Said creature under the bench..

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 176229

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" <annemehr at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Annemehr:
> 
> Then you have to be saying either of two things: LV was not a 
> psychopath, or LV *chose* to be a psychopath.  

Ken:

I don't believe I have ever said that Riddle is a psychopath. It is only
a word to me and a word that I do not understand to any depth. If I
ever do use it, I use it only as a synonym for evil because I do not 
know what a phsycologist means by it. I think it evident that I do
believe that Riddle is what he is because of his choices. He is obviously
capable of rational thought and that implies to me that he can 
choose to repent of his evil although it would cost him great pain
to do so. It is equally clear to me that the author agrees in general
terms with my opinion since Harry's offer to Riddle at the end and 
the vision of that creature under the bench have no meaning and no
purpose otherwise. Repentance was still open to Riddle right up to 
the end.

Geoff mentioned one of Jesus' parables that I agree seems to reflect
what the author was thinking in this section of the book. I can think
of another. It is the parable of the man who hires workers to harvest 
his crop at the local market. He goes to the market several times
during the day and sends anyone who is willing to work to his field.
Finally, an hour before sunset he sends the stragglers to his field. 
When the day is done he gathers all the workers together and pays
them all the same wage. This angers the ones who went out at dawn
and worked all day but the owner of the field tells them that they
have no complaint since they received the wage they were promised.
Certainly Jesus was not trying to tell us how best to motivate workers
in this life. The point of the parable is that repentance is effective no
matter how late in life you come to it. 

The New Testament is not part of Harry Potter canon of course. Yet 
the author would seem to be familiar with it and seems to be borrowing
ideas from it. 

> 
> Annemehr
> 
> P.S. Understand that I am not disputing JKR's right to write this, or 
> anyone else's to see value in it, I'm only explaining the depth of my 
> own distaste and disappointment.
>

Ken:

There is only so much we here can do to help you with that. Ultimately 
it is the author's responsibility to sell you on what she is saying and 
since she has failed you all we can do is suggest that you look at the 
series again from what would seem to be her point of view. I have never
read Riddle as being trapped by fate. I have always read him as being
trapped by his choices. Over time those choices have made it all but
impossible for him to turn back from them. Almost impossible but not
absolutely impossible. The series has talked all along about the importance
of choices and to have the villain be a helpless robot, programmed by
fate, really tears the heart out of it. The vision of the creature and 
Harry's understanding that its purpose was to tell him to offer Riddle
one last chance argues that the author intended the reader to see 
Riddle as someone who in spite of all still could choose to repent.

The whole story has a lot of similarity to the Luke Skywalker story 
in the Star Wars series. Some see Riddle as Darth Vader and therefore
the ending is one in which Vader does not repent. I'd argue that 
Riddle is more like the Emperor, Bellatrix more like Vader. Neither
repents at the end in this version but the idea that even the Emperor
could have done is one that is not "discussed" in the films. It is a 
shame that the author failed to sell you on this concept because
it makes for a far more interesting conclusion, in my opinion. It offers
hope and a warning to those who may consider themselves too far
gone.

Ken