Timing: Trelawney and Dumbledore's version of the Prophecy

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 179508

> bboyminn:
>
> I'm always amazed that so many fans see Trelawney and 
> Dumbledore's version of events that lead to the original
> hearing of the Prophecy as being so diametrically opposed.

Mike:
I think diametrically opposed is overstating the quandry. Speaking 
as one that found DD's account suspect, it wasn't the disagreement 
with Trelawney's re-telling that was the problem. It was DD's 
failure to include T's events that bothered me. Not just because it 
allowed DD to exclude Snape. It was the whole "detected ... thrown 
from the building" as if nothing intervened that bothered me.

It turns out that there was nothing to read into that. JKR just 
wanted Trelawney to reveal that Snape was the eavesdropper, and 
by all appearances, the scene played out pretty much as you 
speculated. 

-<snip>-


> bboyminn:
> Then I constructed the scenario below and timed it as I played
> it out in real time. 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> -<snipping a very entertaining scenario. Which part did you play
> in this re-enactment Steve, Snape or Abe? :snicker: >
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Twenty (20) seconds to play out in real time. Twenty seconds 
> distraction from a 30 second Prophecy. Note as soon as
> Aberforth speaks, Snape is pulled away from the Prophecy in
> progress. 

Mike:
I don't doubt your timing was accurate. Of course, we had no way 
of knowing that Abe was walking up the stairs just as Trelawney 
started her prophesy. Until DH, I couldn't be sure there was no 
collusion between DD and Snape. After the scene on the windswept 
hill, I'm convinced there wasn't any, I was wrong in my suspicions.



> bboyminn:
> Each account emphasizing what it feels is relevant to the 
> listener and the speaker in the moment, and equally hiding 
> what the speaker feels is not relevant to the speaker and 
> the listener.

Mike:
Add in there - hiding what the speaker (DD) felt obliged to hide
(Snape's involvement) - and your account is complete. But you do
see how DD's failure to come clean on this account made us want to
inspect the rest of the scene more closely, right?



> bboyminn:
> 
> -<snipping why DD would let Snape go, perfectly plausible>-
> 
> In the moment, I suspect Dumbledore let Snape go because
> he wasnt' sure it mattered. Plus, exactly what is the 
> legal penalty for eavesdropping? To what extent did Dumbledore
> or Aberforth have the authority to hold Snape? What were 
> they going to do, lock him in the bell-tower for 
> eavesdropping? Hardly a crime against humanity. 

Mike:
Well wizards do have other ways of obviating any damage stemming
from Snape's eavesdropping. Obliviate, comes to mind. A Confundus
from a wizard of DD's caliber and delivered with the Elder wand 
might also do the trick, don't ya think? Even if DD isn't convinced
of prophetic usefulness (and I think he wasn't), why take a chance?

As we've seen in the WW, governmental or official authority to act
rarely is taken into consideration. And since it appears that DD 
knew Snape was a DE at the time of the eavesdropping, I don't think 
there would be any official inquiry from the Ministry (if they ever 
found out) as to why DD obliviated an apprehended eavesdropper in 
a time of war.

Mike, wondering if Steve started at the bottom of the stairs or part 
way up them for his re-enactment? ;)