phrodo41 wrote:
Here's a thing... Jo said that Voldemort is beyond the point of redemption. She says everyone else in the story is redeemable, but not Voldemort.
So, Harry would be more justified in actually killing Voldemort than he would be in killing, say, Snape or Umbridge. Because there's at least a remote chance that Snape and Umbridge could redeem themselves somehow.
Here's the quote to which I think you are referring. From Harry, Carrie, and Garp:
J.K. Rowling: Well, I believe that almost anyone can redeem themselves... However, in some cases, as we know from reality -- if a psychologist were ever able to get Voldemort in a room, pin him down and take his wand away, I think he would be classified as a psychopath (crowd laughs). So there are people, for whom, whatever you're going to callit -- personality disorder or an illness -- for whom redemption is not possible. They're rare. I don't agree that Harry would be more justified in killing Voldemort than he'd be in killing another character, IF Harry has the option of putting Voldemort out of commission without actually killing him and chooses to kill him instead. I think that Voldemort is not redeemable makes it almost worse for Harry to kill him.
Do I think a psychopath should wander about freely? Absolutely not. Do I think the psychopath understands his choices and is responsible for them? I'm not so sure. If there is a possibility that he can be treated and kept from endangering others, shouldn't that be pursued before he's killed?
I'm holding out hope that Harry's "love-tinged" blood will seep into the Tom Riddle deep within Voldemort, and that Tom may re-emerge, powerless and mortal, but alive enough to understand all that he lost by making the choices he made.
