Dumbledore's attention to Harry an ammends for past mistakes?

[Richard]

No: HPFGUIDX 77221

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Michaela Ross <kodiak6of9 at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> lupinwolf2001 <lupinwolf2001 at y...> wrote:
> We know that Dumbledore watches over Harry. We know that he 
> protects him while at the same time must prep him for being 
> "the one" (so to speak).
> 
> But for all of that... for all of the attention given to a 
> promising student like Harry, where was all that when Tom
> Riddle was at Hogwarts?

Presumably, Tom now Voldemort is devoid of the qualities of love and 
its consequent character traits, such as compassion.  These are 
hardly things one can teach to or into another person.  Harry, 
despite the unpleasantness of his adoptive Muggle family (as opposed 
to his virual adoptive wizarding family, the Weasleys) knew, however 
briefly, the love of his parents, and is loving by nature ... even if 
he definitely acts like a self-centered teen at times.

> Is Dumbledore somewhat making ammends (through his actions with 
> Harry) for the attention he didn't give Tom Riddle? Could 
> Dumbledore have made a profound difference in an adolesant 
> young Riddle? I would imagine that it would have. While 
> Dumbledore was not yet the headmaster, it seems that he had 
> more contact with Tom (as a teacher) than most headmasters would.

Even if he is not making amends, it is consistent with his behavior 
towards Tom, Harry and everyone else that he is caring and 
nurturing.  Being nurturing and caring and all doesn't mean one 
cannot be somewhat suspicious of and watchful regarding a problem 
student.  Further, it is, as is pointed out repeatedly in the series, 
our choices that make us what we are, and Tom made his own choices 
based upon his character.  About all Dumbledore is likely to have 
taught Tom in the seven years he was at Hogwarts is to be more 
careful about revealing things.  (We are, if psychologists are write, 
pretty much who are are going to be by age six, and eleven is a bit 
late to make really fundamental changes in another without such 
things as war, medical school and extended psychotherapy intervening.)

> I can't believe that in some fashion, Dumbledore doesn't hold 
> himself partly responsible for failing to recognize or make a 
> difference with Tom Riddle to stop him becoming something 
> abhorrantly evil like Voldemort.

As all caring people will, Dumbledore surely sees his role in how 
things have turned out, and as a loving person he will feel actively 
responsible for setting things right ... but that doesn't require 
that he feel guilt, and that that guilt drive him to present actions.

> If Harry is REALLY supposed to "kill" voldemort with "love" are we 
> then to conclude that he will "save" Tom Riddle with "love"?

I don't think it is love taht Harry will use to kill Voldemort, but 
that the power love gives one in care and defense of those loved will 
be the deciding factor.  As Voldemort is devoid of both love and 
conscience, I don't see him being in any sense "redeemed," regardless 
of how his downfall is encompassed.

> Either way, this is a pretty profound statement to assert how big 
> of a difference love and attention can make in two similar lives. 
> And why, was Dumbledore inacapable of making a positive difference 
> in the life of Tom Riddle?

We can teach others many things, but we can't make them love, and we 
can't make them make the choices we would rather they make.

> It was said that Dumbledore "saw through" Tom, maybe he knew all 
> along that he was destined for evil.    

I don't think Dumbledore saw Tom as evil, but saw the danger in the 
choices that Tom was making, and saw where these choices would likely 
lead if Tom did not at some point choose a different path.