#when the marauders' actions are shown and snape's are only implied

[vazaha-tya]

the fact that fans consider snape a poor and abused orphan and a hypercompetent prodigy at the same time is... interesting.

i suppose it's canon-accurate, the man does contain multitudes. when it's time to highlight how much the marauders suck, severus snape is defenseless against his horrible classist bullies. when it's time to show off how smart he was, he knows a wide array of curses and potions and invented some himself. the gap in canon comes when someone asks if he just fantasises about using those in his textbook margins, or if he actually used them. if he did, then against who, and why was is it never addressed by the narrative?

maybe because then the author would have had to work harder at writing a proper redemption arc instead of killing him conveniently and revealing he turned to the right side because he was childhood friends (and/or in love) with lily evans.

don't get me wrong, i want to like snape. i want to like the talented yet emotionally stunted potions professor who made the wrong choices and despises harry but still wants to do right by him and the wizarding world. i want to like the spy who hates kids but is forced to endure them because the dude who made sure he didn't go to jail is his former headmaster and he wants to keep him close at hand. i want to like the abused kid who was radicalised because he was offered power and a way to be vindicated after spending his life subjected to a horrible family dynamic where his father's hatred of magic features heavily.

but he's a bad spy, his motivations for switching sides are not compelling and the marauders-snape conflict, which could have been a smart way to represent a microcosm view of the wider issue i.e the clash of ideology and the brewing civil war existing at the time, instead becomes about a girl. eyeroll.

(but that's part of a wider conversation about how all the death eaters who turned against voldemort turn out to have done so only for selfish reasons and not because they saw his ideology as wrong. sigh. i'll headcanon it away as much as i can, but that's the textual information the books give us. thanks, i hate it.)

i even think it was a good idea to make the death eater an underdog who joined because he yearned for acceptance and respectability and also despised his muggle father while the front kids on the light side are two posh purebloods who have "no" stakes in this. it adds some complexity to the conversation, introduces nuances, and... is plainly something jkr couldn't handle. because she doesn't really do nuance.

and some fans can't either, i suppose, since i just saw a post saying that when remus and sirius talked about snape knowing more curses than half the seventh year while they just entered hogwarts, they actually meant curse words. eyeroll. why do you want him to be blameless? let him be a cunt. he's more interesting that way.

[forestdeath1]

The Prank

I promised to respond to a comment on this post regarding the portrayal of canon and fanon Sirius and Remus.

I wrote that the Prank is shown in fandom in a very negative light, and fanon’s reaction of Remus to the Prank flips his character 180 degrees:

"Fanon Remus reacts like a true drama queen, being offended for six months and punishing bad-bad Sirius."

Comment by @sylviaplathenthusiast (hey :) :

"while yes i might agree with a lot of the points here i feel like theres a way to merge canon and fanon because we see remus mostly compartmentalise and sirius lash out.

and when it comes to the prank i think honestly the term "drama queen" is very harmful because this is not a situation in which the silent treatment in question would be an overreaction. lets not overly victimise sirius"

True, it's fandom, and you can merge whatever you want. But there’s this thing in fandom where something becomes very popular and is accepted as canon, as the only right version. Just because I'm talking about it doesn’t mean I'm forbidding anyone from building their fanon worlds and portraying the Prank exactly that way. I'm just pointing out that there's another angle. Many people can't see The Prank any other way, they've fallen in love with a portrayal by several fanfic authors, and it snowballs through the fandom as the established truth.

"and when it comes to the prank i think honestly the term "drama queen" is very harmful because this is not a situation in which the silent treatment in question would be an overreacting."

Let's start with the fact that "silent treatment" is not the most constructive reaction if Remus stays within the Marauders. It objectively is a poor conflict resolution method, implying development of a "victim-aggressor-savior" triangle.

Moreover, canon Remus wouldn’t resort to conflict and such behavior just to teach Sirius a lesson. He might withdraw a bit from Sirius, throw some sarcastic remarks as in SWM, but overall, as he himself said, he wouldn’t want to lose his friends. He understood well that James would always side with Sirius (contrary to the strange claim for me that James saw everyone as equally important, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, and that Sirius's 'betrayal' was on a biblical level. That’s drama out of nowhere. James doesn’t dramatize anything; he's the least prone to drama among all the Marauders). Moreover, Remus genuinely enjoyed their company, even full moons became somewhat enjoyable for him.

Instead, fandom suggests that Remus takes offense and broods, trying to punish Sirius. James tries to punish Sirius too. Everyone is punishing Sirius, who becomes the scapegoat of their group because he acted immorally.

By the way why is it, according to fandom, not immoral for Remus to agree to study at a school being a werewolf and roam under the moon? The guy is literally dangerous once a month, and some shack is not the most reliable way to protect Hogwarts and Hogsmeade. Remus shouldn't have been studying there before the potion, it’s not "kindness" from Dumbledore, it's another of his reckless decisions. Just imagine if Moony had escaped and bitten the whole of Hogsmeade. There's your "kindness". Yes, Remus isn’t at fault for his lycanthropy, but acting, knowing your lycanthropy, is your responsibility. I'm not at fault for being infected with some dangerous disease, but not exposing others to it is now my responsibility.

Remus is not a saint. He's just a boy who wants to study at school with his friends. And in short, Remus has no right to assess "the moral state of Sirius's action."

Another angle Remus might react to is to take the Prank as personal betrayal, as if Sirius really wanted to use Remus as a weapon to kill Snape.

I've reread the canon many times, and all I noticed was Sirius getting annoyed at Snape for poking into their business, including "Remus's secret", irritably joked about it, and was pleased with how things turned out - Snape backed off and left Remus alone.

Where did you read that Sirius used Remus as a weapon against Snape out of personal vendetta against him? Sirius was annoyed that Snape was snooping on their secrets, he didn’t want to give up Remus. Sirius has a sharp humor, he was 16 at the time, a teenager on the verge of running away with a heavy family situation, someone who says something leaving the responsibility for action on another. If I suspect a bottle contains poison, and my enemy says "drink it to make sure, I'll show you how to open it", and I drink it, who's the idiot? Me or my enemy? Who's at fault?

Sirius probably didn’t think through the meaning and implications of his statement, it was just on the level of "back off, idiot", definitely not deliberate as portrayed in fanfics: "we have a bloody werewolf!". Sirius? He's not the most empathetic person, but this?

Essentially, Remus has nothing to be offended about. I understand that Sirius might have put Remus in a bad position. But Sirius didn't intend to deliberately harm Remus. And the situation turned out to be a plus for everyone. Snape finally backed off from them. James, being more empathetic, realized in time that Snape would indeed go there and saved him. Remus is safe, and Remus's reaction in canon is very psychologically natural for someone like Remus.

Under such circumstances, to give the silent treatment for six months is indeed being a drama queen and overreacting, because Sirius didn't intend to deliberately harm Remus. Moreover, this reaction of Remus in fandom often accompanies his subconscious desire for Sirius to affirm Remus's importance to him, which is also manipulative. I don’t like it when characters are broken for the sake of plot.

Putting Sirius in a situation where he realizes his feelings for Remus under ostracism and moving the plot forward with this is poor taste (even for fanon portrayals of Sirius and Remus).

What actions could Remus have taken to make the fanon Prank look better, considering our fanon Remus is all serious and a proper boy with the right notions?

If you're all about being proper and serious, act it through, not like a five-year-old boy whose mom made him an egg sandwich instead of jam for breakfast.

Talk! Hear Sirius's point of view and either agree or disagree.

That's it. If he agrees, he can, of course, not open up right away again, but he shouldn’t sit like a gloomy wolf in the common company, making everyone uncomfortable and constantly reminding by his existence how deeply he was hurt. You talked, you agreed. Accepted the other person's point of view. Stop dramatizing.

If he disagrees with Sirius's point of view, he leaves the company. Yes, him. Because their whole company is held by Sirius and James. It's his right. No one can take away his right not to forgive Sirius for stupid jokes, not accepting his point of view, and exclude him from his life.

In the canonical dynamics of the Marauders, it would be Remus who would distance himself, not Sirius. Sirius wouldn’t go anywhere. There are no Marauders without Sirius and James, it's an absurd assertion that the dynamics in their group were equal. They were never equals. Everyone loved James, James also loved everyone, but number one for him was and will always be Sirius. James is not a saintly hero who just loves all the downtrodden and oppressed, he genuinely likes Sirius with all his flaws. James even wanted to be somewhat like Sirius at times. Sirius is the "bad boy"; James plays the role of the "bad boy", but he's not Jesus, who for the sake of "biblical level drama" will stop communicating with Sirius, realizing he still loves him but can't forgive him yet. It's not in his character. At all.

James would still interact with Remus, but when one falls out of common activities, he inevitably drifts apart.

But yes, these two reactions would have been entirely adequate. Talk - accept or not accept - make your move. To remain silent for six months, supposedly in "one company", hoping Sirius will finally realize something is being dramatic and manipulative in the worst sense of the word.

(Only what is Sirius supposed to realize? What dumb jokes does he have? What a moral scoundrel he is? A bad person? A bad friend? His family already tells him he's bad, it's not news to him. Show him he can be good, as James did. Fanon Remus reactualizes Sirius's trauma about his unworthiness, literally breaking the character and making him repent.)

But no. In fandom, Remus wants to change Sirius. Punish him. Show how bad he feels so that Sirius stops being Sirius and becomes a convenient loving boyfriend for Remus.

The fanon Prank works, it even looks realistic, considering the fanon character traits, but it's just cliché, boring, and makes interesting characters into flat TV show heroes. Moreover, it presents breaking our beloved characters as a norm for plot development.

The canonical Prank in a few lines reveals much more interesting details and plot nuances and adds a lot to the character portrayal.

[snapeaddict]

YMMV but Lily was a stand in for Rowling. It's why the relationship with James is uncomfortable to read.

(I hope I guessed the meaning of stand in well because I am not totally sure)

In reference to this post about Gryffindor's (and JKR's) belief in their moral superiority.

Ah, yes op. I do think JKR wrote Lily as this, in her eyes, symbol of perfection for Harry, this symbol of goodness and kindness. I'm sure she saw her behaviour toward Severus as completely okay and positive, I'm sure she never questioned her writing of this apparently flawless character even during The Prince's Tale. But the fact she wrote Lily as flawless (more of a symbol than a character, honestly) doesn't mean she is actually flawless and we now know how problematic JKR's work can be.

I think, and this is a personal opinion, that JKR wrote Lily according to her standards of what a good person is like. Standards she also applies to herself, because she, as an author, and Lily, as her stand in character, have many similarities in the way they view the world and behave toward others. I am of course not comparing a real person and fictional character, but trying to show how one can influence the writing of a character - and what this person thinks of this character, which can be reflected through the narrative and main character's POV. Then, by extension, all of this strongly influences our own views on the character as readers, especially when reading the books for the first time. Some things that are disturbing to us and not understood by Rowling:

Strong belief in your own moral integrity: JKR seems to use her books as a weapon against those who point out her narrow-mindness, constantly reminding us she wrote them as a message of love and acceptance, "including" diversity in her world. She never questions her own behavior. She wrote Lily as morally flawless also because she is a Gryffindor and muggle-born: Lily, if you follow her narrative, is in her right to condemn and be critical of Severus' friends and choices, and to highlight her Gryffindor classmates moral superiority (ie they don't use dark magic) to justify the fact she grants herself the right to judge her friend and condemn his friends without addressing bullying. Because she knows better, and is moraly superior. Just as the narrative never really adressed the fact bullying by Gryffondors on a Slytherin isn't justified because they are "on the good side". JKR considers herself to be part of the Good People™, for many reasons, thus doesn't see any problem is writing blog posts explaining to some people why they are a threat to her own feminist fight or how they should behave. Of course I make NO comparison between her transphobia and a fictional character's behaviour; I'm just trying to show there is a similar pattern of behaviour which is, if I have to sum it up: I have moral integrity because [...] ➡️ So this moral superiority cannot be questioned ➡️ So this gives me the right to judge you/tell you how to behave without sweeping my own backyard.

Quick to condemn, unable to understand: This moral superiority (let's face it, Gryffindor are always portrayed as moraly superior in the books which nearly always justifies for discrimination against Slytherin) JKR thinks she has for reasons said above has for consequence the fact she gives herself the right to point out people's supposed flaws and "dangerous" behaviour without ever giving them time to explain, or listening to them. She sees what she wants to see, and so does Lily as she wrote her: the narrative makes of the fact she never gives Snape the opportunity to explain himself a normal thing, because we already know he is in the wrong; she already knows it and decided it, so why would she even ask?

Belief in your own right to judge and change people: for all the reasons I wrote above. You can question behaviours, you can point out flaws and issues: but you, as a person, cannot grand yourself the right to say "I know better than you do because this, this and this, so please change for me or I'll stop being kind to you." To JKR, this is perfectly acceptable behaviour (for example, "she knows and love trans people" but to the condition they remain silent and do not threaten her fragile views on feminism. If they do, she'll consider them a threat.) She writes Lily with a similar kind of behaviour regarding Slytherins: "without trying to understand who you are and why you are the person I see standing in front of me, without educating myself on your motives or asking for you pov, I ask you to change to match my own standards, no matter what it costs you."

Use of minorities, etc to serve personal aims and display your moral integrity: We have a whole history of JKR using sexual orientations or racial minorities to promote her work's open-mindness without ever giving them a voice or listening to them, trying to understand them. She writes Lily as a character who has such a good heart she is friends with Slytherin, dark arts affiliated Severus Snape and who knows it: "My friends (moraly superior Gryffindors) don't even know why I still hang out with you". ie "you should be grateful and their opinions have more values than yours to me." She points out her own benevolence at still accepting Severus as a friend, but never tries to understand Severus' own bravery and struggle at still being friend with her while having to survive in Slytherin house as a half blood (which was obviously more difficult). While reading this particular extract from the text, I cannot unsee the fact she (or JK) seems to think she does Severus a favor for being his friend (in context it's perhaps understandable), but it's very telling JKR would write this - we get the message as readers. The conclusion being, Lily had to be this moraly perfect girl as she had a Slytherin friend. I cannot say it's not implied by the narrative or it's not what JKR thought (she has lesbian and trans friends, so what she says cannot be discriminating/are justified by her supposed openness). Another disturbing and wrong way of thinking.

Belief that your belonging to one oppressed minority prevents you from oppressing others: JKR uses her identity as a woman in a patriarcal society, her statues as a woman who suffered from this patriarchy, to justify her transphobia and point out the fact she, as part of a group which is oppressed, do not oppress others (her blog post on "Why I'm not transphobic" is very telling). My feelings when I read Lily's character (but this may be interpretations from my part) is that her statues as muggle-born also automatically grants her moral integrity or at least a moral compass (narrative-wise) to be judgemental over Severus' relations and to decide whether or not the Marauder's actions toward him were serious: there is a kind of disturbing hierarchy that is created with Slytherin using dark arts and having prejudices against muggle borns (according to her) vs the Marauders and their pranks (not serious at all especially in comparison for her, and anyways they are Gryffindors). As if the fact she is the victim of oppressors means she doesn't have responsibilities or all she does is somehow justified or cannot mean ill (for example, turning her back on Severus while he is being sexually assaulted after he insulted her. She had a duty to perform as a prefect, which she wasn't even doing well before he said anything). The problem isn't her, she has reasons to act the way she does and flaws like all human beings. The problem is that the narrative (thus JKR) sides with her and never have us readers question her behaviour as well. It matches her inner belief that some people's moral integrity cannot be questioned for certain reasons. We are never offered another pov, we are never shown another perspective (of course Lily as a character isn't the one supposed to be this meta): for example, we could have been shown how easy it is to fall into radicalisation especially when you're an abused and neglected child from a poor social background and a minority. (Again I'm not saying it was up to Lily as a character to understand this. She had no obligation toward Severus and isn't all mighty and a Saint. The "problem" is that the narrative is trying to portray her as such because the author truly believes this is how a good person behaves and should be looked at.)

All of this of course being unconsciously accepted, but never put in question. Lily's behavior being of course viewed more positively because no matter how flawed it was, it served honorable aims: fighting against the disgusting blood purity ideology. Her values are honorable. So to me, of course JKR was convinced of Lily's human perfection and inherent goodness because I think she wrote her according to her own views and beliefs on the matter. Which is why, if we grant importance to the narrative, her marrying someone as crual as James Potter is disturbing according of what is said of her:

"Not only was she a singularly gifted witch, she was also an uncommonly kind woman. She had a way of seeing the beauty in others even, and perhaps most especially, when that person couldn't see it in themselves."

But, when you take a step back, you realise that her marriage with James is a consequence of JKR's internalised sexism, as she heavenly implied macho and possessive behaviour such as displayed by James were attractive to girls in the end, and, if you take another step back, you realize JK never understood the seriousness of the bullying she wrote so it didn't look so appealing to her that Lily would date James as it is to us.

Then, if we really think of the characters themselves and not JKR's intentions, I think James and Lily were a good match for various reasons, not all negative.

I'm afraid this is a little clumsy and I just really want to say, I'm not blaming Lily for her behavior even if we must acknowledge the fact she wasn't a very good friend and was very far from being perfect; I'm not making a comparison between real life issues and fictional ones, or between author and fictional character: I'm trying to show why Lily appeared as such a model of goodness into JKR's eyes, which shines through the way she tells the story, because she was written according to the writer's standards - some standards and positions we cry about every day when we open twitter. It's not really about her transphobia or use of minorities, but the reasons why she thinks she has a right to give judgemental opinions and ask people to change, her own system of thinking. Her - phobia are a consequence of this but I have to talk about them to show how it seems to me JKR thinks of herself and of others.

This is not anti Lily Potter, she still was a good person and lived in a particular context which also explains certain aspects of her behavior; this has nothing to do with making Snape look better or finding him excuses.

It has everything to do with the way the author viewed her characters and certainly failed to understand the seriousness and complexity of all subjects she chose to address. With the way she sees things and how her characters behave sometimes accordingly.

(Like, for example, not making any comparison, I'm sure she really thought it was positive when she created the house elves, slaves that are happy to be slaves and making fun of those who are disturbed by their conditions and having the only free elf die; I'm sure she thought the message was good when it clearly reeks of colonialist fantasy, thus her own opinions and views as a white British in the 90s [not generalising this to anyone else!], certainly internalised.)

PLEASE MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SHE WRITES LILY THIS WAY" AND JUST "LILY".

[senadimell]

Morality and Motivation part 2

See, I wonder what let James and Sirius have empathy for Remus and not Severus. Not later down the road, not after they’d fought and established a rivalry. I mean from the beginning. Why do they choose a werewolf? Why does Sirius hate the Dark Arts? Why does James? (I think those started out as very different reasons) Conversely? Why does Harry befriend a blood traitor?  I don’t think the answer is “they are lovers of fairness who fight prejudice wherever they see it.” Let’s contrast the train scene from the Marauders’ era with Harry’s era:

We know what happened for Harry: He’d gone from a position of being bullied constantly and only wearing only cast-off clothes, only to be shown kindness and protection from Hagrid. He meets someone who reminds him of his cousin, whose words and impression say 'I’m better than other people. I have more stuff than them. There is such a thing as “trash,” and I don’t think they should be allowed to go to Hogwarts.’ Who does that sound like to him? I don’t want to downplay the power of Harry’s empathy and kindness. But at the same time, Draco’s words characterize him as someone like Dudley, and his recent elevation of status to a high-ranking wizard of fame, class breeding, and wealth,  is new. Those are three things he never protecting him while growing up. Harry didn’t forget that. So who didn’t talk down to him or make him feel inferior for not knowing anything? Ron. When Malfoy insulted Ron, who was he unknowingly insulting? Harry. Malfoy didn’t know about Harry’s upbringing, and didn’t know how arrogant he came off. He was probably raised to think of arrogance as desirable (something we still see in society today).

This isn’t an excuse. But Harry didn’t just defy injustice based on abstract terms. There were personal motivations because he knew what it was like to be on the bottom. 

Snape was switching worlds just like Harry, but unlike Harry, he didn’t suddenly inherit fame and fortune. He wanted everything to be magically better. He wanted to go to his mother’s house. He probably saw Hogwarts as a place to escape his upbringing (and we know there was likely bullying from the way Petunia reacts to him.) The text implies Snape’s of low social class and standing. Petunia was not even willing to be friends with him because of his class background. He’s looking for the group that will accept him and bring him out of that ignominy. 11-year-old Snape also has the prejudice of his upbringing (Gryffindor means brawn over brains). Who is he going to reject? (Trick question, he’s never considered worthy enough to be extended a handshake in this scene, unlike Harry)

So why did James and Sirius accept Remus and not Snape?  (This will be less about why they accepted Remus and more on why they rejected Snape) 

This is harder since we don’t have much text to go off of. Sirius was a rebel: did he befriend James as an act of familial defiance? Was it because James initiated it? It was clearly James first and not Remus. James even had the advantage of being a rich pureblood, but one opposed to Black ideology. I don’t think any stance he took was purely for moral reasons. Personally, I think James and Sirius got along swimmingly from the moment they met. They had a similar sense of humor, and Sirius wouldn’t have offended James’ sensibilities because he clearly wasn’t in love with his family mentality. Snape said he wanted to go to Slytherin. Was that why Sirius hated him? I see Sirius as initiating the Snape rivalry: Snape seemed like his family, someone who was into the Dark Arts and blood purity and whatever else. 

(As an aside, why do people take Hagrid’s words with a grain of salt—Hufflepuffs are a load of duffers, every wizard who went bad was in Slytherin, etc—but not Sirius’? We’re taking his word for a lot of the bad stuff Snape did at school. What does being knee deep in the dark arts mean? )

When discussing his reasons for disliking Severus, Sirius doesn’t call him a bully or anything like that to justify his actions. He calls him “the little oddball.” I know Snape was involved in unsavory magic by the time he finished high school, and I know he wasn’t some misunderstood angel. He probably hurt people too. (Though not enough for Lily to use it against him after he’d insulted her. You’d think she’d use her strongest ammo there, but him hurting other people isn’t mentioned. Only that he uses racial slurs. Still a horrible thing, don’t get me wrong. But he’s not just jinxing people left and right, at least not where she can see). But Sirius’ use of phrase suggests that his dislike wasn’t from Snape, the bully. That’s only how we see him after he gets power, as a teacher. 

It’s because of Snape the oddball. “It’s more of the fact that he exists.” He’s weird, thinks Slytherin is good—which means he’s like my family. He thinks he’s better than everyone. He’s just as crazy as all of them. But Sirius also doesn’t treat him like an equal—note how Draco and Harry refer to each other as Malfoy and Potter, as equals, even if they’re rivals. What does Sirius call Snape? The little oddball. Snivellus. He’s not only mocking, but dismissive. Sirius is a pretty open-minded guy on some fronts, but his upbringing stays with him—some people, whether by actions or birth, are inherently lesser. He’s the one who mentions you can judge someone by how they treat their lessers, but who does he consider his lesser? I can name two, Kreature and Snape. Don’t get me wrong—there are valid reasons he detests them. But the way Harry treats his enemies and lessers is different. He still treats them with respect, though. Even Lockhart. (Harry doesn’t really see people as lesser, for one thing, though he doesn’t exactly see Dobby or Colin as equals until later. He seems to categorize the world by friendship-familial distance to him rather than in a hierarchy).

On top of that, Severus has an air of someone who’s “passing,” trying to move his way up when he wasn’t born with what he needed to do so naturally. There’s a trope of the greasy little follower who doesn’t have the right or privilege to be on top, but is always kissing up to power. Wormtail comes to mind from the series (I think the primary example is Gríma Wormtongue). Snape’s not only subscribing to Sirius’ family political stance, but he’s a poser as well, and seems weak. This is confirmed when Lily’s the one who stands up and leaves. (Yes, I think Sirius would know “Snape” is not an old wizarding name, and yes, I do think he’s capable of simultaneously rejecting his family while assuming some of their prejudices, an yes, I do think 11-year-old Sirius in the 70s would think a girl standing up for you when you couldn’t defend yourself made you weak). 

As for Lupin, he has none of that coding. I do think James was raised to be kind to people, and to be accepting. I would love to know more about why he lacks the wizard prejudice against werewolves. I also want to know what Remus brought to the table: He’s not a prankster, and seems quiet enough. What was their “mountain troll moment?” 

I think it’s common to love your friends and hate your enemies, and to see the harm that befalls your friends as unfair but what befalls your enemies as just punishment. Harry sees Draco like that. Heck, I felt that way about Snape the first time I read PoA when he didn’t get Order of Merlin. 

[sacredpoolsoftears]

*cracks knuckles* ok lets get down to it shall we

You start out the post sounding like you want to defend James and you even mention draco, but then there’s waaay more points on Snape than James and absolutely no mention of draco after that lmao, so I mean is this an anti Snape post? Then I would suggest you to tag it as such

And then you list a bunch of things about James like ok but what are you trying to say you know? What does that suggest about James? I’m not getting any info what kind of person is he here.

And also you mention they pulled mostly funny pranks and brought a lot of kids joy or something like there’s absolutely no evidence of this in canon so pls be aware that these are your headcanons and not actually a fact. Also it’s not maybe he bullied Snape, he DID bully Snape.

Ok I gotta ask, what do you even mean by ‘it wasn’t one-sided’? I know remus said that ‘Snape gave as good as he got’ or something similar but honestly that phrase can mean a lot of things. I can take it as Snape didn’t take the abuse that the marauders handed out to him lying down and fought back when it was happening. That’s what happens in SWM when after James casts scourgify on Snape and gets distracted Snape casts diffindo on him. Is that what meant remus meant by Snape giving as good as he got? Because honestly I find it hard to see Snape initiating their encounters considering the fact that the both times their encounters are shown (SWM and werewolf incident) it’s always the marauders who initiate it: They gang up on him in SWM and Sirius tells the way to the sheriking shack for the werewolf incident. So there’s nothing in canon that shows or even suggests that Snape initiated any action against the marauders. But if you believe that’s what happened then that’s your headcanon and not actually a fact.

The sentence on abuse victims being drawn to ‘bad things’ just doesn’t sit right with me. I mean I feel like it’s a over generalization and idk man just sounds not right. If you’re gonna make such a statement then you should elaborate on it ya know

And regarding Snape vs Harry this post explains it well. Also Snape and Harry are different types of people. Obviously not all abuse victims are the same. Snape had a thirst for ambition that Harry never had while Harry was more kinder. Also Harry has a stable support system with the Weasleys while Snape never had such a support network for him during hogwarts. These 2 factors play heavily into any person’s development which leads to the differing paths Harry and snape’s lives take even though they had a similar childhood.

He created sectumsempra yes and it was written in his 6th year potions book so this was after the werewolf incident and SWM. After the marauders already almost got him killed once and then humiliated and bullied him. You can’t just point out Snape for creating a spell that could harm people but not point out the fact that he had already been in a life threatening situation once and was overpowered and humiliated because the marauders had already harmed him. So I mean I would clearly rate intent of harming as less worse than actually harming someone.

It’s funny that you mention Snape stuck his nose in remus’ business but like when did the marauders ever not stick their nose in snape’s business lmao

Snape was a death eater but he changed sides eventually didn’t he? Y’all keep on harping on the fact that he was a death eater but never mention that he ultimately spent 17-18 years working for the light side while being a death eater only for a maximum of 4 years (it could be lesser because we have no idea when he became a death eater officially).

And omggg Snape was never obsessed with lily because if he truly was obsessed he would have made contact with her again and would not have left her alone. He respected her decision to end their friendship and left her alone and never followed or stalked her how does this even imply obsession??!?? He tried to go and ask for her safety from dumbledore and that’s wrong? Pls do explain to me how this is obsession.

Yeah he was a mean goddamn asshole to a lot of students that’s fact but like it’s also a fact that he sacrificed his prime years to be a spy and save the wizarding world. He helped safeguard the students the best as he can during the 7th year. I don’t know in what ways his spy work helped (because no details in canon) but even though he was a terrible teacher he played an important part in defeating Voldemort. Just because he was mean to them doesn’t negate the fact that he helped to save a lot of their asses.

And the fact is it’s heavily implied in canon that Snape never killed anyone other than dumbledore. When dumbledore says Snape should kill him to spare draco’s soul Snape asks ‘what about my soul’ which clearly implies that he has never killed anyone until that point. He called lily a mud blood but he learned from his mistake and doesn’t use that word again and even reprimands others (phineas nigellus black in DH) for using that word. Clearly he had changed for the better and was working for the light side and his allegiance belonged to the light side.

It’s not that Snape was not a good person, it’s just y’all CHOOSE not to look at the good he did. It’s your choice, so don’t blame it on the character. If I were to make a post listing the faults of James a lot of James fans will say ‘but Lily married him He cHanGeD for the better’. If y’all can choose to look past the faults of James and focus only his positive aspects then y’all can do the same for Snape but you choose not to and that’s the difference.

Just wanna add that I’ve nothing against you OP Lmaoo but it’s just a lot of your points are not rooted in canon and clearly seem like they are your own headcanons and opinion but it’s not clearly stated so. Just please don’t pass off your own opinions as facts that’s all I ask.

the same people who crap and hate on james potter are also draco malfoy & severus snape sympathizers and that is a FACT

yall can’t hate james potter and then love the other two it is so hypocritical. james was from a light family, played pranks on kids at school - mostly funny ones, to make kids laugh as best he could with the war looming - and yeah, maybe he did have a hard spot for snape, and yeah, he maybe bullied the guy- but it wasn’t one sided, and i think a lot of people forget that

severus snape was drawn to the dark - as far as i can tell, abused/neglected kids often are drawn to bad things, and that’s what snape was. however that is not an excuse for his behavior, because harry potter was also severely neglected and abused and still joined the light side. snape was friends with death eaters and we know from his potions book that he was practice borderline dark magic and that it was his INTENT to make people suffer, and that’s what was wrong with him. he stuck his nose in remus’ business and yeah, sirius shouldn’t have told him about the entrance, but snape went to that tree in hope of getting dirt on remus. snape was a death eater and he lost lily as a friend because he said a slur, an incredibly hurtful slur, especially since it was wartime, and he willingly joined a nazi organization, knowing that he would be torturing and killing innocents, and he only stopped when his old obsession with his childhood friend started up again. snape bullied defenseless, innocent children and there really was not much good about him he was not a good person