Alright, I thought long and hard about whether I should reply to your elegant shitpost Taure but at the end what really got me was your tone. Mate, I'll even spell it out for you in your own vernacular, because the way in which you laid out your thoughts was dripping with so much elitism and pseudo-intellectual tripe that I get the feeling you're someone who doesn't tend to appreciate short and concise arguments. The way in which your parse your thoughts and opinions is so rambling that it obfuscates the logical train of key claims and statements that you're supposedly building your argument from.

I'll put it in spoiler cause I doubt other people want to see us resolve your system of contradictory logic.

Spoiler

First off, your logic is simply wrong. This isn't a subjective statement that lends itself to interpretation, because you clearly contradict yourself in several places throughout your argument. Before I get into that, you seem to be falling prey to the age old fallacy of assuming an intelligent design mechanic working in the background. This is a bias, and one of the more irritating ones. You really must keep yourself constrained to working within the system of canon, and not making assumptions based on unconnected statements. Your train of thought is well hidden because its buried within this mess of baseless rhetoric.

Your logic is wrong because, within the system you yourself have laid out, there are contradictions. Because of these holes in your logic, your system is not consistent.

It isn't. A dementor is a creature, a horcrux is a force. I'm not going to spend time going over this. The difference is in the sapience, sentience and intractability of the element in question.

The obscurus does not growl, Credence does. It does move and it is parasitic. Here again you take the incorrect logical approach. As I said above, this weaving of unrelated elements does not lend more weight to your argument. Neither of those terms are meant to imply a living nature. Both could equally be used to give the element of body horror that JKR and the director are really trying to push in this scene. I mean, that bit seemed more like 'insects moving under my skin' than anything else. Or a hundred other things. A lot of the time, you keep building assumption on assumption, taking a subjective view and turning it into an objective fact. To sum this up, the obscurus is not alive. It is not even as 'alive' as a dementor is. While there is a lot written about "Is a dementor alive?", you seem to be treating the obscuri situation analogous to a dementor (more on this below).

You've applied two properties to the situation here. First, you model its genesis as independent of emotion, and assign it to being a product of a young wizard hiding their magic. Now, the discrete difference between "an emotion" and "a course of action" is pretty obvious. Still, saying that the obscuri is independent of emotion, instead assigned to a consistent course of action, is wrong. Why? Because we have numerous cases of the obscuri phenomenon acting directly proportional to emotion. Again you show a great ability to somehow twist facts into butterfingers. Almost every single piece of canon information of the obscuri phenomenon shows how it relates directly to Credence's emotions. It is indeed "triggered by its host's emotions".

And saying that "it doesn't save the day" is just... Man, I really am having trouble understanding why you don't get me complaining about the obscurus. Just to be clear, the concept is bad because the only time it is shown within the greater wizarding world is through Credence Barebone, who Surprise! can control it. It is a cop out, and just a bad concept overall. The "oh no! millions of others have never been able to handle this EDGE power thats so cool but you totally can Credence!" concept is just bad. It really is Sonic the Edgehog and it is BAD writing. When we discuss the concept of the obscurus, we have to do so through the lens that is Credence Barebone, given that he is our view into the matter. That is why I can say it's a bad concept, regardless of the fact that "CredenceIsTheOnlyOneToSurvive!!!1!" bullshit.

This type of magic, when bound to the ChosenOne!Credence, belongs in a shonen mange. You said it yourself: "Credence being the first known wizard to survive an obscurus". This is Edgelord 101 and fuck you if you refuse to acknowledge it. That. Is. Bad. Writing.

What is this even? You're saying his obscurus situation doesn't add to his power? You're saying that an obscurus gains no magical power advantage from being one? Why is Grindelwald looking for him then? Why can he reducto a mountain? If your point is that Credence can instead "direct the destructive energies". I want you to close your eyes and let this statement wash over you. And no, the "millions of others have died trying to control this power!!!" is not applicable here. The concept overall doesn't work if the one character we are introduced this concept through is somehow exempt from it's own rules.

This fun web of yours is logically incoherent. First, you make the assumption of the separate sentience and sapience of the obscuri. Then, you say that the wizard gains no magical power addition from the Obscurus (because all that blowing up a mountain stuff, that's definitely the obscurus; just like how it's the obscurus that growls up there in that quote you posted). You take this jenga tower even further when:

Now, we have this gem. You have established the sentience and sapience of the obscurus, and you have established it's separate will and magic (in JKR's shite the two are canonically linked, note how I didn't just infer some random link based on a subjective remark but instead use a well established bit of knowledge). You have also noted, with much emphasis, that the emotions of the host do not effect the magic (and the will) of the obscurus, and therefore cemented their independence. You have also said, and I quote verbatim, that the obscurus doesn't give Credence any special powers.

But here you say that Credence can control it because his own power/magic (his will you could say), independent from the obscurus, allows him to do so. If you can't read through this series of statements you've made and easily spot the logical error, idk what to say. Don't worry though, cause it get's worse.

I know what a non-being is you mong. Your comparison is still unsuitable. I'm not even going to bring up the non-semantic difference between a force and creature, given that you seem to treat them as interchangeable. Just to be clear tho, that alone is enough to invalidate your comparison. A force is not a creature, and a creature is not a force. Sentience, sapience and intractability all differentiate them.

Like I said, I tried to tie my mind into the same knot you did when you thought this, so here goes. A non-being, like a dementor, is born from a concept. Muggle's don't treat concepts the same way wizards do, and here I'm stealing from your headcanon doc, in that muggles don't have tangible embodiments of their fears/sadness flying around in the air threatening to take out their soul. In the same way, if a muggle feels super alienated and tries to blend in constantly or something, then they're just gonna end up a weird kid. If a wizard does the same, under the specific circumstance of hiding his magic, then they form an obscurus. Thus, an obscurus must be a non-being, just like a dementor.

I think this was what you were thinking when you made this analysis. That doesn't change the fact that, despite sounding very nice and pretty and convincing, it is a completely shit argument. Note that every single statement up there is some inflexion of a canon quote stretched to its wild subjective limits. Is it completely wrong? No, but it's as wrong as me claiming with certainty that 'belly-button piercing's aren't Taure's thing'.

No, it doesn't. See, this statement here is showing your major flaw. The similarities you and I have listed between the Dementor and the Obscurus do not imply that they are the same, and do not even imply a shared nature. Your reason for assuming this is due to the intelligent-Xmaker-state bias I outlined above, and a tendency to look for things you really want. This isn't even a debatable fact, just look at your post. You try and rationalize the MESS that is this stupid ass concept by claiming the weirdest things. A "a magical force which manifests as a creature" is oxymoronic. There is something called mutual exclusivity.

Alright you got me there. I'm very sorry for my blatant shitpost, I should probably get a ban.

What annoyed me was someone else claiming that it's just 'edgy teen' behavior to criticize JKR. I'm sorry, but there's a fuckin limit to that shilling. I don't want to start discussing this in this thread, but for fuck's sake. Here's my evidence. Pottermore. Cursed Child. Fantastic Beasts. Literally every single thing since Book 7 has been bad. Not even mediocre, but just bad. This is in part due to the fact that, compared to the original seven books, anything would look like shit. Still, she had made every single facet of her own original work objectively worse. Her bullshit isn't just something to swallow, because it seeps back into her canon and spoils it. The Star Wars Prequels weren't criticized so hard just cause they sucked, they were beat up so bad cause they killed the Original Trilogy for some people.

Like, as said above, she retconned the summoning charm to move AT LIGHT SPEED. FFS, how can you defend this? How? This is just so messed on so many levels that it actually ends up directly contradicting several parts of the books. Nagini was pulled completely out of her ass for 'diversity' bullshit (and I'm coloured af so I'm a fan of that but jesus fucking christ lady we can practically smell the white guilt. It ruins the movie and honestly just bring back the straight white kids at the straight white boarding school). McGonagall was thrown in there just for fun, even though it contradicts the books. How did no one fucking bother to check that? Not to mention Johnny Depp as Grindelwald.

I've read all her shit. I've read every single bloody Strike book even, and I'm genuinely tired of JKR's consistent train of fuck-ups. I love you JK and I'll suck your dick dry like everyone else on this website, but it would be nice if you could just tap me on the back of the head and warn me so I don't have to swallow. I am very tired of her retconning the past to suit her present day narrative.

 

Most of your post is doubling down on the semantic argument (and quite hysterically, I might add), and I don't see the need to respond to most of those points, which I doubt anyone is going to find particularly convincing.

There's just one paragraph that I think merits a response because it makes a genuinely novel (though ultimately wrong) point:

You are presumably making the argument that:

"Credence's power + the power of the obscurus = more power than Credence has on his own"

This falls into the "magical core trap" whereby you are imagining that magic is like a quantifiable pool of energy that Credence can draw on, and that Credence now has access to two such pools. If that were the case then yes, the obscurus would add to Credence's power.

But this is not how HP magic works or how the obscurus works. When Credence casts magic, he has the choice of:

A) Use his own powerful but untrained magic as a normal wizard would, OR

B) Use his abilities as an obscurial who has gained control over the obscurus.

We know that the power of B is weaker than A, because it is A which he uses to overcome the obscurus in order to control it in the first place. Therefore the existence of B as a weaker alternative to A does not make Credence more powerful. It is a useful ability like being a metamorphmagus, but doesn't act as a kind of "magic boost".

The true advantage of B is that it apparently requires no (or very little) training to use.

Grindelwald's plan for Credence is not yet clear (in FB it seemed to be merely as a chaotic catalyst to expose magic to the Muggles, but after CoG we know it relates to Albus Dumbledore). What we do know is that it's not Credence's power that Grindelwald is after per se. Grindelwald has never shown any personal fear of Credence, and we know that Credence was not able to harm Grimmson with all his obscurus powers, a wizard who is surely of lesser calibre than Dumbledore and Grindelwald themselves.

As an aside, I do find it quite amusing that someone who entered the thread with an extended rant is complaining about tone.

 

And came to the wrong conclusion, obviously.

 

Alright, alright. Nice bait.

You really don't seem to understand the defintion of 'semantic'. Especially within logic, it has a clearly defined and strict usage.

No, that's not true. Taure, you are spinning your ass on JKR's dildo like it's a fucking potter's wheel. That's not what I said. Please read my damn post. What I said was that the Obscurus makes Credence more powerful. See, unlike you, throughout my post I try to refer to the Obscurus as a phenomenon. I will not just separate it into two systems that I then somehow link with NO factual or logical basis, as you have done for some reason. They are one, and they are separate. An Obscurus is a condition. A disease that can be healed to be more specific. No one said shit about magical cores, and I'm beginning to think that's your buzzword argument for when you don't feel like actually trying to clean your contradictions.

Just to be clear, YES, an ObscurusCledence is more powerful than Credence if he had lived a nice quiet life. YES, ObscurusCledence can direct and control this power according to his OWN will and emotions. Again, he uses this to reducto a mountain. NO ONE has been shown to do anything even close to that in HP before, so don't go saying that ObscurusCledence is less powerful that CredenceNormal (your stupid B>A argument that was based on an incorrect seperation and a faulty assumption), just because it is possible for ObscurusCledence to HEAL into CredenceNormal. I genuinely think you didn't read what I posted.

You must be smoking some good stuff if you can somehow claim this. Shall I claim that my body is stronger than malaria because I managed to beat it? See, you can't even compare these things man. This is simple, they are TWO different elements of a different nature. Can I say "My body is stronger than malaria"? No, because it just doesn't make sense.

EDIT: You know I lvoe and respect you Taure-senpai. You are a part of Harry Potter fanfiction made real. A non-being yourself really, born from our collective magic and fanfiction. Not that you are an Obscurus in this scenario, given that they are not non-beings. Still, I genuinely thing you're being blind senpai.

 

You're both talking gibberish. I've had my gaffes on DLP and I even I can tell this is retarded.

 

Lord Twain II : Electric Boogaloo

 

Because the last few months have been ridiculous when it comes to JK Rowling. The amount of shit posting and lies being spread have made her seem worse than most people. She has her flaws, yeah, but sprouting nonsense that one doesn't understand annoys me.

One of the trademark titles for Deathly Hallows was the Curse of Nagini. I'm almost certain Rowling knew her backstory long before DH. Don't forget she is a classic mythologist. It's one thing she does very well, twists old myths and legends to suit her needs. This includes various creatures. I will admit she probably lumped most asian cultures together, though most Asian cultures have myths of ladies turning into snakes and vice versa.

Agreed if this was her idea and not the directors.

Writing a character dating someone isn't writing romance. And we all know she struggles with romance even in the simplest of settings. I go back and forth with Dumbledore's and Grindelwald's relationship. I do wish she had shown it as it would have been a breakthrough at that time, but I understand why she didn't.

CoG was problematic. The storyline was designed for a tv show, not a movie. Far too much happened in a short amount of time. She wrote it like a book and not a screenplay. I don't disagree with this.

I agree. But this is a thread for looking at the magic in CoG and @Deltox decided to go on a rant hating on Rowling. That is why he sounded edgy and ridiculous. Plus, he loves to blame Rowling on things far out of her control (hiring actors, director decisions, etc).

 

I don't know, JK did seem to be heavily involved in the casting of at least the original characters and she's vetoed director decisions in the past based on in-universe reasons.

 

I don't want to argue this anymore, but it IS her fault. Sure, we can ALL say that for the first seven movies, JKR gave total creative control to Warner Bros. Now? She's JK-Fucking-R.

Any director, playwright or actor has to go directly through this billionaire bitch to get their hands on her amazing legacy.

Like, she was personally involved in casting Depp. She had a total veto power during the creative process of Cursed Child and both Beasts films. Despite not being listed as such, she reviewed all works that were made public like a press secretary would (given that they effect HER franchise) and she acted as a creative director, enjoying the enormous power that comes with that position. We cannot all just give her a pass. Cursed Child was her baby. She probably read the play and then shouted "I love it!", cause there really is no other explanation for her actions. Same for all of Beasts (actors, directing, lore, etc). Along with Pottermore ofc. And whatever shit she tries to make us eat tomorrow.