[identity profile] terri-testing.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] deathtocapslock
How Harry maybe wasn’t a sociopathic infant

I think it was Mary_j_59 who pointed out that Riddle’s memories of Godric’s Hollow, if accurate, paint a remarkably disturbing picture of infant Harry. We’re told that when Tom approached the crib after killing a screaming Lily in front of her son, the boy looked up at him with “bright interest,” only starting to cry when he identified that Tom was a (scary-looking) stranger.

Yet any normal child, hearing his father shout in fear and then his mother start screaming, would have started screaming his lungs out too, in empathy with them. What sort of monstrous baby would not get even slightly upset at hearing his mother screaming and begging for mercy, followed by her falling down?




Well, one who didn’t hear it.

Once we accept the possibility that Harry’s eventual memories of high-pitched laughter and screaming might have come from Riddle’s soul-fragment, not Harry’s own subconscious, a very simple piece of magical technology might make sense of Harry’s reaction.

Consider how often parents of infants spend a sleepless night because something accidentally wakes the baby, and then they can’t get hir to settle again.

We know at least one muffling charm in the WW. It’s even one-way; the persons inside can hear perfectly what those outside are saying, just not vice-versa. If someone invented a crib with a one-way muffling charm on it, so the parents could hear if the baby cried but the baby wouldn’t be disturbed by noises from outside the crib…. Well, wouldn’t you buy it? Never again having to worry that every time you had a fight, or a loud bout of lovemaking, or a raucous party, or just knocked over something, you might wake the baby?

And such a charm would have to be set on the crib itself, not on, say, the baby’s whole bedroom, because if there were an emergency, a fire, or as it might be, a death eater attack, while one or both parents were in the bedroom with the baby, the parents would want to hear the alarm.

If that were the case… then if Lily had already put Harry in his crib when Tom broke down the door, Harry would have heard nothing. The crash of the door, his father’s shouts, his mother’s screams, her frantic scrabbling to barricade the door when she realizes she doesn’t have her wand—none of it. If he had shut his eyes after mummy’s nighty-night kiss or was playing with something, he might not have registered anything at all until Lily heard Voldemort at the nursery door and rushed over to the crib to pick Harry up. At which point he’d have had, perhaps, a bare moment to register the distress and fear on her face and in her body before she realized there was no way to flee and dropped him back “into the crib behind her and threw her arms wide.” In other words, she has her back to Harry, who promptly pulls himself up on the bars of the crib to watch. He can’t see her face, and he can’t hear her voice.

And then there’s a flash of pretty light and Mummy falls down. And then the man in the cloak comes over, and Harry sees it’s not Daddy who’s pointing his wand at him, or Unca Siri, or anyone he knows —and finally starts to cry in fear.

And then there’s another flash of light, and his head hurts, and the building falls down.

And that would make sense of why, when Harry lay in bed at 4 Privet straining his memory trying to remember the car crash that killed his parents, nothing would come but a soundless flash of green light and the pain. He hadn’t registered anything significant happening until that moment.

Re: Curses, foiled again!

Date: 2011-11-18 03:15 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] oryx_leucoryx
By the mirror Tom lied to Harry because he was trying to corrupt him. Tom's truest victory would have been Harry handing him the Stone voluntarily. Once Harry refused Tom resorted to the lesser victory of killing Harry who was still opposed to him. 1984.

Re: Curses, foiled again!

Date: 2011-11-18 03:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] annoni-no.livejournal.com
But how is *encouraging* Harry with tales of his parents' supposed bravery in any way conducive to that? Did Voldie somehow think he had time to build Harry up and then break him down again? He knew Harry was lying about having the Stone, presumably by legilimizing him, so why would he pursue such an obviously counterproductive course when he didn't even have the excuse of an obscured line of sight on Harry?

How would the chance to break Harry's spirit utterly by revealing the pathetic truth of his parents last stand not appeal to him more, especially when the end result was much more likely to be Harry giving him the Stone in despair, or at least not being able to resist his efforts in retrieving it. He was even on something of a deadline at the time since he couldn't be sure how long Dumbledore would be distracted! So, again, what purpose did that lie actually serve?

Re: Curses, foiled again!

Date: 2011-11-18 04:46 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] oryx_leucoryx
Tom tried with claiming James died begging for his life - all he got was Harry's insistence that this wasn't so. So he tried the reverse tactic - your parents willingly sacrificed themselves for your life, clearly they'd want you to give up that silly stone so you'd live longer. To make this point he made James appear heroic to Harry. The only way the truth would have worked was if he could have made Harry actually see the scene so he'd know Tom was telling the truth.

A villain who tempts his enemies into doing his bidding is much creepier than one who uses brute force or even the direct threat of force.

Re: Curses, foiled again!

Date: 2011-11-18 07:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] annoni-no.livejournal.com
But the reverse tactic got pretty much the exact same response: defiance. He's also supposed to be one of the most talented Legilimens in the WW, so why is so clueless about how to get the reaction he's looking for? And again, he doesn't have unlimited time here like thought he did in the graveyard in GoF, so what is he actually trying to accomplish with this? It seems awfully half-hearted as a corruption attempt. It almost worked on the first read-through as an honest acknowledgement of a worthy opponent who truly did fight and die with enough skill to impress him, and maybe some regret that he hadn't been able recruit such an able fighter to his own forces, though I still thought something was missing. But given everything that we learned of Tom's character in the later books... I want to be convinced, but I just can't buy the 'corruption theory.' It just doesn't feel like Tom's style.

Re: Reverse tactic

Date: 2011-11-19 09:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] annoni-no.livejournal.com
Thank you. *That* I can buy. ;)

...Although the Harry-is-just-that-stupid theory runs a close second :p

Profile

deathtocapslock: (Default)
death to capslock

September 2025

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 25th, 2026 07:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios