Rowling’s Debunking of the Marauders

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 172759



Before I start let me preface by saying that, save for Pettigrew, I 
don't dislike the Marauders.  I actually like Sirius and Remus, and 
as Lily married James I'm sure that there was some sort of 
personality renovation going on there, "toerag" though he was at 16.  
But I think it's one of the lessons of the series that Harry must 
evolve beyond his romanticized view of the Marauders, his 
idealization of his father and his father's friends, in favor of the 
wisdom and circumspection he achieves at the end of the books. 

Some of what we know about the Marauders is revealed by the pensieve, 
and often the pensieve itself is a topic of debate, since some might 
suggest that the memories in the pensieve are subjective.  That's 
another argument, but I think the pensieve is rather more objective 
than subjective, since from what I understand nothing ever shown in 
the pensieve is contradicted.  It seems to be Rowling's way of 
offering a particularly vivid and effective exposition. At any rate, 
everything that we factually know about the Marauders is very much in 
line with what Snape remembers. 

And again, I don't hate the Marauders. Save for Pettigrew, I see them 
as irresponsible, not evil. What I don't like is the glorification of 
the Marauders by those that would condemn Snape, when it seems 
obvious to me that via the Marauders and Snape Rowling is offering us 
a lesson on discernment, on being careful not to make snap judgments 
about people, especially based on their perceived "popularity" or 
their looks.  Those that admire the Marauders and loathe Snape, and 
relish in Snape's demise, are certainly entitled to do so, but I 
think that, unfortunately, they are clearly misinterpreting the 
books, and also missing the point.  

As for Pettigrew, well he's debunked by the end of PoA. Pathetic 
little wanna-be. Betrays the Potters. That's easy. 

James is the only one we don't really get to meet as an adult. He's 
the real cipher. I have no reason to believe that Lily's impression 
of him isn't precisely true: that is, he's a toerag. A stuck-up, 
pampered, overrated toerag (which is of course Snape's opinion as 
well).  But Lily did fall in love with him, and marry him, and thus 
by that virtue alone I am sure that he changed and there was a great 
deal of value in him, even before he became a member of the Order. To 
my mind, considering the way Rowling has defined Lily as a character, 
her affection and respect for James proves alone that he is worthy, 
much as (in my mind) Dumbledore's unwavering trust for Snape was the 
best evidence that he was not a traitor.  

Sirius is more difficult.  Harry certainly never stops loving him or 
admiring him.  But, er
his personality is also debunked beginning in 
PoA  Prank, anyone? Using a friend to lure an enemy into his possible 
death is...er...not very nice, no matter how curious your enemy is 
about your doings. And as long as he lives, he is never shown to 
repent of that, ever. He does go to Azkaban for the crime of another, 
but then he escapes and pretty much scares the snot out of everyone 
(mostly kids, btw) before he's found in the Shrieking Shack. But even 
after that, though Sirius most obviously loves Harry and Harry does 
likewise, we are still shown the deeply limiting aspects of Sirius' 
personality.  A case in point there is Kreacher. Until DH, though 
Dumbledore tells Harry that Sirius treated Kreacher badly, we were 
tempted to sympathize with Sirius.  Kreacher is, well, loathsome.  
And though Sirius cannot see him as a being worthy of any care or 
decent treatment, it's hard for us to see that either.  

But Harry sees that.  House-elves are obviously not morally evolved 
creatures.  They are, fundamentally, like pets, responding positively 
and supporting those that treat them well.   It takes the kindness of 
the Trio to show that Sirius could have made a difference if he had 
chosen to.  But he was arrogant.  He did not.  
 
It's Lupin here that disappoints the most (at least at first), 
because I think it's Lupin that we liked best. By his own admission 
in PoA, Snape is right about him. Because he did not want Dumbledore 
to be disappointed in him, he does not reveal that Sirius is an 
animagus. In the Shrieking Shack, he (and Sirius) are about to out 
and out murder Pettigrew until Harry stops them. It comes out that 
Lupin (and the rest of the Marauders) betrayed Dumbledore's trust, 
endangering Hogwarts and Hogsmeade month after month by roaming about 
on the grounds while he was a werewolf. Lupin himself admits that 
there were many close calls and that the only reason someone wasn't 
killed or turned into a werewolf is pure luck. Meaning, in keeping 
with Lupin's "woe-is-me-oh-look-here-I-go-again" behavior, that one 
close call didn't stop him from going out and taking that risk again. 

Is it any wonder, then, that he marries Tonks in the middle of a 
firestorm, gets her pregnant, and then complains about it?  Geez. 
Lupin. All. Over.   Lupin cites all the reasons why he should never 
have married her, but he cites them after they're married and she's 
carrying his child. 

Lupin marries her. He knocks her up. And then he's sorry, on both 
counts. Don't take the vow, Moony, or if you do use a condom, you 
git. Use ten condoms. And believe me, I like the guy.  But he has a 
long history of doing very stupid, irresponsible things and then 
beating himself up about it. Then he goes out and does stupid, 
irresponsible things again. Lather, rinse, repeat.  At the beginning 
of the novel, he's still that same teenaged werewolf, roaming the 
grounds of Hogwarts with his friends, willfully shutting his eyes to 
the dangers, and his responsibilities. Harry is fed up with him and 
who can blame him? Harry took the responsible road, distancing 
himself from Ginny, and certainly not doing anything like knocking 
her up. Harry himself realizes that Lupin should be with Tonks. He 
calls him a coward for running off.

And Harry is right.  It's only after the baby is born that he seems 
to really have changed, to embrace the consequences of his choices.  
Shortly after that, he dies.

I won't go into much further detail trying to defend Snape, as I've 
already done that here, and I personally think the truth about Snape 
is self-evident to anyone who isn't deluding themselves.  DH is out, 
folks, and trying to twist Snape into a bad guy, or undermine his 
heroism, in the end will not wash with the text.  Harry, who 
considered him his greatest enemy save Voldemort, publicly vindicates 
him and names his child after him.  What further proof is needed?  
Those that would suggest that Harry named him that because 
he's "forgiving" and "Christlike" forget that Ginny (no shrinking 
violet) is the child's mother.  She had some say as well, no doubt.  
Were Snape not to her mind every bit as worthy as Harry believes he 
is, she would not have allowed her child to be named Albus Severus.  
If there were any doubt at all in the Wizarding world about Snape's 
heroism, Harry would not have given Albus Severus the name, any more 
than one of us would name a child Osama.
  
Through Harry, Rowling vindicates Snape, and by the end of DH, we see 
as well that Harry's grown up enough to understand what sort of 
behavior should be truly valued: that which selflessly provides the 
most good for all. There is no "Sirius Remus Potter." In one way or 
another, all of the Marauders turn out to be grave disappointments.  
Say what you like about the idea that Snape only does what he does 
for Lily—goodness, he might say that himself!  However, unlike Remus 
Lupin (who much of the time utters words that belie his actions), 
Snape's actions belie his words, and the most arresting of those 
actions is that (at great risk) he chooses to save not only Lupin, 
but spends much of DH (and also HBP) attempting to keep people that 
have never even met Lily away from harm.  

Sigh.  Probably a case of tl;dr, but there you have it.