Lily Evans Potter: Character Analysis

[Pan_Kleks]

I've really opened up the proverbial Pandora's Box.

Without quoting anyone specifically, I think even if Voldemort had stupified Lily or had thrown her aside and killed Harry, he would have killed Lily, to make a clean job of it all. It's been established and I undoubtedly have repeated for the upteenth time that Tom Riddle was a sociopath.

I think in the sense of an Anton Chigurgh (the antagonist of No Country for Old Men, that flips a coin and lets a person decide whether he will murder them or not) it was a matter of telling a person that they did not need to die but ultimately he would kill them none the less. He didn't need a reason, he didn't care for Severus so long as he believed that Severus was loyal to him. After all, he told Severus that there were far better women out there, far purer, far more proper. Thus, Voldemort once again by denying the concept of love to give him insight helped to create his own downfall.

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by Pan_Kleks

Lily Potter had no choice, it was either lose her soul by stepping aside and allowing the man who had murdered the love of her life, her husband, murder her only child. Which she would never have done, or try to shield Harry from Voldemort. Considering that neither James nor Lily had wands on them when Voldemort attacked the house, fighting back was impossible.

It may have been as good as no choice but technically, she did have one.

Tell me what you would have done if you had been Lily, I mean, considering you believe her sacrifice was cowardly.

I would have tried to hide myself and Harry. When Voldemort found us, I would have begged and pleaded with him for my kid's life. Grovelled at his feet and sold my soul to spare Harry's life. Embarassed and debased myself if I had to. I don't think the way I would have acted could be called courageous. I'm not overcoming fear and looking death in the eye here. Rather I'm totally overcome by fear of losing the child and willing to throw all my principles out the window to prevent it from happening.

Snape ran to Dumbledore because he realised than, the magnitude of his mistake by snitching to the Dark Lord about the prophesy. He told Dumbledore he only cared about Lily but relented and told him to protect the whole family in any way possible. His wish to die, was a result of the failure of the concealment. I don't think he realised until than that Voldemort would stop at nothing. Snape's strength of character and redeeming quality was his love for Lily Evans. He lost all of that on October 31st. His wish to die had nothing to do with self-preservation. Nor did Dumbledore's wish to take the rage of Gellert Grindelwald when he was using the cruciatus curse on his brother and whatever evil he committed against his sister.

Snape wanting to die had everything to do with self preservation. As Dumbledore says, Snape's death would help nobody but Snape himself. Snape did not want to deal with consequences of her death; it was easier and less painful for him to be dead.

As for Dumbledore, he wanted someone to kill him because he didn't want to face that scene. He was trying to protect himself.

The statement that Lily placed herself in front of a killing curse by Voldemort simply because she didn't want to live in a world without Harry or James is ludicrous. Mind boggling, I think you are forgetting that neither James nor Lily had a wand on them when Voldemort burst in. They could not fight back, they could not disapparate.

Why ? Why do you find it ludicrous and mind boggling that a mother simply could not endure the thought of her child being killed ?

Well, let me ask you this. Where is the source in the books that claims that she had no idea of what she did by dying in protection of Harry? Harry evoked the ancient magic of protective love by thinking about it, by wishing it, by desiring it when he sacrificed himself in the Forbidden Forest. It worked, Voldemort was unable to cast spells which could last against those that Harry loved; his two best friends, Luna, Neville, the Weasley family, Professor McGonagall and the rest of the Order.

Well, in the whole scene with Voldemort, she did not look like she had any plan of thwarting Voldemort. As for Harry dying for everyone and becoming a wizarding Jesus, I'm not too comfortable with that idea. I'd prefer to believe that the spells didn't work because Voldemort was using a wand whose master was Harry.

How would it have been brave if Lily was afraid of dying?

She would have had to overcome her fear of dying and put herself on the line.

Was she really afraid of death though? Besides, I think you're contradicting yourself here. You said she would have been brave if she was afraid of dying and now you're saying she was afraid and that made her 'selfish'

My point is that her fear of death would be completely overwhelmed by her fear of losing her child.

She didn't want her son to be murdered, that is all. It has nothing to do with one fear overwhelming another. She did what she felt would potentially protect Harry. Sacrificing herself and thus evoking the ancient magic of love and the bound of protection it would give to the son she loved.

If she did knowingly evoke the protection, then I would agree that it was a brave action. The way that scene plays does not give me that impression.

Bravery comes in many forms, to be a brave, a hero isn't necessarily limited to those who overcome their fear of death. We can only assume that Dobby did not wish to die when he came to rescue the trio and the prisoners of Malfoy Manor. He came despite his traumatic experience of having served the Malfoy family. Despite all of that, he still fought back, he saved the trio and the rest of the Prisoners and died as a result. He may not have consciously come over his fear of death, he was simply doing what he needed to do to ensure that his friends would not be killed. Regulus and Harry, knew that they were sacrificing their lives (which obviously still makes them brave), however Dobby's sacrifice does not make him any less brave because he unknowingly went to his death.

Dobby was brave when he came to Malfoy Manor. He is brave because he had to deal with his fear and come. His fear was not the fear of death but the fear of coming back to the place of his former masters. It doesn't matter what the fear is as long as you can do the right thing inspite of it.

Bravery is intangible, it cannot be measured, nor grasped nor tasted because of that, their isn't a single definition of what makes one brave.

For me, a brave act is one where the person has to overcome personal fears in order to perform it. This would vary among people obviously. One person's brave act may not necessarily be a brave act for someone else.

Voldemort was first and foremost a sociopath and a serial killer. He lied about everything, from covering up his past to covering up his true intentions to lying about his motives and attempting to make himself bigger and better than he was. I don't think for a minute we can doubt that Tom Riddle was about to keep his bargain. He did not care for his followers, Dumbledore said so himself; he merely viewed them as servants to do the more menial tasks he didn't want to bother himself with. Voldemort having been limited in his intelligence and understanding of people, probably believed that if he made Severus believe he was about to spare Lily's life that would make him more loyal.

I think its pretty clear that Voldemort intended Lily to live. He may have killed her eventually but he certainly had no intention of killing her if she was willing to step aside.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

In that situation, wandless, what was the bravest thing she could have done?

I don't think there is much she could have done. I would have preferred her to have stood there and given Voldemort a bit of attitude though.


To clarify here, I'm not saying that Lily wasn't a courageous person just that IMO this particular act wasn't some incredible feat of bravery.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

I would have tried to hide myself and Harry. When Voldemort found us, I would have begged and pleaded with him for my kid's life. Grovelled at his feet and sold my soul to spare Harry's life. Embarassed and debased myself if I had to. I don't think the way I would have acted could be called courageous. I'm not overcoming fear and looking death in the eye here. Rather I'm totally overcome by fear of losing the child and willing to throw all my principles out the window to prevent it from happening.

Lily's primal act goes deeper than 'fear of losing the child'. Lily wasn't just concerned about her own feelings of grief. She wanted to save Harry for his own sake, not just because she would suffer devastating grief if he was killed (as unbearable as that would have been). Indeed, she was prepared to be killed in the place of Harry.

As for Harry dying for everyone and becoming a wizarding Jesus, I'm not too comfortable with that idea. I'd prefer to believe that the spells didn't work because Voldemort was using a wand whose master was Harry.

'Harry as wizarding Jesus' is quite a commonly held trope in the fandom. I actually share your reservations over the idea, but this is not the thread to discus it.

She would have had to overcome her fear of dying and put herself on the line.

But that's what she did do. She begs Voldemort not to kill Harry but to kill her instead.

My point is that her fear of death would be completely overwhelmed by her fear of losing her child.

That's how the scene plays out to me, though. She offers herself instead of Harry, doesn't she?

If she did knowingly evoke the protection, then I would agree that it was a brave action. The way that scene plays does not give me that impression.

I totally agree that Lily did not knowingly evoke the magical protection. Nowhere in canon are we given that idea. Lily is just a desperate young woman, and a loving mother who will do anything, even sacrifice herself, to save her baby.

(I don't believe Harry realised what his own self-sacrifice in DH would entail, either. He didn't go to Voldemort in the belief that offering himself up to death would activate a magical protection shield).

For me, a brave act is one where the person has to overcome personal fears in order to perform it. This would vary among people obviously. One person's brave act may not necessarily be a brave act for someone else.

The text shows Lily as being terrified. But her terror is above all about her baby son: she is prepared to put his life before her own.

I don't think there is much she could have done. I would have preferred her to have stood there and given Voldemort a bit of attitude though.

That would make good literature but maybe isn't all that realistic.

To clarify here, I'm not saying that Lily wasn't a courageous person just that IMO this particular act wasn't some incredible feat of bravery.

I think it was a loving, self-sacrificial act and a brave one.

[MinervasCat]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

It may have been as good as no choice but technically, she did have one.

I would have tried to hide myself and Harry. When Voldemort found us, I would have begged and pleaded with him for my kid's life. Grovelled at his feet and sold my soul to spare Harry's life. Embarassed and debased myself if I had to. I don't think the way I would have acted could be called courageous. I'm not overcoming fear and looking death in the eye here. Rather I'm totally overcome by fear of losing the child and willing to throw all my principles out the window to prevent it from happening.

Lily didn't have much of a chance to hide Harry (although I have wondered why she didn't disapparate with him as soon as she reached his room). After all, they were not expecting Voldemort to drop by. As for the begging, etc., I doubt it would have made any difference, but she did beg him not to kill Harry and to kill her instead.

Speaking as a mother, it is not the fear of losing a child, but the fear of the child being harmed or killed, which is foremost in one's mind. You're not thinking what your life will be without them, you're thinking that they will have no life if you don't do something to save them.

Snape wanting to die had everything to do with self preservation. As Dumbledore says, Snape's death would help nobody but Snape himself. Snape did not want to deal with consequences of her death; it was easier and less painful for him to be dead.

As for Dumbledore, he wanted someone to kill him because he didn't want to face that scene. He was trying to protect himself.

Will address this on the Snape/Dumbledore thread.

Why ? Why do you find it ludicrous and mind boggling that a mother simply could not endure the thought of her child being killed ?

It's not ludicrous, it's just not the first thing that comes to mind. The child being in danger is. The fact that they will be hurt or die, not that it will hurt you to lose them, is what drives a mother to protect her child.

Well, in the whole scene with Voldemort, she did not look like she had any plan of thwarting Voldemort. As for Harry dying for everyone and becoming a wizarding Jesus, I'm not too comfortable with that idea. I'd prefer to believe that the spells didn't work because Voldemort was using a wand whose master was Harry.

I think this is more for the Harry thread, but, it was not my idea that Harry was dying "for everyone" but that Harry had to die to kill the last shred of Voldemort's soul. I think there's a difference. And, he was willing to do that because he knew that he would eliminate the Dark Lord and others would be able to go on with their lives. This is, again, one person sacrificing themselves for another/others. Why does a soldier throw himself on a grenade to save a group of his buddies? Not because he'll miss them, not because he'll be a big hero, but because his thought is to save their lives.

She would have had to overcome her fear of dying and put herself on the line.

Since Lily wasn't AK'd immediately, like James was, she probably did have a few moments to be afraid, but, IMO, her action would have been instantaneous: to throw herself between Voldemort and Harry.

My point is that her fear of death would be completely overwhelmed by her fear of losing her child.

Sorry to nit-pick, but we're back again to the "fear of losing a child" phrase. IMO, in cases where mothers (and other people) put their lives on the line and may ultimately die, it is not because they're thinking "what am I going to do without you?" It is because they do not want the other person to experience harm or death and are willing to do that themselves to save their loved one.

If she did knowingly evoke the protection, then I would agree that it was a brave action. The way that scene plays does not give me that impression.

First, I don't think she had that much time to consider it. Second, it was her selflessness, not knowing that there was going to be any other result other than Harry remaining alive, that made the protection work.

Dobby was brave when he came to Malfoy Manor. He is brave because he had to deal with his fear and come. His fear was not the fear of death but the fear of coming back to the place of his former masters. It doesn't matter what the fear is as long as you can do the right thing inspite of it.

But, do you have to be consciously thinking of that fear for it to be a brave act? So many brave acts are a quick reaction to a situation rather than having to steel one's self to take action. Howerver, IMO, it doesn't lessen the act of bravery because it is a person's first instinct to protect someone they love.

For me, a brave act is one where the person has to overcome personal fears in order to perform it. This would vary among people obviously. One person's brave act may not necessarily be a brave act for someone else.

(See above)

To clarify here, I'm not saying that Lily wasn't a courageous person just that IMO this particular act wasn't some incredible feat of bravery.

I do see it as an incredible feat of bravery. Anytime one person sacrifices themselves to save another it is an incredible feat of bravery.

The point I was making when this discussion began was that Lily's was not anymore courageous than others who did the same thing. Her bravery, IMO, is not questionable. I was just saying that she shouldn't be held up as more courageous above the others who gave their lives during the war with Voldemort was.

[Pan_Kleks]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I totally agree that Lily did not knowingly evoke the magical protection. Nowhere in canon are we given that idea. Lily is just a desperate young woman, and a loving mother who will do anything, even sacrifice herself, to save her baby.

(I don't believe Harry realised what his own self-sacrifice in DH would entail, either. He didn't go to Voldemort in the belief that offering himself up to death would activate a magical protection shield).

I still don't see the evidence that it was not on purpose. Harry wished that his death would protect his loved ones, he hoped that when he entered with the 'victorious' Death Eaters, that his sacrifice would protect his loved ones and it worked. Can we be sure how that ancient magic of sacrifice works in this case? No, we don't know and it appears that it didn't need an incantation, a wave of a wand; simply hope and action. Thus, it would seem that it was on purpose. He had to think of it, wish it, hope it, in order for it to work.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

I do see it as an incredible feat of bravery. Anytime one person sacrifices themselves to save another it is an incredible feat of bravery.

The point I was making when this discussion began was that Lily's was not anymore courageous than others who did the same thing. Her bravery, IMO, is not questionable. I was just saying that she shouldn't be held up as more courageous above the others who gave their lives during the war with Voldemort was.

Yet the problematic reality is she had no reason to expect that sacrificing herself would save her son. I mean, we've all sliced and diced the scene before, but her intent clearly could not have been to save Harry unless she completely lost her head. Which, she might have done, it was an extraordinary situation.

In some ways I think this is a rather too popular fictional trope--the idea of "taking a bullet" for someone as a grand gesture of sacrifice. After all, the bad guy probably has another bullet in his gun! I'm not saying Lily shouldn't have stood her ground, but I can't imagine she thought doing so was going to materially benefit her son beyond creating short delay.

(Is it fair to evaluate her behavior in this way? Yes, I think so, because I consider it the Potters' responsibility to have planned for this eventuality. And they evidently never did.)

[mirrormere]

Originally Posted by Pan_Kleks

I still don't see the evidence that it was not on purpose. Harry wished that his death would protect his loved ones, he hoped that when he entered with the 'victorious' Death Eaters, that his sacrifice would protect his loved ones and it worked. Can we be sure how that ancient magic of sacrifice works in this case? No, we don't know and it appears that it didn't need an incantation, a wave of a wand; simply hope and action. Thus, it would seem that it was on purpose. He had to think of it, wish it, hope it, in order for it to work.

Harry went to his death in the forest primarily to get rid of himself as a horcrux so that Voldemort could be defeated and thereby protect the world from the Dark Lord. But he did not realize that he would invoke the same magic on their behalf as his mother did until he discussed it with Dumbledore in King's Cross.

I also believe that Dumbledore purposely did not tell Harry there was a small chance that he would survive precisely because Dumbledore knew that if Harry fully sacrificed himself he would evoke that magical protection on his comrades.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by MerryLore

However, if someone comes to me and wants to apologize, no matter who they are (and especially in the case of someone I once considered a "best friend" at one point) I think it's only fair to hear them out.

And I think it's only fair to expect a "best friend", or any "friend" to not hang out with people who consider you filth. I think it's only fair to expect a "friend" to not racially abuse you. What could Snape possibly tell Lily that would make her excuse his racism?

Once you've heard what they have to say, then i believe you have every right to close the door on them and end the relationship. Lily didn't do that. When she walked out of the Common Room to speak to him, she had her mind made up. To me, a kind, fair person would have heard him out first, and then made a decision. I got the impression she was already looking for a reason to end her relationship with him, and he gave her one.

Lily had her mind made up because she was no longer kidding herself about Snape. When she experienced the hurt and betrayal of her so-called friend throwing racial abuse at her, I think she could no longer deny what he was becoming. And, as she was fully and completely opposed to that dark path, she could no longer continue that toxic friendship.
To me, a doormat would have entertained excuses for racial abuse. Kind and fair are not synonymous with doormat. Lily didn't owe it to Snape to listen to excuses as to why he told her she was unworthy filth.

No disagreement here. It would have been a trait that served her well during the war.

It wouldnt have served her at all if she'd been willing to compromise on them and turn a blind eye to Snape's DE inclinations.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

What I mean by everyone having their own individual bravery scale is that my scale is calibrated differently than yours. On you scale Lily might achieve a 10 of 10, on mine she gets more like an 8 of 10 because I think Harry's walk into the forest is a more flat-out-brave act. For the next poster, Lily might rank a 9, for the one after than she might rank a 6.

What I meant was that not everyone rates courage on a scale.

Everyone interprets "how brave she was by sacrificing herself" by different factors.

And criticises her for it for not-so-different factors.

It's definitely debated, especially in these threads, which I find really interesting. Just because you are friends with someone and they have more than friendly feelings towards you, that does not mean you, as their friend, have to return those feelings in kind. Lily didn't have to love Snape just because he loved her. That's not how love works. At least not to me.

I agree. Lily wasn't some object that Snape was entitled to. I completely agree that nobody is obliged to return someone else's feelings - not in real life and not in fiction. (I blame Hollywood, but that's for another thread) Lily didn't exist solely to make Snape feel good. She was a person with her own feelings and opinions and unfortunately for Snape, she dared to think for herself rather than blindly follow what he told her.

The big difference between Hermione Ron and Harry's friendship and Lily and Snape's friendship is that Lily knew a very different Snape than everyone else did.

A (slightly ) bigger difference is that none of the trio joined the criminals who were trying to murder their friends.

She knew the little boy who played on the playground with her and told her it didn't matter than she was a muggleborn. She was steeped in Nice-Snape for years before he began to morph into Proto-DE-Snape and she probably couldn't reconcille the Proto-DE face he showed the world at Hogwarts with the one she grew up with.

We've all heard the phrase "Put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out but put him in cold water and heat it up and he'll stay in there until he boils to death."

Where Snape is concerned, Lily was put in the water when it was cold.

I think that fits rather well. I agree with your assessment - Lily didn't see, or didn't want to see the changes in Snape. For a long time, she convinced herself that he was still the same boy she had befriended, long after others could see that he was immersing himself in Dark Magic and bigotry.

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Ultimately all I was trying to say was that I find some unresolved conflicts within the entire philosophy of the series, namely the emphasis on choice as contrasted to the power of love. And I think Lily's sacrifice neatly encapsulates my confusion.

Love doesn't mean that a person becomes a mindless drone. It doesn't mean that a person loses the ability to think or choose.

In other words, her choice was not a real choice between standing there and not standing there, it was obvious that she would stand there, always and every time, unless for some reason she chose not to. Her agency in that scene is an illusion woven by our desire to attach credit to her actions, when in reality, and in the opinions of several posters I've just read, she did the only thing any of us could stomach reading about.

I'm not quite sure I understand - Lily doesn't deserve credit for protecting her son? Lily doesn't deserve credit for being willing to die to protect her child? I think that's a little strange. Given the things that credit is actually given for.

My underlying motive here is to wonder why we need to worry about whether it was brave in the first place. I think people are interpreting my comments as some sort of criticism of Lily, but in reality I think it's just a problematic aspect of the text. Lily stood opposed (literally) to what Voldemort wanted. This need not be lauded as the position of brave people! It's the position of everyone who isn't a monster.

Lily standing opposed to what Voldemort wanted is what anyone not a monster would do? Interesting. So, everyone who supported Voldemort was a monster? Seems to be the extension of what you're saying.

That her life was on the line was definitely a consequential circumstance, but in its essence, her decision was just to continue to be a good person. Did she choose to be a good person?

I think she did choose to be a good person. A lesser person would have chosen to become a DE, or a mob-wife and blindly ignored what was going on as long as they themselves were safe. People chose their side in that war, Lily among them. Lily chose to oppose and defy the most malevolent group of wizards that were threatening their community.

Originally Posted by MerryLore

I agree that we as human beings - and characters in books - do not choose our feelings, but we do choose our actions, and we are responsible for our behavior.

I agree with that. People are responsible for their actions.

Originally Posted by canismajoris

It comes down to whether we think Lily capable of considering, even for a moment, letting Voldemort kill her son. Because if she made a choice to do the opposite, she must have. To choose between two options means weighing the costs and benefits, considering the consequences, and making a decision. Not only do I not believe this could occur in the heat of the moment when Lily stood up to Voldemort, I think for it to have happened would have written a much colder Lily than I'm comfortable with.

Just because Lily would never have chosen to stand aside, does not change the fact that it was an option. It was a possibility, it was not one she would ever take, but the choice was there. If it had not been a choice, it would not have saved Harry.

Originally Posted by Pan_Kleks

Without quoting anyone specifically, I think even if Voldemort had stupified Lily or had thrown her aside and killed Harry, he would have killed Lily, to make a clean job of it all. It's been established and I undoubtedly have repeated for the upteenth time that Tom Riddle was a sociopath.

Oh, he did enjoy murder and taunting his victims. However, Lily was to have been a reward for a DE - and Voldemort's rewards, as shown with Wormtail's hand, seem to be double-edged swords.

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

Why ? Why do you find it ludicrous and mind boggling that a mother simply could not endure the thought of her child being killed ?

Is it mind-boggling to consider that perhaps there was more to it than just Lily not wanting to live without Harry? Lily wanted her child to have a chance to grow up. Not just for her sake, but for his. IMO, Lily viewed her child as a person in his own right and not simply an object for her happiness. Of course she didn't want him to be killed. I don't think this was selfish.

If she did knowingly evoke the protection, then I would agree that it was a brave action. The way that scene plays does not give me that impression.

So, it's only brave if she knew some good would come of it?

I don't think there is much she could have done. I would have preferred her to have stood there and given Voldemort a bit of attitude though.

I think refusing to obey this monster that had most of the wizarding world quaking in their boots was attitude.

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

Lily didn't have much of a chance to hide Harry (although I have wondered why she didn't disapparate with him as soon as she reached his room). After all, they were not expecting Voldemort to drop by. As for the begging, etc., I doubt it would have made any difference, but she did beg him not to kill Harry and to kill her instead.

She didn't have her wand with her, so could not Apparate. And in any case, the Potters probably had anti-Apparation spells - Dumbledore mentions in HBP that most wizarding homes use them.

The point I was making when this discussion began was that Lily's was not anymore courageous than others who did the same thing. Her bravery, IMO, is not questionable. I was just saying that she shouldn't be held up as more courageous above the others who gave their lives during the war with Voldemort was.

That's debatable. But my point is, nor should her courage be dismissed as insignificant on the grounds that "most parents would do that". That doesn't make it any less brave.

[Pan_Kleks]

Originally Posted by mirrormere

Harry went to his death in the forest primarily to get rid of himself as a horcrux so that Voldemort could be defeated and thereby protect the world from the Dark Lord. But he did not realize that he would invoke the same magic on their behalf as his mother did until he discussed it with Dumbledore in King's Cross.

Yes, but he did wish that he could die for others. That was what he was thinking as he walked down the Marble staircase hidden underneath his cloak, reminiscing about the best memories of his life with Ron and Hermione, his heart aching with the fact that he'd never get to say goodbye because he knew that he wouldn't be able to leave them. He loved them that much and it was during this time before he came up to Neville to tell him about the snake, that he wished he could die like his parents. Sacrificing himself for his loved ones.

Harry wished and even said to have envied his parents sacrifice and how noble it would be if he could die protecting those he loved by stepping in front of a curse meant for someone.

In the end, it can only be assumed how the magic is invoked. However, being selfless and thinking of others. Desiring that your death will somehow invoke a defence; I think that may have invoked that ancient magic which helped Harry survive.

Lily had her mind made up because she was no longer kidding herself about Snape. When she experienced the hurt and betrayal of her so-called friend throwing racial abuse at her, I think she could no longer deny what he was becoming. And, as she was fully and completely opposed to that dark path, she could no longer continue that toxic friendship.
To me, a doormat would have entertained excuses for racial abuse. Kind and fair are not synonymous with doormat. Lily didn't owe it to Snape to listen to excuses as to why he told her she was unworthy filth.

I agree, Lily had told Severus on at least one occasion that the group of thugs Severus hung around with, were people she did not approve of. He would switch the subject, turn it around on her about the Marauders. Severus did not realise that this was casting a rift between them. To associate himself with people who were supremacists themselves, by almost apologizing for their behaviour by implying that the Marauders were just as bad.

Severus was ignored as a child, he chose the future Death Eaters because they accepted him; he was an intelligent student who was quite apt at the Dart Arts and Potioneering. They likely did not tease him, they thought highly of him and hence why he thought highly of them. For the first time in his life he was part of something bigger than himself, and I can say that for many who are abandoned who often make the choice between what is right and what is easy, Severus did not make a unique choice. However, I think it's unfair to blame Lily for the fact that their friendship ended. It was after all, on a very rocky bed for a time prior to that. She was trying to show the best of Severus to her friends, her friends thought otherwise and perhaps due to peer pressure and seeing what his 'friends' were like, it would be hard not to be a bit more inclined to be uncertain.

The incident in Snape's worst memory just solidified her belief that Snape believed in what the group he hung out with did. He may have attempted to dissuade Lily before, she was obviously willing to overlook the group's supremacist views, simply believing that Snape was different; however the angry outburst like daggers tore her up. She could no longer justify believing that Snape had just fallen in with the wrong crowd. He was one of them. He believed in what they believed.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Love doesn't mean that a person becomes a mindless drone. It doesn't mean that a person loses the ability to think or choose.

Here's where I think you're right in principle, but wrong about this situation. Lily was not thinking about what she should or shouldn't do, she wasn't prepared for what was happening, and she certainly did not spend time reasoning about other ways of resolving the situation. If she had, her actions and the outcome would have been different.

We might say that she chose at some point, in some abstract way, to protect Harry at any cost, but if she had done that, she probably would not have been left with only her body as a defense. I stick by what I said. The only thing I we can really know for sure is that her love for Harry was the reason she stood there.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I'm not quite sure I understand - Lily doesn't deserve credit for protecting her son? Lily doesn't deserve credit for being willing to die to protect her child? I think that's a little strange. Given the things that credit is actually given for.

I have no interest in blame or credit, as I hope my many posts have proved by now. Giving Lily credit for bravery is fine--go for it--but it doesn't explain what happened or why she did it.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Lily standing opposed to what Voldemort wanted is what anyone not a monster would do? Interesting. So, everyone who supported Voldemort was a monster? Seems to be the extension of what you're saying.

I wouldn't take my comment out of context in quite that way: Anyone who would agree to let someone murder their child is a monster... is that a controversial opinion?

Originally Posted by FurryDice

So, it's only brave if she knew some good would come of it?

There's always a fine line between bravery and desperation. Let's say one person describes something thusly: "fighting against impossible odds, giving one's life to protect the innocent, dying in the name of what is right and good." Sounds romantic, and courageous, doesn't it? But another more cynical person might see that same thing as "throwing one's life away in a desperate final act, knowing there is no chance of success, doing the only thing one can to avoid the sting of defeat." Who is right, if the act itself is identical?

I'm not disputing whether anyone might call Lily's sacrifice brave, I just don't think bravery was the operative quality that led to her standing her ground. To conclude that bravery is responsible I think not only cheapens the act itself, but makes the magical result impossible.

[MinervasCat]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Yet the problematic reality is she had no reason to expect that sacrificing herself would save her son. I mean, we've all sliced and diced the scene before, but her intent clearly could not have been to save Harry unless she completely lost her head. Which, she might have done, it was an extraordinary situation.

In some ways I think this is a rather too popular fictional trope--the idea of "taking a bullet" for someone as a grand gesture of sacrifice. After all, the bad guy probably has another bullet in his gun! I'm not saying Lily shouldn't have stood her ground, but I can't imagine she thought doing so was going to materially benefit her son beyond creating short delay.

(Is it fair to evaluate her behavior in this way? Yes, I think so, because I consider it the Potters' responsibility to have planned for this eventuality. And they evidently never did.)

I guess I'm still not sure why whatever someone has in their mind at the time should lessen the level of courage it takes to sacrifice their life in the attempt to save another's. Or, how "taking a bullet for someone" can be seen as other than heroic. Yes, it is a good trope, but, it's not always in literature that this happens. It happens in real life and, IMO, giving one's life for another is truly the ultimate sacrifice, no matter whether you know that it's useless or not.

Back to the guy throwing himself on the grenade (which is not literary trope, but has actually happened many times): for all he knows the explosion will still badly injure or kill his buddies, but he makes an attempt and sacrifices his life to try to stop, or at least limit, that.

Maybe Lily thought that the Order was on it's way -- having Voldmort show up, she may have thought they were right behind and she was buying time for Harry. Or, maybe she thought that Voldemort had some kind of heart and that her sacrifice would be enough to stop him from killing Harry. Or, maybe she wasn't thinking at all, but just reacting as a mother trying to protect her child as best she could, which meant stepping between him and Voldemort.

I tend to think that the Potters should have made plans for a "what if Voldy gets through" scenario, too. But, that does not take away from her bravery in facing Voldemort and begging for him to kill her instead of Harry.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

I guess I'm still not sure why whatever someone has in their mind at the time should lessen the level of courage it takes to sacrifice their life in the attempt to save another's. Or, how "taking a bullet for someone" can be seen as other than heroic. Yes, it is a good trope, but, it's not always in literature that this happens. It happens in real life and, IMO, giving one's life for another is truly the ultimate sacrifice, no matter whether you know that it's useless or not.

Back to the guy throwing himself on the grenade (which is not literary trope, but has actually happened many times): for all he knows the explosion will still badly injure or kill his buddies, but he makes an attempt and sacrifices his life to try to stop, or at least limit, that.

What I'm saying, if nothing else, is that the instinct to protect a child has nothing to do with being brave or not being brave. Saying Lily acted with bravery does nothing to aid in my understanding of the situation, and it doesn't even really need to be there for things to play out the same way, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

Maybe Lily thought that the Order was on it's way -- having Voldmort show up, she may have thought they were right behind and she was buying time for Harry. Or, maybe she thought that Voldemort had some kind of heart and that her sacrifice would be enough to stop him from killing Harry. Or, maybe she wasn't thinking at all, but just reacting as a mother trying to protect her child as best she could, which meant stepping between him and Voldemort.

I tend to think that the Potters should have made plans for a "what if Voldy gets through" scenario, too. But, that does not take away from her bravery in facing Voldemort and begging for him to kill her instead of Harry.

Yeah I mean, that's a separate issue that's bothered me for some time now. If someone's out to kill you or your children, there's really no good excuse to let your guard down, no matter who you trust or how safe you think you are.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by MerryLore

For me, the issue I have with Lily isn't so much the reason she ended her relationship with Snape. She had every right to do so. However, if someone comes to me and wants to apologize, no matter who they are (and especially in the case of someone I once considered a "best friend" at one point) I think it's only fair to hear them out. Once you've heard what they have to say, then i believe you have every right to close the door on them and end the relationship. Lily didn't do that. When she walked out of the Common Room to speak to him, she had her mind made up. To me, a kind, fair person would have heard him out first, and then made a decision. I got the impression she was already looking for a reason to end her relationship with him, and he gave her one.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

And I think it's only fair to expect a "best friend", or any "friend" to not hang out with people who consider you filth. I think it's only fair to expect a "friend" to not racially abuse you. What could Snape possibly tell Lily that would make her excuse his racism?

I'm of two minds about this issue. I agree with MerryLore in that it's accepted as the kind and fair thing to hear a friend (or former friend) out if they are trying to apologize and also agree with Furrydice about Snape not really having any way to defend his actions against Lily.

On the other hand, the only thing I can really say against MerryLore's statement is that Snape went to apologize the same day the incident went down and the intervening time Lily spent apart from him she had probably been berated by her friends in Gryffindor saying things like "See? We told you he was no good!" Meanwhile, she's still stinging from the incident in the first place, feeling like she's been duped by her best friend and generally not letting herself get any distance from the situation. The outcome of all of this would be Lily still in the frame of mind not to be reasonable when Snape comes to apologize because she's still so worked up about the issue.

The best thing I think would have been to wait a couple days for her to cool off, but at the same time, Snape didn't have many options and going to her right away to apologize might have been the only thing he could have done to keep her in his life. Had he waited those couple days to cool off she might have at least heard her out, but at the same time she might have come to the conclusion that there was no way she could continue their friendship and the relationship would still be over.

What I meant was that not everyone rates courage on a scale.

IMO there are excedingly few things that can be judged on an either/or basis, maybe even none at all. Not even death can be an either/or thing because you can still have a beating heart and working organs but you could have suffered enough brain damage to never wake from a coma. For all intents and purposes, your body is alive but your brain is dead.

Bravery or courage to me is, similarly, not an either/or situation. There are too many ways to interpret someone's actions and motivations, too many factors to consider. It's generally accepted that Lily's act was an act of bravery or courage but how brave or courageous it was is dependant on the person interpreting those events.

And criticises her for it for not-so-different factors.

Everyone brings their own interpretations to things, their own life experience, their own belief system, their own judgements. In the case of Lily's sacrifice there are only so many factors we can look at so it comes down to personal interpretation of those few, not-so-different factors.

A (slightly ) bigger difference is that none of the trio joined the criminals who were trying to murder their friends.

I suppose that could be considered a slight difference.

I think that fits rather well. I agree with your assessment - Lily didn't see, or didn't want to see the changes in Snape. For a long time, she convinced herself that he was still the same boy she had befriended, long after others could see that he was immersing himself in Dark Magic and bigotry.

This approach to the Lily/Snape relationship covers a lot of aspects including why Lily stubbornly defended him for so long despite apparently obvious red flags that all of her other friends saw and she didn't. She was blind to them in a way because she only saw Snape as the boy from under the tree.

Just because Lily would never have chosen to stand aside, does not change the fact that it was an option. It was a possibility, it was not one she would ever take, but the choice was there. If it had not been a choice, it would not have saved Harry.

Agreed. When it comes down to it she made a choice, however fleeting that moment was, whether it happened that night, the moment Harry was born or the day she found out she was pregnant. She made the choice to protect her son and she always had the option to choose a different path - but she didn't.

Oh, he did enjoy murder and taunting his victims. However, Lily was to have been a reward for a DE - and Voldemort's rewards, as shown with Wormtail's hand, seem to be double-edged swords.

Perhaps this should be discussed in the Voldemort thread but I never thought he would keep Lily alive and give her to Snape as a "reward." She would be too dangerous to him if she were kept alive.

She didn't have her wand with her, so could not Apparate. And in any case, the Potters probably had anti-Apparation spells - Dumbledore mentions in HBP that most wizarding homes use them.

Interesting question: would there be two versions of the spell, one forbidding people from apparating into you house and one forbidding people to apparate out of your house or would a single anti-apparition jinx serve both purposes? Because, in the case of the Potters, have the two spells would have done them a huge service in not allowing anyone in but giving them a quick way out.

Perhaps I'll move this to the little questions answered thread.

[mirrormere]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

Yet the problematic reality is she had no reason to expect that sacrificing herself would save her son. I mean, we've all sliced and diced the scene before, but her intent clearly could not have been to save Harry unless she completely lost her head. Which, she might have done, it was an extraordinary situation.

In some ways I think this is a rather too popular fictional trope--the idea of "taking a bullet" for someone as a grand gesture of sacrifice. After all, the bad guy probably has another bullet in his gun! I'm not saying Lily shouldn't have stood her ground, but I can't imagine she thought doing so was going to materially benefit her son beyond creating short delay.

(Is it fair to evaluate her behavior in this way? Yes, I think so, because I consider it the Potters' responsibility to have planned for this eventuality. And they evidently never did.)

This has been a very interesting topic to discuss and has made me really ponder the finer points you have presented. Hopefully you won't mind a real-life analogy.

One day a friend was loading my horse into a trailer (she was inside with RED) and passed the lead to me through the window to secure. Just as she did that, RED went nuts and tried to run out. My only thought was that my friend was trapped in a small space with an idiot horse and I tried, with one hand, to hold on to the lead and give her a chance to escape. With a 1200 lb. berserker horse on the other end there was little chance of that. The lead cinched down on my hand and luckily pulled it inside the trailer or I would have lost 4 fingers.

Somewhere inside my brain I knew trying to hold on to RED was completely useless in this instance. But my instinct and reflex was to try and protect my friend, for which I was rewarded with a broken finger and several torn tendons. Was I brave? I don't know. What I do know is that I could not have acted any differently--even knowing my efforts were futile.

Does it matter if Lily is considered courageous or not? I don't think so. I think what mattered was her instinct to protect her son, despite the futility of the effort. Her instinct was born out of her love for Harry and it's that love, proven by her sacrifice, that invoked the ancient magic that protected him for the rest of his life.

Her situation differed from mine in that she had more time to contemplate her fate as she knew Voldemort was coming up the stairs. But when it came down to the casting of the curse, she could not abandon Harry no matter how futile she knew her efforts to be.

As far as the Potter's planning for Voldemort's eventual appearance--hard to say. Seems odd to me they wouldn't keep their wands constantly at the ready.

PS-My friend was fine--she had quite a few reflexes of her own!

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

We might say that she chose at some point, in some abstract way, to protect Harry at any cost, but if she had done that, she probably would not have been left with only her body as a defense. I stick by what I said. The only thing I we can really know for sure is that her love for Harry was the reason she stood there.

I agree. Her love for her child was more important to her than anything else. She would never consider the cruel offer Voldemort made to her.

I have no interest in blame or credit, as I hope my many posts have proved by now. Giving Lily credit for bravery is fine--go for it--but it doesn't explain what happened or why she did it.

I think she acted out of love, but it also took courage to do so.

I wouldn't take my comment out of context in quite that way: Anyone who would agree to let someone murder their child is a monster... is that a controversial opinion?

Just their own child? The murder of someone else's child is fine? Here's what you said:

Lily stood opposed (literally) to what Voldemort wanted. This need not be lauded as the position of brave people! It's the position of everyone who isn't a monster.

Is that to say that there's nothing brave about opposing Voldemort and that to support him is to be a monster? Opposing what Voldemort wants is the position of everyone who isn't a monster?
Is that to say that all those who opposed Voldemort and actually did something about it, didn't do anything particularly special or brave or significant?

There's always a fine line between bravery and desperation. Let's say one person describes something thusly: "fighting against impossible odds, giving one's life to protect the innocent, dying in the name of what is right and good." Sounds romantic, and courageous, doesn't it? But another more cynical person might see that same thing as "throwing one's life away in a desperate final act, knowing there is no chance of success, doing the only thing one can to avoid the sting of defeat." Who is right, if the act itself is identical?

The latter sounds like a quitter to me, and depending on the circumstances, someone who looks out only for number one. Suppose Neville and the others fighting at the Battle of Hogwarts had taken that attitude after Voldemort had shown up announcing Harry's death? I don't think the former is anything to do with "romanticism". It wasn't romanticism that Neville and the others kept fighting after Voldemort declared them defeated. Having a cause and motivation other than looking out for number one and to hell with everyone elseisn't romanticism, IMO.

I'm not disputing whether anyone might call Lily's sacrifice brave, I just don't think bravery was the operative quality that led to her standing her ground. To conclude that bravery is responsible I think not only cheapens the act itself, but makes the magical result impossible.

I don't think it cheapens anything to say that it was brave of Lily. I didn't say that bravery was the only reason she stood between her son and Voldemort. I think she acted out of love, but it also took courage.

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I'm of two minds about this issue. I agree with MerryLore in that it's accepted as the kind and fair thing to hear a friend (or former friend) out if they are trying to apologize and also agree with Furrydice about Snape not really having any way to defend his actions against Lily.

It's also kind and fair to not throw racist abuse at people. It's also kind and fair to stay away from racist fanatics who want to oppress and murder, especially when your "friend" is a target of said fanaticism.

On the other hand, the only thing I can really say against MerryLore's statement is that Snape went to apologize the same day the incident went down and the intervening time Lily spent apart from him she had probably been berated by her friends in Gryffindor saying things like "See? We told you he was no good!" Meanwhile, she's still stinging from the incident in the first place, feeling like she's been duped by her best friend and generally not letting herself get any distance from the situation. The outcome of all of this would be Lily still in the frame of mind not to be reasonable when Snape comes to apologize because she's still so worked up about the issue.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to be angry and betrayed when a friend throws racist abuse at you and when a friend associates with people who want you oppressed and/or murdered. I think it's unreasonable to turn a blind eye to that kind of behaviour. I think it would have been unreasonable of Lily to support or condone that kind of behaviour.

The best thing I think would have been to wait a couple days for her to cool off, but at the same time, Snape didn't have many options and going to her right away to apologize might have been the only thing he could have done to keep her in his life. Had he waited those couple days to cool off she might have at least heard her out, but at the same time she might have come to the conclusion that there was no way she could continue their friendship and the relationship would still be over.

Cooling down would not mean that Lily would have gone and justified racist abuse, I hope. What was there for Lily to hear out? Excuses about how he only did it because he was upset, he didn't mean it and even, if pushed into saying why she was different to the other "Mudbloods", that he cares for her? All classic abuse-excuses. IMO, Lily had finally realised that she could not be in a friendship with a DE-wannabe. It was a complete contradiction to her very existence and to all her values. Once she came to her senses about the path Snape was on, Lily was not going to say that she objected to all DEs except Snape.

Perhaps this should be discussed in the Voldemort thread but I never thought he would keep Lily alive and give her to Snape as a "reward." She would be too dangerous to him if she were kept alive.

But if Voldemort had intended to kill her anyway, he wouldn't have offered her the chance to step aside - and in the flashback in DH, he considers using magic to move her aside, but then decides it would be more "prudent" to killl them all.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Just their own child? The murder of someone else's child is fine?

This confuses me. What Voldemort wanted was to kill Harry. There's no other child, and Voldemort didn't want anything else regarding Harry. Therefore, supporting what he wanted versus opposing what he wanted is a simple matter of letting Harry die or standing in the way.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Is that to say that there's nothing brave about opposing Voldemort and that to support him is to be a monster? Opposing what Voldemort wants is the position of everyone who isn't a monster?

Opposing Voldemort is not a difficult leap of opinion. I mean, I'm surprised you seem to be suggesting otherwise. Was it a difficult decision for Lily to reject the ideas Snape and his friends were espousing?

Putting one's life on the line to fight Voldemort is a brave decision. But that's not what Lily and her family were doing. They were in hiding, hoping against hope to avoid that very confrontation.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

It's also kind and fair to not throw racist abuse at people. It's also kind and fair to stay away from racist fanatics who want to oppress and murder, especially when your "friend" is a target of said fanaticism.

I agree. What Snape did to her was terrible and unjustifiable if he considered himself Lily's friend. But that doesn't mean Lily can't take the high road and give him the chance to explain himself once she's in a state of mind to hear him. She doesn't have to forgive him. She doesn't have to become his friend again. She doesn't have to go back to defending him. But I think it would have been a much better situation and offered both of them more closure on the relationship had they had the opportunity to hear each other out when tempers were not so hot.

Personally, I think it is reasonable to be angry and betrayed when a friend throws racist abuse at you and when a friend associates with people who want you oppressed and/or murdered. I think it's unreasonable to turn a blind eye to that kind of behaviour. I think it would have been unreasonable of Lily to support or condone that kind of behaviour.

Thing is, though, for the five years prior to SWM Lily did turn a blind eye to Snape, or at least he occupied her blind spot. There were red flags that all of her other friends saw that made them wonder why she remained friends with him but she couldn't see them until he called her a mudblood.

Cooling down would not mean that Lily would have gone and justified racist abuse, I hope.

Please reread my post. I don't suggest she should have justified Snape's behavior or have gone running back into his arms once he apologized, I said she could have heard him out and still made the decision to end the friendship.

What was there for Lily to hear out? Excuses about how he only did it because he was upset, he didn't mean it and even, if pushed into saying why she was different to the other "Mudbloods", that he cares for her?

Yes. And in her new state of mind she might have seen such excuses for just what they were: excuses. It would have been a huge moment of closure had she been able to talk to Snape with a cool head. I, at least, never got the impression that Snape got much closure from that relationship because of the intensity and passion in their last canon exchange.

But if Voldemort had intended to kill her anyway, he wouldn't have offered her the chance to step aside - and in the flashback in DH, he considers using magic to move her aside, but then decides it would be more "prudent" to killl them all.

Answered in the Voldemort thread.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

This confuses me. What Voldemort wanted was to kill Harry. There's no other child, and Voldemort didn't want anything else regarding Harry. Therefore, supporting what he wanted versus opposing what he wanted is a simple matter of letting Harry die or standing in the way.

I'm talking about murder in general, in the series, and the murder or prospective murders of children in general in the series.
And what Voldemort wanted in general. There was plenty of people Voldemort wanted to murder. It wasn't just Harry. When Lily stood between him and her child, it was just Harry. But there were many, many others he wanted to murder. Is opposing that simply the stance of "anyone who isn't a monster"? And if so, what does that make of his supporters?

Opposing Voldemort is not a difficult leap of opinion. I mean, I'm surprised you seem to be suggesting otherwise. Was it a difficult decision for Lily to reject the ideas Snape and his friends were espousing?

I think that opposing Voldemort is straightforward. I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's what anyone with a shred of decency does, IMO. And as Lily is criticised for rejecting what Snape was becoming and the bigotry he embraced, I do sometimes wonder if it's seen as a negative that Lily didn't see shades of grey to fanatical racist criminals.

What I was actually wondering is, if there's nothing particularly good about opposing Voldemort, what does it say on the other hand about those who do support him? And is there nothing special or particularly good about anyone at all who opposes Voldemort? Because it's what anyone with a conscience would do?

Putting one's life on the line to fight Voldemort is a brave decision. But that's not what Lily and her family were doing. They were in hiding, hoping against hope to avoid that very confrontation.

Not then, no. But before Lily became pregnant, she and James did put their life on the line to fight Voldemort. They joined the Order, they thrice defied him. They were hoping to avoid that confrontation so that they could keep their child safe, not because they were unwilling to put their lives on the line.

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Lily's primal act goes deeper than 'fear of losing the child'. Lily wasn't just concerned about her own feelings of grief. She wanted to save Harry for his own sake, not just because she would suffer devastating grief if he was killed (as unbearable as that would have been). Indeed, she was prepared to be killed in the place of Harry.

I'll rephrase "fear of losing her child" to "fear for her child". I intended it as a blanket phrase and not a specific fear. Anything that happened to Harry would cause pain to Lily. She had a vested interest in Harry's well being.

But that's what she did do. She begs Voldemort not to kill Harry but to kill her instead.

I don't think she did. In those last terrifying panic stricken moments of her life, I do not think Lily gave much, if any, thought about her death. Her one and only concern was Harry.

That's how the scene plays out to me, though. She offers herself instead of Harry, doesn't she?

From Lily's point of view, her death was a far better alternative to the death of her child.

The text shows Lily as being terrified. But her terror is above all about her baby son: she is prepared to put his life before her own.

Correct. What I'm trying to say that she is acting out of fear here.

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

Lily didn't have much of a chance to hide Harry (although I have wondered why she didn't disapparate with him as soon as she reached his room). After all, they were not expecting Voldemort to drop by. As for the begging, etc., I doubt it would have made any difference, but she did beg him not to kill Harry and to kill her instead.

I was describing what I might have done. I wasn't proposing it as what Lily should have done.

Speaking as a mother, it is not the fear of losing a child, but the fear of the child being harmed or killed, which is foremost in one's mind. You're not thinking what your life will be without them, you're thinking that they will have no life if you don't do something to save them.

As I mentioned above, I did not intend that phrase to be so specific. I agree that Lily would not have been actively thinking about life without Harry. I think in those last moments, fear for her child would have overwhelmed everything else.

It's not ludicrous, it's just not the first thing that comes to mind. The child being in danger is. The fact that they will be hurt or die, not that it will hurt you to lose them, is what drives a mother to protect her child.

I'm not sure here. I would think that the bond between a mother and child is so strong that the child getting hurt is equivalent to the mother getting hurt. I would be interested in a psychologist's take on what exactly happens here.

Sorry to nit-pick, but we're back again to the "fear of losing a child" phrase. IMO, in cases where mothers (and other people) put their lives on the line and may ultimately die, it is not because they're thinking "what am I going to do without you?" It is because they do not want the other person to experience harm or death and are willing to do that themselves to save their loved one.

I was talking about myself when I wrote the "what am I going to do without you?". I do not think anyone actively thinks that far in a pressure situation. It might be present in the back of your mind but you don't really have time to think. There is just that sense of terror, the awareness of something terrible if you don't save this person.

But, do you have to be consciously thinking of that fear for it to be a brave act? So many brave acts are a quick reaction to a situation rather than having to steel one's self to take action. Howerver, IMO, it doesn't lessen the act of bravery because it is a person's first instinct to protect someone they love.

No. I think it is harder to perform a brave act when you have to steel yourself to it but quick reactions are brave as well.

The point I was making when this discussion began was that Lily's was not anymore courageous than others who did the same thing. Her bravery, IMO, is not questionable. I was just saying that she shouldn't be held up as more courageous above the others who gave their lives during the war with Voldemort was.

IMO she was as brave as some of Voldemort's other victims like the german mother he murdered, Gregorovitch, Snape.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Is it mind-boggling to consider that perhaps there was more to it than just Lily not wanting to live without Harry? Lily wanted her child to have a chance to grow up. Not just for her sake, but for his. IMO, Lily viewed her child as a person in his own right and not simply an object for her happiness. Of course she didn't want him to be killed. I don't think this was selfish.

I've written above about how I don't think Lily was explicitly thinking about life without Harry. Anything that hurt Harry would hurt Lily. Selfish is the wrong word here. It has a negative meaning. Self preservation is probably better sounding.

So, it's only brave if she knew some good would come of it?

No, it would have been brave because she would not have been acting out of fear.

I think refusing to obey this monster that had most of the wizarding world quaking in their boots was attitude.

She wasn't refusing to obey Voldemort in order to defy him. She wasn't defying him at all in that scene.


I guess, in a nutshell this whole thing comes down to whether you believe someone is capable of a truly selfless act.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I'm talking about murder in general, in the series, and the murder or prospective murders of children in general in the series.

And what Voldemort wanted in general. There was plenty of people Voldemort wanted to murder. It wasn't just Harry. When Lily stood between him and her child, it was just Harry. But there were many, many others he wanted to murder. Is opposing that simply the stance of "anyone who isn't a monster"? And if so, what does that make of his supporters?

I am not talking about murder in general... and again, I confess myself slightly confused about why you are. The ethics of killing people should not have any bearing on Lily's desire to protect her child.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I think that opposing Voldemort is straightforward. I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's what anyone with a shred of decency does, IMO. And as Lily is criticised for rejecting what Snape was becoming and the bigotry he embraced, I do sometimes wonder if it's seen as a negative that Lily didn't see shades of grey to fanatical racist criminals.

I mean, I know exactly what you mean about criticisms of Lily, but I don't think that situation is as straightforward. In my mind Lily had an opportunity to influence Snape far more effectively than she did. Was she obligated to? That's an unanswerable question, I think. But what I believe is that it was in her power to have done so, and that it really wasn't "fanatical racism" or a single word that occasioned the split in the first place. I've posted many times about that before, so I hope you'll forgive me for not trying to repeat myself.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

What I was actually wondering is, if there's nothing particularly good about opposing Voldemort, what does it say on the other hand about those who do support him? And is there nothing special or particularly good about anyone at all who opposes Voldemort? Because it's what anyone with a conscience would do?

It all really depends on how you define your terms. I don't think disagreeing with Voldemort's political aims is an especially courageous position. People in general are not eager to experience war, genocide, or peonage. So if that's what you mean by "opposing," then no, there's nothing special about that.

On the other hand, if you're speaking more about fighting Voldemort and actively subverting his goals, then yeah, the stakes are super high and it takes real courage. But I think the Potters were acting purely out of self-preservation. That's not a slam on their personalities, it's just an unavoidable consequence of the situation. They had no control over the specific occasion for Voldemort's visit, so all they could do was react to it.

As for what that says about Voldemort's followers, I think that's a topic for another thread. If you do want to continue to discuss it I'm game, just let me know what thread seems best to you.

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Not then, no. But before Lily became pregnant, she and James did put their life on the line to fight Voldemort. They joined the Order, they thrice defied him. They were hoping to avoid that confrontation so that they could keep their child safe, not because they were unwilling to put their lives on the line.

I do wonder... isn't there an interview quote or something regarding the "thrice defied" thing? Because as I understood it, at least one of those defiances was refusing to join the Death Eaters to begin with, and then another was going into hiding when they found out he wanted to kill Harry. I'm not saying they didn't acquit themselves courageously at any point, or that they wouldn't have if it came to a fight, I'm only saying that most of the scenarios I think you're imagining are quite different from where they ended up that night.