http://pjpettigrew.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
pjpettigrew.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
ways_back_room2004-07-30 09:23 am
pjpettigrew.livejournal.com) wrote in ways_back_room2004-07-30 09:23 am
OOC: Deconstructing Peter; Or, Why This Peter Isn't Stupid, Incompetent or Wholly Evil
Just a little background on significant parts of Peter's backstory, and how I figured them out.
Okay. So, Peter's evil, right?
Not intrinsically. He's done some incredibly evil things, though.
I've reinterpreted the three canonical things that we know Peter has done--turning to Voldemort, betraying the Potters and cutting off his own hand to bring Voldemort back. HP canon is just that--Harry Potter-focused. And Peter's canonical actions don't always make sense in view of other canonical information.
Like what?
All right. Take Peter's turn to Voldemort. Now, we know that Peter was a Gryffindor--the house characterised by courage, daring and chivalry. His three best friends, even after leaving school, were James Potter, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, all brave, intelligent and mischievous fellows in their own right.
We certainly know that Peter wasn't a hanger-on in that group--Sirius, in the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, yells at Peter that Peter should have died for his friends as they would have died for him. You don't die for a hanger-on or a toady. Peter had to be close to the other three, had to be a full participant in everything that the group did. Otherwise, Sirius' and Remus' shock and rage at Peter's betrayal makes no sense.
But then, why would Peter betray his friends and go over to Voldemort?
I thought about this and the only logical conclusion I could come to was that Voldemort broke him. That Peter joined Voldemort, not out of conviction, but out of terror. I liked this alternative because a) it allowed Peter to show Gryffindor courage in a difficult situation; b) everyone has a breaking point, and the fact that Peter broke over time only makes him more human; and c) it permitted me to show that Peter's terror of Voldemort was not solely for himself, but for those he loved. For Voldemort would surely have used love and friendship as weapons. Finally, this conclusion connects Marauder-Peter with Death Eater Peter in a way that is logical and that requires no stretch of the imagination.
But he betrayed the Potters!
Did he? We really don't know. Potterverse canon characters generally assume that Peter must have gone directly to Voldemort to betray James and Lily, but we don't know that. We know that Peter was the Secret Keeper, and that Voldemort learned where the Potters were. We don't know how Voldemort learned this.
Given that Voldemort is, canonically, a Legilimens or mind reader, and that canonically, the ability to block mind reading (Occlumency) is very rare, I wondered if Peter had to tell Voldemort anything. I decided he did not--that Voldemort would have been keeping a close eye on Peter's interactions with his friends (Sirius and Remus, at least, since James and Lily were in the equivalent of the Witness Protection Program), and would have scanned his mind for any information that might be useful. It's still a betrayal, but it's not one that Peter could have helped.
However, I was unwilling to say that Peter didn't betray the Potters consciously. I thought about it, and realised that Voldemort would have wanted Peter to do something that would force him to demonstrate obedience and to betray an old allegiance: to torture and to kill James. With Voldemort's wand.
And Peter, having previously been tortured to the point where life and sanity were both nearly gone, would not be willing to do this...and would not be able to refuse.
Unwilling to torture his best friend into mindlessness and see him used for propaganda before being put to death, and unable to think of a way to save James from agony, madness and death, Peter killed James. Quickly. Painlessly. There probably were alternatives, but at the time Peter could not see them.
And there's no getting around it. Whether you consider it a murder or a mercy killing, Peter did kill his best friend. His guilt is unmistakable.
Huh. Okay. But what about what he did in the cemetery in GoF? He freaking cut his own hand off to bring Voldie back!
Yes, and that's strange. Peter spent twelve years in hiding from the Death Eaters. He's not Voldemort's favourite DE by any stretch of the imagination. Voldemort calls Barty Crouch, Jr. his "most loyal servant." Bellatrix Lestrange, an insane zealot, is another favourite. Peter's default reaction to Voldemort is fear--not loyalty or zeal.
So why give Peter the job of cutting his hand off when there are other, more loyal followers who would consider such a sacrifice an honour?
Well, remember when Dumbledore told Harry that there was a bond between Harry and Peter, and that it might one day save Harry's life?
I'm hypothesizing that it already did.
That Voldemort used the ceremony to try to break the bond between Harry and Peter. That his intent was originally to have Peter kill Harry, perhaps by slitting his throat. Harry would die, and Voldemort would be reborn, in the same night.
And that Peter begged for an alternative.
Peter got a choice. Kill Harry and cut off a finger or a toe…or spare Harry and cut off his own right hand.
Hobson's choice, Voldemort thought. No choice at all.
Peter chose to spare Harry. Partly because of the bond between them. Partly because he'd known Harry for three years, albeit as Ron's rat, Scabbers. He liked the boy.
And that liking, and the bond, saved Harry's life.
Well...okay. But you've got Peter working as a Healer in the bar!
That's right. Not a fully trained Healer, but a Healer nonetheless.
But--PETER? Peter is the stupid!
Nope, that's fanon, not canon. Actually, Voldemort consistently trusts Peter to take care of him and to make potions restoring his health. Peter, mind you, not Snape.
And yet Snape is the canonical genius when it comes to potions.
So why would Voldemort use Peter as a maker of healing potions when--even in hiding--he could have potions made by Snape owled to him?
I'm guessing that Snape is the better at potions overall--but that Peter is the one who has a knack for healing. Snape doesn't. In Muggle terms, Snape is a brilliant scientist, but Peter is a physician.
I don't see Voldemort trusting his health or his life to an incompetent. He could surely terrify or Imperio Peter into getting him into more able hands, if Peter's skill were inadequate to his needs. Voldemort is, after all, no respecter of persons.
But McGonagall said that Peter wasn't in the same class as James and Sirius, magically!
I don't think he was.
I suspect that James and Sirius were naturals at magic--that they had brilliant, lightning-fast minds that grasped means and method light-years ahead of other students. Peter was slower to grasp things that they understood almost intuitively. He was a plodder, and plodders can be aggravating in classrooms, because they want to take their time, understand all the aspects of what they're doing, and get into the whys and the wherefores, if possible.
People tend to forget that slower doesn't mean less able. Some of the best thinkers in the world have been those who mulled over problems and concepts for years.
I think that the difference between James' and Sirius' magic and Peter's magic is illustrated by something that Gytha Ogg says about herself and Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett's Discworld story, "The Sea and Little Fishes":
"I'm the one who's nat'rally talented. Us Oggs've got witchcraft in our blood. I never really had to sweat at it. Esme, now…she's got a bit, it's true, but it ain't a lot. She just makes it work harder'n hell."
What kind of magic IS Peter good at?
He's particularly good at Potions and Herbology (which fits the Healer image) as well as Transfiguration.
He can't be THAT good at Transfiguration! He had to have help with the Animagus spell!
Remus is the one who tells Harry that Peter had to have help--not Sirius. Remus would only know second-hand or third-hand whether Peter had to have help or not, because he didn't participate in the Animagus spellwork. James, Sirius and Peter did.
However, even if Remus is right and Peter did need help, that does not take away from the fact that, at fifteen, Peter was one of the three youngest wizards ever to become an Animagus.
Full-grown, fully qualified, even highly gifted wizards have trouble casting the Animagus spell successfully. And not only is it difficult to the point of virtual impossibility, it's also dangerous. People get stuck between animal and human. People die.
And Peter, James and Sirius cast the spell successfully. At the age of fifteen. The three canonically youngest Animagi in magical history--roughly four thousand years, according to the Lexicon.
Let me repeat--the three youngest in four thousand YEARS.
Those three boys had to be damned good to accomplish something like that.
I always pictured Peter as gay and obsessed with James.
Sorry. This Peter is heterosexual. Incurably so. The closest he's ever gotten to gayness is having a gay friend, Regulus Black. And if Peter seems a bit focused on James...well, fifteen years of guilt, self-hatred and nightmares following the murder of a friend will do that.
(Actually, Milliways is a bit tough on people who want to slash MWPP. James, Sirius and Peter are all straight. And Remus has signed up but not shown up yet, so he's an unknown.)
But did you have to make him fall in love with Elizabeth Bennet? Dude, the images!
Peter made up his own mind. I had no say in the matter. NONE.
What does Peter look like? Is he good-looking?
No. He's short--about five feet seven inches tall--with a body that was once plump and is now scrawny. He has blond hair that's going grey--what there is of it, as he also has a receding hairline. His eyes are a watery blue-grey and may be somewhat nearsighted. His two distinguishing characteristics are the Dark Mark on his left forearm (which he generally keeps covered by jackets, long-sleeved shirts or both) and his silver right hand. Although he's right-handed, Peter has a habit of using his left hand to shake hands, to touch people, etc. While Peter's silver hand works perfectly, it possesses no sensation of touch, and he hates that.
If arguing or fighting, Peter will straighten up and stand a bit taller. And, when he's genuinely happy for someone else, which has happened quite a few times at the bar, he has a wonderful smile. Peter doesn't know about either of these things, though.
Does he look like the guy who played him in Prisoner of Azkaban?
Not in the least.
So who is that guy in your icon?
Beats me. I gacked the two Peter icons--there's also a DE one with the actor who played Peter that I don't use much--from a Peter Pettigrew LJ comm and the MWPP one from a Marauders comm. The reason being that I don't know how to make icons.
Okay. So, Peter's evil, right?
Not intrinsically. He's done some incredibly evil things, though.
I've reinterpreted the three canonical things that we know Peter has done--turning to Voldemort, betraying the Potters and cutting off his own hand to bring Voldemort back. HP canon is just that--Harry Potter-focused. And Peter's canonical actions don't always make sense in view of other canonical information.
Like what?
All right. Take Peter's turn to Voldemort. Now, we know that Peter was a Gryffindor--the house characterised by courage, daring and chivalry. His three best friends, even after leaving school, were James Potter, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, all brave, intelligent and mischievous fellows in their own right.
We certainly know that Peter wasn't a hanger-on in that group--Sirius, in the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA, yells at Peter that Peter should have died for his friends as they would have died for him. You don't die for a hanger-on or a toady. Peter had to be close to the other three, had to be a full participant in everything that the group did. Otherwise, Sirius' and Remus' shock and rage at Peter's betrayal makes no sense.
But then, why would Peter betray his friends and go over to Voldemort?
I thought about this and the only logical conclusion I could come to was that Voldemort broke him. That Peter joined Voldemort, not out of conviction, but out of terror. I liked this alternative because a) it allowed Peter to show Gryffindor courage in a difficult situation; b) everyone has a breaking point, and the fact that Peter broke over time only makes him more human; and c) it permitted me to show that Peter's terror of Voldemort was not solely for himself, but for those he loved. For Voldemort would surely have used love and friendship as weapons. Finally, this conclusion connects Marauder-Peter with Death Eater Peter in a way that is logical and that requires no stretch of the imagination.
But he betrayed the Potters!
Did he? We really don't know. Potterverse canon characters generally assume that Peter must have gone directly to Voldemort to betray James and Lily, but we don't know that. We know that Peter was the Secret Keeper, and that Voldemort learned where the Potters were. We don't know how Voldemort learned this.
Given that Voldemort is, canonically, a Legilimens or mind reader, and that canonically, the ability to block mind reading (Occlumency) is very rare, I wondered if Peter had to tell Voldemort anything. I decided he did not--that Voldemort would have been keeping a close eye on Peter's interactions with his friends (Sirius and Remus, at least, since James and Lily were in the equivalent of the Witness Protection Program), and would have scanned his mind for any information that might be useful. It's still a betrayal, but it's not one that Peter could have helped.
However, I was unwilling to say that Peter didn't betray the Potters consciously. I thought about it, and realised that Voldemort would have wanted Peter to do something that would force him to demonstrate obedience and to betray an old allegiance: to torture and to kill James. With Voldemort's wand.
And Peter, having previously been tortured to the point where life and sanity were both nearly gone, would not be willing to do this...and would not be able to refuse.
Unwilling to torture his best friend into mindlessness and see him used for propaganda before being put to death, and unable to think of a way to save James from agony, madness and death, Peter killed James. Quickly. Painlessly. There probably were alternatives, but at the time Peter could not see them.
And there's no getting around it. Whether you consider it a murder or a mercy killing, Peter did kill his best friend. His guilt is unmistakable.
Huh. Okay. But what about what he did in the cemetery in GoF? He freaking cut his own hand off to bring Voldie back!
Yes, and that's strange. Peter spent twelve years in hiding from the Death Eaters. He's not Voldemort's favourite DE by any stretch of the imagination. Voldemort calls Barty Crouch, Jr. his "most loyal servant." Bellatrix Lestrange, an insane zealot, is another favourite. Peter's default reaction to Voldemort is fear--not loyalty or zeal.
So why give Peter the job of cutting his hand off when there are other, more loyal followers who would consider such a sacrifice an honour?
Well, remember when Dumbledore told Harry that there was a bond between Harry and Peter, and that it might one day save Harry's life?
I'm hypothesizing that it already did.
That Voldemort used the ceremony to try to break the bond between Harry and Peter. That his intent was originally to have Peter kill Harry, perhaps by slitting his throat. Harry would die, and Voldemort would be reborn, in the same night.
And that Peter begged for an alternative.
Peter got a choice. Kill Harry and cut off a finger or a toe…or spare Harry and cut off his own right hand.
Hobson's choice, Voldemort thought. No choice at all.
Peter chose to spare Harry. Partly because of the bond between them. Partly because he'd known Harry for three years, albeit as Ron's rat, Scabbers. He liked the boy.
And that liking, and the bond, saved Harry's life.
Well...okay. But you've got Peter working as a Healer in the bar!
That's right. Not a fully trained Healer, but a Healer nonetheless.
But--PETER? Peter is the stupid!
Nope, that's fanon, not canon. Actually, Voldemort consistently trusts Peter to take care of him and to make potions restoring his health. Peter, mind you, not Snape.
And yet Snape is the canonical genius when it comes to potions.
So why would Voldemort use Peter as a maker of healing potions when--even in hiding--he could have potions made by Snape owled to him?
I'm guessing that Snape is the better at potions overall--but that Peter is the one who has a knack for healing. Snape doesn't. In Muggle terms, Snape is a brilliant scientist, but Peter is a physician.
I don't see Voldemort trusting his health or his life to an incompetent. He could surely terrify or Imperio Peter into getting him into more able hands, if Peter's skill were inadequate to his needs. Voldemort is, after all, no respecter of persons.
But McGonagall said that Peter wasn't in the same class as James and Sirius, magically!
I don't think he was.
I suspect that James and Sirius were naturals at magic--that they had brilliant, lightning-fast minds that grasped means and method light-years ahead of other students. Peter was slower to grasp things that they understood almost intuitively. He was a plodder, and plodders can be aggravating in classrooms, because they want to take their time, understand all the aspects of what they're doing, and get into the whys and the wherefores, if possible.
People tend to forget that slower doesn't mean less able. Some of the best thinkers in the world have been those who mulled over problems and concepts for years.
I think that the difference between James' and Sirius' magic and Peter's magic is illustrated by something that Gytha Ogg says about herself and Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett's Discworld story, "The Sea and Little Fishes":
"I'm the one who's nat'rally talented. Us Oggs've got witchcraft in our blood. I never really had to sweat at it. Esme, now…she's got a bit, it's true, but it ain't a lot. She just makes it work harder'n hell."
What kind of magic IS Peter good at?
He's particularly good at Potions and Herbology (which fits the Healer image) as well as Transfiguration.
He can't be THAT good at Transfiguration! He had to have help with the Animagus spell!
Remus is the one who tells Harry that Peter had to have help--not Sirius. Remus would only know second-hand or third-hand whether Peter had to have help or not, because he didn't participate in the Animagus spellwork. James, Sirius and Peter did.
However, even if Remus is right and Peter did need help, that does not take away from the fact that, at fifteen, Peter was one of the three youngest wizards ever to become an Animagus.
Full-grown, fully qualified, even highly gifted wizards have trouble casting the Animagus spell successfully. And not only is it difficult to the point of virtual impossibility, it's also dangerous. People get stuck between animal and human. People die.
And Peter, James and Sirius cast the spell successfully. At the age of fifteen. The three canonically youngest Animagi in magical history--roughly four thousand years, according to the Lexicon.
Let me repeat--the three youngest in four thousand YEARS.
Those three boys had to be damned good to accomplish something like that.
I always pictured Peter as gay and obsessed with James.
Sorry. This Peter is heterosexual. Incurably so. The closest he's ever gotten to gayness is having a gay friend, Regulus Black. And if Peter seems a bit focused on James...well, fifteen years of guilt, self-hatred and nightmares following the murder of a friend will do that.
(Actually, Milliways is a bit tough on people who want to slash MWPP. James, Sirius and Peter are all straight. And Remus has signed up but not shown up yet, so he's an unknown.)
But did you have to make him fall in love with Elizabeth Bennet? Dude, the images!
Peter made up his own mind. I had no say in the matter. NONE.
What does Peter look like? Is he good-looking?
No. He's short--about five feet seven inches tall--with a body that was once plump and is now scrawny. He has blond hair that's going grey--what there is of it, as he also has a receding hairline. His eyes are a watery blue-grey and may be somewhat nearsighted. His two distinguishing characteristics are the Dark Mark on his left forearm (which he generally keeps covered by jackets, long-sleeved shirts or both) and his silver right hand. Although he's right-handed, Peter has a habit of using his left hand to shake hands, to touch people, etc. While Peter's silver hand works perfectly, it possesses no sensation of touch, and he hates that.
If arguing or fighting, Peter will straighten up and stand a bit taller. And, when he's genuinely happy for someone else, which has happened quite a few times at the bar, he has a wonderful smile. Peter doesn't know about either of these things, though.
Does he look like the guy who played him in Prisoner of Azkaban?
Not in the least.
So who is that guy in your icon?
Beats me. I gacked the two Peter icons--there's also a DE one with the actor who played Peter that I don't use much--from a Peter Pettigrew LJ comm and the MWPP one from a Marauders comm. The reason being that I don't know how to make icons.
no subject
I have to also include the Legilimens powers - he hasn't been wanting to poke into anyone's minds lately, but I think it's about time. He's in transition in regards to power, trying to do what's right instead of what's easy.
no subject
They uglified him for PoA.
no subject
no subject
Made my morning.
Why do you get the whole entire plate of Lucid?
C'n I have one for Kassandra oh pretty, pretty pleeeeease? Your character analyses are just the meeping end-all on the subject....
no subject
no subject
Amazing analysis. Absolutely brilliant. :)
no subject
I'm so glad you posted this. It helps a lot, and makes a lot of sense, and you are just. too cool. And, well, other things, but my brain is fried from lack of sleep.
no subject
no subject
It's an interpretation that works. I don't think it's a necessary interpretation, but it's a sufficient one.
One point --
Pretty sure the Fidelius Charm would have defeated even a Legilimens. After all, mind-reading is just another means of perception, and the point of the Fidelius Charm is that no other means of perception would allow the secret to be discovered. According to Professor Flitwick, "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" (PoA, chap. 10) And while the text doesn't actually say so, or if it does I can't locate where, I got the distinct impression that the Fidelius Charm would prevent Voldemort from learning the truth even if someone else were to tell him.
Anyway, though, you decided to interpret Peter as having given over the information consciously, if not precisely willingly.
Another, more minor point: Peter's being sorted into Gryffindor doesn't actually mean that he must actually possess courage - certainly not the sort of instinctive, without-a-second-thought courage that (f'rinstance) Harry or Sirius has. I suspect the Hat hesitated over Peter for as long as it hesitated over Neville Longbottom a generation later, and for similar reasons.
Being a Gryffindor requires above all that one value courage. Which is not quite the same thing as possessing it. Note that Hermione, with her brains and book-affinity, looks like she really ought to be in Ravenclaw, no? Except that we have the reason she isn't from her own mouth: "Books! And cleverness! There are more important things - friendship and bravery..." (Sorceror's Stone, chap. 16) Hermione's in Gryffindor because she believes that bravery is more important than book-smarts, and the Hat didn't hesitate on her for a second.
Peter Pettigrew chose the bravest kids in his year to be friends with. I tend to think think he despised himself a little because he wasn't as brave as they were - and still does.
...and this post is already a lot longer than I intended it to be, and is sprouting unexpected things like pretentious parenthetical citations, so I'll just quit now.