ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 162662

Jen wrote: 
> The reason I continue to stubbornly carve out a place for Grey Snape
even though it looks like splitting hairs is because DDM has become
this huge umbrella that covers every explanation of Snape unless it's
in direct opposition such as the Life Debt or Evil!Snape.  But JKR
takes great pains to make distinctions in her characters and their
choices because she appears to be saying that the reason *why*
characters choose a particular action is as important as the action
itself, that how they get to a certain point matters for Who They Are. 
> 
> For me, Harry will always be the gold standard for Dumbledore's man 
> through and through and Snape is not Harry.  The point of Grey is to 
> say that Snape and Harry are not the same on the inside with 
> different skins, they are not opposite but equal.  Harry would
never, ever find himself in the position of having to kill Dumbledore
and the fact that Snape did **matters**.  Not proving to be evil or
out-for-himself is a long way from Snape earning the title of 
Dumbledore's Man in my book. <snip>

Carol responds:
I understand your reluctance to use the label, but AFAIK, the one
thing that distinguishes DDM!Snape in all his varieties from
Grey!Snape is that his loyalties really do lie with Dumbledore and
that he killed Dumbledore out of that loyalty. The irony and tragedy
of DDM!Snape is that his own choices, which I've already specified in
another post and don't want to repeat, led him to this pass. But
Harry, too, came very close to killing Dumbldore--close enough that he
ought to be able to see the parallels. No one is saying that DDM!Snape
is Harry's equal in goodness, but Harry, too, has been tempted by Dark
magic. If Sectumsempra, clearly labeled "For Enemies," doesn't count
when he used it on Draco, how about when he tried to use it on Snape,
knowing perfectly well what it is and does? How about his two
attempted Crucios, one of which actually caused temporary pain even
though he couldn't sustain it? 

But my question is simply, if Snape isn't Out for Himself and he isn't
Voldemort's Man and he *is* genuinely loyal to Dumbledore, genuinely
remorseful for the eavesdropping and its consequences, genuinely
protective of Harry though he hates him and views him as inadequate,
why not concede that he's Dumbledore's Man? That, IMO, is where his
loyalties lie, and that's all that DDM!Snape means. It doesn't mean
Good!Snape or Loving!Snape or Nice!Snape. Snape wouldn't be Snape if
he weren't sarcastic and supercilious.

Carol:
> > But, on the tower, he hesitates to kill Dumbledore, to become a 
murderer for the cause (till now, he's always "slithered out of
action" involving Unforgiveable Curses, IMO), to make his name
anathema in the WW (hardly anyone even knew that he was a Death
Eater).  Killing Dumbledore costs him everything he had: freedom,
employment, respect, the trust of the Order. <snip> But, for
Dumbledore and for Draco and for the Chosen One he loathes and for the
WW, Snape does what he has to do. 
> 

Jen responded: 
Killing Dumbledore cost him everything because he made it so. Choosing
to save Harry and Draco and get the DE's out of Hogwarts could have
even been Snape's way of making up for his huge blunder taking the UV
and having to kill Dumbledore in the first place.  I've mentioned the
Lightning Struck Tarot card before and two people falling from the
tower, one representing the literal fall of Dumbledore and other
Snape's fall from grace.  I used to feel some sympathy for Snape's
fall but not anymore.   His 'worst' came out in HBP and led to his own
downfall just like it did when he handed over the prophecy to Voldemort.
>
Carol responds:
Can you please explain what choice Snape had once he was on the tower?
He couldn't save Dumbledore, thanks to Harry's feeding him the poison
and the presence of the Death Eaters. He couldn't allow Draco to die
for failing to do it and he chose not to force Draco to do it, instead
taking the burden on himself and making sure that DD's body was sent
over the battlements so that Greyback couldn't ravage it. (Whether he
knew it or not, he also kept what DD thought was a Horcrux from the
DEs. *And* he saved Harry, as no other action or inaction could have done.

I guess what bothers you is not so much what happened on the tower,
which was virtually inevitable given the way events fell out, but the
UV, which you think was Snape's own fault. And, indeed, it could have
been his hamartia, the tragic flaw or error that brings about his down
though I personally hope not. I do see it as the instrument of the
DADA curse, which uses a secret or flaw within the character to cause
him to lose his position. I personally don't think the DADA post
brings out the evil in him, which I think he left behind when he
returned to Dumbledore (though he still has his unpleasant
personailty). Snape is still Snape throughout HBP, and yet he's
constantly saving or healing people, a new facet of his character, an
indication, IMO, that he isn't evil and that he's genuinely loyal to
Dumbledore. He could easily have killed Harry or kidnapped him or let
him suffer from he Crucio, and yet he didn't, all inexplicable to me
unless his loyalties are with Dumbledore.

Why not pity him as a tragic character who supports the right cause
but is trapped by his own past, his own choices, especially if the
anguish he feels is genuine remorse for killing his mentor?

Carol, thinking that Dumbledore would want us to show mercy and
compassion for Snape