More to the Prophecy

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 167595

> > > bboyminn:
> > > 
> > > The first flaw in your logic is that you assume all
> > > parties are giving full and completely factual 
> > > accounts of what happened.   <snip>
> > 
> > Mike:
> > Quite frankly, I don't see any logic flaw in April's 
> > comments. 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Yes, but April doesn't seem to be asserting that 
> Dumbledore is or is not telling the WHOLE truth. She is
> saying that there is a 'discrepancy'; that Dumbledore's
> and Trelawney's accounts are inconsistent or 
> contradictory.

Mike:
I'll let you answer yourself in part.
> bboyminn:
> Of course, Dumbledore is withholding information, 
> Dumbledore is ALWAYS withholding information, that's
> what he does, but what does that have to do with the 
> subject at hand?

Mike:
The discrepancy, the inconsistancy, is in what Dumbledore had 
withheld, information pertinent to the situation in the Hogs Head. 
Reading Dumbledore's explanation in OotP leaves the distinct 
impression that the "eavesdropper" was not around to hear the 
remainder of the prophesy. Not that the "eavesdropper" was 
*interrupted* and *prevented* from hearing the remainder of the 
prophesy. Dumbledore's explanation in OotP is inconsistant with what 
Trelawney revealed in HBP.


 
> > > bboyminn:
> > > Next remember that Snape himself was interrupted. 
> > > ... That interruption is what prevented him from 
> > > hearing the whole prophecy. ...
> > 
> > Mike:
> > This is your extrapolation of what you think happened 
> > based on what Dumbledore told us in OotP with the 
> > added information from Trelawney in HBP. I don't buy 
> > it. 
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> No, this is exactly what is says in the books. The book
> says with crystal clarity that Snape did not hear the
> whole prophecy. If you don't accept that, which you are
> certainly free to, then that is YOUR extrapolation.

Mike:
First off, *Dumbledore* said that Snape only heard the first part of 
the prophesy, and I am calling into question Dumbledore's veracity in 
this incident. (I believe I titled my previous foray into this area: 
Dumbledore Does Lie) But that's not what is being extrapolated here.

You extrapolated that Snape was "interrupted". Dumbledore *did not* 
tell Harry that the eavesdropper was "interrupted". "...the 
eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophesy and 
thrown from the building." (OotP, US, p.843) What did Trelawney tell 
Harry? "Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, 
and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape." (HBP, 
US, p.545). Notice that prophesy is over, else Sibyll wouldn't know 
there also was a "commotion". (BTW, Sibyll did say she and DD 
were "rudely interrupted by Severus Snape", but not that Snape was 
interrupted by the barman)

So, where in the book does it say "Snape himself was interrupted"? It 
doesn't; "interrupted" is an extrapolation of what may have 
transpired in order to fit the explanations of both Dumbledore and 
Trelawney in an attempt to hold the discrepancies to a minimum. 
Dumbledore says Snape was "detected" and "thrown" from the building.  

But nowhere in the books does it tell us directly or indirectly that 
Snape was interrupted. In fact, reading Dumbledore's words, he seems 
to be saying that the "eavesdropper" was *stopped* from any more 
eavesdropping activity and removed from the premises *prior* to the 
completion of the prophesy. If I were to read Dumbledore's words 
alone, I do not see how Trelawney would even know there was an 
eavesdropper, much less who it was.


> bboyminn:
> 
> There is no reason to think Snape was working for 
> Dumbledore at the time, so there is no reason to think
> that Snape did not report what he knew. There IS
> reason to believe that Voldemort DOES NOT know the
> whole Prophecy. If he knew then what was the whole
> Order of the Phoenix story about? 

Mike:
Sorry, but I don't think the timeframe for when Snape turned is a 
decided question at this point of the story. The Black Tapestry 
evidence of Regulus dying in '79, Snape's "16 years of evidence" in 
the Spinner's End chapter, and Carol's speculation <sorry to drag you 
in dear, but you convinced me> of the prophesy delivery at Holloween 
of '79, make me think that Snape turned *before* the prophesy.

And, can you point to *any* of my previous posts where I averred that 
Voldemort heard more of the prophesy? I don't believe I was trying to 
claim such a thing.


 <snippage of meaningless banter between myself and Steve ;)>

> bboyminn:
> 
> I absolutely agree! There is /more/ to both stories,
> much more, but that doesn't mean the stories as we have
> already heard them are wrong. They are not wrong, they are
> only  incomplete. Further their 'incompleteness' is a
> separate issue from whether the two versions are 
> consistent or inconsistent. They are consistent, but
> very incomplete stories, and that is a point I actually
> made. They are not full and complete accounts, they
> are generalized summaries from two separate perspectives.

Mike:
Well, my contention is that the "incompleteness" directly resulted in 
the "inconsistancies" between the two versions, and visa-versa.

As you said in your previous post: "Yes, this has been touched on, 
though the resulting thoughts remain polarized."

My opinion remains polarized from your opinion. It's our magnetic 
personalities Steve, don't ya know!

> Steve/bboyminn:
> Thanks for the links to the previous discussions.

Mike: My pleasure. I've never thought my opinion is the only one, 
just the best one. ;D