Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word.

[GulPlum]

At 17:16 12/06/05 , Barry Arrowsmith wrote:

>--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> >
> > While I agree to some extent with some of your conclusions, I disagree 
> with
> > the rationale.
> >
>
>Kneasy:
>Um. That signifies that I've reached the right answer in the wrong way -right?
>Visions of an infinite number of monkeys bashing on an infinite number of
>typewriters swims into my consciousness .....

No, not at all. Please re-read what I wrote: "To a certain extent, with 
some...". This does not mean that we're agreed on anything besides the fact 
that Dumbledore *probably* (in my case; *definitely* in yours) would have 
been prepared for Harry to be killed at the MoM if he had anything to gain 
by it. That's all we're agreed on.

>[M]ost of all it depends on how suspicious you are.
>Some fans read the books and accept these bits of the text as mostly factual
>stuff. Interpretations then proceed using such canon statements as the 
>baseline from which to start.

What other baseline is there? Either the Narrator tells us the truth, or 
the whole thing just disappears in a puff of illogic up its own fundament. 
And the Narrator goes to great pains to present Dumbledore as basically 
truthful and honourable, although, as you say, devious and manipulative. As 
I pointed out in the Truth and Lies thread a couple of months ago (a thread 
I will be resurrecting in the very near future), every time to date that 
Dumbledore has lied (or encouraged others to lie) we know it's a lie at the 
time. At the very, very worst, there's one instance which springs to my 
mind where we don't "know" (in a legalistic sense, "beyond a reasonable 
doubt") that Dumbledore has told the truth, but we are told that Harry 
isn't certain (and thus, the likelihood is that he was, indeed, not being 
honest), namely after the Mirror of Erised sequence when he says that he'd 
see socks.

"It was only when he was back in bed that it struck Harry that Dumbledore 
might not have been quite truthful. But then, [...] it had been quite a 
personal question."
(last paragraph of Chapter 12, UK ed. p. 157).

>Others ... er, well - it's a bit more convoluted than that.
>Generally I refer to it as 'keeping my options open' but it's probable that
>some readers react with 'he's lost his marbles again'.

Personally, I don't see it that way. Being an optimist, I see it as your 
being mischievous and playful. Because, frankly, there's no way on earth 
that you can possibly believe the tripe you spout to be true (i.e. the 
author's intention), is there?  :-)

(Don't answer that one.)

>It's always nice to have an independent confirmation of the 'facts' as stated
>by any character.

Of course it is. But she's not going to tell the whole story twice or more 
so that we get independent verification of every little fact. As (again) I 
said in the Truth and Lies thread, my own position is to believe what 
everyone says, UNLESS I have reason not to. Considering even the bad guys 
are reluctant to tell out and out porkies, the issue with Dumbledore's 
statements is that I consider his promise to Harry (and the readers) at the 
end of PS/SS not to lie extends to his other ex cathedra pronouncements 
about the back story. He gave himself a nice small print get-out-of-prison 
card at that time, by refusing to disclose whatever he felt appropriate. 
Therefore, rather than disbelieve absolutely everything he says (which I 
consider to be nonsensical) I prefer to concentrate on the things he 
doesn't say.

>For instance - only one character has ever stated that an AK
>bounced off Harry - and that was Crouch!Moody. Which is very odd, 'cos lots
>of references are made to the 'fact' that Voldy intended to kill Harry (not in
>dispute IMO) - but was that the only thing he intended to do? And if it wasn't
>then maybe the spell that bounced wasn't an AK.

Except that Herself also says it (or do you disbelieve all of JKR's 
off-the-page E&OE statements as well? In which case, there really is no 
hope for you, because if she were to lie, she loses absolutely all 
credibility with her fans; she has given herself the same get-out silence 
clause she gave Dumbledore):

"Had Frank or Alice thrown themselves in front of Neville, however, the 
killing curse would have rebounded just as it did in Harry's case, and 
Neville would have been the one who survived with the lightning scar." 
(http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=84)

i.e. it *was* a "killing curse", and it *did* "rebound". End of 
conversation. Well, except it ain't. :-)

>Such fevered ramblings eventually generated Possession Theory, which while 
>there is no absolute evidence, does explain many of the oddities that 
>surface if AK was the sole spell used.

Yeah, well, P.T. (as far as I understand it) is a fairly minority theory as 
far as I can tell, and certainly as far as I'm concerned, is somewhat 
farfetched (if not out of keeping with the tome of the series).

>Similarly we have a single source for that damn Prophecy - DD. (Want to bet
>that the Ministry got their copy via DD? Yup.)

Ever since I read about that dratted room, I have wondered what the hell 
it's for, seeing as (1) the prophecy orbs are destroyed as soon as they're 
"played back"; (2) there appears to be no way for recipients to know that a 
prophecy referring to them exists; and we don't know (3) who creates the 
orbs and how; (4) who decides that a prophecy is worthy of a place in the 
archive and how; (5) at what point is an orb created (contemporaneously or 
some time afterwards); (6) given all the above, how are the prophecies 
"studied"?

As we don't (and, I assume, probably never will) know any of the above, 
whether or not Dumbledore was responsible for the orb's placement is moot. 
(See also below.)

>Sybill has no recollection of  any such thing and as for the 
>'eavesdropper' - well, we only have DD's word for his existence too.

The verification of the prophecy is in the fact that Harry heard the second 
one. We're agreed that Dumbledore is a devious sod. If he had wanted to 
keep the first prophecy a secret, why volunteer to Harry that he has his 
own copy?  What possible benefit does he gain from letting Harry hear a fake?

>You see, I can't help but notice how convenient it all is.
>The Good Guys are losing. DD interviews a woman that he thinks has no
>talent at all. He holds the interview in a pub (why?) she spouts a totally
>startling 'prophecy'; there is an eavesdropper (who?) who is spotted and
>ejected part-way into the recitation (why would anyone listen in on a job
>interview?) And who did the throwing out? It wasn't DD 'cos the Pensieve
>recording is uninterrupted, yet strangely he knows just how much of the
>Prophecy is overheard. A Prophecy that, when Voldy follows it up, leads to
>his dissolution and the end of the first Voldy war.

The paradoxical thing about prophecies is that unless they are known of, 
they're are useless. Yet at the same time, if one knows of a prophecy which 
one believes to be true, one generally prepares for it and thus brings it 
about. Hence the importance for the plot that Voldy never heard the full 
prophecy because otherwise he'd not have made it happen.

>A nice set of coincidences.

Yeah well, one of the problems I have with the Potter series as a whole and 
various events in them in particular is that far too much happens by happy 
(or unhappy) accident or coincidence. Especially eavesdropped 
conversations, of which Harry has at least a couple per book. A vast number 
of the theories floating around the internet have been created by people 
desperately trying to plug gaps in JKR's plotting or writing, adding levels 
of complexity I'm sure she never planned. I know it's a facile argument, 
but these books are, after all, marketed at kids (and despite anything JKR 
says, her public appearances to date have always been to audiences of 
children, and she has never acknowledged her adult fan base in terms of 
event planning).

>But as ever looking for a few more interesting plot complications, there is
>another possibility.
>The Prophecy was a fake, a set-up to lure Voldy into a trap.

As I posited in a previous message, I would have expected the one at the 
Ministry to have been faked (so, in that respect, we're not entirely miles 
apart in our thinking) - however, seeing as it was destroyed without anyone 
hearing it, the whole issue is a non-issue. The important thing is whether 
or not the Pensieve record *Harry* heard was the genuine article. If not, 
please give your grounds for suspecting this is the case.

>The 'prophecy' was DD's words spoken unwittingly by Sybill.

So, I assume you think this was the case with the second prophecy as well? 
What possible point would he be making by a second fake prophecy? (And how 
did he know the events it refers to would come to pass?)

>There's also the as-yet unanswered and very apposite question of the
>delay in Voldy reacting - something like 2 years! Just when was the info
>about Sybill and her seance dropped into  Voldy's lap? At once - or maybe
>  closer to the events at GH? Knowing that would be very useful indeed.

I agree that this is a question which has perplexed many people, and I hope 
that JKR will provide the answer. We know next to nothing about events 
during Harry's first year of life and I assume that JKR is holding them 
back for a purpose. In any event, it's a fairly safe bet that the Order 
tried to remain concealed (like the DEs) and therefore there was a time lag 
between Voldy hearing the prophecy, finding out who'd had a baby born at 
the end of July, finding out where they were and being in a position to act 
on that information. Furthermore (a theory of my own) I suspect he spent 
some time trying to ascertain the rest of the message (stupid as he is, 
even he would've realised that there were bits he didn't know).

>Just two families fitted the description - both associated with DD.

Well, seeing as they'd each "thrice defied Voldemort", there was a fair 
chance that they'd be in DD's camp.

>Harry was bait - but protected; so probably was Neville.

Sorry, I seem to have missed some important element of Possession Theory. 
Apart from the deaths of some of his best operatives, what did Dumbledore 
hope to achieve by drawing Voldy out?

>Now it may be totally wrong but it's a lot more fun (IMO) than a sequence of
>fortunate coincidences.

Fun, perhaps. But is it what the Author intends ("Death of the Author" 
theories don't count at this stage, because the work is unfinished)?

>Much more satisfying if the downfall was planned rather than just 
>accidental happenstance, don't you think?

Not really. "Shit happens" is as good a theme for a book as "everything's a 
conspiracy".

>A lot depends on how you view DD. Yes, he's the most powerful wizard east 
>of the Pecos; yes, he's a staunch opponent of evil; yes he can *look* like 
>a kindly old duffer - but he ain't. He's the leader in a fight for 
>survival; he's the one that comes up with the cunning plans. Quite frankly 
>IMO he's a devious old bugger, which would  imply that JKR is just as sneaky.

I don't dispute that both DD and JKR are devious, sneaky and cunning. But I 
still have no reason to disbelieve what they state as fact except in 
circumstances when I have VERY good reason not to. Sure, they're not 
infallible, they make mistakes, and they guess things which they don't 
always get right. And they both love to mislead us readers when we assume 
that they've said one thing when they've said another. But I'd like to know 
when either of them has lied to us.

>Remember way back? When the more romantically inclined were positing
>that Harry was saved at GH by the power of Lily's love?

Other than a small minority, the general consensus was that her willingness 
to sacrifice herself is what saved him. A willingness born of love, 
incidentally. So with one remove, yes, it was her love which saved him.

>Turned out not to be the  case, for it to work within the books it would 
>imply that Lily loved more than any other mother in the WW. No, it was 
>magic that saved Harry. I sense the same sorts of argument surfacing here 
>- "Oh, it's love." Just show me how Harry loves more or has more love than 
>say, Molly has for her family.  Yet do you doubt that if Voldy fixed his 
>beady snake eyes on Molly she'd be  a gonner?

I agree that it's corny and I agree that it's bizarre (and perhaps even 
patronising), but that's the explanation Herself gave. Seeing as she 
volunteered that whole explanation when she didn't have to indicates to me 
that she was (to use her words in another reply) "being sincere". One of 
the problems the conspiracy theorists out there have is that JKR's plot is 
often *too* simple. regrettably, she presents it in an extremely 
complicated way (so complicated that she's lost her way with several 
details), and thus too many people look for complication where there is 
none, and try to explain away corny, trite, cliched and nauseating 
developments with complicated back-theories.

>When it comes to love what Harry wants is for somebody to love *him*.
>He's the orphan in a cruel world. Sirius might have fitted the bill, but now
>he's gone too. DD probably does, but right now Harry's rejecting overtures
>from that source, DD's got too much explaining to do. Nope, sorry, I just
>don't see anything exceptional in Harry so far as love is concerned.

You're forgetting about one detail, though. I don't think that JKR is 
presenting Harry (or, indeed, Lily) as being more loving than most people. 
I'm sure that even Nacissa Malfoy would have been prepared to sacrifice 
herself for her little Drakkie-poo. The thing is that Voldy doesn't have 
the psychic connection with either her or Molly to get inside their heads 
as deeply as he can Harry's, which leaves the issue fairly academic. The 
point is not whether Harry is more loving than anyone else, but whether, 
had Harry had less capacity for love than he does, he would have given in 
to the "bad" emotions within him and allowed himself to be consumed by 
Voldy's hatred.

>Life -  yes there is something exceptional about Harry there, mostly how
>often he's hung onto it when all the odds were stacked against.

Except, and this is *your* argument, every time he's escaped death so 
closely, Dumbledore has been pulling his strings. So it's not about Harry 
at all: it's about Dumbledore's manipulation of him. So it's not about 
life, it's about whatever is making Dumbledore monitor Harry so closely. 
So, at the end of the day, the "power he knows not" is neither love nor 
life, but Dumbledore. :-)

The problem with your theory is that, in order to fill holes in JKR's plot 
which you don't like, you're having to neglect other elements which she's 
already put in play. It's like breaking up a partially-done (extremely 
difficult) jigsaw puzzle whose incomplete (very simple) image you don't 
like and forcing the pieces together to make a more complex image. I prefer 
to assume that the pieces JKR's already put together are in their proper 
places. The best we can do is guess what should fit in the gaps.

> > GulPlum AKA Richard, who's wondering whether he now agrees with Kneasy,
> > except that it's by using a very specific and non-dictionary definition of
> > "love" and a very specific and non-dictionary definition of "life"...
>
>Kneasy:
>Careful. Or you'll be classed as one of the awkward squad, too.

Oh, I'm a fully paid-up member. Except I'm not awkward for the fun of being 
awkward. I prefer a quiet life.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, wondering how much longer this is going to go on and 
how much more Kneasy can stretch the plot before it breaks. :-)