What does "genuine prediction" mean? (imported)

[naamagatus]

Thanks for the reply, Pippin. I've delayed answering until I've 
finished rereading the book and mulling over things a bit. 


Pippin said:

That Prof. Trelawney does not instruct her classes on the ways 
to distinguish Seeing from fortune-telling is understandable 
enough ;-). It also provides Rowling with an excuse for not telling 
us anything she thinks could remotely be mistaken for functional 
real world knowledge of how to predict the future.* I think we're 
just going to have to take Dumbledore's word that he knows a 
genuine prophecy when he hears one. However, we are told 
some of the properties of genuine predictions.

Firenze said that "trivial hurts, tiny human accidents" are of no 
more significance to the wide universe than the scurryings of 
ants. (I guess he's not into chaos theory.) He says that the skies 
foretell only "great tides of evil or change." 


I (Naama) reply:

I don't think that "what the skies foretell" and what human 
prophecies foretell necessarily refer to events of the same 
magnitude. In fact, when Firenze talks of the skies, he really does 
talk of very general trends – for several years it seems that all 
they could learn from the skies was that there would be another war. 
Apparantly, with no further details. Now, the prophecy we hear, 
albeit vague and cryptic, *is* detailed. It's about specific people, 
it references a specific date and fairly specific events. 

Pippin:

I think we are given this information so that we can understand 
Dumbledore's attitude toward the Prophecy. Why does he treat it 
as so important when it seems to be so vague? IMO, 
Dumbledore can say that the prophecy refers to Voldemort being 
vanquished "for good" because a genuine prophecy can't be 
about anything as trivial as a temporary defeat. 

Naama:

I agree that a prophecy wouldn't refer to a temporary defeat. But it 
uses the term "vanquish". That doesn't have a temporary flavor, does 
it? Particularly as it goes on to refer to Voldemort's potential 
death. 

Pippin:

Likewise, a missed opportunity to defeat Voldemort would be 
heartwrenching from our trivial human perspective, but not a sign 
of great change, and so not worthy of foretelling. 


Naama:

>From the prophecy itself we learn that only one person can vanquish 
Voldemort. That that person fails (and dies) means that Voldemort 
will in fact win – since he cannot be defeated otherwise. I should 
think it a sign of a very great tide of evil indeed!

Pippin:

Voldemort wouldn't see it that way, of course--he thinks he *is* 
the universe. From what I can see, he regards prophecy as a set 
of rules, and wants to know what they are so he can game the 
system. The White Witch made a similar error in the The Lion, 
The Witch and The Wardrobe, when she thought she had 
vanquished Aslan by his own laws.

This stuff is almost as squirrely as time travel, so I hope I have 
made myself clear here. I'm reminded that Diana Gabaldon said 
that the ambiguity of pre-destination versus free-will in her 
stories is purposeful, and reflects her opinion that people want it 
both ways. We want, she says, to feel that there is a grand plan 
unfolding in the universe and it will all come right in the end, and 
also to feel that our choices matter.

Naama:

I agree about the squirreliness of prophecy in general. However, in 
this case, I just don't think it applies. This prophecy is about the 
birth of a person with a certain unique potential. You say, it 
(whatever "it" was that spoke through Trelawney) can only know that 
Harry has the potential to vanquish Voldemort if "it" knows that this 
event actually will have happened in the future [will have had 
happened? <g>]. But why shouldn't a source of supernatural knowledge 
know of hidden, yet-to-be fulfilled potentials? If it knows the 
future, why can't it also know other stuff that we humans can't tell 
before it actually reveals itself? 

>From a different perspective, I also think that that's what JKR 
intends the prophecy to mean. She puts such strong emphasis on choice 
and free will. Harry has the potential, yes. But the real point, I 
think, will be whether he will choose to actualize it. 

Naama