Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: maxwell Dec 3 2006, 11:37 AM

why was peter in gryffindor???
what exactly should the qualities be in order to be placed in gryffindor........
or what exactly should the the qualities be in order to be placed.

Posted by: Better than a veela Dec 3 2006, 11:42 AM

Does it ever say he's in gryfindor? i cant remember. anyway, clearly the student has somewhat of a say in which house their in (i.e. harry says he doesn't want slytherin so the hat doesn't put him there). Also, don't they compare peter to neville, who is also in gryfindor.

Posted by: maxwell Dec 3 2006, 12:47 PM

the sorting hat was finding it difficult to put harry, harry could have been in slytherin or griffindor....he had both qualities..... but the slytherin qualities were not his original ones...... he got it from voldy.......
the sorting hat was made to sort

Posted by: nympheart Dec 3 2006, 01:36 PM

We don't know that Peter was a Gryffindor. Jo was asked what Houses the Marauders were in, but in the question Remus was listed twice and Peter not at all.

The thing is, I can't figure out what House Peter would be in with the information we have right now. He's clearly a sniveling coward crossing out Gryffindor. He wasn't notoriously clever, putting an "X" through Ravenclaw. He was hardly loyal to his friends, eliminating Hufflepuff. Somehow though, I don't see James and Sirius hanging out with a Slytherin. I think it's a difficult puzzle.

Posted by: secunda Dec 3 2006, 01:53 PM

I don´t necessarily see the slytherins as cowards. I don´t think marcus Flint is a coward. He dared after all to shout at draco after they lost the Quidditch match in CoS. Despite the wonderful brooms draco´s daddy bought the team.


My sister and I discussed pp yesterday, and we thought he was loyal to powerful ppl. So maybe a hufflepuff who´s gone astray.

Posted by: Bubblez Dec 3 2006, 01:56 PM

maybe the sorting hat couldve seen intot he future and saw him being "brave" with voldemort possiably?

Posted by: RobertK Dec 3 2006, 02:06 PM

Oooh, that's good, Bubblez. That's a good possibility... perhaps the Hat isn't restricted by the triviality of time but can determine someone's true character regardless of what it was at the time of sorting.

And by the way, to Leaky! Hope you have fun here and stick around a while.

Posted by: Katessence Dec 3 2006, 02:15 PM

Peter doesn't exude Gryffindor qualities at all and he doesn't strike me as a Ravenclaw smartie. He reminds me of a Slytherin, but more like a Slughorn type, opportunistic, fearful, cunning. I just can't see the Marauders taking a Slytherin under their wings. They hated Snape.

As for him being with LV, he is going to the side that he feels is the most powerful. I could see him jumping LV's ship, just like rats do, if he feels the other side is getting more powerful. He can't however go back to the good side anymore, so if he abandins LV, then I could see him going into hiding again, but most likely he'll get killed. I don't think it's bravery that keeps him by LV's side, but rather fear and there's no where else to go.

Posted by: nympheart Dec 3 2006, 02:19 PM

I completely agree. Peter plays for power, very Slytherin of him. But James and Sirius especially disliked Slytherins. If there were ever any chance of Peter being forgiven by the Order, that chance was DD. He can't go back now.

Posted by: melj1213 Dec 3 2006, 02:44 PM

The Sorting Hat couldn't decide between Gryffindor and Slytherin...However Harry's deep desire not to be put in Slytherin meant that the Sorting Hat could see that the Slytherin values were not Harry's values. Another indicator for the Hat that made it put Harry in Gryffindor was that a true Slytherin would not desperatly plead not to be put there....

Also Harry's bravery to say this to the Sorting Hat showed the Hat that without a doubt, Harry should be put in Gryffindor over Slytherin



This was probably a mistake in the question because JK says "This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor!" so wouldn't she say that Lupin, James and Sirius were in Gryffindor, and PP was in X if he wasn't in Gryffindor? I think she would make it very clear that PP was in a different house if he wasn't in Gryffindor. Also if PP was in a different house, how did he hang out with the others, help them make the map, learn to become an Animagus and how did he sneak out of his House area and meet up with the others to go on their midnight roaming sessions?! Also would James, Sirius and Lupin go out of their way to be best friends with someone from a different house, and someone they probably had never met before Hogwarts? I don't think so...Therefore I think it is safe to assume PP was in Gryffindor...



I don't see the Slytherins as cowards, especially not after the Sorting Hat's songs JK has said that "The Sorting Hat is certainly sincere." so we can take what it says as fairly accurate. The Hat has usually described Slytherin as cunning, as seen in the Hat's songs:

PS/SS

Or perhaps in Slytherin
You’ll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means,
To achieve their ends.

GoF

Shrewd Slytherin, from fen...
And power-hungry Slytherin
Loved those of great ambition

OoTP

Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those
Whose ancestry is purest."...
For instance, Slytherin
Took only pure-blood wizards
Of great cunning, just like him

Therefore we know that Slytherins are power-hungry, cunning, shrewd and ambitious - there is no reference to cowardice. Also why would someone in Slytherin be proud to be in a house if it was supposed to be associated with cowardice? Can you really see Draco Malfoy desperatly wanting to be placed in Slytherin if it was a 'cowards house'? I don't think so

Posted by: Narya Dec 4 2006, 05:21 AM

I'm moving this topic over to Notable Magical Names as the discussion is focusing on character analysis.

Mobilithreadus!

Narya
Leaky Mod

Posted by: MonieLou Dec 4 2006, 01:07 PM

It's true that Peter does have Slytherin qualities. Except, if he were in Slytheirn how did he become a Marauder? Odds are that if he was in that House, James, Sirius, and Lupin wouldn't want anything to do with him. Ergo, I think the logical House for Peter to be in is Gryffindor. Otherwise, there wouldn't be four Marauders.

Posted by: melj1213 Dec 4 2006, 05:11 PM

That basically sums up my last post on the bottom of the previous page very nicely, and in my last post there was also a few quotes from JK as to his house, etc...

Posted by: marvelfan23 Dec 4 2006, 05:18 PM

I've always wondered about what house Peter was in. I think what most people are saying that he must have been either a Gryffindor or Slytherin makes sense. It's very hard to picture James, Sirius and Remus hanging out with a Slytherin, so he was probably a Gryffindor.

Posted by: melj1213 Dec 4 2006, 05:22 PM

This was probably a mistake in the question because JK says "This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor!" so wouldn't she say that Lupin, James and Sirius were in Gryffindor, and PP was in X if he wasn't in Gryffindor? I think she would make it very clear that PP was in a different house if he wasn't in Gryffindor. Also if PP was in a different house, how did he hang out with the others, help them make the map, learn to become an Animagus and how did he sneak out of his House area and meet up with the others to go on their midnight roaming sessions?! Also would James, Sirius and Lupin go out of their way to be best friends with someone from a different house, and someone they probably had never met before Hogwarts? I don't think so...Therefore I think it is safe to assume PP was in Gryffindor...

Posted by: D Laidlaw Dec 5 2006, 12:12 AM

HI!


For a long-ish but fascinating look at Mr. Pettigrew, go to

www.redhen-publications.com/Pettigrew.html



To quote a bit of it:

Underneath it all, Peter is still a thoroughgoing Gryffindor, for all his underhandedness. Nor is he the first underhanded Gryff we've met. They're not that uncommon. Pettigrew's mode of operation shows none of the strengths or particular skills of Slytherin House. He forges no “peer” alliances and he does no deals. He opens no negotiations and he makes no threats or innuendos. He shares no information and takes no one into any level of his confidence. And he doesn’t really get out there and jockey for position either.

And the former Tom Riddle is at a standstill trying to figure out what to do with him. He doesn’t want to just dispence with him. He’s too short-handed as it is. And bedsides, the Rat has prooved that he can be useful. But he doesn’t understand him in the least.

When a Gryff isn't trying to lead the troops and hasn't entrenched himself in a role of trusted Lieutenant, he is very likely to be off on his own in full-bore “Lone Agent” mode, even if only in his daydreams. And Pettigrew is acting absolutely independently (possibly the only personal quality he does share with Neville Longbottom. They are both able to operate as loners, but Neville does it honorably).

The alliances of Slytherin House are much shallower and far more flexible than the deep tribal associations of Hufflepuff, but the Slyths nevertheless depend heavily on their “connections”. It is a rare Slytherin indeed who chooses to act outside of his “network”.

[Post-HBP note: that statement was written years before we ever met Horace Slughorn.]

The Hat sorts children, not really by their personalities, but by their goals and values. Peter is an example of what can happen when those goals and values shift.

Gryffindor is all about the admiration, and who gives it.

Slytherin is all about winning. Whatever it takes. Whatever the cost. And it is not unknown for a Slytherin to win only at a cost that was higher than he can afford to pay. Tom Riddle is proof enough of that.


So, what do you all think?

Posted by: shantih Dec 5 2006, 10:25 AM

In book 1 (?) Hagrid (?) says to Harry that there never was a witch/wizard gone to the dark side who wasn't a Slytherin. This should mean that PP was a Slytherin, too.

Posted by: maxwell Dec 5 2006, 10:50 AM

but no one knew that peter was alive then, they thought he was dead!
and hagrid was ofcourse exaggerating........ he knew that sirius(gryffindor) was in azkaban for the crimes of peter pettigrew.

Posted by: hydrangea Dec 5 2006, 11:53 AM

Peter would have been about 11 when the sorting hat placed him.Peter may yet have a role to play where we see why he was placed in a particular house.I agree Peter may have been sorted into one house and begged the hat not to place him there. Do not think the house is to blame for Peters choices- as in life we are responsible for our own actions.

Posted by: MonieLou Dec 5 2006, 12:01 PM

That doesn't necessarily mean anything. Not just Slytherins can turn to the bad side. The other three houses are just as capable. Its only that Slytherin has special recognition.

I stick behind PP being in Gryffindor, otherwise he would never had become friends with James, Remus, and Sirius. They would not have become affiliated with a Slytherin. Look how they treated Snape.

Posted by: jammi567 Dec 5 2006, 05:24 PM

I believe that PP was in Gryffindor because of the following reasons:

1) he's brave, but he doesn't outwardly show it
2) he does have loylty, even if it is only to the winning side

Posted by: Snark Dec 6 2006, 02:22 PM

We have canon for other Gryffindors being duplicitous (Romilda Vane, and the love potion), unfaithful/opportunistic (Percy Weasley) and cruel/vindictive (the Marauders/Cormac McLaggen). There are others, I'm sure.

I really think Peter had to be in Gryffindor -- if he wasn't, I see no excuse for it not being mentioned by now.

The Sorting Hat doesn't seem to make much of a distinction, IMO, between bold, reckless and brave. If caution is the last thing on your mind, you're a Gryff. ;)

Posted by: Glow Dec 8 2006, 07:18 PM

Here's the Hat's description of Gryffindor:

Gryffindors are brave at heart, but have nerve and daring, a curious combination of qualities. Bravery is a virtue when used for good, but there are alternate definitions for "brave":



Therefore, it stands to reason that Pettgrew was in Gryffindor, and was "brave at heart," but in the most moral expression of it. It seems to me that he was extremely daring in his actions on behalf of the Dark Lord, which exhibits a lower, more basic sort of bravery that can also be used for great evil.

And BTW, let's remember that Percy Weasley is a Gryffindor, and is not the most noble person in the world. He's not corrupt like Pettigrew, and his bravery shows up in his determination and ambition in his career.

Posted by: nympheart Dec 8 2006, 07:48 PM

You do have a point Glow, nice research. But there is another trait I'd like to point out that Peter certainly does not meet.

According to Dictionary.com: Chivalry-the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms. Essentially, chivalry is courage fused with morality; I believe Peter is a bit lacking in that department. Valor is listed among the traits that compose chivalry and is defined as "boldness or determination in facing great danger, esp. in battle; heroic courage." Peter operates so that he can be in the position that poses him the least possible amount of danger in his perception.

I agree that brave does not necessarily mean that one takes the "good" side. From a certain viewpoint, chivalry could work the same way if it is very twisted, but to me it seems that Peter's actions have not filled that characteristic. In spite of chivalry, it does appear that Peter fits Gryffindor best of all the Houses with Glow's definition of bravery, however. While he may possibly pass as a Slytherin, it seems that it can be agreed that James and Sirius would not have allowed Peter to hang around them if that were the case.

Posted by: maxwell Dec 11 2006, 04:58 AM

i read this in gof and atleast this shows that there are some other sides to peter which perhaps indicates as to why he is in Gryffindor......

was wormtail trying to return a favour to harry ???

*edited to add quote tags*

Posted by: nympheart Dec 11 2006, 03:28 PM

Nice point, maxwell. I always thought that Peter was making a weak attempt at paying off his life debt there. This does prove there is some good in him. And I suppose that was showing a wee bit of bravery there.

Posted by: Norwegian hp Dec 11 2006, 03:37 PM

It showed a kind of morale, even a cowardly kind of it.

Posted by: hydrangea Dec 11 2006, 04:07 PM

Peter has lived with both Voldemort and Snape post Hogwarts. If Harry does catch up with Peter in future, he will have some valuable information to hand him.

Posted by: Glow Dec 11 2006, 04:18 PM

Those who practice chivalry are supposed to show special regard for the young and the weak, which could be a motivation for Peter. And by the way, just because someone is supposed to be chivalrous doesn't mean they live up to it. We see this in Arthurian legend, and in history--knights who had sworn to live according to those very high principles often violated them, in varying degrees. That's what makes Peter's betrayal so bad. Someone who supposedly is chivalrous isn't supposed to sell out his friends, and yet he does. (and Percy isn't so chivalrous, either, and he's in Gryffindor)

Posted by: maxwell Dec 12 2006, 04:59 AM

i think peter did try something....but it was of no use,.... but i do think that we will be given a reason as to why he was a marauder.. , why was he in Gryffindor

Posted by: razberry2 Dec 12 2006, 10:49 AM

People can live their whole lives and make some good choices and some bad choices. They can live up to the standards that have been set out before them, but they can also fail in living up to the expectations given to them. Maybe they can stay on the wagon for a while, but then they might fall off and need a hand to get back on.

Peter Pettigrew is still alive, as is Percy, and has the rest of his life to live before we can judge whether he deserved to be in Gryffindor or not. Obviously the hat saw something in Pettigrew that no one else can see. We are a race prone to make some mistakes both big and not so big. Sure one can say that Peter chose to be in Gryffindor, but I don't think it always works that way. Harry didn't want to follow VD path and told the hat he didn't want to go to Slytherin, so the hat put him in Gryffindor.

On another note, Peter has been close to VD and Snape since book 3. If it isn't brave to work close with the most powerful, evil dark wizard of our time and live with the man whose childhood you helped make a living hell, I don't know what is.

I am not trying to make excuses for Peter; what he did was horrible. We don't know his story either. Maybe some one got to him, tempted him, told him lies to make him believe what he was doing was right. Temptation is another thing that hard to shake off.

Posted by: Norwegian hp Dec 12 2006, 01:58 PM

It is not brave to be so cowardly that you simply serve the strongest side, whatever how this side is acting.
First it was James, Sirius and Lupin, who all where(and Lupin still is) powerfull and talented wizards, so Dumbledore, before he saw the power of Voldemort and his dark side followers. To join Voldemort was only a step up from the marauders in Pettigrew`s eyes.

The only real reason that he is serving Voldemort is pure fear, but he has shown a will to defy him and i believe that Pettigrew will show that he is a real Griffindor in the last book.

Posted by: weaslyfreak Dec 12 2006, 04:51 PM

I agree. I think Peter was brave, but just not always to the right side.

Posted by: Ashes_86 Dec 12 2006, 05:52 PM

I think from a literiary standpoint he had to be in Gryffindor. I mean if you were reading PoA and everyone was saying Sirius was a murder, and then they started talking about James and hsi friend in school, and someone mentions Peter unlike Remus and Sirius was in Slytherin, well that kind of makes you wonder dosent it?
And the beauty of PoA was unless you're really sharp, you werent wondering, you were (I was anyway), buying hook line and sinker that Sirius betrayed James.
Also, it would be hard to believe, and a bit of a shock if James, Sirius and Remus had befriended a slytherin, espically one of little magical talent.
And when the order found out there was a spy Sirius would of surely suspected Peter over Remus if Peter was a Slyterin.

I wouldn't ask Jo to defend this move. I think it was necessary plotwise and I'd forgive her for not having a good reason for this one. Peter seems like an obvious Slytherin, deffinetly not a Gyrfindor seems like he gave up pretty easily when threatened by LV, dosen't sound brave to me.

Prehaps the hosue you're put into just means you have the potential and the capasity to show that trait, not that you necessarily ever will. That of corse, is all about what you choose. ;)

Posted by: Ravenclaw Lady Dec 13 2006, 12:22 AM

I believe that Pettigrew's brave side will be revealed in the 7th book if he really owns Harry that favor and perhaps he wasn't a Gryffindor to begin with, but always had the potential. And quite a few people are in houses that they seemingly don't belong to, but there's just something deep down inside of them. For instance; Hermione. She should be in Ravenclaw, but there is just something deep inside of her that classifies her as a Gryffindor

Posted by: maxwell Dec 13 2006, 09:04 AM

hermione is simple...... though she is clever, cunning, intelligent and smart... and a bookworm........ she values friendship,courage,honesty,loyalty..... the point is that she helps a lot of people... and no matter how clever she is... she wouldnt stand injustice and not do something about it..... for example SPEW....... she goes on about it although harry and ron or anybody doesnt support her....

but peter was different.... he knew that no one except sirius and potters knew that he was the secretkeeper..... and it was an oppurtunity for him...... i dont think that voldy went after peter........ i think that peter went voluntarily towards voldy...... he was a spy for about a year.... i think that it is clear that peter might have been brave but i dont think that LOYALTY is a trait associated with Gryffindor......
and only then could peter be both in Gryffindor and also a traitor

Posted by: Ashes_86 Dec 13 2006, 12:31 PM

Maxwell brings up a good point.
Prehaps it has alot to do with what you value and not necessarily what charactoristics you show. Hermione values courage and friendship and loyalty, but she is really smart. She says to Harry in PS, quotage:

This suggests to me that although Hermione has the cahractorstics of a Ravenclaw, she values bravery more and that prehaps is why she was placed in Gryffindor.

Posted by: Siriute Dec 14 2006, 09:35 AM

Ashes_86

I really wonder why so many ppl seem surprised that Peter was in Gryffindor and I think with all the evidence available we cannot longer argue about that. Most ppl seem to be convinced that Gryffindor is the house of the "Good people" so Pettigrew wouldn't fit in there.
Another argument is usually his lack of courage. Well, do you really think that somebody who managed to spy on the Order for at least a year is a coward? I think Peter really got nerve. He even dared to suggest to Voldie that another person would do in place of Harry Potter as quoted below. Do you think a coward would suggest anything to Lord Voldemort? We still have to see another deatheater who is that daring.

Anyway, the hat surely sorts you into the house that is the best fit for you out of the choice; so if there is no other house better suited he would go to Gryffindor. And there really is none better suited.

Hufflepuff: Do you really think the house of loyalty and hard work would be the best fit for Peter. Not even to start about loyalty, Peter who seems to be so lazy that McGonagall seems still to feel contempt for him. And we have to remember that she is the transfiguration teacher, so Peter should really kick a$$ there. He got an animagus at the age of 15 in the end.

Ravenclaw: well, there is really no argument that I can see that would place Peter in Ravenclaw, which leaves...

Slytherin: Peter is obviously cunning, even though that is surely not a quality restricted to Slytherins as we have seen this ressource in Hermione as well as in Harry. If so, Peter is probably less cunning than they are as he acts only like that when he finds himself in a dead end. (like when he framed Sirius). Peter knows how to push ppl's buttons, how to play them, that's his main strength. He is a very keen observer of ppl. Only with this quality he was able to fool clever ppl like James, Sirius or Dumbledore for at least a year!
But... and now I come to the land of speculation... Peter may lack a core qualification of Slytherin. I believe he was not a pureblood. He may be a halfblood like Remus Lupin, but my guess is that he may have been even Muggleborn. That would certainly explain why he lacks selfconfidence so much in his younger days, why he admires James so much (as he would know much more about the ww right from the beginning). It would also explain why nobody gave the thought that Peter might have been the traitor a second thought. And why the deatheater talk down on him (like seen in the Spinner's End scene). He certainly didn't find any friends among the deatheaters. But we know that Voldie himself could care less about the right blood if the person is only useful for him. And we know from Jo that there is an exception among the DE. So I think there are arguments for Muggleborn!Peter... And that would certainly take him out of the run for Slytherin.

So that leaves him to Gryffindor and it certainly was a good fit. He made friends there in the end.

Posted by: maxwell Dec 15 2006, 09:12 AM

well you said it well but you seem to suggest that only if a person doesnt fit to other houses he will be in Gryffindor.... i dont think so....look at hermione. she seemed to go into ravenclaw but she was in Gryffindor....i think that the hat chooses for what people are
i think that the only reason is that LOYALTY is not the reason to be in Gryffindor... that way peter could be in Gryffindor and be a traitor.

Posted by: blondeweasley277 Dec 16 2006, 09:11 AM

As of Pettigrew's character at this moment, he would not fit into any of the houses. I won't even go into which he would fit in now because I'd rather not think of that evil little man at Hogwarts.

He was somewhat "loyal" (*coughs and dies* I just called him loyal. Someone hurt me please) to Sirius, Remus, and James during their school years though. Maybe he didn't stay loyal but if you look at loyal as the way of always being with someone, he certainly did that. More in the desperate way than the friendship way but he was loyal all the same so I say Hufflepuff. But the unafraid of toil thing...it's hard to agree with that when Peter is such a wimp. Still, I'll stick by Hufflepuff for his early years.Then I think something went wrong when he got caught up in everything Voldemort.

I really always just assumed he was in Gryffindor though. I just don't see the other Marauders as the people who would hang out with kids from other houses. Lupin maybe but not really Sirius or James.

Posted by: maxwell Dec 17 2006, 04:26 PM

LOYALTY is associated with Hufflepuffs....not Gryffindor....... i dont remember the sorting hat connecting LOYATY with Gryffindor!
although loyalty is also a individual quality.....not the criteria of selection for Gryffindor....that way a person in Gryffindor can be loyal or not.

you must remember that wormtail is not loyal to voldemort....voldemort himself said this in gof.

wormtail will shift sides the moment he sniffs that harry is in advantage.... because if he changes sides he goes to jail... if he stays with voldy, then he dies.

Posted by: nympheart Dec 18 2006, 03:50 PM

Maxwell has an excellent point about Peter's loyalty, rather lack thereof. He has never associated with anyone because of who they are as a person, he is only really concerned in sticking where there is power. He wants to be safe, to have someone to hide behind.

I have seen a couple of times people saying loyalty is a Gryffindor trait, I guess because of the focus on friendship where Harry and Co. are concerned. I'm going to go ahead and say that Percy was in Gryffindor and could hardly be considered loyal (though one could call him chivalrous).

Posted by: Snark Dec 18 2006, 05:19 PM

Yeah, I would not exactly call Peter chivalrous, but neither is McLaggen. Percy Weasley on the other hand, sure. He can be a real sweetie. ^_^

Chivalry sounds like something that Godric Gryffindor would have prized. It goes right in hand with boldness, nerve, and heroics.

I think another reason people think of Gryffs as inherently loyal (which I agree is not exactly accurate) is that courage is often required (in these troubled times) to maintain one's loyalty.

Posted by: maxwell Dec 20 2006, 12:26 PM

yes, but i think that LOYALTY is not important to be a gryffindor .

Posted by: The Final Horcrux Dec 20 2006, 12:37 PM

Loyalty isn't neccarily a Gryffindor trait but courage is suppose to be #1; an attribute yet to be seen in wee Peter! I think he'll not only end up helping Harry out, wheather out of life debt or self preservation, but he'll have to do so courageously. Perhaps fighting deatheaters or old Voldy himself. The silver hand has to come into play somewhere.
Of course the sorting could just be inept!

Posted by: maxwell Dec 20 2006, 01:15 PM

The hat has never been wrong in sorting, it has been specifically made for this
it even placed harry in Gryffindor which is correct although it thought otherwise, yet its the actions on which people must be tested on and not thoughts,
so i think we agree that peter could have been a Gryffindor and was also a traitor because its not necessary that everyone in Gryffindor have to be loyal

that would explain as to how Peter could be in Gryffindor and also a traitor.

Posted by: voldemort must die Dec 20 2006, 02:18 PM

I think that maybe, just maybe, Peter's bravery is yet to show itself...or maybe he just didn't fit any of the houses?! And the Sorting Hat just placed him in the one he was least incompatible for, although this is probably highly unlikely.

Posted by: Ginnyous Dec 20 2006, 08:00 PM

I think that the only Quality that peter posed back then was a bit of courage thats why he was placed in Gryffindor. because Hufflefuff are just, loyal, and unafraid. Ravenclaws are ready minded and have wit and love learning. Slytherin are cunning and use any means to achieve their ends.
Peter wasn't just or loyal and definitely was afraid, he liked hiding behind people so they could protect him. He wasn't the head of any class and lacked wit and love of learning. He wasn't to cunning and he wasn't brave enough to use any means to get what he wanted.
Although when he left school he was cunning and used any means to get what LV wanted. he knew that he wasn't powerful enough, smart enough, or brave enough to stand up to LV so he decided to join him instead of dieing fighting against him. He would have made a great Slytherin.

Posted by: maxwell Dec 21 2006, 11:32 AM

i certainly dont think that the sorting hat is wrong,maybe we dont know whether peter showed any courage in his early life,only JK knows the reasons for peter

Posted by: Robina Barely Jan 7 2007, 07:10 AM

You know, this thread seems to be going round in circles. I think it is clear by now that the sorting hat has placed Peter in Gryf. And I think good and bad is not quite as clear in the HP books, except for HP himself and Tom Riddle (I really prefer to call Voldemort by his real name, like Dumbledore). I think it's more whether you're capable to love. And I think Peter was able to love, otherwise he would never helped Lupin. And that Peter is connected with Snape might be because he was really sorry for what James and Sirius always did to him (look at Snape's worst memory, I really wouldn't call that bravery although Sirius, James, Lupin and Peter were in gryf.). But ofcourse it is hard to explain why Peter went over to the other side, and maybe we'll learn in the deathly hallows. My explanation is that it Peters time it was not quite as clear that his group of friends was the right group, like it is now with harry, hermione and ron.

Posted by: celestinafan Jan 16 2007, 03:12 PM

BINGO. Peter is going to save Harry's life in DH.

Posted by: nympheart Jan 16 2007, 03:14 PM

Would that be bravery, or life-debt leaving him only a less pleasant choice?

Posted by: blacklucky Feb 2 2007, 04:13 PM

maybe in school he was a griffindor brave and all that but people change experienced change us we see this when we see the boggart effect molly in high school she wouldnt have had children so her bogart would be somthing diffrent i think its the same with peter he was a griffindor but somthing changed and he didnt stay that way

and we see that sometimes the sorting hat has a hardtime chosing.

Posted by: secunda Feb 6 2007, 06:17 PM

the hat fulfills the wishes of the students. if peter wished to be in the same house than james and sirius the hat would place him there.

Posted by: Narya Feb 6 2007, 07:48 PM

I don't think that's entirely accurate, secunda. I think the Hat sees what is in the student's heart, and makes a valid assessment of their true nature that way - and in doing so, places them in the House which suits them best. Merely wishing that he could be in Gryffindor where his friends had gone would not automatically mean that Peter would be sorted there. If the Hat had sorted the students alphabetically, then James would be sorted after Peter himself, so that line of reasoning doesn't follow.

Posted by: Snark Feb 6 2007, 07:58 PM

I just posted this idea in a different thread, but I don't recall seeing anything like it here, so...

As Peter was (correctly) sorted in Gryffindor, I can't see him turning on the Order of the Phoenix out of sheer ambition and the lust for power. Even Percy thinks he's doing the right thing. But I can see a fiery Gryffindor making a rash and costly mistake predicated on emotion, and getting himself into a position that he simply did not have the strength to make right. It's easy for Sirius to say, "You should have died!" but I'm not sure the Sorting Hat requires *that* much courage in its choices.

Posted by: CindyCindy Feb 6 2007, 08:24 PM

I know Peter in the house meant for heart?

But I do see him redeeming himself in book 7...MAYBE. Most likely but still if he got into Gryffindor he has to have some courage and heart. He's just a opportunistic bugger as well. Lets just hope the side that got him into Gryffindor shows now.

Posted by: secunda Feb 7 2007, 06:03 AM

ok i change to sirius. black comes befor pettigrew.

Posted by: bettygranger Feb 14 2007, 05:22 AM

Maybe he was in Gryffindor because he asked for it, i mean that Harry would be at Slythering if he hadn´t ask to go to Griffindor ,didn´t he?
Really i don´t know may be he would like to be with his protectors in that moment ,that were james and the rest, may be he wish that so much that gives him a little courage in that moment.

Posted by: Jupie Mar 10 2007, 03:10 PM

I find the comparison of Neville and Peter very interesting actually. I know that Wormtail has been shown in a very negative way, but if we were to look at the different situations I think Peter could have turned out differently. It's clear from the flashback with him and James and the others that Peter has a low-self esteem even then, and he seems to be the main target of insults even from his friends, whereas Harry and co treat Neville with respect and sensitively despite him being a bit clumsy to be around. I'm not trying to justify what Wormtail has become, but being around people who constantly make fun of you probably gave him no reason to feel loyal to them.

But yes, I think he would have gotten into Griffindor for his loyalty, even if it is out of fear, he still serves that person and puts effort into what he does. Plus he has a rather cunning mind..so although he doesn't appear to be smart in a academic sense he is sly and acute in other ways, such as getting out of trouble, going into role, etc.

Posted by: secunda Mar 12 2007, 04:02 AM

the difference between neville and peter is that neville doesn´t always stare in awe at the trio. he even stands up against them when it is necessary.

Posted by: Hatun punchaw Mar 12 2007, 03:36 PM

No, he didn't... He just asked NOT to be in Slytherin, the Sorting hat seemed him to fit better in Gryffindor.

Pettigrew is a lion at heart... a rotten lion, like Scar on Lion's king, but still a lion... He's brave, he just doesn't expect glory for his actions. He never stops trying, he's brave enough to try to lie a master legilimens... even he's just out of occlumens league. He's not like James & Sirius... for whom it doesn't matter the result, the most important for them was to be admired. Lupin was named prefect to help his bullying friends to calm down, but he couldn't... and as stated in a previous post before, the only one sorry about this "almost killing"-type of joke was Pettigrew. But it's not only about courage to stop them... courage to try to do something that seemed like impossible.

Posted by: rjsgirl Mar 15 2007, 01:40 PM

Perhaps the Sorting Hat sees what you can be or what is in your heart at the time or in the future.

Posted by: hartrocker Apr 28 2007, 09:20 AM

I've been taken by PP ever since we met him in POA, and he's just a unique character... I think it's pretty certain he was in Gryffindor, for all the reasons mentioned earlier.

There are some quotes about him in the books that intrigue me:

"Your devotion is nothing more than cowardice. You would not be here if you had anywhere else to go."
-- Lord Voldemort

"Do not lie to me!" hissed the second voice. "I can always tell, Wormtail! You are regretting that you ever returned to me. I revolt you. I see you flinch when you look at me, feel you shudder when you touch me..." -- Lord Voldemort

"The Dark Lord... you have no idea ... he has weapons you can't imagine ... I was scared, Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen ... He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named forced me ..." --Peter Pettigrew

This seems to indicate that it was in fact Voldemort who sought out PP, instead of PP switching to the dark side on his own initiative. I feel like PP's problem is, he just can't stand up to somebody whilst looking that person in the eyes. It's also typical that PP treats Harry like an object in the Graveyard, when LV is ressurected. This might mean, that if Harry could get his hands on PP, and isolate him from LV or death eaters, PP can't stand up to Harry, and switch sides again, perhaps only to share information he gained about LV whilst nursing babymort, and later whilst living at Spinners End.

There must be more to Wormtail, and I can't helping but feeling a certain sadness thinking about him.... what Gryf qualities will emurge in DH?

Posted by: Jacob137 May 18 2007, 03:30 PM

What I don't get, is why does everyone consider Wormtail to be some weak, talentless idiot? Sirius thinks so, McGonagall does, and much of the HP fanbase considers him to be so. But he isn't.

It is true that he's not brave, and has no self esteem. And I think it's his lack of self esteem that's holding him back. From McGonagall, we hear that he did not do well in school and wasn't very clever. But, from what I've picked up, he is very magically powerful.

He managed to become an animagus at only 15. I know Sirius and James were more clever than him, and he needed help from them to figure out the spells, but he still managed to do it, which in my oppinion is quite an achievement.

And, during the incident in which he confronted Sirius, he showed the ability to think very quickly (Cut off his finger and transform in a time of extreme stress). Not only that, but he killed 12 people in a single curse, and made an explosion so big it cracked the sidewalk down to the sewers! That's just crazy, that's an almost Dumbledore-magnitude spell!

In GOF, when Harry was transported to teh graveyard, wormtail made the potion to bring Voldemort back to life. That sort of potion, I assume, would be very difficult to create.

So true, he is cowardly, discouraged and has low self-esteem, but he is smart and powerful. And with his shiny hand, I feel sure he'll do a lot of damage in the 7th book!

Posted by: Mephguour May 18 2007, 03:41 PM

Having talent means nothing if you are always a follower to the point where your actions are dictated by others. it does make you weak willed. I dont think it can be denied that he has talent, but he has no backbone whatsoever. His lifes decisions always seemed to be made to placate or please someone else. That makes him weak.

Posted by: joannahex May 18 2007, 06:19 PM

His weakness is his character.Mephguour is right.He doesn't REALLY care about anyone but himself.All his decisions are for his own benefit and no one elses.Even though he has harmed himself with some of these decisions,he has harmed others so much more.He hasn't a care for anyone but himself.WEAK!!!!!!

Posted by: kwiki May 18 2007, 06:34 PM

In the graveyard scene, Wormtail had enough skills at potion making that he could make a somewhat decent potion cocktail if he was following the right instructions. Voldemort did not have the proper arm span, and at one point was in the potion that he needed somebody to help him with it and that job fell to Wormtail.

Posted by: Bubbles15 May 18 2007, 06:45 PM

He never had the talent to do any of those things by himself...He was working for LV. It could be possible that LV told him to cut off his finger just like he had him cut off his hand. And it was LV's plan to make the potion...he just wasn't able to as the shape he was in. Sorry, guy/gals, Wormtail is weak. And the animagus...he had James and Sirius' help. He has no backbone...he is WEAK!

Posted by: jslotter2004 May 18 2007, 07:38 PM

Wormtail is and will always be considered weak because of his lack of independence. LV has had a tremendous effect on the wizarding world. James and Sirius stook up against LV of their own accord. James and Sirius took it upon themselve to learn to become Animagi. Wormtail has done nothing by follow the orders of others. He trailed the Maraduers around at school because they were popular. He sold them out to LV because he was in some ways more popular. He was too weak to stand up to Babymort, even though his was riveled by him. I see him as a coward in every sence of the word.

Which makes me wonder...WHY IS PETTIGREW IN GRYFFENDOR???

Posted by: Kermit May 18 2007, 09:50 PM

I agree. His weakness is in his character and his lack of moral values. He stands for nothing in life. He is an opportunist who only cares about himself and what is easiest to get along. He shows no leadership qualities; he tries to earn Harry's trust through flattery and lies; he lies and plots against his oldest friends, etc.
The fact that he is a quick thinker does not make him a leader- just a quick thinker who is a pathological lier and who is always out to save his own skin first. I think he is even more despicable than LV because we LV does not HIDE what he wants. Wormtail, on the other hand, betrayed people who trusted him- people who considered him to be a friend.

Posted by: rowena r May 19 2007, 10:53 AM

The problem with Wormtail is that we have always seen him in comparison with James, Sirius and Remus. Now those three are not ordinary by any standards. It would be unfair to anyone if we were to judge them against J, S & R.Wormtail might have been dull compared to them, but that doesn't mean that he was below average. That's as far as the question of intelligence and skill goes.

Coming to guts, he himself admits that he was never as brave as J, S, or R. He has undoubtedly been found wanting, and in the most horrible way. He betrayed his friends who had trusted him with their lives. I agree with Kermit in that Wormtail is in one way worse than LV. His behaviour does not fit with the sorting hat's assessment of him as Gryffindor material; as yet. We however have Jo's assurance that the sorting hat is never wrong, and that coupled with his life-debt to Harry may well result in some spectacular turnaround by Wormtail in DH.

Posted by: Kermit May 21 2007, 08:14 PM

Interesting theory... It may well be that Wormtail has to prove himself at some point and that would not contradict the Sorting Hat. It may have something to do with the life debt? Will he stand up to LV and protect Harry? Will he sacrifice himself for Harry?

Posted by: rowena r May 22 2007, 11:27 AM

There are many ways in which Wormtail can help Harry. He may of course come between Voldemort and Harry like Lily did, but I don't think it will be quite like that (I may be completely wrong about this).

Wormtail can do a lot of harm to Voldemort by divulging his secrets to Harry. After all, he had been living with Voldemort for two years. He must have found out something, being the rat he is, which Voldemort would rather never saw the light of day - the location of one of the Horcruxes perhaps, or how to get past the enchantments protecting it, etc.

Another point about Wormtail is that he is never on the frontline. Maybe Voldemort regards him as a bungler and prefers to use more skillful DEs for important work like getting the prophecy. Or maybe Voldemort is not still confident of Wormtail's loyalty to him (I can't blame him for that) and prefers not to let him get any opportunity to get away. And connected to this, there is the fact that Wormtail owes his life to Harry, and Voldemort wouln't be very pleased about that. Remember how he reacted in GoF when Wormtail suggested that they could use any wizard to make the potion ?

Voldemort, whatever he is, is not a complete fool, and he knows very well that people like Wormtail cannot be trusted fully though they may appear totally devoted on the outside. On the other hand, perhaps Voldemort's arrogance that none of his DEs, especially Wormtail would dare to go against him, will cause his downfall again; this time permanently.

Posted by: themalfoycrew May 22 2007, 06:20 PM

I hope a loyalness even Peter didnt know he had to his old friends, the marauders, will rise up in him and he will somehow help in Lord V's downfall.

and I doubt that would be referred to as bravery. Maybe stupidy, or blind fear acting. I have never seen any courage in Pettigrew and I doubt greatly he will show any before book seven closes. That being said, i do like a nice surprise...

Posted by: Amy Padfoot Black May 25 2007, 01:57 PM

I don't think Wormtail isn't given enough credit. I mean, he shouldn't have been in Gryfindor but he managed to kill 13 people with one curse and convince the whole wizarding world that Sirius had killed him and the 13 people. Also, that he betrayed Lily and James.
So he must be a bit more clever than we give him credit for.

Also, he was in Gryfindor, for all we know he might show some hidden talents in the next book.

Posted by: CousinAndromeda May 25 2007, 02:05 PM

Well, if Wormtail was exceptionally clever, you'd think the Sorting Hat would have put him in Ravenclaw. However, Wormtail's privileging of ruthless cunning to achieve self-preserving ends is much more characteristic of Slytherin than it is of Gryffindor, the house known for chivalric ideals of courage in facing the truth and honoring one's promises and remaining steadfastly loyal to one's friends no matter the personal risk or indeed, the danger to one's physical person.

I'm beginning to think in terms of what impostor Moody said about the Goblet of Fire...an exceptionally powerful magical object that only an equally powerful Confundus charm could have "hoodwinked." What Dark Wizard might have been undercover at the Sorting Ceremony of Snape and the Marauders' first year to cast a Confundus on the Sorting Hat as it was set on young Peter's head?

Posted by: Amy Padfoot Black May 25 2007, 02:11 PM

CousinAndromeda - But if Wormtail wanted to be put in Gryfindor because he wanted people he had talents he didn't exist, then the sorting hat would place him into Gryfindor.

Plus - For all we know some hidden bravery could come to light in Deathly Hallows.

Posted by: CousinAndromeda May 25 2007, 03:04 PM

Amy - I'm not sure I follow your syntax in the highlighted part, but I do see how JKR might be playing on her theme of choices making us who we are with Wormtail as well as Harry, having them both choose to be in Gryffindor.

And for the second part, yeah, I keep wondering about that, too. Wormtail just icks me out as a character so much that I find the idea revolting. My "inner Moody" gets the better of my "inner Dumbledore" where Wormtail is concerned, whereas with Snape, it tends to be the other way round. I want Neville's choice to overcome his fear to be contrasted to Wormtail's choice to give in to it. That's the way I see things currently. It would take some incredible act of bravery for Wormtail to redeem himself in DH - and to me such a redeeming act coming from Wormtail would be even less credible than one from Snape. Not that Wormtail can help his character weakness - any more than Voldemort can help his psychopathy, never having known love.

Then again...if being placed in Gryffindor was an indication of Wormtail's true abilities...what does that say to us about Wormtail's choices? Culpable...?

Just found a relevant JKR quote on AccioQuote from a 2005 TLC interview:



In my book, if the Sorting Hat IS always right, this makes Wormtail more culpable than Voldemort and Snape together. How could JKR consider him still redeemable?? Ewwrggh!! (Shudders, just thinking about it)

Posted by: Amy Padfoot Black May 27 2007, 11:55 AM

I can see why you couldn't follow it... I must have been tired when I wrote that what I meant was "He wanted people to believe he had talents which he didn't have". If that makes more sense.

I think something might happen in the next book that shows his bravery because he's been shown as a coward all the way through!

Posted by: Oryx May 27 2007, 02:40 PM

I think Peter wanted to be brave. Although he was sorted before James he may have heard James saying he expected to be sorted into Gryffindor. If Peter decided he wanted to be with James because of something that took place on the train - perhaps he was planning to be James' best friend and enjoy whatever glory that would rub onto him. He imagined the two of them having some great adventures together, him being James' support system or something along those lines. But then he was disappointed to discover that the best friend slot was already taken by Sirius. Peter still tried to join James and Sirius in their acts of daring but with the two of them he had no chance to shine. Eventually he grew bitter.

I think all Gryffindors want to stand out in being daring or at least appearing daring but they can't all stand out to the same degree. So the question is what options are available to the less prominent Gryffindors? They can develop their own niche as Neville seems to be doing, just be satisfied with doing their best and accepting they won't be the stars of their class, or develop a grudge against those that stood in their way. Which might have been how Peter felt towards Sirius.

Posted by: DarkShadows3 May 27 2007, 02:49 PM

Peter was in Gryffindor and i think he will proof himself to be a true Gryffindor and he will do something heroic and die because of it. Dont underestimate Peter he can do what he wants to do if he really wants it look at what he did to Lily and James

Posted by: The Baden May 28 2007, 03:14 PM

From his behavior in POA and GOF I say he was a Ravenclaw (even if it doesn't make sense in the Marauder's story), not due to the fact that he's a smartie, but cause he doesn't fit in any other House.

Gryffindor: The very last House he could've been, cause he is neither brave nor steadfast.
Hufflepuff: Hard-working? No idea, but he's a traitor, and loyality in general is very important in Hufflepuff.
Slytherin: Here loyality to friends is very important and he betrayed them. He is cunning, no doubt, but ambitious?
Ravenclaw: He isn't a powerful wizard or wise, but I think in Ravenclaw thirst for knowledge is more important then knowledge.

Posted by: CousinAndromeda May 28 2007, 11:54 PM

Amy - Thanks for the clarification. We almost all of us know the feeling of staying up too late reading and posting on Internet forums...

And to all those who see Peter redeeming himself by some act of bravery in the end - the thing about the Sorting Hat is that it must have offered Peter the CHOICE to be in Gryffindor based on something it saw in his head, just as it offers Harry the choice to be in Slytherin, which, when Harry rejects that, puts him in Gryffindor. I don't think students are supposed to TELL the Hat what their options are - only reject an offer if they don't like it. Would Peter have said no to Slytherin? Maybe it wasn't offered to him, or, if he did ask not to be in Slytherin - what are we to make of his subsequent "life choices" particularly regarding loyalty to the friends who helped him, however condescendingly?

If Peter is NOT the coward he appears to be, it is very creepy indeed that he has put up such an act of being one, to the point of being the agent not only of Harry's parents' betrayal, but of LV's resurrection. Sorry, but Neville has proven himself the truer Gryffindor, with only a modicum of genuine physical instinctual fear - but much greater moral courage than Peter, all along. It would appear that readers and other characters alike have continually underestimated Wormtail's capacity for effective...treachery...as well as his intelligence and what he will dare.

Posted by: Chiron Jun 5 2007, 01:44 PM

I agree with voldemort must die. Peter and Neville are both going to show a lot more Gryffindor bravery in book 7. Peter's bravery will be tied to his life debt with Harry. Maybe he'll actually die for Harry.

Chiron

Posted by: Curiosity Jun 8 2007, 11:09 AM

I think there is another element to the houses that's lacking so far in this discussion. When the Sorting Hat describes the Houses, he talks about what each of the Founders valued most highly. Peter Pettigrew obviously values bravery, despite the fact that he lacks it. This is what makes him so much like Neville. But Neville, unlike Peter, had friends who encourage him as he is, not as some suck-up or admirer (which is the way Black and Potter seem to treat Pettigrew). I think PP has always valued bravery and always hated that he wasn't as brave as his friends. But as Dumbledore says, its our choices that make us who we are. And that's why it seems absolutely necessary for Pettigrew to have some sort of redemption. He doesn't want fame like LV or wits, he wants to brave. The fact that he doesn't really fit into any of the Houses strengthens my point, I think. It's not his talents that places him in one house over another (Or Hermione would probably be Ravenclaw), but the Quality he would choose (if he had a choice). The real question isn't "why would Sirius, James, and Remus hang out with Peter" but "why would Peter want to hang out with Sirius, James, and Remus"? I think the answer to that question is what makes Pettigrew a Gryffindor. Peter admires their courage, their bravery, their complete disregard for what everyone else does or wants from them. They are their own men. They stand apart (even if they do like having admirers). Peter wanted to be like that: independent, willing to oppose all the rules, bold and outgoing.
All in all, I think Pettigrew has the heart of a Gryffindor, just not the will of one. He's weak-willed, totally lacking self-confidence. He never could do what he wanted. Why else do you think he faked his own death? He was ashamed - better dead than a disloyal coward (granted, at that point he was facing time in Azkaban and the wrath of Sirius Black). Still, I think his shame played a part, and still does play a part in his service to Voldemort. Which, again, emphasizes the importance of his redemption in an act of bravery defying LV. It's the only way Pettigrew can ever rest/face himself.
Maybe I'm wrong - but that's the way i see it.

Posted by: PAM2002 Jun 9 2007, 10:49 PM

Curiosity-I came to practically the same realization myself this morning. It's that Peter values bravery that makes him a Gryffindor. Not that he is brave himself. And that is why is he always found with people more powerful. At school it was James and Sirius-brave and arguably the best students of their year.

It's the only way I can mesh Peter being a coward and being a Gryffindor.

Posted by: Dark_Matter Jun 15 2007, 07:20 AM

This bugs me. Ok i know harry sort of decided what house he should have been in but he had qualities that suited both gryffindor and slytherin. Wormtail on the other hand has yet to display any qualities that would lead one to belive that he is brave, true and all the rest of that good stuff that gets you into the best house in hogwarts . Will we eventually see another side to him that warrants the sorting hat placeing him in gryffindor, what are your thoughts...?

Posted by: GinnyWeasley9 Jun 16 2007, 09:48 AM

I think wormtail has some courage left deep down that will justify his placement in Gryffindor before the series is complete. Yes so far he is a snivelling, cowardly, pathetic lapdog of LV, but he still has time to redeem himself. But on the other hand, Neville didn't have many Gryffindor-like qualities when we first met him either. He had to grow into courage, and wormtail may just need the right situation to show himself.

Posted by: brunnetteweasley7 Jun 16 2007, 09:53 AM

i like how GinnyWeasley9 said about growing into braveness. Neville is a great example- but then again, Neville has the slight advantage that when he was growing into braveness he didn't have to face LV.

as JKR has said, the sorting hat has never been wrong. and, the sorting goes inside your mind to figure out what house you are in. maybe there is something brave that wormtail has done/will do?

Posted by: Miss_Tyfiee Jun 16 2007, 10:03 AM

Interesting subject!

I also think that he still has to show why he landed in Gryffindor before the last book ends... I just hope it's going to be when he pays back his life debt towards Harry!

Well I don't quite agree about that though. Deep down, Neville is good and brave. I don't think he would ever give up his friends to Voldemort...
The way Wormtail sold his own friends to save his own life is simply unforgivable...

Posted by: christinemfdorrat Jun 16 2007, 10:12 AM

I seem to remember reading a descriton of how Peter came to be sorted into Gryfindor, maybe it was in a FanFic. It went along the lines of:

Not ambitious enough for Slytherin,
not smart enough for Ravenclaw,
not hard working enough for Hufflepuff l
Meaning the only place to put him was in Gryfindor.
I wish I could remember where I read that...

Ofcourse he does still has his life debt to repay to Harry and that will take a lot of courage to do right under Voldamort's nose.

Posted by: brunnetteweasley7 Jun 16 2007, 10:13 AM

[quote][quote]On the other hand, Neville didn't have many Gryffindor-like qualities when we first met him either. He had to grow into courage, and wormtail may just need the right situation to show himself.[/quote]
Well I don't quite agree about that though. Deep down, Neville is good and brave. I don't think he would ever give up his friends to Voldemort...
The way Wormtail sold his own friends to save his own life is simply unforgivable...[quote]

yes...it is. but then what if Neville had done something like that, would people still think him brave and good?

We've only got a bit of Pettigrew's life to judge him on here, but we've seen more of Neville. perhaps the sorting hat saw the potential for pettigrew to be brave?

Posted by: Miss_Tyfiee Jun 16 2007, 10:36 AM

I don't remember reading that in the book themselves... but "not hard working enough for Hufflepuff" ? I find that a bit weird, I always was under the impression that the Hufflepuff house accepted anyone that wasn't accepted in the other houses. I think it was mentioned in a sorting hat song...


You're completely true there, we haven't seen enough of Peter to know what he truly thinks deep down... Most of the time we hear something about him, it's through someone else's point of vue...
Good point!

I also wanted to point out the fact that he is being completely despised among the Death-Eaters which might make him want to rebel and eventually do something brave for the good side...

Posted by: brunnetteweasley7 Jun 16 2007, 11:18 AM

pettigrew is hated by everyone, really, isn't he? i would feel sorry for him, but then you remeber that he was responsible for his best friends death, and the pity fades.

..i would have thought that it would went along the lines of
Not ambitious enough for Slytherin,
not smart enough for Ravenclaw,
not brave enough for Gryffindor,
meaning the only place for him was in Hufflepuff.

...but then thats my opinion.
and we haven't actually heard pettigrews opinion through any of the books yet, have we , without it being overlooked or interrupted. will we hear his opinion in DH? i think if we do we will be able to judge him better.

(+ i just re-read the sorting song for PS/SS and i realised you needed to be cunning. no offence to any, erm, peter pettigrew fans out there, but i'm not even sure that he knows what cunning means, yet alone being it.)

Posted by: Miss_Tyfiee Jun 16 2007, 11:22 AM

I totally agree with all you just said "brunnetteweasley7"

I was just wondering though (it has nothing to do with this discussion) but if Dumbledore was still alive, would he still give Wormtail a second chance?

Posted by: PAM2002 Jun 16 2007, 11:24 AM

The way I've rationalized this is: Snape is a Slytherin even though he is not a pure-blood because he values the things Slytherin stands for. I think Wormtail values bravery even though he is a coward himself. Which is how he always ends up next to the these powerful people who can protect him.

I think JKR was appalled when people mentioned Wormtail and Neville together . . .

Posted by: brunnetteweasley7 Jun 16 2007, 11:25 AM

ooh, good question!

..well, erm, he forgave snape didn't he? i would think he would.

what does everyone else think?

Posted by: Dark_Matter Jun 16 2007, 01:00 PM

thanks for all your views but i just cant get around the fact that he sold out his friends. If you can't be brave in that situation when can you, i can't see the part of him that's true either he's been lying for well over a decade. He to me seems like the type of person who will do anything in the name of self preservation and this for me would mean he should definetly be in slytherin, crabbe and goyle aren't conving or ambitous and they still ended up there i think that JK just had to have a traitor close to the rest of the marauders and she forgot about the personality traits that someone so evil would have and how this would mess up the whole house system thing. If someone like him can get into gryffindor so easily i have less respect for the sorting hat.

Posted by: Miss_Tyfiee Jun 16 2007, 02:24 PM

I surely don't know what to think anymore! But I still think something's going to happen and he's going to show us something that he kept hidden all along whatever it is. It is true he is a traitor but traitors may redeem themselves (this makes me think of "The Chronicles of Narnia", if anyone has seen/read them).
You did bring a good point about Crabbe and Goyle, why did they ever end up in Slytherin? Well they probably have more ambition than they show although they are very stupid. We have to keep in mind that their fathers were Death-Eaters, so they were probably brought up a certain way,like Draco.

This made me think of something. Have we ever seen in the books, Wormtail despise muggle-borns ? If he hated muggle-borns that would make him a true Slytherin and he would have then no right to be in Gryffindor, but if not...
What do you think?

Posted by: brunnetteweasley7 Jun 16 2007, 02:46 PM

we have no real evidence to say that wormtail did despise muggleborns...but we alos have no evidence to say that he did. he's one of those characters that don't show or say what they are actually thinking, and in a way that makes him quite prominent from the crowd, if you get my drift.


but on the other hand....


thats a really good, well thought out idea, PAM2002.it really would explain why he got put in gryffindor. but Dark_Matter's idea is good as well...they are two both balanced arguments. Damn! why did you guys have to make everything so hard!

Posted by: Miss_Tyfiee Jun 16 2007, 02:53 PM

Well I don't think it's enough to justify in which house people land in. I'm sure a lot of people value bravery but they don't necessarily end up in Gryffindor because of that...

Posted by: PAM2002 Jun 16 2007, 10:25 PM

I am sure there has to be more than one reason, yes. Obviously Wormtail could never have been a Hufflepuff. I don't see him making the cut as a Ravenclaw. So really we are left with Slytherin and Gryffindor. Maybe he wanted to be in Gryffindor, maybe he's Muggleborn and Slytherin wouldn't have him.

Posted by: crimsonozite Jun 16 2007, 10:55 PM

[/quote] I am sure there has to be more than one reason, yes. Obviously Wormtail could never have been a Hufflepuff. I don't see him making the cut as a Ravenclaw. So really we are left with Slytherin and Gryffindor. Maybe he wanted to be in Gryffindor, maybe he's Muggleborn and Slytherin wouldn't have him.
[/quote]


Do we know that Wormtail was in Gryffindor? I'll bet he was in Slytherin.

Posted by: Miss_Tyfiee Jun 17 2007, 01:14 AM

I don't think he's a muggle-born, because we heard about his mother in The Prisonner of Azkaban, and I don't remember exactly but I think she was referred to as a witch. I'm not sure though.
but we never heard about his father did we? Maybe he was a half-blood but that wouldn't prevent him from being in Slytherin...


Well he used to hang out with The Marauders, well he was part of the marauders, and I don't exactly see James, Sirius or Lupin being friends with a Slytherin... so I highly doubt he was in Slytherin, even though I don't remember it being mentioned that he wasn't,

Posted by: PAM2002 Jun 17 2007, 07:59 AM

The person that asked JKR said Lupin twice instead of Wormtail, so although she said they were all Gryffindors technically he wasn't listed. I think that should mean yes he was but it's not completely understood.

As for the Muggleborn thing-I'm only going on one piece of information-JKR said Muggleborns are not allowed to be DEs except in rare circumstances-I would bet needing a mole would be one of those sorts of circumstances-no one else could do what Wormtail did because he was James and Lily's friend. And yes, his mother got his wand in a box or something, right? But wouldn't they give Hermione's parents her wand if she died? Or her Order of Merlin? So I don't think that excludes the possibility. But we have no real information about his blood status in Lexicon.

Posted by: Miss_Tyfiee Jun 18 2007, 03:20 AM

It was his finger that they gave to his mom, remember they said it was the largest bit of him they could find?
but it's a really good point! I guess we really have no clue as to who his parents were...

This makes me think, maybe he wasn't very good at school, but he was powerful enough to blast the whole street with his wand behind his back!

Posted by: Spectre Jun 18 2007, 03:27 AM

He was also able to perform an AK with someone else's wand...

Posted by: GryffindorRulez Jun 18 2007, 10:33 AM

It think it indeed was a choice between Gryffindor and Slytherin. I think Pettigrew was raised in a typical magical family with the typical prejudice concerning Slytherin. I can imagine a similar conversation between the coward Pettigrew and the Sorting Hat as Harry had.

Sorting Hat: "You have a real desire to save yourself from harm. You would make a good Slytherin."
Peter: "But Slytherin is full of evil bullies. They will HURT me. Can't you put me into Hufflepuff?"
Sorting Hat: "Hmmm, no. You would turn your mother in to your enemies, if that saved your skin. You're academically too mediocre to be put into Ravenclaw and you piss your pants at the first sign of danger, so Gryffindor is a no go too."
Peter: "Yes, but people in Gryffindor are brave. I like brave people, they'll protect me against bullies. Please, sort me into Gryffindor?"
Sorting Hat: "Allright, Gryffindor!"

Posted by: auntie Jun 18 2007, 11:13 AM

you're right the sorting hat's new song in ootp

Posted by: Oryx Jun 18 2007, 06:21 PM

I think Peter not only admired bravery but wanted to become brave. He wanted to develop in that way so that James would like him as his friend. However Sirius took the place he desired for himself as James' best friend. He wasn't appreciated as much as he wanted to be. An underappreciated Gryffindor is a dangerous person because he will seek appreciation elsewhere, at the expense of those who had disappointed him. I don't think Peter would have fitted better among Slytherins, because he never had a goal he wanted to win. He could have made a decent Gryffindor if it weren't for the close friendship between James and Sirius that did not let him in.

Posted by: Harpalyce Jun 21 2007, 07:15 PM

The defining quality of Gryffindors to me is courage, but not neccessarily courage to do the right thing. Ponder, for example, how very many times Harry and Co. have broken school rules - the path to hell is lined with good intentions, as it were.*

From Peter's point of view, he is probably enormously courageous. It takes a LOT of courage to turn your back on your friends and step up for something that you believe is in your best interests. By that point he probably viewed his friendship with the rest of the Mauraders as something that was abusive (I view him as kind of the guy they always had to drag along, make extra effort to accomodate, etc - in other words That Guy with caps, the one you never want to invite to parties but yet you do anyway because you feel obligated). All Voldemort had to do was a little nudging and sweet-talking for him to divulge this information. It probably wasn't Peter's original idea - I see no original ambition here - but he was still corageous enough to make that leap. Heck, he was corageous enough to join the organization his friends were working against, going into the proverbial lion's den. That takes a lot of guts. A lot of guts for the ENTIRELY wrong reasons, but still - you've got to admit a guy that can go in full-steam in with something his friends are terrified of deserves the title Gryffindor.

There's a fine line between courage and stupidity**, imho, but you've also got his actions post-Voldemort's-first-defeat to consider. A true coward's way out after seeing your leader fall would have been to go "Oh, well, my life's worth nothing now" and to calmly committ suicide. But Peter didn't. Neither did he try to go "Voldemort? What Voldemort? La la la, I can't hear you!" and rest on his laurels, living it up in cushy mansions the way others such as the Malfoys did. Self-preservation turned him into a spy in a very valuable position, and when Voldemort finally makes it into something resembling a body, it is Pettigrew who's the first one there by his side through the ugly bits - not anyone else. It takes a lot of courage to go back to your leader even when you know he's going to be unhappy with you, and even when you know he's too weak to properly defend you against the mounting forces against you.

Whether his loyalty to Voldemort is motivated by straight-up Hufflepuffian dedication ("Go Team Voldemort!") or Slytherinic ambition ("I call dibs on Australia!"), the fact to me that he's even able to MAKE the leap and follow Voldemort as one of his closest supporters means that he has a lot of courage. And, to me, that's quite enough to rationalize him being in Gryffindor.

*and then we get into the argument: how far is courage from ambition? Harry would have made an excellent Slytherin, after all.
**I think a bit too similarly to Snape, sometimes. Minus fifty points from Gryffindor!

Posted by: razberry2 Jun 21 2007, 08:21 PM

Peter has yet to stand up to anyone, not even to sneering Snape in HBP. Perhaps Peter wants to stand up for himself and for what he feels is the right thing to do. He has had plenty of chances to stand up and not cower down, but he has never stood tall. Perhaps he has always wanted to be stronger and stand up for himself and prays that he will be brave enough to do what he wants or stand for what he believes in.

If Peter does indeed save Harry in some way because of the life debt thing and he possibly redeems himself, would that be enough for us to see that he is really a gryffindor. I have an image of Darth Vader finally killing the Sith and saving Luke in Jedi. If he finally stands up and acts not out of fear but of bravery, will we be able to see that as a brave act.

Posted by: CoolCatElly Jun 22 2007, 08:19 AM

How on earth did the sorting hat place Peter in Griffendor? He has none of the qualities needed. he should have been in Slytherin...

Posted by: dagamma Jun 22 2007, 08:31 AM

... that's a good question... I never thought of that.
Maybe he was not born a coward, but choose the wrong way at some point, far after his encounter with the Sorting Hat...

Posted by: Books_4_eva Jun 22 2007, 10:32 AM

oh I don’t know there’s a bravery about him.
After all he did go to Voldermort on his own accord (lets face it would be unlikely Voldermort when to him) as a known friend of the Potters and was able to keep the secret about it all while worming his way in to become the Potters secret keeper. Everyone underestimated him and he proved to everyone he's a lot smatter than he was given credit for.
Sure it was to save his own skin ultimately but he took a big risk to do it and it paid off for a while.
I see him a bit like Nevill in a way only more of a snivelling traitor.

Posted by: Moose_Starr Jun 22 2007, 11:00 AM

Two threads have been merged Squish
Please feel free to continue theorizing here.

Moose_Starr
LL Mod

Posted by: chloe squibbulus Jun 23 2007, 04:05 PM

I think I have a little bit of an issue with your initial premise that there is such a thing as a 'true' Gryffindor. Either you are, or you aren't. There seem to be more spectacular Gryffindors and of course the more traitorous ones...but that seems true of all the Houses. It is a little like Sirius' statement that the world isn't divided between Death Eaters and good people (something along those lines). All Gryffindors are true Gryffindors aren't they? Or are you saying that we need to throw the 'bums' out?

But I am not really defending Peter as a character. He isn't one of the more exemplary Gryffindors in any case. But, we do have one book to go, and I have a feeling Peter might redeem himself to some degree.

Posted by: theredwitch Jun 24 2007, 08:17 AM

Peter has that life debt now that he owes Harry anyway. Dumbledore says it is 'magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". This is means Peter is going to have to do more than show gratitude - the bond will compel some kind of payment.
You wonder how Neville got into Gryffindor, he is more like a Hufflepuff, but he is slowly developing the heart of a lion. Perhaps, like many people Peter did not start out evil, but something happened along the way. But he is more like a Slytherin than a Gryffindor, maybe the Sorting Hat makes mistakes and you can 'choose' your House by sitting there and chanting like Harry did.

Posted by: chloe squibbulus Jun 24 2007, 01:42 PM

Yes, that's the thing that really makes me believe that Peter will do something important that will help Harry in the last book. Peter is a worm(tail). He is a quiet and really rather unnoticed character so far (at least in terms of his potential to change the plot). But he is inside Voldamort's inner circle, and Voldamort probably doesn't know that he has a life debt to Harry. Peter also has the potential to know sooo much from his years at Hogwarts, that he could come in very handy as an ally if he decides to/or is compelled to repay his debt.

Posted by: Emms Jun 25 2007, 02:37 PM

For some reason, I get the distinct feeling that the Sorting Hat is never wrong, that it always has the (right) reasons for making its choices. I think Peter, in many ways, is extraordinarily courageous, just not in ways that many of us would like to think a Gryffindor of being. Yet, at the same time, I can see him playing an important part at the end of the story, perhaps doing something in an attempt to redeem himself in some way.

Posted by: Sirius' Girl Jul 23 2007, 11:05 PM

Peter Pettigrew is two-faced and cowardly. He hangs out with the "biggest bullies in the playground" and wants to be protected. His own skin means more to him than anything.

And yet, Peter ALWAYS had choices. He wasn't forced to be anyone but who he was. He could have changed, and he sorta did (but out of respect for those who haven't finished number 7 , I'll stop there.). Dumbledore (God rest) always stressed the importance of choices and he always believed that it was never too late to change.

I think that the Sorting Hat saw all this in him and placed him accordingly, maybe in the hope that he could overcome his inherently cowardly nature and become someone that others would be proud to associate with.

So, is he a true Gryffindor? He had the capacity to be one, and maybe that aspect of his personality overrode the other, more undesireable parts of his personality.

And remember, when the Sorting Hat is making it's choice, the wearer in question is 11 years old. People change between the time they were 11 and their adult lives. In the end though...oh, just go read the seventh book. You'll see what I mean.

Posted by: margrethe Jul 24 2007, 01:44 PM

The sorting hat chose Peter Pettigrew to be in the house of Gryffindor. I don't think the sorting hat is ever wrong, so i guess he fits in to Gryffindor. And there's no doubt about that Peter Pettigrew is a COWARD!!

Posted by: buckeyegal41 Jul 24 2007, 07:03 PM

I personally belive that Peter Pettigrew was put into Gryffindor for a reason. The Sorting Hat put him there. And if you didn't notice in the third installment, Pettigrew became in debt to Harry Potter. When Harry and Ron were in the dungeon at the Malfoy's and Hermione was interrogated, Pettigrew committed suicide instead of turning him into Voldemort. He may be a coward but he lived up to his committment instead of turning away from it and therefore deserves to be commended.

Posted by: BettyB Jul 25 2007, 11:07 AM

I wouldn't call it suicide... more something like "LV gave Peter a Trojan Horse designed to intervene whenever he was about to be disloyal to the dark lord". Wich in this case happend to be fortunate for LV's enemies, since I doubt Pettigrew would have the guts to repay Harry his life debt out of free will.

I think Peter Pettigrew did the same thing as Harry did: He asked the sortinghat to become a Gryffindor. To me Peter belongs to no house, he's not brave like a Gryffindor, not brainy like a Ravenclaw, not hardworking like the Hufflepufs and not calculating and schemy like a Slytherin. He goes for the least resistance, taking advantage of other peoples efforts (sneakpeaking at OWL's), has no obvious talents, hasn't got brainpower to be calculating and is by no means a brave man. I didn't like him before, after DH I absolutely detest him. Yikes. Since he somehow ended up a Gryffindor in spite of all this, the only explanation is he actually asked for it.

Posted by: Narya Jul 25 2007, 05:10 PM

I think that the Hat got it right with Peter when it Sorted him into Gryffindor - and I don't see Peter as a coward. Venal, yes, in some of the choices he made, because they were poor ones. Ultimately, though, he proved himself when it really mattered. He fulfilled his wizard's debt and was selfless instead of selfish, and that is what matters. It takes all kinds of courage, as the saying goes - and Peter must have known deep down inside that LV would demand some kind of payment from him when his back was to the wall and he had nowhere else to turn. I'm pretty sure that LV killed Peter with that hand just as surely as if he had stood in front of him and cast the Killing Curse. Peter did the right thing before he died, though, and that's important.

Posted by: ~Mrs.Brisby~ Jul 26 2007, 02:17 PM

I don't look at it that way at all. I don't think Peter knew Voldemort had cursed/jinxed the silver hand. I've just re-read the passage and I'm sure he didn't know what would happen. What I wonder is, if he had known what the hand would do, would he have shown Harry the mercy that he did in that cellar? Based on his past actions, I wouldn't think so . . . I think the Sorting Hat got it wrong in his case. All his actions seem to have been prompted by fear of something. He betrayed his friends because he feared the Dark Lord, he went back to Voldemort out of fear of the friends he'd betrayed, he helped Voldemort regain a body because he was afraid of what Voldemort would do to him if he didn't help . . . he seems to be driven by fear more than any kind of bravery.

Posted by: Emms Jul 29 2007, 04:31 PM

As I said before, was Peter really not brave? Did it not take a great deal of bravery to turn against the friends that had trusted him and cared about him the most? A great deal of bravery to endure their eventual wrath, their hurt and betrayal? Was it not daring to defy everything and join Voldemort? He was terrified, yes, and that was much of his motivation, and he was extraordinarily disloyal, yet I think he DOES show a true Gryffindor quality of bravery, just not in the way most of us would like to think of it. Bravery, just as knowledge, or ambition, or even the patience of the Hufflepuffs, can be used in some not-so-great ways. Peter demonstrates this.

Posted by: felicis2 Aug 1 2007, 02:27 PM

As Dumbledore tells Snape in the Pensieve, "I sometimes think we Sort too soon." And Peter is evidence of the validity of this, no question. He seems a perfect fit for Slytherin, interested only in saving his own skin at any time. He didn't really even *release* Harry in the cellar, just slackened his grip for an instant, & Harry broke free on his own. I fully believe it's a good thing he did, for even if Voldemort hadn't set the hand up to monitor Wormtail's obedience & loyalty & punish him accordingly, I think Wormtail in the next instant would have finished strangling Harry instead. There's no voluntary mercy, just the barest instant of recalling that, yes, technically he owes Harry a debt.

Posted by: stupefy_me Aug 1 2007, 02:31 PM

I don't think it was brave that he gave in to LV and spied for him instead of being killed.

Posted by: Chocolatl Aug 1 2007, 04:54 PM

I do believe the Sorting Hat can be wrong.
It is, after all, only a hat.
As Dumbledore said, what is important is what we grow to be.

Probably it was most right when it sang that the sorting itself might be wrong. I think so too.

Posted by: Quiscalus Aug 1 2007, 09:10 PM

No, I don't think he is a true Gryffindor. It's like Dumbledore said, we sometimes sort too early.

Posted by: ~Mrs.Brisby~ Aug 2 2007, 10:44 AM

You make it sound as if he wanted to do all those things. That's definitely not the impression I get from Peter. "Daring to defy everything and join Voldemort?" No he wasn't daring to defy everything, he was too afraid to say no to Voldemort:

(from Prisoner of Azkaban)

The fact that he didn't want to do all those terrible things, that he acted out of fear, proves it wasn't bravery. It was cowardice in it's truest form. He valued his own skin over anyone else's, a trait more fitting of a Slytherin.

Posted by: Oryx Aug 2 2007, 02:06 PM

Not all Gryffindors are the same. There are those who are brave in fighting for a worthy cause at great risk over a prolonged time - like Harry, the adult James, Lily. There are those whose daring and boldness is mainly in the form of rebellion, breaking rules in a showy way for the heck of it and for the admiration of their peers - the young Marauders, the twins. In others it is showing off whatever they have for admiration - McLaggen, Lavender, Percy, perhaps Bill in his choice of career. Peter was a Gryffindor because this style appealed to him, he wanted to be like James and Sirius in their pranking - he may have even sacrificed his studies and his career options by spending more time on learning to be an Animagus than on preparing for OWLs. But when they went out into the world and grew up (I'd guess James more than Sirius), diverting their focus from boisterous pranks to fighting the most evil force of their time Peter did not. Or perhaps he sought the admiration of the biggest guy regardless of broader consequences.

Posted by: pittsburghmuggle Aug 7 2007, 04:37 PM

The last thing Harry tells his son is that the Sorting Hat will take his choice into account. This makes sense to me because it usually runs in families (kids are already hoping for their family's house when they put it on)

Maybe Wormtail told the Sorting Hat Gryffindor because he had seen some of the marauders get sorted and wanted to be in their group.

Posted by: Blibbering Humdinger Aug 7 2007, 04:52 PM

Well now DH is out and the only "gryffindor-like" act Pettigrew did in his whole life was a tiny small 3-second act of mercy. Its practically anticlimactic! (although I love the irony that he died by his own hand)

Or maybe that miniscule act of mercy revealed something that was deep down inside him all along. Maybe he hated being a death eater all along--but he couldn't come out of it because he wasn't brave enough to die. And when he finally shows some selflessness, he comes face to face with all his regrets--from betraying his friends to returning to Lord Voldemort. He confronts all this, and its result saves Harry's life. So Pettigrew is brave enough to die now. Like Harry and like a true Gryffindor!

Is that the train of thought JKR wanted us to follow with pettigrew's death?

Posted by: Mellynnf Aug 7 2007, 11:26 PM

It could be that Pettigrew wanted to be in Gryffindor for some reason. Since he wanted to be in Gryffindor so badly the hat allowed him to be in it.

Posted by: milliannbug Aug 8 2007, 07:03 AM

thats what i thought as well. he wanted so badly to be in griffindor, the hat put him there, even though he didnt have the necessary qualities.

on a slightly related note, do we know whether he was pure, half blood, or muggleborn? could that have had some bearing on which house he went into?

Posted by: Dancing Mooncalf Aug 8 2007, 04:37 PM

I think the main quality of a gryffindor is bravery. Bravery can manifest itself in many ways. It doesn't have to be noble bravery.

Posted by: Sword of Gryffindor Aug 8 2007, 05:31 PM

Answer without pausing to think: NO WAY !

Nerve and courage. To do the right thing even if it makes you unpopular.

Courage, loyalty, PP had none! Don't understand why the Hat placed him in Gryffindor. The Sorting should take place in fifth year, not too soon. It's time to abandon the old way, Hogwarts staff >_<

Posted by: The Weasley 9 Aug 10 2007, 10:06 AM

It isn't explicitly stated that he was a Gryffindor. When asked in an interview Lupin was mentioned twice as a Gryffindor marauder, Pettigrew was left out of the names. Check it out at Accio-Quote. It is never said that he is a Gryffindor. To quote the Lexicon

I doubt that the hat would have placed him in Gryffindor. He has more Slytherin tendencies.

Posted by: The Weasley 9 Aug 10 2007, 10:13 AM

Wait, I stand corrected. I remembered this barely from DH.

I remembered an "aha" moment in DH when we finally found out Peter's house!

Posted by: spartan Oct 9 2007, 08:23 PM

he is not really. 1. he betrayed his friends for his own demise. 2. He became the dark lord's servant out of fear. 3. He was not brave during the first war.

Posted by: kreachers army Oct 10 2007, 10:36 AM

yes i dont agree Pettigrew should have been placed in Gryfindor id probably have to say Slytherin, but i dont neccessarily think he fits into there as his such an idiot, when i think of a slytherin i think of a perosnality likes Snapes, Cunning and intelligent.

But there again i think Hermione would have been better suited to Ravenclaw, she is such a book worm, its like DD was extremely intelligent but i didnt get the impression he had such an enthusiastic approach to memorizing was teachers said and what was written in books, aim not saying she didnt have Gryffindor virtues such as bravery. i just think she was better suited to Ravenclaw.

Posted by: pranko Oct 10 2007, 11:28 AM

If there was a house for scared loser cowards, that's where Peter would have been sorted. But he was definetly not brave, smart, though loyal to whoever is most powerful so Idk, does that count as a puff quality? Anyway I don't think he was cunning, I definetly think Voldemort told him how to betray the Potters and stuff.

Posted by: kreachers army Oct 10 2007, 02:14 PM

Yes that kind of what i was trying to say maybe when the hat got placed on his head it should have said, sorry have a nice train ride home.

Posted by: Hatun punchaw Oct 10 2007, 04:26 PM

To be brave is to risk yourself in order to accomplish some goal. Do Peter risks himself in order to stay alive? Yes, he does... confronting his friends is an act of bravery: we are loosing, do you really believe we can win? i'll join the winning side. Think of Neville trying to stop the trio from taking more rubies off from Gryffindor's watch.
Would his sacrifice have helped the good cause? The good cause is a long term enterprise, he may have just given Lily & James more time. As a members of The order of the phoenix they were all in risk... and just as Peter, they accepted it. Of course they did it in a different way... Peter took the risk of betraying his friends & got what he deserved for his releckness. Same as Lily & James... also, the rest of Marauders found the same fate.
Being loyal, smart or cunning are the other houses'priorities. But somebody may have & beleive in blind whorshipping, high intelligence and deep keen.. but even be selected to Gryffindor. Why? he values bravery more than loyalty, smarthood or cunningness. So when the choice betwen bravery & something else is required, most of the time it'll be to take the risk. No matter what the consequences.
So if Peter have felt that being loyal was more valuable than being brave (taking the risk of joining the winning team), smart (taking the time to think before acting) or cunning (following his instincts in order to find an alternative way to overcome the troubles); he had been proven to be a true Hufflepuff. A badger can't whitstand betrayal... but lions are no badgers.
The same analysis can be done for Peter for smarthood & cunningness... the same conclusion will be reached at the end: he is a true lion, just as Scar in Lion king's movie (he doesn't stop being a lion for trying to get Mufasa's throne).

Posted by: Oryx Oct 11 2007, 12:52 AM

Peter had a lot of physical bravery - not any person would unflinchingly cut off a finger and later his dominant hand. He had a lot of daring and willingness to take risks - spending time close to the people he was betraying (if indeed he had been spying for over a year I don't think Lily and James were his only victims, many Order members were killed after that group photo was taken) without showing any signs of hesitation or shame. And before that, as a student - hanging out in a forest populated by owls, snakes and what not as a rat, or in a castle supervised by a cat - that takes guts. Peter is just one example that willing to take physical risks does not guarantee any kind of morality. Had he been a Muggle he might have engaged in extreme sports or experimented with drugs - both forms of risk-taking behavior devoid of moral content.

Posted by: refero*fervens Oct 11 2007, 09:16 AM

Interesting discussion - I believe he probably was more suited to Gryffindor than the other houses, though considering what he became, it's difficult to place him in any! But then there are aspects of him that could be viewed as somewhat brave - Oryx brings up good points and perhaps also in his approaching of LV, his fear really seems 'only' to be death, which is the motivation for his betrayal and following of orders - and though he may not have been an outstanding member of that house, he could still have been 'a Gryffindor' - like this, in regards to Gryffindor's sword.

Would any 'Gryffindor' be able to pull it out of the hat? If no, and it does seem to be a 'special thing', from what we've read, to be able to pull the sword out of the hat - then not all Gryffindors would embody the qualities that would make them the ideal Gryffindor, that merely being in the house wouldn't qualify one. I think it's safe to assume that Peter wouldn't be able to accomplish this. But then, not all the other Gryffindor students could either. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think it's entirely possible that he be a Gryffindor and at the same time be the despicable character he is. There are only four houses, but many shades of grey.

Posted by: kreachers army Oct 11 2007, 09:41 AM

That be made me laugh, i personally dont see Peter as the sporty type, and i thought he just removed his hand through fear more than bravery, and i dont think he had any choice if LV said to spy on the Potters, its you spy or you die, again i think thats more through fear than daring or willingness, he didnt have a choice, the only thing i see in his personality is that he hungers to be with the most powerful people he can find, in school that was James and Sirius, and then it was LV.

Posted by: Shard Oct 12 2007, 12:50 PM

Honestly I think there has to be something said about his boldy and bravely going into Albania to get Voldemort. He really could have just left Europe all together and went to any country. It would have at least delayed LV's return, you have to be brave to cut limbs off, that HURTS seriously. I don't think I could do it, not even to save my life.

It would have been far easier to just drop a big rock on Babymort and run off if he was a pure coward.

Posted by: Dobby-oshi Oct 12 2007, 01:24 PM

Maybe Peter told the hat to put him in Gryffindor, because he saw Sirus went to Gryffindor. The hat takes your choice into account, remember?

Posted by: pranko Oct 13 2007, 04:02 AM

I think the only reason he brought LV back is because he was scared Sirius would kill him if his precious Lord wasn't there to protect him. But if bringing LV back was indeed brave for being Peter, well, then he was just an evil person.

Posted by: lupinwandcaster Oct 14 2007, 01:50 PM

Absolutely Not! He betrayed his friends, faked his death and blamed it on one of his friends, and worked for the most evil man to ever live. Im just surprised he was not Slytherin.

Posted by: Oryx Oct 14 2007, 02:42 PM

And why can't a Gryffindor do any of these?

Posted by: kreachers army Oct 14 2007, 04:14 PM

Well they just dont fit into the virtues of a true Gryffindor, arentt hey suppose to be loyal, moreally and physically brave etc, but yes like i agree you dont ahve to be noble and a good person to be put in Gryffindor, just the majority are.

Posted by: Oryx Oct 14 2007, 06:25 PM

Sorry, but loyalty is a Hufflepuff trait, and even loyalty isn't an objectively good trait - it depends towards whom the loyalty is directed - gangsters of the same Family may be loyal to one another - but should they? Courage isn't always good to have either - a lot of people do absolutely stupid things because they believe it is courageous to do so (think of playing 'chicken' or Russian roulette).

The main difference between Slytherins and Gryffindors is that Slytherins care about what they achieve while Gryffindors care about their image as they attempt to achieve their goal. If Peter's goal was his own survival, then had he been a Slytherin he would have remained a rat after his escape in POA. But as a Gryffindor he couldn't afford to be known as someone who preferred living as a rat, so he went to the only place where he could be protected as a human.

Posted by: fidelia Oct 15 2007, 08:59 AM

Let's not forget that Dumbledore once worked with Grindelwald to establish a vision of wizarding supremacy, and wasn't he a Gryffindor? Based on Dumbledore at 17, wouldn't one say that he was more "Slytherin" than "Gryffindor"? Dumbledore may have been right when he told Severus that "sometimes, I think we sort too soon". People change and evolve over time......and sometimes, they don't. Look at how admirably Dumbledore turned out....he was a far cry from the boy he once was....

Working for a new political system, working for "the common good", remaining "loyal" to one's group, and doing the above with bravery and panache could easily be traits found in any of the four houses......

Posted by: Flourished Blot Oct 20 2007, 01:27 AM

I personally think he was, but, as Dumbloedore said "Sometimes I think we sort too soon."

Posted by: Narya Oct 20 2007, 06:03 AM

Hmmm ... I have to disagree with you on that one, Oryx ... I don't believe that Gryffindors care about their image, and overall - that's a pretty sweeping statement to make about Gryffindors in general. Although this thread is about Peter, and I won't go too far off topic - it doesn't strike me that Harry Potter gave a fig about his image as he tried to do the right thing and tried his best to defeat LV the only way he knew how. He never lost his humanity in doing that, and unhealthy obsession with image always detracts from a person's humanity, IMO.

Now back to Peter. I think Peter proved himself in the end - I think he knew, deep within himself, that if he ever tried to betray LV after being given that silver hand, then LV's retribution would be swift. I think the selfless impulse he showed to Harry in the cellar was his small redemption - nothing would ever change what he had done, of course. There's no way back from selling your best friends to the baddest uber-villain wizard of all time, but I think Peter did the best he could, with what he had, at the time ... and for that, I think that makes him a Gryffindor. Not a great one, and nowhere near as brave as others such as Cedric, who wasn't a Gryffindor but showed immense courage. Gryffindors don't have the monopoly on chivalry, courage and all the rest of it - but I like to think that Peter breathed his last knowing that he hadn't died completely in vain, nor as a complete coward.

Posted by: ~Mrs.Brisby~ Oct 20 2007, 02:25 PM

Voldemort promised him a new hand in return and his finger he did in an act of desperation. It would have been braver to face Sirius in a duel, in my opinion. It was clever and cunning what he did, but certainly not brave.


I can see that. That makes sense. I wish someone would ask Jo this question on her tour. It'd be nice to hear what she says on the topic.

Posted by: Oryx Oct 20 2007, 04:56 PM

Let's see: James and Sirius, Percy, the twins, Lavender and Parvati. My generalisation is as broad as generalisations made on other Houses. IMO if you want to understand a Gryffindor see whom that person wants to impress, who is the person(s) that Gryffindor would be most devastated to disappoint. James wanted to impress Lily on one level and everyone in general on the other. Percy wanted to impress his mother, Neville wanted to impress Gran. Peter really wanted to impress James and Sirius. His biggest problem was it didn't work.

You see it in the difference in bullying style: James and Sirius as well as the twins bully because it makes them appear cool. That kind of bullying is eventually outgrown when one isn't surrounded by admiring peers any longer. Slytherins bully because it gets them tangible rewards. If it works for them they don't outgrow it, they become better at it.

Posted by: eowyngirl Oct 25 2007, 01:28 AM

I think that Dumbledore was right when he said, "Sometimes I think we sort too young." Though he was speaking of and to Snape, I believe the same goes for Pettigrew. Pettigrew could've started out a Gryffindor, but his constantly being outdone by his peers at school probably changed him as a person. I think he always had a tendency to go for power, and this along with him probably being blown off in a sense by a lot of people (McGonagall mentions how he was always 'tagging along' with Sirius and James, which indicates to me that he was rather overlooked) contributed to him making the choice to betray the Potters. I think I may have gone a bit off-topic, so sorry about that, but I wanted to explain my reasoning.

Posted by: Oryx Oct 25 2007, 01:51 AM

I found the evidence that Peter was definitely a true Gryffindor:

http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000167.html.

He was bold and daring. But totally lacking in integrity. Since when was integrity a requirement of gryffindor House?

Posted by: MrCynical Oct 25 2007, 11:22 AM

Especially given that Sirius would have destroyed him easily. Even Pettigrew's 'moment of mercy', which many are citing as the reason for him being a true Gryffindor, was not an act of bravery but a subconscious reaction to being reminded that he 'owed' Harry. Ensuring that a debt is repaid isn't really brave - it is more of a Hufflepuff or (if you take it from the maintaining-relationships point of view) Slytherin idea.

Posted by: Oryx Oct 25 2007, 12:02 PM

I don't think I would have dared to cut off a finger or a hand to save my life. I wouldn't have dared to be a rat around a werewolf, a big dog and a stag, nor around forest animals or Mrs Norris. I would have trembled endlessly if I had to hang about with people I was spying on.

And Peter dares to argue with Voldemort - apparently repeatedly. He also didn't have to cut his hand off - he could have dunked BabyMort in the cauldron and run away.

Posted by: -loony-lovegood- Oct 25 2007, 01:18 PM

no, I don't think he was a true Gryffindor.. as DD said, "sometimes I think we sort to soon..."

Posted by: bflynn Oct 25 2007, 01:55 PM

I think Peter fell "victim" to "best fit". He didn't appear especially smart, didn't appear to work hard and I didn't get the impression that he was able to make friends or exercise power effectively.

Peter might not have been the best Gryffindor, but it was the only place he could remotely fit.

Brian

Posted by: maenad Oct 26 2007, 01:38 AM

Well, when Dumbledore told Snape 'I sometimes think we Sort too soon' he was acknowledging that people are complicated, and only become more complicated as they grow in age and experience. The Sorting is complicated, too-- it is a necessary administrative function (dividing students up into manageable groups in order to arrange timetables and accommodations) performed by a hat attempting to decide whether or not a person a thousand years dead would have liked to have any given child as a student. It would be pointless to Sort at any age other than eleven: once the children are split into classes and have a dormitory and table to go to, the job is done. Dumbledore implied that he saw a bit of Gryffindor courage in Snape, who spent the second war enduring many hardships without personal gain; at fifteen or seventeen or even twenty he would not have been capable of that kind of action.

People are complicated, and just because a particular virtue is assigned to a House does not mean that others cannot possess it. Phineas Nigellus claimed that 'We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks.' That is not always the case. Regulus Black opted to sacrifice his own life, sparing his house-elf; Bellatrix Lestrange chose to risk her freedom in seeking her lord-- and didn't regret the act, even when she was caught. Remus Lupin is, by and large, a textbook Gryffindor: he has plenty of daring, nerve and chivalry, spies among Greyback's followers for Dumbledore, is a considerate and dedicated teacher. But the prospect of parenthood touched just the right nerves in him to produce blind terror, and on that occasion he showed few of the Gryffindor virtues.

As well as valuing courage and chivalry, Gryffindor was a noted duellist, and perhaps valued students whose skills made them proficient in that art; he might have been more inclined to teach Charms and Transfiguration than Herbology and Potions. He was actively opposed to discrimination against Muggles and Muggle-borns and probably preferred his students to share his views. He would almost certainly have been disappointed with the adult Peter. That doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't have chosen him as a student. He may well have ultimately been disappointed with many of the students he taught personally.

What actually happens during a Sorting is two-fold. The Sorting Hat examines a child's personality for character traits that fit the preferences of each Founder. It also allows the child a choice. Albus Potter may be the first child to face the Sorting knowing this, but many probably know it after the Sorting. It is the only reasonable thing to do when a child has the potential to be in multiple Houses. The Sorting Hat was at something of a loss with Harry until Harry's objection to Slytherin gave it a clue: 'Difficult. Very difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind, either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes-- and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting. So where shall I put you?' It could have put Harry in any of the four Houses. When Harry pleads with it not to put him in Slytherin, its dilemma is solved: the other thing for which Gryffindor is famous is his feud with Slytherin. Therefore, a student who vehemently hates Slytherin belongs in Gryffindor. On being asked why, clever as she was, she was not a Ravenclaw, Hermione replied: 'Well, the Sorting Hat did seriously consider putting me in Ravenclaw during my Sorting, but it decided on Gryffindor in the end.' Of course it did. Her opinion at the time was: 'I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best, I hear Dumbledore himself was one, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be too bad...' She had her heart set on Gryffindor, and she would have been an acceptable student to him. She has courage as well as wits.

The system also leads to some oddities. Bellatrix is something of an odd Slytherin. Unlike Lucius Malfoy or Snape, she is not given to the kind of discretion that makes it possible for others to wonder which side she is on. She is blunt and pugnacious and fanatically loyal. When she distrusted Snape she confronted him with direct questions; when Voldemort first disappeared she continued fighting for a lost cause; she died as Sirius died, laughing and delighting in the thrill of a fight. In a lot of ways, she sounds more like a Gryffindor than a Slytherin. But of course, she had Slytherin politics, that deep pride in her lineage and the belief that it made her superior to others. The idea of being a Gryffindor would have revolted her, and the Hat Sorted her accordingly.

Looking at Peter, I can see that he might have gone anywhere. Others have pointed out that he was capable of taking extreme risks in the short term-- a Gryffindor trait. There is also no reason to think that he agreed with Voldemort's politics. Of course, Peter is a natural liar and one can only put so much faith in anything he says, but circumstances make it fairly likely that he was ideologically opposed to Voldemort. He became a Death Eater very late in the game, a year before Voldemort's fall, and after having been a legitimate member of the Order of the Phoenix. He was not always playing a double game. His explanation for his behaviour, delivered under extreme stress, was that he feared Voldemort would kill him. Lily, seeing Peter shortly before her death, described him as 'down.' She attributed it to distress about the Mckinnons' deaths, but Harry wondered if he was thinking of the deaths of the Potters. It is a reasonable idea. Peter betrayed the Potters, but did so regretfully; he had no illusions that they deserved to die, it was simply the best way to save himself. Voldemort, ever sensitive to disloyalty, noted that Peter would not have stayed with him if he had anywhere else to go. He had no great interest in returning Voldemort to power, except that at this point he had dug himself into a hole too deep to get out of. His demise was brought about by a simple flicker of remorse-- the hand Voldemort gave him forced him to tell the truth, for once; he knew that killing Harry was wrong, and that, left to his own devices, he would not do it.

He has plenty of cunning and Slytherin ruthlessness; he was perfectly capable of sacrificing his friends, one after the other, to save himself. He 'never did anything for anyone unless he could see what was in it for him.' He has subtlety: the public face, the fat boy who worshipped James and Sirius but never had their talent is what we see in the Snape's Worst Memory scene, but is far from the whole truth. It doesn't take into account the master manipulator, the under age Animagus, the spy.

He was certainly not stupid. Though he uses it for different purposes, his ability to assess people's characters is as good as Luna Lovegood's. Though occasionally tactless, she is basically caring, and, once she has found worthy friends, is devoted to them. Peter used his insights to manipulate situations to his advantage: he confronted Sirius, reasonably certain that Sirius would be too distraught to fight him effectively; he cut off his hand, reasonably certain that Voldemort would want to draw his followers back with carrots as well as sticks, and would show that he was still capable of rewarding their service. He is only morally lazy. He must have worked hard to become an Animagus; harder than Sirius and James did, probably, if it wasn't a skill that came naturally to him. That he needed their help to do it does not make him unintelligent; Hermione, though otherwise gifted, had trouble with the Patronus charm. He might have been a Ravenclaw or a Hufflepuff.

Why he wanted to be a Gryffindor, I couldn't say. Perhaps he was already impressed with Messieurs Black and Potter by the time they arrived at Hogwarts, and aspired to the same thing James did. Perhaps, like the Potters and the Weasleys, his family heritage led him to Gryffindor. Perhaps, like Harry, he heard horror stories about Slytherin and just quietly pleaded with the Hat not to send him there. He had the potential to be courageous. It doesn't look as though he had strong prejudices against Muggle-borns. If he wanted to be a Gryffindor, there was no reason for the Hat not to send him there. He had the potential to be the kind of student Gryffindor would have appreciated; that is all that the hat can measure. After that, he still had to choose to nurture the right virtues.

What is strange about Peter, what makes him a very odd Gryffindor, is that his principles are divorced from his courage. There is nothing in the rules that says that Gryffindors have to be nice people. Certainly one can't be in McLaggen's company for more than five minutes without wanting to smack him. But, as they are predisposed to follow their Founder's ideas about Muggle-borns, they are usually inclined to fight passionately for their principles. Peter isn't. His courage is like to that described by Phineas: certainly there, but always with an eye out to saving his own neck. On the other hand, the risks that he takes are quite dramatic, have a Gryffindor-esque flair to them. Slughorn's courage was practical: he went for reinforcements rather than gallantly joining the defence of the castle. Peter's confrontation with Sirius after the Potters' deaths was fraught with peril, and not necessarily the most practical way out of the situation. He would fight for something he believed in, but only up to a point. He justified turning spy for Voldemort by saying 'He was taking over everywhere! What was there to be gained by refusing him?' Sirius always claimed 'there are things worth dying for.' Lost or not, the cause was good and he would fight for it to the end. Peter would only fight as long as-- in his mind-- there was a reasonable chance of winning. He fought Voldemort as Slughorn fought Voldemort: only as long as the odds looked right, but whereas Slughorn hid when things became dangerous, Peter changed sides.

His relationship with the other Marauders was unfortunate. It encouraged this moral laziness, this idea that things weren't worth fighting for. James and Sirius were reasonably good at correcting each other's faults: Sirius was quite happy to point James' swollen head out to him, James could intervene when Sirius' pranks turned dangerous. They were less good at handling Remus' insecurities-- despite their obvious affection for him, he wasn't comfortable with chiding them-- but because they were bright boys and Remus' disapproval of their behaviour, though silent, was hardly subtle, the situation was workable. But they didn't deal very well with Peter's faults; until well after things deteriorated they didn't properly understand them. Peter found that, because his friends actively sought trouble, they would fight his battles for him. Sirius and James' behaviour in Snape's Worst Memory is not exactly admirable, but it is very straightforward. They didn't like Snape, they thought he was a thoroughly unpleasant person who liked Dark magic and pried into their affairs. Therefore, they hexed him. Peter clearly didn't think much of Snape either; he watched what happened 'hungrily,' and with every sign of enjoyment. But he showed no inclination to participate, even when Snape wounded James. As Sirius said, he wanted to give his allegiance to 'the biggest bully in the playground;' that way, other people would do the hexing and he could enjoy the show. He, with the others, became an Animagus to help Remus at considerable risk to himself; the rewards were obvious-- not only did it help him maintain his friendship, but it was a useful skill to possess. Peter could and did do dangerous things, but not simply because he believed they were right. His courage remained and his principles remained, but they were never properly linked.

Peter and Snape walked the same road, but in opposite directions. The night the Potters died, they could have waved to one another as they passed the same spot, if they were so inclined. They are spies and contemptible listeners behind doors, they are inclined to cling to glamorous friends, they are traitors who got their friends killed, they are horrible hypocrites. In his youth, when it was relatively easy, Peter could be Lily's friend, he could join the Order and fight Voldemort. When things got difficult, he turned traitor and had to spend the rest of his life doing things that he knew were wrong. He could look 'down' at the thought of the deaths of his friends, he could have a moment's hesitation at the thought of killing Harry; perhaps he had similar pangs about killing Bertha Jorkins and Cedric, but because he chose his life over his principles, he had to do these things anyway. Snape joined the Death Eaters, believed that it was better to have pure-blood, though his friendship with Lily should have taught him better. When he changed sides he had to spend the rest of his life coming to terms with the fact that he had been as wrong as it was possible to be, he had to live the life of a Death Eater all over again, but with older, wiser eyes, and see how horrible he once was.

Consequently, while Peter sinks, Snape rises. Peter is ever more degraded: first a member of the Order, then a traitor, then a skulking rat, a nurse to a monster, a servant in Snape's house and, finally, a man betrayed by his own body and his conscience, strangled by his own hand. His death is not redemption so much as an illustration of his hypocrisy, finally come back to get him. Snape is a Death Eater, a turncoat, a supercilious and unpleasant teacher, a trusted double-agent with considerable responsibility, Dumbledore's successor, not just as Headmaster but as the leader of the fight against Voldemort, and then a martyr, accomplishing his mission as he died. In the midst of this, Dumbledore offered Snape a compliment, of sorts: he implied that he had the courage to be a Gryffindor. Of course, this was Dumbledore speaking, and his motives were usually complex. It was a compliment, an acknowledgement that Snape had grown and improved, but it was also part of a campaign to make Snape confront unpleasant truths. Snape was never kind to Gryffindors, always despised them; Dumbledore suggested that he was like them. Harry, who had no need of such mind games, put it better: he said that a Slytherin was the bravest man he ever knew, and that his son could be both a Slytherin and a good person.

Nobody ever turned to Peter and told him he should have been a Slytherin. That's hardly surprising. By the time the Death Eaters were all gathered in a group, Peter was such a pathetic creature that they wouldn't want him either. But it's not surprising that the reader is left thinking it. With a few notable exceptions, the Slytherins we see are a pretty despicable lot, and Peter belongs with them far more than he does with Sirius and Neville and Ginny and all the other likeable Gryffindors. It would be comfortable to believe that the Sorting Hat made a mistake. It would make Hagrid's statement that 'there's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't a Slytherin' very nearly true. If a Gryffindor went bad, it was only because he should have been a Slytherin; if a Slytherin turned out all right, perhaps he should have been a Gryffindor. But the point is it isn't that simple. Regulus made some dreadful decisions, but he died making amends for them and trying to minimise the damage; Snape was never a very nice person, but he did work hard to redeem himself; Slughorn was more or less all right from beginning to end. And on the other side, Sirius once, out of sheer thoughtlessness, very nearly got a boy killed; Dumbledore may never have actually embarked on a quest for world domination, but he did think very hard about it for a while; Peter turned his back on all his principles and became a minion of evil. Peter was Sorted into Gryffindor because he had the potential to be the kind of student Gryffindor would have liked and because, presumably, he desired to go to that House. Everything after the Sorting was his responsibility. He had to live up to his potential. He didn't; he went bad, became selfish and treacherous, wouldn't stick to his principles when it mattered. He was a failure as a person, but not because he was miss-Sorted; come to that, Draco Malfoy was a fairly pathetic figure too, caught somewhere between good and evil, but no less a Slytherin for that.

Posted by: Oryx Oct 26 2007, 02:10 AM

One can do a lot of evil while being 100% Gryffindor. See Sirius and the Werewolf Prank - 2 people could have died from that moment of thoughtlessness. Or someone with Bellatrix's personality who does not come from a Slytherin-associated family. And one can be a good person and do good while being 100% Slytherin - because cunning and ambition can be pt towards worthy goals, and in many situations achieve what direct approaches do not. The idea that Slytherins as a whole should improve themselves by becoming like Gryffindors has little merit (except for the political aspect, which has nothing to do with character traits).

Posted by: Rosetart Oct 26 2007, 02:42 AM

Excellent analysis, Maenad! Along with the evidence Oryx provided that Peter was a true Gryffindor, I'm surprised that anyone who reads them isn't persuaded straightaway. Well done to both members!

Posted by: maenad Oct 26 2007, 06:55 AM

Oh, agreed. I'm sorry, I put that badly. Because of the political situation in the story we are given few examples of good Slytherins. Therefore, as Peter is clearly selfish and untrustworthy, it is easy to try to lump him in with the various unpleasant Slytherins. It isn't correct to do so, though. Peter need not be secretly a Slytherin to be bad; he is perfectly capable of being horrible as a Gryffindor. The statement 'we Sort too soon' is perhaps philosophically true, though impractical ('We should divide children up alphabetically' might be better) in that the political aspect is usually beyond eleven year olds, but Dumbledore had ulterior motives for complimenting Snape's courage in that way; it might be impossible to salvage Snape and Harry's relationship, but if he could just get Snape to see enough of the Gryffindor point of view to stop terrorising Neville, that would be a start. There is no reason why a Slytherin should not be courageous and yet possess all the Slytherin virtues and be perfectly suited to his House. Peter can possess the Gryffindor virtues and yet use the self-interested cunning more regularly attributed to the worst kind of Slytherin.

Slytherins don't need to become Gryffindors en masse in order to be good; for a start, it's a very good thing that Slughorn was more interested in gathering reinforcements than in proving he was brave enough to stay and fight. But neither should one be surprised if a member of one House occasionally exhibits the traits associated with another House, or feel that they are fundamentally unsuited to the House to which they were Sorted because all the members of one House are not exact duplicates.

Posted by: Oryx Oct 26 2007, 09:13 AM

No complaints, maenad. It's just that there is a common perception that Slytherins are by their nature bad and Gryffindors good. I even found a report about a church that has children play a game in some Sunday school activity where they start as Slytherins and work towards becoming Gryffindors. Oh well.

Posted by: ChildOfSnape Mar 25 2008, 03:02 PM

I am reading Deathly Hallows again and a question arose in my mind. Why on earth was peter pettigrew sorted in gryffindor. He is everything Gryffindors are not. Especially cowardly. Some one please explain, or give me your thoughts about the whole thing.

Posted by: Pleione Mar 25 2008, 03:18 PM

I've just merged two threads on why PP was in Gryffindor.

Pleione
LL Moderator

Posted by: Harry_Plopper Mar 25 2008, 03:23 PM

Was Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor. Maybe they had 5 house and one was never mentioned
Gryffindor for the brave , ravenclaw for the clever, huffelpuff for the loyal, slytherin for people to prove themselves and the Pettigrew house for the cowardly!

Posted by: pipkinsmiggle Aug 17 2008, 08:57 PM

Was he a Gryffindor? I know it is assumed he was but I cannot remember reading it. Anyway what do you think qualified him as a Gryffindor? I know you can "choose" your own house, but can you only choose from two (or more) different house in which you share qualities? For example, say you are smart and ambitious, but not very loyal... could you only choose from Ravenclaw and Slytherin and not Hufflepuff?
I am just trying to understand why on earth he is a Gryffindor.

Posted by: hufflemuffinx Aug 17 2008, 09:00 PM

he was a gryffindor (why i cant understand) in DH (the prince's tale) it mentions seeing peter pettigrew be sorted into gryffindor

Posted by: Kneazel Tamer Aug 17 2008, 09:01 PM

Perhaps he was a different kind of person when he started at Hogwarts.

Posted by: pipkinsmiggle Aug 17 2008, 09:18 PM

But in PoA Sirius said he should have seen how Peter was a coward, always attaching himself to stronger people.

Posted by: Pleione Aug 18 2008, 09:29 AM

*Squishity squish*

I've just merged two threads on the same topic. Please carry on talking about the little rat Pettigrew.

Pleione
LL Moderator

Posted by: kalayaan Aug 18 2008, 05:01 PM

Many people here write that Wormtail was a coward because he didn't risk dying for his friends, and did everything Voldemort asked just to keep himself safe, regardless of any principles. I am absolutely certain that not a single one of those people who wrote that would act very differently is that sort of situation. It's very easy to bring out eloquent statements like: "I would certainly die for my friends, I would endure any torture for the right cause, I would gladly die a hero's death" and so on while you're sitting comfortably in your room in front of your computer with a bottle of Coca-C*la in your hand. The idea that any honourable person in this situation would choose to die rather than become a traitor is complete bollocks. It's probably only about 2% - 3% of the people in the world who would stick to their principles even in the face of certain death.

Posted by: Professor L E Snape Aug 28 2008, 09:22 PM

I am absolutely certain that not a single one of those people who wrote that would act very differently is that sort of situation.


I think it is a bit extreme to claim that not a single person who has previously responded to this thread would die for their friends. Whilst I agree that it is very easy to sit down and theorize about something that is very unlikely to happen, friendships are a truly remarkable thing, and many people would do anythign physically within their power to keep their friends and their family safe from harm. You read in the news every day about people who committed acts of extreme altruism, made extreme sacrfices of themselves and their safety and well being, sometimes for people they have never even met. People every day in every army of the world make the sacrifices that pettigrew was required to make for the Potters-and that too, was a war situation, and all the main characters can be likened to soldiers in a muggle war. Knowing that you are making the sacrifice for your friends, not for a sometimes faceless stranger, should have made the situation easier for Peter, especially since he knew that all his friends would truly have sacrficed themselves for his protection.

Posted by: DADACharmist Aug 28 2008, 10:12 PM

Kalayaan you are absolutely right; it is easy to give the obvious statement of loyalty while living in a comfortable risk-free life style. It's also true, Professor L E Snape, that we see people everyday sacrifice their own well-being for someone else, even strangers. I must say though, that when we state:

We aren't lying, or stating the 'right' answer, but that each of us; every person on the earth, has the compacity of doing good or evil, of giving or taking. But just as a wise old professor once said:
Who are we to judge if someone would or wouldn't do something. Even I cannot say that I would indefinitely sacrifice my life for even my own family, yet I do know that I would try everything in my power to save them. If God willed that I should die in their place, then I am confident that He would give me the strength to follow through where my human nature would falter, for;
"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me." Philippians 4:13




"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment." - Gandalf, FotR

Posted by: Fourmagpies Jan 10 2009, 03:41 PM

OK, you started to convince me, but then I thought about it and you lost me again.

I still think that Peter showed consistent moral cowardice for as long as we knew him:

The Marauders bossed him about and put him down constantly and he just accepted it;
When a bigger bully (Voldemort) came along, Peter turned traitor, disgusting even himself, because he was scared;
When he lost his "Scabbers" role he had no-one else left, so he returned to Voldemort in Albania;
When snake-Voldemort (who was still weak and dependant on him) repulsed him, he still obeyed him;


I accept he did have physical courage.

I always regarded cutting off his hand in the graveyard as another sign of cowardice - he didn't want to do it but couldn't stand up and say "No". But, yes, many [most] people simply wouldn't be able to bring themselves to do it, no matter how cowed into obedience. And the same with the cut-off-his-finger-disappear-in-an-explosion-and-let-them-blame-Sirius scheme.

So would physical courage would have been enough for Godric Gryddindor to choose him? I actually feel that "daring, nerve and chivalry" suggest that he valued moral courage more.

Peter wasn't even as Gryffindor as to choose evil and to fight bravely for that; he just let himself be bullied into it.


Or did he still have the potential for moral courage back when he was eleven?

We don't see him until he was sixteen, and had had five years of Sirius' and James' friendship. Obviously their constant put-downs would have undermined his self-esteem and made it harder to find moral courage.

My inclination is that he never really had it in the first place. But, if they made him the moral coward he was by then out of a potentially Gryffindor eleven-year old, then they did a really Bad Thing.

Posted by: Sirius_Craic Jan 11 2009, 05:12 PM

I think its more the fact that he didn't even try. Didn't go to his friends or other order members like DD for help when LV tried to get him to turn spy. Just went with what LV wanted knowing full well he not only sentenced his friends to death but their child who wasnt even two years old. He could have run, new identity in a far flung part of the world. (it may or may not have worked but giving it a shot would be much more a better option to me than being the reason for somebody else's death. You may think I'm full of it but if it came down to it I would face certain death for my family. I think it all comes down to beliefs, I'm Catholic so aiding a murder = you burn in hell. you die a good person = you go to a better place)

Posted by: potterish10010 Jan 11 2009, 06:42 PM

I have mixed feelings on this......... I think he chose back when he was being sorted. I am not sure he would have been there otherwise. I thinks that he belonged there at 11. otherwise he could have been in Hufflepuff. He didn't belong in Slytherin until later in life.

Posted by: BriannaWazHere Mar 19 2009, 05:40 PM

I mean, Peter Pettigrew was an extremly cowardly person- of course- so why did he end up in Gryffindor. Maybe at the time he was not very cowardly, when he was getting sorted and all- but still he couldn't have been brave and all the things Gryffindors are.

If anything he should have been in Slytherin, people who only care about there own selves and all. I just don't get why he was a Gryffindor.

Posted by: Pleione Mar 19 2009, 06:05 PM

*Squish*

I've just merged two threads on Pettigrew.

Pleione
LL Moderator

Posted by: Heiress0fSlytherin Mar 19 2009, 06:09 PM

i think he did redeem himself when he kind of killed himself. (doesnt sound very noble i know)because he couldnt control the hand completly since the Dark Lord gave it to him and He sensed betrayal (which would have been pettigrew's redemption) so the hand began to strangle Pettigrew.

but yeah i do agree it does seem awfully strange.&nbsp; i dont think hed quite fit in slytherin either because when i hear slytherin i think ambitious and goal oriented, leaders not followers.

but great question Brianna!

srry the format came out weird since i had to copy and paste the message because of the merge

Posted by: Eva Hedwig Mar 19 2009, 06:51 PM

I guess that he was sitting in the train compartment with James and Sirius, and saw how they treated Snape who was avid to enter Slytherin. He could have wanted to be at their side, serving them, so James and Sirius would protect him.So he asked the hat to be put into Gryffindor.

Pettigrew has a bit like a house-elf attitude and was willing to serve, and Sirius and (and James), was used to have a house-elf at his service and would have been happy to have a "personal" servant.

I have the impresion that the Sorting Hat takes all the wishes into account. When you come from a certain family it's expected that you are in the same house. In the case of the Wesaleys, Percy was a clear Slytherin also. (Bill maybe a Ravenclaw, he wasn't so down to earth and married Fleur). I guess that Bart jr. would have been a Slytherin also, but for family tradition would have ended up in Ravenclaw (12 NEWTs)

It's like DD told Harry at the end of CoS: "It's what we choose, not what we are"

Posted by: Laura W Mar 19 2009, 07:28 PM

"It's like DD told Harry at the end of CoS: "It's what we choose, not what we are" " - Eva Hedwig




Actually, what Dumbledore said is that our choices ARE what we are. The choices we make in life tell our true self; regardless of our birth status, what life has thrown at us, and what particular talents we do or don't possess. For example, Tom Riddle made certain choices and Harry Potter made other choices ("Yes, Harry, you can love," said Dumbledore, "Which, given everything that has happened to you, is a great and remarkable thing." - HBP, Chapter 23), even though they started out with certain things in common. That is such a central theme of this whole series that some members of LL have DD's quote under their sig.

And Peter Pettigrew made his choices too. Choices to spy on the Order of the Phoenix for a year and choices to eventually betray the Potters in order to ingratiate himself to Lord Voldemort. It was these choices that define what Peter Pettigrew, man and wizard, was. (This is what, in part, the conversation between Sirius, Lupin and Peter in the Shrieking Shack (PoA) was all about. What Jo was trying to show.)

The Sorting Hat looked into the mind and soul and personality and character of 11-year-old Peter Pettigrew and saw a Gryffindor. Please do not assume that means "good person". There are good and bad and all shades of grey people who come out of all four houses. Perhaps Peter did have bravery of the reckless kind (Gryffindor quality) in him. If the Sorting Hat saw it, then I accept little Peter did have it. At that age, anyway. Jo is on record as stating that the Sorting Hat is never wrong (as it sees the children at 11).

(Harry Potter's case was so unusal as to be almost unique. Here was a child with two souls in him. One with definite Slytherin characteristics; one more like a Gryffindor. I'm sure the poor Hat had never encountered that before - or since. As we know, the Hat sorted Harry in September 1991 but as late as December 1992, it was still ambiguous. "You've been wondering whether I put you in the right house," said the hat smartly. "Yes ... you were particularly difficult to place. But I stand by what I said before - you would have done well in Slytherin." - CoS, Chapter 12)

Sadly, tragically, the adult Peter CHOSE to use whatever he innately was - what the Hat saw, at least - for evil. After all, for the longest time that is what the WW thought about the Gryffindor, Sirius Black. (And Black's choices, throughout his whole life - as with othe HP characters -, tell us what he was too.)

Any of the characteristics that make one a Gryffindor, a Hufflepuff, a Ravenclaw or a Slytherin can be used by the owner of those qualities postively or negatively. The CHOICE of how to use these characteristics you possess tells what you are. According to Dumbledore and Jo, anyway.







Laura

"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
- Albus Dumbledore, CoS



edited by lw to correct weird font

Posted by: harrydavid Mar 19 2009, 10:55 PM

Yes, Peter was a true Gryffindor. He had bravery of sorts and was certainly not ambitious or cunning (Slytherin traits). It is really depressing to see the number of people that 1) think that if you are evil you should be in Slytherin and 2) you can ask the sorting hat to put you in any house you want. Neither of these two things is true.

Posted by: Lily_Phoenix Apr 7 2009, 09:35 PM

Bravery means you stand up for what you believe in no matter what. It means you don't give up just because there might be danger or because you are scared. Just because Wormtail wished he were brave, does not mean he was.

From my analysis of Wormtail on my Livejournal:

Posted by: wickedboy Apr 8 2009, 04:59 AM

I think Peter was a hero like everyone else on the good side and he simply went bad. He was the only example of a character doing that that in the whole series. Without Peter, it would have seemed like no one in the Potterverse ever went from the good side to the bad side. Several people went the other way, and most just stayed on their own side. But Peter was unique.

Posted by: Eva Hedwig Apr 9 2009, 12:35 PM

Yes you are right, Pettigrew is the only known to switch completey from "good" to "bad", well Percy was a bit similar in choosing the "bad" side for a while, but he learned and came back. But Percy didn't get really bad, he wanted feel powerful also and sided with the MoM, but when V. took over, he reflected on what he had done and returned to fight against him.

Marietta maybe is a small example of it, she was on the "good side" and blabbed to the "bad" side. She was capable of betraying others for her small gain of apreciation.

I think that Pettigrew was on the side of the strongest whoever it would be, without thinking of moral. He was with James and Sirius because they were strong, willingly serving them. And when V. was turning out to be a greater bully, he changed alligance.

Posted by: YayPepsi Aug 4 2009, 01:54 PM

You know, I have trouble taking Sirius' appraisal of Peter at face value. At the time when he said it, he was (understandably) hateful towards Peter which might biased his opinion just a little. In his hindsight, maybe he really did feel that Peter was a clinger-on who only hung out with the Marauders because they were strong, but that's such a 2d characterization. It's hard to believe that Peter's only motive for being friends with James, Sirius and Remus for 7(?) school years was simply "These people are strong. I'm going to go along with them because they're strong." Maybe that was his original motive, and maybe a background motive in later years but I find it difficult to accept that was his driving force his entire life. In fact, it's disappointing and boring if that's the case. I'm sure eventually, he really did bond with his friends. It must have been hard for him though, because other people at Hogwarts clearly felt he was inferior to the other three Marauders. He wasn't as good looking, he wasn't as popular. He probably wasn't as skilled. McGonagal I believe described him as a puppy following the others. And, well, Sirius' attitude in later years was telling, even if it was justified. Perhaps in the back of his mind, Sirius never really accepted Peter fully as a Marauder and kept him at arms length? In a group of friends, sometimes there's one person who you like hanging out with as a group, but wouldn't want to hang out with one on one. I can see Peter being that person. I can also see resentment and jealousy forming in Peter, even if he had truly bonded with his friends. That might have made it easier for him to later betray the Potters, to save his own hide. "I've always been friends with James, but he's always looked down on me... none of my friends would die for me...why should I die to save them?"

I do believe that Peter was brave when he was younger. We don't get to see a lot of the Marauders when they're younger, and what we're shown of them from the flashback is unflattering to all of them. But he did turn into an animagus to meet up with a werewolf, there's some bravery in that, right? And unlike his friends, who could fight back against Remus if necessary, a rat has little chance against a werewolf. So I'd say there was more risk for him when they didn't know how Remus would react to them. Who could have blamed him if he had backed out? "Well, sorry guys, I don't want to come face to face with a werewolf in a bite-sized body." But he didn't. We don't know Peter's backstory before he came to Hogwarts, either. Maybe there's something he did in his past, as a child, that labeled him as "brave." There's a number of reasons he could have been put in Gryffindor. Bravery and courage aren't always good things, either. And as courageous as someone might be, there are limits to that. He might have been brave in some aspects where the stakes and consequences were lower, not dealing with risking his life.