= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nohatmaker comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - 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 (1221)
The prophecy (at least canon - I remember MOR having a slightly different one, but cannot find it offhand) could point to two identities of Tom Riddle. The hero and the villain. Neither can (truly) live while the other survives.
Unfortunately that's one of the phrases that isn't in the MOR version. It's "either must destroy all but a remnant of the other, for those two spirits cannot exist in the same world."
That part could still fit. Certainly Voldemort and Noble Hero cannot (simultaneously) exist in the same world.
"The one with the power approaches" seems anachronistic, though, and "Born to those who have thrice defied him" doesn't make much sense unless we assume the defying happened after he was born (even then, it doesn't quite fit). Finally, "He will have power the Dark Lord knows not" is virtually impossible if they are the same person.
For more than six hours a day.
Hmm. The "those two spirits cannot exist in the same world" part makes me think of an irresistible force and an immovable body. Not sure if that's at all relevant.
How so? I get the same sense, but I can't seem to pin it down.
Perhaps it is the "cannot", rather than "must not" or "should not", with its implication of a fundamental incompatibility rather than a moral imperative. "These two things cannot exist in the same world" suggests paradox if they do.
Though of course, Potter and Voldemort exist in the same world for 17 years without breaching physical law in canon, so perhaps it's not entirely literal.
Indeed. My comment was trying to account for Slackson and faul_sname's psychological reactions, rather than describe the literal meaning of the prophecy itself.
The (rather clumsy) "all but a remnant" phrasing is interesting. It seems likely that Harry's "dark side" is a Voldemort-horcrux or something very similar, and he's promised (somewhere in TSPE) to protect that. So perhaps he kills Quirrell but lets Voldie live on in his horcrux, and they go off and travel the stars together :-).
That's something I hadn't thought of before. When I first heard the prophecy I immediately assumed it just meant Harry didn't need to come up with a way to deal with the Pioneer, and I didn't reevaluate upon Harry's reconciliation with his dark side.
Also, I've been wondering what that means in reverse- what's stopping Voldemort from destroying all of Harry, what would his remnant be? Interesting thought- maybe Harry's dark side counts as a remnant of Harry, too.
But how could Harry's dark side endure with Harry gone?
I am tempted to suggest Harry's legacy (the Patronus 2.0, application of rationality to magic etc.) as a remnant of Harry that Voldemort couldn't destroy. Although Voldemort has his own legacy (the Death Eaters, the impact of the war), and it would be strange to talk of anyone "destroying" that.
Perhaps the prophecy is saying that the only way for Voldemort to destroy Harry is to use Harry's style or powers against him? Voldemort with a Patronus 2.0 would likely count as a "remnant".