“There is no justice in the laws of Nature [...]. The universe is neither evil nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don’t care, or the Sun, or the sky. But they don’t have to! We care! There is light in the world, and it is us!”
I agree with Dumbledore, and I hope that Eliezer does too.
I’d assume that whatever Eliezer thinks about this story’s universe counts as true within it. But yeah, this does sound like an instance where Dumbledore is supposed to be at least partly correct… though Harry certainly has some points about Dumbledore’s comprehension of himself, too.
Eliezer seems not to have taken that attitude toward what Rowling thinks about her story’s universe: in particular, though JKR clearly believes her characters have immortal souls that go to an afterlife, EY decided that canon-available evidence didn’t support that conclusion.
I like the treatment of souls. I have to review (as someone else remarked) Harry’s conversation with Dumbledore in the train station in his head, but if that passes, then he’s right; the evidence of an afterlife is flimsy.
I’m a little unsure what to think about ghosts. Is this the thing that he states in the Author’s Notes that he had to change? Because it seems to me that ghosts are more than memories; they have complicated interactions with people. (Portraits, on the other hand, have very simple personalities; I can totally buy that they are just memories.)
I don’t think portraits necessarily have simple personalities. They’re portrayed as sort of cartoonish in canon, but in MoR they seem to be more like humans with long-term anterograde amnesia.
I had assumed that ghosts, were the same way, but I realize that’s not at all consistent with canon. They seem to be able to form memories, but not to mature emotionally, as if some aspects of their mind were read-only and others were not. From a certain perspective, the distinction might be taken to fall roughly along code/data lines… which has strange implications for how ghosts are formed if true.
But, if portraits are different from in canon, maybe ghosts are too.
I agree with Dumbledore, and I hope that Eliezer does too. (Not that I agree with Dumbledore in everything, far from it, just this one line.)
On second thought, it seems clear that Eliezer must agree with this line. Because otherwise he could not have made it so obvious to me that Qhzoyrqber unf jnagrq gb qvr sbe fbzr gvzr abj ohg unf ersenvarq bhg bs pbaprea sbe bguref, although Harry doesn’t understand this.
Here I agree with Harry. Well said!
I’d assume that whatever Eliezer thinks about this story’s universe counts as true within it. But yeah, this does sound like an instance where Dumbledore is supposed to be at least partly correct… though Harry certainly has some points about Dumbledore’s comprehension of himself, too.
I wouldn’t, but this disagreement may just come down to the attitude that one takes to works of fiction. (I agree with the rest of what you say.)
Eliezer seems not to have taken that attitude toward what Rowling thinks about her story’s universe: in particular, though JKR clearly believes her characters have immortal souls that go to an afterlife, EY decided that canon-available evidence didn’t support that conclusion.
Yes, exactly.
I like the treatment of souls. I have to review (as someone else remarked) Harry’s conversation with Dumbledore in the train station in his head, but if that passes, then he’s right; the evidence of an afterlife is flimsy.
I’m a little unsure what to think about ghosts. Is this the thing that he states in the Author’s Notes that he had to change? Because it seems to me that ghosts are more than memories; they have complicated interactions with people. (Portraits, on the other hand, have very simple personalities; I can totally buy that they are just memories.)
I don’t think portraits necessarily have simple personalities. They’re portrayed as sort of cartoonish in canon, but in MoR they seem to be more like humans with long-term anterograde amnesia.
I had assumed that ghosts, were the same way, but I realize that’s not at all consistent with canon. They seem to be able to form memories, but not to mature emotionally, as if some aspects of their mind were read-only and others were not. From a certain perspective, the distinction might be taken to fall roughly along code/data lines… which has strange implications for how ghosts are formed if true.
But, if portraits are different from in canon, maybe ghosts are too.
Dang, now I can’t remember where portraits appear in MoR.
Ghosts don’t really, do they? Have we ever actually gotten conversation from a ghost?
When Harry play’s the game, he is given a clue by means of a message passed on through a series of portraits.
Also, they interview portraits to gather genealogical data and lists of old magical creatures.