A Defense of James Potter(Whose flaws are bigger)

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 175313

I was going to respond to some of "D's" comments, but in the end found
that I wasn't really able to put together a coherent reply.   Most of
the response was based on either a misinterpretation of what I said,
or in some cases, a direct misquote.  The rest of it I wasn't really
able to understand – an argument that we shouldn't be judging
characters as people, or comparing their morality, while still
appearing very invested in Snape and happy that more people were now
supporting him.  Appeared to be somehow saying that only people who
were too invested would compare characters this way, and yet people
who are only casual readers would never like Snape.

Well, I think that being invested, viewing these creations as more
than just plot pieces, is interesting. One thing I'd like to note is
that it is possible to compare characters are characters, or as
people.  For instance, someone can think Umbridge functioned very well
as a character, but I could still hate HER.  For that matter, I could
be fascinated by the character study of Voldemorte, this charismatic,
talented boy, alone, but surrounded by people, who becomes powerful,
but always afraid
 this is a great character.  But I don't like him. 
But "D" doesn't seem to really mean that either, because the defense
of Snape appears to show some affection.

So, while I'm certainly willing to discuss characters and how they
affect the story arc, I think it's equally as interesting and fun to
discuss these characters as if they were people – at which point, I
might add, no character is superior by simple measure of lines
granted.  They are all equal, and can be discussed based on whatever
canon is available.  I personally adore the usually dismissed Horatio
(as a person and character), and would read anything about him more
than any other character in Hamlet.  And a thoughtful look at two even
smaller characters gave us another amazing play, Rosencrantz &
Guildenstern are dead.  So, even though he's not a favorite character
of mine, in fact I would agree he is a minor, almost non-character in
the books, I'm going to offer an impassioned defense of James Potter.

Katie, in a post I enjoyed and mostly agreed with, said:
However, I think all this side-picking has gotten a little out of
whack. I like Harry, Sirius, and Lupin....AND Snape. I think it is
possible to like them all. Except James. I agree with those who
think we were given too little to like and too much to dislike. I
think James *must* have turned into a decent guy, but I didn't see
it, and I don't have much positive to say about him.
~Katie

Prep0strus:
Well, here's why I care about James.  Not because he has had a tough
childhood, because he didn't, or because he has interesting
motivations, or an exciting personal storyline.  None of that is true.
 But I care because of what he meant to other characters that we see
in our story.  I'd like to pull a little `It's a Wonderful Life' and
imagine what life would be like for some characters if James had not
existed.  I know most of what we're shown in the books, but while
Snape's memories may be objective, they are not the whole story. 
There was another James Potter, the one who looked out with kindly
eyes from the pictures Harry had, the one who was respected and loved
by members of the Order and seemingly the WW at large.  He's a non
character, who was never alive in the books, who is shown almost
exclusively while in the presence of the person he disliked most and
disliked him most.  There's got to me more to him than that.

If someone would like to respond as to how some characters would be
better off without him, by all means go ahead.  I'm sure it's possible
that Snape would have married Lily and raised Harry Snape who was good
at potions, or that Peter would have grown up and gotten a respectable
job at the ministry.  My goal in this is to talk positively of the
impact of James Potter – not to detract from any other character. 
And, obviously, simply fathering the savior of the world isn't in
itself all that interesting.  Super-sperm it may be, and without him,
Voldy might have taken over the world, but
. Anyway.

Sirius.  There has been much debate over how much influence James had
over his friend during the train ride to Hogwarts.  I say, whether a
little, or a lot, it was ultimately, a GOOD influence.  I appreciate
Sirius' courage and ability to go against the beliefs of his family. 
But I believe he was helped along by James.  In James he had a best
friend who wasn't raised to look down on Muggle-borns, who was
inclined to be a `hero' in Griffindor.  Whose family welcomes Sirius
into their home in the later years of school.  And if Lupin had a
moderating influence on them, James appeared to hold Sirius back a
little as well, when it came to the prank against Snape.  Sirius, even
if he would have turned against his family without James, where would
he have gone?  He got a new family.  A sister-in-law.  A godson.  A
group of people so different from the family he grew up with, showing
him new things, and I believe influencing him positively.

Lupin.  I think Lupin is most lucky to have James (and Sirius).  From
what we've seen of the children and parents of the WW, it is not hard
to imagine that there would be many people, upon finding out what
Lupin was, that they would instantly reject him, write to their
parents, try to get him expelled.  This could have led to Lupin being
a loner throughout his time at Hogwarts, or even being unable to
attend school.  What kind of person would Lupin have turned into
without being able to have a normal childhood, with good friends? An
11 year old monster ostracized?  It's not hard to imagine.  But he had
James and Sirius who saw beyond that, and worked to join him.

Peter.  A lot can be said about Peter, but I'm not talking about his
choices later on.  A not-that-talented kid, who easily could have been
left behind by the others.  James and Sirius could have said `well,
too bad' when he had a hard time becoming an animagi.  They didn't. 
they worked and helped him, as their friend, so he could join them. 
They trusted and supported him.  Their friendship of Peter, ultimately
betrayed, really makes me respect them.  If they just wanted a
hanger-on, someone to idolize them, they could have had that without
including him, without supporting his lesser talent throughout their
time at Hogwarts.

Lily.  I don't believe JKR treats marriage cavalierly. (with the
possible exception of the bizarre courtship of Lupin and Tonks)  The
marriage of Lily and James was a real one.  Lily we know to be a
caring, not superficial person, who looks past the many flaws in the
young Snape to see a person who cares for her, and she cares for back.
 She appears patient, and not judgmental.  And yet she winds up with
the arrogant boy who torments Severus and hexes students.  I think
this shows more than anything else how he must have grown.  There is
nothing to make us think Lily just wanted a talented athlete.  And the
love shown in photographs is clear – and we've seen many cases where
true feelings come out in photos.  Lily married James because she
loved him.  And he her.  And they, their son.  This was a loving
family, ripped apart by Voldemorte.  It wasn't an arranged marriage
meant to produce the Boy Who Lived.  I have to believe that not only
did Lily come to stop disliking James, but he made her life better for
having been in it.

None of these characters would have been the same but for James.  And
if I were to dismiss James as an arrogant toe-rag, and wonder about
what kind of an idiot Lily had to be to marry him, then it takes away
a little from the other characters I like and respect.  It means that
the judgment of everyone else we've heard talk about him was wrong,
other than Snape.  Lupin, Dumbledore, Sirius
 they admit James'
faults, but love him and miss him and admire him anyway.  This is a
James posting, not a Severus posting, so I don't want to be accused of
attacking him
 but I refuse to replace Snape's judgment for that of
all the other characters.  

Incidentally, when most of us refer to `The Marauders', no, we're not
including Peter.  And not because we're trying to sweep him under the
rug, or because we're trying to raise Lupin and Sirius so they're not
tainted by him.  It's because when Peter betrayed them, he stopped
being a Marauder. But really, it's because it's easier and more fun to
say `The Marauders' than it is to say "James, Sirius, and Lupin' all
the time.

~Adam (Prep0strus), who did NOT criticize Severus in this posting,
even obliquely, for he's found that attempting to defend "James,
Sirius, and Lupin" by comparing the way they are evaluated by posters
by how Snape is evaluated only results in pro-snape vs anti-snape
posting, so tried a new tack