Voldemort's faithful servant

[caliburncy]

No: HPFGUIDX 31801

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "caliburncy" <caliburncy at y...> wrote:
> > So the entire point of that graveyard speech ("one too cowardly
> > to return [etc.]") is to carry out this misdirection. (snip) Most 
> > likely they will guess Karkaroff, Snape, and Bagman upon first 
> > reading
> 
> On first reading, I thought probably Bagman was the coward and I
> was twisting my brain whether it was Snape or Karkaroff who was
> loyally serving Voldemort. It could even have been Bagman, but I
> was almost praying that it wasn't Snape, secure in Dumbledore's
> trust as he is.

Oh dear, yes, I should clarify: Your Mileage May Vary.  It was 
probably a tad presumptuous of me to guess at how most people would 
have interpreted that "missing three" graveyard speech upon their 
first reading, seeing as how I was never personally even in 
that "intended" circumstance (I had already guessed Moody before that 
speech, just not that it was really Crouch, Jr. *posing* as Moody, 
which when I read it I suddenly realized: Ah, so that's how it 
works!).  So I really don't know for sure how most people would have 
interpreted that speech upon first reading, I was just making an 
assumption based on what seems to be the conclusion we 
were "intended" to reach if all the misdirective elements functioned 
properly.  Perhaps I'll have to go take another in-depth look at GOF 
and see if the misdirective elements pan out less clearly than I 
first assumed, so as to lead to multiple "intended" conclusions on 
first reading.

And that brings up another thing I left out: I discounted Snape in my 
explanation as yet another layered complication.  Oops, simple 
omission.  Luke and The Bad Posting Day, I suppose.

Anyway, the main point is the same: I am fairly confident that the 
ambiguity of the graveyard speech was simply a necessity as a 
literary device per my explanation and is therefore less likely 
(though certainly not impossible) to be a "double-cross" or hint 
regarding any future books.

But then you all knew that already, whether you agree or not (since 
it's certainly not a firm case), so I have to wonder why I posted 
that in the first place.  <sigh>

-Luke