Cabinet FIRST! One last time.

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 157784


> > 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.
> 
> Random832:
> No, it's not. Regardless of anything else, that's NEVER presented as
> anything other than Narcissa's interpretation.

Sydney:

It's also Snape's opinion of Voldemort's objective;  Draco's
realization at the All is Revealed scene ("they all thought I'd
die!");  and Dumbledore's "This is what happened and what we've all
learned" summation at the end of the book ("forgive me, but Voldemort
probably expects it" [draco being killed in the attempt]).  I mean,
that's rather a lot.  That is, as I said, "the plot as presented in
the book".  I'm not yet so paranoid about the books that I'm going to
discount anything short of an insert in a different font saying: "Do
not doubt this part;  this is true-- love, JKR".  *Especially* if it's
the end of the book and I've gotten the Dumbledore wrap-up (and
believe me, I am fully anticipating the Dumbeldore's Portrait Wrap Up
of everything in Book VII).

If I get a couple of characters with some dialogue; people's actions
following on in a clear cause-and-effect manner;  people having a
genuine emotional reaction to what they say is going on; and a clear
beginning-middle-end arc to a coherent, gapless story (or as gapless
as ol' Jo 'Plothole' Rowling normally does), I'm just not in the
market to break my normal way of reading.  I should point out that in
a series with Memory modification and Time-turners and Polyjuice,
there is hardly ANYTHING that 'happens' that can't be doubted.  

I'm not going to start doubting a perfectly good story until someone
shows me something that's *actually in the text* to MAKE me doubt it.
  Not stuff that that could theoretically be in the book but isn't.

Random:

 And it is _clear_ from
> the text that Narcissa does not have all the facts.
> 
> Narcissa cannot be relied on to supply any information that can be
> used as a basis for deciding when or who discovered the cabinet, and
> who told whom about it, because she herself _never finds out_ about
> the cabinet.

Sydney:

What *is* this obsession with the cabinets?  That's not even Draco's
only plan: he has a Cursed Necklace, and Poisoned Wine, and, given
this dime-novel set of murder weapons, probably a Polynesian Native
with a Blow-Dart stashed somewhere.  

The overall commonality of the Cabinet-firsters (if I may so term this
movement), as far as I can tell, is a core belief that the
Cabinet-plot is hugely important to Voldemort as a means to kill
Dumbledore. But this isn't supported by the text.  The text has Snape,
the guy who is supposed to kill Dumbledore "in the end" (as he
expresses it), not being in on the cabinets at all, and seeing as he's
*at* Hogwarts, not needing a Secret Passage to begin with.  I mean,
this is the only guy on the scene who has a hope in heck of even
ruffling Dumbledore's beard, and he's not a factor in the Awesome
Cabinet Plan.  You know, Dumbledore, the guy who kicked the ass of
Voldemort a couple of weeks before the assignment of killing
Dumbledore was given to... Draco Malfoy?

Why are the DE's that get sent on this mission more notable for being
likely to cause a bit of havoc in the school, than being likely to
best the Greatest Wizard that Ever Lived in a duel?  Who could
possibly, in a million years, have anticipated that Dumbledore would
have gone out and drunk a gallon of poison before arranging himself in
front of Draco?  If this really was a kill-Dumbledore plan and not a
kill-Draco plan, well, what was the plan?


-- Sydney, Still Not Seeing the Invisible Fig, or the Fig-Shaped Gap,
or the vague reflection of a Fig on a goblet