JKR cheat with the prophecy - Point of Destiny

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 124979


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> wrote:
> 
> Suppose you entered a room and saw a large curtain closing off the
> back half. One of your friends goes up and sticks his head through
> the curtain. He yells "There's a Doberman Pinscher in a tutu back 
> here!"
>
> ...edited... 
> 
> Lupinlore
bboyminn:

Well, I guess you were right, we are at a stalemate.

The real question now comes down to the question of clarity of vision.
In your illustration, someone looked beyond the curtain of time and
saw a 'Doberman in a tutu'. That's crystal clear, BUT Sibyll Trelawney
does NOT see or give prophecies with that degree of clarity. 

She sees the future, but she sees it through the /haze/ of time,
space, and the limits of human understanding, and only expresses it in
vague, sometimes symbolic, language.

I would agree if Trelawney said, Harry Potter will be born on July 31,
1980 and he will have a power unknown to Lord Voldemort which will
ultimately lead to Voldemort's defeat which will occur on June 24,
1998 at 10 minutes to midnight. But she doesn't. 

She doesn't mention Harry, Neville, or Voldemort. She doesn't
specifically state, she implies a month but not a year. She implies a
person, which from analysis can actually be one of two people,
assuming all assumptions leading upto that conclusion are correct. She
doesn't mention Voldemort, only the Dark Lord which Dumbledore assumes
is Voldemort. ...and so on and so forth. This is not a prophecy of a
clearly seen and absolutely defined future.

So she doesn't look beyond the curtain of time, as you suggest, and
say, I see a Doberman in a tutu. Instead she says she sees something
dark, dangerous, and animal-like which is ensnared in something
frilly. We are then left to try and interpret what that all means. 

It not a question of the /truth/ of what she sees, because as you
point out, she sees what she sees, and she sees it because it's true.
It's the future which, from her perspective, is as ridgedly defined as
history. I'll give you that much. 

But look at what she actually said, she said very little, none of
which was clear. Again, The Prophecy doesn't define an absolute
future, but implies the broad and general /nature/ of a future which
is not ridgedly define. Assuming all assumptions are correct, all we
really know is that Harry, maybe Neville, and Voldemort have a shared
destiny. But given the unclear and ill-defined nature of that destiny,
it can play out in a variety of ways.

So, I agree, if all assumptions are correct, Harry has an inescapable
destiny; malleable, but inescapable. So, even if he runs away to
Australia and avoids Voldemort, Harry's life will be haunted by the
specter of the Dark Lord, and by the guilt of having abandon Britain
and of allowing Voldemort to win. So, in that sense, he can never
truly escape his share destiny with Voldemort. But, he can effect how
that destiny plays out.

At least, that's how I see it. I certainly can't see the crystal clear
absolutely defined immutable future that you claim the Prophecy
defines. That level of detail and precision simple don't appear in the
Prophecy that I read.

So, again, ...stalemate; you see some immutable clarity of vision,
while I see a vague malleable haze. Only time will tell.

Steve/bboyminn