Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25, The Seer Overheard

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 161842

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Does Snape also deserves a credit to contributing to the fact 
that 
> > Harry **only** had fifteen months with his mom and dad?
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Let's not forget that there's an official mystery, stated by Hagrid
> in Book One,  concerning why Voldemort didn't go after James 
> and Lily before. After all, they'd defied him three times. What
> was protecting them? The fact that one of their closest friends
> was a Voldemort agent, and killing them would have dried up
> a prime source of information for the Dark Lord? Don't you
> think they might have told that close friend about the prophecy
> in any case?

Alla:

Might have told? Of course they might have told or they might have 
not. In fact, that is not even clear IMO whether Dumbledore bothered 
to inform them about the prophecy in the first place, no?
After all Dumbledore loves keeping cards close to his chest, no?

What happened though - Snape was the one who did and he should be 
held responsible for that IMO.


Pippin: 
> We've also been told that it's not safe to assume that one isn't
> being overheard in the Hogs Head.

Alla:

Indeed, but not necessarily by DE, no?


Pippin:
 Why did the prophetic
> power manifest itself at that point? Just by chance?

Alla:

Sure it is a possibility IMO. I mean JKR does not leave much to a 
chance, but do we know that prophetic power itself works in a certain 
way?

Pippin:
 Does
> Sybill utter prophecies in the shower or to her sherry bottles,
> all unheard? Is the prophecy voice a broadcast that can be
> picked up by any True Seer, or perhaps detected by centaurs?

Alla:

Well, showing cards is not as dramatic as prophecy, but Sybil does it 
almost without audience, no?


Pippin: 
> Or did the prophetic power perchance select its hearers? Should
> the label on the prohecy have read '& S.S.' ? And being prophetic, 
> wouldn't the power also know what Snape was likely to 
> do with the information? And of the remorse he would then feel
> over doing so?

Alla:

That is certainly a possibility, but rather bold assumption to make 
that this is the only possibility IMO. Unless under prophetic power 
picking up the listeners we mean JKR :), then sure, hehe.


Pippin:
> If that look of being a dog trapped in a burning house had nothing
> to do with Snape's remorse over James, I'll eat my keyboard.

Alla:

Mmmmm, be careful Pippin. You can count on me reminding you to turn 
yourself in the Hobbit already when the book 7 is out :), if you 
insist, I can remind you of eating your keyboard as well ;) Yummy.


Pippin:
>  Of course Snape is guilty for having told Voldemort about
> the prophecy -- it would undermine his repentance and redemption
> if he really had nothing to repent of.

Alla:

Good, that is all I am looking for :) As I said, it really does not 
matter how I feel about Snape remorse. The thing is I **can** see it 
as plausible, etc, as long as he indeed did something very bad and 
not something that could be dismissed as pure misunderstanding.

Pippin: 
But does Harry need to
> remind Snape that he'll never forget what he did? Why?

Alla:

You can put it in other words, if you wish. The idea is that the 
original deed is not dismissed as pure nothing as I said. I suppose 
as long as I hear from Snape's mouth that he felt remorse that could 
be enough depending on how it is written.