Crouch Sr

[charisjulia]

No: HPFGUIDX 37769

Charis Julia wrote:

>> 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.

DG wrote:

>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.

I absolutely agree. It does sorta chill the blood in your veins, 
doesn't it? I don't think there can be much doubt that Barty Sr was 
indeed an inexorable, ruthless, ironfisted man. As a matter of fact I 
can relate with the trio's reaction. It * is* shocking that a man 
could treat his only son so cruelly. It is shocking that the 
wizarding legal system would allow him the power to do so. The whole 
scene, fortified by Crouch Jr's really very touching performance in 
the Pensieve trial (which incidentally I have always wondered about. 
Was he simply putting on an extremely convincing show, or was he 
actually innocent of this particular charge? We know he's an 
excellent actor of course and he certainly was a most devoted DE, 
but, well, oh, he's just so * convincing*, hang it all! Maybe he 
really was "at the wrong place, at the wrong time" as far as 
torturing the Longbottoms goes. The idea has been suggested before 
and, well, it * could* happen you know!) does nothing to promote 
respect for Crouch Sr character or magical administrative 
organization.


What I was in fact referring to here was the intentional way in which 
the reader is being lead off the scent (even though he doesn't have a 
chance in a million anyway : --) through rather dubious (as at least 
Harry's comments seams to me here) statements and conflicting (eg 
Percy v. Sirius) descriptions of his character. I don't know if 
others felt this, but the way I read the book I was definitely 
bewildered while at the same time feeling very suspicious of the very 
unfavourable way we were encouraged to view Crouch Sr.


During my first reading of GoF I spent most of the time fluctuating 
between Crouch and Bagman, trying desperately to choose between them 
for the most likely candidate for this book's Bad Guy and failing 
miserably, while all the time knowing of course that it really could 
only be anyone * but* them, but not for the life of me being able to 
guess who.


See, I was looking at authorial intent here. It just seems to me that 
the whole book is trying to built the basis for giving the reader a 
Really Big Shock (in a much more effective way than say in PS, where 
you don't really ever seriously suspected Snape) when they in fact do 
find out the truth.

I don't know. Maybe you didn't read the book like that. Or more 
probably you find all this self—evident. I never really was any good 
at seeing through mystery stories :--) I guess I was simply 
attempting to understand the ingenious workings of JKR plot. For me 
it is one of the main attractions of the books.


Further on DG suggested:


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


Motivation, huh? Yes, that definitely is a very good question. After 
all Crouch Sr's behaviour is rather bizarre to say the least. He 
convicts his son, disowns him and goes * faaaar* out of his way to 
leave no doubt he absolutely, definitely, positively despises the 
boy. . . and then turns a flip—flop right in our face and comes up 
with a cunning and elaborate plan to rescue Barty, pulls it off and 
spends the next decade or so harbouring and controlling him. Why?


Well, you can take your pick really. Personally I think we've got a 
whole hotch potch of different feelings and considerations all 
jumbled up into one frenzied emotional * explosion*. In the Pensieve 
Crouch actually * loses his cool*. Imagine.


For starters I wouldn't be so quick to write off the career thing. In 
long run of course it would seem to have been chucked to the dogs, 
but initially I' d say the sudden threat on his reputation would have 
taken him by surprise and not left him enough time to take in the 
situation and re--adjust his priorities. Plus at that time it would 
still appear possible that his career was still salvable.


Justice? Hmmm, I don't know about that. He would probably have tried 
to convince himself that was really what the whole matter was about, 
but, nah, I don't buy it. Morals don't strike me as Crouch Sr's 
highest value in life. Contrast Crouch's behaviour at the Trial to 
Neville's when he stands up to the Trio in PS. Howling abuse at 
someone you love is not something you do when you're harming them 
against your will for the Greater Good. It's something you do when 
you're just really, really pissed off with them.


Which I think is mainly what Crouch Sr is feeling at the Trial. What 
the whole scene reminds me of more than anything else is a really bad 
family row blown * way* out of proportion and set up for public 
display. 


Crouch Sr is just being plain * stubborn* (and I think he's got a lot 
of that in him when he wants to). What has him in such a flap here 
is, to my way of reading him, not so much his reputation, or career, 
or Justice and no, not even the fact that his son did Evil. I think 
what really got to him was that Jr Disobeyed His Word.


Which is also where I see Barty Sr setting off wrong with his son 
from the very beginning . Jr could not have been instilled with such 
rigid ideas of Good and Evil as his father proudly exhibits. Crouch 
probably just delivered the lecture and skipped the explanation. He 
would not have seen it as necessary— his son should do what he says 
simply because he says it. Unfortunately however this left Barty Jr 
not only resentful of his father's iron fist but also sadly 
susceptible to Voldemort's "There is no good and evil—only power and 
those too weak to seek it" persuasive little speech.


Now. Does that really cut it? Can smouldering pride really pull off 
explaining such an outburst from such an apparently always 
constrained individual? Yeah, I know, bit of a long shot, huh? Ah, 
but you see what we're missing here is the obvious: Crouch Sr is 
really a brilliant actor.


Yup. That's where Jr got it from. Barty Crouch Sr was acting every 
day of his life. He was the kind of actor people can only be in 
everyday life: an expert of disguising his true emotions and 
masquerading around as something he's really not. His last decade is 
of course a prime example of this, though I'd say he got into the 
habit long before that. That's exactly why he's always is so 
constrained: It's all a show. 


Silvercat wrote:


>I think it was just basic denial, trying to divorce his feelings 
>from what he *had* to do.


Well, yeah. I guess I'm trying to say about the same thing really. At 
the Trial he gave the greatest performance of his life. He's acting 
but, see, the audience aren't really the people around. It's himself.


Or at least that's my reading of Crouch. Others probably saw him 
completely differently. He is after all a rather complex character to 
whose personality little insight is offered.

Incidently DG, you mention that 

>later we find out 
>that not only was Jr guilty, but Sr *knew* he was guilty. 

Is this actually specified in the book? I can't seem to remember any 
such comment. Obviously my whole reading of Crouch doesn't work *at 
all* if so.


Charis Julia.