= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Misha comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 5 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (648)
No it doesn't. It shows that Quirrel knows what to say in response to being accused of trying to kill someone to make it look like that wasn't actually his intention.
Given that AK is an Unforgivable, and according to canon the caster must 'mean it' to cast such a spell, I'm fairly confident that Quirrel's explanation is a lie, though I will admit that I haven't checked the exact mechanism for that kind of spell failure - if a not-meaning-it casting of AK would produce a similar visual effect, he could be telling the truth, and it could have been significantly safer than it looked - but in that case, why would he claim that he was intending to move the auror, rather than explaining that the spell was actually harmless?
According to canon, the spell must be cast with hatred. I'm not sure it has to be cast with the intent to be lethal.
Also, I doubt that when Voldemort kills some random mook he's feeling personal hate towards him. And IIRC in canon Quirrelmort (ETA: no, not him, another Evil Teacher) kills some lab animals in class to demonstrate the killing curse; I'm sure he didn't hate them. The requirement for hatred is a sort of "Negative Emotions == Dark Side" thing.
You're thinking of Barty Crouch Jr. masquerading as Alastor Moody in Goblet of Fire.
EDIT: typo
Right, thanks!
Alastor.
thanks
That's interesting. Rational!Harry might not be well-versed in subtleties of casting unforgivables, so Quirrel's explanation might look more plausible to him.