If one of the main themes of Harry Potter is that moral virtue is a choice rather than a result of your innate abilities, why does JK Rowling portray Harry as overwhelmingly 'good' from the time he was a child? And, why is Voldemort portrayed as being irreversibly evil by the time he was 11 years old? Indeed, JK Rowling seems to have taken the idea that 11 year olds have a responsibility for moralness at the same level that an adult does, and that any choice made by them is solely their own fault. Given that Tom Riddle was raised in an orphanage, perhaps without a role model for moral good, wasn't it irresponsible of Dumbledore to 'leave Tom alone' and act like he had a duty to reform himself independently instead of intervening and helping him learn goodness? Or did he think Voldemort's goodness was already decided? In which case, the books would seem to be arguing that your moral goodness or lack thereof is innate, or at least cemented irreversibly by the time you reach adolescence.
>>8244973
Tom was a bad apple, he was a bad influence to the other kids, trust me, kids like that, you can't help. I don't know what it is.
>there are plot holes in a poorly written children's book
Stop the fucking presses
>>8244997
But if the main villain is simply a 'bad apple' and it has nothing to do with his own choices, and if the reason Harry is a 'good apple' is only that he avoided being born a bad one, then the book seems to be undermining itself on a fundamental level.
>>8245008
No, trust me, I've been a teacher for 35 years, kids like that, you can't help. It's not under-minaton.
>>8245010
post a pic of your saggy jowls or I don't believe you
>>8245017
>>8244973
Harry is far from "overwhelmingly good." Even Hermione isn't that perfect. Harry has a temper, a deep and understandable inability to trust adults, breaks rules constantly with little concern (because he was raised by abusive asshats who were illogical in their abuse, so he doesn't see the point). He is almost incapable of thinking about potential consequences of his impulsive actions, at least in early books, his loyalty is entirely based of friendship ties, and he has a mean and vengeful streak that comes out clearly with Draco and Dudley, and at other times. He's generally not mean to innocents because he knows what it's like to be bullied, and he understandably hates bullies, and he is generally good, but no more than most "real" kids are.
>>8244973
this is now a /tv/ meme thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=351Aa5q_S98
>>8244973
Wizards are jews
Voldemort represents Hitler and the other wizards represent various factions of jewry, for example Hogwarts is the Rotschlids and Ministry of Magic is the bilderberg group.
Consider this and you will realize it is true.
>>8245099
Muggles are obviously the jews and the other wizards, like Hogwarts, are the allies.
>>8244973
remember when he threw the prefect badge at rons head, that was pretty mean
>>8245053
I suppose that's true. He even uses unforgivable curses at times. I guess I would have found it more convincing though if Voldemort also had been shown to have at least some goodness in him -- or at least shown to have had goodness at some point, so that him choosing anything other than the path of unambiguous evil might have been a believable possibility. That way Rowling would have shown both sides to have had the potential for both good and evil, and that the thing that made the difference were the choices they made to pursue either side.
>>8244973
>why does JK Rowling portray Harry as overwhelmingly 'good' from the time he was a child?
he's not though. even in the first book, the sorting hat sees that there is the potential for evil within harry. and even before that, when dumbledore and mcgonagall are leaving harry behind at the dursleys, dumbledore knows that they will bring harry up in such a way that it will control his dark side. we see that harry still has tantrums occasionally, like the snake incident, something that hagrid mentions when they meet.
but y'know, they're just stories, it's not really worth analysing it too much
>>8244997
Are you a Markov chain Trump generator?
>>8245150
Voldemort is a less developed character, but Rowling does give him a horrible childhood and offer explanations for his pathology. The difference is that you have to accept Voldemort as one of a born psychopath--he shows no empathy at all, from his youngest stories. When someone like that goes through what V did, there's a chance for him to become a monster.
>>8245322
I'm gonna have to tell you right away, I think Trump is going to be a great president. Our country needs someone like Trump right now, maybe you don't like that, maybe I don't like that either, but if our country needs to be seriously fixed, it just is what it is.
>>8244973
I think 11 year old should already have the mental development to make moral choices.
Below 6 years of age might be debatable.
>>8245010
Were you a teacher or headmaster at a boarding school where the faculty act as loco parentis? Or did you just have a few bad apples that moved on when the school year was over, never to trouble your thoughts again?
Also I don't recall dumbledore actually teaching much. His job actually is to mentor the students and hopefully not molest them.
>>8245099
They are clearly the clergy, because no one studies Latin who isn't required to, real intellectuals study Greek.
>>8245099
kill yourself my man
