That ugly baby thing.

[Annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 173586

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annette" <CariadMel at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sandra Collins" 
> <sandra87b@> wrote:
> >
> > Having put down the book after reading the King's Cross chapter 
> > again, I still don't get the whole ugly baby thing. From what 
I've 
> > read of the many many many enjoyable, varied and informative 
> > posts regarding a wide raft of subjects to do with the book, is 
> > how Voldermort was meant to be an ugly baby under a bench. I 
> > don't understand the symbolism or maybe the reality? Could 
> > anyone enlighten me as to what it all meant because it's all been 
> > lost on me. I go along with Geoff's line (always good to read 
your 
> > views, Mr Bannister!) on it being a brief near-death experience 
for 
> > Harry, that's how I read it in the first place, but the baby made 
> it 
> > unpleasant reading and I still don't get it.
> > Maybe I 'll leave the decaff alone today, if  that's going to 
help.
> > 
> > Sandra x.
> >
>  
> yes that scene disturbed me too Sandra. I don't get what the ugly 
> baby was all about either. Like you and Geoff I subscribe to the 
near-
> death experience theory, a moment in earth-bound time and space but 
> one in which Harry 'sees the light'. My take on the 'creature' was 
> that it was symbolic of evil, DD said that it was beyond help. 
> Despite that the 'creature' was pleading and seemed remorseful, it 
> was whining and totally disturbed. Maybe it wasn't vocalising it 
> well, but it made me feel very uncomfortable that it was being 
> ignored. I don't know what it is, good or bad? Voldemorts soul? the 
> Harry horcrux? it just leaves a bad taste.
>  
> Besides if I don't know how to understand this, how will I explain 
it 
> to my grandson? Children are much more literal and need the facts.
> 
> cariad.
>


I believe that thing under the chair was the bit of Voldemort's soul 
that had been attached to Harry, but is so no longer.  Dumbledore 
tells Harry there is nothing they can do for it, because only 
Voldemort's remorse can help it.  Yet, it seems, this is a detached 
soul-piece -- not the piece Voldemort feels as "I" -- so it cannot be 
remorseful on its own.

Later, in the Great Hall, when Harry tells Voldemort his only chance 
is to feel remorse, he says "I've seen what you'll be otherwise..."  
Now think back to GoF, just before Wormtail put Voldemort into the 
rebirthing cauldron, Harry saw LV's temporary body, and the 
description is much the same as the baby thing in Kings Cross.  In 
fact, even before Wormtail unwrapped him, he struggled and moved on 
the ground in much the same way as the thing does in the station.  
This shows that the soul-piece that Voldemort calls "I" is in much 
the same state as the thing Harry saw under the chair.

JKR's point, I believe, is that Tom Riddle destroyed himself, and he 
is the only one who can help himself now, through remorse.  

How that squares with him being a psychopath, I don't know.

Annemehr