Follow TV Tropes

Reviews Fanfic / Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality

Go To

Xfing Since: Nov, 2011
09/09/2018 19:07:00 •••

Ruthlessly intellectual, a celebration of intellect and logic like none before it

As a kid, I was a huge, huge fan of Rowling's Harry Potter. As I grew slightly older and read the final book, I got disillusioned with Rowling's emotional writing style and some aspects and premises of the story struck me as glaring faults. The whole "love" thing, Harry's utter incorruptibility and Snape's ultimate motivation to name but a few. Also, I couldn't stand justifying Voldemort's evil with the fact that "he doesn't love" and portraying that as a bad thing. I take personal offense to that and I don't feel that's an adequate explanation for the atrocities Voldemort has committed. The book also carries a deathist message about the acceptance of death, which does hold true in Rowling's universe, but not necessarily in the real world. Thanks to the advancement of science.

Which brings us to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality - an amazing response to all of those shortcomings of the original story. I have read until Chapter 17 so far, but I haven't felt so intellectually stimulated for a long time when reading something. Harry is a frighteningly smart child prodigy with a Machiavellian disposition and a lust for power which is only surpassed by his lust for knowledge. Ron is discarded like the worthless distraction he is and Harry enters a rivalry with Hermione, which he seems to be winning without even trying, while not for the reasons for which he would like to be winning it - which sets the stage for some amazingly hilarious moments.

While the lack of an overbearing moral message from the book is certainly a welcome change from the original, the insolent, ruthless glorification of pragmatism can come off as shocking to those endeared to Rowling's do-gooder writing style. Harry cultivating a friendship with Malfoy rather than turning him off for the asshole he is was but one example. Needless to say, I love every bit of it. Watching heroes spiral into evil while still be perfectly capable of getting away with all that comes second to none as far as reading is concerned. I'm definitely going to read the remaining chapters and hope for even more to be written. Hail Science!

YlvaThorgalsdottir Since: Apr, 2013
04/01/2014 00:00:00

Brilliant review. You have more than eighty chapters left, and they are all made of awesome.

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/01/2014 00:00:00

I think this review captures why I didn't like the story. For all the intellectual stimulation, 'Hail Science!' indeed, the way that it seems to equate 'Harry is more intelligent' with 'Harry is more of a dick' was a big turn-off to me. Although given that you think Ron is a worthless distraction and took personal offense to the message 'No love = bad', I'm not surprised if you enjoy it for the same reasons I think it's a teenage [[Nietzsche Wannabe]]'s wet dream, albeit a very intelligently-written one.

ElectricNova Since: Jun, 2012
04/01/2014 00:00:00

So you dislike Harry Potter because it.... has emotions? You do sound like an overzealous rationalist who can't stand happiness in a story because to you sadness makes more sense.

Also Ron is a worthless distraction? No.

Pannic Since: Jul, 2009
04/01/2014 00:00:00

Ron is discarded like the worthless distraction he is and Harry enters a rivalry with Hermione, which he seems to be winning without even trying, while not for the reasons for which he would like to be winning it - which sets the stage for some amazingly hilarious moments.

Watching heroes spiral into evil while still be perfectly capable of getting away with all that comes second to none as far as reading is concerned.

And… these are good things?

Fanfiction I hate.
doctrainAUM Since: Aug, 2010
04/01/2014 00:00:00

This is why I hate April Fools'. Any slightly unusual thing I come across, I start doubting its sincerity. I hate being paranoid.

"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
ChaoticBrain Since: Aug, 2009
04/01/2014 00:00:00

I welcome you to help me write recaps for the story. It's a massive undertaking, and all too necessary for a huge story like this one.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/01/2014 00:00:00

Harry could hardly BE more of a dick than he was in Cannon. At least he has empathy in this one.

The childishness of the the original… fine, it's for children. Well, this fanfic is not.

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/02/2014 00:00:00

That's actually a pretty decent argument, if only because it's so blindingly bad that it's thrown me off a bit. Let's see.

Harry being a dick in canon - well, I hope you've got some examples. Ditto for the lack of empathy. I seem to recall Harry being friendly, reasonably intelligent, not always perfect (he is a teenager after all) but ultimately willing to accept an early death if it would help stop Voldemort. Doesn't sound like someone who could hardly be more of a dick, that's for sure.

Pannic Since: Jul, 2009
04/02/2014 00:00:00

Harry could hardly BE more of a dick than he was in Cannon.

I've read enough terrible fanfics that involve "superpowered asshole Harry" to find this statement laughable.

Fanfiction I hate.
Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/02/2014 00:00:00

In the fifth book he made Hermione cry pretty much every time they spoke. Feeling sorry for Voldy is not empathy; Voldy didn't feel bad for himself, ans Harry did manage to Crucio Bellatrix not five minutes prior. It took him an inordinately long time to realise that his teachers were people. I think Hermione was supposed to be the empathetic one in canon. The Heart AND the Brain. Not sure what Ron was for other than to be a fellow sports fan.

Pannic, you might wish to stop reading terrible fanfics. They have not made you better at coming up with arguments.

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/02/2014 00:00:00

Pannic's argument makes a smidgen more sense than your's. In one out of seven books, Harry made someone cry? And used a painful spell on someone who killed his friend and mentor? Good Lord, you're right, he's practically evil incarnate!

I don't support all of Harry's actions - I don't think we're meant to - but if he never did anything wrong, he'd be a completely bland Marty Stu with no imperfections whatever. Which I note is a common accusation against this fanfiction.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/02/2014 00:00:00

Only by people who stopped at ten chapters. P didn't come up with an argument at all, that was my point. The fifth book is the only one I've looked through recently enough to remember clearly, so yeah, maybe that's a bit unfair. Didn't Sirius step into the doorframe of his own, though? Not saying he would have if he hadn't been fighting, but the maturity of a six-year-old doesn't make Bellatrix deserving of a torture-spell from another character however empathetic he was supposed to be.

Ever noticed how Rowling sets different standards for characters she likes versus those she doesn't like?

I get that he was abused and that his anger-issues might stem from that – if it hadn't turned out to be because he was an horcrux – but Voldy had that exact same background story. It had a different effect on him because of that love thing. How do you defend that? Not with logic, in any case.

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/02/2014 00:00:00

Did Bellatrix deserve it? Probably not, but if it wasn't justifiable it was at least understandable. I don't really see Harry as having 'anger-issues' at all; he reacts angrily to situations that would realistically make people very angry.

I did notice Rowling's different standards - remember the curse that gets put on Cho Chang's friend for snitching about 'Dumbledore's Army'? Disproportionate Retribution much? That was not one of the book's high-points by any stretch. But that was the worst example I saw in the series.

On the one hand, I cannot defend the 'no-love' thing with logic. On the other hand, in a book series about flying cars and invisibility cloaks and magical schools of witchcraft and wizardry, there's really not a lot that COULD be defended with logic, even by someone like Yudkowsky.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/02/2014 00:00:00

Yudkowsky seems to be going down the Any Sufficiently Analysed Magic Is Indistinguishable From Science road. :)

The glaring double standard that made me hate her a little was that Dumbledore is just as fascist as Voldemort. Marietta is peanuts next to that. I used to think he was Churchill (after finding ou about the whole thing being a WWII analogy), but in retrospect he looks more like Stalin.

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/02/2014 00:00:00

Fair enough, although since Rowling did not go down that road then I see nothing wrong with writing off things in the original that defy logical explanation with 'Well duh, it's magic!'

The 'Dumbledore - Fascist as Voldemort' thing is an interesting proposal. It annoyed me that he kept information to himself too long sometimes, and the entire plot of 'Goblet of Fire' could've been avoided if he considered that forcing Harry to take part in a dangerous tournament that he NEVER ENTERED might possibly be a bad idea, but he's decent enough to still be considered the Big Good of the story. What's so bad about him?

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/03/2014 00:00:00

He is not to be questioned; he must be obeyed; everyone is expected to make sacrifices for his cause. That is what makes him fascist. That is just what Rowling finds objectionable about Voldemort. Okay, so his cause is "saving the world from a deranged, genocidal psychopath", and that's a good cause, I'd support that cause; but Rowling can shut up about hating fascism when she can't make her "good guys" any less fascist than her bad guys.

Anyway, the whole thing with applying the scientific method and writing an instructional story about how to use it kinda renders the whole "write it off as nonsensical magic" bit a little impossible, doesn't it? ;)

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/03/2014 00:00:00

By that description, most of my previous bosses are probably fascist - a definite possibility, I'll admit. I think we have vastly different opinions of what constitutes fascism, but your interpretation makes me think 'That's interesting!' rather than 'That's wrong!' so... well, to each his own.

Scientific method, sufficient analysis... it's all well and good, but at the end day, all Yudkowsky's done is analyze something which, no matter what, will always not make one bit of sense. Because it's magic. So nothing in the story can ever come to an entirely logical conclusion, nor will any attempt to find one ever be anything but a gigantic waste of time.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/03/2014 00:00:00

Fair point. Good of you to consider my opinion as my opinion. (As opposed to a personal attack on you, which assumption people make quite often on the internet.) I just like that he tries, you know, and that he translated his blog into a story, because I found it difficult to focus on the blog articles.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/05/2014 00:00:00

From the Thesaurus part of thefreedictionary:

Noun 1. fascism - a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) ideology, political orientation, political theory - an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation national socialism, Naziism, Nazism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader

PS. You can't just say "that is not what that word means to me". Words have meanings. Given meanings. Rowling praises fanatic loyalty on one side and condemns it on the other.

doctrainAUM Since: Aug, 2010
04/05/2014 00:00:00

Are you criticizing a headmaster for supporting a hierarchical system of power? Because, unless I'm forgetting something about Dumbledore's character, that goes without saying.

"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/05/2014 00:00:00

And for demanding obedience, plotting world domination (with Grindelwald), raising Harry to be a sacrificial lamb and just overall being a manipulative bastard. Mostly those; hierarchies can go either way.

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/05/2014 00:00:00

A teacher who demands obedience? Now there's a crazy idea! Almost as crazy as a school that has a system similar to an authoritarian hierarchy! Insanity all around!

Sarcasm aside, I think that's reading a bit - well, a lot - too far into things. Also I think I missed the chapter where Dumbledore plotted to take over the world. Manipulative Bastard... well, I disagree, but he does definitely have some of the traits.

Just a side note, you seem to think that praising fanatic loyalty on one side and condemning it on another is an unfair and horrible thing. It's really obviously not. Rowling's writing is simple enough that there is an objective good and bad side. Fanatic loyalty to a good cause is to be praised because it's a good cause, like helping to stop an evil wizard take over the world and kill a bunch of innocent people. Fanatic loyalty to a bad cause is condemned because it's a bad cause, like torturing some muggles because the Dark Lord told you to. Simple.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
04/05/2014 00:00:00

"It is our choices that show who we are," said Dumbledore.

Well, Harry *chose* to crucio at least three people, according to the above quote whether he succeeded is irrelevant. In one case it was motivated by the person insulting someone he cared about.

D wanted to conquer Muggles in his youth, Rowling has said as much in interviews.

I get that you don't think torturing people is a bad thing if a "good" guy does it to a bad guy, but in my eyes all that remains after that is two bad guys. We are unlikely to see eye to eye on this, but it was nice discussing it with you anyway. *Bows out*

doctrainAUM Since: Aug, 2010
04/05/2014 00:00:00

Yes, it's clear that Dumbledore wanted to keep muggles under wizarding control. I don't see what that has to do with the books' present day, seeing as how he realized how wrong that was decades ago. People can change, and shouldn't be judged exclusively by actions they've shown great regret for.

"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
04/05/2014 00:00:00

Either you're purposefully missing out parts of the book, or you have ridiculously high standards for fictional characters. Harry's parents are murdered. Harry's godfather is murdered. Harry's mentor is murdered. But if he reacts to any of these hardships with any anger towards some of the unapologetically despicable people responsible, clearly he is a terrible person with no redeeming features whatsoever.

We are unlikely to see eye to eye, because you're cherry-picking one or two bad incidents from characters with hundreds of unambiguously selfless and heroic ones to derail them to suit your tastes.

Ridiculously high standards.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
05/03/2014 00:00:00

And for this reason, anyone who has lost someone gets to torture people and still be called "the good guys".

Pannic Since: Jul, 2009
05/03/2014 00:00:00

Three attempts at crucio, two of which failed, and the one that didn't fail was aimed at a sick fuck who liked to torture children, for the purpose of incapacitating him.

You're gonna have to do better than that for coming up with a reason that he's terrible. Your other examples are also rather silly. You claim that he made Hermione cry "every time" they interacted in book five. I recall that happening exactly once, after a period where Harry was frustrated because he believed he was being kept in the dark, which is also after he had the traumatic experience of watching someone die, to say nothing of the whole "dangerous mass-murdering wizard is now at large again" thing. They seemed to get along Likewise, your statement that Harry never shows empathy except towards Voldemort (which you say "doesn't count" because of an arbitrary reason that isn't actually a reason) is also incorrect: Dobby, Kreacher, Draco, Ron, all these just off the top of my head.

Also, yes, I called your position "laughable" because I've seen a number of stories in the fandom where Harry is more than an asshole than he is in canon. For example, in one story, a genderflipped Harry carves words into someone's forehead for no reason. In another story, he arranges the murders of several people so he can frame someone else, all while lying to and manipulating Hermione so he can get in her pants. And in yet another story, he lets Bellatrix burn the Dursleys' faces off. So yeah; the statement that Harry couldn't be more of an asshole than he was in canon does indeed seem laughable when you've already seen just how false said statement is.

Fanfiction I hate.
Linna Since: Jan, 2013
05/03/2014 00:00:00

That's nothing; I've read a fanfic in which he boiled a man alive.

I meant in HP Mo R. There he is no more of an asshole than he is in Canon, and given his characterisation, he can't really be more of one than he is in the original Rowlingverse. That whole thing with ethics and stuff. No one says you have to identify with that, btw.

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
05/03/2014 00:00:00

Fair enough, looks like we were on different pages on the 'He could hardly be more of an asshole than he was in canon' point if you meant 'in this story' rather than in general. I still probably disagree a little, but not nearly as much; we can coexist on this.

'Anyone who has lost someone gets to torture people and still be called 'the good guys'.' Well, that's kind of oversimplifying things. A lot. I have absolutely no idea how I'd react if my parents, godfather, friends, mentor, and pet owl were killed by group of psychotic, remorseless, sadistic people, but are you really going to say that if it happened to you, you would have absolutely no desire for vengeance? I'm not saying it's Harry's finest moment, I'm just saying that it's understandable to the point where if he hadn't wanted revenge, it wouldn't just be out of character for him, but practically anyone in his situation.

Linna Since: Jan, 2013
05/03/2014 00:00:00

Oh, I would have wanted to murder the entire hate group, if it had killed my family. But then, if I'd been a character in a book, I hope my author would have known better than to claim I was still all pure and good for it – at least that my character would not have represented a Messiah figure or a vessel of love and forgiveness whose blood transfusion could have redeemed the villain after that. And if I had gone on any kind of revenge spree in real life, I would not have tried to claim any kind of moral high ground afterwards. You are right, though; from the character's perspective, his actions must have seemed perfectly justified, and it is probably more the part where Rowling insists that he is good through and through that irks me. She did, after all, say that if he'd looked in the mirror of Erised after book six or so, he would have seen a dead Voldie. I'm not saying it's not fair for him to want that, just that he is not all good and pure, since he does want that.

Glad we eventually found some common ground. ;)

Elmo3000 Since: Jul, 2013
05/03/2014 00:00:00

Harry? A Messiah figure? Preposterous! I mean it's not like he's the Chosen One or anything - oh, wait. Well anyway, it's not like there's a prophecy about him saving the world from - no, wait, scratch that. Well, erm... it's not like he dies and then comes back to - damn it, how did I not see this until now?

I'd enjoy reading about a flawed hero more than a genuine Messiah figure but credit where it's due; that's a really solid explanation. I don't think there's anything left for me to disagree with. Not really sure what happens now, I think I tip my hat to you and bow out. Good job!

calamondin Since: Dec, 2011
08/19/2014 00:00:00

Wow you seem like a dogmatic scientismist jerk. You didn't like her "emotional writing style", or "The whole "love" thing"?? and that "justifying Voldemort's evil with the fact that "he doesn't love" and portraying that as a bad thing" haha what are you, a sociopath apologist? EVIL DOESN'T EXIST SCIENCE SAYS SO THEREFORE PEOPLE WHO SCORN ANYONE WITH AMORAL, ANTISOCIAL TENDICIES IS INADEQUATE CONSIDERING THEIR PITIFUL LACK OF SCIENTIFIC JARGON.

KarkatTheDalek Since: Mar, 2012
12/08/2014 00:00:00

I'll admit, while I have not read this story (nor do I plan to), I'm going to have to take issue with this:

The book also carries a deathist message about the acceptance of death, which does hold true in Rowling's universe, but not necessarily in the real world. Thanks to the advancement of science.

Are we immortal yet? I don't think we are. But even if we use certain methods to prolong life, would those be available to everyone? And who would control these methods? Would you trust people in authority with the power to dispense eternal life? Is eternal life - or at least a near approximation of it - something that you would entrust to everyone?

Actually, all of this sounds like a great idea for a story. Thanks for that! :)

Oh God! Natural light!
A.vonZiggurat Since: Oct, 2013
06/01/2015 00:00:00

Is this satirical?

Bastard1 Since: Nov, 2010
06/02/2015 00:00:00

Intellectually posturing science people do dot comprehend the concept of love. Fascinating. This explains so very, very much...

ElectricNova Since: Jun, 2012
06/02/2015 00:00:00

As Soulja boy would say

"superman dat poe"

Ymirsdaughter Since: Jul, 2014
06/30/2015 00:00:00

It was posted on April 1st, after all.

DukeVonEvilton Since: Sep, 2015
09/29/2015 00:00:00

[Late to the party, but relevant point]:

Speaking as a student of science and someone who's been called a prodigy by various teachers who wanted me to do things, I relate to the main character..up to a point. That point is roughly where he abandons the science to go do world-saving-y stuff and meddle in politics.

His worldview is inconsistent, the science is flimsy and handwaved by "it's his perspective, he's the one who's wrong", and frankly the author is more a storyteller than a scientist, which makes the continual claims of accuracy and rationality begin to get a bit wearing.

HammerOfJustice Since: Apr, 2013
09/09/2018 00:00:00

I can only hope that this review is satirical, because of the line with \"deathist\" in it.

If you're going to put up a review of something, MAKE SURE IT HAS A PAGE FIRST!

Leave a Comment:

Top