mary_j_59 | (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.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"I occasionally feel the urge to pray that this woman doesn't actually think Dumbledore is a "good" teacher." - and you are so right! I, too, was actually more disturbed by this comment than by Harry's reaction, and Harry's reaction bothered me a lot.

If empathy and mercy are not the keys to his (eventual) triumph over Voldemort, I really hate to think what sort of morals Rowling is imparting. But I am hoping for the best. We'll see, in a year or so. In any case, I cannot see Dumbledore as the epitome of goodness, as Rowling says he is. He is far too hands-off and can sometimes be cruel; if he is the epitome of goodness, I am certainly right about Snape (I see him as a potential saint, in spite of his flaws. We are apparently supposed to see Dumbledore as an actual saint, in spite of his. I don't know. He's a good man, certainly, but I didn't detect a lot of wisdom from him in HBP.)

Oh- and I would say Sirius was both neglectful and manipulative, poor guy. But he did his best; it's obvious he really cared for Harry and wanted to do a difficult job (standing in for two missing parents) as well as he could. Who do you think was bashing him?

The bashing thing: That's Dumbledore-hate again, and I made a bigger deal of it there than I meant to.

I always felt it was a little insensitive to go with "Sirius died bravely, but you know, he was sort of a jerk," rather than being a Good, Decent Teacher and saying "Here's a hanky, get some sleep, I'll arrange an OWL retest if you decide you're up to it, so don't worry."

But ANYway ...

I tend to agree with you that Snape is a good guy -- in a far more "good" way than Dumbledore. He acts wrongly and rashly with little knowledge of the consequences; Dumbledore acts wrongly with full knowledge. What kind of teacher doesn't have anyone keep watch on a tree behind which a dangerous beast is confined?
What kind of teacher is so irresponsible that he never even warns his staff about behaving vindictively toward select students?
What kind of teacher does not hire a freakin' school psychiatrist for Harry, Severus, Remus, Tom?
What kind of teacher thinks eleven-year-olds chasing unicorn-killing monsters into normally forbidden areas is an acceptable form of detention?
What kind of teacher hires Horace Slughorn, let alone allows him to talk to students about his "collection"? Or allows students to be closeted alone with members of staff in classrooms and offices, totally unsupervised, at night, regardless of age?

And most relevant to this discussion, what kind of teacher doesn't keep a closer eye on Tom? Severus Snape would have breathed down that kid's neck. Which makes him, in my opinion, a far more responsible educator.

Oh. I see what you mean about the bashing now. It was insensitive of Dumbledore, definitely, even if what he was saying was true. But that's the thing - this is what I mean by Dumbledore being distant. He does not support these kids who desperately need support.

Everything else you said above - I agree. 100 percent. Except perhaps about the psychiatrists, because you'd never see one of those in the wizarding world. But a mentor, protector and father figure? That would have been possible. So would some common sense, something the wizarding world seems to lack. )

Yeah on the lack of common sense, there's a couple of people -- Snape, McGonagall, Hermione -- who I just want to applaud for good horse sense (and lack of hypocrisy). I once found myself saying to the pages of GoF, "Honestly! At least Voldemort has business sense!"

been catching up on LJ reading, and way too late to participate in the discussion. But I just have to stop by and let you know that I enjoyed this discussion very much and agree with your points 100%.

Severus Snape would have breathed down that kid's neck.

I think he would as well though not for the reasons you may be thinking of.

They could easily have connected through their distinct crap childhoods. The fact that Snape is more receptive to those sorted in his house indicates favoritism but also that he likely knows that Slytherins do get a much less favorable treatment as compared to say, Gryffindor.

Tom would have appealed to Snape's intelligence since this is one very gifted and talented child. If Snape breathed down his neck, it would only be to try and figure him out and likely what to do with him. It's likely they would have bonded a bit due to the emotional upheavals in their lives and found a common thread in their shared tragedies. Tom might have been more receptive to humanity and personal interaction if he had someone who could actually respond to him. Not control him, but to actually tell him why morals are the way they are.

Dumbledore didn't bother telling Tom the whys of the world. He said this is how it is and if you don't follow it, I will hurt you or make you afraid. He bullied Tom.

If Snape bullied Tom, then Tom would have shut down on him the same way he did to Dumbledore and since Snape isn't as powerful as Dumbledore, he likely would have ended up dead rather quickly as soon as Tom came into his full power. Tom, like Snape, doesn't handle bullies very well at all.

However, they could have discussed such things due to Dumbledore bullying him in Dumbledore's arrival. Both of them could have helped each other in a positive light.

Or they could have turned out to be a very dangerous team, moreso than they are right now in canon. Each one feasting on the other's mental issues.

That is a mildly frightening thought ... eenteresting. Someone should write it ...

I find either way of it happening absolutely fascinating. Even more so if you stick Snape and Tom in the same year as each other. Tom tended to protect the weaker students and I doubt the Marauders would be too keen on bullying Snape with someone like Tom near him.

You say: "Tom tended to protect the weaker students." Could you please give me an example, from the text? I can, for example, cite a dozen instances of Snape acting protectively. I cannot think of one single example of Tom doing anything positive for anyone weaker than himself, unless he had something to gain from it. As Greenwoodside said in her essay, Rowling has written him (Tom) as completely immoral from an early age. We may not like it, but that is what she has done.

I so hate quoting from the book. So much filler to go through.

HBP - American version - Chapter 17, page 361-362.

Dumbledore talking to Harry about young Riddle at school.

"This group had a kind of dark glamour within the castle. They were a motley collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty."

Even though Riddle never felt any affection for them, it's painfully clear that he used their wants to his advantage. He could easily offer them all that they sought. This has nothing whatsoever to do with his morals or lack of them and everything to do with who gravitated toward him.

You have examples of Snape acting protectively toward others while he was in school? Now this I have to see!