality and repulsive personal politics. There was nothing positive of what he did as a Death Eater, and it was only at the end of his life that he recanted his allegiance to Voldemort. Sirius's werewolf prank was irresponsible and very dangerous, but James risked his life to save Snape. No one was hurt, and throughout the rest of his life, Sirius showed he had a big heart and was always a good man. He fought Voldemort his entire adult life, while Regulus did so only at the very end. I don't think this is an equitable, or even fair, comparison.

As for Peter. He gave no reason for the Potters to suspect him. Not even Dumbledore suspected him, and he's the best judge of character in the entire series! Peter was friends with James, and later Lily, for ten years. He and James bonded as Marauders. It was entirely Peter's fault, and again, it's only in 20/20 retrospection that you can fault James and Lily. James put a lot of value into friendship, but people grow up and they weren't schoolboys anymore. Peter showed he was a loyal comrade, outwardly at least during the war. James had no reason to suspect him, and he thought it dishonorable to mistrust friends. And frankly, I'm inclined to agree. If you can't trust friends, you have no one.

Likewise, while she says glowing things about the Marauders in her interviews, I think she has not portrayed them so in her Books in my opinion. James and the other Marauder's have faults, a lot of them, and some of them go towards making James and the others not very nice people at all.

Did he grow up? Sirius says so, but then he goes on to say in the same breath that Lily never knew about James hexing Snape. So I am not sure James grew up, really, but I do think he grew up enough to hide from Lily, what she would disapprove. Which IMO does not make him changed at all.

You're holding the Marauders to a much more stringent moral standard than you are for Snape. There's plenty of evidence to show that the Marauders were good people. Flawed, but essentially good, with the exception of Peter. The interviews matter, because JKR can't include everything in 7 books.

As for James hexing Snape...did you ever read the part about Lupin saying that the hexing war was mutual. That Snape tried to curse James just as often as James tried to curse Snape? James is under no obligation to tell Lily everything about his disagreement with Snape. Again, you really are simply holding him to a different standard than Snape. I think he really did change. Even if Lily didn't know every detail about James and Snape's feud, Dumbledore would, and he wouldn't have made James Head Boy for nothing.

I am not very sure. I think Remus was hurt very badly that he was thought a traitor because of his curse. I think that was why he never went to see Harry and he never told Harry he was James' friend.

Also, did you consider that Remus was living in abject poverty? More to the point, I think he wanted Harry to live a peaceful life. His introduction early on would bring up painful questions about James and Lily, the war, and Voldemort.

Why is James turning into a stag if there was danger improbable?

The tunnel to the Shrieking Shack was barely large enough for a single person at age thirteen, let alone a deer. And if he was going to pull Snape away, it was going to have to be as a human.

Remus, one of the Marauders was unable to control the others IMO. And the Marauders could not be controlled by other students. I think Dumbledore chose James, because he knew Remus was not up to it and he would not choose Sirius after the werewolf incident. I think he picked James so that James would pipe down and become more responsible.

That's not how Dumbledore works. Dumbledore doesn't give responsibility to people so that they become responsible when they have never been so and do not show such qualities. He give them responsibility when they have shown that they have qualities that complement such power: leadership, maturity, and a good moral compass.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by CrimsonZephyr

Dumbledore said at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban:

"I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry. He would have saved Pettigrew too, I am sure of it."
American Edition, page 427.

Thanks for the quote.

With all due respect, I don't think this is true, and there's no canon to support that this is true. Only Snape would share your opinion, actually, and his view of James is slanted so far in the negative direction that you have to question the veracity of most of his rants against James, because although he was right about James's arrogance, he never saw any of James's great good qualities, and therefore he was determined - nay, desperate - to find even the slightest negative pretext for any act of heroism James showed him.

As a Snape fan, I agree with you on this. Yes, he was right about James being arrogant. But I have to take adult Severus's rants against James with a large pinch of salt at times. That's his bitterness speaking, and bitterness is not a reliable filter.

[padfootmarauder]

James was arrogant and vain. He had reason to be, with friends like Sirius
He was arrogant but as was said earlier, he saved Snape. He hated Snape and was jealous of him because of Lily but in the end, when Snape was in actual danger, he risked his own life to save Snape's. This is in contrast to Snape asking Dumbledore to just save Lily , never mind if James and Harry die.
James was a TRUE Gryffindor
Whatever James faults, he still went against Sirius and saved the life of a hated Slytherin.
James might have been big-headed, arrogant and a bully but as a great man who happened to be his best friend once said,"The world isnt split into good people and Death Eaters.We've both got light and dark inside of us.The path we choose to act upon, THAT's who we are"
(Don't get me wrong Snape rocks too;D)

[Beatifically]

Originally Posted by CathyWeasley

Interesting question. It is very difficult IMO to seperate out what was due to Lily's rejection and what was due to him growing up. We do see that he had a certain level of sense and that there were lines he wouldn't cross from the Whomping Willow incident. The trouble is I've got it stuck in my head that Lily and James are kind of like Lizzie and Darcy from Pride and Prejudice. I cannot help but compare the conversation in SWM between Lily and James with Darcy's first proposal. "You are the last man I could ever be prevailed upon to marry" does sound to me like an earlier version of "I'd rather go out with the giant squid" As such I don't feel that I can view this subject with anything akin to objectivity!
Any other Jane Austen fans see a similarity?

As a fan of P&P, I do see the similarity. It is very possible that this is the case and JKR possibly tried to draw similarities between the two relationships - she is a big fan of Austen.

I think this is a very romantic idea, but it may not be the only reason for James' change of behavior. My problem is that, assuming James changed for Lily, it makes it seem as if he only changed because of her, not because he grew up and moved past that stage or regretted bullying people. It may not be the case, but that's my only problem with it, assuming that was what happened.

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

I don't set much store by it, because it came from Sirius and Remus.

From a literary point, it wouldn't make much sense to have Sirius and Remus lie. If JKR wanted to let Harry and the reader know that James did not change as they said, she would have added some description implying that they were lying or wrong in their account of what happened.

If anything, Lily is a definite indicator that he changed. She was disgusted that James hexed people just because he could and it wouldn't be like her to date him if he kept that up.

I've seen that in in her portrayal of the Marauder's, Lily, Dung, Umbridge, Fudge and others, who are not good people, and yet (some of them) were brave, and would never think about taking the Dark Mark and were prepared to fight to the death for their cause.

That's an unfair comparison to make, IMO. Umbridge and Fudge were not like the Marauders or Lily in how they reacted to Voldemort's regime. Umbridge willingly took Voldemort's side because it guaranteed her power. Fudge refused to take action because he was too afraid. Dung only joined the Order because he felt he owed Dumbledore, and even during this time he had no sense of loyalty or responsibility and continued to put his own interest above those of others. IMO, that goes against everything the Marauders and Lily stood for. They were dedicated to fighting Voldemort at any cost and did this simply because they felt it was the right thing to do. That is much more than can be said of Fudge, Umbridge, or Dung.

And she shows the contrast in Snape, Narcissa, Draco and Regulus, when she says DEs too can change, they too love and would die for their child, the child of a DE and a DE himself too, was unable to kill, even when he knew it would probably mean the death of his parents and that a DE could protect his House elf, when an Order member would die because he did not treat his House elf better IMO.

Narcissa, Draco, and Regulus - while they eventually turned towards the right side - are not necessarily better people than the Marauders or Lily. They never showed any change of opinion when it came to blood status.

If she made Snape hand over the Prophecy, she also made James and Lily take stupid decisions;

Not to make this a Snape vs. James fight, but is this really comparable? Lily and James made a fatal error of judgment in Peter, but Snape willingly gave Voldemort the propehcy knowing that a family - including a newborn child - would be killed.

If she made Peter betray the Potters, she also showed how poor judges of people the Potters were, in trusting a boy who showed time and again he was never their friend.

The problem is that Peter never gave them any reason to suspect him; that's how he fooled them so well. Dumbledore obviously trusted Peter too or else he wouldn't have let him become a member of the Order and he did not see Peter for who he was, despite his perception in character.

Did he grow up? Sirius says so, but then he goes on to say in the same breath that Lily never knew about James hexing Snape. So I am not sure James grew up, really, but I do think he grew up enough to hide from Lily, what she would disapprove. Which IMO does not make him changed at all.

I don't think James was hiding anything. He just didn't let her know what was going on between him and Snape and, quite frankly, while they were dating it was none of her business. His behavior obviously was different in his seventh year compared to SWM because he did not publicly humiliate Snape and he was not the main attacker or else Lily would have known. The way it is described seems to point to being more like how Draco and Harry were: someone would provoke the other, whether it was physically or verbally, and a duel started.

Remus, one of the Marauders was unable to control the others IMO. And the Marauders could not be controlled by other students. I think Dumbledore chose James, because he knew Remus was not up to it and he would not choose Sirius after the werewolf incident. I think he picked James so that James would pipe down and become more responsible.

But that wouldn't make sense. Why would Dumbledore make James Head Boy to discipline him? That's a bit contradictory, IMO. Of all the students he could have chosen in all the houses, he would have chosen James to make him more responsible?

I never said Harry laughed at Peter. I said Harry would have never treated his friends, like James treated his.

Right, I made a typo. I meant that James didn't laugh at Peter, or not in a way that would mean he did not care about Peter.

Originally Posted by CrimsonZephyr

With all due respect, I don't think this is true, and there's no canon to support that this is true. Only Snape would share your opinion, actually, and his view of James is slanted so far in the negative direction that you have to question the veracity of most of his rants against James, because although he was right about James's arrogance, he never saw any of James's great good qualities, and therefore he was determined - nay, desperate - to find even the slightest negative pretext for any act of heroism James showed him.

Agreed. In addition, I would add that Snape is hardly a reliable person in this situation because he wasn't there to know how or why James went to save him. He automatically assumed that James was in on the joke the whole time, which we know is not true. Sirius and Remus, on the other hand, are more reliable because they knew how James felt about what Sirius did.

[CathyWeasley]

Originally Posted by Beatifically

I think this is a very romantic idea, but it may not be the only reason for James' change of behavior. My problem is that, assuming James changed for Lily, it makes it seem as if he only changed because of her, not because he grew up and moved past that stage or regretted bullying people. It may not be the case, but that's my only problem with it, assuming that was what happened.

Well to me I see the two things as totally linked. I do not think that James thought "Well If Lily is ever going to go out with me I'd better change my behaviour" That would have been him just changing to get the girl he wanted whicch would have been rather shallow. The way I see it is that Lily's rejection made him think "Why won't she go out with me? I am top of the class, quidditch star and unbelievably cool so why doesn't she like me?" IMO we see a hint of this thought process when he says in SWM "What is it with her?" When he takes a good look at himself he has to admit that perhaps he is behaving like an arrogant toe-rag. So through Lily's rejection James learns something about himself and so grows and matures as a person. I don't think that kind of change is shallow, because I think it comes from increased self-awareness combined with a desire to be a decent person. Both James and Darcy thought they were decent people until Lily and Lizzy pointed their faults out to them.
I also think that this is part of the reason why Snape has such a problem with James - because he thinks he is so great and that he is a decent person, and then he treats Severus appallingly (just as Darcy thinks he is Mr wonderful but is incredibly rude) I think that this is why James wionds me up sometimes as well!

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by CathyWeasley

Well to me I see the two things as totally linked. I do not think that James thought "Well If Lily is ever going to go out with me I'd better change my behaviour" That would have been him just changing to get the girl he wanted whicch would have been rather shallow. The way I see it is that Lily's rejection made him think "Why won't she go out with me? I am top of the class, quidditch star and unbelievably cool so why doesn't she like me?" IMO we see a hint of this thought process when he says in SWM "What is it with her?" When he takes a good look at himself he has to admit that perhaps he is behaving like an arrogant toe-rag. So through Lily's rejection James learns something about himself and so grows and matures as a person. I don't think that kind of change is shallow, because I think it comes from increased self-awareness combined with a desire to be a decent person. Both James and Darcy thought they were decent people until Lily and Lizzy pointed their faults out to them.
I also think that this is part of the reason why Snape has such a problem with James - because he thinks he is so great and that he is a decent person, and then he treats Severus appallingly (just as Darcy thinks he is Mr wonderful but is incredibly rude) I think that this is why James wionds me up sometimes as well!

I remember this was mentioned a long time ago in the forums, but other factors could be that things were becoming more serious in James life. Sirius ended up moving out by the age of 16 and staying with James' family a lot more. That had to have some effect on him being his best friend. And we know his parents died early, or at least before Harry was born, so that could have served as a huge turning point in his life. (Of course, JKR had only used that as a plot device so that Harry was stuck with Petunia as family. But for the sake of character analysis, I'll say this was a huge factor. ) Plus, there was the on coming war, and the decision to fight for the Order.

There is a lot we're not shown of James. But given all this (even though it's just speculation right now), at least it can be said there may be 1 or 2 things there to tell us he became better.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by RavenStar83

I remember this was mentioned a long time ago in the forums, but other factors could be that things were becoming more serious in James life. Sirius ended up moving out by the age of 16 and staying with James' family a lot more. That had to have some effect on him being his best friend. And we know his parents died early, or at least before Harry was born, so that could have served as a huge turning point in his life. (Of course, JKR had only used that as a plot device so that Harry was stuck with Petunia as family. But for the sake of character analysis, I'll say this was a huge factor. ) Plus, there was the on coming war, and the decision to fight for the Order.

Those are very good points.

Using the Doyalian mode of analysis , i.e. looking at the story from outside the characters' perspective, from the 'omniscient' authorial POV, I would say that JKR depicts James as someone who didn't stay permanently stuck forever as an adolescent bully.

There is a lot we're not shown of James. But given all this (even though it's just speculation right now), at least it can be said there may be 1 or 2 things there to tell us he became better.

I think so.

[kittling]

Originally Posted by RavenStar83

There is a lot we're not shown of James. But given all this (even though it's just speculation right now), at least it can be said there may be 1 or 2 things there to tell us he became better.

Reading your post I can see that there were one or two things that might have lead to him becoming a better person (or at least a changed person) – but other than what the remaining Marauders say – I’m not sure how much evidence there is that this actually happened. Please understand I’m not saying it didn’t happen just that there is little proof of such a change. Things are further complicated imo by the very short time he had between the reader seeing him acting badly and him dying.

Personally I would be much happier if there were such proof but I don’t see it – I’m more than happy to have any that might exist but I have missed shown to me but I don’t find what his best friends (who were often just as involved in his misbehaviour) say as proof, nor do I see the fact that he acted differently around Lily as proof; but as I say I would be happier if I could see proof that Lily was correct in thinking James Potter had changed.

[RavenStar83]

Originally Posted by kittling

Reading your post I can see that there were one or two things that might have lead to him becoming a better person (or at least a changed person) – but other than what the remaining Marauders say – I’m not sure how much evidence there is that this actually happened. Please understand I’m not saying it didn’t happen just that there is little proof of such a change. Things are further complicated imo by the very short time he had between the reader seeing him acting badly and him dying.

I agree there is a short time between seeing him acting badly and dying. As I said in my last post, there is a lot we don't see of James. I think the genius of this story is the fact that all of these characters are so very rich with details about what makes them who they are. But because of the story is about Harry and his experience, there isn't a lot of room to fit all of that. Personally, I always assumed that the reader had to settle with being "told and not shown", because there wasn't any room to fit all the details. It's not possible.

With that said, I see no reason why we can't take in Remus and Sirius's account of who James was. Characters have been used as a source of information for things that can't be shown to the reader. I don't see how JKR would have them lie or exaggerate, especially when that lie wasn't resolved. Plus, my speculations centered around James's parents dying or how he joined the Order. JKR was the one to confirm James' parents died early. But even without her word, they're not around in canon to seek out Harry. So it's a fair assumption that they're dead. I added Sirius' and his problems with family only because I've had a friend who was in Sirius' situation and I did what James' did along with my family in helping them get settled. For me, it gave me some perspective on things.

[wickedwickedboy]

JKR did take time to show us shots of the older James, playing with his son and cuddling him while entertaining him - his wife looking on smiling and happy and/or interacting. I think if she wanted to show that he behaved as he had when a young teenager, she would have made him behave that way in shots when older - but she didn't. JKR used this quick shot method to capsulate behavior and relations with others as well, like Eileen and Tobias, which allowed me to have an idea of their relationship as well (supporting their son's comment about them). So I don't feel JKR would have had a problem showing an unchanged James if she wished to advise Sirius and Remus were not being truthful - but the quick shots plus the information we have (fighting with the Order; defying Voldemort) support what Sirius and Remus said in canon, imo.

[The_Green_Woods]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

JKR did take time to show us shots of the older James, playing with his son and cuddling him while entertaining him - his wife looking on smiling and happy and/or interacting.

And it shows James loved playing with his son. How did it show he was responsible and that he had changed? I know a few people who are wonderful with kids and are are highly irresponsible, at times petty and mean too. I don't think that is a yardstick of James' character.

I think if she wanted to show that he behaved as he had when a young teenager, she would have made him behave that way in shots when older - but she didn't.

I think JKR gave a lot of positive stuff about James and the other Marauder's in her interviews. She called them Heroes and everything. In the Book, though there is hardly anything glowing about them. James says Sirius is a wonderful friend (in POA) and Sirius loves James. All that shows is that both of them were thick friends.

As I wrote in the Remus thread, the other 2 friends were not so close; Peter going on to betray them, and Remus unable to take it after a point, where even in POA, he saying nothing to Harry about James that could be seen as positive.

In the Books itself CrimsonZephyr has given below one statement by Dumbledore about James saving Peter; but again seeing why Harry saved Peter, makes the whole thing different. Harry did not save Peter because he was against Peter being killed by 2 other people; he saved Peter because he felt James would not want his best friends to go to Azkaban for killing Peter and that Peter was not worth it. Harry was perfectly okay to get him kissed by the dementors IMO.

So, assuming James was alive, I think he would have done the same thing; not out of feeling bad for Peter, but because he would not want Sirius and Remus to get Kissed for killing Peter. that makes James a wonderful friend to Sirius. Which he was from the beginning until he died IMO.

From canon, is there anything else at all to suggest James changed and was this great guy? I fear not much.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by The_Green_Woods

And it shows James loved playing with his son. How did it show he was responsible and that he had changed? I know a few people who are wonderful with kids and are are highly irresponsible, at times petty and mean too. I don't think that is a yardstick of James' character.

I agree with that. Loving one's children is not a sign of one's character. (I mean, just look at my favourite villains, the Malfoys. They loved their son dearly, but that didn't exactly make them nice people. )

Having said that ... let's go on to discuss James in a wider context, given the little we have to go on.

In the Books itself CrimsonZephyr has given below one statement by Dumbledore about James saving Peter; but again seeing why Harry saved Peter, makes the whole thing different. Harry did not save Peter because he was against Peter being killed by 2 other people; he saved Peter because he felt James would not want his best friends to go to Azkaban for killing Peter and that Peter was not worth it. Harry was perfectly okay to get him kissed by the dementors IMO.

So, assuming James was alive, I think he would have done the same thing; not out of feeling bad for Peter, but because he would not want Sirius and Remus to get Kissed for killing Peter. that makes James a wonderful friend to Sirius. Which he was from the beginning until he died IMO.

I agree with this too.

I would completely understand if James had had murderous reactions towards Peter. Goodness me, yes. However, it's one thing to feel murderous rage against someone who has committed such a great crime against one's family, and quite another to give into the instinct.

It is shocking that Sirius and Remus were prepared to kill Peter in front of three thirteen year olds but I must emphasise that I totally understand their emotions! Harry was right, though: Peter wasn't worth becoming a murderer for. And I think James would have agreed with his son. And then, like Harry, he would have wanted to hand Peter over to the authorities.

(As much as I disapprove of the Wizengamot's use of Dementors, I wouldn't exactly feel sorry for Peter. )

From canon, is there anything else at all to suggest James changed and was this great guy? I fear not much.

Does it matter? (OK, silly question ... actually, it probably does matter. ) James is not a principal character in the series, after all. He is dead for the entire series. He is a crucial part of the backstory though.

From the little we have to go on, I am prepared to accept the testimony of adult Remus and Sirius on adult James. I guess because my mode of interpretation is to consider the author's overall intent for these characters and the ultimate arc she writes for them. That is open to interpretation in itself, of course: I am simply willing to give James the benefit of the doubt.

James is the father whom Harry never knew, and wished he'd known: the father he called forth from the Resurrection Stone at the very worst moment of his life. So, you know, I can't really regard James as forever frozen in time as nothing more than a bully.

JMO.