Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7?

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 147582

Pippin:
> > while fake deaths, spell words that have no effect, non-verbal 
> > spells, and Dumbledore's ingestion of an unhealthy drink, though 
> > they sound "outlandish" are all established canon and perfectly 
> > well-accounted for. 

Nora:
> We've argued this before, but not in this forum, so I'll throw it out 
> there again: what's gained by your "It wasn't an AK curse that Snape 
> used, but he threw a poisoned Dumbledore off the parapets" 
> explanation?
> 
> (Let's leave aside the general amusement that I have on thinking 
> about how this would have to be explained in the next book.)
> 
> It's *just* to save Snape from having used AK, right?  I think that's 
> a cop-out.

Pippin:
I'm irresistably reminded of Peter's line in PoA. "What was to be 
gained by refusing him?" and Sirius's answer, "Only innocent lives,
Peter." 
 
Harry is pursuing vengeance against an innocent life, IMO. As for
general amusement, I am much more amused by the idea of 
Harry, with rage and vengeance in his heart, deciding to listen
to some longwinded explanation of how Snape was almost
but not quite redeemed enough. Surely "He's innocent!" would
be a better hook?  

The bangy moment being led up to is Harry's, when he realizes
that he is about to or already has harmed an innocent person.
You write as if Harry was planning to catch up with Snape and
make him wash his hair or something. <g>I don't think that's
what he has in mind. 


The blood shows that Dumbledore died only minutes before his
body was discovered, and that means he didn't die  from the
AK *or* the fall. We know that wizards can survive falls from 
considerable heights, so I have no problem believing that 
Dumbledore survived the fall, only to die of the
poison because on the Tower he  ordered Snape to leave him and save  
the others. Was it worth it? What do you think would have
happened to Ginny if she had still been dodging AK's when the
Felix wore off?

I know you feel cheated of horror and profound pathos in
this scenario, but believe me, ESE!Lupin provides them in 
spades. It's far more horrific -- and isn't that why most 
people don't want it to be true?

> > Harry's demonization of Snape *can't* be right. Even Voldemort, who
> > has literally demonized himself, is not the way he is because he's
> > got "bad character" whatever that is. His evil has natural causes
> > (in the context of the WW). It's what he does, not what he is.

Nora:
> "Our choices show who we are" not your thing? :)

Pippin:
Harry has demonized Slytherin House too. :) Or don't you think
Draco's choice tells us more about him than what Harry thinks
he is?

Pippin