Trelawney,Drink, MacBeth Witches (was Re: Part 3 of JKR's MN/TLC interview)

[templar1112002]

No: HPFGUIDX 134631

Marcela wrote:
To make this post a bit more practical and in an attempt to add to 
the pool of ideas for brainstorming, I'd say that we shouldn't focus 
on Trelawney's behaviour, which as I said above, is a bit irrelevant 
to the story, but that we should concentrate on Jo's designs for 
her: it's evident to me that Sybill is a "plot device". 
Her 'cracking' had to be there in order for Harry to learn about 
the 'eavesdropper'.  Harry had to force Dumbledore to explain his 
reasons for trusting Snape.  Dumbledore didn't have a way out now 
that Harry had learned of the identity of the eavesdropper. 

Milz replied:
Oh almost every character in the series are plot-devices and Rowling 
has used them rather well. 
But my point in sharing my thoughts were due the little light bulb
that went off in my head after reading Rowling's MacBeth Witches'
prophecy-as-catalyst on her website. (See below for the MacB Witches
and culpability). Nothing more/nothing less (and it's also a change
from all the Snape-based messages too---which can get very boring,
very fast, imo.) This is all speculation on my part, not "fact". :)
[...]
The witches show up 3 times in the play: 1.in the beginning of the
play (no prophecy but they set the tone of the play),2. in the moor 
to tell MacB that he will eventually become King and tell Banquio 
that while he won't become king his descendants will, 3. in their 
cave where MacB gets them to tell him more of their prophecy: beware
MacDuff, he can only be killed by a man not born of a woman, and that
everything will be okay until Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane Castle.
 
The question about the Witches is how much culpability they had in 
the events that followed their prophecy. Two arguments can be made 
(both have their points, btw) 1. The witches were merely passing on
information. What MacBeth did with that info was out of their hands.
Therefore, they cannot not be culpable. 2. The witches could foretell
the future so in giving MacB that info, they knew he would
murder---which makes them culpable because they gave him the "tools"
so to speak. 


**Marcela now:
I see your point, but I'd have to say that in my line of reasoning 
assigning culpability to the witches for their visions would be like 
assigning culpability to the weather man for announcing a tornado or 
a cold front coming to town... I think that if anybody was culpable 
was Macbeth with the choices he made with that knowledge.

I'd stretch it and say that in HP we have the same deal: Snape 
decided to pass that (half/semi)intelligence to Voldemort, whom 
likewise decided to take charge of this threat and shot himself on 
the foot.  And then, with the second prophecy, Harry "unwillingly" 
helped the 'Dark Lord's servant' get free, whom likewise opted to 
run and search for Voldemort.

Interestingly, it seems that Dumbledore "unwillingly"  helped the 
first prophecy to take place, too:  after he'd heard the prophecy 
and realized that Snape had been eavesdropping, why didn't 
he 'obliviate' Snape?  After all, we've seen in OoTP that he was not 
squimish to that idea, as he'd thought Shacklebolt was quick on the 
uptake to obliviate/memory charm Marietta in his presence and the 
others.

But back to Trelawny's culpability issue, in the Macbeth's witches' 
case, we could argue that at least they had certain amount of 
freedom to choose between 'invoking' the apparitions -the armed 
head, the bloodied baby, and the baby with the crown and tree- yet 
they followed Macbeth's wishes/orders.

The difference with Sybill is that she doesn't remember telling the 
prophecies at all... how could she be culpable of something that she 
cannot control nor remember saying?

I'd say the "culpability" in HP's case should be placed on the 
recipients/listeners of the prophecies, and not the prophet 
herself.  But that's of course my opinion, :)

-----------------

Milz wrote: (BTW, how did Trelawney's drinking turn into Snape: he 
seems to infiltrate everything?) 

*Marcela now: Well, wasn't she a bit drunk when she revealed to 
Harry the Snape-eavesdropping issue?  Her drinking was more a plot 
device so that we learned about the eavesdropper, than to let us 
know she was suffering PTSD.
But I agree with you, I wish we could discuss something else other 
than Snape, :D

Marcela