JKR cheat with the prophecy - Time Will Tell

[Julia]

No: HPFGUIDX 125015


> > Julia > > 
> > ...
> > I think you didn't understand me. IMO there couldn't have been 
any 
> > chance for Mrs Longbottom to do it because of the part of 
> > prophecy "and DL will mark him as his equal" (which btw is 
BEFORE 
> > the statement about the powers of the baby - ... so it can 
indicate 
> > that the choice will be made before the sacrifice. This part 
didn't 
> > refer to Neville and will never do -  Neville has NEVER been 
> > Voldemort's equal (halfblood) so Alice couldn't make her 
sacrifice 
> > because Voldemort wasn't predicted to be after Neville.
> >
> > I didn't question Alice's abilities or powers I'm sure that if 
she 
> > were Lily she would have done the same BUT she never got the 
> > chance!!!! Neville was NEVER meant as a target.
> > 
> > Julia
> 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> The problem is that you are making the same /assumption/ that
> Dumbledore made. You are assuming you know why Voldemort went after
> Harry first. 
> 
> It's entirely possible it was the (figuratively) flip of a coin;
> heads-Harry first, tails-Neville second, or it could be that the
> opportunity, via Peter-the Secret Keeper, to attack the Potters 
came
> up first, so Big-V attacked Harry before Neville. 
> 
> There is nothing but Dumbledore's assumption that Voldemort
> consciously choose Harry, it may have been random chance, 
coincidence,
> or bad luck. 
> 

Julia:
Ok, I agree with you that i based my theory on DD's assumptions and 
we can't tell if they're true or not. However, I don't think that it 
was only "a luck" that Harry was the first baby to go after. It 
seems rather strange that Voldemort didn't think about where to go 
first - he isn't stupid, he is rather intelligent and IMO he had to 
follow some logical assumption - and it's highly possible that what 
DD think is really true.
I simply think that it was too important for Voldemort to choose the 
baby at random. He had to have some plan, some logical plan.


> Also note that Dumbledore says the it's NOT the mark on Harry's
> forehead that /marks/ him, it's Voldemort's choice. 

Julia:
But don't you think that this two things are basicly the same? I 
mean the scar on Harry's forehead is the effect of Voldemort's 
choice. But I agree with you - the choice was first so this marks 
him before we can see any sign of it.
 
> In addition, since the Prophecy plays out over many many years, 
it's
> nothing but a guess as to whether one specific event actually is 
the
> fulfillment of the vague language of the Prophecy. It's entirely
> possible that somewhere in the next two books, Voldemort will 
somehow
> mark Neville as an equal. Keep in mind that in Brit-Speak, 'mark'
> doesn't always mean to place a physical mark upon. It also 
means 'to
> make note of' as in 'mark my words' which means 'make a note of my
> words'. 

Julia: 
I still keep in mind JKR's words that she made that prophecy very 
carefully...
Still, I think it's rather safe to assume that what happened in GH 
was a partial fulfillment of the prophecy. But of course generally 
speaking we can never be sure if the specific even is a fulfillment 
or not. However in this case... it seems to complicated for the 
children book. Of course I don't say that Neville won't play a 
significant role in the next two books - I'm sure this character 
will be highly relevant to the plot.

> So, the whole fulfillment of the Prophecy is based on assumptions 
and
> best-guess interpretations. Some say that Harry's first encounter
> fulfills much of the Prophecy; Harry is chosen, Harry is given 
power
> that the Dark Lord doesn't understand, Harry is marked, the Dark 
Lord
> is vanguished. Of course, others believe that many of those events 
are
> yet to come. So, the first interpretation implies that Harry has
> already vanguished Voldemort, given that apparent fulfillment,
> should/could/would Harry vanquish him again?  The Prophecy doesn't 
say
> Harry will vanquish the Dark Lord twice. So, is the /Vanquishing/ 
the
> Prophecy speaks of in the past, or is it yet to come? Is the TRUE
> prophecied /marking/ in the past or yet to come? 

Julia:
I highly doubt that marking is yet to come and that vanquishing the 
dark Lord mentioned in the prophecy refers to the events in GH. I 
think that the prophecy can be fully understand and correctly 
interpreted only when it is considered as a whole - so we have to 
take into consideration the whole text of the prophecy at the time. 
And when we do it we see that Harry couldn't have vanquish DL 
already because the prophecy states "neither can live while the 
other survives". Harry survived and Voldie still lives - the 
prophecy wasn't fulfilled. 
As to /marking/ I don't think that where should be any doubts here 
too. I mean, Harry is marked in both ways - he has a scar and there 
is a mental connection between him and Voldie. Red Hen states that 
Harry has been marked even by a part of Voldie's soul! IMO we cannot 
question that! And also, it's Harry who is a hero of the series and 
there is only two books left - I  think it's safe to assume that he 
has been already marked! (and that it wouldn't be Neville in the end 
cause Harry is the hero not Neville!)

> 
> It begs the question, does the prophecy force the future to fit the
> prophecy, or do we take life-events and through assumptions,
> interpretations, and best-guesses force them to fit the prophecy?
> 
> Only time will tell ...or will it?
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Julia:
I think that the prophecy simply predicts the future and is meant to 
predict what exactly is going to happen - without any chance for 
changing (by choices of free will) it after it was made. And the 
case is to interpret it correctly - and I this is the role of DoM.

Julia