Silver seems to be a running theme for anti-death things (add the Silvery Slytherins and the Peverell crest to that list). Unicorn blood is a likely candidate, though. (Also, that bit you mentioned is probably worth rot13ing since it came from a source that he suggested not reading.)
UnclGhost
Karma: 448
Quirrel could have suggested or stipulated that wording when zhe and Dumbledore were working out how to identify Quirrel to the wards, reasonably assuming that Dumbledore wouldn’t think the “he” was the suspicious part.
Interesting. Some of the things that have been described as silver or silvery so far:
The Patronus charm (particularly the True Patronus)
The Deathly Hallows symbol in this chapter
The stars in space
The Invisibility Cloak (in canon, at least)
All of these seem to have in common that they represent some sort of resistance to death or indifference (usually represented by coldness, like the vacuum of space or Harry’s dark side). This has probably already been pointed out a lot, but I predict that whatever is glinting silver in the prologue represents something similar, even if it’s something else entirely (e.g. a dagger, the Sword of Gryffindor, etc.)
Edit: also, as someone pointed out earlier, the Philosopher’s Stone now turns metals into silver as well as gold (see Hedonic Awareness).
It can also be an issue even for canon-knowledgeable readers. A lot of the time readers are used to Harry’s thought processes happening in the absence of certain key knowledge from canon (the Philosopher’s Stone, etc.), so it’s jarring when Harry learns major pieces of information offscreen (the Marauder’s Map, etc.)
Maybe certain other Deathly Hallows symbols will now light up in Harry’s presence, especially if there is a lost storehouse of some sort with a similar mark.
If it doesn’t end up being important, it could just be whatever enchantment is on the Peverell gravestone that makes it recognize someone’s anti-Death resolve (possibly only if they’re a Peverell descendant) and recite the prophecy, pointed out in the narration so the reader knows where the prophecy was coming from.
Canon strongly implies that the original story was a dramatization of the story of the Peverells, who actually just made powerful artifacts, iirc. Also, dementor cloaks probably aren’t invisibility cloaks, since people and other dementors can see cloaked dementors.
New idea: going on the “Dumbledore faked Godric’s Hollow” theory, what if “Voldemort’s” body that gets found is the unrecognizable, burned body of Narcissa Malfoy?
I interpreted it as Harry being jolted out of his all-consuming inner monologue by Dumbledore suddenly touching his shoulder while he wasn’t paying attention to Dumbledore at all.
But Harry didn’t see anything helpful he could do using spells in his lexicon, Dumbledore wasn’t being very cooperative, and in any case this was several minutes after the critical location within Time
“Harry,” the Headmaster whispered, laying his hand on Harry’s shoulder. He had vanished from where he was standing over the Weasley twins and come into existence beside Harry; George Weasley had discontinously teleported from where he was sitting to be kneeling next to his brother’s side, and Fred was now lying straight with his eyes open and wincing as he breathed. “Harry, you must go from this place.”
He wasn’t paying attention at all to Dumbledore, Fred, or George, and he’s startled by their sudden agency. To me it seems more likely that leaving off in the middle of a sentence as he’s startled is a stylistic choice, rather than a particularly meaningful missing period.
Good point—in the original wording, it says it was inscribed by “Bellini”, who is established earlier to always tell the truth.
I think it’s important that this comes just a few chapters after Dumbledore regrets resenting Harry for having spent his fortune to save Hermione, when he (Dumbledore) chose not to do so to save Aberforth.
“I—I’m sorry, Harry—I—” The old wizard pressed his hands to his face, and Harry saw that Albus Dumbledore was weeping. “I should not have said, such things to you—I should not, have resented, your innocence—”
(Ch. 84)
In the explanation for the puzzle this is adapted from (Puzzle 70 in What is the Name of this Book?, in the “Portia’s Casket’s” chapter), Raymond Smullyan raises both points: “The suitor should have realized that without any information given about the truth or falsity of the sentences, nor any information given about the relation of their truth-values, the sentences could say anything, and the object (portrait or dagger, as the case may be) could be anywhere. Good heavens, I can take any number of caskets that I please and put an object in one of them and then write any inscriptions at all on the lids; these sentences won’t convey any information whatsoever. So Portia was not really lying; all she said was that the object in question was in one of the boxes, and in each case it really was. … Another way to look at the matter is that the suitor’s error was to assume that each of the statements was either true or false.”
The given puzzle (the boxes are labeled “the portrait is not in here” and “exactly one of these two statements is true”, where the portrait is the desired object, is contrasted with an earlier problem, where there are two boxes saying “the portrait is not in here” and “exactly one of these two boxes was labeled by someone who always tells the truth” (and it’s given that the only other box-maker always lies). The distinction the author draws is that the second box in the earlier problem really does have to be true or false, since “it is a historic statement about the physical world”, but there’s no such guarantee with purely self-referential labels.
I think I did mean to be sarcastic, since it doesn’t seem to be actually affiliated with the publishers of Webster’s dictionary and the design of the site looks generally sketchy, but coming back to my comment now, you make a good point.
Here’s a short story I remember once reading about a similar problem.
I think a separate discussion post would be useful. When I wrote this, I was thinking of the PoC as something like an axiom that’s not explicitly built into logic, but is necessary for productive discussion because otherwise people would constantly nitpick or strawman each other, there would be no way to stop them, and so on. Based on the discussion here, though, it’s seeming more like a tool intended for social situations that’s usually suboptimal for truth-finding purposes, although again, it’s still better than always going with your initial interpretation or always going with the least logical interpretation.
Huh, I’d never realized the connection between PoC and LCPW before. I’ll have to think about that, although I wouldn’t necessarily say LCPW is a replacement for PoC. They solve different problems in practice—like lessdazed said, PoC can be more effective at countering overconfidence in knowing what you think your opponent meant, if that’s the goal. Would you mind giving an example though?
ETA:
For example, you search harder for possible reasonable interpretations, to make sure they are available for consideration, but retain expected bad interpretations in the distribution of possible intended meanings.
I agree that if you’re going to use PoC, you shouldn’t apply it internally and unilaterally—if responding as though your opponent made a good argument requires some unlikely assumptions, you should still be well aware of that.
Excellent point, I’ve added to that sentence both for consistency and to make it flow better into the next paragraph. Thanks!
Note that this is my first main post, so in addition to feedback being appreciated, I also hope this hasn’t been written about before here. It seemed original when I wrote it, but I easily could have read and forgotten about it.
Don’t Apply the Principle of Charity to Yourself
Just took it, but I think I might have given an overelaborate answer for “Religious Background,” in order to give more information than “Family Religion” provided.
Less of a joke than a pithy little truism, but I came up with it:
Notability is not ability.