Why is everyone so convinced the prophecy is correct?

[Melody]

No: HPFGUIDX 82219

tobyreiner asked:
>Why is everyone so convinced the prophecy is correct?

We are suppose to because the really wise, really old genius tells us to?

Because Trelawney's eyes roll into the back of her head, and she does
not know what happened?  (in RL, we would call a fit.)


I am not sure I would say everyone believes it to be correct.  I guess
because I know too many skeptics.  Surface read does leave one
assuming that the prophecy is correct.  We had a prophecy in PoA, and
from our view, and Dumbledore's, it came true.  (I wonder if
Dumbledore registered that prophecy too...what would he gain by doing
so?)  The prophecy, that pretty much all the readers I know assume
came true, was in the style similar to the first one, and by
Dumbledore's reaction to the second one, we are told that Trelawney
has done this before, and thus we assume Dumbledore trust the first
prophecy as much as this second one.

But, I think you have already thought of all that.  So, I am moving on
to your next wonderings.


tobyreiner wrote:
>Ok, this is *really* bugging me about both my favourite fantasy
>series now. What makes it worse is that in both cases the prophecy is
>identical and a needless, in fact, stupid, addition to the series.

But prophecies are so...so...*epic*.  Don't you think?

It is often said that making in this world is 90% work and 10% luck. 
People have always wondered how things happen to other people and not
them.  They find interesting ways of explaining them.  Or rather, try
to convince themselves that they are "blessed" too.  Prophecies help
to explain how the "hero" was picked in a nice mystic, ethereal way. 
Which is rather romantic as well.

Sorry, you are jaded to them.  I find the idea that I could be
somewhat "predestined" to do something rather enchanting.

Thing about the HP prophecy is that it does not spell out him
precisely.  It is as vague as most prophesies, which makes them ever
so annoying. 

So now we wonder, given the vague nature of prophecy, whether the
sides have translated the prophecy correctly...which is the next
question you ask.


tobyreiner wrote:
>I just don't understand why Dumbledore and Voldemort are so convinced
>that Trewlawny's prophecy is correct. Is there any proof that it will
>be? Isn't it possible that her seeing eye got things out of whack? Do
>we know for certain that seers never make mistakes? 

No.  We are not given the chance to understand why they trust it so
much.  From "our" education of divination, courtesy of Harry, we are
given no guidelines of how to tell a real prophecy from mindless
ramblings.  The professor does not know, so we don't.  All we can
assume is that the two smartest characters we have been presented with
could possibly, in their education and research, know how to
distinguish a real prophecy and we know they both believe it to be true.  

Can we doubt them?  Sure.

Should we?  Depends on your skepticism and trust in the author.

Should we trust JKR?  I'm a MDDT.  My thoughts should be obvious.  :D

Hard part is how she twisted her words in that prophecy.  See, that is
the tricky thing *about* prophecies.  If your read is proven wrong,
you can always read it another way.  

 
Kneazle wrote:
> In the Dept of Mysteries the prophecy is labelled "Voldemort and 
> Harry Potter(?)" It may not refer to Harry at all, but that doesn't 
> make it wrong. DD seems convinced the prophecy refers to Harry, but 
> DD has been wrong before. Or DD could be lying.

I thought the prophecy sphere had "Voldemort and ?" on it until it was
determined who it meant.  It could be read two ways I guess.

(a) the question mark was not removed

or

(b) the identity of the second person is still vague


Kneazle wrote:
> I wonder if someone (Kneasy? Talisman?) has considered the truly 
> horror-inspiring possibility that Dumbledore has been using HP as a 
> decoy for sixteen years to protect Neville Longbottom. 

Well I am not Kneasy or Talisman, but I find that thought rather
disturbing but intriguing as well.  

Ok, let me remove my MD hat so this does not mix.  Mostly because this
will paint a very bleak look on Dumbledore's morals.

Now.  We have a Dumbledore that has an orphan boy who he believes that
Voldemort will think will destroy him.  What clues Voldemort has is
the scar on Harry and the fact that after he attacked Harry, he was
stripped from his body.  

Now.  Dumbledore does work to protect Harry right after the events,
but he does not protect Neville as strongly.  We can assume this
because the death eaters managed to break into the home and torture
the family.  After those events, Neville went to live with his
grandmother, who does support Dumbledore, but she is not mentioned as
being a part of the OoP (though that could be a cover.)

We then have Dumbledore working to bring Harry's DADA skills high and
ignored Neville to a degree except in Snape's bullying.  Now, if
Dumbledore does believe that Neville is the prophecy boy, then he
*really* believes it is Neville, as he is, is enough.  

And, if that is true, then Dumbledore is *really* lying to Harry.  He
is putting him in danger over and over and over again just to cover
for Neville and his need to be what?  Innocent?  Protected?  A decoy?
 It is the Sirius posing as the secret keeper to hide Pettigrew all
over again?  And, we all know how *that* turned out.


Melody
who thinks that read of Dumbledore makes him just as bad as Crouch Sr.