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.)

Threaded | Flat

Here's Wikipedia on the subject one that Twilight Zone episode:

It's A Good Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Good_Life_(The_Twilight_Zone))

I've seen that. It's a horrifying episode, and it scared me to death when I saw it. It strikes me that Tom must have been very much like that little boy as a child.

We could really, really get into nature vs. nurture on this one, couldn't we? I tend to believe that Tom had some little oddnesses to begin with -- kleptomania, for one -- and when punished for those, he punished back -- and discovering that he COULD, he DID, and by the time Dumbledore met him, the kid was screwed.

That scene in HBP made me both a bit repelled, and desperately sorry for Tom. A boy doesn't say "You're from the asylum, aren't you?" unless he's a really, really scared little kid. Which supports my theory that people told him his oddities were "crazy" so often that he pushed further and proved them right.

Thank you for the essay. I agree with it! (That's quite new for me when Tom Riddle's involved.)

Thanks especially for drawing a line between moral and pragmatic choice. That really is important - do you think that when Dumbledore talks about "it is our choices...abilities etc" he means just moral choices? I'm inclined to think that he does, since the message "do not kill people because it is not in your longterm best interests" is rather a shallow one and, while true, doesn't fit with the tone of the HP series. And yet making it a matter of moral choice doesn't make sense when, whatever JKR says in interviews, the text implies Riddle is incapable of making proper moral choices.

As you say, humans are ants to him. He is good at manipulation, but shows no sign of having the ability to empathise with anyone other than himself. No wonder he fears death: in his world, he is the only human being in existence.

I wrote my own rather flippant ramble on Riddle here: http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/117798.html

Good piece!

May I recommend another good piece about Voldemort? Red Hen's 'Riddle me this', where she (and this blew me away) likens Voldemort to Peter Pan, the boy that, left in his pram without his mother, leaves with the fairies to NeverNever Land, where he never has to grow up, or grow old, or DIE. Where he collects other children, often hurt or lonely children, to play the most wonderful exciting games with. When those Lonely Boys want to grow up, however, or return to their mothers, he gets enraged..

http://www.redhen-publications.com/Riddle.html

I find it interesting here that you use the term "choice."

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.

great essay. I agree with your description/analysis of TR. And it's a sad thing indeed when people overlook all this and say: TR chose to be evil.

It's also bad judgement on JKR's part to pitch HP against TR to preach her "choice theory". In my opinion, in JKR's eagerness to make TR "pure evil", she inadvertanly took away TR's choice. And in case of Harry - in this most important aspect of the plotline, the prophecy, does he really have a choice?