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

[Annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 172204

Annemehr said:
<snip>
>  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.
<snip>


Annemehr:
First and most importantly, I'll point out that in a part that was 
snipped, Talisman said:

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

In other words, it *may* be possession, but her main point is that 
*whatever* it was, it was Dumbledore's doing.

Second, the fact that DD was not present in the room for the second 
prophecy is no obstacle.  In OoP, Voldemort apparated out of the 
Atrium (and deposited Bellatrix somewhere, and Harry began to move 
from behind the statue, and DD told him not to move) *before* he 
possessed Harry.  (OoP ch. 36, p. 815 US)

Carol: 
> 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.


Annemehr:
Well, if anyone were faking a prophecy, they'd certainly make it 
*look* that way.

Carol:
> 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.


Annemehr:
We can't judge how accurately she read the cards, because we aren't 
really told.  I'm no expert on Tarot, but one thing Trelawney says is:

  '- the lightning-struck tower,' she whispered. 'Calamity. Disaster. 
Coming nearer all the time ...' (HBP ch. 25, p. 543 US)

It's my understanding that the this card does not merely mean 
calamity, but carries a sense that the old order will be brought down 
for a better one to take its place.

It's also my understanding that there's a system to reading the 
Tarot -- so on the one hand, anyone who studies them can make 
*something* of them, seer or not, and on the other hand, we can't 
tell from what Trelawney says that she's correctly catching the 
subtleties.

As far as Trelawney "just" misreading Sirius's animagus form as a 
grim, I call that a bit of proof that she is not a seer.  She 
only "saw" what she wanted to see.

Again, she's no more successful than the charlatans on TV.



Carol:
> Anyway, she *sees* what's in the tea leaves, the cards, the crystal
> ball. She just (generally) interprets it incorrectly.

Annemehr:
I'll reiterate: that's exactly what proves her not a seer.

Carol:
> 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.


Annemehr:
This is too much for the time available, and the scope of this post, 
to answer (and truth be told, largely beyond my ability to do it 
justice).  I'll just say that it isn't at all safe to *begin* with 
this assumption and then interpret the text by it.  JKR seems to be 
sending some very mixed messages regarding free will so far.

<snip>

> Carol:
> 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:
Now we're getting somewhere.  Yes, DD lies, for good reasons.  And 
what he may do in a small way, he may do in a very large and more 
varied way for correspondingly more compelling reasons.  Keep going 
in this direction, and you wind up with Guilty!DD.

> 
> 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.

Annemehr:
Yeah, I screwed up there.  It really looks more like a Confundus 
Charm, doesn't it?  The point remains, it was a form of mind control.


Carol:
> 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.

Annemehr:
Well, in the passage I cited, he did use his wand.

Carol:
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>

Annemehr:
Well, that goes to my point, and to Talisman's theory.  DD is using 
mind control -- *sort of like using a forged document* -- because he 
knows better than Mrs. Cole what must be done, and he does what he 
must to accomplish it.  That's Guilty!DD.

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

Annemehr:
In an attempt to answer this, I am going to have to refer to your 
comments about abstractions and ontology in post 171270.  These 
things may not interest you, but -- along with integrating all the 
various events in the text into one congruous whole -- they go to the 
heart of Talisman's analysis. I really believe (and JKR's interview 
comments seem to bear out), that they go to the heart of JKR's 
purpose in writing, also.

This series is *about* something more than a fun story with plot 
twists.  That's why JKR has said, very emphatically, that she 
*believes* in it.

And I assure you that Talisman is doing real literary analysis, not 
fanfic.

Annemehr