[HPforGrownups] Re: Said creature under the bench..

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 176186

Annemehr:
By the way, in case anyone is thinking of that post-DH interview
where JKR said that LV did indeed have the chance to repent, because
of "-- this drop of hope or love--" -- because of Harry's blood in
his veins, I must demur.

[ http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0729-dateline-vieira.html
scroll down near the end]

Firstly, I must demur because, though the interviews were fun
and "fair game" for theorising, now that the series is complete they
are no substitute for what is actually in the text, in fact they are
often contradictory. (I'm not asserting, in general, that the author
is *absolutely* "dead" -- that'd be a whole other discussion -- just
that in this case they're not helpful.)

Debbie:
I've never put much, if any, stock in interview statements.  For one thing,
they were marketing devices, and too often her serious comments seemed at
odds with the message (conscious or unconscious) between the covers of the
book.

Annemehr:
Secondly, and more importantly, this assertion is one of those things
that is indeed contradicted in the text. If LV, for the first time
ever, is suddenly experiencing within himself the true ability to
*love* that night in the graveyard, you'd have to expect it to have
*some* effect. You'd have to; the sudden presence of love within
ought to be huge. Instead, we see quite the opposite: not only does
he think and act just the same as ever, but at the end of OoP, he is
tortured by the presence of love within Harry while he is possessing
him. This is a flat-out contradiction of the interview comment. If
LV carried love in his veins via Harry's blood, either 1) he would
experience constant pain in his body from it, or 2) he ought to have
been able to withstand the same emotion in Harry that he carried in
his veins. One or the other.

Debbie:
I agree that Harry's blood had no effect on Voldemort's lack of capacity for
love, and correspondingly, that scrap of Voldemort's soul had no effect on
Harry's capacity for evil.  Harry could not be turned from Good and
Voldemort could not be turned from Evil.

Harry's immunity from Voldemort's soul stands in stark contrast to the
effect of the locket horcrux on him (DH ch. 15.)  There's no explanation
whatsoever for that difference in effect, but JKR hasn't given us any reason
to believe that either could change.

Annemehr:
It's that vision of the 11-year-old-child Tom in the orphanage that
gets to me -- so young, and so obviously *put* (by fate) onto a
tragic path. And here comes the twinkly, but cold and distant
Dumbledore, and what does he do? He takes one look, and goes for
intimidation tactics -- just the thing for reaching out to a poor
young psychopath, eh? Sheesh.

Debbie:
The magical explanation for this is that Dumbledore's legilimency skills
enabled him to peg Riddle properly right off the bat as incapable of
responding to love.  But the scene plays out as a human encounter, not a
magical one (despite the burning bush, er, wardrobe), and on a human level
it's just creepy.

Debbie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]