The Case for Pettigrew & the Case Against Snape

[dolorous_ett]

This isn't going to be a full-scale essay - no time for it, what with teaching starting soon and my perposterice challenge fic to write (how dare you insinuate that I can't write a fic about words and chickens that will make you laugh and make you cry? Bitten off more than I can chew? Moi?) - but after reading the latest episode of KazVL's Falling Further In, follwed by an evening spent watching the Prisoner of Azkaban DVD, something struck me rather forcibly, and I was wondering if any of the wise readers of this journal had any thoughts on the matter.

The thing is this - the frankly very average looking Severus Snape killed Albus Dumbledore by his own deliberate act. In cold blood and in front of witnesses. He then ran off.

The frankly very average looking Peter Pettigrew contributed to the deaths of Lily and James Potter under circumstances that have never been fully understood but which we are led to believe involved considerable coercion from Voldemort. He did not kill them personally. Then he ran off.

Now there are plenty of people in the fandom prepared to swear through a brick wall that Snape is as innocent as the day is long, and good-looking to boot. Not just a few oddballs, but really a lot of people. 

So why is it that so few members of the fandom are prepared to stick up for Pettigrew's morals or looks, even before he did That Awful Thing? Writers regularly endow Snape with looks and sex appeal that canon has given him no right to expect - why is it that the best role that Pettigrew can hope for is comic relief? Why do we never get TorturedSexGod!Pettigrew?

I have no answers to these questions, but I'd love to hear yours.

Comments

[krisomniac.livejournal.com]

*see icon*

I never think of Peter as a dog -- at least as a kid. Actually, I've never found average all that unattractive. Snape, is described as unattractive, young!peter as chubby, living-as-a-rat-for-12-years!Peter as rat-faced.

I dunno. Peter also does not have the air of mystery that women generally find attractive. Snape, it can be argued, does. Peter's betrayal stemmed from weakness, while Snape's motives are unknown. Peter grovels, while Snape arches an eyebrow or sneers. I think it is their personalities rather than their actual descriptions or actions that lead to their misrepresentation in fandom.

Plus, it's hard to grovel attractively. ;)

[snorkackcatcher]

Rather harsh. I think there's more to it than just looks - especially as Snape isn't good-looking or sexy anyway (Alan Rickman may well be -- I suppose I'll have to take the fangirls' word for that -- but that's a different matter). It's the way they're written. Briefly:

Snape, befire the end of HBP, does a lot to make us think that however vicious and unpleasant he is in terms of personality, he is actually committed to the right side and taking great personal risks to be so. There are a lot of little details in the books which suggest that there may well be more to his killing of Dumbledore than meets Harry's eye at first sight. (That may well not be the correct interpretation, but it's very arguable -- I'd give better than 50-50 that it's right.)

Pettigrew, on the other hand (who does actually have his apologists and fangirls) has done precisely nothing in the books to make us like him, even if we ignore the whole Godric's Hollow thing. Even in his one school-era pre-betrayal canon scene, there's nothing much that positive about him. And most damning of all (i keep vaguely planning to write a piece about this ...) he actually chooses to go back to the Dark Side and bring Voldemort back at a point (when he escapes at the end of PoA) where it would be just as feasible (and probably safer) to run and hide somewhere a long way away.

So Snape appears to actually have some morals (albeit twisted ones) and practices them, so his apparent betrayal comes as a shock. Pettigrew, however, shows no particular signs of being other than a weak and resentful character so far. Regardless of looks, he doesn't appear (from what we've actually seen of him, not what is speculated) to have that many morals to stick up for.

This may switch around in several differebt ways in book 7, of course, but until then ...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_redux/]

Perhaps the way one sees Peter depends on how you see MWPP? Those I know of who really despise PP on a personal level are die hard Remus fans...while it seems that most people just don't care about Peter. (The Peter I saw in Spae's memory didn't impress me, but neither did the other kids, to be frank I disliked them even more.) :p
It has a lot to do with identification, methinks. Most bullied kids can identify with Snape hanging upside down, his bitterness, and even before OotP it was obvious that something terribly wrong had happened to him. But if anyone identifies with Peter they keep their mouths shut about it.

Bah, I don't know. I have no long-dwindled theories or anything to prove - your guess is as good as mine.

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Diehard Remus fan here, and I do identify with Peter, possibly more than is healthy :)

But if anyone identifies with Peter they keep their mouths shut about it.

I think that may be at the heart of it all. Peter represents the dark, petty, secret side of ourselves that we avoid showing to the world at all costs. We all like to imagine that we would die rather than betray our dearest friends, and few of us are willing to admit in public that we might not, if we were actually forced to make that choice.

Anyway, I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a Peter fangirl, but I'm definitely a redemptionist, and in any event I think he's a fascinating character precisely because he's such an enigma. I don't believe we've ever seen him when he wasn't acting a role, and what's underneath is anybody's guess.

Me agrees and rambles on...

[the-reda.livejournal.com]

And I would like to underline that Snape is not goodlooking. Wether or not he is attractive, well that is personal opinion.
As you said before, what keeps me from symphatizing with Peter is his groveling. I do have a certain amount of compasion for him as he apparently does not have an equal part in their ( Marauder) friendship. I guess being taken along as the comedy act does make one bitter... when one finally realzies that.

Anyway, back to the point.
The main reason why I see Snape still on AD's side is that it would be a piss poor moral on JKR's part if he is not.
She has enough: good guys: pretty/sweet/handsome/
bad guys: ugly/creepy/vendictive
going on.
Wich is, in MHO, not a good idea in a kids book.
Telling teens that they cannot be 'good' because they are ugly .. will you just feed anorexia/depression/self hate that is going on when you are teen anyway.
Telling those kids that being the resident 'bud of all the jokes and bullying does make you the bad guy in the end' does NOT help one bit.

Now, if this were real life *cough* I could see many reasons for Snape to turn dark and stay dark. Sheesh, with the way people treat(ed) him ( and I do not only mean the Marauders, I also mean AD, I would be queuing up to join the DE this instant.

Am I making any sense?

[dazzleberry.livejournal.com]

I think you've hit it right on the head-- Peter represents something more frighteningly real.

It's easy to say, "I'd die to save my friends", but how many of us really would? Die trying, more likely, but if the gun is to your head and you know you can stay alive by spilling your guts, do you?

As for what's appealing about Snape that isn't appealing about Pettigrew..

I find a sympathetic appeal to the younger Snape we see glimpses of in OotP. It isn't that much of a stretch to romanticize him into the outcast who was beset upon by the popular kids, and has deep, emotional scars. He has a past as one of the very worst in the society, yet it's easy to make a case that he's overcome that. Ultimately, I want to believe that a kid who seems to have had everything stacked against him and who made some lousy decisions as a young man can overcome his past and ultimately be good. I want to believe that about people in general, and in Snape, JKR has tapped into the part of me that believes all people are generally good and that evil is not a natural state.

With Peter, by contrast, everything we see indicates that he was a toady. He reminds me of a couple of tag-alongs who wormed their way into my 'oh-so-cool' group of friends in high school but were the perpetual tattle tales and wet blankets. He reminds me of the so-called 'friends' who were nice enough individually but ruthless when part of a group. He reminds me of ass-kissing coworkers and moochers. In the pensieve scene, we see him clapping and gasping as James plays with a snitch, and that evokes sort of a pathetic loser image. In the shrieking shack, we see him begging and grovelling. When he escapes, he goes to Voldemort, and he has to go pretty much directly to Voldie. It makes him seem unrepentant and unwilling to do anything for himself.

So, in Snape we see someone struggling to overcome the past (both the one he was born to and the one he created for himself through his mistakes) but who is helping himself.

In Pettigrew, we see a toady who is so pathetic that he not only forks over two of his best friends (James and Lily) but murders a dozen Muggles and cuts off his own finger and lives as a rat for twelve years so he can implicate another best friend.

If he were truly under the influence of Voldemort, why would he not have returned to his human form after Voldie's supposed downfall and claim that he was under Imperius (it seems to have worked for others) and tried to get Sirius out of Azkaban?

Ultimately, I think that's why I would have a hard time hero-izing him.

Now, he is certainly a fascinating character, but I'd have a hard time making him into a hero.

Re: Me agrees and rambles on...

[krisomniac.livejournal.com]

awesome icon, and yes you are. Although, to be fair, not all of Jo's heros are written to be nearly as attractive as their movie actor counterparts would have you believe.

Harry is a scrawny kid in glasses.

Hermione has buck teeth and cracked out hair.

Hagrid - someone who's morals and dedication to the side of good are never questioned - is HUGE, as is Maxime.

The Malfoys *are* meant to be attractive, as was Bellatrix Black in her youth, and they are unquestionably on the wrong side.

I think fandom and hollywood has skewed a lot of what JKR might have originally intended to portray as plain- or average-looking (if not actually ugly) heroes.

[krisomniac.livejournal.com]

I think that may be at the heart of it all. Peter represents the dark, petty, secret side of ourselves that we avoid showing to the world at all costs.

Way to hit that nail right on the head. I find that in writing Peter for PG - where I am not ever allowed to slip into the heads of the more heroic characters, and where Peter is becoming the man who will betray his friends, I actually get very angry and upset. In our planning sessions, Peter's role (as in canon) is often marginalised, and I fight for him, or get frustrated and log offline to cool down for a while.

It's silly, but it's also strange and frightening how easy it is to tap into those emotions of ostricisation (is that a word?) and resentment.

I don't necessarily believe he will be redeemed, but I do try to find the good -- or at least the real person within him, because if I didn't do that, I wouldn't be able to write him at all.

[catkind.livejournal.com]

Tall, dark and greasy is a great deal more redeemable in cliche-land than short, fat and balding. There've been plenty of male film stars/icons over the years who've been ugly as anything provided they were tall-ish and muscular. And whatever else he is, Snape is portrayed as strong, a strong character and increasingly a strong wizard. Pettigrew is portrayed as weak. Snape may not be good looking, but he does have a certain panache that Pettigrew is utterly lacking.

(And I think there are a number of mysteries in the evidence against Snape, which there aren't for Pettigrew; but better not go into that again ... )

Incidentally, I really dislike Rickman as Snape - he doesn't sound half spiteful enough to me.

Me loves your icon!

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

She has enough: good guys: pretty/sweet/handsome/
bad guys: ugly/creepy/vendictive
going on.
Wich is, in MHO, not a good idea in a kids book.
Telling teens that they cannot be 'good' because they are ugly .. will you just feed anorexia/depression/self hate that is going on when you are teen anyway.
Telling those kids that being the resident 'bud of all the jokes and bullying does make you the bad guy in the end' does NOT help one bit.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's that clear cut.

First, Krislaughs is right - there are a lot more physical faults in the book than there are in the films - that's the nature of Hollywood. To her list, I can add Ron's long nose, Mr Weasley's bald spot, Lupin's shabbiness, Sprout's permanent untidiness, Eloise Midgen's spots (she's actually really nice) - or Rosmerta's obvious sex appeal, Tom Riddle's great attractiveness as a young man, Fleur's very unlikable arrogance...

I read your post about good looks or lack of them, and I've been thinking about it. I suspect that in the cases of Marvolo Riddle, Voldemort in some of his later incarnations and the escaped Azkaban death eaters, loss of looks is more an effect than a cause. More on the lines of the "herion really screws you up" campaign that was so big when I was a teenager - don't be evil, kids, or you'll end up looking dreadful. Consider the effect of Azkaban on the once-stunning Bellatrix, or of his longevity treatments on Voldemort...

It's also worth pointing out that bullying does not necessarily make you into a nicer person. Some, like Snape, just keep fighting. Others, like Pettigrew, decide that it's safer to keep their heads down and ingratiate themselves with the bullies.

[hannahmarder.livejournal.com]

I think there are quite a lot of Peter fangirls - or at least, apologists - though they're certainly not as numerous or as vehement as the Snape fangirls. I certainly think that the best MWPP era writers portray Peter as rather better on the whole than JKR did in the pensieve scene, or you end up wondering how on earth anyone ever trusted him to guard a teacup, let alone the lives of three people including a baby.

Of course, Alan Rickman is partly responsible for the Snape fangirl culture, just as Tom Felton and Jason Isaacs have improved the Malfoys' image. But then again, I liked Snape before the films came out, and my enjoyment of his character has nothing to do with Alan Rickman. Even so, it would take a truly diehard (and probably shortsighted) fangirl to find Timothy Spall in Peter costume attractive.

Looks aside, plenty have made a case for Pettigrew's morals. But I think the thing is that we aren't being given any doubt in canon that Peter is guilty - he practically admits to it in the shrieking shack scene, then immediately goes and finds Voldemort and brings him back to life. Whereas Snape is more ambiguous. Yes, it's possible that he really is evil, but it can be argued otherwise. He has been seen to do good things in canon, as well as bad.

Plus Snape's interesting. Pettigrew can be interesting in fanon (for example, in many of ATR's fics), but in canon it's hard to find anything to enjoy in reading him. Whereas Snape is amusing. His scenes are fun to read - JKR loves to write them. He comes out with some great one liners. He may not be nice, but whenever he swishes onto the scene, you can bet things are about to get interesting. There's also more of Snape - Pettigrew has relatively few scenes whereas Snape is one of the principle characters. By the time PoA came out, I already thought Snape was great.

Pettigrew had one scene in PoA - in which he was thoroughly unimpressive - then vanished again. We see him twice in GoF - both times in a rather poor light - not at all in OotP, and very briefly in HBP (when he's hiding in Snape's bookcase and serving him drinks with bad grace). Thus I suppose it's natural more people will get attached to Snape than to Pettigrew.

To paraphrase Phineas Nigellus, you may not agree with anything Snape does, but you've got to admit, he has style.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

You're right - we have to suspend judgement on Snape - which means that people who are determined to make him the real hero of the book can't be prevented from doing so. Though personally I think trying to seek truth from the facts is more interesting and ultimately more rewarding.

And you're right, I don't suppose living for tweleve years as a rat does wonders either for the complexion or for the personality...

Plus, it's hard to grovel attractively. ;)

*snerk* to that. Which doesn't make it any less true. Unless you're Bellatrix Lestrange.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Rather harsh

Yes, I admit it. Coming away from "Falling Further In" (in which Snape is the most delectable creature who ever walked the earth - all women would want him and all men presumably want to be him) is perhaps not the best starting point to ask this question. Especially when juxtaposed with the travesty that is Film!Peter.

Still, it does mean that intelligent people leave fascinating posts that make me think!

Your point about Snape being a basically moral creature has a lot going for it - even if we may not like his morals. Though I'd submit that it isn't that simple, as some of his more violent outbursts show (pensieves, anyone?).

I take your point about not seeing Pettigrew doing anything attractive... but at the same time, he was a friend of three (four if you count Lily) people we are definitely supposed to regard as the good guys and (in Lupin's case, at least) a reasonable judge of character.

You're right - there's really no way to know what's what till the series is over... and that's going to be quite a wrench in itself.

Anyway, let's face it, fangirls do tend to go for dangerous rather than pathetic.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Both of you are right.

Anyone who's been bullied, even in a mild form, will identify with Peter's very reasonable urge to join them and be safe rather than continuing to be a target. Even though not everyone choses that path (neither Harry nor Snape did).

I suppose that when looking for fantasy figures, most of us would rather go for something we'd like to be but can't, rather than something we have been and wish we hadn't.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

This really deserves a post almost as long as yours, just pointing out the good bits. Sadly, time presses...

Interesting associations you make for Peter... and they do ring true. None of them are the type you'd want to give the benefit of the doubt because they've got style, are they?

Though you're dead right that he's an interesting character. And an under-used one (with a few notable exceptions).

And I agree with you about the wish to see poor Snape come to good at last after a truly lousy beginning. It's also the sort of thing JKR might conceivably do... we must only hope.

"I had a very unhappy childhood... I'll tell you about it sometime."

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

It seems there's a very powerful Peter-influences here - if even people who are just borrowing his personality for an afternoon find themselves simmering with resentment...

Yes - the one thing we never get to see in all this is how on earth he ended up that way.

Re: "I had a very unhappy childhood... I'll tell you about it sometime."

[krisomniac.livejournal.com]

isn't the point, kind of that it doesn't take much? I mean, a disparaging comment here, a slight there, and everyone feels these things. They're dangerously easy emotions to fall into. Peter just wasn't able to give himself the distance and perspective it took to shrug them off.

I firmly believe in a person's choice to be bad or good -- that the best people can come from horrible begininnings, or not, or vice versa, that circumstance is not the enabler that most people think it is. But that's just me.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Tall, dark and greasy is a great deal more redeemable in cliche-land than short, fat and balding.

Unarguable. Though in real life, there are some surprisingly sexy men who are balding, fat, short or all three.

As is the appeal of the strong as a fantasy figure. And panache (though I daresay Pettigrew's skills are a little rusty after twelve years with no-one to talk to at all, unless rats are great conversationalists).

(And I think there are a number of mysteries in the evidence against Snape, which there aren't for Pettigrew; but better not go into that again ... )

You could if you wanted to. Remember, I was away when the fandom made up its collective mind about Snape. And I remain slightly puzzled about why the decision has been so unanimously on his side.

Incidentally, I really dislike Rickman as Snape - he doesn't sound half spiteful enough to me.

What bothers me about Rickman in the films is that he's a)far too old b)not skinny enough and (most heinous of all) c)he's got CLEAN HAIR.

Re: "I had a very unhappy childhood... I'll tell you about it sometime."

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

You're right - these tiny triggers can set off the most horrible repercussions. Though I agree with you that it's not the whole story - or we'd all be going around killing people every day of our lives.

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

True - After the Rain is very good at Pettigrew - the nearest I've come to a likeable version. And there's Webba's "Devil.." series, though I've never really got into those. Are there others?

He may not be nice, but whenever he swishes onto the scene, you can bet things are about to get interesting.

And there you've found my personal weakness - I'll put up with a lot from someone who's interesting enough.

Also, I think anyone who's ever been a teacher occasionally finds themselves cheering Snape on in some of his more deplorably vicious classroom behaviour. I know I have. Not that I'd ever fail someone for being an irritating loudmouth - but a part of me would like to.

You should post this post elsewhere - it's too good to skulk in my LJ.

Re: Me agrees and rambles on...

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

Telling those kids that being the resident 'bud of all the jokes and bullying does make you the bad guy in the end' does NOT help one bit.

Um, to the extent that there is an HP character who can be reasonably described as the resident butt of all the jokes and bullying, it's either Luna or Neville, neither of whom has shown any signs of being a bad person at all. Hermione and Harry have also been on the receiving end of some truly vicious bullying from Snape, Dudley, and various Slytherins, and while they've both got a cruel streak of their own, they show no sign of going truly dark.

We've seen far, far more instances of Snape BEING a bully in canon, than of Snape being picked on. Just about every class he teaches, and there are some pretty huge hints that he dished it out as a teenager, as well: Lupin says he "never lost an opportunity to curse James," and even in the Pensieve scene, we see him calling a girl who hasn't done anything to him by the most vile racial epithet that exists in his culture.

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

First of all, nice mini-essay! Reminds me that I need to start my WH presentation on fanon representations of villains (including Lucius Malfoy, Snape, and Peter) but that's beside the point.

The angle I plan to take is that Snape comes off as far more glamorous than Peter. Nevermind that he's meant to be greasy and unattractive. He's got a sharp tongue, shadowed motives, and is generally mysterious. Also his name--Severus Snape, Potions Master and Head of Slytherin House. Rolls off the tongue, non? Peter, who is technically just as mysterious, is grovelling, whining, and more than mildly pathetic when we see him in canon. His voice is 'squeaky' while Snape's is 'silky'. And his nickname is Wormtail. Not particularly compelling, that.

Fanon!Peter has few fangirls, but he definitely has his strong apologists. a_t_rain is actually quite moderate in comparison to some of the things I've read. It's somewhat fascinating, really, because a lot of the fics that glorify and exonerate Peter tend to at least partially demonise MPP, especially James and Sirius. Remus usually ends up being the mediating factor.

Snape gets Sex God characteristics. Peter is portrayed as a martyr, acting only out of sheer fear of Voldemort, and constantly under the heel of his friends. My favourite portrayals of Peter tend to fall into the middle--where he's obviously his own person, and joins Voldemort both out of fear for his life, *and* with some view toward wanting to be 'just as good' as James and Sirius. He had to, in my opinion, have had some selfish motivations there, and that's the way I plan to treat his betrayal in BAMSR, when I get into it.

Re: Me loves your icon!

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Marvolo Riddle

I meant Marvolo GAUNT! Aiya! Bad Dobby! *headdesk*

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

Fanon!Peter has few fangirls, but he definitely has his strong apologists. a_t_rain is actually quite moderate in comparison to some of the things I've read. It's somewhat fascinating, really, because a lot of the fics that glorify and exonerate Peter tend to at least partially demonise MPP, especially James and Sirius. Remus usually ends up being the mediating factor.

Good to know -- I always try to be moderate :) The thing is, I can see where all four of them (five, counting Snape) were coming from, and I honestly don't know where my sympathies lie. It's easiest to like Remus and Sirius, since we've seen the most of them in canon, but for the same reason it's also easiest to see their flaws.

[catkind.livejournal.com]

What bothers me about Rickman in the films is that he's a)far too old b)not skinny enough and (most heinous of all) c)he's got CLEAN HAIR.
Yes, yes and YES. Though I guess none of those are his fault.

Okay, you asked for it, some mysteries in the case against Snape: Why did DD trust him in the first place? What was the argument which Hagrid overheard about? Why would Snape argue with DD at all if he was secret agenting? Did Snape actually know what the plan was when he made the vow? What exactly was Albus Next-Great-Adventure Dumbledore pleading for at the end? Did they communicate via legilimency? (I've been sceptical up to now about theories that every time two characters look each other in the eye they're legilimensing, but we have canon that Snape does it to Harry in their duel, so it doesn't seem that far-fetched any more) Where was Fawkes? Why did Snape save DD's life after the first Horcrux incident? Why was DD so keen to send for Snape? Why is Snape so emotional about Harry's insults?

Also, it makes the plot structure very odd if he's guilty. I mean, Harry finally trusts Snape and Snape betrays him would have symmetry, but Harry suspects Snape again and is finally right? And once you've finally revealed him as a villain, you'd expect him to demonstrate that he was rotten all through - in fact, he proceeds to remove all DEs from Hogwarts, hurting no one at all in the process, to give Harry a quick Defence lesson, and save him from Crucio. (Okay, one enraged whipping-hex at Harry, but that doesn't seem to have done him any injury, IIRC?)

There just seem to be a lot of oddities about the whole thing. If it doesn't exactly build a case for Snape's innocence, maybe at least some deliberate ambiguity on JKR's part?

[dolorous-ett.livejournal.com]

Admirably explained. Real food for thought.

These are answers I can appreciate and understand rather than the wails of fangirls who still want him to be the dashing Byronic hero in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Thank you!

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. I know that when I write the five of them at Hogwarts, I'm constantly drawing upon different memories, whether of me or of people I knew. Remus and Sirius are the ones we arguably know best, because *Harry* knows them best (of course, how well Harry knows either of them is entirely questionable, given that we only get his perspective). And you're very right about how it's easiest to like them both, but equally easy to see where each of them is flawed. Snape, on the other hand, is completely flawed as far as Harry's concerned, and I imagine that automatically makes a reader wonder 'Is he really that bad? Surely not.'