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

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

...Key word here being "invent."

[oryx_leucoryx]

Yes, we invent stuff in part to resolve contradictions in canon and in part to explain what canon doesn't explain yet we feel requires explanation. Rowling's world-building is paper-thin, the only way to make it satisfying is to invent things.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

We must not have read the same books.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

We must not have read the same books.

Ha ha ha! :-)

No, I think you've read the same books ... only some people's perusal was at a greater depth or level of comprehension than others. Or more demanding of what they read.

That's the secret to Rowling's success, after all, in my opinion - selecting a naive and undiscerning readership (children) who were happy to accept whatever they were told by Rowling's proxy (her exposition man, Dumbledore) and lacking the incentive or experience to delve deeper.

Those kids grew up thinking HP was great and are in turn reading it to their children ... and so the Rowling's indiscriminate audience continues to grow. :-(

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

I'm fond of HP overall, except OotP, which I like to pretend never happened, and DH, which was so depressing it hurt to read.