James Potter: Character Analysis v.4

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by eliza101

Then when Lily and James start going out he is constantly hexes James.

If I remember correctly, the text says they both hexed each other - Snape never missed and opportunity to hex Potter and Potter didn't stop hexing Snape, unlike all the other hexing he used to do before that. I have a hard time seeing either of them as a victim here.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

An example of James Potter's victimhood whilst at Hogwarts, if you please.

What Eliza said and there is more actually. However, it is a topic that we've repeatedly been asked to avoid, so I won't get into it now. Suffice it to say that I've always advocated the mutuality stance and I still feel that way.

Originally Posted by Yoana

If I remember correctly, the text says they both hexed each other - Snape never missed and opportunity to hex Potter and Potter didn't stop hexing Snape, unlike all the other hexing he used to do before that. I have a hard time seeing either of them as a victim here.

No it says that Potter didn't take the treatment laying down - which means he defended himself and didn't start anything. That also occurred in SWM in a reverse manner (Snape didn't take it lying down), which is precisely why I advocate mutuality, agreeing with the idea that it is difficult to pick out victims and agreessors on the whole.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

What Eliza said and there is more actually. However, it is a topic that we've repeatedly been asked to avoid, so I won't get into it now. Suffice it to say that I've always advocated the mutuality stance and I still feel that way.

Mutuality and victimhood kind of exclude each other. If two people loathe each other and both show it in various ways, I really can't see how either of them is a victim.

[wickedwickedboy]

Exactly how I see it.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

Exactly how I see it.

Except that you were arguing on the previous page that James was a victim in certain respects during his youth.

The only concrete example of James being treated like a victim that I can find in canon is the moment when Voldemort callously murders him.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Except that you were arguing on the previous page that James was a victim in certain respects during his youth.

The only concrete example of James being treated like a victim that I can find in canon is the moment when Voldemort callously murders him.

No I wasn't. Here is exactly what I said:

Quote Me: "He was a victim to the same extent when young and moreso when older - he just carried it off better, and then died, so it was reflected distinctly in the canon, imo."

That is the principle of mutuality ("to the same extent" when young)

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

No I wasn't. Here is exactly what I said:

Quote Me: "He was a victim to the same extent when young and moreso when older - he just carried it off better, and then died, so it was reflected distinctly in the canon, imo."

That is the principle of mutuality ("to the same extent" when young)

I disagree with your analysis, since there are no explicit examples from canon of 'the same extent'. (And mutuality, to my mind, is 'one on one', not 'four on one'.) So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In my opinion, the only place in the text in which we see James directly treated as a victim is when he is brutally killed by Voldemort.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I disagree with your analysis, since there are no explicit examples from canon of 'the same extent'. (And mutuality, to my mind, is 'one on one', not 'four on one'.) So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree we have to agree to disagree, lol - but because it is a forbidden topic. I actually do have a myriad of explicit examples from the canon to support my contention. I have outlined them previously in past versions of these threads, so if anyone is interested in trolling thru they can - but that is pretty doubtful. .

In my opinion, the only place in the text in which we see James directly treated as a victim is when he is brutally killed by Voldemort.

Well I don't see how I could counter this based on the restrictions we are under, but I respect your point of view although as you know, I would have to disagree.

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by Yoana

Mutuality and victimhood kind of exclude each other. If two people loathe each other and both show it in various ways, I really can't see how either of them is a victim.

Mutual Victims?

[silver ink pot]

Originally Posted by Annielogic

I found their great dislike of being spied on or tracked very ironic, in some respects. They invented a Marauder's Map in which they could track and spy on every resident of Hogwarts. Also, enabling them to follow, catch out or play 'pranks' on with the added security of James's invisibility cloak. This isn't unusual, we do see various young characters (actually even the adults) do things to others, but take exception and criticize when done to themselves or people they like.

Yes, it seems to me that James was the one with the advantage, since he could always see Snape's location at any time on the Marauders Map. I've always thought that's how they knew Snape was following them around, just as Harry knows in PoA when he sees Peter on the Map, then Snape catches him with the Map (more irony).

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

Yes, it seems to me that James was the one with the advantage, since he could always see Snape's location at any time on the Marauders Map. I've always thought that's how they knew Snape was following them around, just as Harry knows in PoA when he sees Peter on the Map, then Snape catches him with the Map (more irony).

I would think it didn't matter how they found out - seeing him, seeing him on a map, hearing him or being told he is present by someone - the point was that it was being done.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

Yes, it seems to me that James was the one with the advantage, since he could always see Snape's location at any time on the Marauders Map. I've always thought that's how they knew Snape was following them around, just as Harry knows in PoA when he sees Peter on the Map, then Snape catches him with the Map (more irony).

It is ironic, as the Map seems to be the ultimate spying device, and an impressive piece of handywork. I always assumed that they made it to avoid people while sneaking around, though, not hunt people down, although Lupin certainly could use it for that purpose in PoA.

When did James & Co. make the map, anyway? I don't remember if it was ever mentioned in the books what year they made it. Anyone?

[silver ink pot]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I would think it didn't matter how they found out - seeing him, seeing him on a map, hearing him or being told he is present by someone - the point was that it was being done.

The point is, though, Snape could not really "sneak up" on them if they saw him coming on the Map, right? They had prior knowledge of where he was, not the other way around. So, the question is how the victimization theory fits with that. Plus they had an invisibility cloak that was one of the Deathly Hallows. So with Surveillance, Stealth, and Safety-in-Numbers, that seems to equal "not victims." JMO

[ignisia]

When did James & Co. make the map, anyway? I don't remember if it was ever mentioned in the books what year they made it. Anyone?

I don't believe it's ever mentioned, but I would guess it was sometime after they discovered Remus' secret. Possibly they studied the Animagus transformation and the developed the map around the same time. That would ensure that not only could they accompany Remus, but they would also not be discovered when doing so.

[Annielogic]

Originally Posted by ignisia

I don't believe it's ever mentioned, but I would guess it was sometime after they discovered Remus' secret. Possibly they studied the Animagus transformation and the developed the map around the same time. That would ensure that not only could they accompany Remus, but they would also not be discovered when doing so.

That sounds plausible. Although, doesn't Madam Pomfrey led Lupin to the Willow every month, and he transformed in the Shack? So, the other three would possibly use the Map to monitor them before joining Lupin.

It's really nifty how it's designed to show someone's true identity, and not fooled by Polyjuice potion or Animagus forms. I wonder if that was partly taking Prof. McGonagall's ability into consideration there, in case she was patrolling in cat form. . Ghost and poltergeists too, they'd probably want to avoid troublesome Peeves.

[eliza101]

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

The point is, though, Snape could not really "sneak up" on them if they saw him coming on the Map, right? They had prior knowledge of where he was, not the other way around. So, the question is how the victimization theory fits with that. Plus they had an invisibility cloak that was one of the Deathly Hallows. So with Surveillance, Stealth, and Safety-in-Numbers, that seems to equal "not victims." JMO

Wouldn't that depend on them studying the map at all times though? Not even Harry did that and niether did the twins as it came as a complete surprise to Ron that they had it. I got the impression that the map was used to find the way around Hogwarts and to keep out of the way of the teachers and Filch.
If James had wanted to sneak up on Snape he had his invisibility cloak which would have been very effective.
The thing is is it clearly stated in canon that Snape spyed on them for his own purposes, and no amount of justification on his part excuses it.
I for one do not think that James worried a great deal about Snape at all. He was into Quiddich, studying how to become an Animagus and he was a popular and well liked student. I think the only time Snape probably registered with him was when Snape went into the tunnel and James went to get him. I think the events of SWM were a direct result of that. His action probaly got up James and Co. noses big time over that. Not nice to say the least on James' part to attack him, in fact it is a terrible thing to do.
In many ways I think James improvment in behaviour probably dates from that time. Lily let him know what she thought of his behaviour and he got a lovely gash on his cheek for his trouble. I think that that would serve as a wake-up call.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by silver ink pot

The point is, though, Snape could not really "sneak up" on them if they saw him coming on the Map, right? They had prior knowledge of where he was, not the other way around. So, the question is how the victimization theory fits with that. Plus they had an invisibility cloak that was one of the Deathly Hallows. So with Surveillance, Stealth, and Safety-in-Numbers, that seems to equal "not victims." JMO

If that were the case, it wouldn't have been an issue (Harry had the map, cloak, and traveled about with his friends and still met up with Draco - they didn't spend their time covered and with their nose in the map). None of the 3 groups in control of the map used it in that way in general, only when they had a specific purpose in mind.

I would have to disagree with your final point of reasoning. Just because you have a means to catch, do catch or evade a person spying on you, doesn't mean it isn't a hassle and you are not victimized by it. You still are being victimized - perhaps not as effectively if you happen to be carrying around maps, cloaks and traveling in numbers (and constantly make use of all of that) to avoid the spy - but the hassle associated with having to do all of that on a constant basis speaks for itself, imo. Whatever adventure they were upon, be it for fun or of a serious nature, that is all they should have had to have their focus on - not being followed around by a spy. They had every right to be left alone and hassle free. I made this same point about Snape sitting on the grass with his OWLS. One could say that he should have been viligent, that all he had to do was be judicious about where he chose to sit and then look up every few moments to see who might be around - but why should he have to do that? He had every right to be left alone.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

One could say that he [Severus] should have been viligent, that all he had to do was be judicious about where he chose to sit and then look up every few moments to see who might be around - but why should he have to do that? He had every right to be left alone.

At least we can agree on this, though not much else.

[SwedishSkinJer]

Something that I was thinking about:

During Snape's confrontation with James in his "worst memory", he becomes so infuriated by James' taunts that he uses Sectumsempra on him, which, if properly used, cuts through most of the body. However, Snape's shaky aim (possibly due to his anger) makes it so that James only receives a deep, bloody gash on his cheek. If Snape's wand aim had been more focused, could he have possibly killed James with the spell that he had invented? At such an emotionally charged moment, was his intention to destroy James after enduring so many years of bullying?

[CathyWeasley]

The point with the Marauders Map is that in order to find out what the marauders are up to Snape has no option but to sneak around after them. If the marauders want to check on what anyone is doing they can check the map and/or use the invisibility cloak. This is what Harry did when he was snooping on Draco in HBP, so I think that it is unlikely that his father didn't do the same with his friends. I mean the Marauders have the map and the invisility cloak how likely is it that they didn't use them to snoop on people?

As such the marauders had the advantage of having both these magical items and there were four of them. Now by every definition of bullying I have ever seen picking a fight with someone when you have an advantage (of numbers, size or authority) is bullying.
I personally refuse to compromise on this. I was never really bullied at school, but every school in the UK is now required to have an anti-bullying policy. They also have anti-bullying weeks when they talk about what bullying is and how to deal with it. Now given everything I have done on this subject with my children, and that includes my own children being both bullied and the bully, to me it is quite obvious that James and his friends bullied Severus.

No child deserves to be bullied. Bullying should never be tolerated. James was a bully and to pretend he wasn't is IMO as ridiculous as pretending that Severus was not a Death Eater. What is equally ridiculous is to try to "prove" that one of them was "better" than the other. The real point of the story as that both these men changed their behaviour.