|
Disclaimer: All Text is reprodeced here with the premission of the writers. Some format has been changed to fit the site, but nothing else has been altered, not even typos. My views are only represented by what I say, not by what others say. Gothic Princess: Just to stand next to Ani and give her some support... quote: I don't think he was concered about his mother. It would have come up in the Shrieking Shack. He was begging Sirius and Remus not to kill him, trying to make them understand. But he only mentioned the repercussions for himself if he didn't side with Voldemort. Doesn't that seem odd? So either a)His mother was never mentioned and he was too stupid to think of her or b)She WAS threatened but he didn't really care. But if you were in that situation, wouldn't you explain everything to them? Peter didn't. He just begged. Because he knew that he had no excuses, nothing to explain. He only played to their former friendship, not to the reasoning to what he did. Because there was none. I probably wouldn't have, Peter, you must remember, was smart, but not the sharpest pencil in the box. Also, it would be rather hectic and I'd probably foet. I have a memory like a sieve. But he wasn't thinking of legit excuses...he was too paniced that they would kill him before he explained himself. Dammit, typing that out it doesn't make sense. But it did in my head. Oh well,it's too early for me. Can I just say that I don't believe Peter to be evil. You do. But neither of us can convince the other. No matter what you say I'll fand a point to refute it and vica verca. Everything Ani has said makes sense. Same for you. I don't expect you to stop hating Peter. Just accept that no-one is completely evil, and that I expect Peter did what he did for a reason; whether it be love (of who? anyone!) or revenge or anything like that. Anyway, what if the person he wanted to save was someone he didn't want to anounce in front of his friends. Like Snape? Okay, I'm getting off track here, that's a little far-fetched. More a bunny than actal canon evidence. I don't excpect you, as I've said before, to change your mind. Just don't make assumptions you can't back up irrefutably, and don't condmn Peter when you don't know the full story. Riley I have not yet recieved premission to post these comments. Melanija: GP, you're right. We'll never agree. But somebody's got to be the voice of logic in this. Riley: You'd sound really dumb though if you said He should have just let Voldemort kill him instead of telling. Come on now. Ah...no. Here's the deal: Somebody's going to die. Either you can die now, and save three other people, or cause the death of the said three people, and probably die later anyway. So yeah, Peter should have let Voldie kill him. If it weren't for Harry, he'd be dead anyway. And Voldemort wouldn't have known about the Fidelis Charm in the first place if Peter hadn't told him. So he could have gone along being a Death Eater if he had wanted to, and not gotten anyone else involved. But he didn't, because he is something that can only be described in words that I can't use on FAP. Ani Well we're all the voice of logic just from other sides of a fence. quote: Either you can die now, and save three other people, or cause the death of the said three people, and probably die later anyway. So yeah, Peter should have let Voldie kill him. Why are you so sure Voldemort would have killed Peter? Break Peter yes, but it would make no sense at all to kill him. I really don't think Peter was ever given the choice of death because I doubt Voldemort would have killed him no matter what threats he made. However, the continual threat of death is a very good psychological torture. I think it falls under Coarcion techinques. And I want to stress that many people break to that kind of technique, so it's not necessarily a sign of cowerdice. Some muggle techniques would be suffocation to the brink of death, drowning tortures, electrical shock, and fake executions. I 'd like to think there was more to it than Voldemort saying "Tell me or I'll kill you" and Peter saying "Oh well in that case, Godric's Hallow, let my write down some directions so you don't get lost -_-" The argument could be made that Peter could have killed himself, and yes he could have and maybe you would consider that to be a noble ting to do. This is going to hit personal beleifs and morals. To me, suicide is the only unforgivable sin, and I see it as the ultimatte form of cowerdice. So Peter not killing hismelf his not an issue with me. However you might take the more Roman/Asian view of honorable death before dishonorable life, in which case Peter not killing himself is the ultimate form of cowerdice. Would Voldemort have known about the Fidelius charm. Honestly, I think Voldemort might be able to deduce by what means the Potters were hiding with being told. Remeber he is very smart and seems to be very good at deductive logic and highly knowledgable of spells and charms. He may simply have demanded to know if Peter knew who the Secret Keeper was already assuming they were hiding by the Fidelius Charm. Also, there's no way Peter could have been a DE without involving anyone else. That would be like saying I'm gonna be a join the Gestapo but not hurt anyone ^^;; Maybe Peter thought that though. Maybe he didn't think the informaiton he was passing at first would ahve any effect at all, and then kept gettin pressed for more and more until it was too late. That would be a working theory on Peter willingly joining the ranks of the death eaters out of fear for his life. (See I'm open to the possiblity it's just not my preferred explenation) Oh and I know you're probably sick of hearing about torture, but let my quote something from some research I did which explains why I think torture is such a viable possiblity. "Torture was used: - to destroy the victim's identity by forcing him/her to give confedential information and names, to become a traitor to his/her ideology and comrades. -in some extreme cases to transform the vctim into a collaborator, which is the maximum expression of identification of the victim with the aggressor. " You can utterly alter and manipulate another person through torture, effectivly destorying the original personality. This makes sense with me simply because of the whole problem of "how the heck is that sniveling little coward a gryffindor!" Oh and something that backs up my "he was tortured before he became a rat" theory, notice in PoA, the lady makes a reference to Scabbers having a tattered ear, yet the reason for this is never explained. Judging from the missing toe, it's clear physical disfugurations carry over into the animagus form. Well one type of torture is called "ear torture" and involves the twisting, pulling, cutting, or tearing of the ear. " It's probably jsut a coincidnece, but hey at this jncture at the story everything is guess work right? I know I keep harping on this, but You can rewrite a personality and train a person to be obedient to you through pain/ and negative positive reinforment techniques (Communication techniques similar actually to how you'd train a rat and yes that works on humans too), which would also explain Peter not going to Dumbeldore and why Peter shows signs of in his happiness over the silver hand. Peter was rewarded for doing what Voldemort wanted and is clearly hurt for the slightest infraction. (I have pondered whether Crouch getting away fromWormtail was really a accident on Peter's part) That is called a communication technique, falling under "conditioning" The other form of torture Voldemort is shown doing in canon is reverse-effect technique, or inflicting pain after an apology or confession has already been made, or inflicting pain for no reason. me again, because I want to address what you said about Peter in the Shrieking shack Mel, mostly because his continuing accusation of Sirius is a pretty good argument for you point of view. Peter was at his absolute worst in that scene, and I agree he did nothing to make Remus and Sirius not want to hurt him. His explenations were poor and most of the time he couldn't even speak. However, you'll not Peter was given very little chance to actually explain things in his own words. Very often Sirius puts words in Peter's mouth. We only hear Sirius' theory on why Peter wanted to live with a wizard family, Sirius's theory about what Peter would do to Harry (Which Peter in fact refutes, and he does have a point, he could have brought Voldemort back _and_ delivered Harry to Voldemort, yet he does not. Sirius logic there I think is wrong) Again it is Sirius who says how Peter probably felt delivering his information to Voldemort, and who implies that Peter was lying in his confession. First, Peter never denied being a spy for a year, He's cut off before he can explain just what Voldemort forced him to do. ANd has I've said, I think it very likely he was forced. "What was their to be gained by refusing" That sounds like exactly the kind of logic WInston was made to believe under torture in 1984. There is no hope for anything but my regime so you my as well give in. That I see not so much as saying I did it for the power, but sayng I did it beause I had no hope. "He would ahve killed me" I addressed how the threat of death is actually extremely good psychological torture. Peter's insistance that they are his friends.: I think he realizes exactly how unforgivable what he did was and he knows the only chance he has is that they will pity him becuase they were his friends. (Clearly not -_-) That's why he keeps harping on that because it's all he has in his favor. His accusuals of Sirius and denials that he was the spy. Now that is cowerdice. I do not deny that Peter is cowerdly and does do some reprehensable things, and that is one of them. He should have admitted hismelf as soon as they changed him back, but instead he lies to try and stay out of trouble. I do it all the time so I do not feel like one to cast a stone for that. I will admitt it was horrible though. Peter's inability to defend/explain hismelf/ He was not given the chance, and not everyone when being accused by insanely enraged people are going to be able to make the best defense/explenation. Heck I can only defend Peter like this because I'm writing. I have a terrrible stutter when I'm stressed out and generally sound like a half wit because I can not think at all if I'm being yelled at at generally only respond with very incoherent shout... or I cry -_- (Not something I'm proud of at all. It's highly embarressing) So I can kinda understand Peter's less than steller explenations. I do not however take this to mean that he did anything willingly or for self-gain (What self-gain? He had to know how Voldemort would treat him he's not stupid) Just because he didn't present his side of the story doens't mean he doens't have one. Melanija: he could have brought Voldemort back _and_ delivered Harry to Voldemort, yet he does not. Sirius logic there I think is wrong Doubtful. For one thing, we don't know how long Voldemort knew about the resurrection postion. Secondly, Peter wouldn't have known about the potion. So as far as he knew, he would be abandoning a nice warm home for nothing. So Sirius' logic is supported. His accusuals of Sirius and denials that he was the spy. Now that is cowerdice. I do not deny that Peter is cowerdly and does do some reprehensable things, and that is one of them. He should have admitted hismelf as soon as they changed him back, but instead he lies to try and stay out of trouble. I think it's just more of him trying to save his skin. Sirius is the obvious person to blame, and he went to so much trouble to make it look like it was Sirius in the first place. Why change his story now? Peter's inability to defend/explain hismelf/ He was not given the chance, and not everyone when being accused by insanely enraged people are going to be able to make the best defense/explenation But he only had to get a few words out, and he would have been allowed the chance to explain. Remus, throughout the entire scene, tries to make sure everyone understands everything. So if Peter had sad something along the lines of: "But my mother...and torture," (depending on your views on why he turned), Remus wouldn't have let anyone kill him before he explained. Page 367, PoA, American edition: "No one's going to try and kill you until we've sorted a few things out." (Remus to Peter). Peter was almost killed because Sirius and Remus felt as though everything that needed to be said was said. And he seemed to be able to BEG coherently, why not try and explain? "-what was there to be gained by refusing him?"-Peter, 374, PoA, American edition. Notice the word 'refuse'. As in "He asked me to do something, but I didn't want to and refused." It doesn't work in "He forced me to do something, but I refused." Why are you so sure Voldemort would have killed Peter? I'm not. But, like it's said in PoA, if Remus and Sirius had known before, they would have killed him. Heck, Dumbledore might have killed him. The Ministry. Any of the Potter's other's friends. Also, there's no way Peter could have been a DE without involving anyone else. That would be like saying I'm gonna be a join the Gestapo but not hurt anyone Poor choice of words on my part. I ment that he could have been a DE wothout directly betraying the Potters. Sure, he would be betraying them INdirectly, by leaving their side, but he didn't have to be the catalyst that caused their deaths. And suicide would have been an option, I think. In certain situations, if things were as bad as for Peter as you think they were, I don't think it would have been wrong for Peter to kill himself. Or fake his own death. Or go into hiding, possibly as a rat. Do you see where I'm going? If he really WERE loyal to James, Lily, Dumbledore, etc, then he had options. Numerous options. But he stayed and spied for Voldemort. Very suspicious. Would Voldemort have known about the Fidelius charm. Honestly, I think Voldemort might be able to deduce by what means the Potters were hiding with being told If the Potters were in hiding, it could have ment just that: they were in hiding. Sure, Voldie could have asked Peter about it, but all he had to say was "Well, I haven't seen them in a while..." and Voldie could have moved on. Because if he figured out that the Fidelis Charm was being used, Peter's reaction would indicate that someone else was the Secret-Keeper. Sure, Voldie might not have given up that easily, but confirming something Voldemort was already thinking probably got him some brownie points. And if Voldmort was certain that the FC was used, Peter would just have to say that he wasn't sure who the SK was, becasue it was, well, secret. Ashfea: Good points, Ani! =) quote: Originally posted by melanija But he only had to get a few words out, and he would have been allowed the chance to explain. Remus, throughout the entire scene, tries to make sure everyone understands everything. So if Peter had sad something along the lines of: "But my mother...and torture," (depending on your views on why he turned), Remus wouldn't have let anyone kill him before he explained. Page 367, PoA, American edition: "No one's going to try and kill you until we've sorted a few things out." (Remus to Peter). Peter was almost killed because Sirius and Remus felt as though everything that needed to be said was said. And he seemed to be able to BEG coherently, why not try and explain? That was coherent? He was barely making sense at all. He's been a rat for ten years, has been suddenly turned human, and is surrounded by people who distrust and in one case would really like to kill him. It's hard to come up with a a coherent description of past events under those circumstances. quote: Also, there's no way Peter could have been a DE without involving anyone else. That would be like saying I'm gonna be a join the Gestapo but not hurt anyone Poor choice of words on my part. I ment that he could have been a DE wothout directly betraying the Potters. Sure, he would be betraying them INdirectly, by leaving their side, but he didn't have to be the catalyst that caused their deaths. But Peter cuoldn't have been a DE without betraying the Potters. Or if not the Potters, betraying Dumbledore, Sirius, Remus, someone. That's the whole point of a double-agent spy: take advantage of the people who trust you. Once Peter turned to the dark side, there was no way he could avoid being used for his connections. Voldemort is a very clever manipulative dark wizard; he'd've made sure to exploit every possible advantage, and Peter was definitely an advantage. Peter made the choice to go over to the dark side, yes, but once he was there he had no choices. That's part of what going over to the dark means; Voldemort now controls your agenda. quote: And suicide would have been an option, I think. In certain situations, if things were as bad as for Peter as you think they were, I don't think it would have been wrong for Peter to kill himself. Or fake his own death. Or go into hiding, possibly as a rat. Do you see where I'm going? If he really WERE loyal to James, Lily, Dumbledore, etc, then he had options. Numerous options. But he stayed and spied for Voldemort. Very suspicious. It might not have been wrong for Peter to kill himself, but still a harsh thing to demand of him. I've always seen Peter as someone who became very, very afraid. He has very little magical power; in a war between good and dark wizards, he'd be a quick casualty, particularly as he's a known friend of some of the people who are most obviously fighting the rise of the dark. I think a combination of terror and despair turned Peter; he was desperate to stay alive. And it's very easy for us to say "He should have died instead!," but I'd like to see what any of us would do in such a situation; you can't know how you'll act until you're there. But then once he had turned, he was even more afraid, because siding with the dark wizards isn't any more safe than siding against them; Voldemort puts Voldemort first, everyone else is just a tool to be used in his path to power. Once Peter had turned, that was it. Half-crazed with terror, he'd be no match for Voldemort's will. Voldemort could crush him, and he knows it; Voldy at this point is so powerful and has so many spies that he's nearly omniscent. Possibly Peter could have snuck away as a rat, but I bet he'd be too afraid to. quote: Would Voldemort have known about the Fidelius charm. Honestly, I think Voldemort might be able to deduce by what means the Potters were hiding with being told If the Potters were in hiding, it could have ment just that: they were in hiding. Sure, Voldie could have asked Peter about it, but all he had to say was "Well, I haven't seen them in a while..." and Voldie could have moved on. Because if he figured out that the Fidelis Charm was being used, Peter's reaction would indicate that someone else was the Secret-Keeper. Sure, Voldie might not have given up that easily, but confirming something Voldemort was already thinking probably got him some brownie points. And if Voldmort was certain that the FC was used, Peter would just have to say that he wasn't sure who the SK was, becasue it was, well, secret. You know, it's not so simple as Peter lying to Voldemort. This is something that bugs me a lot. Even in SS, Voldemort can half read-minds, remember? He knows that Harry's got the stone in his pocket. I'm sure Voldemort could tell if Peter was lying to him, and I'm sure he'd make sure Peter was so afraid that Peter'd give out every possible scrap of information. This is not difficult, particularly not for someone like Voldemort; in fact it'd be second nature to him. No way could Peter decieve him and get away with it. Between torture, truth potions, and sheer intimidation, Voldemort's going to know everything Peter knows. The FAP Peter Debate Anakin's Peter Rants Other Peter Fans(yes, others do exist!) |