Of Sorting and Snape

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 175573

Sydney wrote:
> 
> Jumping in here because I had the exact same reaction as Lizzyben,
so it's not just her.  The symbolism in that scene was all kinds of
weird-- two guys congratulating each other on their love and
compassion while ignoring a crying wounded baby?!  
> 
> If that baby is the soul-piece that Voldemort put in Harry, it gets
> all kind of messed up. Because, okay, this is a crying wounded baby
> that's been inside Harry since his parents were murdered. Inner child,
> right? I mean on the symbolic level of course-- surely that was pretty
> explicit in OoP that Harry's rages and connection to Voldemort are
> symbolic of teen angst and hormones or whatever?  <snip>
> 
> So what should you do with your wounded inner child? IGNORE IT. Ignore
> the crying and the pain! It's disgusting! It's not a part of you. Do
> you hear me Harry? The flayed thing in agony that's been inside you
> for 16 years has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. When the crying gets too
> much, just beat the crap out of some Bad People. It'll make you feel
> better!!

Carol responds:
But the flayed child is *not* the soul bit that was in Harry and
therefore cannot represent his "inner child."

I've already posted on this topic several times, so I'll just give the
most important points here.

1) The soul bit, like those in the deliberately created Horcruxes, is
destroyed.

"So the part of his soul that was in me," asks Harry, "has it gone?"

"Oh, yes!" answers DD. "Yes, he *destroyed* it. Your soul is whole,
and completely your own, Harry."

Harry glances over at the thing under the chair and asks, "But then,
what is that, Professor?"

And DD answers only, "Something that is beyond our help" (DH Am. ed.
708, action paraphrased, dialogue exact).

So, the creature under the chair is not the soul bit, which has been
destroyed.

2) The thing under the chair is the future state of Voldemort's
mangled soul, which can only be prevented by his remorse.

"But before you try to kill me, I'd advise you to think about what
you've done," says Harry. "Think, and try for some remorse, Riddle. .
. . It's your one last chance. It's all you've got left. *I've seen
what you'll become otherwise*" (741).

Now, whether Voldemort, like Harry, had an out-of-body, near-death
experience (I think he did, given that he seems to have been
unconscious like Harry) or whether Harry merely saw a vision of what
happens to a self-mangled soul, 7/8 of which have been destroyed, does
not matter. Canon indicates that the flayed child is *not* the soul
bit that was in Harry; it's what remains of the mangled soul that was
in Voldemort. And the only chance for a restored soul (assuming that's
still possible given the destroyed soul bits--maybe the one in Nagini
could be put back, at least) is remorse for his many crimes.
Otherwise, Voldemort will spend eternity as a flayed, helpless,
repulsive child beyond the reach of love or mercy or compassion.

Even Grindelwald, it seems, could be saved from a similar fate if he
showed remorse. But he, of course, did not creste six Horcruxes, not
counting the accidental one. Voldemort has sealed his own fate through
his unnatural mangling of his own immortal soul and his failure to
repent his many and monstrous crimes. He has lost his humanity; he has
come close to destroying his own soul.

I'm not going to argue for or against a Jungian interpretation, though
the Christian interpretation is far more obvious to me even in the
title of the chapter. But everything from the quotes I've cited to
Hermione's information on the immortality of the soul and the
differences between soul bits in Horcruxes and souls within human
beings (DH Am. ed. 103-105) argues that the flayed baby (so similar to
the fetal form of Voldemort in GoF) is Voldemort's mangled soul, not
the soul bit from Harry's scar, and that it really is beyond their help.

See my other posts on this topic, among them

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/173668

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/174001

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175489

for further arguments and evidence supporting this position.

Carol, thinking that perhaps she should quote Hermione (in "The Ghoul
in Pajamas") in more detail next time to illustrate the difference
between souls and soul bits in DH