Who is to blame for Voldemort going bad?

[ginevraweasly]

Originally Posted by Raviolissimo

a friend of mine co-wrote 3 of the standard texts
on the subject as a post-doc.
"Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior"...

"Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology"
"Personality Disorders in Modern Life"
there is a 4-point criteria for assessing people -
1. the inability to feel remorse
2. a grossly inflated view of oneself
3. a pronouned indifference to the suffering of others
4. a pattern of deceitful behavior

the original posts asks, "who is to blame ?"

the abbreviated definition - a psychopath is born,
a sociopath is shaped by society and may have
been good as a child. ("nature vs. nurture",
applied to people who hurt other people.)

while Voldemort may have had a rough childhood,
growing up in an orphanage, he was certainly an
"alpha child", albeit a loner.

to use fictional characters as examples, Voldemort
was approximately a psychopath; Darth Vader was
a sociopath (as a child he was emotionally normal,
though supernaturally talented.)...

My friends' career as a research psychologist ended
(temporarily, i hope) because of a bad outcome
from LASIK eye surgery.

I absolutely agree. Evil is something people are also being born with either because the chemistry in their brains is wrong or because they from very early childhood chose to be evil, who really knows. Of course evil can be passed onto people as well. In the upbringing it is certain. It is up to the people to free themselves from it as they grow up. They are despertely in need of good friends on that journey too, exactly as Harry did...
Of course many of them suspect theirs not being entirely up to date with reality, but still refuse any treatment whenever suggested. Real evil, like Umbrige, like Belatrix and so many others in the Saga, and in real life as well...
Good Dumbledore chose so early on being Good. Until the end, and so did Harry.

...and yet, to my great shame I have to confess forever being in love with young Dart Vader...

[JamesRavenclaw]

My honest opinion no person is responsible for his decent into evil, true one could blame his mother for her abandonment of him at birth however we must remember that Tom Riddle (As everyone who knows me is aware I never call him Lord Voldermort) only knew of his powers as "special abilities" He was not made aware of his status as a wizard or that he was a member of the Salazar blood line until much later in life.

The thing that corrupted Tom was the same thing that corrupts many people both Muggle and Wizard alike power!

Magic is power pure and simple and as we all know power is only as good or bad as what we decide to do with it in Toms case the choice was evil.

[ginevraweasly]

Yeah, but the problem that confronted with the same experience Harry, or James, or Lily did not have the same perception of "power" but rather of something natural and quite funny. Lily liked to (try) make things more beautiful with flowers since a kid and James...well, used to annoy his enemies which is also form of fun
But it was never power as it was for Voldermot, as he chose it to be.

[njefros92]

Voldemort himself is the reason he went bad. Once he learned he had power of other people he used it to his advantage, and when Dumbledore tried to tame that Voldemort became offended and drew his own course in History.

[Sereena]

I'm actually not convinced that Voldemort only had himself to blame for becoming evil. I'm not saying it was anyone else's fault, but rather that he was never given any reason not to be evil. I know Rowling said she had given him choices but I really don't see them. It says he was born "funny" and bullied other children even before he got to Hogwarts. Due to the Sorting system (which I find appalling) he would have most likely only hung out with other kids who were equally prejudiced if not more so and who only confirmed his views on the world. I believe he had a bad influence on his peers just like they had on him. Dumbledore, who might have been a good influence, didn't seem to want to have much to do with him and I understand why he refused Tom the job at Hogwarts but at the same time, that might also have been an opportunity to keep him in line and possibly introduce him to decent wizards. I really saw no reason for him to change his behaviour since everyone (except Albus) adored him the way he was. Where did he get any opportunity to change the evil course his life had taken? I didn't see that in the books and I thought it was disappointing.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by JohanT

Well, I did say "more favorable". That is not necessarily to say that all would be forgiven, but merely that Riddle's attitude towards his father would be more accepting, if his father were a wizard.

I think he wouldn't look favourably on anyone who he believed had abandoned him to live in the orphanage, Muggle or wizard.

That Riddle's opinion of his mother is very much focused within her pathetic death, rather than the fact that she left him alone.

But her death meant that she left him alone.

I do not believe that Riddle was that upset at being abandoned as much as he was just irritated that his father turned out to be a common Muggle.

But twice he complains about abandonment - Diary Riddle does so in the Chamber of Secrets, and Voldemort does so himself in the graveyard. He complains that his father left because he "disliked magic". Clearly, he didn't have the full story, but I think there was anger at that perceived abandonment.

Appreciating their usefulness would extend to appreciating their abilities...

Yes, in some sense. He appreciates their usefulness to him, but he doesn't appreciate skills in their own right. And it doesn't mean respect. He appreciates that he can use his thugs' abilities for something, but he doesn't respect them.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Sereena

I'm not saying it was anyone else's fault, but rather that he was never given any reason not to be evil.

Does one need a reason not to be evil? Should one need a reason to be good? Personally, I don't think one should need a reason not to commit evil crimes.

I know Rowling said she had given him choices but I really don't see them. It says he was born "funny" and bullied other children even before he got to Hogwarts.

I think the inbreeding in the Gaunt line had a negative effect. And as he bullied other children - that was his choice.

Due to the Sorting system (which I find appalling) he would have most likely only hung out with other kids who were equally prejudiced if not more so and who only confirmed his views on the world. I believe he had a bad influence on his peers just like they had on him.

I don't think all of Slytherin House is prejudiced. I don't think it can be said that the only influences in Tom Riddle's school years were the bigots. Perhaps these were the people he gravitated towards - as he too liked the entitled idea of automatic superiority. But these were not the only people in Slytherin House.

Dumbledore, who might have been a good influence, didn't seem to want to have much to do with him and I understand why he refused Tom the job at Hogwarts but at the same time, that might also have been an opportunity to keep him in line and possibly introduce him to decent wizards.

Dippet initially refused Riddle the job, on Dumbledore's advice. Dumbledore suspected, but could not prove that Riddle had murdered Myrtle. IMO, it would have been gross negligence to let such a person in contact with children.

Riddle was well-practiced in secrecy during his Hogwarts years, and led a group of racist bullies who managed to avoid being caught. He opened the Chamber of Secrets, as a student, and avoided capture. It would have even easier for him to cause harm as a teacher. It would be even harder to keep him in line, especially given the lax excuse for control Hogwarts seems to exert over its teachers' behaviour.

When Dumbledore himself refused the job to Riddle, he had already made several Horcruxes and had a group of Death Eaters. He would have used the job as a recruiting ground.

I really saw no reason for him to change his behaviour since everyone (except Albus) adored him the way he was. Where did he get any opportunity to change the evil course his life had taken? I didn't see that in the books and I thought it was disappointing.

Mrs. Cole didn't adore him as he was. I'm sure there were other students who didn't like him. However, there again we see Tom Riddle's choices - he was disdainful and dismissive of those who disliked him - he calls Mrs. Cole "that old cat" and Diary Riddle (who may reflect the behaviour and attitudes of teenage Riddle) mocks Dumbledore.
He uses those who like him as if they were nothing more than objects.
Whether people liked or disliked him, Riddle wasn't going to change, because there would always be some to fawn over him, some to mindlessly follow, some who liked the bile he spouted.

I don't think he should have needed someone begging him to be a good person in order to not be an evil one. I don't think evil is the default route unless one is persuaded to be good.

[JohanT]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I think he wouldn't look favourably on anyone who he believed had abandoned him to live in the orphanage, Muggle or wizard.

Again, I said "more" favorably, with regards to comparison. That does not mean "favorably". But he would see a Muggle as an inferior creature, and as such, would probably be even more disgusted if it was a Muggle who abandoned him.

But her death meant that she left him alone.

While true, it also meant that she, in his eyes, did not have the mental strength or ability to survive. As survival is the basic drive of Voldemort's nature, would he not associate his mother's death with a weakness in life?

But twice he complains about abandonment - Diary Riddle does so in the Chamber of Secrets, and Voldemort does so himself in the graveyard. He complains that his father left because he "disliked magic". Clearly, he didn't have the full story, but I think there was anger at that perceived abandonment.

To be honest, I never saw that as his resentment of simple abandonment. I believe it had much more to do with his father's non-magical blood. The sense of abandonment was magnified simply because he wished to see his father as a creature worthy of himself, and yet, he associates him with the inferior. It is also my belief that Riddle was aware of how he was brought into the world. While his conversation with Morfin did not reveal any such details, we are unaware of any discussion he might have had with his father. If this is true, then he appears to be lying, perhaps to cover up his mother's treachery to the pure-blood status, which would only serve to alienate him, for he is, essentially, a product of two turncoats.

Yes, in some sense. He appreciates their usefulness to him, but he doesn't appreciate skills in their own right. And it doesn't mean respect. He appreciates that he can use his thugs' abilities for something, but he doesn't respect them.

I was mainly talking about respect with regards to his opponents. Not to mention that I was saying that respect for the wizard himself was not needed in order for him to respect their magical aptitudes. For him to face them one on one was to acknowledge their powerful abilities.

Does one need a reason not to be evil? Should one need a reason to be good? Personally, I don't think one should need a reason not to commit evil crimes.

Hmmm...I would disagree, simply because if one does not need a reason to be evil, it could extend to one not needing a reason to be good. So where is the line drawn? There is always a reason for what choice a human will make, and Voldemort is no different. If all humans are capable of evil and good choice, and many times, these two coincide, then in reality, these two cannot be used as labels for extreme cases in human nature. Voldemort only becomes "evil", so to speak, when he splits his soul, thus becoming inhuman. All other times, he was simply refraining from good, while staying away from evil. If that makes sense .

[Sereena]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

Does one need a reason not to be evil? Should one need a reason to be good? Personally, I don't think one should need a reason not to commit evil crimes.

I'm not sure whether one needs or doesn't need a reason to be evil but like JohanT also said there's always a reason for why people act the way they act. However...
I wouldn't have a problem with Voldemort's characterization if it weren't for the HP series choice-theme. I was arguing that I don't see Voldemort as making a conscious choice to be evil but rather him acting according to his inner nature and mean streak that he probably always had. I was disappointed by the fact that there never seemed to be anything good about Voldemort at all instead we are told that he was a funny baby, a bully in his childhood and that his behaviour only aggravated as he grew up. There was never any point in the narrative where the reader was shown where he made the wrong choice, took the wrong turn.

I was expecting Voldemort to have a descent into evil similar to Snape's decision to do good. Snape turned good because of Lily and his guilt. I was expecting to see a point in Voldemort's life where he is given a choice and chooses evil. I for one didn't see any such thing and it stole depth away from his character IMO.

I agree with the rest of your post and no, not everyone in Slytherin was evil or prejudiced of course. However, if there was any positive influence in his life I would have liked to have been shown that in HBP while DD and Harry were delving into his past. I thought there was a good opportunity to show Voldemort does have redeeming qualities and that he could have been good. But the way I see it what were shown was an evil person who was always going to be evil and entirely lacked humanity. That was JKR's artistic decision and it's not unusual for villains to be "rotten to the core". But I disagree that we were shown he had a choice to be anything other than he was.

[Temery]

IMO it's only LV himself to blame. He did have choices, many many times. Here's one example of a choice he made; pre DD and him turning 11 he took those 2 other children (a boy and a girl) into that cave during the annual outing, now he could have done something nice to/for them thinking these 2 poor kids are in the same crummy orphanige as me, may be conjured a flower to make the little girl smile, instead he torments and torchers them (per the orphanage lady "they were never the same afterwards") and while JK didn't write down (cannon) all of the choices he made we can assume from this one example that he had 11 years of tormenting and torchering the other orphaned children instead of doing little things to make their lives happier.
Comparing Harry's upbringing to LV's isn't fair I think bc Harry always knew his parents were murdered (auntie and cousin were always reminding/teasing him of this fact) while LV didn't know about his dad and only knew that his mom died during childbirth which can happen to anyone, is an accident. So LV kind of hated fate/life accidents, while H wanted justice.

[SlyEd]

Noone is to blame but Tom Riddle him self. It would be like if you asked a question : "Who is to blame for Adolph Hitler going bad ? " He is just an evil person and thats that. it's in his genes.

[wolfbrother]

Well, if its genetic trait, you can't really blame the individual.

[SlyEd]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

Well, if its genetic trait, you can't really blame the individual.

Certain individual should be able to control himself. For example if your father had some addiction, you would have good predispositions to become addicted to one, doesn't mean you can't control yourself.

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by SlyEd

Certain individual should be able to control himself. For example if your father had some addiction, you would have good predispositions to become addicted to one, doesn't mean you can't control yourself.

True, but conditions like psychopathy can't really be stopped or reversed.

[chocolatBaysea]

If Voldemort has sad story, but he fail to understand definition of happy life as he wasn't optimistic after being label by Muggles. Harry knows better after he has been picked on by uncle, their situation is almost same but Voldemort choose to believe the world is make to be evil by taking revenge, but Harry does not think so because he has strong belief of justice.

If to blame who is in fault, it's Voldemort's, he has options to block out painful memories instead but he was haunted by them which cause his personality change. If the person can't get along well with his own peers, been ostracize for being different, judge quickly before really understand friends, Voldemort has long way to go understanding Harry's meaning as he's blinded and give in to temptation of power.

[Torran]

I personally think Tom Riddle has no one but himself to blame. Sure, he had a rough childhood, but not really a tragic one. He grew up in an orphanage, surrounded by other children. He chose to do evil, he chose to lust for power, he chose to view humans as tools and means to an end. He chose to kill Myrtle, his father and everyone thereafter. He chose to spew the purist dogma though he himself was a half blood. His parent's weren't around, and I highly doubt he picked up his ways from observing the orphanage staff. IMO, Voldemort chose to be evil, and never regretted it.

Now, he might have had something wrong with him. Maybe his brain was messed up, it was genetic, inbreeding etc etc. Voldemort wouldn't really have had a choice, but then we wouldn't really have had a choice either. Whether it was his fault or not, he was still rampaging around killing people, and the aurors still have to kill him. I think the only difference is either killing a truly despicable person or putting down a rabid dog, who's evil is in his nature, but is evil nonetheless.

[wolfbrother]

This is a fascinating article on possible psychopathy in a child. I think this would help in imagining how Tom Riddle might have behaved when he was a kid.

Can you call a 9 year old a psychopath?

[merrymarge]

I read an article that scientists have found an empathy gene in children. if you don't have it, you grow up to be a psychopath. As for calling a nine year old a psycopath, Doctors, scientists, religious leaders are wary of labeling a child, at any age. These children have a "poor or troubled childhood'. it isn't until they are adults that some can label them.
As for Voldemort, I can feel sorry for him, he did make poor choices, but I think he might have done well if he had a mentor, not just his mother. I still wonder if she could have properly nurtured him. She could love him, but she might have lacked something. He might have tormented local children, instead of fellow orphans, but she would over look his behaviour. She would make excuses for what he did.

[warthogist]

I think that the blame for Voldemort becoming evil, lies upon a few things. I shall list these:

1. Not having parents who where there for him could have had a detrimental effect on his views upon good and evil. Maybe he thought that as his parents where not there for him, that his muggle heritage is why, from this he could have stereotyped all muggles and muggleborns as evil and radicalised this view,

2. Also as he says: "there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it" we can deduce that he always wanted to have something different about him and be special. As well as this we can see that he wants to be powerful, and on his struggle to gain power must have realised that there where barriers in place to stop people doing them and so will have had to be on the other side of the law to succeed.

3. I do not think that genetics have much to do with this as his father was a muggle who was not very evil or powerful and his mother was in poverty and so most of her thoughts would be on how she was going to survive the next day.

Any thoughts?

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by warthogist

2. Also as he says: "there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it" we can deduce that he always wanted to have something different about him and be special. As well as this we can see that he wants to be powerful, and on his struggle to gain power must have realised that there where barriers in place to stop people doing them and so will have had to be on the other side of the law to succeed.

I think that line from Voldemort says a lot about his thought processes. It seems that he came to this conclusion based on cold logic.

3. I do not think that genetics have much to do with this as his father was a muggle who was not very evil or powerful and his mother was in poverty and so most of her thoughts would be on how she was going to survive the next day.

His father and his family had a bad reputation with the locals. They may not have been evil but people did not like them at all. I can see Voldemort inheriting his father's snobbish attitude.

As for his mother, she did have the time and the skill (eventually) to plot a way to get Riddle senior to like her. In breeding was common in the Gaunt family and their behavior was not what you'd call normal.

[GrimeldaDursley]

Well, we knew he always felt "special" and thusly felt superior to all the other kids in the orphanage, then along comes Albus Dumbledore to inform him that he is indeed different, he is a Wizard! But hark to this, now Tom Riddle has in his mind even more so to feel superior to those who aren't magical, but at the same time, in the Wizarding World, he's not so special, really, he's no longer "one of a kind". He is not unique. I imagine secretly that was quite a blow to his ego. So now what? Let's see... supress the fact that eventually he finds out his father was not a wizard, and take up the "pureblood" line.

Now, I won't take away from the fact that TR was perhaps more gifted than a lot of Wizarding kids, and seemed to be highly intelligent, maybe even in the genius range. But while for most kids, and I emphasize no matter what House they're in that would probably be enough. But not Tom, who I think always needed to feel superior to someone else. So automatically, Muggles and Muggleborns are inferior in his eyes. And then some Purebloods like what he says and and start following him, though they don't know he feels superior to them, too! He has never had anyone he would call a friend, but they don't know that. He has a glib tongue and leads them to think they are close to him, and they fall in and follow. He wanted to control everybody, and he wanted to live forever and control everybody forever. And no matter if a person is magical or not, death comes to all of us eventually. This cannot happen to him, because then he would not be unique. He must live forever, which will set him apart from all humans, for nobody can live forever.

Rambled on, didn't I? Then again, maybe the dude was just wacko.