Is Snape good or evil? (longer)

[dungrollin]

No: HPFGUIDX 148917

More massive apologies for the lengthy delay in replying... Life - 
loathe it, or ignore it, you can't *like* it.

Alla:
Erm... sure it [the scenario] is plausible. I said that already if 
you can convince me that those basic assumptions that we differ on 
could come true as you predict and so far I was not convinced. But 
let's continue then. :-)

Dungrollin:
Sorry, that should have been "my *assumptions*" were plausible, 
rather than "my *scenario*", mea culpa.

> ******************************************************
> SNAPE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT DRACO'S TASK
> Alla:
> Couldn't that [that Snape knew about Draco's task] be a lie too to 
find out information for Dumbledore or something?
>
> Dung:
> Of course he *could* be lying, I don't deny that possibility, but
> give me *some* argument, proof, canon – whatever that suggests he
> is, please. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is at least
> *possible* that he is telling the truth, and that your assumption
> that he's lying is just that: an assumption based on *no* canon.
> Whereas I am making no assumptions at all, I'm taking canon at
face value.

Alla:
I can say the same thing - your assumption that Snape was not
telling the truth in the part of the story which does not portray
him in a good light is also not based on the canon.

Dung:
It's more canonical than your assumption. You have no good reason 
for not taking "I know about the plan" at face value other than your 
fondness for the eventual theory you are trying to support, whereas 
not taking Snape's excuses to Bella at face value is at least how we 
are supposed to read the chapter the first time through. I doubt 
that anybody considered it certain proof of Snape's treachery before 
they had read the end of HBP, and a healthy number still don't. This 
is because Snape is *known* to be a double-agent.

Can I cross-reference my reply to Nora in message 148916? 

> ******************************************************
> VOLDY DIDN'T PROMPT BELLA AND CISSY TO SPINNER'S END
> Alla: But again this is goes from different assumptions we have. I
> am NOT as sure as you are that the meeting was instigated by
> Voldemort, I can totally see Narcissa going to Snape of her own
> initiative and Bella tagging along maybe hoping to give Voldemort
> useful spying info, BUT I see no definite evidence that Voldemort
> was behind arranging the meeting in the first place, from very
> beginning.
>
> Dung:
> Right, this is the toughest bit for me, because (I may as well
come clean) it's basically a hunch. But even if I turn out to be 
wrong, I think it's a good theory (which is the whole point, after 
all).<HUGE SNIP go UPTHREAD to read it>

Alla:
Right, this is a great theory, no question about it, but my main
objection to it would be that IMO you give Voldy way, way too much
credit. I don't see Voldie capable of giving everybody that set of
complicated different instructions you described. 
<snip>
Sorry, but my belief in Voldie analytical and loeadership skills
shook very very firmly if they ever existed  after instead of
killing Harry in Graveyeard he let him have his wand back.

Dung:
(Ta for the compliments! – but back to business...) One mistake due 
to over-confidence (thinking it was all ok because he'd used Harry's 
blood) and you dismiss the best student Hogwarts has ever seen as a 
blundering fool who can't plot for toffee? 

If Voldy's so dumb, who was it who came up with the trick to get 
Harry to the graveyard in GoF? Who put together all the little bits 
of evidence from Bertha Jorkins – that Crouch The Younger was still 
alive and faithful, that the TWT would be held at Hogwarts, that 
Crouch could pretend to be Moody for a whole year? That plan worked 
perfectly, it got Harry to the graveyard and Voldy regenerated using 
his blood thus overcoming one of the protections left by Lily's 
sacrifice. And for at least the first few months of that he was 
keeping Crouch Senior under Imperio and making him write convincing 
letters to the ministry. Sure, he mucked it up afterwards, but that 
seems to be his problem: when he's being Slytherinish and plotting 
in the background, he does a damn fine job, it's in the heat of the 
moment that he makes mistakes.

Again, I won't repeat the whole plot of OotP, but he used several 
strategies to get at the prophecy before settling on a fine plan 
which Harry fell for hook line and sinker. In the event, the DEs 
b*llsed it up, making him so angry that he turned up in person to 
kill Harry (and there was no mistake there, he intended Harry to 
die), but DD turned up and saved his neck... It's the heat of the 
moment where he makes mistakes, not the planning beforehand. 

Or do you have canon for a stupid Voldemort plan?

Alla:
I do think that Voldie is not above little manipulation, but not
that complex manipulation you described - as in keeping three level
operation together in his little head - trying to kill Dumbledore,
testing Snape's loyalty and punishing Malfoys. I can barely give him
credit for doing two levels at the same time - planning to kill DD
and punishing Malfoys. I think testing Snape's loyalty at the same
time would be a bit out of Voldie's league. 

Dung:
Got any evidence, aside from giving Harry his wand back? Ok, so why 
didn't he order Snape and Draco to work together then? Don't tell me 
that he only wanted Draco to fail, because then of necessity, DD 
would have survived, and you don't think he wanted that, do you?

I've got canon which shows Tom Riddle being manipulative, subtle and 
very clever – see how he quietly flatters Hepzibah to get a look at 
her treasures, how he flatters Slughorn to get information about 
Horcruxes. By the time I'm talking about, Voldemort is a highly 
accomplished legilimens – it's not beyond the bounds of possibility 
that along with his talent for manipulation he can see exactly when 
he's planted an idea in someone's head.

Alla:
Come to think of it, maybe I got confused, but why exactly Voldie 
does need to test Snape's loyalty from your position?

Dung:
Erm – *somebody*, mentioning no Snapes – um, names ... called 
Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix to the Ministry of Magic at 
*just* the wrong moment a few weeks previously. Harry and co 
evidently hadn't contacted the Order themselves, otherwise they 
would have been told that Sirius was fine. There was only one member 
of the Order of the Phoenix left at Hogwarts that night, who might 
have noticed they were missing and contacted HQ. Go on, add 2 + 2 – 
you can do it... So can Voldy. 

Alla:
I mean, he seemed to accept ALL his followers back after many years
of them doing whatever things, when he was Vapormort. And if Snape
was telling the truth in Spinner's End, he was perfectly satisfied
with Snape's appearance in GoF? Oh, and again if you think Snape was
lying, what is your reason for that assumption?

Dung:
Whether he was loyal to Voldemort or not, and whether he knew for 
sure that Voldy trusted him or not, he would insist to Bella that 
Voldemort had  accepted his excuses. FWIW I don't think that Voldy 
trusts anyone, and a double-agent is *always* the first person upon 
whom suspicion falls. If he's unsure of a DE's loyalty he's 
*certainly* not dumb enough to actually tell that DE that he 
mistrusts them. But Bella has noticed Snape slithering out of 
action, why should Voldy be oblivious? 

Dung:
> Snape has *already* discussed this with Dumbledore, before Cissy
and Bella even turn up, he knows that Draco is ordered to kill DD or
die trying. What would Dumbledore tell him? "Find out as much as you
can about what Draco's planning, and we'll have an excellent chance 
of stopping the whole thing, we might even be able to find a way of
> maintaining your cover," surely?

> Or do you think he'd rather insist that Snape has nothing more to
do with Draco on moral grounds because Draco's plotting *murder*?
> Neither DD nor Snape has that luxury, this is a *war*. There are
> more important things at stake; there is spying to be done, and
> lives hang in the balance. Based on the information Snape has
before he takes the vow, I think DD wouldn't blame him at all.

Alla:
Sorry, I can see DD saying find out as much as you can. But I cannot
see Dumbledore saying take an UV, even if it helps you finding out
as much as you can.   

Dung:
I don't think DD stopped Snape just before he left the office and 
said, "by the way, if a Death Eater asks you to take an Unbreakable 
Vow, go ahead." I doubt very much whether DD would be particularly 
fond of them, but I suspect it was Bella who was performing the Dark 
Magic (it *is* an assumption that it's Dark Magic), not Snape and 
Narcissa. Given that Snape was fishing for information to discover 
what Draco was planning and *save DD's life*, I imagine that DD's 
dislike of them (which, by the way is also a *massive* assumption – 
when Harry mentions the UV, DD's face doesn't even darken) runs 
mostly to how very *dangerous* they are, but I can't see him blaming 
Snape too much for doing so. It seemed like a good gamble at the 
time. 

I submit that any spy who was actually capable of acting like a 
Death Eater without being detected would have done the same thing. 
Dumbledore might not have, it's true, but he'd never have made it as 
a spy (aside from the obvious reasons that everyone knows him), you 
need Slytherins for that.

It was a risk which didn't pay off, anyway – a mistake, if you 
insist, but *only with hindsight*. Just like Harry high-tailing it 
to the MoM – a risk which didn't pay off, taken with the very best 
of intentions. Tell me, do you think DD forgave Harry for having 
been so rash? Or for using Sectumsempra on Draco? Tell me why he 
wouldn't forgive Snape for taking a UV. In trying to save Sirius's 
life Harry got him killed, in trying to save Dumbledore's life, 
Snape got *him* killed. The parallels are delicious...

Alla:
I don't see the books as "spying games", before you start giving me
examples of erm...spies, I know they are there, but IMO they are
there for very different purposes than to create as someone
suggested in the past the books a la John Le Carre "Spy who came
from the cold".

Dung:
I don't know what you're talking about at all here. Snape was a 
double-agent run by Dumbledore and reporting to the OotP. It's 
canon – what exactly are you accusing me of arguing now? I suspect 
it's something else that I never said.

Alla:
I see the books as the books about human nature, power of love and
forgiveness  AND carmic punishment too and to tell you the truth so
far I had been incredibly happy with  the directions they are going.
I don't see Dumbledore as Puppetmaster!. I see him as a good man
struggling to make horrible choices and trying to keep the souls of
his soldiers intact too. 

Dung:
Erm – when did I ever propose Puppetmaster!Dumbledore? What did I 
say which implied this? What did I say which contradicts the above 
sentence about HORRIBLE CHOICES?

Alla:
That is why it is so HARD for me to imagine that Dumbledore would 
order Snape to kill him, basically impossible, ESPECIALLY planning 
for it in advance. 

Dung:
You're saying that DD doesn't love Snape enough to die for him, and 
wouldn't have forgiven him for taking the UV. Yet you think the 
books are about love and forgiveness. Uhm... Only loving and 
forgiving the right people, the ones with shiny white teeth, right?

Alla:
I cannot see alive and healthy Dumbledore to ask that of Snape. I 
especially cannot see alive and healthy Dumbledore so easily 
abandoning Harry to Horcrux hunt and going to die for Snape.

Dung:
So it's a non-canon based assumption which relies on a failure of 
your imagination – I believe the technical term is an 'argument from 
incredulity'. And you still insist that your assumptions are more 
canonical than mine? You are presenting no evidence for any of this. 

Alla:
I think it is very possible that by saving Sirius' life in PoA 
Dumbledore unknowingly helped to stir growing resentment in Snape. 
IMO of course.

Dung:
Yup, until you can point to canon in GoF, OotP or HBP which suggests 
this is the case, it is indeed *only your opinion*. And not a canon-
based one. I tell you what, I'll get up on my soap box and shout 
about my theory of the magic troll who lives in the lake and is the 
long-time companion of the Giant Squid. *He* was the one who put 
Snape under the Imperius Curse and forced him to be nasty to Harry 
for so many years, and of course it's his fault Snape took the UV, 
and killed DD. Voldemort's not the real villain at all.

What is your very first criticism of this theory?

Dung:
> Besides, since Snape clearly told DD about clauses 1 and 2 of the
> vow, and when Harry mentions it he says "I think you might even
> consider the possibility that I understood more than you did,"
> again, canon favours me saying that he did tell DD. You're
pointing to a lack of concrete evidence and shouting that it's 
evidence of absence, which I'm afraid it is not.

Alla:
I am afraid we do have to agree to disagree, because frankly I am
not even sure that Dumbledore knew about first two clauses, although
of course it is possible that he did based on that conversation, 

Dung:
Possible? It's canon! Since you appear not to have read this bit, 
I'll quote it for you:

Dumbledore listened to Harry's story with an impassive face. When 
Harry had finished he did not speak for a few moments, then 
said, "Thank you for telling me this, Harry, but I suggest that you 
put it out of your mind. I do not think that it is of great 
importance."
"Not of great importance?" repeated Harry incredulously. "Professor, 
did you understand -?"
"Yes, Harry, blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower, I 
understood everything you told me," said Dumbledore, a little 
sharply. "I think you might even consider the possibility that I 
understood more than you did. Again, I am glad that you have 
confided in me, but let me reassure you that you have not told me 
anything that causes me disquiet."

Alla:
But maybe he [DD] learned [about the UV] from using legilimency on 
Draco for example, no?

Dung:
Draco didn't know about the UV until Slughorn's Christmas party at 
the end of term, and the meeting with Harry which I quoted above (A 
Sluggish Memory) happens on the *first day of term* in January. Not 
a huge amount of time for DD to find Draco and quiz him – even if 
that wouldn't have looked horribly suspicious. 

And in any case, legilimency doesn't work like that, there's no 
simple image which could be brought to the surface of Draco's mind 
which DD could interpret as clauses 1 and 2 (the way Snape found the 
image of Harry's potions book), neither could he do it without 
alerting Draco to the fact that he was doing it (Harry knew exactly 
what Snape was doing in Myrtle's bathroom, Draco said "I know what 
you're trying to do" to Snape at Slughorn's party).  

Alla:
In any event, to me the lack of evidence is enough to assume that DD
did not know about clause three. Sorry!

Dung:
Sorry to tell you this, but you're wrong again. It is not. Absence 
of evidence is *never* evidence of absence no matter how many times 
you insist that it is. Repeatedly stating that black is white will 
not change the rules of logic. 

By all means disagree, by all means cling to your conviction that 
Snape did not tell DD, but *please* do not try to pretend that it 
has more canonical support than the opposite BECAUSE THAT IS NOT 
TRUE.

> Dung:
> I never made the "Snape as DD's right-hand man" argument. 

Alla: Oh, I think you are the first Snape defender then not to make
such an argument. Sorry! Seems like everybody does, while I don't
buy it all.

Dung:
It would really help if you actually responded to the arguments 
which I am putting forward, rather than inventing things you would 
like me to say because you find them easy to knock down.  

Alla:
But that begs a question  - if you don't think that Snape knmew
about Horcruxes, which I think is perfectly plausible too - DD did
not have to tell Snape how he got hurt, just what curse was used to
protect the ring. What use do you think Snape may have to help Harry
in book 7?

Dung:
Just because Snape doesn't know about the Horcruxes at the end of 
HBP doesn't mean that he won't 
a) figure it out for himself
b) be told by Harry & co at some point
c) be told by DD's portrait (when Hogwarts is closed and the DEs 
move in – har har)

He may never find out about them, but that doesn't mean he can't 
still be vital in defeating the DEs and/or Voldemort in the Last 
Battle.

Even if he's just the one person Harry can AK without feeling guilty 
(at least until he finds out the truth from DD's portrait) so he can 
rid himself of the horcrux inside him and go on to kill Voldemort, 
he'll be of some use. 

Alla:
> Just to be clear - by fooling the UV I was suggesting that
> Dumbledore would tell Snape to try and keep postponing the task
> indefinitely, NOT meticulously planning his death all year.
>
> Dung:
> Alla, you know full-well that Snape was NOT meticulously planning
> DD's death all year (whether he's DDM or not), *Draco* was, and he
> *wouldn't let Snape know what he was up to*. Please stick to
canon.

Alla:

Erm... Sorry. I meant that DUMBLEDORE would not be meticulously
planning his own death all year in order to help out Snape.

Dung:
It's still false hyperbole, and nothing to do with any arguments 
I've put forward. DD was not *planning his own death* all year any 
more than Harry was *planning* to go down the trap-door all year in 
book 1. It was a worst-case scenario. You proposed that DD wouldn't 
even have thought about it, that he'd have stuck his head in the 
sand and pretended that nothing was happening; I think he would have 
thought about it, he would have forgiven Snape for taking the UV, 
and he would have insisted that if the worst came to the worst, if 
it looked like all three of them were going to die (DD at the hand 
of another DE, Snape at the hand of the vow, and Draco at the hand 
of Voldemort for having failed), Snape should kill DD himself, 
saving his and Draco's lives. Please don't twist what I write, or 
I'll have to accuse you of making straw-man arguments.

> Dungrollin:
> :: mind boggles :: You think sticking his fingers in his ears and
> singing loudly is typically Dumbledorean?! You don't think he
would
> have tried to give Snape a little direction, perhaps some
sympathy,
> somewhere? Are you really telling me that you think once Snape has
> told DD about clause 3, Dumbledore ignores him, sticks his head in
> the sand, and *never mentions it again*?

Alla:
Prior to book 6, how many examples we have of
Dumbledore's "PROACTIVE" planning? Yes, I know we have him netioning
of his "plan" in OOP, but since no more detailed description to
follow, I will stick to the assumption that DD plan was to keep
Harry safe. Oh, and not checking on Harry during his before Hogwarts
time also tells me that DD let's things play out and hopes for the
best. I can be wrong of course.

Dung:
Why are you only asking prior to book six? Is it because that's 
where the best evidence for plans which are not merely Harry-
centred, and you'd rather I didn't mention the rather PROACTIVE 
Horcrux hunt which has (incidentally) been going on for years?

Well, we were not let into any of Dumbledore's plans before book six 
because Harry was not... but anyway, how about the protections 
around the Philosopher's Stone aimed at keeping the stone out of 
Voldy's hands? Doesn't that count as "PROACTIVE" planning? How about 
the watch set on the DoM in OotP in order to keep the prophecy out 
of his hands? That's two. Apparently you have a good reason for 
dismissing the plan which involved keeping Harry safe at the 
Dursleys – I'm not sure why that doesn't count, perhaps you could 
elaborate? That's three. Include the Horcruxes and that's four... 
Enough?

Dung:
> Ok, let's (for the sake of argument) assume that you're partially
> right, and that Dumbledore doesn't demand anything of Snape, he
> allows Snape to make the choice for himself. DDM!Snape says "I've
> had enough anyway, I want out. I'll die with the vow, thanks."
> (Frankly, I think that dying would be the soft option, the "easy"
> rather than the "right", but you'd probably disagree.)

Alla:
Yes, I think we do disagree again. But mostly because I think Snape
is too cowardly to embrace his great adventure with head up. Again
my speculative opinion.

Dung:
Another argument from incredulity with no canonical backing. You are 
most definitely *not* providing evidence against my proposition, or 
even providing evidence for an alternative. You say that you think 
DD would not have taken a proactive approach to the consequences of 
the vow, so I offer you the suggestion that DD offered Snape the 
choice. That Snape made the very choice you think Dumbledore would 
have *wanted* him to make, (dying rather than killing DD, right?) 

And suddenly that's not allowed because Snape's a coward. Tell you 
what: here's some canon that portrays Snape as *really quite brave*. 
What say you come up with some which shows him to be a coward? Then 
we'll weigh the evidence.

- Snape turned spy before Voldemort's fall at *great personal risk*
- Snape cornered Quirrell alone in the Forbidden Forest
- Snape dashed off to the Shrieking Shack *knowing* that there was a 
werewolf who hadn't taken his potion in there, and under the 
impression that there was a mass-murderer with him
- Snape (admittedly accompanied by DD and McG) burst into the room 
of an unknown enemy to save Harry's skin
- Snape went back to Voldemort at the end of GoF - risking his neck 
since he was two hours late
- Snape continued the very risky job of spying – and it's risky no 
matter which side he was really on, risking death from Voldy, and 
Azkaban from DD if he were discovered
- Snape gave Umbridge fake Veritaserum – if he'd been discovered, 
he'd have been sacked
- I won't bother with all the details of HBP, because surely it's 
clear that no matter whose side he was on throughout, he was walking 
a very fine and dangerous line

I'm betting you'll mention the schoolboy nickname 'Snivellus', which 
is *very* tenuous because it's so indirect. It relies on the name 
having been chosen because Snape showed some cowardice at some 
point, for which there is no evidence. Also, the fact that the 
Marauders hated Snape is a pretty good indication that they were 
never going to nickname him Braveheart. Doesn't compare terrifically 
favourably to my list, but you might have something up your sleeve 
that I haven't thought of. – I hope so, it'll make the discussion 
more fun!

Dung:
> Dumbledore would (I think) say: "All right, if that's what you
want. > But promise me one thing, if Draco fails, and I am unable to
protect him for any reason – for example if he manages to produce a 
Death Eater accomplice who will kill me instead, promise me you'll do
it,> promise me that you'll kill me first so that you are alive and
able > to keep Draco safe, away from Voldemort."

Alla:
You see, that is my very main problem. Regardless of what Snape said
to DD, I cannot for the life of me to see Dumbledore EVER asking
Snape to do that, because IMO he would prefer Snape's soul not be
hurt more.

Dung:
How do you know? What evidence do you have that DD puts Snape's soul 
over Draco's life? It really *is* Just Your Opinion at the moment 
Alla, because it's not based on anything except your insistence that 
it's true. Show me canon in support.

I've got canon which suggests DD can be remarkably utilitarian. 
Leaving Harry with the Dursleys *knowing* that he would be badly 
treated (you reckon he was abused, don't you?), and keeping Snape on 
as a teacher because he thinks a bit of nastiness is good for kids 
(erm – you reckon that was abuse, too, right? – Correct me if I've 
misremembered your position on that.) Where's your canon on DD's 
certainty that absolutely *nothing* is worse than tearing your soul? 

> Dung:
<SNIP>
> I've never denied that I have to make assumptions – in fact I made
> it explicit. 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.

Alla:
So far I absolutely don't see how your assumptions are more firmly
rooted in canon than mine. Sorry! 

Dung:
Well since you rest all your other assumptions on *no evidence* 
perhaps you can just agree to believe me on this one...

Alla:
I base my assumption of Snape bad behaviour(in part) on one part of 
Spinner's End, which I choose to believe is true, you on the other 
hand choose to believe that another part of Snape's story is true, 
which I think is a lie 

Dung:
Again I will cf my reply to Nora about the evaluation of canonical 
evidence, and my response at the top of this post.

Alla:
(and I think that I am actually helping DD!M Snape by believing that 
this is a lie)

Dung:
That's precisely why I think your argument lacks legs. You're 
arguing from the theory you're trying to give support to (which you 
don't like anyway), instead of from what canon shows. 

Dungrollin