I’m intrigued by the psychology of young Tom Riddle, what do other readers think – did he have a moral conscience, a capacity for empathy because as Ian McEwan said in an interview on the “7.30 Report’ it is the human capacity for empathy which is the basis of all morality? On face value, I would say no; but further reflection makes me think he must have had otherwise his actions could no more be described as evil as are Remus Lupin’s destructive impulses in his fully fledged werewolf state. As Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of CoS, “It is not our abilities, Harry but rather our choices that show us what we truly are.” To make choices would seem to imply that one is capable of conceiving of alternatives. This is what Lupin, in his werewolf-state is incapable of doing, therefore it is inappropriate to hold him morally accountable for his actions in this state.

We do hold Tom Riddle morally accountable for his actions so it follows that he must be capable of conceiving of alternatives to the path he took which in turn implies he must have had a knowledge of good and evil ie. a moral conscience. Two alternatives of interpretation are thus left open: did he not think of his actions as evil but justifiable or did he choose not to listen to the dictates of his conscience? We know that young Tom was a master manipulator and not just through magical means. If Tom had some inborn psychological pathology that was incapable of imagining the emotions of others how could he use this knowledge to manipulate others? Clearly sacrificial or altruisic love lay outside his understanding but love as the value of another to fulfil one’s emotional needs it would seem so because he uses it as a lever to manipulate both Snape and Draco.

This raises the question of whether Tom as a small child had a deep longing for affection, much as Harry had, but because this longing was thwarted, he steeled himself against it, rejected it as a weakness; and channelled it instead into a conviction that he was special and this in turn translated into a burning need to have this recognized by others. And what greater confirmation of his ‘specialness’ than in the slavish obedience and adulation of his nascent Death Eaters? I believe that young Tom Riddle definitely had enough natural human impulses in him to have been able to conceive of an alternative path to the one he took; but the desire to show the world what he was made of born of a sense of injustice at being rejected from birth, overrode every other consideration. As he undergoes the transition from the essentially human, though not estimable, Tom Riddle, into the inhuman Lord Voldemort, his soul descends into utter darkness from which there is no return. Therefore the morally culpable being is not Voldemort but rather Tom Riddle who at one point, stood at the crossroads between the light and the dark. Any thoughts?

Wow...that's really deep.

Well, personally, i don't think Voldemort ever really wanted or needed to be loved. The books give no evidence that Voldemort was mistreated at the orphanage, and once he reached Hogwarts, the teachers adored him, were kind to him and definately recognised his magical skill and potential. Therefore, i don't think his motivation for turning to the dark arts was a desire to prove himself to the world or be recognised. Volemort could not care less if people acknowledged him. His magical skill and power showed that he was above other humans. The main drive in his search for power was his unwillingness to succumb to the human weakness of death. He was willing to murder many innocent people to reach this goal, and create an ideal world where lived forever, ruling above all others.

I've kind of strayed from the point here. Your question is: did Voldemort realise that what he was doing was evil? I don't think he did. Voldemort clearly had nihilistic values. He thought that the only reason other people did not persue great goals such as his was because they were too weak and cowardly. The concept they had made up about "good" and "evil" was merely a pathetic excuse to justify their incapability. However, Voldemort was still held morally accountable because, even though he did not believe in, agree with or understand the values of society, he was aware that what he was doing was considered wrong. He had the choice to not persue his goals, but he chose to go ahead and hurt, injure and kill people. He may not have realised that this was "evil", but by observing people, he was able to learn to predict their reactions enough to be able to manipulate them. By this same observation, he must have realised that people hurt when they lose loved ones, even if he had never felt this himself. i think he realised that he was hurting people, it's just that he didn't think that it was bad to hurt them.

This is just my opinion, of course. I'm not even entirely sure if it makes sense, so feel free to disregard it completely.

TMR was probably pathological since infancy, as evidenced by the fact that he cried less than normal babies. I would guess he never bonded with his caregivers, never experienced separation anxiety, never had any emotional needs as an infant. At 11 he knew his actions hurt people, but I don't think he ever thought he wasn't supposed to hurt others, he only thought in terms of the cost of getting caught vs whatever benefit he derived from his actions. Yes that does detract from his responsibility for his choices, though society still needs to protect itself from his like. Had he been a Muggle his place would have been in a closed mental institution, enforced by whatever means, for the safety of members of society.

Excellent topic, Canis sapiens!

The way I see it, he always acted on what he thought was a moral conscience, but because of his inability to love - or to even understand the concept of love - his ideas of morality were consequently warped.

The biggest piece of evidence that we have of this - as manic_depressive13 eluded to - is his view of good and evil:



Although Quirrell is the one who actually said this in PS, this (warped) notion comes from LV.

LV does not feel the same way a normal human does. As a result, his understanding of human emotions (especially love) is heavily misconstrued (spelling?). In particular, he sees human emotions as merely intuitive reactions: when something happens that affects you, you give a particular (and predictable) response in some way shape or form.

--As an interesting parallel: think back to The Matrix: Revolutions - the scene when we first see Neo at the train station. He talks to some program who has a very similar explanation for what love is - it's just a word with a (technical) meaning attached to it - which is due to the fact that it's a program, not a human being.--

Because of LV's warped understanding of human emotions, he has a warped understanding of what is right and wrong. He only understood pain (and love) in the physical sense: he didn't fully understand the emotional aspect of pain (or love). This, I think, is where our ideas of right and wrong stem from in general; it would certainly explain LV's warped sense of right and wrong. Now, one could argue that LV's strategy for luring Harry to him at the Battle of Hogwarts was endangering the lives of the rest of the WW, but this only shows that he has predicted Harry's reaction to his own actions. He knows that Harry will have a mental reaction to the knowledge that people are dying, but he doesn't understand where this reaction comes from in terms of human emotions.

The same is true when it comes to LV's own reaction to figuring out how Harry survived when LV first tried to kill him. He only saw the protection as a magical result of a physical act; he did not understand that the real power of Lily's sacrifice came from the love that made her make the sacrifice in the first place. As a result, he tried to harness some of that magic himself, not knowing the repurcussions of his actions.

I also agree with what manic_depressive13 said about Tom wanting affection. We hear from Mrs. Cole that Tom hardly ever cried as a child, which suggests that he never wanted any more attention than what would give him food, sleep, or help satisfy any other primary human needs.

I think this is because he didn't trust anyone but himself. He didn't want to depend on others to keep him going (probably because never had a mother figure that he could depend on). He always had to feel like he was in control; even when he was on the verge of trusting someone, he always seemed to have a back-up plan to punish those who betrayed his "trust". Of course, this was not a wise frame of mind: you always have to have some measure of faith - no matter how small - in order to live life fully. Otherwise, you become paranoid, and shelter yourself from life's true potential (I could go on about this notion, but I'll spare you for now ).

Sorry about the long post, but there's a lot that can be said about this. I'm sure I've missed out on a world of detail here, but I'll have to wait for other posters to give me ideas .

Hold on everyone while we take a trip to the Obscurus Books forum! Please continue your disucssion of this fascinating topic at it's new location!!

*Mobilithreadus*

Happy posting

Lirene
LL Mod

I do not believe Lord Voldemort thinks he is evil. I don't think he has enough of what we might call a normal conscience or sense of morality in him - or any conscience or sense of morality in him, for that matter - to even think along the lines of questioning what he has done. He is totally self-centred, self-focused and self-serving. To an extreme that excludes the possibility that he would see what he has done in terms of good or evil.

The reason Tom has not had any friends or loved anyone in his whole life (I guess he's about 71 years old at the end of DH) is because, in his world - his emotional, moral and mental (ie - the way he sees reality) world - nobody else exists. As Dumbledore tells Harry in HBP, "You will hear many of his Death Eaters claiming that they are in his confidence, that they alone are close to him, even understand him. They are deluded. Lord Voldemort has never had a friend, nor do I believe that he has ever wanted one."

Tom Riddle has always been a skilfull actor. When it suits his purpose, he can convince people that he likes and even cares about them (ie - Hepzibah Smith, Horace Slughorn, his loyal followers, Headmaster Dippet). But it is all an act. Ultimately, and in his heart of hearts, the only one he sees as being worthy of his self-proclaimed greatness is him.

And no other goals, ambitions, pursuits or acts exist in his world beyond that of pleasing Lord Voldemort. Which, in his case, means anything which makes him more powerful. It is an outrageous and horrifying concept but I believe it is Tom's. A god among ants, he would not see anything he did to the ants as wrong, let alone evil. If it's good for the great Dark Lord, it's good. Period.

Evil? No, I do not believe he sees himself that way or even considers the good-evil philosophical question (which, by the way, is the difference between him and us). If someone were to ask Lord Voldemort if he - based on everything he has done since the age of 16 - is evil, I can see him answering the same way that the 11-year-old Tom Marvolo Riddle answered Albus Dumbledore in his little room in the orphanage. That is, "I knew I was different. I knew I was special." And that, in my opinion, is STILL as far as his personal introspection would go.



Laura

Yet this is a man who when he was brought back to life, chatted aimably with Harry (his enemy) about his life, and called back his followers, calling them his true family. This does not seem to match a man who lives in a imaginary world where nobody else exist. He initiates group torture sessions, inviting his followers to share in his enjoyment of control. He is a man on stage doling out punishment and reward like some ancien war lord. It seems more like a man who rebels against rules that curtail his activities. Voldemort was secretive in his youth to avoid punishment, but he works and plots and plans all his life so that he can make his behavior public, known , feared or emmulated by others.


He doesn't recognize "evil", but he doesn't recognize good--he recognizes power and as he tells Dumbledore, he does not believe in the power of love. His experience with love and "good" and rules is that gives a predator like himself opportunties; people become, because of their feelings, as Snape tells Harry Prey, to the Dark Lord . From what we see of him, when it came to power the teenage Severus Snape didn't recognize power as good or evil, either. He did not care about the lives loss in the first war, until Lily was threatened, then he only cared about the loss of Lily. We can only assume that Lucius recognized good and evil, that is he recognized authority, as he "lied" to avoid punishment, but he didn't care. Those moral applications were put on certain actions by their society and even their society bent, twisted, and broke those rules.

Petunia and Vernon must know it is wrong, abusive, and as far as I'm concern child mental cruelty, and as it was deliberate, evil to through a 15 month old child into cupboard, but they seem to feel it was their right to do so.
If Tobias Snape was abusing his wife and child, it is possible that he knows it was wrong to speak to a non-family member this way, or treat someone outside his home this way could get him arrested, but he gave himself permission because they were "his" wife and child.
Would Percy have slammed the door in the face of any other middle age woman?

To a point we all take advatage of relationships, opportunities, loopholes in rules. The difference is, Tom Riddle, a natural predator, lived in that place of opportunity.

We might mean different things when we say Tom didn't recognize evil. To me: He knew the difference between wrong and right. He understood the concept of evil. But he didn't recognize the authority--as in, he knew who they were and what they did but he didn't value or respect their power--of his society to call his actions and impulses evil. In fact many Anti-social personalities are quick to tell judges and jury that we all to some degree possess so-called "evil" impulses, we just repress them. It is more accurate that we who possess a conscience, might experience violent or other inappropriate feelings, but we also experience empathy, compassion for others and we do not repress or ignore the higher feeling. Voldemort learned to suppress those feelings as weakness, from the cradle it seems. He learned early that crying would not necessarily get him what he wanted.

It is his cruelty, his lack of compassion, his fierce hold on control and power, and his warped interpretation of Wizard's feeling of social and intellectual superioty over other beings that set others against him.

Question: In asking what is evil and what is moral: Does a conquered people, no matter how benign the stated purpose of the invader, discern the difference between a "righteous" conquerer or an "evil" one, when family and friends are dying around him, he is either curtailed, confined, driven from his home, lives in constant fear that any time his home could be invaded, he can be arrested for simply being , he is surrounded by predators from both sides of the conflict, trying to recruit his children, possibly humiliating or violating his women and children and dismissing his faith, and dismissing his life style as worthless?

WARNING: Another long post



I think what Laura W was trying to say is that, according to LV, no-one else really mattered. Everyone else was just an object; his followers were merely his disposable resources that he could use to exhert his control over the general population. He never had an emotional attachment to anyone, not even his most devoted followers. If they ever failed him (whether accidentally or on purpose), forgiveness (or even a simple reprimand) was never an option that crossed his mind - he just went straight to physical or intelectual punishment.



No, he didn't recognize evil (as proved in his philosophy of "there is no good and evil" - can't get much more concrete than that!), but he didn't really recognize good (or right) either - at least not in a philosophical sense. He was certainly able to recognize and apply society's idea of was considered acceptable or unacceptable to his own actions, but he didn't philosophically see them as right or wrong (i.e. good or evil - which we know he doesn't believe in).



There's no doubt that Snape - in his youth - didn't see Dark as "evil", but I think this had a lot to do with the fact that none of his Dark jokes were fatal, or had permanent, serious side-effects (at least, not that we know of - this is just me making an educated guess). I see young Snape's view of good and evil as extremely lenient - he does recognize an evil, but for him it takes a seriously Dark act to qualify as evil.

We also don't have any evidence to suggest that Snape didn't care about the lives lost in the war - we never got to see his reaction to any death besides Lily. Personally, I think it's telling that he considered Sirius' "trick" as attempted murder as opposed to an attempted killing. Admittedly, this attempt hit rather close to home for Snape (and understandably so ), but IMO, someone who distinguishes murder from killing has a different take on intentional killing compared to someone who doesn't.




You both raise excellent points in your respective posts here. These ideas go back to the ideas of Socrates, who was well-known for his conviction that "No-one knowingly does evil". His reasoning here is that even when someone deliberately commits an act that is considered evil (or wrong), there is always an underyling good that "outweighs" the act of evil that pushes that person to commit the act (i.e. makes them feel that their decision to act is right).

In the case of LV, every act of evil he commits is contributing to his quest for either global domination or immortality. So from his perspective, the "good" that is resulting from his actions is enough to justify the harm he's causing.

In the case of the Dursleys, by keeping Harry "as down-trodden as possible", they felt that they were not only "curing" him of his abnormality, but "balancing out the universe" so to speak for the good they did in by taking him in despite the "inconvenience" it results for them.



Talk about run-on sentences.

I think the core question here is "Does a conquered people, no matter how benign the stated purpose of the invader, discern the difference between a "righteous" conquerer or an "evil" one?" My answer is yes: everyone has their own understanding of right and wrong (or, in this case, justice), and I find it extremely hard to imagine an entire community that has a warped one. If a community is being dominated, and they understand the reason for the domination, they will be able to determine whether or not the act of domination was justified.

This is why LV's domination was considered to be so aweful - his ideas/opinions of blood purity were deranged (not to mention hypocritical), even from the perspective of those who weren't being persecuted (Neville, as a pure-blood, is a prime example).

"I think what Laura W was trying to say is that, according to LV, no-one else really mattered. Everyone else was just an object; his followers were merely his disposable resources that he could use to exhert his control over the general population. He never had an emotional attachment to anyone, not even his most devoted followers. If they ever failed him (whether accidentally or on purpose), forgiveness (or even a simple reprimand) was never an option that crossed his mind - he just went straight to physical or intelectual punishment." - harrypottergeek2


Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. And not only trying to say. it is what I said. In plain English. I still say that. Each reader of my previous post has the right to agree or disagree, of course. (shrug)

As I see it, all the information about Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort that Dumbledore gave Harry Potter in HBP was factual information that Jo was giving us. DD was saying to Harry, "Here is what you have to know about this guy in order to continue your mission to destroy him" and Jo was saying to her readers, "Here is what you have to know about this guy - and it's all true, because I've created him and I say it's true - in order to understand what will happen in Book Seven." And, after we learn this about LV not thinking of anyone as his friend or as his being a friend to anyone else, we can go back and pick out many examples where this is shown in his actions and words (and also where it is shown in HBP itself, and shown in spades in DH).

Lord Voldemort treated his followers and his enemies alike.

Note how he Crucio'd his own followers.
a) Instead of being grateful to Quirrell for giving him a place to live, as it were, LV hurt his host in the Forest in PS. (Harry: "But I heard you a few days ago, sobbing -" Quirrell: "He does not forgive mistakes easily. When I failed to steal the stone from Gringotts, he was most displeased. He punished me ...")
b) DD tells Harry and us that when Lucius blew it with the diary in CoS, LV made him pay dearly. We all know what that means.
c) And there was the scene in the graveyard in GoF, where he did not hesitate to Crucio a DE.
d) And, in OoP, Harry felt the apparently terrible and long-lasting torture that LV was administrating on Avery.
e) And, in DH, LV Crucio'd those on his side repeatedly (especially when they called him back and Harry Potter was not there). Plus the way he publicly humiliated Lucius Malfoy (ie - by depriving him of a wand; kind of the ultimate insult) and his family in DH.

Voldemort had no feelings for or use for those who thought of themselves as his loyal army and his friends and who thought of him - mistakingly so, as Dumbledore told Harry - as their friend. Those who thought he had any feelings for them at all. To LV, they - like everyone else in the world, in his world - had no value as human beings. They were just so below him, in his view, that it was like they were another species. A much, much inferior species. As he had seen all human beings, be they Muggle or wizard, all his life.

On the other hand, they were there to do his bidding in his quest for world domination and personal complete and ultimate power. So, if these idiots and bumblers (ie - the DEs) wanted to think he liked them, so what (me thinking like LV here)? It's no skin off his nose. (Yeah, I'm aware that he doesn't have a nose - but you all know what I mean.) And if it benefitted him to speak in a friendly manner to them, he could do that. He sure had lots of practice at age 16 when he was pretending to be respectful to Professor Slughorn and at age 18 when he was pretending to flirt with Hepzibah Smith.

The only one in the whole world worthy of his gracious benevolence, the only living thing worthy of his attachment, was the beautiful Nagini. And the only one in the whole world worthy of his fear was Albus Dumbledore: "The Only One He Ever Feared". (Certainly not that pesky, untalented boy, Harry Potter, who got by on luck and help from his friends.) As LV saw it.

Tom was of that mindset at age 11 and he was still of that mindset at age 71. A mindset and behavior that relates directly to the thread topic, Did Tom Riddle Ever Have a Moral Conscience?.




Laura

"A foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil. Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good or evil, there is only power, and those too weak to see it."
- Professor Quirrell
(PS, Chapter 17)


edited by LW to improve formatting

Canis sapiens; I too agree that this is a wonerful topic and your opening post is very insightful .

Tom lived in the pathological world of his own mind and it wasn't fantasy; it was very real to him. Everything Voldemort does is for his own gain no matter the circumstances. He had followers both at Hogworts and out; he was a respected student by his teachers, however, even if any of these people truly loved him; these feelings weren't returned by Tom; nor did he want such feelings since he perceived them as weak. His chatting amiably is completely within his pathological state of mind and it's really no surprise; but notice Tom is doing all the talking and I am sure he didn't look upon his DE's as his family; this was just another bold face lie to make his DE's guilty for not seeking out their master. Voldemort is a master manipulator; he doesn't enjoy the crowds; but he uses people when he needs to and he uses any situation he can for his own benefit. In his mind he is the only one that exists; everyone else is just a puppet to him.

I feel the very same way about Tom's psyche. He cannot love; nor does he understand the concept. Oh sure, he knows what love means to other people and he is incredibly intelligent enough to know that he can use love as a means to manipulate people.

I agree; he had the ability to use people and to charm the pants off of those from whom he could gain something and not because he enjoyed the attention he got from others. He was a natural loner and enjoyed his own solitary confinement if you will; he was master of himself and he only needed people for his ultimate plan; and that was to have power over everyone and everything not only in the magical world but in the Muggle world. LV displayed characteristic narcissism; and a paranoia for power as well and Rowling does a fabulous job demonstrating this in canon.

So the question is; did Tom have a moral conscience? Although we have limited at best information on all of Tom's activities in the orphanage; as a very young boy I will venture to say that he certainly may have had a conscience. It's interesting to me as a reader when his pathology began and how it developed. By the time we meet the 11 year old Tom it is clear that whatever conscience he has left can only be described as a remnant of a conscience. The moment Dumbledore told Tom he was a wizard; there was no humility in his response; Tom found out that he was "special" and he finally had the means to become powerful. It was only a short matter of time for him to attain this power.

Do readers think that Tom's friends could have had any type of positive influence on him at school? Could his teachers have done more for him; and could Dumbledore have done more to help Tom too? How about the adults in the orphanage? Just some food for thought .

There is nothing to indicate that Voldemort didn't enjoy crowds, in fact the opposite is indicated: He enjoyed the fear and respect of people who should have been his equal. All he works towards seem to culiminate in the idea that he should be worshiped and feared by his community--forever and he has no plans on dying.

There is nothing to indicate that once in charge that he would retreat from the crowds on some personal quest. His personal quest was designed to keep him in power and control over others, not designed so he could remain isolated from others. As he was feared and knew exactly how to make himself feared that was nothing at all delusional in his thinking. He was an intelligent predator, as many leaders have been in the past.
And Voldemort did not act alone: he could not have been as successful had he not had the support of other intelligent people like Nott, Avery, Malfoy, and Severus Snape.

Jo has drew some parallels to the evil Voldemort and Hitler, and the evil of the Death Eaters and the Nazis. There are and are not similarities.
It was necessary for Jo story--Harry and Voldemort sharing a heritage is vital to the plot --to established Voldemort's mixed heritage to prove his hatred, but it seems inaccurate to compare Voldemort to Hitler in this one respect.

Voldemort is not like Hitler, who seems to have been delusional was directly physcially, mentally, and spiritually abused by his father. There is nothing to indicate that Hitler did not love his family and friends, just the opposite.

He joined a group of of people who had at the core of their philosophy an Anti-Semitic agenda, he did not start it. Certain attitudes towards Jews and other so-called minorities were not considered as abnormal as we would like to believe, but rather considered more "normal" that we in this age of cultural tolerance are willing to admit.

Jo makes Voldemort's war against Muggles and Muggleborns more personal than history leads us to believe true of Hitler. Voldemort's war against Muggles and Muggleborns generates in his hatred of the powerlessness of his father's bloodline. There is nothing to substanciate rumors that Hitler was part Jewish, and sources that claim this are questionable at best. http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/ques...er-jewish.shtml

What seems to inciate some similarity is this part of the answer:

Voldemort certainly would not have liked even his pureblood followers to know of the deterioration of his pureblood family due to inbreeding. And it wouldn't be that comfortable of future for the few purebloods to contemplate, as continued existance was only possible through liasons with Muggles and Muggleborns as Ron pointed out.

Voldemort and Hitler are alike as Hitler did not establish persecution against Jews and other minorities in his area, any more than Voldemort established persecution against Muggles and Muggleborns. Europe had been guilty of this particular crime since the inquistitions and possibly before.

But attitudes about government, religion, and culture was changing towards tolerance, and there was much more resistance to Hitler's ideas, than had met attempts at ethnic cleansing in the past. Even Yellow Star was not a new idea: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Austria.html

Voldemort carries on the work of his direct ancestor and others like the family Black (Sirius aunt wanted permission to hunt Muggles as sport), and Hitler carried on the work, it would seem of a certain segment of his societies, who had not evolved from medieval attitudes towards religion, intergration of different peoples, just tolerance and fear of change.

Voldemort seems to have tapped into, according to Sirius, a fear of Muggle/Muggleborn contamination that already existed in Pureblood Wizard society. Had it not been there, Voldemort could not have been successful, as he dirives most of his power and mobility through of his Death Eaters.

Can we really chalk the horrors that happen in the HP universe to one source, the personality quirks of one evil person in lieu of the fact that he enjoyed support and a following from supposedly relatively sane and mentally balanced people?

It is well within Voldemort's pathos to want to be a loner and at the same time crave power. And I disagree that Voldemort enjoyed crowds; and he never wanted friends. Canon tells us this very thing from none other than Dumbledore. True, Voldemort didn't act alone; and that is why I call him a master manipulator. No one was close to him; I have yet to see one character in the series that Voldemort called a true friend and companion. There is no such thing; and the DE's don't fall under that category. The DE's you mention were his puppets; ready and willing to do his bidding at the drop of a hat. Tom never wanted friends as an adolescent and that certainly didn't change as an adult. A friend and a follower are two very different concepts and are not interchangeable. As far as Voldemort retreating from the crowds; I certainly can see it happening. Had he attained his goal and defeated the wizarding and Muggle world; he would let his minions plunder. However, he would have still manipulated the masses; not because he wanted companionship; but because he needed to exert his power.

It is because of this, that Volemort's inner conscience was skewed; if he even had one. Voldemort does not process information the way that normal people without pathos do. To him murder was just a necessity; or an outlet for his anger. In Voldemort's wold he could do anything and everything he wanted to because somehow he thought he possessed and deserved such entitlement.

We disagree on this because as we have discussed in another thread Maime; we disagree on Tom's fundamental clinical diagnosis and I still stand by mine. However, disagreement is a good thing when it comes to a clinical diagnosis because it opens the channels to communication and perspective. In the real world, this communication and discussion is vital in order for optimal treatment options because personality disorders are just as debilitating as other psychiatric disorders .

I think the issue here is the concept/definition of "enjoyment", and I think you are both right.

LV did enjoy having followers, and he enjoyed the ability to summon them at will, but only to the extent that it confirmed his complete control over them. The only thrill he got out of these crowds was the knowledge that he had these people at his command - there was nothing more to it than that.

What he didn't enjoy or even care about was the affection these followers had for him (just look at the way he treats Bella, his most loyal and devoted servant/follower). When he speaks of the importance of devotion, he's not referring to the emotional aspect of being committed to something (i.e. himself). He only refers to the concept of unfaltering/unwavering loyalty/servitude.

Thought provoking. Before Tom transformed into the vile Voldemort, before crossing that tipping point of no return, was he, especially as a child, capable of listening to his conscience? Did he even have a conscience?

One of the most disturbing descriptions in the book for me was that of a baby Riddle who seldom, if ever cried, and who quietly watched the goings on around him without fuss -- causing the orphanage staff to get the heebie geebies. This baby, this tiny baby, was capable, in absolute silence, of disturbing those around him.

Was so young a soul capable of emitting an evil aura basically from birth? Clearly, the people around him felt something, and that something they felt wasn't altogether pleasant. Then, as the child grew older, we learned that disturbing and unexplained things were taking place around him. Perhaps he did feel a sense of neglect and abandonment, which only grew once he learned about the circumstances surrounding his birth. Perhaps, with all that time he had to think (and he was intelligent enough, that much is clear) he deduced that if he was left to his own devices then he would be just fine, and he didn't need anyone in his life.

But did he regret, even in the smallest way possible, his decision to go it alone? Did he feel sorry for himself, and turn that pity into anger (which I've heard is quite easy to do), and begin to lash out at those that bothered him? His penchant for cruelty is key here. Anybody who can abuse -- in any form -- children and animals at that young an age has clearly either left behind whatever conscience they had to begin with, or, as you suggested Canis, deluded themselves into thinking their actions were completely justifiable.


Yes, he understands enough about love to view it (disdainfully) as a tool, another weapon to use against the world. But if he did in fact decide to go it alone, making what was then a conscious choice to forsake his conscience, then he would have at that point blocked out any possibility of truly understanding that which would eventually be his undoing -- love. A superficial "understanding" of anything leads to superficial results. Had Tom truly understood that his actions were not justifiable, but cruel, sadistic and evil -- lacking love -- then perhaps he would have made some different choices.

I don't recall Voldemort ever saying he didn't want friends. Reading the novels he seems to have cultivated quite a few friends. He has the same basic expectations of his "friends" as anyone: loyalty, that they are sincere in their care for him. There is nothing unconditional about his cultivation of friends and followers, but he does reward them. That he could regret that he couldn't share certain information with Snape is a remarkable bit of feeling from Voldemort.

Dumbledore says that Voldemort treated his "friends" more like servants, but this a judgement call on Dumbledore's part. Just because we share Dumbledore's point of view of Voldemort's treatment of his friends doesn't mean Voldemort didn't want friends--he obviously did.

That Dumbledore (or we) made a judgement that we would not willingly lead our friends into orgies of murder or torture, or punish them when they do not do our will, does not change the fact that Voldemort considered these people his friends.

In order to show Voldemort as a true loner , or having a pathological need for solidtude, wouldn't we have to show Voldemort seeking solitude for solitude's sake, as opposed to seeking solitude in order enhance his power base?

However, in the time Voldemort supposedly spent alone, Dumbledore tells Harry Tom spent in the presence of the worst of wizard kind, learning Dark Magic--he did not spend the time in the library, alone , as does Hermione, researching Dark Magic but consulting other wizards.

This does not fit behavior of someone with pathological or even deep need of an artist to be alone. In fact, Voldemort seems more to show a pathological need for attention and recognition by a great number of people, an entire community. All of his evil is geared to having power and control, and the recognition of others.

Voldemort complains to an underling about the quality of care. Voldemort calls his followers his " true family" as Voldemort and scolds and punishes them because they did not look for him. Someone with a pathological need for solidtude would run from the spotlight or attention and would not want followers.

Voldemort did not go into the wilderness by choice, but was forced to live alone because his plan to kill Harry backfired. And he confessess to very human feelings of lonliness and feelings of desertion, losing hope. (Page 654 GOF)
A person with a pathalogical need for solitude would have welcomed an altered state of being--fits right in with his thinking--as rescue from the world, just the opposite of what Voldemort felt. And even then he is not alone, needing animals to feed on and doing what he can to find a wizard to possess, to return to his body and back to his circle of friends.

True. I don't think Voldemort's lack of conscience is related to a mental or learning disablity, but a man with a different nature--different enough to seem alien or challenge what we have held to believe as moral. He values different things. Anti-social describes his personality type, but it does not mean he is anti-social as in avoiding human contact as we see him actively seek it out.

Someone with anti-social personality does not avoid human contact, but interacts with others in ways that are considered criminal--against society's laws, therefore anti-social. A "diagnosis" for want of a better word of "anti-social personality" would not be possible in a society where it is permissible for the stronger being to take what he wants. It is possible in our society, because we have and for the most part respect "moral" or "ethical" laws regarding the treatment of others--and that's shaky when it comes to sex, sexual orietation, skin color, econmoic statis, national origin and other sources of human intolerance or disregard.

If we can, for example, disregard the sanctity of another's man's home because we do regard his home, religion as valuable, or we for whatever reason judge that we have more right to what the person considers his home than he, how are we, in evicting by war or other means this person from their beloved home any more compassionate (in the person's eyes) than Voldemort?

At one time or another all nations who were in the business of expanding their boulders through conquering or colonizing others showed what we would now consider criminal disregard for the lives, culture and property of others. Any nation that has limited or restricted the basic rights of freedom, movement and any right they extended to themselves within their borders, have shown blantant and what is now considered criminal disregard for the right of others.

Sometimes evil is a matter of perspective or social evolution or growth.

The psychiatric community does not use words to describe behavior that indicate moral judgement of the behavior, i.e good and evil. Instead they create personalty types, in order to better understand and predict this type of behavior before the person can do great harm to others and himself. We can give some people treatment or medicines to help them deal with "reality". If it was drugs Tom would just pretend to get better in order to get high. If it was therapy Tom would go along in order to keep out of prison, or just for the game aspect of keeping the therapist at bay, (as opposed to than go along with therapy in hopes that people will leave him alone. )

While it possibly true that this is what Jo meant to imply--she meant to imply this in a fictional, therefore dramatic context. Although drama may be based in fact or science, it still is drama, therefore enhanced.

There are a number of reasons a very intelligent baby might not cry--evil being the least of these reasons. A very intelligent baby might learn in the first few months of his life that crying does not result in immediate help. Or because the baby has learned to trust the parents to show up immediately or even before she or he cries. A baby who wakes up wet in his mother or father's arms has no reason to cry, unless the mother or father is abusing the child.

Babies cry because that is the only way they communicate they have needs. An intelligent baby might also find other ways to comfort himself--like the discovery of his toes. It is a bit scary that a baby this young can decide, what's the point, they will get to me when they can, but off-hand this seems to be what the infant Voldemort did--but again this is fiction and drama. Children with autism might not cry, children with hearing or speech or other developmental disablities might not cry as often as we think a "normal" child might not cry.

As to adult reaction to his silence: Yeah, there are some children who look wise beyond their years and have a way of unsettling one--it would seem that although Jo doesn't believe people are born evil, she decided that Voldemort was indeed born evil--a side effect of magic perhaps in the HP universe?

I agree and disagree with you.

I cannot agree that it was a matter of Tom understanding or an inablity to understand that his actions were cruel. He knew his actions were cruel. Cruelactions got him what he wanted faster, in his opinion than kindness or obeying rules. He would have gotten not one iota of sastifaction in taking his father to court. He wanted to punish his father, and knew the crime couldn't be traced to him. He is willing to spend ten years in the company of some very evil wizards in order to learn their magic.

He understood his actions were not jutisfiable. He didn't care. Tom didn't value anyone save himself enough to care if anyone one else was hurt in his pursuit of control and power. Not valuing anyone else is not the same as not understanding--although often in explaining conflicts, we say if people could understand each other they might not fight or harbor racist or intolerant beliefs systems. Tricky thing is, if a group of person have no reason or feel they have no reason to value another group of people, having the patience to "understand" other's value and "respect" them is not an option. Tom's conversation with Dumbledore reveals a person who has no respect for feelings like love. He considers them weak. And the kind of reward or support one gets from Love, Tom got from using cruelty and fear and manipulation using punishment and reward--and in the end what Tom wanted most was control.
Harry didn't want control. He didn't seek fame or recognition just because he existed, nor did he feel entitled to it, although he appreciated recognition for his accomplishments like Quidditch.

Voldemort valued himself, his hurts, his pleasures, his continued survival and his control. He values his followers who are useful. He doesnt' leave Bellatrix to Dumbledore's justice and is infuriated when she is killed. He takes it personally. He chooses Narcissa to check on Harry, because he didn't care what happened to her; he didn't consider her a loss.

Harry judges Tom's fury as Tom's reaction to losing a valuable soldier, but not the loss of Bellatrix the person. However this seems a conscious and almost intrusive attempt by the author to insure that her readers feel no last minute sympathy for Tom. She does the same in a less condeming way with Narcissa--we are told Narcissa has only a selfish reason for helping Harry; although her actions are helpful, they do not indicate that there is any measure of latent redemption in this "wicked" woman's motivation. But Narcissa's motivation is a fair and sympathetic one: concern for her child.

But mostly we've discussed "Tom's" evil. Certainly after five minutes in his presence as a Death Eater, Snape, Avery, Malfoy, and all the other Death Eaters must have recognized that Tom is about Tom first, but they choose to follow him anyway. So what are they doing there, willingly supporting Voldemort, allowing him to brand them, swallowing his rhetoric whole, terrorizing their neighbors and family?
How does Tom's pathology explain Lucius Malfoy's-- an intelligent and wealthy man, prefect, working knowledge of right and wrong, and the law, sense of protective responsibility towards his family--ready acquiescence to Voldemort's "appeal"?

You're right - LV never personally says he doesn't want friends, but based on LV's character, it's not too hard to see that that's actually the case. Having a friend implies you have an emotional attachment to, or display affection for, someone; LV does not do this.

First bold mine: I disagree. He does not view loyalty as an emotional commitment; he only views it as a binding contract that must be adhered to - not unlike an Unbreakable Vow. He does not experience or understand human emotions the same way as everyone else does, so he cannot see how it relates to things like loyalty and friendship. He views loyalty and devotion the same way he views right and wrong (and for more or less the same reason): a cause with an effect - if you offer your service, you have no choice but to give it for as long as I say so, and if you violate this agreement, I won't be pleased.

Second bold mine: I think you are confusing the concept of being a loner and living in social solitude; these two are very different. IMO, being a loner means you have no emotionally meaningful interaction with other people, regardless of whether you live amongst them. Living in social solitude means that you are completely cut off from any level of interaction with others. What Tom seeks is emotional solitude, which implies being a loner; he intentionally avoids even remotely close relationships with other people. For someone as popular and intentionally charming as Tom, it's unreasonable to think he simply didn't know how to make friends (i.e. develop an emotion attachment to someone); he was too good at appealing to the better nature of everyone else to not be able to make friends if he really wanted to.

I don't see Voldemort as either, but I would protest that I don't know the difference.

Remember Lirene and I have a difference of agreement on what kind of clinical personality Voldemort represents and that spilled over into this conversation which is why mentioned "pathological".

One of us feels Voldemort belongs to a personality group where person makes a conscious effort to avoid human contact. The person seems to not need human contact, although it is more the person is more interested in his own thoughts, but this type of personality is capable of love, has a conscience, that is appears to value laws and compassion. Others avoid human contact because they are not equipped to deal with relationships--like Adrian Monk on USA network.

Voldemort courts human contact. I think he called the Death Eaters his true family because this is the way he feels about them. I'm just glad I'm not in his family or the family of a head of household who feels he has the right to treat people who admired or care for him in this fashion--but people do. Basically this is the basis of the most insidious cases of domestic abuse: a parent or spouse feeling that their relationship with a person gives them the right to do anything, treat them loving one moment or act out their frustration and anger on the person in the next.

A loner, to me would be someone like Snape, and to a certain extent Hermione who, except for Lily, people who prefers their own company. Although Snape tries hard to be accepted by his fellow Slytherins, he probably was fine just being at Hogwarts, in the library or potions dungeon, or alone with Lily. Snape doesn't court followers, and wanting others to respect him for his accomplishments is not the same as Voldemort's need to have others worship him--because...

Snape doesn't reach out to either side for companionship, even to Malfoy who we are told is a good 'friend". Snape might offer to care for a friend, but I can't imagine Snape bending enough to allow a friend to help him--pride would be too great.

When it came to needing care, Voldemort was more a petulant child complaining he was cared for enough than a man too proud to accept care...literally telling Peter, you really don't want to be here or keep me company... He wanted Peter to be there out of love, although he would would have been equally angry if Peter did not Fear him as he was the Dark Lord.

I would say as his reaction to disloyalty is quite emotional and I would question whether we can conclude that he doesn't view the loyalty of his Death as an emotional committment from them. I would agree that what he doesn't feel is any responsiblity to 'return" the emotional committment--feelings of love with love. He rewards it with praise, and other ways. He doesn't give of himself, although he expects his Death Eaters to. And I think their sincerity of feelings matters to him. It's one of the things pschiatirst warn workers about when we have to work with someone with this disorder. They enjoy the adoration, perhaps are even fascinated by it and will behave accordingly to get it, to the point of exhauting the other person, but they do not allow themselves the depth of feeling others have.

However I would agree that it is accepted that is true emotional committment for the majority of us means we return the feelings or hope they are sincere or felt as deeply, but it's not always the case. We conform to these ideas only because as a community, these values benificial to us. If these value had not proven benificial to our community we would adjust our values.

Now if you mean as a predator on society Voldemort is a loner--maybe, but he recruits other predators, like the Death Eater, the giants, Vampires to join him. The lone predator description doesn't exactly fit, as with most predators, he would be unlikely to allow another alpha male in his territory to eventually challenge him. There are some cases where another male is accepted in the pack if he submits to the alpha male--but lone predators do not lead or run in packs, and Voldemort forms and leads a pack of predators, the Death Eaters.

But I think Voldemort was capable of affection, and his statement about wishing he didn't have to excude Snape would suggest affection and trust and sincere regret that he had to cut him off, as opposed to no regret that he had to kill Snape to get what he wants. Affection is something Voldemort, it seems was capable of feeling, but did not count as an important feeling. He possibly considered it like the urge to void--one doesn't get very attached to the function until we get older and it's gets difficult to do so.

Strangly enough, this kind of reaction is what psychiatrist have noted about persons displaying anti-social behavior who magae relativel normal lives without extreme criminal behavior. As they grows older they appear to "settle" that they seems to abandon the criminal behavior and seeks more conventional interactions. but that's OT.

His "left me forever..." about Snape seems a personal statement, that Snape has deserted him for another--and he's going to pay for it. I would say his emotions are not what you or I consider acceptable treatment of friends, but neither is Draco's Malfoy's treatment of his friends. Yet his tears are sincere. I think the difference is that some of us are equating what we consider moral social attachments, or proper "love" is the same as normal. But normalacy is relative to the kind of expectations and personality a person has.

And still Voldemort's lack of conscience does not explain the behavior of those intellegent wizards who followed him. They are not consider anti-social personalities, and Jo feels they can be redeemed, yet look at the choices they made.

If we are talking about evil and moral choice: Voldemort was given a choice to confirm and choose not to, not because he couldn't, but because he could see no profit in it. There is nothing to indicate that Voldemort did not have the ability to choose not to murder to get what he wanted.

But what of people like Lucius Malfoy. How do we define their personalities or catogorize their behavior. Where do they in the fine line between social disorder and philosophical evil? Yes Malfoy was racist, but he was hardly the author of pureblood racism. He wasn't born a racist, but was taught these beliefs as values. Was there anything in his culture that would have inspired him to think otherwise. His "people" were dying out. The Muggle-born represented change or even an ending to a culture that was a thousand years old, or at least he had been lead to think of this. From his point of view the laws represent a dicotomy: How can the Wizard world claim to not allow Muggles to know of magic or take part in magic, if they invite the magical children of Muggles to Hogwarts or to become part of the magical world. Would they not bring the contamination of Muggle culture into their world. And how do we stop it.

Malfoy and Snape satisfaction in humilating others to the point of torture and murder-- for some reasons I think Snape and Lucius actions as Death Eaters was somewhat different than James baiting Snape-might indicate Sadistic behavior disorder--hmm OT it was removed from DSM, (Blink and those definitions are challenged as I'm certain Lirene will agree on the DSM) but

Althogh I agree it does appear to describe James behavior in the Pensieve scene it is significant that Snape was not under James control. James was not Snape's teacher, parent, or boss--but consider himself Snape's rival for Lily's attention. They were peers.

Snape's behavior in the class room is very different, because he has "control". But as this type of behavior was once consider a personality disorderand similar to the one Jo ascribes to Voldemort (Jo says Voldemort is a sociapath--an older term for anti-social personality) is Snape responsible for his behavior? As this is a personality disorder, should we not assume that Snape was incapable of understanding the reason he should restraining himself from bullying his students?

And if he did not restrain himself because he did not quite understand the reason that he should, how do we gage his moral obligation to at least attempting restraint?

I can't remember for certain if it was said before, but reading your latest posts, Maime and HPG2, made me make more of a correlation between Voldemort and Charles Manson with direct and deliberate associations with Nazi Germany. Manson's "Family" acted in much the same way as Voldemort's family - and can explain the influence which a charasmatic character can exude on impressionable followers.

I remember the Manson case clearly. I was about eighteen or nineteen. The charisma explanation didn't make sense to me then nor did it to persecutors. Those young people did unimaginable things.
Charisma = horrific violence and cruelty? I'm not certain.

But...the times were very violent and chaotic. There were high profile assasinations, race riots, the Vietnam war was the first war that was literally translated daily into our homes. We saw true horrors with no editing, Monks setting themselves on fire, children screaming burned by naplam, replay after replay of the Kennedy, King, Malcolm X, Kennedy assasinations. There were race riots, prison riots, students shot on campus, calls for revolutions, the world seemed very much on the brink of change, and I suppose after a couple of joints and glasses of wine, listeing to the Black Album, Charlie's spiel made a certain sense to people who were not sure they would "fit" into the changing world.

I have a feeling for young Snape there was a lot of emotional "noise" for want of a better word surrounding Voldemort. There was a promise of power, recognition, appreciation for his little hexes and pursuit of the dark arts. There was also the excitment of being accepted by one's peers. The most telling moment for the boy who was to become a Death Eater for me was this one: What a heady moment for a boy who has known acceptance from only one little girl.
Then Lily called his friends evil, took up for Potter, and even grinned when her filthy blood traitor friends flipped him with his own spell. I think at that one moment he meant that "Mudblood" with all his heart, although I'm certain the moment it left his lips he regretted it. But he still choose the Death Eaters. And Lucius Malfoy has looks, a lovely girl on his arms, and more money than Midas from the description of Malfoy manor. So why is he with some half-blood terrorizing the neighbors and--in his opionion-- blood traitor cousins?
Bellatrix is mad, so no explanation needed. I think the inbreeding was beginning to show on all the Blacks in spite of their good looks. I always thought Sirius was rather like a skittish throughbred --I love the fact that he mophed into a mutt--but that's OT.
But Nott, is described as an elderly widower, modest income, his son doesn't seem as virulent as Draco, and he is not moved after his father is jailed to join Voldemort or threaten Harry. I suppose he wasn't an important enough character to dwell on, but this fact made him interesting to me.
Jo says she's exploring why seemingly perfectly sane people follow a maniac, but I think in a way she only observed and perhaps is as baffled as we are, especially after reading her speech. You can only urge people to care, you can't make them care for more than their own family or home. And it is not easy when people are facing financial, emotional, or health crisis themselves to get them to look away from their own problems loong enough to see that others are much worst off.

But as to Voldemort's followers: The Death Eaters did more than follow, as, Momwitch, noted did the Manson Family. They got their hands very bloody. Death Eaters killed Muggles, Arthur tells us, for fun.
Eventually psychiatry has to run out of personality types to explain this kind of behavior, this kind of exclusive thinking when it comes to a large segment of community able to indulge in terrorism against their neighbors. It is very much "Us" and "Them" taken to the extreme: Us is entitled and supreme; Them become prey.

I know that you and Lirene are debating about clinical diagnosis, but that's not what I'm debating about. Whether LV's social attitudes are pathological or not is certainly debatable, but my argument doesn't extend that far. All I'm saying is that LV consciously rejects emotional attachment and/or affection with other people, which makes him a loner (i.e. he lives in emotional solitude). He depends on a lack of social solitude, but his interaction with others does not go further than acquiring their service, information, etc. (at least if you view it from his perspective - people like Bella, Hepzibah, and Slughorn obviously develop some level of affection for him, but the affection is not returned in the slightest).



I dunno - that's debatable. He certainly doesn't share the same idea of what a family is as everyone else does; he appears to relate "family" with "the people you are most closely associated with". As you rightly point out, he doesn't treat the people in his "family" the way any normal person would; he has no emotional affection for them, nor does he develop an emotional attachment to any of them.

Also, you are right in saying that he courts human contact, but it's not for the sake of the contact; he only courts it for the material benefits (man power, information, trophies, etc.)



This depends on your definition of a loner, because I don't see Snape or Hermione as loners. Neither of them are victims of social deprivation, nor do they go out of their way to be alone (Snape had his DE friends, both in Hogwarts and outside, and Hermione had Harry and Ron).
Also, I would think that if the situation allowed for help from friends without an unnecessary risk, he would have accepted it. Look at Harry's attitude when it comes to accepting help: he didn't want to put his friends in any more danger than they needed to be in - even with something as important as hunting Horcruxes.



Bold mine: I don't think this was his point here. Peter was claiming he was a loyal and devoted servant, and LV was telling him he was lying. Remember what LV said in GoF:

Sounds to me like he didn't care why Wormtail returned, the fact remains that Peter did him a service, and that's all he cared about. This also shows that he doesn't see loyalty as an emotional commitment.

Also, it is true that he expresses emotion (i.e. anger) when someone's loyalty to him wavers, but this anger is not born from the emotional pain of betrayal, so to say that his reaction to disloyalty is emotional is a bit misleading.



Whether or not LV was capable of affection is debatable, but fact of the matter is he didn't experience it - ever (not in relation to another human being, anyway). When he expressed his 'regret' for having to execute Snape, whatever regret he actually had was not emotional - he didn't ever feel remorse for any of his murders. The most regretable aspect of killing Snape was the loss of a valuable resource; there was no emotional regret involved with that.



Umm... I don't think so; I know I'm not. I think of emotional attachment to others (i.e. love of some sort) as both natural and normal for humans.



Maybe not for global domination, but his main goal was to conquer death, and the only way he thought he'd be able to do it was by making multiple Horcruxes - which requires muder .

Then here we are different. I personally do not ascribe to a philosophy where I personally can determine what is natural and normal for humans, especially in a world where there are so many individual cultures, and people. There is what is expected in a certain culture and then a person's ability to adapt to his or her culture's particular morals and traditions, and expectations.

In any culture where there are social, religious or other laws and traditions regarding relationships and behavior, there is no "natural" or "normal" but what is expected. If we are expected by law, for example to honor our parents, then is a person who does not, as does Snape, honor or respect a parent in any way abnormal? Harry is forced to obey his guardians rules, but do we think it is fair or his resentmentof their treatment of him as abnormal? Normal and Natural in a structured society are tricky words.

The emotions/feelings/attitudes that you are describing are very different from the ones I'm talking about (that is to say you are analyzing them from a very different perspective than I am). You are refering more to behaviour and perceptions based on social, political, and/or cultural ideals whereas I'm referring to the emotional basis of such behaviours and perceptions in general (although perhaps my ideas weren't expressed as clearly as they should have been).

There is no doubt that Snape had issues with his parents; he had very good reasons for resenting them (well, his father anyway). This resentment is based on the emotional response that Snape had for the way his father treated his family; it goes well beyond simply not following social, political, and/or cultural ideals by not liking or honouring someone.

For the vast majority of people, it is considered normal to develop some sort of an emotional connection with someone (whether it's that you dislike the person because of the way they behave, or that you like the person because their personality is one that you can connect with in a positive way). In the case of Tom, he doesn't seem to have the ability to connect to people this way. He can seduce the emotions of others to suit his own needs, but he seems to be incapable of accepting the emotional response he gets from them in return. I consider this abnormal for a human because I feel that the ability that humans have to make such a two-way connection is the very thing that makes us human in the first place; it's what sets us apart from artificial intelligence - even some of the animals.

That's why I said it's both natural and normal for humans to have this capability; it's something we are born with or develop naturally (i.e. we can develop this ability without someone teaching us how to do it). Think about it: when was the last time you heard of someone trying to teach another person how do develop their emotional capabilities? IMO, it would be pointless to even try; it's one of those things that you either have or don't have. You can't just teach someone to develop these abilities - it's based purely on instinct (which is something that is self-developed, not intentionally taught by some individual or group).

Those are excellent points and I couldn't agree more with you, harrypottergeek2. Humans have fundamental, ingrained, instinctive emotions that really don't differ no matter your race, religion, creed or background. For example; we all are very different in many ways; we might live on different continents; we may be from different socioeconomic backgrounds and so forth. But our fundamental emotions are the same. If I turn around and murder someone tomorrow; that's murder no matter what culture you are from. If one of us lies, and manipulates; is this normal? I don't know of any culture that embraces these concepts.

Conscience is something that every human being possesses; it isn't taught in school; our parents nor do our friends teach us what conscience is. But all of us know what it is; conscience isn't always easy to define, but for me, it is that inner voice; that inner quality if you will that governs our actions; it is the awareness of a moral or ethical aspect, or situation that governs one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong. Tom didn't have a conscience; he may have had one as a very young child. But what is interesting to this discussion is when and why did Tom lose that human emotion; what made Tom forgo his conscience in favor of emotional abuse, manipulation, thirst for power at all costs and a murderous and relentlessly vicious heart?

Tom, as harrypottergeek2 pointed out several posts ago, and which I too belive is an emotional loner. I agree with you Maime that he courted people; but he only courted followers. He never courted them because he liked them or felt any emotional attachment to them There is a very big difference between a follower and a friend. As I have already stated, these two concepts are not interchangeable. Friends nurture each other, they love us for who we are and not for what we can give them, friends have deep, emotional ties. There isn't a single character in the series who holds such a place in Vodlemort's life. Whatever feelings people had for Tom were in no way reciprocated. When he referred to his DE's as his family in GoF I don't for a moment believe that Tom saw his DE's as his family. This was just another carefully orchestrated manipulation by Tom. He told his DE's exactly what they wanted to hear. The only thing that was confusing Tom was why no one had gone to look for him when he lost his powers. He really didn't care if his DE's liked him or not; he only wanted to use them to have power, plain and simple. His DE's feared him; and I am really hard pressed as to whether any of Voldemort's DE's even liked him. The DE's remind me of Peter Petigrew; they feared yet wanted to bask in Voldemort's power.

As far as Voldemort feeling regret when he killed Snape; I'm sorry, but there was no regret here. He regretted killing his right hand man not because he liked or loved him. Again, these are just words from a master manipulator. If Voldemort really had any feelings for Snape he wouldn't have murdered him in the first place. Also; the fact that Voldemort was going to spare Lily; again; this isn't someone who wanted to spare Lily because he was such a great guy; there was method to his madness. He would have kept Lily alive for his own uses and not to appease or please Snape.

Oxymoronic and others have mentioned the lack of "crying" by an infant Tom and how quiet he was. Emotional landmarks are extremely important in the development of a child. They are just as important as physical landmarks. I wonder if Tom ever displayed a social smile at 2 months of age; I wonder if he developed any stranger anxiety or any early emotional attachments to his caregivers at the orphanage. It could very well be that Tom displayed "odd" magical behavior at a very young age; which could have scared his caregivers. And growing up this behavior might have scared the other children as well. Was Tom voracious for some kind of emotional attachment and didn't receive such? Merope didn't love Tom enough to live and care for him. If he didn't receive any close emotional bonds as a young boy, a pathologic Tom was in the making. Why would Tom need or want any emotional attachments if no one would be willing to give it to him. That's why an adult Tom didn't want any attachments. What did he need them for? He was a wizard and he had magic; magic was the vehicle he used; the very thing that would make him powerful. These are some of the reasons why I think his pathos developed like it did.

What about Tom's Horcruxes? Do any of you feel that the more Tom split his soul the less and less human he became and this intentional ripping of the soul prevented Tom from being able to repent or have any remorse for his actions?

For the vast majority of the DEs, I would say this is totally true. However, I would argue that some DEs (particularily Bella and perhaps BCJ) actually did like him - Bella most certainly did. Notice that the Lestranges and BCJ were the only ones who actually did try to find LV when he fell, because their devotion to him was not merely sworn allegience - it was a heart-felt, emotional commitment to someone they thought they could relate to. Those who only supported LV for the power he was offering saw no reason to rush to his aid. This was the same point that Sirius made about Wormtail's hesitation in returning to LV; Wormtail had no guarantee that LV would be able to make his efforts to return to him worthwhile, so it wasn't until Wormtail had nowhere else to go that he finally returned to LV.

On a related note, I particularily liked the scene in HBP where Snape and Bella are discussing Snape's trustworthiness (and loyalty to LV in general):

I wouldn't argue the point because I agree that Bellatrix and BCJ were really the only DEs that vested more emotions towards Voldemort than the other DEs; I should have clarified in my earlier post . I am hard pressed as to whether the other DEs felt those emotions towards Voldemort. I personally never felt that Lucius particularly liked Voldemort. Voldemort, having lost his powers and disappearing, was more at Lucius' comfort level and I believe he only went back to his master out of fear. Slippery Lucius . However, I will venture to say that Bellatrix most probably loved Voldemort; which is shown by her passion when she defends him and fights for him. But in the quote provided above from the book; Bellatrix is unfortunately a bit delusional in her thinking, at least in my opinion, as to Voldemort reciprocating those emotions; which I don't believe he did. BCJ as you point out certainly goes back to him; and he is one of the main reasons (besides Peter, and I guess I should mention Nagini's venom ) that Voldemort came back to power.

The scene that you mention in HBP is a great one; and as a reader I must admit that Snape had me foolded. Speaking of Snape; what about his conscience and his moral choices that he made throughout the series? And speaking of Bellatrix; some might believe that her love towards Voldemort was an obsessive one; does anyone find any parallels between Snape's love for Lily and Bellatrix's love for Voldemort and did their love affect the moral choices that they made?

I actually never got the impression that Bella ever thought that LV reciprocated her love for him. Yes, she had plenty of reason to think that she was his most loyal and trusted supporter, but I don't think she ever managed to convince herself that he loved her back. She would have hoped for it no doubt, but she doesn't seem to believe that that was actually the case. And it obviously wouldn't have mattered whether she thought he loved her or not either way; she would still have loved him no matter what. But I do agree that he didn't love her - or even liked her; emotional attachment is outside of LV's capabilites.

What happen to the children who kept crying, even though they had to wait their turn for feeding, changing? What was the quality of care? Was care simply functional, --that is, pick up the child, feed it, burp it, change it and leave it to his own designs as they move on to the next child? Did the hired caregivers have the resources, staff and time nuture the infants, sing to them, play with them?
I think Jo did mean to imply that Tom was different than the other children, but I think in an 1930's ophanage with a meager staff, many young babies would have learned, as crying doesn't get instant results , to engage themselves until their needs are cared for. The question about smiling or playing is a valid question, I'm not saying it is not-- in child development. It is not so much that Tom didn't cry as much, but did Tom play or investigate his surroundings, even if Tom played with his own toes is important, but the matron doesn't address this. Did he stare into space or did he watch the staff in a too wise, manner, or at least with the kind of thoughtfulness and attention one doesn't expect from a baby. And expectations would have been different from the adutls. Parents or a parent might watch with eagerness as a child developes the ability to hold his/her own bottle, sit up, crawl, pull up and walk. In a nursery with few staff holding one's on bottle means they can conentrate on those who don't need help, so for the child it is confusing. The more a child in this enviornment can do for himself, the less hands own attention he gets. I wouldn't be surprised if Jo writes that before Tom showed that he might hurt his peers, that he was expected, like an older sibling, to look after the younger or less competent children. Minerva expected James and Sirius to help Peter, and Dumbledore made Lupin prefect in hopes of settling Sirius and James a bit.
Even a child with what we would consider a normal, or loving personality, might feel an ddisplay some resentment at responsiblity.

It sounds very much like, Tom as an intelligent child, found ways to engage himself, while waiting for the basics like food and someone to change his nappies. As he got old enough to leave the nursery for meals--what was conversation like at the dinner table? How much life was chores? Harry noted that it was a not a cheerful palce, though functional.
Tom is a child growing up in an institutional setting, so his take on survival would be different than a child raised in a home setting. He would have little sense of "family", there was possibly a great change over in the staff. Development for most of the children, when it comes to needs would be altered according to their reality. None of the children received any nuturing. Tom might have been considered in a real institutional setting" a good baby if all other development-- speech and other skills-- semed normal or avanced, because he isn't demanding, or always crying. It is not unusual in these types of places for one or two children to become dominate, as dominance replaces for the child, the parent's attention. One requires a good staff to prevent a dominate personality from hurting others, and Matron seemed such a person, but she was not readily equipped to deal with a young wizard. The best one can do with someone like Tom is attempt to channel his energy and talents into rewarding activities, swamp him really, and hope the heck he doesn't have time or opportunity and support from others, as Tom did to purse some secret and dark agenda.

And Tom's quest for dominance is rewarded, as Dudley's dominance is rewarded. And Harry noted that Dudley was getting into delinquency, doing poorly at his studies, an dother bheavior that Vernon and Petunia should have been concerned with. Though not a serial killer, Dudley could have gotten into some scrapes with the law, that vernon would possbily try to hush up an dcover, or ignore.

Who is making this discernment? Tom? I don't think so. Yes from our point of view there is a big difference between a follower and a friend, but not to Tom. Do we have the right to stand outside of someone else's life and demand that they feel and react in certain situations the same way we do?

We can only "expect" that if we live in the same community that every adhere's to the same set of laws, morals, and ethics that are ideally designed to protect everyone. Because of the hundreds of human rights organizations around the world, we can see that rule of law does not always protect the rights and persons of everyone in a single community. Some societies actually discriminate. Because of this, I am hesitant to declare what is natural and normal for human beings to feel. What is normal has evolved as humanity has evolved.

Basically, I'm not certain Tom thought he treated his followers any differently than Dumbledore treated his "followers" in the Order, or tht he cared for his Death Eaters any less or more than Dumbledore cared for the members of the Order. At least Tom listens to the counsel of some of his followers. He trust them to a point, and Jo shows him as sincerely regretting not sharing knowledge with Snape. Dumbledore rarely regretted not sharing knowledge with his "friends" until certain of his plans went badly, as in OOP.

As to the DE and choice: How does one obey a order to raid and kill a family one knows to be innocent of any harm to one and justify one's behavior with the excuse of "just following Orders? This is a question that comes up often in war, and certain knew it's peak in World War Two with the Death Camps.

But he did have an "emotional" attachment to his Death Eaters. As a child he speaks of his mother death in a way that indicates he felt loss, deserted, betrayed by her death. That small child sitting on that bed "reasoning" that his mother couldn't have been magic because she died, spoke of a very young person trying to understand his life, and missing something. He kills his father's family because they rejected him and his mother.

He speaks of feeling betrayed and deserted when none of the Death Eaters looked for him. He tells Harry they are his true family.

It obviously did matter to him that his mother died and could not riase him. It obviously did matter to Tom that his "followers" did not seek him out. Unlike Dumbledore might have, for exampe, Tom felt no compulsion about letting his followers know just how angry he was and dealing with them accordingly--as did many rulers in the past and even now.

Tom lives in a subculture--of his own design, but created and functional with the willing cooperation of his "followers" --with it's own set of rules. Horrific, depraved by our stands, certainly, and criminal in the Wizarding world, but Voldemort and his Death Eaters form a community none the less, with their own set of rules and values. Unfortunately for others, the privilages they demand and feel entitled compose a threat to every one outside of their community.