Snape's defection: the timeline question

[ellecain]

No: HPFGUIDX 151205

> Neri:
> I haven't read the mugglenet editorial but I think that JKR's 
> numbers, in this case at least, work quite well together. 
<snip>
> Snape is quite justified in saying that he has sixteen years worth 
of 
> information on Dumbledore.

> 
> It is true that, strictly speaking, Snape had to include only the 
> years since GH, since he was supposed to report immediately to his 
> master any information he gathered about Dumbledore before that. 
> Snape should have also, perhaps, taken the OotP year out of this 
> count, because he went to Voldy in the end of the school year of 
GoF, 
> only thirteen and a half years after GH. But in Spinner's End 
Snape 
> is engaged in a fierce debate with Bella, and "sixteen years worth 
of 
> information on Dumbledore" sounds better than "thirteen and a half 
> years worth of information on Dumbledore", so it should not come 
as a 
> surprise that he prefers to speak loosely and use the more 
inclusive 
> count.  

Elyse:
Yes, the first time I reread Spinners End, I had no problems with 
the numbers. Then I joined the fandom and was corrupted by various 
conspiracy theories..<g>

Thats quite an interesting spin on "sixteen years worth of 
information on Dumbledore" that you put.
I had never considered that Snape was exaggerating the
number of years in order to win the debate with Bella, because I 
assumed that she could check up on the numbers anytime she wanted.  
What I had read as a slip of the tongue, complete with Freudian 
analysis, you have managed to turn into an example of Snape's 
competency as a spy! Really, the more we analyse his half truths in 
that chapter, the more my head spins...


> Neri:
> Regarding Snape "switching sides", this was a big discussion 
before 
> HBP, involving great philosophical theories, one of which still 
runs 
> a popular bar in Theory Bay these days <g>. 

Elyse: Yeah, the first time I was introduced to George I fell head 
over heels for thy boy! Sadly, it was post HBP, and so liked him 
only as a theory. Alas, George hasnt been in the best of health 
since last July...

Neri:
I'm not sure that all the 
> Snape fans quite realize yet how the revelations of HBP put this 
> discussion in a whole new light. It's now clear that Snape was 
sent 
> by Voldemort himself to gather information on Dumbledore, and 
> probably to serve as a double agent. Snape wouldn't have been able 
to 
> take a post at Hogwarts before GH without Voldemort's blessing. So 
it 
> appears the whole "changing sides" thing started as an intentional 
> ruse on Snape's and Voldemort's behalf. Voldemort probably told 
Snape 
> to feed Dumbledore some useless information in order to maintain 
an 
> illusion that he changed sides. 

Elyse: I dont know that we can conclude it was a ruse on Voldemort 
and Snape's behalf. It could have as easily been one that Snape and 
Dumbledore came up with together. I believe it was only after 
Voldemort announced his decision to target the Potters, that
Snape went to Dumbledore with his "tale of deepest remorse", and 
Dumbledore could have been the one to come up with the double agent 
plan. One that Voldemort would have found impossible to resist, and 
was probably pitched by Snape.
"My Lord, I have an ingenious plan....."


Neri:
Later (and we don't know how much 
> time before GH) Snape also passed to Dumbledore at least one item 
of 
> true information that Voldemort certainly wouldn't want him to 
pass – 
> that Voldy knew the first part of the prophecy and was targeting 
the 
> Potters. But Snape had just discovered that he had personal 
interest 
> in this specific item. We can't be sure how genuine was the other 
> information he was passing to Dumbledore at that same time.
> 

Elyse: 
Perhaps he was passing false information to Voldemort...I'm thinking 
the location of the Potters. For I have wondered how they managed to 
stay alive for a year after Harry was born. Also the timing of the 
Fidelius Charm is suspicious, it seemed more like a last ditch 
effort to me. 
Perhaps Snape had warned Dumbledore that Voldemort was going to 
attack any day now and that insistent danger is why the Fidelius was 
performed a week before GH rather than much earlier.
The information he would have passed would have been to Dark Side 
and it probably kept the Potters alive for a year.

Neri:
> So rather than this dramatic decision of Snape to "change sides", 
the 
> whole story now appears more like Snape settling into a convenient 
> arrangement of a double-agent, passing false or genuine 
information 
> to both sides according to his own personal interests, and 
> practically insuring his own survival whatever side wins the war.
<snip>
 > The whole "Snape was working for us before Voldemort's fall at 
> considerable risk to himself" and that heroic "you know what I 
must 
> ask you to do" scene in the end of GoF now appear, well, somewhat 
> less heroic.

Elyse: Ahh.. not us DDM!Snapists. Its only the OFH and LID people 
who read it that way right? *g*
   
 
Neri:
> If Snape indeed "changed sides", one wonders how come he didn't 
turn 
> in Lucius, Bella, Rodolfus, Rabastan, Avery, McNair, Nott, Crabbe, 
> Goyle, Rookwood, or in fact any other DE that we know of, even 
after 
> GH. 

Elyse: Well, Dumbledore knew LV wasnt gone forever, and that would 
have pretty much ruined Snape's future spying career, no?
Putting a load of your old friends in Azkaban when one is 
at best unsure of the Dark Lord's return, is a terrible survival 
stategy...just ask Karkaroff.

Neri:
He could have prevented the attack on the Longbottoms and the 
> Lucius' Diary scheme in CoS had he done so. 

Elyse: Ummm... I dont know where you get this from. Even if Snape 
knew Bella from their DE glory days, she was hardly confiding her 
plans to him was she? She didnt know where he was in the wake of 
LV's downfall, remember? She couldnt have told him even if she 
wanted to since she didnt know where he was. 
As for Lucius' Diary scheme, Snape's reaction at the end of CoS 
suggests he wasnt in on it.

Neri:
 It's not a conclusive evidence against DDM!
> Snape, but I think it's certainly another thing that JKR will have 
to 
> explain if she goes that way.

Elyse: Well, all of this is my own individual reading, and the canon 
gaps have been filled with speculation, so its hardly any conclusive 
proof *for* DDM!Snape.
As for the list of things, JKR is going to have to explain, that 
list is terribly long whichever direction she goes in, and I'm 
afraid that she may have to do a lot of what Lupinlore calls
"hand-waving" and "rug-sweeping" to get it covered.

Elyse ( who is sorry for the length of this post and applauds you if 
youve made it to the end)