The Trelawney Prediction

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 58186

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" 
<valkyrievixen at y...> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I posted this comment previously this week. In deep obscurity. 
> Which I suppose is the reason it has generated no responses.
> THat is of course assuming that the entire list hasn't decided to 
> never reply to my posts again :P 
> 

Yes, I get those 'no replies' times as well. I always choose to 
believe that it's because my posts are so stunningly brilliant that 
no one can think of any possible argument against them ;-)


> I have noticed that something strange is generally accepted in the 
> theories that I have read. Many are satisfied with the concept 
> that Trelawneys *First True Prediction* was the fall of Voldemort. 
> 
> In contrast I would like to question this complacency among fans. 
> JK has duped me too many times to rest my laurels on that 
> simplistic and logical conclusion.
> 
> I would like to hear suggestions from the posting list on what 
> Trelawneys "other" premonition was. 
> 
> I haven't got any theories myself. What I would like to contribute 
> is some canon to ponder. 
> Professor Trelawney is not exactly noted for *cheerful* visions. 
> Some may disagree but I do believe that the defeat of the ominous 
> Dark Lord is a little too positive a prediction for Trelawney. 
> Doom and perdition are her watermark so what chance that she could 
> depart so fully from her usual and be the bearer of news that 
> would cause revelling in the streets. 

I think Trelawney's first prediction *was* concerned with 
Voldemort's fall; but as you say, it wasn't a cheerful, happy 
prediction. More along the lines of 'The Dark Lord will gain victory 
for a time, but there will arise from the Potter line one greater 
and more terrible.'

That should really make the entire WW ... errr ... form an orderly 
queue for the bathroom. Greater and more terrible than Voldemort? 
What *are* we facing?

I'm basing this on the canon that Ollivander suggests that 'we must 
expect great things from you, Mr Potter ... After all, He Who Must 
Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great.' [PS/SS 
Ch. 5 p. 65 UK paperback], plus the canon that Dumbledore is 
described as 'terrible' in GoF Ch. 35 - 'the look upon Dumbledore's 
face ... was more terrible than Harry could ever have imagined.' 
[GoF Ch. 35 pp. 589-590 UK paperback].

A prophecy along these lines would also explain why Voldemort wanted 
to kill off the Potters, why Dumbledore would rather leave Harry 
with an abusive muggle family than a kind wizard one, why *both* 
Snape and McGonagall come down on Harry's rule-breaking like a ton 
of bricks in PS/SS, why Dumbledore's challenges to Harry (if you 
take the MAGIC DISHWASHER view) are *moral* ones.

[The stone can only be retrieved by someone who truly doesn't want 
it. Harry has to decide for himself to use his Parseltongue gift to 
save the school. Harry has to decide for himself whether to kill the 
person who betrayed his parents.]

Harry is going to be a great and terrible wizard. 'Great and 
terrible' because he's so evil and powerful (like Voldemort) or so 
good and powerful (like Dumbledore can be)? Having beaten Voldemort 
to a draw when a baby, it's already obvious that he's the one the 
prophecy talks about. What is not obvious is whether he's going to 
be good or evil.

So it's safer to leave him with the Dursley's. For all their faults, 
they will *not* let Harry grow up with the view that he's 
Mr.Incredibly Powerful Wizard.

It's safer to let Snape be a living example of unfair, sadistic 
behaviour ('You do *not* want to grow up like me, do you Potter?'). 
Plus Snape, as a reformed DE, is likely to be very astute in 
spotting the beginnings of an 'I can do anything I like because I'm 
the great Harry Potter' attitude. 

McGonagall, meanwhile, can play 'good cop' to Snape's 'bad cop'. And 
Dumbledore can stay more in the background. Guiding, testing and 
teaching Harry. Being the sort of wise and powerful wizard (with a 
good sense of humour) that Harry would like to be when he grows up.

I suspect that Trelawney's *first* prediction was made to a very 
select audience. Of our current cast of characters, Snape would make 
most sense. 

Snape because he is certainly reporting to Dumbledore in GoF and 
could thus reasonably be expected to have reported the first genuine 
prophecy to Dumbledore, *but* may have also had to report it (in his 
DE role) to Voldemort (especially if he wasn't alone at the time).

It would also explain why Dumbledore neatly sidesteps Harry's 
question of 'Why does Snape hate me?'[paraphrase] in PS/SS Ch. 17 by 
directing the answer into a discussion of Snape's hatred of James 
Potter. 'Snape hates you because he's scared stiff you're going to 
turn out worse than Voldemort,' probably wouldn't be a very good 
answer to give to an eleven year old child.

McGonagall, in the first chapter of PS/SS, is wondering what's so 
special about Harry Potter. This suggests she hasn't heard anything 
about a prophecy. Another clue is that she sees Trelawney as a 
fraud - not quite so likely if she'd been present during an actual, 
genuine prophetic trance.

If Voldemort also knows about a prophecy that Harry will 
be 'greater', then that explains why he is both wary of Harry and 
anxious to use his blood in the graveyard scene (again, see 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40044). 

Harry is the roadblock on the way to the thousand year Voldereich. 
Using his blood will mean that some of this 'greater' wizard's power 
will get inside Voldemort.

Killing him, on the other hand, is likely to be tricky ...

Pip!Squeak