Peter's basic nature

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 144967

> Alla wrote:
> ...but it is also possible that acting courageously always 
> WAS in Peter's  basic nature...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:
> <huge snip of the list of Peter's unsavory deeds>
> 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?
> ...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...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 ;-) 

Christina:

Like you Julie, I also gawk at those who look to Peter for
redemption...ick!  This is a guy that not only does bad things, but
enjoys them.  He might not have been the one to bully Snape, but he
certainly seemed to get quite a bit of entertainment and joy out of
it.  It's that sadistic glee, more than James's or Sirius's actual
actions, that disturb me the most in the pensieve scene...but I
digress.  I agree that it's impossible for Peter to be redeemed,
because any good acts he could do in Book 7 would be because of the
life debt to Harry, not any goodness on his part.  Peter's tendency to
act based on external circumstances IS his basic nature...it's a
character trait in and of itself, and it's the definition that we've
given to OFH when talking about Snape.  Peter's such a puzzle to me,
and I'm sure we've given him the run-around on this list before, but I
wanted to take a bit of an issue with our calling him a coward.

We tend to equate cowardice as being bad and courage as being good,
but there's nothing inherantly good about being a courageous person. 
The definition of courage is, "The state or quality of mind or spirit
that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with
self-possession, confidence, and resolution."  Just because somebody
is doing evil deeds, does not mean that they cannot do them courageously.

We call Peter's actions cowardice because he evades punishment for his
crimes, he hides from those who want to exact revenge on him, and
finds safety in being close to people more powerful than himself.  But
is this really cowardice?  He seems awfully weak and afraid when he
talks to Remus and Sirius (and to LV for that matter), but he does
some pretty heavy stuff.  He takes the initiative to "overpower"
Bertha Jorkins and willingly seeks out LV, bringing him back to life.
 The dirty rat even cuts off his own hand!

I think that Peter's habit of twitching and shrieking when in danger
makes it easy to call him a coward because he seems very fearful.  I'm
not so sure we should buy into this.  Many of the canon characters
have underestimated Peter, whether concerning his magical talent or
his ability to keep secrets.  I think that he does not act so much out
of an irrational or uncommonly strong fear, but out of
self-preservation.  His fear is warranted because he really IS in a
lot of danger.  He has reason to fear Remus and Sirius, who are
obviously willing to kill him in vengeance.  He has reason to fear LV,
who really is a dangerous guy.

NOW, of course just because Peter not might be uncommonly cowardly
doesn't mean he's automatically brave, which brings us to the question
Julie mentioned about Peter's sorting into Gryffindor.  He doesn't
seem to have a particular fondness for learning or information, so
Ravenclaw doesn't make sense.  He isn't "just," and he's obviously not
"loyal," so Hufflepuff isn't a great fit either.  His knack for
self-preservation actually correlates quite well with the Slytherins
we know.  So why Gryffindor?  Well, there are other qualities that the
Sorting Hat lists for Gryffindor- daring, nerve, and boldness.  I'd
argue that Peter's got quite a bit of those; I'd imagine it'd take
quite a bit of nerve to resurrect the most evil wizard in existance in
a process that includes severing a part of your own body.


Christina
(who wishes that Yahoo let you spell check)