Cohesion

[quick_silver71]

No: HPFGUIDX 162289

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
> > quick_silver:
> > If Snape couldn't have won on the Tower then there's no real 
choice 
> > involved...die pointlessly or kill Dumbledore and continue with 
the 
> > plan. It just doesn't strike me as being as deep as Snape being 
able 
> > to win on the Tower although you may disagree.
> 
> zgirnius:
> I see it differently. I think he couldn't win. What makes it so 
awful, 
> is that the reason he had no chance is the UV. Without the UV, I 
agree, 
> he miht have had a fighting chance to kill Dumbledore. WHich, I 
> suspect, makes it Snape's own fault, in his mind.
>

Quick_Silver:
Well yeah I guess the point I was trying to make was that I don't 
think it was the Death Eaters that made the Tower necessary so much 
as it was the UV. That's why I listed the examples from the books of 
wizards fighting (and often beating) multiple opponents. The way that 
I've come to read Snape is that he's a big dog in the wizarding 
world...i.e. I consider him to be very talented and very powerful. So 
to say that Snape couldn't beat three wizards (two which appear to be 
inferior to Harry in their skills) and a werewolf that doesn't appear 
to have a wand is a stretch in my opinion (plus Snape has the element 
of surprise on his side). 

Quick_Silver