Why did you downvote, that doesn't seem justified at all??
Two: Quirrell's not stupid. He went through that whole Groundhog Day Attack rigmarole specifically to avoid leaving detectable Legilimency traces; he would be a fool to try it now, after Dumbledore's specifically warded her against "hostile magic [...], or any spirit".
This is the first legitimate counterargument that's been made and we're seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
I'll lower the probability of mind reading, but I still don't buy it. Hostile magic is obviously not the same as Legilmancy, that passage is talking about Dark Curses like Imperio. The Groundhog Day Attack argument makes sense, but I think Quirrell's already played his hand. Why would Dumbledore care and what would Dumbledore do differently if Dumbledore found out that Quirrell had looked into Hermione's mind? Also, if Quirrell succeeded in getting Hermione to leave, which he probably expected to do, then there would have been zero risk of detection.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason. I trust what the author writes more than what the commenters on this site write because EY doesn't always make characters perfectly consistent and rational because he's not God, and also because EY has knowledge about the book that we don't. It makes sense to privilege what the writer has written over a fan's opinion of what will probably happen next.
Even if I was mostly wrong I would still expect more argumentation and less group ritual display from a website like this. But I have way more -karmas than I do plausible counterarguments to what I'm saying, and in my mind downvoting should be used for punishing (or expressing disapproval of) immoral things rather than of mistakes, or things that aren't even mistakes but are just theories you don't believe in. That's lame.
When commenters downvote everything I write, even if it's mostly useful or prompts interesting discussions, it makes me want to leave this site. That's not a good thing for people purportedly trying to promote rationality. People should probably be more laid back about downvoting. You guys kind of suck.
This is the first legitimate counterargument that's been made and we're seven layers in, that should tell everyone something.
It tells me that you see far fewer counterarguments as "legitimate" than you should.
I think textual clues outweigh extratextual extrapolation, too. The fact that the eye contact was specifically mentioned seems important, it was probably mentioned for a reason.
As I mention in a comment above, Quirrel's intent gaze is also mentioned in ch. 70, in a situation where we're pretty sure no Legimancy occurred.
...Even if I wa
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: