= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
knb comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - 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 (1221)
I had this idea about Tom Riddle's plan that I appreciated having criticized.
Tom Riddle grew up in the shadow of WWII. He saw much of the Muggle world unite against a threat they all called evil, and he saw Europe's savior, the US, eventually treated as the new world leader afterward, though it was somewhat contested, of course. That threat strongly defined it's own presentation and style, and so that style and presentation were associated with evil afterward.
Tom didn't want to be Hitler. Tom wanted to actually win and to rule in the longer term, not just until people got tired of his shit and went all Guy Fawks on his ass. He knew that life isn't easy for great rules, but thought that was worthwhile. He knew that life was even harder for great rulers who ruled by fear, so that wasn't his plan.
So Tom needed two sides, good and evil. To this end he needed two identities, a hero and a villain.
I guess he didn't think the villain didn't need to have any kind of history. Maybe he didn't think the villain would matter much or for long. Voldemort was just there for the hero to strike down. That was a mistake, because he lacked a decoy his enemies were eventually able to discover his identity.
Then there's this hero. The hero is a what passes for a minor noble in magical Britain. He's from a 'cadet' branch of the family, which means he doesn't stand to inherit anything substantial because he's not main line.
Most importantly, he goes missing in Albania. That's a shout out to canon and a code phrase for "became Tom RIddle's bitch."
As Voldemort, Tom sows terror and reaps fear. He's ridiculously evil and for Dumbledore redefines evil because he is apparently evil without necessity. Dumbledore can't tell what function that outrageous evil serves because Dumbledore thinks that evil is done sincerely. He doesn't know it's just a show.
Tom stages a dramatic entrance into the drama for his hero: he saves the president's daughter, or something like that. Totally Horatio Alger. It's a cliche, which may be EY's way of helping us to understand that Tom is fallible, more then than now.
Tom promotes his hero from Minor Noble to Last Scion of House X by killing off the rest of his hero's family. Tom simultaneously builds legitimacy for his hero's authority and leverages the tragedy to build sympathy for his hero's cause.
Tom's mistake was thinking that would be enough. There was a threat to the peace. There was a solution. The people instead chose to wallow in their failure and doom. He made it all so clear, so simple, and yet the morons just didn't get it.
I'm sure anyone whose been the biggest ego in the room during improv could sympathize.
When Tom realizes that his plan has failed and cannot be made to work in the intended fashion, he exits his hero, stage left. At that point, 75 or so, he doesn't have a good plan to leave the stage as his villain, so he kind of kicks it for a few years, tolerating the limits of his rule and getting what meager entertainment he can out of being a god damned theater antagonist.
When Tom gets a chance, he pulls his villain off the stage and may or may not have done something to the infant Harry Potter.
Now he's using the Scion of X as an identity layer to keep the fuzz off his back, while manipulating Harry into a position of power, and I'm guessing he plans to hit Harry with the Albanian Shuffle a little while later and give World Domination another try.
Tom Riddle is a young immortal. He makes mistakes but has learned an awful lot. He is trying to plan for the long term and has nothing but time, and so can be patient.
I've been thinking along the same lines, probably because I watched Code Geass not too long ago, and this is basically the "Zero Requiem" gambit employed by Lelouch. He creates a totem of pure evil as a target of the world's hatred, then publicly destroys it, establishing a hero as savior-king. Riddle, like Lelouche, is portrayed as a "Byronic hero"--mysterious, cynical, cunning, arrogant, and brilliant. If this interpretation is correct, Harry might not be his future meatpuppet, but actually the "chosen one", who will fulfill the role of the hero and unite the world as savior-king after destroying the risen Voldemort.
But of course it could have just been a "Palpatine Gambit". In this version, Riddle was using his Voldemort persona to create fear, which his other persona takes advantage of to turn Magical Britain into the Empire, consolidating all power to himself. But in this version, much to the consternation of Tom Riddle, the "Republic" actually doesn't give up power to the obviously qualified hero (due to diffusion of responsibility, political maneuvering, etc.) So instead he decides to just seize power as Voldemort, but by bad luck, he is struck down by Lilly Potter's self-sacrifice. Now he is back, and wants to use Harry as his new hero, but he needs to make it plausible, by convincing Harry of his political views, and making him super-formidable. That way, when "Harry" (actually Riddle acting via Imperius/polyjuice, etc.) takes over Britain and strikes down the resurrected "Voldemort" in his 7th year, people will believe it was possible. Riddle will then rule Britain (and eventually the world as "Harry Potter".
I don't see any need for a sacrifice or a Voldemort who goes alone to confront the kind of threat he takes seriously enough to take seriously the threat posed by an infant.
I cannot parse that.
The circumstances we are given in MOR do not require or imply a sacrifice. There are no hints that Harry was saved by a sacrifice. I can't think of any hints about any reason at all that he was saved, really.
If Vodlemort hears of a threat that is an infant and he takes that threat seriously enough to do something about an infant, we are not told anything about Voldemort that makes it in character for him to confront a threat like that alone.
That is, there is more than one problem with the story we have concerning the night Harry's parents died.
Why would he need backup to kill a baby? We've seen him do more dangerous things(e.g., sitting in Hogwarts for a year scheming) without backup.
And yes, the sacrifice story comes from canon, not MoR. Still, with no other hints, that gives it a pretty high prior probability.
People protect babies and it would be reasonable to expect that people would work especially hard to protect babies that are prophesied to save the world from an evil villain. It turns out that his enemies were idiots and suffered a single point of failure, but even if he thought he knew that the target would be under protected the smart thing to do is not to depend on his quisling and go in alone.
How high is this canon bonus to probability of yours? Would you say that Aberforth was probably a zoophile just because he was in canon? Or that Ron and Hermione will probably get together because they did in canon? Or that Snape will kill Dumbldedore because he did in canon?
What was idiotic about the way Harry was protected? They were betrayed to a superior force by someone highly placed, and there's no good defense against that. And Voldemort was knowingly superior to every possible defender, so why would he worry about it?
And re prior probabilities, it's obviously dependant on the issue in question. On something where MoR is silent, canon carries a lot of weight. On something where MoR spends time adjusting expectations, canon carries very little weight. So it's quite likely that Aberforth loved goats(though even more likely that MoR will stay silent on the topic), but quite unlikely that Ron and Hermione will get together(because the story is explicitly listed as Harry/Hermione, and has been proceeding accordingly). And Snape killing Dumbledore...actually that one's not implausible, because both characters seem quite similar to their canon versions. If they were put in the same position, they'd likely do the same thing. I don't think the story will run long enough to get there, but if it does somehow, I can see it. I'd certainly put the probability higher than McGonagall or Flitwick doing him in.
Did you miss the part about a single point of failure?
Fate of the whole fucking world and the critical security decisions and on site protective services are trusted to a crew of twenty somethings who were really close in school. Idiots.
The only reason to work alone is if working with others means watching your back more. We have no evidence that Vodlemort executed his other raids singlehandely, so we should believe that he did it the smart way with backup. So why the sudden switch from terrorist to cheap slasher monster?
MoR is not silent on the question of sacrifice, it is covered under the primary themes of the story. Throwing your life away futilely not smart and should not be rewarded in a story with rationalist aspirations. There's no exposition on the subject of mother's love sacrifice charms, so if this is what happened it will be unforeshadowed. EY has said that is a bad thing to do so we should guess that he probably doesn't intend to do that.
Find me a protection scheme that applies to the situation at hand with a second point of failure, and I'll accept your criticism of the plan they had. Highly-placed traitors are really, really hard to defend against.
Similarly, find me an example of Voldemort having backup on any of his attacks, and I'll believe that him lacking it here is relevant.
Rationality is about winning. Lily Potter won that night, as much as she believably could have. I'd say she did okay by "throwing her life away".