[HPforGrownups] Three Missing Death Eaters (WAS: don't know if this has been discussed...)

[Eileen]

No: HPFGUIDX 52845

 --- "Tom Wall <thomasmwall at yahoo.com>"
<thomasmwall at yahoo.com> wrote: > Snuffles pointed out:
> In GoF Voldemort states,
> "And here we have six missing 
> Death Eaters.... three dead in 
> my service. One too cowardly to 
> return...he will pay. One who 
> I believe has left me forever... 
> he will be killed, of course... 
> and one who remains my most 
> faithful servant, and who has 
> already reentered my service."
> - GoF paperback edition, pg. 651
> 
> I reply:
> This has been driving me bonkers, 
> this one quote, all by itself. 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Well, because IMO it is WAY too obvious and easy to
> make connections 
> here.
<snip>
> But we make these connections because this is what
> the narrative has 
> led us to believe. It reeks to me of "Draco is the
> Heir of 
> Slytherin," and "Snape is out to kill Harry." ;-)

I could buy this except that I think the Six Death
Eaters scene has already served its function as a Red
Herring. You sketched out who we are to believe the
Three Missing Live Death Eaters to be at the end of
GoF, but what about when we haven't finished GoF yet?

Three Dead in My Service: Rosier, Wilkes, Crouch Jr.

Traitor:
Coward:
Faithful Servant:

Well, there are a few people to fill in here. I think
most people instinctively read the traitor as Snape

The reader then selects Bagman or Karkaroff as the
coward and Bagman or Karkaroff as the Faithful
Servant. 

Meanwhile, all attention from Crouch Jr. is pulled
away, so that it'll come as a double shock when he
reappears. 

Once everything is revealed, Crouch Jr. moves into the
Faithful Servant slot, and one of the dead slots is
left unoccupied. That bugged me so much that I almost
scuttled the Fourth Man hovercraft for Fourth Man as
Third. 

So, in looking for a red herring function in that
scene, I think it's important to remember that it's
already served that exact function. 


> The other two are completely up for grabs, IMO. This
> is why I think 
> so:
> 
> Voldemort is not an idiot. He:
> A) Went to Hogwarts, so would be familiar with the
> non-apparation 
> magics in effect there, and
> B) Knows that the Triwizard Tournament is currently
> in progress, and 
> therefore
> C) Any Death Eater who occupies a prominent position
> either in the 
> tournament or at the school can not simply up and
> vanish because of 
> the Mark's burn. 

Well, some would dispute the premise. ;-) Voldemort's
demands may indeed be unreasonable, but are they any
more unreasonable for Snape than they are for any
other hypothetical Death Eater? Circumstances could
happen so that our hypothetical Death Eater was as
unable to attend the circle as Snape, consider. 

This is just one of those places where a MAGIC
DISHWASHER, in which the DEs are aware aforehand of
Voldemort's meeting, might be handy. However, if we
don't go down that road, Voldemort is just plain
unreasonable, no matter who the three missing Death
Eaters are. 

> I'll also add to that that if *I* was Karkaroff, I'd
> be more afraid 
> of the Dark Lord *himself* than the other Death
> Eaters. Heck, most of 
> the other Death Eaters present in the circle were
> accepted back, 
> despite their prior lack of loyalty to Voldemort.
> Why assume that 
> Igor would be any different? Igor, at least,
> admitted to being 
> involved, unlike Lucius, who apparently denied that
> he ever willingly 
> committed himself to the Dark Cause.

But Lucius Malfoy didn't kill any of his fellow
Death-Eaters as far as we know. Igor Karkaroff has
blood on his hands. That's much less easily tolerable
than Lucius's slippery maneuvers. Loyalty was the
hallmark of this group, it would seem, judging by the
impossible number of people who got off, and the fact
that Karkaroff seems to be alone in fingering his
fellow Death Eaters. Those who turn Voldemort's Death
Eaters in will be made an example of. This seems to me
perfectly reasonable... from Voldemort's POV, of
course. 

Once the scene has lost its original function as a red
herring, btw, what does it serve?

Not the plot, I think. One of the reasons that I am so
adamant that it must refer to Crouch Jr., Snape, and
Karkaroff is because it's an absolutely beautiful
summing up of the differences between these three men.
I just love those short sentences. I really do. They
pack a punch that they wouldn't if they didn't sum up
the Crouch Jr/Snape/Karkaroff parallel which has been
emphasized throughout the novel. 

Yeah, metathinking. I know...

Eileen

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca