The Second Prophecy (digression)

[iris_ft]

No: HPFGUIDX 118037


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:


"One thing worth noticing is how the entire passage where Harry 
relates
Sybill's burblings to DD is constructed. He reports the prophecy,
carefully putting no name to "the servant of Voldemort". Then
immediately he starts on about saving Peter's life and that it'll be
his fault if Voldy comes back. (Harry believes the prophecy is about
Peter.) DD is more laid back about the whole thing and goes so far as
to state - "...predicting the future is a very difficult business
indeed.... Professor Trelawney, bless her, is living proof of that."

The way it's all presented on the page, almost without pause eliding
from the servant of Voldy in the prophecy to saving Pettigrews life
(not necessarily the same thing at all) could be a very nice piece of
mis-direction, well worthy of an admitted fan of Agatha Christie.

DD gives a sort of gloss to the whole episode, an "it'll all come out
in the wash" pragmatism. Hmm. MAGIC DISHWASHER, I shouldn't wonder. 
He
does give some credence to Harry's concerns, even though earlier he 
has
stated that Sirius has not acted like an innocent man."

***************************************************************

Hi,

I hope you will forgive me if I don't go on with the original 
thread. 
 I have no reason to discuss  Kneasy's theory, though I don't really 
buy on the ESE!Sirius possibility. We need to keep all the doors 
open until we read the last book.
I'd rather like to consider what Kneasy calls "the way it's all 
presented on the page".

To tell you the truth, I don't know what to do with that "prophecy 
affair", because it regards the question of fate. Trelawney enounces 
Harry's fate through what she says about Voldemort's servant and 
about "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord". But her 
voice is misty, and not only because of her intonation.

In PoA, JKR spends most of the chapters showing Trelawney as a 
fraud, as an eccentric, and suddenly, bang, she becomes a true seer 
and makes a reliable prediction. 
That's where my problem roots: even if I consider different 
possibilities (like Trelawney following a scheme similar to 
Neville's, who turns out to be a key character though he looks so 
clumsy and anecdotic when we first meet him), I can't easily admit 
that I'm facing a true seer. 
And my own opinion concerning seers has nothing to do with it. I 
just don't manage to interpret JKR's intention. What does she want 
to say when she writes Trelawney? Does she want to say that seers 
are frauds? But in that case, why does she suddenly changes 
completely the orientation of the character, and makes her become 
the voice of Harry's fate? Does she want to say that Harry is 
doomed, that it is all written in the stars, or elsewhere? But why 
does she spend in that case so much time caricaturing the Divination 
lessons?

There's something else; on JKR's web site, you can read that in the 
F.A.Q. section: 
Q: Do you believe in fate?
A: No, I believe in hard work and luck, and that the first often 
leads to the second.

Why would JKR use fate as a plotting device if she doesn't believe 
in it? 
Okay, you can object that when an author writes a fiction, he/she 
doesn't necessary need to believe what he/she writes. He/she can 
write sublime things though he/she is actually mean, and vice versa. 
He/she can even act in complete contradiction with what he/she 
writes, though it is sincerely written. See what happened with Jean 
Jacques Rousseau, who wrote so beautifully about the proper way to 
educate children, but happened at the same time to abandon his own 
kids. I'm not sure an author is entirely portrayed in what he/she 
writes. It's a vast debate, and I don't think I'm able to give it an 
answer, because it requires much more experience and knowledge than 
I will ever have.

So back to JKR, to Trelawney, and to Harry.

And, as we need something to rely on, let's trust JKR's words: she 
doesn't believe in fate.
If we trust them, then we can consider this possibility: when she 
writes the prophecies, she's mis-directing us, and there's something 
more we don't see at first glance.
That's where "the way it's all presented" happens to be important.

There's an interesting thing in what Kneasy wrote: "Dumbledore gives 
a sort of gloss to the whole episode".
Don't you find the part Dumbledore plays in that "prophecy affair" 
rather particular?
He is the one who makes Harry and the reader believe what Trelawney 
said.
He legitimates the two prophecies.
In both cases, he's alone with Harry; there's nobody else who could 
make an objection to what he says, and to what the prophecies tell.
Harry believes the PoA prophecy is true because Dumbledore declares 
that Trelawney made a real prediction:
"Do you know, Harry, I think she might have been" (
) "Who'd have 
thought it? That brings her total of real predictions up to two. I 
should offer her a pay rise
" (PoA, chapter 22)

Now let's have a look at the OotP prophecy, at the way it is 
presented. This time, Harry doesn't even hear it directly. He has to 
trust Dumbledore's memory.
And what do you think of the circumstances in which the prophecy was 
made? Dumbledore says Trelawney and him were at the Hog' Head. He 
had gone there "to see an applicant for the post of Divination 
teacher".
Why did he meet Trelawney at the Hog's Head? Why didn't he meet her 
in his office, like every head master does when he wants to talk 
with an applicant? We can object that it was a war time and that he 
probably didn't want to risk the school safety, if the applicant 
happened to be a spy or a Death Eater. However, he says himself some 
pages later that the Hog' Head "is a place where it is never safe to 
assume you are not being overheard". So why didn't he choose a safer 
place? At that time, working for Dumbledore, for Hogwarts, meant 
working against Voldemort. So why didn't he care more for the safety 
of the teacher he was about to hire?

We generally tend to consider the prophecies, and only the 
prophecies; we barely consider "the way it's all presented". And 
it's all presented according to Dumbledore. He is the one who 
legitimates the prophecies, and who gives them their orientation. 
Is he able to do it because he knew them even before Trelawney 
pronounced their words?

He says in PoA: "The consequences of our actions are always so 
complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very 
difficult business, indeed
"
His action, the night he met with Trelawney at the Hog's Head, had 
one consequence: Several months later, Voldemort went after the 
Potter to kill their son. Was it unexpected?
Or are we facing a long and patient manipulation?

"I believe in hard work and luck, and that the first often leads to 
the second."

Maybe it's only a coincidence. But it could also be what really lies 
behind the prophecies.
I'm not meaning by this that Dumbledore is evil. I'm just supposing 
he's an operator, working hard, on something even more important 
than defeating Voldemort. Something like the transfiguration of the 
wizard world, with Voldemort and Harry as instruments. Will he be 
lucky enough to reach his goal?

Just my (confused) opinion, lost among many, many others,

Amicalement,

Iris