Also, for anyone who is interested, I am really curious what LWers think of the long passages at the end of David Foster Wallace's posthumous novel The Pale King that describe the character Shane Drinion.

Sometimes I check the original and am surprised by how little I actually diverged from Rowling's Dumbledore.

FYI to other readers: Citation does not support claim, it's about linear models of wine-tasting rather than experimental support for psychotherapy.

Any advice for the novice speaker?

That's a surprisingly difficult question. I've improved slowly and unsystematically, and to the extent I’ve succeeded, I think it's because I was trying really hard. So maybe the most useful tips I can give you are about how to try really hard: First, identify yourself as a nice person, someone who always tries to be kind, so that if you hurt someone, you’ll think, “That’s not the kind of person I try to be.” Second, attempt things that require you to be nice in order to be successful—teaching and health care worked for me.

Here are a few (not particularly original) suggestions on practical niceness:

• Smile a lot. Pay attention to what your body language is like when you interact with animals and small children (assuming you like them), and try to act more like that toward everyone else.
• Be interested in people. Make mental notes of the interests and characteristics of the people you talk to, especially things you like about them. Ask questions about things that seem to interest them.
• When someone seems upset, indicate that you have noticed this and are concerned by it. Exactly how will depend on the situation (it may be best not to draw attention to the problem), but it’s basically never the right answer to ignore how someone is feeling or act as if it’s unimportant to you.
• Disagreeing is very tricky. Most of the time, arguments are veiled hostilities at least as much as they are exchanges of ideas, and if you start an argument you will almost inevitably find yourself in a status war. Before you open your mouth to disagree with someone, consider whether you are starting an argument, and be very, very careful.
• Keep in touch. Quick notes, texts, phone calls, etc, don’t take much effort, but they’re important to people.
• Be appreciative. Thank people a little bit more, and in more detail, than you’re used to. If you’re like me, you probably often notice good things about people that you don’t mention—this is a missed opportunity to give a sincere compliment.
• Patience is often necessary. Sometimes someone wants to yammer on about something that bores you, or demands your sympathy when you think they’re being wrongheaded, or just needs some time to get over their mood. You can become more patient with deliberate practice.

(Note that I suggest these as ways of being nice to people, not of making people like you or of accomplishing any other goal.)

If I didn't have as high an opinion of the author as I did, I'd think he meant Harry because Quirrell's cynical, mostly-accurate view is somehow immoral. Actually, I think it could be either Quirrell or Harry: Quirrell because he has a more detailed and largely correct model, Harry because he recognizes that whatever the cause of the Wizengamot's lack of ambition, it has to do with them being insane to the point of inability to achieve/imagine greatness, not purely because they have no great desires. That is, the Wizengamot wizards' problem isn't purely a result of lame terminal values. I'm probably not explaining this very clearly, and I apologize, but what it comes down to is that I think EY meant Harry is the most wise, and there are arguments for him actually being so, but Quirrell is either wiser or a close second. Also note that Quirrell is supposed to have a lot in common with Robin Hanson on the subject of most people's psychology.

Edit: While some points may remain useful for the sake of reference, this theory is disproved in Chapter 82, and Aberforth's death no longer lacks narrative purpose.

Who killed Narcissa?

Suspects:

• Dumbledore

• Bones

• Lucius

• Voldemort

• Someone else

HJPEV tells us that this doesn't fit the headmaster's style. His style is curiously consistent.

There is one offhand remark, vengeance, and a practical cold-heartedness favoring Bones. "Why not Bones?" is only a little better than no argument at all.

Lucius is presented as a devoted family man. It would be inconsistent characterization for him to do this. That works for real life, but HP&tMoR is fiction, which must make sense.

Voldemort has reason not to do this, as it made a fool out of one of his tools and weakened his side by making them less willing to strike indiscriminately.

I have a 'someone else' theory: Aberforth killed Narcissa. Aberforth is dead, and meaningfully so due to Conservation of Detail. We know little else about him from HP&tMoR. Only that he didn't testify against his brother in the death of his sister, and his brother got quite stern when he died. Basically, this theory allows me to put a piece in a puzzle because it fits, not because the image on the piece makes me think it goes with the pieces next to the hole. Also, I get to write the following paragraph.

In a world where innocents are dying, where evil is winning and good people live in fear for their loved ones, one man had the courage to do what must be done. Aberforth Dumbledore is Narcissa's Immolator.

Aberfoth kills his enemy's wife, informs his brother of what he's done, and then dies either at his own hand or, less style-consistently, his brother's. He knows that his brother will take this atrocity/sacrifice and make the best of it, and in so doing he saved countless 'light side' family members.

He did it all to make up for killing his sister and allowing his brother to kind of take the blame. Maybe.

Never read that either. Is it like Time Braid?

Upvote for Singuharrity

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again... this is a better solution than most of what's been proposed in the discussion thread so far.

For purely selfish reasons I hope it's in the "first 80% done, second 80% being worked on" sense.

For purely selfish reasons I'm ambivalent. I like fanfiction as much as the next guy but kind of wouldn't mind it if Eliezer spent his efforts trying to save the world. ;)