= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Raiden comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 25, chapter 96 - 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 (524)
What is meant by the three sons? Harry, Draco, and someone else? Quirrell perhaps? Using the three Deathly Hallows?
On Reddit, there seems to be a substantial number of users hoping for Harry, Draco and Hermione. Draco makes some degree of sense (ur jnf gur znfgre bs gur Ryqre Jnaq sbe zbfg bs pnaba Qrnguyl Unyybjf), though the Hermione ideas are pretty handwavy (still, the idea of Hermione somehow resurrecting herself and mastering the Resurrection Stone is awesome, if hard to believe possible).
The main objection to Dumbledore as the master of the wand is his devout deathism; Quirrel participating as the master of the stone is much more believable.
I interpreted this to mean that long ago, there were 3 Peverell brothers, each of which created one of the Hallows. Harry is descended from this family. Note that it doesn't say that "Pevererll's sons" will necessarily be the ones to use their devices to defeat Death, only that the devices are theirs.
'Shall be' refers to a change of future state, so it can't be about the way things are now.
Agreed, but this prediction could be older than the Hallows and their creators.
Unlikely given it was "spoken in the presence of the three Peverell brothers".
Ah, I missed this, I think you're correct (upvoting you and maltrhin). I suppose that my interpretation is the one EY is trying to trick unobservant readers such as myself into making.
I do still think there's still some wiggle room for that interpretation though: Harry's whole outburst about Trelawney's "He's coming!" prophecy, where he said it couldn't possibly be about him because he's already arrived, would seem to indicate that EY is willing to use prophecies whose proper interpretation is not-quite-literal.
Or maybe Harry was right, and "he" in the "tear apart the very stars" prophecies refers to death; after all, "he is here!" happened as soon as Hermione died, so death had indeed arrived at Hogwarts.
It occurred long enough afterwards for Quirrell to realize, stop casting Fiendfyre, stop moving, land the broom, and then think for a small time. It wasn't the same instant.
Though not spoken in Prophecy bold. It would be consistent for the brothers to have heard a retelling of a prophecy from before their birth. You could further fit evidence to this theory and claim that the Perevells' hearing of the prophecy caused great misfortune, and Dumbledore's wariness at bringing Harry to the Hall of Prophecy stems from this incident.
It would be a little too much, I think, for the omniscient narrator to "make a game of lying with truths".
I don't think they'll go this route, but the three heirs to Gryffindor and Slytherin (Fred, George, and Harry)?
The reason both Fred and George can be the Heir to Gryffindor is because they're magically the same person, though...
Good point. And speaking to the broader point, I think the chance of those three being the magic three is approximately nil. Slightly more likely than nil are the three current masters of the Deathly Hallows: Harry (Cloak), Dumbledore (Elder Wand), Quirrell (Resurrection Stone, though perhaps not master). Master of the Elder wand is very important in canon, and Master of the Cloak is important in this story.