Agency in the Shrieking Shack

[marinafrants <rusalka@ix.netcom.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52176

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Risti <pretty_feet51 at y...>" 
<pretty_feet51 at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> > I have several fundamental objections to MD (and variants). One 
I 
> don't > think I've expressed before is that I consider the 
importance 
> of the > life-debt element to be a major assumption and leap in 
the 
> dark, unfounded > in canon (note, it's the importance and 
> implementation of the life-debt > which I'm questioning, not its 
> existence). The general concept of a > "life-debt" bears out the 
one 
> canon Potterverse example we've had > explicitly explained to 
date, 
> namely Snape's life-debt to James. This > operates on the basis 
that 
> even though Snape hates Harry, he will protect> him from potential 
> harm, which has caused him to take action on at least > two 
> occasions.  Snape's life-debt doesn't manifest itself in purely 
> magical > ways; it manifests itself, if I can borrow from 
psychology, 
> as a compulsion > to act in one way rather than another.
> 
> Ahh, but you see, I use this very example as proof of just how 
> important the life debt is.  Snape very obviously hated James 
> Potter.  Snape would have hated James just as much during his 
years 
> as a DE as he does when Harry meets him, if not more.  For the 
> record, I'm talking about the time *before* he becomes 
Dumbledore's 
> secret agent.  In PoA, Snape threatens Sirius with 'Give me a 
> reason,' he whispered. 'Give me a reason to do it, and I swear I 
> will.'(p 264, PoA, softcover).  IMHO, Snape is threatening 
Sirius's 
> life.  By the nature of the wording of the threat, I'd say that he 
> knows Sirius knows that he can and has killed a person at wand tip 
> before.
> 
> Well, James Potter certainly should have been at the top of 
Snape's 
> list of 'people to kill' when he was a DE.  According to the way 
the 
> DE's activities are explained in the beginning of GoF, he didn't 
> really need to have a reason to kill a muggle lover like James.  
So 
> why didn't he?  Before all that Secret Keeper business and 
Voldemort 
> realizing that *he* wanted to kill James.  Because Snape had a 
life 
> debt to James, and therefore couldn't kill him.

Yes, but all this only reinforces Gul's point (and mine, since I've 
also made this argument a number of times before): the *only* thing 
that the life-debt affected is Snape's behavior.  Therefore, there's 
no reason to assume that Pettigrew's life-debt will affect anything 
other than Pettigrew's behavior.  And even then, it still depends on 
the debtor's character -- Pettigrew still managed to a great deal of 
harm to Harry, despite the debt, because he doesn't have the 
integrity to honor it properly, the way Snape does.  Now, I suspect 
that sooner or later, Pettigrew will grow a pair and honor his debt 
at a crucial moment, because it's been pretty heavily foreshadowed 
in the books; but that's not something the characters themselves can 
count on.  

And we really can't forget the minor little fact that James Potter 
is *dead*.  He had a life-debt owed to him by a far better man than 
Peter Pettigrew, and what good did it do him, exactly?

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcomd.com