= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
75th comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10 - 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 (641)
It seems that the popular opinion around here is that Mr. Hat & Cloak is someone, anyone, other than Quirrellmort. I think this is a case of the same kind of thinking that led people to wonder whether Quirrell was Voldemort a lot longer than Eliezer intended.
I think Eliezer probably meant us to know that Quirrell was H&C the very first time he appeared. Quirrell follows after Zabini when he leaves Harry; Zabini says that Quirrell reacted exactly as H&C told him he would. He knew how Quirrell would react because he is Quirrell, and he told Zabini to do what he did specifically so Harry, who Quirrell knew would be around after the ceremony, could hear it and have another reason to distrust Dumbledore.
Eliezer has already dealt with this once. Everyone suppressed their own knowledge of canon and faculties of logic even in the face of nigh-incontrovertible evidence that Quirrell was Voldemort. He expressed his confusion at this in the author's notes, and I believe he vowed to make his blatant hints more blatant in the future.
I think Quirrell being H&C is even more blatant than Quirrellmort was, and here we are doing the exact same thing. We do it because we love the story and want to preserve as many surprises as we can for as long as possible. We want to wait, wait, wait for a bigger payoff later.
I think Eliezer is likely to be silently rolling his eyes at us on this, thinking "There they go again!" and chuckling quietly to himself. But I know that if he is, he's darn well going to let us figure it out for ourselves this time, rather than once again holding our hands as we step gingerly to conclusions to which he meant us to leap.
Ha! Or maybe Eliezer has been rolling his eyes at us (or, rather, y'all), and gave us a blatant hint with the contrast of competent Quirrell interrogating sneaky Snape and less experienced H&C working on naive Hermione. I think you're just clinging to your one beautiful idea, instead of examining other possibilities - like, say, H&C is taking instructions from Quirrell, maybe?
See? Two can play that game.
I disagree with this at least as strongly as you believe it. I'm pretty sure he meant Hat and Cloak to be a giant question mark. Hence the elaborate descriptions of the broad hat, the dark mist, and the gender-concealing cloak, all drawing your attention to the mystery of his identity. There have been hints, but they don't all point in the same direction the way they do for Quirrell and Voldemort. Some are red herrings. I conclude that we're not meant to be certain of who he is. We're meant to wonder and doubt.
I'm not sure why almost everyone assumes that the first and the second H&C is the same person. Is there any reason to think so, beside their appearance?
Same appearance is a clue to the two H&C-s being related, but not necessarily to identity. For example, a hat and a cloak may be a uniform in a secret society, to be worn in special circumstances. Or, maybe two of them were friends and did pranks like that in their youth. Or, one of them saw the other do this trick once long ago, was impressed, and remembered it. Etc etc.
What I'm leading to is the possibility of the first H&C being Quirrell, and the second being Lucius.
I much like the idea of this being a standard spell, as that provides further cover for your identity.
They Guy Fawkes mask is the modern equivalent.
I think Eliezer referred to both of them as "Mr. Hat-and-Cloak" in the author's notes.
What really throws this for me is that Quirrell is said to go down the hallway in the same direction as Zabini, and then in the next section Zabini meets H&C. That is so blatant that I actually consider it an anti-clue. It's like someone pretending to steal something and whistling nonchalantly to draw attention to their jest-theft. Contrast to Quirrell trying to permanently Dement Harry during the Humanism arc, which was subtle enough that I completely missed it in the first reading (tho didn't hurt that I was very biased by my adoration of Quirrell at that point).
Wait, what? Has this been discussed somewhere?
Somewhere in the old threads I think, but I'm in a rush and can't look it up right now. Quick points:
All plausibly deniable, and exactly Quirrell's style.
That implies he at least suspects Harry holds a horcrux...
Why would he want to kill Harry? And if he wanted to, wouldn't he have done it by now?
Demented Harry is Evil Harry, not dead.
What? The people in Azkaban were close to dead, not cunning evil geniuses. Dementors weaken you and suck the life out of you.
Chapter 44 is the goal-state
Holy crap.
The problem I have with this is that it's unnecessary from Quirrel's point of view.
If Quirrell wanted a 3 way tie, he could have managed that himself as the organizer.
If Quirrell wanted Blaise to testify about Dumbledore, he could have pulled the same trick Kingsley did in book 5 at far less risk.
If Quirrell wanted to convince Hermoine of something, he wouldn't have needed multiple tries reset with Obliviate.
Quirrell being H&C is superfluous frow Quirrell's point of view. He could have achieved all of those by himself.
You realize Dumbledore was the one who made the 3-way tie happen? Zabini was just reporting on it to quirrel and HnC.
Quirrel might want blaise to talk about dumbledore IN FRONT of quirrel and not give away that quirrel ordered him to a cunning observer, such as harry. This would mean giving him orders as someone other than quirrel.
As far as hermione goes, do you seriously think any idea she gained from quirrel would be as convincing to her as one conveyed by whatever entity he ends up using in the memory attack? As she said, she doesn't trust HnC when he appears extremely suspicious, and she would never trust quirrel for the exact same reasons.
Ah yes, Dumbledore did indeed wish for the 3-way tie to happen. Although it did occur with the full consent and knowledge of H&C. Whoever H&C was, he let that plan go through. I will point out that Zabini didn't just report it to Quirrell/Harry, but rather reported a distorted version that involved giving false information.
The trick I'm referring to in book 5 is when Cho's friend is testifying to Umbridge and Kingsley changes her testimony right before she gives it. It's been a while since I read it but it was probably the Imperius or Confundus. Eg, if Quirrell were willing to go these lengths to mislead Harry, he could have just cast a spell on Zabini and be done with it.
Also, I agree with you about Hermoine not trusting anything she heard from Quirrell. However, I only said that Quirrell wouldn't need so many tries, not that he'd talk to her with his face. He's had her as a student; he's interacted with her personally; hell, he's made her a general and has her marked as a person of interest. He would already know what it takes to convince her. He would have succeeded with a singly try instead of wasting hours in that corridor. What's more, Quirrell is a master legilimens; if he's willing to pull off a Groundhog Day attack on her he might as well just read her mind and get it right the first try. There's no point in wasting time, magic, and risk of getting caught when you could just do the job perfectly in 30 seconds.
Having one's mind read for the first time seems to leave some kind of trace; if he's not sure she's ever had her mind read before he shouldn't try it because then Dumbledore or Snape could learn later that someone's been peeking.
This seems to be borne out by the events of Chapter 79:
Even if Hat and Cloak is Quirrell, the job had to be done the hard way, without Legilimency.
I think you're overestimating Quirrel. Harry finds him extremely persuasive because he's inclined to agree with him, because he's grown to trust and like him. Hermione might respect him as teacher, but she doesn't trust OR like him, and this is obvious whenever harry tries to tell her something Quirrel told him. EVEN when you're extremely competent some things simply take some trial and error to get correct, and understanding a mind that's diametrically opposed to yours should be one of those things. Quirrel doesn't know EVERYTHING.
As far as legilimency goes, it's established that that the person needs to be thinking about a topic or atleast about similar topics before you can find out about it. This means that legilimizing someone in order to gain their inner motivations, worries, and handles is definitely gonna take way longer than 30 seconds.
-
-
In chapter 75 Snape gives Hermione a rather thorough dressing-down in front of the school. Did the Groundhog Day attack in chapter 77 happen on the same day? I have been assuming that Snape & Harry were broadly correct, and the Groundhog Day attack was how that madness-guiding trick was done.
My working-theory is that the entire purpose of the attack was to produce a directed trauma, and an obsession, without a readily detectable cause.
Xachariah and Drethelin, if I've read you right you both believe that Hat and Cloak's purpose was to put some idea or belief into Hermione's head; to convince her of something. I think that there is something rather deeper and more subtly manipulative going on here.
[Edited for formatting.]