TBAY: Crouch - Midnight In the Golden Wood (4 of 9)

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 47931

[Note: Even for a TBAY post, this one puts an unusually large number 
of words into Eileen's mouth for the purposes of facilitating the 
fictional debate.  While I have at least tried to base my TBAY!
Eileen's opinions in the, er, well, in the canon of her past posts, 
so to speak, I may well have ascribed to her here some arguments and 
beliefs which are not in fact really her own.  If so, then I offer my 
most sincere and Averyesque apologies.]

Four

Midnight In the Golden Wood

------------

An unexpected spate of winter sunlight has drawn a number of visitors 
to Theory Bay.  Cindy has moved down the promenade to set up her own 
booth, where she has been doing a very brisk business in Rookwood 
thongs. Still no one has stopped by Eileen's table to try a bite of 
her CRAB CUSTARD, though, and Eileen is beginning to look decidedly 
put out. She pulls her Lucky Kari helmet off of her head and runs her 
fingers irritably through her hair.

"I really don't see how you can claim that none of Crouch Sr's 
actions were motivated by noble concerns, Elkins," she says, glaring 
at a passing couple strolling hand in hand down the promenade dressed 
in matching BABEMEISTER t-shirts.  "That's just not fair.  It's not 
even defensible!  It's completely unjust!"

"Is it?"  Elkins yanks at her reins in a futile attempt to keep her 
high pale hobby horse from nibbling at the bottommost edge of the 
CRAB CUSTARD banner.  "Where do we ever see Crouch falling into error 
while acting out of concern for the protection of the wizarding 
world?  Actually, he's usually putting the wizarding world at *risk,* 
isn't he?  When he's not actually doing it outright harm.  And he 
does so to serve himself."

"How can you say that?"

"Well, because it's true.  Let's just take a look at his errors, 
shall we?  Why did Crouch rescue his son from Azkaban?"

"Oh, now, come *on!*" protests Eileen.  "Play fair, will you?  I've 
already admitted that it wasn't very noble of Barty to rescue his
son from prison.  That was why I called it dramatic irony: it was an
*exception* to the general rule.  I said as much to Cindy.  I told 
her:

> I said that he never let love define his relationships. But I was 
> wrong. Just this one time, he did. And look where that got him.

"So I've already acknowledged that he wasn't acting in the public 
interest there.  And he wasn't acting in accordance with his usual 
Livian principles, either.  He was acting out of love for his wife.  
But surely with a Bleeding Heart like yours, you can sympathize with 
that, can't you, Elkins?"

"Oh, that one was an exception to the rule, was it?" asks Elkins, 
pointedly ignoring the question.  "I see.  Well, all right then.  How 
about the others?  He kept his son prisoner in his own home under the 
Imperius Curse for ten years, even though he knew that his son was 
both unrepentant and dangerous.  That was self-serving, and it put 
the entire wizarding world at risk.  Why did he dismiss Winky?  Well, 
we've a host of motives to choose from there, but every last one them 
is self-serving, and it was a decision that left him without the 
resources to continue to keep a close guard on his son.  Hence, it 
put the entire wizrding world at risk.  Then there's that nasty 
Obliviate charm he cast on Bertha Jorkins.  An *utterly* self-serving 
action, and one that put the entire wizarding world at risk.  And 
then--"

"But all of those errors arise organically out of his initial error 
of rescuing his son," objects Eileen.  "Which I've already *admitted* 
hadn't anything to do with the common good."

"But those are the vast majority of his fatal errors, Eileen."

"Yes, but I'm not altogether certain that they're really his most 
serious ones.  How about his political errors?  His political errors 
were--"

"Motivated by self-interest," says Elkins flatly.  

"Only if you insist on ascribing the worst possible motives to him!  
Only if you refuse to give him any benefit of the doubt!  I think 
that Crouch's political errors *were* well-motivated.  Even Sirius 
suggested as much, and Sirius really hated Barty!"

"Sirius suggested that Crouch *might* have been well-motivated,"
Elkins corrects her.  "At *first.*  Like maybe when he was still
working in the mail room or something.  But all right.  Let's take 
a look at what we know about Crouch's political behavior."

Elkins takes a deep breath.

"During a time of war," she begins.  "Crouch rose 'quickly' through 
the ranks of the Ministry until he had become the head of the DMLE.  
In that position, he then changed the rules to allow the Aurors, 
a body of enforcers who seem to have been answerable to him personally
in his role as the head of the DMLE, to kill at their discretion and 
to use torture and mind control against the citizenry.  He seized 
unilateral powers for himself, many of them functions which would 
seem ordinarily to be reserved for the Minister of Magic.  These
actions made him popular.  He had 'supporters' who were 'clamoring 
for him to take over.'"

She takes another deep breath, and then continues:

"He pandered to mob mentality when it served his own political ends, 
as in the Longbottom case, yet he tried to counteract it when it 
did not, as in the Bagman case.  He encouraged the public in just 
the kind of paranoiac and vindictive mass hysteria which also, by 
amazing coincidence, tends to cause people to favor leaders who 
happen to fit Crouch's exact political profile.  He authorized 'very 
harsh measures' to be used against people Sirius defines as 
'Voldemort's supporters...'"  

Elkins pauses, frowning.  "What the hell is a 'supporter,' anyway?"
she demands.  "We all know what a Death Eater is, but precisely what 
qualifies someone as a 'supporter?'  Really, a 'supporter' can be 
just about anyone you want it to be, can't it?"

She shakes her head.  "Gee, I don't know, Eileen," she says.  "Now
why don't I find myself believing that Crouch's motives were pure, or 
that he really did have the protection of the populace as his chief 
concern?  I have no idea.  I must just be a mean nasty old *cynic,* 
I guess."

"You've already conceded that he wasn't Stalin, Elkins," Eileen 
reminds her.

"Well, he wasn't Stalin.  I'm not saying that he was Stalin.  His 
measures never seem to have reached the level of dekulakization.  Nor 
am I saying that he was *totally* power-mad.  He didn't actually try 
to stage a coup.  When his bid for power failed, he stepped down 
gracefully enough.  But you don't have to be either a Stalin or an 
insurrectionist to be a seriously Evil wizard, do you?  You don't 
have to be either a Stalin or an insurrectionist to be motivated by 
self-interest, or to be all too willing to harm the public that 
you're supposed to be serving in order to cement your own personal 
political control."  

"But you're only *assuming* that he was self-interested!"

"Well, of course I'm assuming that he was self-interested!  Why on 
earth shouldn't I?  Honestly, now, Eileen, if all of the things 
listed above were just about all you knew about some real world 
politician, then would you assume that the protection of the populace 
was his driving motivation?  That he was 'employing the ethic of ends 
over means for the forces of good?'  That he was truly well-intended, 
if possibly a little misguided?  That he was self-sacrificing, rather 
than self-serving?  Really?  Honestly?  Because I have to say that I 
wouldn't.  Not without some *very* compelling evidence pointing in 
that direction, at any rate.  And I'm just not seeing that evidence 
anywhere when it comes to Mr. Crouch."

"But Elkins," says Eileen.  "Crouch *isn't* a real world politician.  
He's a fictional politician in a fantasy novel.  He exists in a world 
in which the blacks are a whole lot blacker, and the lines far more 
brightly drawn, than they are in our own.  Just think of what he was 
up against!"  

"'Desperate times call for desperate measures,' Eileen?"  Elkins
shakes her head.  "But that's just what politicians *always* claim 
when they first start authorizing their enforcers to use torture 
and other such 'measures' against the populace, isn't it?  They 
always say that they're doing it to stem the tide of a terrorist 
or an insurrectionist threat.  That's just the Usual Wicked 
Rationalization.  It's like 'the Devil made me do it!' or 'I was 
just obeying orders,' or 'But look at how she was *dressed*!'  It's 
a total cliche.  And it's also a myth: those sorts of measures are
utterly ineffective against terrorist or insurrectionist threats.
You don't really think that the politicians *themselves* believe 
that when they say it, do you?  They don't.  They know full well 
that those measures are ineffective.  That's not why they're 
authorizing them.  When politicians authorize things like torture, 
summary execution without formal charge, and detention without 
trial, it's never really about protecting the populace at all.  
That's not the real function of those things.  Their function is 
to cement the political power of those who control their use."

"Maybe in reality," Eileen concedes.  "But the Potterverse *isn't* 
reality.  Do you remember what I said about the Death Eaters, back 
in September?  I said:

> You know what first strikes me about the whole set-up. The Death 
> Eaters are every dictator's dream conspiracy. They're ordinary 
> citizens who have infiltrated every branch of the government. They 
> can strike anywhere at anyone. They remind me very much of the sort 
> of conspiracies Stalin liked to pretend he was facing. Except for 
> once, it's real.  So, I really don't know who to compare Crouch to. 
> That sort of thing doesn't really exist in real life. 

"With the Death Eaters, Rowling asks us to believe in a situation 
that is in our world impossible.  So it may not make all that much 
sense to try to read Crouch as a real world politician.  He's not 
one.  He was facing down a situation that one doesn't face in real 
life. Can you blame him if he went a little overboard?"

Elkins frowns.  "Whatever happened to the Golden Wood?" she demands.  
"Whatever happened to 'Good and ill have not changed since 
yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and 
another among Men?'"

"That applies to real world *ethics,*" Eileen explains patiently.  
"But not necessarily to real world motivess, or even to real world 
efficiency.  I've already conceded that Crouch made the wrong 
decisions.  I did list his authorization of the UCs as the most 
serious of his fatal errors, didn't I?  I'm just saying that you 
can't necessarily look to real world precedent to defend the notion 
that in the Potterverse, his measures might not actually have been 
*effective,* and that he couldn't therefore have sincerely believed 
that he was doing some good with them.

After all," she continues.  "This is a world in which magic is real.  
In which Phoenix tears can heal fatal wounds.  In which the power of 
maternal sacrifice can deflect the killing curse.  Things in the 
Potterverse are fabulous, mythic.  Larger than life.  So I think 
that we may not be expected to read too much realpolitik into 
Crouch's political actions.  It's a moral dilemma -- ends and 
means -- drawn in broad strokes.  To privilege the ends over the 
means to the extent that Crouch did is still morally wrong, even 
in the Golden Wood.  But I think that we might want to consider the 
possibility that in the Golden Wood, at least, his means really 
could have genuinely facilitated those ends to which they were 
being applied.  Barty Crouch Sr. certainly did go overboard, but 
I think that he had at least booked passage on the right *ship.*"

"Well...okay," says Elkins.  "But where's the canon?" 

Eileen blinks at her.  "What?"

"The *canon.*  Where's the canon?  I mean, if I'm understanding
your reading correctly, then I can't help but feel that it is 
asking me to overlook an awful lot of things.  First, it asks 
me to overlook the way that things work in real life.  Generally
speaking, I prefer not to throw out my real world expectations in 
favor of fantastical ones unless I see some evidence that it's
appropriate, evidence like a pattern of genre convention, for 
example.  But the pattern in the HP books tells me that I 
probably *shouldn't* be doing that when it comes to the Ministry 
and its attendent plotlines."

"What do you mean?" 

"Well, much of the Potterverse is indeed fabulous, mythic.  But 
it doesn't seem to me that the Ministry and its attendant plotlines
are generally portrayed that way at all.  As I read them, the 
Ministry plotlines are simplified, but they don't strike me as at all 
fabulous or politically naive.  In fact, they're generally rather 
stunningly hard-nosed, which I suspect is one of the main reasons 
that the series' adult readers enjoy discussing them so much.  
Nothing *else* about the Ministry plotlines reflects political 
naivete on the part of the authorial voice, and that makes it really 
difficult for me to read Crouch's 'harsh measures' in quite as 
ingenuous or as allegorical a light as you suggest."

"Well..."

"And then it asks me to overlook Crouch's thematic associations."

"His thematic associations?"

"Yes.  In GoF, Crouch isn't associated with motifs and subplots
that deal with protection or with self-sacrifice.  Rather, he
seems to be associated with all of the motifs and subplots that 
focus thematically on issues of coercion, control, domination, 
and the negation of volition."

"That's meta-thinking," points out Eileen.

"Damn straight it is!" declares Elkins proudly.  "And it's some
right *fine* meta-thinking, too!  Do you have a problem with meta-
thinking, Eileen?"

"Me?" Eileen laughs.  "Are you kidding?"

"Good.  Just checking.  So there are all of these thematic 
indications that I need to overlook as well.  And then, there's also 
the fact that the text so firmly establishes Crouch as a hypocrite.  
When you look back on the story in retrospect, you see that his 
ostensible motives always turn out to be in some way deceptive.  His 
ostensible motives aren't the same as his real ones.  So it's hard 
not to draw from that the conclusion that his purported political 
motives, just like all of his other purported motives, were not 
actually what they on the surface appeared to be.

"So," Elkins concludes decisively.  "I think that if we want to 
propose a reading that goes against all of these indications, we 
really need to find some evidence for it in the text.  Evidence 
sufficiently weighty to override all of the things that are pushing 
*against* a reading of Crouch as genuinely motivated by the desire to 
protect the wizarding world and to serve the populace.  So.  Is there 
any?"

"Any..."

"Any evidence.  Anything in the text to indicate that this time 
around, Crouch's purported motives and his actual ones actually did 
synch up?  Any evidence that his political actions *weren't* just a 
case of The Usual Wicked Rationalization, but instead were sincerely 
well-intended means-to-achieve-ends decisions?"

There is a long silence.

"What does the text actually tell us about Crouch and his harsh 
measures?"  Elkins prompts.  "Is there any evidence that Crouch's
measures were actually *effective* means to his purported end?  
That they actually worked?  That they did the slightest bit of 
good against Voldemort and his Death Eaters?"

Eileen thinks this over.

"Well, what about Moody?" she asks.  "He brought more Death Eaters to 
justice than any other Auror."

"Yes, and is also said to have *avoided* the use of the Unforgivable 
Curses," Elkins reminds her.  "Now why would the text have gone to all
the trouble to point that out, unless it wanted to lead the reader to 
the understanding that 'harsh' and 'effective' are not necessarily 
synonymous?"

There is another long silence.

"Dumbledore seems to have cared about Crouch," says Eileen.  "He 
showed concern for him at the beginning of Book Four, after Harry's 
name came out of the Goblet, when poor Barty was looking so ill.  His 
concern was only 'mild' and therefore not linked to some idea in his 
head that that this might be linked to Voldemort.  He was worried 
about Crouch, the same way I feel he is worried abut Harry, Snape, 
and others."  

"Yes, well."  Elkins smiles.  "Dumbledore.  We can't all be 
Dumbledore, can we?  Dumbledore seems to like Fudge well enough too, 
on the purely personal level.  Even at the end of Book Four, when 
he's talking Tough to him, he still does so with a good deal of 
compassion.  I'm sure that if Fudge were looking poorly, Dumbledore 
would exhibit similar concern.  But we know that he doesn't approve 
of Fudge's political decisions. We also know that he considers Fudge 
to be self-interested.  Blinded by the love of the office he holds, 
right?  That Dumbledore can feel concern for Crouch as a human being 
doesn't mean that he ever believed Crouch's political decisions to be 
either effective or even necessarily all that well-intended."

"And besides," she adds, as an afterthought.  "Dumbledore didn't 
trust Crouch."

"How do you know that?"

"He maintained his own network of spies during the war.  He vouched 
for Snape to the tribunal only after the war had ended.  So he 
obviously wasn't cutting Crouch into his plans during the conflict 
itself, which does seem to indicate that he didn't trust him very 
much.  In fact, it's just what he seems to be planning on doing with 
Fudge now, isn't it?  He doesn't seem to be planning on trying to get 
the man out of office, or anything like that.  He's just going to try 
to work around him.  Very much like he seems to have worked around 
Crouch during the war."  

There is another long silence.

"Actually," Elkins says.  "We don't have the slightest bit of 
evidence for the supposition that Crouch's measures ever served a 
single living soul other than Crouch himself, or even that he ever 
believed that they would.  Do we."
  
"If it hadn't been for Crouch's measures..." Eileen begins.

"...we have no idea what would have happened.  There's no evidence 
either way.  Maybe Crouch's measures really did do some good.  Or 
maybe they only served to exacerbate the conflict.  Remember when Pip 
suggested that her Ever-So-Evil Death Eating Mrs. Crouch was likely 
the person to talk her husband into encouraging the use of the UCs in 
the first place?  She said:

> If you want your side to fight to the death...then encouraging the 
> other side to kill/torture upon capture is a *really* good plan.

"Really, when you think about it, Crouch's measures could well have 
prolonged the conflict."  

"Or they could have been the only thing staving Voldemort off for
eleven years," says Eileen.

"Could be," admits Elkins.  "The text doesn't tell us either way.  
But while we are not given the slightest indication in the text that 
Crouch's measures were at all useful or effective when it came to 
fighting dark wizardry, there is something for which we are told that 
they *were* effective.  Something else.  Something very important."

Elkins looks at Eileen.

"We are told," she says meaningfully.  "That they made Crouch 
*popular.*"

"*Sirius* says that!  And he had a *grudge* against Crouch!"

"Yes, yes,  Sirius had a grudge against Crouch.  Who doesn't?  
Even *I* have a grudge against Crouch, and I haven't even had twelve 
years in Azkaban to dwell on his iniquities.  But do you really doubt 
Sirius when he says that Crouch's harsh measures made him popular 
with a substantial portion of the populace?  I see no reason to doubt 
him when he says that.  'Desperate measures' rhetoric usually *does* 
prove popular with a frightened populace, doesn't it?"

Eileen thinks about this, then slowly shakes her head.

"Oh, I don't know, Elkins," she says.  "I think that Crouch's 
political errors really *did* originate from his desire to protect 
the world from Voldemort.  He went overboard in privileging the ends 
over the means, but his ends were basically good.  He just got 
carried away because--"

"Because he despised and detested the Dark Arts and those who 
practiced them."  Elkins rolls her eyes.  "Yes, yes.  We *know.*  
Crouch tells us so *himself,* after all.  At the QWC.  In a public 
place.  In front of many witnesses.  When he is feeling personally 
threatened.  And while he is busily engaged in doing everything 
within his power to deflect attention away from his mad, dangerous 
Death Eater son.  His son, on whom he himself had been practicing 
Dark Arts for over a decade."  

"Are you saying that Crouch *didn't* hate Dark Wizardry?" 

"Well, I think that he very badly wanted to *believe* that he hated 
dark wizardry.  Although for someone with such an apparent lack of 
scruple about the Unforgivable Curses to claim status as a despiser 
of Dark Arts is...well, let's just say that Crouch's self-professed 
hatred of the Dark Arts has always struck me as a classic case of 
protesting too much.  I do think that Crouch *wanted* to believe that 
he hated Dark Wizardry.  I think that he wanted that very badly.  I'd 
say that he was absolutely desperate to believe that about himself.  
But I don't think that his primary motivations had anything to do 
with protecting the wizarding world from Voldemort, or from dark 
wizards."

"That's just because you're biased against him," says Eileen.  "It's
because you're a Dove, and you don't like Hawks.  That's all this 
really comes down to, Elkins."

"No," sighs Elkins.  "It's not, you know.  It's really not.  I do 
have some bias against Hawks, it's true, but that's not what this is 
about.  Like I said before, I'm really not crazy about the way that 
JKR uses Crouch in regard to the ends/means question.  I think that 
it's cheating.  I'd much rather have seen him portrayed as a truly 
sincere and honorable proponent of ends over means.  But I just can't 
accept him as such, partly because of all of the factors I mentioned 
before, but also because when I look at his political actions, I see 
some very troubling discrepancies.  Discrepancies between how Crouch 
behaves when he is in the public eye, and how he behaves when he is 
not.  And this part *isn't* meta-thinking.  Just look at what the man 
*does!*"


======================================================================

Barty Crouch, Fanatical Hard-Liner?  


That's certainly Crouch's public persona.  It's his reputation.  
It's the face that he shows to the world, and it is how Sirius, who 
only knew Crouch as a public figure, chooses to characterize him in 
"Padfoot Returns."  But I see some rather interesting incongruities 
between the way that Crouch behaves when the public spotlight is on 
him, and the way he behaves when it is not.

Take Karkaroff's hearing, for example.  This hearing would seem to 
have been closed to the general public.  The cameras, so to speak, 
were off.

Now, Karkaroff is a Dark Wizard.  He is a Death Eater.  He is 
professing repentence, but only after some months spent in Azkaban 
suffering under the dementors.  There's duress involved, to say the 
least, and his contrition does not come across as terribly sincere.  
Furthermore, if Moody is to be believed, Karkaroff's crimes include 
torture, and torture not only of Muggles, but of wizards as well.  
Karkaroff says of Dolohov that "I saw him torture countless Muggles 
and -- and non-supporters of the Dark Lord."  Moody's dissatisfied 
mutter ("And helped him do it") strongly implies that Karkarov was 
not merely an accessory or a witness to these crimes.  He was an 
active participant. 

In short, Karkaroff's crimes are very similar to those which will 
apparently drive Crouch to righteous fury when confronted with the 
Longbottoms' assailants: serving the Dark Lord, torturing wizards.  
Karkaroff's crimes are hardly any different from the crime which 
Crouch will later describe as "so heinous. . . .that we have rarely 
heard the like of it within this court," the crime that will 
apparently inspire him to bug-eyed fury, to regard the defendents 
with "pure hatred" in his face, and to condemn them to life 
imprisonment with the editorial comment "Take them away, and may they 
rot there!"

We don't see any of that righteous fury at Karkaroff's hearing, 
though.  Crouch cuts a deal with Karkaroff and allows him to walk 
free, even though by doing so he offends at least one of his Aurors, 
who believes that he is being too lenient.  Crouch does speak to 
Karkaroff coldly, at times contemptuously, but he remains perfectly 
civil.  Nor does he resort to any excessive measures in order to get 
what he wants out of Karkaroff.  As Eileen has asked before, if 
Crouch were truly so prone to ends-over-means excess, then why not 
force Karkaroff to reveal the names of his previous confederates by 
means of torture?  Crouch has authorized the use of the 
Unforgivables.  Yet he does not resort to the Cruciatus Curse to 
wrest Karkaroff's information from him.  He chooses the carrot, not 
the stick.  

Why?  If Crouch is such a fanatic, if he hates Dark Wizardry all 
that passionately, and if he is such a rabid proponent of the ends
over the means, then why would he behave in such a civilized 
fashion?  And if he were really so concerned with the safety of the 
wizarding world, concerned enough about it that he allows it to lead 
him into all types of moral error, then how could he allow someone 
guilty of Karkaroff's crimes to walk free?

Because nobody is watching him, that's why.  Karkaroff's hearing is 
a closed hearing.  The eye of the public is not upon him.

Then let's look at Crouch's relationship with Ludo Bagman.  Crouch 
did think that Bagman was guilty of worse than stupidity.  He spoke
of it to Winky.  Bagman's trial may even have been the turning point 
in Crouch's political downfall.  Yet he is perfectly capable of 
maintaining a courteous professional relationship with Bagman and 
of working alongside him in planning the Triwizard Tournament.  
Crouch shows occasional traces of irritation and exasperation in his 
dealings with Bagman, but no sign at all of hatred, bitterness or 
rancour.  

Now, if Crouch were really such a fanatic, then how could he manage 
this?  Contrast his behavior with that of Arthur Weasley, whose 
loathing of Lucius Malfoy is so intense that even a childish 
schoolboy taunt is enough to drive him to attack Malfoy physically.  
Arthur Weasley is an idealogue.  Bartemius Crouch is not.  

Whenever we see Crouch out in the public eye, then he does indeed 
give the impression of being the very model of a fanatical hard-
liner.  But in private?  When the public is not watching him?  He 
cuts a deal with Karkaroff and lets him walk free, he accepts 
Dumbledore's testimony in regard to Snape (unlike Moody, who remains 
suspicious), and he behaves professionally and cordially towards a 
colleague whom he himself believes to have knowingly and voluntarily 
colluded with Death Eaters.  

And then there are all of those people who got off on the Imperius 
defense.

=====================================================================

"Lucius Malfoy," Elkins says, ticking them off on her fingers.  
"Acquitted.  Crabbe, Nott, Goyle, McNair--"

"Avery," Eileen reminds her.

"Yes, poor Avery," agrees Elkins.  "Acquitted.  Crouch Jr.'s co-
defendents: the Lestranges, if indeed they be, and Fourth Man.  
Crouch Jr. was caught with people Sirius Black would have bet his 
life were Death Eaters, but who had 'talked their way out of Azkaban' 
the first time around, remember?  So.  Given a trial.  And 
acquitted."  

She pauses, then looks down at Eileen.

"You do realize, of course," she says.  "That you're the one who got 
me started on this?  Remember message #44636, when you asked me why 
Crouch didn't use the Cruciatus to wrest Karkaroff's names from him?  
And then asked me how Lucius Malfoy got off?"

"But those were supposed to be Crouch apologetics!" wails Eileen.  
"I was trying to *praise* Crouch, not to bury him!  I was just 
trying to prove that he wasn't--"

"Wasn't Stalin.  I know.  But that does rather beg the question of 
what precisely he *was,* doesn't it?  I notice a very interesting 
pattern when it comes to Crouch's violations of due process."

"That they don't exist?" 

"Oh, heavens no!  They absolutely do exist!  But they exist 
specifically when it comes to cases that are *notorious.*  They seem 
to happen primarily when the public is watching him.  And even more 
specifically, they happen when the public is out for blood."


======================================================================

When we look at the canonical examples that we have been given of 
the times when Crouch does violate due process, I think that we see 
a distinct pattern emerging.


Sirius Black.  

Alleged betrayer of the parents of the Wizarding World's savior, the 
famous Harry Potter, to whom the entire wizarding world is out on 
the streets singing jubilations.  Sirius Black, who even by Harry's 
day is still capable of inspiring all sorts of frightened sounding 
rumors from ordinary citizens like Stan and Ern of the Knight Bus.

Prison without trial.


The Pensieve Four.  

Alleged torturers of the "very popular" Longbottoms, a crime which 
Dumbledore says "caused a wave of fury such as I have never known," a 
crime which placed the Ministry "under great pressure to catch those 
who had done it."  All four of them seemingly young.  Three of the 
four of them already once accused of Dark activities.  

Sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of no real evidence, 
after a trial held in what even the Wizarding World seems to consider 
to have been a kangaroo court.


Crouch's legal behavior would seem to be primarily determined by the 
desires of the public.  When no one is watching him, he does not 
exhibit fanaticism or excess in his treatment of prisoners.  When he 
misjudges the mood of the populace -- as happens at Ludo Bagman's 
trial -- he backs down without much demur.  But when people are 
clamoring for blood, that is when he panders to them by playing 
the role of Bartemius Crouch, Fanatical Hard-Liner, and by throwing
them sacrificial blood offerings, like Sirius Black and the Pensieve 
Four.

This is in keeping with his behavior overall.  Everything that Crouch 
does is dictated by his public image.

In public, Crouch ignores his weeping wife, seems to take no notice 
of her even when she faints dead away right beside him, and denounces 
Winky with "no pity in his gaze."

In private, he cooperates with his wife's plan to save their son and 
accedes to Winky's pleas for clemency on his son's behalf.

In public, Crouch denounces his son, glares at him with pure hatred 
in his face, and howls "may they rot there!" as he and his 
co-defendents are being dragged off by the dementors.

In private, he rescues his son from Azkaban, even though doing so 
involves abandoning his wife to die in a cell and be buried on the
prison grounds by dementors.  He then keeps his son alive, in good 
health, and free from physical restraint, even after it has become 
clear that his son is capable of breaking free from the Imperius 
Curse, still able to practice magic, and still fanatically loyal to 
Voldemort; and even after Crouch has dismissed Winky and therefore 
has no one at all to help him keep watch over or control his 
captive.  

In cases which are highly notorious or highly publicized, Crouch 
sends men to prison without trial (Black), brings cases before the 
court which probably ought never have come to trial in the first 
place (Bagman), and pushes for conviction on the basis of little to 
no evidence (the Longbottom assailants).

In cases which are not in the public spotlight, he conducts plea 
bargains, exonerates Death Eaters like Snape on the basis of 
Dumbledore's word, and presides over mass acquittals.

To the public, Crouch portrays himself as a hard-liner, Tough On 
Crime.

In his actual practice, he cuts deals with convicted criminals, 
works alongside wizards whom he believes to have served the forces 
of evil, and allows Death Eaters to walk free.

=====================================================================


"Crouch wasn't a fanatic," Elkins concludes wearily.  "He wasn't 
even an idealogue.  He was a self-interested politician.  He had his 
eye on the polls and his finger on the pulse.  His hard-line Hawk
persona was his public act, but he wasn't really like that at all.  
He wasn't a True Believer.  Moody was more of a True Believer than 
Crouch was.

"Crouch was certainly passionate when it came to enforcing his will 
on others, but he wasn't nearly so passionate when it came to 
protecting the wizarding world.  He didn't place the commonweal above 
his selfish interests.  He wasn't concerned with the safety of 
others.  He wasn't a devoted public servant.  He wasn't even all that 
vehement an opponent of Dark Wizardry.  That was just his *persona.*  
It was the story he told, both to himself and to others.  But it 
wasn't a true story."

Elkins shakes her head.

"Parents need to be careful of the stories they tell," she 
says.  "They really do.  Because the person who really *was* a 
fanatic?  Who really did devote himself body and soul to service to 
his cause?  Who really did privilege it above his regard for his 
family ties?  Who really never once allowed love -- *any* of the four 
loves -- to dictate his actions?  The Bartemius Crouch who really 
*was* a True Believer?  The Barty Crouch who played that game for 
*keeps?*"

Elkins' hobby horse snorts.  She pats it absently.

"That," she says quietly.  "Was his son."

There is a very long silence.

"Careful the things you wish for," Eileen murmers.

"Wishes are children.  Yes.  I do think that Crouch was a bad 
influence on his son, you know.  But *not* because he spent too much 
time at the office."

"That line has always struck me as hilarious," agrees 
Eileen.  "Considering that for almost 10 months of the year, Crouch 
Sr. could have got home early from the office any day, and then 
what?  Barty Jr. was at Hogwarts, for heaven's sakes!"

"I quite agree.  That really is stupid, isn't it?  I've always 
figured that comment had a lot more to do with Sirius himself and his 
own feelings of regret over not being able to spend any quality time 
with Harry than it did with the Crouch family.  I mean, honestly!  
Did Crouch *act* like a disinterested father?  Does a disinterested 
father scream denunciations at his son?  Does a disinterested father 
know precisely how many O.W.L.s his son has taken?  Does a 
disinterested father risk being sent off to Azkaban himself in order 
to rescue a son he probably really did believe to be guilty from 
prison, and then keep him captive in his own home under the Imperius 
Curse for over ten years?"  

"Disinterested parents really don't do things like that, do they?"
says Eileen.

"No.  They don't.  If Crouch was anything," says Elkins.  "I'd say 
that he was *too* interested in his son.  *Way* too interested in 
him.  Unhealthily interested in him.  Over-involved.  Over-
identified.  I do think that Crouch was a terrible parental 
influence, but not because he was disinterested.  Because he was 
*over-identified.*  And also because of the falsehoods that he 
projected about himself.  Falsehoods that his son took far too 
seriously."

"Charis Julia says that Crouch probably never bothered to explain 
right and wrong to Barty Jr," says Eileen.  "She suggests that he 
simply delivered orders and expected his son to obey them without 
ever explaining his rationale for them.  In the ever-so-brilliant 
Message 37769, she wrote:

> 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."

"Mmmmmm."  Elkins shakes her head slowly.  "I don't really think that
I agree with that precisely," she says.  "Not that I don't think that 
Crouch was a pretty tyrannical father, mind.  I'm sure that he was.  
But I'm not sure that I see the same relationship that Charis does 
between Crouch's parenting style and his son's terrible decisions.  
For one thing, I don't see why we should assume that Voldemort used 
the exact same seduction speech with all of his followers.  Was Barty 
Jr. really a 'power and the will to seek it' sort of person, do you 
think?  I don't think that's quite the way his mind worked.  After 
all, he told us what his greatest ambition was, didn't he?  He told 
us when he was under the veritaserum.  He said that his greatest 
ambition was to *serve.*  To serve, and to prove himself worthy 
of service.  In other words," she says.  "He wanted to be as truly 
devoted to the service of some cause as his father, the supposed 
public servant, merely *pretended* to be."

"You aren't really trying to blame Barty Crouch Sr. for his son's 
decision to become a Death Eater," asks Eileen.  "Are you, Elkins?"  

"No, of course not.  People have to make their own choices in the
end, don't they?  Not that Crouch Sr. believed in that, of course.
I'm just pointing out the extent to which the falsehoods that Crouch 
projected about himself influenced his son's behavior, and in ways 
that really weren't healthy.  It doesn't excuse Crouch Jr. for his 
bad decisions.  He should have found a worthier cause to devote 
himself to.  Much like Percy should have, actually.  Or Winky, for 
that matter, although Winky didn't really have as much choice in the 
matter.  Crouch Sr. didn't deserve the kind of loyalty that he 
inspired in others, and he didn't have a very salutory effect on 
those who were drawn in by his charisma, or by the lies that he 
told.  Really, he seems to have corrupted or damaged or destroyed 
just about everyone that his life touched in one way or another.  His 
son.  His Aurors.  Percy.  Winky.  Not to mention Bertha Jorkins!  
But most of all, the Wizarding World as a whole.  Do you remember 
what I was saying before, about Crouch's relationship with his son?"

"You said that you thought that it reiterated on the personal level 
his political relationship with the wizarding world," answers Eileen.

"Right.  Well, the reason that parricide and tyrannicide are so 
closely conceptually linked is because fathers and *leaders* are 
closely conceptually linked.  Crouch had very much the same effect on 
his public as he did on his son, I'd say.  He told lies that people 
believed, and the lies that he told were really very *bad* for them.  
We keep being told about how fearful and paranoid everyone was during 
the war, don't we?  Sirius mentions it.  Hagrid mentions it.  Well, 
how do you think that they *got* that way?"

"Because Voldemort and his DEs were conducting a war of terror?" 

"In part.  But also because they were being encouraged to react that 
way by their own leaders.  Paranoia like that is never a one-way 
street.  The Catlady has said that the feeling she gets from accounts 
of the days of the war is one of ordinary people being trapped in the 
middle.  She wrote:

> Does it help to think of the Death Eaters as BEING the government? 
> Like right-wing paramilitary death squads of RL 1980s? The 
> situation gives me a feel for the ordinary person's caught-in-the-
> middle-ness, altho' in RL they were between the paramilitaries and 
> the guerrillas, not between the military governmment's secret 
> police and the hypothetical equally deadly agents of the few honest 
> judges left.

"And *that's* how you get paranoia of the sort that Sirius and Hagrid 
describe," says Elkins.  "Not just from a terrorist threat.  It 
really does take two for that particular tango.  And it's a *harmful*
tango, too.  A corrupting tango.  We're shown the effects that 
Crouch's favored atmosphere of paranoia and terror had on the 
populace.  We see it in that Pensieve scene, and we also get a nice 
taste of it in _PoA._  We get a real mouthful there.  Paranoia.  
Betrayal.  Old school friends suspecting each other..."

"But they were *right* to suspect each other, Elkins!  They just 
weren't suspecting the right old school friend, that's all."

"Well, all right, then.  Fine," says Elkins crossly.  "What *about* 
Pettigrew?  You want to hear what mass hysteria does to people?  'He 
was taking over everywhere!  What was there to be gained by refusing 
him?'"

"Elkins!" objects Eileen.  "Pettigrew is a *liar*!"

"Yeah, Pettigrew is a liar, and his real motivations are still a bit 
of a black box.  But I still think it's fair to assume that he wasn't 
being utterly deceitful there, don't you?  No halfway decent 
dissembler would ever have attempted to provide *that* as a defense.  
It was a perfectly suicidal statement, which leads me to believe that 
there must have been some degree of truth to it."

"You can't blame Crouch for Pettigrew's treachery," objects Eileen.  
"That's completely unfair.  That's even worse than blaming Crouch for 
his son becoming a Death Eater."

"I'm not," sighs Elkins.  "I'm not blaming Crouch for Pettigrew's 
treachery.  Pettigrew can bear the responsibility for his own sins..."

"No he can't," says Eileen bluntly.  

"I...um."  Elkins laughs.  "Well, er, no," she agrees.  "Okay.  I 
guess he really *can't,* can he?  That's just his problem.  But he 
should do.  I'm not blaming Crouch for Pettigrew's act of treachery.  
Not completely.  But I do think that in that statement of his in the 
Shack we are being shown some evidence of just the sort of effect 
that Crouch's political approach had on the populace, and 
particularly on people who were weak. People who were already 
*vulnerable.*  Vulnerable to fear.  Vulnerable to despair.  Pettigrew 
is ultimately responsible for his own actions, just like Crouch Jr. 
was.  But political leaders have responsibilities too, you know.  
Just like parents do.  *Especially* in times of war.

"And that's one of my big sticking points with Crouch," concludes 
Elkins.  "It's not that he was a hypocrite.  I wouldn't mind that so 
much, honestly.  And it's not that he was a Hawk, either.  That's a 
perfectly honorable political position, even if it is not my own.  No,
my problem with him is that he was a *war profiteer.*  One whose 
profit came in the form of political capital and personal power, and 
at the expense of the populace that he was supposed to serve.  Not a 
Hawk, but a Storm Crow, someone who battened on fear and hatred and 
paranoia, and on public hysteria, and who stirred it up not out of 
honorable motives, but to serve his own selfish ends.  That's 
something that I find really hard to forgive.  Not only do I 
personally find it profoundly unsympathetic, but the text itself also 
links it quite explicitly to Voldemort.  It does so repeatedly, in 
fact.  Harry identifies the hatred exhibited by that jeering Pensieve 
mob as every bit as much Voldemort's handiwork as the torture of the 
Longbottoms.  Voldemort is explicitly defined as operating by 
fostering hatred and suspicion between people: 'Lord Voldemort's gift 
for spreading discord and enmity is very great.'  In the HP series, 
the things that Crouch stood to represent are marked quite clearly as 
the forces of *evil.*

"And that's why I feel that Crouch's political errors are 
thematically linked to his eventual fate," Elkins explains.  "That 
Crouch ends up in thrall to Voldemort, secretly working in his 
service, is dramatic irony, isn't it?  Because that's not a new role 
for him at all.  It's merely the literal expression of the role that 
he had always played.  

"Crouch claimed to hate the Dark Arts, yet he both facilitated their 
use and practiced them himself.  He claimed to stand to protect the 
wizarding world, yet he actually placed it very much at risk.  He 
claimed to serve his people, yet he exploited, harmed and corrupted 
them.  He claimed to oppose Voldemort, yet he actually worked to 
foster precisely the evils that Voldemort stands to represent.  

"In GoF, Crouch's service to Voldemort just makes its final 
transition from the symbolic level to the literal one," Elkins 
concludes.  "Secretly serving as a tool of evil wasn't a new role for 
Crouch.  It was the fruition of his entire political career.  He had 
been serving the forces of evil his entire life."



**************

Elkins 

**********************************************************************

REFERENCES:

This post is continued from part three.  It is primarily a response
to Messages #44636 (Despiadado Denethor) and #45402 (Crouch Sr as
Tragic Hero), but also cites or references message numbers 37769,
39573, 43010 and downthread responses, 44643, 45693, and 46935.

For further explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, 
visit Hypothetic Alley at
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/ 
and Inish Alley at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=13