The Baby @ Kings Cross Re: Of Sorting and Snape

[urghiggi]

No: HPFGUIDX 175843

-Bruce:
> In Dante's Inferno, there is one place where Dante starts to feel sorry for the
> souls in Hell.  His Guide, Virgil, tells him, "Here either pity or piety must
> die."  Having taken her degree in Classical & Romance Languages, I am sure that
> JKR knows her Dante quite well.
> 
snip:> DD's words are chosen precisely.  He doesn't say that we may, or should, or must
> do nothing for the bit of Tom Riddle's soul, but that we cannot.  That is, that
> it is impossible for us to do anything for it.
> 


Julie H:
Oh, good on ya, Bruce, for coming up with that. I do understand lizzyben's criticism of 
what JKR has done here (she is not alone in this of course), but it seems to me that in the 
author's view, at least, the "baby" is the LV soul portion that survives (2/8 by this point). 
Harry's comment in the duel scene... the whole "try for some remorse ... I've seen what 
you'll be otherwise" ... I'd submit that's not just Harry's view but the author's as well. 
Notwithstanding that King's Cross is "Harry's Party" and "inside his head," the insistence 
that it is in some measure "real" must mean that the insights to be gained there are true, 
at least in Potterverse logic.

The theology presumably shared by both Dante and JKR would assert that Harry actually 
cannot do anything about the state of LV's soul which he is (i presume) observing in the 
King's Cross scene. The soul is mangled and incomplete (6/8 of it is, after all, kaput), and 
only LV could do anything about that. (Now, whether this sociopath COULD actually do 
anything about it, given how he's painted, is of course an open question -- but either way, 
it's nothing Harry could fix. Again, within the Potterverse. Where, presumably, a Dantesque 
choice is presented -- where pity would actually offend piety, since the pious response 
would be to reflect on the ultimate justice to be meted out. (Whether this means that the 
justice is deserved because LV is an unrepentant sinner, or that the justice is deserved 
because LV, being not of the elect, could do no other, is another open question.)

I don't think JKR is a Jungian; the other reading seems more obvious but (applying Occam's 
razor here) also seems the most likely. Which is not to say that , even in a purely calvinistic 
interpretation that does not involve this 'baby' being any part of Harry, there isn't a lot to 
argue about....

Julie H, chicago