Pettigrew

[carolynwhite2]

Report on 2.10.7 Peter Pettigrew

Initial posts: 745 ; final posts: 403

This has been an immensely difficult section to deal with and has 
taken me far longer than it should have because Peter is potentially 
pivotal to so many theories and themes that decisions when and where 
to cut are very tricky indeed.

On one level there are the ludicrous simplistic readings, that here 
was someone who went bad when no decent person would do so, and 
therefore deserves to die, preferably saving Harry but if not, at the 
hand of the first white hat to get to him. I've kept repeated 
examples of these from different periods in the list history, mainly 
the well-argued, but also some of the short and stupid. They provide 
a nice point counter point, and jumping off point for the more 
complex discussions about what is going on.

And there really is some intelligent analysis. Peter has continually 
fascinated the best minds on the list, at enormous length. Where I 
have had to be careful is to keep the posts focused on Peter rather 
than those about Sirius, Lupin, James, Lily, Voldemort's or 
Dumbledore's motives. This is very hard to do in some threads; talk 
about fine scalpel work rather than bludgers as he is fundamental to 
some major theories like MD.

Places where I cut quite a lot were: 
- the Neville/Peter parallels - I felt most of this was commentary on 
Neville rather than Peter, though I kept some if they included good 
analysis of Peter as well.
- lightweight speculation about what the life debt might be about; 
anything worthwhile is better under that heading, not Peter
- mentions of Peter in posts which were really about the DEs 
generally, how Voldy controlled them etc
- stupid posts about how rats were inherently nasty, horrible 
animals - since they are not, but really rather clever and successful 
creatures; instead I kept posts which compared and contrasted the 
popular image of rats with the reality (Rita is rather good at those)
- nearly all posts which just exclaimed 'how could he! I never 
would..'

I hope what remains creates an intense picture of this enigmatic 
character, the major plot points which might turn on his actions, and 
the issues JKR might be addressing with the way she has portrayed him.

One or two little tidbits:
- Possible explanation of why Scabbers went to Hagrid's hut when he 
escaped the castle - he went to retrieve Voldemort's wand, which 
Hagrid had picked up in the ruins at GH; DD knew Hagrid had the wand. 
Still doesn't explain why the rat stayed so long though - could 
easily have nipped into Hogsmeade via the Shrieking Shack tunnel and 
got out of the grounds and away whenever he wanted to. 

- (!) He cut off his finger *before* he blew up the muggle street, 
and had it bundled up with his robes, ready to drop on the ground as 
he transformed. Gets round the problem of all that fumbling doing two 
things at once behind his back. Another alternative, he cut off his 
finger *after* he found himself at the bottom of a big hole in the 
street, left it with the robes, ditto. The first is premeditated, the 
second a panic reaction (but means he transformed naked).

The finger problem has intrigued many; here is a taster of what 
Eileen and Elkins made of it:

Eileen:
> Elkins then went into a lot of Freudian stuff. Eileen doesn't 
> really get Freudian stuff, but she did find it interesting that 
> Peter cut off his pointer finger. Kind of inconvenient.

Elkins:
Inconvenient on a number of different levels, really. It's not just 
that it's his pointer finger. It's that it's also the pointer finger 
of his *good* hand. Peter is right-handed. His right hand is the 
one that he instinctively raises against Harry in the graveyard.

Now, there are perfectly sound symbolic and magical reasons for a 
right-handed man to offer his right hand as a sacrifice in the 
rebirthing ritual of his Dark Lord. But just to frame Sirius? What 
on earth was he *thinking?*

Not only is the pointer finger of ones good hand quite far down on 
the list of digits that any normal person would ordinarily choose to 
sacrifice (it's better than a thumb, but that's about it), it also 
raises some logistical difficulties. It left him forced to use his 
off-hand to do the actual cutting or wandwork or whatever it was that 
he did to lop it off in the first place. This is counter-intuitive.

So it's really hard for me not to view that decision in a 
psychological light. Leaving Freud out of it, it does seem to me 
that on some level he must have *wanted* to be maimed, and not only 
maimed, but maimed in a way that *would* be inconvenient for him, a 
way that would serve as a constant reminder to him of what he had 
done. Otherwise, he just would have gone for a pinky. 

<PS: This fantastic series of posts finally argued themselves round 
to this clever confrontation about the nature of cowardice and 
betrayal>


Eileen burst into tears.

"Elkins," Cindy said firmly. "You. Are. A. SYCOPHANT. *Not* an 
Evil Overlord."

"Oh, indeed," agreed Elkins pleasantly. "Indeed. But you know, the 
two are hardly polar opposites. They're not incompatible in the 
least. In fact, they're essentially the same position. Inside every 
sycophant, there's an Evil Overlord just waiting to come out. Have 
you ever read Fromme, on the totalitarian personality? The type of 
person who toadies to his superiors, yet bullies his subordinates? 
Whose abject professions of loyalty and fanatic devotion to 
charismatic leaders and ideological doctrines are matched only by 
their equally extreme, yet seemingly-incompatible tendency towards 
self-serving hypocrisy and back-stabbing betrayal? The sort of 
person whose fundamental capacity for inhumane behavior is masked by 
a somewhat sloppy sentimentalism? One which often presents as a self-
professed love of animals?"