It is a stretch, which is why it needed to be explained.

And yes, it would kind of make him immune to dying... in cases where he could be accidentally rescued. Cases like a first year student's spell locking a door, which an investigator could easily dispel when trying to investigate.

Oh, and I guess once it was established, the other time travel scenes would have had to be written differently. Or at least clarify that "while Draco's murder plot was flimsy enough that the simplest timeline was the timeline in which it failed, Quirrel's murder plot was bulletproof enough that the simplest outcome was for it to succeed." Because authors write the rules, they can get away with a lot of nonsense. But in this kind of story, they do need to acknowledge and (try to) explain any inconsistencies.

And here's the line I was referring to:

"The earlier experiment had measured whether Transfiguring a long diamond rod into a shorter diamond rod would allow it to lift a suspended heavy weight as it contracted, i.e., could you Transfigure against tension, which you in fact could." (Chapter 28, foreshadowing the nanotube, which may or may not have been what you were talking about)

[ Question ]

[HPMOR] Harry - example or anti-example?

by ndee 1 min read25th Feb 202016 comments


There is one thing that really striked me after reading HPMOR, it's a certain pattern of events that repeats many times.

1) Harry gets into grave trouble due to his self-assurance and indiscretion

2) The author saves Harry using deus ex machina

And this makes me wonder - was Harry intentionally shown as an anti-example of rationality, or it just happened this way?

New Answer
Ask Related Question
New Comment

2 Answers

Chapter 122, paragraph beginning with "And right now, Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres was still a walking catastrophe"... and the stuff immediately preceding and following it. Seems like a pretty direct answer to your question.