Who is to blame for Voldemort going bad?

[Slytherin_12]

Originally Posted by magenta_cx

Lately, I've been wondering what would've happened if Tom Riddle had got the job of DADA right after he'd finished his seventh year?

I don't think he'd have had time to research horcruxes and all of that dark stuff he he looked for after Hogwarts. It would've also let Dubledore keep an eye on him.

Do you think he wouldn't have had the chance to turn evil if he'd become a teacher?

That's a very interesting question.

I think it would have good, and bad results. He would have been a teacher, so his workload and his classes possibly delayed his study into Horcruxes more. Put off until later for when he'd rise to power. Bad thing, if he would decide to kill (anonymously, of course; he has his ways, I'm guessing) students.

[harrypottergurl]

I think he would've been trying to teach Dark Arts instead of Defence Against the Dark Arts. Look what happened in DH.

[GraceD]

His motives to get a job at Hogwarts is to hide Ravenclaw's diadem (he succeeded in doing this even without the job). If he was given the job, he would have tried to turn something from Gryffindor into a Horcrux instead of making Nagini one of his Horcruxes. And he could have plotted to have full control of Hogwarts. Turning the heirlooms of the Hogwarts founders shows that he has so dearly loved Hogwarts and wants it to be with him for his betterment, not for his downfall.

[wolfbrother]

Frankly, I don't think Voldemort would have stayed on for more than a year. IMO he wanted to search for other historic magical objects. He would also use the time to gather students who could join with him later as well.
I don't think Dumbledore being there would have made much difference. After all, Voldemort had just passed out of school. He was well aware that Dumbledore was suspicious and I don't think he intended to do anything outrageous. I think Dumbledore's main worry was that with Voldemort as a staff member, Dumbledore would lose whatever authority he had over Voldemort as a student. Voldemort was not caught for anything as a student despite Dumbledore's suspicions, IMO it was unlikely that Dumbledore would have more luck with Voldemort as a teacher.

[Muggle_Magic]

Originally Posted by twinsrule26

Well I think he would never have gone to work at Borgin and Burkes .Which means that he would never have found out about the Hufflepuff cup and the Slytherin locket which would have kept that silly old lady alive longer .

You're right, but he probably would have found other valuable and meaningful (to him) objects to use as Horcruxes. He may even have gotten his hands on Gryffindor's sword - scary thought!

Or maybe among the students there'd be some relative of Hepzibah Smith who'd boast about the old woman's treasures, and he'd have gotten the cup and the locket anyway. Who knows?

The other thing I feel would have happened is that as a teacher he would have been tied down at school for 10 months of the year. Which would leave him very little time in each year to be out searching for things to turn into Horcruxes .

In an old castle like Hogwarts, full of ancient magical objects, I'm sure he could have found things he'd deem worthy of turning into Horcruxes, I'd think.

Being around Dumbledore daily might have afforded Dumbledore more time to get the goods on Tom and build a solid case against Tom.

It's a possibility, but Tom would be extra careful around Dumbledore, who already had strong suspicions against him.

Another negative outcome of his being a teacher is that he had a whole pool of Slytherins - and possibly students from other Houses - to recruit more Death Eaters. I agree with those who think that he'd have even more opportunity to study the Dark Arts, and he'd teach those to the small group of potential DEs he'd have gathered.

IMO, he wouldn't have stayed a teacher very long anyway. His ambitions went way beyond that. It'd just have been a stepping stone, just as working at B&B was a stepping stone. He'd move on as soon as he'd got what he wanted, just like he did from B&B.

In a word, I don't think that getting that job would have changed much in Tom Riddle's ascent to power - or descent to darkness, whichever way you want to put it.

[Racket_Man]

I think that the total transformation from Tom Riddle to LV would have taken longer if PRof. Dippet had hired Riddle as DADA teacher. I think TR would have had more time to "probe" and investigate the castle and maybe the library. things might have ultimately turned out the way they did but with different roads taken to the same end and a different time scale.

we know from canon that shortly after Riddle left school (but not to how much time) that Riddle clerked for B&B and yes found out about the locket and cup. and after Riddle stole the items disappeared for a period of like 10 years (???) until he (LV) showed up at Hogworts (with a VERY different body and look) asking DD for the DADA job. In between those events,as stated by DD in HBP, Riddle AKA LV "consorted with the (not an exact quote) "darkest, most meanest of our kind, learned things that should not be learned or practised."

Somewhere along the line I think Tom would have grown tired of teaching and recruiting and still gone off to seek out more of the dark arts
Ulitmately Tom Riddle would have become LV just maybe by a different route

[winky45]

"Somewhere along the line I think Tom would have grown tired of teaching and recruiting and still gone off to seek out more of the dark arts
Ulitmately Tom Riddle would have become LV just maybe by a different route"

Racket Man you might be right. Tom would eventually become what he want to become. He didn't understand the power of love and the fact that immortality is not ultimate.

Hard to imagine a teacher who doesn't understand love. Even though school is not like home, teachers need to have love and patience towards students. That's the example of Lupin and Dumbledore. Even McGonagall is strict, she is still a caring teacher.

Winky45

[kristen423]

I think that no matter what Tom Riddle would have still become Voldemort even if he had gotten the job from Professor Dippet. The transformation into Voldemort would have taken place later in his life, but it would have still occured.

He probably would have started teaching, but shortly after starting he would have left to persue other things. Then he would eventually become Voldemort. But, I could still picture him teaching, even if it was for a very short period of time.

[Meggy]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

IMO, he would have used -- or misused Hogwarts and all of its resources to expedite his rise to power. Except for Dumbledore, I'm not sure there was anyone on staff who could have fought him. He could have Imperiused the entire facualty and student body.

This is very true. I wonder why Voldemort never just Imperiused Mr Dippet there and then into saying he could have the job then he could have kept Mr Dippet under his control. As Dippet was the headmaster, keeping him under control would have been a very smart move by Voldemort. I'm not sure why he never thought of that though.

[FleurduJardin]

I agree that Tom Riddle would have ended up being Voldemort anyway, just following a different "route".

Concerning the possibility of Imperiusing Dippet - As Headmaster, Dippet must have been a powerful wizard - though nowhere as powerful as Dumbledore - but still, he was probably talented enough to resist an Imperius Curse. Harry managed to resist the fake Moody's Imperius in class, remember, and he was just a teenager then, still in school. The younger Barty managed to shake off the Imperius his father put on him after a while. So, I don't think that, even if Tom Riddle had managed to Imperius Dippet by taking him by surprise, Dippet would have been overcome for very long. Once he was out of it, he'd know what Tom was about and would certainly have fired him. Tom probably realized that it was safer not to try, though it's quite probable he must have thought of the possibility.

[winky45]

Originally Posted by firth4eva

I couldn't find anything on this so...
Who is to blame for him going bad?
I think Marvolo Gaunt because of his attitudes towards his daughter

That plays a part. Very often people hurts and wounds are deeply lied in events that happen long ago, even generations ago.

But I do think that Voldemort is himself responsible. One choose the path he wants to travel. Harry was brought up by muggles who literally hated him. He could turn as bad as Voldemort. But he didn't. He strives to do the right thing. He doesn't use any means just to achieve the end. Not like the Slytherins, so he wasn't in Slytherin House.

It strike me how Harry had always wanted to do the things that are morally right. So he didn't even want to stun Stan S when he was being chased by the Death Eater. He only disarmed him, which caused the rest of the Death Eaters realized he was the real Potter.

Tom Riddle could have chosen to do right, it's all in him. It's his own choice to go bad.

Winky45

[Yoana]

It's really confusing, because I think we have conflicting evidence in the books. On the one hand, Dumbledore never tires of emphasizing free choice, and at least once he does so specifically to contrast Harry and Voldemort (book 2, I think). Then, he draws a comparison between Lily and Merope and how their handling motherhood has shaped their respective sons. And then we see Voldemort himself, being weird since he was a baby (unusually quiet baby), therefore before he knew he'd been abandoned, and then torturing bunnies and scaring children by the time he's 10 or so. So, is it his own fault, his mother's fault, or did he just spring up inherently evil? Because we have evidence of all three.

[Nandi]

Originally Posted by Yoana

It's really confusing, because I think we have conflicting evidence in the books. On the one hand, Dumbledore never tires of emphasizing free choice, and at least once he does so specifically to contrast Harry and Voldemort (book 2, I think). Then, he draws a comparison between Lily and Merope and how their handling motherhood has shaped their respective sons. And then we see Voldemort himself, being weird since he was a baby (unusually quiet baby), therefore before he knew he'd been abandoned, and then torturing bunnies and scaring children by the time he's 10 or so. So, is it his own fault, his mother's fault, or did he just spring up inherently evil? Because we have evidence of all three.

You got a point i always had the feeling Voldemorts family had been bad long before his birth

[winky45]

Originally Posted by Yoana

It's really confusing, because I think we have conflicting evidence in the books. (Dumbledore) draws a comparison between Lily and Merope and how their handling motherhood has shaped their respective sons. And then we see Voldemort himself, being weird since he was a baby (unusually quiet baby), therefore before he knew he'd been abandoned, and then torturing bunnies and scaring children by the time he's 10 or so. So, is it his own fault, his mother's fault, or did he just spring up inherently evil? Because we have evidence of all three.

I don't think anybody really "inherents" evil. What I mean is, while the past (his grandparent, his mom who had never felt loved, his father who abandoned him)
does affect a person, one cannot shrug off the responsibility of choosing one's path.

Like Harry as I said, he had all the ingredients which can turn him into another muggle-hater, but he didn't. Obviously one's choice is more important than circumstances beyong one's control.

Winky45

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Yoana

So, is it his own fault, his mother's fault, or did he just spring up inherently evil? Because we have evidence of all three.

Possibly it is all three working together. He may have been born with a limited capacity for empathy. But did he have to be evil? He may have been predisposed to it by his nature, but I don't think it was inevitable. His actions show that he did understand what he was doing, in my opinion, and he was capable of hiding his wrong actions or not doing harmful actions for long periods of time. He made a series of choices to indulge his desire to harm others, and if in the end he had become a creature incapable of change, I personally feel it was because he had chosen to become that thing by ripping his own soul apart to the point it could no longer function. But I also think that part of the point of the choices theme was that the choices people make often don't just affect themselves, but also the people around them. The situation Tom Riddle was born into wasn't of his own choosing, but a culmination of a series of choices made by other people, most notably his mother. No one gets to choose what sort of mess they are born into due to other people's actions, and some people inherit a bigger mess than others. But then they get to make their own choices, that will in turn make life easier or harder for the people around them.

Originally Posted by winky45

I don't think anybody really "inherents" evil. What I mean is, while the past (his grandparent, his mom who had never felt loved, his father who abandoned him)
does affect a person, one cannot shrug off the responsibility of choosing one's path.

I agree. A person might not be responsible for their background, but I think they are responsible for the choices they make.

[persian85033]

Originally Posted by High_Lion

Marvolo's treatment of Merope is empathetic with the views of purebloods. They see themselves as strong, powerful, better wizards. Merope doesn't agree with this, and is therefore treated in disregard.

We see an echo, furthering this arguement with the Blacks. Sirius doesn't agree with the pureblood views, and is held in disregard by his family. We can assume his treatment by his family was similar to that of Marvolo's treatment of Merope.

But Sirius turns out all right. Andromeda, too. Regulus and Narcissa, kind of. I mean, they're not evil, like say Bellatrix, but they're not exactly good, either.

[mexicant]

Originally Posted by persian85033

But Sirius turns out all right. Andromeda, too. Regulus and Narcissa, kind of. I mean, they're not evil, like say Bellatrix, but they're not exactly good, either.

I think you bring up a good point, but that it ultimately comes down to choice. Sirius chose to turn from his family, as did Andromeda. Narcissa chose family and Regulus chose someone he loved. Was Tom Riddle dealt a bad hand at the start of life? I'd certainly say so. Yet did he really need to follow that up with becoming bent on bettering himself and his situation at the cost of others? I don't think so.

Ultimately, it's my opinion that Voldemort is the person to blame for the direction he chose to take his life. Were there people along the way that, with small choices, could have changed him as a person? Absolutely. But for someone who was so determined to be better from such a young age, it would have had to have happened nearly as soon as he got to Hogwarts. I'm a firm believer in everyone having control over their own choices, over their own actions. There is always a choice, even if we don't like the options. I think Riddle's predisposition to looking out for himself above all else made it easy for him to make decisions that had negative consequences for others before he quite learned right from wrong, and then when he finally understood the difference, he just didn't care enough to change. Kind of like it had worked for him to that point, so why fix a system that to him remained unbroken?

[fruitia pickleweed]

Originally Posted by Yoana

...[W]e have conflicting evidence in the books...is it his own fault, his mother's fault, or did he just spring up inherently evil? Because we have evidence of all three.

I think you are close here, and it is not so much conflicting as overdetermined. (I.e., three overlapping causes are put forward, any one of which might have been enough on its own, according to one's ideas about causation, and all of which in combination seem guaranteed to produce the effect).

To expand:

1. Tom Riddle came from a family containing some exceptionally nasty wizards, plus a selfish Muggle. There are some in the Muggle world, even, who think that a lack of empathy and the resulting psychopathology may in some cases be an inherited form of brain dysfunction. If one believes that evil tendencies can be inherited genetically, this would cover it.

2. But even if you don't happen to believe that evil tendencies can be inherited, it's also true that Tom Riddle came into the world in exceptionally unfavorable circumstances. His mother was malnourished before his birth, which could have affected normal brain development. He was deprived of normal maternal love right from birth, and he grew up in a rather impersonal envirionment where his early essays in cruelty (not uncommon in very young children) were not effectively checked. His own intelligence and talents were negatives for him in that environment, since they enabled him to avoid control at a time when most get their first lessons in socialization. Some people in the Muggle world believe that we all are born with some capacity for empathy, but it has to be potentiated by early experience. This did not happen for Tom Riddle. So if one believes that evil tendencies mainly are determined by the environment, Rowling has covered that base.

3. But if we don't happen to believe that genetics or environment are ever fully determining, we also have the explanation that this was a matter of free will on Riddle's part, contra Harry's different choice...and an act of free will, philosophically, is taken as one requiring no further explanation. (Rather circurlarly, in my opinion -- an act of free will is a choice which is an act of free will and there is nothing much more to say about it, beyond rationalization --but there you have it.) Many people believe absolutely in free will and are very impatient with explanations of choices that emphasize genetics and/or environment; indeed the concept of free will is at the root of Muggle legal and -- in most cases -- religious systems, and in general, we question the idea of free will only at the peril of being thought immoral or insane. So, if one believes that all voluntary acts are decisively free, then Rowling has covered that also. (BTW, Dumbledore comes down on this side, but we now know he is not omniscient. )

In this way, Rowling does not have to make an absolutely clear choice in her story concerning which of the above actually determined Tom Riddle's behavior. All bases are covered and all readers are catered for. I don't blame any novelist for this; why should a novelist be forced to make a philosophical choice of one or another form of causality for human behavior, when the whole society has tacitly agreed to leave the subject somewhat murky?

[Nyjets4004]

We can blame alot of people here and it would make sense, but i like to think since Tom was conceived through the means of a love potion he really doesn't know what true love is; so im going to put the blame on Merope and the love potion.

[MistressofRaven]

To the original topic, Bad genes (look at the Gaunts!) and growing up in an orphanage without real parents. But I think the biggest influence is knowing that his own father does not want him. I think the difference between Voldemort and Harry is that Harry knew his parents loved him and died to protect him. Voldemort, however, knew that his own father was alive and well and did not love him. I think a little of it had to do with his own free will, but, for me, free will is a feel good answer. It's possible that a kid in his situation could have grown to be as good as Hermione Granger or Neville Longbottom, but it would have been extraordinary and unrealistic IMO. I think JKR showed us his background so we could see how all that influenced him.