Why were the sacrifices different? (was: A moral theory of Magic )

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 95401

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> 
> Carol:
> If it helps any, a Prophecy has to be ambiguous so that it can be
> fulfilled in various ways and still be true, at the same time allowing
> for the element of choice or free will. As I see it, Harry was not
> born with any more power than any other wizard child; he was merely
> one of two possible candidates who could fulfill the Prophecy. He was
> "destined" to be the one who could defeat Voldemort only *after*
> Voldemort *chose* him (and transferred some of his powers to him,
> thanks to the backfired AK, which also temporarily rendered Voldemort
> powerless). Lily's choice to die is also important, even though its
> not mentioned in the Prophecy, because it ensured Harry's survival
> (and made his ultimate defeat of Voldemort possible). 
> 

Kneasy taking up the cudgels  again.

A prophecy (any prophecy) is just a verbal outburst until the events 
supposedly foretold have actually happened. Until then it can be 
anything from wishful thinking to dementia. Sybill had never produced
a prophecy before - DD said that he thought that she had no talent 
whatsoever; who could say that what she was saying was the genuine
article? How certain was DD at the time? We can't be sure, but remember
that there was an eaves-dropper who overheard at least part of what Sybill 
had to say. If, as we generally believe, this intruder passed on what 
he/she heard to Voldy, then he might take actions which could make the
Prophecy self-fulfilling. A definite possibility.

It can even be read that the Prophecy has already been fulfilled, it's vague
enough.

Voldy did attack a child born at the end of July to those who defied him
thrice. Harry is marked and Voldy was vanquished. Defeated but not
necessarily destroyed; that is the meaning of vanquished after all. And
defeat need not be permanent. Most posters don't think of the Prophecy
in that light, they'd prefer that it still has some bearing on future events.

Me, I prefer to think of it as a glorious red herring; something provided
by JKR to keep fans busy but not really of any consequence. What can it
tell us that we don't already know? That Harry is Voldy's enemy? That's
not news; that there will be a showdown and that one of them will win?
We've expected that from book 1. Unless the obscure presentation
offers some insight into a subsiduary theory (possession of Tom by
Salazar for example, to explain one of those puzzling 'they's in there) 
then it really won't help us much.
  

Carol: 
> If the Prophecy said straight out, "Harry Potter will destroy
> Voldemort," there would be no mystery, no suspense, and no free will,
> only predestination, which I don't think is what JKR intends.


Kneasy:
Dumbledore and JKR have shot your fox. OoP Chap 37.

"...so does that mean that...that one of us has got to kill the other one..
in the end?"

"Yes," said Dumbledore.

Not a lot of choice there.
The Prophesy is introduced and three pages later DD tells us what it all
boils down to. Harry will kill Voldy or vice versa. No ifs, buts or maybes.