Is Snape good or evil? (longer)

[dungrollin]

No: HPFGUIDX 148916

My apologies for the delay, I've had three posts half-written since 
Saturday, and various bits of life have conspired to stop me 
finishing them. But I have two of them finished now, so here they 
are. Hope the discussion hasn't moved on so far that they're not 
worth reading...

> Dung, previously:
> Do you not think it would be deeply ungrateful of DD to not even
> say "sorry I got you into this, mate?" You don't think he might
> feel just the teensiest bit guilty?

Nora:
Guilt doesn't strike me as the right emotion in this case, because
Dumbledore hasn't been in the same kind of superior/controlling
situation that we've seen in him when he actually has expressed
guilt.  

Dung:
You doubt that DD would feel guilt in this situation because we've 
only seen him show guilt once before and it's not exactly the same 
situation? 

Nora:
I think he's trusted Snape to be an independent agent here,
and so Dumbledore's responsibility for the situation is decidedly
second-hand.  

Dung:
DD got him into this in the first place.
"Severus," said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what *I must 
ask you to do*. If you are ready... if you are prepared..."

DD wanted him to find out what Draco was up to – which encouraged 
him to fish for information and take the vow.
"Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you [Draco] on my 
orders."

Compare and contrast with DD taking the responsibility for Sirius's 
death – was his responsibility for *that* situation not a little 
second-hand? Yet he still took responsibility. "It is *my* fault 
that Sirius died."


Dung:
> *Any* interpretation of Spinner's End involves that, not just mine
> and Alla's, because canon *is not consistent*.

That's fair.  What I would contend is not exactly shocking--we read
the confusing and fragmentary evidence according to which larger
pattern we want to validate.

Dung:
Certainly there's a necessary element of picking and choosing canon, 
but there's still plenty of room to be inconsistent in your method 
of doing so.

When evaluating evidence, I reckon asking ourselves the following 
questions (in decreasing importance) should lead to some insight: 

1. Is there a firm canonical reason to suspect that a character may 
be lying, or wanting to conceal the whole truth? (Particularly 
immediately obvious reasons, which do not rely on a re-read and a 
theory.)
2. Does all or part of your chosen morsel factually conflict with 
existing canon? 
3. Is there any conveniently missing piece of information of which 
the readers are already aware in an otherwise comprehensive account?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then you've got a good 
basis for speculating that a character is lying.

If the answer to all of the above is no, you can still speculate 
that a character is lying, of course, but your argument is weaker. I 
would then rank canonical evidence in the following way (strongest 
to weakest):

a. A direct statement from a character's mouth
(Hypothetical example: "It is better for us all to die and lose the 
war against Voldemort than for even one member of our side to tear 
their soul," said Dumbledore.)
b. An indirect statement from which a reasonable conclusion can be 
drawn
(Hypothetical example: "What could possibly be worth killing for, 
Tom?" asked Dumbledore.)
c. Reports from another character
(Hypothetical example: "Dumbledore would never have wanted you to 
kill anyone, Potter," said McGonagall.)
d. Actions directly portrayed in canon which are not commented upon, 
but can be logically shown to support a particular point of view for 
that character.
(E.g. DD not AKing the DEs in the DoM, but immobilising them for the 
Ministry to deal with later.)
e. Actions not directly portrayed in canon for which one 
interpretation supports a particular point of view for that 
character.
(E.g. DD *defeated* the Dark Wizard Grindelwald, not *killed*.)

Point out where my logic fails, or explain why logic has no place 
here (properly please – not just the "this is literature and 
therefore not logical" assertion, 'cause I'm thick and need it 
spelled out). Alla is trying to use the story that Snape spins 
Bella as pure type a, when the answers to the first three questions 
are yes. 

Number 1. Snape is a *known* double-agent (who immediately thought 
on their first read through of Spinner's End "Aha! Firm evidence 
that Snape's a traitor?" Very few, I'd bet, because it was nothing 
like firm evidence.) 
Number 2. There are two bits, actually:
- "I was curious, I admit it, and not at all inclined to murder him 
the moment he set foot in the castle" is certainly at odds with the 
look Snape gives Harry at the start of term feast in PS, which gave 
him the feeling that Snape "didn't like Harry at all", and of course 
Snape's treatment of Harry in their first ever potions lesson. 
- "...it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black..." is blatantly 
at odds with the canon we have in OotP.
Number 3. Why is there no mention *at all* of Snape having alerted 
the Order and royally screwed up Voldy's plan to get the prophecy?

I'm not arguing that I'm *right*, so please don't try to claim that 
I am. I'm arguing that my assumptions are better supported by canon 
than Alla's. A fine distinction, but an important one.

> Perhaps you missed the bit of my post where I said that I was
> trying to prove my assumptions were more firmly rooted in
> canon than Alla's. You seem to be dismissing them as equally valid
> (or not) as any other assumptions, simply because they're
> assumptions, without even looking at the evidence I presented.

Nora:
I am dismissing them as more valid than any assumptions because of
the nature of the material, yes. I don't think one can make a solid
canonically-backed decision between your position or Alla's (or a
number of other variations), because of the level of destabilization
of what we thought we knew.  

Dung:
Well if no theory can be more convincing than any other because no 
assumption can have more canonical support than any other (which is 
nonsense, by the way), why on earth are you wasting your time 
discussing it? Or are you just trying to gently point out the 
foolishness of the exercise? Did you read what I wrote about that 
cutlass and the word naïve? ::poke poke:: If you don't think it's 
worthwhile, don't join in, but clearly Alla and I (at least) 
disagree with you. 

My assumptions *do* have more canonical support than Alla's, 
otherwise she'd have provided it. You are refusing to even consider 
that as a possibility, and are trying to stop the discussion 
altogether. Boo hiss! Go rain on someone else's parade!

Nora:
What it also is eminently open to is the BANG or the radical shift.  

Dung:
But *you're* the one who's denying the need for BANGs – I'm trying 
to put them in. And you've missed the point, anyway, I'm trying to 
construct a coherent theory, and defend the assumptions on which it 
is based, not trying to determine what's actually going to be 
correct, because none of us can do that. The anti-DDM!Snapers' 
argument is basically that they refuse to consider that DD might 
*not* think death preferable to tearing the soul in all situations. 
Yet what canon is there to support that? I'm not saying it's not 
*possible*, it *is*, but I would like to see a firm source for the 
conviction, and I haven't, anywhere. 

In fact, we have seen DD act in ways which suggest the opposite, 
leaving Harry with the Dursleys knowing that he would be mistreated, 
keeping a monster like Snape on the staff because he thinks that 
kids need to learn the lesson that not everyone is nice. Please, if 
you can see canon (or even interview comments) to defend the anti-
DDM!Snapers' utter certainty that *no matter what* DD would *never* 
ask Snape to tear his soul, please, please share it. I may as well 
say right now that shouting "JKR's a Christian!" won't hack it.

Now I have no problem with people believing that DD wouldn't ever 
ask someone to tear their soul, I'm not interested in trying to make 
them change their minds. I would just like to point out that it is 
simply their opinion, and I can't see any canon behind it. If there 
*is* canon, please present it.

> Dung:
> Thematic it might be, but it's lousy as far as a good story goes.
> After six books of Harry wondering repeatedly *why* DD trusted
> Snape, you think the answer's going to be "well, he just ... 
*did*."

Nora:
It may well be 'Dumbledore *really believed* Snape's tale of
remorse'.  That remorse may have been genuine, or it may have been
faked.  But I can imagine Dumbledore choosing to believe something
like that, and then refusing to tell anyone else because he knew they
wouldn't value it and treasure it as he did, and he's trying to
protect Snape from the slammer.  

Dung:
I don't deny it, it sounds plausible to me too, yep, I'll even go so 
far as to agree that it could be IC for DD. Just utterly rotten from 
the point of view of the story.

Which is as good a point as any to ask you the question, Nora: Why 
do you always try to take the BANG out of everything? 
There was no good reason for it, DD just *trusted* Snape; there was 
no reason Snape kept applying for DADA, he just *wanted* it; there 
was no dramatic turning-point, Snape *slowly* became sickened by 
Voldemort... (Back in the days when you thought he had.) Is it 
because you want to keep your expectations low so that you're not 
disappointed by book 7? Or are you being more disingenuous – you 
don't like Snape's popularity among the fans and you're hoping for a 
finale that pulls the rug out from under them, that reveals his 
story as *boring*?

Before HBP I didn't think Snape was the eavesdropper. I thought it 
was too ... delicious. I thought that Snape was not a central 
character, that his involvement with the story was not important 
enough to put him in the role of a major protagonist like that. 
Neither did it even occur to me to even consider and then dismiss 
Snape as the HBP, I would have hoped very much that he was (had I 
considered it), but nobody would ever have convinced me. I would 
have found the idea that Snape was at the bottom of so many 
mysteries nice, but not convincing. Forgive me if I'm intent on not 
making that mistake again.

The fact that JKR is so reluctant to tell us anything about Snape in 
interviews to my mind paints a big neon sign saying "BANGs 
imminent!" 

Dungrollin

P.S. Questions for the anti-DDM!Snapers: Why do you think that we 
the readers are privy to clause 3 of the Unbreakable Vow, but that 
Harry is not? Do you think that Harry *will* find out about it? If 
so, why would it be necessary for the plot, and why did we find out 
about it before Harry? I can think of some answers, but I'm 
interested to know what you all think.