.....dedicated to the proposition that Dumbledore is not dead.
Some people, one, take this stuff waaaay too seriously, and two, have far too much time on their hands, but still the site author makes some darn good points, IMO.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Sometimes "throwing up ones hands and walking away"...
....is the only sensible thing to do.
This is in response to the head of Lincoln, UK's Anglican cathedral which has accepted -- in lieu of thirty pieces of silver -- an estimated $180,000 for that church to double as Westminster Abbey in the filming of "The DaVinci Code", per CNN.com.
Oh, he acknowledges the book's storyline is "farfetched and heretical" but why should that be an insuperable obstacle?
According to him, the fact the book has "touched the public imagination" is justification for permitting the church of which he's in charge to be used to promote farfetched heresy.
Of all the trashy pieces of fictional theological tripe (barring the Book of Mormon, another work of fiction that has regrettably "touched the imaginations" of too many people), "The DaVinci Code" has to be among the worst, with the potential to do massive harm.
What Tom Hanks can be thinking of, to involve himself in this thumb-in-the-eye to the LORD, I can't imagine. Envy of Mel Gibson, perhaps, and last year's blockbuster "Passion of the Christ"?
Whatever, it's deplorable.
This is in response to the head of Lincoln, UK's Anglican cathedral which has accepted -- in lieu of thirty pieces of silver -- an estimated $180,000 for that church to double as Westminster Abbey in the filming of "The DaVinci Code", per CNN.com.
Oh, he acknowledges the book's storyline is "farfetched and heretical" but why should that be an insuperable obstacle?
According to him, the fact the book has "touched the public imagination" is justification for permitting the church of which he's in charge to be used to promote farfetched heresy.
Of all the trashy pieces of fictional theological tripe (barring the Book of Mormon, another work of fiction that has regrettably "touched the imaginations" of too many people), "The DaVinci Code" has to be among the worst, with the potential to do massive harm.
What Tom Hanks can be thinking of, to involve himself in this thumb-in-the-eye to the LORD, I can't imagine. Envy of Mel Gibson, perhaps, and last year's blockbuster "Passion of the Christ"?
Whatever, it's deplorable.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Well, I was convinced Dumbledore's dead...
...for good and Snape is truly on Riddle's side, but Charles has put some doubt in my mind.
He points out that when Dumbledore pleaded with Snape at the end, he didn't actually say "Don't kill me" or "Help me," but just "Please, Severus."
Charles' is convinced that if Draco Malfoy hadn't killed Dumbledore as instructed to by Riddle, Malfoy would die, and this is what Dumbledore and Snape were preventing. There was The Unbreakable Vow at the beginning of the book, after all.
This is a possibility, and though Dumbledore didn't much care for Draco, he'd definitely prefer to die himself if it'd save the boy's life.
OTOH, Dumbledore did say in his first "private lesson" with Harry that when he (Dumbledore) makes a mistake, it tends to be on a massive scale. (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) It's not outside the realm of possibility his trust of Snape will stand revealed as one of his few, rare mistakes in judgment.
Talk about opportunity missed, however! If I were Professor MacDonagall, now acting headmistress, one of my first official duties would have been to formally fire Snape, and expel Draco.
Actually, Draco's being in Hogwarts at all puzzled me. His father is in Azkaban, publicly revealed as a Deatheater, right? It's been awhile since the last book was published but I seem to recall, and what I've read in this book supports it, that Lucius Malfoy was shown to be a supporter of Riddle. So what the deuce was his kid still doing in Hogwarts? I'd have thought it'd have been made plain to his family that under the circumstances, Draco wouldn't be welcomed back.
And that's another thing . . . what's with "Lord Voldemort"? Oh, I certainly understand why he doesn't want to be known by the name of his nonmagic father - especially as the creep dumped his unborn son and his wife - but still, why pander to his vanity by referring to him with an unearned honorific? Being a follower of the Dark Lord, Voldemort, is far more appealing than being a follower of Tom Riddle, after all.
This was a good book . . . much better than the last one, which I didn't particularly care for and have never reread.
He points out that when Dumbledore pleaded with Snape at the end, he didn't actually say "Don't kill me" or "Help me," but just "Please, Severus."
Charles' is convinced that if Draco Malfoy hadn't killed Dumbledore as instructed to by Riddle, Malfoy would die, and this is what Dumbledore and Snape were preventing. There was The Unbreakable Vow at the beginning of the book, after all.
This is a possibility, and though Dumbledore didn't much care for Draco, he'd definitely prefer to die himself if it'd save the boy's life.
OTOH, Dumbledore did say in his first "private lesson" with Harry that when he (Dumbledore) makes a mistake, it tends to be on a massive scale. (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) It's not outside the realm of possibility his trust of Snape will stand revealed as one of his few, rare mistakes in judgment.
Talk about opportunity missed, however! If I were Professor MacDonagall, now acting headmistress, one of my first official duties would have been to formally fire Snape, and expel Draco.
Actually, Draco's being in Hogwarts at all puzzled me. His father is in Azkaban, publicly revealed as a Deatheater, right? It's been awhile since the last book was published but I seem to recall, and what I've read in this book supports it, that Lucius Malfoy was shown to be a supporter of Riddle. So what the deuce was his kid still doing in Hogwarts? I'd have thought it'd have been made plain to his family that under the circumstances, Draco wouldn't be welcomed back.
And that's another thing . . . what's with "Lord Voldemort"? Oh, I certainly understand why he doesn't want to be known by the name of his nonmagic father - especially as the creep dumped his unborn son and his wife - but still, why pander to his vanity by referring to him with an unearned honorific? Being a follower of the Dark Lord, Voldemort, is far more appealing than being a follower of Tom Riddle, after all.
This was a good book . . . much better than the last one, which I didn't particularly care for and have never reread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
