shokwave comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10 - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 07 March 2012 04:46PM

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

Comments (641)

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

Comment author: shokwave 14 March 2012 03:23:14AM 5 points [-]

It would simply be bad writing to set up a mysterious and malevolent figure like Hat and Cloak and then reveal him as one of the story's established villains.

Unless the reveal involved learning about the Voldemort-Quirrell symbiosis, or Voldemort-Hat-and-Cloak outsmarting Voldemort-Quirrell, or any of a dozen other dramatic reveals.

A point in favor of Hat and Cloak being Grindelwald: the playing card he chose to represent Dumbledore was the King of Hearts. ♥

At first I wanted to say "reading too deeply", but you have a point: the choice of card was not a throwaway line, it was intended to be mysterious, so it should have some depth worth plumbing.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 March 2012 05:41:45AM 6 points [-]

I like it here! Everyone's so gracious. Upvoted and thank you.

Comment author: LucasSloan 15 March 2012 12:46:55AM 0 points [-]

Unless the reveal involved learning about the Voldemort-Quirrell symbiosis, or Voldemort-Hat-and-Cloak outsmarting Voldemort-Quirrell, or any of a dozen other dramatic reveals.

You're postulating increasingly complex (ie unlikely) explanations to defend your theory. Donny's statement is strong evidence for H&C not being one of the existing villains.

Comment author: shokwave 15 March 2012 01:12:10AM 1 point [-]

That's a disjunction of several unlikely explanations; any one alone is enough to 'defend' my theory.