[HPforGrownups]Trelawaney (was) Re: Teaching Styles LONG

[Karen]

No: HPFGUIDX 147854


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: finwitch 


  Also, as much as Divination may seem to be nonsense to those who don't
  understand it - well, it's like Zen, isn't it? Oh, and don't you think
  it curious that Trelawney saw 'Grim' in Harry's cup-- (a big, black
  dog that is) -- until the year Sirius died... She *sees* true, but
  often misinterprets what she sees. She saw Sirius (animagus form)
  until Harry's 5th year... I find it curious she predicted that 'one of
  our number will leave us around easter' - which came true when
  Hermione left. You may argue she caused Hermione to leave, *but* how
  was she to know WHEN? You know, Hermione could have decided to prove
  her fraud by choosing another time to leave, but she didn't.


  kchuplis:

  The last time through OoTP and HBP I got the distinct impression that Trelawney's mutterings in the hallway while shuffling cards etc. may show more "sight" than previously believed. Trelawney is definitely a bit of an old fraud, yet she has had two seriously real "visions".  However, particularly in HBP, her lines seem like more throw away fraud bits, and yet, I get the distinct feeling she is actually dropping bits of truth here and there. Did anyone else get this feeling? (Also, note, she tends to discount the things that she really does see as being impossible or too far fetched, which I find interesting).

  In regards to Hermione/Trelawney vx. Harry/Snape, to me the difference is that Hermione goes into Divination with the attitude that it is a "fuzzy" science and she is therefore ready to take a stance opposite Trelawney from before setting foot in class. Trelawney only seems to confirm this for her. Their mutual dislike grows from that basic premiss. Harry and Snape on the other hand, have a degree of disgard almost solely due to Snapes feelings towards James. Harry gets the impression Snape dislikes him from before classes even begin, reinforced by the pain in his scar at the opening feast (which even though we find out later was due to Quirrell probably still pyschologically reinforces the notion before class starts). But his attitude towards the subject itself was open and willing. So there seems to be a fundamental difference in the two situations to me. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]