No: HPFGUIDX 33503
Luke wrote (about the attempt to place blame for Crouch's demise):
>But it also seems to be basically irrational to attempt to apply
>blame to any particular quarter.
>
> Fudge is culpable for what Fudge did or failed to do. McGonagall
>is culpable for what McGonagall did or failed to do. Snape likewise
>for his own actions or inactions.
AND
>How can one be "more" at fault, anyway? Isn't fault a black-and-
>white concept? You either are at fault or you aren't--and while two
>people can share blame in the sense of both being at fault
>simultaneously, they do not share blame in the sense that the two
>might share a pie, taking differently-sized portions: this person
>with 60% and this person with 40%. Blame, as I see it, just can't
>work like that.
I hope you'll all forgive me for taking a stab at answering this
post, but Luke raises some very good questions and I can't help
myself. Part of my problem is that it is not easy to bring the
discussion back to HP canon. I don't necessarily have good answers,
but I'll take a crack at some of the ideas here.
First, my main point in initially trying to fix blame for the Crouch
incident is just that I don't like Snape, so I'd like to see him take
the fall. A worthy goal, I'm sure you'll all agree. :-) My instincts
tell me that the whole thing was Fudge's fault (or perhaps the
dementor's fault if it understood what it was doing).
But I don't see blame/fault/culpability/responsibility as being a
black-or-white concept. Several people often play various and
overlapping roles in causing a bad event to happen. Here, Fudge
summoned the dementor; Snape (perhaps) let the dementor in the
castle; Snape and McGonagall didn't protect Crouch. The very
character of what each person did was different. Fudge started the
events in motion. Snape (perhaps) failed to engage in
insubordination when he really should have. Snape and McGonagall had
the last opportunity to act and did not.
Luke is certainly right that each person is responsible for his/her
actions. However, it seems to me that the person who creates a
hazardous situation is more culpable than the person who fails to
diffuse it. By that measure, Fudge started the chain of events, of
course. Snape also started the chain of events if he knowingly
escorted a dementor into the castle. McGonagall's culpability is
only in failing to stop the natural progression of events Snape and
Fudge started. Snape also failed to stop the progression, so Snape is
arguably much more responsible than McGonagall.
Luke again:
> The same conundrum, I feel, permeates the long-standing debate on
>the GOF argument between Harry and Ron. Both Harry and Ron acted in
> questionable fashion and in some manner contributed to the
>argument.
I agree that it might not be possible or even worth the effort to
assess blame/fault/culpability in the Harry/Ron fight. The
difference, in my mind, is that in the dementor incident, I am trying
to figure out who caused a particular significant and unfortunate
event -- the sucking of Crouch's soul. In the Ron/Harry fight, there
is no significant culminating event for which someone could be
blamed. They are just mad at each other for a while and that's it.
If Snape were involved, however, then I would try to find a way to
blame him, of course. :-)
The essence of Luke's objection seems to be (and Luke can correct me
if I misunderstand) that it isn't possible or logical to assess blame
as though one were serving a pie. (Brace yourself, as this is the
part of this post that starts to veer off-topic.) I can't fully wrap
my mind around the objection because society does that (assesses
blame among multiple culpable actors) all the time. If two people
cause an accident, one might be 60% responsible, and the other might
be 40% responsible, and penalties might attach based on that
apportionment of responsibility. From a legal perspective, the
concept isn't at all novel.
I have a hunch, however, that Luke is talking about philosophy, not
law. Um, that gets a lot more difficult. Should we look at the
motives of the various actors? If so, Fudge's motives were
(probably) legitimate, as he was acting to protect himself. Should
we examine forseeability? Then Snape and Fudge are equally culpable
if both brought the dementor into the castle, as it was forseeable
that the result would be a soul-free Crouch. Should we decide who
acted most irresponsibly given the amount of information they had?
If so, McGonagall had complete information because she knew the
dementor was bearing down on Crouch and did nothing to stop it.
Whatever the yardstick we choose, it doesn't trouble me to try to
figure out who is at fault in the Crouch incident because I find the
process intellectually interesting, and because it helps me to some
extent evaluate other aspects of the books. For instance, Dumbledore
is rather sharp with McGonagall ("Minerva, I'm surprised at you.")
If I'm trying to decide whether Dumbledore is overly harsh and
whether to sympathize with McGonagall, I would consider whether
Crouch's demise was her fault.
Now, to continue the blame game <vbg>, there is another Big Event for
which we could try to find someone responsible. Pettigrew somehow
manages to escape in PoA. Whose fault is that?
It actually becomes rather complex. Is it Snape's fault? I would
dearly love to say "yes." Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack and
not jumped to conclusions, there would have been a third wizard to
escort Pettigrew, possibly preventing his escape.
Is it Harry's fault? He intervened to prevent Pettigrew from being
killed, thereby setting in motion the chain of events that led to
Pettigrew's escape.
Is it Lupin's fault? He did several things that led to Pettigrew's
escape. He forgot his potion and came up with the lame idea of using
manacles to escort Pettigrew.
Personally, I haven't made up my mind on those questions.
Cindy