Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181657

Carol earlier:
> > Carol, who thinks that the only person Dumbledore deliberately
sacrificed was himself and that Snape's death was no more inevitable
than Harry's except in the mind of their creator, JKR <snip>
> 
> a_svirn:
> Huh. So you take the author's intent into account after all?
> 
> a_svirn, who apologies for posting this reply for the third time. 
(But I really couldn't leave the "Shrieking Shark"! Might have given
someone nightmares.)
>
Carol:

Only her intention to have Snape die, which is different from the sort
of "intention" that I object to discussing, such as her "intention" to
depict Harry as merely a flawed human being for using the Crucio (if
that was her intention when she wrote, as opposed to merely stating it
after the fact, she failed to convince either you or me). Obviously,
her intention to kill off a particular character is not a matter for
debate if the character actually dies. It's no longer "intention" but
canon facr. And that's what I'm talking about here. *She* apparently
considered Snape's death to be necessary to her plot and consequently,
*she* killed him, but it was no necessary consequence of
*Dumbledore's* plan, which, I agree, was flawed in many respects and
overly dependent on chance. Even without Draco's Expelliarmus,
Dumbledore's plan might--or might not--have worked. It depended on
choices by Voldemort, Harry, and Snape, on luck, on timing, and
probably on factors I'm not even considering.

But Snape's death could not have been part of the plan; he had to
deliver that message, which he could only do if he were alive. Had he
not succeeded in doing so despite having been bitten by Nagini (no
part of DD's plan), Harry would have tried to kill Voldemort and would
probably have died himself since the whole Love/self-sacrifice element
would not have come into play.

Carol, who thinks that you should have left "Shrieking Shark," which
could be the winner of this year's (nonexistent) contest for most
creative typo