What Little Niggling Details will be left?

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 170932


> Mike:
> I think Yb has to be right because the inconsistency between 
> Trelawney's and Dumbledore's stories is problematic, imo. First half 
> of the prophesy versus there after it's over, just doesn't make 
> sense. I gotta believe this was a clue for us readers.
> 

Neri:
I think the question we should ask ourselves is: assuming for a moment
that Snape indeed heard only the first half of the prophecy, and there
was never supposed to be any doubt about it, why didn't JKR write the
two versions, Dumbledore's and Trelawney's, perfectly consistent?

The answer seems quite obvious to me: In OotP JKR had to write
Dumbledore's explanation that the eavesdropper heard only the first
part without giving the readers too many details or diverting them
from the main issue (which in OotP was the fact that Voldemort knew
half the prophecy, not *how* he knew it). But comes HBP, Harry had to
find out that the eavesdropper was Snape, and he had to find it by
chance from someone other than Dumbledore, so it had to be Trelawney
(the only other option would be Aberforth, but it appears JKR's plot
demands that Harry will only discover Aberforth in DH) and this meant
that Trelawney had to see Snape being caught. Thus a slight
inconsistency between the two versions resulted. IMO it's a
consistency that can easily be resolved in DH (by Aberforth, probably,
or by Snape himself) but like SSSusan upthread I won't be surprised if
JKR isn't even aware of any niggling doubts regarding the issue, and
we won't get any further explanation in DH.


Neri