Who was Peter being "saved" from but Harry himself? Who was Snape being "saved" from but James' best friend and partner in pranks Sirius.
Yes, in both cases the supposed "saviour" is more like an accessory to murder who gets cold feet at the last moment. You're completely right that it's not really about saving someone from danger, but *sparing* them - which is even worse in its condescension towards both Peter and Snape. Again with the double standards that seem so pervasive in these books at every level.
Also about saving lives and owing debts - the *worst* allegation in that context comes from Dumbledore in PS/SS when he basically tells Harry that Snape only saved his life because of the debt owed to James - meaning that otherwise Snape would cheerfully have let Harry die. (I wonder if that's what the narrative voice is truly trying to convey, and that's why Harry doesn't owe Snape anything?!) This undermines everything Snape stands for in my view - doing what needs doing even when you don't like it, not letting someone die simply because you *can* stop it, helping all those people he loathes...
And you're right about Sirius seeming more reckless pre-Christmas. I feel like characterwise one might say that this is because after Xmas he falls into despair.
We see relatively little of him after Christmas, so it's difficult to judge, but in a more charitable (or less depressing) interpretation, perhaps the attack on Arthur could have been a sort of wake-up call for Sirius? He seems so much more reasonable talking to the twins after that than he did the entire time before. (Perhaps I simply don't want Hermione-the-Queen-of-Exposition to be right all the time...)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-17 10:59 am (UTC)Yes, in both cases the supposed "saviour" is more like an accessory to murder who gets cold feet at the last moment. You're completely right that it's not really about saving someone from danger, but *sparing* them - which is even worse in its condescension towards both Peter and Snape. Again with the double standards that seem so pervasive in these books at every level.
Also about saving lives and owing debts - the *worst* allegation in that context comes from Dumbledore in PS/SS when he basically tells Harry that Snape only saved his life because of the debt owed to James - meaning that otherwise Snape would cheerfully have let Harry die. (I wonder if that's what the narrative voice is truly trying to convey, and that's why Harry doesn't owe Snape anything?!) This undermines everything Snape stands for in my view - doing what needs doing even when you don't like it, not letting someone die simply because you *can* stop it, helping all those people he loathes...
And you're right about Sirius seeming more reckless pre-Christmas. I feel like characterwise one might say that this is because after Xmas he falls into despair.
We see relatively little of him after Christmas, so it's difficult to judge, but in a more charitable (or less depressing) interpretation, perhaps the attack on Arthur could have been a sort of wake-up call for Sirius? He seems so much more reasonable talking to the twins after that than he did the entire time before. (Perhaps I simply don't want Hermione-the-Queen-of-Exposition to be right all the time...)