[HPforGrownups] Prof Trelawney's predictions/ Harry is dull (not!)

[Richelle Votaw]

No: HPFGUIDX 45848


Barbara writes:

> Prof. Trelawney sometimes reminds me of Kassandra. She constantly
predicted
> the fall of Troy and other catastrophes but nobody believes her. In the
end,
> all her prophecies come true.
> What if there are some similarities between Prof Trelawney and Kassandra.
> Nobody believes her prophies but maybe there is more behind them than we
> might think? What do you think?

Well, let's think for a minute here. Trelawney constantly predicts Harry's
death, pretty much every chance she gets.  Aside from the first time, he and
everyone else takes it with a yawn and says basically yeah, whatever.  But
let's take a look at Harry's first four years:

Year 1: Nearly killed by Voldemort/Quirrell, basically from the sheer effort
taken to hang onto him and nearly killing himself in the process.
Unconscious for three days.

Year 2: Could've easily been killed by Dobby's bludger.  Escapes with only
a broken/deboned arm.  Nearly killed by the Basilisk, and would've been if
not for Fawkes.   Riddle then would've probably killed him if Harry hadn't
instintively destroyed the diary.

Year 3: Here's where Trelawney's predictions begin.  Harry could've been
killed falling from the broom if not for Dumbledore's quick actions.  Then
with all the chaos between the Shrieking Shack and the dementors he barely
got away again.

Year 4: Technically Harry could've been killed by the dragon in the first
task.  In the graveyard, obviously, he was very nearly killed by Voldemort.
And once he returned to Hogwarts, was seconds away from being killed by
Moody/Crouch when Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall turned up.

So that's at least nine very close calls, if I haven't forgotten anything.
So far he's even escaped without a serious injury. Well, the basilisk thing
was pretty serious, but nothing Fawkes can't handle.  Just using common
sense would tell you it's bound to catch up with him sooner or later.  So
whether Trelawney is actually fortelling the future or going with the odds,
I don't know.

A thought struck me the other day, laugh if you like.  We've been
convinently introduced to one teacher who is a ghost.  He doesn't have a lot
to do in the scope of things, but he's there nonetheless.  Why?  Just
because?  Or is that a hint?  JKR has said someone in Harry's year would
become a teacher at Hogwarts.  For real?  Or as a ghost?  There's an idea in
there I don't like, but I'll wait until OoP when we find out what makes a
person become a ghost or not before I decide.

Pip writes:

> I think *part* of it is, not quite the 'Harry as narrator' problem,
> but the fact that Harry sees *himself* as dull. Ordinary. The only
> thing he's good at is Quidditch.
>
> Get real, Harry! You can drive off 100 Dementors with your Patronus;
> a spell which is supposed to be too difficult for someone your age
> to manage at all, and you're only good at Quidditch!?

Precisely!  If Harry were dull, I don't think the books would be quite as
interesting, now would they?  Harry thinks he's dull, yes.  Which makes him
much more interesting.  Draco, to me, is as dull as they come.  He's
extremely predictable, you know what he's going to say before he opens his
mouth, etc.  Of course, there's probably a lot more behind that which we
don't know yet.  Maybe.  But that's another topic, back to Harry.  He's good
and kind and generous.  Are those dull qualities?  Hardly.  He's succeeded
at everything he's truly tried.  Any charm, spell, sport.  Name one time
he's failed at something he really tried to do.  I can't think of one.

Richelle

****************************************************************************
****
"May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out."
---- Lady Galadriel, The Fellowship of the Ring
****************************************************************************
****