(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

[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.