It could be argued that he is either one or the other... Not inherently evil, so much as evil to suit a good purpose.(I.E. the opposite of the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions")

He leaves Harry with the Dursleys, therefore, he is either evil(to a point) for leaving a child in a home where he knows full well the child will be abused and neglected, or he is incompetent and is leaving a child in a home he knows nothing about, despite warnings from his 2nd in command that it was not a good place to raise a child.

He brings a magical object that is a high priority target for thieves or worse(philosophers stone) into a school filled with children.
He is either evil, I.E. purposefully setting trials for Harry and co. by pitting them against an unknown entity just to see if they would survive/character building exercise, or he is incompetent and is placing people under is care in direct danger.(In this case, both could be argued at the same time)

 

Well first off, I think setting the cabinet on fire was too flashy and dangerous. He could have used a different example of magic that wouldn't call out so much to Riddle's base urges.

I believe people can change. Call me an idealist, but that's what I believe. Tom riddle certainly showed quite a few psychopathic tendencies when he lashed out at his fellow orphans with magic and when he did that disturbing shit out on the cliff. However, Riddle didn't commit any serious crimes until, IIRC, his fifth year when he loosed the basilisk on the school, killed murtle, and then killed his muggle relatives, IIRC, in his sixth year.

There was plenty of time between Riddle's first and fifth year for Dumbledore to make some kind of intervention. Don't give me that crap that Dumbledore didn't know about Riddle; when DD first met him he talked with the head of the orphanage who described Riddle's disturbing acts, and he knew Riddle had sociopathic tendencies from that conversation, and the fact that he bald faced lied to DD about the stolen shit and tried to weasel out of it. There is no possible way that Dumbledore, being the man he is, didn't recognize the kind of 'darkness' that Riddle harbored.

I'm not saying he should have punished him preemptively. We know that Riddle was a charmer with a silver fucking tongue. We know that most of the professors adored him, and despite being a halfblood in Slytherin, he rose to the top of the social ladder. I do not believe that DD couldn't see the man that Riddle was becoming; capable of drawing people in with his charm, power, and rhetoric, to the point of gathering fanatical followers to use towards some agenda.

However, I'm saying that had DD opened up a little to Riddle during his first few years, had a few conversations with him about philosophy, morality, magic, and perhaps even showing him the same basic grandfatherly attention he showed Harry, Riddle could have turned out differently. Riddle never knew love or any kind of positive attention, growing up in his environment. A little positive attention can go a long way.

We are who we are through genetics and environment. Studies show that there is a positive correlation between antisocial behavior and a lack of activity in the frontal lobe region of the brain, seen by CAT scans. Admittedly, Riddle didn't inherit the best genetics, because despite being the heir of Slytherin, he still came from an inbred family, which could mean that he was born with some kind of genetic defect.

And there's also the fact that he was somewhat of a sociopath due to the harsh upbringing in the orphanage, so his environment definitely had a negative impact on him, but like I said, despite these inherent drawbacks, I think Riddle was capable of change in his first few years of being a wizard. His fate was not set in stone.

DLP's motto comes from Voldemort's cheesy line in PS? That's news to me.

As I said above, he was known as a charmer and a powerful wizard even as young as he was. He presumably also had great scholastic achievements at Hogwarts. Combined with the fact that DD already knew of Riddle's 'dark' tendencies, and his connection to Slytherin through Parseltongue, it is not a stretch of the imagination that a slightly more alert DD would have perceived Riddle as a future dark wizard/threat.

I don't really believe in evil, and the horcruxes didn't come until later on in his Hogwarts career when his personality and ideals were already set in stone. It was in his formative years, ages 11-14, where we change the most, that DD could have somehow steered Riddle away from the course he was on.

---------- Post automerged at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

Dumbledore had a moral responsibility. He alone knew of Riddle's sociopathic tendencies and his connection to Slytherin. With his knowledge, he was in a unique position to help Riddle.

If you know that a kid kills animals and terrorizes kids with some creepy ass shit, do you think the best course of action is to just say "fuck it" and leave it alone in hopes that it would resolve itself? I don't.

From what little we see of Dippet, we can't really form an opinion about the man. He wasn't too impressive in his scene in CoS imo. And Slughorn? Are you shitting me? Slughorn has so many vices that, with some crystal fucking pinapples and some verbal ass licking, he'll basically bend over for you and do whatever the fuck you want. Despite being a respected potions teacher and presumably a knowledgeable wizard, his personal vices clouded his judgement to the point where he couldn't recognize 8 (or so) future dark wizards, even when they were staring him in the face.

Despite being Riddle's head of house, he was in no position to do anything about about it. He just simply didn't have the necessary knowledge and astuteness, and his somewhat immoral character was prime for manipulation...which is exactly what happened.

Dumbledore was the only one who could have affected change on Riddle. He didn't.

Dippet and Slughorn were friendly only in the basic sense of the word. They praised him for his academics, but they knew jack shit about Riddle, and their praises did nothing but embolden him because he knew he had them both tied around his fucking finger.

He isn't solely to blame, but he, I would say, is most responsible.

 

I have one argument that will refute everything you are trying for. What makes you think he didn't try? While he may not have been able to take Tom away from the orphanage, since he was basically just a random teacher at that point, not Supreme Mugwump or anything like that, during school he was the only one who wasn't captivated by his charm and thus the only one to see who was possibly doing any of the wrongs that occurred during that period and thus the only one who would think of punishing Tom for his wrongdoing.

And even then there was never any proof, with Hagrid getting the blame for the Myrtle incident and Tom becoming Head Boy.

 

Because it isn't in the books. We can make inferences all day long about what happened between the lines, but throughout all the times we see Dumbledore talk about Riddle, there is nothing to even give the slightest impression that he tried to help him in any way.

And it is because of the fact that Dumbledore wasn't fooled by Riddle's BS, and with what he knew of his past and character, that DD holds most of the responsibility. But I guess by the time he opened the CoS, it was already too late for change, as he already petrified students and ended up killing one.

But that is later on, which wasn't my point. The crux of my argument was that DD could have stepped in somehow during Riddle's first or second year before he built up his cult and ideology to do something to affect some kind of positive change on Riddle.

 

If anything, Dumbledore should have sneakily killed Riddle, not tried to help him. He was beyond help.

As for the gay thing: I have the same view as many DLP members, but with a twist. It has no impact on the plot - or really anything - and thus as it is, as Sesc said, a non-entity, I see no reason to reject it. It's just a piece of trivia.

 

Beyond help when? I do not believe that an eleven year old boy is beyond change, even one with such psychological problems as Riddle. If you are talking about later on when he was already forming his power structure and murdering people, then yes, you would be correct. However, I just don't think that Riddle at eleven was irredeemable.

Even if Dumbledore knew of the horrible crimes Riddle would go on later to commit, I don't think it is morally correct to preemptively murder that person before they actually commit the act.

It is not within Dumbledore's capacity to make such a decision. Maybe he should have; the Wizarding World would not have lost so many lives. But that is something that canon Dumbledore, nor I if faced with the decision, could ever do.

 

People are a product of their environment, and instead of hating it and holding it in emotionally, he reveled in it and decided to become first a bully, then a killer.

I think I wasn't quite right. He's not a psychopath at all. He's a Sociopath, and a Narcissist. He began to love himself, and his knowledge, which led to him loving what he treasured the most about himself: his Slytherin heritage.

How could Dumbledore and the other professors ever be prepared for the orphaned nobody to be Slytherin's heir? How could they be prepared for him to revel in the Dark Arts and corrupt his Slytherin friends to his side using their purist beliefs?

No one could.

And more so, by the majority of the school's opinion, Tom Riddle was a shining star of a student that was going on to great things. Awards for special services to the school, and Head Boy. Only his closest friends knew him as Voldemort, and Dumbledore only had his suspicions until they were proved many years later when Voldemort came back from his dark arts pilgrimage and tried for the Defense Against the Dark Arts position.

 

Holy mother of god... I'm blown away by how accurate that is. The only part of that entire post that i can refute is the harem thing. For some reason the thought of a fic involving multiple partners is an immediate turn off(in relation to reading said fic. I am male, so I would not say no to 2 girls throwing themselves at me in real life, but in a book, its just too unrealistic to be enjoyable)

Also I think i will probably skip step 3 altogether. I read a few Azkaban fics, and other than Altuistic!Harry or Apathetic!Harry, i found them too much OOC to be enjoyable.

The lesser of 2 evils is still an evil. Also, McGonagall specifically said: "They are the worst kind of muggles" which to me, indicates more than just an aversion to muggles in general.

It doesn't matter who's point of view you are taking, putting an object which has as much power as the Philosophers Stone in a school filled with children is insane. Add to the fact that an attempt has already been made to steal it, and you get insane incompetence.

Even if he were to take your route of live and let live, it will still invariably lead to the same conclusion, I.E. Harry vs Voldemort. Whether it is by design or by chance, Dumbledore, the proclaimed "genius" would have easily been able to see it coming.

 

I'm already horrified by my stage 1, and it was only a bit more than a week ago that I progressed to stage 2.

In regards to your post:

The difference is not in the raw power of the object, but the potential for it to cause damage.
In the case of the stone, you have an object which you know is sought after by people with evil intentions(by its very nature, I.E. unlimited money, and the one thing that everyone knows Voldemort is looking for, immortality) AND the ability to cause chaos.
There is a difference between having an object which COULD cause damage if anyone knew how to use it, and an object which evil-doers KNOW about, and can use to great effect. Again, it should be noted that an attempt had already been made to steal the stone from Gringott's.

To have an object like this in a place teeming with "innocent bystanders" could be described as either incompetence or negligence. Nothing more.

***Usual disclaimer indicating that I am a DLP nooby and therefore am prone to make mistakes etc. Etc. Go easy on me if I am wrong.

 

Lucky for you, then, you've got a hell of a lot of fanfiction in front of you, and it's easy to find decent works when you aren't picky like we all are yet. I remember reading Bobmin and enjoying it... Ah, the good old days.

 

Unfortunately I'm finding that I've quickly become more and more frustrated by the works I've found. I believe the problem is that I am at stage 4 in regards to my expectations from the writer(their ability to stick to the plot, and basic grammar and comprehension skills) whilst at the same time, attempting to find fics based around the ideas of stage 2.

Square peg, round hole...

 

It seems to be a rather large leap of faith to assume that someone who has already killed countless people, and has a specific grudge against certain people(mudbloods etc. Regardless of his own heritage, the image he has built of himself makes people believe he hates mudbloods and would therefore have no aversion to killing them) would not kill someone in order to get what he wants.

 

And how many times blood protection at Dursleys actually saved HP's life ?
Yes, DD says Privet Drive is the safest place for Harry but where is the proof ?

Did the protection saved Harry from neglect and abuse ? Did the protection saved Harry or Dudley from Dementors (yes I know they were not at Privet Drive but they were not that far away so unless protection protects only Dursley's house and then what about when Harry was in school) ? Did the protection protected Harry from attempts of Dobby to "help" him ?

IMO, the only "proof" of existence of any protection is wait of DE for July 31 in DH.

 

I felt I need to fix your whole post, as it was rather atrocious English. Compare the following with the above quote:

And how many times did the blood protection at the Dursleys actually save HP's life? Yes, DD said Privet Drive is the safest place for Harry, but where is the proof?

Did the protection save Harry from neglect and abuse? Did the protection save Harry or Dudley from Dementors (yes I know they were not at Privet Drive, but if the protection guards only the Dursley's house, then how did it guard Harry when he was in school [I think that's what you meant])? Did the protection protected Harry from Dobby's attempts to "help" him?

IMO, the only "proof" of any protection was that the DE's and Voldemort didn't attack #4 until Harry's eighteenth birthday, July 31st.

--------------------

The whole thread conversation was rather dull, but my 2 cents is that Dumbledore is about as helpful to Harry's progress towards defeating Voldemort as the Weasleys were... (And I'm one of those people that would love if every fanfiction from here on completely took away the Weasley family as a whole, besides perhaps the twins and Charlie)

Dumbledore might have led Harry towards the end, but that wasn't the end Dumbledore was expecting. It was an end that Harry, being a better person than Dumbledore could ever be, pulled out of his ass- or rather JKR's...

I like Dumbledore, but he is only so likeable because he isn't just the carbon-copy of Gandalf the White- he had a bit of Saruman the White in there too.

 

Really I don't think I ever had any idea that he was a gay. His personal life had never been mentioned in any book (before DH) and as far as I could judge, his character never showed any interest in other males. My guess is that he had lost a part of him when his sister was killed by Grinderwald. Note that he liked Gellert and only him.

He must have had a lot of faith in him when he accepted to do any thing for 'Greater Good' as proclaimed by Gellert. I think Gellert sensed Dumbledore's power and played with him. He wanted to conquer and so he acted as if he liked Dumbledore. Not to mention Albus held his ambition down so that he could watch his sister.

When his sister was killed he blamed himself and lost all ambition. He killed Grinderwald for he must have thought that he should do the right thing rather than the easy thing ie being neutral which he did for a long time. I had always noted a lot of similarities between Tom and Dumbledore(Weird isn't it?) but imagine had Ariana died earlier he would have been as bad as Tom.

We can't tell that Tom was evil and Dumbledore wouldn't have gone that way every line starts from a point. Tom would have not gone bad had he felt love in his early life which Dumbledore received from his parents and siblings.

Overall Dumbledore is a great and powerful wizard he did what was right rather than what was easy.

---------- Post automerged at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

How could you comment on things that you haven't got any idea? The canon jumps the night that Dumbledore left Harry on their doorsteps to somewhere around June 1991 with odd mentions of his accidental magic. What would have happened in 10 year gap? We could only guess. Don't you think he would have received several fan mails? I bet Ginny would have sent one.

Abuse and neglect- I should probably agree with you. But what is the solution? Do you think any witch/wizard would have kept their mouth shut if Harry (BWL) lives in their house? He thought neglect is atleast better than murder attempts( courtesy: DEs). What better a solution it would be if he is cared by house elves?

Dobby didn't have any ill wish, it wanted to save Harry and took whatever method possible that his elf-brain could create.

 

meh. You make some good points Sesc. I'm tired of the argument already though, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't have the patience of someone like Taure. Generally I get bored of an argument if it goes past 4 or 5 posts.