Cabinet FIRST! One last time.

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 157765

Steve:

> In the /reality/ of the theory, Draco simply makes it known 
> through a set of inconsequential circumstances (condensed
> version) that he knows a secret way into Hogwarts. Once 
> that information reachs Voldemort, by whatever means, he 
> calls Draco to a confab. In that conference, Voldemort 
> makes his assignments. 

Sydney:

This does indeed make sense and would make a good plot... but it's
just plain not in the book.  Despite endless opportunities to have
someone mention it.  It's not like this is a documentary, and JKR just
didn't have the footage!  

I feel like we're looking at a still-life of a bowl of fruit, and you
are vociferously arguing that there is a fig on the far side of the
bowl where we can't see it.  You are using many fine arguments about
how figs would be in season at the same time as the rest of the
visible fruit;  and how figs are symbolic of this and that, and so the
painter would have gained from having a fig in the painting even if we
can't see it.

But there is no fig, or a corner of a fig, or even a fig-leaf hinting
at a fig.  Neither, for that matter, is there a bowl of fruit.  It's
an illusion of a bowl of fruit, created by putting certain tones of
paint in a certain arragement.  If we can't see it, how can it be in
the painting?


Steve:

> I've said before, that my theory does not alter the plot in
> any way. 


Sydney:

Well, I'm afraid it does.  The plot as presented in the book, is
Voldemort has a plan to punish Lucius by killing Draco.  You're not
mentally filling in the far sides of the apples;  you're inserting
another piece of fruit that isn't there.


Steve:

> Why Draco? Why not someone else? Well, secrecy for one.
> Also, who better than Draco to fix the cabinet. He's aleady
> at Hogwarts. As is seen from people's reactions, no one 
> would expect Draco to be personally working with Voldemort.
> Draco is smart, he's a good student, and has a reasonable
> knowledge of magic, and can generally be trusted. And, of
> course, the juicy /revenge/ aspect. If not Draco, then, 
> realistically, who?

Sydney:

It's not "and of course the juicy revenge aspect"  The juicy revenge
aspect IS THE PLOT.  This is the part where you alter the plot.


Steve:

> Finally, you keep asking for canon, but before I give it
> let me point out that Spinner's End does not confirm Betsy's
> or Magpie's view. I think their interpretation is the way
> that JKR wanted us to interpret the books while the story
> was playing out. But Spinner's End only expresses Narcissa's
> views, it doesn't confirm them. 


Sydney:

What I find so strange about this argument, is that the distinction
between Narcissa's and Snape's and Draco's and everyone-else-in-a
position-to-give-us-exposition-version, and your version, is so
slight.  Of course we should be suspicious of things not being as they
seem in these books.  JKR's entire strategy of plotting is based
around there being a point in the books where she 'flips', and what
happened is something completely different from what we thought.  

It's a technique reminiscent of 'trick drawings', what is called
"rival schemata ambiguity"--
http://www.planetperplex.com/en/img.php?id=5 . The Victorians were
very fond of 'topsy-turvy' drawings (a nice collection here: 
http://www.planetperplex.com/en/upsidedown.html )-- a drawing
introduced with a caption, "a horse in a field... or is it!" and then
you flip the drawing upside down and it's actually, I dunno, the Mona
Lisa.  Of course we're all getting jumpy and second-guessing
everything we're told! 

But what's going on here, is that we're shown a drawing JKR has
labelled 'Rabbit' (or, if you think there's a trick, "Rabbit... or is
it!"), and you're saying, "it's not a rabbit, it's a.... lesser
variegated Welsh *HARE*!  See how she's cunningly not revealed the
characteristic stripe of dark fur that normally tips the ears of this
species!"

I mean, if she's labelled it 'rabbit', and you think it's a trick, we
should be looking for ducks, not other lagomorphs!


Steve:

> Neither is Spinner's End confirmed. We are made to think 
> Narcissa is expressing Voldemort's motivation. But she is 
> an extremely distraught mother worried about her husband's 
> screw up and her son involvement way over his head. She has 
> ever reason to worry, but we have no proof that her version 
> is the correct version. 

Sydney:

JKR has a very limited set of means to convey plot points.  She either
sticks tightly to what Harry knows, or she shows us a scene 'cold',
without any helpful narrative additions.   She doesn't have any way to
express Voldemort's motivation, except through dialogue. We don't have
a present narrative voice who can come in authoritatively and let us
know.  If characters are lying or mistaken, then we're looking at a
'flip', and it should be something quite large that flips all three
characters, because we wouldn't JUST have to correct the Draco
plotline, but why Narcissa and Snape are wrong.  Misleading an
audience in this way is an expensive strategy because you have to pay
off what the lie is about, AND why the lie happened, AND soothe the
understandably ruffled audience who has been taken for a ride.  

If we've been taken for a ride and Narcissa and Snape are mistaken, I
want a fun, exciting, roller-coaster ride, not three wrong turns and
asking for directions and coming to the party 20 minutes late.


Steve:

> Admittedly, I am filling in a little of the off-page back-
> story, but that back story fits my interpretation of the 
> book to a tee. 

Sydney:

But, it's still a fig that's not the bowl.  It's a personal addition
that you are making extraneous to the book.  It may be to your
satisfaction, but as for me, I'm not about to start working the
Invisible Fig into how I understand the layout of the bowl.


Steve:

> Still, it has been a hell of a fun discussion and a very 
> nice break from Horcruxes and Snape.

Sydney:

Yay!  I'm having fun with this one, I hope everyone else is too...