Of Sorting and Snape

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 175446

 
> lizzyben:
> 
> Again, it's a totally irrational intuitive reaction, but I think 
that
> baby had a great deal to do with Snape. I say that w/absolute,
> unexplainable certainty. The parallels between the descriptions of
> Snape in the previous chapter & the baby in King's Cross are just 
too
> striking. And you know what it is? That baby is the scapegoat, the
> "other", the Shadow, the one that the Wizards can project all their
> sins upon & stuff under the chair where no one can see it. It's the
> elves, goblins, Slytherins, too. It's the truths that the wizards 
have
> to cover up & hide so that they can keep their illusion of 
perfection
> & superiority. It's like something out of "the Lottery". It's
> absolutely chilling to me. 
> 
> The philosopher William James has commented on the role of 
scapegoats
> in society, & his quote is eerily reminiscent of the King's Cross 
child: 
> 
> "If the hypothesis were offered of a world in which ... utopias 
should
> all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one 
simple
> condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things
> should lead a life of lonely torture," most people would feel that 
the
> enjoyment of such a utopia would be a "hideous thing" at such a 
cost."
> 
> 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Philosopher_and_the_Moral_Life
> 
> 
> Well, that's the Wizarding World, and it is a hideous thing.
>

Hickengruendler:

I have a really big problem seeing your point here, I have to admit. 
While I don't necessarily agree with other points of your arguments, 
I do see, where you are coming from, and that it can be interpreted 
that way. Here I don't. Harry tells Voldemort "I saw what you will 
become." For me,  suggests, that the baby has nothing to do with 
Snape, or the house-elves, or the Slytherins, or anyone else but 
Voldemort, and only Voldemort. He did it to himself, by trying to 
gain eternal life, he lost his soul for good. And there was still 
some hope for him, at this point, it was the real Voldemort, who 
could undo it, in showing some genuine regret. Admittingly, it was 
unlikely, but at this point, Voldemort still had a chance, which he 
did not take. 

And this is, where Rowling draw a big difference between Voldemort 
and Snape. Not only was Snape capable of love, because of this, he 
was also capable of true regret, just like Dumbledore did. Which is 
the one thing, according to Hermione's books, that could seal the 
soul. Snape showed this regret, therefore the conclusion, that his 
soul, in contrast to Voldemort's, got healed, is one, that is 
supported by the text. Why else would JKR have put this information 
into the books in first place? Just as a route Voldemort did not 
take? I mean, I can understand people not being sure, that Snape's 
ultimate fate is similar to Dumbledore's. I mean, we were nothing 
directly shown, after all. What I have a hard time understanding, is 
the idea, that it automatically means Snape's fate is like 
Voldemort's. There are enormous differences between how JKR portrayed 
these two characters from Philosopher's Stone onwards.

Hickengruendler