Peter betrayed & the lost world of theorising

[carolynwhite2]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" 
<mikesusangray at ...>
wrote:
!
>
> Have I missed something?
>
> Baaaaa,
>
> Mike (who, after all, once wrote a FAQ about Mr Pettigrew)
>
Pippin:
I'm not sure which of my theories Carolyn was referring to, but I am 
pretty sure that Peter's babbling and broken "I never meant for it to 
happen" is the truth.I don't think he voluntarily revealed to 
Voldemort that he was the secret-keeper.

His performance in the Shrieking Shack, where he breaks down so 
quickly, does not argue that he could have concealed treachery for an 
entire year, certainly not once Dumbledore began to suspect someone 
close to the Potters. It is possible that he spied unwittingly at 
first, like Bagman, and then was blackmailed into continuing. But I 
don't see how he could've gotten away with it for long -- he's no 
occlumens and far too poor an actor.

Carolyn:
Mike, in the kindest possible sense, your Peter FAQ was one of the 
starting points for the catalogue. It did not (IMO of course), even 
begin to encapsulate the reasons Peter betrayed his friends (if he 
did), but merely reiterated the Faith-reading that if a character 
acts like a rat, quacks like a rat, he must be...a rat. Children's 
storytelling stuff. Not that there aren't plenty of knee-jerk posts 
supporting you, people shrieking that Peter is the most horrible 
character in the book etc.

To my way of thinking, the Peter story is one of the most interesting 
examples of where we had such high hopes of Jo, but they have been 
(or are likely to be) dashed. As Pippin says above, it is scarcely 
credible that he spied for a year without being caught. JKR has also 
brushed under the carpet some very unpleasant issues about why he 
should have done it, if he did. These are young boys that grew up 
together like the Trio have, remember. What did they do to him that 
left him open to Voldemort's approach? And what exactly did 
Dumbledore know? Pretty much all of it, IMO. Leading him to sacrifice 
Lily and James, leave Sirius in the slammer, and finally offer Lupin 
the poisoned chalice of the DADA job whilst he and Snape pursued a 
slow dance, culminating in the death scene on the tower in HBP.

Don't believe a word of it? Peruse these links as a starting point:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115794

www.azriona.net/peterpettigrew
(follow the link to the 'Peter Paper' in the left hand menu).

As I recall, last time we discussed it here, Pippin still thought 
Peter was prime facie guilty, but had been set up by Lupin and was 
too weak to resist. Personally, I still prefer the Gryffindor 
explanation that Peter is an extremely brave individual who is 
continuing to carry out Dumbledore's orders unto the death. There 
just is no other reason as to why he should hide as a rat in so much 
danger all those years. He could have run off to deepest Manchuria 
and lived out his days in far more safety otherwise.

Eileen:
I'm still particularly annoyed by the way she slaughtered my
intricate backstory for Avery by making Rabastan Lestrange the Fourth 
Man in the Pensieve scene. What has Rabastan Lestrange done since his 
introduction to merit that cruel crack down? Fourth Man!Avery had so 
much more potential, and yet all that theorizing has been cut off by 
the fiat of the author.

Carolyn:
Eileen, yours and Elkins' Fourth Man theory is one of the treasures 
of the backlist, never regret it for a moment. Its psychological 
truth survives, even if he wasn't in the Pensieve scene. Incredible 
as it seems, there are people posting on the main list who still have 
no knowledge of SYCOPHANTS*. Their lives are the poorer.

*(Society for Yes Men Cowards Ostriches Passive-Aggressives Hysterics 
Abject Neurotics and Toadying Sycophants)

Eileen:
It was at that point that I began to reconsider the much-scorned 
theory among HP fans that the HP books might very well be meant for 
children.....
<snip>
.... possibly due to the increasing infantilism of JKR's work. 
<snip>
Mainly, however, it's the way she tossed aside the promising Crouch 
subplot thatirks me most. 
<snip>
I think it should be obvious how much this would have improved the 
plot, particularly if it'd turned out that Winky really had been 
sleeping with him. 
<snip>
When I became a fan, I thought I was reading a Political Story, not 
some childish fantasy adventure, 
<snip>
Suffice it to say, I sincerely doubt that JKR will redeem my faith in
her by this last book.
<snip>
The tipping point as agreed by our greatest fandom essayists was 
undoubtedly the interview in which JKR revealed that the J. in Remus 
J. Lupin stood for John. 
<snip>
 A more careful canon analysis reveals that the only middle name 
canonically indicated for Lupin is "Janus" ie. The Roman two-faced 
god of simultaneous beginnings and endings. 
<snip>
Ah well, let bygones be bygones. In truth, the middle name thing 
doesn't matter very much. It's just symbolic of a larger problem, the 
way all our favourite avenues of theorizing are being removed from 
us. 
<snip>
I am exhausted and somewhat numbed by the existential grief that has 
filled me as I reflect on all this. 

Carolyn:
Your paean of rage very regrettfully snipped throughout. What a 
summary. Can I offer by way of balm one of Kneasy's old posts on the 
joy of theorising. It wears well and I commend it to you:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/111642

Oh well, what does it all matter in the end? We've had a great time. 
I still have a vision of delivering her an edited volume of entirely 
alternative readings of her universe.

Carolyn