quote:Aurors would know if in the entire history of the wizarding world, a similar effect of the Killing curse rebounding has ever occurred. It may be unusual, but quite likely the situation has arisen previously where the killing curse met the Fidelius charm and was repulsed.
Ron, I'm not sure if you are talking about MoR or cannon but in cannon its made absolutely clear that Harry Potter is the only person to have ever survived Avada Kadavra. In MoR, Quirrel says explicitly that there is no defence against it. If there had ever been a previous case where the Killing curse had been deflected by the Fidelius charm, neither of those would be true.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i would tend to argue that Rowling was not very good at plotting... most of the "tie-ins" between books felt forced or were a convienient way of explaining things.
Anyway, my opionion of JKR's storytelling really hasnt been the point of the last few posts. I don't really think anyone is argueing in cannon that Voldemort killed HP's parentals. In MOR though we can't assume that the people or events are the same. We are just speculating as to what it was that Harry could have missed about the story.
If this becomes a serious arguement/debate it would be pretty sad...
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Echthalion, admittedly it is not a serious issue whether it was reasonable for everyone in the "Wizarding World" of Harry Potter to be certain that Voldemort was killed when his killing curse rebounded from the infant Harry. One or two people seem addicted to conspiracy theories. I was hoping a little clear logic would show how untenable that is.
I don't know how anyone can maintain that JKR was not a good plotter or story teller. She is the only woman in history to become a billionaire through her writing. A vast number of people are very entertained by her story-telling. I for one am grateful to her for it--I feel her fiction has enriched my life. I am disgusted with people who feel compelled to try to find fault--as if that somehow can make them better, or be seen as intelligent or perceptive. Too many people try to take a shortcut this way.
There is a place for literary criticism. But what people are trying to do here is not literary criticism. How many of these self-supposed experts have ever been published as professional writers? Real writers do not take cheap shots at other writers, because they know how hard it is to do something as well as Rowling did the Harry Potter epic.
Finding fault is one thing, too, IF IT IS REALLY VALID. Too much of what I have been reading here is just self-indulgent silliness that betrays a lack of really intelligent logical discipline.
By the way, Quirrel was wrong to say there is no defense against the killing curse. Harry survived it--and also Harry blocked it with his humaniform patronus when Quirrel tried to kill the guard. And again, in the final novel, when Voldemort used the killing curse on Harry in the woods, and killed him briefly--Harry came back to life, presumably because of having ownership of all three of the Deathly Hallows, and because (perhaps) what Voldemort really killed was his own horcrux soul-bit that was in Harry.
In terms of sheer logic, for anyone in the Wizarding World to admit that "no one has ever survived the killing curse, except Harry Potter," is in fact to tacitly open the door to the possibility that other ways to block or defeat the killing curse might exist.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
im not certain that she is a good story teller just because she's made lots of money or that she is vastly popular. Lost was popular but it was a terrible show that simple kept adding wierder bits of mystery to get people coming back to find out about the show before. IN the end they came up with a really stupid excuse for why everything happened... even die-hard fans hated the last show...
Twilight is hugely popular, and makes lots of money... but seriously it isn't well written. The girls flock to it because they believe it represents this super idyllic romance (that in reality is called stalking....) that has been socially ingrained in their minds since they were babies.
I try not to critique her too much simply because everyone has to start somewhere and there are very few "perfect" stories (my nominations for "closest to perfect" would be for Tale of Two Cities and Lord of the Rings of course). But her stories are full of holes and when you really try to desconstruct the elements or think much about they really aren't that compelling. However they are fun stories for most of the younger generations. The amount of people reading shrinks every generation, any way that people get into books is good. If you start with a bad book but you love to read you'll eventually get to the good books.
Most critics and well-read people only give Rowling and HP a pass because she's writing "kids" books. I highly doubt she will ever be inducted in the great literary author's hall of fame (come to think of it.... why don't we have one of these already... and if we do where is it? other than simply pointing at a library on the Oxford campus and saying "read something in there")
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The great literary author's hall of fame, eh?
*shrug* Anyway, it seems very much to me as though you're cherry-picking what critics and 'well-read' people you're listening to about this. As for Lost, I never watched even a single episode of it - just never got around to it, other things to watch - and even I know that fans of the show liked it right up till the end, many of them at least. Some of `em fell off, it's true, but by no means in the way you suggest. You need to drop this notion that your experience is representative of everyone's, because your opinion represents pretty much jus your opinion. As for HP and well-read people and critis, most of both whom I've spoken to or read on the subject say things quite different, or at least many. You really ought to qualify your remarks with 'in my opinion', instead of presenting what really is a big pile of opinion as though it were literary fact (heh), and run less of a risk of appearing pretty silly.
One of the most common things said about the HP series, and the thing that indicates you don't actually know much of what you're talking about, is that she was initially writing pretty child-oriented material, but as her characters grew, so did her content. By the later books, the stories could by no means be called kids books. And as for halls of fame, is that a serious question? There are dozens of such lists. You can't honestly have difficulty finding them. Awards lists, best-seller lists, classics lists, just as a starting-point.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The great literary author's hall of fame, eh?
*shrug* Anyway, it seems very much to me as though you're cherry-picking what critics and 'well-read' people you're listening to about this. As for Lost, I never watched even a single episode of it - just never got around to it, other things to watch - and even I know that fans of the show liked it right up till the end, many of them at least. Some of `em fell off, it's true, but by no means in the way you suggest. You need to drop this notion that your experience is representative of everyone's, because your opinion represents pretty much jus your opinion. As for HP and well-read people and critis, most of both whom I've spoken to or read on the subject say things quite different, or at least many. You really ought to qualify your remarks with 'in my opinion', instead of presenting what really is a big pile of opinion as though it were literary fact (heh), and run less of a risk of appearing pretty silly.
One of the most common things said about the HP series, and the thing that indicates you don't actually know much of what you're talking about, is that she was initially writing pretty child-oriented material, but as her characters grew, so did her content. By the later books, the stories could by no means be called kids books. And as for halls of fame, is that a serious question? There are dozens of such lists. You can't honestly have difficulty finding them. Awards lists, best-seller lists, classics lists, just as a starting-point.
As far as Lost goes; most everyone i knew that liked the show hated the last episode and thought that they had wasted their time on it. This is personal experience involving the show. I have read on a few different forums that several of th show's fans felt cheated by the last episode. Not to mention the countless facebook status' that expressed discontent in it when it aired.
My opinion of JKR is indeed limited to me and the people i know, most of which read constantly, and a few literary critics who'd reviews of the HP universe I have read. I personally only know 2 people who are published authors of fiction/fantasy. I agree that the HP stories do mature and get better as they go, though I thought the seventh book was several steps in the wrong direction.
I admit it was a kids book, and that is something that I can never fully appreciate about it. I really can't think of anyone I know or any critics that say HP was a literary masterpiece. Who knows maybe it becomes a great classic that becomes taught in schools to our great grand-children, but i kind of doubt it.
And no the Hall of fame question isn't serious... i really didnt think much in this thread was serious, it was simply me thinking ti would be funny to have a place in Ohio filled with statues of great authors and displays of their pens, papers, laptops whatnot.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence I presented is indeed sufficient to prove that Voldemort attempted to use the killing curse against Harry. Just dismissing the evidence arbitrarily is not refuting it.
It is not. I didn't dismiss the evidence arbitrarily, I dismissed them using a very rigorous and specific methodology, which assigns percentages of certainty (regarding the facts) and checks for the probabilistic correlations between effects and supposed cause.
quote:Aurors would know if in the entire history of the wizarding world, a similar effect of the Killing curse rebounding has ever occurred.
We're explicitly and specifically told that it has NEVER happened again.
quote: In that circumstance, the burning up of the person who cast the killing curse may be an event that has been observed before.
We're explicitly and specifically told that this has NEVER been observed again.
As I said: you're making stuff up. You are not just making assumptions, you're wholesale inventing stuff we've never been told, and ignoring stuff we *have* been told.
Here's what we have been told: The Avada Kedavra curse has never before rebounded. It has never (except supposedly on Harry Potter) failed to kill the target it strikes, as long as that target has a brain.
Are you disputing this piece of evidence?
Despite whether you consider it weak or strong evidence, can't you atleast admit that this is evidence AGAINST Harry having been hit by the Avada Kedavra curse?
Perhaps you consider it weak evidence, but if you're "logically disciplined" you MUST consider it evidence.
quote:Just because we are not explicitly told this was the case, does not prove it was not.
We're explicitly told this is NOT the case, that Harry is the only person EVER to have survived the (supposed) Killing Curse.
quote:In this matter, detractors of the popular view (which the canon takes for granted) have the burden of proof on them to prove this popularly accepted conclusion was unwarranted.
I'm sorry, but is this actually supposed to be a logically rigorous argument? What kind of rigorous methodology are you using to determine who has the "burden of proof"?
quote:It is not “weak evidence” that Voldemort would have revealed his intentions to Snape.
How many of his important plans did Voldemort ever reveal to Snape? In canon he didn't reveal the Horcruxes to Snape, he didn't reveal Pettigrew was the actual traitor, he didn't reveal his plan to lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries in the 5th book. He revealed that Draco had been assigned the task to kill Dumbledore, but *nobody expected that plan to succeed*.
So again, given what we know, what's the prior probability of Voldemort revealing his full and true intentions to Snape?
quote:And the burden of proof is on them.
If you keep talking about "burden of proof", then you're using a judicial argument, not a logical one. In actual rigorous logic, the burden of proof is on both parties, those who hold an opinion and those who hold the opposite one.
It's only in courts that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, because we (quite properly) want people to be "innocent until proven guilty". This doesn't apply to rigorous logic.
quote:If when Hagrid and Sirius arrived on the scene TOGETHER they had NOT found Voldemort’s wand, then THAT would have been significant, and should have been mentioned if that were the case.
Should? In the canon we're not even told they found Voldemort's body -- we don't know if his body burned, disintegrated, was found without a mark on it, or anything like that. And in HPMOR, we're not even told they were the first two to arrive at the scene.
Do you understand how weak your evidence is? You keep proceeding from an *absence of evidence* to construct theories, upon which you build other theories, by making even more assumptions.
Assign a probability to each of those steps, and even if you're 90% certain for each single one of them, by multiplication you won't end up more than 10% certain for the whole line of argumentation.
quote:Your thinking is not as logically disciplined as it needs to be,
It's you who's logically undisciplined: You can't seem even capable of admitting any evidence which opposes your belief. I on the other hand have admitted evidence both for and against the theory. And attempted to use Bayesian reasoning to evaluate their strength and weakness.
Your problem is that you use classical Aristotelian reasoning (If A, then B, then C) when the science of logic has progressed far beyond that. It nowadays uses percentages of *certainty* for example (e.g. If we know A% with 80% certainty and know that A=>B with 80% certainty, and we know that B=>C with 80% certainty, then the certainty of C is only 80% * 80% * 80% = 51.2%)
Now you ought start realizing how flimsy your numerous steps have become at their end. You've used so many steps in your logic, that as a rough approximation I wouldn't be more than 20% convinced at your final result, given the knowns we have.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know how anyone can maintain that JKR was not a good plotter or story teller. She is the only woman in history to become a billionaire through her writing.
The assertion, such as it was, was that JKR is not a good plotter; her storytelling ability was not questioned, and indeed her storytelling ability is more likely to speak to her popularity than her ability to write a coherent plot. (I submit that the plots of Deathly Hallows and Goblet of Fire, in and of themselves, are enough to demonstrate the difficulty she sometimes has with plotting.)
That she is a popular storyteller despite her poor plotting skills suggests that either a) she is an absolutely fantastic storyteller only moderately hampered by poor plotting; or, as the popularity of Dan Brown's books might suggest, b) that coherent plots are not a requirement for popularity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, and btw, Ron, we have conclusive evidence that Voldemort did NOT use his own wand that night:
quote:"My... Lord... I went where you said to await you, but you did not come... I looked for you but I could not find you... you are alive..."
quote:"Your wand," murmured Bellatrix, "I hid it in the graveyard, my lord, before I left... under the tombstone to the right of your father's grave... "
I now assign a 99.5% probability that Voldemort left his wand with Bellatrix BEFORE he went to the Potter home. Which is strong evidence (80% probability) in favour of the theory that Voldemort believed it very likely that his bodily form would be destroyed, and he had left it with Bellatrix because he didn't want it taken by Aurors. (The remaining 20% chance I assign to other more unlikely reasons like "the Potters might have had wards up against the entry of Voldemort's wand")
Which in turn is almost certain evidence in favour of him not just wanting to Avada Kedavra Harry, but do something different again.
At the beginning of this conversation between us, I was only about 70% certain Voldemort didn't mean to kill Harry. Now, with the knowledge he had left his wand to a trusted servant before he went to the Potters, I'm now around 85% certain.
Thank you Ron. Your comments about the wand helped solidify my belief in my theory.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Ah, and btw, Ron, we have conclusive evidence that Voldemort did NOT use his own wand that night:
quote:"My... Lord... I went where you said to await you, but you did not come... I looked for you but I could not find you... you are alive..."
quote:"Your wand," murmured Bellatrix, "I hid it in the graveyard, my lord, before I left... under the tombstone to the right of your father's grave... "
I now assign a 99.5% probability that Voldemort left his wand with Bellatrix BEFORE he went to the Potter home. Which is strong evidence (80% probability) in favour of the theory that Voldemort believed it very likely that his bodily form would be destroyed, and he had left it with Bellatrix because he didn't want it taken by Aurors. (The remaining 20% chance I assign to other more unlikely reasons like "the Potters might have had wards up against the entry of Voldemort's wand")
Which in turn is almost certain evidence in favour of him not just wanting to Avada Kedavra Harry, but do something different again.
At the beginning of this conversation between us, I was only about 70% certain Voldemort didn't mean to kill Harry. Now, with the knowledge he had left his wand to a trusted servant before he went to the Potters, I'm now around 85% certain.
Thank you Ron. Your comments about the wand helped solidify my belief in my theory.
i really don't know how you can assign those percentages to anything... Going by what you keep saying is evidence against ron's assertions we are not told that Voldemort gave his wand to Bella. We only know that Bella obtained the wand and hid it in the cemetary. If you are asking ron for explicily stated proofs you cant really use any of your probabilistic conjecture that you submitted.
Dumbledore goes through several memories trying to get HP to understand that Voldy didn't trust anyone ever. His friends and cronies were simply people he could use. I doubt he would have left his best/favorite weapon with someone.
I highly doubt that Voldy thought he would be destroyed. That really is a pretty ridiculous assertion. One thing we know about Voldy is that he is very powerful and confident in his power. We also know that he is a show-off. We also know that the only reason HP doesn't die in the many times that Voldemort confronts him is because of by some random act of chance or good luck that Vmort doesnt know about or understand. If anything Voldy wanted to kill HP as a baby because he would have assumed it would have been easier.
I would take your 99.5% that voldemort didnt use his wand and raise it to a 100% chance that he did. Consider the gosts of the people that were killed by the wand. HP's parents were present in that list. Now we can make conjecture about stupid things like "maybe after killing the potters he picked up someone else's wand." or "Voldemort was framed and then tricked into believing he killed the potters" but that borders on stupidity.
Not certain how you are 80% certain that Vmort wasn't originally going to kill HP... everytime HP meets him he practically states "I'm going to kill you... i can't believe you didn't die the last time we meet and i tried to kill you!" Unless of course you are just trolling.
As to an earlier post. Saying that nobody ever survived the killing curse is alot like saying everyone always dies from it, which clearly we can see is not the case. If we can take Harry's memory as being accurate we also have his memory of the green flash and (i believe) the voice of V-man himself casting Avada Kedavra. Now you can argue that the long time meories of a child cant be admissable as evidence but in the cannon we are told that it is probably an accurate account of what happened there.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dumbledore goes through several memories trying to get HP to understand that Voldy didn't trust anyone ever. His friends and cronies were simply people he could use. I doubt he would have left his best/favorite weapon with someone.
I highly doubt that Voldy thought he would be destroyed. That really is a pretty ridiculous assertion. One thing we know about Voldy is that he is very powerful and confident in his power. We also know that he is a show-off. We also know that the only reason HP doesn't die in the many times that Voldemort confronts him is because of by some random act of chance or good luck that Vmort doesnt know about or understand. If anything Voldy wanted to kill HP as a baby because he would have assumed it would have been easier.
I pretty sure that Aris is talking about Voldy from MoR, not the Voldy from cannon since the lines he quoted from Belle are from MoR.
We can't assume that the Voldemort in MoR is the same as the Dark Lord in cannon, which makes all the memories Dumbledore showed Voldemort in cannon irrelevant. This Voldemort could be a very different character, with a very different history and different motivations.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:" We only know that Bella obtained the wand and hid it in the cemetary. "
'Before she left' indicates before she left from the place she awaited him, which she mentioned in the previous sentence. I assign 0.5% probability that she may have meant anything else.
quote: If you are asking ron for explicily stated proofs you cant really use any of your probabilistic conjecture that you submitted.
I don't ask Ron for "proofs", which meaning doesn't really exist in Bayesian logic - only in classical logic.
I asked him to calculate the probabilities, given the known evidence.
Two people can ofcourse honestly disagree about the prior probabilities they assign to facts, and thus reach different conclusions, but atleast then we'll know where the source of our disagreement lies: Because we assigned different priors.
But some people can also disagree because atleast one of them is using bad logic, or because they don't bother to calculate the probabilities at all -- they just a logical sequence of steps each of which is plausible, but whose totality is highly IMPLAUSIBLE: and that's what I believe Ron is doing.
quote:I would take your 99.5% that voldemort didnt use his wand and raise it to a 100% chance that he did. Consider the gosts of the people that were killed by the wand. HP's parents were present in that list.
You're confusing canon with HPMOR. I have no doubt that he used his proper wand in canon, and I have absolutely no doubt that he cast Avada Kedavra to Harry in canon, and that his body was destroyed by the rebounding curse IN CANON.
But we're not discussing canon here, we're discussing HPMOR. And no ghosts have appeared yet from Voldemort's wand in HPMOR.
quote:Not certain how you are 80% certain that Vmort wasn't originally going to kill HP... everytime HP meets him he practically states "I'm going to kill you... i can't believe you didn't die the last time we meet and i tried to kill you!"
Except in HPMor, where Voldemort actually saved Harry's life from a horde of yaoi-loving fangirls.
Again: HPMOR is different to canon.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except in HPMor, where Voldemort actually saved Harry's life from a horde of yaoi-loving fangirls.
Note: Quirrel save HPMoR from the loving fangirls. You are speculating that Quirrel is Voldy. This speculation may turn out to be correct, in fact I believe it will but at this point a rationalist must note that it is speculation not established fact.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note: Quirrel save HPMoR from the loving fangirls. You are speculating that Quirrel is Voldy. This speculation may turn out to be correct, in fact I believe it will but at this point a rationalist must note that it is speculation not established fact.
The Rabbit - *nod*, I concede the point: This hasn't yet been yet solidly established in the story itself, and I shouldn't have used it the way I did in my previous post.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (and the "Hobbit" prequel) were initially regarded as children's stories. So I see no problem in comparing J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter epic to Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."
It is generally recognized that JKR's Harry Potter series turned significantly "darker" with book four, "Goblet of Fire." At that point, the epic was clearly no longer just a children's story.
As a professional writer, I do not believe it is possible to tell a good story if you cannot plot. Plotting is an essential part of story-telling. Examples such as the "Lost" TV series are generally written by committee, thus are invalid comparisons. And what may entertain people for an hour on TV with all the visual special effects and accompanying mood music, is not the same as what entertains people in reading an epic series of seven lengthy novels.
The idea that Voldemort would not take his own wand with him when he went to go up against two powerful people (James and Lilly Potter were not lightweights--James was able to bully Snape), is simply not creditable.
In MoR, the only basic assumption said by the author to have been changed, was that Petunia married a college professor instead of "that fat boy, Dursley," so that Harry was raised in such a manner that encouraged his intellectual development. So if Quirrel is not hosting Voldemort, then that is going contrary to the canon for no reason related to the one basic assumption of what was different.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that Voldemort would not take his own wand with him when he went to go up against two powerful people (James and Lilly Potter were not lightweights--James was able to bully Snape), is simply not creditable.
I just pointed out to you the point in the text which makes it pretty much certain. Will you not even consider that piece of evidence? You're just ignoring it?
quote:In MoR, the only basic assumption said by the author to have been changed was that Petunia married a college professor instead of "that fat boy, Dursley," so that Harry was raised in such a manner that encouraged his intellectual development.
You're factually wrong on this. On the notes in the first chapter, the author says the EXACT OPPOSITE to what you said: "This is not a strict single-point-of-departure fic - there exists a primary point of departure, at some point in the past, but also other alterations."
And the alterations have been many, many, many: The Weasley family rat is dead. The text of the prophecy itself is different. Quirrel isn't wearing a turban. Lots of minor changes in the past of the story, *besides* Harry's upbringing.
You're absolutely, factually, undeniably wrong on this.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, maybe the writer added all that after I read the notes. Probably after realizing that it would be inconvenient to limit all the changes to only the one concerning Harry's upbringing. But if Quirrel is not hosting Voldemort, then that is a very major change, since it is what lead to the final climax and resolution of "Philosopher's Stone."
It is absolutely impossible, irrational, and plain nuts that Voldemort would have gone up against James and Lilly Potter without his own wand. Use some common sense, Aris! You misconstrued what was said about the wand. Read it all again, in context. Especially check when it was that Bellatrix said she hid Voldemort's wand by his father's grave. Frankly, you're making Voldemort's wand into a hobbyhorse, and it's getting pretty old.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, So far we have Harry and Quirrel being close friends, Harry and Draco being close friends, Harry and Hermione being romantically involved, a war game replacing Quiditch, Harry suspecting Dumbledore or murdering Draco's mother, and Harry breaking into Azkaban to free Bellatrix, those are all pretty major changes.
As best I can see, the only similarities with canon are that Hogwarts is a school of magic, Hermione's smart, Fred and George are fun and Ron's good at chess. Beyond that, the similarities are few and far between.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Actually, both me and the Rabbit believe Quirrel is indeed hosting Voldemort, so I'm not sure why you are arguing about this.
But if you also believe it, then how do you explain that Voldemort/Quirrel chose to save Harry's life in Chapter 42?
quote:It is absolutely impossible, irrational, and plain nuts that Voldemort would have gone up against James and Lilly Potter without his own wand.
Absolutely impossible? So do you give it less than 1/1000 odds?
Does that mean you would hypothetically accept a bet where you give me 1000 dollars if before the story is done it's revealed that Voldemort went after the Potters using a different wand, and I give you 1 dollar if such a revelation doesn't occur (before the story is done)?
(I'm asking this hypothetically, I'm not actually proposing the bet -- I'd feel bad taking your money over this, so I'm not actually proposing it, I'm just asking you if you would hypothetically consider it a favourable bet for you) ---
Ron, here's another hypothetical. Let's for the moment pretend you are right about the story itself, and that Voldemort did But you know what. Let's say you're right.
Now nonetheless pretend he did *go* after them without his own wand. You don't need to believe he did so, just pretend. Now think up of possible reasons for why he could have done that.
What possible reasons could he have for that? And what probabilities would you assign on each potential reason?
In short, *conditional* to Voldemort not using his proper wand, what are the probabilities of different scenarios?
quote:Especially check when it was that Bellatrix said she hid Voldemort's wand by his father's grave.
Before she left the graveyard. Which in the context provided means the time around Voldemort attacking the Potters, when Voldemort failed to appear.
quote:Frankly, you're making Voldemort's wand into a hobbyhorse, and it's getting pretty old.
I don't know what "hobbyhorse" means, but I'm both amused and annoyed that you praised yourself over rigorous logical thinking when you evidently don't have the slightest clue what such means.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Ron, So far we have Harry and Quirrel being close friends, Harry and Draco being close friends, Harry and Hermione being romantically involved, a war game replacing Quiditch, Harry suspecting Dumbledore or murdering Draco's mother, and Harry breaking into Azkaban to free Bellatrix, those are all pretty major changes.
As best I can see, the only similarities with canon are that Hogwarts is a school of magic, Hermione's smart, Fred and George are fun and Ron's good at chess. Beyond that, the similarities are few and far between.
These changes to the story can be said to have taken place because of the main premis of "harry but raised by loving rational parents." Most of the changes are because we are following a different type of Harry. Until something about Harry's world/past is expressly changed we have to assume that most of the back story is unchanged. Either that or make absolutely no assumptions about anything in the story, but that would seem to defeat the purpose of having a Harry Potter fanfic if nothing of Harry Potter besides names remains.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, both me and the Rabbit believe Quirrel is indeed hosting Voldemort, so I'm not sure why you are arguing about this.
Admittedly theres really nothing in the story that should make you believe this. You are just accepting that this bit of cannon made it into the story... something which you keep trying to tell us we cant do because "things are different"
quote:But if you also believe it, then how do you explain that Voldemort/Quirrel chose to save Harry's life in Chapter 42?
simple, quirrelmort has a new plan. Voldemort is supposed to be bad/evil/dark. If what Harry accept as a Good/light plan is to turn Draco to the light side of the force it is rational to think that Quirrilmort would find more satisfaction destroying Harry in a mental/ethical way. Lure him to the Dark side.
quote:Absolutely impossible? So do you give it less than 1/1000 odds?
Does that mean you would hypothetically accept a bet where you give me 1000 dollars if before the story is done it's revealed that Voldemort went after the Potters using a different wand, and I give you 1 dollar if such a revelation doesn't occur (before the story is done)?
(I'm asking this hypothetically, I'm not actually proposing the bet -- I'd feel bad taking your money over this, so I'm not actually proposing it, I'm just asking you if you would hypothetically consider it a favourable bet for you)
this isnt a favorable bet even for things that we generally accept to be true... im not sure what this is supposed to prove. I doubt you would take the reverse bet where you gave him $1000 if you were wrong.
quote:Ron, here's another hypothetical. Let's for the moment pretend you are right about the story itself, and that Voldemort did But you know what. Let's say you're right.
Now nonetheless pretend he did *go* after them without his own wand. You don't need to believe he did so, just pretend. Now think up of possible reasons for why he could have done that.
thinking up a reason to do it doesn't mean that he did. We already have a backstory to go on, why assume differently just because you can think of a reason for someone to kill someone with a weapon that they will be inherently clumsier and less familliar with.
If i had to take out a gang I'm bringing a weapon i feel comfortable with, one that will get the job done right, one i can rely on. Sure there could be reasons for me to take something else. If anything when you think about your question you have to be drawn to the conclusion that it would be very irrational for voldemort not to have brought his wand.
quote:What possible reasons could he have for that? And what probabilities would you assign on each potential reason?
In short, *conditional* to Voldemort not using his proper wand, what are the probabilities of different scenarios?
from what we must accept of what we know of Voldy/wands/magic it seems like the probability of him going in with a different wand is very very low...
quote:
quote:Especially check when it was that Bellatrix said she hid Voldemort's wand by his father's grave.
Before she left the graveyard. Which in the context provided means the time around Voldemort attacking the Potters, when Voldemort failed to appear.
I didnt get that the context was that she was given his wand. Rather that she found it/stole it/won it back and placed it in a place that she or he would know how to recover it.
In the end im not saying that you can't be right. It just seems unlikely and until we are given some solid information i don't see why we would shift from something we knew from the cannon to something new and speculatory.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until something about Harry's world/past is expressly changed we have to assume that most of the back story is unchanged.
The prophecy is changed, does that count?
I think in a completely rational world prophecy doesnt mean much. Heck it seems that in the cannon it didnt mean much until voldemort went out and tried to make something of it. I have a hard time thinking fate will be a factor in MOR.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
What make you think the MoR-verse is completely rational, and what does that even mean? The world works the way it does, however that is. It's people that can be rational or not.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
What make you think the MoR-verse is completely rational, and what does that even mean? The world works the way it does, however that is. It's people that can be rational or not.
The world that he created is based on rationality throughout the story hes been saying that there are reasons for many seemingly irrational things, hes also making assumptions that there is nothing truely supernatural about the world. That being said in his HP universe it would seem to violate his own principles if he actually believed that fate and prophecy actually held sway on the world.
The only thing that my statement says is that i highly doubt the prophecy is truely a valuable part of the story.
The changes that are supposedly so different that we must challege our beliefs about the backstory have been pretty insignificant. Does it matter that scabbers is not in the story? Does it matter that quirrel is nto wearing a turban? Does it matter that the prophecy doesn't say the same thing? Im sure there are ways that someone could think up ways for them to become important later. But as of yet theres no reason to believe any of them are significant.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Admittedly theres really nothing in the story that should make you believe this
There's some things in the story that are evidence, but they're not conclusive.
quote:You are just accepting that this bit of cannon made it into the story...
I'm accepting it because the author has admitted it in various author notes and forum posts.
quote:I doubt you would take the reverse bet where you gave him $1000 if you were wrong.
Of course I wouldn't, I didn't say that *my* theory was "absolutely" correct, I assigned it much lower odds than that. I assigned only an 85% chance that Voldemort wasn't just intending to simply Avada Kedavra Harry.
That means I'd accept any bet that's better than 15 to 85 odds. (e.g. I give 80 dollars, other side puts 20 dollars, winner takes all).
quote:thinking up a reason to do it doesn't mean that he did.
Well, duh. I'm asking you and Ron to for a moment *pretend* he did, and figure out what that would mean in turn.
Are you incapable of such?
quote:If i had to take out a gang I'm bringing a weapon i feel comfortable with, one that will get the job done right, one i can rely on. Sure there could be reasons for me to take something else. If anything when you think about your question you have to be drawn to the conclusion that it would be very irrational for voldemort not to have brought his wand.
That's the WHOLE POINT. It *would* be irrational not to have brought his wand, unless he had a good reason. So, LOGICAL reasoning tells us that if he *didn't* bring his wand, then he *must* have had a good reason.
So if we observe something that increases the probabilities of Voldemort not using his own wand that day, that likewise increases the probabilities of those other reasons.
That's Bayesian probabilistic reasoning. Which you keep failing to grasp, because you constantly refuse to assign *any* probabilities, you behave as if everything has either a probability of 100% (certain), 50% (unknown), or 0% (impossible).
quote:from what we must accept of what we know of Voldy/wands/magic it seems like the probability of him going in with a different wand is very very low...
That's not the question I asked you. I asked you for the moment to PRETEND that you know for SURE that he went with a different wand, and to formulate hypotheses for his reasons given that pretense.
If you can't think up alternate hypotheses, so that you can evaluate *them*, then frankly you're incapable of evaluating the probability of the belief you actually hold.
If you can't think up any alternative, then OFCOURSE you assign 100% probability to the belief you already hold. But such assignment means nothing: because you have no other hypotheses to compare it too, it will always remain at 100%, and no new observations will affect it.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That being said in his HP universe it would seem to violate his own principles if he actually believed that fate and prophecy actually held sway on the world.
Harry himself seemed to find prophecy much more believable than stable time-loops, when he was first offered a Time-Turner. As prophecy just required someone being able to calculate future results (an Oracle machine as he called it), but stable time-loops aren't Turing Compatible.
quote:Does it matter that the prophecy doesn't say the same thing? I'm sure there are ways that someone could think up ways for them to become important later. But as of yet there's no reason to believe any of them are significant.
Well there's where you are illogical. Why would he change stuff if they *weren't* significant enough to be altered?
We know why he altered Scabbers -- because the author believed that Pettigrew hiding in the household of an enemy family was him "holding the Idiot Ball".
We don't yet know exactly why he altered the turban, but we obviously can tell that the specifics of Quirrel's possession are different.
And we don't know at *all* why the prophecy is different, but do you *really* believe it was done for no significant reason?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm accepting it because the author has admitted it in various author notes and forum posts.
if this is the only reason you are accepting it they why do you make other assumptions/prediction that have so far not been revealed to us yet? You cant really use this as a rationale and then ask people to come over to your point of view when there isnt really good evidence for your conjecturing?
quote:Of course I wouldn't, I didn't say that *my* theory was "absolutely" correct, I assigned it much lower odds than that. I assigned only an 85% chance that Voldemort wasn't just intending to simply Avada Kedavra Harry.
That means I'd accept any bet that's better than 15 to 85 odds. (e.g. I give 80 dollars, other side puts 20 dollars, winner takes all).
Firstly... this is increadibly weak.. and 85% chance that he wasn't "intending to simply avada kedavra" is in no way any type of arguement. Not to mention your 85% is still entirely arbitrary
Secondly... the last few posts haven't been about that, they have been over whether voldemort used his wand or not. Which seems unlikly and irrational. I highly doubt that the odds of Voldemort using someone else's rod are at 85% so far we have no reason to suspect that he didn't bring it and every rational reason to believe he did.
quote:Well, duh. I'm asking you and Ron to for a moment *pretend* he did, and figure out what that would mean in turn.
Are you incapable of such?
i am perfectly capable of imagining something like that. But because i can imagine it doesnt mean i have any more reason to believe voldemort didnt have his wand, didnt attempt to kill harry and didnt get fried by himself. The only thing in that sequence that we can so far question is the last part. It is possible that someone fried Voldy. But until theres a reason to question the first two why should i?
quote:]That's the WHOLE POINT. It *would* be irrational not to have brought his wand, unless he had a good reason. So, LOGICAL reasoning tells us that if he *didn't* bring his wand, then he *must* have had a good reason.
So if we observe something that increases the probabilities of Voldemort not using his own wand that day, that likewise increases the probabilities of those other reasons.
You've been trying to get us to buy into Voldy not having his wand. You accept this as if its a known fact and you attempting to give rationale to very irrational things because of a beleif that you cant know yet.
Telling me that "it is indeed irrational for voldemort to go in without his wand and so he must have had an ingenious plan to have done it." is still ignoring the fact that its just more rational to believe he had his wand with him.
quote:That's Bayesian probabilistic reasoning. Which you keep failing to grasp, because you constantly refuse to assign *any* probabilities, you behave as if everything has either a probability of 100% (certain), 50% (unknown), or 0% (impossible).
Not true, sure im not giving arbitrary numbers to things like you are but i do assess what is likely or probably in the given situation. In this situation it seems very improbable that Voldemort would have not brought his wand.
quote:That's not the question I asked you. I asked you for the moment to PRETEND that you know for SURE that he went with a different wand, and to formulate hypotheses for his reasons given that pretense.
sure i can pretend that he did, but you are saying that he in fact did. Something that i am not willing to accept until something new is revealed in the story.
quote:If you can't think up alternate hypotheses, so that you can evaluate *them*, then frankly you're incapable of evaluating the probability of the belief you actually hold.
I can think of alternate hypothesis very easily. In the end it seems highly unlikely that voldemort would have gone into enemy territory, presumably not to have tea and play poker, and left his best, favorite weapon behind.
quote:If you can't think up any alternative, then OFCOURSE you assign 100% probability to the belief you already hold. But such assignment means nothing: because you have no other hypotheses to compare it too, it will always remain at 100%, and no new observations will affect it.
once again i can think up many alternate things about the situation. With the information that we are given so far, until something new is given there's really no reason for me to think that this situation is vastly different from what we know from the cannon story. In the end he may write that voldemort was a good guy and a revolutionary who was wrongly killed and accused. That is fine but we are working in the framework of the HP universe, i have no reason to ignore what we already know of this universe.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That being said in his HP universe it would seem to violate his own principles if he actually believed that fate and prophecy actually held sway on the world.
Harry himself seemed to find prophecy much more believable than stable time-loops, when he was first offered a Time-Turner. As prophecy just required someone being able to calculate future results (an Oracle machine as he called it), but stable time-loops aren't Turing Compatible.
quote:Does it matter that the prophecy doesn't say the same thing? I'm sure there are ways that someone could think up ways for them to become important later. But as of yet there's no reason to believe any of them are significant.
Well there's where you are illogical. Why would he change stuff if they *weren't* significant enough to be altered?
We know why he altered Scabbers -- because the author believed that Pettigrew hiding in the household of an enemy family was him "holding the Idiot Ball".
We don't yet know exactly why he altered the turban, but we obviously can tell that the specifics of Quirrel's possession are different.
And we don't know at *all* why the prophecy is different, but do you *really* believe it was done for no significant reason?
No i believe there probably is a reason that he would change the prophecy, and i can't wait to read it. But once again we are told this story takes place in Harry Potter's universe. We already have a groundwork for the story, we already have knowlege of that universe. Because of that, unless there are significant reasons to believe something totally different about the world, i will generally accept that we are dealing with the familliar HP universe.
Now maybe that isnt the case, maybe everything we already know is different and doesn't matter. i'm ok with that too, i just fail to see why you'd place the story in the same universe and use the same people if you wanted to tell a completely different story about different people. Unless its just a ploy to get people to read so you attach it to something well-known and popular.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if this is the only reason you are accepting it
It's not the only reason. It's the main reason.
quote: they why do you make other assumptions/prediction that have so far not been revealed to us yet?
I don't know how NOT to make predictions. How do you do it? Pretend that everything is equally unknowable? That's logically impossible. If I assign a probability of 50% (same chance either way) I'm still making a prediction. If I call something impossible or certain, I'm making predictions.
quote:the last few posts haven't been about that, they have been over whether voldemort used his wand or not. I highly doubt that the odds of Voldemort using someone else's rod are at 85% so far we have no reason to suspect that he didn't bring it and every rational reason to believe he did.
Now, *those* odds, i put at 99%.
Bellatrix made a quite clear claim that she had his wand and hid it. Are you just choosing to ignore that?
quote:Not to mention your 85% is still entirely arbitrary
Do you think that just by using vague words like "likely" "unlikely" "probable" "improbable", you are being any less arbitrary?
We're both making predictions, it's just that I quantify them with greater specificity. Your vagueness isn't any less arbitrary than my specificity -- it just communicates less meaning to me. Because I don't know what you mean by "very improbable" -- do you mean 10% chance? 1% chance? 0.1% chance? What the hell does "very improbable" mean?
quote:In this situation it seems very improbable that Voldemort would have not brought his wand.
To me what seems very improbable is that Bellatrix would claim that she had his wand and hid it, if that wasn't the case.
And yet we can't have both: Either (A) Bellatrix had Voldemort's wand at the time of his going to the Potters, or (B) Voldemort did.
When probability A increases, probability (B) must by necessity decrease because they're mutually exclusive.
quote:Something that i am not willing to accept until something new is revealed in the story.
Something new was indeed revealed: Bellatrix claimed to have hidden Voldemort's wand, before she left their rendevouz point. Voldemort and Bellatrix can't have *both* had Voldemort's wand at that time.
And I'll trust Bellatrix's words to her lord, than your mere assumptions based on canon that doesn't necessarily apply.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:i just fail to see why you'd place the story in the same universe and use the same people if you wanted to tell a completely different story about different people.
We know why the author did that -- because he felt that a Harry Potter fanfic would provide a large audience that could become potentially interested in the methods of rationality. More so than unknown characters set in an unknown universe.
quote:
quote:I highly doubt that the odds of Voldemort using someone else's rod are at 85% so far we have no reason to suspect that he didn't bring it and every rational reason to believe he did.
Now, *those* odds, i put at 99%.
I'll have to downwards revise to 95%, as a possibility just occurred to me, that Bellatrix might have been brought in after the Potters were killed but before Voldemort's demise: So she could have apparated in, accepted the wand, ported back out to the graveyard, then Voldemort did whatever it was that burned him.
That seems needlessly far-fetched, so no more than 5% to this theory.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firstly if you know that me saying "probable" or "likely" or "unlikely" is the same as me assesing probabilities, why would you accuse me of not being able to do it?
Secondly saying that something seems likely and assigning it real odds seems very different from each other. maybe it isnt, if that is true then i am ok with just assigning numbers to things.
Probability is an assignment of chances of a certain outcome when you know the variables. Maybe you're really good at that. personally i dont really know all the variables in this story to feel comfortable assigning numbers to them.
Once again there is no reason to believe that Bella didnt get Voldemort's wand after he fried himself. Saying she went looking for him and waited for him, and then saying that she hid his wand were not part of the same statement. One sentece is about a meeting, quite possibly where to search for voldemort if he were killed. Maybe it was where they were going to catch a movie and some good soup. Her first staement was also two seperate ideas. she said "I waited for you and you didn't come" and then later "I looked for you and did not find you". We dont know where she was told to wait, we dont know that it was in a cemetary, we dont know that it was next to Voldypop's grave. We know that she went looking for him, we don't know where or for how long.
In fact i think it would be likely that she would have gone to the potter's if he didnt show giving her plenty of chance to grab the wand. Also there is lots to support the idea that she would have tried to track down the wand. It was his, it symbolized his power, it was likely that he mentioned magical ways to cheat death and thusly when he returned to life he would want it and she would give it to him
She is also delusional, and is sort of gibbering incoherently.
This does not seem like good evidence to me to change my opinion about whether or not he had his wand.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Secondly saying that something seems likely and assigning it real odds seems very different from each other.
It's different in one respect: It forces you to make your predictions consistent, and allows you to detect possible inconsistencies -- whereas just saying "likely" and "unlikely" isn't very clear.
quote:Once again there is no reason to believe that Bella didnt get Voldemort's wand after he fried himself.
She clearly says that she hid the wand in the graveyard before she left. To me the meaning is clear that she meant before she left their rendevouz place where she said she had been waiting him (but he failed to show up).
I don't understand what else she could mean with "before I left".
quote:Probability is an assignment of chances of a certain outcome when you know the variables.
Bayesian probability refers to level of *certainty*, not frequency levels. As such, lack of enough knowledge simply drives down the certainty to the average (e.g. 50% for a binary possibility).
Let's say for example you have an UNfair coin which favours one of the two possibility more than the other -- but you don't have a clue whether its coins or tails that it favours.
The Bayesian probability for your next throw is nonetheless 50% head and 50% tails -- even though you don't know the variables that could determine the *frequentist* probability.
Now once the first cointhrow shows tails, with that observation we ought increase the Bayesian probability that the next throw will also show tails: Because we know the coin is unbalanced, each coin throw is useful evidence in helping us update the probability in our minds.
quote:personally i dont really know all the variables in this story to feel comfortable assigning numbers to them.
Ron's predictions have been so much more absolute than mine, as he said that it's absolutely certain Voldemort had his wand with him, and I now describe certainty only on the level of 95%
Whether your predictions are more or less certain than mine depends on whether the "very very low probability" you describe is higher or lower than this remaining 5%.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTEIt's different in one respect: It forces you to make your predictions consistent, and allows you to detect possible inconsistencies -- whereas just saying "likely" and "unlikely" isn't very clear.[/quote]
I guess, I think when I see numbers assigned I associate a number with fact.
quote:She clearly says that she hid the wand in the graveyard before she left. To me the meaning is clear that she meant before she left their rendevouz place where she said she had been waiting him (but he failed to show up).
I don't understand what else she could mean with "before I left".
there are many ways a person can "leave" maybe she ment when she got tired of waiting for him. Maybe she ment before she got captured, she had to know if she was captured she'd be in Azkaban. Maybe she is simply referring to giving up on her search. Maybe she ment before she mentally "left". Maybe before she "left" to try to hide from the aurors. Remember she is more than a little crazy at this time.
We know 3 seperate statement: 1 she waited for him somewhere for some reason. 2. she went looking for him, we don't know where or for how long. 3. she at some time had his wand and left it in a place he or she would find it.
If the statements are chronological then she definately had time to find the wand and place it in the cemetary. If they are just three incongruent statements then theres no way we can accuratly make any guesses to what she ment.
it is possible that she meant before she left the waiting area to go look for him. But because of how irriational it would seem for Voldy to approach an enemy's house with (presumably) the intent to kill or to take HP away and not to have his best, most trusted, most powerful weapon it still seems unlikely to me.
If im going to assign numbers to what i know of what happened, her mental state, the way the statements were worded, what i know of Voldy (obviously from cannon and not by anything we are told in MOR. Though I think from quirril's story of Voldy vs Miagi we can still think hes a brash, angry pretty evil person.) Id say that im about 95% certain Voldemort had his wand with him when he entered the Potters.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe she meant before she got captured, she had to know if she was captured she'd be in Azkaban.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she is simply referring to giving up on her search.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she ment before she mentally "left".
I don't see how it could mean that either.
Only one probability really makes enough sense to me: that she means before she left their appointed rendevouz place, which had been the graveyard. (she mentions it only vaguely before she's certain he's Voldemort -- once she hears him talk in Parseltongue to the snake and he uses the password phrase they had, she's certain he's Voldemort and no longer hides the valuable information)
quote: But because of how irrational it would seem for Voldy to approach an enemy's house with (presumably) the intent to kill or to take HP away and not to have his best, most trusted, most powerful weapon it still seems unlikely to me.
And what if his intent for example was e.g. to fake his death? Wouldn't then it make sense to not let his best, most powerful weapon lying about?
I can think up believable reasons for why Voldemort would leave his wand with a trusted servant. I can't think up believable alternatives for what Bellatrix meant that she hid the wand "before I left".
So between the two possibilities, I have to go with the idea that Voldemort had left the wand with Bellatrix. No matter how "irrational" it seems to you for him to have done so.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe she meant before she got captured, she had to know if she was captured she'd be in Azkaban.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she is simply referring to giving up on her search.
I don't see how it could mean that.
quote:Maybe she ment before she mentally "left".
I don't see how it could mean that either.
I'm glad that you dont think it can mean any of that. I personally do think it can mean any one of those possibilities if not some other thing that i havent written down.
quote:Only one probability really makes enough sense to me: that she means before she left their appointed rendevouz place, which had been the graveyard. (she mentions it only vaguely before she's certain he's Voldemort -- once she hears him talk in Parseltongue to the snake and he uses the password phrase they had, she's certain he's Voldemort and no longer hides the valuable information)
Once again she does not say that he cemetary was the meeting place, it is simply the place she put the wand. It is a statement made after first two that she waited for him somewhere and that she looked for him for a while.
The graveyard could have been where she was supposed to meet him and maybe that is exactly what she ment by it. But until more evidence corroborates that that was where they were to meet after he killed HP or until more comes out to suggest Voldy used another wand, I cant accept this as being more likely than her finding his wand after his death and leaving it in a place where he or she would know where to find it. This is because i feel the logic of Voldy having his wand is still much higher until proven otherwise.
quote:And what if his intent for example was e.g. to fake his death? Wouldn't then it make sense to not let his best, most powerful weapon lying about?
I can think up believable reasons for why Voldemort would leave his wand with a trusted servant.
Nothing about voldemort suggests he trusts anyone. Until something shows me that this Voldemort is that much different than Cannonmort i must assume that Voldemort is in fact just as closed off and full of hubris as the real one.
It is also supposed to be part of him to keep his most powerful things close by. A wand is very different than a Horcrux that nobody would be looking for yet. It is an active weapon, not just a powerful trinket.
There is also nothing about voldemort that would suggest he would choose to kill himself. I'm not saying he was above it and im not saying that he couldnt have come up with a reason, but if you consider that he had a vast following, in fact it was a following that was growing as time went by. Most of his enemies were too afraid to act and the ones that oppenly opposed him were few and far between. It is highly unlikely that he would choose to give up the advantage for a plan that would take considerable time to come to fruition. Plans become exponentially harder to follow through with the longer they take, both in how long you have to wait to activate them and how long it takes (not to mention managing the pieces of the plan) to complete.
quote:I can't think up believable alternatives for what Bellatrix meant that she hid the wand "before I left".
I can think of pleny of meanings a crazed mostly dead person might have for what they say.
quote:So between the two possibilities, I have to go with the idea that Voldemort had left the wand with Bellatrix. No matter how "irrational" it seems to you for him to have done so.
And between the two possibilites i have to say that i would go with the one that is more likely to have happened.
It is more likely than not that voldemort would ahve gone to take out the Potters than to kill himself. Not only were numbers and power and fear in his favor but we also know things about his personality. 1 he doesnt mind killing 2. he gets insulted and angry fast. 3. he has an "image" to uphold; killing his enemies and killing his percieved rival would have been a duty he would have felt was his. 4. He is un-trusting, has no close friends and loves his power and his toys (and pets...) and likes to keep them either completely secret and cleaverly hidden or likes to keep them where he can actively monitor them.
I cannot override this because some incoherent half-crazed woman said she left his wand somewher before she left.
Which is why until something else pops up ill stick with my 95% that voldemort had his wand with him when he was deep-fried.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anyone is tired of arguing about Voldemort's wand, I'm actually curious a) what people think is going to happen regarding Harry's obvious violation of McGonagalls transfiguration rules (i.e burning solid rocket fuel).
b) What other people were thingking when Harry was about to let Quirrel and Belllatrix, who are possibly the 2 most dangerous and evil people on the planet, escape the prison without even accompanying him. I was screaming at him for being a total freaking idiot. Its like Harry hasn't even consider the consequences of what will happen if Quirrel and Bellatrix actually are hideously evil criminals out to start WW III. I mean bad as Azkaban is, it can't possibly be worse than the suffering that would be caused by an all out magical war.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And between the two possibilites i have to say that i would go with the one that is more likely to have happened.
That's rather circular, Ecthalion.
To me you mostly seem to be trying to squeeze observations to fit your preconceived theory, rather than letting observations *alter* your theories. Because Bellatrix's words don't fit in with your preconceived theory, you make her meaning indicate something other than the obvious, or be the utterly meaningless ramblings of a madman.
And that's not how proper logical reasoning is supposed to work. We mustn't modify the observations, we must modify the theories.
I'm done with this thread, at least until some my predictions are proven or disproven. Then I'll come to concede or to mock :-)
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If anyone is tired of arguing about Voldemort's wand, I'm actually curious a) what people think is going to happen regarding Harry's obvious violation of McGonagalls transfiguration rules (i.e burning solid rocket fuel).
b) What other people were thingking when Harry was about to let Quirrel and Belllatrix, who are possibly the 2 most dangerous and evil people on the planet, escape the prison without even accompanying him. I was screaming at him for being a total freaking idiot. Its like Harry hasn't even consider the consequences of what will happen if Quirrel and Bellatrix actually are hideously evil criminals out to start WW III. I mean bad as Azkaban is, it can't possibly be worse than the suffering that would be caused by an all out magical war.
A. I kinda figured that it may not really have any importance. I figure they are in a well ventilated area and so there may be no real reprecussions from it. The most important thing about it seems to be Harry is willing to break the rules and seems pretty easily manipulated.
B. This part really bothers me. It seems clear when he said he wanted to rescue and innocent person named "black" it seems like he's referring to Sirius (which he seemingly has forgotten about). It seems like when he finds out it surprises Quirrel (who thinks he means bella) and finds out that Quirrel means Bella he only goes along with it to appear smart and like he's ahead of the game. I can't see any real reason why Harry goes along with it other than for storyline purposes, saying how evil the prison system is, more confrontations with dementors/death etc.
One of the reasons that Azkaban is used (in cannon anyway) is because dementors inhibit the prisoner's use of magic. Any prison that has to hold beings that have more than just their mental and physical abilities is going to have to be a much different place than any prison we have in the real world. Whereas i can see why a prison like Azkaban would be a horrible place, probably unethically so, i really wouldnt know how to make it better.
I know that I cant wait til we get the explanation for it. It seems like a really stupid thing to do from where the story is at right now.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And between the two possibilites i have to say that i would go with the one that is more likely to have happened.
That's rather circular, Ecthalion.
To me you mostly seem to be trying to squeeze observations to fit your preconceived theory, rather than letting observations *alter* your theories. Because Bellatrix's words don't fit in with your preconceived theory, you make her meaning indicate something other than the obvious, or be the utterly meaningless ramblings of a madman.
And that's not how proper logical reasoning is supposed to work. We mustn't modify the observations, we must modify the theories.
I'm done with this thread, at least until some my predictions are proven or disproven. Then I'll come to concede or to mock :-)
yes me makeing a guess based on what i know of a character and the world around him is terribly illogical...
I should take a sentence that has no clear context, turn that into what i want it to mean, make up a story for why what i would want it to mean could makes sense then use that story to re-confirm what i want the sentence to mean... cause that isn't circular and illogical at all.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I want it to mean, Ecthalion? Before I noticed the sentence I didn't have the belief that Voldemort didn't have his wand with him that night. Why would I therefore want it to mean that?
Bellatrix statement is what gave me that belief. I didn't "want it" to mean anything. I just SAW WHAT IT FRIGGING MEANT, and I didn't frantically refuse the evidence of my own eyes.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If anyone is tired of arguing about Voldemort's wand, I'm actually curious a) what people think is going to happen regarding Harry's obvious violation of McGonagalls transfiguration rules (i.e burning solid rocket fuel).
b) What other people were thingking when Harry was about to let Quirrel and Belllatrix, who are possibly the 2 most dangerous and evil people on the planet, escape the prison without even accompanying him. I was screaming at him for being a total freaking idiot. Its like Harry hasn't even consider the consequences of what will happen if Quirrel and Bellatrix actually are hideously evil criminals out to start WW III. I mean bad as Azkaban is, it can't possibly be worse than the suffering that would be caused by an all out magical war.
A. I think a lot of people are getting more freaked out about than they need to. I never saw the Transfiguration rules as actual absolute rules that could never ever be broken - it's just that high school children have nowhere near enough knowledge to properly decide when it is actually safe to do so. For example, the food thing: it's not that something bad automatically happens when you transfigure something into food - it's that with hundreds of students, if you have a few people transfiguring food safely, a few students may get distracted and leave the food for a minute while someone else comes and eats it.
Harry was in a desperate situation, he needed to do SOMETHING, and he made as much effort to keep the rulebreaking safe as he could. It may turn out that a few molecules of transfigured ice WILL still somehow kill you, but I doubt it.
B. First of all, "Professor Quirrel is secretly Voldemort" really is not in Harry's hypothesis space, at all. "Professor Quirrel is dangerous and evil" is, but that is coupled with "Professor Quirrel is the only person in the world I actually respect" and "Professor Quirrel is extremely smart and cautious and any wars he DOES launch would be unlikely to actually have casualties on a massive scale, since he's so good at what he does that leaving behind a huge trail of bodies is simply unnecessary."
On top of that, Harry has plenty of logic and emotion both telling him that Azkaban is a terrible place. He's built up a LOT of sympathy for Bellatrix over the last few hours, even if there's a 50/50 chance that she's going to end up becoming a dangerous psychopath again.
Honestly I think everything Harry is doing is completely in character. The author has clearly been building that character very meticulously for the past 50 chapters. The only reasons it rings false is because we are bringing so much baggage from the original series.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: What I want it to mean, Ecthalion? Before I noticed the sentence I didn't have the belief that Voldemort didn't have his wand with him that night. Why would I therefore want it to mean that?
Bellatrix statement is what gave me that belief. I didn't "want it" to mean anything. I just SAW WHAT IT FRIGGING MEANT, and I didn't frantically refuse the evidence of my own eyes.
if you only saw what it ment you would have saw that it only ment that she left his wand in the graveyard, at his father's tomb.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Your wand," murmured Bellatrix, "I hid it in the graveyard, my lord, before I left... under the tombstone to the right of your father's grave
'Cause that just means Bella went to Voldemort's corpse and retrieved the wand after everything went down. Why would we assume it meant anything else?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ecthalion, I didn't attack your honor, so stop attacking mine.
I've already told you that I didn't have any belief that Voldemort didn't use his own wand before I noticed what Bellatrix said.
If you don't believe me in this, if you keep onv essentially calling me dishonest, THEN TO HELL WITH YOU.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Why would we assume it meant anything else?"
Because she says "before i left", and she had already described how she had been awaiting for him at the rendezvous place but he failed to show up.
She didn't say "After I left, I retrieved your wand and hid it in the graveyard."
She said "Before I left" instead. She already had his wand. She hid it in the graveyard, before she left it. Before she left the graveyard.
So she already had the wand, and was already at the graveyard, and she hid it there, before she left it
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Ecthalion, I didn't attack your honor, so stop attacking mine.
I've already told you that I didn't have any belief that Voldemort didn't use his own wand before I noticed what Bellatrix said.
If you don't believe me in this, if you keep onv essentially calling me dishonest, THEN TO HELL WITH YOU.
well, you have tossed some mild insults my way, but they don't really bother me. I'm not calling you dishonest im simply saying that i think you read too much into things, which is pretty obvious in that you seem to think im challenging your honor....
Either way im not saying that in the end your notion can't be correct. It's jsut a bit of a reach to go from what she said to saying that Voldemort didnt want to kill harry and wanted to fake his death.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because she says "before i left", and she had already described how she had been awaiting for him at the rendezvous place but he failed to show up.
Once again, there is nothing to say that the cemetary was the meeting spot... you are just assuming it...
quote:She didn't say "After I left, I retrieved your wand and hid it in the graveyard."
But she did say that she went loking for him before she mentioned leaving his wand anywhere, the two sentences need not be chronological but lets face it we have no reason to assume that she didnt spend time looking for him before she hid his wand.
quote:She said "Before I left" instead. She already had his wand. She hid it in the graveyard, before she left it. Before she left the graveyard.
which is once again conjecture that it was the meeting spot and that they were to meet immediately after he offed the potters...
quote:So she already had the wand, and was already at the graveyard, and she hid it there, before she left it
same as above...
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
