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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 172095

Annemehr wrote:

> 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.
> 
Carol responds:
That's one possible explanation. But we have no evidence elsewhere in
the books that DD has the power of possession, and he isn't present
when Trelawney performs her second Prophecy in PoA. In contrast, we
know from SS/PS that Voldemort (who could not possibly be responsible
for the Prophecy of his own defeat nor wish it revealed to Dumbledore)
has that power. (I wouldn't be surprised if Harry acquired it at GH
and uses it in DH.)

Granted, she isn't a Seer in the sense that she "sees" into the future
in her normal state, but evidently some sort of spirit or numina is
passing through her during her real Prophecies. And she certainly read
the cards pretty accurately in HBP. Also, she does see things in the
crystal ball that HRH can't see. She just misreads Sirius Black's
Animagus form as a Grim (or maybe that's what it is, <eg>), she sees
death hovering over Hogwarts in Gof but misreads the death as Harry's,
and so on. Maybe she's like Neville. If she really believed in her own
powers, she wouldn't be the old fraud she appears to be. (I expect her
to make another Prophecy in DH, and it won't be because she's
possessed by an evil Dumbledore, who is thoroughly dead.)

Anyway, she *sees* what's in the tea leaves, the cards, the crystal
ball. She just (generally) interprets it incorrectly. It would be no
fun if she were always right, and JKR was right, from a plot
standpoint, to get rid of Mopsus. Also, unless the future is fluid,
determined by choices and circumstances in the present and not
predetermined, there is no free will--and no point in doing what is
right rather than what is easy. (I just hope she's as wrong about the
length of Harry's lifeline as she was about his being born in midwinter.)
 
> Annemehr:
> Rude?  You think people don't try to alter the facts to fit their
preconceptions?! <snip>
>
Carol:
I think the reference was to "supposedly rathional people," implying
that anyone who defends DD is irrational. The thing is, we, too, are
taking the evidence where it leads us, and all of us are interpreting
it. Dumbledore *does* lie, usually by dealing in halr-truths like
snape, but sometimes an out-an-out lie like telling Draco that they're
"quite alone." That lie harms no one, though, and allows him to help
Draco understand that he's not a killer. It's not like Rita Skeeter's
lies, which hurt people. (I wonder, BTW, whether telling Harry that
only they two know the complete Prophecy is another lie of the same
sort, protecting Snape.)

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>

Carol responds:
The trouble with nonverbal spells and Harry's pov is that unless Harry
is casting them, he, and therefore the reader, doesn't know what they
are. McGonagall and Voldemort, opposite ends of the spectrum, have
both stated that there are certain spells that DD won't cast. Barty
Sr. has been presented (admittedly by Sirius Black, who has an
understandable grudge against him) as cruel and ruthless for stooping
to use them. And Dumbledore is unquestionably a great wizard. Who's to
say that he needs to stoop to Imperius when when he knows every spell
in the book and then some? He may not even need a spell; all he needs
to do imagine what he wants (a change of decoration, for example) and
wave his wand or clap his hands. (Obviously, this sort of magic has
limits. He can't just imagine the fall of Voldemort and make it
happen.) So maybe all he has to do is imagine Mrs. Cole seeing an
official document instead of a blank piece of paper and voile! that's
what she sees. Alternatively, maybe the spell *is* a form or variant
of Obliviate that makes her see something that isn't there (rather
than forgetting something). Certainly, the effects are much more
similar than the effects of Imperius, and he isn't making her *do*
anything. She just thinks that everything is in order when it isn't.
(A forged document would have had the same effect.) The problem, IMO,
is not with Dumbledore but with the Statute of Secrecy, which prevents
him from telling Mrs. Cole that Tom Riddle is a wizard and he wishes
to admit him to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The
alternative is to let Tom Riddle stay in the orphanage, and whether
he's a good little wizard or a bad one, that's a bad idea. The whole
point of Hogwarts is to teach young witches and wizards to control
their magic. (Imagine if little Tommy had been allowed to continue as
he was. Actually, I'd rather not.)

Carol, who considers herself and her interpretation perfectly rational
(if not absolutely accurate on all counts) and Talisman's marvelously
imaginative