Um - thanks very much for your comments, and I'm glad you liked the essay. (thanks again to you, too, Sigune!) It's true that Tom Riddle is an even stronger argument for predestination than Severus Snape. Oddly enough, what we learn about Snape in DH reminds me of an earlier discussion about Tom Riddle on my LJ. Sigune had been saying all along that Snape was basically a sociopath, without any internal moral code, and therefore had to 'borrow' one from Dumbledore, Lily, or the Church. It turns out she was right. But I agree with Rexluscus that Severus eventually internalized his own morality - and to do so with so little help or encouragement is really, really heroic. It's also quite heroic to plug along doing what you *know* (intellectually) to be right even if you have no 'feel' for right and wrong. In fact, that's a level of heroism I can scarcely imagine. That's our Snape. He did right because he chose to do right, even when he couldn't really understand.

Riddle, also a sociopath, could have chosen to do the same; he could have 'played by the rules' of normal humanity. But he chose not to.

Had Rowling chosen to bring out this contrast, and to celebrate Severus's heroism in choosing and doing right, there would have been some moral point to the books. As it is, IMHO, there is none. Rowling condemns both Snape and Riddle for things they did not choose and could not help. At least, that's the way I see it. Because no one chooses to be abused, neglected, unwanted, and unloved. No baby can possibly be faulted for those things!