Is Snape good or evil? (longer)

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 148739

> Alla:
> 
> See above. I will agree with you that Snape is telling the truth
> here if you agree with me that he is telling the truth to Bella
> about other things. :) As far as I am concerned, he can be lying
> through his teeth the whole time OR he can be telling the truth the
> whole time OR of course he can be doing both, but we both make
> assumptions when he does what, no?

zgirnius:
OK, you believe that the blood of Sirius and Emmeline Vance is on 
Snape's hands, because he only told the truth to the Black sisters at 
Spinner's End. (Apparently-you seem to be saying we have to take it 
as an all or nothing proposition). 

So, if we are to believe everything Snape says, Snape seriously 
considered that Harry Potter might be a powerful Dark wizard, even a 
future Dark Lord. He continued in this belief through the first 
eleven years of Harry's life, and found this a good reason not to 
murder him the moment he first showed up at the castle (I guess Snape 
has no interest in being a Dark Lord himself, and prefers to follow 
one, or he would be wise to eliminate the competition before he 
becomes a highly skilled and powerful adult wizard). 

Why, then, did he set out to deliberately antagonize this person, who 
might grow up to be his leader in the future, the very first time 
they met? Or are you suggesting he could tell Harry was a mediocrity 
based on his answer to three question in Potions? It seems more 
likely that Snape is lying here, it is just a good reason to give 
because it is something that was considered by other Death Eaters.

This seems to me the only sensible way to approach Snape's assorted 
statements at Spinner's End is not to make blanket assumptions, but 
rather weigh each statement against anything else relevant that we 
may know. Look at all available canon on the subject and then decide 
which is more likely-that a particular statement is true, or a lie. 

The statement about Sirius seems to be contradicted by other canon. 
We have heard the explanation of how Kreacher set Harry up to believe 
that Sirius was out of his house at the crucial moment, and how he 
passed information to the bad guys. Dumbledore has this information 
direct from Kreacher, and I think it is safe to assume it is 
accurate, since Dumbledore did not take his word for it, he also used 
Legilimency. When it comes to magical skills, I think the safe bet is 
that Dumbledore would not be duped by Kreacher. (Snape is another 
matter and not a good exmaple of Dumbledore's failings as a 
Legilimens, as we have canon he is duping SOMEONE who is an 
absolutely world-class wizard in terms of skill level. We have no 
reason to suppose the same is true of Kreacher). The statement about 
Vance is in the same sentence as the statement about Sirius, which 
tends in my mind to tar it with the same brush. 

So instead of deciding Snape is either the reincarnation of George 
Washington or constitutionally incapable of telling the Black sisters 
a single true thing, I think the only thing to consider is, together 
with everything else we know, is it more reasonable to suppose 
Voldemort did tell Snape about Draco's task, or that Snape was 
bluffing here?

In favor of Voldemort telling him:
1) It is stupid to plan a potentially disruptive operation in a 
location where one has a mole, and NOT warn said mole at least in 
general terms. This will allow the mole to keep his head down and not 
become collateral damage if things go haywire. 
2) It will also ensure that Snape does not interfere. In PS/SS 
Voldemort has already seen that Snape can be irritatingly 
interfering, He could (for example) prevent Draco from wandering the 
hallways at odd hours in all innocence if he is unaware Draco is on a 
mission for Voldemort. 
3) Everyone seems to agree Draco has no chance of success: Snape, 
Narcisssa, Dumbledore, and based on their testimony, Voldemort 
himself. Yet at the end of OotP Voldmeort did make an attempt on 
Dumbledore's life, which suggests he would be pleased to see him 
dead. So Voldemort should know he may need a backup plan. 
4) Snape as the backup plan makes a lot of sense. If Dumbledore is 
actually killed, Snape loses a lot of his value as a spy to 
Voldemort, so it is a fair trade for Voldemort to trade his cover for 
Dumbledore's life. In addition, if Peter's presense at Spinner's End 
betokens some suspicion about Snape's possible loyalty to Dumbledore, 
well, assigning Snape the task to kill Dumbledore ought to clarify 
matters.

In favor of Snape bluffing:
I can't really think of canon outside the scene itself that points to 
bluffing. But since it was my personal first impression, I'd say it 
is supported to some extent by the way the scene is written. 
1) Snape appears to carefully ascertain that Bella is not in 
Voldemort's good graces before he makes the claim (it would be unwise 
to bluff in her presence if is she seems in on the plan up to her 
neck). 
2) He refuses to discuss the matter with Voldemort (yes, this makes 
sense for other reasons, it would be futile, but it would be very bad 
for all concerned if Snape was not told of a plan, so this is at 
least consistent with the bluffing theory). 
3) The way Snape echoes Bella's statement about what an honor for 
Draco this is about the task is also consistent with the theory. Were 
he bluffing, he would want to sound like he knows what he is talking 
about, so he takes his cues from Bella.

And things like the twitch make sense either way, of course. "Uh oh, 
I just promised to kill Dumbledore" vs. "Uh oh, I have NO CLUE what I 
just promised to do."

To me, both seem plausible. Dungrollin has won me over...I think 
Snape knew. Thinking about it from Voldemort's point of view, which I 
had not considered previosuly, I think this just makes more sense.