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

[lucky_kari <lucky_kari@yahoo.ca>]

No: HPFGUIDX 48024

> [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.]

[Note: No apologies needed. Elkins does an amazing job of writing of me.]

"Cindy, Elkins," whispers Eileen, "We're not in TBAY anymore."

It is dark and the three are standing in a forest glade. About them
are the trees, like no trees that one has ever seen before. Bark of
silver, and leaves, leaves of gold.

"Mallorn," says Eileen. 

"The Golden Wood," says Elkins.

In Dwimordene, in Lórien, 
Seldom have walked the feet of Men, 
Few mortal eyes have seen the light
That lies there ever, long and bright.  

"This place is perilous," says Cindy with a shiver. "Let's go back to
the Bay."

"Perilous?" says Eileen. "It strikes me that folk takes their peril
with them into Lórien, and finds it there because they've brought it.
But perhaps you could call the Lady of the Golden Wood perilous,
because she's so strong in herself. You, you could dash yourself to
pieces on her, like a ship on a rock; or drown yourself, like a hobbit
in a river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame. Now Cr-" She
stopped and went red in the face. 

"Yes? Now Crouch you would say?" says Elkins. "What would you say? He
took his peril with him?"

Eileen is silent for a while, then she says, "I really don't see how
you can claim that none of Crouch Sr's actions were motivated by noble
concerns, Elkins. I really don't. None of them?"

"None of them. 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."

"If you're talking about the whole mess with springing Barty Jr. out
of Azkaban, and keeping it secret afterwards, I've already admitted
that wasn't noble. What about his political errors?"

"Motivated by self-interest," says Elkins flatly. "Let's take a look
at what we know about Crouch's political behavior. A quick rise
through the ranks, authorization of the unforgivable curses against
the citizenry, seizure of the Minister's powers and functions, people
calling for him to "take over," pandering to mob mentality when it
served his own political ends, but counteracting it when it didn't,
encouraging mass hysteria, "very harsh measures" against Voldemort's
supporters."

"I suppose you wanted soft and gentle measures against Voldemort's
supporters?" says Eileen.

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?"

Eileen stands still, her mouth gaping. It irks her when Elkins finds
these things in the text that she somehow overlooked. 

"But you're  *assuming* that he was self-interested!" cries Eileen
finally.

"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?"

"No," says Eileen glumly. "I'd be out there picketing. But that's the
charm of fiction. In fiction, you can see things from both sides. You
can't do that in real life. I admitted he was a hypocrite. I know he
was ambitious. But I still think he wanted to protect the populace."

"Evidence?" says Elkins.

"Well, what are you saying? That he didn't?" Eileen looks ready to
break down in tears. "Voldemort was evil. He was killing people.
Listen what Hagrid said, "No-one lived after he decided to kill them."
You can go on and on about how Crouch encouraged paranoia for his own
political purposes, but in the end, paranoia was a healthy way of
life. One might be paranoid, but they really were out to get you."

"'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? You don't
really think that the politicians *themselves* believe that when they
say it, do you?"

"It depends," mutters Eileen.

"I'm sorry?" says Elkins.

"Well, you know a little about my background - I don't know how, but
you always do seem to get the accurate impression of me - and I know
quite a few politicians personally. And, despite any disagreement I
may have with certain ideas and policies, they often do believe in
them. Very seriously. Very passionately."

"You know politicians who are implementing torture and other such
'measures'?" asks Elkins.

"Well, that's why I said, "It depends." Obviously, you can only go so
far before you're corrupted. And Sirius did say that Crouch's motives
might have been good in the beginning." 

"When he was working in the mail room," says Elkins.

"Maybe. But I find it hard to believe that he saw all that going on,
and his first response wasn't to want to stop it, to stop Voldemort
from killing innocent people. That's just... normal. That's how anyone
would react, you'd think."

"But he'd know fell well, like any real world politician, that those
measures were ineffective," says Elkins. " 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."

Eileen looks wearily at Elkins. "World War II. The Soviet Front," she
finally says. "It kept people fighting to know that there was no
forgiveness for being taken prisoner. That people who were taken
prisoner were Nazi collaborators. It kept people fighting to know that
any sign of discontent was treason. It kept people under the control
of Stalin."

"Eileen!" cries Cindy aghast.

"Save me!" says Eileen, turning white, and then flushing scarlet.
"There I go again! When ever you open your big mouth you put your foot
in it the Gaffer used to say to me, and right enough. O dear, O dear!
Now look here, Elkins. Don't you go taking advantage of Crouch because
his defender can't keep from making that connection. He wasn't Stalin.
He really wasn't. You've spoken very handsome all along, put me off my
guard, talking about the Golden Wood, and all. But handsome is as
handsome does. Now's a chance to show your quality."

"So it seems," says Elkins slowly and very softly, with a strange
smile. "So, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You even compared
Crouch to Stalin in a moment of absentmindedness. A pretty stroke of
fortune! A chance for Elkins to show her quality! Ha!" She stands up,
her eyes glinting.

Cindy and Eileen back away. 

But Elkins sits down again and begins to laugh quietly, and then
suddenly becomes grave again. "You judge me wrongly," she says. "I am
a truth-speaker, though I enjoying twisting the truth sometimes.
Crouch was no Stalin. He never did get as far as Dekulakization."

"Crouch *isn't* a real world politician," says Eileen. "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!"  

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. I gave you the case of Denethor
as an example, because Crouch has quite a lot in common with Denethor
- his urge to subsume his sons' identity into his own, for example -
but Denethor wans't so much of a hypocrite. So maybe we might want to
look at another member of that dysfunctional family, who was a
hypocrite, if a lot nicer. "
 
------------------------------------------------------------
"Yet may I not even speak of it? For you seem ever to think only of
its power in the hands of the Enemy: of its evil uses not of its good.
The world is changing, you say. Minas Tirith will fall, if the Ring
lasts. But why? Certainly, if the Ring were with the Enemy. But why,
if it were with us?"

"Were you not at the Council?," answered Frodo. "Because we cannot use
it, and what is done with it turns to evil."

Boromir got up and walked about impatiently. "So you go on," he cried.
"Gandalf, Elrond - all these folk have taught you to say so. For
themselves they may be right. These elves and half-elves and wizards,
they would come to grief perhaps. Yet often I doubt if they are wise
and not merely timid. But each to his own kind. True-hearted Men, they
will not be corrupted. We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through
long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only
strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in
our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I
say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the
power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these
alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour,
a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not
Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive
the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!"

Boromir strode up and down, speaking ever more loudly: Almost he
seemed to have forgotten Frodo, while his talk dwelt on walls and
weapons, and the mustering of men; and he drew plans for great
alliances and glorious victories to be; and he cast down Mordor, and
became himself a mighty king, benevolent and wise. 
-------------------------------------------------------------

"The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory," says
Cindy thoughtfully. 

"Ambitious. Craving power. Hypocritical. Selfish in his ends. And with
good motives of a sort," says Eileen. "He had seen people killed by
Sauron's armies. He knew what would happen to his people if Sauron
won. He really did want to protect them. And he wanted power for
himself. Just like Crouch. Using the Ring or authorizing the
Unforgivable Curses on suspects are wrong, but one can see why one
would want to for reasons other than standard realpolitik. In the
Golden Wood, that is."

"Well...okay," says Elkins.  "But 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."

"But Barty Crouch Sr. doesn't know he's in a book with stunningly
hard-nosed Ministry plotlines!" cries Eileen. "All he knows is that
he's up against the most evil wizard..."

Cindy and Elkins are staring at her as if she had just come from
another planet.

"What?" cries Eileen.

"You like metathinking," says Cindy gently. "Don't you remember? You
don't like sticking to what the character himself knows."

"Oh dear," says Eileen. "If I'd only sided with Pip on this one, I
could have the coolest Crouch theories. Instead, I need to fight
Elkins on higher ground."

"You don't need to fight me," says Elkins. "You can admit I'm right.
The Ministry plotlines do not allow for the fantastical political
situation."

"You think so, eh?" says Eileen. "Then what is the war against Voldemort?"

"Pardon?"

"What is Voldemort? Is he an ordinary enemy in real world terms? I
explained that there is no real world analogue for Voldemort. He is
the villain of fantasy. Someone explained this in Chestertonian terms
on the list a long while back. Ah, here we are: Message  Message
20237, Rebecca J. Bohner:
>The villain is not in the story to be a character; he is there 
>to be a danger -- a ceaseless, ruthless and uncompromising menace,
>like that of the wild beasts or the sea. For the full satisfaction 
>of the sense of combat, which everywhere and always involves a 
>sense of equality, it is necessary to make the evil thing a man; 
>but it is not always necessary, it is not even always artistic to
>make him a mixed and probable man. In any tale, the tone of which 
>is at all symbolic, he may quite legitimately be made an aboriginal
>and infernal energy. 

"The point is," says Eileen, "That that's not real life. But that is
Voldemort, the "undiluted villain." 

"Where did you find that?" asks Cindy.

"The advantages of cataloguing, O my captain!" says Eileen.  

"Chesterton would have despised Crouch," says Elkins.

"Oh, too true. He would have. Chesterton didn't understand
sympathizing with unsympathetic characters that well, though he
pretended he did. Anyway, this is what Crouch was responding to. His
response was wrong. It was misguided. It was quite possibly useless.
But you can't pretend that the Ministry, however un-naive its
portrayal is, is in another world fighting Voldemort than Harry is
fighting Voldemort. That reading seems just as strange to me as
reading Crouch's motives as entirely pure."

"So you admit they weren't?" asks Elkins.

"Neither were Boromir's," says Eileen. "And yes, they were probably
tarnished more than most people's," she adds with a sigh. 

"And then you ask 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."

"Well, that's lovely. You say you can't see the motifs and subplots,
and then you use that as evidence that they're not there."

"Eileen!" says Elkins. "Don't even try getting away with that fallacy.
If there are motifs and subplots, the onus is on you to point them
out, not on me to see them. I've pointed out the Crouch motifs and
subplots of coercion, control, domination, and the nagation of
volition. Show me the protection and the self-sacrifice."

Eileen mumbles something.

"Speak up, Eileen," says Elkins. "Because you darn well need to show
them. Your LotR analogues for example. There we could point out the
motifs of protection and self-sacrifice that surround that admittedly
dysfunctional family. But in HP, we never see Crouch acting as a
protector to himself, sacrificing himself. Instead, we see him
furthing his own interests, acting to protect himself."

"Put me on the spot, and you expect me to spit out the answer," says
Eileen. "He does protect his son, you know. You'll be saying that
later on."

"And we all know the details of that," says Elkins. "And how he'll
endanger the wizarding world by it." 

"Fine," says Eileen. "You and your meta-thinking. Barty Crouch Sr.
spent his life fighting the most evil wizard ever, and YOU CAN'T
APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPER MOTIFS SURROUNDING HIM?"

"Some tea?" asks Cindy. 

"IT'S MIDNIGHT IN THE GOLDEN WOOD!" shrieks Eileen "AND YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT TEA!"

"Barty liked tea," says Cindy.

"Oh right," says Eileen, taking the cup Cindy proffers her. "Anyway,
Barty Crouch Sr. is serious thematic bad news. I think you've
established that quite nicely, Elkins. Doesn't mean he didn't have any
good motives. Didn't you say in the last post,
>In short, is Crouch self-sacrificing or self-serving? 
>Is he a hard-liner, or is he a hypocrite?
>
>I think that he's a little bit of both, myself.
>
>But mainly the latter.
 
"If I'm so off the mark on Crouch's motives, why did you say that?
Where do you see the self-sacrificing, the little that you do see?"

"Getting desperate, aren't you?" says Cindy.

"Well yes," says Eileen, pushing the undrunk cup of tea back on Cindy.
"Because I LIKE Bartemius Crouch Sr. A lot. I liked him
instantaneously, on finishing the last page of GoF, one of my first
thoughts was "Crouch was rather sympathetic, wasn't he?" I liked him
before I sat down and tried to analyse why. Now I know what it feels
like to be on the other side of Elkins's charges."

"You asked for it," says Cindy. 

"Yeah, I know. I've been shamelessly begging for this on the list, on
the Fantastic Posts project, and in private emails for weeks and weeks
and weeks. And now that I have it I'm revelling in it. But I must be a
glutton for punishment. Do you know what she's done? She's carefully
noted every single thing I (or anyone else on the list) has said about
Crouch, and she's worked it into her arguments."

"Are you finished your discourse on me in the third person?" asks
Elkins patiently. "Can we return to the matter at hand?"

"Yes," says Eileen, forcing a smile.

"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?"

"I said. I'd get back to you on that one," says Eileen flatly. "You
know, I'd always assumed that was just... ordinary."

"You've said that before," says Elkins icily. 

 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?"

"No," says Eileen. 

"Very good," says Elkins. "Meanwhile, Moody brought more Death Eaters
to justice than any other Auror, without stooping to Crouch's level.
Don't you think that's JKR's way of telling us that 'harsh' and
'effective' are not necessarily synonymous?"

"Yes," says Eileen, after a long silence. "But I never said Crouch's
methods were effective, just that he was trying to fight Voldemort
with them."

"And you know what I said about that," says Elkins.
 
There is another long silence.
 
"Dumbledore seems to have cared about Crouch," says Eileen. 

"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."

"Yeah, well, Dumbledore doesn't care at all for your Barty Crouch Jr.!"

"Eileen!" says Cindy. 

"Well it's true. He's very kindly towards his father. When he's
speaking to Harry after the pensieve scene, he really doesn't single
out Crouch Sr. or talk with any particular bitterness about his
actions. I got the feeling he felt sorry for him, no matter what
Crouch had did. And that was even when he though Barty Jr. might be
innocent. But look how he treats your lovely little Barty Jr. Blazing
eyes, looks  of disgust."

"Eileen!"

"Right, so I'm supposed to sympathize with the character whom
Dumbledore looks at with disgust, rather than the character whom he
sounds concerned about."

Elkins looks at Eileen, shakes her head, and continues, "Dumbledore
didn't trust Crouch."

"Yeah, I know that."

"You do?" asks Elkins.

"Well, I wouldn't," says Eileen.

"You wouldn't?" asks Cindy.

"Hopefully not. In reality, I might be charmed by his charisma into
being one of those supporters clamouring for him to take over. You
never know. But I certainly hope not."

"So," says Elkins, "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."  

Eileen looks conflicted. "I want to say that they could have been the
only thing staving Voldemort off for eleven years," she says, "But I
have canon for you."

"Canon?" asks Elkins interestedly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were,
too. He preferred to fight rather than coming quietly."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Oh very nice," says Elkins. "Thankyou."

"You're welcome," says Eileen savagely.  

"Anyway," says Elkins. "We do know something very important for which
Crouch's measures were useful. They made Crouch *popular.*"

"Oh, I don't know, Elkins," she says, jumping back to her main point
again. "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."  

"Well," says Eileen. "Did you wonder why about a week or so ago, I
asked the list whether the Unforgivables were Dark Magic?"

"I think we've all figured out," says Cindy. "That ANYTHING you bring
up on the list is somehow connected Barty Crouch Sr. You're obsessed.
Face it." 

"Yeah," says Eileen, "And now I don't have the heart to make the case
I was planning out. The case that the Unforgivables aren't Dark Magic,
so you can't accuse Barty Sr. of using Dark Magic."

"Eileen, give us a break!" cries Cindy.

"Yeah, I'll do that. Maybe, I'll argue it some other time."

"Dark Magic or not, the Unforgivables are seriously bad news," says
Cindy. 

"Yeah. I know." 

"Then back to our scheduled topic," says Elkins. "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."

"Me too!" says Eileen.

"What?" says Cindy. 

"She's bent," says Elkins. "That's all there is to it. Anyway, 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.  "How
can you discount what he wanted to believe so easily? Isn't what we
want to believe important at all? What about Macbeth? Don't you like
those who delude themselves into thinking their motivations are one
thing, when they're really another?"

"Look, Eileen, I'd much rather have seen Crouch 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. Take Karkaroff's hearing, for
example. This hearing would seem to have been closed to the general
public.

"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!"

"Ok. Crouch isn't a hard-line fanatic," says Eileen. "But I can think
of reasons for him to be personally furious over the Longbottom case
and not personally furious over Karkaroff. There's the fact that his
son's involved in the later case, and then there's the fact of who the
victims were."

"Explain."

"Karkaroff doesn't seem to have been torturing anyone that important.
If he had, he would have accused Dolohov of much worse things. Sounded
to me like "non-supporters of the Dark Lord" was code for innocent
magical civilians."

"So, you're saying," says Elkins, "that Crouch held Frank Longbottom's
life more important than someone else's, just because Longbottom was
one of his very popular aurors?"

"Yes, I suppose I am."

"AND I'M SUPPOSED TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT?" shouts Elkins, moving
towards Cindy's paddle. 

"Well, I didn't think you would," says Eileen nervously. "But that's
how people are. Crouch knew Frank Longbottom, and I'm guessing, liked
him very well. He was popular, you know. Like Crouch."

A light gleams in Elkins's eye. 

"Let's not turn this into a "Let's Slander Frank Longbottom" party
again, please," says Cindy. 

"Oh yes," says Elkins with cruel amusement. "You're fine when it's
Arthur Weasley, but we can't taint your poor dear martyred Frank
Longbottom. We'll see about that later. But the Karkaroff/Longbottom
scenes show that Crouch Sr. isn't that prone to
ends-over-means-excesses, when it doesn't suit him."

"Explain to me," says Eileen steadily. "Why Crouch didn't torture
Karkaroff. Isn't that a point in his favour? As a man of honour. Let
him go too, in exchange for the information. A man of his word. As you
said once."

"It's not a point in his favour," snaps Elkins. "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?"

"Maybe Dumbledore talked him into it," says Eileen. "I dunno."

"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.
Crouch shows occasional traces of irritation and exasperation in his 
dealings with Bagman, but no sign at all of hatred, bitterness or 
rancour."

"Wait a moment!" says Eileen. "How do you reconcile this with your
belief that Crouch Sr. is still trying to get his popularity back by
catching another Dark Wizard. Of course, Crouch is an opportunist. Of
course, he'll be polite as possible to Bagman, while still putting him
in his place. Those scenes between them are really quite funny, you
know? Bagman is either oblivious or doing a really good job of it of
Crouch's dislike for him, and he's really the only person sometimes
who seems to be interested in how Crouch is doing. That part at the
QWC where he starts defending Crouch, "Winky? Conjure the Dark Mark?
She wouldn't know how! She'd need a wand for a start!" And interesting
that he knows Winky's name. It's almost as if Ludo has decided to like
Crouch, and that's that. It's endearing, it is."

"To you," sniffs Cindy. "Death Eater Verily Is Ludo."

"And Crouch can't stand him, which may be why Ludo's become such a fan."

"As fascinating as is all this speculation about Ludo Bagman's
relationship with Crouch, if Crouch were really such a fanatic, then
how could he manage this?"

"Yes," says Eileen. 

"Arthur Weasley couldn't in relation to Lucius Malfoy."

"Arthur Weasley isn't Crouch Arthur Weasley is a Gryffindor. Bartemius
Crouch is a Slytherin. And tell the L.O.O.N.s not to bother. I know
that's not in the text. If you're trying to catch dark wizards to
regain your popularity, you don't get into public fistfights with them."

"So you admit he was trying to regain his popularity?"

"Uh-huh."

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

"I'm blaming that on the hypothetical Minister for Magic of the time,"
says Eileen. "Remember?"

"Very convenient," says Elkins. "But hear me out. "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."

"But wait," says Eileen. "I'm confused. Didn't you just say Crouch Sr.
was trying to catch dark wizards? And was sad when he ran out of them?
And now you're saying he let such catches as Lucius Malfoy off the
hook? That doesn't make sense. It makes far more sense to see him as
restrained by the then-Minister for Magic."

"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," says Elkins. "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 throwingthem sacrificial blood offerings, like
Sirius Black and the Pensieve Four."

"Yeah, you're right. What about HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes?" asks Eileen. 

"THAT IS NOT CANON!" says Cindy. "All this Frank Longbottom bashing of
yours is getting on my nerves."

"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?*"

"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....."

There is a very long silence. Eileen wants to argue, but can't find
the willpower to do it. 

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

Another long silence, while Eileen feels bitterly jealous that Elkins
can think up ideas like that and she never does. (Well except for
HumanRightsMartyr!Wilkes of whom she is very proud, even if Cindy
thinks ill of him.) 

""In GoF, Crouch's service to Voldemort just makes its final 
transition from the symbolic level to the literal one," says Elkins. 
"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."

Eileen nods reluctantly. 

"My problem with Crouch 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."

"I cannot follow you there," says Eileen. "I don't think he meant to
do all that."

"You don't think he "meant to?" asks Elkins harshly. "And why would
that be?"

"Because he had deluded himself that his motives were good. Even if
they weren't, at base, like you've said. And I don't know why, but I
can forgive that."

"You don't know why?"

"Oh yes, I do know why," says Eileen suddenly. "Because otherwise, I
don't have a chance. Rectitude of intention has never been my strong
point, as I told you. And somehow you've managed to get me to face up
to that in regards to Crouch.  You have an air about you, Elkins, that
reminds me of, of - well, Dumbledore, of wizards."

"Maybe," says Elkins. "Maybe you discern from far away the air of
Númenor. Good night!"

> 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