Question about the prophecy and a thought about Ginny

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 171052

> lizzyben:
> 
> 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.
> 
zgirnius:
Here, in gory detail and chronological order, is a series of events 
as they *might* have happened, that contradict neither account.

1) Snape starts to listen at the door to the conversation of 
Dumbledore and Trelawney.
2) Dumbledore feels around for a way to tell Trelawney he has decided 
not to hire her.
(1 and 2 might be switched, only Snape really knows when he started 
listening, and we do not have his version).
3) Trelawney begins the prophecy.
4) The barman sees Snape and pulls him away from the door before the 
prophecy is complete, so Snape does not hear the rest.
5) Snape offers his lame excuse of being lost, the barman scoffs at 
it, as Trelawney wraps up her Prophecy and begins to come out of her 
trance.
6) The volume of the discussion/struggle between the barman and Snape 
intensifies, to the point where it can now be heard by Dumbledore and 
Trelawney (this is the 'scuffle' she refers to)
7) The barman drags Snape in to show to Dumbledore.
8) Snape is thrown from the building.

Dumbledore's account covers 2)(the interview was over), 3), 4) and 8) 
without mentioning the important detail 7), but also without denying 
it might have happened. His choice of language is misleading, but 
what he says is true under my scenario. His motive for using this 
language is to attempt to deflect the possible question 'so who was 
it?' from Harry.

Trelawney's account vaguely implies 2) (she noted how much more 
receptive Dumbledore is after her 'funny spell', but attributes this  
to the poor impression left by Snape). She mentions 3) (though she 
does not know it, this is when she feels funny), 6) and 7). She 
neither saw nor heard 5) both because she was in a prophetic trance, 
and because it was not loud enough to be heard through the door while 
sitting across the room from it, so her failure to mention it is not 
odd. She did not mention 8) because she does not know it either - 
Snape and the barman left, she stayed to continue her interview. DD 
knows 8) because the barman told him later. Not a particularly odd 
circumstance, if we believe the barman is Aberforth Dumbledore, 
Albus's brother.

Of course if you find the idea Dumbledore lied to Harry more 
convincing, that's fine. But there is a way the events could have 
played out that is consistent with both accounts.

To me, the account above, which leaves all deliberate evil intentions 
squarely with Snape, is the hands-down favorite.

> lizzyben: 
> 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).

zgirnius:
I find it more sensible to believe that the Marauders and Dumbledore 
formed different impressions of young Snape. We lack any accounts 
from a neutral third party about their schooldays. (I am not denying 
Snape may have seemed friendly with older Slytherins as a 
first/second year, or that he may have been a top student in DADA, I 
am proposing that the Marauders may have put a different construction 
on these disparate facts than Dumbledore did).

I also find my view supported by canon - if Dumbledore thought 
student Snape was a lost cause Dark Arts lover/DE sympathizer, why 
does he refer to Snape's defection as a 'return'? 

>lizzyben:
> 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. 

zgirnius:
Even Sirius was not sure Snape had ever been a Death Eater. I just 
don't see the evidence that someone not 'unobservant' and 'stupid' 
had to think Snape was very bad news.

Supposing Dumbledore did not have reason to think Snape was a Death 
Eater (like, a good relationship with his blood-traitor mother, or a 
friendship with a Muggleborn girl in his class), and some other 
positive impression of him as a person (perhaps he kept the secret of 
a school-day enemy). How much force would he be justified in using 
against such a person? Perhaps he did try Legilimency, and found no 
indication Snape was a Death Eater, or that he was being lied to. 
Snape is, after all, a gifted Occlumens, something I presume 
Dumbledore would not have known at that point in time.

> lizzyben: 
> "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... <snip>
> DD first says it was "his" good fortune that VD only heard the first
> half of the prophecy, then swiftly changes that to "our". 

zgirnius:
I don't understand. You think Dumbledore deliberately let a likely 
Death Eater who may have heard the whole prophecy go to Voldemort, 
right? And he learned later which part Snape had actually heard. If 
he thought it was undesirable for Voldemort to know the whole thing, 
why would he let Snape go? That could make it worse, I presume. If it 
could not, then why is this a stroke of good fortune?

On the other hand, if I am misunderstanding and the puppetmaster idea 
you support is that Snape heard it all and Dumbledore *told* him to 
tell only the first part, how is this a telling slip up? The whole 
statament is a bold-faced lie, regardless of what pronoun one uses in 
the subject.

> lizzyben:
> 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.   

zgirnius:
If he wanted the Potters to actually be attacked, as it seems you 
propose above, why did he offer to be the Secret Keeper? Are you 
suggesting he planned to Owl Voldemort with the location once the 
charm was cast?

> 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. 

zgirnius:
It is not lost, as we, with Harry, learn in the chapter. Harry 
considers his loss of that prophecy one of his failures as the 
chapter begins. I think this is an example of a chapter title which 
encapsulates a view held by the Harry-centric narrator. Like "The 
Letters from Noone", PS/SS, which were actually from Professor 
McGonagall. And, a propos of nothing, "Snape's Worst Memory".

> lizzyben: 
> Regarding lies, there are many examples of DD lying throughout the
> novels. 

zgirnius:
I can speak for noone else, but to me the vital distinction is that, 
if one accepts my version of the prophecy events, Dumbledore has 
never, since making his promise at the end of PS/SS, made false 
statements to Harry. He assuredly lies to others, for reasons I 
generally find good and sufficient.

> lizzyben:
> He lies to Fudge about creating the DA, 

zgirnius:
And good for him too, he is protecting Harry, who needs it at this 
point!

> lizzyben:
> lies to Snape about how Sirius escaped ("Sirius must have 
> apparated from the castle, Severus")

zgirnius:
He is not speaking privately to Snape - Fudge is also present, and it 
is Fudge he is deceiving. (Again, bravo DD, Harry does not need to be 
tried for assisting a fugitive from justice!)  It is my opinion 
Dumbledore does accurately convey to Snape what happened, in that 
scene, he is simply limited by the need to do so without Fudge 
knowing it. ("Unless you are suggesting Harry could be in two places 
at once", at which Snape stalks off in a huff, having, in my view, 
understood who was behind the rescue of Sirius - DD himself).

> lizzyben:
> & probably lies about what he sees in the Mirror of Erised.
> (Socks? Doubtful). 

zgirnius:
I thought the point of that was that Dumbledore would not see much of 
interest in the Mirror. He does not ardently desire anything he does 
not already have, though on a chilly day he might wish for a warm 
pair of socks.

> zgirnius:
> 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.

zgirnius:
Dumbledore does not say he never lies, he promises to Harry he will 
never lie *to him*, though he is quite open about his feeling that 
there are things he does not want Harry to know. Had Harry asked, in 
OOtP, who the eavesdropper was, I would expect that Dumbledore would 
either tell him, or tell him he was not willing to part with that 
information, as he has done on other occasions. Until I get canon 
that can be interpreted in no other way, I will continue to believe 
he was true to his word. 

> lizzyben:
> If DD is in fact meant to be a kindly man who cares only about 
Harry's
> best interests,  

zgirnius:
This is certainly *not* how I see him. But I think there are things 
he is "too noble" to do to win, and I think what you propose is one 
of them. It goes well beyond a lack of kindness.