![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I'm just posting an entry I made in the Hogwartsprofessor forum here as well, and cross posting it to Harry Potter Essays, because I thought it was interesting and thought others might be interested as well. The purpose was not to open a frequently viewed can of worms, but rather to close it! But of course, comments are welcome! At the same time, I'm going to go through my journal and put the really long stuff behind lj cuts, if I can manage it. First, the essay-
Title: Some thoughts on Tom Riddle's Psychology
Author:mary_j_59
Type: G
Category:short essay
Length: About 300 words
Main characters and/or pairings:Tom Riddle
Warnings: None, though there is a little imagery I find disturbing. It's about what makes Riddle evil, and the sort of evil he represents.
Rating: G, but see above.
Summary:
Disclaimers and Notes: Thanks to the members of the Hogpro board for a very interesting discussion, especially Pat, Jayne1955, Jodel and (though I often disagree with her!) Trudy. Also, thanks to my sister for reading and approving. The essay follows the cut:
On the hogpro board, some of us again began to debate about Tom Riddle and the extent to which he is responsible for his actions. I'd say the standard argument goes like this: Humans have free will; Tom Riddle is human; therefore, Tom Riddle must have free will. From this, it logically follows that, if Tom Riddle does not have free will, he isn't fully human. Or, at least (which is the way I see it), he's a severely damaged human being. What could have damaged him to the extent that he lacked all moral capacity for choice? To me, the answer is clear, and I explain it below.
On the matter of choice, I am going to try one more time. This is as close as I can come to middle ground. There is a difference between choice as an intellectual exercise, choice as a mere physical reflex or reaction, and choice as a moral act, informed by emotional and moral intelligence. Tom Riddle is quite capable of 'choice' on the physical and intellectual levels. He's apparently incapable of choice on a truly mature, moral level, and here is why. Not only has this boy never been loved, rendering him an emotional cripple; he's also immensely powerful compared to everyone around him. That's a really toxic combination. It's as though young Tom were the only human being living in an anthill. He takes pleasure in pushing the ants around, hurting them, and punishing them when they bother him. And he can't see any reason to do otherwise. He can understand, intellectually, how he *ought* to behave. He ought to be nice to the ants and follow their silly little rules so that they will be nice to him. He's quite capable of choosing to follow those same silly little rules - but why should he? He doesn't want to! After all, he is a person, and they are ants! They may look like people, they may talk like people and cry and beg like people, but they are really only ants.
If Tom Riddle thinks this way, as I think he does, he will never be able to humble himself enough to truly understand why he should be kind to other human beings. The difference between Tom in the orphanage and Tom at Hogwarts is just that *these* ants - the wizarding kind - are powerful, so he has to use slightly different techniques on them. But they are still just ants. It will - as I said before - take a miracle for Tom to think differently. Without such a miracle, he will remain what he is - a monster. He is a monster precisely because he is incapable of love and empathy - the qualities that would enable him to truly understand, and therefore make, moral choices. As I see it, he can make intellectual choices. He can't make moral ones. Pure intellect is not enough to render a human being a moral being. What is required is sympathy, imagination and love.
And that's my last word on the subject - really! I am not trying to convert anyone else to my POV; I'm just trying to be understood. That's all. I agree we probably shouldn't discuss this any more.
Addenda:
Does anyone remember the old Star Trek episode "Charlie X"? It just occured to me that Charlie is a good analog for young Tom Riddle in many ways - an apparently normal boy who is incapable of living with his fellow human beings without endangering them, because he's immensely powerful, immensely needy, and morally and emotionally no more than 3 years old, if that. It's a sad episode, and still creeps me out.
(Another member, who agrees with me, commented that there was also a Twilight Zone episode like this. I haven't seen it,but it must be terrifying. BTW, I think we are all in agreement that young Riddle, at 10 years old, was practising Unforgivables. There is a strong suggestion that he is already irredeemably evil - at 10! - and that does disturb me very much.)
Title: Some thoughts on Tom Riddle's Psychology
Author:mary_j_59
Type: G
Category:short essay
Length: About 300 words
Main characters and/or pairings:Tom Riddle
Warnings: None, though there is a little imagery I find disturbing. It's about what makes Riddle evil, and the sort of evil he represents.
Rating: G, but see above.
Summary:
Disclaimers and Notes: Thanks to the members of the Hogpro board for a very interesting discussion, especially Pat, Jayne1955, Jodel and (though I often disagree with her!) Trudy. Also, thanks to my sister for reading and approving. The essay follows the cut:
On the hogpro board, some of us again began to debate about Tom Riddle and the extent to which he is responsible for his actions. I'd say the standard argument goes like this: Humans have free will; Tom Riddle is human; therefore, Tom Riddle must have free will. From this, it logically follows that, if Tom Riddle does not have free will, he isn't fully human. Or, at least (which is the way I see it), he's a severely damaged human being. What could have damaged him to the extent that he lacked all moral capacity for choice? To me, the answer is clear, and I explain it below.
On the matter of choice, I am going to try one more time. This is as close as I can come to middle ground. There is a difference between choice as an intellectual exercise, choice as a mere physical reflex or reaction, and choice as a moral act, informed by emotional and moral intelligence. Tom Riddle is quite capable of 'choice' on the physical and intellectual levels. He's apparently incapable of choice on a truly mature, moral level, and here is why. Not only has this boy never been loved, rendering him an emotional cripple; he's also immensely powerful compared to everyone around him. That's a really toxic combination. It's as though young Tom were the only human being living in an anthill. He takes pleasure in pushing the ants around, hurting them, and punishing them when they bother him. And he can't see any reason to do otherwise. He can understand, intellectually, how he *ought* to behave. He ought to be nice to the ants and follow their silly little rules so that they will be nice to him. He's quite capable of choosing to follow those same silly little rules - but why should he? He doesn't want to! After all, he is a person, and they are ants! They may look like people, they may talk like people and cry and beg like people, but they are really only ants.
If Tom Riddle thinks this way, as I think he does, he will never be able to humble himself enough to truly understand why he should be kind to other human beings. The difference between Tom in the orphanage and Tom at Hogwarts is just that *these* ants - the wizarding kind - are powerful, so he has to use slightly different techniques on them. But they are still just ants. It will - as I said before - take a miracle for Tom to think differently. Without such a miracle, he will remain what he is - a monster. He is a monster precisely because he is incapable of love and empathy - the qualities that would enable him to truly understand, and therefore make, moral choices. As I see it, he can make intellectual choices. He can't make moral ones. Pure intellect is not enough to render a human being a moral being. What is required is sympathy, imagination and love.
And that's my last word on the subject - really! I am not trying to convert anyone else to my POV; I'm just trying to be understood. That's all. I agree we probably shouldn't discuss this any more.
Addenda:
Does anyone remember the old Star Trek episode "Charlie X"? It just occured to me that Charlie is a good analog for young Tom Riddle in many ways - an apparently normal boy who is incapable of living with his fellow human beings without endangering them, because he's immensely powerful, immensely needy, and morally and emotionally no more than 3 years old, if that. It's a sad episode, and still creeps me out.
(Another member, who agrees with me, commented that there was also a Twilight Zone episode like this. I haven't seen it,but it must be terrifying. BTW, I think we are all in agreement that young Riddle, at 10 years old, was practising Unforgivables. There is a strong suggestion that he is already irredeemably evil - at 10! - and that does disturb me very much.)
no subject
Tom Riddle was a victim of the society he grew up with and I think its fair to say that he was failed by the system. He learned early on in life that it was every man for himself and I too, like one of the posters above believe for a kid to wonder, "Are you from the asylum?", at his age has already some serious issues. One, he knows what an asylum is at age eleven. Two, he has probably been told/threatened that he may be sent to one. His early exhibits of magic must have earned him a reputation as being "wierd" and therefore misunderstood. What I find interesting is that while Harry exhibited magic when he was scared or angry in self-defence, Riddle's early magics manifested as causing harm.
Snape/Riddle/Harry all had seriously traumatic childhoods. While Snape and Riddle devoured every book in sight and became accomplished in their knowledge, Harry chose to belong to the world he was meant to be a part of. I suspect Snape and Riddles' motivations spurred from self-defence and want of power to be feared so no-one would ever harm them again. Harry chooses to live, to belong.
I often wondered what made Harry so special and could not accept Dumbledore's explanation of love. But now, when the dynamic is drawn, I find it more than satisfactory that Harry has a higher capacity for love than Snape or Riddle. In the face of all that they have endured only Harry has not succumbed to being a victim becasue of it.
no subject
But, basically, I appreciate your comment but disagree. To me, Severus and Harry are very much alike. They are both fully human, because they have been loved. As a result, both of them have a capacity for love (and yes, I think we do see that in Snape! I was very impressed by his gentleness toward both Draco and Narcissa in HBP). This gives them the ability to make moral choices. Voldemort, poor crippled soul, is just a monster; he's not capable of love and therefore cannot make moral choices in the fullest sense, if at all.
I could go into much greater detail about what's really up with Harry, who he is, and who Snape is, but I've done that in earlier essays, so I won't bore you!
no subject
I also wonder how much of Voldemort's megalomania and insanity is hereditry. Years of Gaunt inbreeding exhibited as insanity in the previous generation, it would not be impossible for Voldemort to have gained a few flawed genes.
no subject
And I do think it is Harry's capacity to love that will save the world, but not because he is so pure and has never been tempted by the dark arts. Rather, I think Harry is carrying the last horcrux around with him - and he will be able to destroy, or even transform, that last soul fragment precisely because of his ability to love his enemies (plugging my own fic - I've got a story called "The last horcrux" that gives my idea of how this might happen. Of course, I might be way off; that's why I wrote the idea out as a fic!)
It is Harry's capacity for love that will enable him, finally, to empathize with, and understand, Snape and perhaps even Riddle. Riddle, in contrast, has NO such capacity, and Snape, though he has the capacity, doesn't seem to have the desire to forgive. That, IMHO, is why he's the 'middle man', between Harry and Voldemort. But Harry, at the end of HBP, was showing no capacity for forgiveness and was closer to Severus than he has ever been. Harry has got to recongnize and transcend his own darkness before he can save the world, IMHO.
Back to Riddle - yes, there is a suggestion that his pathology is genetic, and that makes his presentation in the books even more troubling. We definitely do not choose our genes! So where does choice come in, if young Riddle was condemned to madness by both nature and nurture?!
no subject
I agree Sectumsempra is not a nice curse, but Harry did not know what it did, nothing leading up to it out of the grimoir was remotely like it.
I would love to read this fic, may I have the link?
no subject
We'll have to agree to differ about "Sectumsempra"; there were a fair number of other hexes that were malicious, yet none were labelled "for enemies". Harry was completely irresponsible in using it - and he was also *looking for a chance* to use it. His initial thought was to hex McLaggen in the back, if he could get away with it. Pretty nasty.
Here's the url for the fic (I've got several others in the series on my livejournal, starting with "Aftermath" when Snape is 16. My two faves are "Tommy Serpent" and "Those Who Live By the Sword".)
http://mary-j-59.livejournal.com/3977.html#cutid1
no subject
There is some huge differences in Snape/Riddle vs. Potter.
1. They were sorted into different Houses. Granted, that, according to some's theory of the Hat, is their choice. But I doubt when Snape/Riddle "decided" they prefer the Slytherin House, they were consciously choosing to be evil.
2. Harry was immdiately dubbed "the hero to save us all", "the one who vanquished the evil dark lord" when he entered the WW. And at least in the 1st year, no one expected otherwise. And even in subsequent years, when people started to have doubt, he always was able to prove himself still on the side of good when all's said and done. And he's always had two staunch supporters by his side, in 99% of cases. Whilst in Snape's case, at least according to Sirius (not sure how much we should give credit to this, but nevertheless.. ), he was believed to be dark even when he was but a 1st year. As for Riddle, DD's interaction with him in the orphanage certainly didn't say that he believes Tom to be essentially good. It's probably the opposite.
Kids almost always grow up to be what people around them expect them to be.