Seems unlikely that the original prophecy was caused by Dumbledore, at least by the method of the magical clock. As in canon, Trelawney seems to have made the prophecy during a job interview, presumably before she was regularly sleeping with the clock. I expect that if Dumbledore wanted her to make a false prophecy at a specific time, something like an Imperius folled by Obliviation would be more expedient. Furthermore, we have seen Trelawney spontaneously prophecy in the dining hall; this prophecy at least appeared unplanned by Dumbledore.
Regardless of what the clock is for, it didn’t play a part in the first prophecy, since Trelawney didn’t receive it until after she was hired. And it’s less likely that there are two ways of forcing someone to speak a prophecy than only one. The obvious explanation for the clock is that it’s a listening device. The clock is evidence against Dumbledore being the source of the prophecies.
The issue of the second prophecy is trickier. For a prophecy to be ‘accidentally’ overheard would be history repeating itself, if Dumbledore caused it. That would also be consistent behavior for a liar who tries to trick people into believing in destiny, as he did when he told Harry that his father’s cloak had found its own way to its destined wearer. But it certainly looked like Dumbledore was surprised that morning, so I don’t know.
I think the weight of evidence is still on Dumbledore. For the reasons I’ve given in this thread, and also this: In the aftermath of the prophecy, his manipulation of Snape and Lily netted him a defeated Dark Lord, a double agent and powerful ally, and a newly horcruxed hero. If the prophecy hadn’t occurred, he’d instead have… a bouncing baby boy. It’s hard to see what he hoped to accomplish by driving Snape and Lily apart if he didn’t intend to prod Voldemort into attacking the Potters. His plot has a prophecy-shaped hole in it.
But I can’t account for that damned clock, which means I’ve gone wrong somewhere. Ugh. I hope someone else gets interested in this question soon. I could use the help.
That would also be consistent behavior for a liar who tries to trick people into believing in destiny, as he did when he told Harry that his father’s cloak had found its own way to its destined wearer.
How do we know he was lying?
But I can’t account for that damned clock, which means I’ve gone wrong somewhere.
Obvious solution: real prophecies exist and fake prophecies exist.
In the aftermath of the prophecy, his manipulation of Snape and Lily netted him a defeated Dark Lord, a double agent and powerful ally, and a newly horcruxed hero. If the prophecy hadn’t occurred, he’d instead have… a bouncing baby boy. It’s hard to see what he hoped to accomplish by driving Snape and Lily apart if he didn’t intend to prod Voldemort into attacking the Potters.
One possibility is that he didn’t intentionally drive Snape and Lily apart. I don’t think there’s enough evidence of that to overcome the prior probability that Trelawney’s prophecy was genuine. Note that Dumbledore himself seems to regard the prophecy as genuine—witness, for example, his apparently genuine interest in discovering the “power [Voldemort] knows not.”
Here’s another way of looking at it. Assume Dumbledore planned in advance to defeat Voldemort by (i) convincing Voldemort of a false prophecy that would lead him to attempt the murder of a baby, and (ii) somehow manipulating the baby’s mother into either performing ritual magic herself, or causing Voldemort to perform ritual magic that would bring about Voldemort’s death when he attempted to kill the baby. We might now ask, is there a simpler way that Dumbledore might have tried to enact (i) and (ii), other than the means you have suggested?
Note that a priori, assuming that Dumbledore is primarily concerned with defeating Voldemort, there is no reason for Dumbledore to deliver the false prophecy to Voldemort via an agent who is in love with the mother in question. He must then rely on the agent not understanding the prophecy in time. Furthermore, if the agent figures out the prophecy after relaying it to Voldemort, Dumbledore must then rely on Voldemort disregarding the agent’s request to spare the mother. So going out of his way to push Snape and Lily apart, and then using Snape as a messenger, seems like a very unintuitive way for Dumbledore to execute this plot. Why not keep Snape and Lily together, see that they have a child, and then deliver the false prophecy to Voldemort via some other agent?
Now, personally, I do think it’s a possibility that Snape and Lily were driven apart by Dumbledore, maybe even intentionally. But I don’t think it was for this reason.
This story has an epidemic of false prophecy. This looks to me like it’s intended to prime the reader to accept that an apparently true prophecy is actually false. I also think this is a consideration, but that appears to be a minority view. I’m expecting a false prophecy, and I’m looking for a reason for it to have occurred and apparently been fulfilled despite its falsity.
I think Dumbledore expected the story to play out as it did in the novels. He would get a hero who was bred with the heroic qualities of his parents, bullheaded but pure of heart. Snape, who in HPMoR is terrible at riddles, would fail to solve this one, and his guilt at causing Lily’s death would cement his status as a lifelong soldier of the light. Lily would die a martyr, and her sacrifice would ensure Voldemort’s defeat. From canon:
“It was love. You see, when dear, sweet Lily Potter gave her life for her only son, she provided the ultimate protection. I could not touch him. It was old magic. Something I should have foreseen.”
This is a complex plot that hinges on storybook logic, but that’s not out of character for Dumbledore.
“There was a great rivalry between students, and their competition ended in a perfect tie. That sort of thing only happens in stories, Mr. Potter, and there is one person in this school who thinks in stories. There was a strange and complicated plot, which you should have realized was uncharacteristic of the young Slytherin you faced. But there is a person in this school who deals in plots that elaborate, and his name is not Zabini.”
(Yes, it’s Quirrell saying it, but remember that he was right.)
The plot is not too complex to be Dumbledore’s, but it is too complex to succeed. That’s why it didn’t. Snape is no longer Dumbledore’s. Instead of canon!Harry, he got HJPEV. Harry’s mother attacked Voldemort, so her protection doesn’t exist; Quirrell can pass the wards around his house at will.
And although it failed, it has the outward appearance of having succeeded, because that’s what Voldemort wants Dumbledore to believe.
Apologies for repeating things I’ve said upthread. I wanted to set my beliefs in their proper context. I hope I’ve addressed your objections. One that I missed was Dumbledore’s apparently genuine interest in discovering the “power [Voldemort] knows not.” Dumbledore’s relationship to storybook thinking is something I still don’t understand. He seems to genuinely believe in the pattern, the rhythm of the world, but also acts as though events need to be nudged into following it. I’m not sure whether this is a dragon in my garage situation of conflicting beliefs and anticipations, or that he thinks you can cause storybook outcomes by setting up storybook premises, or something else I haven’t thought of.
My working theory for Dumbledore’s emphasis on story logic is that it’s a pragmatic decision supporting several different lines of influence.
First, we know he’s pretending to be a lot crazier than he is: he acts like a character in a roleplaying game with “Insanity” marked down in the flaws section of his character sheet, not someone with an actual personality disorder, and going out of his way to act like Gandalf fits in fairly well with that.
Second, he spends a lot of his time working with kids, who’re probably a lot more familiar with stories than with their real-life cognates: how many times does Draco make an analogy to something he’s seen in a play?
Finally, people really are prone to generalize from fictional evidence, and maintaining a semi-fictionalized persona can aid in achieving instrumental goals when they’re aligned with the narrative patterns it corresponds to. The Self Actualization storyline provides a good example of this in action: I read Dumbledore’s part in that early on as using his persona to nudge Hermione into the high-fantasy hero role that Harry occupies in canon (and considerably more shakily in MoR). When she went off script, so did he. (I suspect that Riddle’s Lord Voldemort persona was adopted for similar reasons, incidentally. He might even have picked up that trick from Dumbledore.)
I like this. More support from the text: the narrator draws a distinction between wizards who have walked the paths of power and everyone else. According to the narrator, it’s the latter who apply story-reasoning to real life. Dumbledore is one of the former.
ETA: This too.
Dumbledore’s face was still cold. “I am beginning to doubt your suitability as the hero, Mr. Potter.”
Which is a downright strange thing to say if you think Mr. Potter is the one with the prophesied “POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD”. It’s exactly what you’d say if you understood that the power of stories was a power you wielded over other people, and your hero was just another of your pawns.
Perhaps its not such a strange thing to say if you don’t think Mr. Potter knows about the prophecy, and are trying to correct his insubordination. In the following chapters, Dumbledore doesn’t act as though he has decided Harry is unsuitable as a hero. Rather than trying to replace him, Dumbledore begins to confide in him.
Does Nornagest’s explanation of Dumbledore’s relationship with story-book reasoning affect your previous analysis? If you agree that Dumbledore feigns a story-book persona, rather than taking story-book logic seriously, then doesn’t it seem strange that he would hatch such a plot? Note that his manipulation of the last battle in December is consistent with having realistic view of the world. Yes, Dumbledore did manage to acheive a “story-book outcome,” but he clearly didn’t expect this to happen—he had a contingency plan.
“It is important to understand,” said Dumbledore, “that this book is not a realistic depiction of a wizarding war. John Tolkien never fought Voldemort. Your war will not be like the books you have read. Real life is not like stories. Do you understand, Harry?”
As I said, I don’t really understand what’s going on in Dumbledore’s head.
“You start to see the pattern, hear the rhythm of the world. You begin to harbor suspicions before the moment of revelation. You are the Boy-Who-Lived, and somehow an invisibility cloak made its way into your hands only four days after you discovered our magical Britain. Such cloaks are not for sale in Diagon Alley, but there is one which might find its own way to a destined wearer.”
This is a lie. He claims to have deduced Harry’s possession of the cloak by seeing the storylike pattern, when he personally wrapped the cloak and placed it next to Harry’s bed. He’s trying to convince Harry that life is like stories. Then he contradicts himself in a later chapter. Why? I don’t know. “He did it because he’s crazy” is an answer that can justify any outcome, doesn’t concentrate probability mass, etc., but he sure isn’t acting in anything like a coherent fashion.
In that chapter, he uses the “life is like stories” excuse to “deduce” the identity of the cloak without revealing that he already knew it. It works. Harry still has no idea that Santa Claus is Dumbledore.
Dumbledore does think in stories, but he probably doesn’t realize it. Some stories don’t fit his model (if the villain carries too large an idiot ball or something?).
The obvious explanation for the clock is that it’s a listening device. The clock is evidence against Dumbledore being the source of the prophecies.
If it’s a listening device. If it’s a just a clock, it’s not evidence of much. If it’s a transmission device, I’d say it’s evidence for Dumbledore being the source.
Seems unlikely that the original prophecy was caused by Dumbledore, at least by the method of the magical clock. As in canon, Trelawney seems to have made the prophecy during a job interview, presumably before she was regularly sleeping with the clock. I expect that if Dumbledore wanted her to make a false prophecy at a specific time, something like an Imperius folled by Obliviation would be more expedient. Furthermore, we have seen Trelawney spontaneously prophecy in the dining hall; this prophecy at least appeared unplanned by Dumbledore.
Regardless of what the clock is for, it didn’t play a part in the first prophecy, since Trelawney didn’t receive it until after she was hired. And it’s less likely that there are two ways of forcing someone to speak a prophecy than only one. The obvious explanation for the clock is that it’s a listening device. The clock is evidence against Dumbledore being the source of the prophecies.
The issue of the second prophecy is trickier. For a prophecy to be ‘accidentally’ overheard would be history repeating itself, if Dumbledore caused it. That would also be consistent behavior for a liar who tries to trick people into believing in destiny, as he did when he told Harry that his father’s cloak had found its own way to its destined wearer. But it certainly looked like Dumbledore was surprised that morning, so I don’t know.
I think the weight of evidence is still on Dumbledore. For the reasons I’ve given in this thread, and also this: In the aftermath of the prophecy, his manipulation of Snape and Lily netted him a defeated Dark Lord, a double agent and powerful ally, and a newly horcruxed hero. If the prophecy hadn’t occurred, he’d instead have… a bouncing baby boy. It’s hard to see what he hoped to accomplish by driving Snape and Lily apart if he didn’t intend to prod Voldemort into attacking the Potters. His plot has a prophecy-shaped hole in it.
But I can’t account for that damned clock, which means I’ve gone wrong somewhere. Ugh. I hope someone else gets interested in this question soon. I could use the help.
How do we know he was lying?
Obvious solution: real prophecies exist and fake prophecies exist.
One possibility is that he didn’t intentionally drive Snape and Lily apart. I don’t think there’s enough evidence of that to overcome the prior probability that Trelawney’s prophecy was genuine. Note that Dumbledore himself seems to regard the prophecy as genuine—witness, for example, his apparently genuine interest in discovering the “power [Voldemort] knows not.”
Here’s another way of looking at it. Assume Dumbledore planned in advance to defeat Voldemort by (i) convincing Voldemort of a false prophecy that would lead him to attempt the murder of a baby, and (ii) somehow manipulating the baby’s mother into either performing ritual magic herself, or causing Voldemort to perform ritual magic that would bring about Voldemort’s death when he attempted to kill the baby. We might now ask, is there a simpler way that Dumbledore might have tried to enact (i) and (ii), other than the means you have suggested?
Note that a priori, assuming that Dumbledore is primarily concerned with defeating Voldemort, there is no reason for Dumbledore to deliver the false prophecy to Voldemort via an agent who is in love with the mother in question. He must then rely on the agent not understanding the prophecy in time. Furthermore, if the agent figures out the prophecy after relaying it to Voldemort, Dumbledore must then rely on Voldemort disregarding the agent’s request to spare the mother. So going out of his way to push Snape and Lily apart, and then using Snape as a messenger, seems like a very unintuitive way for Dumbledore to execute this plot. Why not keep Snape and Lily together, see that they have a child, and then deliver the false prophecy to Voldemort via some other agent?
Now, personally, I do think it’s a possibility that Snape and Lily were driven apart by Dumbledore, maybe even intentionally. But I don’t think it was for this reason.
Ah. See, my prior probability that Trelawney’s prophecy was genuine is not very high.
Luna
The seer in the Weasley twins’ story
The seer in the Quibbler story
Millicent
Millicent’s source, presumably Rianne
This story has an epidemic of false prophecy. This looks to me like it’s intended to prime the reader to accept that an apparently true prophecy is actually false. I also think this is a consideration, but that appears to be a minority view. I’m expecting a false prophecy, and I’m looking for a reason for it to have occurred and apparently been fulfilled despite its falsity.
I think Dumbledore expected the story to play out as it did in the novels. He would get a hero who was bred with the heroic qualities of his parents, bullheaded but pure of heart. Snape, who in HPMoR is terrible at riddles, would fail to solve this one, and his guilt at causing Lily’s death would cement his status as a lifelong soldier of the light. Lily would die a martyr, and her sacrifice would ensure Voldemort’s defeat. From canon:
This is a complex plot that hinges on storybook logic, but that’s not out of character for Dumbledore.
(Yes, it’s Quirrell saying it, but remember that he was right.)
The plot is not too complex to be Dumbledore’s, but it is too complex to succeed. That’s why it didn’t. Snape is no longer Dumbledore’s. Instead of canon!Harry, he got HJPEV. Harry’s mother attacked Voldemort, so her protection doesn’t exist; Quirrell can pass the wards around his house at will.
And although it failed, it has the outward appearance of having succeeded, because that’s what Voldemort wants Dumbledore to believe.
Apologies for repeating things I’ve said upthread. I wanted to set my beliefs in their proper context. I hope I’ve addressed your objections. One that I missed was Dumbledore’s apparently genuine interest in discovering the “power [Voldemort] knows not.” Dumbledore’s relationship to storybook thinking is something I still don’t understand. He seems to genuinely believe in the pattern, the rhythm of the world, but also acts as though events need to be nudged into following it. I’m not sure whether this is a dragon in my garage situation of conflicting beliefs and anticipations, or that he thinks you can cause storybook outcomes by setting up storybook premises, or something else I haven’t thought of.
My working theory for Dumbledore’s emphasis on story logic is that it’s a pragmatic decision supporting several different lines of influence.
First, we know he’s pretending to be a lot crazier than he is: he acts like a character in a roleplaying game with “Insanity” marked down in the flaws section of his character sheet, not someone with an actual personality disorder, and going out of his way to act like Gandalf fits in fairly well with that.
Second, he spends a lot of his time working with kids, who’re probably a lot more familiar with stories than with their real-life cognates: how many times does Draco make an analogy to something he’s seen in a play?
Finally, people really are prone to generalize from fictional evidence, and maintaining a semi-fictionalized persona can aid in achieving instrumental goals when they’re aligned with the narrative patterns it corresponds to. The Self Actualization storyline provides a good example of this in action: I read Dumbledore’s part in that early on as using his persona to nudge Hermione into the high-fantasy hero role that Harry occupies in canon (and considerably more shakily in MoR). When she went off script, so did he. (I suspect that Riddle’s Lord Voldemort persona was adopted for similar reasons, incidentally. He might even have picked up that trick from Dumbledore.)
I like this. More support from the text: the narrator draws a distinction between wizards who have walked the paths of power and everyone else. According to the narrator, it’s the latter who apply story-reasoning to real life. Dumbledore is one of the former.
ETA: This too.
Which is a downright strange thing to say if you think Mr. Potter is the one with the prophesied “POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD”. It’s exactly what you’d say if you understood that the power of stories was a power you wielded over other people, and your hero was just another of your pawns.
Perhaps its not such a strange thing to say if you don’t think Mr. Potter knows about the prophecy, and are trying to correct his insubordination. In the following chapters, Dumbledore doesn’t act as though he has decided Harry is unsuitable as a hero. Rather than trying to replace him, Dumbledore begins to confide in him.
Does Nornagest’s explanation of Dumbledore’s relationship with story-book reasoning affect your previous analysis? If you agree that Dumbledore feigns a story-book persona, rather than taking story-book logic seriously, then doesn’t it seem strange that he would hatch such a plot? Note that his manipulation of the last battle in December is consistent with having realistic view of the world. Yes, Dumbledore did manage to acheive a “story-book outcome,” but he clearly didn’t expect this to happen—he had a contingency plan.
So the explanation for
is that Dumbledore is lying, or...?
As I said, I don’t really understand what’s going on in Dumbledore’s head.
This is a lie. He claims to have deduced Harry’s possession of the cloak by seeing the storylike pattern, when he personally wrapped the cloak and placed it next to Harry’s bed. He’s trying to convince Harry that life is like stories. Then he contradicts himself in a later chapter. Why? I don’t know. “He did it because he’s crazy” is an answer that can justify any outcome, doesn’t concentrate probability mass, etc., but he sure isn’t acting in anything like a coherent fashion.
In that chapter, he uses the “life is like stories” excuse to “deduce” the identity of the cloak without revealing that he already knew it. It works. Harry still has no idea that Santa Claus is Dumbledore.
Dumbledore does think in stories, but he probably doesn’t realize it. Some stories don’t fit his model (if the villain carries too large an idiot ball or something?).
That’s the best explanation I can come up with.
If it’s a listening device. If it’s a just a clock, it’s not evidence of much. If it’s a transmission device, I’d say it’s evidence for Dumbledore being the source.