Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots

[Talisman]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote <snip a lot of good stuff about how DD 
knew what was going on and used Riddle for his own purposes>

Talisman, snaps her spyglass shut and rolls over to a sitting 
position on the grassy knoll overlooking Malfoy Manor.

My, my, my, Kneasy.  You have el grande cajones, mi amigo, and I'm 
not just talking fur.  Forcing my hand, eh? Well, at least part of 
me wants to be forced.  So be it.

I've been talking about DD's plan for Voldemort since Fall 2003, 
though by that time I was fairly disgusted with HP discussion groups 
and rapidly losing interest in further "sharing." 

See, HPfGUs post # 79769, "Going for the Vold," (Thu Sep 4, 2003 
12:22 am);  HPfGUs post # 82031, "Guilty Again," (Wed Oct 1, 2003 
5:35 pm); an old Room of Requirments (a now defunct group) post #192 
from 10/23/03 (if anyone here remembers that.).

I've got the nubbins of an old unpublished draft, last modified 
11/29/04.  

Then, I joined this group and began to consider posting, anew.  I 
wrote to Kneasy on Feb 16, 2005:

"It's true that I could have just <snip>  gone back to talking to 
you about how I think Dumbledore created Voldemort from the get, 
which is not at all inconsistent with your possession theory, though 
it does make young Tom Riddle DD's first victim." 

 I  recall counseling myself, that, if Kneasy started posting on the 
subject, I'd have to jump in, whether or no."  So maybe it was a cry 
for help (as in "help me to get off the pot and post.")

To be fair to myself, I am not as optimistic having fun here as I 
was in February. But, I must subconsciously want to do this, because 
I was dangling the topic at Anne again, just this past Monday. In 
any event, the cat's among the pixies now.

A bit of wasted advice:

Why not review your lists of the ways JKR has "screwed up."  Then, 
just for fun,  try asking: "What if the writer isn't the one 
screwing up?  What if the problem is in the reading?  What will 
happen if I change my assumptions?

If you trust the author, the places where you stub your toes on the 
text are the best places to dig in for a grip on the subtext.  Even 
if you don't *really* trust Rowling, there is no harm in quietly 
giving her the benefit of the doubt. Just as a trial run. You might 
find a much more interesting story.


Back to Kneasy, who wrote:
>Tom and Harry.
>Parallels. How far do you want to go?
>Both sets of parents have one from an old wizarding family, one not.
>Harry for sure, Tom perhaps, is born when an evil wizard is rising 
and
>certainly one is looming large while both are at Hogwarts.
>Mothers die. Orphanage/fostering in the Muggle world ensues - until
>Hogwarts.
>Both are outsiders.
>Both have greatness dangled under their noses.
>Both get wands with Fawkes's feathers as cores.

Talisman encourages:
Don't stop there.  Tom and Harry are just two out of three.  
Remember that Hagrid also tells Harry:  "Yeh know wha' Harry?
When I 
firs' met you, you reminded me o' me a bit
.(GoF 456)  So that makes 
at least three little half-blood orphan boys who have passed under 
DD's wing.

Yep, let's take a look at Hagrid.  Half giant, half wizard.  His 
mother took off when he was "about' three." (GoF 427)  His father 
died in his second year at Hogwarts.  (455) He may have been given 
the gamekeeper job at that time: "Dumbledore was the one who stuck 
up for me after Dad went.  Got me the gamekeepr job.  (455)  Hagrid 
wasn't expelled until his third year (PS/SS59) when he says "but 
Dumbledore let me stay on as gamekeeper. (id)  So was he actually 
gamekeeper from year two, and just allowed to * stay on* after being 
expelled? Or was he helped out in other ways prior to being 
expelled, and then allowed to stay on * as gamekeeper* after? 

No matter, it's clear DD took an active interest in young Hagrid's 
welfare.  There is no evidence that DD tried to send him off to 
Fredwulfa (who may well have been alive), or some paternal 
relatives; nor was he placed with an orphanage, or even with a 
kindly wizarding family. Nope, he was snuggled up right under DD's 
wing.

Compare this to Riddle: By the time he wet his first diaper, Dad was 
long gone and Mom was dead.  Somebody socked him away at the 
orphanage.  Certainly no one tried to spring him.  What about all of 
this knowledge regarding his ancestry, his namesakes, etc., did he 
learn that only after he arrived at Hogwarts?  I'm sure the DD 
apologists will take that view, but he may well have been left of 
the doorstep with a letter in his basket.

Forget who  directed little Tom to the loveless orphanage. Let's 
say, just for argument, that he arrives at Hogwarts --an emotionally 
starved but magically ignorant 11-year-old. (I don't believe this, 
I'm betting he was seething away at the orphanage ever since he 
could read, his noble wizarding blood boiling and his hatred of 
Muggles distilling into a fine liquor.)  Any way, who tells him all 
about his Slytherin roots?  We see that he starts hunting for Great-
to-the-nth-power  Grandpappy Sal's hideout right form his first year 
(CoS  312).  So, who downloaded all this information?

Well, DD is the only canon source for establishing Riddle as 
Voldemort's sole remaining heir (332-333). Rowling makes a point of 
having Hermione emphasize how difficult it would be to trace back a 
thousand years identifying  Slytherin`s descendants.  (196)  This 
should dissuade us from cavalierly inventing other handy informants. 
Only Riddle and DD assert this ancestry, (313-314) and first source 
must be DD.
  
The fact that Riddle talks about his lineage, and family history, 
and also discusses DD, but doesn't indicate that DD ever had 
friendly little chats with him, indicates to me that he got his 411 
in an envelope.

Indeed DD never had any "fatherly" time for poor screwed-up Tom.  A 
little love might have been theraputic.  But, DD never made the 
effort to "take care of" Tom, the way he did Hagrid.  Nothing to 
counteract that emotional emptiness that is the hallmark of the 
psychopath.  And as far as I understand, no one chooses to be a 
psychopath.
Yep, then DD allows Tom to dig about for the Chamber of Secrets 
(can't believe he knew Slytherin's heir was in the house and never 
took an interest in what he was up to); he allows Riddle to get off 
the hook for Myrtle, etc.; then watches Riddle take off for Little 
Hangleton in order to treat himself to a little graduation murder 
party.  (DD is the owner of Riddle Manor; he knew just when to apply 
the anti-Muggle jinx and bid for the property.)

 Slight digression: How do you like this for symmetry? Frank Bryce 
and Hagrid: both falsely accused of Riddle's murders, both kept on 
as groundskeepers.  And speaking of Bryce, who would employ  the 
Muggle? Not LV, not Malfoy, either.  Who would bother paying Muggle 
wages for ~50 years? Especially for an old coot who 1) was allowing 
the place to fall apart (GoF 5);  and, 2 ) would get nosey if Dark 
Wizards wanted to drop by for a bit of evil fun?  No one but DD, who 
also "just happened" to be reading the Little Hangleton papers the 
summer after Wormtail's trip to Albania. He knew LV would be showing 
up for his quarter cup of daddy dust. 

In any event, after Riddle's graduation, DD continues his voyeurism 
by "watching" as the young man "traveled far and wide
sank so deeply 
into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind, 
underwent so many dangerous, magical transformations, that when he 
resurfaced as Lord Voldemort, he was barely recognizable.  Hardly 
anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who 
was once Head Boy here."  (CoS 329)

The clever handsome boy to whom no one ever extended love or 
guidance, that is. Wassup DD?

The evidence is largely to come, but I'm betting DD is behind 
whatever happened to blast LV out of his skin on that fateful 
Halloween night at Godric's Hollow.   What is it with his "we may 
never know" business to McGonagall?  (PS/SS 12 )  Yeah, "WE" may 
never know, but HE sure does.  Moreover, unless he is "much 
mistaken" DD knows LV transferred some of his own powers to [Harry] 
the night he gave [him] that scar." ( CoS 333)  Why? Okay 
Parseltongues are rare, notwithstanding Herpo the Foul, and others, 
implied by reference in FBWTFT, at p3.  But, why is it *powers* 
plural?  What other power is Harry evincing by the end of Book 2? 
Sort of a strange thing for DD to be so sure about.     

Then the whole business starts with DD's orchestrations of Voldemort 
and Harry from book to book, which will have to be addressed in 
separate posts.

Finally Harry: Sort of a half blood like Hagrid and Riddle. Mom was 
actually a witch, though.   Had both parents for one year, then both 
dead. Not sent to an orphanage, but not taken to Hogwarts, either.  
Left with nasty blood relatives who are expected to abuse him, with 
no intervention to discourage abuse from years 1-16.  (If you tell 
me about blood protection, I'm going to suggest you haven't been 
paying attention. It really doesn`t add up.) And, to date,  no one 
has downloaded the Potter family history.  I'm mean, if Harry wants 
to get all sulky about deprivation of his entitlements, he'll have 
to get a move on.     

A different recipe for each little boy, but just one crooked-nosed 
Chef.
   

Kneasy:
>He's also the one who gazes
>penetratingly into Tom's eyes and asks if there's anything Tom 
wants to
>tell him. Ha! Tom doesn't need to tell him, DD *knows* - that 
adjective
>'penetrating' ain't there for nothing, you know - just as he knows 
when
>he pulls the same trick on Harry. So why didn't he do something, you
>may ask. Good question. He does tinker at the edges, things like
>getting Hagrid out of the slammer and into a job, but he doesn't 
seem
>to be in the business of nipping things in the bud.

>Snip< 
.And Tom? Bearing in mind all the parallels, what
>was his role? His *original* role?
>A goody who fell from grace? A flawed saviour who succumbed to
>temptation and made the wrong choice?
>Or was he bait?
>Snip<

Talisman: He was certainly one of DD's little pet projects, wasn't 
he?

Then Neri:
>Dumbledore defeating Grindy at the same time he and Tom were a 
teacher
>and a student at Hogwarts depends on the absolute dating of the
>Potterverse, because Grindelwald was defeated in absolute dating 
("in
>1945") while Tom was a student in story internal dating ("fifty 
years
>ago"). Practically the only thing that connects the two time frames,
>and enables us to deduce that these two events happened at the same
>time, is NHN deathday cake. There's a lot of discussion if JKR
>originally meant to ground the story in absolute dating. Personally
>(especially after OotP and her latest timing flints) I tend more to
>the opinion that she didn't, and the NHN deathday cake dating was a
>one-time blunder. To my knowledge this dating cannot be corroborated
>anywhere else in canon.

Talsiman: 
Okay, Kneasy posits that DD defeated Grindlewald while teaching 
Riddle.  I don't always agree with Lexicon interpretations, but the 
timeline seems fair enough.  Still, DD might have whacked the G-man 
during the summer hiatus, or even taken a weekend off  during the 
Fall of 1945.  That would have given Riddle time for a little 
consorting.  Which appeals to me. (P.S. for the record,  I don't 
think Grindlewald is Grendel, or his mother.)

Let's say you don't like any of it, Neri.  Surely you aren't 
suggesting we go with the PS timleline: Nick has only been dead for 
400 years, and the story is taking place in 1892, are you? Or 
suggesting it could take place at any random date, let's say, 
1957?   No, the books were written in the 90's.  The clothing, 
cultural sensibility, and video game technology all fit the 90's. 
Lets just agree that 1945 is fifty years, give or take a few, 
before  whatever date in the 90`s you are comfortable with.

Here is the important implication: the DD we see in CoS is a  bmf 
wizard, in full stride, who 1) has just kicked, 2) is kicking, or, 
3) is about to kick,  serious evil-wizard hiney.  Not someone to be 
flummoxed by a snotty 16- year-old wannabe.


Neri responded to Kneasy:
>We already know that the brother wands weren't an accident. The wand
>chooses the wizard (Ollivander makes sure we get that - he says it
>twice and adds "remember") and the brother wands saw similar things 
in
>Tom and Harry. We also know that Dumbledore knew about this –
>Ollivander contacted him immediately after Harry bought the brother
>wand. However, the same "free will" of the wands would make it
>difficult for Dumbledore to orchestrate the whole thing in the first
>place. It's certainly not an accident, but canon points at fate (or,
>in the meta level, JKR) rather than at Dumbledore.

Talisman: 
Egads, Neri. Let's see if I can follow this argument.  The wand 
exercises free will according to the wizard's fate, proving that DD 
is not in the mix?  If FAITH whispered any of that to you, it's time 
to trot her over to a rehab program. 

You're right about the truism: everything in HPverse happens at 
JKR's pleasure.  However, this is a stronger argument for DD's 
involvement, than not.  The fact that JKR decided that DD's phoenix 
would provide two, and only two, wand cores, and that these wands 
would go to two little "orphan" boys whose futures DD has so 
obviously engineered, is a powerful nexus. The logic points to JKR 
involving DD, uh--sorry--right to the core of the matter.

The entirety of your "canon" contra is Olivander's statement about 
the wand choosing the wizard.  There is zero information regarding 
the criteria wands use to make this choice.  Clearly the wands are 
bewitched.  We are told that certain woods are wand-woods; and we 
have been instructed on how to occupy the resident bowtruckels while 
plucking a few branches, but there is no evidence that any given 
tree, or part thereof, decides to become a wand.  (FBWTFT pg. 5)  
All we know about the branch-to-wand process is that a core (derived 
from a magical beast or being)  is inserted & that the finished wand 
can apparently "think for itself"--at least enough to hook up with  
a suitable wizard. 

 If you can see where the wands "keep their brains," Neri, let me 
know. I can't.  Nor do I have any idea what sort of bewitchment is 
used to empower them, let alone who does the bewitching, or what 
instructions they might be able to put into the mix. I do see that, 
like the Sorting Hat, Riddle's Diary, and the Marauder's Map, some 
wizard has their hand into the process of creating the brain.

Moreover, Olivander's is not the only wand boutique in the WW.  We 
aren't told where Fleur got her wand.  Quite possibly it's a 
homemade unit (for, unlike Harry's, Cedric's, and Krum's no 
professional maker is named).  At the very least it's a custom-made 
job, decked out with a magical tuft from Granny Delacour's noggin. 
(GoF 308)  By showing us this, JKR raises the question of whether 
other wands have been made with particular recipients in mind.   
Krum's wand is a "Gregorovitch creation," the ethnicity of the name 
implies that it is from an emporium local to Durmstrang. (GoF 309) 
Raising the question: do some wizards have to travel all over the 
globe searching for a suitable wand?  Doesn't seem so. How is it 
then, that the right wand seems to be at a convenient location near 
you? 

I suggest that the weight of the evidence is against free-agent 
wands, blind fate, or slovenly plotting.   But, as far as I can 
tell,  DD is still squarely in the mix. 

Kneasy:
> Oh, and there's one other connection - Dumbledore. He's the one 
leading
> the fight against both would-be EOotU, he's the one that owns the
> phoenix that provides the feathers. He's also the one who gazes
> penetratingly into Tom's eyes and asks if there's anything Tom 
wants to
> tell him.

Neri:
>I think this is movie contamination. At least, in the book 
Dumbledore
>never asks Tom if he wants to tell him something. It's old Dippet 
who
>asks something like that, and it is Harry who makes the connection
>with his own answer to Dumbledore <snip> It seems that, while 
making the parallels >between >Tom and Harry obvious, JKR avoids 
making Dumbledore's role identical in >both their cases. It is 
Dumbledore and Dippet who have parallel roles in the
>text, although the movie scriptwriter, trying to make things more
>obvious and get rid of Dippet, missed this subtle nuance.

Talisman:
Let's not quibble.  The relevant point is that DD knew and did 
nothing about it.  He argued that Hagrid was innocent ( 312), but 
did not argue that Riddle was guilty. Though everyone knows DD was 
on to the perp. "Yes, I think he might have guessed." (Id.) A bit of 
an understatement.

There is no movie contamination in the significant facts. As 
to "parallels" we actually see that the relationship drawn between 
DD and Dippet is the inverted, mirror-symmetry that is a prevailing 
characteristic throughout the series.  

When Dumbledore asks Harry whether he would like to tell DD anything 
relevant to the attacks, Harry lies (CoS 209)  but we already 
suspect that DD's "light, bright, sparkling" blue eyes are more than 
charming facial features. (PS/SS 8)  The way Harry's mind then 
begins to flit from one relevant thing to another has suggested to 
many people, way before Book 5,  that DD was going through Harry's 
mind like filing cabinet.  

Over and again, in CoS alone,  we find that DD can see through 
Harry's lies (81), or indeed anything he peeps at, including: the 
petrified cat (142), the gored diary ( 329), the possessed little 
henchwitch  (328 ), and the culpable DE.  (335)  An eyeful and he 
ascertains the truth of the matter. `Course I think he knows most 
things in advance, but that's another post, or five.

Even if the rest of these hints were too subtle for us, Rowling goes 
all out on page 144,  saying: "Dumbledore was giving Harry a 
searching look.  His twinkling light-blue gaze  made Harry feel as 
though he were being X-rayed."  (CoS)  The fact that Harry 
recognizes this same gaze when DD gives it to Riddle is hardly to be 
sneezed at.  It's a big smack in the head that DD knows all about 
Riddle's extra-curricular activities. 

 Later, of course, we`ll find out that DD's a crackerjack Legilimens 
(OoP 832 ) But, most of us already suspected as much. 

 On the other hand, in the conversation where Dippet inquires 
whether Riddle knows anything--and receives the "same kind of no" 
that Harry gave (i.e. a lie)-- Dippet  is shown to have no 
discernment at all (or even basic background information, for that 
matter). (CoS 244) 

 Harry innocent/Riddle guilty. DD preternaturally prescient/ Dippet 
a dip. 

DD sees Riddle is guilty, but doesn't bust his arse at the inquiry/ 
DD sees Ginny  is, er, "innocent" and exculpates her without a 
trial.  Lots of lovely inverted symmetry.



Neri:
>Tom's interaction with Dumbledore, immediately after Tom leaves the
>headmaster office, is rather brief and mild in the book 
 

Talsiman: 
It'd be so nice if Rowling would make a point of  jumping up and 
down and shouting: "A clue! A clue!" wouldn't it?

Neri
>: 
although Dumbledore's "penetrating" stare is indeed mentioned


Talisman: 
Ooops. There she goes.

Let's get back to the matter of Riddle's trial.  Riddle is, among 
other things, a fatuous twerp.  If you believed his explanation 
regarding why he got off, all I can say is that older and wiser 
people have been fooled by Lord Voldemort.

Inasmuch as only the heir of Slytherin can open the Chamber, and 
Slytherin's only heir is Tom, DD has a thunderous bit of evidence to 
point at Riddle.  But, he apparently doesn't even try.  I would be 
very surprised if a little tactful questioning wouldn't have 
elicited this voluntarily from the boastful Riddle, let alone a well-
placed drop of veritaserum, or even a cleverly staged snake attack 
inviting Riddle to hiss a few lines.  It's been done, you know.  

Then there is the matter of DD's own testimony.  I don't care how 
dandy Riddle was as a student, I'm DD's statements regarding the 
outcome of his Legilimency would have been powerful evidence, 
requiring some kind of follow up. Had he bothered to testify.

Please don't tell me that DD just wasn't persuasive enough.  Not 
buying it.  Here we have everyone thinking that, due to his 
extremely poor judgment and taste for homicidal pets, Hagrid has 
brought about a season of terror, culminating in a little girl's 
death.  Moreover, it would seem that even though his pet was 
scampering about causing mayhem and murder, Hagrid chose to continue 
harboring and abetting it.  Right? I mean, that's what Hagrid was 
accused of, and "Only the Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore, 
seemed to think Hagrid was innocent."  (312)  

Yet what does DD convince Dippet, to do?
 1) Keep Hagrid on the school grounds;
 2) Let him have/keep the freaking keys to the castle; ( PS/SS 49 )
 3) Insure his access to the Forbidden Forest, with all it's lethal 
creatures, including the precious Aragog; and, 
4) while your at it, pay him to fool around with whatever magical 
beasts might be at hand.

I'd love to hear how DD put this over.  `Course, Dippet was a dip.

There is plenty more evidence that DD is solidly in control, but I 
really need a little nap, I mean, I've got to get back to guard 
duty, now.

Talisman, slipping under an invisibility cloak and signing off for 
the Fellowship of the D.U.S.T. (Dumbledore Undercover Surveillance 
Team.)