A subtle subplot about the perils of power

One of my favourite subplots in The Goblet of Fire is the one involving Ludo Bagman, a group of Goblins and finally Fred and George Weasley. It doesn't get much air time in the novel (it doesn't even appear in the film) but it is yet another example of how thoroughly well planned these books are and the depth of detail Rowling goes into to make the stories come alive and to make her characters real.

Early in the novel, we get a glimpse of the problems F&G face in trying to launch their business: Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes. Sorry. Did I say "problems" plural? I mean "problem" singular since the only problem the twins seem to face in making their business a success comes in the form of their mother: Molly Weasley.

And, to be honest, I don't get what her complaint is. Sure, the boys didn't do as well on their O.W.L. exams as she hoped they would but does that really mean she has to block their efforts to start a business and make some money over the summer holiday?

That aside, the Bagman-Goblin-Weasley plot begins in earnest when the jolly ol' beater shows up at the Quidditch World Cup and tries to convince Mr. Weasley to venture "a flutter on the match". Disappointed that the elder Weasley is only willing to wager a single Galleon on a straight out Ireland-to-win bet, Bagman comes alive when F&G show up with a brilliant fake wand and a complicated bet: "that Ireland win -- but Viktor Krum gets the snitch".

Although Bagman says that there is "no chance" that their prediction will come true, he is so delighted by their wager that he promises "excellent odds" and adds five Galleons to their original 37-Galleon-plus bet.

An Aside
What kind of odds do you think Bagman would give F&G on their bet?

As we all know, it is highly unlikely that a Seeker would capture the snitch when his/her team is trailing by more than 150 points. There is just no sense in it. The Seeker would probably bide his/her time, try to keep the opposing seeker from capturing the snitch while hoping that his/her team will score some goals and fight back into the game.

It would take a rare set of circumstances that would convince a Seeker to catch the snitch, knowing that, in doing so, he/she was losing the game for the team.

Circumstances such as actually took place that year in the Quidditch World Cup: Ireland was so much superior to Bulgaria on the goal-scoring side of the game that Bulgaria's only real hope of winning came if its superb Seeker, Viktor Krum, could capture the snitch before Ireland built up too much of a lead. Once Ireland was in front by more than 150 points and there was no hope of Bulgaria fighting back, Krum chose to catch the snitch and thus limit the number of points by which his team lost the match.

So... what odds did Bagman give F&G on their wager? 5 to 1 seems too low. I would say that Bulgaria was probably a 5 to 1 underdog just to win the match. 10 to 1 doesn't seem enough either: remember, F&G bet on an extremely unlikely scenario, one that Bagman himself admits has little chance of coming true.

20 to 1? That's more like it but, to be honest, I would say the bet is more of a 50 to 1 longshot. So F&G stood to win at least 840 Galleons (at 20 to 1) and perhaps 2100 Galleons (at 50 to 1).

Wow. That's a big bag of gold!

No wonder F&G don't want to let it go. And no wonder Bagman doesn't seem to be in a position to pay.

Jo Rowling does a wonderful job of stitching this minor subplot into the fabric of the book. She shows F&G approaching Bagman, hands out for their payment, as soon as the World Cup has ended.
Is it possible, however, that Bagman, while doing the announcing of the game, was able to collect up between 800 and 2100 Galleons of Leprechaun gold? How could F&G carry all that money as they walked back to their tents?

Rowling later has the kids stumble across "a group of Goblins, who were cackling over a sack of gold they had undoubtedly won betting on the match" with Bagman, no doubt. The Goblins are delighted but, like F&G, will soon find out that Bagman has paid them off in Leprechaun gold, which is worthless. That puts Bagman in a very bad place, because you don't want to get on the bad side of a bunch of Goblins.

Rowling then has Harry, Hermione and Ron encounter Bagman again, this time in the wood. They can see "that a great change had come over Bagman. He no longer looked bouffant and rosy-faced; there was no more spring in his step. He looked very white and strained."

Bagman is clearly under stress, stress we find out later caused by the fact that he has over-extended himself and will soon be found out to be a fraud and a criminal. Worse, he will have the Goblins after him.

Rowling inserts of all these little scenes, these little hints, subtly and without fanfare into the larger narrative. They literally get lost in the drama caused by the appearance of the Dark Mark.

Again, it's a sign of her strength as a writer and her careful planning of the novel. Very early on, she plants the seeds that are required to set the stage for F&G's ongoing efforts, and ultimate failure, to get Ludo Bagman to pay them what he owes them on the bet. Not only do they not gain the winnings they are owed, they also lose their life savings in the process.

And, with those life savings, they lose any hope of opening their joke shop and finding their destiny.

Throughout the rest of the novel, we will see the twins growing increasingly desperate in their pursuit of Bagman and increasingly frustrated by their failures. It's beautifully written and, when thought through carefully by the reader, a remarkably troubling subplot, the story of a powerful public figure taking advantage of two impoverished young people and of the powerlessness of those young people to obtain justice.

There is no way out for Fred and George. I don't think they ever collect from Bagman and it is only because Harry gives them his Tri-Wizard Tournament winnings that they are able to continue to pursue their dreams.

Character introductions show J.K.'s mastery

One of the many things that stands out for me as I read The Goblet of Fire is the mastery with which J.K introduces us to new characters. Using carefully chosen adjectives to describe each one when they first appear, she guides (and often manipulates) our reaction to them.

Her skill is most noticeable when she introduces two characters in close proximity to whom she wants us to react very differently, like Ludo Bagman and Barty Crouch Sr. early in the book and then Professor Karkaroff and Madame Maxime later on.

Bagman receives a very kind, rather lengthy description when he first arrives, concluding with, "His nose was squashed (probably broken by a stray Bludger, Harry thought), but his round eyes, short blond hair and rosy complexion made him look like a very overgrown schoolboy." The man is immediately likeable from this description and his happy-go-lucky, boyish personality only adds to his attraction, both for us as readers and for the other characters in the book.

Three pages later, Rowling introduces Barty Crouch as a "contrast with Ludo Bagman": "Barty Crouch was a stiff, upright, elderly man, dressed in an impeccably crisp suit and tied. The parting in his short gray hair was almost unnaturally straight and his narrow toothbrush moustache looked as though he trimmed it using a slide-rule." Just look at some of the adjectives she uses in this description (stiff, crisp, unnatural, narrow); every one of them is intended to make a young reader dislike this man. I won't even go into the "slide-rule" description of his moustache: how many members of Rowling's target audience would even know what a "slide rule" is?

Ironic, isn't it, that Bagman turns out to be a bit of con-man, ripping off Fred and George after their winning bet and fleeing from Goblins trying to collect on a debt, while Crouch, though always stiff and unapproachable, ends up being a staunch, utterly trustworthy opponent of the Dark Arts who dies at the hands of his evil son?

Rowling carefully controls how we first react to these characters, only to completely undermine our impressions later in the book.

Later, J.K. introduces us to the two headmasters of Europe's magical schools: Madame Maxime and Professor Karkaroff. In this case, she plays it straight. The initial descriptions of the characters turn out to be accurate predictors of their behaviour.

Madam Maxime is described as "unnaturally large", with "a handsome, olive-skinned face, large, black, liquid looking eyes and a rather beaky nose. Her hair was drawn back in a shining knob at the base of her neck. She was dressed from head to foot in black satin, and many magnificent opals gleamed at her throat and on her thick fingers." She is later described as having a "gracious smile".

Okay, so it's not the most attractive description. I'm not sure the words "unnaturally", "liquid looking" or "beaky" are particularly favourable. But that is balanced out by the words "handsome", "magnificent" and "gracious", suggesting that Madame Maxime will prove a different sort of person, perhaps a difficult sort of person, but not without her positive qualities.

Now compare that to the first description J.K. gives us of the head of Durmstrang: "Karkaroff had a fruity, unctuous voice; when he stepped into the light pouring from the front doors of the castle, they saw that he was tall and thin like Dumbledore, but his white hair was short, his goatee (finishing with a slight curl) did not entirely hide his rather weak chin." She continues the description several lines later with this "his teeth were rather yellow, and Harry noticed that his smile did not extend to his eyes, which remained cold and shrewd."

I will leave out the objectionable use of the term "fruity", a rare bit of potentially homophobic nastiness Rowling unfortunately indulges in from time to time.

Beyond that, we get a very negative impression of this man. From the "weak chin" to the yellow teeth to the cold, shrewd eyes, Karkaroff is described in a way that makes us wary of him from the outset. He "hides" things and smiles false smiles. He cannot be trusted.

To my mind, these descriptions are further examples of Rowling's brilliance as a writer. It is clear that she is in complete command of her craft, masterfully guiding our reactions to her new characters. As it turns out, of course, we learn quickly that J.K. is just as likely to use her powers to mislead us (and therefore make future plot developments more effective) as she is to use them to guide us down the proper path with regard to a particular character.