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

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 110619

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> Valky wrote :
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. 

Valky now:
Hi Ho, I Know Del.. :D 
And as you know ..... I can only say It's not *that* poor really.
Harry *chooses* what he becomes. That much is clear. I argue that we 
cannot *assume* that _canon_will_reveal_ an already forsaken 11 year 
old Tom.

My argument is plot related: Tom Riddle *will* have choice when he 
gets to Hogwarts, because he can't very well *not* have; otherwise 
he should never even go to Hogwarts at age 11 he should be 
institutionalised and counselled. = Plothole; so lets not assume it.



> 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 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.
> Blaming those people for not making the decisions we think they 
should make is a very non-compassionate thing to do.
> 

Valky:
Yes. But, I suppose being not quite as open as yourself, I cannot 
tell you exactly how close to home that is. 

I can however give you a pretty long answer to the question. 
My experience is profound probably a lot more profound than your 
expecting.... 

To start with, mostly you argue that what you cannot prevent you 
cannot overcome. This is not true, and precisely why I think that a 
better message is sent in the, albeit controversial, Choice 
Supposition. 

Science does give us the environment variables that engender the 
spiralling down effect that inturn results in symptoms of mental 
illness, that much is true and I respectfully aquiesce to that. 
However free agency is *not* limited to what choices one has 
*before* they hit the bottom but also what choices they make while 
they are there. 

You argue that it's not compassionate to say that someone 'not 
exercising their free agency at this time', is to blame for that 
mistake. You argue that it is compassionate to excuse them from 
blame because they have *less* free agency. 
I argue that they *are* exercising their free agency at this time 
and blame doesn't come into it, from me. It's *their* duty to 
themselves to consider their part in blame for the pain or damage 
caused by their condition. This is a choice available to them, 
however hard it might be to make as a result of the detachment in 
their condition. 
Most importantly I argue that removing blame from them because of 
their condition is *not* giving them choice it is taking one away. 
Therefore it is *not* compassionate it is _disabling_ and 
inadvertantly cruel.

Now for personal accounts of those who have experienced a spiralling 
down I would like to make the examples of Professor John Nash Nobel 
Laureate and JKR herself. 

If you are familiar with the movie 'a Beautiful Mind' you will know 
that what I say is true in real life. Someone deeply affected and 
almost lost to the anomaly of his mind _made_a_choice_ somewhere 
deep in the abyss that we throw our careless compassion into hoping 
against hope that it saves. He, alone, through his *own choice* 
overcame the unbeatable, with the courage in his own heart he rose 
above the helplessness, self pity, and rage that his isolation 
created in his life. Compassion didnt save him. Love did, and it 
came in an entirely different form to compassion. 

JkR is different, but not so different. She had been through the 
grinder too when Harry came to her. Harry a (imaginary) boy with a 
story to tell about choice and fighting against the odds, not hating 
and not succumbing to the dark feelings that happen when our 
environment throws us to the wolves. 

These are exactly the kind of things you are saying we should 
*never* tell someone in JkR's position. They can't help what has 
happened to them, so we musn't tell them that they can. But if that 
were true would JkR be the wonderful successful and happy woman she 
is now?