= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TobyBartels comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 12 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (692)
Wedrifid, do not read Deathly Hallows. It will disappoint you. (Personally, I was pleased; it could have been a lot worse.)
I read all the Harry Potter books the first day they came out. From what I recall of Hallows... the first half was "Frodo and Sam walked a lot" but with more pouting.
Then we must have interpreted it differently. I took the existence of literal love magic as pretty firmly established by the protection granted by Harry to every good guy in the Battle of Hogwarts. I'm having difficulty imagining how anything Rowling says could make this story-breaking power worthy of any lower esteem. (And I am only thinking of the second half, which was the interesting one.)
Lower esteem? By no means. Merely more reductionist detail and less Dumbledorish drivel. Sacrificing one's life to make a protection spell over a loved one is in no way diminished if the magic mechanism doesn't sound like it was developed by carebears.
OK, I'm pretty thoroughly confused. When you write
what don't you want to hear? And what more would have to be true to trigger the hypothesis in