Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11

Oscar_Cunningham

EDIT: New discussion thread here.

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky's Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. With two chapters recently the previous thread has very quickly reached 500 comments. The latest chapter as of 17th March 2012 is Ch. 79.

There is now a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author's Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.)

The first 5 discussion threads are on the main page under the harry_potter tag. Threads 6 and on (including this one) are in the discussion section using its separate tag system. Also: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.

As a reminder, it's often useful to start your comment by indicating which chapter you are commenting on.

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it's fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that "Eliezer said X is true" unless you use rot13.

EDIT: New discussion thread here.

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it's fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that "Eliezer said X is true" unless you use rot13.

I'm increasingly struck by the foreshadowing EY uses. Instead of pulling things out of his ass, he sets up whatever happens. Unlike the original series, I expect a satisfying ending where all the pieces fit together and make sense.

Along these lines, go back and look at the little chat Quirrell had with Harry after they broke Bella out of Azkaban. To summarize Quirrell: People are hypocritical and delusional pricks who will bleed their grandmothers for a nickel. They care nothing for people accused of crimes, but instead sadistically compete to show strength by abusing them. Being young and naive, you can still tolerate them, but once their idiocy strikes at something dear to you, you'll despise them as I do, and decide it's better to rule them than tolerate the abominations that inevitably follow when you don't.

And what happens? Hermione is accused of a crime, which is transparently improbably, but people compete to sadistically abuse her regardless. Their idiocy strikes at something dear to Harry, and in his heart, he declares war on magical Britain, musing "Dark Lord" just doesn't sound as bad as it used to.

EY and Quirrell couldn't have spelled it out more clearly.

Shouldn't this have occurred to Harry as well? When does he make the connection to that discussion?

It occurs to me, as I state in another thread below, that if Quirrell wasn't looking for a distraction to steal the stone, but really just wanted to make a point to Harry, he has done it. He could easily now save the day with some evidence to exonerate Hermione, and even tell Harry that he did the whole thing just to show Harry who was right in their discussion after the breakout. As a bonus, when Harry finds out that Dumbledore was complicit in Narcissa's murder, covering up for Bones for political purposes, Harry will see that Dumbledore was willing to trade Hermione's torture execution for political gain.

And speaking of making a point, didn't Hat and Cloak tell Hermione that Harry would sacrifice her if he had to? Maybe he'll be able to make two points with one scheme. He'll push Harry away from everyone but Hermione, but Hermoine away from him? Imagine Harry's bitterness and desolation.

That's pretty good.

But maybe the plot fails because Hermione doesn't hate Harry for not saving her, and that's something that Quirrell just can't understand. Hermoine saves the day by thinking of others over herself, and keeping Harry off the Quirrell path. Seems a likely homily form EY.

EY and Quirrell couldn't have spelled it out more clearly.
Shouldn't this have occurred to Harry as well? When does he make the connection to that discussion?

Harry has repeatedly shown that he's blind to Quirrell's darker motives. It seems to be a necessary contrivance: if he turned against Quirrell before he came fully into his power, he'd lose. I can think of a fictional justification for it, though. He applies the same rationalization to Quirrell's actions that we use when explaining our own, and he does it because he's a copy of the person he's makin... (read more)

4Pringlescan14y

I recently reread the chapter where Dumbledore gives Harry his rock. Its kind of shocking at how well it was written where the first time you are completely confused and the second time you are like, "Oh dumbledore you magnificent bastard'