Peter's basic nature

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 144965

Alla wrote:

As to  your example with Peter - it IS possible that JKR intends what 
you argued,  but it is also possible that acting courageously always 
WAS in Peter's  basic nature, IMO, after all  he was friends with 
three famous  Pranksters for a reason, IMO and I think that it is a 
possibility that he  was their friend not just because he wanted to 
be protected, because he  was sharing their adventures together - 
making a Map, becoming animagus,  etc. I won't be surprised that if 
JKR shows Peter finally acting  courageously, she will show it as him 
indeed making a choice, but a choice  which SHOW WHO HE IS, finally, 
instead of  choice which was forced by  external circumstances ( like 
threat of torture or something) OR by worse  part of his basic 
nature - cowardice.



Julie:
SHOW WHO HE IS?? You mean Peter's not really the creep who got
so much glee out of James and Sirius tormenting Snape, while he
watched safely on the sidelines? And Peter's not really the betrayer
who got Lily and James killed by Voldemort (much more directly so
than, say, Snape)? And Peter's not really the mass murder who took
out 13 muggles to aid his escape? And Peter's not really the coward
who hid behind a rat all those years? And Peter's not really the  cold 
child killer who Avada Kedavra'd poor Cedric (that spell you have to
*mean* to perform, which Peter performed with little or no emotion)?
 
No, deep down he's really courageous at heart, and he did all  those
things, along with crawling after Voldemort and doing his bidding,  just
because of "external" circumstances, not because being a cowardly,
backstabbing, cold-hearted killer was his true nature? 
 
Poor, poor Peter Pettigrew. So mistreated. So misunderstood.  <g>
 
Now, I won't be surprised to see Peter *act* in a courageous 
manner, in a way that pays back his life debt to Harry, as  well
as delivers a blow to Voldemort. That may be a small show of 
courage on his part, though it will still be because of  external
circumstances, i.e. because he owes Harry that debt, and  also
because it finally has become more painful to be under Voldemort's
thumb than to make a last-ditch, and no doubt fatal, move to 
bring down the Dark Lord. I mean, this is a Lord who has turned 
the very loyal Peter into a limping hulk of twisted flesh. Would  it
be surprising for Peter to finally turn on that kind of master?
 
Unfortunately, no matter what courageous act Peter performs
in the end, it won't erase of lifetime of cowardly acts. Even  if
it does buy him a small measure of redemption, he'll still  be
a character who was by basic nature largely a cowardly killer. 
And yet, still a Gryffindor ;-) 
 
Julie
(who finds it surprising that some posters look to Peter as 
the one who will be redeemed rather than to Snape, when
Snape has in no way approached the level of pond scum
that Peter has obtained--even with the apparent murder  of
Dumbledore)






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]