The prophecy - a maverick view....

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 128369

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb <elfundeb at g...> wrote:

Debbie:
> This interpretation conflicts with the one I just posted last night,
> suggesting that Harry had escaped Voldemort but did not show himself
> to be LV's equal in doing so (ergo, he was not vanquished).  But, as
> the matter is far from resolved, in my view, I'm just as happy to
> argue from the perspective that Harry *is* the One.
> 
> I even cited the same definition (or one very similar).  It just 
goes
> to show what troublesome things words are. ;-)
> 
> I do tend to think that the common usage of the word vanquish refers
> to a final defeat, though, rather than an interim defeat in a much
> longer battle, so that when the prophecy speaks of vanquishing, it
> means that only the One can eliminate Voldemort as a threat. 
> (Otherwise, Dumbledore could be considered to have vanquished
> Voldemort at the DoM.)

Geoff:
Yes, but consider the case of Middle-Earth in "The Silmarillion" 
and "The Lord of the Rings" as an example.

Sauron was caught in the downfall of Numenor when the island was 
swallowed up in the sea and lost his physical form becoming a spirit 
of evil which returned to Middle-Earth. He resumed a form which was 
no longer fair and set out to destroy Elendil and those who had 
escaped the wreck of Numenor and set up the twin kingdoms of Gondor 
and Arnor. At the battle of Dagorlad at the end of the Second Age, 
the forces of Gil-Galad and Elendil overcame those of Sauron; Sauron 
had the Ring cut form his hand and became a bodiless spirit. This, I 
believe, would qualify as being vanquished. However, after many 
centuries, he returned to Mordor and began to rebuild his power being 
in spirit form.

When the Ring was destroyed in the Sammath Naur at the end of "Lord 
of the Rings", Sauron became a powerless spirit of malice and had 
fallen further than at the end of the Second Age; this was a second 
vanquishing. We are not to know that he might climb again -  as 
Voldemort did after Godric's Hollow - a long, slow and painful path 
to try to regain power again.

Debbie:
> Finally, why do you call this a maverick view?  Misinterpretation is
> the engine of many a classic tale, as you point out yourself.  
Indeed,
> the main point of my earlier post was really that we can't take
> Dumbledore's interpretation at face value.

Geoff:
I used that title because a huge amount of time and energy has been 
expended on the analysis of "one", "him", "either", "neither" etc. I 
have not involved myself in that line of discussion but I struck out 
on a tangent suggesting that looking at the way in which prophecy was 
open to misinterpretation - citing Shakespeare, Delphi and 
Nostrodamus - the possibilities that "live" and "vanquish" might be 
worthy of further study.

My dictionary defines "maverick" as an unorthodox or independent-
minded person. I think that post tended to place me in this category.