Voldemort's faithful servant

[caliburncy]

No: HPFGUIDX 31746

Hey all,

Haven't been able to post much of late and hopefully that will change 
soon, but I would like to comment on this quickly.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> > We, the readers, know the back story and can be fairly sure at
> > least about the equation Barty Jr = faithful servant, as for
> > Snape= left forever and Karkaroff= coward, things are not so
> > unambiguous. But the DEs know even less than we do after Barty's
> > Veritaserum-induced confession. Is it Voldemort's intention to
> > keep them guessing who's who???
> 
> This seems to be what he's doing, but why?
> 
> I have wondered whether it is a merely a literary device for the
> benefit of the reader (at that point we don't know the back story)
> or whether JKR is creating some confusion amongst the DEs which
> Dumbledore may be able to exploit. Very useful if the DEs think
> Snape is still loyal to V.

It is almost certainly just a literary device.  I know, I know, lots 
of people here wonder if perhaps our assumptions might be wrong and 
if JKR is going to use this to fool us *twice*--but personally, I 
doubt it.  Still, what do I know?  If in a future book I am proved 
wrong, you can all come here and gloat. :-)

The reason for this ambiguity from a literary purpose is clear--
additional misdirection for Crouch, Jr.  People have noted that the 
culprit plot twist in GOF is quite reminiscent of the culprit plot 
twist in PS/SS.  They're more or less correct--but GOF's is more 
cleverly handled, because it has additional layers.

In PS/SS, we had Snape as the alleged culprit, to mask Quirrel as the 
actual culprit.  In GOF, the trick is expanded.  We have Karkaroff, 
the entire purpose of Karkaroff being to look so obvious a choice 
that people will read it and say, "Oh, it's too obvious if it's him." 
and then believe that they have guessed part of the twist a la PS/SS--
they think they are seeing past an attempt of JKR's to fool them, 
when they are playing right into her hands.  Crouch, Sr. serves a 
similar purpose initially, until we get to the Madness of Mister 
Crouch, at which point his guilt becomes impossible (Oh, look!  He's 
dead!).  Therefore, we now have a lot of readers who think they are 
very clever for realizing that Karkaroff and Crouch, Sr. are not 
responsible.  And who do they sub in as the culprit, then?  None 
other than Ludo Bagman.  Ha!  They've been doubly fooled, just like 
they were supposed to be.  JKR intended for people to think that Ludo 
Bagman was the cleverly-concealed culprit--that's the reason she made 
both Karkaroff and Crouch, Sr. seem too obvious.  So that people 
would think they had figured her system out by noticing the 
obviousness, but would, in fact, have not.  They would be taken in, 
thinking exactly what JKR wanted them to, yet again.

So the entire point of that graveyard speech ("one too cowardly to 
return [etc.]") is to carry out this misdirection.  While from a 
logical point of view you can explain his use of indirect references 
rather than names as an attempt by The Big V to wax a bit more 
poetic, ultimately the goal is to draw explicit attention in the mind 
of the readers to who they will guess fits each statement.  Most 
likely they will guess Karkaroff, Snape, and Bagman upon first 
reading, just like they should.  Only to realize that it's not Bagman 
at all, but Crouch, Jr.

So you'll notice that the coward vs. the "left us forever" does not 
change upon second reading.  This has led many people to wonder if 
maybe Voldemort thinks Snape is the coward and Karkaroff the one who 
had left forever, giving Snape a potential way back to the DEs inner 
circle.  Maybe.  But again, I doubt it.  The main reason, I think, is 
to continue the trend of ambiguity and give Voldemort sufficient 
cause to not explain who the faithful servant is.  It would be rather 
strange if he said, "And here we are missing three persons: 
Karkaroff, Snape, and my faithful servant at Hogwarts."  Why would he 
leave the faithful servant unnamed then, when there seems no 
particular security reason to do so?  The poetic nature of the actual 
quote makes this omission of names appear much more believable AND it 
keeps people guessing who is who, all the while deflecting there 
attention from the one man that actually is the culprit.

I really don't think there's more to it than that, but again, who 
knows?

-Luke