Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 171177

> zgirnius:
> Here, in gory detail and chronological order, is a series of events 
> as they *might* have happened, that contradict neither account.
> 
> 1) Snape starts to listen at the door to the conversation of 
> Dumbledore and Trelawney.
> 2) Dumbledore feels around for a way to tell Trelawney he has decided 
> not to hire her.
> (1 and 2 might be switched, only Snape really knows when he started 
> listening, and we do not have his version).
> 3) Trelawney begins the prophecy.
> 4) The barman sees Snape and pulls him away from the door before the 
> prophecy is complete, so Snape does not hear the rest.
> 5) Snape offers his lame excuse of being lost, the barman scoffs at 
> it, as Trelawney wraps up her Prophecy and begins to come out of her 
> trance.
> 6) The volume of the discussion/struggle between the barman and Snape 
> intensifies, to the point where it can now be heard by Dumbledore and 
> Trelawney (this is the 'scuffle' she refers to)
> 7) The barman drags Snape in to show to Dumbledore.
> 8) Snape is thrown from the building.


lizzyben:

Well, this is a pretty good reconstruction, but it still doesn't
resolve a number of contradictions. First, DD says that he had already
turned to leave the room when the prophecy occurred, while T says that
Snape "interrupted" in the middle of the interview. Second, DD implies
that the spy was detected & "thrown from the building" before the full
prophecy was given, but T says that Snape was outside the door the
entire time. Finally, I have to ask why it is even necessary to jump
through hoops trying to resolve the conflicting versions. Why do they
conflict at all? JKR wasn't making a mistake here; by relating T's
version of events, she's highlighting all the things that D
"misrepresented", failed to mention, or mis-characterized in his
earlier rendition. Why? IMO the conflict is meant to suggest that DD
wasn't telling the entire truth about his role in the prophecy. DD
isn't just covering up for Snape, he's covering up for himself as
well. Even if you believe that Snape only heard the first half, you
still have to wonder why DD allowed him to leave w/that vital
information after being presented w/the eavesdropper.

> zgirnius:
> I find it more sensible to believe that the Marauders and Dumbledore 
> formed different impressions of young Snape. We lack any accounts 
> from a neutral third party about their schooldays. (I am not denying 
> Snape may have seemed friendly with older Slytherins as a 
> first/second year, or that he may have been a top student in DADA, I 
> am proposing that the Marauders may have put a different
construction on these disparate facts than Dumbledore did).

lizzyben:

I'm sure that Snape isn't as bad as Sirius said, but my point was
simply that Snape was in a position to have contact w/known Death
Eaters. And, more than that, Snape's *behavior* was extremely
suspicious. He was blatantly listening at a door, spying on a
resistance leader, during a time of war. And his excuse was lame &
unbelievable - he went up the wrong stairs? Pfft. That behavior alone
should have raised red flags, regardless of who the person is. The HP
novels have demonstrated over & over again that you can't trust
appearances. Supposedly loyal people have turned traitor, moles &
spies abound. DD says that the Hog's Head was crawling w/spies & shady
characters. Even if DD liked Snape, his eavesdropping should have
inspired enough suspicion to take further action. DD thought the
prophecy was so important, he sheltered Trelawney for 16 years to keep
it from LV. Yet he innocently let Snape trot out w/o ever taking
similar steps to prevent him from revealing this information? Pardon
me if I don't believe that for a second.

> > 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>
> > DD first says it was "his" good fortune that VD only heard the first
> > half of the prophecy, then swiftly changes that to "our". 
> 
> 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?
> 
> On the other hand, if I am misunderstanding and the puppetmaster idea 
> you support is that Snape heard it all and Dumbledore *told* him to 
> tell only the first part, how is this a telling slip up? The whole 
> statament is a bold-faced lie, regardless of what pronoun one uses in 
> the subject.


lizzyben:

What I'm drawing attention to is the fact that DD refers to it as a
"stroke of good fortune" that LV heard the first half of the prophecy.
 Now, why would he say this if he never wanted LV to know this
information? If Snape told LV half of the prophecy, wouldn't that be a
stroke of "bad fortune" instead? DD doesn't seem to think so. He
states that it was "good fortune", because it inspired LV to act upon
the prophecy & attack Harry. If LV had heard the entire prophecy, he
would have known the danger in attacking Harry, and waited. If he
hadn't heard any part of the prophecy, he wouldn't have personally
targeted the Potters at all. Instead, LV decides to personally attack
the Potters immediately, and is defeated in the process. Just as DD
planned. 

Because LV knew only the first half, he was 1.) now aware of the
prophecy of his defeat, 2.) inspired to immediately attack the
prophesied vanquisher - thus ensuring LV's destruction & also creating
a "chosen one" w/equal power to defeat LV. 3.) obsessed w/hearing the
second half, which allows DD to use the full prophecy as LV-bait. All
accomplished w/one small action. Pretty effective work on DD's part.
He's pretty proud of his brilliant plan.

And this is where the second slip, DD's use of pronouns, comes in. We
hardly ever hear DD stutter, or rephrase something mid-sentence. So
IMO DD's decision to stop mid-sentence & change the pronoun here is
significant. I think, in the first moment, DD is only thinking about
himself. He's inwardly gloating at how he trapped LV, smug at how his
"brilliant plan" worked - who knows, maybe there's even a "gleam of
triumph" in his eyes. He starts to say it was "*my* stroke of good
fortune" that LV only heard the first half of the prophecy.

But then he remembers that that "stroke of good fortune" killed the
parents of the boy he is talking to. He considers that Harry might not
approve. And he rephrases to - *our* good fortune, as if he was
thinking about Harry all along. But he wasn't. HOW was it fortunate,
for Harry, that LV only heard the first half of the prophecy? DD
himself says that LV wouldn't have attacked the Potters if he'd heard
the whole prophecy. Meaning, the fact that LV heard only half the
prophecy was a stroke of very BAD fortune for Harry & his parents. But
DD just quickly rephrases the sentence to include Harry & trusts that
Harry won't realize this contradiction. Of course, Harry doesn't. He
never does. Now, a truly tactful man would've just taken out the "good
fortune" phrase altogether, & simply reported what happened to the
prophecy. But DD isn't tactful, or compassionate, & he cannot resist a
momentary egotistical pat on the back for his brilliance. Blecch.

> zgirnius:
> If he wanted the Potters to actually be attacked, as it seems you 
> propose above, why did he offer to be the Secret Keeper? Are you 
> suggesting he planned to Owl Voldemort with the location once the 
> charm was cast?

lizzyben:

Oh, DD is more subtle than that. He could've found a way to leak the
SK location w/o it being blamed on him, the same way that he used a
third party to leak the prophecy. And maybe he already did. Maybe DD
was the one who got Peter to convince the Potters to use him, instead
of Sirius as the SK. I want to know why the Potters didn't accept DD's
offer to be SK. Wouldn't he be the best, safest choice? Did they have
a reason to mistrust DD, or think that he might not work in their own
best interests? Did they suspect he had leaked the prophecy? That
would help explain a decision that otherwise seems somewhat reckless. 

As to whether DD specifically wanted the Potters to be attacked - I
can see a couple different scenarios. You don't have to believe that
DD wanted them to be attacked in order to believe that DD leaked the
prophecy. He may have leaked the first half of the prophecy only as
bait & distraction for LV, w/o thinking that LV would act upon it by
attacking a child. (The Nice Puppetmaster DD version) Or, he might
have thought that it would only endanger a "nameless" unknown person,
w/o realizing the targets would be. (Not-so-nice PM) But, the more I
think about it, the more I have to conclude that DD knew who the
targets would probably be when he leaked the prophecy. (Dark!PM) He
knew the Potters & Longbottoms had thrice-defied LV. & knew both women
were pregnant. He may have thought his protection & charms would be
sufficient to save both families, and he could somehow lure LV into a
trap. He could've worked w/Lily on the "ancient magic" protection as a
possible Plan B if the Fidelius Charm failed; while intending to
protect both families from harm.  

But in this scenario, LV is still alive, still killing hundreds of
people, still winning the war. In order for LV to be defeated, he has
to attempt to attack the prophesied person. DD leaked only the first
half of the prophecy, ensuring that LV didn't know the possible danger
of such an attack. So, IMO, DD did want the attack to occur. He knew
Peter was a LV spy, so manipulated events so that the Potters chose
him as SK, helped Lily w/the ancient magic protection, and waited.
Horrible, I know. But in the long run, it saved the Wizarding World &
DD would consider that to be a noble reason for his actions. And I'm
not even sure he would see it as a betrayal of the Potters. Both of
them were in the Order, an organization that asks members to be
willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of duty. DD would
consider this to be a supreme sacrifice for the cause of good; a
sacrifice they agreed to by joining the Order. Of course, this also
makes DD the ultimate arbiter of right & wrong, but he's used to that.

> zgirnius:
> It is not lost, as we, with Harry, learn in the chapter. Harry 
> considers his loss of that prophecy one of his failures as the 
> chapter begins. I think this is an example of a chapter title which 
> encapsulates a view held by the Harry-centric narrator. Like "The 
> Letters from Noone", PS/SS, which were actually from Professor 
> McGonagall. And, a propos of nothing, "Snape's Worst Memory".

lizzyben:

The chapter titles often have double meanings - eg "The Man With Two
Faces" refers to both Quirrell & Snape; "The Seer Overheard" refers to
Harry overhearing Trelawney in the hallway, and Snape overhearing her
16 years ago, etc. So, I think this chapter title also has a double
meaning - encapsulating the POV of both Harry & DD. Harry thinks the
prophecy was "lost" when he broke the orb. But DD knows that the
prophecy was actually "lost" to LV many years ago.

<snip various DD lies>

lizzyben:

I will agree that in all these instances, DD is lying to protect an
Order agent or Harry. So, to me, it is perfectly within character for
DD to lie to Harry about the prophecy in order to protect Snape, or to
protect Harry himself from the pain that knowledge would bring.
Indeed, we already know that DD *did* mislead Harry in how he
characterized the prophecy in OOTP & HBP. This is at least a lie by
omission. 

> zgirnius:
> I thought the point of that was that Dumbledore would not see much of 
> interest in the Mirror. He does not ardently desire anything he does 
> not already have, though on a chilly day he might wish for a warm 
> pair of socks.

lizzyben:

DD knows & expects that LV will rise again. He doesn't desire the
ultimate defeat of LV? He doesn't desire a happy, normal life for
Harry? Or himself? Or peace for the Wizarding World? The deepest, most
desperate desire of DD's heart is - socks? If you believe that, I've
got a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in. :) Even 11-year-old
Harry doesn't buy it. 

> zgirnius:
> Dumbledore does not say he never lies, he promises to Harry he will 
> never lie *to him*, though he is quite open about his feeling that 
> there are things he does not want Harry to know. Had Harry asked, in 
> OOtP, who the eavesdropper was, I would expect that Dumbledore would 
> either tell him, or tell him he was not willing to part with that 
> information, as he has done on other occasions. Until I get canon 
> that can be interpreted in no other way, I will continue to believe 
> he was true to his word. 

lizzyben:

Well, if you're willing to split hairs (and DD is), DD only promises
that he will not lie to Harry during that specific conversation. Harry
suspects that DD lied to him earlier about the mirror. And why
wouldn't DD lie to Harry during OOTP? Harry is a direct pipeline to LV
at that time. I just don't see why people are *so* sure DD wouldn't
lie to Harry, when there's lots of evidence that DD does just that. I
guess it's because people consider DD to be the moral compass of the
series. You can propose any wild theory - is Hermione ESE? Did Lupin
betray the Potters? etc., and people will say, hey, maybe & consider
it. But proposing that DD acts immorally seems to inspire real
outrage. If things go the way I think they will w/DD, there'll be mass
riots in fandom. Maybe that's what the support line is for!

> zgirnius:
> This is certainly *not* how I see him. But I think there are things 
> he is "too noble" to do to win, and I think what you propose is one 
> of them. It goes well beyond a lack of kindness.

lizzyben:

We'll see, I guess. It would put a special irony on the opening scene,
 in which McGonegal gushes about just how *noble* DD is because he
wouldn't use Dark (immoral) means to achieve his goal - as DD abandons
the child of his supporters at an abusive home for eleven years,
having played a role in the parents' deaths. *shudder* It would
certainly create an interesting examination of Utilitarian vs. Kantian
ethics. DD, in my mind, is the ultimate Utilitarian. To him, the ends
always justify the means.