The Marauders: Group Character Analysis v.2

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Perhaps, but I don't consider "obsession" the same as "fancying someone" and moping because they're not interested. I consider "obsession" something far more intense and dangerous.

I agree.

I don't think it made their goodness "meaningless". I think it showed that even good people make mistakes, that nobody is perfect. I think that expecting the good characters to be flawless is always going to lead to disappointment.

I agree. In this genre, heroes are not flawless, they make mistakes and do the wrong thing all the time. But there are certain moral boundaries that are not crossed. And I don't think the Marauders crossed those boundaries from the standpoint of the average magical adventure reader, however, imo, the books dictated to us that certain moral lines had been crossed. So "over the top" here was not so much on account of what the Marauders did, but rather, what the book made of it - i.e., what Harry thought about it as he was our guide, moral compass and judge when it came to all characters including the Marauders.

I think the answer to that was always clearly the side who were opposed to genocide and fanatic bigotry. I don't think that the fact that Voldemort's opponents also made mistakes makes the murdering terrorists less villainous, or makes them in any way derserving of victory. Nobody is perfect, but I never ever thought that Voldemort's side were better human beings, or that they should succeed. I don't think that a flicker of humanity from murderous bigots like Lucius and Bellatrix makes them better people than those fighting against them who make mistakes that are far less than murder and bigotry.

I agree with you there. When it came to the absolutely fatal, no-turning-back, horrific evil (Voldemort, Umbridge), there was no question that the Marauders were as far away from that as possible.

Still, I think the book judged them harshly for minor crimes and offenses. To me it seemed like a change in the mentality of the book.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

Still, I think the book judged them harshly for minor crimes and offenses. To me it seemed like a change in the mentality of the book.

I don't think JKR judges the Marauders any more harshly than any other of her characters. She is an author who is prepared to be pretty brutal towards some of her 'good' characters, I'll grant you that (i.e. she kills quite a lot off!) And Sirius and Remus do not have very happy lives. But not because, I think, she is 'judging' them.

And I think the Marauders are let off some things rather lightly. James and Sirius did some incredibly stupid and dangerous stuff in their youth. Stuff that should have had both of them hauled into Dumbledore's office and read the riot act. At the very least. We never saw that on page.

But we also realise, of course, that the boys were also capable of kindness and courage. It was courageous of Sirius to walk away from his prejudiced family and risk their wrath, and the fact that he and James - and Remus - all fought for the Order speaks for itself.

Peter, on the other hand, turned out to be a terrible traitor and arch-criminal, and eventually got his just desserts ... which, frankly, is satisfying to read.

The Marauder who has always interested me most is Sirius, and it seemed to me that JKR kind of lost interest in him - and Remus, too. But on further reflection, I think that is an unfair assessment. Many of the major adult characters do play second fiddle to Harry. Seeing that he is the main protagonist, that is fair enough.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I agree. In this genre, heroes are not flawless, they make mistakes and do the wrong thing all the time. But there are certain moral boundaries that are not crossed. And I don't think the Marauders crossed those boundaries from the standpoint of the average magical adventure reader, however, imo, the books dictated to us that certain moral lines had been crossed.

I don't think so. I think the book made it clear that there was a difference between being a bratty school bully and being a murdering sadist/power grabber, along the lines of Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy.

So "over the top" here was not so much on account of what the Marauders did, but rather, what the book made of it - i.e., what Harry thought about it as he was our guide, moral compass and judge when it came to all characters including the Marauders.

Still, I think the book judged them harshly for minor crimes and offenses. To me it seemed like a change in the mentality of the book.

I don't think that they're judged harshly. Harry is hurt and confused at first when he sees them in a negative light. However, this is understandable, as he had idolised James, and highly regarded Sirius and Remus, too. This means that, of course, bad behaviour from them would be more upsetting to him than bad behaviour from someone he doesn't think well of.

In any case, Harry chooses the Marauders and Lily as the people to accompany him to his death. This suggests to me that he does not judge them, that he loves them and accepts them as they are.

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

And I think the Marauders are let off some things rather lightly. James and Sirius did some incredibly stupid and dangerous stuff in their youth. Stuff that should have had both of them hauled into Dumbledore's office and read the riot act. At the very least. We never saw that on page.

I think a lot of characters got off lightly with their misdeeds, so the Marauders are not alone in this. For example, their misdeeds are nowhere near Lucius Malfoy's crimes, and he got off scot free. Plus, it is canon that the Marauders got many detentions - so they did not get away with their actions. And we know that Dumbledore believes in second chances.

The Marauder who has always interested me most is Sirius, and it seemed to me that JKR kind of lost interest in him - and Remus, too. But on further reflection, I think that is an unfair assessment. Many of the major adult characters do play second fiddle to Harry. Seeing that he is the main protagonist, that is fair enough.

Yep, makes sense that the title character would take precedence.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I don't think so. I think the book made it clear that there was a difference between being a bratty school bully and being a murdering sadist/power grabber, along the lines of Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy.

And nothing better? I was neither a murdering sadist or bratty bully. There are kids that are just normal. There were no normal characters in HP though. So it was a bit unfair to judge the Marauders harshly (using Harry's thinking) when others in the storyline were not judged so harshly after committing the same or similar acts.

I don't think that they're judged harshly. Harry is hurt and confused at first when he sees them in a negative light. However, this is understandable, as he had idolised James, and highly regarded Sirius and Remus, too. This means that, of course, bad behaviour from them would be more upsetting to him than bad behaviour from someone he doesn't think well of. In any case, Harry chooses the Marauders and Lily as the people to accompany him to his death. This suggests to me that he does not judge them, that he loves them and accepts them as they are.

Well how Harry's thoughts characterized them for us, and how he felt about them were two different things. That is what JRK needed to clarify, imo.

I think a lot of characters got off lightly with their misdeeds, so the Marauders are not alone in this. For example, their misdeeds are nowhere near Lucius Malfoy's crimes, and he got off scot free. Plus, it is canon that the Marauders got many detentions - so they did not get away with their actions. And we know that Dumbledore believes in second chances.

Well I don't think they did anything that they needed to 'get off' for (san the Sirius thing - but they didn't really get off). But because Harry judged them harshly in that way, we were all supposed to think that way. Think about it - every single character had misdeeds, and even where they didn't, the character's misdeed was being too wimpy, shy and a nobody. So every character needed "fixed". The Marauders were great as magical adventure guides for Harry - but I feel the notion of showing all characters as grey got in the way of that. There are shades of grey, but to be honest, I think there were just 2 in HP and I think they were at times difficult to distinguish.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

But because Harry judged them harshly in that way, we were all supposed to think that way.

It all seemed pretty clear-cut to me: I think Harry's moral compass is pretty healthy.

Think about it - every single character had misdeeds, and even where they didn't, the character's misdeed was being too wimpy, shy and a nobody.

Really? Does the series ever see Neville's shyness, for example, as some kind of 'misdeed'? Absolutely not. Neville's Gryffindor courage appears in book one and is lauded by Dumbledore in the final chapter. (His courage is realistically portrayed and therefore not some 'way out of left field' surprise in DH, when he kills Nagini.)

So every character needed "fixed". The Marauders were great as magical adventure guides for Harry - but I feel the notion of showing all characters as grey got in the way of that.

One of JKR's greatest strengths as a writer - which, in my opinion, makes up for certain plot weaknesses in the series - is her ability to create realistic, vivid characters that we care about (or love to hate!) The Marauders are realistically drawn teenage boys. As adult characters, both Remus and Sirius act as surrogate fathers to Harry - in Sirius's case, he is a flawed father figure but a very important one. The Marauders' function in the series is more than just being 'magical adventure guides', IMO.

[LilyDreamsOn]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

And nothing better? I was neither a murdering sadist or bratty bully. There are kids that are just normal. There were no normal characters in HP though. So it was a bit unfair to judge the Marauders harshly (using Harry's thinking) when others in the storyline were not judged so harshly after committing the same or similar acts.

Harry didn't really judge all the Marauders in OotP, really just his father. I always got the impression that Harry judged his dad so harshly because he held him to a much higher standard than everyone else. Sirius acted just as badly that day, but Harry didn't seem particularly bothered by that. Fred and George shoved Montague into a broken vanishing cabinet, risking his life; Hermione permanently disfigured someone for ratting out the DA; Ginny hexed people for fun (and so did Harry occasionally)... and yet Harry never judged them for it. He knew them all personally and so he knew they weren't infallible.

But James was Harry's idol at that point. He held him up on a pedestal so it was a huge shock to see him act in a way that wasn't honourable. But eventually Harry came to terms with the fact that his father wasn't perfect, and he still looked up to him and found comfort in him as he did before. I think that's what Jo wanted the readers to take away from it, not that she wanted to tear the Marauders down.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

It all seemed pretty clear-cut to me: I think Harry's moral compass is pretty healthy.

Well didn't find it as clear cut. I think he was too harsh (not just with the Marauders, but certainly with them and they are the subject of this thread) at times in his considerations. I think he was shown to be harsh on others for things he was never harsh on himself about. I don't think he ever sufficiently recognized his hypocrisy. So I was left with a bad taste in my mouth regarding some areas of the characterization of these four fun characters.

Really? Does the series ever see Neville's shyness, for example, as some kind of 'misdeed'? Absolutely not. Neville's Gryffindor courage appears in book one and is lauded by Dumbledore in the final chapter. (His courage is realistically portrayed and therefore not some 'way out of left field' surprise in DH, when he kills Nagini.)

Well I feel both are true. First we see his shyness as a bad thing - he requires defending because he is too shy and retiring to speak up for himself - he is shown to be an easy mark for Snape in class - etc. Compare that to Remus - since we are talking Maruaders - who was similarly portrayed as the shy and retiring individual, who is often an easy mark of those around based on his shyness and retiring nature.

If the shyness and retiring nature was considered a good thing, then that would have been celebrated rather than the courage both showed in getting over their shyness and retiring natures. Which is what happened. The courage was celebrated, not the shyness. Remus' shyness and retiring nature was his flaw caused by his background (like Neville) that he had to overcome to show the positive trait of courage.

One of JKR's greatest strengths as a writer - which, in my opinion, makes up for certain plot weaknesses in the series - is her ability to create realistic, vivid characters that we care about (or love to hate!) The Marauders are realistically drawn teenage boys. As adult characters, both Remus and Sirius act as surrogate fathers to Harry - in Sirius's case, he is a flawed father figure but a very important one. The Marauders' function in the series is more than just being 'magical adventure guides', IMO.

Well I agree she is a great writer, however, I don't think the characterizations, including the Marauders were realistic. I think they were caricatures of real boys and men, who did show some traits similar to real life. But I think they were both overblown and underdone in various situations, to help the flow and excitement of the book, and to stress certain ideologies JKR wished to send. They are my favorite characters in the books, but I don't think they were realistic and I believe they were given a hard row to hoe.

Originally Posted by LilyDreamsOn

Harry didn't really judge all the Marauders in OotP, really just his father. I always got the impression that Harry judged his dad so harshly because he held him to a much higher standard than everyone else. Sirius acted just as badly that day, but Harry didn't seem particularly bothered by that. Fred and George shoved Montague into a broken vanishing cabinet, risking his life; Hermione permanently disfigured someone for ratting out the DA; Ginny hexed people for fun (and so did Harry occasionally)... and yet Harry never judged them for it. He knew them all personally and so he knew they weren't infallible.

But James was Harry's idol at that point. He held him up on a pedestal so it was a huge shock to see him act in a way that wasn't honourable. But eventually Harry came to terms with the fact that his father wasn't perfect, and he still looked up to him and found comfort in him as he did before. I think that's what Jo wanted the readers to take away from it, not that she wanted to tear the Marauders down.

I would not agree that Harry was harder on his father. While reading OOTP one would think that, but as the books carried on, that same type of harsh judgmental thinking was used while considering all of the Marauders. He seriously saw the worst of them, almost exclusively, even when directly interacting with them. That didn't mean he didn't love them dearly - there was above and beyond enough written to make it clear that they were the most beloved with his mother of all the older generation in the book - including the living - but I am referring to his actual thoughts regarding their thinking and actions. Don't get me wrong - other 'good' or 'mostly good' characters in the book were judged even worse by Harry. I just think that there was a push from OOTP to humanize the Marauders and JKR went overboard.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

Well I feel both are true. First we see his shyness as a bad thing - he requires defending because he is too shy and retiring to speak up for himself - he is shown to be an easy mark for Snape in class - etc. Compare that to Remus - since we are talking Maruaders - who was similarly portrayed as the shy and retiring individual, who is often an easy mark of those around based on his shyness and retiring nature.

If the shyness and retiring nature was considered a good thing, then that would have been celebrated rather than the courage both showed in getting over their shyness and retiring natures. Which is what happened. The courage was celebrated, not the shyness. Remus' shyness and retiring nature was his flaw caused by his background (like Neville) that he had to overcome to show the positive trait of courage.

But Remus’s shyness and retiring nature are never portrayed as faults. Ever. What IS portrayed as a fault – which Remus himself owns – is his failure to challenge James and Sirius on their bullying. This is a very realistic character fault: many people will stay silent rather than challenge their friends and risk rejection, and Remus had experienced cruel rejection and deeply feared it. Not that I think James and Sirius would have rejected him, actually - they were too loyal and kind (to Remus, at any rate). But if he'd had the courage to stand up to the two most extrovert and flamboyant Marauders, this could have worked a powerful effect on them both and sobered them up.

Well I agree she is a great writer, however, I don't think the characterizations, including the Marauders were realistic. I think they were caricatures of real boys and men, who did show some traits similar to real life. But I think they were both overblown and underdone in various situations, to help the flow and excitement of the book, and to stress certain ideologies JKR wished to send. They are my favorite characters in the books, but I don't think they were realistic and I believe they were given a hard row to hoe.

I didn’t say she was a great writer. I said that one of her strengths as a writer is her great gift for characterisation. (I also think she is a great STORYTELLER, but there are other writers whose style I regard as greater.)

I'm intrigued as to what ideologies you think she 'wished to send', as it pertains to the characterisation of the Marauders.

And as I said before, I certainly don't think the Marauders were given a 'harder row to hoe' than any other character in the series. Rowling puts many of her characters through hell, to be blunt. Which is why the HP series is such a compelling psychodrama.

I would not agree that Harry was harder on his father. While reading OOTP one would think that, but as the books carried on, that same type of harsh judgmental thinking was used while considering all of the Marauders. He seriously saw the worst of them, almost exclusively, even when directly interacting with them.

I don't understand this. Is it simply the natural cognitive dissonance of a teenaged boy, orphaned as an infant, who is trying to match up the real life 'warts and all' personalities of the adult Remus and Sirius with the somewhat legendary status surrounding their friendship with the dead father he longed to know? (Just thinking aloud here.)

Don't get me wrong - other 'good' or 'mostly good' characters in the book were judged even worse by Harry.

I would love to know who you think was 'judged worse' by Harry. Probably one for his character thread.

I just think that there was a push from OOTP to humanize the Marauders and JKR went overboard.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Every single character in the Potterverse gets ‘humanized’ and the stories are the better for it. Rowling's characters are often somewhat exaggerated and over the top - that doesn't make them unrealistic, I think if anything it makes them quite Dickensian.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

But Remus’s shyness and retiring nature are never portrayed as faults. Ever. What IS portrayed as a fault – which Remus himself owns – is his failure to challenge James and Sirius on their bullying. This is a very realistic character fault: many people will stay silent rather than challenge their friends and risk rejection, and Remus had experienced cruel rejection and deeply feared it. Not that I think James and Sirius would have rejected him, actually - they were too loyal and kind (to Remus, at any rate). But if he'd had the courage to stand up to the two most extrovert and flamboyant Marauders, this could have worked a powerful effect on them both and sobered them up.

I agree with you to the extent that Remus’ courage was celebrated, but I believe his shyness and retiring nature was shown to be a negative. The shy and retiring nature was a mask for his unhappiness, cowardice, and/or inability to accept himself as a werewolf. The books were not interested in the fact that shy and retiring is a legitimate personality type or that it can also serve as a mask for a positive personality (i.e., contemplative, intelligence). Instead, we have Remus showing those traits when he was doing something “wrong” – not speaking up, letting others take advantage of him, giving in, etc. This was characteristic of the books, imo, because there was a huge focus on courage, bravery, speaking and standing up for others and one's self. JKR has every right to do that of course, but to me, that meant that even the shy and retiring characters, like Remus, needed "fixing" (which was our original point).

I'm intrigued as to what ideologies you think she 'wished to send', as it pertains to the characterisation of the Marauders.

1. For every good act, there is an equal and opposite bad act and everyone will show both (“all the world is grey”)
2. Do not regard anyone as special, based on word or deed.
3. The achievements of Men are riddled with flaws.

I don't understand this. Is it simply the natural cognitive dissonance of a teenaged boy, orphaned as an infant, who is trying to match up the real life 'warts and all' personalities of the adult Remus and Sirius with the somewhat legendary status surrounding their friendship with the dead father he longed to know? (Just thinking aloud here.)

I can agree with that interpretation – and many others as well that put a brighter spin on Harry’s contemplations relative to the Marauders. Actually, I am sure I have done so in the past. However, taking his thoughts at face value, he seemed to leave off with rubbishing much of the attributes and experiences, words and ideas that made these characters fun and enjoyable, lively and interesting. Yeah, okay, maybe pranks have a devilish element, but even Harry enjoyed them at first. Then suddenly, reading the school cards regarding the Marauder’s antics, his outlook turned somewhat joyless and sanctimonious. To me that exemplified Harry seeing only 1 shade of grey in which all of the Marauders were dumped.

I would love to know who you think was 'judged worse' by Harry. Probably one for his character thread.

Every character in the books with the exception of Lily and Luna. So perhaps that puts what I am saying into perspective. I truly don’t believe this was limited to the Marauders – it is just that this thread is.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Every single character in the Potterverse gets ‘humanized’ and the stories are the better for it. Rowling's characters are often somewhat exaggerated and over the top - that doesn't make them unrealistic, I think if anything it makes them quite Dickensian.

With the exception of Luna and Lily, I agree. It made the characters unrealistic to me, but I think that is a good thing. The only issue in my opinion was that “humanization” became synonymous with “all the world is one shade of grey” and I feel that was very much emphasized through the characterizations of the various Marauders.

[LilyDreamsOn]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I would not agree that Harry was harder on his father.

How wasn't he harsher on James than on Sirius, for instance? They acted the same way in that memory, but Harry was only bothered by what he saw of James. When he said he'd ask Sirius about it, he had one little moment of thinking "well, look how Sirius was" but then promptly got over it and went to talk to Sirius anyways.

While reading OOTP one would think that, but as the books carried on, that same type of harsh judgmental thinking was used while considering all of the Marauders. He seriously saw the worst of them, almost exclusively, even when directly interacting with them.

I didn't see that at all. There's only one time in the series that Harry thought badly about his father; every other mention of him, from someone else or from Harry's thoughts, were very positive (well, except for Snape of course). Before and after SWM he thought of his father as inspiration and for comfort. Sirius was the same (apart from before the revelation that he wasn't a murderer), and again with Remus, who only got on Harry's bad side once in the series, in DH. Harry was overwhelmingly positive about the Marauders. Even after he saw how James and Sirius acted in the past and saw all their detention records, Harry still thought of them as the "much admired rebels", so even at their worst, Harry didn't seem to feel too negatively about it at all.

[ShadowSonic]

Which sort of makes his reaction in OOTP a bit over-the-top, then. He respects them and admires them because he keeps hearing how cool and great they were, then when he sees them acting badly he freaks out because it's messing with the fantasies he had about them.

And then he's just back to admiring them again.

[wolfbrother]

Harry was understanding and forgiving as a person. He named his kid after Snape in the end after all. Of course he'd go back to admiring the Marauders.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

Harry was understanding and forgiving as a person. He named his kid after Snape in the end after all. Of course he'd go back to admiring the Marauders.

Of course he admired and loved them; that's who he called up with the resurrection stone when he was on his way to meet Voldemort.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

Which sort of makes his reaction in OOTP a bit over-the-top, then. He respects them and admires them because he keeps hearing how cool and great they were, then when he sees them acting badly he freaks out because it's messing with the fantasies he had about them.

And then he's just back to admiring them again.

Of course he returns to admiring them. He knows they were good people. He was upset because he had just seen his father's faults for the first time. But he was mature enough to eventually recognise that nobody was perfect. He was not going to be angry forever at his father, who loved him deeply, who stood up against Voldemort, and who died to defend him, because of teenage mistakes. Anyway, I think this is becoming more to do with Harry than the Marauders, so I'll leave it at that.

[Melaszka]

Yes, this has got a bit too Harry-focused. It's fine to discuss Harry's perceptions of the Marauders here if it's crystal clear in your post that you are exploring to what extent JKR uses Harry's views to shape the audience's views of the Marauders (which is how this sidetrack started off). However, if the main focus is Harry's feelings, not the picture that is given of the Marauders in the books, I'd rather you moved this discussion to the Harry thread.

[wickedwickedboy]

What a great group of characters JKR came up with, the Marauders! Still my favorites in the story line, adding laughs, unique storylines, intrigue and for me, really inked Harry's "fit" with the wizard world as a young wizard. These young wizards are still among my favorite in all of literature. Great invention!

[RemusLupinFan]

Overall I wish we knew more backstory on the Marauders, as they are some of my favorite characters (minus the rat, of course). I am glad that JKR gave us the information she did on Pottermore though (in Lupin's bio I believe). I'd have loved to know more about their Hogwarts years, and their roles as members of the OotP.