The Harry Potter Fanfiction Thread

There is no team effort.

The winner takes all, 'cause you don't win no silver, you only lose the gold. Don't ever look back on the world closing in, you gotta be on the attack, with your wings on the wind, 'cause the games will begin.

Then, and only then, will you be able to grasp sweet, sweet victory.

Also a much better song, by the way.

I hate that mindset. It's a loser-factory.

It's supposed to be inspiring, I think. The logical conclusion, that everyone in the history of the world except for one overachiever is a loser, doesn't seem very inspiring to me, but there you go.

But who ever shoots for silver? You don't go into a competition and think "Oh boy, I hope I'm the second best person out there!", you go in wanting to take gold. If you go in thinking you're not going to win then you probably won't no matter what. This is especially true in contests where the winner takes all. Hell, even our society enforces this. No one really cares about second place or runner-ups. The only thing people ever care about is who won.

If there's a hundred people competing? Fuck yeah I'd be pumped to get silver. Sure, society may say I should be sad that I did worse than 1/98 as many people as I did better than, but society does not exactly have a perfect record of having its head out of its ass.

Precisely.

How about instead of focusing on being better than absolutely everyone else, you focus on making the best performance possible? Or, better yet, on enjoying yourself?

Silver's for chumps.

Everybody knows that only Platinum trophies count anyway.

Actually, the studied psychology of it suggests that gold and bronze winners are happy; they won or they're just happy to be on the stand at all. Silver winners, however, tend to be upset they did not take gold.

edited 29th Nov '15 12:53:00 PM by Night

More fool them. When the werewolves attack, they'll be the only ones to make it out alive.

Add my two cent: If, and if only if, the prize of silver is something you really, really need (like, say, new shoes for yourself so your sister doesn't have to share the shoes with you), then getting gold actually sucks.

Yeah, there's the odd occasion where you want one of the lower places specifically because you prefer the prize. As for everything else, you can totally be satisfied by your performance, enjoy yourself, and still be disappointed that you didn't take the gold. Those aren't contradictory stances.

It's like how in a standard cup, you actually have to fight for the Bronze, but the Silver is awarded to the loser of the Finals. I'm pretty sure the Silver is highly disappointing because it's generally accompanied by a loss.

Also: The whole "You should just enjoy yourself and stop thinking just of winning or losing" thing is very... ah, how do I put this without sounding like a dick? Oh, wait. I am a dick. Let's put it bluntly then.

It's a very childish idea. It's the moral that you teach to children that you just know will never stick because if you really are giving it your all, then it doesn't matter how much you enjoyed yourself doing it, losing is going to suck.

edited 29th Nov '15 3:16:21 PM by IAmNotCreativeEnough

I wouldn't say it's childish so much as overly idealistic. A more realistic outlook is what I stated above your post.

That strictly depends on what you define as losing or winning, that is to say, which outcome you, personally, feels that sucks. If losing feels so bad for you, perhaps you should never have entered a competition in the first place. I certainly don't understand how, if you feel so bad about losing, you would goad yourself into giving it your all, in the knowledge that it's most probable that your all won't be enough, by the very nature of the game.

Then again, I am the kind of guy who is openly aghast at people even entertaining the notion of buying lottery tickets.

There's a huge difference between something that's entirely based on luck and something that almost entirely based on skill. You enter a competition to put your skills to the test. Most people enter because they think they're good enough to win (especially on the professional level) and want to see if they actually can. Of course they're going to be a little upset if it turns out that they weren't the best. Yes, by their very nature, only one person (or team) can win a competition (not counting ties) but that fact is irrelevant. It'd be like not applying for a job because only one person can get it. People enter the lottery because they have more money than sense.

Except there are much less competitive first prizes than there are jobs.

Although the idea of competitive interviewing is hilarious. Wait, isn't that what they do in The Apprentice?

Also, a little upset? Why, earlier you made it sound like anything less than Olympic Gold at anything was utterly pointless. That, if you don't beat everyone else, it was All for Nothing.

Also, it's usually poor people that enter the lottery. So, kind of a mean thing to say.

edited 29th Nov '15 4:31:42 PM by TheHandle

Cruel and mean, but still unfortunately true for those people.

Regardless... not giving your all just because the possibility of defeat exists... that's a pretty sad existence.

When you apply for almost any job, regardless of the number of openings, you are competing against not only everyone else who's applied for but even people who could potentially apply for you. Your resume has to not only be good enough to make you more favorable than everyone else who applied for it but also be good enough that they won't just pass you over because you don't meet the qualifications.

Just because there are more jobs than regular competitions (which, by the way, I highly doubt is actually true) doesn't make the analogy any less accurate. At the end of the day, only one person can win. Only one person can get the job.

That. Also, in the grand scheme of things, gold really is the only thing that matters. Your resume has to be better than everyone else's. If someone's looking for a fast runner, they're only going to go for those who got 2nd or 3rd if the person who came first in unavailable. In this world we live in, if you want to get anything or anywhere, you have to give you absolutely best and, if it isn't good enough, you have to get even better.

edited 29th Nov '15 4:36:33 PM by Zelenal

You mean the almost certainty of defeat, of a defeat that exists solely to prop up someone else's merits. That's why people get so annoyed at forfeits and boycotts; they don't get to prove they were 'better' than the quitters.

Which astounds me. What value is there in proving that you can, say, run around a field faster than any other human on the planet? What does that achieve? Does it make you better than everyone else, as a person? Does it make you more valuable, or more worthy of love? Who is, in fact, looking for a fast runner? Do they carry mail or something?

edited 29th Nov '15 4:38:15 PM by TheHandle

It could make for a more interesting test subject for the Weasley Twins' next set of homemade prank spells...

...is there anyone other than me who might be interested in seeing the HP verse as if it were reinvented as a Kung Fu / Wuxia story as opposed to a magic-based story?

edited 29th Nov '15 4:47:14 PM by EvaUnit01

I never realized how badly I wanted that until this exact moment.

You could easily do that and change relatively little. Ki/Chi/Chakra/What have you is already usually treated as magic. You'd just end up with more awesome fights.

That feelings of superiority is precisely why they do. People generally like not only knowing that they are better at something than other people but also getting acknowledged for it. A lot of people crave to be acknowledged and that's why they enter competitions. That's why success stories are so popular. It's why shows like "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "American Idol" and "The Voice" and "[Place]'s Got Talent" and their countless variants exist. Just because you don't understand it for some reason doesn't make it not a thing.

edited 29th Nov '15 4:57:04 PM by Zelenal

Yeah, I don't watch those shows. I can't bear the losers' tears, especially as the Mean Brit Judge tears into them. And there are so many more losers than winners. So many...

edited 29th Nov '15 5:06:12 PM by TheHandle

So, Voldemort is Dumbledore's rebellious disciple who teaches a corrupted style devoid of enlightenment.

This makes a weird amount of sense.

Student, not disciple. It's not like they had a relationship besides "I'm watching you, kid"