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

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52846

I wrote:
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." ;-)

Eileen replied:
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.

I reply:
Well, sure, at that point in the novel that's what a reader might 
insert. But once we finish, we're lead to believe that Crouch Jr. is 
actually the faithful one. So then, refining the position as you 
point out a little later, who's the third dead guy?


Eileen wrote (about the blanks):
Traitor:
Coward:
Faithful Servant:

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

I reply:
My point exactly - we instinctively read that Snape is the traitor. 
But didn't most of us instinctively read that Snape was out to kill 
Harry, and didn't most of us fall for Draco being the Heir of 
Slytherin? I definitely fell for it the first time, and I'm trying 
super hard to keep my wits about me and not fall for her tricks 
again. ;-)


Eileen wrote:
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. 

I reply:
It's served a red-herring function, sure, in the context of GoF. But 
it also sets up some stuff for the future, right? The coward 'will 
pay.' The traitor 'will die, of course.'

So in that sense, this passage has more significance than just within 
the context of GoF. It's also indicating to us how Voldemort's going 
to do some stuff in the future, and what he may be trying to do. And 
wouldn't it be just like JKR to set us up with some false 
information. 

For instance: say Karkaroff fled, after telling Snape all year that 
he's terrified of Voldemort. But instead of fleeing from the Dark 
Lord, he went directly to him, to the circle. Voldemort seems to know 
who's who in the circle, so I'd assume that if he was there, then 
Voldemort would know that. So, then, the coward becomes someone else.

And furthermore, if Voldemort wanted these people to pay and to die, 
then why wouldn't he just refer to their names? Why the mystery? I 
know, I know: 'Don't ask me to fathom the way a Dark Lord's mind 
works,' right? *chuckle*


I wrote:
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. 

Eileen replied:
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. 

I reply:
Well, I know that we'd all like to dispute Voldemort's 
intelligence. ;-) But honestly, we know that he already outsmarted 
Dumbledore at least once, right? That was when Riddle got Hagrid 
expelled over Dumbledore's protests to the contrary. 

I totally agree with you about other Death Eaters in similar 
circumstances to Snape's. But that's my point precisely. 

These three descriptions could mean *anyone,* really, couldn't they? 
I'm just pointing out that Voldemort (via Pettigrew) will know where 
Snape, McGonagall, and the others teachers are, and that (via Crouch 
and Jorkins) he will know where Bagman and Fudge are also. And 
assuming that Voldemort might consider Snape or any other teacher to 
still be an ally, he'll know why Snape and the others can't be at the 
council.

And so, would Voldemort rather have attendance or maintain an 
advantage? I dunno. But I'd guess the latter. Maybe that's just 
because I'd rather assume that Voldemort is way smarter than we're 
giving him credit for - if he turns out to be your standard "Dr. 
Claw - Argh! Foiled Again, Gadget, next time, Next TIME!" kind of 
villain, I'd be a little disappointed.


Eileen wrote:
<snip> But Lucius Malfoy didn't kill any of his fellow
Death-Eaters as far as we know. Igor Karkaroff has
blood on his hands. <snip>

I reply:
Does Karkaroff have blood on his hands? According to the Pensieve, 
the only guy that Karkaroff actually gave the Ministry that they 
didn't already have was Rookwood, right? And that probably means that 
Rookwood was sent off to Azkaban. So, what blood does Karkaroff have? 
And does revealing a single Death Eater to the Ministry outweigh his 
potential value at Durmstrang?


Eileen wrote:
<snip> 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.

I reply:
Yeah, I agree that the three sentences would appear to sum up the 
differences between the men. But, meta-thinking myself, I wonder if 
the author wants us to ignore the possibility that those descriptions 
actually describe others just as well, and the readers just don't 
know about it. ;-)

-Tom