Crouch Sr

[talondg]

No: HPFGUIDX 37574

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:
> Eileen continues:
>> Meanwhile, Percy, no matter how brainy, comes across to everyone 
>> as an annoying puppy, bounding about and showing off. 

Well (as is often easy to forget) he's only 18...

What Percy hasn't learned yet is how to pull off Command. Those are 
earned skills, not learned skills. Give him time.

> And then there's everyone's reaction to Crouch's handling of his 
> son's crimes: Hermione whispers "Did Crouch try and get his son 
> off?"- -What, was he supposed to do that? Evidently as the truth 
> apparently  appalls Harry: "He gave his own son to the Dementors?" 
> he asked quietly.

Well, it IS shocking, in that quietly horrible kind of way. It's 
shocking that the wizarding society placed Crouch in a position where 
he was inprisoning his son, and it's a little intimidating that he'd 
have the steel in him to see the job done.

And yet... in the end, his guilt wins out over his steel, doesn't it? 
He gives in to his wife, frees his son, and is killed for it.

He'd've been much better off seeing the job through and leaving him 
in Azkaban.
 
> Of course everyone's welcome to have their own opinion on the 
> matter,  but I can't agree with the general sentiments of our 
> protagonists here.

And I agree with you - and I suspect that the protagonists would too. 
Especially now that everyone knows that Jr really WAS a DE.

Where I think you might get discussion over Crouch's character would 
be over *motivation*, not action.

Did Crouch have a choice? Could he have excused himself from the 
tribunal?

If he could have, what was his motivation to sticking on?

If he wanted to send a message to the Death Eaters ("Nobody is exempt 
from justice, not even my son") well then, good on him. He's setting 
the example at great personal cost.

But if he just wants to look "tough on crime" for political ends, and 
is sitting on the tribunal because it makes him look really, really 
really tough... well... that is more than a little on the callous 
side, isn't it? Not the sort of guy you want in charge, is it?

Consider the Gulf War: was it a) a Great Nation coming to the rescue 
of a smaller one beleagured by the forces of barbarism? b) an attempt 
to maintain control of a large oil patch? or c) an attempt to raise 
the popularity of a political leader (cf "Wag the Dog")?

I'm not looking for an answer. :) (and in reality, probably all 3 
were factors to one amount or another) but some motives are more 
noble than others.
> Remember Sirius's comment about looking at how a man treats 
> his subordinates to understand what he's really like? Crouch's 
> whole attitude towards Percy in the scene borders on the 
> dismissive.

Well... I dunno about that....

If you are in a job that requires you, on occasion, to be a Right 
Bastard to your subordinates, then it behooves you to maintain a 
certain distance. Dicipline does not long survive familiarity.

That doesn't mean you get to *abuse* your subordinates, but the fact 
that Crouch isn't all buddy-buddy with Percy isn't necessarily a bad 
thing. In fact, I think it's an indicator of professionalism.

And I *totally* sympathise with Crouch on the name thing. :) Thank 
deity for name tags!

Something else to consider is that we don't really know the character 
of Crouch's office (although we're given plenty of examples of 
Ministry-As-Buraucracy-Run-Amok) If there is a lot of high-intensity 
office politics going on, Crouch showing anyone too much favour may 
have other repercussions. I'm reminded of an office I worked in where 
a low-level supervisor turned into a female Stalin, ruling the office 
with an iron fist, because the fact she was sleeping with the boss 
gave her more power than she would have otherwise. :(

>> Barty Jr. is an ungrateful b-eeeeeeeeeep. Don't care how unloving 
>> he thought his father was. Being under Imperius curse was a heap 
>> nicer than Azkaban, especially since he was guilty.

Add "manipulative SOB" to the list. What was that shrieking scene at 
the sentencing, if not an attempt to emotionally stab his father, and 
cast doubt upon his motivations?

That scene sets the tone for our suspicions of Crouch-as-politically-
motivated. Harry (and us) come away from it convinced that Crouch 
sent his own, innocent son to Azakaban. And then later we find out 
that not only was Jr guilty, but Sr *knew* he was guilty. He 
wasn't "turning his own son over to the Dementors", he was 
instead "putting Ol' Yeller down".

> Actually that high—wrought "I have no son!" begs, at least to my 
> mind, for comparison with "The fiddler on the roof". 

To my discredit, I'm not familliar with the story.

But to me, the "I have no son!" is Sr's attempt to try and come to 
terms with what he has had to do. It's a healing thing, a 
rationalization thing. As black a snake as Sr knows Jr to be, it 
still cannot be easy to send him off like that.

It seems that maybe the only true judge of Sr's character is Percy. ;)

DG