How does Voldemort compare with some real-life killers? Are their motives the same? Were they products of society or is there something inherently programmed within people to offend? Is there a crime gene?
Discuss away!!
Full Version: Voldemort : Portrait Of A Serial-Killing Wizard
So, why do you think Voldemort is the way he is? Why does he seem so bitter, twisted and angry? Why this obsession with immortality? Was he simply born evil or did circumstances twist him into what he became? The good old nature versus nurture debate
How does Voldemort compare with some real-life killers? Are their motives the same? Were they products of society or is there something inherently programmed within people to offend? Is there a crime gene?
Discuss away!!
How does Voldemort compare with some real-life killers? Are their motives the same? Were they products of society or is there something inherently programmed within people to offend? Is there a crime gene?
Discuss away!!
Oooh, excellent topic, Louise!
I think Voldemort's psyche contains elements of both nature and nurture. Here's why I think that:
* HBP goes into great detail describing the Gaunts. As a pureblood family for centuries, they have obvious signs of genetic mutations. The Gaunts are also mean, greedy, and vile. Coming to mind is golden retreivers; when a dog is overbred, the negative characteristics begin to outshine the others. A few years ago, at the height of this particular dog's popularity we saw what once was a very gentle, kind breed of dog become extremely aggressive. Riddle has inherited these genes.
* Merope did nothing to better her situation for her son. She fell victim to her own dispair and left him to be kept in an orphanage without family, without love. He had no disipline from his caretakers, and was allowed to do whatever he wanted, as we know he often went out into London alone at such an early age. Tom Riddle failed to make the necessary connections/bonds to people that are needed to be able to love.
Dumbledore asks Harry if he could be feeling sorry for Voldemort. While Harry says no, I do feel a certain amount of pity for Tom Riddle.
He was taught neglect at an early age, and matched with the Gaunts genes, it's only a recipie for disaster.
I think Voldemort's psyche contains elements of both nature and nurture. Here's why I think that:
* HBP goes into great detail describing the Gaunts. As a pureblood family for centuries, they have obvious signs of genetic mutations. The Gaunts are also mean, greedy, and vile. Coming to mind is golden retreivers; when a dog is overbred, the negative characteristics begin to outshine the others. A few years ago, at the height of this particular dog's popularity we saw what once was a very gentle, kind breed of dog become extremely aggressive. Riddle has inherited these genes.
* Merope did nothing to better her situation for her son. She fell victim to her own dispair and left him to be kept in an orphanage without family, without love. He had no disipline from his caretakers, and was allowed to do whatever he wanted, as we know he often went out into London alone at such an early age. Tom Riddle failed to make the necessary connections/bonds to people that are needed to be able to love.
Dumbledore asks Harry if he could be feeling sorry for Voldemort. While Harry says no, I do feel a certain amount of pity for Tom Riddle.
He was taught neglect at an early age, and matched with the Gaunts genes, it's only a recipie for disaster.
I think you are very right, corijp.
Tom never had someone that loved him. His parents deserted him, and Tom even killed his father. Could that be why Tom is afraid of Dumbledore? Dumbledore came into the orphanage and helped Tom. He saw Tom as a person. I think Dumbledore really cared about Tom (Well, back when he wasn't a complete loony) and Tom hadn't ever had that before. What ifTomhates Dumbledore because Dumbledore turned out to be the only person he couldn't hate? He was after all, the only father-like figure Tom had even come close to.
But I think the reason Tom/Voldemort went all out is because he had no love. He never got the support a child needs. If you have a rough childhood, odds are in your favor you will have a rough future. He may want to go after immortality because he didn't want to meet the same fate as his mother or anyone before him. Maybe he was so disgraced by his father he felt he needed to show the world that he was going to step up and be great and not let some "filthy Muggle" get in his way.
Do I feel sorry for him? Tom, yes I do. Voldemort? Not in a million years.
Tom never had someone that loved him. His parents deserted him, and Tom even killed his father. Could that be why Tom is afraid of Dumbledore? Dumbledore came into the orphanage and helped Tom. He saw Tom as a person. I think Dumbledore really cared about Tom (Well, back when he wasn't a complete loony) and Tom hadn't ever had that before. What ifTomhates Dumbledore because Dumbledore turned out to be the only person he couldn't hate? He was after all, the only father-like figure Tom had even come close to.
But I think the reason Tom/Voldemort went all out is because he had no love. He never got the support a child needs. If you have a rough childhood, odds are in your favor you will have a rough future. He may want to go after immortality because he didn't want to meet the same fate as his mother or anyone before him. Maybe he was so disgraced by his father he felt he needed to show the world that he was going to step up and be great and not let some "filthy Muggle" get in his way.
Do I feel sorry for him? Tom, yes I do. Voldemort? Not in a million years.
I agree with both Cori and Aubrey that Voldemort is most definitely a product of his experiences, and his philosophy as the Dark Lord directly stems from his relationship with his parents as Tom Riddle. His two core ambitions as an adult appear to be (1) to achieve immortality and (2) to exterminate all Muggles and Muggle-born wizards. The origins of both of these missions have clear roots in his childhood. In my opinion, one quotation from HBP is particularly telling with regard to Voldemort's motives, and I build my case for his prejudices and determination to live forever from this statement:
| QUOTE (HBP American hardcover - pg. 275) |
| "Was my father a wizard? He was called Tom Riddle too, they've told me?" "I'm afraid I don't know," said Dumbledore, his voice gentle. "My mother can't have been magic, or she wouldn't have died," said Riddle, more to himself than Dumbledore. |
In this scene, we see the boy Tom Riddle immediately jump to the conclusion that his father was his wizard parent, simply based on the fact that his mother died while his father lived. As the reader already knows, it was not his father but his mother who was the witch in their family. Riddle has already made the assumption that magic can be used to counteract forces even as powerful as death, which the reader also knows to be untrue.
Later on in his life, however, Riddle not only clearly discovers that it was his mother who was magical, but he also comes to understand that his father abandoned both him and his mother because the two of them were magical. This was an ugly realization for an already tortured child (he has, after all, been inflicting pain on other kids in an orphanage for the first ten years of his life as a matter of simple pleasure), and one that, as I see it, permanently defined his ideology.
Voldemort's quest for immortality -- Based on his mother's experience, Riddle discovers that death is perhaps the only force that cannot be defeated by spells. The movement of the planets can be deciphered by astronomy, the human mind can be controlled by the Imperius Curse, and even time can be manipulated by a Time-Turner -- but all people will ultimately die, regardless of how long they manage to put off the moment using potions and similar means. Riddle's mother could not be saved from death, and consequently, he had an extremely abnormal childhood devoid of a proper, loving family (as both Cori and Aubrey have already discussed more thoroughly; I'm not going to be redundant on those points), and now, as the adult Voldemort, he is determined to find a way to counteract the force that was able to destroy his mother.
Voldemort's obsession with purity of blood -- In addition to prompting Riddle to embark on a frenzied quest for immortality, it is easy to believe that the flight of his father and subsequent death of his mother were the causes of his hatred of non-purebloods. Tom Riddle Sr, a Muggle, was so afraid of Merope's kind that he abandoned his wife and unborn child at a time when she was ill and pregnant; therefore, Muggles (and associated Muggle-borns and half-bloods, who have not grown up in the Wizarding world) and wizards should be kept separate. If extermination is the only way to divide the two parallel societies, so be it -- wizards are the ones with the wands, so if anyone's going to go, it has to be the Muggles.
It seems to me that Voldemort exhibits pretty sure signs of being a psychopath. This from Wikipedia (anything in italics is mine):
What is a psychopath?
A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lacking insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They show no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly seem devoid of conscience.
Psychopaths have been shown to be unable to learn from punishment and behavior modification. They have been regularly observed to respond to both by becoming more cunning and hiding their behavior better. It has been suggested that traditional therapeutic approaches actually make them, if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable.
Most studies of the psychopath have taken place among prison populations, though it has often been suggested that the psychopath is just as likely to sit on a Board of Directors as behind bars, concealing his true nature behind a well crafted "Mask of Sanity" (also the title of the one of the first definitive studies of psychopathy, written by Hervey Cleckley in 1941.)
Cleckley defined psychopathy thus:
Superficial charm or intelligence.
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
Unreliability.
Untruthfulness and insincerity.
Lack of remorse or shame.
Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
Poor judgement and failure to learn from experience.
Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
General poverty in major affective relations.
Specific loss of insight.
Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink, and sometimes without.
Suicide threats rarely carried out.
Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated.
Failure to follow any life plan.
Childhood precursors
Psychopathic tendencies can be recognized young. It becomes apparent in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood in the form of a conduct disorder. Children showing strong psychopathic precursors often appear immune to punishment; nothing seems to modify their undesirable behavior. Consequently parents usually give up, and the behavior worsens. It should be noted that psychopathy is not normally diagnosed in children or adolescents, and some jurisdictions explicitly forbid diagnosing psychopathy and similar personality disorders in minors.
Childhood indicators are (see conduct disorder for more indicators):
A longer-than-usual period of bedwetting
Cruelty to animals (the bunny he killed)
Firesetting and other vandalism.
Lies (constantly, to any adult)
Truancy (wandering off on his own, unsupervised)
Theft (the 'trophies' he stole from fellow orphans)
Aggression to peers (the cave attack on Amy & Dennis, as well as intimidation of the other kids)
Defiance of authority
The three indicators, bedwetting, cruelty to animals and firestarting, known as the MacDonald triad, were first described by J.M. MacDonald as indicators of psychopathy. Though the relevance of these indicators to serial murder etiology has since been called into question, they are considered relevant to psychopathy.
Obviously, not all children who exhibit one, or more, of these signs grow up to be psychopaths, but these childhood signs are found in significantly higher proportions in psychopaths than in the general population.
Many people are aware that a lack of conscience could indicate that they are dealing with a psychopath; fewer are aware that psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions—not only for others—but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their choices.
**********
Combine that with a poor genetic background and the ability to do magic, and it's going to get ugly!
What is a psychopath?
A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lacking insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They show no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly seem devoid of conscience.
Psychopaths have been shown to be unable to learn from punishment and behavior modification. They have been regularly observed to respond to both by becoming more cunning and hiding their behavior better. It has been suggested that traditional therapeutic approaches actually make them, if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable.
Most studies of the psychopath have taken place among prison populations, though it has often been suggested that the psychopath is just as likely to sit on a Board of Directors as behind bars, concealing his true nature behind a well crafted "Mask of Sanity" (also the title of the one of the first definitive studies of psychopathy, written by Hervey Cleckley in 1941.)
Cleckley defined psychopathy thus:
Superficial charm or intelligence.
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
Unreliability.
Untruthfulness and insincerity.
Lack of remorse or shame.
Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
Poor judgement and failure to learn from experience.
Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
General poverty in major affective relations.
Specific loss of insight.
Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink, and sometimes without.
Suicide threats rarely carried out.
Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated.
Failure to follow any life plan.
Childhood precursors
Psychopathic tendencies can be recognized young. It becomes apparent in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood in the form of a conduct disorder. Children showing strong psychopathic precursors often appear immune to punishment; nothing seems to modify their undesirable behavior. Consequently parents usually give up, and the behavior worsens. It should be noted that psychopathy is not normally diagnosed in children or adolescents, and some jurisdictions explicitly forbid diagnosing psychopathy and similar personality disorders in minors.
Childhood indicators are (see conduct disorder for more indicators):
A longer-than-usual period of bedwetting
Cruelty to animals (the bunny he killed)
Firesetting and other vandalism.
Lies (constantly, to any adult)
Truancy (wandering off on his own, unsupervised)
Theft (the 'trophies' he stole from fellow orphans)
Aggression to peers (the cave attack on Amy & Dennis, as well as intimidation of the other kids)
Defiance of authority
The three indicators, bedwetting, cruelty to animals and firestarting, known as the MacDonald triad, were first described by J.M. MacDonald as indicators of psychopathy. Though the relevance of these indicators to serial murder etiology has since been called into question, they are considered relevant to psychopathy.
Obviously, not all children who exhibit one, or more, of these signs grow up to be psychopaths, but these childhood signs are found in significantly higher proportions in psychopaths than in the general population.
Many people are aware that a lack of conscience could indicate that they are dealing with a psychopath; fewer are aware that psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions—not only for others—but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their choices.
**********
Combine that with a poor genetic background and the ability to do magic, and it's going to get ugly!
Ooh, good stuff!
Along the lines with something Allie mentioned-about Tom deciding that it was his father who had magic, and that his mother couldn't possibly have had magic. . . I think that after his discovery that the situation was, in fact, reversed that he bore deep resentment toward his mother, probably angry at her for allowing herself to be defeated by death, that also led him on to pursue immortality. Kind of "see what you should have done?" kind of thing.
Also, when I read the pensieve moments of Tom's charm . . . it honestly made me think of the movie "Psycho." It also holds true for some real-life serial killers if I'm not mistaken. Both Tom and Norman Bates were decent (okay, Tom was handsome) looking men, they were both charming, and they both seemed to be quite model citizens. No one would ever suspect them of the treachery they were capable of (certainly not Janet Leigh's character or Hepsibah Smith, is that her name?). One of the most commen elements (at lest in literature) of a killer is the "he doesn't/didn't seem the type."
Darcy, that was a great comparison! I liked your insights next to the "qualities of a killer."
It's late, so I hope that I made some semblence of sense!
Along the lines with something Allie mentioned-about Tom deciding that it was his father who had magic, and that his mother couldn't possibly have had magic. . . I think that after his discovery that the situation was, in fact, reversed that he bore deep resentment toward his mother, probably angry at her for allowing herself to be defeated by death, that also led him on to pursue immortality. Kind of "see what you should have done?" kind of thing.
Also, when I read the pensieve moments of Tom's charm . . . it honestly made me think of the movie "Psycho." It also holds true for some real-life serial killers if I'm not mistaken. Both Tom and Norman Bates were decent (okay, Tom was handsome) looking men, they were both charming, and they both seemed to be quite model citizens. No one would ever suspect them of the treachery they were capable of (certainly not Janet Leigh's character or Hepsibah Smith, is that her name?). One of the most commen elements (at lest in literature) of a killer is the "he doesn't/didn't seem the type."
Darcy, that was a great comparison! I liked your insights next to the "qualities of a killer."
It's late, so I hope that I made some semblence of sense!
If it's Nature Vs. Nurtue, we have to compare Harry and Voldemort.
Although Harry did have one year of parental love, was it this that really made him such a different person to Tom?
They both suffered a lack of love and affection, and I suspect Harry had it worse since he had to contend with Dudley's torment unsupported.
Tom was not raised in a victorian style 'slavehouse' orphange, and so would appear to have recieved more care and protection than Harry. At the very least he could have had friends, an option apparently denied Harry.
It seems to me that JKR is giving a definate 'Nature wins' slant. Tom was 'born bad' and that badness was reinforced through his schildhood experiencee. Harry's gentle nature won through his poor treatment and experiences (although the battle is not over yet!).
Although Harry did have one year of parental love, was it this that really made him such a different person to Tom?
They both suffered a lack of love and affection, and I suspect Harry had it worse since he had to contend with Dudley's torment unsupported.
Tom was not raised in a victorian style 'slavehouse' orphange, and so would appear to have recieved more care and protection than Harry. At the very least he could have had friends, an option apparently denied Harry.
It seems to me that JKR is giving a definate 'Nature wins' slant. Tom was 'born bad' and that badness was reinforced through his schildhood experiencee. Harry's gentle nature won through his poor treatment and experiences (although the battle is not over yet!).
Voldemort is driven by a hunger for immortality. That is his life aim above anything, to conquer death. However Tom Riddle is a mortal boy, twisted by dark circumstances. His line of family, are direct descendants of Salazar Slytherin and his uncle and grand father ended up in Azkaban for dark magic. So there is history of insanity in his family, but that does not make his madness genetic. I would have to say that he was Born unusual, whether or not that unusualness would have appeared so blatently had Dumbledore not taken him from the orphanage, i cannot say. However perhaps his nature was inextricably linked with his nurture. Sure enough Hogwarts taught, him what no mother or father could have. It told him secrets of dark magic and terror. He saw in Hogwarts victory and immortality. So that could be why he turned from what could have been a glorious path. He strove for the possibility, to stretch the limits of human desire and evil.
This is a thread that I've been wanting to post it since it opened and just haven't had time *sighs happily*
Human behaviour is an area that I'm passionate about and I've loved reading through people's thoughts so far as to the reasons for Voldemort's behaviours.
The discussion of nature versus nurture is one that comes up in every argument of human behaviour, in particular where people are looking for someone (or something) to blame. It's very easy to say that people are bad (or good) because their parents had this, this and this traits. Similarly it's very easy to accredit someone's behaviour to the fact that their parents belted them, or locked them in a cupboard, or smothered them etc etc. People (whoever the 'People' are) don't like to accept real well that it can be a combination of things, or more often than not, just one of those things.
As a product of what he was taught, we can't really say that Tom Riddle became what he grew up with. While we know that he was abandoned by his father and his mother died right after he was born, we don't know what kind of treatment he received from the orphanage at the early age.
We saw that the 11 year old self of Tom Riddle was a bully. It could be argued that this is a response of nature or nurture, however the fact is that there are several children who grow up in orphanages who don't become bullies. We don't know if the staff there neglected him over other children, or if he shows signs of being 'odd' from a baby age and therefore the staff began to fear him from an early age.
If that is the case, the staff were already giving him the power that he was 'different'. How Tom chose to interpret that 'difference' though could have gone either way. He could have become the 'freak' with low self esteem that thought he was never meant to become of anything. However he didn't. He decided- how he decided I have no idea- that his difference put him above other people.
When Tom got to Hogwarts school, he would have more than likely been treated pretty much the same as any other student, with the possible exception of Slughorn, who we already know had his 'favourites'. However he continued his secret life where he gave himself a title and banded together a group of followers, much like a cult. And while he's had people around him, he's still very much separated himself above them.
Looking now at the profile for the serial killers, a lot of the studies that I've done look at the ideas around power- control and lack there of.
We've seen that Voldemort likes power. What he hopes to actually do with all of that power, we never really found out. But we've also seen that he wants to be able to control that power. The times where we've seen a loss of control- such as the end of GOF and OOTP, he's panicked. The knowledge that he wants to be the one who distroys Harry Potter is a prime example of this. Lord forbid that someone else who doesn't have this control over him be the one to do away the simple boy.
The was the talk of fearing Dumbledore, and yet he didn't seem to have this hold over Voldemort that Harry has, and therefore it didn't matter who killed him. Similarly looking at his other victims, the talk of people who were killed by death eaters or on Voldemorts orders are people who he has no connection with. Many of the studies of psychopaths look at the first person that they killed- the majority of the time it seems that there was a deep seeded connection of the killer to the victim, however following that there is a mixture of people the killer knew and didn't know at all. Voldemort hasn't really followed this pattern, as the people he kills have for the most of it all had a part of him that he couldn't seem to move on from without eliminating that part. While there are a few exceptions of deaths of necessity, the majority seem to be people that he was connected with.
Human behaviour is an area that I'm passionate about and I've loved reading through people's thoughts so far as to the reasons for Voldemort's behaviours.
The discussion of nature versus nurture is one that comes up in every argument of human behaviour, in particular where people are looking for someone (or something) to blame. It's very easy to say that people are bad (or good) because their parents had this, this and this traits. Similarly it's very easy to accredit someone's behaviour to the fact that their parents belted them, or locked them in a cupboard, or smothered them etc etc. People (whoever the 'People' are) don't like to accept real well that it can be a combination of things, or more often than not, just one of those things.
As a product of what he was taught, we can't really say that Tom Riddle became what he grew up with. While we know that he was abandoned by his father and his mother died right after he was born, we don't know what kind of treatment he received from the orphanage at the early age.
We saw that the 11 year old self of Tom Riddle was a bully. It could be argued that this is a response of nature or nurture, however the fact is that there are several children who grow up in orphanages who don't become bullies. We don't know if the staff there neglected him over other children, or if he shows signs of being 'odd' from a baby age and therefore the staff began to fear him from an early age.
If that is the case, the staff were already giving him the power that he was 'different'. How Tom chose to interpret that 'difference' though could have gone either way. He could have become the 'freak' with low self esteem that thought he was never meant to become of anything. However he didn't. He decided- how he decided I have no idea- that his difference put him above other people.
When Tom got to Hogwarts school, he would have more than likely been treated pretty much the same as any other student, with the possible exception of Slughorn, who we already know had his 'favourites'. However he continued his secret life where he gave himself a title and banded together a group of followers, much like a cult. And while he's had people around him, he's still very much separated himself above them.
Looking now at the profile for the serial killers, a lot of the studies that I've done look at the ideas around power- control and lack there of.
We've seen that Voldemort likes power. What he hopes to actually do with all of that power, we never really found out. But we've also seen that he wants to be able to control that power. The times where we've seen a loss of control- such as the end of GOF and OOTP, he's panicked. The knowledge that he wants to be the one who distroys Harry Potter is a prime example of this. Lord forbid that someone else who doesn't have this control over him be the one to do away the simple boy.
The was the talk of fearing Dumbledore, and yet he didn't seem to have this hold over Voldemort that Harry has, and therefore it didn't matter who killed him. Similarly looking at his other victims, the talk of people who were killed by death eaters or on Voldemorts orders are people who he has no connection with. Many of the studies of psychopaths look at the first person that they killed- the majority of the time it seems that there was a deep seeded connection of the killer to the victim, however following that there is a mixture of people the killer knew and didn't know at all. Voldemort hasn't really followed this pattern, as the people he kills have for the most of it all had a part of him that he couldn't seem to move on from without eliminating that part. While there are a few exceptions of deaths of necessity, the majority seem to be people that he was connected with.
I think that the idea that tom's lack of love created a twisted killer is mainly correct, you cant expect someone who has never felt love to be able to love, just as you can not expect a person who has never heard a language be able to speak it. Humans, in my opinion, are very much like animals, we have our instincts such as survival, but what makes us different is we can choose. Now since no one chose to love tom, they all screwed him up for life, it is like domino's, if someone doesnt get the initial push, they cant fall into place. Tom just had a bad childhood, and thats why he ended up so bad. He may be taking his bad childhood out on the people who had a nice one, because he may think that they are inferior, and should then not have been able to have such a good life compared to him.
The evil gene theory, it seems very likely because as some have said, the guants have pure evil in them, so it would probally transfer to tom, meaning that if he didnt start out completely evil, he most likely still had a head start on the others. With this head start, the choices of others not to love him, and the fact that he was 'special' he probally couldnt help be bad.
But I also saw this show the other night, the scientists were studying the different types of brains, they concluded that the criminal gene wasnt a gene at all. The criminal mind has much more white matter than grey matter, the white matter being the cells that transmit information, and the grey would be what thinks. They studied many convicted criminals, and your everyday people, what they concluded was that criminals just acted instead of thinking alot more of the time because they transmitted more information faster because of all the 'white matter' in their brains.
I think that the reason tom is evil isnot his fault, he couldnt help it, it was the choices of others in his life, and a little luck in his gene pool that pushed him to the evil side, but i dont think that he is unresposible for his actions, because there have been plenty of people who have been evil but didnt act on it, or at least not as much.
Poor Tom.
The evil gene theory, it seems very likely because as some have said, the guants have pure evil in them, so it would probally transfer to tom, meaning that if he didnt start out completely evil, he most likely still had a head start on the others. With this head start, the choices of others not to love him, and the fact that he was 'special' he probally couldnt help be bad.
But I also saw this show the other night, the scientists were studying the different types of brains, they concluded that the criminal gene wasnt a gene at all. The criminal mind has much more white matter than grey matter, the white matter being the cells that transmit information, and the grey would be what thinks. They studied many convicted criminals, and your everyday people, what they concluded was that criminals just acted instead of thinking alot more of the time because they transmitted more information faster because of all the 'white matter' in their brains.
I think that the reason tom is evil isnot his fault, he couldnt help it, it was the choices of others in his life, and a little luck in his gene pool that pushed him to the evil side, but i dont think that he is unresposible for his actions, because there have been plenty of people who have been evil but didnt act on it, or at least not as much.
Poor Tom.
QUOTE(Aethonon @ Feb 26 2006, 09:33 PM) [snapback]165746[/snapback]
It seems to me that Voldemort exhibits pretty sure signs of being a psychopath. This from Wikipedia (anything in italics is mine):
What is a psychopath?
A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lacking insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They show no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly seem devoid of conscience.
Psychopaths have been shown to be unable to learn from punishment and behavior modification. They have been regularly observed to respond to both by becoming more cunning and hiding their behavior better.
Ooooo nice definition there! And I totally agree.
I don't believe Tom's upbringing altered his fate at all. Look at Harry! Not only was he with people that didn't care about him, but he was essentially alone! Tom had the opportunity to interact with other children that were in the same situation that he was in. He was among equals as far as a living situation was concerned. He could have made many friends, as I'm sure most of the children did. Now, look at poor Harry
. He lived with a group of people that hated him (and told him so), treated him like a house-elf, and made him sleep in a broom cupboard! Worst of all, they treated Dudley like a little prince, bought him everything he wanted, and bragged about him to the neighbors. With Harry they simply told the neighbors he was a trouble-maker and an embarassment. Despite all Harry's years of being treated like a horrible, nasty, disgraceful human being, he grew up to be a wonderful, caring, insightful human being.
Harry (in my opinon) had a much more mentally delibatating childhood than Tom, and Harry turned out to be an incredibly wonderful person. What's Tom's excuse?
Now that I have all of that out of the way, I will say that I do believe that Tom's "evil nature" is a combination of chemical and psychological imbalances. And, ofcourse, the wizarding world is different from the muggle world, so I'm sure there could be some "inherited evil gene" or something... but we don't have much to go on with that yet
I'm going to go with Bajabs way of comparing Voldemort to Harry. As many of you said the way Voldemort was brought up and the lack of love is the main reasons I think. I think that the reason he dominated and bullied the children in his orphan home is that he felt that he needed some sort of control over somthing or some sort of athority, possibly the need to feel special. Or maybe he felt he needed attention..some people do crimes or 'copy-cat' crimes just for the attention because they did not get enough attention at home or when they were little, or they were always overshadowed by someone smarter or prettier or somthing. And in an orphans home with many kids I think that maybe he did not get a lot of attention. And to kids who get little to no attention, bad attention is the same as good attention.
Ok so to compare Harry to Voldemort:
Harry was neglected yes..and he was given no attention yes...but nothing was tollerated where he lived. He got into trouble for things that he couldn't even control. Plus he never knew that he was 'special or powerful', unlike Tom who told Dumbledore he had KNOWN he was different, special even, and powerful. Because he thought or knew he was special he might have thought that he had the athority to punish the kids he didn't like..teach them to fear him.
Harry had no parents for almost his whole life, as did Voldemort, but he never thought very much of himself as we see in P.S when he is trying to tell Hagrid he has the wrong person. Also he is very modest throught all the books. Tom was not modest.. always bragging about terrorizing someone or somthing. And the Horcruxes we know that they are no ordinary peices of rubbish or random things they are showy and have somthing to do with pure blood or conquests.
Why did Harry not turn out like Voldemort? that is the question, their upbringings were so similar yet so different. I think the real reason is the way that they thought of themselves. Voldemort always thought of himself as powerful and someone to be feared. Harry as I stated before was modest and never thought much of himself.
As to why Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore i agree with the people who said it was because Dumbledore saw him as Tom, a young possibly vunerable boy. If he was vuneralble, scared and insecure as most bullies are he hated that aspect of himself and knowing that Dumbledore saw through the tough boy act into the scared and vunerable boy makes him scared because Dumbledore saw him like that. Also maybe he felt that he dissapointed Dumblebore. I mean Dumbledore showed him this whole new world of magic and amazement..he was the beginning of Toms new life. He GAVE Tom a new life. So if he failed at this I think that some part of him felt he dissapointed him.
Ok well thats all I have right now..sorry for the rambling session lol
Courtney
Ok so to compare Harry to Voldemort:
Harry was neglected yes..and he was given no attention yes...but nothing was tollerated where he lived. He got into trouble for things that he couldn't even control. Plus he never knew that he was 'special or powerful', unlike Tom who told Dumbledore he had KNOWN he was different, special even, and powerful. Because he thought or knew he was special he might have thought that he had the athority to punish the kids he didn't like..teach them to fear him.
Harry had no parents for almost his whole life, as did Voldemort, but he never thought very much of himself as we see in P.S when he is trying to tell Hagrid he has the wrong person. Also he is very modest throught all the books. Tom was not modest.. always bragging about terrorizing someone or somthing. And the Horcruxes we know that they are no ordinary peices of rubbish or random things they are showy and have somthing to do with pure blood or conquests.
Why did Harry not turn out like Voldemort? that is the question, their upbringings were so similar yet so different. I think the real reason is the way that they thought of themselves. Voldemort always thought of himself as powerful and someone to be feared. Harry as I stated before was modest and never thought much of himself.
As to why Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore i agree with the people who said it was because Dumbledore saw him as Tom, a young possibly vunerable boy. If he was vuneralble, scared and insecure as most bullies are he hated that aspect of himself and knowing that Dumbledore saw through the tough boy act into the scared and vunerable boy makes him scared because Dumbledore saw him like that. Also maybe he felt that he dissapointed Dumblebore. I mean Dumbledore showed him this whole new world of magic and amazement..he was the beginning of Toms new life. He GAVE Tom a new life. So if he failed at this I think that some part of him felt he dissapointed him.
Ok well thats all I have right now..sorry for the rambling session lol
Courtney
QUOTE(ILoveHarryPotter07 @ Jun 22 2006, 06:19 PM) [snapback]195203[/snapback]
I'm going to go with Bajabs way of comparing Voldemort to Harry. As many of you said the way Voldemort was brought up and the lack of love is the main reasons I think.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point
. Yes, he was not loved... but who would love a little brat that terrorizes other children? He received more affection and attention at the orphanage than Harry did a the Dursley's.QUOTE
Ok so to compare Harry to Voldemort:
Harry was neglected yes..and he was given no attention yes...but nothing was tollerated where he lived. He got into trouble for things that he couldn't even control. Plus he never knew that he was 'special or powerful', unlike Tom who told Dumbledore he had KNOWN he was different, special even, and powerful. Because he thought or knew he was special he might have thought that he had the athority to punish the kids he didn't like..teach them to fear him.
A good point. Tom did know he was special... but so did Harry. His hair grew back overnight, the snake's cage disappeared, he could understand reptiles, etc.
He knew he was special, he was just not inclined to believe it because the Dursley's kept telling him otherwise. Tom knew he was special, and this view was reinforced by children at the orphanage because they feared him and, therefore, allowed him to feel powerful. He was able to control the other children because their fear reinforced his powerful opinion of himself. Harry, on the other hand, was not feared by anyone. Perhaps if he was left alone, not told what a weak and pathetic child he was, he would have been more inclined to feel special like Voldemort did.
QUOTE
Harry had no parents for almost his whole life, as did Voldemort, but he never thought very much of himself as we see in P.S when he is trying to tell Hagrid he has the wrong person. Also he is very modest throught all the books. Tom was not modest.. always bragging about terrorizing someone or somthing. And the Horcruxes we know that they are no ordinary peices of rubbish or random things they are showy and have somthing to do with pure blood or conquests.
Again, it's all in the upbringing. Harry didn't brag because no one would believe him. They thought him weak and pathetic and would not be convinced otherwise. It all goes back to the prospect of positive reinforcement. Voldemort's idea that he was special/powerful was reinforced when the other children, as well as the adults, feared him and his possible power/actions. Harry, on the other hand, was put down and told he was pathetic and wierd when he did anything "magical" (whether he knew it to be magic at the time or not).
Again, I am going to have to go with my theory that LV is just simply inherently evil. He is a horrible shadow of a human being and is presented as such.
QUOTE(LilyPotter @ Jun 28 2006, 05:05 PM) [snapback]196745[/snapback]
Again, it's all in the upbringing.... Again, I am going to have to go with my theory that LV is just simply inherently evil. He is a horrible shadow of a human being and is presented as such.
I think You've contridicted yourself there somewhat Lily? Inherently is usually associated with uncontrollable urges, which while are not necessarily a part of the person's birth, are usually to do with things that are outside of the control of changes in environment? I'm not sure if you're siding with a particular nature/nurture camp or looking to combine both? Sorry- just wanted to clarify
I find it interesting to read about people's thoughts about how Tom Riddle was treated and taught at the orphanage. The problem with these theories are that they are all assumptions. We have been shown next to nothing about his time in the Orphanage, other than knowing that the other children are afraid of him at the age of 10. So what happened in the first ten years? How do we know when he started exhibiting 'odd' traits. When did he realise that he was 'special'? Anyone who works with young children will tell you that most under 4 year old are pretty ego-centric. It's a world all about them and they are the centre of it. So what made 4 year old Tom different to 4 year old Harry, or 4 year old random muggle child?
We know that Harry was treated harshly because the Dursleys hoped to beat the wierdness out of him. So there's a thought that if Harry's parents HADN'T have been part of the wizarding world, would they have treated Harry any differently? (except of course, we'd have no story there). However we DON'T know that Tom wasn't bullied by bigger 6 year olds and found out then that he could disappear, or make his hair regrow etc etc. We don't know what his young years were like.
Pixymajik- You're completely right. I stepped all over my own words there. What I was referring to with "It's all in the upbringing," was that the reason I believe that LV was born evil is that Harry and LV's upbringings were very similar. Therefore, with similar upbringings, and opposite personalities, I feel that the reason behind the difference must lie somewhere outside of their past experiences.
I think that LV is, to be blunt, just evil. He was born that way. Maybe it was the fact that he was conceived under a love potion, maybe it's the fact that he has seemingly nasty blood running through his veins (just look at his grandfather!). Whatever it is, I think that he is just plain evil, and no change in his upbringing could have made him turn out any differently.
I think that LV is, to be blunt, just evil. He was born that way. Maybe it was the fact that he was conceived under a love potion, maybe it's the fact that he has seemingly nasty blood running through his veins (just look at his grandfather!). Whatever it is, I think that he is just plain evil, and no change in his upbringing could have made him turn out any differently.
An interesting topic of discussion but I am going to have to agree with what a couple of you have said. I just can't see Tom's upbringing having had anything to do with who and what he became. The comparison to Harry is reason enough but there is more to it than just that.
His family genes were not a good combination from the start. His mother's genes had the Slytherin blood in them. We know that Slytherin was not the greatest fellow to have walked the earth and was most likely as close as one could be to being a dark wizard without actually becoming dark. Then over the years the marrying in the family would caused a vein of mental instability. On his father's side, while we don't have very much to go on, I got the impression that Tom Riddle was not the warmest of people. He seemed to have a disdain for people he considered below him, much like Slytherin. These combined genes would have theoretically produced someone that had very little thought for anyone other than themself. A combination of arrogance, pride, a desire to be appear to be better than everyone else. Not someone you would want to spend time with. This is who Tom was from his genetic makeup which is bad enough.
Moving past his initial genetics, which might have been negated somewhat in a loving home, he found himself to be different than other children around him. This would have both made him feel like an outsider and at the same time fed his arrogance and pride that he was better than those around him. He started using his gifts for his own amusement at the cost of torturing and bullying the kids around him. Most folks would have used these talents to help them make friends, not alienate them from others by bullying them. Instead of using theses talents to make things fun and easier for himself and the other orphans he decided at an early age mind you, that he would use these gifts to bully and push others around merely because he could. Not the makings of someone who just needed some love.
And things just progressed from there. Tom was born with a mean and evil streak in him. Perhaps if his parents had been together and loved him he would have been able to resist some of these imulses but I believe even in that scenario he would have been a hard and cold hearted person, but perhaps more willing to try and control himself for appearances sake. Regardless he was evil from the start and there would have been very little if anything that could have made him become a better person.
His family genes were not a good combination from the start. His mother's genes had the Slytherin blood in them. We know that Slytherin was not the greatest fellow to have walked the earth and was most likely as close as one could be to being a dark wizard without actually becoming dark. Then over the years the marrying in the family would caused a vein of mental instability. On his father's side, while we don't have very much to go on, I got the impression that Tom Riddle was not the warmest of people. He seemed to have a disdain for people he considered below him, much like Slytherin. These combined genes would have theoretically produced someone that had very little thought for anyone other than themself. A combination of arrogance, pride, a desire to be appear to be better than everyone else. Not someone you would want to spend time with
. This is who Tom was from his genetic makeup which is bad enough.Moving past his initial genetics, which might have been negated somewhat in a loving home, he found himself to be different than other children around him. This would have both made him feel like an outsider and at the same time fed his arrogance and pride that he was better than those around him. He started using his gifts for his own amusement at the cost of torturing and bullying the kids around him. Most folks would have used these talents to help them make friends, not alienate them from others by bullying them. Instead of using theses talents to make things fun and easier for himself and the other orphans he decided at an early age mind you, that he would use these gifts to bully and push others around merely because he could. Not the makings of someone who just needed some love.
And things just progressed from there. Tom was born with a mean and evil streak in him. Perhaps if his parents had been together and loved him he would have been able to resist some of these imulses but I believe even in that scenario he would have been a hard and cold hearted person, but perhaps more willing to try and control himself for appearances sake. Regardless he was evil from the start and there would have been very little if anything that could have made him become a better person.
I was reading a fanfic story and was suddenly struck by how out of character Voldemort seemed to me in it, but I wasn't sure why.
When I thought about it, it seemed to me that the story was portraying Voldemort as enjoying killing and torturing almost randomly and encouraging others to do the same, but that doesn't sound 'wrong' of him, does it?
So I sat down and considered what JKR has tried to do with him, especially in HBP, and I started thinking that it seems to me that she never actually showed him this way. It looks to me like he enjoyed having power over people, especially in the form of fear of him, but that he never actually killed anybody unless they oppossed him. He doesn't seem to be out to destroy the world, but to dominate it.
His hatred of Muggles would appear to rooted in his father, and he bolsters the image of them been so inferior that even their magical children should be despised, but he doesn't come across and been obsessed with wiping them out, and surely would have been destroyed by self loathing when he found he was a half blood.
Sure, he wanted them out of Hogwarts, but not so badly that he would let the school be closed down.
From this, it made me wonder if he really cares about the pure-blood agenda or has just hijacked it for his own power seeking needs, and most of the killing that goes on by his followers is of no 'interest' to him except where it gains him more loyalty or power.
What do you think? Is he actually less blood thirsty than we seem to believe and in fact just doing it all for power (through fear), or is murder his main agenda (and purpose)?
When I thought about it, it seemed to me that the story was portraying Voldemort as enjoying killing and torturing almost randomly and encouraging others to do the same, but that doesn't sound 'wrong' of him, does it?
So I sat down and considered what JKR has tried to do with him, especially in HBP, and I started thinking that it seems to me that she never actually showed him this way. It looks to me like he enjoyed having power over people, especially in the form of fear of him, but that he never actually killed anybody unless they oppossed him. He doesn't seem to be out to destroy the world, but to dominate it.
His hatred of Muggles would appear to rooted in his father, and he bolsters the image of them been so inferior that even their magical children should be despised, but he doesn't come across and been obsessed with wiping them out, and surely would have been destroyed by self loathing when he found he was a half blood.
Sure, he wanted them out of Hogwarts, but not so badly that he would let the school be closed down.
From this, it made me wonder if he really cares about the pure-blood agenda or has just hijacked it for his own power seeking needs, and most of the killing that goes on by his followers is of no 'interest' to him except where it gains him more loyalty or power.
What do you think? Is he actually less blood thirsty than we seem to believe and in fact just doing it all for power (through fear), or is murder his main agenda (and purpose)?
Voldemort is definately not out to simply kill everyone in the world, though he is somewhat quick to pull the trigger on occassion, as it were. Especially when the murder involves muggle or muggles, who he views as less than human, less even than insects.
I actually wrote a fanfic about Voldemort (my only fanfic) in which I examine this issue. You may like it better than the one which you were reading, bajab. There is a link in my signature. (Shouldn't be too hard to find ) Bear in mind that I wrote it well before the release of HBP.
It would appear to me that HBP shows what JK has always said in her interviews, that it is Voldemort's nature which makes him as he is. He has never loved, he has never had a friend. He was "odd" even as a child, as his governess at the orphanage tells Dumbledore. I also believe that JK believes, as I do, that one cannot be raised to be a psycopathic murderer. "It is our choices which make us what we are." Even if it is your Nature to be a psychopath, you can choose not to be.
Blaming your childhood just doesn't hold water. . .
I actually wrote a fanfic about Voldemort (my only fanfic) in which I examine this issue. You may like it better than the one which you were reading, bajab. There is a link in my signature. (Shouldn't be too hard to find
) Bear in mind that I wrote it well before the release of HBP.It would appear to me that HBP shows what JK has always said in her interviews, that it is Voldemort's nature which makes him as he is. He has never loved, he has never had a friend. He was "odd" even as a child, as his governess at the orphanage tells Dumbledore. I also believe that JK believes, as I do, that one cannot be raised to be a psycopathic murderer. "It is our choices which make us what we are." Even if it is your Nature to be a psychopath, you can choose not to be.
Blaming your childhood just doesn't hold water. . .
here's really much information about voldemort!
there's my part:
well, dumbledore said "it does not matter what someone is born, but what they grow to be"...
so, in my opinion: if voldemort had grown up somewhere completely different, with parents that love him, he could have been different! he would have learned not to bully other kids, not to lie, etc.... and he would probably have been able to love! in the orphanage he never received love, so he couldn't love, but if he had gotten love he would have been a quite different person.
voldemort wasn't only evil from the beginning onwards -he developed! he could have changed, learned and worked on his personality, to become a nice boy, like his parents would have taught him. but he didn't. he developed for himself and no one really showed him what is right and what's wrong. -or why. so he just did everything to get power. that probably is what he inherited -the urge to get power, the feeling of being better, being special... no one showed him the other way he could have gone, so he went the way his feelings urged him to go -to get power!
i think that -because of his slytherin blood and the characteristics he inherited- he would have had to struggle with 'i want power' and stuff, even if he had grown up differently, but i don't think he would have become what he is now -a mass murder! i think the Gaunts and Riddles let their traces in his character, and i'm sure that also is why he became voldemort
-in my opinion it is his childhood that made him what he is!
there's my part:
well, dumbledore said "it does not matter what someone is born, but what they grow to be"...
so, in my opinion: if voldemort had grown up somewhere completely different, with parents that love him, he could have been different! he would have learned not to bully other kids, not to lie, etc.... and he would probably have been able to love! in the orphanage he never received love, so he couldn't love, but if he had gotten love he would have been a quite different person.
voldemort wasn't only evil from the beginning onwards -he developed! he could have changed, learned and worked on his personality, to become a nice boy, like his parents would have taught him. but he didn't. he developed for himself and no one really showed him what is right and what's wrong. -or why. so he just did everything to get power. that probably is what he inherited -the urge to get power, the feeling of being better, being special... no one showed him the other way he could have gone, so he went the way his feelings urged him to go -to get power!
i think that -because of his slytherin blood and the characteristics he inherited- he would have had to struggle with 'i want power' and stuff, even if he had grown up differently, but i don't think he would have become what he is now -a mass murder! i think the Gaunts and Riddles let their traces in his character, and i'm sure that also is why he became voldemort
-in my opinion it is his childhood that made him what he is!
But that's just it. There were dozens of other children at that orphanage, and none of them (that we know about) grew to be mass murderers. There are orphans aplenty in the world who have had much harder childhoods, dealing with abuse physical, mental, and emotional, yet they grow to be well adjusted individuals.
Granted, someone's environment and moral upbringing bear on their belief in right and wrong, but in any society murder and betrayal of friends and allies is seen as reprehensible. For instance, in a society where theft is acceptable, and particularly daring or clever thefts raise one's standing within the society it stands to reason that one would grow to be a thief. Which is why those who grow up around gangs and crime find it easy to slip into a life of crime theirselves. However, there are some individuals who choose the other path, and work to make their lives better witout sinking to that level.
In short, as Dumbledore wisely states, "It is our choices which make us what we are." Voldemort was born into a difficult situation, however if it were not his very nature to lust for power and to do anything to gain it, he could have chosen another path. He chose at every turn to become what he grew to be. Just as you and I chose not to murder someone when they anger us, or not to steal the new toy we really want, but to earn enough money to buy it legally.
Voldemort made the choices he made because it is in his very nature to do these things. While his upbringing made it easier to make those choices, in the end it was still his own will which led him down the path he took.
Granted, someone's environment and moral upbringing bear on their belief in right and wrong, but in any society murder and betrayal of friends and allies is seen as reprehensible. For instance, in a society where theft is acceptable, and particularly daring or clever thefts raise one's standing within the society it stands to reason that one would grow to be a thief. Which is why those who grow up around gangs and crime find it easy to slip into a life of crime theirselves. However, there are some individuals who choose the other path, and work to make their lives better witout sinking to that level.
In short, as Dumbledore wisely states, "It is our choices which make us what we are." Voldemort was born into a difficult situation, however if it were not his very nature to lust for power and to do anything to gain it, he could have chosen another path. He chose at every turn to become what he grew to be. Just as you and I chose not to murder someone when they anger us, or not to steal the new toy we really want, but to earn enough money to buy it legally.
Voldemort made the choices he made because it is in his very nature to do these things. While his upbringing made it easier to make those choices, in the end it was still his own will which led him down the path he took.
I agree that the circumstances can help one to make certain choices, but the freewill gives anybody multiple choices. We can choose the narrow path to life or the wide path to destruction, as the preachers say. Tom Riddle has chosen one path that he believes will bring him to his life goals: fame, power, satisfaction etc. The path is not an easy one, nor it's guaranteed success, but Tom has taken it nevertheless. It's a well-thought decision.
My point exactly. I would even go on to argue that it is JK's point as well. "It is our choices which make us what we are." She gave Harry a hard childhood as well. I would even say it is much worse than Voldemort's ever was. Yet Harry chooses to fight evil, not become it. Though, as in the case of Voldemort, the circumstances of his childhood made it a bit easier to choose the path he did. His parents were killed by the most evil of wizards. It is natural for him to want revenge upon that wizard. However, he might gain that revenge by first getting close to him, and then stabbing him in the back, becoming the most powerful and feared wizard in his own right.
Instead he chooses to oppose him openly, because it is Harry's nature to be good. He knows what it is to love. Voldemort, on the other hand, is an abberation. He is not a normal human being. He has never loved, nor felt any desire to love. It is his nature to hate, and to lust for power. Yet, rather than fight this nature, Voldemort chooses to embrace it.
Instead he chooses to oppose him openly, because it is Harry's nature to be good. He knows what it is to love. Voldemort, on the other hand, is an abberation. He is not a normal human being. He has never loved, nor felt any desire to love. It is his nature to hate, and to lust for power. Yet, rather than fight this nature, Voldemort chooses to embrace it.
I wonder if Jo Rowling will provide a redemption for Voldemort. Something may hit his conscience and realise that his reign is futile. He may destroy the horcruxes himself, and with that action, removing himself from all misery.
Oh i hope so... I am one of those people that like to see the best of people.. even if it is there downfall... I think since Dumbledore is gone, and Harry obviously has to have a sitdown talk with one of the characters.... i hope it is Voldemort... how Harry and Voldemort would sit quietly and talk.... but who knows.... I just want to see innocent Tom Riddle again... it is quite sad...
~Albus
~Albus
Tom Riddle was never innocent. Remember what he did to the children at the orphanage? I think the big redemption story in the series will be Wormtail. He has yet to prove Dumbledore right in saying, "You may one day be very thankful that he is in your debt." or whatever he said.
If you remember what JK said in an interview about Voldemort having never loved anyone or anything, it is made clear that he is not a normal human being.
If you remember what JK said in an interview about Voldemort having never loved anyone or anything, it is made clear that he is not a normal human being.
But that will just make Harry Potter series special. So far we see gaps between fictions and facts. In fictions, bad guys usually remain bad guys to the end. In facts, we notice miraculous transformation of many bad guys. Human somehow has given an opportunity to redempt oneself in the reality. Of course, not everyone makes good use of the opportunity, but I saw many times, it's different from what I normally see in the movies or books.
Voldemort's biggest punishment on earth will actually be the years he will have to live regretting his past actions and facing the consequences of his bad deeds. If he makes good use of his opportunity to be good, he can be using what's left of his power to secure peace in the wizarding world, therefore, making Harry Potter obsolete in the future. Nothing more to fight and he can live truly happily without fear of evil.
Voldemort's biggest punishment on earth will actually be the years he will have to live regretting his past actions and facing the consequences of his bad deeds. If he makes good use of his opportunity to be good, he can be using what's left of his power to secure peace in the wizarding world, therefore, making Harry Potter obsolete in the future. Nothing more to fight and he can live truly happily without fear of evil.
I think it would be hard for Voldemort to redeem himself, just because of what JK said about him never having been in love, or felt love, or had love directed at him. Even contact with someone who is capable of loving causes him emense pain. This tells me that he is evil incarnate. This means that he cannot be redeemed, only defeated and hopefully destroyed. Other than wormtail I think Snape the next most likely character to find redemption. I believe he proved himself evil at the end of the sixth book, but he is yet human, capable of emotion and caring and love. If he turns on VOldemort in the end and aids Harry in vanquishing the DL, perhaps going so far as to sacrifice himself to do so, then Snape can yet be redeemed.
Whether he will or not is up to JK. Frankly, I think she will not, just to leave no doubt in the readers' minds that Snape was actually evil all along, and he only showed his true colors in HBP.
Whether he will or not is up to JK. Frankly, I think she will not, just to leave no doubt in the readers' minds that Snape was actually evil all along, and he only showed his true colors in HBP.
I can see how you can apply the thought pattern of being brought up in a family with love and compassion can shape people. That's a given. But what is also a given is that that is what would happen with about 97 percent of human beings. You have to take into consideration that there is about 3 percent of humans that are just not right. And I don't mean that they metally deficient for want of a better word. I mean that there is a small group of people that are inherently bad. No matter what upbringing they have they will always be capable of committing horrible crimes. Tom Riddle was one of those born that way. When you combine that with his upbringing it didn't cause him to be what he already was but it may have sped up some of the acts he commited. Regardless of whether it was sped up or not he was still born evil not bred and brought up that way. To place blame for his actions on his mom and dad not hugging him enough is just ridiculous. The average person that doesn't get enough love from their parents may turn out to be cold and indifferent but they wont turn out to be a mass murderer.
Most of the research I have read on this topic agrees that a person's general personality is formed by the time they are three years old. Accepting this as true, it is only important to consider the early years of Tom's life, and the events that led to his life.
Mrs. Cole told us that Tom was a funny baby; he hardly ever cried. Even as a baby, the most helpless time of life, Tom was independent and, as I believe, reflective. Before he knew anything at all, he knew that he did not want others. Perhaps he learned that crying brought others to him, which was something he did not want.
When we consider his genes, the first place we should look is at his family. His muggle father and his family believed they were better than everyone else because they had a big house and money. His uncle and grandfather were convinced of their superiority because of the blood in their veins.
One of the first posts in this thread noted golden retrievers and the effect of excessive line breeding. Dumbledore told us that the note of instability in the Gaunts only flourished because of their habit of marrying cousins. It would appear that everyone in the family possessed the extreme temper of Marvolo. As descendents of Salazr, they probably possessed powerful magic powers. But it seems they never bothered to teach their children anything more than hexes and the necessary to get through life.
When one was finally given the opportunity to attend a quality school, he became more knowledgeable than any other wizard alive. What does this have to do with Nature vs. Nurture? What was the reaction when Tom was given the opportunity to be placed among those that could be considered equals? He rejected them all. Once again he showed the tendancy to remain independent, the same as he showed at birth.
Every time we see or hear about Voldemort's past, he always possesses the same characteristics. Both sides of his family believed in their own superiority. Tom believed this same thing, even though he was never exposed to anyone to tell him so. Any time he was placed among people who could possibly be considered equals, he set himself apart to prove his dominance. If we never see his behavior, personality and apparent thoughts change, how can we assume that his environment had any impact on him?
Mrs. Cole told us that Tom was a funny baby; he hardly ever cried. Even as a baby, the most helpless time of life, Tom was independent and, as I believe, reflective. Before he knew anything at all, he knew that he did not want others. Perhaps he learned that crying brought others to him, which was something he did not want.
When we consider his genes, the first place we should look is at his family. His muggle father and his family believed they were better than everyone else because they had a big house and money. His uncle and grandfather were convinced of their superiority because of the blood in their veins.
One of the first posts in this thread noted golden retrievers and the effect of excessive line breeding. Dumbledore told us that the note of instability in the Gaunts only flourished because of their habit of marrying cousins. It would appear that everyone in the family possessed the extreme temper of Marvolo. As descendents of Salazr, they probably possessed powerful magic powers. But it seems they never bothered to teach their children anything more than hexes and the necessary to get through life.
When one was finally given the opportunity to attend a quality school, he became more knowledgeable than any other wizard alive. What does this have to do with Nature vs. Nurture? What was the reaction when Tom was given the opportunity to be placed among those that could be considered equals? He rejected them all. Once again he showed the tendancy to remain independent, the same as he showed at birth.
Every time we see or hear about Voldemort's past, he always possesses the same characteristics. Both sides of his family believed in their own superiority. Tom believed this same thing, even though he was never exposed to anyone to tell him so. Any time he was placed among people who could possibly be considered equals, he set himself apart to prove his dominance. If we never see his behavior, personality and apparent thoughts change, how can we assume that his environment had any impact on him?
I've just joined the Duelling-club and there is really a LOT to read before posting. But I've done my best.
I see this thread hasn't been active for the last couple of months so I'll give it a try and start it up again.
It has been very much talk about Voldemort inherit his behavior and views from his ancestors; The Slytherin Famliy. The oldest Slytherin we know about is Salazar Slytherin who lived over a thousan years ago. We know he wasn't much of a people-person like the other three Greatest wizards of time (Godric Gryffindoor, Helga Hufflepuff and Rozelda Ravenclaw (I'm not sure of this last name) but was he really evil? We only know that he didn't like muggles and did not want muggleborns to study at his school. He appreciated them just enough to set off a giant basilisk to wipe them from the school. But I don't think he was a murderer? At least not while alive.
Through generations the Slytherins are known for they mugglehatred. And they all liked to look upon them self as superior to others because they were purebloods. I don't think any of them would see the killing of a muggle or anyone who stood in their way as a crime.
This we can see in Voldemort. I think that such thinking and behavior can be inherited. (I for once does like icecreme very much, so does my dad, and so does my grandmother).
Such things often goes in generations because the parents have raised them their way of thinking. But Voldemort never had parents, so I think that he developed from what he had inherit in his blood.
We all like different things, we all know the feeling of a situation where you really enjoy yourself. This is what you like. (I like badminton very much. Doing sports help me to find myself).
We know Voldemort like having control. To the superior one. When he found out he was a wizard he saw endless possibilities to take control of people. And he was good at it. Thereby he lived the feeling that made him feel good. The thing he was good at. (I play badminton because that's what I'm good at)
You see? I don't think anything in Voldemorts childhood influenced him to be what he became.
He didn't have any parents to raise him so he just lived by his own rules and did what made him feel good, feel superior to others. He started it when he was a little boy and kept on doing what he was good at all his life.
I see this thread hasn't been active for the last couple of months so I'll give it a try and start it up again.
It has been very much talk about Voldemort inherit his behavior and views from his ancestors; The Slytherin Famliy. The oldest Slytherin we know about is Salazar Slytherin who lived over a thousan years ago. We know he wasn't much of a people-person like the other three Greatest wizards of time (Godric Gryffindoor, Helga Hufflepuff and Rozelda Ravenclaw (I'm not sure of this last name) but was he really evil? We only know that he didn't like muggles and did not want muggleborns to study at his school. He appreciated them just enough to set off a giant basilisk to wipe them from the school. But I don't think he was a murderer? At least not while alive.
Through generations the Slytherins are known for they mugglehatred. And they all liked to look upon them self as superior to others because they were purebloods. I don't think any of them would see the killing of a muggle or anyone who stood in their way as a crime.
This we can see in Voldemort. I think that such thinking and behavior can be inherited. (I for once does like icecreme very much, so does my dad, and so does my grandmother).
Such things often goes in generations because the parents have raised them their way of thinking. But Voldemort never had parents, so I think that he developed from what he had inherit in his blood.
We all like different things, we all know the feeling of a situation where you really enjoy yourself. This is what you like. (I like badminton very much. Doing sports help me to find myself).
We know Voldemort like having control. To the superior one. When he found out he was a wizard he saw endless possibilities to take control of people. And he was good at it. Thereby he lived the feeling that made him feel good. The thing he was good at. (I play badminton because that's what I'm good at)
You see? I don't think anything in Voldemorts childhood influenced him to be what he became.
He didn't have any parents to raise him so he just lived by his own rules and did what made him feel good, feel superior to others. He started it when he was a little boy and kept on doing what he was good at all his life.
I agree with a lot of what's being said in this thread, and wanted to add my two cents in to something that I have been giving a lot of thought to recently. Jo was once asked what LV's boggart would be, and I think that possibly it would be an image of him as a ghost. Still around, but dead and completely powerless. Now I'm not talking about a poltergeist like Peeves (Peeves can do stuff), but something like Nicholas. Nicholas seems actually rather sad that he decided to become a ghost (at least my interpretation of what he says at the end of OOTP), and I wonder if the spell that Dumbledore threw at LV in the atrium of the Ministry of Magic was a kind of ghost making spell.
Any thoughts?
I know this doesn't directly speak to LV and a portrait of a serial killer, but I couldn't think of where else I could discuss this. (If there is a thread on this, I would appreciate some direction - and I apologize for my ineptitude at finding it.)
-Guin
Any thoughts?
I know this doesn't directly speak to LV and a portrait of a serial killer, but I couldn't think of where else I could discuss this. (If there is a thread on this, I would appreciate some direction - and I apologize for my ineptitude at finding it.)
-Guin
Hey all! I'm new to the duelling club and I find this topic very interesting. When I was in college I actually did a term paper on "Serial Killers", psychology has always fascinated me and I find this topic to be of great interst.
I do see that like many "real life" serial killers Voldemort has alot of the same characteristics that many profilers have defined as a true "serial killer". Ok first off, he was left to grow up in an orphange, his mother died atbirth. His father (who was not even aware of his existance) basically abandoned him. Like alot of serial killers, he had no father figure. He grew up in an orphanage, and from a very early age on showed very little if no emotion whatsoever about anything. He enjoyed stealing things from his fellow peers, he also enjoyed bullying others and exerting power over them. Now the books never say but I could almost bet that Voldemort, like many other "serial killers" would have tortured animals, if he had axcess to them, and he probably would have also enjoyed setting fires.
As Voldemort grew older, he had such an intelligent mind, he was extremely smart. Which leads us to believe that he was probaly very manipulative and deceptive at a young age. He also showed that he did not care for anyone else, other than himself. Very narcissitic indeed. He enjoyed the manipulation that he used over others. He had no friends growing up because he chose not to have any.
I feel that Voldemort, whether it be because of genetics or growing up with no parents, does not have the capability to care about anyone or anything except for Number 1.
The only thing that Voldemort cares about doing is inflicting pain upon all those around him, he lacks a concious. This lack of empathy would almost qualify Voldemort as either a sociopath or a psychopath.
Marcey
I do see that like many "real life" serial killers Voldemort has alot of the same characteristics that many profilers have defined as a true "serial killer". Ok first off, he was left to grow up in an orphange, his mother died atbirth. His father (who was not even aware of his existance) basically abandoned him. Like alot of serial killers, he had no father figure. He grew up in an orphanage, and from a very early age on showed very little if no emotion whatsoever about anything. He enjoyed stealing things from his fellow peers, he also enjoyed bullying others and exerting power over them. Now the books never say but I could almost bet that Voldemort, like many other "serial killers" would have tortured animals, if he had axcess to them, and he probably would have also enjoyed setting fires.
As Voldemort grew older, he had such an intelligent mind, he was extremely smart. Which leads us to believe that he was probaly very manipulative and deceptive at a young age. He also showed that he did not care for anyone else, other than himself. Very narcissitic indeed. He enjoyed the manipulation that he used over others. He had no friends growing up because he chose not to have any.
I feel that Voldemort, whether it be because of genetics or growing up with no parents, does not have the capability to care about anyone or anything except for Number 1.
The only thing that Voldemort cares about doing is inflicting pain upon all those around him, he lacks a concious. This lack of empathy would almost qualify Voldemort as either a sociopath or a psychopath.
Marcey
QUOTE
When we consider his genes, the first place we should look is at his family. His muggle father and his family believed they were better than everyone else because they had a big house and money. His uncle and grandfather were convinced of their superiority because of the blood in their veins.
ALso his neglect and him being unloved made him bitter towards people who are loved this would explain why he overlooked the power of love because it was so absent in his life he had forgotten about it.
The fact that he thought that magic could stop you from dying proves that he had already thought of becoming really powerfull even at an early age...... DISTURBING.
He also tortured other people and abused his magical power from an early age as well.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.