Defending Trelawney (WAS Why so many unpopular teachers at Hogwarts? )

cindysphynx cindysphynx at home.com
Tue Jan 8 00:07:42 UTC 2002


No: HPFGUIDX 32969

Elizabeth wrote:

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

Wait!  Wait!  I can make you believe!  :-)  

It seems that a good teacher ought to be able to do two things -- 
master the subject matter being taught, and communicate it to assist 
others in mastering it.  If the subject matter depends heavily on 
whether the student has natural talent, it doesn't seem fair to judge 
the teacher's performance solely by whether the students master the 
subject.  

Here's the best case I can put together for Trelawney:

Elizabeth wrote:

> 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. 

Using that yardstick, Trelawney will never get credit for a 
prediction, will she?  Correct predictions can always be dismissed as 
mere coincidence because Divination is inherently subjective.  The 
objective facts, however, are that Trelawney saw the Grim in the 
crystal ball and the tea leaves.  We can dismiss it as a coincidence, 
but the fact remains that the Grim is a big black dog, and she saw it 
when there was exactly such a creature "stalking" Harry.  

Also, she seemed disappointed when Harry did not see Buckbeak being 
beheaded.  I think that was because she had done her own Seeing and 
seen the beheading.  Buckbeak was in fact beheaded, so score one for 
Trelawney.  Perhaps she didn't also see Buckbeak's escape, but I 
would think a Time Turner that changes events would foul up anyone's 
Inner Eye.  :-)  

She was on target with Lavender's rabbit, and she predicted 
Hermione's exit.  She was right about Neville's cup breakage.  Small 
stuff, but correct nonetheless.

She made the following correct prediction in GoF:  "Your worries are 
not baseless.  I see difficult times ahead for you . . . I fear the 
thing you dread will indeed come to pass . . . and perhaps sooner 
than you think."  Voldemort did return, so score a big one for 
Trelawney.

Now, I admit I was incorrect when I said Trelawney predicted Harry 
would get stabbed in the back by a friend.  Ron said that, which 
shows that he's picking up a thing or two in Divination.  :-)

Elizabeth again:
 
> *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. 

Oh, poor Trelawney gets no respect.  Trelawney and Moody do exactly 
the same thing in their classrooms -- they put the kids through their 
paces under real life circumstances, and they do hands-on practical 
demonstrations.  Moody puts kids under Imperius, and only one kid 
learns to throw it off.  Trelawney gives them various tools (crystal 
balls, tea leaves), and they try to use these tools to See.  I don't 
see much of a difference there.  

Indeed, in both cases, the students are largely unsuccessful, even 
though the teachers' methods are similar.  As a matter of fact, Harry 
rarely reports the predictions other kids are making, so perhaps they 
are all making correct predictions, which would make Trelawney even 
more effective than Moody.    

Elizabeth again:

>Trelawney can't even tell that Harry and Ron are making up their 
>answers.

True, the students pull the wool over her eyes.  Divination rests on 
a foundation of trust, on the honor system, if you will.  As an 
analogy, suppose a physical education teacher assigns homework that 
kids run a certain distance and record it in a log.  Some kids decide 
to lie and fabricate everything, and they don't get caught.  That 
doesn't make the teaching method ineffective, IMHO.  It just means 
these two kids aren't mature enough to be trusted, and as our parents 
used to tell us, they're only hurting themselves when they cheat like 
this.

Elizabeth again:

>And how much blame
> should a teacher bear for accepting a position to teach a subject 
>which can't be
> taught? 

How do we know that Divination cannot be taught?  I figure it is akin 
to music or voice lessons.  Some people have talent and some people 
do not.  With enough study, the truly talented will master the 
subject.  I think the jury is still out on Trelawney and on whether, 
upon graduation, a few kids are good at Divination.

That said, I don't mean to say I completely buy Trelawney's act.  I 
do think she is one of JKR's better bit players, though.  Even after 
two books, she is still shrouded in mystery.  I can't wait to find 
out what happens.  My own prediction is that Trelawney will prove to 
be a true Seer and much more impressive than our current impression 
of her.

Cindy





More information about the HPforGrownups archive