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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 144997

> Orna:
> Here it is, IMO, in PoA:
> "DON'T LIE!" bellowed Black, "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM 
> FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY"
> "He-he was taking over everywhere!" gasped Pettigrew. "Wh-what was 
> there to be gained by refusing him?" "What was there to be gained by 
> fighting the most evil wizard who has ever existed?" said Black, 
> <snip> "You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have 
> killed me, Sirius!"


Magpie:

To me there's the important thing about Peter right there: "What was 
there to be gained by refusing him?"  Peter does not see something 
inherently worthwhile in doing the right thing.  Perhaps it's fear 
driving him, though I'd also say it sounds a lot like despair.  
Reading this now it puts me in mind of Dumbledore on the Tower when 
Malfoy asks him what it matters what language he (Malfoy) uses when 
Dumbledore is about to die, and Dumbledore tells him it does matter, 
because it always matters, even if it won't make any difference to the 
wider situation.  

This is why I don't understand reading Malfoy's own lowering of his 
wand as cowardice.  He's put in a similar situation to Peter in HBP 
(not the same, but similar).  He's got every reason to kill 
Dumbledore.  If he doesn't kill him Voldemort will kill him and kill 
his family-just as Peter is saying here.  Dumbledore has always been 
the enemy to his family, so he's got even less reason to want him 
spared.  Yet he still can't bring himself to commit this evil act 
(having gotten a taste of the reality of that act by almost killing 
Katie and Ron and only being saved by luck).  Yet killing this 
innocent person still matters in ways it *does not matter* to Peter, 
who always chooses to commit the murder.  And Malfoy isn't even making 
the same choice as Peter in considering Dumbledore's offer, since 
Dumbledore offers to protect his family too.  He's not selling them 
out on the grounds that it doesn't matter anyway because they're 
screwed either way. (It also matters that Dumbledore know he didn't 
intend Greyback to come to Hogwarts--these are all baby steps towards 
morality for someone who's actively fought the idea his whole life.)

Obviously I'm not saying that this is the same thing as Malfoy 
standing against Voldemort and joining DD's fight etc.  But in that 
scene not committing an evil act matters.  Sirius, in response to that 
line of Peter's, tells Peter that he should have died rather than 
submit to Voldemort and while Malfoy isn't bravely offering his life 
in defiance of Voldemort he knows not killing Dumbledore=death. 
Perhaps the difference is that Malfoy has hope where Peter did not, 
but that can make a difference.  Peter isn't loyal to either Voldemort 
or James.  He'll happily live as a rat with the Weasleys and sell them 
out when the time comes.  That seems like the big difference between 
Peter and just about everyone else in canon.  It's probably what makes 
him the most successful DE in canon, whose committed the worst crimes 
with the least remorse.

Now with Snape--well, it all comes back to Snape.  We just don't know 
what drives him at the heart of it.  He's not Peter, I don't think. He 
cares. I think his motivations matter a lot in terms of the prophecy--
more than the actual sequence of events.  That is, yes Snape is very 
much responsible for what happened to the Potters because he gave 
Voldemort the prophecy, but if he accepted that responsibility and 
later made different choices because of it, he's gone far beyond 
Peter.  It definitely matters if Snape went to Dumbledore, confessed 
he'd done this and tried to work towards the Potter's protection.  
Obviously Snape saw a point to protecting the Potters where Peter did 
not.  We just have to find out what it is.

-m