i don't think it's the transfiguration professor's job to decide that.
He could have sent a recommendation back to Hogwarts--"Listen, this kid is using his powers in a very messed-up way and I think it would be dangerous if he was taught more about magic."
not to mention that dumbledore probably thought he could get riddle under control.
*perplexed* Possibly, but how? There was never any mention in canon, then or ever, of binding powers or restricting what Tom Riddle was doing...not even when, as Dumbledore admitted, Riddle and his followers were terrorizing other students, the staff knew it, and the staff, including Dumbledore himself, did fuck-all about it.
and he probably figured it was a bad idea to let a completely messed up kid with magical abilities that he can clearly use consciously stay to continue terrorizing the orphanage. at least at hogwarts, the other kids could fight back.
If that was the concern, why not just cast a Memory Charm on Tom and make him forget how to cast spells? That wouldn't mean that weird shit wouldn't happen around him...but he wouldn't be able to consciously harm anyone with spells, whether the person was magical or not. And wizards are constantly casting Memory Charms in the Potterverse; it's not particularly ethical, but it's common.
Also, if Dumbledore was really the Legilimens that he claimed to be (which I've been dubious about for years, given his failure to use the ability on every occasion when it would have been advantageous and/or life-saving), wouldn't he be able to check and see how disturbed Tom Riddle was? He had seven years to do so--seven years during which Riddle was harming other kids at Hogwarts. Why was Riddle more important to the staff than the kids he was hurting?
also i imagine he was a lot more charitable towards people because of his sister...
Wasn't Ariana tortured into insanity by three Muggle boys, becoming unable to control her powers after that? Given that, you'd think Dumbledore would be sympathetic to the kids that eleven-going-on-twelve-year-old Tom had already tortured, rather than to the torturer.
also he may have recognized himself somewhat in the young tom riddle and figured "well, hey, i turned out okay"
..well, maybe. But I thought Dumbles was more into discussing far-right-wing politics ("Kill all the Muggles!") with the guy he had a crush on rather than practicing torture.
I'd really like to believe that Dumbledore thought he could do turn Tom around, or control him, or at least get across that Tom couldn't torture people without suffering negative consequences. But I've never seen any canonical evidence that any of this occurred to Dumbledore, much less that it was attempted.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2016-09-03 05:48 am (UTC)He could have sent a recommendation back to Hogwarts--"Listen, this kid is using his powers in a very messed-up way and I think it would be dangerous if he was taught more about magic."
not to mention that dumbledore probably thought he could get riddle under control.
*perplexed* Possibly, but how? There was never any mention in canon, then or ever, of binding powers or restricting what Tom Riddle was doing...not even when, as Dumbledore admitted, Riddle and his followers were terrorizing other students, the staff knew it, and the staff, including Dumbledore himself, did fuck-all about it.
and he probably figured it was a bad idea to let a completely messed up kid with magical abilities that he can clearly use consciously stay to continue terrorizing the orphanage. at least at hogwarts, the other kids could fight back.
If that was the concern, why not just cast a Memory Charm on Tom and make him forget how to cast spells? That wouldn't mean that weird shit wouldn't happen around him...but he wouldn't be able to consciously harm anyone with spells, whether the person was magical or not. And wizards are constantly casting Memory Charms in the Potterverse; it's not particularly ethical, but it's common.
Also, if Dumbledore was really the Legilimens that he claimed to be (which I've been dubious about for years, given his failure to use the ability on every occasion when it would have been advantageous and/or life-saving), wouldn't he be able to check and see how disturbed Tom Riddle was? He had seven years to do so--seven years during which Riddle was harming other kids at Hogwarts. Why was Riddle more important to the staff than the kids he was hurting?
also i imagine he was a lot more charitable towards people because of his sister...
Wasn't Ariana tortured into insanity by three Muggle boys, becoming unable to control her powers after that? Given that, you'd think Dumbledore would be sympathetic to the kids that eleven-going-on-twelve-year-old Tom had already tortured, rather than to the torturer.
also he may have recognized himself somewhat in the young tom riddle and figured "well, hey, i turned out okay"
..well, maybe. But I thought Dumbles was more into discussing far-right-wing politics ("Kill all the Muggles!") with the guy he had a crush on rather than practicing torture.
I'd really like to believe that Dumbledore thought he could do turn Tom around, or control him, or at least get across that Tom couldn't torture people without suffering negative consequences. But I've never seen any canonical evidence that any of this occurred to Dumbledore, much less that it was attempted.