[HPforGrownups] A far-fetched analysis of the Prophecy

[Random]

No: HPFGUIDX 69560


On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 10:19 AM, Lissa B wrote:
> I said it before and I say it again now:  I believe Harry Potter and
> Ginny Weasley are Tom Marvolo Riddle's parents.

But, if that's the case, Voldemort wouldn't be Salazar Slytherin's only 
living ancestor (if you think this is an error, why was it corrected 
back in later editions - _and_, if you think this "must" be an error 
you can't possibly believe the theory you stated) as Harry and Ginny 
would be also

> I can hear you all snickering.  I know you think I'm entirely off my
> rocker.  I may well be. (grin)

And that's a bad thing since when?

> My response:  No, this is what Dumbledore *wants* Harry to believe, but
> it is not what he says.  What he says when Harry asks what the prophecy
> means is this: "It meant... that the person who has the only chance of
> conquering Lord Voldemort for good was born at the end of July, nearly
> sixteen years ago."  Period.  End of sentence.  *Then* Dumbledore goes
> on to state a fact in a *new* sentence: "This boy would be born to
> parents who had already defied Voldemort three times."  Note that the
> second sentence does *not* begin with "It also meant that" or some
> similar phrase.  It would have been easy and efficient simply to 
> include
> in the first sentence the idea that the boy had to be born to parents
> who had defied Voldemort.  Dumbledore does not include it because it is
> *not* what the prophecy says.  He's being deceitful because he doesn't
> want Harry to suspect his true relationship with Tom Marvolo Riddle.

Or AD himself doesn't know... prophecies can be tricky things.

> Objection #2:  Lissa, that's completely ridiculous.  Dumbledore rambles
> on at *length* about how the prophecy could have applied to Neville or
> Harry.  If the only thing that Trelawney really said about the boy with
> the power to vanquish Voldemort is that he would be born at the end of
> July in 1980, well that could be any of *thousands* of babies.  That
> would make Dumbledore's whole point about Neville silly.

random thought and i think _very_ interesting idea... if they _are_ his 
parents, what if they had six before him? is there anything significant 
about the seventh child of a seventh child of a seventh child (if we 
assume either Arthur or Molly is indeed a seventh child)

> My response:  Uhhhm, yeah.  It really does make Dumbledore's Neville
> point silly.  Now I *like* it because I'm a longtime Neville fan who
> really wanted him to play a pivotal role in Voldemort's defeat, but I
> truly do suspect Dumbledore is engaging in subterfuge here.  Notice 
> that
> Dumbledore doesn't say Sibyll's prophecy could have applied to *only*
> two wizard boys.  He just says it could have applied to two wizard
> boys.  That doesn't mean it couldn't have applied to 80 wizard boys and
> 10000 muggle boys.

This is worth examining on its own... do we know any other characters 
in the books that are or might have been born at the end of July in 
1980?

> Furthermore, when Dumbledore suggests that Neville
> fits the profile in the prophecy, he includes two facts that aren't 
> even
> touched on in Trelawney's statements: that Neville is a wizard and that
> his parents were in the Order of the Phoenix.  He does a masterful job
> of leading Harry to conclude that the "born to parents who thrice 
> defied
> him" passage applies to Voldemort's would-be-vanquisher, but he doesn't
> state it.  Honest!  Look closely at Dumbledore's statements.  He just
> suggests it.  Harry has no reason to question it, so he doesn't.
> (Furthermore, I'm not certain Dumbledore really states the Longbottoms
> *defied* Voldemort... but I'm covering that point next, so I'll stop
> this argument here.)

but this doesn't necessarily mean H/G are his parents... in fact, H 
himself may already be out of the running, having (depending on your 
interpretation) defied LV more than three times.

> Objection #3 Fine, Lissa, but even if "born to parents who thrice 
> defied
> him" refers to Tom Riddle, Harry can't be Voldemort's dad.  He's 
> already
> defied him four times.

ok fine, i concede it depends on interpretation. but it certainly 
doesn't HAVE TO be harry. who else could it be? and who else could the 
end-of-july kid be?

> My response:  You let Rowling mislead you with Dumbledore's words.
> Think about what defiance means.  Now Dumbledore tries his best to make
> Harry (and Rowling's readers) believe that defiance is synonymous with
> escape when he mentions that the Potters and the Longbottoms both
> escaped Voldemort three times so soon after stating that Harry's 
> parents
> defied Voldemort three times.  (I'm assuming that the "This boy..."
> sentence on p 841 does refer to Harry and not Voldemort, but with
> Dumbledore's trickiness my assumption could be wrong.)  The Cambridge
> online dictionary offers this definition of "defy": to refuse to obey,
> or to act or be against, a person, decision, law, situation, etc.
> Defiance is a willful act of disobedience, not a passive retreat or a
> lucky escape.  In my opinion Harry has defied Tom Marvolo Riddle twice:
> once when he refused to give him the Philosopher's Stone and once when
> he refused to answer Voldemort's question in the graveyard in GoF.  The
> escapes don't count.
>
> Rowling doesn't want readers suspecting that Harry might eventually fit
> the description of someone who defied Voldemort three times any more
> than Dumbledore wants Harry to realize it.  Just to prove this fact to
> myself, I asked my father--who was midway through OOP at the time--how
> many times Harry has defied Voldemort.  My dad thought for a moment 
> then
> said, "Twice."  When he finished OOP I asked him again.  In the wake of
> Dumbledore's manipulative words, my Dad claimed, without a moment's
> hesitation, that Harry had defied Voldemort four times.  My groan was
> long and loud.

This doesn't mean he was any more right the first time... the number of 
defiance can range from zero to six depending on how you interpret 
things.

> Don't let JKR deceive you.  She could teach Dumbledore lessons on the
> manipulative usage of the English language.  (Just to clarify: that was
> a compliment.)
>
> I'm not going to go into my many reasons for believing Harry and Ginny
> are Tom Riddle Jr's parents because this post is already too long.  
> (You
> can look them up in the archive if you're curious.)

I got the impression this was a completely new theory, and anyway i 
wouldn't have the first clue what to search for? would you mind 
emailing to random832 at rcbooks dot org if you're completely unwilling 
to tell the list?

> No one's going to
> believe me anyway.  (She smiles and shrugs ever-so-cheerfully.)  And
> that's a very good thing.  I don't want to annoy Rowling.  So please,
> don't believe me.  I'm a nut and my theory is ludicrous.  Really!  Move
> along.  Nothing to see here.
>
> A thoroughly absurd girl with an equally absurd theory,
> Lissa B
>
> **A note added in retrospect: I don't mean to suggest the value of OOP
> rests on the revelations it offers about the series' final outcome.  
> The
> character development in this novel was astonishing and well worth 870
> pages with or without clever foreshadowing, prophecies and word tricks.

Finally, to everyone else: I would like people to start thinking about 
who else might have been in late July 1980, and who else (of ANY age) 
might have or might yet defy LV three times.

A parting thought, for those who think four and those (including 
myself) who think it will almost certainly be four before the series is 
out - "thrice defied" does not imply "no more than thrice defied".

--Random832