What did Tom know and when did he know it? (was: Voldy's mum)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 37442



In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> > I also imagine that enclosed in it would be another letter to be 
> > kept for her child. In this letter she would reveal child's magic 
> > origin, it's illustrious ancestry and, most importantly, it's 
> > abandonment by a Muggle father. I think that Tom Riddle knew at 
> > quite an early age (because of such a letter) of his family 
> > history. 
> 
> Somehow this seems unlikely.  This was a sudden death, and as a 
> witch she would probably not expect to die in childbirth; she would 
> probably have been going to a competent witch-midwife, who would be 
> able to prevent a such a death.  I think the fact that she died in 
> childbirth is something that heavily supports her having given 
birth 
> in a Muggle environment and unexpectedly.  When would she have time 
> to write a letter, let alone TWO letters?  And while she's doing 
all 
> this correspondence, why not assign a guardian to the child?  But 
> she did not; her death was a complete surprise to her, IMHO.
> 

In my  original post, I had actually written, and then deleted, a  
line saying "after all, she had nine months for preparations".  
We really don't know anything about the circumstances of her life. 
Maybe she knew she would have to give labour in a Muggle environment? 
Also, we don't really know whether the WW has foolproof methods of 
midwivery (is that a word?).  Maybe even with magic there is some 
measure of risk involved. Knowing that if she dies, her child may not 
have access to sources of information regarding himself and his 
family history, it seems highly reasonable to me that she would 
prepare against such an eventuality.  
I agree that if this is true, it is strange that Tom grew up in an 
orphanage rather than with a guardian. However, it is possible that 
she either had no one to assign as a guardian or that the person she 
did assign refused the guardianship.
While writing this, it also occurs to me that her own family may have 
cast her out because of her alliance with a Muggle. Maybe it was they 
who refused to take care of a "Mudblood" grandchild.


> > As a neglected and unloved child at the orphanage, the 
narcissitic 
> > fantasy of hidden greatness (which such children often develop) 
> > would be nourished by knowing himslef to be Slytherin's only 
> > direct heir. 
> 
> While Tom Riddle may very well have had fantasies of being an 
> important person and the heir of an important person while living 
in 
> the orphanage (this very common fairy tale theme is the kind of 
> fantasy that is, after all, at the center of the Harry Potter 
> stories--Harry the orphan learns he is a wizard and responsible for 
> the downfall of a formidible dark wizard, etc., etc.) I doubt he 
> would have needed knowledge of his background to nourish this kind 
> of fantasy, and he probably didn't learn of his background until he 
> went to Hogwarts. 


This is all pure speculation, of course, but I do think that if Tom 
Riddle had learned of his background at a later age (say sixteen?), 
he wouldn't have reacted in the way he did. 
I'm not sure I can explain this very well, but his fantastic hatred  
feel deeply rooted in long childhood abuse and neglect.  As if he 
channelled the abuse he suffered at the orphanage into building up a 
completely hateful father image. The hatred - planning what he would 
do to his father once he was grown up - might have been his main 
solace there.
It doesn't seem to me psychologically sound that he would need to 
construct this father image at a later age, especially if you 
consider that he was at Hogwars at the time -  successful, well-liked 
and finding great powers. (I don't mean by this that he wouldn't have 
become evil, by the way, but that his "evilness" wouldn't have been 
focused on his father and, by extension, on Mudbloods and Muggles.)

>snip>

> > I see him as heading straight to the Riddle manor immediately 
> > after graduation. That would make killing his father the first 
act 
> > he has ever done as an adult (and a fully qualified wizard). If 
> > so, it might very well have been the first time that he had used 
> > Avada Kedavra on a human being. He had probably experimented on 
> > animals, but would save it up, so to speak, to use for the first 
> > time on his filth of a father (truly a "mudblood"). 
> 
> While this may have been his first act after finishing school, it 
> was hardly his first time attacking those with "unclean" blood.  
> (And his father was a Muggle, not a Mudblood, who is a Muggle-born 
> witch or wizard).  When he was sixteen he was responsible for 
> opening the Chamber of Secrets, releasing a basilisk for the 
purpose 
> of "cleansing" the school of Muggle-borns 

True, but he didn't use Avada Kedavra on them (as far as we know). 
The AK curse is something special in the WW. I'm not sure why, but it 
is. Riddle attacked, even caused the death of other people (Myrtle), 
but it makes psychological sense that he used AK for the first time 
on his father. 
As for "mudbloodiness" - what makes a wizard a Mudblood is the 
"contamination" with Muggle blood. So, I would assume that Muggles, 
although not termed Mudbloods, are certainly considered as such by 
the WW racists. Remember how Lucius sneers at Arthur (and Dumbledore) 
for being "Muggle lovers" and "Mudblood lovers"? How he looks at 
Hermione's Muggle parents? My understanding is that for people such 
as Lucius, Muggles are what puts the Mud in the Mudblood.


> > This first murder, by the way, not only symbolizes liberation and 
> > victory over the father but also rebellion against ALL authority. 
> > By performing AK as the very first act in adulthood, he puts 
> > himself (in fact and symbolically) in absolute and inherent 
> > opposition to the ruling norms that he had seemingly complied 
with 
> > until then.
> 
> As noted above, this wasn't his first murder; he was already in 
> opposition to the "ruling norms," although, as you noted, he did 
> SEEM to comply with them.  Another way he managed to "attack" a 
> person of "unclean" blood is by framing Hagrid, who was expelled. 
> (Hagrid is a mix of giant and wizarding blood.)  So he didn't feel 
> the need to wait for the end of his seventh year to do this. 

I don't think it's about needing to wait, but about treating himself 
to a graduation present (or party). Fulfilling the promise he had 
made to himself as a child - "when I grow up...". 
He has killed before, he has proabably committed many crimes, but 
this is something special - this is using AK - on his FATHER. It's a 
tremendously symbolic gesture - on both counts.
AK is THE killing curse and is absolutely banned. In fact, it reminds 
me of a taboo. To use AK, then, is to violate some basic ethical norm 
of the WW. So Tom Riddle is both a patricide (violating one common 
human taboo) and uses AK (violating a second, specifically wizard, 
taboo). He breaks loose - decisively and with no way back - from all 
binds of accepted law and morality. 


Naama