Is Snape good or evil?

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 149010

> Betsy Hp:
> Well, no.  There's nothing to take away the BANGy image of Snape 
> killing Dumbledore.  No explanation could possibly compete with that 
> image.  But *Harry* would certainly go through a massive shock, and 
> that will provide the BANG, I think.  (Going by DDM!Snape.)
> 
> > >>Nora:
> > But say we do get a BANG at the climax of the novel, which        
> > involves Harry and Voldemort and some sudden revelation on Harry's 
> > part of What He Has To Do.  This need not have anything to do with 
> > the HBP BANG.

Pippin:
I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, much less a good
argument. But barring Flints, it's conclusive  that an Unforgivable Curse didn't
kill Dumbledore (and thanks, Nora, for pointing out the thematic significance
of that.) The closed eyes and the blood are facts on the ground. Literally.  
The BANG on the tower has been undermined already, by JKR herself. 

Besides, if you allow Snape to be innocent, all sorts of interesting things
can happen. 

Harry, in siccing  the ministry on his hated but innocent enemy, 
repeats the error Snape made when he carried the prophecy to Voldemort,
which is in turn an echo of Snape being sent to the werewolf. 
I'm not a Christian or a scholar of Christianity, but isn't it a rather
prominent message that forgiveness should be granted to others because
we need it ourselves? 

The angsty  situation  about the loyal underling's  involvement
in the death of his mentor is transferred to the one
place JKR can really get her teeth into it, especially if Harry realizes
that if he hadn't dawdled over getting the memory from Slughorn, the
mission to the lake might have happened well before Draco got the
cabinet fixed. 

The apparent treachery on the tower becomes a possible foreshadowing
of the much bangier betrayal of Harry himself. 

I agree there's a message about trust. But if you are not going to
trust anybody who makes mistakes, then you are not going to trust
anybody. Trusting Dumbledore, not because he's Dumbledore, not
because he's perfect,  but because, for as long as you've known him, 
he's been trying to help you and protect you, seems to be a good bet. 

Trusting someone who went wrong once, but whose behavior over
sixteen years has been consistent,  if far from flawless, also seems 
promising. 

Trusting someone who's really nice, but who has let you down 
numerous times and never taken responsibility for the consequences?
Erm....

Pippin