Pettigrew: debt and Scabbers - Sirius in the Shrieking Shack

[hfakhro at nyc.rr.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 24324

Katzefan wrote:

'After Harry keeps Sirius and Lupin from killing Wormtail, Dumbledore 
tells Harry that when one wizard saves another, it creates a bond, 
and that he has handed Voldemort back a servant who is indebted to 
Voldemort's worst enemy. There was certainly no sign in GoF that 
Wormtail remembered that debt. Any speculation on whether he ever 
will?'

Amy Z already answered this one: LOL at "The rat doth protest too 
much, methinks!" But I have a different interpretation of this debt 
thing between Pettigrew and Harry. Is it something that Pettigrew 
necessarily *knows* and is aware that he is indebted to Harry, or 
could it be something more instinctual? I tend to lean towards the 
theory that Pettigrew himself doesn't know that he has a debt to 
Harry, but in some magical instinctive way, he will follow it up if 
Harry is ever in danger. So when he tries to discourage Voldemort 
from using Harry, he is perhaps not aware of the real (debt) reason 
he's doing it, but perhaps thinks it might be more prudent to choose 
someone who's not so well-protected. What do you guys think - is it 
something he is aware of, or not? Can you imagine what Voldemort will 
do to him if/when he finds out that Pettigrew is in Harry's debt? I 
shudder to think of it.

Saitaina asked:

'Now here's my question...why did Peter as Scabbers, bite Goyle?'

I have wondered about this too - my very flimsy take on it is that 
Peter had just realized that his owner had made friends with one 
Harry Potter. Perhaps rat Peter felt a teeny tiny twinge of guilt 
knowing what had happened to the boy? And when Malfoy informed Harry 
that he'll go the way of his parents if he wasn't politer (or some 
such rude comment) perhaps Scabbers did have his moment of glory (as 
Fred so aptly titled it in PoA) and was biting him in defence of 
Harry and his parents? I know, it's a very weak theory, but 
plausible, I guess.

JB asked:

'Ok
 if Sirius was innocent, why the hell was he laughing like a 
maniac when they dragged him off to Azkaban? I mean, if he'd been in 
shock or something, that's understandable, but laughing? Was this 
ever explained or should I just ignore it?'

I think he was in shock. And he'd just realized how perfectly he'd 
been framed by Peter of all people; little bumbling Peter who had 
seemed so ineffectual, was responsible for the slaughter of two of 
his friends and framed him so efficiently. I think I would have 
laughed too just at the sheer ridiculousness of it.

JB also asked:

'Uhm, common sense tells me that if you want to show someone you're 
not responsible for their parents' deaths, you _don_ strangle them. I 
understand that Sirius is a bit off-balance; years in Azkaban can do 
that to you, but strangling Harry? That doesn't seem like a good 
idea.'

Yes but don't forget, Harry had just attacked Sirius 
ferociously: "Perhaps it was the shock of Harry doing something so 
stupid, but Black didn't raise the wands in time - one of Harry's 
hands fastened over his wasted wrist, forcing the wand tips away; the 
knuckles of Harry's other hand collided with the side of Black's head 
and they fell, backward, into the wall - ... there was a blinding 
flash as the wands in Black's hand sent a jet of sparks into the air 
that missed Harry's face by inches; Harry felt the shrunken arm under 
his fingers twisting madly, but he clung on, his other hand punching 
every part of Black it could find. But Black's free hand had found 
Harry's throat-"

Therefore it was the only way he could get Harry off him. And I would 
argue that Sirius' primary intention is not to show Harry that he's 
not responsible for his parents' death, but to kill Peter first. It's 
Lupin who convinces him to wait and let Harry hear their explanation 
before doing anything to Peter.

--Hella