Note: This material will appear in an upcoming PubCast (along with further commentary and other related subjects) either midweek or this weekend.
Rowling has given us a paradox concerning evil in the Harry Potter series. At face value, the lesson is very simple, and it has been stated by Dumbledore in two ways:
“It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” (CS18)
“You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow up to be!” (GF36)
But we have a problem with Merope Gaunt, and therefore a problem with Voldemort by association. Read carefully this dialogue between Harry and Dumbledore:
“So we know that, near the end of her pregnancy, Merope was alone in London and in desperate need of gold, desperate enough to sell her one and only valuable possession, the locket that was one of Marvolo’s treasured family heirlooms.”
“But she could do magic!” said Harry impatiently. “She could have got food and everything for herself by magic, couldn’t she?”
“Ah,” said Dumbledore, “perhaps she could. But it is my belief—I am guessing again, but I am sure I am right — that when her husband abandoned her, Merope stopped using magic. I do not think that she wanted to be a witch any longer. Of course, it is also possible that her unrequited love and the attendant despair sapped her of her powers; that can happen. In any case, as you are about to see, Merope refused to raise her wand even to save her own life.”
“She wouldn’t even stay alive for her son?”
Dumbledore raised his eyebrows. “Could you possibly be feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?”
“No,” said Harry quickly, “but she had a choice, didn’t she, not like my mother —”
“Your mother had a choice too,” said Dumbledore gently. “Yes, Merope Riddle chose death in spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering and she never had your mother’s courage. (HBP-13)
A few things are noteworthy here. Dumbledore’s question, “Could you possibly be feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort” poses a bit of a challenge to the “Voldemort as Symbol of Evil” theory that I have espoused here. In short, I believe Voldemort is not redeemable, because, for literary reasons, he serves as a symbol of all evil in the Wizarding World, and therefore must be defeated, not redeemed. He is sub-human and has placed himself beyond redemption.
But it’s almost as if Dumbledore is prodding Harry to find something in Voldemort to feel sorry for. I still stand by the “unredeemable Voldemort” theory, and I assume Rowling has to include some element of humanity into Voldemort’s story in order to maintain the literary use of Voldemort as Harry’s shadow. But perhaps the most important observation here is that this tension points to the great difficulty and paradox of the problems of evil and choice. Even though Rowling’s lessons through Dumbledore are rather simple concerning choice, the way they play out is vastly complex, and it appears Dumbledore knows this well. (The quotes above do not negate or contradict the complexity of the problem of evil and choice; they make sense in their own contexts.)
The problem is here: How culpable is Voldemort? How culpable is Merope? Harry is outraged that Merope, given the choice, would not stay alive for her son, while his own mother willingly gave her life for him. But Dumbledore’s response is instructive: “[D]o not judge her too harshly, Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering and she never had your mother’s courage.”
First, let’s address the point that has been astutely made by SoG commenter “Mrs. Weasley”: Merope was indeed courageous in a lot of ways. Merope certainly endured a trying and difficult pregnancy in order to give birth and life to her son, which demonstrates at least some level of love and courage. That said, I don’t think Dumbledore was being necessarily judgmental when he said that Merope’s courage was less than Lily’s. He’s really trying to stop Harry from judging her harshly based on Merope’s life circumstances. In short, he’s saying, “Merope did what she could given what she became as a result of her abusive past.”
And that leads to the key tension here: in essence, it is not as simple as making the right choices, regardless of what you were born; it is possible that someone else can make choices for you – choices that permanently damage your own ability to choose. Merope was unable to summon Lily’s courage, not because she had two equally available choices to her and made the wrong choice, but because she had been severely abused, and for that reason did not have the courage to use magic to stay alive.
We can even back this up further in the Slytherin line: we at least know that Marvolo and Morphin were mentally ill (and we can probably be certain that others in the line were such as well) due to inbreeding amongst Slytherin descendants; in other words, their ability to choose between right and wrong was affected by the choices their ancestors made which resulted in genetic distortions. That raises the same question: If past Slytherins made choices that resulted in a mentally ill prodigy (for physiological reasons), to what extent were Marvolo and Morphin culpable?
We do have evidence that Rowling herself sees a difference in the extent of moral culpability from one person to the next, depending on his or her personal history. Here is a very telling answer to a question from the oft-quoted Anelli/Spartz interview in 2005:
MA: Oh, here’s one [from our forums] that I’ve really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?
JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has.
At the very least, we learn here that some choices are morally more consequential than others, not based on the options themselves (good vs. evil), but based on the person’s own circumstances. The key to Rowling’s answer is this: Because Snape has been loved and Voldemort has not, the option to choose good is more available to Snape than it is to Voldemort.
It’s hard to know exactly where to go with this information, except to say this: Rowling is acutely aware that one person’s evil choices do not affect only that person. This gets at some of the worst aspects of evil: that the choices of one person can effectively debilitate another from having the same resources of love, compassion, and goodness that others have. Some people have less capacity for choosing the good and not the evil, because people before them have made evil choices.
It is an extremely difficult tension: Voldemort needs simultaneously to be morally culpable for his choices and so excessively evil that he is beyond redemption. The fact that he was deprived of the proper resources of love and goodness by his Slytherin ancestry complicates the matter significantly. Given Rowling’s views on the value and capability of children (she believes they’re underestimated by adults), it’s at least safe to say that Rowling would give more value to Tom’s choices before he was 11 than most of us.
But it would be hard to say that Rowling has any other reason for giving us Voldemort’s history pre-birth than to make us actually feel a little bit sorry for him – just a little! – at least his childhood circumstances. We surely feel sorry for Merope.
As far as Voldemort goes, horcrux-making is perhaps he best answer to the choice problem, how Voldemort can be simultaneously a morally culpable person and beyond redemption. His choice to make them – a choice that was not programmed in him by anything genetic – that sapped him of his humanity. In effect, he chose to become less than human, to give up his own humanity – and therefore hope of “redemption” – by creating horcruxes.
Rowling once again demonstrates that she is not dealing in over-simplified categories. The themes present in her magical world continue to be a parallel to our vasty complex Muggle world. There’s no simple, “This is good, this is evil; this person is good because of this choice, and this person is evil because of that choice.” Rather, evil, is all its absolute vileness, is presented as something that does not only destroy the person committing the evil, but the people around him or her as well.
Arabella Figg on 
revgeorge on 
Red Rocker on 
Dave the Longwinded on 
Fricka on 
Tom on 
Loading ...
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
It is an interesting balance, Travis. The author has to create an irredeemably evil character, and yet make him plausible enough so as not to be a one-dimensional caricature of evil. I believe JKR is at her best when her darker characters are driven by needs which we all share: status (Wormtail), anger and bitterness (Snape), wanting to be valued (Crouch Jr). It would be a master stroke if JKR could “humanize” Voldemort in DH by showing a link between the early life of Tom Riddle and his later obsession with death and immortality. Most of us can’t relate to a need to rule the world (well, I can’t, anyways) but many would probably relate to a fear of death.
I don’t think Voldemort will be redeemed. But I think it’s just possible that we’ll come to understand him better, and maybe even empathize more with him, before the end.
Interesting!
I find it uncomfortable and difficult to accept any suggestion that there is a genetic cause for someone’s evil choices or criminal activity. Mostly because it would justify their choices to some extent.
“How culpable is Voldemort? How culpable is Merope?”
My answer to this would be “extremely!”- for their own actions. Merope and Tom Sr didn’t seem to be cruel people, nor the orphanage staff, but Tom Jr experimanted with cruelty and enjoyed it from an early age. He had already worked out his power vs weakness outlook. The only reason he did what Dumbledore asked him was becasue he knew he out outgunned.
Merope- her bewitchment of Tom Sr was obviously a cry out for love and lust but she knew it was wrong otherwise she wouldn’t have had any worries about continueing his magical enslavement.
Anyway, I hope it’s as simple as that. Even if it’s not I think I need to see it like that. I feel like Sirius did towards Pettigrew. He should have done the right thing even though it may have cost his life. I understand that the counter argument is that no-one rolemodelled good decisions and choices to Merope and Tom but this is ignoring that they have (or at least started with) a concience.
Yes, it is complicated.
Matthew
Matthew, good points. I’m uncomfortable with genetics determining evil as well. I’m not sure we can avoid it at least to some extent, though. If there are genetic causes for mental illnesses, and mental illnesses prevent someone of the ability to correctly analyze and choose, then we at least have to consider the implications.
Yet, I’m not sure there’s genetic predisposition toward evil itself. Marvolo and Morphin were raised in the context of Slytherin prejudice, so how their worldviews (and even consciences?) were formed is directly the result of their “cultural context.”
I guess I’m thinking more along the lines of deprivation of resources. Snape has more resources to choose good than Tom Riddle. Harry has more resources to choose good than either of them.
I don’t think anyone would argue that there is a genetic predisposition toward evil behaviour. What our genes do is give us a certain basic kind of temperament, which, through experience, learning and self-directed actions, turn into our personality. These basic traits – negative emotional reactivity, extraversion/sociability, the ability to control our impulses, and maybe also the tendency to seek out new stimuli – can be seen in very young babies. Some of these traits, under the wrong circumstances, are more likely to lead to aggression and other kinds of destructive behaviour.
Actually, Tom Riddle doesn’t seem to have been born with a completely disastrous combination of traits: he is not impulsive, and he is not very emotionally reactive. He is very self-controlled and cold. The really deadly trait he seems to have inherited from the Gaunts is his lack of empathy. Recent research shows a neurological substrate for empathy (the mirror neurons that Mia wrote about on another thread). Tom Riddle’s male maternal relatives were clearly lacking in this trait; it’s not much of a stretch to conclude that he was born with the same deficit.
The genetic package he is born with makes him intelligent, somewhat prone to negative emotional reactivity but behaviourally well-controlled, extremely independent, open to new experiences, and without empathy. And of course, with lots of wizarding talent. How that package is transformed into evil JKR has yet to tell us.
I was initially skeptical of theories that we would find out about some transformative childhood experience which tipped the balance towards evil. I thought that human beings (including wizards) never had any value for him except for meeting his needs, so he was never not evil, just less actively evil. But I’ve been considering the possibility that something did happen which threatened him in some way, which set him off on his quest for immortality.
I don’t think he can be redeemed. His evil actions are driven by his fear of death. In JKR’s world view, the only thing that can transcend death is love. And that is exactly the thing that Voldemort is incapable of. If he were to stop doing evil, he’d have to accept his own mortality. Which he can’t.
But. Wouldn’t it be truly cool if at the end – after he’s been vanquished and crossed the veil – he was able to accept the love that was always potentially there for him, and thereby accept his death?
Forgive this somewhat meandering comment. I never thought I’d be interested in Voldemort, but Travis has got me thinking.
That would be a great conclusion but I certainly don’t want Jo to start undermining his past by making us think he ended up being a decent person. Having him accept death yes would be fantastic! I think that is the closest way we can see to Jo humanizing Voldemort, or at least seeing him in not just the card board cut out like villain.
Travis, another interesting person to consider with regard to the genes they inherited and how they were raised, is Sirius Black. It surely seems that the House of Black shares many of the same traits as the house of Slytherin/Gaunt, and Sirius was certainly brought up surrounded by horrible people with horrible ideology, yet – he was able to overcome that (and perhaps Regulus did, too). I’m not sure where any positive influence would have come from before he got to Hogwarts, unless he was allowed to be around his relatives who had gotten blasted off the tapestry – not likely.
Also, just an observation, but anyone who has a sibling or who has more than one child knows that just because someone comes from the same gene pool and is raised in the same environment, doesn’t mean they will have the same type of personality or make the same choices. Which may be an answer to my musing above. But, I believe it is harder to choose good over evil when you have been raised with evil and have no reason to believe that good is better.
Also, thanks for the kinds words – the next time my children give me grief, I will inform them loftily that I am regarded as “astute” by some (one, anyway) in rarefied circles.
I wonder if it’s almost as simple as the difference between a book and real live, between fact and fiction. Everyone can be redeemed, Christ died for everyone, in real life. We don’t know if this is true in Rowling’s world, but with the good vs. evil theme so strongly present in the books, you’d think not.
You bring up a lot of good points, Travis. It makes me wonder if we’ll learn more about Lily’s parentage and childhood. That same family produced Petunia, as well.
I wonder if Dumbledore is saying that Merope felt as if she had no choice, because of her up-bringing and her circumstances.
And I also wonder if Harry is being brought to the point that he could feel sorry for Voldemort, so that he’ll be in a position for the love in his heart to somehow overcome and defeat Voldemort? I’ve been hoping, since I learned of the Unforgivables, and since we’ve seen Harry unsuccessfully attempt to use them, that Harry would not simply take out his wand and AK Voldemort, coldly, like Snape’s action at the end of HBP. I’d like to see something else, something less cold and calculating, on Harry’s part. I’ve gone over and over various circumstances and scenarios and can’t come up with anything that satisfies me as to how best for Voldemort to die. Do we want to see him pleading for mercy, afraid of death, or do we want to see Harry’s love make Voldemort do something that causes his own death in his attempt to flee from that love?
I guess I’ve strayed a bit from your point. Sorry.
Mrs Lovegood, good points, all.
We do have that messy business of the unpardonable sin, of course.
I don’t think Harry will AK Voldemort. I’m just waiting to see how Rowling pulls off the whole them of “love” defeating evil in a way that doesn’t sound cheesy.
Say, for the sake of conjecture, that what drives Tom Riddle in his evil quest is his inability to accept that his mother “chose” to die, abdicating her power and abandoning him. And that he’s trying to achieve immortality in order to prove that he is strong, stronger than her, that what happened to her can never happen to him, that he will never die. He’s overcompensating, if you will, for his horrible position of vulnerability as an infant.
DD has already told him death is not the worst thing that can happen. But he doesn’t believe that.
Bet you he was upset when Lily Potter stepped in front of the AK. Not because he cared about her (or because of any deal with Snape) but because it’s inconceivable to him that anyone would willingly die. That’s why he called her “Silly girl”.
Maybe he needs to see it again, but this time see it from the inside looking out, through the connection he has with Harry.
Think about it: Harry and Voldemort “die” together. Harry finds his loved ones. Voldemort finds – what?
Harry may survive that trip. Would Voldemort?
Mrs. Lovegood made a good point. We know that Harry has come to a point where he no longer fears death, is even willing to accept it in order to be with loved ones. VM, on the other hand, fears it enough to kill others and dehumanize himself.
Harry’s bit of compassion for VM at his mother’s death may be the key–why else would JKR bring it up? At some point in the final battle perhaps Harry’s feelings will surface again and he’ll help VM see that death isn’t an end but a new beginning.
The irony of it all would be that VM will accept death and Harry will accept life.
Everyone can be redeemed, Christ died for everyone, in real life. We don’t know if this is true in Rowling’s world, but with the good vs. evil theme so strongly present in the books, you’d think not.
Mrs. Lovegood, I agree that everyone can be redeemed, I don’t know if everyone will. Rowling has suggested in an interview, that there may be some individuals for whom redemption is impossible:
“So there are people, for whom, whatever you’re going to call it — personality disorder or an illness — for whom redemption is not possible. They’re rare.â€
I wouldn’t say about any real life person that he or she cannot be redeemed or speculate about it. But what if someone doesn’t want to be redeemed? If Voldemort would be offered forgiveness, would he accept it? Maybe the destruction of his soul is irreversible and he’s excluded himself from the possibility of redemption forever.
Mia, yes! Exactly. His horcrux experiments have destroyed his humanity, placing him beyond redemption. He chose to place himself beyond redemption.
Another way to think of it is that Voldemort’s denial of “love” is a denial of any of the redemptive powers associated with it. Existentially, Voldemort has made himself incapable of receiving forgiveness because he has denied what Dumbledore would posit as the fundamental Truth of the Universe. Think of it as the Wizarding World’s version of an Unforgiveable Sin. Voldemort chose to destroy that part of himself that was capable of loving, to seek immortality in his own way instead of accepting that offered to him by the acceptance of this Truth. He’s trying to substitute himself in place of that Truth.
It’s downright Miltonian. In Paradise Lost, Satan wants to be regarded as more than his peers, including mankind. He denies and defies the Truth of God’s will, ignites a war against God among the angels to establish himself in place of God, is defeated and cast from Heaven, and establishes Hell: a mockery of Heaven.
More to the point, the exchange Travis highlights between Dumbledore and Harry concerning Merope’s decisions can be read in a slightly different way. I don’t think Dumbldore is presenting a case to excuse (at least to some degree) either Merope or Voldemort. Instead, he sees an opportunity with Harry to foster a sense of forgiveness and compassion that he didn’t have with young Tom Riddle. The scene reads to me more as a lesson in offering forgiveness to those one believes don’t deserve it and(likely) won’t ask for it. The offering of forgiveness is the manifestation of divine Truth (here, simply “love”), while it is the choice to accept it that redeems the subject.
Amazing analysis. Wow. This has to be one of the most complicated subjects and, as a result, the most fascinating and one of my favorites.
I agree that Voldemort chose to place himself beyond redemption. He would never ask for forgiveness because he doesn’t consider anything he has done wrong. (I remember Quirrell’s opinion that good and evil are nonexistant and that there is only power.)
The only reason I ever-so-slightly pity Voldemort is because he fears and disdains love. The ability to love selflessly is the key to the opportunity for redemption. A desire to preserve something other than yourself. Yeah…the ability to love is a crucial start towards redemption, I think.
I could never say I believe a cruel act committed by an unfortunate character is better than a cruel act committed by a “good” character. I believe everything is forgivable, however, so the number of evil acts are irrelevant so long as the character feels genuine regret and a desire for change.
Shadowquill,
I believe that Voldemort does want to preserve something other than himself but it’s not other people- it’s more about heritage and knowledge. His lineage from Slytherin and feelings of home at Hogwarts make it a special place for him that he’d never think of destroying. I believe that he respects and values the Hogwarts founders. He certainly respected Dumbledore and, in my opinion, it went beyond respect for power.
He’d never ask for forgiveness but he will, I think, see that he is in error and that all his efforts have been folly before he is destroyed.
Matthew
I hope so! That will at least make him bat humanized, and create a very powerful ending.
I agree that Voldemort will realize that his efforts have failed before the end. But I don’t believe that he’ll be able to see the foolishness of his endeavor or understand why he was wrong.
He should have realized it after the AK failed in Godric’s Hollow: But while he knows that he’s made a mistake, he didn’t learn the lesson that love ultimately is more powerful than death and that he’s chosen the wrong path. He had 12 long years to meditate about that, but for him, nothing has really changed, he still believes that he was right in principle, just wrong in carrying it out.
If the was able to attain some insight and to understand something about the nature of love, there still would be a chance for redemption. But he probably isn’t capable of that any more.
There is really nothing in Voldemort that would lead him to realize that he’s wrong and that he’s done wrong, repent and ask for forgiveness. For him to change, something would have to happen to him, someone else would have to do something, give him something unasked. We’ve talked before about Dumbledore’s mercy and forgiveness and Dumbledore’s grace. Dumbledore is the human (well, wizard) face of goodness and mercy in the story. I think it would be fitting if at the end – after Voldemort’s power to hurt others had been taken from him (probably by Harry) – if at the end he were to receive Dumbledore’s mercy, unasked, stop being afraid of death, and die not as Voldemort but as Tom Riddle.
Well we also have to consider the fact that Merlope was never a good hand at magic. We can naturally assume that since she fell in love with a muggle, she lost her zest for magic (since magic was presented to her in a terrible way by her fathers abuse). She tried to pick up the pot that she dropped with her hands, although it would have been so much faster with her wand. She seemed like tonks in the way that she was extremely clumsy. Once she lived with riddle for a year, she probably could not use magic, since he would see it. But why did she stop brewing the potion? It could be as we are told she believed she didnt need it anymore, but it may also be for the reason that she couldn’t. She may have been stripped of her powers and therefore rendered unable to make the potion. And this change was all done as she was pregnant. These feelings and pains that love was causing her, would have been evident to Voldemort. This may be a key reason to why he hates and underestimates love. Love has only hurt him. He has never been loved by anyone and has only seen the negative sides of love. As for the split soul, i only believe that he will be redeemed if and only if he can rebuild his soul, because if hate destroys the soul, love must heal it.
Just another thought, what if LV just wants to destroy muggle born people because of his past? He was pure blood until Merope and this may have hurt him. Also, his muggle of a father was the reason he had these things he hated. One thing was that he was a orphan because his father left his mother. Second, since his mother died, he had no one to truly care for him or even punish him. He was also separated for the area of magic. he knew nothing about himself and neither did anyone else except DD.
I think it would be fitting if at the end – after Voldemort’s power to hurt others had been taken from him (probably by Harry) – if at the end he were to receive Dumbledore’s mercy, unasked, stop being afraid of death, and die not as Voldemort but as Tom Riddle.
Reyhan, it would be good for Voldemort if he could do that. Do you think it is possible for him to receive mercy?
I believe that Dumbledore would have offered it at any time, but Voldemort cannot accept it. He doesn’t understand mercy and he wouldn’t know that he needed it, even if he lost his power. He’s lost his power before, after he’d been hit by his own curse, and it taught him nothing.
I’m afraid that he’s reached a point of no return.
Mrs. Lovegood: “I wonder if it’s almost as simple as the difference between a book and real live, between fact and fiction. Everyone can be redeemed, Christ died for everyone, in real life. We don’t know if this is true in Rowling’s world, but with the good vs. evil theme so strongly present in the books, you’d think not.”
Well, it is true that Christ died for everyone, and that “in real life,” everyone can be redeemed. But that doesn’t mean that everyone will. To be redeemed, one must (1) accept the faults and sins in one’s life as just that; faults and sins, and (2) one must be willing to submit to someone larger, God. Do you really see this happening with Voldemort?
Mia,
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part. I don’t want to see Tom Riddle die in fear.
It’s kind of confusing for me. I would have no objection to Fenrir Greyback dying in pain and fear. So it’s not a blanket kind of reluctance to see even evil people suffer. It’s just that it seems to me that Tom Riddle is driven by fear, and has never opened himself up to the one thing (according to the canon) that can take away that fear.
There you have it. He can die, with all my blessings, but I don’t want to see him die afraid of what’s to come.
Reyhan,
I agree that Voldemort will not come to a conclusions that he has been wrong on his own. I know you don’t like Lord of the Rings parallels but I think it will be a moment of realisation like when Frodo claims the ring, right in the strongest part of Sauron’s might, and the full magnitude of his peril becomes clear. I think Harry will drop the “I’ve destroyed all the Horcruxes and now it’s your turn” bomb and Voldemort will be greatly weakened by this knowldege. He’ll be packing it.
Matthew
According to the Bible, the only unforgivable sin is rejection of the Holy Spirit. Clearly an act committed because of mental illness is not a voluntary rejection, and so would not mean condemnation.
It’s true that everyone can be redeemed, but not everyone wants to be. Is it possible for Harry to convince Voldemort to want to be? I don’t know.
Despite the magical trappings, Rowling is pretty clearly writing about our world, which is a fallen world. In a fallen world, not everyone has clean material on which to build a self. Merope did as much as she could with the basic material she had available. It’s probable that she stopped using the potion because it hurt her to keep on deceiving her beloved. She may not have lost her magic at all, but chose not to use it. Why should she use it? The only magic-users she knew were her vicious brother and father. She may well have been trying to distance herself from them in the same way that her son tried to distance himself from his own father (and her). She loved her son enough to try to give him a decent life, even if she herself could not provide it.
Perhaps in Book 7 there will be a way for Voldemort’s shattered soul to be renewed. It’s worth thinking about.
This all makes me wonder why the heirs of Slytherin were not going to Hogwats.
It seems to be every wizard in Britain’s birthright to go to Hogwarts if they want to. Was Merope just a drudge and hindered from attending? Morfin doesn’t look like the product of a Hogwarts education either.
Why? Just because mudbloods were attending?
Matthew
Probably. I can see Morfin not going, or allowing his children to go, for that very reason. I just read that chapter the other night, and Morfin is insane. Mad. As Dumbledore said, all the pure blood interbreeding has made him one unhinged mad mad. Could that be what has made Voldemort like he is?
The Gaunts certainly had a blind prejudice against “mudbloods” which would have accounted for not sending the kids to school where they might come in contact with them. However, that can’t be the only reason: the Blacks, the Malfoys and probably other Slytherin families were as rabidly anti-mudblood, but their children went to Hogwarts. My guess is, due to all the inbreeding, the Gaunts were no longer able to function within the constraints of any structured social setting. If they had gone, they would have been quickly expelled. They remind me a little of a hilbilly family, specifically the McCoys, who are believed to have suffered from a genetic defect:
“The most infamous feud in American folklore, the long-running battle between the Hatfields and McCoys, may be partly explained by a rare, inherited disease that can lead to hair-trigger rage and violent outbursts. Dozens of McCoy descendants apparently have the disease, which causes high blood pressure, racing hearts, severe headaches and too much adrenaline and other “fight or flight” stress hormones….
It sounds like a combination of the genetic and social effects of cousin marriage: bad recessive genes and excessive extended family loyalty, respectively. Update – Greg Cochran says it’s a dominant genetic disease, not a recessive one” (Steve Sailer: iSteve.com)
Sound familiar?
Actually, this describes Morfin much better than it does Tom Riddle, who did not have a hair-trigger temper, who was very socially skilled, as well as being intelligent and talented. I’m guessing that the Riddle genes which he despised helped balance him out. However, he did inherit a basic coldness /callousness/ indifference to others from the Gaunts. And a sense of superiority. His uncle had it too, but in this Tom Riddle he seems to have been a chip off grandpa Gaunt, old Marvolo himself.
It’s interesting that it’s the fresh genes available from Tom Sr, a mudblood, that give Voldemort his biggest leg-up in potential. Slyhterin’s line had become degenerate and more like mud than any muggle family. I find it strange that the purer one tries to keep a bloodline the baser it becomes. The filth multiplies rather than the pure. All the scum rises to the surface.
Matthew
Matthew, it’s usually the recessive genes that cause the problems when there’s inbreeding. I believe that many genes which cause genetic defects are recessive, in that they won’t be expressed unless there’s two of them: one from the mother, one from the father. When genetically similar people – close family members – have children, those children are more likely to inherit two recessive genes, leading to the expression of the bad trait. The interesting thing about the McCoy “bad gene” was that it was dominant – it was likely to be expressed even if only one parent carried it.
You can see the same thing in cats and dogs. We have pure-bred Siamese cats. They are beautiful to look at, and very intelligent and interactive, but they die very young compared to our hardier “mudblood” cats.
But I agree completely with your point about Tom Riddle. It’s my theory that sharing essentially the same value system, he was able to do a lot more damage than old Marvolo because he inherited some healthy Muggle genes. Morfin, too, I’m sure, would have loved to kill all Muggles and dominate the wizarding world, but could not because he was so damaged.
My mother was born and grew up near the part of Northeastern Kentucky and Virgina/West Virginia that the Hatfiled/McCoy feud took place. I think she’s very distantly related to both families.
Anyway, after reading Reyhan’s post #28, I came to the same idea that Matthew did. It’s a heavy irony that it’s the mudblood line that actually gives Riddle, Jr. his best chance at overcoming the obstacles his wizarding clan set in place.
And one other thing: isn’t there a third genetic line flowing through Voldemort’s veins right now: Harry’s? I was rethinking the “gleam” in Dumbledore’s eyes last night in GoF when he learns how Voldemort reconstituted himself. I’ve been firmly of the mind that Voldemort can’t be redeemed because he would never choose to ask for such a thing.
But if Harry is really a part of Voldemort, now, then what part of Harry’s fundamental nature does Voldemort inherit?
The obvious bet has something to do with Lilly’s willing sacrifice for Harry’s sake. Does some version of that same love now extend to Voldemort?
I don’t think it would necessarily be the same thing, and I’d be a bit ticked if that was Rowling’s take on it. After all, there’s a huge difference between Lilly’s willing sacrifice and Harry’s blood being “forcibly taken”. But , if there are qualities of Harry’s that find their way into Voldemort, could these not open the door for Voldemort’s redemption.
Voldy can’t bear to touch Harry until after the graveyard scene. But afterward, not only can he bear to touch him, but he can look through Harry’s eyes, something he couldn’t do before. It’s a painful experience (a literal representation of Voldy’s visceral reaction love?), but it is possible. And, Harry forgoes Occlumency all together….?
Hmmm…methinks there be method in’t…
I don’t think that a person’s qualities are in the blood, and I don’t quite believe that Voldemort inherited Harry’s fundamental nature through the blood “donationâ€. If it was about genetic information passing from Harry to Voldemort, he’d also have Peter’s genetic material in him now. I also can’t imagine how such a blasphemous and violent ritual that Voldemort performed could possibly open a way to redemption for him.
To me it seems much more likely that Voldemort sealed his own doom. He could take Harry’s blood but not the love of his mother and the protection her sacrifice gave to him, I believe.
Mia, although we’re trying to apply the rules of science and psychology and genetics and even physics which apply in the world we know in order to understand the wizarding world, it doesn’t mean things work the same way.
I mean, in our world you don’t recreate yourself with an old bone, a severed hand and a few drops of blood. The blasphemeous ritual simply would not have worked. Since it did work, I think the door is open for a new set of rules. There is a suggestion – from the gleam in DD’s eye – that Harry’s blood is going to have some kind of effect or role to play in the struggle to come. And not to Voldemort’s advantage.
I do agree that it’s got nothing to do with genes. But as to how it’s going to work – I haven’t a clue.
That’s true, Reyhan. I still think that Voldemort couldn’t inherit Harry’s loving nature by stealing his blood. What he did in order to restore his body was complete and utter blasphemy, a perversion of all that is good and true. It doesn’t seem right to me that this evil act could possibly open a way of redemption.
Mia, after re-reading my comment, I realized that I missed the point of your comment: can there be a link between the shared blood and Voldemort’s possible, if highly improbable redemption?
One possibility, which Dave the Longwinded alludes to, is that the blood thing has intensified the bond between them, and that Voldemort may be redeemed by literally seeing the world through Harry’s eyes.
Well, my spin on the same possibility is that Voldemort would be annihilated by seeing the world through Harry’s eyes, especially if Harry were to cross the veil and in some sense, die.
However, I can’t quite go with that theory either. Voldemort spends a lot of time in Harry’s head in OotP. Then comes the moment when Harry thinks longingly of death because he can see his beloved godfather, and presto, Voldemort vanishes. And he never comes back. It almost looks to me like for some reason, Voldemort can’t possess Harry any more. My theory about this is that Voldemort can’t bear Harry’s lack of fear about death. But regardless of the cause, the connection just isn’t there in HBP.
It’s a bit of a paradox. He’s got Harry’s blood. But he can’t get into Harry’s mind.
I’m stumped.
Reyhan, my mistake, I probably didn’t make my point very clearly.
I think that Voldemort couldn’t exist in the presence of love. Like Dumbledore said, he couldn’t reside in a body that was so full of it. He can live on Harry’s blood, biologically, but he cannot bear his love. I suppose the meaning of blood in the series has to be understood in a metaphorical sense.
Voldemort would never see the world through Harry’s eyes, even if he was able to possess him, I believe. He couldn’t share his compassion and innocence, only love could do that.
Mia, this takes me back to a theory I floated some time ago. Harry will transcend his mortal fear of death through his love for people who have died (Lily, James, Sirius, Dumbledore and maybe even one more beloved friend). He will no longer fear death and be willing to die. That will make him impervious to the power of Voldemort. If Voldemort tried to possess him under those conditions, he would probably be destroyed. Especially if there were no remaining Horcruxes to keep him going.
However, this doesn’t answer the puzzle of the blood thing. And somehow I don’t think it’s meaning is metaphorical. Magical, certainly, but not metaphorical.
How about this redemption scenario: Harry destroys the remaining Horcruxes. In the process one more person dies, someone who is very close to his heart, closer even than Sirius Black or DD (sorry Ron, I think the writing’s been on the wall ever since that game of wizard’s chess). When that person dies, Harry finally transcends his fear of death because he has as many people he loves on the other side of the veil as on this. Someone (my candidate is Snape but of course by that time they’ll be lining up to do the honours) AKs Voldemort. Voldemort tries to jump into Harry. And finds that he can’t. And disappears into a wisp of smoke, sort of like Saruman, which drifts past the veil, never to be seen again.
In writing this I realize that I’m sort of supporting the Harry as the last Horcrux theory, which I don’t believe in. I also don’t leave too much room for redemption. I also don’t account for the dragon flight. In fact, there are more gaps than answers in this theory.
These are the things I am certain of will happen. A beloved friend will die. Harry will transcend his mortal fear of death. Voldemort will be annihilated. Harry will live.
I’m not suggesting a specific genetic link between Harry and Voldemort. As someone said above, looking at a fantasy world through empirical science is…tricky… After all, how much rule could genetics have in a world where people routinely defy the laws of Newtonian physics with nothing more than a well polished broomstick?
But there has to be some significance to the fact that Voldemort now has something of Harry’s blood running through him. The psychic link they share in OotP just isn’t developed enough for me to buy that’s all there is to it.
And blood plays a role in a number of different epic heroic myths and salvation stories. It’s a symbol of a person’s self, the literal substance that contains a person, and sometimes his/her worth. The books put a lot of emphasis on the mudblood/pureblood divide, even if only to point out how ridiculous the distinction is.
Choosing Harry (again) to be one substance from which he rebirths himself has to come back to haunt Voldemort.
I’m coming late to this discussion, but enjoying it enormously. I find it one of the more fascinating themes in the series.
Thinking about Dumbledore’s famous quote: “It’s our choices, Harry…” I have always found it interesting that he uses the plural construction. It’s true that Dumbledore tends to use language that way a good bit (a dramatic use of the “royal we”!) but I still find it notable. He doesn’t say (and he could have said) “Harry, it’s your choices that make you who you are.” He says “our choices” and “us.”
I think Dumbledore understands at a very deep level just how interdependent we all are. It’s not as easy as debating nature versus nurture, because both are always involved. We’re encultured beings, and we’re born into stories that are already in progress. So of course choices made before us, especially huge, life-changing choices like the ones made by Lily and Merope, leave their mark (and I use that phrase intentionally) on their children. Does that dictate what their children will do, or enslave them to fate? Of course not. But I think choices from the previous generation can affect one’s deepest sense of self. Harry doesn’t know until he’s 11 that his mother sacrificed herself to try to save him, but her love has been an active, acting force in his life nonetheless. The story he entered mid-stream was a story that marked him as “a beloved son worth dying for.” Tom Riddle, on the other hand, was not marked by that kind of life. Because of choices made before him, some of them going back generations, his deepest, unconscious sense of self would be “I’m not worth living for. I’ve always been alone.” That is bound to affect his own choices, though again, doesn’t dictate them. For one thing, he is still (at least early on) fully human, which means grace and mercy can work upon him and draw him, whether or not he chooses to respond to them.
It strikes me again and again how the themes of sin, grace and mercy play out in these stories, even though those specific terms aren’t used.
Beth, that’s a brilliant analysis, and I agree with you. Surely, no-one is an island and our choices may affect others in unexpected ways, just like we’re affected by their choices. Rowling certainly doesn’t present a simplistic view, which would be problematic and dangerous especially when it comes to understanding the theological concepts you’ve mentioned.
Thank you, Mia. I’ve done a good bit of thinking and writing about this theme in the series since the last book. I am getting more and more eager to see where Rowling is going with all of this!
Hi! Ever since the last book, I’ve been thinking about Voldemort’s end.
It was strange. Voldemort showed no…desire to actually believe Harry, and made his own downfall. If he hadn’t tried to still kill Harry after Harry said it wasn’t going to work, he wouldn’t be dead.
I felt so sorry, about Merope, when I heard about her!!She is one of my favotite characters.
Iknow, that it was wrong ,that she gave Tom a love potion, but she had no one, and she was desperate. I can understand her perfectly.