My Apology to JK Rowling

[hectorberlioz]

I hereby apologize to JK Rowling for my unfounded accusations, and ignorant diatribes about her books. If she wanted me to kiss her feet, I would. I am correcting my errors by reading her books.

Thank You

[Tessar]

I'm sure Mrs. Rowling accepts your apology with the greatest of grace, showing her good breeding.


As for the rest of us, let me just say: *THHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHP!!!!* HAH! Told ya so! :D :p

[hectorberlioz]

I didnt apologize you hear you speak, Tessar:p

[Lady Ravyn]

i know several people hwo ar epretty mcuh doing the same thing right about now...
reading the books after havign proclaimed them un worthy for one reason or another.

how far are you and what think you so far, hector?

[Tessar]

I didn't apologize to hear you speak, Tessar. :p

Although you are a sexy beast.


Tessar has no reason to speak.

Tessar -needs- no reason to speak.


Tessar. Will. SPEAK. o(>.<)O SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!


Tessar has also corrected your syntactical (!!) errors and added on the second sentence that you forgot to write.

[hectorberlioz]

i know several people hwo ar epretty mcuh doing the same thing right about now...
reading the books after havign proclaimed them un worthy for one reason or another.

how far are you and what think you so far, hector?

I haven't uh...started yet, as far as reading goes. I'm still in penitental mode;)

[hectorberlioz]

Tessar has no reason to speak.
Got that right:p

Tessar -needs- no reason to speak.
Of course not ;)


Tessar has also corrected your syntactical (!!) errors and added on the second sentence that you forgot to write. Which was "I, Hector, am the god of Entmoot, and Tessar shall acknowledge this."

[Tessar]

You're so childish.

Stop sinking to my level :D.

[caboose007]

lol this thread turned into a power trip for both Tessar and Hector :eek: . I WANNA JOIN THE POWER TRIP!

I AM CABOOSE, GOD OF SARCASM AND ANNOYANCE! BOW BEFORE ME! :D

... thats better :p

[Lady Ravyn]

you canNOT be the god of sarcasm-
i'm already teh godDESS of sarcasm! so the mantle has been taken!
i'm also the Official queen of Everything(tm), and so i trump all of you and any who post after this! :p

and you can't repent until you've actually begun the books! what if you start and realize that, in your opinion (though it'd be mighty wrong) that there was no reason to repent?! you'd have to have this whole dramatic retraction and everyone would be confused and no one would forget it anyway...
kinda like britney spears' anullment of her 'first marriage'.... :rolleyes:

lol :D

[katya]

i know the feeling, Hector. I had to do the same thing with Dragonball Z. Had to make my way back to that chat room.... 'course by then there was only 2 people there and they didn't understand it at all... and DBZ is kind of silly after all....

I'm just reading the books now too. They're better than I remembered. :) i read for 5 hours straight today. :eek:

[brownjenkins]

I've been reading them myself and enjoying them. She's no master of prose, but then, neither was Tolkien. And while some continuity and plot points bug me from time to time, I love the characters, which is enough for a good read. :)

[inked]

Hey, have you finished yet BJ?

[brownjenkins]

I got sidetracked... but will get back to it!

[hectorberlioz]

So...I finally did ream them, and I loved them :). Still do love them, in fact. (Why did they have to end?!!! :( ).

Fav character: Harry
Character that everyone loves because they think it's cool to like him, but I don't: Snape
2nd favorite character: Hermione
Fav book: #6

[Mari]

Hehe, yay. How did you like the final pages of #7?

I still say Neville is best and Snape is 2nd best. Harry is overrated and so is Draco.
Best book has got to be 1.
So there :p

[Tessar]

I still say Neville is best ...... Harry is overrated and so is Draco.




Please marry me. :D

[Mari]

Hehe, sure. Do you think we could get Rowling as our best... well, not man obviously. :p

[hectorberlioz]

Please marry me. :D

Hey!:mad: *punches Tessar in the larynx*

And by the way, Neville WAS great. But Snape...he's so for the fangirls :p

Harry was not overrated. He's the main character, so of course everyone is going to say that.:p *becomes infantile in the process of protecting his good taste*

[Mari]

Harry turned into an annoying whining little brat who wouldn't listen to his friends and thought he knew all and just because all turned out well in the end (somewhat) people think he's great. Maybe things would have gone far better if Neville had been sought out by Voldemort rather than Harry... *is poking :evil:*

[hectorberlioz]

Harry turned into an annoying whining little brat who wouldn't listen to his friends and thought he knew all and just because all turned out well in the end (somewhat) people think he's great. Maybe things would have gone far better if Neville had been sought out by Voldemort rather than Harry... *is poking :evil:*

No, because Harry was raised to get endure tough situations. Neville was pampered. Plus, Harry wasn't always wrong, was he? I'm thinking of #6 and Draco...

[Tessar]

No, because Harry was raised to get endure tough situations. Neville was pampered. Plus, Harry wasn't always wrong, was he? I'm thinking of #6 and Draco...

Because having your parents killed, living with your cantankerous grandma, and getting constantly picked on by teachers and students alike is MY definition of pampering :p.

[hectorberlioz]

Because having your parents killed, living with your cantankerous grandma, and getting constantly picked on by teachers and students alike is MY definition of pampering :p.

No, but none of those events prevents pampering either;). Harry didn't just have his parents killed: he had to live with the Dursleys. Can YOU do that?:rolleyes:

[Tessar]

True, but Harry didn't get to visit his mind-wiped parents like Neville did. That was rather traumatic for Neville.

They lived different lives, but I think it's a VERY far stretch to say that Neville was any more 'pampered' than Harry was. Plus in a lot of ways Harry got treated like a rock star in the wizarding world, which was something Neville didn't get.

[hectorberlioz]

True, but Harry didn't get to visit his mind-wiped parents like Neville did. That was rather traumatic for Neville.

They lived different lives, but I think it's a VERY far stretch to say that Neville was any more 'pampered' than Harry was. Plus in a lot of ways Harry got treated like a rock star in the wizarding world, which was something Neville didn't get.

Umm yeah, only when he wasn't being treated like the anti-Christ:p (books 2, 4, and 5).

By the way, has anyone deduced whether or not Neville married Luna?

[Tessar]

But Harry had a great deal of support from adults. Primarily teachers.

Are we just going to have to agree to disagree? :p

[hectorberlioz]

No, we're not. You're just so wrong, Tess ;).

Re-read the books. They're about Harry, not Neville :D...however much I like Neville or everyone else.

[Tessar]

I'm not saying the books aren't about Harry instead of Neville. I agree the books are about Harry. That's the entire point... if Neville had become the chosen one, the books would've been about him instead of Harry.

But that doesn't make Neville pampered, or make Harry turn into any less of an annoying emo kid at some points. :p

[hectorberlioz]

Emo? Yeah, he had Voldemort's mind infiltrating his own! :p Ok, sure he was a little emo at times. But look at all the stuff he had to endure. And plus, I'm glad JKR didn't make him into the Perfect-Yet-Bland-Hero who is uninteresting compared to his sidekicks. Harry was as interesting and or even more interesting than almost anybody else in the books, and that's a huge feat for an author. So...that's why Harry's my favorite :)

You fangirls can have Snape, take him...:p

[Tessar]

Blech, I dislike Snape in general. I think his story was sad more than anything else... I never actually got to a point where I liked him.

[Mari]

*wholeheartedly agrees with Tess*
Though I do like Snape. He had a sad character. I can sympathize. Besides, it's great that he's not wholly evil as he was portrayed in the first one. Oh, and Harry could use a person not liking him. Kept him from getting too full of himself.

[hectorberlioz]

*tries to withhold lecture in which he explains Snape was good through all the books, and that it was all part of Dumbledore's plan* :p

(In case you haven't noticed, I'm suffering from "overzealous-reader-of-the-books" syndrome ;))

[Nurvingiel]

I've been reading them myself and enjoying them. She's no master of prose, but then, neither was Tolkien. And while some continuity and plot points bug me from time to time, I love the characters, which is enough for a good read. :)The characters are my favourite aspect of the books. No one is exactly as he appears. They're very real and layered.

And best of all, there is no obvious "good" or "evil". The only obvious good and evil characters are Dumbledore and Voldemort respectively. Everyone else, even Mr. Potter himself, is on a very complex spectrum.

I am currently re-reading the series. I love these books so much.

Welcome to the fold Hector, it's never too late to enjoy a good book. :)


Minor spoilers follow Brownie, might want to skip this bit until you're done the series.






SPOILERS:

Snape is a prime example of this. Throughout the books, Snape does not once give in to evil, or betray Dumbledore's trust. He takes huge risks to save people's lives. However, he is a terrible teacher; he's biased and mean (though he is good at controlling the class).

But, he's also brilliant at his subject. He's probably one of the greatest experts in Potions in the wizarding world as well as being a brilliant wizard in general. These skills do not help him be a good teacher though.

He is also unbelievably vindictive, to the point where he does flirt with being evil (his actions in the Prisoner of Azkaban, for example), but this is because in some ways he's extremely immature. He, a grown man, nurses a grudge against a teenage boy. I mean, seriously Snape? Grow the heck up. But he's also very mature in other ways, like how he deals with everyone but Slytherins and the other teachers thinking that he's evil; he ignores it. But he can't ignore the antics of a Harry Potter, even though he's just a kid.

One of the most complex characters in the books. It's great stuff.

[inked]

Nurvi,

"And best of all, there is no obvious "good" or "evil". The only obvious good and evil characters are Dumbledore and Voldemort respectively. Everyone else, even Mr. Potter himself, is on a very complex spectrum."

I despair of you, Nurv. Really I do. To make a statement like that betrays how little understanding you actually have of the books.

Have you even read them all? I mean really, Dumbledore a "good guy" after the revelation of his feet of clay and misspent youth?!

Point to one good thing Voldie ever did.

Harry is shown developing a sense of right and wrong and good and evil, and occasionally makes egregious errors, but not ever does he consistently choose the evil/wrong/error.

Nurv, did you read the books? Did you pay attention?

Brownie, pay no attention to Nurv's erroneous readings!!!!! She is a Death-Eater in disguise trying to beguile you into the Voldie Camp of "there is only power and those afraid to use it". Nurv has missed the boat and fallen into the Slough of Despair!!!

Inked, on his 9th re-read of the books and with the posts on Entmoot to PROVE Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt that he has the longest record and claim to "overzealous reader of the books syndrome" waaaaayyyyyyyy before Hector even thought of reading them!)

...end of rant......for now.....:p

[Gordis]

The characters are my favourite aspect of the books. No one is exactly as he appears. They're very real and layered.
I agree. Characters in HP are great, much more interesting and layered than in LOTR - *Gordis runs and hides*:D

The only obvious good and evil characters are Dumbledore and Voldemort respectively. Everyone else, even Mr. Potter himself, is on a very complex spectrum.
As Inked quite rightly pointed out, Dumbledore is far from perfect. Perhaps he is one of the most controversial guys out there. But for the accidental death of his sister, he could have turned out worse than Grindewald. And even after having turned wholly to "Good", he was still more interested in his little plots and scheming than in people around. It was so evident in the case of Harry, but there were other, worse mistakes.

For instance, I think Dumbledore had failed the young Tom Riddle miserably. He was the first of the "magical people" to find the boy, and all he did was to humiliate Tom, cutting off all the possibility to influence him positively afterwards. Dumbledore was quick to accuse and slow to understand what it must have been like for the very young, exceedingly proud and very powerful wizard to survive in this disgusting Muggle orphanage. I guess Tom was not the only one to steal there: it must have been common practice. Neither was Dumbledore interested to learn what the other children did or tried to do to him, making him retaliate with magic.
I wonder, perhaps at this time Dumbledore already knew that Tom was the last of the Gaunt family, descendant of hated Slytherins, that's why he was so unsympathetic from the start? Or was it his usual attitude?

Throughout the books, Snape does not once give in to evil, or betray Dumbledore's trust.
Well to start with, Snape had willingly joined the Death Eaters, even despite Lily's attempts to stop him. He had been genuinely attracted to Voldemort's ideas. But for Voldemort's hunt for the Potters, for Lily, he would have happily remained with the Dark Lord. Even had Voldemort spared Lily, Snape would have remained faithful to him.

He is also unbelievably vindictive, to the point where he does flirt with being evil (his actions in the Prisoner of Azkaban, for example), but this is because in some ways he's extremely immature. He, a grown man, nurses a grudge against a teenage boy. I mean, seriously Snape? Grow the heck up.
I don't think he flirts with being evil: he is evil enough by nature. It just so happens that he works for Dumbledore.
It would have been immature if Snape only hated James Potter for the pranks he and his pack of followers had played on him in school. But in fact he hated James for taking his Lily away from him, maybe also accusing him of Lily's death (had James not married Lily and got her with child, she would have been alive)- and that is an adult reason. Harry looked so much like James, but with Lily's eyes: seeing him every day must have been agony.

[hectorberlioz]

Actually, I would say Dumbledore was good. Not perfect, but good. The message of the HP books (one of them anyways) is that though there is good and evil, not all the good people are perfect (hence they turn evil, or struggle with it). Seems pretty Christian to me. Evil is a perversion of good and all that. As Sirius tells Harry, the world is not divided into Good People and Death Eaters.

That's not the same as saying "there is no 'Good' and 'Bad,'" rather he's saying the DE's aren't the only bad people out there.

In book one Quirrell tells Harry how his master (Voldie) taught him there was no good or evil. Would Rowling then go on to say the same thing? I don't think she would, and I don't think she did. She DID however put before us a much more complex explanation. The whole point of Harry's crises of faith in book 7 is to show 1) Dumbledore was just a man 2) Harry has to differentiate between seeing a person as right and all powerful/protective. Dumbledore WAS right about Harry/Voldemorte, and he was mostly right about how it would end. But he wasn't perfect or all-powerful like Harry imagined him most of the time.

[hectorberlioz]

Well to start with, Snape had willingly joined the Death Eaters, even despite Lily's attempts to stop him. He had been genuinely attracted to Voldemort's ideas. But for Voldemort's hunt for the Potters, for Lily, he would have happily remained with the Dark Lord. Even had Voldemort spared Lily, Snape would have remained faithful to him.

I don't think he flirts with being evil: he is evil enough by nature. It just so happens that he works for Dumbledore.
It would have been immature if Snape only hated James Potter for the pranks he and his pack of followers had played on him in school. But in fact he hated James for taking his Lily away from him, maybe also accusing him of Lily's death (had James not married Lily and got her with child, she would have been alive)- and that is an adult reason. Harry looked so much like James, but with Lily's eyes: seeing him every day must have been agony.

Spot on! That's what I always felt. I was always amazed how people could like Snape when there was nothing to like...despite the whole "he was going on Dumbledore's orders" thing.

[Gordis]

I was always amazed how people could like Snape when there was nothing to like...

Haven't you heard that evil is attractive?:p

Snape is just likeable without any logical reason, and movie-Snape doubly so.

Tomorrow I go see HBP!!!:cool:

[inked]

Frankly, there's plenty of evidence in the books that Snape is likeable enough to the Slytherins. He's always making jokes and he hands out favors to Slytherins. He trashes all the other houses. He's very knowledgable in potions and the dark arts. In fact, he seems ingratiating at times. Draco likes him well enough until the last bit when he's a Death Eater himself.

Unless you fail to realize the books are all told from Harry's perspective ... which might be a bit off-centre, don't you think? ... you have to ignore a lot about Snape to like.

[Gordis]

Snape favors Slytherins as much as Dumbledore favors Gryffindors. Let us face it: the Marauders should have been expelled, Fred and George as well, maybe also Harry and K.

[hectorberlioz]

Inked,

You're right---and I completely agree---that there is a difference between "good" and "nice." Rowling points it out more than once in the series. However, as much as the Slytherins liked Snape, I think Gordis' reading of the books remains. Snape turned "good" for Lily's sake, and no other. A noble but selfish reason, though I think Rowling shows how he gradually became more and more Dumbledore's real ally. Though D did have some reservations at the back of his mind about Snape, he always emphasized that he trusted Snape.

So, back to square one: I don't like Snape. He's a good and interesting character, a very strong creation for an author, and a vital part of the story...but that doesn't mean I have to like him ;-)

PS: See Slughorn for an example of judging a character by the colors of his banner, and then being wrong. Surprised me, in a good way.

PPS: Doesn't Slughorn act as a second Sorting Hat?

[Gordis]

Sorry for posting out of turn...
Snape turned "good" for Lily's sake, and no other. A noble but selfish reason, though I think Rowling shows how he gradually became more and more Dumbledore's real ally.

Note that there is another Death Eather who has "turned to light": Regulus Black. Now, in contrast to Snape, Regulus had totally unselfish reasons - he indeed saw the error of his ways, was disgusted by the atrocities Voldemort was perpetrating. Snape was right there by Regulus's side, but had no qualms about torturing and killing - as long as it was not his beloved Lily on the receiving end.
Just compare the two characters and you will see the sad truth about Snape.

(I decided to open a new thread for my rant about Blacks)

PS: See Slughorn for an example of judging a character by the colors of his banner, and then being wrong. Surprised me, in a good way.

PPS: Doesn't Slughorn act as a second Sorting Hat?
That seems very interesting, but I am not sure I understand what you mean, Hector. Could you, please, elaborate?

[Nurvingiel]

I think you've got Snape wrong Gordis. Snape was a good man. The reason he participated in some of the horrible stuff the Death Easters got up to is because he was a double agent. If he had, say, stuck his neck out for Charity Burbage, he would have blown his cover. He was the only Order member to penetrate into Voldemort's inner circle; his role was crucial. In fact, he was the only Order member to do so. He was able to give them help no one else could.

And while he doesn't stop the Death Eaters (he can't, since it's crucial they think he's one of them) he doesn't jump in to their activities with relish. He only kills Dumbledore because Dumbledore asked him to. I can't recall him murdering or torturing anyone else.

Now, Snape is good, but he isn't nice. He never gets over his rivalry with James Potter and as a result, he is permanently set against Harry. He favours the Slytherin students outrageously. He bullies Neville (extra bad since I love Neville; he's my favourite character). He's racist.

Some of this is Snape putting on a show for the children of Death Eaters (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott) but some of it I think is Snape being a jerk. But you can be good and a total jerk.

Edit: Okay, you don't have Snape wrong. I do agree that Regulus is awesome though.

[Gordis]

I think you've got Snape wrong Gordis. Snape was a good man. The reason he participated in some of the horrible stuff the Death Easters got up to is because he was a double agent. If he had, say, stuck his neck out for Charity Burbage, he would have blown his cover. He was the only Order member to penetrate into Voldemort's inner circle; his role was crucial. In fact, he was the only Order member to do so. He was able to give them help no one else could.

And while he doesn't stop the Death Eaters (he can't, since it's crucial they think he's one of them) he doesn't jump in to their activities with relish. He only kills Dumbledore because Dumbledore asked him to. I can't recall him murdering or torturing anyone else.
All this is correct, Nurv, when we look at the double-agent Snape: post-Lily's death and especially post-Voldemort's return. But what about him before it? First he had become a Death Eater -quite willingly- and only then the member of the Order, initially only to save Lily, later to avenge her.

Snape was born in 1960, graduated in 1978 and likely got the Dark mark straight away, Lily died in 1981. There were three years for Snape to do all sorts of crimes serving Voldemort. Regulus Black was younger than Snape, yet he had ample time to get disgusted by Death Eater activities and to repent. Snape didn't, not for moral reasons.

[Nurvingiel]

When Snape got the Dark Mark and what he did when he got it is pure speculation. I still think he's a good man. Selfishly-motivated, yes, not always mature, yes, but inherently a brave and good person.

[inked]

No, Nurv, Snape was not inherently good or brave. He repented of his weaknesses and failings (which had cost him Lily's friendship and possibly her love) and he became brave and good by his choice.

Snape lost his way in the dark wood just like Dante had. Snape recovered his first love (God) just like Dante did through Beatrice. Lily Evans Potter was Snape's Beatrice and the vessel of God to which he gave himself to God. you really should read John Granger's works on the symbolic writers and their messages to get a better handle on the connections.

Snape, like Harry, makes bad choices. Snape, like Harry, repents of his bad choices. Snape, like Harry, chooses to believe and do right. Snape, like Harry, dies for those he loves, doing right. Snape is the character who, like Harry, suffers long and uses it well to redeem the situation at hand.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't disagree with you Inked. But I do think Snape is a good and brave person, because he chose to be.

It's interesting how alike Snape and Harry are. They probably have more in common than Harry and James Potter.

[Midge]

Tessar has also corrected your syntactical (!!) errors and added on the second sentence that you forgot to write. Which was "I, Hector, am the god of Entmoot, and Tessar shall acknowledge this."
lol this thread turned into a power trip for both Tessar and Hector :eek: . I WANNA JOIN THE POWER TRIP!

I AM CABOOSE, GOD OF SARCASM AND ANNOYANCE! BOW BEFORE ME! :D

... thats better :p

How on earth did this thread not get closed down?


By the way, has anyone deduced whether or not Neville married Luna?

I would say yes. Luna was one of my favorites.

On a side note, I would say that Harry was one of my least favorite characters in the fifth and sixth books and I sincerely wished we could hear the story from someone else's point of view. He seemed like a girl PMSing, the way that one little statement could set him off yelling. I suppose I could understand, him being obsessed with that door, and freaked out about Voldemort in his head, but still. I think a lot of conflict in that book could have been taken care of if he'd just shut up for two minutes to hear what people around him had to say for themselves instead of thinking that his assumptions were always right. I think someone mentioned him not listening to his friends, actually.

*wholeheartedly agrees with Tess*
Though I do like Snape. He had a sad character. I can sympathize. Besides, it's great that he's not wholly evil as he was portrayed in the first one. Oh, and Harry could use a person not liking him. Kept him from getting too full of himself.

Oh, goodness, let's see if I remember how to do this: All about Snape (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/spinnersend/)

Snape, apparently, is a FUN person to psycho-analyze.

Snape favors Slytherins as much as Dumbledore favors Gryffindors. Let us face it: the Marauders should have been expelled, Fred and George as well, maybe also Harry and K.
I never thought for once that any of those people should have been expelled. I was glad they were there. Fred and George were also favorites (for different reasons than Luna, of course.. actually, maybe not so different).

[inked]

I am, of course, reviving this thread to remind people of why Hector should be President for Life!

Nah, not really.

For serious Harry Potter fans who might be interested, there are going to be two opportunities in Missouri and surrounding environs to hear the hogwarts professor, John Granger, address Deathly Hallows.

The first will be on Sunday 11 April 2010 at Christ Church Anglican, 2112 Bryan Valley Commercial Drive, O'Fallon, MO, at 7:00 PM. The talk will be Unlocking Deathly Hallows:Five Keys for the Serious Reader.

"Unlocking Deathly Hallows: Five Keys for the Serious Reader
Ms. Rowling is a brilliant writer who uses specific tools to craft her meaning and create the effects in her readers that she wants – tools she borrows from Austen, Shakespeare, Dickens, Lewis, and Dante! John raids Ms. Rowling magic tool chest and shares how she wields the tools of narrative misdirection, literary alchemy, the hero’s journey, postmodern themes, and traditional symbolism to engage and entrance us well beyond suspended disbelief. Always a hit with Potter fans of all ages, this lecture (and the book that it comes from) opens up the mystery of fine writing and its place in the life in Christ." *

The second will be on Monday 12 April 2010 at the Clinton Building, 501 Campanella, Sikeston, MO at 7:00 PM. The topic will be The Christian Content of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'.

"The Christian Content of ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’
Ms. Rowling told reporters in 2000 that the last book would answer all their questions about her faith – and Deathly Hallows was no disappointment in that regard. John Granger was the first serious reader of the books to argue the stories were Christian in conception and meaning back when some Christians were burning the books. In this popular talk, he explains how the series finale is Ms. Rowling’s story about the difficulty and importance of faith, what we shouldn’t believe, and the transformations right belief make possible. The seventh book delivers on all the foreshadowing and themes of the previous books and John explains this in inspiring fashion." *

* See: http://www.orthodoxspeakers.com/spea...n-granger.html

Just thought you'd like to know. :cool:

[Butterbeer]

Reviving or 'Hijacking' Inked? :D

oh.. mia culpa, i appear to be advertising the Word for you by replying do i not?

er... if there are any fangirls out there ... i guess this makes me a better looking, complicated snape-type .. er..with just a hint or er..Ortlando Bloom??

:D

................

anyways, bar the advertising for Jesus -

i actually got round to finishing off the series - after Spock gave away that dumbledore died some years ago... bah!

er.. whatever happened to spock btw?

...................

Kind of an interesting discussion this...

so far no one seems to have called it as i see it... there seem to be far too many shades of black and white being laboured here for my liking.

But Snape is indeed interesting, is he not?