posted
The long monologues with Quirrell interested me a fair amount, because I'm pretty sure that's Voldemort speaking -- and it's interesting to see what a Rationalist writer would consider to be the pragmatic rhetoric of someone evil but also rational.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm pretty sure that's Voldemort speaking
I am as well. But somehow, I just don't care. Blah, blah, blah.
Yep.
On other topics, I've always felt that my sleep cycle is like that. I don't know what the exact time is, but if I get a full 8 hours of sleep there's no way I'm tired 16 hours later. I find that if there are no time commitments my desired sleep time continues moving backwards. It's probably about three hours but I really haven't ever kept close enough track to know (it's not often I get enough sleep and have no time constraints). Anyways, I certainly never got special consideration in school for this, but … whatever. It’s not like I’m the only one that’s been tired at work or school. Is this an actual thing, or is it basically made up? Just a product of … I don’t know, something else?
When I was hyperthyroid I had this pretty badly. One summer (when I was unemployed) I consistently drifted out of phase except for the few days a cycle where I'd line up with the rest of the world. Treating my Grave's Disease and getting a full time job cured this in me.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, you underestimate the extent to which intelligent people find neurotypicals, especially extroverted neurotypicals, really damn boring.
I might have to quote this. Many times, and in every place relevant. I might have to print this on a t-shirt and wear it to family reunions.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may have to get one that proclaims, "Neurotypical and proud of it", so all you special people are forewarned.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I loved the beginning but the farther down I move the less I like it. I think the long monologues with Quirrell are where it really took a down-turn for me. Even when Harry's involved it still reads like a monologue, and same for his conversations with others.
I definitely understand; I don't mind because I'm interested in that part of it for its own sake, but someone that was primarily a Harry Potter fan would find a lot of parts of it tedious because its gone too far into the author's pet themes.
This is basically a crossover work, and for a crossover to be enjoyable someone has to be reasonably familiar (and like!) both elements. A Star Wars/Twilight crossover could be written brilliantly (I guess...) but someone who is only a fan of Star Wars probably wouldn't enjoy it.
It's just that all the monologuing is about stuff I think about anyway, so it doesn't bother me ;-)
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You will please note that Draco doesn't do that either, for the good and simple reason that he would get caught. The question is not "Can we come up with some hypothetical scenario in which Ron wins", it is "Can Ron actually win under conditions remotely similar to the fictional reality he's operating in?" So no, Ron is not smart enough to get Harry into this sort of situation without the author - you, in this case - being actively on his side.
Well, no, the question is, "Whose mercy would you rather be at after you had - in their perception - wronged them, Draco or Ron?" I would rather be at Ron's, even though he wouldn't do something that would make me want to be at Draco's-which is the point of the question. But are you telling me Ron isn't smart enough to sneak up behind Harry and clonk him on the head? C'mon.
quote:But he has wronged Draco, by pre-judging him. If he overheard Draco say those things and then stomped off in the huff, that would be one thing. But he goes purely by hearsay.
He didn't pre-judge Draco out of nothing, is the point. He prejudged Draco out of pretty accurate public opinion, as well as his own family dealings with the Malfoys. The Weasleys being who they are, do you think they haven't had some run-ins with the Malfoys?
quote:If you take a look at an average army in combat, you'll see people risking their lives for their comrades all the time. What's rare is people taking a 100% risk. Lots of people will jump for the grenade in an attempt to throw it back; the rarity is people who will jump on the grenade. I suspect you speak of the second kind of sacrifice, and I speak of the first. I note that Ron's knight-sacrifice in 'Chamber of Secrets' was of the first kind: He knew he was taking a risk, but he didn't know he would be killed. (And indeed he wasn't.)
I'm speaking of both, because...look at the average army in combat: the number of soldiers in it, how much of a percentage of the national population do they represent? How long did they have to be trained in order to take, say, 50% lethal risk for their friends? And even with those factors, they don't always do it. Your notion that friends willing to risk death for other friends being commonplace is pretty strange. What's commonplace is lauding that virtue, not the virtue itself.
That virtue can be trained into a great many people, but that's not the same thing, is it?
quote:Yes, yes, you're very good at signalling that you really care even about the slow people and that you don't associate with such as don't signal same. But as a matter of actual fact you're right here talking to me.
I said I don't associate with such as don't signal same? I'm not aware of where I said that. What I said is that those who don't signal same are pretty tedious, at least in that aspect. Anyway, it's not that I especially care about 'the slow people', anymore than I care much about any odd rhetorical huge group of people-it's just that I don't write them off as useless.
quote: Yes you do, it's just that your acceptable window includes more of the bell curve than mine does. I keep forgetting that not many people, even in the educated upper third of the bell curve, are quite as atypical as I am, so I calibrated my question wrongly. How many IQ-70 (indicating a broad range of sub-normal intellect rather than a specific IQ number, here) handicapped people do you have conversations with on a regular basis?
I said I don't vet them primarily through such a process. As to your question, I really don't know. There are some people I have conversations with regularly who seem to me to be, frankly, stupid as hell. But I don't know that they fall that low on an IQ scale.
-------
quote:
Harry is one hell of a Marty Stu, and I do not care in the slightest because he is awesome. I understand the people who don't like him (in particular who don't like his inner monologue). But while he's a bit of an exaggeration (smarter than me, with bigger flaws), pretty much every trait that has been praised or criticized in this thread is something I myself have had to deal with.
Oh, I like him and think he's interesting. I usually don't talk about characters I don't think are interesting, even if I hate `em. In fact, hatin' `em is usually a sign I think they're interesting.
quote: Was it mean to trash Ron's favorite game? Well, yeah. But if someone spent 15 minutes about a ridiculous game that made no sense, honestly I'd probably have had exactly Harry's reaction. I live in a subculture where dissecting things and why they don't work is just part of ordinary conversation. It would certainly behoove Harry (and me) to get better at learning when to shut up and follow the social norms of other people, but there is nothing inherently better about prattling on about a sport you think is amazing that everyone should no about than prattling on about why that sport is ridiculous.
I don't have a beef with him trashing Ron's favorite game.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:look at the average army in combat: the number of soldiers in it, how much of a percentage of the national population do they represent?
If you consider WWII, then in any of the major belligerents, the army would be a very high percentage of males between, say, 18 and 24, and pretty high for males between 18 and 30. Observe that Russia had 14% of its prewar population become casualties. How many risks do you think those soldiers were taking for their friends? In how large a sample?
quote:He didn't pre-judge Draco out of nothing, is the point.
And the Klansman doesn't pre-judge the black out of nothing, either. I am now repeating points I have made before, so this conversation may be nearing the end of its usefulness.
quote: But are you telling me Ron isn't smart enough to sneak up behind Harry and clonk him on the head?
No, that's just the sort of plan Ron would come up with. I'm saying it wouldn't work.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the Klansman doesn't pre-judge the black out of nothing, either. I am now repeating points I have made before, so this conversation may be nearing the end of its usefulness.
The Klansman pre-judges black people (and every non-white conservative Christian, really) on the basis of what they have heard from other untrustworthy people who also hate black people, often without ever even having met one or heard anything about them from trustworthy sources. Ron pre-judges Draco for different reasons, from trustworthy sources who as it turns out are not only right, but might be understating the case. It's not really an equivalent situation just because both are pre-judging. Prejudging isn't some inherently awful thing-it depends on the context.
But let's be serious here, or as serious as we can about such things: if you were someone in the HP universe, would you pre-judge Draco as someone to be, at best, someone to not put your back to? I never met Charles Manson, either, and have no personal experience with him-but I'm not about to have him over for tea and scones either, even if it were possible.
quote:If you consider WWII, then in any of the major belligerents, the army would be a very high percentage of males between, say, 18 and 24, and pretty high for males between 18 and 30. Observe that Russia had 14% of its prewar population become casualties. How many risks do you think those soldiers were taking for their friends? In how large a sample?
Now you're changing the situation, first of all. When you add exterior pressures, things become a bit different. But even in those pressures-military drafts, if I'm not mistaken draftees made up a bigger percentage than volunteers-and of the volunteers, how many of them volunteered because they thought they would be drafted anyway?
The kind of self-sacrifice we're talking about isn't common, and even in soldiers, it is trained into them. The very fact that you have to look at one of the bloodiest, most awful wars that has happened to support your premise, WWII between Germany and the USSR, ought to belabor that point.
quote:No, that's just the sort of plan Ron would come up with. I'm saying it wouldn't work.
Really? Smarter people aren't overpowered by dumber people using brute force unexpectedly all the time?Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The kind of self-sacrifice we're talking about isn't common, and even in soldiers, it is trained into them. The very fact that you have to look at one of the bloodiest, most awful wars that has happened to support your premise, WWII between Germany and the USSR, ought to belabor that point.
A draft does not work if the people being drafted don't believe it is in some sense just. Look at Vietnam. The German soldiers on the Western and Italian fronts could have surrendered and been confident of good treatment; by 1944, it must have been clear to them that they were losing, and badly. Yet they fought on, against an army with ten times their artillery and a hundred times their air support, far beyond the point where it was hopeless.
A draft changes who gets into the battle lines, but it does little to change what happens there: Ordinary men display courage and self-sacrifice. It happens all the time. We give out medals to the most extreme examples, if they happen to come to the attention of an officer; but for every Victoria Cross pinned on someone's chest there are a hundred unsung Military Medals. And if you don't like the draft, how about the Somme? Kitchener's army were all volunteers, and a nearly perfect cross-section of British society. A hundred thousand of them marched into the machine guns, and twenty thousand died in a single day. If that is not courage, the word has no meaning.
quote:The Klansman pre-judges black people (and every non-white conservative Christian, really) on the basis of what they have heard from other untrustworthy people who also hate black people, often without ever even having met one or heard anything about them from trustworthy sources.
And just what is the difference between the Klansman trusting his parents, and Ron trusting his parents? And don't say 'trustworthy' as though it settles something, because Ron doesn't know that. You have to judge from Ron's knowledge, not your knowledge.
quote:Really? Smarter people aren't overpowered by dumber people using brute force unexpectedly all the time?
Just how many non-fictional examples can you think of where someone literally snuck up behind someone else and took a club to them? It's quite a bit harder to sneak up on people than you would think, largely because this is the sort of strategy that worked on our monkey ancestors and we're rather attuned to it by now.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Just how many non-fictional examples can you think of where someone literally snuck up behind someone else and took a club to them? It's quite a bit harder to sneak up on people than you would think, largely because this is the sort of strategy that worked on our monkey ancestors and we're rather attuned to it by now.
Mugging statistics in any major city would seem to disagree with you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A mugger does not sneak up on anyone. He uses intimidation by having superior weaponry, not stealth and a club.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just how many non-fictional examples can you think of where someone literally snuck up behind someone else and took a club to them?
In the halls of any middle school or high school, you can find bullies literally sneaking up behind someone and physically pestering them (flicking their ears, kicking them, putting signs on them, putting gum in their hair, etc.). They're not hitting with a club, but they certainly could be.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A mugger does not sneak up on anyone. He uses intimidation by having superior weaponry, not stealth and a club.
That depends. Hiding in the shadows (of trees, of a parking garage, etc.) is often part of it. And plenty of muggers are successful with nothing more dangerous than a knife or a length of pipe.
You should read more police blotters.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the way KofM put it makes it hard to agree with him, his point is valid. I tried going to a book club from my church. I went a few weeks and while I like the concept of a book club, I just couldn't handle it with those people. I would come with lots of thoughts on deeper themes and possible subtly influences and then I would spend the whole time explaining to them the basic plot because they somehow despite reading the book missed that. Like, at one point, people actually said that Persuasion by Jane Austin was really too challenging of a read. They ran into a problem because they read a book North and South and despite sending out to group members the book's name, author and description (description was also given verbally when we voted on which book to read), half the group read the wrong book (two books are named North and South) I felt like a teacher explaining the plot and vocab words to people, not part of a discussion. Which is why I dropped out, which probably made most of them enjoy the club more as well.
I also looked around at the friends I have kept in touch with over the years and they are all pretty smart. They might be stay at home moms, like me, but they are pretty smart- while I don't actually think credentials prove intelligence, my daughter's two best friends (which at this age is based on who I take the effort to call) both have mds for moms. So, while I never consciously set out to avoid "neurotypical" people, I don't actually have any stupid friends. Friendships take a lot of work to cultivate and the people I put that work into are all smart. Now, when I worked, I did tend to hang out a lot with the secretaries, though that could just have been the fact that they were the only ones who had kids- also, most of the secretaries had at least a master's so they weren't stupid, they just weren't motivated- which fits me really well.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... The Klansman pre-judges black people (and every non-white conservative Christian, really) on the basis of what they have heard from other untrustworthy people ...
Tangent: Culture gap question, in what way does a Klansman prejudge non-white conservative Christian that would differ from the way they prejudge (or not) non-white liberal Christians or non-white non-Christians?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better example than Charles Manson would be how you would react to Manson's 11 year old son.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, ok. Ron probably can get the drop on Harry if he's sufficiently motivated. Draco, however, has a much lower motivation threshold; it makes a lot of sense to keep him where you can see him. (As evidenced by the canon; notice that this Draco is a lot deadlier than the canon Draco, since Yudkowsky upgrades the villains in accordance with his hero upgrade. Observe that first-year canon!Draco does not know any torture spells.)
Loyal friends, on the other hand, Harry seems to attract anyway; he has half of Gryffindor eating out of his hand already.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Friends or admirers? Friend, to me, implies affection on both sides. Harry doesn't seem to feel real affection for anyone except his parents and, perhaps, Professor McGonnigle.
Having someone eating out of your hand does not make them a friend.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, but the virtue you originally cited in Ron was that he would sacrifice himself for a friend. This does not require that the friend would reciprocate, eh?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Harry doesn't seem to feel real affection for anyone except his parents and, perhaps, Professor McGonnigle.
I think this is a misreading of the character. Harry feels affection for a lot of people in the story; he just doesn't let that affection prevent him from doing what he considers to be the necessary thing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Tom, where do you see that? He may feel a sort of noblesse oblige, but I didn't see affection. Maybe some creepy hero-worship of Voldemort.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He may feel a sort of noblesse oblige, but I didn't see affection.
Read his interactions with Hermione and Draco again, keeping in mind that Harry is not perfectly self-aware.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trying to figure out what's different about this HP universe's starting conditions:
1) Petunia married a scientist instead of Vernon Dursley 2) Harry has a 26-hour-cycle sleep disorder 3) Voldemort is more interested in Muggles and has put one of his Horcruxes on Pioneer 2 4) Ron's rat is dead 5) Dumbledore and/or the mysterious note writer already knows the cloak to be a Deathly Hallow. (This one I'd figure to be a mistake on the part of the fanfic author, no one knew this for sure until much later.)
quote:It's not really an equivalent situation just because both are pre-judging. Prejudging isn't some inherently awful thing-it depends on the context.
Actually pre-judging *is* always awful, even though someone can prejudge and be right by accident. I can make moral decisions by flipping a coin, that doesn't make the outcome always wrong, but my reasoning would ALWAYS be wrong.
Anyway, aren't we assuming that Ron hates Draco Malfoy because of his family, as opposed to having actually met him at some point?
Presumably Ron's family told him that Lucius was evil. If he then doesn't like Lucius, that isn't actually pre-judging. It would be judging, based on evidence provided by his family.
If, however, he dislikes Draco because he is Lucius' son, without having encountered any evidence (provided by his family otherwise) that Draco himself is evil, then he is definitely being prejudiced.
But what if he has met Draco and knows he's a scumbag? The Wizarding World is not that large. What if he's heard specific things about Draco that show him to be horrible? As opposed to assuming (prejudging) that he is, just because his father is?
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Of course he cares. He cares deeply. Absent gods help us, he goes into guilt-spasms over accidentally waking up the Sorting Hat! He just doesn't do the usual signalling behaviours that indicate caring, and this looks to you like detachment. He defends Neville from a bunch of bullies; he finds his frog for him; he aims the fighting curse at himself rather than another student in the face of the full pressure that Quirrell is able to bring on him. Just exactly what more do you want? Spitting in Draco's face on the grounds that Draco is Teh Evol?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Presumably Ron's family told him that Lucius was evil. If he then doesn't like Lucius, that isn't actually pre-judging. It would be judging, based on evidence provided by his family.
Yes, yes. I've made this point several times already. This is the same form of 'judgement' that the Klansman applies to the black. Some forms of evidence are just so weak that it's not right to use them to dismiss another human being.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Of course he cares. He cares deeply. Absent gods help us, he goes into guilt-spasms over accidentally waking up the Sorting Hat! He just doesn't do the usual signalling behaviours that indicate caring, and this looks to you like detachment. He defends Neville from a bunch of bullies; he finds his frog for him; he aims the fighting curse at himself rather than another student in the face of the full pressure that Quirrell is able to bring on him. Just exactly what more do you want? Spitting in Draco's face on the grounds that Draco is Teh Evol?
All of that is about himself and how he believes moral people behave. It is a good thing, but it isn't friendship. He didn't save Neville because he cared for Neville; he saved Neville because that is what one does. Neville could have been anyone.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well yes. He would have saved Ron or Draco if they were in trouble. Just what is it you want him to do?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, I think Rakeesh wrote about that. I don't think that Harry is pitiable because other characters don't care about him. I think he is pitiable because he doesn't care about them.
Of course he cares. He cares deeply. Absent gods help us, he goes into guilt-spasms over accidentally waking up the Sorting Hat! He just doesn't do the usual signalling behaviours that indicate caring, and this looks to you like detachment. He defends Neville from a bunch of bullies; he finds his frog for him; he aims the fighting curse at himself rather than another student in the face of the full pressure that Quirrell is able to bring on him. Just exactly what more do you want? Spitting in Draco's face on the grounds that Draco is Teh Evol?
I think they're talking less about Harry not being "good," and more about the fact that Harry doesn't form close emotional bonds. So they're not looking for him to spit at Draco, they're looking at him to... I dunno, give him a hug or something. Or think to himself "gee, Hermione's nice person. I like her."
The main thing (which you did address) is that he doesn't do the normal emotional signaling that you're typical human does. My own thought process is similar to how Harry operates here, and I know that I have plenty of emotional connections. But I can imagine how someone whose thought process is less hyperrational would be weirded out by it. I don't think there's anything the author can really do to address this issue. I don't think Rowling described HarryPrime's feelings as any more compassionate than this Harry, it's just that, in addition, this Harry is constantly evaluating everything in a cold, utilitarian manner, which implies to some people that the feelings you'd just take for granted that HarryPrime felt are not there.
The main thing to remember, IMO, is that up until the last few chapters, we have been seeing Harry's interactions with people he has known for less than a week. There is nobody here he should be expected to be close friends with already. HarryPrime lucked into a close friendship with Ron very quickly. Occasionally that happens to me, but most of the time starting out in a new social environment it takes me a while to get to know people and come to care about them. I didn't really connect with my classmates in college until the last few months.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Trying to figure out what's different about this HP universe's starting conditions:
1) Petunia married a scientist instead of Vernon Dursley 2) Harry has a 26-hour-cycle sleep disorder 3) Voldemort is more interested in Muggles and has put one of his Horcruxes on Pioneer 2 4) Ron's rat is dead 5) Dumbledore and/or the mysterious note writer already knows the cloak to be a Deathly Hallow. (This one I'd figure to be a mistake on the part of the fanfic author, no one knew this for sure until much later.)
Any others?
Doesn't Quirrel NOT have Voldemort attached to him? It seemed to me that Quirrel HAD been in cahoots with Voldemort in the past, but had since severed the connection. The severing may have been after he visited Pioneer 2 (a Horcrux there is possible but not official).
I think "something happened to scabbers" would more accurately be described as "something happened to Peter Pettigrew." It's looking to me like this is an alternate universe in which someone specifically attempted to subvert the original story. My guess is there are in fact two meddlers, both as intelligent as Harry, one good(ish) and one evil(ish). I don't think Quirrel is one of the meddlers. I think one of the Meddlers (presumably the "good" one which also killed Scabbers) intercepted him and convinced him to turn against Voldemort. Quirrel may be part of a new conspiracy but I don't think he's the originator.
I think Time Travel will ultimately be involved as the explanation for why the world is different. There's too many things that clearly are SUPPOSED to have happened the original way (Dumbledore assuming Harry had a terrible childhood). The fact that Time Travel exists and that wizards don't seem to exploit it is clearly something the author intends to address in more detail. I'm not sure how exactly that'll work out since the current understanding of Time Travel suggests that you can't actually change things.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymond, I think Dumbledore assumes Harry had a terrible childhood because that's simply how these things are supposed to go, and he is not insensitive to narrative traditions and Quest Logic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well yes. He would have saved Ron or Draco if they were in trouble. Just what is it you want him to do?
I am sure he is being just perfect for a little, fictional Rationalist. I don't think he needs to do anything different. That I don't like him much and think he is a bit sad probably wouldn't bother him in the least.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a reason for that? I saw the warning for 22-23, I assumed that was because they would be somehow addressed in the next chapter.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But I am genuinely curious what sort of thing he would be doing that WOULD make him likeable and less sad to you.
Edit: corollary question - did you like Bean?
I don't know. Develop some empathy? Be a tad less smug? Again, I don't know that it would be possible or even, from his perspective, desirable. If I could be otherwise manipulated to his ends, why should he bother?
I don't really remember how I felt about Bean.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bean did develop more empathy over the course of the novel and get genuine friends, but it happened over the course of years. I do expect Harry will develop emotionally over the course of the story, but the point is to show the growth over time.
quote:Again, I don't know that it would be possible or even, from his perspective, desirable
Bear in mind the changes I am asking about are changes the author would be making, period, to the entire story, to make Harry a more likeable protagonist. Not changes that the current Harry would consciously decide to adopt.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Changes to make Harry more likable for me. I mean, he is supposed to be a Rationalist, yes? To change him from that would mess with the whole premise.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the issue is: is it possible for you to like a Rationalist, period. Harry is not the only type of Rationalist out there. You can be a Rationalist without having an unholy dark side that comes over you whenever you get angry, or being a child prodigy that grew up with no friends. Even if you do have those traits (as you pretty much have to to be Harry in this story), you can be a Rationalist that simply cares more about people than about achieving omnipotence and fixing the laws of physics because you don't like them. Rationalism determines how you act based on your core desires, not what those desires are.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, yes. I've made this point several times already. This is the same form of 'judgement' that the Klansman applies to the black.
That's a ludicrous analogy though, because "the black" is not a person. Hearing evidence about a specific individual and what they have specifically done is in NO SENSE analogous to klansmen telling their kids about what "black people are like."
Judging an individual based on what you've heard about that individual: judging. Perhaps the judgment is faulty, if the evidence is faulty.
Judging an individual based NOT on what you've heard about that individual, but about what you assume is true, based on information about a group they supposedly share common characteristics with: pre-judging.
It's stupid to think that you can't judge a person unless you've met them and find out for themselves what they are like. So when I hear about a parent breaking their kid's nose in the middle of Walmart for daring to ask for ice cream, I can't think they are a bad person because I don't know them, I just heard it on the news or from people I trust that were there...
I suppose your moral is that because some parents (i.e. klansmen) misuse parental authority and falsify evidence, that that means all facts garnered about individuals from one's parents are suspect and should be ignored until independently verified? Even if said parents have a reputation for being honest and not crazy?
That's not what I call a rational method at arriving at the truth. I think Ron can determine that his parents aren't klansmen, and that what they say specifically about Lucius is actually true. Especially since we, as observers, know that it is. In fact, we know a lot *more* horrible things about Lucius than even the Weasely's do.
Remember, Lucius isn't some nobody that Ron knows nothing about except from his (possible klansmen) parents. He's one of the key figures. It's a matter of public record that he helped Voldemort. It's no secret he's a blood purist. Which makes him the klansman, not Ron's parents.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |