[HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 166409

>> Magpie:
>> Huh??? What do you mean they didn't seem to have a mission? They >> 
>> stated their mission several times and did it. Their mission was to >> 
>> get Draco to Dumbledore so that Draco could kill him. Their being >> 
>> second-stringers goes along well with that as well. The death of >> Draco 
>> Malfoy is not an important mission!
>
> Jen:  I thought the mission was 'kill Dumbledore'?  Isn't that what you,> 
> Carol and others are arguing?  'The death of Draco Malfoy is not an> 
> important mission' sounds like you are saying that Voldemort *doesn't*> 
> expect Draco to suceed and that he will die.  That the mission *is* for
> Draco to die and Lucius to be punished.  I'm not arguing with that! > 
> Also, I completely agree that Draco and the DE's believe their mission> is 
> to deliver Draco to Dumbledore and that's what they do.


Magpie:
This is where Carol's and my arguments are getting mixed up. Threads can get 
confusing.:-) It looks like it's actually you and I that are agreeing. Carol 
is arguing that the mission is to kill Dumbledore, I'm arguing that it's 
about Draco getting killed trying to do it. Which is why I now understand my 
misunderstanding in the part that I snipped about Draco knowing the Order 
wasn't there.

I was answering just thinking that Draco assumed there would be security so 
he would need DEs to get to Dumbledore. Now I see you were asking why he 
wouldn't have been given a more specific, better idea of what he was facing 
if LV's trying to kill Dumbledore. And my reason for that is just what you 
are I think saying, that Voldemort's not running this operation any more 
than he ran the necklace caper. It's just Draco on his own, and he doesn't 
know these things. (I did remember Draco being in touch with Rosemerta about 
when Dumbledore would be back--I was just focused on my mistaken impression 
that you were asking why Draco didn't know he'd need anyone else to fight 
with him.)

Jen:>
> What's VERY different in HBP from Voldemort plots in the other books> is 
> we never actually hear some version of the plan and the events> that 
> follow *in Voldemort's own words*. What we do hear is supposition by> 
> other characters.  And it isn't clear what each of these characters may> 
> or may not know, or may or may not want to reveal to each other.  The> 
> part of HBP that is fact when it comes to Voldemort is the Horcruxes, imo.

Magpie:
True. HBP is difficult in many ways because Harry isn't even the focus of 
the plot we're seeing. JKR has to give us information all second hand and in 
limited ways, or through eavesdropping. I assumed I was supposed to accept 
it anyway, since nothing else was put forward and it fit with what happened. 
If I'm going to accept anything else, somebody in canon would have to 
suggest it to me and it might change the story, imo.

Jen:
Therefore, I think it's perfectly valid
> to speculate that Voldemort has reasons for wanting to be back inside> 
> Hogwarts since he's tried several times unsuccessfully, and that Draco> 
> offerering him a way inside no one knew about *could* have been> something 
> that interested him very much.

Magpie:
He definitely could. I just don't see that he was getting himself back in 
there in HBP. It seems like other suggestions for what he was doing don't 
fit what the DEs or anyone did when they got there. But it could be 
something like his planning to kill Harry--it's something he wants to do, 
but sometimes a specific plan isn't about it.

I guess I thought that was one of the major themes of HBP, that this 
throwaway thing Voldemort was doing while really being interested in other 
things was something Dumbledore and Snape had siezed on for themselves. And 
underestimating Draco (and thus kids in general) was also a theme, which is 
why the invasion of Hogwarts was wonderfully anti-climactic. Not the 
well-planned assault fans might have imagined, but Draco figuring out a 
backdoor to save his family.

Jen:
> Trelawney not attending the funeral could either way. Her staying in> her 
> room would be consistent with the Trelawney Harry has known for> much of 
> the series, if not exactly in OOTP and HBP when she started> to venture 
> out more. But the real evidence I see for Trelawney not> actually being in 
> the castle at the time of the funeral is another> characterization point: 
> Despite whatever grief she may have
> sincerely felt for the loss of Dumbledore, she would be all over her> card 
> reading coming true and want everyone to know about it. She's> acutely 
> aware people think her a fraud and now has a star witness in> Harry about 
> her very accurate and literal prediction this time. This> would wipe the 
> stain off her record and get 'Dobbin' (hehe) out of> the castle in her 
> mind, which seem to be her primary concern in HBP.
> She would *not* pass up this chance imo.

Magpie:
That's a canon argument, you're right.:-) Though I still will wait to see if 
it's connected to Voldemort's plan in the castle that night. None of the DEs 
seemed to get anywhere near her. I am definitely open to considering where 
Trelawney's going to be used now.

> Jen:  My thoughts on Wormtail are not fully formed, but since he was not> 
> one of the DE's present at the battle, and *if* there was something 
> specific> Voldemort wanted out of the castle, then I see the possibility 
> that he> entered through the Vanishing Cabinent as a rat, before the door 
> was> sealed, and is now in Hogwarts.  So that would play out in DH.

Magpie:
That would be okay with me, since it would just be Peter coming in there 
with him for his own plot in DH. Though if Harry's not there Peter might not 
have any reason to be there. I can't predict what will happen but right now 
it seems like few important people are going to be there.

>> Magpie:
>> Targetting the Malfoys is a wonderful plan, especially for someone >> 
>> like Voldemort. Not everything he does has to be based on removing >> 
>> obstacles and killing Harry. People don't not get punished on the >> Bad 
>> Side because Voldemort doesn't care about anything that doesn't
>> kill Harry. On the contrary, he tortures for drama, for amusement, >> and 
>> to establish his dominance. The example he makes of Draco is >> 
>> well-chosen for the point he's making to his followers and probably >> 
>> quite personally satisfying to him as well. I don't understand why
>> it must be wrong just because it's not a plan like the ones in GoF >> and 
>> OotP.
>
> Jen:  I don't think we read Voldemort the same way.  He is ruled> by his 
> obsessions, one of the subjects of several character stories> in HBP.  LV 
> makes mistakes when he underestimates love or the> young, and it will 
> likely prove true he made mistakes with Draco> that will help the other 
> side in DH.
>
> What he doesn't do is waste much time on his followers.  They are> there 
> to carry out his plans, his goals, his quest, whether that's> chasing 
> immortality, being reborn, obtaining the prophecy, etc.  > In the 
> graveyard, LV said this to Lucius:  'Your exploits at the> Quidditch World 
> Cup were fun, I daresay...but might not your> energies have been better 
> directed toward finding and aiding> your master?' (GOF, chap 33, p. 650, 
> US).  Spending a year
> torturing the Malfoys is a year wasted on what he believes
> are more important pursuits (in my view)--figuring out why his> powers 
> don't work on Harry, how to get around Dumbledore's> protections, etc.

Magpie:
But he's *not* wasting time on the Malfoys. Telling Draco to kill Dumbledore 
and seeing what happens takes no more time than any of the other ways he's 
dealt with his followers. It's more like his trick on Peter with the hand 
than an obsession. I'm up for finding out what else he was doing during the 
year if it comes into DH, but I don't see temperment as any reason to think 
he couldn't be punishing the Malfoys. He had good reason to be angry at 
Lucius, and we've heard him go emo over followers who betray him. In the 
graveyard, while he's telling Lucius to spend his time on better things, 
isn't he making his followers listen to his big story and kiss his robes? I 
think this guy wastes plenty of time on his followers in general, setting 
them against each other, terrorizing them demanding things of him. That 
opening GoF scene with Peter he sounds like a maudlin housewife whining that 
her husband doesn't love her anymore and she feels fat.

> > Magpie:
> <SNIP>

> >> As to what parts are a standalone and what are not, I look at the > > 
> >> things that were resolved and the things that were not. HBP is full > > 
> >> of things that are not resolved, which is what makes it the first > > 
> >> part of a two-part story. The things that were solved were solved. >

> Alla:\

> Well,sure, except reasonable minds can differ on what was solved and > 
> what was not. Things that seemed to be resolved to you may not be to > 
> somebody else IMO.

Magpie:

To an extent, yes. But I think if a character has an idea or a question 
about something, and then at the end of the book that question is answered 
or the idea is corrected with explanation etc., most people know that it's 
solved. Otherwise there's no fun because you don't know if it's going to be 
overturned yet again. Carol provided good examples of these, imo. Quirrel 
was trying to steal the stone and tried to knock Harry off his broom. Moody 
was really Barty Crouch with the real Moody locked in a trunk. Peter 
betrayed James and Lily.

If you're returning to the sotry and again and saying that moment of 
resolution and answer was false, then what happens when you read it again, 
you know? The first answer risks becoming trash--only that's still the plot 
of the book on re-reads.  When Harry's just mistaken in mid-book his 
misconception is part of his character journey. It's usually saying 
something about his understanding of people or the past or what he wants to 
think. Being wrong about who put his name in the Goblet or who sent the 
Dementors is just Harry and the reader being given false information.

> > Magpie:>

<SNIP>> > So whatever we find out about Snape is something we still have to 
 > > find out--and it will encompass everything, not just HBP, though of > > 
course the murder of Dumbledore is part of it. But clearly that > > aspect 
is being set up as a question, because all the characters > are > > asking 
it at the end of the book.

> Alla:>

> Sure, but here is a good example. Snape role may be set up as a > 
> question, but I absolutely for example do not see Snape murdering > 
> Dumbledore being set up as a question. It is **very** clear to me > that 
> Snape killed him, although I can see the reasons are ambiguous.>

> But for some people ( or many) the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore > is 
> also a questions mark, so reasonable minds do differ on that one > as well 
> IMO.

Magpie:

Yes, and I was thinking of that as a difference, actually. I do realize that 
some people think the fact of Snape killing Dumbledore at all is unresolved, 
while I'm not one of them. So I do admit there are grey areas. But I think 
it's part of the greater unresolved stuff, like exactly what Snape is all 
about. That, I think will be a resolution that doesn't leave anyone confused 
about it. At this point I tend to think the questions about the AK etc. are 
just different versions of the real question, which is about Snape. Whatever 
that answer is will answer it all. It's really about whether Snape is DDM! 
or ESE!, I think.

> Magpie:

> > The same is not true for the Draco Plot. <SNIP> And ultimately what > 
> > happens? A long confessional scene where it's > > revealed: He's 
> > supposed to kill Dumbledore. He sent the necklace > and > > the mead. He 
> > confirms everyone thought he would die. Dumbledore > > confirms 
> > Voldemort would kill him in his place. The DEs show up to > > force him 
> > to kill Dumbledore and not back out. Snape arrives and > > kills DD in 
> > his place, just as he promised. Draco learns he's not a > > killer, and 
> > sees the glimmer of new possibilities.

> > Alla:


> Well, yes, but not quite IMO. That **is** what happened, I just do > not 
> necessarily agree that we know for sure why it is happened that > way.

Magpie:

I know that this plot is more difficult to look at this way, because it's 
not Harry's so we have to get our information second hand, through shady 
characters and through limited conversations. I don't feel comfortable 
saying that JKR could *never* tell us that things actually happen a 
different way, if the real answer supported all the important parts of the 
story.

For instance, let's say if there was a story where Voldemort was punishing 
Lucius strictly because the diary was destroyed and people thought that 
seemed a bit excessive for a diary, and then later it was revealed that aha! 
The diary was more important than we thought because it wasn't just a diary 
it was a Horcrux! That kind of thing would be fine, imo, because it doesn't 
destroy anything in the previous story, it just adds a layer to it. 
Something that added to this story or spun off from it without changing 
everything completely (like the Cabinet Plot easily spins off of the 
Montague scenes in OotP) would be fine.

But when people ask things like "Why was Voldemort making Draco Malfoy kill 
Dumbledore?" it seems odd to not just point to the book and say the reasons 
we're given in canon, of which there's only one. Having a theory that we're 
going to find out more, imo, is different than claiming that the explanation 
in HBP doesn't hold up on its own and so can't be true and is presented as a 
mystery, because canon seems to suggest that it's fine. We could find out an 
answer that added to it or was related to it--I just don't agree with the 
premise that the version we're given doesn't hold up. Like, CoS works fine 
without knowing that the diary was a Horcrux.>

> Magpie:

> <SNIP>

> > There are plenty of things in HBP that are obviously unresolved > > 
> > without unresolving stuff that was already resolved. Draco's plan > > 
> > has been detonated and confessed--what's to drag out into another > > 
> > book? at more is there to be said about it? What good is gained > > from 
> > finding out Draco was wrong about it? That Voldemort was > really > > 
> > trying to get Trelawney and Dumbledore sent her away? Would we > > 
> > really care?

>

> Alla:

> Yes, it is just the unresolved part is not the same for everybody and > if 
> we say learn that Voldemort was the mastermind behind UV it can be > very 
> interesting IMO. Not that I really invested in it by the way. To > me it 
> will not change the desire to see Snape suffer one bit :)

Magpie:

True, but we're already waiting for the answer of who the "mastermind" 
behind the UV is, aren't we? We don't know why on earth Snape took the 
thing, so if we learned LV made him do it that wouldn't change any answer we 
were given in HBP. It's not like if Dumbledore had dramatically announced, 
"It was I, Draco, who told Snape to make the Vow to kill me if you were not 
able to do it--yes, you did not know that!"



> > Magpie:> > The UV is one of the questions left open in HBP, so no answer 
> > is > off-> > limits--as long as, imo, it doesn't rewrite the stuff in 
> > HBP that > > was resolved.

>

> Alla:


> So, if Voldemort really sent Narcissa to plead with Snape, do you > think 
> it rewrites stuff in HBP? Because I think that even if it does, > it is a 
> fair game.



Magpie:

I don't know whether I'd say that it was re-writing, but pretty close to it 
depending on where the story goes from there. Is Narcissa not worried about 
Draco? Is Draco not really in danger, etc.? It has already, I think, made 
the scene less meaningful by turning a scene that is about emotion into an 
act--which I don't think JKR would do without showing us a sign that it's an 
act. But there's probably some way that Narcissa could be sent by Voldemort 
and still be being genuine in the scene. Ultimately it might come down 
to--which is better, the bad side falling apart as its members start to 
crack when things they love are threatened, or Voldemort sticking it to 
Snape in a roundabout way?



> Alla:>

> But do you know for sure which story JKR is really writing? To you > the 
> emotional story is Draco discovering that he is not a killer, > which is 
> quite likely to be true, me thinks.

> > To me it is no less emotional and very entertaining would be > Voldemort 
> > playing Snape for complete and absolute fool and setting > him up on 
> > that journey of protecting Draco, taking UV, killing DD, > etc.

> > It may well suck out a life of Draco's story, but I cannot exclude a > 
> > possibility that Draco story was a diversion, nothing else, to deal > 
> > with Snape for example.



Magpie:

Well, I don't mind Snape being set up for a fool by LV at all.:-) But I 
don't see any good ever in throwing away a good emotional story. Draco's not 
the central character of the series, obviously, but I think within his own 
limits his story is important, as are Neville's moments with his parents or 
anything like that. HBP was the book JKR said she was most pleased with 
since PoA upon writing it, and it's hard for me to imagine her wanting to 
undo that story. Also it seems like it's clearly a set up for something in 
the next part of the story.

As I said before I *do* think that the plot with Draco is a diversion for 
Voldemort. That's what it's described as being in the story. But I don't 
think it's just a diversion for JKR. If Snape can be getting set up without 
yanking the important part so the HBP plot away (that plot including Draco's 
arc through the year etc.) then it would be fine.

> > Magpie:

> > I think there are different kinds of things to be reversed, and > some > 
> >  > of them cross the line from "surprise" to "destroying what came > > 
> > before."

>

> Alla:

> > Yes, except but for HBP being part 1 of one volume pretty much. > During 
> > PoA Scabbers was reversed, during last part of GoF the role of > fake 
> > Moody in the first part was put in new light, so if in the last > part 
> > of the book some events of the first one would be reversed, I > think it 
> > is possible.



Magpie:

Scabbers wasn't reversed. He was a surprise that detonated. Just as Fake 
Moody was. This is more like if Fake Moody was revealed as being Barty 
Crouch Jr. and then revealed to really be Rabastan LeStrange. Or if Scabbers 
was revealed as really being Peter and then revealed to be Stubby Boardman. 
"Everything is not as it seems" ends when we're told how things really are, 
and after that we can usually accept that corrected information.


> magpie:

> <SNIP>

> Returning to a plot fully > > contained in HBP like Draco's seems like 
> just picking at a corpse. > > The signs at the end of the book point 
> forward, not back, with > Harry > > not thinking about what Voldemort's 
> *real* plan was, but noticing a > > change in the way he thinks about 
> Malfoy now that he knows what > > happened. The question now is what will 
> Malfoy do next? And Snape > > too? Voldemort's plans are more effective 
> when they're just ways to > > get the characters reacting in juicy ways.

>

> Alla:

>

> Sure, if return is to Draco alone, but if  the plan is illuminated in > 
> new light in context of the other events, I do not see why not.

Magpie:

If it doesn't maek the story in HBP a waste of time, new information is 
always possible, imo.




I don't ever want to say that I know for sure what could and could not 
happen--I'd probably be wrong! But there are things that do seem like plot 
threads that are tied up vs. unresolved issues to me, and even if they turn 
out to be overturned, I don't see a strong case being made yet for why they 
are really unresolved, if that makes sense. The series wasn't finished in 
GoF either, but the mysteries revealed there seemed to mostly be taken as 
fact. I think Carol said it well when she said "story structure and 
narrative technique can tell us what *not* to expect in the final book"

-m


-m