1. Hey Guest,

    Are you handy with Photoshop? Do you feel the DLP Anakin logo is tired and old? Do you want to win a special as of yet undetermined prize? Join the DLP Banner Photoshop Competition! Fame, fortune, and the respect of your peers await those that enter. Sadness, despair, and a deep self-loathing await those that do not.

    Enter the competition.
    Dismiss Notice

Harry Potter and Not So Smart Villains

Discussion in 'Hall of Shame' started by Havaiamas, Dec 16, 2013.

Not open for further replies.
  1. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    Because most of guys are mere followers and cannot think for themselves, which is the reason behind Taure's entry being called triumphant when he start off by making a huge fallacy, telling me not to assume but then make assumptions himself, and of course forgetting so many things from canon, like side along apparition being impossible to resist and Dumbledore inventing the Fidelius, but you guys are oblivious to that. Hence, triumphant entry. Sheep.

    Then someone exalted his reply as an attempt to instill logic, in which again he made several fallacies which I ignored till now but now will point out.
    So here he attempts to discredit my analogy, by making another fallacy in his "triumphant" post to "instill logic," is logic not branch of science? He explains modal proposition in his reply, nah, not science. Also, regarding fallacy, he assumes that the only the meaning that he understands, fallacy being a technical term, is apt. He forgets that the word is also a part of English language and has usages beyond the technical usage. But he is oblivious to that too, and arrogant. Moving on.

    Like I mentioned earlier, this is a distorted view of my argument, what I am saying is that on the spectrum of possibilities ranging from least ideal to most ideal, the smart characters should choose one leaning towards most ideal, if not the most ideal.

    He assumed that he his right and adhered to the rules set up by which I mentioned are set up so that he never loses. What my argument is that the author is in control of what goes on the page, Rowling introduces magic devices and spells as plot coupons and discards them as their purpose is served, that is not good world-building, in fact, her world-building is banal, she basically substitutes a magic equivalent for most things, her purpose was not to write a smart work of fiction, but it was to exploit nostalgia and sense of wonder in common things, which might charm the unimaginative, but it does not amuse me.

    As it is a magical world, everything is possible, my intention with this post was that even using a simple spell properly can change the entire narrative and plot. Using all the magical devices and spells properly, will make everything completely different, but Rowling cannot do that, she is not genius people exalt her to be. If she was, she would have done that.

    A gross misunderstanding of my argument, if you read my comment on page 1 you will see that my argument is not that they should have chosen the best one, but they should have chosen one which was better suited to their aims. Now as for his theory that there has to be no possibility, it is a work of fiction without any rules for what kind of magic exists, so you can very easily assume a spell to create possibilities to defend an argument. What I am saying is that if the author was smart and thought of all possibilities, in fact, if she could think so much, she should have made it clear to the reader that this is why this is not happening. It is not the reader's duty to defend the work, the work should defend itself. Which is why I wrote several times to not assume, which, Taure himself told me to do in his first comment and then ignored. Seriously guys, are you so dumb that you cannot see this huge mistake?

    I am not here to see how well you can rationalize and defend the book, and also, just because you can defend it, albeit with fallacies, doesn't mean the author has the same capabilities. I tried to make it clear with my scientist analogy, but there's no point of bringing scientific rigor in HP discussions, and definitely, most definitely, modal proposition is not a part of any branch of science. Also, we are not using reason here and science appeals to sound reasoning, why should bring that same rigor? Idiotic. As a lover of fantasy fiction, I just want better structured and better written work, as long as HP and other such trash works are exalted, that will not happen. Love it, but recognize the short comings.

    The author can get away by merest thread of possibility, which Taure is attempting to do, but that is not solid writing! You can defend the most absurd action in any novel! But in well written novels you don't need to do that!Why? Because the author thought about all the possibilities and structured the work so that you don't need to rationalize and invent stuff to prove it is coherent.

    For eg. Voldemort not knowing the Fidelius charm, Voldemort's character is developed as one thirsty for knowledge with a special penchant for all things ancient. He can even invent his own powerful spells! How can he not bother to learn such a useful spell which he most definitely knew about. It's mentioned the school textbook, he definitely knew about it when James and Lily were hidden under the spell, wouldn't he have bothered to learn such an ancient and powerful spell? Unlikely, but you can argue that there is always a chance for the contrary, there is, but that is not good writing, that is convenient writing, bad writing.

    This is another idiotic statement, I have given many examples in my previous comments that Taure hasn't read my replies, another one here, for all those arguments I gave counter-arguments and to most of them I didn't get sound counter-arguments, that is how a discussion goes. As far as screaming is concerned, all the profanities have first been used by your dearly beloved DLPers, not me, who is the one screaming?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  2. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    1. No, logic is not a part of science. It's either mathematics or philosophy, depending on who you ask. Either way, it's most definitely not empirical.

    2. I never said Dumbledore invented the Fidelius, I said it was possible that he (and the people he told) were the only people who knew it. You were correct on the resisting apparition point, which is why I didn't continue to push it. Luckily for me, it was just one possibility among many which I mentioned, and I only need one.

    3. The "spectrum of possibilities" thing doesn't change the ultimate logic of the argument, because you still have to show that the character's actions in canon were unreasonable to call that character stupid, which means you still have to demonstrate that a reasonable explanation is impossible. Merely saying that their action was one among a group of reasonable possibilities is not enough to earn the brand "stupid".

    In fact, this whole "spectrum of possibilites" thing rather weakens your position, as it now means that even if you show your proposed action to be better than the one in canon, the character isn't necessarily stupid, so long as their action wasn't unreasonable. When I went for "best possible action" I was doing you a favour, as it meant that the explanations I had to provide for canon actions had to allow for the possibility that their action was the best. Now all I have to do is show that there exists a possible explanation as to why their actions were not unreasonable.

    4. Did anyone say JKR is a genius? This forum is probably one of the most critical of JKR in the fandom. The poll we had when DH came out had a majority of people thinking the book was bad (the greatest criticism being a flagging middle section).

    5. In my first post I told you not to assume certain things are not the case in the HPverse. Assuming things are possible is not a contradiction of this point.

    6. An explanation for Voldemort not learning the Fidelius is kinda obvious: he never encountered the knowledge of how to cast (again, knowing about a spell is not the same as knowing how to use it). Flitwick did say that it's an ancient spell.

    7. It's funny you speak about bad writing. Bad writing is treating a work of fiction like an argument where everything has to be justified. It's a story, not an academic paper. Ultimately, while we can perfectly easily posit in-universe explanations for characters' actions, the real reasons for JKR's decisions are based on streamlining the narrative and presenting the world she desired.

    E.g. wizarding numbers are contradictory, because in any given scene JKR allows there to be the number of wizards required to create the atmosphere she wants. Hogwarts is like a small private school, so it has those kinds of numbers, even though it's the only magic school in the country. A World Cup final of a sport should have hundreds of thousands of wizards, so that's how many there are to create the right atmosphere, even though it would have to mean, going by Hogwarts numbers, that basically every wizard in the world was there.

    This isn't a logically sound way to go about things because it does lead to contradictions. However, it is good writing. It means that scenes have good atmosphere, and since wizarding numbers are never actually important to the story, it doesn't matter so much that they're contradictory.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  3. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    And mathematics is not a science? Come on Taure!

    Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences". Benjamin Peirce (1809–1880) called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions"

    Argument from authority? Not the intention.

    Again, you're not realizing that rule you are setting up means no characters in any novel are stupid because anything can be justified, doesn't matter how unlikely. I don't and I won't follow this rule.

    Anti-kidnapping spell is canon?

    If you leave aside assumptions, I prefer this. I hope you realize that just as you are assuming, I can assume and invent things too. But my question is, did Rowling think of these things? Do we have proof that she did? For that, we have to follow the written words in the book.

    What? This is not a fan forum? I was looking for fan forums to test my opinions and hone my skills, till now I tried 3 but no response from fans there, someone suggested this. lol, this is a faux pas then.

    Wait! not done, don't reply, be patient.

    In which you yourself assumed somethings contrary to canon and invented some.

    Regarding the ritual, I have asked for evidence, I myself believed that it needed to be done a certain tim long before you came but then recognized I don't have evidence for it and asked for it, before your post, please provide evidence. Side along apparition, done. Magical protections, you are inventing now. Tell me something, if Hogsmeade too is safe and protected, why not let everyone go there and why bother signing any forms by parents or guardians? Seems unlikely that Rowling intended there are such protections, if there were, in so many pages she could have had Hermione dropping that info, it would have taken but few words.

    Regarding the trace, you need to recall that Voldemort did lot's of things without activating the trace before the age 17, including making a horcrux. From the evidence we have, ministry didn't have any info from trace, or they would have known what spells were used around Harry, that would have been in the newspapers as it was a shock to the whole wizarding world. Was it? Of course, assume things and you can defend anything, but it seems unlikely or well thought out.

    EDIT- Damn it! It keeps posting before I finish.

    No it's not, you are forgetting how Voldemort acquired his skill, he taught himself. He also invented the ritual to rebuild his body, how complex is that, he was a genius! The spell is mentioned in the Hogswart textbook! Definitely not forgotten. Even if he didn't get any information, he could have invented it himself. It is actually obvious that Rowling didn't make Voldemort use it for anything because it complicates things even more for Harry and would require skill beyond her level to make Harry come on the top if Voldemort did that. Even without it, the resolution of the series was bullshit.

    But the story has to be coherent, if I keep thinking that the author is taking the easiest way out by using plot coupons and convenient devices without setting up coherent rules or maintaining character, I cannot like it, it is bad writing. Really? Streamlining? She gives lot's of useless information in every chapter but doesn't bother to include important information which justifies the actions of her characters. Take book 5, Harry has been a wizard for 5 years, he is still amazed at magical things in hospital! How does it streamline the plot by giving useless information instead of important one? The fact is, she didn't think that deep, she kept writing herself into corners, inventing stuff to get out, and then forgetting about it.

    But do it without assuming, every kind of magic is possible, make explanations from data available in written form. Anti-kidnapping spell, not there in the universe. Make inferences from the data that you have, without inventing new spells and then judge whether the character actions are coherent, because only then can we judge whether the author thought of it or not.

    EDIT2-
    Exactly! Now there's the data, you are just reading it differently, as a reader with higher standards, I expect more. What she does, she just puts the numbers she needs to create the mood, don't you see how superficial she is? Tolkien put more though in one chapter than she did in the entire series or Kubrick did in a few scenes! I like complexity, I don't like authors who take the easy way out, why? Because only thn can I suspend my disbelief.

    There are different components of writing, give her a plus for setting the atmosphere, (there are different ways to do that, just because I am giving a plus doesn't mean she is adept at all of them, she is just decent, she get move some people, read Mervyn Peake's work) but give her a minus for meticulousness and world-building. Like I said earlier, I like thinking, I am imaginative, so I need works of authors who are more meticulous so that I can keeping suspending my disbelief. It doesn't matter to you, it matters to me.

    I don't think Rowling is bad, I came here assuming this a fan forum as someone said it is, but people exalting her as a genius and the hype around her nauseates me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  4. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    No, not everything is possible. A perfect example of how it can be argued against is when you showed that in canon we know resisting apparition is impossible, thus discounting the possible explanation that it's possible to resist apparition. Now you just have to do that for every possible explanation people suggest. Which is unlikely.

    What I don't understand is why you think an argument compelling you to accept you're wrong is a weakness of the argument, rather than a weakness of your position.

    Merely saying "I don't accept this point because it would mean I'm wrong" is not a counter argument, it's sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalala".

    Irrelevant. As said well above, there are plenty of raesons to not include explanations for all actions in the books. The explanation not being in the books does not preclude the possibility of explanation. The key is "could Rowling explain it, if pushed?".

    I didn't say it was. It is, however, possible (that is to say, there's nothing in canon that contradicts it, and therefore it's not impossible, and therefore it's possible).

    You can assume things are possible, if there's nothing in canon which contradicts it. (e.g. you can't assume that summoning the moon is possible, because Snape tells us that space matters in magic and the moon is very far away). Also, you can't assume that something is the case, only that it is possibly the case (saying that something is the case requires evidence, saying that something is possible requires only the absence of impossibility).

    I'm going to leave this to Constans. Needless to say, these people are speaking non-literally and are anyway dissenting opinions. There is a great debate surrounding what science is exactly, but very few academics suggest that mathematics is science. It makes no propositions about the nature of the world, and its methodology is deductive rather than investigatory.

    If you're not done, don't press post.

    Edit for your edit: don't really need to address these additional points, as they're covered by what I say above concerning the difference between asserting actuality and possibility.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  5. Constans

    Constans Sixth Year DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    Globetrotter
    Hard to let this one slide given the money burnt on said degree.

    Actually, if you continue with that same wikipedia line you ripped from, it goes on to add, for context, "the word corresponding to science means a "field of knowledge", and this was the original meaning of "science" in English, also; mathematics is in this sense a field of knowledge. ".

    The article goes on to cite a bunch of people talking about how it's scientific in part but not quite a science. Just like economics is.

    Given your intent to use the word, wrt natural science, your point is unsound.

    Specifically, because mathematics does not use the scientific method. Or going on to the root, Math is not falsifiable (Popper anyone?).

    Yes there is stuff mentioned in the article about experimental math and Popper reducing his objections later. However, both are limited atm and drawing conclusions as to the whole of math would be erroneous.

    All that said, here's another angle to the question.

    If you read more the wikipedia, you know Gauss made his statement in part on the basis of the idea that you don't invent mathematical rules/theorems/etc, they exist in nature.

    However, that leads to another problem wrt the definition of science. A huge part of scientific discovery is explanation. Yes you do not "invent" 2+2=4. But what does that explain to you?

    It *helps* explain stuff but it does that by being applied to natural phenomenon, whereas in science it would be the other way round. Science explains occurring phenomenon using equations, thereby making the latter a tool.

    Td;dr: Math does not test evidence, ergo, not a natural science (unless you're using "science" for astrology and stuff). Further, yes fringe schools exist that call it one - however fringe schools also exist that believe 9/11 was an inside job, we should go back to the gold standard, Illuminati, really anything tbh.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  6. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    What I don't understand is why you think it's a sound argument, I have explained my intentions and why I won't follow this rule clearly.

    Again, you're not understanding my side of the argument. Please read my latest edit, smart authors include pertinent information instead of useless information so that meticulous readers don't have to assume certain things, they can think as deep as they want, the author has it covered.

    What Rowling has done is created a superficial world, go a little beneath the surface and you have to start assuming.

    I don't agree at all with that, like I said, I like smart authors who target smart readers and have everything covered, not invent stuff if pushed by readers.
     
  7. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    Way to move the goalposts to a discussion of whether or not writers should include absolutely all information about character decisions, as if a story is Spinoza's Ethics or Euclid's Elements. JKR being a good or bad writer has no relevance to whether or not everyone is forced to accept, on the basis of your arguments, that a character is stupid.

    To reiterate one final time: what you're trying to show is an impossibility ("it is impossible that this character's actions are reasonable"). To disprove that all I have to show a possibility, because a single possibility means it is not impossible. You, on the other hand, have a rather more significant task -- appeals to possibilities won't help you, as you're trying to show certainty.

    You may feel that this is a rather unfair argument. And I agree. Perhaps, in the future, you will be careful about declaring things impossible.

    And if you hold that your position is something less than this - that an explanation is possible, but for one reason or another you want to ignore that explanation - then there's no discussion to be had, because now your position is one of subjective opinion ("No, I don't like that explanation") rather than being logically compelling ("Since there's no explanation for this character's actions, he must be stupid").

    If you cannot grasp this rather basic point then I'm afriad I'm going to have to fail you for this course. Your attendance score is high, but attendance marks can only take you so far. Eventually you have to pass the test.
     
  8. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    This is another one of your assumptions, please tell where I declared things impossible? You assumed what I saying and made up rules to give you the upper hand. I didn't declare things impossible.

    Again you are assuming that I am trying to show what you think I am trying to show. I have been saying this for quite some time now, that's not the case. I have said it a lot of times, almost everything is possible.

    Again you are stuck up on the rules you have made, I never said they must be stupid, among thousand possibilities, the author made them choose the less ideal one without putting in written evidence as to why they couldn't have done taken the smarter option.

    Pretentiousness at it's best, for two pages I have been trying to tell you that I am not attending your class, but you are too arrogant to realize that. You have it in your head that your right and not considering the other option.

    ---------- Post automerged at 06:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 AM ----------

    Consider book 5, Harry and his friends don't know death eaters are there, DE outnumber them, why come out at all, both accio and petrificus totalus can be used non verbally, 6 DE stun everyone non verbally while one summons the prophecy non verbally, with the surprise Harry and his friends didn't have any chance. But no, what happens, they ask for it.

    ---------- Post automerged at 06:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 AM ----------

    My original point does not depend on maths or logic being a science, let me tell you the point.

    Taure says that because we can think of all these things that don't make complete sense, the author can definitely think more than us. Do you really think that is not a fallacious argument?

    Now my analogy, a scientist presents a theory, other scientists use logic, doesn't matter whether it is a science or not, they are still using it to decide whether the theory is right or wrong, right?

    And they decide it doesn't make complete sense, but then they assume that as we can find faults in the the original scientist can do too and must have done. This is Taure's argument, whether logic itself is a science or not, doesn't matter, the analogy is still spot on.

    This is not for you Taure, tell Canto, who has the unsound argument here?

    And if you do think I have the unsound argument, how can you be so banal, if you can think of faults in my argument, don't you think I can?

    Tell me now, who is right here?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  9. Zeelthor

    Zeelthor Scissor Me Timbers

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,206
    Could the lot of you take a step back and ask what you're actually arguing about. If you can't recall without looking back into the thread, cease.

    Okay. Book five, death eaters want the prophecy.

    Scenario 1.

    Someone non-verbally uses petrificus totallus. Harry trips and drops prophecy. Voldemort rages.

    Scenario 2.

    Someone instead summons it. Harry twitches in his attempt to hold onto it and crushes it. Voldemort rages.

    I'm not saying that there aren't stupid things going on in the books and that JKR probably couldn't have done things better, but you're really taking it to extremes.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  10. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    To Taure,

    See, you made another ad hominem, because logic is not a science and I was talking about scientists presenting a theory, my analogy baffles your mind. But actually, it doesn't matter whether logic is a science or not, what matters is just because a person can easily find faults in any kind of work, doesn't mean the authro who spent so much time on it knew about those faults too.
     
  11. Zeelthor

    Zeelthor Scissor Me Timbers

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,206
    Your grammar baffles my mind, Hav.
     
  12. Caledfwlch

    Caledfwlch Sixth Year DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    174
    Location:
    Avalon
    That's really not a fair thing to say.
     
  13. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    You made a very big mistake, one of the DE uses the summoning spell and the other stuns at the same time, prophecy will be in their hands before Harry falls. Also, to protect a strong summoning you have to use a counter spell, and in they books they summon it after coming out, Harry kept his hold too, didn't break, also, when Fred and George summon their brooms from umbridge's office, they's didn't suffer any damage now, did they? Broomsticks created two holes in door, please remember your canon guys.

    At least they should have stunned everyone but Harry.

    You can also, stun harry, levitate him and summon the prophecy at the same time, there were a dozen DEs, which isn't really required as a thing which is being summoned doesn't break.

    ---------- Post automerged at 06:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 AM ----------

    English is my second language, never mind grammatical mistakes. I am not even paying attention to them. Does that discredit my argument, another ad hominem?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  14. Zeelthor

    Zeelthor Scissor Me Timbers

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,206
    English is my second language as well and I do not claim to be a genius, unlike certain others.

    Now, for them to do it at exactly the same time, they'd have to communicate that to one another. Sure, they could probably convey it through sign language, but maybe they didn't have any system of non-verbal communication.

    Just because he didn't twitch in one situation, doesn't mean he never will in another. As for the brooms, they're probably enchanted to be more durable.

    Your way probably would've worked, I'm not denying that, but it would require several things to go right. You're also forgetting that Lucius Malfoy led the attack. He doesn't seem to be the type to start off with violence when he thinks talking is a possible solution.
     
  15. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    Again, you go on assuming things, brooms have broken time and again across the series quite easily, here, they broke enchanted chains and made a hole in the door! Yet, you still think brooms are enchanted.

    Also, I am not suggesting one way, I suggested 3, wall three of them offer much better chances of success than begging for the prophecy!

    Also, forget team work among six people, Lucius could have stunned Harry and Bellatrix summoned prophecy, works 99%, best option. Use it non-verbally, he wouldn't even have time to react! And both these spells have been used non verbally on many occasions.

    Now the debate between me and Taure, he says as long as there is even one small doubt that it wouldn't have worked, it is not the better way. That is utter foolishness, it's a fictional world with magic, he is isn't even sticking to text, he feels if a spell is possible in universe but not in the book, it discredits my argument. He made these rules himself.

    What I am saying is that the author is in control of the what is written, if she didn't put evidence for why this mode of action was not taken, she didn't think about, if she did and ignored it to further the plot, still bad writing. Both the heroes and the villains had much better options in the their hands, which I am establishing with evidence form the text and not inventing any new spell, and if they had used them, the entire series would have been better.

    Why? Because then all the characters won't be acting stupidly and not taking the more ideal way to achieve their goals.

    Also, notice, more ideal, considering so many spells and objects, there are so many possible courses of action, some with very high chances of success, some with very less. Now if the characters keep taking course of action which offers less chances when many more better options were available, it is bad writing as the author makes the characters behave unnaturally, why unnaturally, because they are choosing thwart themselves by not showing any tact.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  16. Zeelthor

    Zeelthor Scissor Me Timbers

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,206
    I think the brooms were stuck to metal balls, which went along with them. Breaking through a door is a hell of a lot different from going up against the Womping Willow.

    People don't always reason like you're suggesting. After all, we've got several of these Death Eaters who have been to Azkaban. Their minds are probably more or less broken.

    It may be the best option in YOUR opinion. That does not mean it is the best option in Lucius' opinion.
     
  17. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    Not breaking, making broom shaped holes in it, that's magic buddy.

    That is why I am not asking they should have taken the most ideal way,but at least a better way, why, because not everyone is stupid either! And these people have shown tact in other areas, now I dnt get why they don't show tact in important situations.

    Also, fiction is created, author decides what to put in, if she is creating stupid villains, it's bad writing because it's boring. The hero gets off easily, now Voldemort was fully active in book5, he is a genius, thinks even better than me, don't you think he would have or should have planned the course of action in such an important situation? They made a tactful plan to lure Harry to MoM, now they are throwing it away for melodrama, I don't like it.

    Now, consider book 6:

    Harry lay curled on the dark grass, clutching his wand and panting; somewhere overhead Snape was shouting, Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord - we are to leave him! Go! Go!
    Oh shut up you idiot, I am not killing him, petrificus totalus!
    Now let's take him to The Dark Lord, he'll be pleased.


    Come on, this is so easy, Voldemort both before and after this sends DEs to get Harry, all he wants to do is kill him himself. Why didn't they capture him at this moment, there's a limit to stupidity and eccentricity that I can tolerate from evil geniuses.
     
  18. Punt

    Punt DA Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages:
    167
    The DE probably felt that it would be stupid for them do devise complicated tactics to face, as far as they knew a handful of untrained teenagers. It doesn't matter how effective land mines are against wolves, farmer Jack would look like a crazy son of a bitch if he uses that.
     
  19. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    Oh yes, ubercliched snobbishness, being used to justify stupid actions by villains for centuries. I don't like such villains, why, because they are boring. It's becomes obvious the hero will escape. Done a million times, not imaginative writing, not good writing. What I will give for a villain who is defeated not because of his own faults but because of the hero's qualities, a hearty salute!

    Considering that Harry had escaped 5 times from Voldemort's clutches, you think by now he would have known to not take chances, but no, he will never learn, because he is the most powerful wizard in the world! A genius! Why should he learn!!
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  20. Blorcyn

    Blorcyn Professor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    448
    Location:
    UK
    I just want to point out that Snape was a double agent, in a senior role. Why was he shouting that again?

    So, yeah. Account for that in your jabberings before Taure gets back, if you would. :nyan:
     
Not open for further replies.