he trouble is, JK seems to believe Nature trumps Nurture, and so we do have an Inherently Good Harry to put up against Sociopathic Tom
To be honest, she was always going to pick extremes. You can't really expect children to wade through moral ambiguity, she's trying to teach 'em some good MORAL LESSONS don'tchaknow.
"Oh, Tom was born evil", and it's like - well, what's the point, then? She's made Harry inherently good, and Tom inherently evil. Because it's easier to think of the world that way. Despite going on, an don, and on about 'choices', in the end it boils down to "well, Tom was a nutter, but look at Harry's family influencing him beyond the grave. Awr."
![[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: 2009-02-20 10:09 am (UTC)To be honest, she was always going to pick extremes. You can't really expect children to wade through moral ambiguity, she's trying to teach 'em some good MORAL LESSONS don'tchaknow.
"Oh, Tom was born evil", and it's like - well, what's the point, then? She's made Harry inherently good, and Tom inherently evil. Because it's easier to think of the world that way. Despite going on, an don, and on about 'choices', in the end it boils down to "well, Tom was a nutter, but look at Harry's family influencing him beyond the grave. Awr."
Sam//Slytherin