What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not?

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 157726

> >Magpie:
> >This is more like: "Here's an alternate theory for the plan in 
CoS: Ginny
> >faked the whole diary possession to get Harry to notice her."
> 
> Random832:
> No, because there we're _shown_ that the diary possession happened,
> we're shown Diary!Tom from Harry's perspective, etc. 

Magpie:
No, we're not shown the possession.  We're not in Ginny's or Tom's 
pov.  We see lots of other stuff, like Diary!Tom, and we hear people 
tell us things about what happened.  When the book is over we have 
just that--the things written in the text--to understand the story 
with.  In HBP we're told LV has a task for Draco, we're shown Snape 
taking a Vow to do it, we're shown two murder attempts going awry, 
we're shown Draco finally facing Dumbledore on the Tower, we hear 
Dumbledore saying how Draco's been trying to kill him, we hear Draco 
giving some details of how he worked those previous murder attempts, 
we have a scene about whether or not Draco's going to do it and 
whether he's a killer, we see Draco lowering his wand.  Then we we 
have Draco ultimately lowering his wand followed by DEs saying that 
Draco's got to do it referring to his killing Dumbledore, and then 
Snape killing Dumbledore.   

Random832:

In HBP, we're
> told that Voldemort has some sort of plot for Draco to carry out, 
and
> then we're shown Snape killing Dumbledore.
> 
> Note that we're also told that Snape has no idea what the plot is
> himself. You are, again, confusing your interpretation of the book
> with the actual content of the book when you keep talking 
about "the
> canon version" and accusing anyone with a different interpretation 
of
> "rewriting it".

Magpie:
I've never denied Snape doesn't know about the Cabinets.  Snape 
himself claims to know the task that Draco has been given, which 
evidence points to being the task to kill Dumbledore, imo.  None of 
which as reasonable interpretation gets near the actual *writing* of 
off-stage scenes never referred to that make up a lot of this 
thread.  It's not that what I am doing can't be called reasonable 
interpretation, it's that making up new ideas not in the story is 
not interpretation.  It's what usually in fandom gets called 
theorizing.

Jordan: 
> I think this is more like the debate on whether Lucius acted alone 
or
> if this was a contingency plan set up by Voldemort. Many people
> thought the latter for a long time, I certainly did - now we know 
for
> sure it was the former. I'm sure that if we were talking about COS
> before that had come to light, you would be accusing anyone who
> thought Lucius was acting alone of having an "alternate theory" 
that
> is "rewriting the plot", because it being a plan to bring Voldemort
> back was the more obvious theory - even before we knew about
> Horcruxes. But we've seen that what is obvious is not always 
correct.

Magpie:
I would not be accusing anyone of rewriting CoS if they were doing 
that unless they were doing what they were doing here: claiming that 
we knew for a fact that Lucius was working with Voldemort (as in "we 
must remember that Draco went to Voldemort first...") and then 
changing scenes to have meanings that require unreasonable 
twisting.  

I have said on numerous occasions I'm not saying that people can't 
have this as a theory.  But particularly if I'm being told something 
is going on in front of me in the book there's no reason not to 
subject it to the same tests any other interpretation would get. 
Usually the "making up theories" part of the list is separate from 
the "literary analysis" part, which is why it isn't a problem.  This 
thread crashed them together.  Seems this is a bad idea, because 
there's two different things going on and all of us are irritated at 
being expected to play the other's game. 

-m