Muggle lover.

 

Now, now, don't be silly. The correct term is Blood Traitor.

 

All muggle lovers are blood-traitors but all blood-traitors aren't muggle lovers.

 

I'm sensing some muggle sympathies in his comment. As if the cleansing of a superior nation from riff-raff is a bad thing. Toujours Pur!

 

You say superior nation, then quote something French.

Does not compute.

 

And we all know what happened to The Most Ancient and Noble House of Black.

Sticking to the thread, ruthless!Dumbledore.

 

This. You don't have t explain magic because it's freakin' MAGIC!

 

Really quite true, it'd also just serve to give you a headache something chronic.

Remember, conjuring food is impossible, but conjuring a lump of wood, turning that into a goat and then killing and eating said goat is A-Ok. Because it's magic. It runs on Fairy tale logic for eighty percent of its function and insane troll logic for the rest.

 

Strongly disagree. Saying "it's magic" is a cop-out, and explaining magic is part of the fun. I suppose explaining magic is another pet pleasure of mine.

You know, it's kinda funny how I only realize I like something when I'm disagreeing with something somebody else posted in this thread.

 

You can explain magic, but you shoudn't explain it like science. Because if you do, the reader will assume it works like science and find over ninethousand contradictions or easy solutions you can't scientifically disprove. See Methods of Rationality.

 

It is easy, just show that it does not work (AKA experimental method).

And magic should be mysterious/weird/complicated/special. But it does not mean that scientific method may not appear in any form.

IMHO character checking how things works is far more interesting than describing yet another mysterious library full of the ancient plot devices.

And what is wrong with this? For example quantum mechanics are more weird and mysterious than every single system of magic that I encountered.

 

I meant more a scientific mindset. As in energy conservation, you can't create something from nothing, every effect has a cause. And with negative and positive causes, with constant numbers for everything, you try to optimize everything. Like in chemics were temperature and pressure is at a certain point so the reaction is more efficient.

If you do the same with magic it's more about getting proper setup then the actual story. And if it's not, the reader will ask itself why. Is the optimal setup to expensive, or morally not acceptable? Equations are rather boring.

Not implying that you'd want to do that, just clarifying my point. I think qualitative rules can be good, quantitave rules usually arn't. Regarding quantum mechanics, for the average guy like myself, the're just a thoughexperiment. I can't say "I'll go with 120% the speed of light for two subjective hours, so I arrive in time for my best friends birthday last week".

 

I like the idea that magic is a fickle and sadistic bitch.

As in you can try to work out rules for it- you can find the most reliable ritual in the world that say, causes flowers to bloom, and repeat it over and over changing little bits here and there to try and work out the minimum and what affects it. But sometimes requirements are needed while other times they're not, and sometimes the exact same methods create larger flowers or change the colour.

And sometimes it makes the flowers transform into eight foot tall plants with large tentacle like branches that blind people with poison before walking off on three roots.

 

I agree with the sentiment but I'm stumbling over 'sadictive'; is it seductive, addictive or sadistic, or has Bellatrix Lestrange truly had that much effect on modern culture as to require her own sniglet?

 

Going by his use of 'fickle' and 'bitch,' I'd say he was going for sadistic.

On that note, I like magic that responds not only to understanding but fortitude as well, strength of mind or character, if you will, and the interrelation between those two factors.

 

There you have it. Internal consistency: "Pet Pleasure."

And, really, it's not too much to ask.

 

Internal consistency isn't really a pet pleasure so much as it is a basic requirement for reality to function...

 

A perfect reality, yes.

♫♪ "...nice work if you can get it. And, if you get it, won't you tell me how?" ♪♫

 

So, should I assume that you never ran across this.