Question

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 97434

djrfdh wrote:
> Has anyone ever figured out just how Wormtail became a "pet" of the 
> Weasley's? Was Arthur "in on" Peter's deception? How about Molly?
I'm sure Peter-the-rat didn't just scurry into the Weasley house one
day and get "chosen" as a pet! <snip> I don't think any of the
Weasley's are evil....unless you count Percy, but there's always 
one rotten apple...right? Personally, I think Percy is just blinded 
> by the bright lights of his own self-importance! Some kids go
through a "rebellous" period and I think Percy just waited until he
felt himself in a position of power to go through his! Hopefully he
won't stray too far over to the "dark side" before he gets his sense
back! But he is vulnerable...(just in case Voltemort asks!)or is it
just a curse he's under?


Carol:
Scabbers was Percy's pet before he was Ron's, and Percy would have
been about five years old (twelve years before PoA) when he acquired
his little pet. Probably Scabbers knew exactly the right wizarding
family to take him in--one with very little money and small boys
likely to want him as a pet (the twins were three and Ron was one and
a half.) I seriously doubt that either Molly or Arthur would have
allowed little Percy to keep the rat if they'd suspected he was an
animagus. (And remember that Molly asks Ron in OoP after he's been
made a prefect if he wants her to buy him another rat as a reward:
"You always liked Scabbers." It's as if she's forgotten that Scabbers
wasn't really a rat!)

I agree that Percy isn't really evil, just headed in the wrong
direction through a combination of pride, ambition, obstinacy, and
lack of appreciation from his father and brothers. He certainly wasn't
evil even in that sense when he acquired Scabbers! I also agree that
he's vulnerable, but JKR made it clear in her March 4 chat that he's
acting on his own volition, not under an Imperius Curse.

Carol