Severus Snape is Ever So Evil (was: Re: BIG PROBLEM WITH FOURTH MAN! HELP!

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 38156

Cindy, coming to the rescue of the Fourth Man, quotes,

> Charis Julia:
> 
> > Right. DE roll—call:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > II) Dead:
> > Evan Rosier, Wilkies, Quirrell.

> 
> 
> All right.  I'm thinking this category of "Dead" might be the key to 
> saving Fourth Man from the Dastardly Third Man variant:
> 
>   "And here we have six missing Death Eaters . . . three dead in my 
> service."
> 
> Now, I'm not buying Quirrell as a DE.  I mean, Quirrell was probably 
> an innocent dupe.  If Quirrell is a DE, then wouldn't Snape know 
> this?  Or, at least, Quirrell and/or Voldemort ought to be 
> sufficiently worried about this not to try to steal the stone in 
> PS/SS.  I think Quirrell is just like Bertha -- strolling through the 
> forest and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eloise:
I don't think Quirrell *can* be a DE, can he?
My understanding of the situation is that he was a professor at Hogwarts who 
took a sabbatical *the year before* PS/SS  and that it was *then* that he met 
Voldemort and became a convert to his doctrine of 'no such thing a s good and 
evil, etc etc', before bringing him back to the UK. In other words, he didn't 
join Voldemort until (?10) years after his defeat.

Cindy:
> If so, then I have an open slot for a dead DE.  How exciting! 

Eloise:
Indeed we do! Intrigue, intrigue!

Cindy:
> would that be?  Crouch Jr., of course.  See, Voldemort isn't stupid.  
> Well, maybe he is.  But he's smart enough not to reveal to the DEs 
> that Crouch Jr. is alive.  Voldemort tells his DEs in the graveyard 
> that there are three dead DEs knowing full well that the number is 
> only two.  He's covering for Crouch Jr., which is kind of touching in 
> a demented sort of way.

Eloise:
That works for me.

Cindy:
> That's when it gets interesting.  If Voldemort has slotted Crouch Jr. 
> among the dead, then who is the faithful servant at Hogwarts?  Um.  
> Wow.  That's a toughie, isn't it?
> 
Eloise:
Well, only if we assume he's not into creative accounting. OTOH, no, Cindy, 
you *do* have a point. Everyone knows their place in the circle, don't they, 
so they know how many DEs/spaces there should be. Uh oh!

Cindy:
> It's Snape, of course!  Finally, we have proof positive that Snape is 
> not really a spy for Dumbledore, but is a double agent for 
> Voldemort.  Boy, Dumbledore is really going to feel silly when he 
> finds this out, don't ya think?  I mean, Dumbledore trusted Snape for 
> no good reason, and look how it is going to end up.

Eloise:
Now this I have to think about. I did propose it myself, or something very 
like it, once in a fit of complete paranoia. What are the possibilities?

1. Cindy is right.
Is it really possible that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is a sham? Well, 
he's apparently a spy. He must be able  to dissemble. Did he (as I asked once 
before) therefore recruit Pettigrew? Has he been preserving Harry to use his 
blood in that restorative potion when the time was right? Was he *really* 
trying to get the Stone for Voldemort himself? Reluctant as I am seriously to 
believe it, Snape is ambivalent enough a character that JKR could get around 
to pulling off that particular *volt face*, I think. Perhaps the lady doth 
protest too much (Hermione, that is) and it *is* all misdirection. He does 
refer to Voldemort as the Dark Lord, presumably a hangover form his DE days. 
An indication of loyalty, or something he wouldn't risk saying if he really 
were still loyal to Voldemort? Or simply an acknowledgement, from one who 
really knows, of the power of the enemy?

2. Voldemort *believes* that Snape is his Faithful Servant, but is actually 
wrong.
This could have some merit, I think. I think it was Tabouli who pointed out 
that it was the perfect cover for (loyal to Dumbledore) Snape to pretend to 
Voldemort that he was a double agent, to the point where he was outed 
publically as an ex-DE.

3. Voldemort is actully referring to Crouch/Moody. Well this is evidently 
what we're *supposed* to believe, at least by the denoument. It's what Crouch 
Jr himself believes (although this again could be misdirection). I am 
inclined to think, though, that the fact that Voldemort talks about how his 
Faithful Servant will rejoin him, at a that point we know is in between his 
torturing of Bertha for information and his arrival with Pettigrew at the 
Crouch home indicates that they are one and the same.

If Crouch/Moody is *not* the Faithful Servant, how does he fit into the 
scenario? His presence at Hogwarts is orchestrated by Voldemort, he is the 
one who transfigures the cup into a port-key and ensures that Harry reaches 
it. He is the one who has suffered Azkaban and imprisonment under the 
Imperius. We can't just say that he's a loose canon, working off his own 
initiative. He certainly wasn't working *with* Snape, as the evidence of the 
pyjama party shows.
 
Snape, apparently, has got away with his DE past, lived (recently, at least) 
a comfortable life and done nothing active towards bringing Voldemort back, 
at least until Voldemort's arrival at Hogwarts, if we are to accept an 
Evil!Snape interpretation. Not the sort of thing the Dark Lord appreciates. 

Cindy:
> So then.  Fourth Man is alive and well (although still rather whiny); 
> Third Man is DOA; Snape is Ever So Evil; Fudge is Ever So Evil; Moody 
> is Ever So Evil; the whole thing is sufficiently Bangy; and all is 
> right with the wizarding world.
> 
Eloise:
Well.....A nasty moment there. I don't think I can agree that Snape *is* the 
Faithful servant <sigh of relief>, but I do think Cindy is right in pointing 
out that we have an unidentified, dead DE. Any takers?

Eloise

Awarding Cindy a medal (three bars) for special services to The Order of the 
Flying Hedgehog. (What about Bagman, my dear. Has he been reprieved?)
And wondering just who will be accused of being Ever So Evil next? 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]