| 1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) |
|
Underlying Themes and Dual Interpretation Part III, Different Points of View on interpretations of the HP books |
|
|
|
 May 17 2008, 01:27 PM
|
Stargazing on the Astronomy Tower
Posts: 3,462
Joined: 8:04pm September 28, 2005
Location: Astronomy Tower
|
Part II of the previous thread found here.
Let us continue the discussion of the different interpretations of the books.
What themes are prelavant in the series and how did Jo handle them?
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
May 21 2008, 06:10 PM
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007
|
Persons with anti-social behavior disorder understand the difference between right and wrong. Tom for example lies about stealing and hurting others because he knows he can be "punished". It is an infantile understanding of right or wrong, that is a sociapath rarely gets to that point beyond understanding that getting caught means punishment, unless they can give the illusion that they even have control of the punishment or they are caught up in the game.
The impulse for control and power is too "great" for a socialpath to supress, which is why they can be quite manipulative, even seductive in their efforts to control others. But they also suffer from emotional detachment. Tom shows this early in infancy. He doesn't cry. He doesn't display a need for contact or nuturing. He possibly cried when hungry or wet, but then just watched people.
The thing about Tom: he had followers, supporters who were supposedly emtionally/mentally balanced enough to know there actions were criminal.
But what is draw of torture and murder to Lucius, Avery, Snape? How can they ignore every tenant of decency and ethics in their society just for power?
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 21 2008, 06:48 PM
|
Dominating the world, one poking stick at a time
Posts: 4,134
Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008
Location: Treating Patients at St. Mungo's Who Have Been Zapped With The Wrath Of Litene
|
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 21 2008, 07:10 PM)  Persons with anti-social behavior disorder understand the difference between right and wrong. Tom for example lies about stealing and hurting others because he knows he can be "punished". It is an infantile understanding of right or wrong, that is a sociapath rarely gets to that point beyond understanding that getting caught means punishment, unless they can give the illusion that they even have control of the punishment or they are caught up in the game.
The impulse for control and power is too "great" for a socialpath to supress, which is why they can be quite manipulative, even seductive in their efforts to control others. But they also suffer from emotional detachment. Tom shows this early in infancy. He doesn't cry. He doesn't display a need for contact or nuturing. He possibly cried when hungry or wet, but then just watched people.
For me as a reader; Tom did not suffer from anti-social personality disorder; he had a condition that was more severe; he had in my opinion what is called schizoid personality disorder. These are solitary individuals who neither want or need close relationships. This type of personality manifests early in childhood and usually prevails into adulthood; just as we see with Tom Riddle. The lack of motherly affection; the lack of the cry reflex, and what appears to be lack of a social smile are early warning signs. In childhood, these individuals shy away from others, isolate themselves and particularly enjoy the isolation as well. They may also display cruelty to animals; which is evident in the scene where we learn about Tom and the rabbit. Individuals with schizoid personality disorder are of very high intellect; I have met genius level intellect in these people. Interestingly, they also tend to have very clearly defined narcissistic views and tendencies as well; and this is where Tom fit's the bill perfectly. He had a grandiose sense of self importance, he was preoccupied with being the most powerful wizard in the WW; he certainly took advantage of others and completely lacked empathy and remorse.
Tom did have a lust for power; but this lust probably stemmed from his early childhood; he may have perceived himself powerless living in an orphange; and somehow compensated these feelings with wanting control; wanting to stand out and be above and beyond what the other children were. The "odd" things he did gave him that sense of control; so when he learned that he was a wizard there was no stopping him from gaining the ultimate power and control he always wanted.
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 11:11 AM
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007
|
QUOTE Tom did not suffer from anti-social personality disorder; he had a condition that was more severe; he had in my opinion what is called schizoid personality disorder. Schizoid personality disorder does not involve impulse to commit criminal acts. Persons with Schizoid Personality Disorder actually do not understand the difference between fantasy and reality, therefore seem emotionally detached.
Persons with anti-social personality or sociapaths, as Jo describes Tom, are very aware of the difference between fantasy and reality, but they see life more like an arena or stage where they are the star or the puppet master.
QUOTE Diagnostic Features:
Antisocial Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by persistent disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. Deceit and manipulation are central features of this disorder. For this diagnosis to be given, the individual must be at least 18, and must have had some symptoms of Conduct Disorder (i.e., delinquency) before age 15. This disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling or distressing.
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe04.html
QUOTE Schizoid personality disorder is one of a group of conditions called eccentric personality disorders. People with these disorders often appear odd or peculiar. People with schizoid personality disorder also tend to be distant, detached, and indifferent to social relationships. They generally are loners who prefer solitary activities and rarely express strong emotion. Although the names sound alike and they might have some similar symptoms, schizoid personality disorder is not the same thing as schizophrenia. Many people with schizoid personality disorder can function fairly well. They tend to choose jobs that allow them to work alone, such as night security officers and library or laboratory workers.
What are the symptoms of schizoid personality disorder?
People with schizoid personality disorder often are reclusive, organizing their lives to avoid contact with other people. Many never marry and continue to live with their parents as adults. The following are additional traits of people with this disorder:
They do not desire or enjoy close relationships, even with family members.
They choose solitary jobs and activities.
They take pleasure in few activities, including sex.
They have no close friends, except first-degree relatives.
They have difficulty relating to others.
They are indifferent to praise or criticism.
They are aloof and show little emotion.
They might daydream and/or create vivid fantasies of complex inner lives http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/heal...s/3800/3879.asp
More importantly: QUOTE A lack of social interaction is the main complication of this disorder. People with schizoid personality disorder are rarely violent, as they prefer not to interact with people.
Tom interacted with people in order to get what he wanted from them and he certainly was violent. He "enjoyed" the interaction with people because he enjoyed the feeling of control and power causing others pain gave him.
This post has been edited by Maime the Hunter: May 22 2008, 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 11:29 AM
|
Dominating the world, one poking stick at a time
Posts: 4,134
Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008
Location: Treating Patients at St. Mungo's Who Have Been Zapped With The Wrath Of Litene
|
Maime, I am all too familar with the definitions you have given, and I appreciate your posting them here  . However, personality disoders can blend into each other. And as simple as the diagnostic criteria may sound, they are in fact very difficult to diagnose and equally difficult to treat. I don't deny that Tom displayed characteristics that could be viewed as anti-social. But I disagree with your sentiments that individuals with schizoid personality disorders don't have the propensity to commit crimes because many of them do in fact commit crimes; the crimes don't have to extend to murderous acts alone either; petty crime falls into this category.
And I will point out that everything you have quoted about schizoid personality disorder is basically what I have posted above and many if not all of those criteria fit perfectly with what we see in Tom; so I very much stand by what I said .
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 22 2008, 12:11 PM) Tom interacted with people in order to get what he wanted from them and he certainly was violent. He "enjoyed" the interaction with people because he enjoyed the feeling of control and power causing others pain gave him.
I will unfortunately have to disagree with part of what you say above. Tom never enjoyed the interaction itself; he liked to be alone and he only interacted when he had to. The only thing he enjoyed was the power he could exert over them; as you stated and the pain he could cause.
This post has been edited by lirene: May 22 2008, 11:32 AM
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 12:53 PM
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007
|
. QUOTE But I disagree with your sentiments that individuals with schizoid personality disorders don't have the propensity to commit crimes because many of them do in fact commit crimes; the crimes don't have to extend to murderous acts alone either; petty crime falls into this category.
You are welcome to disagree, as working in the field, I agree that persons can be dually diagnosed.
However Tom Riddle is not portrayed as guilty of petty crimes. As early as ten he has murdered the pet of person he shares housing with. He threatens his peers to control them, not to protect his enviornment. He steals from them, not out of any need to fulfill fantasy, but because he can. I see no evidence of Schizoid behavior in Tom. Although he shows no need of human contact, he does nothing to avoid human contact, rather he courts it. He's chamring, he lies, he seduces. A Schizoid person would never do this because his or her avoidance is due to fear or confusion. The behavior is odd, and on some level he or she's knows this is rather off putting to others. He or she is defensive.
Tom, on the other hand, needs the interaction with others in Order to gain control over them. He needs others in Order to feel superior to them. He holds human emotions in disdain, and feels others emotions are his to do with as he pleases. Tom is not, as someone with Schizoid behavior or autism confused or threatened by human emotion.
To a person with Schizoid disorder, or autism, the emotion of others is like that irritating white noise on the television, although from little understanding we have, the person with Schizoid disorder lives in the white noise. The white nosie has patterns and even makes a kind of sense to a person with this thinking disorder that the presence of others complicate. Imagine a group of minor distractions in one's life and multiply that by a thousand, and that is what the presence of others is like to someone with Schizoid disorder. There is nothing to indicate that like a person with Anti-social behavior, the person with Schizoid disorder has a need to hurt others or have control over people. They just can't stand the "noise". I think to a degree, most artist display this kind of behavior. A writer or certain painters have to cut themselves off a little to create.
Not so with person who has anti-social disorder. Tom doesn not live in a fantasy world where he commit petty thefts to adorn his fantasy world as someone with Schizoid behavior does. Tom as written, lived very much in a real world where he is aware that he has power over others. This thinking disorder, that is interaction for the reason of control or harm of others is not considered a part of Schizoid behavior patterns.
So we shall have to agree to disagree.
And where is the indication that Tom didn't enjoy the interactions with others? Look at his behavior in the DE Circle. He wants and needs the fear and control of others to be the Dark Lord. He was having a great time. He needed that exchange. Yes he was fine alone, but he did not choose to be alone because the presents of others was a distraction.
One of the differences between persons with the disorders is with some one with Schizoid disorder, you find yourself knocking on the door like an unwanted door to door salesman. If they let you in or even buy something, it is usually in hopes of getting rid of you forever. If they hurt someone it is more likely because the person's presence threatens them, not because they take pleasure causing pain.
With someone with anti-social disorder you knock on the door, you're let in, possibly welcome but after awhile, even if it's a "romantic" relationship the discovery is rather like admiring the spider web until you realize that you're the fly. They mean to feed on you. And there seems to be a actual chemical response to exerting control over others that someone with anti-social disorder crave, which is why their behavior esculates. The anti-social disorder, which may be a personality human trait gone awry, is predatory. In times when human beings as a whole were more predatory, the anti-social trait was possibly not noticble as disease, but a person with strong leadership qualities.
This post has been edited by Maime the Hunter: May 22 2008, 01:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 01:49 PM
|
Rat Tonic Bottler
Posts: 1,147
Joined: 12:36am January 18, 2008
Location: Waterloo, ON - getting Butterbeer for Hagrid's "Support Harry Potter" party
|
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 21 2008, 07:10 PM) Persons with anti-social behavior disorder understand the difference between right and wrong. Tom for example lies about stealing and hurting others because he knows he can be "punished". It is an infantile understanding of right or wrong, that is a sociapath rarely gets to that point beyond understanding that getting caught means punishment, unless they can give the illusion that they even have control of the punishment or they are caught up in the game.
This is exactly why I say that Tom doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong - he only knows that for doing certain things (whether it's as petty as stealing a mouth organ, or as vile as killing an innocent pet rabbit), there is a personal consequence if he gets caught. He doesn't understand the effects of his actions from the perspective of his victims. No-one has ever been able to treat him the same way, so he doesn't realise the full impact of his actions. Even when DD "burned" his wardrobe, the effects were not lasting - he never got a taste of what it feels like to have someone commit a crime against you.
It all comes down to the difference between knowing and understanding. Tom knows what is considered right or wrong (at least in the sense that he knows what sort of actions result in personal consequences), but he doesn't understand why they are right or wrong because he's never had to face any of his crimes from the other side of the fence.
He also knows that humans have emotions, but he doesn't remotely understand them. His "understanding" of emotions only go as far as his understanding of right and wrong - certain action cause certain reactions. He knows about these reactions, but he doesn't understand why they happen, which is another reason why he doesn't understand right and wrong. He doesn't understand the emotional impact of crimes (whether they are petty or vile), hence he doesn't understand the reason why crimes are considered wrong.
As another example, there is a song with a line that goes "pain is what's inside of me, not when your bleeding" (comes right after the line "hate is only what you say, not what you mean"). This view of pain is the very idea that Tom does not understand (to everyone's disadvantage).
This also falls in line with his infamous Philosophy of good and evil: "There is no good and evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it". He only sees actions (like attempts to get power) for their physical outcome (an action causing a(n) (insignificant) reaction) not for their emotional outcome.
This post has been edited by lirene: May 23 2008, 01:23 PM
--------------------
"Tell me why, why must we fight?
And why must we kill in the name of what we think is right?
No more! No war! 'Cause how do you know?"
-- P.O.D. - from their new album When Angels and Serpents Dance --
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 02:18 PM
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007
|
QUOTE This is exactly why I say that Tom doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong - he only knows that for doing certain things (whether it's as petty as stealing a mouth organ, or as vile as killing an innocent pet rabbit), there is a personal consequence if he gets caught. We're not the first to debate this, but lets say, such an excuse would not and doesn't stand up in a court of law as defense of Tom's behavior.
I can agree with what you are saying on a philosophical level, but sayig Tom doesn't understand the difference between right or wrong, because his understanding is infantile (in the clinical rather than "intelligence" sense) is rather like saying because we can't spell a word correctly we do not know it. Most infants and toddlers can't spell, but they understand what you are saying.
We also have Billy Bud arguement of social innocence.
Legally because Tom understand that certain actions merit punishment or dissaproval he understands the difference between right or wrong in the social sense. Tom does not appear socially innocent. He understands the interactions of human beings in his society. He recognizes authority or at least the power behind authority although for the most part everything inside him rebells against someone using their authority to contain him.
When Dumbledore explains to him that certain things will not be tolerated, Tom immediately understood that he would have to change at least his outward behavior to succeed, like any highly developed predator would.
Moreover, legally because Tom knows that you shouldn't do these things to him and would be the first to demand justice, he understands enough that he can be held responsible for his choices.
Yes he is acting on predatory impulses, but they are impulses he can control if necessary. To him it is only necessary to control this behavior to avoid punishment or pain to himself.
It is very confusion considering criminal behvaior from a clinical point of view without falling into the trap of "excusing" a person's lack of control. With the sociapath, the mental health authority acknowledges both the behavior as a result of impulse, but also the person's ability to control or contain that impulse.
Even the members of the mental health community with authority are at odds at how to view this particular form of mental illness, and I'm certain each and every one of us who has sat in Abnormal Psychology Class, or Psychology of adjustment, or child development class has had the same debate about responsiblity and understanding as we have here.
Jo seems to take the tactic that Tom is a sociapath, but responsible for his behavior. We however, do not have to agree with her about this view towards someone with this disorder, although I do agree with her when it comes to Tom Riddle. Tom is responsible for his behavior.
We can say Tom knows and recognizes the differences between punishment and reward We have seen he craves reward, (even if it is fear) and flees punishment. He understands enough of the difference to know he shouldn't do it, or he wouldn't lie about it.
He understands he is causing others pain, but he enjoys this feeling of power. Note his reaction when Dumbledore set his belongings on fire. He understood that it was wrong and exactly why it was wrong. They were his things. He was being threatened. No one has the right to threaten, betray, or hurt him.
But Tom only cares about his things, his feelings, his reward and keeping himself from punishment. It is called a developmental disorder as it appeared in one so young, as he never developed the ability to feel compassion or empathy with others, but he is not indifferent or unaware or confused by the emotions of others, neither does he avoid them. He disregards them except when their respect, fear, love, affects him. If he loses prestige or power, as he does when Bellatrix is killed, then he is angered. He values her because she is a powerful tool to get what he wants.
To add to the discussion: Is Snape's behavior--early on we see him striking out to physically hurt Petunia whom he knows can't fight back--instinctual (natural) or learned behavior?
This post has been edited by lirene: May 22 2008, 02:31 PM
Reason for edit: Merged consecutive posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 06:42 PM
|
Rat Tonic Bottler
Posts: 1,147
Joined: 12:36am January 18, 2008
Location: Waterloo, ON - getting Butterbeer for Hagrid's "Support Harry Potter" party
|
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 22 2008, 03:18 PM) QUOTE This is exactly why I say that Tom doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong - he only knows that for doing certain things (whether it's as petty as stealing a mouth organ, or as vile as killing an innocent pet rabbit), there is a personal consequence if he gets caught. We're not the first to debate this, but lets say, such an excuse would not and doesn't stand up in a court of law as defense of Tom's behavior.
Just to clarify: I'm not trying to excuse his behaviour, I'm merely trying to explain it.
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 22 2008, 03:18 PM) I can agree with what you are saying on a philosophical level, but sayig Tom doesn't understand the difference between right or wrong, because his understanding is infantile (in the clinical rather than "intelligence" sense) is rather like saying because we can't spell a word correctly we do not know it. Most infants and toddlers can't spell, but they understand what you are saying.
The thing about this is that even though they understand the meaning of the words in the sense that they know that it's a form of communication, unless I'm very much mistaken, they don't understand the words as lexical objects. They have the ability to reproduce the sound, and identify the meaning attached to it, but they don't understand what words are in a literary sense (at least, not at first).
In general, we humans only know that certain things are true - we don't always understand why they are true. For instance, we all know what a car is and most of us know how to use it, but the vast majority of us don't know exactly how it works or how to fix it if it breaks down. Also, when you cram for a test, and memorize all the facts and figures, you know the material, but chances are you don't understand it (this coming from personal experience  ).
This is what I meant by knowing vs. understanding - knowing something and knowing why something is the way it is are two very different things.
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 22 2008, 03:18 PM) Legally because Tom understand that certain actions merit punishment or dissaproval he understands the difference between right or wrong in the social sense. Tom does not appear socially innocent. He understands the interactions of human beings in his society. He recognizes authority or at least the power behind authority although for the most part everything inside him rebells against someone using their authority to contain him.
Again, you are using the term "understanding" very loosely here (which is why I have been arguing against you!). However, I think your use of the term "recognize" is perfect with respect to his view of authority, and this is one of the terms I would use to describe his "understanding" of right and wrong. The only thing he understands about right and wrong is that certain actions result in a negative personal consequence. Just as he recognizes the power behind authority, he recognizes the physical repurcussions of his actions. However, his "understanding" does not go beyond this recognition of action-and-reaction.
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 22 2008, 03:18 PM) Moreover, legally because Tom knows that you shouldn't do these things to him and would be the first to demand justice, he understands enough that he can be held responsible for his choices.
Yes, but you have to be careful about this as well. To him, responsibilty only refers to recieving credit for doing something. He has no sense of morality - he does not recognize good and evil - so his view of responsibility is very different from yours or mine because he doesn't have the capacity to interpret the concept of moral obligations.
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 22 2008, 03:18 PM) To him it is only necessary to control this behavior to avoid punishment or pain to himself.
Exactly! He has no sense of compassion to make him think twice about what he's about to do; he only considers the physical/material outcomes when evaluating what he should/n't do.
QUOTE(Maime the Hunter @ May 22 2008, 03:18 PM) He understands he is causing others pain, but he enjoys this feeling of power. Note his reaction when Dumbledore set his belongings on fire. He understood that it was wrong and exactly why it was wrong. They were his things. He was being threatened. No one has the right to threaten, betray, or hurt him.
But Tom only cares about his things, his feelings, his reward and keeping himself from punishment.
I don't think so; I interpret his reaction merely as anger and shock. He thought he was losing something as a result of someone else's actions, and he knew there is supposed to be a consequence to such actions. Because of his ability to "take back what is his" from the other children, he never learned the deeper pain their misdemeanors actually cause. This explains his vengeful attitude towards his father - his father took things away from him, and that made him angry, not sad or hateful.
--------------------
"Tell me why, why must we fight?
And why must we kill in the name of what we think is right?
No more! No war! 'Cause how do you know?"
-- P.O.D. - from their new album When Angels and Serpents Dance --
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 08:23 PM
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007
|
QUOTE unless I'm very much mistaken, they don't understand the words as lexical objects.
A child who experience normal development understands context and nuance of a number of words, or they couldn't learn to speak expressively. They can discriminate, make choices. They understand are you "hungry" means they want to eat as opposed to hungry means they want candy. In fact a toddler who is asked: Are you hungry? might answer, No. I want some ice cream, because saying yes will get them a plate of peas and carrots. That's very complex thinking.
QUOTE I'm not trying to excuse his behaviour I never thought you were. Nontheless, the arguement that a sociapath might not understand the difference between right or wrong, also indicates that because he or she doesn't understand, he or she is not culpable or responsible for their behavior--as you do later in your post. Tom understands enough to know he should not do it. That legally is enough to hold him responsible.
Is it morally enough? Well, psychologist argue this all the time, but for the most part the answer--if the person is not otherwise impaired, that is the person has a learning disablity, and Tom did not--that a sociapath understands the concept of wrong. I do not think we can say that Tom was learning disabled. He also did not appear to be detached from reality to the point that he did not understand the concept of wrong. Usually a person with anti-social disorder also has manic depressive behavior, anger disorder, and Obsessive. We can't say Tom is delusional about his gifts, because he is a powerful wizard. Hitler was considered a powerful orator and propagandist, Napolean and Alexander master stategist.
In the Schizoid personality there is a problem with perception when it comes to certain concepts, because they cannot discern easily between reality versus fantasy. But Tom understood reality and was determine to shape it for his needs.
|
|
|
|
  Similar Topics
 Similar Topics
|
Sorting is now open for our Prisoner of Azkaban reading groups! Click here to sort!
|
