I have to agree here. I think it's vital that Harry have some understanding and even feelings of evil within him. He wants to do everything for the good, but he sometimes lets his emotions run away with him, hence the attempt to use unforgiveable curses. He does however, hold within him the pure love of a mother to her child, as i'm sure lily was feeling that purely in the instant she died, or else it wouldn't have protected Harry. Perhaps it's sort of an existentialist thing, Harry will hit the moment of purity just at the moment in which he can defeat the pure evil of LV.
PattyBNUChick wrote:
I'm not faulting Harry, all I'm saying is that I doubt anyone is 100% pure. I think people Dumbledore in SS said that Harry loves, but does that mean he's totally full of love? Totally? I think people are just the tad bit overestimating Harry's goodness and ability to love. Im not saying he doesnt love and that he's not selfless, all I'm saying is that he's not pure love, I just dont see the pure love thing. But we can disagree
Dkrupp wrote:
Yep, I think he's about as close to pure as Voldemort is to evil. I don't think he's perfect, but I think he's about as close as we've seen. Think of the tasks in the triwizard tournament - he shares his info with Cedric out of a sense of nobility and fairness, he waits to be sure all the hostages are saved, he shares the cup with Cedric, he tries to give the money to Cedric's parents. He is selfless over and over.
Aside from having irritations with Draco and Snape, where do you see him acting in any "impure" way? I just don't see it, in all seriousness, and I fully acknowledge I may be missing something huge - so where do you fault Harry? I don't always agree with his choices, but I think they are made with good intentions...
PattyBNUChick wrote:
What Im trying to say is PURE, Pure of heart. I doubt Harry is pure, you know, like 100% pure. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I think you're trying to say that harry is total love, total pure of heart, but I just don't see that as possible.
LV's absence of love not withstanding, he is NOT a victim of his circumstances. He still made choices to bring him down the path of evil by embracing those aspects of his history, character, etc... Harry didn't know about his mother's sacrifice or his parents's love for him until he was almost a teenager, by then his character was already solidly in place. One could even argue that Harry's beginnings were much worse off than Voldy's. The lady who ran the orphanage, while not excessively loving, seemed kind enough, the place was clean, he probably got 3 meals a day. Harry on the other hand lived with relatives who despised him and his parents and didn't hesitate to make note of this whenever the opportunity arose (or not). They locked him in the Cupboard under the Stairs for pete's sake! TR at least had his own room! If you were to ask Petunia or Vernon or Aunt Marge, they all would have described Harry in an uncannily similar manner as the woman who ran the orphanage (does she have a name? I can't remember.) described TR.
LV is not blameless for his actions, nor is he in any way innocent. He knew even when he was a child what his powers could do and embraced that. Unloved or not, still this was a choice he made so it scares me that people want to make excuses for him (am I misinterpreting?). I think of him as the extreme embodiment of evil (hence why he no longer appears human). Even when he is eventually vanguished evil will still exist, just not in such a potent, organized form. He's not mentally ill, he is just purely, wholly, and conciously evil.
But that's just my opinion
LV is not blameless for his actions, nor is he in any way innocent. He knew even when he was a child what his powers could do and embraced that. Unloved or not, still this was a choice he made so it scares me that people want to make excuses for him (am I misinterpreting?). I think of him as the extreme embodiment of evil (hence why he no longer appears human). Even when he is eventually vanguished evil will still exist, just not in such a potent, organized form. He's not mentally ill, he is just purely, wholly, and conciously evil.
But that's just my opinion
Dkrupp wrote:
Yep, I think he's about as close to pure as Voldemort is to evil. I don't think he's perfect, but I think he's about as close as we've seen. Think of the tasks in the triwizard tournament - he shares his info with Cedric out of a sense of nobility and fairness, he waits to be sure all the hostages are saved, he shares the cup with Cedric, he tries to give the money to Cedric's parents. He is selfless over and over.
Aside from having irritations with Draco and Snape, where do you see him acting in any "impure" way? I just don't see it, in all seriousness, and I fully acknowledge I may be missing something huge - so where do you fault Harry? I don't always agree with his choices, but I think they are made with good intentions...
PattyBNUChick wrote:
What Im trying to say is PURE, Pure of heart. I doubt Harry is pure, you know, like 100% pure. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I think you're trying to say that harry is total love, total pure of heart, but I just don't see that as possible.
This is the point I think people are missing. Voldemort actually is mentally ill. Jo describes him as a psychopath.
from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: psy·cho·path
Pronunciation: 'sI-k&-"path
Function: noun
: a mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an antisocial personality
Specifically, Voldemort seems to be suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder.
narcissistic personality
–noun Psychiatry.
a personality disorder characterized by extreme self-centeredness and self-absorption, fantasies involving unrealistic goals, an excessive need for attention and admiration, and disturbed interpersonal relationships.
So, I absolutely disagree that he is not a victim. A very scary, terrible person with no conscience, who must be stopped, but also a victim. And I think that choices matter, but the choices of Lily and Merope influenced Harry and Tom. You can argue, just as strongly, imo, that for as good as Harry turned out despite his terrible situation (because of his mother's deep love print on him), Tom Riddle should be just as awful even having been raised in a far better environment due to his mother's absolute disregard for him and lack of love for him.
My intent is not to excuse Voldemort, but to understand why he is a psychopath. I think it is because of Merope's choices, just as I think Harry is alive and able to function because of his mother's choices. An equal and opposite situation if you will.
I'm not cheering him on, just trying to understand how the message is different by making him clearly a psychopath versus a person who is making choices with the capacity to understand right and wrong that most people have. I know I'm in the minority, but why give us the details of his entrance into the world (conceived in false love and born to a mother who chooses to die over raising her son) if they aren't relevant? Why point out that he was an unfeeling, uncrying, distant infant/child? Imo, only to show how very different he is, and to create balance for the love Lily felt for Harry with the indifference Merope felt for Tom.
I could be marvelously wrong, but I don't see any other way to read this.
from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: psy·cho·path
Pronunciation: 'sI-k&-"path
Function: noun
: a mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an antisocial personality
Specifically, Voldemort seems to be suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder.
narcissistic personality
–noun Psychiatry.
a personality disorder characterized by extreme self-centeredness and self-absorption, fantasies involving unrealistic goals, an excessive need for attention and admiration, and disturbed interpersonal relationships.
So, I absolutely disagree that he is not a victim. A very scary, terrible person with no conscience, who must be stopped, but also a victim. And I think that choices matter, but the choices of Lily and Merope influenced Harry and Tom. You can argue, just as strongly, imo, that for as good as Harry turned out despite his terrible situation (because of his mother's deep love print on him), Tom Riddle should be just as awful even having been raised in a far better environment due to his mother's absolute disregard for him and lack of love for him.
My intent is not to excuse Voldemort, but to understand why he is a psychopath. I think it is because of Merope's choices, just as I think Harry is alive and able to function because of his mother's choices. An equal and opposite situation if you will.
I'm not cheering him on, just trying to understand how the message is different by making him clearly a psychopath versus a person who is making choices with the capacity to understand right and wrong that most people have. I know I'm in the minority, but why give us the details of his entrance into the world (conceived in false love and born to a mother who chooses to die over raising her son) if they aren't relevant? Why point out that he was an unfeeling, uncrying, distant infant/child? Imo, only to show how very different he is, and to create balance for the love Lily felt for Harry with the indifference Merope felt for Tom.
I could be marvelously wrong, but I don't see any other way to read this.
b-a wrote:
LV's absence of love not withstanding, he is NOT a victim of his circumstances. He still made choices to bring him down the path of evil by embracing those aspects of his history, character, etc... Harry didn't know about his mother's sacrifice or his parents's love for him until he was almost a teenager, by then his character was already solidly in place. One could even argue that Harry's beginnings were much worse off than Voldy's. The lady who ran the orphanage, while not excessively loving, seemed kind enough, the place was clean, he probably got 3 meals a day. Harry on the other hand lived with relatives who despised him and his parents and didn't hesitate to make note of this whenever the opportunity arose (or not). They locked him in the Cupboard under the Stairs for pete's sake! TR at least had his own room! If you were to ask Petunia or Vernon or Aunt Marge, they all would have described Harry in an uncannily similar manner as the woman who ran the orphanage (does she have a name? I can't remember.) described TR.
LV is not blameless for his actions, nor is he in any way innocent. He knew even when he was a child what his powers could do and embraced that. Unloved or not, still this was a choice he made so it scares me that people want to make excuses for him (am I misinterpreting?). I think of him as the extreme embodiment of evil (hence why he no longer appears human). Even when he is eventually vanguished evil will still exist, just not in such a potent, organized form. He's not mentally ill, he is just purely, wholly, and conciously evil.
But that's just my opinion
Message Edited by Dkrupp on 05-04-200709:41 PM
I see your point and I get it, but for me the thing is that I just can't see JKR, after stressing so much how it is our choices, OUR choices, not someone else's, that define us, letting LV off the hook in a way by saying he's mental (and NOT in a good way like DD!!)...but maybe more to the point you are truly asking is a psychopath born or made? Is that more of what your train of thought is and I only just got it? I'm really trying to understand because I know we've had this conversation before so maybe this time around we'll actually meet somewhere in the middle? (Big, deep sigh...my brain hurts)
Although I do wonder, JKR is British, do they have the same attitudes toward mental illness that we do in this country? And is she using the term "psychopath" more lightly than we would here? "Oh my God, he's a total psychopath! (ha, ha) vs. Oh my. He's a total psychopath.
" If that makes any sense! LOL!
Although I do wonder, JKR is British, do they have the same attitudes toward mental illness that we do in this country? And is she using the term "psychopath" more lightly than we would here? "Oh my God, he's a total psychopath! (ha, ha) vs. Oh my. He's a total psychopath.
" If that makes any sense! LOL!
Dkrupp wrote:
This is the point I think people are missing. Voldemort actually is mentally ill. Jo describes him as a psychopath.
from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
Main Entry: psy·cho·path
Pronunciation: 'sI-k&-"path
Function: noun
: a mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an antisocial personality
Specifically, Voldemort seems to be suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder.
narcissistic personality
–noun Psychiatry.
a personality disorder characterized by extreme self-centeredness and self-absorption, fantasies involving unrealistic goals, an excessive need for attention and admiration, and disturbed interpersonal relationships.
So, I absolutely disagree that he is not a victim. A very scary, terrible person with no conscience, who must be stopped, but also a victim. And I think that choices matter, but the choices of Lily and Merope influenced Harry and Tom. You can argue, just as strongly, imo, that for as good as Harry turned out despite his terrible situation (because of his mother's deep love print on him), Tom Riddle should be just as awful even having been raised in a far better environment due to his mother's absolute disregard for him and lack of love for him.
My intent is not to excuse Voldemort, but to understand why he is a psychopath. I think it is because of Merope's choices, just as I think Harry is alive and able to function because of his mother's choices. An equal and opposite situation if you will.
I'm not cheering him on, just trying to understand how the message is different by making him clearly a psychopath versus a person who is making choices with the capacity to understand right and wrong that most people have. I know I'm in the minority, but why give us the details of his entrance into the world (conceived in false love and born to a mother who chooses to die over raising her son) if they aren't relevant? Why point out that he was an unfeeling, uncrying, distant infant/child? Imo, only to show how very different he is, and to create balance for the love Lily felt for Harry with the indifference Merope felt for Tom.
I could be marvelously wrong, but I don't see any other way to read this.
b-a wrote:
LV's absence of love not withstanding, he is NOT a victim of his circumstances. He still made choices to bring him down the path of evil by embracing those aspects of his history, character, etc... Harry didn't know about his mother's sacrifice or his parents's love for him until he was almost a teenager, by then his character was already solidly in place. One could even argue that Harry's beginnings were much worse off than Voldy's. The lady who ran the orphanage, while not excessively loving, seemed kind enough, the place was clean, he probably got 3 meals a day. Harry on the other hand lived with relatives who despised him and his parents and didn't hesitate to make note of this whenever the opportunity arose (or not). They locked him in the Cupboard under the Stairs for pete's sake! TR at least had his own room! If you were to ask Petunia or Vernon or Aunt Marge, they all would have described Harry in an uncannily similar manner as the woman who ran the orphanage (does she have a name? I can't remember.) described TR.
LV is not blameless for his actions, nor is he in any way innocent. He knew even when he was a child what his powers could do and embraced that. Unloved or not, still this was a choice he made so it scares me that people want to make excuses for him (am I misinterpreting?). I think of him as the extreme embodiment of evil (hence why he no longer appears human). Even when he is eventually vanguished evil will still exist, just not in such a potent, organized form. He's not mentally ill, he is just purely, wholly, and conciously evil.
But that's just my opinionMessage Edited by Dkrupp on 05-04-200709:41 PM
Pshychee, that totally works for me and was extremely well put. Standing ovation on my end! 
Psychee wrote:
DKrupp and b-a...
As silly as this may sound, I think you are both right.
There are all sorts of diagnosable conditions that are called "mental illnesses".
But when it comes down to the question of whether or not people with these "illnesses" are responsible for their actions, the courts ask if the person knew the difference between right and wrong.
Personality disordered individuals (narcissistic / anti-social , etc, including all those people who used to be called psychopaths) know the difference between right and wrong. So, when they are caught doing wrong, they always go to jail. They are guilty of the crime, no excuse. They have more of a "condition" than an illness. They do not suffer, they have no desire or willingness to change, they like who they are, they feel no guilt, and as a result of that, they very rarely respond to conventional treatment. (I'm talking about adults here- there is more hope for change with children).
This is very different from what would normally happen to a schizophrenic... they aren't sharing the same reality that the rest of the world is... they are really "ill" in the medical sense of the word. Their brains are not functioning right. When they kill someone, they think they are doing right... Courts prefer to see them locked up in psychiatric hospitals in hopes that a medical intervention will help.
Voldemort fits into the first category. What causes someone to be like that in REAL life has always been hotly debated. It's a diverse group. A person can be born with this disorder, raised in a very loving home, and still turn out to be bad. A person can be born normal, raised in a home which offers lots of love but no discipline (like Dudley) and turn out like this. And a person can be born normal, receive insufficient or confusing affection as an infant and turn out like this, having not had a chance to ever establish healthy human bonding. There are degrees of this, of course, from bad to worse. But one thing I can say for sure about the WORST of the people in this category is that once you see them for who they really are it is practically impossible to muster up any sorrow for them, no matter how bad their early childhood was... what you feel instead is disorientation and fear. Even when they smile and talk about the weather you truly get a chilling sense that you are in the presence of evil. I'm not exagerating!
So what was Voldemort's situation? Hard to tell. Multiple contributing factors, I think. Messed up genes are probable. Unhealthy fetal development environment probable. First year of life in an institution, with multiple caretakers but no one person providing a good 1:1 bonding experience probable. The first 18 months seem to be really crucial. To the extent his condition was caused by those factors, I think you can safely call him damaged by his circumstances.
But we do know (or, rather, I think we can safely assume) that he was taught right from wrong. I think we can assume that he was treated fairly with all his basic needs taken care of. He had other kids around him, and I got the impression that if a child was found crying in that place, one of the attendants would have provided comfort. I think we can also assume that he was brought to church every Sunday and given a conventional Church of England ethics education. In normal circumstances, that should have at least led to him behaving in a conventional manner, even though he might have had to struggle with some identity and negative impulse issues.
But this story isn't about the normal world. It's a magical world. It's a magical world in which the creator wants to make a statement about the nature of evil. She wants to say that love of a mother leads to good wholesome people and lack of love leads to evil people. She also wants to say that whoever you are, whatever your personality traits are, whatever your experiences have been, what you want to be and how you behave is still a matter of free choice. Choose the easy way and you go down the dark path; choose the harder morally good path and you'll stay on the path of light. She clearly is saying that people have to be held responsible for their actions.
But there are some inherent paradoxes in that double message. For example, if a person is denied the love of a mother, but is taught the difference between right and wrong, when he chooses evil anyway was that outcome predetermined or chosen by himself? Very hard to answer! I suppose it comes down to whether or not JKR is saying that in the magical world she has created lack of mother love INEVITABLY leads to evil. I would suppose she would say "no" to that, preferring to have people always able to choose a new path for themselves even if they were initially put on the wrong road, but that's not really clear.
I would also hope that she would say that although Harry was infused with mother love which set him on the "path of light", he, too, could always choose to go bad. We need to credit him with his choices.
So, is Voldy a Victim?
Not a victim in the sense that he was ever persecuted. Maybe the answer to the debate for Voldy is one of "OK, he was damaged by things outside his control but he has long since lost the right for our compassion about that due to subsequent choices he freely made. Besides, the guy is happy being exactly who he is".
Does that work for both of you?
I'm so trying to get on board here, but I admit I'm not quite there. I see this as a magically induced illness which has no cure. I suppose I can agree that Voldemort makes terrible choices and Harry makes mostly good ones. I just think that regardless of Harry and Voldemort's choices, Merope's and Lily's opposite choices are playing a role. And it would be just as hard for Voldemort to choose to do "good" as it is for Harry to do the unforgiveable curses. I take issue with the idea that Voldemort is happy just as he is - I think he is motivated by his fear and need for power, but I don't see him as being happy.
Thanks for humoring me, and I'm happy to agree to disagree.
Thanks for humoring me, and I'm happy to agree to disagree.
b-a wrote:
Pshychee, that totally works for me and was extremely well put. Standing ovation on my end!
Psychee wrote:
DKrupp and b-a...
As silly as this may sound, I think you are both right.
There are all sorts of diagnosable conditions that are called "mental illnesses".
But when it comes down to the question of whether or not people with these "illnesses" are responsible for their actions, the courts ask if the person knew the difference between right and wrong.
Personality disordered individuals (narcissistic / anti-social , etc, including all those people who used to be called psychopaths) know the difference between right and wrong. So, when they are caught doing wrong, they always go to jail. They are guilty of the crime, no excuse. They have more of a "condition" than an illness. They do not suffer, they have no desire or willingness to change, they like who they are, they feel no guilt, and as a result of that, they very rarely respond to conventional treatment. (I'm talking about adults here- there is more hope for change with children).
This is very different from what would normally happen to a schizophrenic... they aren't sharing the same reality that the rest of the world is... they are really "ill" in the medical sense of the word. Their brains are not functioning right. When they kill someone, they think they are doing right... Courts prefer to see them locked up in psychiatric hospitals in hopes that a medical intervention will help.
Voldemort fits into the first category. What causes someone to be like that in REAL life has always been hotly debated. It's a diverse group. A person can be born with this disorder, raised in a very loving home, and still turn out to be bad. A person can be born normal, raised in a home which offers lots of love but no discipline (like Dudley) and turn out like this. And a person can be born normal, receive insufficient or confusing affection as an infant and turn out like this, having not had a chance to ever establish healthy human bonding. There are degrees of this, of course, from bad to worse. But one thing I can say for sure about the WORST of the people in this category is that once you see them for who they really are it is practically impossible to muster up any sorrow for them, no matter how bad their early childhood was... what you feel instead is disorientation and fear. Even when they smile and talk about the weather you truly get a chilling sense that you are in the presence of evil. I'm not exagerating!
So what was Voldemort's situation? Hard to tell. Multiple contributing factors, I think. Messed up genes are probable. Unhealthy fetal development environment probable. First year of life in an institution, with multiple caretakers but no one person providing a good 1:1 bonding experience probable. The first 18 months seem to be really crucial. To the extent his condition was caused by those factors, I think you can safely call him damaged by his circumstances.
But we do know (or, rather, I think we can safely assume) that he was taught right from wrong. I think we can assume that he was treated fairly with all his basic needs taken care of. He had other kids around him, and I got the impression that if a child was found crying in that place, one of the attendants would have provided comfort. I think we can also assume that he was brought to church every Sunday and given a conventional Church of England ethics education. In normal circumstances, that should have at least led to him behaving in a conventional manner, even though he might have had to struggle with some identity and negative impulse issues.
But this story isn't about the normal world. It's a magical world. It's a magical world in which the creator wants to make a statement about the nature of evil. She wants to say that love of a mother leads to good wholesome people and lack of love leads to evil people. She also wants to say that whoever you are, whatever your personality traits are, whatever your experiences have been, what you want to be and how you behave is still a matter of free choice. Choose the easy way and you go down the dark path; choose the harder morally good path and you'll stay on the path of light. She clearly is saying that people have to be held responsible for their actions.
But there are some inherent paradoxes in that double message. For example, if a person is denied the love of a mother, but is taught the difference between right and wrong, when he chooses evil anyway was that outcome predetermined or chosen by himself? Very hard to answer! I suppose it comes down to whether or not JKR is saying that in the magical world she has created lack of mother love INEVITABLY leads to evil. I would suppose she would say "no" to that, preferring to have people always able to choose a new path for themselves even if they were initially put on the wrong road, but that's not really clear.
I would also hope that she would say that although Harry was infused with mother love which set him on the "path of light", he, too, could always choose to go bad. We need to credit him with his choices.
So, is Voldy a Victim?
Not a victim in the sense that he was ever persecuted. Maybe the answer to the debate for Voldy is one of "OK, he was damaged by things outside his control but he has long since lost the right for our compassion about that due to subsequent choices he freely made. Besides, the guy is happy being exactly who he is".
Does that work for both of you?
