Snape: Evil, not evil, or the third option?

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 134239

I've seen a lot of speculation, and I have to say in general: where's 
some of the nuance?  I'm disappointed in y'all.  It's either "Snape 
is still good after all these years" or "Snape is evil and always has 
been".

How about: Snape has been playing both sides for years, or Snape went 
good but then turned against the Order?

First off, I agree that the immediate narrative function of ch. 2 
(Spinner's End) is to drop our jaws and make us go "That can't be 
real; no, it's too convenient."  However, it's always fun to consider 
the possibility that things are being hidden in plain sight.  So why 
lock ourselves into considering everything in the chapter either 
obviously true or complete BS spun merely for the benefit of Bella 
and Cissy?

Snape's reaction to Narcissa is, natch, really rather odd.  She pulls 
a romance heroine in distress on him, and it works--when he probably 
could have done as Bella says and wormed out of the committment?  
Very, very odd.  *waves to Neri*

What I offer to you is this:  Snape is the eavesdropper, reports back 
to his boss, and finds out that the Potters are targeted.  We are 
told remorse over this leads him to Dumbledore's side.  Harry scoffs 
because he knows what Snape thinks of James.  Lily is left prominent 
by non-mention in all of this.  [I posted thoughts about this whole 
thing at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/132993].  But we 
have another possibility; there's a double game going on here.  
Voldemort could well have *told* Snape to go and play the penitent; 
and there may well have been enough truth in Snape's story that a 
Legilimens like Dumbledore could have been fooled by an Occlumens 
like Snape.  Hence, Snape is in the perfect position to ride things 
out.

Fast forward to Harry's arrival at school.  Snape is playing a 
careful game, but is pretty much on the side of the angels for books 
1 and 2.  Jump to book 3, which is where we get canonical statements 
like Snape looking at Dumbledore with resentment, and his "only hope 
DD isn't going to interfere" line.  As Pippin keeps telling us, 
resentment is a powerful motivator, and the result (if you don't want 
to wash the dishes) is something of a Maverick!Snape, for whatever 
reason.  Book 4 Snape is wary because he knows things are going on, 
and keeps up reporting to Dumbledore and getting info.  At the end of 
the book, he goes back to Voldemort two hours later and manages to 
not be dead.

Now, book 5, we have DoubleAgent!Snape out for himself on the loose.  
We have little idea what he's doing for the Order that has actual, 
concrete results.  We know he's possibly a pretty lousy Occlumency 
teacher, and there's the other intriguing possibility of that time 
gap at the end of the book (if I could only find post numbers!).  
Very gratified he is to have an old enemy knocked off.

Book 6 Snape is playing a very dangerous game, and one that I don't 
think anyone has enough evidence to completely clarify.  But I hope 
I've argued that Snape being evil at the end of book 6 (for in JKR's 
world, out utterly for yourself and evil are much teh same thing) 
does not have to mean that he was always utterly evil.

Why do I like this?  It's BANG-y, to have Harry have been wrong (and 
genuinely so) and then have Harry be right, for once.

It reinforces the idea of "don't trust in anyone's assurances as if 
they were received truth," and puts emphasis on how Dumbledore never 
shared information that affected other people (and thus they had some 
right to know).  Is it telling that DD refuses to discuss why he 
trusts Snape during his big mea culpa at the end of OotP?  I think it 
may be.

It makes this Snape a tragic figure, who had a place to atone for his 
crimes as a DE, and gave it up out of resentment and a desire for 
self-advancement.

It's not airtight--what is?--but it's more nuanced than a straight 
read of Spinner's End Snape, and it fills in holes that RightHandMan!
Snape (and per interview, DD has no confidantes) doesn't.

-Nora notes that, in response to Carol's speculation, all Patroni so 
far seen have been animals, and thinks she remembers an answer to 
that question somewhere