This is topic Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality - What if Harry was smarter than Ender? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
The greatest fanfic ever written... what if Harry Potter had been raised by loving parents, was twice as smart as Ender, and a dedicated Rationalist?
A look at the Harry Potter universe from a scientific perspective... I had a fictiongasm the whole time I was reading this.
It's also utterly hilarious.
Note: it isn't finished yet, currently at 21 chapters...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This damn fic kept me up until 3 in the morning a couple of weeks ago. It is the greatest HP fanfic ever. You should all read it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lol. i approve.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Just finished chapter one. This is awesome! Thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:"So now I've got to find some way to kill an immortal Dark Wizard," Harry said, and sighed in frustration. "I really wish you had told me that before I started shopping."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
This is brilliant.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: "But oh, Professor McGonagall, why rain on my parade? Surely this is a happy day, when I discover all things wizarding for the first time! Why act the part of the grumpy grownup when instead you could smile and remember your own innocent childhood, watching the look of delight upon my young face as I buy a few toys using an insignificant fraction of the wealth that I earned by defeating the most terrible wizard Britain has ever known, not that I'm accusing you of being ungrateful or anything, but still, what are a few toys compared to that?"
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Thanks for this! Back when I was involved in the HP fandom, I was used to wading through oceans of trash fic on ff.net to find a few gems, so having one handed to me is just awesome. Off to read Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Okay, for real, I was supposed to get some work done tonight. And now I have a sore throat from laughing so hard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh my dear God. That may well be one of the best reading experiences I have ever had.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Just started reading through it, but I had to share my favorite so far:
quote:On the other hand, one competent hedge fundie could probably own the whole wizarding world within a week. Harry filed away this notion in case he ever ran out of money, or had a week free.
Hobbes Posted by August (Member # 12307) on :
There are no words to describe this. Chapter 11 had me lawling.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by August: Chapter 11 had me lawling.
Unclean abomination.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by August: There are no words to describe this. Chapter 11 had me lawling.
Chapter 11 was pretty good.
The last of them was probably my favorite.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Would one need to read Harry Potter first to appreciate this?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I keep wondering if these accolades are all some cruel joke to get me to read this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Very fun to read. He kind of an unlikable little snot, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I found it dry and unappealing, but I only got to chapter 3.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Very fun to read. He kind of an unlikable little snot, though.
Ever hung around a dedicated capital R rationalist? haha.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, the joke is aimed as squarely at Rationalists as it is at Rowling's world-building.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Well, at least he recognizes that Rowling created an extremely rich and interesting world, despite it being chock full of little holes
Also I have just finished reading all 22 chapters and this is the best thing that has happened to me all week.
Also he actually updates regularly. This is like, incomprehensible in a fanfic author. I don't understand it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, Harry in this story is only smarter than Ender in certain areas.
In purely mathematic areas, it seems like a given, thought to be fair we never really see much of Ender's aptitude there. In dealing with people, though? Ender is unquestionably, vastly smarter. Harry in this story is actually, it turns out, quite badly, dangerously stupid when it comes to a few areas of dealing with other human beings. But it's not clear why.
Anyway, it is indeed a ton of fun:)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Would one need to read Harry Potter first to appreciate this?
Hmm. I think it would be largely incomprehensible without having read at least the first book, or having a good notion of the world.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Yeah, the joke is aimed as squarely at Rationalists as it is at Rowling's world-building.
Well, Yudkowsky seems to be a pretty hardcore rationalist IRL. http://yudkowsky.net/rational Though I suppose he can still gently mock the misuse or misinterpretation of rationalism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, Harry in this story is only smarter than Ender in certain areas.
In purely mathematic areas, it seems like a given, thought to be fair we never really see much of Ender's aptitude there. In dealing with people, though? Ender is unquestionably, vastly smarter. Harry in this story is actually, it turns out, quite badly, dangerously stupid when it comes to a few areas of dealing with other human beings. But it's not clear why.
Anyway, it is indeed a ton of fun:)
Because he is lacking in human empathy or anything resembling affection? Except possibly for his parents. I feel rather sorry for the little bugger. Every relationship dissected and manipulated.
By the later chapters, it was bordering on the annoyingly didactic.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Wait, what makes you conclude he's lacking in affection? He clearly has affection for his parents, and he has growing affection for Hermione and Draco. Dissecting and manipulating a relationship doesn't erase the emotional aspect of it, otherwise there is very little left to dissect and manipulate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Just starting chapter 16.
quote:The enemy's gate is Rowling.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Because he is lacking in human empathy or anything resembling affection? Except possibly for his parents. I feel rather sorry for the little bugger. Every relationship dissected and manipulated.
Ah, so you've read some of Yudkowsky's other work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... I feel rather sorry for the little bugger. Every relationship dissected and manipulated.
I forget. Do you watch House and how do you feel about him if you do? (All your (as a group) descriptions are starting to tempt me to read this thing)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hmm. The comparison to House (which I watch and enjoy) is apt, I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I found it dry and unappealing, but I only got to chapter 3.
I got to about chapter 7 before losing interest, but I might go back to it. I lean more towards dry and unappealing than not, but it was punctuated here and there with some pretty hilarious observations about the wizarding world.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Draco is a tool and Hermione is a tool and/or rival to be crushed. Ron, who has some great qualities - loyalty, bravery - was dismissed out-of-hand.
I still watch House occasionally but have pretty much lost interest in the characters. Also, the "medical mysteries" got both too implausible and too predictable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Draco is a tool and Hermione is a tool and/or rival to be crushed. Ron, who has some great qualities - loyalty, bravery - was dismissed out-of-hand.
That's a fair summation, but it ignores the absolute hilarity of lines like
quote:Then there was the Potter Method, which was insane.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Would one need to read Harry Potter first to appreciate this?
Hmm. I think it would be largely incomprehensible without having read at least the first book, or having a good notion of the world.
I agree. Most of the parts I found most hilarious were the interactions between Harry and Draco, which would be much less funny if you didn't know how they interacted canonically.
It will certainly be interesting to see where he's going with all this.
--Mel
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...I though I covered that sort of thing under, "very fun to read".
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: I agree. Most of the parts I found most hilarious were the interactions between Harry and Draco, which would be much less funny if you didn't know how they interacted canonically.
It will certainly be interesting to see where he's going with all this.
--Mel
Ditto. The bit in Malkin's shop was brilliant.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, Harry in this story is only smarter than Ender in certain areas.
In purely mathematic areas, it seems like a given, thought to be fair we never really see much of Ender's aptitude there. In dealing with people, though? Ender is unquestionably, vastly smarter. Harry in this story is actually, it turns out, quite badly, dangerously stupid when it comes to a few areas of dealing with other human beings. But it's not clear why.
If I had to compare him to an OSC character, he seems a fair amount more like Bean than Ender.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Eh...I though I covered that sort of thing under, "very fun to read".
You mean, you wanted me to scroll all the way back to your first comment!?
Also, new chapter's up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*grumbles about oversimplification of Mendelian genetics*
Also, the very existence of Muggleborn wizards disproves his theory of magical inheritance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because he is lacking in human empathy or anything resembling affection? Except possibly for his parents. I feel rather sorry for the little bugger. Every relationship dissected and manipulated.
What I meant is, why is he lacking in these things? Some chapters have mentioned some really impressive cold-blooded, almost insanely hateful rages. Is that Voldemort in him, or does he share a condition on his own that Voldemort did? Things like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it makes you feel any better about it, rivka, in the author's notes he goes into detail about why Harry was wrong about genetics in this case: it's not something he's really studied in depth, so Harry is quite simply wrong, that's all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *grumbles about oversimplification of Mendelian genetics*
Also, the very existence of Muggleborn wizards disproves his theory of magical inheritance.
There could be genetic, heritable conditions that suppress magical expression for generations while preserving the heritability of genetic expression, and/or potentially genetic patterns like what we have with recessive phenotype.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Because he is lacking in human empathy or anything resembling affection? Except possibly for his parents. I feel rather sorry for the little bugger. Every relationship dissected and manipulated.
What I meant is, why is he lacking in these things? Some chapters have mentioned some really impressive cold-blooded, almost insanely hateful rages. Is that Voldemort in him, or does he share a condition on his own that Voldemort did? Things like that.
The author thinks this Harry is not a Mary-Sue. It is precisely those rages that make me think otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If it makes you feel any better about it, rivka, in the author's notes he goes into detail about why Harry was wrong about genetics in this case: it's not something he's really studied in depth, so Harry is quite simply wrong, that's all.
I read his note. He's still got quite a few details wrong. *shrug*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *grumbles about oversimplification of Mendelian genetics*
Also, the very existence of Muggleborn wizards disproves his theory of magical inheritance.
There could be genetic, heritable conditions that suppress magical expression for generations while preserving the heritability of genetic expression, and/or potentially genetic patterns like what we have with recessive phenotype.
Yup. Hence my grumbling first.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For what it's worth, I think the Harry as written is absolutely a Mary Sue, albeit a carefully flawed one. Doesn't mean it's not one of the best pieces of fanfic I've ever read, though. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agree entirely.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Barring egregious examples, which could probably be just as easily criticized using other terms, I question the value in the label "Mary Sue." Most definitions I've seen could easily fit a number of wonderful and well-loved characters in various existing canon.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think the definition is really in question: it is a character inserted in the fiction as a representative of the author in the manner of wish-fulfillment. For instance, this fic is blatant Mary Sue.
Note that while it can rightly be considered a warning sign, the definition does not have anything directly to do with the quality of the story. There's nothing wrong with it applying to "a number of wonderful and well-loved characters in various existing canon".
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I've never seen that definition, fugu, and my partner used to read and write a lot of fanfiction. I saw the term thrown around a lot, and all the definitions of Mary Sue that I saw tended to be more about the character being too "perfect" in some way or another. What you're talking about sounds more to me like self-insertion. I'd say this fanfic definitely counts as that.
As far as it being a warning sign but not inherently bad... well, that's also a sentiment I haven't seen expressed all that often in most fanfic circles. The Mary Sue label carried a lot of stigma.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Being too perfect is a common symptom of wish-fulfillment. This HP is also too perfect, for instance.
The Mary Sue stigma varies a lot by fanfic community.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would say that having a Mary Sue is a warning sign, but not the kiss of death by any means. I have read some wonderful marysues. And some truly horrific ones.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: What you're talking about sounds more to me like self-insertion.
This is how I've always heard Mary Sue used.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This almost calls out for some form of reference, from some kind of archive of themes or patterns.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I dunno. It's a valiant attempt I'm sure, but it seems to be missing something. Some form of je ne sais quoi that such references are normally accompanied by.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You didn't click on at least one of those links. You may have followed the directions, though.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
No, it's not that. There's just still something missing. Oh well, the moment has passed. I guess we'll never know.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*laugh* I see the joke, Mucus.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I got it rivka. Oh, and I love peanut brittle. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by dem (Member # 2512) on :
Good to see he flatly rejected the rules of Quidditch upon first explanation. Horrible game invention (my guess is Rowling never played any sports).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Horrible game invention (my guess is Rowling never played any sports).
Or played many board games either. It's terrible game design.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I always thought that was the POINT.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I always thought that was the POINT.
The point as in wizards don't play sports the way muggles do?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That the wizarding world is so phenomenally dull that they're enthralled by as lame a game as that?
That in all the wizarding world, not one person ever realized how dull it is to have the snitch and winning of the game so much up chance?
Or that everybody in the wizarding world is such sheep that even though they all knew quiddich was lame, nobody was willing to point out that the emperor was naked?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I always thought that was the POINT.
The point as in wizards don't play sports the way muggles do?
More or less.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I always figured it was a way to make Harry into a sports hero (and work in the classic traditions of the "big game" in British schoolyard novels) despite his having never trained with anything.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I always figured it was a way to make Harry into a sports hero (and work in the classic traditions of the "big game" in British schoolyard novels) despite his having never trained with anything.
Possibly. If you took away quidditch, I imagine Harry would appeal to fewer boys, as then he would only be running around doing bookish things.
He needs some sort of physical contact activity that establishes his manliness.
If I was a quidditch coach, I'd have two maybe three players guard the rings and the rest of my team would be looking around for the snitch. Of course it could be like lacrosse where you can only have so many players at one section of the field.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I always figured it was a way to make Harry into a sports hero (and work in the classic traditions of the "big game" in British schoolyard novels) despite his having never trained with anything.
That too.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I've seen the game rules explained well in some fanfiction. I think the main points made are that in a real, professional game, the snitch is a *lot* harder to catch - and that it can't even be seen for the first hour or so of game play. Also, the seeker's job is not just to catch the snitch, but also to coordinate the offensive and defensive maneuvers of the team through calls, hand motions, and occasionally getting involved in game play. If he doesn't do that as well as search for the snitch, the other team will run up the score exceedingly quickly, because they will be better coordinated.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So someone explain to me the point of the chasers and keepers. Only in a rare instance do the points scored by the chasers come out to more than what the snitch is worth, as evidenced by everyone's surprise by the outcome of the World Cup.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Also, the seeker's job is not just to catch the snitch, but also to coordinate the offensive and defensive maneuvers of the team through calls, hand motions, and occasionally getting involved in game play.
Taking up the time of the one guy who actually matters to run the sub-game that matters not all sounds exceedingly dumb to me. The goalie or one of the useless beaters would be a much better coordinator.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
While I agree with everything Harry said about Quidditch, he was sure rude to trash Ron's favourite game to his face. What a creep! There's lots of stuff I think is dumb that I don't run down in front of someone I know likes it.
Yeah, I read the latest chapters and knew Harry was pathetically wrong with all his genetics stuff, way too many baseless assumptions. Then I read the author notes where he says Harry is *supposed* to be wrong.
The real headbanger is why Draco believes Harry about all the genetic stuff. He can reason from the data collected from the portraits or something, which seems to indicate that the overall level of magic isn't fading, but why does he then believe Harry regarding blood?
He has never heard of Mendel or studied genetics; how does he know Harry isn't making it all up, or is hopelessly wrong? (And, of course, he *is* wrong.)
Even if he believes Harry is correct about *Muggle* genetics, why would he assume (as Harry does) that it applies AT ALL to magical power?
What if magical power isn't genetic, but is more like midi-chlorians from the Star Wars prequels?
Harry was already utterly wrong about the relationship between the exact words of a spell and its efficacy; why should he have any confidence in applying Muggle science to the magical world?
He needs to spend a lot more time studying the way the magical world thinks the magical world works, and not try to make earth-shattering discoveries based on his own assumptions and ignorance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He has never heard of Mendel or studied genetics; how does he know Harry isn't making it all up, or is hopelessly wrong?
This was actually the first major plot hole that leapt out at me: Draco has no reason to believe that anything Harry says about genetics is true. It would have been more credible had Harry, say, given Draco a couple books on genetics. And, as pointed out, by that point of the story Harry should have ample reason to recognize that magic does not necessarily function in a rational way.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Also, the seeker's job is not just to catch the snitch, but also to coordinate the offensive and defensive maneuvers of the team through calls, hand motions, and occasionally getting involved in game play.
Taking up the time of the one guy who actually matters to run the sub-game that matters not all sounds exceedingly dumb to me. The goalie or one of the useless beaters would be a much better coordinator.
If the snitch doesn't show up for an hour or two into game play - and assuming that the chasers are significantly better than the grade school to high school kids we see playing at Hogwarts - then I think it's reasonable to assume that the snitch matters much less. Basically, I'm assuming that the kids at Hogwarts aren't really that good at the game. A three person team, able to move three dimensionally, aiming for three goals protected by only one goal keeper, ought to be able to score a lot of goals quickly if they're good and coordinate well - quickly enough for one side to pull ahead significantly. Rowling's books, of course, don't show this.
I'm not saying that the game makes sense. It doesn't. However, there are ways to make it make a little bit more sense than the books' version of the game.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The disclaimer from Chapter 16 made me smile:
"The enemy gate is Rowling"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:He has never heard of Mendel or studied genetics; how does he know Harry isn't making it all up, or is hopelessly wrong?
This was actually the first major plot hole that leapt out at me: Draco has no reason to believe that anything Harry says about genetics is true. It would have been more credible had Harry, say, given Draco a couple books on genetics. And, as pointed out, by that point of the story Harry should have ample reason to recognize that magic does not necessarily function in a rational way.
Thirded. This is a very large hole.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I always figured it was a way to make Harry into a sports hero (and work in the classic traditions of the "big game" in British schoolyard novels) despite his having never trained with anything.
If you read "Tom Brown's Schooldays", he's quite good at cricket without there being any explicit training montages. He just has the cricket nature, unlike Flashy who has the loser-and-bully nature. I also note that Quidditch looks a bit like someone decided to take cricket, add broomsticks, and then noticed that even with the kids flying around the game is still dull as ditchwater. So we'll add the Beaters to make it a bit more physical; but if the truth were told those balls are rather dangerous. They can't be a major plot point because there would be broken bones. (This is why they are useless, by the way - they were originally quite useful, and then when she had second thoughts Rowling didn't take them out.) So then she made it a hunt-the-snipe game instead, and kept the cricket elements to give the punters something to watch while they were buying their popcorn.
quote:Would one need to read Harry Potter first to appreciate this?
Apparently one would not even need to read the canon first to write this. The author has stated that he has not read all the books.
quote:Ender is unquestionably, vastly smarter. Harry in this story is actually, it turns out, quite badly, dangerously stupid when it comes to a few areas of dealing with other human beings.
He was homeschooled by smart people. Naturally he has difficulty, through sheer lack of practice, in interacting with neurotypicals - I use the word here not to contrast with Aspies but to contrast with high-intelligence humans. The median human is, well, the kind of person who would find Quidditch entertaining. Actually, it's worse than that; Quidditch at least offers the faint hope that one of the players might fall off and break something. The average human has been known to find cricket entertaining.
quote:Draco is a tool and Hermione is a tool and/or rival to be crushed. Ron, who has some great qualities - loyalty, bravery - was dismissed out-of-hand.
How is Harry supposed to know anything about those qualities? Let's please note that rational!Harry has not read the canon! What he sees of Ron is a tool who prattles on about the most boring game in the world to someone he's just met. Sheesh, talk about geekery. Also, you underestimate the extent to which intelligent people find neurotypicals, especially extroverted neurotypicals, really damn boring. As Harry points out, with the exception of janitorial services there's no particular need for Ron or his like to exist. So, in the wizarding world, where they've got perfectly cromulent house-elves for that sort of thing, no need at all.
Further, Draco is not a tool, he is a smart person to be redeemed from the bad ethics he's been taught; and Hermione is a rival, yes, but not to be crushed - she is a rival to spur him to greater heights of accomplishment. Also, although he hasn't realised it yet, he likes her.
ETA: Also, he does not dismiss Ron out of hand. He states "I will not allow you to dictate whom I speak to", and then allows Ron's prejudices against Malfoys (admittedly these are not unfounded) to end the conversation. If Ron weren't such a bigot he might have become friends with both Draco and Harry.
[ June 07, 2010, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not saying that the game makes sense. It doesn't. However, there are ways to make it make a little bit more sense than the books' version of the game.
Well, yeah, if you get to change the game, you can make a decent game out of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Would one need to read Harry Potter first to appreciate this?
Apparently one would not even need to read the canon first to write this. The author has stated that he has not read all the books.
Well, he has read the first 5 books, I believe. Considering that so far we've made it through less than the first book in terms of both chronology and most plot points, that seems to be sufficient.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Well, he has read the first 5 books, I believe. Considering that so far we've made it through less than the first book in terms of both chronology and most plot points, that seems to be sufficient.
Since he mentions the Cloak as a Deathly Hallow, I conjecture he's at least read summaries of the last two books? It'd be embarrassing to write any more about Snape and get something wrong because he didn't even know Snape's Secret.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My conjecture is the same, yes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As Harry points out, with the exception of janitorial services there's no particular need for Ron or his like to exist.
Better a Ron than a Draco, or a Sam than a Wormtongue. Ron's a brave, kindhearted guy who would risk death if his friends needed it. That's not to say his other qualities are stellar, or to suggest that Harry should somehow have magically seen them or something, but not only is it incredibly presumptuous to say someone 'like him' is only good for janitorial work, it's actually quite stupid.
'Smart' is not some swiss army knife tool that fits into every single problem that can be found. Generations of presumable brilliance didn't save the Malfoys, for example, from being an ongoing line of horrible sadists. Draco has just now joined that little club himself, actually, twice over now. Smart didn't save Draco from being too weak to stop himself from doing something he knew was awful. Presented with the same situation, at whose mercy would you rather be, Ron's or Sam's or Draco's or Grima's?
ETA: Wait a minute, Ron is hardly a bigot. He has heard a bunch of truly awful stories about the Malfoys...and they're true. The Malfoy creed, so far as I can tell, seems to be: Malfoys first at the expense of everything else, and get rid of (painfully would be nice) any muggles, mudbloods, squibs, or anyone friendly with such. That's what people in the HP world seem to think about the Malfoys...and they're right to think that, aren't they?
I don't particularly care about Ron - Snape is my favorite - but you're being pretty silly, KoM.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Presented with the same situation, at whose mercy would you rather be, Ron's or Sam's or Draco's or Grima's?
Ron and Sam are not smart enough to put you in that situation, so what does it matter? The question doesn't come up.
quote:Wait a minute, Ron is hardly a bigot. He has heard a bunch of truly awful stories about the Malfoys...and they're true.
They are true, but how is Ron to know that? He is in exactly the situation of a Klansman meeting his first black man: He is going on what he heard from his parents. It might actually be true that this particular black man genuinely is shiftless, cunning, and out to rape every white woman in sight and steal all your valuables, but to judge him so based on nothing more than hearsay is bigoted even if you're right.
All I'm sayin' is, give Draco a chance!
quote:Ron's a brave, kindhearted guy who would risk death if his friends needed it. That's not to say his other qualities are stellar, or to suggest that Harry should somehow have magically seen them or something, but not only is it incredibly presumptuous to say someone 'like him' is only good for janitorial work, it's actually quite stupid.
People willing to risk death for their friends are a dime a dozen. It's built into the species. People who are actually interesting to talk to are much rarer, and also more useful on a daily basis. Even at Hogwarts, situations where a sacrificable friend/mook are useful do not come up every day, or even every month.
Be honest, now: Just how many janitors are you actually friendly with? It doesn't matter how good their hearts are, you don't choose to socialise with them on a daily basis, because their concerns are boring.
quote:The Malfoy creed, so far as I can tell, seems to be: Malfoys first at the expense of everything else, and get rid of (painfully would be nice) any muggles, mudbloods, squibs, or anyone friendly with such. That's what people in the HP world seem to think about the Malfoys...and they're right to think that, aren't they?
Quite so; and thus, given that you can only improve one of these two people, would you rather give Ron a brain, or Draco a heart? Which would do more good?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:He has never heard of Mendel or studied genetics; how does he know Harry isn't making it all up, or is hopelessly wrong?
This was actually the first major plot hole that leapt out at me: Draco has no reason to believe that anything Harry says about genetics is true. It would have been more credible had Harry, say, given Draco a couple books on genetics. And, as pointed out, by that point of the story Harry should have ample reason to recognize that magic does not necessarily function in a rational way.
Thirded. This is a very large hole.
In the first place, what motive does Harry have to lie? In the second place, Draco is well-trained at human interactions; he can likely tell that Harry believes what he's saying, and he has already demonstrated that Muggle science is powerful stuff. In the third place, it fits in with what Draco is seeing in the data he just gathered. In the fourth place, Draco believes in blood and its purity; this confirms something he already believed, it just adds some more information.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Believes what he is saying =! is correct
(Go ahead, run with it. I know you want to. )
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, that's why I listed my third and fourth points.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* I don't think those even need to be refuted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ron and Sam are not smart enough to put you in that situation, so what does it matter? The question doesn't come up.
Ron and Sam aren't smart enough to, say, sneak up behind you when they're angry, clonk you on the head and torture you? Sure they are-they just wouldn't, which is the point. They aren't smart enough to put one in precisely the same situation, it's true, but just about anyone could manage an equivalent degree of suffering without much imagination.
quote:They are true, but how is Ron to know that? He is in exactly the situation of a Klansman meeting his first black man: He is going on what he heard from his parents. It might actually be true that this particular black man genuinely is shiftless, cunning, and out to rape every white woman in sight and steal all your valuables, but to judge him so based on nothing more than hearsay is bigoted even if you're right.
Except that the Malfoys embrace their reputation, in large part, except where doing so overtly would get them in some sort of legal trouble. They thrive on the intimidation and subtle threats and influence-peddling and whatnot. It's not the same thing as hating an entire race of people at all. Is it right? Well, no, not exactly-Ron really should give Draco a chance. But he has hardly wronged Draco by not doing so, since after all Draco is the kid who jokes about raping and pushing down stairs.
quote:All I'm sayin' is, give Draco a chance!
He's had a chance. When given that chance, however, he chose to torture someone terribly, possibly to the death. Just because he didn't like what he heard.
quote:People willing to risk death for their friends are a dime a dozen. It's built into the species. People who are actually interesting to talk to are much rarer, and also more useful on a daily basis. Even at Hogwarts, situations where a sacrificable friend/mook are useful do not come up every day, or even every month.
Wow, they're really not. I don't know where on Earth you could possibly get the impression that that sort of self-sacrifice is not just rare but commonplace. Even in military organizations where that sort of thing is trained for arduously and carefully it's hardly common.
As for 'interesting to talk to', well, that's a pretty subjective qualifier. I wonder where thinking there is no point in the existence of whole swaths of people puts you on such a scale? Beyond this particular disagreement which will be over soon, that sort of arrogance is really pretty boring.
quote:Be honest, now: Just how many janitors are you actually friendly with? It doesn't matter how good their hearts are, you don't choose to socialise with them on a daily basis, because their concerns are boring.
Right now? One. Thinking about it, though, he's the only one I know that I know of, presently. Over time, though, there have been several over the years. Then again, I don't vet people primarily through a smarter-than dumber-than me process, either.
quote:Quite so; and thus, given that you can only improve one of these two people, would you rather give Ron a brain, or Draco a heart? Which would do more good?
False choice, first of all. Harry is clever enough to think of any number of ways of doing so-just like he has with Hermione. Second, the reasons Draco would do more good have nothing to do with him as a human being and everything to do with his family, which is a different matter altogether, entirely separate from a precise Ron vs. Draco question.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
a) I'm pretty sure Draco said "no reason to exist," Harry just sort of agreed with him because at the time it felt sort of true.
b) the main point of the line is to be commentary on Ron's uselessness as a character. I somewhat agree with this. Ron frankly is not particularly interesting, I never found him particularly funny, he accomplishes a total of maybe 3 meaningful things in the entire story. A few plot points surround him but those plot points could have surrounded other people instead. His primary purpose seems merely to be to show that you can be... well... NORMAL in the wizarding world. That's value in that, enough to justify his inclusion in the original story in my opinion. But I totally understand the people (like this author, presumably) who just went "man, why did this guy take up1/7th of these books?"
So... between those two points, I don't think it is remotely implied that Harry genuinely thinks Ron is useless as a person, just that he's useless to Harry. Which is, frankly, true. The Weasely Twins have most of Ron's good qualities and offer Harry interesting creativity to boot, so they are the ones that have ended up more relevant to the story. (Not so much so far, but I suspect they'll be showing up more in the future).
Draco may think Ron is meaningless, but he's, well, Draco. So duh.
[ June 07, 2010, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: People willing to risk death for their friends are a dime a dozen. It's built into the species. People who are actually interesting to talk to are much rarer, and also more useful on a daily basis.
You mean it could get even more boring than listening to Harry give lectures on the scientific method? I suppose he could introduce a young, magical John Galt into the story and let him drone on for a while.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, well, since you apparently were behind the door when that part of the brain was handed out, naturally it would bore you. But come now, just how interested are you really in hearing an 11-year-old prattle on about his favourite badly-designed sport?
quote:*shrug* I don't think those even need to be refuted.
Why not?
quote:Ron and Sam aren't smart enough to, say, sneak up behind you when they're angry, clonk you on the head and torture you? Sure they are-they just wouldn't, which is the point. They aren't smart enough to put one in precisely the same situation, it's true, but just about anyone could manage an equivalent degree of suffering without much imagination.
You will please note that Draco doesn't do that either, for the good and simple reason that he would get caught. The question is not "Can we come up with some hypothetical scenario in which Ron wins", it is "Can Ron actually win under conditions remotely similar to the fictional reality he's operating in?" So no, Ron is not smart enough to get Harry into this sort of situation without the author - you, in this case - being actively on his side.
quote:Is it right? Well, no, not exactly-Ron really should give Draco a chance. But he has hardly wronged Draco by not doing so, since after all Draco is the kid who jokes about raping and pushing down stairs.
But he has wronged Draco, by pre-judging him. If he overheard Draco say those things and then stomped off in the huff, that would be one thing. But he goes purely by hearsay.
quote:Wow, they're really not. I don't know where on Earth you could possibly get the impression that that sort of self-sacrifice is not just rare but commonplace. Even in military organizations where that sort of thing is trained for arduously and carefully it's hardly common.
If you take a look at an average army in combat, you'll see people risking their lives for their comrades all the time. What's rare is people taking a 100% risk. Lots of people will jump for the grenade in an attempt to throw it back; the rarity is people who will jump on the grenade. I suspect you speak of the second kind of sacrifice, and I speak of the first. I note that Ron's knight-sacrifice in 'Chamber of Secrets' was of the first kind: He knew he was taking a risk, but he didn't know he would be killed. (And indeed he wasn't.)
quote:As for 'interesting to talk to', well, that's a pretty subjective qualifier. I wonder where thinking there is no point in the existence of whole swaths of people puts you on such a scale? Beyond this particular disagreement which will be over soon, that sort of arrogance is really pretty boring.
Yes, yes, you're very good at signalling that you really care even about the slow people and that you don't associate with such as don't signal same. But as a matter of actual fact you're right here talking to me.
quote:Right now? One. Thinking about it, though, he's the only one I know that I know of, presently. Over time, though, there have been several over the years. Then again, I don't vet people primarily through a smarter-than dumber-than me process, either.
Yes you do, it's just that your acceptable window includes more of the bell curve than mine does. I keep forgetting that not many people, even in the educated upper third of the bell curve, are quite as atypical as I am, so I calibrated my question wrongly. How many IQ-70 (indicating a broad range of sub-normal intellect rather than a specific IQ number, here) handicapped people do you have conversations with on a regular basis?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Other reactions:
Harry is one hell of a Marty Stu, and I do not care in the slightest because he is awesome. I understand the people who don't like him (in particular who don't like his inner monologue). But while he's a bit of an exaggeration (smarter than me, with bigger flaws), pretty much every trait that has been praised or criticized in this thread is something I myself have had to deal with.
He gets to say the sorts of things I'd want to say all the time, and it's fun to watch when he's getting away with absolutely ridiculous things. Yet it doesn't feel like pure escapist Marty Stu-ism because all of his ridiculous actions end up having major consequences.
His "cold, calculating side" is something I've worried about myself. I don't lack for real, genuine relationships, but I do see the world through a mechanical, deterministic, logical lens that at times has made me feel a little inhuman.
Was it mean to trash Ron's favorite game? Well, yeah. But if someone spent 15 minutes about a ridiculous game that made no sense, honestly I'd probably have had exactly Harry's reaction. I live in a subculture where dissecting things and why they don't work is just part of ordinary conversation. It would certainly behoove Harry (and me) to get better at learning when to shut up and follow the social norms of other people, but there is nothing inherently better about prattling on about a sport you think is amazing that everyone should no about than prattling on about why that sport is ridiculous.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why not?
Because I don't find them remotely convincing.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
The thing I love about this fic so much is that Harry's criticisms about the wizarding world are exactly the sorts of things I think about it. I like the Harry Potter stories, but there is lots about it that Just Bugs Me, and this fic addresses it in a hilarious way, by having a character do it in-story. That makes me laugh and laugh and laugh.
By chapter 23 though, I'm now genuinely interested in seeing where this new story goes. We've left the confines of the book at this point and are moving into uncharted territory. Philosopher's Stone? Harry won't be trying to get it, and so there is no chance of Voldy getting it, because it can only be retrieved by someone who wants it but won't use it.
So the whole climax of book one is already moot, and here it is October of Harry's first year...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm kind of having the opposite reaction here: I loved the beginning but the farther down I move the less I like it. I think the long monologues with Quirrell are where it really took a down-turn for me. Even when Harry's involved it still reads like a monologue, and same for his conversations with others. Don't get me wrong, for free, fanfic this is very good and I enjoyed it, I'm just not as impressed as a lot of others seem to be.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: People willing to risk death for their friends are a dime a dozen. It's built into the species. People who are actually interesting to talk to are much rarer, and also more useful on a daily basis.
You mean it could get even more boring than listening to Harry give lectures on the scientific method? I suppose he could introduce a young, magical John Galt into the story and let him drone on for a while.
Exactly; I think it's funny I was comparing a lot of it to that ridiculously long 'radio sermon' by Galt in Atlas Shrugged just as you (apparently) were, and then it was mentioned in the story as an item of ridicule. Very amusing.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The long monologues with Quirrell interested me a fair amount, because I'm pretty sure that's Voldemort speaking -- and it's interesting to see what a Rationalist writer would consider to be the pragmatic rhetoric of someone evil but also rational.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm pretty sure that's Voldemort speaking
I am as well. But somehow, I just don't care. Blah, blah, blah.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Out of curiosity, Tom, what is your definition of "evil"?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm pretty sure that's Voldemort speaking
I am as well. But somehow, I just don't care. Blah, blah, blah.
Yep.
On other topics, I've always felt that my sleep cycle is like that. I don't know what the exact time is, but if I get a full 8 hours of sleep there's no way I'm tired 16 hours later. I find that if there are no time commitments my desired sleep time continues moving backwards. It's probably about three hours but I really haven't ever kept close enough track to know (it's not often I get enough sleep and have no time constraints). Anyways, I certainly never got special consideration in school for this, but … whatever. It’s not like I’m the only one that’s been tired at work or school. Is this an actual thing, or is it basically made up? Just a product of … I don’t know, something else?
When I was hyperthyroid I had this pretty badly. One summer (when I was unemployed) I consistently drifted out of phase except for the few days a cycle where I'd line up with the rest of the world. Treating my Grave's Disease and getting a full time job cured this in me.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Also, you underestimate the extent to which intelligent people find neurotypicals, especially extroverted neurotypicals, really damn boring.
I might have to quote this. Many times, and in every place relevant. I might have to print this on a t-shirt and wear it to family reunions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I may have to get one that proclaims, "Neurotypical and proud of it", so all you special people are forewarned.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I loved the beginning but the farther down I move the less I like it. I think the long monologues with Quirrell are where it really took a down-turn for me. Even when Harry's involved it still reads like a monologue, and same for his conversations with others.
I definitely understand; I don't mind because I'm interested in that part of it for its own sake, but someone that was primarily a Harry Potter fan would find a lot of parts of it tedious because its gone too far into the author's pet themes.
This is basically a crossover work, and for a crossover to be enjoyable someone has to be reasonably familiar (and like!) both elements. A Star Wars/Twilight crossover could be written brilliantly (I guess...) but someone who is only a fan of Star Wars probably wouldn't enjoy it.
It's just that all the monologuing is about stuff I think about anyway, so it doesn't bother me ;-)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: You will please note that Draco doesn't do that either, for the good and simple reason that he would get caught. The question is not "Can we come up with some hypothetical scenario in which Ron wins", it is "Can Ron actually win under conditions remotely similar to the fictional reality he's operating in?" So no, Ron is not smart enough to get Harry into this sort of situation without the author - you, in this case - being actively on his side.
Well, no, the question is, "Whose mercy would you rather be at after you had - in their perception - wronged them, Draco or Ron?" I would rather be at Ron's, even though he wouldn't do something that would make me want to be at Draco's-which is the point of the question. But are you telling me Ron isn't smart enough to sneak up behind Harry and clonk him on the head? C'mon.
quote:But he has wronged Draco, by pre-judging him. If he overheard Draco say those things and then stomped off in the huff, that would be one thing. But he goes purely by hearsay.
He didn't pre-judge Draco out of nothing, is the point. He prejudged Draco out of pretty accurate public opinion, as well as his own family dealings with the Malfoys. The Weasleys being who they are, do you think they haven't had some run-ins with the Malfoys?
quote:If you take a look at an average army in combat, you'll see people risking their lives for their comrades all the time. What's rare is people taking a 100% risk. Lots of people will jump for the grenade in an attempt to throw it back; the rarity is people who will jump on the grenade. I suspect you speak of the second kind of sacrifice, and I speak of the first. I note that Ron's knight-sacrifice in 'Chamber of Secrets' was of the first kind: He knew he was taking a risk, but he didn't know he would be killed. (And indeed he wasn't.)
I'm speaking of both, because...look at the average army in combat: the number of soldiers in it, how much of a percentage of the national population do they represent? How long did they have to be trained in order to take, say, 50% lethal risk for their friends? And even with those factors, they don't always do it. Your notion that friends willing to risk death for other friends being commonplace is pretty strange. What's commonplace is lauding that virtue, not the virtue itself.
That virtue can be trained into a great many people, but that's not the same thing, is it?
quote:Yes, yes, you're very good at signalling that you really care even about the slow people and that you don't associate with such as don't signal same. But as a matter of actual fact you're right here talking to me.
I said I don't associate with such as don't signal same? I'm not aware of where I said that. What I said is that those who don't signal same are pretty tedious, at least in that aspect. Anyway, it's not that I especially care about 'the slow people', anymore than I care much about any odd rhetorical huge group of people-it's just that I don't write them off as useless.
quote: Yes you do, it's just that your acceptable window includes more of the bell curve than mine does. I keep forgetting that not many people, even in the educated upper third of the bell curve, are quite as atypical as I am, so I calibrated my question wrongly. How many IQ-70 (indicating a broad range of sub-normal intellect rather than a specific IQ number, here) handicapped people do you have conversations with on a regular basis?
I said I don't vet them primarily through such a process. As to your question, I really don't know. There are some people I have conversations with regularly who seem to me to be, frankly, stupid as hell. But I don't know that they fall that low on an IQ scale.
-------
quote:
Harry is one hell of a Marty Stu, and I do not care in the slightest because he is awesome. I understand the people who don't like him (in particular who don't like his inner monologue). But while he's a bit of an exaggeration (smarter than me, with bigger flaws), pretty much every trait that has been praised or criticized in this thread is something I myself have had to deal with.
Oh, I like him and think he's interesting. I usually don't talk about characters I don't think are interesting, even if I hate `em. In fact, hatin' `em is usually a sign I think they're interesting.
quote: Was it mean to trash Ron's favorite game? Well, yeah. But if someone spent 15 minutes about a ridiculous game that made no sense, honestly I'd probably have had exactly Harry's reaction. I live in a subculture where dissecting things and why they don't work is just part of ordinary conversation. It would certainly behoove Harry (and me) to get better at learning when to shut up and follow the social norms of other people, but there is nothing inherently better about prattling on about a sport you think is amazing that everyone should no about than prattling on about why that sport is ridiculous.
I don't have a beef with him trashing Ron's favorite game.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:look at the average army in combat: the number of soldiers in it, how much of a percentage of the national population do they represent?
If you consider WWII, then in any of the major belligerents, the army would be a very high percentage of males between, say, 18 and 24, and pretty high for males between 18 and 30. Observe that Russia had 14% of its prewar population become casualties. How many risks do you think those soldiers were taking for their friends? In how large a sample?
quote:He didn't pre-judge Draco out of nothing, is the point.
And the Klansman doesn't pre-judge the black out of nothing, either. I am now repeating points I have made before, so this conversation may be nearing the end of its usefulness.
quote: But are you telling me Ron isn't smart enough to sneak up behind Harry and clonk him on the head?
No, that's just the sort of plan Ron would come up with. I'm saying it wouldn't work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And the Klansman doesn't pre-judge the black out of nothing, either. I am now repeating points I have made before, so this conversation may be nearing the end of its usefulness.
The Klansman pre-judges black people (and every non-white conservative Christian, really) on the basis of what they have heard from other untrustworthy people who also hate black people, often without ever even having met one or heard anything about them from trustworthy sources. Ron pre-judges Draco for different reasons, from trustworthy sources who as it turns out are not only right, but might be understating the case. It's not really an equivalent situation just because both are pre-judging. Prejudging isn't some inherently awful thing-it depends on the context.
But let's be serious here, or as serious as we can about such things: if you were someone in the HP universe, would you pre-judge Draco as someone to be, at best, someone to not put your back to? I never met Charles Manson, either, and have no personal experience with him-but I'm not about to have him over for tea and scones either, even if it were possible.
quote:If you consider WWII, then in any of the major belligerents, the army would be a very high percentage of males between, say, 18 and 24, and pretty high for males between 18 and 30. Observe that Russia had 14% of its prewar population become casualties. How many risks do you think those soldiers were taking for their friends? In how large a sample?
Now you're changing the situation, first of all. When you add exterior pressures, things become a bit different. But even in those pressures-military drafts, if I'm not mistaken draftees made up a bigger percentage than volunteers-and of the volunteers, how many of them volunteered because they thought they would be drafted anyway?
The kind of self-sacrifice we're talking about isn't common, and even in soldiers, it is trained into them. The very fact that you have to look at one of the bloodiest, most awful wars that has happened to support your premise, WWII between Germany and the USSR, ought to belabor that point.
quote:No, that's just the sort of plan Ron would come up with. I'm saying it wouldn't work.
Really? Smarter people aren't overpowered by dumber people using brute force unexpectedly all the time? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The kind of self-sacrifice we're talking about isn't common, and even in soldiers, it is trained into them. The very fact that you have to look at one of the bloodiest, most awful wars that has happened to support your premise, WWII between Germany and the USSR, ought to belabor that point.
A draft does not work if the people being drafted don't believe it is in some sense just. Look at Vietnam. The German soldiers on the Western and Italian fronts could have surrendered and been confident of good treatment; by 1944, it must have been clear to them that they were losing, and badly. Yet they fought on, against an army with ten times their artillery and a hundred times their air support, far beyond the point where it was hopeless.
A draft changes who gets into the battle lines, but it does little to change what happens there: Ordinary men display courage and self-sacrifice. It happens all the time. We give out medals to the most extreme examples, if they happen to come to the attention of an officer; but for every Victoria Cross pinned on someone's chest there are a hundred unsung Military Medals. And if you don't like the draft, how about the Somme? Kitchener's army were all volunteers, and a nearly perfect cross-section of British society. A hundred thousand of them marched into the machine guns, and twenty thousand died in a single day. If that is not courage, the word has no meaning.
quote:The Klansman pre-judges black people (and every non-white conservative Christian, really) on the basis of what they have heard from other untrustworthy people who also hate black people, often without ever even having met one or heard anything about them from trustworthy sources.
And just what is the difference between the Klansman trusting his parents, and Ron trusting his parents? And don't say 'trustworthy' as though it settles something, because Ron doesn't know that. You have to judge from Ron's knowledge, not your knowledge.
quote:Really? Smarter people aren't overpowered by dumber people using brute force unexpectedly all the time?
Just how many non-fictional examples can you think of where someone literally snuck up behind someone else and took a club to them? It's quite a bit harder to sneak up on people than you would think, largely because this is the sort of strategy that worked on our monkey ancestors and we're rather attuned to it by now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Just how many non-fictional examples can you think of where someone literally snuck up behind someone else and took a club to them? It's quite a bit harder to sneak up on people than you would think, largely because this is the sort of strategy that worked on our monkey ancestors and we're rather attuned to it by now.
Mugging statistics in any major city would seem to disagree with you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A mugger does not sneak up on anyone. He uses intimidation by having superior weaponry, not stealth and a club.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
In movies, it's usually a terrified but plucky lady with a lamp.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Just how many non-fictional examples can you think of where someone literally snuck up behind someone else and took a club to them?
In the halls of any middle school or high school, you can find bullies literally sneaking up behind someone and physically pestering them (flicking their ears, kicking them, putting signs on them, putting gum in their hair, etc.). They're not hitting with a club, but they certainly could be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A mugger does not sneak up on anyone. He uses intimidation by having superior weaponry, not stealth and a club.
That depends. Hiding in the shadows (of trees, of a parking garage, etc.) is often part of it. And plenty of muggers are successful with nothing more dangerous than a knife or a length of pipe.
You should read more police blotters.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
While the way KofM put it makes it hard to agree with him, his point is valid. I tried going to a book club from my church. I went a few weeks and while I like the concept of a book club, I just couldn't handle it with those people. I would come with lots of thoughts on deeper themes and possible subtly influences and then I would spend the whole time explaining to them the basic plot because they somehow despite reading the book missed that. Like, at one point, people actually said that Persuasion by Jane Austin was really too challenging of a read. They ran into a problem because they read a book North and South and despite sending out to group members the book's name, author and description (description was also given verbally when we voted on which book to read), half the group read the wrong book (two books are named North and South) I felt like a teacher explaining the plot and vocab words to people, not part of a discussion. Which is why I dropped out, which probably made most of them enjoy the club more as well.
I also looked around at the friends I have kept in touch with over the years and they are all pretty smart. They might be stay at home moms, like me, but they are pretty smart- while I don't actually think credentials prove intelligence, my daughter's two best friends (which at this age is based on who I take the effort to call) both have mds for moms. So, while I never consciously set out to avoid "neurotypical" people, I don't actually have any stupid friends. Friendships take a lot of work to cultivate and the people I put that work into are all smart. Now, when I worked, I did tend to hang out a lot with the secretaries, though that could just have been the fact that they were the only ones who had kids- also, most of the secretaries had at least a master's so they weren't stupid, they just weren't motivated- which fits me really well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... The Klansman pre-judges black people (and every non-white conservative Christian, really) on the basis of what they have heard from other untrustworthy people ...
Tangent: Culture gap question, in what way does a Klansman prejudge non-white conservative Christian that would differ from the way they prejudge (or not) non-white liberal Christians or non-white non-Christians?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
A better example than Charles Manson would be how you would react to Manson's 11 year old son.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, ok. Ron probably can get the drop on Harry if he's sufficiently motivated. Draco, however, has a much lower motivation threshold; it makes a lot of sense to keep him where you can see him. (As evidenced by the canon; notice that this Draco is a lot deadlier than the canon Draco, since Yudkowsky upgrades the villains in accordance with his hero upgrade. Observe that first-year canon!Draco does not know any torture spells.)
Loyal friends, on the other hand, Harry seems to attract anyway; he has half of Gryffindor eating out of his hand already.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Friends or admirers? Friend, to me, implies affection on both sides. Harry doesn't seem to feel real affection for anyone except his parents and, perhaps, Professor McGonnigle.
Having someone eating out of your hand does not make them a friend.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough, but the virtue you originally cited in Ron was that he would sacrifice himself for a friend. This does not require that the friend would reciprocate, eh?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Harry doesn't seem to feel real affection for anyone except his parents and, perhaps, Professor McGonnigle.
I think this is a misreading of the character. Harry feels affection for a lot of people in the story; he just doesn't let that affection prevent him from doing what he considers to be the necessary thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Tom, where do you see that? He may feel a sort of noblesse oblige, but I didn't see affection. Maybe some creepy hero-worship of Voldemort.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He may feel a sort of noblesse oblige, but I didn't see affection.
Read his interactions with Hermione and Draco again, keeping in mind that Harry is not perfectly self-aware.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Trying to figure out what's different about this HP universe's starting conditions:
1) Petunia married a scientist instead of Vernon Dursley 2) Harry has a 26-hour-cycle sleep disorder 3) Voldemort is more interested in Muggles and has put one of his Horcruxes on Pioneer 2 4) Ron's rat is dead 5) Dumbledore and/or the mysterious note writer already knows the cloak to be a Deathly Hallow. (This one I'd figure to be a mistake on the part of the fanfic author, no one knew this for sure until much later.)
Any others?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:It's not really an equivalent situation just because both are pre-judging. Prejudging isn't some inherently awful thing-it depends on the context.
Actually pre-judging *is* always awful, even though someone can prejudge and be right by accident. I can make moral decisions by flipping a coin, that doesn't make the outcome always wrong, but my reasoning would ALWAYS be wrong.
Anyway, aren't we assuming that Ron hates Draco Malfoy because of his family, as opposed to having actually met him at some point?
Presumably Ron's family told him that Lucius was evil. If he then doesn't like Lucius, that isn't actually pre-judging. It would be judging, based on evidence provided by his family.
If, however, he dislikes Draco because he is Lucius' son, without having encountered any evidence (provided by his family otherwise) that Draco himself is evil, then he is definitely being prejudiced.
But what if he has met Draco and knows he's a scumbag? The Wizarding World is not that large. What if he's heard specific things about Draco that show him to be horrible? As opposed to assuming (prejudging) that he is, just because his father is?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Of course he cares. He cares deeply. Absent gods help us, he goes into guilt-spasms over accidentally waking up the Sorting Hat! He just doesn't do the usual signalling behaviours that indicate caring, and this looks to you like detachment. He defends Neville from a bunch of bullies; he finds his frog for him; he aims the fighting curse at himself rather than another student in the face of the full pressure that Quirrell is able to bring on him. Just exactly what more do you want? Spitting in Draco's face on the grounds that Draco is Teh Evol?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Presumably Ron's family told him that Lucius was evil. If he then doesn't like Lucius, that isn't actually pre-judging. It would be judging, based on evidence provided by his family.
Yes, yes. I've made this point several times already. This is the same form of 'judgement' that the Klansman applies to the black. Some forms of evidence are just so weak that it's not right to use them to dismiss another human being.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Of course he cares. He cares deeply. Absent gods help us, he goes into guilt-spasms over accidentally waking up the Sorting Hat! He just doesn't do the usual signalling behaviours that indicate caring, and this looks to you like detachment. He defends Neville from a bunch of bullies; he finds his frog for him; he aims the fighting curse at himself rather than another student in the face of the full pressure that Quirrell is able to bring on him. Just exactly what more do you want? Spitting in Draco's face on the grounds that Draco is Teh Evol?
All of that is about himself and how he believes moral people behave. It is a good thing, but it isn't friendship. He didn't save Neville because he cared for Neville; he saved Neville because that is what one does. Neville could have been anyone.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well yes. He would have saved Ron or Draco if they were in trouble. Just what is it you want him to do?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Of course he cares. He cares deeply. Absent gods help us, he goes into guilt-spasms over accidentally waking up the Sorting Hat! He just doesn't do the usual signalling behaviours that indicate caring, and this looks to you like detachment. He defends Neville from a bunch of bullies; he finds his frog for him; he aims the fighting curse at himself rather than another student in the face of the full pressure that Quirrell is able to bring on him. Just exactly what more do you want? Spitting in Draco's face on the grounds that Draco is Teh Evol?
I think they're talking less about Harry not being "good," and more about the fact that Harry doesn't form close emotional bonds. So they're not looking for him to spit at Draco, they're looking at him to... I dunno, give him a hug or something. Or think to himself "gee, Hermione's nice person. I like her."
The main thing (which you did address) is that he doesn't do the normal emotional signaling that you're typical human does. My own thought process is similar to how Harry operates here, and I know that I have plenty of emotional connections. But I can imagine how someone whose thought process is less hyperrational would be weirded out by it. I don't think there's anything the author can really do to address this issue. I don't think Rowling described HarryPrime's feelings as any more compassionate than this Harry, it's just that, in addition, this Harry is constantly evaluating everything in a cold, utilitarian manner, which implies to some people that the feelings you'd just take for granted that HarryPrime felt are not there.
The main thing to remember, IMO, is that up until the last few chapters, we have been seeing Harry's interactions with people he has known for less than a week. There is nobody here he should be expected to be close friends with already. HarryPrime lucked into a close friendship with Ron very quickly. Occasionally that happens to me, but most of the time starting out in a new social environment it takes me a while to get to know people and come to care about them. I didn't really connect with my classmates in college until the last few months.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It's also worth remembering that the people in the story are 11. Especially when talking about Ron's prejudging Draco.
Hobbes Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Trying to figure out what's different about this HP universe's starting conditions:
1) Petunia married a scientist instead of Vernon Dursley 2) Harry has a 26-hour-cycle sleep disorder 3) Voldemort is more interested in Muggles and has put one of his Horcruxes on Pioneer 2 4) Ron's rat is dead 5) Dumbledore and/or the mysterious note writer already knows the cloak to be a Deathly Hallow. (This one I'd figure to be a mistake on the part of the fanfic author, no one knew this for sure until much later.)
Any others?
Doesn't Quirrel NOT have Voldemort attached to him? It seemed to me that Quirrel HAD been in cahoots with Voldemort in the past, but had since severed the connection. The severing may have been after he visited Pioneer 2 (a Horcrux there is possible but not official).
I think "something happened to scabbers" would more accurately be described as "something happened to Peter Pettigrew." It's looking to me like this is an alternate universe in which someone specifically attempted to subvert the original story. My guess is there are in fact two meddlers, both as intelligent as Harry, one good(ish) and one evil(ish). I don't think Quirrel is one of the meddlers. I think one of the Meddlers (presumably the "good" one which also killed Scabbers) intercepted him and convinced him to turn against Voldemort. Quirrel may be part of a new conspiracy but I don't think he's the originator.
I think Time Travel will ultimately be involved as the explanation for why the world is different. There's too many things that clearly are SUPPOSED to have happened the original way (Dumbledore assuming Harry had a terrible childhood). The fact that Time Travel exists and that wizards don't seem to exploit it is clearly something the author intends to address in more detail. I'm not sure how exactly that'll work out since the current understanding of Time Travel suggests that you can't actually change things.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:a Horcrux there is possible but not official
It was confirmed in the author's notes for that chapter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Raymond, I think Dumbledore assumes Harry had a terrible childhood because that's simply how these things are supposed to go, and he is not insensitive to narrative traditions and Quest Logic.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Hmm, I guess.
Is there a place you can read all the author's notes? I can only seem to find the ones for 22-23.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well yes. He would have saved Ron or Draco if they were in trouble. Just what is it you want him to do?
I am sure he is being just perfect for a little, fictional Rationalist. I don't think he needs to do anything different. That I don't like him much and think he is a bit sad probably wouldn't bother him in the least.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But I am genuinely curious what sort of thing he would be doing that WOULD make him likeable and less sad to you.
Edit: corollary question - did you like Bean?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Is there a place you can read all the author's notes? I can only seem to find the ones for 22-23.
No, he warns that they disappear as each new chapter is posted.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Is there a reason for that? I saw the warning for 22-23, I assumed that was because they would be somehow addressed in the next chapter.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Is there a reason for that?
I assume readability of the page, but who knows.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But I am genuinely curious what sort of thing he would be doing that WOULD make him likeable and less sad to you.
Edit: corollary question - did you like Bean?
I don't know. Develop some empathy? Be a tad less smug? Again, I don't know that it would be possible or even, from his perspective, desirable. If I could be otherwise manipulated to his ends, why should he bother?
I don't really remember how I felt about Bean.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Bean did develop more empathy over the course of the novel and get genuine friends, but it happened over the course of years. I do expect Harry will develop emotionally over the course of the story, but the point is to show the growth over time.
quote:Again, I don't know that it would be possible or even, from his perspective, desirable
Bear in mind the changes I am asking about are changes the author would be making, period, to the entire story, to make Harry a more likeable protagonist. Not changes that the current Harry would consciously decide to adopt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wouldn't those choices miss the point of the story?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
wait what? Which choices?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Changes to make Harry more likable for me. I mean, he is supposed to be a Rationalist, yes? To change him from that would mess with the whole premise.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I guess the issue is: is it possible for you to like a Rationalist, period. Harry is not the only type of Rationalist out there. You can be a Rationalist without having an unholy dark side that comes over you whenever you get angry, or being a child prodigy that grew up with no friends. Even if you do have those traits (as you pretty much have to to be Harry in this story), you can be a Rationalist that simply cares more about people than about achieving omnipotence and fixing the laws of physics because you don't like them. Rationalism determines how you act based on your core desires, not what those desires are.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
The self-styled King of Men wrote:
quote:Yes, yes. I've made this point several times already. This is the same form of 'judgement' that the Klansman applies to the black.
That's a ludicrous analogy though, because "the black" is not a person. Hearing evidence about a specific individual and what they have specifically done is in NO SENSE analogous to klansmen telling their kids about what "black people are like."
Judging an individual based on what you've heard about that individual: judging. Perhaps the judgment is faulty, if the evidence is faulty.
Judging an individual based NOT on what you've heard about that individual, but about what you assume is true, based on information about a group they supposedly share common characteristics with: pre-judging.
It's stupid to think that you can't judge a person unless you've met them and find out for themselves what they are like. So when I hear about a parent breaking their kid's nose in the middle of Walmart for daring to ask for ice cream, I can't think they are a bad person because I don't know them, I just heard it on the news or from people I trust that were there...
I suppose your moral is that because some parents (i.e. klansmen) misuse parental authority and falsify evidence, that that means all facts garnered about individuals from one's parents are suspect and should be ignored until independently verified? Even if said parents have a reputation for being honest and not crazy?
That's not what I call a rational method at arriving at the truth. I think Ron can determine that his parents aren't klansmen, and that what they say specifically about Lucius is actually true. Especially since we, as observers, know that it is. In fact, we know a lot *more* horrible things about Lucius than even the Weasely's do.
Remember, Lucius isn't some nobody that Ron knows nothing about except from his (possible klansmen) parents. He's one of the key figures. It's a matter of public record that he helped Voldemort. It's no secret he's a blood purist. Which makes him the klansman, not Ron's parents.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I guess the issue is: is it possible for you to like a Rationalist, period. .
Hmmm...could he be a Rationalist without being smug and superior? Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Seatarsprayan- the problem is that Ron judges not Lucius, but Draco. When Draco entered the school, had he done anything evil? At this point, it seems like all we know about the kid is that his dad is evil beyond belief. It is a bit unfair to judge the kid based on his dad.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it's significantly less unfair to judge a child based on their parent than a person based on their race. Yes, it's still unfair to some degree, but children ARE strongly influenced by their parents. I think it'd be fine to be cautious around Draco, but not fair to yell "DON'T HANG OUT WITH HIM" as Ron did.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I guess the issue is: is it possible for you to like a Rationalist, period. .
Hmmm...could he be a Rationalist without being smug and superior?
Without being smug? Maybe. Without being superior? Nope. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well there is your answer.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
At least we can all agree that dumb people are a real snoozefest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, clearly, I don't agree on that. So, no.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's generally my experience that, "Stupid people are boring!" is a statement that says more about the speaker's feelings of superiority than it really does about the subject's intelligence, whether the subject if dumb or not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So your contention is that the actual causality runs the other way, that if I find someone boring I will conclude that they are also stupid?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not necessarily. You could find someone boring for other reasons. "Stupid people are boring," is not the same as, "Only stupid people are boring."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So your contention is that the actual causality runs the other way, that if I find someone boring I will conclude that they are also stupid?
Nope. There are people who I know are quite intelligent but are, to me, pretty boring.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So your contention is that the actual causality runs the other way, that if I find someone boring I will conclude that they are also stupid?
Nope. There are people who I know are quite intelligent but are, to me, pretty boring.
Yes, but my 'I' was intended to be specific. I do not think you propose this as a general pattern, I am asking whether you think this is why I say that stupid people are boring.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would guess that you could also find people boring for other reasons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... The Klansman pre-judges black people (and every non-white conservative Christian, really) on the basis of what they have heard from other untrustworthy people ...
Tangent: Culture gap question, in what way does a Klansman prejudge non-white conservative Christian that would differ from the way they prejudge (or not) non-white liberal Christians or non-white non-Christians?
Bumped for Rakeesh, some cultural thing I'm not aware of?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would guess that you could also find people boring for other reasons.
Quite so, I'm aware of some quite intelligent people who are really terrible speakers or explainers. But my question for Rakeesh is this: Given that I dismiss someone as stupid and therefore boring, is it your contention that I actually don't have an estimate of their intelligence? In other words, do I find such people stupid because they are boring, instead of the other way around?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Seatarsprayan- the problem is that Ron judges not Lucius, but Draco. When Draco entered the school, had he done anything evil? At this point, it seems like all we know about the kid is that his dad is evil beyond belief. It is a bit unfair to judge the kid based on his dad.
I know, but see my earlier point, being that we don't know for sure if Ron is pre-judging Draco because we don't know what he's heard about him; we don't know that he hasn't actually seen Draco be bigoted, or even met him before, or what.
Draco is not a nobody, he's the son of one of the most powerful and influential wizards in Britain.
Ron is a pureblood wizard himself, the wizarding community is *small*, it actually seems somewhat less likely that he'd never even laid eyes on Draco until the first day of school. And even so, you'd think word would spread about Draco being a bigot and all.
Of course, if Ron has never met Draco, nor seen him, nor even heard evidence firsthand, but only secondhand, thirdhand, fourthhand rumors and such, then that would make Ron unfortunately credulous (which certainly is possible!). Does the fact the rumors are in fact true mitigate it a little?
My point is only this: we'd have to know Ron's actual thought processes to know for sure if he arrived at the (true) conclusion "Draco is a jerk" in an acceptable way or not. Calling him prejudiced or a klansman or whatever is going a bit far without more proof.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I guess some stupid people could be entertaining. It's fun to watch goldfish swim around.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:My point is only this: we'd have to know Ron's actual thought processes to know for sure if he arrived at the (true) conclusion "Draco is a jerk" in an acceptable way or not. Calling him prejudiced or a klansman or whatever is going a bit far without more proof.
Ok, this is fair enough, I concede the point. But let's have another look at what Harry knows about Ron's thought processes, based on those five or ten minutes' acquaintance.
1. He is a sports geek (and sheesh, if any kind of neurotypical is worse than the extroverted one it's the sports-obsessed one), and the sport is very badly designed at that, yet he's not willing to consider that a change might be an improvement. 2. He does not give any sort of argument for why Harry should not associate with Draco; he just says, "Him or me." If he knows Draco is a jerk, why not present some evidence? But no, he goes instantly for the appeal to emotion; he apparently believes himself so worthy of loyalty from Harry - whom he met ten minutes ago - that he can make the demand "Stop associating with this guy" and be obeyed without question. Sheesh, talk about arrogance! Draco, on the other hand, is smart enough to play the game of flattering and counter-flattering, and willing to talk about something other than an absent-gods-help-us sport besides.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Before Ron's ultimatum, there is quite a bit of an exchange with all three of them in which Draco is pretty obnoxious. So is Harry. Afterwards, Harry and Draco smugly agree that there is no reason for Ron to exist.
Yeah. Unlikable little snot.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Are you referring to this?
quote:"You get away from... from Mr. Gold," Ron said coldly, and took a step forward. "He doesn't need to talk to the likes of you!"
Harry raised a placating hand. "I'll go by Mr. Bronze, thanks for the naming schema. And, Ron, um," Harry struggled to find a way to say this, "I'm glad you're so... enthusiastic about protecting me, but I don't particularly mind talking to Draco -"
This was apparently the last straw for Ron, who spun on Harry with eyes now aflame with outrage. "What? Do you know who this is?"
"Yes, Ron," Harry said, "you may remember that I called him Draco without him needing to introduce himself."
Draco sniggered. Then his eyes lit on the white owl on Ron's shoulder. "Oh, what's this?" Draco said in a drawl rich with malice. "Where is the famous Weasley family rat?"
"Buried in the backyard," Ron said coldly.
"Aw, how sad. Pot... ah, Mr. Bronze, I should mention that the Weasley family is widely agreed to have the best pet story ever. Want to tell it, Weasley?"
Ron's face contorted. "You wouldn't think it was funny if it happened to your family!"
"Oh," Draco purred, "but it wouldn't ever happen to the Malfoys."
Ron's hands clenched into fists -
"That's enough," Harry said, putting as much quiet authority into the voice as he could manage. It was clear that whatever this was, it was a painful memory for the red-haired kid. "If Ron doesn't want to talk about it, he doesn't have to talk about it, and I'd ask that you not talk about it either."
Draco turned a surprised look on Harry, and Ron nodded. "That's right, Harry! I mean Mr. Bronze! You see what kind of person he is? Now tell him to go away!"
Harry counted to ten inside his head, which for him was a very quick 12345678910 - an odd habit left over from the age of five when his mother had first instructed him to do it, and Harry had reasoned that his way was faster and ought to be just as effective. "Ron," Harry said calmly, "I'm not telling him to go away. He's welcome to talk to me if he wants."
"Well, I don't intend to hang around with anyone who hangs around with Draco Malfoy," Ron announced coldly.
Harry shrugged. "That's up to you. I don't intend to let anyone say who I can and can't hang around with." Silently chanting, please go away, please go away...
Ron's face went blank with surprise, like he'd actually expected that line to work. Then Ron spun about, yanked his luggage's leash and stormed off down the platform.
I'll admit that Draco is being his usual unloveable self here, the one we know so well from the canon, but I don't quite see what Harry is doing wrong. He tells Draco to back off the pet thing on the grounds that it's clearly hurting Ron, then he tells Ron that he, Ron, cannot dictate who Harry hangs out with, and that's it. Where is the obnoxiety?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A bit before and after. For example:
quote: "Very good," Harry said. "However, so as not to obviate the point of the whole exercise, you will henceforth address me as," Verres might not work anymore, "Mr. Spoo."
"Okay, Harry," Ron said uncertainly.
The Force is not particularly strong in this one. "Call... me... Mister... Spoo."
"Okay, Mister Spoo -" Ron stopped. "I can't do that, it makes me feel stupid."
That's not just a feeling.
quote: "Who was the first Seeker, the King's idiot son who wanted to play Quidditch but couldn't understand the rules?" Actually, now that Harry thought about it, that seemed like a surprisingly good hypothesis. Put him on a broomstick and tell him to catch the shiny thing...
Ron's face pulled into a scowl. "If you don't like Quidditch, you don't have to make fun of it!"
Entirely true.
quote: And it's not that I hate this Ron guy," Harry said, "I just, just..." Harry searched for words.
"Don't see any reason for him to exist?" offered Draco.
"Pretty much."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, the last one is not Harry, that's Yudkowsky speaking. Later on Harry thinks, "In what weird alternative universe would that girl not be Sorted into Ravenclaw? If Hermione Granger didn't go to Ravenclaw then there was no good reason for Ravenclaw House to exist." This is not Harry being Harry, this is Yudkowsky breaking the fourth wall and being snarky about the canon.
In the first one I don't quite see the obnoxiety. Harry talks like that all the time. When Ron's too slow to keep up, he uses smaller words. This is courtesy, to assume that the people you meet are your equals until they demonstrate otherwise.
And in the second one, I grant you he's telling Ron to re-examine some fundamental assumptions of his life and not being too gentle about it, but eh, somehow I just can't see that as so dreadful a crime. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That the author shares the disdain that he bestowed upon Harry's character does not mitigate it. In the first one, what Harry is thinking reflects his contempt. And of course not a crime, just characteristic of what I find unlikeable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Bumped for Rakeesh, some cultural thing I'm not aware of?
Well, from things I've seen on documentaries - thankfully I have no direct personal experience with Klansmen - the difference is that whites who don't toe the religious and political line (Christian and conservative, specifically) are still white, but they're 'traitors' somehow.
quote:Quite so, I'm aware of some quite intelligent people who are really terrible speakers or explainers. But my question for Rakeesh is this: Given that I dismiss someone as stupid and therefore boring, is it your contention that I actually don't have an estimate of their intelligence? In other words, do I find such people stupid because they are boring, instead of the other way around?
I can't say for sure, but I wasn't saying it goes both ways, that you think boring people are stupid, no.
quote:I guess some stupid people could be entertaining. It's fun to watch goldfish swim around.
Ahh, banter over substance.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Ok, this is fair enough, I concede the point. But let's have another look at what Harry knows about Ron's thought processes, based on those five or ten minutes' acquaintance.
Harry is definitely an obnoxious jerk to rip apart Ron's favorite sport.
That said, Ron is actually not too unlike Draco in one respect: he is a wizard and has no concept of how different things are for muggles, muggleborn wizards, and wizards raised by muggles. He's in his own world, where not knowing about Quidditch is met with astonishment, like Harry has three heads or something. Break out of your comfort zone, Ron, and realize not everyone grew up around this stuff and takes it for granted.
On the other hand, Harry is in the wizarding world now, and it would do him good to realize that it's up to him to adjust, not the other way around. It's like going to a foreign country and criticizing their customs, calling them quaint, and implying they'd do things our way if they only knew how much better it is to do so.
Harry is just arrogant and elitist, and this is bad, because he isn't taking the time to learn the wizarding world before dumping all over it.
Not all things are equal, and there is plenty about the wizarding world to legitimately criticize, but Harry should shut up and observe for a while before opening his big mouth.
But that wouldn't be nearly as much fun to read.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. In the end these characters are all 11 years old. I don't know about you, but I for one did not have my current suave sophistication and cosmopolitan outlook when I was eleven, not to mention the subtle tact I display in criticising the fundamental assumptions of other people's lives, and the modest appraisal of my own capabilities - these days I understand that while, yes, I'm very likely to be the smartest person in a given room, there do nonetheless exist a few hundred other humans with my own brainpower, although unfortunately a lot of them had bad diets as kids and grew up to be merely three sigmas above average. I didn't develop these attractive traits until I was at least thirteen. So let's cut the kids some slack, eh?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... - the difference is that whites who don't toe the religious and political line (Christian and conservative, specifically) are still white, but they're 'traitors' somehow.
Oh, other white conservative Christians, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:but I for one did not have my current suave sophistication and cosmopolitan outlook when I was eleven, not to mention the subtle tact I display in criticising the fundamental assumptions of other people's lives
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What?
*Looks innocent*
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:Ok, this is fair enough, I concede the point. But let's have another look at what Harry knows about Ron's thought processes, based on those five or ten minutes' acquaintance.
Harry is definitely an obnoxious jerk to rip apart Ron's favorite sport.
I don't know. I used to be this way a lot as a kid, and I don't think I was an obnoxious jerk. I was just a kid who spoke without thinking, and had a tendency to analyze anything presented to me. Even now, I have to stop the impulse to blurt out "That's stupid!" when a friend says something, well, stupid. The most recent examples that come to mind were when someone said they didn't want to try an iPhone app that monitors your sleep schedule (it's really cool!) because they were afraid of the effects of having their cell phone near their head (cancer or whatever). Or when I contradicted a friend who was claiming to be from middle class India when all statements she's made make it clear she grew up upper class.
The first time I was able to hold my immediate reaction in, and instead point out the research behind cell phones & cancer in a value-neutral way. The second time, I really upset the friend in question by flat-out contradicting her (she was wrong, but she had felt somewhat poor growing up compared to her upper, upper class school friends).
I don't see why an 11-year-old should be expected to know how to be tactful - it's one of those skills you learn growing up, and is definitely not easy for all personality types to learn. I also don't think it's fair or developmentally appropriate to call a little kid an obnoxious jerk for not having yet figured out all the steps of social dance.
(For that matter, I don't think tact is always appropriate. Sometimes people need to be figuratively smacked on the face when they're wrong. The friend in the second anecdote was upset at me at first, but was later glad that I hadn't let her (mentally) get away with ignoring the vast amount of privilege she grew up with and enjoys today. But this probably a discussion for another thread.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I've been meaning to post something about the "Harry is Smug" issue that went into a little more depth. I'm not sure I actually have time now (internet is intermittent in my current situation) but here goes.
First, I'm (hopefully obviously) not trying to win the argument "Harry is likeable!" Kmmboots and co. either like him or they don't, and I can't Rationalist™ them into submission. But there are a few specific points I'd like to address.
re: Smugness. There are definitely times when Harry is "smug," but the word is getting thrown around a lot in places where it doesn't really fit. Which isn't that big a deal, but for some reason bugs me. Harry is smug when he first meets Hermione. He has a cocky, confident air about him the entire time. He's not smug when he's talking to Ron. Thinking that you're right and another person is wrong isn't the same as smugness. Saying it out loud bluntly may be rude, but that's not the same thing. Dictionary.com says "smug" means "contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent." Harry isn't arguing from a position of complacency, he's giving an out-loud-gut-reaction without thinking to a ludicrous set of rules.
Also worth noting is that the author's "disdain" for Ron has nothing to do with his intelligence, it has to do with his value as a character. Ron adds essentially nothing to the plot of Harry Potter other than owning Scabbers and being Harry's token best friend. I think there IS some value in showing that a hero can have friends who don't end up significant to the saving the of the world, but are still good people you can rely on. But I don't begrudge the author for feeling like Ron was a waste of time. Hell, Neville ends up being more significant than Ron.
The other thing is that in almost every situation wherein Harry's mannerisms are rude or arrogant, he almost always realizes it a few chapters later. The story is chock full of Harry constantly seeing how socially inept he is in hindsight. McGonagall warns him to think before he speaks, otherwise he's going to go through life without many friends. So yes, Harry IS supposed to be unlikeable, and is it's a major plot point and source of character development. The issues he goes through are real things that hyper-nerdy kids have to deal with. I can understand why it's offputting for people who don't see themselves in him so much. But for hypernerdy readers, this is great, because we rarely get to see POV characters where these issues are really dealt with seriously without just being played for laughs.
As for being "compassionate," I think Harry has shown plenty of emotional connection with people he has reason to be emotionally connected to. After merely a few days of school, that basically boils down to his parents and Professor McGonagall. He has plenty of reason NOT to like Draco, and while he may become friends with Hermione later there's nothing wrong with that taking more than 7 days.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't you think that being so sure that your firstassessment of a game that you have never seen played and in fact have only just heard about is so certain to be more correct than that of a whole society that you can afford open ridicule indicates a certain confidence in one's superiority?
And I think that you missed a huge part of what the books had to say. The fact that Harry forms an emotional bond with Ron, that he can form a bond with someone so "insignificant", is key to why Harry succeeds. That is what Harry has that Voldemort doesn't.
It is, btw, possible to be "hyper-nerdy" without acting like an ass.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Ron adds essentially nothing to the plot of Harry Potter other than owning Scabbers and being Harry's token best friend.
This is true. Ron adds little to the plot.
However, he adds a great deal to the development of Harry's character, and to the emotional impact of the book for many people.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:And I think that you missed a huge part of what the books had to say <about Ron>
I'd like to restate this point:
quote:I think there IS some value in showing that a hero can have friends who don't end up significant to the saving the of the world, but are still good people you can rely on. But I don't begrudge the author for feeling like Ron was a waste of time. Hell, Neville ends up being more significant than Ron.
I know Ron adds to Harry's character development. But I think it is a valid argument that you could have had a character that accomplished the same character development while also being more meaningful to the overall story.
Random related note: I really liked the 2002 Scooby Doo movie because it took Shaggy, a character who historically had pretty much nothing to offer to the gang, and gave him an actual role - a "spiritual advisor" of sorts to the group. He was still terrible at actually mystery solving but he was the anchor that held the group together and I was glad he got a moment to shine at the end in his own way. While I am not as anti-Ron as the author of this fanfic is, I felt that the few moments at the end where Ron DOES shine (opening the chamber of secrets, freeing the House Elves) felt tacked on instead of a natural growth from some quality that was unique to Ron.
quote:It is, btw, possible to be "hyper-nerdy" without acting like an ass.
I know. I also know that it requires effort and experience, two things that an 11 year old should not be expected to have in spite (or because of) how smart they are.
quote:Don't you think that being so sure that your firstassessment of a game that you have never seen played and in fact have only just heard about is so certain to be more correct than that of a whole society that you can afford open ridicule indicates a certain confidence in one's superiority?
I think it would have been smug (as opposed to rude) if Harry had acted more like he had with Hermione, asking questions that were set up as deliberate traps that he was confident Ron would get wrong, or something like that. I don't really consider a gut reaction to be smug, period. If you are in a foreign country and someone offhandedly mentions how pie throwing contests are the ideal form of government, would you seriously not have a gut reaction of "that's stupid!" even if you were wise enough not to blurt it out?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:It is, btw, possible to be "hyper-nerdy" without acting like an ass.
I know. I also know that it requires effort and experience, two things that an 11 year old should not be expected to have in spite (or because of) how smart they are.
quote:Don't you think that being so sure that your firstassessment of a game that you have never seen played and in fact have only just heard about is so certain to be more correct than that of a whole society that you can afford open ridicule indicates a certain confidence in one's superiority?
I think it would have been smug (as opposed to rude) if Harry had acted more like he had with Hermione, asking questions that were set up as deliberate traps that he was confident Ron would get wrong, or something like that. I don't really consider a gut reaction to be smug, period. If you are in a foreign country and someone offhandedly mentions how pie throwing contests are the ideal form of government, would you seriously not have a gut reaction of "that's stupid!" even if you were wise enough not to blurt it out?
It may take effort and experience. So? I was certainly expected by my parents to make the effort to be at least polite and, well before age 11, had experience in doing this.
Sure, I may have a gut reaction of, "that's stupid" but, in addition to being wise enough not to jump immediately to open ridicule (despite being only "neurotypical") would have the tempering gut reaction of realizing that I may not know everything.
As far as Ron is concerned, even if he never did anything but care for Harry and have Harry care for him, he would be essential to the plot
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I suspect you romanticise your own social skills at age 11. Also, boys deal with these things rather differently than girls, as far as I can tell. Finally, I say again that a neurotypical has no idea what it feels like to be surrounded by stupid, boring people. Imagine that everyone in the world except you and a very few others had Downs' syndrome; I understand that you would do your best to be patient and understanding, but I suggest that you could not help but be rather exasperated.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Also note that in the proposed scenario, your parents and teachers also have Down Syndrome. You know that they are wrong about many things, which makes figuring out which things they have to teach you are actually valuable a bit tricky.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Harry's mother has Down's, but his father doesn't. The problem with his father is rather that he's not yet convinced that Harry doesn't have it, and treats him accordingly - love and affection, certainly, but respect for his intellect, no.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. It must be so frustrating. It is a wonder Harry puts himself through it.
I don't get the impression that Harry in this version is vastly more intelligent than everyone else, just that he has been trained in a way of thinking that they have not.
I had no social skills with my peers at 11. I was generally awkward and unpopular. I was still polite and reasonably kind. This was not usually an advantage. I was probably unlikable for other reasons.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I don't get the impression that Harry in this version is vastly more intelligent than everyone else, just that he has been trained in a way of thinking that they have not.
He knows what a Logarithm is at age 7, so I don't think training can account for all of it. And aside from which, if you have training which boosts your effective intellect, I'd consider the end result pretty much the same.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I know Ron adds to Harry's character development. But I think it is a valid argument that you could have had a character that accomplished the same character development while also being more meaningful to the overall story.
I think you're confusing "plot" with "overall story". Character development and emotional impact are very important parts of the overall story.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
see my subsequent post on that. Maybe I need to clarify further, but my point is that while I understand Ron's value to the story, I think he could have been significantly MORE valuable to the story.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. And Harry in this version doesn't see him as valuable at all.
ETA: Nor, it seems, does the author. That may be because he missed one of the key themes of the original. Another possibility is that the author is going to show that a Rationalist Harry is destined to become a Dark Lord. That would not surprise me as the author seems to slam Rationalism as well.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
First of all, we're still talking about two different kinds of value, second of all, you're still insisting we're supposed to take Harry's statement at face value instead of reading it as the author's own note about a definition of value unrelated to what Harry would have been referring to, third of all, Ron's value is NOT written all over his face in magical letters for all to see, in this story OR the original.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure why the author's note would change anything. Are we to pretend that Harry didn't really agree that Ron had no reason to exist?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
We're to assume that he didn't intend it as a declarative, all encompassing statement. In this story, Ron will probably on to become someone else's loyal best friend, but the fact is that he probably WOULDN'T be any particular benefit in this Harry's life, because no matter how loyal you are, if you can't keep up with this Harry's thought process you're really not going to be able to have a genuine friendship. And at the time, Harry had absolutely no reason to assume of all Ron's good qualities existed at the time he made the statement.
(EDIT: Bear in mind it was KoM, not Harry, who said Ron was only useful for janitorial work.)
Second Edit: It's not an issue of "Ron can't keep up with Harry's thought process" (The Weasley Twins aren't quite there either, but I think they will end up being genuine friends.) The issue is that Ron has indicated he particularly does not WANT to look at the world the way Harry does. When nerds challenge each other on facts, they tend to see it as a friendly challenge rather than ridicule.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That Harry could not be friends with Ron is something I find unlikeable. Those of you with more sympathy for the plight of those who have to suffer folks who are beneath them may find it adorable.
Harry also had no reason to assume Ron's other qualities were lacking.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yes. It must be so frustrating. It is a wonder Harry puts himself through it.
Can you, perhaps, show that you would do better? Or that it's not a good analogy? I don't quite see how this remark connects with the Down's world I suggest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do better at refraining from showing contempt for lesser beings? Well, clearly I don't have the same opportunity to test myself that Harry and others have. However, to the extent that I fail at this, I am unlikeable and recognize it as a fault.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Put it another way: take away the Ron issue or a moment, leaving the rest of Harry intact. Would you WANT to be friends with Harry? Likeability is not some inherent binary trait. The issue is compatibility. Not everyone is meant to be friends with everybody.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, fair enough.
As a point of curiosity, do you always need a fictional protagonist to be sympathetic to enjoy the fiction, or is it only this particular flaw of Harry's that prevents your enjoyment? Or perhaps I misunderstood; did you read the whole thing, or did you stop at chapter 11? I note in passing that Harry comes to regret his actions in that chapter, demonstrating, presumably, personal growth.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:However, to the extent that I fail at this, I am unlikeable and recognize it as a fault.
Again, Harry DOES recognize this and strives to change, which is one of the things about him I like the most.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Ron issue is a symptom of a larger quality of Harry's that I find unlikable. I can't just separate that out; it is a big chuck of who he is.
I might want to be his friend so that he wouldn't hurt me when he became the new Dark Lord. I may find him interesting or even want to befriend him because I feel sorry for him. He wouldn't be someone that I felt I could count on or trust and I wouldn't like him much. ETA: I am enjoying reading it. (I wrote that early on.) Not having a sympathetic main character is problematic but not always fatal. And Harry could grow out of it. That would be interesting.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'd like to point out that Quiddich is an absurd sport, so even if Harry is less than diplomatic, he's correct.
Quiddich is the Scientology of sports.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a side note, I've had (he name-dropped casually) some forum interactions with the author, who shows some of the same traits you're disliking in Harry. He is so convinced that cryonics will work (or more accurately, that the chance it will work is good enough that signing up is way cheap for what you get) that he has no hesitation in labeling those who haven't signed up as crazy nutjobs. But there's a limit to the gains to be had from showing the respect that neurotypicals demand, so I have some sympathy for his position.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I noted that you might.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If you aren't choosing between textbooks and food, then you can afford to sign up your kids for cryonics. I don't know if it's more important than a home without lead paint, or omega-3 fish oil supplements while their brains are maturing, but it's certainly more important than you going to the movies or eating at nice restaurants. That's part of the bargain you signed up for when you became a parent. If you can afford kids at all, you can afford to sign up your kids for cryonics, and if you don't, you are a lousy parent. I'm just back from an event where the normal parents signed their normal kids up for cryonics, and that is the way things are supposed to be and should be, and whatever excuses you're using or thinking of right now, I don't believe in them any more, you're just a lousy parent.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do note that you are not actually engaging with the arguments, here. I suggest that you probably do not have a strong understanding of why you think cryonics won't work; you are merely applying the good old "sounds weird" heuristic, as in, "I never heered of that, so dere ain't no sich animule". If cryonics does work, if it in fact saves lives at even a 50% rate of success, then wouldn't you consider that rather important? But you're not going to engage in that discussion on a serious level, oh no. Then you might have to admit that people who sound weird actually know what they're talking about. So you point and laugh.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My main issue is that regardless of whether cryonics works or not, there's large swaths of things you could be doing with your money that would benefit the lives of children here, now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I do note that you are not actually engaging with the arguments, here. I suggest that you probably do not have a strong understanding of why you think cryonics won't work; you are merely applying the good old "sounds weird" heuristic, as in, "I never heered of that, so dere ain't no sich animule". If cryonics does work, if it in fact saves lives at even a 50% rate of success, then wouldn't you consider that rather important? But you're not going to engage in that discussion on a serious level, oh no. Then you might have to admit that people who sound weird actually know what they're talking about. So you point and laugh.
You're assuming that I care to engage with whether or not cryopreservation will ever bear fruit. Given that he does not actually possess magical knowledge that it will, he sounds like a dolt by dismissing any notion that any parent who doesn't bother with the cryopreservation gamble could ever possibly be anything other than a lousy parent.
Guy's a fanatic. It's hilarious.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You're assuming that I care to engage with whether or not cryopreservation will ever bear fruit.
No, I'm saying that your reason for not caring to do so are bad ones.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...perhaps not a fanatic. Maybe just someone who is taking some comfort in a new kind of Pascal's Wager.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You're assuming that I care to engage with whether or not cryopreservation will ever bear fruit.
No, I'm saying that your reason for not caring to do so are bad ones.
I'll re-emphasize that whether I care or not, it has nothing to do with why I'm laughing at that paragraph. Sorry!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I observe that cryonics are not vulnerable to the well-known rebuttals of Pascal's Wager; you cannot very well argue that it is equally likely that going for cryonics will shorten your lifetime by as much as it might extend it. That said, I do believe he is a bit too emotionally committed to his current solution to the problem of death, probably due to the death of his brother, which affected him deeply. Speaking of caring.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Eh...perhaps not a fanatic. Maybe just someone who is taking some comfort in a new kind of Pascal's Wager.
The analogue: "No parent who does not force their child to pray to god just in case is a lousy parent."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is not analogous. There are rational reasons for believing cryonics might work. Having carefully weighed the evidence, I come down on the other side of it from Mr Yudkowsky, but it is a point on which rational men can differ.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I observe that cryonics are not vulnerable to the well-known rebuttals of Pascal's Wager; you cannot very well argue that it is equally likely that going for cryonics will shorten your lifetime by as much as it might extend it. That said, I do believe he is a bit too emotionally committed to his current solution to the problem of death, probably due to the death of his brother, which affected him deeply. Speaking of caring.
You might note that I am not the one who thinks it is funny or fanatical. Perhaps a little sad.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I observe that cryonics are not vulnerable to the well-known rebuttals of Pascal's Wager ...
Indeed.
Cryonics as an issue seems much more similar to the problem of whether one should pay for insurance premiums when one is forced to deal with a highly unreliable insurer (counterparty risk, I suppose).
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I would just like to note that the first google result for "neurotypical" indicates it is used to describe people without autism. So "King of Men"'s use of it to make a distinction between himself and others indicates he is autistic. This is very humorous to me.
Yeah, the author of this fic is a transhumanist fanatic, and therefore, in my view, not rational at all. But it doesn't stop me loving the fiction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I carefully noted, when I first used the term, that I was using it in a nonstandard way. Of course, I should have known better than to expect a neurotypical to pay attention to what I actually said, when there was an opportunity for mockery and othering.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Try using smaller words.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's both funny and fanatical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's just like you neurotypicals Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try using smaller words.
As I said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Eh...perhaps not a fanatic. Maybe just someone who is taking some comfort in a new kind of Pascal's Wager.
I vote for both.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Of course, I should have known better
Using "neurotypical" the way you did makes it an epithet. That comes across as both pompous and pathetic, and so mockery is to be expected.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah well, looks like I ran into the euphemism treadmill. I was trying to avoid calling anyone the dreaded 'average'. Possibly a record for the speed with which the euphemism came to be perceived as an insult!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Of course, I should have known better than to expect a neurotypical to pay attention to what I actually said
Gosh, I wonder how it was that this sperg word came to be perceived as an insult so quickly once wielded by KoM.
I really really wonder.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Not only are dumb people boring, but they offend easily.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I swear, those neurotypicals. ho ho ho.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
High five!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Possibly a record for the speed with which the euphemism came to be perceived as an insult!
Dude. It is an insult, or at least clearly to you. If you dispute that...well, you've done a pretty bad job of communicating in this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Not only are dumb people boring, but they offend easily.
And yet, the non-neuro-typicals sacrifice themselves for us again and again. Interacting with us at great cost to themselves, thinking only of our own good.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let us not forget, either, that though there are surface similarities between those who talk about how difficult 'neurotypicals' can be and people who brag about their fighting skill and ability to whip anyone's tail, they're not actually similar at all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Not only are dumb people boring, but they offend easily.
And yet, the non-neuro-typicals sacrifice themselves for us again and again. Interacting with us at great cost to themselves, thinking only of our own good.
Not at all! That's all part of my master plan to subtly manipulate you into eradicating yourself and making the world safe for thought. I'm sacrificing myself for other non-typicals, which is not at all the same thing!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooohh. Very impressive. A neurotypical like me would never have been able to plan to eradicate whole masses of people! Wow. Killing people off for the good of the world is often an activity engaged in by non-neurotypicals.
I wonder if that is why I find them unlikeable?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, we could go with that option. Or we could go with the much more ego-pleasing option that you don't like such people because you are a seething cauldron of bitterness and envy, or possibly because you are just easily offended.
And that's it in a nutshell, really. Being 'non-neurotypical' doesn't confer any really useful benefits. All it really does is empower other useful traits, such as discipline, imagination, compassion, and motivation. Being 'non-neurotypical' doesn't even protect against some very risky drawbacks, either, such as laziness, hubris, and hypocrisy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol, y'all lettin KoM troll you guys hard
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* That depends on if we think he is being entirely silly, or partially serious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me it depends on whether I am any of those things. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I am posting in this high quality thread!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am posting with these neurotypical plebes, sperg sperg sperg
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The best part about discussing neurotypical plebes is that they don't know what a neurotypical plebe is Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:lol, y'all lettin KoM troll you guys hard
I've been saying that for years.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Back to the original topic: Ch. 25 was awful -- the first half, anyway. But 26 made up for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, 26 was pretty rad, definitely. I like that Harry is aware, on some level, of what's going on. When the big reveals happen later, and Harry realizes whatever Quirrel has been planning to manipulate him into doing, he definitely won't be able to say, "I didn't know!" no matter how far down the rabbit hole he's gone.
And was there ever really any other end possible for the beetle once it crossed Voldemort, particularly when it did so alone, and in private?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Awful how? I mean, it wasn't my favorite chapter ever but I didn't see anything wrong with it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Harry's shockingly poor grasp of genetics is exceeded only by the author's. And his notion of a genetic key (oddly like the ATA gene in Stargate, as was pointed out to me) simply makes no sense at all.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Doesn't the author point out that Harry IS wrong? Or is the author's explanation of why he's wrong really that terrible?
I think Harry's getting a little ahead of himself in terms of theorizing, but he also seemed aware that he only barely understands the problem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Or is the author's explanation of why he's wrong really that terrible?
Yes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Harry's shockingly poor grasp of genetics is exceeded only by the author's. And his notion of a genetic key (oddly like the ATA gene in Stargate, as was pointed out to me) simply makes no sense at all.
Why not? Postulate a hidden machine somewhere that reacts to the wand-waving and whatnot to do the magical effects; why shouldn't it respond only to bearers of a particular gene?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Many reasons. Let's start with Occam's Razor.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In a world where saying Wingardium Leviosa causes things to float? Come now. Intelligent intervention is the simplest hypothesis, to the extent that your average seven-year-old is intelligent.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
rivka, what would your first guess have been, given the information available at the time?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Which part? First of all, he explicitly rejects the notion that magic is simply another aspect of the physical laws of the universe. That seems simplest to me.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You honestly think it is more likely that the universe wants you to say "Wingardium Leviosa" than a group of Latin-ish speaking humans made it that way?
I think it is fairly likely that the actual power source is inherent to the universe, but Harry's theory on the "triggers" seems pretty plausible to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wingardium Leviosa? The exact intonation matters, and the way you swing your wand?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not nessasarily as you become skilled you don't need the wand or the movements I believe.
But its like in the Dresden files where the pseudo latin and hand gestures are just the "trigger" in your mind but with enough understanding those become unnessasary.
Saying it in High Gothic or Ancient Chinese or Ancient Hebrew would also I imagine work since magic had to have existed before latin.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why not? Precise angle of a right hook matters too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, the ATA gene. Honestly, that didn't bug me as much as the "the second evolution of this form" talk, but meh.
The Heroes variant of the Human Genome Project, now that pissed me right off.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Honestly, that didn't bug me as much as the "the second evolution of this form" talk, but meh.
I'm with you on that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why not? Precise angle of a right hook matters too.
A what where how why?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Why not? Precise angle of a right hook matters too.
But why does the universe speak Latin of all languages?
We've seen Quirrel (in this story anyway) do a spell let you see across the universe. It had words that sounded alien to Harry. A possible explanation of that was that Quirrel was speaking the "true" language of magic, and that the psuedo-Latin is a translation of that. Like speaking in Pascal instead of Binary. Easier to learn but less powerful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Why not? Precise angle of a right hook matters too.
But why does the universe speak Latin of all languages?
It's pseudo-Latin, actually.
And we don't actually know that it doesn't work with any other language; just not the specific ones Harry tested, or in the specific way he tested them. Still quite a jump to an intelligent designer. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are suggesting that the laws of the universe include specific rules about human voice-boxes. The language doesn't matter, the fact that a human larynx can produce the sounds does! Never mind 'intelligent', that's a matter of opinion, but certainly this points to a human designer.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Perhaps. I'm still unconvinced that the evidence is as clear as you think.
And this is all completely aside from my issues with the genetic gobbledygook.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh I don't think the evidence is at all clear-cut, Harry hasn't done any testing yet, but I think this is plenty of evidence to at least generate a hypothesis.
Other note: I just reread chapter 26 and realized I totally missed the last line on my first read through. I'm disappointed that Rita is dead already, rather than getting to see how the fallout would have been. I'm assuming Quirrel killed her on purpose, not sure how I feel about that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, that seems like a bit of overkill. If Harry had destroyed her so thoroughly, why kill her on top of all that? I can see why Quirrell would do it, sure, but it seems narratively very inefficient.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, I thought it would have been way more interesting if she had overheard the whole thing and lived to react to it.
Narratively "inefficient" may not be the right word, since it DOES eliminate a chapter he'd have to write about how she reacted. But narratively "lame," definitely.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Narratively, I suppose it's a tradeoff.
The author decided to trade away Rita's reaction and future involvement in the story in exchange for extra characterization for Quirrel.
Killing someone in cold blood, especially someone who had apparently been defeated already, is definitely a big moment for that character.
It may or may not have been the best choice for the author to make, but it seems like it wasn't a totally unreasonable tradeoff.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Killing Skeeter was a big moment for 'Quirrel'? I rather expected it.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
It wasn't entirely unexpected, and was in keeping with the character. But still, we hadn't actually seen him do anything like that yet. So yeah, I think it was a reasonably bit moment.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The fact that he kills her when she's already defeated is. (I wouldn't have been too surprised for him to kill her based on last chapter, but it did seem like deliberate overkill by the point it happened).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It was sort of anticlimactic, that's the problem. We have a perfectly good solution to the Skeeter problem, which he's spent two chapters developing. It is an awesome solution. We'd really like to see Skeeter's face ground in the dust when she realises how badly she's screwed up. And then she just dies, no buildup, bang, as though she were some irrelevant mook. Come now! She's no protagonist, but this is excessive! She's got speaking lines and a point-of-view section and all!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Reality Ensures!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: We'd really like to see Skeeter's face ground in the dust when she realises how badly she's screwed up. And then she just dies, no buildup, bang, as though she were some irrelevant mook. Come now! She's no protagonist, but this is excessive! She's got speaking lines and a point-of-view section and all!
I agree.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I'm glad Skeeter is dead, she was vile, and I wasn't expecting that last line, and the shock value was worth it to me, story wise. It was great.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think her death was good storytelling. I also enjoyed how it gave someone from Gryffindor the chance to do something Harry couldn't imagine. The bashing is pretty tedious, after all, though understandable from Harry's PoV in this story.
But the big setup towards her reputation defeat, that wasn't good storytelling, I think, if she was just going to get smooshed.
As for Voldemort killing someone he despised when it was literally as easy as bumping into a small bug in a sealed room with only one witness who wouldn't even see it? That is totally in his character, isn't it?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Skeeter is barely a step above Jar Jar Binks as far as characters go, so anything that removes her from the story as swiftly and irrevocably as possible is a plus in my book.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I note that strictly speaking we do not know that the blue beetle was Skeeter. Perhaps Quirrell, for some complicated reason of his own, wanted Harry to think he had killed Skeeter? (Harry might find out about the Animagus thing later on, flash back to Quirrell's uncharacteristic stumble, and go epileptic from the Horrified Realisation.) Or alternatively, perhaps Quirrell thought he was killing Skeeter, and in fact merely got a completely unrelated blue beetle? But they're not very likely explanations, I admit.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I think the author's having fun in thwarting the expected plot points. Ron? not Harry's friend. Scabbers? dead, so Sirius Black will probably stay in Azkhaban. Rita Skeeter? dead. Snape? neutralized. Dumbledore? not Harry's friend. Chamber of Secrets? less likely to open.
Letsee, and Harry hates Quiddich, so he won't go to the World Cup and help free Barty Crouch.
Yeah. So next he'll probably mention that Lockhart and Delores Umbridge have gotten married and left on a round-the-world cruise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The other thing is, just how is this takedown of Skeeter supposed to be so brilliant? Ok, she's been convinced of something that's not true, but what of it? She's written untrue things before without getting into trouble. And the nature of the story doesn't seem particularly damaging to Lucius's interests either. Harry Potter engaged to Ginny Weasley, well, so what? It seems to me that Harry and Quirrell are both being very impressed with the technical difficulty of what's been done, without particularly considering the more relevant aspect of how damaging it is. They both just assume that Lucius will retaliate against Skeeter, but why should he?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The idea is that Lucius was essentially paying Skeeter to plant misinformation in the mainstream media. By arranging to have her publicly discredit herself, Lucius' investment was made worthless. That said, I think the author perhaps overestimates the rationality of the news-reading public. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Precisely; it doesn't seem any more incredible than the camels that the public regularly swallows in canon. It's a tabloid; it's actually quite difficult for a tabloid to discredit itself.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Point was for mainstream people to start treating the daily prophet LIKE a tabloid, as opposed to a news source that was supposed to be fairly reliable. I think even people who read tabloids are usually aware they are reading garbage, however fun it may be.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
The thing is, in canon, especially in books 5-7, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that the Daily Prophet is an untrustworthy rag that makes the Daily Mail look like Holy Scripture.
But the wizarding world is, by and large, full of complete morons.
So yeah, if Skeeter hadn't gotten squished, I question how much she'd really be discredited. The public doesn't seem to *care* about accuracy.
You think Skeeter couldn't have published a followup that redeemed her in the public eye while condemning the Conspiracy that Misused the Free Press for its own Selfish Ends? Of course she good have.
But she's dead now.
:-)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My understanding was that the Daily Prophet is the only major news source, and people in general didn't have an alternative to fact check with, nor a frame of reference for how "crazy" the stories were.
Edit: Also, the point was not necessarily to destroy Rita Skitter, but specifically to make people be afraid to trust anything they read about Harry Potter, period. In that regard, I think this was successful.
[ June 18, 2010, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I came home today to find my family watching the movie "Chamber of Secrets". I was just in time to see the big finish, where Harry tries to escape with the Sorcerer's Stone, up the steps, when Voldemort tells Quirrel "Stop Him!"
And Quirrel does, by creating a wall of fire. How does he do this? Wave his wand? Say magic words? Throw a potion?
No, he stops Harry Potter by....snapping his fingers.
And I started laughing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You think Skeeter couldn't have published a followup that redeemed her in the public eye while condemning the Conspiracy that Misused the Free Press for its own Selfish Ends? Of course she good have.
Are you forgetting that the conspirators here are two 13 year old boys and an eleven year old with plausible deniability? Do you really think Skeeter could possibly have saved face by admitting she'd been hoodwinked by a couple or kids with a budget of 44 sickles?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That assumes she would have honestly claimed who had duped her. It would be much more likely that she would, if mentioning the kids at all, claim they were the agents of some adult-possibly Dumbledore or McConnagal.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Again, discrediting Rita wasn't even the major goal, the goal was to create a state where the public couldn't tell WHAT to believe about Harry Potter. If there's a conspiracy that can produce crazy compelling evidence to trick Rita, whether they are kids or Dumbledore, then future pieces written about Harry Potter will always be suspect.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps Harry's goal had little to do with Rita and everything to do with the Weasley twins.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
That fanfic was boring, really didn't hold my attention for more than a few sentences.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
You gave up after a few sentences? That would mean you gave up halfway through the introductory paragraph, which describes a bookshelf! You might want to force yourself to read a ~little bit more than that before dismissing the whole thing as boring. That paragraph isn't terribly representative of the rest of the fic.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
He's an American high-school student. They have the attention span of butterflies. You can't expect them to read anything with more intellectual depth than, say - actually, I can't think of anything they do read.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Please. I read just as avidly when I was a high school student. Maybe more so as I was less likely to be as tired as I am now at the end of the day.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: You gave up after a few sentences? That would mean you gave up halfway through the introductory paragraph, which describes a bookshelf! You might want to force yourself to read a ~little bit more than that before dismissing the whole thing as boring. That paragraph isn't terribly representative of the rest of the fic.
By a few sentences I meant as soon as he starts angsting about how his parents don't take his opinions into consideration.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Do I have to have read all of the Harry Potter books to get this? I've read 3-4 of them, but haven't yet finished the series.
Also, the Card Fanboy in me wants to know if Mr. Yodkowsky specifically mentioned Ender anywhere in this work?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You don't have to have read the whole series, but there may be some spoilers for you.
One of the chapter intros was a nod to OSC: The enemy's gate is Rowling.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The whole "smarter than ender" bit just bugs me. I do hope that is not what the author claimed or some such for both canonical Enderverse reasons (namely Bean's monologue about the relative merits of command between him and Ender regarding the unsuitableness of testscores) and because of literary reasons, namely that you can with enough effort make any character seem smart and that making the claim seems kinda pretentious.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nah, "smarter than Ender" is the OP's gloss. Yudkowsky merely visualises Harry as very gifted, although not in the same areas as Ender, and exceedingly well educated.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Under the author's notes is this line
quote: But if a man named Declan McCullagh ever asks to interview you, tell him no.
This being a very small world indeed, I actually know Declan McCullagh, or had known in the past, and completely agree with the author in not being interviewed by McCullagh.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you Google for it you can find the interview in question. We were discussing, earlier, the arrogance of Yudkowsky; but seeing the way a one-sigma, two-bit journalist treats a man who has actual ideas, I must say my sympathies are with the ideas man. McCullagh has exactly one skill, that of putting a total incredulous sneer into an apparently neutral sentence, and believes that this puts him on par with people who can actually think. Then he mocks the thinkers so the neurotypicals who can't even write will think themselves clever. Yudkowsky may be mistaken in his passions; I disagree with him on cryonics and on the form AI is likely to take. But McCullagh is despicable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
those despicable one-sigma neurotypicals
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Just to confirm my status as a grammar Nazi, the question in the thread title should have been: "What if Harry WERE smarter than Ender?" The verb change is necessary because it is subjunctive mood.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:I disagree with him on cryonics and on the form AI is likely to take.
I'm curious-- what form do you think AI is likely to take?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Uploaded human brains rather than a sufficiently-clever program.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I concur.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Uploaded human brains rather than a sufficiently-clever program.
But wouldn't there still be the issue of being able to replicate the human brain? Do we know for example how much information the human brain is able to hold?
If we uploaded a human brain into an AI, how would it be able to comprehend memories of loss, love, anger, etc?
I always thought that if a true AI was ever created it would start out just like a human baby, and would need to learn through experience what was right or wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But wouldn't there still be the issue of being able to replicate the human brain? Do we know for example how much information the human brain is able to hold?
Begin with a human brain. It is made, to first order, of carbon and water; there is nothing magical about these substances. If you replace one neuron with a copy in silicon, having the same input-output properties, nothing changes. Repeat for every neuron, and indeed for the rest of the brain. Voila, a human consciousness implemented in silicon. And if it can be done that way, then it can also be done in software.
quote:If we uploaded a human brain into an AI, how would it be able to comprehend memories of loss, love, anger, etc?
I don't think you understand what 'upload' or 'AI' means. It would do so the same way it does now, in silicon rather than carbon. Carbon is not magical.
quote:Do we know for example how much information the human brain is able to hold?
A few hundred terabytes; but the exact number does not matter, because we know it can be packed into two liters. Dense information storage is not a problem.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:But wouldn't there still be the issue of being able to replicate the human brain? Do we know for example how much information the human brain is able to hold?
Begin with a human brain. It is made, to first order, of carbon and water; there is nothing magical about these substances. If you replace one neuron with a copy in silicon, having the same input-output properties, nothing changes. Repeat for every neuron, and indeed for the rest of the brain. Voila, a human consciousness implemented in silicon. And if it can be done that way, then it can also be done in software.
quote:
Makes sense. Except the part about doing it in software. Software has to be programmed a certain way. It is information, consisting of a collection of 0's and 1's. You referenced matter, which can replaced with different types of matter. There are many types you may be able to use.
There is no replacement for computer information. You cannot replace a 0 or 1 with a 2 or 3. It doesn't exist. There are different computer languages, but behind those is the same collection of 0's and 1's.
quote: [QUOTE]If we uploaded a human brain into an AI, how would it be able to comprehend memories of loss, love, anger, etc?
I don't think you understand what 'upload' or 'AI' means. It would do so the same way it does now, in silicon rather than carbon. Carbon is not magical.
quote:[quote]
Ah but this was a trick question. I think you are confused. You referenced an AI, however uploading a human brain into it would not constitute an artificial intelligence. Artificial in creation or mass perhaps, but not in knowledge. I suppose you could call it a transplanted intelligence.
Software is not magical either. Software can only do what it is programmed to do. I suppose we could program an "artificial intelligence" to make choices based on risk factors, but I'm pretty sure that would be the closest we could get to creating a true artificial intelligence. Otherwise, you cannot teach a non-tangible "feeling" or "belief" to an artificial intelligence.
If you are referring to creating an entire life form such as a silicon Frankenstein or Edward Scissorhands though, I'd help fund that.
[quote]
[QUOTE]Do we know for example how much information the human brain is able to hold?
A few hundred terabytes; but the exact number does not matter, because we know it can be packed into two liters. Dense information storage is not a problem.
Cool. That was something I always wondered. I'm happy with a few hundred terabytes of information. Well, until I can get a 5 petabyte SSD installed at least.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Makes sense. Except the part about doing it in software. Software has to be programmed a certain way. It is information, consisting of a collection of 0's and 1's. You referenced matter, which can replaced with different types of matter. There are many types you may be able to use.
There is no replacement for computer information. You cannot replace a 0 or 1 with a 2 or 3. It doesn't exist. There are different computer languages, but behind those is the same collection of 0's and 1's.
If I can use silicon neurons, then I can use neurons made with springs and gears. And anything that can be done by springs and gears can be done with computer software. What's more, there is nothing stopping me from making a computer that has twos or threes in it, it's just not very practical. Your distinction doesn't actually exist. Also, most of my work consists of programming computers; may I, with respect, suggest that I know more about what the 0-and-1 constraint means than you do?
quote:Ah but this was a trick question. I think you are confused. You referenced an AI, however uploading a human brain into it would not constitute an artificial intelligence. Artificial in creation or mass perhaps, but not in knowledge. I suppose you could call it a transplanted intelligence.
It is artificial in the sense that it would have introspective access to its own code and therefore be able to modify itself, in particular to run faster. (Not that silicon hardware wouldn't likely be a speedup in itself.) Thus, when discussing effects of intelligences running much faster than human brains and able to improve themselves, it is an AI even if its origin is human.
quote:Software is not magical either. Software can only do what it is programmed to do. I suppose we could program an "artificial intelligence" to make choices based on risk factors, but I'm pretty sure that would be the closest we could get to creating a true artificial intelligence. Otherwise, you cannot teach a non-tangible "feeling" or "belief" to an artificial intelligence.
Sez you! Software is not magical, and brains are not magical, therefore there is nothing stopping you from creating a piece of software that does whatever a brain does; to include feeling love.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's a story I'll get to writing one day where I wanna try to explore the ramifications of direct human brain cloning/uploading to AI networks to act as autonomous neural network administrators to make society more efficient and availiable at every level of civilian and military society to different degrees of accessibility.
(StateSec would have an AI paired to every agent while say elementary school would have one AI for the school as a whole for example).
Essentially what I would explore is how the different individual AI's would come to grips with the realization that they used to in their past life to be living breathing humans and now they are stuck in cold metal shells like Daleks.
Some will go insane, others accepts, and some will run away (which is a subset of insanity if you think about it, denial anyways).
Obviously the AI in my story that's arguably one of the protagonists would be the one that runs away
Essentially the process is that kinda like in DollHouse sometime before you die your brain is scanned and converted to a for lack of a better word a software emulated positronic brain within a mainframe (at the beginning anyways, the story's "present" would call for the process to be miniturized) and then "wiped" of memories or at least suppressed for stability reasons.
Over time the AI's leak memories back as the above process isn't perfect and neither is the software emulating the brain causing "errors" which turns into a developing personality that leads to the realization of their previous humanity.
Character development and plot would have to focus on the full extrapolation and exploration of this concept.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I would imagine that, if the copy were good enough, most people would learn to accept their new state, especially given the much longer lifetime they'd have to do so.
Humans are fantastically adaptable - just look at everyone who has had to completely change their life due to circumstances beyond their control.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not see why anyone would voluntarily undergo such a procedure; to be copied imperfectly, and worse, without your memories, is the equivalent of undergoing a stroke. So it follows that this is a dystopia. Are the AIs conscripts, perhaps? Or worse: Do the originals sell copies of themselves into slavery, in exchange for whatever wealth and services an economy with access to such power can supply? For myself, it would take a high price indeed to induce me to a procedure where I have a 50/50 chance of waking up as a mind-crippled slave. Not to mention the moral aspect: I would not sell a child of mine into slavery; should I sell my copy?
These things might well make for an excellent fiction, of course. I'm just saying, I do not think it a very likely future; I don't see the useful intermediates.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I will quickly offer that the imperfect part (rather explicitly) is depicted very interestingly in The Terminal Experiment Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, Chapter 27 is up! It looks to me as though Harry is growing in empathy. Perhaps those of you who found him unsympathetic might like him a bit better now?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do, actually, now that is appears to be drawing on knowledge and intelligence used to solve problems dealing with human beings, rather than purely technical or power-grabbing problems.
I suppose one way to characterize it would be that Harry has been largely a mechanical kind of mind in his dealings with the world. Even when he would get emotional, it seemed largely to be about problems dealing with his rather mechanical goals.
Now he's putting himself into someone else's head, and considering how they might feel. It renders him more human. When it comes to dealing with human beings, that sort of outlook is generally much more helpful to say nothing of good than science.
ETA: Though Harry still has a ways to go. His apology appears to be from a pretty utilitarian perspective, rather than a compassionate one: uh-oh, Snape's pissed, I'd better lose now. Still, he's just a kid.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This was a pretty intense chapter. And yet another example of the author totally throwing us off course in terms of the original story/character arc. Snape was bound to Dumbledore for 17 years entirely because of his love for Lily. And because Snape is flawless at faking emotion, Dumbledore won't be able to tell the difference.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I do not see why anyone would voluntarily undergo such a procedure; to be copied imperfectly, and worse, without your memories, is the equivalent of undergoing a stroke. So it follows that this is a dystopia. Are the AIs conscripts, perhaps? Or worse: Do the originals sell copies of themselves into slavery, in exchange for whatever wealth and services an economy with access to such power can supply? For myself, it would take a high price indeed to induce me to a procedure where I have a 50/50 chance of waking up as a mind-crippled slave. Not to mention the moral aspect: I would not sell a child of mine into slavery; should I sell my copy?
These things might well make for an excellent fiction, of course. I'm just saying, I do not think it a very likely future; I don't see the useful intermediates.
This is the novel I'm writing that takes place in an alternate future where the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union is still not only kicking but thriving (in part THANKS to the AI's and their programmed efficiency).
So that fridge horror interpretation would be valid and perhaps justified.
It goes kinda like this:
the newly created AI has its mind wiped (so that they can be more easily controlled and kepts mentally stable as their still 'human but better').
The AI's are sorted into a rough hierarchy of authority Military!AI > Civilian!AI in authority.
Network Admin AI is in 'control' and has root access to the AI's lower in the heirarchy in its network example:
Say I have 5 military bases around Vladivostok and one HQ, each base would have for simplification one on base AI to manage files, communications, counter intelligence, network security, network resource management, nose picking, and generally acts as an attache to the base commander along with a human attache (as ostensibly attache's are usually career command officers in training right?).\
Then you would have the HQ-AI thats not only has the same duties for the HQ building but has administrator control over the 5 ai's at the other bases in that military district.
While say the AI in STAVKA would be ranked higher then the AI's in each of the military districts as one big network which are then layered like an onion with smaller subnetworks in each one recursively all the way down to some backwater AI in some remote outpost somewhere.
ALL AI's have their minds wiped once and only once at the beginning when their first created, but they regain their memories slowly and thus have to come to terms with their lost humanity, remmeber an AI thats say incharge of deportation in theory you do not want to be humane from the viewpoint of the suporiors.
Which is why some go insane when they start not only remembering their past but also sometimes regaining their old personality.
The precedent of a fear driven society to keep everyone equally on their toes is kept by having every high ranking military officer and every for lack of a better word 'important' StateSec agent paired with an AI whose job would essentially is to act as well informed informants and psychiatrists, a task made easier through cybernetic implants that give the AI's access to your surface thoughts but only the ones "installed" into your brain via the implant which taking a page from OSC resembles an ruby/precious gem inserted at the back of your ear.
The story is being driven by the fact that the Space!KGB protagonist was officially exempted from having to be paired with an AI due to incompatibility issues (this is a gov't conspiracy but he doesn't know it) with the cost that he is only given either extremely dangerous Blackadderesque missions or the most menial no inbetween. But ends up busting a terrorist cell that was smuggling out Soviet Military Research AI's into NATO space only for the AI they were smuggling to "jump" into his empty implant-space thingy (which saves his life as it lets him hack past the secured doors Metal gear Solid style) which lets him escape and kill the terrorists/freedom fighters.
However the twist is the AI they were smuggling is on the run as well as 'She' wants to not get caught again by the AI in charge of the entire Soviet Global Defence Network who ALSO got back HIS memories but as it turns out was a former Premier who died and became the first AI and she [the runaway AI] was his second wife and he wants her back.
That is one of many plots I am outlining.
All in the midst of WWIII IN SPACE.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Snape seems like a pretty intelligent guy. Would it really not have occurred to him even once over the last couple of decades that "hey, maybe Lily was just kind of shallow?" It has to have occurred to him. Either he rationalized it away, in which case he should've been able to continue doing so after Harry's attempted explanation, or he accepted it and it didn't change his feelings for her, so Harry's explanation shouldn't have surprised him. So the big "I almost killed you omg everything I know is a lie" moment felt a bit fabricated to me. Other than that, though, this was the best chapter in a long time. I actually read it over three (Edit: now four!) times ^.^
[ June 27, 2010, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Random question: people keep talking like it's a done deal that Quirrel is Voldemort. Have we actually clarified this for certain? It had seemed like the sort of thing that would have made more sense for the author to leave ambiguous to keep us guessing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe the author has made it pretty clear, and many signs within the story point to it. I don't recall where he did so, though-probably in one of the vanished author's notes. He could be tricking us. *shrug*
Sinflower, I think Harry's explanation might carry more weight because she's his mother. He didn't know it was his mother Snape was talking about, but hearing it come out of his dead love's son, well, I can imagine that would have extra oomph.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
sinflower: I thought Snape's response was more "You impertinent twerp, calling me an idiot and your mother shallow. I should kill you for insulting both of us like that."
I really enjoy all the little comments at the top of each chapter. I've recognized several of them though not all. Particularly entertained by the TMBG quote. And the current author notes has a nod to CTY.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I love that the guy who is trying to read Harry's mind is named Bester.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Read chapter 27.
Love the Lensman stuff, and the name Bester, nice shout-out.
Harry made a serious blunder, he went from a theoretical question based on admittedly limited knowledge to suggesting a practical application:
quote:She was shallow, in other words. Tell whoever it was that she wasn't worthy of him and he needs to get over it and move on and next time date girls who are deep instead of pretty.
Stupid.
Anyway, the real puzzler is that this Snape still doesn't know why Lily didn't forgive him. All this time, and he still thinks she is upset about him calling her a mudblood? That was only a sign of what she believe was in his heart, namely prejudice and evil. She told him she didn't like him hanging out with dark wizards; he didn't change that for her though.
It's like if someone drops the N-word. They can apologize, but the fact remains that for a word to come out, it has to be in there in the first place, and people know this. While it doesn't make someone a secret Klan member, it does mean they aren't color-blind either.
Harry asked Snape if he was really prejudiced against muggleborns, and Snape said no. But Harry didn't ask if *the girl* knew that, which is they key question he should have asked, knowing as little as he did. So much for rationality!
So even being ignorant of all the other stuff at play between Snape and Lily, Harry failed a fairly obvious bit of analysis.
Of course, he's only eleven.
And the fact is, Snape was friend-zoned from the start and never stood a chance.
James convinced Lily he changed and wasn't a bully any more.
Snape never convinced Lily he wasn't Dark... he probably still could have, too, if he'd stopped associating with people Lily despised... but he didn't.
Snape would rather continue to believe that he might have won Lily's heart if only he hadn't called her a mudblood... but that isn't true. He never had a chance, because he never listened to her real issues.
Snape's love for Lily was always a selfish, possessive love. He's basically a sicko, really.
And then canon-Harry goes and names his son after the guy! I'll never understand that part.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure I'd characterize someone who went on to knowingly sacrifice their life in a particularly agonizing, scary way in memory of a dead loved one someone whose love was 'selfish and possessive'.
Snape had deeper issues driving him than just his affection for Lily, if I'm not mistaken. An awful home life and childhood, a pretty crappy life at school frequently hounded and tormented by the 'good guys', and let me tell you, if the 'good guys' are such absolute assholes as that and no one appears to care, well, what's my incentive not to be bad if it's happening to me?
Anyway, pretty unnuanced analysis, there, and it contradicts much of what we know actually happened in the book. The truth is, we don't know why Lily went for James, or am I forgetting that part of the books? We only knew they ended up loving each other a very great deal. We also know that in spite of her turning her back on him (justified or not) in favor of one of his most despised enemies, Snape still didn't want her hurt, and then when she was, decided to thwart, in person, the scariest dude on Earth for nearly 20 years, and died doing it.
Yeah, that's selfish and sick, man.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Snape was all right with James and Harry being murdered, if he could only have Lily.
That's not love.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Snape was all right with James and Harry being murdered, if he could only have Lily.
That's not love.
Sure it is. It may not meet your definition of good or selfless love, but it's still love. What, love doesn't get to be dysfunctional sometimes?
I don't think canon Lily was shallow though. She had extremely good reasons to think that Snape was prejudiced against muggleborns, not least of which the fact that he had joined a violent pureblood cult, for goodness' sake. And it was obvious from the very beginning, what with his dismissive and openly scornful treatment of Petunia, that he didn't regard muggles as equally human to wizards. It seems like a pretty straightforward case of "racist guy makes an exception only for the girl he loves," and in that context breaking off the relationship was an arguably admirable thing for Lily to do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
We don't know that much about canon!Lily, but the MoR one clearly treated her sister pretty shabbily on the weight-loss thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do we know how violent the Death Eaters were at that point? Just curious, I agree with the overall premise that Snape was pretty damn sleazy and in distinctly evil territory at that point in his life. Certainly not someone I would suggest anyone date.
As for Snape's treatment of Petunia, I don't know enough about the circumstances of his upbringing to gauge what his motivations were, and why.
Was it ever made clear Snape went along with the 'kill Harry and James' angle if it didn't include killing Lily? I really don't remember. Though I do wonder how your condemnation of him for wanting Harry dead jibes with his risking life, limb, hell possibly soul for nearly 20 years to help keep Harry alive, when he clearly despised the kid.
quote:And then canon-Harry goes and names his son after the guy! I'll never understand that part.
I think if anyone has the right to forgive the guy, it's Harry, don't you?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
So I am a terrible Harry Potter nerd and will now bring actual ~quotes~ into the convo. I feel vaguely ashamed about this
So the racist-besides-one-exception thing:
---------- "No--listen, I didn't mean--"
"--to call me Mudblood? But you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?"
[Snape doesn't rebut this statement] ----------
Snape v. Petunia:
---------- Petunia's laugh was like cold water... "Why have you been spying on us?"
"Haven't been spying," said Snape, hot and uncomfortable and dirty-haired in the bright sunlight. "Wouldn't spy on you, anyway," he added spitefully, "you're a Muggle."
[Later he uses magic to drop a tree branch on her head.]
----------
Granted, Petunia was pretty nasty to Snape previously, so some reciprocal nastiness was warranted, but the fact that he chose "Muggle" specifically as the insult says something. It just seems clear to me that he was raised in a culture of "magical supremacy." I know MoR Lily and Snape are different, but Yudkowsky's author's notes implied that his interpretation made sense based on canon too, and it doesn't. MoR Snape specifically states that he wasn't prejudiced against Muggleborns, which just wasn't true in canon. Snape is one of my favorite characters and I think his bad traits are far outweighed by his good ones, but the "Lily was a shallow pretty girl" interpretation doesn't sit right with me either.
Re: being okay with James and Harry dying, I think there was a scene with Snape and Dumbledore in which Snape was like "omg SAVE LILY" and Dumbledore replied "Severus do you even CARE if James and Harry die too?!" and Snape was like "fine, okay, save them too, whatever." So my interpretation is that Snape wouldn't have intervened to save James and Harry if Lily weren't threatened too, but he didn't actively want them dead either. Which seems fair to me, considering how James treated him.
[ June 29, 2010, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, I can't condemn Snape for not risking life and limb to save James Potter of all people, who was friend and ally and co-tormentor to the dude who decided to basically attempt to (at best) commit manslaughter on Snape as a prank. And incidentally to possibly put human blood on his friend Remus's hands. Harry, though, well, anything but emphatic opposition (whether secret or open) to Harry's death firmly puts Snape, at that point, in the evil camp. Kid was an infant, after all.
As for the Mudblood slurs...Snape was a Mudblood. That, to me, makes it a thing not just to be criticized and despised, but also to be pitied. It's pretty clearly self-hatred as much as bigotry, isn't it? How can Snape rebut the statement? What makes it even more bizarre, twisted, and pitiable is that some of the glittering icons of pureblood - the Marauders - were among his worst, most frequent tormentors.
I suppose I kind of regard Snape in that respect as akin to Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks: he's sick.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Was it ever made clear Snape went along with the 'kill Harry and James' angle if it didn't include killing Lily? I really don't remember.
Snape asks Dumbledore to save Lily. He asks what of her husband and child? Snape says nothing. Dumbledore says, they can die, as long as you have what you want? You disgust me. Snape says okay, save them all.
Later, Dumbledore asks if Snape has come to care for Harry. "For *him*?" Snape says with scorn, and casts his Patronus. He is only protecting Harry for Lily. Harry himself is nothing Snape. So it seems weird for Harry to name his kid after someone that really did hate him, and only protected him because he still had the creepy hots for his dead mom.
quote:It may not meet your definition of good or selfless love, but it's still love. What, love doesn't get to be dysfunctional sometimes?
There's a reason we have the word "infatuation" in the English language. A feeling of great attachment, great desire, does not equal love. There are tons of stalkers that "loved" their victims, even after they murdered them. Snape's not that bad; he wouldn't have killed Lily. But the death of a child is the worst thing in the world; Lily was willing to sacrifice her life to save Harry's, that's how much she cared, but Snape didn't care that she cared. Her feelings were not important to him. Only possessing her. If that's love, than we've just generalized the word to make it pretty meaningless.
quote:I think if anyone has the right to forgive the guy, it's Harry, don't you?
That doesn't mean he actually should. Snape has wronged Harry and isn't even sorry, because he doesn't care about Harry. If Snape had not died, they wouldn't be friends. Snape would still hate Harry. It's just weird to not only forgive in the sense of letting go of grudges, but actually to embrace someone that can't stand you.
Plus, now his kid has to bear the name, so that's kind of a far-reaching deal. I personally wouldn't like to be named after the man responsible for getting my grandparents murdered, even if he later saved my dad because he had the hots for my dead grandma. Seems creepy.
quote:So my interpretation is that Snape wouldn't have intervened to save James and Harry if Lily weren't threatened too, but he didn't actively want them dead either. Which seems fair to me, considering how James treated him.
He may not have *wanted* them dead, but since Lily loves them, and he (supposedly) loves Lily, you'd think he'd not want to see her torn apart emotionally by the deaths of her family. But he doesn't care so much about that, as long as she's physically unharmed, and single.
quote:Snape was a Mudblood
No, he's a half-blood. Half-blood prince, remember? His father was a mudblood. But so was You-Know-Who's, so there you go.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: His father was a mudblood. But so was You-Know-Who's, so there you go.
Snape's father was a muggle. As was You-Know-Who's. Mudblood is a slur for muggleborn wizards.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Harry has got to be emotionally confusing for Snape. He does protect Harry though because of Lily. He dislikes the kid, sees all the obnoxiousness of the kid's dad in him (the dad who did try to kill him at one point). But he still is willing to risk his life for Harry because it is what Lily would have wanted. Also, Lilly died for Harry- so, easy to blame Harry for her death, at least a little. Additionally, Snape must see in Harry the child he wishes he could have had with Lily- instead of his own son with lily's eyes, he has his enemy's son there. Complicates the relationship a bit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Snape asks Dumbledore to save Lily. He asks what of her husband and child? Snape says nothing. Dumbledore says, they can die, as long as you have what you want? You disgust me. Snape says okay, save them all.
I've already said that apathy towards the death of the infant firmly puts Snape in the evil camp.
quote: Later, Dumbledore asks if Snape has come to care for Harry. "For *him*?" Snape says with scorn, and casts his Patronus. He is only protecting Harry for Lily. Harry himself is nothing Snape. So it seems weird for Harry to name his kid after someone that really did hate him, and only protected him because he still had the creepy hots for his dead mom.
Personally, I don't think Snape was ever particularly honest with himself. Take the 'Mudblood' slur, membership in the Death Eaters, alongside of Snape's family history. Sure, Snape had plenty of hate for Harry. Some of it understandable, even. But I don't think it was as all-consuming as you think. It isn't as though he could possibly benefit personally from his protection of Harry. Lily is dead, and never coming back, and he knows it. There is no scenario where Snape benefits personally from protecting Harry, rendering your charge of purely selfish love pretty strange.
quote:There's a reason we have the word "infatuation" in the English language. A feeling of great attachment, great desire, does not equal love. There are tons of stalkers that "loved" their victims, even after they murdered them. Snape's not that bad; he wouldn't have killed Lily. But the death of a child is the worst thing in the world; Lily was willing to sacrifice her life to save Harry's, that's how much she cared, but Snape didn't care that she cared. Her feelings were not important to him. Only possessing her. If that's love, than we've just generalized the word to make it pretty meaningless.
How would Snape have known how far Lily was willing to go, and thus how much she loved, for Harry's sake? It was an incredibly rare thing, the outcome of that event, so we can't say he should have expected it. There was only one Boy Who Lived, after all. And if Snape only cared about possessing her...well, he was an unscrupulous, evil even, masterful Dark Wizard who was also a genius with potions. You do the math.
quote:That doesn't mean he actually should. Snape has wronged Harry and isn't even sorry, because he doesn't care about Harry. If Snape had not died, they wouldn't be friends. Snape would still hate Harry. It's just weird to not only forgive in the sense of letting go of grudges, but actually to embrace someone that can't stand you.
If Snape hadn't died...what you're saying is, if Snape hadn't made the ultimate repentant sacrifice, Harry wouldn't have forgiven him. Well, obviously.
And is it weird to embrace someone who heroically stood up, and died for it, to the most evil, frightening person in the history of the world for your mother's sake? Yeah, that's crazy.
quote: Plus, now his kid has to bear the name, so that's kind of a far-reaching deal. I personally wouldn't like to be named after the man responsible for getting my grandparents murdered, even if he later saved my dad because he had the hots for my dead grandma. Seems creepy.
He was only partially responsible, and did attempt to prevent it the best way he knew how. Was it a pure, noble-hearted attempt? No, of course not. But saying 'he's responsible' is too cut-and-dried.
quote:He may not have *wanted* them dead, but since Lily loves them, and he (supposedly) loves Lily, you'd think he'd not want to see her torn apart emotionally by the deaths of her family. But he doesn't care so much about that, as long as she's physically unharmed, and single.
The first part of this statement is why Snape is ambiguous. But the defiance has to mix with the ambivalence to come up with something more than just purely good or purely evil.
quote:No, he's a half-blood. Half-blood prince, remember? His father was a mudblood. But so was You-Know-Who's, so there you go.
If I'm not mistaken, Mudblood is a term for someone who has any muggle blood in their veins, with the more of it being the greater stigma. Snape having half of his parents being muggle is exactly one parent away from as bad as it can get. He's a self-hating member of a minority.
quote:Harry has got to be emotionally confusing for Snape. He does protect Harry though because of Lily. He dislikes the kid, sees all the obnoxiousness of the kid's dad in him (the dad who did try to kill him at one point). But he still is willing to risk his life for Harry because it is what Lily would have wanted. Also, Lilly died for Harry- so, easy to blame Harry for her death, at least a little. Additionally, Snape must see in Harry the child he wishes he could have had with Lily- instead of his own son with lily's eyes, he has his enemy's son there. Complicates the relationship a bit.
Let's not forget, not only did James try to kill him, along with Sirius, he basically got off completely on the punishment angle. Which was frankly ridiculous. Attempting to stop the 'prank' after it was started might be a reason to avoid criminal prosecution, but certainly not expulsion or even suspension.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I had a thought about Azkaban. There's an old German song, "My thoughts are free", expressing the idea that you can lock up the body, but not the mind:
quote:Und sperrt man mich ein im finsteren Kerker, das alles sind rein vergebliche Werke. Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken und Mauern entzwei, die Gedanken sind frei!
or in my rough translation,
And force me as you will in iron-bound cages my thought flies freely still however man rages. The mind knows no barrier no hunter, no harrier and thus it will always be: My thoughts are ever free!
It's the anthem of the Norwegian Labour party. But Azkaban makes a mockery of it; in Azkaban your thought is not free, it is bound to the worst things you can imagine!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Chapter 30 was full of crazy awesome references. I think my single favorite line was "the enemy's gate is sideways!" But the best group of lines was:
quote:"All wings report in," said General Potter. They'd rehearsed this during their one training session on Saturday.
"Red Leader standing by," said Seamus Finnigan, who had no idea what it meant.
"Red Five standing by," said Dean Thomas, who'd waited his entire life to say it.
"Green Leader standing by," Theodore Nott said rather stiffly.
"Green Forty-One standing by," Tracey Davis said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought it was pretty enjoyable myself:) It was fun and amusing that Hermione is the one who implemented, y'know, the basic building block of human civilization, and the only component without which it'll always fail.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I was frankly pretty disappointed that Harry (or for that matter Draco) couldn't conceive of Granger coming up with such a basic strategy. I mean, a major point of Ender's game is specifically that you SHOULD be open to ideas from your army. Harry even implements that idea (albeit without Ender's finesse). I liked the point the author made about Harry's arrogance, but I think he had to exaggerate it a little extremely to make it.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Yes, but Ender's army was comprised of certifiable geniuses. Harry's problem is that it's never occurred to him that people who aren't certifiable geniuses can come up with good ideas too, and since his soldiers aren't certifiable geniuses, he doesn't think to involve them in the strategic process (despite giving them some flexibility on the battlefield.) But now he'll presumably learn that the intelligence of a group can be higher than that of its most intelligent member.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I agree with sinflower, I think it fit. In Ender's Game, the teammates involved while in almost all cases were probably not as smart as Ender, they were still his peers. Harry in MoR considers himself to have exactly three peers at Hogwarts, who incidentally are his rival generals. He only planned for having to contend with two sets of good ideas coming from two people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not only does Harry not consider them peers, he doesn't think there is any reason for them to exist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Neither, presumably, did the people who ran Battle School. They didn't let any neurotypicals in either. And as a side note, you'll note that Ender never seems to interact with anyone of median intelligence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not only does Harry not consider them peers, he doesn't think there is any reason for them to exist.
To be fair, Harry doesn't think there's any reason for himself to exist, either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Neither, presumably, did the people who ran Battle School. They didn't let any neurotypicals in either. And as a side note, you'll note that Ender never seems to interact with anyone of median intelligence.
I realize you're just baiting kmbboots, KoM, but this is simply silly. The people who ran Battle School quite thought there was a reason for 'neurotypicals' to exist. They were, after all, training tons of kids aside from the core Ender toon to segue into the regular military, where they would interact with 'neurotypicals' on a regular basis.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Battle School was training children for one particular goal and was not the only education available. It was assumed that other children, with other attributes and talents would get training for those things. Hogwarts is it. Everyone goes there.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@Tom: huh what?
I think this chapter did a good job of addressing the arrogance issue. Draco genuinely believes himself to be superior to other people, and would state that out loud, proudly. He asserts it as an axiom: He's a Malfoy, ergo he's better.
Hermione implies (I think we are meant to assume she is right) that with Harry it's less about actively thinking something bad/evil, and more about ignorance. In his limited life experience, he's used to most people not being as smart as him. It HAS been isolating, which has made it even harder to learn all the different valuable qualities people can have. Right now he sees the member of Chaos Army as people with potential that he can help foster. (No, he really doesn't seem them as USELESS at all, that was Draco talking. Have you never agreed with something mean that someone else said because arguing about it didn't seem worth it and part of you sort of agreed but not really?). But I'm sure eventually he will realize (or at least be told) what Hermione was doing, and he'll begin to learn that other people have something to teach HIM. I like how the story has approached that issue. It's very rare for people with minds that operate like Harry to get a story where they really see someone they can identify with, getting to "win" using the virtues that come with that mindset, while still acknowledging the faults that must be addressed and learned from as well. Usually a character like Harry is treated as a well developed villain or anti-hero at best.
One thing mentioned on the site's comments that I liked was that this battle does involve three different brilliant commanders, each of whom thought in completely different ways, which made sense in their own way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Neither, presumably, did the people who ran Battle School. They didn't let any neurotypicals in either. And as a side note, you'll note that Ender never seems to interact with anyone of median intelligence.
I realize you're just baiting kmbboots, KoM, but this is simply silly. The people who ran Battle School quite thought there was a reason for 'neurotypicals' to exist. They were, after all, training tons of kids aside from the core Ender toon to segue into the regular military, where they would interact with 'neurotypicals' on a regular basis.
You're mistaken; the kids who weren't in Ender's toon were nonetheless geniuses, in the top percentile or permille-ile of the population for intelligence, aggression, and leadership. (According to the tests, anyway, which of course were not perfect.) Neurotypicals might have gone into the ranks, but they were not officers. And at that, the sort of technical training you need to be useful even at low rank IN SPACE is not likely to be undergone by the average janitor.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not mistaken, you simply misunderstood. I didn't say that aside from Ender's toon were 'neurotypicals' (and really, again, what a stupid term that is, incredibly ironic), I said that they didn't believe there was no reason for neurotypicals to exist.
Your insistence on discussing neurotypicals and their worth is pretty strange in the context of this story, where Harry and Draco have just had a striking example of how stupid and self-defeating it is to simply write off whole swaths of people. The truly brilliant leaders and geniuses figure out how to work with what they've got and improve on the originals.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:The truly brilliant leaders and geniuses figure out how to work with what they've got and improve on the originals.
I think this isn't quite the lesson we're meant to be learning here. At least from Harry (it's closer to what Draco is experiencing). Harry doesn't write off his army as uselessly average. He honestly believes they have potential if they would only change the way that they think. (That's half of it - the other half is that changing the way people think is simply a fun experiment). His mistake is not that he doesn't work with what he has and/or improve the people around him. His mistake is that he doesn't see how HE can learn from those people.
Also worth noting: the Ron that Harry agreed with Draco about being "useless" was not the Ron who is loyal, brave, and a good chess player. The Ron that Harry was agreeing about (if we're to take Harry's words at face value, a notion I still dispute) was the Ron who talked about a ridiculous sport for 20 minutes, and that was all Harry knew about at the time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And that was all he needed to know before making that judgement. And having never even seen the game.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, yes, a purely rationalist outlook would have insisted Harry reserve judgment about the sport until, y'know, making actual observations of it himself. To say nothing about making an assessment based on the information of someone he regards as very stupid.
quote:His mistake is not that he doesn't work with what he has and/or improve the people around him. His mistake is that he doesn't see how HE can learn from those people.
That's another of his mistakes, but it's not the only one. He's not making use of what he's got, exactly. He's looking at what he's got and thinking, "This could be useful if I changed it." That's not quite the same thing. It might seem like quibbling, but it's a distinct difference. Whereas a more effective leader and genius would attempt to both improve what he's got, and use what he has currently to the maximum potential. That's what Hermione did, thus it's no surprise she won.
I agree we shouldn't take Harry's words at face value, but I am also very dubious as to whether Harry places a high premium on virtues like loyalty and bravery. Which is really quite strange given his taste in fiction.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:And that was all he needed to know before making that judgement. And having never even seen the game.
You're lumping two different statements Harry makes together, and seeing the worst in him because of it. One of the two statements is that Quidditch is dumb. No, Harry is not particularly tactful about that. I happen to enjoy having arguments like that so I don't register it as "Harry being mean," but I can certainly understand why it would make him unlikeable to a large block of the population.
The second statement is "yeah." This is responding to Draco's statement "he doesn't seem like he has a reason to exist?" This is after Harry has already sharply told Draco (and Ron) not to be rude to each other.
Assume for a moment that all Harry meant by "yeah," was that Ron is annoying and boring and he doesn't feel like hanging out with him, as opposed to literally "he shouldn't exist at all ever." Also assume that Ron had been talking about something you consider suitably boring and nonsensical. What exactly would you have said to Draco in that particular circumstance?
quote:I agree we shouldn't take Harry's words at face value, but I am also very dubious as to whether Harry places a high premium on virtues like loyalty and bravery. Which is really quite strange given his taste in fiction.
I think Harry places plenty value on loyalty and bravery. We certainly see him doing lots of brave things, as well as showing loyalty to the people he does care about, even if so far those people consist basically of... his parents. Neither Draco nor Hermione have exactly given him reason to be loyal so far. As much as they are both his friends, they are also both his rivals (and in the case of Draco, genuine enemies).
We've seen him be loyal to causes (helping people in need in general), and I am willing to bet that at this point he'd consider himself loyal to Neville, Fred and George. He values them for the same reason he values Ron in Harry!Classic, AS WELL as for the additional talents they bring.
The thing is that he doesn't value loyalty by itself. You have to choose your loyalties intelligently. Draco is hella loyal to Slytherine ideals. Harry considers this (rightly, IMO) a very Bad Thing™, something to be subverted and destroyed. I think Harry (and probably the author) would argue that true rationality will result in you being loyal to the correct things by default. Which is why he values rationality above all else.
SIDE NOTE: It's worth noting that Neville's primary positive characteristics are goodness and bravery (or, at least, a desire to be brave). While he hasn't specified it, I think Harry does value that at this point. It's also worth noting that those are the SAME things that make Ron valuable in the original story. This, in particular, is why Ron is unnecessary as a character. He and Neville are very similar to each other, except Neville has a bigger and more interesting character arc. I think the author's choice to eliminate Ron and let Neville fill that niche is the correct one.
quote:He's looking at what he's got and thinking, "This could be useful if I changed it." That's not quite the same thing. It might seem like quibbling, but it's a distinct difference.
See my above points. I think he sees value in his friends already. What he's specifically missing is that he doesn't see most of his friends as having intelligence in addition to their other values. I do see what you're saying, but I think it only applies very specifically to his beliefs about their intellect as oppose to their other qualities.
Final random note: I do think Ron would have been better served in the original story if his "good at chess" thing had been played up more, so that he filled the "Sokka" role: the comic relief AND strategic thinker. And it's looking like he may end up getting to play that role here, even if we don't get to see much of it at first.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:One of the two statements is that Quidditch is dumb. No, Harry is not particularly tactful about that. I happen to enjoy having arguments like that so I don't register it as "Harry being mean," but I can certainly understand why it would make him unlikeable to a large block of the population.
The problem is not 'Quidditch is dumb', it's the implicit statement 'and you're dumb for liking it so much.'
quote:I think Harry places plenty value on loyalty and bravery. We certainly see him doing plenty of brave things, as well as loyalty to the people he does care about, even if so far those people consist basically of... his parents. Neither Draco nor Hermione have exactly given him reason to be loyal so far. As much as they are both his friends, they are also both his rivals (and in the case of Draco, genuine enemies).
Hermione certainly has. In this story, she has continued keeping her agreement with Harry despite his - against her very reasonable and strenuous objections - nearly gotten her killed at least once, with the 'screw the it's-dangerous warnings' experiments. She also didn't narc on him, though given how close she came to death would have been perfectly within her rights to do so.
quote: We've seen him be loyal to causes (helping people in need in general), and I am willing to bet that at these point he'd consider himself particularly loyal to Neville, Fred and George. And he values them for the same reason he values Ron in Harry!Classic, AS WELL as for the additional talents they bring.
I wouldn't put Fred and George on such a list in this story, because so far their relationship has been one of amiable transaction. Neville is a different story, though.
quote: The thing is that he doesn't value loyalty by itself. You have to choose your loyalties intelligently. Draco is hella loyal to Slytherine ideals. Harry considers this (rightly, IMO) a very Bad Thing™, something to be subverted and destroyed. I think Harry (and probably the author) would argue that true rationality will result in you being loyal to the correct things by default. Which is why he values rationality above all else.
You might be right. I hope so.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I edited my above post a bit. I may agree with you about Fred and George in terms of loyalty. Harry definitely sees value to them, whether loyalty is part of the equation. While he might not be loyal them out of genuine friendship I'm sure he'd go out of his way to help them if they were in trouble.
I actually saw his relationship with Hermione as similar to how you saw his relationship with Fred and George - more of a transaction than a friendship. Also bearing in mind that he and Hermione ARE rivals. So while he'd protect from (perceived) genuine danger (such as when he steps in front of her when Snape appears), he's not actively looking out for her when it comes to things that they are rivaling over.
In the last few chapters they became closer genuine friends, but then shortly afterwards their rivalry got kicked up a notch, so I think it'll be a while before we see true friendship between them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In the last few chapters they became closer genuine friends, but then shortly afterwards their rivalry got kicked up a notch...
Which is a recipe for luuuuuve. j/k
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Final random note: I do think Ron would have been better served in the original story if his "good at chess" thing had been played up more, so that he filled the "Sokka" role: the comic relief AND strategic thinker. And it's looking like he may end up getting to play that role here, even if we don't get to see much of it at first.
I think Ron would've been better served in the original story if he had shown any of the mental qualities chess requires in his everyday life. As it is, it seems like Rowling just waved her wand and said "Ron is smart! He is a strategic thinker!" and expected us to believe it, rather than showing Ron actually behaving like a smart, strategic thinker (which he doesn't). Same with Hermione, but to a lesser extent: she's absorbs vast quantities of knowledge, but she doesn't seem to do much with it besides repeat it back at opportune moments. That's what I like about this fic. Yudkowsky doesn't just say "Harry is smart! He is a rationalist!", he actually takes us into Harry's thought processes so we can understand why Harry is supposed to be smart and rational, and why his strategies could work in real life without the help of a benevolent author. (Another trope I dislike: the "genius" comes up with a convoluted "clever" plan requiring many different events to all occur exactly right, and lo and behold, they do! Isn't he brilliant?)
Also, rivalry could totally be the beginning of ~true lurve~! ...which is why I think Hermione and Draco are meant to be. And their love will be pure and beautiful. So pure and beautiful that it will shatter the harmful construct of class prejudice and usher in a new age. I know I'm right. (Failing that, I ship Hermione and Blaise Zabini.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually thought Blaise was a girl for a long time and until this actual chapter, where he is finally referred to by pronoun. I assumed the author was setting things up for a Blaise/Potter ship.
Granted, Blaise could still be gay. For that matter, since we've already given his personality a massive overhaul, so could Harry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Blaise? Like Blaise Pascal? So NOT a girl.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I've never heard the name "Blaise" before (only vaguely remembered it from Harry!Classic), except for in another story I read where the main character is a girl with Blaise as her last name. It also sort of sounds like Blouse. So, with apologies to Mr Pascal, I'm gonna have to say that Blaise is a pretty girly sounding name to me. (Hm... unless it's pronounced "Blaze"?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That IS how it's pronounced.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay then. I still don't feel particularly ashamed about this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't recall stating or implying that you should be.
Now, if you get it wrong the next time, we may have to have words. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The thing is that he doesn't value loyalty by itself. You have to choose your loyalties intelligently. Draco is hella loyal to Slytherine ideals. Harry considers this (rightly, IMO) a very Bad Thing™, something to be subverted and destroyed. I think Harry (and probably the author) would argue that true rationality will result in you being loyal to the correct things by default. Which is why he values rationality above all else.
Harry may believe this, but Yudkowsky absolutely does not.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Interesting. Given that that entire essay is Yudkowsky discussing in detail WHY he used to think that way, with arguments that were compelling enough at the time to persuade himself, it seems rather likely that Harry would feel that way, as a young rationalist who has already been shown to believe a lot of wrong things.
I'm not finished reading it, but this is my favorite paragraph so far:
quote:Eliezer2000 lives by the rule that you should always be ready to have your thoughts broadcast to the whole world at any time, without embarrassment. Otherwise, clearly, you've fallen from grace: either you're thinking something you shouldn't be thinking, or you're embarrassed by something that shouldn't embarrass you.
(These days, I don't espouse quite such an extreme viewpoint, mostly for reasons of Fun Theory. I see a role for continued social competition between intelligent life-forms, as least as far as my near-term vision stretches. I admit, these days, that it might be all right for human beings to have a self; as John McCarthy put it, "If everyone were to live for others all the time, life would be like a procession of ants following each other around in a circle." If you're going to have a self, you may as well have secrets, and maybe even conspiracies. But I do still try to abide by the principle of being able to pass a future lie detector test, with anyone else who's also willing to go under the lie detector, if the topic is a professional one. Fun Theory needs a commonsense exception for global catastrophic risk management.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay, I am getting infuriated by this website. I just read a bunch of stuff about how hyperlinks are seriously messing with human reading comprehension. And here is a site full of hyperlinks, almost every single one of which is something that I a) am no familiar with, and b) am interested in reading about.
I'm consigned myself to reading through some arbitrarily large chunk of the website, but I would much prefer to do so in a way that, instead of hyperlinks, simply presents the relevant content in a meaningful order.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Seeker, thou hast asked, and it shall be revealed unto thee. Behold: The Sequences! Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Thanks.
Having read the first section you linked, I'm not sure if it means the same thing you implied it did. Pure rationality does not guarantee human morality. But we're not talking about purely rational computers, we're talking about human beings who are starting with human-centric-viewpoints, who might either be rational or not. I do think that rational humans will tend to agree with each other given similar data sets, and since part of rationality is periodically stopping to consider ways in which your data set may be inaccurate, the end result is that valuing rationality above bravery and loyalty is, well... rational. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
OMG, this chapter was amazing. (Somewhat frustrating in that I currently am not entirely sure WHAT just happened... I am not Slytherin enough to keep track of all the plots).
Edit: Okay, reread parts of it, sort of get it now.
I always didn't quite figure out the extent to which "Enemy's gate is down" really made sense underwater until the second time through, since that means YOU have a clear view of your enemies against the sunlight, but your enemies have a harder time seeing you. Interesting that Harry DID get to say it, but not quite for the same reasons.
[ July 25, 2010, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Harry had thought he wouldn't ever get to say those words, not while he was still young enough for them to be real...
The Chaos Legionnaires were looking at Harry in puzzlement, as their general swam with his feet pointing up toward the distant light of the surface, and his head pointed down toward the murky depths.
"Why are you upside down?" the young commander shouted at his army, and began to explain how to fight after you abandoned the privileged orientation of gravity.
I almost applauded my computer (and, therefore, the author) when I saw this. I definitely did laugh out loud, though. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This last chapter was fairly intense, and bugged me. I expect it to bug various other people for various reasons.
SPOILERS BELOW
I don't like Dumbledore being portrayed as an delusional fool. This isn't because I think it's *wrong* to portray him as such (and I totally understand the author's reason for doing so). I just don't like it. I think this may be my version of the "Harry's a jerk for not liking Ron" moment. Dumbledore was a cool character, so using him mostly as commentary on the ludicrousness of the old-wise-wizard-who-only-speaks-in-riddles trope just feels disrespectful to me.
Even if, in all honestly, it's kinda deserved. Dumbledore happened to be right about everything, it hinged on everyone in the story being, well, crazy. Which is the point of this whole fic, so... eh. Dunno.
I AM genuinely annoyed that this is not a strict single point of departure fic. (or two point, if you have one for Harry and one for Quirrell). I think it's far more fun to try to figure out where the few changes were made and why they affected the story the way they did, rather than having changes like Sirus and Scabbers show up at random for no discernable reason. Consequently I can't tell if this is his attempt to write the original Dumbledore character, in new circumstances, or if he considers himself to be changing Dumbledore's character.
I'd like to imagine that the original Dumbledore would have been more of an equal to Harry than this one is portrayed as, but I have to admit that the original Dumbledore is never shown responding to the kinds of logical issues that Harry is presenting.
I also want to get into the argument-for-cryonics that the chapter is also advocating, but it's late and I'm tired and I think I may want to do so in a separate thread.
[ August 22, 2010, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the argument on death, Raymond - another thread would probably be best. (I didn't really see it as an argument for cryonics, but instead an argument for fighting death any way possible.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It was an argument for fighting death any way possible, but that's a crucial building block for the argument for cryonics, and I happen to know that the author is a die hard cryonics advocate. It probably wouldn't have occurred to me if I didn't know that.
I want to start the new thread, but I'm not sure how to set up to adequately provide the necessary background ideas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, Raymond, I think Dumbledore absolutely "won" that conversation with Harry in chapter 39.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Really?
I wouldn't say that anybody particularly "won" anything. I think Dumbledore did learn more from the conversation than Harry thinks he did. I also think that Dumbledore does have experience that Harry doesn't have, and that the author is aware of this fact and Harry will eventually realize. But none of that really translates to a statement of "absolutely won the conversation" in my mind. (Even if we're defining "winning" in the perhaps healthier non-zero-sum-manner of "learning something that we didn't know before.")
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Learning something from a conversation is not the only way to win it.
The things Dumbledore told Harry were full of more truth and more wisdom than the things Harry told him. Harry simply lacked the wisdom to realize it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure that Dumbledore a) said anything that was particularly true/wise that Harry didn't already know, b) the things that Harry is currently missing basically hinge on life experience, which he is probably going to eventually get regardless of Dumbledore's intervention. At best, Dumbledore planted some memes that might later come to fruition, and if Dumbledore is going to end up "responsible" for Harry's learning something useful, I think it's going to take more than this one conversation.
So... I could understand a viewpoint in which my initial assessment was grossly underestimating both Dumbledore and the value of his ideas, but I really don't understand a viewpoint in which you'd say "he absolutely won that conversation." Wise people say wise things to less wise people all the time. But unless the wise people can actually use their wisdom to affect the world, "winning" seems like a strange term.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Which things Dumbledore said did you think were particularly wise?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(yeah, I am curious about Juxtapose's question also. Because honestly I still don't really see it, I'm just willing to accept that as a young person without much experience, I may be victim to the same things that blind Harry in the chapter)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Harry has not contemplated the possibility that "he" is more than his body. I'm not talking about a soul: I'm talking about his own self-projection. If you engage in behavior which jeopardizes or cheapens the self you want to be in order to extend the life of your physical body, you have already killed yourself and replaced it with someone only superficially similar.
Dumbledore, as written, does not understand this; he sees the continuation of self as something only enabled by the soul (although, if we are to trust to canon at all, souls definitely do exist in the Potter universe). But Harry, as written, understands even less. Dumbledore cannot articulate why turning into a monster to prevent the ending of one's existence is a foolish exchange, but is aware of the monstrousness of the attempt; Harry is better equipped to articulate one aspect of that truth, to observe that ending lives to preserve your own is baldly selfish, but does not do so because he is, at this stage, highly sympathetic to stupid, baldly selfish worldviews. Even worse, he is completely ill-equipped to articulate the other half of the truth: that even if Voldemort had not supernaturally whittled away parts of his soul (and his humanity) by entering into pacts of dark magic, the being known as Tom Riddle who had originally initiated that process had long ago annihilated himself.
Self-preservation is a fool's game, because the self is ephemera.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Still mulling over Tom's statement, but I will note that this is a chapter worth reading the Author's Notes for.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Harry is better equipped to articulate one aspect of that truth, to observe that ending lives to preserve your own is baldly selfish, but does not do so because he is, at this stage, highly sympathetic to stupid, baldly selfish worldviews.
But Harry does articulate the point; he refuses to use any life extension that depends on human sacrifice. I think you are misreading Harry very badly. To say "I want to live" is not the same as saying "I want to live even if only by the self-destroying means that Voldemort used". Like Dumbledore, you are thinking in terms of story, where immortality can only come through the sacrifice of something good; sour grapes, in Harry's phrase. But the world does not necessarily work like that; this is the insight Harry has internalised so deeply that he can't articulate it. The world does not care if you live to be a thousand. There is no necessary sacrifice that you have to make; if you are smart enough, you can have your cake and eat it too.
There is no narrativium.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:There is no narrativium.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, it's funny; but I'm being serious. It looks to me as though Tom is genuinely thinking in terms of narrativium here. I said this in the context of politics the other day, but it's just as true here: It must be possible for one head to contain two thoughts. You do not ahve to accept death just because there are other things you would consider even worse; to admit that death is bad is not the same thing as saying it is the One Great Evil against which no sacrifice can possibly matter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But I would say that Dumbledore, in saying that he would not like to die right now, but fully expects to welcome death in a few years, is speaking here from the perspective of someone who has seen that exact thing happen. That he has, himself, seen outcomes which are worse than death.
Now, you can argue that those outcomes might not be inherent in immortality or the methods used to achieve it, but one can hardly blame Dumbledore for not immediately jumping to the realization that Harry is obliquely maintaining the possibility of alternate outcomes; certainly, there's no reason to think that if Harry were to present a serious option that did eliminate those negative outcomes that Dumbledore would fail to see the potential. His concern is rooted not in some reversed fear of death but rather in what he has, himself, seen the avoidance of death do to people. I mean, bear in mind that Dumbledore's greatest challenges have come at the hands of enormously intelligent people willing to do literally anything to a) perfect humanity; and b) avoid death. The guy's not being irrational to assume that these people would have exhausted the easier options first.
Heck, as a sidenote, I think even Harry might well grant that someone who lived for, say, six centuries might well not be recognizably human (to other humans, at least) by the end of that time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dumbledore has seen people with no alternative work their way through the stages of grief, and come to acceptance; and has done the same himself, pre-emptively. Fine. But he's using that as an argument against searching for an alternative. That-does-not-follow!
quote:Heck, as a sidenote, I think even Harry might well grant that someone who lived for, say, six centuries might well not be recognizably human (to other humans, at least) by the end of that time.
I think you meant "to other humans who had not lived for 600 years", there. And I think Harry would respond "Then those humans had better learn to expand their notion of humanity", as indeed our society has done many times already.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But he's using that as an argument against searching for an alternative. That-does-not-follow!
Not quite. The most monstrous acts of his lifetime have been committed by people searching for alternatives. He has no reason whatsoever to believe that any alternative exists, and knows from personal experience that searching for an alternative can produce monstrosities.
quote:And I think Harry would respond "Then those humans had better learn to expand their notion of humanity", as indeed our society has done many times already.
Only if we grant that living to 600 years old and ceasing to be recognizably human is worth doing in the first place.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I tell you what, I'll do the experiment. Yes, I'm willing to take that risk.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Fine with me. Bear in mind, though, that in series canon, one of Dumbledore's closest friends has done that experiment and comes to the same conclusion at the end of the first book.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The experiment to try and become immortal and see if you become a monster? Assuming I'm parsing that right, your data would be irrelevant, since you (as far as we know anyway) do not live in a world filled with magical power that lets you rewrite the apparent laws of physics on a whim. I would add that in such a world, with power keyworded to pseudolatin designed for human vocal chords, I would not at all be confident that narrativium does not exist. At least not when I'm 11 and I've been studying magic for all of 3 months.
Harry may find that his chances of safe immortality improve dramatically if he uses magic to survive the for the normal-for-wizards two hundred-ish years, by which which Muggle science would be able to do it with no dark rituals involved.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'd like to note that Dumbledore has seen Harry do the impossible in Dumbledore's field of study after studying magic for all of 3 months. To assume that - because Tom could not find a path to immortality - Harry won't be able to find a path to immortality is pretty poor thinking on Dumbledore's part. Really, extrapolating from the experiences of one (both Flamel and Riddle) is rather stupid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To assume that - because Tom could not find a path to immortality - Harry won't be able to find a path to immortality is pretty poor thinking on Dumbledore's part.
Why? Remember, in all of Dumbledore's life experience, looking for immortality is an enormous danger. And Harry has gone to some lengths to keep Dumbledore from being aware of his experimental methods. All Dumbledore knows is that Harry is a weird, gifted, incredibly smart kid with a dark side who, like Tom Riddle, thinks that he should be looking for a way to cheat death. That Dumbledore strongly advises him against this is not irrational at all.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
What is your evidence that in all of Dumbledore's life experience, looking for immortality is an enormous danger? At most, we have two people (Riddle and Grindelwald). Anyone who makes large claims (an enormous danger) about something as big as the search for immortality on the basis of only two other people's experiences is pretty stupid, IMO.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IIRC, pursuit of the Philosopher's Stone is also a common way to come to a bad end. So it's a non-zero number of immortality pursuers, none of whom have produced a result he considers positive. Given the data available to him, that Dumbledore warns an eleven-year-old potential Dark Lord away from that path doesn't seem even slightly unreasonable.
Mind you, I don't think Dumbledore would be irrationally opposed (much) to Harry's approaching him, years later, with a series of controlled experiments on the topic. But for the purposes of this conversation, Dumbledore was absolutely saying the right things -- except, sadly, he was saying them to someone who was determined not to hear them.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Then I would argue, in that case, that Dumbledore wasn't saying the right things, even if he turns out to be right on the subject.
"Self-preservation is a fool's game, because the self is ephemera."
Going back to this, I think Harry might respond that self-continuation might be a better name for what he's after.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then I would argue, in that case, that Dumbledore wasn't saying the right things...
There's no way that this Harry would ever give serious consideration to the argument, "In my professional opinion, the temptation of immortality is not something that you, at eleven years old, are ready to contemplate facing."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Quirrel says a lot of things Harry disagrees with all the time, but he takes those things seriously and thinks about them because Quirrel a) respects his intellect, b) communicates in a way that makes it clear he is thinking about, or at least willing to think about, the ramifications of what he's proposing. I don't think the burden falls on Harry for being a young naive rationalist here. Well, it does, insofar as all young and naive rationalists would do well to hurry up and become more mature rationalists as fast as they can. But only so much of that can be done through study. A lot simply hinges on having more life experience and a more fully developed adult brain.
One of my parents is an atheist, the other a Catholic. Theoretically, I should have had equal opportunity to be influenced by them both. But throughout my life (and most importantly, during my young formative years when I was most vulnerable to memes from adults that I trusted, good or bad), my Mom never communicated her beliefs to me in a concrete, logical manner that would have appealed to me. (She actually specifically said things like "I don't think logic is all that important).
Since growing up I've met religious people that express themselves more rationally. If I had been exposed to them during my formative years, my life may have turned out differently.
Point being, a sizable portion of the burden here falls on Dumbledore to make a better effort to understand Harry and speak in a language that Harry will understand/respect, if Dumbledore actually wants to impact him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Quirrel says a lot of things Harry disagrees with all the time, but he takes those things seriously and thinks about them because Quirrel a) respects his intellect, b) communicates in a way that makes it clear he is thinking about, or at least willing to think about, the ramifications of what he's proposing.
I think Quirrell, as written, respects Harry's intellect only up to a point.
quote:a sizable portion of the burden here falls on Dumbledore to make a better effort to understand Harry and speak in a language that Harry will understand/respect
No argument. Bear in mind, though, that Harry is deliberately misinforming Dumbledore as to the impact his words have on him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: IIRC, pursuit of the Philosopher's Stone is also a common way to come to a bad end.
I don't believe you can support this from canon.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Then I would argue, in that case, that Dumbledore wasn't saying the right things...
There's no way that this Harry would ever give serious consideration to the argument, "In my professional opinion, the temptation of immortality is not something that you, at eleven years old, are ready to contemplate facing."
But that's not the argument that Dumbledore needs to make. His goal is to stop Harry from seeking immortality at some indeterminate point in the future, not right at that very moment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:His goal is to stop Harry from seeking immortality at some indeterminate point in the future, not right at that very moment.
Well, I'm pretty sure Dumbledore believes that he will be able to have future conversations with Harry. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Right, but what he's doing in that conversation is decreasing his influence with Harry in later conversations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He has no way of knowing that, given that Harry is actively deceiving him. But, yes, were Dumbledore in fact a Slytherin instead of a decent human being, he'd probably figure that out. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seemed like the portion where Harry was deceiving Dumbledore was earlier in the discussion. Harry seemed to me to be quite in earnest when discussing immortality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, I believe he was. That's not what he's being deceptive about. He's deceiving Dumbledore about his willingness to actually care about and/or process anything Dumbledore says. Dumbledore is under the erroneous impression that Harry considers him a source of advice, an impression that Harry has encouraged; he does not realize that Harry considers him to be a delusional and potentially dangerously insane fool.
This version of Harry is only tolerant of other people's ignorance when they demonstrate a willingness to let him lead them out of it, on his terms and his schedule. It's his most Dark Lordy trait.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think Quirrell, as written, respects Harry's intellect only up to a point. [Smile]
He has, in fact, made that perfectly clear, as with his response to Harry's objections to the benefits of an 'enlightened' dictatorship.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
"Dumbledore is under the erroneous impression that Harry considers him a source of advice, an impression that Harry has encouraged..."
Well, Dumbledore may have before this conversation, but if he still does, then he really is a fool.
At any rate, I appreciate your thoughts on it. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think Quirrell, as written, respects Harry's intellect only up to a point. [Smile]
He has, in fact, made that perfectly clear, as with his response to Harry's objections to the benefits of an 'enlightened' dictatorship.
I don't think that's true. Certainly, he disagrees with Harry; strongly, in fact. But he does not despise Harry's opinion; he objects to airing their disagreement in public, not to having a disagreement in the first place.
As for Dumbledore, fair's fair; Harry disregards his opinions at least partly because Dumbledore disregards Harry's, on the grounds that Harry is 11.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"I am trying," said Professor Quirrell quietly, "to make allowances for the fact that you are young. That I myself, at the same age, was a quite extraordinary fool. You speak with adult style and meddle in adult games, and sometimes I forget that you are only a meddler. I hope, Mr. Potter, that your childish meddling has not just killed you, ruined your country, and lost the next war."
I don't know, Samprimary, it certainly sounds like Quirrel despises Harry's opinion, and rejects it at least in part on the grounds that Harry's youth and inexperience render him too stupid to recognize wisdom.
quote:As for Dumbledore, fair's fair; Harry disregards his opinions at least partly because Dumbledore disregards Harry's, on the grounds that Harry is 11.
Heh, does Quirrel actually regard Harry's opinions? Or is he just seducing a potentially extremely dangerous (for a variety for easons) enemy, either to neutralize or turn him? When I'm reading this story, I don't come away with the impression that Quirrel has much respect or regard for Harry, or at least certainly nothing to compare to his own schemes for him.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Heh, does Quirrel actually regard Harry's opinions? Or is he just seducing a potentially extremely dangerous (for a variety for reasons) enemy, either to neutralize or turn him?
From Harry's perspective this is irrelevant, assuming that Quirrel is sufficiently good at pretending. I do think that Quirrel does genuinely respect Harry as a smart person, even if he ultimately doesn't respect Harry as person in general. He knows that Harry is a potentially dangerous enemy precisely BECAUSE he is smart.
quote:He's deceiving Dumbledore about his willingness to actually care about and/or process anything Dumbledore says. Dumbledore is under the erroneous impression that Harry considers him a source of advice, an impression that Harry has encouraged; he does not realize that Harry considers him to be a delusional and potentially dangerously insane fool.
I agree with this, but this is one of the primary reasons why the statement "Dumbledore won that conversation" completely baffle me.
quote:This version of Harry is only tolerant of other people's ignorance when they demonstrate a willingness to let him lead them out of it, on his terms and his schedule. It's his most Dark Lordy trait.
This I agree with completely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:From Harry's perspective this is irrelevant, assuming that Quirrel is sufficiently good at pretending. I do think that Quirrel does genuinely respect Harry as a smart person, even if he ultimately doesn't respect Harry as person in general. He knows that Harry is a potentially dangerous enemy precisely BECAUSE he is smart.
Oh, sure, it's irrelevant for Harry largely because it appears he's forgotten most of the lessons in life that aren't strictly related to a scientific outlook and rationality. For all their faults, there is some value in a sort of emotion-regarding thinking as opposed to discarding thinking that other folks might display, because then their EVIL! buzzers might be blaring. I think what Quirrel feels for Harry isn't so much respect for intellect, but respect for perceived like-mindedness. He doesn't seem aware, for example, that Harry would side with Muggles over Wizards six days a week and twice on Sundays. I think whatever respect he might have for Harry, intellectual or otherwise, would evaporate rapidly if he knew that, because after all, for all his pretense, there's a lot of hatred in the dude.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Oh, sure, it's irrelevant for Harry largely because it appears he's forgotten most of the lessons in life that aren't strictly related to a scientific outlook and rationality
I'm referring specifically to the issue of whether Quirrel genuinely or only pretends to respect Harry. If Harry believes that Quirrel gives him more respect than any other given adult then he's more inclined to look up to him.
I'd also note that most of those lessons in life are, as Snape points out, things you have to experience as opposed to read about, so Harry isn't forgetting them. He just hasn't learned them yet.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:(She actually specifically said things like "I don't think logic is all that important").
My mother said that too. Very sad.
Interestingly, in my case she was the atheist, while I met a preacher who used "Come, let us reason together" as a mantra.f
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That is interesting. Which did you wind up believing in the end?
[ August 26, 2010, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The author's notes for chapter 41 are particularly interesting.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Which did you wind up believing in the end?
I'm a theist. Which means among (supposedly) rational people, I'm ignored for my religious beliefs, and among (most) religious folks, I'm ignored for my insistence on applying rationality to religion. It's fun though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Heh. 'kay.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Which means among (supposedly) rational people, I'm ignored for my religious beliefs, and among (most) religious folks, I'm ignored for my insistence on applying rationality to religion. It's fun though.
*high-fives*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Which means among (supposedly) rational people, I'm ignored for my religious beliefs, and among (most) religious folks, I'm ignored for my insistence on applying rationality to religion. It's fun though.
*high-fives*
Can we start a club?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So.... chapter 42......
yeah not sure at all what I think about that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, it seems there's a good bit of strangeness that doesn't really make sense yet. In a society as conservative and procreation-oriented as the British Wizarding World, why is homosexuality so much more tolerated there than amongst Muggles? Seems peculiar to me. Also, yes, we know Harry can't stand Quidditch. Something of an old gag by now, isn't it?
It's a bit odd also seeing Harry being so hard on his own father for childhood transgressions while saying he feels that way because he judges himself, a child, harshly...but it really seems to me that his harsh judgements are pretty inconsistent and in some cases quickly forgotten.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Well, a large part of the reason we have homophobia is sexism and the idea of traditional gender roles in romance. Men are dominant, women are submissive, if a man's with a man that must mean he's being a pussy and omg, those gay men are wearing makeup and acting like girls! But it stands to reason that sexism of that type wouldn't exist in the Magical world. For one thing, witches are equally powerful as wizards, rendering the physical strength discrepancy irrelevant. Also, witches and wizards don't have religion! No almighty God has told them that gayness is a sin. So while homophobia could conceivably exist, it should only exist among pureblood elites who are obsessed with continuing their bloodlines, and no one else.
So while that premise is logical, the way this chapter is written... doesn't make a lot of sense. It's kind of schizophrenic in its pacing, and I don't really understand why Sirius killed Peter. There's no real unifying storyline or theme.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmm. Well, I grant that one of the big contributors to homophobia is sexism, but I don't grant that it's not much of a factor in the HP world. Thinking back to the books, aren't the overwhelming majority of teachers, administators, politicians, and big power figures men?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
That is true. Hmm. Could we ascribe this to Rowling not thinking the issue through enough, and just writing that aspect of the story based on her own experiences? The canon magical world seems too culturally similar to ours in general, which doesn't make sense. I'd expect centralized government to be a lot more difficult to carry out, for one thing, when each citizen is so independently powerful.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The whole point of the fic is that Rowling didn't think a lot of things through. But why do you say that Wizarding Britain has no homophobia? We have the word of Rowling that Dumbledore is gay, yes; what we do not have is any canon assurances of how other people react. They might not even know, above the wink-wink, nudge-nudge, he sure spent a lot of time with Grindelwald level.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:It's a bit odd also seeing Harry being so hard on his own father for childhood transgressions while saying he feels that way because he judges himself, a child, harshly...but it really seems to me that his harsh judgements are pretty inconsistent and in some cases quickly forgotten.
In terms of forgetting his self-judgment quickly, it's worth remembering that entire days or weeks might be passing between chapters (not every chapter, of course).
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I was pleased with how upset he was over Hermione, and his quick acceptance of the punishment.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I know from experience that it's a lot easier to judge myself harshly than it is to actually modify the behavior that caused myself to do so. I also know that repeatedly judging myself harshly for something before I've had time to adequately modify it overal makes the quality of my life, and those around me, worse.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Which means among (supposedly) rational people, I'm ignored for my religious beliefs, and among (most) religious folks, I'm ignored for my insistence on applying rationality to religion. It's fun though.
*high-fives*
Can we start a club?
Seriously.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder how you can tell the people applying rationality to religion from the people who don't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And I was wondering how long it would be before someone came along and suggested it couldn't be done. In the unofficial pool, Tom was a strong contender.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Note: I have not suggested that it could not be done. Rather, I have wondered aloud how it might be done. Should someone choose to demonstrate a method, I would be grateful.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Much as I share Tom's bewilderment, I have plenty of evidence suggesting to me that such demonstrations and accompanying discussions are remarkably fruitless (in particular given that all the people likely to participate here have already had multiple almost identical such discussions in the past). So rationality suggests that the only expected benefit is the bizarre joy that comes from discussing controversial issues that you feel strongly about.
On another day that might have been enough for me. (Don't get me wrong, I love me some bizarre joy that comes from discussing controversial issues that I feel strongly about). But right now I'd prefer we not turn this thread into an identical such discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Note: I have not suggested that it could not be done. Rather, I have wondered aloud how it might be done. Should someone choose to demonstrate a method, I would be grateful.
Heh, sure, Tom, OK.
ETA: That's all I'll say about it, since I'd rather avoid the thread dropping into fruitless controversy too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let me just say this: if someone actually has a reliable method by which they can effectively distinguish religious people who are being rational about their religion from religious people who are not, I would in fact be sincerely grateful to them for sharing that method, either here or over email.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Simple: The rational ones have deconverted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So...politely worded requests not to turn this thread more controversial about topics largely irrelevant to the subject that have been hashed out many, many times on Hatrack...not enough?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I hardly think a three-post digression is going to derail the thread, unless you intend to generate more posts whining about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That wasn't addressed to you, Tom, but to KoM. But thanks!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In the immortal words of McFly: "This is heavy."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
SPOILER for chapter 44 below! * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
That was powerful. A better argument in the death-versus-life conversation than any amount of reason; I found myself choking up when the light that came from Harry's wand took the shape it did. The one species that can, in the end, cast defiance against the night: Of course that would be the most powerful Patronus of all.
The author put it thus, in a different place: "I don't like the way this place is run; the Universe disagrees with me. We shall see who is still standing when this is over."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
MORE SPOILERS:
This latest chapter is particularly interested because not only was it, well, really freakishly intense, but it provided not one but two or possibly three sources of "original inciting incident that drives most of the plot." My first thought was "in this universe, Lily Potter is more hateful," which could have influenced Petunia in a number of ways. Later on we see some possibilities as to how Dumbledore might be orchestrating things differently, and indeed, if he is, that would cause a LOT of things to change from the get go. Then I was reminded that the prophecy is different here too. Different prophecy = different Dumbledore = different everything."
Also, I'm wondering if Quirrel already HAS made all those Horcruxes at the locations Harry describes, or if he is right about to. Either way, another great moment.
I'm a little baffled by the Hermione leaving after she kisses Harry moment. Harry says something like they've already talked about that sort of contingency... or something? Did anyone understand that better than I?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: That was powerful. A better argument in the death-versus-life conversation than any amount of reason; I found myself choking up when the light that came from Harry's wand took the shape it did. The one species that can, in the end, cast defiance against the night: Of course that would be the most powerful Patronus of all.
The author put it thus, in a different place: "I don't like the way this place is run; the Universe disagrees with me. We shall see who is still standing when this is over."
Yes, I agree. Perhaps because the whole life and death thing tends to hit, well, the overwhelming majority of human beings on such emotional levels, it really needs an emotional argument instead of a rational argument in order to really hit. I was faintly reminded of Pastwatch, actually, when Harry thinks of future generations, having conquered death and its horrors and the pain it inflicts, not telling their children of it until they're old enough to bear it. It reminded me of Pastwatch because in that story, people looked back on the incredible, by modern (in the story) standards unbearable suffering and simply couldn't bear it, had to do something, even if it took a superhuman effort.
I haven't made up my mind about the meaning of Lily's 'hatefulness' in this story. I'm certain that was written carefully for a reason, but it just sounds so reasonable to me-of course she hates, bitterly, this thing that is coming up her stairs to massacre her child in his bed. I don't find anything even slightly wrong with that, and in fact there are some ways I would think there would be something wrong if she didn't feel that way. But it is nonetheless a significant departure, and of course her attempted spelling.
On the one hand, the author couldn't quite resist mocking James Potter even in the moment of his death, but on the other at least Harry seems finally to be realizing, or remembering, hey, there are other virtues besides rationality that are important too, and sometimes rationality ain't worth crap without `em.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hermione has just sacrificed her chance of being a main character. Now she's "Harry Potter's love interest" for the rest of her life.
The Lily memory: It is not to be taken literally. Harry is remembering this under the influence of a Dementor; it twists everything good about the memory. Observe that Harry doesn't believe it himself: "He had regained an impossible memory, for all that the Dementor had made him desecrate it." A desecrated memory is not accurate.
Reading the comments, I observe with some sadness that practically nobody understands really obvious points like that one; alas, Eliezer hasn't really, really grasped how stupid the average human, even the average reader of fanfic, is, and doesn't hammer his points home. He's too subtle, in spite of knowing intellectually about inferential distances. A common mistake among massively smart people, unfortunately.
quote:But it is nonetheless a significant departure, and of course her attempted spelling.
A major point of the fic is that there are times when violence and killing is the correct response, and hesitating will only get you and your loved ones killed in turn. Unlike the original books, this fanfic is not for kids; only in a children's book can you spot which side is the good guys by their absolute refusal to kill, whatever the circumstances.
quote:On the one hand, the author couldn't quite resist mocking James Potter even in the moment of his death,
Again, this is what Harry thinks with the Dementor draining his mind. You really, really ought not to take it as the author's opinion. I remind you of Niven's Law.
[ September 06, 2010, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Hermione has just sacrificed her chance of being a main character. Now she's "Harry Potter's love interest" for the rest of her life.
Huh. I was going to say "eh, she's genre savvy enough to work against that, that's what the whole general thing was about." But then I read a comment in the "review" section (maybe this was also you?):
quote:It took me a little while to get it, far longer than it should have in hindsight. Hermione just undid very thing she sought to gain by becoming a General, her identity as an individual. This would just be sad if she did it without thinking, but knowingly writing herself off makes the deed seem so much more valuable.
That interpretation makes the subsequent exchange with Harry more sensical.
quote:The Lily memory: It is not to be taken literally. Harry is remembering this under the influence of a Dementor; it twists everything good about the memory. Observe that Harry doesn't believe it himself: "He had regained an impossible memory, for all that the Dementor had made him desecrate it." A desecrated memory is not accurate.
I really didn't think that was that obvious at all. Especially since I recall the original story's Dementors causing a similar memory-echo that wasn't particularly "demented." (Least not that I remember). I was already expecting the story to alter the manner in which Voldemort died, or least exploring its ramifications differently. You may be right, but I certainly take exception to the notion that I must be stupid for not have noticing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Another random point from the "reviews" that I thought worth cross posting:
quote:Harry's chosen hiding places:
The super-heated mantle, by way of a volcano - Fire
Buried under tons of solid rock - Earth
At the bottom of an undersea trench - Water
Floating in the stratosphere - Air
Launched into outer space - Void
It would seem that Harry knows his Musashi.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A major point of the fic is that there are times when violence and killing is the correct response, and hesitating will only get you and your loved ones killed in turn. Unlike the original books, this fanfic is not for kids; only in a children's book can you spot which side is the good guys by their absolute refusal to kill, whatever the circumstances.
Well, yeah, that's a given. I'm just wondering if, in addition to serving that point, there might be another bit of meaning to it, that's all.
Hadn't thought about Hermione as Secondary now, though, but now that you mention it she has certainly thought in those terms before.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Heh, thought I just had about Hermione: there doesn't ACTUALLY have to be a rule that kissing Harry makes her his love interest and therefore a secondary character that will probably be killed off. But Hermione does believe that, to some degree. So rather than her genre-savviness protecting her as I originally supposed, it may be her undoing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay I'm still a little unclear on why Harry has to keep the Patronus thing a secret. My understanding is that most people DON'T have the conviction that Harry has in human potential, so even if they know what Harry did they wouldn't be able to duplicate it. AND because the regular way of defeating Dementors is a sort of accidental placebo effect, telling the world would simply make most people have a harder time doing it?
And the bit with Quirrel is simply that while there MIGHT not be anything wrong with telling him, he should hold on for now just in case?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Yes. You are correct.
Most people can escape the thought of the inevitability of death by thinking of something intensely happy. It distracts them. But if they realize that what they're doing is distracting themselves from the thought of death, then it won't work anymore. It's like "don't think of a pink elephant."
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I liked the fic a lot more in the earlier chapters before I knew who the author really was and before his anti-death philosophies got heavily into the story.
I'd be just fine with defeating death if I was sure the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease, but we have six billion people here now and if we eliminated death but didn't have resources and their allocation worked out, there would be a vast increase in net suffering, and I'm not sure that alive-but-in-torment is better than death.
If I could take a pill and remain young and healthy forever, if aging were no more, I would sure do it. Provided that I could still die later if I really, really wanted to, by, say, flying a spaceship into the sun, then I'd definitely grab immortality with both hands.
For EVERYONE to do it, right now, is a bit more of a problem.
But defeating death, as a thought experiment, is definitely interesting. I'm surely not on Dumbledore's side in this, but that's easy, since he is such a straw man on this subject.
I think the author's beliefs about eliminating death is actually possible, and indeed inevitable, to be laughable, however. I mean, I'm fine for people to try it. I just don't think they'll succeed, and to see them so sure ("if you don't pay to have for your kids' cryonics insurance, you're a horrible parent") is pretty much Flat Earth Atheism at its finest. And the author knows about that trope, and even referenced it in one of his Author's Notes, but doesn't really believe it applies to him. Because He Actually *Is* Rational. Okay.
It's also obnoxious, and not rationalist at all, for Harry to still be so cocksure about his beliefs even though it has barely been six months since he learned about the magical world. I mean, magic. Really. A whole world and history to learn and explore and he's still sure he has answers? He didn't believe in souls before, I don't expect him to believe in them just because a wizard says to, but how about really doing some research? He says he'll listen to Dumbledore's data, but he is mainly trying to pick it apart, and should be cognizant enough to realize that Dumbledore might have info he isn't willing to share.
On the other hand, believing in souls and the afterlife while eschewing all religion doesn't really make sense. I wouldn't believe it either. But I'd prefer to do some more Science on the subject than Harry seems to be willing to do.
So... how did Harry survive as a baby then, if Lily didn't actually sacrifice herself? She tried to cast the killing curse and got killed, that's not the same thing as the book, so the protection of love shouldn't have applied.
Does Quirrell need the Philosopher's Stone? Is Voldy still on the back of his head, or are they just fully integrated, or what?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think the author or anyone else actually believes we should just all become immortal, right now, without regard for the consequences. The point is that overpopulation/resource management are problems to be solved, not insurmountable obstacles.
quote:But defeating death, as a thought experiment, is definitely interesting. I'm surely not on Dumbledore's side in this, but that's easy, since he is such a straw man on this subject.
Did you read the author's notes on that chapter?
quote:So... how did Harry survive as a baby then, if Lily didn't actually sacrifice herself? She tried to cast the killing curse and got killed, that's not the same thing as the book, so the protection of love shouldn't have applied.
I do wonder this. I suspect that this particular incident (and the prophecy surrounding it) are the primary changes made to the HP-verse, and that we won't be learning exactly what happened till near the end.
quote:souls
This was something I think Harry made clear that was pretty reasonable: he DID initially assume there was some kind of afterlife when he learned about ghosts, and then subsequently was incredibly disappointed. If some truly compelling evidence came along he might revise his opinion, but in the meantime he's erring on the side of caution for purely emotional reasons (which is not necessarily an irrational thing to do).
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Did you read the author's notes on that chapter?
I did, actually. I don't think Dumbledore is the strawiest of straw men ever, but I think he was a little strawier than the author thinks he is.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think I agree with that statement.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Well this is kinda crazy - my close childhood friend was just set up with the Eliezer Yudkowsky's (the author's) little sister. We're huge fans of his fanfic and it was entirely random. Funny stuff.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Weird! What's she like? ... Wait, that's gossiping, isn't it. Never mind.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Huh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was just thinking about the last chapter, and Harry thinking it was time he got the other side's slant on the whole Voldemort vs. Dumbledore angle and that made me think back on the story and it made me remember...y'know, for all Draco had made some very serious progress towards not eventually becoming an awful person, well, he is the product of an upbringing that leads to jokes like, "Hey, pushing mudbloods down stairs and/or raping them to teach them lessons would be good ways to have fun and/or teach lessons."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Weird! What's she like? ... Wait, that's gossiping, isn't it. Never mind.
He didn't go out with her yet...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Excellent chapter is excellent. Well worth the wait. Author says it was one of his least favorite chapters. I don't know if it's accurate to say it was one of my FAVORITES ('cuz, you know, if I listed each chapter that I considered a "favorite" I'd list at least half of them), but it was definitely up there. I thought it was a much more realistic "Draco's world is falling apart" chapter than the series where he learns about genetics.
Edit: [gossip]So Armoth, how'd the date go?[/gossip]
[ September 25, 2010, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I particularly like that the word for "turn the lights off" is "Dulak."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was a bit surprised Harry didn't mention, or think, of the most obvious (or so it seemed to me) explanation for Dumbledore's murder of Narcissa: someone - such as, y'know, Voldemort - posing as Dumbledore, doing so, and then making the threat. Now I'm not saying that's what actually happened, but it is certainly possible, particularly since the pair of them, Dumbledore and Voldemort even in this story seem to have some matched capabilities and either would be able to completely overpower and trick the elder Malfoy in such a way. How better to both win House Malfoy's support forever, and ensure its undying enmity towards Dumbledore for an equal duration?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Very possible. I didn't think of that specifically, so I'm fine with Harry not having thought of it either. (Also, given how emotionally unstable Draco was at the time, Harry had legitimate cause - both as a friend and as a rationalist mastermind - to not say it out loud at the moment).
This is the first time I've actually liked the sheer number of changes in this story. Because we know that we CAN'T take anything for granted, we do have to seriously consider that Draco might be right. Even if we're pretty sure that he's wrong.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Yeah, I like this chapter more than the last several, that's for sure. I don't believe Dumbledore would burn Narcissa alive and boast about it. Not that it couldn't be true, but I doubt it, it wouldn't be very good storytelling to change things up *that* much.
Draco is so screwed up that he can't even say "it sucks that your mom got murdered." I mean, she was trying to protect a baby. A baby. Does Draco think that Harry should be dead? If not, he's already going against the Death Eaters just as much as acknowledging that Lily's death was sad. I wonder why Harry didn't point that out.
Personally, it's pretty unbelievable that someone that has been conditioned his whole life to think rape is appropriate for enemies has the capacity to start questioning their beliefs as much as Draco is in this fic, but then again stranger things have happened, I suppose.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, does Draco really believe that, or does he just say it thoughtlessly in imitation of his elders? He's not a hardened criminal, after all, he's just a kid. And at that, I suspect his father (as written in MoR) would not mess about with raping anyone, he would just kill. I think of Draco as being like a young soldier all gung-ho to kill the gooks and slants; he won't be so eager when he sees his first napalmed village. Then it depends on who is nearby at the time. If it's someone evil, or at any rate someone he can't confess his doubts to so he'll feel he has to keep up the facade, then he'll crack a joke about crispy critters or something, and come to believe it himself. If it's not someone he has to keep up the tough-guy act for, he might be able to express his remorse.
Simiarly, if you take the same kid - if he's at all imaginative - and expose him to different world views, cracks can form. I don't think Draco is being converted at all easily, here.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thought Draco's initial acceptance of muggleborns being genetically identical to purebloods was unrealistic (lord knows I've given friends FAR more compelling evidence than Harry gave Draco, on things that they already accepted the basic premise of, and they didn't bat an eye). But if we're already taking that as a given, I thought the newer chapter was pretty realistic.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
I really like the story. Its well written and it is fun to read. I even like some of the changes (Harry and Hermoine should have been in ravenclaw and Ron always struck me as annoying.)
What i'm rather confused about is why there seems to be so many differences with other characters in Harry'a world. The original premis seemed to simply be "Harry wasn't brought up by horrible people." I dont see how that would make Dumbledore or Maconagal or Quirrel/Voldy (i am of course still under the assumption taht Voldy is firmly entrenched on the back of his head) or even Harry's parents different from the original series.
It seems that he changed them just to push certain agendas or beliefs, which is his right, it being his fic.
I never got the impression that Dementors were death or even the fear of death. I always got the sense that they were the embodiment of deep, ultimate dispair and depression. You feared them because of how they made you feel, which was sad, hopeless and empty.
I am also not sure what i think about his views on death. Im fairly certain i dont want to live forever, though if there were a way to travel between stars/galaxies and see everything then maybe i would.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I thought Draco's initial acceptance of muggleborns being genetically identical to purebloods was unrealistic (lord knows I've given friends FAR more compelling evidence than Harry gave Draco, on things that they already accepted the basic premise of, and they didn't bat an eye). But if we're already taking that as a given, I thought the newer chapter was pretty realistic.
Do you think forcing Malfoy to do the experiment himself might have changed his acceptance for it? Instead of just showing a study he made Draco actually be involved in the scientific process. I can imagine the poignancy of the information was more when you yourself prove that something is true.
Then again, Malfoy blindly accepts Mendelian genetics at Harry's word, which confused me.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Quirrel's Rule 34:
quote:Become an Animagus. It's totally useful.
Rule 34 of the Evil Overlord list:
quote:I will not turn into a snake. It never helps.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think it's interesting that the author uses the meaning and implications of sentience much the way I, a religious person, would use the meaning and implication of spirit.
Hobbes Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually am a little annoyed that Harry's going through all kinds of hoops to avoid hurting animals that can talk, without putting much thought into whether they can feel pain and how they're farmed.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think there's been a lot of pretty non-rational things stuck into this story, which doesn't bother e until he goes off on these kicks about what terrible people us irrationals are (which I have to be due to being religious). Still, not enough to keep me from enjoying the story which is being offered to me at no charge. So I'm satisfied.
Hobbes Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
Im still not sure how certain things have changed in this world that should seemingly be left alone. Hes gone through great pains to keep referring to the non-forbidden forest. How rationally has that changed in the HP universe?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I got the impression that there was some parts of the forest that were not forbidden. That didn't seem to particularly contradict the canon-verse. Other things have changed though, and that's just how he's decided to go about the fic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I actually am a little annoyed that Harry's going through all kinds of hoops to avoid hurting animals that can talk, without putting much thought into whether they can feel pain and how they're farmed.
Honestly, that strikes me as a pretty believable piece of self-centeredness, because I'll be frank, I don't personally much care about how much pain animals feel and how they're farmed unless it's brought to my attention - the latest chapters have mentioned this, after all - but I do care an awful lot about how things like me - sentient creatures, that is - are treated or mistreated. Harry has another blind spot he himself can conceive of, but hasn't recognized.
Or perhaps his frosty side just isn't very concerned, really as sometimes I must admit I wonder if I ought to be either, since after all I'm perfectly fine with killing and devouring them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, this last chapter was certainly interesting. It's getting more and more unbelievable, though, that Harry will continue associating with Quirrel without consciously recognizing the long-term seductions going on here at many levels.
A rationalist Twilight fanfiction which was linked in Less Wrong's profile. I haven't read it yet, but the concept certainly sounded interesting. I read Twilight and found it pretty damn bad, but hearing the author of Methods of Rationality describe it as 'not quite the same style' as his sounded intriguing.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
I read "Luminosity." It's good. It has a more "even" tone than HPMoR. It's less over the top, more conversational and introspective.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think Harry's at all unaware of Quirrel's manipulations. He's biased in favor of Quirrel, certainly, so he may be missing the full extent of how creepy he is, but he's aware that the man is dangerous, much smarter than Harry is, and not particularly admirable when it comes to actually being a good person.
In this chapter, I wonder what would have happened if Harry had just sat down next to Padma at the library and said the exact same things to her face to face.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't think Harry's at all unaware of Quirrel's manipulations. He's biased in favor of Quirrel, certainly, so he may be missing the full extent of how creepy he is, but he's aware that the man is dangerous, much smarter than Harry is, and not particularly admirable when it comes to actually being a good person.
In this chapter, I wonder what would have happened if Harry had just sat down next to Padma at the library and said the exact same things to her face to face.
Yah, it all seemed pretty involved. Even if he was convinced that she wouldn't listen to him directly (which, in the context of the story, I'm not sure I believe) Harry is certainly friends with enough people he could find one she would hear out that he could've sent to he with the message. Which is of course exactly what she thinks he did only with a ghost for some reason and with him going to a lot more work to do it.
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think Harry's at all unaware of Quirrel's manipulations. He's biased in favor of Quirrel, certainly, so he may be missing the full extent of how creepy he is, but he's aware that the man is dangerous, much smarter than Harry is, and not particularly admirable when it comes to actually being a good person.
I know Harry is aware Quirrel is manipulating him. He's consciously recognized that more than once, if I remember. It just seems he goes long periods without seeming to recognize, or at least this is my impression, "Hey, I've just toed about a half-dozen lines I would have thought were awfully disturbing a month or two ago without batting much of an eye," and it's happening on a pretty consistent basis after his consultations with Quirrel, that's all.
I guess it keeps coming back to the way Harry seems to have read so much fiction early in the story, and even viewed some of what was happening around him in those terms. Quirrel is...pretty alarming in such settings, as well as lots of rationalist ones. It's just strange to me that Harry seems intermittently aware of just how suspicious and frightened he ought to be of Quirrel, such as the scene recently where he got a real palpable sensation of menace and dread.
I'm not sure if it's simply not occurring to him right now, or he's actually not thinking about it, or what. Perhaps it will be explained. Quirrel is, of course, quite out of Harry's weight class in many things, though, so he could be using some magical hoodoo.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:but he's aware that the man is dangerous, much smarter than Harry is, and not particularly admirable when it comes to actually being a good person.
I think Harry is aware that Quirrel is dangerous and not a particularly good person, but I don't think he thinks Quirrel is much smarter than him. Which may be part of the issue-- if he realizes that Quirrel has ulterior motives, but thinks he's got it under control.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think Harry is aware that Quirrel is dangerous and not a particularly good person, but I don't think he thinks Quirrel is much smarter than him. Which may be part of the issue-- if he realizes that Quirrel has ulterior motives, but thinks he's got it under control.
That's the other thing. I don't think Quirrel is much smarter than Harry, if he is at all. But it certainly appears to me that Harry is, well, enormously, gigantically less experienced (obviously) in the sort of grappling they're doing, for all that his particular approaches to problems give him very unexpected advantages. I guess I keep waiting for Harry to remember that it wouldn't have been a good idea for Frodo to have been dropped right at the bottom of Mt. Doom just a week or two after getting the One Ring because if he had, it would've promptly overwhelmed and destroyed him.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
He couldn't have just sat her down and told her. He had to scare her, in order to learn the things to tell her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He's Harry Potter in MoR. He could've been quite scary just sitting down normally, and quite persuasive enough without attempting to be actively scary.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I don't think so. She was freaked out when she returned to the dorms. A close friend sitting calmly next to her earnestly telling her why bullying is bad doesn't lead to her pouring out her deepest fears to Harry.
Her confusion and fear, suspecting Harry but not knowing how, in addition to Harry making a point of being very nice is what resulted in her talking to him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're telling me Harry Potter, in this story, couldn't have found words while sitting in his own skin to get her to listen? That's...pretty unlikely to me, dabbler.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
He could have found the words, but would those words have prompted her to then tell him those same things an hour later? Remember he doesn't actually know any of it until she tells him.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually wasn't even all that weirded out by the notion that Harry would just GUESS that stuff with a cold read and a little investigation. I did think the way it played out was more realistic though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Rereading chapter 29, noticed this line:
quote:"You win a cookie! So they dragged poor Bill Weasley off to St. Mungo's and it turned out to be a pretty standard schizophrenic break, it just happens to some people, especially young men around what we'd consider college age. Guy was convinced he was ninety-seven years old and had died and gone back in time to his younger self via train station. And he responded perfectly well to antipsychotics and is back to normal and everything's fine now, except people don't talk as much anymore about Sirius Black conspiracy theories, and you don't ever ask the Weasleys about the family rat."
quote:Guy was convinced he was ninety-seven years old and had died and gone back in time to his younger self via train station.
What are the odds that this is not a joke/silly-fact, but a clue?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I admit I did expect the last twist of the new chapter, but not because I deduced it but simply for meta reasons, heh. There was one pretty alarming line about reading minds, though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What's fascinating to me is I have no idea whether Bellatrix is actually innocent. "Bellatrix was abused/tortured to be turned into the creature she is and Quirrel genuinely wants to help her" is just as fascinating a story as "Quirrel is manipulating Harry into freeing the most dangerous criminal in Azkaban."
I'm actually a little worried that we are nearing the end of the story. I had assumed that the final chapters (coinciding with the end of the school year) would involve a massive Dementor attack, with Harry holding them off either by himself or with help from friends who have figured-out/been-told the secret.
In retrospect the whole story has been building towards a trip to Azkaban ever since chapter 27. I would not be surprised if that was where it ended (or at least climaxed).
(I was a little unclear - do we know if Harry and Quirrel are heading to Azkaban right now, or will they be preparing for it over the next few weeks? If the latter, then there's time for the whole is-Dumbledore-evil storyline building up and getting resolved at about the same time).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it's still up in the air whether Bella is innocent, but this goes a long way towards removing any lingering doubts I had as to whether Quirrel was.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Well this is kinda crazy - my close childhood friend was just set up with the Eliezer Yudkowsky's (the author's) little sister. We're huge fans of his fanfic and it was entirely random. Funny stuff.
The following was just posted with the latest update:
quote:The Channah Challenge
My younger sister Channah Y., currently a senior at Stern College, recently went on a date with a boy who turned out to be reading Methods of Rationality. She's always wanted a famous older brother and keeps bugging me to hurry up and become famous already, but even after this latest episode, she's having trouble believing that I'm making progress. So I bet her that at least three people would come up to her and say "Big Brother is watching you" or if you prefer, "Your big brother says hi", if I put out the word to my readers. Deadline is Thanksgiving and the first three people to do it get cameos. Further details in profile.
Hmmmmm...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, was intrigued by the "date" discussion as well.
My two favorite paragraphs, for two different reasons:
quote: The second cell he looked at contained only a skeleton.
And behind the bars of the third cell he saw Bellatrix Black.
Something precious and irreplaceable inside Harry withered like dry grass and vanished forever.
and
quote:This was it, this was the day and the moment when Harry started acting the part. His first true adventure, a dungeon to be pierced, an evil government to be defied, a maiden in distress to be rescued. Harry should have been more frightened, more reluctant, but instead he felt only that it was time and past time to start becoming the people he had read about in his books; to begin his journey toward what he had always known he was meant to be, a hero. To take the first step on the road that led to Kimball Kinnison and Captain Picard and Liono of Thundera and definitely not Raistlin Majere.
It's the "Liono of Thundera" that really sells it.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
Oh world 3 level 2.....
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Well this is kinda crazy - my close childhood friend was just set up with the Eliezer Yudkowsky's (the author's) little sister. We're huge fans of his fanfic and it was entirely random. Funny stuff.
The following was just posted with the latest update:
quote:The Channah Challenge
My younger sister Channah Y., currently a senior at Stern College, recently went on a date with a boy who turned out to be reading Methods of Rationality. She's always wanted a famous older brother and keeps bugging me to hurry up and become famous already, but even after this latest episode, she's having trouble believing that I'm making progress. So I bet her that at least three people would come up to her and say "Big Brother is watching you" or if you prefer, "Your big brother says hi", if I put out the word to my readers. Deadline is Thanksgiving and the first three people to do it get cameos. Further details in profile.
Hmmmmm...
That's him
This is hilarious...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If I may be so indiscreet . . . should there be another date, not only is he an obvious candidate to be one of the three, if you can get him to play along, you can have a chance as well.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think he counts as one of the three: obviously his knowledge of the Methods was insufficient to impress her, so reminding her isn't all that helpful. Armoth would count - as long as she didn't know (at the time anyways) that he was her date's friend. So if he can just arrange to be at the same restaurant at the same time without looking too obvious, that should be good.
Tee hee. This is fun.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't think he counts as one of the three: obviously his knowledge of the Methods was insufficient to impress her, so reminding her isn't all that helpful.
Disagree. The bet is, at least three people must say to her "Big Brother is watching you" or "Your big brother says hi". If he says either, he counts.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But she already knows this guy knows her brother, and apparently that wasn't famous enough. The whole POINT of getting three random people to do it is so she thinks he's even more famous.
If I were Eliezer, I might give Armoth's friend a cameo in the story anyway just for helping out in the first place, but it wouldn't be because he reminded her of something she already knew. Wording a statement a particular way doesn't mean you get to ignore the context of the statement that he explained less than a paragraph earlier.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That rather depends on the wording of the bet.
As presented, I still disagree.
After all, he says:
quote:If you already know Channah well enough to phone or IM her, and you happen to be reading this, that counts too.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Let's put it this way. Say you were Eliezer's sister. He promise you three random people would come up to your and say "Big Brother is Watching." Would you be impressed if one of those people was someone you already knew knew Eliezer?
Edit in response to your edit: Knowing his sister isn't the same as knowing his sister and she already knowing that you know him. It doesn't matter if she already knows the person in question, but it DOES matter that she doesn't know that person is a fan of her brother.
I would be incredibly disappointed if the best my brother could manage were three people that I already knew read my brother's work.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Irrelevant. See my edit above.
(She should make more iron-clad bets, if that's going to be her objection.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Is too relevant. See my edit to your edit.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't know her...
I can find her and walk up to her, but I don't know her personally.
While it's really cool that they're related, I'd prefer not to earn a cameo at the expense of weirding Chana out...
The university she goes to is split into a men's and women's campus. I know plenty of guys who read Methods, not that many women...We'll see what happens...
Personally, I'd be happy if "Armoth" got a cameo Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I would be incredibly disappointed if the best my brother could manage were three people that I already knew read my brother's work.
Like I said, make better bets.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You're assuming you know the precise terms of the bet. I don't know the precise terms either, but there are a limited number of ways the bet could have gone down, and without knowing more of the facts there's no single option that has a greater than 50% chance of being true.
First, the bet stakes of the bet could have been a substantial amount of money or something similarly significant such that using legal mumbo-jumbo to win would actually be beneficial to Eliezer... OR the bet could just be Eliezer trying to impress his sister (or successfully freak her out). If the latter, then legal judo is irrelevant. He either impressed/freaked-her-out or he didn't.
Second, his sister could either be:
A) a skilled writer of ironclad bets, in which case the bet almost certainly has all kinds of caveats that he didn't bother writing out in full legalspeak on the website because it's mostly irrelevant
B) be TRYING to be a skilled writer of ironclad bets, but failing.
C) Not being skilled nor caring about being skilled at it.
The only possible combination of these wherein getting the guy she's dating to say "Big Brother is Watching you" actually benefits Eliezer is if the bet DID have high stakes AND the sister falls into category B. If she's in category C, then Eliezer could win the bet, but at the cost of his sister being pissed at him and not taking similar bets in the future, which would likely completely annihilate whatever the winnings he got was. (And the higher the stakes, the more mad his sister would be, so assuming Eliezer cares about his sister at all, no matter how much he's getting out of it he'd be losing at least as much).
I'd say the odds are against you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You are making all kinds of assumptions I disagree with. But I also don't care enough about this to continue the debate. *shrug*
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'M making assumptions? I'm just naming the possible scenarios. (Granted, there ARE additional possible scenarios, but that makes each given one of them less likely, not more)
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
You know, the action skips from "How did you know I meant Bellatrix Black" to "on the way to Azkaban" and that seems cheaty to me. I would really like to have been privy to Harry's thought processes as Quirrel (who he *knows* is using him) explains Bellatrix's innocence. The fact we skip all that makes Harry seem dumbly credulous.
I actually love the idea of Bellatrix being innocent because she's under compulsion.
Clearly every time Quirrel turns into a snake, it is Voldemort talking. I mean, he keeps calling Harry "boy." Harry doesn't seem to notice the change.
So, Quirrelmort is stupid enough to try to AK a guard when he knows Harry is there. That is so dumb. Voldy just can't let go of his favourite spell, even though it cost him his body. Remember Lupin chewing out Harry in Book 7 for letting the disarming spell became his signature. And yet Avada Kedavra is totally Voldy's signature.
How about just petrificus totalus, followed by obliviate? Clearly the Auror was no match, no threat. But Voldy had to be all macho.
So now Harry knows that Quirrel is willing to murder an Auror, unnecessarily, when he is already at his mercy. That is pretty "crossing the rubicon" as far as their relationship goes.
So yeah, if this isn't the climax of the fic, I'm not sure where it will go, because as far as regular school year plot goes, it's off the rails at this point.
Stupid, stupid, stupid Voldy. Just had to try and kill a guy, and make Harry stop you. No matter what happens, Harry better not be allies with Quirrel any more, because that is way, way, way over the line, even against a corrupt, stupid, and evil ministry.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I remind you of the "intent to kill" discussion in earlier chapters, and also of the similar philosophy expressed in Ender's Game, which we know that both Harry and (obviously) Mr Yudkowsky are familiar with and enjoyed. Quirrell has clearly overestimated the extent to which Harry agrees with him on this, but it's not necessarily from stupidity - there's such a thing as a reasonable mistake.
It may even be that Harry will agree that killing the Auror was defensible in this context; there has got to be some degree of corruption and evil in a government that justifies killing its servants. If you knew of an innocent person in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, would you kill to rescue him? Perhaps you wouldn't, but I doubt you'd say it was clearly and obviously wrong to do so. Or, of course, there's the obvious Godwin. At some point, if you believe a government is genuinely evil, you can either start killing or admit that you have sold out. Note that Harry's intervention is not presented as a conscious decision but as a mistake made in the heat of the moment, in sheer emotional revulsion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Quirrel already said that he COULDN'T explain how he knew, he asked Harry to trust him. But I do agree there was a skip in what was a pretty important piece of conversation nonetheless.
I hope that the explanation for the use of Avada Kedavra is similar to yours. I did pick up that the snake was Nagini, although I didn't assume it was literally Voldemort until you mentioned it. I think you're right though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Another point: Voldy did not kill out of hand; he offered surrender and was refused. That is perfectly legal by any law of war whatsoever, to include the fantastically restrictive rules of engagement by which modern police forces engage hostage-takers. A soldier who refuses to be taken prisoner is declaring his intention to continue resistance with deadly force, and consequently may be shot; what else are you going to do with him? Whether you've got the drop on him is quite irrelevant; that's his look-out. The Auror is being stupid, perhaps; Voldy is just following the rules.
Note also that the Auror thought he might have been able to dodge the killing spell; the more so then for a Petrificus Totalus, which takes longer to say and at which Voldemort is not so practiced. Besides which, who knows what resistance a trained Auror might have, and how fast he can throw off that spell, or be rescued by his friends? Voldemort is alone in Azkaban against many well-trained, powerful opponents with Dementor support; in such circumstances, leaving behind a possible reinforcement for his enemies, Obliviated or not, would be pretty stupid. He may well have to fight his way out.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Voldy is just following the rules.
Nonsense, Voldy doesn't care about rules. He does whatever he thinks is best for himself. If that happens to be what some rules somewhere say, fine, but there's no way he is following rules here.
My point is this: Voldy was willing to let the guard live if he surrendered. Therefore, his death was not strictly necessary, provided he was obliviated.
It's easy to obliviate unconscious foes.
Voldy did not feel threatened by the Auror. He completely dominated him, and he knew it. He's evil; he gets off on that. He wasn't scared, and tried to kill him according to some variation on rules of engagement. He had to die because he was defiant, and we can't have that.
Maybe the Auror could have dodged the killing curse if Harry hadn't intervened; would there have been any doubt in Voldy's mind at all that he was completely dominant and could inflict petrification or unconsciousness on the Auror if he chose? No, he chose to kill.
Now, that's all fine for Voldy, who is evil. But he knows that Harry is not trying to be Dark, and he also knows that Harry is ELEVEN years old. It is really dumb for him to kill when he doesn't have to in front of Harry.
quote:Quirrell has clearly overestimated the extent to which Harry agrees with him on this, but it's not necessarily from stupidity - there's such a thing as a reasonable mistake.
I could be wrong. But I don't think Voldy thinks Harry is fine with killing guards. I think he just forgot about his larger plans in that moment. Because you'd have to *know* that Harry was fine with killing guards to risk losing him as an ally and pupil, it's not worth the risk otherwise.
If Voldy does think Harry is okay with killing guards, then I wonder what his reasoning for that is. Because Harry's actions as leader of an army show that he values even his enemies. He might talk a good lethal game, but talk and action are very different when it comes to an eleven-year-old being okay with killing an essentially helpless old man instead of putting him to sleep.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
KoM's point is that Quirrelmort had reasonable reason to believe that HARRY would be okay with him killing the man. The rules of war are something HARRY has reason to understand and care about, and the "intent to kill" conversation with Harry suggest a willingness to kill in some circumstances. He doesn't know the extent to which Harry cares about the elimination of death.
I think if he had had longer to think about it he may have realized it was a bad idea, but combined with your point about Avada Kedavra being a signature spell, it's something that made sense in the heat of the moment.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: And then it was already too late.
Is Harry going to get Kissed?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are thinking of Voldemort as the cartoon figure of Evil for its own sake in canon Harry Potter. This Voldemort is a lot smarter. Perhaps he intends to make the arguments I outlined above, if Harry objects; he may believe it himself or not, but either way he may well believe that Harry will be convinced. And if so, he's a step closer to corrupting Harry. Alternatively, he may be aware that he's easily a match for one Auror, but how about two or three? And then the point about not leaving enemy reinforcements behind you comes into play; I remind you that all else equal, effectiveness goes as the square of the numbers involved. Two Aurors are four times as effective as one, barring communications issues; Voldemort must know the fact, and may well want to avoid even a slim chance of engaging nine Aurors if he can guarantee that it'll be eight at most. He doesn't take un-necessary risks. And if that's his calculation, he may also figure that he can Obliviate Harry later on. Since we're flinging about Memory Charms with such abandon, why not use them on the not-trained-for-combat, nominal ally, rather than the very-much-trained, deadly enemy?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:KoM's point is that Quirrelmort had reasonable reason to believe that HARRY would be okay with him killing the man.
Yeah, I totally missed that. I don't know why I thought he was arguing that Voldy was following the rules of engagment. It's about his defense to Harry after the fact.
quote:The rules of war are something HARRY has reason to understand and care about, and the "intent to kill" conversation with Harry suggest a willingness to kill in some circumstances. He doesn't know the extent to which Harry cares about the elimination of death.
I realize he isn't privy to all Harry's thoughts that we are, but it still seems to me a ridiculous risk. Harry being willing to break an innocent person out of prison really doesn't equate with using lethal force to do so. Voldy really should have sussed out where Harry's values were on that subject before going in.
For that matter, HARRY should have clarified to Quirrel what their Plan B was in the event of getting caught by the guards. It's ludicrous that Harry wouldn't have explored the consequences of failure. Was he so sure that everything would work without a hitch? Was he willing to go to Azkaban himself rather than kill? Did he think they'd fight the guards if necessary, but not kill them?
These are all things I'd have worked out long before making an assault. It turns out Harry wouldn't let Quirrel kill a guard. Either they discussed the use of lethal force, and Harry agreed to it, and then wussed out, or they never talked about it!
If they never talked about it (and we don't know if they did or didn't, since the whole planning stage was skipped), then that's dumb of Quirrel, for forgetting that eleven-year-olds generally are uncomfortable with killing in real life, and it's probably even dumber of Harry. What do you *think* is going to happen when to take on the ministry?
Either you try, and face the music if caught, or you try, and fight non-lethally if caught, or you try, and fight if caught, including lethally if necessary.
But you definitely don't try and not have considered what you'll do if trying fails. THAT at least, is patently ridiculous.
Of course, it all could have been avoided if Harry-pretending-to-be-Voldy had told Bellatrix to be silent a lot earlier in the proceedings.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If they never talked about it (and we don't know if they did or didn't, since the whole planning stage was skipped), then that's dumb of Quirrel, for forgetting that eleven-year-olds generally are uncomfortable with killing in real life, and it's probably even dumber of Harry
I think Quirrel (correctly) assumed that Harry would object to killing if he talked about it in advance, but that he could easily persuade Harry that it was necessary after the fact (note that in the aftermath of the fight, Harry is far more concerned about Quirrel than about the auror).
On top of that, he had absolutely NO idea (and neither did we) that Harry's Patronus could block a killing curse, or that Harry could do anything to interrupt Quirrel in combat at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Another point: Voldy did not kill out of hand; he offered surrender and was refused. That is perfectly legal by any law of war whatsoever, to include the fantastically restrictive rules of engagement by which modern police forces engage hostage-takers. A soldier who refuses to be taken prisoner is declaring his intention to continue resistance with deadly force, and consequently may be shot; what else are you going to do with him? Whether you've got the drop on him is quite irrelevant; that's his look-out. The Auror is being stupid, perhaps; Voldy is just following the rules.
This is all very accurate and all, but did Harry know he is at war with the Ministry and its agents? That is, after all, a rather important piece of information that we aren't aware of one way or another. Bear in mind 'prison break' doesn't necessarily equal 'at war'.
That's just a quibble though, because...
quote:I think Quirrel (correctly) assumed that Harry would object to killing if he talked about it in advance, but that he could easily persuade Harry that it was necessary after the fact (note that in the aftermath of the fight, Harry is far more concerned about Quirrel than about the auror).
This is extremely true. Quirrel has shown himself to be extremely capable of convincing Harry of damn near anything he wants with the possible exception of the virtues of Evil Empire style tyranny for the sake of the Stupid Masses when the arguments are posed in classic Evil Mastermind style.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Harry is more concerned for Quirrel because he knows the Auror is alive and well, but he does not know if he's inadvertently killed Quirrel.
Also, while no one knew Harry's patronus could block a killing curse, the patronus's instability was well evidenced. And that instability was directly related to Harry's emotions. Whether or not Quirrel could have predicted that Harry would interfere, it's entirely reasonable to assume that murdering an Auror before Harry's eyes could cause a loss of control over the patronus. Which, as it turns out, is exactly what happened.
The mistake is made more egregious because Quirrel is a smart enough Slytherin to have considered this. Voldemort, presumably, should be as well.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You assume that Quirrel = Voldemort.
I disagree.
Voldemort is Dead and there is no return from the dead in a Rational universe.
So what do we have? Either Voldemort never died, which is a possibility or he is dead. If he never died what are the Horcrux? Not receptacles for non-existent souls. They must be receptacles for parts of Voldemorts knowledge. I wager they will be discovered to be thought recordings--memories--exact copies of his neural state when done.
Quirrel discovered one of these. He is a lover of knowledge, and in his desire to become more knowledgeable, scanned it into his own brain. The results are difficult to control--resulting in headaches, seizures, catatonic fits, mood swings, and a general more Voldemort like personaity.
Symptoms we have seen.
But its all Quirrel, who probably had feelings for the innocent Beatrix and wants her free and reformed. For love he is willing to kill.
But what about the witness Harry? Harry just committed the almost perfect crime, but there is only one way to make it perfect--remove all witnesses. Not that he plans on killing Harry. Its the memory charm that will do the trick. Everyone keeps saying how he can obliviate the guard, but they aren't considering that he can, and probably planned to obliviate Harry as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Everyone keeps saying how he can obliviate the guard, but they aren't considering that he can, and probably planned to obliviate Harry as well.
Oi! I did point that out.
I just noticed this:
quote:Harry had asked why Professor Quirrell couldn't be the one to play the part of the Dark Lord, and Professor Quirrell had pointed out that there was no plausible reason for him to be possessed by the shade of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
Heh! I wonder if that's a hint, or just a possessing Voldemort being dryly humorous?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it's safe to say (due to Bellatrix's reaction) that the snake Quirrel assumes is Nagini, so I'm pretty sure that Nagini was the Horcrux Quirrel discovered (assuming Darth Mauve is right, which I think it fairly likely)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So... last night I had a dream that was essentially HP:MoR/Erfworld crossover fan-fanfiction. I was Harry Potter... who was a summoned unit in a turn-based strategy MMO. In the dream, there were "players" who everyone accepted as sentient, and NPCs/summoned units who the players assumed were not. NPCs for the most part were so indoctrinated by the system that even though they knew they were self aware, they didn't think this entitled them to any rights or anything.
In the dream Harry (i.e. me) demonstrated good enough "AI" to my controlling player that I was mostly allowed to do what I want, although periodically I was given orders that I had to follow. I kept trying to get secret meetings among other NPCs going to convince them they should unite and try and subvert the players' control, but this went against their programming and while some of them were open to the idea, I had to convince one particular higher ranking NPC who thought I was a dangerous heretic.
I also went around doing random experiments to figure out the laws of the digital world. (I found out that you could use ducks as ammunition for archers... not sure if that was actually useful or not but it helped demonstrate to some people that the laws of the universe were rather arbitrary and could be challenged). Later on, in a different in-game "world" (I guess the game was set in a multiverse) I tried to demonstrate the ducks-as-ammunition thing again and it didn't work, and I said "huh, I guess different worlds have different rules."
I woke up right as I convinced the commander NPC that she should join me. I was pissed, and hit the snooze button a bunch of times trying to finish it and then I missed the bus and had to ride my bike to work.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
You... you are a nerd of great magnificence. Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Newest chapters are up, and sure enough, Harry is just *shocked* that Quirrell would try to kill an Auror, proving that they definitely *didn't* have a talk about lethal force and contingency plans. Harry was definitely the one holding the idiot ball to not have such a discussion when breaking into a prison.
Neat to see Dumbledore being a badass. I figure he's so agreeable to Bellatrix getting a Dementor's Kiss because of something to do with Draco's mother's death? Since clearly we must revisit that whole plot point sooner or later.
"- but they can see someone else on the lower levels who isn't a prisoner." Do you think that's Quirrell? As in, he turns invisible or something and makes Nagini appear, tricking Harry into thinking it's his animagus form, but since Harry had Bella grab Nagini and they are on the move, it means Quirrell is left behind, either unconscious or unable to communicate with Harry without blowing his cover?
Assuming they manage to get out of this, I really can't wait to see the Harry/Quirrell argument that results. Harry concludes Quirrell is simply evil, so I really doubt any of that "rules of engagement" stuff will be convincing.
Harry tries to figure out why Quirrell would try to kill an Auror, has a theory about blackmail, shoots it down, but then can't really come up with anything else, and moves on to other things. So I guess there's room for a reconciliation but it'll have to be really great, whatever Quirrell comes up with.
I'm pretty cool with Harry vowing to destroy Azkaban, it really is an awful place. And while everything here is embellished a bit, since we never really see it in canon, the stuff that makes it truly awful, namely, that the prisoners are CONTINUOUSLY TORTURED, is right out of canon. Sure, Dumbledore opposes the use of Dementors, but fat lot of good that ever does anyone, except to make sure the audience still likes him.
Now that Harry knows just how awful the place really is, I wonder if he'll revisit how he thinks about using lethal force on the guards. At what point does "just doing their job" cease to provide them with any excuse?
Would you kill US soldiers to break Iraqui prisoners out of Abu Ghraib?
To me, it's one thing to say, an innocent person is in prison, but the guards don't know they are innocent, they are just doing their job and trusting in the courts. If the courts are corrupt, and they don't know it, then that's not their fault.
But once the guards are consenting to torturing the prisoners 24/7... does it matter how nice they might be in their off-hours, or how brave they were in fighting evil enemies? Once they start approving of torture, and not really even debatable methods either, but full on psychic torment, doesn't that make them evil?
If Harry is ever willing to use lethal force at all, then wouldn't it be appropriate, if necessary, against anyone who knowingly consents with torture-by-Dementor? Although it might still be preferable to attempt to change people's minds instead of killing them, of course. And it might be preferable to just destroy all Dementors, everywhere, and render it moot. But if those aren't options...
Of course, Harry is 11 years old, and he isn't actually ready to start being John Brown at Harper's Ferry *just* yet, especially considering how things ended for Brown. Sometimes you have to pick your battles for the greater good.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: "- but they can see someone else on the lower levels who isn't a prisoner." Do you think that's Quirrell? As in, he turns invisible or something and makes Nagini appear, tricking Harry into thinking it's his animagus form, but since Harry had Bella grab Nagini and they are on the move, it means Quirrell is left behind, either unconscious or unable to communicate with Harry without blowing his cover?
No, that's Harry:
quote:To anyone else's eyes, it would have seemed that Harry Potter stood alone in the metal corridor. For Bellatrix Black and the snake draped around her shoulders were concealed by the Cloak of Invisibility, one of the three Deathly Hallows and reputed to hide its wearer from the gaze of Death himself. The riddle whose answer had been lost, and which Harry had found anew.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Oh, somehow I missed that. I thought that they were all under the cloak. I guess they either don't all fit, or Harry can't be that close to Quirrell/Nagini.
Another thing about Harry that isn't rational: he never really explores the sense of doom that comes from proximity to Quirrell. I would think that was pretty major, but he takes it in stride, just because Quirrell seems to be smart.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You forget: He actually did explore it when he first felt it; in particular, he reported it to McGonagall. Who told him to ignore it, or else. What's he going to do next, and against a teacher who is otherwise both competent and friendly? A sense of doom is not necessarily a valid input, after all; you presumably don't object when he does his best to ignore the Dementor influence.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I did forget that. Thanks. However, McGonnagal did not reassure Harry at all, only told him she didn't care and not to tell anyone. That doesn't mean that not exploring it more on his own is a good idea.
He tries to ignore the Dementor influence because he knows what it is, and knows that ignoring it is a tactical course of action.
He never does find out what the sense of doom surrounding Quirrell is, and GIVES UP trying to find out. What about the quest for knowledge? He doesn't do any experiments, he doesn't try further to understand it, he just ignores it as an input.
True, a sense of doom isn't *necessarily* a valid input, but then what you see isn't necessarily valid either (optical illusions, influence of drugs, etc). The information from the sense should usually be lent some weight though unless there's a reason to think otherwise.
But he abandons understanding it, and as he gets chummy with Quirrell, forgets that it might actually be a portent of Bad Things. Instead he treats it like it was bad B.O. or something.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It seems to me that Harry has already decided that when he gets down to the lowest level, where he is closest to most of the dementors, he will attempt to kill all of them, even if it costs him his own life to pour that much of his life force through his anthropoid patronus.
Now we will see just how good the author is at getting himself out of the corner he has painted himself into, with Harry and Quirrell and Belatrix trapped in the lower levels of Azkaban. I think the author has shown himself to be pretty good at plotting so far. He may be able to pull it off. But: Will Harry wind up getting caught? Will Belatrix escape? Will Quirrell escape--and if not, what becomes of Voldemort, who we assume is inhabiting Quirrell based on the original JKR novel?
Could it be that Harry will succeed in annihilating all the dementors--and himself survive the doing of it--and then that this will change the magical conditions prevailing in Azkaban and make it possible for Harry and company to use their portkeys to escape? If Harry does kill all the dementors, then it would not be such a bad thing to leave Belatrix in Azkaban. Perhaps Quirrell/Voldemort will decide to leave Bellatrix in prison, since he does not love her, and there may be a limit to the number of people who can use the portkey(s). Or perhaps during the final escape, it will be necessary for Harry to touch Quirrell/Voldemort, which will mean the destruction of Quirrell, and the remnant of Voldemort wafting away--as in the first novel. Then Harry could leave Bellatrix, knowing the dementors are gone.
Dumbledore and McGonagall know Harry is able to kill a dementor, so they will realize the destruction of all the dementors guarding Azkaban must have been his doing. But as long as Bellatrix does not escape, they will probably keep his secret.
Quirrell's secret hosting of Voldemort will have to come out at this point or shortly thereafter, at least to Harry, Dumbledore, and McGonagall.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I don't think Harry plans on killing the Dementors at this time. "I give my oath that someday I will end this place." He used the "this isn't the optimal place" to stop himself when he was about to expend his life force to destroy the Dementors. It worked, but I don't think he then decided to actually follow through and go to the central pit. After all, there are other Dementors, other prisons.
No, he came up with a crazy plan ("What would General Chaos do?") earlier and I presume that is still his main goal.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
We read in chapter 55: "There are other Dementors, probably other Azkabans... if I'm going to do this, I should do it when I'm closer to the central pit, it will take less of my life that way, which increases the probability that I'll survive to destroy other Dementors... even assuming this is the optimal thing to do, if there's a right time and place to do this, it isn't now and here, IT ISN'T NOW AND HERE!"
I based my suggestion on the parts I emphasized, that Harry "should do it when I'm closer to the central pit, it will take less of my life that way...."
You might assume he was talking about coming back another day. But another place could be just a few floors lower, and another time could be just a few minutes more. I'm trying to help the author out, here. Something has got to change the basic conditions of the situation, otherwise Harry is trapped.
Harry could touch Quirrell, which would destroy Quirrell, and leave Harry to escape wearing the Invisibility Cloak, slipping carefully past the Aurors. But then he would have to leave Bellatrix behind, which he wouldn't do as long as there were still dementors around.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty certain that Harry knew the right thing to do was to save himself for another day, period. He was only telling himself "the central pit" with such fervor because he was suffering from an extremely compelling emotional impulse, and he needed a rationalization to subvert that impulse. Telling himself "in another hour or so" was enough to put it off until the impulse subsided, and then once the impulse subsided he could put it off until it was ACTUALLY the right time (which would be on another day with more people to support him and a means to subdue the escaping criminals).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Harry could touch Quirrell, which would destroy Quirrell
Does Harry know that? But in any case he has a more direct means of killing an unconscious Quirrell who cannot defend himself: He knows the words to the Killing Curse. If he does not use it, it is because, as he says, where there's life there's hope. Observe that he does consider killing Bellatrix on the grounds that the Dementors cannot see dead people, and rejects it. He is doing his best to get out of this without deaths.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
According to the original, The Cloak was created to hide even from Death itself, and did so successfully. Does Harry put Beatrix under it when his Patronus is turned off because the Dementors are Death Itself. Has the cloak shown any protection from Dementors before?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I don't think the cloak has shown protection from Dementors before, but I don't think anyone has ever tried, so it's fertile ground for fanfic, and definitely progresses nicely from the "Dementors = death" postulate.
On the other hand, Mad-Eye Moody can see through the cloak with his magic eye, and I think Dumbedore can too. So it's not all powerful. That's because originally it was just an invisibility cloak, and it later got retconned into being a Deathly Hallow, and personally I think it's a bit lame that it's supposed to be so awesome it can hide from Death, but Mad-Eye can just see through it because he's got a magic eyeball.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:But in any case he has a more direct means of killing an unconscious Quirrell who cannot defend himself: He knows the words to the Killing Curse.
It's an unconscious snake. A medium-sized rock suffices to kill it.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Not if it's a Horcrux. Then you need Basilisk venom or Fiendfyre or Avada Kedavra, presumably.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I meant that Harry would touch Quirrell by accident, or because he needed to take him off from Bellatrix' shoulders, and discover to his horror that his touch would cause Quirrell to disintegrate. At this point in the story, Harry does not see Quirrell as his enemy, even though he was horrified that Quirrell attempted to kill the guard. Harry would not deliberately kill Quirrell at this point.
I wonder if dementors can perceive people when they are in their animagus form. In Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius Black apparently escaped from Azkaban by exploiting his animagus power in some way. So maybe Quirrell will be able to escape on his own, while in his snake form.
The real question is what Harry will do about Bellatrix. He will not be able to leave her in Azkaban as long as there are still dementors around.
Seatarsprayan, if the killing curse could kill a horcrux, then whey didn't Harry, Hermione, and Ron use that to try to destroy the horcruxes that fell into their possession? For that matter, why didn't Dumbledore have sense enough to try the killing curse on the stone in Voldemort's mother's ring? Likely that would have been the first thing he tried. It is an interesting question whether the killing curse could destroy the Resurrection Stone--which is what that ring stone turned out to be. Yet the killing curse Voldemort cast against Harry did kill the part of him that was invested in Harry. But maybe it was because it was Voldemort who cast it.
Maybe this is part of the JKR novels that I didn't notice, but why is Bellatrix called Bellatrix L'Estrange, when here she is consistently called Bellatrix Black?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:If the killing curse could kill a horcrux, then whey didn't Harry, Hermione, and Ron use that to try to destroy the horcruxes that fell into their possession?
They're dumb? I dunno. I know that the killing curse destroyed the Horcrux within Harry at the end of the 7th book. Was it only Voldy's AK that could do that? Was Harry himself a Horcux, or did he just *contain* a Horcrux, like it was only in his scar? Does that mean he was more-or-less immortal until Voldy AK'ed him? He sure took damage easily enough the rest of the time.
I dunno, the whole "it's really hard to destroy a Horcrux" thing didn't make a lot of sense to me.
But even though Harry Imperios and Crucios folks, he never uses the AK. Since it's Voldy's signature move, it probably seems more intrinsically evil for good guys to use.
Although you have to wonder, why? Lupin chides Harry to at least use stunners if he won't kill. If one is fighting a war and willing to kill, why *wouldn't* you use the AK which can't be blocked?
"Spells don't kill people; people kill people."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I meant that Harry would touch Quirrell by accident, or because he needed to take him off from Bellatrix' shoulders, and discover to his horror that his touch would cause Quirrell to disintegrate.
Where do you learn this? Is it from canon? If so it might not be true in the MoR-verse.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
In the original story Harry beats Quirrel literally by touching him and burning him to death. (Or maybe it just burned him a little and he ran away, can't remember)
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
In the first canon book, Quirrell is possessed by Voldy, Lily's sacrifice gives Harry protection from Voldy, so Harry's touch burns Quirrell to dust or something.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah yes, I remember now. It might not work on the snake form, it might not work that way in the MoR-verse, and it might not work for a Harry who has lost a considerable amount of innocence and can see Thestrals; I seem to recall that Lily's protection faded in canon as Harry grew older, and that's surely a function of mental and not physical age. But more to the point, it seems to me like the sort of thing that wouldn't happen for reasons of not working well in the story. Quirrell is a major character; certainly he may die, but not by accident. If he dies it'll be due to someone's deliberate decision.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have to say that I like the Quirrell in MoR much better than the stuttering simpleton in Chamber of Secrets. Raymond, in the canon, Quirrel was completely reduced to ashes and dust.
I believe it was a corollary of the "Fidelius" charm that protected Harry as long as he was living with a blood relative (his aunt Petunia). Though why the Death Eaters couldn't just look up his address like any normal person, I never could figure. Or follow him home from Hogwarts. Mrs. Figg knows where he lives. The Order of the Phoenix knows where Harry lives. The Ministry of Magic knows where he lives--at least that it is in "Little Wynching." That charm ended when he turned 17.
If I remember right, it was a sort of extension of the Fidelius charm that caused Harry's touch to be fatal to Quirrell. Voldemort thought he had to get around this by incorporating some of Harry's blood into his own new body there in the cemetary in Goblet of Fire. Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:in the canon, Quirrel was completely reduced to ashes and dust.
You're misremembering. In the canon he was just burned -- not reduced to ashes.
It's also implied that it was the forced departure of Voldemort's shade that killed Quirrell, not Harry's touch by itself.
Harry's touch was made more powerful in the movie.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Voldemort thought he had to get around this by incorporating some of Harry's blood into his own new body there in the cemetary in Goblet of Fire.
I certainly don't remember this motivation being stated in the book. In fact the book makes it clear that the magical power of love that protects Harry is a power Voldemort "knows not of".
If I am remembering correctly, the spell Voldemort uses to reincarnate himself requires the blood of an enemy and he wants to use Harry's blood because Harry is his foremost enemy, the one who vanquished him.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, in Goblet of Fire, after Voldemort has gained his new body, Voldemort deliberately lays his hands on Harry and gloatingly tells Harry that now he can touch Harry, and not be burned like Quirrell was when he served as Voldemort's host, because he incorporated some of Harry's blood into the creation of his new body. This also played a part in the ultimate destruction of Voldemort, because it made him more vulnerable to Harry, and played a factor in their final duel in Hogwarts.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Voldemort can surely understand that Harry's blood has some power outside his ken, without knowing what that power is or how it works. His lack of understanding may prevent him from effectively manipulating Harry's power - as Ron's example of increased vulnerability to Harry shows - but does not prevent him from knowing of its existence.
Incidentally, the many "Why didn't the Death Eaters/Order of the Phoenix/Whoever do X" posts is precisely why this fanfic is being written. Rowling was writing a children's book, or later a YA book; the villains carry the Idiot Ball most of the time, and the heroes at least 50% of the time. Mr Yudkowsky stated in one of his Author's Notes that it was a guiding principle of his fic that it should not include an Idiot Ball.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I don't think this series is really free of idiot balls, though. Harry is buying into the party line of people called Death-Eaters, for crying out loud.
quote:"Harry is buying into the party line of people called Death-Eaters"
No, he isn't. He doesn't support blood-purity. He doesn't support even more extreme separation of the Muggle and magical worlds.
The only thing he shares with them is a hatred of death, and he hated death long before he even knew of the Death Eaters, so it's not as if they convinced him of anything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Incidentally, the many "Why didn't the Death Eaters/Order of the Phoenix/Whoever do X" posts is precisely why this fanfic is being written. Rowling was writing a children's book, or later a YA book; the villains carry the Idiot Ball most of the time, and the heroes at least 50% of the time. Mr Yudkowsky stated in one of his Author's Notes that it was a guiding principle of his fic that it should not include an Idiot Ball.
I wouldn't say that in this story nobody carries the Idiot Ball. No main characters carry the idiot ball, but in this story most of the characters are idiots. Not just idiots, but some real sneering at them sort of idiots. Harry's mother, now, she died protecting him, but his father-just a schmuck, really. That's the sense that I get more often than not, but it's a long story and I may have forgotten something. Though thankfully it seems to have moved away from that sort of thing.
quote:I don't think this series is really free of idiot balls, though. Harry is buying into the party line of people called Death-Eaters, for crying out loud.
Where is he doing that? Buying into the Death Eater party line, that is. All he's doing, so far as I can tell, is agreeing with Draco to investigate their opinions on Dumbledore and look into their side of the war, because obviously news outlets aren't to be trusted, Dumbledore isn't to be trusted, and he needs to know. Hell, he told Draco to his face in a highly emotional moment that he didn't trust the Death Eater party line right after pointing out that the head Death Eater murdered his mother and father.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Well, he just watched his mentor try to murder a cop in an attempt to rescue one of the most notorious death-eaters ever, and rather than leave said-mentor for the cops to deal with, he's trying to escape with him.
The other "good wizards" - Dumbledore and the Wizarding world bureaucracy, basically, have done nothing (even in this story) to warrant violent revolution. Harry's just being an idiot, and he's being an idiot with a group of people that might as well be wearing skulls on their caps.
I say Harry is carrying the idiot ball. This whole prison break is one big idiot pop fly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The other "good wizards" - Dumbledore and the Wizarding world bureaucracy, basically, have done nothing (even in this story) to warrant violent revolution. Harry's just being an idiot, and he's being an idiot with a group of people that might as well be wearing skulls on their caps.
Dude, there are tons of things about Dumbledore and the entire English Wizarding government that would, to my mind, warrant violent revolution. Well, the Wizarding government at least. Azkaban being the big one. Dumbledore is more ambiguous, but his very ambiguity and his attitude towards explaining himself comes close.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The main thing about the bureacracy is that Lucius Malfoy is able to buy the votes for whatever he wants, which apparently includes raping young girls. This was the main thing that led Harry to say "note to self: overthrow Magic Government at earliest possible convenience."
Azkaban doesn't necessarily warrant violent revolution: it could work simply by convincing the government to change the normal way. Oddly enough this is something Harry probably COULD get Lucius' support on. But eventually removing the systems that allow people like Lucius to hold power is going to take a pretty major overhall of the system, violent or no.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If Harry had been rescuing Sirius Black instead of Bellatrix Black, would you still consider him an idiot? I think not. But he has just as much information to show Bellatrix's innocence as he does to show Sirius's. So an Azkaban break is not of itself evidence of idiocy. As for Quirrell killing the cop - well, it is clear that Harry does not like it, and is going to ask Quirrell some hard questions. But right now he's got an immediate problem that requires him to get out of Azkaban, preferably without leaving any more traces than he can help. The unconscious body of an unregistered Animorph who is well known to be a friend of his? A useful thing to bring along, trustworthy ally or not!
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Azkaban break-in, no, not a priori idiocy. Even an 11-year-old must sometimes do what he feels is right, at risk to himself. I don't fault Harry for that. He really thought he was doing the Greater Good.
But he's a complete idiot for not having any contingency plans for getting caught. It seems he planned committing the perfect crime where everything went according to plan.
He's General Chaos, for crying out loud. He should know that things NEVER go according to plan.
But he never talked to Quirrell about what they would do if faced with violence in the form of the prison guards. Turns out that was a big mistake, because Quirrell was fine to use lethal force and Harry wasn't.
Harry, as the one with more restraints on his behavior, should have initiated that conversation. He didn't. He expected everything to go off without a hitch, and was quite surprised when things turned sour. Not to mention the fact that he himself made them go sour by getting out of control.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
He specifically said they DID talk about what would happen if they encountered guards. It's also clear that Quirrel WAS perfectly capable of handling the guard without lethal force. And from the author's comment in last chapter's discussion, it's clear that Quirrel DOES have a plan that he hasn't told us about yet.
The issue has nothing to do with Harry (or Quirrel) being unprepared or stupid. The issue has to do with Quirrel (surprise surprise) lying.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If Harry had been rescuing Sirius Black instead of Bellatrix Black, would you still consider him an idiot? I think not. But he has just as much information to show Bellatrix's innocence as he does to show Sirius's.
Wrong on all counts.
1. The only evidence of any kind that Harry has of Bellatrix's innocence is Quirrells word. Harry knew from independent sources that Sirius Black had been sent to Azkaban without a trial. While this is far from sufficient evidence to prove Sirius' innocence, it is substantially more than he has for Bellatrix. idiot Ball #1.
2. Quirrell doesn't claim Bellatrix didn't commit the crimes for which she is imprisoned. His claim is that she should not be held responsible for her actions. Even if she shouldn't be held liable for her actions, she's still an extremely dangerous serial killer. Freeing an extremely dangerous person from prison is stupid. When your entire team consists of 1 DAD teacher (who arouses a feeling of dread every time you get too close) and an 11 year old genius with less than a years training in magic, freeing an extremely dangerous person from prison is idiocy pure and simple. If Quirrell had used the exact same reasoning to explain why Sirius shouldn't be held responsible for his crimes, breaking him out of prison would have been equally stupid. Idiot Ball #2.
3. Breaking into a maxium security magic prison, filled with henious criminals and guarded by death incarnate is an extreme action (to say the least). Taking that kind of extreme, high risk action without absolute proof that it is not only just but the only possible way to achieve justice is idiocy. He doesn't even have any solid of evidence to suggest that the government of magical Britain is corrupt (as opposed to simply incompetent) or any independent evidence that Bellatrix is innocent or that Quirrell isn't evil.
4. He goes in to the prison totally depending on a form of magic, his true patronis, that has barely been discovered and is nearly totally untested. He has no real knowledge of how this magic will work against numerous Dementors, how to properly control it or what the effects might be in a real world situation. Idiot Ball. At least the inventors of nuclear weapons had sound theory behind it that could be used to predict that igniting the atmosphere was highly unlikely (if not impossible). Harry doesn't have anything but one data point. Risking everything on that one data point is idiot ball #4.
5. Furthermore, he goes in without discussing key issues about things like use of deadly force or contingency plans should things go wrong. Being caught by one of the Auror guards is the most glaringly obvious thing that could go wrong with their plan and they clearly didn't have any plan for what to do if this happened. Idiot Ball #5.
6. The entire scene between Quirrell and the cop should have been a huge giant enormous waving red flag alerting Harry that Quirrell was not the man Harry thought he was. It should have raised serious questions about his entire friendship with this teachers, about whether or not Bellatrix was innocent, about whether Quirrell was dangerous and evil. It should have awakened him to how much Quirrell had been manipulating him. It should have made it clear how he had allowed himself to be hoodwinked into an extremely dangerous, poorly thought out, illegal and probably unethical activity by a teacher who should have been protecting him. After that scene, we are all pretty confident that Quirrell is possessed by Voldemort. It's pretty idiotic if Harry doesn't at least suspect the same. Idiot Ball #6
7. When you suspect someone to be possessed by the most evil dark Lord of all times, you've just witnessed that person perform some very high level, very dark magic and attempt to murder a cop, and this person has just manipulated a child into committing a serious felony. Sitting them down to ask them some hard questions, outside some sort of maxium security facility, really does qualify as idiocy. But since Harry hasn't done that yet, we won't pin this idiot ball on him (at least not yet).
Yes, right now he is got an immediate problem of great urgency and difficulty to face so perhaps we can forgive him for not seeing the obvious. But right now, I'd say Harry's an idiot for not putting Bellatrix back in her cell and using the invisibility cloak to escape himself.
Because Harry is only an 11 year old boy, I suppose we can excuse him for being so easily manipulated by an adult friend. We could argue that Quirrell recognized the one thing Harry wanted most, to be taken seriously by an intelligent adult, and he's used that get Harry to trust Quirrell with little question or skepticism. But unless the point of this episode is to demonstrate how easy it is even for a committed rationalist to be manipulated into abandoning reason uwittingly, the author has not avoided leaving Harry holding the idiot ball.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Dude, there are tons of things about Dumbledore and the entire English Wizarding government that would, to my mind, warrant violent revolution. Well, the Wizarding government at least. Azkaban being the big one. Dumbledore is more ambiguous, but his very ambiguity and his attitude towards explaining himself comes close.
I think its worth pointing out that the US has the largest percent of its population in prison of any country in the world (0.75%). and torture is endemic in the US prison system. Many currently in prison, are there for non-violent drug offenses. Many are innocent of the crimes of which they have been convicted. Many are there primarily because they were not wealthy enough to pay quality legal counsel. Many are there because of bigotry. Are you aware of this issue? Have you even seen the studies of the US prison system. Do you think this situation warrants violent revolution? To what extent do you think those who are responsible for this system should be punished? Do you consider people guilty because they are simply ambivalent about the US prison situation?
If not, what do you see as different about the two.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You might consider this hair splitting, but I don't consider any of that true "Idiot Ball holding." At least not by the definition Eliezer seems to be using. The point is not that no character will do anything stupid. (Harry does stupid things all the time, as do various other characters). The point is that no character will do something uncharacteristically stupid for the point of making the plot work.
Peter Petegrew in the original story was portrayed as a selfish coward. So his decision to hide as a rat in a family he didn't like was not only stupid but out of character. (As was his placement in Gryffindor). The only reason he did it was so we could have a particular plot twist.
Trusting Quirrel IS a bad decision, but every moment of the story so far has been leading directly to that decision. Quirrel is creepy, but Harry desperately wants a role model he can look up to and everyone else fails miserably. Azkaban is dangerous, but Harry has numerous personal reasons to despise it even if those reasons might not persuade the average person. The government might not be as corrupt as it seems, but Harry has constant interaction with the son of the man controlling the system who was among the leaders of the Death Eaters.
On top of all of this, Harry has had numerous (i.e. EVERYONE) telling him from day one that he is the Hero and he can get away with stuff that ordinary people would be crazy to try. He even has a lot of firsthand empirical evidence that this is the case.
So it might seem obvious to us that Harry's decision is bad, it really is not out of character for Harry at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think its worth pointing out that the US has the largest percent of its population in prison of any country in the world (0.75%). and torture is endemic in the US prison system. Many currently in prison, are there for non-violent drug offenses. Many are innocent of the crimes of which they have been convicted. Many are there primarily because they were not wealthy enough to pay quality legal counsel. Many are there because of bigotry. Are you aware of this issue? Have you even seen the studies of the US prison system. Do you think this situation warrants violent revolution? To what extent do you think those who are responsible for this system should be punished? Do you consider people guilty because they are simply ambivalent about the US prison situation?
This is a great attempt at a gotcha, Rabbit, so I'll give it a shot!
"Many currently in prison, are there for non-violent drug offenses."
Something for which I'm pretty angry about as is reflected in my voting and campaign contribution habits. My guilt is that it's not reflected as much as it should be in my volunteering habits. But of course, what happens in American prisons isn't nearly as awful or as irrevocable as what is described in MoR and Azkaban or nearly as awful as in the canon HP universe.
"Many are innocent of the crimes of which they have been convicted."
That 'many' people are convicted of crimes they did not commit is not, in and of itself, a matter for violent revolution. It's an incredibly vague statement that's delicious as a gotcha but actually a terrible argument.
"Many are there primarily because they were not wealthy enough to pay quality legal counsel."
Well, that's one skewed way of looking at it. A more complete way of looking at it would be to say that many are there first because they committed a crime and then months or years before trial did not have the good fortune to possess enough fortune to acquire quality legal counsel to manage their defense. So no, not 'primarily'.
"Many are there because of bigotry."
See above for wrongful conviction.
quote:Are you aware of this issue? Have you even seen the studies of the US prison system.
No, Rabbit, I'm not even slightly aware. I haven't been a fan of the Innocence Project since first learning about it back in high school which for me was shortly after its founding. No, you know, I could try to lay out some sort of silly bona fides, but when folks do that on the Internet it's almost always ridiculous. Suffice it to say, Rabbit, kindly take your preachiness someplace else where it's both requested and merited.
Now, on to the rest of your attempted gotcha:
quote:To what extent do you think those who are responsible for this system should be punished? Do you consider people guilty because they are simply ambivalent about the US prison situation?
To the extent their responsibility can be proven in a court of law to the standards of proof in a civil or criminal case, of course. What other standards are there, exactly, aside from political ones-voting them out of office? As to guilt, yes, obviously.
quote:If not, what do you see as different about the two.
What do I see different about the two? One huge, fundamental, incredibly obvious difference would be that with the American prison system you've got a situation where, in spite of some very serious, oftentimes grave flaws, there are attempts to do the right thing. Protect society, rehabilitate, etc.
With Azkaban? "Screw it, let's torture them to death." That's the motivation, and even in the canon setting, they're pretty explicit about it, moreso in MoR. None of this is very unclear in the story, Rabbit, so you'll just have to excuse my pretty sharp irritation with your patronizing tone of post.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MoR goes a little beyond the canon by saying that all inmates of Azkaban are constantly being drained of life by the Dementors. In the canon, the Dementors just make sure the prisoners cannot escape. They do not roam the corridors of the prison. In MoR, just having a lot of Dementors outside the walls at least a stone's thow away is enough to drain life from all the inmates, especially those on the lower levels.
I do have one logical problem with the idea presented in MoR that the Dementors are actually death. Harry is able to kill Dementors. But how can it be possible to kill death? He seems to kill them with his own life force, poured into his humaniform patronus. But still--kill death? Life kills death? I just have a problem with that. Death can be done away with, of course, by being ended as a result of God granting immortality. But the Dementors are presented as living creatures, that can talk to the Aurors. And yet they are death? Sorry, it does not compute.
But I still love the story. I can tolerate one or two improbable things as long as the story is good. After all, that is a part of the "suspension of disbelief" that is required to appreciate and enjoy any science fiction or fantasy.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:But the Dementors are presented as living creatures, that can talk to the Aurors.
JKR herself mentioned that Dementors don't have souls. And Dumbledore in MOR disputed the phrasing of saying that they possess life.
So their destruction is a wholly different thing that the killing of an ensouled person: which either eradicated the soul (as Harry believes) or moves it to the next great adventure (as Dumbledore believes).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So, Aris, you (and JKR) are saying that the Dementors do not have souls. And yet they are sentient beings, who can talk and answer questions (in MoR). What are they then--some kind of flying zombies? How can anything be sentient and not have a soul?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In the third book, canon!Hagrid describes his stay in Azkaban; I seem to recall that he mentions the life-draining (or at least happiness-draining) properties of having Dementors so close by.
As for destroying Death, the Dementors are only magical representations or shadows of death: "I comprehend your nature, you symbolize Death, through some law of magic you are a shadow that Death casts into the world." To destroy them is a symbolic reflection of humanity's eventual ability to end death, not in itself a literal destruction of death. A Christian writer, perhaps, would have used the resurrection of Jesus as the central image rather than future technology, but the idea is the same.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So, Aris, you (and JKR) are saying that the Dementors do not have souls. And yet they are sentient beings, who can talk and answer questions. What are they then--some kind of flying zombies?
In canon, it's not so obvious; but in MoR, they are indeed 'flying zombies', whose speech is merely the projection of the listener's own mind. Note that Harry cannot hear them talk, because he refuses to be fooled, and thus does not lend the Dementor any of his own mind to speak with. They clearly do have some sort of independent detection capacity, since they can 'tell' people things they did not already know, but that does not make them sentient any more than a dog is sentient.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
By what definition of sentient are dogs not sentient?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
KOM, regarding Hagrid's experience in Azkaban, yes, that works for JKR, since she says Dementors represent depression, not death.
You make some interesting points about the significance of Harry being able to kill Dementors. Thanks. Maybe that will make my suspension of disbelief a little less difficult to maintain.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Raymond, who says dogs do not have souls?
Notice this line that seems to confuse people in the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes: "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" (Eccl. 3:21; KJV)
But note the way this is rendered in the NRSV: "Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?"
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I was specifically addressing KoM's comment, which had to do with sentience which is not necessarily the same thing as souls.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: By what definition of sentient are dogs not sentient?
By the definition Ron gave: "sentient beings, who can talk and answer questions".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Defining sentience in terms of human-comprehensible language seems pretty silly to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Whatever. I'm not insisting that this is the correct definition of the word. I'm saying that that's the concept we were discussing, and neither Dementors nor dogs have it. Whether Ron used the correct word is rather beside the point. By all means substitute whatever you feel is the correct term.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I did not present being able to talk and answer as the essential definitions of sentience. My point was merely that surely something that can talk and answer questions (passing the Turing Test, of course), must be sentient.
My cats are certainly sentient. They are self-aware, and they do have ways of communicating with me very meaningfully, even if it is not in human language. They are my friends and companions, not just pets. I look into their eyes, and I know there is a mind there.
Vegetables probably are not sentient, though I would not say that must necessarily hold everywhere in the universe. Hunters may not like to believe that the animals they kill are sentient. But they surely are. Why do you think God gave the animals brains?
(Brain Coral doesn't count.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:My point was merely that surely something that can talk and answer questions (passing the Turing Test, of course), must be sentient.
And I tried to show why such is not necessarily the case within the MoR-verse. Further, I don't think it has to be necessarily true even in our universe; consider the Chinese Room. It may be intelligent, but it does not seem to me that it is conscious.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I want to know what he means by 'life' when referring to the part of Harry that is being left behind in prison.
Hobbes Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:How can anything be sentient and not have a soul?
Why should anything sentient necessarily have a soul? Harry in MOR doesn't even believe human beings have a supernatural soul (though he does use the word 'soul' metaphorically), why should something non-human necessarily have a soul just by being "sentient" as you call it? Draco in MOR doesn't believe Muggles have souls.
In Goblet of Fire, Harry saw images of his parents (and other killed victims of Voldemort) that talked to him and advised him and even seemed to have the personalities of his parents -- far greater communicative ability and far more personality and inviduality than anything the Dementors have displayed. And nonetheless Dumbledore insisted to Harry that these were just echoes of his parents' personalities and form. Those weren't souls either.
quote:My point was merely that surely something that can talk and answer questions (passing the Turing Test, of course), must be sentient
You think Dementors in MOR can pass the Turing Test, i.e. be able to pretend to be human convincingly enough to fool an interviewer?
Interviewer: Hello, there. Dementor: I WILL DEVOUR YOUR SOUL. Interviewer: Very convincing.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
As a sidenote: I think all your problems regarding this originate from having a binary perception of 'sentience'.
There's actually a great section in "Magical Beasts and Where to Find them" which described the Magical community trying to find a proper dividing line between those creatures that qualify for "people" and those creatures that qualify as "beasts".
The line ended up being that "people" were those creatures that had the capacity to responsibly uphold and shape the magical community's laws.
This excluded stupid creatures that could communicate only very simply (like trolls), and it also excluded creatures that were highly intelligent but their extreme aggression made responsibility impossible (like Acromantulas).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In Christian folk-belief when the old pagan myths were dying but not yet dead, elves and their like were sentient and did exist, but had no souls. Thus they were ageless, but if they died by violence that was it - no afterlife for them. Poul Anderson wrote some excellent fantasy stories around this theme, "The Merman's Children" perhaps the foremost among them, although "The Broken Sword" is also very good.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I do remember that section of "Fantastic Beasts," it was actually pretty clever and I liked the effort she put into it.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i think one of the questions that i have been hoping will be answered soon is the on about why Harry chooses to go along with rescuing Bellatrix when she most definately wasnt the "somebody named Black" that he was originally talking about. Its pretty clear he was referring to Sirius, but Quirrelmort made an assumption that hehad let something slip, or that Harry was advancing at "the game" faster than he had anticipated. You get the feeling that Harry is a little put off when quirrel says Bellatrix but he just goes along with it because he just wishes to appear to have guessed Quirrel's mind.
I am also interested in how they deal with the idea of Voldemort. I didnt actually think about the fact that ghosts arent real people and that there is no afterlife in MOR. So there's no way Voldy can't be in the back of Quirrel's head.
I must also admit that looking back on the whole story from this point the chapters about the armies seems pretty unimportant to the overall story. In fact it seems like a way to fit Ender's Game references for no reason...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That ghosts are not actual people, and that there is no natural afterlife, does not preclude Voldy from having found a magical means of preserving himself. To say that no such means can exist would violate naturalistic theories of consciousness. So reasoning from "ghosts are not sentient" to "sentience cannot be preserved" is spurious.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
true, i have always like Spurrier... great quotes...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I must also admit that looking back on the whole story from this point the chapters about the armies seems pretty unimportant to the overall story. In fact it seems like a way to fit Ender's Game references for no reason...
Important things that develop in the army stories:
• Quirrel reveals his take on traitors and why magical britain needs to unite. (This would not have worked nearly as well without the actual events showcasing the need).
• Hermione struggles to reclaim her independence as a character
• Harry manipulates Draco into liking Hermione
• We learn about some mysterious manipulation going on that leads Harry to seriously question Dumbledore for the first time, as well as hint at a future plot of some manipulator (possibly the same one who left Harry the invisibility cloak), which may not be entirely clear now but will certainly be important in the future
• We got several chapters of Ender's Game references, which are awesome all by themselves and wouldn't have disappointed me if they served no other purpose whatsoever.
The first four things are not only important but I suspect fundamental to the story.
[ November 05, 2010, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Gah. There better be another chapter this weekend, this is getting ridiculous.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
There are three components of this that together almost make me wish I didn't read it.
1) The author is a decent writer and the ideas are engaging enough to make this a quite enjoyable read. Especially considering he's providing this for free and all it costs is the time it takes to read it.
2) He's not a great writer and so I can imagine ever having enough interest to re-read this story. Once is enjoyable but sufficient.
3) His change in characters and general behavior patterns a lot of how I wish people in JKR's version would act that I now can't think about rereading the actual series without getting incredibly frustrated.
Which means that reading this enjoyable saga once through cuts off any future rereads of the original work. It seems like total potential enjoyment for my life is significantly decreased!
Hobbes Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
one of the reasons i couldnt get too into the HP universe is because of the lack of rationality that many of the adults in the series display.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually think the author is pretty damn good at what he does. There are a few areas where I felt he could have done better but I wasn't sure how, but there are plenty of chapters that I have read over and over (10+ times) and still enjoy it.
What particularly intrigues me is that the other works of his available online do nothing to showcase the particular skills that he puts into this work. Most of the author's fiction is written from the view of characters very similar to Harry, which suggests at first that he's kinda a one trick pony who can only write nerdy rationalist heroes.
Except HP:MoR does a great job of having each character have a different writing style associated with it. I can tell when I'm reading Harry or Draco or Hermione's thoughts just from the style, let alone content. Eliezer doesn't do this perfectly (the second "Hermione chapter" is pretty over the top) but he does it well enough that I assume he must have had some prior experience writing similar things, and I'd like to know what they are.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I agree, Raymond. I think the writer of MoR is a very good writer, clearly far above average, and capable of doing professional work and getting paid for it. In fact, it is a shame he is not getting paid for this.
I mean, after reading the canon, the last novel three times, I was feeling disppointed that it was all over, there wasn't any more. But MoR comes along, and it is a fresh and new take, a sort of alternate universe take, and the story is alive again, and who knows what will happen? This is fun!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hmm, well clearly YMMV. I want to be clear, I don't think he's a bad author and I appreciate the free entertainment he's provided me. I just don't think he's good enough to be published just for his writing skills, or more to the point good enough to be re-read. ::shrug:: If you feel differently all I can say is: lucky! I like the story and wish I liked the writing enough to reread it.
Hobbes Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Hobbes, it is really the author's "writing skills," or the story itself that you are not enamored with?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Writing. I like point A, and I like point B but sometimes the sequence of events (i.e. dialog) to get between the two leaves something to be desired in my mind.
Again, I'm not saying it's awful, just not good enough to tempt me to reread.
Hobbes Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:He specifically said they DID talk about what would happen if they encountered guards.
Where? I totally missed that.
Hobbes wrote:
quote:3) His change in characters and general behavior patterns a lot of how I wish people in JKR's version would act that I now can't think about rereading the actual series without getting incredibly frustrated.
That's why I love MoR, I was already frustrated with the idiocy in the canon.
But, if you want Harry Potter to be smart and competent without stupid stuff happening, AND you want it closer to canon without the rationalist agenda and satire, I suggest Harry Potter and the Nightmares of Futures Past. It's the BEST fanfic ever written, IMO. The writing quality is through the roof.
The background of the story: the events of the canon 7th book don't happen; the war continues until Harry is 30 and he finally defeats Voldemort, but everyone else Harry has ever met has died. He sends his soul back in time to when he was 11 years old... the series begins again, but with smart, competent, armed-with-future-knowledge Harry Potter. Not that everything goes his way... but IT IS AN AWESOMELY WRITTEN STORY.
As much as I enjoy MoR, there is no comparison in quality. The author of Nightmares of Futures Past is a much better writer than J.K. Rowling. Check it out!
On to MoR: the latest updates have Quirrell claiming that he never meant to kill the Auror, but either knew he would dodge the killing curse, or would have pushed him out of the way; use of the AK was part of his plan to dominate the Auror.
It could, of course, be true. I'm not sure if it is, or if we're supposed to buy it, but since the Auror didn't die, it's obviously the best thing for Quirrell to say to regain Harry's trust.
I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense though. The AK's value is in killing. It's secondary value would be in intimidation: the person almost hit would know they were in a fight to the death, would be frightened, whatever. Since the Auror is already completely aware of this, I don't see the point.
If anything, being able to dodge the AK from an opponent that has, up until now, completely dominated him, might actually give him some fresh resolve.
...
I just re-read the duel, and I guess I'm just wrong. The Auror is used to bribery attempts, and Quirrell just made him multiple offers. He is then outclassed in a duel, but I guess he needed to realize that the bribery attempts were over and this was to the death. Dodging an Unforgivable would be a wake up call that this was Serious Business, and possibly distract him enough for Quirrell to subdue him in some non-lethal way.
Since Quirrell isn't stupid, either this is actually true, or he really was going to kill the Auror in a fit of Evil and dash the consequences. I'd prefer that his story be true, actually, because it makes him a more dangerous antagonist.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:They'd gone up another four flights of stairs before the rough voice of the Defense Professor said, simply and without emphasis, "Auror coming."
It took too long, a whole second maybe, for Harry to understand, for the jolt of adrenaline to pump into his blood, and for him to remember what Professor Quirrell had already discussed with him and told him to do in this case, and then Harry spun on his heel and flew back the way they'd come.
I'm not sure what I think about the resolution of the prison section. It felt a little underwhelming, but I think if I had been reading it all at once instead of waiting a week for each update it would have felt better.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
So is there a reason Bellatrix hasn't noticed yet that the person she thinks of as Voldemort is actually pretty bad at magic (for an adult)?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it's established that kids have lower magical energy reserves than adults, so there's a lot of things he simply wouldn't be able to do. There's probably more spells he should be able to use that he hasn't, but at the time there was enough weird stuff going on that Bella couldn't figure out WHAT was going on beyond "I notice that I'm confused." Plus, she was getting rescued, so at the time she'd having reason to err on the side of trusting the guy who's helping her escape.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
True. While I was reading, I just sort of went with, "she's not in the best of circumstances for clear thinking" which covers a lot. I could see it being important once she recovers more, though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well that'll depend a lot on what Quirrel's actual plans were and how Harry relates to those plans. At this point, since Harry IS suspicious of Quirrel he will (I hope) insist on keeping tabs on how Bella is doing, which should include an eventual revealing of the deception.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I started reading the Nightmares Past. Thanks for the link! I don't know if I agree that the Nightmares author is better than the Rationality author. Nightmares is written with a lot of stuff over-explained. I'm about halfway through (Ch 21). There also doesn't seem to be a significant enough Enemy yet. But I'm still enjoying it!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I confused "Nightmares Past" with "Wastelands of Time." Turns out they are not the same at all.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I confused "Nightmares Past" with "Wastelands of Time." Turns out they are not the same at all.
I just started reading Wastelands of Time and I agree it is extremely well written. This is one of those rare pieces that makes me angry that copyright laws apply not only to actually books but to the entire universe created by an author.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
So am I supposed to be reading Wastelands of Time?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If you're liking Nightmares Past there's no reason not to read both. (I actually didn't think Wasteland was all that great, at least not as good as MoR, but it was definitely among the better ideas out there).
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
The writing in Nightmares Past is addictive to read in my opinion, because it taps into what is probably a common desire to redo the past with the knowledge of how things turned out, but the actual plot pales in comparison to either MoR, WoT (all three of which I read because of this thread, and I might add that I have no experience with any other fanfiction of any sort, so I don't really have anything to compare these to) and the original books. The reason is that there is simply no real tension in the story. The author of Nightmares Past egregiously violates what Yudkowsky calls the First Law of Fanfiction, in that the NP Harry is super-powered, with no corresponding changes to balance that out. So it's a pleasant story about how everything turns out just right all the time. The Harry of Nightmares past never has a single thing really bad happen to him, outside of physical injuries that do no lasting damage, even on relatively unimportant matters, such as losing a single game of Quidditch. Of course this is partly also what makes it addictive to read, as someone who was very frustrated with the original books because of how annoyed I was with the characters through most of books 4-7.
However I definitely found I had to suspend my disbelief more when reading Nightmares Past than with MoR. Much more, particularly related to the behavior of the characters. In NP, no character that is "good" seems to ever have any significant conflict with anyone, ever, and even the minor conflicts are resolved within a chapter at most.
So it baffles me that someone who dislikes MoR would possibly like NP more, since I feel like a lot of what MoR is attacked for, NP does far, far worse.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: But, if you want Harry Potter to be smart and competent without stupid stuff happening, AND you want it closer to canon without the rationalist agenda and satire, I suggest Harry Potter and the Nightmares of Futures Past. It's the BEST fanfic ever written, IMO. The writing quality is through the roof.
I read and liked it, but I think it's only fair to warn people that it's getting close to a year since the last update.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I just finished NP and I totally agree with you, Avin.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avin: The writing in Nightmares Past is addictive to read in my opinion, because it taps into what is probably a common desire to redo the past with the knowledge of how things turned out, but the actual plot pales in comparison to either MoR, WoT (all three of which I read because of this thread, and I might add that I have no experience with any other fanfiction of any sort, so I don't really have anything to compare these to) and the original books.
It's a very VERY common plot-idea: It's typically called "The Peggy Sue" and you can find a huge list of fanfics (and some canon works) that utilize it over at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PeggySue Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
On that note, btw, I recommend reading Peggy Susie
It's just two pages long, but very very good. Worth everyone's time.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Yeah I'm aware of the trope. Also as I mentioned before, the NP author over-explains things. Like the unnecessary multiple viewpoints of the same time frame. It's cool to see things from Ginny's perspective but it didn't add much.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: On that note, btw, I recommend reading Peggy Susie
It's just two pages long, but very very good. Worth everyone's time.
That is ... amazing.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
For me, the canon HP stories had a lot of problems. A LOT of problems. I like both MoR and NP because they address those problems in very different ways, and it's very cathartic.
NP addresses the Harry/Ginny romance in a way the canon never bothered to. I realize giving Harry future knowledge comes close to Peggy Sue territory, but for me the main problem with peggy sue stuff is that it's boring, but NP had so much emotional turmoil that it was never boring at all. This Harry still has struggles, even if they aren't the same ones we expect.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The title "Peggie Susie" reminds me of the time-travel movie, Peggy Sue Got Married. Any connection?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Hahahah, I read Peggy Susie and it was funny. Is it sad that I guessed the end before I got to the end, though?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:The title "Peggy Susie" reminds me of the time-travel movie, Peggy Sue Got Married. Any connection?
Obviously the trope of Peggy Sue has been named after that movie, which is the most famous example of the concept.
The title of the particular fic is just making a pun.
(No connection to "Mary Sue" which is a different trope, btw.)
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
well i liked what they've done with GoFP but what i like about it i guess is the original storyline. Stories where the ending is bittersweet or even better where the victory seems like a loss are the best stories. Frodo can never go home, Sidney Carton dies, D' Artagnan watches Constance die. Happy endings where everything goes great don't sit well with me.
None of the deaths in the original story seem particularly meaningful. Sirius dies without you knowing anything about him, not to mention he stops to taunt someone and "trips" into an unexplained doorway of death. Tonks, Lupin, Fred (or Gorge... one of em) Mad-eye all die unremarked and off-page. Even deaths that should have been powerful like Dumbledore seem more like a marketing ploy than a real, meaningful death. I mean after HBP how many people were concerned about Dumbledore's story anymore? Eveyone was wondering why Snape did it, and he was rewarded with dying of a snake bite in an uncerremoniously dull way...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
seriously? I confess I wasn't that upset about Sirius, but I was upset about Dumbledore, pretty upset about Hedwig (this had a lot to do with her being a character I was completely unprepared to see die), and hella upset about Dobby.
Not every death was super meaningful, but enough of them were that I didn't feel like the ending was perfectly happy. (I did think the way he died and came back was lame, but that has nothing to do with the happiness of the ending and more to do with the way Rowling relies on Deus Ex Machina to resolve half her conflicts).
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: seriously? I confess I wasn't that upset about Sirius, but I was upset about Dumbledore, pretty upset about Hedwig (this had a lot to do with her being a character I was completely unprepared to see die), and hella upset about Dobby.
Not every death was super meaningful, but enough of them were that I didn't feel like the ending was perfectly happy. (I did think the way he died and came back was lame, but that has nothing to do with the happiness of the ending and more to do with the way Rowling relies on Deus Ex Machina to resolve half her conflicts).
To be honest i didnt think about Hedwig at all... i actually would say that one is a surprise ending. Dobby was more Jar-Jar than Gollum... Nothing in any of the stories made me like him much less care.
I just didnt feel that any of the "significant" deaths were actually significant. Most of the ones that die can be said to be periphrial characters anyway, even Lupin and Sirius. But Dumbledore's death and the Twin should have meant a whole lot more than it did.
I felt like the ending was too much of a "Well Voldy bit it, lets just give everyone the ending they would want" The only thing it lacked was a "and they lived happily ever after"
Maybe I just didn't get too attached to all the characters like most. I was sympathetic to Nevelle and i was fascinated by Snape (except the snape of PoA... he was very out of character from the other books) but admittedly 4, 5, and 6 were the only books that I actually liked.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Sirius' death didn't bother me, really. Fred's death is the one I mind the most, followed by Tonks and Lupin :-(.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Rereading some of the earlier chapters, trying to piece together hints. This is obviously pretty significant:
quote:"The Dark Lord came to Godric's Hollow," said McGonagall in a whisper. "You should have been hidden, but you were betrayed. The Dark Lord killed James, and he killed Lily, and he came in the end to you, to your crib. He cast the Killing Curse at you. And that was where it ended. The Killing Curse is formed of pure hate, and strikes directly at the soul, severing it from the body. It cannot be blocked. The only defense is not to be there. But you survived. You are the only person ever to survive. The Killing Curse reflected and rebounded and struck the Dark Lord, leaving only the burnt hulk of his body and a scar on your forehead. That was the end of the terror, and we were free. That, Harry Potter, is why people want to see the scar on your forehead, and why they want to shake your hand."
The storm of weeping that had washed through Harry had used up all his tears; he could not cry again, he was done.
(And somewhere in the back of his mind was a small, small note of confusion, a sense of something wrong about that story; and it should have been a part of Harry's art to notice that tiny note, but he was distracted. For it is a sad rule that whenever you are most in need of your art as a rationalist, that is when you are most likely to forget it.)
But I'm not sure what Harry (or us) are supposed to have noticed. I mean, there's the fact that a killing curse rebounding for no obvious reason is just weird. There's the fact that the killing curse affects the soul, which Harry doesn't believe in per se. Neither of those things strike me as something a Rationalist™ would be particularly bothered when he's just begun to learn about magic and everything is uniformly new and weird.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Here's the point which I believe Harry should have noticed: How do people know that Voldemort cast the *killing curse* at Harry, if both of Harry's parents were already dead when Voldemort did so?
Which is why I suspect Voldemort didn't actually try to kill Harry in the MOR universe.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Aris, when Voldemort was burnt to a crisp by his rebounding killing curse, his wand would have fallen to the floor. With his wand, aurors could determine what were the last spells cast by Voldemort, since the wands record that. We learned about this in the cemetary scene in Harry Potter 4 (Goblet of Fire) where Harry and Voldemort were dueling, and their wands kind of locked together for a time, with all the last people Voldemort killed appearing as apparitions. Among those who appeared, were Harry's parents.
Somehow some Deatheaters must have managed to get ahold of Voldemort's wand after the aurors were finished with it, and saved it to give to Voldemort when he returned bodily.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ron, let's leave aside for a moment the several potential holes in your logic: - What if the Deatheaters got to the wand BEFORE the aurors? Sirius and Hagrid (the first to reach Harry) probably didn't have the presence of mind to take Voldie's wand, so there was plenty of time after that, for Bellatrix or someone else to pick it up. (or if Sirius is evil in this story, for Sirius himself to do it). - Or even if the aurors did record Avada Kedavra as Voldemort's last spell, why be sure he directed it to Harry? What if he directed it to *himself* after casting a spell on Harry so that his spirit would survive inside Harry? - What if Voldemort's last spell was wandless magic, not something he used his wand for?
Most importantly, you're using knowledge in your response that Harry did NOT have at the time. Harry didn't know that wands recorded past spells, so he *should* have have been confused about this bit, and asked about it ("How do you know he cast Avada Kedavra at me?")
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Actually I think Ron's logic is fairly sound. Harry doesn't know the specifics of Wizard forensics, but it's not unreasonable for him to assume they have some version of it (or, for that matter, they can simply cast a divination spell of some sort).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That may be the small discordant note that the narrator points out, and which Harry loses track of in his grief.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Harry doesn't know the specifics of Wizard forensics, but it's not unreasonable for him to assume they have some version of it
One of the basic points of the whole story is that the wizarding world isn't very trained in the methods of rationality.
So how do those methods of rationality guide us? What are the evidence we actually have? - Avada Kedavra normally leaves no mark on the victim. Whatever was done on Harry left a lightning-shaped scar. - Avada Kedavra kills anything with a brain and never rebounds. This time it's supposed to have failed to kill Harry and to have rebounded onto Voldemort.
Against this, Ron and Raymond, you only put the argument that since *everyone* believes it, then it must be true. You don't know that Aurors examined Voldemort's wand. You don't know what the last spell on Voldemort wand was. You don't know if any divination spells on any other forensic method was used. You're just making up excuses for the wizarding world, when you don't know if the wizarding world *deserves* such excuses.
You just know that the wizarding world *believes* Voldemort cast Avada Kedavra on Harry.
And I ask you: Is the wizarding world rational enough, that this belief should be sufficient evidence for you?
Because to me it seems that the wizarding world is irrational enough that it would accept the first explanation it made up, and then stop looking.
Whether this theory is true or not, Harry *did* display a lapse of rationality when he failed to challenge it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The theory could well turn out to be true. We don't actually have any evidence either way. But at the specific moment that Harry learned this (the one with the gigantic author hint), he hadn't learned anything about how irrational the wizarding world was. (I'm pretty sure that all starts the chapter afterwards). We're looking for something that would be identifiably confusing given what Harry knew and had reasons to assume at the time.
Also, for the most part I don't think the wizarding world is any more irrational than the muggle one. It does lack proper use of the scientific method, which is a big deal, and means they won't have certain tools for determining truth that muggles have, but the average wizard is no more likely to accept things at face value than the average muggle is.
Eliezer's entire point of writing the story is to raise the sanity waterline of OUR world. He's using wizards with different laws of physics to showcase how to use the methods of rationality when you're forced to re-evaluate everything from the ground up, but that's only a means to an end.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I agree with Aris. I've long thought that this is the one really truly unexplained glaringly irrational problem with the book. If James and Lily and Voldemort were all killed and Harry was only one, how did any one know what happened? We are given this detailed account of how both James and Lily died and then how Voldemort tried but failed to kill Harry, but we are never told of any witnesses, any evidence, or any means by which Dumbledore (or anyone else) learned the story.
It doesn't really bother me that the characters don't behave very rationally . Real people don't behave rationally. Plus, we are actually looking at teenagers perspective on adult behavior and adult behavior is usually "irrational" from a teenage perspective. But how people knew that Harry survived the killing curse is a pretty massive plot hole.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
well we are told that there is a "deeper" magic (thank you Aslan....) that when someone voluntarily gives up their life to protect another that sacrifice protects them. It is supposedly what saved harry after Lilly's death and it is supposedly why voldemort destroys himself and not Harry at the end of book 7.
I remember beign confused in the first few books as to whether Voldy killed Lilly and then turned on Harry, or if he went to zap harry and she got in the way and he zapped both her and himself in the same cast. I suppose it really doesnt matter much though, the important thing was the selfless act of sacrificing yourself for a loved one.
Of course why someone wouldnt just go the whole Jesus way and sacrifice themself for the entire world and make V-mort powerless but i guess it doesnt work that way...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty confident that Aslan Magic will not turn out to be how it works in MoR. In any case, the issue here is not HOW Harry survived, but whether we have any reason to believe the events played out the way we thought they did in the first place.
If the "no witnesses" thing turns out to be the point Harry was supposed to notice, I won't be disappointed, but I also don't think it's inherently flawed of Harry not to think about it (at least at the time).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: If the "no witnesses" thing turns out to be the point Harry was supposed to notice, I won't be disappointed, but I also don't think it's inherently flawed of Harry not to think about it (at least at the time).
Agreed.
My big problem at the moment is that the solid fuel rocket violates McGonagall's prime transfigurations rule
"You will absolutely never under any circumstances Transfigure anything into a liquid or a gas. No water, no air. Nothing like water, nothing like air. Even if it is not meant to drink. Liquid evaporates, little bits and pieces of it get into the air. You will not Transfigure anything that is to be burned. It will make smoke and someone could breathe that smoke! You will never Transfigure anything that could conceivably get inside anyone's body by any means.?"
There is an implication that Harry has found a way around the problem of transfiguation sickness by starting with a block of ice, but if the way around transfiguation sickness were that simple, it's almost shocking that it didn't occur to McGonagall and 90% of her students.
Furthermore, Harry is relying utterly on the possibility that his explanation of the mechanism behind transfiguation sickness is accurate even though he himself noted that it didn't make any sense from the molecular perspective.
After all the time the author devoted to drumming in the dangers of transfiguration, I'll be very disappointed if nothing happens.
**P.S. I found it irritating the number of times Yudkowsky said "transfigured muggle item bonded to magical item". It was an extremely awkward and transparent way to try to save the surprise and (at least in my opinion) some of his worst writing.
[ November 16, 2010, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The "Wizarding World" had ample reason to conclude that Voldemort had attempted to use the killing curse on the infant Harry.
1) Voldemort's body was found there, right in front of Harry's crib. It was said to have been burned, but not necessarily to ashes.
2) Aurors probably would have known if this was a possible effect of the killing curse.
3) The movie canon indicates that magic leaves traces. Dumbledore tells Harry this in HP6 (Half-Blood Prince), just as he spins the ring on the table; so aurors could detect what kind of curse/spell was used.
4) James was caught without his wand when Voldemort burst in through the door. The aurors who investigated the crime scene would have noted that Jame's wand was set aside out of reach (wherever James left it). Same for Lilly's wand. Thus the aurors could have easily pieced together the sequence of events.
5) Severus Snape knew that Voldemort was on his way to kill the Potters, and that his primary purpose was to kill the infant Harry, because Voldemort had heard part of the prophecy that Harry was the one who would defeat him. Snape pled with Voldemort to spare Lilly. It was Voldemort's going ahead and killing her anyway that turned Snape permanently against Voldemort. Snape then would have given his testimony about Voldemort's motive and intent.
6) Even though Sirius Black was regarded as a mass-murder (since Peter Pettigrew framed him for the deaths of several muggles), no one claims that Sirius killed James and Lilly. Perhaps he was known to have been elsewhere, thus had an alibi.
7) Voldemort's wand, which was found on the scene, was one of two that contained a Phoenix feather. Wands usually do not manifest full utility or strength when wielded by someone else, for whom the wand was not intended.
8) Voldemort (for the above reason) would not have allowed someone else to use his wand, nor is it likely that anyone could have taken Voldemort's wand without his knowledge.
9) In the cemetary scene in HP 4 (Goblet of Fire), when Harry and Voldemort's wands kind of "locked" together and the past kills by Voldemort appeared, the apparitions were able to talk to Harry. Cedric Diggory's apparition asked Harry to return his body to his father. If the same were true when the aurors examined Voldemort's wand, then the apparitions of James and Lilly might well have been able to tell the aurors what happened. So there was eyewitness testimony.
This is a slight inconsistency in the JKR canon: she states explicitly more than once that "the dead do not come back." And yet she has these apparitions who are able to communicate. She also has the ghosts and the people in the paintings on the wall who are able to communicate. There was some hand-waving explanation about such apparitions not really being the dead individuals themselves returned from the dead. But it is not really that clear just what they were.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
I can't say that i would buy the "No witnesses" as being significant unless something else in the story about his parent's death was off.
Of course there is one thing inconsistant with the story that i just saw now. Harry may not be privy to it in MOR since he has yet to visibly see someone Kadavra'd.
In the real HP universe people kind of just drop dead. Some even look peacful. In fact i'm fairly certain that Dumbledore mentions that with the exception of Harry's scar it doesnt mark the person it was used on.
However as Ron just pionted out, Voldemorts body was burnt. Perhaps that is what Harry should have thought of.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ron, nothing of the list you give is signficant evidence towards Voldemort casting Avada Kedavra to Harry.
quote:1) Voldemort's body was found there, right in front of Harry's crib. It was said to have been burned, but not necessarily to ashes.
This is evidence towards something or someone attacking Voldemort. It's not evidence in favour of Voldemort casting Avada Kedavra to Harry.
A dead Harry would be evidence in favour of Voldemort casting Avada Kedavra to Harry, not a dead Voldemort.
quote:2) Aurors probably would have known if this was a possible effect of the killing curse.
We know it wasn't. We've been repeatedly told and shown that the killing curse leaves the body unmarked. This is strong evidence AGAINST Voldemort being hit by the killing curse, whether that of another or his own.
quote:Severus Snape knew that Voldemort was on his way to kill the Potters, and that his primary purpose was to kill the infant Harry, because Voldemort had heard part of the prophecy that Harry was the one who would defeat him. Snape pled with Voldemort to spare Lilly. It was Voldemort's going ahead and killing her anyway that turned Snape permanently against Voldemort. Snape then would have given his testimony about Voldemort's motive and intent.
This is indeed evidence towards Voldemort intending to AvadaKedavra Harry, but weak second-hand evidence that depends on Voldemort revealing his full intentions to someone like Snape.
quote:6) Even though Sirius Black was regarded as a mass-murder (since Peter Pettigrew framed him for the deaths of several muggles), no one claims that Sirius killed James and Lilly. Perhaps he was known to have been elsewhere, thus had an alibi.
In canon we know he was one of the first two people to reach baby Harry, and that he gave his motorcycle to Hagrid, thus leaving him behind in the ruins after Hagrid had left.
quote:7) Voldemort's wand, which was found on the scene, was one of two that contained a Phoenix feather. Wands usually do not manifest full utility or strength when wielded by someone else, for whom the wand was not intended.
a) We've not been told Voldemort's wand was found on the scene. b) This is not evidence that Voldemort was killed by a rebounding killing curse anyway. It's just irrelevant.
quote:8) Voldemort (for the above reason) would not have allowed someone else to use his wand, nor is it likely that anyone could have taken Voldemort's wand without his knowledge.
Again: irrelevant.
quote:If the same were true when the aurors examined Voldemort's wand, then the apparitions of James and Lilly might well have been able to tell the aurors what happened. So there was eyewitness testimony.
A) You're making stuff up. B) You don't know the aurors could produce as strong an recollection from the wand, as its brother-wand could. C) Even if they could, you forget that the apparitions of James and Lily would only be able to tell what happened up to the point they died, not afterwards.
Still no eyewitnesses.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think the phrase "A Wizard Did It" has never been more applicable.
There are a lot of plot holes in the Harry Potter books, but it does not strain my suspension of disbelief to suppose there was some magical way to determine what happened on the night Voldemort was found dead.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
More to the point, there ARE lots of conspiracy theories about why Harry survived... but there are none that we know of that the attack didn't unfold the way we commonly believe. So it's not that people are unwilling to question things, but that they don't consider those events to be in dispute. We don't know how the Wizard did it, but it's pretty safe to say a Wizard did it, one way or another.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
"More to the point, there ARE lots of conspiracy theories about why Harry survived..."
We know there are a lot of crackpot theories about Harry in general, not just about why he survived.
"but there are none that we know of that the attack didn't unfold the way we commonly believe."
This reverts back to "Lots of people believe it". Such belief is evidence, but it's just not remotely sufficient evidence. If we knew *why* they believed it, then we would have more direct evidence one way or another.
Harry himself had argued, if jokingly, that it was even possible people had conspired to *pretend* Harry had survived, and replaced another baby for him.
That particular theory was of course extremely implausible; but nonetheless it's the mechanism of constantly asking "What do I know, and how do I know it?" that I believe we are supposed to use in this story.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps someone had a look at the infant Harry's memories before handing him over to the Dursleys? (Or the Evans-Verreses, in MoR.) Although he was not yet of an age to talk, he might have formed visual memories of the scene. Indeed, it is stated in MoR that he did (when the Dementor calls up his worst memory), and perhaps this is based on canon. Although it's worth pointing out that Dementor memories may not be reliable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It's certainly possible that they were able to examine baby Harry's memories of the events. It's entirely possible that there are all kinds of magical forensic tools that would have allowed them to reconstruct, without question, the events surrounding James, Lilly and Voldemort's deaths. My point is that none of theses are ever mentioned in the book, even though its a glaringly obvious question. It's as if Dumbledore, SIrius and the entire wizarding world know instantly what has happened, even though no one saw what happened and no one has ever survived the killing curse before.
Baby Harry surviving the Avada Kadavra curse and simultaneously killing the most powerful dark wizard of his time is a miraculous event. With no witnesses for this but Harry (who couldn't even talk), you think plenty of people (especially those who were death eaters and/or distrust Dumbledore) would be questioning whether it happened at all. Yet no one even offers any explanation for how they know that is what happened. They even know what Voldemort and Lily said before he killed her.
[ November 16, 2010, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
I had assumed that Voldermort had brought a few Death Eaters along, and that they told the story later. It really seems like going to take care of the one who is prophesied to destroy you would be a great time to bring some backup with you (even if he is just an infant, why not take some minions), especially in the MoR universe where Voldermort can be reasonably expected to be a little more careful and intelligent.
Though I suppose this may have been contradicted in cannon (or MoR) somewhere that I've forgotten about.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Rabbit's point is well taken: There may exist a perfectly reasonable explanation in canon or in MoR, but it hasn't been given and Harry ought to have noticed that.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
Eventually in the cannon Voldemort admits that his spell reflected on him.
I think its just one of those things that we assume from the books because the "good" guy in a position of authority tells us it happened.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Aris, at the risk of belaboring all this overmuch, let me underline a few things you seem to be glossing over. The evidence I presented is indeed sufficient to prove that Voldemort attempted to use the killing curse against Harry. Just dismissing the evidence arbitrarily is not refuting it.
Aurors would know if in the entire history of the wizarding world, a similar effect of the Killing curse rebounding has ever occurred. It may be unusual, but quite likely the situation has arisen previously where the killing curse met the Fidelius charm and was repulsed. In that circumstance, the burning up of the person who cast the killing curse may be an event that has been observed before. Just because we are not explicitly told this was the case, does not prove it was not. Thus there is no concrete basis for the charge that the popular belief that Voldemort cast a killing curse at Harry and was himself burnt up by the rebounding curse, could not be known. In this matter, detractors of the popular view (which the canon takes for granted) have the burden of proof on them to prove this popularly accepted conclusion was unwarranted.
It is not “weak evidence” that Voldemort would have revealed his intentions to Snape. We are told in the canon that Snape pled with Voldemort not to kill Lilly, and we are told that hearing the prophecy about the one to come who would destroy the dark lord was Voldemort’s primary motivation for wanting to kill the infant Harry in the first place. Just give due weight to the logic. At this point, denying it is merely being arbitrary. And I repeat, the burden of proof is on anyone who would dispute the universally held belief of what happened when Voldemort attacked Harry.
In the same vein, it is more important that we have NOT been told that Voldemort’s wand was NOT found on the scene of the attack against the infant Harry. Since we know later that the wand did survive (there were only two wands that had the phoenix feather, and Harry was given the other one), and since there is really no reasonable doubt that it was Voldemort’s body that was burnt at the scene, the wand had to survive, and should have been there. If when Hagrid and Sirius arrived on the scene TOGETHER they had NOT found Voldemort’s wand, then THAT would have been significant, and should have been mentioned if that were the case.
I am not making stuff up about the apparitions. What I presented are sound deductions. The apparitions of James and Lilly could indeed have told the aurors what happened. And the examples we have in the scene in the cemetery in HP 4 indicate that the apparitions can be aware of events that happen after their demise. Cedrick Diggory’s apparition asked Harry to take his body back to his father. If he could not report on anything that happened after he was killed, then he would not have known that his dead body lay ready to be taken back to Hogwarts, and that Harry might presently be able to do this. Likewise the apparitions of James and Lilly responded to present reality, when they told Harry they could only keep Voldemort occupied for a short while.
If anyone is going to try to “blow the whistle” on a supposed “plot hole” involving the surety of knowing Voldemort was burnt when his killing curse against Harry rebounded, then they need better evidence. And the burden of proof is on them.
Considering the enormous scale and complexity of J.K. Rowling’s monumental work in these seven large novels, I think that she has shown herself to be amazingly skilled in her plotting. I mean, look--was it just chance that Tom Riddle’s diary in HP 2 should be revealed to be one of the Horcruxes—a crucial plot element--in HP 6? And then we discover that Harry himself is one of Voldemort's horcruxes--a fact which is crucial to determining the final outcome of their final duel--and explains why Harry had to be killed by Voldemort before Harry could kill Voldemort for good. I think that is just brilliant. And equally brilliant is the way the invisibility cloak seen in the first book later turns out to be one of the Deathly Hallows, the possession of all three which enabled Harry to survive being killed by Voldemort in the woods.
We may not be able to expect perfection in any writer’s work, but I would be very slow to criticize JKR. In my opinion, she has made as significant a contribution to English literature as did J.R.R. Tolkien.
[ November 17, 2010, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The evidence I presented is indeed sufficient to prove that Voldemort attempted to use the killing curse against Harry.
I cannot believe you are having this argument, Ron.
In related news, it can be conclusively proven that Emperor Palpatine did not have Shmi Skywalker artificially inseminated.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I find it amusing to note that Ron brings the same style of 'argument' to Harry Potter fanfics that he applies to Biblical exegesis.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
And there exactly you show your weakness of reasoning, TD and KOM. Your thinking is not as logically disciplined as it needs to be, you do not take fairly into consideration all that is logically relevant, and you resort too much to arbitrary assertions and mainstream traditions of thought. Wrong is wrong and right is right, and you ought to be more honest about it. Find fault with my deductions if you can (you never have been able to), and don't just resort to saying condescendingly how "amused" you are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Aurors would know if in the entire history of the wizarding world, a similar effect of the Killing curse rebounding has ever occurred. It may be unusual, but quite likely the situation has arisen previously where the killing curse met the Fidelius charm and was repulsed.
Ron, I'm not sure if you are talking about MoR or cannon but in cannon its made absolutely clear that Harry Potter is the only person to have ever survived Avada Kadavra. In MoR, Quirrel says explicitly that there is no defence against it. If there had ever been a previous case where the Killing curse had been deflected by the Fidelius charm, neither of those would be true.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i would tend to argue that Rowling was not very good at plotting... most of the "tie-ins" between books felt forced or were a convienient way of explaining things.
Anyway, my opionion of JKR's storytelling really hasnt been the point of the last few posts. I don't really think anyone is argueing in cannon that Voldemort killed HP's parentals. In MOR though we can't assume that the people or events are the same. We are just speculating as to what it was that Harry could have missed about the story.
If this becomes a serious arguement/debate it would be pretty sad...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Echthalion, admittedly it is not a serious issue whether it was reasonable for everyone in the "Wizarding World" of Harry Potter to be certain that Voldemort was killed when his killing curse rebounded from the infant Harry. One or two people seem addicted to conspiracy theories. I was hoping a little clear logic would show how untenable that is.
I don't know how anyone can maintain that JKR was not a good plotter or story teller. She is the only woman in history to become a billionaire through her writing. A vast number of people are very entertained by her story-telling. I for one am grateful to her for it--I feel her fiction has enriched my life. I am disgusted with people who feel compelled to try to find fault--as if that somehow can make them better, or be seen as intelligent or perceptive. Too many people try to take a shortcut this way.
There is a place for literary criticism. But what people are trying to do here is not literary criticism. How many of these self-supposed experts have ever been published as professional writers? Real writers do not take cheap shots at other writers, because they know how hard it is to do something as well as Rowling did the Harry Potter epic.
Finding fault is one thing, too, IF IT IS REALLY VALID. Too much of what I have been reading here is just self-indulgent silliness that betrays a lack of really intelligent logical discipline.
By the way, Quirrel was wrong to say there is no defense against the killing curse. Harry survived it--and also Harry blocked it with his humaniform patronus when Quirrel tried to kill the guard. And again, in the final novel, when Voldemort used the killing curse on Harry in the woods, and killed him briefly--Harry came back to life, presumably because of having ownership of all three of the Deathly Hallows, and because (perhaps) what Voldemort really killed was his own horcrux soul-bit that was in Harry.
In terms of sheer logic, for anyone in the Wizarding World to admit that "no one has ever survived the killing curse, except Harry Potter," is in fact to tacitly open the door to the possibility that other ways to block or defeat the killing curse might exist.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
im not certain that she is a good story teller just because she's made lots of money or that she is vastly popular. Lost was popular but it was a terrible show that simple kept adding wierder bits of mystery to get people coming back to find out about the show before. IN the end they came up with a really stupid excuse for why everything happened... even die-hard fans hated the last show...
Twilight is hugely popular, and makes lots of money... but seriously it isn't well written. The girls flock to it because they believe it represents this super idyllic romance (that in reality is called stalking....) that has been socially ingrained in their minds since they were babies.
I try not to critique her too much simply because everyone has to start somewhere and there are very few "perfect" stories (my nominations for "closest to perfect" would be for Tale of Two Cities and Lord of the Rings of course). But her stories are full of holes and when you really try to desconstruct the elements or think much about they really aren't that compelling. However they are fun stories for most of the younger generations. The amount of people reading shrinks every generation, any way that people get into books is good. If you start with a bad book but you love to read you'll eventually get to the good books.
Most critics and well-read people only give Rowling and HP a pass because she's writing "kids" books. I highly doubt she will ever be inducted in the great literary author's hall of fame (come to think of it.... why don't we have one of these already... and if we do where is it? other than simply pointing at a library on the Oxford campus and saying "read something in there")
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The great literary author's hall of fame, eh?
*shrug* Anyway, it seems very much to me as though you're cherry-picking what critics and 'well-read' people you're listening to about this. As for Lost, I never watched even a single episode of it - just never got around to it, other things to watch - and even I know that fans of the show liked it right up till the end, many of them at least. Some of `em fell off, it's true, but by no means in the way you suggest. You need to drop this notion that your experience is representative of everyone's, because your opinion represents pretty much jus your opinion. As for HP and well-read people and critis, most of both whom I've spoken to or read on the subject say things quite different, or at least many. You really ought to qualify your remarks with 'in my opinion', instead of presenting what really is a big pile of opinion as though it were literary fact (heh), and run less of a risk of appearing pretty silly.
One of the most common things said about the HP series, and the thing that indicates you don't actually know much of what you're talking about, is that she was initially writing pretty child-oriented material, but as her characters grew, so did her content. By the later books, the stories could by no means be called kids books. And as for halls of fame, is that a serious question? There are dozens of such lists. You can't honestly have difficulty finding them. Awards lists, best-seller lists, classics lists, just as a starting-point.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The great literary author's hall of fame, eh?
*shrug* Anyway, it seems very much to me as though you're cherry-picking what critics and 'well-read' people you're listening to about this. As for Lost, I never watched even a single episode of it - just never got around to it, other things to watch - and even I know that fans of the show liked it right up till the end, many of them at least. Some of `em fell off, it's true, but by no means in the way you suggest. You need to drop this notion that your experience is representative of everyone's, because your opinion represents pretty much jus your opinion. As for HP and well-read people and critis, most of both whom I've spoken to or read on the subject say things quite different, or at least many. You really ought to qualify your remarks with 'in my opinion', instead of presenting what really is a big pile of opinion as though it were literary fact (heh), and run less of a risk of appearing pretty silly.
One of the most common things said about the HP series, and the thing that indicates you don't actually know much of what you're talking about, is that she was initially writing pretty child-oriented material, but as her characters grew, so did her content. By the later books, the stories could by no means be called kids books. And as for halls of fame, is that a serious question? There are dozens of such lists. You can't honestly have difficulty finding them. Awards lists, best-seller lists, classics lists, just as a starting-point.
As far as Lost goes; most everyone i knew that liked the show hated the last episode and thought that they had wasted their time on it. This is personal experience involving the show. I have read on a few different forums that several of th show's fans felt cheated by the last episode. Not to mention the countless facebook status' that expressed discontent in it when it aired.
My opinion of JKR is indeed limited to me and the people i know, most of which read constantly, and a few literary critics who'd reviews of the HP universe I have read. I personally only know 2 people who are published authors of fiction/fantasy. I agree that the HP stories do mature and get better as they go, though I thought the seventh book was several steps in the wrong direction.
I admit it was a kids book, and that is something that I can never fully appreciate about it. I really can't think of anyone I know or any critics that say HP was a literary masterpiece. Who knows maybe it becomes a great classic that becomes taught in schools to our great grand-children, but i kind of doubt it.
And no the Hall of fame question isn't serious... i really didnt think much in this thread was serious, it was simply me thinking ti would be funny to have a place in Ohio filled with statues of great authors and displays of their pens, papers, laptops whatnot.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:The evidence I presented is indeed sufficient to prove that Voldemort attempted to use the killing curse against Harry. Just dismissing the evidence arbitrarily is not refuting it.
It is not. I didn't dismiss the evidence arbitrarily, I dismissed them using a very rigorous and specific methodology, which assigns percentages of certainty (regarding the facts) and checks for the probabilistic correlations between effects and supposed cause.
quote:Aurors would know if in the entire history of the wizarding world, a similar effect of the Killing curse rebounding has ever occurred.
We're explicitly and specifically told that it has NEVER happened again.
quote: In that circumstance, the burning up of the person who cast the killing curse may be an event that has been observed before.
We're explicitly and specifically told that this has NEVER been observed again.
As I said: you're making stuff up. You are not just making assumptions, you're wholesale inventing stuff we've never been told, and ignoring stuff we *have* been told.
Here's what we have been told: The Avada Kedavra curse has never before rebounded. It has never (except supposedly on Harry Potter) failed to kill the target it strikes, as long as that target has a brain.
Are you disputing this piece of evidence?
Despite whether you consider it weak or strong evidence, can't you atleast admit that this is evidence AGAINST Harry having been hit by the Avada Kedavra curse?
Perhaps you consider it weak evidence, but if you're "logically disciplined" you MUST consider it evidence.
quote:Just because we are not explicitly told this was the case, does not prove it was not.
We're explicitly told this is NOT the case, that Harry is the only person EVER to have survived the (supposed) Killing Curse.
quote:In this matter, detractors of the popular view (which the canon takes for granted) have the burden of proof on them to prove this popularly accepted conclusion was unwarranted.
I'm sorry, but is this actually supposed to be a logically rigorous argument? What kind of rigorous methodology are you using to determine who has the "burden of proof"?
quote:It is not “weak evidence” that Voldemort would have revealed his intentions to Snape.
How many of his important plans did Voldemort ever reveal to Snape? In canon he didn't reveal the Horcruxes to Snape, he didn't reveal Pettigrew was the actual traitor, he didn't reveal his plan to lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries in the 5th book. He revealed that Draco had been assigned the task to kill Dumbledore, but *nobody expected that plan to succeed*.
So again, given what we know, what's the prior probability of Voldemort revealing his full and true intentions to Snape?
quote:And the burden of proof is on them.
If you keep talking about "burden of proof", then you're using a judicial argument, not a logical one. In actual rigorous logic, the burden of proof is on both parties, those who hold an opinion and those who hold the opposite one.
It's only in courts that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, because we (quite properly) want people to be "innocent until proven guilty". This doesn't apply to rigorous logic.
quote:If when Hagrid and Sirius arrived on the scene TOGETHER they had NOT found Voldemort’s wand, then THAT would have been significant, and should have been mentioned if that were the case.
Should? In the canon we're not even told they found Voldemort's body -- we don't know if his body burned, disintegrated, was found without a mark on it, or anything like that. And in HPMOR, we're not even told they were the first two to arrive at the scene.
Do you understand how weak your evidence is? You keep proceeding from an *absence of evidence* to construct theories, upon which you build other theories, by making even more assumptions.
Assign a probability to each of those steps, and even if you're 90% certain for each single one of them, by multiplication you won't end up more than 10% certain for the whole line of argumentation.
quote:Your thinking is not as logically disciplined as it needs to be,
It's you who's logically undisciplined: You can't seem even capable of admitting any evidence which opposes your belief. I on the other hand have admitted evidence both for and against the theory. And attempted to use Bayesian reasoning to evaluate their strength and weakness.
Your problem is that you use classical Aristotelian reasoning (If A, then B, then C) when the science of logic has progressed far beyond that. It nowadays uses percentages of *certainty* for example (e.g. If we know A% with 80% certainty and know that A=>B with 80% certainty, and we know that B=>C with 80% certainty, then the certainty of C is only 80% * 80% * 80% = 51.2%)
Now you ought start realizing how flimsy your numerous steps have become at their end. You've used so many steps in your logic, that as a rough approximation I wouldn't be more than 20% convinced at your final result, given the knowns we have.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know how anyone can maintain that JKR was not a good plotter or story teller. She is the only woman in history to become a billionaire through her writing.
The assertion, such as it was, was that JKR is not a good plotter; her storytelling ability was not questioned, and indeed her storytelling ability is more likely to speak to her popularity than her ability to write a coherent plot. (I submit that the plots of Deathly Hallows and Goblet of Fire, in and of themselves, are enough to demonstrate the difficulty she sometimes has with plotting.)
That she is a popular storyteller despite her poor plotting skills suggests that either a) she is an absolutely fantastic storyteller only moderately hampered by poor plotting; or, as the popularity of Dan Brown's books might suggest, b) that coherent plots are not a requirement for popularity.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ah, and btw, Ron, we have conclusive evidence that Voldemort did NOT use his own wand that night:
quote:"My... Lord... I went where you said to await you, but you did not come... I looked for you but I could not find you... you are alive..."
quote:"Your wand," murmured Bellatrix, "I hid it in the graveyard, my lord, before I left... under the tombstone to the right of your father's grave... "
I now assign a 99.5% probability that Voldemort left his wand with Bellatrix BEFORE he went to the Potter home. Which is strong evidence (80% probability) in favour of the theory that Voldemort believed it very likely that his bodily form would be destroyed, and he had left it with Bellatrix because he didn't want it taken by Aurors. (The remaining 20% chance I assign to other more unlikely reasons like "the Potters might have had wards up against the entry of Voldemort's wand")
Which in turn is almost certain evidence in favour of him not just wanting to Avada Kedavra Harry, but do something different again.
At the beginning of this conversation between us, I was only about 70% certain Voldemort didn't mean to kill Harry. Now, with the knowledge he had left his wand to a trusted servant before he went to the Potters, I'm now around 85% certain.
Thank you Ron. Your comments about the wand helped solidify my belief in my theory.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Ah, and btw, Ron, we have conclusive evidence that Voldemort did NOT use his own wand that night:
quote:"My... Lord... I went where you said to await you, but you did not come... I looked for you but I could not find you... you are alive..."
quote:"Your wand," murmured Bellatrix, "I hid it in the graveyard, my lord, before I left... under the tombstone to the right of your father's grave... "
I now assign a 99.5% probability that Voldemort left his wand with Bellatrix BEFORE he went to the Potter home. Which is strong evidence (80% probability) in favour of the theory that Voldemort believed it very likely that his bodily form would be destroyed, and he had left it with Bellatrix because he didn't want it taken by Aurors. (The remaining 20% chance I assign to other more unlikely reasons like "the Potters might have had wards up against the entry of Voldemort's wand")
Which in turn is almost certain evidence in favour of him not just wanting to Avada Kedavra Harry, but do something different again.
At the beginning of this conversation between us, I was only about 70% certain Voldemort didn't mean to kill Harry. Now, with the knowledge he had left his wand to a trusted servant before he went to the Potters, I'm now around 85% certain.
Thank you Ron. Your comments about the wand helped solidify my belief in my theory.
i really don't know how you can assign those percentages to anything... Going by what you keep saying is evidence against ron's assertions we are not told that Voldemort gave his wand to Bella. We only know that Bella obtained the wand and hid it in the cemetary. If you are asking ron for explicily stated proofs you cant really use any of your probabilistic conjecture that you submitted.
Dumbledore goes through several memories trying to get HP to understand that Voldy didn't trust anyone ever. His friends and cronies were simply people he could use. I doubt he would have left his best/favorite weapon with someone.
I highly doubt that Voldy thought he would be destroyed. That really is a pretty ridiculous assertion. One thing we know about Voldy is that he is very powerful and confident in his power. We also know that he is a show-off. We also know that the only reason HP doesn't die in the many times that Voldemort confronts him is because of by some random act of chance or good luck that Vmort doesnt know about or understand. If anything Voldy wanted to kill HP as a baby because he would have assumed it would have been easier.
I would take your 99.5% that voldemort didnt use his wand and raise it to a 100% chance that he did. Consider the gosts of the people that were killed by the wand. HP's parents were present in that list. Now we can make conjecture about stupid things like "maybe after killing the potters he picked up someone else's wand." or "Voldemort was framed and then tricked into believing he killed the potters" but that borders on stupidity.
Not certain how you are 80% certain that Vmort wasn't originally going to kill HP... everytime HP meets him he practically states "I'm going to kill you... i can't believe you didn't die the last time we meet and i tried to kill you!" Unless of course you are just trolling.
As to an earlier post. Saying that nobody ever survived the killing curse is alot like saying everyone always dies from it, which clearly we can see is not the case. If we can take Harry's memory as being accurate we also have his memory of the green flash and (i believe) the voice of V-man himself casting Avada Kedavra. Now you can argue that the long time meories of a child cant be admissable as evidence but in the cannon we are told that it is probably an accurate account of what happened there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Dumbledore goes through several memories trying to get HP to understand that Voldy didn't trust anyone ever. His friends and cronies were simply people he could use. I doubt he would have left his best/favorite weapon with someone.
I highly doubt that Voldy thought he would be destroyed. That really is a pretty ridiculous assertion. One thing we know about Voldy is that he is very powerful and confident in his power. We also know that he is a show-off. We also know that the only reason HP doesn't die in the many times that Voldemort confronts him is because of by some random act of chance or good luck that Vmort doesnt know about or understand. If anything Voldy wanted to kill HP as a baby because he would have assumed it would have been easier.
I pretty sure that Aris is talking about Voldy from MoR, not the Voldy from cannon since the lines he quoted from Belle are from MoR.
We can't assume that the Voldemort in MoR is the same as the Dark Lord in cannon, which makes all the memories Dumbledore showed Voldemort in cannon irrelevant. This Voldemort could be a very different character, with a very different history and different motivations.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:" We only know that Bella obtained the wand and hid it in the cemetary. "
'Before she left' indicates before she left from the place she awaited him, which she mentioned in the previous sentence. I assign 0.5% probability that she may have meant anything else.
quote: If you are asking ron for explicily stated proofs you cant really use any of your probabilistic conjecture that you submitted.
I don't ask Ron for "proofs", which meaning doesn't really exist in Bayesian logic - only in classical logic.
I asked him to calculate the probabilities, given the known evidence.
Two people can ofcourse honestly disagree about the prior probabilities they assign to facts, and thus reach different conclusions, but atleast then we'll know where the source of our disagreement lies: Because we assigned different priors.
But some people can also disagree because atleast one of them is using bad logic, or because they don't bother to calculate the probabilities at all -- they just a logical sequence of steps each of which is plausible, but whose totality is highly IMPLAUSIBLE: and that's what I believe Ron is doing.
quote:I would take your 99.5% that voldemort didnt use his wand and raise it to a 100% chance that he did. Consider the gosts of the people that were killed by the wand. HP's parents were present in that list.
You're confusing canon with HPMOR. I have no doubt that he used his proper wand in canon, and I have absolutely no doubt that he cast Avada Kedavra to Harry in canon, and that his body was destroyed by the rebounding curse IN CANON.
But we're not discussing canon here, we're discussing HPMOR. And no ghosts have appeared yet from Voldemort's wand in HPMOR.
quote:Not certain how you are 80% certain that Vmort wasn't originally going to kill HP... everytime HP meets him he practically states "I'm going to kill you... i can't believe you didn't die the last time we meet and i tried to kill you!"
Except in HPMor, where Voldemort actually saved Harry's life from a horde of yaoi-loving fangirls.
Again: HPMOR is different to canon.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Except in HPMor, where Voldemort actually saved Harry's life from a horde of yaoi-loving fangirls.
Note: Quirrel save HPMoR from the loving fangirls. You are speculating that Quirrel is Voldy. This speculation may turn out to be correct, in fact I believe it will but at this point a rationalist must note that it is speculation not established fact.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Note: Quirrel save HPMoR from the loving fangirls. You are speculating that Quirrel is Voldy. This speculation may turn out to be correct, in fact I believe it will but at this point a rationalist must note that it is speculation not established fact.
The Rabbit - *nod*, I concede the point: This hasn't yet been yet solidly established in the story itself, and I shouldn't have used it the way I did in my previous post.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (and the "Hobbit" prequel) were initially regarded as children's stories. So I see no problem in comparing J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter epic to Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."
It is generally recognized that JKR's Harry Potter series turned significantly "darker" with book four, "Goblet of Fire." At that point, the epic was clearly no longer just a children's story.
As a professional writer, I do not believe it is possible to tell a good story if you cannot plot. Plotting is an essential part of story-telling. Examples such as the "Lost" TV series are generally written by committee, thus are invalid comparisons. And what may entertain people for an hour on TV with all the visual special effects and accompanying mood music, is not the same as what entertains people in reading an epic series of seven lengthy novels.
The idea that Voldemort would not take his own wand with him when he went to go up against two powerful people (James and Lilly Potter were not lightweights--James was able to bully Snape), is simply not creditable.
In MoR, the only basic assumption said by the author to have been changed, was that Petunia married a college professor instead of "that fat boy, Dursley," so that Harry was raised in such a manner that encouraged his intellectual development. So if Quirrel is not hosting Voldemort, then that is going contrary to the canon for no reason related to the one basic assumption of what was different.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do not believe it is possible to tell a good story if you cannot plot.
I disagree.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:The idea that Voldemort would not take his own wand with him when he went to go up against two powerful people (James and Lilly Potter were not lightweights--James was able to bully Snape), is simply not creditable.
I just pointed out to you the point in the text which makes it pretty much certain. Will you not even consider that piece of evidence? You're just ignoring it?
quote:In MoR, the only basic assumption said by the author to have been changed was that Petunia married a college professor instead of "that fat boy, Dursley," so that Harry was raised in such a manner that encouraged his intellectual development.
You're factually wrong on this. On the notes in the first chapter, the author says the EXACT OPPOSITE to what you said: "This is not a strict single-point-of-departure fic - there exists a primary point of departure, at some point in the past, but also other alterations."
And the alterations have been many, many, many: The Weasley family rat is dead. The text of the prophecy itself is different. Quirrel isn't wearing a turban. Lots of minor changes in the past of the story, *besides* Harry's upbringing.
You're absolutely, factually, undeniably wrong on this.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK, maybe the writer added all that after I read the notes. Probably after realizing that it would be inconvenient to limit all the changes to only the one concerning Harry's upbringing. But if Quirrel is not hosting Voldemort, then that is a very major change, since it is what lead to the final climax and resolution of "Philosopher's Stone."
It is absolutely impossible, irrational, and plain nuts that Voldemort would have gone up against James and Lilly Potter without his own wand. Use some common sense, Aris! You misconstrued what was said about the wand. Read it all again, in context. Especially check when it was that Bellatrix said she hid Voldemort's wand by his father's grave. Frankly, you're making Voldemort's wand into a hobbyhorse, and it's getting pretty old.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ron, So far we have Harry and Quirrel being close friends, Harry and Draco being close friends, Harry and Hermione being romantically involved, a war game replacing Quiditch, Harry suspecting Dumbledore or murdering Draco's mother, and Harry breaking into Azkaban to free Bellatrix, those are all pretty major changes.
As best I can see, the only similarities with canon are that Hogwarts is a school of magic, Hermione's smart, Fred and George are fun and Ron's good at chess. Beyond that, the similarities are few and far between.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:But if Quirrel is not hosting Voldemort,
Actually, both me and the Rabbit believe Quirrel is indeed hosting Voldemort, so I'm not sure why you are arguing about this.
But if you also believe it, then how do you explain that Voldemort/Quirrel chose to save Harry's life in Chapter 42?
quote:It is absolutely impossible, irrational, and plain nuts that Voldemort would have gone up against James and Lilly Potter without his own wand.
Absolutely impossible? So do you give it less than 1/1000 odds?
Does that mean you would hypothetically accept a bet where you give me 1000 dollars if before the story is done it's revealed that Voldemort went after the Potters using a different wand, and I give you 1 dollar if such a revelation doesn't occur (before the story is done)?
(I'm asking this hypothetically, I'm not actually proposing the bet -- I'd feel bad taking your money over this, so I'm not actually proposing it, I'm just asking you if you would hypothetically consider it a favourable bet for you) ---
Ron, here's another hypothetical. Let's for the moment pretend you are right about the story itself, and that Voldemort did But you know what. Let's say you're right.
Now nonetheless pretend he did *go* after them without his own wand. You don't need to believe he did so, just pretend. Now think up of possible reasons for why he could have done that.
What possible reasons could he have for that? And what probabilities would you assign on each potential reason?
In short, *conditional* to Voldemort not using his proper wand, what are the probabilities of different scenarios?
quote:Especially check when it was that Bellatrix said she hid Voldemort's wand by his father's grave.
Before she left the graveyard. Which in the context provided means the time around Voldemort attacking the Potters, when Voldemort failed to appear.
quote:Frankly, you're making Voldemort's wand into a hobbyhorse, and it's getting pretty old.
I don't know what "hobbyhorse" means, but I'm both amused and annoyed that you praised yourself over rigorous logical thinking when you evidently don't have the slightest clue what such means.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Ron, So far we have Harry and Quirrel being close friends, Harry and Draco being close friends, Harry and Hermione being romantically involved, a war game replacing Quiditch, Harry suspecting Dumbledore or murdering Draco's mother, and Harry breaking into Azkaban to free Bellatrix, those are all pretty major changes.
As best I can see, the only similarities with canon are that Hogwarts is a school of magic, Hermione's smart, Fred and George are fun and Ron's good at chess. Beyond that, the similarities are few and far between.
These changes to the story can be said to have taken place because of the main premis of "harry but raised by loving rational parents." Most of the changes are because we are following a different type of Harry. Until something about Harry's world/past is expressly changed we have to assume that most of the back story is unchanged. Either that or make absolutely no assumptions about anything in the story, but that would seem to defeat the purpose of having a Harry Potter fanfic if nothing of Harry Potter besides names remains.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Until something about Harry's world/past is expressly changed we have to assume that most of the back story is unchanged.
The prophecy is changed, does that count?
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Actually, both me and the Rabbit believe Quirrel is indeed hosting Voldemort, so I'm not sure why you are arguing about this.
Admittedly theres really nothing in the story that should make you believe this. You are just accepting that this bit of cannon made it into the story... something which you keep trying to tell us we cant do because "things are different"
quote:But if you also believe it, then how do you explain that Voldemort/Quirrel chose to save Harry's life in Chapter 42?
simple, quirrelmort has a new plan. Voldemort is supposed to be bad/evil/dark. If what Harry accept as a Good/light plan is to turn Draco to the light side of the force it is rational to think that Quirrilmort would find more satisfaction destroying Harry in a mental/ethical way. Lure him to the Dark side.
quote:Absolutely impossible? So do you give it less than 1/1000 odds?
Does that mean you would hypothetically accept a bet where you give me 1000 dollars if before the story is done it's revealed that Voldemort went after the Potters using a different wand, and I give you 1 dollar if such a revelation doesn't occur (before the story is done)?
(I'm asking this hypothetically, I'm not actually proposing the bet -- I'd feel bad taking your money over this, so I'm not actually proposing it, I'm just asking you if you would hypothetically consider it a favourable bet for you)
this isnt a favorable bet even for things that we generally accept to be true... im not sure what this is supposed to prove. I doubt you would take the reverse bet where you gave him $1000 if you were wrong.
quote:Ron, here's another hypothetical. Let's for the moment pretend you are right about the story itself, and that Voldemort did But you know what. Let's say you're right.
Now nonetheless pretend he did *go* after them without his own wand. You don't need to believe he did so, just pretend. Now think up of possible reasons for why he could have done that.
thinking up a reason to do it doesn't mean that he did. We already have a backstory to go on, why assume differently just because you can think of a reason for someone to kill someone with a weapon that they will be inherently clumsier and less familliar with.
If i had to take out a gang I'm bringing a weapon i feel comfortable with, one that will get the job done right, one i can rely on. Sure there could be reasons for me to take something else. If anything when you think about your question you have to be drawn to the conclusion that it would be very irrational for voldemort not to have brought his wand.
quote:What possible reasons could he have for that? And what probabilities would you assign on each potential reason?
In short, *conditional* to Voldemort not using his proper wand, what are the probabilities of different scenarios?
from what we must accept of what we know of Voldy/wands/magic it seems like the probability of him going in with a different wand is very very low...
quote:
quote:Especially check when it was that Bellatrix said she hid Voldemort's wand by his father's grave.
Before she left the graveyard. Which in the context provided means the time around Voldemort attacking the Potters, when Voldemort failed to appear.
I didnt get that the context was that she was given his wand. Rather that she found it/stole it/won it back and placed it in a place that she or he would know how to recover it.
In the end im not saying that you can't be right. It just seems unlikely and until we are given some solid information i don't see why we would shift from something we knew from the cannon to something new and speculatory.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Until something about Harry's world/past is expressly changed we have to assume that most of the back story is unchanged.
The prophecy is changed, does that count?
I think in a completely rational world prophecy doesnt mean much. Heck it seems that in the cannon it didnt mean much until voldemort went out and tried to make something of it. I have a hard time thinking fate will be a factor in MOR.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think in a completely rational world
What make you think the MoR-verse is completely rational, and what does that even mean? The world works the way it does, however that is. It's people that can be rational or not.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I think in a completely rational world
What make you think the MoR-verse is completely rational, and what does that even mean? The world works the way it does, however that is. It's people that can be rational or not.
The world that he created is based on rationality throughout the story hes been saying that there are reasons for many seemingly irrational things, hes also making assumptions that there is nothing truely supernatural about the world. That being said in his HP universe it would seem to violate his own principles if he actually believed that fate and prophecy actually held sway on the world.
The only thing that my statement says is that i highly doubt the prophecy is truely a valuable part of the story.
The changes that are supposedly so different that we must challege our beliefs about the backstory have been pretty insignificant. Does it matter that scabbers is not in the story? Does it matter that quirrel is nto wearing a turban? Does it matter that the prophecy doesn't say the same thing? Im sure there are ways that someone could think up ways for them to become important later. But as of yet theres no reason to believe any of them are significant.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Admittedly theres really nothing in the story that should make you believe this
There's some things in the story that are evidence, but they're not conclusive.
quote:You are just accepting that this bit of cannon made it into the story...
I'm accepting it because the author has admitted it in various author notes and forum posts.
quote:I doubt you would take the reverse bet where you gave him $1000 if you were wrong.
Of course I wouldn't, I didn't say that *my* theory was "absolutely" correct, I assigned it much lower odds than that. I assigned only an 85% chance that Voldemort wasn't just intending to simply Avada Kedavra Harry.
That means I'd accept any bet that's better than 15 to 85 odds. (e.g. I give 80 dollars, other side puts 20 dollars, winner takes all).
quote:thinking up a reason to do it doesn't mean that he did.
Well, duh. I'm asking you and Ron to for a moment *pretend* he did, and figure out what that would mean in turn.
Are you incapable of such?
quote:If i had to take out a gang I'm bringing a weapon i feel comfortable with, one that will get the job done right, one i can rely on. Sure there could be reasons for me to take something else. If anything when you think about your question you have to be drawn to the conclusion that it would be very irrational for voldemort not to have brought his wand.
That's the WHOLE POINT. It *would* be irrational not to have brought his wand, unless he had a good reason. So, LOGICAL reasoning tells us that if he *didn't* bring his wand, then he *must* have had a good reason.
So if we observe something that increases the probabilities of Voldemort not using his own wand that day, that likewise increases the probabilities of those other reasons.
That's Bayesian probabilistic reasoning. Which you keep failing to grasp, because you constantly refuse to assign *any* probabilities, you behave as if everything has either a probability of 100% (certain), 50% (unknown), or 0% (impossible).
quote:from what we must accept of what we know of Voldy/wands/magic it seems like the probability of him going in with a different wand is very very low...
That's not the question I asked you. I asked you for the moment to PRETEND that you know for SURE that he went with a different wand, and to formulate hypotheses for his reasons given that pretense.
If you can't think up alternate hypotheses, so that you can evaluate *them*, then frankly you're incapable of evaluating the probability of the belief you actually hold.
If you can't think up any alternative, then OFCOURSE you assign 100% probability to the belief you already hold. But such assignment means nothing: because you have no other hypotheses to compare it too, it will always remain at 100%, and no new observations will affect it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:That being said in his HP universe it would seem to violate his own principles if he actually believed that fate and prophecy actually held sway on the world.
Harry himself seemed to find prophecy much more believable than stable time-loops, when he was first offered a Time-Turner. As prophecy just required someone being able to calculate future results (an Oracle machine as he called it), but stable time-loops aren't Turing Compatible.
quote:Does it matter that the prophecy doesn't say the same thing? I'm sure there are ways that someone could think up ways for them to become important later. But as of yet there's no reason to believe any of them are significant.
Well there's where you are illogical. Why would he change stuff if they *weren't* significant enough to be altered?
We know why he altered Scabbers -- because the author believed that Pettigrew hiding in the household of an enemy family was him "holding the Idiot Ball".
We don't yet know exactly why he altered the turban, but we obviously can tell that the specifics of Quirrel's possession are different.
And we don't know at *all* why the prophecy is different, but do you *really* believe it was done for no significant reason?
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:I'm accepting it because the author has admitted it in various author notes and forum posts.
if this is the only reason you are accepting it they why do you make other assumptions/prediction that have so far not been revealed to us yet? You cant really use this as a rationale and then ask people to come over to your point of view when there isnt really good evidence for your conjecturing?
quote:Of course I wouldn't, I didn't say that *my* theory was "absolutely" correct, I assigned it much lower odds than that. I assigned only an 85% chance that Voldemort wasn't just intending to simply Avada Kedavra Harry.
That means I'd accept any bet that's better than 15 to 85 odds. (e.g. I give 80 dollars, other side puts 20 dollars, winner takes all).
Firstly... this is increadibly weak.. and 85% chance that he wasn't "intending to simply avada kedavra" is in no way any type of arguement. Not to mention your 85% is still entirely arbitrary
Secondly... the last few posts haven't been about that, they have been over whether voldemort used his wand or not. Which seems unlikly and irrational. I highly doubt that the odds of Voldemort using someone else's rod are at 85% so far we have no reason to suspect that he didn't bring it and every rational reason to believe he did.
quote:Well, duh. I'm asking you and Ron to for a moment *pretend* he did, and figure out what that would mean in turn.
Are you incapable of such?
i am perfectly capable of imagining something like that. But because i can imagine it doesnt mean i have any more reason to believe voldemort didnt have his wand, didnt attempt to kill harry and didnt get fried by himself. The only thing in that sequence that we can so far question is the last part. It is possible that someone fried Voldy. But until theres a reason to question the first two why should i?
quote:]That's the WHOLE POINT. It *would* be irrational not to have brought his wand, unless he had a good reason. So, LOGICAL reasoning tells us that if he *didn't* bring his wand, then he *must* have had a good reason.
So if we observe something that increases the probabilities of Voldemort not using his own wand that day, that likewise increases the probabilities of those other reasons.
You've been trying to get us to buy into Voldy not having his wand. You accept this as if its a known fact and you attempting to give rationale to very irrational things because of a beleif that you cant know yet.
Telling me that "it is indeed irrational for voldemort to go in without his wand and so he must have had an ingenious plan to have done it." is still ignoring the fact that its just more rational to believe he had his wand with him.
quote:That's Bayesian probabilistic reasoning. Which you keep failing to grasp, because you constantly refuse to assign *any* probabilities, you behave as if everything has either a probability of 100% (certain), 50% (unknown), or 0% (impossible).
Not true, sure im not giving arbitrary numbers to things like you are but i do assess what is likely or probably in the given situation. In this situation it seems very improbable that Voldemort would have not brought his wand.
quote:That's not the question I asked you. I asked you for the moment to PRETEND that you know for SURE that he went with a different wand, and to formulate hypotheses for his reasons given that pretense.
sure i can pretend that he did, but you are saying that he in fact did. Something that i am not willing to accept until something new is revealed in the story.
quote:If you can't think up alternate hypotheses, so that you can evaluate *them*, then frankly you're incapable of evaluating the probability of the belief you actually hold.
I can think of alternate hypothesis very easily. In the end it seems highly unlikely that voldemort would have gone into enemy territory, presumably not to have tea and play poker, and left his best, favorite weapon behind.
quote:If you can't think up any alternative, then OFCOURSE you assign 100% probability to the belief you already hold. But such assignment means nothing: because you have no other hypotheses to compare it too, it will always remain at 100%, and no new observations will affect it.
once again i can think up many alternate things about the situation. With the information that we are given so far, until something new is given there's really no reason for me to think that this situation is vastly different from what we know from the cannon story. In the end he may write that voldemort was a good guy and a revolutionary who was wrongly killed and accused. That is fine but we are working in the framework of the HP universe, i have no reason to ignore what we already know of this universe.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:That being said in his HP universe it would seem to violate his own principles if he actually believed that fate and prophecy actually held sway on the world.
Harry himself seemed to find prophecy much more believable than stable time-loops, when he was first offered a Time-Turner. As prophecy just required someone being able to calculate future results (an Oracle machine as he called it), but stable time-loops aren't Turing Compatible.
quote:Does it matter that the prophecy doesn't say the same thing? I'm sure there are ways that someone could think up ways for them to become important later. But as of yet there's no reason to believe any of them are significant.
Well there's where you are illogical. Why would he change stuff if they *weren't* significant enough to be altered?
We know why he altered Scabbers -- because the author believed that Pettigrew hiding in the household of an enemy family was him "holding the Idiot Ball".
We don't yet know exactly why he altered the turban, but we obviously can tell that the specifics of Quirrel's possession are different.
And we don't know at *all* why the prophecy is different, but do you *really* believe it was done for no significant reason?
No i believe there probably is a reason that he would change the prophecy, and i can't wait to read it. But once again we are told this story takes place in Harry Potter's universe. We already have a groundwork for the story, we already have knowlege of that universe. Because of that, unless there are significant reasons to believe something totally different about the world, i will generally accept that we are dealing with the familliar HP universe.
Now maybe that isnt the case, maybe everything we already know is different and doesn't matter. i'm ok with that too, i just fail to see why you'd place the story in the same universe and use the same people if you wanted to tell a completely different story about different people. Unless its just a ploy to get people to read so you attach it to something well-known and popular.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:if this is the only reason you are accepting it
It's not the only reason. It's the main reason.
quote: they why do you make other assumptions/prediction that have so far not been revealed to us yet?
I don't know how NOT to make predictions. How do you do it? Pretend that everything is equally unknowable? That's logically impossible. If I assign a probability of 50% (same chance either way) I'm still making a prediction. If I call something impossible or certain, I'm making predictions.
quote:the last few posts haven't been about that, they have been over whether voldemort used his wand or not. I highly doubt that the odds of Voldemort using someone else's rod are at 85% so far we have no reason to suspect that he didn't bring it and every rational reason to believe he did.
Now, *those* odds, i put at 99%.
Bellatrix made a quite clear claim that she had his wand and hid it. Are you just choosing to ignore that?
quote:Not to mention your 85% is still entirely arbitrary
Do you think that just by using vague words like "likely" "unlikely" "probable" "improbable", you are being any less arbitrary?
We're both making predictions, it's just that I quantify them with greater specificity. Your vagueness isn't any less arbitrary than my specificity -- it just communicates less meaning to me. Because I don't know what you mean by "very improbable" -- do you mean 10% chance? 1% chance? 0.1% chance? What the hell does "very improbable" mean?
quote:In this situation it seems very improbable that Voldemort would have not brought his wand.
To me what seems very improbable is that Bellatrix would claim that she had his wand and hid it, if that wasn't the case.
And yet we can't have both: Either (A) Bellatrix had Voldemort's wand at the time of his going to the Potters, or (B) Voldemort did.
When probability A increases, probability (B) must by necessity decrease because they're mutually exclusive.
quote:Something that i am not willing to accept until something new is revealed in the story.
Something new was indeed revealed: Bellatrix claimed to have hidden Voldemort's wand, before she left their rendevouz point. Voldemort and Bellatrix can't have *both* had Voldemort's wand at that time.
And I'll trust Bellatrix's words to her lord, than your mere assumptions based on canon that doesn't necessarily apply.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:i just fail to see why you'd place the story in the same universe and use the same people if you wanted to tell a completely different story about different people.
We know why the author did that -- because he felt that a Harry Potter fanfic would provide a large audience that could become potentially interested in the methods of rationality. More so than unknown characters set in an unknown universe.
quote:
quote:I highly doubt that the odds of Voldemort using someone else's rod are at 85% so far we have no reason to suspect that he didn't bring it and every rational reason to believe he did.
Now, *those* odds, i put at 99%.
I'll have to downwards revise to 95%, as a possibility just occurred to me, that Bellatrix might have been brought in after the Potters were killed but before Voldemort's demise: So she could have apparated in, accepted the wand, ported back out to the graveyard, then Voldemort did whatever it was that burned him.
That seems needlessly far-fetched, so no more than 5% to this theory.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
Firstly if you know that me saying "probable" or "likely" or "unlikely" is the same as me assesing probabilities, why would you accuse me of not being able to do it?
Secondly saying that something seems likely and assigning it real odds seems very different from each other. maybe it isnt, if that is true then i am ok with just assigning numbers to things.
Probability is an assignment of chances of a certain outcome when you know the variables. Maybe you're really good at that. personally i dont really know all the variables in this story to feel comfortable assigning numbers to them.
Once again there is no reason to believe that Bella didnt get Voldemort's wand after he fried himself. Saying she went looking for him and waited for him, and then saying that she hid his wand were not part of the same statement. One sentece is about a meeting, quite possibly where to search for voldemort if he were killed. Maybe it was where they were going to catch a movie and some good soup. Her first staement was also two seperate ideas. she said "I waited for you and you didn't come" and then later "I looked for you and did not find you". We dont know where she was told to wait, we dont know that it was in a cemetary, we dont know that it was next to Voldypop's grave. We know that she went looking for him, we don't know where or for how long.
In fact i think it would be likely that she would have gone to the potter's if he didnt show giving her plenty of chance to grab the wand. Also there is lots to support the idea that she would have tried to track down the wand. It was his, it symbolized his power, it was likely that he mentioned magical ways to cheat death and thusly when he returned to life he would want it and she would give it to him
She is also delusional, and is sort of gibbering incoherently.
This does not seem like good evidence to me to change my opinion about whether or not he had his wand.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Secondly saying that something seems likely and assigning it real odds seems very different from each other.
It's different in one respect: It forces you to make your predictions consistent, and allows you to detect possible inconsistencies -- whereas just saying "likely" and "unlikely" isn't very clear.
quote:Once again there is no reason to believe that Bella didnt get Voldemort's wand after he fried himself.
She clearly says that she hid the wand in the graveyard before she left. To me the meaning is clear that she meant before she left their rendevouz place where she said she had been waiting him (but he failed to show up).
I don't understand what else she could mean with "before I left".
quote:Probability is an assignment of chances of a certain outcome when you know the variables.
Bayesian probability refers to level of *certainty*, not frequency levels. As such, lack of enough knowledge simply drives down the certainty to the average (e.g. 50% for a binary possibility).
Let's say for example you have an UNfair coin which favours one of the two possibility more than the other -- but you don't have a clue whether its coins or tails that it favours.
The Bayesian probability for your next throw is nonetheless 50% head and 50% tails -- even though you don't know the variables that could determine the *frequentist* probability.
Now once the first cointhrow shows tails, with that observation we ought increase the Bayesian probability that the next throw will also show tails: Because we know the coin is unbalanced, each coin throw is useful evidence in helping us update the probability in our minds.
quote:personally i dont really know all the variables in this story to feel comfortable assigning numbers to them.
Ron's predictions have been so much more absolute than mine, as he said that it's absolutely certain Voldemort had his wand with him, and I now describe certainty only on the level of 95%
Whether your predictions are more or less certain than mine depends on whether the "very very low probability" you describe is higher or lower than this remaining 5%.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
[QUOTEIt's different in one respect: It forces you to make your predictions consistent, and allows you to detect possible inconsistencies -- whereas just saying "likely" and "unlikely" isn't very clear.[/quote]
I guess, I think when I see numbers assigned I associate a number with fact.
quote:She clearly says that she hid the wand in the graveyard before she left. To me the meaning is clear that she meant before she left their rendevouz place where she said she had been waiting him (but he failed to show up).
I don't understand what else she could mean with "before I left".
there are many ways a person can "leave" maybe she ment when she got tired of waiting for him. Maybe she ment before she got captured, she had to know if she was captured she'd be in Azkaban. Maybe she is simply referring to giving up on her search. Maybe she ment before she mentally "left". Maybe before she "left" to try to hide from the aurors. Remember she is more than a little crazy at this time.
We know 3 seperate statement: 1 she waited for him somewhere for some reason. 2. she went looking for him, we don't know where or for how long. 3. she at some time had his wand and left it in a place he or she would find it.
If the statements are chronological then she definately had time to find the wand and place it in the cemetary. If they are just three incongruent statements then theres no way we can accuratly make any guesses to what she ment.
it is possible that she meant before she left the waiting area to go look for him. But because of how irriational it would seem for Voldy to approach an enemy's house with (presumably) the intent to kill or to take HP away and not to have his best, most trusted, most powerful weapon it still seems unlikely to me.
If im going to assign numbers to what i know of what happened, her mental state, the way the statements were worded, what i know of Voldy (obviously from cannon and not by anything we are told in MOR. Though I think from quirril's story of Voldy vs Miagi we can still think hes a brash, angry pretty evil person.) Id say that im about 95% certain Voldemort had his wand with him when he entered the Potters.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Maybe she meant before she got captured, she had to know if she was captured she'd be in Azkaban.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she is simply referring to giving up on her search.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she ment before she mentally "left".
I don't see how it could mean that either.
Only one probability really makes enough sense to me: that she means before she left their appointed rendevouz place, which had been the graveyard. (she mentions it only vaguely before she's certain he's Voldemort -- once she hears him talk in Parseltongue to the snake and he uses the password phrase they had, she's certain he's Voldemort and no longer hides the valuable information)
quote: But because of how irrational it would seem for Voldy to approach an enemy's house with (presumably) the intent to kill or to take HP away and not to have his best, most trusted, most powerful weapon it still seems unlikely to me.
And what if his intent for example was e.g. to fake his death? Wouldn't then it make sense to not let his best, most powerful weapon lying about?
I can think up believable reasons for why Voldemort would leave his wand with a trusted servant. I can't think up believable alternatives for what Bellatrix meant that she hid the wand "before I left".
So between the two possibilities, I have to go with the idea that Voldemort had left the wand with Bellatrix. No matter how "irrational" it seems to you for him to have done so.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Maybe she meant before she got captured, she had to know if she was captured she'd be in Azkaban.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she is simply referring to giving up on her search.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she ment before she mentally "left".
I don't see how it could mean that either.
I'm glad that you dont think it can mean any of that. I personally do think it can mean any one of those possibilities if not some other thing that i havent written down.
quote:Only one probability really makes enough sense to me: that she means before she left their appointed rendevouz place, which had been the graveyard. (she mentions it only vaguely before she's certain he's Voldemort -- once she hears him talk in Parseltongue to the snake and he uses the password phrase they had, she's certain he's Voldemort and no longer hides the valuable information)
Once again she does not say that he cemetary was the meeting place, it is simply the place she put the wand. It is a statement made after first two that she waited for him somewhere and that she looked for him for a while.
The graveyard could have been where she was supposed to meet him and maybe that is exactly what she ment by it. But until more evidence corroborates that that was where they were to meet after he killed HP or until more comes out to suggest Voldy used another wand, I cant accept this as being more likely than her finding his wand after his death and leaving it in a place where he or she would know where to find it. This is because i feel the logic of Voldy having his wand is still much higher until proven otherwise.
quote:And what if his intent for example was e.g. to fake his death? Wouldn't then it make sense to not let his best, most powerful weapon lying about?
I can think up believable reasons for why Voldemort would leave his wand with a trusted servant.
Nothing about voldemort suggests he trusts anyone. Until something shows me that this Voldemort is that much different than Cannonmort i must assume that Voldemort is in fact just as closed off and full of hubris as the real one.
It is also supposed to be part of him to keep his most powerful things close by. A wand is very different than a Horcrux that nobody would be looking for yet. It is an active weapon, not just a powerful trinket.
There is also nothing about voldemort that would suggest he would choose to kill himself. I'm not saying he was above it and im not saying that he couldnt have come up with a reason, but if you consider that he had a vast following, in fact it was a following that was growing as time went by. Most of his enemies were too afraid to act and the ones that oppenly opposed him were few and far between. It is highly unlikely that he would choose to give up the advantage for a plan that would take considerable time to come to fruition. Plans become exponentially harder to follow through with the longer they take, both in how long you have to wait to activate them and how long it takes (not to mention managing the pieces of the plan) to complete.
quote:I can't think up believable alternatives for what Bellatrix meant that she hid the wand "before I left".
I can think of pleny of meanings a crazed mostly dead person might have for what they say.
quote:So between the two possibilities, I have to go with the idea that Voldemort had left the wand with Bellatrix. No matter how "irrational" it seems to you for him to have done so.
And between the two possibilites i have to say that i would go with the one that is more likely to have happened.
It is more likely than not that voldemort would ahve gone to take out the Potters than to kill himself. Not only were numbers and power and fear in his favor but we also know things about his personality. 1 he doesnt mind killing 2. he gets insulted and angry fast. 3. he has an "image" to uphold; killing his enemies and killing his percieved rival would have been a duty he would have felt was his. 4. He is un-trusting, has no close friends and loves his power and his toys (and pets...) and likes to keep them either completely secret and cleaverly hidden or likes to keep them where he can actively monitor them.
I cannot override this because some incoherent half-crazed woman said she left his wand somewher before she left.
Which is why until something else pops up ill stick with my 95% that voldemort had his wand with him when he was deep-fried.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If anyone is tired of arguing about Voldemort's wand, I'm actually curious a) what people think is going to happen regarding Harry's obvious violation of McGonagalls transfiguration rules (i.e burning solid rocket fuel).
b) What other people were thingking when Harry was about to let Quirrel and Belllatrix, who are possibly the 2 most dangerous and evil people on the planet, escape the prison without even accompanying him. I was screaming at him for being a total freaking idiot. Its like Harry hasn't even consider the consequences of what will happen if Quirrel and Bellatrix actually are hideously evil criminals out to start WW III. I mean bad as Azkaban is, it can't possibly be worse than the suffering that would be caused by an all out magical war.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:And between the two possibilites i have to say that i would go with the one that is more likely to have happened.
That's rather circular, Ecthalion.
To me you mostly seem to be trying to squeeze observations to fit your preconceived theory, rather than letting observations *alter* your theories. Because Bellatrix's words don't fit in with your preconceived theory, you make her meaning indicate something other than the obvious, or be the utterly meaningless ramblings of a madman.
And that's not how proper logical reasoning is supposed to work. We mustn't modify the observations, we must modify the theories.
I'm done with this thread, at least until some my predictions are proven or disproven. Then I'll come to concede or to mock :-)
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If anyone is tired of arguing about Voldemort's wand, I'm actually curious a) what people think is going to happen regarding Harry's obvious violation of McGonagalls transfiguration rules (i.e burning solid rocket fuel).
b) What other people were thingking when Harry was about to let Quirrel and Belllatrix, who are possibly the 2 most dangerous and evil people on the planet, escape the prison without even accompanying him. I was screaming at him for being a total freaking idiot. Its like Harry hasn't even consider the consequences of what will happen if Quirrel and Bellatrix actually are hideously evil criminals out to start WW III. I mean bad as Azkaban is, it can't possibly be worse than the suffering that would be caused by an all out magical war.
A. I kinda figured that it may not really have any importance. I figure they are in a well ventilated area and so there may be no real reprecussions from it. The most important thing about it seems to be Harry is willing to break the rules and seems pretty easily manipulated.
B. This part really bothers me. It seems clear when he said he wanted to rescue and innocent person named "black" it seems like he's referring to Sirius (which he seemingly has forgotten about). It seems like when he finds out it surprises Quirrel (who thinks he means bella) and finds out that Quirrel means Bella he only goes along with it to appear smart and like he's ahead of the game. I can't see any real reason why Harry goes along with it other than for storyline purposes, saying how evil the prison system is, more confrontations with dementors/death etc.
One of the reasons that Azkaban is used (in cannon anyway) is because dementors inhibit the prisoner's use of magic. Any prison that has to hold beings that have more than just their mental and physical abilities is going to have to be a much different place than any prison we have in the real world. Whereas i can see why a prison like Azkaban would be a horrible place, probably unethically so, i really wouldnt know how to make it better.
I know that I cant wait til we get the explanation for it. It seems like a really stupid thing to do from where the story is at right now.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:And between the two possibilites i have to say that i would go with the one that is more likely to have happened.
That's rather circular, Ecthalion.
To me you mostly seem to be trying to squeeze observations to fit your preconceived theory, rather than letting observations *alter* your theories. Because Bellatrix's words don't fit in with your preconceived theory, you make her meaning indicate something other than the obvious, or be the utterly meaningless ramblings of a madman.
And that's not how proper logical reasoning is supposed to work. We mustn't modify the observations, we must modify the theories.
I'm done with this thread, at least until some my predictions are proven or disproven. Then I'll come to concede or to mock :-)
yes me makeing a guess based on what i know of a character and the world around him is terribly illogical...
I should take a sentence that has no clear context, turn that into what i want it to mean, make up a story for why what i would want it to mean could makes sense then use that story to re-confirm what i want the sentence to mean... cause that isn't circular and illogical at all.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
What I want it to mean, Ecthalion? Before I noticed the sentence I didn't have the belief that Voldemort didn't have his wand with him that night. Why would I therefore want it to mean that?
Bellatrix statement is what gave me that belief. I didn't "want it" to mean anything. I just SAW WHAT IT FRIGGING MEANT, and I didn't frantically refuse the evidence of my own eyes.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If anyone is tired of arguing about Voldemort's wand, I'm actually curious a) what people think is going to happen regarding Harry's obvious violation of McGonagalls transfiguration rules (i.e burning solid rocket fuel).
b) What other people were thingking when Harry was about to let Quirrel and Belllatrix, who are possibly the 2 most dangerous and evil people on the planet, escape the prison without even accompanying him. I was screaming at him for being a total freaking idiot. Its like Harry hasn't even consider the consequences of what will happen if Quirrel and Bellatrix actually are hideously evil criminals out to start WW III. I mean bad as Azkaban is, it can't possibly be worse than the suffering that would be caused by an all out magical war.
A. I think a lot of people are getting more freaked out about than they need to. I never saw the Transfiguration rules as actual absolute rules that could never ever be broken - it's just that high school children have nowhere near enough knowledge to properly decide when it is actually safe to do so. For example, the food thing: it's not that something bad automatically happens when you transfigure something into food - it's that with hundreds of students, if you have a few people transfiguring food safely, a few students may get distracted and leave the food for a minute while someone else comes and eats it.
Harry was in a desperate situation, he needed to do SOMETHING, and he made as much effort to keep the rulebreaking safe as he could. It may turn out that a few molecules of transfigured ice WILL still somehow kill you, but I doubt it.
B. First of all, "Professor Quirrel is secretly Voldemort" really is not in Harry's hypothesis space, at all. "Professor Quirrel is dangerous and evil" is, but that is coupled with "Professor Quirrel is the only person in the world I actually respect" and "Professor Quirrel is extremely smart and cautious and any wars he DOES launch would be unlikely to actually have casualties on a massive scale, since he's so good at what he does that leaving behind a huge trail of bodies is simply unnecessary."
On top of that, Harry has plenty of logic and emotion both telling him that Azkaban is a terrible place. He's built up a LOT of sympathy for Bellatrix over the last few hours, even if there's a 50/50 chance that she's going to end up becoming a dangerous psychopath again.
Honestly I think everything Harry is doing is completely in character. The author has clearly been building that character very meticulously for the past 50 chapters. The only reasons it rings false is because we are bringing so much baggage from the original series.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: What I want it to mean, Ecthalion? Before I noticed the sentence I didn't have the belief that Voldemort didn't have his wand with him that night. Why would I therefore want it to mean that?
Bellatrix statement is what gave me that belief. I didn't "want it" to mean anything. I just SAW WHAT IT FRIGGING MEANT, and I didn't frantically refuse the evidence of my own eyes.
if you only saw what it ment you would have saw that it only ment that she left his wand in the graveyard, at his father's tomb.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Wait, are we just talking about this?
quote:"Your wand," murmured Bellatrix, "I hid it in the graveyard, my lord, before I left... under the tombstone to the right of your father's grave
'Cause that just means Bella went to Voldemort's corpse and retrieved the wand after everything went down. Why would we assume it meant anything else?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ecthalion, I didn't attack your honor, so stop attacking mine.
I've already told you that I didn't have any belief that Voldemort didn't use his own wand before I noticed what Bellatrix said.
If you don't believe me in this, if you keep onv essentially calling me dishonest, THEN TO HELL WITH YOU.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"Why would we assume it meant anything else?"
Because she says "before i left", and she had already described how she had been awaiting for him at the rendezvous place but he failed to show up.
She didn't say "After I left, I retrieved your wand and hid it in the graveyard."
She said "Before I left" instead. She already had his wand. She hid it in the graveyard, before she left it. Before she left the graveyard.
So she already had the wand, and was already at the graveyard, and she hid it there, before she left it
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Ecthalion, I didn't attack your honor, so stop attacking mine.
I've already told you that I didn't have any belief that Voldemort didn't use his own wand before I noticed what Bellatrix said.
If you don't believe me in this, if you keep onv essentially calling me dishonest, THEN TO HELL WITH YOU.
well, you have tossed some mild insults my way, but they don't really bother me. I'm not calling you dishonest im simply saying that i think you read too much into things, which is pretty obvious in that you seem to think im challenging your honor....
Either way im not saying that in the end your notion can't be correct. It's jsut a bit of a reach to go from what she said to saying that Voldemort didnt want to kill harry and wanted to fake his death.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Because she says "before i left", and she had already described how she had been awaiting for him at the rendezvous place but he failed to show up.
Once again, there is nothing to say that the cemetary was the meeting spot... you are just assuming it...
quote:She didn't say "After I left, I retrieved your wand and hid it in the graveyard."
But she did say that she went loking for him before she mentioned leaving his wand anywhere, the two sentences need not be chronological but lets face it we have no reason to assume that she didnt spend time looking for him before she hid his wand.
quote:She said "Before I left" instead. She already had his wand. She hid it in the graveyard, before she left it. Before she left the graveyard.
which is once again conjecture that it was the meeting spot and that they were to meet immediately after he offed the potters...
quote:So she already had the wand, and was already at the graveyard, and she hid it there, before she left it
same as above...
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Yeah, well, we'll see who is right, won't we.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I sort of see what you mean now, but there's a perfectly good explanation for why she said that which ISN'T a hint at an entire secret plot twist. Until we get more information, there's no reason to assume either possibility is more probable than 50%.
I don't think you were seeing "what you want to see" when you read the line. But I think an initial random interpretation lead you to a hypothesis that suggested a cool plot twist, and once that possibility occurred to you, you got attached to the cleverness of that idea. I think your attachment is NOW leading you to extreme overconfidence in your interpretation.
I DO think Voldemort's wand will turn out to be important, but it doesn't need to be any more important than "Harry and Quirrel both know where the wand is now."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Aris, your observations and arguments have stirred up some interesting debate. Some will also feel it is a needless distraction. But that is all right. Let the sparks fly. That is how "iron sharpeneth iron" (Prov. 27:17).
But I wish to point out that you have a tendency to compensate for a lack of sound, common-sense reasoning, by being pedantic. This is a tactic that may have worked for you in high school, but mature minds are not so easily snowed or impressed.
HP 7.1 opens today (last night at midnight, for the truly fanatic fans). I expect to see it in a little over an hour from now. I hope everyone enjoys the movie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I wish to point out that you have a tendency to compensate for a lack of sound, common-sense reasoning, by being pedantic.
Were I not at work, Ron, I would have literally curled up on the floor and laughed until I cried. As it was, I still got asked what was so funny. Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ron, we have an utterly different understanding of what "sound reasoning" means, and we certainly have a different understanding of what "mature minds" are like. E.g. a mind that doesn't acknowledge the possibility of uncertainty in its "deductions" isn't a mature one, by my definition.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You are the funny one, Tom. In a very pathetic sort of way. It will be too bad if in the end your life has to be told as a comic-tragedy. But you are the one writing it. So you will have no one to blame but yourself.
(For those of you latecomers, the real issue between Tom and me is my refusal to accept the theory of evolution, because it is flatly impossible; and my insistence that the Creationist view of origins is the one that is the most scientifically sound. For this reason he hates me compulsively. I guess I am like a Mordecai at the gate to him (even though I am not Jewish).
Aris, the supposed wisdom some see in agnosticism is entirely illusory. We have to live real lives in the real universe, and that requires making realistic choices in a timely fashion. God will hold us accountable and render final judgment on us according to the choices we make, based on the level of knowledge and understanding that we have, or could have had if we had not hardened our hearts and closed our minds.
There are no guarantees in anything. All you can do is optimize your chances. Your pedantic approach to decision-making is not useful. You, if anyone, are the one guilty of not properly acknowledging uncertainty in your deductions. You are riding a thesis that most people see as quite silly, as a hobbyhorse, and you are riding it to death. Where is your healthy self-questioning?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (For those of you latecomers, the real issue between Tom and me is my refusal to accept the theory of evolution, because it is flatly impossible; and my insistence that the Creationist view of origins is the one that is the most scientifically sound. For this reason he hates me compulsively. I guess I am like a Mordecai at the gate to him (even though I am not Jewish).
Oy.
Is the sky blue, in your world?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: A. I think a lot of people are getting more freaked out about than they need to. I never saw the Transfiguration rules as actual absolute rules that could never ever be broken - it's just that high school children have nowhere near enough knowledge to properly decide when it is actually safe to do so. For example, the food thing: it's not that something bad automatically happens when you transfigure something into food - it's that with hundreds of students, if you have a few people transfiguring food safely, a few students may get distracted and leave the food for a minute while someone else comes and eats it.
Harry was in a desperate situation, he needed to do SOMETHING, and he made as much effort to keep the rulebreaking safe as he could. It may turn out that a few molecules of transfigured ice WILL still somehow kill you, but I doubt it.
Because at least a couple of you have expressed this sentiment, I am very interested to know why you think the author introduced the idea that eating, drinking or inhaling anything transformed is very dangerous. This is not from canon and the author took a good portion of a chapter setting it up. It seems like a great deal of effort to just to show Harry places little stock in following the rules. It also seems hardly necessary since breaking into Azkaban to free death eater shows a great deal more disregard for "rules" than transforming ice to a solid fueled rocket.
Frankly, Yudkowsky spent good portion of a chapter establishing the danger of transfiguring things into something that could be consumed or inhaled. If he then lets his main character do it big time with out any consequences, it would be particularly poor story telling.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My assumption is that the point of McGonnagal's new lecture was twofold: one was that transfiguration should always have been treated as more dangerous that it is in the books, because any attempt to include Transfiguration magic that remotely relates to actual physics should result in something extremely dangerous. It was a combination of idiot-ball removal on McGonnagal's part as well as the universe in general.
The other part WAS plot related, I'm sure. Making transfiguration more grounded in reality makes it something Harry has an easier time manipulating and applying rationality to, leading to experiments that can go both horribly wrong and horribly right.
I DO think the "don't eat anything Transfigured" will come up eventually, but I don't think it will here. This is not an example of Harry dangerously skirting the rules "Big Time." He tried his best to keep it safe, and unless it's dangerous for reasons that DON'T have anything to do with actual physics (which I doubt, since all the dangerous seem directly RELATED to real physics/chemistry), I don't think he needed to be that worried.
Again, we're talking about a few molecules here, and a substance that wouldn't be dangerous to start with. (Also, I'm not up to speed on my rocket science, but wasn't the fuel going to turn back into water as part of the combustion process, so you'd have transfigured water turning back into water?)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
rivka, at times the sky in my world is lapis lazuli, sapphire clear as the sky, like God's throne. (Ex. 24:10; NIV margin; also Ezek. 10:1; NRSV margin.)
Do you have any good reason not to believe Genesis?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Fake post edit: I could have sworn there was a section specifically talking about the rocket fuel being composed of hydrogen and oxygen, further addressing the safety issues. Must have read that in a comment section somewhere.
quote:Do you have any good reason not to believe Genesis?
Really is that where this thread is going? I guess this is what happens when we're too long without an update to the story.
Hobbes Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Apologies for encouraging it.
quote:I guess this is what happens when we're too long without an update to the story.
This hypothesis is correct.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
In other news, Harry Potter Lego for the iPhone/iPad has been released for $5 and I'm totally going to get it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: My assumption is that the point of McGonnagal's new lecture was twofold: one was that transfiguration should always have been treated as more dangerous that it is in the books, because any attempt to include Transfiguration magic that remotely relates to actual physics should result in something extremely dangerous. It was a combination of idiot-ball removal on McGonnagal's part as well as the universe in generalp.
Well no, not really. McGonnagal's explanation of "Transfiguration sickness" doesn't make any sense at all from a molecular standpoint and Harry even notes that at the time as he tries to puzzle out what it would mean from water to turn back into wood once the molecules had been dispersed and distributed through the body. From a biochemical standpoint it makes no sense at all.
quote:I DO think the "don't eat anything Transfigured" will come up eventually, but I don't think it will here. This is not an example of Harry dangerously skirting the rules "Big Time." He tried his best to keep it safe, and unless it's dangerous for reasons that DON'T have anything to do with actual physics (which I doubt, since all the dangerous seem directly RELATED to real physics/chemistry), I don't think he needed to be that worried.
Again, we're talking about a few molecules here, and a substance that wouldn't be dangerous to start with. (Also, I'm not up to speed on my rocket science, but wasn't the fuel going to turn back into water as part of the combustion process, so you'd have transfigured water turning back into water?) [/qb]
But McGonnagal specifically talks about the danger of transfiguring things into something that burn or vaporize which also only amount to a few molecules that might be enhaled. Solid Rocky fuel is exactly the kind of thing she warns them never to make by transfiguation.
When Harry and Hermione are working on transfiguring a thread and plastic rings in carbon nanotubes, McGonnagal thinks there is some danger even thought inhaling tiny particles thread, plastic and superglue would be no more intrinisically dangerous than inhaling buckyballs (probably less so actually).
The point is that McGonnagal only says that inhaling or consuming a material that had been transfigured would cause serious illness. Harry postulates a mechanism of this, then presumes that if he transfigures something harmless like ice it's no problem -- but he never questions whether or not the mechanism, which he made up, is valid, even though he himself notes that the whole thing makes no sense from a physical standpoint.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:But McGonnagal specifically talks about the danger of transfiguring things into something that burn
I would not be surprised if water transfigured turned out to be harmful. But I WOULD be surprised if a few molecules of water (which is the most the following aurors could be expected to inhale) would be dangerous. I would also be surprised if it would be dangerous for reasons other than inhaling (which is all Harry would end up facing giving the bubblehead charm).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
SPOILERS: Next chapter up:
-
Okay, I am now conceding that getting a blast of transfigured rocket fire to the face is probably dangerous on all kinds of levels. Did not see that particular problem coming.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's interesting to consider just how possible it is Harry really might get away (as far as proof is concerned) with all of this. I mean, there are those who might put two and two together and come up with transfiguration sickness - if it's correctly diagnosed - and other various clues and cue to Harry Potter. But would the people able to put those clues together know, say, what a rocket is, much less what rocket fuel or rocket exhaust is? So far the only people we've seen with any inkling of modern science are Quirrel...and that's a pretty narrow view, so far as I can tell, and Snape, though that was never explored, so it's hard to tell how deep that goes, or whether it was just mind-reading.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It could be that Snape read Harry's mind, that the answer to the question, how many electrons are in the outer orbit of a carbon atom, is four. Then again, as potions master (a.k.a. "The Half Blood Prince") Snape would surely have had to know something about the very basics of chemistry, such as the periodic table of the elements, and the successive electron shells of atoms and how many electrons are in the outer orbit (shell), since that is crucial to understanding what elements will combine with what, and how. Just to please Aris, let me estimate the chances are maybe 50-50, either way (Snape knew by legilimancy, or by chemistry).
When I was eleven years old, I figured out the periodic table and the electron shells of atoms and their combining factors. I worked out my own code for representing them. I thought in terms of how many electrons an element had to give in a combination, and how much of a capacity or "appetite" it had to take electrons to complete the total limit for the outer shell. I represented carbon as +4 -4. That's the same as silicon, except that having a more inner and therefore higher energy shell, carbon was more chemically potent. (I was home from school alot with asthma, and studied our encyclopedias for fun. Sort of like Hermione might have done.) I was even able to predict what combinations might make superior batteries. If only I had known how to file for a patent on lithium hydride back then! (53 years ago.) I also came up with some chemical combinations that might make better explosives than gunpowder--but I never followed up on those, either. My parents wouldn't buy me the kind of chemistry set I really needed. Just as well, I suppose. I still have all my fingers, and never blew up the house. My secret ambition was to be a mad scientist, like Lex Luthor. My parents may have suspected that.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Assuming his disdain for the atomic knowledge was genuine, I think a more likely scenario is that Snape briefly studied real chemistry to see if it helped him with alchemy, but since chemistry doesn't actually have anything to do with magical alchemy, he decided it was useless and gave it up. (I'm assigning a 45% probability to him having having read Harry's mind, 45% chance he knew it based on brief, failed research, and 10% chance he actually studied chemistry extensively to improve his potions making.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think Snape would have to know any sort of science to be a skilled potions brewer, in the Potterverse. I don't know, but we see no signs of it anyway.
Personally, I'd assign the probability that he knows some actual science higher (not sure how much) than 10%, because he does after all come a recently diverse background, and would have a higher likelihood to be exposed to it than others. And his outlook on life, enjoying to learn things, might just like to learn things for their own sake-particularly since he doesn't seem to have had much of a social life. Hell, could've even been one of the things he and Evans got along well on. *shrug*
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Is it likely that magical potion-making is completely unrelated to chemistry? Even in Snape's lab, if you add water to pure sulfuric acid, it could get explosively hot. (Chemists and anyone else who do not want a horrible lab accident know to always add sulfuric acid to water.) And if you use Castor beans, you could make ricin. Not exactly recommended for love potions.
And how did the Atlanteans establish magic, anyway?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here's a way to explain how the Atlanteans established magic. They created an alternate universe, and merged it with ours using certain pre-set interfaces. (Sounds good, anyway.) And that implies that there may be additional interfaces that can be created.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
New.
Looks like Harry is having to confront some of his illusions regarding Quirrel. Going to be interesting to see what happens with Dumbledore next chapter.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Aris, the supposed wisdom some see in agnosticism is entirely illusory. We have to live real lives in the real universe, and that requires making realistic choices in a timely fashion.
Yes, which however just means we can't avoid making guesses, assigning probabilities and acting in accordance with them.
Pretending you're 100% certain of any result is just foolish arrogance -- but *nobody* said you must treat all options are equally probable.
As I've tried to explain: the world doesn't divide between "certain" (100% chance) "impossible" (0% chance) and "equally likely as not) (50% chances).
The world divides into possibilities from 99.999999% certainty and 0.0000001% certainty and everything in between.
quote:God will hold us accountable and render final judgment on us according to the choices we make,
I would assign a higher probability to the existence of some God that would better pleased if we stopped believing in the Christian God, than I would assign on the Christian god himself.
quote:All you can do is optimize your chances.
An optimizing gambler must acknowledge the existence of all possibilities. If you're 100% certain that in the roulette table the ball will either fall on red or black, (instead of the proper 94%-98% depending on the type)then you're ignoring the chance it will fall on the green zeroes.
quote:You are riding a thesis that most people see as quite silly, as a hobbyhorse, and you are riding it to death.[/QB]
Have you ever tried to check out some of the author's other writings, especially his "sequences" at the Less Wrong forum? Given your conclusions about other matters (like evolution and God) what makes you think you have *anything* in common with how the author's mind functions, that you can anticipate how he's plotting the story?
"Most people" here have not a clue about the most fundamental logic. So frankly, if most people here see my theory as "quite silly", that is only weak evidence for the wrongness of my theory.
[ November 21, 2010, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Please, please don't turn this thread into a discussion about religion with Ron.
quote:And Harry just looked at the Defense Professor with cool eyes that would never flinch from anything; not even death, now. He was no longer in Azkaban, no longer fearful of the part of himself that was fearless; and the solid gemstone that was Harry had rotated to meet the stress, turning smoothly from one facet to another, from light to darkness, warm to cold.
Boy, Harry has sure come off the rails a bit if he believes that about himself, particularly given that he less than a few moments ago recognized that he was finching from something, but it's understandable in the circumstances.
And, goodness, if there were ever a person whose answer it would perhaps be unwise to trust to that last question...though Harry does seem finally to have recognized it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So... placing bets on whether the woman in chapter 59 is Wormtail, who has indeed retired to the Caribbean like Harry jokingly hypothesized? (I'm assigning 60% probability to that).
My impression is that the thing Harry is flinching from in chapter 60 is not the question itself, but the obvious answer, which is that Harry has Voldemort inside him, and that Quirrel is somehow connected to that.
quote:And, goodness, if there were ever a person whose answer it would perhaps be unwise to trust to that last question...though Harry does seem finally to have recognized it.
Well first of all, yeah Harry pretty explicitly is skeptical here, second, we haven't even heard Quirrel's complete answer yet.
I'm sad we're getting a hiatus, glad we're getting more than one "book" (I was getting a little worried that Azkaban would turn out to be the end of the whole series). A little particularly sad that I don't expect much interaction with Draco or Hermione in chapter 61. Hermione and Draco are my favorite re-imagined characters, and while I thought the Azkaban adventure was a great finale for this book, having several weeks of dreary misery and Harry being on his own was getting exhausting. Going another month without some good Harry/Draco/Hermione-ness is going to be particularly sad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think, given the changes made to the attack on the Potters' house, it is very likely that Voldemort is using Harry as a horcrux in this version of the story.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think, given the changes made to the attack on the Potters' house, it is very likely that Voldemort is using Harry as a horcrux in this version of the story.
Elaborate?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Please, please don't turn this thread into a discussion about religion with Ron.
Seconded.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh and Rabbit, after 64 years, I have earned the right to be sure of what I believe. If you cannot hack it, that is your problem.
But for the record, I did not elaborate the religious view until challenged by Aris Katsaris' rather militant agnosticism, aided and abetted, of course, by Tom Davidson's usual sniping.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
No one cares if you have that right Ron, they just don't want to discuss it here. Though I suppose I'm no[w] engaging in some sort of meta version of the conversation I wanted to avoid... I don't know that that's any better. I guess I wont respond again in this avenue.
I hope the next chapter does something for the characters. I found this last chapter less coherent than previous ones when it comes to motives and thoughts. I'd like to see some more explanation and just the typical "I pulled a fast one on you!" author-to-reader joke that surprise endings so often have. I feel like there's a lot of information to clear up before this installments over. Not so much plot as character information.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* I have no idea how my sniping -- which consisted entirely of an appreciation of a certain irony -- might be considered "aiding or abetting" Aris' position on, of all things, whether or not a reader of a specific piece of Harry Potter fanfiction might reasonably believe that, as presented by the author, Harry (and the wizarding world as a whole) has no rational reason to conclude that he was in fact targeted by the Avada Kedavra curse.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
On other news, we've finally gotten the revelation of what the Rememberall thingie was indicating that Harry had forgotten: Newtonian physics and their (non-)application to broomstick flying.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh snap.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh and Rabbit, after 64 years, I have earned the right to be sure of what I believe. If you cannot hack it, that is your problem
At 64, you are certainly old enough to know that age does not with any consistency bring wisdom, rationality or knowledge. Get back to me when you get Pope Benedict, Ayatollah Tehrani, Thomas Monson, and Richard Dawkins (all of whom are older than you) to agree on the nature of God, and I will reconsider your claim to an age based "right" to certainty. If you can't hack that, it's your problem. Until then, don't expect anyone to defer to your age based wisdom.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh and Rabbit, after 64 years, I have earned the right to be sure of what I believe. If you cannot hack it, that is your problem.
Ron, no one's challenging your right to believe what you want to believe. I'm just asking you not to discuss it here, on a discussion thread about a Harry Potter fanfic discussion thread.
[ November 22, 2010, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Then don't anyone try to impose their agnostic pseudo-religious views on me, either. I will always challenge that kind of foolishness. Those among us who are agnostics do not own this forum. They get no special protection from rebuttal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright. Territory marked. Can we move on now, please?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
New chapter.
**Spoiler***
Except for the Auror and Harry's interference, Quirrel seems to have just about every angle figured out. I wonder if he or Harry will have some way of getting around the time turner test.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually would consider it perfectly acceptable if Harry DOESN'T find a way to get out of it, and the actual end of this section is that he realizes Quirrel is a bad guy. (That said, the foreshadowing that the showdown with Quirrel would happen on the last day of school was too funny to get rid of him in mid-winter.... dunno).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If Harry thinks fast enough, perhaps he can do this: Go back however long he has left on his Time-Turner, acquire a fresh one in the two hours that gives him, and use that one for the test. Quirrell may have the resources for it, who knows? But it looks rather bad.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Information cannot travel back in time more than 6 hours, and chaining time turners together won't work.
Does that mean if it is 9pm, you can't go back back before 3pm, no matter how many time turners you possess, but that you can keep going back to 3pm over and over again as long as you have a fresh supply of time turners?
Or does that mean you have six hours in a day to travel through time, and whether you go back 1 hour six times, or 6 hours 1 time, it makes no difference, and additional time turners won't help you?
"No body or soul, no knowledge or substance, could stretch an extra seven hours in a single day."
I take that to mean that if Harry has already traveled two hours, he only has four left, and can't go back any further, even if he gets additional time turners.
So how will he get out of it? Go back three hours, Imperius Flitwick into thinking it was 3pm instead of 6pm?
Go back as long as he can, then break his own legs and stuff himself into a closet? When found, claim he arrived at 3pm and was attacked by persons unknown before he could deliver the message to Flitwick...
Harry may not be able to go back, but the information (the message for Flitwick) can, so if he can find another person with a time turner, they could do it. Quirrel, for instance, if at 5pm he isn't already in St. Mungo's, which I think he probably is... Harry can use his newfangled Transfiguration to copy the time turner...
Quirrell left the animagus potion (since when is there such a thing? Not canon, where it's never stated how people become animagi) precisely to explain how they were undetected by the Dementors, to throw suspicion off Harry. Man that guy is prepared.
This works because the one possibility that Dumbledore doesn't consider is Voldy and Harry working together.
If Voldy is acting alone, there is no reason to leave the potion. It makes no sense, and Dumbledore assumes it's a message he doesn't understand.
Brilliant.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Harry can use his newfangled Transfiguration to copy the time turner...
Nope. The reason Harry's transfiguration is so powerful is because he knows about MUGGLE artifacts to transfigure. You can't transfigure magical items, but you can transfigure ordinary ones. Wizards just don't normally think of non-magical things as powerful.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This works because the one possibility that Dumbledore doesn't consider is Voldy and Harry working together.
Well actually, this is only one of many possibilities that Dumbledore doesn't consider, the most obvious of which is that Quirrel (who might or might not be Voldy) and Harry were working together or most generally that the jail break might have involved a team of people rather than a single individual.
I'm disappointed that it didn't occur to anyone but McGonagall that rockets might be transfigured from inexpensive easily obtained from objects. I'm also a bit flabbergasted that McGonagall didn't mention that possibility.
On a side note; If some one transfigured a wooden block into a nuclear bomb and detonated the bomb, do you suppose the radio isotopes produced (and hence radioactive emissions) would disappear when the transfiguration reverted to its original state.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I'm disappointed that it didn't occur to anyone but McGonagall that rockets might be transfigured from inexpensive easily obtained from objects. I'm also a bit flabbergasted that McGonagall didn't mention that possibility.
It specifically says she was about to bring it up when a bunch of other things happened that distracted them. Truth be told I don't think it matters a WHOLE lot whether she waited a few minutes. I'm sure she'd bring it up by the time the nine o'clock test rolled around (either before or immediately after).
quote:On a side note; If some one transfigured a wooden block into a nuclear bomb and detonated the bomb, do you suppose the radio isotopes produced (and hence radioactive emissions) would disappear when the transfiguration reverted to its original state.
Not sure (it's magic, so it could operate in any number of ways) but it'd be interesting if it did work that way. If you NEEDED a nuke for som reason, it'd be much more human (realizing that we're starting from very negative numbers of humane-tude) to transfigure it so you only get the immediate destruction rather than all the lingering side effects.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not sure (it's magic, so it could operate in any number of ways) but it'd be interesting if it did work that way. If you NEEDED a nuke for som reason, it'd be much more human (realizing that we're starting from very negative numbers of humane-tude) to transfigure it so you only get the immediate destruction rather than all the lingering side effects.
I can imagine a number of ways one might wish to use a nuclear bomb that wouldn't have "very negative numbers of humane-tude" if there where so residual radiation.
For example, nuclear rocket propulsion has been proposed a number of times. Explosives can be extremely useful in mining and construction. Magic nukes would be perfect for testing or simply studying nuclear chain reactions. Magic fuel rods would lead to waste free nuclear energy. Magic radio-isotopes would be excellent for medical treatments and scientific research.
On a more negative but not as negative as all out thermonuclear attack, magic "Tactical" nuclear weapons would become a practical alternative.
I'm wondering whether Quirrell could be suffering from Transfiguration sickness and that's what caused his collapse, although I'm kind of doubting it since we've gotten messages from 6 hours into the future from Azkaban and there were no reports of unusual illnesses. I'm going to be disappointed in the writer if no one get's transfiguration sickness. I think its very bad form to put so much time into establishing a rule, if you let it be broken without consequence at the first convenient moment.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm going to be disappointed in the writer if no one get's transfiguration sickness. I think its very bad form to put so much time into establishing a rule, if you let it be broken without consequence at the first convenient moment.
When did Quirrel get transfigured? I seem to have missed that part.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I think the reference is Harry transfiguring something that will turn into a gas (the water --> rocket fuel) that could be absorbed into the body before it gets transfigured back.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think she's specifically talking about the people who were literally burned by the rocketfire. While I think it's possible for that to result in transfiguration sickness, the only possible reason for it to do so is "It's Magic." And yes, that certainly has been established as a reason that Magic does things from time to time.
But transfiguration is also something that's been established as an area that Harry has greater power over BECAUSE he knows science and is applying it intelligently. Rocket fuel is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and burns back into water. There's really no reason that water transfiguring into water should cause problems. This isn't an author breaking his own rule, he's circumventing it using perfectly logical means.
I absolutely think someone will transfigure a rocket at some point and it'll cause transfiguration sickness and it'll be a big deal and Harry will be involved. But it won't be Harry himself, it'll be someone else copying his technique without fully understanding the reasoning behind it (Draco might be a good candidate for this, or possibly some random Death Eater). Harry still ends up responsible in a way, since he inspired it.
In fact, after the last chapter, this seems all the more likely. The huge threat Dumbledore fears is not this single incident but the escalation it will inspire. That escalation's danger perfectly echoes the original Transfiguration rules: it's not that transfiguring food automatically causes bad things to happen. You can safely transfigure food, use it only for display purposes, never eat it, and then let it revert to its original form. The issue is that once you start doing that, you may get lax about it, or something unexpected might happen, or other people might start doing it too and eventually someone gets hurt.
And thus, a blanket, absolute prohibition is necessary. Not because a single incident is necessarily dangerous, but because there's no such thing as "a single incident."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I thought this was a well written chapter, one of his better ones. I have to admit I'm not following this closely enough to really have a full grasp on what happened but I didn't feel like I needed to remember every detail to enjoy it. I've noticed the characters keep changing more and more as the story progresses. I was under the impression that originally the idea was to write Harry Potter only now Harry's different. Clearly Quirrel was different too (along with Harry's family but I think that was more of an explanation of Harry than actual change) but that was it for a while. Then other character started changing (and not character development changing, their bio, so to speak, changed). I don't know if this was always the plan or he found it necessary to advance the plot he wanted. I don't mind at all, his story and I think the changes have been perfectly reasonable, I was just noticing this.
I am curious how Albus thinks a ban on muggle inventions for wizarding war would play out with Voldemort. I agree with Raymond's reasons for why it's a good idea but this isn't the US and the USSR (who were stable and seeking a future for their countries as international players) this is someone who, at least in the cannon, is displayed as cartoonishly evil. Why would he ever follow that restriction? I understand it was brought up in the context of a warning (Albus thinking it's a message to not do it or Voldemort will) but why would Voldemort keep his word?
Hobbes Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I am curious how Albus thinks a ban on muggle inventions for wizarding war would play out with Voldemort. I agree with Raymond's reasons for why it's a good idea but this isn't the US and the USSR (who were stable and seeking a future for their countries as international players) this is someone who, at least in the cannon, is displayed as cartoonishly evil. Why would he ever follow that restriction? I understand it was brought up in the context of a warning (Albus thinking it's a message to not do it or Voldemort will) but why would Voldemort keep his word?
Dumbledore thinks that because Voldemort didn't use muggle technology in the first war, he doesn't really want to use it in this one either. According to this rationale, the only reason for Voldemort to use muggle technology was to match the other side's use of it. So in theory, if they make it clear that their side is sticking purely with magic, then voldemort will be inclined to stay that way as well.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Why would he ever follow that restriction?
At the time they are mostly conjecturing. But the things they note are that:
a) Voldemort had access to Fiendfyre and other extremely dangerous magical "weapons of mass destruction" last time, and he didn't use them.
b) Quirrel (who admittedly is not in the room with Snape, Albus and Minerva, but whom we the readers suspect has a connection to Voldemort) ranted about how insane Nukes were and how Voldemort, evil as he was, he didn't want to rule over a heap of ash.
c) Albus and co are specifically theorizing that Voldemort is WARNING them that if they use muggle weapons, he will retaliate with them. They are issuing a blanket ban of weapons on the Quirrel Armies (not the general Auror population, who wouldn't bother using muggle weapons anyway), to send a message that they understand the message and that Harry will not be relying on Muggle weapons in the upcoming war.
It's not an agreement, just a coded message. Which they happen to be misinterpreting, because it assumes that Voldemort was the one using the rocket in the first place. They actually needn't worry, since a) Harry was responsible and b) assuming Quirrel is Voldemort, we already know he has no intention of using nukes no matter what.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"No," said the old wizard's voice. "I do not think so. The Death Eaters learned, toward the end of the war, not to attack the Order's families.
Wow. Well, that statement does lend the, shall we say, potential of credibility to Draco's accusations against Dumbledore, doesn't it?
I also very much appreciate this chapter, because it really nails what I've always felt about Azkaban, and how I think a character should react to it. That's what I was getting at much earlier in this thread when I talked about revolt and whatnot, too. It's a horror.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. Madame Bones's statement about making a jinx around Azkaban so 'opposite reaction science' won't work is very interesting. I wonder just what happens to a human body if the laws of Newton, who is not forgotten for a reason, no longer apply? I suppose it depends a bit on what replaces them, but I'm of the opinion that Eliezer will not make this easy on any witch who doesn't know what she's meddlin with. If the magic compensates for all the biochemistry being suddenly out of whack, fine. But unless that is specifically built into the spell, I can see a lot of suddenly-dead Aurors and prisoners. Even if they don't push it down to the microlevel, a whole area in which Aristotelian physics suddenly rules is going to be very difficult to get used to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I also think it'd be appealing to his story because it's one of those things where a government agency starts mucking around in areas it doesn't understand for a quick, easy fix (with science, no less) and instead does something awful. Very true life, that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Rocket fuel is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and burns back into water.
No its not and no it doesn't. The author says specifically it's an ammonium perchlorate composite sold rocket fuel. I pointed this out before. Ammonium Perchlorate is not made out of hydrogen and oxygen. It does not react to form water in a solid rocket.
quote:There's really no reason that water transfiguring into water should cause problems.
It's not water transfigured into water. It's water tranfigured into Ammonium Perchlorate, which then decomposes into N2, Cl2, O2 and H2O gases.
quote:This isn't an author breaking his own rule, he's circumventing it using perfectly logical means.
First off., since this fanfic is specifically focused on rationality it should be noted that it is irrational to presume that any hypothesis is correct until it has been thoroughly tested. Harry has a hypothesis about the mechanism behind transformation sickness which even he notes doesn't make much sense. Acting on that hypothesis as though it is certain when he knows nothing about the physical laws that govern magic and hasn't done a single experiment to test the hypothesis is a major mistake from the rationalist perspective. As a scientist I can assure you that even the bests scientists first conjecture about how things work is rarely correct, especially when they are working in a field in which they have no expertise (like magic tranfiguation).
Second, the author went to a great deal of effort to establish this rule. Never at any point before Harry is trapped in Azkaban, do the ideas that a bubble head charm or transfiguring ice would make transfiguring safe. If the issues isn't further explored and doesn't have some other serious consequence, it reads very much like the author painted Harry in to a corner and then made up new rules to get him out of it.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I think it was a mistake for Harry not to have been curious to Dumbledore what muggle weapon V used. If Dumbledore is as bright as he ought to be, that should tip him off.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Agreed. I also think that Dumbledore and McGonagall should've thought of the possibility of Harry using another student with a time turner to help him.
But perhaps Dumbledore is aware of all of this and is just pretending to be dim to fool Harry into complacency.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:No its not and no it doesn't. The author says specifically it's an ammonium perchlorate composite sold rocket fuel. I pointed this out before. Ammonium Perchlorate is not made out of hydrogen and oxygen. It does not react to form water in a solid rocket.
Went back and checked, you're right, I'm sorry. I know just enough rocket science to know how it could have been done but not enough to look at the phrase "Berserker PFRC, N-class, ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, solid-fuel rocket" and see anything other than "rocket science gibberish." Looking back I don't see a place where you specifically clarified what that meant, although I see places where you probably assumed I'd understand what you were talking about.
quote:But perhaps Dumbledore is aware of all of this and is just pretending to be dim to fool Harry into complacency.
I'm pretty sure Dumbledore is at least still suspicious. I'm positive that he's supposed to be smarter than Harry assumes he is.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Talked a bit with my dad (who is a combustion engineer) about the Rocket thing. He said it'd depend on another factor which the rocket name doesn't tell us, but that the most likely things for the rocket to be expelling are still oxygen and hydrogen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Talked a bit with my dad (who is a combustion engineer) about the Rocket thing. He said it'd depend on another factor which the rocket name doesn't tell us, but that the most likely things for the rocket to be expelling are still oxygen and hydrogen.
I don't know what your Dad's expertise is, but there are no kinds of rockets that expell oxygen and hydrogen. There are rockets that are fueled by hydrogen and oxygen and expel water. These are not solid fuel rockets. Solid rockets use ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizer to oxidize aluminium. It's called APCF (ammonium perchlorate composit fuel. The reaction is
Solid rockets expel all of those reaction products. Water makes up 22% of that by mass.
BTW, The space shuttle is propelled by 3 rockets. The two thin rockets on the outside are APCF solid rockets, the center rocket is a hydrogen fueled rocket.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rabbit: As Raymond and I discussed, any rocket relies on an oxidation reaction, and thus expels species composed of oxygen, carbon and hydrogen. In our conversation I specified CO2 and H2O.
Solid rocket fuels containing ammonium perchlorate generally use something like a butadiene based rubber as fuel with aluminum. Aluminum combustion generates very high heat energy, but aluminum oxide is heavier than H2O an therefore isn't as good an propellant, because it's harder to accelerate. I'm not even sure that an Al + O reaction would produce any thrust given that the product doesn't generally behave as a gas.
Even according to your own equation, H2O is the prevalent product. And your original statement:
quote:Ammonium Perchlorate is not made out of hydrogen and oxygen. It does not react to form water in a solid rocket.
...is completely untrue. Not only is NH4ClO4 composed of hydrogen and oxygen, but it does react to form water.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Glenn, I don't mean to disrespect your expertise in combustion but as a Professor of Chemical Engineering I am far from ignorant on the subject of combustion. Not all combustion reactions involve oxygen, carbon and hydrogen. In a solid rocket, ammonium perchlorate, not oxygen, acts as the oxidant and alluminum serves as the primary reducing agent. Yes some butadiene is also oxidized so some CO2 and some H2O are produced, but they are not the primary reaction products.
I never said no water was formed in this reaction. In fact I gave the reaction which clearly shows water being formed. My point was that Ray's argument that burning ice transfigured to solid rocket fuel a could be described as transforming water to fuel and then back to water, (and therefore coudln't possibly cause any problems, was factually incorrect. Sure some of the ice transformed to fuel will end up as water. Some of it will end up as ultrafine particles of Al2O3 and AlCl2, some will end up as N2, some (as you point out) will end up as CO2. Since the reaction probably doesn't go to completion, you will likely get some Cl2, some CO, and who knows what else in the solid rocket exaust
How that relates to transfiguration sickness is anyones guess, since we have no idea what the real mechanism is behind transformation sickness, since no one has done even one experiment on the subject.
[ November 28, 2010, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Even according to your own equation, H2O is the prevalent product. And your original statement:
No!! According to my equation H2O is the prevalent product by moles, but not by mass. As I stated before, it is only 22% by mass.
quote:Ammonium Perchlorate is not made out of hydrogen and oxygen. It does not react to form water in a solid rocket.
...is completely untrue. Not only is NH4ClO4 composed of hydrogen and oxygen, but it does react to form water. [/QB][/QUOTE]I don't know why you are being so obtuse. I gave the chemical formula for Ammonium Perchlorate and showed the reaction which is predominant in solid rockets. Its obvious that I know that solid rocket fuel contains some hydrogen and oxygen and reacts to form some water. In that context, I assumed you and Ray could insert the implied "solely" and "just" in my sentence.
It is entirely different thing to claim something "contains" certain elements and that something is "made" of certain elements. Would you consider it remotely accurate if I claimed "cars are made of butadiene rubber", or people are composed of hydroxy appetite?
Ray's argument was that he couldn't imagine how burning solid rocket fuel (transfigured for ice) could possibly cause any harm since burning the fuel just made water. The fact that it makes water and a whole bunch of other stuff that is definitely not water, pretty well negates Ray's point. Would you not agree?
[ November 29, 2010, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I never said not water was formed in this reaction.
Yes you did. See above.
quote:Not all combustion reactions involve oxygen, carbon and hydrogen.
I didn't say they did. I said they were the primary reactants that Raymond and I discussed.
And as I pointed out above, I'm perfectly aware that aluminum burns with a great release of thermal energy, but probably provides very little kinetic energy on it's own.
In fact, I once proposed that since aluminum has a higher oxidation potential than water, you could make a hybrid rocket engine in which aluminum was oxidized with steam. My friend Harry Ryan (a phD mechanical engineer, whose work was instrumental in the design of the space shuttle's fuel injectors) pointed out that the remaining hydrogen would probably be monatomic, and would thus be capable of accelerating to very high velocities, thus maximizing the energy transfer from thermal to kinetic.
We never did try it however.
quote:as a Professor of Chemical Engineering
Hmmm. I thought you were a climatologist. Where does the crossover to chemical engineering come in?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:In that context, I assumed you and Ray could insert the implied "solely" and "just" in my sentence.
So you are assuming we are supposed to make your argument for you? No.
You are a scientist, and from a scientist I expect exact language. Raymond is not a scientist, and when a scientist argues with a layman and plays word games with his inexact language, I see that as intellectual dishonesty. You should be capable of better than that.
quote:Ray's argument was that he couldn't imagine how burning solid rocket fuel (transfigured for ice) could possibly cause any harm since burning the fuel just made water. The fact that it makes water and a whole bunch of other stuff that is definitely not water, pretty well negates Ray's point. Would you not agree?
As I said, Raymond is not a scientist. He knows that I refer to water as "burnt hydrogen" and also that I sometimes describe my job as "making water." Remove the "solid" from the "rocket engine" in the discussion, and Raymond's argument would likely be entirely correct.
As for transfiguration and how it applied to chemical reactions, I think it's ridiculous to attempt to create rational arguments for how magic and science could co-exist. Before Raymond asked me to discuss this, I had not entered this thread for exactly that reason. And in fact, I only entered this thread because I saw "Deathly Hallows" last night and mistakenly clicked on the wrong thread, only to find myself being used as an authority.
I'll head over to that thread now.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I expect you to read in context. I expect everyone to read in context.
I've never claimed I was a climotologist. I've claimed to be an atmospheric chemist, which is accurate enough even though my Ph.D says Chemical Engineering. You can see a very brief bio here. I have in the past given my publications list, if you doubt my authenticity, go to web of science and search my name. You will in fact find publications in all the areas in which I represent myself as having some expertise . My expertise is in interfacial phenomena and surface chemistry which is applicable in many areas, which means I've been involved in research varying from microbiology to atmospheric chemistry.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: [QB] [QUOTE]]I didn't say they did. I said they were the primary reactants that Raymond and I discussed.
Well no, you said
quote:As Raymond and I discussed, any rocket relies on an oxidation reaction, and thus expels species composed of oxygen, carbon and hydrogen. In our conversation I specified CO2 and H2O.
The construction A thus B, is only logically valid if A always means B. Since "oxidation reactions" do not all produce products composed of oxygen, carbon and hydrogen, your statement as written is invalid.
If you are going to get snippy with me for being imprecise in my language, you should follow your own advice.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
At this point I'm still not entirely sure what the facts are, but I don't care that much beyond making an if-then statement: if the majority of the rocket reaction output was water, there would be absolutely no reason for me to think the Author was cheating here.
If the majority of the rocket reaction is not water but is nontoxic, then I think the author is skirting the lines of cheating, but the fact that Harry HAS studied transfiguration extensively as well as science and was in a desperate situation and took reasonable precautions means that I don't feel particularly betrayed. (I do wonder why Harry WOULDN'T choose a rocket that actually produced water, to avoid the issue entirely, unless they are noticeably less potent than other kinds. That was what I originally asked my dad about).
I do think that, no matter what, if we get to the end of the story and NOBODY ever transmutes anything dangerous into a gas, the author fails at properly foreshadowing, but that doesn't have to be now. As I said, it's already been further hinted that someone ELSE might copy Harry and lead to something dangerous happening, which I think makes more sense anyway.
By now, the last chapter's come out and it's obvious that water is, in fact, safe. This doesn't contradict anything McGonnagal actually said, and I think that's fine.
In other news... WOW! I was expecting a short chapter that basically said "and then Harry went back to Ravenclaw, looked sadly at Hermione for a minute and then went to bed, the end." Instead we got five chapters worth. Hella worth waiting for. Even if the story is never finished, I could be satisfied with what we have so far. I intend to donate $25 to the Singularity Institute, if for no other reason than because this story was worth $25 to me and I know that's where the author would want the money to go.
[ November 29, 2010, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:At this point I'm still not entirely sure what the facts are, but I don't care that much beyond making an if-then statement: if the majority of the rocket reaction output was water, there would be absolutely no reason for me to think the Author was cheating here.
I just disagree. To me, it reads like the author painted Harry into a corner and then amended his own rule to get him out. It's disappointing. And like I said earlier, it is really counter to rationalism to presume that transformation sickness works the way people think it does without having tested that hypothesis at all. If the history of science should teach us anything, it is that the "obvious" answer is rarely the correct one, even if it doesn't contradict anything you think you know about the world.
I think you are blinded by positive bias on this issue. You have been a bit obsessive about rationalism and the Less Wrong forum and this story.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think you are blinded by positive bias on this issue. You have been a bit obsessive about rationalism and the Less Wrong forum and this story.
I think that this statement is true to some degree. I've actually been spending the last few days rereading the story and trying to identify parts that I DIDN'T like that much because I've been getting too evangelical about the story and was wary of the halo effect. (Yes I'm aware of the irony of using a term I learned from Less Wrong here).
I do think the escape from the prison strained plausibility. Too many things had to go just right, Harry had to be too strong in ways that he simply couldn't be expected to be. Being able to maintain multiple personalities like that is possible (I've done it), but extremely hard and the only way I'd buy him being able to do it is by using his Dark Side, which he specifically couldn't do in Azkaban.
But honestly, water causing permanent problems by transmuting into itself is just not one of those things. I am not flinching from anything there, it just doesn't bother me. I wouldn't be disappointed if it DID turn out to be a problem, 'cuz "it's magic" is a perfectly acceptable solution. But at this point Harry has had enough random setbacks that letting magic actually work intuitively with science this one time doesn't bother me at all.
Now, if the rocket in question seriously DOESN'T primarily produce water... I'm not sure what I think about that. I might be flinching there, dunno. But that just means I think the author should have specified a rocket that produced water, not that he shouldn't have let Harry use a rocket at all.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Now, if the rocket in question seriously DOESN'T primarily produce water.
Primarily in what respect? Primarily in terms of number of molecules? Primarily in terms of mass of expelled matter? Primarily in terms of volume of the reacted gases? You are going to get a little more than 50% of the molecules as water, but no matter what ratio of Al/butadiene you use in the fuel, you will end up getting nearly half the molecules as something other than water. I'm sure Glen can confirm this. If you look at this in terms of mass, its significantly worse with only 22 - 25% of the expelled gases being water.
But the details don't really matter. Mass is not conserved in a transfiguration, neither is the number of molecules or the volume of the object. As a result, there is no way to reconcile basic scientific principals. Harry should have recognized that transfiguring ice into solid rocket fuel violated the conservation of matter and energy. That negates pretty much all of classical physics and everything we know about matter, even at quantum level (no especially at the quantum level). Faced with that large and dramatic a breach in what we recognize as physical laws, the most logical response would be negativism: a belief that we can not actually know anything about the world in which we live.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, in the first place Harry is 11 and has already been shown to have made basic mistakes where breaches of scientific principle are involved, such as not recognising the Aristotelian flight characteristics of broomsticks. But in any case, that Harry doesn't see where the energy comes from does not mean that it has no source!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Rabbit said: "Solid rockets use ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizer to oxidize aluminium."
I used to make a simple solid rocket fuel out of sodium nitrate and powdered zinc (I may have added sulfer sometimes, too). It may not have been as efficient as using powdered aluminum, but the zinc worked. At least it made little paper rockets fly.
Conventional fireworks rockets I believe use modifications on the basic gunpowder theme, which is basically what I did with the powdered zinc. The inclusion of different minerals produces the various colors.
I read a feature magazine article one time many years ago that told about an experimenter who used sodium nitrate mixed with feces to produce solid rocket fuel. It was said to work quite well, although I do not recall what might have been said about the smell.
Apparently there are many ways to formulate solid rocket fuel. The problems with solid rocket fuels are to get it to burn uniformly with minimal cavities and uneven combustion, and of course once it is ignited it is pretty hard to turn it off, so it is not suitable for maneuvering jets that have to be turned on and off frequently.
There is something really thrilling about seeing a rocket you made, with a fuel you formulated, take off with a powerful whoosh!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Nu, in the first place Harry is 11 and has already been shown to have made basic mistakes where breaches of scientific principle are involved, such as not recognising the Aristotelian flight characteristics of broomsticks. But in any case, that Harry doesn't see where the energy comes from does not mean that it has no source!
There's a few different issues at work here. The first is what Harry would do (of this, I am 100% certain he would make the rocket exactly the way he did, because it was the best idea he could think of at the time). The second is whether the author violated a general agreement that authors are expected to make with their audience - that if they foreshadow something, there will be ramifications.
The disagreement is on what, exactly, was foreshadowed. I simply don't think it was foreshadowed that you literally cannot do any of the things McGonnogal warns about without bad stuff automatically happening. I think it was foreshadowed various degrees of bad stuff would happening depending on how you did some of them in particular circumstances. There's several different ways that the transfiguration might or might not have turned out to be dangerous. Arbitrarily, the best I can come up with is around a 10-25% chance of it turning out to be safe for the auror. I'm fine with Harry getting lucky here so long as 75-90% of his hypothesis turn out to be wrong, and as long as at some point SOMEONE does something horribly wrong with transfiguration. We've already see the vast majority of his hypothesis turn out to be wrong, and there's plenty more story left for the foreshadow to get resolved.
The worst source of damage I can imagine is the material ripping apart the auror's insides as it reconfigures itself. That damage would be significant, but it would be a one-time thing, and then magic could repair what was left unless the damage actually killed him.
That all said, honestly I'm kinda sick of this topic now and I don't think we're getting anywhere on it. (Although I'm glad to have learned a bit about rockets in the process).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I've never claimed I was a climotologist.
Forgive me if I gave the impression that I was accusing you of misstating your credentials. I made that assumption entirely on my own, based on your explanations of global warming. I only asked how chemical engineering was related to climate research because it wasn't obvious to me.
And while I'm discussing credentials, I need to point out that while Raymond claimed that I'm a "combustion engineer," that isn't accurate either. I exist in the grey area known as "senior engineering technician," and as such I do a fair amount of engineer level work, but I would never identify myself as an engineer.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty sure you've called yourself a combustion engineer on at least one occasion. (Though maybe you amended it to "combustion technician" shortly afterward). Whatevs.
Anyways, I really want to talk about the last chapter now.
First of all, if you haven't downloaded the PDF yet, you can do so here. It's really nicely laid out, with the same font and structure as a Harry Potter book, so it has a different feel to it then reading the text in the browser. I recommend grabbing a copy, especially now that we have a complete "book."
I hope the author explores Harry's fixation on Hermione, and how potentially unhealthy that is. It's not fair to Hermione that Harry uses her as a symbol of all that is good in the world, on top of being his only friend. I can only hope that her last line "How many have you saved?" is a bit of a step in that direction - showing that the author at least knows that Hermione isn't actually perfect and has a lot of work to do before she can truly be "good" instead of just "nice." In was an excellent beginning to the end chapter - a challenge to not merely be smart, but to actually go out and DO some good things with your life.
I loved Blaise Zambini and Fred and George. Great moments that managed to be hilarious yet still tie into all the poignant stuff that was happening.
I love the poetic tie-ins to earlier turns of phrase. "Hey," said Hufflepuff, "notice how, once you're all the way up here, and the individual trees sort of blur together, you can actually see the shape of the forest?" As well as Harry's later statement:
quote:It didn’t seem fair, it didn’t seem fair, that this was what happened if he lost his grip on his rationality for just a tiny fraction of a second, the tiny fraction of a second required for his brain to decide to be more comfortable with ‘yes’ arguments than ‘no’ arguments during the discussion that had followed.
Which echoes Draco's bawling thought from 30+ chapters ago. I do think Harry grossly undershoots the amount of time he was being irrational. I kinda wish the "just for a fraction of a second" had instead been "a moment" so it's a little more ambiguous what he meant. Pinning the whole thing on a single moment of weakness jolted me out of the story and reminded me that Harry is not perfect at a time when I'd rather have had him give a more honest appraisal of himself. But still, it was a good moment that captured the harshness of the moment for an 11-year old to face.
And despite my concern for Harry's idolizing of Hermione, I actually cried when I got to:
quote:37 of 40 subjects had continued their participation in that experiment to the end, the 450-volt end marked ‘XXX’.
And if you were Professor Quirrell, you might have decided to feel cynical about that.
But 3 out of 40 subjects had refused to participate all the way to the end.
The Hermiones.
They did exist, in the world, the people who wouldn’t fire a Simple Strike Hex at a fellow student even if the Defense Professor ordered them to do it. The ones who had sheltered Gypsies and Jews and homosexuals in their attics during the Holocaust, and sometimes lost their lives for it.
I had been talking recently about other fantasy stories, and how certain "real" things are exaggerated into symbols. Obvious stuff, I know. The book spells out that Dementors represent Death and Phoenixes represent Light and all. What should also have been obvious, but which I just recently put into words, is that Harry's dark side represents the danger of looking at the world in sheer rational terms without leaving any room for emotion or human connection. I know, I don't get any points for decoding that, but it made me go "huh" when I thought about it.
The whole chapter was exhausting to read. It was long (several times I glanced at the slider, thinking I was almost done and feeling sad that there wouldn't be any left, then realized I was less than half finished), and the subject matter was pretty heavy. But by the time I got to the end, the whole thing felt very cathartic.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh, also, anyone know what's up with Harry's statement:
quote:And no matter what, I’m not having anyone Obliviate everything I know about calculus. I’d sooner die.”
Did I forget something important? Is this connected to anything at all?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think he's just saying that he doesn't want to be ordinary if it means giving up knowledge. If knowing things that the average 11-year-old doesn't makes him un-average, too bad.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That seemed obvious, but it also seemed like it was referencing something particular. Makes sense though.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought the calculus reference was connected to the whole no muggle transformation- like knowledge of muggle stuff could be deemed dangerous (including calculus) but he wasn't going to get rid of it even if it was dangerous.
I think it is a bit wrong to blame 90% of citizens for Azkaban. I disapprove of a lot of things that the US govt does. I have protested, written letters, signed petitions, given money and so far, it has done squat for me. I voted for a president I thought was in favor of civil rights because of that and yet Gitma is still open. Next election, I can't see either person as being good for human rights. I could try less peaceful protests, but that would just end with me arrested. Some times, you can know something is wrong and want it ended, but it is outside your power- there is no clear path to ending the abuse.
I was watching that show What would you do and I was thinking, what is the right solution in this case? And sometimes, I really didn't know. How many people do nothing simply because they don't know what they should do?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah the Gitmo parallel is pretty obvious (I don't think he set out to write a parable about Gitmo, but any realistic discussion of Azkaban ends up paralleling Gitmo by default). My feeling is not that Obama explicitly lied about that, but that its easy to make all kinds of promises before reaching the white house, and once you get there you realize how seriously entrenched the surrounding political strucutres are. In the case of Gitmo, I don't know exactly what is required to end it. Is it actually possible for him to just sign an executive order getting rid of it? If he can't, does publicly legalizing it make it better or worse?
Part of me feels like it's simply impossible to have a government last more than a hundred years before power accumulates and the only way to restore balance is with a complete overhaul. But A) Mao already tried that in China and the results weren't pretty (how much of that had to do with Mao being an idiot is up for debate), B) at this point corporations are so powerful that any attempt to sweep the board would probably end with one or more of them in complete control, and that's not good either.
Bleh. I hold onto the "some percent of humans are truly good" sentiment because its warm and fuzzy and on some level that warm fuzziness is necessary. But I don't know if it's actually valid. The other 37 people have an AWFUL lot of power. I don't know that 3 Hermiones is enough.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems established in canon that most wizards who haven't personally been to Azkaban are ok with its existence, unlike Gitmo. It is also a theme of Mr Yudkowsky's thinking that a lot of what we do is not really caring about issues, but signalling caring; thus letter-writing, for example, is not costly to the writer, or not very much so, and thus it is not a very strong expression of real caring.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But KofM- what is the right thing to do if we care? What action can one take that will have a reasonable chance of success?
I;ll be honest. When I was young, I thought I would be heroic if the situation arose- do the right thing no matter what the consequences. Now that I have children, I realize ultimately, I will do what is right for my children. I would take a bullet for them, but for some random stranger- nope.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:what is the right thing to do if we care? What action can one take that will have a reasonable chance of success?
A difficult question, but a good start is to realise that the first things to come to mind, like letters and demonstrations, are not usually effective, and that one should start by clearing the mind of these signalling methods. (Or alternatively by realising and accepting that yes, I genuinely do only care about the signalling; c'est la moi.) And then, perhaps, the Five Minutes Exercise. Another point often made in Mr Yudkowsky's writing is that it's not actually very difficult to do better than most of humanity is currently managing. The bar is so low that almost anyone can raise it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
One thing to note is that while getting rid of Gitmo is a noble goal we should be pursuing, there's plenty of other goals just as noble, which can be conveniently pursued by donating money to the right people. (I think the single most important thing I found on lesswrong.com was a link to givewell.org, which studies various charities and gives you information on how well they do).
Focusing on Gitmo is actually almost entirely an exercise in signally, now that I think about it. Whatever time you spend getting the government to change is probably less effective than time you spent earning money to donate to charities overseas to help dying children, but by getting the US to get rid of Gitmo, you're getting the entire government to signal that they're a government that cares about human rights, and there is some value to having a government do that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The terrorists in Gitmo are not being tortured to death. If anything, they are better off than inmates in the typical federal penitentiary. Some, shortly after being captured as enemy combatants, may be subjected to truth serum interviews and even waterboarding, to find out information that may thwart other planned attacks and save many lives. Since they were captured as enemy combatants it is wrong to regard them as mere criminals and put them in criminal courtrooms. The only right way to deal with them is try them in proper military courts.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
whoops.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
New chapter up. I actually find myself more frustrated, not less, that it's starting up again, since now I'm back to knowing that at any moment it might suddenly update again. But that it probably won't.
I seriously hope Harry does not pursue this avenue with Quirrel for long. I was willing to buy Harry going to Azkaban because it wasn't any stupider than the things he does in the original story and the whole plot had built up to it and I didn't expect it to go on for that long.
I'm still willing to buy that it's plausible for Harry to continue to work with Quirrel, because he clearly knows its dangerous and is evaluating it as such, and there are enough surrounding factors that, even though doing so IS pretty obviously the wrong thing to do, Harry has emotional reasons to do it anyway.
But although I can buy it making sense for Harry to decide to go with it, I'm not sure I can actually continue to root for him much longer if that's the case. It's just too big a disconnect between me and the character.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
The omake for the Witch and the Wardrobe was pretty obnoxious. Removing Aslan simply because he's a stand-in for a real-life religious figure that the author doesn't believe in... how rational is that?
So in his rational version, there's still a witch that can make 100 years of winter, there are talking animals with swords, there's a magic wardrobe that transported English children to this land, but there's no Aslan, because it wouldn't make sense?
Why not instead actually have Aslan there, but have Lucy question him as to his methodology, without any of this "Aslan works in mysterious ways" acceptance?
But the author is apparently so anti-religion that even in fiction it can't exist... I can understand twisting HP canon to remove the actuality of souls, because even though JKR clearly intended they be real, the author is able to deal with what's actually there as evidence for souls and explain it away. Preachy of him, but fiction-wise it is consistent.
quote:You think of convincing otherss they are misstaken. Far eassier to convince them they are right.
Sadly true.
quote:"Casst Killing Cursse?" Harry hissed in incredulity. "At me? Again? Ssecond time? Nobody will believe Dark Lord could posssibly be that sstupid -"
"You and I are only two people in country who would notice that," hissed the snake. "Trusst me on thiss, boy."
Hahahahahahahahah!
quote:But there was also a certain question as to whether the appropriate moral to learn from the last experience was to always say no immediately to the Defense Professor, or...
For a truly rational mind, there is no harm in not saying no immediately. However, a mostly rational mind should recognize it is not truly rational.
Harry will probably rationalize why a smart exploitation of Quirrell has a reasonable risk/reward compared to rejecting him.
Thing is, sometimes foregoing any benefits because of the danger really is better. How many movies did the good guys have some possession that they should have just destroyed to keep it from falling into the wrong hands? Instead they guard it and it gets taken...
The otherwise mindless action film The Rock had a part that I really liked. As soon as Cage disarms the rockets, Connery destroys the control chips. Doesn't keep them for bargaining or anything stupid. Finally!
In Card's Shadow series, governments keep trying to make use of Achilles instead of just killing him. That's because they all think they are smart enough to control him.
Thing is, in real life, not fiction, sometimes you really can control a dangerous object or person, and it really is the smart move to make use of them instead of destroying or rejecting it out of fear.
Harry is 11 years old and really shouldn't be assuming that he can out-think Quirrell though. He should probably say no.
Probably...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Removing Aslan simply because he's a stand-in for a real-life religious figure that the author doesn't believe in... how rational is that?
No, he removes Aslan because Aslan makes the story pretty lame. (He's on record saying this elsewhere, and I had already come to that conclusion). He makes the story lame for exactly the reasons the characters outline: having a superpowered lion show up and save the day renders the actions of the actual protagonists pretty meaningless.
Aslan doesn't even convey the magnitude of what [I consider] Jesus actually accomplished in the original story. Even as an atheist, I'm impressed by the notion that when Jesus died, he genuinely did have to suffer for all the sins of the world. But so far as I remember, that wasn't conveyed much at all in LWW, so it basically looked to me like Aslan cheated. He had his hair cut off and he got stabbed, then woke up the next day like nothing happened.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, even as a stand-in for Jesus, Aslan comes off as a crybaby. Jesus is going to die by the most painful means the Romans could devise, and what's more, Jesus is not actively connected to his divine side - he may know intellectually that he's also a god, but he has no memory of an eternity of godhood to buck him up. (Aslan, you should note, remembers singing Narnia into existence; he knows perfectly well that he's a god.) So Jesus has a moment of weakness at Gethsemane, and who can blame him? But otherwise he faces his crucifixion like a man. Aslan, on the other hand, will be mocked, spat upon, be shaved, and then be stabbed and die almost instantly. Big deal. What's with the whining?
Now, if it were made clear that Aslan didn't know he was going to survive, that would be different. Then his sacrifice, as it appeared to him, would be meaningful. But this is not at all clear; he doesn't seem even slightly surprised to awaken at dawn, and glibly explains the Deeper Magic to the sisters. Just one line of a throwaway "I'm as surprised as you" nature would have fixed the whole scene.
It would still be a total deus ex machina, in which Edward's actions (and by extension, one assumes, those of the other children) are shown to have no consequences. But at least it would not be showing Aslan as the Cowardly Lion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't know that "whining" and "cowardly" are necessarily appropriate. I don't think Aslan complained or even made that big a deal about it. It's just that "brave" and "meaningful" certainly weren't words that were relevant. The only lesson I learned was if you have magic powers that let you cheat at agreements, go right ahead! And if you have a friend with magic powers that let THEM cheat at agreements, you can get away with stuff.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I guess I'd rather Aslan exist in the story and the other characters point out how lame it is.
For one thing, Aslan could have told Lucy and Susan what was going to happen... or not even brought them along in the first place...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That might make for a fun parody, but it wouldn't be a story Eliezer would write. Not because of his position on his religion, but his position on good fiction - the antagonist's strength should be proportionally stronger than the protagonist's, and the protagonist should be responsible for solving their own problems.
[ January 04, 2011, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Let's please remember that the Narnia books are meant to be Christian fiction, not rationalist fiction -- people commenting on the "lameness" of events therein based on rationalist criteria are Missing The Point (tm).
In Christianity, Jesus is the protagonist in the history of the world, and he is ultimately stronger than the antagonist.
It's not the story Eliezer would write. It's not a rationalist story about the human heroes solving their own problems. Narnia is the story of people accepting Jesus' power to save them, accepting Aslan's strength to drive away the White Witch.
For the Pevensies to think they could save the world with their own power alone would be pride that would doom them to failure. It wouldn't even be rational, as rationalists aim to win.
quote:Jesus is not actively connected to his divine side - he may know intellectually that he's also a god, but he has no memory of an eternity of godhood to buck him up.
That's an interesting interpretation, but which Christian dogmas actually claim Jesus had no memory of an eternity of godhood?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Aris, key word there being 'actively'.
Anyway, I think we're all aware that the Narnia stories weren't very rational, we're just discussing some criticism and discussion that's all. And it seems pretty valid to me. Aslan's 'sacrifice' falls pretty flat as storytelling, largely because it relies so incredibly heavily on its allegorical weight. I mean, cast your mind about for a general who wouldn't make the choice Aslan made with the knowledge he had and be quite happy about it. I think you'd have a hard time finding one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's an interesting interpretation, but which Christian dogmas actually claim Jesus had no memory of an eternity of godhood?
The LDS church teaches this quite explicitly. I'm curious to know which don't. The New Testament says that jesus "grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and Man. (Luke 2:42). How could he grow in wisdom if he had a clear memory of an eternity of godhood where he was omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Perhaps other churches aren't explicit about it, but to the best of my knowledge they all teach that Jesus experienced the fullness of the challenges and difficulties of being human. The concept that he had no memory of an eternity of godhood arises quite naturally out of that teaching. Some of the most difficult challenges I face in life are because I have to make difficult choices in the face of uncertainty. Others would be made far easier if I could clearly and fully see the roll death and suffering played in an eternal plan or knew with certainty that injustices would eventually be made right. It's impossible for me to see how Jesus could be said to have really experienced the challenges of being a mortal human if he did not live with same questions and uncertainties we all face as humans.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:In Christianity, Jesus is the protagonist in the history of the world, and he is ultimately stronger than the antagonist.
The issue I had with your original statement was attributing Eliezer's rewrite to his disdain for religion, as opposed to his disdain for stories without tension and with irrelevant protagonists.
In LWW, the protagonist is not Aslan, it's the kids. Trying to mix Jesus with an adventure story produces something that has none of the impact of Jesus' actual sacrifice and none of the tension of an actual adventure story.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: That might make for a fun parody, but it wouldn't be a story Eliezer would write. Not because of his position on his religion, but his position on good fiction - the antagonist's strength should be proportionally stronger than the protagonist's, and the protagonist should be responsible for solving their own problems.
On this Eliezar is wrong which is most likely why he's still writing fanfiction and not best selling novels.
Harry Potter is one of the best selling series of all time and its author is a billionaire. The Narnia has inspired the imaginations of children for over half a century. The Lord of the Rings inspired an entire genre of adult fantasy. None of them stand up well to rational critique. What that ought to tell you is that being completely rational isn't an essential component of story telling. These are all books that I have enjoyed reading and rereading despite their flaws. In fact, I would say that none of the flaws were so glaring for me that they disrupted the suspension of disbelief and threw me out of the story during my first reading. The fact that they are so popular, suggests my experience is common.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In LWW, the protagonist is not Aslan, it's the kids. Trying to mix Jesus with an adventure story produces something that has none of the impact of Jesus' actual sacrifice and none of the tension of an actual adventure story.
Which is clearly not true for many many people or LWW would never have become such a popular book and certainly would not continue to be popular after 3 generations. Honestly, if this occurred to you when you first read the book as a kid (assuming you did), why did you even finish reading it? If this book is as totally lame as you claim, why would anyone ever read a second one, or recommend it to someone else, or make a movie out of it or read it years later to their kids? You are completely correct that it doesn't stand up to critical analysis. But the correct conclusion from this should be that standing up to critical analysis isn't what makes an enjoyable story.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or that people can enjoy lame books.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Or that books can be lame in one area and have plenty of other great qualities that make them overall good stories. Or good enough that they attract one particular audience.
I didn't particularly enjoy LWW as a kid. I finished the first book, didn't read the others.
I was definitely bothered by all the Deus ex Machina in Harry Potter. I was particularly disappointed by Chamber of Secrets (where a magic hat shows up out of nowhere to save the day) and by Deathly Hallows. But Harry Potter has lots of other good qualities. On top of which, as Eliezer pointed out recently, Harry Potter is striving to be a good book for kids as well as adults (HP:MoR makes no such effort) and good books for kids have additional constraints on them that books for adults do not.
I'm fine with arguing about whether his critique of LWW is valid. There's plenty of room for disagreement in literary criticism. My point was only that framing the issue as "Eliezer doesn't like religion" is missing the point.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Or that people can enjoy lame books.
But the heart of this debate is in fact the question of what makes a story good vs. lame. People have been trying to delineate what constitutes good story telling since at least the time of Ancient Greece. For at least 2 millennia, good story tellers and their audiences have ignored what the "experts" had to say until eventually the "experts" had to change their mind.
I maintain that there is only one definition of good story telling that matters and will stand the test of time. A well told story is one that people connect with enough that they share it with other people. If a story is able to connect in this way with a very large number of people who span a broad spectrum of humanity, it will stand the test of time and will eventually be considered a great story, despite what the critiques may say.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm fine with arguing about whether his critique of LWW is valid. There's plenty of room for disagreement in literary criticism. My point was only that framing the issue as "Eliezer doesn't like religion" is missing the point.
You miss my point. I think Eliezar's critique of LWW, as well as the closely related criticisms made in this thread are spot on. My point is that being able to stand up to rational critique is not a good indicator of what will make a compelling and enjoyable story.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:My point is that being able to stand up to rational critique is not a good indicator of what will make a compelling and enjoyable story.
I actually agree with you. I think there's a few different arguments going on and it might be unclear who's arguing what. I'm specifically responding to a point Seatarsprayan made. I've also indicated my agreement with Eliezer that LWW is flawed because of inconsequential protagonists (which is not at all the same as flawed because the protagonists are irrational). But since the whole point of the Omake was other rationalist fanfics he could have written, being Rational was a necessary part of the joke.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm just addressing the assumption here:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... If this book is as totally lame as you claim, why would anyone ever read a second one, or recommend it to someone else, or make a movie out of it or read it years later to their kids?
The assumption being that if the book is popular, it must be not lame. The thing is, I don't think this is really something we apply to most media. I think the phenomenon of memes makes this particularly apparant. People may very well be rick-rolling people long into the future, maybe on video phones or on holodecks, but I don't think that really has much bearing on the value of the song "Never Gonna Give You Up." Ideas may very well propagate based on factors related to how well they spread and survive among people as opposed to any inherent value they might have.
If Christianity crashes and burns, the popularity of LWW may very well follow along with it and vice versa, but in either case I think we should be able to value whether LWW is a good story independently of the history of how many human beings enjoyed it at particular times.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Ideas may very well propagate based on factors related to how well they spread and survive among people as opposed to any inherent value they might have.
What constitutes an idea with inherent value? What constitutes a story that is truly good vs just popular? My point is that critiques have been trying to answer that question for 2 millennia and we pretty much agree that they've been wrong. Based on the the criteria of contemporary experts, Shakespeare's plays were popular trash. Huckleberry Finn had little literary merit.
[ January 05, 2011, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:My point is that critiques have been trying to answer that question for 2 millennia and we pretty much agree that they've been wrong. Based on the the criteria of contemporary experts, Shakespeare's plays were popular trash. Huckleberry Finn had little literary merit.
Source/explanation? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but honestly I haven't heard anything like what you're currently stating.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:My point is that being able to stand up to rational critique is not a good indicator of what will make a compelling and enjoyable story.
I actually agree with you. I think there's a few different arguments going on and it might be unclear who's arguing what. I'm specifically responding to a point Seatarsprayan made. I've also indicated my agreement with Eliezer that LWW is flawed because of inconsequential protagonists (which is not at all the same as flawed because the protagonists are irrational). But since the whole point of the Omake was other rationalist fanfics he could have written, being Rational was a necessary part of the joke.
There are certainly many different arguments going on, and I think you are still missing mine. You said,
quote:That might make for a fun parody, but it wouldn't be a story Eliezer would write. Not because of his position on his religion, but his position on good fiction - the antagonist's strength should be proportionally stronger than the protagonist's, and the protagonist should be responsible for solving their own problems.
If this is truly Eliezer's opinion of good fiction, he's wrong. To the extent that his critiques of LWW, LOTR and HP reflect that opinion, they are equally off base.
If you disagree with my assessment, consider this. If in good fiction the antagonist's strengths are proportionally stronger than the protagonist's and the protagonist must be responsible for solving his/her own problems, then (virtually by definition) in good fiction the protagonist will not only always loose but the protagonist's defeat will be a foregone conclusion. If the antagonist is in all ways stronger than the protagonist, then the protagonist can not win on merit alone. He's either go to get lucky or get outside assistance (violating the second supposition) otherwise the antagonist will have to have some critical weakness or the protagonist some hidden strength (violating the first supposition).
*edited to add a missing "only" the absence of which radically changed my point.
[ January 05, 2011, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have no opinion on the overall argument, but the fact that Shakespeare was considered a panderer to the masses (and not of literary merit, like some of his -- now far less-popular -- contemporaries) is well-established. Twain's writings were also frequently derided in his lifetime.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:My point is that critiques have been trying to answer that question for 2 millennia and we pretty much agree that they've been wrong. Based on the the criteria of contemporary experts, Shakespeare's plays were popular trash. Huckleberry Finn had little literary merit.
Source/explanation? I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but honestly I haven't heard anything like what you're currently stating.
Sorry, my source for this was a course in literary criticism in which we read many critiques written both contemporary to the work and at various later dates. That was nearly 30 years ago so there is no way I could point you to the references without considerable work, which I'm not interested in doing for the sake of this argument. If you are genuinely interested, I'm sure you can verify this with google.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... My point is that critiques have been trying to answer that question for 2 millennia and we pretty much agree that they've been wrong.
Depends on the we, no?
They're wrong based on the general popular North American consensus, which boils down to the critiques being wrong based on popularity, which seems almost circular.
I personally have little opinion on how to measure inherent value of art. I just have an issue with using popularity because other measures have seemed to fail.
If you judge the literary "goodness" of the Koran this way, I'm sure you'll find areas of the Muslim world that consider it to be literary perfection. Similarly, you could probably find areas of the US where it is considered simply a valueless manual for terrorists and evil. Is it of different value in each of these areas or should we average across the whole world and include the Chinese that are largely indifferent?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If you judge the literary "goodness" of the Koran this way, I'm sure you'll find areas of the Muslim world that consider it to be literary perfection.
I wouldn't go so far as literary perfection, but the Quran is an extremely beautiful literary work.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think two things are being confused with Shakespeare. By my understanding (a decent bit of reading of Shakespeare scholars about nine years ago, in a class on Shakespeare), this part very much yes:
quote:Shakespeare was considered a panderer to the masses
And this part at least mixed:
quote:(and not of literary merit, like some of his -- now far less-popular -- contemporaries)
(Not that some of his contemporaries weren't held above him, but that Shakespeare was also considered to have literary merit, as well as pandering to the masses -- and the royals)
For instance, there are records of contemporary playwrights comparing him to Spenser. Jonson (who was considered worthy of the highest literary merit) certainly held him in high regard, even as he thought Shakespeare pandered over-much and wasn't as good as himself .
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Depends on the we, no?
They're wrong based on the general popular North American consensus, which boils down to the critiques being wrong based on popularity, which seems almost circular.
Not really. My point was specifically about critiques, people who try to delineate specific characteristics that are essential to good story telling. Critiques have been trying to do that for at least 2 millenia and critiques of today are in pretty much wide agreement that the critiques of earlier times had it wrong. For example, no serious critique today would argue that Shakespeare failure to honor thethe unities of time, place and action was a serious flaw in his work. Modern critiques have thoroughly rejected the idea the unities (with the possible exception of the unity of action) are at all relevant to whether or not a story is well told.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
fugu, fair enough.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... critiques of today are in pretty much wide agreement that the critiques of earlier times had it wrong.
In other words, popular agreement between current critiques is saying that a number of previous critiques are wrong, a statement that implies that there is value in wide-agreement between critiques today.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Similarly, you could probably find areas of the US where it is considered simply a valueless manual for terrorists and evil.
I sincerely doubt you can find anyone who has actually read the Quran who holds this opinion of it.
quote:I personally have little opinion on how to measure inherent value of art. I just have an issue with using popularity because other measures have seemed to fail.
I can not think of a rational argument that art has an inherent value aside from its ability to affect (i.e. provoke, inspire, elevate, sway, invigorate, motivate, arouse or otherwise touch) human beings. I'm not saying that "if it's popular it's good", I'm saying that the only legitimate way to judge whether something is good story telling (or good art in general) is to observe how it affects people. Certainly that's never going to be universal but when a story has a strong impact on many people across cultures, age groups and time, it is a great story. I can't think of any other definition of "great story" that has any real meaning.
Literary criticism is one of the few areas where I find my self in agreement with OSC. Most critiques are missing the forest for the trees when they dissect a piece of art comparing each atom in it to some preconceived set of rules.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
fugu13, I did not mean to imply that the negative reviews of either Shakespeare or Twain by their contemporary scholars were Universal. My apology if it came across that way. The criticism that Shakespeare and Mark Twain were "popular pablum" were far from universal, but they were unarguably widespread.
More importantly, both of them were panned by many scholars for violating "rules" that were at the time widely accepted among scholars as important elements of great literature. Rules which have been overwhelmingly rejected since that time.
[ January 05, 2011, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... critiques of today are in pretty much wide agreement that the critiques of earlier times had it wrong.
In other words, popular agreement between current critiques is saying that a number of previous critiques are wrong, a statement that implies that there is value in wide-agreement between critiques today.
No. My contention is that the only true measure of any work of art is the impact it has on people. Art critiques and scholars have for millennia developed literary theories in an attempt to explain why art affects people. These theories get reduced to rules which could presumably be used to create and judge great art. When artists, like Shakespeare and Mark Twain, violate those rules and yet produce works that profoundly affect people across time, age and culture, critics eventually end up rejecting the theory and the rules that go with it and come up with a new theory.
But before they do that, they spend an awful lot of effort trying to explain why people shouldn't be profoundly affected by something their theory says is "bad art". Which is missing the boat.
[ January 05, 2011, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Chapters 66 and 67 are up.
Harry does the smart thing at last and says no to getting involved in a complicated plot to impersonate and defeat Voldemort and solidify his power.
That's good. He's 11 years old. Despite his earlier screwup, he actually got away with it. Why risk everything at this point?
And then we're back to the armies. This is actually my least favorite aspect of the fic. I hope Dragon finally wins, doesn't it seem like for all of Harry's vaunted prowess that he isn't actually any better than Draco and Hermione? Even here, when he seems to have the upper hand, he spends time talking to Hermione instead of fighting...
I know the author needs to make everyone else smarter and stronger to provide a challenge for Harry, but there is something enjoyable about seeing a competent character simply dominate once in a while. In Ender's Game, which the author has repeated referenced, Ender actually is smarter and better and completely thrashes his opponents, at least sometimes.
I'd like to see Harry dominate at least once. Because otherwise it's starting to get all Worf Effect, everyone talks about how fearsome Potter is but he regularly gets beaten, so it's all just hype. Didn't they all tie for the Christmas wish anyway?
You know, if I were going into battle with armour like that, I'd try to still dodge if I had the energy. Why telegraph the "we're impervious to sleep spells" so that they figure it out, try stunners, or aim for the face? Far better to try to dodge, take cover, etc and keep the advantage hidden as long as possible.
If the opponent slowly figures it out, that prevents them from having a sudden realization, accepting it, and devising a new strategy. You want them to continue using the same old ineffective strategy.
That goes for the main Chaos legion attacking Dragon. Harry and Neville saying they are invincible is a different story, as there they are so outnumbered that it's necessary as part of their psychological ploy.
Still, I wish I could fight in a magical army and see what tricks I could come up with.
I hope Harry is planning ahead for when he faces two armies with armor though... like Bean said in Ender's Shadow, innovation can't last, sooner or later everyone comes to the most effective strategy and have to slug it out... of course with the rules of this contest the innovation can last a LOT longer, possibly longer than the school year.
Next battle with have Chaos using Green Arrow style bow-and-arrows with boxing gloves on them...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:You know, if I were going into battle with armour like that, I'd try to still dodge if I had the energy. Why telegraph the "we're impervious to sleep spells" so that they figure it out, try stunners, or aim for the face? Far better to try to dodge, take cover, etc and keep the advantage hidden as long as possible.
Unless part of your plan is to inspire fear, which Harry outlined as part of his mission statement from day one. It's been indicated a few times that Harry cares more about exploiting the psychological experiment the game presents than trying purely to win it. (When he DOES fight seriously, it takes all of Sunny and Dragon to beat them).
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Unless part of your plan is to inspire fear, which Harry outlined as part of his mission statement from day one.
I realize that, I just think it inspires more dread to be confused about why you are getting overrun, to be filled with doubts about the efficacy of your own weapons...
Basically the unknown is scarier to me than the known. It's the difference between fighting Superman (stands hands on hips, laughing off bullets) vs. Batman (comes out of nowhere, you fire a shot, but he's vanished again!) Both will destroy you, but Supes is less scary although more powerful simply because he's more straightforward and easier to understand.
Likewise, when you are fighting your peers and they just stand there taking shots, it means they have some powerful defense. You don't know what it is, but you know they have it... start changing your strategy.
But thinking that it's a normal battle, then have the slowly dawning realization that your shots aren't having any effect... and by that time half the army is gone... and there's no time to devise a new strategy... and why aren't the shots working? I dunno, seems more scary to me.
Again, that's just for Draco's army. For the Harry/Neville offensive, standing there and taking shots is the right maneuver for maximum morale-breaking.
Just my opinion of course.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It's also possible that the leiutenant (sp?) was doing it for no more complicated reason than it was fun. With or without Harry's approval. I mean, if I had invincible armor that I knew was probably only going to work correctly for one battle before people figured it out (by this point Harry should assume that his enemies will figure out innovations before he next battle) I might very well be tempted to flaunt it a little while it was still mysterious.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The treatment of Hermione so far had been the one aspect of this work I was wary of. It was clear that Eliezer was aware of the issues facing Hermione, both as The Friend (which Ron faced in the original series) and as The Girl. But the brief attempts to address them with Hermione becoming a general were pretty quickly reversed when she kissed Harry.
Chapter 68 looks like those issues are finally becoming a priority for the story, and I'm glad. 66 and 67 feel a lot better in context now that we know where they were headed, and the title "Self Actualization" makes a lot more sense.
-
Unrelated news: I had been meaning to respond to Rabbit for a while about good-fiction/rationalist-fiction and related stuff. First, I realize I was conflating two of Eliezer's statements. One specifically applied to fanfiction (which is that whenever you strengthen the protagonist, you must also strengthen the villain), and the other was a general comment about villains needing to be strong. You're right, you can't literally require the villain to be *stronger*. But I do think it's important for the antagonist to have at least one sphere in which they are more powerful than the hero. Most satisfying stories have the hero defeat the villain not by being more powerful than them, but by being strong in other ways that the villain was not. Specifically, strong in ways that they were *not* strong in the beginning of the story, and had to develop or discover.
For characters like Superman, the best stories are the ones where the conflict is not between his strength vs Lex Luthor's (in which he just wins if Luthor doesn't get to employ Plot-devicinite) but between Lex Luthor's intellect and Superman's goodness.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I had posted a lengthier version of my previous comment on the Less Wrong site, discussing the issue from a feminist perspective. At the time, Eliezer responded with:
quote:Oh, it's a critique all right, but it's not a feminist critique. One free karma point if you can guess what it's a critique of.
After chapter 69, he also added:
quote:High probability this comment had something to do with the surprise creation of SPHEW.
I know he has some disagreements with feminist politics, so I'm entirely sure what his underlying motivations were here, but I thought SPHEW was pretty awesome, so I'm happy either way. Yay me.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Yay SPHEW!
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
FINALLY updated! Professors Quirrell and Dumbledore get some wonderful dialogue, and Hermione seems to have the wind taken out of her sails a bit...
I was all for Hermione deciding to be a hero no matter what, and even recruiting others, but for some strange reason I thought it would express itself differently than a political protest. I don't know why I thought that though, since it's exactly what Hermione does, but hey.
The thing about a protest is it needs The Man to protest against, and Dumbledore's public persona is not sufficiently The Man to attract many followers. As he showed, he's capable of deflecting criticism quite well, he managed to undermine the protest while not actually saying anything against the purported aim of the protest (Promotion of Heroic Equality).
Do they want to BE heroes or merely work to foster an environment more supportive of female heroes? Because those are two different things.
In the absence of The Man keeping witches down, they'd better just try to be heroes themselves, and promote equality by example... which is what I had hoped they would do in the first place.
But it's a lot easier to protest against something than work to accomplish something.
Several of the member seem to think being heroic and being foolhardy are the same thing... Heroes don't go into forbidden dungeons for no good reason, because breaking rules is fun, they go DESPITE the danger and rule-breaking because there is some Heroic Goal that necessitates it.
Without a Goal, there is no need for breaking rules and getting in danger. Anyone who doesn't understand that VERY basic premise is going to cause many more problems for SPHEW than benefits.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Quirrell expresses the point most clearly when he makes the distinction between being ambitious, and having an ambition. It is similar, perhaps, to the distinction between wanting to be a writer, and wanting to write. Tracy is not the only one guilty of that; Hermione, too, wants to be a hero, but has not yet figured out what she wants to do that is heroic. Harry, no doubt, could point out to her several good causes: Azkaban for starters, destroying the Dementors, reforming Wizard England, immortality for everyone. The question is, perhaps, whether she will be able to take up a good cause, when Harry thought of it first. Of course that's a bad reason for not adopting a genuinely good cause, but, well, that's character development for you.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Mostly agree with Seatarsprayan, and it ties in with things that the author's on record saying elsewhere.
I don't think any of Harry's causes would be particularly good for Hermione. They're also not particularly good for Harry if we're considering "be a Hero" to be a worthwhile immediate goal. Hermione can't fight Dementors, and even Harry, who CAN, really can't afford to deal with the political fallout by himself. Right now they're level 2, and they've got a ways to go before they're ready for level 10+ encounters.
Assuming "be a Hero" is a worthwhile goal at all (it wouldn't be, EXCEPT for the instrumental purpose of staying close to Harry and Hermione doesn't know why that matters yet), the most useful thing they could be doing is helping people deal with bullies and challenge authorities that need challenging.
I actually consider her challenge to Dumbledore to be a reasonable "heroic" quest. Yes, the protest was silly. But it DID show Dumbledore that if he's going to manipulate people... he's gonna have to deal with silly protests from time to time. I think challenging him was valuable. Hermione demonstrated courage and political power here, and while she made some dumb mistakes, she's going to learn from them.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Also, I am REALLY frustrated, because I just started attending the NYC Rationality group, and it turns out next week Eliezer and other SIAI members will be there, and I will be... in San Francisco, where they normally live.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hermione may not have found her good cause yet, but she has cogently identified one of her biggest stumbling blocks between accomplishing one and her current position, should she ever decide to do so, and took action in a straightforward, expeditious manner to deal with the obstacle.
It may not look good as far as Grand, Glorious Schemes go, but it gets her exactly as close towards a high and mighty end goal as the same amount of effort in the same amount of time would in the pursuit of some Grand, Glorious Scheme would-which was rather her point to Quirrel, I think.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
In the H.K. Rowling canon, Hermione found a cause in the liberation of house elves. Never mind that Dobbie was the only house elf that wanted to be liberated. Harry and Ron sort of humored her, because it was something she really cared about. So far in MoR, Hermione has not even found this cause, probably because she has not met Dobbie yet. She did show courage in intervening between Harry and a dementor at one point, before Harry found a way to destroy them.
As long as you have courage, sooner or later you will have an opportunity to be a hero. Being a hero is not something you go out and look for. It finds you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, I don't agree. Courage alone isn't enough. Courage, opportunity, and virtue I think are the three things necessary to be a hero. Plenty of evil bastards have courage. Now I realize virtue was kind of implicit in your formula, Ron, but I don't agree that even if you have courage and virtue, you will be a hero eventually. Not every type of heroism is the same, after all, and not everyone gets the same kind of opportunity.
The simple ones are easy, of course, but not everyone gets a crack at the easy types like running into a burning building to save a choking baby. I don't mean that that's easy, but rather that the solution - enter building, save infant - is obvious.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, wouldn't you agree though that when a person is being heroic, he is not doing it to be a hero? That person who runs into a burning building to save a baby is not doing so because he wants to be a hero. That is the least of his concerns.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
Generally, yes, but I don't think it's a given. There are people who, for example, got such jobs to be heroes, and relish being seen to do it. I'm not suggesting they're a big percentage or anything. I really have no idea. I just don't think it's a universal trait that it isn't is all.
And anyway, I'd rather get away from the bigger, obvious examples of heroism like burning buildings and dyin' babies. I'm more interested in, say, Twelve Angry Men kind of heroism that is, truthfully, just as relevant because there is a life on the line but not as respected or dangerous.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, you seem to be implying that the essence of heroism is self-sacrifice, accepting some personal cost, taking personal risk, or at least enduring serious inconvenience. In that light, yes, heroism can be quite commonplace.
I confess to feeling that someone who deliberately sets out to do something heroic is probably too egotistical for most of us to regard him or her with respect. This is likely why I tend not to regard politicians as being very heroic. One of the few political leaders in the last 50 years I would regard as being heroic would be Anwar Sadat, who defied decades of tradition and hate and brought peace between Egypt and Israel. He was assassinated for his heroism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, no, I still don't think that's enough to be precise. Heroism would require self-risk (the sacrifice might not actually happen-to use a stereotypical example, you might wander through a minefield to save your buddy without detonating a mine; a whistle blower might narrowly avoid financial ruin and imprisonment or public shame and in fact come out ahead), opportunity, and virtue.
Bravery only requires the opportunity and the risking of self. Plenty of rotten bastards are brave, after all. As for someone who deliberately attempts something heroic, how would we know? Would they tell us? Anyway, I can still certainly regard someone who deliberately attempts heroism with respect, though it would depend on the attempt itself and the root of the cause of the effort, if such things were known.
What, am I not gonna respect someone who saves babies from lions or something because he's doin' it for daps? Not likely.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Latest chapter is up.
[ridiculous fansqueal I will probably regret later]And I know this because I just watched Eliezer put it up and then give a dramatic reading of it.[/ridiculous fansqueal I will probably regret later]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:"I am a conscientious objector to the child draft, on the grounds that I should not have to suffer for a continually disintegrating school system's abject failure to provide teachers or study materials of even minimally adequate quality."
I'm so glad you all pointed me at this. I would never have read a fanfic without guidance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is Felthorne at the end the Slytherin frommuch earlier in the story, who Snaps told to stop bothering/thinking inappropriatly about? Or is that someone else?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That's what I thought at first, but I went and checked and no, it as Alissa Cornfoot. So either this is coincidence (in a decent size school it's not ENTIRELY unreasonable for more than one girl to have S&M fantasies about a particular teacher) or there is something bizarre and rather creepy going on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What do you mean?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If it's NOT coincidence, then there is some (probably magical) force influencing girls into weird fantasies about Snape. That seems bizarre and creepy to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm, this chapter didn't seem quite up to the usual standard. It was less clear what was going on. Falling prey to the illusion of transparency here, I think.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
>Falling prey to the illusion of transparency here, I think.
Not sure what you mean.
It's clear from his notes that he's struggling a bit. I don't think this chapter would have been particularly disappointing if we hadn't had to wait a month for it, though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(Oh, reread the notes for the chapter, apparently the girl at the end is a fan-art cameo. I'm not sure if that makes her any more or less significant to the plot)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: >Falling prey to the illusion of transparency here, I think.
Not sure what you mean.
Eliezer knows what's going on in the heads of his characters, and so whatever he puts on paper looks to him like an explanation thereof - it's obvious to him what they are up to. But I'm having trouble keeping the different SPHEW girls and their schemes and motivations apart. Apart from their names they come across as one undifferentiated mass to me. Presumably they are all intended as separate characters with their own plots and schemes, probably at cross-purposes to one another, in (perhaps) a setup for another Thirty Xanatos Pileup. But my eyes glaze over when I try to tell which witch is doing what, and to whom.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would put it a bit differently, but arrive at the same problem: I generally don't care what's going on with any of them unless they're interacting with characters it's very clear the author cares about much more, such as Harry or Quirrel or Dumbledore. I don't think we've been given much of a reason to care what's going on with `em yet, though when they intersect with one of the others - this is even true of Hermione, for my reading, a bit - some of the interest rubs off.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually do like the side characters. but I thought the chapter was going to go in a rather different direction: they'd go to the secret corridor and see the Mirror of Erised, which would twist the "Self Actualization" metaphor yet again, and provide some insight that would elevate the characters from "cute side characters I kinda like" to "actual serious characters with goals that will turn out to be significant."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:But I'm having trouble keeping the different SPHEW girls and their schemes and motivations apart. Apart from their names they come across as one undifferentiated mass to me. Presumably they are all intended as separate characters with their own plots and schemes, probably at cross-purposes to one another, in (perhaps) a setup for another Thirty Xanatos Pileup. But my eyes glaze over when I try to tell which witch is doing what, and to whom.
Yes.
Hobbes Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Some of them (Hannah, Susan) are new characters we're only just being given any information on. But I had a pretty good feel for Padma, Pavarti(sp?), Daphne, and Tracey. Not all of them are INTERESTING (I agree with Rakeesh's assessment) but I felt like I understood what was meant to be understood.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't have a good handle on any of them. Part of the reason is that these installments are coming far enough apart from each other that I forget things in between. It's normally not until the second paragraph of a new update that I really, fully remember what happened last time. I think it's a problem all stories can suffer from, but episodic ones in particular. Characters really need to be established before they can all have their own plot lines, otherwise you're confused about what's going on (as the reader) and probably don't care that much. There's also a limit to the total number of people I can keep track of in a story no matter how much time is spent setting them up. I'm not saying he's hit it here but he seems to be going in that direction. The story keeps slowing down and getting broader, rather than tightening up towards an ending. Which is fine I guess but it moves farther and farther away from it's core of Harry as a rationalist which is the main reason I signed on.
Hobbes Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I suppose it's worth mentioning that I've read any given chapter at least 7 times. I think if I read them each once, and had them spaced out as far as they are (over a month now between updates) I'd probably have forgotten a lot. I don't think I'd have had the problem if I read it all at once though.
I also strongly feel (I have no idea if Eliezer intends this) that chapter 63 is the end of book one. It had numerous plotlines going on, but it tied them all up, with a slight cliffhanger on each one. And at that time, the story was incredibly focused. So focused, in fact, that while Harry was getting a lot of spotlight, humor and childish glee werew not getting any spotlight at all. And those things are just as integral to the story as "Harry" the person is.
Chapter 65 is the beginning of a new book. It started by establishing Harry's current grim situation and set in motion (what I assume) will be the major arc of Book 2: Harry is imprisoned (unwittingly) by Dumbledore, he doesn't trust Quirrel, and he's trying to figure out how to keep his broader goals in motion within making another big mistake.
Harry is so grim, though, that the only realistic way to reintroduce some silliness to the story is make some of the other characters more prominent. I think having Harry take a back seat for two or three chapters is fine. I don't think we're supposed to be interpreting this as eight new plot threads. Padma and Daphne are minor threads that have been going all along, and I don't think the others are meant to be all that important.
[ April 06, 2011, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:But I'm having trouble keeping the different SPHEW girls and their schemes and motivations apart.
May be simpler if you think them grouped by house Slytherin: Tracey Davis Called ambitionless by Quirrel, is now aggressively gathering lots and lots ambitions to herself. Plans to marry Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy both. Daphne Greengrass Crushing on Neville, challenged him to lightsaber duel, but a bit more thoughtful concerning risks/costs/benefits of this endeavour. Clever enough to figure out a wrong explanation for Millicent's too fast knowledge of gossip.
Hufflepuff: Hannah Abbot The shiest girl, also crushing on Neville, wants to be heroic to impress him. Susan Bones The last surviving child of the Bones family, not much I remember about her character. But because she voted 'no', she's probably more prudent.
Ravenclaw: Hermione Granger Padma Patil fearful of 'falling into harmony' with her sister, got pranked by Harry who pretended to be a ghost, ambitious and cunning enough to be in Slytherin, but didn't want to go there because of its horrid reputation.
Gryffindor: Parvati Patil: Padma's twin sister, the slightly more prudent Gryffindor, who wants to seek out those more safe dangers the Headmaster explicitly told them about (like the third floor corridor) Lavender Brown: The slightly less prudent Gryffindor, who wants them to fight 24 older bullies simultaneously, because of Multiplication.
---
On my part, I enjoyed the chapter tremendously -- laughed out loud at their idea of tying up Harry Potter in order to lure Adventures to themselves.
[ April 07, 2011, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Finished reading it all and wow, this has to be the greatest fanfic ever. Absolutely brilliant. When do we usually get new chapters?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Unfortunately, right now he's writing the second draft of his nonfiction book, and as result hasn't been updating that often. He used to update every week or so, but we've been lucky to get one a month ever since chapter 63. (for the record, when recommending the story, I send people my PDF of chapter's 1 - 63.)
Depending on what you liked about it, you may also want to read the Sequences at Lesswrong.com.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Depending on what you liked about it, you may also want to read the Sequences at Lesswrong.com.
I have been, but I can't wait to see what Harry does next. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The PDF is now chapters 1-71. I don't know if Eli is going to be adding more.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Chapter 72 is up. Good stuff.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(Mild spoiler if you haven't read it yet)
quote:Susan approached the table as soon as the older girl was alone, glancing around the Hufflepuff common room to make sure nobody was watching (the way Auntie had taught her to do it, so that it wouldn't be obvious that she was looking).
"Hey, Susie," said the seventh-year Hufflepuff. "Do you already need more -"
"Can I please talk to you privately for a bit?" Susan said.
Is this Tonks? I can't remember what house she is. She was the one who made the badges, which Susan might have been asking for more of except she wasn't.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
All the depiction of Hermione's adventures and misadventures is entertaining. But it is getting a bit silly, and perhaps tedious. What is really hard to swallow is that she and Harry are still only ten years old. I am waiting for Less Wrong to get on with the plot in a little more substantive way.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thought this chapter pretty deliberately tied all the SPHEW stuff back into the main plot: it incited Draco to speak up for a Muggleborn in front of everyone, which sets a lot of other things in motion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That was my read on it too, particularly with the way the chapter ended-hinting at a schism between Malfoys, or the possibility.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Draco Malfoy is turning into somebody else. I suppose that is fair, since Harry is somebody else. The only person who is not changing her basic character too much is Hermione. Except for the naive nonsense about her wanting to be a heroine in her own right, and jumping to the conclusion that that means fighting bullies. Which was really just a reaction to Dumbledore putting his foot in his mouth.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
The fic has finally started updating again. I felt the story really dragged around the whole self-actualization arc. Chapter 74 on the other hand was pretty entertaining... but Quirrel's final comments sure give ME a sense of doom...
I hope that the SPHEW witches do something to protect Millicent though, or Harry does. Reprisals against her were promised.
Man, 44 students attacking 8 first-year students, they are all stripped naked (and therefore unmasked)... what will happen to them? I assume little or nothing. Dumbledore absolutely COULD prevent bullying of that magnitude in his hallways if he so wished, we are now shown that he doesn't wish to, for various reasons.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, according to Dumbledore he does wish to, but fears unintended consequences. I think there's some weight to that, as for example people now think that Harry is minded of incredibly dark rituals, capable of facing 2 score of advanced enemies alone and winning, and that's just the stuff off the top of my head. There absolutely will be unintended consequences. Harry has obviously decided that this is a fight he does want to have, unlike his initial encounter with Snape when he lost his temper. He won that fight too, but in unexpected and costlier-than-necessary ways.
It also seems all but confirmed what I'd suspected before, that Snape was the one backing, Slytherin style, Hermione specifically and her group in general.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I got a strong sense that Dumbledore IS intended to be speaking sense in this chapter, it's just that we're seeing it from Harry's POV.
For a long time I was among the defenders of this story arc (a lot of people don't like it) but at this point even I am ready for something new. I'm glad we can expect regular updates and the arc is closing out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think part of the beef is that this story arc came at a time when the update pace also slowed. It felt like it was dragging along not just because it wasn't as exciting or brisk, but because it really was dragging along.
The funny thing is, I think Dumbledore is speaking sense, at least in the manner of speaking accurately about what will happen. I'm very interested to see what the consequences will be.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think part of the beef is that this story arc came at a time when the update pace also slowed.
I definitely think that was the case for the first large chunk of it. I was fine with the less intense, somewhat silly storyline because Methods of Rationality desperately needed some less intense silliness after Azkaban. By now I think we're ready to get back to the main story.
I'm hoping that the eventual reveal of (Snapes?) motives will tie things together.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, according to Dumbledore he does wish to, but fears unintended consequences. I think there's some weight to that, as for example people now think that Harry is minded of incredibly dark rituals, capable of facing 2 score of advanced enemies alone and winning, and that's just the stuff off the top of my head. There absolutely will be unintended consequences. Harry has obviously decided that this is a fight he does want to have, unlike his initial encounter with Snape when he lost his temper. He won that fight too, but in unexpected and costlier-than-necessary ways.
According to earlier chapters, Lucius seems to believe Potter possessed by Voldemort.
It will be interesting to see what the ramifications are once word of this gets back to him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He does? I don't remember that, but it's a long story of course.
The sharply amped-up Quirrelmort angle was also quite interesting. I wonder why it's happening now? Is it because the year draws towards its end, and the curse is growing more powerful? Was this weird possession thing always a timed affair? Is he simply reacting to Harry's increased suspicions? Something completely unrelated?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He does? I don't remember that, but it's a long story of course.
Well, at least I think that's what the discussion between Lucius and Harry at the train station meant. And at least some other people seem to have come to that conclusion. I don't think it's been stated explicitly anywhere, though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it was pretty clear. Lucius is going to be hella confused though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow, I didn't draw that conclusion at all. I thought Lucius was talking to him as a dangerous up-and-comer working-with-Dumbledore. I'm not sure Lucius would directly threaten, even conditionally, someone he felt had Voldemort inside him. I just don't think he'd think that would be effective.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Dumbledore is right that *Harry's* actions will likely produce unintended consequences.
But that was only possible because Dumbledore already chose to NOT craft policies at his school to put a stop to bullying. He must not think it is possible then to have *sensible* policies that prevent bullying. That is what I disagree with.
He seems to think that he can't stop the bullying without making things worse, and so the only recourse is to leave them to it.
I find it hard to believe that nothing can be done to prevent 1st year students from being bullied by 7th years. He's just hidebound by tradition where wizards and witches basically have to raise themselves with no parents or real authority... and look what a great job that has done on shaping the community.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I agree-Dumbledore could've prevented this, or at least it appears that way from what we know about the HPMoR world. This is a world where one last-year student can overpower almost any number of first-year students on their own-it seems likely that the faculty are likewise far, far more advanced than even the upper-level students. Also given the hinted-at powers of Hogwarts itself, it probably wouldn't even be difficult.
As for why he views things that way, I think much of it is that he buys into the (not uncommon) idea of, "The world is bad, good guys aren't always going to win, and heroes are going to have to fight sometimes and sometimes lose." To him that has turned into 'shouldn't try to win' in all cases. Harry's more rational (and let's be honest, idealistic) outlook is to examine everything on a case-by-case basis and weigh things on their own merits, not having any kind of story-influenced outlook on the universe in general.
It remains to be seen which side the story will show was right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So I was wondering what y'all fellow readers' theories were about Quirrel. What's his deal, exactly?
My personal theory is that once upon a time, Quirrel was out adventuring and researching and being pragmatically dubiously evil when, either by intent or by accident, he happened upon a piece of Voldemort. However, being so very different from canon-Quirrel, he was able to handle the possession so much better. He is of course much smarter and stronger-willed than canon-Quirrel, and certainly smarter than even this world's Voldemort as we know him.
I'm not sure if he could be called stronger-willed than MoR-Voldemort, but in any event he could handle a chunk of Voldemort and be largely functional and himself-but over time, Voldemort being the big dag-nasty evil bad, has gradually been chipping away and all the clever planning and efficiency aren't going to be a protection indefinitely-and that's what's happening now. Possibly the direct magical contact with Harry has helped (hurt) this process.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That's been my theory. I'm very interested in whether the final villain will have Quirrel's or Voldemort's motivations, or somehow both.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Maybe Quirrell found Tom Riddle's diary.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I tend to go with the theory that the Quirrel we see is Voldemort, though perhaps changed somewhat by the possession. Under this theory, the more canonical insane evil overlord was a deliberate image presented by the more savvy MoR Voldemort.
This image fits if you view the two martial arts dojo stories not as quirell and voldemort going for training, but rather Voldemort going twice for different purposes. The first time, he goes in disguise and gets the training he wanted. The second, he goes to build up his image, remove a valuable training resource for anyone that might follow after him, and perhaps get revenge for slights suffered. And notice that the one survivor just happened to be a friend of "Quirrel".
Plus, the raw level of strength he shows, as well as the strong hints that he's created horcruxes. If he wasn't actually Voldemort, he's certainly someone rather similar to him.
It seems to me that he came in disguise to Hogwarts to further some plot. Since teaching defense was, I think, a canonical desire of Riddle, he decided to go with it in addition to whatever his real goals were. While investigating Potter,he came to see Harry somewhat of a kindred spirit. So he wound up taking a mentoring interest in the boy that was similar to himself at that age.
In the process, he seems to have been changed at least somewhat, though how much and how it will interact with his real aims are still open questions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That is certainly the kind of thing someone as smart as Quirrel might do-manufacture stories of his alter ego's short temper and stupidity. Those would be very helpful to, well, someone as smart as him.
I wonder, though. I guess I just don't have enough information about Voldemort to make up my mind. One thing strikes me, though: the Dark Mark. As Draco realized, it is a deeply stupid thing to do. I'm trying to think of a reason someone as smart as Quirrel might've done that, potentially cripple his Death Eaters if someone else smart happened to come onto the scene to oppose him. I can imagine lots of possible reasons, but none that have any backing within the story.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think the dark mark was actually invisible most of the time. I'm not sure if Harry, or Draco (or more importantly, Eliezer) know that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That would make it a bit less stupid, I think-it seems unlikely that folks like Moody and Dumbledore wouldn't learn (via Snape?) how to trigger its appearance, even if doing so required some Dark.
If it was something only triggered by Voldemort, though-much less stupid or not at all stupid.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Doesn't Snape's suddenly re-appear in the fourth book after Voldemort reappears, and isn't that a big deal? (Can't remember that well)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I was under the impression that the Dark Mark was only visable when Voldemort was summoning his minions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Draco seemed to think, back when he was horrified at Voldemort's stupidity at branding a visibly mark on his goons' arms, that it was visible all the time or at least able to be made visible. But he wasn't really in a position to know many details, unless Lucius told him specifics. I don't think it's really clear yet one way or another, and even if we all remembered precisely what the deal was in canon, this could be different.
I also dug the whole 'no one to call on' angle. Smacked a lot of Ender's Game, which couldn't have been unintentional. Fits in quite a bit with my own thoughts on what a hero is-that it requires some degree of ruthlessness. Harry seems to express that ruthlessness in the style of 'going to get the best outcome possible, regardless of any line-crossing'. Hermione seems to express it a bit more like 'going to endure what I have to and cross as few lines as I can and get the best possible outcome'.
[ September 02, 2011, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, in this story I have really no idea whatsoever whether the last bit in the latest chapter is true, partially true, or a 100% scam.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Not true. :-) Check the author's profile page, Rakeesh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
(I don't actually think it's accurate.)
But I note, rather like V in the beginning of V for Vendetta remarking upon the paradox in asking a masked man who he is, that believing someone who says, "It's not true," who then goes on to point out the dangers of believing everything you read is...well, funny;)
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
In one of his edits, the author also removed the reference to the "Secret City of Australia" (or something like that) which was among the choices of places that Hat-And-Cloak had been urging Hermione to flee to.
In fact it seems the whole paragraph of Hat-and-Cloak urging Hermione to flee from Hogwarts has disappeared.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I wonder if Potter never brought up the idea of an anti-obliviation measure with Hermione, or if she neglected to do it in the shock of the moment.
Or if hat and cloak had a way of suppressing that memory along with the memories of their previous conversation.
Either way, this would have been a great situation to have it in place.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Poor Snape.
PS I am now obsessed with a Hermione/Snape fanfic here.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
If I had donated to the charity partly due to MoR I'd be a little annoyed that he only provided two or three updates at quicker speed before giving up.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I don't think the characterization of Snape is so good.
This Snape seems to think that Lily never forgave him for uttering an epithet, even though she explained in detail that it wasn't the word, it was the philosophy behind it that he actually did agree with, the company he kept, etc.
This Snape offers very little information to Harry Potter, who renders a superficial judgment, which Snape is actually taking seriously... Lily has been knocked off her pedestal now, and it seems to have severed his loyalty to Dumbledore.
He is playing his own game now, he will not be loyal to Voldy if he returns, for he realizes he was used, and he will not be loyal to Dumbledore for he was not told the "truth" about his infatuation and how pathetic it was.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think your making assumptions that are not actually verified yet.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Well, sure.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
[ March 12, 2012, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: ricree101 ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That... was a far more profoundly uncomfortable and awkward experience than I expected it to be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't follow, Raymond.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Have you read the chapter?
I will give you three guesses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have read the chapter, but I don't know what was profoundly awkward.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It was awkward for me, specifically.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I still don't get it. I've read the chapter, but there are a few scenes that might be considered awkward, but I don't follow why they were super-awkward.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure how much fun I should be having with this. The scene involves a new bit character in Dragon army.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I haven't read it yet, but I'll venture a guess: Have you by any chance managed to get a cameo?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
King of Men wins. Got it for this piece. I can't tell if my name sticks out worse than other cameo names that are decidedly un-Hogwarts-like, but it feels really weird to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't recall thinking any of them were outlandish. I suppose I take it for granted there will be Wizarding names, and Muggle names in the story and don't bat an eye at either.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I can't tell if my name sticks out worse than other cameo names that are decidedly un-Hogwarts-like, but it feels really weird to me.
Having read the chapter, I didn't notice it until you pointed it out.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Good to know.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I, on the other hand, did notice it. But only because I recognised your name and concluded that it was a promised cameo. Wouldn't have noticed it otherwise, though, other than as a name I didn't remember from canon. It fits well enough into the story.
Very well deserved cameo. I really like your artwork. Epic in every sense of the word.
I liked the new chapter. No noticable drop in quality and it will be nice to get updates at regular intervalls for a time.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Chapter 79 wasn't bad per se, but I could feel it straining as several different plotlines collapsed into each other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought it was fun, but I felt the same strain in the story you did, Raymond. It actually reminded me of a scene earlier in the story, when Snape and Dumbledore work together with graphs and charts and diagrams and protectors and compasses and orrerries to try and figure out who could've been involved in the Azkaban jailbreak (which, incidentally, seems to have dropped off in the world in terms of importance) when they realize two Time-Turners may be involved. There's just too much here. I think, though, that since Dumbledore is one of the mysterious hidden advisors, hopefully things will become more clear with only Hermione's remaining.
Really curious to see how Draco shakes out. Many possibilities.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I just saw this on Thinkgeek and thought it was really cool, it is a Ravenclaw house symbol shirt for women. It seems men are not welcome in the smart kid house of Hogwarts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Errr...I guess that's what that shirt means? (Can't get a read on whether you're funnin' or not.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, goddamn, that's a hell of a cliffhanger!
I didn't expect to have my opinion that Harry was right, Wizarding Britain needs a massive and if needs be violent upturning badly, but I hadn't expected the story to validate that idea so thoroughly.
Anybody got any guesses? My guess is that much of this is Quirrell...mort?...for some reasons of his own. He has often expressed a desire to see much of Harry's thinking on politics and on people radically changed, and having to stand by while one of, if not the, his best friends-and also most virtuous and least deserving-is sentenced to be, in about the worst way imaginable, brutally tortured to death. If that's not a 'to hell with this aiming for nice ends' moment, I don't know what is.
I wonder how voluntary Draco's participation in this business is? He didn't get to speak except under mind-control, and even then he stammered. I wonder if the kind of thinking he's learned from Harry is up to the challenge of seeing through the incongruities of his own near death, and (apparently) with the shame and disgust his father feels for some of his new ideas?
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
I have a thought regarding what Harry is about to do. There's a dementor in the Wizengamot chamber, which is right now being held in check by a few patronuses. It was pretty clearly set up way back when Harry first cast his patronus that if he tells anyone else the secret behind them (that dementors are death, and that animal patronuses only work because they don't understand death) that person would no longer be able to cast a patronus. Which is to say he can permanently disable everyone else's ability to defend themselves against dementors whenever he chooses.
Breaking the ability of wizards to defend against dementors would be a fantastic way to make them go renegade (why stay in Azkaban when nobody can stop them from rampaging across the country and kissing everyone they see) and have the entire wizarding world get behind their elimination real quick. It would also let Harry blackmail them into dropping all charges against Hermione.
There's also the point that Harry is reasonably sure that Hermione could learn to cast a human form patronus fairly easily. Which would make her probably the only other person alive still that could defend herself or anyone else against a dementor. That seems like a reasonably powerful get out of jail free card, especially considering that a vote of the Wizengamot apparently overrides everything else, and they'd all be terrified.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by xtownaga: I have a thought regarding what Harry is about to do. There's a dementor in the Wizengamot chamber, which is right now being held in check by a few patronuses. It was pretty clearly set up way back when Harry first cast his patronus that if he tells anyone else the secret behind them (that dementors are death, and that animal patronuses only work because they don't understand death) that person would no longer be able to cast a patronus. Which is to say he can permanently disable everyone else's ability to defend themselves against dementors whenever he chooses.
Breaking the ability of wizards to defend against dementors would be a fantastic way to make them go renegade (why stay in Azkaban when nobody can stop them from rampaging across the country and kissing everyone they see) and have the entire wizarding world get behind their elimination real quick. It would also let Harry blackmail them into dropping all charges against Hermione.
A pretty decent idea. The biggest issue is that it's never been confirmed that the truth would disable a normal Patronus. Harry worried it might, but that was never tested. Still, Harry is really low on options, and an uncertain ploy beats not having one at this point.
Also, I have to give a slight nod of respect to Lucius. Yeah, he was totally dispicable here, but staring down what he thought was Voldemort for the sake of his son is still commendable. Doesn't even come close to making up for everything else, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder if he actually believes that, though, or if he has convinced himself it's true. It gives him a handy reason to counter the influence of this little punk who's perverting his son's mind, after all.
Quite aside from the cronyism and nepotism practiced by Malfoy's faction, there is also the gleeful, virulent racism practiced right out there in the open of Wizarding Britain's most central tradition.
Perhaps he will trade Bellatrix Lestrange for Hermione? Not sure how he could do that or even if he would, but that's one of the other big secrets he's got. Another being knowledge, or supposed knowledge, of Voldemort's return. And then of course there's the dangling plotline of Quirrel's interrogation.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wonder if he actually believes that, though, or if he has convinced himself it's true. It gives him a handy reason to counter the influence of this little punk who's perverting his son's mind, after all.
I think he does. At least, his dialog definitely seemed to show more fear and weight than Malfoy would give to such a young child, even a really famous one like Potter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But is that fear because he's Voldemort, or fear because he thinks he is quite capable of murdering Draco?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Possible ploy: if Harry figures out that Lucius thinks he's Voldemort (and assuming Lucius does), he could remind everywhere that Bellatrix Black DID escape Azkaban, without directly threatening anything, but pointedly giving Lucius a specific WAY in which Harry-mort could threaten the Malfoy family in the immediately future. Imply that he can point Bellatrix at Lucius or Draco.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Harry has demonstrated an ability to get people out of Azkaban without much help from Quirrell. Now that he, presumably, no longer cares about detection, how about recruiting Quirrell, the Sunshine and Chaos armies, and perhaps Dumbledore, and doing a mass jailbreak involving heavy use of the True Patronus?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That's where I figure this is going sooner or later, but I think he'd be trying to prevent Hermione from having to go there in the first place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, Azkaban and the system that created it seem pretty clearly to me one of, if not the, big bads of the story.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Harry has to do something here, but destroying Azkaban right now isn't good storytelling. No. I expect something else. Also, his time with Lucious is done.
What I expect is something bigger.
I think he will free the Dementor from its Patronus captivity and allow it to roam the Wizengot chambers. In exchange for stopping the Dementor he will ask for time to prove Hermione's innocents.
There are a lot of chapters left in this story so nothing can be finalized yet.
Or he will memory charm the entire Wizengot. Either way works for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I don't think anyone meant to say Harry would proceed swiftly to destroy Azkaban now. It's not even clear he could do so as he is without killing himself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know how Harry could free the Dementor from its Patronus-induced captivity. His human (humanist?) Patronus has been shown to have the power to cow and destroy Dementors, and to confuse Patronuses, but not so far as I remember thwart other Patronuses while leaving the Dementor intact.
Hmm. I'll make a prediction. I think it's a long shot, but Harry will offer himself as the one to suffer the prison term, perhaps calling on the debt Draco owes him, somehow, and using other means as well. If there is no way he can discover to overthrow this sentence (the convinction seems completely lost in terms of beating), then there's only one person we know of who can, without a Patronus, withstand any length of time in a Dementor's presence: Harry Potter, himself.
So that's my bet, that's what Harry will work toward if/when the sentence cannot be altered. And then while others are doing work to bring doubt into the matter, he will try and endure in Azkaban, hopefully intact when he's freed. But I don't have much confidence in it, since there are so many other possible angles.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
From chapter 46, after Dumbledore asks Harry to explain how he'd just destroyed the Dementor:
quote:Harry opened his mouth, and then, as realization hit him, rapidly snapped his mouth shut again. Godric hadn't told anyone, nor had Rowena if she'd known; there might have been any number of wizards who'd figured it out and kept their mouths shut. You couldn't forget if you knew that was what you were trying to do; once you realized how it worked, the animal form of the Patronus Charm would never work for you again - and most wizards didn't have the right upbringing to turn on Dementors and destroy them
Presumably this means that if he tells everyone there what he figured out about how the patronus works, the wizards maintaining the patronuses guarding the dementor would lose the ability to use the charm, thus freeing the dementor from captivity.
If he wants to engineer a situation in which he goes to Azkaban instead of Hermione, he could just confess to orchestrating the whole thing and using Hermione as a pawn. His ability to lie under veritaserum due to being an Occlumens would make it reasonably easy to convince the Wizengamot of his guilt. I suppose there's a problem there in that Draco knows he's an Occlumens, which means Lucius may well know, but it would at least buy some time. I still think that Harry setting a dementor on the Wizengamot is a more likely outcome, especially considering he's diving deep into his dark side to come up with a plan.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Huh. After this chapter, I'm quite a lot more willing to believe that Dumbledore may have tortured Draco's mother to death by burning her alive than I was before, when I considered it a possibility but not a very serious one. In this chapter, he was willing to risk or even actually accept the very slow, most horrible death by torture the Wizarding World can apparently imagine for an eleven year old child-that he knows to be innocent, not that it matters-for the sake of the greater game, so Harry won't be indebted (in unknown ways) to the wrong people.
Someone who would do that, permit or permit being risked, that...I could see how at the height of the last war, when neutral and friendly families were seeing their loved ones tortured to death themselves regularly when they weren't killed...I could see the Dumbledore of this chapter eventually reaching a breaking point and going straight to the most powerful Death Eater's wife and administering some merciless, poetic justice.
I'm more curious than ever to see how Draco, Hermione, and Harry will handle this as a group, too. I suspect that was a part of whoever brainwashed Hermione plan too-the three of them were shaping up to be a real juggernaut of power and insight in the Wizarding world for the next couple of centuries, but I think it would take a series of miracles to for them to work together in a genuine way now.
I also wonder if Draco will be mentally strong enough and ethical enough to be repelled by what Lucious tried today. I suppose much of it starts with whether he can accept Hermione's innocence.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I am really impressed with the number of things that were absolutely ridiculous that happened in this chapter, without being completely silly. I'm on the fence about whether I think it was genuinely good.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought of that too as I was reading it, actually. I wonder how much of the last few paragraphs, dealing with how many and how strongly most members of the Wizengamot believe in, what was the term, 'story-reason'? I mean, that's their sandbox, and things that seem completely silly are so often par for the course when you start treating 'once upon a time...' as having that sort of weight.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
The author's notes for this chapter are quite the hoot. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Man, my mind is once again blown!
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
That last chapter is an April's fools, in case anyone was fooled. I'm saying this since s April 1st has already passed, and I think it unfair for anyone to get fooled beyond that day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I...well, yeah, it said so in fake-Latin on the last two words, right?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, it was rather explicit.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Not really liking Harry in the latest chapter, though I guess I can kinda see where he's coming from.
I guess some of that was deserved, if Dumbledore actually did kill her like that, but Harry definitely didn't come across well in this chapter. No one did, really.
At least, I guess, he called himself out for some of it by the end of the chapter.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thought the express *point* was that Harry finally realized what a jerk he's been being to Dumbledore all along.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well...sure, Harry has been a jerk (to quite a lot of people) for quite some time, it's true. But, y'know, it's not as though Dumbledore has really earned much consideration from him, either.
Anyway, I thought the explanation about Narcissa would probably be something like this. And, y'know, in that scenario, she wasn't an innocent bystander. You can't BE neutral and also married (and allied) to a guy who's helping in the kidnap and brutal torture of innocents.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So, turns out I am friends with the author's father. Last night he brought the book version into the pub where we sing to show it to us. I told him that I had read some of it and knew a lot of folks who are big fans. Just as well that I didn't mention that I stopped reading because I found Harry to be a dull, annoying, snot because, according to Dad, Harry is very much patterned after the author.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ahahahaha
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I should have made the connection but I never really paid attention to the author's last name. Or his dad's for that matter.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Huh.
(By this point I've met the author, and, well, yes. People I know who know him better than I have commented that Quirrel is *way* better at understanding social interaction than Eliezer Yudkowsky is)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean come on we all read his "Every parent who does not invest in cryonics for their children is a bad parent" thing right
was there ever any doubt Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
What would you say if you really, *really* wanted to make parents invest in cryonics for their children?
Assume you have the same goal as Yudkowsky in so convincing parents. Is there a more effective *and* more socially acceptable method of convincing parents towards the same goal?
This is an honest question, because if anything I'm probably even worse at social interaction than Yudkowsky is.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't actually think his statement is that bad in its original context. (Though subsequent statements in the comment section of that article are pretty bad)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
FWIW, his fairly religious* father gives every impression of being on good terms with him.
*I haven't specifically asked about beliefs but he keeps Kosher and observes the Sabbath. For example, he talked about how nice it was to have the book in paper form as he can't read the electronic form on the Sabbath. So I am guessing but I think they are reasonable guesses.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't actually think his statement is that bad in its original context. (Though subsequent statements in the comment section of that article are pretty bad)
from the literal closing paragraph of the article, which I posted about the time KoM was spergin' out about one sigma neurotypicals:
quote: If you can afford kids at all, you can afford to sign up your kids for cryonics, and if you don't, you are a lousy parent. I'm just back from an event where the normal parents signed their normal kids up for cryonics, and that is the way things are supposed to be and should be, and whatever excuses you're using or thinking of right now, I don't believe in them any more, you're just a lousy parent.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I did read the article before posting. I dunno, in the context of the post it really didn't seem offensive to me. People can disagree and be wrong about how to parent, and I think you (Samp) have said things approximately as brusque about parenting that I disagreed with.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: What would you say if you really, *really* wanted to make parents invest in cryonics for their children?
Assume you have the same goal as Yudkowsky in so convincing parents. Is there a more effective *and* more socially acceptable method of convincing parents towards the same goal?
This is an honest question, because if anything I'm probably even worse at social interaction than Yudkowsky is.
Telling people "If you don't do 'X' for your child, you're a bad parent", is probably the best possible way to get them to find every possible reason not to do 'X'. Pretty much any alternative would be more effective than this.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Telling people "If you don't do 'X' for your child, you're a bad parent", is probably the best possible way to get them to find every possible reason not to do 'X'. Pretty much any alternative would be more effective than this.
I do agree with this, although I'm not sure what his motivation for writing that piece was in the first place. (It reads more like "I'm feeling a bunch of intense emotion about this conference and want to express it" rather than "I'm trying to convince people to sign up for cryonics as effectively as possible", although at the time he may have thought he was doing both).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think, at the end of the day, he is highly irrational -- even delusional -- in his personal fear of death, and is positively religious about scientific pursuits of eternity. This makes him a bit wacky on those subjects.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I just started reading this, curious what all the fuss is about. God dammit--I should not have done this until after finals week (and grading).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Aww man. Sorry!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I did read the article before posting. I dunno, in the context of the post it really didn't seem offensive to me. People can disagree and be wrong about how to parent, and I think you (Samp) have said things approximately as brusque about parenting that I disagreed with.
Different medium.
I was being brusque and straightforward in internet posts on an internet forum to a person whose first six or so posts to me were to 'go kick rocks' — if I were writing an article that I intended to be a public, reasoned essay about why you should not hit your kids because it is ultimately ineffective parenting which does not provide enough of a justification for intentionally inflicting pain on (and modeling violence to) children, you can bet real easy money the tone is going to differ. Greatly.
The issue though is less about which individual components of his delusional cryonics fantasy do what, it's the overall analysis of tone. I read that, I compared it next to his flamingly obvious mary sue, and realized that this dude HAS to be insufferable in person. It was so obvious, I laughed. He's very obviously that kind of character.
All the same though I do wish him luck in expanding the congregation of the First Church of Our Lord the Technological Singularity (peace be upon It)
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Do you think your contemptuous tone right now shows any less arrogance?
Thanks for mocking *everyone* who believes there's a technological singularity may be coming. Since you didn't use reasoned arguments, just mockery, it's not as if there can be any rebuttal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Do you think your contemptuous tone right now shows any less arrogance?
No! I am usually pretty arrogant in tone here. In this case, what I am really arrogant about is that ..
damnit tom went and summed it up better.
quote:I think, at the end of the day, he is highly irrational -- even delusional -- in his personal fear of death, and is positively religious about scientific pursuits of eternity.
the Singularity movement is often extremely strange and extremely unrealistic. Transhumanism ranges from technofetishry to an unwittingly obvious psychological compensation for fear of death. That debate is best left for people like Stephen Pinker. Or possibly the Economist. Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Transhumanism is the idea that we shouldn't want to be letting people die at age 80 or 100 or 150 any more than we want to let them die at age 50 or 30.
And, well we *don't*. I don't know of any society that cuts off medical care to the elderly, or doesn't seek to prolong their lives as much as possible. And if it became feasible to prolong my parents' health to the year 120 or 200 or 500, of course I would want to -- most everyone would.
The only difference between transhumanism and everyday average normal plain humanism is that transhumanists like to imagine the future, and most average people just think of it as the present day prolonged.
As for "fear of death" as much as fear of death necessitates every life-saving medical procedure nowadays.
And as for the Singularity, I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. But I don't see any reason why it won't inevitably happen *eventually*, either within the century or at the very latest in the following. I don't think anyone who seriously considers the subject can imagine we'll reach e.g. the year 2200 without having been able to create electronics intelligences higher in intelligence in *all respects* than the human mind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Look, keep in mind that when I am talking about the First Church of Our Lord the Technological Singularity (peace be upon It) I am not talking about all proposals or interest in the Singularity. I am talking about the often bizarre subgroup of people who have essentially made it the thought analogue of religion in their lives. They're way too common. I have watched some .. uh, ... AMUSING arguments based on this faction of The Singularity Is Coming types.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Do you think your contemptuous tone right now shows any less arrogance?
No! I am usually pretty arrogant in tone here.
And how!
It's okay, that's part of your rugged charm.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: I have watched some .. uh, ... AMUSING arguments based on this faction of The Singularity Is Coming types.
The most bizarre arguments/positions I've seen at LessWrong don't really have much to do with the Singularity at all, but arise from ideas related to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis by Max Tegmark. If reality is a mathematical object, then philosophical issues arise about how e.g. "constructing" a mathematical model of a person may be indistinguishable from constructing a person, and whether identity is linked to computation or causality or whatever, etc, etc....
That thing in turn *does* lead to discussions about whether advanced AIs could simulate people and the repercussions of *that* -- but it's really not dependent on any Singularity.
Anyway I understand you want to connect it to "religion" because religion is low-status enough in our days that calling something a religion ridicules it by default.
But IMO a much better analogy would be the sort of bizarre arguments that Ancient Greek philosophers used to get into - most of them ended up sounding silly or moot from our modern perspective in *hindsight*, but there still were enough points of brilliance occasionally (e.g. check out some of Epicurus) to more-than-justify the silliness of some of the rest...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It would be a mistake to assert that Epicurus was not religious. In fact, most of the most bizarre arguments the Greek philosophers used to get into were rooted entirely in religious belief.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Long bump here, but it's started updating again, up to chapter 94 now with at least a couple more on the way before the next large break.
I'm hesitant to jump back in, really. When the guy only updates a chapter or two every six months it's hard to get back into without having to reread a bunch of stuff.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Also the way this guy uses Potter to advertise for his little training camps, I'm surprised he hasn't faced a lawsuit yet.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
There's a dedicated reddit for discussion, where the author participates, if anyone's interested: http://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/ Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Worth noting: a) this is a pretty complete arc, as opposed to a random one-of. (It's not done yet, if you want to wait for him to finish posting this arc, that'd be reasonable).
b) this is the second to last major arc.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
This fic started out as a really fun deconstruction of Harry Potter, but it turned into a pulpit for the author on his pet ideas, many of them ironically irrational, and just took a plot turn that curtailed most of my enjoyment.
I'll read the rest, of course, to find out what happened, but the fun has been sucked out, and I doubt it can be put back, because even if, in-universe, there is a happy ending, I am fairly positive it will be pretty transparent preaching by the author. I mean he's been preaching through the whole thing, obviously, but some of his stuff is reasonable and some isn't, and the amount of *focus* on his pet ideas seems like it has sure increased. I dunno.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:just took a plot turn that curtailed most of my enjoyment.
wossat
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Er, is this a spoilery thread?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sure?
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I'm guessing the plot turn Seatarsprayan is referring to is the death of Hermione.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, I thought it was going to be the part where Harry lectures the entire wizarding world about cryogenics.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh, I thought it was going to be the part where Harry lectures the entire wizarding world about cryogenics.
Is that a joke or did it actually happen? I loved the series in the early going but gave up on it after a while so I'm not up on the latest. If that actually happened, I think I will continue to stay away.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
No, he totally did talk about cryogenics. The transhumanism I find hilarious and fascinating in the same way I read Atlas Shrugged - no way in heck do I think it's plausible or helpful, but there's something really funny about how serious and hardcore the narrative is about them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I kind of find it refreshing, actually. Not in that I think (in fact I'm a total layman on the subject) it might work, but in that it's a genuine effort, even if it's largely mental, towards addressing, well, death.
I am reluctant to condemn that sort of tenacity.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Death is but a transition.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Is that a joke or did it actually happen?
It did not. Just mentioning in a brief paragraph to Dumbledore that people have been revived after falling in cold lakes for 30 minutes, doesn't really qualify as "lectures the entire wizarding world about cryogenics" for me.
Read or don't read the story, but please don't base your decision at people's various misrepresentations thereof. Samprimary has been mocking cryonics in earlier parts of this thread as well -- his statement therefore has more to do with his desire to continue to mock such than it has with being an accurate representation of the story.
quote: no way in heck do I think it's plausible
Uh? In what sense do you mean that transhumanism is not plausible?
Surely transhumanism is just a question of *when*, not if? Unless you mean transhumanism in a different sense than I do.
[ July 17, 2013, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Death is but a transition.
Deepity: A statement that, to the extent that it’s true, is trivial, and to the extent that it’s profound, is false.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Is that a joke or did it actually happen?
It was supposed to be a joke but I guess the author couldn't resist at least some of that.
quote:Surely transhumanism is just a question of *when*, not if?
nope, it's 'if'
a: not likely
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:
quote:Surely transhumanism is just a question of *when*, not if?
nope, it's 'if'
a: not likely
I'm still trying to understand what you mean by this: You believe it's not likely that there will EVER be technology that drastically changes the nature of the human body?
And when you say "ever", you mean not in a hundred years, not in a thousand years, not in a hundred thousand years? Even if humanity doesn't get destroyed in the meantime, you find it *more* likely that we'll instead keep existing in roughly the shape and bodily abilities that we currently possess? Even 100,000 years in the future?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Allegedly, the story is nearing its end.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The proposals of core transhumanists including the technological singularity are an 'if' and may be impeded by physical laws that represent limitations on the mechanical feasibility of those proposals. that's it. it's pretty easy to believe in transhumanism if you think in some fashion that moore's law is somehow set to go on unimpeded well beyond the hard physical limits of things like silicon and grapheme, but you never know (even if they think they do)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Singularity != transhumanism.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
As King of Men said.
If your only stated objection relates to the 'Singularity', should I assume that you also believe transhumanism itself (without need for singularity) to be inevitable, provided the human race survives?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree-saying 'never*' with regards to long-term** human and scientific change and growth seems a dubious proposition.
*Or saying 'we shouldn't say this will happen'
**Really long-term.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I am glad this thread was re-visited. I am on chapter 4 and finding it quite amusing. I need more amusement right now and this was perfect. Thank you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
We'll see if this isn't another misdirect, but I appreciate it for the way it fits in so neatly with one of the recurring themes Harry has tried with limited success to embody: that of skepticism being most difficult perversely when it is most needed. Another perhaps being one that many might have liked: that being the sort of person who could do these things is a consequence of the attitude and style of thinking Harry has so admired.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Must go read new chapters right NOW!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's posted that another new one will be up tonight as well. Wait a bit and you've got two chapters to read.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sweet! Thanks!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
**Spoilers to chapter 105**
Oh thank the Gods who abandoned us Harry finally figgured it out! It was a moment that Dexter needed & lacked. The REAL ending of Dexter should have been a reverse reveal...that Angel knew all along & single handedly kept Dex out of trouble...Because Harry had an ace up his sleeve in Angel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be fair, Harry *never* figured it out-it was explicitly revealed to him, apparently at the precise time and place of Voldemort's choosing. This is really something he should've planned for or at least considered (that Quirrel was as bad, worse, than everyone expected) back when it was revealed to him in Azkaban that he (Quirrel) was entirely able to adopt any persona he desired, whether by whim or by intent and that *all* of the personas Harry ever encountered or expected were at best dubiously ethical and misanthropic.
But he wasn't able to think of that, in significant part due to how carefully molded he has been. This is a story I can absolutely see the bad guy not being defeated as an ending.
I admit to also wondering how and if we will learn how in the world Dumbledore managed to stand up to someone apparently as rational and ruthless as Harry is capable of being-more, really-but with matching reserves of magical power.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I really need to get back into it. I don't think I've read any of it since chapter 80 or so (decided to wait until the series finished), but it sounds like the defecation is really hitting the ventilation now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's been stated by the author that this is the final arc, and will be updating quickly and finishing within a month I think. Within the story it seems clear that the big reveal on Quirrel, Hermione, and Harry is imminent as well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I can't wait! I'm more excited for this than Stone Doors (likely because Rothfus is starting to get a little GRRM about due dates).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm trying to decide how I feel about Harry's inability to *seriously* suspect Quirrel. I think it's a reasonable and important point that it's hardest to be rational about things that matter most to you.
But... still, seriously Harry? It took you this long?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The author wanted to reveal it almost immediately...but then the plot unravels.
I think it is the constrains of -fan- fiction...can't go too off of canon.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I tend to think like Raymond on this. Not only does it fit neatly with one of the ideas key to the story-that rationality and skepticism are most difficult when they're most needed-but bear in mind as well that Harry has spent an uncertain amount of time before Hogwarts and a *lot* of time in Hogwarts under the long planned, expert, very careful psychological and perhaps even magical manipulation of an evil mastermind who seems to reside at least partly right between Harry's ears.
Given these factors, is it really so surprising that Harry has been successfully duped? I almost think it would be more surprising if he hadn't largely thought of Quirrel what Quirrel wished him to.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You seem to change your mind mid post...I'm not clear on the take away.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also...Quarrel did something no other adult has done for Harry...take him seriously. Right from the get go. He is 11 and away at school for the first time...under pretty abnormal circumstances. All I'm saying is Harry identified Quarrel as the only other not insane person he knows...hard to be objective under those circumstances.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was agreeing with the first part of Raymond's post-that of it being hardest to be rational when it's most needed. I suspect (though this is just a guess, obviously) that he and I are probably like-minded on the subject really. Don't get me wrong, I'm incredulous too, but that's from my external view of things and especially with the outsider's knowledge of the canon material where we know it's a long shot bet that Quirrel *wasn't* at least directly related to Voldemort, and that one or both weren't seriously dag-nasty evil.
Anyway, it's important to remember I think that Quirrel only appeared to take Harry seriously. Granted he recognizes Harry's importance and his cleverness and determination...but then there is the question of how much of that isn't due directly to Voldemort himself, or his influence. Harry's intial importance was only due to whatever really happened that night when Voldemort attempted (or did he?) to kill Harry. It doesn't seem impossible that his 'cold dark side', which has made possible many of Harry's successes and ability to think and act under pressure, was actually a seed Voldemort himself planted.
In fact the only things at this point I think *couldn't* be put to Voldemort about Harry that are special (that is to say I don't mean other factors must have been Voldemort, but rather that they could have been) is his disciplined commitment to science and rationalism, his knowledge stemming from those things, and an ethical core stemming from his upbringing and exposure to stories and family. The bad news is that Harry appears to have been able to convince Voldemort that there are some really, really useful benefits from a really thorough, Muggle Science-rooted commitment to science and rationalism and had begun to share that with him. Not that this Voldemort ever seems to have suffered from the Villain Tropes business common to the genre, obviously.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Whether or it's true or not, I think Voldamort belives that what is special about Harry is his own holocrox. It makes the "Hello Tom Riddle." comment make sense at least.
And therefore the respect is heartfelt...as it is self respect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would be seriously irritated with the trickle pacing of these chapters if they weren't coming so quickly.
One key and potentially disastrous (heh, sort of like a sixth grenade going off in Harry's lap at this point) assumption is that because Harry cannot seem to lie in Parseltongue, that means Voldemort's cannot either. Even if it was true that Salazar put a condition on that speech to compel truth in its speakers, Voldemort apparently acquired and plumbed the knowledge of Salzar's monster the Basilisk. Who's to say he didn't discover this secret himself, and subvert it, assuming its not just a lie that he has tricked or magically compelled Harry into performing?
I'm just a dude and if I were playing an evil villain and was confronted with a secret speech that supposedly compelled honesty, 'learn how to lie in that speech and keep it secret from other speakers' would certainly be handy. That or convince other speakers it was impossible to lie.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While all that makes perfect sense...I believe parsel tounge is SUPER rare...like the only living person who has it is VaderMart (and therefore Harry via horcrux). If it -was- common enough to be useful than I would argee.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Uncommon in the present, apparently, but perhaps not so uncommon once upon a time. In any event, since Harry's ability to speak it was clearly at least expected or perhaps even created, Voldemort creating a plan for effective deception still seems possible. He might simply have used some technique-or used his puppet Snape, for example, to do so-on Harry to compel truth while he is speaking it. To Harry it would appear as though he couldn't lie because he was speaking serpent, but just because he can't utter a lie in that tongue doesn't mean it's the speedh that prevents it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Maybe a drop of...forget name...virt something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Latest chapter is up.
Somehow it had completely slipped my mind that Harry can destroy Dementors, and has access to at least one power that is 100% baffling to Voldemort.
ETA: My prediction for the answer to Harry's last question is a very straightforward one, the answer he arrived at a long time ago when thinking about Voldemort when discussing him with Dumbledore. Why is he like this? Why not?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I will also say that if Dumbledore has magical power roughly equivalent to Voldemort's (which seems possible), and is roughly as intelligent and willing to sacrifice (which is also possible) but is also neck-deep in Story Logic and plots in the way Voldemort described, then I could see how he could've withstood him at all. I don't think it's much of a prediction to think that it makes no sense that if Voldemort has always been this clever and this cleverly ruthless, he should've conquered the world or at least Britain a long time since. Which would mean that there has got to be some reason why he hasn't. Was it all a game, the Voldemort persona? It seems a very great deal of effort.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In the latest chapter, Voldemort speaks of how the "old" him would have ranted and ranged and thrown a violent fit when confronted by a certain obstacle, and notes that he has learned better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I noticed that, and he *is* supposedly in a truth-telling mode of conversation right now. So what changed, if anything did and the past Voldemort wasn't just an invention?
I wonder if it's possible that Voldemort is in fact dead, that David Munroe killed or otherwise defeated him but then decided to make the same sort of use of him as he advised for Harry after Azkaban. I could see it happening: David Munroe, from what others have said of him in the story, seems to be a sort of rationalist not captured by Story Logic or MegaVillain Thinking like Voldemort or Dumbledore. But perhaps he simply hadn't grown the magical strength to beat Voldemort in a fight and was absorbed?
More nefarious, perhaps he was able to kill Voldemort outright and was always a psychopath and sociopath.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I would say eleven years on the back of someone's head might have something to do with V's new insight & depth.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
So knowing what we do of horcruxes, I'm guessing that Voldemort is dead but that both Munroe and Potter came into contact wkth ones that were created at different parts of Voldemort's life. Perhaps the possession by the ghost isn't guaranteed, and there was something about them that allowed a merging instead of outright possession.
Quirrell also made a horcrux out of the Voyager plate he messed with in the hope that thousands of years from now an alien or human will touch it and he will be "reborn."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not sure about the Voyager thing...it was implied as a possibility, however I tisn'tll that was confirmed was that he strengthened the plate for the purpose of preservation.
As to being dominated by a horcrux...I think that it is a battle of wills & Qurrel isn't fighting very hard if at sll.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I made a longish post on reddit about it, but my current speculation is that Quirrell gave Harry an incomplete picture about what Horcruxes did. The contact overwrite might actually be a thing, but I think there's too much evidence that Voldy wanted to protect them here, in ways that don't make sense if they require contact.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Very first time on redit...here goes...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given that it would be so very useful, and that the only evidence for it is really Voldemort's word, I'm convinced he has told a lie about Parseltongue and truthtelling. Perhaps it's true for *other* speakers, but I don't think it's true for him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The two plus two equals three test was used to verify...but Veritaserum could replicate that result...assuming that Harry wouldn't notice that he was compelled to tell the truth in English too.(according to an HP wiki, Veritaserum can be resisted by olmancy).
Since the go to answer in the HP for making ppl tell the truth is Veritaserum...if a fan fic author conveniently reinvents the cannn wheel I imagine by my own predicted response that it would be a Bad Idea on his part.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If memory serves, Parseltongue supposedly enforces truthtelling when it is spoken, but only when using Parseltongue itself to speak. Not 'I promissssse the following to be true...'
Given that Voldemort's got such control over Snape, both a gifted Legilimens and an alchemist, that right there is easily enough for a bag of tricks to compel Harry into telling the truth-or potentially persuade him he must, perhaps. It would just be so useful and so like the themes of this story and plotting-and bear in mind too that this chapter had a big element of revision and improvement of amazing ancient Magic (horcruxes) and how they can supposedly be improved upon.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh schitte I missed that a new one was up...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Got to say this is my FAVORITE chapter in all of HP...NOT in HPMOR....in ALL HP.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Anybody else get the feeling that Voldermort is nit planning on killing Harry, but instead take over his body?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Nah.
He meant Harry to be a "worthy opponent" for himself in his immortality, someone who could play the great game with him without ruining it for one or both of them. A lot of his interactions and lessons with Harry have been to test if Potter is worthy of this, and to see if he could be guided into changing into that.
I get the feeling that he's given up on that. Potter has morality, and a feeling of right and wrong. Combined with the fact that he does have the sense of rationality that Voldemort's imprint gave him as a baby, it makes him into an opponent that is far too dangerous to allow to live.
I don't think it's likely. Although, if Quirrell's body is really dying, then I guess he could shoot himself in the head and then try to possess Harry. I just don't see it being likely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If what he's said about his redundant horcruxes is true (a big if*) why would he need concern himself with taking Harry's body? He's already apparently grown bored with villainous mastery of Britain.
No, it makes much more sense for him to kill or at least somehow extinguish Harry permanently at the soonest possible instant he gains the Permanency Stone (a better name, really).
I wonder if Harry might be able to leverage his partial transfiguration ability with the Stone, since it ties in so neatly with his special skill in that area. I wonder if he ever told Voldemort the secret along that line? Can't recall.
*Aside from the fact that it's Voldemort talking, one reason I am suspicious is because he's gone to great lengths to emphasize his own immortality to Harry, when it seems unnecessary. Possibly just to avoid treachery that leads to him failing to get the Stone, I suppose.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not just his body...but his persona.
"It was all the defense professor, who was REALLY Voldermolt...who I just defeated single handedly...again!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Knowing myself , I'll reread the story once it's done at some point, but I think it will still probably be interesting to do even though the likeliest conclusion-Quirrel is Voldemort-will probably be true and was expected the entire time.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The author said the only change from original cannon is Harry I had thought...so isn't Q-is-V a give away?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure how he could say that. Perhaps it was intended originally, but Hermione was killed by a troll as Voldemort's tool just for starters. Harry and Hermione both went to Ravenclaw, Azkaban was broken into...I think if he ever said that he changed his mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The timeline diverged with Harry's birth, is the idea. So all the things that have changed in the storyline since then changed as a result of that birth and the different person Harry is -- even the difference in what Voldemort did to baby Harry.
That said, yeah, it stretches credulity, but that can hardly be a sore spot for someone who's still reading. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't see how that could possibly still apply. Voldemort not being in this story a psychotic comic book villain archetype versus the canon Voldemort who was definitely in that mold. Well, I suppose his entire yarn to Harry could be a lie, but I think he's written his way out of that in other ways as well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's -exactly- why that chapter is my FAVORITE in all oh hp...it redeems the cannon Voldermolt! He was ALWAYS a caricature...deliberately! Thats what I love most about HPMOR...it rewrote the character in the real books & movies without changing anything else (mostly) because if everything Q/V tells Harry is true it's only because he's gunna kill him. Its a secret. So it can be true for the really real hp
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That could be the explanation-that the bad guy wins (I've read a couple other stories he linked as favorites, and in none of them did the standard good guy win) and the truth is kept secret, making in a sense canon Voldemort acceptable as a successful coverup. In a sense it would even be fitting if Harry were killed, since he committed such a fundamental failure of thinking according to his own beliefs: he didn't seriously consider what was so obviously possible: that Quirrel wasn't just bad, or selfishly neutral, or acceptably ruthless, but a mass murderer with no ethical constraints at all who took pleasure in torture and murder in payment for passing slights or even inconveniences. Harry didn't consider that because it hurt to have to think of a peer that way, because of what that would mean he would have to do by his own ethical constraints. That kind of failure is sometimes lethal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I admit it would be nice to get some power parity here!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I didn't mean he succeeds necessarily, just that was why he told Harry the truth, bc he plans on killing/stealing his body. It could still be true in canon, just Gryffindor Harry would NEVER hear about it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well I admit it would be nice to get some power parity here!
Huh?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I didn't mean he succeeds necessarily, just that was why he told Harry the truth, bc he plans on killing/stealing his body. It could still be true in canon, just Gryffindor Harry would NEVER hear about it.
How could it be true? The Voldemort from canon remained a psychotic comic book villain both before he killed the Potters to the moment he killed Harry in the last book. How does that jive with there being a secret Tom Riddle with multiple identities he could create and set aside at whim, who was a genius who created Voldemort literally to be the stupidity-prone dry run of bad guys?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The horcrux stuff maybe different or not...I haven't checked to see if there are major inconsistentcies, but the comic book villain part makes sense to me...canon Harry was fighting persona.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I quite enjoyed the Dumbledore/Voldermolt conversation.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Wealphchrist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I'll hand it to him-worry over a prophecy (from a source Voldemort has reason to trust, no less) that would completely destroy reality is a very good, and very consistent reason why he would go to these sorts of lengths with Harry. It's in keeping entirely with his motives for taking over Britain and despising Muggles.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Three more days![/whine]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If you haven't been reading along and been putting it off, now is the time to read everything, FYI.
We have 60 hours to save Harry.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
The speculation and planning is fun, but I will be extremely irate if we never get the "good" ending.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Kill Harry on purpose. It's not like you won't still get the good ending.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Without the deathly hollows...that wouldn't be a good ending in my book.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: If you haven't been reading along and been putting it off, now is the time to read everything, FYI.
We have 60 hours to save Harry.
I take it that means he's nearly done with it? I haven't been reading it for a long time but if it's finally about to be finished, I'll start up again. Well, at least once I'm done with my Words of Radiance reread.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No...it's a challenge to readers...he has set a puzzle, to be answered in a timeframe or the story ends...brutally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sounds good to me, can we ask that harry cry uncontrollably before he dies?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Take a picture guys, Samprimary's hatin'! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
But don't you see, it would be perfect. By doing it this way you would guarantee you got to see both endings
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I'm kind of with Sam on this one. The author is far too proud of the work and his own way of thinking to not post the real ending with the super genious solution. I'd bet the author would like that more, in fact, if everybody failed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've already got Harry alive with only a decent risk...and God knows I only sometimes don't qualify as a blunt object so I doubt highly that someone is not going to come up w something better.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
My enjoyment of the story has certainly lessened since the beginning. I liked the deconstruction of the HP world, more than the preachy stuff about "rationality." (Some of which is spot on correct, if still preachy, but other stuff is just human bias in another guise.)
At least it is ending and we'll get closure.
So... did Harry kill Lucius and Sirius? Does he plan on saving them with the Time Turner?
As for Voldy... the story takes place in 1992, does it? Can we forgive Voldy for not being aware of what wasn't common knowledge back then even among muggles?
"RAID is not backup." Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm curious, which bits about rationality were spot on and which were human bias? I haven't reread the story so I admit there is a ton I am certainly forgetting.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, I haven't read any of the story in a *year*, so I don't know if this was a reflection of "rationality" or rather the author intentionally giving Harry a bias so he would be more vulnerable/easily persuaded by Voldemort: but Harry's obsession with death seemed to go into areas that seemed less than rational. Which isn't to say it doesn't have a rational basis - as a conscious being it's within my rational self interest to stay alive as long as possible (even indefinitely, if science can reach that point in the next 60 years) - but writing seemed to laden with a sheer terror of death that it warps Harry's "rational" approach to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I admit I don't share that terror of death (now, when it is an abstract and remote concept for me), but I also think that there is something to be said that it might actually be *the* problem for humanity, it's just that most of us-that is, almost everyone everywhere and at all times past and present-have been trained not to think of it that way.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Reminds me of of my favorite OSC short story "Mortal Gods" in Maps in the Mirror.
On to a question....why oh why oh why did Voldermort leave Harry his wand?!?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
FYI, if you're in NYC, we're having a HPMoR wrap-up party this Saturday. There will be Quirrel-Army-style battles, among other things.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: but writing seemed to laden with a sheer terror of death that it warps Harry's "rational" approach to it.
The author has a big ol .... Uh, thing going on with that psychologically in his own head and he goes somewhat off the deep end and it's basically written straight into Marry Sue Potter
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha, well that twist there makes quite a lot of sense, really. It would be very easy, I think, for a cautious and intelligent person to 'kill' someone in such a way and have it go undiscovered what with magic and all.
-----
In the wake of so many deaths, I can by sympathetic with Draco. Also because he is still after all a child. That said, though, his moral outrage towards Harry for having 'used' him and manipulated and such is, although understandable right now in the moment, deeply hypocritical and absurd. I would have expected harry to have pointed it out sooner if that wouldn't have hurt his own long term plans, but Draco was playing to win, and he started when he thought it would be a walk. It's a sort of reflection of what happened with Harry and Hermione, but she had rather more guts and ethics than he did and could face up and try to adapt to being defeated in their contest.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I'm pretty disappointed in this ending so far. The story made huge promises and hasn't delivered on any of them. I suppose I was naive.
Worm is much better, as web serials go.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Promises such as? Serious question, it's been going on so long I could easily have forgotten.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I'm pretty disappointed in this ending so far. The story made huge promises and hasn't delivered on any of them. I suppose I was naive.
Worm is much better, as web serials go.
Worm is far and away the best web serial written so far. The fact the author managed to complete it in a 2 year timeframe without missing a single update is doubly impressive, considering it's sheer size.
Have you read Pact yet? I'm about 10 arcs in atm, it took me several tries to get into it but it picks up around Arc 4. (the slow methodical starts seem to be wildbow's thing)
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I haven't, for the simple and selfish reason that I can't find a mobi version of it. Reading long-form stories on the net, clicking between pages, drives me up the wall.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Worm was a lot of fun, to say the least. As for Pact, I started reading it too right after finishing Worm. Eventually, though, I petered out as I was approaching the end of the current span of updates and decided to hit it up again later when it was nearer completion. But it was awesome as well.
------
Another reason I dislike Draco's refusal to actually accept his defeat in the manipulation game at Harry's hands-Draco's leader, so to speak, was happy to send Peter Pettigrew to be tortured for over a decade in Azkaban, when it wasn't even especially important anymore what with Voldemort's defeat. Dumbledore, Harry's leader (even when he didn't know it) wasn't even willing to kill Narcissa Malfoy, even after he got the memories of his own brother being tortured to death.
Yeah, Draco can just go cry himself to sleep, bah.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think Draco's being hypocritical - but that doesn't mean Harry isn't being wildly insensitive.
I did like today's chapter though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, you're absolutely right there, Raymond. They're both behaving...sub-optimally in the moment for understandable reasons. I think the difference is, though, that this hypocrisy runs deeper than Harry's insensitivity as strange as that seems. Draco has treated it as some sort of treacherous unfairness, every time either him or his farher's views and actions were trumped.
Which wasn't actually his fault either, that entitlement was something taught to him from an early age.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dude, Harry caused Draco's eyes to be open to the big picture...the one where his father who he worshiped was just a stupid pawn...right before Harry killed him. Not to mention Harry then betrayed Draco so that he couldn't even take shelter in his new friend/mentor. Draco is 11-12 years old, an orphan whose world has just been turned up side down.
Let's see what he has to say about it in say...five years, when he has had some to heal with his mom.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that's why I do pity Draco, yes. My criticism, though, is that Draco was willing and was in fact trying to play games just as tough on Harry. He was doing that even when he thought he had as much an upper hand over Harry as it turned out Harry had over him. He had to be walked in excruciating baby steps to the idea that *maybe* it was potentially as bad for Lilly to be murdered as it was for narcissa. When Harry forced him to face unpleasant truths he wasn't ready for, he tortured him, and even in his own mind his chief concern was in being caught. For torturing someone. Who made him see the truth.
Really, Lucius is the one to scorn, but he got killed by the kid be tried to bankrupt.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But Harry was supposed to be the good guy...Harry went in knowing who & what Draco was...were as Harry was representing himself as TrustWorthy.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Promises such as? Serious question, it's been going on so long I could easily have forgotten.
Off the top of my head,
A scientific/rational explanation of magic (however scare-quoted or pseudo'ed those explanations would be). That entire premise was set aside after, what, chapter 25?
The end of death. I feel like the Humanism arc has just been left hanging.
The destruction of Azkaban.
The prophecy about the destruction of the stars.
The reformation of the wizarding government.
All of these things were on the table, earlier in the story. There's only one chapter left. It's a very, very long story, and none of these big ideas have been resolved.
This is an incredibly unsatisfying ending, unless the last chapter really pulls out all the stops. The Lost of web serials.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't agree. This was a year one fanfic....Harry's lifelong goals not fulfilled at age 11, after only one year? Except of course the whole defeating Voldermolt & being handed the keys to the kingdom & a huge fortune & the rebirth of his best friend.
It took the real HP seven years & he didn't even do all that.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I don't agree. This was a year one fanfic....Harry's lifelong goals not fulfilled at age 11, after only one year? Except of course the whole defeating Voldermolt & being handed the keys to the kingdom & a huge fortune & the rebirth of his best friend.
It took the real HP seven years & he didn't even do all that.
That line of reasoning could be used to justify any ending, including skipping the neutralization of Voldemort, the return of Herminone, etc.
Stories aren't real life; stories have identifiable beginnings, middles, and ends. The beginning and middle of HPMOR are full of elements which are simply dropped from the ending.
It's like if the Death Star was never blown up and never used again, or if a human army stormed and conquered Mordor, or if Peter Parker just decided to become an olympic gymnast. One could tell any of these stories, obviously, but they require a different sort of set up.
HPMOR promised vast changes in its world, and all we got was a super-effective hospital. Big whoop.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Promises such as? Serious question, it's been going on so long I could easily have forgotten.
Off the top of my head,
A scientific/rational explanation of magic (however scare-quoted or pseudo'ed those explanations would be). That entire premise was set aside after, what, chapter 25?
The end of death. I feel like the Humanism arc has just been left hanging.
The destruction of Azkaban.
The prophecy about the destruction of the stars.
The reformation of the wizarding government.
All of these things were on the table, earlier in the story. There's only one chapter left. It's a very, very long story, and none of these big ideas have been resolved.
This is an incredibly unsatisfying ending, unless the last chapter really pulls out all the stops. The Lost of web serials.
I can't recall if the story or the author ever actually promised to *solve* those or how many of them, or just address them.
That said, use of the Philosopher's Stone will at least put a serious dent in death as a factor in the Wizarding World, using what seems to be one of the foundational items of magic in the world that bypasses a lot of the modern limits in the story on magic.
As the new inheritor of Merlin, Harry just gave instructions to have Azkaban shut down, with an implication that Hermione might destroy it herself.
Amelia Bones, with Harry exerting some control/influence and nearly all of the Death Eaters dead, is in control of the government of magical Britain.
I get that you don't like it, but at least some of your beefs have already been explicitly addressed in the way you claim they haven't been.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Promises such as? Serious question, it's been going on so long I could easily have forgotten.
Off the top of my head,
A scientific/rational explanation of magic (however scare-quoted or pseudo'ed those explanations would be). That entire premise was set aside after, what, chapter 25?
The end of death. I feel like the Humanism arc has just been left hanging.
The destruction of Azkaban.
The prophecy about the destruction of the stars.
The reformation of the wizarding government.
All of these things were on the table, earlier in the story. There's only one chapter left. It's a very, very long story, and none of these big ideas have been resolved.
This is an incredibly unsatisfying ending, unless the last chapter really pulls out all the stops. The Lost of web serials.
I can't recall if the story or the author ever actually promised to *solve* those or how many of them, or just address them.
That said, use of the Philosopher's Stone will at least put a serious dent in death as a factor in the Wizarding World, using what seems to be one of the foundational items of magic in the world that bypasses a lot of the modern limits in the story on magic.
As the new inheritor of Merlin, Harry just gave instructions to have Azkaban shut down, with an implication that Hermione might destroy it herself.
Amelia Bones, with Harry exerting some control/influence and nearly all of the Death Eaters dead, is in control of the government of magical Britain.
I get that you don't like it, but at least some of your beefs have already been explicitly addressed in the way you claim they haven't been.
But all of that happens in a conversation. Where's the scene where Harry tells the Wizengamot how its going to be? He's been planning to take it over from very early on in the story. We've seen how corrupt and useless it is. And the resolution to all that is a single order?
Go back and read the chapter where Harry kills the dementor. Chapter 3 of Humanism, I think. That stirring speech, about how in the future death will just be a scary story for children. What's the resolution to that? A friggin' waiting list.
This is a story where one of the Voyager probes is a magical artifact, where humanities future among the stars is hoped for, and in fact in doubt because of the prophecy about Harry tearing apart the stars.
A prophecy about destroying stars! Yudokowsky wrote a check his ass could not cash.
This ending is like if Leia ordered Luke to go blow up the death star, and the rest of the movie was just her sipping a latte reading the after-action report.
It's terrible, and I cannot believe anyone is defending it.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Just read the last chapter. Turns out it was all a coming of age story!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm trying to recall where and when the story promised 'these things Harry believes are really important, he's going to solve them all in his first year, as a twelve year old, sometime within the next six months or so' and I'm drawing a blank.
Your Star Wars analogy is almost spot on. It's not like if Leia told Luke to go destroy the Death Star, and the movie ended with her reading an AAR. The ending you apparently want and think the story somehow promised, would be if Leia said, "Destroy the Death Star, become a Jedi, redeem your father, kill the Emperor, destroy the Death Star II, found the New Republic, and hey defeat Grand Admiral Thrawn too."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm trying to recall where and when the story promised 'these things Harry believes are really important, he's going to solve them all in his first year, as a twelve year old, sometime within the next six months or so' and I'm drawing a blank.
Your Star Wars analogy is almost spot on. It's not like if Leia told Luke to go destroy the Death Star, and the movie ended with her reading an AAR. The ending you apparently want and think the story somehow promised, would be if Leia said, "Destroy the Death Star, become a Jedi, redeem your father, kill the Emperor, destroy the Death Star II, found the New Republic, and hey defeat Grand Admiral Thrawn too."
Up to the second death star, all of that happened in six hours of film, and six hours of film is far less story than nearly 700 000 words.
This wasn't a short story. It's 2/3s the length of the entire Harry Potter book series! It's longer than the Lord of the Rings!
I'm not complaining that Harry didn't solve all these things before the end of his first year, I'm complaining they weren't resolved on screen by the end of the story. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Loved it!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If you want more you could always take up the batton and write it how it should be. I'll read it!
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
It feels weird to be posting in a thread I started almost 5 years ago.
I loved it at first, but I have to agree the story (using story conventions, not by explicit statement of the author) made promises to the reader, that were not delivered on.
Ultimately it was unsatisfying.
But if I hadn't read this story, I wouldn't have found Worm, which is far superior, and when it was over, I *was* satisfied. Worm isn't perfect, but it is very, very good. HPMoR on the other hand... I don't know if I'd really recommend it to anyone anymore... not without a lot of caveats.
By the way, if you liked Worm, but couldn't get into Pact, the author has just started a new web serial and it is pretty gripping so far:
I started reading Worm, and found it... sort of depressing? I wasn't in the mood to appreciate the bullying and dysfunctional characters. Nothing wrong with it, but not what I wanted.
I know a lot of people who swear by Worm and Pact, but I haven't been told exactly what makes the story good. Could you briefly describe what's good about it? (if possible, without spoilers)
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I started reading Worm, and found it... sort of depressing? I wasn't in the mood to appreciate the bullying and dysfunctional characters. Nothing wrong with it, but not what I wanted.
I know a lot of people who swear by Worm and Pact, but I haven't been told exactly what makes the story good. Could you briefly describe what's good about it? (if possible, without spoilers)
First, think back to the early days of Lost. The polar bear, the black smoke, the weird statue, the pirate ship. All sorts of strange mysteries. I loved it. But of course, there was very little pay off to any of it.
Worm also has a ton of mysteries, and the resolutions to the mysteries are awesome. Well foreshadowed and thought out.
Second, the world building. This is perhaps a gimme given the sheer length of the story, but there is a wealth of well thought out details about the world, and the behaviour of individuals and groups always makes sense in the context of the world.
The pacing is a mixed bag, but I'd say mostly good. It can sometimes feel like a video game, in that each new villain is increasingly powerful, but their appearances in the story are organic and, again, foreshadowed.
Characterization is more than adequate.
Worm is one of those stories that gets better as it goes on, in every way. The writing is a bit stilted in the beginning, and it can get pretty mired in teenage BS. But none of that lasts.
It's great. The final arc is wonderful; a battle on a near cosmic scale using well-defined powers.
Far superior to HPMOR.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: I wasn't in the mood to appreciate the bullying and dysfunctional characters.
Give it a chance. As TvTropes notes, "Over the first few plot arcs, though, the story shifts away from the hellish landscape that is contemporary high school towards the more uplifting setting of a bombed out city at the mercy of a roving band of psychopaths."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I started reading Worm, and found it... sort of depressing? I wasn't in the mood to appreciate the bullying and dysfunctional characters. Nothing wrong with it, but not what I wanted.
I know a lot of people who swear by Worm and Pact, but I haven't been told exactly what makes the story good. Could you briefly describe what's good about it? (if possible, without spoilers)
Like I tell most people I recommend Worm to, if you can get up to and through Arc 8 the main story really kicks off and the writing improves exponentially.
Part of this is because the author is still getting her/his bearings in the beginning of the story (and intends to rewrite it at some point), but mainly because of the narrative voice: the story is mostly written from the perspective of a bullied teenage girl and the scope and worldview is almost oppressively claustrophobic and rather bleak and fatalistic at first- for very, very good reasons as you'll find out later in the story. As Taylor grows in confidence, power and maturity the narrative style changes dramatically and expands.
Which is really sort of a parallel of the entire series - the world building is absolutely phenomenal, and the scope of the world smoothly and seamlessly expands into one of the most ambitious sci-fi stories I've ever read. It's one of the few stories in recent years that has given me shivers of excitement and the feeling I literally couldn't read fast enough when I finally realized the big picture. (and indeed, half the fun of the story is figuring out the full context of everything happening within it)
Other than that, I think the character development is absolutely stellar. Nobody holds the "idiot ball" so to speak - intelligent characters actually act intelligently, and the author has the integrity to flesh out what the means to the narrative even when a simpler (but stupid) choice on the part of a character could make the story much easier to tell. A lot of times you'll see situations where you think "why don't they just do 'xyz'"... followed by them doing just that, which is pretty great. (and almost unheard of in the genre)
It also works as a great case study of society, power dynamics, bullying and ostracism, and how we choose to define ourselves socially and culturally and why certain behaviors are "acceptable" and others not and how much sense that really makes. It's a story told from a villain’s perspective (as is Pact) and manages to do so without automatically turning the "heroes" into the "bad guys". (which is a tempting thing to do with stories with villain protagonists) It also goes into why "bullied kid turns into villain" is a lot more likely of a story than "bullied kid turns into superhero", and what sort of societal pressures push people down those paths.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I loved Worm because I have spent many pleasant hours daydreaming about having superpowers.
However, perhaps unlike others, I never wish for unbeatable godlike powers... it's not a compelling story, even for a daydream. I think of powers I'd like to have, but then I think of their limitations, their counters, etc.
Most superpowers in stories get grossly underused. Time and again, powers that would solve problems get conveniently forgotten about. I enjoy the new TV show The Flash, but it strains credulity that people like Captain Cold (a guy with a freeze gun) are a threat. He can run up behind them and shoot them with a tranq gun, or even completely hogtie them and disarm them, in half a second. The show tries to make up for this by having the Flash be young, inexperienced, have stuff on his mind, whatever, and it comes close to working, but the fact is the Speed Force is INSANELY powerful, and it's HARD to write about superpowers like that and still have conflict. Ditto Green Lantern rings, Martian Manhunter powers, Kryptonian powers, etc.
In Worm, there are a lot of superpowered people, but most of them aren't to DC/Marvel cosmic scale. (Except for the Endbringers and Scion.)
Furthermore, early on there's a discussion of the "unwritten rules" about why powered folks act the way they do, how they have to keep the status quo, sort of, to enable them to fight the Endbringers, how they are driven to conflict, how they are all traumatized by the events that trigger their powers...
And I bought it. It made sense as an explanation. In-story, I was satisfied. Could I poke holes in it? Sure, but I don't really want to, whereas with a lot of other stuff, the holes are so glaring I can't help but point them out.
So Worm is a story where super-powered people use their powers intelligently. Instead of conveniently forgetting their powers to drive the plot, they have to try like crazy to make their powers effective... they practice with them, they strategize, they TRY.
It's the closest thing I've ever read to the way I would treat superpowers if I had them. I don't mean violence, I mean "how would I use superpowers *in the real world?*"
Is Worm perfect? No. The protagonist, while I respect her fighting skills, makes a lot of horrible decisions, and that's frustrating... but the underlying grimdark she has to deal with gives it an excuse. (I have less excuse for why her father is so useless though. Someday I will get back to work on my fanfic where Danny triggers with powers that make him a good dad :-)
The protagonist has powers that at first she doesn't think are that impressive. (Knowing something of entomology, though, I immediately thought otherwise.) But she leverages what she has over and over in situations where I keep thinking she will finally lose, and she keeps pulling victories (sometimes Pyrrhic of course) out of the fire... and that is pretty satisfying to me. I like to see someone smart and competent WIN. But in canon she doesn't just effortlessly roll over every obstacle... it's a struggle, it has a cost.
I like it because the protagonist escalates. So much other fiction, they don't escalate when they should. Even though the story posits a reason why the status quo exists... the protagonist ignores all that and escalates again and again, and so do the stakes of the story...
Even after getting to the end of the story, the earlier chapters still seem important. By rights the stakes at the beginning should be insignificant with what is faced at the end, but I still care somehow. So I guess I identified with enough of the characters.
And now the new story, Twig, has a protagonist who is apparently a master at lying and manipulation - skills I don't have in real life, and I don't appreciate at all, but in a story I do because the protagonist, while certainly imperfect, is *competent*.
I guess that's why I couldn't get into Pact, the protagonist was just thrown in the deep end and was drowning the whole time, always reacting to what other people threw at him... I didn't want to feel powerless while reading it.
With Worm, I felt this "oo-rah" whenever the protagonist managed to eke out another impossible victory... followed by "oh crud" when things then immediately got worse... it was an emotional roller coaster the whole ride.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I admire Worm. I believe it's one of the most well-thought out settings for superhuman stories out there. Construction by a single author who tries to think about how society would behave on all levels due to parahuman activity certainly outdoes the rather random way that the DC & Marvel universes were gradually pieced together over the decades...
I follow r/WormFanfic which often has good suggestions of decent Worm fics to read. A few of them don't even follow the 'Taylor triggers with a different power' formula. ;-)
Keep in mind that pretty much all the fics will of course have spoilers for Worm proper of things that you wouldn't get spoiled.
---
Returning briefly to HPMOR, whether you liked or were disappointed by the ending (for me it was part column A and part column B) I'd like to recommend Following the Phoenix an HPMOR-fic that diverges from HPMOR at the chapter of Hermione's trial.
I really *really* enjoyed Following the Phoenix, and I believe it did certain things better than even HPMOR proper did -- I was happier with how it brought different threads together, whereas in the actual HPMOR, many of the sidecharacters and events that happened earlier disappointingly didn't actually seem to end up mattering very much in the finale. I *highly* recommend it.
Secondarily, another HPMOR fic I enjoyed was Harry Potter & the Cryptographic Key. Not quite as highly recommending this as Following the Phoenix, but still I quite liked it.
Lastly, not quite in the same vein as the previous two (much shorter) but perhaps atleast as masterfully written as either of the previous, the awesome Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Zombie by the even awesomer alexanderwales Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Halfway through Following the Phoenix. It's sort of inconsistently good. I like the general thrust of the story - a much more proactive Harry, who's actually working with other people now. The prose is sometimes solid and sometimes kind of meh.
Just read Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Zombie, which was excellent for the sort of thing it is.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Following the Phoenix sounds interesting. If I quit on HPMoR a couple years ago (not because I didn't like it, just tired of waiting on updates just to get a meh chapter) should I go ahead and read it or finish HPMoR first?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If you still liked HPMoR, you should finish HPMoR, since it's all there now.
Following the phoenix starts at HPMoR chapter 86, so you should at least read up till there. I think it has pros and cons vs Classic HPMOR
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(Update: I'm actually having trouble finishing Following the Phoenix. The ideas are good but the prose just isn't good enough to keep me into it)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
On the flipside, I did find this other fiction that seems inspired by both HPMoR *and* Worm. (at least, And it's short, and is finished)
It's about Lex Luthor, Lois and Superman. I think it does a better job of showcasing a wider array of "rational" thinkers, whose thinking change over time.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Aris
I enjoyed reading your suggestions. Do you have any other recommendations for rationality type fanfics, Potter/Worm or otherwise?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote: I really *really* enjoyed Following the Phoenix, and I believe it did certain things better than even HPMOR proper did -- I was happier with how it brought different threads together, whereas in the actual HPMOR, many of the sidecharacters and events that happened earlier disappointingly didn't actually seem to end up mattering very much in the finale. I *highly* recommend it.
I liked a lot of things that it did, but ultimately I think it felt weaker than MOR. You're right, that it hit some of the themes (especially regarding cooperation and encouraging the spread of knowledge and rationality). And it was nice that Hermione got her phoenix despite Harry's intent, rather than via a trick (admittedly, one that relies on Hermione being the exact type of person who would get one, but the circumstance was still a bit contrived).
The war, in particular, was conceptually neat, but fell somewhat flat to me. I also much prefer the MOR philosopher stone to the ftp version. And though it left a bunch of threads dangling, I really liked the MOR ending, which is more than I can say for FTP.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I enjoyed reading your suggestions. Do you have any other recommendations for rationality type fanfics, Potter/Worm or otherwise?
Should I be blushing? :-) I'm happy you enjoyed them.
Anyone here's some more suggestions of mine:
MLP: FiM fanfiction:
I highly recommend Friendship is Optimal -- you don't need to have any knowledge whatsoever in regards to "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic", other than the knowledge which you probably already have that it's a highly successful cartoon series featuring colorful magical ponies -- the story is not really quite an MLP fanfic, it's more of an original SF story dealing with MLP as part of its background. And it's awesome.
I *highly* recommend The Waves Arisen. I have only ever seen a handful of eps of Naruto, but I didn't have much trouble following the plot (though I didn't quite understand the role of some side-characters). And it's awesome.
Personally I'd also recommend Time Braid. Though it's probably not quite as deliberately 'rationalist' as Waves Arisen, it nonetheless involves characters acting intelligently, experimenting to discover the limits of their powers, seeking to maximize their potential, etc, etc. A warning about this fic which is a dealbreaker for some people: It includes teenagers having significant amounts of sex. Plus, there's also a surprise crossover with another anime series (which I was more familiar with) later in its plot. I loved that crossover personally, but people only familiar with Naruto and not with the other series may have been going "Whaaa???"
Twilight fanfiction:
I think Luminosity by Alicorn may have been the second deliberately rationalist fanfic ever written (with Harry Potter & the Methods of Rationality being the first).
This story and its sequel (Radiance) became a bit too grim towards the end for me to recommend quite as highly as my previous suggestion, but still I think it's required reading if you're interested in rationalist stories. Unlike Eliezer, Alicorn focuses a bit more on her protagonists having self-awareness and less on them doing science. (The story begins with Bella saying "My favorite three questions are, What do I want?, What do I have?, and How can I best use the latter to get the former?")
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Also, you underestimate the extent to which intelligent people find neurotypicals, especially extroverted neurotypicals, really damn boring. As Harry points out, with the exception of janitorial services there's no particular need for Ron or his like to exist. So, in the wizarding world, where they've got perfectly cromulent house-elves for that sort of thing, no need at all. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)