by Mistress Siana » Friday 24 December 2004 3:30:16am
If there was anyone who could readily take over DD's place, then where would the sense of his death be? In my opinon, this is why he has to die: Because he will leave a gap than noone can fill. In this case, his death would take the order to a point at which winning the war seems impossible. This is necessary for the plot, because a victory that was never in danger won't feel like a victory at all. See what I mean? If there was someone to replace him, his death would be meaningless as far as the story developement is concerned.
About Snape...I've been thinking quite a lot about him, especially since OotP. I think he will never give up his conviction that Harry is like his father (and he's not entirely wrong at this point). Actually, I see it as a kind of irony in the story: From the things Harry got to know during the occlumency lessons, we've learned what kind of man Snape's father was. A hook-nosed greasy bustard, a brutal man embarrassing weaker ones, someone Snape feared and most certainly hated. And what is Snape now? A hook-nosed greasy bustard, mean and brutal, embarrassing weaker ones, like the man he hated. If it happened to him, why should Harry Potter, who, after all, adores his father, be different? Like father, like son.
I don't think they'll overcome their hatred, or even their disrespect; I guess that if Snape dies, Dumbledore will be the only one to care (unless DD dies earlier, that is). I think Snape will be a bitter, lonley, hated hero for whom nobody is going to cry, even if he saves the world. Actually, I like him best that way, it's so tragic.