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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 144996

> SSSusan:
> Butting in to this discussion here to ask a question.  Do we KNOW 
> that Voldemort went after Peter Pettigrew?  As opposed to, say, 
> Peter's going *to* Voldemort?  <snip>

Alla:

I will check my PoA tonight. I don't have it with me at work. I was 
reasonably sure that In  the Shack Peter claimed that Voldemort came 
to him. Will check and get back to you. :-)

> 
> Julie:
> > 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. 

Alla:

I was not arguing that Snape is responsible for Peter's actions, 
actually. I was arguing who is more to blame for Potter's deaths and 
accordingly I was arguing that Snape's OWN actions are huge enough to 
make him more or even equally responsible.


Julie:
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. 

Alla:

Yes, it is easier to commit evil when it is anonymous, I just don't 
understand how the fact that Snape condemned two anonymous people to 
death makes him less responsible for their deaths,when they became 
the people with names. 



> SSSusan:
<SNIP>
Peter 
> GAVE the information and we've seen no indication that he regretted 
> having done so.  (I do NOT buy his line in the Shrieking Shack as 
> true remorse for one minute -- he was trapped and desperate he knew 
> it.  If he had really had regretted it, would he have concocted 
> the "kill a dozen Muggles and frame Sirius" plan?)

Alla:

Oh, Peter is a bastard, all right and prior to HBP he was one of my 
least liked characters and even hated characters, but the thing is 
that after HBP Snape ( not as a character, but as "person behind the 
character") is right there with Peter, so  the way I see those 
characters, they both committed multitude of sins and I believe that 
it is an equal possibility that JKR may come up with mitigating 
circumstances of any one of them.

 
> SSSusan:
<SNIP>
> It's all about choices, no?  And I find Peter's choices to be 
> despicable.  Humanly understandable at times, but other times just 
> despicable and *not* choices he "had" to make, where he had no 
other 
> real alternative.  

Alla:

Peter committed one of the worst sins I know of - betrayal of the 
closest friends, but I don't see  that the possibility that he was 
initially  completely broken by Voldemort - torture, threat of 
torture or threat to his family as completely outlandish. His mother 
IS mentioned in canon, what if Voldemort threatened to kill her, 
unless Peter tells him the Potters hiding place

 
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan, anxiously awaiting someone's reminding me of 
> the canon re: Pettigrew going to Voldy or Voldy coming to him....

Alla:

Will do, will do, I promise. :-)

> Gerry:
> If Voldemort did go after him. We have only Peter's word. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, of course, and it does not mean that it is true, but we have it 
as canon, right? 





Gerry:
<SNIP>
 But is it really this all-consuming fear that
> let him forget all decency and friendship? Not being able to think 
and
> feel anything but this fear for twelve years at a time. Or was there
> not much decency there to start with? 

Alla:

This is actually what initially interested me. What IS Peter's basic 
nature? Was there much decency to start with or not?



Gerry: 
> If Peter was so driven by fear I expect that fear would be a feature
> of Scabbers. Yet in the first two books, he is a fat rat who is 
mainly
> dozing.<SNIP>


Alla:

Actually, this is a great point to argue against me, but on the other 
hand, doesn't Sirius say something about emotional reactions being 
simpler when they are in animagi form? Maybe Peter was not feeling 
scared when he was in the rat form?



Gerry:
 > And now for a quick comparison with Snape: 
<snip>
> Total number of deaths caused by Snape: 
<SNIP the people who Snape could have killed - read UPTHREAD)
> Total number of deaths through involvement of Snape: six
> 
> Now for Peter:
<SNIP the people who Peter killed - read UPTHREAD)
> Total number of deaths through involvement of Peter: 16, not 
counting
> all people who died after the resurrection of LV for which he is
> directly responsible.


Alla:

Oh, but we don't know about what Snape did in his DE days, right? I 
guess we don't know what Peter did either, but in any event I don't 
think that count is necessarily complete. IMO of course.

> Potioncat:
> I disagree, Alla.  ;-) Big surprise.

Alla: :-)

Potioncat: 
> Snape, who was in LV's service, gave LV a portion of a prophecy at 
> time when he couldn't have known whom it concerned. Peter, also in 
> LV's service, told LV where to find Lily, James and the baby. 

Alla:

Yes, see my opinion above on this part.


Potioncat:
> Sometime before LV took action, Snape repented of his actions and 
> informed DD, then risked his life in support of DD's side. Sometime 
> after Peter's actions led to the death of Lily and James, he killed 
> more people, and set up an innocent man to go to prison.

Alla:

But there is another interpretation of the timeline, right? Snape was 
sent to Hogwart by Voldemort to spy on Dumbledore.


Potioncat:
 Snape 
> continued to work with DD, anticipating LV's return. Peter spent 
the 
> rest of the next decade hiding. Even if LV had held something over 
> Peter, once LV was gone, Peter could have gone to DD.

Alla:

Yes, or Snape was biting his time, hiding from Azkaban under 
Dumbledore's protection, just as Peter did under Weasleys protection, 
albeit unknown one.

But I agree with you, Peter could have gone to Dumbledore, he always 
gives people second chances that one. Ooops, he did not really give 
Sirius a second chance, so maybe Peter was afraid that he will fall 
in the same category? :-)


Potioncat: 
> Now, if Peter is also one of DD's spies, it'll be another story.
>

Alla:

Yes, OR if Snape actually never was the genuine spy for the Light, 
that also will be another story. IMO of course.

> Pippin:
> We don't know that Peter was the spy, or that he killed Cedric, or 
that
> he was responsible for the Muggle deaths. It is not beyond the wiles
> of Voldemort or JKR to make him look more guilty than he is. JKR 
> has confirmed that Wormtail killed Cedric. But just as more than
> one person may be concealed by the invisibility cloak, a false name
> can hide more than one person. And "Wormtail" is a false name.

Alla:

I actually wanted to ask you this question for quite some time, and 
this is just as good as any. Yeah, I know I am supposed to be 
defending Peter in this thread, but are you  saying that "two 
wormtails" part of the ESE!Lupin theory is alive after watching 
the "medium that must not be named"? Yes , JKR is not involved with 
every step of making the movie, but I think that if she wanted to 
leave ANY mystery as to second Wormtail being present on the field, 
she would ask the filmmakers to make Peter killing Cedric to be less 
clear. IMO anyway.


Alla,

who wants to repeat that she cannot stand Peter, but thinks that 
surprises about his motivations are of equal possibility as surprise 
about Snape's