Prophecies and Chosen Ones

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 186812

Carol responds:
<SNIP> 
As someone coming to the HP books after a lifetime of reading and rereading
LOTR, I found his skepticism disconcerting at best. Of course, I didn't want
events to be predetermined. What fun is that? The characters become mere
puppets. But a prophecy should be a prophecy, and words should have power (IOW,
there should be a good reason not to say Voldemort's name, as there finally is
in DH). JKR is clearly trying to subvert that tradition, yet she also wants the
Prophecy to come true. Trying to have her cake and eat it, too, apparently. <SNIP>

Alla:

Ah, maybe that is it – trying to have her cake and eat it too. I did not find Dumbledore skepticism disconcerting at all, in fact at first I found it encouraging. As I said  in the post that started this thread  I found the existence of the prophecy to be disappointing, but I am not sure if I was clear why. I was indeed thinking that prophecy makes characters puppets in many ways. Thus I was alt least happy that Dumbledore was skeptical about the prophecy, but then he also seemed to put his hopes in it and guarded Harry as he saw fit at least.

I find it amusing in a sense that in Rick Riordan's world which is in many ways SUPPOSED to be predetermined world, since it is a world of Greek Gods and their offsprings with mortals in our time, that in that world he managed to do the prophecy so well and so surprisingly too IMO. And no, prophecy there does not just make sense if you substitute one word for the word with opposite meaning lol.

But I thought that JKR's world was supposed to be about choices and free will, however now I think that the only free will in Potterverse is to be able to choose the will of the epitome of goodness. In a sense I think that how it all played out was done very well and very consistently with the theme that JKR was pursuing.  I just found it a little, I don't know, bleak?




 Montavilla 47:
["Neither can live while the other survives"] only works if you use the word
"live" to mean "live a full, happy life." And it only works for Harry, because
Harry's the one who has to get rid of Voldemort before he can start enjoying
things like snogging.

Carol responds:
I used to think that, but now I'm pretty sure that the line had nothing to do
with living or surviving in daily life. We can't ignore the previous line,
"Either must die at the hand of the other," which obviously refers to the final
confrontation though "either" is ambiguous and could mean either "one" or
"both." This line allows three possible outcomes: both can die, somehow killing
each other, which might well have happened if Harry had fought back rather than
allowing Voldemort to "kill" him; Voldemort can die at Harry's hand (which sort
of happened though Harry didn't kill him; he died from his own rebounding
curse); or Harry can die and Voldemort can survive (which would have happened, I
think, if Nagini hadn't still been alive when Harry sacrificed himself). The
only impossible outcome is for both to survive the final battle "*for* neither
can live while the other survives." IOW, "neither can live while the other
survives" is linked to "either must did at the hand of the other" by the
conjunction "for" indicating a cause/effect relationship between them. Put in
simple English, one must kill the other (or both must kill each other) *because*
"neither can live while the other survives" the final battle. IOW, only one (or
neither) can survive. Once the Horcruxes are destroyed, there can be only one
survivor.

<SNIP>

Alla:

But I do not know how Either must die line means that Neither can live line refers to the outcome of the final battle. I mean, I understand the interpretation, but isn't it again adding too much to the Prophecy? I thought that prophecy should make sense (at the end of course) on its own merits.

I mean, I also really really like the interpretation that Pippin and Zara suggested that live actually means die, and I think it works more than well, I think it works perfectly, but that requires the substitute of the whole world to its antonym, right? I am just not sure how this is a fair play on author's part.