![[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
There's so much to cover when it comes to book seven. I don't think she'll be able to go through all the subplots in as much depth as we like plus deal with the main storyline. HBP had too much filler within it dealing with relationships and the like and OotP seemed also to consist primarily of filler. Filler being, in my definition, the points of Harry's life at school and his relationships and such rather than on the main plot of him versus Voldemort. There's nothing wrong will filler, mind you, but it does mean there are more questions to be answered come the end of book seven.
Personally, I do hope Snape is evil just because that would be the biggest rug pulled out on everyone. I've never come across someone before HBP who said that Snape was just pure evil and on Voldemort's side. Even after HBP, most people see him as good and on Dumbledore's side. It's that sort of confidence that bores me thoroughly and hope, purely for the sake of shaking up readers, that she won't turn him into a woobie.
As for Riddle, I can only hope she won't short-sight him, but I don't have much faith in that. I think she probably feels that she covered what she wanted to cover with him in HBP and, as stated on her website, she normally uses either Hermione or Dumbledore as her mouthpiece. So it's likely that she wants us to see him as the 'monster' she made him out to be and how Dumbledore also saw him.
no subject
And, no, Riddle is not a composite beast. As I said to Jodel above, the definition I was going with was the one that comes from the Latin "monstro" - to show. A sign, a wonder, a portent, and, from that, a freak of nature.
I obviously disagree with you about Snape - for many reasons, which I go into elsewhere. The one thing that would cause me to throw all my "Potter" books out the window in disgust at Rowling's cheap, shoddy storytelling is Snape being proved evil and on Voldemort's side. It literally makes no sense. I have some hope she won't disappoint me where Snape is concerned*, but very little about Riddle. I do not expect her to humanize him at all. But we'll see.
BTW, I disagree with you - again - about Harry's knowing that his parents loved him. Yes, he did know it, but it was because they actually did love him. Petunia and Vernon certainly never told him so! Riddle *knew* his parents didn't love him because they didn't. His mother might have, if she hadn't died; his father just didn't.
And lack of love - the failure to bond in early infancy - by itself, with no other injury, causes permanent brain damage - or can do.
*You'll note I'm not 100 percent convinced. It would simply be bad writing, on many levels, but she could make Snape evil.
no subject
I'm not expecting Rowling to humanize Riddle. She's gone through six books trying to dehumanize him and unless she does a complete 180, I have no hope for that.
There was no proof whatsoever that Harry's parents didn't love him that Harry could see. His parents died in a car crash. They didn't just abandon him. They clearly wanted him, else they would have likely tossed him to the Dursleys as soon as they had him or put him up elsewhere. At least Harry had that much to go on. Riddle had considerably less.
You say you disagree with me when I said that Harry knew his parents loved him. Then you say that he did know it because they actually did love him. I assume you're disagreeing with me just because the Dursleys never told Potter that his parents loved him. Is this correct?
I never said that lack of love and the failure to bond doesn't cause damage. Not actual physical brain damage, which is what I was talking about before, but more emotional damage.
I have never seen a case study that portrayed anyone who was unloved having an actually damaged brain. Lack of love happens by chance, not by choice from the person. My main thing was that he suffered an actual head injury, physical, that resulted in a bit of damage that wasn't traceable. Not crippling emotional damage.
For the record, I don't think evil!Snape = bad writing but to each their own.
no subject
I'm sorry if I seemed curt or rude when saying Harry couldn't know his parents loved him. I meant he couldn't know anything intellectually. He was only 15 months old and probably couldn't talk much, if at all; he couldn't possibly have any conscious memories of being loved. It's a good point, of course, that Harry was never told his parents had abandoned him. That might have given him an idea that they loved him, but it wouldn't have been much to shore up his ego against the constant emotional abuse the Durselye inflicted on him. But he was loved - he had the experience, so he 'knew' it in an emotional sense. Poor Tom had none of the above.
I don't think we're really in disagreement on this point, are we? That was the whole point of this essay - both that Tom Riddle represents a particular type of evil and that it was not his fault that he developed in this way.
On other things, we'll just have to agree to differ.