It’s not a place most of us would want to be: inside the mind of Lord Voldemort. The nature of good vs. evil, however, is the crux of the Harry Potter series, and rather than taking our definitions for granted, I believe an exploration of why Voldemort is the way he is completely necessary.

As I will attempt to argue in this essay, Voldemort is more a character to be pitied, rather than hated. I can sympathize with him in many ways, and I see myself in him too, as frightening as that may be. To become Lord Voldemort is a potential in all of us. I am speaking as an armchair-psychiatrist here, not an expert, but I will attempt to outline the inner turmoil of Voldemort’s mind and why, indeed, he became the Dark Lord.

His Psychology

Tom Riddle was a textbook sociopath. I will distinguish this term from the oft-tossed-around "psychotic": Psychotic people have no control over their tendencies; they are compelled to attack, to hurt or kill, and they literally cannot help themselves. Their violent compulsions are almost always sexual in nature, and deviant to the point that most of us cannot even imagine.

A sociopath, on the other hand, can blend into society. He or she can live a normal life on the surface. Most importantly, a sociopath’s "desires" are not necessarily violent, although they do not hesitate to use violence if it will get them a desired result. A sociopath is a person without a conscience. They lack the internal moral compass that keeps the rest of us in line. Of course, these definitions of sociopath vs. psychopath may vary by psychology textbook, however here, the generally accepted definitions will suffice in this context.

Superficially charming, highly intelligent, manipulative, grandiose, lacking empathy… sound like Tom Riddle?

Incidentally, many dictators and political leaders can be categorized as sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Kim Jong Il; the list is long and distinguished. Society rewarded the choices they made and they had no qualms about doing whatever it took to get into power. To my way of thinking, this kind of behavior puts Lord Voldemort more in the category of a Hitler or Stalin, rather than a Ted Bundy or a Jeffrey Dahmer (true psychopaths).

These sociopathic dictators did terrible things; their actions led to the deaths of millions, and they seemed to live in worlds of their own making, totally disconnected from reality. All these men eventually made huge mistakes that led to their own downfall. Those old bothersome characteristics of grandiosity and impulsivity caused them to do things like declare war on the United States (Hitler) and invade Tanzania, provoking an internal coup d’etat (Amin). However, these men were not totally crazy. Hitler had a girlfriend and a dog. Stalin adored his daughter, doted on her, and certainly loved her.

Which brings me to my next point: I do not believe Voldemort is as "unhinged" mentally as many believe. There are, there have to be, elements of normality to his existence. I doubt he subsists on potions made of congealed dragon’s blood and snake venom. I doubt he sleeps in a coffin. I doubt he is as supernatural as all that. The rebirth scene in Goblet of Fire was that of Voldemort regaining a human body, with all its functions, weaknesses, and strengths (along with some neat glowing red eyes). Granted, his soul is warped, but his mind and magic are intact.

As a side note, I’m not sure where the distinction lies between mind and soul, or magic and soul, but that’s getting a bit too esoteric.

Voldemort’s personality, though repellant to most of us, must actually be somewhat likeable. He knows how to charm, cajole, and create false bonds of familiarity with people. Not for one second do I believe that Voldemort indulges in gratuitous torture and punishment. He uses Unforgivable Curses, of course, and he causes great pain, as well, but he seems to only use these tactics when they are necessary for his purposes. He is a selfish being, after all, and his actions serve only him. He would not risk hatred and rebellion in his own ranks by excessive cruelty to his followers--- even Niccolo Machiavelli knew that. If Voldemort had so many followers and so much influence, then it stands to reason that he used a mixture of both fear and love, albeit false love, to cement loyalty.

His soul may have lost the ability to love truly, an affect of something I will discuss in a moment, but that does not mean he is unable to elicit that emotion from others. This inability to love also does not mean he has a one-dimensional, "I hate everything" outlook. Voldemort, like anyone, has preferences. Voldemort may even be capable of a peculiar kind of attachment or affection; in canon, we never get close enough to him to tell. He certainly dotes on his snake, Nagini, and there is some thin circumstantial evidence for a Voldemort/Bellatrix relationship as well, as per his nickname for her, "Bella" (p. 893, Ch. 36, Order of the Phoenix, UK Edition).

Split Ego, Split Soul

Canon shows us that Voldemort, even as the child Tom Riddle, was seriously disturbed (see chapter 13 of Half-Blood Prince). He showed early signs of an antisocial personality: demanding, cold, a thief and a liar. By the time eleven-year-old Tom was accepted into Hogwarts, there was probably nothing that anyone could do to reverse that course.

Was Tom Riddle born evil? From JK Rowling’s lips, the simple answer is no (JK Rowling, World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004). The evidence in Half-Blood Prince points to an inbred psychopathology, but that does not hold water with me for several reasons. Firstly, Merope Gaunt may have been inbred, but Voldemort’s father was a Muggle. This infusion of fresh blood (so to speak) into the bloodline should have been enough to seriously minimize, if not negate, the possibility of mental or physical birth defects in the child. Scientific evidence shows that genetic deficiency in children of first-cousin unions is no more than one percent greater than the general population; Merope married an unrelated Muggle, and so the inbred explanation does not hold up.

Secondly, the development of a child sociopath can be easily explained by other, environmental factors, all of which fit Riddle’s early life. Other psychological studies (rather cruel ones, in my opinion) have shown that infant primates, when deprived of physical affection, become cold and unable to form bonds with their fellows later in life. So, in the case of Riddle, which was it? Was he born to be a criminal? Or was it a result of emotional neglect?

I believe it was the latter. His mother died, abandoning him to a loveless existence in a bleak orphanage. For an infant, this lack of love and maternal support would be fatal to its proper emotional development. Of course Voldemort does not know how to love! No one ever loved him. He had no mother to protect him during those crucial early years of life. He probably had little or no physical affection as a baby. Remember, he was an orphan during the 20s and 30s, during which institutions in Britain were not warm, fuzzy places.

So how did little Tom deal with all of this? By creating an alter ego. An ego that was strong, capable, and ruthless; a side of himself that would allow him to cope with the harsh conditions set upon him. His soul was already split long before he committed murder.

Later in life, he named this alter ego ‘Lord Voldemort.’ It gave him the distinction he craved, and it set him apart from the people around him. Why did Tom have this need to be ‘above’ everyone? If he’d had a mother to love him unconditionally, would he have felt such a need? I believe that most sons are number one in their mother’s eyes. Tom, poor child, never had anyone to encourage him, so he encouraged himself.

As the teenage Tom Riddle discovered, his "other" self, Voldemort, could do things that perhaps he could not. Lord Voldemort could be ruthless. He could scorn love, murder his "filthy Muggle" relatives, open the Chamber of Secrets, and create Horcruxes without the pesky interference of a conscience (whatever was left of it in Tom). And, unfortunately, society values power and influence. Lord Voldemort was more capable of carving a place in society than Tom Riddle.

As evidence for this split, I point to a recurrent trait of Voldemort that we see in canon. He often refers to himself in the third person. To Frank Bryce he says (emphasis mine):

“Do not lie to Lord Voldemort, Muggle, for he knows…”
(page 21, GoF)

At his rebirth he says to Wormtail:

“Lord Voldemort rewards his helpers…”
(page 703, GoF)

… and,

“Lord Voldemort will provide,”
(to Macnair, same scene, page 705)

To me this way of speaking suggests that there is a part of him, no matter how small, that is not Lord Voldemort. The third person referral is a way of propping up his own identity, creating it, reinforcing to himself who he wants to be. I doubt he’s much aware of it (Voldemort does not strike me as the introspective type) and his psychology is so twisted up in black knots that it would be impossible to unravel. Still, no one can be pure evil. Not even him.

Lord Voldemort’s Future

The Harry Potter series is about choices. It's easy to look at Tom Riddle’s life (which eerily parallels that of Harry Potter) and say, "he made wrong choices, he decided to be evil, and that’s that." After all, Harry was unloved and orphaned, too, and he turned out all right. However, I don’t believe it’s that simple. For one, Harry was with his loving parents for the first year of his life, which was absolutely vital. As an infant, Harry was loved. Tom Riddle, as an infant, was not.

We must also remember the context of how Tom grew up. He was powerless through his childhood, existing on the impersonal charity of the orphanage. During his formative years he witnessed World War II, with an aggressive Germany appearing to overtake its weaker neighbors. And when it came to his own pursuit of power, his aggressive and ruthless behavior was rewarded and reinforced. He won followers. He won influence. He won control over his own life and destiny.

It’s not just that Tom Riddle made the active choices to become a Dark Lord; it’s that no one cared enough about him to intervene. That, in my eyes, is the saddest thing of all.

The bottom line: is there any hope for redemption for Lord Voldemort? Realistically, no. He has fallen too far to be pulled back into the light. However, Voldemort gets rather twitchy when it comes to Dumbledore ("the only one he ever feared") and Harry Potter. He can’t ‘possess’ Harry because of Harry’s great quantity of love. He was defeated the first time around because of motherly love (the thing he always lacked). Could it be that Voldemort, a highly intelligent man, might suspect by now that he’s missed something all along?

Perhaps it is my personal refusal to believe in one hundred percent true evil, but I think that somewhere inside big bad Lord Voldemort, a small, frightened child is cowering at his core. The emotional development of the sociopath takes that turn as a coping mechanism. They are conscienceless beings in their interaction with the world. Perhaps that conscience is not gone… just so beaten-down that it is feeble and unheard. Perhaps the actions of Voldemort, and sociopaths like him, are truly described by the old adage, ‘They know not what they do.’

05/09/2007

Posted by: Amy

---

MuggleNet is an unofficial Harry Potter fan site. Please email us if you have any questions or concerns. MuggleNet's original layouts were designed and created by Navy. All subsequent layouts by Dylan Spartz.

© 1999-2008 MuggleNet.com. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy | COPPA Policy | Feedback | Credits
Random Addresses

1,259 muggles currently online