:: Inside My Head :: Pillow Talk :: Herstory :: Voices & Heralds :: Amaturefile :: U Speak :: Headless Chest :: Home ::
Potter Post!
Spoiler Alert! This post contains information from the last released Harry Potter book, "The Half-Blood Prince." Don't read this post if you don't want to know what happens!
Accidentally, I'm in love with Professor Snape.
Well, ok - "in love" is probably not the right term, but if he was real and if I lived at Hogwarts, I would be in love with him.
I just have this thing for tortured, tormented intellectuals with long hair.
Wait a second - that sounds like me!
Anyway, I have just joined the Harry Potter "fanwagon" - so I know that the argument concerning Professor Snapes' innocence or guilt has already peaked and now most people are simply waiting for the final book. In other words, this old news.
But it's new to me!
So I share!
Ok, thing number one. Innnocent or guilty are the wrong terms.
A bit more simplistic, yet better for the discussion are the terms "good" and "bad."
Thing number two: Professor Snape is on the good side.
My first and foremost reason simply comes from "knowing" him. I don't know how else to say it, so I won't keep talking about. Just...I know him and he's good.
So I start with a bias, oh well.
Thing number three: A list of clues and reasons to point that he is on the good side.
1) Dumbledore begging for his life? Give me a break.
2) Dumbledore and Snape arguing (Hagrid overhears it). Do you really believe Snape would argue with Dumbledore if Snape was in the service of the Dark Lord? Snape is too tricky for that. A frontal attack on Dumbledore - never, never. They were arguing because Dumbledore had ordered Snape to kill him if and when the time came.
3) Snape has pity on Draco because he sees him leaning towards (and going to) the dark side. He makes the Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco and to "do the deed" for Draco if needed. I am fully convinced that Snape decides at that moment that he will protect Draco, yet not kill Dumbledore and instead die for breaking the Unbreakable Vow. He choses to lay down his life for Draco and Dumbledore.
(As a tag to the above comment - we know that there were three boys who could have fulfilled the Prophecy - and we know that Harry is the one, that Neville could have been...but we don't know who the third boy was. I believe it was Draco as he is unable to take the Apparating test because he is underaged - like Harry (the Prophecy says that the boy will be born in late July). This of course is an interesting twist because the prophecy says that the parents of the boy denied the Dark Lord three times before the boys were born, so what can we make of the Malfoys now? I don't know...)
4) I believe that Snape was in love with Harry's mother. Thus, tortured and tormented for many reasons concerning Lilly's life and death. Or maybe Draco's mother... I don't know exactly, but I think he has the feel of one who has loved and been rejected. Who knows? Maybe we'll even have a "Luke, I am your father" moment! Haha! Not really. I don't think JKR would do thta.
5) Ron and Hermione (and I think Ginny too) all drank Felix Felixer (or whatever that stuff was called) which we all saw how well it worked for Harry - leading him along in good fortune for Agrog's burial. Yet, we can hardly say that Ron and Hermione were fortunate that night that the Death Eaters entered the school and Snape did the deed. Unless, that is, we believe that the outcome was indeed good.
6) Snape, if he were evil, could have killed so many more people that night, but he didn't. He obviously was "blowing his cover" if he were on the dark side, so why not kill more people?
7) As Harry is chasing after Snape and begins firing curses at him, Snape not only blocks them and doesn't retailate (which even if he was suppose to save Harry for the Dark Lord, if he was evil, he would have at least tortured him) but is still giving instruction to Harry. He says something like Harry has to "learn how to shut his mouth and his mind when in battle." Meaning, of course, that if Harry will win a duel, he must be able to strike without verbally speaking the attack as well as protecting his mind so the enemy cannot see inside and know what he is planning. Why would Snape do this, if he were waiting for the Dark Lord to kill Harry?
8) When Harry calls Snape a coward, Snape's screams at him to not call him a coward and Harry sees Snape's face lose the stony arrogance and transform into sheer pain. I think Snape, because he was orderd to kill Dumbledore and because he had to protect Draco, had to screw up more courage than ever before, yet his courage is completely under the radar and he is the only one who knows what he has done. There is no more courageous place to stand than all alone, doing what is right, when everyone things you are evil. When Harry called him a coward, Snape not only heard Harry, but the echos of years gone by.
And that is why Snape is on the good side, though sadly I must say that I think he really did kill Dumbledore. Tortured and tormented, he must come to be understood in the final book.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 11/28/2005 12:11:00 PM | (0) comments
Listening
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Listen to me when I speak...
There's a pond, a tree and the bullrush.
In the wind...
They rustle and rattle, it ripples, they reach.
Listen to me when I speak.
Did
You
Hear
Me?
Or did you hear "what's hidden beneath?"
There's a pond, a tree and the bullrush.
In the sun...
They pop and float, it glitters, they reach.
Listen to me when I speak.
Did
You
Hear
Me?
Or still you imagine what lies beneath?
There's a pond, a tree and the bullrush.
In the rain...
They bow and stand, it dances, they reach.
Listen to me when I speak.
Did
You
Hear
Me?
I'll say it again and surely you'll see...
There's a pond, a tree and the bullrush -
Aren't they nice?
But it's lunch and I've got to get something to eat.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 11/23/2005 03:08:00 PM | (3) comments
Keeping America Great
I was thinking about the United States the other day. I was thinking about how we are the most self-critical nation I know. It's a good thing, you know? I mean when in all of history did the "World's Super Power" encourage self-criticism?
Never.
So cheers to all you people who think we suck! Really! Bottoms up!!
I was listening to some NPR program discuss how we suck because of our relationship to the World Bank. I took a World Bank class once - one of the most intense classes I've ever been in. It was a graduate level history course at Western Michigan back before September 11th. There were about 25 people in the class, but only three of us were US citizens. That doesn't make me an expert, but I do get to have an opinion now!
The World Bank can be complicated issue. Here's a thumbnail sketch from my memory. There are two main types of loans offered by the WB today - the first kind of loan is for countries who need some help but are not completely destraught. If you'll allow me to use the term - the "2nd World" countries. These loans carry the going market rate of interest.
The second type of loan goes to countries who are extremly impoverished and the "interest rate" is something like .08% of one cent - like if I loaned you a dollar under these conditions, you would owe me .08 of penny when you paid it back.
The WB is set up so that contributing countries (those who give money to the WB) have decision making power based on the amount of contribution. The US, of course, is the largest contributor and has the most power, but not overwhelmingly. If Japan (who was the 2nd largest giver) were to make a pact with almost any other country, it could outvote the US.
Now in the history of the WB, there have been some dumb decisions. The two that come to mind are the following. In the beginning, the WB lent to countries ruled by greedy dictators who had no accountability. This is why Marco's wife had all those shoes. She was using - they were using - loan money from the WB (and probably also the IMF) to fund their highlife, not help their people. And of course, when the crap hit the fan, the country (ie - The Philapean Islands) had signed for the loan, not Marco, so the people were left holding the bag.
The emptly bag.
As most of these dictators just sailed away to a some island and lived off their fat bank accounts until they died.
Because that was dumb, the WB tried to do something smart, but was mostly dumb if only seen in hindsight. The began to attach their loans to projects. For example, the Aswan Dam, or various other projects. You can see their logic, can't you? No more loans to dictators, only to projects. Visable results, and we don't mean shoes.
But of course, because people are people, the WB wasn't always culturally sensative, and just went around assuming that everyone wanted a capitalist system (except the commies, and as you might remember, we were really in to helping little countries not become communist bastards.)
So, ok. Bad WB. And bad US for leading the WB that way. (Never mind that there was virtually no dissent among the other contributing countries.) Everyone yelled, and the WB stopped doing the project loans. And so here we are today - and still the good folks interviewed on NPR think the US sucks because it is the leading contributor and most powerful voter in the WB.
"We want equal votes, not votes based on contributions!"
Ok, so then let's have equal contributions too, yeah?
"Oh no! The US is obligated to contribute more than the rest of the world because it is the leading superpower!"
I'm sorry. I don't really follow the logic.
But hey...
Bottoms up! You keep America great!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 11/23/2005 02:14:00 PM | (1) comments
November Snow
Courtesy of friend Ann's photographic gifting...the November snow in her neighborhood.
I enjoy the snow, I do. I do until February, that is.
But the first snow is always magical they say.
Magic is in the eye of the beholder, I think. It is humbling to hold your reality lightly. Humbling to know that your world isn't the world. It draws me to you. It tells me I must listen and learn from you and together we form a clearer picture.
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 11/20/2005 05:59:00 PM | (0) comments
Answer Number Seven!
7) I often deny my internal feelings in order to function in day to day stuff.
FALSE!
There was a time when emotion was immobilizing. There was a time when sadness and tears were excellent reasons for me to call off work for a day. In fact, if you were to look at my school grades during those times, you would see that all things turned in were given good grades, but most things were...simply...not turned in...at all.
This is because I was the kind of person who could not function in the day to day routine when faced with unhappy emotions. But that was years and years ago.
Perhaps you believe that I learned how to function by denying my emotions - or by "compartmentalizing" as my friend the Human Puzzler says? Put my emotions in their box, and go to work... It certainly seems like the "other choice", doesn't it?
I have recently been fascinated with the language people use to speak of their feelings. They say things like, "I need to get my emotions under control." They also say, "My heart says one thing and my head says another" as well as the above mentioned "compartmentalize."
Language has powerful shaping ability. I believe we have the ability to create our own realities - even societal realities - by the language we use. These realities do not always (or perhaps even often) correspond to the Truth, and to the extend that they do not correspond - that is the extent of the damage that we do to ourselves and each other.
When we speak as though our emotions are things that exist apart from us - be they controlling or controlled - we are fracturing ourselves into pieces...
Stop doing that!
There is a way to be whole - to choose neither to deny feeling in order to work or deny work in order to feel. The best way I know to explain what can happen is to ask you to think of yourself as an artist. As an artist, you will never cease to care about the quality of your work. As an artist, you will never cease to throw yourself into your work. And as an artist, what you produce is the gift of yourself to those around you.
But then comes the question - would you want the gift of you? Is the gift of you valuable?
This cuts both ways.
On one hand, we seem to be a culture phenominally poor at recognizing value unless it is reduced to the simple formula "more for less" with the added tag line "all things exist for your pleasure." So there is an ignorance concerning quality. We are used to things that look identical to each other rolling off the factory line - they're cheap, there's a lot of them and they look just like the Jones'. Because of this, producing the gift of your full self - be it in service, in planning, in production, in counceling - may not always be appreciated.
What a loss to those who can't appreciate. And what a great way to begin to challenge the culture around you! It is a risk you take and yes, you will be persecuted - but it will be for a good cause...
But I said it cuts both ways...and so it does.
While it is popular to say that everybody has value and everyone's expressions are valid - blah! Enough! The truth is that if I'm the kind of person who has feelings of contempt for those around me, then the gift of my full self is not very valuable at all! If I am the manager of some store, and I pour my full self into my work, as an artist does, and my full self is spiteful and mean and selfish - then the gift of me is NOT as valuable as, say what the gift would be if Mother Teresea was the store manager.
So yeah, there is such a thing as bad art.
And that is of course, the risk of the other angle. If you pour your full self - emotions and actions, thoughts and history, dreams and goals, all of it - if you integrate yourself into a whole person and act out of that - you will discover the uglies within. And so will everyone else.
But that's a good thing - right yall?
Practical Application: When I speak, I mean exactly what I say. DON'T "arm-chair psychologize" me! GRRRRrrrrrrrr!!!
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 11/09/2005 09:59:00 AM | (9) comments
Answer Number Eight!
8) I believe in the supernatural.
TRUE...and FALSE!
It's a bad question really, because the term "supernatural" means about a bazillion different things to a bazillion different people. I should have been more clear.
If "the supernatural" is God, well yeah. I believe in God. She is "super" or "above" nature because God is the creator of nature.
But all the other things supernatural could mean - from ghost and goblins to prophecy and healing ? Well, no. I don't believe.
I don't believe that they are supernatural. I believe they are completely natural.
Which is to say, very simply, that I think there is one division in the world that is of any significance - namely, the division between God and everything else.
God = Super + nature or supernatural.
Everything Else = natural.
So, we all have frameworks through which we see the world.
Americans and the rest of the world.
Men and women.
Leaders and followers.
People and natural resources.
Kind, smart people and the Republican Party.
(Just kidding! That's for my liberal friends!)
It's not that factually these divisions are mere conjecture, but instead that they are not divisions of any great significance in light of the division between Creator and creation.
BUT MORE THAN THAT...what significance do they have at all when you consider how this great divide between God and creation was bridged in the being we call Jesus, the Messiah, the God Human?!?
And so we can say, like that guy named Paul who wrote a lot of letters to the first churches over in Asia...
There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ.
So what of ghosts and goblins? Healing and prophecy? Yes, I suppose I can't end without really addressing the most common understanding of this word supernatural.
Ghosts? Who knows what happens exactly when we die? I don't. But I do know that God is God over the living and the dead, so I'm not worried.
Goblins? I don't know exactly what a goblin is, but regardless, if there is a reality of something like a goblin, it still belongs to the realm of the created, not the realm of the Creator.
Prophecy? Tongues? Healing? All those weird things that Pentecostals do?
So do many other religions...
Those things known to Christians as spiritual gifts - including both the "Pentecostal" gifts and the "Baptist" gifts - are to my mind, all within the realm of the natural. They are part of the creation known as humanity.
In fact, if there is anything "supernatural" at all about the spiritual gifts, it is that we respond to the Spirit who calls us to rise above our own little needy self - indeed, our fractured humanity - and consider others highly enough to offer our gifts to their service.
Did you ever have a teacher who saw you as of greater importance than himself?
Did you ever see preacher who thought herself inferior to her congregation?
Don't be too disturbed by the words "greater importance" or "inferior" - they are only ways of talking. Those who truly see themselves as inferior look quite different than those who serve, and in that way become, for lack of a better word, "inferior."
Anyway...
Practical Application: Put your hocus pocus back in the bag baby, cause I ain't impressed! But tell me now, is there any balm in Gilead?
If you believe there was any clarity in this post, the credit should go to The Human Puzzler, Mike Wittmer - author of Heaven is a Place on Earth, and the guy we speak of when we say, "My pastor can hit a home run, what can yours do?"
posted by Headless-in-GR @ 11/02/2005 09:02:00 PM | (2) comments
Inside My Head
Take a look!Top of Page
Pillow Talk
My Romance With Books, Pillow Talk.Top of Page
Herstory
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Link Here
Top of Page
Top of Page
AKA Horsewoman
Run For The Roses
Top of Page
Amaturefile
Coming soon!
Top of Page
Headless Chest
Top of Page
Copyright © 2005, All rights reserved, So Close to Real and Dramatic Design
Any problems with this website should be directed to: webmaster@dramatic-design.com
Special thanks to Devilgas Photographic for the background image.
