Peter's basic nature v Snape basic nature/ Which one is worse? Pure speculat

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 144971

 


> 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)


Alla: I rearranged your words, Julie by bringing you  signature 
paragraph upstairs to make clear why I am bringing Snape in this  
thread in the first place. I ususally prefer to try and defend the  
character without pointing out that the other character committed 
worse  deeds, but this way is fun too.
For the record, I think that it is a  possibility that Snape's level 
of pond scum and Peter's are quite close to  each other, but I 
realized recently that defending Peter is fun. Not that I  really 
believe it anyway, just speculating.
 
Julie:
You're right, the *possibility* is there that Snape is quite close
to Peter in the pond scum department. But the possibility that
Snape *ins't* on the same level as Peter is also there. And 
therein lies the difference. We don't yet know all there is to
know about Snape. He may have done some much worse 
things than we're privy to, he may have killed Dumbledore for
his own ends, but again, he may not have done either. And
that is the mystery of Snape. We can't quite judge him until
Book 7 shows us who he really is (and I have no doubt JKR
will show us).
 
Peter we *can* judge now. There's no doubt about his murders,
numbering 14 at this point (I believe), and one of those being a  child. 
There's also no doubt about his current loyalty to Voldemort.  


So, Peter=BAD, Snape=Maybe BAD, Maybe GOOD, or both.
Peter's losing. 



Julie earlier:
Getting such glee out of  James and Sirius tormenting Snape, while he
> watched safely on the  sidelines?

Alla:

I think it is possible that Peter is less creep  for watching the 
bullying than someone who goes around inventing spells who  could 
really hurt people and one ofthose could let them bleed to death.  
IMO anyway.
 
Julie:
I don't agree. Robert Oppenheimer invented the A-bomb, but I  don't
think that makes him to blame for the US dropping it on Japan, or
for any uses of it thereafter (hoping fervently for no future uses). 
Snape may have invented it for whatever reason, but he's not
forcing anyone else to use it. 


Juli earlier:
And Peter's not really the betrayer
> who  got Lily and James killed by Voldemort (much more directly so
> than, say,  Snape)?

Alla:

It is possible that without Snape giving that little  piece of 
information to Voldemort, Voldemort would never gone after Peter in  
the first place. IMO anyway, so it is a big question in my mind who 
is  more at fault for Potters deaths. Sure, Peter told Voldemort the 
place of  their hiding, but without Snape opening his mouth, 
Voldemort may not have  become interested in them at all. IMO of 
course.
 
Julie:
We are *very* far apart on this, then. You are right that Snape 
opened his mouth, thus putting this all in action. But that does NOT
make Snape responsible for Peter's actions. Snape gave away the
prophecy, but if we are to believe Dumbledore, he regretted it. (And
I do believe Dumbledore). Additionally, Snape did put lives in  danger,
but he didn't initially know the identities. This isn't a nice thing to  do,
of course, but it's always easier to commit evil when it's anonymous
and removed from you. But Peter betrayed one of his closest friends.
And while Snape attempted to keep the Potters safe (by aiding DD), 
Peter revealed their hiding place directly to Voldemort. 
 
Peter's still losing, IMO.
 


> Julie earlier:
<SNIP>
And Peter's not really the  coward
> who hid behind a rat all those years? 

Alla:

But is  that who he really is? Is it in his nature or is it because 
fear consumed  him? I attended a very interesting lecture yesterday ( 
unrelated to HP), but  talking among other things how fear can 
completely consume you. 
 
Julie:
I believe fear can consume you, but if fear can make you  betray
your friends, kill a dozen people to escape, hide in rat form  for
thirteen years, and then continue to commit crimes up to and 
including murdering a child, then what does this indicate about
your nature? Courage?? I don't think so. 



Juli  earlier:
<sniP.
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)?

Alla:

Indeed. You have to mean Avada to perform it  succesfully. You agree 
that it applies to all characters, including Snape,  right? :-)
 
Julie:
Yes, it does. But again, there is some doubt about Snape's 
motivations in performing the Avada (for self gain, or because
DD requested it as the best way to preserve the most lives including
the most important one there, Harry's), and perhaps even some 
uncertainty about whether it was a true Avada. Additionally, even
if Snape did kill DD to save himself, at least he seemed pained by
it. Peter showed no compunction in killing Cedric, and certainly 
couldn't point to a net gain for the good side by his  action.


Juli earlier: 
> 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? 

Alla:

Could you please  refer me to the canon for the "cold hearted", if 
you don't 
mind.  Cowardly - sure, is it possible that it was under the threat 
of torture or  torture itself. Yes, IMO anyway.
 
Julie:
There's no canon stating Peter is "cold-hearted", but what  would
you call someone who cuts down an innocent teenager without a
single hint of hesitation or remorse? Everyone's all worried about
how Snape might have permanently affected Harry and Neville's
emotional health (despite no evidence that he did), but how come
no one cares that Peter KILLED that dear, sweet boy Cedric??
(Cries) Why, oh why, is the late Cedric Diggory so unlamented? 
(Okay, I know some people do see Peter as the greater evil :-)
 
Oh, and I do think Peter could have gone somewhere besides
right back to Voldemort after the Shrieking Shack. Voldemort
was still somewhat confined at that time, as it wasn't until GoF
that Voldemort gained a body again. Peter could have remained
a rat anywhere. He chose to go to Voldemort though, and take
part in the graveyard incident (where Harry was supposed to
die also, if Voldemort had his way).

Alla:
Alla, who is so not a  fan of Peter, but who does think that his 
stakes on the redemption rose very  significantly after HBP.
 
Julie:
I agree the water did muddy a little in HBP when it comes
to Snape and redemption, but I can't see Peter's stakes for
redemption rising AT ALL post-HBP. Snape's character has
become more questionable, though far from resolved. Peter's
character, however, remains unchanged. He's never showed
an ounce of remorse or regret for his actions. He remains an 
evil, if pathetic, little turd. 
 
Julie 
(Oops, four posts today. Can I say I saved up from  yesterday?)









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