[HPforGrownups] Not So Faithful (was: Re: The Imperius Curse

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 2977

Rita Winston wrote:

> For all that Moody/Crouch said "There's nothing I hate more than a
> Death Eater who walked free" and mouthed off about disloyal followers
> who denied their lord just to avoid Azkaban, he himself had *loudly*
> denied his lord ("Father! I'm innocent! I didn't do it!") in an
> unsuccessful effort to avoid Azkaban.

I thought that he was not so much avoiding Azkaban, as trying to stay
free. He knew that he and the other two were the only "active" Death
Eaters left, and he wanted to be able to keep searching for his master.

> (Perhaps the given name should
> have been Peter rather than Bartemius, as Peter denied *his* lord
> three times before cock crow -- does anyone have any ideas on the
> meaning of the name Bartemius?)
>
> Another is whether the Lord of Lies really has any objection to his
> followers lying.

Probably not, so long as the ultimate objective is reached. He'd object
to them lying to *him,* I'm sure, but to others? Nah.

> But the harm that we actually *see* in this story was caused by
> Crouch Sr's moment of *softness*. If he hadn't yielded to his
> wife begging him to most illegally help a convicted felon escape from
> prison, V couldn't have kidnapped Harry from Hogwarts, Cedric
> wouldn't be dead, and for that matter, Crouch Sr wouldn't be dead.

Yeah, I see a lot of "appearances are deceiving" stuff in these books,
and this is another example. What appears stern and unforgiving to the
outside observer is justice to one who knows all the facts. Sirius had no
idea of the evidence against Barty Jr., and we as readers are allowed,
along with our Harry, Hermione, and Ron, to condemn Barty Sr. without
knowing all the facts. There might have been very good evidence, but
since it looked like such a case of circumstantial evidence, that's what
most of us (fictional characters included) decided it was.

And the compassion that Barty Sr. finally shows is the sort of thing
that's generally presented as good in today's entertainment---ignore the
laws when they've been exercised unjustly; breaking the rules is okay if
the end is good, etc. But the impulse is flawed, since a staunch
supporter of the law must break the law to follow the impulse. It's sort
of the flip side of the rule-breaking Harry, Hermione, and Ron do, which
*does* turn out well, and illustrates again the real danger of some of
the things they do.

Also, to me, this is another example of how devious and deceptive
Voldemort and the Death Eaters were/are. And who knows, perhaps Barty
Jr.'s mom was a Death Eater, too, and wanted her son freed for more than
maternal reasons?

Does anyone besides me think the dementors might have "gone easier" on
Voldemort's supporters? Sirius' explanation of how they didn't affect the
dog as they would the man always seemed a little too easy, and perhaps
his escape and the Barty switch were not such amazing things after all.
Dumbledore's more than hinted that the basic nature of the dementors
leans more toward Voldemort than Our Side, anyway.

Eternal vigilance!

--Amanda, more paranoid by the minute....