Could you do me a favor and quote the exact line that made you think this?
DD puts off taking down the man behind WWII in Europe—everybody buys his excuse that it wasn’t possible
I got the impression that in this case “everybody” amounts to Harry and… maybe just Harry. And I’m not sure that Harry bought that excuse so much as didn’t think it worth arguing over at the time.
ETA: Oh, you meant the readers. Well yes, in that case you have a point.
DD tricks Hermione into doing dangerous things by humiliating her—everybody excuses him because he knows what he’s doing
Actually McGonagall did pretty much the opposite of that.
Actually McGonagall did pretty much the opposite of that.
She registered her dissent by not showing up at the Hermione Humiliation Party. She didn’t actually do anything about it—like talk with Hermione and provide emotional guidance and maybe pick up on her Malfoy obsession ahead of time.
And yeah, that would have been helpful. My first reaction to the suggestion was interesting: I thought ‘that’s not really her job, though’ which is true as far as it goes, but raises the question of whose job it is, which raises the further question of why in the world Flitwick is such a nonentity in this story with two Ravenclaw protagonists.
“Could you do me a favor and quote the exact line that made you think this?”
It’s in the Author’s Notes, where he talks about how he wants his readers to figure things out. There were a couple times where he changed things because people kept guessing wrong, too. I don’t know which one exactly made me thing that. It has come up a few times.
Basically, if he didn’t say it, it would be a twist with nothing in it. Lucius hasn’t done anything on his own in the story. He has only ever reacted to things that other characters did. If Lucius told a lie about what DD said, then that would be the only time in the whole story he did anything on his own. It doesn’t fit what EY is doing with Lucius.
Please be clear when you make a request of others. I honestly don’t understand what you’re asking for.
You have an argument about how probable Dumbledore is to have said that he burned Narcissa alive. But in the ancestor post, you’re talking about readers “excusing” that, as if that’s an observation both you and other readers shared, and the other readers merely choose to excuse him for it—instead of just not making the same inference given the observations at hand.
And aren’t you supposed to be linking the Sequences if you’re telling me my contribution isn’t good enough?
I have no problem linking to some sequence when I know there’s actually something relevant and useful there, same way I have no problem linking to some relevant and useful Wikipedia page. Do you have some particular page in the sequences that you think I ought have linked to? If so, you can link it to me.
Or are you in reality complaining that people are linking to the sequences too much for your tastes, and are disguising this as a complain that I did not link to them? If so, I suggest that your tactic of criticizing the people who act like you would like them to act is counterproductive.
I’ve only read a couple. I don’t know what’s out. I just see them being linked and thought it might do a better job of explaining what you were trying to tell me.
Could you do me a favor and quote the exact line that made you think this?
I got the impression that in this case “everybody” amounts to Harry and… maybe just Harry. And I’m not sure that Harry bought that excuse so much as didn’t think it worth arguing over at the time.
ETA: Oh, you meant the readers. Well yes, in that case you have a point.
Actually McGonagall did pretty much the opposite of that.
She registered her dissent by not showing up at the Hermione Humiliation Party. She didn’t actually do anything about it—like talk with Hermione and provide emotional guidance and maybe pick up on her Malfoy obsession ahead of time.
“the opposite of that” as in, not excuse him.
And yeah, that would have been helpful. My first reaction to the suggestion was interesting: I thought ‘that’s not really her job, though’ which is true as far as it goes, but raises the question of whose job it is, which raises the further question of why in the world Flitwick is such a nonentity in this story with two Ravenclaw protagonists.
“Could you do me a favor and quote the exact line that made you think this?”
It’s in the Author’s Notes, where he talks about how he wants his readers to figure things out. There were a couple times where he changed things because people kept guessing wrong, too. I don’t know which one exactly made me thing that. It has come up a few times.
Basically, if he didn’t say it, it would be a twist with nothing in it. Lucius hasn’t done anything on his own in the story. He has only ever reacted to things that other characters did. If Lucius told a lie about what DD said, then that would be the only time in the whole story he did anything on his own. It doesn’t fit what EY is doing with Lucius.
Yeah. I’m talking about the readers.
Please distinguish between observation and inference.
Please be clear when you make a request of others. I honestly don’t understand what you’re asking for.
And aren’t you suppose to be linking the Sequences if you’re telling me my contribution isn’t good enough? Isn’t that how it works?
You have an argument about how probable Dumbledore is to have said that he burned Narcissa alive. But in the ancestor post, you’re talking about readers “excusing” that, as if that’s an observation both you and other readers shared, and the other readers merely choose to excuse him for it—instead of just not making the same inference given the observations at hand.
I have no problem linking to some sequence when I know there’s actually something relevant and useful there, same way I have no problem linking to some relevant and useful Wikipedia page. Do you have some particular page in the sequences that you think I ought have linked to? If so, you can link it to me.
Or are you in reality complaining that people are linking to the sequences too much for your tastes, and are disguising this as a complain that I did not link to them? If so, I suggest that your tactic of criticizing the people who act like you would like them to act is counterproductive.
I’ve only read a couple. I don’t know what’s out. I just see them being linked and thought it might do a better job of explaining what you were trying to tell me.