Is Snape good or evil?

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 149025

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

> 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. 

No, it's hardly *conclusive*.  It was also 'conclusive' that Snape 
was acting in the Shrieking Shack in order to set up the situation 
with Peter, and that's hardly played out, has it?

It is conclusive to *your* interpretation, which may or may not be 
true.  But to assert it as bald fact is to grossly overstate your 
position.  Unless by Flint you mean "Something which I consider to be 
a Flint, but may actually be the result of my incomplete knowledge of 
the mechanics of JKR's world, which she holds in reserve as do many 
authors, in order to be able to spring things on us."

-Nora admits to becoming irked at the assertion of interpretation as 
solid fact, obvious to all but the willfully blind unbelievers