Plugging my theory

[nkafkafi]

> Naama: 
> Yes, I agree - but not *merging* with the dark entity. I think it's a 
> question of personhood that bothers me here, particularly in a 
> Christian context. What defines Voldemort is his monstrous will to 
> power - and will is the focal point of personhood. So, I don't really 
> know whether it's even meaningful to talk of him as a compound of two 
> persons. And if it's some kind of merger of wills, how can sin be 
> properly attributed? I mean, if it's not just Tom Riddle's will, can 
> we say that the evil deeds Voldemort has done (after the alleged 
> merger) are truly his choice? In not, does that sit well with 
> JKR's "stimmung" so far?
> 

Neri:
Tom set the basilisk on Myrtle when he was 16, then killed his father,
grandfather and grandmother when he was 18. These were his choices,
and he made them before his transformations. And if Tom indeed turned
himself into something inhuman, then I'm sure he did it of his own
free will too. There's a good reason why such a decision is often
described as signing a contract with the devil or with a demon – to
prevent any doubt that it was a choice and a binding decision. So IMO
the question if Voldemort has free will now, after he had turned
himself into some kind a of monster, is not critical. However, I think
JKR suggests that he does have free will even now. She made a point of
showing that the prophecy came to be only because of Voldemort's
choice. If he didn't try to kill "the one" he wouldn't have marked
him, and then there wouldn't be "the one". 

I agree that Tom probably turned himself into some dark entity rather
than "merged" with some previously existing dark entity. Tom writing
"I *am* Lord Voldemort" is almost like signing a contract. It's a good
enough testimony for me. This is personal, and it's between Harry and
Voldy. I think any other entity will just be in the way.

Neri