A Night at the Prophesy and the Niggling Details

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 171071

> Mike:
> > Besides, didn't JKR's version have you picturing the eavesdropper 
> > being hauled away before Dumbledore even opened the door? 
> 
> zgirnius:
> So did I, <snip>

Mike:
Exactly! And how does that help Dumbledore in this conversation with 
Harry? As opposed to just telling Harry that the eavesdropper was 
prevented from hearing more than the first half of the prophesy. Why 
does he need to leave Harry with this impression? At this time, Harry 
couldn't care less *why* the eavesdropper was prevented from hearing 
more. He doesn't even care *who* the eavesdropper was.

In the other thread, you laid out a scenario which would make 
Dumbledore's version perfectly plausible. In your part that I snipped 
you said Albus could have let Aberforth handle the eavesdropper his 
way. Both are valid points, but it isn't that events could match 
Dumbledore words. It's that JKR chose to have Dumbledore use words 
which would need to be reconciled at all. 

If she did not want us to question Dumbledore's version, she only 
needed to have him use different words, ones that would not have 
changed the way the conversation was happening in OotP. Words that 
would not have left a false impression about what happened that night 
of the prophesy. She didn't choose to go that route and I have to ask 
why. 

 
> > Mike:
> > Also, ask yourself, would JKR have been lackadaisical in her 
> > writing of the prophesy reveal chapter? 
> 
> zgirnius:
> If Dumbledore's account is true, there was nothing lackadaisical in 
> the choice of words by Rowling or Dumbledore.  <snip>

Mike:
Even if Dumbledore's version is not true, I don't think there was 
anything lackadaisical in JKR's writing of the scene. I think she had 
a purpose for having Dumbledore telling Harry the way he did.



> zgirnius:
> My gut feeling is that a man once described by his creatrix as 'the 
> epitome of good' would not be behind such a plan. 

Mike:
And yet the creatrix had *Dumbledore* deliver the 'what did I care if 
nameless, faceless people or creatures died' line. She had Dumbledore 
admit that his feelings for Harry were getting in the way of 
his "plan". And that Voldemort would count on good people not being 
able to take the cold-hearted approach to the battle.


> zgirnius:
> As a way Death Eater Snape might have thought about delivering the
> prophecy (minus any idea this was bad for LV, I mean merely that 
> he did not care about the danger he was causing to some nameless 
> people) this makes perfect sense, but it is positioned as the 
> very awful bad thing he did in the story, that (at least I and 
> Dumbledore believe) he now regrets.

Mike:
Except Dumbledore has the "nameless" line, not Snape. Hedging my 
bets, I can concede that Snape may still have been a loyal DE when he 
was eavesdropping the prophesy. But after ten or so years of 
Voldemort's reign of terror, exactly who would Dumbledore think this 
eavesdropper was working for? 

Snape wasn't there picking up interview tips, and I don't for a 
minute think Dumbledore would buy that story. And seeing as this was 
most likely occurring during the school term, any question of Snape 
tailing Dumbledore trying to get a teaching interview seems unlikely. 
So I concur with lizzyben's assessment, just letting Snape go seems 
like a poor choice for someone that didn't want the prophesy released.


>From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/171052

> lizzyben:
> "My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was
> detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the
> building... <snip>

zgirnius:
I don't understand. You think Dumbledore deliberately let a likely
Death Eater who may have heard the whole prophecy go to Voldemort,
right? And he learned later which part Snape had actually heard. If
he thought it was undesirable for Voldemort to know the whole thing,
why would he let Snape go? That could make it worse, I presume. If it
could not, then why is this a stroke of good fortune?

Mike:
I don't want to speak for lizzyben, but I don't think you are getting 
her point. The slip up was Dumbledore starting out with "My". Because 
a Dumbledore that wanted the prophesy released to Voldemort, would 
not want anything that might warn off Voldemort from acting on it to 
be included in that release. So that would constitute "good fortune" 
for Dumbledore, Voldemort didn't get the "power the Dark Lord knows 
not" part.

But it certainly wasn't "good fortune" for Harry and his parents. Had 
Voldemort heard the "power" part, he may have chosen a more 
circumspect course of action, instead of the bold, arrogant, 
unconcerned approach he took of directly attacking the Potters. So 
how is the fact that Voldemort only heard the first two lines Harry's 
(our) "good fortune"? He got dead parents out of the deal, because 
Voldemort acted instead of planning a more careful approach to the 
problem.

As to Dumbledore wanting the prophesy released and hoping for it to 
come true, think back to the situation they were in. Voldemort had 
been kicking their asses. They were losing. Moody showed Harry the 
old picture of the order and pointed out all the people they had lost 
before he got to Harry's folks. And that was just Order loses. I'm 
sure Dumbledore could recognize a *real* prophesy as opposed to 
Trelawney faking it. He saw his chance and took it. And though he may 
regret the decision as much or more than Snape did, he got 
his "chosen one".

And Dumbledore started Harry's training in his first year. He put the 
Mirror of Erised where Harry could find it and taught him how it 
worked. In CoS he made the comment about help being given to those 
who ask, and Fawkes must have either been instructed to bring the 
Hat, or he already knew the Hat would produce the sword. And why does 
he send Harry and Hermione back in time in PoA? Wouldn't going 
himself been a better idea to ensure the outcome?

The biggest clue has to be the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Since when can 
a third party commit someone else to a binding wizard contract? If 
Dumbledore knew that Harry didn't put his own name into the Goblet, 
he knew that it couldn't bind Harry to compete, couldn't compel 
someone that didn't volunteer his own person. The Goblet may have 
been confused by Fake!Moody into picking Harry, but the deeper magic 
of binding wizard contracts cannot be so easily manipulated, else 
that would present an impossible condition to deal with.

Mike, asking - if "regardless" means without regard, what 
does "irregardless" mean?