Harry v. Tom (was: LV never loved anyone)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 110601

Valky wrote :
"This is *exactly* why we can't assume that Tom was already mentally 
non compus pre age 11. If impending canon entirely manages to remove 
responsibility for choice from the hands of eleven year old Tom then 
*Harry's* choices mean *nothing*. "

Del replies :
Hum, Valky, you should know by now that I don't take well that kind of
argument. I do NOT believe that making the baddies less bad (or less
responsible or whatever) takes anything away from the good guys' goodness.
And in a more general way, I do not believe that admitting that
someone is a special case takes away anything from someone else's
accomplishments. 

Valky wrote :
"In fact I would go as far as to say that LV *is* compus mentis even 
now and is /not/ psychopathic."

Del replies :
Except that JKR said that Tom never loved, and that if he had he could
not have become LV. This IS a very psychopathic trait. Someone who
can't love, who can't feel compassion, simply *cannot* be called a
normal human being.

Valky wrote :
"*Even* as far as to say that the intellectual standards held by
psychoanalysis are /created/ to remove choice from the hands of the
psychotic and replace it with blamelessness."

Del replies :
I'm not saying psychiatry holds the complete and ultimate truth, but
it *does* have a measure of truth.

I hate to ask you that, Valky, but do you know anyone who is
psychotic, schizophrenic, or even simply clinically depressed ? I do.
And I can tell you that those people have indeed lost a measure of
their free agency, sometimes a very great measure.

I believe in God-given free agency, but I also believe that not
everyone is given the same measure of free agency in every area of
life. Many people find their free agency limited by one thing or the
other : physical or mental impairments, emotional disorders,
ignorance, social pressure, and so on. Blaming those people for not
making the decisions we think they should make is a very
non-compassionate thing to do.

Valky wrote :
"_And_ challenging such notions *is* the emotive reasoning of the HP
story period. If LV's character attacks the belief that environment
and circumstance dominates the power of ones ability to reason and
love, then so be it. I think its a better message anyway."

Del replies :
I personally don't see that the books particularly hold that message.
In fact, JKR saying that Tom never loved actually holds exactly the
opposite message for me : that there are things that happen that
people can't do anything about.

I disliked DD's speech about choices defining who we are right from
the first time because I know from personal experience that it is not
that simple. For example, I decided as a kid that I would *not* have a
problem with my biological father deserting my mother before I was
born. I would *not* be one of those troubled kids. I'd be strong, I'd
be emotionally whole and sane. It would not affect *me* ! It was a
choice I made very consciously and it did shape me. But you know what
? First that choice was in itself based on a deep insecurity born out
of a terrible feeling of abandonment due to my father's leaving. And
second it shaped me in a catastrophic way in that this decision led
straight to my breaking down and developing depression. I became
exactly the *opposite* of what I meant to become, precisely because I
refused to face my emotional and psychological issues.

So yes everyone has a measure of free agency. But assuming that this
measure is the same for everyone and that nothing can block it is a
terrible mistake to make.

Del