Requiescat in Pace, My Dark Phoenix

Talisman talisman22457 at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 25 11:57:58 UTC 2006


No: HPFGUIDX 151430

Talisman tosses aside her steaming quill, slides a 13 foot scroll of 
responses in your direction, and snuggles up to a rather stiff-
looking fellow in singed robes. 

zgirnius:
<snip rest, as I'm not really addressing specific details of the 
theory> 

Talisman:
Hey now, we can't have that.  There's too much Devil in those 
details to allow them to be swept under the rug.  

zgirnius
However, I really find it hard to believe that the man in the Cave 
was not Dumbledore. 

Talisman:
Hmm.  Obviously shock induced bewilderment.  Elevate your feet and 
stay warm. ; )

zgirnius:
He's an important figure in the story with a particular sort of 
relationship to Harry. 

Talisman:
Undoubtedly important.  Central even.  He is the Prime Mover in 
Harry's world.  

Switched!DD allows him to go on being just that.

We all have our own readings of Dumbledore's relationship with 
Harry.  I suppose it could be described as *particular.*  <g>  But, 
I'm not at all sure that their distinctive affiliation requires 
Dumbledore to go to the Cave.  
 
zgirnius:
And probably the single most beautiful, moving moment in that 
relationship occurs during the Cave sequence, when Dumbledore tells 
Hary, "I am not worried, Harry, because I am with you." I just can't 
quite bring myself to believe that Rowling would write this moment 
in for an impostor. >snip< At that point in the story the line as a 
line from SNAPE to Harry, just does not have the same impact). 

Talisman:
Harry is not yet ready for his moment with Snape qua Snape, but he 
will find this interaction quite poignant in retrospect, I assure 
you.  

Snape, on the other hand, has had the good taste to slip away before 
all the maudlin blibbering sets in. ::wink to Koinonia02::

I see, zgirnius, that you are from the DDM camp, so I trust you read 
Snape as diametrically opposed to Voldemort (he would *never* wear a 
turban; he appears in Fake!Moody's Foe Glass, etc.); and that you 
understand the magnanimity of his actions.

After all the things he has suffered in the line of duty, and his 
frequent protection of Harry, he is coming to the end of his part in 
the struggle. (Though there will be loads of revelation in Book 7)

All his efforts--known and unknown--are now invested in Harry, whose 
behavior over the course of the next year will determine whether 
Snape's consuming sacrifices will pay off or come to nothing.

Consider how he won't allow Harry to provide even a negligible 
amount of blood for entrance tribute: *You are very kind, Harry...[b]
ut your blood is worth more than mine* (HBP 560).

With the hellish cup to his lips, he drinks to *Your good health, 
Harry* (570).

And, as they set out to keep Snape's appointment with death, he says 
*I am not worried...I am with you* (578).

Impact enough for me.

Having raised the topic of Snape's tireless efforts, permit me to 
indulge in a short digression regarding his protection of Harry in 
PoA (there is hardly enough volume for a separate post and I have 
nowhere else at the moment to stick this, though I'm sure my 
opponents will have suggestions....)

Back in 2003 I asserted that Snape initially saved Harry from the 
dementors by the lake, leading to a detailed exploration of Time-
Travel in the post: Time, Repetition and the Uber-Dimension: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/79635

Arguments contra included the fact that there was only one Patronus 
at the lake and that it had to be Harry's, to which I replied:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I unequivocally believe that Harry created the "Prongs" patronus, 
which was the one and only patronus seen in the PoA "dementors by 
the lake" scene. 

I do not think Snape used a patronus there at all. Harry may not 
know of any other means to control dementors, but he is hardly 
Snape's equal in DADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

To those who missed that argument--and even more to those who didn't 
<veg>--I must now point out the supportive evidence from HBP:

*Ron was now struggling to finish a viciously difficult essay for 
Snape that Harry and Hermione had already completed.  Harry fully 
expected to receive low marks on his, because he had disagreed with 
Snape on the best way to tackle dementors...* (448).

::Talisman pauses to wipe some of the spattered gore of her enemies 
from her breastplate::

zgirnius
And on the other end--why would Dumbledore make such a point of 
revealing to Harry that Snape was the Half-Blood Prince (as the man 
who looks like Snape does in "Flight of the Prince"?) 

Anne: 
It's the first lesson in who Snape really is. 

Talisman:
Agreed. Or at least *another* step on the trail to truth that 
culminates in Book 7.

zgirnius:
The COWARD moment, I will grant you, works. But the final reason I 
remain convinced that Snape was Snape and Dumbledore was Dumbledore 
in the climactic scene is that DADA curse. Under your scenario, 
Snape made a plan with Dumbledore, and it WORKED. 

Talisman:
While Dumbledore and Snape may have switched on other occasions, 
beyond the Cave & Tower scenes, I did not posit their transposition 
throughout HBP.  Snape was in the classroom teaching DADA all term.  
The Switch stuff was strictly extra-curricular.

Therefore, the Curse has been honored: Snape taught the DADA class, 
and did not last more than one year.

Or did you mean something else?

zgrinius:
 >snip<
If the Avada Kedavra bothers you, the theory easily modifies 
to "Dumbledore lifts Snape off the Tower with a nonverbal spell and 
a green flash of light, and then Snape dies shortly thereafter for 
breaking his Vow." >snip<

Talisman:
You betcha.  (Thus the answer to Jeanette & Sherry's main objection.)

Dumbledore is a whiz with those tractor-beam spells. They've 
cushioned Harry from more than one fall. I'm sure things were 
carried out in the kindest possible manner.

And, we do know that saying Avada Kedavra won't do the job if you 
don't mean it.

I'm evil enough to believe DD could have meant it, i.e. killed if it 
were necessary, but clearly, in light of the UV, it wasn't.

houyhnhnm: 
Are you saying that the UV can "see" through the disguises? >snip<  
The third clause of the Vow required Snape "should it prove 
necessary Eif it seems Draco will fail [...] carry out the deed 
that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" But Draco does not 
seem to be about to fail the /deed that the Dark Lord has ordered/--
namely killing Dumbledore. Rather he is about to fail in the attempt 
to kill Snape (as DD!Snape). So it seems to me that the Vow would 
not even kick in. 

zgrinius:
However, you have a point. Draco is actually wavering in an attempt 
to kill Snape, not Dumbledore, though of course he doesn't know 
that. On the other hand, the Death Eaters present don't know it 
either. It suree SEEMS that Draco is failing to kill Dumbledore, one 
of the others even makes a comment to that effect. (Recall 
Narcissa's wording of the Vow...)

Talisman:
In light of Draco's two previously failed attempts, I suggest that 
the trigger for the third clause of Snape's UV was intentionality.  

Neither the cursed opals nor the poisoned mead succeeded in 
accomplishing the Dark Lord's deed, yet Snape's heart beat on. 

Theoretically then, Draco could have continued sending toxic socks 
and potted tentaculas, etc. for the remainder of Dumbledore's 
natural life, and could miss the mark every time, without untoward 
vow consequences. 

However, it's one thing to launch nasties in Dumbledore's general 
direction, it's quite another to face up to the reality of the job.

While it's true that, for the reader and those assembled on the 
tower, the confrontation between DD!Snape and Draco provided 
external confirmation of Draco's failed resolve, I don't think it 
mattered whom he was facing.  

If Draco had managed to fire an AK at DD!Snape and yet--and for the 
sake of vow argument--had been unable to give him so much as a 
nosebleed, I don't think Snape would have been forced to act or die.

>From a *failure* perspective, I don't see how that would differ 
greatly from the potentially lethal opals and mead being intercepted-
-and survived--by collateral victims.

But, the fact remains that, believing he had a clear shot, he 
lowered his wand.  

The difference is that at this point Draco comprehends that his 
*heart is not really in it,*  that *killing is not nearly as easy as 
the innocent believe,* and that he is *not a killer* (585-86).    

In his own heart, and to the eyes of the world, he was no longer 
willing to try, and that, perversely, was the terminal failure.   

houyhnhnm:
I really have thought Snape the most likely candidate for a switch
with DD.  The actions and speech of the "Dumbledore" in the cave fit
Snape better than either Wormtail or Slughorn.  And this:

***************
Terror tore at Harry's heart ....He had to get to Dumbledore and he
had to catch Snape....Somehow the two things were linked....He could
reverse what had happened if he had them both together....
***************

Talisman:
An absolutely lovely catch.  Thanks, houyhnhnm.

houyhnhnm:
One objection though. The ruse would have to have been kept up after 
death. Hagrid prepared the body for burial, and though he appears to 
have gotten along with Snape, I don't think he would have been 
sobbing uncontrollably over his death.

Talisman: 
As per the Mama Crouch evidence, the corpse of someone who dies 
while in a polyjuiced form retains the transformed state.

I would expect the deceased to look just like Dumbledore.

houyhnhnm:
Also, what about the phoenix that appeared to fly from the flames as 
DD's tomb sprung into being?

Annemehr: 
Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix 
rise joyfully into the blue (HBP ch. 30; p. 645) 

Yes, it seems like it could be Snape's patronus -- the one that was 
too revealing of Snape's character for JKR to divulge. One that's 
oh, so similar to Dumbledore's. 

Talisman:
Anne and I are in accord.  Perhaps I should have elaborated on the 
title of my post.  It comes from the analogy Rowling draws between 
Snape's actions in HBP and Fawkes's Book 2 assistance to Harry in 
the Chamber.

*Snape..knelt over Malfoy, drew his wand, and traced it over the 
deep wounds Harry's curse had made, muttering an incantation that 
sounded almost like a song. ...the flow of blood seemed to 
ease...the wounds seemed to be knitting. ... Moaning Myrtle was 
still sobbing and wailing overhead* (523).

Instead of Fawkes's song and tears, we have Snape softly singing his 
ancient healing charm, while Myrtle provides the tears.  Snape is 
the Dark Phoenix.

Steven1965aaa: 
[raised the issue of the phoenix lament]:

The phoenix song gave succor to those grieving *Dumbledore,* do you 
think Dumbledore would have been unmindful of their pain?

Moreover, I think it is indicative of Dumbledore's grief for Snape, 
who, I believe, was more Dumbledore's equal than any other, and for 
whom he cared deeply.  (No, that's not slash.)

Fawkes himself evinces love for those whom Dumbledore loves.  Have 
you never noticed the little signs of affection he gives Harry?

Then, why shouldn't Fawkes lament for Dumbledore's beloved warrior? 

And do you really think Dumbledore would not have contributed to the 
ceremony in some fashion?

There is also *Fawkes* evidence of Dumbledore's return in Book 7.

In the July 16, 2005 Cub Reporter interview, Rowling was asked:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround: Who did Fawkes previously belong 
to and will he play a vital role in the next book?

JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next 
books, which probably gives you a big clue...>snip<
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-edinburgh-
ITVcubreporters.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The part of the quote that I snipped emphasizes Dumbledore's sole 
ownership and so underscores the close identity between the two.

However, the main point of interest is her *no comment.* The 
question is whether Fawkes will play a vital role in book 7.  
Silence is customarily taken as assent, and Rowling seems to think 
she's given something away.

If Fawkes is operative in book 7, then Dumbledore's about.   

I'm not sure why Rowling answers the question in terms of the books, 
plural, i.e. 6 & 7.  It may be an inadvertent slur or a typo.  

At least some of the assembled children have obviously read HBP:

JKR: *Has anyone finished Half-Blood Prince yet? Good going!*  

And, she cheerfully answers other questions from the book:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trisha Mittal for the Hindustan Times India - My question is why is 
the Weasleys' clock set at Mortal Peril?

JK Rowling: Mrs Weasley is right, if you don't know what I'm talking 
about, the Weasleys have a clock in which each of the 9 hands 
represents a member of the family and they point at things like at 
work, travelling and so on. Well at the beginning of this book all 9 
hands are pointing at mortal peril. Mrs Weasley is right, she hopes 
that everyone is now in danger and she is correct. Well if the deaf 
eaters had clocks their hands wouldn't point at mortal peril. And 
the Weasley are what are called blood traitors; in other words they 
are pure blood but don't act that way. They consort and like 
muggles. Therefore they are in the firing line, they would not be 
among Voldemort's favourite people?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

Notice that here we also get *deaf eaters* for Death Eaters, so 
there is some question as to accuracy.  If you read through the 
interview, you'll see other obvious mistakes like that in the 
transcript.

But, if she uses *books* intentionaly, what it also says is: I'm not 
going to comment on what all that lamenting was about.  Which is 
another way of saying: it's not what it might appear to be.

Just because I was assessing this interview, I'll add this last 
point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cara McKenzie for Radio Forth - Every year since Harry has been to 
Hogwarts the defence against the dark arts teacher has left Hogwarts 
or died every year. Does that mean that something will stop Snape 
from being the defence against the dark arts in book 7?

JK Rowling: Yes. I really can't say more than that. That is because 
one of those questions that is a very good question and everyone 
would like to know the answer but it gives a lot away. There must 
obviously be a new one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

She could have said: If you've finished the book, then you'll know 
why.  But, she didn't.  

This fits very nicely with the idea that readers may conclude that 
he can't return because he's a murderer, but it's really because he 
is dead.

houyhnhnm:
Then there is Rowling's statement in the LC/Mugglenet interview 
that "I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it, 
whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what 
will happen when they [Snape and Harry] meet again that I can't."

Talisman:
This seems to be Koinonia02's main concern, as well.

Once Rowling began talking about Snape's role in Book 7, she had no 
choice but to refer to him in the ordinary manner.   

The question was: Is Snape Evil?

She tried to get off with: *JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you've read 
the book, what do you think?*

But, the interviewers pressed on:*ES: She's trying to make you say 
it categorically.* 

(Rowling, for her part, was trying to wiggle away.)

The interviewers at least feigned an assumption that her answer 
meant yes (the sly dogs): 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and there are people who 
will claim -
JKR: Cling to some desperate hope [laughter] -
ES: Yes!
MA: Yes!
ES: Like certain shippers we know!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially, Rowling is flippant and joins in the laughter--but after 
Emerson's comparison to the H/H shipping debacle, she can be seen to 
change her tune.

She is on record as wanting to firmly debunk any further H/H 
shipping hopes, so a direct comparison would be quite meaningful.  
Yet it is only the interviewers (sly dogs) who jump on this and 
force the issue.  

Clearly they try to pin her to the correlation that hope for Snape's 
goodness is like hope for H/H.

At this point Rowling becomes palpably discomfited.  She babbles; 
she stammers around; she emphatically backs out of the H/H analogy 
net.  

She makes a point of clarifying that she doesn't want to quash any 
theories.  I.e., this is NOT like the H/H matter.  

This belies her *cling to hope* snickering; she wants to leave the 
door open.  A mighty admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously-- Harry-Snape is now as personal, if 
not more so, than Harry-Voldemort.  I can't answer that question 
because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it 
has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that 
I can't.  And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories 
and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm 
evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps she would have done better to leave it at theory 
encouragement, but it was a fluid situation and she addressed the 
inevitable Snape/Harry showdown in Book 7.  Inevitable.  We all 
expect it, and it will happen, albeit with Snape!DD.

I expect DD  to use Harry's raging hatred of Snape as bait (DD's 
established M.O.) to draw Harry in his direction and accomplish 
necessary events in Book 7.

Yes, Harry will see and confront *Snape,* Rowling would hardly try 
to deny that--and their future interaction is why most readers would 
care whether he is evil or not. (If he was never to be *seen* again, 
the question of his goodness would not be nearly as vital (Or, the 
*big, big, big, question* as Melissa calls it.) 

Rowling likely put little quotes around the word in her head, but 
she's hardly going to wiggle her fingers in the air and say 
*quote/unquote Snape.*

Because, as I said, if she is going to address *Snape's* role in 
Book 7, at all, even vis-a-vis her inability to confirm or deny 
things about him, there is nothing that she can call him but: Snape.

Rowling parses things mighty thin, and when it comes to preserving 
her secrets, she's not adverse to misdirection and equivocation.

katssirius:
I like this theory a lot. It is based on complex emotions and an 
intelligent plan. The problem I see with it is I do not think JKR 
has got it in her. >snip< As you point out Snape has always been the 
most interesting character and we could have used the story of his 
school days or his time with the Death Eaters. 

Talisman:
I certainly wanted more Snape in 6 (Alright, in 1 through 5, too) 
and I  will be the most disgruntled fan you know if we don't finally 
get him in spades for Book 7.  Happily, I think he is too critical 
to the denouement for her to avoid giving up the goods. 

I have my own little bag of quibbles with the probity and/or 
execution of some of Rowling's apparent premises.  But, thanks to my 
iconoclastic (though not subversive, I assure you) reading of the 
works, I find a great deal of coherency, and I retain a certain 
neurotic optimism that she will pull it all off, yet.

katssirius:
I think DD's picture in the headmaster's office is the one point I 
have not seen argued away concerning his death. 

Talisman:
The first point is that we know relatively little about the magic 
involved.  This can lead to a great many assumptions, and errors, 
like the PoA patronus rebuttal I discussed, may ensue.  

The WW is filled with magical pictures.  All of them move, from 
trading cards to casual snapshots.  In addition to moving, the 
head's portraits are expected to speak, though we have yet to see 
DD's do so.

I expect it will eventually say any number of interesting things, 
but we also have evidence that such wizard *recordings* don't 
require death.  

First things first.

Beyond our textual experiences with the portraits, which don't 
address the magic involved, we have two explanations from Rowling.

One comes from the August 15, 2004 Edinburgh Book Festival--notably 
before HBP was released.

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80

Here, the query included the assertion that *all the paintings we 
have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people.*

Rowling agreed that this was true, and no doubt it was at the time, 
but she never said this was necessary. 

She went on to explain how * previous headmasters and headmistresses 
leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, 
almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present 
occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat 
catchphrases, almost. ...If Harry had a portrait of his parents it 
would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, 
that would be a much more meaningful interaction, *

Okay, so previous heads have left behind traces that repeat 
catchphrases and provide less meaningful interaction than ghosts.  

Not really helpful to the question of whether a portrait is indicia 
of death.

Somewhat more revealing disclosures came with her F.A.Q. response to 
the question of how the erstwhile Prongs managed to insult Snape via 
the Marauderfs Map.

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=103

In sum, Rowling says:
*It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as 
though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map.*

Ah. A magical recording.

En route to this conclusion, she rattles off some additional ways 
*wizards have...of making sure their voices are heard after their 
death.*

She tells us to * think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve 
in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom 
of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts 
walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and 
mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's 
portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other 
examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one.*

If, as is implied, the portraits participate in a shared magic with 
the other listed examples, then she has just revealed that death is 
not required.

Sure, we've seen dead Bertha in the pensive.  But, we've seen plenty 
of (concurrently) live people there, too: Dumbledore, Snape, 
Trelawney, Bella, the Crouches Jr & Sr, Karkaroff, Bagman, Rita, 
etc. etc.

How about those prophecy recordings? Trelawney is alive, and yet she 
rises up and speaks from the orb.

And, of course, *Lupin* throws insults from the Map, while he 
himself is standing in Snape's office, observing the proceedings. 

Under the circumstances, I think a portrait could be managed without 
DD's death.  Possibly even pre-loaded with some pithy advice for 
Harry. 

What a deal. All of the advantages of death, and none of the 
inconvenience.
  
I think GoF (Goblet Theory, again) provides us with another instance 
of a *bogus* portrait: the mermaid in the prefect's bathroom.  

I don't think that creature was ever alive.

In the course of time we discover she looks nothing like a real 
merperson.  Rowling bothers to specifically point this out to us 
(497).  Why is that do you suppose?

Not that she was *exactly* lying when she affirmed that *all the 
(circa 2004) *people* in portraits are dead (my emphasis) 

After all, I'm sure she is respectful of the fact that the merpeople 
have chosen to be categorized as beasts--or at least non-beings (FB 
xiii ). 

Koinonia02:
[regarding my assertion that DD may be a metamorphmagus]
My bet is on a link between Dumbledore and Gryffindor. As for the 
Black family/metamorphmagus angle, I surely see that making an 
appearance again, if it already hasn't happened. 

Talisman:
Wherefs the rub? I'll bet Gryffindors can marry Blacks and be 
metamorphmagi, too.

Koinonia02:
It would seem possible for the above [post goo] words to come from 
Snape. However, could not Dumbledore, the great giver of second 
chances, have a spotted past(now no more a DE quote)? >snip< it's 
possible at one time in his life he was not exactly clean and hence 
>snip< his statements in the cave. 

Talisman:
You are unwittingly dealing with the known perpetrator of Guilty!DD, 
the theory that launched a thousand hate mails from the *nice* 
side.  I have no problem tagging  DD in flagrante delicto, his sins 
improve him (as a character); this just isn't his gig.    

Koinonia02:
>snip< The thing is, if you go back and read...it's hard to picture 
the Snape in this chapter being anyone but Snape. The anger, the 
mention of James once again, the white-hot, whiplike hex(?)against 
Harry' face...all these are very much Snape-like. >snip<

Talisman:
There's no point in getting all tarted up if you aren't going to 
play the part. In addition to the fact that he has a role to 
perform, and can be expected to be at least as good at it as Barty 
Jr., Dumbldore's got plenty of reason to be pissed. 

Snape has just given everything to the cause; this round of the game 
has been bought at a terrible price. 

In the face of this tragedy, Snape!DD is headed for the abomination 
of Voldemort's gleeful celebrations.  

Meanwhile he's got to watch Hagrid's hut go up in flames while 
saving Harry from overzealous DE Crucios, shuttling Draco out of the 
gates, parrying Harry's attempts at everything from Unforgiveables 
to Levicorpus, and listening to Harry's screeching about Snape's 
cowardice.

Have you forgotten the Albus of GoF?

*At that moment, Harry fully understood for the first time why 
people said Dumbledore was the only wizard Voldemort had ever 
feared.  The look upon Dumbledore's face as he stared down...[at 
Fake!Moody]...was more terrible than Harry could have ever 
imagined. ...There was cold fury in every line of the ancient face; 
a sense of power radiated from Dumbledore as though he were giving 
off burning heat* (679).

Or, how about OoP?

*Directly above them...stood Albus Dumbledore, his wand aloft, his 
face white and furious* (805).

I also don't think Dumbledore has unalloyed regard for James.  I 
assure you, when Dumbledore spits out his disdain for a *pampered 
prince,* in OoP, he means James.  

You know, the Potter's coddled late-life treasure; the guy who 
thought he was all that and would hex you in the hallway to boot; 
the guy Dumbledore wanted to make sure Harry didn't turn out like. 
Yeah, that one.    

As for hexing his peeps, Dumbledore is clearly prepared to do so, 
when authenticity requires.  Just ask Kingsley-man-that-smarted-
Shacklebolt (OoP 621).

The little cheek-smacking didn't do any damage to Harry, it allowed 
Snape!DD to get away without taking any jinxes up the tookus, and it 
drove home the need for Mr. DA big-shot to buckle down and master 
those nonverbal spells.  

Rebecca:
My question is who is Snape in the LV Death Eater World that other 
DE's would either respect or fear him? And why would the werewolf 
be "cowed"?

Talisman:
He is one BMF; in the best possible way. <g>

houyhnhnm:
Maybe no one died on the tower that night.  Maybe Snape was
impersonating Dumbledore, but his death was faked >snip< 

Talisman:
:: sigh:: It took me more than two months to work through my denial.

houyhnhnm:
Yes, that's the way I would have it if I could choose. :-)
I don't want Snape to be dead.

Talisman:
Me either, darlin.f
It's probably hard to be a fictionalized necrophiliac girlfriend, 
but I'm gonna grit my teeth and do it.








More information about the HPforGrownups archive