What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Re: Draco's task (For M

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 157755

> Random832::
> You're _not_ being told that, though. You're merely drawing a
> conclusion from the things you have been told. Others have drawn a
> different conclusion. Also, I don't seriously think that Draco's
> orders were anything other than to kill DD. But that doesn't mean we
> know it for a fact. 

Magpie:
You're right in that--all story involves some interpretation.  I am 
interpreting, yes. As your (reasonable) interpretation of the words 
in CoS leads you to remember us "seeing" Ginny possessed--that's how 
I remember the book too.  I do, however, object to the idea that all 
interpretations are equal. 

R/Hr, to use another example, has been imo explicitly in canon since 
at the latest GoF, and JKR did all but say that in interviews I 
thought, but many H/Hr shippers claimed this wasn't so, that the 
groundwork was being laid for H/Hr.  Perhaps they thought it was 
already happening--I don't know H/Hr theories in detail.  Some still 
claim that they were right and HBP just arbitrarily went R/Hr--or 
even that JKR bowed to pressure and put it in when she was planning 
to go the other way. 

But I think that's a clear case of the interpretation just being 
wrong.  They missed that R/Hr was already going on, misunderstood 
what was going on in some scenes, scenes from at the latest GoF that 
depended on R/Hr as a motivation.  Obviously H/Hr-ers were welcome to 
have their own theories of what was going to happen, but I think it 
was significant that when H/G happened instead the author told them 
to read the books again rather than just saying sorry she didn't go 
their way. (H/G, btw, I think was just as easily predictable, but in 
a meta way, unlike R/Hr which was already happening.)

And since I brought up ships and I don't usually like to, I want to 
make clear I don't mean to make a general statement about H/Hr 
shippers interpreting wrong.  Guessing or not guessing a ship doesn't 
necessarily prove you've read correctly--there are some H/Hr shippers 
who are better at interpreting things correctly than some R/Hr or H/G 
shippers etc.  Shipping doesn't imply being a better reader.

> >>Random832:
> If "making up theories" is to be separate from "literary analysis",
> you can't analyze anything at all other than what's shown on the   
> page.

Magpie:
Exactly.  That's why they're different.  Analysis by definition means 
looking at what's on the page, breaking it apart, fitting it 
together.  It's exactly the opposite thing.  The theory impulse, 
which Snow explains below, embraces the idea that what's on the page 
is misleading and incomplete.  If analysis finds what's on the page 
misleading or inconclusive, it's because the text itself supports its 
being misleading or inconclusive.  We're starting from exactly the 
opposite rules of discussion.  

> Random832:
> I meant your objection seems similar to a hypothetical objection to
> arguing the (now known to be true) point that Voldemort had nothing 
to
> do with Lucius giving Ginny the diary, before that was generally
> known. Many people for q"knew" that it was Voldemort's plan, etc, 
and
> to say otherwise would be as disingenuous (and no more) as saying 
that
> Draco went to Voldemort first is now.

Magpie:
This is an interesting analogy, though, because you mentioned 
the "hypothetical objection" to the argument that Voldemort had 
nothing to do with Lucius giving Ginny the diary before it was 
known.  Many people "knew" it was Voldemort's plan.  And you've 
compared my objection to that objection.

But if you directly parallel it to this situation, it's the Cabinet 
First people who are the ones who "know" it was Voldemort's Plan, 
because that's the thing that's not in the text.  The reason I say 
that my theory here is the non-Voldemort involvement is because CoS 
on its own gives other motivations--it starts out giving us Arthur 
doing these raids to give Lucius a reason to feel hounded, to give 
him a reason to get rid of artefacts and go after Arthur to cut into 
his power.  

If I had I been on the list then I would have argued against that 
alternate theory that it was really Voldemort's idea for many of the 
same reasons as I argue against the many versions of this theory: 
there's no mention of Voldemort's involvement, and it interferes with 
Lucius' own straightforward motivations and the set up with the 
Weasleys.  I don't think I'd be bothered by it if it was presented as 
a theory, something people predicted was going to be revealed later, 
but if somebody said, "We have to remember Voldemort told Lucius to 
slip the diary into Ginny Weasley's stuff that day..." then I'd have 
piped up just the same and said, "No he didn't."  And so it would 
begin!:-)

Snow:
A strategist or theorizer attempts to get ahead of Faith by 
nitpicking what she has been told. We are not attempting to change 
the story but to foresee where the next book will take us by 
scrutinizing questionable dialog. 

Magpie:
Ah--and this is what I felt that this alternate version *was* 
basically--a prediction that this information we have now would be 
overturned.  I think that's why, as I said, I feel like we're just 
working at cross-purposes.  If one of us is getting the jump on the 
author and the other of us, me, was absolutely waiting to be fed 
things I didn't have yet and only wanting to chew over things to the 
smallest bits I had, it's two different things going on.  There are a 
lot of conversations in HP I have no interest in because I'm waiting 
to be spoon fed--Horcruxes, what they are, whether Harry is one, how 
he will destroy them or Voldemort, what's the deal with Snape--I may 
skim those conversations, but my instinct is just to file that 
under "Things for the author will tell me." 

HBP of course ends with twice as many unanswered questions as other 
books because it is one half of a story-but this one thread seems to 
me to be the part that's just HBP.  I have lots of suspicion--it's 
just more for the things in TheoryBay than in the books.:-)

Sydney:
Given the screen-time Draco gets to complete his arc, this is more 
appropriate level of change, IMO, than one from totally-not-caring-
about-collateral-damage professional to not a killer.

Magpie:
Really I wanted to quote the whole post but I'll just say what you 
described was the way I saw the story as well--and while I obviously 
am a Draco fan, I feel like I'd see it the same way even if I was 
indifferent to the character because of what we're given and the 
emotional beats JKR seems to be hitting--emotional beats being, as 
you said, usually the way she tells story.

In PoA, Harry's not killing Sirius was a similar realization, but 
with different meaning because it was a different story (a good 
example of how the same actions can have different meanings in a 
different story).  If all that matters in Draco's story is the moment 
he can't kill, the story we're reading is essentially "How The Grinch 
Stole Christmas" (the Seuss version--haven't seen the live action).  
Draco's heart is two sizes too small, and he's going along trying to 
do evil and frustrated at set backs, and then, faced with Cyndi Lou 
Who, who is then kind to him, suddenly his heart grows.  I think if 
the Grinch had showed up in Malfoy Manor to see Draco's toys I think 
he would have cried and run to his mother.  He's no Grinch.:-)  

-m