Dumbledore's integrity (was Prophecy problems)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 79345

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kirstini" <kirst_inn at y...> 
wrote:
> First there was me, and I wrote:
> >>> Also, remember that DD controls the version of the prophecy 
that 
> Harry hears, and all those pauses at least offer the possibility 
that 
> what he shows Harry is edited.>>>

<snip>

> I must confess myself a little disappointed by the willingness of 
> people on this thread to take Dumbledore at face value. I'm not 
> necessarily rooting for a revival of ESE!DD, but I did expect to 
warm 
> the cockles of at least a couple of sceptics out there. I'm not 
> entirely sure that Dumbledore has ever conducted himself with the 
> integrity you attribute to him, much less that the section of the 
> prophecy Harry has seen correalates to any objective truth simply 
> because Dumbledore *says* it does.

Have to disappoint you further, I'm afraid <g>. 

To assume that Dumbledore has edited the prophecy, or lied to Harry 
in some other way, makes for a very difficult *storytelling* problem, 
IMO. 
Dumbledore serves at least two narrative functions at the "end of the 
year talks" . One as himself. One as the narrator's voice. At the end 
of OoP, we learn a lot from Dumbledore about his own motivations, 
thoughts, regrets, etc. We learn from him about himself. But also he 
functions as the mystery-unravelling narrator. In addition, even 
within the story Dumbledore is the only one who knows the full 
content of the prophecy (we know from the second prophecy that 
Trellawney doesn't remember a thing after she wakes from a true 
trance). 
So, if he is lying to Harry, neither Harry nor the reader can ever 
realize it. (Unless, in a future book, Dumbledore says to Harry -
"well, actually, I made up the whole either you or him part. Thought 
it would give you a bit more motivation, don't you know?" Cut to 
Dumbledore weeping on Harry's neck, burbling about the dangers of 
senile dementia.) To have Dumbledore lying to Harry and then "taking 
it back", is just really lame story telling. It's too easy a trick 
for an author to do, because then she can always take anything back, 
right? So, we can count on nothing. Quirrel is still alive, Harry 
staying alive has nothing to do with Lily's love, the prophecy never 
happened?
I think that when a thing is told that is obviously part of the 
story's bone structure (if you know what I mean), we can count on JKR 
to not take it away it later on. In fact, I challenge you to look 
back at the story that we have, and see whether she has done anything 
like that before. I.e., established something as a fact and then 
demolished it later on. 



<snip>


Naama