Choice and Essentialism/Understanding Snape)

[whirledgirl]

No: HPFGUIDX 154102

> 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 wrote:
<SNIP>
> 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 Snape 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. 
> 

WG*:

I've just come from an english exam, and one of the questions i 
chose related to Iago, Shakespeares 'villain' or 'misguided man' 
according to your school of thought, in Othello. 
I argued that Iago, in a way that was reminiscent of Voldie (note: 
didn't put this in the exam, don't think i would've passed 
otherwise!), has not ever really known love. And Iago's married! But 
he doesn't treat his wife with respect. This doesn't mean that he 
can't choose or hasn't got a choice, but imo feels a need, a base 
need that isn't necessarily controllable, to destroy the happiness 
of those around him. Sociopath? Quite possibly. Have they got a 
choice? Yet...Harry hasn't become a sinister, egotistical 
murderer...and he didn't know anything about his parents until the 
age of 11, when all his knowledge was destroyed and rebuilt.

IMO, J.K.R. is exploring what happens to real people when they are 
put in extreme situations through these characters in their 
extraordinary world. 
When in the Pensieve with DD in HBP, and DD and Harry go to the time 
when DD first met Tom Riddle as a boy, we're told that the place is 
clean, but not a nice place to grow up in.

Basically, I think Voldie had about as much choice as Harry has had. 

Harry didn't know his parents loved him, he hoped, I'm sure. He told 
himself that the car accident wasn't his fault, probably (knowing 
Harry as he is now he would have asked himself this), but the 
Dursley's shunned and mistreated Harry! Tom Riddle, in some ways, 
was even better cared for! You could not possibly say that Harry got 
more love in that house where "every surface" had a photo of Dudley. 
Impossible.
So why hasn't Harry "turned out bad" or whatever?
A Shakespeare critic said of Iago that if an audience member stood 
up and shouted out to him "why are you doing this?", Iago would have 
replied "because I can."
Isn't that why he hurt those two children in the cave? Isn't that 
why he hung that little boy's rabbit from the rafters? Because he 
felt wronged - and he *could*, so why couldn't Harry?
He didn't know he was loved. Had he felt love?
That's just my two knuts worth...although apologies if some parts 
are abit shakey, 3 hour exams don't agree with me heh.

smiles,
WG*