1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest! Are you any good at cooking? Got a favourite recipe that you love to cook or bring out to impress that special someone? Why not share it! A new forum called The Burrow has opened and it's all about homemaking!

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
    Snape was the double agent! Not the other Death Eaters, all of them didn't even like Snape and trust him. Guess what would have been the reward for giving a stunned, alive and unhurt Harry to Voldemort, heaven for the rest of your life!

    I don't even get why Voldemort can miss such an easy opportunity to capture Harry, he keeps devising so many tough ones but when this one grants itself, he doesn't want it, bullshit. Should have given an instruction like this:

    Kill Harry and I will rape you forever, capture him and I will fuck you forever. Heaven my lads! Go! Go!
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  2. Constans

    Constans Sixth Year DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    Globetrotter
    Tbh mate, don't care

    I don't know what to think because I don't really see the argument yet. An argument has certain premises followed by a conclusion - can be a deductive conclusion or an inductive conclusion.

    Going with what you said so far though,

    Taure's Argument: Readers can thing of plot holes, therefore, the author thought more than the reader. <- more or less.

    Now we come to your analogy: "We find flaws theories in scientists', however that doesn't mean that the scientists do too." <- to paraphrase.

    Finally we come to your conclusion, but before that, let's summarize your argument in order:

    Taure's Argument: Readers can thing of plot holes, therefore, the author thought more than the reader (presumably leaving them there).

    Your necessary inductions: Literature is like science - specifically natural science. Authors are similar to scientists. Story plots are like scientific theories.

    Your premise: We find flaws scientists' theories, however that doesn't mean that the scientists do too.

    Conclusion: Therefore, by induction, Taure's argument is wrong.

    (To simplify:

    X=Literature, Y=Plot Holes, Z=Theory Holes, A=Science, B=Reader, C= Author D=Scientist, E=Knowing more/understanding flaw

    Mutually Agreed Upon Premise: X has Y, A has Y

    Taure's argument: If {(X∩Y) AND (B∩E)} then {□(C∩E)}.

    Your Induction: A~X, C~D, Y~Z

    Your counter factual: If {(A∩Z) AND (B∩E)} then [¬ {□(D∩E)}]

    By induction: If {(X∩Y) AND (B∩E)} then ¬ {□(C∩E)}.

    Thus, invalid by induction/modus tollens)


    However, I dunno whether you see, the problem lies with your inductions.

    1. Literature is not like Science at all. Science is empirically variable - almost by definition, has specific rules to obey, is constant regardless of interpretation. Literature by nature is fluid, without one right way, has no rules but the imagination of the author to obey, differs upon reading (people read To Kill A Mockingbird differently as a kid than as an adult). A bunch of differences really.

    2. Authors are not similar to scientists. Relates back to previous point tbh. Additionally, elements of peer review involved in the latter. Authors have liberty to exaggerate, hide, show, etc etc. Scientists don't. The latter, as said, are throughly reviewed and completely different standards apply, author's are not. Style plays a huge role for an author. Equations are equations. Really, there isn't much of a comparison.


    3. Plot is not like Scientific Theory. In no way. Refer back to previous 2 points. Biggest obvious difference that fundamentally shatters this paradigm - scientists don't hide part of the equation for shits and giggles, when they publish a paper. Authors often do - famously, JKR wrote the ending of HP really early on. Another major one that delivers a death blow to this induction - plot is highly dependent upon interpretation. Maxwell's equation remains Maxwell's equation.


    Now, in light of above stated reasons, I believe your claim that:

    (Emphasis added)

    is not correct.

    [Tl;dr? Apples to Seahorses mate.]


    With all due respect, here's a piece of advice, when trying to garner support for a position (right or wrong), try to get the names of those you're trying to garner said support from, right.

    Unless of course you're using the Romance root (Latin) context here. Canto as in (to) sing from Latin (infinitive being cantāre) - all related to canō, in turn from the Proto-Indo European "Kan" root (though there is dispute over such a language and its extent, but ignoring that for a second).

    In that case, I apologize - but please clarify what's song/singing got to do here? I only ask because I searched through every page for a Canto - couldn't find one.


    In order:

    No you don't. You have an invalid argument. An argument has to valid for it to be sound.

    That said, I do apologize for being banal. I assure you it is not by deliberate choice. However, given I was discussing demarcation theory, logic and mathematics, etc., all much studied topics, banality was but an eventuality.

    Nevertheless, I do not see the connection of me being banal with your reply. Perhaps more clarification.

    Finally, I apologize for ending on a questioning note, but you do seem to imply that you being the author can see the flaws in your arguments if even I can. Forgive me, but wasn't that Taure's point? Seeking clarification....


    (P.S. - Given the staggered and elongated nature of the post, I do apologize for possible grammatical, tonal and probably extremely minor logical consistency issues if any. Were it pointed out to me, I shall endeavor to correct them at the soonest opportunity.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  3. Blorcyn

    Blorcyn Professor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    436
    Location:
    UK
    They didn't like him or trust him. Cool. He was still in charge and one of the strongest in the group and he was reminding them of Voldemort's orders. He doesn't strike me as a stupid villain for evoking that to keep them from Harry as that was his agenda.

    The death eaters fleeing the castle after their hit with specific orders from Voldemort not to kill Harry (and Snape twisting that to do not molest Harry Potter) not stopping to argue and spontaneously change the plan of action mid-escape doesn't seem unreasonable.

    Voldemort wasn't there, nor is he prescient ( as he did not know the prophecy :p ). We don't know how much information he received from Draco when creating his plan so it's hard to say if he was stupid or not. But we can't say he is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  4. Punt

    Punt DA Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages:
    167
    Yes, we know that Lucius is an arrogant bastard whose arrogance lead him to do stupid things. If you had bothered with lurking you would know that Harry winning due to luck is something that a lot of people dislike about the series (at least thats the impression I got at any rate). I'm not going to argue that JKR is great at crafting villians. I'm genuinely confused, what exactly are you trying to prove?
     
  5. Klackerz

    Klackerz Bridgeburner

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Location:
    India
    Adding to that you just don't argue with the man who just killed arguably the strongest wizard in the world.
     
  6. Riley

    Riley Alchemist DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    On The Eastern Seaboard, USA
    Does anyone else feel like this is a joke that has gone on way too long?
     
  7. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    948
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    Riley: yes. Especially as he's now completely abandoned his original point.

    OP has now abandoned the claim that the actions certain characters took, mentioned in the OP, logically lead to the conclusion that the characters are stupid.

    /thread

    Also, serious lol:

    That is nowhere near what I said. It's in a different solar system. I said that because we, a group of fans, can think of solutions to your so-called problems, the author certainly could too.

    I'm sorry, Havaiamas, I've made my final decision. I don't think you're ready for this class, so I'm sending you back to English class first. When you can understand the text you're reading, I'll consider letting you back in.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  8. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    You missed the satire, sorry for getting you name wrong, must have been a typo. If you and Taure believe in that the author, in this case, me, can see all the flaws in their, why to point them out? Why are you explaining them to me? Your argument implies that I must know them. But do you really think that happens? Do you really think every author knows every flaw in their work?

    Imagine a 6 year old writes a story, as he is 6 his story naturally has many faults, do you think he will know all of them? But he should right? Taure's argument implies that he must, he is the author! Getting my point?

    Banal was not an insult, it was tongue-in-cheek.

    But there is a certain set of aesthetic guidelines which have evolved over the years, of course they too are not fixed, but you can still argue empirically on things like whether what the author choose to show serves any purpose or not, whether the exaggeration is valid in terms of the rules set by the author in case of high fiction, whether the characters evolved or not, whether the characters were complex or not and so much more.

    To critically judges these things you need to use logic, just like you need to use logic to review a scientific journal. Certain rules are set in the start, and then you decide whether the work meets those parameters or not, of course those rules can be changed, different people set the bar differently, I keep it high.

    You can still argue empirically over certain things, like the usage of dei ex machina, characters acting out of character in order to facilitate the plot, whether characters evolve with experience or not, etc.

    These things can be argued empirically, which is what I am trying to do. It doesn't matter whether the author if compelled can invent a reason which discredits objections. The written words are the parameter, we are trying to judge the quality of the work, it doesn't matter whether author had counter arguments to criticisms, if they are not in the work, thy don't count. The work should be able to stand for itself in certain things.

    ---------- Post automerged at 08:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------

    I have explained several times that it doesn't matter if she can think of a solution now! Can the solution be devised from the written words and things established in the work without inventing stuff, that matters!

    With the solutions you guys are suggesting, the villains become cliched, snobbish and stereotypical characters found in substandard fantasy fiction, not smart villains.
     
  9. Riley

    Riley Alchemist DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    On The Eastern Seaboard, USA
    ...didn't we already establish in the whole forum that none of us think the Villains of a children's series were smart?
     
  10. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    That makes it a stupid plan, they should have planned to capture Harry to if an opportunity arises, but they didn't, not mart!

    ---------- Post automerged at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------

    I haven't read the whole forum, please tell where you have established that in this forum, if you did that is.
     
  11. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    948
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    You have not explained it, you have stated it. I have explained why you're wrong: that to make it logically necessary that the actions you quote mean the characters are stupid, there can't be any possible explanation for those actions. That is the nature of logical inference: it has to be absolutely certain. "Probable" is not enough.

    "Possible explanation" is not limited to the books, for many reasons. Here are three:

    1. The very nature of the idea, possibility, means that it is more than what is explained, but rather what is explainable.

    2. JKR could always write more books which explained them, and those books would be canon.

    3. Precedent exists for things in the books have explanations but are not explained: how Dumbledore ended up flirting with Grindelwald's ideas, for example. In the books its unexplained, out of book we know that he was in love with Grindelwald.

    If you say that your argument is something less than logical inference then we are not compelled to agree.

    Your opinion of our solutions is subjective, and I don't think anyone here (or in the world) respects your subjective opinion, as you're clearly cray-cray.

    Anyway, at this point I'm just repeating myself trying to drill this idea into your skull. Going around in circles is not interesting, so this is where I leave.
     
  12. Punt

    Punt DA Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages:
    167
    Can someone link him to The Office please?
     
  13. Riley

    Riley Alchemist DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    On The Eastern Seaboard, USA
  14. Lexicat

    Lexicat Second Year

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages:
    79
    Give me 3 examples of smart villains. At least 2 of 3 must be from Fantasy Fiction.
     
  15. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    Which only people like you would accept, because to others it is fairly clear that the earlier books had goof ups and this is an attempt to sort those, just like destroying the time turners.

    If she could not make her ideas clear in so many words, and used those words to express superficial things, she is a bad writer.

    Again your senseless rule, if you follow this, the word stupid should be discarded from the dictionary because no ever will be stupid, in fiction and in real world because you can always think of an explanation, even if it absurd. Actions don't become stupid because there is no explanation for those actions, actions are stupid because other alternatives had more chances of success. Get it? No? That's ok, I understand.

    You need to learn how to read, I have stated many times that as it's a magical world almost everything is possible and she can invent new stuff to cover up, but what matters is that she gave evidence in the books that the better alternative could not be taken because of so and so reason.

    No it's not, you are assuming it to be like, you cannot be absolute certain in many situations in life, there you have decide what course of action will most probably have a favorable outcome.

    ---------- Post automerged at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 AM ----------

    Steerpike in Gormenghast Trilogy, I can't be sure of the others as I haven't read good fantasy fiction for some time. I remember liking His Dark Materials and Bartimaeus Trilogy more than HP, but it has been at least 4 years since I last read them, can't be sure. Also, Vorbis from Pratchett's Small Gods comes to mind. O'Brien in 1984.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  16. Nae

    Nae The Violent

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Location:
    East India Company HQ
    Holy shit this thread!

    I missed out on all the fun. :(
     
  17. Zeelthor

    Zeelthor Scissor Me Timbers

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,198
    No, Naeblis! RUN! SAVE YOURSELF!
     
  18. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    948
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    I thought before that you were a misguided but potentially intelligent person.

    Now it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You are therefore now boring.
     
  19. Havaiamas

    Havaiamas Second Year

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    One of your very stupid statements, let me show why with an example.

    A person is driving a motorbike with riding gear on a single lane road on the mountains with traffic going to both sides, on left is a steep rocky cliff with a drop of hundred feet and on the right is the mountain of course. Suddenly a truck coming from the opposite side loses control and heads towards him. He has two options now, either to jump down which has high chances that he will die, the other to counter-steer to the right and then again to left which means he will avoid the truck but will meet the mountain from the side and maybe drag along too or fall down, definite chances of injury but less chances that they will be fatal. He decides to fall down the cliff, is that a stupid decision?

    Going by your logic quoted above, the action he takes is not unexplainable, it is unlikely that he will survive but there is still some chance, not unexplainable. But it still was a stupid decision, because in the other alternative, he would have suffered many injuries, but death would have been unlikely. He most probably would have survived. That would have been the smart decision, but according to your logic, as the action he took had some chances of success, even though unlikely, the action is not stupid. There is a possibility of explanation, but in real world, it was a stupid decision.
     
  20. Russano

    Russano Disappeared

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    I want to take a moment to personally thank the OP and Taure for giving me this thread. It is officially the 7th thing on the internet I have masturbated to that wasn't an image of a girl or a cat. The sheer size of awe inspiring e-peen has managed to give me an erection that I will remember for years to come. You have both earned a fond place in my heart, God bless you both.
     
Not open for further replies.