/lit/ - Literature

>written by a woman
didn't read

>>20165119
What would your mother say about your behavior

>>20165530
she would say i'm based and redpilled

>>20165111
I don't know but I sure hope they will release 200 more movies, because the potential is bigger than StarWars, lets hope for a complete R rated reboot after Rowling dies.

>>20165768
>remember me from school?
>I'm the sexy bitch that tried to give you up to Voldemort
>eyes up here, Potty

>>20165774
> I ought to teach you a lesson, now that we are alone!

>>20165111
I think he's a pretty decent villain, though I don't really get his obsession with cheating death since it apparently started when he was still in school.
In most things Riddle is motivated by his pride and wanting to feel superior. He chose to put his Horcrux in the cave because there he was superior to the other orphans. Probably, at first he loved magic because it made him better than every muggle. He put a Horcrux in Gringotts because as a boy he envied those who had that institutional connection to the magical world, whereas he had nothing. Even before he knew he was desended from Slytherin Riddle probably valued blood-purity, and envied the pure-blood the good fortune of their birth. If he wasn't descended from Slytherin I figure he would eventually try to tie himself to someone magically important so that he could spit on the unworthy. As a villain, I think his motives are pretty understandable and I at least can easily see how he'd develop from genius orphan to mass murderer. While he could have been a beloved figure like Dumbledore he was too resentful of his inferiors.
He made 7 Horcruxes because that was a magically significant number, and because that would make him more special than those who only had 1, but why become immortal at all? That's the one thing that doesn't fit, and seems to be there solely because the story requires him to be destroyed and then return.

>>20165953
>> I think he's a pretty decent villain, though I don't really get his obsession with cheating death since it apparently started when he was still in school.

I think his obsession with cheating death is one of the more interesting parts, since his mother, Merope, gave up on life and died in the orphanage right as he was born. He felt that it was essentially "unbecoming" for her to surrender to death that way. Trying to cheat death was another way of showing how much better he was than his family, just like changing his name from Tom Riddle. Which makes for a pretty interesting comparison to the way that Harry embraces the memory of his dead parents and is grateful that they were willing to die for him.

>>20165953
In my opinion, the fear of death ties well with the megalomania. In real life many rulers and dictators start to make mistakes late in life, because they start to feel the fear of not acomplishing enough.

The Voldie was younger, but also aware that cheating death is theoretically possible. If you belive that you are superior to all others, why not make a bid for immortality? Especially if you have pretty narrow view of success and power making the idea of leaving legacy and passing away in peacy seem like cope instead of a goal.

why didnt he hide horocruxes better

>>20166070
In short, because he basically thinks of himself as a god, he unironically believe he is sacred to the point of referring to himself in the 3rd person. He does not want to put his precious, immortal, sacred soul into any random item or any random place. He wants to be dramatic about it because of his absurd ego. All his horcrux items and locations are ones which in some way are emotionally or spiritually significant to him

He's very autistic

>>20165111
He was okay, I wish his motivations were explored more though. Like his fear of death and hate of muggles is understandable when you remember he grew up and was sent back during the summer to London during the Blitz.
The main issue I have is how the disconnect between the charming charismatic Tom Riddle and the megalomaniac Lord Voldemort is so vast. Like if Tom had wanted to take control of the magical world then wouldn't it have been far easier to do so legitimately, since by the time he graduated he already had a circle of the most influential purebloods serving him and was constantly mentioned how charismatic he was, Tom Riddle could have easily won an election to become Minister of Magic instead of trying to take over as a terrorist.
The only explanation I can think of is that making not just one but multiple Horcruxes really fucks with a guy's mind and he just lost it.

Villain? Do we ever see Voldemort villaining or the narrator confirming it? Afair only unreliable narrators line Hagrid or Ron etc. talk about Voldemort.

>>20166178
Is this some holocaust denial shit cuz I won't stand for it

>>20165119
Sounds about right, /lit/ will look for any excuse to not read.

>>20165111
>Would you consider him to be a good villain?
Yes, he's a good villain for what he was.

>>20165768

>>20166184
War is hell. Innocents die. Do we ever get told who started the war? The original one that is.
I vaguely remember Dumbledore etc having to hide because Voldemort had majority support. Even in the books Harry can muster like 50 people after decades of Voldemort is literally Hitler propaganda.

>>20165111
Yeah it's a fun read

>>20166201
Dumbledore literally shows the memories to Harry proving that Voldemort is evil, that he kills old ladies, babies, his own father, tortures animals and children. I don't know what more proof you want.

>>20166224
Haven't read 7 and the others as a kid. Is there context to this? Could Dumbledore have faked it?
Why do you think the entire world except like two dozen people in Hoghwarts sided with Vladimort?

Ignore the neo death eater schizo

>>20166231
>Why do you think the entire world except like two dozen people in Hoghwarts sided with Vladimort?
It really wasn't like that in the books. Tons of people were fighting on Hogwarts' side. Hogsmeade, OotP members, students, parents, people of the Ministry, even the elves. Voldemort just had a following of monsters and crooks that were afraid of him or had their own sick motives.
Plus Voldemort had Imperius'd wizards to fight for him.
Basically, Hogwarts would have had the numerical advantage (I'm not sure if they did but it's probable and they would have if you discount the slaves/dark creatures).

>>20165111
I liked Harry Potter when I was a kid. When I got older, I thought the premise for his villainy was kind of fucked up. The main thing is that his mom gave his dad a love potion (basically a magic roofie), so he was born to parents who didn't truly love each other, right? So, he was born unloved and unable to feel love, too. But I think that's a terrible reason to have someone be the bad guy. The circumstances of your birth do not define who you are as a person. I think that's what always bothered me because it was supposed to be a theme in the story. Like it didn't matter if you were pureblood or not or what family you were from.
But that message gets undercut by the fact that it DID matter in Voldemort's case. Maybe I'm misremembering because it's been a long time since I read Harry Potter or watched the movies.

>>20166286
I replied to the wrong post but whatever.

>>20166289
The love potion thing is just nonexplanation for calling him a psychopath. It's the JK Rowling origin myth of the wizard psycho.
The parallel with Harry is a red herring. Harry is good because he is born good. He lived the shittiest life and he still remained a miraculously good person.
There is no 'nurture wins out' message in the story, quite the opposite.

>>20166289
The love potion thing is supposed to represent the fact he came from a loveless union, yes. It's supposed to be symbolism rather than the love potion actually having caused psychopathy. What really caused his psychopathy is that + him growing up in a stark, cold, loveless orphanage where the caretakers were apathetic at best. Voldemort would not have turned out like he did if any point in his life, someone had loved him

>>20166378
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsXOgoGN2wE kek
But no, I see what you guys are saying >>20166306
>>20166378
Like I said, it's been a while since I read them. I forgot that Voldemort dealt with abuse as an orphaned child too.

>>20165953
>>20166000
>>20166006
Nice analyses, I'm rereading the series for the first time since I was a kid and getting quite bored halfway through the fourth book, but this is giving me the motivation to keep going.

>>20166378
Voldemort's a weak pussy bitch, Harry went through way worse shit at the Dursley's, he was basically subject to torture throughout his formative years. But widdle babby Tommie couldn't do without some hugs and cookies every morning? Grow up you noseless loser.

>>20165111
>>20165953
>>20166006

The whole point of Voldemort is to show a contrast of two different approaches:

Harry and Tom - both orphans, both had a tough life.
One had a circle of friends where respect and love is freely given.
Other couldn't feel love, therefore actualized his own significance in power.

“Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all those who live without love.”

One accepted himself to be as is.
Another fought for himself to be more than an orphan, where his self worth could not be actualized with love that he is unable to perceive.
(a symbolism of a necessity for a child to grow in a loving family. a character justification for a reach of cold and seemingly meaningless things, fueled by emotions of all, but love.)


The difference in all this?
Humility - to be able to accept yourself and not be drunk with power.
(Symbolized with invisibility cloak, gracefully living and passing the grace to your offspring)

Love - to be able to love yourself and others.
(Love curse (Sacrificial protection), stronger than death, even a killing curse, a concept which Tom tried to overcome, but failed, in defeating love and defeating death)

Compassion - to be able to feel others suffering and help.
(Help will always be given to those who deserve it)

You then can overcome anything, stronger than you alone.
And no talent or power can overcome this. Which is the main point.

Voldemort tried a different approach, the only way he knew how - to be shown defeated.

>>20165768

>>20166444
Which is why anon's analysis makes no sense. The 'can't love because he wasn't loved' thing isn't true. Voldemort can't love because that's who he is.
Tom started torturing kids at the orphanage, a place that didn't even seem to be that bad all things considered.

>>20165111
>vague nazi allegory
>incompetent
>main weakness is "not having friends"
Voldemort is a half step away from being a Care Bear villain called "The Heartless." Not only is he bad but any thought that went into his creation seems half assed and lazy.

>>20166514
The author's has literally brought up before about how "the brains of babies fundamentally change if they are raised in an unloving environment". It's just how she thinks

>>20166568
>"the brains of babies fundamentally change if they are raised in an unloving environment"
This is true by the way.

Test

>>20166569
>>20166568
the brains of babies also fundamentally change if you circumcise them

>>20166517
Let's not diss the Care Bears, shall we?

He sucks because Harry sucks as a protag. I'm going to replace a few words in the Harry Potter plot line to explain my point.
Harry Potter found out when he was around 10 years old that he is, in fact, a wizard, and that in wizard culture, non-wizards are called niggers. As a wizard, Harry does not associate with niggers and like the rest of the culture, they are above niggers, who they view as subhuman. His friend Hermoine's parents are niggers though there are people who have niggers in their bloodline. There are no niggers who play any significance of any sort in the books, with the exception of the Dursleys (who are awful people) and an old but secretly decent lady who was awful to Harry when he was younger but she is functionally a nigger too.

Voldemort hates niggers and wants a more pure race.

Harry is in the fight against him not because he particularly cares about niggers but Voldemort has a personal grudge against him and he doesn't want Voldemort to murder people who are part nigger. Harry doesn't want senseless violence against the regular niggers either. All Harry really wants is a comfortable wizard government job.

>>20166517
>vague nazi allegory
other than both Voldemort and Hitler wanting racial purity and the destruction of inferiors I don't see it. Everyone compares Death Eaters to Nazi but it's lazy. Voldemort had only one train, no camps, no attempt gathering legitimate support from the public, didn't betray any peace treaties, when he took over he did it covertly, within the existing system, not even rolling out new uniforms, etc.
>incompetent
Literally everyone in these books is incompetent, at least Voldemort has the excuse of being defeated by strange, not fully explained magic. And I think we have to assume he was doing incredibly well before a baby exploded him.
>main weakness is "not having friends"
That's just what Dumbledore tells Harry, it doesn't actually relate to how he's defeated, which is by Dumbledore having an extensive and easily viewable slideshow of Voldemort's past and Harry understanding him well enough to guess where he'd hidden the diadem. Having friends helped Harry, but not having them didn't hinder Voldemort.

>>20167135
yeah... he's a brit

>>20165111
>Would you consider him to be a good villain?
No, in fact I think he's very lazily written and full of plot conveniences. I'll just focus on one, since it has been years since I read the books and thought 'well that's convenient' but the sentiment stays with me.

Voldemort can literally read minds. He has numerous opportunities to do so against Harry in the 7th book. He never does. Even as Harry comes to him in the forest to die, he doesn't read his mind, or Narcissa Malfoys, and he instead is perfectly trusting that the boy is dead. This is completely fucking ridiculous and out of character. In fact the characterization of Voldemort was, before this convenient encounter, that it is functionally impossible to lie to him unless you're either Dumbledore or Snape.

I am sure this thread is full of retarded defenses of the many many plot holes and writer's conveniences throughout the story. The usual one I hear is 'Voldemort is arrogant and is confident in his superiority'. This does not excuse anything, particularly here. We are at a point in the story where Harry has destroyed 6 of his horcruxes. The fact he is not so superior couldn't be more explicit, couldn't be more fatal, and couldn't be more intimately known by him. I'll even add Dumbeldore's words on why he chose Harry over Neville, because he saw Harry as his equal, as 'like him' due to their half Wizard birth. Voldemort thinks he is special, sure, but he thinks Harry is special too.

The fact Voldemort knows he's a mutt and still larps about blood purity is still hilarious though, /pol/ incarnate.

>>20167234
Also don't tell me that 'Voldemort was unhinged' because of the loss of the horcruxes, that is convenience incarnate. And the fact remains he still had these opportunities before he lost many of them and before Rowling contrived this particular excuse near the conclusion.

>>20165111
he's literally the 'villain is evil....because he's evil' meme