I re-tell thee again and again: I hate the moor

[pauraque_bk]

I can't be the first person to have the idea that Peter was in love with James and jealous of Lily, can I? The thought hit me like a ton of bricks while I was re-reading Othello. Hot damn, I think I've finally got an underlying reason for the betrayal that I can work with, not to mention a structure for this damned Bertha Jorkins story I've had kicking around.

And if drawing parallels between Harry Potter and Shakespeare doesn't put you off, you may be interested in idlerat's insights on HP and Christian allegory here and here.

Comments

[idlerat.livejournal.com]

Ooo, ooo, great idea. I always thought it was more maybe one of the guys (I tend to imagine them all queer except clueless James, whom I somehow detest more than Sirius and Peter put together).

Othello: Are you casting Peter as Iago? (the traitor?) if so are you speculating that Iago has a thing for Desdemona?

Thanks for pimping me. I've never been pimped before. *aw*

[idlerat.livejournal.com]

Oh my God I'm such a moron. I totally misread your post. And the answer is yes, it's occured to me that Peter might have been in love with either James or Sirius or both.

And that makes more sense to me re: Othello.

Fun fact: did you know that Desdemona was the first Shakespearean role ever played by a woman on the English stage?

[pauraque]

Peter might have been in love with either James or Sirius or both

Yes, it could have been both. That could add some bite to the fact that he essentially killed them both on the same day (James by the betrayal, Sirius by leaving him to Azkaban). Not to overextend the parallel, but Sirius can be a loosely Emilia-like character; he aided in the betrayal without realizing it, by telling James to switch to Peter as Secret-Keeper. If I wanted to really use Iago as a model, I could posulate that Peter somehow manipulated the situation so that Sirius would suspect Remus, and give James that bad advice. It depends on how smart Peter is... and how villainous.

did you know that Desdemona was the first Shakespearean role ever played by a woman on the English stage?

No, I didn't! What year was that?

I find Othello the creepiest of Shakespeare's plays... Iago's supposed motivation ("And it is thought abroad, that 'twixt my sheets / He has done my office") is nonsensical, and the play passes over it quickly, leaving the end loose for most of the play. The scene where we finally get it ("Witness that here Iago doth give up / The execution of his wit, hands, heart, / To wrong'd Othello's service!" ... "I am your own for ever.") is incredibly chilling.

[idlerat.livejournal.com]

Can I just mention I'm so glad I met you? I'm having such fun talking with you.

The production was, I think, right after the Restoration (1660), when the theatres were reopened. But it might conceivably have been earlier. I've read this a couple places, but I don't know where so can't check.

Yes, Othello is very creepy, and to me very sad. In a sense even sadder than Lear, in that Lear grows as a person while Othello is utterly destroyed. Although Othello's thoughts and actions are so much creepier than Lear's that it's as terrifying as it is sad.

I like your ideas. This will be interesting. Have you published Peterfic before?

[pauraque]

Can I just mention I'm so glad I met you? I'm having such fun talking with you.

Ditto! Makes me glad I caved in to peer pressure and started doing this LJ thing in the first place. :)

Although Othello's thoughts and actions are so much creepier than Lear's that it's as terrifying as it is sad.

Definitely. Few pieces of writing, in Shakespeare or elsewhere, equal its raw emotional horror. "It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul" ... "Put out the light, and then... put out the light". Gives me shivers every time.

[pauraque]

Have you published Peterfic before?

Yes, though it was before I'd thought very hard about Peter's motivations. It's a crossover with The X-Files, so you may not get what's intended out of it, but it's here, if you're curious.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

He certainly seemed to have an enormous crush on James in the penseive memory. And you have to wonder why he'd hang around when Sirius was saying he looked useless and the like (re: why Peter was chosen as Secret-Keeper).

Jealousy over James makes a good creepy motive. Isn't the Congreve quote (totally out of context) "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned"?

[pauraque]

He certainly seemed to have an enormous crush on James in the penseive memory.

::nods:: To read the scene in any other way seems forced. Moreover, James is *aware* of Peter's adulation, and deliberately feeds it. It's almost like leading him on -- I can see Peter clinging to the hope that James might actually be interested in him, to the point of feeling devastated and betrayed when James married Lily.

This also fits in with the theme in OotP that *love is dangerous*. Like any magic, it can backfire, growing twisted and suffocating. Dumbledore loved Harry too much. Harry loved Sirius too much. The infinite love that's kept in that room in the Dept. of Mysteries is definitely a dangerous force -- why else would the room be locked? Peter may have loved unwisely, and too well.

[theatresm.livejournal.com]

*evil giggle*

Ooooo. Ooooo, oooooo. I think I like it.

[pauraque]

*eg* Why is it that HP brings out the evil slasher in me? I'm a good little canon-pairing het-writer in X-Files fandom...

[theatresm.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, I was debating this with myself. Here's the question: is it slash if there's no sex? If we go back to the Othello example, would we consider it slash (no matter what Larry Olivier thought)?

In other words, dumb het Amy is asking whether it's slash when a) there's no sexual contact (or "romantic" emotional relationship, with or without sex) and b) when at least one of the protags (protags meaning the "couple") appears to be straight. (A 'ship that's not a 'ship? Okay, now I'm confusing myself further.)

This would appear to be the case with Peter-James. Of course, you could surprise me and James could be bi. Or straight but very manipulative. The permutations are... boggling.

I'm about to get myself in even deeper by wondering if Peter's jealousy is symptomatic of emotional or sexual desire.

I guess what I'm trying (badly) to say is that I don't see an impediment to writing a Peter who's crushing on James without any overt sexual desires -- kids do it all the time, even into early adolescence -- and the question is, a) why doesn't he get over it or b) why/when does it develop into something more overt sexuality?

(And how does LadiesMan!Peter we giggled about last week fit into all of this? Or doesn't he?)

I think I'm slowly being converted to the Church of Peter. Help me! Help me!

[pauraque]

In other words, dumb het Amy is asking whether it's slash when a) there's no sexual contact (or "romantic" emotional relationship, with or without sex) and b) when at least one of the protags (protags meaning the "couple") appears to be straight.

That's usually called "pre-slash", but of course that assumes that it will later progress into something more overt. If that's *not* the assumption (as with my story), I'd probably still call it slash, but explain that it's unrequited and not acted on. flambeau labels slash stories where "nothing happens" with parentheses around the pairing; she'd label my story "(James/Peter)". I wish that practice were more widespread.

It depends on the context, I guess, and the general tendency to think of gay feelings as remarkable, whereas het feelings are not. These are characters from a children's book; should I be more cautious with my labelling for that reason? Like I said, I don't think it's possible to read OotP and *not* conclude that Peter has at the very least a nonsexual crush on James. How much further do I have to push that canon before it's slash?

This raises huge meta-fandom questions: Is it slash if it's a canon pairing? Is it slash if it's canon, but is unrequited or not acted on? Is it slash if *I believe* it's a canon pairing?

a) why doesn't he get over it or b) why/when does it develop into something more overt sexuality?

Thank you for asking these questions. I think I needed to hear them put so clearly. I don't know why he doesn't get over it... It could be partly because James is leading him on, as I said above. We don't know much about Peter's background -- he may have been a very lonely person. JKR has said he needs to feel protected, and gets that from Voldemort now. Did he get it from James at one time? Can we suggest a parallel between James and Voldemort [::boggles::] -- that both "protected" Peter, but in an unhealthy way?

(And how does LadiesMan!Peter we giggled about last week fit into all of this? Or doesn't he?)

Well, this is how the whole thing started, isn't it? I was trying to write Peter and Bertha at the Albanian inn, and I kept hitting these same walls: a) Why did he betray James? and b) What does Bertha have to do with it?

The first question has to be answered. The betrayal is Peter's central action in the books, and if I'm writing about Peter, that's what I want to write about -- anything else is gonna be window-dressing. The second question is one of pertinence: If I'm going to speculate that this incident with Bertha is some kind of defining moment in this part of Peter's life, and related to the betrayal (which I have to do, if I'm bothering to write the story), then I need to know WHY.

Right now, I'm writing a Peter who isn't attracted to Bertha sexually, but emotionally -- this is the first normal interaction he's had with an ordinary human being in a long, long time. And he has to decide if he's going to drag her off to Voldemort or not. Part of me wants to identify Bertha with Lily in some way, and use that to tip the balance, but I'm not sure how to make it work.

I think I'm slowly being converted to the Church of Peter.

Muahaha! My evil plan is working perfectly. ::rubs hands together::

[theatresm.livejournal.com]

This raises huge meta-fandom questions: Is it slash if it's a canon pairing? Is it slash if it's canon, but is unrequited or not acted on? Is it slash if *I believe* it's a canon pairing?

Ow. My head hurts.

And thank you for overlooking my typos. Bad enough when they're obvious, but when I write 'develop into something more overt sexuality?', it's time to go to bed whether I'm sleepy or not.

But of course I refuse to.

Can we suggest a parallel between James and Voldemort [::boggles::] -- that both "protected" Peter, but in an unhealthy way?

Oh, I don't see why not. The problem may not be that James' "protection" was unhealthy, but that perhaps Peter was never able to develop an identity apart from James/Marauders. Again, we're back to the idea of arrested development: James is certainly moving on to a "mature" or "grown-up" life -- wife, child, the Order (a job as well?); Sirius and Lupin are also in the Order, presumably working or developing their own interests. Where does this leave Peter?

On the other hand, protection could be unhealthy if it leads to coddling, e.g., Albus and Harry. (I have a harder time justifying this view of a James-Peter relationship, but that's largely because I'm wallowing in Prat!James right now.)

I'm trying to work through the last half of the post but am making no sense at the moment even to myself -- I'm glopping Bertha and rejected chances for redemption, etc, all together, so I'm going to stop and mull over for a while.

[pauraque]

Meta-fandom issues make my head hurt too.

<trekgeek>Slash and slash. What is slash?</trekgeek>

Sirius and Lupin are also in the Order, presumably working or developing their own interests. Where does this leave Peter?

Peter was in the Order too; he's in the photo Moody shows Harry. If Peter was so "useless", one wonders why Dumbledore allowed this. (Maybe he joined the Order *after* Voldemort had already trained him in more advanced magic. Shudder.)

But yeah, your point is taken. Peter clearly felt/feels isolated. He seems to have desperate emotional needs that aren't being met; that much was evident to me the first time I read PoA. He's not a loner; he seeks out connections, and wants to feel like part of a group. But whether he's the lame leg of the Marauders, or Voldemort's fawning slave, he's not connecting with anyone on *equal terms* the way James does with Lily (maybe Remus and Sirius too?). I mean, shit, we're talking about a guy who submitted himself to literally be a *child's pet* for twelve years. One of the creepiest parts of the Shrieking Shack scene, for me, was Peter's hysterical appeal to Ron: "Wasn't I a good pet?"

Okay, at this point I just need to get my thoughts together and write out an essay on all this stuff. It's getting hella crowded in my brain.

[pauraque]

By the way, in regards to Othello... whether you subscribe to Olivier's views or not, the play itself can't be slash, because it's canon. My understanding is that the "slash" label is reserved for apocrypha.