Pettigrew's life debt

[Hannah]

No: HPFGUIDX 125637


> Molley wrote (snipped):
> So . . .what *is* the consequence to not honoring a life debt? 
> 
> Snow replied:
> Whole different story here! As in Peter's case, he has yet to 
repay  his debt but he did buy some time in order to accomplish it, 
I think.  The consequences to not repaying the debt must be severe 
because it  is magically binding. 
<snip> 

Hannah weighing in:  I've never liked the idea of a 'life debt' 
being some sort of magical contract that forces those who owe them 
to repay them.  For one thing, it turns an initial act of heroism 
into something rather more sinister.  You could deliberately put 
someone's life in danger, so that you could save them and thus force 
them to owe you something (please, please don't let that be the case 
with the Prank...)

As far as I can see, there is no evidence in canon that a 'life 
debt' is actually a binding magical contract.  Nor is there any that 
it isn't, of course.  But I see Snape's determination to repay what 
he perceives that he owes James as more to doing with Snape's own 
character and (admittedly somewhat twisted) strong sense of honour.  

The same, in my mind, could apply to Pettigrew.  He doesn't *have* 
to save Harry, but at some point, his own sense of decency (and yes, 
I think he probably does have one somewhere, whatever he may have 
done) may lead him to do so.  

> Molley continued (snipped):

> Prof Snape has satisfied his life debt to James by 
saving/protecting Harry numerous times, assuming that he's able to 
repay James through  his son rather than to James himself - is his 
life debt satisfied?
> 
> Snow replied:
> Good question! I don't think he has, which I stated in a past post 
> that this could be the reason Snape had to betray Voldemort. 
<snip convincing argument>
> "It's coming back
Karkaroff's too
stronger and clearer than ever
"
> 
> "A connection I could have made without assistance," Dumbledore 
> sighed, "but never mind." GOF U.S. pg. 598
> 
> I always read this bit as Dumbledore being frustrated at Snape's 
lack  of adequate information. It might just be me, but I think 
Dumbledore  knows that Snape is trapped between the two sides 
because of his  inability to repay his life debt. Dumbledore can 
therefore trust  Snape because he knows that Snape can never return 
to Voldemort. It  also makes it sensible why so many of us question 
Snape's loyalty;  he's a bad guy that is forced to be a good guy. 
 
Hannah:  Well, I hope that Snape isn't a bad guy forced to be a good 
guy, though I do admit it's a definite possibility.  I just want 
Snape to have changed sides for more honourable reasons than that.  
I'd never thought about DD's comment in GoF like that, and I see 
your point.  In fact, when you look at it, what is connected with 
what?  It doesn't actually make a lot of sense.  I think that here 
DD is just showing his unhappiness that it is so obvious that LV 
must be regaining power.  I think Snape showing him the returning 
Mark, presumably without having been asked, is a good sign.  He's 
volunteering information.  

I think that Snape *has* repaid his life debt to James, if you want 
to see it as a binding contract.  James saved Snape once.  Snape 
saved Harry once.  Seems fair to me.  The way that Snape has 
continued to look out for Harry suggests to me that he is not 
motivated by 'life debt' alone, or if he is, that it is because he 
personally can't feel satisfied that he has fulfilled it, not 
because of some sort of magical rules.  He wants to go one better 
than Potter, or two better, or... I mean, he's saved Harry a few 
times now.  

Just my (highly biased in favour of Snape) opinion.

Hannah