elharo comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 23, chapter 94 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (343)
I agree about Voldemort's motivation. As to why it didn't work, I I think Quirrell has been rather explicit that wizards were sheeple:
My tentative hypothesis is that Voldemort/Monroe realized that his original strategy to unite Wizarding Britain by presenting them with a common enemy wasn't working, so he set up the events in Godric's Hollow to make it appear that Voldemort had died (in an absolutely ridiculous and implausible way, that everyone except him and HJPEV would immediately believe). Then he could proceed to try something else.
It's commonly said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It would probably be better here to say the definition of irrationality is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Quirrell, unlike almost everyone else in the story except HJPEV and maybe Amelia Bones and Moody, is rational.
I suspect Harry's memories of that night are faked. I don't have any good hypotheses for what really happened though. I'm toying with the possibility that Voldemort didn't actually kill Harry's parents, and possibly they aren't even dead. There are 2 or 3 clues that could point to that, but I don't think they're strong enough to overcome the prior implausibility. More likely Voldemort did kill James and Lily, and then did something to Harry, Horcruxed him most likely, but deliberately, not accidentally. How does anyone know, in canon or HPMoR, that Voldemort cast Avada Kedavra on Harry? All we have is the burned body. No one except an infant saw it happen.
Note that there is also no explanation why Avada Kedavra of all things would produce a burned body. That particular bit of description ("burned husk", "burned to a crisp" etc.) has been repeated often enough to be strong foreshadowing, and burning is a great way to make a corpse unidentifiable, especially if dental records for the supposed victim are unavailable and/or no-one has ever heard of such a form of forensics.
Note also that Harry has no memory of Voldemort actually casting the Killing Curse on him. His memory apparently cuts out right after his mother's death.
How about Fiendfyre? Does that leave anything behind? I mean, it cut through Hogwarts.
Hey, when was Draco’s mother killed? He should be about the same age as Harry, and yet Harry’s Mum died when he was like a year old, and the war pretty much ended right then. So Narcissa’s burning could not have been long before (well, I guess it could be a few months; but that still leaves Draco a baby; if he were that much older than Harry to have had time to know her, he’d be a second year now).
New idea: going on the "Dumbledore faked Godric's Hollow" theory, what if "Voldemort's" body that gets found is the unrecognizable, burned body of Narcissa Malfoy?
I can't answer that question (though my instinct is to say "no"), but I will point out that Hogwarts isn't particularly indestructible. Haven't we at least seen one of the trolls damage the walls with ordinary brute force? Or am I misremembering?
We did see that:
Also