Harry Survives (Interpretation of the Prophecy - long)

[Susana da Cunha]

No: HPFGUIDX 110561

". and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while
the other survives ."

--------Trelawney, OoP


"[Harry] will survive to book seven, [...] but I am not going to say whether
he grows any older than that"

-------- JKR, Edinburgh


"Both Madam Trelawney and I worded the prophecy extremely carefully"

-------- JKR, Official Site


After reading OoP, the thing that most stick on my mind was the prophecy. I
lie awake at night trying to figure it out and I recently joined HPfGU
looking for clues. As I found them, it's only fair that I post my
interpretation.

First I must say that I'm new to the list (very first post here) and that I
will never find the time to read on previous posts (I probably won't find
time to read the present posts!) but I did run a search on the prophecy
subject and I might have a contribution.

I will first focus on the following part of the prophecy:

"and either must die at the hand of the other"

Now, first I must pause and explain myself: English is not my native
language; I'm Portuguese. Portuguese is not as flexible as English when it
comes to interpretations. Each word has usually only one specific meaning
and can only mean something else as a figure of speech.

The word either is an excellent example of that. When I read this bit of the
prophecy I immediately asked myself: does it mean 'one or the other' or 'one
and the other'? (In Portuguese there would never be any confusion because we
have different word for those meanings.)

So, does this mean that 'one will die at the hand of the other' or that
'both will die at the hand of the other'?

Before we answer that, let's look at the bit 'at the hand of the other'. Who
is 'the other'?

Josh put it brilliantly:

>Prophecy is delivered in verbal form... there would be no way to
>deliniate between the two versions of "the other". That 'the' is
>mighty important, as it pins down an identity. It's not 'an-other'.
>The only way 'the other' could mean a third person if it is used in a
>proper noun sense, "the Other", which is somewhat possible... but
>then the second other would have to be so as well. Otherwise,
>different terminology would be required.

<snip>

>There is no way to construct the more popular 2-person reading the
>prophecy without the word 'other' except to get totally redundant,
>or use 'vice-versa'. However if a 3rd party were indicated, it would
>be indicated by using 'both', as the 'neither' wouldn't be required
>to keep it as a singular reference... as both would be doomed lest
>the Other were felled.


Personally, I dismiss the possibility that is someone either than Harry or
Voldemort on the grounds that it would be like a muggle prophecy: 'Here is
Harry, here is Voldie, one will die at the hand of the other' - CRASH! -
Harry gets hit by a bus: the other is the bus driver!

(I would accept Pettigrew's silver hand as Steve/asian_lovr2 suggested, but
reluctantly.)

No. The other must be Harry or Voldemort. But which?

The possibilities are:

HypA: one will die at the hand of the other
HypA1: Harry will die at the hand of Voldemort
HypA2: Voldemort will die at the hand of Harry.

HypB: both will die at the hand of the other
HypB1: Harry and Voldemort take turns in dying at the hand of Voldemort
HypB2: Harry and Voldemort take turns in dying at the hand of Harry.
HypB3: Harry and Voldemort die at the same time at the hand of Voldemort.
HypB4: Harry and Voldemort die at the same time at the hand of Harry.

Given HypB1/B2, we should ask: Has Voldemort died when he failed to kill
Harry and is now 'reborn'? Or maybe he's still dead as M.Clifford suggested,
and he's ghost possesses the 'potion engineered' body.

My trouble believing this is not whether ghost can possess bodies or not
(live long enough and you'll see everything!); but the sequence of the
prophecy: the dying comes after the marking. It seems to me like a different
event.

But to eliminate hypothesis, I suggest the analysis of the last part of the
prophecy:

"for neither can live while the other survives"

I always thought this bit had the solution for the whole thing. You see, I
never bought 'neither can live' as meaning 'neither can tolerate'. I took it
literally: 'neither can be alive'.

I was sure both Voldemort and Harry would die at the end of book seven:
Neither (both) can live while the other (one of them) survives. So if one
of them is surviving, both will have to be dead, and the possibility of one
of them surviving is reduced to the absurd!

I was never convinced by my own arguments and thus why I kept myself awake
at night (1. it was too far fetched. Brilliant is simple, JKR is brilliant,
so this must be simple. 2. JKR doesn't seem much of a maths lover).

But then I read JKR's statement that Harry would survive to book seven. but
she's not saying if he grows older!

Is surviving the same as living?... Of course, not!

You live when you exercise life; you survive when you aren't dead.

Voldemort spent 14 years in a state that can be described as surviving - He
was certainly not exercising live! (This is supported by canon: Voldemort
says to Harry "see what I have to do to survive" in PS/SS.)

Surviving must be a completely different state than life and death for
wizards; a third dimension.

If surviving is a completely different thing than living, then maybe we can
do the following interpretation:

For (because) neither (not any) can live (stay in the state of exercising
life) while (whereas) the other (who's hand is mentioned) survives (doesn't
die).

That is: . because both can't stay in the state of life, but one will
survive.

<It took me ten whole minutes to write this sentence in a form that couldn't
be misunderstood. How long do you think it took JKR to write it in a form
that was sure to be misunderstood? A lot less, I bet. English is so
ambiguous. for poetry, not reason>

Now we should look at the hypothesis above.

HypB is false because one of them survives (doesn't die).

HypA1 differs from HypA2 by whose hand is used: Voldemot's or Harry's. As we
know Harry is the one who survives, follows that is his hand. Therefore
HypA1 is false.

Joining HypA2 with the last bit, we conclude:

Voldemort will die at Harry's hand, neither will stay alive, but Harry will
survive.

(either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the
other survives)

<Why didn't she say so in the first place?>

<B-B-Buaaaaahhhh! If Harry doesn't die he will never be with his parents and
Sirius again! If surviving is what Voldemort did for 14 years, who wants to
survive! This is really saaaad!>

But. wait: JKR is not saying whether he grows any older than that.

Will Pettigrew tell him how to make a potion engineered body? Will he give
his other arm to repay his life debt? Or will Harry 'choose' to 'move on'
and die?

Stay tuned for more episodes of...

Sorry, folks. I'm with the list Elves on this:

Interpret the facts, interpret the clues, interpret the characters and their
actions.

Wild speculation on parallel lists.

Note: I interpreted 'the other' as the same 'the other' as before because it
seems the logical thing to me; but as I said, English is not my native
language. Be sure to correct me if I'm wrong. (if I am: Voldemort will die
at he's own hand, neither will stay alive, but Harry will survive.)

Best Regards,

Susana