I think it's worth emphasising here what valkyrie_lisa said: that Harry Potter and Tom Riddle, fascinating characters as they are, are NOT real and are not necessarily realistic portrayals of children with difficult childhoods. So, to answer the second debate question, I think we need to steer away from the characters for a moment.
I think the ratios of nature vs. nurture are different for every single person, and I don't think it's fair or correct to say that "oh, everyone's a blank slate". Perhaps some people are: perhaps there are people whose nature has had almost no effect on them, due to having largely unremarkable genes. And maybe there are some people who are mostly what they're born with and have managed to shrug off their circumstances, like Harry.
I find the latter less likely, I have to say, and I'm inclined to weigh in more for nurture over nature.
PERSONAL EXAMPLE TIME: There's no history of depression in my family and both of my parents are immensely strong, courageous people. Hell, my parents could BE James and Lily Potter. Yet because of an absolutely ruinous childhood at the hands of my other, emotionally-abusive caregivers (it was quite Harry-esque actually), I suffer badly from depression and anxiety. This is why I always found it difficult to believe that Harry got out of the Dursleys' mistreatment with only a bad temper; it only just stops short of making me a little angry at JK in a rather "I suffered, why doesn't he??" kind of way. XD
I will say this, though: from what we learn of the young Tom Riddle, he sounds remarkably like a sociopath, and sociopathy (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a psychologist) is almost impossible to overcome: sociopaths don't see WHY they should overcome it. So I'd feel comfortable in saying that yes, Voldy was in a sense born evil.
I do, however, think that Harry could easily have turned out bad, and tbh I find it unrealistic that he was such a good kid from the start, because in my experience the goodness and emotional strength of your parents, if you weren't raised by them, doesn't have an effect to that extent on who you are. Maybe some of the adoptees would like to dispute this? :)
I also think that his choice of Gryffindor over SLytherin was purely because he'd heard Slytherin denounced by Hagrid before, and because he'd already met an extremely unpleasant Slytherin candidate, not because of any innate goodness. :) I can say that aged eleven, I would have chosen Slytherin; hell, I probably would have liked Draco. But I AM a Slytherin, so take that as you like. ;)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-19 08:33 pm (UTC)I think the ratios of nature vs. nurture are different for every single person, and I don't think it's fair or correct to say that "oh, everyone's a blank slate". Perhaps some people are: perhaps there are people whose nature has had almost no effect on them, due to having largely unremarkable genes. And maybe there are some people who are mostly what they're born with and have managed to shrug off their circumstances, like Harry.
I find the latter less likely, I have to say, and I'm inclined to weigh in more for nurture over nature.
PERSONAL EXAMPLE TIME: There's no history of depression in my family and both of my parents are immensely strong, courageous people. Hell, my parents could BE James and Lily Potter. Yet because of an absolutely ruinous childhood at the hands of my other, emotionally-abusive caregivers (it was quite Harry-esque actually), I suffer badly from depression and anxiety. This is why I always found it difficult to believe that Harry got out of the Dursleys' mistreatment with only a bad temper; it only just stops short of making me a little angry at JK in a rather "I suffered, why doesn't he??" kind of way. XD
I will say this, though: from what we learn of the young Tom Riddle, he sounds remarkably like a sociopath, and sociopathy (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a psychologist) is almost impossible to overcome: sociopaths don't see WHY they should overcome it. So I'd feel comfortable in saying that yes, Voldy was in a sense born evil.
I do, however, think that Harry could easily have turned out bad, and tbh I find it unrealistic that he was such a good kid from the start, because in my experience the goodness and emotional strength of your parents, if you weren't raised by them, doesn't have an effect to that extent on who you are. Maybe some of the adoptees would like to dispute this? :)
I also think that his choice of Gryffindor over SLytherin was purely because he'd heard Slytherin denounced by Hagrid before, and because he'd already met an extremely unpleasant Slytherin candidate, not because of any innate goodness. :) I can say that aged eleven, I would have chosen Slytherin; hell, I probably would have liked Draco. But I AM a Slytherin, so take that as you like. ;)
Stephanie//Slytherin//holy long comment batman!