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

[oryx_leucoryx]

If cruelty to children is such a hot issue for you why do you object to Albus-bashing? After all, he was the one who was running the dystopic mess that was Hogwarts for decades. He was the one who enabled and engaged in cruelty to children.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

I object to character-bashing, period, regardless of whether I like the character or not.

Since when is Hogwarts a dystopic mess, aside from Umbrige's reign in OotP and the events of DH? Maybe its safety standards were not always the highest, but I wouldn't call it a dystopia.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Some people in the fandom define 'bashing' as 'negative opinions on or criticisms of character X', where X is a person those people behold in a favourable light. They don't like their favourite character being maligned and so rush to label the opposing view as 'bashing', hoping such a (pre-emptive) move means they are excused from any real debate on the criticism which might require their mustering a defence.

I myself think the proper definition should have a qualifier prepended - 'unjustified negative opinions on or criticisms of ...'. And the fun is then in seeing how someone you first thought was a simple 'basher' might just have good rational reasons for his portrayal of the character.

Maybe 'bashing' is a little more complicated, only pertaining to criticism of characters that Rowling/Harry want us to like? There's probably not many people who worry about Umbridge bashing, after all. So change the above to "where X is a person those people/Rowling/Harry behold in a favourable light".

I guess 'bashing' in fanfics is a little different - "unjustified exaggeration of a character's negative characteristics"? I'm thinking of some Ron-bashing stories I've read ... very funny, but still 'bashing' - I'd never try to argue that the characterisation in those stories was accurate.

(Ginny bashing, on the other hand, is impossible ... :-))

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

Some people in the fandom define 'bashing' as 'negative opinions on or criticisms of character X', where X is a person those people behold in a favourable light. They don't like their favourite character being maligned and so rush to label the opposing view as 'bashing', hoping such a (pre-emptive) move means they are excused from any real debate on the criticism which might require their mustering a defence.

Maybe so, but I'm not one of them.

And Ginny-bashing is entirely possible. I've seen far too much of it.