Sharp-Shooter Snape
| I was out on the porch with Dom last night as he was grilling some hamburgers (he must have REALLY wanted burgers, it was in the 20s and he is thin and from El Paso TX) and in talking about what I've been blogging about on here regarding predictions for book 7, I remembered something I meant to stick in but forgot. Sharp-Shooters Have you ever noticed how much like bullets the jets of light from wands in spells are? What I mean is that there is a distinct physicality to them. You have to have good aim. Hermione stops Ron from trying to help Harry when his broom is jinxed in book 2, because of the distance he might accidentally hit Harry (well, that is her excuse, she's really worried about Ron's broken wand and his usually sloppy performance - but the point is that it's an excuse that works because it is valid). Likewise, in the fight at Hagrid's Hut with Umbridge in book 5, viewed from the top of the tower, they see the spells flying like bullets. In the fight in book 6 you have the mountainous death-eater's spells bouncing off walls like a bullet ricochet. In fact the speed and random method reminds me of a turret gun in one of the first person shooter games I used to play online (Half-Life, Team Fortress Classic - which is one of the straight ahead "shoot 'em up" team based games, unlike some others that glorify actual criminal activity like "Grand Theft Auto"). Another neat scene is when Harry runs from the graveyard in book 4 and tosses an "Impedimenta" back over his shoulder without even looking but he can tell it got one of them because he hears a thud or something like that. The Snape-Shot We have already learned that Snape is a pretty impressive wizard: an accomplished legilemens and occlumens, a potions master, and a master of non-verbal spells. I think we will also find out that he is about the best shot ever to cross the thresh-hold of Hogwarts. This is how I think, in my prediction of the grand finale, he will be able to hit Harry's scar with Sectum Sempra without hurting Harry himself. Dom's Thought Dom made a suggestion which I don't think will be the case because I don't think it is her particular style, but if it does wind up being true (which of course presupposes my prediction coming true, which it may not) I trust Rowling's ability to make it her own and make it interesting. He suggested that because of the nature of Sectum Sempra Harry's scar would always bleed just a little, like the Stigmata. Like I said, I don't think she will have that, but it would be cool if she did because she would have picked it up from one of hers and our favorite authors, C. S. Lewis. In That Hideous Strength, book 3 of Lewis' "Space Trilogy, when Jane Studdock meets the Ransom character who was the protagonist of the first two books (in That Hideous Strength he is now called "the director"), he occasionally winces as if in great pain but then a second later is back to normal as if there is no pain at all. The wound that this is from happened in the second book, Perelandra, when Ransom fought the possessed Dr Weston, the "un-man" (like the werewolf or "man wolf") in the stony heart of the mountain. It is a wound on the heal, which is taken from the "Proto Euangelion" (or "first gospel" or "first good news") of Genesis 3:15 in the cursing of the serpent, "he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel," and the wound is painful all the way through the rest of this life. My Boyish Glee I'll be pretty pumped if my predictions wind up being true, and not just because of "I told you so!" OK, All right, I have to admit there will be some of that. But more importantly it's just so cool the way she introduces stuff in minor ways and then brings them back around in major ones (for instance, Barty Jr's use of poly-juice potion in book 4 is huge. Think about it, not even as great a wizard as DD had any idea until he makes the goof-up of removing Harry from DD's sight at a crucial moment) PS: Speaking of Dom, I probably never mentioned on this site (at least I can see no reason why I would have) the time Dom walked into my room after watching "Fight Club" for the first time and asked "how did you do that?" - In various conversations I had managed to give him THE WHOLE plot of Fight Club - EXCEPT the "change-over." I mention this because Dom has not read the HP books, only seen the movies, but as much as I talk to him he might as well have read the books LOL. It works out well for him though, his boss in his assistantship at grad school right now is a huge HP fan, so he's able to discuss it with her. |
Comments on "Sharp-Shooter Snape"
-
mirvink@yahoo.com said ... (December 19, 2005 6:12 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (December 19, 2005 6:50 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (December 20, 2005 9:25 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (December 20, 2005 10:34 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (December 20, 2005 10:36 AM)
:
-
mirvink said ... (January 05, 2006 4:14 PM)
:
-
mirvink said ... (January 05, 2006 4:17 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 05, 2006 6:28 PM)
:
post a commentInteresting thought on the Sectum Sempra and the scar. Are you thinking that it will release the remaining "killing curse" and finish Voldemort?
In thinking on the "end" or the final battle, I think that Rowling has given plenty of clues that the crucial difference that will give Harry victory is his ability to love. I think this will tie into the room at the Department of Mysteries that Harry was unable to open with his knife.
In the first book, Voldemort tells Harry "There is no good or evil, only power." This is the downfall of Voldemort. His inability to love, his near sighted pursuit of power (mainly the power over death) will be his undoing. We see a glimpse of this in book 5 when Voldemort posseses Harry at the ministry.
Your site is good. I am enjoying the reads and look forward to reading more in the future. I have read some glimmers of the "Dumbledore is still alive" theories in some of the postings and heartily concur. I have a decent idea of how....
hmmmm, interesting, I would be interested to hear how you think DD will still be alive ... but I can understand if you keep taht one till the book is out.
And great comment about the door in the Ministry and the ability to love, I had not thought of that in connection here ... that maybe Harry will, say, lay down his life for Snape in a way that is materially part of undoing Voldy.
Interesting ...
One thing I haven't heard people comment on very much is that when Dumbledore finds out that Voldemort used Harry's blood to resurrect that he had a triumphant look in his eye, as if that was basically the end of Voldemort. It's as if Voldemort thinks of the blood as a "potion" in a purely materialistic manner. Dumbledore seems to think of blood as containing a "deeper magic", to steal a phrase from C. S. Lewis. What think ye?
I think it's really good, I hadn't thought of the fact that Voldy has Harry's blood in his veins now, Nor had I remembered DD's look when Harry told him that. I wonder if somehow Harry will find some way to absorb Voldy into himself ... I know that seems far out but there are 2 or 3 things to consider:
1. Love is "acceptance" of the person but not their faults - maybe absorbing as "acceptance."
2.This is alchemy and ealchemy is, I think, kind of the Christian response to Gnosticism (keep in mind that the theology of the medeival period was constantly battling Gnosticism in some form or another, eg Docetism and Manicheanism, ). Gnosticism said that matter is inherantly evil, so in Alchemy, in the golden soul, PURIFIED matter (Black = Voldy) is re-united in a right union with pure spirit in the proper hierarchy ... through this emphasis on blood Harry might absorb Voldy.
3. In regards to point 2 I and the fact that Harry could rightly say, "um, excuse me, you have some of me in you, some of my person in the form of my blood ... I would appreciate it if you would return it!"
- I would use the example of the re-unification of the whole nation of Israel - whole meaning not just the Southern Kingdom of Judah. But how do you reunite the southern with the northern when the northern was not only taken into exile, like the southern, but ASSIMILATED through breeding? This is where the Samaritan people came from. The answer: if the northern 10 tribes were assimilated in blood with gentiles, and the book says they MUST be re-joined with the whole nation of Israel, there is only one answer - the gentiles have to come in to (hence the emphasis in the Gospels on the Samaritans ... and the Catholic Christian Church - this material taken from Dr Scott Hahn class material).
If Harry's blood is mixed with Voldy's body and must be restored to make Harry a whole person again (I bet Harry would be pretty pissed to find that he is sort of "brothers" with Snape as a "Severed One" ... See, we were right ... the Priori Incatatem Chapter is HUGE) - there's only one way - Harry has to absorb Voldy into himself (I know I'm getting out there, but I think it's possible)
NOW - this is a really crazy Idea but I'll throw it out there ... What if, contrary to "Rowling's Ruses" Snape IS a vampire ... and this somehow plays a role!
Oh yeah, in point 1 of my previous comment - on Medieval Theology battling Gnosticism - Medieval literature is deeply rooted in Medieval Theology, and Rowling is deeply rooted in Medeival Literature
Dumbledore's Triumphant Look. Hmmm. Well, as we travel down the paths of pure speculation, I think that the use of Harry's blood in Voldemort's return gives Dumbledore a look of triumph because it has made Voldemort's greatest weakness part of him. As Dumbledore has said, it is Harry's ability to love and Voldemort's inability to do so that is Harry's greatest strength and Voldemort's greatest weakness.
When Lilly sacrificed herself to save Harry, the ancient magic of love became part of him. The love of his mother was in his blood. This is why Voldemort could not touch him because he had never known love. After his return, Voldemort is able to touch Harry without pain because that love has know entered into Voldemort. The look of triumph that ensues on Dumbledore's face results because the stone heart of Voldemort has been cracked, although unbeknownst to him. Like a diamond being scored, additional force (in this case love) can break him resulting in either his destruction (look of triumph)or his redemption (look of triumph).
As Dumbledore explained to Harry, the prophesy really has no power, it is how the parties involved act on it. It is their choices that make the difference. Although Dumbledore would hope otherwise, Voldemort will choose destruction over redemption because he sees love as a weakness and only craves power. We see this in book 1 when he tells Harry, "There is no good or evil. There is only power and those who are afraid to use it." Two points of irony may arise from this.
First, if this Love (from behind the door at the Department of mysteries) enters and has the possibility of redeeming him, it could only happen if his soul were restored. So as Harry ventures through the last book destroying the horcruxes, he may in fact be repairing Voldemort's soul to the point that it may be healed by love.
However, and this is the second point of irony, Voldemort will not choose love. By not choosing this greater power, which he sees as weakness, he will bring about his greatest fear, his own death.
This brings me to another topic. As it is well known, many fundamentalist Christian groups (and I might stress the "mental" part of fundametalist) have denounced these books because of their "evil witchcraft". While I doubt that these people have actually read the books, if they have, they have really missed an underlying theme. It is Love that has the ability to conquer Death. It is the quest for power that leads to pain, destruction and desparate isolation. One would hope that Christians would recognize these themes.
I do not believe that Dumbledore is actually dead. I
think that he and Snape faked his death to aid in the
downfall of Voldemort.
My reasons/evidence?
1. "And for the first time Dumbledore pleaded." It is
not in Dumbledore's character to be afraid of death.
Several times in the books Dumbledore states that
there are worse things than Death. In book one after
Harry defeats Quirrel Dumbledore says, "To the well
organized mind, Death is but the next great
adventure."
2. Dumbledore's emphatic defense of Snape. "I trust
Severus Snape completely." Over and over. Dumbledore
is a shrewd and wise man. To say such strong words, he
must have more reason than just hope that Snape is
true to his word. While Dumbledore does admit in book
six that his mistakes tend to be larger than the
average person's because he is cleverer than the
average person (all in reference to book 5), he must
have real reason not to doubt Snape.
3. The "Avada Kedavra" curse. When used, as seen in
book 4 on the spider (by Moody) and Cedric, it hits
the victim and then they die. The victim does not
float up in the air like Dumbledore.
But, you may protest, there is no defense against the
Killing Curse. While that has been stated, we have
seen Dumbledore deflect the killing curse in book 5
using a statue. Also, Fawkes defended Dumbledore, but
it did actually kill him, but being a phoenix, he came
back to life. Also, and more importantly, Bellatrix
LaStrange tells Harry (when he tried to use the
Crusiatis Curse on her) that in order for an
Unforgiveable Curse to work, you have to really mean
it. What does this tell us? That Snape could have
uttered the Killing Curse, but used another spell
(mentally) to raise Dumbledore up, over the wall and
out of sight. Here Dumbledore could have transfigured
whatever (since he used to be the transfiguration
teacher at Hogwarts) into a likeness of himself or
used the Draft of Death (the sleeping potion so strong
that it appears you have died). Then a body is buried
(body wrapped so you cannot see the face), Fawkes
sings a sad song to add believability and a picture of
Dumbledore, a sleeping Dumbledore, is added to the
Headmaster's office. All giving appearance that he is
gone. Why? So that Voldemort will now act with less
caution and Dumbledore can work against him.
4. The problem of the Unbreakable Vow. Snape said he
would help Draco. He did. Snape, hesitantly said he
would finish the job if Draco couldn't. The problem,
but also and important point. When he made this vow,
he paused, thinking, then said yes. If he had not killed Dumbledore at that time, would he have broken
the vow? No. Narcissa was not as careful as she
thought she was being. She never put a time frame on
the statement. Technically, even though Draco did not
finish the job, Snape only has to kill Dumbledore if
Draco fails completely, but never says when he has to
kill Dumbledore. Snape's quick mind could have
recognized the fact that he did not have to kill
Dumbledore in any specific time frame and thus agreed
to the vow. Also, Snape told Dumbledore about the vow,
which would have allowed them to work out a plan. If
(completely guessing now) Narcissa hears of this, then
she may release Snape from the vow allowing him to continue to act as super spy who is aligned with Dumbledore.
All this being said, J.K. Rowling writes the whole
thing so that there is still evidence for Snape being
truly evil and Dumbledore being duped and dead.
Looking at both sides, it looks like a 50/50 call. But
looking at the cleverness and character of Dumbledore,
I cannot see him going out so easily. He is much too
great of a wizard.
What do you think?
Responding to the remark about fundamentalism: one of my theories about the intellectual root of what John Granger calls the "Harry Hatred" is the pitting of symbolism against divine revelation. Generally this idea is held by people with deep prejudices against Catholic practices and kind of goes hand-in-hand with a number of other beliefs which seem to imply that the text of the Bible is the only thing of which a "pure Christian" should partake.
I think a book could be written about this kind of non-sacramental, unhistorical type of Christianity, but not here. Also this isn't necessarily a Catholic/Protestant divide - a lot of Protestants like Travis P. and LaShawn Barber like Harry and then there's the guy that wrote "Father Elijah" and that lady in Europe that started the whole Ratzinger flap in the Catholic Harry-hater camp.
I originally encountered this idea in the transcript of a talk given by the famous-in-some-circles Presbyterian minister Abraham Kuyper entitled The Antithesis Between Symbolism and Revelation. (It's a bit tedious, but very interesting in what it reveals.) The interesting thing to me is that I wouldn't call Kuyper a fundamentalist Bible-banger - his other writings with which I'm familiar are more measured and mainstream in their content. BUT I believe that he can be the proponent of a certain way of thinking among others by providing an intellectual anchor of sorts in what I believe is a false dichotomy, and I'll explain why it's false.
But my point is that the central fact of Christianity is the incarnation, the "Word made flesh", God dwelling among us. Even the printed pages of the scripture are "symbolic" compared to that reality, e.g., the word "Adam" is a symbol, the letter "A" in "Adam" is a symbol, the word "Jesus" is a symbol, albeit a symbol for the only begotten incarnate word! My point is that language itself is symbolic, spoken or written. Literary symbolism in Lewis, Tolkien, Shakespeare, Rowling, etc. - all the stuff we pick apart and discuss here - communicates with a set of symbols which is different than the Biblical languages, so why can't similar truths be expressed by using those symbols?
This is not to imply that the Bible is no more inspired than these writings, it certainly is, of course. But having said this, the anti-symbol crowd should note that the Bible too is shot through with symbolism, e.g., "Judah is a lion's whelp", "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd", etc. And then you get to the book named "Revelation" (St. John's Apocalypse) and practically the whole thing is written in a type of symbolic literature! (No hippogryffs, though, sorry....)