Trelawney

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 32984

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Elizabeth Dalton <Elizabeth.Dalton at E...> 
wrote:
> I rather hate to disagree with Cindy, but I'm afraid I will have 
to, on three
> points out of four:
> 
> cindysphynx wrote:
> >
> > Trelawney 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).  > 
> 

Elizabeth: 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. (And I don't remember anyone saying Harry would come into 
money-- I
> thought he was going to *lose* money on a bet....)
> 
> >If I'm correct about what Cindy's referring to, Trelawney didn't 
predict Harry's Triwizard winnings -- Ron did.  ("A windfall, 
unexpected gold.") He gets so little credit for his academics, but he 
got just past that point of the tea leaf reading when Trelawney took 
over and started turning the reading into a portent of death. 

 >Elizabeth: 
> 
> What evidence do we have that
> she's teaching anything other than how to be an effective fraud? > 
> Even
> Dumbledore seems to have a limited expectation about Trelawney's 
accuracy. 

> > 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. 

I have always wondered why Dumbledore keeps Trelawney, especially 
since I'm not convinced her two correct predictions are not the 
result of some kind of possession rather than "seeing".  She can't 
even remember them.  A theory of mine on why she is there is that, in 
addition to the possible rarity of true Seers, Dumbledore wants to 
keep an eye on her because her true predictions reveal information 
about the dark side, or possibly she needs to be protected from 
Voldemort for some reason.  And because she realizes that she's not a 
good seer, she uses the skills of a muggle-traveling-carnival 
fortuneteller as a cover.  (Trelawney knows Hermione sees through 
this, and hounds her out of the class; people who go along and make 
up their homework, like Harry and Ron do, may be less threatening to 
her.)  [feel free to show me the holes in this theory as I have not 
subjected it to a thorough analysis]
> 
> > > Elizabeth again:

> > 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? 

It seems that arts such as crystal ball reading can't be taught, 
unless of course, the real purpose of the crystal ball is to provide 
a blank space for the seer to clear one's brain of external thoughts 
and "see" what is within.  Arguably this is what Harry does at his 
exam (even though JKR's description of it makes it appear that he is 
to some degree grasping at straws), but Trelawney is playing the odds 
on Buckbeak and doesn't give him much credit for it.  An interesting 
side question here is whether Harry's accurate prediction should be 
discounted because he himself engineered Buckbeak's escape, or 
whether part of seeing is just seeing the possibilities.  But back to 
the subject of the teachability of divination, their first lesson in 
PoA suggests that some forms of divination are very teachable.  After 
all, Harry and Ron seem able to come up with reasonable predictions 
simply by consulting the text.  Ron's prediction of unexpected gold 
for Harry came true in GoF, and at least the suffering portion of 
Harry's prediction for Ron is true, as he clearly allows himself to 
suffer from his jealousy.  (We'll have to wait on the happiness part; 
my theory may be out the window if Ron dies as some of the HPFGU 
seers are predicting.) So why did Trelawney give an exam on the 
least learnable thing she taught?  > 
> .
>And like Elizabeth, I will also write a letter of apology to
> good Professor Trelawney and publicly recant my position to
> Cindy's satisfaction if she is correct.  Either way I certainly 
enjoy her as a character -- entertaining and thought-provoking.
> 
> Debbie (Muggle skeptic)