Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 171036

> Sneeboy2:
> 
> The main problem with the "all part of DD's plan" theory (above) 
> is that if DD is behind the prophecy being leaked to LV, then he 
> is even more responsible than Snape for the death of Lily and 
> James. And he would have done it as part of a coldly calculated 
> plan, not a bitter, misguided act. 

lizzyben:

Agreed. DD is a war leader; war leaders have to make hard decisions.
In this case, DD made a decision that endangered 3 people, and saved
the lives of thousands. He might consider that a worthy justification,
though it would pain him to sacrifice anybody. DD has already shown a
willingness to sacrifice Order members (Arthur Weasely, Bode), to
sacrifice Harry's happiness (Dursely's), and even his own life. Why
should this be any different? At the end of OOTP, DD berates himself,
not for hurting Harry, but for NOT wanting to hurt Harry. He
admitsthat he would rather see Harry happy than save thousands of
"nameless,faceless" people from harm - and he sees this as a flaw.
Those "nameless, faceless" people have people who love them too & just
as much right to live. His speech suggests that in the past, he
was able to sacrifice the few to save the many - and is bothered by
his inability to do so with Harry. IMO, he never intended to love
Harry; Harry was just supposed to be a weapon against VD. But DD does
love Harry, so he suffers with him. 

Sneeboy2:
>It would also means that DD 
> told Harry several lies, not just about the night of the prophecy, 
> but about Snape's remorse. And he doesn't so much care about Harry 
> as value him as a weapon against LV. I just don't think JKR is 
> going to have dear departed DD turn out to be a cold-hearted 
> "general" willing to sacrifce the troops in the fight against 
> LV. 

lizzyben:

Why not? Thank you for arguing this w/me, because I'm really, really
ready to be convinced. I also hope that DD wouldn't do something like
this - but I can't deny that the evidence points in one direction. And
I'm looking for evidence that this isn't true; but simply saying that
"DD wouldn't do that" doesn't seem like real evidence. If there's
anything we've learned in the HP novels, it's that you can't trust
first impressions, or reputation, or even how nice or warm-hearted
someone seems - because the truth is likely to be quite different.

Almost every novel sets up a false original impression of a character,
followed by a total reversal. Fake!Moody was a cool teacher who liked
Harry, Lockhart was just a harmless airhead, Sirius was a mass
murderer who wanted to kill Harry, etc. In each case, Harry learns the
truth about this character in the climax, and that truth reverses his
initial false impression. And in each case, there were
clues all along about that person's real character. I think it would
be fitting if Harry finally learned a "truth" about DD that reversed
his false impression. And IMO, there have been many hints all along
that DD is in fact a cold-hearted, calculating war leader.

Sneeboy2:

> The pensieve memory ends at the end of the prophecy. Trelawny's 
> account of Snape's capture begins after she's recited the 
> prophecy and come out of the trance. The two don't overlap. 
> When she says they were "interrupted," she means the interview, 
> not the prophecy. There's no actual contradiction of what DD 
> said to Harry; just a seeming inconsistency. Keep in mind that 
> DD had no way of knowing at the time how much Snape heard. 
> (Occlumency is Snape's strong point.) So he only found out 
> later, when Snape came over the good side and confessed 
> everything, exactly how much Snape heard. 

lizzyben:

So, you're agreeing that Trewlawney had already finished the prophecy
when Snape was found? If Snape heard the full prophecy, why didn't he
report the whole thing to VD? If Snape was using Occlumency, wouldn't
he have pretended not to have heard any of the prophecy, instead of
admitting to hearing the first half? Even if 20-year-old Snape managed
to out-Occlude DD, that still doesn't explain why DD allowed Snape to
leave w/the first half of the prophecy. And there is another
contradiction - Trelawney states that Snape interrupted during the
middle of the interview, while DD says that prophecy occurred after
the interview was already over, & doesn't mention any interruption at
all. Even under this explanation, DD is still lying when he tells
Harry that Snape had only heard the beginning of the prophecy, because
DD now knows the truth.

Sneeboy2:
> The simplest explanation for the inconsistency is that when 
> the barman caught Snape, Snape tried to get away and missed 
> the second part of the prophecy. After he was was caught, 
> the barman brought him to DD, who let him go. Snape was 's 
> a former Hogwarts student, and he offered an excuse, which 
> DD accepted. He does trust people. He also doesn't place 
> much stake in prophecies, many of which go unfulfilled. 
> And there's no indication that he knew Snape was a Death 
> Eater at the time. 

lizzyben: 

How does this explain the inconsistency? Trelawney describes hearing a
scuffle & then seeing Snape & the barmen a moment later. This means
that the barman's discovery & exposure of Snape happened after T had
finished delivering the full prophecy. DD made it sound like the
eavesdropper was "tossed from the building" w/o even entering the
room, before he could even hear the whole prophecy, but that wasn't
what happened. Snape was in front of that door the entire time. DD
only finds him after the prophecy is finished.

DD knows what goes on at Hogwarts - he must have noticed that Snape's
"gang" all became Death Eaters. He's a Slytherin, famous for Dark
Arts, and is *obviously* spying on the interview (even Trelawney
realizes this). DD should be able to put 2 & 2 together here. In a
war, both sides use spies to glean information. Snape's spying should
have at least create suspicion, enough suspicion to use Legimens or a
memory charm. But DD lets Snape leave w/a vital prophecy about VD's
defeat, no problem. Either he let that prophecy go on purpose, or DD
is a stupid, unobservant man. I don't think he's stupid.

There's an interesting verbal slip that DD makes about this prophecy -
he says it was: 
"My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was
detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the
building... Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack
you would be to risk transferring power to you.
So Voldemort never knew that there might be danger in attacking you."

DD first says it was "his" good fortune that VD only heard the first
half of the prophecy, then swiftly changes that to "our". But really,
how was that Harry's good fortune? Because VD didn't know the whole
prophecy, he wasn't aware of the danger of "marking" the baby as he
equal, & he tried to kill Harry immediately. DD is saying that the 
events of Godric's Hollow were a stroke of good fortune for him
*cough* us. Because VD didn't know the full prophecy, he tried to kill
Harry at once, & he was actually destroyed at that time. This was
exactly what DD hoped would happen - a stroke of good fortune.   

Sneeboy2:
It was in some sense a mistake for DD 
> to let Snape go -- plenty of instances in canon of DD 
> making mistakes; none of him lying -- but ironically his 
> mistake ended up bringing down LV. Or perhaps better to 
> say that LV brought himself down. 
> 
> Sneeboy2

lizzyben:

I think the title of this chapter offers a clue about what really
happened - it's called "the lost prophecy." Well, it's not really
lost, is it? DD has a perfect copy, & a perfect memory of the
prophecy. It was actually "lost" many years ago, when DD let the
prophecy loose to reach VD's ears. 

Regarding lies, there are many examples of DD lying throughout the
novels. He lies to Fudge about creating the DA, lies to Snape about
how Sirius escaped ("Sirius must have apparated from the castle,
Severus"), & probably lies about what he sees in the Mirror of Erised.
(Socks? Doubtful). He's also good at half-truths & lies of omission
(ex: not telling Harry that Snape was the eavesdropper.) DD might SAY
that he never lies, but the truth is quite the opposite.

So DD made yet another huge mistake by letting Snape leave w/the
prophecy? I have no trouble w/a falliable character, but DD's many
mistakes totally belie his image as a "brilliant", "genius" wizard -
if they truly are mistakes. I don't like thinking that DD is actually
manipulating events & sacrificing people as part of some greater plan,
but it's the only way I can make any sense of his character. 

If DD is in fact meant to be a kindly man who cares only about Harry's
best interests, he becomes nothing more than a series of plot holes &
deus ex machinas. His actions make no sense at all. But if you think
of DD a calculating man who deliberately let the prophecy loose to
create an "equal" capable of defeating VD, who deliberately allowed
that person to confront VD on multiple occasions as training, who then
actually began to love this person, his actions do start to make
sense. And his many "mistakes" make sense as deliberate choices he
made to further a larger goal. It isn't "ironic" that DD's decision to
let the prophecy go brought VD down; that was DD's plan all along.


lizzyben