Of Sorting and Snape

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 175459

> 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. 

lizzyben:

LOL, that's probably because I'm being totally unclear. I'm just 
trying to figure out why that scene disturbed me so much, & not 
really succeeding.

Hickengruendler: 
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. 

lizzyben:

Oh, yeah, there's definitely more hope for Snape than Voldemort, and 
I do accept that the figure in that scene is meant to be Voldemort. 
Still, on a symbolic level, there's something incredibly disturbing 
about the whole thing. DD tells Harry not to help the crying, 
wounded child - and Harry the hero restrains his "saving people 
thing" to let the child be. After awhile he doesn't even hear the 
cries anymore. That's sort of cold & callous. 

Within the context of the novel, yeah, LV's soul probably can't be 
helped, but within the context of that scene alone, it's just two 
people refusing to help a child stuffed under a chair. And when I 
think about how this series relentlessly dehumanizes "the other", 
seems to ultimately accept the oppression of other beings (elves, 
etc.), seems to accept cutting off qualities that are unacceptable, 
that creature starts to seem like a symbol for a lot more things. 
Probably I'm just reading too much into it. 


lizzyben