What would a successful AK mean?

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 142849

In message 142693 Nora said:

"Agency seems to be important for fault to accrue (which is why
the 'it wasn't actually an AK' is so important to keeping Snape
clean, isn't it?)."


It is true that a lot of discussion has centered on the idea that the 
spell Snape used on the tower was either not an AK or if it was an AK 
it wasn't a successful one.  What I would like to ask is this: What 
would a successful AK mean?

The AK has been presented to us as an Unforgivable.  It is one of the 
few things that have been clearly and specifically delineated in the 
books as absolutely and totally wrong for all wizards, full stop.  Of 
course, even that has an exception as we hear about Aurors being 
allowed to use Unforgivables.  Nevertheless, so far we have seen only 
truly evil characters casting successful unforgiveables.

So, if it really was a true AK, what would that mean?  Would it be 
possible for Snape to be truly and completely on the side of light if 
he indeed used a real unforgiveable?  I think many people sense that 
the answer to that is "No," and hence we have an argument about 
whether he really cast an AK.

As I see it we have three possibilities if the AK was genuine and 
successful:

1) Snape is evil.  Very straightforward, if not particularly 
interesting.

2) Snape is good and his use of the AK is a special case, as with the 
Aurors.  Okay, but that's hard to swallow, especially as Snape isn't 
an auror and even the aurors' use of unforgiveables is presented to 
us in a way that makes them seem morally questionable.  Why would a 
good Snape who wanted to kill Dumbledore use an AK?  There would be 
many other ways to kill the man without resorting to an 
Unforgiveable.  Is that because it's what a DE would do?  But why did 
the DEs in the ministry at the end of OOTP seem so reluctant to use 
them?

3)  We are supposed to take the word "Unforgiveable" as being 
literal, morally if not always legally.  Thus if Snape did indeed use 
an Unforgiveable he's not good in a moral and magical sense.  Of 
course a not-good Snape need not be loyal to Voldemort.  

It seems to me, OFH!Snape theorist that I am, that number 3 seems the 
most likely given a successful AK.  It would allow room for Snape to 
have a role in the defeat of Voldemort (I agree that a totally DE 
Snape wouldn't be all that exciting), but at the same time would give 
due to all of the evidence that Snape has a severe dark side that 
merits concern and indeed, punishment.  It would mean that the AK is 
in fact another clue about Snape, just as are DD's constant 
blitherings about how he trusts the Potions Master.  DD is telling us 
that Snape is not always on the side of evil, but the AK is telling 
us he's not one of the good guys, either.  It would also help to 
explain what JKR meant when she said that DD was afraid the DADA job 
would bring out the worst in Snape.

In any case, if we take JKR at her word about Unforgiveables - and I 
don't think we have much evidence that she wasn't being literal - I 
don't see any way for Snape to cast a successful AK and come out, in 
the end, as being good (in the sense of morally good, not in the 
sense of being against Voldy, which could spring from all kinds of 
motivations).

Could a Snape that has cast an AK be redeemed?  I suppose so, but 
only at the cost of his life (after giving an apology to Harry and 
Neville for his behavior, of course, which would be required for his 
redemption under any circumstances).*  What message would that send 
about redemption, I hear some ask?  Simply that redemption is very 
hard and very costly, and sometimes costs you everything you have.


Lupinlore

*Would a Snape who dies but does not admit he has been wrong and 
apologize be redeemed?  The answer is absolutely no.