When thinking about Voldemort and his motives, two possible ways of looking at it appear to me.

Firstly, we can see Voldemort as hypocritical, truly believing his own Pureblood ideology, knowing that he's not Pureblood, but somehow still believing both in the Pureblood ideology and in his own superiority.

Secondly, we can see Voldemort as interested only in power/immortality, and consciously using the Pureblood ideology to get into power, but not believing it himself.

Which one do you think he is?

I drift towards the second as it's more rational and Voldemort is supposed to be clever. However, it cannot be denied that in many of his scenes Voldemort displays a fanatical disgust of Muggleborns and everything to do with them. And then we have the events of DH, where he really goes after them in a systematic fashion.

 

I think he firmly believes that pure-bloods are superior. Being superior to them only increases his ego and feeling of superiority, because "despite" his being a half-blood he's still so much more powerful.

As for the hypocritical part about him being a half-blood, well he is the self proclaimed heir of Slytherin. Given how idealized (or demonized) the four founders of Hogwarts are (particularly in fanfiction) I'd say that would count for something.

ie, being a son of a king's consort (LV) as opposed to a royal member of the court (pureblood) still puts them in the same level - as opposed to the peasants (muggleborns).

 

It is quite possible that he believes he has "purged" his impure blood with some ritual or other.

 

^ Wouldn't that mean that in GOF he'd be making himself more "impure"?

Pettigrew suggested someone else - he could have had some stuck up inbred pureblood that goes back a hundred generations - but there was no concern for blood type. Admittedly he only wanted to kick HP's ass, but still.

If he could do that why can't muggleborns?

 

I agree with Osprey Trapper, Voldemort believes in the pureblood ideology. He obviously doesn't include himself in any of these groups, in his view he's exceptional - "the greatest wizard of all time" indeed . (quote from CoS).

 

Because muggleborns are ignorant in canon. What intelligent pureblood would give a mudblood their books on rituals? I can't exactly see Hermione going up to Goyle and asking for blood rituals, either.

I think that in canon Voldemort is the first option. However, the second option makes tons more sense, unless you believe that splitting his soul into 7 really did make him go batshit.

 

I call shenenigans.

People like you and Taure are always harping about how the wizard world really isn't stagnant because, among other things, they have magazines where they discuss certain subsets of magic, which presumably work like scientific journals and disseminate innovation.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If that is true, then it stands to reason knowledge of "rituals" (which seem to me much less important in canon than in fanon, but I digress, just substitute rituals for some other appropriate arcane subject) should be available to anyone willing to put a certain among of work into it.

This is because in the real world, as economists are fond of pointing out, you depend on previous innovation to build on new one. We're still using capital (knowledge) from thousands of years ago, like basic math, to build super-fast computers and particle accelerators that will destroy all life. This is why the invention of the printing press was so important in lifting the world from centuries of stagnation, because it allowed for much easier share of knowledge.

But in Rowling's world, or at least what seems to be y'all's interpretation of it, people seem to be expected to have to build up everything from scratch because it's all tucked away in some obscure place. Even the schools seem to operate in this way, with people unable to even know where they are "because of their secrets".

Granted, of course, this serves a useful dramatic purpose, of. Magic has to be a mysterious thing, able to be mastered by only a select few who have a talent for it. But this would make it impossible to keep any constant stream of technological (of magical if you prefer, I'm using technology here in the way it's used in microeconomics) progress. If Christian Friedrich Schoenbein had fancied himself a wizard in 1840, then the discovery of ozone would have ended with him, and its applications in industry and the environment would have never been realized. Thankfully, Schoenbein was a chemist, and so his knowledge could be freely distributed and built upon by others. Also, someone could write the Wikipedia article that allowed me to learn the name of the guy who discovered ozone. Ah, the joys of full disclosure.

This frame of thought seems to be so pervasive that it even shows up in wizard views of what muggles do. In HBP's chapter five, Arthur and Molly Weasley ask themselves some 'secret questions' to make sure they aren't a polijuiced impostor, and Arthur reveals his lifelong ambition is to find out "how airplanes stay up".

The problem is not that he doesn't know how they do stay up. A lot of people don't. The problem is that he doesn't seem to realize how easy it would be to find that out.

I could just go to Wikipedia and find hat out in a couple of minutes. . I'm doubting the Burrow has a DSL connection, but I'm positive that any library in the British Empire has a plethora of books on the subject. Given that wizards seem to have little compunction about barging into private property, he could even go there after hours.

But no. Just like his wife with the useless clock, Arthur Weasley seems to consider the secret of flight to be some far-flung, unattainable mystery of Muggle engineering, and that's what gets my goat. It's one thing when a magician shies away from answering questions, but I find it a little disheartening if they don't know how to ask questions either. Perhaps this is one of the underlying themes of the series, that the magic in Harry's world--like technology in our own--is a double-edged sword, making people's lives easier, but also robbing them of their natural human drives. We invent the car and people stop walking, and suddenly people start getting flabby and out of shape. Given that Apparition requires even less effort than handling a steering wheel, maybe this explains Horace Slughorn's appearance.

* Most of the last two paragraphs and one short sentence in another are taken from one of Mike Smith's HP review, but the beginning is all mine. So props to him.

 

It's slightly more complicated than that. Voldemort shares some of the pure-blood wizards' beliefs, that can't be denied. Ever since he discovered he was a wizard, Voldemort has hated Muggles, and his father most of all because he 'tainted' his blood. In that, he believes in pure-blood supremacy: he thinks of Muggles as little more than animals, as beings that should not, in any circumstance, be allowed near wizards. Therefore, in a perfect world, there would be no half-bloods.

Now it's not the same thing as saying Voldemort hates half-bloods. If memory serves, he never insults Harry for being a half-blood; he insults his mother for being Muggleborn. There is a subtle difference there: Harry and Voldemort both appear to have 'inherited' their power, thus their power is justified. Having Muggle relatives is still humiliating in Voldemort's eyes but it doesn't question their own legitimacy as wizards. Therefore he took care of that humiliation by killing his father and grandparents. Case solved.

In conclusion, Voldemort's beliefs considering wizarding blood could be summed up as following: Muggles are sub-humans who should never have anything to do with the magical world, whether it is by approaching wizards (and as an ultimate abomination, marrying them) or giving birth to wizards. Muggles have no right to create anything magical. Thus their magical children have no right to magic.

 

I think he truely believes in pureblood superiority, but since he comes from the Gaunt line he thinks that makes up for the muggle blood.

 

I agree with Tinn Tam. Voldemort definitely believes in pure-blood supremacy.

One, he grew up in a muggle orphanage. Even if he wasn't abused or mistreated, he still grew up seeing one of the worst muggle places. I can kind of see Voldemort hating muggles even further because he was never adopted by one. He's had years to resent being left homeless, and I bet the fact that he even wanted a home angers him even more.

Second, it makes sense that the more muggles marry into pure-blooded lines, the more diluted the magic in the blood gets which threatens magic's chance of survival. I know it never actually said this in the book, but genetics-wise it makes perfect sense. It stands to reason that at least one wizard/witch along the line actually looked into proving the pure-blood's views. If there was anything Voldemort actually loved it was his magic, and anything that would threaten that would automatically be hated and/or taken care of.

Third, Voldemort may have been the most evil Dark Lord ever, but there was a time when he was young and impressionable. From the way the books talk about it, the pure-blood/muggleborn issue has gotten better with time; thus, when Voldemort was eleven it was probably really bad. And the kid was a Slytherin. Growing up in those kind of conditions is going to result in a pure-blood supremist; especially if they want the power and wealth associated with it.

-

Mordac: I almost think that wizards and witches should have to live as muggles for a month or so in order to appreciate their magic. Look at Hermione, Harry, and Voldemort: they all had muggle backgrounds which gave them this perspective of magic being something wonderful and sacred; something to be studied and worshipped. Granted, Harry was lazy, but Hermione and Voldemort were brilliant, and they studied, read, and learned about the gift they had been given.

As to the actual knowledge available... I was thinking about this a week ago, actually. I think that a lot of the books in the Hogwarts Library are light and biased. Yes, there are some dark books and the more mature books in the restricted section, but I think that the books about horcruxes and dark magic are going to be something you'd have to actively search for. It doesn't seem unrealistic that each pure-blooded family would have a library of rare books you wouldn't be able to find anywhere else. Perhaps, this is why the wizards are so far behind the muggles when it comes to technology and advances in various studies?

Oh, and I think you are completely right about cars. I can see it being the same in the wizarding world. They invented brooms and a sport where you sit and fly around with the intention of it being a physical activity. I may be wrong, but I think that it's rare in the wizarding world for people to work out and run in order to get in shape unless you are working to be in a profession like an auror.

 

Meh, I don't think that he belive in the pure blood thing, he just hates muggles because the time at the orphanage. He is just used the pureblood thing to get member at first

 

I have to object to that. A gene can be transferred from parent to child without ever being "diluted", no matter how many times the transfer occurs. It's not like blood. You may get "mixtures" of genes, but some genes stay intact through many generations -- and it's easy to imagine that the "magical gene", if there is such a thing, has properties of its own that prevent 'crossing-overs' that would denature it, and that automatically favour its expression (something like what's known as 'parental imprint').

So scientifically, no, it doesn't automatically make sense that the magic gets "diluted" as more Muggles marry wizards. Canon suggests that the "levels" of magical abilities greatly vary from one person to another without regard for their origins. Think Neville Longbottom versus Hermione Granger. Or, for the Hermione-haters/Lily-lovers out there, Neville versus Lily Evans.

 

Lolwut? How did I get included in that? I don't recall saying anything about wizards hoarding knowledge (though some rare knowledge is kept secret, e.g. occlumency, horcruxes, wand lore).

Your opinions about the openess of knowledge IRL are heart warming... and naive. Sure, there's a lot of knowledge "out there" (as there is in the wizarding world), but there are also secrets, technological and otherwise, which the general public isn't given access too. Just like the wizarding world.

Funny that.

Regarding Mr. Weasley and his desire to know how airplanes, the point isn't that he doesn't realise that the knowledge is readily available (though he may be ignorant of this too), but rather that even if he got hold of a book which explained it in terms a 5 year old could understand, Mr Weasley would still be clueless.

This is because his character and its approach to all things Muggle is a caricature, a loveable fool, a guy who can't even pronounce "Muggle words" even when he's corrected, a comic relief character who we don't take seriously.

That is why Mr Weasley will never know why airplanes stay up. It's not that he's capable of knowing and simply hasn't found a source of knowledge. It's that he's fundamentally incapable of understanding.

/tangent.

Er, not really. The wizards are so "behind" because they don't use technology at all (except for technology's magical analogous equivalent). Because they don't need technology, because they have magic. Why figure out an internal combustion engine when you can apparate?

As Mordac noted, I have said in the past that the wizarding world isn't stagnant and that their understanding of magic seems to be progressing at a fairly good rate. The Department of Mysteries, the existence of a Ministry committee to keep track of the development of new spells, the existence of academic journals, the sheer number of books in the wizarding world relative to population, the fact that we're often hearing about people who have created X or have done new thing with magic Y; all these things point towards magical advance.

/second tangent.

Surely then this would mean that Voldemort's beliefs do require him to hate half-bloods? As half-bloods have Muggle or Muggleborn (Muggleborns being considered as bad as Muggles) parents.

Agreed with this. In fanfiction I prefer my Voldemort to be "option 2", but in canon he seems to be "option 1".

 

Here is an odd thought;

Perhaps Rowling is an ignorant bint that cant write for shit.

Its entirely possible Taure is wrong, and that Voldemort is both.

[Insert TL;DR rant on why Voldemort isn't a one dimensional character.]

Also:

"I suggest we found a club. "

LETS CALL IT THE CONSORTIUM OF READING! 8D

 

That's what I tried to explain at the beginning of my post: half-bloods have a legitimacy, because they inherited their powers. They can't be accused of acquiring them illegally -- or by an error of nature, if you will -- as Muggleborns are. Pure-blood wizards still hold them in contempt, but for Voldemort, his Muggle relatives weren't a fault he had committed; they were a disgrace to him. He put good order to that by repudiating his origins and proving his hatred in the most radical way possible: murdering them.

I'm enclined to thinking any half-blood who would do the same, and for the same motives, would be welcomed with open arms.

In short: If you are a legitimate wizard, Muggle relatives aren't your fault. They're your parents' fault. Liking or tolerating them, on the other hand, now that's a crime.

 

I may be confusing some things but, as far as I understand it, assuming the "magic gene" is dominant, then the chances of a magical child being born would be slightly lower (ie. 25% lower). However, there is also the issue with squibs, which complicates the whole thing.

I agree with this. If I remember correctly, Dumbledore says something about how not having magic to rely on has made muggles more inventive and resourceful than wizards.

But wouldn't this also apply to Muggleborns, since it isn't they're fault that they had muggle parents? So, if they, like half-bloods, killed their muggle relatives, wouldn't that "redeem" them as well?

 

If you follow the ideas of genetics, there are two ways for magic to pass on: blood or genes.

I don't think magic is a gene. There's too many contradictions. For muggleborns to appear, magic would have to be recessive. Following that theory, two carriers of the gene (but who are still muggles), would have a 25% chance of having a magical child. However, for a pureblood and a muggle to have magical children (i.e. Tonks), magic would have to be dominant. It just doesn't work.

The idea of magic being passed through blood makes a lot more sense. It explains why magical parents have magical children - squibs having magic, but not being able to use it. I'm pretty sure there are theories that magic lies dormant in squibs, and muggle-borns are the result of the magic "awakening".

Perhaps magic is like parseltongue - you either have it or you don't. Squibs almost contradict this theory, but maybe there is something that keeps them from using their magic, but still allowing them to pass it...?

Levels of magic might vary from person to person based off of environment, usage, emotion, etc. Voldemort used his magic constantly from a young age allowing him to being fluent with it. I think there's a difference in being able to perform more spells (Hermione) with having more power (Harry). One could argue that Neville never rose to his full potential because of the conditions he grew up in; so much pressure and disappointment from his grandmother decreased both his potential in magic and confidence.

Anyway, they're all just theories. I'm interested to see what you guys think - especially, when it comes to levels of magic.

 

@rocket_runner: I believe that magic works the same way muscles do. Some people have more potential than others but without exercise and training that potential is useless. For example, I don't think Hermione has more potential for power than Harry but, assuming she and Harry are on the same level physically (ex. speed, dodging) and mentally (ex. quick reactions), in a duel I think Hermione would win. Also, I think the reason Hermione can learn new spells much more quickly than Harry is because she has already learned so many more new spells and therefore has exercised her "magic muscle" more than he has.

 

JKR has said magic is a gene.

Take it or leave it as you will. If you accept it, then there isn't much equivocation about it. If you deny it, there isn't much point in discussing the right or wrong of the matter as there's no longer any right or wrong to be discussed.

JKR has said this on her website: about magic being like an on/off switch, rather than a graduated thing.

Incidentally, a fun (but clearly not compatible with canon) idea, inspired by blood being brought up, would be magic being passed on from mother to baby via the placenta. Something in her blood which isn't filtered out and goes into the baby.