1926 is the date Amelia Bones gives for what she suspects to be Quirrell’s true identity. It is also the date of Tom Marvolo Riddle’s birth in canon. This and other details suggest that Bones believes Quirrell is Riddle. But for that to be true, it must be that during Voldemort’s first campaign, Riddle was still appearing as Riddle until, apparently, 1973
Bones must not know Riddle is Voldemort, or she would be behaving very differently towards Dumbledore. Dumbledore, on the other hand, appears to believe Riddle is Voldemort, because just a few chapters ago he told the Marauder’s Map to find Tom Riddle when he was looking for Voldemort. Therefore Dumbledore must not know Quirrell is Riddle. It’s maddening how many problems could be solved here by the characters’ sharing information with each other.
Anyway, given that Riddle is Bones’ hero, much of what Riddle told Hermione may have been perfectly truthful. And here is what especially caught my eye:
I stopped trying to be a hero, and went off to do something else I found more pleasant.
So it sounds like Riddle initially created Voldemort so he could make himself into a hero, but then decided to be Voldemort full-time, because it would be more fun. This he did for eight years, from 1973-1981.
Similarly, Riddle previously told Harry (in chapters nineteen and twenty) that he decided not to become a Dark Lord, and that he realized that if he did everything necessary to do that Dark Lord gig right, there would be no point. What if he was telling the truth? What if Riddle decided to dispose of the Voldemort persona because it stopped being fun?
Personally, the thought of someone totally amoral and willing to totally change around their plans based on what is most fun is rather frightening.
EDIT: See also this comment of mine, which lays out the story I am proposing in chronological order. Note that my confidence in what Riddle was originally planning on doing when he first went full-time as Voldemort, and my confidence in his motives for abandoning the Voldemort persona, is lower than my confidence in the rest of my theory.
That makes a lot of sense, really. Nobody does things “For Teh Evulz!”, they do them either because they think it’s good or because they think it’s awesome.
Edit: No, seriously, they’re not. Anything that isn’t fun and isn’t good doesn’t even enter most people’s minds, because there’s no reason to do it. An amoral man doing stuff he finds to be good fun will generally cross the line to evil precisely where he starts doing all the stuff that he enjoys and that isn’t common, because if it’s enjoyable and morally acceptable, it’ll be common already.
Anything that isn’t fun and isn’t good doesn’t even enter most people’s minds, because there’s no reason to do it.
Unless you have a really broad definition of ‘fun’ you’re quire wrong here. Sometime people will experiment. Sometimes people will do what they’re told not to as a gesture of defiance. Sometimes people will do things that are very harmful to themselves because it is the only way they can strike against forces they are otherwise powerless to resist, like an abusive partner or guardian. Sometimes people mistakenly think they don’t have any other options, sometimes those people aren’t mistaken.
If you want to talk about the First World, then maybe you’re just barely right with your ‘most’; I doubt it, but I think we can just dismiss that possible interpretation instead. Because outside the First World you’re quite mistaken: many things that are not fun or good enter into the majority of people’s minds.
An amoral man doing stuff he finds to be good fun will generally cross the line to evil precisely where he starts doing all the stuff that he enjoys and that isn’t common, because if it’s enjoyable and morally acceptable, it’ll be common already.
Plenty of evil things are quite common. I had a list, but I don’t think it actually adds anything to the comment when I all need to say is “emotionally abusive relationship.” They’re common enough that it’s been claimed they’re in the majority.
Well, some people confuse Teh Evulz with awesome.
I don’t think they’re confused at all.
I am some people, and if evil ain’t awesome then I’m confused.
It’s generally high-risk. A lot of the obvious examples have overvalued rewards. Much of First World society protects people from it. And that’s good, because I like having some protection from people who are better at evil things than I am at defending against them.
But there remain opportunities. And there remains awesome.
Okay, I was oversimplifying—there’s “necessary”(which is a pretty broad category, even in the first world), there’s experiment, and there’s a dozen others. But my point was “there’s things good people would do, and then there’s things that they won’t but bad people will. The latter category is likely to be all the fun-but-naughty stuff”, and I think that’s still basically true.
The latter category is likely to be all the fun-but-naughty stuff
I still think that’s wrong.
Most people don’t operate in fun-seeking mode, most of the time.
Good people will not beat you to death for a loaf of bread. Evil people might.
Maybe you’re just using an overly-broad definition of “fun”. An evil person might (reluctantly) murder you for a huge wad of cash, which might be used for all sorts of non-fun things like paying the mortgage, buying a safe SUV for the family, paying off the mob boss, or securing a place of power for safety.
I’ll grant that good people won’t beat you to death over a loaf of bread, if you stipulate that desperate people who would otherwise never do such a thing are not good, which could be argued either way. However, when the choice is between a rich man not willing to spare anything and a father trying desperately to keep his children alive with nowhere else to go, the question becomes murkier.
But that an evil person might reluctantly murder you for a wad of cash to purchase non-fun things; I’m honestly befuddled. Despite the fact that crime rates (in America, at least) have generally been going down, people have been murdered for a couple of bills that may be in their wallets. The idea that someone would kill someone else for a pair of shoes has gotten so ubiquitous that it’s become a cliche! And these are from people that most would not consider evil. So why do you think an evil person would hesitate? Which doesn’t even cover the fact that more money spent on non-fun activities means more of the original amount of money could be spent on fun actions.
What does ‘evil’ mean to you that you think evil would kill so reluctantly?
You seem to have taken the wrong emphasis from my words. The grandparent was arguing that the things that good people won’t do but bad people will, are all fun-but-naughty stuff. My point was that there are lots of things that ‘bad’ people might do, that are not fun.
The idea that someone would kill someone else for a pair of shoes has gotten so ubiquitous that it’s become a cliche!
This supports my point, unless you think that people are stealing shoes because shoes are fun.
I think I see the disconnect here. If I’m correct, then you believe that I was referring to people who kill someone for shoes because they have none, which falls under the above situation of desperation. In fact, that was not what I was referring to.
In certain sub-cultures, shoes are status symbols. The “killing someone for their shoes” cliche that I was referring to is about killing someone so that you can remove their status as above you, appropriate their status as your own, or in response to their damaging of your own status (in which case they likely wouldn’t keep the shoes).
So killing over shoes is killing to maintain or improve your status, which is fun in the same way that getting a new car is to those who are obsessed with them; it may not be the classical definition of fun, but it certainly seems appropriate in this situation.
1926 is the date Amelia Bones gives for what she suspects to be Quirrell’s true identity. It is also the date of Tom Marvolo Riddle’s birth in canon. This and other details suggest that Bones believes Quirrell is Riddle. But for that to be true, it must be that during Voldemort’s first campaign, Riddle was still appearing as Riddle until, apparently, 1973
Bones must not know Riddle is Voldemort, or she would be behaving very differently towards Dumbledore. Dumbledore, on the other hand, appears to believe Riddle is Voldemort, because just a few chapters ago he told the Marauder’s Map to find Tom Riddle when he was looking for Voldemort. Therefore Dumbledore must not know Quirrell is Riddle. It’s maddening how many problems could be solved here by the characters’ sharing information with each other.
Anyway, given that Riddle is Bones’ hero, much of what Riddle told Hermione may have been perfectly truthful. And here is what especially caught my eye:
So it sounds like Riddle initially created Voldemort so he could make himself into a hero, but then decided to be Voldemort full-time, because it would be more fun. This he did for eight years, from 1973-1981.
Similarly, Riddle previously told Harry (in chapters nineteen and twenty) that he decided not to become a Dark Lord, and that he realized that if he did everything necessary to do that Dark Lord gig right, there would be no point. What if he was telling the truth? What if Riddle decided to dispose of the Voldemort persona because it stopped being fun?
Personally, the thought of someone totally amoral and willing to totally change around their plans based on what is most fun is rather frightening.
EDIT: See also this comment of mine, which lays out the story I am proposing in chronological order. Note that my confidence in what Riddle was originally planning on doing when he first went full-time as Voldemort, and my confidence in his motives for abandoning the Voldemort persona, is lower than my confidence in the rest of my theory.
That makes a lot of sense, really. Nobody does things “For Teh Evulz!”, they do them either because they think it’s good or because they think it’s awesome.
Well, some people confuse Teh Evulz with awesome.
I don’t think they’re confused at all.
Edit: No, seriously, they’re not. Anything that isn’t fun and isn’t good doesn’t even enter most people’s minds, because there’s no reason to do it. An amoral man doing stuff he finds to be good fun will generally cross the line to evil precisely where he starts doing all the stuff that he enjoys and that isn’t common, because if it’s enjoyable and morally acceptable, it’ll be common already.
Unless you have a really broad definition of ‘fun’ you’re quire wrong here. Sometime people will experiment. Sometimes people will do what they’re told not to as a gesture of defiance. Sometimes people will do things that are very harmful to themselves because it is the only way they can strike against forces they are otherwise powerless to resist, like an abusive partner or guardian. Sometimes people mistakenly think they don’t have any other options, sometimes those people aren’t mistaken.
If you want to talk about the First World, then maybe you’re just barely right with your ‘most’; I doubt it, but I think we can just dismiss that possible interpretation instead. Because outside the First World you’re quite mistaken: many things that are not fun or good enter into the majority of people’s minds.
Plenty of evil things are quite common. I had a list, but I don’t think it actually adds anything to the comment when I all need to say is “emotionally abusive relationship.” They’re common enough that it’s been claimed they’re in the majority.
I am some people, and if evil ain’t awesome then I’m confused.
It’s generally high-risk. A lot of the obvious examples have overvalued rewards. Much of First World society protects people from it. And that’s good, because I like having some protection from people who are better at evil things than I am at defending against them.
But there remain opportunities. And there remains awesome.
Okay, I was oversimplifying—there’s “necessary”(which is a pretty broad category, even in the first world), there’s experiment, and there’s a dozen others. But my point was “there’s things good people would do, and then there’s things that they won’t but bad people will. The latter category is likely to be all the fun-but-naughty stuff”, and I think that’s still basically true.
I still think that’s wrong.
Most people don’t operate in fun-seeking mode, most of the time.
Good people will not beat you to death for a loaf of bread. Evil people might.
Maybe you’re just using an overly-broad definition of “fun”. An evil person might (reluctantly) murder you for a huge wad of cash, which might be used for all sorts of non-fun things like paying the mortgage, buying a safe SUV for the family, paying off the mob boss, or securing a place of power for safety.
What on earth are you talking about?
I’ll grant that good people won’t beat you to death over a loaf of bread, if you stipulate that desperate people who would otherwise never do such a thing are not good, which could be argued either way. However, when the choice is between a rich man not willing to spare anything and a father trying desperately to keep his children alive with nowhere else to go, the question becomes murkier.
But that an evil person might reluctantly murder you for a wad of cash to purchase non-fun things; I’m honestly befuddled. Despite the fact that crime rates (in America, at least) have generally been going down, people have been murdered for a couple of bills that may be in their wallets. The idea that someone would kill someone else for a pair of shoes has gotten so ubiquitous that it’s become a cliche! And these are from people that most would not consider evil. So why do you think an evil person would hesitate? Which doesn’t even cover the fact that more money spent on non-fun activities means more of the original amount of money could be spent on fun actions.
What does ‘evil’ mean to you that you think evil would kill so reluctantly?
You seem to have taken the wrong emphasis from my words. The grandparent was arguing that the things that good people won’t do but bad people will, are all fun-but-naughty stuff. My point was that there are lots of things that ‘bad’ people might do, that are not fun.
This supports my point, unless you think that people are stealing shoes because shoes are fun.
I do, actually.
I think I see the disconnect here. If I’m correct, then you believe that I was referring to people who kill someone for shoes because they have none, which falls under the above situation of desperation. In fact, that was not what I was referring to.
In certain sub-cultures, shoes are status symbols. The “killing someone for their shoes” cliche that I was referring to is about killing someone so that you can remove their status as above you, appropriate their status as your own, or in response to their damaging of your own status (in which case they likely wouldn’t keep the shoes).
So killing over shoes is killing to maintain or improve your status, which is fun in the same way that getting a new car is to those who are obsessed with them; it may not be the classical definition of fun, but it certainly seems appropriate in this situation.
I truly hope you are not right about what you have written. I found it really plausible. Frightening plausible.