Harry Potter and The Oblivious Wizard
David Johnston
cranked up to ten: people can duel demons in the middle of the street
and while humans will be aware something violent is going on they
won't be able to perceived the wings, fangs and firebolts. I was
thinking about how how weird it would be if magical people had the
same kind of mental malfunction so that for example if you turned on
the television, they wouldn't be able to make out an image.
Then I remembered Harry Potter and Mr. Weasly, who is very interested
in mundanes and yet inexplicably ignorant about them...
Ilya2
I think I posted it before: IMO, Mr. Weasly is a joke that got out of
hand. He is not just ignorant about muggles -- he is MORE ignorant
than almost every other wizard we meet (and some are not ignorant at
all), and he is supposed to work with muggles! I think Rowling did
this originally for laughs, and in later books it just got absurd.
Either that, or Mr. Weasly is just exceptionally stupid. Which, come
to think of it, he is. Honorable, honest and hard-working, but not
much in the way of brains.
Robert Carnegie
I disagree. Most wizards in the HP series have nearly zero everyday
contact with Muggles. Some are Muggle-born but learn not to talk
about it much. Dumbledore is open-minded and curious, and many of the
younger wizards that we are shown learn from contact with Harry Potter
- and with Hermione Granger.
It's just that for wizards the Industrial Revolution is still
something that happened to other people. And maybe, something that
bothers me a bit, they go to school to learn a lot of different kinds
of magic, but not geography, English, other modern languages,
mathematics, and history of magic is their only kind of history.
Wizarding is what their race is proudest of and they neglect
everything else. So naturally book one presents one phase of a
security system that any reader of Lewis Carroll or Martin Gardner
would breeze through (except that real readers don't get enough
information to try it, boo), and it'd stop most wizards dead. Maybe
literally.
Robert Carnegie
I think Piers Anthony has some magical characters who don't understand
technology when it appears. And Andre Norton's Witch World... maybe.
And Rick Cook drops a computer programmer into a world where people do
magic but haven't thought of doing it /that/ way. And there's Roger
Zelazny's _Changeling_.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
It was actually a fairly standard mechanic in supernatural horror for
YEARS that you could have poltergeists levitating chairs, vampires
chasing nubile young victims through the halls, werewolves transforming
in front of the security cameras, and several characters still insisting
"But there HAS to be a RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR ALL THIS" even as the
Mummy closed in on them.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Michael Stemper
>On May 28, 3:34=A0pm, Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 5:34=A0pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> > Then I remembered Harry Potter and Mr. Weasly, who is very interested
>> > in mundanes and yet inexplicably ignorant about them...
>>
>> I think I posted it before: IMO, Mr. Weasly is a joke that got out of
>> hand. He is not just ignorant about muggles -- he is MORE ignorant
>> than almost every other wizard we meet (and some are not ignorant at
>> all), and he is supposed to work with muggles! =A0I think Rowling did
>> this originally for laughs, and in later books it just got absurd.
>>
>> Either that, or Mr. Weasly is just exceptionally stupid. Which, come
>> to think of it, he is. Honorable, honest and hard-working, but not
>> much in the way of brains.
>
>I disagree. Most wizards in the HP series have nearly zero everyday
>contact with Muggles.
However, Arthur Weasley's job is in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office,
and he has a self-proclaimed personal interest in Muggles. So, what's
true for most wizards is not true for Arthur Weasley.
Yet, despite personal and professional interests, he doesn't have a
flipping clue about Muggles.
>It's just that for wizards the Industrial Revolution is still
>something that happened to other people. And maybe, something that
>bothers me a bit, they go to school to learn a lot of different kinds
>of magic, but not geography, English, other modern languages,
>mathematics, and history of magic is their only kind of history.
>Wizarding is what their race is proudest of and they neglect
>everything else.
I see some similarities between JKR's wizards and Niven's Thrintun.
In each case, they have this power that gives them easy means to
dominate a wide segment of intelligent beings. This means that there's
less selective pressure for intelligence.
> So naturally book one presents one phase of a
>security system that any reader of Lewis Carroll or Martin Gardner
>would breeze through
I seem to have completely missed this. What security system?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
Cryptoengineer
This really is something that bugged me a lot. A substantial portion
of the wizards started as muggles, up to age 10. They *know* about
cellphones, the internet, etc, etc. Some of our modern tech solutions
are *superior* to the wizarding equivalents (communications tech in
particular). Yet they act like it doesn't exist. I can't recall, but I
think there was an allusion to mundane tech not working well in the
presence of strong magic, but you'd think there'd be some effort to
create workarounds.
As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
many areas.
pt
Ilya2
> YEARS that you could have poltergeists levitating chairs, vampires
> chasing nubile young victims through the halls, werewolves transforming
> in front of the security cameras, and several characters still insisting
> "But there HAS to be a RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR ALL THIS" even as the
> Mummy closed in on them.
Every protagonist in Lovecraft's stories is like that. Sometimes I
want to scream at them "Why can't you accept what you see with your
own eyes at face value?"
But what does this have to do with OP?
Ilya2
Disagree with what? I said *some* are not ignorant about Muggles, but
they are few and far between. Most are fairly ignorant. Arthur Weasly
is the *most* ignorant one we meet (or close), which contradicts his
job.
Ilya2
> advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
> at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
> many areas.
I vaguely recall J.K.Rowling saying that by the time of book 7
wizards' continual hiding from Muggles has become untenable, and the
two worlds must come into contact very soon. But it is (conveniently)
outside the series' timeframe.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
The first Harry Potter book -- one of the protective stages for getting
to the Philosopher's Stone was by Snape, and it involved selecting the
right potion via a logical analysis of clues (unfortunately Rowling
apparently dropped one clue during her writing/editing so you can't
*QUITE* solve it in the book).
Andrew Plotkin
>
> The first Harry Potter book -- one of the protective stages for getting
> to the Philosopher's Stone was by Snape, and it involved selecting the
> right potion via a logical analysis of clues (unfortunately Rowling
> apparently dropped one clue during her writing/editing so you can't
> *QUITE* solve it in the book).
The reader had quite a different logic puzzle to solve in that scene
than the protagonists did. The reader's problem was much harder. (I
didn't manage to solve it, even to the extent that it was solvable.
Whereas in Hermione's place, I would have gotten past the potions
quickly.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
David Johnston
>> � � � � It was actually a fairly standard mechanic in supernatural horror for
My original post was so random and poorly thought out that I don't
care. Let the thread go where it will.
Ilya2
As far as I remember, it is solvable if you can actually SEE the
potion bottles. Since description in the book is incomplete, it is not
solvable. But if you recreate the puzzle completely (which is possible
once Hermione supplied the answer) and present it to someone who had
not read the book, they can solve it.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
>advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
>at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
>many areas.
>
>pt
Like Cogswell's "The Masters" (I think) where psionics turns out
to be a dead end.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>Disagree with what? I said *some* are not ignorant about Muggles, but
>they are few and far between. Most are fairly ignorant. Arthur Weasly
>is the *most* ignorant one we meet (or close), which contradicts his
>job.
OTOH, that pretty much fits with what we know of The Ministry of Magic
that *he* is the one who would get that job..
Remus Shepherd
> On May 28, 12:00?pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > It's just that for wizards the Industrial Revolution is still
> > something that happened to other people.
> This really is something that bugged me a lot. A substantial portion
> of the wizards started as muggles, up to age 10. They *know* about
> cellphones, the internet, etc, etc. Some of our modern tech solutions
> are *superior* to the wizarding equivalents (communications tech in
> particular). Yet they act like it doesn't exist. I can't recall, but I
> think there was an allusion to mundane tech not working well in the
> presence of strong magic, but you'd think there'd be some effort to
> create workarounds.
> As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
> advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
> at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
> many areas.
Maybe tech just doesn't work for the wizards in the HP universe?
Just like Harry Dresden, computers short out when a wizard touches them.
Come to think of it, there's no real reason why the HP universe and
the Dresdenverse can't be the same...
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
William George Ferguson
I think you overstate with 'a substantial portion'. In the 'current'
generation of wizards, we know of only 3 students of Harry's year that were
raised as muggles rather than wizards, Harry, Hermoine, and Dean Thomas.
Hermoine is the only 'muggle-born' student. The only other 'muggle-born
wizards that have any real part in the books is Nymphadora's father, Ted
Tonks, and Harry's mother, Lily. J.K. Rowling has said in interviews that
about a fourth of the first year Hogwarts students are muggle-born, but
there isn't really supporting evidence in the books for the number to be
that high. Certainly a fourth of the Hogwarts students we know of by name
are not muggle-born.
>As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
>advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
>at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
>many areas.
Whether Rowling realizes it or not (I rather think she does), she has very
clearly set up that the reason that the wizards elected to hide from the
non-wizards back in the 13th century was because of fear of the muggles.
Hogwarts (and the village of Hogsmeade) were established as a safe haven
where wizards could live protected from muggle attacks.
Wizards like to assure themselves that they are so much more powerful than
muggles that withdrawing from their knowledge was a way of protecting
muggles, but if you read the passages quoted fro the wizarding history,
it's clear that, before the hiding, muggles had killed wizards, in some
cases entire villages of wizards.
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
Cryptoengineer
wrote:
Hmm.... I do recall that in an early book (not, I think the first),
there was talk of some students putting up posters of football stars,
rather the Quidditch players. One boy's camera is a major plot
element, and I don't think that came from the wizarding world (maybe
that was one of the ones you mentioned, but I don't think so).
The apparent size of Hogwarts suggests that the entire wizarding
population of Britain is a few thousands, at most.
pt
Robert Carnegie
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:09:28 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This really is something that bugged me a lot. A substantial portion
> >of the wizards started as muggles, up to age 10. They *know* about
> >cellphones, the internet, etc, etc. Some of our modern tech solutions
> >are *superior* to the wizarding equivalents (communications tech in
> >particular). Yet they act like it doesn't exist. I can't recall, but I
> >think there was an allusion to mundane tech not working well in the
> >presence of strong magic, but you'd think there'd be some effort to
> >create workarounds.
Only if they understood how semiconductors work in the first place...
I think that's where things break down, although Dumbledore has a way
with street lamps ... but I think that goes for any light source, at
least non-magical(?)
I think it's _Goblet of Fire_ where Harry sees Draco(?) apparently
talking into a two-way radio and is told that that stuff doesn't work
near magic - I think the setting is somewhere in the 1990s, but if you
try to match dates and days of the week, you may have to conclude that
wizards use a different calendar to modern Muggles with the same day
and date names. The Julian perhaps... Or otherwise, this stuff
DELIBERATELY doesn't match, to tweak the nose of people who try to
work it out.
> I think you overstate with 'a substantial portion'. In the 'current'
> generation of wizards, we know of only 3 students of Harry's year that were
> raised as muggles rather than wizards, Harry, Hermoine, and Dean Thomas.
> Hermoine is the only 'muggle-born' student. The only other 'muggle-born
> wizards that have any real part in the books is Nymphadora's father, Ted
> Tonks, and Harry's mother, Lily. J.K. Rowling has said in interviews that
> about a fourth of the first year Hogwarts students are muggle-born, but
> there isn't really supporting evidence in the books for the number to be
> that high. Certainly a fourth of the Hogwarts students we know of by name
> are not muggle-born.
>
> >As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
> >advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
> >at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
> >many areas.
>
> Whether Rowling realizes it or not (I rather think she does), she has very
> clearly set up that the reason that the wizards elected to hide from the
> non-wizards back in the 13th century was because of fear of the muggles.
> Hogwarts (and the village of Hogsmeade) were established as a safe haven
> where wizards could live protected from muggle attacks.
>
> Wizards like to assure themselves that they are so much more powerful than
> muggles that withdrawing from their knowledge was a way of protecting
> muggles, but if you read the passages quoted fro the wizarding history,
> it's clear that, before the hiding, muggles had killed wizards, in some
> cases entire villages of wizards.
The alternatives to avoiding mugglekind are to enslave or slaughter
them, and at the time, maybe that wasn't acceptable.
Out-of-story, the reason for the wizarding community hiding themselves
and certain magical assets such as dragons (probably for practical
value rather than high-minded conservation) is so that Britain can
look almost exactly as it really does now-ish despite there being
wizards and witches all over the place.
Also, wizards couldn't stand what we all said about their colour sense.
Christopher Henrich
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article
> <0a518c16-ef54-4280...@q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
> >advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
> >at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
> >many areas.
> >
> >pt
>
> Like Cogswell's "The Masters" (I think) where psionics turns out
> to be a dead end.
I think it is more likely to be "Limiting Factor", also by Cogswell; I
remember a story with that theme from _Galaxy_ in about 1954.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Christopher Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>In article <86aegg...@mid.individual.net>,
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <0a518c16-ef54-4280...@q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
>> >advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
>> >at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
>> >many areas.
>> >
>> >pt
>>
>> Like Cogswell's "The Masters" (I think) where psionics turns out
>> to be a dead end.
>
>I think it is more likely to be "Limiting Factor", also by Cogswell; I
>remember a story with that theme from _Galaxy_ in about 1954.
>
>--
>Christopher J. Henrich
Could be. I remember the author, but I was pulling a likely title from ISFDB
Ted
Robert Carnegie
> In article <18711f5d-958f-40c9...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
> >On May 28, 3:34=A0pm, Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> On May 27, 5:34=A0pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Then I remembered Harry Potter and Mr. Weasly, who is very interested
> >> > in mundanes and yet inexplicably ignorant about them...
> >>
> >> I think I posted it before: IMO, Mr. Weasly is a joke that got out of
> >> hand. He is not just ignorant about muggles -- he is MORE ignorant
> >> than almost every other wizard we meet (and some are not ignorant at
> >> all), and he is supposed to work with muggles! =A0I think Rowling did
> >> this originally for laughs, and in later books it just got absurd.
> >>
> >> Either that, or Mr. Weasly is just exceptionally stupid. Which, come
> >> to think of it, he is. Honorable, honest and hard-working, but not
> >> much in the way of brains.
> >
> >I disagree. Most wizards in the HP series have nearly zero everyday
> >contact with Muggles.
>
> However, Arthur Weasley's job is in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office,
> and he has a self-proclaimed personal interest in Muggles. So, what's
> true for most wizards is not true for Arthur Weasley.
>
> Yet, despite personal and professional interests, he doesn't have a
> flipping clue about Muggles.
Well, none of the wizards understand us. Contact with Muggles is
strictly limited. Muggle property is contraband. Enforcing that is
Arthur's job, like something out of _1984_. And we're so
fundamentally /alien/.
And if he ever does meet us, we've probably just been enchanted and
badly shocked, and /then/ he has to Men-In-Black us into forgetting
the thing.
Robert Carnegie
Would that help? In a Lovecraft story?
Heck, even Gulliver's Travels ends with the protagonist not doubting
his experiences... but barely able to tolerate living with human
beings in England, preferring to talk to horses - "curry favour" is
the phrase that comes to mind.
Even in the United States, a rational explanation for the appearance
of spooky events isn't /very/ likely to include "Somebody/something's
going to kill you." It's more likely to be a relatiively harmless
prank.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:7e958be0-a488-41de...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.
com:
> Ilya2 wrote:
>> > � � � � It was actually a fairly standard mechanic in
>> > supernatu
> ral horror for
>> > YEARS that you could have poltergeists levitating chairs,
>> > vampires chasing nubile young victims through the halls,
>> > werewolves transforming in front of the security cameras, and
>> > several characters still insistin
> g
>> > "But there HAS to be a RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR ALL THIS"
>> > even as the Mummy closed in on them.
>>
>> Every protagonist in Lovecraft's stories is like that.
>> Sometimes I want to scream at them "Why can't you accept what
>> you see with your own eyes at face value?"
>
> Would that help? In a Lovecraft story?
Help, no, but it would certain make the stories less likely to
invoke the Eight Deadly Words.
>
> Heck, even Gulliver's Travels ends with the protagonist not
> doubting his experiences... but barely able to tolerate living
> with human beings in England, preferring to talk to horses -
> "curry favour" is the phrase that comes to mind.
>
> Even in the United States, a rational explanation for the
> appearance of spooky events isn't /very/ likely to include
> "Somebody/something's going to kill you." It's more likely to
> be a relatiively harmless prank.
>
But in the United States, in real life, the spooky events of the
typical horror movie *won't* kill you, ever, no matter how many
ghosts you see. Comparing it to real life is an invalid comparison,
because in the movies, the spooky beasties *are* real.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Nate Edel
> As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
> advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
> at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
> many areas.
I really, really want to read a fanfic where Harry Potter ends the way
(Bakshi's) Wizards did. I don't see much reason to believe that Voldie
would have been hip to muggle weaponry.
Like "Fleetlord Atvar during the Cuban Missile Crisis," I may just have to
write it myself one of these days.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
>> advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
>> at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
>> many areas.
>
> I really, really want to read a fanfic where Harry Potter ends the way
> (Bakshi's) Wizards did.
I did that several years ago. "Oh, and Voldemort? I'm glad you changed
your name, you son of a bitch!"
Robert Bannister
Are we really talking about intelligence or simply a perception gap
between imagination and reality? Weasly seems to me very similar to a
large number of highly intelligent, bumbling public servants and, even
more so, to a certain type of university lecturer.
I suspect this character type is more or less extinct nowadays, but is
still much beloved in English English literature.
--
Rob Bannister
Cryptoengineer
> William George Ferguson wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:09:28 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer
> > <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >This really is something that bugged me a lot. A substantial portion
> > >of the wizards started as muggles, up to age 10. They *know* about
> > >cellphones, the internet, etc, etc. Some of our modern tech solutions
> > >are *superior* to the wizarding equivalents (communications tech in
> > >particular). Yet they act like it doesn't exist. I can't recall, but I
> > >think there was an allusion to mundane tech not working well in the
> > >presence of strong magic, but you'd think there'd be some effort to
> > >create workarounds.
>
> Only if they understood how semiconductors work in the first place...
> I think that's where things break down, although Dumbledore has a way
> with street lamps ... but I think that goes for any light source, at
> least non-magical(?)
Since magical folk can walk through modern London without every
electronics-using device - cars, phones, etc cutting out, either the
radius of the effect is very small, or it can be supressed.
On the flip side, most firearms make no use whatever of electronics -
just physics and chemistry. A field that can specifically stop guns
from firing without messing up a lot of other chemical processes -
including biological ones - strains my WSOD past the breaking point.
We've already seen that wizards are quite vulnerable to physical
attacks and accidents.
I'm curious how a wizard would defend against a sniper, not knowing
if, when, or where he'd be a target.
The simple answer of course, is that Rowling would invent something
out of whole cloth as a defense, and then we'd be left wondering why
it never appeared in any of the previous books in places where it
would have been really, really, useful.
Lets face it: The Potterverse is badly constructed.
pt
pt
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
They've specifically said that firearms won't work in designated areas.
Your WSOD is straining for no reason; magic isn't playing your "chemical
processes" game, it's playing the "define the uses" game. If you're
burning chemicals to live, no problem. Burning chemicals to propel a
steel-jacketed projectile -- no way.
>
> I'm curious how a wizard would defend against a sniper, not knowing
> if, when, or where he'd be a target.
He wouldn't. Though YOU would have to know you wanted to shoot him in
the first place. If you don't know they exist, you won't shoot at them.
>
> The simple answer of course, is that Rowling would invent something
> out of whole cloth as a defense, and then we'd be left wondering why
> it never appeared in any of the previous books in places where it
> would have been really, really, useful.
>
> Lets face it: The Potterverse is badly constructed.
It's well constructed for its purpose. She wasn't doing a "construct
logical world" job. It's like asking about Narnia, the way Tim B. does,
with logical analyses of who, what, and why, when Narnia wasn't being
designed to be a consistent roleplayer's paradise, but a child's version
of the Biblical mythos for an alternative world.
Howard Brazee
>This really is something that bugged me a lot. A substantial portion
>of the wizards started as muggles, up to age 10. They *know* about
>cellphones, the internet, etc, etc. Some of our modern tech solutions
>are *superior* to the wizarding equivalents (communications tech in
>particular). Yet they act like it doesn't exist. I can't recall, but I
>think there was an allusion to mundane tech not working well in the
>presence of strong magic, but you'd think there'd be some effort to
>create workarounds.
They appear to have contact with Muggle clothing styles, Muggle
trains, Muggle train stations, Muggle automobiles, and Muggle accents.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Michael Ikeda
news:ffd0d4c3-6480-436b...@f13g2000vbm.googlegroups.
com:
> On May 28, 1:27�pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> � � � � The first Harry Potter book -- one of the protective
>> stag
> es for getting
>> to the Philosopher's Stone was by Snape, and it involved
>> selecting the right potion via a logical analysis of clues
>> (unfortunately Rowling apparently dropped one clue during her
>> writing/editing so you can't *QUITE* solve it in the book).
>
> As far as I remember, it is solvable if you can actually SEE the
> potion bottles. Since description in the book is incomplete, it
> is not solvable. But if you recreate the puzzle completely
> (which is possible once Hermione supplied the answer) and
> present it to someone who had not read the book, they can solve
> it.
From my recollection, based on the written description alone one can
work out that the correct bottle must be in one of two positions.
Which position it is depends on the relative sizes of the bottles.
Which is clearly something that can be seen by someone who is
actually viewing the puzzle.
William George Ferguson
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 28, 3:04�pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> I think you overstate with 'a substantial portion'. �In the 'current'
>> generation of wizards, we know of only 3 students of Harry's year that were
>> raised as muggles rather than wizards, Harry, Hermoine, and Dean Thomas.
>> Hermoine is the only 'muggle-born' student. �The only other 'muggle-born
>> wizards that have any real part in the books is Nymphadora's father, Ted
>> Tonks, and Harry's mother, Lily. �J.K. Rowling has said in interviews that
>> about a fourth of the first year Hogwarts students are muggle-born, but
>> there isn't really supporting evidence in the books for the number to be
>> that high. �Certainly a fourth of the Hogwarts students we know of by name
>> are not muggle-born.
>>
>> >As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
>> >advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
>> >at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
>> >many areas.
>>
>> Whether Rowling realizes it or not (I rather think she does), she has very
>> clearly set up that the reason that the wizards elected to hide from the
>> non-wizards back in the 13th century was because of fear of the muggles.
>> Hogwarts (and the village of Hogsmeade) were established as a safe haven
>
>Hmm.... I do recall that in an early book (not, I think the first),
>there was talk of some students putting up posters of football stars,
>rather the Quidditch players. One boy's camera is a major plot
>element, and I don't think that came from the wizarding world (maybe
>that was one of the ones you mentioned, but I don't think so).
Dean Thomas was the one putting up football posters. He also had a lot of
problems (Rowling, as the saying goes, hanging a lantern on it) with the
silline... intricacies of quidditch rules, coming from a football fan
background.
>The apparent size of Hogwarts suggests that the entire wizarding
>population of Britain is a few thousands, at most.
Rowling tries to give herself wriggle room by establishing (in a later book
and in interviews) that not all British wizard students go to Hogwarts,
many are home-schooled. If even half weren't sent to Hogwarts, that would
raise the population from a few thousand to, well, a few more thousand. In
any case, it's apparently a ratio of at least a couple of hundred to one.
While all wizards that can seem to use magic on a regular basis (if they
have a wand), most of them are not what would call 'powerful'. A wizard
powerful enough to not only master virtually any spell they desire to, but
create their own new spells, like Hermoine Grainger or Molly Weasley (and
her incredibly talented children not named Ron) are rare.
Given that, even medieval muggles were likely a severe danger to all but
the most powerful wizards, if they knew what they were going up against (us
muggles are extremely good at figuring out ways to kill things that scare
us).
Howard Brazee
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Are we really talking about intelligence or simply a perception gap
>between imagination and reality? Weasly seems to me very similar to a
>large number of highly intelligent, bumbling public servants and, even
>more so, to a certain type of university lecturer.
And he's not nearly the least believable character in her novels.
David DeLaney
>Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> Since magical folk can walk through modern London without every
>> electronics-using device - cars, phones, etc cutting out, either the
>> radius of the effect is very small, or it can be supressed.
>>
>> On the flip side, most firearms make no use whatever of electronics -
>> just physics and chemistry. A field that can specifically stop guns
>> from firing without messing up a lot of other chemical processes -
>> including biological ones - strains my WSOD past the breaking point.
>> We've already seen that wizards are quite vulnerable to physical
>> attacks and accidents.
>
> They've specifically said that firearms won't work in designated areas.
>Your WSOD is straining for no reason; magic isn't playing your "chemical
>processes" game, it's playing the "define the uses" game. If you're
>burning chemicals to live, no problem. Burning chemicals to propel a
>steel-jacketed projectile -- no way.
Which also explains the objection prior to that; the magical folk aren't
trying to USE the electronics-using devices around them, they're just walking
past them. (Now whether they can get automatic-door-opening-lasers to work
by walking up to them, that's a different question all together.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Leif Roar Moldskred
Which doesn't make any sense considering that there are enough
muggle-born wizards around to cause class tension and societal
unrest.
Rowling's world is a lot of fun, but internally consistent it
is not.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Got wand?
Nate Edel
> > Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
> >> advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
> >> at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
> >> many areas.
> >
> > I really, really want to read a fanfic where Harry Potter ends the way
> > (Bakshi's) Wizards did.
>
> I did that several years ago. "Oh, and Voldemort? I'm glad you changed
> your name, you son of a bitch!"
Awsome. Is that webbed somewhere where I can read it?
James Nicoll
Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@huldreheim.homelinux.org> wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, none of the wizards understand us.
>
>Which doesn't make any sense considering that there are enough
>muggle-born wizards around to cause class tension and societal
>unrest.
>
>Rowling's world is a lot of fun, but internally consistent it
>is not.
The Shadows of the Apt world divides its population into the Apt
(can understand and use machines, hopeless with magic) and their
former masters, the Inapt (can understand and use magic, can't
work even simple machines). The Apt tend to be peculiarly skeptical
about magic, given that it was used to rule them until about 500
years ago when an Apt invented the crossbow, while the Inapt have
to admit machines exist but can't even learn to - and this is
an actual example - open doors.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Andrew Plotkin
>
> The Shadows of the Apt world divides its population into the Apt
> (can understand and use machines, hopeless with magic) and their
> former masters, the Inapt (can understand and use magic, can't
> work even simple machines). The Apt tend to be peculiarly skeptical
> about magic, given that it was used to rule them until about 500
> years ago when an Apt invented the crossbow, while the Inapt have
> to admit machines exist but can't even learn to - and this is
> an actual example - open doors.
This is a cat metaphor, isn't it.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Szymon Sokół
> Here, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Shadows of the Apt world divides its population into the Apt
>> (can understand and use machines, hopeless with magic) and their
>> former masters, the Inapt (can understand and use magic, can't
>> work even simple machines). The Apt tend to be peculiarly skeptical
>> about magic, given that it was used to rule them until about 500
>> years ago when an Apt invented the crossbow, while the Inapt have
>> to admit machines exist but can't even learn to - and this is
>> an actual example - open doors.
>
> This is a cat metaphor, isn't it.
Cats learn to open doors, at least some cats. My aunt's cats even cooperate
- one of them jumps onto the doorhandle and pulls it with his weight, while
the other pushes the door.
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
David Goldfarb
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I think it's _Goblet of Fire_ where Harry sees Draco(?) apparently
>talking into a two-way radio and is told that that stuff doesn't work
>near magic - I think the setting is somewhere in the 1990s, but if you
>try to match dates and days of the week, you may have to conclude that
>wizards use a different calendar to modern Muggles with the same day
>and date names.
_Chamber of Secrets_ gives us a date reference to 1992. Harry therefore
was born on July 31, 1980; other dates can be worked out from there.
(Harry's parents died awfully young...they can't have been older than
their early 20s, maybe as young as 20 or 21.)
--
David Goldfarb |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "It's flabby and delicious."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
Leif Roar Moldskred
> while the Inapt have
> to admit machines exist but can't even learn to - and this is
> an actual example - open doors.
So _that's_ why vampires can't enter unless they're invited!
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Mike Ash
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article
> <b0a61ef0-f95e-4b9c...@v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >I think it's _Goblet of Fire_ where Harry sees Draco(?) apparently
> >talking into a two-way radio and is told that that stuff doesn't work
> >near magic - I think the setting is somewhere in the 1990s, but if you
> >try to match dates and days of the week, you may have to conclude that
> >wizards use a different calendar to modern Muggles with the same day
> >and date names.
>
> _Chamber of Secrets_ gives us a date reference to 1992. Harry therefore
> was born on July 31, 1980; other dates can be worked out from there.
> (Harry's parents died awfully young...they can't have been older than
> their early 20s, maybe as young as 20 or 21.)
I can't believe I made it this long without anyone ever telling me that
Harry Potter was born one day after me.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Howard Brazee
<szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote:
>Cats learn to open doors, at least some cats. My aunt's cats even cooperate
>- one of them jumps onto the doorhandle and pulls it with his weight, while
>the other pushes the door.
We had a cat that rang the doorbell. It sufficed.
noRm d. plumBeR
>On May 27, 5:34�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> I was actually reading City of Bones in which mortal obliviousness is
>> cranked up to ten: �people can duel demons in the middle of the street
>> and while humans will be aware something violent is going on they
>> won't be able to perceived the wings, fangs and firebolts. �I was
>> thinking about how how weird it would be if magical people had the
>> same kind of mental malfunction so that for example if you turned on
>> the television, they wouldn't be able to make out an image.
>>
>> Then I remembered Harry Potter and Mr. Weasly, who is very interested
>> in mundanes and yet inexplicably ignorant about them...
>
>I think I posted it before: IMO, Mr. Weasly is a joke that got out of
>hand. He is not just ignorant about muggles -- he is MORE ignorant
>than almost every other wizard we meet (and some are not ignorant at
>all), and he is supposed to work with muggles! I think Rowling did
>this originally for laughs, and in later books it just got absurd.
>
>Either that, or Mr. Weasly is just exceptionally stupid. Which, come
>to think of it, he is. Honorable, honest and hard-working, but not
>much in the way of brains.
I might see it a bit differently. I see it as there being two
viewpoints, one which gives rise to the muggles' technology, the other
which gives rise to the wizarding world. I see it more as a
left-brain/muggles and right-brain/wizarding set of points of view.
Mr Weasly seems to me very much of the right-brain/wizarding
orientation, and although he is interested in the left-brain/muggles
technological viewpoint, he just can't quite get it, he looks and
looks but he just can't see the sense of it.
There's a similar orientation between men and women, men fix cars and
women just want to make them go, women talk about emotions and...
well, stuff, which I don't get because my head works the other way.
In other words, I don't think it's a matter of oblivious wizards any
more than it's a matter of mechanically incompetent women, it's just a
difference in how people think.
--
"Vengeance is mine" saith Montezuma
noRm d. plumBeR
>Michael Stemper wrote:
>> In article <18711f5d-958f-40c9...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>> On May 28, 3:34=A0pm, Ilya2 <il...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 27, 5:34=A0pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Then I remembered Harry Potter and Mr. Weasly, who is very interested
>>>>> in mundanes and yet inexplicably ignorant about them...
>>>> I think I posted it before: IMO, Mr. Weasly is a joke that got out of
>>>> hand. He is not just ignorant about muggles -- he is MORE ignorant
>>>> than almost every other wizard we meet (and some are not ignorant at
>>>> all), and he is supposed to work with muggles! =A0I think Rowling did
>>>> this originally for laughs, and in later books it just got absurd.
>>>>
>>>> Either that, or Mr. Weasly is just exceptionally stupid. Which, come
>>>> to think of it, he is. Honorable, honest and hard-working, but not
>>>> much in the way of brains.
>>> I disagree. Most wizards in the HP series have nearly zero everyday
>>> contact with Muggles.
>>
>> However, Arthur Weasley's job is in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office,
>> and he has a self-proclaimed personal interest in Muggles. So, what's
>> true for most wizards is not true for Arthur Weasley.
>>
>> Yet, despite personal and professional interests, he doesn't have a
>> flipping clue about Muggles.
>>
>>> It's just that for wizards the Industrial Revolution is still
>>> something that happened to other people. And maybe, something that
>>> bothers me a bit, they go to school to learn a lot of different kinds
>>> of magic, but not geography, English, other modern languages,
>>> mathematics, and history of magic is their only kind of history.
>>> Wizarding is what their race is proudest of and they neglect
>>> everything else.
>>
>> I see some similarities between JKR's wizards and Niven's Thrintun.
>> In each case, they have this power that gives them easy means to
>> dominate a wide segment of intelligent beings. This means that there's
>> less selective pressure for intelligence.
>>
>>> So naturally book one presents one phase of a
>>> security system that any reader of Lewis Carroll or Martin Gardner
>>> would breeze through
>>
>> I seem to have completely missed this. What security system?
>>
>
> The first Harry Potter book -- one of the protective stages for getting
>to the Philosopher's Stone was by Snape, and it involved selecting the
>right potion via a logical analysis of clues (unfortunately Rowling
>apparently dropped one clue during her writing/editing so you can't
>*QUITE* solve it in the book).
Yeahbut if all the clues were given we'd find that it doesn't really
work and our WSOD would be busted all to hell.
noRm d. plumBeR
>Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 12:00?pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> > It's just that for wizards the Industrial Revolution is still
>> > something that happened to other people.
>
>> This really is something that bugged me a lot. A substantial portion
>> of the wizards started as muggles, up to age 10. They *know* about
>> cellphones, the internet, etc, etc. Some of our modern tech solutions
>> are *superior* to the wizarding equivalents (communications tech in
>> particular). Yet they act like it doesn't exist. I can't recall, but I
>> think there was an allusion to mundane tech not working well in the
>> presence of strong magic, but you'd think there'd be some effort to
>> create workarounds.
>
>> As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
>> advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
>> at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
>> many areas.
>
> Maybe tech just doesn't work for the wizards in the HP universe?
>Just like Harry Dresden, computers short out when a wizard touches them.
>
> Come to think of it, there's no real reason why the HP universe and
>the Dresdenverse can't be the same...
Maybe the methods of thinking that allow wizardry, and the methods of
thinking that allow technology to be used, are mutually exclusive.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Nate Edel wrote:
>>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As it is, even allowing for research wizarding, the mundanes are
>>>> advancing far faster than the wizarding world; in the books, they are
>>>> at near parity in capabilities, and are starting to outstrip them in
>>>> many areas.
>>> I really, really want to read a fanfic where Harry Potter ends the way
>>> (Bakshi's) Wizards did.
>> I did that several years ago. "Oh, and Voldemort? I'm glad you changed
>> your name, you son of a bitch!"
>
> Awsome. Is that webbed somewhere where I can read it?
>
It wasn't really much more than that, unfortunately. Writing the entire
lead-up wouldn't be worth the effort to repeat Bakshi's trick ending.
In the Harry Potter campaign I'm running now, it's quite possible that
something like that will be the endgame, since the new PCs and NPCs
rather change the dynamics; when you have Jade Chan, Hadji Quest, and
Wednesday Addams as classmates, you have new options.
James Nicoll
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Shadows of the Apt world divides its population into the Apt
>> (can understand and use machines, hopeless with magic) and their
>> former masters, the Inapt (can understand and use magic, can't
>> work even simple machines). The Apt tend to be peculiarly skeptical
>> about magic, given that it was used to rule them until about 500
>> years ago when an Apt invented the crossbow, while the Inapt have
>> to admit machines exist but can't even learn to - and this is
>> an actual example - open doors.
>
>This is a cat metaphor, isn't it.
>
Insects, yes. Boy, does he like insects.
noRm d. plumBeR
Have you read _The_Golden_People_, Fred Saberhagen's first novel? In
it there is a toroidal field surrounding a planet. Mechanical devices
including electricity only work at the "stem" areas that are not fully
enclosed by the toroidal field.
But aside from that, there *is* a way, in terms of a "rule" that would
allow burning chemicals for warmth but not for harm; but it has to do
with... no word for it, "rightness" divorced from morality -- right
action allowed, other actions boomerang.
>> I'm curious how a wizard would defend against a sniper, not knowing
>> if, when, or where he'd be a target.
>
> He wouldn't. Though YOU would have to know you wanted to shoot him in
>the first place. If you don't know they exist, you won't shoot at them.
>
>>
>> The simple answer of course, is that Rowling would invent something
>> out of whole cloth as a defense, and then we'd be left wondering why
>> it never appeared in any of the previous books in places where it
>> would have been really, really, useful.
>>
>> Lets face it: The Potterverse is badly constructed.
>
> It's well constructed for its purpose. She wasn't doing a "construct
>logical world" job. It's like asking about Narnia, the way Tim B. does,
>with logical analyses of who, what, and why, when Narnia wasn't being
>designed to be a consistent roleplayer's paradise, but a child's version
>of the Biblical mythos for an alternative world.
I'm not even sure she designed it at all, I suspect there may have
been no conscious worldbuilding at all and that she just let the pen
move so to speak. She might've said, or not.
Cryptoengineer
You're point about being like Tim B. is well taken. In TVTropes.org
jargon, you're citing Bellasario's Maxim, and (aptly) A Wizard Did It,
while I'm invoking Moff's Law. I could go into edge cases - air rifles
(yes, sniper versions exist; they're quiet), crossbows, regular bows,
etc. Fatal physical injury is a possibility even in Hogwarts.
Even the most arbitrary of rules don't break my WSOD if they are
explained and the obvious objections dealt with, and they are used in
a consistant manner. But when an author is internally inconsistent,
without explanation, that does. The most obvious example in the
Potterverse is the Imperius Curse. This is introduced in book 4, but
it's difficult to explain the plots of the earlier books in a universe
where everyone (except some of the students), most definitely the Bad
Guys, know about it. Ditto for PortKeys - there are so many ways an
intelligent wizard could have used them in the early books.
Rowling made things up as she went, and slipped several times in
keeping the Potterverse backwards compatible.
> > I'm curious how a wizard would defend against a sniper, not knowing
> > if, when, or where he'd be a target.
>
> He wouldn't. Though YOU would have to know you wanted to shoot him in
> the first place. If you don't know they exist, you won't shoot at them.
I'm thinking more of the use of superior muggle tech by wizards. Ref:
"What Good is a Glass Dagger?" by Niven. .
> > Lets face it: The Potterverse is badly constructed.
>
> It's well constructed for its purpose. She wasn't doing a "construct
> logical world" job. It's like asking about Narnia, the way Tim B. does,
> with logical analyses of who, what, and why, when Narnia wasn't being
> designed to be a consistent roleplayer's paradise, but a child's version
> of the Biblical mythos for an alternative world.
For some people, internal failures of logic and Idiot Plots leap out
at us, and make it difficult to enjoy the work. This is less of a
problem with movies, where that probably doesn't happen until after
the work is finished.
pt
Cryptoengineer
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Cryptoengineer wrote:
> >> Since magical folk can walk through modern London without every
> >> electronics-using device - cars, phones, etc cutting out, either the
> >> radius of the effect is very small, or it can be supressed.
>
> >> On the flip side, most firearms make no use whatever of electronics -
> >> just physics and chemistry. A field that can specifically stop guns
> >> from firing without messing up a lot of other chemical processes -
> >> including biological ones - strains my WSOD past the breaking point.
> >> We've already seen that wizards are quite vulnerable to physical
> >> attacks and accidents.
>
> > They've specifically said that firearms won't work in designated areas.
> >Your WSOD is straining for no reason; magic isn't playing your "chemical
> >processes" game, it's playing the "define the uses" game. If you're
> >burning chemicals to live, no problem. Burning chemicals to propel a
> >steel-jacketed projectile -- no way.
>
> Which also explains the objection prior to that; the magical folk aren't
> trying to USE the electronics-using devices around them, they're just walking
> past them. (Now whether they can get automatic-door-opening-lasers to work
> by walking up to them, that's a different question all together.)
I'm pretty surprised they haven't found work-arounds though, for
example hiring some muggles or using 'Squibs' (offspring of wizarding
families that can't do magic) as sort-of "Shabbos Goys", to handle the
muggle tech when needed.
pt
Robert Sneddon
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes
> In the Harry Potter campaign I'm running now, it's quite
>possible that something like that will be the endgame, since the new
>PCs and NPCs rather change the dynamics; when you have Jade Chan,
>Hadji Quest, and Wednesday Addams as classmates, you have new options.
Don't suppose you've got space in the class for a tenkousei name of
Suzumiya Haruhi, do you?
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Gene Wirchenko
<le...@huldreheim.homelinux.org> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> while the Inapt have
>> to admit machines exist but can't even learn to - and this is
>> an actual example - open doors.
>
>So _that's_ why vampires can't enter unless they're invited!
And the turning to mist bit is because they have trouble opening
coffins.
I think one more explanation in this line and we can have a new
fantasy series.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
David Johnston
Well...it isn't needed. While Muggle technology is getting closer to
wizard technology, it isn't actually better in any significant way
except in weapons systems.
David Johnston
>> > On the flip side, most firearms make no use whatever of electronics -
>> > just physics and chemistry. A field that can specifically stop guns
>> > from firing without messing up a lot of other chemical processes -
>> > including biological ones - strains my WSOD past the breaking point.
In fact the Potterverse has no such field. The antitech field
apparently just messes up electronics and current flow. But I don't
see any reason why a field that slows down explosions would
necessarily mess up other chemical processes.
David DeLaney
>Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Maybe tech just doesn't work for the wizards in the HP universe?
>>Just like Harry Dresden, computers short out when a wizard touches them.
>>
>> Come to think of it, there's no real reason why the HP universe and
>>the Dresdenverse can't be the same...
>
>Maybe the methods of thinking that allow wizardry, and the methods of
>thinking that allow technology to be used, are mutually exclusive.
ObSF: _The Morphodite_, M.A. Foster.
Dave "not involving ACTUAL magic, but the thinks-differently part is there in
spades" DeLaney
Gene Wirchenko
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
[snip]
> In the Harry Potter campaign I'm running now, it's quite possible that
>something like that will be the endgame, since the new PCs and NPCs
>rather change the dynamics; when you have Jade Chan, Hadji Quest, and
>Wednesday Addams as classmates, you have new options.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...he wrote in very quiet understatement.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In message <htr5er$hcn$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes
>
>> In the Harry Potter campaign I'm running now, it's quite
>> possible that something like that will be the endgame, since the new
>> PCs and NPCs rather change the dynamics; when you have Jade Chan,
>> Hadji Quest, and Wednesday Addams as classmates, you have new options.
>
> Don't suppose you've got space in the class for a tenkousei name of
> Suzumiya Haruhi, do you?
She's too melancholy, baby.:)
Besides, I doubt you're near enough to do the commute.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Indeed!
noRm d. plumBeR
>noRm d. plumBeR <se...@money.com> wrote:
>>Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe tech just doesn't work for the wizards in the HP universe?
>>>Just like Harry Dresden, computers short out when a wizard touches them.
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, there's no real reason why the HP universe and
>>>the Dresdenverse can't be the same...
>>
>>Maybe the methods of thinking that allow wizardry, and the methods of
>>thinking that allow technology to be used, are mutually exclusive.
>
>ObSF: _The Morphodite_, M.A. Foster.
Sounds like a sci-fi takeoff from the Merlin legend. Don't recall
having heard of the author before.
>Dave "not involving ACTUAL magic, but the thinks-differently part is there in
> spades" DeLaney
I think that if bookstores organized fiction by title instead of
author they would sell more books. They'd certainly sell more books
to me, I can remember titles more easily than authors. Organize by
subject matter and I'd find even more to buy. As it is, you have to
be some kind of author-groupie, carry around a list of titles/authors,
or luck out and find a book displayed face-on with an interesting
cover. That crap they print on the spines is never readable, only
fancy fonts need apply. </rant>
noRm d. plumBeR
If they can kill you it doesn't much matter what your repertoire of
party tricks consists of does it?
noRm d. plumBeR
>Rowling made things up as she went, and slipped several times in
>keeping the Potterverse backwards compatible.
I for one won't fault her for that, as I remember the story she was
unemployed and living off the dole and the Harry Potter book was a
wild shot at something resembling survival; pretty good shootin', too.
Robert Carnegie
Or, the wizards don't think it is.
To touch on a couple of other points: we could guess that the
technology-disrupting effect of magic takes a minute or so of exposure
to kick in, although Steve Jobs is still regretting his clever idea of
trying to sell Muggles a slightly magical mobile phone, and it's made
clear that wizards, and presumably most other magical beings, are very
tough as far as simple physical assault goes. Quidditch accidents are
described that typically would be fatal in real life, and Neville
Longbottom is proved magic when his Great-Uncle Algie pushes him out
of an upstairs window, and he bounces instead of splatting. So much
for physical attacks. Algie also gave Neville the plant that
repeatedly spits unpleasant stuff all over him and his fellow
students, and I sort of expected him to turn up in the legions of evil
at the end. But maybe he was under the mind-control curse whose name
I've forgotten again, each time.
As for the Unforgivable Curses, those are outlawed magic according to
what we're told, at least on human beings, but that may not be a
constant rule; certainly, after lawful authority breaks down, Harry
Potter himself is shown slinging them around pretty freely.
Robert Carnegie
> But aside from that, there *is* a way, in terms of a "rule" that would
> allow burning chemicals for warmth but not for harm; but it has to do
> with... no word for it, "rightness" divorced from morality -- right
> action allowed, other actions boomerang.
I forget the details, but there's something like, if you light a match
or a candle or taper in microgravity, it goes out, because it exhausts
its oxygen supply. So something a little like that could be done with
magic.
Come to think, Terry Pratchett's Unseen University for wizards has
built a computer that works just fine, only... differently.
Robert Carnegie
Then you are The Boy Who Lived Somewhat Longer.
Robert Carnegie
> I think that if bookstores organized fiction by title instead of
> author they would sell more books. They'd certainly sell more books
> to me, I can remember titles more easily than authors. Organize by
> subject matter and I'd find even more to buy. As it is, you have to
> be some kind of author-groupie, carry around a list of titles/authors,
> or luck out and find a book displayed face-on with an interesting
> cover. That crap they print on the spines is never readable, only
> fancy fonts need apply. </rant>
Those author-groupies are a pretty big market, in fact. There's a
large subset of the reader community who believe that if the person
who wrote a book they liked writes another book then they'll probably
like that book too. And similarly for "dislike". Although there are
numerous counterexamples to this. Maybe we should start another
thread to discuss 'em.
For some, their author-specific liking apparently is sub-categorised
to "Stories by Terry Pratchett and set in a flat world carried on the
back of a huge turtle", and even "Stories by Terry Pratchett and set
in a flat world not carried on the back of a giant turtle" aren't
satisfactory. I've had the conversation, or anyway I've seen it.
Will in New Haven
> noRm d. plumBeR wrote:
> > I think that if bookstores organized fiction by title instead of
> > author they would sell more books. They'd certainly sell more books
> > to me, I can remember titles more easily than authors. Organize by
> > subject matter and I'd find even more to buy. As it is, you have to
> > be some kind of author-groupie, carry around a list of titles/authors,
> > or luck out and find a book displayed face-on with an interesting
> > cover. That crap they print on the spines is never readable, only
> > fancy fonts need apply. </rant>
>
> Those author-groupies are a pretty big market, in fact. There's a
> large subset of the reader community who believe that if the person
> who wrote a book they liked writes another book then they'll probably
> like that book too. And similarly for "dislike".
"By author" is the only sensible way to arrange a section in a
bookstore. Anything else is borderline insane. Having worked in
bookstores for many years, I can listen to arguments that this type of
book should have its own section or that type of book should be
shelved with this other type of book. However, within each section,
nothing works at all well but "by author." I'm not sure that the
original suggestion is serious. But it's nuts either way.
--
Will in New Haven
Nate Edel
> >I'm pretty surprised they haven't found work-arounds though, for
> >example hiring some muggles or using 'Squibs' (offspring of wizarding
> >families that can't do magic) as sort-of "Shabbos Goys", to handle the
> >muggle tech when needed.
>
> Well...it isn't needed. While Muggle technology is getting closer to
> wizard technology, it isn't actually better in any significant way
> except in weapons systems.
And computing.
And telecom (such as it's separate from computing.)
And manufacturing.
And on the amount of artistic material produced.
Transport is sort of a wash.
They're still well ahead on medicine.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."
Nate Edel
> > _Chamber of Secrets_ gives us a date reference to 1992. Harry therefore
> > was born on July 31, 1980; other dates can be worked out from there.
> > (Harry's parents died awfully young...they can't have been older than
> > their early 20s, maybe as young as 20 or 21.)
>
> I can't believe I made it this long without anyone ever telling me that
> Harry Potter was born one day after me.
During the year-wise, or in absolute chronology?
Nate Edel
> >
> > Well, none of the wizards understand us.
>
> Which doesn't make any sense considering that there are enough
> muggle-born wizards around to cause class tension and societal
> unrest.
I think the implication may be that they near-universally find the wizarding
world so much cooler that the advances of the muggle world holds no
attraction, a few folks like Mr. Weasley aside.
Seems implausible to me.
Mike Ash
arch...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > > _Chamber of Secrets_ gives us a date reference to 1992. Harry therefore
> > > was born on July 31, 1980; other dates can be worked out from there.
> > > (Harry's parents died awfully young...they can't have been older than
> > > their early 20s, maybe as young as 20 or 21.)
> >
> > I can't believe I made it this long without anyone ever telling me that
> > Harry Potter was born one day after me.
>
> During the year-wise, or in absolute chronology?
Absolute. I was born on 7/30/1980. (Please don't use this knowledge to
steal my money.)
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mike Ash
<f144c59a-8dfc-432a...@f13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> Those author-groupies are a pretty big market, in fact. There's a
> large subset of the reader community who believe that if the person
> who wrote a book they liked writes another book then they'll probably
> like that book too. And similarly for "dislike". Although there are
> numerous counterexamples to this. Maybe we should start another
> thread to discuss 'em.
I don't know if you're saying that this is an unreasonable belief or
not, but it's one that I hold, and it's been true enough for me to be
shocked and dismayed on the few occasions where it's fallen down for me.
(And even in those cases, I've usually enjoyed a good run of several
excellent novels before hitting the bad stuff.)
Gene Wirchenko
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
[snip]
>"By author" is the only sensible way to arrange a section in a
>bookstore. Anything else is borderline insane. Having worked in
In general, but then there are things like the CoDominium.
Crosslinked authors.
>bookstores for many years, I can listen to arguments that this type of
>book should have its own section or that type of book should be
>shelved with this other type of book. However, within each section,
>nothing works at all well but "by author." I'm not sure that the
>original suggestion is serious. But it's nuts either way.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>Absolute. I was born on 7/30/1980. (Please don't use this knowledge to
>steal my money.)
Oh, drat! He said "please".
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Butch Malahide
> In article <86aeggFbg...@mid.individual.net>,
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> > Like Cogswell's "The Masters" (I think) where psionics turns out
> > to be a dead end.
>
> I think it is more likely to be "Limiting Factor", also by Cogswell; I
> remember a story with that theme from _Galaxy_ in about 1954.
I'm sure you're right. Cogswell's "Limiting Factor" is the one where
the mutant supermen are sweating to push their ship across
interstellar space with their minds, when a dapper little man with a
briefcase shows up at their observation port and holds up a sign
asking permission to board.
Kay Shapero
how...@brazee.net says...
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:34:17 +0200, Szymon Sok�?
> <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote:
>
> >Cats learn to open doors, at least some cats. My aunt's cats even cooperate
> >- one of them jumps onto the doorhandle and pulls it with his weight, while
> >the other pushes the door.
>
> We had a cat that rang the doorbell. It sufficed.
>
And I've met several totally unfamiliar cats who got ME to ring the
doorbell. There I am on the doormat greeting a total stranger "Uh, your
cat wants in." said beastie of course having zipped past the moment the
door opened. Cats. :)
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
Will in New Haven
> In article <1l12069kkrv1m9edb8aomoq459v8du6...@4ax.com>,
> how...@brazee.net says...> On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:34:17 +0200, Szymon Sokó?
> > <szy...@bastard.operator.from.hell.pl> wrote:
>
> > >Cats learn to open doors, at least some cats. My aunt's cats even cooperate
> > >- one of them jumps onto the doorhandle and pulls it with his weight, while
> > >the other pushes the door.
>
> > We had a cat that rang the doorbell. It sufficed.
>
> And I've met several totally unfamiliar cats who got ME to ring the
> doorbell. There I am on the doormat greeting a total stranger "Uh, your
> cat wants in." said beastie of course having zipped past the moment the
> door opened. Cats. :)
On the other hand, people used to ring my doorbell or knock on my door
to see if I would let Feather (RB cat) come over for a visit because
our building was infected with mice and Feather was the mouse god of
death. He really got around.
Kay Shapero
sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com says...
> >
>
> It wasn't really much more than that, unfortunately. Writing the entire
> lead-up wouldn't be worth the effort to repeat Bakshi's trick ending.
>
> In the Harry Potter campaign I'm running now, it's quite possible that
> something like that will be the endgame, since the new PCs and NPCs
> rather change the dynamics; when you have Jade Chan, Hadji Quest, and
> Wednesday Addams as classmates, you have new options.
>
>
>
My current favorite HP fanfic is an unfinished (sigh) crossover with the
Destroyer series.... If only for the sheer audacity of it all - Harry
Potter: Apprentice of Sinanju!
This is what I like about the Potterverse though - sufficient internal
inconsistency to allow you to do anything you want with it.
Kay Shapero
says...
whole books - by the time you get to the end the first time, it is too
late to go back and fix stuff. And you will want to fix stuff because
of stuff you thought of later if nothing else. Heck, a game writeup I
once did included something completely impossible due to stuff we
established later in the campaign - I quietly excised the offending
paragraph in reprints.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Well...it isn't needed. While Muggle technology is getting closer to
>wizard technology, it isn't actually better in any significant way
>except in weapons systems.
How do you know that, say, farming isn't better for Muggles?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Dimensional Traveler
> In article<8tc8d7x...@claudius.sfchat.org>,
> arch...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash<mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>>> _Chamber of Secrets_ gives us a date reference to 1992. Harry therefore
>>>> was born on July 31, 1980; other dates can be worked out from there.
>>>> (Harry's parents died awfully young...they can't have been older than
>>>> their early 20s, maybe as young as 20 or 21.)
>>>
>>> I can't believe I made it this long without anyone ever telling me that
>>> Harry Potter was born one day after me.
>>
>> During the year-wise, or in absolute chronology?
>
> Absolute. I was born on 7/30/1980. (Please don't use this knowledge to
> steal my money.)
>
--
Murphy was an optimist.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Someone sent me a short fic in which Harry had gone missing for one
year at the end; comes back to find Hogwarts under seige, most of the
people on his side downed, and Voldemort there with a huge army. When
asked where he'd been, Harry said he'd been training and begins to
demonstrate.
Voldemort's very puzzled by what Harry's doing, as he's moving his
hands oddly and the words he's saying aren't even vaguely latin, they're
some sort of nonsense: "Ka... Me... Ha... Me..."
Robert Bannister
You can remember titles! I stand in awe. If I try really hard, I can
sometimes remember an author - or at least roughly where he or she comes
in the alphabet - but mainly I remember books by their covers. I am
often fooled when publishers change the cover or when a colourful dust
jacket is removed to leave a plain book cover.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>
> Those author-groupies are a pretty big market, in fact. There's a
> large subset of the reader community who believe that if the person
> who wrote a book they liked writes another book then they'll probably
> like that book too. And similarly for "dislike". Although there are
> numerous counterexamples to this. Maybe we should start another
> thread to discuss 'em.
My late brother-in-law once told me:
- never buy a book that has embossing on the cover
- never buy a book whose author's name is in a larger font than the
title.
I can't say I have always taken this advice, but over the years, I have
found it fairly sound.
--
Rob Bannister
John F. Eldredge
> I think that if bookstores organized fiction by title instead of author
> they would sell more books. They'd certainly sell more books to me, I
> can remember titles more easily than authors. Organize by subject
> matter and I'd find even more to buy. As it is, you have to be some
> kind of author-groupie, carry around a list of titles/authors, or luck
> out and find a book displayed face-on with an interesting cover. That
> crap they print on the spines is never readable, only fancy fonts need
> apply. </rant>
That would work if you were looking for a particular title, but not if
you were looking to see if there were any new books by particular
authors, short of looking through the entire section. Most bookstores
have staff and/or computer terminals that allow you to look up a book by
title and find out the author's name.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Robert Bannister
> On May 28, 9:14 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>> Since magical folk can walk through modern London without every
>>>> electronics-using device - cars, phones, etc cutting out, either the
>>>> radius of the effect is very small, or it can be supressed.
>>>> On the flip side, most firearms make no use whatever of electronics -
>>>> just physics and chemistry. A field that can specifically stop guns
>>>> from firing without messing up a lot of other chemical processes -
>>>> including biological ones - strains my WSOD past the breaking point.
>>>> We've already seen that wizards are quite vulnerable to physical
>>>> attacks and accidents.
>>> They've specifically said that firearms won't work in designated areas.
>>> Your WSOD is straining for no reason; magic isn't playing your "chemical
>>> processes" game, it's playing the "define the uses" game. If you're
>>> burning chemicals to live, no problem. Burning chemicals to propel a
>>> steel-jacketed projectile -- no way.
>> Which also explains the objection prior to that; the magical folk aren't
>> trying to USE the electronics-using devices around them, they're just walking
>> past them. (Now whether they can get automatic-door-opening-lasers to work
>> by walking up to them, that's a different question all together.)
>
> example hiring some muggles or using 'Squibs' (offspring of wizarding
> families that can't do magic) as sort-of "Shabbos Goys", to handle the
> muggle tech when needed.
Isn't that rather like asking why an Amish doesn't get a friend to drive
a Ferrari for him?
--
Rob Bannister
Will in New Haven
> noRm d. plumBeR wrote:
> > d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> >>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>> Maybe tech just doesn't work for the wizards in the HP universe?
> >>>> Just like Harry Dresden, computers short out when a wizard touches them.
>
> >>>> Come to think of it, there's no real reason why the HP universe and
> >>>> the Dresdenverse can't be the same...
> >>> Maybe the methods of thinking that allow wizardry, and the methods of
> >>> thinking that allow technology to be used, are mutually exclusive.
> >> ObSF: _The Morphodite_, M.A. Foster.
>
> > Sounds like a sci-fi takeoff from the Merlin legend. Don't recall
> > having heard of the author before.
>
> >> Dave "not involving ACTUAL magic, but the thinks-differently part is there in
> >> spades" DeLaney
>
> > I think that if bookstores organized fiction by title instead of
> > author they would sell more books. They'd certainly sell more books
> > to me, I can remember titles more easily than authors. Organize by
> > subject matter and I'd find even more to buy. As it is, you have to
> > be some kind of author-groupie, carry around a list of titles/authors,
> > or luck out and find a book displayed face-on with an interesting
> > cover. That crap they print on the spines is never readable, only
> > fancy fonts need apply. </rant>
>
> You can remember titles! I stand in awe.
If that post was serious, he is the only person in the world who
thinks like that. Not that people don't remember titles. But title is
not a factor that means the two books are similar, unless you are
talking about _The Molecular Biology of the Cell_ and _Molecular Cell
Biology_ and _The Cell, a Molecular Approach_ THOSE similar titles
denote similar books. However, for fiction, author is a much more
likely clue to two books being similar. Which is why it is the sane
way to shelve fiction.
David Johnston
wrote:
>>Well...it isn't needed. While Muggle technology is getting closer to
>>wizard technology, it isn't actually better in any significant way
>>except in weapons systems.
>
>If they can kill you it doesn't much matter what your repertoire of
>party tricks consists of does it?
Not as long your repertoire of party tricks include making
considerable tracts of land invisible and unapproachable to to the
other guys.
David Johnston
wrote:
>David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >I'm pretty surprised they haven't found work-arounds though, for
>> >example hiring some muggles or using 'Squibs' (offspring of wizarding
>> >families that can't do magic) as sort-of "Shabbos Goys", to handle the
>> >muggle tech when needed.
>>
>> Well...it isn't needed. While Muggle technology is getting closer to
>> wizard technology, it isn't actually better in any significant way
>> except in weapons systems.
>
>And computing.
>And telecom (such as it's separate from computing.)
As it's separate from computing, no they don't. With computers,
possibly, but not hugely. Their messenger birds are impossibly good
at delivering messages, and the adults have telephone equivalents in
their crystals and mirrors.
>And manufacturing.
Wizard society was shown to have plenty of consumer goods.
>And on the amount of artistic material produced.
That's not so much a function of technology as it of sheer numbers.
>Transport is sort of a wash.
Yeah, all they've got is personal flight and instantaneous (and cheap)
teleportation. We're totally awesome compared to that.
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:7e958be0-a488-41de...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.
> com:
>
> > Ilya2 wrote:
> >> > � � � � It was actually a fairly standard mechanic in
> >> > supernatu
> > ral horror for
> >> > YEARS that you could have poltergeists levitating chairs,
> >> > vampires chasing nubile young victims through the halls,
> >> > werewolves transforming in front of the security cameras, and
> >> > several characters still insistin
> > g
> >> > "But there HAS to be a RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR ALL THIS"
> >> > even as the Mummy closed in on them.
> >>
> >> Every protagonist in Lovecraft's stories is like that.
> >> Sometimes I want to scream at them "Why can't you accept what
> >> you see with your own eyes at face value?"
> >
> > Would that help? In a Lovecraft story?
>
> Help, no, but it would certain make the stories less likely to
> invoke the Eight Deadly Words.
> >
> > Heck, even Gulliver's Travels ends with the protagonist not
> > doubting his experiences... but barely able to tolerate living
> > with human beings in England, preferring to talk to horses -
> > "curry favour" is the phrase that comes to mind.
> >
> > Even in the United States, a rational explanation for the
> > appearance of spooky events isn't /very/ likely to include
> > "Somebody/something's going to kill you." It's more likely to
> > be a relatiively harmless prank.
> >
> But in the United States, in real life, the spooky events of the
> typical horror movie *won't* kill you, ever, no matter how many
> ghosts you see. Comparing it to real life is an invalid comparison,
> because in the movies, the spooky beasties *are* real.
Yeah, but most of the characters were raised in "spooks aren't real"
America, more or less. On the other hand, I assume the homicide rate
hasn't suddenly gotten better, if lower = better. So even if you
think you're in a traditional-Scooby-Doo story (ghost = the janitor
dressed in a sheet) you should be prepared for an Alfred Hitchcock
twist (janitor dressed in deceased mother's clothes, plus her kitchen
knives).
Howard Brazee
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>My late brother-in-law once told me:
>- never buy a book that has embossing on the cover
>- never buy a book whose author's name is in a larger font than the
> title.
>
>I can't say I have always taken this advice, but over the years, I have
>found it fairly sound.
This seems to be saying "Don't buy books by popular authors".
Howard Brazee
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Someone sent me a short fic in which Harry had gone missing for one
>year at the end; comes back to find Hogwarts under seige, most of the
>people on his side downed, and Voldemort there with a huge army. When
>asked where he'd been, Harry said he'd been training and begins to
>demonstrate.
>
> Voldemort's very puzzled by what Harry's doing, as he's moving his
>hands oddly and the words he's saying aren't even vaguely latin, they're
>some sort of nonsense: "Ka... Me... Ha... Me..."
I said that out loud, figuring there was a pun there, but it didn't
help.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> news:7e958be0-a488-41de...@y21g2000vba.googlegrou
>> ps. com:
Most of the characters are also, utlimately, just too stupid to
live.
> On the other hand, I assume the
> homicide rate hasn't suddenly gotten better, if lower = better.
Not suddenly, but recent years has certainly trended downward.
> So even if you think you're in a traditional-Scooby-Doo story
> (ghost = the janitor dressed in a sheet) you should be prepared
> for an Alfred Hitchcock twist (janitor dressed in deceased
> mother's clothes, plus her kitchen knives).
>
And you should not be too stupid to live.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dan Goodman
"Harry, I am your father."
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)
David DeLaney
>>>> Maybe tech just doesn't work for the wizards in the HP universe?
>>>>Just like Harry Dresden, computers short out when a wizard touches them.
>>>>
>>>> Come to think of it, there's no real reason why the HP universe and
>>>>the Dresdenverse can't be the same...
>>>
>>>Maybe the methods of thinking that allow wizardry, and the methods of
>>>thinking that allow technology to be used, are mutually exclusive.
>>
>>ObSF: _The Morphodite_, M.A. Foster.
>
>Sounds like a sci-fi takeoff from the Merlin legend. Don't recall
>having heard of the author before.
No, no - quite different, and a classic. He has not written very much, compared
to some other authors, but at LEAST 3/4 of his output in the last 40 years are
absolute gems. So quality over quantity FTW!
(It's a story about an assassin, and a language that contains a method of
identifying and predicting interorganizational dependence, and a vast
conspiracy from outer space, and a revolution, and shapechanging, and this
description isn't ANYTHING like actually reading it, sorry. There are two
sequels, _Transformer_ and _Preserver_, which follow the further career of
the Morphodite and its hierograms.)
>>Dave "not involving ACTUAL magic, but the thinks-differently part is there in
>> spades" DeLaney
>
>I think that if bookstores organized fiction by title instead of
>author they would sell more books.
Pfft. Not a chance. Whether one book has a TITLE nearly the same as another's
is far less of a guarantee of quality on the same order than whether the
author matches up. Plus, you know, you're going against the collective
wisdom of millions of librarians, with those glasses and the long skirts,
who occasionally let their hair down, so NO LIBRARIAN PR0N FOR YOU young man.
(I realize you're trying as hard as you can to troll the entire newsgroup
repeatedly but stay as under-the-radar as possible, but honestly, you have
to at least have SOME connection to reality in your anti-hypotheticals. There's
an ART to it.)
Dave "and I'd like to see the bookstores you frequent that DON'T organize
things by subject matter at ALL" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>> noRm d. plumBeR wrote:
[titles not authors]
>> You can remember titles! I stand in awe.
>
>If that post was serious, he is the only person in the world who
>thinks like that.
Hint: it wasn't. It's become fairly obvious over the last several weeks that
he's doing a much-lower-powered version of what PPM does, though he's at least
TRYING to not contradict reality or himself every third sentence. But he's
still doing it specifically to get as many people to correct him as possible,
and not very humorously either.
Dave
David DeLaney
>>> something like that will be the endgame, since the new PCs and NPCs
>>> rather change the dynamics; when you have Jade Chan, Hadji Quest, and
>>> Wednesday Addams as classmates, you have new options.
>> ...he wrote in very quiet understatement.
>
> Indeed!
One friend of mine's reaction to Christina Ricci's performances as Mistress
Adams nearly 20 years back: "... ... I'm goin' to _jail_."
David DeLaney
>> allow burning chemicals for warmth but not for harm; but it has to do
>> with... no word for it, "rightness" divorced from morality -- right
>> action allowed, other actions boomerang.
>
>I forget the details, but there's something like, if you light a match
>or a candle or taper in microgravity, it goes out, because it exhausts
>its oxygen supply. So something a little like that could be done with magic.
See recent _Freefall_ strips, where Florence takes some time to teach Sam
about fire safety in zero gravity.
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1900/fc01868.htm
through
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1900/fc01883.htm
David DeLaney
>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Voldemort's very puzzled by what Harry's doing, as he's moving his
>>hands oddly and the words he's saying aren't even vaguely latin, they're
>>some sort of nonsense: "Ka... Me... Ha... Me..."
>
>I said that out loud, figuring there was a pun there, but it didn't help.
It wouldn't. Check for "Kamehameha" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball
and that _might_ help.
Dave "Also see: Black Mage's 'Hadoken'" DeLaney