Prophecy/Trelawney/Voldemort/Worries about Books 6 and 7

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 70899

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diana_Sirius_fan" 
<siriuslove71 at y...> wrote:
> Hi everyone.
> 
> I have a couple things I would like to mention about all of your 
> posts.  I think there are some really good theories out there that 
I 
> so much want to be true.  Some of them I believe to be true and I 
> keep thinking, "what if they're not?"  I have high hopes that JK's 
> version will be just as deep and interesting as some of yours.  I'm 
> just afraid I will be disappointed if some of these predictions 
about 
> books 6 and 7 turn up to be nothing.
> 
> For instance, I really want Harry to be the Heir of Gryffindor. I 
> believe he is and do not accept that Voldemort would waste his 
> precious time going after Harry because of some prediction an old 
> fraud made many years ago.  This does not make sense. Why oh Why 
> would Dumbledore put so much weight in a prophecy?  Anyone can make 
a 
> prediction, but since they stick it in a bottle at the MOM it makes 
> it true?
> 
> I think that Trelawney could tell during her interview with 
> Dumbledore that he was not going to hire her. She needed something 
to 
> knock his socks off to get the job, so she made up the prediction. 
> Dumbledore has said before something to the effect that predicting 
> the future is tricky. (not sure his exact words)  So, I still do 
not 
> understand how he would believe this prediction and the WW would 
make 
> such a big deal about it. She could of said any month, lets just 
say 
> the person born at the end of the eighth month.  Then, there would 
be 
> some other child that Voldemort would be spending his life trying 
to 
> defeat.  
> 
> Before OOP came out there was a lot of excitement because we knew 
> Dumbledore was going to tell Harry everything.  So, this is it?  A 
> prediction by a woman who has not correctly guessed anything in the 
> last 16 years. (The GOF prediction was probably made up by her for 
> emphasis also.) I was dumbfounded when I read about the prophecy, 
and 
> not because I thought it was so great. I thought, no way. 
> 
> Now, if Harry was the Heir of Gryffindor it would make so much more 
> sense.  Of course, Voldie being the Heir of Salazar Slytherin would 
> want to defeat the only living Heir of his rival. I just can not 
> believe that Voldie would go after a kid because of a prediction.  
> Also, I do not believe that Harry being a baby could survive AK 
> because of a prediction. He needed to have Gryffindor blood (and 
> possibly Slytherin blood also) in him to live through a curse like 
> that.  A prophecy would not have saved him.  I keep calling it a 
> prediction because that is all it really is.  
> 
> Thanks for listening, 
> 
> Diana

First of all, I must admit that I find the "Heir of Gryffindor" 
theory boring, but I know that I am in the minority. But I don't like 
it, because the blood line turns out to be to important in that 
theory, IMO.

Second, I think it is pretty sure to say, that Trelawney might be a 
fraud, but that the two predictions are indeed correct. And here is 
my main argument: If Trelawney is that good, in faking a deep voice 
and invent a prophecy, that she can fool even Dumbledore, why didn't 
she do it all the time? Why does she make such nonsense predictions, 
which can be recognized as fake by anyone with a bit of common sense 
(sorry all Lavender or Pavati fans)? I am sure if she could do it on 
purpose, she would make it all the time and everyone would praise her 
as a famous seer. By the way, you shouldn't forgot that most of the 
POA prophecy already came true, and this includes the number of years 
Peter Pettigrew was chained (and she couldn't have talked about 
Sirius, because Sirius escape from his chains way before). These are 
pretty detailed informations she gave.

Hickengruendler