This article about an unrelated movie deploys a piece of terminology I have never encountered: 'Voldemortian'.
Unlike most modern film violence, there's nothing exploitative, no sense of boundary-pushing for its own sake. Evil isn't some cheap Voldemortian blood-right.
The author (Film critic Phil Hoad) seeks to imply that the level of Voldemort's malevolence is somehow in excess of the conditions of its own fruition: as though to imply that Voldemort was somehow 'inherently' evil to begin with.
It seeks to discredit the characterization of Evil within JK Rowling's work as lacking in substance; evil for the sake of evil, without explanation.
Its understandable why this would be received so negatively. The concept of someone's behavior being anything other than a result of their conditions of existence is problematic, and the idea of a 'naturally evil' entity is often deployed in horror for exactly this purpose (think The Omen, The Unborn, The Bad Seed, Children of the Corn Etc. Etc.).
I recall parts of the HP novels exploring Riddle's past, but is there enough within his personal history to substantiate his eventual malice?
Which school of thought does Rowling endorse; 'Born Evil' or 'Worn Evil?'
Is there any credibility to Hoad's claim that Voldemort's immorality lacks plausible heritage?