Uh...

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

Even the god Set (or Seth) – a god of chaos, the dry lifeless desert, foreigners, and other things threatening to the Egyptian mindset, and usually falsely mischaracterized today as the “God of Evil” (nonsensical term) because of his role in the slaying of Osiris – was ultimately an upholder of ma’at. Indeed, it is his strength upon which the world’s continued existence depends: Set is the god who stands in the prow of Ra’s solar boat and slays the serpent every night. He is the one god, in fact, who is strong enough to do so, and his scepter is both his personal symbol and a symbol of strength in general. (Yes, I have strong feelings about Set. And another frequently misunderstood myth figure, the Norse god Loki, who I might or might not make reference to sometime later.)

~condwiramurs, "Indestructible - Part V - The Wheels of Heaven"

Will someone please explain to me what the hell ANY of the above has to do with Severus Snape?

Also, this:

You know, when you think about it, a very, very last-minute gamble by a dying man to undergo Merlin’s initiatory ordeal might have many motivations. As indeed might Tom’s usurpation of that cave.

Some of the legends about Merlin, after all, state that he vanished from the world of men because he was imprisoned through a woman’s wiles. Imprisoned, not killed.

Some legends say, further, that Merlin’s protégé was immortal. "Rex quondum, rexque futurum,"

The legends hint that there may be a fourth route to immortality. Not the Philosopher’s Stone, not the Hallows, not a Horcrux. A mystery known only to Merlin… and perhaps to be revealed to a successor proven worthy by passing the ordeal of the cave.

~terri_testing, "Albus and the Birdbath"

Nice theory. Too bad there's no evidence that the damn cave was ever anything but a cave. And as usual, terri turns it into an opportunity to bash Albus.

Comments

[traverse.livejournal.com]

It probably makes more sense to direct the questions to the authors if they are still around. Preferably without looking like all you want is attack them for their thoughts. 'Bashing' a fictional character harms no one, attacking a real person does.

It is generally recognised that a text can be interpreted on a number of levels: literal, allegorical, metaphorical, symbolic, moral, etc. The HP text makes numerous open and oblique references to mythology, folklore, alchemy, theology and so on (I am leaving aside the question of whether or not they work or if the author even understood them properly). Thus, there is nothing wrong in attempting to uncover what the text says on more than just the narrative level. Nothing wrong in trying to displace the authorial lens, either, as the author is often blind to what their text actually says. (Like Homer the blind poet - there is actually scant evidence that he was, but his apocryphal blindness has become a message in itself.)