Et tu, Brute?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

Anyone who has scanned the HP boards when a new volume was due can't  
have helped but notice. And most salivating fans, wrenching the  
volume from the molasses-slow bookshop assistant, clutching it to  
their palpitating breast and scuttling back to their lair (where they  
will remain in self-imposed isolation for as long as it takes) have  
the same thought running through their mind - "Who's going to do the  
dirty on Harry this time?"

Yep. That's it. Skullduggery, mayhem, dirty work at the crossroads,  
dark deeds and - betrayal. To my mind betrayal is the defining theme  
of the HP books. Betrayal in all its forms;  betrayal direct,  
betrayal oblique, betrayal tangential, betrayal of principles,  
betrayal of individuals, betrayal of groups, betrayal voluntary or  
coerced, betrayal wholesale, retail and in penny packets. Throughout  
the series somebody somewhere always seems to be in the frame for  
either actual or suspected betrayal. The only exception seems to be  
betrayal on the romantic front. But I'm sure that'll be rectified in  
the next book.

Jo reckons death is a main theme, but really, not all that many have  
died in the timeline of the series. Quirrell (or so we're led to  
believe), Frank Bryce, Cedric, Crouch Snr, Sirius, DD, perhaps one or  
two more. Remarkably few for a war where one side at least gives no  
quarter. Sure, there are plenty of references to larger numbers  
having shuffled off this mortal coil before PS/SS starts, but the  
numbers are surprisingly limited since Harry was dumped in Privet Drive.
Pity, that. I do enjoy a good blood-fest, quite perks me up.

Others, they go for love. Oh dear. A bit fluffy for me, though love  
does have the potential for entertaining consequences - think Romeo  
and Juliet,  the Trojan War, Oedipus... but I can't quite see HP  
turning out to be like that. I may be mistaken, but the 'love' that  
many fans envisage for the books seems to be some sort of all- 
embracing glow of fellow-feeling, forgiveness and rehabilitation -  
with occasional spasms of self-sacrifice pour encourager les autres.  
Nah. Sorry, it doesn't appeal - a dirty, double-dealing traitor is  
much more fun.

Fair do's - if the fan reactions outlined above at the top are in any  
way accurate, then betrayal is what we've come to expect. Every  
character (even Harry) has at some time been considered as a possible  
or potential minion of Voldy. Which smiling friend will indulge in a  
little light back-stabbing this time? is what we wonder when we crack  
the covers of the latest. Everyone has an opinion on that subject,  
ESE is probably the most used (and abused) abbreviation on the boards  
I've frequented. Fair warms the cockles, it does.

An infamous real-life spy once said "Before one can betray, one must  
first belong."
It's the deception that matters, an expressed adherence to a person  
or principle (real or pretended) is turned on its head with no  
warning - and often a continuing pretence of loyalty is maintained.  
Avowed enemies can't betray you, there is no pretence, no duplicity  
involved. Draco could not betray Harry - he hates his guts and  
everybody knows it. The conflict might be fun, but it's not betrayal  
- it can't be. With others the situation is different, so let's have  
a closer look at the variations on a theme, betrayal in all its  
manifestations and guises in HP.

Firstly, it all seems to go one way, 'goodies' turn out to be 'baddies'.
Um.
Correction.
There could be two major exceptions. But we'll deal with them at the  
end.

Simple betrayal is not very interesting, IMO. Episodes like Marrietta  
cuddling up to Dear Dolly to drop the DAs in the soup or Tom setting  
up a family member to take the fall for him may be nicely nasty, but  
I doubt if either did much soul-searching before doing the dirty. The  
same goes for magical coercion; the 'betrayal' is involuntary and the  
perpetrator does not act from his/her own personal convictions.  
Pretty boring, really.

It gets better when an internal conflict finds an individual wanting.  
Barty Crouch Jnr. was a nasty little scrote who more or less openly  
cast his vote for Voldy. But his father is much more interesting. He  
shows that he is wedded to his principles by throwing the son and  
heir in the slammer as an associate of undesirables. Yet he betrays  
those principles for love of his wife. For a pillar of rectitude like  
old Barty, this must have been a traumatic decision. But he did it.  
He gave his word and he stuck to it. He sheltered and protected Jnr.  
even after his wife's death, even though he had few if any warm  
feelings for the ungrateful little shit. Conversely, Jnr stayed loyal  
to his own beliefs and killed his father because of them. Poor old  
Barty. Just can't win, can you? There's something of a Greek tragedy  
about the Crouches.

Betrayal of family, bloodline or social class is a commonplace in HP.  
Mind you, there're different views depending on which side of the  
division you're standing. Marrying 'out', as it were, can cause  
ructions in even the best regulated of families, and in the end boils  
down to a choice between personal preference and family solidarity.  
The one leaving may have a sense of loss, but at least they'll have  
something that they feel is of more personal importance. Those left  
behind have no consolations whatsoever and striking the offender from  
the family escutcheon salves no wounds. One that belonged no longer  
does, rejecting the blood imperative that signifies family cohesion -  
an unforgivable act to those whose pedigree defines who and what they  
are.

Although we don't have all the details, Bagman's 'betrayal' looks as  
if it was the reverse. A minor celebrity, apparently comfortable with  
the norms of the society that has garlanded him with praise, he  
reverts and shows himself true to his blood. Following in his  
father's footsteps he cosies up to a DE, passing on (unknown though  
presumably helpful) information to the detriment of the society that  
feted him. He then has the bare-faced gall to call on his fame to  
side-step censure and judgement. Without doubt one of the enemies  
within, a smiling traitor.

Would you class Fudge along with Bagman? Depends on whether he was as  
thick as two short planks and a coward to boot, or whether he really  
was willing to compromise the safety of the WW by stubbornly denying  
that Voldy was back in exchange for political and financial support  
from the likes of Malfoy. Witting or unwitting, he provided aid and  
comfort to the enemy when his job was to do the opposite. He could do  
with the heavies sweating him in the back room to determine which.  
One would be ineptitude, the other betrayal.
Get your brass knuckles polished, lads.

Some may feel that Dobby betrayed the Malfoys, betrayed also the  
imperative that to serve is to obey. I'm not so sure. I think he was  
obeying Lucius's instructions. Slipping the leash once is believable,  
zipping backwards and forwards to Privet Drive and Hogwarts like a  
bloody yo-yo defies belief. Which would imply that Lucius has his own  
agenda, that he might, as per Wodehouse, donate the frozen optic to  
his Lord and Master. Voldy seems to suspect it could happen, too.  
This has real potential as a sub-plot. But will it be played out in  
glorious technicolour in book 7? Probably not, which is a pity.

How do you fancy DD as betrayer, hmm? It's a bit marginal, but  
arguable. At the very least it's the triumph of pragmatism and  
hypocrisy over fine sentiments. Twice.
First, Godric's Hollow. It's difficult to credit that he didn't keep  
a very close eye on the Potters and the Longbottoms. He knew what  
could happen and took some steps to provide extra protection - for  
Harry. Not, it seems, for James and Lily. Logic states that he did  
the same for Neville - *if* he didn't know in advance that the  
Potters were first on Voldy's little list and that that was as far  
down it as Voldy would get. The protection was cute; there'd be a  
magical blowback nailing  Voldy when he attacked Harry, but only if  
Lily were killed first.

There was that prophecy thingy; genuine or fake? Take your pick. What  
was important was that Voldy was winning - fairly easily. Harry was  
designed as a trap - but Lily had to die. Did she know this in  
advance? Can't tell. If she did, it was hopeless bravery; if she  
didn't she can be considered to have been betrayed by DD, a respected  
mentor sacrificing an unknowing, trusting but disposable pawn to  
advance his plan.

If the Dursleys really are the sole surviving remnants of Lily's  
bloodline, then DD had no choice but to park Harry on them.  
Unfortunate for Harry but better than some of the possible  
alternatives. But post-Privet Drive, the Hogwarts years, he's up to  
his old tricks again. He professes that the care and protection of  
Harry is his sole concern. Like hell. His main objective is the  
forging of Weapon!Harry, the last, best hope of the WW against the  
eventual triumph of Voldy. His prime concern is not for Harry as is,  
but for the putative Harry for what he can do.
As I say, it's marginal whether this is a betrayal of trust. Why  
don't we ask Harry what he feels about it?

Then the two odd men out.
Nothing simple (we hope) about this pair.
There's Peter.
Peter's ratings depend on what you think has been going on - and  
that'll be dependent on how simple you think the plot-lines are.
Simple - Peter is a scum-bag who caved in to a few threats and sold  
out James and Lily.
Complicated - Peter is playing a double-game at the behest of DD,  
either right from the beginning or as retribution for the Potters.
The simple solution is the most frequently accepted (especially after  
that dire performance in that bloody film) and has comparatively few  
loose ends that need to be tidied up.

The complicated version appeals to fans of Le Carre  and Deighton  
(shades of Fiona Samson through six of his books. Six? - now there's  
a coincidence!).  Those who think that all has not been as it has  
been presented usually refuse to believe that DD didn't know about  
the Marauders night-time school outings and also find it difficult to  
swallow Peter/Scabbers wandering round Hogwarts for years without DD  
latching on to who/what he was. The letter in PS/SS allowing students  
an owl, cat or toad is counted as a blatant clue.
The pros and cons have been fussed over many times on the boards, but  
for the purposes of this particular post are largely irrelevant.  
Whichever is correct Peter has/will betray somebody. Might even  
manage to betray both sides consecutively. Splendid! An equal  
opportunity traitor!

Dear old Snapey is an almost exact mirror image and his words,   
actions and possible intentions have received more examination than  
anything else in the books. He (supposedly) starts bad, sees the  
light and becomes DD's trusted hench-wizard. 'Supposedly' because in  
the Pensieve court scene DD says "He came back to us," a very  
intriguing statement. But now he's apparently switched back to Voldy  
again! Lovely jubbly! A triple! Possibly a quadruple agent; or maybe  
even quintuple?
Whoever it is he's betraying, he's very good at it, isn't he?

This piece has gone on long enough though it could be extended to two  
or three times the length. Betrayal is everywhere in the series, lots  
more examples than those I've mentioned; have a look for yourself.  
The books are fairly haunching with it in one form or another, but  
it's been accepted as so common-place that it ceases to surprise or  
to register as an almost ubiquitous plot /subplot driving-force in  
the tale.
Sort of not seeing the wood for the trees, though the forest  
stretches from horizon to horizon.
Though with even the most innocent repeatedly suspected of it on the  
boards it's definitely sunk into fandom's collective consciousness on  
one level.
And we mustn't forget those who aren't so innocent but proof is  
lacking - so far.
Watch it, Sirius. I've still got my eye on you.
Suspicious lot, aren't we?
Mind you, from what's gone before it's probably justified.

  Kneasy