Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality

Unless the plot is extremely referential, I don't see how that's possible at all. There just ain't enough information.

Eh, you'll see what I'm talking about after you read the final arc of the entire story, and then read Chapter 1 again.

edited 15th May '12 2:27:28 PM by EliezerYudkowsky

I'll have to re-read 1-3 again. This time I'll take notes.

Well that makes a lot more sense then. I was wondering who this mind reader was.

I need to do that as well. Luckily I have two monitors. (Well, three, but I don't have a stand for the third one.)

I wuv my Radeon HD 6870 8-)

I need to do that as well. Luckily I have two monitors. (Well, three, but I don't have a stand for the third one.)

You fool,Elizier,you've doomed us all!

Calls for my best Chaos Legion Evil Laugh. Pity I am too tired to do one at the moment.

On another note, I now have a stand for my third monitor. You are all doomed.

edited 27th May '12 5:17:45 AM by TamH70

Tam H 70, you say that if Hat & Cloak is Quirrell, it "would violate any sense of good story telling as far as I was concerned". But not all stories are mysteries, and even when the characters in a story find something mysterious, that doesn't mean the readers are supposed to.

This is a work of Harry Potter fanfiction, and it has to be written and read with different assumptions than if it were an original franchise. The fact that some things are different from how they are in canon does not mean that we should throw all our knowledge of canon out the window. To us, Quirrell is (or should be) obviously evil, and that does not mean we should say "Aha! It must be a deception! It will be who we least expect!" To do so is to set ourselves up for disappointment when the obvious happens.

What makes Methods good storytelling even when it comes to Who The Bad Guy Is is not that it's a huge mystery to be revealed, but that it fills the reader, who is familiar with canon, with fear and dread for what's coming. It makes him scream at the story: Don't trust him, Harry! Run away, Hermione!

We can see clearly who is behind the plotting because we know Quirrell is evil, but we have to bite our fingernails and claw at our eyeballs in despair as we see these innocent children, who we loved in canon and love in this story, get wound up in his schemes. We get to fear for Hermione's life like we were never able to do in canon, where she wore Plot Armor.

There are plenty of mysteries in Methods for us to worry about, but the identity of the villain is not one of them; the climax we're waiting for is to see not who he is, but how bad he makes things.

edited 22nd May '12 3:11:26 PM by 75thTrombone

Registerd here to share a few thoughts after rereading the first few chapters:

-The scene in diagon alley where Harry and Mc Gonagall are discussing the possibility of Harry being abused at young age and obliviated afterwards. This seems to be one of the key scences from the start of the story but is (as far as i rember) never mentioned again in the later Chapters. Maybe Voldemort made Harry a Horcrux intentionally or transfered most of his personality/memories to the young Potter and had them Obliviated afterwards. This would tie in with the theory that voldemort uses quirrel (or Quirellmort) to teach Harry to become a new "Dark Lord" and defeat Death.

-Also in diagon alley: i didn't remember from my first read that Quirrel was introduced this early in the Story (in Chapter 3). This might be another hint that he is the main villian.

-Same Chapter: it is already hinted that something is Wrong with the story Mc Gonagal tells Harry about who he defeated the Dark Lord. Two things come to Mind. They Never Found the Body! Well they found a body but according to Mc Gonagall it was only a 'burnt Husk'. But the second thing is: how do they know what happend on that nigth if there where no survivors other than infant Harry? If there had been survivors, they would have to be the Deatheaters that came to Godrics Hollow with Voldemort, but why did none of them try to kill the infant that just obliterated their leader? It cant be that hard to kill Baby-Potter, just drop him off your broom or smash his skull with a rock. In the same line of thought, why did Voldemort even bother with the killing curse when other options where at hand?

P.s: i ve read elswhere that the horcruxing of the pionner had been confiremd by the author, but i couldn't find a source could someone send me/post a link? Thx

edited 23rd May '12 6:12:23 AM by amazingmuhkuh

I am not silly or stupid. I know Quirrell is a villain, or should I put it A villain, but he most assuredly is NOT the only villain in Hogwarts. Or indeed the only one who is doing villainous things for his or her own purposes. Why would Snape burn the notes he had Rianne place under Hermione's pillow that led her and her Society towards battle with the bullies and their victory over those said bullies? And who is Santa Claus? I know Dumbledore said that he was the one who put the Cloak of Invisibility, one of the three Deathly Hallows, in Harry's hands when he was in that discussion with Snape and Minerva after the attempted murder of Draco Malfoy. But wizards like him often say they did things like that to hide their fear of another player in their Game.

And he still set Narcissa Malfoy on fire while she was still alive. Unless and until that is proven to be false, in that very act, which he has claimed credit for, he became as much a villain as Riddle ever was.

And I must state this on record. We only seem to have Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore's word on what happened on the night that young Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres had his parents murdered.

What if he was lying? The sort of Big Lie that would fool the vast majority of the Wizarding World of Magical Britain's population, indeed, the vast majority of the members of the Wizengamot (a body that does not have long to enjoy its present existence, I warrant), but not those who stayed seated after Harry made a Dementor recoil away from him simply by shouting "Boo!" at it and added that to a list of things that to these wiser Wizards and Witches does not make sense at all?

https://www.evernote.com/pub/adelenedawner/Eliezer#b=90390ce2-1356-4522-959e-a300957704c5&n=dd273d9e-ec3a-429f-a6f5-65aa6518b67d

has links to where Mister Yudkowsky blabbed about the Pioneer horcrux.

edited 23rd May '12 6:31:37 AM by TamH70

I didn't want to imply you were stupid or silly, sorry if my post somehow gave you that impression.

As for Dumbeldore burning Mrs. Malfoy: if he did kill her, he might have a memory of the event stored in his secret chamber. Although it might be difficult for Harry to get access to it without Dumbeldore noticing. Do you recall at what point in time Dumbeldore killed Narcissa? Allthough i think i remeber Malfoy mentioning that he burned her to ashes, there might still be a link between the two burned corpses showing up around 11 years ago.

Of all the other Characters you have mentioned as possible villians, i 'get' snape the least. It is made very clear that he is playing a game of his own, but he is rarely given exposure to talk about his ambitions. From Dumbeldore and Quirrel we get at least the things(which may very well be lies) they tell to harry potter. But the Potter/Snape interaction is reduced to a minimum.

From memory Dumbledore killed Narcissa Malfoy after Riddle killed Aberforth Dumbledore - it was his way of avoiding the taboo trade-off. Or his version of it anyway - not only will I let my brother die to avoid paying a ransom but I will kill one of your playing piece's hostages to fortune. I am not sure how long afterwards it was though. Draco was alive at the time, but I don't know if he was still a baby or if he was a bit older than that.

I wasn't answering you, I was answering 75th Trombone. I apologize if you got that idea from my post.

edited 23rd May '12 5:20:02 AM by TamH70

Determined to paint Dumbledore black, are ya?

Like this?◊ Maybe you meant a burnt husk.

After rereading the Chapter in which Draco tells Harry about how his mother died, he seems to have been very young at the time. He doesn't rember the events directly but relies on the information given to him by some Mister Macnair (Chapter47). The difference in age between draco and harry has to be small, since they are both in their first year. According to canon, harry's parrents were killed when he was around one year old. This timeline makes it very possible that the burnt corpse at Godrics Hollow belongs to Narcissa. But i can't think of a motive for Voldemort nor Dumbeldore to stage Voldemort's Death by using that specific corpse.

On the other Hand it still seems odd that Dumbeldore would choose to kill Narcissa, if he had the possibility to kill a person residing in Malfoy Manor, why not Lucius?

edit:as far as my spelling mistakes go, that one has to be one of the more hilarious ones... fixed now

edited 23rd May '12 6:13:52 AM by amazingmuhkuh

Nope. Though it is right I dislike - no, dislike is not enough, despise and detest is more like it - the man.

I am simply judging him by his actions.

If he wanted to kill Narcissa Malfoy to prove his point (not only will I not pay ransom, I will kill people on your side if you even try to ask, even if they were innocent) he could simply have used the Killing Curse. Instead of setting her alight whilst she was still alive. If it had been my own mother, much as I dislike the woman, I may have been able to forgive a relatively painless murder, but not some son of a bitch setting her on fire and standing there watching her scream.

So I can understand why Draco Malfoy wants his head on a stick, and with far more reason to do so than Rowling gave him in canon. Until mister Yudkowsky opens his Heisenberg's Box and shows us proof that Narcissa is either alive or dead I will take Dumbledore's own word for it.

edited 23rd May '12 6:19:11 AM by TamH70

Phoenix Phuckery probably means she might not be dead.

True, but given the information known to the characters, it is for them unlikely. In-story, only Dumbledore knows for sure, and he, to paraphrase slightly from the conversation he has with Harry post-Wizengamot is not stupid enough to say that he did it. Thus as far as Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres and Draco Malfoy are concerned, he is guilty. Why else would Harry ask Fawkes why he was still on Dumbledore's shoulder?

We may, and I stress MAY know better but we are privileged with information - or think we are, which amounts to the same thing - that the characters do not have.

Yet.

edited 23rd May '12 6:28:36 AM by TamH70

Actually what he said what that he wasn't stupid enough to either admit that he did or that he didn't do it, because admitting to either would be a loss for him, and a danger for his allies. He's sort of stuck there. And I find it especially amusing, the parallel between this and Harry's "cannot confirm or deny" policy in regards to incriminating questions.

What information do you believe to have that would allow you to get to a different conclusion than Harry, regarding Dumbeldores behavior? I feel like i might have missed something of importance.

Yeah, in the words of the Dikta Feynman - what do you think you know, and how do you think you know it?

Wait, what? Dumbledore burns Narcissa Malfoy to death in this story? The fuck?

From Chapter 47, Personhood Theory.

""It, it must have hurt horribly," Draco said, his voice shaking, "Father never talks about it at all, you don't ever talk about it in front of him, but Mr. Macnair told me, there were scorch marks all over the bedroom, from how Mother must have struggled while Dumbledore burned her alive. That is the debt Dumbledore owes to House Malfoy and we will have his life for it!"

"Draco," Harry said, he let all of the hoarseness into his own voice, it would be wrong to sound calm, "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry for asking, but I have to know, how do you know it was Dumble-"

"Dumbledore said he did it, he told Father it was a warning! And Father couldn't testify under Veritaserum because he was an Occlumens, he couldn't even get Dumbledore put on trial, Father's own allies didn't believe him after Dumbledore just denied everything in public, but we know, the Death Eaters know, Father wouldn't have any reason to lie about that, Father would want us to take revenge on the right person, can't you see that Harry?" Draco's voice was wild."

So, yeah. If you believe Draco Malfoy, Lucius Malfoy and Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, he set Narcissa Malfoy alight whilst she was still alive and stood there and watched her burn.

That just sounds like horrendous Character Derailment. Ron the Death Eater levels of Character Derailment.

I never liked Dumbledore. Having the Philospher's Stone in the same place as hundreds of kids was always absolutely stupid, but he never seems to get called on that. HJPEV does, of course, give him both barrels for it, eventually. Of course, Harry doesn't know that it is the Stone that Dumbledore is using a whole school of kids as body armour for.

Yet.

Besides, it wouldn't be the only example of character derailment in the story. Draco is actually a character in Methods, unlike the charicature that he is in canon. And Ron, since you mentioned him, is only in the book for about five or so scenes.

I find it odd though that you react worse to the character derailment, (if any) of Dumbledore than to him setting Narcissa Malfoy on fire and watching her burn.

edited 27th May '12 5:19:45 AM by TamH70

Wrong end of the stick, mate. I reacted badly because burning Narcissa Malfoy to death is obviously beyond horrible, and because it's beyond horrible it's Character Derailment because it's not something canon!Dumbledore would ever do. He's definitely not above criticism, but canon!Dumbledore was never a sadistic murderer.

edited 25th May '12 2:42:25 PM by pagad