= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapters 105-107 - 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)
Comments (353)
I love how so many people are acting as though their pet hypotheses have already been confirmed (both here and on Reddit), despite the fact that the only evidence we've got at this point for most of those hypotheses is Quirrell's word. I don't know about anyone else, but this seems to me like a golden opportunity for EY to pull some sort of epic subversion of expectations and then lecture all of us about confirmation bias or overconfidence or something.
I'm feeling somewhat reassured that my theory that Quirrell is evil is confirmed, but is there still room left for him to turn out to be benevolent?
Seeing as HPMoR is in large part about pointing out how narrative logic doesn't work in reality, it seems plausible to me that even if Q == V, that doesn't necessarily imply that he's evil. (Well, I mean, he is pretty evil, but I'm not sure he's going to end up being the Big Bad of the story.)
Following up on the idea of breaking narrative logic, might there not really be a Big Bad at all. Like, Voldemort has sobered up over the years and really just wants to be immortal. He'll go to great lengths to get there, but doesn't plan to destroy the world or anything. Just an idea.