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

[Dana]

No: HPFGUIDX 172078

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.
<snip>

Dana:
But does that mean that JKR would set up her story so that when the 
final installment is released, everything in the books as they stand 
now would become a lie? Is that really how logic works? 

So in other words, this is not a story between good vs. evil but 
between evil vs. evil in which evil is the only thing that could 
possibly win from evil? 



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.
<snip>


Dana:
Would it really be an interesting story development if the prophecy 
was fake and implanted? Does this change anything about LV's choice 
to follow up on that said prophecy and make it a real one by doing 
so? Why would DD possessing Trelawney make the story concerning the 
prophecy a more interesting read? Also if the prophecy is fake, then 
how would LV making it a true one fit into the story? You can't put 
on fake pants so how would a fake prophecy work? It actually wouldn't 
because there would be nothing to fulfill. It would make the entire 
story surrounding the prophecy a black whole that would create a plot 
whole in its own right. For instance how would LV know to mark his 
opponent as an equal if he never heard that part of the fake 
prophecy? How would anyone faking a prophecy foresee this happening 
as JKR herself said that the effect of Lily's sacrifice was something 
no one could have foreseen as it never happened before? Unless you 
want to imply that DD is the seer but doesn't want to be credited for 
it and uses Trelawney as a vessel.  


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

Dana:
Sure they do but that doesn't mean that you have to call other people 
incapable of reading the books and interpret the presented evidence. 
In real life the smug cop thinks he has found the right evidence to 
convict the criminal, only to later find that the one he put in jail 
has been innocent all along. 
In HP the facts can never be totally supported by other facts as JKR 
has carefully constructed her story that way. So the so-called 
evidence that is supposedly leading the way is largely open to 
interpretation, which still requires filling in the blanks or filling 
in the missing link to connect two facts. Either way it is still the 
readers perception that is presented as evidence to support the 
theory and therefore one should remain open to except to be proven 
wrong in, an as of yet, incomplete story. 
A theory is just that a theory and even if the theory in the mind of 
the theorist is true and can be represented really well, the person 
is still not the author and therefore one can't make the claim that 
the evidence found somehow proofs you have uncovered the authors 
intend when she developed/ created a character. 

Also you can't rectify the rudeness of one by pointing out the 
rudeness of others. If everybody is wrong then no one is right and 
not if everyone behaves rude then I'm allowed to do so as well. We 
all get carried away in our own cleverness but just because someone 
is better with words then someone else doesn't make the theory truer 
by definition. 

Annemehr:
> 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).
<snip>

Dana:
She might not ignore anything that is shown about DD but she does 
give her own interpretation to what she sees as facts about this 
character. The series has been largely about choice and if DD, as in 
her theories, would be guilty of said crimes then actually no one in 
the series had a choice at all and there are not many plots 
overlapping the main plot of Harry's journey but just one plot in all 
the books orchestrated by the evilest man around Albus Dumbledore. If 
this theory turns out to be true then the enter story as told thus 
far becomes false. Would you really want to believe that JKR wrote 
the enter series just so in the end she would make it all a lie and 
that no one can be hold accountable for their actions because they 
were manipulated into doing what they did? So let's give Wormtail 
back his Order of Merlin because he was in DD's service when he 
betrayed his best friends and not out there to safe his own neck. 
Let's make Lily's sacrifice a lie by having DD orchestrate the entire 
event and not something Lily chose to do out of love for her son. 
Let's redeem Voldemort for his evil acts because it was not his fault 
he was manipulated into his choices by DD, as in some type of large 
scientific experiment. He is actually a fluffy bunny that is not 
responsible for his own actions.   

It might all come straight from the text but that doesn't mean that 
the intentions behind the actions are as clear cut as she wants to 
present them.  


Annemehr:
> 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.
<snip>

Dana:
Could you provide evidence that DD showed Mrs. Cole a blank piece of 
paper and made her believe it was an official document? And what 
purpose would a fake Hogwarts admission letter present to the story? 
Tom Riddle already showed magical abilities as Mrs. Cole confirmed 
when she talks about the strange things that always seem to surround 
young Tom. So why would there be a need for a fake admission letter? 
What would it add to the story? Again to make Tom a product of DD's 
experiments and not responsible for his own actions? That somehow DD 
chose a non-magical boy and turned him into the greatest Dark Lord of 
all times so he can then, 50 years later, hand pick another young boy 
to defeat his own creation? That Dr. Frankenstein ehm Dumbledore lost 
control over his creation and needed to create a new one in order to 
get ride of the old one? Would that really make a good story? 

To me this is actually proof of fitting the text to the theory. Mrs. 
Cole is a muggle and doesn't know anything about wizards and witches 
so why wouldn't her eyes slide out of focus and back again, 
especially as she was drinking gin as if her life depended up on 
getting to see the bottom of the glass? She probably thought she had 
one to many when DD gave her the document. 


Annemehr: 
> 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.
<snip>

I know Talisman represents her theory really well and I love to read 
her interpretations but unfortunately they are nothing more then that 
even if she claims that she knows her canon better then anyone. 

It is still implying that DD is so powerful that he can direct 
everyone's actions and behavior at all times, at any time. That all 
the other, so well developed, characters are actually nothing more 
then inferi moved around on a giant chessboard. If he is that 
powerful what does he need Harry for? He can checkmate the other king 
in just one move as he is in total control of everything. 

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]
<snip>
 
Dana:
Sure DD was talking about his plan but why does this automatically 
mean that his plan involved implanting a fake prophecy, leaking said 
prophecy, sacrificing the boy's parents by manipulating them into 
choosing the wrong SK and then having set up the mother's sacrifice 
so Voldemort could mark her son as his equal? 

Why can't DD's plan not have its starting point at the night the 
Potters died trying to protect their son? When LV made the choice to 
follow up on the part of the prophecy that was relayed to him? 
Therefore making the prophecy one that will have to be fulfilled 
because LV made it so? 
DD did not have to do anything but LV would not stop hunting down 
Harry at every chance he gets so DD makes up a plan to hide the boy 
away until he is ready and decides to have him trained when it is 
time for him to come to Hogwarts. He then runs into the problem that 
he can't just see Harry as just the boy the prophecy was talking 
about but comes to love him. That he no longer wants the prophecy to 
be about Harry. That he doesn't want a young boy to have to face an 
evil Dark Lord and the possibility of him getting hurt in the 
process. Does that mean he can prevent Harry to take matters into his 
own hands time and time again? No, he can't and therefore he can only 
offer his help there where he is able to do so. 

Also think about what DD says, would you want to have someone that 
you love face a dangerous task? How many loved ones of soldiers that 
are send to war would rather they stayed home and let someone else 
solve the problem? Why does it have to be their fight? To me that is 
what DD is telling Harry. That he doesn't want Harry to have this 
burden even if he can't change anything about the choice LV made and 
LV will never let it go just because DD doesn't want Harry to be part 
of it. 

In the second part about him not telling Harry right away about the 
Horcruxes and why LV did not die the night of GH, might have been 
because DD wanted to tackle them himself but knew that LV's focus had 
shifted and that there was a possibility DD was not around long 
enough to do this task for Harry and why he needed to teach Harry 
about them. 

It is still the same text, yet the interpretations of intentions are 
entirely different and it does not make it inconsistent with DD's 
speech in OotP. Besides as we see DD first checks out if there is 
merit to his knowledge before he sends Harry on a wild goose chase. 

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

Dana:
Well she does ignore other interpretations of the text as 
possibilities and crams unproven facts into her theory to proof her 
point. Like for instance Sirius being moved through the veil by DD's 
hand. Show me canon that proves this as fact? Just because DD is 
present doesn't proof anything or even that he lets the fight between 
Bella and Sirius go on, while he rounds up the other DEs, is proof 
that he had the intention of letting Sirius be killed.  That he 
wanted to activate weapon Harry by having him experience personal 
loss of a loved one. Show me canon that actually states this as fact 
and not just mere interpretation of what a person wants it to be. 
Just because a theorist can bring his or her theories in a convincing 
way doesn't make the theory truer then other interpretations of that 
same text. 

I have had many discussions about canon and what seems proof to me 
but people that do not want to see it that way will not read it in 
the same way. Does this mean I'm more right and they just do not get 
it? Maybe yes and maybe no, as I could very well be the one seeing 
and reading it all wrongly. We'll have to wait and see but to claim 
that you ARE right in your assessments while, unlike others, you let 
the evidence (that is clearly not there) guide you is indeed rude 
because what you are saying is that only you are intelligent enough 
to understand where the author has been going with her story and 
others are to dumb to see it like you. 

JMHO

Dana