Lily Evans Potter: Character Analysis

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

I think Lily's actions tell about Lily's character, and the sacrifices she was willing to make to achieve what was important to her-- protecting her world and her family.

To be fair though, I'm still not convinced that any of the Potters were behaving rationally that night. For example, and not a minor one, what was Lily's next move after refusing to stand aside?

I'm not criticizing Lily here. I've been in situations where I suspected my life was in the balance, and the normal rules of knowledge and prudence seem to fly out the window (hey, there's an idea... wait, babies can't ride brooms). What I am saying is that I never understood just why the Potters didn't appear to plan for other contingencies, like the one that transpired. Standing up to a murderer to protect your son is an unparalleled moment of strength and sacrifice, but it doesn't exactly protect him if that's the extent of your resistance.

ETA: I should point out that I must assume nobody in the world was aware of what would happen magically immediately following this moment.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by Westyane

I agree that it was good of Lily to take responsibility and I believe that if you can spare the life of a child without losing your own, you should do so. But when it comes to grown-up vs child, I don't believe one has more value than the other. It's like saying one is too old for the right to live once they're 18.

That's not really the point though. Nobody is saying the life of a baby is more important than that of an adult. (Although I would argue pretty strongly that the death of a young person is far more tragic than the peaceful death of an old person.) The point is that any adult with a sense of morality feels a duty to protect the young and the vulnerable who cannot defend themselves. That is part of a mother's instinctive desire to shield her child from harm.

Originally Posted by canismajoris

What I am saying is that I never understood just why the Potters didn't appear to plan for other contingencies, like the one that transpired. Standing up to a murderer to protect your son is an unparalleled moment of strength and sacrifice, but it doesn't exactly protect him if that's the extent of your resistance.

This brings us back to the 'why didn't Lily Apparate with Harry?' issue, doesn't it?

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Westyane

I agree that it was good of Lily to take responsibility and I believe that if you can spare the life of a child without losing your own, you should do so. But when it comes to grown-up vs child, I don't believe one has more value than the other. It's like saying one is too old for the right to live once they're 18.

I don't think the Harry potter series is saying that adults don't have the right to live, I think the Harry Potter series is saying that adults have the right to make choices. Big choices, that involve life and death. Informed choices. The sort of choices that children can't really make yet, but are learning how to make.

Since I view the theme of choice as very important to the series, it makes sense to me that those who can make a choice about what is worth dying for are the ones who can choose to lay down their own lives. Playing god with someone else's life is another thing all together, especially the life of someone who hasn't matured enough to make an informed decision on what they think their life is worth and who hasn't yet made a choice on how they wish to use it. I don't think doing so would say anything good about the adult doing it.

[Westyane]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

I don't think the Harry potter series is saying that adults don't have the right to live, I think the Harry Potter series is saying that adults have the right to make choices. Big choices, that involve life and death. Informed choices. The sort of choices that children can't really make yet, but are learning how to make.

Since I view the theme of choice as very important to the series, it makes sense to me that those who can make a choice about what is worth dying for are the ones who can choose to lay down their own lives. Playing god with someone else's life is another thing all together, especially the life of someone who hasn't matured enough to make an informed decision on what they think their life is worth and who hasn't yet made a choice on how they wish to use it. I don't think doing so would say anything good about the adult doing it.

I understand your point. Still, how about the adult who has chosen how they wish to live their life? Is it actually their duty to give that up for one who hasn't?

Maybe we should just agree that it is a nice move but a choice that is up to the involved to make?

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Westyane

Well, Lily broke Snape's heart and going by the logic that I get from your way of discussing and namecalling, the background and reasons don't matter and what she did after that didn't matter either. If you believe I've failed to understand you, you are welcome to prove me wrong.

I'm not sure I'm reading your point correctly. Are you arguing that Lily was a "heartbreaker" because her thoughts and feelings didn't coincide with Snape's thought and feelings or with what Snape wanted her to think and feel? I wouldn't call that being a heartbreaker, I would call that being a human being, with independent thoughts and feelings. Nobody is obliged to return someone else's thoughts and feelings, and a person isn't a "heartbreaker" or in the wrong if they don't return someone's feelings. People are not objects to make someone else feel good, and Lily was not obliged to return Snape's feelings, just because he wanted her to.
As for Lily ending the friendship, I view that as getting out of an unhealthy friendship. Lily showed strength, self-respect and moral fibre in ending her friendship with Snape. Nobody is obliged to stay in a friendship with a budding criminal, nobody is obliged to stay in a friendship with a bigot who makes exceptions for their friend. It would be a demeaning position for Lily to be in - it would be like saying that she only had worth as a person and as a witch because Snape decided she had.

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

Lucius Malfoy gives a dangerous object to an eleven year old in order to release a monster that has killed before into a school full of children. Death Eaters imperius a child into attempting to murder his grandparents. Greyback bites children-- in DH, one child werewolf bite victim dies from the attack. Children are tortured at Hogwarts, or kidnapped to make their parents comply. The society the Death Eaters are building has no reguard for the lives of children.

Totally agree. The DEs don't care who they hurt or kill, as long as it isn't themselves or their loved ones. Adult or child, infant or elderly, it makes no difference to Voldemort and his followers. They didn't care that they were harming children - it benefitted them, so they saw no reason not to. This is the kind of depravity that Lily fought against.

I think Lily's actions sum it up well. When she was an adult and Harry was a baby, she put herself between him and danger. She made a choice. She recognized that he was a baby and not old enough to make a choice. Harry was her responsibility to protect.

I agree. Lily loved her child, and she saw it as her responsibility to look after him. Lily recognised that life was about responsibilities, not just rights. She and James had the responsibility of protecting their child, as he was not old enough to protect himself. She didn't have to remain in front of Harry - she could have stepped aside. But she chose not to, because she loved Harry and didn't want to watch him die. She didn't want to lose her beloved child. She didn't know that sacrificing her life would protect Harry, but she had no intention of sacrificing him to protect herself.

Originally Posted by Westyane

I agree that it was good of Lily to take responsibility and I believe that if you can spare the life of a child without losing your own, you should do so. But when it comes to grown-up vs child, I don't believe one has more value than the other. It's like saying one is too old for the right to live once they're 18.

I don't think anybody is saying that one is too old to live at 18. Are you arguing that Lily should have stepped aside, because I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by canismajoris

To be fair though, I'm still not convinced that any of the Potters were behaving rationally that night. For example, and not a minor one, what was Lily's next move after refusing to stand aside?

There wasn't much she could do - she didn't have her wand. Perhaps she could have fought physically, put up some resistance, but after she had refused Voldemort's option, he killed her.

What I am saying is that I never understood just why the Potters didn't appear to plan for other contingencies, like the one that transpired.

Because they trusted their friend. They believed that someone they had known for years was trustworthy and wouldn't sell them out. They believed that there were only four people who knew that he was the Secret Keeper, and two of them were under the roof of Godric's Hollow.

Standing up to a murderer to protect your son is an unparalleled moment of strength and sacrifice, but it doesn't exactly protect him if that's the extent of your resistance.

Lily didn't have her wand, so she couldn't fight Voldemort off magically.

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

The point is that any adult with a sense of morality feels a duty to protect the young and the vulnerable who cannot defend themselves. That is part of a mother's instinctive desire to shield her child from harm.

I agree. I think there is a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves, especially the young. Not all characters saw it this way, but Lily certainly did.

This brings us back to the 'why didn't Lily Apparate with Harry?' issue, doesn't it?

She didnt' have her wand on her - so she couldn't Apparate.

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

I don't think the Harry potter series is saying that adults don't have the right to live, I think the Harry Potter series is saying that adults have the right to make choices. Big choices, that involve life and death. Informed choices. The sort of choices that children can't really make yet, but are learning how to make.

Good point. Choices are a huge theme in the series, and I think that the characters' choices reflect on them. Some well, some poorly.

Since I view the theme of choice as very important to the series, it makes sense to me that those who can make a choice about what is worth dying for are the ones who can choose to lay down their own lives.

Playing god with someone else's life is another thing all together, especially the life of someone who hasn't matured enough to make an informed decision on what they think their life is worth and who hasn't yet made a choice on how they wish to use it. I don't think doing so would say anything good about the adult doing it.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Westyane

I understand your point. Still, how about the adult who has chosen how they wish to live their life? Is it actually their duty to give that up for one who hasn't?

Lily chose her path. She wanted nothing to do with the path of criminals like the DEs. She chose to live her life fighting them. What about choosing about other adults' lives? Does one have the right to do that? Lily didn't make the choice others would have wanted to make. I don't think anybody in the wizarding world would have begrudged Lily the choice she made to protect her child - apart from Voldemort and Snape. Plus Bellatrix and the other DEs who wound up in Azkaban.

Maybe we should just agree that it is a nice move but a choice that is up to the involved to make?

And Lily made her choice, as she was free to do so. I think her choice was amazing - so much love and courage and sincerity.

[LilyDreamsOn]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

This brings us back to the 'why didn't Lily Apparate with Harry?' issue, doesn't it?

I don't think she could have. They seemed to have an anti-apparition charm on the house, because Voldemort apparated some distance away and had to walk to the house. It also seems like a logical bit of magical protection that any wizard would use. I don't recall any evidence of requiring a wand to apparate, so I don't think that's a factor.

She could have run out the back door or jumped out the window and apparated, but I think her instincts were to barricade herself at that point.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by LilyDreamsOn

I don't think she could have. They seemed to have an anti-apparition charm on the house, because Voldemort apparated some distance away and had to walk to the house. It also seems like a logical bit of magical protection that any wizard would use. I don't recall any evidence of requiring a wand to apparate, so I don't think that's a factor.

She could have run out the back door or jumped out the window and apparated, but I think her instincts were to barricade herself at that point.

Perhaps there were anti-Apparation spells. According to Dumbledore in HBP, on the way to meeting Slughorn, many wizarding households do so as a precaution. It's likely that the Potters had them in place, in addition the the Fidelius charm.
But - in DH, when the trio were captured, Ron is described in Malfoy Manor as trying to Apparate without a wand. It's specifically mentioned that he was trying to do so without a wand. I think this would suggest that one needs a wand to Apparate. Obviously, Malfoy Manor would have spells in place to prevent people Apparating in or out, but we aren't told that Ron was trying to Apparate past security spells, we're told that he was trying to Apparate without a wand.

[Westyane]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I'm not sure I'm reading your point correctly. Are you arguing that Lily was a "heartbreaker" because her thoughts and feelings didn't coincide with Snape's thought and feelings or with what Snape wanted her to think and feel? I wouldn't call that being a heartbreaker, I would call that being a human being, with independent thoughts and feelings. Nobody is obliged to return someone else's thoughts and feelings, and a person isn't a "heartbreaker" or in the wrong if they don't return someone's feelings. People are not objects to make someone else feel good, and Lily was not obliged to return Snape's feelings, just because he wanted her to.
As for Lily ending the friendship, I view that as getting out of an unhealthy friendship. Lily showed strength, self-respect and moral fibre in ending her friendship with Snape. Nobody is obliged to stay in a friendship with a budding criminal, nobody is obliged to stay in a friendship with a bigot who makes exceptions for their friend. It would be a demeaning position for Lily to be in - it would be like saying that she only had worth as a person and as a witch because Snape decided she had.

Here, you're reasoning differently from how you just did with Snape. You're looking at it from her point of view and looking at the other sides of the issue and this is exactly what I wish you would do with Snape's issue; That is my point.

I am not arguing that Lily did anything wrong when she chose not to be Snape's partner and I'm not saying that I think her choice to quit their friendship wasn't at least a bit deserved after that comment of his. My point was simply that it didn't seem to me like you looked as much into Snape's situation as you did with Lily's. That is an important thing to do before discussing a subject that is relevant to the very character, in my humble opinion...

Originally Posted by FurryDice

And Lily made her choice, as she was free to do so. I think her choice was amazing - so much love and courage and sincerity.

This I can absolutely agree to.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I'm not sure I'm reading your point correctly. Are you arguing that Lily was a "heartbreaker" because her thoughts and feelings didn't coincide with Snape's thought and feelings or with what Snape wanted her to think and feel? I wouldn't call that being a heartbreaker, I would call that being a human being, with independent thoughts and feelings.

I think everyone at some point could be considered a heartbreaker - I think for Snape, if he considered his heart broken at the end of their frienship, than Lily was a heartbreaker. To the readers of the HP books, Lily was a girl who was standing up for herself and not so much of a heartbreaker because Snape didn't seem to act all that heartbroken, he seemed to just carry on with his life course of becoming a Death Eater. I think Snape, for Lily, might have been a heartbreaker in that he broke her heart by making such bad choices with his life that both hurt her personally (the ending of their friendship, calling her a mudblood, etc) and hurt the wider world with his criminal acts.

Bascially, being a heartbreaker is a subjective thing, each person has someone they consider to be a heartbreaker because that person has broken their heart. But to others that person wouldn't be a heartbreaker.

I don't think anybody is saying that one is too old to live at 18. Are you arguing that Lily should have stepped aside, because I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Without putting words into Westyane's mouth (or post, as it were), I think what he's saying, or at least my interpretation of what he's saying, is that a child's life is often valued more highly (by a parent, by society...) than an adult's life is and that because of the perceived higher value in that child's life the adult should sacrifice their own to save a child in danger. He disagrees with the perceived 'value system' imposed on an adult life versus a child's life and is arguing that all life is valuable whether you're two, twelve, twenty or fifty years old.

I agree with Pearl_Took that often the death of a child is more tragic than the death of an adult but that often an adult feels the need to protect a child from harm simply because that child doesn't have the ability to protect themselves.

There wasn't much she could do - she didn't have her wand. Perhaps she could have fought physically, put up some resistance, but after she had refused Voldemort's option, he killed her.

I agree that lily didn't have many options, in lieu of having a non-existent nor non-deployed contingency plan. What I find interesting is that she ran upstairs where she could be cornered in Harry's room rather than out the back door or something where she had a chance to at least make an escape. =^/

Because they trusted their friend. They believed that someone they had known for years was trustworthy and wouldn't sell them out. They believed that there were only four people who knew that he was the Secret Keeper, and two of them were under the roof of Godric's Hollow.

I agree that they trusted Sirius to keep the switch a secret and trusted Peter to keep the secret he had been entrusted with a secret. Basically it comes down to having trusted the wrong person.

In regards to the contingency plans I think two things: 1) they didn't have one (or any) because they had put full faith in Peter and Sirius, two people whom they thought they could trust 100%, and 2) they had a contingency plan but due to the nature of the attack on them they were unable to put said plan into motion. This contingency plan they might have had might have been for a situation where they knew Voldemort was coming and had a chance to flee or if they had had their wands on them rather than leaving them laying on the couch. The nature of Voldemort's attack caught them off guard and whatever plan they might have had to get away flew out the window (for some reason I have the image of a baby on a broom... why is that??) ;^P

Lily didn't have her wand, so she couldn't fight Voldemort off magically.

I always thought that there should have been a branch of magic specifically devoted to learning wandless magic for just such situations. Maybe it would have been too advanced for hogwarts since they're just learning non-verbal spells in the 6th year, but still, wizards seem to be handicapped by not having a wand. I would think there would be some trying to figure out a way to eliminate the wand as a magical crutch since it can so easily be taken away or broken.

Since I view the theme of choice as very important to the series, it makes sense to me that those who can make a choice about what is worth dying for are the ones who can choose to lay down their own lives.

I consider people who are capable of making informed, rational choices, rather than choices based soley on emotional reactions, as adults instead of using the arbitrary age cut off of 18. In this respect, I think Lily and James, though very young, were very much adults when the joined the order and when they got married. Harry, in OotP was not yet 'adult' enough to make the choice to join the Order since he was still very much making irrational and emotional decisions. I'm undecided about the twins, lol

Lily chose her path. She wanted nothing to do with the path of criminals like the DEs. She chose to live her life fighting them. What about choosing about other adults' lives? Does one have the right to do that?

Are you asking if lily had the right to choose to save another adult's life? I think in that situation the other adult's choices have to be considered, whether they are sacrificing their own life or are just going to be killed and not putting up resistence and whether the one doing the saving could forgive themself for not saving a life if given the opportunity. Adult-on-adult life saving is definitely more complicated. =^J

[Charlotte_Snape]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

And Lily made her choice, as she was free to do so. I think her choice was amazing - so much love and courage and sincerity.

And yet love, courage, and sincerity is not what casts magical protection onto another person (or else James' sacrifice should have protected both Lily and Harry - wouldn't you say?)

Lily was free to make a choice -- a choice that was denied to James -- and the offering of that choice is the reason Harry survived (an offering which was not part of Voldemort's original plan, and never would have occurred if it wasn't for Snape).

As for how Lily would feel about the truth -- I don't know. But I would find it really sad if the afterlife turned out to be a place full of bitter angry people, unable to let go of the past & forgive others for their mistakes --- because then it would be just like Earth

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

To be fair though, I'm still not convinced that any of the Potters were behaving rationally that night. For example, and not a minor one, what was Lily's next move after refusing to stand aside?

She didn't have any. Her best hope was for Voldemort to take her up on the offer. She was essentially trying to bargain with him.

The Potters had no contingency plan for Voldemort showing up at their house without warning. Much is made of them not having their wands but it wouldn't have made any difference against Voldemort.

It is interesting though that James told her to take Harry and go. Did they have some plan which Lily forgot in her panic or was it just him hoping that she could somehow get away ? I'm thinking the second because he also mentions holding Voldemort off when he had no wand.

I hope someone asks Jo this question. I can understand the Potters not preparing for a betrayal but I think Dumbledore may have thought of that possibility. This is the sort of situation which you want to evaluate with cold hard logic.

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

This brings us back to the 'why didn't Lily Apparate with Harry?' issue, doesn't it?

Its highly likely that Voldemort would have put an anti-apparition jinx on the place if the place itself didn't have anti-apparition charms on it. Besides, I'm not sure the crushing sensation would be too good for a baby. What they needed was an extremely quick way to set up a portkey or even an emergency portkey. "In case of Voldemort, break glass and grab boot".

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I always thought that there should have been a branch of magic specifically devoted to learning wandless magic for just such situations. Maybe it would have been too advanced for hogwarts since they're just learning non-verbal spells in the 6th year, but still, wizards seem to be handicapped by not having a wand. I would think there would be some trying to figure out a way to eliminate the wand as a magical crutch since it can so easily be taken away or broken.

IMO wandless magic would require you to be a powerful wizard/witch in the first place. I imagine doing wandless magic would be similar to using a wand that is not yours.

[leah49]

Originally Posted by Westyane

Here, you're reasoning differently from how you just did with Snape. You're looking at it from her point of view and looking at the other sides of the issue and this is exactly what I wish you would do with Snape's issue; That is my point.

Sorry to stick my nose in, but I have been keeping up with the discussion, just had nothing to add. This is the Lily Evans Potter: Character Analysis thread so there is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at anything in this thread from her point of view. I think that's what we should be doing. If you want to look at a situation from another character's point of view go to that character's thread instead.

[Moriath]

And if you have a problem that involves thread logistics please contact a moderator instead of taking it to the thread yourselves.

[Westyane]

Originally Posted by leah49

Sorry to stick my nose in, but I have been keeping up with the discussion, just had nothing to add. This is the Lily Evans Potter: Character Analysis thread so there is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at anything in this thread from her point of view. I think that's what we should be doing. If you want to look at a situation from another character's point of view go to that character's thread instead.

Even though I still believe it is important to consider both sides in a discussion (that is, no there's nothing wrong with looking at it from her point of view - it is rather important for the subject - but looking at both is necessary) that is regarding two persons and discussing their actions (also, using nicknames such as "terrorist" is rather cruel towards any character and their fans), I can definitely see your point. Please excuse my mistakes.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Westyane

I am not arguing that Lily did anything wrong when she chose not to be Snape's partner and I'm not saying that I think her choice to quit their friendship wasn't at least a bit deserved after that comment of his. My point was simply that it didn't seem to me like you looked as much into Snape's situation as you did with Lily's. That is an important thing to do before discussing a subject that is relevant to the very character, in my humble opinion...

I'm exploring Lily's (often ignored) point of view, yes. And to be honest, if one person doesn't want a relationship, then that is it. No relationship. End of story. Nobody is entitled to a relationship with someone else no matter how much they want one. Lily did not do something wrong by not returning Snape's feelings. Nor did she do something wrong by getting out of a toxic friendship.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Bascially, being a heartbreaker is a subjective thing, each person has someone they consider to be a heartbreaker because that person has broken their heart. But to others that person wouldn't be a heartbreaker.

I don't think a person is a heartbreaker for daring to have their own feelings. I don't think a person is a heartbreaker just because they have the appalling nerve not to date someone who wants them. I consider that basic being a human being with feelings of one's own and not an object to make others better. I don't think a person is a heartbreaker for getting out of a harmful relationship - I consider that a very sensible, strong and admirable thing to do.

I always thought that there should have been a branch of magic specifically devoted to learning wandless magic for just such situations. Maybe it would have been too advanced for hogwarts since they're just learning non-verbal spells in the 6th year, but still, wizards seem to be handicapped by not having a wand. I would think there would be some trying to figure out a way to eliminate the wand as a magical crutch since it can so easily be taken away or broken.

I don't know if wandless magic is that much possible in the series. We don't see that much of it, apart from small examples, and these are from wizards who did still have their wands on their person - Quirrellmort conjuring ropes, and Dumbledore clapping to change the decorations in the Hall. I doubt there would be quite as much emphasis on wands if wandless magic was possible to a great extent.

Are you asking if lily had the right to choose to save another adult's life? I think in that situation the other adult's choices have to be considered, whether they are sacrificing their own life or are just going to be killed and not putting up resistence and whether the one doing the saving could forgive themself for not saving a life if given the opportunity. Adult-on-adult life saving is definitely more complicated. =^J

Especially if it involves sacrificing that other adult's child to save that adult.

Originally Posted by Charlotte_Snape

And yet love, courage, and sincerity is not what casts magical protection onto another person (or else James' sacrifice should have protected both Lily and Harry - wouldn't you say?)

And if Lily had not had that courage, love and sincerity, she would have done exactly what Snape would have preferred, and witnessed the murder of her toddler. Lily made the choice. Lily chose her son over everyone and everything else. That was not down to Snape or Voldemort - that was Lily's choice. If one credits Snape for asking for Lily to be spared, then logically, one must also credit Voldemort for giving Lily the choice to step aside rather than just automatically Stunning or killing her.

Lily was free to make a choice -- a choice that was denied to James -- and the offering of that choice is the reason Harry survived (an offering which was not part of Voldemort's original plan, and never would have occurred if it wasn't for Snape).

Harry's survival was certainly not part of Snape's plan. Snape never asked Voldemort to give Lily a choice - he asked Voldemort to spare her. The decision to give Lily a choice in the matter was all down to Voldemort. Snape, for all his strange ideas of love, would have known that Lily would never stand aside and watch the murder of her child, much as he'd prefer that to Lily's death. The choice came from Voldemort. And incidentally, the danger would never have arisen either, if not for Snape.

As for how Lily would feel about the truth -- I don't know. But I would find it really sad if the afterlife turned out to be a place full of bitter angry people, unable to let go of the past & forgive others for their mistakes --- because then it would be just like Earth

Strange, how Lily is the one expected to forgive and let go and move on.

And, how Lily would feel about the truth came up in the "what if?" thread in a discussion on "what if Lily had survived that night in Godric's Hollow, and James and/or Harry hadn't?" Under those circumstances, I think it would be expecting a bit much to expect Lily to be the one to forgive and forget.

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

It is interesting though that James told her to take Harry and go. Did they have some plan which Lily forgot in her panic or was it just him hoping that she could somehow get away ? I'm thinking the second because he also mentions holding Voldemort off when he had no wand.

It could be either, the plan seems to have been to buy Lily a bit of time to get away - whether there was a pre-arranged plan or not.

Its highly likely that Voldemort would have put an anti-apparition jinx on the place if the place itself didn't have anti-apparition charms on it. Besides, I'm not sure the crushing sensation would be too good for a baby. What they needed was an extremely quick way to set up a portkey or even an emergency portkey. "In case of Voldemort, break glass and grab boot".

A Portkey would have been useful. But, I'm thinking that they didn't expect to be betrayed, they didn't expect to need an emergency Portkey.

Originally Posted by Westyane

(also, using nicknames such as "terrorist" is rather cruel towards any character and their fans), I can definitely see your point. Please excuse my mistakes.

That is what the DEs were. There is no nice name for that group of criminals. They were racist terrorist criminals who wanted to overthrow the government, oppress the population and commit ethnic cleansing. I think terrorist is an accurate description for what they were. Any name for that organisation is a thousand times less cruel than that organisation itself and what its members did.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I don't think a person is a heartbreaker for daring to have their own feelings. I don't think a person is a heartbreaker just because they have the appalling nerve not to date someone who wants them. I consider that basic being a human being with feelings of one's own and not an object to make others better. I don't think a person is a heartbreaker for getting out of a harmful relationship - I consider that a very sensible, strong and admirable thing to do.

Which is why we readers tend not to regard Lily as a hearbreaker - she's doing what's right for her, 'daring to have her own feelings', standing up for herself and getting herself out of a bad relationship.

Snape, however, wouldn't take Lily's daring to have her own feelings into consideration, I think, and for him he would consider her as a heartbreaker.

Lily is only a heartbreaker in Snape's eyes, not in anyone else's. That's why I say being a heartbreaker is subjective. It's a title given to you by someone whose heart you've broken. To her friends Lily would be seen as strong for finally giving up a bad relationship. To James she would be being sensible in finally dumping that weirdo Snivellus. But to Snape she would have broken his heart and for him would have earned the title of heartbreaker.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Which is why we readers tend not to regard Lily as a hearbreaker - she's doing what's right for her, 'daring to have her own feelings', standing up for herself and getting herself out of a bad relationship.

I agree. How dare she think for herself.

Snape, however, wouldn't take Lily's daring to have her own feelings into consideration, I think, and for him he would consider her as a heartbreaker.

No, we don't see much of Lily's feelings being taken into consideration by Snape.

Lily is only a heartbreaker in Snape's eyes, not in anyone else's. That's why I say being a heartbreaker is subjective. It's a title given to you by someone whose heart you've broken. To her friends Lily would be seen as strong for finally giving up a bad relationship. To James she would be being sensible in finally dumping that weirdo Snivellus. But to Snape she would have broken his heart and for him would have earned the title of heartbreaker.

In that case, I think it ought to be specified that Lily was only a heartbreaker according to Snape. Because, objectively, one can say that James was a bully at school, and objectively, one can say that Snape became a criminal. I think there is no evidence to objectively say that Lily was a "heartbreaker", which was the generalisation I was initially responding to.

And in terms of Lily's heart, as we're in Lily's thread - how much must it have hurt her to lose Snape as a friend? To know that he was no longer the boy she had known as a child? To know what he thought of her, and how far down the twisted path he had gone? I think it must have hurt Lily immensely.

She would have been hurt, betrayed and humiliated, IMO.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

The Potters had no contingency plan for Voldemort showing up at their house without warning. Much is made of them not having their wands but it wouldn't have made any difference against Voldemort.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like one can do quite a lot with a wand other than engage in single combat. I'm not asking why Lily didn't fight back, I'm why she wasn't even prepared to.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

There wasn't much she could do - she didn't have her wand. Perhaps she could have fought physically, put up some resistance, but after she had refused Voldemort's option, he killed her.

This goes along with my previous response to wolfbrother: It just mystifies me that the Potters appear to have been so nonchalant about defending themselves.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Because they trusted their friend. They believed that someone they had known for years was trustworthy and wouldn't sell them out. They believed that there were only four people who knew that he was the Secret Keeper, and two of them were under the roof of Godric's Hollow.

Maybe I've just read too many books or seen too many movies, but I know that believing you're safe is a poor excuse to let your guard down.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Lily didn't have her wand, so she couldn't fight Voldemort off magically.

I don't think she had to anyway. She could fight, yes--and lose, yes. Or she could delay, or deceive, or escape, or a host of other possible magical solutions to the problem of being trapped in a room where a murderer was looking for you. All of which I personally would have considered long before the "oops Voldemort is here" moment.

[MerryLore]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

. Lily's choice is the only one I credit with saving Harry.

Answered on the Severus Snape Character Analysis Thread.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Lily is the only one I credit. I don't give people credit when their misdeeds have unexpected good consequences.

Just getting back to this briefly... I literally don't understand how one person gets credit for unintended consequences and another one doesn't. Lily's good intentions might have backfired spectacularly rather than saving Harry, but by some chance or quirk of magic they didn't. If they had, would you tell me you wouldn't find fault with Lily's actions simply because she meant well?