Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 153993


> > 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. 

Pippin:
Exactly. And we do have a character who is just such a cold fish, who
speaks of love in terms of power rather than feeling, who seems to
understand the need for emotional support only intellectually, and yet
is regarded  as a good man, indeed the best of them. Albus Dumbledore. 

I think JKR makes it a little too easy for us to blame Voldemort's evil on
the bad blood of the Gaunts. The Blacks are every bit as arrogant, violent 
and unstable, even Sirius. Yet he was still a loving godparent.

Pippin