"Life-Debt" Gripe

[corinthum]

No: HPFGUIDX 59378

Felinia wrote: 

> While at work today, I thought of something I've been meaning to
>post to this list for a while: I see relatively frequent, almost
>casual references to "life debts" between characters... 

>Yet nowhere does the phrase actually appear in canon that I know of. 
>I ask because while a nice idea, I think that it's a tacit assumption
>that might not really hold in the WW on the part of fandom that any
>of these characters owe or feel they owe a life debt to another...


As several other posters have mentioned, the idea comes from two
events: Dumbledore's comment that Snape couldn't stand to be in James'
debt, and Dubledore's comment that Voldemort would not want a servant
who owed his life to Harry.

Since the subject has been raised, I'd like to take a moment to
express my dislike for the idea of life-debts in the series.  While I
admit they exist, I think people have greatly overestimated the
importance of such a debt.  Some seem to feel that the life-debt is
some sort of binding contract, i.e. once a person saves your life, you
must return the favor.  However, I think the two instances seen in the
book can be easily explained without such a concrete debt.

First Snape's case. I think it's been shown pretty clearly that Snape
did not feel much appreciation for James' actions.  In fact, he felt
James was acting purely out of self-interest.  Snape continued to hate
James following the incident.  However, in the back of his mind, he
always felt just a tiny bit guilty for his hatred, since like it or
not, he wouldn't be alive if it weren't for James.  As a result, Snape
decided he needed to even the ground.  This is where it differs, in my
mind, from a life debt.  Snape did not feel obligated to return the
favor due to some moral code of conduct, but chose to do so to ease
his own concience.  When he finally accomplished this (by saving
Harry), he could return to, as Dumbledore stated it, hating James in
peace.  If Snape had not hated James (if he were a friend or even a
stranger), I doubt he would have felt the need to repay him.  

In Pettigrew's case, I think Dumbledore's comment is a simple
statement of fact.  Would any Evil Overlord want a servant who owed
anything to the enemy?  Especially a weak-minded person like
Pettigrew?  Would it be wise to trust such a person with an important
task, when you couldn't be sure if he might be struck by guilt at a
crucial moment?  Of course not.  I doubt Pettigrew has any intention
of repaying his debt to Harry.  But if Voldemort knows exactly what
happenned, he knows Pettigrew's resolve on anything regarding Harry
may be questionable.  That small possiblilty is enough to make
Pettigrew an undesireable servant.

-Corinth