Prophecies and Purposes ( was: What *Do* You know? Dumblodore Context

[Annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 172062


Sarah asked Talisman:
> >> What do you suggest are the mechanics of the seemingly legitimate
> >> Pensieve recreation of Trelawney giving the prophecy
> >> snip<
> >

Talisman replied, back then:
> > The short answer is I think she was possessed--outright or some
> > ventriloquistic variant yet to be named/revealed.
> 


Maeg:
> Talisman goes on to describe the similarities between possession 
and  
> Trelawny's "authentic divinations". It's all very logical, but 
seems  
> very contrived to me. Too complex to fit with how these books are  
> written. 


Annemehr:
Hmmm.  I seem to recall that these books were written with years of 
research, boxes and boxes of notes, complicated charts for each 
chapter detailing what has to happen, clues, misdirection, and red 
herrings.  I'd say they *are* complex.  *And* logical.

Even if she's writing "for children" she's apparently doing them the 
favor of assuming they can think.


Maeg:
> It also supposes that JKR's decision to exclude a character  
> with "second sight" means that a character who divines is either  
> right all the time or wrong all the time -- there's no middle 
ground.  
> That's now how I interpret JKR's words, and I don't think canon  
> supports or rejects it the "all or nothing" theory, either.
>

Annemehr:
It's not so much that JKR couldn't have written a character with 
imperfect second sight; she *could* have just modified Mopsus a bit.  
But she didn't.  

What Talisman further points out is that Trelawney's utterances come 
in two extremely different varieties.  When she's aware of herself, 
she's no better than a RL "psychic" charlatan and can't properly read 
the tea leaves in a beginning student's cup -- and then on the other 
hand she goes into some kind of trance and lets loose with these two 
prophecies.

(And you know, we can't even call her a seer of any sort on the 
strength of those two prophecies, because she didn't ever *see* them -
- she's completely oblivious to them.) 

The contrast between the two doesn't allow you to call Trelawney an 
imperfect seer, a la Mopsus Lite.  The so-called "prophecies" aren't 
instances of her doing what she does more successfully than usual, 
they're something else entirely.  And the something else they look to 
be is nothing so much as possession as we know it.

 
Talisman said: 
> > As for whether it's in DD's character, well, I've seen him do 
worse.
> > But then, unlike some supposedly *rational* people, I don't force 
the
> > evidence to conform to my preconceived notion of DD's 
character.   I
> > just go where the evidence takes me.
> 


Maeg:
> Setting aside the rude ad hominem remarks, I think that it takes a  
> big leap of faith to call Dumbledore a red herring like this. You  
> have to ignore absolutely everything we've been shown about  
> Dumbledore's character -- and more importantly, you have to negate  
> his whole "confession" to Harry in OotP (where he takes the blame 
for  
> Sirius's death and explains that his desire to protect Harry and 
to  
> believe in the goodness of the world has led him to make various  
> decisions in Harry's life).
> 


Annemehr:
Rude?  You think people don't try to alter the facts to fit their 
preconceptions?!

No one is calling DD a "red herring."  I assure you, Talisman is not 
ignoring anything about what we've been shown about Dumbledore.  I 
should know -- I've argued plenty of the details with her in the 
past.  It all comes straight from the text (see her published works - 
all rife with canon references).

As for his character...

Well, he lies -- on the tower, he told Draco they were "quite alone" 
while all along Harry was there under the invisibility cloak (HBP 589-
590 US).  That's the most obvious and self-contained example of many; 
and yet there are plenty of people who insist that while DD may 
withhold information, he doesn't, of course, lie.

He used Imperius -- on Mrs. Cole, to make her believe a blank piece 
of paper was an official document regarding Tom Riddle's registration 
with Hogwarts (HBP 265 US).  Her eyes "slid out of focus and back 
again" -- that was no Obliviate; there was nothing to *forget*; that 
was mind control. 

Those are a couple of the simplest examples I can give.  There are 
plenty more **in canon** where those came from, and Talisman has used 
them to show the self-consistent character of Dumbledore -- the one 
who guides events all through the series.


Now, as for that *Confession* of DD's in OoP...

True, he takes the blame for Sirius's death, because he is 
responsible for it.


Let's focus on this bit now:

Maeg:
[DD] explains that his desire to protect Harry and to  
> believe in the goodness of the world has led him to make various  
> decisions in Harry's life


Annemehr:
What he said was that his desire to protect Harry jeopardized The 
Plan.  What he said, was:

'I cared about you too much,' said Dumbledore simply. 'I cared more 
for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace 
of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be 
lost if the plan failed.' [OoP 838 US]

In other words, what he *said* was that considerations of Harry's 
life and happiness sometimes run counter to The Plan.  And, you just 
have to look at Harry's life with the Dursleys to see that The Plan 
is what guides DD's decisions for Harry's life.

Bear in mind, also, that this little speech where DD says he withheld 
the prophecy from Harry *for too long* is the same speech where he 
said he was going to tell Harry *everything.*  And yet, he reverses 
himself a few months later - and even Harry thinks to call him on it:

"You said, at the end of last term, you were going to tell me 
everything," said Harry.  It was hard to keep a note of accusation 
from his voice.  "Sir," he added. [HBP 197 US]

Harry's miffed.  Why, he sounds just like he's talking to Snape!

And though DD's excuse is that he'd told Harry everything that he 
*knew* -- that they are now going to journey "through the murky 
marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork."  This, even 
though JKR said in the Leaky/Mugglenet interview that pensieve 
memories are objective, i.e. DD is going on to tell Harry more things 
that he *knows.*

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-
3.htm

Make no mistake. Despite what DD said in OoP, The Plan is still on.  
It's always been on -- including the handling of the prophecy 
regarding Harry.  And don't forget that Harry's life and happiness 
are not necessarily a part of it (DD "hopes" his lessons will help 
Harry to survive -- isn't that nice?).


I'm not sure what to make of your statement that DD has a desire 
to "believe in the goodness of the world [...]"  I'm sure he desires 
to see good where there is good, and evil where there's evil.  
Otherwise he'd make himself purposefully blind (like Fudge all during 
OoP).


Maeg:
> Can this [i.e., ignoring everything we've been shown about DD's 
character] be done? Sure. Will it destroy the main theme, narrative  
> arc, and symbolism of the whole series? Yes.
> 

Annemehr:
Absolutely.  But, trust me, Talisman's not the one ignoring what 
we've been shown.

> Maeg
> 
> My mind isn't always in the gutter -- sometimes it comes out to 
feed.
>

Oooo, snacktime!

Annemehr
who quite likes the gutter, too