Snape as having been loved.

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 136511

 
Rebecca wrote:

I would very much like to know exactly what JKR  meant when she said how 
Snape had been love wheres Voldemort had not and  this made Snape more 
culpable than Voldemort was. Culpable in what way  exactly? Did she mean 
that Voldemort's nastiness was more excusable than  Snape's bullying 
behaviour?

 
 
Julie says:
I think what JKR means is that Snape having been loved (and  probably
having loved--if his mother loved him, surely he loved her back)  makes
him capable of empathy, which gives him the ability to put himself  in 
someone else's shoes and understand that person's pain.  Voldemort,
never loved and never having loved, has no such empathy. He has  no
real conception of anyone  else's feelings or pain except his own, 
thus no internal reason to avoid hurting other people.
 
That's what I think JKR means when she says Snape is more  culpable
for his actions--because he understands the pain he is causing.  And
that has nothing to do with excusing the actions of  either. Voldemort
can certainly understand right and wrong in an  intellectual sense. He
knows it's "wrong" to kill other people. But he can't understand  it in
an emotional sense. He can make a choice not to kill, but there's 
no emotional benefit in it for him, since he's not bothered by remorse 
or guilt. Which  makes him a psychopath. 
 
While there's no excuse for Voldemort's actions, and  they are far
more evil than Snape's (so far as we know), he is less  culpable, 
because in a sense he can't really help himself.  Something vital is 
missing in him, and  it's not just all those pieces of his soul. It's an
age-old question whether/when he could have been turned  around
(i.e., whether he was born that way or at some point his  environment
tipped the scale), but it was probably too late for Tom Riddle by the 
time Dumbledore brought him from the  orphanage. 
 
Julie 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]