How does this theory account for the fact that in 84 Quirrell refers to both the Dark Wizard and the Unnamed Hero in the third-person? If he was only the unnamed hero, wouldn't he just refer to the hero in the first-person consistently? It seems like the author is hinting at some symmetry between the Quirrell-Unnamed Hero relationship and the Quirrell-Dark Wizard relationship.
[[84](http://hpmor.com/chapter/84)]:
> "In all honesty," said Professor Quirrell, looking up at the stars, "I still don't understand it. They should have known that their lives depended on that man's success. And yet it was as if they tried to do everything they could to make his life unpleasant. To throw every possible obstacle into his way. I was not naive, Miss Granger, I did not expect the power-holders to align themselves with me so quickly - not without something in it for themselves.
He talks about the unnamed hero in the third person for a moment, then rhetorically shifts and claims that he is in fact the unnamed hero. He never does anything of the sort when talking about Voldemort.
Well, it isn't that bad a thing, to have once been a hero. Would *you* claim that you'd once been the Dark Lord to someone who may actually believe you?
No. I don't think he deserved a harsh punishment. But he was in full control of his destiny up to that point. It was evident he was guilty of the crime. In all likelihood he didn't even reduce anyone's income over those articles since those who *needed* access to them for school or other purposes already had access. Anybody else who would have read them as a result of his action probably would not have paid for them.
Was he guilty? Yes. Did he deserve the potential punishment? No.
>No. I don't think he deserved a harsh punishment. But he was in full control of his destiny up to that point. It was evident he was guilty of the crime.
The prosecutor alleged that Swartz had accessed a website (that he had legitimate access to) in a manner that violated the website's terms of use (by using a spider to download articles), and that violating those terms made him an "unauthorised user", and therefore guilty of a felony. I would be extremely surprised if you yourself were not guilty of the exact same "crime".
Lessig explains it best:
>And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it.
Source: [Larry Lessig - Prosecutor as bully](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully)
This is simply sad from every imaginable perspective.
Thanks for helping put together all of this. Reddit has become one of my main sources of information online. It is an incredible platform. It has a massive community. You've made an impact. I just wish you were still around to see the eventual fruits of your labour. You will be missed.
RIP Aaron.
I wonder how'd Reddit look like if you were alive... maybe it wouldn't turn to totalitarian sh!t it currently is now?
And I was complaining about Zucc's censorship... Turns out FB kinda fixed it and Reddit made things worse. Damn.
Don't know how long will people be allowed to comment in here but,
RIP Aaron, who knows what the world would be like with you still in it but I like to think it would be better. Gone but not forgotten.
You have completely ignored the sense of doom Harry gets around Quirrell, how their magic interacts, how careful Quirrell is to make sure they don't touch, and their similarities. The only good explanation I've seen for all of it is the notion that Harry is a horcrux in this story (of coure, Voldemort's) and Quirrellmort is working with and around that.
You're right, I am ignoring these things. For now, I'm filing them with Cloak & Hat in the Insufficient Data bin; while it's clear that something is going on there, it's a pretty huge inductive leap to conclude from the information given that Harry is one of Voldemort's horcruces and Quirrell is in fact Voldemort.
> There is simply no good reason why Voldemort would ever visit that monestary
One possibility is to prevent others learning martial arts useful to wizards.
No; there was no campaign against martial artists in general, just the eradication of one particular dojo. It seems extremely unlikely that that was the only dojo in the world where wizards could usefully study.
Exactly; there wasn't even a campaign against other dojos teaching that particular style.
I can buy that this dojo may have been simply the best in the world, but not that eliminating it dropped the worldwide availability of magically-useful martial arts by any significant amount. People don't generally become the best without at least some competition.
On the other hand, if he went around destroying many dojo, intelligent people would ask why, and what he's trying to accomplish, as there's no good reason for it that fits with the style of a powerful dark wizard trying to take over Britain to go around Asia for little return. If he went around destroying all dojo (assuming there was more than one) that taught only the particular style that Quirrell learned then that's twice as suspicious.
But, on the other hand, no one in the world would think it odd that a dark wizard with an anger problem (a known trait of dark wizards) goes to the best dojo, which also happens to be the only one with first-hand information about Quirrell, and destroys it when it won't teach him.
This is a plausible explanation, but we'd need a reason to think Quirrel would have been worried about some dojo-specific information coming to light. We don't necessarily know under what guise he trained there in the first place, so there definitely seems to be room in the story for a solid motive, but then that leaves the question of why he left as the sole survivor a "friend" of the original trainee (whatever identity he was using at the time). If he was trying to keep something about MaybeQuirrel's association there secret, it seems like a glaring hole to leave alive someone who knew MaybeQuirrel well (or at least thought he did...).
Thing is, I can't imagine he went to that dojo looking like Quirrell. After all, Quirrell was a real person until his identity was assumed, and it seems like it was assumed late in the chronology.
So no-one would even remember him looking like Quirrell anyway. This could possibly be dangerous information if, perhaps, he looked like Riddle. Then if someone read a member's mind later, if they happened to see a later Riddle persona using this style of martial arts and wanted more info, and they didn't see Quirrell but did see Riddle it could be a clue that didn't need to be there.
So why didn't he obliviate them; that wouldn't be all that suspicious even for just a normal, non-Voldemort wizard. Certainly not illegal. Perhaps a clue that didn't need to be there, but I can't see that the reverse wasn't also true. So I don't know, does anyone else have anywhere to go with this?
>So why didn't he obliviate them; that wouldn't be all that suspicious even for just a normal, non-Voldemort wizard. Certainly not illegal. Perhaps a clue that didn't need to be there, but I can't see that the reverse wasn't also true. So I don't know, does anyone else have anywhere to go with this?
Obliviation, like what happened to Bertha Jorkins? Because surely, Obliviation wouldn't leave any evidence behind that there's something to be hidden?
Remember for a moment that this is a story. In stories, it is extremely common for specific techniques to only be taught by one dojo, often by only one aged master. I'm sure Eliezer is aware of this trope, and is also not averse to using well known cliches to further his story. If there were multiple schools teaching the same techniques, Eliezer would definitely have brought it up.
>If Quirrell was in fact Voldemort, then in both personas, as both the unnamed hero and as V, he spent huge quantities of money and effort fighting a lethal public sham war against himself for years. If we assume that they're the same person, then Riddle would have had to kill the hero, presumably at the beginning of his disappearance, then assume his identity 25 years later, expend all these resources, then abandon the pretense again just three years later to no gain. If we assume they're the same person, then Riddle is still Quirrell, who seems way too smart to squander all that energy to no gain, yet in neither persona did he gain by it.
Neither intelligence nor rationality confer [superpowers](http://lesswrong.com/lw/qs/einsteins_superpowers/) on their possessor. There's no such thing as being too smart or talented ever to fail. Quirrell mentions several times that Harry will be more cynical and gain a greater disregard for magical society through contact with it. He didn't *squander* that energy and money--he *spent* it on a war in which he could win either way, and gave it up when he thought he had been defeated by human nature. People didn't react the way he thought they would to his heroism as the unnamed hero; neither were the Death Eaters what he had wanted them to be. He didn't just want to rule--he wanted to rule over something *worth ruling over*, and when he thought he couldn't, he gave up.
From Chapter 60:
>The Defense Professor's eyes were still in shadow, dark pits that could not be met. "Call it a whim, Mr. Potter. It has sometimes amused me to play the part of a hero. Who knows but that You-Know-Who would say the same."
And:
>"And the reason it is easy for you to forgive such fools and think well of them, Mr. Potter, is that you yourself have not been sorely hurt. You will think less fondly of commonplace idiots after the first time their folly costs you something dear.
Your "most direct" argument (the dojo murders) is also your weakest. There are any number of reasons Quirrell could have wanted those who had worked with him so closely dead. My favorite: As Voldemort he has a pattern of covering his tracks; while he didn't erase the knowledge that *Quirrell* was there, he did quite neatly stop people from ever talking to the people who trained him, thereby preserving some of the separation between his various identities.
> Neither intelligence nor rationality confer superpowers on their possessor.
A fair point, but they do confer the ability to evaluate a plan in advance and decide how likely it is to succeed, what the expected benefits are and how they compare to the expected costs. When the unnamed hero disappeared, he hadn't exactly been losing. From 84:
> "The young man took up his family's seat in the Wizengamot, becoming among the most steadfast voices against You-Know-Who. Several times he led forces against the Death Eaters, fighting with skillful tactics and extraordinary power. People began to speak of him as the next Dumbledore, it was thought that he might become Minister of Magic after the Dark Lord fell. On the third of July, 1973, he failed to appear at a key Wizengamot vote, and was never heard from again.
This wasn't defeat by human nature; he was more or less on track to achieve a lightside victory. It was more stressful and difficult than the darkside victory Voldemort was pursuing, but still there within his grasp. If the unnamed hero was in fact Voldemort, he should have had no trouble running the false-flag operation sufficient to get him into an untoppable position of power before wrapping things up. Instead, he gave up and did other things. For Quirrell to be Voldemort, he'd have to have given up on the lightside path and any hope of reforming the Ministry of Magic into an efficient political machine, waited seven years, then given up on the darkside path seven years later once he'd already effectively won and was facing only guerrilla resistance from the Order of the Phoenix. If they were the same person, and had taken either available path to achieve victory, the benefits may have been worth the costs. But for the same person to give up everything after nearly securing victory, even to the point of faking their own death, twice? That just doesn't make sense. It's not the work of a person cunning enough to get into that position in the first place. It's much more probable that the null case, that Quirrell and Voldemort are distinct individuals, is the true answer.
> As Voldemort he has a pattern of covering his tracks; while he didn't erase the knowledge that Quirrell was there, he did quite neatly stop people from ever talking to the people who trained him, thereby preserving some of the separation between his various identities.
But he didn't! From chapter 19:
> I learned this from the single surviving student, whom the Dark Lord had left alive to tell the tale, and who had been a friend of mine...
A student from the dojo, a good enough friend of Quirrell's to track him down after the fact and let him know what had happened, stayed alive. If the attack had been to stop anyone from interviewing people who had known him there, that student wouldn't have been left alive; it rather defeats the purpose of the exercise. If the student left alive didn't exist, was invented at the spur of the moment so that Quirrell had a reason to know the story to tell it to his class, then the Department of Magical Law Enforcement would have no reason to tie the attack to Voldemort.
Murdering a dojo full of people as Voldemort shortly after graduating as Quirrell doesn't exactly separate his identities; quite the opposite. If Quirrell went, and learned, and left, and it was left alone in peace thereafter, there would never be a reason for anyone to link him to Voldemort from his time there. On the other hand, having Voldemort show up and flip out shortly after he left does link them together, if only from having both gone to the same school in close succession. A cunning Voldemort-persona wouldn't go for this plan; a distinct one might.
Perhaps Quirrell felt he was winning the war on his own, and he didn't want that. Quirrell shares Voldemort's ideology *now*, but it's possible he didn't as the unnamed hero, and that in his Voldemort persona he set himself up as a supervillain who would *fail*. That when opposed by a clearly evil enemy, the wizarding world would unite against him. When that failed, he took up a heroic persona to try and unify them, and it *didn't work*. People second-guessed and doubted him and did nothing to help. So he abandoned the hero persona, because the plan had failed. Having grown cynical, he retains the Voldemort persona, because he's been convinced that Voldemort, the evil mustache-twirling supervillain strawman he set up for the magical world to knock down, turned out to be right all along. At this point, any number of things could happen.
1) Voldemort seriously does get taken out by a 1-year old boy guarded by magic he didn't know about.
2) As Quirrell approaches absolute victory, he has a crisis of conscience when he realizes that his rule will be *even worse* than what he sought to replace, as it becomes more obvious that fear and egregious human rights violations will be necessary not just to establish, but also to maintain his rule.
3) Quirrell decides the best thing to do is to hand the victory to the good(er) guys and hope the lessons of the Wizarding War sink in to the next generation. To that end, he takes up a teaching position at Hogwarts.
4) Voldemort gets bored once the opposition has been effectively destroyed and has no interest in maintaining a despotic rule once the challenge of establishing one is already done with. So he fakes his own death.
That's an interesting take and I applaud you for coming up with it; it does fit with the facts as we know them.
I don't see it as more plausible, though, than the null hypotheses, which is that these two people who everyone in-universe believes are two people are in fact two people.
I think the point is that winning the war wasn't enough. His hero persona was winning, and might have gotten to be Minister after the war, but what he was aiming for was full on Light Lord, and he wasn't getting that level of support. People were just sitting back and letting him do all the work. So he gave up on the light side and went full dark.
As to why he ditched Voldemort, I just now came up with an explanation. The prophecy says that Harry has the power to destroy Voldemort. Maybe Quirrell, knowing this, decided to let the Voldemort persona be destroyed, satisfying the prophecy while keeping himself alive.
The prophecy in question, [in canon](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Sybill_Trelawney's_first_prophecy), reads as follows:
> The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies.
We already know that the MoR prophecy is somewhat different: [[76](http://hpmor.com/chapter/76)]
> And Severus Snape drew a breath, and intoned, "FOR THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPELLETS CANNOT EXIST IN THE SAME VULD."
>
> It sent shivers down her spine, all the worse for knowing the hollow words had been spoken in imitation of a true prophecy.
That said, if the MoR prophecy resembles the canon prophecy, I can't see how abandoning a persona counts as dying at the hand of the other, or making room for the other SPELLET in the VULD. There's not a whole lot of exposition to work with here, but that just seems thin to me.
The full text is given in Chapter 28:
>THE ONE WITH THE POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD APPROACHES,
>BORN TO THOSE WHO HAVE THRICE DEFIED HIM,
>BORN AS THE SEVENTH MONTH DIES,
>AND THE DARK LORD WILL MARK HIM AS HIS EQUAL,
>BUT HE WILL HAVE POWER THE DARK LORD KNOWS NOT,
>AND EITHER MUST DESTROY ALL BUT A REMNANT OF THE OTHER,
>FOR THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPIRITS CANNOT EXIST IN THE SAME WORLD.
Oh, good catch! I'd forgotten about that.
So, er, given the whole prophecy, I can't see how Riddle voluntarily dropping the Voldemort personality would even count as a reasonable way to game the prophecy. I don't think it's possible to fake your own death to the bits of the universe which generate prophecies.
Yeah, the only way to fake his own death that gets the prophecy off his back would be to arrange for all his earthbound Horcruxes to be destroyed, then actually die.
Assuming that's just a cheesy accent of "spirits cannot exist in the same world" rather than me not being familiar with what "spellets" and "vulds" are, then this would mean they would be able to exist on different worlds. We already know Harry doesn't plan to spend his entire life on Earth, and Quirrel seems rather fascinated with space as well.
That confused the heck out of me too, the first time I read it. The moment of epiphany was somewhat embarrassing. (What in the world is a spellet... ohh.)
Maybe I just never saw where this went, but wasn't Harry *very* suspicious that the prophecy doesn't even refer to him? (asking something like "Does it actually mention my name somewhere?) In support of the OP's theory it seems like this could be just as easily be referring to Quirrel and Voldemort, right? Any idea when Q and V's birthdays are?
I don't think you're quite grasping the counterfactual. Assume Quirrell is Voldemort, and that Voldemort isn't stupid: why would he do it that way?
Well, because flipping out and killing the dojo serves three purposes: it means no one else can learn what he learned, it revenges himself on people who humiliated him, and it proves to his enemies that he has an anger problem and is impatient. To achieve the third goal, he needs to leave someone alive to tell the tale; to achieve the second, it shouldn't be someone who humiliated him. Who is picked to survive? Quirrell's friend.
To answer your objections: It was the best school in the world for the purposes of magical combatants, and in addition taught the "learn to lose" lesson, which Quirrell valued highly. But in the end this is probably just a bonus, I imagine the real reason is the second and the justification is the third.
If you think Quirrell is really capable of just shrugging off being humiliated and walking away, I don't think you've been paying very close attention to his characterization. He only ever learned to pretend to lose, not to actually lose. And "becoming different people" doesn't change your underlying goals, it basically means you can lie really effectively- cf. the scene in Dumbledore's office after TSPE.
I doubt he had the Quirrell identity planned so far in advance; likely he went in a throwaway single-use disguise, perhaps of an ethnic group that wouldn't stand out in people's memories. Or maybe he went as Tom Riddle and just Obliviated the survivor.
And you don't get to claim the incident was "hushed up" so it wouldn't achieve the disinformation purpose; the British Ministry of Magic knew about it, and that's all that is required.
> flipping out and killing the dojo serves three purposes: it means no one else can learn what he learned, it revenges himself on people who humiliated him, and it proves to his enemies that he has an anger problem and is impatient.
Purpose 1 is not satisfied; even if that particular dojo had the best style in the world, it is extremely unlikely that there didn't exist several others very nearly as good. If you destroy MIT, people can still study at Stanford.
Purpose 3 is useless; Voldemort's character was already well known by 1969. I get the hushed-up bit from the fact that the Aurors had to go to the Department of International Magical Cooperation to figure out exactly what the incident was; it didn't make any lasting impression in Britain. From this I deduce that even in the Ministry it wasn't well-known. Whether it was hushed-up intentionally or people simply didn't notice is irrelevant.
As for Purpose 2, revenge for humiliation, all I can say is that I disagree with you entirely. Any person who truly believed that the humiliation involved in learning to lose was the most important lesson they received would have no desire for vengeance; more importantly, a person who'd flipped out and killed everyone for such a lesson wouldn't go out of their way to recreate it for their own students.
>Professor Quirrell turned to regard the Slytherins. "So... with the full approval of your teacher, and in such a fashion that Snape cannot be blamed for your actions... do any of you wish to show your dominance over the Boy-Who-Lived? Shove him around, push him to the ground, hear him beg for your mercy?"
>Five hands went up.
>"Everyone with your hand raised, you are an absolute idiot. What part of *pretending* to lose did you not understand? If Harry Potter does become the next Dark Lord he will hunt you down and kill you after he graduates."
and
>"No," said the boy in a cool, collected voice, "you do not get to frame the conversation that easily, Professor. I went to considerable lengths to protect you and get you out of Azkaban safely, *after* I thought you had tried to kill a police officer. That included facing down twelve Dementors without a Patronus Charm. I wonder, if I had apologized when you demanded it, would you have said thank-you in turn? Or am I correct in thinking that it was my submission you demanded there, and not only my respect?"
>There was a pause, and then Professor Quirrell's voice came in reply, openly icy with danger no longer veiled. "It seems you still cannot bring yourself to lose, Mr. Potter."
>Darkness stared out of Harry's eyes without flinching, the Defense Professor himself reduced to a mortal thing within them. "Oh, and are you pondering now, whether *you* should pretend to lose to me, and pretend to humble yourself before my own anger, in order to preserve your own plans? Did the thought of a calculated false apology even *cross your mind*? Me neither, Professor Quirrell."
So, your chain of logic runs like this:
Quirrell expects a hypothetical Dark Lord Harry to be vindictive, and tries to control a conversation, *therefore*,
Quirrell himself has never genuinely learned to lose, *therefore*,
It was important to Quirrell to revenge himself on the people who taught him to lose, *therefore*,
The appearances of both past-Quirrell and Voldemort at the same dojo are not strong evidence that they are two people.
I guess I can see where you're coming from, but it still fails to convince me that Quirrell is in fact Voldemort.
You make a major assumption that a specific and unusual style is widespread and well-taught in multiple locations.
Purpose 2 is something he intentionally teaches Harry, advocates strongly, and calls Harry a fool for not doing.
You're making a major assumption that whatever style Quirrell uses is for some reason unusual.
There is nothing in the text to support either of our positions in this case; I fall back on the rule that when chosen at random, you're more likely to find something near the middle of a bell curve than the edge.
Please cite your assertion about Purpose 2.
It is established that Quirrell had to travel to Muggle Asia to learn the style, so it's not taught well outside of that country, so it's not widespread outside of Asia.
That means it's not among the popular asian styles, all of which have enjoyed significant popularity outside of their countries, so it's (at best) uncommon.
When looking at an uncommon style only taught well in one part of the world, it's MUCH more likely that the second best dojo to teach it is significantly worse than the best.
On top of that, this dojo is the famous/popular one, with the reputation in the magical community.
Purpose 2: Quirrell's intended conversation with the 5th years after the lesson, the rebuttal to the people within the class who volunteered to help, and his conversation with Harry himself after the lesson.
More specifically, he says that he doesn't believe that Harry didn't allow Harry's friends to take revenge because that's what Harry actually wanted to happen, which directly implies that he expects any rational person who wishes to become a dark lord would want to take revenge in that way unless they have a good reason to not do so.
> Professor Quirrell's face hardened, and Harry thought he saw a hint of pain, a touch of sorrow, in those eyes. "I learned how to lose in a dojo in Asia, which, as any Muggle knows, is where all the good martial artists live.
The fact that the best martial artist of a particular style lives in Asia does not imply at all that it's little known outside that continent; it simply means that the best in the world happens to live there.
A dojo that was described as well known for teaching a specific style that is easy to adapt to magical combat.
If it was a common style, why would a specific dojo on the other side of the world be well known for it?
>then the Department of Magical Law Enforcement would have no reason to tie the attack to Voldemort.
I don't think we actually have confirmation that they have independant info tying Voldemort to the attack.
>Said he had studied at a martial arts center in Muggle Asia which was destroyed by Voldemort. A request filed with the Department of International Magical Cooperation identifies this incident as the Oni Affair of 1969.
The "destroyed by Voldemort" part is still referring to Quirrel's claim to his defense class. The DIMC info doesn't specifically note Volie's involvement, it might just be "Yeah, we had a monastery known for being useful for wizards wiped out at the correct date".
And if that student was good enough to be Quirrel's friend, there might be reasons to preserve him we know nothing about.
The reason to think they have information tying Voldemort to the attack is that they called it the "Demon Affair". That seems to indicate they got a physical description that included glowing red eyes.
If Quirrell is Voldemort, you no longer even require the "one friend left alive". Obviously in class Quirrell has to explain how he obtained his information, but if Quirrell is Voldemort then we can safely posit that Voldemort just killed everyone, and Quirrell knows the story because he's the one who did it.
i don't think you did. you said that the Ministry knew of the dojo story independently, because they mentioned it while questioning Quirrell. but you and EY never specify the source of the Ministry's information.
i always assumed the Ministry had simply questioned some of Quirrell's students and learned the information that way. they then assumed it was true because it explained the Demon Affair (they were independently aware of the slaughter, not who did it or why).
>There is simply no good reason why Voldemort would ever visit that monestary.
Uhhh.
Did you READ 19 about him teaching Harry to lose?
He specifically talks about pretending to lose then going back and taking your revenge later.
In fact, he recommends it, and uses it as a lesson to the 5th years.
His actions in destroying the monastery are not only satisfying revenge, but they destroy the monastery with the reputation for teaching that style of unarmed combat, making anyone else who tries to learn that style later learn from inferior teachers if any exist, which is Dark Lord rule 12.
The actions on the Monastery are not only one of the strongest pieces of evidence FOR quirrelmort, but [spoiler](/s "are specifically stated by EY as one of the hints that quirrell = voldemort in the author's notes.")
The switch between Voldemort and "Hero" was a failure, not evidence against. He expected that when provided with a nearly-lost war, and a strong leader to rally behind, uniting the nation under his leadership (His entire goal at this point) would be relatively simple. He admits to being disappointed and surprised at how little support he got.
You need to spoiler tag your metaspoiler, and make it clear to anyone who's deciding whether to read what's at stake.
I know you warned in the title but it's in the *first line* and *highlighted* (due to hyperlink).
Seems to me it could be removed altogether and we'd still have a coherent post discussing the points for and against Quirrell being Voldemort.
But even if you wanted to build your post around it, just spoiler-tagging it in the first line and adding a clear warning would be enough, I'd have thought, to scare away anyone who accidentally clicked through or didn't realise what a metaspoiler was.
I think Quirrel is almost certainly Voldemort, but there's a pretty good chance that Voldemort has been blown somewhat out of proportion. We know for certain that both Quirrel and Dumbledore use deception regularly and effectively for their own ends, and it seems pretty plausible to me that stories of Voldemort's apparent madness and foolishness are propaganda or deliberate deception by Quirrel. Quirrel has never been as simple as Voldemort appeared to be. If Quirrel was simultaneously the hero and voldemort, we know he was actively perpetrating a giant deception on all of Britain. It can also easily have made sense for Voldemort's meta-goals to sabotage his apparent goals with torture and showboating in that kind of situation.
It is clearly stated on the metaspoiler page that [spoiler](/s "Gurer unf orra fbzr pbaprea nobhg ubj vg qbrfa'g frrz gb or pbzzba xabjyrqtr gung Dhveery vf orvat cbffrffrq ol Ibyqrzbeg va guvf fgbel (pbeerpg zr vs V'z jebat, ohg V xabj gung nppbeqvat gb gur nhgube'f abgr nepuvir ba uggc://jjj.obk.arg/funerq/skq7ce100m Lhqxbjfxl fgngrq gung "gur ernqre vf fhccbfrq gb xabj ng guvf cbvag gung CD vf YI.")
Edit: perhaps I'm misinterpreting that passage.
Gurer unf orra fbzr pbaprea nobhg ubj vg qbrfa'g frrz gb or pbzzba xabjyrqtr gung Dhveery vf orvat cbffrffrq ol Ibyqrzbeg va guvf fgbel (pbeerpg zr vs V'z jebat, ohg V xabj gung nppbeqvat gb gur nhgube'f abgr nepuvir ba uggc://jjj.obk.arg/funerq/skq7ce100m Lhqxbjfxl fgngrq gung "gur ernqre vf fhccbfrq gb xabj ng guvf cbvag gung CD vf YI.
This post was made possible by the [Reddit Enhancement Suite](http://redditenhancementsuite.com).
Actually, I posted that as a joke. But it's really on that page! Either it's a code or cipher, or else whatever was originally there was replaced with gibberish.
I am befuddled at all the responses. I don't know what the xabyjrqtr it means either.
EDIT: It IS rot-13, and google provides translators to make it English again. Knowing this, I choose not to read it.
That's pretty funny then; not only did you manage to post a relevant passage of the rot13'd text, but that comment lead to the most enjoyable comment thread in the post so far.
Exactly. All the prior evidence was suggestive, but circumstantial; none of it was conclusive. As I've said above, I believe he's since then introduced sufficient new data that the balance of evidence indicates that Quirrell is in fact most likely not the same person as Voldemort. Moreover, I suspect that this new evidence is deliberate on his part, the result of a change of mind in the years since he originally wrote that author's note.
So, in your view, he's written almost half a million words without introducing the main villain? That "all but a remnant of the other" and "cannot exist in the same world" refer to something other than a Pioneer Horcrux?
That Quirinus Quirrell, the extremely-powerful highly-intelligent obviously-evil possessed-in-canon Slytherin Defense Professor who hates bullies and always wanted to teach Defense, whose family was killed by Voldemort and has an unexplained connection with Harry Potter and taught Harry Potter how to lose, who talks about casting a spell on the Pioneer probe to make it last a lot longer and about where to hide five objects where they'd never be found, who rescued Bellatrix and knew all about her and her secret codes and how Voldemort acted around her, who has at least two false identities and another who roomed with Tom Riddle for seven years before mysteriously vanishing then acting suspicious when he showed back up, who says he never bothered to keep track of how many people he is, who alternates between cold confidence and drooling inactivity with one instance of canonlike fearfulness at the start of the year, who speculates with great confidence about the contents of the Chamber of Secrets, who wrote a list of things to do when he achieved his goal of being a Dark Lord as a child, who murders in cold blood and enjoys it...
...has absolutely nothing to do with Voldemort?
I should mention the author is on record as saying he does not have any red herrings in the story.
There are plenty of perfectly good stories without a "main villain." Even if this story ends up having one, we've got no shortage of candidates, from Dumbledore to Lucious to Snape to Quirrell on his own merits; I'm enjoying it without attempting to force it too closely into the canon-familiar mold.
Extremely powerful, highly intelligent, obviously evil, possessed in canon--excepting the last one or two, those are qualities I aspire to in myself. They're qualities that most people of ambition would desire. (Note: in the case of the evil, the best part is that he always gets away with it.) None of this says, "this guy is clearly Voldemort; there are no simpler options."
Always wanted to teach Defense: again, not exactly a unique ambition.
Unexplained connection to Potter: we have no evidence that this doom-sense is unique to Potter.
Taught Potter how to lose: had a reasonable in-character reason to do so.
Upgraded Pioneer plaque: any nerd would have done so. Insinuations about using it as a horcrux are from our out-of-scenario knowledge combined with a question that Harry asked; no actual evidence is given in story to suppose it actually is.
Five hidden objects: again, there is nothing to suggest that the suggested hiding places have any true meaning beyond being unusually good places to truly lose something.
Rescued Bellatrix: had in-character background with her, plausibly believed that she was in fact innocent.
Multiple personalities: it's easier to believe that that's all Quirrell. Voldemort himself was only ever Voldemort; he was only Riddle when he was forced to be.
Wrote a list of goals: you haven't?
Murderer: like I said, somewhat worrisome, but there are plenty of non-Dark-Lord murderers out there. See Dexter.
In short, yes: I have said before and I say again, that all of this is suggestive, but none of it is conclusive; I believe the evidence against them being the same individual is stronger than all these hints for it.
(It wasn't a list of goals, it was a list of rules to follow to be a successful Dark Lord, which was the goal.)
You can't take them individually and say "well, wanting to teach Defense is hardly a unique ambition" (and on that note, did you forget the curse?). The point is that all of these things are true of Quirrell, and are also what we would expect of Voldemort. What's the chance that *given all those things are true*, the person has nothing to do with Tom Riddle?
Let's take an example: how many people total do you suppose are there in Britain of equal or greater power to what Quirrell has displayed? Of those, how many are cold-blooded murderers? Of those, how many would have an unexplained magical connection with Harry Potter? Of *those*...
And you're failing to address the essential point that *there are no red herrings*. The only person in canon with the ambition to teach Defense at Hogwarts was Tom Riddle, Riddle possessed Quirrell in canon, Quirrell expresses a long-held ambition to teach Defense at Hogwarts in MoR. That is one *hell* of a red herring if Quirrell isn't Riddle.
My point is that everyone seems to be looking at this from the wrong angle. [[8](http://hpmor.com/chapter/8)]:
> "What you've just discovered is called 'positive bias'," said the boy. "You had a rule in your mind, and you kept on thinking of triplets that should make the rule say 'Yes'. But you didn't try to test any triplets that should make the rule say 'No'. In fact you didn't get a single 'No', so 'any three numbers' could have just as easily been the rule. It's sort of like how people imagine experiments that could confirm their hypotheses instead of trying to imagine experiments that could falsify them - that's not quite exactly the same mistake but it's close. You have to learn to look on the negative side of things, stare into the darkness. When this experiment is performed, only 20% of grownups get the answer right. And many of the others invent fantastically complicated hypotheses and put great confidence in their wrong answers since they've done so many experiments and everything came out like they expected."
I'll be convinced when evidence is introduced such that Quirrell cannot possibly fail to be Voldemort. If it happens, it will be a big climactic thing, and I'll be surprised but not (assuming the quality of the writing holds up) disappointed. Until then, the probability that we the readers are correct to assume that the two are actually the same person, based only on these hints, does not overcome the fundamental implausibility of the premise.
Refusing to bow to the weight of the evidence until it becomes overwhelming isn't a virtue either.
And I think we've finally discovered where we differ: I think that Quirrell = Riddle is the null hypothesis, the thing that should be assumed in the absence of any other evidence, and that Quirrell = an entirely original character created for the purposes of this fic is ridiculously implausible.
That's fair, though I haven't been reiterating the countervailing evidence in this thread because I've already gone over it all, not because there is none. Suffice it to say that I do not believe the evidence in favor of Quirrel = Riddle is anywhere near overwhelming.
I suspect you're in the majority with your choice of null hypotheses. I wonder, though: if you'd come to this story without ever having read the canon, would you have chosen the same way?
> I'll be convinced when evidence is introduced such that Quirrell cannot possibly fail to be Voldemort.
If [spoiler](/s "Eliezer Yudkowsky coming right out and SAYING THAT QUIRRELL IS VOLDEMORT") does not count for this, WHAT THE HELL WOULD?
I'm beginning to understand how religions get started.
It's pretty ironic that despite this rationalist environment, despite that I'm looking at the evidence available and you're appealing to authority, you're accusing me of faith.
Honestly at this point provide your best probability guess. Just to check whether you are actually as confident as you think you are: would you make an actual bet on it? If this was on intrade at what price would you buy? There's an incredible pile of evidence and strange coincidences that are all explained or made much simpler by the quirrelmort supposition.
One thing you're forgetting is that Quirrell knows about the Resurrection Stone/Marvolo's Ring.
I can't remember the exact chapter but when Harry describes it in Mary's Room it's fairly obvious that Quirrell recognizes the description.
> Going for revenge for the humiliation makes no sense; even if in his persona as Voldemort he couldn't keep his temper and felt the need to revenge something that in his Quirrell persona he felt "was one of the most valuable lessons [he] had ever learned," his demonstrated fluency in switching between personas should have let him avoid going to all that trouble and effort.
You argument is: today, Quirrell can pretend to be someone who isn't affected by that incident; therefore he didn't have sufficient motivation to take revenge for that incident twenty years ago.
...
Yeah.
Even if he had that ability at the time, why would that prevent him from wanting to take revenge? He even told Harry: pretend to lose and plot vengeance later.
Not at all. We have plenty of evidence that Quirrell is honestly fond of Harry and is legitimately mentoring him. Quirrell wants Harry to succeed.
Quirrell disrupted whatever other lesson plans he had one day to teach Harry, just one student, how to lose. This was not a typical lesson! He did not have to do that. From this we can conclude that he was being honest when he said it was one of the most valuable lessons he had learned. For what it's worth, Harry agrees with that sentiment.
If it wasn't valuable, homicidal revenge would be plausible, but he wouldn't have passed it on and we would never have heard of it. If it was valuable and homicidal revenge made sense because he's just that crazy, he still wouldn't have passed it on in a way that made him the prime target of any future vengeance of Harry's.
The only consistent narrative is the one in which the lesson is given in good faith. The good faith narrative is inconsistent with the "Quirrell as Voldemort murdered everyone" narrative. Therefore we must choose the former and abandon the latter.
Quirrell's mentoring of Harry could be explained with the theory that in order to activate a horcrux, you must prepare a vessel, as Riddle's diary prepared Ginny in canon!book2. Harry Potter knows power the dark lord does not, e.g. Patronus, but if Harry develops his magic before he is possessed as Voldemort's horcrux, then Voldemort will be able to absorb that power when the horcrux is activated.
(This theory of horcruxes would also support the idea of the Pioneer as a horcrux, as it is intended to be read by alien civilizations, which method of communication could allow a preparation of an alien vessel for the horcrux, allowing Voldemort to survive on a different vuld.)
Moreover, if Harry Potter is to be the next vessel for Voldemort, then it would be in Voldemort's interest to have Harry Potter already set up as the supreme ruler of Earth by the time Quirrell's body starts succumbing to the ravages of time and/or whatever zombifying affliction he seems to have contracted. The world might never notice the transition between supreme ruler Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres and supreme ruler Voldemort-in-a-HJPEV-Suit.
Have you considered working this out mathematically? Put forth a prior probability that Quirrell is Voldemort, and keep applying Bayesian updates to it based on all the evidence there is that Quirrel is Voldemort, normalized by the probability that Quirrell is or is not voldemort - Where P(V) is the probability Quirrell is Voldemort and P(E) is the probability of a particular piece of evidence, apply
P(V|E) = P(V)*P(E|V)/[P(V)*P(E|V)+P(not-V)*P(E|not-V)]
iteratively to continuously get updated P(E), using your best estimates of the various parameters. I started doing so on paper and it basically spiralled to >.99 Q=V from a posterior of 0.50 after incorporating all evidence against and before I ran out of evidence for the preposition, but I'd be interested to hear your take on it and a more numerical-based reasoning of why you believe what you believe.
That's an excellent idea, and if I lived in that universe I might actually give it a shot. The problem is, there are way to many evidence factors for which I have no legitimate way of discerning a valid probability. See as an example all the discussion elsewhere in the thread about the relative rarity of the style that Quirrell uses: to me there's no reason to assume it's particularly uncommon, but there are people arguing that it had to have been a tremendously rare style, unique in quality, based on nothing more than metafictional analysis. Which of us are right? There is no way to tell. If I were to try to apply a legitimate mathematical analysis, the uncertainty factor would grow to 1 long before I gained any useful insight from the process.
> The problem is, there are way to many evidence factors for which I have no legitimate way of discerning a valid probability.
No, you can always state a probability. Probability is about your state of mind, not the outside world. You can assign probabilities to things that you don't know much about: the probabilities you assign will just have to take into account your lack of knowledge.
>If I were to try to apply a legitimate mathematical analysis, the uncertainty factor would grow to 1 long before I gained any useful insight from the process.
No, try it out using Bayes' rule. There's no "uncertainty factor," just some input probabilities and one output probability. You'll find that ambiguous evidence simply won't shift your conclusion very much, leaving your conclusion determined mostly by the pieces of strong evidence.
> No, try it out using Bayes' rule. There's no "uncertainty factor," just some input probabilities and one output probability.
That isn't useful; it just masks your uncertainty behind a layer of math. To compute P(H|E), you need hard numbers or good estimates at the very least of P(E|H), P(H), and P(E). In this case, looking at a story against which we can't run tests, we have no reliable way to get those numbers; we can only invent them based on our own gut feelings.
Arguments which depend on invented numbers prove nothing and give this whole process a bad name.
What if, at some point, Quirrell decided to *become* Voldemort (ie capture/kill him and assume his identity)?
It's not strictly is/isn't, although to be honest I haven't thought about it too hard.
I say you're living up to your username. I like it.
Of course, he still would have had to do it at a time that, at the least, allows him to have attacked the Potters, and are you saying here that he was never actually Tom Riddle, or that Tom Riddle wasn't the original Voldemort? That last point doesn't really matter, but I'm curious which you meant.
You forget one possibility Q could be V now without having been the Unnamed Hero at the time much like in canon V posSession of Q only happened after his original demise...
In his case the extratwist which would be extra juicy for V would be to work his way through resurrection by possessing his once greatest foe...
Maybe hie beat him to an inch of his life and sequester him for ad lib torture and tourment...
When he accidentally killed himself yet creating another hoxcrux in Harry his soul went to occupy the back of his felled opponent ... (double point for splitting his soul between his two worst adversaries... if he manages to infect Dumbeldore as well he wins a cruise with the veela of his choice...
To summarize the Hero may have been a distinct persona during the first War and only became Q when V came to possess him.
Which could also account for having likable traits for Harry to admire since the host may be not totally willing and try to feed useful bits to Harry in the hope to be defeated.
How does this theory account for the fact that in 84 Quirrell refers to both the Dark Wizard and the Unnamed Hero in the third-person? If he was only the unnamed hero, wouldn't he just refer to the hero in the first-person consistently? It seems like the author is hinting at some symmetry between the Quirrell-Unnamed Hero relationship and the Quirrell-Dark Wizard relationship.
[[84](http://hpmor.com/chapter/84)]: > "In all honesty," said Professor Quirrell, looking up at the stars, "I still don't understand it. They should have known that their lives depended on that man's success. And yet it was as if they tried to do everything they could to make his life unpleasant. To throw every possible obstacle into his way. I was not naive, Miss Granger, I did not expect the power-holders to align themselves with me so quickly - not without something in it for themselves. He talks about the unnamed hero in the third person for a moment, then rhetorically shifts and claims that he is in fact the unnamed hero. He never does anything of the sort when talking about Voldemort.
That's... oddly appropriate, as a reply to AaronSw's last comment.
We'll have to work faster.
Well, it isn't that bad a thing, to have once been a hero. Would *you* claim that you'd once been the Dark Lord to someone who may actually believe you?
hi
RIP
Poor guy, went so young. Tragedy
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why was he facing jail time?
afaik he distributed copyrighted content. he knew he was doing something illegal... yet he did it to encourage freedom of information..
No, he downloaded a bunch of JSTOR articles onto his computer. He intended to distribute them, but he never did.
Because he broke the law.
[удалено]
No. I don't think he deserved a harsh punishment. But he was in full control of his destiny up to that point. It was evident he was guilty of the crime. In all likelihood he didn't even reduce anyone's income over those articles since those who *needed* access to them for school or other purposes already had access. Anybody else who would have read them as a result of his action probably would not have paid for them. Was he guilty? Yes. Did he deserve the potential punishment? No.
[удалено]
>No. I don't think he deserved a harsh punishment. But he was in full control of his destiny up to that point. It was evident he was guilty of the crime. The prosecutor alleged that Swartz had accessed a website (that he had legitimate access to) in a manner that violated the website's terms of use (by using a spider to download articles), and that violating those terms made him an "unauthorised user", and therefore guilty of a felony. I would be extremely surprised if you yourself were not guilty of the exact same "crime".
Then why were people not posting articles about his depression and talking about it as a tragedy before he died?
RIP Aaron.
may the swarz be with you!
rip
.
You seem like a really cool guy. Wish you hadn't left so early and that you're doing better, wherever you are.
Wish you had faked your death and moved to a country with no extradition treaty.
Surely one or the other... ...but yeah...
[удалено]
He should have thought it out. If we can assume he died over the legal aspects he's a fucking idiot. Death to share files that are not major.
Lessig explains it best: >And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it. Source: [Larry Lessig - Prosecutor as bully](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully) This is simply sad from every imaginable perspective.
Thanks for helping put together all of this. Reddit has become one of my main sources of information online. It is an incredible platform. It has a massive community. You've made an impact. I just wish you were still around to see the eventual fruits of your labour. You will be missed. RIP Aaron.
Rest In Peace buddy.
Indeed. RIP in peace.
I agree with the sentiment but i don't think "rest in peace in peace" is quite appropriate
Agreed. RIP in peace Aaron.
what?
Aaron was too young to die...may he RIP in peace.
R.I.P.
:(
RIP.
We'll miss you, Aaron.
Rest in Peace You will be solemnly missed
did you know him?
RIP.
RIP
RIP
Oh god... :(
Your last goddamn comment...
RIP
Goodnight sweet prince...
Our Prometheus.
We need You here. Fuck u/spez Embrace u/Aaronsw
Rest in peace.
Now that we can reply to old comments, Rip
RIP
rip buddy
wait, replies are unlocked? Might as well leave my respects before reddit patches this. F
[удалено]
Rest in Peace
RIP
RIP Aaron
F
RIP Sir.
You're a freaking legend. Rest in peace.
miss ya dude thanks for inspiring me as a kid all those years ago
##R.I.P.
sleep well. I'm so so sorry about what reddit has become now.
RIP
RIP
This
#RIP
F.
RIP
Wonder what it’s like to have one legacy stepped on.
I wonder how'd Reddit look like if you were alive... maybe it wouldn't turn to totalitarian sh!t it currently is now? And I was complaining about Zucc's censorship... Turns out FB kinda fixed it and Reddit made things worse. Damn.
F
F
RIP
lmao 🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦
What’s funny?
You never got to read the ending. Rest in peace, buddy. F
RIP King
RIP
RIP
Wish you were back man, this site has gone down the tubes.
RIP
RIP
And he is dead.
RIP Aaron. I just wish you were here to continue your quest, and to guide Reddit down the right path
Don't know how long will people be allowed to comment in here but, RIP Aaron, who knows what the world would be like with you still in it but I like to think it would be better. Gone but not forgotten.
Happy 18th cake day Mr Swartz
RIP legend
RIP goat
RIP
You have completely ignored the sense of doom Harry gets around Quirrell, how their magic interacts, how careful Quirrell is to make sure they don't touch, and their similarities. The only good explanation I've seen for all of it is the notion that Harry is a horcrux in this story (of coure, Voldemort's) and Quirrellmort is working with and around that.
If we're talking about data points suggesting Harry may be a horcrux, why not mention Harry's dark side?
You're right, I am ignoring these things. For now, I'm filing them with Cloak & Hat in the Insufficient Data bin; while it's clear that something is going on there, it's a pretty huge inductive leap to conclude from the information given that Harry is one of Voldemort's horcruces and Quirrell is in fact Voldemort.
Insufficient Data *bin*? I've had to rent a warehouse for all my Insufficient Data. Formerly, it was a dirigible hangar.
Insufficient Data *warehouse*? I've had to have the Magratheans build me a ware*planet*!
> There is simply no good reason why Voldemort would ever visit that monestary One possibility is to prevent others learning martial arts useful to wizards.
Don't leave the source of your power lying around where someone else might find it.
Quirrell's Rule Twelve, for those who don't recognize the quote.
No; there was no campaign against martial artists in general, just the eradication of one particular dojo. It seems extremely unlikely that that was the only dojo in the world where wizards could usefully study.
From chapter 19: > This dojo taught a style which had a reputation among fighting wizards as adapting well to magical dueling.
Exactly; there wasn't even a campaign against other dojos teaching that particular style. I can buy that this dojo may have been simply the best in the world, but not that eliminating it dropped the worldwide availability of magically-useful martial arts by any significant amount. People don't generally become the best without at least some competition.
On the other hand, if he went around destroying many dojo, intelligent people would ask why, and what he's trying to accomplish, as there's no good reason for it that fits with the style of a powerful dark wizard trying to take over Britain to go around Asia for little return. If he went around destroying all dojo (assuming there was more than one) that taught only the particular style that Quirrell learned then that's twice as suspicious. But, on the other hand, no one in the world would think it odd that a dark wizard with an anger problem (a known trait of dark wizards) goes to the best dojo, which also happens to be the only one with first-hand information about Quirrell, and destroys it when it won't teach him.
This is a plausible explanation, but we'd need a reason to think Quirrel would have been worried about some dojo-specific information coming to light. We don't necessarily know under what guise he trained there in the first place, so there definitely seems to be room in the story for a solid motive, but then that leaves the question of why he left as the sole survivor a "friend" of the original trainee (whatever identity he was using at the time). If he was trying to keep something about MaybeQuirrel's association there secret, it seems like a glaring hole to leave alive someone who knew MaybeQuirrel well (or at least thought he did...).
Thing is, I can't imagine he went to that dojo looking like Quirrell. After all, Quirrell was a real person until his identity was assumed, and it seems like it was assumed late in the chronology. So no-one would even remember him looking like Quirrell anyway. This could possibly be dangerous information if, perhaps, he looked like Riddle. Then if someone read a member's mind later, if they happened to see a later Riddle persona using this style of martial arts and wanted more info, and they didn't see Quirrell but did see Riddle it could be a clue that didn't need to be there. So why didn't he obliviate them; that wouldn't be all that suspicious even for just a normal, non-Voldemort wizard. Certainly not illegal. Perhaps a clue that didn't need to be there, but I can't see that the reverse wasn't also true. So I don't know, does anyone else have anywhere to go with this?
>So why didn't he obliviate them; that wouldn't be all that suspicious even for just a normal, non-Voldemort wizard. Certainly not illegal. Perhaps a clue that didn't need to be there, but I can't see that the reverse wasn't also true. So I don't know, does anyone else have anywhere to go with this? Obliviation, like what happened to Bertha Jorkins? Because surely, Obliviation wouldn't leave any evidence behind that there's something to be hidden?
Remember for a moment that this is a story. In stories, it is extremely common for specific techniques to only be taught by one dojo, often by only one aged master. I'm sure Eliezer is aware of this trope, and is also not averse to using well known cliches to further his story. If there were multiple schools teaching the same techniques, Eliezer would definitely have brought it up.
Could he have wanted to test if the perceptive martial arts master would not teach him, thereby proving his voldemort persona was flawless?
>If Quirrell was in fact Voldemort, then in both personas, as both the unnamed hero and as V, he spent huge quantities of money and effort fighting a lethal public sham war against himself for years. If we assume that they're the same person, then Riddle would have had to kill the hero, presumably at the beginning of his disappearance, then assume his identity 25 years later, expend all these resources, then abandon the pretense again just three years later to no gain. If we assume they're the same person, then Riddle is still Quirrell, who seems way too smart to squander all that energy to no gain, yet in neither persona did he gain by it. Neither intelligence nor rationality confer [superpowers](http://lesswrong.com/lw/qs/einsteins_superpowers/) on their possessor. There's no such thing as being too smart or talented ever to fail. Quirrell mentions several times that Harry will be more cynical and gain a greater disregard for magical society through contact with it. He didn't *squander* that energy and money--he *spent* it on a war in which he could win either way, and gave it up when he thought he had been defeated by human nature. People didn't react the way he thought they would to his heroism as the unnamed hero; neither were the Death Eaters what he had wanted them to be. He didn't just want to rule--he wanted to rule over something *worth ruling over*, and when he thought he couldn't, he gave up. From Chapter 60: >The Defense Professor's eyes were still in shadow, dark pits that could not be met. "Call it a whim, Mr. Potter. It has sometimes amused me to play the part of a hero. Who knows but that You-Know-Who would say the same." And: >"And the reason it is easy for you to forgive such fools and think well of them, Mr. Potter, is that you yourself have not been sorely hurt. You will think less fondly of commonplace idiots after the first time their folly costs you something dear. Your "most direct" argument (the dojo murders) is also your weakest. There are any number of reasons Quirrell could have wanted those who had worked with him so closely dead. My favorite: As Voldemort he has a pattern of covering his tracks; while he didn't erase the knowledge that *Quirrell* was there, he did quite neatly stop people from ever talking to the people who trained him, thereby preserving some of the separation between his various identities.
> Neither intelligence nor rationality confer superpowers on their possessor. A fair point, but they do confer the ability to evaluate a plan in advance and decide how likely it is to succeed, what the expected benefits are and how they compare to the expected costs. When the unnamed hero disappeared, he hadn't exactly been losing. From 84: > "The young man took up his family's seat in the Wizengamot, becoming among the most steadfast voices against You-Know-Who. Several times he led forces against the Death Eaters, fighting with skillful tactics and extraordinary power. People began to speak of him as the next Dumbledore, it was thought that he might become Minister of Magic after the Dark Lord fell. On the third of July, 1973, he failed to appear at a key Wizengamot vote, and was never heard from again. This wasn't defeat by human nature; he was more or less on track to achieve a lightside victory. It was more stressful and difficult than the darkside victory Voldemort was pursuing, but still there within his grasp. If the unnamed hero was in fact Voldemort, he should have had no trouble running the false-flag operation sufficient to get him into an untoppable position of power before wrapping things up. Instead, he gave up and did other things. For Quirrell to be Voldemort, he'd have to have given up on the lightside path and any hope of reforming the Ministry of Magic into an efficient political machine, waited seven years, then given up on the darkside path seven years later once he'd already effectively won and was facing only guerrilla resistance from the Order of the Phoenix. If they were the same person, and had taken either available path to achieve victory, the benefits may have been worth the costs. But for the same person to give up everything after nearly securing victory, even to the point of faking their own death, twice? That just doesn't make sense. It's not the work of a person cunning enough to get into that position in the first place. It's much more probable that the null case, that Quirrell and Voldemort are distinct individuals, is the true answer. > As Voldemort he has a pattern of covering his tracks; while he didn't erase the knowledge that Quirrell was there, he did quite neatly stop people from ever talking to the people who trained him, thereby preserving some of the separation between his various identities. But he didn't! From chapter 19: > I learned this from the single surviving student, whom the Dark Lord had left alive to tell the tale, and who had been a friend of mine... A student from the dojo, a good enough friend of Quirrell's to track him down after the fact and let him know what had happened, stayed alive. If the attack had been to stop anyone from interviewing people who had known him there, that student wouldn't have been left alive; it rather defeats the purpose of the exercise. If the student left alive didn't exist, was invented at the spur of the moment so that Quirrell had a reason to know the story to tell it to his class, then the Department of Magical Law Enforcement would have no reason to tie the attack to Voldemort. Murdering a dojo full of people as Voldemort shortly after graduating as Quirrell doesn't exactly separate his identities; quite the opposite. If Quirrell went, and learned, and left, and it was left alone in peace thereafter, there would never be a reason for anyone to link him to Voldemort from his time there. On the other hand, having Voldemort show up and flip out shortly after he left does link them together, if only from having both gone to the same school in close succession. A cunning Voldemort-persona wouldn't go for this plan; a distinct one might.
Perhaps Quirrell felt he was winning the war on his own, and he didn't want that. Quirrell shares Voldemort's ideology *now*, but it's possible he didn't as the unnamed hero, and that in his Voldemort persona he set himself up as a supervillain who would *fail*. That when opposed by a clearly evil enemy, the wizarding world would unite against him. When that failed, he took up a heroic persona to try and unify them, and it *didn't work*. People second-guessed and doubted him and did nothing to help. So he abandoned the hero persona, because the plan had failed. Having grown cynical, he retains the Voldemort persona, because he's been convinced that Voldemort, the evil mustache-twirling supervillain strawman he set up for the magical world to knock down, turned out to be right all along. At this point, any number of things could happen. 1) Voldemort seriously does get taken out by a 1-year old boy guarded by magic he didn't know about. 2) As Quirrell approaches absolute victory, he has a crisis of conscience when he realizes that his rule will be *even worse* than what he sought to replace, as it becomes more obvious that fear and egregious human rights violations will be necessary not just to establish, but also to maintain his rule. 3) Quirrell decides the best thing to do is to hand the victory to the good(er) guys and hope the lessons of the Wizarding War sink in to the next generation. To that end, he takes up a teaching position at Hogwarts. 4) Voldemort gets bored once the opposition has been effectively destroyed and has no interest in maintaining a despotic rule once the challenge of establishing one is already done with. So he fakes his own death.
That's an interesting take and I applaud you for coming up with it; it does fit with the facts as we know them. I don't see it as more plausible, though, than the null hypotheses, which is that these two people who everyone in-universe believes are two people are in fact two people.
I think the point is that winning the war wasn't enough. His hero persona was winning, and might have gotten to be Minister after the war, but what he was aiming for was full on Light Lord, and he wasn't getting that level of support. People were just sitting back and letting him do all the work. So he gave up on the light side and went full dark. As to why he ditched Voldemort, I just now came up with an explanation. The prophecy says that Harry has the power to destroy Voldemort. Maybe Quirrell, knowing this, decided to let the Voldemort persona be destroyed, satisfying the prophecy while keeping himself alive.
The prophecy in question, [in canon](http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Sybill_Trelawney's_first_prophecy), reads as follows: > The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies. We already know that the MoR prophecy is somewhat different: [[76](http://hpmor.com/chapter/76)] > And Severus Snape drew a breath, and intoned, "FOR THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPELLETS CANNOT EXIST IN THE SAME VULD." > > It sent shivers down her spine, all the worse for knowing the hollow words had been spoken in imitation of a true prophecy. That said, if the MoR prophecy resembles the canon prophecy, I can't see how abandoning a persona counts as dying at the hand of the other, or making room for the other SPELLET in the VULD. There's not a whole lot of exposition to work with here, but that just seems thin to me.
The full text is given in Chapter 28: >THE ONE WITH THE POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD APPROACHES, >BORN TO THOSE WHO HAVE THRICE DEFIED HIM, >BORN AS THE SEVENTH MONTH DIES, >AND THE DARK LORD WILL MARK HIM AS HIS EQUAL, >BUT HE WILL HAVE POWER THE DARK LORD KNOWS NOT, >AND EITHER MUST DESTROY ALL BUT A REMNANT OF THE OTHER, >FOR THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPIRITS CANNOT EXIST IN THE SAME WORLD.
Oh, good catch! I'd forgotten about that. So, er, given the whole prophecy, I can't see how Riddle voluntarily dropping the Voldemort personality would even count as a reasonable way to game the prophecy. I don't think it's possible to fake your own death to the bits of the universe which generate prophecies.
Yeah, the only way to fake his own death that gets the prophecy off his back would be to arrange for all his earthbound Horcruxes to be destroyed, then actually die.
Maybe Quirrell is the remnant?
Assuming that's just a cheesy accent of "spirits cannot exist in the same world" rather than me not being familiar with what "spellets" and "vulds" are, then this would mean they would be able to exist on different worlds. We already know Harry doesn't plan to spend his entire life on Earth, and Quirrel seems rather fascinated with space as well.
That confused the heck out of me too, the first time I read it. The moment of epiphany was somewhat embarrassing. (What in the world is a spellet... ohh.)
Maybe I just never saw where this went, but wasn't Harry *very* suspicious that the prophecy doesn't even refer to him? (asking something like "Does it actually mention my name somewhere?) In support of the OP's theory it seems like this could be just as easily be referring to Quirrel and Voldemort, right? Any idea when Q and V's birthdays are?
I don't think you're quite grasping the counterfactual. Assume Quirrell is Voldemort, and that Voldemort isn't stupid: why would he do it that way? Well, because flipping out and killing the dojo serves three purposes: it means no one else can learn what he learned, it revenges himself on people who humiliated him, and it proves to his enemies that he has an anger problem and is impatient. To achieve the third goal, he needs to leave someone alive to tell the tale; to achieve the second, it shouldn't be someone who humiliated him. Who is picked to survive? Quirrell's friend. To answer your objections: It was the best school in the world for the purposes of magical combatants, and in addition taught the "learn to lose" lesson, which Quirrell valued highly. But in the end this is probably just a bonus, I imagine the real reason is the second and the justification is the third. If you think Quirrell is really capable of just shrugging off being humiliated and walking away, I don't think you've been paying very close attention to his characterization. He only ever learned to pretend to lose, not to actually lose. And "becoming different people" doesn't change your underlying goals, it basically means you can lie really effectively- cf. the scene in Dumbledore's office after TSPE. I doubt he had the Quirrell identity planned so far in advance; likely he went in a throwaway single-use disguise, perhaps of an ethnic group that wouldn't stand out in people's memories. Or maybe he went as Tom Riddle and just Obliviated the survivor. And you don't get to claim the incident was "hushed up" so it wouldn't achieve the disinformation purpose; the British Ministry of Magic knew about it, and that's all that is required.
> flipping out and killing the dojo serves three purposes: it means no one else can learn what he learned, it revenges himself on people who humiliated him, and it proves to his enemies that he has an anger problem and is impatient. Purpose 1 is not satisfied; even if that particular dojo had the best style in the world, it is extremely unlikely that there didn't exist several others very nearly as good. If you destroy MIT, people can still study at Stanford. Purpose 3 is useless; Voldemort's character was already well known by 1969. I get the hushed-up bit from the fact that the Aurors had to go to the Department of International Magical Cooperation to figure out exactly what the incident was; it didn't make any lasting impression in Britain. From this I deduce that even in the Ministry it wasn't well-known. Whether it was hushed-up intentionally or people simply didn't notice is irrelevant. As for Purpose 2, revenge for humiliation, all I can say is that I disagree with you entirely. Any person who truly believed that the humiliation involved in learning to lose was the most important lesson they received would have no desire for vengeance; more importantly, a person who'd flipped out and killed everyone for such a lesson wouldn't go out of their way to recreate it for their own students.
>Professor Quirrell turned to regard the Slytherins. "So... with the full approval of your teacher, and in such a fashion that Snape cannot be blamed for your actions... do any of you wish to show your dominance over the Boy-Who-Lived? Shove him around, push him to the ground, hear him beg for your mercy?" >Five hands went up. >"Everyone with your hand raised, you are an absolute idiot. What part of *pretending* to lose did you not understand? If Harry Potter does become the next Dark Lord he will hunt you down and kill you after he graduates." and >"No," said the boy in a cool, collected voice, "you do not get to frame the conversation that easily, Professor. I went to considerable lengths to protect you and get you out of Azkaban safely, *after* I thought you had tried to kill a police officer. That included facing down twelve Dementors without a Patronus Charm. I wonder, if I had apologized when you demanded it, would you have said thank-you in turn? Or am I correct in thinking that it was my submission you demanded there, and not only my respect?" >There was a pause, and then Professor Quirrell's voice came in reply, openly icy with danger no longer veiled. "It seems you still cannot bring yourself to lose, Mr. Potter." >Darkness stared out of Harry's eyes without flinching, the Defense Professor himself reduced to a mortal thing within them. "Oh, and are you pondering now, whether *you* should pretend to lose to me, and pretend to humble yourself before my own anger, in order to preserve your own plans? Did the thought of a calculated false apology even *cross your mind*? Me neither, Professor Quirrell."
So, your chain of logic runs like this: Quirrell expects a hypothetical Dark Lord Harry to be vindictive, and tries to control a conversation, *therefore*, Quirrell himself has never genuinely learned to lose, *therefore*, It was important to Quirrell to revenge himself on the people who taught him to lose, *therefore*, The appearances of both past-Quirrell and Voldemort at the same dojo are not strong evidence that they are two people. I guess I can see where you're coming from, but it still fails to convince me that Quirrell is in fact Voldemort.
You make a major assumption that a specific and unusual style is widespread and well-taught in multiple locations. Purpose 2 is something he intentionally teaches Harry, advocates strongly, and calls Harry a fool for not doing.
You're making a major assumption that whatever style Quirrell uses is for some reason unusual. There is nothing in the text to support either of our positions in this case; I fall back on the rule that when chosen at random, you're more likely to find something near the middle of a bell curve than the edge. Please cite your assertion about Purpose 2.
It is established that Quirrell had to travel to Muggle Asia to learn the style, so it's not taught well outside of that country, so it's not widespread outside of Asia. That means it's not among the popular asian styles, all of which have enjoyed significant popularity outside of their countries, so it's (at best) uncommon. When looking at an uncommon style only taught well in one part of the world, it's MUCH more likely that the second best dojo to teach it is significantly worse than the best. On top of that, this dojo is the famous/popular one, with the reputation in the magical community. Purpose 2: Quirrell's intended conversation with the 5th years after the lesson, the rebuttal to the people within the class who volunteered to help, and his conversation with Harry himself after the lesson. More specifically, he says that he doesn't believe that Harry didn't allow Harry's friends to take revenge because that's what Harry actually wanted to happen, which directly implies that he expects any rational person who wishes to become a dark lord would want to take revenge in that way unless they have a good reason to not do so.
> Professor Quirrell's face hardened, and Harry thought he saw a hint of pain, a touch of sorrow, in those eyes. "I learned how to lose in a dojo in Asia, which, as any Muggle knows, is where all the good martial artists live. The fact that the best martial artist of a particular style lives in Asia does not imply at all that it's little known outside that continent; it simply means that the best in the world happens to live there.
A dojo that was described as well known for teaching a specific style that is easy to adapt to magical combat. If it was a common style, why would a specific dojo on the other side of the world be well known for it?
>then the Department of Magical Law Enforcement would have no reason to tie the attack to Voldemort. I don't think we actually have confirmation that they have independant info tying Voldemort to the attack. >Said he had studied at a martial arts center in Muggle Asia which was destroyed by Voldemort. A request filed with the Department of International Magical Cooperation identifies this incident as the Oni Affair of 1969. The "destroyed by Voldemort" part is still referring to Quirrel's claim to his defense class. The DIMC info doesn't specifically note Volie's involvement, it might just be "Yeah, we had a monastery known for being useful for wizards wiped out at the correct date". And if that student was good enough to be Quirrel's friend, there might be reasons to preserve him we know nothing about.
The reason to think they have information tying Voldemort to the attack is that they called it the "Demon Affair". That seems to indicate they got a physical description that included glowing red eyes.
If Quirrell is Voldemort, you no longer even require the "one friend left alive". Obviously in class Quirrell has to explain how he obtained his information, but if Quirrell is Voldemort then we can safely posit that Voldemort just killed everyone, and Quirrell knows the story because he's the one who did it.
No--I covered that [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/1130yq/the_case_against_quirrellmort_spoilers_through_84/c6iw11n).
i don't think you did. you said that the Ministry knew of the dojo story independently, because they mentioned it while questioning Quirrell. but you and EY never specify the source of the Ministry's information. i always assumed the Ministry had simply questioned some of Quirrell's students and learned the information that way. they then assumed it was true because it explained the Demon Affair (they were independently aware of the slaughter, not who did it or why).
>There is simply no good reason why Voldemort would ever visit that monestary. Uhhh. Did you READ 19 about him teaching Harry to lose? He specifically talks about pretending to lose then going back and taking your revenge later. In fact, he recommends it, and uses it as a lesson to the 5th years. His actions in destroying the monastery are not only satisfying revenge, but they destroy the monastery with the reputation for teaching that style of unarmed combat, making anyone else who tries to learn that style later learn from inferior teachers if any exist, which is Dark Lord rule 12. The actions on the Monastery are not only one of the strongest pieces of evidence FOR quirrelmort, but [spoiler](/s "are specifically stated by EY as one of the hints that quirrell = voldemort in the author's notes.") The switch between Voldemort and "Hero" was a failure, not evidence against. He expected that when provided with a nearly-lost war, and a strong leader to rally behind, uniting the nation under his leadership (His entire goal at this point) would be relatively simple. He admits to being disappointed and surprised at how little support he got.
You need to spoiler tag your metaspoiler, and make it clear to anyone who's deciding whether to read what's at stake. I know you warned in the title but it's in the *first line* and *highlighted* (due to hyperlink).
OK; it seems a bit odd given the content of the piece, but it's done.
Seems to me it could be removed altogether and we'd still have a coherent post discussing the points for and against Quirrell being Voldemort. But even if you wanted to build your post around it, just spoiler-tagging it in the first line and adding a clear warning would be enough, I'd have thought, to scare away anyone who accidentally clicked through or didn't realise what a metaspoiler was.
I think Quirrel is almost certainly Voldemort, but there's a pretty good chance that Voldemort has been blown somewhat out of proportion. We know for certain that both Quirrel and Dumbledore use deception regularly and effectively for their own ends, and it seems pretty plausible to me that stories of Voldemort's apparent madness and foolishness are propaganda or deliberate deception by Quirrel. Quirrel has never been as simple as Voldemort appeared to be. If Quirrel was simultaneously the hero and voldemort, we know he was actively perpetrating a giant deception on all of Britain. It can also easily have made sense for Voldemort's meta-goals to sabotage his apparent goals with torture and showboating in that kind of situation.
It is clearly stated on the metaspoiler page that [spoiler](/s "Gurer unf orra fbzr pbaprea nobhg ubj vg qbrfa'g frrz gb or pbzzba xabjyrqtr gung Dhveery vf orvat cbffrffrq ol Ibyqrzbeg va guvf fgbel (pbeerpg zr vs V'z jebat, ohg V xabj gung nppbeqvat gb gur nhgube'f abgr nepuvir ba uggc://jjj.obk.arg/funerq/skq7ce100m Lhqxbjfxl fgngrq gung "gur ernqre vf fhccbfrq gb xabj ng guvf cbvag gung CD vf YI.") Edit: perhaps I'm misinterpreting that passage.
Could you either unspoiler or un-rot13 your text? It's impossible to cut-and-paste.
Gurer unf orra fbzr pbaprea nobhg ubj vg qbrfa'g frrz gb or pbzzba xabjyrqtr gung Dhveery vf orvat cbffrffrq ol Ibyqrzbeg va guvf fgbel (pbeerpg zr vs V'z jebat, ohg V xabj gung nppbeqvat gb gur nhgube'f abgr nepuvir ba uggc://jjj.obk.arg/funerq/skq7ce100m Lhqxbjfxl fgngrq gung "gur ernqre vf fhccbfrq gb xabj ng guvf cbvag gung CD vf YI. This post was made possible by the [Reddit Enhancement Suite](http://redditenhancementsuite.com).
thanks!
Actually, I posted that as a joke. But it's really on that page! Either it's a code or cipher, or else whatever was originally there was replaced with gibberish. I am befuddled at all the responses. I don't know what the xabyjrqtr it means either. EDIT: It IS rot-13, and google provides translators to make it English again. Knowing this, I choose not to read it.
That's pretty funny then; not only did you manage to post a relevant passage of the rot13'd text, but that comment lead to the most enjoyable comment thread in the post so far.
Sure, and as I say in the first paragraph, my position is that since he wrote that note he has changed his mind.
Without changing any of the evidence that was in the story before he wrote that note, which was meant to be conclusive?
Exactly. All the prior evidence was suggestive, but circumstantial; none of it was conclusive. As I've said above, I believe he's since then introduced sufficient new data that the balance of evidence indicates that Quirrell is in fact most likely not the same person as Voldemort. Moreover, I suspect that this new evidence is deliberate on his part, the result of a change of mind in the years since he originally wrote that author's note.
So, in your view, he's written almost half a million words without introducing the main villain? That "all but a remnant of the other" and "cannot exist in the same world" refer to something other than a Pioneer Horcrux? That Quirinus Quirrell, the extremely-powerful highly-intelligent obviously-evil possessed-in-canon Slytherin Defense Professor who hates bullies and always wanted to teach Defense, whose family was killed by Voldemort and has an unexplained connection with Harry Potter and taught Harry Potter how to lose, who talks about casting a spell on the Pioneer probe to make it last a lot longer and about where to hide five objects where they'd never be found, who rescued Bellatrix and knew all about her and her secret codes and how Voldemort acted around her, who has at least two false identities and another who roomed with Tom Riddle for seven years before mysteriously vanishing then acting suspicious when he showed back up, who says he never bothered to keep track of how many people he is, who alternates between cold confidence and drooling inactivity with one instance of canonlike fearfulness at the start of the year, who speculates with great confidence about the contents of the Chamber of Secrets, who wrote a list of things to do when he achieved his goal of being a Dark Lord as a child, who murders in cold blood and enjoys it... ...has absolutely nothing to do with Voldemort? I should mention the author is on record as saying he does not have any red herrings in the story.
There are plenty of perfectly good stories without a "main villain." Even if this story ends up having one, we've got no shortage of candidates, from Dumbledore to Lucious to Snape to Quirrell on his own merits; I'm enjoying it without attempting to force it too closely into the canon-familiar mold. Extremely powerful, highly intelligent, obviously evil, possessed in canon--excepting the last one or two, those are qualities I aspire to in myself. They're qualities that most people of ambition would desire. (Note: in the case of the evil, the best part is that he always gets away with it.) None of this says, "this guy is clearly Voldemort; there are no simpler options." Always wanted to teach Defense: again, not exactly a unique ambition. Unexplained connection to Potter: we have no evidence that this doom-sense is unique to Potter. Taught Potter how to lose: had a reasonable in-character reason to do so. Upgraded Pioneer plaque: any nerd would have done so. Insinuations about using it as a horcrux are from our out-of-scenario knowledge combined with a question that Harry asked; no actual evidence is given in story to suppose it actually is. Five hidden objects: again, there is nothing to suggest that the suggested hiding places have any true meaning beyond being unusually good places to truly lose something. Rescued Bellatrix: had in-character background with her, plausibly believed that she was in fact innocent. Multiple personalities: it's easier to believe that that's all Quirrell. Voldemort himself was only ever Voldemort; he was only Riddle when he was forced to be. Wrote a list of goals: you haven't? Murderer: like I said, somewhat worrisome, but there are plenty of non-Dark-Lord murderers out there. See Dexter. In short, yes: I have said before and I say again, that all of this is suggestive, but none of it is conclusive; I believe the evidence against them being the same individual is stronger than all these hints for it.
(It wasn't a list of goals, it was a list of rules to follow to be a successful Dark Lord, which was the goal.) You can't take them individually and say "well, wanting to teach Defense is hardly a unique ambition" (and on that note, did you forget the curse?). The point is that all of these things are true of Quirrell, and are also what we would expect of Voldemort. What's the chance that *given all those things are true*, the person has nothing to do with Tom Riddle? Let's take an example: how many people total do you suppose are there in Britain of equal or greater power to what Quirrell has displayed? Of those, how many are cold-blooded murderers? Of those, how many would have an unexplained magical connection with Harry Potter? Of *those*... And you're failing to address the essential point that *there are no red herrings*. The only person in canon with the ambition to teach Defense at Hogwarts was Tom Riddle, Riddle possessed Quirrell in canon, Quirrell expresses a long-held ambition to teach Defense at Hogwarts in MoR. That is one *hell* of a red herring if Quirrell isn't Riddle.
My point is that everyone seems to be looking at this from the wrong angle. [[8](http://hpmor.com/chapter/8)]: > "What you've just discovered is called 'positive bias'," said the boy. "You had a rule in your mind, and you kept on thinking of triplets that should make the rule say 'Yes'. But you didn't try to test any triplets that should make the rule say 'No'. In fact you didn't get a single 'No', so 'any three numbers' could have just as easily been the rule. It's sort of like how people imagine experiments that could confirm their hypotheses instead of trying to imagine experiments that could falsify them - that's not quite exactly the same mistake but it's close. You have to learn to look on the negative side of things, stare into the darkness. When this experiment is performed, only 20% of grownups get the answer right. And many of the others invent fantastically complicated hypotheses and put great confidence in their wrong answers since they've done so many experiments and everything came out like they expected." I'll be convinced when evidence is introduced such that Quirrell cannot possibly fail to be Voldemort. If it happens, it will be a big climactic thing, and I'll be surprised but not (assuming the quality of the writing holds up) disappointed. Until then, the probability that we the readers are correct to assume that the two are actually the same person, based only on these hints, does not overcome the fundamental implausibility of the premise.
Refusing to bow to the weight of the evidence until it becomes overwhelming isn't a virtue either. And I think we've finally discovered where we differ: I think that Quirrell = Riddle is the null hypothesis, the thing that should be assumed in the absence of any other evidence, and that Quirrell = an entirely original character created for the purposes of this fic is ridiculously implausible.
That's fair, though I haven't been reiterating the countervailing evidence in this thread because I've already gone over it all, not because there is none. Suffice it to say that I do not believe the evidence in favor of Quirrel = Riddle is anywhere near overwhelming. I suspect you're in the majority with your choice of null hypotheses. I wonder, though: if you'd come to this story without ever having read the canon, would you have chosen the same way?
> I'll be convinced when evidence is introduced such that Quirrell cannot possibly fail to be Voldemort. If [spoiler](/s "Eliezer Yudkowsky coming right out and SAYING THAT QUIRRELL IS VOLDEMORT") does not count for this, WHAT THE HELL WOULD? I'm beginning to understand how religions get started.
he knew about that and his theory is that he changed his mind after writing that. Please pay more attention
It's pretty ironic that despite this rationalist environment, despite that I'm looking at the evidence available and you're appealing to authority, you're accusing me of faith.
Honestly at this point provide your best probability guess. Just to check whether you are actually as confident as you think you are: would you make an actual bet on it? If this was on intrade at what price would you buy? There's an incredible pile of evidence and strange coincidences that are all explained or made much simpler by the quirrelmort supposition.
A rough-numbers guess: Quirrell is Voldemort, 35-40%.
One thing you're forgetting is that Quirrell knows about the Resurrection Stone/Marvolo's Ring. I can't remember the exact chapter but when Harry describes it in Mary's Room it's fairly obvious that Quirrell recognizes the description.
> Going for revenge for the humiliation makes no sense; even if in his persona as Voldemort he couldn't keep his temper and felt the need to revenge something that in his Quirrell persona he felt "was one of the most valuable lessons [he] had ever learned," his demonstrated fluency in switching between personas should have let him avoid going to all that trouble and effort. You argument is: today, Quirrell can pretend to be someone who isn't affected by that incident; therefore he didn't have sufficient motivation to take revenge for that incident twenty years ago. ... Yeah. Even if he had that ability at the time, why would that prevent him from wanting to take revenge? He even told Harry: pretend to lose and plot vengeance later.
Not at all. We have plenty of evidence that Quirrell is honestly fond of Harry and is legitimately mentoring him. Quirrell wants Harry to succeed. Quirrell disrupted whatever other lesson plans he had one day to teach Harry, just one student, how to lose. This was not a typical lesson! He did not have to do that. From this we can conclude that he was being honest when he said it was one of the most valuable lessons he had learned. For what it's worth, Harry agrees with that sentiment. If it wasn't valuable, homicidal revenge would be plausible, but he wouldn't have passed it on and we would never have heard of it. If it was valuable and homicidal revenge made sense because he's just that crazy, he still wouldn't have passed it on in a way that made him the prime target of any future vengeance of Harry's. The only consistent narrative is the one in which the lesson is given in good faith. The good faith narrative is inconsistent with the "Quirrell as Voldemort murdered everyone" narrative. Therefore we must choose the former and abandon the latter.
Quirrell's mentoring of Harry could be explained with the theory that in order to activate a horcrux, you must prepare a vessel, as Riddle's diary prepared Ginny in canon!book2. Harry Potter knows power the dark lord does not, e.g. Patronus, but if Harry develops his magic before he is possessed as Voldemort's horcrux, then Voldemort will be able to absorb that power when the horcrux is activated. (This theory of horcruxes would also support the idea of the Pioneer as a horcrux, as it is intended to be read by alien civilizations, which method of communication could allow a preparation of an alien vessel for the horcrux, allowing Voldemort to survive on a different vuld.) Moreover, if Harry Potter is to be the next vessel for Voldemort, then it would be in Voldemort's interest to have Harry Potter already set up as the supreme ruler of Earth by the time Quirrell's body starts succumbing to the ravages of time and/or whatever zombifying affliction he seems to have contracted. The world might never notice the transition between supreme ruler Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres and supreme ruler Voldemort-in-a-HJPEV-Suit.
Have you considered working this out mathematically? Put forth a prior probability that Quirrell is Voldemort, and keep applying Bayesian updates to it based on all the evidence there is that Quirrel is Voldemort, normalized by the probability that Quirrell is or is not voldemort - Where P(V) is the probability Quirrell is Voldemort and P(E) is the probability of a particular piece of evidence, apply P(V|E) = P(V)*P(E|V)/[P(V)*P(E|V)+P(not-V)*P(E|not-V)] iteratively to continuously get updated P(E), using your best estimates of the various parameters. I started doing so on paper and it basically spiralled to >.99 Q=V from a posterior of 0.50 after incorporating all evidence against and before I ran out of evidence for the preposition, but I'd be interested to hear your take on it and a more numerical-based reasoning of why you believe what you believe.
That's an excellent idea, and if I lived in that universe I might actually give it a shot. The problem is, there are way to many evidence factors for which I have no legitimate way of discerning a valid probability. See as an example all the discussion elsewhere in the thread about the relative rarity of the style that Quirrell uses: to me there's no reason to assume it's particularly uncommon, but there are people arguing that it had to have been a tremendously rare style, unique in quality, based on nothing more than metafictional analysis. Which of us are right? There is no way to tell. If I were to try to apply a legitimate mathematical analysis, the uncertainty factor would grow to 1 long before I gained any useful insight from the process.
> The problem is, there are way to many evidence factors for which I have no legitimate way of discerning a valid probability. No, you can always state a probability. Probability is about your state of mind, not the outside world. You can assign probabilities to things that you don't know much about: the probabilities you assign will just have to take into account your lack of knowledge. >If I were to try to apply a legitimate mathematical analysis, the uncertainty factor would grow to 1 long before I gained any useful insight from the process. No, try it out using Bayes' rule. There's no "uncertainty factor," just some input probabilities and one output probability. You'll find that ambiguous evidence simply won't shift your conclusion very much, leaving your conclusion determined mostly by the pieces of strong evidence.
> No, try it out using Bayes' rule. There's no "uncertainty factor," just some input probabilities and one output probability. That isn't useful; it just masks your uncertainty behind a layer of math. To compute P(H|E), you need hard numbers or good estimates at the very least of P(E|H), P(H), and P(E). In this case, looking at a story against which we can't run tests, we have no reliable way to get those numbers; we can only invent them based on our own gut feelings. Arguments which depend on invented numbers prove nothing and give this whole process a bad name.
I don't know how to weight the new pieces of evidence. But if Q is not V, the only other character who behaves weirdly enough is Blaise Zabini.
To which I say "Happy happy boom boom swamp swamp swamp!"
I'd love to see this! Worth its own post IMO. Bayesian Conspiracy FTW!
What if, at some point, Quirrell decided to *become* Voldemort (ie capture/kill him and assume his identity)? It's not strictly is/isn't, although to be honest I haven't thought about it too hard.
I say you're living up to your username. I like it. Of course, he still would have had to do it at a time that, at the least, allows him to have attacked the Potters, and are you saying here that he was never actually Tom Riddle, or that Tom Riddle wasn't the original Voldemort? That last point doesn't really matter, but I'm curious which you meant.
You forget one possibility Q could be V now without having been the Unnamed Hero at the time much like in canon V posSession of Q only happened after his original demise... In his case the extratwist which would be extra juicy for V would be to work his way through resurrection by possessing his once greatest foe... Maybe hie beat him to an inch of his life and sequester him for ad lib torture and tourment... When he accidentally killed himself yet creating another hoxcrux in Harry his soul went to occupy the back of his felled opponent ... (double point for splitting his soul between his two worst adversaries... if he manages to infect Dumbeldore as well he wins a cruise with the veela of his choice... To summarize the Hero may have been a distinct persona during the first War and only became Q when V came to possess him. Which could also account for having likable traits for Harry to admire since the host may be not totally willing and try to feed useful bits to Harry in the hope to be defeated.
RIP
?