Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 156566

Eggplant wrote: 
> > But if she really did say "Your opinion, I would say, is right"
does that prove Snape is good? Well, maybe not 100% proof, but for me
to continue to insist the man is evil I'd have to do what I've accused
others of doing and engage in mental back flips and contortions. The
fact that a man like Salman Rushdie does not think the idea of a good
Snape is ridiculous also makes me rethink my position. <snip>
> 
Potioncat responded:
> 
> Uh....rabid Snape supporter that I am. Constant Snape-apologist that 
> I am. Long time Snape-aholic that I have been..........
> 
> I don't for one minute think JKR said, or intended to say, "Snape is
good." We are nit-pickers and some of us are better than others---but
the vaguest of us plays close attention to details. 
> 
> The problem is--as I understand it---is that we are dissecting
"impressions" of the book reading and that none of us has 
> a reliable version of the actual question-answer session.
><snip>
> 
> Potioncat, who thinks the world is upside down when Eggplant says 
> Snape is good and I argue against it. Quick, I need firewhiskey.
>

Carol responds:
But you're not arguing against Snape being good, only that you're not
sure that's what JKR meant. Rushdie certainly thought that, however,
and that view, I think, was the basis for Eggplant's change of
opinion. (Bully for you, Eggplant. It takes courage to openly concede
the possibility of being wrong, and I hope your new opinion is
validated, if not necessarily in all its details. But, yes, it is
possible for Snape to be on the side of good and yet to have killed
Dumbledore, and I do think that Snape's courage is something like what
you're describing--knowing that he's facing infamy and imprisonment or
death and yet doing what he must do--what's right rather than what's
easy. But of course, we'll find out in Book 7, won't we?)

To return to Potioncat's response, what I got out of the JKR's answer
to Rushdie was exactly this:

1) Dumbledore is indeed dead.

2) Rushdie is right that events on the tower can only be correctly be
interpreted if we know where Snape's loyalties lie.

Extrapolating a bit, I think if Snape were evil and events were what
they seem in a superficial, Harrycentric reading of HBP, she would
have said so straight out. That she's still attempting to keep Snape's
exact motives and methods mysterious does suggest that Snape is DDM.
If it were all as simple as killing Dumbledore out of loyalty to
Voldermort (as Harry thinks) or to save his own skin, as OFH!Snapers
think, surely she would have just said so. There would be no mystery
to sustain.

Carol, taking away Potioncat's firewhiskey and substituting an Arnold
Palmer (iced tea mixed with lemonade, for those who aren't familiar
with it)