Snape vs Wormtail - Life Debt

[esmith222002]

No: HPFGUIDX 140632


> 
> Alla:
> 
> Is it clear though that someone can choose to ignore Life debt? We 
> have Peter in GoF drawing blood from Harry, true, but we also have 
> Peter asking Voldie to use someone else other than Harry.
> 
> Granted, he is not very ... persistent, in protecting Harry, should 
I 
> say, BUT he tries, sort of, so I think it is plausible to assume 
that 
> some sort of actions may follow if you don't honor the Life debt. 
> Those actions may not be automatic - as if you fail to protect the 
> person, you die,  but some sort of consequences may still follow, 
IMO.
>
So what you are saying is that Peter was being affected by the life 
debt, when he suggested that Voldemort spare Harry. BUT, this was 
overridden by Peter's underlying personality flaws e.g. his weakness, 
his cowardice. Which was exactly the case with Snape!! His underlying 
personality trait i.e. his honour caused him to save Harry, when he 
really didn't have to!!

 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> This is one of the interpretations - that he does the honorable 
> thing, the one I sort of shared  prior to OOP.
> 
> Another one would be that his life debt get transferred to Harry ( 
> someone put nice theory about it) and he IS obligated to protect 
> harry or  something will happen to him. :-)
> 
When I am presented with these queries, I often ask myself how it 
ties in with JKR's writing. And more importantly if the reason for a 
particular individual's behaviour isn't obvious, then just how will 
it be explained at a later date.

In PS/SS DD says at the end that Snape saved Harry so he could feel 
like he had paid back James i.e. that he could feel he had honoured 
the life debt. 

The other alternative is that Snape had only saved Harry because the 
life debt had transferred from James to Harry, and Snape was 
protecting himself as much as Harry. It simply gets too convoluted 
for JKR to easily explain his behaviour from this point. And since 
the life debt has been repaid, there also seems to reason for JKR to 
refer to this incident again.

IMO, this act has to be taken at face value. I don't think JKR would 
expect us to deduce a more complicated explanation for this 
behaviour, when there is no further evidence to support this.

Brothergib