Truth or consequences

[nkafkafi]

> > Neri (previously):
> >Crouch!Moody is extremely difficult to catch in a lie (unless it's 
> >something we already know to be untruth, which according to your rule 
> >doesn't count).

> GulPlum:
> I'm not sure what you mean.
> <snip>
> You seem to be implying that there are 
> circumstances in which "Crouch" [which one? :-)] *is* lying, but we
know 
> this to be the case.

Neri:
Yes, this is what I implied. The case I was thinking of is when Crouch
Jnr sees the Marauders' Map on the floor (GoF Ch. 25) and thinks Snape
dropped it. Harry (wearing his invisibility cloak so only Crouch!Moody
can see him) mouths to him "It's mine!" and Crouch!Moody accio-s the
map and tells Snape: "It's mine – must've dropped it earlier". This is
an outright lie, but the reader already knows it to be lie, and it was
a lie to save Harry. So by the standards you suggested this belongs to
the category of "good guy" lies, although it was made by a bad guy.
The important point, IMO, is that it doesn't assist Crouch!Moody with
fooling Harry and the reader, so I think it "doesn't count".  



> > Neri:
> >The clearest untruth I could come up with for him is rather weak. It's 
> >these words he says to Ron:
> >
> >GoF, Ch.14 p.211 US:
> >"Your father got me out of a very tight corner a few days ago"
> >
> >In the end we discover that Crouch!Moody barely had time to drink the
> >Polyjuice when Arthur came to find out what was the commotion about.

> GulPlum:
> So, again, he was in fact telling the truth...

Neri:
I was thinking too about this interpretation, actually, but I was
trying not to get too deep into attorney mode  <g>.



> GulPlum:
> My own view (and I had meant to say this in my previous post, but
forgot) 
> is that this is part of the "thematic" morality of the books:
truthfulness 
> is not a virtue in itself (for a childish example, we have an 
> "anti-snitching" message in PS/SS). Whilst, as Dumbledore points out, 
> "honesty is generally preferable" (I think that's the quote; sorry
if I got 
> it wrong), there are circumstances in which keeping silent, or even
telling 
> a small lie, in furtherance of a greater good, is preferable to
honesty in 
> furtherance of evil.
> Oh, and for the record, I don't buy the "Magical penalty for lying" 
> explanation: it's too pat, and Harry would certainly have felt the
effects 
> of this penalty by now if it were true. And please don't try to
limit it by 
> claiming that it only affects adults. :-)

Neri:
I'm not sure I buy the "magical penalty" theory either (although I
think it can be made to work) and I also tend more to the thematic
explanation. The thing is that Potterverse magic, especially in "its
deepest, most impenetrable" form, is frequently an embodiment of
"thematic" morality, and we don't know yet where exactly JKR draws the
separating line between magical device and metaphor. For example, did
Lily protect her son by actually performing a specific spell, or
"merely" by the act of sacrificing her life? Does the locked room in
the DoM contain an actual magical device or just "Love" or "Humanity"
or some similar abstract entity? Does saying Voldemort's name have
magical consequences, or is it "merely" a metaphor for courage in the
face of a terror regime? We'll probably have to wait for the end of
the series to find out.  


Neri