Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality

Quirrel's speech about how Harry will use up and destroy every resource he has (including Hermione) sounded very similar to Mr. Hat-and-Cloak's speech to Hermione on the same subject. I'm pretty sure that Quirrel and MHAC are the same person - they have similar goals, a similar lack of comprehension of Hermione, and Quirrel/Voldemort has a strong motive for eliminating Harry's staunchest allies.

However, the setup for this scheme seems like it violates the "only three things need to go right" rule. MHAC had to turn Hermione against Draco, Hermione had to win their battle, Draco had to challenge her in secret, MHAC had to intercept both of them, edit the memories again, cast the Blood-Cooling Charm with Hermione's wand, and report the attempted murder without anyone questioning why he just happened to be warding Draco. And Lucius had to pull Draco out in response. And in the event that Hermione didn't get sent to Azkaban or expelled, he needed to persuade her to leave voluntarily.

That's more than three things, even if we're generous and assume that MHAC is such a great wizard that he won't fail any of the spellcasting involved. And sure enough, the final part of getting rid of Hermione failed. Mr. Hat-and-Cloak really should have caught this in the planning phase.

Ah, but you're forgetting Dumbledore's corollary to that rule: Have more than one plot going at once.

So Quirrel sets up a whole bunch of variables that will fall in his favor, then stitches them together into this particular plan.

MHAC/Quirrell didn't need a particular outcome; without Harry conclusively proving Hermione's innocence, Hermione would effectively be isolated regardless of the outcome of the trial. Whatever the outcome, Quirrell benefits from it.

edited 10th Apr '12 9:54:19 PM by AlexRose

Isn't it great to have the author of the story we're reading actively comment on our speculation?

I think by this point it's pretty settled that Voldemort = Quirrel = Hat&Cloak.

However, we're back to square one in the question of who Amelia thinks is actually teaching defense. Actually, more like square zero, given the reiteration by Eliezer that characters won't be too enormously different from their canon selves. Maybe this is an original character after all. Or maybe we're focusing way too much on it...

Well, its obviously not Slugthorn, since he was Riddle's teacher back in school, not a year younger.

The Rule of Three was Lucius' idea, not Quirrell's. He might have more faith in his ability to manipulate events to his favor than the elder Malfoy does.

What Ancient Houses have been introduced so far? By my count we Have Houses Potter, Malfoy, Longbottom, and Greengrass; this is only four of the seven extant. Am I missing any?

Remember that in this universe there is a difference between a mere Noble house and a Most Ancient House. I could be forgetting something, but I don't recall Potter or Longbottom being mentioned as Most Ancient Houses. One that you're missing is The Most Noble and Ancient House of Black, which is referred to as such even in canon, and is presumably where that terminology comes from in the first place.

Does anyone know what crieria you have to fulfill to be be counted as belonging to one of the "Ancient Houses"? Might be worth to list all that fit and then just go by exclusion and it's only supposed to be 8 after all. Could then refine the results by checking which are likely to be sorted into Slytherin and so on.

Is it enough to be purebloods (Malfoys, Blacks, Weasleys)? Is being able to cast the Duel Sword thing enough (i.e. Greengrass and Longbottoms)?

EDIT: Looks like this was asked while I was typing this. ^

Anyway, if I were to semi-blindly guess I would say it is Crouch senior: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Bartemius_Crouch_Sr.

What fits (if the wiki is accurate):

- the age I'd say

- the ruthlessness in using the Unforgivable Curses

- rose quickly in the ranks of the Ministry and was a canditate for Minister of Magic

What doesn't fit/is vague:

- Who is his grandmother? Does it matter who it is because she and his family dies anyway (his son would be 8 years old at this time)?

- What would have caused the rift between his family and himself? Is assuming he was a "good" Slytherin enough? That would also include the assumption he was Slytherin at all since the wiki doesn't say either way.

edited 10th Apr '12 11:03:45 PM by 7

Added to chapter 53:

edited 10th Apr '12 11:47:37 PM by AkiraYamazaki

That was added? I reread recently, and I think it was already there.

@Quirrell's backstory: ????????????????????????????????????????????????

@This chapter: That may have been good... but it felt... bad...

Vetinari needed a clock to do that. Voldemort surpassed Vetinari today. Voldemort is Bad Ass.

Way to go, Joss Whedon.

edited 11th Apr '12 1:27:45 AM by TheHandle

So many plausible reads on the backstory of Quirrelmort. Everything Quirrel told Hermonie could be largely true with "And then voldemort/voldemort's ghost chased me down" left out of the story after he gave up the path of the hero. Or the disappearence of the original heroic slytherin could have been because Voldemort waylaid him and turned him into a future possession target rather than him running off out of his own volition..

Or the original "hero" was a pawn, puppet or persona of Voldemorts all along.

The story he tells Hermonie is suspiciously well suited to persuading her to run away, so it is likely that large parts of it are fiction, but that doesnt mean he is not embroidering on real events..

.. How many Pheonix are there in the world? Because Hermonie rates one.

edited 11th Apr '12 2:33:24 AM by Izeinsummer

The Most Ancient Houses we know of currently are: Malfoy (named as such in http://hpmor.com/chapter/16, and lots of other places) Black (named as such in http://hpmor.com/chapter/7 ) Greengrass ( http://hpmor.com/chapter/67 ) Longbottom ( http://hpmor.com/chapter/67 )

So that's 4 of the 8 Most Ancient Houses right there.

House Potter is a Noble House, but NOT a Most Ancient house. House Jugson is another Noble House, but we don't know if it's a Most Ancient House (probably not).

Can an Ancient house be Not noble?

I think you can't even be a House (let alone a most ancient one), without being noble. If you're not noble, you're just called a "family" (the Bones family, the Weasley family, etc), not a "House".

Eh, so what did Yudkowsky edit in?

I have a (several months old) PDF file containing chapters 1-77 lying around on my HD and it contains these paragraphs pretty much verbatim. (Although I might, of course, have missed minor changes to the existing text …)

edited 11th Apr '12 5:15:32 AM by wirov

Amelia Bones cannot think Quirrel is Bartemius Crouch Senior - when Harry asks Dumbledore why they can't storm Azkaban with Fawkes, Dumbledore says something like, "Amelia Bones and Bartemius Crouch are allies, but even they would...", showing that Crouch is known to be alive. Personally, I think Bones thinks Quirrel is Regulus Arcturius Black. It fits perfectly: Slytherin who fought Voldemort in canon (he need not have originally been on V's side in this fic), member of a Noble and Most Ancient House who, if alive, would be House Black's last member.

Edit: Just checked the chapter in which Harry is talking to Dumbledore about Azkaban; the phrase I referred to isn't there, but Dumbledore mentions Crouch in another sentence, so either I got the wrong chapter/remembered he argument incorrectly, or EY, for whatever reason, wrote that he was editing a different chapter on these forums, and then edited out only the first sentence in which Crouch is mentioned, which I find rather unlikely as EY said he does not deliberately mislead readers and a quick page search would have showed him all mentions of Bartemius Crouch.

edited 11th Apr '12 11:13:12 AM by LogicDragon

Except that Regulus was supposed to be Sirius's younger sibling, not decades older. Plus, Sirius didn't get sent to Azkhaban until around 1980, so there would have to be at least one Black still around as of the early 1970's. Plus, Bellatrix still has the Black name ITTL, so she'd have been around as well.

So this guy is not a Longbottom, Malfoy, Black, Greengrass, Crouch, or any other house that has appeared in the story so far, since they have to be extinct. We also have confirmation that he's not a Gaunt.

Idk, I'm starting to think it must be an original character, even if the house turns out to be a name we've heard before.

The difference (edit: in Chapter 53) is that the original version had Bellatrix waiting in the (presumably-decoy) graveyard, which leads to this objection.

Also, thanks for liking and linking Hamlet and the Philosopher's Stone on Facebook, EY! Means a lot to me.

edited 11th Apr '12 11:43:55 AM by HonoreDB

The lesswrong discussion included the quite persuasive theory that Riddle murdered a lesser scion of an ancient house with the express intent of later assuming his identity. and that Voldemort was so very theatrically evil because Riddle was attempting a two-man con singlehandedly. As Voldemort, he was a demonic figure, and as the tragic scion of a dead house, he planned to be a beacon around which people would rally. Except magical britain couldnt be bothered to rally even when faced with an enemy all but cackling and waving a banner saying "I am a villain, fight me!" and so he gave up on the con and decided to terrorise/attempt the conquest of britain as Voldemort.

This theory neatly fits quirrelmorts character and the facts, and it settles the question of why Quirrelmort is so much more subtle than Voldemort. I like it a lot.

I am not certain it is correct, because, well.. Heroes arising and disappearing happens in wars, and stealing a dead hero's identity ? Also right up his alley.

A second interesting question about the con that someone brought up is whether he is actually Tom Riddle, or if he is also lying in an albanian grave.

A question. Can anyone think of any instances of Quirrelmort outright telling a lie, as opposed to asking misleading retorical questions or letting people reach erronous conclusions on their own? Because at this point, I am beginning to suspect that he might not be able to. That he sacrificed the ability in a dark rite, or was cursed with truthfulness by an enemy.

Other things: The philosophers stone and Nicolas. The fact that the stone doesnt see wide use, and that Nicolas himself appears not to play any part in politics is somewhat puzzling. However, in quite a few traditions, the stone is not merely a way to gain eternal life - it is also a method of spiritual purification. If the price of immortality is near total pacifism or being granted Hermonie Grangers morals regardless of where you started, that might explain why this path is not pursued by everyone.

Alternatively, he just doesnt care for political power, or sharing immortality and "Assailing Nicolas" was the number one cause of death of aspiring dark lords and other seekers of power until it became so obviously a bad idea that it doesnt even occur to people anymore.

edited 11th Apr '12 12:11:02 PM by Izeinsummer

So now he's going to pull the two-man con with Harry in the role of The Hero?

There is at least one definite instance of Quirrell telling a lie. In Chapter 77,

->"As to that," said Professor Quirrell, sounding bored again, "I stole it months ago, and left a fake in its place. But thank you kindly for asking."

->"You're lying," said Severus Snape after a pause.

->"Yes, I am."

Exactly one of those statements is a lie.

Scratch that theory, then. Eh..Gah, now I am wondering if you could sacrifice something like "the ability to lie" in a dark rite? Because if the restraints on what to sacrifice are sufficiently loose, then loosing certain things might be worth it in and off itself..

It seems like it is an option he is considering. However, he cannot be that strongly wedded to the idea, because he has repeatedly risked Harrys life to dangers he cannot plausibly have had enough control over to be sure he would live. So a dead Harry must also be a useful outcome to him somehow.

edited 11th Apr '12 12:21:16 PM by Izeinsummer

If you can sacrifice 'the potential for trust', which he notes is the sacrifice of one participant in the Unbreakable Vow, then surely 'the ability to lie' wouldn't be impossible.