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

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 134650

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "templar1112002"
<templar1112002 at y...> wrote:
> 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

Again, I'm not assigning culpability to Trelawney or to Snape (why do
we keep going back to him?). I'm not even making excuses for her
drinking problem. I'm merely sharing something that make me think
"Ahhh, wow! Maybe..." when I read on Rowling's site about the MacBeth
Witches.

Unless Rowling specifically writes in Book 7 or gives this information
in an interview or on her site (or in a Harry Potter encyclopedia),
we'll never know exactly what fueled Trelawney's taste for sherry.
Heck, for all we know she's been hitting the bottle since she began
teaching at Hogwarts (or even before). In fact, if her drinking
problem is a chronic one, it might explain Dumbledore's remark during
the PoA Chrismas Dinner (my additional comments in [] ):

"Sybil, this is a pleasant surprize!" said Dumbledore, standing up.

"I have been crystal gazing [ie: admiring the color of her wine in
crystal wine goblets], Headmaster, " said Professor Trelawney in her
mistiest, most faraway voice [*cough* buzzed off her feet*cough* ;)],
"and to my astonishement, I saw myself abandoning my solitary luncheon
[serious note, some alcoholics are closet drinkers and are solitary so
they can imbibe freely] and coming to join you [after having a drink
to steady her nerves]. Who am I to refuse the promptings of fate? I at
once hastened from my tower, and I do beg you to forgive my lateness.."

lol

Anyway..... :)

Milz