Kate, as for your coworker's question: it helps that Harry doesn't trust Snape, for Snape to be more trusted by Voldemort.

Misdirection, yes. There is lots of that. And, OK, I'll concede that there might have been some scheming going on between Dumbledore and Snape, although in part I think the theory comes from a place of Snape-worship. (Ducks.) But, nope on the second chapter. Not saying the first chapter was strong, but as Fay said, it's in keeping with the other books. The second, on the other hand, was uncharacteristically clumsy and heavy-handed misdirection, if misdirection it was. I stand by my opinion.

And I like Aimée's ending.

Ok, I have a Snape/Lily question:

In OotP, Harry sees his dad being a butthead and doesn't Snape, when Lily helps him, call her a "filthy mudblood" or summat?

All white font:

I was thinking about the "Harry won't believe it no matter what" factor, and then I remembered the Pensieve.

Knut, regarding your ducks, I don't worship Snape in any way, and I subscribe to that theory. It makes perfect sense, given the facts and JKR's past storytelling history.

Right, that's a good point. [ edit: Hec's point about Voldemort trusting Snape more. ] But I think her main point was that Dumbledore knows Harry very well, and he knows how much Harry despises and distrusts Snape, in spite of Dumbledore's reassurances that he really is on their side. So for Dumbledore to arrange for Harry to witness what would be, to his mind, the absolute worst thing Snape could possibly do, shows a lack of foresight on Dumbledore's part, because it's all but guaranteed to send Harry round the bend and convince him that Snape is irredeemably evil. Which may all be part of the plan, as you pointed out, but also means that Snape can never really return to the Order.

On the other hand, I think that they were pretty well trapped at that point, and Dumbledore didn't have much of a choice; it was either let Harry go, and possibly get killed or blow Snape's cover (thus, quite likely, getting many more people killed), or keep him around and try to keep him from doing himself or anyone else harm. And, on the meta level, the book is all told from Harry's POV at that point, and it would muck up the momentum to suddenly switch to someone else's--and Dumbledore's death is pretty much the climax/turning point of the whole book, so Harry needed to be there so that the readers could witness it.

So. I think I disagree with her, but I'm not 100% convinced.

cereal:

Knut, I think you're on the right track with the Pensieve, and maybe the headmaster portraits will play a part as well in convincing Harry where Snape's loyalties lie.

P-C, I'm not saying that it's a theory held exclusively by Snape worshippers at all. In fact I agree, after reading the arguments here, that it's a possibility. But I wouldn't be surprised if it began as an effort to reclaim Snape.

I want Snape to be a bad guy, honestly, but I think chapter two is the clever way of misdirecting me away from it.

I never assumed Snape was a bad guy. I always had him pegged as a representative of "people who hate you can still be on your side, so you'd better be careful about those snap judgements." A bit of a lesson in tolerance and "it's not about you"-ness.