JKR's crying at the end of writing DH/ Double agent's death

[nitalynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 171550

Dana:
> So who are the target and controlling organizations in case of
> Snape?

Nita:
Well, that's what readers here and elsewhere have been arguing about
for years, isn't it? :)


> Well before Snape turned spy for the Order, Snape was not a double
> agent but just merely a spy for LV.


Agreed.


> Snape only became a double agent when he agreed to spy on LV for DD.

Mhmmm... So, whose double agent did he become by agreeing to do that?
LV's spy agreeing to spy on LV - sounds like DD's agent, to me.

> And as we see when Snape brought the prophecy to LV he was not in
> DD's service but was just spying on DD. DD says himself that Snape
> was still in LV's employ at the time.

Right. Didn't you already say that earlier? "Just merely a spy for LV"
and such?


> So after Snape turned DD became the controlling organization by
> Snape's own agreement to work for DD to spy on LV. That also means
> that LV became the target organization.

Oh, wait. I don't think it works that way. He was still pretending (or
"pretending", if you prefer) to spy on DD for LV, wasn't he? So the
Order was still the nominal target (that he was possibly actually
loyal to, hence the doubleness). The confusing part is that *both*
sides believe him to be a spy in both camps - loyal to their side, of
course.


> In both cases LV is the target where information needs to be
> retrieved in order to help DD and not the other way around.

Why not the other way around? Didn't Snape use his "sixteen years of
information on Dumbledore" to get back into LV's good graces,
according to his speech in Spinner's End?


> Let's fill this in to the definition shall we? DD = controlling LV
> = target.  A double agent (Snape) is someone who pretends to spy on
> LV on behalf of DD, but in fact is loyal to LV.


Well, I see that you see it that way. But don't you agree that it
could work equally well the other way around? :)


> Interesting isn't it that it is stated that double agents are often
> VERY TRUSTED by the Controlling organization (DD), since the target
> organization (LV) will give them true, but useless, information to
> pass along.
>
> Coincidence that the controlling organization is DD and he so very
> trusts Snape? I think not.

Well, could he rely on Snape's reports if he didn't trust him? I don't
think so. LV simply tries to ensure loyalty using death threats,
torture and Legilimency, and since he apparently thinks himself so
great no one could "hoodwink" him (notice how Bella shuts up after
Snape's question), he deems trust unnecessary. Instead, he makes sure
his agents don't know each other if possible (or at least Karkaroff
says so) and fear him more than anything.

So, different leaders, different strategy. And since no "civilized"
government in their right mind would admit to using LV's methods, the
article says that apparently good spies are trusted, like DD trusted
Snape. Makes sense to me.


> In the first part (of the second Wikipedia definition) it is stated
> that these agents are often used to identify other agents as part
> of counter-espionage operations. This means that DD as the
> controlling organization would have wanted Snape to identify the
> spy in the Order but as we see Snape never identified who the spy
> was in the first war, with devistating results I might add.

Yeah, he didn't manage to do that. By the way, Karkaroff didn't name
Pettigrew either, despite such effective motivation. And if I were LV,
I would *certainly* keep my two spies in the Order separately. It's
such a great opportunity to cross-check their reports, after all :)


> So in the stricktest sense of the definition Snape is really
> working for LV but is pretending to work for DD and his Order. So I
> can only suggest that if people want to use definitions to proof
> Snape is DDM then they should first work out that definition to
> understand what it actually says.

I wasn't actually trying to prove anything, though. After I described
how the term "double agent" applies to DDM!Snape, I went on to explain
how it works for ESE!Snape as well. That's the beauty of the situation
- he was certainly a double agent, but *whose* agent? Did he cunningly
infiltrate the Order, or did he turn against LV, like DD said? You're
the one who seems to be using the definition to try and resolve the
debate, something I wouldn't dare attempt ;)


Nita, fairly sure this is more of a misunderstanding than a real argument