Is James a Bad Guy?

[Sabahat]

Also, just because he is like many other teenage boys that makes his bullying okay? Seriously? So, lots of older men murder and rape, so that makes it fine?

[Jessica]

I always thought James was a bit of a d**k. It sounds like he was always really mean to Snape when they were at school, and was very egotistical and arrogant (something I cannot stand in a person). When Harry goes in the pensieve and sees his father bullying Snape, I thought James seemed horrible! Snape was awesome, Lily should have chosen him instead.

[Hina]

I couldn't agree with you more Ari.

[mercy]

I think James was mean. Like, he was very self-centered in his school years and he was always picking on people just to show off.

[Mickey]

Kerri wrote: "Snape was a deatheater. James stood up against deatheaters. It wasn't until Lily died that Snape changed sides.

James grew out of his bullying, Snape didn't."

Actually, Snape effectively switched sides when Lily was threatened, not when Lily was killed. (There would be no reason to switch sides after she was killed; Voldemort was gone. The war was over and there was only one side left.) This act for a woman who had refused to have anything to do with him for several years and had married the man he hated most shows how strong his love still was for her. He was willing to betray the only other loyalty he had ever had in order to keep her safe. Knowing Voldemort's powers of detecting falseness, Snape would have been aware of how dangerous that was to him at the moment he turned.

The idea that 'James grew out of his bullying, Snape didn't' is something to ponder. We don't know if James did outgrow it. He might have, though. He had a good chance at that, mostly because he was lucky to have been born into a loving family and to be good at something that made him popular at school (Quiddich). He knew what it was like to be liked and respected. He had relationships like that all his life.

Snape wasn't as lucky as James. He came from an abusive home. Besides Lily, we don't know if he ever had one true friend. His school years seemed like a perfect horror. The Death Eaters seemed more like compatriots or comrades than people who were close to each other. They seemed more concerned with sucking up to Voldemort and jockeying for position than anything else. He was always accusing Dumbledore of not trusting him and everyone in the Order questioned his loyalty. His worldview must've been extremely cynical and cold. I'm sure that it seemed to Snape to be a very hostile world and that it was necessary to be tough and mean to survive in it. He didn't have as many resources or models as James to fall back on.

Another thing, James bullying and Snape being bullied are not likely to create the same results. Who do you think it would affect more? It'd be the same as with a child abuser and his victim. The child abuser might 'get over' the abuse quickly. His payoff for his action was immediate. The effect on the child is likely to be more damaging and long-ranging. It's not necessarily the sign of a better person that someone is able to move beyond an action easily. As far as we know, James never apologized to Snape. We don't even know if he felt sorry for what happened. Look at his best friend, Sirius. Throughout the series, Sirius gives several bits of good advice to Harry, but rarely follows them himself. He expresses some remorse to Harry for the bullying that happened (only after Harry came across it from another source), but defends James, too. When angry, Sirius resorts to the same name calling and threatening that characterized the bullying to begin with.

I just think that, beyond feeding his own ego and entertaining a crowd, there was no real reason for James to go after Snape the way he did. As a result of the bullying (there were other factors as well), Snape was pushed more into himself and into the orbit of the future Death Eaters. I mean, beyond being fascinated by something that would give him power over those who mistreated him, the other Slytherins could even up the odds as far as numbers. If James didn't target him, maybe Snape would've had a completely different experience at Hogwarts.

[Mickey]

Hina wrote: "I don't think what James said was actually meant to be serious, he after all did save Snape from the Willow and Remus, but yes, I think it was just a joke."

But Lily was serious when she asked the question, so I doubt that Snape was overtly hexing James all over Hogwarts. If she asked a question like, "What has he ever done to you?", it stands to reason that James was clearly the aggressor in the relationship and it was not a question of both being as bad to the other.

James did save Snape. It might have been, as Snape said, to save his own skin or it might have been because he didn't want Snape to die. I don't think James hated Snape. I don't think he thought of Snape as anything more than a foil. In James's mind, Snape was like some bit actor in a play all about James. Conversely, I think Snape hated James intensely.

[[deleted user]]

I think that James is to blame for Snape's bullying, but he isn't the 'bad guy' necessarily. I think James was mostly kidding around. There are kids at every school like that; they just tease everyone, not exactly meaning to bully.

[Sabahat]

Great answers, Mickey

[Kerri]

Sabahat wrote: "Also, just because he is like many other teenage boys that makes his bullying okay? Seriously? So, lots of older men murder and rape, so that makes it fine?"

I don't think people are saying bullying is fine. I don't like bullying as much as anyone else. It is, however, a part of life, and it is a societal problem that we try to combat everyday. There is a week (maybe even a whole month, I'm not sure) devoted to combating bullying.

I think it's great that Rowling uses Harry Potter as a vehicle to address all sorts of societal issues, and other themes that are controversial, and discuss them in a way that is not so overt, so that readers don't get bombarded with lessons, and so that we (on this thread) can discuss them, and not resort to bullying--maybe an issue that Rowling is subtly addressing.

I had a student that came from a rough home, and as a result bullied others. This student had a lot of rage, and I saw it first hand. I tried to calm her down, but she had to cry it out, and then as a result got a lot of attention. (Her rage came out of nowhere, I don't think she was being bullied by other students. They just said something to her about doing an activity and asked why she wasn't doing it. The other kids got freaked out)I don't understand the psychology of a bully or someone being bullied. I do know that there were times when I teased people (cuz that's how girls bully), and I was bullied too, so I've been on both sides. How fickle kids can be?

[Josefine]

I think he was very childish and selfish, but he changed with his age.

[Kerri]

Mickey wrote: "Hina wrote: "I don't think what James said was actually meant to be serious, he after all did save Snape from the Willow and Remus, but yes, I think it was just a joke."

But Lily was serious whe..."

You're right Snape changed sides before Lily died, but I still like to hold onto the idea that James grew up.

Even if you don't think James is a good guy I want to believe he is, and there really isn't any textual evidence to prove either case, only what we see through other character's experiences with James. But, Harry did turn out to be a good person, and everyone around Harry attributed it to his parents, maybe more Lily than James. But I just think of the moment before Harry died, and the letter written to Sirius, and I just picture him as being a loving parent who is going to take care of his family. Love changes people--just like Snape's (unrequited) love for Lily.

Even if people don't agree with me, Snape and James were both bullies as children. I don't think Snape became a bully as a result of James, it started long before Hogwarts. Like you said, he came from a horrible home life. I don't know for certain if bullying is a learned trait (it probably is according to most people), or not, they both had very different motivations for doing it.

Mickey, you do make excellent points though.

[Maryam]

Hina wrote: "Mickey wrote: "Hina wrote: "James must have matured if Lily were to date him. Lily was one of the smartest witches of her ages she can't have been totally oblivious."

James was still bullying Snap..."

Yeah Harry liked Cho Chang but he didnt try to hurt Cedric Diggory because of it. Yet it seemed that James hurt Snape more for the fact that Lily was friends with Snape and also because he exists

[Tana Lovegood of Dumbledore's Army✞~]

I thought James was a good person but had faults. He was immature as a teen but he was loyal to his friends like Lupin willing to become an animagus for him and he joined the order and died trying to protect Harry.
People pity Snape but he wasn't much better bullying Muggleborns and I thought it was awful how he was to Neville. They both have their faults but I do think James was a very realistic person. Loyal and brave but yes arrogant and made mistakes.
People forgive Snape for doing dark arts, inventing dark spells, bullying muggleborns, becoming a death eater but not James for being immature as a teen? I just don't get it.
Also he was accepting with his friends. All his friends were outcast and he was fiercely loyal to them refusing to accept any would betray him
Sirius- Comes from a noble family and is a "white sheep" in a house of black sheets (haha had to add a pun) He let Sirius stay with his family when Sirius ran away!
Remus- Accepted his condition and broke the law for him! What more can I say?
Peter- Peter was chubby, awkward, not as talented but James still accepted him!

This article explains it well:
http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-is...

Agree with the article so much!
If he's good enough for Lily, he's good enough for me."

[Himika]

No i certainly do not think James was a bad guy.He was a jerk at school,but he did have a good heart.Moreover we don't see him bullying anyone other than Snape,and I firmly believe snape was a downright horrible creep too.Also,i believe James was jealous of snape being such close friends with his crush,Lily.If James had been that horrible to everyone ,that would have made him quite unpopular.But that was not the case,instead James was quite the hero of his school.And James did repent for his actions,seeing that he risked his life to save snape's down at the shrieking shack.If he had been a horrible guy he wouldn't have been so noble.Anyway ,he did become more level headed,joined the order of the phoenix,and gave up his life fighting Voldemort and defending Lily and Harry.Not something a downright bad guy would do,right?

[Tana Lovegood of Dumbledore's Army✞~]

sʜᴀᴅ ⋆ ᴅᴀɴᴅᴇʟɪᴏɴ ᴀɴᴅ ʙᴜʀᴅᴏᴄᴋ wrote: "Haha. If James was as arrogant and full of himself as you guys assume him to be, he would have told everyone that he was an Animagus. He would have bragged about it. But he didn't.
He died to save ..."

I agree!

[[deleted user]]

Is Dudley a bad guy?

Is Draco Malfoy a bad guy?

Is Kreacher a bad guy?

It's all about perspective and growth. James was a bully, but later seems to have matured. I have little doubt that the same can be said for most other bullies that have shown up throughout the series (discounting the ones whose antagonism thrives in their adulthood, who seem to remain as bullies for the rest of their existence). Their beginning only matters if it persists into their ending. If they never change for the better, ultimately nothing changes for them.

[hannah renee.]

I would say so.

What's really disgusting about him is that he was privileged, loved, adored and yet he bullied Snape just for the mere fact that he didn't like him. Snape was a reject, abused and neglected by his parents; a very sad situation and a painful one. That's why James is so disgusting to me; he victimized a very hurting human being. He stooped low enough to torture a person who had so much pain inside; he, the person, who had everything his heart could desire and everything at his fingertips.

Plus, there's just the crappiness of James's personality; outward focused (that is, not thoughtful or introspective), arrogant... basically the type of guy that I would describe as "the guy with the dead look in his eyes".

[Ruby]

J wrote: "It's all about perspective and growth. James was a bully, but later seems to have matured."

Tana of Dumbledore's Army✞ wrote: "People forgive Snape for doing dark arts, inventing dark spells, bullying muggleborns, becoming a death eater but not James for being immature as a teen? I just don't get it..."

You're absolutely right. Teenage bullies are different from grown ones. He was a jerk to Snape in school. Snape defended himself, yes, but he wasn't innocent either. Both bullied those from other houses. Two wrongs don't make a right. I know that in real life, a lot of people and me included, would dislike James for being a bully. However, because we know what Hogwarts is like, it's pretty easy to see that James was not evil but just arrogant and rude.

Also, the fact that James was loved and Snape was not is not really important to the question at hand. If Snape had been the loved one and James had not been, would the bullying be justified? No. The fact is not important.

In addition, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Hagrid, Lupin, Mad-eye, and a multitude of other characters Harry loves and respects knew James Potter to be a good man. Think; Many of these were teachers- do teachers become fond of students that remain jerks their whole lives? No! He matured out of his arrogant teen years. How can we compare him to Snape? As I've mentioned in other threads, Snape turned to the wrong side, fully knowing that others would suffer, die, and have their families torn apart. He had a reason to do what he did (bad childhood, bullied), but no justification. James was not a villain. From what we can see, he was not some unsensitive, ruthless bully either. He was rude, arrogant, and wanted to look good of his friends. But when he left school he matured and knew to fight for what was right, not because of petty grudges. Not a bad guy. A good guy that all the characters we love knew and trusted.

[James]

James Potter is far and away the unpleasantest character in HP. He is worse than Voldy, because Voldy does at least have some excuse because of his abandonment by his parents. James Potter has no such excuse. He was an insufferable jerk to others - basically, a gangster - because that is what he was like inside. He brings nothing but misery to anyone foolish enough to be close to him, and the only reason to think he is good is that his own son has an absurdly over-favourable opinion of him. In other words, the notion that James is good, is founded on an untruth. He is a bad person, and clearly got what was coming to him. He is worse than Umbridge. What Hagrid says of James can be discounted - we are shown that Hagrid has very poor judgement in many respects, and there is no reason to think his judgement of character is any better than his judgement as to whether his "pets" are safe for his students. Someone who thinks gigantic man-eating acromantulas are safe company for second-years, is unlikely to be a good judge of whether someone is worthy of respect. Hagrid is brave, persistent and utterly faithful to DD, but he is not wise or notably perceptive.

Voldy is agreed to be a Wizarding version of Hitler. But James says something that is totally Hitlerian: "It's the fact that he [Snape] exists". Snape is to be persecuted, simply for existing. This is Wizard Nazism at its "best". And the speaker is not Voldy, nor Umbridge, nor Gellert Grindelwald, but James Potter. By the age of 15, James Potter has become the same kind of person as the three other worst villains in the books. Quite an "achievement" for a teenager. There is is not a scrap of unbiased, trustworthy evidence that James ever grows out of being a bully - Voldy had committed his first murder before becoming Head Boy, so the fact that James became Head Boy is no argument that he had become a decent human being. He was probably thoroughly unworthy of such an honour, again, like Voldy. No wonder he did so well, with a coward like Remus to look the other way. It is made very clear that several students are put in positions of authority, who are not fit for it. If Malfoy and Remus and Voldy - and Ron and Hermione - abuse positions they hold, as they do, then it is impossible to say that because James Potter was given authority, he must have been worthy of it.

Sirius' admiration for James can also be ignored, because Sirius despised Snape long before Snape became a DE, and Sirius was a fanboy of James & was incapable of criticising him. James' victimisation of Snape helped immensely to make Snape a DE. Take away all the tainted evidence to the allegedly admirable character of James Potter, and nothing is left. His good reputation is a lie fron beginning to end. As for his courage in dying for his wife and child, even thoroughly bad men can be brave. So his death is no evidence that he was a good person. He differs from Voldy only in having less power - but essentially, he is no better, and quite possibly worse. The true hero of HP, with all his faults, is Snape, whose favouritism and unfairness and other failings can all be traced back to his mistreatment by the real villain of the books - James Potter. It was Potter who made Snape's life Hell to the extent of embittering Snape enough for Snape to usr the word "Mudblood" - which Snape instantly and bitterly regretted, and apologised for. James Potter did not apologise for his torment of Snape - he attempted to justify it.

I am going by the books, and nothing else. Not films or websites, just the books.

[Lia]

Angie wrote: "Hina wrote: "Heaven wrote: "When I watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, my mom (who's never read the books) asked me two questions:

1) So.. Is Snape Harry's dad?
To which I replied..."

But then again, Fred and George never made fun of people in a mean manner. They'd call names, sure, but they were really good-natured about their jokes. Not really serious...so I don't think James' actions are those belonging to a jerk nor justifiable.
P.S. not trying to aggravate you, sorry if the language is a bit harsh:)

[James]

Mickey wrote: "We never see whether James grew out of his bullying behavior or if he even felt remorse for it. We do know he continued picking on Snape after he and Lily started dating (it's in Harry's conversati..."

That is a weakness in the story. We are given undeniable proof that James treated Snape horribly - and we are asked to believe that this bully and show-off became a good person. The problem is, that all the evidence for his alleged change for the better is either not shown, or depends entirely on the word of people who are either biased in James' favour, or are unreliable witnesses in other ways. JKR simply handwaves this supposed improvement in his character - she tells of it, when she needs to show it instead. There is too much that can be treated as evidence of James Potter's badness for the claims of his goodness to be credible.

[[deleted user]]

James wrote: "Mickey wrote: "We never see whether James grew out of his bullying behavior or if he even felt remorse for it. We do know he continued picking on Snape after he and Lily started dating (it's in Har..."

James did save Snape's life once. To speak in his defence, I believe at some point he noticed his own idiocy, at least to a certain extent. One would think James would have inevitably been compelled to reach his own potential to be a better person, being surrounded by influences such as Lupin or Lily. It would make sense for him to improve, just as Snape would have if he had had good friends to learn from. As it happens, few saw potential in Snape- he seemed always immediately dislikable to those who knew of him.

[annie]

Not at fucking all. James was a stupid teenage boy, but he grew out of it. He's not a bad guy.

[Katy]

I think overall James was a good person. His behavior towards Snape as a teenager was inexcusable. But I think many people who are bullies when they are teenagers are not bad people, in spite of the pain they cause others when they are young and stupid. I think many of James actions, as others have mentioned, show that deep down he was a good person. He was good to Lupin. He joined the Order to fight against evil. He gave his life for his wife and child. I'm not excusing his actions towards Snape, because bullying causes pain that does not go away. But I think deep down he was a good person who did stupid things as a teenager.

[shelsel.lh]

They were both jerks. But James did cruse Snape out of nowhere in book 5

[Saim]

I absolutely hate James. He was a terrible person.

[Pallavi]

Deidre wrote: "You know, I actually appreciated Rowling's portrayal of James in the book, because when you first hear about him from Harry's perspective, he's very much the hero. The man who stood between Voldemo..."

@Deidre I totally agree with this analysis of their chracters

[T.D.]

James was somewhat of a jerk as a kid, but he grew out of it, like many people do. He wasn't a bad guy once he got older and matured some. And an accurate depiction of James' character definitely can't be determined through Snape's viewpoint. That's basically the equivalent of judging Harry or Ron through Draco's eyes--it's bound to make them look bad because of their rivalry. (And that's probably the case for the majority of Slytherins. If the story was told from a Slytherin's perspective, Gryffindors in general would likely be painted in a bad light.)

I think James was actually a bit like Ron. We read the story primarily through Harry's POV, and since Ron is one of Harry's best friends, we overall have a favorable opinion of him. However, if you were to consider Ron through another character's eyes (that he isn't friends with), he would come off as a jerk too a times. That doesn't make him a bad person though.

[Mishal]

i think james is not a bad guy,,,,but he didnt deserve that lily ,,,,,,,,,,,james is little tricky and arrogant,,,he know how to use magic for fame,,,,afterall he has the credits that he was a member of gryiffindor,,,,,,,,,

[Kyla]

I dont think James was a bad guy.He was just jealous that Lily liked Snape more.I also think that James was happy when Snape called Lily a mudblood.

[Mickey]

T.D. wrote: "I think James was actually a bit like Ron. We read the story primarily through Harry's POV, and since Ron is one of Harry's best friends, we overall have a favorable opinion of him. However, if you were to consider Ron through another character's eyes (that he isn't friends with), he would come off as a jerk too a times. That doesn't make him a bad person though. "

I don't think this is a good comparison. In nobody's memory is Ron and Harry ganging up on one person, seeking to humiliate and bully in order to impress a girl. When Harry was stunned at the memory, one of the first things he thought of was how he had always figured James and Sirius were like the Weasley twins, but he recognized a big difference in the scenario. If Harry can recognize the signs of a bully in his father, why are people so quick to explain it away? James wasn't perfect, and at times, he wasn't a good guy. This doesn't mean he didn't have some good qualities, but he bullied Snape and continued to do so after Lily and he got together. I don't know if he had changed before he died. I think there are some signs that he had not, but that's a matter of interpretation.

[Mickey]

James wrote: "That is a weakness in the story. We are given undeniable proof that James treated Snape horribly - and we are asked to believe that this bully and show-off became a good person. The problem is, that all the evidence for his alleged change for the better is either not shown, or depends entirely on the word of people who are either biased in James' favour, or are unreliable witnesses in other ways. JKR simply handwaves this supposed improvement in his character - she tells of it, when she needs to show it instead. There is too much that can be treated as evidence of James Potter's badness for the claims of his goodness to be credible. "

When did JKR ever say that James had changed? I don't think she did. James is her character. If she didn't want to make him a bully, he wouldn't have been. After all, Sirius continued to taunt Snape with the nickname they came up with for Snape when they were adults, and there was no indication that Sirius had ever apologized or shown remorse for the bullying. He even seemed surprised that Snape could hold a grudge against him when they met again in The Prisoner of Azkaban. This doesn't mean that Sirius is a terrible person, just very flawed.

[Ruby]

Between James and Sirius, I think Sirius is the one who didn't learn.

I mean, a lot of characters mentioned how James felt terrible and shut up in his house under the Fidelus charm. They talked about the good person he grew up to be- and this isn't just adoring friends like Sirius or Lupin giving this evidence- it's people like McGonagall who, if she didn't like someone, she'd say it. James grew out of his bullying behavior- getting this straight here- he WAS indeed a bully. Snape was also a bully, if we remember Lily chastising him in book 6 in his memory. Both bullies. Both mean to the other's house. Doesn't excuse the behavior. But James grew out of it in the ways that mattered.

SIRIUS, by comparison, didn't ever completely get out of that reckless, do-what-I-want thing. In the fifth one, all the characters we trust went on about how Sirius felt cooped up and was being sulky about not being a part of the action. We are given real evidence that instead of really rising to the situation, Sirius couldn't put his pride and action-desires behind logic about safety and whatnot, while James could.

JK didn't say: "James changed," but it's pretty clearly implied, and if the evidence of his conduct when he was older- leaving society for his family, sacrificing himself for his wife and kid, etc, don't show how he was a good person who fought for good and didn't stop fighting, than how does the fact that he picked on kids when he was younger have any relevance to his personality? I think we're focusing on the narrow picture when we should be looking at the big one- who did he fight for? Dumbledore and the Order. And he proved himself many times over.

[Marc]

James Potter is the perfect example of a bully who gets the benefit of the doubt because of his charm and popularity.

He does something dumb, "oh its only around Lilly he just acts stupid" or when he saves someone from a situation they never would be in if it wasn't for you, I'd hardly call that brave.

He is Harry's father and someone Harry longs to be like making us want to like him, but in actuality he was a bully who abused his power.

Snape is not innocent, but when you are cornered and beaten you only have so many options.

[Mickey]

Ruby, I don't think there is any textual evidence that James changed. It is a difficult task to find any, seeing as how he died before the series started.

McGonagall's approval means very little. She also liked Sirius, and as you mentioned, he continued to behave in ways that showed that he hadn't changed. It also seems a little rude to criticize a man to his son who didn't get a chance to know him. I don't think McGonagall would think that seemly or necessary. If she knew about the bullying, she never told Harry about it. This could mean that she never knew. I'm sure James knew not to do it in front of her, the same way he didn't do it in front of Lily but still continued after they were dating. Somehow, for me, this makes the bullying worse because for James it is more calculated.

Rowling has made it clear many times that being a Death Eater does not mean that one is "bad" (see Snape), so it stands to reason that being in the Order of the Phoenix does not automatically mean one is "good". James could've joined it as a lark. He still had a reckless streak. Look at how Voldemort finds out about the Potters' whereabouts. As a kind of joke, James decided to entrust his family's location with Peter Pettigrew. Not with Sirius. Not with Dumbledore. Hearing Voldemort's thoughts as he came to attack the house, we learn how contemptuous he is of James for not protecting his family better and not having his wand ready. Think of the difference with how Snape, if he had married Lily and fathered Harry, would have reacted. I think he would have taken their safety dead seriously and been hypervigilant in their defense, and I think this speaks to the difference in the two men. James was used to things coming very easily to him and he treated them lightly. Snape was much cagier and more pessimistic. I think Snape would've been better at keeping them safe. James's plan feels more like a boy trying to pull one over on a strict teacher than a man determined to protect his family. I recognize he was young, but I don't find him that admirable.

There is a maxim that James's heroism reminds me of: The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one. He didn't live long into adulthood, and he might have matured into a middle aged man who was sorry for the bullying and have the sense to apologize to Snape, but he didn't live long enough to become that. Based on the evidence I can see, James still had maturity issues and a tendency to recklessness. I don't see evidence of any major changing.

[Marc]

Mickey wrote: "Ruby, I don't think there is any textual evidence that James changed. It is a difficult task to find any, seeing as how he died before the series started.

McGonagall's approval means very little...."

I don't even think Ms. Rowling herself could have said it better

[Ruby]

I completely understand how you can miss the evidence- it's not always explicit, but you can gather it from what the characters say about him- not just Snape, who hated him, but everyone in the story.

Try looking through some dialogue from older characters; it can be really helpful :).

Snape and James don't really need to be compared for us to understand them individually; I see it like Snape, who chose to turn to the dark side, even if he did turn back eventually, isn't really comparable to James, especially since their lives are so different and complex.

BTW James didn't entrust the Fidelus charm to Pettigrew- that was Sirius's idea because Sirius was ironically actually being serious and he meant to throw Voldemort off- which is why during the Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius was out to get Peter.

[Mickey]

Ruby wrote: "I completely understand how you can miss the evidence- it's not always explicit, but you can gather it from what the characters say about him- not just Snape, who hated him, but everyone in the story.

Try looking through some dialogue from older characters; it can be really helpful :)."

I remember the stories very well, and I simply didn't see this evidence that James had changed. Why don't you show me where you did?

Ruby wrote: "Snape and James don't really need to be compared for us to understand them individually; I see it like Snape, who chose to turn to the dark side, even if he did turn back eventually, isn't really comparable to James, especially since their lives are so different and complex."

I agree that you don't need to compare one to the other to get a sense of either one. But in comparison, I find Snape a better character, even in the way both came to join the Order. It's a pretty foregone conclusion that James would join the Order: his house, Griffyndor had no philosophical or historical ties to Voldemort, his friends were all in the Order, and he enjoyed adventure and action. None of these circumstances show any sort of conflict. On the other hand, Snape faced real and immediate danger when he switched from the possibility of Voldemort finding out. He also betrayed every person who had been friendly with him and cast his lot with the people who had bullied him in school. I mean, he hated some in the Order intensely. But the love he felt for Lily trumped every other consideration. That's pretty powerful, especially since she had cut all ties with him. His deal with Dumbledore would not give him Lily, but would simply keep her safe, still married to the man he hated. That's very selfless. The entire time he worked for the order (and long after Lily was gone) the other members kept him at a distance and doubted his loyalty. There were even times when Snape believed Dumbledore didn't trust him. There was no camaraderie in either camp for Snape. Many times, he performed acts that went against his feelings, such as saving Harry. That's "living humbly" without any thanks or recognition from anyone.


Ruby wrote: "BTW James didn't entrust the Fidelus charm to Pettigrew- that was Sirius's idea because Sirius was ironically actually being serious and he meant to throw Voldemort off- which is why during the Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius was out to get Peter. "

I know the scenario, which is why I brought it up. I don't know how it being Sirius's idea originally means that James was not ultimately responsible for the decision to put it into action. And Sirius was not being serious. Here is an excerpt from Azkaban:

"Lily and James only made you Secret-Keeper because I suggested it," Black hissed, so venomously that Pettigrew took a step backward. "I thought it the perfect plan...a bluff...Voldemort would be sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak, talentless thing like you...It must have been the finest moment in your miserable life , telling Voldemort that you could hand him the Potters." (pg 369)

First off, let's discuss the fact that Pettigrew at this time was a childhood friend of both men, and they think so little of him that they use him as a Secret-Keeper because they have such little respect for him that they figure that Voldemort would not ever think they would do this. Is this taking the threat "seriously"? Or is it a bluff, a joke like Sirius says?

In the same conversation, Sirius also says, "I, a spy for Voldemort? When did I ever sneak around people who were stronger and more powerful than myself? But you, Peter-I'll never understand why I didn't see you were a spy from the start. You always liked big friends who'd look after you, didn't you? It used to be us...me and Remus...and James..." (pg 369)

Now it's telling that Sirius draws a direct connection between his group in school (using the telling term "powerful") and Voldemort's group and can see why both groups would appeal to Pettigrew. This isn't someone who has come to view his past behavior as shameful. His contemptuous behavior of those who are not as strong or talented as he is extends to his inner circle. This tendency leads to his downfall, when Kreacher, the house elf, helps to get him to the Ministry where he dies. The other members of the Order realize this fault in Sirius and talk about its impact afterwards. Now, what does Sirius's behavior tell us about James? We know that they were the closest friends of the bunch, James made Sirius Harry's godfather, so it stands to reason that they were closer in temperament than James and Remus (who often felt guilty about the bullying and tried to reason with the others about it). James, married and a new father, did not see a problem with Sirius's behavior and ideas about others, and entrusted his son into his care and took his suggestion of Secret-Keeper. This doesn't say much for James. But as I said, he may have grown out of it eventually, but he didn't show any sign of change or maturity by the time he died.

[Chelsey]

Yes, IMO James was a bully. BUT Lupin said that in their 7th year his head "deflated" and he became a better person. But I really don't think that should speak to his entire character. I mean, all of us when we were teenagers had one person that we did not like or get along with. We were either a bully to them or they were a bully to us or a mixture of both. In the end who any of us are as a teenager does not always reflect on who we become as adults.