[HPforGrownups] Re: Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? (Trelawney)

[Elizabeth Dalton]

No: HPFGUIDX 32965

I rather hate to disagree wtih Cindy, but I'm afraid I will have to, on three
points out of four:

cindysphynx wrote:
>
> I wrote a post months ago explaining why I didn't like Lockhart and
> comparing him to Trelawney.  There are two main differences between
> them.  First, Trelawney really does have some amount of talent.  She
> has made two correct predictions, and she saw the Sirius twice (tea
> leaves and crystal ball), although she misinterpreted what she saw by
> believing it to be the Grim.  She made a few other correct
> predictions (like predicting Harry would be stabbed in the back and
> he would come into some money in GoF).  Lockhart, as we later learn,
> has no ability in his specialty at all and is a complete fraud.
> 

Well, your interpretation is your own, but I think any success on her part was
blind luck. She wanted to see a Grim -- it's a famous portent of death-- so she
saw one. I think the resemblence to Sirius was accidental. She predicted so many
bad things happening to Harry that *some* of them were bound to come true. But
actually, Harry himself made up the part about getting stabbed in the back,
didn't he? (And I don't remember anyone saying Harry would come into money-- I
thought he was going to *lose* money on a bet....)

> Also, a big difference between Lockhart's class and Trelawney's class
> is that the kids actually do learn something in Divination:  they
> learn how to See.  She roams the classroom, helping the students
> attempt to See.  In Lockhart's class, in contrast, the students
> mostly listened to war stories.  The fact that Hermione has no
> patience or aptitude for Divination, or that the boys are dismissive
> of it, does not make Trelawney a poor teacher.
> 

*Who* learns to See?

I'll grant you that Trelawney is better at faking teaching than Lockhart, and so
possibly deserves to be on the next rung up (with Binns), but I don't see any
evidence that anyone has actually learned to See. What evidence do we have that
she's teaching anything other than how to be an effective fraud? Lavender starts
to affect a spooky manner, but doesn't make any correct predictions that we know
of. Trelawney can't even tell that Harry and Ron are making up their answers.
However, see below.

BTW, McGonnagal is also dismissive of Divination and Trelawney. She may be
missing something, but she's usually portrayed as being pretty sharp. Even
Dumbledore seems to have a limited expectation about Trelawney's accuracy. So
it's not just the kids.

> I think Divination is probably about as difficult as
> Transfiguration.  True Seers are supposedly quite rare, whereas we've
> seen many of the adults perform feats of Transfiguration.  

I'll definitely give you this one. If anything, Divination may be *more*
difficult than Transfiguration, and accomplished Seers may be much more rare. I
think that's why Dumbledore keeps Trelawney on. She has, after all, had at least
two "genuine" predictions, and that's more than most people get, apparently. But
that makes her, possibly, an authentic Seer, not a good teacher. (Note that it
may not actually be possible to *teach* this subject. That still doesn't make
her a good teacher, only an excusably bad one. See below.)

> That
> suggests that Trelawney gets reasonable results with a very difficult
> subject, so I'd argue for putting Trelawney on the same rung as
> McGonagall.

Well, this would depend on how you define "reasonable results."

The really tough thing about Divination is that it's so hard to see any evidence
of its effectiveness. Careful tracking would help establish whether there's
anything to it or not, but Trelawney discourages this kind of measurement. Her
final exam is based on convincing her that you've seen something -- no attempt
is made to judge the accuracy of your vision. She does not, for example, ask her
student to predict the next card that will be drawn from a deck, or the next
number tossed on a die, or describe the contents of a closed box. She doesn't
even check the students' math on their Astrology charts. At my most charitable,
I'll admit that it may not be *possible* to See on demand for an exam. The
question then becomes, why is there a class on it at all? And how much blame
should a teacher bear for accepting a position to teach a subject which can't be
taught? At the root of this question is another, related one: does Trelawney
believe, herself? She doesn't seem to be aware when she makes "genuine"
predictions. So is her whole act just an act, or does she know, on some level,
that she actually does have intermittent Sight, and just thinks it goes farther
than it does?

McGonnagal, OTOH, requires a practical test that can't be faked. (Can you, or
can you not, transform a teapot into a tortoise? Is your tortoise still
steaming? Does it have a willow-patterned shell?) Her students are struggling
with the material, but some of them are succeeding to greater or lesser extent,
in ways that they, and the other students, can see for themselves. This is why I
feel comfortable evaluating her teaching skills. The resulting skill of her
students can be measured, and she encourages doing so.

Now, it's just barely possible that Trelawney's method is actually the very best
way of encouraging incipient Seers, and that this has been established by
empirical research in the wizard community for aeons. There's nothing in canon
to support this (in fact, based on Hermione's remarks in the Potions Puzzle in
PS/SS, I would tend to suspect not), but I allow for the possibility. If canon
evidence is later presented to support this, I will write a letter of apology to
good Professor Trelawney and meditate upon it under the full moon, so that
she'll get the message. And of course, I'll publicly recant my position to
Cindy's satisfaction. ;)

Elizabeth
(who often wishes there was more evidence in support of various paranormal
phenomena, but is an empirical scientist at heart.)