I also love the optimism. I think that too many people today are overly cynical and pessimistic about what the future will hold and if humanity will destroy itself. I am overjoyed that Harry doesn’t think like that.
LooseTooth55
Karma: 1
I think that it’s a logical error on the part of both Harry and Quirrell to assume that if an afterlife exists then one should immediately kill themselves to achieve it. I understand that it might seem to logically make sense that if there is a better afterlife then one should of course go for the better life, but I think that that assumes too much about an afterlife. For one, Dumbledore never said that the afterlife would be better, only “the next great adventure.” While I understand that the comfort of the afterlife for many is that it will be better than life on earth, I don’t see why it has to be this way in order to be comforting. I enjoy reading new books even if they are worse than ones I’ve finished, and if I find a new book that I like more than one I’ve already read, I don’t regret reading the first book or not switching to the second sooner. There is utility in newness and uniqueness, and I think it is more important to maximize that than sacrifice it in order to “maximize benefit”.
That touches on my next point: if your soul is truly immortal in the afterlife, why hurry to get there? If you can enjoy normal life and possibly find things in it that don’t exist in the afterlife, then you should try to live as long as possible before inevitably moving on, because it isn’t like you are wasting time in the afterlife. If I die at age 10 and live in eternal joy in the afterlife, I’ve in total lived infinite happy years plus 10 normal years. If I die at age 90, I’ve lived infinite happy years plus 90 normal years. It’s actually by living longer and not by dying quickly that I maximize unique experiences and joy (assuming my mortal years contained at least some happiness). Harry says that he wants to experience and discover all life has to offer, but eventually the one experience he’ll lack is death and what lies beyond; just because that experience is permanent doesn’t make it less of an experience.
Ultimately, I agree with Harry that we should be trying to extend our lives as long as we can, but not to escape the destruction of our souls. Rather, we should seek longevity simply to get the most out of life before inevitably moving to a new experience. If I was offered immortality, I’d take it, but only on the condition that one day I could choose to die, because if I couldn’t then in a sense I’d be dead to the afterlife and locked away from whatever joys (and sorrows) it may have, just as if I die I would be locked away from the joys and sorrows of life. Thus I believe the ideal way to live in order to maximize both experiences is to try to live in the normal life as long as possible before finally switching.
Now, this argument only refutes the erroneous argument that believers in an afterlife should kill themselves. If you don’t believe in an afterlife then its easy to see why you would want to live forever, and I don’t blame you (although you wouldn’t be justified in permanently ending anyone else in order to preserve yourself. That’s selfish, hypocritical and evil, which Harry recognizes)
Seriously, the mystery of whether or not Quirrell is evil is one of the most interesting parts of this story in my opinion. I mean, I’m fairly certain he doesn’t have a certain someone (who he apparently hates) on the back of his head, but sometimes his Slytherin really shows...
I understand how the Mendelian magic genetics are proposed to work in HPMOR, and I actually really like the idea of the Mundane gene complex. I think the thing that was getting me was that I took the explanation to be a guess at how magical ability actually works in the Harry Potter universe, which I found highly improbable, as opposed to an explanation as to how they (possibly) work in the HPMOR universe as theorized by Harry, which is absolutely probable because, of course, this is a fan fiction and doesn’t have to be canon. Ultimately my original comment was meant to say that while this theory could work in HPMOR, I don’t believe it is true in canon (although the theory is likely and I can’t prove that it isn’t true).
Also, and I could be wrong about this, but I distinctly remember Seamus saying that his dad was a muggle and his mom was a witch, which should guarantee that Seamus is a Squib (or a muggle).
Either way, I recognize that this is a fan fiction (which I love) and anything can be true.
The one thing that I don’t really understand is the final theory about how magic is related to genetics that Harry and Draco come up with. While I can’t prove anything, it doesn’t make canonical sense that “magic” is carried on one gene. If that were true then there would be no truly Muggleborn wizards; all parents of “Muggleborns” would actually have to be Squibs, yet that seems implausible considering that the vast majority of muggle parents of wizards have no idea that magic exists until their child gets the note. Additionally, there are a lot of half-blood and muggle born wizards in the Harry Potter universe, but Squibs seem to be exceptionally rare, which seems odd considering the fact that any child of one half-blood wizard should have a 50% chance of being a Squib. So while I don’t have empirical, canonical evidence to prove this, I have to believe that the gene-link theory is not what actually controls magical ability in the original books.
File 1 basically explains in a nutshell why characters have to be largely irrational or unintelligent for the story to have any suspense or intrigue; the scientific method is the enemy of all plot twists...
(And I love the “priceless opportunity” line!)
This whole story has been the most convoluted, compelling, and sheerly brilliant way of setting up practically the same “Quirrell-is-Voldemort” reveal as in canon, yet in such a way that I still didn’t truly see it coming and am astounded by its cleverness. Bravo