Snape and other details of DH

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

Now that we know what the Prophecy meant, can anyone explain it to me?

I wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4824>:

<< I was *shocked*; I'd believed that Snape never was really a
bloodist, because it's so stupid and illogical and in contradiction to
empirical evidence, and one thing he is is intelligent! >>

But at least his bloodism explains what he had against Hermione as a
student, which otherwise I was never able to figure out.

Dungrollin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4835>:

<< JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who
asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to
interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald"
HMM
]. He said, "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said
no. >>

I am less bothered by 'what did she mean by 'dead'?' than by 'what did
she mean by 'not a coincidence'?'. Until the first time I read that of
yours, I had simply assumed that she meant that Grindelwald was the
power behind Hitler, assisting him with powerful magic, and the Allies
couldn't have won except that Hitler was no longer backed with magic
once Dumbledore had disposed of Grindelwald. That fits my image that
ambitious wizards don't try to become King; instead they choose a
Muggle puppet and try to make him King.

But then it occured to me that 'not a coincidence' might only mean
that Herself had specified the year to emphasise the similarity
between Dark Wizard purebloodism and Nazi racism.

Nora wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4845>:

<< In fact, it's very possible to argue
That Athena's assertion isn't meant to be taken as doctrine
And there's something synthetic going on >>

Synthetic? Tell me about what they argue about the Oresteia.

Nora, I didn't tell you how I cried out in joy at seeing that there
was a post from you after so long a time. 

Plenty of other long-lost familiar names have re-appeared this week,
and I'm too lazy to greet each of them with loud hugs.

Kirstini <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4859>

<< a few chapters of constant location jumping, with nothing much
being done. >>

Reading that long stretch of book, I wondered what piece of alchemy
was being symbolised.

Ginger wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4960>

<< A hero who acts out of duty or sense of right and wrong is a great
hero indeed, but a hero who acts out of love is no less a hero. We
consider the boy's fallen parents to be heros, even though we know
they were motivated by the love for their son. Why is the one who
acts out of love for the boy's mother any different? >>

DDM!Snape, who knew he was being set up to be killed to give LV false
confidence in the Deathstick (I learned that from reading posts here),
sounds like a hero.

But I don't believe his feeling for Lily was love. It was obsession
and (greedy rather than lusty) desire and hurt pride.

Kneasy <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4966>

<< Was there anyone who thought that Sevvy spied for the Order
because of anything other than personal motives? >>

Actually, yes. There was a coterie who believed that he had decided by
pure logic, and not at all by personal inclination, to believe that
there really is a difference between good and evil that makes it
worthwhile to serve good and oppose evil, even in a losing fight. 

I could almost see that -- it must have become pretty clear to him, as
a Death Eater, that LV triumphant was likely to destroy everything a
wizard might hold dear: tradition, scholarship, cherished old secret
spells, the economy, the environment, the food supply ... which is
something one might as well fight against, as allying with it is a
completely doomed strategy. (Not  that *I* live by such heroic
principles!)

But, truthfully and embarrassingly, my idea used to be that killing
people had turned out to give him a squeamish feeling that life
leaving the body was too damn big a deal to do it just for kicks, and
that's why he chose good over evil.

Pip!Squeak wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4864>:

<< Given that the British still intensely disliked the Germans during
my childhood, which was 20+ years after WW2, I reckon JKR decided
people actually liking Slytherins was going to take a bit longer
than 'nineteen years later' {g}. Even today, you'll hear the
occasional comment. >>

Yes, but there should have been a couple of Slytherin students among
the students who joined the defenders at the Battle of Hogwarts. She
could have used Theo Nott, having built him up to the role in OoP.
When Pansy shouted to hand over Potter to the Dark Lord, Theo or
someone could have grabbed her hand and pulled her down into her seat
while saying, in a loud, clear, calm, firm voice: "Sit down, Pansy!"
or jumped up to grab her shoulders to push her down into her seat
while saying, in a loud, clear, calm, firm voice: "Pansy. Shut up."

Then Pansy could have yelled at himL: "Do you want to die? Don't you
understand that there's an army attacking us, and we, just a few
teachers and students, can't possibly defeat an army? Give Potter to
the Dark Lord and everyone else will be saved."

Then Theo could say: "Do you think the Dark Lord keeps his promises?
Do you think he'll coddle you because you're a pureblood? He kills his
followers as readily as his enemies. Draco, tell her how many Death
Eaters he killed in a tantrum because that goblin from Gringotts said
his vault had been broken into? List their old pureblood names. It
happened at your house, didn't it? My father died in his service and
he killed my brother in that little episode. I think my chances of
survival are better if I stay here and fight against him."