Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicussion Question #2)

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 37642

Kel:
> I recall it being said that Tom Riddle was a prefect, Head Boy, and quite 
> popular... and he was in Slytherin. When they say popular, I assume they 
> 

I hadn't really picked up on the 'popular'. Do you know where it was said? 
That's interesting isn't it? I'd never really though about the significance 
of Hogwarts having a head boy from Slytherin: we see the Slytherins so much 
from Harry's POV that it seems inconceivable. But no, evidently not.

I am inclined to think that perhaps the main reason for Riddle's popularity 
was precisely the fact that everyone (bar Dumbledore) thought he really had 
rescued the school from the Monster of Slytherin. Add to that the fact that 
he is handsome, has an affable manner and the self-acknowledged ability to 
manipulate people to his own ends and you've got a winning combination. 

He couldn't assure himself a following like Draco, by being 'well' born, 
affluent and showing archetypal Slytherin disdain for all those they consider 
their inferiors. He may be the heir of Slytherin, but when he arrived, he was 
just a poor orphan, with presumably little if any knowledge of magic and the 
ways of wizards. His appeal was much more dangerous, being born out ideology 
and bitterness and presented innocently and insidiously under the guise of 
the perfect Hogwarts student. No wonder he needed an *alter ego*. Only to 
those whom he ensnsred was he Lord Voldemort, to the rest of the school, he 
was the heroic, affable Tom Riddle.

Kel:
> As for Eloise's "evil going unpunished" statement... notice that's exactly 
> what happened when Riddle framed Hagrid for the Aragog/Basilisk incident. 
> He does something totally evil, and is actually given an award. As far as I 
> know, Dumbledore is the only one who seems to have a better understanding 
> of young Riddle than anyone else at the time, and yet does nothing(?)... 
> simply perhaps because he didn't have the authority to do anything at the 
> time?

Yes, it is just the same (only worse), isn't it? Thanks for emphasising my 
point.

That Dumbledore, he's a bit of a worry, isn't he? I'm not completely happy 
drawing religious parallels, but I do keep wondering if this is all part of a 
metaphor for the problem of evil, the 'Why does a just God allow evil to 
exist?' question.
Dumbledore often seems to know but not to act. The Prank and the Aragog/ 
Basilisk incidents are the two prime examples. Is it all just part of the 
'giving people second chances' thing? It seems to go beyond that. I believe 
that Dumbledore is aware of a pre-ordained plan that is working itself out, a 
plan whose bones cannot be changed (something on the level of the Deep 
Magic), but the final outcome of which depends on the actions of the 
participants. Am I making sense?
Drawing an analogy with Narnia, where things are a bit simpler, we have the 
situation where the the Deep Magic exists, but Aslan has the choice as to 
whether to co-operate with it, he could have walked away and left Narnia in 
the grip of the White Witch.

Thus, for example, Dumbledore is not alarmed by Pettigrew's escape. How else 
can we explain his telling Harry that he may be glad he spared his life, if 
there is not something bigger going on? I don't think Dumbledore would weigh 
a life-debt and the subjugation of the wizarding world on the scales and make 
them balance. No, if Harry is to be grateful that Pettigrew owes him a life 
debt, it must be because it is part of a bigger plan which neither he nor we 
yet understand.

Either that, or I add Dumbledore to the growing list of hedgehogs that 
Tabouli keeps lobbing in my direction! 

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]