Avery and Bloody Ambushes WAS Re: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 36744

I wrote: 
> > But, bloody ambush appreciation can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. 
> It's 
> > the Avery thing again. Avery who is both sickened and attracted 
by 
> > violence. 

So then, Cindy wrote:
> Sure, FEATHERBOAS can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism.  Just barely, 
> perhaps.  But I must admit I have no idea how one can wear a 
> FEATHERBOA and have this pity for evil underlings thing going on.  
> 
> I mean, in our many ambush scenarios, people are getting *killed*.  
> Wilkes dies (although not in an ambush because Elkins said I 
couldn't 
> kill him in an ambush).

Couldn't kill him in an ambush? Why not? I was getting a little 
confused trying to keep the cells et al. in order and I missed this 
one. I had a vague idea that Frank Longbottom and Mad-Eyed Moody 
ambushed Wilkes, Rosier, and Dolohov on Snape's information... but it 
seems I'm behind the bloody ambush developments. 

So, I went to the archives to do some research on the matter.

Cindy wrote (a long time ago):
> Actually, Dolohov is in my ambush as well, and I'm willing to let 
> Frank Longbottom have a bit of the glory. I will note for the 
> record, however, that I think there were three Death Eaters in the 
> ambush (Dolohov, Rosier and Wilkes). That makes my ambush *bigger.* 

So Elkins wrote back:
>Well, really now, Cindy. Was there ever any doubt that yours was 
>bigger?

>Dolohov, eh? I suppose that makes sense, given Crouch's exchange with
>Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene. Any chance I could convince you to 
>off Wilkes in an entirely separate scenario? 
>See, (where's the canon, where's the...) Wilkes was probably in a 
>different *cell,* right? Because otherwise Karkaroff would have
>named him at the Pensieve hearing, along with Rosier and Dolohov. 
>The fact that he *didn't* name him leads me to believe that either 
>Wilkes was already dead by the time of Karkaroff's arrest or that 
>Wilkes and Karkaroff were in different "cells" of the DE 
>organization, and so didn't really know each other.

OK. Elkins is right. Wilkes didn't die in the bloody ambush. 

>Either way, you need a separate scenario to account for Wilkes' 
>demise.

Right. But two against two. That's not very impressive.

So, therefore Elkins stepped in:
>You still need to replace Wilkes with somebody else, though. 
>Perhaps, uh... <sound of flipping pages> Travers? How 'bout Travers?
>Of course, if it's Travers, then your ambush is a tad less Bloody, as
>Travers would seem to have been taken alive. But that would make 
>Longbottom all the more *impressive,* wouldn't it? (If somewhat less
>dripping with DE blood.)

Then someone had the brainstroke of adding Mulciber to the mix. 

So, I think I've got it. Snape gave the information which either 
directly or indirectly ended up in the hands of Longbottom and Moody. 
They went to apprehend Travers, Dolohov, Mulciber, and Rosier. Rosier 
was killed. Travers, Mulciber, and Dolohov taken alive. It's not 
nearly as bloody as I remembered it. Actual mechanics of the ambush 
are one's own opinion, I guess. 

I suppose Travers and Mulciber did survive.

"But Travers and Mulciber, we have," said Mr. Crouch. (page 513)

Crouch doesn't exactly say they're alive, does he? It sounds that 
way, perhaps, but he's responding to a list of names. He could be 
saying "we already have those names," couldn't he? Or maybe not. 
Perhaps, it was an unbloody ambush after all. 

DE Cells: Cindy.
>To recap, then, we have Death Eater Cell 1 with Rookwood, Karkaroff, 
>Wilkes, Travers, Dolohov, Snape, Mulciber. We have Death Eater 
>Cell 2 with Pettigrew, Avery, Malfoy, MacNair, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, 
>Crouch Jr., the Lestranges and . . . Bagman. 

IIRC, this was the result of much study on Cindy's part of 
Karkaroff's testimony at the hearing. She noticed that Karkaroff does 
not name a number of prime suspects, all at large. Therefore, she put 
them in Cell 2, of which Karkaroff knows nothing. Cell 1 seems to 
have severely suffered. :-)

Bagman in Cell 2 is, of course, your call. I haven't bought into 
Bagman DE myself. 

Rookwood in Cell 1 was also heavily disputed. Would the information 
guy hang out in any cell?

I must strongly object also to Pettigrew in Cell 2. I don't like 
everyone knowing Pettigrew. I want to keep it between Voldemort and 
Pettigrew.

The cell structure still presents some oddities. Why is Avery in Cell 
2? Karkaroff's evidence suggests it, but does it make much sense for 
Voldemort to split up Snape's gang (strongly implied to have been in 
the same year at Hogwarts)across the cells, thereby making them much 
more cognizant of each other? 

Anyway, we need to construct a death scenario for Wilkes. Killed by 
aurors, but either in Cell 2, or in Cell 1 dying before Karkaroff has 
been apprehended which is before the bloody ambush. 

How was Karkaroff apprehended? Do we have an answer for that? Is 
there any possibility of another ambush? 

GoF, page 511. "Took me six months to track him down." - Moody

What if Wilkes was killed in the same action in which Karkaroff was 
apprehended?

On to Cell 2, whose excuse seems to have been Imperius. At least, 
Malfoy used it, and we know that they were on trial and acquitted, so 
we'll presume Malfoy was typical.

But, why did suspicion fall on Cell 2 in the first place? 

Cell 2 with Avery, Malfoy, MacNair, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, 
>Crouch Jr., the Lestranges and (Bagman? Pettigrew?)

Page 613

"Malfoy was cleared!" said Fudge, visibly affronted. "A very old 
family - donations to excellent causes -"

"McNair!" Harry continued.

"Also cleared! Now working for the Ministry!"

"Avery - Nott - Crabbe - Goyle -"

"You are merely repeating the names of those who were acquitted of 
being Death Eaters thirteen years ago!" said Fudge angrily. 

So, why were Malfoy, McNair, Avery, Nott, Crabbe, and Goyle up for 
trial? And presumably Mr. and Mrs. Lestrange too. (Bartie Jr., no.)

The way they talk about Lucius Malfoy. The Malfoys were "Some of You-
know-who's" biggest supporters" gives me suspicions. Was Malfoy all 
that quiet about being on Voldemort's side? Did he ever declare 
himself publicly? After all, in order for the story to work, the Cell 
2 people had to be turning themselves in immediately. What happened 
that made them so certain there would be no chance of hiding? Had 
they already been exposed somehow? 

Bloody ambushes. Eileen licks her lips and then notices a note from 
Cindy:
>  Rosier dies.  They probaby had a lot to live 
> for, too, and they valued their own evil little lives as much as 
> Pettigrew values his.  Yet Rosier died at the hands of Moody, and 
> Eileen and Elkins are bouncing on the sofa.  What's the difference 
> between Pettigrew and Rosier?  And if you're mourning Rosier, why 
did 
> you rejoice in his ambush in the first place?   Hmmmmm?

First of all, I don't know Rosier. All we've got is his name, so I 
can't say I've got very emotional over him.

Secondly, the reason I'm into bloody ambushes is that they are 
painful - for everyone involved. Weren't we trying to heap up agony 
and misery on Snape's head? 

Thirdly, you can't feel pity for the miserable characters if you're 
not extremely active in seeking them out. BIG BANGS are BANGY because 
they are heartwrenching, if you know what I mean.

On to Avery.

Cindy writes:
>I think it is bangier to have IOHHFM, who has to suffer his internal 
>conflict every time the Dark Mark burns. Who has to practice his 
>Crucio curses so they hit their targets instead of hitting the DE 
>who is holding the victim's hands behind his back. Who has to look 
>in the mirror every morning and slap his face, resolving that today 
>he will turn it around once and for all and be Evil To The Core.

OK, do you mind if I submit this one to the Big Bang theory?

Now that I think about it, I am going to wrap up all of my theories 
into one gigantic mega-theory, a theory substantial enough to swallow 
the entire Potterverse: The Big Bang Theory.

Cindy on introducing the Big Bang Theory, which has since 
revolutionized the way we look at HP:
>Indeed, Big Bangers have a rather rigid bright line test to assist 
>us in determining which theories are acceptable. If we can't 
>imagine a climactic, Oscar-worthy scene in which a character 
>chooses a dramatically different path because of a Big Event, 
>then the theory won't fly under Big Bang. We have no use for fuzzy 
>lens shots, montage sequences or soliloquies where characters 
>stare off into space and develop a new perspective on their 
>circumstances. No, Big Bangers chew the scenery. People who 
>drift off to buy popcorn before a Big Bang scene are going to be 
>completely lost for the rest of the story.

And you're saying Avery looking into the mirror every morning is 
Bangish? Soliloquizing to himself about he will really truly be evil 
today?

Meanwhile, Avery with remorse comes with a really Big Bangish scene 
in which Avery completely breaks down at the exact moment of 
Voldemort's destruction, and then there's that realization, and 
Arthur Weasley, who was patting him on the back, suddenly flinches, 
and backs away slowly, looking at his hands in disgust. The dementors 
enter and pull Avery away weeping, screaming, and generally carry 
on.  (And you could improve the theory by adding the Missing Weasley 
kid and having Avery responsible for his demise, but that may be 
pushing it too far.)

If you don't think he shows remorse, remember...... I had promised 
not to keep on dragging Tolkien in, but dagnabbit!... remember 
Smeagol/Gollum. Would anyone deny he had remorse? And, being 
remorseful, he tried to feed Frodo to a spider and bite off his 
finger. 

Eileen

PS. Would it interest you very much to know that Avery means "King of 
the Elves?" No?