Lord Voldemort aka Tom Marvolo Riddle: Character Analysis

Welcome to the post-DH discussion of Lord Voldemort. Previous discussion without spoilers can be found here: Lord Voldemort aka Tom Marvolo Riddle: Character Analysis (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=96599)


This discussion is expected to evolve, but the following are some questions that people may answer if they wish:

Lord Voldemort was voted the number one villain in the BigBadRead, an online Bloomsbury poll to find the UK's favourite literary villain from a children's book. 1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before. ...Lord Voldemort requires my constant presence at the moment, as his Dark plans are unfolding in all their grisly glory. I hope those of you who voted for him in the Big Bad Read enjoy reading about him in book seven, where he finally gets the legroom for which he has been aching during all those years in exile.What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

Okay what I noitced about Voldemort is that he billed himself to be some big larger than life wizard but really he was just the little Tom who was a big show off, who liked to play finders keepers. He hadn't changed since the orphanage. They way Harry talked him down was sad to see.


And WHO would have guessed that Voldemort was a matchmaker. Telling Severus there were better pureblood women out there. If he ever comes back alive he could take a job working E-Harmony.

Did you think Lord Volemort was perhaps a bit weakened in DH....I mean I never really though his horcruxed would have been able to be destroyed so easily..without him interfereing much....I though his biggest weakness was his underestimation of his enemies, be it Dumbledore or even Harry...most of the times his death eaters seemed to echo his evilness..but voldemort...he was usually busy on going further on the part of immortality...like colecting the elder wand...I think even the horcruxes he made.were a little too obvious to someone who had already et about destroying them..and I never ever expected to him to hide one in the room of requirement..even the insights which harry got into voldemort's mind were not detected by him..and they were invaluable to harry..who could see them or shut them off on his will...and BIGGEST of all voldemort left the task of finind harry to his death eaters...when he knew harry was ...the chosen one..that should have been the most important task for him..shouldn't it?
overall I think voldemort was showned a little "realistic" and weakened in DH..what are your thoughts?

Voldemort after DH looks both more flawed and more terrifying. His magical power was immense, and he was all over the place. The flying bit was cool but terrifying.

However, his attitude regarding the horcruxes was shockingly arrogant. He believed so much in his plan that he had no backup. Maybe the process of creating horcruxes blinded him to their weaknesses.

His takeover plan was brilliant, in a word. It would have worked, too, had it not been for Harry knowing how to defeat him.

I suppose I'll be the first one to state it outright: Voldemort completely sucked in this book. His presence, while intimidating, was from terrifying, and his series of colossal blunders were what contributed to his downfall (another major problem, it really had nothing to do with Harry whatsoever)

It is incredible that after assuming effectively complete control over the Ministry of Magic, the Weasleys survive without questioning for months at a time. It is no secret that they are close to Harry Potter, and even more obvious that they are some of the biggest opposers of Voldemort's rule. So why in Merlin's beard was Arthur still able to continue working at the Ministry? Every smart dictator purges the ranks of their opposition after a successful coup d'etat - Voldemort was too obsessed with finding the Elder Wand to care about, you know, consolidating his rule and instilling a sense of stability.

If he was truly evil, he really should have instituted some programs for genocidal Muggle-born mass executions...but nah, he was content leaving them locked up with dementors, waiting to be rescued. I don't buy this "I want to preserve pure-blood wizards" excuse....it seems like a copout to explain why Voldemort doesn't just kill more people outright, enabling them to survive and fulfill the standards of deus ex machina that have been established. (See: Neville at the end)

Not to mention his ****-poor leadership at the Battle of Hogwarts. I understand standing back and waiting for Harry to come to him, but calling off his forces while he had the clear advantage? Sending Narcissa, a knowingly reluctant supporter to check on Harry instead of doing the smart thing and blasting his head off outright? Why, again, am I supposed to be afraid of this guy's intelligence?

There are also multiple examples of his stupid blunders shown in Deathly Hallows. His taking of Harry's blood, when he could have used any other wizard's - this ends up protecting the very person he has tried so desperately to kill. His hiding of the Horcrux in the Room of Requirement - so incredibly dumb that I could scarcely believe it. His inability to recognize that Snape was working against him, which played a vital role in his downfall in both wars. His general sloppiness in his Horcrux guarding, including both his poor protection schemes/locations for the Horcruxes, and his inability to recognize that parts of his soul were being destroyed until it was far too late.

I suppose the case of Voldemort was another illustration of how a person in the background can have their reputation inflated by a sense of mystery surrounding the person in question, but when exposed, that sense of mystery disappears and a more realistic view of the person is thus formulated. The image of a ruthless, genocidal, and sharp Voldemort was for me completely shattered in Deathly Hallows. It's quite a shame, I was hoping he would be someone who could manifest a great deal of hated and fear, but it does not seem he was that much of a threat after all.

EDIT:
And WHO would have guessed that Voldemort was a matchmaker. Telling Severus there were better pureblood women out there. If he ever comes back alive he could take a job working E-Harmony.

Voldemort ships Harry/Hermione! No wonder he was destined to lose, he was delusional....

The only thing that is scary about this guy is his brutality.

He is a reactor. He reacts to problems without thinking through all the implications of his actions. He takes Harry's blood because he/Quirrill gets burned by touching him. He plans to kill Dumbledore because he beats him at the ministry. He's only reacting.

He's so arrogant he can't help but brag on himself and give his enemies a chance think about what to do to defeat him. He's so rediculus he spends an entire year trying to get the stupid prophesy. I still can't figure out what he was thinking. He managed to get 6 DE in the hall of prophesies undetected why didn't he just send them in first to get rid of the guard and then get it himself. The Aurors only showed up because Dumbledore alerted them.

In the end I don't think he's as smart as Hermione. I guess my only conclusion is that he bought his own propaganda.

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

Yes. He is far beyond "usual evil" and he has no remorse for it. WHO TRIES TO KILL A BABY?!?!

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

I think that Voldemort wanted to use the Elder Wand to get rid of Harry. I think his sights were solely on killing Harry. I mean he had other things too, like killing Muggleborns and brainwashign students at Hogwarts in mind, but his number one priority was Harry.

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

I think that this is what lies at the heart and sole of JKR's story. Riddle could have been one of the greatest and most admired wizards of all time. He had the potential for being a wonderful human being. His CHOICES are what led him wrong. He chose to become obsessed with his magical heritage, leading him to Slytherin and to chose to believe in Slytherin's skewed views of blood and purity. As for the Borgin and Burkes job, I think he thought it was the next best place to find artifacts of the founders of Hogwarts for Horcruxes.

4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKR
...Lord Voldemort requires my constant presence at the moment, as his Dark plans are unfolding in all their grisly glory. I hope those of you who voted for him in the Big Bad Read enjoy reading about him in book seven, where he finally gets the legroom for which he has been aching during all those years in exile.
What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?

I think his legroom was the control over the ministry and hogwarts.

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?

I think it's foolish to scare people into submission. It results into false loyalty and high chance of betrayal.

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?

The Horcruxes were the downfall of voldemort. He made the Horcruxes because he was scared of death. He tried to prevent his own death but instead caused it.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

He could have just walked away from all of it and lived. However, he was obsessed with ruling the "potterverse" and by being obsessed there was nothing he could do to avoid his downfall.

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

Lord Voldemort is certainly qualified for the aforementioned title; his continual obsession with power coupled with his perpetual refusal to repent (as can be seen in his maniacal pursuit for immortality, no matter what the cost) make him a strangely nonhuman character, the ultimate antithesis of Harry, who (by the end) has evolved into a nearly perfect example of a protagonist (exhibiting the pseudo-Jesus sacrifice of life for others out of love is very telling). The only other characters who probably supersede Voldemort (in my opinion) are J.R.R Tolkien’s Morgoth (Melkor) and Sauron, both of whom are superhuman by nature and ergo are capable of inflicting greater damage on those around them without remorse. Either way, he is a very deserving candidate of the "baddest of the bad."

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

Quite simply, I believe that his plan went accordingly until the very end of the book; a takeover of he Ministry of Magic (a “corruption coup” if you will), a takeover of Hogwarts and its conversion into a school for the Dark Arts, and the death of Harry Potter would have all been priorities in his plan: By taking over the Ministry, he governs the people, by taking over Hogwarts, he ensures followers into future generations, and by killing Harry, he ensures his immortality (or so he thinks; he is quickly educated to think otherwise later). Rowling reveals that it is not her character’s actions or acquisitions of things that matter; it is their motivation for acquiring certain things tat defines tem (i.e. their choices). In Sorcerer/Philosopher Stone, for example, she reveals that Harry gets the stone because he does not desire to use it for himself or selfish gains; in the same way, he does not intend to use the Deathly Hallows selfishly by the end of the book, and thus attains them.

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

I think that Rowling deals (somewhat) with inherent evil here and that “absolute power corrupts absolutely:” From the earliest days we see Riddle, he is a youth that abuses his powers. This strikes me as somewhat unfair to him as by the time he is taught right from wrong by Dumbledore, he is too steeped in contempt for the rest of the non-magical world to know the difference. Ergo, I think the more pressing question is: How are he and Harry different? As he meticulously states in Chamber of Secrets, they are both raised by Muggles who they hate; why did Riddle go so wrong, whereas Harry becomes a completely selfless character? I think there are two explanations: One is that Harry is not put in a position to dominate as a child; on the contrary, his magical powers (which are apparent but inferior to Riddle’s) do not aid him in hurting Dudley or the Dursleys in any way intentionally , whereas Riddle abuses his powers from day one because of the fact that he is the only wizard around. The explanation for their differences lies in the aforementioned choices that they have to make; it is our choices, not our birthrights or talents, that define us (as they were both descended from the Peverell family, I believe). Regarding his job at Bourgin and Burkes, his attraction to Dark Artifacts, their properties, and those who deal with them seem all too obvious; mere academic knowledge could not aid him in his quest to push the boundaries of magic “farther than they have ever been pushed before.”

4) What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?

Book is out, I’m pretty sure predictions need not apply; obviously, the ability to fly is the new magical ability that stands out most in his new arsenal, in addition to his obsession with the Elder Wand, which is (to him) yet another source of power)

5) How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?

Voldemort generally follows the Roman emperor Caligula’s philosophy: “Let them hate us as long as they fear us.” However, as he quickly finds out (and so many tyrants before him), to govern the people, you have to earn their respect, which can only temporarily gained by fear (even Narcissa Malfoy lies to him, essentially revealing that he has lost her allegiance unless he emerges victorious). Obviously, he is a stark contrast to those (Dumbledore) who teach that caring and listening to the governed is the way to govern; occasionally throughout the series, the Ministry of Magic (before its fall to Voldemort) oppresses its people (e.g. Umbridge), but this form of oppression usually falls, indicating that right will always win in the end.

6) Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?

This one’s explained pretty well the in book, don’t really feel the need to extrapolate; destroys his ability to posses others who have intact souls, is against nature, mutilates him beyond humanity; on the other hand, it would have allowed his immortality sans one certain Albus Dumbledore.

7) What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

Obviously hubris is his biggest flaw, although his “tragic pride” obviously turns out to be a good thing for our young protagonist; his belief that he is superior to others and his rash actions accordingly lead to his downfall; in a sense, Voldemort can be viewed as a tragic figure, one that has never known love or repentance; those features that make a human what he or she is. Thus, he is not human himself, only a walking killing machine who relishes others pain nearly as much as power, and is destroyed in his single-minded quest for it. Perhaps his “tragic fall” is for the best- repentance seems to have been the only true way out for him.

Tom Riddle is incontrovertibly and unequivocally evil- his is a “sad end to a sorry tale,” one that reminds us that evil is- and always will be- in this world. He joins the ranks of C.S. Lewis’s Jadis (otherwise known as the White Witch from The Chronicles of Narnia), Tolkien’s Sauron, and others who are the utter antithesis of good and, through their foils (opposing characters) reveal the dichotomy of good and evil, each sides' constant battle for us, and the reality that truth (and therefore, right) must prevail if we are to retain our humanity.

Okay what I noitced about Voldemort is that he billed himself to be some big larger than life wizard but really he was just the little Tom who was a big show off, who liked to play finders keepers. He hadn't changed since the orphanage. They way Harry talked him down was sad to see.


And WHO would have guessed that Voldemort was a matchmaker. Telling Severus there were better pureblood women out there. If he ever comes back alive he could take a job working E-Harmony.

eharmony :rotfl:

I've stated a couple of times that I think in some ways Voldemort is a weak villian. For one thing...talk about lack of attention to detail
Phoenix tears...I forgot...mother's love...I forgot...oh I don't actually have to kill anybody to get the wand allegiance....I didn't know that.
Putz.
They guy doesn't even know how his wand works. Your the "greatest" wizard ever
and you don't know how your wand works. Be like I didn't know how to start my car.
Putz.

That out of the way...his callous disregard to he followers was probably the most evil thing about him.
That he had no love for his enemies...that's a gimme. But to just palm off Malfoy worry over his son and so callously murder his "trusted" death eater Snape (and he didn't even know Snape ever betrayed him) to get his wand to work. talk about the banality of evil.

I just looked over the last question and remembered a line of dialogue from an old TV show that I think says what I think about Tom M. Riddle.

"Your a victim too, sir, but your such a walking pile of manure it's hard for me to care"

So glad to be directed to this thread. I was looking for it but obviously not hard enough.

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

I think #1 Villain is really a way of saying most hated villain. Which is not the same as most accomplished villain. Or most intelligent. Does that make sense? In any event, I don't think he was the most disturbing villain. After all was said and done, he seemed rather sad and pathetic. Emasculated by his own narrow-mindedness.


2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

I think his takeover plan was both brilliant and not well thought out. The brilliant part was the way in which he got others to do his dirty work (child's play for him). The part that was not well thought out (it would seem) is the 'what next?' part. He wasn't much of a leader, insofar as he had little control of his emotions and needlessly murdered his own followers, dirty-work-doers. He would have had no patience for the subsequent sniping and power plays that would have ensued a completely succesful coup.


3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

Con artists and sociopaths are very charming; they are skilled at playing to the weaknesses of their intended prey. So, it's not surprising at all that he would have been considered charming. Being charming is not the mark of good character, however.

I think his bad character was molded by both nature and lack of nurture. He carried the blood of a family that had been plagued by mental instability. Add to that the loneliness and rejection that he likely experienced as an orphan with a father who never wanted him. His self-loathing, as exemplified by his denial that his mother was a witch and his father a muggle, further corroded his character. Once he was at Hogwarts, he compensated for his self-hatred by throwing himself into proving his worthiness by pursuing any and all magic that would set him apart as "special." The problem, of course, that no amount of ability or recognition would alleviate his deeply ingrained sense of self-hatred.

He took a job as a lowly clerk simply because it suited his purposes to learn more about the dark arts while keeping a low profile at the same time.


4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before. What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?

Hadn't given this question much thought. The flying was a neat trick. Ultimately, I was unimpressed by any new powers simply because at the heart of the wizard I saw a scared man, desperate to prove to others that Harry Potter was powerless before Voldemort, therefore, yet made Harry important with his single-minded pursuit of him. The reason Voldemort wanted to kill Harry himself was because he did not want any other wizard or witch to be perceived as having succeeded where Voldemort had failed. It would have undermined his power.

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?

They were effective with the weaker minded followers, whose primary focus was that they should not suffer. With the stronger ones, like Narcissa, not so effective. His methods were crude and almost juvenile in comparison to Dumbledore, who trusted Harry and didn't attempt to control him. Same for Remus and Mr Weasley; they simply trusted.

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?

I think the obvious answer is that he became less and less human with each splitting, until his soul was unrecognizable as anything remotely resembling human.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

His supreme flaw was his fixation with Harry. Had he left Harry alone, he would not have made Harry important. He would not have given Harry a reason to fight. He would have won, frankly. Harry was his undoing but only because Voldemort made him so.

His other great flaw was his narrow-mindedness. What he did not value, he thought had no value and, therefore, he was incapable of seeing it as a threat to him. He died, still ignorant of the power of caring for another. In that respect, he wasn't much of a learner. Certainly not great, even though he had great powers.

Edit: I think I want to amend my last answer to say that his biggest flaw was the way he operated out of fear. He feared death and corrupted his soul out of a craving to escape death. He feared his own sense of self and of being seen as anything less than a superior being and so denied his real heritage. His fear of death is what undid ultimately undid him; it's what led him to attempt to kill the infant Harry, as well as the teen Harry. His fear of feeling would not allow him to conceive of remorse, which is what ultimately would have saved him.

I suppose I'll be the first one to state it outright: Voldemort completely sucked in this book. His presence, while intimidating, was from terrifying, and his series of colossal blunders were what contributed to his downfall (another major problem, it really had nothing to do with Harry whatsoever)

It is incredible that after assuming effectively complete control over the Ministry of Magic, the Weasleys survive without questioning for months at a time. It is no secret that they are close to Harry Potter, and even more obvious that they are some of the biggest opposers of Voldemort's rule. So why in Merlin's beard was Arthur still able to continue working at the Ministry? Every smart dictator purges the ranks of their opposition after a successful coup d'etat - Voldemort was too obsessed with finding the Elder Wand to care about, you know, consolidating his rule and instilling a sense of stability.

If he was truly evil, he really should have instituted some programs for genocidal Muggle-born mass executions...but nah, he was content leaving them locked up with dementors, waiting to be rescued. I don't buy this "I want to preserve pure-blood wizards" excuse....it seems like a copout to explain why Voldemort doesn't just kill more people outright, enabling them to survive and fulfill the standards of deus ex machina that have been established. (See: Neville at the end)

Not to mention his ****-poor leadership at the Battle of Hogwarts. I understand standing back and waiting for Harry to come to him, but calling off his forces while he had the clear advantage? Sending Narcissa, a knowingly reluctant supporter to check on Harry instead of doing the smart thing and blasting his head off outright? Why, again, am I supposed to be afraid of this guy's intelligence?

There are also multiple examples of his stupid blunders shown in Deathly Hallows. His taking of Harry's blood, when he could have used any other wizard's - this ends up protecting the very person he has tried so desperately to kill. His hiding of the Horcrux in the Room of Requirement - so incredibly dumb that I could scarcely believe it. His inability to recognize that Snape was working against him, which played a vital role in his downfall in both wars. His general sloppiness in his Horcrux guarding, including both his poor protection schemes/locations for the Horcruxes, and his inability to recognize that parts of his soul were being destroyed until it was far too late.

I suppose the case of Voldemort was another illustration of how a person in the background can have their reputation inflated by a sense of mystery surrounding the person in question, but when exposed, that sense of mystery disappears and a more realistic view of the person is thus formulated. The image of a ruthless, genocidal, and sharp Voldemort was for me completely shattered in Deathly Hallows. It's quite a shame, I was hoping he would be someone who could manifest a great deal of hated and fear, but it does not seem he was that much of a threat after all.

EDIT:

Voldemort ships Harry/Hermione! No wonder he was destined to lose, he was delusional....


While you bring up a number of good points that are quite legitimate, I think that you call into quesiton a few "flaws" in Voldemort's character in relation to the plot unfairly:

1) Voldemort's Ministry's retention of Weasley is a hole in the book that can't really be ignored; I agree that the "keeping pure bloods alive" excuse is pretty lame. However, regarding the whole Muggleborn purging deal, you have to remember that he had control over the Ministry without it fully being revealed, placing a puppet in his place; I think a genocide within 6 months of the Ministry takeover may have put the rest of the wizarding community in some doubt, who seemd to be able to combat Vodlemort's Death Eaters with some success (see: battle of Hogwarts after Harry "dies"). I do see where you are coming from, though. Kudos for pulling a good literary term out of the bag.

2) Couldn't agree with you more on this one- Rowling probably should have set this up differently; keep in mind however, that he still has some level of apprehension about finding Harry, thus calling off the forces so that he does not make a getaway while they fight to the death.

3) a) This is the paragraph that bothers me most. He takes Harry's blood because it allows him to touch Harry, if you will remember from Goblet of Fire: Dumbledore (@ King's Cross in Harry's "dreamlike state") admits that Harry and Voldemort have entered realms of magic that have never been explored before, thus Vodlemort's ignorance. Ergo, it seems nothing but advantageous at the time for Voldemort.
b) Remember (once again @ King's Cross) that Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort belives that the Room of Requirement is known only to him (or works only for him); thus, hiding a Horcux in a place that is dear to him and apparently impossible to locate makes perfect sense. (Although you do bring up a good plot point in that: Draco never told Voldemort about the Room of Requirement? Seems a bit fishy after the stunt he pulled off last year. Voldemort shoud recognize the room instantly when Draco described it to him.
c) He trusts Snape with good reason: Snape is a powerful wizard who, despite (possibly) being suspicious due to his frequent employ of Occlumency against Voldemort, killed Voldemort's greatest nemesis. Voldemort is as clueless as our protagonists throughout the book as to Snape's allegiances, completely fooled into thinking that he is Voldemort's follower. He even allows Hogwarts to be poisoned by the Dark Arts and alerts Voldemort to Harry's departure date from the Dursleys! All in all, Snape was a very convicing doulbe agent who was invaluabe to Dumbledore's side: remember, the onyl true proof of his remorse and love for Lily to Dumbledore was his patronus, which was a doe: The same as hers.

Voldemort: Flawed? Yes. Adds some plot holes? Yes. Is a "joke" of a character in the 7th book? No.

Rowling needed to conclude the downall of a very powerful wizard in a reasonably convincing way; while I agree that she did not do a perfect job, I think it is acceptable.

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

Yes, definitely, he is merciless, powerful, cunning, etc, everything a villain needs

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

It was great, better than any other villain I had ever read about. His ultimate objectives were to kill Harry, take over, get rid of all muggles and mudbloods, become the greatest wizard ever, become immortal, and things like that

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

Tom Marvolo Riddle was a "role model", but that was his mask, something for the current "higher authorities" to look at so his other darker deeds could go unnoticed. He never went wrong, he was wrong. His years at Hogwarts helped him realize how to become great, it played only a small part of his evil, except maybe give him a taste of power. He didn't want a mere title, he wanted the power of people actually fearing him, actually seeing him as the boss. Hogwarts taught him how to harness his abilities so he could realize his dreams.

4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before. What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?

He can kill more people, control more people, instill more fear, destroy more mudbloods and muggleborns. Once Dumbledore was dead, he could take over Hogwarts and he had just destroyed a idol that people had looked to for hope.

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?

Voldemort used fear, people went to him in hope of not dying, he controlled other by having them follow his ideas that wizards were on top. For those who weren't death eaters, he used fear to surpress any potential rebels. Other leaders, like Dumbledore and Harry, were like beacons of hope. Dumbledore was strong and powerful, and a good leader and people liked him, that's why people wanted him to be in charge. Harry was the "chosen one" and the "Boy who lived" so people looked to him for hope. He had also done a lot of anti Voldemort things so people thought he was extremely powerful.

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?

Creating a horcrux made him unstable and inhuman. Any love or friendship he had previously was almost completely wiped out by creating a horcrux. After that, there was almost no return to the good side.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

He was arrogant, he thought he was untouchable. He could've had more security around his horcruxes, not overlook the youthful, the mugglebornes and the good. He also shouldn't have overlooked Harry. He also should've realized how unstable he was with making Horcruxes, how evil he was. I wonder if he ever realized how evil he was. His goals were obviously evil, but did he ever realize that they were evil? I'm sure if his father hadn't abandoned him, he wouldn't have hated muggles that much. He just wanted to be immortal with the Horcruxes, that was really it. His intentions weren't actually that evil, it was his methods that were.

He did not like crying, he had never been able to stomach the small ones whining in the orphanage-

That was one of the strangest things I read in the book. It seems so out of character for Voldemort to not like when someone cries. I would have thought he'd take joy at having made someone cry.

I find it interesting that we have a scene in DH where not only are we in Voldemort's POV, but also in his thoughts. His thinking during the Godric's Hollow scene was quite disturbing (which is to be expected), but also seemed to me to be very simple and juvenile. I'd have thought him to be thinking with some more complexity.

He did not like crying, he had never been able to stomach the small ones whining in the orphanage-

That was one of the strangest things I read in the book. It seems so out of character for Voldemort to not like when someone cries. I would have thought he'd take joy at having made someone cry.
I thought that line was brilliant. I think that line isn't explaining children crying because of what Voldemort did to them, it is explaining the usual crying/fussing of babies and small children. When a baby cries, the human instinct should be to try to comfort the baby and fix what's wrong. Voldemort lacked this feeling at an early age. He never felt compassion or concern.
It also reminded me of the line in HBP when Dumbledore visits the orphange and Mrs. Cole tells him that Tom Riddle was a strange baby and he didn't cry.

In a few words, The Dark Lord was the perfect character study of a sociopath.

He needed to have trophies that he deemed special.
He needed toexecute every plan with a bang.
He could not feel basic emotions like compassion and love.
He couldn't even understand the concept of such emotions.
His own arrogance was his own undoing.
there's more that I simply don't have the time to say.

All in all, he was a hopeless case. He was utterly pitiful. He was a tragedy that just needed to happen, without any of the redeeming characteristics that would make him a true tragedy.

And yet, his character was my most liked character.

i thought and ive posted this elsewhere,

let me just copy paste:


i think voldemort must hate part of himself,
if he hates muggleborns so much,
so that he covers up that fact, that he is a halfblood.
hes prooving to himself as much as anyone else that he is great!

i thought and ive posted this elsewhere,

let me just copy paste:


i think voldemort must hate part of himself,
if he hates muggleborns so much,
so that he covers up that fact, that he is a halfblood.
hes prooving to himself as much as anyone else that he is great!

Of course Voldemort hates part of himself.
I mean, if you found out your Father - a Muggle - had deserted your mother because she was a Witch (yes I know Merope wasn't the most attractive thing in the world, but I'm trying to make a point), of course you'd hate the part of yourself that you shared with him.
That's the underlying reason he changed his name, so as not to keep his "filthy muggle father's name".
He despised himself for being half blood because of his father. That's where the root of all this hatred seemed to come from. Deep down inside, he hated his father - a Muggle - which seemed to develop into a general hate for all Muggles, Muggle Borns, and the reason he pased himself off as Pure.

I think Voldemort probably thought of his muggle side as something to be despised and repressed.

i thought and ive posted this elsewhere,

let me just copy paste:


i think voldemort must hate part of himself,
if he hates muggleborns so much,
so that he covers up that fact, that he is a halfblood.
hes prooving to himself as much as anyone else that he is great!


Sound like Hitler to anyone else? Hitler was part Jewish, yet hated Jews beyond all belief.

I think Voldemort is a pitiable character. Yes, he's a psychopath, as JKR said herself, but maybe something would have changed, had his mother lived to care for him? He grew up without love, remember. At that time in the 6th book [I don't remember quite where] where Dumbledore is telling Harry about Voldemort's past, and they discuss how V's mother could have made the choice to live but did not, and Dumbledore asks Harry at one point if H feels sorry for V, Harry says no. I've never understood that, because I would. I would think Harry of all people would sympathize, as he also grew up without a mother or father, although his were probably as bad as or worse than V's orphanage.

Perhaps Voldemort could never have broken free of his familial tendency towards madness, but I do believe that he is to be pitied in some ways... every bad guy has a side story. I don't think that people are evil just to be evil. [call me naive, but I believe i :p]

Perhaps Voldemort could never have broken free of his familial tendency towards madness, but I do believe that he is to be pitied in some ways... every bad guy has a side story. I don't think that people are evil just to be evil. [call me naive, but I believe i ] I don't find any reason to pity a mass murderer and dictator - no matter what their past was like. I have sympathy for Harry, Neville (and I can even spare a bit for Snape), for what their pasts were like, but not Voldemort.

Tom Riddle the child may have been pitiable, but the choices of Tom Riddle the child led to Riddle / Voldemort the man, who was utterly unpitiable, IMO.

While reading DH I had a hard time reconciling the brilliance and scary magical power of Voldemort with the myriad of mistakes he ended up making with hiding his horcruxes. In the end, I ended up having to conclude that the process of making the horcruxes clouded his judgement as to what to do with the horcruxes. The arrogance he showed in his behavior towards them can be difficult to reconcile with the brilliance that was Riddle and Voldemort.

In the end, Voldy was somewhat unlucky that Dumbledore and Harry knew him so well, too. They seemed to understand what made him "tick" in a way that the DE's never did, and that ended up leading to his downfall.

While reading DH I had a hard time reconciling the brilliance and scary magical power of Voldemort with the myriad of mistakes he ended up making with hiding his horcruxes. In the end, I ended up having to conclude that the process of making the horcruxes clouded his judgement as to what to do with the horcruxes. The arrogance he showed in his behavior towards them can be difficult to reconcile with the brilliance that was Riddle and Voldemort. I was also surprised at how juvenile and sluggish his thoughts seemed to be when we saw them in Godric's Hollow and when he realized the cup had been stolen. I agree that the making of the horcruxes had completely damaged him in many ways.

I agree. I think the making of the Horcruxes damaged Voldemort mentally in some way, just as they also damaged his looks physically. By the last book as the Horcruxes are being destroyed he seems to be making more and more mistakes and seems to become more single-minded in his focus (get the elder wand so he can kill Harry.)

I was also surprised at how juvenile and sluggish his thoughts seemed to be when we saw them in Godric's Hollow and when he realized the cup had been stolen. I agree that the making of the horcruxes had completely damaged him in many ways.

Perhaps the "designer" of the horcruxes built in the "insanity" as a defense against making the horcrux? If a wizard could split their soul and remain completely sane about hiding the split soul, they'd do a better job of hiding things than Voldy did. Perhaps heightened arrogance instead of insanity...it would make sense to hide the horcrux in a completely random location, rather than fairly easily guessed places like "Hogwarts" and "My ancestor's home".

The general loss of touch with reality that Voldy experienced in DH did allow Harry to break into his mind to find the final hiding place. The lack of self-control in employing Occlumancy against Harry proved to be a huge mistake on Voldy's part.

We all know that he is "number one villain" but I wonder about the reasons behind all his torture and murder. most of the time, it's for information, like how he tortured Ollivander, or out of revenge or fury, like how he killed his father and grandparents, but does he truly enjoy pain like Bellatrix Lestrange does? I'd say he does, but he has matured a lot from the Tom Riddle in the Orphanage.

but does he truly enjoy pain like Bellatrix Lestrange does? I'd say he does, but he has matured a lot from the Tom Riddle in the Orphanage. His murders do seem to include a lot of cold calculation. Charity Burbage was probably a demonstration to impress the death eaters, for example.

What really struck me was the godrics hollow scene where we see the way it occurred sixteen years previous through voldemort's eyes. He didn't seem to be feeling enjoyment as much as the satisfaction of accomplishing these murders. It is very scary. When he considered killing the little trick or treating boy, the reason he refrained was because the murder was unnecessary. If Voldemort was killing for pleasure, he would likely not care about necessity.

Voldemort is half blood. He's a hipicrat ( sorry for spelling)

I've been thinking about how very stupid Voldemort seems to be as the series progresses. Maybe his arrogance is such that he thinks he can outthink anyone he encounters. But doesn't the guy ever look around?

He doesn't comprehend mother's love, obviously or its power. But did the man never observe the natural world? Did he really never notice what a mother animal will do to protect her young? Is there no Wizard equivalent to the admonition "Don't get between a mama bear and her cub?" Even if you've never experienced it and are in fact, incapable of emotion, observation alone will convince you there is some force that causes primates to try at risk of death to preserve their offspring.

And the ROR as a hiding place for a cherished Horcrux--you have got to be kidding me. Okay, he did find the Chamber of Secrets and was the only one of his era who did so. But what was there? A basilisk. Now he finds the ROR and it's full of stuff. How could he possibly believe he was the single person who had discovered it? Where did he convince himself the rest of the stuff came from?

I found Voldemort to be a somewhat unsatisfying villain until I read this thread and someone presented the theory that splitting his soul so many times had somehow not only altered his body and soul, but intellect as well. I think that is a good point. Thanks.

I believe the splitting of his soul also affected his intelligence.

With the Room of Requirement, he may have asked for an exclusive place to hide the item in which case the room would not show him anything else in there. It could have just shown him a small room or cubby hole to place the item. But, as part of the magic of the RoR, it may have just made the object part of the entire collection that everyone saw when they asked for a general place to hide things instead of an exclusive place to hide them. Well, that's one theory. I'm not sure how much I like the theory, though.

I'm not sure how much Voldemort comprehends a mother's love since I believe he may see love as a weakness. Love makes you protect others and to him protecting others takes away from protecting yourself which should, in his opinion, be top priority. Even if he doesn't see love as a weakness, we at least know he doesn't see it as something powerful enough to consider finding on his own. Because Dumbledore saw love as a power I believe Voldemort did do some research on it, but, again, he may have just seen it as a thing that makes you protect others and not as a power.

I believe the splitting of his soul also affected his intelligence.

With the Room of Requirement, he may have asked for an exclusive place to hide the item in which case the room would not show him anything else in there. It could have just shown him a small room or cubby hole to place the item. But, as part of the magic of the RoR, it may have just made the object part of the entire collection that everyone saw when they asked for a general place to hide things instead of an exclusive place to hide them. Well, that's one theory. I'm not sure how much I like the theory, though.


Raven and I have developed a theory over in the horcrux thread that relates to your second point here. In fact, it's very similar to what you said :).

And, I think that the soul-splitting affected his judgement about how to protect the horcruxes. He was still very intelligent, he just had a strange blind spot regarding the horcruxes.

I believe the splitting of his soul also affected his intelligence. It's interesting that you say this. In DH, there's this time where Dumbledore is talking to snape (in the prince's tale) about the connection between voldemort and harry's souls (i think in reference to occlumency), and Snape makes a comment about they're talking about their minds, not souls. And Dumbledore replied that for Harry and Voldemort, it is the same thing. I think you may be right that the mutilation of Voldemort's soul effected his mind.

Could someone please help me with the half blood fact. Why all the pure blood and power hungery rage. Because he is ashamed of what he is? Please help me with this.

Could someone please help me with the half blood fact. Why all the pure blood and power hungery rage. Because he is ashamed of what he is? Please help me with this.

Tom Sr. ran out on tom's mother simply because she was a witch, and he was ashamed of that fact.

Tom held this against his father, and essentially disowned the man from his own life, taking a new name (Voldemort), and eliminating all association with his existence (declaring himself a champion of pureblood rights when he is in fact half-blood, hatred of Muggles stemming from the actions of one frightened Muggle man who had been coerced into marriage, etc.)

Thanks for answering my question. But it does make some pure bloods stupid
just for the gain of power. Do the pure blood followers know he is half blood?

doubtful. He would never allow that to get out. Those who knew in his youth, who later became Death Eaters, probably ended up having that memory removed.

Voldemort is half blood. He's a hipicrat ( sorry for spelling)

hypocrite* its ok and i agree but voldemort is disgusted by his father for disowning his mother so he hates all half bloods

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?
No. Young Riddle is a very captivating, very intelligent character, but the adult Voldemort is laughable. I blame this on Rowling and her sentimentality. In order to keep people alive, she dumbed her villain down to the point of imbecility. She also attributed her own laziness as a writer to Voldemort's 'arrogance'.

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?
We are not told much about his objectives. I am sure that a wizard with tremendous potential and a love of Dark Arts has more on his mind that a single-minded goal of purifying magical blood - especially given his selfishness and antisocial tendencies. Someone who does not care about other people should not care much about their ratio of non-magical blood in their veins, but here you go, another inconsistency in characterization.

Personally, I believe he was someone deeply interested in magic, and willing to experiment with it to the fullest, whether for the sake of power or knowledge. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?
The only thing I really have against him is his racism, especially coupled with the fact that he himself is not of pure blood. When it comes to him being a callous murderer, I don't think he went wrong anywhere. Nature and nurture played their parts, and he grew up to be desensitized.

4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before. What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?
I don't really see this great power, especially not in someone who can't kill a teenage boy whose skills are no match for his own.

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?
I respect that he did not pretend to give a ... coitus.

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?
Apart from making his features wax-like, I really have no clue. I think if Rowling wanted to preach about the soul and the dangers of splitting it, she should have spent more time on that and less time coming up with idioms that involve Merlin.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?
It's hard to avoid deus ex machina.

Thanks for the info about Volemort. I guess I can understand why he hates his past and turns away from it. How would you feel about your father leaving your mom even when mom is with child. His mom was so distaught over him leaving this broke her heart to the point of no return. The only thing she could offer her baby, (remember what she went through growing up) was hoping someone else would be able to give him what she couldn't. Remember this was the 50s and she being too broken down by her own abuse she did not know what to do. She left him in a place that would care for him. maybe this hatred was planted before birth. Maybe because of the use of the potion did have a greater affect on Tom. This all created one angery lost soul who was doomed from the very begining. But then look what Harry went through, no kindness and nothing but hatred. But he was started and had love his first eighteen months of life. What a difference even a small amount of love can make. She set this villian/hero story perfect.

Remember this was the 50s and she being too broken down by her own abuse she did not know what to do.
It was actually the 30s.

Thanks, time is hard to keep up with for me. So making it the 30's makes it an even worse for tom's mom and her life. Still I would have guessed the purebloods of that time would've known. Was this the begining stage of the order of the phoenix by Dumbledore?

As many others have pointed out, VM has similarities to Hitler, not least of which is his fanatical bigotry against those who have the same "impurity" he himself possesses. I would add that VM reminds me very much of Hitler in the way he met his end.

Adolph Hitler began his reign of terror as an amazingly scary creature. His rise to power was nothing short of brilliant. He started out as a criminal and sociopolitical mastermind with an uncanny instinct about human nature and behavior.

However, by the time of his downfall and subsequent demise he was a weak, pathetic failure, detached from people and reality, unable to lead, incapable of thinking straight, out of control. The same can be said of Voldemort.

I assert that when we say power corrupts, we're not just talking about moral decay. I think power brings on a decline of body, mind, and spirit. (Ever notice how even good leaders start to age more rapidly as they become more powerful? It takes a huge toll on their physical being).

Granted, Hitler and VM are both mad, but they started out as highly intelligent madmen. Power corrupted their bodies, minds, and spirits so completely that they ended up shells--parodies, even--of their former selves, lacking their previous common sense, failing to gain wisdom from their experiences, prone to poor judgment and glaring mistakes and tactical errors.

One of those mistakes is that they've grown so accustomed to their own success, they can't imagine a nonsuccessful outcome to their decisions. They believe their own press.

They also develop physical dependencies and/or mental obsessions that hinder the pursuit of their goals and ultimately lead to their destruction.

I think it's too easy to say the VM of DH is laughable or that JKR got lazy. Instead, I see in what happens to him the same all-encompassing corruption that has brought down other erstwhile horrifying figures. Nero, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and so many more began as impressive agents of vicious destruction and terror only to end fallen and derided. They were victims of their own corrupting, decadent power, and so was VM.

If he was truly evil, he really should have instituted some programs for genocidal Muggle-born mass executions...but nah, he was content leaving them locked up with dementors, waiting to be rescued. I don't buy this "I want to preserve pure-blood wizards" excuse....it seems like a copout to explain why Voldemort doesn't just kill more people outright, enabling them to survive and fulfill the standards of deus ex machina that have been established.

I see parallels to other ethnic cleansings/colonizations that have occurred. VM had plans for Mudblood genocide and Muggle enslavement, but he probably also intended to fortify the declining Pureblood "race" just as Hitler instituted state-decreed procreations of the chosen people.

I really do believe VM was reluctant to shed Pureblood because there aren't that many of them left in the world; how could he populate his version of Wizard supremacist society without Pureblood wizards? Similarly, the Khmer Rouge eventually realized they'd killed off so many Cambodians there weren't going to be enough people around to do the work. The regime began a campaign of forcing people to marry and making females get pregnant. If VM had ideas along those lines, he would try to preserve Purebloods' lives as much as possible, wouldn't he?

I thought that the LV character, as villans go, made a lot of traditional mistakes. Too arrogant and a blindness to factors that could do him in. On the other hand, he was super talented with his coming up with new magic (flying) and new forms of terror. I don't know if he was behind the 'snatchers', but I imagine that was so. He was able to seem to have his show together enough to keep his DE's behind him - although of course terror and fear were a factor in the willingness of some to stay. However, we saw with at least Bella, he was also able to instill a deep love for himself in at least one of his followers. By the end I thought I saw some attachment to her on his part as well. He seemed quite upset when she was killed. I was glad that he didn't show remorse at the end, because in the line of great villans, he should not have (for literary purposes). However, sometimes his decisions and such came across as one who was not always thinking with the intelligence that he was known to have. He didn't seem to learn from his mistakes - even if he understood them.

When Harry ejected him from his body with Love, he should have realized the importance of 'love' as DD was always trying to indicate to him. But he continued to belittle it - and yet it was made fairly clear to him just how powerful it was. By not taking it into account, he came off as a little less than intelligent in that regard.

Overall as a character, I enjoyed Voldemort the villan and he would definitely make it into my list of top 100 villans of all time.

Overall as a character, I enjoyed Voldemort the villan and he would definitely make it into my list of top 100 villans of all time.

Agreed that arrogance blinded Voldemort. He was supremely skilled and knowledgable, but he had a massive blind spot that Harry stayed in the entire time in DH.

Top 100 villians...who are the other 99? :lol: (OK, a little late 3 days later to make the joke, but still)

Going back to the discussion about how Voldemort acted a bit stupid in DH, and the arrogance that chparadise just mentioned - I think that both are leading factors in Voldemort's idiotic behavior in GoF. I never quite understood why the whole triwizard tournament was needed, but I think a combination of his arrogance wanting an elaborate plan and his stupidity from soul mutilation clouding his justice lead to it.

Going back to the discussion about how Voldemort acted a bit stupid in DH, and the arrogance that chparadise just mentioned - I think that both are leading factors in Voldemort's idiotic behavior in GoF. I never quite understood why the whole triwizard tournament was needed, but I think a combination of his arrogance wanting an elaborate plan and his stupidity from soul mutilation clouding his justice lead to it.

Good point. Even babymort Voldy was arrogant.

And, I think early in DH we saw hints that maybe the horcrux-making process creates this arrogance and the blind spot. Maybe the horcrux inventor put that in as a "safety" against horcrux makers.

I just think that after seven soul mutations, the rest of ones body and mind might start to break as well as a sort of natural consequence.

I just think that after seven soul mutations, the rest of ones body and mind might start to break as well as a sort of natural consequence.
I agree. I don't think Voldemort was "stupid," he just couldn't understand that maybe he wasn't the cleverest little student who alone found the room of requirements or that Dumbledore would research his mother's family. In his haste and arrogance, he never stopped to consider other people might stumble upon his secrets.
I don't see that as stupid, I see it as someone who is blinded and narrowminded. Eventhough Dumbledore once told Harry that Voldemort's mind was still intact and working after making horcruxes, I think it goes deeper than that. Sure Voldemort acted ruthless in DH, but we see his obesessions with Harry, with death, failure and finally the Elder Wand consume him so that it brings his downfall. I think his arrogance plus his split soul made it impossible for him to even consider his horcruxes weren't safe until it was too late.

His blinded obsession for the Elder Wand was like a 10 year old's obsession for a mobile phone..

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?
Voldemort is a pretty scary villain, having split his own soul seven times. I think he deserves to be rated pretty high on the "villain list". Not only has he split his soul and thereby committed numerous murders, but he's psychopathic (even as a child), and he's sadistic. He's also frightening in that he can enter Harry's thoughts and plant false memories, and he's very powerful and knowledgeable.

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?
His plan to invade Hogwarts was inevitable, I think. It makes sense that he would try to get control of Hogwarts, as an important establishment in the wizarding world of Britain. Voldemort's ultimate objectives were likely to gain dominion over the wizarding world so as to impose his ideals (of pureblood superiority) over the population. And likely to continue his quest for immortality, as well as to gain followers/supporters to thwart anyone who would resist him.

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?
I believe it was in Riddle's nature to be the way he was - ie, his arrogance and belief he was special was, to an extent, inborn. His circumstances fostered these traits, and thus they developed in young Riddle. At Hogwarts, I think his placement in Slytherin likely kept him on the path of evil (not to be biased against Slytherin, but I truly believe it cultivated further his pureblood supremacy ideas, among other things). And I'm sure he had access to information about his family at Hogwarts, and thus he would have learned about his ancestry as the heir of Slytherin. When he left Hogwarts, I think he took the job at Borgin and Burkes in order to lay low and figure out how to proceed next. Once he got Hufflepuff's Cup he was in a position to disappear.

4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before. What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?
I expected him to gain more followers and cause more general death and mayhem once he had arisen again. I expected him to introduce some new and more powerful forms of Dark Magic, and to use them on Harry and co. With Dumbledore dead, Voldemort had a clear path to Harry, I think, and could proceed with plans to get directly at him.

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?
Voldemort controls his followers by making them fear him, and (no doubt) by promising them rewards if they do his bidding. Fear is a powerful motivator, but it is no substitute for true loyalty. We see that in DH, when Narcissa is more concerned for her son's life than for Voldemort's victory. If she had been truly loyal to Voldemort, I don't believe she ever would have done that.

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?
Voldemort's horcruxes aided him in that they kept him alive when he would otherwise have died, never to rise again. But they have obviously damaged Voldemort a great deal - with each new horcrux, Voldemort lost some of his humanity. He became even more incapable of remorse, I think, which would have been the only thing that could have put his maimed soul back together. Voldemort may have gained immortality, but what he lost was not worth what he gained.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?
Arrogance, underestimation of his foes, not understanding love, and not fostering loyalty in his followers are what I believe to be his main flaws that led to his downfall. I'm not sure he could have avoided it though - these things were just part of who he was.

ATTENTION PLEASE

I'd like to direct your attention to:

REVISED: Character Bashing/Worship: aka Shades of Gray (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108021)

Please read it carefully and post accordingly!

I think that we would all agree that Albus Dumbledore is shown to be the most brilliant wizard in the series, certainly of recent times, maybe of all time (Hogwarts founders are also highly revered). Grindlewald and Voldemort are really the only 2 that rival his brilliance (I am not talking about good/evil here) and as we know he defeated them both (directly and less so through Harry).

Considering this I think we do Voldemort rather a disservice by suggesting that his Horcruxe plan was such a major flaw - after all it was discovered and thwarted by the most brilliant wizard (DD) after years and years of investigation. DD guessed correctly and after much searching discovered the Gaunt's hovel and the Cave hiding places and correctly identified Nagini as a Horcruxe and he armed Harry with this knowledge before sending him on his quest.

Considering this I think we do Voldemort rather a disservice by suggesting that his Horcruxe plan was such a major flaw - after all it was discovered and thwarted by the most brilliant wizard (DD) after years and years of investigation. DD guessed correctly and after much searching discovered the Gaunt's hovel and the Cave hiding places and correctly identified Nagini as a Horcruxe and he armed Harry with this knowledge before sending him on his quest.
Well said!:tu: It's easy to think Voldemort was stupid where his horcruxes where concerned, but it did take a lot of time and effort on Dumbledore's part to figure out what he did. When Dumbledore died, it wasn't like he gave Harry a map with every horcrux and their location listed.

Sorry to butt in here with some off-topic stuff, but I was looking through DH and came upon this paragraph, which really caught my eye:

Every eye was fixed upon Voldemort, who stood with his head bowed, and his white hands folded over the Elder Wand in front of him. He might have been praying, or else counting silently in his mind, and Harry, standing still on the edge of the scene, thought absurdly of a child counting in a game of hide-and-seek. Behind his head, still swirling and coiling, the great snake Nagini floated in her glittering, charmed cage, like a monstrous halo.

Why all the imagery and metaphors? It's almost perverse, with Voldemort "praying" to the Elder Wand and that deadly "halo" above his head. And then there's the comparison to a child, of all things. Is Harry finally pitying Voldemort, seeing him as the simple, deluded, and stunted man he is?

But still, what of the theological images? Perhaps Voldemort praying over the wand is sort of like to Voldemort all that is good and can save him is not some god or even his own heart, but his power, or (to be more literal) a material object: the wand.

The halo is interesting. I'm no expert, but doesn't it signify some kind of divine light emanating from a saint or something. The "halo" has just committed a murder (:upset:) so maybe the cage represents Voldemort's foul deeds....? I admit, I'm brainstorming and getting stumped here. Help?

It's a very perverse theology, but Voldemort is like a cult leader, so I think it does fit. He demanded absolute devotion, and he was quite cruel to those who defied him or in whom he was disappointed. I guess this scene was rather like the cult leader triumphant, and JK put that imagery in deliberately.

How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?
His methods for controlling and making sure his followers are loyal are completely different compared to Dumbledore's method. Dumbledore bases his recruiting on trust and the strength each character has. If someone from the Order makes a mistake, Dumbledore may get angry and/or disappointed, but he doesn't do anything horrible. Voldemort, however, is the complete opposite! He uses death and torture as means to make sure his supporters are loyal to him. If there is one person who would love to make the Unbreakable Vow, it'd be Voldemort. Voldemort fears death so greatly and the idea that breaking any orders or promises would result in death would greatly appeal to him.

What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?
His main flaw is his arrogance and lack of logic. In DH he often makes mistakes simply because he doesn't think his actions through. When he stole the wand from Dumbledore, why didn't he realize that the wand chooses the wizard? If he had been thinking straight, he would've immediately assumed that Snape was the true owner. And after he realized Snape wasn't the true owner, he would've realized it was Draco that he needed to conquer. His arrogance also leads to his downfall. He automatically assumes that no one could discover his secret about his horcruxes. Yet Regulus (who wasn't even twenty yet!) discovered it and Dumbledore did, too.

from the anti-character bashing guide...

JK Rowling has written a variety of complex characters but I think without exception none of them are perfectly good or perfectly bad.

if only!

The fact that Voldemort was "perfectly bad" made him a disappointing villain to me.

And...as a thing of pure evil, shouldn't he have left a more lasting impression? Such a person could not have achieved so much power if there weren't something wrong or missing in wizard society -- some systemic weakness for him to exploit. Isn't that weakness still there? And if so, then what was the point of it all?

Voldemort's main faults were his thirst for power, his desire for dominance, but ultimately, his pride.

But Harry is also extremely proud.

Why didn't they end up the same?

"It is our choices, Harry, that define who we truly are."

It seems at first glance, that Jo made Voldemort "perfectly evil". A prime example would be that Voldemort exceeded the bounds of 'usual evil'.

But I think that because Voldemort and Harry started out in similar situations and have similar qualities, this makes Voldemort a more interesting character, by simply acting as Harry's foil.

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

Yeah, I do. Jo has crafted a bad guy exhibiting an extreme form of antisocial personality disorder with clear psychopathic traits. Dangerous combination, that.


2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

It was, as Lupin pointed out, a master stroke. I think he may well have gone on to attempt domination of the Muggle World once he had secured the wizarding community.


3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

ASPD. The evil within him was apparent even as a small boy and he was certainly cunning enough to pull the wool over Dippet's eyes and those of the other Hogwarts teachers. I don't think his childhood made any difference at all. He regarded Hogwarts as his birthright. :wow: As to why he went to work for Borgin, I can only guess he was looking for horcrux candidates and to expand his knowledge of evil curses.


7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

Hubris. No, he couldn't have avoided it because he absolutely did not comprehend that the things he was doing were wrong.

And...as a thing of pure evil, shouldn't he have left a more lasting impression?
Personally, I feel Voldemort really did leave a lasting impression. After he first fell, people still called him "You know who," even though he was gone for 13 years. During both times he was in power, he killed, destroyed and tortured families. He took over the Ministry and just about everyone was terrified of him. (I'm thinking the only exception to this is Dumbledore and later Harry)

Such a person could not have achieved so much power if there weren't something wrong or missing in wizard society -- some systemic weakness for him to exploit. Isn't that weakness still there? And if so, then what was the point of it all?
I think it was a combination of his charm and later on the fact that people were terrified of him that let him achieve so much power. As to a systemic weakness, it hard to say for sure the first time he gained power. We don't know much about the Ministry or Wizarding society then. But we do know everyone was impressed with young Tom Riddle. Like Harry did, he got important imformation (like horcruxes and the whereabouts of the cup, locket and diadem) out of people without creating much of a stir. He was charming and flattering. He worked in the shadows back then, making horcruxes and gaining followers. Then he moved out into the open and terror reigned. I doubt anyone who lived through this time will forget.

It's much easier to see the weaknesses of Wizarding society and the Ministry the second time he was in power. Voldemort came back to power and nobody believed Harry saw it. Voldemort exploited this. He could secretly put plans into action for a year before the Ministry came to their senses. Even after it was proven he returned, the Ministry didn't handle things well. The arrested wrong people and seemed more worried about what Dumbledore and Harry where doing then Voldemort.

After he fell the second time, the Ministry was put back in better order. (even though I think there will always be some weaknesses in society and government.) Things were better after he fell and people would be better equipped to deal with dangerous wizards, as long as they learn from past mistakes.

Voldemort's main faults were his thirst for power, his desire for dominance, but ultimately, his pride.

I agree..He made faults that made Harry more powerful..As DD said, he made his own destroyer.

I think it was a combination of his charm and later on the fact that people were terrified of him that let him achieve so much power.

That's true, that's true...but what about the feelings of pureblood supremecy? That problem would still be there, waiting for someone else to use it -- but I'm getting farther and farther from the topic. Or am I? A great villain would have been able to frame prejudice against muggles in such a way that reasonable people would have responded to it too. To me, he would have been scarier and more interesting if he had been less obviously crazy. That's what I mean about him being "perfectly bad." A great villain would have some thrilling internal conflict. Voldemort, irredeemable and without conscience, can be thrilling (like that guy from the usual suspects, when he executes his own children to prove how hard he is), but not as thrilling as he would be if he were still feeling the conflict between good and evil.

That's true, that's true...but what about the feelings of pureblood supremecy? That problem would still be there, waiting for someone else to use it -- but I'm getting farther and farther from the topic. Or am I?
Like I said, there will always be weakness in Wizarding Society, blood supremecy is one of them. But after the second fall of Voldemort, The Ministry (according to JKR's interview) become a better place and I think Wizarding Society in general would be able to handle such threats better.
A great villain would have been able to frame prejudice against muggles in such a way that reasonable people would have responded to it too.
I think he did a pretty good job with the whole "Muggle-borns steal magic" angle.
To me, he would have been scarier and more interesting if he had been less obviously crazy. That's what I mean about him being "perfectly bad." A great villain would have some thrilling internal conflict. Voldemort, irredeemable and without conscience, can be thrilling (like that guy from the usual suspects, when he executes his own children to prove how hard he is), but not as thrilling as he would be if he were still feeling the conflict between good and evil.
I understand what you mean, but I think Jo wanted a purely evil villian.
I guess it's a matter of taste as well. I really don't feel that Voldemort having an internal conflict would have made him more scary or thrilling, but that's just me.

He was kind of like Snape and Harry in the way that he was never loved. However, Harry dealt with it and became good, Voldemort and became evil. Snape.... well, I find it a stretch to be able to call him "good." But yes, Voldemort did what he did because of anger and hate. I ALMOST feel sorry for him. ALMOST. :P

Why all the imagery and metaphors? It's almost perverse, with Voldemort "praying" to the Elder Wand and that deadly "halo" above his head. And then there's the comparison to a child, of all things. Is Harry finally pitying Voldemort, seeing him as the simple, deluded, and stunted man he is?

But still, what of the theological images? Perhaps Voldemort praying over the wand is sort of like to Voldemort all that is good and can save him is not some god or even his own heart, but his power, or (to be more literal) a material object: the wand.


"Every eye was fixed upon Voldemort, who stood with his head bowed, and his white hands folded over the Elder Wand in front of him. He might have been praying, or else counting silently in his mind, and Harry, standing still on the edge of the scene, thought absurdly of a child counting in a game of hide-and-seek. Behind his head, still swirling and coiling, the great snake Nagini floated in her glittering, charmed cage, like a monstrous halo".

That quote you gave from deathly hallows, which is restated again straight above made me realize something. Voldemort praying over something like a wand in DH, correlates near perfectly how he looked when he first out about his maigcal abilities. In the orphanage when Dumbledore enters Riddle's bedroom...

"His head was bowed as though in prayer and he whispered to his own quivering fingers, "I knew I was different...Always I knew there was something."

That was not the exact quote or page number. Here it is also like he was praying, and also in this orphange scene he was whispering to his own quivering fingers, or in other words, the source of his magic. Later, it's not his fingers, but the elder wand in Voldemort's lap that he is looking at!

And so, Harry thinks of a child playing hide and seek to count, because at a basic level Voldemort is still operating like he did in the orphange.

"Every eye was fixed upon Voldemort, who stood with his head bowed, and his white hands folded over the Elder Wand in front of him. He might have been praying, or else counting silently in his mind, and Harry, standing still on the edge of the scene, thought absurdly of a child counting in a game of hide-and-seek. Behind his head, still swirling and coiling, the great snake Nagini floated in her glittering, charmed cage, like a monstrous halo".

That quote you gave from deathly hallows, which is restated again straight above made me realize something. Voldemort praying over something like a wand in DH, correlates near perfectly how he looked when he first out about his maigcal abilities. In the orphanage when Dumbledore enters Riddle's bedroom...

"His head was bowed as though in prayer and he whispered to his own quivering fingers, "I knew I was different...Always I knew there was something."

That was not the exact quote or page number. Here it is also like he was praying, and also in this orphange scene he was whispering to his own quivering fingers, or in other words, the source of his magic. Later, it's not his fingers, but the elder wand in Voldemort's lap that he is looking at!

And so, Harry thinks of a child playing hide and seek to count, because at a basic level Voldemort is still operating like he did in the orphange.

Nice catch! I hadn't noticed that JK used much the same imagery for beginning Voldy and ending Voldy. :tu: for that find :)

I think he did a pretty good job with the whole "Muggle-borns steal magic" angle.


He could have gone much further and been horrendously effective, I'm afraid.

How hard would it be to arouse resentment against Muggles in the breast of an ordinary Wizard? One who struggles daily to keep himself and his family hidden from the Muggle world? One who is punished if he missteps in that struggle? One who understands that the reason for all this secrecy is the age-old prejudice and ghastly persecutions by Muggles against Magical Folk. One who must surely be appalled at the way Muggles continue to misuse and destroy Earth's precious resources in their attempts to approximate Magic....

If he weren't so blinded by his own prejudice (and thank goodness he was!) VM could easily have taken his plan to the next level. Had he addressed workaday Wizards and their oppression by Muggles, he could easily have stirred up hostility about their continuing sacrifice of having to deny themselves full membership and recognition in the world.

He could have dangled a beautiful carrot before them: Freedom. Openly exercising the full range of their abilities. Never skulking in the shadows. Having their own kind in charge for a change.

It doesn't sound so unreasonable. Why can't Wizards come out of the broom closet? Why must they hide? What have they done wrong, that they have to exist in secret?

Would it be such a stretch to convince the majority of Magical Folk that it's time to turn it around? It seems from the texts that the majority already look down on Muggles. Even if they don't actively resent them, they nevertheless have a low opinion of them. How far of a leap is it to convince the Wizarding world that Muggles should be protected from their own incompetence, that Wizards would do a far better job of running the world? Rhetoric like that from a charismatic leader could be very attractive to a Wizard audience.

The inherent danger, of course, is that once the ball got going it would quickly bounce out of control. Muggles would end up enslaved by the Magical establishment, but not before a tremendous lot of them died in the takeover.

Naturally, this would have suited VM just fine. He could have been King of the Whole Wide World. Too bad for him that he never considered Halfbloods and Mudbloods good enough to fight in his trenches. :p

He could have gone much further and been horrendously effective, I'm afraid.

How hard would it be to arouse resentment against Muggles in the breast of an ordinary Wizard? One who struggles daily to keep himself and his family hidden from the Muggle world? One who is punished if he missteps in that struggle? One who understands that the reason for all this secrecy is the age-old prejudice and ghastly persecutions by Muggles against Magical Folk. One who must surely be appalled at the way Muggles continue to misuse and destroy Earth's precious resources in their attempts to approximate Magic....

If he weren't so blinded by his own prejudice (and thank goodness he was!) VM could easily have taken his plan to the next level. Had he addressed workaday Wizards and their oppression by Muggles, he could easily have stirred up hostility about their continuing sacrifice of having to deny themselves full membership and recognition in the world.

He could have dangled a beautiful carrot before them: Freedom. Openly exercising the full range of their abilities. Never skulking in the shadows. Having their own kind in charge for a change.

It doesn't sound so unreasonable. Why can't Wizards come out of the broom closet? Why must they hide? What have they done wrong, that they have to exist in secret?

Would it be such a stretch to convince the majority of Magical Folk that it's time to turn it around? It seems from the texts that the majority already look down on Muggles. Even if they don't actively resent them, they nevertheless have a low opinion of them. How far of a leap is it to convince the Wizarding world that Muggles should be protected from their own incompetence, that Wizards would do a far better job of running the world? Rhetoric like that from a charismatic leader could be very attractive to a Wizard audience.

The inherent danger, of course, is that once the ball got going it would quickly bounce out of control. Muggles would end up enslaved by the Magical establishment, but not before a tremendous lot of them died in the takeover.

Naturally, this would have suited VM just fine. He could have been King of the Whole Wide World. Too bad for him that he never considered Halfbloods and Mudbloods good enough to fight in his trenches. :p

I think we can't say exactly what Voldemort would have ultimately done if he stayed in power (control of the Ministry) beyond the 10 months.
I think his next step would of had been to control the muggles too. I can't find the quote right now, but I remember at the end of DH, Voldemort telling everyone after he thought that Harry died, that they should stop opposing him and help him create a new world. Granted, Voldemort does lie. I think in this instance, there is some truth in that. He would have taken the pure bloods and half bloods and had them "fighting in the trenches" as you say.

He was like the SS with his 'Pure Blood' ideas, and yes, to go further with Muggles born stealing magic theory....rather the old court rooms, destroy them for spreading their desease.
But, he hadn't got that far.

As villans go, he was quite unattractive. This is in line with some of the all time villans.

He wasn't related to Harry directly nor did he fall through time or spawn from an evil egg, or 7th star or forgotten distant planet so his beginnings in an Orphan House and onto a Magical School where the good and compassionate headmaster couldn't turn him from the evil ways he knew were coming was an original idea.

He had a bad plan like a good villan should and underestimated the hero which was in line with the status quo. His faithful minions were all slightly inept and at times a little slow on the uptake which was also correct evil lord lore.

He had a funky moniker and Lord Voldemort isn't any worse than Darth Vader after all. Plus the way he came up with his name was nifty. Except that he didn't allow his minions to call him by name and the populace was too scared to call him by name, so I am not sure why he bothered going through all of the trouble of coming up with it.

Flying, while not unique, was a cool side treat and his other magic - the horocruxes was a pretty cool idea. Of course the constant come backs was nothing original...Ganondorf too is still coming back after all these years...Voldemort should have spoken with him about immortality I guess.

The pet snake, again, not unique to have a companion animal one can control, but sharing a face with it was pretty unique - I don't remember another evil lord who was twins with his pet. I think Voldy mourned Bella more than Nagini though...

Which brings up a very interesting notion. Voldy was supposed to be unable to feel love or emotions associated with it (care, compassion, etc) and yet, when Bella died, his reaction was pretty indicative of something along those lines. "Voldy's fury at the fall of his last, best, lieutenant exploded with the force of a bomb" and then he sought revenge on her killer (Molly). What was driving his reaction? Hate? Well yeah, for Molly, but what was his reaction to Bella's death all about? I suppose he could have just been upset that he had run out of lieutenants, but fury over it? Something had to have driven that fury and it seems to me it wasn't the fact that he'd run short of good help - I mean if Molly the housewife could take her out, surely other minions had equivalent ability. I think we might have seen something in the love category in that reaction. Who would have imagined that one of the greatest love stories in the book may have been Voldy and Bella. She seemed quite taken with him. But if he could feel no love, then it must have merely been deprivation. Um...shortest lived love story in the book too because that idea is out.

All in all, Voldy had things in common with other dark lords which in the end proved to be much less intelligent than one originally believed. However, there are some pretty wise and slick dark lords in the fantasy series market and it would have been great for Voldy to have been among them.

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

It was a very good plan - and would have definitely worked if Harry hadn't got in the way. However, his problem was that he didn't check for flaws, and underestimated Harry greatly.

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?

His main control is fear. He uses it to manipulate his followers to do his bidding, and it definitely works for him. Completely different from Dumbledore, who shows kindness and loyalty to get people to do what he wants.

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?

It has not damaged his brain in any visable way, but he is much more arrogant because he believes he is immortal because of his Horcruxes. His soul however, is beyond repair. Maybe without his Horcruxes he would have been able to get out of his "Evilness" but they have maimed his soul.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

He is annoyingly arrogant, to the point of frustration.

I never could understand or believe LV could be sooo contradictory to store soul pieces to obtain immortality?

Why? It's totally nonsensical to risk doing, since each piece is subject to annihilation of its soul piece. Sooo, why would Voldy want to eventually wind-up in the soul world as some flayed soul-scarred fragment? Even the Horcruxes wouldn't last long compared to a whole soul in eternity???

Is there something in his background that caused him to fear the hereafter? He obviously believed in the soul, since he used his soul pieces for earthly immortality. I know he was driven to insanity by this fear of death, but what was the driving force behind all this?

Can anyone point to the chapters or text or quote it, so we can understand this aspect of his character. It seems this would be at the very foundation of what made T.R. & L.V.

How do we explain and understand his fears of death and the hereafter? He knew both existed.


Luna blessings... :tu:

He had a funky moniker and Lord Voldemort isn't any worse than Darth Vader after all. Plus the way he came up with his name was nifty. Except that he didn't allow his minions to call him by name and the populace was too scared to call him by name, so I am not sure why he bothered going through all of the trouble of coming up with it.
Riddle's reasoning for the name, according to Diary Riddle, was:
"I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere would one day fear to speak, when I had become the greatest sorcerer in the world."
I don't understand it either, but he was young, arrogant with a huge ego. What I do find interesting about it, though, is that instead of choosing something entirely of his own creation, he used the letters of his full name, which of course included his Gaunt heritage and his hated muggle heritage.

Which brings up a very interesting notion. Voldy was supposed to be unable to feel love or emotions associated with it (care, compassion, etc) and yet, when Bella died, his reaction was pretty indicative of something along those lines. "Voldy's fury at the fall of his last, best, lieutenant exploded with the force of a bomb" and then he sought revenge on her killer (Molly). What was driving his reaction? Hate? Well yeah, for Molly, but what was his reaction to Bella's death all about? I suppose he could have just been upset that he had run out of lieutenants, but fury over it? Something had to have driven that fury and it seems to me it wasn't the fact that he'd run short of good help - I mean if Molly the housewife could take her out, surely other minions had equivalent ability. I think we might have seen something in the love category in that reaction. Who would have imagined that one of the greatest love stories in the book may have been Voldy and Bella. She seemed quite taken with him. But if he could feel no love, then it must have merely been deprivation. Um...shortest lived love story in the book too because that idea is out.
Yep, I'm afraid it couldn't have been even affection, let alone love. I saw it as anger, equal to the Voldy we'd come to know throughout the books until DH. In DH we saw a more focused Voldemort, one obsessed with destroying Harry, and finding the Elder Wand -- two things he saw as ensuring his dominance over both the wizarding and muggle world. In that mode, he seemed different that the Voldy of old, but I think it's just an illusion to believe he had changed. When things were not going well after the return to Hogwarts, when more came to join the fight rather than surrender, we begin to see his volatile emotions once again. I think his reaction was simply anger. After all, this is an individual who, without any hesitance or feeling, announced "Anyone who continues to resist, man, woman or child, will be slaughtered, as will every member of their family." (DH, page 729, U.S.) . A scare tactic? Sure, in part. But I believe he would not hesitate to kill even children -- and I don't believe such a person is capable of affection or love in any capacity.

Riddle's reasoning for the name, according to Diary Riddle, was:
"I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere would one day fear to speak, when I had become the greatest sorcerer in the world."
I don't understand it either, but he was young, arrogant with a huge ego. What I do find interesting about it, though, is that instead of choosing something entirely of his own creation, he used the letters of his full name, which of course included his Gaunt heritage and his hated muggle heritage.


Yep, I'm afraid it couldn't have been even affection, let alone love. I saw it as anger, equal to the Voldy we'd come to know throughout the books until DH. In DH we saw a more focused Voldemort, one obsessed with destroying Harry, and finding the Elder Wand -- two things he saw as ensuring his dominance over both the wizarding and muggle world. In that mode, he seemed different that the Voldy of old, but I think it's just an illusion to believe he had changed. When things were not going well after the return to Hogwarts, when more came to join the fight rather than surrender, we begin to see his volatile emotions once again. I think his reaction was simply anger. After all, this is an individual who, without any hesitance or feeling, announced "Anyone who continues to resist, man, woman or child, will be slaughtered, as will every member of their family." (DH, page 729, U.S.) . A scare tactic? Sure, in part. But I believe he would not hesitate to kill even children -- and I don't believe such a person is capable of affection or love in any capacity.

Good point, lol. I agree, it must have been rage. And man - he fashioned the name intending that no one use it! I hadn't remebered him actually declaring that (you are such a champ at remembering the canon Hedwig - I've noticed that in tons of threads :) ). Well Voldy was a little nuts to come up with a name merely to be feared...you'd think with all the trouble he went through, he'd at least want to hear it in his honor! Good point about it including his muggle heritage as well - he just gets more complex by the minute.

this is from a different post, about the physical change of Voldemort, but it has some stuff that ties into this, so...

Try having Draco describe Harry or Ginny or Hermione or Ron or...well, anyone in Gryffindor. Try having Snape describe Ginny and Hermione. It's not going to be the same as Harry.

If the book was written in Bellatrix's point of view there might be a chance that Voldemort gets described with beautiful looks.

Yes, the point of view is Jo's but you're underestimating her as a writer. If she's writing the story from one character's point of view, and she is, then she is going to use that character's bias in everything she writes.

My point is, yes, it does look like it is divided up with the good being pretty and the bad being ugly, but that it is due to the point of view.

I wonder what Bellatrix would describe him as... lol Either way, bias is mostly the reason why he is so ugly, but i felt it was because how he split his soul so many times. Most of the people here see Voldemort after, but remember that he used to be charming and handsome, I see it as a contrast of how inhuman he became. I wonder if he ever missed those looks or thought his new body looked gorgeous :lol:. I actually think my current avatar is pretty accurate sometimes. note to self, remember to make a Bellatrix/Voldemort avatar.

Anyways, straying away from the topic. you people are underestimating JK Rowling. She is not the kind of person to create a boring cliched fairytale. Well, I have to admit I didn't like the Epilogue, but everything else was good. Voldemort's looks are a symbol of how deep he went into dark magic. Actually, the biggest problem I have with Voldemort was that he appeared to be born evil. If she just had Voldemort and Harry wasn't there or lived a different life, I wouldn't mind as much, but Harry and Voldie seemed to live similar lives. They both grew up in places they didnt like, felt neglected most of their childhood, and finally get to hogwarts, which was like their true home. their mothers both appeared to die for them, even if Merope really died for his father, at first I'm sure it appeared otherwise. and yet, they grow up to be two completely different different people.

I have a reason to sort of like the change. Merope's dying wish was to have Voldemort to grow up to look like his father. Voldemort didn't like that, he hated his Muggle heritage and his father, a bit for abandoning him and his mother and also because he just had to look like him, something he loathed (Harry liked fitting in, Voldemort liked standing out).

Voldemort was obviously very full of himself. I wonder how much he liked or hated his new look compared to his old one. Maybe he enjoyed having his outside really stand out, and that he liked being almost inhuman, or maybe he was a bit more shallow and liked looking like a pretty boy or maybe he didn't really care. Voldemort doesn't really strike me as shallow, except maybe against Muggles and Muggleborns. However, I believe he didn't really hate Muggles and Muggleborns, they were merely ways to get more followers and they were just scapegoats.

I think Voldemort was planning to fix himself up more in the future after the war. He planned to live forever and he would have likely gotten to work on some magic to help return his youthful good looks. It was just that from GoF through DH, that was likely pretty far down on his list of priorities. If he had succeeded, he may have even gone on to start a family and such, lived a pretty normal life. But during the series, he had to concentrate on surviving, which meant figuring out how to kill DD and Harry.

I think Voldemort was planning to fix himself up more in the future after the war. He planned to live forever and he would have likely gotten to work on some magic to help return his youthful good looks. It was just that from GoF through DH, that was likely pretty far down on his list of priorities. If he had succeeded, he may have even gone on to start a family and such, lived a pretty normal life. But during the series, he had to concentrate on surviving, which meant figuring out how to kill DD and Harry.

I suppose, but he may have also liked looking all evil... Personally, I thought teen riddle looked more evil, but thats just me

To be honest, I think Voldemort's ultimate aim was to build a "better world". He says so himself and I think he truly believed it in his heart. He saw himself as a visionary, as the Messiah of the wizarding world. Nobody does evil for the sake of evil and Tom was no different. The problem was that is personality was so warped that he just needed someone or something to hate at all times. What if he won? What if every race he hated was disposed of? He would just look for another scapegoat. His intentions, not morally correct to begin with, were impotent because of his belief in his own superiority. He always felt inferior, even when he had the Elder Wand he doubted himself. He killed and killed and killed but it made no difference did it? He desired to live forever and by making his Horcruxes he ensured that. But he couldn't enjoy it, all who find their hearts desire also find despair.

I suppose, but he may have also liked looking all evil... Personally, I thought teen riddle looked more evil, but thats just me

I feel the same way! Teen Riddle, despite his handsome mien, gives me the creeps more than Snakemort.

Maybe it's because we're conditioned to associate good looks with positive characteristics, yet we know for a fact from hindsight that Teen-Tom is a nasty piece of work and will only get nastier. That dichotomy is scary on a visceral level--we can't trust our own eyes.

The older, snake-like VM looks exactly like what he is, so what you see is what you get. It's a better fit. It's no surprise. In a strange way, it's not as frightening.

But that's just me. I'm sure little kids are far more alarmed by the elder VM than by his younger self.

I feel the same way! Teen Riddle, despite his handsome mien, gives me the creeps more than Snakemort.

Maybe it's because we're conditioned to associate good looks with positive characteristics, yet we know for a fact from hindsight that Teen-Tom is a nasty piece of work and will only get nastier. That dichotomy is scary on a visceral level--we can't trust our own eyes.

The older, snake-like VM looks exactly like what he is, so what you see is what you get. It's a better fit. It's no surprise. In a strange way, it's not as frightening.

But that's just me. I'm sure little kids are far more alarmed by the elder VM than by his younger self.

I too thought teen-Tom was much better at "being" evil rather than merely "looking" evil. I'm sure a lot of people liked Ralph Fiennes performance as Voldemort but it came across too melodramatic to be realistic for me. More like a caricature than something actually dangerous. Teen-Tom, whoever played him, seemed much more real and therefore much more effective as something to be truly afraid of.

I too thought teen-Tom was much better at "being" evil rather than merely "looking" evil. I'm sure a lot of people liked Ralph Fiennes performance as Voldemort but it came across too melodramatic to be realistic for me. More like a caricature than something actually dangerous. Teen-Tom, whoever played him, seemed much more real and therefore much more effective as something to be truly afraid of.I agree with this. Although the movies are not canon, and are off-topic in this thread, you make a good point about the attractive Tom Riddle in CoS. The unattractive Voldemort is like a red flag telling everyone that here comes a dangerous man. The attractive and charismatic Tom Riddle is much more dangerous because you don't realize how evil he is until he has enticed you, like a spider to his web.

I too thought teen-Tom was much better at "being" evil rather than merely "looking" evil. I'm sure a lot of people liked Ralph Fiennes performance as Voldemort but it came across too melodramatic to be realistic for me. More like a caricature than something actually dangerous. Teen-Tom, whoever played him, seemed much more real and therefore much more effective as something to be truly afraid of.

this is kind of off topic, but it's so much easier to make fun of an inhuman Voldemort than a pretty boy, just look at my avatar! Pretty Boy is one of the few insults you can use against a handsome Voldemort

...and let's bring this back "on-topic" :)

I would agree that Voldemort's character did not come across as very frightening. It may be because we did not see enough of him throughout the series once he had returned. We heard about things that were happening and I do recall him torturing and even killing - but for some reason he always seemed very fallable to me, as if he could be hoodwinked taken out rather easily. I think that perhaps more graphic descriptions of his personal deeds would have assisted in carrying on the character that we say forming when he was youthful.

However, it may have been Jo's intention to keep Voldemort less than 'larger than life' - so that he was more realistic. If so, that worked I would say; but Voldemort came across more as if he behaved as an evil man rather than a classic dark lord imo.

I would agree that Voldemort's character did not come across as very frightening. It may be because we did not see enough of him throughout the series once he had returned.
It didn't seem very scary to me, either, except when he had Charity Burbage hanging in the first chapter of DH and when he cold-heartedly killed Severus Snape. Then he seemed positively frightening. But I thought that he really seemed like just another bad guy in the forest scene and the final scenes of the book. Maybe if we had seen him kill Amelia Bones, for instance, we would have seen more of his evil powers. I wonder if some of it was toned down for the younger reader.

I don't know... I thought I wasn't scared of him at all, but one night, after I had been rereading the scene in Godric's Hollow (which I do find wuite frightening, when Harry realises he's in the house), I had a dream about Voldemort where he was downright terrifying.

It didn't seem very scary to me, either, except when he had Charity Burbage hanging in the first chapter of DH and when he cold-heartedly killed Severus Snape. Then he seemed positively frightening. But I thought that he really seemed like just another bad guy in the forest scene and the final scenes of the book. Maybe if we had seen him kill Amelia Bones, for instance, we would have seen more of his evil powers. I wonder if some of it was toned down for the younger reader.

I agree...the Charity Burbage scene was a scary display from Voldemort. And Snape's death too, was a cold display of his scary nature. Cedric's death was another in line with that - an innocent lad taken for no reason whatsoever except that he was present back in GoF (and the torturing of his DEs). Even in OOTP we saw Lord Voldemort's potential in his fight with Dumbledore and possession of Harry.

I agree that his character may have been toned down for the younger readers because apart from those things, we didn't witness the other atrocities, some of which sounded extremely scary (killing of groups of muggles, Order members and muggle born wizards) - but the way they were presented, I kept getting the impression that the DEs were doing most of the dirty work while Voldemort hid out. Plus we were not given any details about any of that.

So I think you might have hit the nail on the head. I think it was graphic enough for young readers and older readers were to simply assume that Voldemort was as scary as he was portrayed by the wizards that told us of those events (they seemed scared even if it wasn't very affectatious imo). :lol:

I think Voldemort displayed too much hubris in Deathly Hallows. He was not the same iconic Dark Lord that we see in the other books. Harry was clearly much more frightened about death than he was about Voldemort. It seemed such a drastic change from the Voldemort we saw dueling with Dumbledore and the Voldemort we saw in Goblet of Fire. I suppose a part of that was because we were able to view things from Voldemort's perspective this time.

I found that Voldemort was actually very terrifying, but not in the usual, fantasy-Dark-Lord way. Being a Muggleborn during DH would have been nothing short of terrifying, especially with gangs like the Snatchers going around trying to round them up and bring them to the Death Eaters to have them sent to Azkaban... you could basically go nowhere without having to hide your identity, and that was risky, too, because you could be found out easily enough. You also had to fear for the lives of your family and friends, along with your own. You'd face torture and Dementors, and other dark acts and creatures. So it was really Voldemort's reign of power that scared me. The fact that the Ministry was going along with it (of course, because of people being Imperiused and such) made it all the worse.

I actually liked that, though, that Voldemort was more realistic and less Dark Lord-ish. He reminded me much more of Hitler, and that kind of strikes home because we all know the horrors of the Holocaust. Just the fact that Voldemort thought he was doing the right thing is creepy enough as it is. The fact that he was irrationally afraid of death yet he killed others without a second thought is downright disturbing to me. Voldemort pretty much embodies the dark side of human nature, and I find that very scary, because there are some, in real life, who have been and are capable of the horrible things Voldemort did (in a Muggle way, of course). The way Voldemort threw over the Ministry so easily, the way he took over Hogwarts and morphed it into a school for the Dark Arts, again rather easily - it really made the world feel unstable and insecure, and I kept imagining it in the real world, and it wasn't too hard to imagine. So personally, everything about Voldemort terrifies me, because he's not all that far off from some real figures in history.

Something I found interesting in Death Hallows was in Voldemort's memory of the night he tried to murder Harry, he had pointed his wand at Harry and was uncomfortable by Harry's crying. He had never been able to stomach the children's crying at the orphanage when he was a kid. There's something about that that I found a bit strange of Voldemort, but I'm not sure what. What do you all think?

Something I found interesting in Death Hallows was in Voldemort's memory of the night he tried to murder Harry, he had pointed his wand at Harry and was uncomfortable by Harry's crying. He had never been able to stomach the children's crying at the orphanage when he was a kid. There's something about that that I found a bit strange of Voldemort, but I'm not sure what. What do you all think?

Yes, I thought that was very strange also. A Dark Lord irritated by a crying baby. Voldemort was very odd in several ways - but that was likely the oddest. Maybe it foreshadowed his soul laying there crying in Kings Cross when Harry went to meet Dumbledore in DH. Kind of makes that scene even more gruesomely eerie in a way.

The inability to endure children has woven in and out of the M.O.s of some pretty gruesome mass murderers: Gage, Bundy, that creepy guy who killed all the kids and then ate them. (I've forgotten his name). It's a known trait of certain kinds of sociopaths, but someone else will have to give us the technical definition. I'm not qualified to do so.

I was totally freaked out by the blatant racism of the Voldemort regime and the way he steadily deprived the wizarding community of rights that had long been taken for granted. The people like Charity Burbage who "resigned" their jobs and disappeared off the face of the earth was another real-world jolt. And the pleasure and sense of rightness he experienced as he moved to murder a victim he'd hunted down... golly, Miss Molly, he was creepy.

Yes, I thought that was very strange also. A Dark Lord irritated by a crying baby. Voldemort was very odd in several ways - but that was likely the oddest. Maybe it foreshadowed his soul laying there crying in Kings Cross when Harry went to meet Dumbledore in DH. Kind of makes that scene even more gruesomely eerie in a way.

Getting irritated by a crying baby might have been showing that Voldemort was still human.

Getting irritated by a crying baby might have been showing that Voldemort was still human.

I tend to think the opposite, that Voldemort wasn't very human at all. As a baby Tom Riddle didn't cry much at all. I think he saw it as a sign of weakness and powerlessness, and a sign of dependency on others--things Voldemort hated. Must have been why he wanted to become the most powerful wizard ever. A crying baby just shows itself to be weak and powerless and dependent on others and so Voldemort would find these irritating. I suppose in some sense this is a human response, but not a very empathetic one. As a mom, when I hear a baby cry I hear someone who isn't very happy. This doesn't mean it can always be helped but it does require a better response than irritation.

I tend to think the opposite, that Voldemort wasn't very human at all. As a baby Tom Riddle didn't cry much at all. I think he saw it as a sign of weakness and powerlessness, and a sign of dependency on others--things Voldemort hated. Must have been why he wanted to become the most powerful wizard ever. A crying baby just shows itself to be weak and powerless and dependent on others and so Voldemort would find these irritating. I suppose in some sense this is a human response, but not a very empathetic one. As a mom, when I hear a baby cry I hear someone who isn't very happy. This doesn't mean it can always be helped but it does require a better response than irritation.

I'm not a mother (or father), but I was thinking of situations like on a plane or other areas where the "crying baby" joke is almost a cliche'. I guess this can be interpreted both ways - being irritated by the crying baby could show the disregard for humans and human life and weakness, etc. Or it could show that, despite his best efforts to suppress his own humanity and become immortal, he's still irritated by a very human thing - a crying baby.

The inability to endure children has woven in and out of the M.O.s of some pretty gruesome mass murderers: Gage, Bundy, that creepy guy who killed all the kids and then ate them. (I've forgotten his name).

That would be Albert Fish.

My opinion is that his inability to tolerate crying made him less human. I think a normal human response to a crying child would be concern. Granted, if you're in a restaurant and a child's screaming their head off, it can be annoying. But, in Voldemort's case that fact that he didn't feel the least bit of concern at the slighted bit of crying shows to me that he really didn't have emotions like empathy.

My opinion is that his inability to tolerate crying made him less human. I think a normal human response to a crying child would be concern. Granted, if you're in a restaurant and a child's screaming their head off, it can be annoying. But, in Voldemort's case that fact that he didn't feel the least bit of concern at the slighted bit of crying shows to me that he really didn't have emotions like empathy.

Thanks, that was what I was trying to say.

He had never been able to stomach the children's crying at the orphanage when he was a kid. There's something about that that I found a bit strange of Voldemort, but I'm not sure what. What do you all think?

I think it is connected to Tom Riddle's uncommunicativeness during his own infancy, in the way he rarely cried.

This sounds like a child either so traumatized or else so inherently antisocial that he can't or won't reach out to others, not even to caretakers who could see to his needs. His unresponsiveness seems like a twisted sort of self-preservation--rather than cry and announce he has hunger, he prefers not to let such a vulnerability be known--and this paves the way to his later secretiveness.

I also doubt he was as helpless as most young children and was quite independent of the adults for many of his needs. I'm imagining a bottle of milk floating away from some other baby's hands and right into Tom's....

Someone who never experienced the utter dependency of childhood for himself might have nothing but distaste, impatience, and superiority when he sees it in others. That's some of what I'm sensing about TR/VM's discomfort with crying children.

I also love the remark someone offered about the irony of this in light of the crying-baby-creature (all that's left of his soul, in other words) in DH.

It's like he has ended up being what the rest of us started out as, but without the possibility of ever developing further.

Or it could show that, despite his best efforts to suppress his own humanity and become immortal, he's still irritated by a very human thing - a crying baby.

That's what I thought too. It surprised me to see that Voldemort could not stand a baby crying, and I felt it continued the hubris we were shown throughout DH.

I would agree with what some have said. Voldemort was more gruesome than scary in nature. I suppose too, when you actually have to face a gruesome character like Voldemort it would be more scary in person than reading about it. But there was that other side to him - when he was making business like statements at Hogwarts when he thought he'd killed Harry. As if ralling up the troops was all that was left to do before he took over as the Wizard King. It was cool that the crowd began to fight him and I suppose it speaks to Voldemort's 'scariness' that they took a while in doing so. Neville of all people leading the way (go Neville). Still, Voldemort was like a gruesome - business like dark lord and that is a twist on the normal in a way. Kind of like a weak mix between The Master from Dr. Who, The Wizard from the Wizard of Oz and Darth Vader.

He did not like crying, he had never been able to stomach the small ones whining in the orphanage-

That was one of the strangest things I read in the book. It seems so out of character for Voldemort to not like when someone cries. I would have thought he'd take joy at having made someone cry.

I imagine it would be a reminder to him that they have emotions that are full range and he doesnt. He finds emotions beyond anger and joy to be of little significance.

Thanks, that was what I was trying to say.

You said it well. :tu::)

To raise another point, did anyone else find the lack of LVs strategic abilities surprising? I've always imagined LV to be skilled in that area. His failure in 'The Seven Potters' really surprised me. I can't even imagine how humilated he was after that, probably convinced himself that it was some random DE's fault.

To raise another point, did anyone else find the lack of LVs strategic abilities surprising? I've always imagined LV to be skilled in that area. His failure in 'The Seven Potters' really surprised me. I can't even imagine how humilated he was after that, probably convinced himself that it was some random DE's fault.

Oh, yes. He must have been so angry that he AKed a few of his DE's.

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

I would have voted *yes* until Book6, after Book 7 almost everyone supercedes him imo. Even Umbridge was more evil than Voldemort. He was imo incredibly stupid in this book and made so many mistakes because he wanted Harry to win. Very kind of him, but imo does not qualify for the *most evil Dark Lord in centuries* thingy.

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were?

He took over the Ministry and the Wizarding World, but he never did anything about it. imo He simply waited for his defeat that happened at the end of Book7. The voldemort I loved to hate and fear as true evil was simply not present in Book 7, I felt.

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

I think he was stewing in his mind about his father's desertion, because he knew his mother was dead. The unwanted and thrown away feeling that festered inside him, most likely turned into spite and hate and the fact he could do things others could not and talk to snakes gave him a feeling of superiority over the other orphanage kids.

He must have felt very inferior and I think this assertion of superiority even later in life stemmed from a massive inferiority complex that he managed to supress by convincing himself that he was superior in every way that mattered. To that end power and the derire to live as long as he could to enjoy that power came into being and the horcruxes were a direct result of that imo.

I really don't know why he took a job as a lowly clerk, but perhaps all the dark and shady objects at Borgin & Burkes held an attraction and a facination for him.

4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before. What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?

I really expected him to be much *more terrible than before*. He turned out imo to be a squib in comparison to himself -- he was truly terrible both during the first war and the first 6 Books!!:no:

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse?

Voldemort ruled by only one thing imo -- FEAR! The Ministry was a bigoted and a silly peice of work -- imo any institution who has Umbridge working for them has be be totally wrong, offr, bigoted... well you get the idea.:lol:

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort?

I really don't think the creation of horcruxese harmed him. He was way too evil and too desirous of power from the start.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

Well I really cannot think of anything except that he wanted Harry to win. He was working alongside with Harry imo to aid Harry in offing himself. He is not intelligent, clever and resourceful in Book 7. I am sorry to say this, but Voldemort was a damp sparkler in Book 7. He fell and died because Harry had to win. Not because Harry fought him and won. Truly defeated him. This is of course only my opinion. I feel Voldemort forfeited the game, set and match to Harry and Harry won by default and not by truly playing.

Of course he could have avoided it, if he wanted to. Sadly I think he was not allowed to...

I do not want Voldemort to win. But I did feel that Voldemort was not a Dark Lord in Book 7 and he was a sitting duck for three teenagers who were extremely lucky. Because no one was actually fighting against the death eaters imo.

Some posts in other threads got me thinking a bit about Voldemort's character. I think that part of why he entrusted the horcruxes to Lucius and Bellatrix was that he was marking himself, the orphan son of a muggle man and a broke witch, as being better than the ancient, rich pureblood families. They were subservient to him, by taking his "precious artifacts". It fit right in with his wanting to acquire artifacts of each of the founders. His treatment of Lucius, in particular, clued me in that this is likely the case.

Edit: I don't have my copy of DH with me, but I do seem to recall Harry noted something like this when he was thinking of where the horcruxes were.

It didn't seem very scary to me, either, except when he had Charity Burbage hanging in the first chapter of DH and when he cold-heartedly killed Severus Snape. Then he seemed positively frightening. But I thought that he really seemed like just another bad guy in the forest scene and the final scenes of the book. Maybe if we had seen him kill Amelia Bones, for instance, we would have seen more of his evil powers. I wonder if some of it was toned down for the younger reader.

That is probably true. Lots of little kids read the Harry Potter books, and they would be very scared of Voldemort. I never really saw Voldemort as scary, but he did seem very evil, seeing how he killed in cold blood. i really do wonder what makes a scary villain in my book, but voldemort is close to it. evil is when you dont care and you are willing to do anything horrible to achieve your goal. in that way, even people like Dumbledore are kind of evil. i would probably never kill, seeing that if it was for a punishment, it wouldnt be too good, since most methods would be quick and easy, or it would be way to horrible if you were taking away some thing really major to someoen. instead, i would stick the person in a room of boggarts. voldemort sort of toys with his food too. kind of. he doesnt torture just for the fun of it like bellatrix, but he does torture without even caring, and that it kind of scary. the reason i like him as a character, however, is that he really doesnt do too much unnecessary killing, but still maintains his hold of evil over everyone, and i see him as extremely clever. voldemort will never be the evil overlord thats sits back on his throne to watch his prisoners die one by one for fun. he at least has some sort of reason to kill.

I thought it was interesting that he really tried to avoid killing Lily. Did that mean that he was considering Snape's request? That perhaps he did care about Snape?

I thought it was interesting that he really tried to avoid killing Lily. Did that mean that he was considering Snape's request? That perhaps he did care about Snape?

I think he saw "giving" Lily to Snape as a way of ensuring his loyalty. I have no doubt also that it would have been a dangerous "gift" - much like Wormtail's hand and the horcruxes to Lucius and Bella. Voldemort gave just enough to his followers to ensure their loyalty, though I do think that Snape may have come as close as Voldemort ever came to "caring" (aside from nagini).

Rereading DH, I don't think that Voldemort was especially stupid in many of his moves and tactics. He was undone in large part by how well Harry and Dumbledore knew him, and his inability to control the connection between him and Harry. The takeover of the Ministry, his control of Hogwarts, and even his battle plan all worked - he just was undone by that pesky connection and giving away the location in his mind of the final horcrux - if he hadn't worried about it, Harry may have been up a creek with Voldemort still looking for him.

Rereading DH, I don't think that Voldemort was especially stupid in many of his moves and tactics. He was undone in large part by how well Harry and Dumbledore knew him, and his inability to control the connection between him and Harry. The takeover of the Ministry, his control of Hogwarts, and even his battle plan all worked - he just was undone by that pesky connection and giving away the location in his mind of the final horcrux - if he hadn't worried about it, Harry may have been up a creek with Voldemort still looking for him.
I agree. I don't think Voldemort was acting stupid at all. The way he took over the Ministry was brilliant, imo. He did it quickly and quietly and under just about everyone's noses. He didn't just storm in there, wands blazing. He created confusion and fear. The average wizard and witch didn't know he was pulling the Ministry's strings.
I think his downfall was underestimating Dumbledore and Harry, especially after Dumbledore's death. And of course, believing Snape was on his side also played heavily to his downfall too.

I think Voldemort was stupid in how he allowed his downfall, but that stupidity was the result of his own arrogance and pride in his own powers. He was the only one, in his mind, who knew about the Room of Requirement. His assumptions as to why he couldn't touch Harry were way off base. He felt he was the only person who could leverage the connection between him and Harry. He never suspected that the locket Horcrux had been taken by Regulus. In all things leading up to the final confrontation, he totally underestimated Harry and Dumbledore, not because he belittled their abilities (although there is a portion of that there) but because he completely overestimated his own abilities.

He was a brilliant wizard who knew a lot about magic, but that knowledge blinded him to the fact that despite all of his learning, there was always something he didn't know.

:hmm:

Just had a thought about Voldemort. He seems to have combined the worst elements of the family traits on both sides of his family. From the Gaunts, he got an element of psychosis (better medical folks than I can fill in the best term); and from the Riddles he got arrogance and a certain liking for grandeur. In some ways it seems that the insanity of the Gaunt family was attenuated by the Riddle genes, producing a perfectly sane - but incredibly dangerous - man. It seems an interesting mix. He could have used his incredible magical gifts to be Minister of Magic - like Slughorn predicted - but instead he used it to try and gain power the megalomaniac way, instead of the political and meritocratic way.

Psychosis is probably correct. However, there is an element of the grandiosity and need for admiration that can be attributed to both the Gaunts and the Riddles.

Psychosis is probably correct. However, there is an element of the grandiosity and need for admiration that can be attributed to both the Gaunts and the Riddles.

I'd agree with this. Both families had a need for admiration, and Voldemort caught that full-force. He certainly had a need to be admired all the way back at the orphanage, and he never grew out of that phase - his legion of admirers at school, and then his Death Eaters.

I thought it was interesting that he really tried to avoid killing Lily. Did that mean that he was considering Snape's request? That perhaps he did care about Snape?

This actually shocked me. Voldemort actually understanding and agreeing to human emotions of love and that too of a 'mudblood' :grumble: as Lily would have been in his view, I wonder how he agreed to Snape instead of crucioing him and telling him that he better not have any affection for *unworthy muggleborns* as Voldemort looked down upon muggleborns and wanted all of them killed (COS).

And he goes on and gives a choice to Lily, telling her to step aside and killing her only when she refused and fell in the way of the AK.

Because the very fact he asked Lily to step aside meant he had considered it and had accepted Snape's request and was actually carrying it out.

This actually shocked me. Voldemort actually understanding and agreeing to human emotions of love and that too of a 'mudblood' :grumble: as Lily would have been in his view, I wonder how he agreed to Snape instead of crucioing him and telling him that he better not have any affection for *unworthy muggleborns* as Voldemort looked down upon muggleborns and wanted all of them killed (COS).
I don't think Voldemort saw it as "love." He tells Harry during the final battle that Snape lusted after Lily. What I think happened is Voldemort knew Snape was attracted to Lily. He could understand a carnal emotion like lust. Voldemort tried to spare Lily's life as a reward for Snape's loyality and information about the prophecy. When she wouldn't stand aside, he figured Snape would just get over it and find a woman more fitting. IMO, this isn't understanding love. It's a basic animalistic knowledge that humans are physically attracted to one another.
While Voldemort might not have liked that Lily was a "mudblood." I think he was willing to over looked that because Snape told him about the prophecy.

I don't think Voldemort saw it as "love." He tells Harry during the final battle that Snape lusted after Lily. What I think happened is Voldemort knew Snape was attracted to Lily. He could understand a carnal emotion like lust. Voldemort tried to spare Lily's life as a reward for Snape's loyality and information about the prophecy. When she wouldn't stand aside, he figured Snape would just get over it and find a woman more fitting. IMO, this isn't understanding love. It's a basic animalistic knowledge that humans are physically attracted to one another.
While Voldemort might not have liked that Lily was a "mudblood." I think he was willing to over looked that because Snape told him about the prophecy.

I think you are right, but really Voldemort even acknowledging something like sparing someone because his lowly death eater wanted her is nothing short of astounding I felt.

Snape was not in the Inner Circle at that time and nor did he belong to a very important family and I am surprised that Voldemort spared someone for him and that too a muggleborn!

I think Voldemort was willing to spare Lily because Snape had potentially given him the secret to immortality (identifying the only threat to him, according to the prophesy). Hence, Lily was probably considered a small reward for that.

Ugh, it isn't fun to talk about Lily as a commodity. But that might be how Voldemort viewed her :shrug:

I think Voldemort was willing to spare Lily because Snape had potentially given him the secret to immortality (identifying the only threat to him, according to the prophesy). Hence, Lily was probably considered a small reward for that.

Ugh, it isn't fun to talk about Lily as a commodity. But that might be how Voldemort viewed her :shrug:

Could be, and Voldemort would most likely expect Snape's soul in return for the favour he had bestowed on his death eater. How horrible truly!:no:

I wonder if Voldemort has ever done something like this apart from granting Snape's request? I can't think of anything, except saving Bella in the Dept. of Mysteries. Though, she did not ask for her life at that time.

I think that was the only time, apart from agreeing to spare Lily for Snape, that Voldemort exhibited something that looked like human tendencies.

I wonder if he saved Bella because he truly thought she was worth saving or did he know she loved him???? That is an intresting though, if Voldemort knew Bella loved him as Jo said she did.

I cannot think of any other instance where Voldemort showed he had a wee bit of humanity left in him.

He gave "carrots" to his Death Eaters. Wormtail got the silver hand. Lucius got praise as a slippery something (forget the exact quote). Bella and Crouch Jr also were given just enough praise to make them think they were the "most favored Death Eater".

However, each of the gifts he bestowed came with a price. Wormtail's hand choked him. Bella and Lucius fell far from his favor for losing their entrusted horcruxes. And I'm sure that Snape would have not escaped this manipulation. Perhaps Lily would forever have been the way that Voldemort controlled Snape.

I think we see how Tom Riddle was able to use his "people" skills to manipulate students and teachers when he was a student. He was able to convince all the teachers except Dumbledore that he was a wonderful student with great potential. Hepzibah was enamoured of him when we see him at her house. I would think that Tom aka Voldemort would have to have some knowledge of people's weaknesses and strengths in order to do that. He may not have known how to love, but he knew how to use it to control people. He knew that he could "sweet-talk" Hepzibah into showing him his best possessions. He also got what he wanted out of Slughorn by praising him. This knowledge of how to control people got him almost everything he wanted. I think Voldemort's willingness to spare Lily for Snape may have been a way of gaining more control over him, as well as rewarding him for his faithfulness.

What flaws do you think led to his downfall? Could he have avoided it?

In my opinion, Voldemort was never shown compassion, love, care, or like attributes. As a result, he didn't learn of these things until he came into contact with Dumbledore. Apparently, his contact with those at Hogwarts didn't help in this regard and he grew into a jaded individual. In reality, after that, he regarded any of those attributes as nonsensical and that in the end led to both his downfall and his death.

In the final showdown; Harry shouted at Voldemort, telling him to show some remorse - but that requires compassion and we weren't dealing with Darth Vader here, who as young Anakin was chalk full of love, compassion and selflessness and knew of these things - we were talking Voldemort who had no knowledge of any of it. There was really on chance at all for Voldemort there. Perhaps Harry should have taken a moment to explain :hmm:.

It may have been interesting for Voldemort to fall to his knees and declare he had remorse - I don't know what Harry would have done...perhaps sent him to Azkaban. But that wasn't to be because again unlike the other Lord V, he was not the chosen one who fulfills his destiny by turning from Dark Lord to Jedi Knight when the situation culminated. Voldemort, fulfilled his destiny per the prophecy by dying at the hand of the hero, Harry.

Voldemort had the odds against him because the prophecy said that Harry would have a weapon that he didn't. He really should have figured out that he was bound to lose and simply given up long before - perhaps gone into hiding forever.

Honestly, I don't think that Tom started out intending to be a villain


I know he was a great student and I think that he only turned evil because he felt like he had to, once he somehow found out he was the heir of slytherein

Tom was amazing he just chose the wrong path

Honestly, I don't think that Tom started out intending to be a villain


I know he was a great student and I think that he only turned evil because he felt like he had to, once he somehow found out he was the heir of slytherein

Tom was amazing he just chose the wrong path

I agree he was amazing. He was very talented and prone to be a great wizard and indeed became one, but unfortunately a dark one. JKR blames his loveless youth, but there are many who are not loved who turn out all right. Nonetheless, that is all we have, plus the circumstances he grew up under which were not altogether pleasant. Perhaps Dumbledore should have taken him in hand. The sad part is that he never did come to see the light, I suppose he simply had no love or compassion to grasp onto from his past that would allow him to feel the slightest remorse. If he had, he might have come to see that his chosen path was not the correct one.

I agree he was amazing. He was very talented and prone to be a great wizard and indeed became one, but unfortunately a dark one. JKR blames his loveless youth, but there are many who are not loved who turn out all right. Nonetheless, that is all we have, plus the circumstances he grew up under which were not altogether pleasant. Perhaps Dumbledore should have taken him in hand. The sad part is that he never did come to see the light, I suppose he simply had no love or compassion to grasp onto from his past that would allow him to feel the slightest remorse. If he had, he might have come to see that his chosen path was not the correct one.

I posted about this in the love & the consequences thread in The Stone yesterday.

Jo says Snape was more culpable than Voldemort because he was loved. That could mean love from 2 sources. His mother or Lily loving him as a friend.

But Voldemort too, we learn now, has been loved. Madly and for a very long time. Bella was willing to go to Azkaban for 13 years for his sake. That much love. And in the Dept. of Mysteries, Voldemort took only Bella away with him, leaving Lucius and others to the mercy of the aurors.

So what does that say about Voldemort? Was he more culpable than Snape who was obviously not loved as much as Voldemort?

I posted about this in the love & the consequences thread in The Stone yesterday.

Jo says Snape was more culpable than Voldemort because he was loved. That could mean love from 2 sources. His mother or Lily loving him as a friend.

But Voldemort too, we learn now, has been loved. Madly and for a very long time. Bella was willing to go to Azkaban for 13 years for his sake. That much love. And in the Dept. of Mysteries, Voldemort took only Bella away with him, leaving Lucius and others to the mercy of the aurors.

So what does that say about Voldemort? Was he more culpable than Snape who was obviously not loved as much as Voldemort?

Well I think JKR was talking about pure love; not a whacked out obsession like Bella had for Voldemort. It was a form of love, but unhealthy in the extreme. She would do anything for him, murder, torture, theft, and suffer whatever indignity that might entail. She killed her own relatives, three of them that we know of, in the name of her supposed love for Voldemort. She was married and so she was acting immorally on top of it. That is not what JKR had in mind when she spoke of someone showing love for Voldemort, imo. JKR was speaking of motherly love or love from a person that was healthy and uplifting that Voldemort also felt for that person in return. That is what Voldemort lacked.

posted by wwb
JKR was speaking of motherly love or love from a person that was healthy and uplifting that Voldemort also felt for that person in return. That is what Voldemort lacked.

Motherly love is something he never had, but IMO that alone could not have changed him.

Voldemort could not even acknowledge to himself that he had made a mistake at all, when Harry told him that he was quite alone and that even then it would not be late if only he could feel remorse. (end of DH)

Even if Merope had lived, I think Voldemort would have turned out to be the same way.

He seems a person who is extremely scared of death and wants power to destroy. Those are sadistic tendencies and I don't think those things would change if had his mother.

But it may have slowed down the process and perhaps, though I am doubtful, those changes may have resulted in a milder Voldmeort and lesser deaths.

Motherly love is something he never had, but IMO that alone could not have changed him.

Voldemort could not even acknowledge to himself that he had made a mistake at all, when Harry told him that he was quite alone and that even then it would not be late if only he could feel remorse. (end of DH)

Even if Merope had lived, I think Voldemort would have turned out to be the same way.

He seems a person who is extremely scared of death and wants power to destroy. Those are sadistic tendencies and I don't think those things would change if had his mother.

But it may have slowed down the process and perhaps, though I am doubtful, those changes may have resulted in a milder Voldmeort and lesser deaths.

Perhaps that is true. But JKR's point was that Voldemort did not have any of those things. No loving mother, no loving friend, no loving mentor, no loving relatives - no one who loved him and who he could love in return. All Voldemort had was the crazed and immoral obsession of Bella and that did him no good at all. So if the story had gone differently, and his mum had lived, or if he'd had a loving friend who he loved or if he'd had loving relatives that he loved - then he would be more culpable for his inability to feel love and compassion. As it was, he had no examples of healthy love of any kind.

Voldemort had also chosen his path by the time that Bella showed her obsession to him. It was likely too late, although I know Harry didn't believe it was too late, considering their little "chat" before the rebounding curse destroyed him.
Voldemort chose his path as a child, and despite numerous chances to deviate from it, he never did. Dumbledore, Harry, Slughorn, and perhaps others (Borgin and Burkes?) all gave him opportunities to redeem himself and he never did.

Voldemort could have asked Bella who did love him wholly; and she would have followed him to the end of the earth; she did after all stay in Azkaban for 13 years voluntarily (read crazy IMO), to divorce Rudolphus and marry him and accept that love.

He must have known she loved him; he shows exceptional leeway with her. Saving her in the DEpt. of Mysteries so that the aurors will not capture her shows that he understood her loyalties and perhaps more? He left Lucius Malfoy to the aurors.

But my point is he did not do that. I think he saw love as a weakness and as something that would pull him down. So in a way he was scared of love.

And that fear cost him.

Voldemort could have asked Bella who did love him wholly; and she would have followed him to the end of the earth; she did after all stay in Azkaban for 13 years voluntarily (read crazy IMO), to divorce Rudolphus and marry him and accept that love.

He must have known she loved him; he shows exceptional leeway with her. Saving her in the DEpt. of Mysteries so that the aurors will not capture her shows that he understood her loyalties and perhaps more? He left Lucius Malfoy to the aurors.

But my point is he did not do that. I think he saw love as a weakness and as something that would pull him down. So in a way he was scared of love.

And that fear cost him.

Right...he had absolutely nothing to fall back on. There was no little voice deep inside that could lift its head from time to time to remind him what love and compassion was. When Voldemort killed, there was no regret, even if the killing was useless, senseless and worth nothing to him. But imagine if as a child or young man he had been loved, there would ever be that reminder of the compassion given and returned, of kindness, of joy, of happiness and if that love had left his life, he would even have a memory of remorse to call on. But he had nothing, so when he killed he just moved on without regret and without compassion - he had no sympathy for anyone and only did favors when it was to his benefit. Even those who showed him kindness, he never let get close to him (i.e., Dumbledore) because he'd had no experience getting close to anyone. His idea was to pretend closeness while all the while manipulating and figuring ways to use those around him to his own ends.

A Classic Dark Lord.

Right...he had absolutely nothing to fall back on. There was no little voice deep inside that could lift its head from time to time to remind him what love and compassion was. When Voldemort killed, there was no regret, even if the killing was useless, senseless and worth nothing to him. But imagine if as a child or young man he had been loved, there would ever be that reminder of the compassion given and returned, of kindness, of joy, of happiness and if that love had left his life, he would even have a memory of remorse to call on. But he had nothing, so when he killed he just moved on without regret and without compassion - he had no sympathy for anyone and only did favors when it was to his benefit. Even those who showed him kindness, he never let get close to him (i.e., Dumbledore) because he'd had no experience getting close to anyone. His idea was to pretend closeness while all the while manipulating and figuring ways to use those around him to his own ends.

A Classic Dark Lord.

I agree. Tom Marvolo Riddle was that way from childhood. Compare to Harry who didn't really know his parents' love either. He was too young to remember the love he was surrounded with for the first 15 months of his life, his parents' and his godfather's in particular. Tom Riddle's material circumstances in the orphanage were actually better than Harry's at the Dursleys'. He had a real room, a bed, a closet, he never went hungry, he wasn't abused either verbally or physically. Yet he turned out a bully, something Harry never did.

It may have been some family trait. Tom Riddle the Elder wasn't exactly a loving man. Merope grew up in a totally dysfunctional environment. She was smitten with Tom Riddle's looks, marrying him provided her with an escape, but did she actually love him like James and Lily loved each other?

"Love" was not a concept Voldie understood. Influence and power were. He knew how to use his charm and his considerable brain to get what he wanted, until he was powerful enough not to need to charm anyone anymore. He was aware of Bellatrix's adoration and used it. It didn't keep him from punishing her when she let Harry slip through her fingers. She knew, too, that her love for him would not protect her from his wrath. In OotP, when she realizes the Prophecy had been destroyed, she pleads with him "I tried, Master, don't punish me!"

Riddle/Voldie knew how to use people, but love and loyalty, simple compassion and empathy were alien to him. Even as a kid, he terrified the other orphans just to feel his power. He often killed needlessly and without remorse (another alien emotion to him.)

To quote WWB, a classic Dark Lord. (Hey, do we know anything about the other Dark Lord, the one in LOTR, Sauron's background and childhood? It'd be fun to compare how either of them came to where they got.)

I agree. Tom Marvolo Riddle was that way from childhood. Compare to Harry who didn't really know his parents' love either. He was too young to remember the love he was surrounded with for the first 15 months of his life, his parents' and his godfather's in particular. Tom Riddle's material circumstances in the orphanage were actually better than Harry's at the Dursleys'. He had a real room, a bed, a closet, he never went hungry, he wasn't abused either verbally or physically. Yet he turned out a bully, something Harry never did.

It may have been some family trait. Tom Riddle the Elder wasn't exactly a loving man. Merope grew up in a totally dysfunctional environment. She was smitten with Tom Riddle's looks, marrying him provided her with an escape, but did she actually love him like James and Lily loved each other?

"Love" was not a concept Voldie understood. Influence and power were. He knew how to use his charm and his considerable brain to get what he wanted, until he was powerful enough not to need to charm anyone anymore. He was aware of Bellatrix's adoration and used it. It didn't keep him from punishing her when she let Harry slip through her fingers. She knew, too, that her love for him would not protect her from his wrath. In OotP, when she realizes the Prophecy had been destroyed, she pleads with him "I tried, Master, don't punish me!"

Riddle/Voldie knew how to use people, but love and loyalty, simple compassion and empathy were alien to him. Even as a kid, he terrified the other orphans just to feel his power. He often killed needlessly and without remorse (another alien emotion to him.)

To quote WWB, a classic Dark Lord. (Hey, do we know anything about the other Dark Lord, the one in LOTR, Sauron's background and childhood? It'd be fun to compare how either of them came to where they got.)

Well I thought Sauron was a divine being...but it's been a while :lol:. To my memory there is no talk of a loving youth though - and he started sympathising with Morgoth early on. Lord Sidious from Star Wars was captured young and raised by a Dark Lord so he was manipulated and unloved when young. There are other similar examples, so I would say it is certainly one classic formula that a Dark Lord's past history plays a role in the growth of an unrepentant Dark Lord, who dies doomed because they cannot find remorse or repentence. Voldemort is in that category, so Harry had little hope of gaining any remorse or repentance from him in his final hour of life. That is why I think JKR said Voldemort is less culpable than those who had love, but turned to evil.

Even if Merope had lived, I think Voldemort would have turned out to be the same way.I tend to agree. Though I believe his loveless childhood had a big influence on Voldemort's choices and characteristics, I also believe many of his personality traits were inherent. So not only did his environment serve to influence him, I'm sure his inherent traits also influenced him equally, causing him to choose one way over another. The trait I think influenced his ultimate path the most was the desire to be special and better than everyone else. That caused him to scorn his muggle father, to desire power and dominion over others, to seek immortality, to bully others, and to apply himself in the way he did at school (by being a very bright student). Though this trait might have been enhanced by the fact that he was in a setting where no one appeared to be special (a lowly orphanage) due to his mother's death, I think he would have had this trait to some degree even if his mother had lived.
Well I thought Sauron was a divine being...but it's been a whileYes in fact he is one of the lesser gods (called Maia). Morgoth, the first Enemy, was an Aina, one of the great gods under Eru (from the Silmarillion). You are correct that Sauron was a servant of Morgoth when he was "young" - he would have been immortal if he hadn't put half his life force into the Ring.

Right...he had absolutely nothing to fall back on. There was no little voice deep inside that could lift its head from time to time to remind him what love and compassion was. When Voldemort killed, there was no regret, even if the killing was useless, senseless and worth nothing to him. But imagine if as a child or young man he had been loved, there would ever be that reminder of the compassion given and returned, of kindness, of joy, of happiness and if that love had left his life, he would even have a memory of remorse to call on. But he had nothing, so when he killed he just moved on without regret and without compassion - he had no sympathy for anyone and only did favors when it was to his benefit. Even those who showed him kindness, he never let get close to him (i.e., Dumbledore) because he'd had no experience getting close to anyone. His idea was to pretend closeness while all the while manipulating and figuring ways to use those around him to his own ends.

A Classic Dark Lord.

I don't think Voldemort would have changed even if he was offered love. He was offered love by Bella. While it was not a mother's love, it was equally another powerful form of love. He would not accept it, while he may have recognized it enough to save her in the Dept. of Mysteries. But I think he saw it as a weakness like Dumbledore says and he would not let himself be swayed by it.

I don't think Voldemort would have changed even if he was offered love. He was offered love by Bella. While it was not a mother's love, it was equally another powerful form of love. He would not accept it, while he may have recognized it enough to save her in the Dept. of Mysteries. But I think he saw it as a weakness like Dumbledore says and he would not let himself be swayed by it.
I agree. But I would even add that the saving of Bella was simply a saving of a servant who will do whatever Voldemort asks of her.

I agree. But I would even add that the saving of Bella was simply a saving of a servant who will do whatever Voldemort asks of her.

But then, he would have also saved Lucius Malfoy who was his main contact at the Ministry. He saves only Bella and that too, when he is fleeing from Dumbledore. That was why I thought he knew she was in love with him; only he chose not to accept it and come under it's influence.

But then, he would have also saved Lucius Malfoy who was his main contact at the Ministry. He saves only Bella and that too, when he is fleeing from Dumbledore. That was why I thought he knew she was in love with him; only he chose not to accept it and come under it's influence.


I agree, I too feel that Voldemort knew that Bella was in love with him. I think he even understood the obsessive and imbalanced character of her love that would see her doing anything he asked. She was willing to lay down her life for him and she would do anything, no matter how reckless, to try to please him. I think Voldemort valued that, because not all of his minions were as loyal as Bella. Voldemort didn't love her because JKR said he didn't understand love, but he didn't want her to die because in his estimation, she would be invaluable to him when he was ruling the Wizard World. I think that is why he cried out when she was struck down by Molly.

Voldemort didn't love her because JKR said he didn't understand love, but he didn't want her to die because in his estimation, she would be invaluable to him when he was ruling the Wizard World. I think that is why he cried out when she was struck down by Molly.

Yes, agreed. I thought Rowling made it clear that Voldemort couldn't love at all, ever? That's what made him so different from Harry.

He cried out because she was an incredibly loyal, helpful supporter. She was probably going to be a huge part of his new...er..."government" after he killed Harry. And while Voldemort had plenty of supporters, many weren't very competent. I'm sure he knew Bellatrix was obsessed with him, which made her all the more valuable. Unlike other Death Eaters, she had risked Azkaban for him. She was fully prepared to die for him.

She would do anything for him, murder, torture, theft, and suffer whatever indignity that might entail. She killed her own relatives, three of them that we know of, in the name of her supposed love for Voldemort.
Which one is the third? There's only Tonks and Sirius. And those killings had nothing to do with Voldemort. Ok, maybe killing Tonks had, but Voldemort never told her to kill Sirius. In fact, she only killed him because he attacked her.
She was willing to lay down her life for him and she would do anything, no matter how reckless, to try to please him.
Yes, except betraying him for her sister, not trusting his judgement regarding Snape, trying to hide things from him...
Really, what has she done for him exactly? She went to Azkaban because of her loyalty not because of him, imo. By going to Azkaban and not denouncing him she made sure she would be trusted when he returned to power and not cast aside like Lucius. To me, this so called "love" of hers is nothing besides an obsession with power and with being fancied by the one she considers to have that power. Voldemort probably realized this and this is why her "love" didn't mean much to him. If anything at all. So yeah, I think it's safe to say that he was never loved. He was just being used by his followers just like they were used by him.

But JKR said Bella was in love with Voldemort. So he was loved. I agree it wasn't perhaps the type of love everyone would want, but it was love. :lol: I thought it was kind of obvious anyway from the way she acted in the books. Yeah I don't know who I was thinking of as the third family member, I can only think of Tonks and Sirius - but uh, I would say that was plenty.

Yes, agreed. I thought Rowling made it clear that Voldemort couldn't love at all, ever? That's what made him so different from Harry.

Hmm, does anyone believe that LV had the capacity to love but CHOSE not to? The entire series is about choice. The choice to do the right thing as opposed to doing the easy thing. The choice to love in the face of adversity. The choice to fight for what ought to be fought for.

Does JKR ever come out and say that he COULDN'T love, as if it was physically and mentally impossible for him or was it just that he CHOSE not to accept the emotion of love into his hardened, torn soul?

Thoughts?

Hmm, does anyone believe that LV had the capacity to love but CHOSE not to? The entire series is about choice. The choice to do the right thing as opposed to doing the easy thing.

I don't think it was so much right over easy - because for Voldemort, the "right" thing was the hard thing. That is, accepting death as a part of life, opening his heart and releasing love, etc. For Voldemort, it was much easier to find a way to cheat death and keep his heart closed as it had been since he was quite young, imo.

Does JKR ever come out and say that he COULDN'T love, as if it was physically and mentally impossible for him or was it just that he CHOSE not to accept the emotion of love into his hardened, torn soul?

Thoughts?

I don't think it is impossible for anyone to love per se. But it was very hard for Tom because he encountered so little in its pure form. Dumbledore perhaps offered the child compassion and affection, but it would not be of the long standing type he required. Perhaps finding him a loving family to live with would have been the better way to go.

---Quote (Originally by 9and3quarters)---
Hmm, does anyone believe that LV had the capacity to love but CHOSE not to? The entire series is about choice. The choice to do the right thing as opposed to doing the easy thing.

As you say, since CHOICE is one of the primary themes of HP, it seems reasonable to imagine that LV chose not to exercise his capacity to love. All his mistakes resulted from choices he made, and this was the biggest of all. It would be too sad, don't you think, if his biggest, most irrevocable mistake occurred because of a choice his mother made? Even though it provides the exact counterpoint to his nemesis' greatest triumph, which ultimately came about from a choice Harry's mother made? (That's very symmetrical, now that I think about it). I would just rather believe that LV's downfall is his own fault, because he chose what he would do and be. I realize that he may very well have been a victim of his fate--an infant abandoned, a child neglected, a young boy unloved--and thus incapable of goodness, mercy, or love...but would JKR be that cynical, especially when children comprise a huge portion of her audience? It seems far more likely that instead of saying, "He never had a chance," or "It's not *really* his fault," the message would be, "We create our own destinies," and, "We choose who we are."

I realize that he may very well have been a victim of his fate--an infant abandoned, a child neglected, a young boy unloved--and thus incapable of goodness, mercy, or love...but would JKR be that cynical, especially when children comprise a huge portion of her audience? It seems far more likely that instead of saying, "He never had a chance," or "It's not *really* his fault," the message would be, "We create our own destinies," and, "We choose who we are."
What do you mean by cynical? To me it seems quite realistic to think that a person who is that evil and full of hatred had a tragic childhood. That's not being cynical, that's a fact. What happens to us when were kids shapes who we are, makes us who we are. Why would anyone who's had a happy childhood and everything s/he wanted in life would want to kill people? That makes no sense.

What do you mean by cynical? To me it seems quite realistic to think that a person who is that evil and full of hatred had a tragic childhood. That's not being cynical, that's a fact. What happens to us when were kids shapes who we are, makes us who we are. Why would anyone who's had a happy childhood and everything s/he wanted in life would want to kill people? That makes no sense.

It doesn't, but it happens. However, I believe that Tom had a poor childhood which didn't help him out character-wise and I also believe that he chose his destiny. I think both are correct.

What do you mean by cynical? To me it seems quite realistic to think that a person who is that evil and full of hatred had a tragic childhood. That's not being cynical, that's a fact. What happens to us when were kids shapes who we are, makes us who we are. Why would anyone who's had a happy childhood and everything s/he wanted in life would want to kill people? That makes no sense.

I was thinking it would be cynical of JKR if she essentially told young people that they have no control over their ultimate destiny, that it's not up to them to choose how they will behave as adults because it's all determined by what happened (or didn't) in their childhood. That would more or less be the model portrayed by a LV who can't be held responsible for the things he did, and I have trouble believing that's the message JKR is sending out to the world.

It's certainly not unrealistic to assume hateful people had tragic childhoods, but not all of them did; there are case files of folks with normal, nurturing backgrounds who grew up to do very bad things. Likewise, there are countless numbers of people walking this earth right now who had terrible childhoods yet they are not hateful or evil adults. That is the model Harry portrays.

Harry's childhood was arguably as emotionally barren and possibly more physically devoid of nourishment as Tom Riddle's. Harry is presented many times with situations when he could easily have acted out of anger or hate but he chooses not to. And that, I trust, is the real message from JKR. We DO have a choice how we will behave despite our circumstances and despite our past. Our past doesn't have to be our future, as well.

That's what I choose to believe, anyway ;)

It doesn't, but it happens. However, I believe that Tom had a poor childhood which didn't help him out character-wise and I also believe that he chose his destiny. I think both are correct.
IMHO it's a matter of character and choice. Harry had a very unhappy, neglected childhood, to say the least. I'd wager Tom Riddle at the orphanage was better housed, clothed and cared for than Harry was at the Dursleys'. Yet Harry never grew up bitter and wanting to take it out on the whole world, Riddle did. :td:

IMHO it's a matter of character and choice. Harry had a very unhappy, neglected childhood, to say the least. I'd wager Tom Riddle at the orphanage was better housed, clothed and cared for than Harry was at the Dursleys'. Yet Harry never grew up bitter and wanting to take it out on the whole world, Riddle did. :td:

That is true, but at the same time, Tom didn't have anyone and he knew the history of his parents - which left him further unhappy. Whereas Harry knew the people who cared for him were his aunt and uncle - a real family that he belonged to. Also he knew his parents died in a car crash, but it seems by the denial he had latter on that he didn't believe that they were a couple of wastrals who hung out drinking and laying around. So he had that to be proud of. His neglect would certainly have made him unhappy.

Harry's basic character was forming when he was loved by his own parents, so perhaps that helped his overall character. There was really nothing else that could have helped him. We don't know what kind of people raised Tom, but apparently they didn't influence him to have a very good character, :lol:. But in the orphanage - perhaps to get by, we don't know - he learned all about manipulation and using his peers - so apparently his need to do that was incited by something. Harry never had the opportunity to do that and didn't figure out how to use his magic the way Tom did. Tom was a rather brilliant youngster.

But I agree that later their choices further affected their lives. Once they got to Hogwarts, Tom found himself actually living there year round. That is quite different than Harry who would return to the Dursleys and then stay with Ron's family a bit. Development wise, I am not certain which was worse, both would have their negatives.

But Tom it would seem was alone a lot more than Harry as he grew up. More free time to actually develop a liking for power and what he could do with it. He had that whole father-hate thing going on which likely really played havoc with his psyche, and then he killed him and his family - that experience was likely quite a turning point in his life. Then of course something gave him a great fear of dying. And all the while he had no one to help him work through those fears, traumas, hatred and anger with. By 11, Harry luckily did have loving support once more in his life, at least during the school year. So that might have made a difference as well.

But Voldemort too, we learn now, has been loved. Madly and for a very long time. Bella was willing to go to Azkaban for 13 years for his sake. That much love. And in the Dept. of Mysteries, Voldemort took only Bella away with him, leaving Lucius and others to the mercy of the aurors.


Yes, Bellatrix was obsessed with Voldemort, but I think it came too late in his life. He needed love while he was growing up, when he was a child. Missing out on it then meant he didn't know or want it when he was an adult.


He must have known she loved him; he shows exceptional leeway with her. Saving her in the DEpt. of Mysteries so that the aurors will not capture her shows that he understood her loyalties and perhaps more? He left Lucius Malfoy to the aurors.

Yes, I believe he knew. He used it to his advantage knowing she’d do anything for him.

I think Voldemort saw it as a weakness he could not afford to have. His mother died because she loved his father who left her and once he did, she lost the will to live even for her child's sake. So he may have perceived love as something that would bring him down.

But I also think that Voldemort was inherently evil. He did wrong things at an age that is scary. And he had no wish or will to change IMO.

I don't know if it is possible to be inherently evil...do you mean born evil?

I don't know if it is possible to be inherently evil...do you mean born evil?

Born evil.... well, let me put it this way. I think very early on, Voldemort was capable of displaying a creuelty that was pretty scary. He thought perhaps that any way was the right way; the goal alone was important, not the means. And his goal was power over others I think. He needed to be someone because he was a nobody in the orphanage IMO.

I think it was in his blood at the very first second he was was born. I mean he is the heir of Slytherin.

Born evil.... well, let me put it this way. I think very early on, Voldemort was capable of displaying a creuelty that was pretty scary. He thought perhaps that any way was the right way; the goal alone was important, not the means. And his goal was power over others I think. He needed to be someone because he was a nobody in the orphanage IMO.

I believe that he was born evil. From a young age he found pleasure in seeing others in pain, and used his magic to do horrible and nasty things. I think that part of his problem may have been the fact that his family had been the product of inbredding, although he was not directly an inbred. Also, I've seen suggestions that as Voldemort was born out of a fake love, and was then never given proper love or time, that he could never understand love, and without love he could only see evil. And evil deeds seemed more appealing. At his young age, he never had anyone to dissuade him from getting so evil, either. It sounds as though I'm making excuses, though. I hold Voldemort responsible for how he turned out. He had many chances to stop and to let him conscience to work and get him to realise exactly how evil he was. He chose to become who he was.

I believe that he was born evil. From a young age he found pleasure in seeing others in pain, and used his magic to do horrible and nasty things. I think that part of his problem may have been the fact that his family had been the product of inbredding, although he was not directly an inbred. Also, I've seen suggestions that as Voldemort was born out of a fake love, and was then never given proper love or time, that he could never understand love, and without love he could only see evil. And evil deeds seemed more appealing. At his young age, he never had anyone to dissuade him from getting so evil, either. It sounds as though I'm making excuses, though. I hold Voldemort responsible for how he turned out. He had many chances to stop and to let him conscience to work and get him to realise exactly how evil he was. He chose to become who he was.I second that. He had every chance to change his ways, but he chose his path from early on, and stuck with it. He never wanted to be good -- like you said, he enjoyed seeing others in pain, and used his magic in the most evil and malicious ways.

I believe that he was born evil. From a young age he found pleasure in seeing others in pain, and used his magic to do horrible and nasty things. I think that part of his problem may have been the fact that his family had been the product of inbredding, although he was not directly an inbred. Also, I've seen suggestions that as Voldemort was born out of a fake love, and was then never given proper love or time, that he could never understand love, and without love he could only see evil. And evil deeds seemed more appealing. At his young age, he never had anyone to dissuade him from getting so evil, either. It sounds as though I'm making excuses, though. I hold Voldemort responsible for how he turned out. He had many chances to stop and to let him conscience to work and get him to realise exactly how evil he was. He chose to become who he was.

I think your message kind of contradicts itself. First you say Voldemort was born evil and had no one to dissuade him from being evil but then you say that he is responsible for how he turned out (which is impossible if his condition is hereditary) and that he had many chances to change his ways.
I have to say I don't think Voldemort had any opportunities to change his ways. Why should he? They were working. Mrs Cole could never catch him doing anything bad, thus he was never punished for what he did. At school the teachers loved him, he was considered handsome and charming and was made head boy. There was nobody telling him he needed to change, in fact everybody loved him the way he was. Except probably Dumbledore who only taught him that stealing was wrong but didn't exactly consider him evil.

I think your message kind of contradicts itself. First you say Voldemort was born evil and had no one to dissuade him from being evil but then you say that he is responsible for how he turned out (which is impossible if his condition is hereditary) and that he had many chances to change his ways.


You're right. I have completely contradicted myself. Horribly. :lol: Probably because I was thinking one thing and then another idea popped into my head.

Okay, so less contradiction. I think it could be both his hereditary and his own fault. By being born into that family, he had inherited the kind of nature that they had, IMO. However, no matter what background you come from you always have the choice to change. Voldemort enjoyed what he was doing, especially when it involved pain and torture, which is something he may have inherited, however, he always had the choice not to do it. If that makes sense...:)

I have to say I don't think Voldemort had any opportunities to change his ways. Why should he? They were working. Mrs Cole could never catch him doing anything bad, thus he was never punished for what he did. At school the teachers loved him, he was considered handsome and charming and was made head boy. There was nobody telling him he needed to change, in fact everybody loved him the way he was. Except probably Dumbledore who only taught him that stealing was wrong but didn't exactly consider him evil.

Why should someone need to be told to change to actually change? Everyone always has a choice. He always had the choice not to kill somebody, or not to give a Death Eater the order to torture someone. However, applying it to Voldemort, and knowing his personality, he believed himself to be the best, and prided himself in being one of the most feared wizards of all time. He didn't want to change, and that was his choice. :)

That made sense in my head...not sure if it did in my post. :lol:

Why should someone need to be told to change to actually change?
You don't need to be necessarily told to change but you do need a reason and Voldemort had none. Why should he change? He didn't think he was doing anything wrong. His way of life was working for him.

You don't need to be necessarily told to change but you do need a reason and Voldemort had none. Why should he change? He didn't think he was doing anything wrong. His way of life was working for him.

I agree. Voldemort wanted control and his way of getting it seemed to be working fine. He hated muggles and muggleborns and he saw nothing evil in ridding the world of these people who were 'ruining' wizards with their low class blood. He won and at other times turned his losses into wins, so from his perspective he didn't figure there was any reason to change.

From the conversation he had with Dumbledore, it does not seem that Dumbledore was much help to him in that regard. Dumbledore knew what type of a child he was, he should have spent much more time with him in his youth attempting to guide him - although maybe he did and maybe that was the problem - Dumbledore was not exactly a bastion of good judgment when it came to making moral calls and just decisions, imo.

1) Do you think Voldemort deserves to be voted the "number one villain"? What qualities and/or actions make you think so (either way)?

2) What do you think of Voldemort's takeover plan in DH? What do you believe his ultimate objectives were? To rid England/the World of Half-Born and Muggle born Witches and Wizards. To be the ruler of the Wizarding World. To feed off people's fears.

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? There are some people who are just born "evil" or sociopaths. Raising a Child in an Orphanage or an abusive situation only intensifies this predisposition in them. There was a study done on young Boys who went out and killed someone. They were interviewed after the murder. When asked why, the Boys said "Because I wanted to see how it felt". The study went on to say they Boys felt no remourse, no disgust at their actions. It also found that when they were babies, they were beaten for crying and left in their cribs for hours. Their "Mothers" said they "never cried" to be changed, etc. This is how Tom was. Remember Mrs. Case said "he never cried as a baby" and didn't like to be cuddled, comforted, etc. Most babies crave some form of cuddling, etc. How did his childhood environment affect who he became? I'm reading HBP and Mrs. Case seemed afraid of NOT getting rid of Tom. Remember she asked Dumbledore if Tom would be going to Hogwarts no matter what he did, she made triple sure that regardless of whatever she told him, Dumbledore would still take Tom. This made it clear she was disgusted by him. He made the Orphanage look bad. She didn't want to be held responsible, frighten away clients. I'm not condoning or excusing what Tom did, but if I was a Child and I heard the Woman who was supposed to look after me saying "You promise that regardless of what I tell you, you'll still take her", I'd be pretty angry.
Of course Tom would suspect Albus was a Doctor from an Institution, coming to give him an injection and carry him off in a straight jacket. He knew people hated him, feared him. He knew he was seen as a freak. So anyone who came to talk to him was really giving a psych analysis, sizing him up, talking behind his back, etc. What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Just what he told Harry, he wanted to separate himself from his worthless Muggle Father and Muggles in General. He wanted to strike fear, much like a Serial Killer. He wanted people to lock their doors, look behind their back, etc. Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts? To learn how Muggles behave. To listen to their speech patterns, watch the way they walk and communicate with each other. He wanted to fit in to society so he wouldn't stick out like a sore thum. So he then could commit crimes and have no one suspect him.

4) Professor Trelawney prophesied that the Dark Lord would return more powerful than before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKR
...Lord Voldemort requires my constant presence at the moment, as his Dark plans are unfolding in all their grisly glory. I hope those of you who voted for him in the Big Bad Read enjoy reading about him in book seven, where he finally gets the legroom for which he has been aching during all those years in exile.

What things do you expect Lord Voldemort to do to show this greater power and increased legroom? Which of his plans can move forward now that Albus Dumbledore is dead?

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers? Well, it depends on what type of personality you have. If you're easily intimidated, then they're very effective. How do his methods compare to those of other leaders in the Potterverse? Very poor. Harry used that "Atta Boy" "You've almost got it" "That's what I'm talkin' about!" motivational leadership style. The Students wanted to master those skills without going behind someone's back, knocking people over in the process, etc.

6. Voldemort has committed murder, "the supreme act of evil" according to Horace Slughorn. But it seems that splitting one's soul ("an act of violation, it is against nature" according to Slughorn) multiple times is also supremely evil. How has the act of creating Horcruxes damaged and/or aided Voldemort? Well, it tore his soul apart, though as long as he got what he wanted, Voldemort didn't care. It only made him more inhuman, Alien-like and easier for Harry to kill.

7. What flaws do you think led to his downfall? His arrogance. He was so arrogant, he thought he could calculate Harry's every move and thought. He was so arrogant, he didn't see Severus Snape's treachery. Could he have avoided it? No, because he thought he was right and didn't say "I'm sorry" for killing anyone. He didn't show any remourse for killing anyone.

There are some people who are just born "evil" or sociopaths. Raising a Child in an Orphanage or an abusive situation only intensifies this predisposition in them. There was a study done on young Boys who went out and killed someone. They were interviewed after the murder. When asked why, the Boys said "Because I wanted to see how it felt". The study went on to say they Boys felt no remourse, no disgust at their actions. It also found that when they were babies, they were beaten for crying and left in their cribs for hours. Their "Mothers" said they "never cried" to be changed, etc. This is how Tom was. Remember Mrs. Case said "he never cried as a baby" and didn't like to be cuddled, comforted, etc. Most babies crave some form of cuddling, etc.

That may be true according to some that study the behavior of sociopaths, but I don't think JKR intended for Voldemort to be born evil.

Was Voldemort born evil?
JK Rowling replies -> I don't believe that anybody was born evil. You will find out more about the circumstances of his birth in the next book.

I do think that the the fact that Voldemort was coneived out of "fake love," for lack of a better term, is essential to why Voldemort feels no love. I just don't think that he was intended to ever be "born evil"; JKR said that she had given him choices, and I agree with her.

5. How effective are Voldemort's methods for controlling his followers?

Voldemort's metods in controlling his followers are poor, IMO. He does not use his trust and belief in his followers in order for them to remain loyal to him; instead he uses death and torture as a way of forcing his followers to obey him. He even uses death as a weapon to keep Peter loyal to him, knowing how easily convinced he could be, by giving him a hand that would strangle him if he betrayed Voldemort. His followers are never truly loyal to him, despite this threat, because it is such a poor method to keep followers.

Originally posted by: beatifically
He does not use his trust and belief in his followers in order for them to remain loyal to him;

I always thought this is because he doesn’t have trust or belief in anyone – an other sign of how isolated he is from humanity

Humm a character analysis of Voldy!

Tom Marvalo Riddle obviously had a very poor childhood, could it be that which causes him to become Lord Voldemort? Lets consider the main points of his character
1. Independant
2. Gifted
3. Unloving
4. Downright evil!

My opinion is that all of these stem from his poor childhood, im not using this as a excuse or defence because its not and I dislike Riddle to the same extent as any true Harry fan does but we all turn out as we do for a reason. I think how his upbringing effected him could be the main reason. Fine you can argue that you can be genetically evil but look at his family, his mother wasn't evil and nor was his dad (just scared I imagine) but the fact they abandoned him effects Riddle as it effects Harry whos parents die for him. Except in reverse Voldemort finds he cannot love anyone but Harry has so much love its hard to believe! His independant character would also come from the fact he has always been alone. Slughorn says in HBP that gifted wizards have always been attracted to the Dark Arts and Riddle is no different except he expands on that and uses it to cause pain. Is this vengence on the family who left him? If anything is for certain Riddle is a very bitter man... well part man anyway.


We see from Dumbledore's memory that Riddle is "bad" from a very early age. Possibly a defence mecanism? Possibly attention seeking? Or is it just a cry for help from a small boy who lost his way?

Here's something that has bothered me for a while

In the books, its been mentioned that Voldemort became the most dangerous dark wizard taking the spot from Grindelwald. On what basis did the Wizarding community decide this? Is it because Voldemort killed and tortured more people than Grindelwald? His quest for immortality and horcruxes were not public knowledge. What crimes did he do to get top spot?

Speaking of crimes, I think Voldemort's worst crime was to himself - splitting his soul several times.

What do you guys think?

The horcruxes alone would make Voldemort the most dangerous. Added to that was the fact Grindelwald did not operate much in the U.K IMO. His reign of terror was in mainland Europe, I think. While Voldemort terrorized Britain and also extended his rule across Europe. So perhaps for people he was worse than Grindelwald?

What I don't understand though is why didn't Voldemort try and terrorize and rule Britian the most. It didn't say anywhere in the books that Voldemort went to other places in Europe or America or Asia. It's kind of strange that he didn't aim for the whole world.

Well for that he had to get control of britain first, and that was being difficult because of Dumbledore and harry, not to mention the Prophecy hanging on his head. In the first war he did spread a lot of terror, so much that people were scared to call him by name, even years after Halloween 1981.

Here's something that has bothered me for a while

In the books, its been mentioned that Voldemort became the most dangerous dark wizard taking the spot from Grindelwald. On what basis did the Wizarding community decide this? Is it because Voldemort killed and tortured more people than Grindelwald? His quest for immortality and horcruxes were not public knowledge. What crimes did he do to get top spot?

Speaking of crimes, I think Voldemort's worst crime was to himself - splitting his soul several times.

What do you guys think?

I personally think it was how untouchable he was. The wizarding world didn't know about his horcruxes, but they did think he was too tough, untouchable. Also, I kind of think maybe he got to power faster or had more control. As we saw in his second rise, it didn't take long for him to take over everything and kill so many people. Maybe Grindelwald had less or was never really too much in power....

What I don't understand though is why didn't Voldemort try and terrorize and rule Britian the most. It didn't say anywhere in the books that Voldemort went to other places in Europe or America or Asia. It's kind of strange that he didn't aim for the whole world.

I kind of agree with The_Green_Woods. But I also want to add that Voldy wanted to use Britain, which in history has been a very successful country mugglewise (and I'm assuming wizarding too), other less developed countries would see the example and cower in fear or something. Besides, he was smart enough to not be like Hitler and bite off more than he can chew.

I was reading a book claiming to identify Jack the Ripper, when the author discussed what is known about psychopaths. I thought it an excellent description of Lord Voldemort.

"Psychopaths are uniquely different from one another.... The combination of anitsocial behaviors are countless, but the most distinctive and profound characteristic of all psychopaths is that they do not feel remorse. They have no concept of guilt. They do not have a conscience."

"Psychopaths are incapable of love. When they show what appears to be regret... these expressions [are] not out of any genuine consideration for another creature. Psychopaths are often attractive, charismatic, and above average in intelligence.... There is no cure."

The author then goes on to discuss the brain, specifically the frontal lobe. "Lesions, such as tumors or damage from a head injury, can turn a well-behaved person into a stranger with poor self-control and aggressive or violent tendencies.... The psychopathic brain, however, cannot be wholly accounted for by traumatic childhoods and brain lesions. Studies... reveal that there is less neural activity in a psychopath's frontal lobe than there is in a "normal" person's. This suggests that the inhibitions and constraints... do not register.... That it is wrong to steal, rape, assault, lie, or do anything else that degrades, cheats and dehumanizes others does not compute with the psychopath."

I think you'll agree that the character of Lord Voldemort might have been developed from this psychopathic template. Disregarding that he's a fictional villain, there has been some debate whether better circumstances in his early life might have led to a different outcome. For instance, if he had been raised by his mother instead of in an orphanage. Yet if his brain had been as described above, possibly the result of generations of inbreeding, then maternal affection would not have changed that. Perhaps she might have become one of those women who know their son is a psychopath, but refuse to do anything to protect others from him. I will only concede that life in the orphanage may have given him the ambition to be "special" which he might not have had otherwise.

Disregarding that he's a fictional villain, there has been some debate whether better circumstances in his early life might have led to a different outcome. For instance, if he had been raised by his mother instead of in an orphanage. Yet if his brain had been as described above, possibly the result of generations of inbreeding, then maternal affection would not have changed that. Perhaps she might have become one of those women who know their son is a psychopath, but refuse to do anything to protect others from him. I will only concede that life in the orphanage may have given him the ambition to be "special" which he might not have had otherwise.

While agree with your previous observations I do not agree with conclusion you draw from them. The assumption that the formation of a fully function brain is the result of nature not nurture alone has been scientifically disproved. Neural development is a synergy of both factors. It has been proven that our experiences directly affect the growth of the brain (in terms of the formation of neural pathway for example), therefore to assume that the general tendencies of brain function in psychopaths indicates that psychopaths are born and not made one with is supported by science.

It is interesting, or at least I think it is :p, to look at various developmental theories, such as attachment theory in relation to TMR / LV. Many also have very profound correspondences with Voldemort / Riddle. :)

I personally think it was how untouchable he was. The wizarding world didn't know about his horcruxes, but they did think he was too tough, untouchable. Also, I kind of think maybe he got to power faster or had more control. As we saw in his second rise, it didn't take long for him to take over everything and kill so many people. Maybe Grindelwald had less or was never really too much in power....

I think DH said Grindelwald was in power for 5 years - or at least Dumbledore waited 5 years from the time he found out what Grindelwald was doing to try to stop him. Voldemort's rise the first time was approximately 10 years I think. But both it seems got things going fairly quickly. I don't know if Grindlewald was able to do as muh before he was stopped - if it was just the 5 years, that would explain it, but he may have started sooner.

But I would agree that Voldemort's talent and intellect made him a very tough person to deal with. Grindlewald too was brilliant, Dumbledore said they were on the same level more or less when it came to wizard formidability. I think Voldemort was approaching that level as well, and would have been at their level in time if he had not already attained it. Nonetheless, Voldemort did give off an untouchable aura and I suppose that is why no one really tried to storm in and take him down and why Dumbledore used more subtle and cunning methods to bring him down.

In the end, Voldemort kind of dug his own grave, imo, because of his decision to take Harry's blood and create the horcurxes. Also because he did not research certain types of magic - which is a little odd in such a brilliant individual, imo. In all of his wisdom, one wouldn't think he would make these mistakes as they are pretty catastrophic - with the exception of the taking of the blood which could have worked to his benefit if things had gone right. But mainly the horcruxes; that was a really bad idea. I mean, it certainly had its benefits, but in the long run, it meant giving up too much of himself and also it was based in keeping too many scattered items safe. I don't know why he didn't have DEs posted in guard of the items at all times - and have them in places where that could be achieved. Then on top of magical protection, anyone trying to destroy them would also have to combat actual wizards - and those men could fight to the death to save the items.

Below, i have posted a link to an article which explains what Riddle might have been doing during his summer holidays at Hogwarts (plus more). A very good read.

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

I was reading a book claiming to identify Jack the Ripper, when the author discussed what is known about psychopaths. I thought it an excellent description of Lord Voldemort.

"Psychopaths are uniquely different from one another.... The combination of anitsocial behaviors are countless, but the most distinctive and profound characteristic of all psychopaths is that they do not feel remorse. They have no concept of guilt. They do not have a conscience."

"Psychopaths are incapable of love. When they show what appears to be regret... these expressions [are] not out of any genuine consideration for another creature. Psychopaths are often attractive, charismatic, and above average in intelligence.... There is no cure."

The author then goes on to discuss the brain, specifically the frontal lobe. "Lesions, such as tumors or damage from a head injury, can turn a well-behaved person into a stranger with poor self-control and aggressive or violent tendencies.... The psychopathic brain, however, cannot be wholly accounted for by traumatic childhoods and brain lesions. Studies... reveal that there is less neural activity in a psychopath's frontal lobe than there is in a "normal" person's. This suggests that the inhibitions and constraints... do not register.... That it is wrong to steal, rape, assault, lie, or do anything else that degrades, cheats and dehumanizes others does not compute with the psychopath."

I think you'll agree that the character of Lord Voldemort might have been developed from this psychopathic template. Disregarding that he's a fictional villain, there has been some debate whether better circumstances in his early life might have led to a different outcome. For instance, if he had been raised by his mother instead of in an orphanage. Yet if his brain had been as described above, possibly the result of generations of inbreeding, then maternal affection would not have changed that. Perhaps she might have become one of those women who know their son is a psychopath, but refuse to do anything to protect others from him. I will only concede that life in the orphanage may have given him the ambition to be "special" which he might not have had otherwise.

I don't believe that Tom was born Evil Incarnate, but was merely born with a genetic disposition for Antisocial Personality Disorder (aka Sociopathic Personality Distrubance). People who suffer from Antisocial Personaility show the following traits: emotional immaturity, impulsivity, egocentricity and selfishness, antisocial or asocial or amoral behavior, poor judgement, unreliability, lack of consideration for the consequences of his actions, inability to postpne immediate gratifications, defiance of authority, tendency to project his shortcomings onto the world about him, and an inner conviction he is immune to the usual social customs and laws.

The disease is developed from both biological/genetic and enviormental factos. I believe Tom already had the gentic disposition for the disease, and it was his enviorment and upbringing that triggered it.

I think there is a possibility that the love potion that was he was conceived under mayhave been the thing that gave him a genetic dispostion. We know nothing about how a love potion might affect the conception of a fetus. The possibility that the love potion may affected his development as a fetus, and messed up the development of his brain, and thus making him be incapable of matching his morals to society's.

The absence of parents and parent-figures (either from neglect or not being physical there) can also trigger the disease in a child. And TMR did have no parental figure, and that is factor that could have been changed. Merope can't change Tom having a gentic disposition for Antisocial Personality Disorder, but if she lived and loved him, there may be nothing that triggered it in him.

But that just my opinion.

Does anyone think that there was the slightest chance that Voldemort could love at all? Like when he was a child, does anyone think he loved something or someone? I don't think a person can possibly be born evil. Not even someone as devious and horrid as he.

Does anyone think that there was the slightest chance that Voldemort could love at all? Like when he was a child, does anyone think he loved something or someone? I don't think a person can possibly be born evil. Not even someone as devious and horrid as he.

MAYBE if he was loving himself:lol:

Well, actually, he prob. hated himself, after all those horrible things he's done.


If he felt remorse like Harry said in DH, maybe he could learn to love, starting with the simple things like nature and butterflies, then maybe people.:)

Does anyone think that there was the slightest chance that Voldemort could love at all? Like when he was a child, does anyone think he loved something or someone? I don't think a person can possibly be born evil. Not even someone as devious and horrid as he.

I don't know about when he was a child, but I think he cared for Bellatrix in his own way. I think Voldmeort saw love as a weakness, something that would make him vulnarable and bring him down that he never gave importance to that emtoion. He thought all those who loved were vulnerable because they loved IMO.

Voldemort loved. He loved power.

I don't know about when he was a child, but I think he cared for Bellatrix in his own way.
He cared for all his Death Eaters in that they were useful to him in achieving his goals. He only cared for their usefulness and nothing else. There was no love. Look what he did to Severus when he thought he could be master of the Elder wand - he just killed him. Yes, he said he regretted it, but that is because he lost who he thought was a good servant - not because he loved him. He loved no one but himself and only cared for people's usefulness, not the people themselves.

As for when he was younger, he may have been capable of it, but he was never shown love and thus didn't know what it felt like. He had the choice to take that path and he didn't. He could have learned to love but he just saw it as a weakness.

I have a question or better yet, an issue of uncertainty I thought you people could help me straighten up.
Lord Voldemort hated muggles straight away or did his hatred started when he found out his muggle dad had left his mom?

I know and have very clear he felt superior since the very moment he found out he was a wizard. Even before that he shows signs of thinking he was "special" . But his hatred of them, did it start from knowing how his father had done?
What are your thougths?

I have a question or better yet, an issue of uncertainty I thought you people could help me straighten up.
Lord Voldemort hated muggles straight away or did his hatred started when he found out his muggle dad had left his mom?

I know and have very clear he felt superior since the very moment he found out he was a wizard. Even before that he shows signs of thinking he was "special" . But his hatred of them, did it start from knowing how his father had done?
What are your thougths?

My thought are that Voldemort always has this hatred in him. As a child, he just didn't like people and he wanted to hurt them. But since he didn't know he was a wizard yet, what he felt was this hatred against "people" (as in Muggles, not including wizards, because he didn't know that they existed yet) all while he still considered himself different, but still a person. I can imagine his agony of him wishing he was different/special enough just so he could stand apart from "people". As I feel from personal experience, when you hate people in general so much, you sometimes become angry that you share the same human race, and you become so disatisfied with life and everything, and you just wish you aren't human. When he finally learned that he was a wizard, he probably thought it was the best thing ever to be, and it probably gave him such glorious relief to his agony. And when he learned what his father had done, I think it was a slap in the face to everything Voldemort felt about himself. Voldemort was so proud and happy to be a wizard, because it meant to him that he was special, and then to learn that his muggle father left him and his mother because for the exact reason Voldemort thought himself was special. That's where I think Voldemort snapped into further hatred of muggles. To him, not only were Muggles unspecial compared to wizards, but Muggles can't even appreciate/accept wizards. I think Voldemort saw his skewed version of his parents' marriage as the baisis of all muggle-wizard relations. And that just intesified the hatred he already had.

That's where I think Voldemort snapped into further hatred of muggles. To him, not only were Muggles unspecial compared to wizards, but Muggles can't even appreciate/accept wizards. I think Voldemort saw his skewed version of his parents' marriage as the baisis of all muggle-wizard relations. And that just intesified the hatred he already had.
So you are saying he already hated them and this knowledge only intensified and reassured the feeling he had towards them?
Do you know if he oppened the chamber of secrets before or after finding out all these?

Voldemort loved. He loved power.

I know people have said this before, but it really rings true. I know some of you guys mentioned flaws in DH, about Voldy taking over the ministry and not killing more muggleborns, but was it really necessary??? Above all Voldy wanted power he wanted to be the most powerful wizard in the universe. He had already taken over the ministry what would be the point of killing more muggleborns? He probably wanted to make them slaves ( or already did, I can't remember.lol) He's not like Bella killing or torturing people for the fun of it. I think he does what he thinks is necessary to make him more powerful. He also saw power in the Elder wand, it was an unbeatable wand so he's going to be fixated on it. Therefore he didn't pay attention to what was going on around him ( horcruxes deatheaters ,etc),which lead to his downfall.

I know people have said this before, but it really rings true. I know some of you guys mentioned flaws in DH, about Voldy taking over the ministry and not killing more muggleborns, but was it really necessary??? Above all Voldy wanted power he wanted to be the most powerful wizard in the universe. He had already taken over the ministry what would be the point of killing more muggleborns? He probably wanted to make them slaves ( or already did, I can't remember.lol) He's not like Bella killing or torturing people for the fun of it. I think he does what he thinks is necessary to make him more powerful. He also saw power in the Elder wand, it was an unbeatable wand so he's going to be fixated on it. Therefore he didn't pay attention to what was going on around him ( horcruxes deatheaters ,etc),which lead to his downfall.

But the Death Eater controlled Ministry of Magic was actively seeking out muggle-borns and blood traitors to put them on trial and possibly imprison or murder them...In DH, Voldemort was concerned with eliminating what may have been the greatest threat to his regime and power: Harry Potter, and since Harry's wand acted of it's own accord and destroyed Lucius's wand, this bred an obsession in Voldemort's mind to find the unbeatable wand to be able to conquer Harry once and for all.

There are also theories that Voldemort himself wasn't that racist, that he only supported this ideology to gather followers. He was willing to recruit Lily to his side even if she was a muggle-born. Voldemort was smart, he wasn't going to turn down talent if the wizard was of muggle heritage. I do think he was racist and a superiority complex too though.

He's a complex character.

Oh and about Voldemort 'loving' power...I don't think it's love if it doesn't apply to a person...I suppose it depends on how you define 'love'.

I believe Voldemort's goals were to take over wizarding Britain, turning it into an absolute dictatorship, purify the wizarding race by killing all muggle-borns, legalize dark magic, subjugate all magical creatures and then eventually branch out taking over the entire wizarding world, finally doing away with the statue of secrecy and leading wizards out of hiding all over the planet to take over the muggle world and rule over muggles like slaves or animals. With his horcruxes in-place, he would have been able to rule for all time, never dying.

Total control, absolute power. Forever.

Quite frightening actually... :scared:

Okay, my mistake I haven't read it in a while.

But I was reading some comments to this article about The Joker succeeding as a villian where Voldemort failed. There were really interesting comments, most say that Voldemort was a waay more interesting villian in HBP than DH.

Here are some good points that the commenters made

"I just want to add that I think that Rowling might have intentionally made Voldemort narrow and less complex by the time Harry faced him. If you think about real life evil villains, such as Hitler or Stalin or Idi Amin, and their ilk, they seem to be just as locked into the same sort of two-dimensional existence as Voldemort. They only see things from their own point of view, don’t listen to anyone else, don’t really have any concern for others and that sort of path leads them to their own end. It’s not that they will self-destruct if ignored or left alone; they could go on for a very long time if not challenged."


Another one

"Voldemort on his way to being completely evil is more compelling than the end result. I’d say in COS & HBP we get the best views of Voldemort while he is still somewhat human & thus able to be empathized with to some extent. Christian Coulson was able to pull this off to an extent in the film COS. We’ll see if whoever is playing young Voldy in HBP can do it.

Voldemort does become what he’s set himself up to be, a loner who only thinks of himself & only uses others. Thus, others don’t really count. They’re only things to be used or disposed of. I’m not sure what to make of his response to Bellatrix’s death in DH. Is his reaction one of concern for her (doubtful) or just a concern that one of his best tools has been done away with?

Whether JKR meant to show these things about Voldy or not, I’m not sure. The phrase she uses to describe his death is interesting, though. “With a mundane finality Riddle’s body hit the floor.” Mundane tends to infer something common & ordinary. The results of evil are not exciting or interesting but, as you say, trite, boring, & pitiful. Voldy’s death is anticlimatic, of no account, boring even. No blaze of glory for him. He’s tried so hard to be somebody, to set himself above others, to be unique but in the end he’s nothing special."

Here's a link

http://thehogshead.org/why-joker-succeeds-and-voldy-fails-part-i/


A lot of the commenters didn't talk about Batman and the Joker because they didn't know the history of the Comic book. So they ended up talking about HP, whereas the article discusses both.:lol:



"

So you are saying he already hated them and this knowledge only intensified and reassured the feeling he had towards them?
Do you know if he oppened the chamber of secrets before or after finding out all these?

Well, he opened the chamber during his 6th year i guess since he metions that he did not dare to open it again during his time at Hogwarts. The summer between his 6th and 7th year he went out to find out stuff about his past. Thats when he killed his grandparents and father. So I guess that he did not have the knowlage about his past in the sence that he hade killed it (lol) but I guess that he hade a clue when he opened the chamber.

I believe Voldemort's goals were to take over wizarding Britain, turning it into an absolute dictatorship, purify the wizarding race by killing all muggle-borns, legalize dark magic, subjugate all magical creatures and then eventually branch out taking over the entire wizarding world, finally doing away with the statue of secrecy and leading wizards out of hiding all over the planet to take over the muggle world and rule over muggles like slaves or animals. With his horcruxes in-place, he would have been able to rule for all time, never dying.

Total control, absolute power. Forever.

Quite frightening actually... :scared:

And quite enthralling in terms of literary villains... ;)

Not that I would ever condone such developments in real life, but I do find this, non-threatening, way of exploring the boundaries of human ability to wreak chaos and destruction fascinating.

I don't think Riddle had any goals that didn't ultimately lead to himself, though. He wasn't out to 'purify the wizarding race'; in the light of other things we learn about him, I'd say he was simply out to purify himself - eliminating Muggles and Muggleborns from his world would also effectively eliminate that part of his ancestry.

Introducing Dark Arts as a legal (preferred, even) means of magical practice would bring into the spotlight things he was best at.

Doing away with the statute of secrecy and taking over the world? "Hello people, here I am - that statusless, overlooked kid everyone avoided..." :lol:

The Horcruxes are rather self-explanatory, I think... remember what Jo said on the subject?

"Voldemort's fear is death, ignominious death. I mean, he regards death itself as ignominious. He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness, as you know. His worst fear is death"

So, 'purifying' himself again...

Ah, the sheer, blinding arrogance of it all... :lol:

Too bad she made him such a dunce in DH. No wonder HBP's my favorite HP book of all times... ;)

I believe Voldemort's goals were to take over wizarding Britain, turning it into an absolute dictatorship, purify the wizarding race by killing all muggle-borns, legalize dark magic, subjugate all magical creatures and then eventually branch out taking over the entire wizarding world, finally doing away with the statue of secrecy and leading wizards out of hiding all over the planet to take over the muggle world and rule over muggles like slaves or animals. With his horcruxes in-place, he would have been able to rule for all time, never dying.

The only trouble with this is that Britain's magical community -- indeed the global magical community -- is far outnumbered by the Muggle population. :whistle:

Even with magic on their side, I really don't think they would have got far.

But that's not an issue which is raised in the books. :) The Muggle world is always kept at the margins. :cool:

I don't think Riddle had any goals that didn't ultimately lead to himself, though. He wasn't out to 'purify the wizarding race'; in the light of other things we learn about him, I'd say he was simply out to purify himself - eliminating Muggles and Muggleborns from his world would also effectively eliminate that part of his ancestry.

Introducing Dark Arts as a legal (preferred, even) means of magical practice would bring into the spotlight things he was best at.

Doing away with the statute of secrecy and taking over the world? "Hello people, here I am - that statusless, overlooked kid everyone avoided..." :lol:

The Horcruxes are rather self-explanatory, I think... remember what Jo said on the subject?

"Voldemort's fear is death, ignominious death. I mean, he regards death itself as ignominious. He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness, as you know. His worst fear is death"

So, 'purifying' himself again...

Yes. :tu: It's all about him. :cool:

Too bad she made him such a dunce in DH.

:lol:

Too bad she made him such a dunce in DH.
:lol:

Well, she did! :grumble:

Then again, the original line might have proven a bit too much for the hero... so it's all 'For the Greater Good', I suppose. :relax:

One more thing... I think someone mentioned Dark Lord's reaction to Bella's death?

I actually believe that was emotion - the Cross Baby had to have a root in some action or another...

One more thing... I think someone mentioned Dark Lord's reaction to Bella's death?

I actually believe that was emotion - the Cross Baby had to have a root in some action or another...
This got me thinking... Whether or not the Bella/Voldemort relationship was one sided or two sided is a matter of interpretation but one things is for sure and that is that she at least had feelings for him. Which begs the question: are we supposed to see Voldemort as someone who deserves to be loved? Being loved by someone is in a way a sort of redemption. If someone loves you, that means there must be something about you which deserves being loved. If I were a writer and if I wanted to create a character who was the embodiement of evil, then I certainly wouldn't make any character in love with him/her because such a character would not deserve to be loved. JKR "gave" Voldemort a woman. And if you think about it Bella may be evil (otherwise she wouldn't fall for Voldie, obviously) but she isn't exactly a loser. She comes from a noble family, she is powerful both magically and character wise, and she is (or at least used to be) very attractive. So why does he deserve someone like that? Surely there must be something about him which is...eh...lovable. And even if Bellatrix were an ugly loser, Voldemort would still receive love from someone and for a character who despises love so much it doesn't seem as though he really deserves it. Love is very important in the HP books and it is mostly reserved for good characters and grey ones like Lucius. It would have been a nice symbolism if the most evil character in the books, the character which looks upon love with contempt didn't actually receive any.

PS: I don't personally think that Bella loved Voldemort but I know there are people who do and that's why I'm asking. And even if she didn't love him, she still shows some emotional attachment to him.

This got me thinking... Whether or not the Bella/Voldemort relationship was one sided or two sided is a matter of interpretation but one things is for sure and that is that she at least had feelings for him. Which begs the question: are we supposed to see Voldemort as someone who deserves to be loved? Being loved by someone is in a way a sort of redemption. If someone loves you, that means there must be something about you which deserves being loved. If I were a writer and if I wanted to create a character who was the embodiement of evil, then I certainly wouldn't make any character in love with him/her because such a character would not deserve to be loved. JKR "gave" Voldemort a woman. And if you think about it Bella may be evil (otherwise she wouldn't fall for Voldie, obviously) but she isn't exactly a loser. She comes from a noble family, she is powerful both magically and character wise, and she is (or at least used to be) very attractive. So why does he deserve someone like that? Surely there must be something about him which is...eh...lovable. And even if Bellatrix were an ugly loser, Voldemort would still receive love from someone and for a character who despises love so much it doesn't seem as though he really deserves it. Love is very important in the HP books and it is mostly reserved for good characters and grey ones like Lucius. It would have been a nice symbolism if the most evil character in the books, the character which looks upon love with contempt didn't actually receive any.

PS: I don't personally think that Bella loved Voldemort but I know there are people who do and that's why I'm asking. And even if she didn't love him, she still shows some emotional attachment to him.

In the books there are so many scenes where Bella seems to be in love with Voldemort, although this could obviously still be incredible loyalty, because out of the bad actions Bella has taken, if there's one unbelieve feature about her, it will be her loyalty.

However, Bellatrix was married, even though JKR never mentions anything about him being murdered or still in Azkaban or hiding. He and Bella were in azkaban together, we know this, but we've never heard anything about him also being released after all the groupescapes.

I am not too sure, but I think Rudolphus was released along with Bellatrix in Harry's 5th year (13 death eaters released IIRC), when Voldmeort broke out those who were supposed to stand in the gaps in his Inner Circle (in the graveyard speech).

I am not too sure, but I think Rudolphus was released along with Bellatrix in Harry's 5th year (13 death eaters released IIRC), when Voldmeort broke out those who were supposed to stand in the gaps in his Inner Circle (in the graveyard speech).

Right, but was he there? Or did he not show? He might have been there but we just didn't know because he was wearing the cape and and the strange black hat type of thing on his face which would cover his face. And was he there when the few members of DA were fighting the death eaters? And was he there, but did we just not know because I do not believe we know what he looks like?

Here's something that has bothered me for a while

In the books, its been mentioned that Voldemort became the most dangerous dark wizard taking the spot from Grindelwald. On what basis did the Wizarding community decide this? Is it because Voldemort killed and tortured more people than Grindelwald? His quest for immortality and horcruxes were not public knowledge. What crimes did he do to get top spot?

Speaking of crimes, I think Voldemort's worst crime was to himself - splitting his soul several times.

What do you guys think?


You bring up a very interesting point, one I'm trying to grapple with here. Just what did Voldemort do that made him worse than any predessor? Of course leaving out the horcruxes because nobody was aware of this and that could not give him the reputation as most "dangerous." At first I thought well Voldemort had a huge army, including many Inferi. But then I remembered so did Grindelwald have his own Inferi.

I do have an answer for you and all of us, but it is only a simple one. I think what makes Voldemort the most "dangerous" of all the Dark Lords of before, was Voldemort's understanding of how to make the masses afraid of the unknown. I do not think Grindelwald did this, but then again there is no evidence that Grindelwald did or did not control people by fear. Voldemort definitely did and I think this is what made him so dangerous. Voldemort was always subtle, always waiting, biding his time, slithering in the shadows. Even when he took over the Ministry in DH he did it quietly. This makes people much more afraid because they don't know what he's doing or where he's coming from. It is essentially fear of the unknown (directly related to Voldemort's fear of death, by the way which is the ultimate uknown, which just reflects back on Voldemort's own fears). He even created the "Taboo" which made people fear to say the very name and for a real reason. Plus, we know many people did not know who Voldemort was. For all they knew this Lord Voldemort seemed to come out of nowhere and almost like he popped into existence, which naturally would frighten people. For nobody but a handful knew he once held the veneer of the charming, handsome golden boy of Hogwarts.

But yes, I still wonder what could make him so dangerous? I think the reason above is the simplest answer. Voldemort mastered the fear of the Unknown (his own fear which he projected onto the Wizarding World and beyond). But I do wonder if there is a more concrete explanation.

Right, but was he there? Or did he not show? He might have been there but we just didn't know because he was wearing the cape and and the strange black hat type of thing on his face which would cover his face. And was he there when the few members of DA were fighting the death eaters? And was he there, but did we just not know because I do not believe we know what he looks like?

He must have been there, seeing that he was a member of the Inner Circle. But I don't remember him being mentioned. Since he broke out of prison, I think he would have to be in hiding and not be seen, unlike Avery, McNair and Rookwood, other death eaters we see as MInistry officials and free. Not to mention Lucius Malfoy. :)

From the Severus Snape thread

posted by WWB
With Tom, I don't really understand why he seemed to have more hatred for his dad than his mum - I mean he hated them both, but it was his father's bones he dug up and used and his home he took over, and his dad he ridiculed the most. And he was the muggle parent - you'd think Voldy would try to do all of that with the wizard parent.

I think this was because his father left his mother and ran away, which caused his mother to die, leaving him in an orphanage. I think Voldemort would have concluded that had his father been a wizard, he would not have left his mother, the heir of Slytherin and one of the oldest families. Burt as a muggle he saw differently and because of that he, Voldemort suffered and became an orphan. So as a muggle his father was worthless, he
must have concluded IMO.

3) Tom Marvolo Riddle was a brilliant student, considered charming by many, and apparently a model of good behavior (prefect, Head Boy). How did he go so wrong on his life path? How did his childhood environment affect who he became? What was it about his years at Hogwarts that kept him on the path to evil? Why did he take a job as a lowly store clerk when he left Hogwarts?

I think the best questions asked in this are the ones I italicized so I'll answer those. IMO, his years at Hogwarts gave him a feeling of importance, and his first real taste of power in the wizarding world. Not only was being appointed Prefect/Head Boy a big honor, but it gave him the chance to order students around. That privelege in the wrong hands can turn out disasterous. Also, not only his power, but his charm helped sway people to follow him. As far as the reason he took a job as a store clerk.. I can only assume it was to find artifacts that he could later turn into Horcruxes. And, I can't remember, but didn't he take up this job at Borgin & Burkes? That also would make sense, considering he wanted to immerse himself in the Dark Arts as much as humanly possible.. here, he could learn more about them and fine tune his abilities with no questions asked, I'm sure.


Also, there's one thing I've been wondering lately..

If Voldemort hated Muggleborns/Half-bloods so much, why did he allow Snape to become one of his followers? Snape's father was a Muggle, right? (if I'm mistaken just yell at me. -_- It's been awhile since I've read the last two books) Anyway, even Snape being a Death Eater I could overlook.. however, Voldemort seemed to trust him more than anyone else, especially in the last two books.

I don't think this was discussed in the books at all, but if it was, I'm sorry for being annoying. :blush:

[B]Also, there's one thing I've been wondering lately..

If Voldemort hated Muggleborns/Half-bloods so much, why did he allow Snape to become one of his followers? Snape's father was a Muggle, right? (if I'm mistaken just yell at me. -_- It's been awhile since I've read the last two books) Anyway, even Snape being a Death Eater I could overlook.. however, Voldemort seemed to trust him more than anyone else, especially in the last two books.

I don't think this was discussed in the books at all, but if it was, I'm sorry for being annoying. :blush:

Well, Voldemort and his followers had a problem with Mudbloods and Muggles, not so much halfbloods (btw, Snape's father was a wizard and so was his mother though she was a halfblood). Also, there is a possibility that Voldemort didn't actually hate muggles and mudbloods at all but just pretended to so he could gather followers. His main goal was to reach immortality but he needed some help in order to do so. So he basically played upon the prejudices which already existed in the Wizarding World and which made it so vulnerable to any dark wizard.

Well, Voldemort and his followers had a problem with Mudbloods and Muggles, not so much halfbloods (btw, Snape's father was a wizard and so was his mother though she was a halfblood).

Snape's father was a muggle. There is a mention of it in the HBP, in the White Tomb chapter.

'Tobias Snape was a muggle from what it said in the Prophet'

Also, there is a possibility that Voldemort didn't actually hate muggles and mudbloods at all but just pretended to so he could gather followers. His main goal was to reach immortality but he needed some help in order to do so. So he basically played upon the prejudices which already existed in the Wizarding World and which made it so vulnerable to any dark wizard.

Hm, I don't think that's very likely. If he simply wanted immortality, he could have just made his Horcruxes and be done with it, there was no need to create an army and take over the world to reach that goal. Plus, even when he was still Tom Riddle, still very young, he already hated the fact that his father was a Muggle. I think his hatred for Muggles and consequently muggle-borns stemmed from his childhood, his family background. I don't think it was just an act.

Hm, I don't think that's very likely. If he simply wanted immortality, he could have just made his Horcruxes and be done with it, there was no need to create an army and take over the world to reach that goal. Plus, even when he was still Tom Riddle, still very young, he already hated the fact that his father was a Muggle. I think his hatred for Muggles and consequently muggle-borns stemmed from his childhood, his family background. I don't think it was just an act.

I think Voldemort was power hungry so he wouldn't have been content to simply have his seven Horcruxes and live somewhere, forever (even though, ironically, he would have had a better chance of getting what he wanted that way since no one would have cared about destroying him if he wasn't a threat). Dumbeldore says at some point that Voldemort wanted to be famous and go down in history and ruling the WW would have given him that. The fact that so many purebloods hated muggleborns was a perfect opportunity for him to manipulate them into following him by claiming that he is interested in purifying the Wizarding World. I have no doubt he would have done so, once he was in power but his main goal had always been to achieve immortality. He says so himself in GOF so the Death Eaters knew about this.

The reason why I think Voldemort didn't hate muggleborns as much as his DEs was because his most trusted follower was in love with one and he didn't seem to have a problem with that. He even promised Snape he would spare Lily's life. Compare this with Bella and Narcissa's attitude towards Andromeda marrying a muggleborn and you would see the difference between their level of bigotry and Voldemort's.
As for Voldemort hating his father, there are many reasons why he would hate him. First of all, it could have been because he left his mother and by extension, Voldemort himself (and we all know Voldemort did not like to be abandoned). It could also have been because his father was a muggle and he was ashamed of having a muggle father and would have considered such a thing to be beneath him.
So, I have no doubt that Voldemort looked down on muggles and muggleborns but I think that he pretended to hate them more than he actually did so that he could attract followers.

I think Voldemort was power hungry so he wouldn't have been content to simply have his seven Horcruxes and live somewhere, forever (even though, ironically, he would have had a better chance of getting what he wanted that way since no one would have cared about destroying him if he wasn't a threat). Dumbeldore says at some point that Voldemort wanted to be famous and go down in history and ruling the WW would have given him that. The fact that so many purebloods hated muggleborns was a perfect opportunity for him to manipulate them into following him by claiming that he is interested in purifying the Wizarding World. I have no doubt he would have done so, once he was in power but his main goal had always been to achieve immortality. He says so himself in GOF so the Death Eaters knew about this.

The reason why I think Voldemort didn't hate muggleborns as much as his DEs was because his most trusted follower was in love with one and he didn't seem to have a problem with that. He even promised Snape he would spare Lily's life. Compare this with Bella and Narcissa's attitude towards Andromeda marrying a muggleborn and you would see the difference between their level of bigotry and Voldemort's.
As for Voldemort hating his father, there are many reasons why he would hate him. First of all, it could have been because he left his mother and by extension, Voldemort himself (and we all know Voldemort did not like to be abandoned). It could also have been because his father was a muggle and he was ashamed of having a muggle father and would have considered such a thing to be beneath him.
So, I have no doubt that Voldemort looked down on muggles and muggleborns but I think that he pretended to hate them more than he actually did so that he could attract followers.

This is pretty much how I interpreted Voldemort as well...his DE friends seemed much more into the race purification goal than he did. I felt like he used that idea to his advantage in order to gain power, more than out of true conviction. Actually, what I really felt was that the books were not particularly consistent in giving Voldemort a motivation. In the beginning of the series, he is concerned (understandably) with reanimating himself. But I found myself more at odds with the racism of the DE's (like Lucius) than anything that Voldemort was saying. I didn't really feel until the HBP that Voldemort honed in on the genocide theme. He just seemed like someone who would use anybody for any reason to gain power. I didn't feel that he really would value a pureblood life over a muggleborn life; it would be more a matter of who was of most use to him at the time. In my mind, Voldemort's essence was that he was completely self-serving; he served no greater cause, no matter how evil.