dorrie, i haven't read your post on this yet, but so far you are fucking channelling me, man!
-snape may have been good at occlumency, but dumbledore was the fuckin' man! snape couldn't have fooled him.
-why would snape have said to harry as he beat his ass severely, "yo! harry YOU MUST WORK ON YOUR OCCLUMENCY! I'M NOT FUCKING AROUND HERE!" (paraphrased a bit)
-if snape were really evil, why would he not only have refrained from killing harry for all those years, but also gone out of his way to help him on a couple of occasion? and snape's answer to the question when what's her face asks him is totally unconvincing.
-why did dumbledore keep trewlaney around? precisely because she would occasionally, entirely despite herself, say something truly prophetic, like for example, "dumbledore, you're gonna die and it's gotta be snape that does the deed."
-of course, dumbledore wouldn't have told harry about the deal with snape killing him, because harry would have tried to stop him. and of course, snape wouldn't tell him after the fact, because he knows harry would never believe him.
-there's a scene in which snape and dumbledore argue angrily. the contents of the argument are never revealed, but here's my thoughts on how it went: d: you gotta kill me, dude. s: no fuckin' way. i won't do it, d-man. d: this is the way it's gotta be. the vster has to trust you completely in order for you to be there when harry takes him on in the final confrontation. s: but i love you! (i just threw that part in for the slashers)
-yes, snape agreed to the unbreakable oath thingy, but he never committed to a timeline and he and the d-man may have already figured that that was what had to happen.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-25 09:18 pm (UTC)-snape may have been good at occlumency, but dumbledore was the fuckin' man! snape couldn't have fooled him.
-why would snape have said to harry as he beat his ass severely, "yo! harry YOU MUST WORK ON YOUR OCCLUMENCY! I'M NOT FUCKING AROUND HERE!" (paraphrased a bit)
-if snape were really evil, why would he not only have refrained from killing harry for all those years, but also gone out of his way to help him on a couple of occasion? and snape's answer to the question when what's her face asks him is totally unconvincing.
-why did dumbledore keep trewlaney around? precisely because she would occasionally, entirely despite herself, say something truly prophetic, like for example, "dumbledore, you're gonna die and it's gotta be snape that does the deed."
-of course, dumbledore wouldn't have told harry about the deal with snape killing him, because harry would have tried to stop him. and of course, snape wouldn't tell him after the fact, because he knows harry would never believe him.
-there's a scene in which snape and dumbledore argue angrily. the contents of the argument are never revealed, but here's my thoughts on how it went:
d: you gotta kill me, dude.
s: no fuckin' way. i won't do it, d-man.
d: this is the way it's gotta be. the vster has to trust you completely in order for you to be there when harry takes him on in the final confrontation.
s: but i love you! (i just threw that part in for the slashers)
-yes, snape agreed to the unbreakable oath thingy, but he never committed to a timeline and he and the d-man may have already figured that that was what had to happen.