there're still a couple of stephen leather's books that i'm missing.

the long shot
double tap
vets
chinaman
fireman
bombmaker
pay off

sugarpie went to sengkang library today and found the chinaman and the bombmaker. i'm looking forward to it!

while i couldn't get his books, i borrowed some other books. the two john grisham books weren't as exciting. the plot is there, it's fine alright, but it's just not so engaging. read agatha christie and the stories are short, so they're easy to finish fast. but sometimes the stories are too slow, and i just don't feel like starting at all. i still have one jack higgins at home but i haven't started yet. i dunno how it'll be like, but i think i'll be reading the two stephen leather books first before i'll read that. haha.

mom's watching that korean show. the pace is really too slow. i can't stand it. i mean, the content is there, but the directing is simply ot my type. too slow.

i'm wasting time!!!

posted by Yee 10:38 PM

. . .

well if you haven't read harry potter don't read the previous entries. they're worse than spoilers.

i can't believe i'm actually sitting through the SUPERSTAR elimination episode.

lucky the horrible fella is out already. i can't stand him. cannot sing, cannot dance, and keep acting and 'flirting' with the audience with the notion that he's a hearthrob or something. oh puke.

posted by Yee 11:48 PM

. . .

ok. i change my mind. he's not a traitor.
i think snape acted under dumbledore's orders.

traitor-yes:
snape claims to be acting as a spy for both sides, but he actually is on the dark side, so he betrayed dumbledore!

traitor-not:
ditto but he is actually on dumbledore's side. to have to kill dumbledore and win voldy's trust, AND lose any support from the order, that would truly be tiring. maybe that's why he was arguing with dumbledore. this is certainly overworking him. couldn't it be? remember that argument hagrid told of. this is possible.

==

traitor-yes:
snape took the unbreakable vow with narcissa to help draco, so he had to complete what he had promised, that's why he killed dumbedore.

traitor-no:
snape might have also taken an unbreakable vow with dumbedore, pledging allegiance. to complete both vows, dumbledore might have give him these instructions.

==

traitor-yes:
snape felt that dumbledore was taking him for granted, so that may be why he defected. recall the argument.

traitor-no:
snape might have been referring to dumbledore's assumptions about voldy, and his faith that all could go according to plan. which wouldn't be entirely false because dumbledore would really be taking things for granted then.

==

traitor-yes:
in the argument that hagrid overheard, snape had said (at least, according to hagrid) that he didn't want to do it anymore.

traitor-no:
if snape didn't want to spy for dumbledore anymore, is it likely that he would tell him straight in his face that he'll be on the dark side? it's more like he's referring to a specific thing that he has to do.

==

traitor-yes:
when cornered by draco, snape and the death eaters, dumbledore had pleaded with snape not to kill him. "severus.. please.." and yet snape betrayed his trust!

traitor-no:
what if dumbledore was trying to encourage snape to go according to their plan? trying to give him courage to do so despite the difficulty and enormity of the risk in this gamble? remember that dumbledore had been persuading draco malfoy to come over to the right side, emphasizng that it was his mercy they're talking about. he couldn't be stupid could he, to speak like that even when he was cornered, and without his wand.

==

misc:
for the whole book, dumbledore had been doing so much to inform harry about as much as he knew. it was as though he was preparing to die already. of course, it might have also been just for insurance reasons. nobody's expecting to live for long now that voldy's back, but dumbledore should have a lot more confidence in himself.

more than once, dumbledore had been saying that harry's life was far more valuable than his. he kept saying that he was an old man, that his life was worth less. could it be that dumbledore had all in plan, and was prepared to die already, so it didn't matter if he died earlier?

dumbledore already knew malfoy was trying to kill him. he had wanted to protect malfoy. he certainly had more than enough time to make arrangements.

when harry was after snape's life, he kept attempting different curses to hurt snape, kill him. but "blocked again, and again, and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, potter!" snape was reminding him something, was telling him how important it was to master non-verbal spells. come to think of it, everytime there is something the students need to learn, hermione always seems to be the only one (if not the first one) to master it in put in into good use at the right time. she was definitely very good at her non-verbal spells, but i'm not banking on this as a supporting argument.

not forgetting when a death-eater had used the cruciatus curse on harry, it was snape who had hurriedly stopped the death eater and saved harry. snaped loathed harry so much, he could have let him roll in agony a while longer, he wouldn't die, which means he could still hand harry to voldy. but he hurriedly halted the death eater.

snape had told narcissa that he knew of "the plan" draco was involved in. yet he had cornered malfoy and questioned him of the plan. and he was also prepared to use legilimens to extract it out of malfoy if needed. it's so spy-ish!

but if dumbledore really instructed snape to do that, why didn't he tell harry? why make harry suffer? maybe it's because he knew nobody would agree. maybe harry had to be ignorant of it so that the plan can be carried out, so that nobody else would know, so that it would seem real enough.

could dumbledore be too trusting again? could he be foolishly believing in the good of people (or wizards, for that purpose) that gave snape the chance to betray him? but snape had already erred, dumbledore should be on guard and he would be prepared. don't forget, he was the greatest wizard of all times. he had already kept an eye on tom riddle 50 years ago even when every teacher liked him. how could he possibly not keep an eye on snape when everyone distrusts him?

when harry disappoints dumbledore (for so many times, we know) he is calm and quiet. that is his behavoiur in disappointment. when snape turned up after he was cornered by draco and the death-eaters, dumbledore had gone out of his way to plead "severus... please..." that was not dumbledore's behaviour. he never acts like that. he wouldn't plead for his life.

after running through the website, i can finally account for the "revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh linews of [snape's] face". it was not hatred for the headmaster, but hatred for what he had to do. this damned job that he dreads to complete. this mission that dumbledore has instructed him to undertake. like how harry was feeling earlier on. "hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, harry forced the goblet back towards dumbledore's mouth". so now we can account for the last bit of detail that was standing against the snape-is-not-a-traitor argument.

in all, the biggest reason for me to think this way:

dumbledore trusts snape, and we trust dumbledore.

posted by Yee 4:43 PM

. . .

i've finished reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
feeling murderous right now.
i hate the ending.
even the cruciatus curse doesn't seem to do enough justice to the traitor.
i am furious.
and i don't understand why rowling had to kill off so many characters.
fist sirius. now dumbledore. i would have given anything to keep dumbledore alive. why must she rob everyone of their hope? why? why must she disappoint everyone? why do we all have to bear with the guilt that we had been wrong?
i am so upset.
i bought the book this morning and finished it at night.
i wished i could have gone swimming, if not for the weather.
it would have been far more enjoyable swimming than to witness that end.
i still cannot get over it.

posted by Yee 10:59 PM

. . .