Did DD lie about the Prophecy?

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 117912


boyd wrote :
"Nice analysis of a great topic, Del, but I think you miss one other
possibility."

Del replies :
I'd be surprised if I missed only one :-D !

Boyd wrote :
" But first a few observations. 1) We don't ever see or hear the
prophecy firsthand."

Del replies :
Not first-hand, agreed. We do see a recording of it in the Pensieve,
but that leaves way enough room for subversive reading, I agree.

Boyd wrote :
"That leaves plenty of room for a most subversive reading of these
prophecies: they're all a big fake-out. And a manipulative Dumbledore
is the perpetrator, deftly using his partial knowledge of the future
to nudge things in the right direction--with the 'prophecies.' I'm
suggesting that he 'talks' through Sybill--a known seer-wannabe--to
create bogus prophecies that meet his needs."

Del replies :
Interesting !

But my first question is : what was DD's need to tell Harry about LV's
servant breaking free ? As we discussed previously, the knowledge of
that prophecy didn't change anything in the way events happened that
night. So what was the point ?

Unless, of course, you become really subversive and say that the only
point of the servant-prophecy was to set a precedent, so that Harry
would not even think of doubting the vanquisher-prophecy when he would
hear it...

As for what JKR says in interviews, I agree that we should be careful
about it. She obviously enjoys leading us completely astray in her
books, so why shouldn't she enjoy getting us completely astray during
the whole time the series is being written ? HP is still a
work-in-progress, after all.

Boyd wrote :
"rainy days and mondays always get me subversive"

Del replies :
Do those two conditions reinforce or annihilate each other ? In other
words : do you get uber-subversive on rainy mondays :-) ?

Del