Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 147536

Nora earlier:
> > > Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove 
> > > all of the BANG over onto book 7. It seems a perpetual delaying 
> > > tactic to dispute the solving of mysteries that one would 
> > > rather see continued, or thought the solution had holes. Alas, 
> > > holes to us are  often not holes to another reader.

Magpie:
> > Heh--the funny thing about that is if the BANG was Snape it 
> > didn't work very well.  JKR set it off and half the audience is 
> > like, "Was that a bang?  I didn't hear anything.  Of course it 
> > wasn't a bang, we just haven't found out what it really was yet.  
> > Well I think it's a bang!  But then, I've always thought Snape 
> > was a bang..."

Nora responded: 
> I thought it was quite BANG-y, but then I suspect I got into the 
> pattern of reading which I *think* was quite deliberate, and the 
> one which I would guess (as I can't know this unless it's confirmed 
> much later) she was out to make, which her mental 'ideal reader' 
> would catch onto.  We get Spinner's End, with all these 
> explanations which seem to point to ESE!, but we the readers know 
> better than that, right?  And there's Harry, continuing to doubt 
> and have suspicions, but he's just biased and unfair.  After all, 
> Dumbledore believes in Snape and we believe in Dumbledore because 
> he's the epitome of goodness and is wiser than us and knows more.
> 
> And then Snape ups and kills him.  And we-the-readers are left 
> either to go "Wow, that was totally BANGy", or to start spinning 
> more explanations as to why it wasn't actually a genuine BANG (it 
> wasn't an AK curse, they had a plan, Dumbledore isn't actually 
> dead, etc.).


SSSusan:
And *I* always find it amusing that we who believe in DDM!Snape are 
often supposed to have had to "spin" a whole mess of explanations 
upon *re*-reads & porings-over of HBP... explanations which involve 
relatively "outlandish" possibilities such as fake AKs, DD not 
actually being dead, etc.  For, imo, NOT every explanation of a DDM!
Snape involves a whole lotta outlandish!

It's true that I wondered (aloud, here on the list, early on) about 
the possibility of a verbalized AK masking some other NVS. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/134493
Didn't believe it myself, but wondered about it & asked about it for 
a friend.  I've never been into the notion that DD's not dead.  I 
also don't think a *specific, detailed* plan to kill DD on the Tower 
that night was involved either.

Yet when I read the book for the first time, I still came away with 
DDM!Snape.  And I *didn't* feel I had to look back to spin convoluted 
explanations to get there.  YES, I gasped when Snape cast the AK (and 
at this point I do still believe it was a real AK and that it 
resulted in DD's death), but my explanation of the events doesn't, 
imo, rely upon a convoluted or forced "spin" of the events.  Rather, 
I simply think that DD & Snape had talked some before -- about what 
was happening in VWII, about what Snape's taking the DADA position 
would mean (that he'd be leaving for *one* reason or another at the 
end of the year), about DD's belief that his (DD's) time was coming 
to an end, and about the possibility that he believed (& expressed to 
Snape) that he (Snape) might need to complete the deed someday, 
sometime, under some circumstances.  

I'll grant that I'd not thought about ALL that I expressed in that 
last sentence during the 1st read. ;-)  But for me, when I read the 
Tower scene, I gasped, I was horrified, but I then thought about that 
pleading and what it might mean... and about what was happening to DD 
ever since the cave... and about Snape's behavior on the grounds 
afterwards towards Harry... and I saw the possibility that DD *asked* 
Snape to kill him in that moment -- to save Draco, to ensure 
Snape's "in" position with Voldy, & because DD knew he was done-for 
anyhow.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135537

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that as a desperate grasping at 
any straws or a forcing of events or facts to fit something I simply 
longed to see.  It just "fit."

Even down to the look of revulsion & hatred on Snape's face:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135418
 

Magpie:
> > I mean, unlike many other mysteries that people want to see 
> > continued long past their solution, this one really didn't have a 
> > solution because we didn't get the villain's confession either 
> > through his own mouth or through someone else explaining what was 
> > going on with him.

Nora: 
> I agree that the why is totally up in the air.  What I'd suggest is 
> that it's an open possibility that the event was genuinely BANG-y 
> in a way that's not going to be mitigated by the explanations, as 
> many listies want.  

SSSusan:
Yep.  I think what Magpie has noted is a big part of it.  

I'll grant (and Nora knows this about me) that I'm prepared for 
whichever way JKR goes with Snape -- and it *is* all still open 
because we're lacking that "confession" and we're lacking insight 
into Snape's thoughts & motivations.  So it's possible that what 
happened on the tower *was* supposed to be BANG-y and I'll have to 
say, "Shoot. Too bad for me that I didn't feel the bang, because I 
thought DDM!Snape-acting-on-DD's-request was very possible."  It's 
also possible that that BANG is yet to come, when we find out for 
sure that Snape is DDM.  

I just don't think that people who read Snape as having a DDM!-ish 
motivation for his actions on the tower necessarily are deluding 
themselves or working super hard, post facto, to create a scenario 
out of desperation to not let go of a loyal Snape.  I don't think 
that scene takes that much "reading into" to get to DDM!Snape myself.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, not a St. Snaper but convinced her DDM!Snape 
reading makes sense, too.

Reminder of the Snape poll!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1916317