Bellatrix vs. Snape

Who would win a duel between those two characters, at the height of their characters and completely focused? Support your claim

Other urls found in this thread:

fanfiction.net/s/6163339/1/Harry-Potter-and-the-Descent-into-Darkness
fanfiction.net/s/8678567/41/A-Riddled-Universe
fanfiction.net/s/1806117/1/I-d-Kill-You-If-You-Weren-t-Already-Dead
fanfiction.net/s/11080542/1/Patron
fanfiction.net/s/5483280/1/Harry-Potter-and-the-Champion-s-Champion
fanfiction.net/s/9963013/1/He-s-Not-Dead-Yet
fanfiction.net/s/4714715/1/Renegade-Cause
fanfiction.net/s/11773877/25/The-Dark-Lord-Never-Died
fanfiction.net/s/8233288/1/Faery-Heroes
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>mommy bellatrix will never wake you up with a gentle handjob

Grow up

Snape is more techinically refined and mentally stable, he has an advantage.

/thread

Probably Snape.

Bellatrix has more raw magical potential, but Snape is an expert in legilimency and occlumency, allowing him to know what she is going to cast beforehand. And Bellatrix would have no chance at reading Snape's mind, since even Voldemort wasn't able to penetrate his defences.

Snape wouldn't lose to Molly.

Bella was an accomplished occlumens too. Voldy had her train Draco at it

Kek this

Who knows, but one things for sure is that this series is one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.