Trelawney's Teacup
Michael Horowitz
I'm at the first class where Trelawney is sweeping up the cup Neville
broke. Why didn't JKR just have her use the repairing spell vice
throwing away a teacup she was fond of? - could this be a possible
burble in her story line? - Mike
George Johnson
news:5t2hb05rl9l593l2j...@4ax.com...
Perhaps Trelawney is better at being fortune-teller over real Wizardry?
Book #2 proves that kids that grow up with either weak powers or
lackluster attention to their studies have to find employment somehow.
Cheating in class just cheats the kid out of learning the knowledge that
they will need to utilize later in their lives. Professor Gilderoy Lockhart
is a bit of ample proof that you can fake your way to fame, but the
incompetence will shine through the lies given sufficient time and the need
to prove themselves.
An incompetent teacher with only one usable skill might be too
embarrassed to ask a student to fix something that they themselves should be
capable of accomplishing.
Education is like a toolbox. When you fill it up with good quality
tools and a decent variety then you can meet any situation without terror.
Someone who doesn't have the skills to use the tools or those that have
cheated themselves out of gaining the right tools will be unable to meet the
challenges they face in life. You can create a business with a screwdriver.
Someone owning a powerdrill has a distinct advantage over someone with a
screwdriver though.
Trelawney's educational toolbox has the equivalent of a telescope with a
scratched lens. She can see things coming from far away, but very poorly.
We know that a scratched telescope has little physical use unless one is
very clever in utilizing it.
Jette
Perhaps she simply doesn't know the spell. It would be very embarrassing for
her to ask a fellow teacher for help to do such a simple spell.
Cheers, Jette
John VanSickle
Maybe she's a Squib.
Eldritch
> Michael Horowitz wrote:
>
> Maybe she's a Squib.
Well, give her this much credit. Dumbledore hired her because she made
one good prediction, and she made another in POA. She has her moments,
even if they're few.
E
Maestro Muten
She did ONE prophecy, then a second one 14 years later. Looks like real
prophecies can't be made upon command, but they come suddenly, with no
warning at all - in a moment you're talking normally, a second later
you're in a trance and spit out the propecy. Maybe Trelawney can make
real prophecy but she's a very poor divinator with standard techniques.
I suppose Dumbledore hired her anyway (unwillingly) because she's
connected to the Dark Lord/Harry Potter stuff, and she needs Hogwarts'
protection (as well as Snape, after all). It is not a matter of pity if
he kept her at hogwarts when Umbridge sacked her: she has a specific
purpose (which is NOT teaching the useless divination) and she needs to
be kept away from Voldemort
John VanSickle
Dumbledore brought her into the castle to provide protection from Death Eaters.
Since a DE overheard part of her prediction, she was a prime target for getting
kidnapped and Crucioed until she talked. This would have happened even if
Voldemort knows that such measures would be futile, because some DE would have
done it without being told to do so.
Regards,
John
Sean Massey
that mentions that Trelawney is fairly capable at seeing the future but
not very good at interpreting it. Its there, but it is pretty subtle.
Kish
> There was another thread
> that mentions that Trelawney is fairly capable at seeing the future but
> not very good at interpreting it.
Erm. Hey. Another thread that /speculates/, not "mentions."
> Its there, but it is pretty subtle.
Whether it's there is extremely debatable--as I posted to that thread.
curvebuster
"Sean Massey" <sma...@mariancollege.edu> wrote in message
news:2hthkfF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Eldritch wrote:
> > John VanSickle wrote:
> >> Michael Horowitz wrote:
> >> Maybe she's a Squib.
> > Well, give her this much credit. Dumbledore hired her because she
> > made one good prediction, and she made another in POA. She has her
> > moments, even if they're few.
> >
> >
> that mentions that Trelawney is fairly capable at seeing the future but
> not very good at interpreting it. Its there, but it is pretty subtle.
The gift of Second Sight apparently doesn't get inherited automatically,
since it has skipped several generations in Trelawney's family. Most likely
she inherited a limited form. She really can't See day to day stuff- she's
faking it in class, although she actually believes she isn't. Her actual
gift is to make a limited number of very important predictions. Dumbledore
is keeping her around because magical things tend to happen in threes.
She's got one more coming.
curvebuster
Sirius Kase
Maestro Muten <sichetid...@mandamilospam.it> wrote:
> Eldritch wrote:
> > John VanSickle wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Horowitz wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> >> Maybe she's a Squib.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, give her this much credit. Dumbledore hired her because she
> > made one good prediction, and she made another in POA. She has her
> > moments, even if they're few.
> >
> >
> > E
> >
>
> She did ONE prophecy, then a second one 14 years later. Looks like real
> prophecies can't be made upon command, but they come suddenly, with no
> warning at all - in a moment you're talking normally, a second later
> you're in a trance and spit out the propecy.
How do you recognize a true prophecy? Is the trance/strange voice the
give away? Normally, the truthfulness of a prophecy can't be determined
until after the prophecied event has at least partially occurred.
--
Sirius Kase
The FAQ, on your newsreader: <100j0fc...@corp.supernews.com>
or on your web browser: <http://tinyurl.com/24czw>
another good website: <http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/>
Tom Saul
As others have said, it could be the fact that Prof. Trelawny has as much
magical power as a sneeze and doesn't want anyone to notice.
However, I wonder if *not* fixing the cup was her idea of pressing
the point that it had shattered and that the breaking of the cup
had been predicted[1] accurately. If that's the case, Prof. Trelawny is
a more skilled psychologist than seer.
Or we could all just be reading the white spaces and not the words in the
book. :-)
[1] Note that's 'predicted', not 'seen'.
Tom.
Fungus Fred
This actually brings up one thing I've wondered about...
Why would Umbrige, a hater of half-bloods, choose to throw out a
simple fraud when she could have gotten rid of Hagrid? Always seemed a
bit suspect to me. People tend to act according to their nature unless
compelled to do otherwise from some outside force (hope of gain, fear
of pain, etc.). I'm wondering if Lucius didn't mention to Fudge how
horrid a teacher she was (while making a particularly large charitable
donation). Fudge in turn would lean on Umbridge to oust the woman into
the waiting arms of the Death Eaters. Might also explain why
Dumbledore would ask a being to put his life at risk instead of
finding a qualified human for the post, or even letting Umbridge put a
Ministry lackey into such a minor teaching position that has so little
interaction with most of the school***. It was very convenient that
the new teacher was one of the few beings with divination experience
who would have absolutely no use for quarters up in the towers. Of
course this is just an idea. I just kind of like the thought that
Fudge may be taken out of office because he was bribed into letting a
half-giant keep his job a little longer. I doubt he could stand it.
<grin>
*** (I know Harry's in the class, and it was strange how Umbridge
always audited the classes he was in. It seemed to me she was getting
a reading on how the teachers treated him. But, if Hermione can walk
out of divination, Harry could too presumably. And besides, Hagrid's
known loyalty to Dumbledore, and his extensive duties and grounds
access, would have made him the better choice for replacement if the
ultimate goal was simply to put a leash on Dumbledore.)
Fungus Fred
(...who always pictured Trelawny as looking a bit more like Mother
Goose from "Mother Goose and Grimm")
Kish
Spoilers for OotP.
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
> Why would Umbrige, a hater of half-bloods, choose to throw out a
> simple fraud when she could have gotten rid of Hagrid?
Because 1) it wouldn't have hurt Hagrid nearly as badly, and 2) Hagrid
wouldn't have been going anywhere, since he was also the gamekeeper.
She expected Trelawney to be forced to leave Hogwarts.
Maestro Muten
And don't forget Hagrid is a MASSIVE being. I doubt Umbridge would just
go to him and say "you're fired!" to send him away, not even with her
pathetic stunners - She had to bring a full escort with herself to kick
him out, and they all got hurt. I suppose firing Trelawney was a sort of
warning to other teachers.
Klaus Winkler
<sma...@mariancollege.edu> wrote:
>I think she has more moments than you think. There was another thread
>that mentions that Trelawney is fairly capable at seeing the future but
>not very good at interpreting it. Its there, but it is pretty subtle.
Well, IMHO the thread showed only that people on the group are just as
gulible as in the wizarding world.
Her predictions are as magic as predicting the effects of gravity "If
i let go of this item it will fall to the ground"
Richard Eney
Sirius Kase <siriu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Maestro Muten <sichetid...@mandamilospam.it> wrote:
<snip>
>> She did ONE prophecy, then a second one 14 years later. Looks like real
>> prophecies can't be made upon command, but they come suddenly, with no
>> warning at all - in a moment you're talking normally, a second later
>> you're in a trance and spit out the propecy.
>
>How do you recognize a true prophecy? Is the trance/strange voice the
>give away? Normally, the truthfulness of a prophecy can't be determined
>until after the prophecied event has at least partially occurred.
JKR seems to have decided (probably for plot reasons) that the trance is
the important part. It makes prophecy something that happens to you, not
something you can do deliberately. Therefore she can be rude about all
ordinary forms of divination while still using a prophecy in the story.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
That's the key, I think. Umbridge is a bully, and she could tell that
Trelawney was the weakest of the staff. All the others would have had
friends and/or family to go to, or could have found a job elsewhere fairly
easily. Trelawney wasn't doing so well at making her own living when
Dumbledore hired her, and she had spent 14 years in her tower, not making
any contacts. Trelawney literally had nowhere to go.
>> and 2) Hagrid wouldn't have been going anywhere,
>> since he was also the gamekeeper. She
>> expected Trelawney to be forced to leave Hogwarts.
>
>And don't forget Hagrid is a MASSIVE being. I doubt Umbridge would just
>go to him and say "you're fired!" to send him away, not even with her
>pathetic stunners - She had to bring a full escort with herself to kick
>him out, and they all got hurt. I suppose firing Trelawney was a sort of
>warning to other teachers.
Not a warning, really; everyone already knew what she was like. It was a
sadistic attack on the weakest person there. Firing anyone else wouldn't
have produced such a scene, and Umbridge was enjoying it.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
OrionCA <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Klaus Winkler<thorko...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>
>>Well, IMHO the thread showed only that people on the group are just as
>>gulible as in the wizarding world.
>>
>>Her predictions are as magic as predicting the effects of gravity
>>"If i let go of this item it will fall to the ground"
>
>breaking the tea cup...Well, she could have been forewarned about
>Neville but I doubt it. Neville doesn't go around breaking
>*everything* he touches.
That was a self-fulfilling prophecy. She knew Neville was nervous,
she knew he was slightly clumsy, and she has years of experience at
"predicting" things in a way that makes them happen. If you tell someone
who is already nervous and clumsy that they are going to break something,
they probably will, just because you have made them more nervous about it.
It's as easy as her other "cold readings".
The subtle ones that lead some of us to speculate that she may have a weak
but genuine talent include, for instance, when she sees the four-legged
creature in the teacup shape and even sees that it is a black dog, but
mistakes it for _the_ Black Dog because of her penchant for the dramatic.
That's her misinterpretation of something that was genuine.
=Tamar
V. K. Valentine
news:c30nb0h9d40h63mpq...@4ax.com:
>
> Well, IMHO the thread showed only that people on the group are just as
> gulible as in the wizarding world.
>
> Her predictions are as magic as predicting the effects of gravity "If
> i let go of this item it will fall to the ground"
I don't know. She was right about Hermione leaving around easter and for
Pavarti to beware of a red-headed male though. Ron WAS a terrible date.
I think she can "see" signs, but is awful at interperating them, and of
course is a little loopy.
-VKV
Kish
> Klaus Winkler <thorko...@yahoo.de> wrote in
> news:c30nb0h9d40h63mpq...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>Well, IMHO the thread showed only that people on the group are just as
>>gulible as in the wizarding world.
>>
>>Her predictions are as magic as predicting the effects of gravity "If
>>i let go of this item it will fall to the ground"
>
>
> I don't know. She was right about Hermione leaving around easter
"Around Easter, one of our number will leave us forever." Sounds like
death. Not a good prediction of, "Around Easter, someone will get fed
up and drop the class." She also told Neville his grandmother isn't in
good health (she appears to be still going strong two years later).
Every charlatan has a record at least as good as Trelawney's.
Eric Bohlman
news:Dpxvc.64149$Ql5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
For several reasons:
First, we all have a tendency to what psychologists call "confirmation
bias": unless we make a conscious effort not to (and such efforts are
usually only partially successful), we pay a lot more attention to evidence
that confirms our beliefs than to evidence that goes against them. Thus
when a psychic makes one correct prediction and 99 incorrect ones, the one
correct prediction sticks in our minds far more than all the incorrect
ones.
Second, charlatans' predictions are usually phrased quite vaguely, so that
any number of events can be made to "confirm" them after the fact. And
another psychological bias means that we'll then treat the predictions as
if they had been specific for whatever happened. For example, suppose that
at the beginning of 1994 a psychic predicted that a rock star, a former US
President, and a former US First Lady would die within the year. A year
later, most people would be acting as if he/she had predicted that Kurt
Cobain, Richard Nixon, and Jackie Onassis would die. But the actual
prediction was a whole lot more general than that.
Third, charlatans tend to make "safe" predictions. Rock stars have this
sort of tendency to die young and in 1994, quite a few former Presidents
and First Ladies were quite elderly. Even if the psychic *had* named
Cobain, Nixon, and Onassis, he/she would still have been predicting the
deaths of a young man who was well-known to be seriously troubled, an
elderly man, and an elderly woman who was well-known to be in poor health.
The vagueness and "safety" aspects mean that your average "seer" would be
expected to get quite a few predictions correct based on chance alone. And
most of us are pretty bad at working with probabilities; in fact, a
psychologist (Daniel Kahneman) recently won the Nobel Prize in economics
for his work in characterizing the incorrect mental models of probability
that most people have. Someone, for example, claims that in ancient times
his ancestors' culture had developed a pregnancy test that was 40%
accurate. To a lot of people, that actually sounds impressive, because
they think that a worthless pregnancy test would be 0% accurate. But just
flipping a coin to "determine" whether or not a woman was pregnant would
have 50% accuracy (in fact, a pregnancy test that *always* gave the wrong
answer would be 100% accurate if you just reversed the interpretation of
the results).
Mark Evans
> Klaus Winkler <thorko...@yahoo.de> wrote in
> news:c30nb0h9d40h63mpq...@4ax.com:
>
> >
> > Well, IMHO the thread showed only that people on the group are just as
> > gulible as in the wizarding world.
> >
> > Her predictions are as magic as predicting the effects of gravity "If
> > i let go of this item it will fall to the ground"
>
> I don't know. She was right about Hermione leaving around easter and for
> Pavarti to beware of a red-headed male though. Ron WAS a terrible date.
Except that Pavati went to the ball with Harry. Ron's date was Padma.
Klaus Winkler
wrote:
>Klaus Winkler <thorko...@yahoo.de> wrote in
>news:c30nb0h9d40h63mpq...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> Well, IMHO the thread showed only that people on the group are just as
>> gulible as in the wizarding world.
>>
>> Her predictions are as magic as predicting the effects of gravity "If
>> i let go of this item it will fall to the ground"
>
>I don't know. She was right about Hermione leaving around easter
Besides the difference between "leaving forever" and "leave class"
that Kish mentioned, it's not very difficult.
I also could be nasty to my students, until they quit...
> and for
>Pavarti to beware of a red-headed male though. Ron WAS a terrible date.
Again slightly off target. Ron's date was Padme.
Let's be realistic, it's not a very hard prediction that the boys and
girls will have some quarrels.
T.M. Sommers
> In prep for the opening of PoA, I'm re-reading the book.
> I'm at the first class where Trelawney is sweeping up the cup Neville
> broke. Why didn't JKR just have her use the repairing spell vice
> throwing away a teacup she was fond of? - could this be a possible
> burble in her story line? - Mike
Perhaps the residual magic of such a spell would interfere with
the cup's use in prediction.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
The Magic Engineer
"Klaus Winkler" <thorko...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:qim9c09squjvfi9p4...@4ax.com...
*puts on 3rd eye*
Beware of those who live under bridges - they will come spouting lies
and flames of war will follow!
You will trip in the near future.
I see change on the horizon... do you have a sister?
It's all a matter of viewing the person's reaction to your statements and
then
trying to draw out information to fuel the prediction. The person will take
care of the rest by trying to draw a conclusion when the real event
happens. Ever have your fortune read? It's rather interesting to watch the
person squirm when you don't give them information in either words or
body language. =)
TME