| darththalia @ 2004-04-19 13:15:00 |
I have a theory that it's a demon
Mood: 
thoughtful
Well, no, no actual theory. It just made for a good subject.
BUT... I've been reviewing the evidence, and I'm hoping some of you that are good at this stuff will be able to put it together.
First, the Daily Prophet reports in the evening edition on Friday, April 9, that Peter Pettigrew has escaped. There's much panic, but no news.
Draco's birthday party is on Saturday, April 10. Percy (aka Peter) is there with Minister Fudge.
Sunday, April 11, Ron and Percy have an argument in a post by Sirius. It seems that Percy and Ron were arguing when Percy left for Draco's party. One of Ron's posts says, "WHO CARES ABOUT THAT, I SAID SHE'S GOING TO KILL YOU, I'M SURPRISED THE MALFOYS DIDN'T DO IT FIRST!" When I first saw this, I thought Ron was just saying the Malfoys would be angry that a Weasley would have the nerve to turn up at Malfoy Manor, but now I'm wondering.
Monday, April 12, Harry has a bad nightmare. No one says whether he was able to see what Voldemort was doing.
Wednesday, April 14, Molly gets an owl that Charlie is coming home--although she doesn't know when it was sent--and she mentions that she locked up the twins' shop on Tuesday, when she stopped by but didn't find them there. She also mentions that Percy has been very busy with "this Pettigrew business."
Thursday, April 15, Harry is rhyming. He doesn't sound like someone who has reason to believe that several of his friends have been tortured and/or murdered. The same day, Narcissa asks Remus to stop by the Manor to pick up a birthday present for Sirius. I thought this was a little strange at the time, given the past interactions among Remus, Sirius, Lucius and Narcissa, but now I'm really, really wondering what she had in mind.
Saturday, April 17, the Daily Prophet reports on the attack, rather confusingly. Someone apparently told Molly on Friday that the twins were missing... at least, if the DP can be believed. Charlie's luggage was in the shop, so it looks like he stopped there on the way to the Burrow.
Sunday, April, 18, Lucius makes his onimous "I always love a good meal after a job well done" comment.
My pseudo-theory:
[Editing because I'm an idiot. I think Harry only has scar-related dreams when it's Voldemort doing something, not one of Voldemort's minions. So if Lucius attacked the twins, Harry wouldn't have dreamed about that. Also, 
fluffers points out that if Charlie's suitcase had been in the shop on Tuesday, Molly probably would have seen it. I think it's possible that she might have missed it, but it fits in with a later attack on the twins. So....]
Fred and/or George found out something they shouldn't. I'm guessing it has to do with Pettigrew, because I can't believe it's a coincidence that it happened so soon after his escape. They told Percy. Percy mentioned something about it to Ron, which led to their argument. He then let something slip at Draco's party, possibly because he thought it would further his career. I doubt he'd have intentionally done anything to put the twins in danger; it's possible he didn't even understand what he was doing.
(One possibility is that Percy was responsible for Pettigrew's escape, and that's what F&G found out. I have trouble believing Percy would do anything *that* stupid, but it would fit with all the hints about the keys, and it's plausible.)Monday night, Lucius (possibly with minions) went to the store and found F&G and Charlie there, and attacked them. I'm sure he left Fred alive for a reason, but I have no idea what. He's probably confident that Fred has been damaged enough not to get in his way. Harry dreamed about the attack, but it was so bad that he couldn't remember anything about it afterwards. [Edited to change George to Fred. Jeez, I'm as bad as the DP!]
Monday night, Voldemort punished Pettigrew for something Lucius found out at the party. Given the severity of Harry's attack, he might have killed him. (Why Pettigrew? Because his escape was conveniently timed. I'm guessing.)
Tuesday the twins realize they're in danger and leave the store suddenly, going into hiding... but they stick close to see what happens. (I'm thinking they didn't tell anyone because they were trying to keep Percy out of trouble.) Sometime after Molly comes by, Lucius sets some sort of trap for the twins at the store. Charlie arrives and walks into the trap. The twins try to get him out but are caught as well. I'm thinking this must have happened before Thursday, because I'm convinced that Narcissa's present for Sirius has something to do with the attack, but I have no other evidence at all.
And that's all I've got. I'm sure there are clues all over the place that I've missed. Want to add something? Correct something? Tell me I'm a complete idiot? Have at it!
Comments:
| fluffers @ April 19 2004, 18:41:36 UTC |
The only thing I'm having a problem with is Charlie's arrival. We know that his luggage was found in the front of the shop: if Charlie arrived on Monday, then Molly *should* have noticed it when she stopped by the shop and locked up on Tuesday.
If he didn't arrive on Monday, then, as I suspect, were the twins already being tortured when he arrived? Were they at least in the back when Molly was there? If not, where were they?
Man, I was even thinking about it in class this morning!
| darththalia @ April 19 2004, 18:50:01 UTC |
Yeah, I thought about that, but I could imagine Molly not noticing. She might have stormed into the shop yelling for the twins, and when they didn't answer, just rolled her eyes and stormed out, locking the door.
If the luggage wasn't there when she locked up on Tuesday, that would mean the twins came back and were attacked sometime between then and Friday, and Charlie turned up sometime during that period, too. You're right, he could have interrupted the attack. And I suppose that's possible... Harry's Monday nightmare could have been Voldemort torturing, say, Pettigrew, for something Malfoy found out from Percy, and Voldemort could have sent Malfoy after the twins later. Hmmm.
I sure hope we find out eventually.
| pokethegeek @ April 19 2004, 18:52:41 UTC |
maybe so (: I love it when other people are aware of the little things (that I don't bear in mind) - those are the things that matters! Like the Ron/Percy conversation! I totally missed that one. Thank you for being so obsessed.
(I need spelling-classes. +_+)
| darththalia @ April 19 2004, 19:34:36 UTC |
Thanks, and I'm glad you found it helpful. I really wanted to get lal the information I could in one place... although I left out all the cryptic Malfoy conversations that I can't figure out.
(parent)| pokethegeek @ April 19 2004, 19:37:04 UTC |
Yes, the malfoys are all very cryptic right now (and active not to mention) and I can't decide whether or now to get nervous.. hmmm. tricky, very tricky.
(parent)| hated_and_loved @ April 19 2004, 19:20:32 UTC |
Here's something I've been thinking about that might lend some credence to your theory: if Lucius really was involved in this, wouldn't he have known that it wasn't one of the Weasley twins that had psychic dreams? He's part of the journal project, after all, and would have read Parvati's posts on her dreams ... it seems like a fairly big oversight if he couldn't remember who was having the dreams (and it's always something he could have tracked down later by digging through archives, don't you think?). Maybe you're right, and there was another reason for the attack.
(parent)| darththalia @ April 19 2004, 19:36:36 UTC |
For some reason, I don't buy the twin thing as the reason for the attack, but I have no evidence, except that it's the Ministry who's saying that, and they're idiots. And, yeah, I can't imagine Lucius would have messed up on that. I can't imagine *anyone* would have, honestly. Especially since F&G weren't at Hogwarts when the attack happened; I don't know how anyone could have gotten them confused with Padma and Parvati.
(parent) |
a_player @ April 19 2004, 19:43:14 UTC |
Reread Lucius' last post *very* carefully. It hints at the reasoning behind the attacks.
(parent)| frozen_jelly @ April 19 2004, 19:48:48 UTC |
Is it anything to do with the strangely random mention of Pilate? What is that about??!!
(parent) |
Anonymous @ April 19 2004, 20:01:21 UTC |
What is Pilate best known for?
--Jane, who doesn't have an LJ
| darththalia @ April 19 2004, 20:07:51 UTC |
Ordering Jesus to be crucified, at the behest of the Jewish religious leaders. But I can't make that fit into this attack to save my life.
(parent)| fluffers @ April 19 2004, 20:14:37 UTC |
Not at the behest of the religious leaders. He gives the crowd a choice to release one prisoner at the feast, as was custom. He let them pick between Barabbas the murderer, or Jesus. Pilate didn't dislike Jesus necessarily, in fact he knew that he was only in jail because the religious leaders were jealous. So a lot of people argue whether or not what Pilate did was really evil, since he just did what the crowd asked of him (though the leaders encouraged them to pick Barabbas for release). He washed his hands and said he was free of Jesus's blood, whatever happened was on their heads.
(parent)| darththalia @ April 19 2004, 20:18:59 UTC |
Good grief, I forgot about the whole Barabbas thing. Twelve years of Christian schools, for this.
Except the Jewish leaders did turn Jesus over to Pilate in the first place for rabble-rousing, basically. And Pilate wanted to release him, but the crowd insisted that Barabbas be released instead. So if George was the relatively innocent party who was in the wrong place, who's Barabbas? If Lucius is washing his hands of the whole thing, I assume he was acting on Voldemort's orders; Voldemort must have had *some* sort of reason for the whole thing.
I think I'm even more confused. Thanks for the reminder, though.
| fluffers @ April 19 2004, 20:26:31 UTC |
Okay, I found the 'what is truth' reference: John 18:38-38. It may make everything more confusing, but maybe this will click something for someone!
Jesus answered '...and for this I came into the world, to testify the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.' 'What is truth?' Pilate asked.
And the note on that in my Bible says: Pilate may have been jesting, and meant 'what does truth matter?' or he may have been serious and meant 'It is not easy to find truth. What is it?' Either way it was clear to him that Jesus was no rebel, no basis for charge.
| darththalia @ April 19 2004, 20:54:15 UTC |
Hmm.
While reading up on Pilate (I need a life), I also ran into this verse, which could have interesting implications. Matthew 27:19, While [Pilate] was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him." Could have something to do with Narcissa, and it also reminds me of Harry's dream. Or it could be completely meaningless.
|
Anonymous @ April 19 2004, 20:23:46 UTC |
That's actually really interesting when you think about Lucius and what people have said, about his knowing that the Patils were the twins in question. We all know Lucius hates the Weasleys, is it possible he intentionally didn't mention that it was actually the Patils?
(parent)| darththalia @ April 19 2004, 20:03:26 UTC |
Thanks for the hint, but I can't make heads nor tails of Lucius's latest post. I'll leave that one for someone else to decipher. [g]
(parent)| mimulus_arbutus @ April 19 2004, 20:08:15 UTC |
"Random as it may seem, when awful things happen there is often a reason why. The secret is to find out why such things are happening and then strive not to emulate the behaviours that would cause such evil to be. But what is evil? Pilate himself asked much the same question. His determination was that truth seemed to differ from person to person but that it made each person's truth no less valid; is evil such a mutable concept as well? It is regrettable that such things happen, but even more regrettable when people fail to pay heed to the world around them and, through their inattention, bring misery upon themselves. Not all of us are as astute as we proclaim ourselves to be; or is it simply that one mistakes caring for constant vigilance?"
that last part seems to stand out: misery via inattention and caring as opposed to vigilance
but who is not paying attention?
is arthur so busy chasing pettigrew that he isn't paying attention to his own family, or were the twins in on something we don't know about?
| frozen_jelly @ April 19 2004, 20:17:26 UTC |
To me 'Constant Vigilance' seems to be a blatant reference to Mad-Eye Moody. Famously one of the good guys. But I still don't know what it means
(parent)| sistermagpie @ April 19 2004, 20:47:14 UTC |
You guys are so evil...I love it. I will take a shot at readng very carefully and probably miss. I'm reading carefully and still not getting it.:-)
Random as it may seem, when awful things happen there is often a reason why. The secret is to find out why such things are happening and then strive not to emulate the behaviours that would cause such evil to be.
Okay, this wasn't a random attack, nor was it a mistake. The twins, it seems, were up to something and it would be wise for people to figure out what it was so they don't do it too. At least it seems that the behaviors here refer to behaviors of the twins/Charlie.
But what is evil? Pilate himself asked much the same question.
Okay, Pilate asked Jesus if he was the King of the Jews and Jesus says yes. But the main thing is that Pilate washes his hands of Jesus' death. He only orders it because the crowd demands it. He gives the crowd a choice between releasing Barabbas and Jesus and they say to crucify Jesus. I think what Pilate asked himself was "what is truth?" The truth seems to be whether or not Jesus was the son of God. Ack, this is hard.
So anyway, Lucius compares either himself or someone else (Voldemort?) to Pilate, who executed a man he thought was innocent because it was necessary to avoid a riot. Pilate was unable to tell whether Jesus was the son of God or not, and wound up making the wrong decision, according to Christian tradition. Did the Weasleys similarly fail to recognize their true king? Or was someone like Lucius forced to execute them and hope for the best?
His determination was that truth seemed to differ from person to person but that it made each person's truth no less valid; is evil such a mutable concept as well?
Pilate lets the crowd choose which prisoner is guilty. But here Lucius sounds like he's suggesting that "evil" also depends on the pov. Is he defending his own moral code, explaining that DEs are not simply thugs out to get the good guys but people defending their own way of life? Were the twins or Charlie (because perhaps it was Charlie they were after) actively working against them? He definitely seems to be hinting that from a different pov, it was the victims who were the bad guys here, perhaps all of them. Or at least that the attack wasn't evil so much as necessary for survival.
They were tortured, so perhaps one of them had information--possibly Charlie, since he is the one who wound up like the Longbottoms. George could have been killed as further incentive for Charlie to spill his guts.
It is regrettable that such things happen, but even more regrettable when people fail to pay heed to the world around them and, through their inattention, bring misery upon themselves.
If he's referring to the victims, then the twins and Charlie are guilty of inattention to the world. But perhaps it would make more sense to say that it is the other Weasleys who were inattentive and so did not see what the boys were up to. Were they working against V? Were they dabbling in their own dangerous things, like the Dark Arts? There definitely seems to be a hint that they did things that had consequences and thought they could get away with it.
Not all of us are as astute as we proclaim ourselves to be; or is it simply that one mistakes caring for constant vigilance?
It seems like Lucius would consider many of the other parents guilty of caring rather than constant vigilance. Perhaps they failed to stop their sons from getting involved with whatever they were involved in. Perhaps the boys thought they were "astute" meaning they could screw over Lucius' associates or work against them without getting caught.
In general Lucius seems to not have much respect for the over-emotional displays of care on the other side. If he's comparing the Weasleys to himself, he may be saying his constant vigilance assures that Draco is not getting into trouble while the W's were up to no good--though this would be a "no good" possibly seen through Lucius' eyes.
Definitely, though, I would think the victims were involved in something specific.
Well, I've read it carefully and am not confident I got the right hints!
| akimbie @ April 19 2004, 21:12:36 UTC |
I don't think there can be much more to analyse in this and you seem to have pretty much hit the mark. It seems, however, that Lucius would be less likely to concede to the fact that he's only carrying out his master's work, that evil is subjective. But, I suppose we're not going to know anything substantial until we find out what Fred & George and/or Charlie were mixed up in.
(I thought I should say - before I explode from all the drama - that I love reading yours and Black Dog's analysis almost as much as NA itself)
|
queeniefox @ April 19 2004, 21:14:01 UTC |
Gosh. Kudos on the analysis!
But here Lucius sounds like he's suggesting that "evil" also depends on the pov.
I think he's definatly saying that.
'What is truth' = truth is relative, in fact is there any truth at all? Same with evil?
Of course, Pilate didn't actually say 'what is evil?'. Lucius' version seems more horrible somehow. The whole post gives me the shivers.
| fluffers @ April 19 2004, 21:16:31 UTC |
I wrote out the verse as it appears in the NIV translation up several posts. =o)
(parent)