Fourth Man and Jokes and Law

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 38406

Eloise wrote:  

> Yeah. Dump poor Avery, then it all works. But wasn't the whole 
thing about 
> the Fourth Man Kayak/ Hovercraft, whatever, the identification of  
the Fourth 
> man with Avery? Was I missing the point?

No, you didn't miss the point.  I thought the brilliance of the 
Fourth Man Theory is that it identifies Avery as the Fourth Man in 
the Pensieve.  If you break that link, you have gutted Fourth Man.  
You are back to the Dark and Primitive Pre-Fourth Man Era, in which 
no one even *tried* to figure out whether the Fourth Man in the 
Pensieve scene would be important.  In fact, most everyone assumed 
he was a throw-away character, because he didn't even have a name.

Fourth Man changed all of that.  If I understand things correctly, 
that is.  So Avery is an integral part of the Fourth Man 
Hovercraft.  I only try to toss him overboard because . . . well, 
because he's kind of a wimp and he lets me.  I have to amuse myself 
somehow, don't I?  ;-)

But with people deserting Fourth Man in *droves* (and I think we 
already established that two deserters is a drove), maybe we'll have 
to downsize to the little two-man kayak and give the big, expansive 
Hovercraft to some other theory.  ;-)

But then again, I'm no Fourth Man Expert.  I'm a Fourth Man 
Apprentice.  I'm just here to learn.

> Cindy:> 

> >"Avery -- from what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble 
>>by 
> >saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse -- he's still at 
> >large
 
Eloise:

> But you see, it was that 'still' that bothered me. To me that 
>makes it sound like he never did go to Azkaban, although I suppose 
>it *could* mean he's not been re-arrested.

Yes, I see your point there.  But, setting aside issues with Sirius 
not being all that precise with his language here, the "still" could 
just mean that Avery's release wasn't a full pardon, but was some 
sort of parole thing.  In other words, he stays at large so long as 
he behaves.  Going on a Voldemort hunt would be just the sort of 
thing Avery's parole officer would find rather upsetting.

I mean, the phrase "still at large" normally means that a criminal 
is out there and on the run.  I somehow get the sense that Avery 
isn't in hiding or anything.  I mean, if he wormed his way out of 
trouble, why would he be hiding?  That's why I think Sirius is just 
being imprecise.

Judy wrote:

>In fact, I've been dying for ages to ask whether 
> people *really* believe that the Fourth Man was Avery, or if the 
>whole "Fourth Man is Avery" thing is just a joke. 

Debbie responded:

>That's twice in one day I've been accused of taking a joke 
>seriously [slinking under my chair in embarrassment]. 

OK, now.  It's time we cleared up this "joke" business.  I can only 
offer up my own personal opinion here, but here it is.

My view of some of the more wild theories is that the relevant 
question is whether they enjoy support in canon.  More support in 
canon makes them better theories.  Blatant inconsistencies with 
canon make them . . . um, . . . well, they shrivel up like the 
Arabella/Sirius SHIP, and their proponents start pretending they 
don't remember ever proposing such a thing.

But what is the point of the theories, anyway?  Am I always trying 
to predict precisely what JKR is planning to write in the next three 
books?  Am I trying to guess what is in her little notebook that 
will one day be released as an encyclopedia (hopefully)?

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.  I really don't think JKR is going 
to hook up Mad Eye Moody and Hermione in the next three books.  Nah, 
not going to happen.  But is there canon support for the idea?  
Sure.  So it is fun to contemplate and discuss?  Sure.  But the Mad-
Eye/Hermione SHIP is so totally *out there* that it is just a joke.  
I don't think anyone was ever confused about that.

What about the idea that Bagman is an Evil DE after all?  Well, that 
happens to be a wild and speculative theory that I think is very 
likely to be what JKR intended and is something likely to happen in 
the next three books.  (If it doesn't happen, I will see it as a 
missed opportunity to work a great plot twist on most readers).  So 
Bagman Is Ever So Evil is not something I intended to be a joke like 
Hermione/Mad Eye.

And what about the vast middle?  Fourth Man, Ambush theories, 
ToadKeeper, Trapezoid?  They aren't jokes, in my mind, anyway.  And 
that is because I'm not always trying to answer the question of what 
JKR will do.  Sometimes I'm just trying to answer the question, "Of 
the many mysteries in canon, which solutions to those mysteries will 
canon support?"  So in that sense, I'm dead serious about these 
theories in the middle.  I think some work better than others, but I 
think they are all valid theories to discuss which are designed to 
explain canon mysteries. 

Finally, there are theories that in my mind address how far JKR 
could go and what she could get away with.  In other words, based on 
the limitations of canon in the first 4 books, what scenarios in the 
next three books are possible and what scenarios are completely 
impossible and needn't be considered at all?  Moody Is Ever So Evil 
is one such theory.  The idea there is that it would be nearly 
impossible for JKR to devise any plot in OoP that rests on Moody's 
status as an Evil DE in the first 4 books.  At first glance, the 
whole plot of GoF requires Moody to be firmly on Dumbledore's team, 
because Voldemort's plot to kidnap Moody makes no sense if Moody is 
a DE.  Unless . . . unless one starts looking for evidence in canon 
that JKR could use to make Moody evil in OoP and *not* destroy GoF.  
Is there sufficient evidence for Moody Is Ever So Evil?  Sure, I 
think so.  So no, that's not a joke either.

So, for the most part, I'm not joking, and I'm not crazy, although 
the last bit is open to debate, perhaps.  ;-)

Along those lines, David wrote:

>Cindy: 
> I have never been able to make sense of that scene. I actually 
>find it rather FLINT-y.

David:

>Cindy, I thought you were just joking, but it seems to have become 
>a serious subject of discussion. I can well believe that the 
>Pensieve trials are directly based on material JKR saw when she 
>worked for Amnesty International. Does the apparent lack of due 
>process really make these scenes unconvincing?

Oh, I *never* joke about The Law!  ;-)

Seriously, the scenes strike me as FLINT-y because they seem 
designed to read as though Harry is seeing the entire 
trial/sentencing/plea bargain from beginning to end:

In Karkaroff's Pensieve scene, Harry pops into the room and takes in 
his surroundings.  The door opens, and Karkaroff enters.  Stuff 
happens.  Then at the end, Crouch Sr. says "Very well, 
Karkaroff . . . you have been of assistance.  I shall review your 
case.  You will be returned to Azkaban in the meantime."  This 
suggests that the plea bargain is over.  

In Bagman's scene, we see the same thing.  Bagman enters, stuff 
happens, and the scene ends, leaving me with the impression that the 
reader has witnesses the entire acquittal (although certainly not 
Bagman's entire trial).

In the Crouch Jr. scene, again the defendants are brought in, stuff 
happens, and then the defendants are dragged out.  We see the entire 
sentencing from beginning to end.

So we don't have a situation in which we are only seeing snippets of 
the legal proceedings.  These 9 pages contain the complete legal 
proceedings (the plea bargain, the return of verdict, and the 
sentencing).  Even then, most of the 9 pages consist of things that 
aren't the proceedings themselves (Moody muttering, Harry's 
observations).

The reason, then, that all of this strikes me as FLINT-y is that 
there is so much missing or wrong.  Defendants don't have lawyers 
(or, at least, lawyers with dialogue).  We have the role of judge 
and prosecutor roled into one.  We have Bagman interacting with a 
biased member of the jury.  We have the audience murmuring and 
jeering.  We have the defendant's mother sitting next to the judge.  
We have no recusal of the defendant's father (and no, bellowing "You 
are no son of mine!" doesn't count).

Now, I assume that there are legal systems in the world where this 
sort of kangaroo court happens.  Unless JKR really intends to send a 
message that wizarding justice is a farce, I would have expected her 
to change a few things to make these scenes more realistic and 
believable.  Simply making it clear that these bits are only small 
pieces of larger and more equitable proceedings would have gone a 
long way to put me at ease.  

JKR isn't alone in glossing legal details in her books, of course.  
I have many eye-roll moments in pretty much any book or movie 
dealing with law.  Obviously, authors and filmmakers don't bother to 
improve the accuracy of their legal scenes because real life legal 
proceedings are Terribly Boring, so I can hardly blame them.  

So, yes, the legal scenes in GoF are rather FLINT-y to me.  Or maybe 
it is more precise to say that they are frustratingly imprecise.

Cindy