LV's bigger plan (was:Fawkes possible absence)/ some War and peace

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 166419

> 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.


Alla:

Right, I totally see where Jen is coming from here. I mean, here we 
come again to the what is truth and what is lie in Spinner End, I 
guess.

Truthfully, I would be delighted if everything that was said in 
Spinner End was true, but since Snape's tale gets questioned so 
exstensively, since when Bella and Narcissa are the most reliable 
witnesses? Not IMO.

I mean, Magpie is right that everything that was said fits what 
happened in HBP, BUT IMO if something will be twisted ( and I am not 
saying it would be), JKR can easily do it by showing Black sisters 
lies.


 
> > 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:
> <SNIP>
>> 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.

Alla:

Precisely and since JKR herself compared HBP to first part, I think 
the analogy to be mistaken in the middle of the book works.

Look, I feel strange arguing here, since I actually agree with a lot 
of what you are saying, as I said I am basically just arguing 
against the idea ( if you are even raising it) that we can know for 
sure what will be changed and what not in book 7.


 
> > 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.


Alla:

Right, and I think about it in a bit of different way. I thought it 
was a good example of what you were bringing up in as stuff resolved 
on page v stuff with the question mark on the page.

I was just saying that what to you ( and to me by the way) may seem 
as completely resolved staff to many people is not and can turn out 
to be something completely different - fake AK, Dumbledore dying 
from poison, etc.

Personally I would not buy fake AK in a million years, to me it 
turns Tower into one big joke. I can even see Snape killing DD on 
his orders as dramatic ( hate it as I am), but fake AK - no way. Not 
IMO.

But many people bring reasonable arguments as to why it can be true 
and I see no reason to say that for some reason their arguments is 
less supported by canon than mine, you know?

And it is all again mainly because story is not finished.


 
>> Magpie:
<SNIP>
>> 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.>

Alla:


Agreed as in **so far** there is an only one answer. Do I think that 
it will be overturned as one of the answers? Definitely not. Do I 
think that we may learn **other** answers? Yes, I do and maybe the 
one given in HBP will turn out to be not the most important on the 
list.

But again, had the HBP stand on its own, I would think differently.


 
> 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!"

Alla:

LOLOLOLOL. Yes, of course.

>> 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.

Alla:

I disagree. For three books we thought Scabbers was a rat and for 
one book we thought Fake Moody was a real one. I think it was a 
reversal of who we thought those characters are.

 
Magpie: 
> 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"


Alla:

Hmmmm, story structure and narrative technique. 
It does help often enough, but how often in JKR books did we predict 
what was going to happen next?

Besides DD death of course - Hero journey and all that.

It is funny, really, because again believe it or not, I am pretty 
well versed in that stuff and oh so very often what you describe as 
your instincts telling you, my instincts are telling me same things.

But I do know how many times my instincts had been wrong as to JKR 
plot developments in the past, therefore while I love to bet and 
predict, I am very VERY hesitant to be sure of what is going to 
happen. Sometimes authors can surprise you IMO.

Like for example you know we are reading ( well rereading for me) 
War and Peace in my bookclub, hehe.

I love that book, I really love that book. When I first read it at 
the young age of fifteen, of course I could not predict that Prince 
Andrew dies (sob), even though I was an avid reader at that age 
already.

Now when I reread the book, I am thinking of the tradition of the 
young talented people who could not apply their talents in Russian 
literature of 19 century, I am thinking of Tolstoy's philosophy to 
go back to his roots, I am thinking of Russian tradition describing 
good hearted but rather dump people as characters.

In short I can **totally** see that Andrew is a goner(sob), but even 
now, had I not remembered it, I could not in a million years predict 
who will become Princess Mari's husband. It was a *Huh?* for me and 
it still is, even after all these years.

To go back to JKR, what I am trying to say that she totally tells 
the story in the ways we both expect and do not expect IMO.

Dumbledore's death for example - sure, easy to predict, DD dying 
from Snape's hand IMO not at all.

JMO,

Alla.