The creature under the bench (again) (was: Of Sorting and Snape)

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 176001

> Carol responds:
> I'm sorry that you perceived my intentions as hostile because I feel
> nothing of the sort. It's not hostility; it's frustration. I'm trying
> to get you to look specifically at the canon within "King's Cross"
> itself, in addition to a few other quotations in DH that I've cited in
> other posts rather than appearing to believe that a point can be
> proven through repetition. I'm not trying to make trouble; I'm trying
> to steer away from generalizations and preconceptions to examine
> specifics.

lizzyben:

It's all good. 

Carol:
> Again, I'm not being hostile. I'm trying to understand how you can
> persist in interpreting the creature under the chair as a soul bit or
> a part of Harry with the evidence from these two quotations, in
> particular, in front of you.
<snip>

lizzyben:

Because I see Voldemort as a part of Harry.


Carol:
> I agree that the experience is taking place in Harry's mind, a kind of
> out-of-body experience, but I don't see how that leads to the thing
> under the chair being part of Harry. We've been told by DD that the
> soul bit is destroyed and that Harry's soul is now whole and his own.
> The soul bit that was in him was no more a part of himself that the
> soul bit in the locket was part of Ron.

lizzyben:

Well, I think we're clashing here in that you're going w/the literal
reading of the text, and I'm going w/a metaphorical reading of the
text. Text as text, sure, the "soul bit" is just a totally separate
entity that lived inside Harry's head for 16 years. And it's an entity
that allowed LV to see inside Harry's head, and vice versa. But that
soul bit was a whole lot more a part of Harry than the locket bit was
of Ron - it literally lived inside him for most of his life. It
affected his emotions, his thoughts, his dreams, his magic - almost
everything. Harry was a bit like Quirrel in that way, w/LV hidden up
in his head.


Carol:
> Please, instead of reiterating your arguments, can you show me *canon*
> to refute my interpretation of these particular quotations? That's all
> I'm asking. 

lizzyben:

Who's refuting your interpretation? Certainly not me. The great thing
about fiction is that there are many, many ways of interpreting the
same work - the same scene can be interpreted from a Christian
perspective, a feminist perspective, a post-modern perspective, a
Freudian perspective, etc. None of these are *wrong*, they're just
different ways of looking at the text. Literature isn't math, & there
isn't just one right answer. From a Christian/Calvinist perspective,
"the baby" definitely seems to represent a damned soul. From a Jungian
perspective, it's a pretty good representation of the Shadow (my
view). Freudians might see it as the id, and etc. There's as many
potential interpretations as there are people.

Carol:
Give me a convincing, logical counterargument refuting my
> position that the creature represents the future state of Voldemort's
> flayed soul if he doesn't repent. I'm challenging you to prove me
> wrong using internal evidence from DH itself, as I have done.

lizzyben:

See, I don't disagree with you, so why would I present
counterarguments? Yeah, the creature is totally supposed to represent
Voldemort's soul. On a symbolic level, it represents a whole lot more.