The Trelawney Prediction

[Linda]

No: HPFGUIDX 58248

> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" 
> > <valkyrievixen at y...> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > 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. 
> > > 
> <snip the rest>
> 
> 
> Then (aja_1991):
> > I'm game for this!
> > 
> > My assumption - right or wrong - is that whatever Trelawney 
> predicted 
> > first was what started or accelerated V's targetting of at least 
> > Harry, and possibly one or both of his parents, to begin with.  
> > Otherwise, I see no reason to belive he wouldn't simply send a 
> squad 
> > of DEs to deal with the meddlesome fools... for some reason, he 
> felt 
> > the need to deal with it personally.  And that's why a 
prediction 
> > along the lines of "Harry will defeat Voldemort" in some form 
> works.  
> > If she says Harry specifically, he's there just for him and he 
> takes 
> > out James and Lily for trying to stop him.  If she said "the son 
of 
> a 
> > Potter" then he's after James and Harry, who are both the sons 
of a 
> > Potter.  Add to that an interview in which JKR refuses to reveal 
> what 
> > the first prediction was, and you have to assume it's critical 
to 
> the 
> > plot... like as in it led to Harry being the famous orphan with 
a 
> > scar.
> > 
> 
> I innermurk reply:
> It's never made sense to me to say that Trelawny's first true 
> prediction was that Harry would defeat LV. In the first place, 
she's 
> always vague (at least a lot more so than that). In the second 
place, 
> Harry didn't actually defeat him seeing as he's back. It remains 
to 
> be seen whether Harry will be the one who finally does defeat him. 
> And as that hasn't happened yet, we can't know for sure whether 
that 
> is true or not, thus we can't know whether the prediction was true 
or 
> not.
> Now if her prediction was that Harry would cause the *fall* of 
> Voldemort, I could buy that, because he did fall.
>
 
     >snipping more prediction theories by aja_1991<


> I innermurk says:


> They're good theories for what might happen, but they could not 
have 
> been Trelawny's actual prediction. Her predicition will *have* to 
> have *already* been proved true for DD to know that she made a 
> *correct* prediction.
> 
> Innermurk



Now me(Linda):

   I've been following this thread since this morning and I IMO I 
think that it's gone off onto a false tangent. The discussion 
currantly surrounding the prediction is based on Trelaway's first 
prediction being "true". That is not what is stated in canon. 
Dumbledore states, "That brings her total of REAL predictions up to 
two. I should offer her a pay raise..."(pg 426 US paperback) He and 
Harry are talking about whether or not the prediction was real, not 
whether or not it came true. In fact, at the time that they are 
having the conversation, they don't know whether the entire second 
prediction will come true either. They know that Wormtail escaped 
and is probably going to return to LV but the outcome of that 
sequence of events is by no means a foregone conclusion, especially 
considering Wormtails general ineptitude. Both Dumbledore and Harry, 
IMHO, are refering to her penchant for making cheap, theatrical 
predictions. In other words "predictions" that are just for show and 
not "real". When the predictions are looked at from this 
perspective, almost any theory that would drive LV to kill any or 
all of the Potters is pretty much a fair game theory, as long as it 
doesn't contradict canon.

-Linda