There's no comparing Tom and Harry (was Levels and contradictions in JKR's...)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 138404

A little answer to Rachel, and then on to Ceridwen.

Rachel wrote, in message 138387:
"I think it is far worse to be emotionally abused by your family,
people who SHOULD love you, but don't."

Del replies:
I disagree. I think it is much better to know that you *should* be
loved, even if you're not, than to not even know what love is. Harry
at least knew what love felt like, and what it looked like, and he
unconsciously knew that the way the Dursleys treated him wasn't
normal, that he deserved better. He dreamed of someone taking him
away, someone who would love him. Tom, OTOH, didn't even know what
love was, he didn't know he was supposed to be loved, and as a
consequence he didn't have any yearning for love. His capacities to
feel and give love were atrophied to the point of non-existence by
circumstances *independent of his will*. I guess that he was indeed
the one who *hurt* less as a child (Harry's yearning for love must
have been deeply painful), but he was nonetheless the one who was most
damaged by his circumstances. Harry can find healing for his abusive
past, with the help of loving friends and family, but Tom could never
have healed the damage that had been done to him.

Rachel wrote:
"If genetics/bad blood were the only reason for Riddle's demise, then
why doesn't the same argument hold for Sirius Black? He was raised by
a "dark" family-yet he turns out different."

Del replies:
The Blacks were dark, sure, but they don't seem to have been as badly
deranged as the Gaunts. Sure they had their quirks, like this
House-Elf heads on the wall matter. But they still seemed to have been
correctly functioning overall. IOW, there's no sign of big genetic
defects in them, unlike what we can see in the Gaunts. Moreover, I
don't think any case can be made for Sirius having been abused by his
family like Merope was. So I don't think Sirius is a foil for Tom (I
think he's rather a foil for Draco).

---

Ceridwen wrote:
"First, no one's mentioned that children have no choice about their
lives.  At least, not their physical existence, and not their
upbringing.  This is most clearly illustrated in the birth situation
of both boys.  Tom didn't choose for his mother to die, any more than
Harry chose to be cared for, for fifteen months.  Neither had a frame
of reference for a 'correct' upbringing.  They had no knowledge."

Del replies:
Furthermore, this lack of knowledge doesn't suddenly disappear as they
grow up. Their future experiences and interactions are all going to be
tainted by their previous knowledge or lack thereof. For example, as
you mentioned later in your post, Harry knew love as a baby, so later
in his life he's going to jump on every real opportunity to get that
love again. But Tom never knew love, so even if Molly had later
smothered him with love, even if the Weasleys had taken him in their
family as they did Harry, even if Tom had found a father figure, I
don't think he would have seized those opportunities, because they
wouldn't *mean* anything to him. They wouldn't resonate with some
deep-seated desire, like they did for Harry. His previous experiences,
his previous knowledge, would not have prepared him in any way to
treasure those opportunities, to seize them and use them to change his
life.

Ceridwen wrote:
"The 'kids' in the last two groups all, or most, seem to be thankful
they didn't have the depridations of the Great Depression to live
through like their friends at school did.  An orphanage is a charity
case, and there are donations which make certain unpleasantries less
of an issue.

I don't know about TR's orphanage.  The matron seemed to be a bit of a
boozer, which may have had an impact not only on the children, but on
the staff.  And at that time, many illegitimate kids were sent to
orphanages, and illigitimacy carried a heavy stigma with it as well. 
Did they think Tom was illegitimate?  Could this have colored the way
they thought of him?"

Del replies:
Very interesting points! 

About the Great Depression: I'm not a historian, but I always got the
feeling that it affected people in Europe less than it did people in
the States. I could be very wrong, though. But if I'm right, then the
"positive" consequence of being raised in an orphanage that you
mentioned would not have existed for Tom.

About illegitimacy: I don't know about the UK, but I have known
illegitimate people who grew up in various other parts of Europe
around that time or even later, and it's true that they lived under a
very heavy stigma. If Tom was thought to be illegitimate, then this
might have had a very big negative influence on his life indeed.
However, since he was named after his father, we can't be sure that he
was thought to be illegitimate. Maybe the people at the orphanage
concluded that Merope was a widow?

Ceridwen wrote:
"Still, with a variety of caregivers at the home, Tom was exposed to
many different types of people who react in different ways.  He was
able to see good, bad, irresponsible, and so on.  And orphans are not
isolated from the general public.  They attend school in the
community, and after a certain age, can get jobs.  As for church, my
mother's orphanage brought in ministers from various denominations,
and had a rabbi once a year.  If Tom's orphanage is run by a charity
organization, they probably were under a specific denomination, and
the kids would have attended services.  So he would have been
instructed in right from wrong, at least on Saturdays/Sundays.
 
As a child gets older, and is exposed to different people and ideas,
they become more able to choose.  I do think nature plays a part in
things, and in the case of mental disorders (as well as physical
handicaps) can override upbringing, *to an extent*.  However, a person
with some sort of inborn need to hurt others, can learn to redirect. 
Tom chose not to.  Maybe because the older kids who mentored him were
cruel themselves (a failure of the staff to rescue him).  Still, he
saw different people, and knew there were other ways.  As an adult, he
became culpable for his own actions, and could have consciously chosen
to reform himself, or at least remove himself from negative stimuli."

Del replies:
You make lots of very good points. Unfortunately, I think all these
points were possibly countered by one simple thing: Tom had no REASON
to reform himself. Yes he was taught right from wrong, but he never
*believed* in those principles, I think. Remember what he taught
Quirrell (paraphrase): there's no right or wrong, there's only power
and those too weak to use it. I think this is what he *always* believed.

And as much as I love DD, I have to deplore the way he interacted with
Tom the first time they met. DD *forced* Tom to give his trophies
back, and he threatened him with punishment if he put a toe out of
line again. IOW, he showed Tom that in the WW, just as in the MW, it's
*power* that determines what one can do or not, not love, not
morality, just power and who wields it.

Ceridwen wrote:
"IMO, Tom's inborn nature from the Gaunts (can't say what he got from
 the Riddles, all we know is they were rich) could have been channeled
by a competent upbringing.  He did have another lineage which could
have been tapped.  Harry's early loving upbringing could have been
quelched by cruelty.  It would have been easy for him to become
jealous, then bitter.  They both began to make choices as they were
exposed to people and ideas.  Tom consistently made the 'easy'
choices, to terrorize and browbeat; Harry searched for love."

Del replies:
I don't think it was a matter of easy choice vs right choice. I think
it was just a matter of looking for what appealed to them. Harry, who
had been so loved as a baby and who was constantly browbeaten, looked
for love and acceptance. Tom, who never knew love and who probably got
his strongest bits of pleasure from dominating others and getting his
way, looked for power.

There's also the matter of what their greatest fears are. Harry, who
grew up abused and dominated, was never afraid of being beaten and to
some extent of dying. What he is very much afraid of, is of losing
those he loves. He'll risk his life to save his loved ones, without
hesitating one second. OTOH, Tom is mortally (pun intended) afraid of
death. He will do anything to prevent his own death. This includes
preventing other people from hurting him, making sure that nobody is
going to threaten him, and developing power over life and death and
other people.

Those two kids might look similar on the surface, but once you look
under the surface, they have almost *nothing* in common. They *never*
had anything in common. Their formative experiences were different,
the biggest difference being that Harry knows love, while Tom never
did. Their desires, their goals, their ways of achieving pleasure and
contentment, were always totally different. And their fears never had
nothing in common. Those two boys were never at the same crossroads in
life, they never had similar choices.

Note: my view of Angry!Harry in OoP is that Harry was being heavily
influenced by LV's outlook on life. Consequently, I find it very
interesting to see Harry sometimes finding a wicked pleasure in
tormenting others and in exercising power over others. I think that
this is *exactly* what LV's life has always been like: no warm
feelings coming from having friends or from interacting positively
with other human beings, just a savage, vindictive pleasure at
dominating others and at satisfying his raw, animal-like instincts and
desires, the biggest of them being of course the preservation instinct.

JMO, of course,

Del