|
|
Post by Author By Night on Mar 1, 2009 10:11:02 GMT -5
On the House System thread, the discussion turned to Peter Pettigrew and his betrayal of the Potters. I decided to give the topic its own thread. I have put it here instead of Stones to Hallows because the subject deals with the first war. Here is what was said before: Also: it is never stated what House Pettigrew was in; many in fandom assume he was in Gryffindor due to his association with the other Marauders, but JKR has never said which House he was in. Many in fandom assume he was in Gryffindor due to his association with the other Marauders, but JKR has never said which House he was in. Meanwhile, I think he was actually very much a Gryffindor. Peter did what was best for the people he wanted to be associated with; Percy, another Gryffindor, did the same thing - twice. He first abandoned his family because they were going against the Ministry of Magic; when it turned dark, Percy turned back to his family, because they once again stood for something Percy himself believed in. And then there's Sirius, who abandoned his own family, because he didn't think they were who he wanted to be. In betraying his own friends, Peter was technically being brave (from a fellow Death Eater's perspective) - he must have known Sirius would figure it out eventually. And yet because Peter believed it was the best thing to do, he did it. I know Peter said he was afraid in Prisoner of Azkaban, but Sirius doesn't believe him. Was it the right choice? No, of course not. But Peter acted in the best interests of the people he wanted to win the war. That is a Gryffindor trait. Many in fandom assume he was in Gryffindor due to his association with the other Marauders, but JKR has never said which House he was in. Meanwhile, I think he was actually very much a Gryffindor. Peter did what was best for the people he wanted to be associated with; Percy, another Gryffindor, did the same thing - twice. He first abandoned his family because they were going against the Ministry of Magic; when it turned dark, Percy turned back to his family, because they once again stood for something Percy himself believed in. And then there's Sirius, who abandoned his own family, because he didn't think they were who he wanted to be. In betraying his own friends, Peter was technically being brave (from a fellow Death Eater's perspective) - he must have known Sirius would figure it out eventually. And yet because Peter believed it was the best thing to do, he did it. I know Peter said he was afraid in Prisoner of Azkaban, but Sirius doesn't believe him. Was it the right choice? No, of course not. But Peter acted in the best interests of the people he wanted to win the war. That is a Gryffindor trait. Since Peter is an extablished liar, I'm not sure that the reasons he gives Remus and Sirius for his actions are the true ones. I don't assume that he is being honest when he tells them his reasons for betraying James and Lily. I feel the reasons for his betrayal were a mystery. He is unctuous and tends to suck up to the powerful, but I'm not sure that necessarily means he is cowardly. Dastardly perhaps but not necessarily cowardly. I have to say that I personally agree with vegablack that Peter was lying. When Peter tells Sirius he was threatened, Sirius tells Peter he was giving secrets to the other side for over a year (or something to that effect.) You'd think that in the time frame of a year, Peter could have told Dumbledore that he was being threatened. |
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Mar 1, 2009 13:16:03 GMT -5
I don't see any difference whether he was lying or not. He betrayed people who had been friends to him. Others may not classify that at something other than cowardly but I can't. I have as yet to see bravery or chivalry from this character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Author By Night on Mar 1, 2009 13:38:11 GMT -5
I don't see any difference whether he was lying or not. He betrayed people who had been friends to him. Others may not classify that at something other than cowardly but I can't. I have as yet to see bravery or chivalry from this character. Well, it wasn't chivalrous, no. When I said bravery, I didn't really mean from our perspective. We, as sane, good people, know that killing your friends is a bad thing to do. But he was looking at it from an evil side, and was willing to do what he wanted for that side. To him, it was brave, even though it really wasn't. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Mirabelle on Mar 1, 2009 13:51:23 GMT -5
I think you make sense. If you're a Death Eater, then inflitrating and spying on the Order of the Phoenix is a risky endeavor. From their perspective, getting that close to Dumbledore, the only man Voldemort actually fears, is brave.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 1, 2009 16:28:56 GMT -5
[we need a 2 cents emoticon]
JKR sets him up as a fairly weak person, with Rosemerta saying he was always tagging along with James and Sirius, and in the Shreiking Shack with Sirius saying Peter always looked for someone stronger to be around, etc. But I've wondered if he may have been Crucioed into joining the other side. We have evidence with Frank and Alice that it can push someone over the edge mentally, plus there is RW evidence with Stockholm Syndrom that prisoners tend to become what their captors want them to become after a little time and torture.
Anyhow, I don't see the other Marauders intentionally picking a worthless untrustable friend. Each of them has talents and weaknesses, and it seems quite plausable to me that Peter had value above being a mascott or charity case, but that this was driven out of him by spending some quality time with V or his minions.
Since she hasn't told us backstory, I could easily venture Peter being captured, or his mother being held (or perhaps V is the reason Peter's father is no longer in the picture), so that he would have a plot-reason to begin cooperating with V or the Death Eaters. Then, with the various ways and means they have, he could have easily been dragged over to the Dark Side.
Anyhow, I doubt he was a coward, at least not at first.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chocolatepot on Mar 2, 2009 19:12:55 GMT -5
I don't think Sirius and James would have put up with him even the limited amount they did if he hadn't been living with them. Getting out to do pranks and to run around in the Forest would be about ten times more complicated if they had to meet up with Peter somewhere partway.
I agree with AbN and vegablack that Peter was lying, too. I think that, much the way it was for Snape, the Death Eaters offered him a chance to be an equal (although they were lying to him so they could get a spy in the Order).
|
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 2, 2009 22:41:20 GMT -5
This isn't the Snape thread, but....
From the place where Harry sees Tobias being an abusive jerk we can extrapolate that Severus was traumatized into feeling weak, inadequate, and unworthy. From his flight in HBP, we can add to his childhood, issues with cowardism, feeling as though he didn't/couldn't do something(s) he later felt he should have been able to do. In OotP Sirius tells Harry (when Lupin, Harry, & Sirius are talking in the fireplace at Grimauld place just before Fred & George leave Hogwarts) that Snape was Lucius' "lapdog". Sirius also tells Harry that Snape came to school knowing more than most 7th years.
So, I think Snape found a "home" with the Slytherins due to his abiiities. (They didn't respect him, but they wanted him to help them, would have no problem using him.) It would have been the first place Snape felt any power and acceptance. Which would have made it much easier to go along with the dark side's ideas during school to stay in good graces with them. (He's as insecure as Lupin in many ways.) Since Lucius was rather weak of character and prone to getting his status outside himself, from those "richer" (in various ways, not necessarily money) than himself, it was natural for him to toady-up to Voldemort. Thus Snape would be drawn along into the whole movement before he knew what was happeneing.
While V would want a spy in The Order, I don't think that was all of it.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chocolatepot on Mar 3, 2009 16:12:50 GMT -5
I think I didn't word it right - with Snape, the Death Eaters wanted him as much as he wanted them. But as Peter wasn't really great shakes at spellwork or any other thing, I doubt they found anything desirable in him aside from his connections, although they probably pretended to be interested at first in order to get his loyalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 10, 2009 12:24:49 GMT -5
I think the statements that Pettigrew wasn't great shakes at anything is a case of unreliable narrators. The views expressed are colored by the opinion and experience of those who are telling us about him.
The marauders were portrayed as especially talented. They were able to on there own master the animagus transformation in a few years as underclassman. This takes fully qualified adult wizards eight years to achieve with the help of a mentor. This was a sign of great talent far beyond the average wizard. That Peter was able to achieve this at all even with their help is the sign of at least average if not above average skill.
The maruaders created the map which was also a remarkable object which would have been something of an achievement for anyone but it was created by them again without help while still in school.
The marauders were extremely good magicians. The fact that they and others viewed Peter as a lesser talent doesn't mean that he was talentless. He was overshadowed by his far more gifted friends in their eyes and in the eyes of teachers, but that doesn't mean in another environment he wouldn't have been viewed positively or that he had no skills worth sharing.
He was crafty and powerful enough to have pulled off the killing of a street full of muggles, his own disapearance and the defeat of Sirius Black. He could carry out the disgusting process of revitalising the Dark Lord. This all points to him having skills. He was close to the Marauders and a trusted member of the order. No one seems to have considered him as the betrayer. All that shows skill in concealment. He fooled Dumbledore himself.
Snape would have despised the betrayer who destroyed Lily no matter how talented he was. McGonagall was influenced by his more powerful and flashy friends who she obviously loved. The marauders themselves have the attituted typical in teenage boys toward someone they view as less than themselves but still a friend. The DE harrass humiliate and ridicule each other as a matter of course. Voldemort taunts him as he did Malfoy, Avery, and even Belatrix when he views them as weak.
I'm not sure an average wizard would have viewed Peter as unskilled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ilene Bones on Mar 29, 2009 19:05:26 GMT -5
You know, to me Peter Pettigrew's motivations are even murkier than those of Severus Snape, though Peter doesn't get as much press since he is such an unattractive character, while Snape for some reason is seen as a Byronic love god by many fen. (Not sure why because I really don't think the author meant for Snape to be attractive in that way.) I can accept that his initial decision to join up with Voldemort was based on fear, but that doesn't explain why, thirteen years later, he voluntarily goes off to Albania and helps to resurrect Voldemort. That is an act of voluntary evil. I understand why he'd try to escape at the end of PoA, as he is facing a torturous existence in Azkaban or even soul-suckage. But to go running off to Voldemort himself, strikes me as over-the-top. Peter still mystifies me.
That being said, I actually don't question his Sorting into Gryffindor. I think much of the cowering scaredy-cat (or, scaredy-rat) facade he shows in much of the story is just a facade used to manipulate people, or at least purposefully exaggerated for effect, much as Narcissa exaggerates her distress over Draco to manipulate Snape into agreeing to the Unbreakable Vow. He does have a raw physical courage that allows him to do scary things in GoF like milk Nagini's venom, and not only cut off his hand but boldly ask Voldemort for a reward as he is lying on the ground crumpled in agony. What Peter lacks is moral courage, though he does seem to admire it. That is one part of his Shack confession, when he says he was never brave in the way James, Sirius and Remus are, that I do believe.
I agree with Vega Black that Peter was by no means an unskilled wizard, and I get rather peeved by the common fandom perception that he was a weak, bumbling fool. However, I understand people like McGonagall seeing him this way because I've seen the same effect in RL, how someone who hangs out with exceptionally talented people can look dim in comparison.
For example, I know a married couple who are both doctors. I met the wife first, and she has an excellent reputation, for her compassion and people skills as well as her medical skills and knowledge. I met her husband later, who in comparison, seemed to be rather average and boring, and I admit my initial reaction was "Why'd she want to marry this guy?" It was only recently that I realized that the husband is actually pretty smart and competent in his own right, too. I guess there's a Ron and Hermione parallel there too, with how so many anti-R/H people thought Ron wasn't good enough for the brilliant Hermione..
Interestingly, his friends tend to treat this guy a little like James and Sirius treated Peter, constantly insulting him and making fun of him (much of it about his "whipped" state in marriage). But that doesn't mean they're not friends. He usually just laughs and takes this pseudo-abuse (I say pseudo because I know it is just for fun), though once in a while he comes up with a great comeback line. In general, while he's far from a sycophant it seems this guy is content to be more of a beta than an alpha in his relationships (both with his wife and his friends). That is a personality trait, that doesn't reflect on intelligence or skill sets.
So, I think Peter was definitely an above-average wizard, and I see his skills as likely on par with someone like his friend Remus Lupin, who is shown as very competent even though he admits his Healing skills and Potions skills are not that great. Remus himself of course never tried to become an animagus, but I think if he'd tried he would have also needed help like Peter, yet eventually managed it. I think Peter does have some essential laziness to him that is apparent in his incarnation as Scabbers; he's not going to exert himself to his full potential unless it is necessary. But when he needs to, he will act in ways that surpass the usual limits he puts on himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Apr 1, 2009 20:05:20 GMT -5
I wonder if Peter admired strength, talent, skill and power. James and Sirius both had these in spades. They also were both purebloods, perhaps Peter admired that in the same way Fudge appeared to suck up to purebloods. Vodemort probably seemed the more talented skilled, and powerful force. The Death Eaters were often purebloods. It wasn't widely known that Voldy was a halfblood. Bellatrix didn't know that when Harry confronted her with the information.
They may have seemed to have more of the qualities that he admired. Peter definitely had the qualities of a sycophant. His behavior with Voldemort seems sycophantic above all else. That doesn't necessarily mean he was cowardly. Just that he enjoyed hitching aride on the backs of the more talented. He switched sides when he found people who were "better" in his mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuthbertbinns on Mar 17, 2010 23:39:07 GMT -5
Ah, another dusty thread, but most are these days, I guess. Not like the Potter hay days to be sure. But anyway, I've been much too bogged down in work lately and need a break, so I'm indulging in a little HP.
Peter, Peter. Why couldn't you just eat your pumpkin (pie) and be happy? Pie is a good cure for what ails you. Or is that apples? That's OK, apple pie works just as well. But enough food digressions (though I'm sure a good banana cream would have done him wonders).
Peter can be a bit of a puzzle depending on how individual events are looked at, but I would say cowardice is his consistent and over riding trait (and, apparently, a distaste for pie).
As a preface, a few things I think he is (was) not. For me it never seemed to fit that Peter was one who had a particular desire to associate with the powerful or with pure bloods, as some other characters did. In fact it was never really clear to me what he wanted. I don't think he knew himself. Also, from Jo's perspective as a writer, having already created a number of characters who craved to associate with the powerful and / or pure blood (Snape, Draco, Regulus, most any other death eater), I think, or at least prefer to think, she was doing something a little different with Peter.
So then, my impression of Peter while reading the books was that he was constantly in a state of desperation, which is I think another way of saying he was always afraid. I don't think there is ever a moment in the story where we see a relaxed (non-rat) Peter. More generally speaking, I think it can be said that it is a common thing for people who feel afraid or vulnerable, such as Peter, to seek to join a group in which they can feel safe and accepted, that of course being the Death eaters in this case. Two things usually happen as a result. First the person will do the things the group expects in order to ensure their acceptance. So in a gang the person may assault non-gang members and take part in other criminal activities, in a hate group they will ridicule or attack whoever is the subject of hate - by race, religion, nationality, or whatever they are selling - or, more mundanely, a clique of people will ridicule anyone the group choses, such as happens so often with teens (I know, what a brilliant insight - teenagers are prone to forming cliques! Who knew! Also a disclaimer: I acknowledge that this is a generalization and is not applicable to all teens, nor is it exclusive to teens (my lawyer made me add that)). All of these characteristics are found in abundance in the Death Eaters. The second thing that usually happens is that the person, now emboldened by the feeling of safety the group provides, will take pleasure in persecuting or hurting others, often in the same way they themselves feared being abused.
Finally, my somewhat convoluted point is that Peter never seems emboldened or secure no matter where he is, as I would normally expect, but is instead always in his same state of agitated desperation. (I exclude, of course, his rat years when he seemed to maintain a good appetite and manage a good nights sleep - ah, the best years of his life, perhaps? Maybe this was all he ever really desired, whether he realized it or not.) That's why I think it was always fear that drove his actions. It was a weird sort of fear too, something almost compulsive, as if his fight or flight instinct was permanently set to flight. Also, I think it important to note that he never gained anything from his actions other than not dying. His life was pathetic and yet he would sacrifice anything in order to preserve it. It's because of this characteristic that I would definitely agree he seemed to lack any sort of moral compass. What we have then is a man who was so weak and afraid for himself that he was hardly capable of thinking or caring about what cost to others or himself his actions would have. This is both pitiable and disgusting, and I think it clearly makes him a coward above all else he may have been.
So, the moral to be learned from Peters character is, don't be a pie hater or you may fall down the wrong path . . . or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Mar 18, 2010 17:02:00 GMT -5
Finally, my somewhat convoluted point is that Peter never seems emboldened or secure no matter where he is, as I would normally expect, but is instead always in his same state of agitated desperation. (I exclude, of course, his rat years when he seemed to maintain a good appetite and manage a good nights sleep - ah, the best years of his life, perhaps? Maybe this was all he ever really desired, whether he realized it or not.) Cuthbert, I think you're right. I wrote a Peter fanfic right after finishing OotP and came to the same conclusion as you: that Peter's years as Scabbers WERE the best years of his life. Even when he was friends with James, Remus and Sirius, he was always scared that they would 'discover the truth' that he wasn't good enough. As Scabbers, nothing was asked of him except existence: he was cared for by Percy and then Ron. Hell, he was so secure in himself, he even took it upon himself to bite Goyle's finger on the Hogwarts Express! |
|
Since Peter is an extablished liar, I'm not sure that the reasons he gives Remus and Sirius for his actions are the true ones. I don't assume that he is being honest when he tells them his reasons for betraying James and Lily. I feel the reasons for his betrayal were a mystery. 
