Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape)

[festuco]

No: HPFGUIDX 153992

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
 
> a_svirn:
> Now there we do it again. Existentialist or essentialist? Because 
> essentialist position would have been something quite the opposite – 
> that Macbeth would have turned out a murderer no matter what – 
> because it is in his nature. Also I think that Voldemort *is* 
> essentially evil. I mean, really, what about that phrase that he 
> never loved anyone? Unlike Snape who did and therefore more 
> culpable? It sort of suggests that Voldemort can't be even hold 
> accountable for his actions. He's just inherently evil – the bad 
> blood of the Gaunts, no doubt. He simply can't help it. This is a 
> kind of contrary to the main message of the series, but apparently 
> necessary for the plot purposes.
>
Gerry

But Voldemort could help it. He is unable to love, but he does know
right from wrong. He hoodwinked almost the entire school when he was a
boy. He could have gone on doing that and have had a brilliant career
at the MoM. He would have been hugely popular, could have married a
trophy wife and had a couple of children en nobody would have known
that inside he was an egocentric cold fish, only caring about himself.
He had these possibilities, yet he choose differently. 

I think JKR means that Voldemort only understands about loving and
connecting on an intellectual level. He knows these things exist but
he has had no experience of it himself. Yet Snap had, and therefore
his choices were -how do I say that- more profound because he does
understand these things on an emotional level as well. 

Gerry