"I just can't keep my opinions to myself any longer.
1. Peter betrayed his best friends, or at least people he felt sufficiently strongly about to have followed them around.
This means that some stronger emotion than devotion is in effect. What is stronger than loyalty/camraderie? Love, hate, and fear. We can assume that at least one of these was in operation when he made the choice, and, judging by what we can see of Peter's nature, I'm inclined to believe that it's fear.
2. Peter avoided criminal punishment by framing a friend, killing twelve, and hiding as a rat for twelve years.
This indicates one of three things: a preference for rat form, fear of being captured by someone who knew that he was the Secret-Keeper, or fear of being recaptured by Voldemort's minions. The first one can probably be ruled out. The second two seem equally plausible. I'm inclined to believe that it was probably both.
3. Peter, when rediscovered by his former friends, escapes as soon as he has the chance.
Again, the three possibilities: firstly, a hidden agenda or missive from Voldemort. Secondly, repressed guilt that he doesn't want to deal with. The third possibility is fear of criminal punishment. Since Peter sought out Voldemort, not vice versa, he apparently had no contact with the Dark Lord. Which leaves feelings of guilt and fear. Both are equally likely.
4. Peter helps Voldemort rise to power again by kidnapping a Ministry worker, conspiring to kidnap his best friends/worshipees' son, and cutting off his own hand.
Why did Peter help the Dark Lord? Why did he go back, when he could have just as easily escaped to live as a hermit in some remote country? I assume that either he actually wanted Voldemort to rise again, he wanted protection against his former friends, or he knew that Voldemort was still alive and was afraid of retribution. I really don't know which it was.
What are our results throughout this? We always, always have fear as the only or the primary conclusion. Can we really hate a man for being afraid? Can we hate him for having a desire to save himself? Honestly, wouldn't you do the same things, in his position? (Well, maybe not the killing twelve people . . . I wouldn't, anyway . . ..)
My point is, this hatred of Peter is not justifiable. We can't hate him for being human.
Me, I like Peter, and I really think he has more potential for explanation and development than any other character in the whole series. He's trying to snag a starring role in the Bureau, and I just might let him. By the way, I have to cover about a year's worth of time in the Bureau. Plenty of time for character development and other such fun things . . . and d'you know, I've only covered about eighteen hours, in seven chapters consisting of over 100kb altogether? Hehe.
- Gil (Peter-supporter, despite it all--in other words, yes, I actually like Peter!!!)"
The following has been edited. I removed a comment made to another Fictionalley Pster that delt with her capitialization. Nothing else has been changed
"I'm sorry for being cruel, but I find the tired anti-Peter spiel to be exactly as you have stated it. He was pathetic, they took him in and trusted him, he had nothing without them, why did he betray his only friends, etc. We must recall a few things when we perceive him thus.
First, the view of Peter as a tagalong was solely expressed by McGonagall. I've been viewed as a tagalong, and it does not make me any less an independent and civilized individual. The views of one character who was obviously not involved in the group in any personal way are not substantial enough to found a perception of a character. Furthermore, we do not find that the views were corroborated by those of Remus or Sirius. They were first very clear in stating their implicit trust and respect for him during past times, and any perceptions they made of his present condition were based on anger and feelings of betrayal rather than on steadfast proof. As their views were founded on emotional reactions, they, too, were invalid.
Furthermore, we have never seen Peter in any circumstances other than terror. How are we to know how he acted when times were good? The behavior he exhibited as a rat is our only evidence, and there we see an individual who was perhaps lazy, perhaps defensive, but certainly not able to display much personality beyond that. Therefore, any conclusions we draw as to his personality cannot be objective and cannot have any basis--we have nothing on which to base our judgements. The only exhibition of personality made by Peter in an unprovoked situation was the insult his former self wrote to Snape (the map in its derogatory state). He seems little different from his friends.
Furthermore, how do you know James' group was popular? You don't; you assume it. You also don't know that they were called the Marauders; I doubt it because of grammatical evidence (the map is called the Marauder's Map, not the Marauders' Map, indicating ONE[/i] marauder, not a group of them--I've said this many times before). Anyway, I digress. The point is, perhaps the social standing of the group was low. Perhaps they were unpopular. Perhaps everyone hated James for being oh-so-perfect and Lily for being equally perfect. Perhaps it was only the older people who liked them--most teachers like my circle of friends fairly well (even though we DO scare our poor elders sometimes), but I don't think there are many students outside of the group who like us at all.
And, as one more fact to bear in mind before you stereotype Peter (or any other character), you must recall that J.K. Rowling is famous for her turnarounds. We cannot be certain that the Peter we see is the Peter that was or will be. We cannot be certain of the events of the past, or of the future. Perhaps we're being led on by this excellent writer.
I'm sorry for my rudeness, really, but I do believe that we need to think things over before we form opinions of anything. I believe that when we take any man, examine everything he's done and why he's done it, and figure out how much is certain about this man and learn how much has been left to interpretation, then and only then can we truly say that we despise him.
Once again, I apologize for being rude.
- Gil (trying to find a suitably philosophical saying, and irritable because it's late and she still has homework to do)"
"Everyone says that they hate Peter because, even if they could understand that he was afraid, weak, etc. when he joined the Death Eaters and betrayed his best friends, there was no cause for his blowing up of twelve people . . .
But we know that Peter is a magical incompetent. Is it possible that the horrible incident was a mistake on his part? That his intention of casting some harmless spell on Sirius backfired horribly?
After all, obliviate sounds so very close to obliterate . . ."
"Since we're flinging around Peter-theories . . .
But I also think that he lacked self-confidence. He wasn't sure of himself or his beliefs, and so he followed whoever seemed most persuasive at the time. Threats can often be extremely persuasive. Friendship can be more influential, but it tends to lose its strength when the friends aren't there but the threateners are. "
The FAP Peter Debate     Anakin's Peter Rants     Other Peter Fans(yes, others do exist!)