(no subject)

[hpraremod]

Discussion Question #9
Can Voldemort love? Would things have been different if someone loved him?

This great question was thanks to arenee1999 who saw the question in this forum

Comments

[masteroftrouble.livejournal.com]

Given the circumstances, I think he CAN love, but it won't be the love most of us want. deirdre_aithne said, he did love Bellatrix. Maybe WE didn't see it as love, but it was their form of love that we couldn't understand.

Sometimes I wonder if JKR just makes crap up when people ask her questions, and then puts them in the books to make it the truth. Like with the thing about love potions and the child formed out of one being unable to love. To me, that's utter BS -- that came out of Dumbledore's mouth (if I'm remembering correctly), but we all know his past. Gellert had love and loved in return, but he still became powerful enough to be feared, why couldn't Voldemort do the same?

If Tom had the respect he wanted (from the students and/or Dumbledore) during school, or if Dumbledore had just given him a chance on the DADA position, I'm sure we would have seen a different Voldemort in the books. A lot of his actions were ones of a child reaching out for attention, and that continued on through his adult years.

[theshadowpanther]

This.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Seconded. (And Dumbles doesn't even provide any genuine evidence that there WAS a potion involved - he assumes Merope must have used one because she was ugly and poor and not socially talented. But a spoiled rich boy could just as easily have taken advantage of her for precisely those reasons, and freaked out when she got pregnant. That whole argument of Dumbledore's makes my skin crawl.)

why?

[nevrafire.livejournal.com]

maybe Its because I like Dumbledore, and despite him doing some BAD things in his past, I dont cross him as Bad Bad liar pants on fire.

but like, there's as much evidence of merope Not using a love potion as much as evidence she didn't.

I think there was a love potion because, How else coud merope have enough space to interact with Tom Sr, to get him to woo her? He barely crossed the gaunts territory, Marvolo and Morfin didn't even let merope long enough out of the house.

and tom Sr. has no reason to go there- no gain. if the Gaunts had some sort of secret treasure or something Tom Riddle sr could benefit from then ok- he had sex with her even if she was ugly.

but, from my little understanding of rich shallow guy has sex with lower status girl troupe- he only does it if he can gain something- (rebellion, money, etc)

and Tom Sr had nothing to gain, and Merope everything. (until he dumped her)

plus merope WAS desperate to leave- And to have a chance with Tom Sr.

i dont think it had nothing to do with her being ugly- and poor- and like, all to do with her being opressed and wanting to be loved and a way out.

if anything it wasn't dwelled on because Rowling just wanted a plot point to make evil!tom riddle Jr. not because Dumbledore is skevy eww guy.

Re: why?

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

My point wasn't that Dumbledore was lying. It was that he's making *assumptions* - rather common, ugly assumptions that play into common misogynistic tropes - that he gives no actual evidence to support. (And my larger point is that JKR is, probably unconsciously, relying on some really ugly misogynistic tropes in making such a simplistic narrative argument and expecting the audience to buy it.) And the argument that Merope was barely out of the house doesn't really support or condemn any particular argument, since every argument has to deal with that fact in some way in order to get the characters together at all.

Her being poor and oppressed doesn't rule out er desire for love. But it does mean that Tom is dealing with someone who, as far as he knows, *can't effectively fight back* if he chooses to take advantage of her. What would he gain by such a move? Power; a sense of control over someone; sex; all of the things that privileged, powerful men have throughout history gained by taking advantage of poor women. It's not only about money or adolescent rebellion (it's hardly rebellion anyway - it's as traditional as you can get. Droit du seigneur, it's called - the assumption that you can do as you please with the serving-girls and the like because you are the master and they are there for your pleasure. See the Strauss-Kahn affair for simply the latest incarnation of this.)

Of course this is as well-supported as Dumbledore's argument - we DON'T KNOW for sure. Which is part of my point: people take Dumbledore's *assumptions* as equivalent to *knowledge,* when historically the reverse is at least as likely a scenario, if not moreso. But blaming the woman is the traditional, and misogynistic, way out - and blaming the not-conventionally-attractive people is an icky theme running throughout JKR's books. Of course JKR was doing it in order to get a plot point - that doesn't mean we can't critique the way she went about it and the foundations of the tropes she draws on.

Re: why?

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

And I didn't even touch on the ickiness of the suggestion that Tom was evil because he was born of rape (asserting a causal connection implies that children born of rape are necessarily evil or, at the very least, predisposed to be evil). That's REALLY not cool, and the argument that she used a potion really needs to take this into account if those supporting it want credibility in my book.

Re: why?

[nevrafire.livejournal.com]

did I said that? If I did I admit to being wrong, I never ever ever meant to imply that because it's Bad bad stupid assumption.

also, I like, would like to think rowling didn't meant the raep baby= evil babies. i mean that's a Horrible thing for a woman to say! and like, didn't her ex-husband beat her or something? so i dont think so.

.....

now i totally think she didn't meant all the ugly misogenist thing and it just came out, because pre-harry potter fame- She Totally was like Merope! bad husband, left alone to take care of child- poor.

so i dont think she meant it!

Re: why?

[nevrafire.livejournal.com]

i want to say that I wasn't trying to be Mean or mysogenist to merope. and of course she deserved love- her family was Horrible, Horrible so she deserved something better. I know merope is th victim, and i never said she was a bad person. I mean she ended up dead because she tried to support a child by herself and couldn't survive in the end. Tom riddle Sr. is a monster.

also- i should have said this before- when I said I support the love potion-as fact. I was not saying that because merope is ugly and poor that was the only way she could get Tom Riddle Sr and it's Her fault Voldemort is the way he is. the way I see it, merope Might Have used the Potion on Tom riddle Sr. - and that is Bad. But that was a mistake out of desperation But it takes two to tango- so like, I think Voldemort turned out the way he is because most likely Tom Riddle Sr. I mean his character is not described really nicely- except of being handsome- but he's a horrible person.

what like, I was trying to say is that we have no evidence of the love potion being used Not being true or being true- its 50/50. so we can't know if dumbledore is assuming things or knowing the truth and call him evil meany liar- because he and us reader got half truths/info. that the problem is not dumbledore, even if he did do some sucky things, the problem is that the story/rowling left it ambiguous not totally clear.

. and either way Merope got a really sucky outcome either way- regardless of wether she was pretty/ugly rich or poor- this is a girl that got knocked up, the "boyfriend" found out and left her to survive alone. and then she died. :(

like my whole point was not to jump to conclusion on who is lying/making stuff up because readers didn't got all the info- rowling does and she didn't made it clear and that was bad.

[masteroftrouble.livejournal.com]

I agree with condwiramurs -- there's just no evidence that a potion was used in the first place. People take what Dumbledore says for fact, even if he just happened to be pulling it out of his ass, lol.

[nevrafire.livejournal.com]

There's no evidence that there wasn't either.

we got no POV from merope or Tom Riddle Jr. either, and their the main players of this- so there's as much possibility of there being a potion than not. it's 50/50.

and I take it as a fact because, within harry's journey it is presented as a fact. and harry is our eyes to the story.

[masteroftrouble.livejournal.com]

That's the beauty of fanfiction, though. To see it through someone else's eyes and to explore deeper than what the original author placed on the page.

Reading is all about interpretations. You can take things as face value, or you can tear it apart and dissect the story, try to figure out the why and how rather than the is.

[masteroftrouble.livejournal.com]

YES. This so, so hard.

mmm....

[nevrafire.livejournal.com]

but Grindewald is Not voldemort- they're too different tyrants.

and why not a love potion would make a love-deprived child? it does have some logic.

Love potions do not Create real love- they create lust and obsession- we actually saw the effect of a love potion on Ron- and that didn't looked like love to me.

like, isn't there some medical finding thing that says if a woman is alcoholic/does drugs then the baby is born alcohol/drug dependant too?

so why wouldn't a baby conceived while someone's system is full of love potion, mess up the baby development?

that does happen.

also, that;s not a fair criticizing, then like All the characters are unreliable because they have said things that are not shown explicitly.

(and the love potion thing is not BS- slughorn a potion master said it and we saw the effects of that on Ron)

Re: mmm....

[masteroftrouble.livejournal.com]

Thinking on most of JKR's flat plane (that she has sometimes), Voldemort and Gellert are pretty much the same. We just don't see Gellert's reign at all, so we will never know how far he got.

Ron's episode had no lust to it. Just pure and complete infatuation.

The baby has a CHANCE of being dependent on them -- it isn't born like that all the time. And hey, some kids whose mothers don't do drugs are born needing them. I've got a cousin that's like that and her mother was devastated because she carried "the perfect pregnancy."

I think that's a perfectly fair bit of criticizing. Dumbledore is painted as perfect through six books and it isn't until the seventh that we realize that he is human and he's made some huge mistakes. One of his biggest is that he's too judgmental on certain people, Tom being one of them.

And I don't have a strong trust of Slughorn. I trust Snape over him any day, especially when it comes to potions. Besides that, Ron didn't have children while under the influence of that potion.

[bisharp]

I think Gellert was powerful to be feared because he didn't have his priorities in order XD

Also, I feel like the part about love potions and the child coming as a result of one being unable to love was supposed to be more figurative in the sense that it wasn't genuine love, but that might just be me. I think Dumbledore was just trying to make the point that a child should be made from love so that he or she will receive proper love in the future, in turn giving the child the capability of giving love as well. But, again, that might just be me xD

JKR did say in an interview that Voldemort could have been able to love if his mother were to have loved him, so I don't think she thinks that he's evil no matter what the circumstance. It was just the whole importance of familial/maternal love, that thing :D