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

[Talisman]

No: HPFGUIDX 172195

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dana" <ida3 at ...> wrote:
> 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.

> 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? 

Talisman:
1) The final installment will involve major twists and revelations;

2) It is customary to find, at the end of a Quest, that the answer is 
the *opposite* of what the hero expected-when he started out-and so 
it will prove in the HP series;
 
3) your assertion of *everything the books stand for* is really a 
proxy for *the way Dana has interpreted the books.* 
Rowling does not bear the burden of validating your reading. 

> Dana
> 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? 
> 

Talisman:
No one else involved in this exchange has said that. 
That is your own argumentative fallacy.

> 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>
>
Talisman:
I do not believe Trelawney is an authentic vessel of the oracle. 
Rowling has indicated that no character alive during Harry's story 
is. 
> 
> Dana:
> Would it really be an interesting story development if the prophecy 
> was fake and implanted? 

Talisman:
Apparently it is one that has you quite exercised. 

Dana:
>Does this change anything about LV's choice 
> to follow up on that said prophecy and make it a real one by doing 
> so? 

Talisman:
Does it change anything? Your hostility is based on how it alters 
your preferred reading.

Does it change things if someone--who had been studying Voldemort all 
his life, and knew him pretty darn well--crafted a pseudo-prophecy 
anticipating the effect it would have on him? 

Do you prefer that Trelawney--a person whom the author tells us has 
no prophetic gifts at all--inexplicably goes into a trance and 
unknowingly utters an impotent prophecy, just when a DE spy is at the 
door, the content of which just happens to be what the Dark Lord 
fears most? 

Or what *is* your theory?

As to LV's Choice, how do you interpret Oedipus? 

Have you, thoughtfully or ever, read Macbeth? 

When people make *choices,* does it matter *why* they make them?

Do people choose to be psychopaths?

Do people, like Merope, *choose* to be so depressed they lose their 
magic?

I don't think this issue is as simplistic as some readers assume. 

Nor do I think Rowling is writing a series-- in which the *worst* 
character is the arch-Muggle (her opinion), and which prefers and 
favors the *unconventional*--as a vehicle for conventional ideology.

I have a great deal written on this subject, 2/3 of which I published 
between a few readers long ago, the completion, polishing and general 
publication of which--as time is so short--will probably have to wait 
until after DH. 

Dana:
>Why would DD possessing Trelawney make the story concerning the 
> prophecy a more interesting read? 

Talisman:
I can't account for what *interests* everyone. You seem to care about 
it, though.

Let's recall some assistance from our author:

ES: Why is Slytherin house still –

JKR: Still allowed!

[All laugh]
ES: Yes! I mean, it's such a stigma.

JKR: But they're not all bad. They literally are not all bad. 

[Pause.] Well, the deeper answer, the non-flippant answer, would be 
that you have to embrace all of a person, you have to take them with 
their flaws, and everyone's got them. 

It's the same way with the student body. If only they could achieve 
perfect unity, you would have an absolute unstoppable force, and I 
suppose it's that craving for unity and wholeness that means that 
they keep that quarter of the school that maybe does not encapsulate 
the most generous and noble qualities, in the hope, in the very 
Dumbledore-esque hope that they will achieve union, and they will 
achieve harmony. 

Harmony is the word
.So again, it was this idea of harmony and 
balance, that you had four necessary components and by integrating 
them you would make a very strong place. But they remain fragmented, 
as we know.

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

Talisman:
One train of thought might involve why DD's plan goes at least as far 
back as Tom Riddle's youth. 

Hmmm, in a series where Slytherin's re-incorporation into Hogwarts (a 
symbol for both the personal psyche and the body politic) is 
anticipated as an important feature of the denouement, how could an 
intentional plan involving the last heir of Slytherin possibly be 
interesting?

If you aren't familiar with the Jungian pursuit of (aka quest for) a 
fully *integrated* Self, now would be a good time to read up.

Dana:
>Also if the prophecy is fake, then how would LV making it a true one 
fit into the story? 

Talisman:
DD and Rowling have both said it's fake. That much you'll have to 
deal with-- unless you just want to keep your eyes closed. 

In my world LV's response is the one DD wanted. 

It has continued to impact LV's behavior, series to date--enhancing 
the predictability of his actions. See my works generally. 

I also think Harry is a Hx made at GH: LV did the murder; DD did the 
spell. 

I think that plays right into the integration theme. 

Harry carries the Dark Lord within. He has to accept that and to 
understand his own capacity for evil. 

It's not just the other guy, it's you, too.

Indeed, Jung tells us that the more negative emotion we feel toward a 
person...ehem...the more we are projecting our own shortcomings onto 
them.

Harry is going to have to face this, about Snape...and LV.

The fight that can never be won, at least during one's lifetime, is 
the fight involving one's own personal portion of the Dark Lord. 

That's part of it.

But, as you keep announcing, you can make up your own explanation.

Dana:
>You can't put on fake pants so how would a fake prophecy work? 

Talisman:
::blink:: They're the same? I hereby deny the reality of everybody's 
pants!!! 

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
I wonder how you interpret the term *real.*

How does an utterance of the Oracle differ from an accurate 
prediction of someone's reaction?

Rowling has already said that no one in the story is a true seer. 

I've explained before how DD was equivocating when he agreed with 
Harry that, what we call Trelawney's prophecies 1 & 2, were *real.* 

DD *thinks* they are *real* because he expects these utterances to be 
fulfilled in the course of his plan. However, when Harry says *real* 
he does not include the possibility that DD is organizing this 
fulfillment--and DD knows there is this disconnect in communication.

The question of how or whether a *real* prediction by the Oracle 
differs from a *real* prediction by DD goes to considerations of how 
*fate* unfolds through human agency, *why* people make the choices 
they do, and the level of *freedom* they actually enjoy.

I believe you are having trouble grasping a significant range of 
philosophical and literary issues. Perhaps later, in the yawning 
eternity after DH we can vet them all out. 

For the nonce, the fact that Trelawney wasn't guided by the numina 
(which will never *literally* appear in this mode of literature--but 
for which DD is the symbolic referent)--as explained by Rowling--is a 
good starting point. 

Dana:
>For instance how would LV know to mark his opponent as an equal if 
he never heard that part of the fake 
> prophecy? 

Talisman:
Even surface canon tells us LV did *not* intend to mark Harry. He 
intended to kill Harry.
Re-read DD's debreifings in PS/SS and OoP.

Dana:
>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?

Talsiman: 
Rowling didn't ever use the term *foreseen.* And, obviously, whatever 
Lily *knew* as an empirical (previously experienced) *fact,* she 
*counted on,* and *expected* her sacrifice saving Harry--not just 
postponing his death for a few seconds.
I've covered this before: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163793

DD fully understood that LV 1) had a deeply feared and expected the 
rise of a usurper; 2) knew that two wizarding babies would be born 
before the end of July; 3) knew that LV would identify them and act 
to snuff them out before they could topple him, 3) expected him to 
start with the one most like himself, i.e. the one with Muggle in the 
family.

It's pretty straightforward.

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
Not at all. On the surface level DD is a wise old, extremely 
powerful, and, per the author, "almost godlike" wizard, who has a 
keen understanding of human motivations and behavior--and a talent 
for possession/magical ventriloquism.

Symbolically, he is god. Literally he is not. 

Nowhere is he channeling a different numinal source.

> 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. 

Talisman:
It depends on the situation. When people are being intentionally 
obnoxious and are clearly off the map, I think they've earned a 
complimentary kick in the pants--even if their pants are illusory. 

I'm never prickly with people of goodwill--no matter how many errors 
they weave into their opinions.

And, I find the arrogance of the truly talented part of their charm.

But intentional snot--that isn't even trying to be entertaining--
coupled with patent ignorance--deserves a comeuppance. 

Not every perp gets one--I can't devote that much time to universal 
justice--but now and then one jumps in front of the sights
.

The line that has you so worked up is an artifact from the time the 
post was written ~circa February of this year, in proximity with an 
outbreak from a soi-disant expert who insisted that he, and anyone 
who agreed with him, were *more rational* than other theorists. 

This, though the target seemed unable to challenge my explication 
with any argument, let alone a justified one, a fortiori supremely 
rational one.

Moreover, the poster--like many readers--seems both unable to make 
justified intuitive leaps--and not surprisingly--unwilling to 
consider them essential and desirable phenomena in the hermeneutic 
process.

Rowling, and successful readers, know better. That's why the 
W.O.M.B.A.T. Exams always required intuitive application of the text. 
Emphasis on *justified* intuitive application. 

All I was doing was parrying the thrust of an opponent's self-
serving  blade.

But, if you want to take ownership of the charge--even though you 
were never before involved in the exchange--have it.

Dana:
> 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. 

Talsiman:
Smug =wrong. Only the obsequious know for sure.
Life interpreted by formulaic t.v. ; the hegemony of the hoi-polloi. 

Then to, smug and confident are a close thing.

If you can't play with flare on the battlefield of ideas, don't jump 
in front of the blade. 

The list is rampant with artless sarcasm supposedly neutralized by an 
obligatory JMO. If that works for you, play with those people. 

Your own uncomplimentary assumption includes the notion that I 
haven't given due consideration to every other theory offered, am not 
receptive to justified argument, and don't have solid bases for 
rejecting the explications (or non-explicated assertions) I reject, 
let alone a background to support my confidence. 

You, perforce, are in no position to justify this assumption. 
Asserting it simply satisfies your grudge.

Dana:
> In HP the facts can never be totally supported by other facts as 
JKR 
> has carefully constructed her story that way. 

Talisman:
I don't agree. And, if you want respect for this assertion, instead 
of indulging in sweeping generalizations, you need to demonstrate it. 

Prove it, or quit the field of contending ideas.

I *am* long on record asserting that Rowling's art mirrors her 
thesis; that there is a Muggle and a Magic level to the stories.

Nonetheless, I will not yield to the notion that there are multiple, 
equally valid, interpretations. Nor even two. The Muggle 
interpretation is necessarily, and demonstrably, inferior. 

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
The final chapter, has just barely, not yet been read. But at 6/7 of 
the way in, there is sufficient evidence to establish quite a lot--
and to rule out quite a lot, as well.

It's not as open as you would like to assert. On the other hand, 
people who suffer from an inability to grasp literary implicature 
(the written version of conversational implicature--wherein a great 
deal of human meaning occurs) may never have the level of concrete 
certainty they require for understanding. 

As a neurological fact, some people just can't read between the lines.

This is neither the author's problem, nor mine.

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
All of the conversation on this list--and in life as we know it--
would be eradicated if one had to wait for epistemological certitude 
before speaking.

Your attempt to radicalize the argument is just another in a long 
string of argumentative fallacies.
I am open to justified arguments. Make one.

And, no, all readers' perceptions are not equal.  In the array of 
ideas, some have superior support, some come out of  an excretory 
orifice.

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
Believe what you want. You are free to ignore my reasoning and my 
proofs. 

I agree with E.D Hirsch, that the verbal meaning intended by the 
author is reproducible in readers who are competent in the same 
conventions, and norms actualized in the authors words, and 
knowledgeable as to how to employ these, in their interpretive 
practice.

Even where such interpretation is less than absolute, it is 
nonetheless adequate to yield objective knowledge of the verbal 
intentions of the author (as opposed to the author's state of 
consciousness).

Now, what I posit in my posts is an admixture of personal 
certainties, and extrapolations--some of the details of which 
certainly do tease out into my own proclivities--albeit informed ones.

But, where I'm sure, I am very sure. And this, unlike your fervent 
hope, is not a product achieved by conforming the text to my 
preferred preconceptions.

It is the product of the hermeneutic cycle--which involves forming a 
*corrigible* hypothesis, meaning that it can be confirmed or 
disconfirmed by continuing reference to the text--and where 
disconfirmed--replaced with an alternative that conforms most closely 
with all components of the text.

This is exactly what brought me--over the years--to see that DD is 
indeed managing all the significant events in the series. (This does 
not include shipping per se --though DD's understanding of who loves 
whom does play a role.)

I don't need to read the last book to be certain of this--more than 
sufficient evidence is already in place.

Dana:
> Also you can't rectify the rudeness of one by pointing out the 
> rudeness of others. 

Talisman:
Perhaps you should apply your axiom to yourself.

Dana:
>If everybody is wrong then no one is right and 
> not if everyone behaves rude then I'm allowed to do so as well. 

Talisman:
Yet you seem to have exercised your right, repeatedly now, paragraph 
after paragraph, in response to one line, in someone else's 
conversation, that lit your wick.

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
Your personal feelings are valid insofar as they are your feelings 
and you are entitled to them; however, substantively better arguments 
deserve equal caliber in rebuttal, or failing that, deference in the 
field of theory.

> 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. 

Talisman:
Yes, but where my *interpretation* integrates and accounts for all of 
the text du jour and yours requires turning a blind eye to evidence 
or constructing a patchwork quilt of disconnected--and extra-
canonical--explanations, my interpretation is superior.

Dana:
>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.

Talisman:
These are your erroneous assumptions.

Why, Harry, himself, decides in HBP, that his only choice is to march 
into the arena or be dragged in. 

He also decides that this is a significant choice, but the reader is 
free to disagree. 

Especially when so many questions have been raised about how 
meaningful a choice can be when it's forced in a situation where 
information is managed and withheld. Or, when the actor is clinically 
depressed or psychotic. 

Indeed, Merope quit the arena altogether. Harry wants to fault her--
but Dumbledore understands that life had beaten the heart out of her--
her depression was too great--and he does not suggest that she could 
have decided to spunk up and want to live.
People *choose* according to who they *are,* but they don't choose to 
be psychopathic, depressed, or resilient, for that matter. 

If the main plot and all of the subplots intermesh, I call that a 
consummate work of literary workmanship.

I do tease DD about being an old scoundrel, but the mode is sardonic, 
and meant to rile the anticipated wet hen society.

He is Rowling's White Hat, sans dout. But he is also the one in the 
control room--with dominos in place even now.

Will Rowling have Harry break free? We'll have to wait and see.

Dana:
>If this theory turns out to be true then the enter story as told 
thus 
> far becomes false. 

Talisman: 
If true, only your reading of the story would be false. 
Who's smug now?

Dana:
>Would you really want to believe that JKR wrote 
> the enter series just so in the end she would make it all a lie 

Talisman:
The art of the mystery is like the art of legerdemain, the audience 
simply doesn`t see what is right in front of them.

Rather like *the overwhelming majority of present-day Muggles [who] 
refuse to believe in
magical beasts
[and] appear satisfied with the 
flimsiest non-magical explanation" (FBWTFT xvii).

Any reading that is belied will merely be a misreading.

Not to say that she won't intentionally turn the screw on the more 
inobservant, conventional, ideologically complacent, readers

Dana: 
> that no one can be hold accountable for their actions because they 
> were manipulated into doing what they did? 

Talisman:
If we were actually arguing the epistemologically un-provable dogma 
of free-will, this would merely be the argumentative fallacy of 
including the conclusion in the premise.

But you aren't really exploring that deeply. So, not being interested 
in supplying the want of the argument, I'll stay at the apparent 
level.

In the context of Rowling's fictional world, DD does not preordain 
the individual characters personalities, he simply makes use of what 
he understands about them. 

Sirius's hubris, Wormtail's cowardice, Lily's courage, Lucius's 
instinct for self-preservation, Quirrell's weak character, Fudge's 
corrupt ambition, Bertha's nosiness, etc. are all extant 
characteristics' of these individuals. 

DD merely employs his understanding of human behavior to nudge here, 
suggest there, shrewdly calculating the effect.

When this leads to catastrophe for the character involved, it can 
often be seen as a consequence of their persistence in what some 
might call *bad behavior.*

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
You love your strawmen, don't you? 

Wormtail was totally out to save his own cowardly hide, DD merely 
counted on him acting true to form.

By the way, all the evidence supports the conclusion that DD knew 
exactly who was the spy in the Order. 

Wormtail is no Occlumens--Rowling specifically has LV call him out as 
a poor liar---and we know that DD is a great Legilimens who already 
knew there was a spy in the nest. 

It wrenches the text to persist in believing that DD would not 
examine his small band of operatives, and in doing so, would not 
easily penetrate Wormtail's head. 

Indeed, DD penetrates LV's head in the Atrium--not only demonstrating 
the knowledge that LV is about to possess Harry, before it happens, 
but also knowing instantly when and *why* he was repulsed.

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
Well, there is certainly enough straw here to feed a lot of sacred 
cows. And enough snot to deserve a wiping.

DD didn't make Lily courageous--but he did rely on her courage.

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
Voldemort is murderous psychopath. 

DD tells Harry he *had no idea* that LV was going to grow up to be 
the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time (HBP 276).

There are a couple of interesting qualifications in that statement: 
most dangerous, and Dark (as opposed to the most dangerous Light? 
<veg>). 

Plus, killing animals is a textbook indication of a burgeoning 
psychopath--so I'm not convinced he had *no* idea that LV would be 
bent.

And, he does not seem to intervene in Riddle's formative years.

Just *watches.*

He has allowed LV be what LV is.

I think it's very interesting that you might re-apportion culpability 
in such a case. Controversial, even; as this applies so neatly to 
real life.

If you don't watch out you may question the ideology under which 
you've been uncritically living. 

In any event, Voldemort does become a psychopath, and as such, is no 
more--and no less-culpable than any psychopath, of the same type 
(i.e. severe, murderous, and unable to function within societal 
norms).

However, many readers *have* noticed that DD has gone right on 
*allowing* LV to be..er..himself..by passing up opportunities to 
destroy him. 

Rowling has acknowledged what was especially evident in the Atruium: 
that DD did not try to kill LV.

There certainly isn't any convincing explanation for DD's failure to 
zap him back to vapor--and allow everyone to hunt Hxes in peace--
except that DD wants him around.

Why, he's even brought him back from Albania, twice.

It is interesting to note the note of sadness and compassion in DD's 
voice, when he address LV during the battle in OoP. 

This is reinforced in his conversation with Harry in HBP: where Harry 
expresses outrage that Merope acceded to death, leaving Tom to grow 
up in the orphanage:
"Dumbledore raised his eyebrows. "Could you possibly be feeling sorry 
for Lord Voldemort?" (HBP 262).

I will unapologetically interpret this as something DD considers 
desirable. 

In general, DD has banked on his understanding of Voldemort's 
reactions, in order to channel the Dark Lord's extant proclivities, 
to Dumbledorian ends.

Subtextually LV represents the destructive behavior of which all 
humans are capable. 

In the surface mystery he plays, at a minimum, a crucial role in 
reconciling the houses--thereby bringing harmony to Hogwarts, and in 
inducing a level of self-realization in Harry.

His antics have certainly also played a role--with DD's help--in 
revealing a number of other characters for what they are--and feeding 
them a dose of karma. 

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
Hmmm. Do you mean Rowling? 

Shall I interpret this to mean that you think she doesn't intend what 
she wrote?

That certainly *is* the fallback position for readers who want to 
keep DD's fingers out of the mix. That is, that the evidence 
(plentiful) of DD's involvement is a consequence of Rowling's poor 
writing--not their own poor reading.

Or do you mean me?
How clear the intentions behind the actions are, is dependent in 
large part on one's perceptive acuity.

> 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?
 
Talisman:
Sure:
****
"`Who registered him? His parents?' 

There was no doubt that Mrs. Cole was an inconveniently sharp woman.

Apparently Dumbledore thought so too, for Harry now saw him slip his 
wand out of the pocket of his velvet suit, at the same time picking 
up a piece of perfectly blank paper from Mrs. Cole's desk.

`Here,' said Dumbledore, waving his wand once as he passed her the 
piece of paper, `I think this will make everything clear.'

Mrs. Cole's eyes slid out of focus and back again as she gazed 
intently at the blank paper for a moment.

`That seems perfectly in order,' she said placidly
" (HBP 265).
*****

Dana:
>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? 

Talisman:
The evidence that DD bewitched Mrs. Cole into believing that there 
was proper Muggle paperwork to release Riddle to Hogwarts, is 
manifest.

I hope you don't seriously intent to deny the text.

Therefore, you are merely doing again, what you so often resort to in 
your opposition: when you can't deny the evidence, you seem to think 
you can shift the burden to your opponent by switching the question 
to *why,*  instead of acceding that the evidence disconfirms your own 
hypothesis.

The fact that it is there, and the reason it is there are two 
different things.

*Why* is an ultimate revelation--the evidence that certain things are 
so is the trail to understanding. No one has to get all the way to 
the end of the trail to see where to get on it.

Here, *you* are the one who wants to deny this literary fact,because 
you don't like DD doing it. 

You don't like DD doing it, because you want to ignore the text and 
generate a character of your own choosing.

What it says about DD is that he will use magic on people when he 
finds it necessary. 

I don't have a problem with it--but apparently it *is* important to 
the text, because it contradicts your notion of DD's character.

If you have an open mind, and an interest in reading what Rowling 
actually wrote, you'll reform your hypothesis to conform to this 
literary *fact.*

Not such a thorough champion of free will that he is above some 
practical magical *lubricant,* eh? 

Dana:
>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? 

Talisman:
It seems that he did it to get Riddle (who was never non-magical, 
btw) to Hogwarts, without further ado.

Dana:
>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? 

Talisman:
Where do you get this stuff?
Who is asserting a loss of control?
In another book, it might make a good story--but how is that germane?

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
Ah--there you go--hoist on your own petard.

The text that I provided, supra, clearly demonstrates DD using magic 
to make Mrs. Cole believe the blank paper is whatever document she 
thinks she needs.

While I've been on this list too long to believe there isn't 
*someone* who'll take the most outrageous position possible, I think 
you're in a rarified minority, here.

Indeed, if there was ever a *blatant* case of fitting the text to 
theory, you, yourself, have just demonstrated it.

Why in the world do you think Rowling wrote that DD pulled out his 
wand simultaneously with picking up the paper, and waved his wand 
over the paper saying "I think this will make everything perfectly 
clear," if gin--of which Mrs. Cole had not yet had even a sip--was 
the reason she thought the entirely blank piece of paper was an 
authoritative document? 

If you really are not able to see how your argument is invalid, and 
how perfectly the text supports Anne's assertion that DD has used 
mind-altering magic on Mrs. Cole, then you are beyond the reach of 
discourse.

Anne slipped a bit in her choice of spell, but she is dead-on in the 
assertion that DD bewitched a Muggle to induce her to comply with his 
request that she release Tom to Hogwarts. An act that the Muggle was 
otherwise resisting.

> 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>

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
I can't recall ever claiming to know my canon better than anyone. 

I do claim that my fundamental reading of DD is accurate. It cannot 
be refuted by canon, and is only further confirmed when all 
components of the text are brought to bear.

It is more than just another interpretation among the pack, it is a 
superior interpretation.

> Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
We've been through this already. Put the straw away and address what 
I've actually asserted.

> 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? 

Talisman:
The vintage of DD's plan is neither solely or *automatically* evoked 
from the debriefing in OoP. The evidence there is only part of the 
evidence that grows with every volume.

*Why* is a separate question than that the evidence demonstrates that 
this is so.

I've offered some possible *why's*--DH is the volume that will answer 
this best.

Dana: 
> Why can't DD's plan not have its starting point at the night the 
> Potters died trying to protect their son? 

Talisman:
Because the evidence shows DD busily setting things up before then.

Dana:
>When LV made the choice to follow up on the part of the prophecy 
that was relayed to him? 

Talisman:
Which he certainly did.

Dana:
> Therefore making the prophecy one that will have to be fulfilled 
> because LV made it so? 

Talisman:
Because it motivates LV's actions? How does this negate DD's role in 
the matter?

I'm snipping the rest of your preferred version, which doesn't engage 
my specific arguments. I`ve given this more than generous time, and 
am not going to accept the burden of re-explaining what I've already 
posted in response to so vauge a challenge.

Dana:
> 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? 

Talisman:
My 23-year old is in the 11th month of his second--currently 
scheduled 15 month--tour in Iraq where he serves as a combat medic 
with the 10th Mountain Division. He has been living 24/7 *forward* of 
the main base, i.e. in a bombed out building with no bathing 
facilities and an improvised bed that is rotated to other soldiers 
when he is *out,* and vice versa, because there isn't enough room for 
everyone to be there at the same time, encountering IEds, being 
attacked by suicide bombers, taking small arms fire, and being put 
into every dangerous position imaginable.

How perfectly ludicrous for you to preach to me or pretend to a 
position of superior insight.   

Perhaps you should try *thinking about* the self-serving and 
unwarranted nature of your assumptions.

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
Unfortunately, as Anne tried to point out to you, what DD says is 
that his unexpected feelings for Harry --feelings which DD had 
previously determined he could-and must--avoid--had crept in and were 
endangering his--DD's--plan. This is explicit on pages 838-839 of 
OoP. 
> 
DD tells us, unequivocally, that caring for Harry is detrimental to 
his plan.

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
One wonders why DD wouldn't explain--nay--why Rowling wouldn't bother 
to inform us by having him explain--that he didn't initially expect 
or want Harry to take care of these matters--instead of waiting for 
someone to invent and supply this extra-textual explanation, for her 
readers.

Do you see the difference?

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
I'm sorry. It is not the same text. 

You have invented text that the author would have no reason--under 
your theory of the narrative--to hide from us, and yet which she did 
not supply.

And it *is* inconsistent with his speech in OoP, because DD says, 
straight out, that caring for Harry is contrary to his plan.

I will grant you this, DD knew he was going to buy it at the end of 
the year, and this was the phase where he needed to set Harry his 
final tasks. 

But far from there being no evidence that DD planned it all along, DD 
admits he should have done it sooner--if he'd stuck to his commitment 
not to care about Harry.

That's not interpretation, that's black letter text.

>Dana:
>Besides as we see DD first checks out if there is 
>merit to his knowledge before he sends Harry on a wild goose chase. 

Talsiman:
None of what DD has Harry do is a wild goose chase, all of it is 
tailored to achieved specific ends.

> 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. 

Talisman:
I'm glad you're not rude or smug. Can't imagine what this would be 
like otherwise.

By the way, what is your authority for pronouncing on what I consider 
or ignore? ESP? Legilimency?

You certainly seem to feel entitled to privilege some interpretations 
above others--but find it a fault in me--even though I can offer 
better justification.

Many of what you like to call unproven facts are literary 
implicatures and /or justified intuitive leaps, interpolated from 
strong evidence. 

Dana:
>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. 

Talisman:
You've already demonstrated your ability to ignore both direct 
textual statements and clear demonstrations. 
I think it unlikely that you'll acknowledge anything that isn't 
written in neon, and much that is.

If you want to refute my original Guilty!DD post, go back and take on 
the canon.  I see no reason to reiterate and explain arguments I've 
already laid out--let alone add to them--when you are unwilling or 
unable to deal with the canon already involved. 

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
Convincing theories are, per se, better theories than unconvincing 
ones. 

However, the most astute theory ever promulgated would elude some 
recipients--there are always two parties involved in the transmission 
of information. 

Dana:
> 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. 

Talisman:
Well, at least I'm right.