Draco's nature, LV's abiliity to love, Dudders and Harry, etc. (long)

[tylerswaxlion]

No: HPFGUIDX 110563

> > Tyler's Lion wrote in 110512:
> > Now poor Tom Riddle, I always imagine him like Oliver Twist--mom 
> > shows up outside the workhouse/orphanage, lives long enough to 
> > give him his name, then dies.  Tom's then raised by a rotating staff 
> > that don't ever give him any love--they are completely indifferent.  
> > Riddle really *doesn't* experience love at all, and by the time 
> > he's old enough to earn the respect of teachers in the Muggle-world 
> > or impress wizards at Hogwarts, he no longer has the ability to 
> > recognize love.  He sees it as an illogical, exploitable 
> > weakness.

> Salit <slgazit at s...> wrote in 110522:
> This explanation does not accound for the thousands of people raised 
> in orphanages or by abusive families who manage to grow up to be law
> abiding functional citizens, rather than serial killers. 


Tyler's Lion:
But I'm not talking about all orphanages or all orphans.  I'm 
talking about a specific instance--we've been told Tom was raised in 
an orphanage, and he would rather have stayed at Hogwarts than to 
return to the orphanage--my inference is that he didn't like it 
there.  His mother died after naming him--he never experienced her 
love.  Most importantly, JKR just said that LV has never loved 
anyone--which leads to my assumption that he was raised 
*indifferently*.  No one loved him at the orphanage, but they 
weren't necessarily cruel either.  They *didn't* care, and that 
early indifference caused the damage, namely Riddle's inability to 
love.

Don't forget how long ago Tom was in an orphanage, as well.  Now, we 
know that it is important just to *touch* babies, especially 
premies.  Infants in intensive care who are caressed and feel skin-
to-skin contact grow faster than those who aren't touched.  Babies 
suffer, even if they are fed and cleaned, if they aren't *loved*.  
I'm positing that Tom was treated in this manner--fed, clothed, 
cleaned, efficiently and indifferently.  

> Salit:
> I think there was something inherently unstable if not outright 
> evil in Riddle to start with. This is not unheard of, especially 
> with geniuses (which he was without a doubt). Riddle is certainly
> an appropriate name...

I agree with the name part...;^) we're probably just always going to 
disagree about the "outright evil" possiblities of an infant.

snip 

> > Tyler's Lion:
> > Now Harry has experienced "true love"--selfless, self-
> > sacrificing love.  His parents died to save him.

> Salit:
> However, that happened at 15 months of age. The next 10 years were
> spent in a loveless abusive environment.

1.  I think those first 15 months matter, b/c while he has no 
conscious memory of them, I believe there is a "crucial window" for 
developing emotional attachments, just as there is for developing 
language acquisition.

2.  Harry wasn't raised in an indifferent environment--his relatives 
actively dislike him.  Hate and Love are opposite sides of the same 
coin--that of caring about another.  He saw Dudley receive love--
although I will agree with others that it is a disfunctional love 
that has done Dudley little good in becoming a "healthy" functional 
individual.  Dudders is spoilt rotten.

> > Tyler's Lion:
> > His godfather broke out of Azkaban to save him and died trying 
> > to save him.

> Salit:
> This happened at 13 - after his personality was already defined.

Yeah, but he understands that it was love for him.  I don't think 
Voldemort is capable of understanding that kind of love.  Fear and 
self-preservation are his motivators.

> Salit:
> Except for the first 15 months of his life and up till he started
> Hogwarts, no one (to Harry's knowledge) cared about him either. A 
> bad upbringing is no explanation for Riddle's transformation. He 
> was rotten to start with...

Again, Harry's relatives did and do care--they dislike him and 
resent him.  Plus, Harry could see his aunt and uncle's love (such 
as it is) for Duddykins.  It makes a difference in that Harry is 
exposed to emotional attachments, both positive and negative.  He 
understands "caring."

In the orphanage I infer for Riddle, not only was he treated 
efficiently but emotionlessly, but so were all the other orphans.  
He wasn't loved or hated, and neither were his compatriots.  
Indifference damaged Riddle far more than the Dursley's dislike 
could have.  Riddle had no model of emotional attachment at all, and 
therefore never "learned" it, especially during any infancy/early 
childhood window.  By the time he gets to Hogwarts, he can't 
understand "love" except as a intellectual concept and as a way to 
manipulate others.  

I believe Baby Tom had the capacity to love.  YMMV.

Tyler's Lion