Pettigrew, Snape, and the Unbreakable Vow

[kiricat4001]

No: HPFGUIDX 135190

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sharon" <azriona at j...> wrote:

> <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

 <snip> There are probably other things he knows, but I can't think 
> of any
> > more clear-cut examples and these surely suffice to show what 
kind 
> of
> > man Wormtail is. 
> 

Azriona:
> Actually, I disagree.  If you looked at the facts surrounding Tom 
> Riddle or Draco - or even Snape - you'd realize the same thing 
about 
> them: they did some pretty awful things.  However, the difference 
> between their actions and Peter's is that we have motivation for 
> them, the things that caused them to do what they did.  We have no 
> such motivation for Peter, and thus I believe that most of the 
fandom 
> believes that he did these things without any sort of reasoning 
> behind them; in short, because he was just evil and rotten to the 
> core.

Marianne:

I don't think I completely agree here.  Peter tells us himself in 
PoA that Voldemort was taking over, there was no use in resisting 
and he was afraid he'd be killed.  He never, ever in that scene says 
a word of remorse or regret that his actions led to Lily's and 
James' death, even when he's pleading with their orphaned son for 
his own life. 

Now I will agree that I don't think he was rotten to the core or 
born evil.  But, I do think he made choices that were morally wrong.
You can argue that we don't know what made him turn spy, and again 
I'd agree, but I don't think that lack of knowledge can be used as 
an excuse for Peter's actions.

Azriona: 
> Did Peter do some horrible things?  Yes, of course.  But so did 
> Dumbledore.  So did Sirius.  So did Snape, and Draco, and Riddle.  
I 
> don't believe you can condemn any of them until you know why they 
did 
> it.  Then condemn, or punish, as necessary.  But blind punishments 
or 
> condemnation just because of things you have largely received from 
> hearsay is not just.

Marianne:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by hearsay. Are you saying 
that we're not sure that Peter is guilty of murder?  Or that, 
although he did murder people, he might have had, if not forgivable,
at least understandable reasons?

Yes, all the people you listed have done some bad things.  But, two  
of them are already canonical killers. Maybe Sirius intended to kill 
Snape with the Prank; maybe not. Maybe Snape killed people in his DE 
past; maybe not.  Maybe Draco will grow up to be a pure DE who keeps 
his hands free of other people's blood; the jury's still out on that.
To our knowledge at this point in the series, Dumbledore, Sirius and 
Snape have never killed anyone.  I think there's a big difference in 
equating their misdeeds and the sins of Peter and Voldemort, 
regardless of anyone's motivation.

Azriona:
> But I'm not talking about what Snape knows about Peter.  I 
intended 
> this discussion to be about what Peter knows about Snape - which I 
> think is far more applicable to whether or not Peter would 
actually 
> condemn Snape for turning his back on Dumbledore, and thus bring 
> about his own redemption based upon Snape's downfall.  
> Peter, truth be told, may in fact know a lot more about Snape than 
we 
> do, particularly as the two have been living together for an 
> undisclosed amount of time.  But what I'm not certain of is 
whether 
> or not Peter knows Snape's true alliance (not that we know that, 
> either, for that matter).  If Peter believes Snape to be loyal to 
> Voldy - why would he condemn him for killing Voldy's enemy?  And 
if 
> Peter believes Snape to be loyal to DD - what would he think of 
that 
> man's murder?

Marianne:

One question we don't have an answer to is why Peter is with Snape?  
Is he actually assisting in some task Vmort has set for Snape?  Or 
is he there as Snape's manservant?  Why would Peter, who diligently 
worked with Vmort during GoF to bring him back to a corporeal form, 
suddenly fall out of favor to the point of being made someone's 
houseboy?  The fact that Peter is creeping around, listening at 
doors (even if ineptly so) doesn't sound like the action of a 
completely cowed servant. 

Is his position there two-fold - help Snape with whatever Snape is 
doing and report back to Vmort on anything suspicious that Snape 
does? Does Voldy usually try to have his inner circle keep tabs on 
one another, pit them against each other so that they effectively do 
his bidding and spy on their fellows for him?

Certainly Snape must have realized that Peter would tell Vmort about 
the visit from the Black sisters, even if he didn't hear all the 
details.  On the other hand, could Snape have modified Peter's 
memory so that this scene would be wiped from his mind?

My thinking about that scene in HBP is that it was put in as a 
reminder to the reader that Peter is still there.  And that, spite 
of his loyal service to Voldemort, he is held in some contempt by 
Snape and Voldemort. Maybe they are forgetting that Peter was also 
looked down on, to some extent, by James and Sirius.  He might once 
again surprise the people who overlook him or take him for granted. 

Marianne