Spy vs. Spy (was: The Eggplant and Snape and I)

[Jessica Bathurst]

No: HPFGUIDX 139163

Original Jessica (OJ):
> > Either Snape was working alone

Eggplant:
>In which case it was an act of betrayal just as I said.

OJ:
> > or he had an agreement with Dumbledore.

Eggplant:
>Then Dumbledore really is senile and Snape should be reprimanded for
>taking advantage of him.

Current Jessica:
Having considered this further, I can't believe that Dumbledore would send a 
spy into Voldemort's camp without discussing with said spy the importance of 
maintaining cover, and what actions should be taken if that cover should be 
threatened.  Part of what interests me about this spy subplot is the sketchy 
morality it introduces into the Potterverse.  Once you've got a guy on "our 
side" who's asked to impersonate someone loyal to the enemy as part of some 
grand strategy, you have to consider how far you're willing to go to ensure 
that that spy will not be compromised.  How important is the spy to business 
you're conducting?  Should the spy maintain his position by any means 
necessary?  At some point, Dumbledore and Snape would have had to have this 
conversation, and beyond protecting the students, I can see a Dumbledore 
that tells Snape to do what needs to be done to make sure that he's in the 
Death Eater camp as long as possible.  Again, Dumbledore certainly thinks 
that his own life is of less value than the endgame: the destruction of 
Voldemort.  And the possibilities of a man in Big V's camp are endless:  
Snape may be feeding the DEs and Big V false information about the OoP's 
plans (and if I were Dumbledore, I'd make sure Snape had as little 
information about the actual plans as possible, so I don't think Snape knows 
about the Horcruxes.  Is there any canon definitively stating that he 
does?), he may need to available to clear a path for Harry to Big V, or he 
may take on Big V himself to buy Harry time, if necessary.

I'm not certain how to square the spy subplot with the thought that killing 
rips the soul, since that sort of dirty business abounds in the espionage 
game.  It seems a bit incongruous to me.

Eggplant:
>Dumbledore must think Harry and Snape are expendable too because he
>must know that one result of his "plan" is that if and when Voldemort
>is defeated Harry will dedicate his life to killing Snape.

Another interesting question:  would Harry seeking revenge on Snape after 
Voldemort is defeated be morally equivalent to Tom Riddle seeking revenge on 
his father?  After all, because of these men, Harry and Tom are orphans.  Of 
course, I'm being facetious here, but I think revenge is frowned upon in 
Harry's world, and I don't see him going off after Snape when the whole 
story is over.  It doesn't fit in with the whole "all you need is love" 
refrain.  (I'm whistling here.)

Eggplant:
>It is a fact that for 16 years Snape has been a good enough secret
>agent to fool either Dumbledore or Voldemort or both (I think both).
>You have to be pretty smart to do that and it would be
>uncharacteristically brain dead dumb to make a beginner's blunder like
>that (ed by Jessica: be taken in by Narcissa and make a UV without knowing 
>what it's all about).

Actually, hasn't Snape only been fooling Voldemort for the last two years?  
I assume only someone with a brain can read someone else's mind, so 
Voldemort has only been able to read Snape's since the end of GOF.   Has he 
been communicating with Snape in some other fashion for the prior 14?

Original Jessica, referring to the bell tower:

> > once Snape enters the room, any
> > surprise advantage he may have
> > is gone.

Eggplant:
>Not true, the Death Eaters think Snape is on their side and do not
>expect him to attack them.

Current Jessica:
I still think you can only attack one wizard at a time, although I'm 
woefully bad with weapons trajectory.  The DEs all have their wands out, and 
it wouldn't take much time for someone to figure out Snape was shooting AT 
them, not with them.  And this is how unarmed men get 37 bullets in the 
chest by merely pulling out their wallets.

OJ:
> > Snape kills one DE, he might have
> > enough time to kill another > before he's set upon by the > remaining 
>hyped-up and extremely
> > trigger-happy DEs, whom he will
> > then have to fight, along with
> > Grayback

Eggplant:
>Snape is far more powerful than the Death Eaters, I think he'd have a
>pretty good chance of killing them all in a surprise attack. And if he
>failed.,well. better to die than betray your friends.

Current Jessica:

But the endgame!  Whither the endgame?!?  How would the death of two 
powerful wizards on the OoP's side benefit anyone, especially Harry?

Eggplant:
>That is one of his (Snape's) goals; I think the other is to become the most
>powerful wizard in the world and to do that he must kill Dumbledore too.

I've actually posted this before (and to you, my dear aubergine!), but I 
post part of it again here:
What does Snape plan to do as head bad guy? I'd guess he'd start by 
eliminating his enemies, but there only appears to be about ten of them, and 
their number is dwindling by the month. What Snape's big plan? He's got 
somewhere between 20 and 40 Death Eaters (if they all make it), the giants 
(I think), and the Dementors (who are a wild card). Is he going to topple 
the Ministry? Operate a secret terror cell? Rid the UK of muggles? Invade 
Russia? (This, by the way, would be
poor strategic planning. I think we all know that. Brutal winters.)


Eggplant:
>But this (ed by Jessica: be taken in by Narcissa and make a UV without 
>knowing what it's all about) is so blatant, it would be such an incredibly 
>stupid thing to
>do, and this is Snape we're talking about. Do you really expect JKR to
>write her next book on this foundation? What a hideous turkey that
>would be! To make the good Snape theory work you must pile up stupid and
>uncharacteristic actions on top of improbable coincidences on top of
>illogical plans on top of a bad plot to produce a dreadful book. And I
>just don't think that's going to happen.

I know you're not accusing me of having a "good Snape" theory, because we 
went that round already.  I merely have a "not-evil" Snape theory, or 
possibly a "by any means necessary" Snape theory (which I will refer to as 
"Severus X." Privately.). I think we can't possible know what Rowling has in 
store for the next book, but I'm pretty sure that the spy subplot I'm so 
interested in will not figure as prominently as I would like it to.   I'd 
also be a bit disappointed if she went the whole "Snape fell to the dark 
side, but will have a moment of moral clarity just at the moment when Harry 
is about to be killed by Voldemort, and will save Harry by attacking 
Voldemort, destroying himself in the process."   Oh wait, that's "Star 
Wars."  My bad.

On that Lucas note, I'd like to point out to everyone who's been posting 
with the cheesy Rowling lines, at least she's never written this one:  
"Severus, hold me like you did by the lake at Hogwarts."  And for that we 
can all be grateful.

Yours,
Jessica, who's rambling because she's on a library computer with a time 
limit.  Stupid Florida.