Do the math Re: Medieval attitudes was Saving Harry

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 137831

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

> Pippin:

<snip>

> Both Evil Snape and Outforhimself Snape have to fool all
> the people all the time, for sixteen years. Good Snape can count on 
> Dumbledore's  support, knowing that Dumbledore understands he 
> has to maintain his cover. OFHS!Snape must constantly fear he will 
> give too much away.
> 
> Who do you think has the better chance of success?

Oh, I don't know--I do know that someone whose name begins with P 
continually puts the emphasis on how damnably *good* of an actor 
Snape is, which becomes the trump card in all situations.  Are you 
not going to give any mutation of Snape that, at least? :)

My reading of OFHS!Snape is quite content to meld into being Good!
Snape for the downtime; if not utterly sincere at heart, he's good 
enough to play the role.  He didn't do anything too overt to stir 
distrust**, and DD trusts him.  It might even be genuine enough to be 
easy to maintain, because he knows what a nice place to be that it 
is, and has no interest in the kind of faux-smoove games Lucius 
Malfoy is still wanting to play.  Then, when Snape is sent back to 
Voldemort he begins playing a very dangerous and tempting role--this 
is when he has to start fooling everyone, all the time.
 
> Pippin:
> Huh? Whether his motive was ideological or opportunistic,  if  
> Snape betrayed Voldemort in truth and not in seeming, he was at
> great risk if discovered, whether Voldemort initially ordered him to
> feign his defection or not. 

Well, yes.  That's the *if* that I'm asserting we can no longer take 
as absolutely rock solid.  I'm actually quite surprised to find 
myself questioning it, but I have the grounds to, now.

> Without knowing what it was that really convinced Dumbledore 
> that Snape had changed sides, or when it happened, it's impossible 
> to say when Snape's conversion took place, if at all. But if it 
> happened before Voldmort's downfall, as Dumbledore believes it 
> did, then it seems Snape's motives can not have been entirely 
> opportunistic. 

The question is raised by this book whether Snape's conversion was 
ever genuine, at all.  The scenario whereby Snape covertly sneaks 
over to Dumbledore, confesses all, and is from there on out utterly 
on Dumbledore's side is still eminently possible, but by no means the 
only option.  I'm throwing out the idea of Snape having gone over to 
Dumbledore to play the penitent on Voldemort's orders (which is what 
Snape tells Bella), and here's where the path branches:  

1.  Snape converts to Dumbledore's side wholly.
2.  Snape remains as Voldemort's agent, but DD thinks he's loyal to 
him.
3.  Snape is a genuinely active agent for both sides, with no set 
preferance of loyalty to one or the other.
 
Trying to be logically exhaustive here, we are.

**I don't know what it's telling of, but the Order, when told of 
events by Harry (incomplete/mangled or not), is awfully quick to turn 
on Snape.  That doesn't speak of any genuine trust between Snape and 
any other member of the Order--it all seems to have gone through 
Dumbledore, which is an utterly lousy model for trust.  Meaningful?  
Probably.  Meaning what?  No clue.

-Nora hums cheerfully and polishes a pair of Mary Janes