Snape: Evil or just doing his job?

[AyanEva]

No: HPFGUIDX 133196

I don't think I need the SPOILER space, judging by the other threads, 
but just to be on the safe side (because I go over A LOT of stuff in 
this post).

S
P
O
I
L
E
R


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spinelli372003" 
<spinelli372003 at y...> wrote:
> I have read and reread the ending of HBP.  I am also in the Snape
is 
> not bad camp.  He dislikes Harry.  No getting around that.  However 
> several things in that last sequence struck me as odd.  If he was
in 
> fact evil as so many have pointed out he would have killed Harry
when 
> he had the chance. Or he would have allowed someone else to do it.  
> Instead he put a stop to the spell that another had put on Harry 
> Getting rid of the pain Harry was in.  Also as we all know doing an 
> Unforgivable curse is cause for going to Askaban.  When Harry tries 
> to do them Snape stops him and says "No unforgivible curses for you 
> Potter" He is angry at Harry and says something to the effect 
> that "You would try to use my own spells against me?  Telling Harry 
> who his is when he could have at any time killed Harry.  So I am in 
> the Snape is not evil camp.  
> 
>



I haven't had time to read much of anything on this particular group 
(I'm ensconced in the 100 or so pages of posts at Diagon Ally at the 
moment, I'll hop on over here later tonight; hopefully. I have to 
finish the other discussion first), but here are the important posts 
that I made over on DA on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday right after I 
finished the book. Took me 12.5 hours from Saturday morning to
Saturday evening. I'm such a blabber mouth that I couldn't wait until 
Tuesday to discuss. This thread here is the first thread I saw on the 
Snape topic, so hopefully it's OK to post to this one. I did try to 
skim back a bit to see what had been discussed. I don't think I've 
repeated too many things. Some of my ideas changed a bit, but I want 
to give everyone a complete picture of some of my ponderings.

This is a little long and keep in mind that the following is actually 
quite a few seperate posts tens of pages apart. But they're all on
the same topic, ie: Snape good or bad and how to prove it? I'll try
repost them in chronological order and number them. Most people at
diagonally seem pretty firmly in the "Snape is good" camp, myself 
included.
Please forgive any improper abbreviations or grammatical errors, I 
did try to proofread, but it's an awful lot to proof and I'm certain 
that I've missed a few mistakes. Without further ado (and slightly 
edited for brevity...in a manner of speaking)...
----------------------------------

Post #1:

Something just seems off to me about Evil!Snape and Naive!Dumbledore. 
I'll admit that Snape is my favorite character, so it might seem like 
I'm digging desperately for reasons to prove that he's not evil. 
However, Snape isn't my favorite character because I like him, he's
my favorite character because he's intriguing. And after all is said 
and done in this book, I still don't feel as if I'm any closer to 
understanding him than I was before. There are a number of things
about his behavior and relationship with Dumbledore that just don't 
add up. I, for one, figured that Dumbledore probably wouldn't make it 
to Book 7 and I had a sneaking suspicion that Snape would kill him. I 
just could never figure out the circumstances that might surround 
such a scenario (and boy, was I ever wrong in my guesses!). Except 
that Snape would have to do it in order to prove his loyalty to 
Voldemort...even though he was still loyal to Dumbledore. So, here 
are my issues: [edit]: I feel I should add that I too still believe 
that Snape acted on Dumbledore's orders. The following list is why I 
still believe this.

1) I simply can't believe that Dumbledore would trust Snape for such
an unconvincing reason as, "Snape felt really, really bad about 
getting Lilly and James killed. No really, he felt super bad about 
it. Ok, let's give him a second chance!" I refuse to believe that 
Dumbledore is that stupid; he wouldn't have lived so long if we was 
that easily taken in. Even Remus is incredulous. I know that 
Dumbledore's "weakness" is looking for the good in everyone, but Tom 
Riddle didn't fool him even when Riddle was young, I'm sure Severus 
Snape wouldn't be able to fool him either. It just doesn't make any 
sense to me. There has to be another absolutely iron-clad reason that 
Dumbledore trusted Snape. Harry's only assuming that he knows what 
the answer is. I still think a magical binding of some sort is 
involved, I just don't know what. [HPFGU Note: For the record, I 
don't really think it was an Unbreakable Vow.] 

I mean, say you're Dumbledore. You know you've got a guy with some 
nasty tendencies, you want to keep him on your side. Furthermore, 
you're trying to lead the charge in a really important war. Would you 
just blindly trust him on good faith. Uh uh. I'd make him swear by 
magic or some such that he would be loyal to me. And Order of the 
Pheonix members. It would make sense if they had to sign some sort of 
magically binding agreement or something to keep their mouths shut. 
They've already seen what happens when people have lose tongues 
(Wormtail, though I wonder if he was actually in OOTP), I can't
believe Dumbledore would risk making the same mistake twice. This is 
one of the reasons why I can't believe that Snape would be able to 
pass on any truly revealing information to Lord Voldie.

2) Now, why did Snape save Harry's life so many times? Sure, he tells 
Bella that he didn't want Dumbledore to suspect him, but c'mon. All
he had to do was do nothing when Harry's broom was being cursed by 
Quirrel. Harry would've been out of everyone's hair. He didn't have
to referee that Quidditch match later on. He didn't have to lie to 
Umbridge about the Veritaserum. None of this fits in with his 
seemingly "true" loyalties in Book 6. In fact, his actions in Book 6 
seem a complete reversal and OOC from his actions in Book 5. I think 
that there's a hidden plan somewhere that's veered sharply to the
left and I think I must've missed the veering. Something just doesn't 
add up. 

The Veritaserum and flat out lying to Umbridge in Book 5 really stick 
in my mind. And yes, Snape is a skilled Oclumens, but we've been led
to believe that Dumbledore is an even more skilled Ligilimens. 
There's just no way that Dumbledore wouldn't have know something was 
up. And I can't belive for one instance that Snape saved Harry in 
Book 1 because he thought he might be the next Dark Lord whom he 
could follow. That's a really lame line of reasoning. The kid was 11 
years old! And if Snape was saving Harry to be killed by the Dark 
Lord...well, the Death Eaters who go along with that always baffled 
me. And Why did he show Fudge his Dark Mark in an attempt to convince 
him that Harry and Dumbledore were telling the truth in Book 4? If's 
he's completely on Voldie's side, wouldn't he want to be covert about 
it? Why try to warn the Minister of Magic? You'd be better served by 
letting the Minister lull the masses into a false sense of security. 
Doing otherwise just makes your Evil Overlord job harder. 

Although, I still think he was in that group of Death Eaters at the 
Quidditch World Cup (the flip-upside-down curse and all) in order to 
keep his cover. But now that I think about it, I wonder. Who was it 
that said that the flippy curse thingie was widely used during their 
Hogwarts years?

I can't shake the feeling that there are still some very important 
pieces missing to the Snape/Dumbledore puzzle.

3) I would expect that if Snape was passing Order information onto
Lord Thingie, more Order members/allies would be dead. Easy to make it
look like a series of valid targeted attacks without letting on that
you're the one passing information. After all, no one is safe now and 
half of the group are Aurors. Aurors would be natural targets. The 
other members are known Dumbledore allies, also natural targets.

4) Dumbledore didn't seem at all suprised that Snape showed up. In 
fact, I think someone mentioned this already, he really seemed to
waste an awful lot of time that could've been spent getting away 
talking to Draco. I mean, the conversation went on for 5 minutes and 
all the while, you could clearly hear the battle moving closer and 
closer. Why the heck would Dumbledore just chill there knowing that 
Draco's reinforcements are coming? And why keep Harry from 
interfering? Dumbledore could've stupified Draco as he came through 
the door, grabbed Harry and taken off on a broom. Why immobilize 
Harry, let Draco disarm him, and then waste 5 minutes talking to 
Draco while knowing that, not only is Draco not going to kill you, 
but that there are plenty of people coming behind him that could? And 
when did Dumbledore go front standing confidently and strongly while 
addressing Draco to slumping on the floor looking weak? Did I miss 
something? It was only a span of a few minutes! I mean, I know he was 
weak from the trip and all, but still... Speaking of which, I got the 
feeling very early on in the book that Dumbledore knew he didn't have 
that much longer to live. How did he know this? Why did he think 
this? What was the argument with Snape about? Snape said he couldn't 
continue to do "something", whatever "something" is... Whatever it 
was, he promised Dumbledore that he'd do it. They never said 
what "it" was. And the look of revulsion and hatred on his face. Was 
directed towards Dumbledore? Or towards himself? Angry at Dumbledore 
for making him do it? And I have an idea that Dumbledore was well 
aware that he was walking into a trap of some sort. 

5) Begging Dumbledore? Dumbledore never begs. It seemed a bit of a
put on. There's no way that he was begging for Snape not to turn bad; 
if Snape turned bad, Dumbledore would've known well before hand and 
wouldn't have wasted time begging. He also couldn't have been begging 
in general for his life to be spared. Dumbledore was never afraid of 
death. He just faced lord knows what on rock surrounded by Inferi(?) 
and now he gets all teary-eyed? No way. I think he knew what was
coming and wasn't at all suprised. Combing numbers 3 and 4, it seems 
more like Dumbledore was putting on a bit of a show for whatever 
reason. [HPFGU Note: I later reconsider this view and now believe 
that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to keep his promise and kill 
Dumbledore.] 

6) Why didn't Snape inflict more damage on Harry when Snape was
running with Draco? Most Death Eaters would pause and at least cast a
Cruciatus on someone. Snape just kept blocking the curses, if I 
recall. He only lashed out once after being called a "coward" and 
that curse didn't really do all that much damage. And what's with 
the "save him for the Dark Lord" bit in this specific case? Stupify 
Harry and take him with you. If anyone asks, Harry got injured and 
you're just getting him to safety. Simple. No one suspected Snape at 
that point, he could've done that. His only threat was Harry chasing 
him. Instead Snape just takes a prime opportunity to kidnap Harry and 
deliver him to the Dark Lord and wastes time throwing shielding 
spells instead of going on the offense. [HPFGU Note: As someone said 
on DA, I think this was Snape's final formal lesson to Harry, 
(paraphrased slightly) "Blocked again and again and again until you 
learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed."]

7) This bit just confuses me. Why offer your enemies a weakness by 
binding yourself to someone so that if they die, you die too? I
refer, of course, to the Unbreakable Vow. That's just stupid. There's 
a bigger reason for it. And why did he agree so readily? I know it's 
to keep Draco from getting killed, but what will the Voldemort say if 
a) he finds out that Draco didn't kill Dumbledore and b) Snape did
something completely insane like helping out Draco by agreeing to an
Unbreakable Vow. That shows an bizarre amount of disrespect for 
Voldemort...and that's unusual and dangerous for someone who 
professes to be a loyal servant. It also implies that said servant 
isn't quite as loyal as one might think. That's an act of total 
treachery against Voldemort, particularly since Voldemort was trying 
to punish the Malfoys. Voldie's bound to be a bit irate at Snapes 
interference.

-----------------------------------

Post #2:

I just had a crazy thought upon seeing this text from the book:

"He intends me to do it in the end,i think. But he is determined that 
Draco should try first. You see in the unlikely event that Draco 
succeeds, i shall be able to remain at hogwarts a little longer, 
fufilling my useful role of spy." [edit HPFGU: Haven't got a specific 
page number for this, sorry!] 


Now, who's this "he"? Snape seems the type of person, as any spy
would be, who is skilled at saying one thing, while meaning another. I
don't have my book in front of me at the moment, but based on the text
above, I do wonder who "he" is. Bella and Cissy think "he" refers to 
Lord Thingamajig, but you could just as easily insert "Dumbledore" in
every place where "he" occurs. A foreshadowing to the events 
surrounding Dumbledore's death that we missed, perhaps? 

It seems like something Dumbledore would do. Let Draco try to kill
him first for two reasons: a) The Dark Lord won't suspect that 
Snape's clued Dumbledore in on the assasination plot and b) Teach 
Draco a lesson and make him think. Throughout the whole book, as I 
said before, Dumbledore acts as if he knows his time is up. His 
reaction time is slower and Harry's almost ready to trek out on his 
own. Rather than get killed at a really inopportune time or become a 
hinderance, Dumbledore opts to check out early. Who better to do the 
job than a trusted and loyal ally? Rather that than an enemy. And it 
has the added bonus of keeping Draco alive; Dumbledore knew well 
ahead of time that Draco isn't really the sort of murderer that his 
father or Lord Thingy are. However, if Draco had succeeded in killing 
Dumbledore somehow, Snape could've kept his cover a little longer. 

Yeah, I know the above theory is wandering dangerously into left
field, but hey. *shrug* I just can't accept that Snape's bad, it just
doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense and if he truly is bad, then it's 
a total cop out and Dumbledore's a mere fool. I don't believe that 
Dumbledore has ever been a fool.
--------------------------------------

Post #7 (3-6 are inconsequential):

Chicky841 Said:

I personally think that R.A.B. is still alive, and that he is going
to help Harry to find the rest of the Horcruxes. I mean how is Harry
going to find the rest of them. He only has the barest idea of what 
the Horcruxes are, and I mean look how hard it was for Dumbledore to 
find out where they were hidden. And we actually expect Harry to be 
able to find them? In the note R.A.B. didnt say for sure that he was 
dead so there is still the possibilty. I think that for sure Harry 
will have some better help than Ron and Hermione. I also think that 
R.A.B. may be someone that we don't even know.

Now me:

I'm wondering if Snape won't somehow help Harry anonymously. [HPFGU 
Note: See below for my Patronus theory] Lord knows Harry's gonna need 
it, he's only a mediocre wizard and for all the books that Hermione 
reads, she's never going to know enough in the time given to help 
Harry figure this stuff out. I don't know what he's thinking striking 
out on his own without a gameplan. But I digress. 

How much did Dumbledore confide in him (Snape)? Snape knew about 
Dumbledore's hand, I'm assuming he had to have known what caused the 
injury. How would he have helped Dumbledore if he didn't know what 
cursed him? And why always Snape in particular? This makes me think 
that Snape knows about the Horcrux...whatever the plural is. If this
is so, then this implies to me that Snape also has to still be on the
good side because he had every opportunity to tell Bella and Cissy 
that Dumbledore hunting these things down and actively trying to 
destroy Voldie. But all he told Bella/Cissy was that Dumbledore 
wasn't as quick as he used to be and had a serious injury. I'm sure 
there are other explanations for why Snape mightn't have said 
anything, like he didn't want Bella to know the Thingie's weakness. 
But if so, you'd think he still would've said something 
like, "Dumbledore got injured when he was trying to find a way to 
defeat the Dark Lord. Serves him right, the stupid old Muggle Lover." 
Or maybe he did and I just don't remember.

I'm skeptical that RAB is going to be the one to help Harry because I 
think RAB is already dead. It's not McGonnagle (sp?) because she
hasn't a clue what's going on with the Horcruxes (Horcruxi, 
Horcruxen???). That could leave Aberforce since someone was 
mentioning that we still don't know what's up with him. But I think 
the person who seems most in the know, next to Dumbledore, is Snape. 
It seems that he's always been Dumbledore's right hand man. 

I also think that whoever said that Harry wasn't supposed to see who 
killed Dumbledore was absolutely right. I'm now wondering if, had
Snape not known that Harry saw him kill Dumbledore (or if Harry just 
plain hadn't seen), Snape still would have run away with the other 
Death Eaters. It would be just as easy for him to tell the rest of 
the DE's to, "Go report back to Voldie. I'll clean up here and spread 
some misinformation. Draco stay with me here at Hogwarts and shut 
up." And yes, I think Snape's still on the side of good. It's funny 
because he is the right hand man of Voldie-poo and was the right hand 
man (I think) of Dumbledore. But I'm wondering why, if Harry wasn't 
supposed to see Dumbledore's murderer, Dumbledore didn't just Stupify 
him instead of Petrificus Totalis-kinda him (I don't think it was 
exactly a Petrificus Totalis spell because don't people hit with that 
spell freeze and fall over? Harry just froze and stayed upright. But 
that might just be movie contamination about the PT spell). Come to 
think of it, the simplest explanation might be that the "freeze 
against the wall" spell was the first one that Dumbledore thougth of, 
or perhaps he was afraid that if Harry fell, the Invisibility Cloak 
would move about and uncover part of him. 

Ok, I think that's it for now. Oh, I also don't think Snape used the
AK curse because, as others have said, people don't fly up in the air
when they get hit with AK. I think the fall killed him, which is nice 
in that Snape could say, "I didn't kill him and neither did the fall. 
It was the landing that got 'im." Alright, I'm just amusing myself 
now. Naturally, everything that I've just said and most probably
completely wrong. [HPFGU note: See below about my crazy Horcrux 
theory involving the pseudo-AK curse casting]
-----------------------

A few more thoughts that I haven't posted elsewhere...

First off, the topic of Wizarding debts. Does the debt end when the 
Wizard to whom the debt is owed dies? If not, does Draco now owe a
debt of some sort to Dumbledore or Snape? Dumbledore for showing him 
mercy and Snape for saving his hide? Or, in Snape's case, is the debt
negated due to the Unbreakable Vow.

Secondly, Snape's Patronus. I think I mentioned in a post above about 
how I think Snape's going to help Harry with the 
Horcruxes/i/en...whatever. I'm thinking he might send information or 
communicate with the order via Patronus. JKR *did* say that Snape's 
Patronus would be important. 

Lastly, the spell that Snape used to kill Dumbledore didn't behave
the like the AK curse. Did we witness the creation of a Horcrux for
either Snape or Dumbledore. If so, and I think this theory is quite 
wrong, but interesting nonetheless...anyway, if so, was it a Horcrux 
for Snape or for Dumbledore. Snape seems more likely, but if both he 
and Dumbledore killed Dumbledore at the same time. I mean, Dumbledore 
drank that potion in the Pensieve-like bowl, which I happen to 
believe was a slow-acting and fatal poison, so he basically committed 
suicide. And then Snape went and offed DD for good, meaning that both 
Snape and Dumbledore had a  hand in killing Dumbledore. Again, I 
think this theory is really convoluted and completely wrong, but 
there ya go.

That's it for now. Sorry for the length of this! 


AyanEva