CoSForums Archive - SPOILER WARNING: Tom Marvolo Riddle vs. Voldemort

DuFF

July 5th, 2004, 10:04 pm

Note To Mods: I thought that it would be appropriate to create another thread based on the original topic("SPOILER WARNING: New Harry Potter Book Six Title (Mk. 2)") because this argument seems to keep occurring throughout the hundreds of posts we already have. If you believe this should be deleted or locked, feel free to do so (not that you need my permission :p )

Alright, there has been much talk about who could be the Half Blood Prince. As we all know by now, JK has stated that:
The HBP [Half Blood Prince] is neither Harry nor Voldemort.

A lot of you have been theorizing that Tom Marvolo Riddle is the Half Blood Prince and I decided to set up a thread to debate the difference between them and if Tom could possibly be the Half Blood Prince. Here are the two sides:

Side 1: Tom and Voldemort are the same person, therefore excluding Tom from being the Half Blood Prince
I must say that I agree with this the most. I think that the following evidence is sufficient to back up this claim, but many of you disagree.

Here is a quote from Chamber of Secrets (American Edition), Chapter 17, Page 313:

"Why do you care how I escaped?" said Harry slowly. "Voldemort was after your time. . . ."
"Voldemort," said Riddle softly, "is my past, present, and future, Harry Potter. . . ."

This quote illustrates that even Riddle himself, before he has become Voldemort, states that Voldemort is his present.

Another quote, this one from Order of the Pheonix (American Edition), Chapter 36, Page 814:

"You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality, are you?"
"We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom," Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk toward Voldemort [...]"

IMHO, these quotes are enough for me to believe that when JK says Voldemort is not the Half Blood Prince, she consequently means Tom too.

Heres some more quotes:

Heres the obvious one: Chamber of Secrets (American Edition), Chapter 17, Page 314:

He [Tom] pulled Harry's wand from his pocket and began to trace it through the air, writing three shimmering words:
TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE
Then he waved the wand once, and the letters of his name rearranged themselves:
I AM LORD VOLDEMORT
"You see?" he whispered. "It was a name I was already using at Hogwarts, to my most intimate friends only of course."
[...]
"No, Harry--I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere whould one day fear to speak, when I had become the greatest sorcerer in the world!"

At this point in time, Tom had already taken the name Lord Voldemort and knew he would become an evil, yet powerful, sorcerer. The fact that he deems himself "Lord Voldemort" at such a young age, IMO shows that when JK says "Its not Voldemort" she must be including Tom in that statement too.

Side 2: Tom is not Voldemort yet when we meet him and therefore should be treated as a completely different person

The only problem I see with this side is that there is no direct evidence to back it up. Those of you who believe Tom is not Voldemort can only state that when Tom is mentioned in Chamber of Secrets he has not yet changed into the Dark Lord Voldemort and therefore must be a separate character.

I've just been reminded of a quote from the post made by jessicacarstens.

It's from Chamber of Secrets (American Edition), Chapter 2, Pages 16-17:

"There is a plot, Harry Potter. A plot to make most terrible things happen at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry this year," whispered Dobby, suddenly trembling all over. "Dobby has known it for months, sir. Harry Potter must not put himself in peril. He is too important, sir!"
"What terrible things?" said Harry at once. "Who's plotting them?"
Dobby made a funny choking noise and then banged his head frantically against the wall.
"All right!" cried Harry, grabbing the elf's arm to stop him. "You can't tell me. I understand. But why are you warning me?" A sudden, unpleasant thought struck him. "Hang on-- this hasn't got anything to do with Vol- -- sorry -- with You-Know-Who, has it? You could just shake or nod," he added hastily as Dobby's head tilted worryingly close to the wall again.
Slowly, Dobby shook his head.
"Not -- not He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, sir--"
But Dobby's eyes were wide and he seemed to be trying to give Harry a hint. Harry, however, was completely lost.

At the end of the book, we find that it was Voldemort's memory of Tom Marvolo Riddle that was the real culprit. Therefore, if Dobby was telling the truth, how could they be the same person?

If you have more evidence, wish to back up your opinion or disprove my opinion please post away.

Jessica

July 5th, 2004, 10:19 pm

As someone who has been in the trenches of that thread I would just like to second the idea that this thread stay open.

And great job of presenting both sides DuFF

Marissa

July 5th, 2004, 10:30 pm

I'm glad there's a new thread, the other one was just getting toooooooooo long.
I agree with Side 1, i believe they are the same person, and the HBP is, i believe is a new character, briefly or never before mentioned in the books.

PheonixUK i love your avatar!

hpfan47

July 6th, 2004, 1:29 am

Voldemort and Tom are the same person. The only reason he is called Voldemort is because he went through so many freakish changes that nobody recognized him. I agree that the half blood prince will be someone else, but i don't think it will be someone any of us expected.

DerHalfBlood

July 6th, 2004, 1:41 am

I agree with you, Duff. Rowling said that Voldemort wasn't the Half Blood Prince so that automatically excludes Tom Riddle from being it since they are one in the same. Dumbledore calling Voldemort Tom in the Ministry of Magic is an excellent point. It is sort of like Luke talking to his father Darth Vader but refering to him as Anakin and saying he feels the good in him. Dumbledore knows somewhere in the evil Dark Lord there was the intelligent boy he once knew so he is trying to confuse Tom just as Luke tried to confuse Vader. I started to ramble off there but again, Duff, I think you are right although we'll have to wait for Book 6 to know for sure won't we?

IamTomRiddle

July 6th, 2004, 1:46 am

I'd say the HBP will be someone no one expects, and clearly, many people suspect that Rowling will use Tom Riddle as a loophole to make him the Prince. If any of the guesses I've seen are right I'd consider it this one. But I don't think it'll be Tom. I think it'll be someone that has already been mentioned in the book, just someone you wouldn't suspect. I don't think it'll be a new character introduced because why would we have never heard a word about them?

Ana-Magus

July 6th, 2004, 1:52 am

I agree that the HBP is not Tom as well.... for the exact same reasons listed above.

To argue the other side for a minute - some say that VDM is a different person only because in GoF VDM was 're-born' in the graveyard that night, making him is own entity....

To this theory I say - if VDM is, in fact, 're-born' it means that Riddle is truly dead and why would he even be a major player anymore? He wouldn't, in my opinion.

I can't even begin to guess who the HBP is! I agree that it will be someone very unexpected.

angel spirit

July 6th, 2004, 1:52 am

O-kay *rubs hands eagerly*

I believe that Tom Riddle is not Voldemort. Here is some of my evidence.

"You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality, are you?"
"We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom," Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk toward Voldemort [...]"
Now, I do know that Dumbledore refers to Voldemort as Tom, but since when is Dumbledore always right? In Order of the Phoenix, we are exposed to many different mistakes that Dumbledore made.

That quote to me has a more important purpose. While Dumbledore could be refering that there are many horrific ways of vanquishing a person, I believe that he is talking about how Voldemort destroyed the man inside of him.

In Chamber of Secrets, Tom Riddle was said to have undergone "dangerous, magical transformations" making himself unrecognizable from the Tom Riddle that went to Hogwarts. Those years where he delved into the Dark Arts, is when he strived to make himself immortal. If there was human inside of him then why didn't he die when Avada Kedavra was reflected on him?

Avada Kedavra means "to destroy what is in front of me," doesn't it? Well Voldemort was strong, but he wasn't a human. He was a mutated spirit, residing in a human body. Well you can't destroy as spirit by the normal means can you?

In response to this quote...

"Why do you care how I escaped?" said Harry slowly. "Voldemort was after your time. . . ."
"Voldemort," said Riddle softly, "is my past, present, and future, Harry Potter. . . ."

Tom Riddle did not know what transformations he was to undergo in the future. All he knew was what Ginny told him. Ginny most likely told him about Harry, and about how Harry defeated the feared "Lord Voldemort".

Tom thought this must mean that he became a feared Dark Lord, just like he aspired to be. A sixteen year-old Tom Riddle thought that "Lord Voldemort" was an older version of himself, and mostly likely didn't know about the evil miscreant entity he was to become. Therefore he assumes that Lord Voldemort is his past, present, and future.

Tom Riddle evolved into Voldemort, through a series of magical mutations. There is no human left in Voldemort. Tom Riddle was human. Therefore, Tom Riddle is not Voldemort.

Humans evolved from apes. Does that mean that humans are apes and apes are humans?

Ana-Magus

July 6th, 2004, 2:00 am

To angel spirit - I see your point and I agree that Tom has evolved into VDM. But I don't think you can compare the evolution of a species to the evolution of one man....

I believe that a person is a human spirit that lives within a body. Once that body dies, the spirit lives on elsewhere... I'm not a holy roller by any means, but I do believe this.

Yes, Tom went through many magical, physical changes... but I do not believe the spirit of Tom ever left.... If it had, VDM would not exist.

jordmundt6

July 6th, 2004, 2:01 am

Angel Spirit--nice try but you're tripping over your own quote. Dumbledore considers Voldemort to be identical to Tom and addresses him as such (the ultimate height of cool, in my opinion). Your argument for that is "Dumbledore isn't always right." That's true, the great bumblebee has lately shown himself to be both human and fallible even while starting to reveal the true extent of his power (great improvements to his character in my opinion). In the first three books, in spite of his protests to the contrary, he always struck me as a deus ex machina--so seeing him make a blunder even--perhaps especially--one of gargantuan prooprtions is refreshing and makes me have more respect for than I already did. Now, it IS possible that Dumbledore is wrong about this--that Tom and Voldemort are two separate people--or it could be. The problem is, Tom sees himself as Lord Voldemort. The Tom Riddle that Harry met had already fashioned the name for himself, he HAD emerged as Lord Voldemort. Myrtle's death and Hagrid's expulsion were his coming out party, his astonishing debut on the national and international stage, if you will.

Playing devil's advocate--you COULD make the argument that Tom and Voldemort are spearate as a matter of semantics aka "The Second Coming of Dobby's Hint"--but repeating a gimmick that hinged CoS together seems like a very limited move--very un-Rowling. So, I agree with Duff.

glugunkwen

July 6th, 2004, 2:15 am

OK - I hope this makes sense.

When Tom Riddle shows Harry the past, does he (Tom) think of himself as Voldemort then? We don't know what process he went through deciding to take on the persona of Voldemort. Could it be that the HBP refers to Tom Riddle before he chose the persona of Voldemort?

Does the process of 'becoming' Voldemort negate the existence of Tom Riddle? Does this go back to why Tom Riddle felt compelled to leave his memory alive in a diary - because he knew when he chose the dark power of Voldemort he would choose to exist?

If Voldemort is Tom Riddle (and vice versa) why would the young Tom have felt the need to preserve his memory? If they are the same person, wouldn't his memory be alive in Voldemort?

Ouch - that hurt my brain.

angel spirit

July 6th, 2004, 2:18 am

phoenixsong

July 6th, 2004, 2:18 am

Just one more bit of evidence that may or may not support the "Tom Riddle is not the same person as Voldemort" argument: on her site, JKR gave a brief but tantalizing reply to the question of what would have happened had Ginny not been saved by Harry in CoS: she says I can’t answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably. Her answer seems to imply that there is a future in the remaining two books regarding the relationship between Tom Riddle and Voldemort.

Floria

July 6th, 2004, 2:21 am

I must confess that, until I began reading similar posts in the title thread, I never thought that JKR would try to "trick" us about Voldemort/Tom. I simply took her statement that the HBP was neither to Voldemort nor Harry to mean that Tom was excluded too, despite his numerous transformations.

I think that there is some merit in saying that Tom and Voldemort are two different people (I don't see it that way, but can understand why others would). However, I don't believe that JKR likes to jerk us around, and I truly believe that Tom/Voldemort is out as HBP. It's got to be somebody else. JK wouldn't do that.

Jessica

July 6th, 2004, 2:24 am

Just to clariy my position on the inamous Dobby's hint.

Dobby does NOT say that Rom Riddle and Voldemort are different people.

He says that before Tom Riddle became the Dark Lord he could be freely named. (You recall that Dobby's hint was that it had nothing to do with He Who Must not Be Named)

Therefore the contrast is He Who Must Not Be Named/Tom Riddle (who can be freely named) rather than Lord Voldemort/Tom Riddle.

JKR has said that Dumbledore speaks for her. Therefore, if we agree that by calling him "Tom" Dumbledore is implying that Tom and Voldemort are the same person than I think it can't be argued that they are not.

If you don't accept the implication that Dumbldedore is saying they are the same person than you can argue away :lol:

Ana-Magus

July 6th, 2004, 2:29 am

In CoS - Tom exists in the Diary and emerges from it. Tom still has the same views and evilness as Voldemort. If they are separate - Where does Tom stop and Voldemort begin? If Tom had succeeded in CoS what would have happened? Would they have co-existed as a team? Would they have merged into one?

OR would the rivalry between Voldemort and his 'former self' lead to one destroying the other? If JKR does take this route (and Tom comes back) I don't doubt that it would lead to this rivalry - but who would win?

Grærium

July 6th, 2004, 2:30 am

I think there's a possibility of us finding out that Voldemort is a schizophrenic (sp?), but I'm really not going to focus on that, because I barely think it possible or ethical after all we've read. :shrug: That being said, Dumbledore still calls Voldemort "Tom." Also, there's always Tom betraying Hagrid about Aragog, showing early signs of villainy of deceiving. Also, after I think of that, Tom opened the CoS, he was the heir. Lol, I agree most with Tom and Voldemort being the same person, I just wanted to add my bit of information to yours, DuFF. ;)

Ana-Magus

July 6th, 2004, 2:36 am

Grærium - your sig is freakin hysterical.....

MonicaG

July 6th, 2004, 2:37 am

While I agree with the majority- that Tom is Voldemort, and thus, by JK's own words, not the half-blood prince- I do have one thought to add- in the very first chapter of SS, when Dumbledore and McGonagall are waiting for Hagrid- Dumbledore reprimands McGonagall for being afraid to say Voldemort, he says something like- I've been trying for 11 years to get people to call him by his "proper name", voldemort.

My point is, I have never understood why Dumbledore does not encourage folks to remember that Voldemort was once known as Tom Riddle- a clever boy who was once head boy at Hogwarts (this is how he describes Tom to Mrs Weasley in CoS). This humanization of the character would do a lot to undermine his psycological power over people- an extension of the mindgame Dumbledore is playing when he calls voldemort Tom when they are dueling in OotP.
Why doesn't Dumbledore spread around this information- it could be because Voldemort and Tom have truly become separate entities, could it not?

Just thought I'd throw that out there- that SS stone comment has jarred me ever since the later books arrived.

wbp9999

July 6th, 2004, 2:38 am

Ok, I can't say what I think about this because I really don't know. Both sides have great points. But, in my opinion, I really don't think that JK is going to use some one anybody expects. Of course, she might use Tom just because there are people like me who say she won't do it because we expect it so we're not expecting it.

OK, reading back on that, I'm not sure if it made any sense. BUt I think my first opinion is more likely. I don't think she'll make Tom the half blood prince because too many people expect it.

Floria

July 6th, 2004, 2:40 am

Thanks so much, Jessica, for clarifying that point. I forgot to add that to my post.

FleetAdmiralJ

July 6th, 2004, 3:55 am

DuFF

July 6th, 2004, 5:53 am

glugunkwen

July 6th, 2004, 6:06 am

I agree with one of the previous posts...If Tom Riddle is different from Voldemort...where do they diverge? For Tom Riddle to be the HBP and not Voldemort, that would suggest that Tom Riddle existed at some point while not at the same time being Voldemort. Most people have been saying that Voldemort can exist without really being Tom Riddle, but this is not sufficient evidence to say that Tom Riddle can then be the HBP. You must work it the other way around: You must show how Tom Riddle can have existed without at the same time being Voldemort. If Tom Riddle was destroyed in the process of Voldemort's experimentations, he still would always have been the same as Voldemort up to that identity's destruction.

This is what is driving me so crazy! :wow: In CoS, Dumbledore explains that Tom underwent many transformations to become Voldemort (p.242, Bloomsbury), suggesting that there was a time when he was just Tom, without the Voldemort part - 2 different (not separate) people. But then, Dumbledore says when he resurfaced as Voldemort he was barely recognizable - suggesting the same person, just much more evil.

So - does different = separate?

I hope that made sense! :p

jaedi

July 6th, 2004, 7:25 am

I agree with one of the previous posts...If Tom Riddle is different from Voldemort...where do they diverge? For Tom Riddle to be the HBP and not Voldemort, that would suggest that Tom Riddle existed at some point while not at the same time being Voldemort. Most people have been saying that Voldemort can exist without really being Tom Riddle, but this is not sufficient evidence to say that Tom Riddle can then be the HBP. You must work it the other way around: You must show how Tom Riddle can have existed without at the same time being Voldemort. If Tom Riddle was destroyed in the process of Voldemort's experimentations, he still would always have been the same as Voldemort up to that identity's destruction.

I am really up in the air about this subject. I can see both sides' points...
This debate reminds me somewhat of the Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker situation in theStar Wars trilogy. Anakin was a very powerful jedi; Tom was Head Boy at Hogwarts and very talented. Anakin became seduced by the power of the Dark Side and had to undergo many complicated transformations to become Darth Vader; ditto for Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort. In The Return of the Jedi Obi-Wan Kenobi says of Darth Vader:
He is more machine now than man, twisted and evil.
Sound familiar? In the end, there is still some of Anakin (the good) in Darth Vader (the bad). He is saved but then dies.

Now, I'm not saying that these two situations are exactly the same, but is it possible that JKR could pull something similar to this in the seventh book, thus killing Voldemort and still preserving the human in Tom?

navy_blue6

July 6th, 2004, 7:54 am

OK i dont think its Voldemort/Tom or Harry but isn't Neville half blood? Or hasnt JK said at some point that we'll be learning moer about Hagrid's mom? We don't know much about her..

NoiseOf82

July 6th, 2004, 8:43 am

Hey guys, just wanted let you know that I edited my post to include the Dobby quote in defense of the "Tom Riddle is not Voldemort" side.

A couple of comments about it though:
-Dobby isn't exactly the most trustworthy person (creature?). He may not have been telling the truth. Could the Malfoy's have instructed him to lie about this?
-He doesn't really finish his sentence, could there have been more to it? It does say right after that "Dobby's eyes were wide and he seemed to be trying to give Harry a hint.

If the Malfoy's would have insutructed him to lie, that means that they would have had to send him into Harry's bedroom in the first place. I think that's quite unlikely. I think Dobby has proven himself to be quite trustworthy and has helped Harry out of a few sticky situations.

I do agree with you on the second point though. He didn't really finish his sentence so there definatly could have been more to it.

I do however think that Tom Riddle is the Half Blood Prince. We weren't introduced to anyone in Chamber of Secrets that would be a strong enough character to bring up several books later other than him. I'm probably dead wrong though. Oh well.

Harry 4 Ginny

July 6th, 2004, 11:39 am

i was just thinking of what JKr said about a significant thing that happened in the film of COS (and obviously in the book).

What if Riddle could somehow be brought out of the remains of the diary again by LV or someone? Remember that Harry gave the diary back to Mr Malfoy and although the diary was described by Harry as ruined, Mr Malfoy kept it anyway. If Riddle was to be brought out of the diary again then he would probably be a separate person from LV.

Slainte

July 6th, 2004, 11:43 am

DarkThunder

July 6th, 2004, 11:49 am

I think its the same person. I mean, he's said he hated that he was named after his father, remember. Voldemort is the name he gave himself.

Kazza

July 6th, 2004, 12:07 pm

Avada Kedavra means "to destroy what is in front of me,"

Where did you hear that?

DarkThunder

July 6th, 2004, 12:32 pm

No, Abra Kadabra means to destroy what is in front of me. I think ;)

angel spirit

July 6th, 2004, 2:04 pm

I read it somewhere, can't remember the exact meaning. But it made sense with the actual curse.

O-kay with the Ministry of Magic scene, Dumbledore was mocking Voldemort, calling him a name of someone that he was ashamed and determined to get rid of.

With the Dobby situation, he did indeed say that Voldemort could be freely named. But I'd like to bring up DuFF said about Dobby not finishing his sentence. Maybe Dobby is like Kreacher, in the sense that he can't divulge any of the Malfoy's most deep secrets. Therefore could not say anything other than he once a long time ago, could be freely named.

glugunkwen

July 6th, 2004, 4:01 pm

I was just thinking about the whole Dobby quote to Harry, which makes people think that Tom Riddle could be the HBP. Dobby was talking about a plot. The plot was brought about by Lucius not Voldemort. Voldemort had nothing to do with the plot itself, just the outcome of the plot.

Good point - however, how do we know what inspired Lucius to take action with the diary?
*Was Voldemort strong enough to use his Legilimency power to suggest the idea to Lucius? (Probably not, but it's a thought)
*Was Lucius in fear of a raid and just trying to get rid of the diary? (I think it was probably more than this)
*Did he know the power of the diary? (I think he had an idea)
*How did he know Tom Riddle = Voldemort? (Dumbledore says very few people knew)
*If Voldemort was so weak he was near death, was it somehow Tom Riddle who put the idea in Lucius head? If so, does that mean Voldemort and Tom are different people?

moon781

July 8th, 2004, 1:31 am

I don't think the argument is if they are different people or not, because clearly Tom is Voldemort and vice versa, but whether or not Jo could still make it Tom by way of omission of truth. Dobby's hint to Harry was that Tom was the culprit before he was Known as Voldemort. This could mean that Tom was the HBP when he was younger, before he became known as LV. That would be the only way it makes sense because not many people(especially not his followers) know that Voldemort was a half-blood.

I do not believe this is true because I do not think Jo would use that. Afterall, she offered the info, it wasn't as if she was asked and she needed to give an elusive hint or anything. Plus, I think it would make for a better story if it were someone none of us think of like Mark Evans! (just kidding I know he is no one)

And in response to someone( I forget who sorry) who said that Voldemort could be redeemed through his human self, Tom, I think this is as far from the truth as can be. Tom was an evil nasty person, even as a boy, there is no saving him.

FleetAdmiralJ

July 8th, 2004, 1:40 am

APWBD

July 8th, 2004, 2:35 am

I'm personally torn on this quite a bit, as it is possible to make fairly convincing arguments either way.

First, taking the argument that Tom is the HBP, which I find to be my least favorite side of the argument. It just irks me in some way that she would go to the trouble to divulge that it's neither Harry nor Voldemort, but in reality just be playing semantic games because it is Tom. It would have been just as easy to say nothing. All that aside though, we have several facts to go from here. We have the fact that HBP was a possible title for COS. We have the fact that JKR has stated that some of the information that was going to be divulged in COS was held back for #6. So, this would have to lead us to the conclusion that COS would be indicative of some of the things we could look for in HBP.

Laying aside exactly what the "plot" Dobby was referring to constitutes exactly, which is quite a matter for debate itself. (Namely, Dobby came to Harry long before that diary ended up with Ginny Weasley, for that matter, held his mail for long before that, so something he knew scared him enough to try to keep Harry from going back to school. Was the simple plan of Malfoy slipping the diary to some student with the hopes that they'd open it up and write it in enough to begin to restore Tom really that frightening to him? To me, it implies there was prior knowledge on Malfoy's part of exactly what it was and exactly what it could do, otherwise Dobby wouldn't have known to be so frightened. So how did he know? Had he used it? Seems doubtful to me, if he had, I don't think Tom would have had any qualms about taking over Lucius to bring himself back to coporeal existence). Quite an aside there, anyway ....

Laying aside exactly what the plot was, the fact remains that Tom is the primary hidden antagonist of COS. We know several times over that Tom was himself a half blood by his own admission. We don't know of any sort of royal hierarchy among wizard king, but it stands to reason if there were, then the founders of Hogwarts, the four greatest wizards of their age, would have been good candidates to be among that royalty. We know Tom is the heir, and therefore, in my mind anyway a direct descendant of one of those founders. Does anyone else of importance in COS come anywhere close to fitting these parameters? No, not really. Who else is important in COS. Hagrid? A half blood, perhaps some sort of giant royalty, although OoTP would indicate there is no such structure among giants. Lockhart? He hardly seems primed to come back and do anything. His appearance on the mental ward may be the last we ever see of him. Any other students? Again unlikely. So, following this line, it seems it has to be Tom.

Now, looking at it not being Tom. The main argument against it is that I really hate to think JKR is simply playing semantic or psychotic tricks with us. Tom Riddle becomes Lord Voldemort. Can they be referred to as separate entities though? It simply becomes a function of whether JKR wants to do that or not. If I woke up tomorrow, stopped learning, stopped challenging my mind in any way and instead devoted all of my time to athletic training, building strength and endurance until instead of being the vaguely in shape, highly intellectual me, I become the self proclaimed Captain Kick*****, incapable of deep thought and now unrecognizable because of my gigantic muscles and physical strength, if I did this, would there then be two separate entities of "me" to refer to? The one me and the new Captain Kick*****. I say no, the new persona is simply an extension of the former one. Could I say, Captain Kick***** doesn't read, but APWBD did. Yeah, I guess so. Could I say Captain Kick***** isn't the son of Jim and Becky, but APWBD was? No, I don't think so, that's something innate to both personas. In the same way, no matter what transformations, name changes, whatever Tom went through, being the HBP is something innate that wouldn't change when he "becomes" Voldemort.

All that being said, big money points to it being Tom. The evidence on that side is too strong. And apparently, within the canon of HP anyway, it would have been conceivably possible for Tom to manifest himself fully from the diary, while the "diminished" Voldemort still existed out in the world in some form. So that being the case, I think JKR would find it ok to refer to them as separate people and consider herself truthful when saying that Voldemort isn't the HBP (but Tom could well be). In the end, I kinda hope it is someone else. With the clues available, this conclusion just seems to easy to arrive at, and if indeed Tom is the HBP, I wish she hadn't said anything. At least then we would have been free to assume Voldemort perhaps was the HBP, and then when it was revealed that Tom was a "separate entity" in some way, it would have been a bit more surprising.

Jessica

July 8th, 2004, 4:15 am

APWBD Great post.

That's a very good point about JKR. I agree with you that after the whole Storge fiasco she is unlikely to mess with our heads by sliding by on a technicality.

I fully confess that when I first heard the title (as the original title for CoS) I was convinced it was Tom Riddle. Now I'm convinced that it's not (for reasons I have explained innumerable times - most of which you cite in your post).

But again, congratulations on a well thought out, well argued post. :D

BTW great username as well :lol:

CicadaInvasion

July 8th, 2004, 4:24 am

In response to Dobby's message to Harry in COS...
It was Lucius Malfoy who attempted to restore Voldemort by giving Ginny the diary, therefore Dobby wasn't referring to Tom Riddle or Voldemort, but rather to Lucius Malfoy.

As for the HBP, I think it won't be Voldemort (duh) or Tom. I think it will be someone who is either a new character or until book six, a minor one. I also believe he will be neutral or on the side of the order. Perhaps he will become the 'Muggle's Champion' in book six?

Kelfa21

July 8th, 2004, 5:14 am

The reason why I think its Tom...is because of the fact that CoS and the sixth book have similarities between the two...mainly the fact that this was the original title for the second book....

The second book we know of revolves heavily around Tom Riddle...he is the HEIR of slytherin...that sounds like a term used by royalty...actually, I've been going by process of elimination..the popular half-bloods we know of are Hagrid (we found out everything we could about him in the second and fourth books...I don't believe his character can be developed any further..except as the lovable, Half giant caretaker/COMC professor, who has an obsession with monstrous animals), Seamus (a minor character and thats it) Voldemort (its not him) and Harry (also, not him)

But what about Tom? He's the only other character we know...for sure...is a Half Blood. He is a character that transforms into Lord Voldemort...Voldemort is not the Half Blood Prince but Riddle is....Book could contain a journey...or a story of exactly how Tom began his progression into LV as the Half Blood Prince
We don't know exactly how this happend or when this journey began...but I believe it will be explained in the next book and it will be vitally important to the final book

If I'm completly wrong...I'm developing a side theory that the Half Blood prince is actually an idea and not a person....another profecy perhaps? Another legend? Something like the tale of the Chamber of Secrets but different....JK dident specify anywhere that this "Half Blood Prince" is a person...she just told us what its not...

marcasitevah

July 8th, 2004, 5:28 am

I always saw Tom and Voldemort as the same person. Tom himself even says it, as quoted earlier. I really don't think that Rowling would go to such lengths to trick us by pulling the whole Tom and Voldemort are not the same argument for Book 6. In my opinion, she believes that the two are the same person.

As others have stated, Lucius is the one who had the plan, not Voldemort. I always thought that Lucius knew exactly what he was doing with the diary, and he probably figured he could literally kill two birds with one stone: remove Harry and one of the Weasley children.

Cedrick Diggory

July 8th, 2004, 5:47 am

Kelfa21

July 8th, 2004, 6:00 am

i have a couple questions, i dunno if they've been answered or not... i didn't see them...

1- in goblet of fire, we learn that the riddle family was killed and they were rich. even more we learn a boy named tom riddle was found dead. what could this mean?

2- this is kind of about Voldemorts plans on global domination... I dunno if anyone else thought of it, but in the first chapter of the fifth book a drought is mentioned like three times. Maybe Voldemorts plan is to dry up everything, something not many people would think of.

1. Yes...I have it on good authority that this is Voldemort going to his home and killing his father and his Grandparents...he and his father share the same name

2. A drought? Intresting....where does it specifically say this? I can't remember it....also, why would LV want to do this? Seems kind of silly since it would kill off any hopes he has for his minions....I don't think he wants to kill off man kind....just rule over it..though he will kill anyone that will get in his way

I <3 Ron

July 8th, 2004, 6:12 am

If I'm completly wrong...I'm developing a side theory that the Half Blood prince is actually an idea and not a person....another profecy perhaps? Another legend? Something like the tale of the Chamber of Secrets but different....JK dident specify anywhere that this "Half Blood Prince" is a person...she just told us what its not...

Oh that's really interesting. Maybe Harry and Voldemort have to prove to be the Half Blood Prince, in some sense they both are half blood princes (saying that Harry is the heir of Gryffindor), so maybe it'll be who's better or something?

I could definitely see that being in another prophecy. Or maybe it's a thing. Like a weapon that can only be used by Half Bloods, but it's called a prince? Whoa that was a stupid theory.

1- in goblet of fire, we learn that the riddle family was killed and they were rich. even more we learn a boy named tom riddle was found dead. what could this mean?

I had thought it was Tom's father, with his second family. He got a new wife and had another kid who he named Tom. I can imagine that this would make LV much angrier.

Marcy

July 8th, 2004, 7:09 am

It would be interesting to see the conflict between Tom and Voldemort if Tom were brought out of the diary again. Having had seperate experiences...they would be two seperate people. So in theory it could be Tom

or perhaps Justin F-F. ?

NeuroComp

July 8th, 2004, 7:29 am

interesting kelfa21--> another legend? I originally thought HPB would point to an existing person in harry's world but looking back at CoS with the actual CoS as a legend, it would be interesting what JKR could come up with if it is a legend.

I still think the personality traits differ and thus Tom riddle and Lord Voldemort as entities are different though they are the same person. But I can't see Tom being the HPB because he was from an orphanage from 0-17, unless he was a prince when he went into the underworld but then he became LV and JKR said no to that.

Now then it comes to whether its
[1] someone from the past(a legend: perhaps, some character of snapes and james calibre
[2] someone from harry's present(who has already been mentioned)
[3] some new character(not from the past)
[4] Some creature-> House elf?

IF JKR said this was in the making at CoS, that means quite abit of plot was developed for the HPB...so presumably it would not be a new character.

so as already been mentioned in other threads...hagrid, seamus are two halfbloods mentioned. But Hagrid doesn't seem to fit this HP vs LV atmosphere as being a keyplayer. And personally I don't see seamus as playing an important role, maybe its the movie actor distorting my perception. IT has also been mentioned that JKR mentions on her site that Dean thomas is halfblood or something...but in the book he's all muggle and for jkr to make a plot turner on a website thne a book is just out right stupid in my opinion.

So going in circles...i think Kelfa21 makes a good point and i'ld like to see it as a legend.

NeuroComp

July 8th, 2004, 7:46 am

I just thought of something...what happens if halfblood doesn't mean halfblood in wizard terms but half blood in royalty terms? What exactly is royalty in the wizard world, is it the same as in our world?

Thus going forward what is a Prince in the wizarding world?? Does JKR imply Half wizard, half human prince? If not than a pure blood wizard with half royalty blood would be my choice and this could bring a backstory on Either of Draco or Neville which would increase their plot development.

ComicBookWorm

July 8th, 2004, 11:30 am

Dumbledore considers Voldemort to be identical to Tom and addresses him as such (the ultimate height of cool, in my opinion). The problem is, Tom sees himself as Lord Voldemort. The Tom Riddle that Harry met had already fashioned the name for himself, he HAD emerged as Lord Voldemort. Myrtle's death and Hagrid's expulsion were his coming out party, his astonishing debut on the national and international stage, if you will.

Playing devil's advocate--you COULD make the argument that Tom and Voldemort are spearate as a matter of semantics aka "The Second Coming of Dobby's Hint"--but repeating a gimmick that hinged CoS together seems like a very limited move--very un-Rowling. So, I agree with Duff.

It was not only cool, but demeaning and condescending. And as for TR coming out of the diary again, yeah, its been done.

Here is why I think TR is not the HBP. He was my first choice when I learned the title. I am just taking JKR at face value. The fans had been through the wringer about the stupid title hoax, and she threw in the added info that LV wasn't the HBP about a day after revealing the title. I really don't think she is being cute with us. She said it wasn't LV, and I don't think she is chuckling to herself, "Tom Riddle isn't LV--ha ha ha suckers!"

She gave us the added info that it wasn't Harry and LV as consolation for the stupid hoax. She may get coy and decline to fully answer a question, or answer it with a maybe. But she has never lied to us, or used such a blantant deception like TR not really being LV.

glugunkwen

July 8th, 2004, 2:21 pm

glugunkwen - I have a feeling that Lucius knew exactly what (and who) the Diary was. He may have even communicated with it (thus how the Tom Riddle in the diary knew so much about Harry and Voldemort...though Ginny could have told it that as well). From Dobby's warnings, it sounded like Lucius knew exactly what he was doing.

OK, I can buy that he knew what he was doing, but how did he know what the diary was and what would happen if it was put in the right hands?

I think Ginny told him about Harry, I don't know that Lucius communicating with the diary makes sense to me. (However, after I think about it a while, it might click for me :blush: )

APWBD

July 8th, 2004, 3:55 pm

Well after posting yesterday about whether Tom and Voldemort are considered to be the same person, thereby clearing the way for Tom to be the HBP, I went back and thought about the other titles to see where that lead me. This is actually getting a little far afield from the beginning of the thread, but since the Tom/Voldemort discussion lead me to this, I'll keep it here.

First off, I also had the idea that perhaps the HBP doesn't refer to an actual person, but perhaps a legend, a prophecy, another story of some sort. Possible, but unlikely in my opinion. By and large, you can take all the titles up to this point at face value.

The SS/PS was indeed simply a stone, a stone possessing great powers, but nonetheless, a stone.

The CoS was indeed a gigantic secret chamber.

The PoA was indeed a person who was a prisoner of Azkaban.

The GoF was indeed a flame spewing goblet.

The OoTP was indeed a "secret" order of people drawing their name from Dumbledore's obvious love of the phoenix and the powers it possesses, powers of healing and rebirth, which will certainly be necessary before and after the fight is over.

So, looking at the HBP, most people would have to agree that the phrase HBP would appear to refer to a person. The denotation of prince definitely implies a person. Now, in the previous titles, when they appeared to refer to a person, did they? Yes, taken completely by themselves, both PoA and OoTP would appear to refer to a person and a group of people, and they in fact do. So, if JKR follows the pattern she has already set up, HBP needs to refer to a person, and in fact a person who plays an important, current part in the book.

But, the idea of her following the pattern of how she titles the books lead me to another conclusion. Does it really matter who it is? In terms of the surprise factor that most of the books have contained, I say, not necessarily.

Look at all the titles. The objects or people referred to in them, while important throughout the entire book are usually revealed fairly early on in the text.

I'll have to have some lee way here in my guessing of placements of events in the books since I don't have them on me at the moment.

The PS/SS, if one didn't already know the legend of Flamel the alchemist, the existence and power the stone is revealed in the first half of the book. The real mystery is who's trying to steal it, and the main action is preventing him from doing so. So a title that really indicated what was going to happen might have been, HP and Fight for the SS with the Essence of his Old Enemy who is Hidden in a Teacher's Head.

The legend of the CoS is again revealed in the first half of the book. The mystery is who is controlling it. So a real spoiler title might have been, HP & the Battle with the Memory of a School Aged Voldemort who Controls the CoS.

I could continue, the identity of the PoA is revealed early in the book. The existence of the GoF and it's purpose happens in the first quarter of the book. The existence and broadly stated purpose of the OoTP is also revealed in the first quarter of the book.

So while the mysteries and action are always closely linked to the referenced object in the title, what that object is is normally a plot point revealed fairly early. My point, we may get it dropped on us who the HBP is in the first hundred pages and it may not be that earth shattering of a revelation in and of itself, but something by the end of the book certainly will be. I just think the possible conclusions we've reached so far, as to the identity of the HBP, are much to easy to reach to be the main crux. That being said, doesn't make it any less interesting to debate. But if you'd have come to me a month before GoF came out and said, hey, the goblet of fire is this cup who spits out the names of people worthy to be school champions for the Triwizard Tournament, I still wouldn't have had a clue as to what in the world was actually going on.

drdementor

July 8th, 2004, 4:08 pm

Good point. The sad thing is, even though we all know that the titles don't really give away the plots (good thing, too), we are so desparate for clues as to what will happen next that we'll bite at anything Jo gives us. If she told us online "There will be a new menu at Hogwarts" we'd have, by the next day, written about 1000 theories as to the significance of that statement...The house-elves are on strike, Beauxbatons + Hogwarts merge so there is more French cuisine, Hogwarts is taken over by evil cannibal "Death Eaters." Yeah. She's having a lot of fun, what with her complete power and all. And by telling us that the HBP is NOT Harry or Voldie, she actually made us speculate a lot more, since they were the obvious choices at first glance.

-Dr. Dementor

Poppy Hex

July 8th, 2004, 4:20 pm

I've been thinking about the connection of Harry and Godric Gryffindor and think the HBP might have something to do with him.

Harry and his parents lived in Godric's Hollow (as in Godric Gryffindor??)

Dombledore tells HArry "only a true Gryffindor could have pulled that out of the hat" when talking about GG's sword in COS (which JKR has referred to as a good place to get clues to book 6)

Also, find it interesting that the things that comes to Harry's aid when meeting Tom Riddle is the Sorting Hat (which used to belong to GG) and the sword.

I think Harry could be the heir of Gryffindor and one of the powers he might therefore have to win agains LV is LV's own fault - he has given part of himself to Harry and now Harry has the power of 2 of the gratest wizards that started Hogwarts...

Just a though...

Careana

July 8th, 2004, 4:28 pm

~ As for Tom Riddle/Voldemort being the HBP, at first I thought it was definately him, and I can see the reasoning behind them being separate. I do believe that if Tom was successful in CoS, they would have been 2 separate people.

However, I'm not so sure now that JKR would say it is not Voldemort only to turn around and say it's Tom Riddle and it can be because they're considered separate people etc... That would make all of her future statements on what will or will not be (in book 7) less credible, for all us obsessed fans who like to theorize and speculate would find a way around everything she says (IMO).

I had to edit this post since I just re-read "The Riddle House" and noticed I was wrong. :blush:

angel spirit

July 8th, 2004, 4:28 pm

You've got some great posts there APWBD. Every single title has brought a new element into the story, yes. But the thing is, we can't speculate about charcters we haven't even been introduced to. You saw what happened to the Mark Evans thing. She didn't even realized that she had put a kid with the same last name as Harry's mom.

Now to anybody, feel free to shoot down any of my post.

I, personally, am a supporter of Tom as a seperate entity from Voldemort. Now though, I'm not so keen on him being half-blood prince, but that is not the subject of this thread.

If indeed, Tom Riddle was somehow resurrected from the diary in the upcoming book, he would be in a seperate body from Lord Voldemort. But does this mean that they are the same person? In my view, no. When the Avada Kedavra curse reflected from Harry, the human part of Lord Voldemort died. But the evil spirit that had been manifested from his magical mutation still survived.

The prior Lord Voldemort would indeed be the same person as Tom Riddle. But the reborn Voldemort would not.

dancer4life728

July 8th, 2004, 5:07 pm

I for think that Tom could be regard as a seperate person than Voldemort, and I also hink that he is the HBP. (Which the only reason I think that it could be Tom is because he is introduced in CoS and as the title was once an option for CoS it makes sense. However JK did say that a lot of stuff that she had written for CoS she decided to move to book 6 which might be why Tom or anyone important in CoS for that matter might not be the HBP because maybe the HBP info was going to be revealed in the information that she cut out. :huh: :huh:. Just a thought) I mean the whole ordeal of the Tom and Voldemort thing is just totally confusing. I dunno I mean Dobby says that the plot didn't have anything with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because when Tom was at school he could be named freeely as Tom, and nobody feared to speak his name, its all very philosophical and it just depends on how you look at it. However I do have to say that I'm quite disappointed that those of you who are trying to prove that Voldemort and Tom are the same person are using the past, present, and future thing, but yet it did not cross your mind to use the TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE= I AM LORD VOLDEMORT bit in CoS. Seriously, I thought the people at CoS forums were great thinkers :p. lol. In any case I see two possibilities (if the character was mentioned in CoS and was not part of the info that JK cut out of CoS and moved to Book 6/HBP)

1. Tom, seemingly because he had the major focus in CoS

2. Dumbledore, (I'm sure I posted why in another thread but I'll say it again) even though we haven't been told of Dumbledore's ansestors he could be a half blood. The most powerful wizard we know (aside from DD) Harry, and Voldy are Half bloods so it would seem logical that the other great wizard in the story was also a Half blood, this could also eplain why he likes muggles so much (besides from the fact that DD is a noble person and believes in treating people equally).
Well those are my thoughts.

DuFF

July 8th, 2004, 11:36 pm

However I do have to say that I'm quite disappointed that those of you who are trying to prove that Voldemort and Tom are the same person are using the past, present, and future thing, but yet it did not cross your mind to use the TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE= I AM LORD VOLDEMORT bit in CoS. Seriously, I thought the people at CoS forums were great thinkers :p. lol.

Well, I've updated the first post to include, and also the paragraph right after it. Thanks for the tip :rotfl:

So a real spoiler title might have been, HP & the Battle with the Memory of a School Aged Voldemort who Controls the CoS.

:p

Anyways, good debate so far guys. As much as I doubt that Tom (even if he is different than Voldemort) will be the HBP, its still a very interesting and debateable topic.

flipfloputz

July 8th, 2004, 11:48 pm

But JKR said that Voldemort wasn't the HBP, doesn't that mean that Tom can't be it either? Or does it just mean Tom's present state as Voldemort?

Tom may play a bigger role than his form as Voldemort in the HBP, just because CoS has a lot to do with HBP from what I've heard.

funnyhoney88

July 9th, 2004, 2:56 am

DuFF

July 9th, 2004, 3:27 am

But JKR said that Voldemort wasn't the HBP, doesn't that mean that Tom can't be it either?

That is exactly what we are debating.

Sabine

July 12th, 2004, 4:14 pm

Isn't it a nice tricky question?

Voldy and Riddle are bits of the books that keep my mind busy ...

Most of what I could add was said already, so there is just one thing I want to say:

There was that device on Dumbledore's desk. That silver thing where the green smoke came out and Dumbledore said :"Yes, - but in essence divided?"

I my opinion this tells us, that Dumbledore was well aware of the fact that Voldemort had access to Harrys mind, but he wanted to know if they were "in essence divided".

Well Harry and Voldy were "in essence divided" but what if the answer had been "no!"???

What if there once was a time were the question could have been if Tom and "Voldemort" were in essence divided???

I still cling to the theory that what we know as "Voldemort" is a summary of evil that Tom somehow "invited in" when he messed around with the dark arts.

So Voldemort is an evil spirit that took over Tom Riddle. Tom Riddle may have choosen the name but thats just it.

In my eyes Tom Riddle searched for the chamber, for power, for appretiation, for fame - but he found a lot more than he had searched for let alone he could "handle".

So - Yes I think there is a big difference between Tom Marvolo Riddle and Lord Voldemort.

Having said all that I have to say: I don't believe that Tom Riddle is the Half Blood Prince ....

Why? Because it would not be a surprise... we know he is a half blood and we know he is the heir of Salazar Slytherin - so - where is the big surprise?

Sabine

APWBD

July 12th, 2004, 5:22 pm

I my opinion this tells us, that Dumbledore was well aware of the fact that Voldemort had access to Harrys mind, but he wanted to know if they were "in essence divided".

I would certainly agree that by that point, Dumbledore was aware of a link between Harry and Voldemort's minds, and that he was probably checking to see how deep the link was, if Voldemort had managed or attempted a "full scale" possession at that point, or something to that effect. So yes, it's my guess that he well knew of the link and probably sensed Voldemort through Harry when Harry had his flashes of hatred towards him, but was checking to make sure it wasn't complete, that he wasn't able to possess him completely.

What if there once was a time were the question could have been if Tom and "Voldemort" were in essence divided???

I still cling to the theory that what we know as "Voldemort" is a summary of evil that Tom somehow "invited in" when he messed around with the dark arts.

So Voldemort is an evil spirit that took over Tom Riddle. Tom Riddle may have choosen the name but thats just it.

The problem comes when you try to apply this argument of "in essence divided" to Tom and Voldemort. This, in my mind, presupposes an imaginative leap that many wouldn't be willing to make. It presents, or at least raises the possibility that, "Voldemort" is some sort of omnipresent malevolent entity that simply exists through time to possess person after person to accomplish his goals.

I think anyone is comfortable saying that Tom went through many changes to turn into Voldemort. Some are even comfortable calling Tom and Voldemort two different entities, clearing the way for calling Tom the HBP. But to say that Tom and Voldemort were in essence divided would have to be predicated on one of two things.

Either, the persona of Lord Voldemort was solely a creation of what Tom Riddle did to himself and did not exist in any way until Tom delved deep into the dark arts, but it is a powerful enough persona to be ripped away from the man who created it and exist on its own. Or, the persona of Lord Voldemort has always existed as a malevolent, possessory spirit, and simply inhabited Tom. Why would it do this? Probably because it was drawn to the power naturally present in Tom, and it saw him as susceptible because of his ancestry and his upbringing.

Now, that is an idea that I would have dismissed as obviously wrong before I started typing this, but has become much more intriguing as I've gone along here. I have a few problems with it though. I tend to think Tom was born to be Voldemort. Really the earliest we can judge his actions is what we know about him in CoS, and by then, he's already proven himself to be evil. Some would say he has not taken the full form of Voldemort, and indeed doesn't even know exactly what that might be, and that is a possibility. But regardless, he's already proving himself to be evil at that point, he's already murdered another student and framed another one for the murder. I guess it is possible that he was at heart a good kid when he was younger in the orphanage, but I don't believe it. I see him as being in some way, evil since he was capable of making his own decisions, as being devious and cunning even as a young child. So, I just don't think it's right to say that Tom was just a vessel for the "evil spirit" of Voldemort. Tom is and was from his earliest days evil, and Voldemort simply grew by indulging and exploring that side of his personality.

So, in my mind, to say Tom and Voldemort are in essence divided would be to say that "Voldemort" simply dominates any good left in Tom, and I'm just not ready to believe there is any good in Tom at all to begin with. We've been chided by JKR before for wanting to throw too many Star Wars analogies in there, and I think wanting to compare Tom/Voldemort to Anakin/Darth Vader is another case of that.

Having said all that I have to say: I don't believe that Tom Riddle is the Half Blood Prince ....

Why? Because it would not be a surprise... we know he is a half blood and we know he is the heir of Salazar Slytherin - so - where is the big surprise?

Again I'll say, I hope he isn't because I would kind of like the identity of the HBP to be surprising, as long as it's a logical and satisfying surprise, not some head scratching, WTH moment. But again, to exclude Tom on the argument of it not being surprising enough is to ignore what we've learned from the earlier titles. The objects of the titles aren't and don't have to be earth shattering in their identity. It would have been like saying two months before OoTP came out that the Order couldn't be the group assembled to defy Voldemort because that was just too easy of a conclusion to come to.

funnyhoney88

July 12th, 2004, 9:10 pm

if tom was the half blood prince, wouldnt it be a bit anti climatic? all the harry potter books are about harry and voldemort, shes already played the tom riddle i am lord voldemort card, i would be a bit annoyed if after all this wait it was tom. anyway, i think of voldemort as tom's evil persona, sort of a jeckyll and hyde thing going on, his name change signifies a change in him, no longer is he the muggle born orphan boy, now he is a powerful lord, unafraid and strong.

spunkyfish

July 12th, 2004, 9:44 pm

Ever since J.K Rowling revealed that the title of the sixth book is to be "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", everyone has been speculating about who this could be referring to. I was surprised, however, that no one else seemed to come up with my theory: that the Half Blood Prince is none other than Tom Riddle, aka, the young Voldemort. Now, before you all start yelling at me, let me try and justify my theory in a series of easy to read bullet points (aren't I good?)

1. "But J.K Rowling has already said that the half-blood prince is neither Harry or Voldemort!"
Yes, she has. But I'm not talking about Voldemort here; I'm talking about Tom Riddle. Anyone who has read the Harry Potter books can tell you that Riddle and Voldemort are almost like seperate beings. Voldemort is scarcely human, whilst Tom is his former self that he'd rather forget. Voldemort is ashamed of his past and the fact that he was given his muggle father's name, which is why he changed his name to Lord Voldemort. The Tom Riddle that we see in the Chamber of Secrets is merely a schoolboy, albeit a nasty, bitter one. And yet how much do we really know about Voldemort's past? Hardly anything at all. We know nothing of how he grew to be so powerful and began his descent into evil, and yet it is probably a key aspect of the books. I think that J.K Rowling is being extremely clever by telling us that the half blood prince isn't Voldemort...she's been known to do things like this before, to try and put us off the scent! By saying that Voldemort isn't the half blood prince she is tricking us into also ruling Riddle out as a possible candidate.

2. The Title: "The Half Blood Prince"
As we all know, Riddle is the heir to Salazar Slytherin. The word "heir" automatically invokes regal imagery, because after all, it is royalty that is most commonly associated with heirs and dynasties. So Riddle has already been established as having some sort of royal, or at least, aristocratic blood.

3. Riddle is a half blood
And one of the most powerful ones at that. It has been pretty much acknowledged that half bloods make pretty powerful wizards, as two of the most powerful, Potter and Voldemort, are half bloods. J.K Rowling, knowing this, had to try and keep some sort of enigma around her sixth book, and so denied that either were the half blood prince, when in fact, it could just be Voldemort under a different name.

4. J.K Rowling's own comments
To me this is the most solid, substantial evidence of all. Rowling has admitted in many interviews that "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" was a provisional title for Book 2, aka: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Quote: I was delighted to see that a hard core of super-bright fans knew that the real title was once, in the long distant past, a possibility for 'Chamber of Secrets

Secondly, Rowling states that: Certain crucial pieces of information in book six were originally planned for 'Chamber of Secrets', but very early on (first draft of Chamber) I realised that this information's proper home was book six. I have said before now that 'Chamber' holds some very important clues to the ultimate end of the series. Not as many as six, obviously, but there is a link.

So she openly acknowledges that there is quite a significant link between book 2 and book 6, and yet on the surface book 2 does not seem as significant in the series as some of the others. But it is. Why? Because it mainly deals with Voldemort's past, and obviously from this we can deduce that the "crucial information" regarded Tom Riddle and how Voldemort rose to power. It is crucial because in order to defeat Voldemort Harry needs to know his past and how he came to be the way he is. By saying that CoS was going to be called "the half blood prince" Rowling is practically handing us the answer on a platter: Riddle is the half blood prince. CoS revolves around Riddle and the shadow of his memory. However, revealing too much about Riddle early on would perhaps ruin the entire series, and so that is the purpose of book six: to discuss Voldemort's past so that Harry can fight him in book seven.

So book two holds very important clues to the end of the series, clues which will be elaborated on in book six. Tom Riddle is crucial to the outcome of the battle between Harry and Voldemort, and so based on the above evidence I propose that he is in fact the Half Blood Prince.

Comments? I'd be interested to hear what you think!

DuFF

July 12th, 2004, 11:04 pm

I personally believe that just one quote is enough to prove to me that when JK specifically stated Harry and Voldemort were not the Half Blood Prince that Riddle is, by default, included in that definition.

Chamber of Secrets (American Edition), Chapter 17, Page 314:

He [Tom] pulled Harry's wand from his pocket and began to trace it through the air, writing three shimmering words:
TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE
Then he waved the wand once, and the letters of his name rearranged themselves:
I AM LORD VOLDEMORT
"You see?" he whispered. "It was a name I was already using at Hogwarts, to my most intimate friends only of course."
[...]
"No, Harry--I fashioned myself a new name, a name I knew wizards everywhere whould one day fear to speak, when I had become the greatest sorcerer in the world!"

The fact that he had already decided his fate and his name shows a clear progression from Tom Riddle to Lord Voldemort. Not as two seperate beings, but as an evolution of a character.

But I must ask one question to all of you who believe that Riddle is the Half Blood Prince:
How do you think he is going to come back into the books? The journal has obviously been destroyed and Riddle lost all the power he had obtained from it. Where will he come back into play?

angel spirit

July 12th, 2004, 11:15 pm

The fact that he had already decided his fate and his name shows a clear progression from Tom Riddle to Lord Voldemort. Not as two seperate beings, but as an evolution of a character.

Yes, Tom Riddle existed in Voldemort's body all the way up to the night at Godric's Hollow. When the curse rebounded upon Voldemort though, Tom's spirit and body died. Which left the evil spirit he had manifested through his magical mutations.

Harry is now up against that evil spirit. Not the Voldemort in which Tom Riddle existed. Therefore, the 16 year old Tom Riddle is technically dead. But the diary still remains, a copy of the Voldemort-to-be.

But I must ask one question to all of you who believe that Riddle is the Half Blood Prince:
How do you think he is going to come back into the books? The journal has obviously been destroyed and Riddle lost all the power he had obtained from it. Where will he come back into play?

The diary was pierced with a Basilisk fang, yes. But when Tom disappeared he was not fully human, because Ginny was still alive. He was left extremely weak, but because he was not fully human, he could not properly die. Lucius Malfoy still has the diary, which he could've restored.

There could also be other preservations Tom Riddle made of himself. As a back up plan in case the diary was destroyed. J.K. said that she couldn't explain what really would happen if Tom would've succeeded. If Tom was really over and done with, would she have said that?

ravenfeather

July 13th, 2004, 1:08 am

1- in goblet of fire, we learn that the riddle family was killed and they were rich. even more we learn a boy named tom riddle was found dead. what could this mean?

2-this is kind of about Voldemorts plans on global domination... I dunno if anyone else thought of it, but in the first chapter of the fifth book a drought is mentioned like three times. Maybe Voldemorts plan is to dry up everything, something not many people would think of.

i know a couple of other people have attempted a quick response at these questions, but, judging from some other posts, it seems this might still need some clarification:
1- there was no 'boy named tom riddle' among the dead riddles. there was mr. and mrs. riddle (TMR/Voldemort's grandparents) and "young" tom riddle (TMR/Voldemort's father, who was also named tom riddle). no boy. no second family with wife and child.
2- without going back and referencing OoTP, i'm going to hazard a guess that what LV was talking about were "draughts" (pronounced "drafts"). a "draught" is a drink or some liquid that is consumed, in this case, some kind of potion made by wormtail using the venom of LV's snake, Nagini. see also "draught of living death", etc.

I would certainly agree that by that point, Dumbledore was aware of a link between Harry and Voldemort's minds, and that he was probably checking to see how deep the link was, if Voldemort had managed or attempted a "full scale" possession at that point, or something to that effect. So yes, it's my guess that he well knew of the link and probably sensed Voldemort through Harry when Harry had his flashes of hatred towards him, but was checking to make sure it wasn't complete, that he wasn't able to possess him completely.

my only problem with this analysis is that if DD was trying to figure out if LV was possessing HP, wouldn't the little silver instrument have come up with a with, say a griffin and a snake, rather than two snakes with the same source? why is DD's little instrument calling HP a serpent?? (might make an interesting argument for "the changeling hypothesis!) IMO, the instrument was checking for something else.

So, I just don't think it's right to say that Tom was just a vessel for the "evil spirit" of Voldemort. Tom is and was from his earliest days evil, and Voldemort simply grew by indulging and exploring that side of his personality.

plus, TMR's mum must have been quite a seer to anticipate the eventual hostile occupation of her son and given him a name which would anagram this vengeful spirit's name!
:eyebrows:

the kryle

July 13th, 2004, 1:36 am

yeah i hate it when people say voldermont and tom are the same person. its just tom with a diffrent name.

ComicBookWorm

July 13th, 2004, 3:31 am

i have to say my first bet for the HBP was tom, but after considerable thought, i honestly dont think its him. how could tom come back again? unless he has another memory of himself stored away i dont see how he could do this. unless in one of his attempts to save himself from death voldemort somehow preserved himself again. but then that wouldnt be a memory of tom it would be a memory of voldemort and we know that voldemort isnt the HBP. i hope i'm making sense here, post and tell me

That's exactly why. It's been done already. We already have a nasty LV to deal with. In CoS we didn't have a corporeal LV to worry about, so TR coming back was a threat. Now we do have a real LV, and his DEs are going to be a realy problem. The next two books will deal with the second wizard war. There is no need to bring back TR.

_TheDarkMark_

July 13th, 2004, 4:39 am

i figured that when dobby say's it isnt lord voldemort he was saying it was draco's father. because how whould he now for sure that voldemort whould comback but dobby new what draco's father was up to and was warning him about that

APWBD

July 13th, 2004, 4:43 am

my only problem with this analysis is that if DD was trying to figure out if LV was possessing HP, wouldn't the little silver instrument have come up with a with, say a griffin and a snake, rather than two snakes with the same source? why is DD's little instrument calling HP a serpent?? (might make an interesting argument for "the changeling hypothesis!) IMO, the instrument was checking for something else.

And I'm not completely sure for the protocol on this, since this whole thread is labeled as a spoiler, but just so everyone knows, I will reference what the changeling hypothesis is to some degree, so if you don't want to know, don't read.

I actually have somewhat the same reservations about it being two snakes, but I'm basically sticking with it until I come up with a better explanation, which I have yet to do. You are right that it could argumentatively provide some proof for the changeling hypothesis, but I'm not ready to buy into that whole sale yet. By the end of OoTP, Voldemort is able to get deep enough in to Harry to convince him that Sirius is in trouble, not to mention, seemingly possess him completely after his fight with Dumbledore. I would think that if he gets deep enough to do that, he would have sensed the soul of his former corporeal body if indeed it is inside of Harry. But perhaps he does and we just haven't been made aware of that yet.

DuFF

July 13th, 2004, 4:52 am

2- this is kind of about Voldemorts plans on global domination... I dunno if anyone else thought of it, but in the first chapter of the fifth book a drought is mentioned like three times. Maybe Voldemorts plan is to dry up everything, something not many people would think of.

:rotfl: No, I don't think so. Check this out: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline-facts.html
(Scroll down to "The Drought of 1995")

Yes, Tom Riddle existed in Voldemort's body all the way up to the night at Godric's Hollow. When the curse rebounded upon Voldemort though, Tom's spirit and body died. Which left the evil spirit he had manifested through his magical mutations.

Harry is now up against that evil spirit. Not the Voldemort in which Tom Riddle existed. Therefore, the 16 year old Tom Riddle is technically dead. But the diary still remains, a copy of the Voldemort-to-be.

Hmmm, not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that, "Tom's spirit and body died." Although its a good hypothesis, its not really official. It's obvious that Tom's body died because he became "Vapormort", but I'm not so sure that his spirit died. Hopefully we will learn more about this backstory in Books 6 and 7.

Blacks Beauty

July 15th, 2004, 8:41 pm

Sort of a metaphysical kind of question, isn't it? What defines the person? Is it the body or the spirit? How much of one's essence needs to remain to be that same person? But I'm not a philosopher, sorry to say.
Either, the persona of Lord Voldemort was solely a creation of what Tom Riddle did to himself and did not exist in any way until Tom delved deep into the dark arts, but it is a powerful enough persona to be ripped away from the man who created it and exist on its own. Or, the persona of Lord Voldemort has always existed as a malevolent, possessory spirit, and simply inhabited Tom. Why would it do this? Probably because it was drawn to the power naturally present in Tom, and it saw him as susceptible because of his ancestry and his upbringing.The latter is an interesting thought, in the sense that that is exactly what Voldemort did post-Godric's Hollow. He was formless, just shadow and vapor unless he found a body to share. The evil spirit could have inhabited Tom for years, then just co-opted the Lord Voldemort name permanently, given that Riddle had already built an army for it using the Voldemort name; why waste it? But I am inclined to believe the former, as I'll explain.
I tend to think Tom was born to be Voldemort. Really the earliest we can judge his actions is what we know about him in CoS, and by then, he's already proven himself to be evil. Some would say he has not taken the full form of Voldemort, and indeed doesn't even know exactly what that might be, and that is a possibility. But regardless, he's already proving himself to be evil at that point, he's already murdered another student and framed another one for the murder. I guess it is possible that he was at heart a good kid when he was younger in the orphanage, but I don't believe it. I see him as being in some way, evil since he was capable of making his own decisions, as being devious and cunning even as a young child. So, I just don't think it's right to say that Tom was just a vessel for the "evil spirit" of Voldemort. Tom is and was from his earliest days evil, and Voldemort simply grew by indulging and exploring that side of his personality. The idea that it is our choices that make us who we are was a pretty strong theme in CoS -- so I tend not to think that he was "born to be Voldemort". That would be contrary to the theme, and suggest that we are unable to affect what we become. I don't think JKR would do that. But obviously Voldemort evolved from the decisions of Tom Riddle.
So, in my mind, to say Tom and Voldemort are in essence divided would be to say that "Voldemort" simply dominates any good left in Tom, and I'm just not ready to believe there is any good in Tom at all to begin with. I wish I had my book to look at the "in essence divided" quote. But Tom Riddle clearly had two sides: Tom, the clever, charming Head Boy that most everyone liked, and Lord Voldemort, his ambitious, cunning and evil alter-ego. Tom may not have ever been "good" per se, but as he sank deeper into the dark arts, that side of him began to fade away and Voldemort became stronger, so much so that he was unrecognizable as the same person. Interesting how Tom says he's "always been able to charm the people I've needed" but Sirius says Voldemort gets his army through blackmail, imperious curses and whatnot. I guess "charm" could be taken in two ways, but I find it interesting that perhaps their styles differ.

Whether "Tom" still existed before the Godric's Hollow incident, I'm not prepared to guess. But I think whatever was left of Tom was destroyed that night, and the alter-ego of Lord Voldemort remained because it was not made of flesh and blood and human emotion but because it was made of...er...dark nonhuman unkillable stuff. :blush:

All that said, if we were taking a poll, I would say that I want to believe that means that Tom is not Voldemort -- not because I think he is the HPB, I don't think he is. But I do think he is a member of the Ancient and Noble House of Black (on his mum's side) and that link is going to start explaining a lot of things.

angel spirit

July 15th, 2004, 8:51 pm

The idea that it is our choices that make us who we are was a pretty strong theme in CoS -- so I tend not to think that he was "born to be Voldemort". That would be contrary to the theme, and suggest that we are unable to affect what we become. I don't think JKR would do that. But obviously Voldemort evolved from the decisions of Tom Riddle.

I tend to think that the other prophecy in the Department of Mysteries was talking about Tom Riddle's rise as the Dark Lord after to Grindewald. Maybe he actually was sort of born into it, but no one knew. Just like Harry was born into being the Dark Lord's enemy.

I wish I had my book to look at the "in essence divided" quote. But Tom Riddle clearly had two sides: Tom, the clever, charming Head Boy that most everyone liked, and Lord Voldemort, his ambitious, cunning and evil alter-ego. Tom may not have ever been "good" per se, but as he sank deeper into the dark arts, that side of him began to fade away and Voldemort became stronger, so much so that he was unrecognizable as the same person. Interesting how Tom says he's "always been able to charm the people I've needed" but Sirius says Voldemort gets his army through blackmail, imperious curses and whatnot. I guess "charm" could be taken in two ways, but I find it interesting that perhaps their styles differ.

Yes, have you ever read the fanfic "I am Lord Voldemort"? I think you'd like it very much as it states some of your opinions. I know fanfiction is not the most reliable source, but it does give an interesting theory about how Lord Voldemort changed. I think you can find it on hpfanfiction.com.

Whether "Tom" still existed before the Godric's Hollow incident, I'm not prepared to guess. But I think whatever was left of Tom was destroyed that night, and the alter-ego of Lord Voldemort remained because it was not made of flesh and blood and human emotion but because it was made of...er...dark nonhuman unkillable stuff. :blush:

This is a theory I posted earlier in this thread. Tom was overridden by Voldemort when he accepted him into his body. Kind of a summoning of sorts. Deep Black Magic. But Tom would have no problem with it because his motto was "Anything for Power, Good or Bad"

stupiddeer

July 15th, 2004, 9:52 pm

the halfblood prince will probably not be tom riddle because even if he is considered a different character, since becoming voldermort what could have changed that made voldermort not be the halfblood prince, also i'm pretty sure reviving past tom riddle would strenghten current voldermort or something like that

it would be cool if harry and voldemort were the same person, and when harry kills voldermort at the end he gets his memories, and travels back in time to take the place of the original tom riddle, and becomes to riddle

Blacks Beauty

July 15th, 2004, 10:17 pm

I tend to think that the other prophecy in the Department of Mysteries was talking about Tom Riddle's rise as the Dark Lord after to Grindewald. Maybe he actually was sort of born into it, but no one knew. I have a theory that the other prophecy was about Sirius (that he really *was* there in the DoM being tortured because that prophecy was about him) Or otherwise about the "HPB," whoever that may be... I like to think they are one and the same, but I am so far in the minority on that issue I don't bother discussing it much. :blush: Anyway, that colors my view of your suggestion, but you could be right.
Just like Harry was born into being the Dark Lord's enemy But was he really? It could have been him or Neville; it was only because he was marked that he became the one, so technically he was not born into it, Voldemort made him into it.

And Dumbledore says in PoA "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is very difficult business indeed..." I wonder if prophecies can "go bad" so to speak, if someone chooses a unpredicted path. For example, the first part of the one prophecy came true, but it could have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voldemort heard that a kid born to parents who have thrice defied him etc. will have the power to vanquish him, so he tries to kill him off, thereby transferring to Harry powers that he would not have otherwise had. Sooo... if Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have happened? I don't know, it seems silly that he would have gone out of his way to kill a toddler.

In any case, it seems prophecies are tricky business at best. I mean, how on earth would you know if a prophecy was valid until the thing it prophesies comes to pass? (But that's a whole 'nuther thread) I guess my point is that I want to believe that choices have a major role in the Potterverse, and that the characters lives aren't that predetermined.

stupiddeer

July 15th, 2004, 10:23 pm

the prophecy was definitely about harry 'cause he took it and didn't go mad

madcat77

July 16th, 2004, 7:11 am

Okay, I am no where near as good at analyzing things as some here, but I will throw in a few thoughts. When I first read JKR comment that the HBP was neither Harry nor Voldemort, I immediately thought it was Tom. For some reason I had just always assumed that they were sort of different people. Well, not different *now*, but at least that at one time there was someone who was ONLY Tom - in childhood - and then after the transformation there was someone who was both Tom and Voldemort. So when Dumbledore refers to him as "Tom" in the OoTP, he is right, he is both, NOW. But there could have been a point in his past that he was only Tom, before the Voldemort side existed.

I know that some people have said that if it is Tom that wouldn't be much of a surprise...but as it was stated before, what the title refers to isn't usually the "big" thing in the plot...as in the prisioner of Azkaban for example, we learn *who* he is right in the beginning, its the revelations about him that are essential to the story and the surprises/twists.
So I am thinking that if it is Tom Riddle, the real plot of the book won't simply be learning that he is a half-blood prince, but some important revelations about him, his youth, his family, his transformation, etc. that may come as a surprise. These are things I could have seen fitting in CoS.

Also a lot of people say "JKR wouldn't do this or that" a lot, but I don't know how many times I saw comments like that in the Mark Evans threads! So maybe we don't her as well as we think! If in her mind a "Tom" who as a HBP (since he was the heir to Slytherin) existed before he became Tom/Voldemort, then she wouldn't think she was trying to trick or mislead us.

I'd like to see it be Tom because I really want to know more of his backstory and his pre-LV days.

SiriusBlack22

July 16th, 2004, 9:04 am

Yesyes you all make good points BUT... when was he REALLY Voldemort? I think he was Voldemort when he got death eaters and rose to power and did terrible things. I don't think he was Voldemort when he was born... he was Tom Riddle... Tom and/or Voldemort is just confused. It has to be obvious that they are two different people... because Tom did the job when Voldemort couldn't in CoS... Tom is Tom... Voldemort is someon everyone fears... a man that does evil... Tom was just a boy with a poor childhood. Voldmort is a completely differenyt person... that is all I can say...

Padfoot_001

July 16th, 2004, 9:17 am

I don't understand. How in the world can Tom and Voldamort be concidered different people, they are one and the same. Even if Tom wasn't always Voldamort, or whatever the second side to the argument was - the fact still remains that if Tom is the half-blood prince, then Voldamort must be as well because they are the same person. and seeming as though JK ruled out Voldamort, it can't be Tom.
I know that everything adds up and equals Tom being the HBP but it can't be possible, maybe theres something we've overlooked or maybe he just isn't cause he isn't. :huh:

Blacks Beauty

July 16th, 2004, 7:05 pm

angel_spirit made a good point back there about Ginny.

If Ginny had died, Riddle's body would be alive. And Tom Riddle is Voldemort's past. At that point, Voldemort was just a shadow and vapors with no physical form, bopping from body to body, right? So with the return of Tom Riddle's body, Voldemort's spirit would have a permanent home. The divided body and spirit would be reunited into it's one evil whole.

But Ginny didn't die, so Voldemort had to create a new body in GoF -- one that is different and somehow weaker than if Ginny had died (JKR's quote that it would have considerably strengthened the present day Voldemort.)

What would have happened if Riddle's diary had not been used until after, or was used again, after Voldemort had a body (ie, end of GoF)? Would there be two physical entities? Seems like there are two spiritual entities during CoS -- the "shadow and vapor" that is Voldemort, absent to the CoS plot; and Tom Riddle's spirit (or memory) that is preserved in the diary and nearly becomes flesh. They both exist separately and concurrently in CoS. There's a good argument that Riddle and Voldemort could have been different physical entities too, under the right circumstances, but at a minimum I think there are definitely two spiritual entities during CoS.

I wonder if the fact that it was Ginny (not Neville or Colin or Draco or Harry) had anything to do with it the idea that he would have been stronger if Ginny had died. Is it just the return of Tom Riddle's body that's important? Or is Ginny's Weasley blood significant and does it relate to DD's look of triumph when Voldemort used Harry's blood in resurrecting himself instead? Why did Malfoy choose Ginny? That's off topic I think, but it might have some bearing on this...

onPHYRE

July 16th, 2004, 8:06 pm

"There is a plot, Harry Potter. A plot to make most terrible things happen at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry this year," whispered Dobby, suddenly trembling all over. "Dobby has known it for months, sir. Harry Potter must not put himself in peril. He is too important, sir!"
"What terrible things?" said Harry at once. "Who's plotting them?"
Dobby made a funny choking noise and then banged his head frantically against the wall.
"All right!" cried Harry, grabbing the elf's arm to stop him. "You can't tell me. I understand. But why are you warning me?" A sudden, unpleasant thought struck him. "Hang on-- this hasn't got anything to do with Vol- -- sorry -- with You-Know-Who, has it? You could just shake or nod," he added hastily as Dobby's head tilted worryingly close to the wall again.
Slowly, Dobby shook his head.
"Not -- not He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, sir--"
But Dobby's eyes were wide and he seemed to be trying to give Harry a hint. Harry, however, was completely lost.

If you read the last bit of that quote Doby says that it is not Voldermort who he is protecting harry from, and this is true, Voldermort is not at hogwarts in the 2nd book and he is not the 1 try to harm Harry, its his past Memory of Tom Riddle....but this doesn't mean Tom Riddle isn't Volermort, it just mwans its not Voldermort try to hurt Harry this time bit its the DIary with the Memory of Tom Riddle. Also the quote ffrom Dumbeldore from OotP is enough for mme ot believe that Tom and Voldermort are the same person.

"You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality, are you?"
"We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom," Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk toward Voldemort [...]"

APWBD

July 16th, 2004, 9:18 pm

Blacks Beauty:
The idea that it is our choices that make us who we are was a pretty strong theme in CoS -- so I tend not to think that he was "born to be Voldemort". That would be contrary to the theme, and suggest that we are unable to affect what we become. I don't think JKR would do that. But obviously Voldemort evolved from the decisions of Tom Riddle.

I agree that she emphasizes choice as an important theme. But I wonder what level the characters here are able to make choices on. In other words, even if it was a choice that Tom made to travel down the road to becoming Voldemort, could Tom chosen not to evolve into Voldemort? Obviously in the context of JKR having a story to write, she chose for him to make that choice, but beyond that, did he have one? I'm not so sure. A lot has been made of the parallels between the childhoods of Tom and Harry (speaking of which, wouldn't it be interesting if there was a character named Richard or Dick, any Tom, Dick, or Harry, but anyway), bad childhoods in the orphanage and with the Dursleys, etc, etc, etc. Perhaps the orphanage was demonstrably worse than even living with the Dursleys, we have no way of knowing yet, but that may well be something we are shown in Book 6. Regardless, neither was exactly ideal, yet we have two people that make drastically different decisions when given the chance.
So what is the motivation for the difference in their choices? Was a year and change worth of living in a loving home enough to make the difference? Does anyone think James and Lilly wouldn't have sacrificed themselves and Harry would be markedly different if VD had come after him a week or a day after he was born instead of a year? I think not, so although Harry did have a loving home for at least some short time, I don't think anyone would stand up here and say that had his parents been killed even earlier, Harry still wouldn't be making the same decisions.
So, you could then say that a lot of Harry's brave and heroic decisions in school were based on saving/protecting the ones he loved. But, he entered school the same way that Tom presumably did, without a friend in the world and his only interaction with kids of his own age being that of being bullied and harrassed. So why was Harry able to quickly make friends while Tom did not? Or did Tom make friends, only to dominate them as a leader as time went on because of his considerable power? Now, Harry is beginning to be looked at as a leader, in the DA for instance, but still not as a dominating leader, but as a benevolent leader if not a leader among equals.
So, to make my point without dragging comparisons and questions on even longer, yes I agree that choices make us who we are is a strong theme. But, there has to be some baseline character that helps them make those choices, especially the difficult ones and earliest ones that started them down the road they follow. So what motivated Tom into choices that lead him to Voldemort, while Harry, from seemingly similar upbringing is motivated into being a hero? My answer is an innate character that everyone is born with. Tom became what he was because from the day he was born, his scale tipped too far to the side of evil and that had to influence every decision he ever made, consciously or subconsciously. So, in that respect, Tom was born to be Voldemort, in my opinion anyway.

Blacks Beauty:
But was he really? It could have been him or Neville; it was only because he was marked that he became the one, so technically he was not born into it, Voldemort made him into it.

There can be found quite a debate on that in other forums on here. Was it possible that it could be either one of them or was it always Harry and Voldemort just picked "right" the first time? I won't really go into it here because it's covered in other areas and can quickly become a circular argument, not to mention I haven't completely convinced myself one way or the other. Just wanted to highlight that for a lot of people it's far from a settled point that Harry was or wasn't born into his role.

Scarlet Tears

July 17th, 2004, 4:12 am

One of the main reasons why I don't think that Voldemort and Tom Riddle are two different entities is because Voldemort used the bone of his father to become mortal again, and he referred to him as his father while sharing his past with Harry. Tom Riddle had killed his father, and his father's gravestone was the one that Harry was tied to during the scene in the graveyard. On page 641 of the US version of the Goblet of Fire, as Wormtail prepares to add the three crucial ingredients to the potion that will revive the Dark Lord, he says, "Bone of the father, unknowingly given, you will renew your son!"

Then after Voldemort arose from the cauldron, he says to Harry on page 646, "You see that house upon the hillside, Potter? My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was.... He didn't like magic, my father.... He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage... but I vowed to find him... I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name... Tom Riddle."

And finally, on page 656, while telling the Death Eaters how he managed to return, Voldemort says, "I knew that to achieve this - it is an old piece of Dark Magic, the potion that revived me tonight - I would need three powerful ingredients. Well, one of them was already at hand, was it not, Wormtail? Flesh given by a servant.... My father's bone, naturally, meant that we would have to come here, where he was buried."

So from the words of Voldemort himself, as well as Wormtail's, we find that Voldemort acknowledges that Tom Riddle senior is his father. And the potion would not have worked otherwise, because it called for the bone of the father of the one being restored. Since we know that Tom Marvolo Riddle does not have a brother (Dobby confirmed this on page 17 of the Chamber of Secrets), we can be fairly certain that Voldemort and Tom Riddle are actually one in the same.

ornjbreezy

July 17th, 2004, 4:16 am

Sorry if some of this is repeated. I read most of this thread, but couldn't bring myself to finish it!

Anyway, I'm one of those who believe that Voldemort and Tom are not the same character. I don't have much evidence for my case, but I'll take a whack at it.

For one, Voldemort speaks in the third person. This could really be Tom talking, am I right? Even if it's not, it sure raises some suspicious questions about the parallel between earlier and later Voldemort/Tom. Secondly, Dumbledore's comment ("yes, but in essence, divided?" or something to that effect) seems to point right at it: Tom and Voldemort are in essence divided. Yes, this could mean anything else, but it sorta-kinda-Iwantittosoitcan works. Thirdly, I think JK would have clarified already on her site that it's NOT Tom Riddle either, if he didn't count as the same person as Voldemort. She said she would tell us outright, so she might as well tell us completely outright so that absolutely no speculation is possible on whether or not Voldemort and Tom Riddle are one. Lastly, there had to be a time when Tom was simply Tom, and not the evolved form of Voldemort. I think we'll have to learn more about that time before the end of the series, and book six would be just a dandy time to read about it.

Yes, I know none of this is very reliable, and I really do realize it.

Spikey

July 17th, 2004, 4:21 am

I have to say I think that Tom Riddle IS Voldermort due to the reasons pointed out in the 1st post on this topic.

Blacks Beauty

July 17th, 2004, 6:37 pm

Good post, Scarlet Tears, especially the bit about what he says at the cemetary. I'm still bugged about Voldemort and Riddle seemingly existing concurrently in CoS, but I also admit I kind of want them to be different.

But I wonder what level the characters here are able to make choices on. In other words, even if it was a choice that Tom made to travel down the road to becoming Voldemort, could Tom chosen not to evolve into Voldemort? I understand what you're saying. I do agree Riddle was a bad seed, but I guess what I was thinking was, had he made different choices, maybe he could have been say, a Dudley, instead of Voldemort. I mean, Dudley's a pretty rotten kid, but as far as we know he hasn't shown any genocidal tendencies (yet.) I am probably guilty of putting my own prejudices into it, because I believe that we can affect our fate -- but that is not always the case in fiction, is it? ;) The mere existence of prophecies here suggest otherwise.

Just wanted to highlight that for a lot of people it's far from a settled point that Harry was or wasn't born into his role. Maybe that's why I unconsciously phrased it as a question?? *trying to recover from my faux pas* Absolutely right, though. I'm not dead set, but I bet you can tell which way I lean on this one. :p

APWBD

July 17th, 2004, 8:23 pm

Blacks Beauty:
I understand what you're saying. I do agree Riddle was a bad seed, but I guess what I was thinking was, had he made different choices, maybe he could have been say, a Dudley, instead of Voldemort. I mean, Dudley's a pretty rotten kid, but as far as we know he hasn't shown any genocidal tendencies (yet.) I am probably guilty of putting my own prejudices into it, because I believe that we can affect our fate -- but that is not always the case in fiction, is it? The mere existence of prophecies here suggest otherwise.

Indeed, chances are that where you fall on this argument is simply a strong reflection on how you feel on several philosophical arguments, like what constitutes a self and the question of free will. And chances are if someone is somewhat conflicted on those issues, which most are to some degree, they're probably conflicted about which side of this whole argument they're going to come down on. :) In the end, how this all shapes up will end up coming down to how JKR feels about them, and half of us will have our arguments vindicated, and the other half might be somewhat irritated that our take doesn't agree with hers, but I think we'll all be entertained and challenged a little, which is what good fiction is all about.

stupiddeer

July 18th, 2004, 12:21 am

tom riddle and voldemort are the same person but in CoS they both existed at the same time, so they can be seperated to so then there could be a Tom alive that isn't voldemort, and he is a halfblood, and he is the heir to slytherin which could be considered royalty
it would be cool if he was in slytherin in the same year as harry and didn't know his own identity because only 4 slytherin boys in harry's year have been mentioned and if it is like gryffindor then there should be 5

fawksrox8908

July 20th, 2004, 12:28 am

yep i agree! same person! i think dobby was just trying to stay loyal to his master when he shook his head.

Remus Black

July 20th, 2004, 2:38 am

Same person. That's my thought. You could make a strong case for them being different, but there is more evidence that they are the same person.

ArryhayOtterpay

July 20th, 2004, 2:50 pm

They are the same person. Excellent post by Scarlet Tears, I was going to post those same quotes out of GOF! :)

The following out of GOF sums it up for me. Here Voldemolt is saying it for himself.

Originally Posted by Scarlet Tears
Then after Voldemort arose from the cauldron, he says to Harry on page 646, "You see that house upon the hillside, Potter? My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was.... He didn't like magic, my father.... He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born, Potter, and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage... but I vowed to find him... I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name... Tom Riddle."

The next quote also shows that Voldemort and Tom Riddle are the same.

Originally Posted by Scarlet Tears
And finally, on page 656, while telling the Death Eaters how he managed to return, Voldemort says, "I knew that to achieve this - it is an old piece of Dark Magic, the potion that revived me tonight - I would need three powerful ingredients. Well, one of them was already at hand, was it not, Wormtail? Flesh given by a servant....My father's bone, naturally, meant that we would have to come here, where he was buried."

Originally Posted by Scarlet Tears
So from the words of Voldemort himself, as well as Wormtail's, we find that Voldemort acknowledges that Tom Riddle senior is his father. And the potion would not have worked otherwise, because it called for the bone of the father of the one being restored.

I agree!! This makes sense to me. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in! :rotfl:

voldemolt14

July 21st, 2004, 8:28 pm

This won't go down well with some of you here but personally i believe that this is Toms chance to redeem himself -NOT voldemort- Tom. I think as do many that the changes that voldemort went through separated him from humanity and by doing that separated himself from Riddle.

This alone could provide great plot lines Toms internal struggle about becoming voldemort
could evolve from him being kept within ginnys mind(thats what i believe) ulitimately ending in tom sacrificing himself and thus proving what voldemort changed to ....pure evil....
this could also help us the readers to hate voldie more by showing how different they are....

Special Guest

July 22nd, 2004, 3:34 am

first, great thread!!!!

second, (i may be repeating things but here i go....) in CoS, riddle says lord voldemort is his past, present, and future, which tells us that they are the same person. later, dumbledore tells harry that tom riddle disappeared and went through many terrible transformations to become lord voldemort, however, they are still the same person!

so, if somehow people still think tom riddle(voldemort) is the HBP, you're wrong! because jkr has said its not voldemort.

also, remember tom riddle(again....voldemort) was only a memory in CoS, which means that without a lot of powerful magic, he wont be back, since it would be time travel.

also remember that we only have 2 more books left to go, so the storyline couldnt handle that kind of a change.

EDIT: after looking around and thinking a little, i found that some people believe jkr is doing a dobby like thing with the "its not voldemort" statement. however, dobby was clearly trying to tell harry something if you all remember, and harry couldnt find out what it was because of uncle vernon and the dinner downstairs. jkr did not type (or say) "its not voldemort wink wink :eyebrows: ". ...............and thats what i think

DarkThunder

July 22nd, 2004, 8:40 am

Guys, if you think Riddle and Voldemort are different I suggest you re-read the series, especially CoS. Its quite a preposterous theory.

Kimmetje

July 22nd, 2004, 1:20 pm

Why don't you all read the Changeling Hypothesis, it explains everything very well! The Riddle vs. Voldemort thing is true, I think as well I won't say anything, just read the Chaneling Hypothesis.

Changeling Hypothesis; http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html

IceKat55

July 24th, 2004, 12:53 am

Guys, if you think Riddle and Voldemort are different I suggest you re-read the series, especially CoS. Its quite a preposterous theory.
Not necessarily...it's sort of a matter of perception.

When Voldemort zapped Harry, all those years ago, he lost his original body. Had to "rebuild" a body for himself, using Harry's own blood. So perhaps "this" physical version of Voldemort isn't the HBP...but Tom Riddle/Old Voldemort body could be....

Stretching it a bit, I know. :p

Special Guest

July 24th, 2004, 8:48 pm

angel spirit

July 24th, 2004, 8:54 pm

Even if the "old tom/voldemort" was the HBP, how would he get to book 6's time?
According to what you said, the "old" tom died when he tried to kill harry.
seems like to many loop holes, it wouldnt be logical for jkr to write that.

Lucius Malfoy still has the diary and he could possible restore it.Anyways, we're not here to discuss what his possiblity is to be the Half Blood Prince. It's to discuss if Voldemort and Tom Riddle are two seperate entities.

My opinion is that if J.K. wanted to make Tom Riddle and Voldemort two sperate beings, she could easily. Just say that Dumbledore was mistaken and that Voldemort is not indeed Tom. It would be simple. Now as far as making him the Half Blood Prince... Well that's a whole another matter.

Dementor Dave

July 24th, 2004, 9:01 pm

Total concurrance with angel spirit (wow those words are odd coming from me) on JKR being able to easily seperate Voldemort from Tom Riddle. There are so many distinctions. I think the nomenclature of the wizarding world about Voldemort/Riddle is a hint. Fear gives power, people feared Voldemort, and wouldn't say his name. Tom Riddle's name could be easily used, and is used by those who hold out hope for the person the Dark Lord USED to be.

Lady_Narcissa

July 24th, 2004, 10:57 pm

I don't want the HBP to turn out to be Riddle. I'm not going to argue wether or not Riddle and Voldemort are the same entity after all his magical transformations.

I do want to ask people's opinion on one line in the COS scene in COS that has been nagging me ever since I noticed it in a recent reread. It is:

Voldemort was laughing

Rowling is always very careful with her word choices. In the entire COS scene, Tom Riddle is always described as "Riddle" in the author's narration and in Harry's observation of him. The only time the name "Voldemort" is used is when Riddle, himself, says the name.

And yet in the course of the author's narration for that scene, the name Voldemort is slipped in one time. We go from "Riddle's hissing voice" to "Voldemort was laughing" to "Riddle screaming".

And it's that one tiny use of Voldemort's name that could give the impression that at that moment in the COS there is some separation between Voldemort and Riddle.

Has this been discussed to death previously in another thread? Why do you think Rowling chose to use the name "Voldemort" in that line instead of "Riddle"? It couldn't have been for variety's sake. She was so careful to use Riddle all the other times.

Special Guest

July 25th, 2004, 4:30 am

Tom Riddle's name could be easily used, and is used by those who hold out hope for the person the Dark Lord USED to be.As we saw in CoS, Tom Riddle was already quite evil and nasty when he was 15 (i think thats how old he was)

im sticking to all my ideas, because although it would be easy for jkr to write this in, it would still create a lot of loopholes.

Dementor Dave

July 25th, 2004, 5:37 am

As we saw in CoS, Tom Riddle was already quite evil and nasty when he was 15 (i think thats how old he was)
Yes, the Dark Lord was quite ambitious even in his teens. The differance is that no one knew it was him. He couldn't yet risk being evil in the open, because people had little reason to fear him up to that point.
-Dementor Dave

DayVirgo

July 26th, 2004, 12:43 am

I don't know if this has been said yet, but I think we should focus on the fact that it is the Half Blood Prince, not king. Prince implies that someone already is King and your just waiting until its your turn. So if Tom was the Half Blood Prince, who is the King? Tom was (and is) the only remaining part of the Riddle/Slytherin family, therefore he would be a King. This is why I don't think it could be Tom/Voldemort. It must be someone else.

Just for jokes with this next one . . . Voldemort's Son! LOL :rotfl:

Blacks Beauty

July 26th, 2004, 1:56 am

Quote:Voldemort was laughing
Rowling is always very careful with her word choices. In the entire COS scene, Tom Riddle is always described as "Riddle" in the author's narration and in Harry's observation of him. The only time the name "Voldemort" is used is when Riddle, himself, says the name. Wow - I never noticed that! Puzzling. Re-reading it, Harry has his eyes closed at the time, so perhaps the voice he heard laughing was Voldemort in his head, as opposed to Riddle in the CoS... Like I said, this scene seems to imply that, at least at this point in time, Tom Riddle could have existed concurrently with Vapormort.

Dementor Dave

July 26th, 2004, 8:17 am

This disscussion seems to have manifested in SPOILER WARNING: New Harry Potter Book Title (Mk. 4) (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=30167) as well. Just for referance I'll post it here, too.
* Dumbledore says in CoS, Chapter 18, that Tm Riddle "underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations...that he was barely recognizable". Basically creating for himself a new identity.
* In CoS, the Heir of Slytherin Chapter, Tom Riddle speaks of himself in the future as "Lord Voldemort" rather than "I".
* IMPORTANT- In CoS, Heir of Slytherin Chapter, JKR spreaks of Tom Riddle as "Tom" or "Riddle". EXCEPT at one point, just one point. "Voldemort was Laughing". JKR is very carefuul with word choice, and that particular moment Tom is being particularly malicious, sending the basilisk after Harry. When the basilisk becomes distracted and the tides begin to turn, JKR begins to use "Tom" and "Riddle" again. Perhaps Tom Riddle is only Voldemort when he is at the height of is evil game?

Just a few thoughts, hope it helps people understand why some people still consider the two characters differential.
-Dementor Dave

-Dementor Dave

Vega Lennex

July 26th, 2004, 9:34 am

Interesting thread！ And one that requires hard thinking, too. By the way, English is my second language, and this is my first post, so please excuse me if I didn’t express myself clear enough. Well, here are my thoughts:

Firstly, I’d like to ask: whom do we mean by “ Tom Riddle”? The 15-year-old Tom Riddle of the past or the memory preserved in the diary?

I put a strong emphasis on this point because the two are actually very different beings. What we see in COS is but a memory of the 15-year-old Tom Riddle, an imprint left by magic, like footprints on a sandy beach. The fact that a set of footprints is left by a person doesn’t necessarily make the footprints the person himself, and so, obviously, the memory in the diary is not Riddle himself and is definitely not the present-day Voldemort.

The connection between Riddle-of-the-past and Lord Voldemort is much more complex. As we all know, a person changes with time, both mentally and physically. For instance, I am 18 now, and there’s a world’s difference between my bawling, one-year-old self and what I am now. Different? Certainly. But are we the same person? If we say yes to this, then I think we should say the same to the case of Riddle and Voldemort. Riddle was not exactly what Voldemort is now, but he grew into the Dark Lord in time.

Dementor Dave

July 26th, 2004, 9:42 am

Originally posted by Vega Lennex
Interesting thread！ And one that requires hard thinking, too. By the way, English is my second language, and this is my first post, so please excuse me if I didn’t express myself clear enough. Well, here are my thoughts:

Firstly, I’d like to ask: whom do we mean by “ Tom Riddle”? The 15-year-old Tom Riddle of the past or the memory preserved in the diary?

I put a strong emphasis on this point because the two are actually very different beings. What we see in COS is but a memory of the 15-year-old Tom Riddle, an imprint left by magic, like footprints on a sandy beach. The fact that a set of footprints is left by a person doesn’t necessarily make the footprints the person himself, and so, obviously, the memory in the diary is not Riddle himself and is definitely not the present-day Voldemort.

The connection between Riddle-of-the-past and Lord Voldemort is much more complex. As we all know, a person changes with time, both mentally and physically. For instance, I am 18 now, and there’s a world’s difference between my bawling, one-year-old self and what I am now. Different? Certainly. But are we the same person? If we say yes to this, then I think we should say the same to the case of Riddle and Voldemort. Riddle was not exactly what Voldemort is now, but he grew into the Dark Lord in time.
:welcome: You expressed yourself very well! You also made some very good points. When I say Tom Riddle I am speaking of the predeccesor of Voldemort, not the memory. I use the memory as evidence though, as it would have the same views as the young Tom Riddle.
-Dementor Dave

Prof.Blink

July 26th, 2004, 2:07 pm

Well, here's news many of you will be interested in. JKR has just updated some of her frequently asked questions and has stated that Tom Riddle and voldermort are indeed the same person. Take a look for yourselves!!

Gwenog Jones

July 26th, 2004, 7:13 pm

As Prof. Blink has stated above, JKR confirmed that Tom Riddle and Voldemort are one in the same. So, I guess we can put this theory to rest!

fawksrox8908

July 26th, 2004, 7:20 pm

alrighty ppl! jkr updated her website and it's official! tom riddle and voldy are the same person and tom isn't the hbp!

petruchio

July 26th, 2004, 7:28 pm

I put a strong emphasis on this point because the two are actually very different beings. What we see in COS is but a memory of the 15-year-old Tom Riddle, an imprint left by magic, like footprints on a sandy beach. The fact that a set of footprints is left by a person doesn’t necessarily make the footprints the person himself, and so, obviously, the memory in the diary is not Riddle himself and is definitely not the present-day Voldemort.

Great point. After all, if preserved wizards were inhabited with the soul of the original person, then every painting on the walls of Hogwarts (including the Fat lady, Violet, Cadogan, and all of the Headmasters) would be alive, and if any of the original people who modeled for these portraits in the first place were still alive, where would their souls reside?

Of course, this brings up an interesting point: we already know DD uses past Headmasters portraits as means for communication and/or surveillance (OotP); who's to say that there isn't at least a facsimile of the person's soul in there? And we already know that DD has kept an eye on HP in ways Harry "couldn't possibly imagine." Brings up a whole wealth of possibilities, doesn't it?

BTW, Vega, seeing as how I'm an English teacher, you've got nothing to worry about. Your English syntax is just fine.