[HPforGrownups] Re: A far-fetched analysis of the Prophecy

[lissbell at colfax.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 70125

Kirstini wrote:

> I know I was a bit scornful last time you posted the theory, but 
> I've just had a couple of thoughts about it this time round which 
> won't...go...away...dammit, so I thought I'd post them up.


Hi again, Kirstini. Yeah, I recall that your scorn was wonderfully 
colorful.  I pictured you tugging on a pair of hypo-allergenic purple 
physician's gloves and performing a thorough post-mortem on my little idea.


Kirstini wrote:

(excellent textual examination of sorting issues in regard to

Slytherin snipped)
> So, why would a non pure-blood get into Slytherin? Would the very 
> fact of being his heir be enough?


Lissa replied:
Oh *thank you* for bringing this up!  I've been stumbling to articulate 
my feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with Harry and 
Tom being allowed to enter Slytherin in light of the Sorting Hat's song 
in OOP.  I've also been entertaining the idea you mentioned here--that 
being Salazar's heir is sufficent to qualify a student for Slytherin.

Kirstini wrote:

> Or how about the fact that, if one 
> of his parents was a Weasley, the other a Potter, Tom Riddle would 
> be considered pure-blood?


Lissa replied:
This could be another possibility.  Or perhaps a student's blood would 
be sufficiently pure for Slytherin if neither parent was a muggle. 
(Draco doesn't, after all, inquire about Harry's grandparents in Madame 
Malkin's.)  I currently favor your first suggestion (Slytherin blood) 
over the others.


Kirstini wrote:
> I presume, Lissa, that your claim that *Harry* and not *Ginny* is 
> Slytherin's heir is substantiated by the fact that Riddle never knew 
> his mother, and therefore presumes that she is the only magical one 
> and that the blood was inherited that way. How do you explain his 
> knowing that he's the heir at all, then?


Lissa replied:
I favored the idea that Harry was the Slytherin descendant primarily 
because it would have been simple for Dumbledore and so reassuring to 
Harry for the man simply to tell the boy at the end of CoS that he's not 
related to Slytherin.  Instead, Dumbledore goes out of his way to 
insinuate this without stating it.  That suggests to me that something 
is awry.

Yes, I think Riddle just assumes he inherited the Slytherin blood from 
his mother because he mistakenly believes his father is the muggle Tom 
Riddle Sr.  Tom knows (or suspects/hopes) he's Salazar's descendant 
because he's a parselmouth and/or was able to gain entry to Slytherin's 
special Chamber.


Kirstini wrote: 
> But the main problem I have with your theory rests in this aspect 
> too, and it's the same problem that I have with the "Neville is the 
> true Messiah" theories. Dumbledore makes a lot of the fact that 
> Voldemort chose the non-pure-blood boy, as he was one himself.


Lissa replied:
Kirstini, you made me think a lonnnng time with this last statement. 
I've just spent the last hour and a half ruminating on it.  I have three 
primary responses.

First: Dumbledore himself said Harry is a half-blood.  As the headmaster 
is no bigot, we have to trust that by wizarding cultural standards, 
Harry *is* a half-blood, so having two magical parents doesn't make you 
a pureblood.  Tom's blood is not significantly purer than Harry's if my 
theory is correct.  He's just one more generation down from muggle-born 
Lily.  However, I don't think this is actually important because...

Second: Whether Tom has muggle blood from recent ancestors is not nearly 
as important (at least in regards to illumination of his personal 
character) as that he *believes* he does and embraces the pureblood 
ideology regardless.  This is sufficient to make him hypocritical and 
ridiculous.  But most importantly...

Third: Whether Tom has a muggle father or not should have *no* bearing 
on our condemnation of his hateful behavior or our understanding of its 
fundamental stupidity.

Kirstini wrote:

> Voldemort with Muggle-blood is analogous to Hitler: his facism can 
> be seen as a similarly externalised self-loathing to that which 
> someone (probably answering one of Darrin's posts) pointed out in 
> Snape's teaching skills yesterday. I think that to zoom in and 
> say "Oh no, he was (relatively)pure-blooded after all" would be an 
> ultimate denial of the series' anti-racism message;


Lissa replied:
The Hitler comparison is a natural one that even JKR has made (as I'm 
sure you know).  The thing is--and I don't have those posts at hand, so 
I can only assume they were referencing the suspicion Hitler was partly 
Jewish himself--I believe it's been soundly refuted that Hitler actually 
had any Jewish ancestry.  Though this fact strips some historical irony 
from his existence, it does *nothing* to diminish the horror of his 
beliefs or the evil of his actions.  (If you're referring to the idea 
that dark-haired Hitler idealized a blond, blue-eyed look, ignore the 
past few sentences.  Clearly, that irony remains.)

Also, if my theory proves correct, I don't think the fact that Tom is 
wrong about his belief that his father was a muggle means that his 
actions are not a result of self-loathing.  What he believes to be true 
is the only relevant factor in that regard.

My biggest reaction to your point remains the one I alluded to above: it 
does not matter what Tom's blood is or what Harry's blood is or what 
Neville's, Ginny's, Seamus's, Petunia's, Draco's or Dudley's blood is. 
As you said, the series' main point is that blood doesn't matter.  I 
find it ironic, therefore, that you're suggesting that it should matter 
in Tom's specific case.  (I realize text can come across really coldly, 
so please understand that I'm saying this to you without sarcasm or any 
sort of condescension.  Truly, I respect your points and I understand 
why you feel the way you do.  I'm just hoping I can persuade you to view 
the situation from another angle.  I am absolutely NOT suggesting you 
subscribe to the idea that blood determines a person's worth.)  The 
books really could not condemn pureblood bigotry any more firmly than 
they presently do.


Kirstini wrote:

> just as Neville 
> turning out to be "the One" would deny that "yer don't have teh be a 
> pure-blood" to succeed.


Lissa replied:
Hermione is smart, compassionate, insightful and beloved.  I don't think 
Rowling is trying to teach us that you have to be a pure-blood to 
succeed. (grin)

I know you disagree with my theory, Kirstini, but you do so with such 
great style that it's actually a pleasure to read.  Thanks for making me 
think.

Respectfully,
Lissa B