Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84

FAWS

The next discussion thread is here.

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 84. The previous thread has passed 500 comments. Comment in the 14th thread until you read chapter 84.

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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

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Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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.

The next discussion thread is here.

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Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).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.

I would like feedback on a theory.

First, some groundwork. Voldemort's first "destruction" as a result of Lily Potter's sacrifice does not seem right. Even if we accept that love and sacrifice somehow block the killing curse, she was trying to kill Voldemort when he killed her. That doesn't add up to burnt-out husk of Voldemort. Now, before I suggest a solution, you might want to consider alternatives for yourself.

I suggest that Voldemort was intentionally turning Harry into a Horcrux. There are at least two reasons for the burnt-out husk result. (1) Using a human as horcrux was probably experimental, and prone to disaster. (2) Voldemort's original body served as the human sacrifice to create the horcrux. There are many other possibilities, and the details are not critical. What matters is that Harry, as a horcrux, is at least partly a copy of Voldemort himself (thus the mysterious dark side). Interestingly, this means a copy of Voldemort grew up with a loving and supportive family.

Now for the important part: what the heck is Professor Quirrel up to? Acquiring political power for Harry seems to be high on his agenda. If Harry contains a copy of Voldemort, then acquiring political power for Harry is, in some sense, acquiring power for Voldemort.

Summary: Harry is (partly) Voldemort. Voldemort/Quirrel's plan (or at least one of them) was to make a copy, put it in Harry, and make Harry the new Lord.

The events of the recent chapters have provided significant evidence against this theory. Taking out Harry's best friends is not consistent with putting Harry in a position of political power, assuming that it was Voldemort/Quirrel behind the incident. But that's a problem regardless of theory. Professor Quirrel's obvious agenda is to put Harry in power. If he really wants to destroy Harry, why this agenda? Note that far less would suffice to make Quirrel look innocent in Harry's destruction. But if he really does want Harry in power, why remove his friends?

If someone else was behind it, who and why? Dumbledore should not be ruled out yet, although he doesn't have an obvious motive and he's putting up a damn good show if it was him. Lucius does have an obvious motive, but also put up a damn good show, and it seems overly clever for him. Postulating an unknown third party would take a lot more evidence to justify the increase in complexity and provide little predictive power, though it's not impossible.

So, three questions: (1) Any other evidence for/against the "Harry is the new Voldemort" theory? (2) If Quirrel was behind the attack on Draco/Hermione, what is his real agenda? (3) If someone else was behind it, who and why?

I suggest that Voldemort was intentionally turning Harry into a Horcrux. There are at least two reasons for the burnt-out husk result. (1) Using a human as horcrux was probably experimental, and prone to disaster.

Seems like a really good reason not to be the first to try it then.

4Velorien14y

For the central premise on which your theory is founded, you skip over this without giving any reason to privilege this possibility over others (such as "Voldemort wasn't intentionally turning Harry into a Horcrux"). It's hard to take a theory seriously when it skips straight from a central premise to discussing implications, without considering the state of the evidence first. As an example problem, all other Horcruxes, both in canon and MoR, are nigh-indestructible magical artefacts. In fact, the only other MoR one was chosen for its utter inaccessibility to Voldemort's enemies. Yet here Voldemort is choosing a baby as guarantor of his immortality. [...] Again, needs justification. If Harry is a Horcrux, this has not given Voldemort any form of control over him (not even the canon mind-link). Acquiring power for Harry only acquires power for Voldemort if Voldemort can control or manipulate Harry - and this he must accomplish without any aid of Harry's Horcrucicity. [...] In order to forestall their positive influence on his personality and make him more open to his own cynical worldview, and thus his manipulation. Also, two "l"s in "Quirrell".