Voldemort/Re: Ending

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 176187

Renee:
<snipping>
> In RL and in realistic stories, psychopaths can't be helped with a
> transfusion of morally sound blood, as there is no such thing as
> morally sound blood. But in a symbolical tale, a psychopath who
> apparently was already beyond help at age eleven is not the most
> lucky of characters to represent a *choice* between good and evil, 
> between redemption and perdition. This only creates confusion. And 
> the fact that a mental illness is discussed in moral terms doesn't
> help either.  To me, terms like psychopathy and redemption are 
> phenomena of a different order and should not be lumped together
> the way JKR does in the interview. 

Jen:  This is the weakest part of the story for me as well.  Setting 
aside the interview for a moment, in story terms it appears JKR is 
going for the idea that Slytherin's line took themselves to the 
logical end if they valued only pure blood - the Gaunts.  So Tom was 
a result not only of the choices of his lineage with 'a vein of 
instability and violence' (HBP, 'House of Gaunt'),  but also Merope's 
choice to enter a loveless marriage that, upon failing, sapped her of 
her will to live and she left behind an abandoned and unloved Tom 
Jr.  From inside the story, a drop of new magical blood - presumably 
Muggleborn blood to dilute the pure blood (?) - with love of the 
mother could be enough to offer a chance for change.  Not sure I'm 
buying it.

Voldemort's and Harry's choices don't come across as real choices to 
me at times, rather as playing out choices made for them by others.  
Technically Harry could walk away, that's part of the narrative.  I 
suppose Tom's choice was that with his smarts and Hogwarts education, 
he could have made a pretty good living as a criminal instead of 
seeking world domination and immortality!  Still, I can't ignore the 
text that says he was doomed from the start because he was unloved, a 
lack of choice at a level that Harry doesn't face.  

There's confusion for me about drawing Riddle as she did, with the 
above apparently unintended message as the logical outcome (as I 
understand it at least). Since she's gotten used to answering 
questions in snippets and interviewers keep asking the same 
questions, her answers don't satisfy my interest to know what she 
considered the underlying structure to her story - was it alchemy? 
Hero's quest? Bildungsroman?  Jungian search for wholeness?  
Primarily Christian?  If it's all of the above and more, then the 
mixed messages and many different readings make sense to me.  If she 
was trying to achieve one main purpose, I'd like to know that in 
order to analyze whether the series achieved the aim intended 
(although likely the emotional appeal of the stories wouldn't change 
for me). 

Jen