Professor Julian Womble (10:57)
One of the things that came up in the post episode chat was a continued conversation surrounding Peter as a victim. So you'll remember in the episode, I spent a considerable amount of time discussing the fact that I believe that he was a victim of his own creation. Right. Like he created his victimhood. And as a result, you know, I didn't offer a lot of sympathy, but some of you really brought some really interesting perspectives about this particular dynamic. Right. About him being a Victim and also highlighted the context in which we find Peter, particularly in the latter part of his time at Hogwarts, moving into his kind of post Hogwarts era. And so Devin L. Wrote, Peter was a literal teenager when he got pulled into a war. A kid who wasn't brave enough to die and who maybe didn't have a roadmap for surviving with his soul intact. That is devastating and real. Because if we can see Draco as a product of circumstance, why not Peter? Why not the scared, less gifted kid who was just trying to survive? And then Allison S. Took it one step deeper and said, peter is a victim of growing up as a presumptive child soldier in a brewing war. The fact that so many Hogwarts students from the 70s end up as key players on both the light and dark sides of the war tells me that every authority figure in that place was raising them to be immediately out of school. And that's exactly what happened. And I think this shook me a little bit because I think we often spend so much time thinking about, you know, Harry and Ron and Hermione as these child soldiers because of how Dumbledore basically grooms them to be that. Right? It doesn't really give them much of a choice, especially not Harry. Right. And Hermione and Ron are just the rider dies and they're really willing to ride and. Or die. And in that same way, Right. I think the idea that there really is no choice for any of them, none of these students really have a choice. You have to pick a side. Now, what you do, once you do that is kind of up to you. But the reality is, is that there is no choice. That is apathy. There is no choice. That is just like, I'm gonna sit this one out. Right? Particularly. Particularly if you're a Gryffindor. And we know that, right? We see that so often in the way that even in, you know, the canonical text that we have in the Second Wizarding War, right? Like, all the Gryffindors stay when they are said. You can leave if you want to go and go see your family. All the Gryffindors stay. And so there is this kind of social pressure and the idea of bravery and what it means, which is to say that you can't leave when there's a fight to be fought. And Peter is not a fighter. He is someone who scurries around. And so we can imagine why he makes some of the decisions that he makes. And again, what's important about this is I'm not trying to excuse it, But I think in the midst of thinking about whether he's a victim, Alison S. Says, they all are. All of them are victims of this war. And they're all victims of the adults in the space who are real wedding, who are, what, ready and willing to sacrifice them for the sake of meeting their ends, Right? And so there really is no choice in the matter for so many of them. And I think for so many of us, we are like, well, of course not. You know, you've got to do what's right. But it is easy to make those statements and forget that we're talking about children. And I think the invocation of Draco is a really important one because many people often talk about the fact that Draco had no choice in the matter, right? Like he had to do this. And I think that that feels true for all of these individuals, right? Like many of them are entering in without the ability to say no, because there is a moral piece that's attached to this. And if you say no to fighting because you want to survive, you're a bad person. Add on top of that, you're a part of a house that is, like, where everybody is fighting. And on top of that, all of your friends will want to go and be part of this. Active participants like that is a very, very, very difficult thing to navigate for someone who is not a fighter, who is not. Who is a survivor at best. And again, I don't want to excuse Peter because he doesn't deserve to be excused, but I do think this is an important reality when we think about him as a victim. I think we have to remember that all of them are victims. Allison wrote all of the Marauders are victims in the same way. And in sometimes different, more fun, extra ways, as Peter, Harry, Ron, and Hermione are also victims for the same cause. Thanks, Dumbledore. But the difference is that they don't go do racism about it. They don't leverage their victimhood as an excuse to be a bad person usually. But it allows us to see their characters more completely when we acknowledge their real victimhood in things. Like, we can acknowledge that Ron can be a bit of a mess when it comes to dealing with money because he is a victim of childhood poverty. I wouldn't want to take that away from him and his character. And I don't think it makes sense to take it away from Peter. And I think that part of our kind of holistic understanding of who Peter is, particularly when we think about him in terms of the victimhood and Whether we see him as a victim, I think that we can reconcile the reality that, yes, some of his victimhood is the byproduct of the decisions that he's made, but some of those decisions are informed by the context in which he finds himself. He is being brought up to be a child soldier. Whether it be from Dumbledore, whether it be from Voldemort. He has to play an active role in this war no matter what. And for someone like him, we can imagine what that means, right? When all you're trying to do is survive. And we know, and we hear from Sirius, who's like, you should have just died rather than betray your friends. And we're gonna talk a bit about the friendship dynamic. But I'm like, Peter is, like, dying isn't an option for me. It's not what I do. I'm a survivor and I'm gonna survive. And I have been put in a relatively impossible situation because I don't get to just run away from this. Which, I mean, but. Or does he. Like, could he have just left? Like, could he have just been, like, by. And turned into a rat and dipped out? Like, we still would have been calling him a coward, but it wouldn't have been a coward and a traitor. You know what I mean? Like, it would have been different. I wonder why he felt so compelled. Maybe he was in too deep. Maybe by the time that we get to him and we see the war is really picking up, there's really no other choice. There's no turning back. You're just kind of in it. And he must have been, because that's the only thing that would have made him alluring to Voldemort, right? Like, at the point where Voldemort has already heard the prophecy, he is now actively seeking out after deciding that it is the Potter's son that needs to be the one to go, he is very much seeking ways in. And Peter offered the ability to do that, right? Like, he was an easier target. And I'm sure. I'm sure. And this may be just my own disdain for Snape, but I'm sure that Snape probably, like, gave him up and said, if you wanted in, this is your guy. And it would make sense, right? Like, Snape knew these people. He knows who they are, and he knows how to sniff out weak links. Because there's no way that Voldemort would know that. Why would he know the dynamics of that friend group? I have to believe that it was Snape who said, that guy right there, he's your dude if you were looking for a turncoat. And so maybe that's why he didn't leave. But I think that we, no matter what we believe about whether he's a victim or not, I think we have to. In the same way that we extend so much grace. So much grace. Too much grace. So much grace to Draco, we have to extend it to everyone in both timelines, right? In the first Wizarding War and the second Wizarding War. And I just think, you know, I think it's a really important thing to remember. And so I'm grateful to the comments from Devin and from Allison. Just reminding us, right? Like, war brings out a lot of really terrible things in people. And there's something to be said about, you know, what was preexisting in those spaces and places in Peter's life that made this decision and the decisions that he makes that we discuss in the episode possible. But it is really important for us to remember that, like, these things weren't done in a vacuum and that war does something to people that turns them into worse versions of themselves if not for the intervention of individuals around them to mitigate that. One of the more incendiary comments that I made during the episode was that I don't think that Peter saw himself as a friend to James and Sirius in the way that. In the same way that Sirius and James saw themselves as friends to Peter, I think that he envisioned their relationship as much more transactional than they did. I think that he saw their dynamic as very different than what they saw it as. And so that his justification for the betrayal hit different for him than it did for Sirius and James. Right? And a lot of people were not necessarily feeling that. And I think that some of this comes from a lot of the, like, canonical and also, like, post canonical lore surrounding the Marauders, right? And it's like these four guys who are like, you know, ride or die. Except Peter, I would never say he was ride or die. Like, Peter's not riding and he's not dying, okay? He is lying and surviving. Okay? He is laying and surviving, you see, like, laying low. He's not doing that. And I will stand 10 toes down on that assertion that I am not of a mind that he saw their friendship in the same way that they did. I think that his understanding of friendship is absolutely similar to the way that Voldemort understands relationship in general, which is, you know, quid pro quo. You give me something, I get something. I mean, it's the way that he even views his relationship with Voldemort, right? Like, when he brings Voldemort back and does all the stuff and gives his hand and all the things, he's like, okay, so, like, I did that for you. Now what you about to do for me, right? Like, where's my hand? Where's my whatever? Like, I need you to give me something. And I think that that's not the way that Sirius and James and Remus operate, right? Like, it wasn't a quid pro quo, you know, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours type situation. And so I don't think that Peter saw their relationship the same way. And I think, you know, Morgan offers us something very concise in terms of giving voice to this writing. What breaks me is that James would have died for Peter, and Peter made sure he did. That's not just betrayal, it's the intimacy of it that shatters something. But then Lena offers a more painful flip side to this writing. I wonder what Peter could have been if someone had seen him, like, really seen him. Not just as a tag along. And that makes me pause. But I also am. I'm like, I understand this logic and I understand that some of what might have motivated Peter was a desire to be seen. And again, not just as, like, the extra, not as the spare, right? Not as the spare, but as a genuine contributor to the Marauders. And then Alison asks, who is, you know, already brought the fire? Hits with, the fact that he was a part of the Marauders doesn't mean they treated him like an equal. Group dynamics can mask a lot of hierarchy. He might have always known he was the dispensable one. This is what I'm talking about, right? Like, I think that whereas James and Sirius, because of where they sat in the hierarchy, had a very clear understanding of who everyone was to them and may not have even noticed the way that they were treating everyone differently. Because when it. When push comes to shove, it was really the two of them. And Remus was there with them as well. But, like, if we are looking at this hierarchically, it's the two of them at the top, Remus in the middle, Peter at the bottom. And I know that some of us may not like that, but hierarchies within friendships exist, right? Like, you know that there are friends that you go to for certain things and friends that you go to for other things. We know that there are best friends, there are friendships, there are acquaintances. There are just people that you know, right? Like, we know all of that, right? And we also know that there are people. And maybe this is a conversation that we tend to have more frequently in terms of, like, relationships, where it's like, there is someone who likes you more than you like them. Right? Like, those dynamics exist in friendships as well, where it's like, yeah, like, we are friends, but I think I'm your best friend, but you are not mine. You know what I mean? And I don't wanna place that on them. But I do think it's important for us to realize that everyone in any given friend group, particularly when it's more than two people, is not experiencing the dynamic in the relationship in the same way. And so that it is very possible that while Sirius and James understood their relationship with Remus and Peter in a very specific way, that Remus and Peter didn't reciprocate that same level of understanding. Right. And I want to be clear. I'm not saying that they were not friends. I'm just saying that the sacrifices that James and Sirius were willing to make for their friends are not the same sacrifices that Peter was willing to make for them. The way that they viewed their relationships with each other was not the same. Right? So that when Sirius says to Peter, like, you should have just died, Peter's like, huh? Like, who's doing that in this economy? Like, I'm not. That's not who I am. It's never been who I've been. And the fact that you can't see that because you thought that I was doing exactly for you, what you do for me is ridiculous. Like, and this is what I also see. And when we talk about, you know, maybe they didn't see him, I think that many of us are like, oh, they looked down him. No, I think that they literally did not see who he was. Like, not only did they see him, maybe as, you know, the fourth wheel or, like, the, you know, the disposable one or whatever language we want to use, I think that they literally did not see him. Like, they did not understand who he was as a person because they were projecting. And, like, when you're that young and that full of yourself, you only really see the world the way that you want to see it, right? And so there's so much projection and so much like, well, this is the kind of friend you are to me. I am to you. So that's what I expect from you. And it just strikes and, like, this is coming from a person who is right now at, like, almost 36 years old, realizing that this is a thing that I do, right? I look at people. And I look at my relationships with people and then I realize, like, why am I frustrated with this person? And it's because I'm expecting from you what I give you when you've given me no indication that that is who you are. And so I'm looking for myself in your behavior, in the things that you are saying in all of these things, and not actually accounting for the person saying, standing before me. And when I do account for that person and actually meet you where you are and not where I believed you to be based on where I am, that's a different person more often than not. And so I think that when we talk about them not seeing Peter, I think it's more than just not seeing him as an equal in the group. I think that they fundamentally misunderstand who he is. And that makes the betrayal hit different. Because now what is true is that your expectations for what he should have and could have done are different. Right? It's also why. Oh, my goodness, this is just coming to me. It's also why I think Sirius was like, it doesn't matter who you choose to be the Secret Keeper. We're all the same. We will all do the same things for one another. We will all, you know, ride and die. And maybe, maybe Peter lied and said, like, I'm totally down for that. And they believed him. But we can see in some of his actions that that is undoubtedly probably wasn't the case. And that Sirius, who admittedly had a lot going on at home, but was also just an arrogant boy, probably just thought, well, if I'm willing to do it, everyone is. And if James is willing to do it, then everyone is. And not accounting for any of the rampant amounts of insecurities that existed between Remus and Peter, right? And not accounting for any of the kind of externalities that exist. And so that when it came time to make the choice to say who is going to be the Secret Keeper, he's like, well, it doesn't really matter, right? It doesn't matter if it's me, if it doesn't matter if it's Peter. Like, we are all the same. We have the same level of loyalty to one another. And that was his fatal flaw. That was the thing that messed him up, was that he had this belief and it wasn't grounded in the reality of who Peter actually is. And I think that sometimes when we think about what it means to be someone's friend, part of that journey, particularly when you're friends with someone for a long time and everyone is on different growth journeys, is realizing that the friend that you had when you were younger isn't necessarily the friend you're going to have when you're older, the friend that you have that is based on who you believe them to be, the friend that they may actually be when you take the scales off your eyes and look at them and allow them to be who they truly are. And in our final kind of discussion, I want to talk a little bit more about this, but through a different lens. But I think that a lot of the dynamic of this is I think Peter was always Peter. I'm just not convinced that James and Sirius ever took the time to see him for who he actually was, rather than who they believed him to be, based on who they were and the kind of friends that they were to him. There was an expected reciprocity that never materialized. And they weren't looking for it because they got it in one another enough that it didn't really matter. But then they just assumed that everyone was gonna be like them and that everyone was gonna have the same kind of friendship as them. And in many ways, many ways, that's the folly of youth. And, you know, they get older and they realize the truth. And unfortunately, that truth cost James life and cost Sirius so much of his own life and his sanity and his faith in humanity and all of these other things. But I think that, you know, what this really kind of brings up for me is questions about when we look at, like, the friendships in these books, how much of the dynamics and the fights that we see between the Golden Trio, how much of that is the byproduct of the presumption of who the person is versus who they actually are. And mining that gap between reality and expectation, we are going to continue the conversation about Peter and his friendship. But I. I was thinking about this and I was reading this comment from Lady Danbury. Love that name, by the way, Bridgerton forever. And it really got me thinking. So I'm going to read you the comment because I think it really sets things up. Lady Danbury wrote, I've always found it curious, suspicious that Peter was a rat Animagus when the other marauders were a deer and a dog. And then we obviously had Remus, who was a werewolf. I don't remember an explanation, so I always thought it to be indicative of his personality. This brings me to the duplicity and mass murder. It was way too easy for people to believe that Sirius was a madman and murderer, probably judging his surname and not his character. Yet no one Suspected the literal rat are rats, not filthy sneaky animals. In the wizarding world for over a decade, everyone was once again wrong and strong about who committed the crime. Let's talk about it. Because this continues this idea of who people believe you to be, what they believe you to be capable of and who you have and were always. And no one saw it. Right? So much of Peter's ability to kind of scurry around is based on the idea that like no one believed he was capable of doing what he did. Right. And I really think that Lady Danbury brings up a really good point in that everyone was so quick to believe that it was something that Sirius could do, even though they all knew him. Even Remus. Even Remus was saying, you know, I thought it was you and I'm sorry for that. Like he had to apologize because he really was of the mind that Sirius was capable of doing that crime. And I just think that that's so interesting, right? Because it does speak to the reality of like, again, who we believe you to be and who you actually are and even amongst the best of friends. That the fact that that kind of seed could take root in Remus mind is so fascinating because it really does show us and tells us such a very specific thing about the way he views Sirius and that he thought he was guilty. And that's, I think such. That tells us such a very specific kind of story. Torey then goes on to bring up this interesting point about whether there are other indications that Peter wasn't a good person and highlighted his delight at Snape bullied by James. And so that, you know, because I said in the episode that, you know, I Forgot about the 13 non magical people who were killed in his attack where he framed Sirius. Yes. And that this feels like it came out of nowhere. But Torey's like, no, I think we just need to look closer. And again, again, right? It's this idea of seeing them for who they actually are versus who, who we believe them to be. And it's kind of the same subterfuge that we see Quirrel use in Sorcerer Philosopher's Stone, right? Where it's like, oh, how could he be the bad one? Right. He's kind of just this kind of poor stuttering dude. Like, how could he be up to no good? Or Gilderoy Lockhart. Right? How is it possible that he could be bad? He's dumb. You know what I mean? Like, there is a way that so many of the characters in these books present one way. And we take it Hook, line and sinker. Because it feels right. And we don't ever really let our minds go to a place of thinking more about who they are. And I think Peter is just another example of this particular reality. Tom Riddle is another one, right? A pretty face, very smart. How could he be evil? How could we know? And it's like, one of my favorite things is when Harry asks Dumbledore after the first memory, when he shows. Not the first memory, when he shows him the first memory of them, of Tom Riddle in the orphanage. And Harry's like, did you know? And he's like, that he was the worst wizard ever. No. How could I? And it's like, dude, he literally sat there and told you that he was torturing kids who made him upset, you know, that he had killed that rabbit. He was keeping all kinds of things. He was clearly not well mentally. And so, no, the signs were there, but you didn't want to believe it. You didn't want to believe it, and so you allowed yourself to see falsities. And then he leverages all of that as he continues to grow up, because no one wants to believe it's true of him. And I just think that, like, I think this is also a thing that we just see in society as well, where we're just so predisposed to not want to believe the worst in people or believe people to be who they have shown themselves to be. And I think I posted on my Instagram about, like, you know, Disney villains, and it was from another podcast, Las Culturistas. I can't say that correctly, but anyways, and they do this segment called I don't Think so, Honey. And Matt Rogers was talking about how we need to bring back, like, the death of, like, deaths of villains, right? And how they are dealing with the consequences of their actions. Because, like, in those movies, in the old school Disney movies, like, the bad people were just bad. We didn't get any explanation. Maleficent, no explanation. She was just evil. We didn't get any explanation for why Ursula was the way that she was. We didn't get any explanation for why the evil Queen of Snow White was the way that she was. Right? Like, they were just bad. And we didn't have to do any of the kind of massaging or finding of the nuance. They were just bad people. And maybe that's why I am the way that I am in terms of my, like, he's just bad. And that's just what it is, right? Like, there is. There was a cultural time where it was like, villains were villains. And it wasn't like the villain within. It was like, no, you're just a bad person. And why you're getting up to your skullduggery is not really part of the calculus. You're just up to it and we aren't having it. And I think there's something to be said about that. And I think that there's something to be said about the fact that we're talking about someone who was a literal rat. Like, that's what happened. And so then as we continue to think about the Animagi, Nadia says, I'm interested in whether wizards choose their animagus form or if it's a bit like wands and the animal form chooses them or is predestined based on personality. And then Mia writes, there was an article on Wizarding World that detailed the complicated process of becoming an animagus. They can't choose what it will be. Rather it is a perfect distillation of the character of the witch or wizard. Hello. So what you're telling me is that they all figured out how to be these animals and Peter pops out as a rat and everyone's like, clock it. That's cool. Okay. And no one asked any questions. You know what I mean? Like, when we think about the way that magic tends to work, there are so many indicators of who a person is, what it is that they care about, right? The wand chooses the wizard. We know that certain wands carry certain attributes. We know that when you become an animagus, that is an outward manifestation of who you are as a person. You're patronus. And what that looks like also tells us something very specific about who you are, y'all. Like, I mean, your house, right? Like all of these things. Now your house is different because we know that there's a little bit of a self selection bias that goes into this. But there are so many things within the magical world where we see individuals kind of truth being made manifest in magical ways. And yet, and still no one looked at Peter and said, something's not right. And there's a part of this that I think is beautiful, like finding the good in people and, you know, really wanting to see the best in people. Also simultaneously, however, concurrently. Although I think that sometimes we have to do those things with a recognition, a full on recognition of who these people actually are. And Peter is a rat. Like he literally turned into a rat. He didn't have a decision that wasn't a choice that they made. He just turned into one. And then when he turned out to be one. Everyone was like, how could this be? And I think that there's just something so fascinating about how magic offers us the ability to really see who people are, right? Like the strength of, you know, a stag and the nobility of that as a sigil for so many royal houses, like, in real life, right? You know, a big dog is another one that's, like, loyal. And then you have, you know, Remus, who obviously isn't an Animagus, but, you know, and didn't have a choice in what he transformed into. And then you have you. And no one really has a choice, right, as to what they transform into. But Remus circumstances are obviously different than the other marauders. And then you have Peter. And I just find it so fascinating that even when magic sends up a red flag and says, y'all, is anyone listening? Is anyone paying attention? Is anyone seeing the truth? And I think what Peter really brings out for me is the reality of how a desire to see the best in some people makes us blind to the reality of who they are. And that sometimes, sometimes seeing the best in people brings out the worst in us, because we set ourselves up for all kinds of madness and absurdity. And it's like. And I'm a person now, where I'm like, you know, when you show me who you are, I believe you. If I had seen him turn into a rat, I would have been like, clock it. Something's not right. Like, there's no way that you. That the magical manifestation of you in animal form is a rat. And I meant to say, that's cute. Like, I don't understand how they arrived at that conclusion and then were surprised when he actually turned out to be a rat. Thanks to all of you who participated in the post episode chat. This was a really, really, really good one. I knew at the end of the episode that it was going to be a fire chat because I was like, oh, I kind of went off a. I feel like this one might be too. But I really appreciate you all taking the time and the energy. Also, never, ever, ever, ever apologize for writing too much. Never apologize for writing long essays in the surveys. Speaking of surveys, the Remus Lupin one is up. Please feel free to check that out. But never, never apologize. We want to hear your thoughts unfiltered, unabridged. That's why you're here, and we're glad you're here. So please, please, please, always share. This is the space for that. That's why this space exists. That's why the post episode chat exists. So thank you so much for everyone who participated in it. There will obviously be another one for this episode. Y'all. This was so much fun. Peter Pettigrew. Who knew? He's really giving us a lot to think about. Much more than I ever thought. This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. I'm Professor Julian Womble and if you enjoyed today's episode. First of all, thank you. Please feel free to, like, rate, subscribe, do all the things that one does where pods are cast. If you want to follow me on social media, please feel free to do so @Prof.JW on Instagram and ProfW. On TikTok. Please feel free to send me an email@criticalmagictheorygmail.com Please feel free to check out our website criticalmagictheory.com the REMUS survey is up. Please feel free to do it. I will remind you later on, but get on it. Okay y'all, thank you so much for listening to today's episode. I can't wait to hear your thoughts on Remus and in our post episode chat on patreon.com criticalmagictheory. Until then, be critical and stay magical, my friends. Bye.
