Possession

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 90732

"johnbowman19" wrote:
<snip>
But when some one is possessed are they responsible for their actions? 
Can they make choices of their own free will? No, they cannot. It's 
like when someone is under the Imperius Curse, they are under someone 
else's control. If Voldemort is possessed, he is not a bad guy. He is 
just a tool for the use of another even worse guy. Also I do not think
it would be in line with the importance of choices in the books. DD 
says that it is our choices that make us who we are. If Voldemort was 
possessed he would not be an interesting bad guy. It is his choices 
that have turned him into who he is today; he is not a possessed 
victim but rather an evil mastermind. <snip>

Carol:
I dislike the "Voldemort is possessed" theory for much the same reason
you do: I think young Tom chose evil at an early age (releasing the
basilisk against the Muggle-borns) and was was permanently confirmed
in his choice when he murdered his father and grandparents. I don't
think he was possessed by the spirit of Salazar Slytherin: I think he
chose revenge and cold-blooded murder, as well as the pursuit of
"greatness" and immortality through any means that would achieve his
ends, to paraphrase the Sorting Hat's song in SS/PS (IIRC). Being
possessed would to some degree lessen his responsibility for those
wrong choices and, as you say, weaken the theme of choice. It would
also diminish young Tom's function as a foil to Harry, a boy in
similar circumstances who made very different choices, with disastrous
results.

But I also think we've seen two distinctly different forms of
possession. Ginny was indeed the innocent victim of Diary!Tom, who
tried to free herself by throwing away the diary but failed. She
couldn't save herself; she had to be rescued by Harry (and Fawkes).
The experience did not make her evil, though it certainly robbed her
of her innocence--and, IMO, of her vulnerability. The other victim,
Quirrell, also started out naive but was sufficiently weak-willed
*before* he was possessed to be persuaded by Voldemort that good and
evil were delusions. He was already LV's servant or tool, carrying LV
to Britain from Albania and trying to steal the sorceror's/
philosopher's stone, *before* LV entered his head "to keep a closer
watch on him," and he was aware of his own actions even while he was
possessed (no Ginny-like gaps in his memory and he fetched that troll
as a diversion of his own accord). He *chose* to do Voldemort's will
and only regretted that he was sometimes too weak to fulfill it.
Possessed though he was, I don't think that the Quirrell who attacks
Harry at the end of Book One is in any sense an innocent victim whose
actions can be excused because he was being controlled by an evil
being. He *wanted* to give Voldemort the stone. Voldemort was his
"master," but he was a willing servant, not a slave.

In some sense, IMO, he even chose to be possessed--that is, he allowed
it to happen. He allowed himself to fall that deeply into Voldemort's
power. I think this point is best supported by JKR's response when she
was asked why she made Quirrell, not Snape, the villain of Book One
(this was long before anyone besides JKR knew the complexity of
Snape's character or how thoroughly his loyalties lay with
Dumbledore). JKR replied that she knew all about Severus Snape and he
wasn't about to wear a turban. I doubt very much that the remark
referred to Snape's fashion sense. I think it meant that he would
never have allowed Voldemort to enter the back of his head or to
possess him in any way. Quirrell also had that choice, but he was weak
enough and corrupted enough at that point to submit to Voldemort's
will. In doing so, and particularly in drinking the unicorn's blood at
LV's command, he, too, became irredemably evil, but the fault is
mostly if not entirely his own. Whether through fear or for whatever
other reason, he chose the path of evil, and possession does not
change that decision or release him from responsibility for his evil
actions.

Carol, who understands that these are her opinions, not facts, and
hopes that she has not argued them too forcibly