DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG]

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 115919


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> snip>
Although Pettigrew is absolutely central to this plot,  his 
personal motives are not examined in great detail; it is 
assumed he is probably what he appears – a betrayer, a 
DE who will return to his  master at the earliest opportunity 
(mainly because it is the safest  place for him once his cover
is blown). 
> snip>
 
All three main theories pay little attention to Peter as a person.  
They take him at face value, as a weak person placed in a non-
negotiable position. At the same time, they also postulate that
he may have had the intelligence to be either an effective spy 
for Voldemort, and/or bright enough to have staged a credible 
disappearance. There is something not right here, and it could 
be evidence that Peter is playing a different role – although on 
his own initiative or another's, it is impossible to tell.
> snip>

It's true that Peter has largely been accepted as a 'passive' 
character - one whose actions appear to be determined by the 
vicissitudes of life in that he ends up in circumstances the 
parameters of which are set by the actions of others. He is not,
to descend into the sterility of modern jargon, pro-active; he 
does not set his own agenda. Or at least, that's the way it reads.
His co-option as SK; his subsequent submission to Voldy threats;
his escape after the Shrieking Shack; he reacts pretty much the 
way one would expect of a weak individual - he bends or runs 
away.
All well and good.

If he is Agent!Peter then he's bloody good at it.
Mind you, to those addicted to proper spy stories (as opposed
to the James Bond, Mission Impossible rubbish) this is standard 
stuff. Le Carre and Deighton would smile knowingly; to be a 
successful spy you build a legend and then you live it. Only when
you're established and trusted do you start to function. And to 
be accepted as what you aren't, you may have to do some nasty
things along the way. Like betraying the Potters and killing 
Cedric? Er....hmm. That's too much for some.

In fact, if you're cold-blooded (or devious) enough, it is possible
to cobble together a rationale to embrace these. Agent!Peter 
would be briefed by DD about his apprehensions etc and told 
what precautions he (DD) was taking. Lily and James; that's bad 
but bearable; the  one that matters is Harry and if James and Lily
succumb that automatically protects Harry. Similarly, removing
Cedric simplifies the situation enormously and gives Harry 
breathing space. Harry on his own might evade Voldy; Harry 
having to look after Cedric almost certainly couldn't. And what 
was Peter doing during Harry's escape? Starting as a central figure,
he disappears from the readers view. Odd. Maybe all that 
consternation among the DEs wasn't just down to Harry's unaimed
Impedimenta! spell after all. Once again Harry survives. The rat's
prime directive is still being followed.
Not that I really believe it; it's just an illustration of what can 
constructed if you think about it.  

There're lots of theories out there, many (most?) being variations
on the themes expressed in MAGICDISHWASHER. I readily admit 
that much of what I burble on about was either adumbrated in MD
or is an extrapolation (or perversion) of MD thinking. It's a pity 
then, that MD didn't spark the same levels of discussion regarding
Peter that ensued with DD, Sirius and Lupin. Why was that? An 
unsympathetic character? A weak, colourless, pathetic personality?
Never seen in human form without him being under pressure 
from stronger individuals? 
In which case have we ever seen the real Peter?

Indirect evidence doesn't help much; the same bit of canon can
be interpreted so as to reach diametrically opposed conclusions. 
For example - in PS/SS Ron tries to turn Scabbers yellow -
 "Aha!" say some, "an indication of Scabbers true nature that 
Seer!Ron has stumbled on by accident (again)."
"Not so," reply others. "It's an indication that Peter isn't yellow
and therefore a coward, after all."
Then there's the sneakoscope in the train in PoA. It starts 
whistling and Scabbers is in the carriage. But, as Pippin will be 
most happy to instruct you, so was Lupin.
You know, one would almost think that Jo's doing it deliberately.
Really? Is she that twisty? Damn right she is.
After the Shrieking Shack Lupin transforms and goes off into 
the Forest. Peter transforms and goes - where? It doesn't say. 
One would expect him to head for the trees too - if he's a true
baddy. But if he headed towards the school instead - now that
would make the Agent!Peter theory something to be reckoned 
with. He heads for the one person who could protect him. 
Oh, for a few extra words of canon.

I've  commented before that JKR doesn't seem to approve of 
unregistered animagi; two dead, one Igor to Voldy and the 
fourth with chipped nail varnish, unkempt hair and probably 
(horror of horrors!) split ends. Is there no limit to this author's 
malice? No matter that many fans see it as a fun thing, prancing
round the countryside in an animal pelt, the author gives them 
a hard time. For those who theorised/wished Ginny to be a cat 
animagus, change your mind now. JKR hates cats, she's allergic
to them. Ginny would likely come to a sticky end. 
(Thinks. TBAY? Mmm!)
However, Peter's treated slightly differently to the other animagi
Marauders in that he doesn't seem to have any redeeming features
whatsoever. Now for Malfoy, Riddle, Bella and the rest of the Voldy
groupies, that's fair enough, they're Slytherin after all. Not Peter: 
he's Gryffindor - a totally evil, cowardly Gryffindor -  is that 
possible? What did the Sorting Hat think it was doing?

Maybe Hagrid  was speaking the literal truth - "Nobody went bad,
'scept they was in Slytherin." 
In which case, what does that make Peter? 
A member of the only too real Dumbledore's Army - 
a weak personality out of his depth - 
someone who cracked under pressure but can redeem himself - 
or a rat in a trap? 

You make your own minds up; I've got some analysis to do.

Kneasy