What exactly did Snape do in OOTP?

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 129333

Steve wrote:

<snip most of great double-double agent theory>

> My main point is that by being a double-double agent (or whatever)
> Snape's APPARENT loyalties are meaningless because they are expected
> as part of the game. It's this presents of /apparent/ loyalties and
> the ambiguity of true loyalties that allows Snape to be a spy. Once
> again, we can give no weight to Snape's displays of loyalty to either
> side because that is how the game is played.
> 
> That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Julie says:
I agree that Snape is playing both sides, and is a double-double 
agent as it were. I can't imagine it is easy, and I wonder when 
people do this in real life if they actually lose track of where their
true loyalties are! (Or even change their loyalties periodically.)

However,  I do think as readers we can choose to give weight
to Snape's displays of loyalty based on how we feel about 
Dumbledore's intelligence and perceptive powers. Dumbledore
tells us over and over that he trusts Snape. If we believe he
is able, through accurate perception or legilimency, to gauge
Snape's true loyalty, then we too can assume Snape's loyalty
is to the Order. That is my own stand. I do know Dumbledore 
is not perfect, and has made several mistakes in judgment, but 
here I think he is right. 

I will also admit here that I think Dumbledore is right less 
because of his apparent perceptive powers than because I
believe JKR *intends* him to be right. She's allowed him to
display poor judgment several times, but letting DD be wrong
about Snape would take DD's fallibility too far I think. Snape
being evil would also be too pat and obvious, IMO. If there is a 
major traitor to be revealed, it will be someone far less obvious,
someone like Minerva McGonagall (though I hope it's not her). 

Julie 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]