#especially when it directly contradicts canon

[maxdibert]

Hey, I’ve been reading your posts, and while I appreciate your analysis of the characters, I don’t fully agree with your interpretation of Lily and the Marauders. It feels like you're projecting your personal experiences with privileged figures onto them, which leads to fundamentally misunderstanding them at their core. These characters are all human and layered, just like Snape, and reducing them to a single aspect is oversimplifying them.

I also feel like your view of Lily is influenced by your dislike of James. Marrying someone wealthy doesn’t automatically make her a “social climber.” Especially not when she is actually consistently acting on her morals and values throughout the few memories we see of her. You draw a parallel between Lily and Petunia and assume they have the same “agenda,” but you overlook their vastly different personalities that directly contradict the idea that they had the same goals.

Regarding James; while he certainly had flaws, he was also a decent person with strong values, beyond his arrogant school years and bullying of Snape. James and Lily were in the same house, and it's not far-fetched to assume that she saw a different side to him, one with qualities she admired, which is likely what drew her to him, even if his arrogance initially repulsed her.

Sorry but no. A big NO.

First of all, I analyze things based on how social issues are reflected in group dynamics. And yes, I use personal examples, but just as I’ve met rich people who are complete idiots, I’ve also met wealthy people who are absolutely lovely. That’s not the case with James or Sirius. Following a certain political ideology, no matter how positive or good it may be, doesn’t automatically make you a good person. For example, what’s the point of being anti-racist if, in your day-to-day life, you go to a restaurant and treat the staff poorly? Or what’s the use of proclaiming yourself a feminist if you then display behaviors that perpetuate gender hegemony? Sure, your vote will help implement certain institutional policies that benefit minorities, but that won’t mean much in day-to-day life if you’re incapable of deconstructing your biases, recognizing your privileges, and engaging in social self-criticism about them.

And that’s essentially what happens with James: he talks a big game, but when it comes down to it (and this is undeniable because it happens canonically in the books), on the very first day of school, he took an instant dislike to a boy who was much poorer, much more vulnerable, and lacked even a fraction of the resources he had—and he decided to torment him for seven years. This is indefensible. Minimizing the violence exerted from a position of privilege toward someone in a much weaker position, by appealing to some kind of moral high ground is a dirty tactic. It reeks of internalized classism and an astonishing lack of understanding about social dynamics and power inequities.

The fact that Lily’s morals and values aligned with ending up with a bully isn’t incompatible with her character. That bully was a social justice warrior (when it suited him), and the very causes he claimed to advocate for were those that benefited Lily. He represented a faction of the magical elite that defended people like Lily, so it’s consistent for her to choose someone whose ideology worked in her favor. But the fact that she constantly downplayed the violence the Marauders inflicted on other students, using the excuse that they didn’t use “dark magic,” reveals cognitive dissonance in her moral judgments. Violence in schools is violence, no matter where it comes from. You might find the bigoted, violent ones worse, but that doesn’t mean the others—no matter how good their ideas might be—aren’t also abusers.

Let’s be clear: no one with any sense would see a group of guys deliberately targeting others to the point of stripping someone in public and ever consider dating one of them. If Lily did (and if we accept Rowling’s own claim that she liked James before he “matured”), two conclusions emerge: either she was a complete dick, or James had something beyond his terrible personality that interested her. And in the early stages of a war where people like her were going to be a primary target of one side, it’s clear that “something” was security. And that doesn’t make her a bad person—it just makes her human. It’s human for a working-class teenager who’s suddenly thrust into a world where many people believe she doesn’t belong to feel attracted to the rich, socially powerful guy who’s willing to defend her rights and validate her as a member of that society.

And the fact that she and her sister had very different personalities doesn’t mean anything. Both grew up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood and received the same values from their parents. Just as Sirius shares many traits with his cousin Bellatrix and his own mother, Walburga, Lily shares many traits with her sister (which makes sense given the social context they grew up in). Ignoring this is to ignore how class dynamics and social expectations work, especially in certain European contexts of the 60s and 70s, where societies were still heavily influenced by classism rooted in deeply ingrained monarchical and aristocratic systems.

As for James, I’m sorry, but he didn’t just have “flaws.” James was a bully and an abuser who used his social and economic security—and that of his best friend, Sirius—to attack other people. And instead of targeting pure-blood Slytherins from wealthy, influential families, he conveniently chose a half-blood with no money or connections. That’s not arrogance; that’s violence. Even after promising Lily that he had changed, he continued doing the same thing behind her back.

I think I’ve provided enough arguments and evidence to support my stance, which is more than I can say for you. Your analysis is utterly superficial, and you still see James as a jokester rather than the abusive bully he was. Stripping someone naked in front of the entire school isn’t arrogance—it’s sexual abuse. Full stop.