Harry, Voldemort and Snape

[Jen Reese]

> Jen: I did wonder if Dumbledore wasn't curious about how Harry
> would turn out, with a life so similar to Riddle's in certain ways
> as a child? Since he didn't try to shape Harry, or turn him into a
> super wizard or raise him himself <g>, he did take the risk of
> having another Riddle on his hands *except* for the forethought of
> leaving Harry with people he suspected would not allow Harry to do
> unchecked magic as Riddle was able to do.

> Pippin:
> Most people with unhappy abusive childhoods don't grow up to be
> psychopaths, and most people who are psychopaths don't become
> murderers. So I'd say the odds of Harry not becoming another 
> Voldemort were pretty good, barring any magical contamination. 

Jen: I wasn't implying abuse can turn someone into a psychopath! For 
one thing that term has no meaning in the WW, and maladies are 
understood in terms of magical injury or the influence of dark 
magic. JKR may have referred to Voldemort as a psychopath on a chat, 
but within the story we're led to believe that young Riddle's 
downfall was the development of controlled magic which he used to 
hurt people as a young boy, his own tendency toward secrecy and 
domination, and later his rejection of love magic in favor of its 
alternative. Dumbledore certainly believed Tom had a chance to 
change at Hogwarts and was not on an irreversible path to 
destruction by age 11. Only later in life does Dumbledore add the 
significance of Riddle's genetic line as a factor in transforming 
into Voldemort, and even then he speaks toward genetic tendencies. 

Regarding the boys similarities, Harry *was* 'magically 
contaminated' by the curse-that-failed and Dumbledore had no way of 
knowing the long-term effects. Both boys were raised in environments 
where they were left to themselves quite a bit, without much 
guidance or supervision. Dumbledore suspected the Dursleys had not 
given Harry any information about his parent's death or the magical 
world by the time he sent Hagrid to collect him. We don't know how 
long DD suspected that, but it was another similarity between the 
two boys to have grown up in a vacuum.

What I was wondering upthread was if Dumbledore considered the 
Dursleys opposition to magic a good thing (if he knew that from 
Lily) so Harry would not be allowed to explore his magical abilities 
unchecked like Riddle was.

Catlady:
> As you mention, we've seen Harry attempt Crucio twice. He could
> have fallen into Dark magic by doing a few Dark spells and a few
> more without ever sympathizing with Voldemort, Death Eaters, or
> purebloodism. I agree that Harry has a good heart and will not
> become a Dark Lord, but I consider Dumbledore's explanation of why
> to be nonsensical. Plenty of abused people become what the same as
> what abused them -- e.g. revolutionaries who become dictators.

Jen: I interpeted Dumbledore's comments to refer more to Voldemort's 
influence on Harry's life than the Dursleys. Besides Voldemort 
killing his parents, Harry was touched by dark magic as an infant, 
and received a bit of Voldemort. He was given the ability to speak 
Riddle's *genetic* language( and more we haven't seen?), to share 
thoughts and feelings with him when Voldemort regained a body and 
then was possessed by LV and lived to tell about it. Voldemort is at 
the root of all the turmoil and suffering Harry has endured, not the 
Durlseys. All of these things are much more important to Dumbledore, 
I believe, and are what amazed him about Harry never being tempted.

Jen