SPOILER WARNING

As if there's anyone out there who hasn't read "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" yet, be warned that I intend to talk about the ending. If you want to read a fabulous commentary on Snape written before the release of that book, go to my new favorite Potter commentator, Orson Scott Card. You've been warned.

***

I've been reading and hearing a lot of commentary going into "Deathly Hallows" and after it about how the burning question everyone had about the book was: Does Harry live or die? I find that puzzling, because in the two years since Book Six came out, I have rarely actually heard any discussion on that point. Sure, some people thought Harry might be a Horcrux and therefore might have to die in order for Voldemort to die, and given J.K. Rowling's penchant for killing people off, we believed she had the mettle to do it.

But the question I and most people I knew were far more interested in was: Is Snape really good or really evil? Everything had been set up for this to be the real cliffhanger from "Half-Blood Prince." Dumbledore trusted him, but Harry was convinced he was still a Death Eater at heart. There was enough evidence to suggest that Dumbledore was right (how many times in the last two years have we talked about how Dumbledore was "pleading" with Snape before he killed him?), but many of us had grown to loathe Snape so much we couldn't really believe he was acting completely in Dumbledore's interest by casting the killing curse.

And frankly, I thought Rowling stiffed us on this in Book Seven.

I don't have a problem with Snape turning out to be good at heart. I don't even really have a problem with him having been motivated by a love for Lily Evans (even 18 years after she married someone else and 16 years after she'd been dead, though? Dude, get over her!). I was disappointed, however, with how Rowling set up this huge debate and then spent only a chapter and a half in this nearly 600-page book talking about the answer. Let me explain.

Let's take a quick look at what Snape does in "Deathly Hallows."

1) He provides correct information to Voldemort about the time and manner in which the Order of the Phoenix will remove Harry from the Dursleys' house, even contradicting another Death Eater's incorrect information.
2) He becomes headmaster of Hogwarts.
3) He gets Gryffindor's sword to Harry.
4) He meekly lets Voldemort kill him.
5) He gives Harry his thoughts, explaining his motivation and passing along the message from Dumbledore to Harry that Harry must die to defeat Voldemort.

That's all, folks.

And that is why I present the following theory: Contrary to popular belief, Snape was not good. Nor was he evil. He was lukewarm and spew-out-of-mouth-worthy.

The main flaw of the Snape storyline, to me, is that Snape never shows his true colors. In fact, we, the readers, don't even know for sure what his true colors are until after he's already dead. And at that point, his alleged "goodness" isn't worth a whole lot, is it?

If Snape had been truly good, Voldemort would have died knowing that Snape opposed him. Snape would have done something -- anything -- over the course of the seven books to hinder Voldemort. But he didn't.

Instead, here is the complete list of things Snape did over the course of the series that made it less likely that Voldemort would succeed in his aims*:

1) In Book 1, he prevented Professor Quirrell from killing Harry on the Quidditch pitch.
2) In Book 7, he armed Harry with Gryffindor's sword, enabling Harry to destroy one of the seven Horcruxes.
3)In Book 7, he relayed a message from Dumbledore to Harry that Harry needed to die.

Nothing more.**

I don't give him a whole lot of credit for the first one, particularly since he probably didn't know Quirrell was even working for Voldemort at the time.

The sword thing was a nice part of the story, but it was totally unnecessary. If he hadn't gotten a hold of the sword, Harry could have just held on to the locket until they reached Hogwarts (perhaps in a more weakened and Frodo-like state) and used the (five-years-dead?) basilisk fangs on it. What's that you say? Harry couldn't have broken into Gringott's without the goblin who only agreed to do it if he got the sword? I disagree. What did the goblin do to help them get into the bank? Absolutely nothing. He was a hindrance the entire way. They totally could have done it without him, and faster.

And the third accomplishment was mere coincidence. I mean, what were the chances that when Snape was dying on the floor of the Shrieking Shack that Harry would just happen to be there? And if Voldemort had been thinking straight at the time, even that wouldn't have gotten the job done. In Voldemort's mind, he needed to conquer Snape to become master of the Elder Wand, but instead of Avada Kedavra-ing him, he sics his snake on him?*** Wouldn't that make the snake the master of the wand? And then, like any good villain, he leaves the scene before his victim is completely dead? Right.

So if it weren't for this astounding series of unlikely events, Snape wouldn't have been able to tell Harry that he needed to die. It doesn't seem like he even remembered he was supposed to do it till Harry showed up. That would have been a shame had Snape died without taking care of that little task. In fact, asking Snape to pass along that message was a bad move by Dumbledore if you ask me, even if he could be trusted. If something were to happen to Snape (as it almost did), all would be lost. Much safer and probably much easier would have been for Dumbledore to hide the message to Harry himself until the appropriate time, sort of like he did with the Resurrection Stone in the Snitch. Snape's near-failure and the fact that the accomplishment could have been made much more easily and certainly again lead me to discount the importance of Snape's contribution.

It was way back at the end of Book 4, I believe, where Dumbledore reacted to the return of Voldemort by telling Snape, "You know what you have to do," and sending him off to re-join the Death Eaters to act as a spy for the Order of the Phoenix. And over the course of the next three books, what does Snape accomplish in his double-agent role? He gives Harry a sword he didn't really need and barely passes on a message from Dumbledore thanks to sheer luck. Oh, and he gets Mad-Eye Moody killed, oversees Hogwarts' transformation from a school to a literal torture chamber for anti-Voldemortists, and fails to act in who knows how many ways to hinder Voldemort. Good going, Severus!

It's Snape's sins of omission that bother me the most. Other than the piddly efforts we've discussed, he does nothing to further the cause of good. What kind of a "spy" provides precisely zero information about the enemy's knowledge, plans, weaknesses, and whereabouts? What was he doing all the time in those Death Eater meetings? Dozing? What good is it for Voldemort to trust him if he doesn't get any trustworthy secrets out of Voldemort that the good guys can use against him? Where was Snape when Dumbledore and Harry were trying to identify and locate Horcruxes? Where was Snape when Voldemort took over the Ministry of Magic? Where was Snape when Voldemort and the Death Eaters were attacking Hogwarts? Oh, I remember. He was sitting in his office doing nothing until Voldemort asked him to join him in the Shrieking Shack, at which point he quietly allowed the Dark Lord to kill him, without even attempting to fight back.

I, like a lot of people, was expecting Snape to be present during the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort. That Voldemort would still trust Snape, but then suddenly Snape would turn on Voldemort and somehow help Harry defeat him. That could have happened in the Shrieking Shack. Maybe it wouldn't have worked because Harry couldn't have died with the right attitude, or whatever it was that made him come back from the dead, but it really grates me that Voldemort never knew Snape was against him.

Imagine if Snape had never become a double agent. Imagine if he had just said at the end of Book 4, "You know what, Dumbledore? I think I can do more as a 100% good guy than as a spy. I'm not going back to the Death Eaters." Nothing in Book 5 would have been different, except that Snape could have shown up at the Ministry and perhaps saved Sirius's life. Nothing in Book 6 would be different, except Dumbledore would have had to throw himself off the tower. Nothing in Book 7 would be different. Snape still would have been at Hogwarts, though perhaps not as headmaster (uber-good Professors McGonnagal, Sprout, and Flitwick, not to mention Hagrid, were still there, so there's no reason to believe Snape would have been killed or sacked). And he could have assisted in the fight against the Death Eaters, instead of sitting around watching -- no, letting -- it happen. I wonder how many people died because Snape decided to make Voldemort think he was evil. I don't think anyone lived that would have died otherwise. The best candidate for such a position is Snape himself. Maybe Voldemort wouldn't have been as kind to a Hogwarts teacher who had betrayed him.

So really what we have is a Snape who is not evil, but who really doesn't do anything for the cause of good. He's really a selfish character, only looking out for himself and the girl who never loved him and died 16 years ago. It baffles me that Harry would name his child after such a milksop. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like I just spewed forth some lukewarm water.

* I discussed after Book 6 my utter confusion as to what Voldemort's aims were. After reading Book 7, I'm still mostly at a loss, and can only guess that his goal was to kill all non-purebloods. After accomplishing that, I presume he would have retired to a tropical island to work on his tan.

** I don't count his killing of Dumbledore as at all related to Voldemort, either way. Dumbledore asked him to do it so as to allow Draco to not be sucked in to the Dark Side, as it were. Dumbledore's death, being inevitable, neither hurt nor helped Voldemort because it was brought about by Snape. It helped Draco's life outlook, and hurt Harry emotionally. It was a wash.

*** The imponderable of the Harry Potter series that I have never heard anyone bring up is this: What kind of a snake is Nagini? She's apparently huge and thick, which makes me think she's some kind of anaconda or boa constrictor. And when she attacks Harry in Godric's Hollow, she does attempt to squeeze him to death as that kind of snake is wont to do. But then she's also been known to attack people (Arthur Weasley in "Order of the Phoenix" and Snape in "Deathly Hallows") by biting them. Big constrictor-type snakes aren't poisonous! They don't bite till their prey is already dead from squeezing! I'm not satisfied with the answer that she's a magical snake that has both constrictor and viper powers. That's just silly, as there's no indication she's anything but a normal (domesticated) snake.