Deconstructing the Marauders V.9

Welcome, sunshine9! Interesting post!Looking at it in this way I would suggest that James is allowed to lead the group's actions, but only with Sirius's approval. Ultimately Sirius controls the situation.

Incidentally if this is true we need to think about why Sirius holds this position of power. I think that Harry, like James, also craves Sirius's approval.
It is also important to note that both Harry and James appear to go against Sirius's opinion at one point or another. Perhaps they experience a similar disillisionment with their natural leader... I agree with your assessment of the dynamics between James and Sirius in this scene. Although, I still believe that other, less involved people (such as McGonagall & Hagrid) saw them as equals and that's why they're mentioned together like Fred & George. This dynamic doesn't necessarily imply that there is some inherent reason that Sirius controls the situation. Rather, I would argue that there is something inherent in James that makes him give Sirius control. James desires approval from everyone--Sirius, Lily, and the crowd. Peter "fangirls" James because he likes it and wants it, most likely. James's desire for approval is what he allows to dictate his behavior. Isn't that really the explanation for why he is so angry when Lily leaves? He didn't get her approval and, so, he turned back to Snape to regain the approval of the crowd, Sirius, and Peter.

Your observation about Harry and James going against Sirius's opinion made me think of something else. In OotP, Sirius tells Harry that he's less like his father than Sirius thought when Harry won't meet him in Hogsmeade. It's been previously argued that Sirius reacted this way to Harry because he was hurt by Harry not wanting to meet him. I've never been happy with that explanation. It seems mean to me--it also seems a bit manipulative, doesn't it? If Sirius was used to James wanting his approval and Sirius responds to Harry the same way he used to respond to James, he would expect Harry to do what he wants to get his approval. That dynamic between James and Sirius puts a whole new spin on his interactions with Harry.

I think that Harry would like Sirius's approval, but I don't think he needs Sirius's approval in the same way James did. James did eventually go against Sirius when he saved Snape in the Whomping Willow. It remains to be seen what James's motivation was--selfish or selfless? :huh: However, James's deference to Lily's wishes over Sirius's in SWM suggests that Lily's approval was more important to him than Sirius's approval. So, I'm back to the possibility that James only saved Snape because he wanted Lily's approval.Lupin displays classic low self-esteem traits. He lacks the confidence to voice his disapproval of his friends. Perhaps he feels they would turn on him, or it is also possible that he simply does not think his opinion would matter to them. I think that his opinion would matter, especially to James...Is there anything aside from Lupin's lack of appropriate intervention in SWM that makes you believe Lupin had or has low self-esteem?I was just wondering what you thought of the ways in which Sirius, James and Snape use to hurt each other. James focuses on humiliating Snape. I think this is because, to James, being embarrassed in front of your peers is the worst thing that could happen to you. James's ego is both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness in the scene. Interesting observation! :tu: You believe that James and Sirius were each attempting to do the worst thing possible to Snape? Snape responds not with humilation or personal insults, but with violence. This could suggest his hatred of James is on a much deeper level than James' hatred of him...Over on the "Dev of Sev" thread, we talked a bit about why James hates Snape. Here was my take on it:

The way you emphasized James’s response to Lily exists] made me think that perhaps his hatred of Snape really does stem from his view of Snape being a local representation of “the dark side.” The words “he exists” might be interpreted more broadly than we usually think. grrliz often used to say that those words struck her as an easy explanation for James, rather than reciting his laundry list of complaints against Snape—rather like siblings might resent the others’ existences because of the various difficulties they feel are caused by the sibling. I think this argument was also used to propose some sort of relationship between James and Snape (although, possibly not by grrliz).

What I’m thinking now is that, to James, Snape really does represent “the dark side” and he attacks Snape because “the dark side” exists—“the dark side” must always be fought. This makes me wonder about James’s motivation for saving Snape. Did James learn that Snape wasn’t really a representation of “the dark side” and begin to see him as an individual? That would seem to be the case, I think. . .unless he only did it to impress Lily. :p I wonder what sort of interaction between Snape and James would make James see him as an individual?

To elaborate one point, it could be that Sirius personally disliked Snape for some, as yet, unknown reason (hence the personal insults) and encouraged James to attack Snape. James would then believe that it was perfectly fine to attack Snape because he is a representation or manifestation of "the dark side." (Was that redundant? Representation or manifestation? :lol: Oh, well. . .)My natural inclination is to blame Sirius as the instigator, since his fear of boredom is what inspires James to bully Snape. On the other hand (waffling again :rolleyes: ), James is so cold and brutal in what he does, and at the same time expecting everyone to think how wonderful he is, that I hold James accountable for his own actions.No matter who was the "real" instigator, they are each responsible for their own actions in this scene. I tend to think that, even if James began the attack to cure Sirius's boredom and Sirius was able to have some level of control over James, the instigator would still be James. Sirius didn't notice Snape and he didn't really make James begin the attack--James just responded predictably to Sirius in this scenario.The only thing is, is that when she's talking to James she's talking "coldly" she seems to be very upset with what's happening to Snape. I don't think she did it out of feeling responsible to as a Prefect, I think that she honestly thinks that it's wrong and doesn't want it to continue. She was at first furious, and when her face "twitched for an nstant as though she was going to smile..." (OotP U.S. Hardback page 648) she perhaps was going to smile, but realized that what was happening was wrong, and surpressed the urge to smile, she didn't have to stick up for Snape like she did, the other Gryffindor fifth year Prefect (Lupin) wasn't doing anything to stop it, so nobody would have expected the Prefects to intervine, even after Snape insults Lily, calling her a "filthy litttle Mudblood" (OotP U.S. Hardback page 648) does she laugh at him, she just leaves the situation alone, she does offer a taunt, which I can understand why she did, but it was still wrong.See, I think that if she disapproved of what was happening to Snape, rather than disapproving of breaking the rules, she wouldn't have smiled. If you're morally opposed to corporal punishment for children who have misbehaved, you wouldn't nearly smile if you saw it happening, even if it was happening to a child you disliked--there would be nothing to smile about because you would be witnessing something you thought was morally wrong. If you were only against corporeal punishment because it was against the law, something might make you nearly smile, but you would suppress it because you shouldn't appear to approve.Snape is and always was the only bully.There's a paucity of evidence to support Snape being the bully in SWM.I don't think this indicates that SWM was an ordinary or typical event; I think that, just like the onlookers, she didn't much like Snape personally and she found the view of him flipped upside down amusing. Not very nice...but not surprising for her age. What outweighs that is the surprise that, for her age, she was willing to step up and confront the wrongdoers.Yes. I certainly don't mean to sound as if I'm disparaging Lily's character--especially since most people only ever reach level 4. Lily is right where she should be for her age--perhaps ahead. Most likely, half the crowd watching SWM believed that there was no reason they should intervene because the rest of the student body wouldn't approve. Not Lupin, though. I think Lupin believed that his inaction was wrong, putting him to at least level 4.But at the same time, I wouldn't place him on the same level as Sirius and James here. I know that being a bystander can perpetuate something that is wrong, and that this should not be condoned, but there's also the matter of all those people who were laughing at Snape during that scene. I'd place them as bystanders too- bystanders who didn't care/enjoyed watching Snape get tormented. So while what Lupin did was certainly not morally right (and I believe he did indeed realize this), it was at least better than all of the people who stood by and laughed at Snape's humiliation.I agree with you, especially if James's motivation has to do with approval of the crowd. Lupin didn't approve. If more of the crowd didn't approve, James may have been less inclined to do it.Though, I also see Snape's reaction to Lily as a defense of sorts. In a way, by standing up for him, I think Lily wounded Snape's pride. So he retaliated with the "mudblood" comment because he was upset that she had to defend him. So in a way, though what Snape said was inexcusable, it was almost like a defense mechanism.I agree with this, too. But, I would say that Snape thought it was fine to say because he needs to maintain approval from his group, the Slytherins who would be Death Eaters--putting him in a similar position to James. The biggest difference, of course, is that Snape was in the midst of humiliation while James's behavior was unprovoked. Therefore, I see James's behavior as worse.

Though, I also see Snape's reaction to Lily as a defense of sorts. In a way, by standing up for him, I think Lily wounded Snape's pride. So he retaliated with the "mudblood" comment because he was upset that she had to defend him. So in a way, though what Snape said was inexcusable, it was almost like a defense mechanism.I agree. :agree: And I wanted to add a consideration. We've seen a girls stand up for a boy before: Ginny defending Harry in CoS (or was it just the movie? If it was just the movie disregard my post, but I have a feeling there was an instance in canon too). Harry doesn't react to Ginny's help the way Snape reacts to Lily's. but of course, Snape is in a much worse fix when Lily tries to help him, and she's not really his friend as far as we know. Furthermore, I think this parallel is what got some fans to think Lily was interested in Snape at the time, but I disagree based on the "wash your pants" comment. If she liked him, she wouldn't turn on him like that just because she's been called a mudblood.

I think that what Sirius did was just as bad too, personally, the only person in that scene who doesn't make me dissappointed in them is Lily.Personally, Lily disappoints me as well. If she really wanted the bullying to stop she shouldn't have given up at the first difficulty and walk away. Unless she went to get a teacher, that is ;) That's why I wouldn't be too sure of placing her at level 4, but rather at level 3. She seems to intervene because as a prefect she's expected to by her own friends, not becuse she believes in "law and order"

Your observation about Harry and James going against Sirius's opinion made me think of something else. In OotP, Sirius tells Harry that he's less like his father than Sirius thought when Harry won't meet him in Hogsmeade. It's been previously argued that Sirius reacted this way to Harry because he was hurt by Harry not wanting to meet him. I've never been happy with that explanation. It seems mean to me--it also seems a bit manipulative, doesn't it? If Sirius was used to James wanting his approval and Sirius responds to Harry the same way he used to respond to James, he would expect Harry to do what he wants to get his approval. That dynamic between James and Sirius puts a whole new spin on his interactions with Harry.:agree:

The next part refers to a somewhat old discussion about Sirius in GP.. (sorry, I was off the boards for a while.. :blush: ).
Last night I watched "The Shining" and it made me think of Sirius. Just in case some readers are not familiar with the movie, I'll put the rest in spoiler:
Sirius being stuck in GP for the season compares a bit to jack Torrens, although Sirius gets visited by order members occasionally. The complete isolation drove Jack nuts, visits from order member kept Sirius sane, but there's a hint of what being stuck inside can do to him.. ;)
Anyway, I like McPherson's not sloppy post on Sirius a while back..;) Much deeper than my rambling.

I like what you said about Sirius needing and looking for guidance and affection. I think it is quite true!Thanks. :blush:
Oh, and :welome: sunshine9, great points!:tu:

Are you all back to the bully thing again? :rolleyes:

Snape is and always was the only bully.

And Lily was a prefect flirting with James. She's didn't give a rat's derriere about Snape.

Yes, Whizbang, the "Bully Thing" exists in the books even when you aren't here. :p

I just don't believe that Lily is that shallow, sorry.

Oh, my! I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Sirius was somehow not as bad as James in that scene. I was trying to classify their involvement. Obviously, I hadn't had enough caffeine to make a sensible post.

Or maybe I hadn't had enough caffeine to read your post sensibly, lol. Sorry about that!

Okay, my mistake. I'm sorry, Subtle.

I got confused by the etymology. Locomotor is the spell they use for moving things, such as Locomotor trunk. Mortis means dead body. So I thought Locomotor Mortis was the move corpse/unconscious body spell. But I was wrong. Sorry.

The way you explain it, that makes perfect sense! I had to look it up, and I was sort of glad to get it straighter in my head - so thank you!

JKR has said that she sort of twists Latin to her own purposes:

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-cbc-rogers.htm

"Rowling: [laughs] I went back to my old university very recently, I did French and Classics there. I had to give a speech, which was very nerve-wracking because I'm speaking to very studious and learned people, some of whom used to tell me off for cutting lectures. And I said in my speech 'I'm one of the very few who has ever found a practical application for their classics degree.

It just amused me, the idea that wizards would still be using Latin as a living language, although it is, as scholars of Latin will know ... I take great liberties with the language for spells. I see it as a kind of mutation that the wizards are using."

Here is another quote from the same interview, about "appearance" and "reality" that might be of interest:

Lauren: In all your books, the continuing theme is that people are not what they appear to be. Sometimes they seem dangerous, and are good. Sometimes helpful people are bad. It looks like Harry is being taught to overlook first impressions and to be suspicious of people. Do you think that's something kids need to learn more than other generations?


Rowling: You're right, this is a recurring theme in the books. People are endlessly surprising. It's a very jaded person who thinks they've seen every possible nuance of human nature.

Sometimes I get asked 'What would be your recipe for a happier life?' And I've always said 'A bit more tolerance from all of us.'

One way to learn tolerance is to take the time to really understand other people's motives. Yes, you're right. Harry is often given an erroneous first impression of someone and he has to learn to look beneath the surface. When you look beneath the surface he has sometimes found that he is being fooled by people. And on other occasions he has found very nice surprises.

Really--didn't I give you people enough coffee earlier, silver ink pot?

Great quotes (as always). I wonder if this illustrates another difference between Harry and James. As Chievrefueil indicated, we've been throwing ideas around on Dev of Sev that (as usual) connect over here, too--specifically, about James' seeing Snape as an object: as Chievrefueil pointed out, the physical embodiment of the Dark Arts...not a person. In contrast, Harry is learning to see beyond surfaces, despite first impressions: will he see past the first impression of Snape that has colored his view of Snape ever since? And, really, his first impression of Snape is not day one of potions--it's his scar hurting as Snape looks at him: a completely wrong impression (whereas day one is not entirely inaccurate).

Ginny does defend Harry in CoS as well as in the film:

"Leave him alone, he didn't want all that!" said Ginny. It was the first time she had spoken in front of Harry. She was glaring at Malfoy.
"Potter, you've got yourself a girlfriend!" drawled Malfoy. Ginny went scarlet...(p. 61, US paper).

Harry doesn't react to this, positively or negatively. Draco is the one who uses it as a basis for further insult...The defended male apparently allows it, but the bully uses it as a further insult. The opposite of what happens in SWM.....

Okay. I'm picky. But. I really do think that it matters that "Lily blinked" (p. 648, OotP, US hardcover) after Snape not only refused her help but called her a Mudblood. She doesn't, for instance, do this when James threatens her with hexing a few lines earlier. Even when she almost smiles, she regains her determination and continues to battle the boys over their behavior. But Snape's comment makes her blink. I think that she may not like Snape personally (hence her almost-smile at his predicament), but she never expected that comment from him. The blink reflects surprise; she's taken aback--she didn't see that coming at all.

Quote from severa78:
Personally, Lily disappoints me as well. If she really wanted the bullying to stop she shouldn't have given up at the first difficulty and walk away. Unless she went to get a teacher, that is That's why I wouldn't be too sure of placing her at level 4, but rather at level 3. She seems to intervene because as a prefect she's expected to by her own friends, not becuse she believes in "law and order"
Saying that Lily disappoints you seems a little harsh to me. She is the only one to stand up for Snape and unlike Lupin she tries to carry though her prefect duties. I wonder if Lily really expected to do anything though...Sirius implies that detention didn't affect his or James's behavior so Lily in SWM doesn't seem to have any leverage over James and Sirius.

Okay. I'm picky. But. I really do think that it matters that "Lily blinked" (p. 648, OotP, US hardcover) after Snape not only refused her help but called her a Mudblood. She doesn't, for instance, do this when James threatens her with hexing a few lines earlier. Even when she almost smiles, she regains her determination and continues to battle the boys over their behavior. But Snape's comment makes her blink. I think that she may not like Snape personally (hence her almost-smile at his predicament), but she never expected that comment from him. The blink reflects surprise; she's taken aback--she didn't see that coming at all.Yes, I agree. But, what does that say about Snape? That he hasn't previously been aggressive or expressed racist views? Or simply that she didn't expect someone who she was defending to turn on her?

Warning--pure speculation to follow....

Chievrefueil (hey--aren't you really, really close by me right now?!)--I think Lily didn't expect such a racist remark from Snape. I don't think that she is defending just anyone; I interpret her nearly immediate response to James and Sirius' bullying as indicating that she is well aware of the animosity between the Marauders and Snape--based on her "What's he done...?" (p. 647) and "I won't bother in future...Snivellus" (p. 648). I don't believe she likes Snape--her near-smile--but she does leap to his defense; she doesn't seem to believe that he deserves what's happening to him (I actually find that to be extremely interesting.....) and she wants to save him. His response catches her off-guard, and she responds with an equally personal insult--I say equal because she is picking up on what James has just done and now seems to be supporting it: she hits back at Snape with that and with the denigrating nickname, putting the latter on a par with his "Mudblood" slur. More pickiness: JKR's use of italics for Snape's nickname--Lily not only knows of it, but knows its use is going to hurt......

Chievrefueil (hey--aren't you really, really close by me right now?!)I'm in Orlando. :tu: I've just practiced my lecture all afternoon. Here's hoping I don't choke becaue I hate public speaking! :p

Very good list, Fire! Silver Ink Pot and I thought maybe someone should write an essay on Snape and bullying and try to get it published as a Mugglenet editorial. Silver said I should do it, and I said Silver should do it, but now I think you should do it!
Aww, thanks, :blush: and I've always wanted to write on of those essays, but alas I'm not intelligent enough to write one.

EDIT: And writing this post I just proved myself correct, I forgot the "e" in one. :rolleyes:


Your analysis is excellent, FireInTheSky!
Thank you. :)

As a Lupin fan, I can objectively say that this wasn't one of Lupin's good moments- it was a time when his flaw showed up. But at the same time, I wouldn't place him on the same level as Sirius and James here. I know that being a bystander can perpetuate something that is wrong, and that this should not be condoned, but there's also the matter of all those people who were laughing at Snape during that scene. I'd place them as bystanders too- bystanders who didn't care/enjoyed watching Snape get tormented. So while what Lupin did was certainly not morally right (and I believe he did indeed realize this), it was at least better than all of the people who stood by and laughed at Snape's humiliation.

You're right, he didn't participate, which is good, but the only way I could see him as being as bad at the students laughing is that if they didn't know it was wrong. It was pretty evident that Lupin knew that what was going on was wrong, yet left it alone, and if the students laughing didn't know it was wrong (I know it seems hard to believe, but it happens.) then I believe they are pretty equal with Lupin, otherwise, if they knew it was wrong too, then they were worse than Lupin because they were encouraging it and knew it was wrong, while he just knew it was bad.

I agree with clkginny that Sirius was the one to assist James by "holding his arms down", so to speak. I agree that despite the fact that Sirius wasn't doing the primary tormenting, he was still just as bad as James because he made it possible for James to come in and perform those spells on Snape while Snape was immobilized. But I can also see a bit of actual bully in Sirius, because even though he doesn't do most of the spellwork, he attacks Snape verbally with the cracks about his appearance. So in this manner, I would call James a physical bully and Sirius a henchman in terms of assisting what James was doing, but I'd also include a bit of "bully" in Sirius's actions for verbally bullying Snape.
You're right, again, I'm going to have to say that Sirius is difficult to put into a certain group, I think his verbal abuse puts him in the bully area, but other then that he's more of a henchman, so I'll give him between the two, if there can be a happy median. :)

So in a way, though what Snape said was inexcusable, it was almost like a defense mechanism.
Yeah, you're right, but I still think that it was still bullying none-the-less.

See, I think that if she disapproved of what was happening to Snape, rather than disapproving of breaking the rules, she wouldn't have smiled. If you're morally opposed to corporal punishment for children who have misbehaved, you wouldn't nearly smile if you saw it happening, even if it was happening to a child you disliked--there would be nothing to smile about because you would be witnessing something you thought was morally wrong. If you were only against corporeal punishment because it was against the law, something might make you nearly smile, but you would suppress it because you shouldn't appear to approve.
It depends on the person, you can think that something is funny, but still believe that it's wrong and still want to help the person. It's that she surpressed the smile and still tried to help Snape that makes the difference, but I really can see where you're coming from.

Personally, Lily disappoints me as well. If she really wanted the bullying to stop she shouldn't have given up at the first difficulty and walk away. Unless she went to get a teacher, that is That's why I wouldn't be too sure of placing her at level 4, but rather at level 3. She seems to intervene because as a prefect she's expected to by her own friends, not becuse she believes in "law and order"
Yes I see where you're coming from, the way I see it though is that Snape's use of the word "Mudblood" makes me assume that they weren't friends, so she didn't have to help him out, she did out of a choice. Also if she were just doing it because her friends expected her to, then she's probably helped people out in the past, which again would be because she wanted to. As well as from the crowds reaction, I doubt that her friends would have minded had she not rescued Snape from this one, instead I believe that she more was killing their fun, as sick as it is, what James was doing to Snape seemed to entertain the crowd. As for her leaving I don't think that makes her look badly because she had just been called a really bad name by the boy she was trying to help, and was the only one trying to help him, and he just ungratefully called her a "Mudblood," if I were helping someone and they just had viciously insulted me, then I would have probably just walked away too.

I was just wondering what you thought of the ways in which Sirius, James and Snape use to hurt each other. James focuses on humiliating Snape. I think this is because, to James, being embarrassed in front of your peers is the worst thing that could happen to you. James's ego is both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness in the scene. Sirius focuses on personal insults. Perhaps to Sirius the worst thing would be to be judged solely on what you are. Sirius picks on things that Snape cannot help, i.e., his appearance. The worst thing for Sirius could be if people turned on him simply for what he cannot help, i.e., being part of the Black family, which he seems to hate. Snape responds not with humilation or personal insults, but with violence. This could suggest his hatred of James is on a much deeper level than James' hatred of him...:tu: Excellent observations, especially about what likely hurts Sirius the most. I do think that being judged by what kind of family he was brought up in probably does hurt him the most. Like you pointed out, being picked on for things he can't control, namely his family, is a parallel for the way he insults Snape. With Snape, I'd say that the kind of insults Sirius was making would probably hurt him most, not because his appearance is being insulted, but because as you said, it's something he can't help. Also, I think humiliation and being brought into the limelight of negative attention also probably hurt Snape pretty badly as well.

You're right, he didn't participate, which is good, but the only way I could see him as being as bad at the students laughing is that if they didn't know it was wrong. It was pretty evident that Lupin knew that what was going on was wrong, yet left it alone, and if the students laughing didn't know it was wrong (I know it seems hard to believe, but it happens.) then I believe they are pretty equal with Lupin, otherwise, if they knew it was wrong too, then they were worse than Lupin because they were encouraging it and knew it was wrong, while he just knew it was bad.I actually see the crowd of people as being worse no matter whether they knew it was wrong or not. My reasoning for this (and this is just my opinion)is that if the crowd of people knew it was wrong and continued to egg Sirius and James on, then they were perpetuating and exacerbating the entire scene purposefully and knowingly. On the other hand, if the crowd of people didn't know this bullying was wrong, I'd place them on the same level as Sirius and James themselves- feeling that the right actions are the ones that please others of the group (the group being the "popular", "cool" kids). Though knowing it was wrong and egging the bullies on is probably worse than not knowing it was wrong and egging them on, I think the behavior of the crowd of people were still worse than Lupin's behavior.

Here is a hierarchy of everyone's behavior in SWM, from worst to best (this is just my opinion, and it is subject to change :) ):

Sirius & James --> Peter --> the crowd of people --> Lupin --> Lily and Snape

Of course this is an oversimplification, but I thought it might help to place the behaviors of each member participating in this scene.

Here is a hierarchy of everyone's behavior in SWM, from worst to best (this is just my opinion, and it is subject to change ):

Sirius & James --> Peter --> the crowd of people --> Lupin --> Lily and Snape

Of course this is an oversimplification, but I thought it might help to place the behaviors of each member participating in this scene.
Well, I'd go more like this:
James; I can't get past the fact that he did this because Sirius was bored. Perhaps he had other reasons, but his stated reason is so...(insert appropriate adjective here...I like heinous) that I can't believe it. His bullying was more physical than Sirius', and that tips the balance, to me (although I don't prescribe to the theory that words don't hurt, I think they hurt less than actions), especially with the humiliation factored in (hanging upside down and presenting your underwear to the world? I'd hate that more than being called greasy!)
Sirius; he was the instigator, but as I said above, I find James' actions much worse.
Pettigrew; the idea of Pettigrew's enjoyment of Snape's predicament makes my skin crawl. Taking pleasure in someone else's pain and humiliation is so awful that I considered switching Pettigrew with Sirius, but I felt that Sirius' more direct action was slightly worse.
Lupin; I'm sorry, but Lupin was their friend. Of everyone there, he should have been the one to tell them what he really thought. This was Lupin's biggest weakness and I am very pleased that he appears to have outgrown it by OoTP.
the crowd; I'm cutting the crowd some slack because this is typical of the moral development of that age group. (From what I understand of everyone's excellent posts on the subject) I still find the lack of response abhorrent, but not unexpected.
Snape; I understand and sympathize with the desire to lash out at those who hurt you, but I cannot excuse the fact that he lashed out at someone who was trying to help him.
Lily; I see her behavior as the best. I'm sorry, but I feel that racial slurs are the worst type of verbal assault, and that is what Snape did. She shouldn't have sunk to his level, but she still was the best in this scenario, I believe.

I've thought of something about whether or not Sirius started SWM, Sirius' comment about being bored is what I'd call the catalyst in this whole situation, it is the flame so to speak that started it all, but it's not necessarily his fault, James did what he did because he wanted to not because Sirius forced him to.


Well, I'd go more like this:
James; I can't get past the fact that he did this because Sirius was bored. Perhaps he had other reasons, but his stated reason is so...(insert appropriate adjective here...I like heinous) that I can't believe it. His bullying was more physical than Sirius', and that tips the balance, to me (although I don't prescribe to the theory that words don't hurt, I think they hurt less than actions), especially with the humiliation factored in (hanging upside down and presenting your underwear to the world? I'd hate that more than being called greasy!)
Sirius; he was the instigator, but as I said above, I find James' actions much worse.
Pettigrew; the idea of Pettigrew's enjoyment of Snape's predicament makes my skin crawl. Taking pleasure in someone else's pain and humiliation is so awful that I considered switching Pettigrew with Sirius, but I felt that Sirius' more direct action was slightly worse.
Lupin; I'm sorry, but Lupin was their friend. Of everyone there, he should have been the one to tell them what he really thought. This was Lupin's biggest weakness and I am very pleased that he appears to have outgrown it by OoTP.
the crowd; I'm cutting the crowd some slack because this is typical of the moral development of that age group. (From what I understand of everyone's excellent posts on the subject) I still find the lack of response abhorrent, but not unexpected.
Snape; I understand and sympathize with the desire to lash out at those who hurt you, but I cannot excuse the fact that he lashed out at someone who was trying to help him.
Lily; I see her behavior as the best. I'm sorry, but I feel that racial slurs are the worst type of verbal assault, and that is what Snape did. She shouldn't have sunk to his level, but she still was the best in this scenario, I believe.
I agree with you except that for mine, I'd add the crowd right below Lupin and right above Snape because they encouraged the bullying, but quite frankly I don't think they knew it was wrong, they might have thought that it was okay since it was Snape, which is not a good way of thinking, but I believe that's how they thought. Also about Snape, his insult was a low blow, Lily was trying to help him and all he did was call her a racial slur, that is so bad in my opinion, you don't do that to anyone, even more someone who's attempting to stick up for you. I don't think there's ever an excuse to call someone a mean name, and racial slurs are much worse.

Quote from clkginny:
Pettigrew; the idea of Pettigrew's enjoyment of Snape's predicament makes my skin crawl. Taking pleasure in someone else's pain and humiliation is so awful that I considered switching Pettigrew with Sirius, but I felt that Sirius' more direct action was slightly worse.
It's been a while since I've read SWM but from what I remember Peter's behavior isn't that abhorrent. Disturbing, creepy, and pathetic....of course it is. But I don't find his behavior that far out...he was looking with anticipation on the scene. When I was in high school crowds would gather at the rumor of a fight or a scene of some sort and anticipation would be in the air. The only difference between Peter and the crowd is that the crowd doesn't need to stand in James and Sirius shadow to look on with anticipation.

It's been a while since I've read SWM but from what I remember Peter's behavior isn't that abhorrent. Disturbing, creepy, and pathetic....of course it is. But I don't find his behavior that far out...he was looking with anticipation on the scene. When I was in high school crowds would gather at the rumor of a fight or a scene of some sort and anticipation would be in the air. The only difference between Peter and the crowd is that the crowd doesn't need to stand in James and Sirius shadow to look on with anticipation.
You seem to be right, everything the crowd does, Wormtail does. He looks on with anticipation, when some of the crowd tries to get closer to get a better look, Wormtail "was on his feet... watching hungrily, edging around Lupin to get a clearer view." (OotP U.S. Hardback pg 646.) When the several people in the crowd laugh, Wormtail "s******ed shrilly." (OotP U.S. Hardback pg 646.) When Snape was upside down, the "Many people in the small crowd watching cheered. Sirius, James and Wormtail roared with laughter." (OotP U.S. Hardback pg 646.)

The only difference that I can see is that at the beginning some of the crowd is looking "apprehensive" (OotP U.S. Hardback pg 646.) Actually, each time that it really shows that the crowd is supporting James and Sirius, it's only some, it never says that all of the crowd laughed, only "several people laughed," so once Snape is upside down, and the group has been reduced to a "small crowd" (OotP U.S. Hardback pg 646) it is the majority of the people that are laughing, not until then, I never realized that she really seemed to make it seem like the amount of the crowd that were supporting James and Sirius was a minority, so as for my statement of the crowd being not as bad as Lupin, I retract that, and say that they are equal because the crowd, for the most part, appeared to have known it was wrong as well, and still did nothing to prevent it from happening, which is what Lupin did as well. I believe that the word "hungrily" which is used to describe Wormtail's excitment at what is going on is a little disturbing.

Fire in the Sky: Yes, I think when Peter is looking "hungrily" for some violence, that is the point for me that he seems disgusting. He also "s******* shrilly," which is a very Slytherin mannerism.

You bring up an interesting point about the "small crowd." :huh: I'd never noticed before that the crowd was described as "small."

Here is the Link to an excerpt of Snape's Worst Memory online, thanks to Mugglenet:
http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt-memory.shtml

"Many people in the small crowd cheered; Sirius, James and Wormtail roared with laughter."

What I am wondering is if this is a small crowd because some of the students have left the school? Which makes me then wonder if Snape is alone because there aren't many Slytherins? Is he possibly the only Slytherin in the class, and that is why he is singled out as a bad guy? Just thinking. . . .

Fire in the Sky: Yes, I think when Peter is looking "hungrily" for some violence, that is the point for me that he seems disgusting. He also "s******* shrilly," which is a very Slytherin mannerism.
Yes, those are both characteristics that JK Rowling seems to deliberately point out, I feel to give us more of Wormtail's personality. I do wonder though, because after saying that Lupin had a frown line between his eyebrows and just continued staring at his book, she never really brings him up again, yet she continues to bring up little mannerisms that Wormtail does throughout a great deal of it. That's just something that I've been thinking of.

You bring up an interesting point about the "small crowd." :huh: I'd never noticed before that the crowd was described as "small."
I'd never thought about it either until I just went back and re read it, although I'd never realized that only a small portion of the crowd seemed to be supporting James and Sirius throughout the whole thing too, I always had assumed that they had a lot of support.

Here is the Link to an excerpt of Snape's Worst Memory online, thanks to Mugglenet:
http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt-memory.shtml

"Many people in the small crowd cheered; Sirius, James and Wormtail roared with laughter."

What I am wondering is if this is a small crowd because some of the students have left the school? Which makes me then wonder if Snape is alone because there aren't many Slytherins? Is he possibly the only Slytherin in the class, and that is why he is singled out as a bad guy? Just thinking. . . .
I don't know, to me it appeared that the crowd has been larger but had dissapated because many of them didn't want to see it, or went on doing their own things, because only a few actually got to their feet and went closer to watch, even though "students all around had turned to watch" (OotP U.S. hardback page 646.) So it appears to me that there were many whom knew what was happening, but only a few actually wanted to watch closely what was happening. That's just speculation though. You're post makes me think though, where were the other Slytherins? I thought that Snape had friends in Slytherin, I may be wrong, but I thought that I remembered that from somewhere.

Okay, my mistake. I'm sorry, Subtle.

I got confused by the etymology. Locomotor is the spell they use for moving things, such as Locomotor trunk. Mortis means dead body. So I thought Locomotor Mortis was the move corpse/unconscious body spell. But I was wrong. Sorry.
The way you explain it, that makes perfect sense! I had to look it up, and I was sort of glad to get it straighter in my head - so thank you!

JKR has said that she sort of twists Latin to her own purposes:
Thanks for that quote!
Last night in bed, I was thinking about "Locomotor mortis" and I finally think I got it (yes, I can be slow at times!): I think Locomotor is meant to mean "legs". So "Locomotor trunk" gives the trunk invisible legs, so to speak. While "Locomotor mortis" would mean "legs dead" - the leg locking curse! Aha! :blush:
Okay. I'm picky. But. I really do think that it matters that "Lily blinked" (p. 648, OotP, US hardcover) after Snape not only refused her help but called her a Mudblood. She doesn't, for instance, do this when James threatens her with hexing a few lines earlier. Even when she almost smiles, she regains her determination and continues to battle the boys over their behavior. But Snape's comment makes her blink. I think that she may not like Snape personally (hence her almost-smile at his predicament), but she never expected that comment from him. The blink reflects surprise; she's taken aback--she didn't see that coming at all.
Yes, I agree. But, what does that say about Snape? That he hasn't previously been aggressive or expressed racist views? Or simply that she didn't expect someone who she was defending to turn on her?

Interesting. :tu: I think it means both: she wasn't expecting a racial attack, and especially not from a person who she ahs just defended. So either Snape is not known as a pure-blood racist (which would make sense given that he joined the Order as an adult), or else, he could have been a pure-blood racist at that point, but Lily didn't know him well enough to know that.
Here is a hierarchy of everyone's behavior in SWM, from worst to best (this is just my opinion, and it is subject to change ):

Sirius & James --> Peter --> the crowd of people --> Lupin --> Lily and Snape
What I am wondering is if this is a small crowd because some of the students have left the school? Which makes me then wonder if Snape is alone because there aren't many Slytherins? Is he possibly the only Slytherin in the class, and that is why he is singled out as a bad guy? Just thinking. . . .

I agree with Clkginny, I would put Lily above Lupin in the hierarchy. She is the only one who does anything at all to try to end the situation. Yes, she says some nasty things too, but still, at least she tried to do something.

Lupin; I'm sorry, but Lupin was their friend. Of everyone there, he should have been the one to tell them what he really thought. This was Lupin's biggest weakness and I am very pleased that he appears to have outgrown it by OoTP.

I know that in SWM Remus looks like the typical quiet bystander -- he knows that what is happening is wrong, but doesn't act, because he is scared of loosing his friends and their acceptation seems to be one of the most important things for Lupin. While it is his major flaw, I think he has to stand aside and not act not only because of the reasons that many kids all over the world have not to mess up with the 'cool' kids.

Remus doesn't stop his friends because he is afraid they would stop liking him and refuse to be with him anymore -- it's not the fear of being alone and laughted at that motivates Lupin's inaction. He knows that if the rest of the Marauders will be angry with him, they might use one argument as an insult, feeling it has the same impact as saying that Snape has got greasy hair, but the bystanders will feel it differently. They will be alarmed to hear that Remus is a werewolf. All the circulating myths about vicious werewolves will do enough damage and if they don't, than the fact that the 'cool' kids are not liking Lupin would be enough for the rest to know that picking at Remus is the right thing to do. Then Lupin would have to leave the school as many students' parents will send letters requesting immediate removal of him from Hogwarts. This would be the end of everything to Remus.

I don't want to say by this that James and Sirius would so easily turn their backs on Remus, but that they, especially Padfoot, are sometimes rather reckless and could say the truth about Lupin. They have lived with the knowledge for so long that it is something normal for them and they probably don't realise what would others think about lycanthropy. As I've said, it would have been said with the same intentions as the remarks about Snape's appearance. But simple 'oh, I didn't mean it, mate' wouldn't help, as the information would spread around the school in no time with horrible consequences for Remus.

Thank you everyone for your kind words of encouragement and support :blush: I'm really pleased that I may have added something to this discussion :)

Welcome, sunshine9! Interesting post!I agree with your assessment of the dynamics between James and Sirius in this scene. Although, I still believe that other, less involved people (such as McGonagall & Hagrid) saw them as equals and that's why they're mentioned together like Fred & George. This dynamic doesn't necessarily imply that there is some inherent reason that Sirius controls the situation. Rather, I would argue that there is something inherent in James that makes him give Sirius control. James desires approval from everyone--Sirius, Lily, and the crowd. Peter "fangirls" James because he likes it and wants it, most likely. James's desire for approval is what he allows to dictate his behavior. Isn't that really the explanation for why he is so angry when Lily leaves? He didn't get her approval and, so, he turned back to Snape to regain the approval of the crowd, Sirius, and Peter.

Your observation about Harry and James going against Sirius's opinion made me think of something else. In OotP, Sirius tells Harry that he's less like his father than Sirius thought when Harry won't meet him in Hogsmeade. It's been previously argued that Sirius reacted this way to Harry because he was hurt by Harry not wanting to meet him. I've never been happy with that explanation. It seems mean to me--it also seems a bit manipulative, doesn't it? If Sirius was used to James wanting his approval and Sirius responds to Harry the same way he used to respond to James, he would expect Harry to do what he wants to get his approval. That dynamic between James and Sirius puts a whole new spin on his interactions with Harry.

I think that Harry would like Sirius's approval, but I don't think he needs Sirius's approval in the same way James did. James did eventually go against Sirius when he saved Snape in the Whomping Willow. It remains to be seen what James's motivation was--selfish or selfless? :huh: However, James's deference to Lily's wishes over Sirius's in SWM suggests that Lily's approval was more important to him than Sirius's approval. So, I'm back to the possibility that James only saved Snape because he wanted Lily's approval.


I think that James and Sirius are equals in terms of talent, popularity, loyalty to each other etc. They were best friends and to outsiders would have appeared to be an equal pairing. However, despite the fact that they are best friends and equal in most ways, I feel that James does look to Sirius for approval and, as you said, allows him to take the leadership position. It is possible that even James and Sirius are not completely aware of this dynamic to their friendship. I feel that Sirius on numerous occasions uses the power of suggestion to guide people, in particular James and Harry. For instance, in GoF (I think, I do not have the book at hand...) Sirius implies to Harry that Krum is a possible threat because of his link to Karkaroff. From Sirius's passing comments Harry becomes a lot less trusting of the (basically innocent) Krum. In OotP Sirius comment, "you're less like James than I thought," hurts Harry by suggesting he is a disappointment to Sirius, and may have been to James too if he was around. It is probably a similar tactic that Sirius would unknowingly apply with James to help steer him towards some goal. It is also possible that James' hatred and mistrust of Snape came from comments and thoughts inadvertently planted by Sirius. I think that if this is true then Sirius and James were not aware of it. By this I mean that James may not realise that it is Sirius planting these ideas to him, and, likewise, Sirius is not aware that he is guiding James in such a way, for all he is aware James already had these ideas. Perhaps James saving Snape's life came from James' shocking realisation that Sirius' ideas were not always right, or what he even agreed with. Sirius could have been equally shocked at James' actions, 'what? I thought he agreed with me? Why did he always join me in teasing Snape?' etc. etc. Alternatively you could be correct that James' actions stemmed from a desire to impress Lily and had nothing to do with moral code...

Wow, look at that. A whole waffly paragraph with little to no basis in the books. Reading through it again I am finding it hard to understand myself so if it mystifies you, please let me know!

Oh by the way, I am not trying to imply that Sirius was a bad person in any way. On the contrary he is one of my favourite characters. I think his fauts lie in his impulsiveness and brashness, but he was always, to both James and Harry, a loyal friend and a good person.

I can see how Sirius can be preceived as the instigator of SWM, but I don't think he really was. Yes, I think that James may have been looking for Sirius' approval at some points, like the snitch scene that you brought up, but not then, there are other ways that James could have made Sirius less bored, I think that James wanted to bother Snape as much as he thought Sirius would, in which case James really instigated it because he wanted to pick on Snape too and was the one to first bring it up. Had James not told Sirius Snape was coming Sirius might not have seen him and SWM wouldn't have happened so James brought it up and wanted to bother Snape too. Also, if James was seeking Sirius' approval, which I believe is still a logical theory, he didn't have to, Sirius didn't force him to bring Snape into his boredom. Not to mention it has always seemed to me that while Sirius and Snape were obviously enemies, James and Snape were greater adversaries,

You’re right there are other ways that James could have entertained Sirius, and yes I do think that James attacked Snape because he wanted to bother him. However, I still feel that James wanting to bother Snape is related to his want for Sirius’s approval. James dislikes Snape. James also knows that Sirius dislikes Snape. By attacking Snape James gets to achieve three things: 1. He gets to bother Snape for his own entertainment; 2. He entertains Sirius; 3. Since he knows Sirius dislikes Snape he knows Sirius will approve of his actions. Sirius did not force James to bring Snape into his boredom, but James did so knowing that Sirius would approve. I don’t think Sirius thinks he has to approve of what James does, but James wants Sirius’s approval. Does that make any sense? Basically it comes back to what I set in the previous paragraph: Sirius guides James through his unconscious power of suggestion.

Next point:

Is there anything aside from Lupin's lack of appropriate intervention in SWM that makes you believe Lupin had or has low self-esteem?

Now that you ask I'm finding it hard to back up my claim... I've always felt like Lupin lacked self-confidence and had low self-esteem, probably due to the discrimation he faces simply for being a werewolf. He often says things that suggest he feels inadequate. For example, I highly doubt that Dumbledore made him prefect simply to calm Sirius and James down, as Lupin suggest in OotP. He seems to brush aside his own merits even though from his temperment, diction, talents he is clearly an accomplished and talented man. Also the fact that he accepts that Sirius thought he was the traitor to the original Order without any anger at all suggests that he finds it a fair thought. Meaning perhaps he is simply so used to people thinking the worst of him (because he is a werewolf) that he has learned to simply accept it. Alternatively it could be that enough time and events have passed that he can be over it. After all he blamed Sirius..


Interesting observation! :tu: You believe that James and Sirius were each attempting to do the worst thing possible to Snape?
Excellent observations, especially about what likely hurts Sirius the most. I do think that being judged by what kind of family he was brought up in probably does hurt him the most. Like you pointed out, being picked on for things he can't control, namely his family, is a parallel for the way he insults Snape.

Thank you both! Yes, I think that they do to him what they consider the worst things to have done to them. JKR chooses to have James go through humilation tactics (exposing Snape's underwear to the crowd) while Sirius makes vicious comments about what - not who - Snape is. Since JKR never seems to do something for nothing I just wondered if that was the reason..

Thank you for including your take on why James hates Snape. It's an interesting assessment and could definitely be true. I really hope we'll find out more on this subject in the next book!

Okay. I'm picky. But. I really do think that it matters that "Lily blinked" (p. 648, OotP, US hardcover) after Snape not only refused her help but called her a Mudblood. She doesn't, for instance, do this when James threatens her with hexing a few lines earlier. Even when she almost smiles, she regains her determination and continues to battle the boys over their behavior. But Snape's comment makes her blink. I think that she may not like Snape personally (hence her almost-smile at his predicament), but she never expected that comment from him. The blink reflects surprise; she's taken aback--she didn't see that coming at all.

I think the blink is important too. Lily does seem really taken aback by this statement, more so than anything else that happens in the scene. I think that she smiles because, although she knows what James and Sirius are doing is wrong, she also finds their behaviour slightly amusing. Perhaps she finds James' attempts at flirting with her funny? I feel that she is already starting to develop feelings for James but, in a slightly similar way to Hermione and Ron, she is first irritated then furious by his immaturity. As to her feelings for Snape, I would hazard a guess that Lily does not like him. However, she is shocked and angry by his insult when all she has been doing is try to defend him.

CLKinny & McPherson beat me to my thoughts about Lupin so thank you. (I don't know how to do quotes). I skimmed the posts so sorry if I've missed something. But I think that Lupin doesn't interfere because disengaged with the situation. As a werewolf, he's afraid of becoming angry. I don't have the time available to do a lot of research, but perhaps he's afraid that something might 'click' in him if he becomes too angry. I don't suggest he'd become a werewolf during the day, but maybe he's incapable of controlling his anger? Just a thought.

The exchange between Snape and Lily is really interesting. For one thing, Snape is nearly silent during SWM; when he does speak, it's nearly incoherent--except for his address to Lily. He selects a highly offensive term, to shut her down, presumably: he goes for the high impact, high hurt word (and I actually think his choice is better support for his being half-blood, rather than a pure-blood racist). And Lily, in response, does the same to him: "Snivellus." JKR is the one who supplies the italics--the nickname is supposed to be emphasized; in retaliation, she, too, is going for the most hurtful phrasing she can use. I think it says that these two do know each other in some way: there's enough knowledge that they are aware of what will stun the other. It seems to me that neither expects the other to use that word in direct address.

PS: sunshine9: not may have--did add.

We have discussed how many people were hanging around in SWM before, but came to no conclusions about the number of people present. I would imagine that the O.W.L. exams in SWM were similar to those that took place in the present with Harry and company. When the confrontation started, I'm sure there were people around, and I would think that a Slytherin or two would have been around as well. To me it doesn't matter if only 1/3 of the crowd hung around, where were the rest? Hiding their heads in the sand? No one got a teacher, no one tried to stop what was going to happen. I do feel that those who hung around were worse, but those that left so they "wouldn't be involved" weren't much better.

Pettigrew, the description of his eagerness is what revolts me. I see this as worse because we know that he had to have been around for other confrontations between the Marauders and Snape. He was one of the Marauders. Some of the crowd may have hung around for curiosities sake, but Pettigrew wanted to see Snape humiliated and hurt. That, to my mind, is worse.

Lupin, (let me say first, that I like Lupin). There are two ways to look at this. Either he didn't trust his friends, (oh, sorry we told the whole school you're a werewolf, buddy--), or he didn't want to lose his friends, (man, if you're going to stand up for that "dark arts loving"--). They became animagus for him, why would he think he couldn't trust them? He could also have used that against them as easily as they could use his lycanthropy against him. I tend to go with the "afraid to lose his friends" idea.

Subtle I'm inclined to agree with you about Lily, but a question first: could her surprise have been due to Snape's attacking her while she defended him?

clkginny--I'm thinking that she knew Snape fairly well--probably enough to know the extent of his pride. I think that might be why she has to fight down the urge to laugh at his predicament. I don't think it's shock at his spurning her defense as much as it is shock at the vehemence of his reaction; somehow, I don't think she'd be any more surprised or taken aback by Snape's just telling her to take a hike than she was by James' telling her he might have to hex her. It's that slur, I believe, that she finds shocking--and my defense for thinking that is the parallelism of her turning about and slamming him with his revolting nickname.

As usual, I can find no fault in your logic. She knew the situation well enough to say "What did he ever do to you" and she apparently had problems with James' treatment of Snape (despite the almost smile). It did make me wonder about the snivelllus remark (now that you've returned it to my attention), if it was due to a situation that took place in front of a good portion of the school, or something that the Marauders made well known throughout the school. Lily obviously knew it would be a low blow, and Sirius retreats to using it in GP. It doesn't seem like an off-hand twisting of his name, it seems to be refering to something that actually happened. A crying jag? I could see a young Snape crying out of frustration, and depending on the situation crying over something else, perhaps? Like his parents. If the problems in his family showcased by occlumency were spilling into his school life (and I'm sure they would have to some extent) then he could be quite emotional, until he learned to expect abuse of another type at school.

Perhaps we should carry on this conversation on Dev of Sev?

I'm hereby transporting myself to the Dev of Sev to make my response : ) !

What I am wondering is if this is a small crowd because some of the students have left the school? Which makes me then wonder if Snape is alone because there aren't many Slytherins? Is he possibly the only Slytherin in the class, and that is why he is singled out as a bad guy? Just thinking. . . .I never noticed the description of the “small crowd” either- good work, FireInTheSky! Also, thanks very much for the link to SWM, SIP!

In looking for quotes about the crowd of people watching, there are some interesting things to note. At the beginning of the encounter with Snape, it says that “Students all around had turned to watch. Some of them had got to their feet and were edging nearer. Some looked apprehensive, others entertained.” Forgive me for speculating, but perhaps many of the students weren’t into watching because they were too busy studying for their next exam. After rereading the scene, I noticed that they appear to be in between two exams, since Lupin says, “we’ve still got Transfiguration”. I took that to mean they still had that exam coming up next later on that day. So perhaps the reason there wasn’t a majority of people getting up to watch was because most people were too busy studying for their next exam. After Sirius insults Snape about getting grease marks on his paper, it says “Several people watching laughed; Snape was clearly unpopular.” When Lily intervenes and James delivers his infamous “he exists” line, it says that “Many of the surrounding students laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and nor did Lily.” The first quote seems to indicate that only a few people are laughing at Snape getting tormented, but in the second, it says that many of them laughed at James’s comment. I wonder if this is because the students are enjoying themselves more as the scene progresses. :huh: Then, when Snape is upside-down, “Many people in the small crowd cheered; Sirius, James and Wormtail roared with laughter.” This seems to indicate that however big the crowd was, the majority of people were clearly very entertained with what was going on. That’s the last reference to the crowd.

So overall, only some students actually get to their feet to watch; the others possibly continue what they're doing and still others possibly leave. Out of those people, only a few laugh at first, but then as the scene progresses, more of them laugh and show signs that they are entertained.

Yes, those are both characteristics that JK Rowling seems to deliberately point out, I feel to give us more of Wormtail's personality. I do wonder though, because after saying that Lupin had a frown line between his eyebrows and just continued staring at his book, she never really brings him up again, yet she continues to bring up little mannerisms that Wormtail does throughout a great deal of it. That's just something that I've been thinking of.I think Wormtail’s behavior is worse than the crowd due to the way he’s described as looking at the scene “hungrily”, as many have pointed out. With Lupin, there are points at which she brings him up again: she indicates he wasn’t laughing when James tells Lily that Snape exists, and he and Lily both don’t laugh when Snape is hung upside-down. JKR sort of tells us what Lupin’s reaction is by telling us what he’s not doing. But you’re right, we don’t get as detailed a description of Lupin’s mannerisms as we get of Peter’s.

CLKinny & McPherson beat me to my thoughts about Lupin so thank you. (I don't know how to do quotes).Quotes are done by using the quote button at the bottom of each post. If you want to do multiple quotes, all you have to do is highlight the part you want to quote and click the small button to the right of the quote button at the bottom of the post. Hope that helped a bit. :)

But I think that Lupin doesn't interfere because disengaged with the situation. As a werewolf, he's afraid of becoming angry. I don't have the time available to do a lot of research, but perhaps he's afraid that something might 'click' in him if he becomes too angry. I don't suggest he'd become a werewolf during the day, but maybe he's incapable of controlling his anger? Just a thought.I agree with clkginny that Lupin’s reasons for not standing up to his friends were along the lines of not wanting to lose his friends. Not that he was afraid they’d abandon him, because they did become animagi for him, but I think it’s possible he was afraid of losing his friends’ respect. I don’t believe that Lupin had trouble controlling his emotions due to being a werewolf because in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, we are told that werewolves are no different from ordinary humans every day of the month aside from the full moon. So I hesitate to introduce anything that would suggest that Lupin is different from a normal person.


About Lily and Snape- I agree with you subtle. :tu: I also found this quote: “I don't want you to make him apologise,” Lily shouted, rounding on James. “You're as bad as he is.” Underline is mine. Perhaps this factored into why Lily turned around and attacked Snape.

On Locomotor Mortis:

but Sirius said, 'Petrificus Totalus!' and Snape kneeled over again, rigid as a board. So that seals it. Petrificus Totalus is the body-binding curse used in SWM and perfectly demonstrated by Hermione on Neville in First year.
Locomotor Mortis (PoA), like Locomotor Arbus (PoA) and Locomotor Trunk (OotP), is effectively the spell to make things move. Interesting that the second word is not always in Latin.. that goes with JK's interview about the peculiar use of Latin wizards have.
I'm sorry if I bring it up again, but it did bother me from the start. I quite liked the idea of a flexible spell that could be applied to different objects, provided you knew the correct word to identify the object with (interesting that the petrified body of Snape in the Shack is considered a dead body "mortis", or maybe a dead weight?)

On Lily

I didn't mean to place Lily as being worse than the crowd, she certainly is the best-behaving person in the scene. I was merely pointing out that she's not flawless either, and shouldn't be regarded as a wise person. I'm sure none of you really sees her that way, so I apologize if I sounded too harsh.

I agree with Subtle that Lily seems to know Severus on a personal level. She looks surprised to be insulted, as if that was unexpected. I can speculate that Snape is not the first person to have called her that; if we consider Hermione gets insulted in Second year, by the time she reaches Fifth Lily might have been called that by a number of Slytherins. Somehow I think the surprise is due to the source of the insult, as if she'd got only kind words before from him and this makes a big change to a previous situation that dates further back than the start of the episode.

At the end of the wild speculation, I'll point out a few lines that made me think the insult was a personal matter between her and Snape:
'Apologise to Evans!' James roared at Snape, his wand pointed threateningly at him.
'I don't want you to make him apologise,' Lily shouted, rounding on James. 'You're as bad as he is.'Lily wants to deal with the insult on her own. It could just be pride, I suppose, but it sounds like she feels James doesn't know enough about what's really going on between the two and it's really none of his business.

Also, if she considers "arrogant" James to be "as bad" as someone who has just called her a Mudblood, then she seems to place arrogance and verbal abuse on equal level. So either "Mudbllod" is not too hurtful to her, or "showing off" is as hurtful as it. My immediate idea was that James showing off hurt her personally because she was already feeling an attraction toward him and he wasn't living up to her expectations. It could be the same pattern with Snape.. she knew he could be much nicer than what he showed.

Ok, that was a bit confusing, I really lack the vocabulary to describe it better.. I hope you can kind of read between the lines ;)

I'm coming over to Dev of Sev to argue the Snape point of view.. ;)

So that seals it. Petrificus Totalus is the body-binding curse used in SWM and perfectly demonstrated by Hermione on Neville in First year.
Locomotor Mortis (PoA), like Locomotor Arbus (PoA) and Locomotor Trunk (OotP), is effectively the spell to make things move. Interesting that the second word is not always in Latin.. that goes with JK's interview about the peculiar use of Latin wizards have.
I'm sorry if I bring it up again, but it did bother me from the start. I quite liked the idea of a flexible spell that could be applied to different objects, provided you knew the correct word to identify the object with (interesting that the petrified body of Snape in the Shack is considered a dead body "mortis", or maybe a dead weight?)

Er, I'm sorry to have caused all this confusion, but I think we just established that Locomotor Mortis is the leg locking curse/spell/whatever. While Locomotor trunk and Locomotor Arbus move things - as if they had legs.
Wait a minute, I think it was JKR who caused the confusion! :p

"You're as bad as he is." Hmmm.

Interesting. Lily did just put James on the same level as Snape--including Snape's racial slur. It's as if a forced apology is bad enough, but worse if it's forced by James--he has no moral right to try to assume a virtue he doesn't have. Going far, far...FAR...out on the Branch of Speculation: did she just say something about James' possible stereotyping of Snape as a Dark Arts wizard in training? Snape just blasted her with a stereotype; is James just as bad because he has pre-judged Snape and this is the basis for the ongoing conflict? Hmmmm.

Also, I don't think Lily wanted James to force Snape to apologize because then he wouldn't mean it. I believe we discussed at one point regarding Harry apologizing to Snape that no apology was better than an insincere apology. Therefore, I think Lily also didn't want Snape to apologize just because James made him because then the apology would be insincere. If Snape decided he wanted to say he was sorry later on his own, then perhaps Lily would accept it. But she certainly didn't want James to force Snape to say something that he did mean.

About Lily and Snape- I agree with you subtle. :tu: I also found this quote: “I don't want you to make him apologise,” Lily shouted, rounding on James. “You're as bad as he is.” Underline is mine. Perhaps this factored into why Lily turned around and attacked Snape.It's been suggested that Lily seems quite familiar with both the Marauders and Snape, given that she is able to wield Snape's nickname with the same efficiency and provocation as James and Sirius. She seems as though she is quite familiar with James past indescretions as well. If the reader has been led to believe along the same lines as Lily, our moral compass in the scene, that James's actions are inexcusable and just plain awful, what then are we supposed to make of Lily's comparison between James and Snape? Is it as simple as equating James' actions with a singular racial slur delivered by Snape? Would one slur on Snape's part really make James as "bad" as Snape is, or vice versa? Or is Lily hinting at something about Snape beyond what we see in SWM? Lily seems to be familiar enough with Snape's own actions outside of SWM (whatever they may be) to suggest that James' actions during SWM are on par with Snape's own outside of it. :huh:

FireInTheSky: Thanks for posting about the size of the crowd...I'd forgotten that it had been mentioned.

I agree with RemusLupinFan that most of the students were probably off studying for their next exam not torturing poor Snape by the lake.

Quote from RemusLupinFan:
About Lily and Snape- I agree with you subtle. I also found this quote: “I don't want you to make him apologise,” Lily shouted, rounding on James. “You're as bad as he is.” Underline is mine. Perhaps this factored into why Lily turned around and attacked Snape.
Interesting quote. I wonder if it is confined to the situation at hand (at which case he seems to be underestimating what James is doing because Snape's insult isn't anywhere near as bad as what James does...consider the position that Snape is in) or if Lily is speaking in a more general sense. If it is a more general sense then what could Snape be doing that would make her say that? She considers James to be a "bullying toe-rag" so does that mean Snape is one to? It's been established that James seems to be arrogant, hexes people in the halls, etc...Is Lily saying that Snape has been doing things on the same level?

The context of what Lily says about being just as bad is Snape's racial slur; therefore, I 'll take it as she is referring to right there, right now, and what Snape just said and James just did.

I think the most simple explanation for "You're as bad as he is" is to look at what she said before. She said "What did he ever do to you?" which implies that James is attacking Snape for no reason, and then Snape attacks her for trying to help him, therefore, Snape attacked her for no reason.

Or, case in point, why would she say "What did he ever do to you" if, at that point, she thought Snape's actions were as bad as James'? She made the comment afterward, indicating that it was Snape's latest action "mudblood" that made her think that James and Snape were equally bad. I think it was the unprovoked attack that altered her opinion, not the particular term (although it is pretty bad).

Lily is comparing actions by saying "You're as bad as he is". James' litany of faulty actions in this scene have been rhymed off time and time again, and Lily is witness to them. Does she really think everything she sees puts him on par with Snape after Snape delivers one racial slur in a fit of rage? :huh: The actions don't seem to balance out very well, with James' far outweighing Snape's. Except Lily says James is as bad as Snape, not the other way around, suggesting that Snape starts off in a more "bad" place (forgive my grammar here) and James is descending to his level. Lily has situated Snape on the same side of "bad" as James has, and then she puts James there as well. Is one racial slur delivered in the heat of the moment really enough to situate Snape there in her mind?

( Really, forgive me for using the word "bad" over and over, but since it's the word Lily chooses, I can't help it.)

This isn't about whether or not James' actions towards Snape are provoked or not. She was witness to the scene, and she can answer her own "What's he done to you?" question; it's rhetorical, she knows Snape has done nothing in that scene. But an unprovoked attack in one scene has little bearing on Snape's past actions that Lily may be aware of that the reader is not privy to, just as Snape's own actions in the past (whether bad or good) have no bearing on the fact that no one ever deserves to go through what he did.

I guess I just find her statement to be pretty loaded, far too loaded to be based solely on reaction to Snape lashing out at her. Of course, everyone is quite welcome to disagree with that, and I'm sure most will. :)

I'll start this with a disclaimer: I don't know that Snape has been a good boy or a bad boy :-). I'm attempting to interpret (hehe), although I make no claims to doing it well.

She said "as bad as" not getting to be or becoming, which seems to say that if anything their behavior is equal. I will conceed that Snape's actions outside of what we've glimpsed in canon could be as bad as James' in canon actions. But the word choice here is interesting (we need the neighborhood grammar teacher!). Sirius and Lupin do indicate (although Sirius' interpretation may not be accurate) that there was a history, perhaps Snape got back his own a few times? Once again, though, we see Sirius left out of the equation, which makes me feel that Lily was more aware of what James was doing directly than what his friends were up to. Also, canon makes me feel that, at least until the WW incident, Snape was returning fire only on James. Perhaps Snape felt James' methods were more agregious?

Eeek! Where is my point? I know I had a point when I started this post!

Oh, yeah, Lily. She could have been refering to the past, or other issues, but her statement seems to preclude that. I, of course, remain open to other possibilities.

She said "as bad as" not getting to be or becoming, which seems to say that if anything their behavior is equal. Perhaps. I agree that "as bad as" suggests an equality of sorts ("this apple is as bad as that apple"), but only in the end after the dust has cleared (i.e. it doesn't matter how they both got there, James and Snape are equally bad in her eyes). But Lily uses Snape as her point of comparison to begin with, she uses Snape as the yardstick by which to measure James' own "bad"ness. She has to have something on which to base using Snape as her point of reference, doesn't she?

To flip it around into another situation using "as good as" as an example: Hermione gets top marks in her classes, and theorhetically other students want to be "as good as" Hermione in class (I have no idea what the other students' academic aspirations are, just go with this for a moment). In this case, it is not a level playing field; Hermione is the measure of academic genius by which these theorhetical underachievers are measuring their own academic success. In the end they may get to her level, but they're not currently there. If McGonagall were to say to Neville, for example "You're as good as she [Hermione] is" in Transfiguration, she's comparing him in an equal way but suggesting that Hermione's level of "good"ness in that class existed first.

Sirius and Lupin do indicate (although Sirius' interpretation may not be accurate) that there was a history, perhaps Snape got back his own a few times?Lupin says that Snape never lost an opportunity to hex James, so I'd say he definitely got back at James on more than one occasion. Whether or not this happened before or after the Whomping Willow incident, I have no idea.

And where is Sirius in all of this?

Lupin's reference to Snape's hexing of James appears to mean after SWM: he was talking about James' reformation and how he and Lily managed to become a couple, despite how things appear during SWM. Lupin notes that James toned things down considerably, except with Snape, because he had to counter Snape's hexes.

by subtle You're as bad as he is." Hmmm.

Interesting. Lily did just put James on the same level as Snape--including Snape's racial slur. It's as if a forced apology is bad enough, but worse if it's forced by James--he has no moral right to try to assume a virtue he doesn't have. Going far, far...FAR...out on the Branch of Speculation: did she just say something about James' possible stereotyping of Snape as a Dark Arts wizard in training? Snape just blasted her with a stereotype; is James just as bad because he has pre-judged Snape and this is the basis for the ongoing conflict? Hmmmm.

It may be this, it may be the fact that both James and Snape are arrogants- as proven by the fact that Snape rejects her help. It may be the fact that both spent part of their time hexing others and making fun or others, or just treating others badly.

In my opinion, Lily does not stop to really think why James hates Snape. In my opinion, by saying that James is as bad as Snape, she doesn't imply that James also judges people without stopping to know them, thus proving the same kind of attitude as Snape. I think that she sees James just as a person who is a bully, because he thinks he looks cool, or just because, without any reason. I don't think that she actually questions his actions.

By saying that James is as bad as Snape, Lily probably refers as two kind of ways this" bad" expresses itself. One is a bully who thinks he is better than others just because he is very smart and talented and a good quidditch player. He hexes people and makes fun of them all the time(speculation). The other one is a person who thinks he is better than others just because he is a pure-blood ( speculation). A person who treats others in a very nasty way and who also do not stay aprt when it comes to hexing and treating other persons badly ( speculation).

This is just a possibility, I am not saying it is accurate! Just a manner of interpreting things!

Lupin says that Snape never lost an opportunity to hex James, so I'd say he definitely got back at James on more than one occasion

Here I go being a "stickler" again, but Lupin doesn't say that about "hexing." He says that Snape "cursed" James. The words are not always synonymous. Snape could have just "cussed" James or told him to "Go to **** and that was provocation enough for James to "hex" Snape, which is exactly what the canon says James did. We are told that James "couldn't take that lying down." But that could have just meant that he was angry, not that he had been hexed. Indeed, if he had been hexed alot, he couldn't have hexed back, probably.

But it never says that Snape "hexed" James - only cursed him. In Britain, "curse" can mean two different things. As in the old proverb, "Better to light a single candle, than to curse the darkness."

As far as magic goes, there is a whole genre of "book curses" from the Middle Ages meant to keep people from stealing your books!!! :evil: I think Luna should learn some of these right away:

http://www.slis.ualberta.ca/cap03/sandra/book_curse.html

In the medieval period, the most effective method of deterring a bibliomaniac from acquiring manuscripts from their proper owners was the book curse. The book curse was not a technological security system but a security system of social context. A book curse reminded would-be book thieves that books were valued and that there were repercussions for taking them without permission. As indicated previously, book curses were not unique to the medieval period or to the Catholic Church, they came out of a literary tradition that pre-dates Christianity. The book curse followed an established basic structure of promising severe consequences, most often religious, to anyone who would take or alter a book. In the older societies, the wrath of gods such as Thoth, Ashur, and Belit was promised but in medieval Europe, it was removal from the sight of God that drove the most fear into the hearts of bibliomaniacs. Lawrence Thompson notes that in the medieval period "…the curse gained in popularity as an effective measure against book thieves and continued to be used until the introduction of the printed book" (105).

There was no individual standard curse that was used in all books, rather scribes were free to design curses for the books they had copied. The colophon was the usual location of these curses and it was the only space in a manuscript that the medieval scribe had freedom to write as he or she chose. Book curses used threats of several different types of punishment to invoke fear among those who would take or damage a book: bodily injury, damnation, excommunication, or anathema. The bodily injuries included hanging, illness, and painful death and usually called for more than one physical torment to befall the thief.

. . . Thompson records one such curse: "Whoever steals this book let him die the death; let be him be frizzled in a pan; may the falling sickness rage within him; may he be broken on the wheel and be hanged" (608). Another example of multiple punishments comes from the monastery of San Pedro in Barcelona and called for punishment not just for a book thief but also for a delinquent borrower.

For him that stealeth, or borroweth and returneth not, this book from its owner, let it change into a serpent in his hand and rend him. Let him be struck with palsy, and all his members blasted. Let him languish in pain crying out for mercy, & let there be no surcease to his agony till he sing in dissolution. Let bookworms gnaw his entrails [. . .] when at last he goeth to his final punishment, let the flames of Hell consume him forever.

I think if we accept that Snape was a victim of ongoing bullying, and we use Neville and Luna as models of people who lose things or have things stolen, then it would make perfect sense for Snape to "curse his books" with these Medieval curses. And if James came along as a joke and took them, something bad might have happened to him as a consequence - a curse!

This is exactly the kind of thing I imagine JKR knowing about and using, without exactly explaining it - Medieval Book Curses. Maybe that is the whole idea behind the "screaming book" in Book One.

In OotP, we have the example of Hermione "hexing" the name list to cause Marietta to break out in boils. We have the Twins hexing their fireworks so that whenever Umbridge tries to obliterate one they actually multiply. We have Ginny's "bat-bogey hex" which is truly horrible. Yet we don't think of any of those characters as using the Dark Arts and being famous for it. We just think they are clever. :evil:

I'm just thinking that Snape may have pulled a few things like this on James and made him look ridiculous, and so he retaliated. Maybe the "curses" were put on "things" and not on "James," but he felt the effects.

Here I go being a "stickler" again, but Lupin doesn't say that about "hexing." He says that Snape "cursed" James. The words are not always synonymous. Snape could have just "cussed" James or told him to "Go to **** and that was provocation enough for James to "hex" Snape, which is exactly what the canon says James did. We are told that James "couldn't take that lying down." But that could have just meant that he was angry, not that he had been hexed. Indeed, if he had been hexed alot, he couldn't have hexed back, probably.

But it never says that Snape "hexed" James - only cursed him. In Britain, "curse" can mean two different things. As in the old proverb, "Better to light a single candle, than to curse the darkness."I was paraphrasing, as I have my books packed away at the moment. However, JKR seems to make a distinction between cursing (i.e. hexing, jinxing or what have you) and swearing in the books. Ron is often found swearing under his breath, and there's the pre-scourgify moment in SWM:Snape let out a stream of mixed swear words and hexes, but with his wand ten feet away nothing happened.If she means curses to be interpreted as hexes, why not say "swear words and curses?" Probably because the sentence would seem redudant, with the reader possibly interpreting "swear words" and "curses" to mean the same thing. It's redudant, unless again she is trying to differentiate between foul language and hexing. Given Snape's situation and his ill-fated attempts to perform reactive spells against James, it seems he's both swearing and magically cursing. It seems, to me at least, that when JKR wants the reader to interpret someone using foul language she refers to them as swearing, whereas she seems to reserve the word "curse" for it's magical interpretation to avoid confusion since magical cursing shows up far more frequently in the books than foul language cursing.

Here's what Lupin says about Snape's retaliation:"Well," said Lupin slowly, "Snape was a special case. I mean, he never lost an opportunity to curse James so you couldn't really expect James to take that lying down, could you?"I'm don't understand why Lupin would say Snape put a curse on James if he really meant Snape put a curse on James' school books or any other inanimate objects he owned. Maybe I'm the one being being a stickler now, but Lupin is very specific in saying Snape cursed James, not James' posessions. :huh:

Silver ink pot, for some reason, I just don't see the difference. If Snape cursed James or if Snape hexed him, what difference does it make? He still attacked him. Also, I don't think Lupin was contemplating the subtle differences between the two words. From what he says to Harry, it can be argued that James didn't continue to hex Snape either, he just cursed him. However, I am sure that should anyone attempt to use that argument, the counterargument would be what I've just given: It doesn't matter. He still attacked him.

I see now that you meant cursing as in using bad language. If James managed to deflate his head enough that Lily would date him and Dumbledore would praise him, I don't think that he would jinx Snape just for calling him a foul name.

Also, if by the age of 15, James was doing things like what we saw in Snape's Worst Memory, I seriously doubt he would resort to stealing a schoolbook as a prank. And if Snape cursed his books and James continued to take them, that would make James obscenely stupid, which we know he wasn't.

Somehow, with Lily saying "you're as bad as he is" while James was dangling Snape upside down and doing other things to him, I seriously doubt that Snape was only cursing books. That wouldn't warrant a level-headed girl like Lily saying James' actions were as bad as Snape's.

:huh: That's the beauty of it, Grrliz. There is a precedent in the canon that the "thing" is "protected" by the curse. The list in OotP isn't what gets cursed, it's the person trying to break the spell. The curse is on Marietta, not on the list - you see?

What made me realize this distinction, is the thread about Umbridge and her evil quill. People are wondering if the scar on Harry's hand is like a curse: if he tells a lie, will something happen to the scar? Will it glow when someone else is telling a lie? I have no idea, but what I realized when I was talking on that thread is that the Quill has a spell on it, but the spell might be some sort of bond with Umbridge, and that is why Harry felt an inner "pull" when Umbridge talked about his scar.

At any rate, the quill has a spell on it, but the "curse" of the writing carries over to Harry. That's how I see it.

Hermione puts the spell on the list, but the effect is on Marietta.

Bill Weasley is a "curse breaker" in Egypt! The curse is written on the tombs in order to effect the person who breaks the seal.

I don't know, but it seems there is a train of thought here that "curses" can be "protective" and the person who breaks the curse is the one who has the consequences of their own choice. James may have been the victim of Snape's "curses" because he was trying to steal Snape's stuff or write things in his books, etc.

Hexes on the other hand are more direct defensive type spells. Hermione also talks about Jinxes and Counterjinxes, but the book doesn't spell out exactly what JKR is getting at. I need to dig in and research this a little, I think.

At any rate, if Snape was "famous for curses" and he knew so many, then why didn't we see one or hear one? I think Sirius is exaggerating or something. By his fifth year, Snape sure doesn't look that dangerous in SWM.

(Yes I know he draws blood, but the canon talks about strong emotions letting magic get out of control. And by that time in the scene, Snape must have some really strong emotions!)

Silver ink pot, when Hermione's curse is described, it's said she jixed the parchment, not Marietta. That seems to imply that the curse, hex, jinx, etc is on the object, not the person who is affected by it. If the parchment wasn't hexed, Marietta could have told about the D.A. and not have had to worry about the consequences of what Hermione did.

I don't know, but it seems there is a train of thought here that "curses" can be "protective" and the person who breaks the curse is the one who has the consequences of their own choice. James may have been the victim of Snape's "curses" because he was trying to steal Snape's stuff or write things in his books, etc.I agree that curses are put on inanimate objects for the purpose of effecting those who choose to do whatever the curse is protecting against, however I don't think Lupin's phrasing suggests this course of action from Snape. As HermioneLuna mentioned, if we switch up the characters would we say that Hermione put a jinx on Marietta or would we say Hermione put a jinx on the parchment? Canon says the jinx is on the parchment, not the snitch. The effects are on Marietta, the curse is on the parchment. Likewise, if Snape cursed James' textbooks, the effects would be on James but the curse would be on the books. Snape never losing the "opportunity to curse James" sounds like a direct application of a curse on James himself. That's just my opinion of course, for what it's worth.

At any rate, if Snape was "famous for curses" and he knew so many, then why didn't we see one or hear one? I think Sirius is exaggerating or something. By his fifth year, Snape sure doesn't look that dangerous in SWM.We do hear them: I just quoted a passage where Snape lets a mixture of hexes and swear words. The hexes don't work (i.e. we can't see them) because his wand is lying ten feet away. Snape's inability to use his knowledge in that scene doesn't mean he doesn't possess the knowledge. :huh:

Except Lily says James is as bad as Snape, not the other way around, suggesting that Snape starts off in a more "bad" place (forgive my grammar here) and James is descending to his level. Lily has situated Snape on the same side of "bad" as James has, and then she puts James there as well. Is one racial slur delivered in the heat of the moment really enough to situate Snape there in her mind?I have to agree with you here that there may be something more to this simple quote owing to the careful way in which Lily phrased it. In saying that "Snape is just as bad as you are", I do think there must be something more going on here that we don't know about. It could be as gottaloveLupin suggested- that Snape is just as arrogant and stubborn as James; or it could be their mutual reactions of hatred toward one another, as in they both act in very immature and "bad" way when they interact with each other (regardless of the fact that James would likely be the one who started it). But in any case, it sounds like Snape has some quality or behavior that causes Lily to measure James up to him.

Snape never losing the "opportunity to curse James" sounds like a direct application of a curse on James himself. That's just my opinion of course, for what it's worth.This is my opinion as well. We've seen that Snape is certainly capable of outright violence through magical curses (and hexes), so there's no reason to think that he wouldn't have openly cursed James himself. In fact, I think this was discussed earlier, but it seems likely that sometime after SWM (perhaps after the WW incident), Snape might have been the one to initiate the cursing, not realizing that James was beginning to change. Thus it would make more sense that Snape is cursing James outright rather than cursing his possessions. Furthermore, I don't believe that young Snape was as subtle and controlled as adult Snape is. I think he learned much of his control and subtlety when he was a Death Eater and when he learned Occlumency and Legilimency. It doesn't seem as likely that Snape would use such a subtle method to get back at James, when outright cursing would show results instantly and perhaps serve to publically humiliate James like James publically humiliated him. Therefore, I've always read that quote to mean that Snape was cursing James rather than his possessions.

I think Wormtail’s behavior is worse than the crowd due to the way he’s described as looking at the scene “hungrily”, as many have pointed out. With Lupin, there are points at which she brings him up again: she indicates he wasn’t laughing when James tells Lily that Snape exists, and he and Lily both don’t laugh when Snape is hung upside-down. JKR sort of tells us what Lupin’s reaction is by telling us what he’s not doing. But you’re right, we don’t get as detailed a description of Lupin’s mannerisms as we get of Peter’s.

:blush: Sorry, it was late when I was reading that last night, and must have missed it.

Now because of that, I believe that JK Rowling put both descriptions of the two Marauders who were kind of pushed into the background in SWM purposely, I believe that Lupin's is there every once in a while to continue to remind us that he wasn't okay with what was going on, even if he remained quiet, he still didn't seem to think it was right. Also, I think that Peter's was there to be show his support for whatever the other Marauders, namely James and Sirius, did, and to make us realize that even at a young age he was pretty bad, it's sick that he was enjoying Snape's torment so much.

At any rate, if Snape was "famous for curses" and he knew so many, then why didn't we see one or hear one? I think Sirius is exaggerating or something. By his fifth year, Snape sure doesn't look that dangerous in SWM.
I think that we did see one, I believe that while James and Sirius did magic and used many words to be cruel, it was bad, but it didn't seem 'evil' so much as what Snape did, "'Bad luck, Prongs,' said Sirius briskly, turning back to Snape 'OY!'
But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on the sid of James's face, spattering his robes with blood." (OotP U.S. Hardback page 647.) I think it was implied that Snape was the one to do that to James, and really, that disgusted me, James and Sirius hang Snape upside down and are incredibly cruel, I'm not denying that, but Snape's action seems almost close to dark magic to me, I'm aware that it's probably not, but it seems so, he doesn't seem harmless at all to me.

(Yes I know he draws blood, but the canon talks about strong emotions letting magic get out of control. And by that time in the scene, Snape must have some really strong emotions!)
Yes, but he made a gash on James's face, that's pretty sick retaliation, also I believe that JK Rowling put that he had a wand in his hand, pointed towards James on purpose to imply that he did in fact curse James, had he done something that Harry had, such as blowing up Aunt Marge, I doubt that she would have purposely pointed out that his wand was out and pointed towards James, also, the fact that he had been "beginning to inch towards his fallen wand" (OotP U.S. Hardback page 647) implies that he had intended to hurt James, not that it was an accident, this seems to me to be a very purposeful attack.

These are just my observations on our current subject. They aren't directed at anyone.

:sigh: Wham! There is that wall of context again.

We don't know the history of interaction between Snape and the Marauders, as has been pointed out by everyone on this thread at one point or another.

Is there a moral high ground in that scene? No, not a single person in that scene took the high road. Were some better than others? Of course, but they all could have been better.

I'm not going to defend Snape's actions, but I think there is a lack of understanding here. If two bullies (bullys, bulli?) had you pinned to a wall upside down and you had a rock, would you throw it? I would. It wouldn't be right, but it would be my natural inclination to defend myself. :shrug: It is an instinct. Judge me if you want, but it is the truth. I spent enough years being bullied that I figured out I'd better stand up for myself, because no one else would bother. You have to hurt or humiliate the bully to get them to leave you alone. Obviously, that isn't the moral highground, but it will keep them from showing your underwear to the world.

As I said, with no context, we don't know if Snape was the aggressor before, or James, or Sirius. We have one moment. And we all speculate with it. But, during that scene, Snape was the primary victim. Did he do wrong? Of course.

I think that we (and yes, I include myself in this) too often judge these characters as lines on a page, and don't put ourselves in the shoes of the characters. I have said many times, and will say many times more, that Snape is often a jerk. Does that really mean he deserves some of the other things that happened to him? James was a good husband and (I assume) father. Does that mean that he was never arrogant or have the same teenage angst that many of us did? I don't forgive either character their faults, though. The speculation that I do dole out tends to be like tasting a new item at the deli. Let's see what works with the information we have, in other words.

My last thought, while I'm still standing on the soap box :blush: we love these characters because JK makes them so realistic. Would Sirius be interesting without his reckless nature and self-sacrifice? Would Snape intrigue us if he was a carbon copy of Voldemort?

I'm not going to defend Snape's actions, but I think there is a lack of understanding here.
Alright, I apologize for not understanding Snape. :blush: That's what I knew my worst fault would be while posting on this thread, as hard as I try, I can't put myself in Snape's shoes, I've never really been bullied, I've had mean things said about me, but never been completely bullied, so I can't even come close to imagining what Snape went through, again, I'm sorry, I'll try to be more sensitive about what I post, if I've offended anyone here, I seriously apologize, that would never have been my intention. :blush:

If two bullies (bullys, bulli?) had you pinned to a wall upside down and you had a rock, would you throw it? I would. It wouldn't be right, but it would be my natural inclination to defend myself. It is an instinct. Judge me if you want, but it is the truth. I spent enough years being bullied that I figured out I'd better stand up for myself, because no one else would bother.
I won't judge you, you're probably right, you've been bullied, you'd know better than me.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

Alright to ammend my post and try to make things better, I'll restate my last post, I think that yes, Snape did have every right to defend himself, and using his wand was fine, but I also believe that going after James like that wasn't really a great idea, I'm sorry that's just my opinion, again I'm not trying to offend anyone, I think that first of all, James was distracted so at the time he wasn't hurting Snape, but with magic there are cleaner ways of defending yourself. I don't know, again, it's hard for me to put myself in Snape's point of view.

Does that really mean he deserves some of the other things that happened to him?
Oh no, I really hope that I've never given the impression that I thought Snape deserved what he got, I've always tried to make sure that I was trying to be sensitive to the fact that what happened to Snape was terrible. Nobody deserves to be treated that way.

By the way, wonderful post, and you're completely right and again, I apologise if I made anyone upset. :) Continue on with the discussion, I just had to post that.

I'm not upset, really. :angel: That was why I said at the top of my post that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It really was just general observations about this subject. I think were on the third installment since I began posting in here and I have seen this argument (or some incarnation of it) go by three times, more or less. :lol: It is just what I've noticed.

I wasn't offended by your post and I don't think anyone should have to have a history with bullying to express an opinion. I'm notorious for esposing my opinion, I really shouldn't complain about someone else venting theirs. ;)

Consider the circumstances. Snape is outnumbered two to one, the two working in perfect tandem. Two more of their friends are right over there--not participating, true, but there, and definitely the friends/allies of the two who are attacking you. Others are watching, and none are coming to your aid; many are, in fact, laughing, indicating which side they're on. You finally are able to move again and, for a moment, neither of the two is looking at you; for a moment, you are not helpless. You grab your wand and you cast a spell that pretty accurately reflects the depth and intensity of your hatred for that person. In retrospect, it wasn't a good choice: this bully didn't back down from that--in fact, he ups the ante in revenge for your act; your situation worsens.

It all makes sense, if Snape's retaliatory spell was Dark in origin--or if James perceived it as such-- and if James hated Snape because he saw Snape as a Dark Arts representative. It gives James even more of a reason to decide to punish Snape further (although, interestingly enough, as as been pointed out in previous discussions of this--by using what seems to be a Dark wizard's method of public humiliation).

by clkginny I'm not going to defend Snape's actions, but I think there is a lack of understanding here. If two bullies (bullys, bulli?) had you pinned to a wall upside down and you had a rock, would you throw it? I would. It wouldn't be right, but it would be my natural inclination to defend myself. It is an instinct. Judge me if you want, but it is the truth. I spent enough years being bullied that I figured out I'd better stand up for myself, because no one else would bother. You have to hurt or humiliate the bully to get them to leave you alone. Obviously, that isn't the moral highground, but it will keep them from showing your underwear to the world.

As I said, with no context, we don't know if Snape was the aggressor before, or James, or Sirius. We have one moment. And we all speculate with it. But, during that scene, Snape was the primary victim. Did he do wrong? Of course.

I think that we (and yes, I include myself in this) too often judge these characters as lines on a page, and don't put ourselves in the shoes of the characters. I have said many times, and will say many times more, that Snape is often a jerk. Does that really mean he deserves some of the other things that happened to him? James was a good husband and (I assume) father. Does that mean that he was never arrogant or have the same teenage angst that many of us did? I don't forgive either character their faults, though. The speculation that I do dole out tends to be like tasting a new item at the deli. Let's see what works with the information we have, in other words.

My last thought, while I'm still standing on the soap box we love these characters because JK makes them so realistic. Would Sirius be interesting without his reckless nature and self-sacrifice? Would Snape intrigue us if he was a carbon copy of Voldemort?

I don't understand the part about the rock. I don't think that Snape could be blamed for hexing James in that scene. But I do think that he is to blame for offending Lily the way he did, when Lily was just trying to help. Of course that justifications can be found. Snape was in a very embarassing situation and especially for a proud person like he is, it couldn't have been easy at all. In that moment a person could hardly smile and have a nice and interesting chat with another person.

But while his behavior towards Lily has a justification, there is really no excuse for that, and I don't see anything wrong in saying this. I don't know why such an interpretation shows a lack of understanding of Snape's character.

As to the fact that a lot of persons judge too coldly the characters, I believe it may be true. But it may also be true the other way around.

by FireIntheSky Alright, I apologize for not understanding Snape. That's what I knew my worst fault would be while posting on this thread, as hard as I try, I can't put myself in Snape's shoes, I've never really been bullied, I've had mean things said about me, but never been completely bullied, so I can't even come close to imagining what Snape went through, again, I'm sorry, I'll try to be more sensitive about what I post, if I've offended anyone here, I seriously apologize, that would never have been my intention.

I really don't understand why you are apologizing! There isn't a valid interpretation of Snape's actions and a not-valid one. Until Jo tells us that Snape is an idiot or on the contrary, that he is a wonderful person, or unless she proves us without doubt one thing or the other, we can only try to interpret the first 5 books and speculate about the other two.

Some persons may see things in a way, and some other persons may see things in another way. I see no reason to apologize for having a not such a good opinion about Snape. This is not Snape's thread!

And, I think that it shouldn't be forgotten that we are talking about characters here, not about real persons. Snape's actions and the interpretation that is given to Snape's action, in my opinion, should not be taken so personally! If a person does not understand the bullying part and does not show sympathy to Snape's suffering, this should not be taken as an offensive comment towards another poster. Every person is entitled to their own opinion!

And of course, I am the one who is saying this, when I am the first who takes things a little too seriously sometimes! :)

I would say that it appears obvious it's time for a topic change. Those who would like to discuss Snape are more than welcome to decamp to Dev of Sev. Unfortunately, I don't have enough cleverness this morning (if ever) to supply an appropriately Marauder-ish alternative topic...perhaps someone else can re-focus the discussion to the thread topic...............

I think it's a great idea!

Just a few more things I wanted to say before the topic change:
It all makes sense, if Snape's retaliatory spell was Dark in origin--or if James perceived it as such-- and if James hated Snape because he saw Snape as a Dark Arts representative. It gives James even more of a reason to decide to punish Snape further (although, interestingly enough, as as been pointed out in previous discussions of this--by using what seems to be a Dark wizard's method of public humiliation).I can say that I think Snape made the wrong decision by using that gashing spell on James, but I can also say that I completely understand why he did it. In a way, I think it was a very realistic reaction, one that perhaps anyone in that situation might have done. I agree with you subtle that the intensity of this spell is very understandable, given the intense feelings Snape was feeling. It doesn’t make it right, but again, it’s understandable. If I was in Snape’s shoes, I think I’d want to retaliate to teach these bullies a lesson.

It certainly is interesting that James seems to come back with a spell used by Death Eaters for muggle torture. Even if the spell itself wasn’t Dark Magic, it was being used for a very damaging reason. Though no physical damage was done, the use of this spell by James was reprehensible. So in a way, he was really no better than someone using Dark Magic- someone that James would have hated.

Overall in SWM, it definitely seems like James and Sirius focus on humiliation rather than actual violence, while Snape focuses on violence rather than humiliation.

I don't think that Snape could be blamed for hexing James in that scene. But I do think that he is to blame for offending Lily the way he did, when Lily was just trying to help.Yes, I agree, and to reiterate a point I made above, what Snape did was quite realistic for someone in his shoes. He wanted to use the most effective spell against James to get across the message 1) that he wasn’t weak and helpless, and he wasn’t going to sit around and do nothing while he was humiliated; 2) that he was indeed able to defend himself with a powerful spell; and 3) possibly that his threat of “you wait!” wasn’t just an empty one- that he actually had the means to make James and Sirius pay later on down the road.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change of topic- possible ideas to discuss:
we could go back over the Whomping Willow incident
James's development from "arrogant berk" to self-sacrificing husband and father
dynamics between Sirius, Lupin and Snape in OotP (in general)
Peter's development (or degeneration) from tag-along to Death EaterThese are some ideas that I can think of off the top of my head. Feel free to choose one or none! :)

However, despite the fact that they are best friends and equal in most ways, I feel that James does look to Sirius for approval and, as you said, allows him to take the leadership position. It is possible that even James and Sirius are not completely aware of this dynamic to their friendship. I feel that Sirius on numerous occasions uses the power of suggestion to guide people, in particular James and Harry. For instance, in GoF (I think, I do not have the book at hand...) Sirius implies to Harry that Krum is a possible threat because of his link to Karkaroff. From Sirius's passing comments Harry becomes a lot less trusting of the (basically innocent) Krum. In OotP Sirius comment, "you're less like James than I thought," hurts Harry by suggesting he is a disappointment to Sirius, and may have been to James too if he was around. It is probably a similar tactic that Sirius would unknowingly apply with James to help steer him towards some goal. It is also possible that James' hatred and mistrust of Snape came from comments and thoughts inadvertently planted by Sirius. I think that if this is true then Sirius and James were not aware of it. By this I mean that James may not realise that it is Sirius planting these ideas to him, and, likewise, Sirius is not aware that he is guiding James in such a way, for all he is aware James already had these ideas.That's an interesting way of looking at it--Sirius believes that James would have done the same things, even if he hadn't been there. I'm sure that's true in some instances, but I can't believe that was always true. People try to get what they want as part of human nature. If Sirius wanted James to do something and James wanted Sirius's approval, I think that Sirius would consciously manipulate James--the result being that James did what Sirius wanted. Sirius need not necessarily know why he was able to do it. In other words, he might not be aware that James's motivation is his approval; he would just know that it worked.

As for Harry, I don't think he distrusts Krum because Sirius unconsciously planted the idea that Krum can't be trusted and he wants Sirius's approval. First, I think that Sirius purposely made Harry distrust Krum because he distrusts anything/anyone associated with Karkaroff. Second, I think Harry then began to distrust Krum because he trusted Sirius, not to gain any approval.

I'm sticking with my theory that James saw Snape as a local, physical representation of the "dark side" for now. I don't think that Sirius made James hate the dark arts. Actually, I think the opposite--given Sirius's family--that Sirius ended up in Gryffindor when most of the family had been Slytherins and, through James's influence, he learned to hate the dark arts. Another point is that the dynamic between them in SWM didn't happen immediately. I'm sure that it was something that took time, until they fell into that pattern and found it comfortable. Perhaps James saving Snape's life came from James' shocking realisation that Sirius' ideas were not always right, or what he even agreed with. Sirius could have been equally shocked at James' actions, 'what? I thought he agreed with me? Why did he always join me in teasing Snape?' etc. etc. This is definitely a possibility--they were each surprised by the others' actions regarding the Whomping Willow incident. I've felt for a long time that this incident drove a wedge into the group; although I believe that Lupin, as the would-be unwilling murderer, was driven further away from the others and that it was easier for James and Sirius to reconcile. Lupin would have to have been very upset and angry when he learned that he was used in that way by Sirius--his unfortunate condition exploited.Now that you ask I'm finding it hard to back up my claim... I've always felt like Lupin lacked self-confidence and had low self-esteem, probably due to the discrimation he faces simply for being a werewolf. He often says things that suggest he feels inadequate. For example, I highly doubt that Dumbledore made him prefect simply to calm Sirius and James down, as Lupin suggest in OotP. He seems to brush aside his own merits even though from his temperment, diction, talents he is clearly an accomplished and talented man. Also the fact that he accepts that Sirius thought he was the traitor to the original Order without any anger at all suggests that he finds it a fair thought. Meaning perhaps he is simply so used to people thinking the worst of him (because he is a werewolf) that he has learned to simply accept it. Alternatively it could be that enough time and events have passed that he can be over it. After all he blamed Sirius..Those examples could indicate low self-esteem or modesty, I think--it's difficult to differentiate between the two without more information. Regarding his acceptance of Sirius having believed he was the spy, it wouldn't make sense for Lupin to hold that against Sirius--afterall, he had believed Sirius the spy for 12 years. . .

Regarding Lily's comment, "You're as bad as he is," I have to agree with clkginny. The comment, coming directly after Snape's "mudblood" insult, when she'd previously implied that Snape had done nothing to deserve James's attack (What's he done to you?), must relate to Snape having called her a "mudblood," not previous bad behavior. In fact, James and Lily's entire exchange there has to do with the "mudblood" insult. (Apologize to Evans [for the "mudblood" insult]!--I don't want you to make him apologize [for the "mudblood" insult]! You're as bad as he is!)

Also, I do think that "as bad as" implies equality without implying anything else. grrliz used the example of Neville improving and becoming "as good as" Hermione to argue that Lily's comment implies that Snape was already bad. That example only works, though, because we already know that Neville was not as good as Hermione when they both began school. We could also say that Harry is as bad as Ron in potions. Both Harry and Ron are equally bad at that class, as far as any of us know. There is no indication that one was ever better than the other--it's a straight equivalency. Since we don't know anything about what happened before SWM (except Lily's question of "What's he ever done to you?" the implication of her question being "nothing"), it can't be argued that Lily's "You're as bad as he is" implies Snape was "as bad as" or worse than James prior to the "mudblood" insult.

Chievrefueil--I agree completely with you analysis of the 'you're as bad' comment. You said, much better than I did, what I was trying to say when I referred to the context of Lily and James' exchange.

The most I can see the remark expanding beyond the immediate context is based on what is said next...more context. James says he would "NEVER call you a---you know what!" (p. 648, US hardcover), and Lily follows with the listing of James' faults--all of which have to do with his inflated ego. The most I can draw out of this is that she may be implying that Snape also has an ego. That would fit in with what just went on: her near laugh at at Snape upside down, if she knew that Snape was very proud; and the fact that he just so rudely threw aside her assistance, which was clearly a result of injured pride.

Oh my. And didn't I just continue the Snape discussion. *sigh* I really do apologize...I'll be quiet now about this and go away now.....*quiet now*

The most I can see the remark expanding beyond the immediate context is based on what is said next...more context. James says he would "NEVER call you a---you know what!" (p. 648, US hardcover), and Lily follows with the listing of James' faults--all of which have to do with his inflated ego. The most I can draw out of this is that she may be implying that Snape also has an ego. That would fit in with what just went on: her near laugh at at Snape upside down, if she knew that Snape was very proud; and the fact that he just so rudely threw aside her assistance, which was clearly a result of injured pride.My book is packed away in a box (I'm moving this weekend, and I'm holed up waiting for the previous tenant to move out :grumble: ), but doesn't Lily list being James' a bullying toe-rag amongst James' inflated-ego based faults? If she's implying that Snape is "as bad as" James, then does that statement including the bullying toe-rag comment?


I'm not exactly sure why examining Lily's statements further has opened up such a can of worms and come full circle to the discussion about Snape lashing out at James with the facial laceration hex. This was not my intention in bringing up Lily's statements, mainly because I'm just as tired of that conversation as everyone else, which is why I made a point of saying Snape's own actions outside of SWM, whatever they may be, do not excuse what happens to him in SWM. My point in bringing Lily's statements up was that it seems to me that if she's the one acting with the most moral development in the scene then perhaps we should be taking what she says -- about both James and Snape -- more seriously. If Lily is making that comparison it seems to be important to figure out just what she's saying.

Anyway, since people have requested a topic switch, I'll leave it at that and bow out of the conversation again since I don't feel like unwittingly causing animosity in the thread. And because I'm not getting the internet back until Monday. :p

Quote from RemusLupinFan:
It certainly is interesting that James seems to come back with a spell used by Death Eaters for muggle torture. Even if the spell itself wasn’t Dark Magic, it was being used for a very damaging reason. Though no physical damage was done, the use of this spell by James was reprehensible. So in a way, he was really no better than someone using Dark Magic- someone that James would have hated.
The spell that both the Death Eaters use for Muggle torture and that James used was introduced in GoF before the Riot scene. Bill and Charlie Weasley are shown to use their wands to have a flying-table fight while the family watches. So I doubt that the spell is anything more then a common household spell.

Actual maybe I'll try to continue that idea a little further. Do we see James use any suspected Dark spells during SWM? He uses Expelliarmus,
Impedimenta, Scourify, and the lifting/floating/levitation spell. Even Harry, in his fourth year, uses more serious spells...his boil curse (I believe that it is referred to as a curse) on Malfoy. Even knowing that James is using those spells to humiliate Snape… James's use of those spells interesting. He honestly seems to avoid use of spells that have "Dark" potential. I wonder why James so hated Dark magic?

There's probably little point, then, to my posting this, but nevertheless I'll head to the books like a Hermione and find the quotations for clarification:

"What's he done to you?"
"Well," said James, appearing to deliberate the point, "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean...."
Many of the surrounding watchers laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and neither did Lily.
"You think you're funny," she said coldly. "But you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter. Leave him alone" (p. 647, US hardcover).


"Messing up your hair because you think it looks cool to look like you've just got off your broomstick, showing off with that stupid Snitch, walking down coridors and hexing anyone who annoys you just because you can--I'm surprised your broomstick can get off the ground with that fat head on it. You make me SICK" (p. 648).

I apologize in advance for prolonging the boredom!

But that's the thing, subtle: in Lily comparing James and Snape, how far do we go? She describes James' arrogance and his bullying in one sentence, and then further describes his arrogance in more specific detail later on. Is her comparison between them just based on arrogance, or is she going for the whole package here? Because Snape may be proud, but his arrogance is in no way manifested the same way as James'. Her first statement is far more broad and seems like it could be applied more widely to more situations -- or people. If "you're just as bad as he is" only applies to her latter statement (since it prefaces her last statement, context-wise), then it makes absolutely no sense (unless Snape is secretly the sexy Quidditch star I hope he is :)). I don't know where the cut off point for comparison is.

(Thanks for posting those, btw. Clearly the tenant still hasn't left. :))

Okay, I've been hovering around this thread for a while now, so I'll just jump in at the deep end. Please be nice!! :scared:


It certainly is interesting that James seems to come back with a spell used by Death Eaters for muggle torture. Even if the spell itself wasn’t Dark Magic, it was being used for a very damaging reason. Though no physical damage was done, the use of this spell by James was reprehensible. So in a way, he was really no better than someone using Dark Magic- someone that James would have hated.

Well, surely any spell can in some way be used to damage - just like any object could be used to harm someone - I mean, you could Wingardium Leviosify someone through the ceiling, for example. It doesn't have to be Dark Magic to do damage. There can only be so many spells, after all...

Actual maybe I'll try to continue that idea a little further. Do we see James use any suspected Dark spells during SWM? He uses Expelliarmus,
Impedimenta, Scourify, and the lifting/floating/levitation spell. Even Harry, in his fourth year, uses more serious spells...his boil curse (I believe that it is referred to as a curse) on Malfoy. Even knowing that James is using those spells to humiliate Snape… James's use of those spells interesting. He honestly seems to avoid use of spells that have "Dark" potential. I wonder why James so hated Dark magic?

Or is that just because Harry happens to know more spells that your average fifth-year? I mean, some people in the DA couldn't even do expelliarmus properly. And again, any spell could technically have "Dark potential" if used in the right way.


But that's the thing, subtle: in Lily comparing James and Snape, how far do we go? She describes James' arrogance and his bullying in one sentence, and then further describes his arrogance in more specific detail later on. Is her comparison between them just based on arrogance, or is she going for the whole package here? Because Snape may be proud, but his arrogance is in no way manifested the same way as James'. Her first statement is far more broad and seems like it could be applied more widely to more situations -- or people. If "you're just as bad as he is" only applies to her latter statement (since it prefaces her last statement, context-wise), then it makes absolutely no sense (unless Snape is secretly the sexy Quidditch star I hope he is ). I don't know where the cut off point for comparison is.

Sorry to cut in here, but I think she was just speaking generally - "bad" meaning childish/immature etc. I don't think her "arrogant" comments included Snape, of all things you could call him, arrogant isn't one of them, but I think she just meant that they were both acting stupidly. And the sexy Quidditch star thing... I always suspected there was more to our Snape! :lol:

Anyway, since people have requested a topic switch, I'll leave it at that and bow out of the conversation again since I don't feel like unwittingly causing animosity in the thread. And because I'm not getting the internet back until Monday. :p

Moving house is no excuse! Come back here, Grrliz!

Just kidding, lol. :evil:

The spell that both the Death Eaters use for Muggle torture and that James used was introduced in GoF before the Riot scene. Bill and Charlie Weasley are shown to use their wands to have a flying-table fight while the family watches. So I doubt that the spell is anything more then a common household spell.

Actual maybe I'll try to continue that idea a little further. Do we see James use any suspected Dark spells during SWM? He uses Expelliarmus,
Impedimenta, Scourify, and the lifting/floating/levitation spell. Even Harry, in his fourth year, uses more serious spells...his boil curse (I believe that it is referred to as a curse) on Malfoy. Even knowing that James is using those spells to humiliate Snape… James's use of those spells interesting. He honestly seems to avoid use of spells that have "Dark" potential. I wonder why James so hated Dark magic?

I really think Dark Magic is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think flying tables are a common household spell, anymore than acrobatics such as holding a chair on your head are common in most Muggle households.

It doesn't really matter what spell James was using. The fact is, he was using it on a human being, and not on an inanimate object. That's the point of the debate. What he does is a complete parallel to what the DEs do, even to the point that in both cases "underpants" are mentioned as a way of humiliating the victim. With tables up in the air, there is no victim.

Welcome, Alandra! My, you sure are brave!

:welcome:

Or is that just because Harry happens to know more spells that your average fifth-year? I mean, some people in the DA couldn't even do expelliarmus properly. And again, any spell could technically have "Dark potential" if used in the right way.

Yes - Harry knows more spells than your average fifth year, and so does Hermione. Harry knows spells because he has had challenges such as facing Voldemort and entering the Goblet of Fire competition. Plus, he actually paid attention in Dueling Club when Snape did Expelliarmus - a rare occasion, indeed. Hermione knows everything because she reads everything and she has a great memory - plus she wants to be the best in the school.

Harry is famous, as we know, and people join the DA because they realize he knows more spells than they do. What is it Sirius said about Snape? "He was famous for it" - meaning Dark Magic. Now, the question I'd like to have answered is, Why was Snape "famous" and why did he "know more spells"? Was he like Harry, needing to know things for defensive reasons, or like Hermione, knowing things because he studied more? I'm not sure of the answer - I think a combination of both. We don't know his background at all or where he grew up. All we see is a snippet of his homelife, which looked really bad.

I think when Lily said that James was as "bad" as Snape, she meant that if Snape is prejudiced, then so is James, for attacking someone for the way he looks and the house he is in.

The example of the boil curse Harry tries on Malfoy is an interesting parallel to SWM. It is in GoF, chapter 18, pg. 298, American:

(The situation is that the Slytherins have badges saying Cedric is the "Real Hogwarts Champion" and "Potter Stinks")

"He (Malfoy) pressed his badge into his chest, and the message upon it vanished, to be replaced by another one, which glowed green:

POTTER STINKS

The Slytherins howled with laughter. Each of them pressed their badges too, until the message POTTER STINKS was shining brightly all around Harry. He felt the heat rise in his face and neck.

"Oh very funny," Hermione said sarcastically to Pansy Parkinson and her gang of Slytherin girls, who were laughing harder than anyone, "really witty."

Ron was standing against the wall with Dean and Seamus. He wasn't laughing, but he wasn't sticking up for Harry either.

"Want one, Granger?" said Malfoy, holding out a badge to Hermione, "I've got loads. But don't touch my hand, now. I've just washed it you see; don't want a Mudblood sliming it up."

Some of the anger Harry had been feeling for days and days seemed to burst through a dam in his chest. He had reached for his wand before he'd thought what he was doing. People all around them scrambled out of the way, backing down the corridor.

"Harry!" Hermione said warningly.

"Go on, then, Potter," Malfoy said quietly, drawing out his own wand. "Moody's not here to look after you now -- do it, if you've got the guts --"

For a split second, they looked into each other's eyes, then, at exactly the same time, both acted.

"Furnunculus!" Harry yelled.

"Densaugeo!" screamed Malfoy.

Jets of light shot from both wands, hit each other in midair, and ricocheted off at angles -- Harry's hit Goyle in the face, and Malfoy's hit Hermione. Goyle bellowed and put his hands to his nose, where great ugly boils were springing up -- Hermione, whimpering in panic, was clutching her mouth."

This is another case in which Ron doesn't come "act" as we expect him to, because he is mad at Harry for entering his name in the Goblet. He does nothing, not even when Hermione is attacked verbally by Malfoy.

What I thought when I read this is, did Snape have "friends" from his own house who were angry at him for some reason? Is that why no one from Slytherin came to his defense in SWM? (edited to fix the grammar :blush: )

Malfoy is clearly like Snape in that he calls Hermione a Mudblood. But I would say he was also like Sirius, verbally abusing Harry and saying he "stinks" and implying he is a cheater.

This happens in the corridor for all to see, similar to what Lily describes as James "hexing people" in the hallways. But it is at least a fair fight - Malfoy and Harry are both on their feet and no one has an unfair advantage.

So is Harry like James in that scene?

Afterwards, Snape takes 50 points from Gryffindor because Ron and Harry yell at him about Hermione's teeth. "Harry's ears were ringing. The injustice of it made him want to curse Snape into a thousand slimy pieces."

Ron is angry too, but doesn't sit with Harry, and with Hermione gone to the Hospital wing, Harry finds himself all alone with his anger toward Snape (pag. 300).

"Harry sat there staring at Snape as the lesson began, picturing horrific things happening to him . . . If only he knew how to do the Cruciatus Curse . . . he'd have Snape flat on his back like that spider, jerking and twitching . . . "

So is Harry like James when he thinks that, or is he like Snape? :evil: Is he like Barty Crouch, the man who tortured the spider? Is he like Bella LeStrange when she tortured the Longbottoms, and then Neville at the DoM?

Remember, Harry is imagining doing this because he got one night's detention and 50 points from his house. Would he kill Snape with Avada Kedavra for a week's detention?

I know I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, so forgive me. I just want to make the point that Harry's thoughts while angry are out of control. He is no better than Malfoy in that scene - as "bad as Malfoy" - and if he had acted on his impulses, no better than James in SWM.

Quote from Silver Ink Pot:
I really think Dark Magic is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think flying tables are a common household spell, anymore than acrobatics such as holding a chair on your head are common in most Muggle households.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this because I can think of a load of practical things for making objects fly. I've carried enough heavy tables, chairs, desks, etc in my life to wish that I could make them fly to where I wanted (and I know of too many people who have ruined their backs lifting improperly or lifting too much). But I agree with your point that Dark magic is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote from Silver Ink Pot:
What I thought when I read this is, did Snape have "friends" from his own house who were angry at him for some reason? Is that why no one from Slytherin came to his defense in SWM? (edited to fix the grammar )
I've been thinking about this since FireInTheSky pointed out that the crowd is described as being small and/or shrinking in number. Could it simply be that there were no Slytherins around at the time? Harry isn't always running into Malfoy and co. (although they do meet a lot it seems)

Quote from Alandra:
Sorry to cut in here, but I think she was just speaking generally - "bad" meaning childish/immature etc. I don't think her "arrogant" comments included Snape, of all things you could call him, arrogant isn't one of them, but I think she just meant that they were both acting stupidly. And the sexy Quidditch star thing... I always suspected there was more to our Snape!
When you say that Snape isn't arrogant do you mean present-day Snape or SWM Snape? One of my biggest peeves with present day Snape is that he's an arrogant fool who needs to be taken a couple of pegs. But that's probably just the way that I read him :blush: .

I think that a good deal of the Dark Magic has to be according to use--in the eye of the beholder, in other words. Only the top three are clearly and undeniably Dark: Imperius, Cruciatus, and AK. They seem to be the only curses that are so designated; they are not defensive spells; they are all aimed at controlling another human being with complete disregard for that person's will or humanity--hence, the worst. No other spell competes with the top three for viciousness of intent (that goes back to a previous discussion about intent in regard to these). But intent, I think, determines whether any other spell could be considered Dark.

So, therefore, levitating something in and of itself isn't Dark. However, there can't be anything practical involved in levitating and flipping Snape upside down--or the Muggles at the Quidditch World Cup. Levitating tables and having them fight just doesn't correspond to what James did to Snape. James' intent was revenge, humilation, and control of another person. While he may have been against Dark Arts, ironically, he stepped into Dark territory with what he did.

I always found the moment when Harry considers Snape and the Cruciatus Curse to be rather chilling. I think it shows how easily one could slip to a Darker intent, if one allows one's worser impulses to dominate. Even Harry can fall into it.

I don't understand the part about the rock. I don't think that Snape could be blamed for hexing James in that scene. But I do think that he is to blame for offending Lily the way he did, when Lily was just trying to help. Of course that justifications can be found. Snape was in a very embarassing situation and especially for a proud person like he is, it couldn't have been easy at all. In that moment a person could hardly smile and have a nice and interesting chat with another person.
The rock was an analogy because I never had a wand to use on bullies. Of course, I never had a rock either, which is probably a good thing.

I said in an earlier post that I did think that Snape was very wrong to use a racial slur against someone who was only trying to help him.

But while his behavior towards Lily has a justification, there is really no excuse for that, and I don't see anything wrong in saying this. I don't know why such an interpretation shows a lack of understanding of Snape's character.
I never said nor meant to imply that such an interpretation would be wrong or not showing understanding of Snape's situation.

As to the fact that a lot of persons judge too coldly the characters, I believe it may be true. But it may also be true the other way around.
That is probably true too, but I have put myself in the shoes of everyone in SWM with the exception of James, because (frankly) I don't have the context to put myself in his shoes.

I wasn't attacking anyone, and none of my comments were meant as personal. I'm sorry to have caused this reaction. That was why I put that "this isn't meant towards anyone" at the top of my post. I wonder why it gets taken personally when I tried to make it obvious it wasn't.

================================================== ==============

Peter's development (or degeneration) from tag-along to Death Eater
We haven't discussed this in a while, why don't we tackle it?

I've said just about all I can say about Peter, lol. Plus, I find the little rat repulsive!

:evil: Just for fun, I'm wondering tonight how many of you find this thread boring?

I don't find it boring at all! Most people here write really well, and people take the time to try to answer all the points brought up in other posts.

So, I vote: Not boring. :tu:

I always found the moment when Harry considers Snape and the Cruciatus Curse to be rather chilling. I think it shows how easily one could slip to a Darker intent, if one allows one's worser impulses to dominate. Even Harry can fall into it.Yes, I think this shows how easy it is to cross the line into the realm of malicious intentions. It’s interesting to note that has thoughts of performing the Cruciatus Curse, and then actually tries it on Bellatrix a year later. I think these thoughts show that Harry has a lot of anger, which causes his so-called “dark side” to become manifest. When Harry feels strong anger, his thoughts tend to spiral many times into the realm of dark intentions.

We haven't discussed this in a while, why don't we tackle it?Sounds good to me. I guess I’ll throw out some ideas, speculations and questions to get the discussion going. :)

We don’t know very much about Peter’s background or the kind of family he comes from: i) whether he’s a pureblood, ii)whether he has any siblings, iii)what his parents were like- what their beliefs were, or how they treated their son- did they spoil him, were they hard on him, or were they loving and accepting of him?

We also don’t know too much about Peter’s early years at Hogwarts. How did he become friends with the other Marauders? I imagine he was probably a rather timid boy in the beginning, but it seems he was probably looking for powerful friends to protect him at this point.

When we see Peter in the Pensieve scene, he is first very nervous and mousy-looking. Right off the bat we can see his opportunism manifesting itself as he tries to cheat off of his neighbor’s paper. We can also see that he is most definitely a tag-along, a worshipper of James and Sirius, who don’t see him as being on the same level as they are. As we discussed at length, we see Peter’s obvious love of his position as the side-kick of two of the most powerful and popular people in the school (ie the biggest bullies in the playground). Also as we discussed, Peter’s enjoyment of Snape’s torment may indicate his degeneration into someone who enjoys watching those on the “losing side” while he is clearly on the “winning side”.

The next we hear of Peter is the fact that he was the Potters’ betrayer. This is the heart of the discussion: what caused Peter to make the final crossing over into the realm of evil? The simple answer is that he found a bigger bully than the ones he was currently with, but this doesn’t take into account the fact that he must have felt some loyalty to his friends for all that they did for him. I suspect there were many factors that caused Peter to turn to the “dark side”, which may have included:

1) Temptation- I’d wager any Death Eater trying to recruit followers for Voldemort would have offered Peter anything he wanted: power, wealth, prestige.

2) Cowardice- he may have been coerced into doing small favors for Death Eaters if he had agreed to join, but once he realized that he was being asked to do bigger and bigger things – like eventually betraying his friends – he found there was no way out other than being killed for wanting out (like Regulus). So instead of perhaps doing what Snape did, he chose the easy way: betrayal.

3) Revenge- I think it’s possible Peter may have wanted a small bit of revenge for the way his friends treated him. As we see in the Pensieve scene, James and Sirius make some stinging comments about Peter.

No, SIP, sometimes I become tired of the repetition, but I don't find this thread boring. Almost always there is something different each time we discuss a subject. :tu: And, we have to discuss something until the HBP is released!

You're moving, grrliz? Does this mean you've just graduated from university? If so, congratulations! :)This is the heart of the discussion: what caused Peter to make the final crossing over into the realm of evil? The simple answer is that he found a bigger bully than the ones he was currently with, but this doesn’t take into account the fact that he must have felt some loyalty to his friends for all that they did for him.Do you really think that he felt any loyalty? I just don't think he did. I think a decent person would feel some loyalty, but I don't think Peter is a decent person. IMO, he betrayed his friends for entirely selfish reasons--which may have included a promise of power or survival (if Peter is muggle-born, as I suspect) and cowardice (fear of being on the losing team). I actually don't think that Peter betrayed them for vengeance. I don't think Peter has the mindset to resent how he is treated--he doesn't seem to resent how Voldemort treats him, although he sulks about it. However, I think that if they'd treated him differently, he might have become a different, better person. Unfortunately, they befriended him and encouraged to remain a toady.

I don't think it's boring SIP. I love the discussions we have here.

If you don't want to talk about Pettigrew, throw up something else, I'm sure someone will bite.

I have some thoughts about Pettigrew, but most everyone has seen them before, so I'll stick to responses for right now.

ETA: I changed my mind, so if you've seen my opinion on this before, skip right on past this.

Pettigrew is the most underestimated character in the books. He's cunning, powerful, and deceitful. He out thought and out...magicked?spelled? Sirius, he laid a cunning trap, he hid successfully in a MoM wizard's household for 12 years without anyone realizing he was there, he escaped punishment and retribution in PoA, brought Voldemort useful information and rebirth in GoF, and if we didn't see him in OoTP, then I believe it is because he is scheming something else sure to bring grief to all the main characters.

We don’t know very much about Peter’s background or the kind of family he comes from: i) whether he’s a pureblood, ii)whether he has any siblings, iii)what his parents were like- what their beliefs were, or how they treated their son- did they spoil him, were they hard on him, or were they loving and accepting of him?
Actually, do we even know if he's a Half-blood or a Pure blood? Your post got me thinking about something that I saw one time while going through JK Rowlings site, so of course I went back to find it, and it was in the last area I looked, so here it is:

"Snape's ancestry is hinted at. He was a Death Eater, so clearly he is no Muggle born, because Muggle borns are not allowed to be Death Eaters, except in rare circumstances." (JK Rowling's website, under "News" in the "Edinburgh book festival")

The first time I read this I wondered what Muggle borns could possibly become Death Eaters, or what Death Eaters could be Muggle born, and I really couldn't come up with any ideas until now.

So my question is that is it possible that Pettigrew is one of these "rare" people whom are Death Eaters even though they're Muggle born?
Expect me to exhibit typical INTJ behavior
On a sidenote, I took that test that you all had in the last thread and I'm an ENFJ.


Pettigrew is the most underestimated character in the books. He's cunning, powerful, and deceitful. He out thought and out...magicked?spelled? Sirius, he laid a cunning trap, he hid successfully in a MoM wizard's household for 12 years without anyone realizing he was there, he escaped punishment and retribution in PoA, brought Voldemort useful information and rebirth in GoF, and if we didn't see him in OoTP, then I believe it is because he is scheming something else sure to bring grief to all the main characters.

You're right, he is very underestimated, even the wise Dumbledore believed that Sirius was guilty, all because of Pettigrew's deception. I really do want to know what he was doing in OotP.

Just for fun, I'm wondering tonight how many of you find this thread boring?
Well, I don't find this thread boring, it's currently my favorite thread, but I'm new so I haven't discussed these things as many times as most of you all have.

Quote from RemusLupinFan:
The next we hear of Peter is the fact that he was the Potters’ betrayer. This is the heart of the discussion: what caused Peter to make the final crossing over into the realm of evil? The simple answer is that he found a bigger bully than the ones he was currently with, but this doesn’t take into account the fact that he must have felt some loyalty to his friends for all that they did for him. I suspect there were many factors that caused Peter to turn to the “dark side”, which may have included:
Hadn't Peter already been a spy for a year before the attack at Godric's Hollow? While it's convenient to look at him as if he betrayed the Potter's specifically, and in a sense he did, he was already a traitor to the Order and his friends by the time they made him Secret keeper. While on a personal level Peter is a disgusting person morally, history is full of spies, turn coats, and traitors.

I agree with Chievrefueil...I doubt Peter ever really had loyalty (or truly grasped the concept perhaps).

I wonder though if Peter is a kind of anti-Lupin...whereas Lupin clearly benefited from his friendship with the Marauders that relationship could have been bad for Peter's development. With the Marauders Peter was exposed to power...and all he needed to have access to that power was to be a friend of James and Sirius. He became accustomed to having powerful friends and having direct access to them. It's interesting that Peter joined the Order to "resist" Voldemort (instead of say the Department of Magical Law Enforcement)...from what we've seen the Order contained the best of the Wizarding World and was personally led by Dumbledore.

1) Temptation- I’d wager any Death Eater trying to recruit followers for Voldemort would have offered Peter anything he wanted: power, wealth, prestige.

2) Cowardice- he may have been coerced into doing small favors for Death Eaters if he had agreed to join, but once he realized that he was being asked to do bigger and bigger things – like eventually betraying his friends – he found there was no way out other than being killed for wanting out (like Regulus). So instead of perhaps doing what Snape did, he chose the easy way: betrayal.

3) Revenge- I think it’s possible Peter may have wanted a small bit of revenge for the way his friends treated him. As we see in the Pensieve scene, James and Sirius make some stinging comments about Peter.

Very true, and importance. Weaker characters who have been "ruled over" too much usually want to be in lime light? And peter would have wanted to go to darker side not because he would get importance as a servant of LV but would be a part of a gang which has terrified the world. It is complex but simple at the same time because if you analyse peter's character carefully, you would see the thirst of power which infact exists at times more in weak people than the strong characters. The sad part is that it makes them go to wrong side.

He's cunning, powerful, and deceitful. He out thought and out...magicked?

Cunning and deceitful, yes, but powerful? How? I mean he isn't in a position of power, he is not a powerful wizard( I mean when we talk about powerfl wizards we would count james, sirius, DD, LV and all), and not a powerful man. Thought-wise too he is considerably weak since he did go to the darker side(as RemusLupinFan said "temptation" was one of the causes and he fell for it).

But certainly he has been underestimated...

Do you really think that he felt any loyalty? I just don't think he did.
This is a point we tried to discuss before... thanks for bringing it up again:) . What is loyalty? Following a person, not revealing his secrets, trusting a person, believing him or never leaving him. Peter did follow james and co. Till that day, I don't think revealed much to anyone. But the next two, I don't know. But the last he did, and that raises all the questions. So was he very "loyal" till the day he changed? And is that loyalty? Is he loyal to LV? The more you ponder on it, the madder it gets....

Cunning and deceitful, yes, but powerful? How? I mean he isn't in a position of power, he is not a powerful wizard( I mean when we talk about powerfl wizards we would count james, sirius, DD, LV and all), and not a powerful man. Thought-wise too he is considerably weak since he did go to the darker side(as RemusLupinFan said "temptation" was one of the causes and he fell for it).
I think that he's not powerful, but he does tend to cling to those whom are powerful, such as the Marauders, and Voldemort, so individually he's not powerful, but I believe that he could be considered such, as he sticks with powerful people, so when he's with others he they are, not just him, but the group as a whole, i.e. The Death Eaters and The Marauders. (Sorry, probably not the most clarified answer, but I'm trying to explain the logic that goes on inside my head :blush:.)


This is a point we tried to discuss before... thanks for bringing it up again . What is loyalty? Following a person, not revealing his secrets, trusting a person, believing him or never leaving him. Peter did follow james and co. Till that day, I don't think revealed much to anyone. But the next two, I don't know. But the last he did, and that raises all the questions. So was he very "loyal" till the day he changed? And is that loyalty? Is he loyal to LV? The more you ponder on it, the madder it gets....


Well, I decided to look it up, and loyalty means:

loyalty.

1. The state or quality of being loyal. See Synonyms at fidelity.
2. A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection. Often used in the plural: My loyalties lie with my family.
Since the first definition was kind of useless, without the definition of "loyal" I looked that up too:

loyal.

1. Steadfast in allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign.
2. Faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty.
3. Of, relating to, or marked by loyalty.
I think that he is somewhat loyal to Lord Voldemort and I assume that he was somewhat loyal to the Marauders until the first time he betrayed them, and I'll explain the "somewhat" soon. My take on Pettigrew, is that he is loyal to the powerful, until someone else has the opportunity to become more powerful than the person that he's serving, then he betrays the first person/group and moves on to the second. The reason I said "somewhat loyal" is because I don't really think what he does can truly be counted as loyalty, I believe that he serves his own purposes first and then those he's with, (the Marauders and Voldemort) so I think that his loyalties lie with himself above all others and then with those whom he's with. (Another confusing thought, but again, I'm trying to explain it, but am having difficulties doing such, I'm sorry.)

Thanks for the help!

But you exactly have stated the problem. Can you call him loyal? Today he is with LV. But who knows, tomorrow if a more powerful person is there he would try to go to his side.... it is all too confusing. But in the end, we would end up saying that he is not loyal.....

I don't find this thread boring; yes, the discussions can be cyclical, but each cycle picks up new contributors who bring fresh ideas in. The most recent discussion, focusing on the actual dialogue and events of SWM, unearthed some fascinating insights--and how long has OotP been out? Truthfully, this is actually the best moment for such insights--everyone's read the books a zillion times and we all have opinions and we all think we remember X event occurring in such-and-such a way; and then it's amazing what we all discover is really in the book, as opposed to what we thought was there. So, yeah, sometimes I have to say again what I've said before, in response to a topic...but A. a new poster doesn't have telepathy and doesn't know what I mean unless I say it; B. "old" posters can't be expected to have memorized my pearls of wisdom : ) ; and C. restating it gives a chance to re-examine and re-work and refine. (This message brought to you by an emphatic INTJ!!!!)

And--case in point: Jaguarundi's description of Pettigrew as the anti-Lupin. What a great way to put it! I've often focused on the Pettigrew-Snape mirror, but this one is another mirror. Excellent observation. Both need their friends, but their reasons--because of their morals--are quite different. Lupin is the obvious suspect in the question of who is betraying the Order because of the prejudice against werewolves--and his implied capability as a wizard; Pettigrew operates under the radar because everyone dismisses him as ineffective. Even their expressions during SWM point to the mirror: neither participates, but Lupin indicates disapproval, while Pettigrew is eager and excited. The lack of participation is a further mirror: Lupin hesitates because he doesn't want to alienate his friends, but he knows what they're doing is wrong. Pettigrew doesn't participate--which would potentially reveal that he's not as weak and foolish as they believe him to be...and perhaps alienate his friends.........

As for loyalty: I don't think Pettigrew has any to anyone except himself. He is looking out for his own best interests at all times, to feed his sick need for power over others and to preserve his own life. His comments in the Shrieking Shack in PoA demonstrate his complete self absorption, as he is willing to say anything in order to save his life. The irony is that, if he was, indeed, a Gryffindor (as I think he is, despite the interview mistake)--he acts like the stereotype of a Slytherin, while Snape the Slytherin demonstrates more qualities of a Gryffindor.....

But you exactly have stated the problem. Can you call him loyal? Today he is with LV. But who knows, tomorrow if a more powerful person is there he would try to go to his side.... it is all too confusing. But in the end, we would end up saying that he is not loyal.....
I know, the way I see it is that if a person came along tomorrow that was more powerful than Voldemort, and would most likely become the leader of the Wizarding World, then yes, Pettigrew would go over to the next person's side, because that would be suiting his best interests.

I see Pettigrew's priorities as such:

1. He is first above all else loyal to preserving what is in his own best interests, it doesn't matter who he has to betray along the way, he doesn't care, as long as it helps him, not an admirable quality, to add some commentary.

2. He is then loyal to whomever he is serving/"friends" with, as long as it doesn't come to leaving said person for someone more powerful he is loyal to them, he will do whatever else the person says.

So in summation, he is loyal to others to a point, that point is when he needs to flee to someone more powerful, but other than that he's loyal. Does that make him loyal though? I don't know it depends, if you mean loyal forever, then no, because he'll most likely eventually betray them, but if you mean loyal as in specific time intervals, then for most of the time he is.

I feel somewhat like I'm getting into a paradox with my explanation about Wormtail's loyalties.

I wonder though if Peter is a kind of anti-Lupin...whereas Lupin clearly benefited from his friendship with the Marauders that relationship could have been bad for Peter's development.:tu: This is a very interesting observation! Peter is a good foil to Lupin in many ways, including their ways of moral reasoning, as subtle science pointed out.

My take on Pettigrew, is that he is loyal to the powerful, until someone else has the opportunity to become more powerful than the person that he's serving, then he betrays the first person/group and moves on to the second. The reason I said "somewhat loyal" is because I don't really think what he does can truly be counted as loyalty, I believe that he serves his own purposes first and then those he's with, (the Marauders and Voldemort) so I think that his loyalties lie with himself above all others and then with those whom he's with.You’re right that Peter’s loyalty isn’t absolute and that it’s confusing to explain the extent of his loyalty. Perhaps we could say that Peter exhibits a form of transient loyalty to whichever group he is with at the moment. With the Marauders, he wouldn’t have known of any other “bigger and better” group that existed out there that he could aspire to joining. So I do believe he did exhibit some sort of loyalty to them at some point. But once it became known that there was a “bigger bully on the playground” (aka Voldemort and the Death Eaters), I believe this is where Peter’s loyalties would have begun to waver. So in other words, Peter would have been loyal in the traditional sense of the word to the Marauders until he heard about someone more powerful than them.

I think I’ve said this a couple times, but Peter seems to have a fixation with being on whichever “side” is most dominant/superior or whichever “side” will be the winning one. As Peter tells us in the Shrieking Shack, Voldemort was taking over everywhere, demonstrating his superiority and dominance over the wizarding world at the time. This is part of what must have attracted Peter to join Voldemort. As he says, “what was there to lose by joining him?” To Peter, Voldemort would have represented the ultimate force to reckon with, the ultimate power whose followers were guaranteed a place of superiority. Thus, being the self-serving person that he was, Peter would have been allured to pledge his allegiance and loyalty to someone who was bigger and better than the Marauders. This is why I’d call Peter’s loyalty transient, though I don’t know if Peter sees it as such: while he is involved with one group, he will exhibit loyalty to them ONLY until another “bigger and better” group comes along.

I don’t know if I’m explaining this adequately or if I’m just rambling now. :blush:

You’re right that Peter’s loyalty isn’t absolute and that it’s confusing to explain the extent of his loyalty. Perhaps we could say that Peter exhibits a form of transient loyalty to whichever group he is with at the moment. With the Marauders, he wouldn’t have known of any other “bigger and better” group that existed out there that he could aspire to joining. So I do believe he did exhibit some sort of loyalty to them at some point. But once it became known that there was a “bigger bully on the playground” (aka Voldemort and the Death Eaters), I believe this is where Peter’s loyalties would have begun to waver.

I agree. what if he gets a person more powerful and ruthless than LV, is he brave enough to leave him? I wonder... I mean, after LV was vanquished, all he did was to hide from world, instead of trying to go back to good or to any one "powerful"

Ithink we can say that he goes after power and is loyal to whatever and whoever is with the power, or in short he is loyal to whom he needs the most.

I think I’ve said this a couple times, but Peter seems to have a fixation with being on whichever “side” is most dominant/superior or whichever “side” will be the winning one. As Peter tells us in the Shrieking Shack, Voldemort was taking over everywhere, demonstrating his superiority and dominance over the wizarding world at the time. This is part of what must have attracted Peter to join Voldemort. As he says, “what was there to lose by joining him?” To Peter, Voldemort would have represented the ultimate force to reckon with, the ultimate power whose followers were guaranteed a place of superiority.
Exactly. I wonder, are such people happy? How can they be, if they are slaves to someone so that they can serve their purposes? And the way LV treats him like a dog... how does he bear it? How can any person who has some free will bear it? I wonder if he ever noticed that he was happier with marauders....

I don’t know if I’m explaining this adequately or if I’m just rambling now.
Not at all....


1. He is first above all else loyal to preserving what is in his own best interests, it doesn't matter who he has to betray along the way, he doesn't care, as long as it helps him, not an admirable quality, to add some commentary.

2. He is then loyal to whomever he is serving/"friends" with, as long as it doesn't come to leaving said person for someone more powerful he is loyal to them, he will do whatever else the person says.
Well said :tu:. slave to his own desires....

I think that Peter Pettigrew is meant to show what a lack of morality can do to a person. I believe that J.K. is showing us that loyalty without morality is worthless because inherent within loyalty is certain type of greed and/or reason for that loyalty. With morality that inherent greed/reason for the loyalty is cancelled/removed but when the person lacks morality it comes to the fore. J.K. has said that the courage to stand up to a person's friends is one of the most important thing a person can have but the reason that you stand up to your friends most be based on your morality. With Peter there are no morals behind his "standing up" to his friends so the action becomes wrong (and traitorous).

Pettigrew seems perfectly happy with Voldemort's assertion that there's no right or wrong, only power. Although I don't actually think 'happy' comes into the equation. Again, I think Jaguarundi's hit it: Pettigrew exemplifies a lack of morals. He's not a happy person, and being with Voldemort doesn't exactly entail any happiness, per se. Those who join Voldemort do so in order to inflict pain on others; there's sadistic enjoyment in that, but not true happiness/joy. The other three Marauders, whatever mistakes they may have made in their lives, demonstrate a capacity for genuine joy/happiness--even James, whose appearances in the books are so limited: at least we have the photographs that show simple happiness.

Pettigrew's amorality enables him to enjoy what Voldemort does, even if it means that he is treated badly, even made to suffer physically. In Pettigrew's twisted world, that's okay: that's how it's supposed to go. The more powerful abuse the less powerful. You just try to get more power, or associate yourself with someone who has more power, and then you can either be abusive or you may be somewhat protected from abuse (if the more powerful person deigns to protect you--you don't automatically 'deserve' protection). There's no reason for Pettigrew to leave Voldemort; there's not even any reason for that thought to break into the corners of his consciousness.

In stark contrast is Snape's decision to leave Voldemort at the height of Voldemort's power--when looked at in terms of Pettigrew's behavior, a considerable declaration of morality. While Snape is verbally abusive in the classroom, misusing that power, he is protective, when the time comes for action, and deserving has nothing to do with it [the film PoA hammered this point home, with Snape's placing himself, without any hesitation, between the Trio and the werewolf--not just with that visual, but the context of the act in the film].

The first time I read this I wondered what Muggle borns could possibly become Death Eaters, or what Death Eaters could be Muggle born, and I really couldn't come up with any ideas until now.

So my question is that is it possible that Pettigrew is one of these "rare" people whom are Death Eaters even though they're Muggle born?That's my suspicion. The rare circumstance being that Voldemort needed Peter as a spy within the Order.On a sidenote, I took that test that you all had in the last thread and I'm an ENFJ.This seems like another perfect opportunity to plug my personality type thread for all the new posters here! :)

In this thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=45812), I'm trying to correlate Myer-Briggs personality types with favorite characters from the series. Please consider participating! :)So in summation, he is loyal to others to a point, that point is when he needs to flee to someone more powerful, but other than that he's loyal. Does that make him loyal though? I don't know it depends, if you mean loyal forever, then no, because he'll most likely eventually betray them, but if you mean loyal as in specific time intervals, then for most of the time he is.I don't think being "loyal in specific time intervals" is consistent with the idea of loyalty at all. It would be different if his viewpoint changed and that's why he switched loyalties. For example, if he heard Voldemort speak at a Death Eater rally and thought to himself, "Wow, that Voldemort really knows what he's talking about," he might have been loyal to the Order, but switch his loyalty to Voldemort based on a change in ideology. However, I don't think any such thing happened. Peter's ideology is and always was that his survival is the most important thing; therefore, his loyalty is and always was to himself and no other.

I tried to think of examples of loyalty from the series. The only time I can think of when it's specifically mentioned is when Dumbledore says to Harry: "First of all, Harry, I want to thank you," said Dumbledore, eyes twinkling again. "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you." What Harry did was to stand up for his idea of Dumbledore to Riddle by telling Riddle that Dumbledore was the greatest wizard, not Riddle, and that Dumbledore was not gone from the castle. It doesn't matter whether or not it was true; the important thing is that Harry stood up for Dumbledore and what he believed. Peter has never done any such thing. The best counter-example for Peter is in the Shrieking Shack. He doesn't stand up for Voldemort in front of Sirius and Lupin--he shows no loyalty to Voldemort. He will say anything to save himself and, so, he does.

You’re right that Peter’s loyalty isn’t absolute and that it’s confusing to explain the extent of his loyalty. Perhaps we could say that Peter exhibits a form of transient loyalty to whichever group he is with at the moment. With the Marauders, he wouldn’t have known of any other “bigger and better” group that existed out there that he could aspire to joining. So I do believe he did exhibit some sort of loyalty to them at some point. But once it became known that there was a “bigger bully on the playground” (aka Voldemort and the Death Eaters), I believe this is where Peter’s loyalties would have begun to waver. So in other words, Peter would have been loyal in the traditional sense of the word to the Marauders until he heard about someone more powerful than them.
Exactly, thanks for explaining it better, I was having trouble saying it right. :)

I think I’ve said this a couple times, but Peter seems to have a fixation with being on whichever “side” is most dominant/superior or whichever “side” will be the winning one. As Peter tells us in the Shrieking Shack, Voldemort was taking over everywhere, demonstrating his superiority and dominance over the wizarding world at the time. This is part of what must have attracted Peter to join Voldemort. As he says, “what was there to lose by joining him?” To Peter, Voldemort would have represented the ultimate force to reckon with, the ultimate power whose followers were guaranteed a place of superiority. Thus, being the self-serving person that he was, Peter would have been allured to pledge his allegiance and loyalty to someone who was bigger and better than the Marauders. This is why I’d call Peter’s loyalty transient, though I don’t know if Peter sees it as such: while he is involved with one group, he will exhibit loyalty to them ONLY until another “bigger and better” group comes along
What confuses me about Peter is that it doesn't seem that he necessarily wants power, more that he just wants to be with those who have power, so that he can be protected, although with Voldemort he's never really protected because as easily as Peter is willing to betray, Voldemort will always be quicker to betray, it makes me wonder what will happen to Pettigrew later on.

Pettigrew seems perfectly happy with Voldemort's assertion that there's no right or wrong, only power. Although I don't actually think 'happy' comes into the equation. Again, I think Jaguarundi's hit it: Pettigrew exemplifies a lack of morals. He's not a happy person, and being with Voldemort doesn't exactly entail any happiness, per se. Those who join Voldemort do so in order to inflict pain on others; there's sadistic enjoyment in that, but not true happiness/joy. The other three Marauders, whatever mistakes they may have made in their lives, demonstrate a capacity for genuine joy/happiness--even James, whose appearances in the books are so limited: at least we have the photographs that show simple happiness.
This makes me wonder, does Pettigrew actually believe in what Voldemort wants? Is he really against Muggle borns and such or just greatly lacking in morals so much that he is willing to betray all that he thinks is right or wrong just to be near someone in power?

That's my suspicion. The rare circumstance being that Voldemort needed Peter as a spy within the Order.
That's what I was thinking, because it would have to be a very significant reason that Voldemort would allow a Muggle born into the Death Eaters, and if it were to get someone to spy on the Order, I think that would be a reason that he may have allowed it.

I don't think being "loyal in specific time intervals" is consistent with the idea of loyalty at all. It would be different if his viewpoint changed and that's why he switched loyalties. For example, if he heard Voldemort speak at a Death Eater rally and thought to himself, "Wow, that Voldemort really knows what he's talking about," he might have been loyal to the Order, but switch his loyalty to Voldemort based on a change in ideology. However, I don't think any such thing happened. Peter's ideology is and always was that his survival is the most important thing; therefore, his loyalty is and always was to himself and no other.
You're right, thinking it over and reading your post I completely agree, I had been wavering between the two options of some loyalty to others and only loyalty to himself.

I don't think Pettigrew has any sense of right or wrong--he seems to have a glimmer of an idea that others do; ie, he gets the idea that Sirius and Lupin are angry at him in PoA. However, he doesn't really get why they're angry; Pettigrew genuinely doesn't get why anyone wouldn't have done what he did--hence his whining about there being no reason to resist Voldemort. Pettigrew is a totally amoral character; he should be best buds with Voldemort--neither of them care anything for a single other person in the world; all they care about are themselves.

As for the doctrine behind Voldemort's plans--pure-bloodedness and anti-Muggle...I can't imagine Pettigrew caring in the slightest about the politics (except as it may affect him--because I also believe that Pettigrew may very well be the only Muggle-born DE). He would just enjoy the torture, as he enjoyed the tormenting of Snape in SWM; that would be Pettigrew's reward and entertainment. That's the power he likes, I think: seeing others suffer and knowing that he himself is not suffering. Ick.

Chiev: I posted on your Personalities Thread. :tu: What an interesting topic that is!

I think that Peter Pettigrew is meant to show what a lack of morality can do to a person. I believe that J.K. is showing us that loyalty without morality is worthless because inherent within loyalty is certain type of greed and/or reason for that loyalty. With morality that inherent greed/reason for the loyalty is cancelled/removed but when the person lacks morality it comes to the fore. J.K. has said that the courage to stand up to a person's friends is one of the most important thing a person can have but the reason that you stand up to your friends most be based on your morality. With Peter there are no morals behind his "standing up" to his friends so the action becomes wrong (and traitorous).

In stark contrast is Snape's decision to leave Voldemort at the height of Voldemort's power--when looked at in terms of Pettigrew's behavior, a considerable declaration of morality. While Snape is verbally abusive in the classroom, misusing that power, he is protective, when the time comes for action, and deserving has nothing to do with it [the film PoA hammered this point home, with Snape's placing himself, without any hesitation, between the Trio and the werewolf--not just with that visual, but the context of the act in the film].

I think loyalty is a difficult concept to explain. Through the ages, dogs have been seen as the symbol of "Fidelity" and that is probably why Sirius, who embodies that trait, missed the fact that Peter could become disloyal to James and Lily. He can't seem to fathom Peter's actions.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1385191/posts

There is hardly a virtue more noble than loyalty. Consider the cluster of words in our language that denote this trait. Faithfulness and fidelity imply adherence to one's vows or obligations -- the fulfillment of duty and the keeping of promises. Allegiance means that one has been true to an authority to which he is subject. Fealty, an older word, once referred to the obligation of a vassal to a feudal lord, but now means faithfulness to a law or principle that one has pledged to uphold. And the word loyalty itself gives us the picture of a person who has such a steadfast and devoted attachment to something that he or she is not easily turned aside.
Loyalty isn't supposed to change just because the circumstances change. Harry remains loyal to the Gryffindor Quidditch team whether they win or lose. Peter is saying he will only play for the winning team - he has loyalty only so long as his "team" is winning.

I found some nice quotes that describe this:

Loyalty is still the same, whether it win or lose the game; true as a dial to the sun, although it be not shined upon.
Samuel Butler

"Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect."
— Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher (121-180 A.D.)

To me, real loyalty is "steadfastness" or being "true":

stead
O.E. stede "place, position, standing, delay," related to standan "to stand," from P.Gmc. *stadiz (cf. O.S. stedi, O.N. staðr, Swed. stad, Du. stede "place," O.H.G. stat, Ger. Stadt "town," Goth. staþs "place"), from PIE *stetis-, from base *ste-/*sta- "to stand" (see stet). Now chiefly in compounds or phrases. Steadfast is from O.E. stedefæst "secure in position," from stede + fæst "firmly fixed" (see fast).

true
O.E. triewe (W.Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy," from P.Gmc. *trewwjaz "having or characterized by good faith" (cf. O.Fris. triuwi, Du. getrouw, O.H.G. gatriuwu, Ger. treu, O.N. tryggr, Goth. triggws "faithful, trusty"), perhaps ultimately from PIE *dru- "tree," on the notion of "steadfast as an oak." Cf., from same root, Lith. drutas "firm," Welsh drud, O.Ir. dron "strong," Welsh derw "true," O.Ir. derb "sure." Sense of "consistent with fact" first recorded c.1205; that of "real, genuine, not counterfeit" is from 1398; that of "agreeing with a certain standard" (as true north) is from c.1550. Of artifacts, "accurately fitted or shaped" it is recorded from 1474; the verb in this sense is from 1841. Truism "self-evident truth" is from 1708, first attested in writings of Swift. True-love (adj.) is recorded from 1495; true-born first attested 1591. True-false as a type of test question is recorded from 1923.

Just as an oak tree stays fixed in one place, a persons morals can't change to fit the situation. That is Peter's flaw - he changes his loyalty depending on the conditions. He seems to have no conscience about it, either, since as Subtle pointed out, he spied on the Order - all of the Order - for a year before he betrayed the Potters.

Peter swore to protect the Potters, even though he was already on the other side. His oath meant nothing, because he had no morals to back it up. He was like a mercenary who fights on either side of a war, and sometimes both sides, depending on what he receives in return.

"Loyalty oaths increase the number of liars."
— Noel Peattie

Finally, to me, Peter seems to have no "faith" in the Order or in friendship, and that shows his lack of real courage. Real courage means to have faith in an outcome even when the odds are against you - and Peter thinks the odds are with Voldemort. To me, his sadistic attachment to Voldemort, though bold, isn't really courage.

"A man of courage is also full of faith."
~ Cicero (106-43 BC)

He has no faith that anything good will happen to him, and maybe nothing ever could in regular society since he seems so sadistic. But it is sad that he is so negative to believe that only Voldemort's power can win. And he was wrong, wasn't he? Voldemort was vanquished for 12 years, and in that time, if Peter had remained loyal, he could have had a family, a career, a meaningful existence. Instead, he chose to live as a rat, in hiding and fear of his life.

Of course, if the Potter's hadn't died, then Voldemort might not have been vanquished, so you can get into the debate that Peter's bad choice played a role in the fate of everyone. But it was still the wrong choice.

Hi, I agree that Peter is an example of someone without a moral compass, an opportunist. He seems not to be loyal to any idea or to a person, except to himself, his survival, and ... hopefully his life debt to Harry, where he may have no choice. It is difficult for me to understand someone who would choose to live 12 (?) years as a rat. When that was no longer possible, however, he went back to the biggest bully because his former pack were on to him.

Certainly, Peter was not loyal to his friends. But I wouldn't overestimate the value of loyalty. The Lestranges are famously loyal to Voldemort, for example, and seemingly without opportunistic motive. And perhaps it was loyalty to James and Sirius as much as fear of ostracism that lead Lupin to remain silent in Snape's Worst Memory.

Hope this makes sense: first post. This thread is tremendously thought-provoking.

Welcome, ArsTempus!

While Voldemort makes a good deal of noise about loyalty in GoF, I don't think the concept really applies to any of his followers. In fact, I don't think Voldemort himself has any particular understanding of the term. He has followers because they are sadistic, power-hungry bigots (or some combination of these qualities)--there doesn't seem to be much else to attract one to the group. If one gets in, having a false or incomplete idea of what it's all about, it's more than a little difficult to get out again. Voldemort enforces his brand of loyalty through fear and pain--his followers obey in order to avoid those punishments and in order to enjoy the reward what they like to do: inflict suffering.

Bellatrix (it's difficult to speak to her husband, since we see little of him--however, I'm sure it's a match made in h***) seems thoroughly psychotic: she's having the time of her life. However, what 'loyalty' she has to Voldemort consists of enjoying the sick opportunities he provides her and relishing the application of his power. Were Voldemort to shows signs of weakness--meaning maybe getting a little soft-hearted about Mudbloods, I've no doubt she'd turn on him in heartbeat.

In contrast, there's Dumbledore, whose enforcing of loyalty consists only of putting a Fidelus Charm on 12 GP. Other than that--he makes no demands of anybody who follows him. They do so of their own free wills: they can remain faithful or betray him--their choice. Therefore, Dumbledore is the recipient of true loyalty: he is loved and respected; there may be awe, but there's no reason to be afraid of him. He doesn't keep you in line by causing excruciating pain. The only pain that one of his followers might feel is guilt, as Lupin expresses in his confession at the end of PoA, over having disappointed Dumbledore. He's not going to exact payback, though.

It's that mentality that is beyond Voldemort and Pettigrew--in their view, there has to be payback; it's all a matter of debts and payments, in a system based on a very sick pain/pleasure principle.

I agree with the greater meaning of what you said, subtle; however, just to be a stickler ( ;) ), I'd say that Peter has a sense of right and wrong, but not within the context of society. He is at a pre-conventional level of moral development. His only sense of right and wrong are what's right and wrong for him--thoughts of others don't occur to him.

"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, with a terrible fury in his face. "Only innocent lives, Peter!"

"You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have killed me, Sirius!"

"THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!" roared Black. "DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!"

Black and Lupin stood shoulder to shoulder, wands raised.

"You should have realized," said Lupin quietly, "if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would. . ." (PoA, AmHC, p. 374-375)

Peter truly doesn't understand where Sirius is coming from. He reasons that avoiding his own death is the ultimate good--the lives of other innocents* matter not at all, as demonstrated by his response to Sirius.

Whether or not Sirius and Lupin understand Peter, now, I'm not certain. It would make sense if they did understand the line of reasoning Peter was using to make his decisions, since they would be at a higher level of moral reasoning; also Sirius's comments about not seeing Peter for what he was earlier supports that he understands Peter's level of moral reasoning.

I included Lupin's line because I think it's interesting. Is Lupin giving Peter a reason for killing him that is on Peter's level, rather than on his own level? Peter would not understand why he must be killed to protect society, so Lupin phrases it as revenge (something Peter will understand at his level of moral reasoning)? Just a thought. . .

*I don't mean to imply that Peter is an innocent.Chiev: I posted on your Personalities Thread. :tu: What an interesting topic that is!Thank you! I'll definitely post a compilation when I get enough responses. It's very slow-going, though.I think loyalty is a difficult concept to explain. Through the ages, dogs have been seen as the symbol of "Fidelity" and that is probably why Sirius, who embodies that trait, missed the fact that Peter could become disloyal to James and Lily. He can't seem to fathom Peter's actions.I think Sirius's greatest trait is loyalty and that is why he's a dog animagus, but I he must be able to consider disloyalty as a possibility--he believed Lupin to be a spy, didn't he? I wonder why he suspected Lupin, but not Peter? Even if it was Peter sowing the seeds of distrust, it seems like he should have known both of them well enough to correctly predict who the traitor would be. Unless, as we have discussed before, Sirius didn't give Peter enough credit to think he would become a successful spy.Of course, if the Potter's hadn't died, then Voldemort might not have been vanquished, so you can get into the debate that Peter's bad choice played a role in the fate of everyone. But it was still the wrong choice.I agree with this. Peter's betrayal began the process for Harry to destroy Voldemort, but his actions are no less evil because of it.

Welcome, ArsTempus!! :)Certainly, Peter was not loyal to his friends. But I wouldn't overestimate the value of loyalty. The Lestranges are famously loyal to Voldemort, for example, and seemingly without opportunistic motive.This is a good point and highlights my opinion of the various Hogwarts houses. There are no traits that are inherently good or bad; therefore none of the houses should be considered good or bad. Any of the traits (cunning-Slytherin, bravery-Gryffindor, loyalty-Hufflepuff, ?intelligence-Ravenclaw) can be used for good or for evil. Although loyalty is often admirable, it can be misplaced.

Bellatrix (it's difficult to speak to her husband, since we see little of him--however, I'm sure it's a match made in h***) seems thoroughly psychotic: she's having the time of her life. However, what 'loyalty' she has to Voldemort consists of enjoying the sick opportunities he provides her and relishing the application of his power. Were Voldemort to shows signs of weakness--meaning maybe getting a little soft-hearted about Mudbloods, I've no doubt she'd turn on him in heartbeat.
I actually think the the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr. are/were loyal to Voldemort. They are actually a good contrast to Peter. As I said before, Peter shows no loyalty to Voldemort in the Shrieking Shack. Bellatrix, however, shows loyalty to Voldemort in the court scene where she is sentenced to Azkaban and, clearly, she was willing to go to Azkaban to remain loyal to Voldemort, even though Voldemort may have been dead. This also is in contrast to Lucius Malfoy, who is not particularly loyal. I think Lucius is the type of Death Eater you were describing in your post.

I actually think the the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr. are/were loyal to Voldemort. They are actually a good contrast to Peter. As I said before, Peter shows no loyalty to Voldemort in the Shrieking Shack. Bellatrix, however, shows loyalty to Voldemort in the court scene where she is sentenced to Azkaban and, clearly, she was willing to go to Azkaban to remain loyal to Voldemort, even though Voldemort may have been dead. This also is in contrast to Lucius Malfoy, who is not particularly loyal. I think Lucius is the type of Death Eater you were describing in your post.
I think that Bellatrix is very loyal to Voldemort as well, she could have denied him like everyone else did, but instead she went to Azkaban rather than admit that she wasn't a Death Eater, I believe that this shows a lot of devotion, a little weird devotion, but devotion to Voldemort none-the-less.

Something I just thought of, I really think that Pettigrew has an intense fear of death, other than the normal fears. He obviously doesn't have a high standard of living, he lives his whole life to serve others, and spent around 12 years as a rat. To me neither of those would make me very happy, but Pettigrew is not only fine with it, but embraces the fact that he serves others, he makes no move to leave the people he's serving and go start a new life on his own, because that means the possibility of having to face those in power, if they are evil, like Voldemort and the Death Eaters.

I actually think the the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr. are/were loyal to Voldemort. They are actually a good contrast to Peter. As I said before, Peter shows no loyalty to Voldemort in the Shrieking Shack. Bellatrix, however, shows loyalty to Voldemort in the court scene where she is sentenced to Azkaban and, clearly, she was willing to go to Azkaban to remain loyal to Voldemort, even though Voldemort may have been dead. This also is in contrast to Lucius Malfoy, who is not particularly loyal. I think Lucius is the type of Death Eater you were describing in your post.
Peter is clearly not particularly loyal to anyone - least of all his oldest friends James, Sirius and Remus. He doesn't even seem to act in his own best interest. He is a weak man, motivated by fear and self-preservation. In a way it's surprising that he is still alive. IMO Voldemort hasn't killed him, not because of his loyalty, but because he has been (and perhaps still is) useful to Voldemort.

Lucius on the other hand appears to be motivated by self-interest. I think that deep down he is loyal to Voldemort, but that he thought it in his best interest to try to distance himself from Voldemort after his disappearance post Halloween 1981. Unlike Peter, he doesn't appear to have acted, or tried to act against, Voldemort in any way.

When I refered to Pettigrew as powerful, I was referencing the fact that he apparently blew up a city street and 12 muggles when he was framing Sirius.

Pettigrew's overwhelming desire seems to be self-preservation (with a good dose of sadism). When he describes his reasoning for betraying the Order (and his friends), it is "he was taking over everywhere" and his entire dialogue in the Shrieking Shack was an attempt to garner enough sympathy to affect an escape. He spent years as a rat (in a comfortable position, as all his needs were met) for fear of any DE's who knew that he was the source of the information which led to Voldemort's downfall. His return to Voldemort was due to his fear of his former friends and the attention of the dementors. He is now trapped by his choices, which is fitting, but even in the service of Voldemort I think that we can safely assume that Pettigrew will always do what is in Pettigrew's best interest.

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking for a while: if Pettigrew owes Harry a life debt, why didn't he attempt to help Harry in the cemetery in GoF? (I know I've brought this up before, but I'm hoping one of the new posters will have some new insight)

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking for a while: if Pettigrew owes Harry a life debt, why didn't he attempt to help Harry in the cemetery in GoF? (I know I've brought this up before, but I'm hoping one of the new posters will have some new insight)
At the start of GoF he did suggest to Voldemort that he use someone other than Harry. I think that Peter knew that if he tried to help Harry in the graveyard then Voldemort would have killed him. In a choice between helping Voldemort or helping Harry, a weak person like Peter would choose the (seemingly) more powerful person.

A further point on Peter's 'loyalty' to Voldemort, I believe that Voldemort does know that he isn't really loyal but that, at present, is serves him to have Peter alive rather than dead. I think that Voldemort is probably right when he says to Peter 'your devotion is nothing more than cowardice'.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
I think Sirius's greatest trait is loyalty and that is why he's a dog animagus, but I he must be able to consider disloyalty as a possibility--he believed Lupin to be a spy, didn't he? I wonder why he suspected Lupin, but not Peter? Even if it was Peter sowing the seeds of distrust, it seems like he should have known both of them well enough to correctly predict who the traitor would be. Unless, as we have discussed before, Sirius didn't give Peter enough credit to think he would become a successful spy.
It could be that Peter manipulated the situations to make it appear to other members of the Order (mainly Sirius) that Lupin was the spy. He had a year before Godric's Hollow to taint the relationship.

Quote from FireInTheSky:
Something I just thought of, I really think that Pettigrew has an intense fear of death, other than the normal fears. He obviously doesn't have a high standard of living, he lives his whole life to serve others, and spent around 12 years as a rat. To me neither of those would make me very happy, but Pettigrew is not only fine with it, but embraces the fact that he serves others, he makes no move to leave the people he's serving and go start a new life on his own, because that means the possibility of having to face those in power, if they are evil, like Voldemort and the Death Eaters.
I still have trouble picturing 12 years as a rat. It could be that in Voldemort Peter meet his match. Someone who was as morally deprived, more talented, and far more driven then Peter…someone could look Peter in the eye and understand him.

Pettigrew seems perfectly happy with Voldemort's assertion that there's no right or wrong, only power. Although I don't actually think 'happy' comes into the equation.You're right, Peter does appear to lack any (at least permanent) sense of right and wrong. I hate to bring up Kolhberg again, but Peter actually exhibits evidence of level 1 reasoning, particularly in "deference to power". As you said, Peter does what Voldemort asks of him, even when if involves cutting off his own hand. He is "happy" (not in the sense of being content, but in the sense that he is perfectly willing) to follow Voldemort's orders. This is probably because he feels it's Voldemort's prerogative as a power person to order him around and abuse him if he so chooses, but also because following orders would be an avoidance of punishment if he disobeyed (level 1), and perhaps because he sees something in it for him (level 2, marketplace exchange). Furthermore, I think this shows evidence that Peter believes that "the immediate physical consequences of an action determine its goodness or badness." Any act that obeys Voldemort is good because it would avoid the physical consequences that would most likely ensue if he disobeyed. He is "simply carrying out orders" from his superior, and this makes his actions right.

This makes me wonder, does Pettigrew actually believe in what Voldemort wants? Is he really against Muggle borns and such or just greatly lacking in morals so much that he is willing to betray all that he thinks is right or wrong just to be near someone in power?I'd have to say no- Peter is probably not betraying his friends on principle (ie because he feels that they have it wrong and Voldemort has it right). I believe he is self-serving enough to follow Voldemort because he's the most powerful person around, and I think he'd do anything to maintain his position as Voldemort's lackey.

Which brings me back to the question I've been asking for a while: if Pettigrew owes Harry a life debt, why didn't he attempt to help Harry in the cemetery in GoF? (I know I've brought this up before, but I'm hoping one of the new posters will have some new insight)That's an interesting question. Perhaps fulfilling the life debt requires that the person save the other person's life in a time when s/he is in mortal peril. For instance, it's possible that Peter can only repay the debt (by obligation/magical contract or by free will) if Harry is in a situation that he would die without Peter's intervention. This may be far-fetched, but it's the only idea that's coming to me at the moment.

Edit: what exiguusmus says about Peter not wanting to disobey Voldemort makes a whole lot more sense than what I wrote here. :blush:

I included Lupin's line because I think it's interesting. Is Lupin giving Peter a reason for killing him that is on Peter's level, rather than on his own level? Peter would not understand why he must be killed to protect society, so Lupin phrases it as revenge (something Peter will understand at his level of moral reasoning)? Just a thought. . .:tu: That's something I'd never considered. I'm not yet sure what it would mean...I have to think about it more. Good thought, Chiev. :)

At the start of GoF he did suggest to Voldemort that he use someone other than Harry. I think that Peter knew that if he tried to help Harry in the graveyard then Voldemort would have killed him. In a choice between helping Voldemort or helping Harry, a weak person like Peter would choose the (seemingly) more powerful person.
This tends to be my thoughts as well. So, where does that leave the whole wizard life-debt thing? I mean, is the debt only valid if the wizard is honorable enough to repay it? Is there really any value in that debt? Could Dumbledore be wrong (gasp!) about Harry benefitting from saving Pettigrew? (Other than morally, of course). Is there something I'm missing?

Hi, I agree that Peter is an example of someone without a moral compass, an opportunist. He seems not to be loyal to any idea or to a person, except to himself, his survival, and ... hopefully his life debt to Harry, where he may have no choice. It is difficult for me to understand someone who would choose to live 12 (?) years as a rat. When that was no longer possible, however, he went back to the biggest bully because his former pack were on to him.

Certainly, Peter was not loyal to his friends. But I wouldn't overestimate the value of loyalty. The Lestranges are famously loyal to Voldemort, for example, and seemingly without opportunistic motive. And perhaps it was loyalty to James and Sirius as much as fear of ostracism that lead Lupin to remain silent in Snape's Worst Memory.

Hope this makes sense: first post. This thread is tremendously thought-provoking.

Hi, ArsTempus! Welcome to the Forum!

http://bestsmileys.com/welcome/18.gif

Yes, you are absolutely right about loyalty. A person can be loyal to an evil ideology and fight to the death to defend it ~ for instance, the Nazis inspired this kind of loyalty. I would just remind you that in GoF, when Harry sees the trial of the LeStranges, Bella mentions in her statement the "reward" she hopes to get for being loyal.

"The woman with the heavy-lidded eyes looked up at Crouch and called, "The Dark Lord will rise again, Crouch! throw us into Azkaban; we will wait! He will rise again and will come for us, he will reward us beyond any of his other supporters! We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!"

It seems to me that this indicates a system of rewards and punishment that Voldemort uses to "control" the loyalty of his followers. They aren't following him out of love and care, or out of respect. They are following him due to an ideology of racism, but they hope to have "rewards," and when they fail, they are aware they might be punished.

Compare that to Dumbledore who has no such system, who expects people to just do their best, who helps people but doesn't punish them when they fail or when they disagree with him. He also doesn't dangle the idea of some future reward, or remind them of who is loyal and who isn't. It's really a sign of JKR's careful thinking as a writer that Dumbledore never comes across as a leader who orders people around. He "gives them jobs" and they accept his leadership, but there is no gain beyond safety and a better society, which is its own reward.

(Reading back, I think I'm just repeating what Subtle Science said about Dumbledore, but I'll just leave it as a nod to what she said! :tu: )

RemusLupinFan: Kohlberg aside, I don't think I'll ever understand Peter's willingness to cut off his own body parts. How can he have self-preservation, as some believe, and yet want to bleed all over the cemetary. :huh: I'm not trying to be funny (even though I'm chuckling myself), but really - unless Peter is on major drugs, how could he do that? I'm asking this rhetorically, and I don't expect anyone to answer it, because I hope we are all so far removed from Peter that we can't understand self-mutilation as a form of loyalty.

Kohlberg aside, I don't think I'll ever understand Peter's willingness to cut off his own body parts. How can he have self-preservation, as some believe, and yet want to bleed all over the cemetary. I'm not trying to be funny (even though I'm chuckling myself), but really - unless Peter is on major drugs, how could he do that? I'm asking this rhetorically, and I don't expect anyone to answer it, because I hope we are all so far removed from Peter that we can't understand self-mutilation as a form of loyalty.
This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll take a whack at it. What are Pettigrew's chances for survival if he doesn't do what Voldemort wants. He can't understand the idea of forgiveness (I don't think), and he wouldn't expect forgiveness for his actions to the Order (or get them without being truly repentant), besides the fact that he was promised a more powerful (was it powerful?) replacement (reward). Pettigrew had little to lose and everything to gain by giving his right hand in Voldemort's service.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll take a whack at it. What are Pettigrew's chances for survival if he doesn't do what Voldemort wants. He can't understand the idea of forgiveness (I don't think), and he wouldn't expect forgiveness for his actions to the Order (or get them without being truly repentant), besides the fact that he was promised a more powerful (was it powerful?) replacement (reward). Pettigrew had little to lose and everything to gain by giving his right hand in Voldemort's service.


Thanks for welcomes. I am trying to figure out quoting ...

I think it is interesting that Peter, though unassuming, might really be quite a powerful wizard: he is an animagus; he can destroy a whole block; he takes it upon himself unbidden to bring Bertha Jorkins to Voldemort; he swallows his disgust to milk Nagini for Voldemort’s life-sustaining potion; he can perform a complex regeneration ritual though in dire pain and apparent fear. This all leads to something more than a wizard in thrall to or in terror of another, to someone who seems fairly calculating and ...brave? He lets Voldemort belittle him by questioning his abilities and his loyalty, lets him call him Wormtail. He sacrifices his right hand without too much fuss to the Dark Lord. What does he gain in return? A shiny new hand?

Looking at his relationship with the Marauders, all we see is his enthusiastic support for their activities. What did he gain in return? I wonder if it was all reflected glory. I wonder if he downplays his abilities quite a bit, with a larger, long-term goal in mind.

It also seems that, as a rat communing with other rats or at least getting information from them, why return to human form at all to serve Voldemort? Surely he could have lost himself on a wharf somewhere, never to be found by Lupin or Sirius (who didn't seem to even be looking for him). So, unless he is a simple bad guy or survival is all he wants, it will be interesting to see what he is looking for in terms of a reward.

In any event, looking at his animagus, rats are highly capable animals, able to survive in many harsh environments, perhaps capable of chewing off a leg to escape a trap. Not speaking for Peter here, but friends tell me domestic rats are actually fairly delightful creatures. (Other people feed them to snakes.)

clkginny: I think you're right that Peter has to do what Voldemort tells him or he knows he won't stay alive.

Peter is someone who's never had power or strength from within. He's only aligned himself with powerful people. So now he has the "hand" of power that belongs expressly to him, because of the things he's done - killing Cedric, taking Harry's blood, helping Voldemort return. Having something to make himself "special" or "unique" is so important to him that in the Graveyard in GoF he goes from horrible anguish to thankful "awe" at the sight of his new hand.

Again, we need more information about Peter's young life in order to understand the forces that made him this way. But JKR has to be making some comment on the other Marauders by giving them a friend as strange as Peter.

We have McGonagall's description of him as terrible at dueling, and her statement that she was often hard on him - that is what makes Harry think that Peter was like Neville Longbottom. But from what we know of Neville, he isn't anything like Peter, really - he's kindly, is never sadistic, and he stands up to his friends when he believes they are breaking too many rules.

I think a parallel to Peter would more likely be Crabbe, who is terrible at alot of subjects, especially Potions, and who often stands by and "s*******" when Malfoy makes fun of Harry, Hermione, Neville, or Ron.

We have McGonagall's description of him as terrible at dueling, and her statement that she was often hard on him - that is what makes Harry think that Peter was like Neville Longbottom. But from what we know of Neville, he isn't anything like Peter, really - he's kindly, is never sadistic, and he stands up to his friends when he believes they are breaking too many rules.

And quite selfless. But maybe the good side of peter is similar to neville. But that may be a complete mistake on Harry's part.
I think a parallel to Peter would more likely be Crabbe, who is terrible at alot of subjects, especially Potions, and who often stands by and "s*******" when Malfoy makes fun of Harry, Hermione, Neville, or Ron.

Hmm... so, are crabbe and neville similar, if you exclude the bad qualities? I doubt it though... just speculating.

Talking about the friendship between the other marauders and peter, I too don't know. But one thing that is seen commonly, or atleast seen where I live, is that a gang of popular people always have one or two meek ones. Opposite poles attract, after all....

And then, LV's reactions. Voldemort doesn't care. For him peter is a mere pawn, and I doubt he would even think of repaying peter for what he did. His reaction would be more like peter had to do it. So when he finds peter useless or when he gets angry, I can't see peter getting the time to beg for forgiveness. Maybe this is too strong, but thats what comes to my mind :).

Does LV have any sense of honour? what do you think?

At last I've caught up again on all your posts and thoughts… This thread really moves quickly; it's rather hard to keep up!

Anyway:


But JKR has to be making some comment on the other Marauders by giving them a friend as strange as Peter.


I've been pondering on this as well. Did he sneek into the group once he felt that they had some power on the playground or was he with them freom the start? The first option seems to be more plausible when comparing to his character.
However, he might also have developed his lust of belonging to the powerful side by belonging to this gang. He felt what it was like to be on the "right" side of power and got so used to it that I he didn't want to belong to an "inferior" party. Perhaps he once was the victim of bullying before his Marauder days and deifinitely wanted to leave this experience behind. Snape is an excellent example for a character who developed from being the victim to one which can have power over others. It is obvious that Peter didn't choose the development Snape made, but he might have also had a major development along these lines.

I was also wandering when and how he actually turned from the Order to LV. Did he think that the Order was loosing ground or was he cornered in and demanded to join the dark ranks as LV tried to do with the Potters?

Bellatrix, I think, appears 'loyal' because--well--she's crazy. She still adheres to the reward/punishment system; she just doesn't get much punishment because she wholeheartedly loves what Voldemort does. Therefore, she can't accept his downfall--she goes out looking for information to lead to him; if Voldemort actually died, she'd lose her outlet for all the 'fun' she has. Malfoy stands backa nd tried to blend back into wizarding society because, while loathsome, he's sane....

Pettigrew is opportunistic. I think he figured out rather quickly at Hogwarts who was going to be top dog and attached himself to the Marauders. He must've presented himself as harmless and weak, in need of protection and support, a bit bumbling--yes, pretty much like Neville. However, unlike Neville, there was no good person inside. I get the uneasy feeling that Pettigrew bolstered his belonging to the Marauders by stroking James' ego.

As for his power...I think Pettigrew's real power is his chameleon ability. While he was able to become an Animagus, blow up the street, and make the resurrection potion--these are all things someone else could've or did tell him how to do. He follows instructions well. He's cunning--and cunning enough to know how to hide his true nature in order to maintain the position he wants.

Pettigrew is opportunistic. I think he figured out rather quickly at Hogwarts who was going to be top dog and attached himself to the Marauders. He must've presented himself as harmless and weak, in need of protection and support, a bit bumbling--yes, pretty much like Neville. However, unlike Neville, there was no good person inside. I get the uneasy feeling that Pettigrew bolstered his belonging to the Marauders by stroking James' ego.

While I don't think that Pettigrew should be compared to Neville, I guess Peter wasn't, and actually still isn't evil in the main meaning of this word, as he doesn't seem to feel the sadistic pleasure when hurting. This is difficult to back by anything from the books, because we don't know if Wormtail had killed someone else before he made Sirius looks as if Padfoot was the murderer of so many muggles. I tend to think that before the eventfull night at Godric's Hollow Peter didn't realise that what he did was wrong, as his moral developement was, and still is, at the first or second stage. Pettigrew was a spy because he felt the need to secure his future in case the apparently stronger side, the Voldemort's side would win and start to rule. Wormtail probably didn't see any apparent results of his mission till the moment when Voldemort decided to murder the Potters. This, if Peter never before has commited any crime (any leading straight to murder, so that Pettigrew could understand it was his doing) could have a great impact even on such a traitor as him. After all, the Marauders gave him the first feeling of fame and power. But after the death of the Potters and Sirius going after Pettigrew, everything changed: instead of being secured by 'supporting' both sides of the war at the same time, Peter is suddenly lonely and friendless, with no powerful master or powerful friend to stick to. Furthermore, by killing all the muggles he finally declared openly (openly to the rest of the Marauders) what side did he choose.

I don't want to defend Pettigrew, but his cunningness didn't help him much to undestand what was really going on. He lacked intellect on a level that would allow him to draw right conclusions -- Peter undestood the position he was in only when everything was over, and he was lonely and had to hide from wizards. He was so confused and scared that he chose to stay in his rat form instead of going abroad and living among muggles, where nobody could recognise him.

Peter isn't happy with Voldemort, he obeys the orders because of fear of corporal punishment or even death. I doubt if Pettigrew would really support Voldemort if he was capable of understanding. I think that Peter was the spy not only because he felt the need to support the winning side, but also that at least once he became someone important, with a difficult and misterious task to do.

As for his power...I think Pettigrew's real power is his chameleon ability. While he was able to become an Animagus, blow up the street, and make the resurrection potion--these are all things someone else could've or did tell him how to do. He follows instructions well. He's cunning--and cunning enough to know how to hide his true nature in order to maintain the position he wants.

He also has to be brave in a way, as otherwise his guile would place him in Slytherin. Maybe the fact that he cut his hand for Voldemort's resurrection potion instead of disobeying and being painlessly and quickly killed by the AK curse was an act of bravery... but it still makes me feel sick.

While I don't think that Pettigrew should be compared to Neville, I guess Peter wasn't, and actually still isn't evil in the main meaning of this word, as he doesn't seem to feel the sadistic pleasure when hurting.

Wormtail was looking from Sirius and James to Snape with a look of avid anticipation on his face.

Wormtail was on his feet now, watching hungrily, edging around Lupin to get a clearer view.

Wormtail s******ed shrilly.

Wormtail definitely has sadistic tendencies.

I just can't give that much credit to Pettigrew--I don't see him as lonely or trying to support both sides or brave. In SWM, he demonstrated his sadisitic streak; in PoA, when confronted by Sirius and Lupin, all he did was attempt to justify what he had done, with his most d***ing claim being the one about there being no reason to resist Voldemort. If I push it, I might be able to eke out the statement that it is sad that Pettigrew is such a dreadful person--but he's done nothing so far in the books to warrant a positive assessment of his character.

The division into Houses is something I'm not entirely sure of at this point: it seems to stereotype people and that alone appears questionable. If Pettigrew was in Gryffindor, that further questions the House assignments; clearly, if one goes by the stereotype--he really needed to be in Slytherin (although, if he is, as I'm willing to believe, Muggle-born, that wouldn't have been an option...). It points to the fundamental fallacy of sorting people.

If Pettigrew was in Gryffindor, that further questions the House assignments; clearly, if one goes by the stereotype--he really needed to be in Slytherin (although, if he is, as I'm willing to believe, Muggle-born, that wouldn't have been an option...). It points to the fundamental fallacy of sorting people.
So you mean Peter is the "rare circumstance" Muggle-born that was allowed to be a Death Eater? Hm! :tu: Of all people, Voldemort made an exception for Peter? That says something about how useful he must be to him, eh?

Actually, that makes a lot of sense (when does Subtle not make sense?), I'm sure that Voldemort was desperate to find the Potters before Harry could be his downfall (ah, the irony). He'd probably had a few "feelers" out trying to find someone in the Order that he could turn. Pettigrew had to have turned traitor close to Harry's birth, (he was a little over a year old when the attack happened, right?), so within a short time of the prophecy being made. Sounds like Pettigrew wasn't that hard to convince.

Hi, Mcpherson!

http://bestsmileys.com/welcome/16.gif

While I don't think that Pettigrew should be compared to Neville, I guess Peter wasn't, and actually still isn't evil in the main meaning of this word, as he doesn't seem to feel the sadistic pleasure when hurting.

I think Peter is clearly sadistic, and if you don't think he is "evil," then what do you make of the easy way he killed Cedric Diggory and tied up Harry to take his blood for Voldemort. Then, he didn't try to save Harry at all when Voldemort was chasing him, even though Harry showed him mercy in Book 3.

Everything points to Peter being sadistic, and acting without a conscience.

I don't want to defend Pettigrew, but his cunningness didn't help him much to undestand what was really going on. He lacked intellect on a level that would allow him to draw right conclusions -- Peter undestood the position he was in only when everything was over, and he was lonely and had to hide from wizards. He was so confused and scared that he chose to stay in his rat form instead of going abroad and living among muggles, where nobody could recognise him.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this, too. Peter wasn't that confused at all, even cutting off his own finger so he could disappear! He was also able to fool everyone in the Order, including his supposed "best friends," who trusted him to be their Secret Keeper. If he had truly been "confused" he couldn't have pulled that off without being caught. Someone would have noticed his lies, but no one did.

Being scared might have had something to do with it, but he became a rat to save his own little rodent backside. :evil:

Norbertha and Subtle: :tu: Interesting thoughts about Peter! I wonder if he really is a muggle born or a half-blood?

Somebody just brought up JKR's reference to Muggle-born DEs on the previous page...And I think Pettigrew makes perfect sense to be the rare exception to the rule. He had/has enormous value to Voldemort--the overlooked traitor, who was able to hand over information directly from the Order to Voldemort, with no one's ever suspecting him. And then to make the ultimate gift of information: the location of the Potters (as Lupin and Sirius say in PoA). Pettigrew is incredibly useful, and he's more than willing to accept any abuse handed out to him as long as he gets that association with power. Ick.

SIP, thats a beautiful one :tu:!

Sorry, I have to disagree with this, too. Peter wasn't that confused at all, even cutting off his own finger so he could disappear! He was also able to fool everyone in the Order, including his supposed "best friends," who trusted him to be their Secret Keeper. If he had truly been "confused" he couldn't have pulled that off without being caught. Someone would have noticed his lies, but no one did.
I agree. He was not confused, but weak. Weak, because not seeing his faults, weak enough,because he gave his self the highest priority, weak because he wasn't able to stick on to a person. But he wasn't confused. pettigrew is similar (I say similar not same, because he is slightly more complex) to one of those characters in movies who follows the villain and is abused by him...

He had/has enormous value to Voldemort--the overlooked traitor, who was able to hand over information directly from the Order to Voldemort, with no one's ever suspecting him.
It is more "had" than "has", thats the sad part. Voldy knows that pettigrew would do anything to to be on his good side, and he uses him. At the moment he uses him not really because he has value, but just because he is available. Peter's failure to see his mistakes and voldemort's nature, is I think a primary reason for him not to try and go back to good side. Of course there is the fact that he is scared...

Bellatrix, I think, appears 'loyal' because--well--she's crazy. She still adheres to the reward/punishment system; she just doesn't get much punishment because she wholeheartedly loves what Voldemort does. Therefore, she can't accept his downfall--she goes out looking for information to lead to him; if Voldemort actually died, she'd lose her outlet for all the 'fun' she has. Malfoy stands backa nd tried to blend back into wizarding society because, while loathsome, he's sane....That's true, but I don't think it diminishes her loyalty. She is for Voldemort, win or lose--of course, she believes he'll win in the end, but that's just a manifestation of her fanaticism. I don't believe the only difference between her and Malfoy is sanity. I think she believes what she believes and would remain loyal to that cause no matter what. Malfoy believes what he believes, but isn't willing to put himself at great risk for it. This is different again from Peter who believes in nothing. It makes me wonder whether Malfoy and Bellatrix were in different houses? Perhaps Bellatrix was a Hufflepuff, given her loyal characteristics? She seems more loyal than cunning to me. . .

I disagree with most of your post today, Mcpherson. Like others, I think Peter's sadism is well documented in SWM. I tend to think that before the eventfull night at Godric's Hollow Peter didn't realise that what he did was wrong, as his moral developement was, and still is, at the first or second stage. Pettigrew was a spy because he felt the need to secure his future in case the apparently stronger side, the Voldemort's side would win and start to rule. Wormtail probably didn't see any apparent results of his mission till the moment when Voldemort decided to murder the Potters. This, if Peter never before has commited any crime (any leading straight to murder, so that Pettigrew could understand it was his doing) could have a great impact even on such a traitor as him. After all, the Marauders gave him the first feeling of fame and power. But after the death of the Potters and Sirius going after Pettigrew, everything changed: instead of being secured by 'supporting' both sides of the war at the same time, Peter is suddenly lonely and friendless, with no powerful master or powerful friend to stick to.I agree that Peter doesn't see his actions as wrong because he has no sense of a higher moral standard; however, I don't believe that Peter didn't understand what his betrayal would mean to other innocent lives--he didn't care. If he found that giving up the Potters was too unpalatable, he could have not told Voldemort--he could have gone to his friends or to Dumbledore for help. Of course, he would have faced retaliation or punishment for having been a spy--and that's the crux of the problem for Peter. He didn't do that because saving himself discomfort was more important than the lives of his friends--especially since he believed Voldemort would win anyway. He says as much to Sirius in the Shrieking Shack. I don't want to defend Pettigrew, but his cunningness didn't help him much to undestand what was really going on. He lacked intellect on a level that would allow him to draw right conclusions -- Peter undestood the position he was in only when everything was over, and he was lonely and had to hide from wizards. He was so confused and scared that he chose to stay in his rat form instead of going abroad and living among muggles, where nobody could recognise him.I don't think this is true at all. Peter expected Voldemort to win, as he implies in the Shrieking Shack. I have no doubt that once Voldemort had killed Harry, Peter expected to be rewarded. Even Voldemort didn't foresee the outcome of his visit to Godric's Hollow, how could Peter have expected it?

Peter probably did regret what happened with the Potters, but only for the negative way in which it affected him. He was forced to go into hiding as a rat, biding his time until Voldemort came back--or, as it turned out, until he sought out Voldemort himself for protection from his former friends. Peter isn't happy with Voldemort, he obeys the orders because of fear of corporal punishment or even death. I doubt if Pettigrew would really support Voldemort if he was capable of understanding. What does Peter not understand at this point? He must know what it means to support Voldemort. Even so, he isn't loyal to Voldemort. If Peter thought that Harry was stronger and that Harry wouldn't kill him (which he has good reason to believe), he'd leave Voldemort's side in an instant.

1512? Has this thread become a super-super-thread with more than 1500 posts, or have we forgotten to start a new version? :D

1512? Has this thread become a super-super-thread with more than 1500 posts, or have we forgotten to start a new version? :D

Who is responsible for keeping track? All the posters, the mods, etc?

Norbertha: I think I'll start one, lol, if it is ok with everyone else!

Yes, go ahead, Silver! :tu: The mods told me once that anyone can start a new version of a thread.

Have a ball. Should one of us say something in the wizengamot?

No need to ask the Wizengamot, I think. This is what they said once when I asked about it before:

Originally Posted by Norbertha
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but:
My thread "English as a Global Language?" is now at 400 posts. When it reaches 500, can I start a version 2, or can only the mods do that?


Yep, that is fine.

It's Done! Do any of you think we need a sub-heading like Layers?

No, we don't want people to think we're friendly. :elaugh:

Bwahahahahahaha! Good point. :evil:

I wrote to Atherella and told her about the new thread, and to archive this one. Thanks Mods!

Bwahahahahahaha! Good point. :evil:

I wrote to Atherella and told her about the new thread, and to archive this one. Thanks Mods!

Hi all! :)

Wow, these threads move so fast! I've been on vacation for a bit after all that sick time. I'm back now and hope to catch up soon with everyone! IN the meantime, I'll lock this one and carry on with the new thread. Enjoy! :D