Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? )

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 141617

Nora wrote: <snip>
> There are, natch, many different categories of payoff.  You have to 
> leave open the possibility that she's been laughing at how we've 
> contorted ourselves to explain Snapeykins, while the reality is 
> something far more direct.  The reality is certainly something that 
> she knows, and likes to drop little hints to us about how she knows 
> it and we don't.  In fact, I'd argue that directness is precisely 
> what we've conditioned ourselves *not* to expect, to such a degree 
> that the direct would be maximally BANG-y. <snip>
> 
Carol responds:

I'm curious, Nora, and please don't think I'm being rude because that
certainly isn't my intention. Exactly what is this plain truth about
Snape that you think requires no explanation? I can see how it would
involve a genuinely dead Dumbledore (which I agree on), a real AK
(which I think is at least debateable as it doesn't resemble any other
AK's we've seen), and no Legilimency (again, I think there's evidence
enough throughout the book to at least justify raising the question).

But what, exactly, is self-evident from your perspective? That Snape
is on Voldemort's side? That he's acting solely to save himself and
saves Draco only because of the UV? That he gets the DEs off the tower
and out of Hogwarts because. . . ? That he stops the Crucio of Harry
and tells him not to cast Unforgiveable Curses because . . .? He took
the UV because . . .? He was/was not bluffing when he told Narcissa
that he knew what Draco's task was? The argument in the forest (which
surely would not have been mentioned if it weren't important) was
about . . . ? And how about Harry's hatred of Snape as it relates to
his success in defeating Voldemort? Surely that, at least, requires
some sort of resolution?

I really see very little that's self-evident here, whether or not
we're seeing from Harry's point of view, and a whole lot of unanswered
Snape-related questions. 

Usually we have a crime or mystery first and then the red herrings and
evidence, which we have to sort out (and I admit to having been quite
wrong or thoroughly tricked in PoA and GoF). This time around we're
dealing with conflicting evidence regarding Snape for six whole books
and then what seems like a straightforward crime committed by him
against his trusting mentor--until we consider the evidence we've
already been presented with in HBP and elsewhere. What a waste of
JKR's time and effort if all that evidence (a few scenes per book, but
what memorable ones!) is all for nothing. And what a disappointment
for readers on either end of the Snape spectrum if this "gift of a
character" is nothing but a cardboard villain.

Carol, hoping you'll understand that I'm genuinely confused here
because I see no "direct," straightforward reading of Snape in HBP or
anywhere else