[HPforGrownups] Re: LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not?

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 166442

> Dana:
> But at the same time these arguments would validate him noticing her
> presence but he doesn't.

Magpie:
He says the staff is there, and she is part of the staff.

> Dana:
> I agree that the funeral is a perfect opportunity for the reader to
> notice she is missing by actively cutting her out of the scene. (I
> know that is not what was meant to be said)
> From Harry PoV there isn't enough time and interaction with other
> people to actively discuss her absence but it doesn't mean he didn't
> notice it.
> The hint is her not being mentioned at all while she had such a large
> impact on Harry's life throughout the series.

Magpie:
That's not much of a hint. You seem to be saying that she's not there 
because Harry seeing the staff there with no exceptions (of course we know 
Snape isn't there) means Trelawney must not be there because he didn't 
specifically say she was there.

Dana:
> Also Trelawney absence from the funeral might not alarmed anyone
> specifically in thinking that she is missing from Hogwarts
> completely. Just that it would be extremely rude of her to not attend
> the funeral.

Magpie:
I think Trelawney's absence from the castle after DEs invaded it would have 
alarmed a lot of people. Good reason for a head check, given all the mayhem. 
If we learn later that nobody noticed I'll think that's not playing very 
fair--and also wonder why on earth JKR missed the opportunity to give us 
that cliffhanger.

> Dana:
> Why would LV wait until DD is dead and then come back later?
> Draco is providing the access to Hogwarts and the distraction his task
> has on DD and, in this case the Order members provides the perfect
> opportunity while he doesn't know what the protection at Hogwarts
> will be after DD's death. I am not saying that LV could not overrun
> Hogwarts at any time after DD's death or that he will not have the
> intention to do that, but why risk it?

Magpie:
That you think Voldemort should have kidnapped Trelawney while Draco had DEs 
there is not proof that Voldemort thought he should do that, since there's 
nothing in the book that suggests that such a thing happened. Why didn't LV 
kidnap Trelawney when he had Crouch Jr. at the school making Portkeys?

Dana:
> There is no evidence that LV's plan was for Draco to kill DD either -
> on the contrary it speaks highly against it. And Draco did not
> surprise anyone by showing he was indeed a murderer after all.

Magpie:
I'm confused. Draco was *not* a murderer after all. Did you mean to say 
that? He surprised people by being able to get through the castle's 
defenses.

Dana:
> Saying Draco was expected to die trying is also not true because we
> never have seen evidence that any Order Member has ever killed anyone
> and if LV never lost one of his minions at the "personal hand" of an
> Order member then he was not expecting they were going to kill Draco
> on the spot either. The ones LV lost through death were at the hand
> of aurors under Barty Crouch Sr's supervision.

Magpie:
That in no way means we can not say Draco was expected to die. Narcissa, a 
DE, believes he is expected to die. Snape does not disabuse her of this 
idea. Later Dumbledore says he would be expected to die. Draco says they all 
thought he would die in the attempt. That's far stronger evidence that he's 
expected to die than deciding for ourselves that since we've never seen a DE 
die by hand of an Order member's hand, everybody in the story is 
wrong--except Voldemort, who thinks like we do.

Dana:
> DD was prepared for the unimaginable, regardless of his own belief that it 
> would not be possible to bring DEs in by having members of the Order 
> patrol the castle in his absence, so it doesn't take much imagination that 
> DD also planned some protection to the one thing LV was after the entire 
> previous year  - and if so, Fawkes' delay in showing his grievance about 
> DD death could be a hint of his absence during the attack itself.

Magpie:
But there's nothing showing Dumbledore doing this, or LV being after it. DD 
was not prepared for the unimaginable. He was caught unawares by DEs in the 
castle. He didn't prepare for it. It all went pear-shaped.

Dana:
> DD knows Tom better then anyone and DD would also know that just  > 
> sending Draco to murder him would be OOC for Tom to do this just so he 
> could take revenge on Lucius. He would know Tom would have an alternative 
> motive for choosing Draco for the task.

Magpie:
I'm sorry, but isn't this a bit arrogant? You're essentially saying that DD 
naturally has to consider it OOC for Tom to do this even though no one in 
canon--including DD--says anything about it being OOC--because, as best as I 
can tell--*you* think it's OOC. No one in canon says anything about another 
motive or says there must be one because Voldemort would never do it this 
way. And again, Dumbledore has no idea DEs are coming to the castle and 
neither does Snape. So he can't be assuming anything to do with Death Eaters 
at all. If he's got some idea of a plot to kidnap Trelawney, that's going to 
be done by Draco too, in his mind.

Dana:
> No, they wouldn't because LV would not have shared this part of the
> plan with them and risk DD using legillimens on Draco, just as DD
> does not approach Draco for the same reason. DD would not discuss
> such a thing with Draco or anyone else because it is not Draco's
> concern. Draco only know his task as he has been ordered to do.  I believe 
> that the DE's that were present do not know more more than he does.  Draco 
> doesn't know who LV would send in to help him carry out his task, as is 
> made clear when DD accuses him of endangering his friends by inviting 
> Greyback but Draco said he didn't invite him. So even Draco isn't in the 
> know about everything.

Magpie:
So basically, everyone in the story has good reason for this whole plotline 
to be invisible to the naked eye? If it's not in the book, it's not in the 
book. One could just as easily argue that Voldemort had a plan to loosen the 
caps on every single salt shaker in Hogwarts. Only nobody noticed because 
everyone was too distraught to use salt the next morning. And Dumbledore 
secretly spirited all the salt shakers out of Hogwarts the night before. And 
none of the DEs we saw or Draco were aware of that plan. I know that at 
least Voldemort has some tactical reason to want Trelawney and she's 
established as being in more danger than the salt shakers, but otherwise 
it's the same problem: you can't disprove a negative.

Dana:
Thanks, I agree with you. Some posts made it imply that it was canon that LV 
found out the diary horcrux was destroyed but I had not seen it anywhere and 
couldn't find it and it made me think it was just part of a theory.

Magpie:
I assume you've now seen the answers that show that it *is* canon LV found 
out about it, with houyhnhnm finding the passage:

"When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been
mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told
that his anger was terrible to behold."
. . .

"Ah, poor Lucius . . . what with Voldemort's fury
about the fact that he threw away the horcrux for
his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last
year, I would not be surprised if he is not secretly
glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment." (HBP, Am. Ed., p.508)

Dana:
Personally I think that if LV had found out that he would not have bothered 
taking revenge on Lucius through Draco; he would have taken him from Azkaban 
and killed him on the
spot. Lucius caused a part of LV to die and never be able to aid in LV's 
immortality I do not think taking it out on his son would be enough 
punishment but that is just MHO.

Magpie:
Killing his child sends a far worse message, and also brings Lucius into 
line. Voldemort isn't acting of rage, he's sadistically and coldly punishing 
Lucius, getting the entire Malfoy family under his thumb. The Ministry is 
what kicked off this plan, but there was also backstory that Lucius had also 
already destroyed the diary.

-m