Carinthium comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 5 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: NihilCredo 02 November 2010 06:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (648)
Tags: harry potter hpmor fiction fanfiction discussion harry_potter

Comments (648)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TobyBartels 28 November 2010 02:44:32AM 0 points [-]

Rationalist fiction should at least be plausible within it's premises

Yes, but one of the premises that I accept is that there are jokes. For example, all of the references to real wizards named after characters in works of fiction ought to blow Harry's mind, but they don't; they're just jokes. It's TvTropes' Rule of Funny.

Comment author: Carinthium 28 November 2010 02:47:51AM 0 points [-]

So you just accept jokes as Dis Continuity when asessing the story?

Comment author: TobyBartels 28 November 2010 02:59:39AM 0 points [-]

I'd like to be able to think up an explanation for them, but it's OK if they stretch the bounds of rationality for the joke. Chamberlain didn't really need to be Confunded (proof: in real life, he wasn't), but Grindelwald (or his minion named after a fan artist, I forget) did it anyway. And if a fictional Wizard is now real, then that work of fiction must have been based on rumour and legend of the real Wizard (even though that also isn't necessary, by the same proof as before). Etc.

I agree that all of this does stretch the rationality and make that aspect of the story weaker. But in my opinion, it's worth it. Your Mileage May Vary.

Comment author: komponisto 28 November 2010 06:52:38AM *  0 points [-]

Chamberlain didn't really need to be Confunded (proof: in real life, he wasn't), but Grindelwald (or his minion named after a fan artist, I forget) did it anyway

The passage (from ch. 49):

...Now in point of fact, Mr. Potter, Mr. Hagrid is innocent. Ridiculously obviously innocent. He is the most blatantly innocent bystander to be convicted by the magical British legal system since Grindelwald's Confunding of Neville Chamberlain was pinned on Amanda Knox.

For explanation, see the Author's Notes for that chapter. :-)

Comment author: TobyBartels 28 November 2010 08:26:14AM 1 point [-]

Thanks, I had a vague memory that Amanda Knox was in there, but I rejected it since the whole point is that she's innocent. So actually, we never did know who (Grindelwald or a minion) did the Confunding (not that it really matters).

Comment author: Carinthium 28 November 2010 07:01:08AM 1 point [-]

If he were Confounded, his actions wouldn't a rational explanation for his motives and he wouldn't be building up for war. Either things in MOR diverge from Harry Potter significantly earlier, or this is a plot hole.

Comment author: TobyBartels 28 November 2010 08:27:18AM *  0 points [-]

he wouldn't be building up for war

OK, that one I agree with. Although one might still find a way around it (he was unConfunded? but he never repudiated the Munich Agreement).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit