Dumbledore's trust in Tom Riddle and Snape

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 140783

 


Alla:

I really love Hickengruendler's posts and I  read that one. I 
disagree with it, because I think that in case of Tom  Riddle that is 
EXACTLY what Dumbledore did - relied on blind faith, even if  he 
disagrees with it.
<SNIP of the quotes and their interpretation  which could be read UPTHREAD>
If this is not a sign of blind faith, I  don't know what is. What USE 
is it for anybody else if Dumbledore does not  inform anybody  that 
young Riddle already was quite creepy individual  at eleven?

RM:

I don't think this is so much a show of blind  faith, (after all Dumbledore
didn't say that he believed that Riddle was had  turned over a new leaf),
so much as a desire on his part not to prejudice  things so that Riddle 
wouldn't
have a chance to turn over a new leaf. If he  had told everybody, " look,
he's a creepy kid  but he may grow out of  it" how much chance would he have
at a new start?

just my  $.02




Julie now:
I agree this isn't blind faith. The difference  with Tom Riddle is that he 
was 
still a child who'd committed no known serious  crimes. Dumbledore had to
give him a chance. Tom himself noted that Dumbledore  always kept a
close eye on him, so Dumbledore never fully trusted Tom, but  he could 
hardly throw him in Azkaban as a child because of what he  *might* do 
someday. 
 
As for Snape, he came to Dumbledore as an adult with a list of  crimes
he'd committed. He wasn't hiding it, and if Dumbledore *had*  suspicions,
he certainly had no reason to dismiss or ignore them. But  from all
we've been told, Dumbledore believed Snape  was sincere (though I'm 
sure there's more reason for that belief than Snape's remorse over 
revealing the prophecy to Voldemort). There is no evidence of  any
niggling doubt in his head about Snape as he had about  Tom.
 
Julie 
 
 
 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]