Prophecy Wording And Killing Harry For Fun Combined - Was "Prophecy Wording"

[AyanEva]

No: HPFGUIDX 128008


hambtty
> Browsing JKR's quick quote/quill website I came across a quote from 
> her stating that she and Trelawney worded the Prophecy very 
> carefully.  Checking OOTP page 841, I read and re-read the Prophecy 
> (as I'm sure many before me have and I apologize if this has been 
> overly discussed in the past - I'm new here).

tinglinger:
> :::snip::: 
> I think that "Live" is not literal but "Live" as in live 
> their life - choose a career they would enjoy (not one forced on 
> them in able to fight against LV endlessly), marry, have a family, 
> etc) while LV survives.  Harry and Neville will survive but we'll 
> all be on an emotional roller coaster before the end of Book 7.  
> Can't wait!


Hi tinglinger!

It's been a while since I posted, but I've been mulling over the whole
"live" part of the prophecy as well. I'm with those who honestly can't
see how Harry can come out of this alive. However, that belief,
personally speaking, has little to do with the wording of the prophecy
itself; it's more of a logical conclusion than anything. 

I know there have been several discussions of stuff like, the
definition of a hero, heroes in classical literature, and what
literary examples might have influenced JKR. (I'm desparately trying
to find one of those actual threads to link to, but Yahoo refuses to
cooperate) 

But definitions aside, I think a really easy example of one of Harry's
literary predecesors is Frodo from LOTR. And look how Frodo ended up;
he was so screwed up after suffering such an impossible burden that he
eventually had to just up and leave our world altogether.  

A "happy ending" just doesn't make any sense to me, especially if
Harry is a tragic hero. After everything that Harry's been through,
and will go through, I just don't see how it's possible. Unless Harry
gets a really strong 'Obliviate,' after all is said and done, I think
it actually seems kind of cruel for him to live and be forced to pick
up the pieces. We've got emotional, psychological, and physical
torment. And he still has two more books in which to suffer. True,
since I'm comparing him to Frodo, one could argue that Frodo didn't
die either, and so can't be called a classical tragic hero, thereby
implying that Harry doesn't necessarily have to die. However, Frodo
did basically "die" in the sense that he left the world entirely;
perhaps it could be called a literal journey to the light at the end
of the tunnel and a place that always sounded kind of like the
traditional concept of heaven. Therefore, his near disaster with the
ring in the end would be a fatal flaw. 

And something just suddenly occurred to me. Veering off for a moment...

In the last bit of your post, you make a distinction between the
literal "live" and the more abstract idea of "live." I never actually
considered the two definitions of the word. Well, what if you have the
abstract "live," which necessarily requires the literal "live." You
can't go ride a bike or have a family if you're not breathing. But you
can literally be "living" and not actual be "living" in the abstract
sense of the word. Meaning, you're breathing, but that's about it. And
living without living, IMO, is just as good as being dead. You're
living, but you're not alive.

So, if Harry truly fits the classical tragic hero mold, meaing that
he's pretty much going to die, but his fate can't violate the
prophecy, then the living without being alive takes care of that
without a problem. That's assuming, of course, a very specific (and
slightly abstract) notion of what it means to be "dead" and what it
means to be "alive."

Or we could make it really simple and just have Voldemort win. Or this
scenario: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/127530

AyanEva