[HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's crying at the end of writing DH/ Double agent's death

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 171567

Nita: 
> 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.
<snip>

Dana:
Yes, but Snape only became a double spy for DD after he agreed to spy 
on LV as he was a normal spy when he was send to DD. 
But a double spy is not a noble person that changes his allegiances. 
He is actually a double crosser that makes the person, he agreed to 
spy for, believe that he is actually working for him, while in 
reality he never changed allegiances and is still working for the 
same party he was originally from. 

Magpie:
That depends on the spy. The fact that he changed allegiences does not mean
he can't be noble. He could change for noble reasons. Garbo was a double
agent in WW2. He wanted to work for the allies, but they weren't
interested. So he became a spy for Hitler, and then went back to the
allies. They still didn't see him as valuable. Then he started working
against Hitler from the inside and eventually they tracked him down and
made him an agent for themselves--he had become valuable because he was a
Nazi spy. He was a double and triple agent. He started off working for the
Nazis. He changed his allegience technically but in his case was only ever
really loyal to the allies. Not that Snape seems to be Garbo, but the fact
that he's a double agent really doesn't seem to me to prove that he has to
be out for himself. We've been given possibilities in the text where he's
loyal to one side or the other, no matter who he started out as. Just
because he changed sides once doesn't automatically mean he will change
sides for any reason.

Nita: 
> 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.

Dana:
You are turning the normal spy (LV's spy) into a double spy while 
Snape only became a double spy as soon as he agreed to work for DD. 
According to DD, when Snape turned, Snape was no longer believed to 
be a DE but just pretended to be one so he could retrieve information 
from LV. LV never though Snape to no longer be a DE at that time 
other wise Snape would have been death.

Magpie:
Yes, he couldn't be a double agent if Voldemort thought he was working for
Dumbledore. Both sides have to think he's working for them.

Dana:
 The problem is that you want 
to imply that Snape turning spy for DD somehow proofs that Snape 
indeed had returned to the right side but unfortunately that is not 
proof because Snape knows DD saw him when the prophecy was made and
therefore Snape could just have used this information to concoct his 
story of remorse to get on DD's good side without defecting to the 
other side. 

Magpie:
Sure he could have done that. I thought the other poster was saying that he
also could have truly switched sides. S/he was saying it works both ways,
so we can't say for sure whose side he's on I thought.

Dana:
Snape never truly defected otherwise Snape could never 
have gone back to LV in GoF and as we see he kept his options open by 
keeping his former associates close. Snape was under orders to get 
himself in a position at Hogwarts and we know LV is not the most 
patients of guys so Snape would not have the luxury to take forever 
to get there. 

Magpie:
We don't know that Snape never truly defected. He most certainly could have
gone back to LV even if he truly defected. Truly defecting doesn't have to
require going around and personally convincing everyone you knew on the
other side and Voldemort himself that you've defected. (It's not like a 12
step program ;-) It's equally possible that Snape didn't truly defect and
that he did. In neither case would defecting mean that Snape had to have
burned all his bridges with the other side.

Dana:
I do not want to imply that it therefore can't be so but it is by no 
means proof that Snape did not make himself a double agent for a) to 
win DD's trust and b) to fulfill his life-debt to James. 

Magpie:
Right. He could be the double agent DD says he is, or he could be the
double agent Draco says he is. Both sides are presented as a possibility.

Dana:
If we for a moment even assume that DD knew that Snape was a DE 
because of him listening at the door or him chasing DD around on 
other occasions then Snape would have needed to have come up with 
something to convince DD he was no longer loyal to LV. 

What I am trying to say is that Snape's double agent status will not 
give any inside into Snape's true loyalties but if you apply the 
wikipedia definition as you did then Snape is pretending to spy on 
LV, while he actually has been spying on DD all along. 

Magpie:
Yes, that's the version of Snape that Snape himself gives in Spinner's End,
and that the other DEs say is true. His double/triple agent status says
nothing about which side he's loyal to one way or the other.

Nita: 
> 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?
<snip>

Dana:
So, does this mean that he has been pretending to spy on DD? 

Magpie:
Of course. That's what Voldemort and the DEs think he is doing, spying on
DD. If he's really DDM he's only pretending to spy on DD.  

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

Dana:
No, it could not equally work the other way. Snape is either a double 
agent loyal to LV or he is a triple agent loyal to DD but he is not a 
double agent loyal to DD in the strictest sense of the definition you 
posted. 

Magpie:
Yeah, but isn't that nitpicking for little reason? People use "double
agent" to loosely to refer to this sort of thing often without being
technical about counting the steps of his loyalty. I think Nita's point
stands that it *does* work the other way around. Either Snape did spy on DD
and reported back to LV and has basically continued doing so, or he
switched sides and started to pretend to spy on DD and reported back to DD
on LV. I think that's still working the same the other way around despite
making him technically a triple agent because he started with LV.

Dana:
Snape is working on DD's orders to spy on LV that is what 
canon tells us and whatever Snape is truly doing or who he is truly 
loyal too can't be defined by just conveniently turning the 
definition up-side down (MHO). LV is and has always been the target 
in Snape's double agent function, before that time he was a normal 
spy and after, he not a spy at all because he has no controlling 
organization to report to anymore, he is now just a DE if he wants to 
be or not, as the rest of the WW is looking for him. 

Magpie:
But this discussion isn't really about the Wiki definition of a double
agent, is it? I mean, if it's just a case of remembering to say "triple"
instead of "double" is that really that important? Even the characters in
canon seem happy with just "double agent" no matter which side they're on..

Dana:
Personally I do not think LV can be "hoodwinked" and I do not believe 
Snape is too stupid to try (there is much more to lose if he does and 
is found out). But Snape's reports, how much have they helped the 
Order so far? He is not able to identify the spy in the Potters inner 
circle, he doesn't know LV is going to target the Potters on 
Halloween, he doesn't tell DD that LV's plans have changed and only 
alerts the Order when he already lost track of Harry, he does 
absolutely nothing to stop Draco because he has made a packed that 
prevents him to act. 

Magpie:
We can't make judgments on helping the Order on information we don't have,
so Snape can't be judged on that either way imo. Snape's working for DD
does not automatically mean he'd be privvy to all of this information. He
couldn't stop him, but that doesn't mean he didn't try because of the Vow.
Dumbledore himself also had reasons for not stopping Draco any way they
could as well. I just don't think we have anywhere near enough information
to decide that Snape hasn't been helping the Order at all.

Dana:
Casulty rate on the Orders side: 2 death, 1 imprisoned for 12 years, 
1 death and 1 claimed to have died by information given by him 
(Emmeline Vance) and 1 death by his own hand. Mhhh 5 dead people, all 
on Snape's watch and even more lives ruined. What a great guy that 
Snape that he offered his service to DD, really big help he has been. 

Magpie:
Not ready to judge Snape for everything bad that happened to the Order
throughout a war. Lots of people died in WW2 as well on Garbo's watch.
Snape could just as easily be DD's most loyal man with this record. Doesn't
say one way or the other. Presumably if Snape was never any help at all
Dumbledore would have noticed. At least I presume it. 

Dana:
The article states that the controlling organization trusts these 
double agents to actually be truly working for them while in reality 
they never have. They are betrayed in that trust. A good spy is one 
that is not a double spy, who just infiltrates an organization for 
information but it is a one way street as they never reveal they 
actually belong to the other side so the enemy does not know they 
have a spy in their midst. 

Magpie:
The article isn't talking about Snape, so it's of limited use in
understanding Snape's loyalties in a work of fiction. If Snape had an
actual epiphany and started working against LV, then he could be loyal to
Dumbledore despite not starting out that way. It seems Regulus changed
sides, and he died for it willingly.

Nita: 
> 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 :)

Dana:
Pettigrew is believed to be dead by the time Karkaroff gives his 
statements. He wants to get out of Azkaban so what is the use to give 
evidence on a dead guy (or believed to be dead)? And it actually 
doesn't help him when he mentions Rosier and it is stated that he 
died just after the MoM had put Karkaroff in prison himself. 

Magpie:
But we have no evidence that Snape knew Peter was a spy in the Order or
that Karkaroff knew it.

Nita: 
> 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 ;)
<snip>

Dana:
No, you weren't but providing that definition indicates to me that 
you did not understand the concept of what is actually meant by it. 
Double agent does not apply to DDM. If Snape is DDM then he can only 
be a triple agent but not a double agent by this definition because 
we as a reader only get the view point as DD being the one that send 
Snape to LV making DD the controlling and LV the target organization. 
I am not trying to resolve the debate what I'm trying to resolve is 
understanding the meaning of what being a double agent stands for and 
it is not some romantic label you can put on someone. A double agent 
is a double crosser someone that pretends to work for the side 
sending him but actually working for the side he is send to. 

Magpie:
I don't think Nita saying "double" instead of "triple" shows any
misunderstanding of the concept, it's just using "double agent" as a catch
all to refer to this type of spy without counting all the steps of loyalty.
I don't see how that has anything to do with Nita romanticizing the term
one way or the other. It seems to me that "double crosser" is the more
emotionally charged word, unless you don't actually mean that term to have
negative connotations. A double agent can be loyal to one side, and it's
certainly possible they can have noble intentions or true loyalty to only
one side-especially in fiction.  Nita's point as I understood it was that
Snape could equally be an agent that is loyal to LV and spying on DD, while
DD thinks he is loyal to him and spying on LV, or he could be an agent that
is loyal to DD and spying on LV, while LV thinks he is loyal to him and
spying on DD. At this point I don't think the way the whole thing started
17 years ago is the main point, even if that does make him technically a
triple rather than a double agent. If it sounds a bit romantic well, that's
good, isn't it? It's an adventure story. The romance will go out of it soon
enough if Snape's a low life, just as it did with Peter (while Sirius Black
seemed imo more of a romantic evil figure).

-m