loserthree comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 13, chapter 81 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: bogdanb 27 March 2012 06:07PM

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

Comments (1099)

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

Comment author: buybuydandavis 29 March 2012 07:24:24AM 4 points [-]

Also there is the fact (mentioned by someone else, sorry I forget who) that Narcissa's sister, Bellatrix, murdered Bones' brother.

Also, Bones is the one who speaks up to stop Dumbledore from "confessing" to killing Narcissa.

I think it's Bones. Too many coincidences otherwise.

Comment author: loserthree 29 March 2012 03:39:43PM 1 point [-]

Eponymuse, I think I covered that with the word 'vengeance.'

Those coincidences are otherwise satisfied by the fact that Bones' motives are served by Narcissa's Immolation, whoever did it. Given what we know about her, she'd act the same way if Dumbledore or Moody were Narcissa's Immolator. Still, it does make some narrative sense for her be the one.

I am not at all confident that Aberforth was involved. I would like it very much, though, if someone could add something more to or take something away from the rickety scaffold propping this theory up.

Aberforth may have died just to emphasize the harshness of the war in ways the source did not. If that's the case, I'm making a red herring out of a pointless bit of the set. However, there was nothing in the text that tells us that Aberforth was a tragic casualty of a meaningless war or anything of the sort. For now he looks, to me, like a gun on the mantle.

Comment author: Eponymuse 02 April 2012 12:43:12AM 4 points [-]

Sorry, apparently I'm illiterate.

Also, I guess "siblings getting killed" isn't much of a pattern. Given that people were getting killed in the war, and that people have siblings, you can count the people getting killed as siblings.