The Significance of the Foe-Glass

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 144024

> Leslie:
> You can theorize all you want about how perhaps Snape was crouch's 
> foe "just at that moment," etc. etc. etc.  But it would have been 
> quite easy for Rowling to avoid the matter entirely by not having 
> Snape in that particular scene.

Christina:

Not to mention the fact that JKR draws our attention specifically to
Snape's reflection in the foe-glass by having him stare at it.

We discussed the foe-glass way back in August in this thread:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136806

> truthbeauty1:
> I am not decided about Snape, however, if you look for both good
> Snape and bad Snape from this scene you can. If Snape is still a 
> true Death Eater, then one could simply say that all Death Eaters 
> who renounced Voldemort for whatever reason are Crouches enemies.

Christina:

That's a fair point.  However, the value in a foe-glass seems to be
that you can see your enemies approaching so that they cannot attack
you by surprise.  This suggests to me that the foe-glass shows not
people that you don't like, but people that are a *danger* to you.  In
this way, the foe-glass warns of impending danger.  BCJ is pretty
angry at the other Death Eaters, but they aren't really a threat to him.

>Leslie:
>And of course if Snape is with the forces of good at the end of GoF,
>he goes back to Voldemort as a double-agent for DUMBLEDORE, not for
>the Dark Lord.

Christina:

I don't so much mind a Currently!LV'sMan Snape as I mind a Snape that
was evil all along.  I think there's too much to explain away if you
try and make the case that Snape has always been on LV's side (the
foe-glass, Dumbledore's iron-clad reason for trusting Snape).  I find
it much easier to believe that Snape legitimately turned back to good
and then just became sick of Dumbledore's demands on him and decided
to return to his old ways.  Or came upon the situation in the tower
and said to himself, "Well now I'm in a pickle," and saw no other
option for himself.  Of course, none of these scenarios holds the
appeal for me that DDM!Snape (or, mostlyDDM!Snape) does, but I still
find them reasonable and defendable.

> truthbeauty1:
> I personally do not
> believe that Rowling will give anything away about Snape until the
> very moment that truth becomes paramount.

Christina:

Well, of course she won't be giving anything blatant to us, but there
are certainly clues.  She's given us enough that all of the three
major theories (DDM, OFH, ESE) can be relatively well-argued (which is
the basic problem for us now, isn't it?).  However, no matter what
direction she goes in the end, there has to be the groundwork for it
in the other books.  I believe that the foe-glass issue would be
particularly difficult to explain away (and was a completely
unnecessary addition to the book).


Christina