Part II of the previous thread found here.

Let us continue the discussion of the different interpretations of the books.

What themes are prelavant in the series and how did Jo handle them?

Persons with anti-social behavior disorder understand the difference between right and wrong. Tom for example lies about stealing and hurting others because he knows he can be "punished". It is an infantile understanding of right or wrong, that is a sociapath rarely gets to that point beyond understanding that getting caught means punishment, unless they can give the illusion that they even have control of the punishment or they are caught up in the game.

The impulse for control and power is too "great" for a socialpath to supress, which is why they can be quite manipulative, even seductive in their efforts to control others. But they also suffer from emotional detachment. Tom shows this early in infancy. He doesn't cry. He doesn't display a need for contact or nuturing. He possibly cried when hungry or wet, but then just watched people.

The thing about Tom: he had followers, supporters who were supposedly emtionally/mentally balanced enough to know there actions were criminal.

But what is draw of torture and murder to Lucius, Avery, Snape? How can they ignore every tenant of decency and ethics in their society just for power?

For me as a reader; Tom did not suffer from anti-social personality disorder; he had a condition that was more severe; he had in my opinion what is called schizoid personality disorder. These are solitary individuals who neither want or need close relationships. This type of personality manifests early in childhood and usually prevails into adulthood; just as we see with Tom Riddle. The lack of motherly affection; the lack of the cry reflex, and what appears to be lack of a social smile are early warning signs. In childhood, these individuals shy away from others, isolate themselves and particularly enjoy the isolation as well. They may also display cruelty to animals; which is evident in the scene where we learn about Tom and the rabbit. Individuals with schizoid personality disorder are of very high intellect; I have met genius level intellect in these people. Interestingly, they also tend to have very clearly defined narcissistic views and tendencies as well; and this is where Tom fit's the bill perfectly. He had a grandiose sense of self importance, he was preoccupied with being the most powerful wizard in the WW; he certainly took advantage of others and completely lacked empathy and remorse.

Tom did have a lust for power; but this lust probably stemmed from his early childhood; he may have perceived himself powerless living in an orphange; and somehow compensated these feelings with wanting control; wanting to stand out and be above and beyond what the other children were. The "odd" things he did gave him that sense of control; so when he learned that he was a wizard there was no stopping him from gaining the ultimate power and control he always wanted.

Schizoid personality disorder does not involve impulse to commit criminal acts. Persons with Schizoid Personality Disorder actually do not understand the difference between fantasy and reality, therefore seem emotionally detached.
Persons with anti-social personality or sociapaths, as Jo describes Tom, are very aware of the difference between fantasy and reality, but they see life more like an arena or stage where they are the star or the puppet master.



http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe04.html


http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/heal...s/3800/3879.asp

More importantly:

Tom interacted with people in order to get what he wanted from them and he certainly was violent. He "enjoyed" the interaction with people because he enjoyed the feeling of control and power causing others pain gave him.

Maime, I am all too familar with the definitions you have given, and I appreciate your posting them here . However, personality disoders can blend into each other. And as simple as the diagnostic criteria may sound, they are in fact very difficult to diagnose and equally difficult to treat. I don't deny that Tom displayed characteristics that could be viewed as anti-social. But I disagree with your sentiments that individuals with schizoid personality disorders don't have the propensity to commit crimes because many of them do in fact commit crimes; the crimes don't have to extend to murderous acts alone either; petty crime falls into this category.

And I will point out that everything you have quoted about schizoid personality disorder is basically what I have posted above and many if not all of those criteria fit perfectly with what we see in Tom; so I very much stand by what I said .


I will unfortunately have to disagree with part of what you say above. Tom never enjoyed the interaction itself; he liked to be alone and he only interacted when he had to. The only thing he enjoyed was the power he could exert over them; as you stated and the pain he could cause.

.

You are welcome to disagree, as working in the field, I agree that persons can be dually diagnosed.

However Tom Riddle is not portrayed as guilty of petty crimes. As early as ten he has murdered the pet of person he shares housing with. He threatens his peers to control them, not to protect his enviornment. He steals from them, not out of any need to fulfill fantasy, but because he can. I see no evidence of Schizoid behavior in Tom. Although he shows no need of human contact, he does nothing to avoid human contact, rather he courts it. He's chamring, he lies, he seduces. A Schizoid person would never do this because his or her avoidance is due to fear or confusion. The behavior is odd, and on some level he or she's knows this is rather off putting to others. He or she is defensive.

Tom, on the other hand, needs the interaction with others in Order to gain control over them. He needs others in Order to feel superior to them. He holds human emotions in disdain, and feels others emotions are his to do with as he pleases. Tom is not, as someone with Schizoid behavior or autism confused or threatened by human emotion.

To a person with Schizoid disorder, or autism, the emotion of others is like that irritating white noise on the television, although from little understanding we have, the person with Schizoid disorder lives in the white noise. The white nosie has patterns and even makes a kind of sense to a person with this thinking disorder that the presence of others complicate. Imagine a group of minor distractions in one's life and multiply that by a thousand, and that is what the presence of others is like to someone with Schizoid disorder. There is nothing to indicate that like a person with Anti-social behavior, the person with Schizoid disorder has a need to hurt others or have control over people. They just can't stand the "noise". I think to a degree, most artist display this kind of behavior. A writer or certain painters have to cut themselves off a little to create.

Not so with person who has anti-social disorder. Tom doesn not live in a fantasy world where he commit petty thefts to adorn his fantasy world as someone with Schizoid behavior does. Tom as written, lived very much in a real world where he is aware that he has power over others. This thinking disorder, that is interaction for the reason of control or harm of others is not considered a part of Schizoid behavior patterns.
So we shall have to agree to disagree.

And where is the indication that Tom didn't enjoy the interactions with others? Look at his behavior in the DE Circle. He wants and needs the fear and control of others to be the Dark Lord. He was having a great time. He needed that exchange. Yes he was fine alone, but he did not choose to be alone because the presents of others was a distraction.

One of the differences between persons with the disorders is with some one with Schizoid disorder, you find yourself knocking on the door like an unwanted door to door salesman. If they let you in or even buy something, it is usually in hopes of getting rid of you forever. If they hurt someone it is more likely because the person's presence threatens them, not because they take pleasure causing pain.

With someone with anti-social disorder you knock on the door, you're let in, possibly welcome but after awhile, even if it's a "romantic" relationship the discovery is rather like admiring the spider web until you realize that you're the fly. They mean to feed on you. And there seems to be a actual chemical response to exerting control over others that someone with anti-social disorder crave, which is why their behavior esculates. The anti-social disorder, which may be a personality human trait gone awry, is predatory. In times when human beings as a whole were more predatory, the anti-social trait was possibly not noticble as disease, but a person with strong leadership qualities.

This is exactly why I say that Tom doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong - he only knows that for doing certain things (whether it's as petty as stealing a mouth organ, or as vile as killing an innocent pet rabbit), there is a personal consequence if he gets caught. He doesn't understand the effects of his actions from the perspective of his victims. No-one has ever been able to treat him the same way, so he doesn't realise the full impact of his actions. Even when DD "burned" his wardrobe, the effects were not lasting - he never got a taste of what it feels like to have someone commit a crime against you.

It all comes down to the difference between knowing and understanding. Tom knows what is considered right or wrong (at least in the sense that he knows what sort of actions result in personal consequences), but he doesn't understand why they are right or wrong because he's never had to face any of his crimes from the other side of the fence.

He also knows that humans have emotions, but he doesn't remotely understand them. His "understanding" of emotions only go as far as his understanding of right and wrong - certain action cause certain reactions. He knows about these reactions, but he doesn't understand why they happen, which is another reason why he doesn't understand right and wrong. He doesn't understand the emotional impact of crimes (whether they are petty or vile), hence he doesn't understand the reason why crimes are considered wrong.

As another example, there is a song with a line that goes "pain is what's inside of me, not when your bleeding" (comes right after the line "hate is only what you say, not what you mean"). This view of pain is the very idea that Tom does not understand (to everyone's disadvantage).

This also falls in line with his infamous Philosophy of good and evil: "There is no good and evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it". He only sees actions (like attempts to get power) for their physical outcome (an action causing a(n) (insignificant) reaction) not for their emotional outcome.

We're not the first to debate this, but lets say, such an excuse would not and doesn't stand up in a court of law as defense of Tom's behavior.

I can agree with what you are saying on a philosophical level, but sayig Tom doesn't understand the difference between right or wrong, because his understanding is infantile (in the clinical rather than "intelligence" sense) is rather like saying because we can't spell a word correctly we do not know it. Most infants and toddlers can't spell, but they understand what you are saying.

We also have Billy Bud arguement of social innocence.

Legally because Tom understand that certain actions merit punishment or dissaproval he understands the difference between right or wrong in the social sense. Tom does not appear socially innocent. He understands the interactions of human beings in his society. He recognizes authority or at least the power behind authority although for the most part everything inside him rebells against someone using their authority to contain him.

When Dumbledore explains to him that certain things will not be tolerated, Tom immediately understood that he would have to change at least his outward behavior to succeed, like any highly developed predator would.

Moreover, legally because Tom knows that you shouldn't do these things to him and would be the first to demand justice, he understands enough that he can be held responsible for his choices.

Yes he is acting on predatory impulses, but they are impulses he can control if necessary. To him it is only necessary to control this behavior to avoid punishment or pain to himself.

It is very confusion considering criminal behvaior from a clinical point of view without falling into the trap of "excusing" a person's lack of control. With the sociapath, the mental health authority acknowledges both the behavior as a result of impulse, but also the person's ability to control or contain that impulse.

Even the members of the mental health community with authority are at odds at how to view this particular form of mental illness, and I'm certain each and every one of us who has sat in Abnormal Psychology Class, or Psychology of adjustment, or child development class has had the same debate about responsiblity and understanding as we have here.

Jo seems to take the tactic that Tom is a sociapath, but responsible for his behavior. We however, do not have to agree with her about this view towards someone with this disorder, although I do agree with her when it comes to Tom Riddle. Tom is responsible for his behavior.

We can say Tom knows and recognizes the differences between punishment and reward We have seen he craves reward, (even if it is fear) and flees punishment. He understands enough of the difference to know he shouldn't do it, or he wouldn't lie about it.

He understands he is causing others pain, but he enjoys this feeling of power. Note his reaction when Dumbledore set his belongings on fire. He understood that it was wrong and exactly why it was wrong. They were his things. He was being threatened. No one has the right to threaten, betray, or hurt him.

But Tom only cares about his things, his feelings, his reward and keeping himself from punishment. It is called a developmental disorder as it appeared in one so young, as he never developed the ability to feel compassion or empathy with others, but he is not indifferent or unaware or confused by the emotions of others, neither does he avoid them. He disregards them except when their respect, fear, love, affects him. If he loses prestige or power, as he does when Bellatrix is killed, then he is angered. He values her because she is a powerful tool to get what he wants.

To add to the discussion: Is Snape's behavior--early on we see him striking out to physically hurt Petunia whom he knows can't fight back--instinctual (natural) or learned behavior?

Just to clarify: I'm not trying to excuse his behaviour, I'm merely trying to explain it.



The thing about this is that even though they understand the meaning of the words in the sense that they know that it's a form of communication, unless I'm very much mistaken, they don't understand the words as lexical objects. They have the ability to reproduce the sound, and identify the meaning attached to it, but they don't understand what words are in a literary sense (at least, not at first).

In general, we humans only know that certain things are true - we don't always understand why they are true. For instance, we all know what a car is and most of us know how to use it, but the vast majority of us don't know exactly how it works or how to fix it if it breaks down. Also, when you cram for a test, and memorize all the facts and figures, you know the material, but chances are you don't understand it (this coming from personal experience ).

This is what I meant by knowing vs. understanding - knowing something and knowing why something is the way it is are two very different things.



Again, you are using the term "understanding" very loosely here (which is why I have been arguing against you!). However, I think your use of the term "recognize" is perfect with respect to his view of authority, and this is one of the terms I would use to describe his "understanding" of right and wrong. The only thing he understands about right and wrong is that certain actions result in a negative personal consequence. Just as he recognizes the power behind authority, he recognizes the physical repurcussions of his actions. However, his "understanding" does not go beyond this recognition of action-and-reaction.



Yes, but you have to be careful about this as well. To him, responsibilty only refers to recieving credit for doing something. He has no sense of morality - he does not recognize good and evil - so his view of responsibility is very different from yours or mine because he doesn't have the capacity to interpret the concept of moral obligations.



Exactly! He has no sense of compassion to make him think twice about what he's about to do; he only considers the physical/material outcomes when evaluating what he should/n't do.



I don't think so; I interpret his reaction merely as anger and shock. He thought he was losing something as a result of someone else's actions, and he knew there is supposed to be a consequence to such actions. Because of his ability to "take back what is his" from the other children, he never learned the deeper pain their misdemeanors actually cause. This explains his vengeful attitude towards his father - his father took things away from him, and that made him angry, not sad or hateful.

A child who experience normal development understands context and nuance of a number of words, or they couldn't learn to speak expressively. They can discriminate, make choices. They understand are you "hungry" means they want to eat as opposed to hungry means they want candy. In fact a toddler who is asked: Are you hungry? might answer, No. I want some ice cream, because saying yes will get them a plate of peas and carrots. That's very complex thinking.

I never thought you were. Nontheless, the arguement that a sociapath might not understand the difference between right or wrong, also indicates that because he or she doesn't understand, he or she is not culpable or responsible for their behavior--as you do later in your post. Tom understands enough to know he should not do it. That legally is enough to hold him responsible.

Is it morally enough? Well, psychologist argue this all the time, but for the most part the answer--if the person is not otherwise impaired, that is the person has a learning disablity, and Tom did not--that a sociapath understands the concept of wrong. I do not think we can say that Tom was learning disabled. He also did not appear to be detached from reality to the point that he did not understand the concept of wrong. Usually a person with anti-social disorder also has manic depressive behavior, anger disorder, and Obsessive. We can't say Tom is delusional about his gifts, because he is a powerful wizard. Hitler was considered a powerful orator and propagandist, Napolean and Alexander master stategist.

In the Schizoid personality there is a problem with perception when it comes to certain concepts, because they cannot discern easily between reality versus fantasy. But Tom understood reality and was determine to shape it for his needs.

I'm sorry Maime but I will politely disagree; however you are very right that persons can very well have a spectrum of different personality disorders with but one usually prevails . And we do in fact see Tom committing petty criminal acts. In the scene of the orphanage we learn that he has committed petty crimes towards other children although we never become privy to what exactly those acts were. He stole from those children and kept those objects as souvenirs; as a student at Hogwarts. Dumbledore tells us that Tom and others committed nasty acts that couldn't be proved to any one person. Those are very much petty criminal acts; and ultimately he graduated to murder. Schizoids can and do go on to commit murderous acts, as we see Tom do as early as his teenage years; although this is not common it is known and documented in many cases to occur. Just because one diagnostic criteria doesn't fit doesn't rule out the diagnosis and vice versa. Again, Tom does display anti-social behavior as well, however, his schizoid tendencies prevailed. And trust me: schizoids can charm the pants off of you if they so desire; not because they want to or enjoy doing it, but because they have to for their own personal gain.


Autism and anti-social personality disorder are very different diseases. The noise you refer to is characteristic in children with autism and with other very similar diseases. This "noise" is not a diagnostic criteria of schizoid personality disorder. I do agree that persons with anti-social personality disorder hurt people and disregard their feelings but so do schizoids. However, they also hate themselves and there are deep seeded insecurities.


I have already pointed out that when he was young he did commit petty theft. Schizoids don't live in a fantasy world per se; they live in a world where their own perceptions are warped and maimed; and this world becomes their reality. So you are probably right; we are going to agree to disagree because I have treated patients very much like our villain Voldemort and they were indeed schizoid with some minor anti-social tendencies.


Yes; Voldemort wants and needs people to fear him and he loves to be in control; but you are making it sound as if he enjoys the company of his DE's when that really isn't the case at all. As you yourself argue he wants control; but he also wanted power. Voldemort actually reminds me of the Elder Wand in a sense. The only thing these two recognize is power in its truest form. The EW is loyal to that wizard whom has power; Voldemort recognized himself as master and he was only loyal to himself.


I agree that schizoids have problems with perception; but they have their own reality and it is their reality and it is real for them. Tom's reality was very skewed and each time he created a Horcrux it became worse; so I don't agree that Tom understood the reality in the sense that you and I do; he understood his reality and that is exactly part of the pathology of schizoid personality disorder.

Apologies to those of you whom I have bored into a coma with my "medical" arguments I did not intend to do this. Maime; I appreciate your sentiments.

Perhaps I need to make my meaning clearer: children, in their early stages of oral communication, do not recognize words for what they are - letters arranged in a specific order. They hear a sound and associate meaning to that sound - rather like when a dog goes berserk at the sound of the word "walk". It doesn't understand that walk is a word, it just knows that when you say "walk", it's going to do something fun outdoors with you and a leash.

Back on topic: the same rule of thumb applies to Tom when it comes to his interpretation of right and wrong: he acknowledges that there is a right and wrong, and he is aware of which actions qualify as right or wrong, but he doesn't understand why they are right or wrong.



First of all, I never said that a sociapath in general doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong; I only said that this is the case with Tom.

Second of all, the fact that someone does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not imply that they are not responsible for their behaviour. This lack of understanding is merely a case of ignorance, and to quote Ron White from the Blue Collar Comedy group: "Ignorance is no excuse, and I'm quoting the New York City judge on this one"



Bold mine: this claim is very misleading. I agree that Tom understood a concept, or an interpretation, of wrong (i.e. he acknowledged/recognized that there is a right and wrong), but it was dangerously different from everyone else's concept or interpretation of wrong. Tom's only indication that an action is wrong is the negative consequences that follow from those actions. He doesn't morally understand why something is wrong, he just knows that he's not supposed to do certain things based on the consequences. It's like training an animal to behave a certain way using disciplinary tactics: it doesn't understand why it's not supposed to do something, it just knows that if it tries to do that something, it will be disciplined.

You know I think I agree with lirene because to me this explains why Voldemort found it inconprehensible that Snape would care for a woman 17 years dead. It didn't occur to him that Snape might harbour a secret pain for the murder of Lilly and that it would lead to Snape betraying him. Tom understands crimes and consequences of them, but he doesn't get the human emotion behind why murder is wrong. All he does know is Power and how to use it.

I think this will also explain why he didn't use the Weasley's against Harry, he truly under estimated love. He really didn't get that if he used the Weasleys as hostages or bait, what that would have done to Harry and ultimatly Albus's plan. Now I think I understand this better when Albus said in KC scene that Voldemort truly did not understand the power of love. Albus perhaps knew he was going down a bad path with Grindelwald but didn't care because of his feelings for GG. He knew then the power of love and what it could do, Tom never understood any of it and thus missed out on alot of oppertunities.

I should be clear, what I disagree with Lirene about. I don't disagree that Voldemort disregards normal feelings towards people. But he is not in a state of avoidance of affection. He courts people. He has followers. He enjoys their attention.

Well- he's a socialpath. He has a thinking disorder. Twisted reaction to intelligence is part of the disorder. But Tom understands that other people don't like pain, he understand it is wrong to hurt them, he even understands that society feels it is wrong and society will punish him, if they catch him. So his goal is to change society so he can get away his criminal behavior. Then he would have gotten bored and possibly pursued the challenge of love and family. Sociapaths do that. And it is said, at least in the text book if a person with this disorder can get into middle age without extreme criminal behavior, the do try to settle into "normal" relationships.

This is where Lirene and I disagree: She feels that Voldemort exhibits symtoms of schizoid personality disorder. However, clinically a person with this personality would avoid all contact with people negative or positive. http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/riverview/psycho..._disorder1.html

They would not exhibit rage at others because that would mean they would have to deal with the reactions of the other person. They would not exhibit affection towards others because that means they would have deal with the other person affection, and affection makes no sense, has no order. People with Schiziod Personality are for the most part, not violent, uncaring, sadistic, because all of these behaviors would require that they interact with other people.
Emotional detachment, or clinical emotional detachment is not the same as disregard although it might feel that way to a family member. Emotional detachment has to do with odd perception of reality, space, and time.

Voldemort exhibits anti-social personality disorder, but the anti-social in the term does not mean he doesn't like people, but that he doesn't interact in acceptable ways. Voldemort enjoyed his friends, courted attention and fawning. He basked in admiration and fear of others. http://www.4degreez.com/disorder/antisocial.html : A person with Schiziod Personality disorder would run from this kind of interaction.

Lying, stealing, murder, torture are anti-social behaviors. Tom knows the difference between reality and fantasy. But Tom personality is simply predatory. He feeds off others feelings, so he does need human contact, just not in any healthy way.

The tricky part about making a diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality or behavior disorder arises because the behaviors are predatory and are considered criminal in our society, but the personality traits appears when a person often very young. The ethical questions becomes: was the person with Anti-social Personality born evil, as he commits what we would call evil actions? And if he was born evil can he be held "responsible" for his evil actions? Does he really have the ability to make other choices? The other problem is making a wrong diagnosis without ruling out other factors in the child's behavior. Maybe a child steals because he or she is hungry or neglected, lies because he or she is abused or taught to lie as Harry was. Maybe like Snape he hurts people because striking out is how he was taught to deal with certain social situations.

That is the problem courts face, because unless the person is learning disabled, he or she, like Voldemort is responsible for their actions, but not responsible for their thinking disorder. This is when society has to kick in and do there part and the reason we're scrambling thrying to prevent crimes.

I guess we are all in a friendly state of agreement to disagree.

You've treated serial killers? I don't want get personal in the thread, but I imagine you work in a criminal hospital or Secure mental health facility?

Although I work with MI and DD, I must admit, lately I avoid assignments with adults who exhibit extreme criminal behaviors, so I have to express my admiration for your courage and dedication to the field.

And admittedly experience varies between those who work in a mental health facility or a general medical facillity that gives transitionary/emergency care to person with MI. In my experience persons violent exhibiting Schizoid behaviors or personality traits who become violent are usually re-evaluated when they are admitted into long term care. The Professionals will investigate to several other disorders or factors to explain the psychotic episode:drug/alcohol addiction, manic depression, Post tramatic stress disorder, chemical imbalance, learning disorders, their living enviorment- i. e. do they live in a place where a person with emotional detachment would feel threatened, what were they watching on television, any stressors that would have lead to them to a psychotic break, as the disorder is not associated with violent or criminal behavior.

That's not the impression I got. Yes, he takes advantage of the admiration and support of others, but he doesn't give a rat's fart about their affection. The only reason why he accepts the admiration and support of others is because he knows he can convert it into a useful resource. Look at how easily he rejects the blatantly obvious affection from Bella and Hepzibah: he does what it takes to get their attention and favour, reaps his reward, then ignores the extra attention he gets afterward.



Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't understand the concept of right and wrong the same way as everyone else does .



I repeat, the word "understanding" is not the right word to use here, so please don't use it in your arguments. Yes, he knows, acknowledges, or recognizes that people don't like pain, but he doesn't understand the full magnitude of the pain he is causing. He doesn't acknowledge - to his great disadvantage - the notion that "pain is what's inside of me, not when you're bleeding" (to quote the band Thousand Foot Krutch). The example that Shard gives is a prime example: he didn't understand the emotional pain Snape suffered because he didn't understand the emotional favour that Snape held for Lily. IOW, he didn't understand what it was that he took away from Snape.

Yes, he knows that it's wrong to hurt people, and he knows that society sees it this way, but he doesn't know why it's wrong or why society sees it that way (aside from the consequences that transpire when he does hurt them).

How does he get this admiration and support of others? He gives Slughorn gifts, he gives others attention. He does bask in their glow. Why else call himself a Dark Lord--he can't rule people if he doesn't interact with them. That is what a sociapath does. My disagreement with Lirene is I see nothing to indicate that Tom reflects of someone with Schizoid personality, because a person with Schizoid personality would not for any reason, court admiration and support form others. He would simply withdraw. Scihzoid personalitys simply do not interact with people. Lirene and I disagree about a clinical definition of Voldemort's personality. You and I on the other hand seem to have a philosophical difference as to Tom's culpability for his behavior.

Why would we expect anyone with this personality to "understand" the concept as those of us who claim to be normal do? He understands enough to be held responsible for his behavior.

I'm not certain why you think you have the right to ask me this in this particular fashion, but as I find the term appropriate I repeat: Tom comprehends, understands the difference between right and wrong. Because his understanding or comprhension is different than the norm, does not mean he doesn't understand.

You don't have to agree with me that Tom understands, And I'm not asking you to, but I'm not certain why the fact that you disagree with my opinion gives you the right to declare I may not express it.

His understanding is simply different enough that it threatens our concepts and our very existance. Because his understanding of right and wrong do not lead him into rejecting his impulses, but hiding them through lies and seduction and other behavior, doesn't mean he lacks understanding. And once again, Toms disregard for the others is not thought of as symtomatic of Schizoid Personality disorder, in spite of any individual experience we may have in working with dually diagnosed indiviudual.

The nature of Toms personality tyupe, at least in definitive guidelines is not that someone like Tom doesn't understand that he is doing wrong, but that he doesnt care. The lack of conscience is not due to a lack of comprehension.

We do not use the words "evil" in the mental health field. Now the question would be how can a person without a conscience have understanding of right or wrong. That is not a clinical question--It is a legal and philosophical one. And here is the difference between detachment and disregard. No one knows why these people do not develope a conscience, especially when so many developed impeccable manners, charm, and intelligence. They are in a word the perfect human predator.

This Doctors paper can explain better than I: http://www.psychosocial.com/IJPR_7/nativeam.html

Voldemort's actions are reprehesible, cruel , but Voldemort the man is rational. He did not suffer a psychotic break and go on a rampage. He carefully, rationally plotted and planned his actions.

Tom doesn't use his affection for people as a resource - he has no affection for others to even use! Nor does he care that they have an affection for him: all he cares about is the fact that they are willing to contribute their resources to his schemes.

When he appeals to the better nature of others (such as giving Slughorn his favourite crystallized pineapple, or giving Hepzibah flowers), he doesn't care that they are growing emotionally attached to him. All he cares about is their support and admiration because to him, it means he has more resources at his disposal.

I think the confusion here is between the concepts of interaction and affection. For a normal person, frequent interaction does typically lead to some level of affection (whether it's a trusting connection, friendship, or something stronger).

However, with Tom, interaction is a work-to-rule concept: he makes contact with people, charms (or threatens) them, but as soon as he gets the response he needs, he stops trying to build the "bond" he's started. He doesn't progress to developing any level of affection for someone because he doesn't want it - he sees no use for an affectionate connection with someone.



I'm not using the ideas or definitions of these personalities as my arguments. Never once do I reference the term Schizoid or Sociapath to back-up or support my claims. I'll be honest, I don't know what those terms mean, how they are similar, or how they differ, so I don't use them to support my claims. The debate in question is just between you and Lirene .



I think you are still misunderstanding my point here. I'm not trying to suggest that Tom should be expected to understand things like right and wrong the same way we do; considering his background/upbringing and his "special gift", expecting him to turn out ok would be "optimistic to the point of foolishness".

I am also not trying to suggest that Tom shouldn't be held accountable/responsible for his actions. In fact, I agree with the notion that he should be held accountable/responsible for his actions. As I explained in my previous post, Tom's situation is a case of ignorance, and ignorance is never an excuse for unethical actions.



The reason why I am asking you to refrain from using the term "understanding" with respect to Tom's idea of right and wrong is because such use is highly misleading - there is a good chance that readers will misunderstand your point. In this case, the term "understanding" could be interpreted the wrong way (i.e. the meaning of your ideas are slightly ambiguous), resulting in potential confusion on the reader's part. I know it's just a technicality, but considering how important subtleties are (think back to the discussions on the love protection), it makes sense to use terminology that avoids the ambiguity and/or misunderstanding. This way, we can focus on the concepts themselves, not the interpretations of the concepts.

Also, I never said that you couldn't express your opinion - the whole point of these forums is to allow your opinion to be heard. I am just suggesting that the way you expressed your opinion was misleading.

I actually think we agree on the core concepts that we are discussing when it comes to the source of Tom's behaviour; I just felt your explanations were a bit misleading, so I tried to not only clarify them, but add more insight to your ideas.


As for the actual discussion: I agree that Tom's idea of right and wrong is very different from everyone else's, and I agree that it's because his interpretation of right and wrong is dangerously different. My argument is this: if someone's interpretation of something is different to the point that it results in that person doing things wrong (whether it's as trivial as academic inaccuracies, or as important as social misdemeanors), can you really say that that person understands the notion in question?

This thread is about acquiring a deeper understanding of the concepts Jo presents in the series, so I don't think this notion is insignificant.

it depends on how you define your terms - to my mind - any person who knows what social norms are - what is acceptable and unacceptable - in a given group - "understands" those norms. As to your emphasis on "understands" - I would say that Voldemort did not experience some human feelings and ideas in the same way as better socialized people might -but he still understood what those norms were.



I think though that is about affect - not understanding - he understands what is considered to be right or wrong within his social group - he just doesn't have the same emotional connection to it. Someone else would experience fear about violating social norms - fear of punishment or exclusion from the group even - Voldemort clearly does not have such a fear. Someone else might have fear about their "soul" - Voldemort also has no such concern. So his difference from others - or at least most others - is he lacks the emotional response to issues of violating codes about what is wrong or right. He obviously does experience emotion though - he appears to fear death - he certainly is angry - he would it seem also fear losing control or dominance in a situation.

This is exactly why I'm saying that "understanding" is the wrong (i.e. not the best) term to use: it has numerous levels of interpretation, not all of which apply to Tom - for the very reasons you point out. For instance, the definitions "to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of" do not apply to Tom when it comes to his understanding right and wrong.

Yes, some of the definitions of understanding apply to Tom here, and I have already said that this was the case, but my point is that there are further definitions that could be used in this context, and those ones relay the completely wrong information. The definition of understanding that is being used is synonymous with words like recognize, acknowledge, identify, distinguish, discriminate, etc., none of which hold the ambiguity or misleading nature that "understand" does.



You're right, he doesn't have the same emotional connection to right and wrong. This is exactly why I'm saying he doesn't understand it - he doesn't grasp the nature or subtleties of it.

He does have some basic emotions and fears, but his emotions aren't as fully developed as everyone else's. As a result, his overall perspective of emotions is warped, hence his understanding of right and wrong is incomplete.

It seems you are saying that we shouldn't use "understanding" because this is not how you would interpet Tom's mentality. But I see nothing egregious about using the word as I find it appropriate. I do not agree with your theory that because Tom has a different agenda when it comes to right and wrong that he doesn't understand, but I would never assume that I should tell you not to give your theory because I see things another way.

Understanding is an appropriate term. As Cohome noted: my mind - any person who knows what social norms are - what is acceptable and unacceptable - in a given group - "understands" those norms. . Tom is an intelligent person. He has the ability to reason and discern complex ideas, like good and evil. Therefore he understands right and wrong and can probably, seeing his intelligence, explain the difference better than Dumbledore--as Dumbledore's explanation would reflect Dumbledore's belief in feelings like compassion, love, repentence that make these differences (between right and wrong) significant to any one with a conscience.
But Tom does not believe in love, and in Jo's fictional world it is because Tom doesn't have a parent's nuturing. But he at ten, understood affection enough to know what murdering a peer's pet would cost the peer. He wanted both to hurt and frighten ,the boy because the boy annoyed him.

To me, and I could be wrong, it seems some of us equates intellectual understanding with ethical or moral belief: that is not necessarily the case with all understanding. The two are not necessarily the same thinking process. I can understand the concepts of a faith, but I don't have to believe in the faith to understand the concepts, the laws. I would have to believe in the faith to understand any rapture a person might gain from their faith.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that even though some of the definitions of understanding apply to Tom, not all of them do. Not only that, but the ways in which these definitions don't apply to Tom are what make his character so pronounced, which is why I keep saying that your explanation is misleading, not blatantly wrong (notice that I'm not shooting down your explanations - I'm merely clarifying the ambiguous aspects of it).

Notice also that my "theory" of Tom's interpretation of right and wrong, of good and evil, etc. is not really a theory - it's more of an interpretation of canon. In King's Cross, DD explains how his lack of understanding of love is what makes him the murderer that he is, and I think we can all agree that LV has no compassion (i.e. that his emotions are shockingly underdeveloped). I am merely using this evidence to explain why Tom's understanding of right and wrong is so different and incomplete. In fact, I think we both share this interpretation of Tom's character; I just felt that the way you explained your views were misleading.



Yes, but notice that "understands" was put in quotations. I'm not Cobhome, but I'm pretty sure (s)he meant it as "acknowledges", or something of the like.



Ok, maybe we don't share the same interpretations.

I'm going to have to disagree with the first part I bolded. Tom, despite being incredibly intelligent, knows nothing about the complexities of human emotions (having not experienced them himself). His only clue as to what is right or wrong is the consequences that result from certain actions. Therefore, he would not be able to explain why something as simple as petty theft is wrong - he would only be able to explain that there is a negative consequence for doing so. Someone like DD, OTOH, would be able to explain the emotional turmoil that those actions cause. He would be able to explain the emotional significance of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", because he understands the the emotional significance himself. Tom doesn't understand it to this this extent, so how can he explain it?

As for the second part I bolded, I think it would be more accurate to say that Tom doesn't believe in the power of love, because he is certainly aware of it's existence - he just doesn't view it as something worthy of his attention.

I also don't think he understood the affection the boy had for the rabbit. I think he just understood that the rabbit belonged to someone else, and by killing it, he was taking that possession away from him and making him angry. He understood possession, but he didn't understand affection; affection is a form of love, and as we all know, he doesn't understand anything about love.



I personally do not equate those terms, and I am not sure where you get that impression. None of my arguements has anything to do with belief (nor do I recall any other posts that bring up the concept of belief). I only refer to intellectual understanding and emotional understanding - how they are similar, how they differ, and what their limitations are.

No - I meant it as "understands" not acknowledges - two different words with different meanings -



well - all humans experience emotion - in part because emotion is physiologically prompted by hormones etc. Some people experience emotion less deeply than others - and some people are not conscious of their emotions. But any human has feelings. There is I think sufficient evidence that Riddle had feelings - his own feelings of anger and contempt against his muggle born father expressed in his murder of his muggle family is one example. I think too his use of torture and terror to quell dissent demonstrated a clear understanding of human emotion - he knew that frighteniing people would keep them under control and he used that effectively both on his own supporters and the general wizarding populace. I would not say Riddle had a rich emotional life nor that he was particularly self aware. I agree he had an underdeveloped ( seriously so) sense of human experience and was deeply flawed by this. He certainly lacks empathy - which is surely one human capacity which is necessary to the development of conscience.


I wonder if we are getting ourselves into a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussion ? I would agree that Riddle was deeply disturbed perhaps due to the lack of maternal bondong in his infancy. But I would laso say that Riddle was driven by his own deeply felt emotions - his anger over rejection, his anger over his lack of status due to his blood status, a desire for vengeance also. Generally speaking - such anger stems from a profound sense of loss - deep emotional hurt.

Bold mine: that's what I meant by Tom not experiencing the complexities of human emotion, and hence not understanding them. Yes, he felt anger, happiness, etc., but these emotions are primitive - even animals experience these to some extent. What Tom doesn't experience is deeper emotions: love, affection, emotional attachment, and all of the negative ones like sadness and remorse when the positive emotions are taken away or violated. Notice that he's not fuelled by his sadness of his father's abandonment, but rather his anger at his father's abandonment. Since he doesn't/can't experience these emotions himself, he doesn't/can't understand them either.

Italics mine: I don't think this necessarily shows that he understood the emotional hurt he was causing, but rather that he knew/acknowledged what sort of consequences/actions people are hurt by. He would have lived long enough at the orphanage (if not, certainly at Hogwarts) to realize that there is a certain connection between various people, and he would have seen how they react when those certain people are harmed or threatened. That does not mean, however, that he understood why they reacted that way, let alone understood what emotions influenced those reactions.

Underline mine: I agree that he was driven by high levels of certain emotions, but I don't think any of his emotions were deeply felt (i.e. they didn't go beyond the primitive emotions of anger or happiness). For a normal human being, this would be the case, but as Tom doesn't experience the deeper,more complex forms of emotion, his pain doesn't register as deep emotional pain,loss, or hurt.

there is no distinction between primitive or so called more complex or refined emotions - fear and anger are as valid and complex as other human feelings. They are prompted by the same neuro- endocrinological processes as other feelings.

Anger is related to sadness - loss - pain - it is prompted by these feelings. We get hurt - we experience loss - we get angry. Riddle apparently - like a lot of people - did not explore his feelings enough to consciously get to the loss pain and sadness which lay under his anger - but that does not make his anger a primitive feeling nor does it mean he did not have other feelings. Frankly - human beings dont work that way. Riddle may not have experienced all his feelings with the same intensity as someone may - but lots of people do not experience emotions with great intensity and do not become killers. That Riddle likely did not explore the many layers of emotional responses he had - that he seems to lack awareness of his feelings - doesn't mean he was not motivated by those feelings. This is of course the great problem of life led without self awareness - those feelings you do not explore will still express themselves in your behavior as they clearly do with Riddle.

At any rate - I do not agree that less intense or less conscious experience of emotion is an obstacle to understanding. The fact that Riddle did not have the same emotional inner life - especially as regards attachment to others - is not an obstacle preventing him from understanding what the social norms of his society were and what the consequences of violating those norms would be.

Perhaps the word I should have used was "basic" rather than "primitive", because things like anger, happiness, and fear are not as deep or complex as the rest of human emotions, at least in terms of the experience itself as percieved by the person experiencing them, which is what I am referring to. I guess I didn't make that point very clear - my bad.

First bold mine: Yes, anger and sadness are related, but they are definitely not the same. And yes, they are both prompted by loss and pain, but different losses and pain make you react in different ways. In the case of Tom, any sort of loss or pain that should have induced sadness only induced anger because his emotions do not go beyond the basics of anger. Look at his instinctive reaction to the loss of Bellatrix: his best, most devoted lieutenant was taken away from him via death. For any normal person with a positive connection with Bella, this incident should have induced far more sadness than anger, but LV didn't show a hint of sadness during this incident - just anger.

Second bold mine: The thing is that not only did Tom not explore those other, deeper layers of emotions, he also did not experience them himself (which is partly why he didn't explore them to begin with). He was incapable of experiencing sadness, remorse, love, affection, etc., so he was therefore not motivated by those feelings. The only things that motivated his actions were fear (such as that of death) and power; even his persuit of something that made him remotely happy was motivated by his lust for power, so happiness was never even a motivation for him.



IMO, it doesn't make sense for someone to understand the full significance of something they don't/can't experience - at least when that something affects/applies to that person. You might be able to acknowledge its existence, and maybe grasp some of the basic ideas of it, but you will never be able to fully understand all of what's going on.

In the case of Tom, he can't experience the sort of emotions that dictate our understanding of right and wrong, so he therefore can't understand why society thinks a certain action is right or wrong in the first place. He doesn't/can't experience sadness, so he doesn't fully understand the effects of killing someone's pet rabbit (or someone in general, for that matter). He doesn't/can't experience the pain of emotional turmoil, so he doesn't fully understand the pain he induces when he is threatens, tortures, or kills someone's friend or family member. He doesn't/can't experience any sort of love, so he doesn't fully understand the bond between to people whether they are friends, family members, or lovers.

Edited as I reacted "emotionally". Edited again because of poor grammar.

Whom am misleading? Are you suggesting that I'm leading other readers astray or away from proper thinking?

I would agree that using the word understanding in the case of responsibliity for his actions is complex, but not misleading.

Perhaps this is what you mean: that Tom's thinking--or the kind of thinking he represents is too complex, because of our concepts of evil, moral responsiblity, right and wrong to dismiss his thinking as "simple understanding". I would agree that one should "qualify" the assesment, but I don't see where I have not attempted to do this.

In so much that Tom is responsible for his actions he understands the difference between right or wrong. In so much that he has shown the ability to recognize when his behavior is inappropriate and makes successful attempts to either hide or change the behavior, he has the "ability" to refrain from giving in to his predatory impulses.
He is not delusional or brain damaged.
He is intelligent and capable of hearing, studying, and understanding complex ideas, like morals and how they are used.
His actions are considered morally "evil" and threaten others, therefore making his actions "anti-social" but not really "insane".
The difference between someone like Tom and ourselves is not so much our understanding, but how we think, how we process knowledge, how we use it.
I would agree with you that with Snape and Lily, he might not have understood why anyone would would be disgusted that Snape wanted to save Lily, but not James and Harry. Snape didn't love James and Harry: why should he care if Voldemort got rid of them, especially as they were a threat to Voldemort, therefore his Death Eaters?
And as Lily choose to die, Tom possibly doesn't understand why Snape would continue to "want" Lily as it is clear she didn't want him.

But that doesn't mean Tom didn't understand that it was "wrong" or criminal to invade James and Lily's house. But for for him invading the house was a matter of his survival, and he certainly held his survival in higher esteem that morales.

This almost goes back to the Melville's exploration of "evil" with Billy Budd, a character who is socially innocent, therefore, in Melville's mind doesn't understand that he has committed a murder even though he is hanged for it.

But Tom is not socially ignorant or innocent. He doesn't want to die, he holds his survival higher than any othe impulse. But he "understands" society enough that he is able to attend school, he holds down a job, he cultivates frienships and support from others and even pretends to give support to others. He understands enough that he knows, what ever his motivation that he must hide his darker nature. He understands the rules, but he understands them as a predator. His thinking is so different than ours that he could be another species. But he is not sick or delusional, like a person with a mental illness. He would not respond to "treatment". He would respond however, to the threat of incarcenration or execution. Then he might become like a couple of high profile prisnors and learn to work the system from within prsion.

Yet, there is nothing to indicate that Tom lacked the ability to love--he loved power, his life, he loved recognition. He made friends, and speaks of them with affection. Their "worship" of him mattered. His comments about his mother, indicates he had questions, perhaps even a longing for a parent. He killed his father and grandparents when they rejected him.

Tom speaks with "affection" of Snape, to Nagini and Bellatrix, and there is no reason to think he didn't feel the same detached and costly "affection" for others.
He calls the Death Eaters his true family, and is furious that they didn't care enough for him to seek him out. He complains that Peter service is not out of loyalty or devotion, and he geniune seems to enjoy their worship of him.

Tom is a predator in the purest sense of the word. Because the majority of the people in the Muggle and Wizard world had "morals" and had a higher regard for our basic instincts in consideration of others, they became his prey.

All of his energies are focused on his survival, his dominance of others, his control of his world and the environment around him, his pleasure, avoidance of pain and discomfort.

If Tom lived in a society and time where it persmissable for the the most powerful person to control others and have the pick of of the best he wants, he would not seem anti-social, but humanity has developed societies that in some respects holds love as compassion, mercy, surrender, kindness in great esteem and for the most part, our thinking, learning and emotional patterns have evolved to match these higher concepts about our impulses and instincts.

But think of the journey humankind has made, and the cost of the lessons, cost we still pay as there is oppression and genocide, and curruption in the world still. We are not quite two hundred years away from the thinking that some of us had the right to enslave and dominate others because of difference in color, culture, race and sex, in fact there are too many of us that think that way.

yes but - anger is a typical response - typical early emotional response - that all humans experience in the face of loss - and there is no "should" regarding human emotional response - no one can say "this is how you should feel" - you could say that this is how people typically feel in a given situation - but there is always a wide variety of emotional responses among humans.



we dont know in that scenario what his emotions are - we see only the anger - but that is not uncommon - most of us will respond to a variety of situations with an initial flash of anger - that doesn't mean we have no capacity to experience other emotions and that some time later other feelings bubble to the surface. Realistically - in the heat of battle Riddle had no time to process all his feelings about Belltrix's death.

obviously - voldemort aint real - he is a fictional character and given that we have only the info in the stories about him - not a really great subject for psychoanalysis. He was however - clearly portrayed as being human - and all humans have emotions. It is how we respond to those emotional states that differs. Riddle has emotions - and he is clearly shown ( as Maime mentions) in several situations displaying emotional states. There is no doubt that he has behaviors and a way of understanding how one relates to others that is deeply disturbed. But there is no evidence in the stories to suggest he lacks the intellectual capacity to understand what is right or wrong for his society -




I would suggest that fear anger and happiness are the most common and most intensely felt of human emotions. Well - lol - maybe boredom is more common.



I would suggest that understanding "why" a society deems something right or wrong is irrelevant - what matters is that you understand - cognitively - what is right or wrong in a given society - I personally doubt that everyone truly understands "why" some things are right or wrong - but they understand that somethings are right or wrong and they conform their behavior accordingly. Emotions do not dictate our understanding of what is right or wrong in our social group - I would also suggest he absolutely knows what the effect of killing the rabbit is going to be for the boy who had the rabbit as a beloved pet - he would not have bothered to kill the rabbit if he did not know how it would affect the other child.

Ya know - I do think we can all agree that Riddle had major control issues - and from a therapeutic standpoint - a person who is constantly seeking to control other people and events is a person who is in a state of such emotional turbulence that they are internally out of control - and seek to establish ( inappropriately obviously) a sense of being in control by exercising control over others. Riddle's desire for dominance of others could be seen as a sign of how emotional he was.

No, I don't think you are trying to lead other readers astray - I never once said this, nor did I ever try to imply this. I also don't know whether or not you actually are misleading other readers with your posts; I'm merely trying to point out that - if other readers interpret certain portions of your posts a certain way - they may not get the right impression/idea.

I think you are merely misunderstanding the point of my arguements. You are maintaining the notion that "Tom understands the difference between right and wrong". My point is that this notion can be interpreted in different ways, not all of which accurately assess Tom's character. I have also gone and explained why I think this is the case to back up my claims.

One way to interpret your notion/claim is that Tom is able to distinguish between a right action and a wrong action according to what society defines right and wrong to be. That is to say he is able to classify an action as an acceptable action or an unacceptable action based on society's views of what is (un)acceptable. This is a perfectly valid assessment of Tom's view of right and wrong.

Another way to interpret your notion/claim is that Tom is able to not only classify an action as acceptable or unacceptable, but understand why that action is (un)acceptable beyond the knowledge that there is a certain consequence to that action. This interpretation does not accurately describe Tom's view of right and wrong, and there is much evidence to show this. I have already gone into plenty of detail about Tom's emotional capacities, but even aside from this evidence, there is enough canon evidence to explain why this is the case.

I know I've mentioned it a couple of times already, but I haven't gone into as much detail as I'd like to yet, so bear with me here for a moment.

We all know that one of Tom's philosophies is that "There is no good and evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it." The fact that Tom does not believe in good and evil has several implications: for one thing, it means that he doesn't think there is a right and wrong either. Our concept of good and evil ties directly to our understanding of right and wrong. When we consider an action to be "right", we get this impression because there is some aspect of good to it in some way, shape, or form (or at least an extreme absence of evil surrounding that action). Likewise, when we consider something to be "wrong", we get this impression because there is some aspect of evil to it in some way, shape, or form - no matter how profound or miniscule that level of evil is.

Since Tom does not believe that there is a good and evil, it follows logically that he doesn't think that there is a right or wrong either; these two sets of contrasting concepts go hand in hand (i.e. to speak of one is to speak of the other). The confusion is stemming from the fact that Tom has the capacity to recognize that society discriminates between an acceptable act and an unacceptable act, and that he has to (to use your words) "hide his darker nature". The problem here is that Tom only sees this as a set of rules - that there are a set of actions, related by their nature, that are deemed (un)acceptable in society. He doesn't seem to understand why these rules (or norms, if you will) even exist in the first place because he has every intention of violating those rules; he just tries not to get caught violating these rules.



On the contrary, there is much evidence to indicate this. DD says "If there is one thing LV does not understand, it is love", and something else similar to this in King's Cross. Also, the examples of "love" that you give aren't really love - they are lust, or desire, but not love.



Bold mine: No, he didn't. He never had friends, just devoted servants and followers. I also don't recall him ever speaking of his followers with affection; yes, he savoured their resourcefullness, but he never grew emotionally attatched to even his most devoted followers (Bella, Malfoy, and Snape come to mind here). Yes, he held their devotion in high esteem, but only because of the resources that it gave him; his opinion of their worthiness was ridiculously fickle.

As for your suggestion that he had a longing for a parent, I see no evidence to support this. Yes, he was angry that they abondoned him, resulting in a lifetime at the orphanage, but there is nothing to suggest that he wanted their love and nurturing. Also, he didn't kill his father and grandparents when they rejected him - this rejection occured before he was even born, so this particular murder spree was based on vengeance which was desired for over a decade.

As for his fury that they didn't find him, his fury was at their failure to fulfill the loyalty they were sworn to. He didn't care what their reasons for abandoning him were (except for perhaps the possibility that they pledged allegience to DD instead), he only cared that they violated the allegience they claimed to have for him.

I also didn't interpret his comments about Peter's servitude as a complaint, but rather as a tactic for making Peter feel as though he couldn't be trusted, or that he shouldn't feel so good about returning to him. He saw Peter as a worthless, despicable, disposable servant, and he wanted Peter to feel that way too.

Long post warning
I can appreciate your point of view, but I do not interpret certain behavoir as you did. Doesn't mean I'm wrong--doesn't mean you're right. It means we read the same book, but did not come to some of the same conclusions. This would indicate good writing on Jo's part as what we are discussing are our impressions of a fictional character.

Cobhome, allow me to comment that I althought I would agree that depth discussion of a characterization of a fictional character by lay people psycho-analysis --I would add that this is because we for the most part are lay people.
If a professional could not discuss Voldemort's motivations and actions in depth, then most critics would consider him a "cardboard" or poorly drawn character.

Harrypottergeek 2, I see our disagreement as two people who explore emotions and fiction very differently. I'm not much for conformity--that is we must think alike to get along. Sharing values is not necessarily sharing an exact point of view. Another difference is do not see any images and especially esoteric ideas in any work of art-- and I consider Jo's work art-- as finite. To me: When formerly esoteric ideas in a body of writing become finite it is no longer fiction but propaganda.

Back to Tom:
You seem to suggest that beca