Firenze and Forests (Was Re: Trelawney's Future Role)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 97412

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at s...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> Deeby:
> >I would certainly agree that the apparently opposing themes of 
> > prophecy and choice will be central to the denouement of the series.
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan:
> I think Deeby is right that a *prophecy* is a very interesting thing 
> to have built to such prominence in a series which has also so 
> strongly stressed our *choices*.  It requires us to wrestle much 
> harder with what it all means.
> 

Just to widen the thread somewhat- some of the regulars
may remember a couple of posts I made a few months ago where
I wondered if the Prophecy wasn't a prediction for the future in
books 6&7, but something that had already happened, or mostly
so anyway. The word 'vanquish' came in for close consideration;
it doesn't mean destroy, it means defeat. Enemies can come
back from defeats.

Re-reading OoP, chap 37, The Lost Prophecy, the following
sentence caught my eye: 

"You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised.
Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but..."

Using DD's own words, Harry has already vanquished Voldy
once and Voldy is back on the road with his comeback tour.
Vanquishing doesn't hack it. 

DD seems to think that death is a reasonable alternative
solution:

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

"Yes," said Dumbledore.

No, I'll correct  myself - not 'death' is a reasonable alternative,
'killing' is a reasonable alternative. Something very different.
This is a bit of a change of tune from his "There are worse
things than death, Tom!" in the Ministry. Or is he playing with
words again?

I've dissected that statement before; what is worse than death?
Eternal life? The endless dragging of century after century with
no surcease? Isn't this what Voldy desires, what he's  striven to
achieve? The fact that he can survive as a disembodied entity
suggests immortality has almost been grasped. This will
make him bloody difficult to dispose of. How can he be killed?
Can he be killed, at least in terms that make sense to a mortal?
He's already survived one bouncing AK, why not another? What's
to stop him floating off into the wilderness to re-appear in a few
years, refreshed, re-invigorated, ready for round 3?

Of course, if you accept my possession theory, then there is
something else worse than death - eternal slavery. Submission
to  an occupying power - forever. It all  depends on the answer
to the question "What is Voldemort?" Is Voldy just Tom Riddle
gone bad, or is he Tom Riddle possessed by an evil power that
resided in the Chamber and has held him in thrall ever since?
It's a theory I like. No evidence, of course; or perhaps more
correctly, no direct evidence. Just a few bits and pieces that can
be read one way or the other and add up to much or nothing.

We've already seen Harry and Voldy waving wands at each other
to no great purpose. Possibly this is a clue showing that this is
not the way to do it. High noon in Hogsmead is a non-starter.

DD whitters on about calling Voldemort by his name, not 
"he who must not be named" So why does DD call him Tom?
DD drones on about choices; IMO it won't be Harry's choices
that matter in the end, it'll be Tom's, because Tom and 
Voldemort are not quite the same thing. Remove Tom and
Voldy is no more.

Of course, the remaining fraction may be a bit of a problem.

Kneasy