210
211

Chapter 119 (fanfiction.net)

gamaradChaos Legion が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]willyolio 89 ポイント90 ポイント  (12子コメント)

if his pet rock had survived, he would have "graduated" to a real pet, which would have died a horrible death before the age of 11. His parents comfort him and teach him a valuable life lesson.

because of that, Harry Potter would never be able to get rid of the powerful, subconscious truth he knows deep down inside, that everything must die. No patronus 2.0.

[–]IConrad 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Quite the other way around.

The early exposure to the concept of death in tandem with his advanced scientific education and science fiction engorgement lead to the transhumanist agenda of both knowing death and knowing that it CAN (and MUST) be defeated.

[–]willyolio 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (9子コメント)

uh, you know that's what happened in HPMOR canon, right?

Harry had no exposure to real death, only fictional death, which is how he is so easily convinced that death can and will be defeated.

[–]khelektinmir 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not trying to argue in either/any direction, but this is a real event from Eliezer's life.

[–]willyolio 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Eliezer had a pet rock die, or Eliezer had a real, living, breathing, human being he was emotionally connected to die?

yeah, i'm thinking there's a difference.

Also, Eliezer was already an adult at the time. While the death certainly had an emotional impact on him, it certainly wouldn't be the same as a real death experienced during a child's formative years.

Where an adult might see death and either accept it or reject it, children tend to simply "accept" things that happen around them as "normal." There's that saying, everything you grew up with is the way it's always been, everything as an adult isn't the way you remembered it, everything in old age is strange and wrong...

[–]khelektinmir 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought that was the whole point. Harry never had a "real, living, breathing" animal but he could have reacted the same way had he been attached to something that was not a rock.

I also don't think we can make good predictions about what Harry would do based on how "children" would normally react. His whole motivation in HPMOR is not accepting things as they are, as other children might.

[–]IConrad 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

... Exactly what topic do you think I was addressing? You've got this exactly backwards. Please don't make rat!Harry less aware than he is portrayed. There are several citable passages referring to his belief regarding being responsible for the death of the pet rock and how Harry reacts to the notion that only he even notices that there are problems that need solving.

Furthermore, I take umbrage with your assertion that it requires a fictional understanding of death to believe it can be defeated.

Haven't you put together what this whole five year journey has been about?!

[–]willyolio 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

belief regarding being responsible for the death of the pet rock

...you actually took that seriously?

You honestly thought that a rationalist harry truly believed that a rock could actually die and that was what made him come to terms with the concept of death? That he had to go through the same emotional strain and turmoil that a person goes through when a close friend, relative, or living pet dies?

As for the "topic" at hand... why do you think Dumbledore killed the pet rock? I guess it "makes sense" to you if you honestly thought that a scientifically-literate Harry Potter honestly believed that rocks could die then your argument makes sense. This requires the HPMOR Harry to have an IQ of 80 or less, though.

if you consider the scientific-genius Harry that is actually portrayed in the entirety of HPMOR, then killing the pet rock must have prevented something, and that something certainly isn't scientific-genius Harry honestly believing his rock was living a happy emotional life that might get taken away if it broke in half.

[–]IConrad -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You honestly thought that a rationalist harry truly believed that a rock could actually die and that was what made him come to terms with the concept of death?

A six year old child who happened to be emotionally damaged as a result of not just sorcerous events but also total emotional isolation?

Yeah, you know what? I took the author's word forit.

FFS.

As for the "topic" at hand... why do you think Dumbledore killed the pet rock?

As I have said twice now: explicitly to cause that trauma. As required by prophecies he himself did not understand.

Also: He wasn't even scientifically literate yet at the time in question.

if you consider the scientific-genius Harry that is actually portrayed in the entirety of HPMOR, then killing the pet rock must have prevented something,

Seriously. What the hell. How in the hell did you go through all 120 chapters and come out thinking that rat!HP remotely handles emotional stresses or inputs in anything resembling a sophisticated manner?

Dude, what the hell. Reading comprehension skills of these levels are just ... I'm apalled. Honestly apalled.

[–]willyolio 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

How in the hell did you go through all 120 chapters...

Says the guy still treating harry as if he were well below average intelligence. I know people like to project their own attributes onto the protagonists of stories they read but this is just silly...

Go and read the damn pet rock joke again. Harry has emotional connection to it at all, he knows and doesn't consider it a real pet whatsoever.

[–]ZedEg 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

harry's internal monologue from ch. 33

Er, first real friend we’ve ever had in our whole life? Hey, remember what happened to our pet rock?

Would you SHUT UP about that worthless lump of rubble, it wasn’t even alive let alone sentient, that is like the most pathetic childhood trauma ever—

[–]IConrad -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not intelligence, you tool, emotional competence. Exactly as portrayed by the author. Seriously, how emotionally sophisticated do you know of that respond to adults by biting then when they offend the kid, have absolutely no friends, and are mistaken for potential child abuse victims?

Furthermore, we have actual passages from hpmor itself that make it quite clear that Harry's initial exposure to the concept of death was the "death" of the pet rock.

No, all of the character development we've seen in Harry through the course of the five years it took for EY to get us here primarily took the form of the emotional and social sophistication of Harry. Before that he was at practically autistic levels of emotional intelligence. ( And, seriously -- there's a fucking difference between procedural, academic, and emotional intelligence. All of which require specific training to be effective/sophisticated in. )

Seriously why are we even still having this discussion? Go back and re read the first twenty chapters and then read the chapters surrounding the Phoenix's price, and those around Hermione's death. This shit is explicitly spelled out, and you're just wrong.

[–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from another place on reddit.

If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote. (Info / Contact)