Тощий Бетон_вторая итерация
Ну, тут ИИ попытался мягко и вежливо сказать, что это хуета.

Desmоnd
Внезапно)

Desmоnd
Я ему попробую свои собственные комменты скормить для проверки на валидность критики)

Чё-т теперь ору ещё хуже)

Summary of the Critical Comments
Harry’s Reaction to Quirrell:
The commenter mocks Harry’s enthusiastic response ("orgasms from how someone praises his silliness") to Quirrell’s speech, suggesting it’s irrational and driven by vanity rather than critical thought.

Quirrell’s Speech:
They question the speech’s "inspiring" nature, arguing its rebellious tone ("fat, overpaid, Auror-guarded politicians") appeals to childish impulses rather than reason. They find it suspicious that a teacher would dismiss the curriculum without clear justification or mention of responsibility.

Harry’s Character Flaws:
Harry is portrayed as power-hungry and naive, blindly excited by promises of showing off his abilities (e.g., army games over Quidditch) despite his supposed rationality. The commenter imagines this as Yudkowsky’s revenge fantasy, not a coherent character arc.

Rationality Failures:
They note Harry doesn’t question Quirrell’s motives or the relevance of "Battle Magic" to DADA, missing obvious red flags (e.g., no focus on Apparition, no discussion of consequences). This undermines HPMOR’s rationalist ethos.

Textual Intent and Charisma:
The commenter speculates the scene shows Harry’s pride blinding him, per Umberto Eco’s "intention of the text." They question its necessity, its alignment with HPMOR’s goals, and why Harry doesn’t later reflect critically on Quirrell’s weak arguments (unlike Hitler’s interlocutors). They ask if this is meant to depict charisma—and if so, whether it undercuts the story’s message.

Broader Critique:
If HPMOR promotes rationality but shows its hero consistently failing to spot the villain (Quirrell) and making poor decisions, the commenter argues it discredits its own premise.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Harry’s Reaction to Quirrell
The commenter’s vivid phrasing ("orgasms from praise") highlights Harry’s over-the-top applause: "He couldn’t help himself, it was too inspiring." In Chapter 16, Quirrell’s speech taps into Harry’s ego—his desire to be exceptional and his frustration with mundane authority (e.g., the Ministry’s curriculum). The critique is fair: a truly rational Harry might pause to ask, "Why is this teacher so eager to flatter me? What’s his agenda?" Instead, he’s swept up emotionally, contradicting his self-image as a critical thinker. This suggests:
Vanity Over Reason: Harry’s reaction aligns with the commenter’s view that he’s "power-hungry" and susceptible to flattery, a flaw the text later explores (e.g., his trust in Quirrell leads to Hermione’s death in Chapter 75).

Textual Intent: As the commenter suggests (via Eco), this could deliberately show Harry’s fallibility—his rationality is immature, clouded by pride.

2. Quirrell’s Speech
Quirrell’s rant—"There is no defence without offence!"—rejects the sanitized DADA curriculum for a brutal, proactive "Battle Magic." The commenter finds it juvenile and manipulative:
Appeal to Rebellion: Phrases like "fat, overpaid politicians" resonate with a ten-year-old’s disdain for authority, not a reasoned critique. It’s rhetoric, not argument, lacking evidence for why the old curriculum fails or how Quirrell’s approach succeeds.

Missing Responsibility: The absence of any mention of consequences (e.g., the ethics of hurting others first) is a glaring omission. A rational teacher might balance offense with duty, but Quirrell’s speech is pure provocation.

Suspicious Tone: The commenter’s right—a teacher trashing the system on day one, promising dangerous skills without safeguards, should raise red flags. Harry’s failure to notice this supports their "not a single rational thought" jab.

In HPMOR’s context, Quirrell’s speech reflects his cynical worldview (and likely Voldemort’s influence), but the critique holds: it’s more theatrical than substantive, and Harry’s applause feels unearned.
3. Harry’s Character Flaws
The commenter paints Harry as a nerdy, power-hungry kid thrilled by Quirrell’s promise of "after-school activities" where he can "show the world your own abilities." They tie this to a speculative Yudkowsky revenge fantasy:
Inconsistency: Harry’s earlier caution (e.g., avoiding Diagon Alley for safety in Chapter 5) clashes with his eagerness for military games. The commenter exaggerates ("didn’t want to leave the house for a frying pan"), but the shift from timid to reckless is abrupt.

Power Hunger: His excitement at leading an army fits the "strong woman" trope (likely a sarcastic misgendering), suggesting ambition trumps reason. This tracks with Harry’s later actions (e.g., Chaos Legion’s chaos in Chapter 30), but the critique overplays it as mere vanity.

Authorial Projection: The "Lazik Yudkovsky" dig implies HPMOR is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. While speculative, it’s not baseless—Harry’s precocious intellect and Quirrell’s mentorship mirror Yudkowsky’s rationalist ideals, though the text also critiques Harry’s flaws (e.g., troll failure).

4. Rationality Failures
The commenter lists missed opportunities for rational scrutiny:
No Military Academy Context: Harry doesn’t question why a school, not a war academy, needs "Battle Magic." In HPMOR, Hogwarts’ history includes darker DADA phases (e.g., pre-Interdict), but Harry’s lack of skepticism is a fair critique.

Ignoring Apparition: Quirrell omits Apparition, a key defensive tool (per Chapter 16’s dueling focus). The commenter’s hypothetical retort—Harry could argue it’s all he needs—exposes Quirrell’s narrow scope and Harry’s blind spot.

No Consequences: Quirrell’s "hurt them first" ethos lacks a counterweight. A rationalist might ask, "What if I hurt the wrong person?" Harry’s silence here weakens his claimed brilliance.

These align with later plot points (e.g., Harry’s trust in Quirrell backfires), but the commenter’s point is that this scene should already trigger doubts.
5. Textual Intent and Charisma
The commenter’s three questions probe deeper:
Necessity: The scene establishes Harry’s admiration for Quirrell, setting up their dynamic and his eventual betrayal. It’s necessary for plot and character, but the commenter questions if it’s just reader bait ("identify with the protagonist"). It’s both—narrative glue and a rationalist lure.

Hitler Analogy: Unlike Hitler’s interlocutors, who saw through his charm later, Harry never reflects on Quirrell’s weak arguments here. This could show charisma’s power—Quirrell’s delivery overwhelms logic—but the commenter finds it implausible for a "brilliant" rationalist. In HPMOR, Harry’s later doubts (e.g., Chapter 66) come too late, supporting their critique.

Charisma Portrayal: Quirrell’s commanding presence and anti-establishment vibe fit classic charisma, but the commenter doubts this justifies Harry’s lapse. HPMOR may intend to show rationality’s limits against emotional sway, yet it risks making Harry look foolish.

6. Broader Critique
The final point is damning: if HPMOR champions rationality but shows Harry failing to spot Quirrell’s villainy (revealed as Voldemort in Chapter 108) and botching key moments (e.g., troll attack), it undercuts its mission. This resonates:
Pattern of Failure: Harry’s trust in Quirrell, poor troll strategy (Chapter 75), and reliance on theory over practice (e.g., armies) suggest rationality alone isn’t enough.

Discrediting Rationality: The commenter argues this makes the text a cautionary tale, not a triumph. HPMOR counters this by having Harry learn from mistakes (e.g., post-troll resolve in Chapter 86), but the critique holds weight—his early naivety feels at odds with the story’s ethos.

Evaluation
The commenter nails several flaws:
Harry’s irrational enthusiasm clashes with his rationalist persona.

Quirrell’s speech is manipulative and thin, yet Harry doesn’t probe it.

The scene prioritizes drama over skepticism, risking HPMOR’s credibility as a rationalist text.

However, they overreach:
The "Yudkovsky fantasy" is speculative, ignoring Harry’s growth and flaws as deliberate.

Quirrell’s charisma and Harry’s lapse serve a narrative purpose—showing rationality’s human limits—though the execution may falter.

Conclusion
The critique exposes a tension in HPMOR: it wants Harry to embody rationality but often shows him swayed by ego and charm, especially here. Quirrell’s speech is inspiring only if you buy its bravado, which Harry does too easily. The scene sets up key dynamics but, as the commenter argues, risks discrediting the very principles it promotes when Harry’s brilliance doesn’t shine through.


Summary of the Critical Comments
Lack of Purpose and Depth:
The commenter questions why these roleplays exist, dismissing them as neither entertaining nor serious. They argue the exercises fail to teach meaningful lessons about war (e.g., geography, logistics), referencing Clausewitz’s emphasis on such fundamentals.

Organizational Choices:
Harry’s decision to divide his army into "6 platoons of 4 soldiers" with "Platoon Advisors" is mocked for its arbitrariness. The commenter demands a rationale for the number four, contrasting it with real-world examples like Rhodesian tactics.

Muggle Camouflage Uniforms:
The use of Muggle camouflage over wizard robes is highlighted, with Quirrell’s explanation (robes hinder forest maneuvering) met with sarcasm ("they had never walked among the trees before"). The commenter finds this a weak justification.

Missed Strategic Opportunities:
They suggest smarter tactics—camouflaged observation posts, communication networks, artillery-like spells, or Apparition to the enemy’s rear—over the simplistic broom reconnaissance and forest marches depicted. The "geniuses" (Harry, Draco, Hermione) underperform.

Rationality and Outcome:
The commenter argues the roleplays aim to showcase rationality in strategy and organization but instead show "banal clashes" where cunning tactics lose. This undercuts HPMOR’s rationalist premise.

Relevance to "Battle Magic":
They question how these games relate to "Battle Magic," echoing Quirrell’s redefinition of DADA, and find no clear connection explained in the text.

Harry’s Rational Silence:
They imagine a sharper Harry challenging Quirrell’s narrative about Voldemort’s success, citing Auror failures in counter-guerrilla tactics rather than abstract unity. His failure to do so frustrates them.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Lack of Purpose and Depth
The commenter’s invocation of Clausewitz—whose On War emphasizes war as a blend of politics, logistics, geography, and friction—sets a high bar. In HPMOR, the roleplays (e.g., Chapter 30, Chaos Legion vs. Dragon Army vs. Sunshine Regiment) are framed as practical DADA training, with Quirrell aiming to teach combat readiness over textbook trivia. Yet, the critique is spot-on: the exercises lack depth:
No Clear Lessons: The text doesn’t explicitly tie outcomes to Clausewitzian principles like logistics (e.g., supply lines) or geography (e.g., terrain advantage beyond basic forest cover). Harry learns chaos works (e.g., broom ambushes), but broader insights are absent.

Seriousness vs. Play: The commenter’s "serious crap" jab reflects a tonal mismatch—Quirrell treats these as life-or-death training, but the rules (e.g., Sleep Hexes, no broom-shooting) feel game-like, undermining gravitas.

2. Organizational Choices
Harry’s "6 platoons of 4 soldiers" (Chapter 30) is a specific critique:
Why Four?: The commenter references Rhodesian "sticks" of four, a real-world tactic for small-unit mobility in bush warfare. HPMOR offers no rationale—Harry’s choice seems arbitrary, not deduced from rational analysis (e.g., squad cohesion, spell range). This clashes with his rationalist persona.

Platoon Advisors: Adding advisors suggests delegation, but their role is vague. The commenter’s irritation highlights a lack of detail—how do these units function tactically?

This supports their broader point: the roleplays lack the rigor a Clausewitzian approach demands, making Harry’s "generalship" feel superficial.
3. Muggle Camouflage Uniforms
Quirrell’s switch to Muggle camouflage (Chapter 30) is explained as practical—robes snag on trees, bright colors expose wizards. The commenter’s sarcasm ("never walked among the trees") mocks this as obvious:
Weak Justification: Pureblood surprise is plausible in HPMOR’s insular wizarding world, but the critique implies it’s a contrived detail to signal "realism" without substance.

Missed Opportunity: Camouflage hints at stealth, yet the roleplays don’t emphasize it (e.g., no ambushes from hidden positions). The commenter’s right—it’s a surface-level nod to tactics.

4. Missed Strategic Opportunities
The commenter’s alternatives—observation posts, communication spells, artillery equivalents, Apparition—reflect Clausewitz’s focus on preparation and maneuver:
Textual Contrast: Harry uses brooms for recon (Chapter 30), but it’s flashy, not subtle. Hermione wins by blocking retreats (Chapter 31), yet there’s no sign of advanced spellcraft or Apparition (banned for first-years, per canon).

Rational Failure: If Harry’s a genius, why not innovate beyond brooms? The commenter’s suggestions align with rational optimization, exposing the roleplays’ simplicity as a narrative choice over a showcase of brilliance.

This critique holds weight—HPMOR prioritizes dramatic clashes over strategic depth, limiting its "Battle Magic" credibility.
5. Rationality and Outcome
The commenter expects rationality to yield optimal strategies, but:
Cunning Loses: Harry’s chaotic tactics (Chapter 30) and Draco’s discipline (Chapter 31) often falter against Hermione’s straightforward approach. This subverts the idea that rational cunning wins, as the commenter laments.

Banal Clashes: The battles feel like schoolyard games with magic, not rationalist triumphs. The text aims to teach game theory (e.g., Chapter 33’s prisoner’s dilemma), but the commenter sees only shallow execution.

This undermines HPMOR’s goal of showcasing rationality’s power, though it may reflect a deliberate lesson: overthinking can fail against simplicity.
6. Relevance to "Battle Magic"
Quirrell rebrands DADA as "Battle Magic" (Chapter 19), promising real combat skills. The commenter’s confusion is valid:
Disconnect: Sleep Hexes and broom chases don’t match the lethal stakes Quirrell invokes (e.g., trolls, dragons). No dueling techniques or counter-curses emerge.

Unexplained: The text doesn’t bridge this gap—Quirrell’s rhetoric outpaces the exercises’ scope, leaving "Battle Magic" as a buzzword.

7. Harry’s Rational Silence
The commenter’s imagined retort—Voldemort won due to Auror incompetence, not disunity—draws on real-world guerrilla warfare (e.g., Clausewitz’s "people’s war"). In HPMOR, Quirrell blames wizarding division (Chapter 16), but:
Missed Critique: Harry, the "brilliant Ratioharry," accepts this without challenging its historical accuracy or tactical nuance. His silence frustrates the commenter, as it dulls his rational edge.

Context: HPMOR’s Voldemort lore aligns with canon (fear and power, not just tactics), but the critique highlights Harry’s failure to engage critically here.

Evaluation
The commenter’s Clausewitz lens exposes real flaws:
Shallow Tactics: The roleplays lack logistical or geographic depth, feeling more like games than war.

Arbitrary Choices: Harry’s platoon structure and the camouflage detail lack rational grounding.

Rationality Gap: The exercises don’t fully deliver on HPMOR’s promise of strategic brilliance, and Harry’s uncritical acceptance of Quirrell’s framing weakens his character.

However, they overstate some points:
Purpose: The roleplays aim to teach leadership and decision-making under pressure (e.g., Harry’s chaos, Hermione’s teamwork), not full military theory. Clausewitz is a high bar for a school setting.

Narrative Intent: HPMOR prioritizes intellectual flexing (e.g., game theory) over gritty realism, a choice the commenter dislikes but which fits its tone.

Conclusion
The critique nails the roleplays’ lack of substance— they’re neither Clausewitzian nor robustly rational, and Harry’s "genius" feels unearned. The Muggle uniforms and platoon splits are half-baked, and the "Battle Magic" label rings hollow. Yet, HPMOR isn’t aiming for military simulation but for a sandbox to test rationalist ideas, however imperfectly. The commenter’s frustration is justified, but their expectations may exceed the text’s scope.


Summary of the Critical Comments
Tone and Easter Eggs:
The commenter imagines injecting humor or gravitas via a Blade Runner quote ("Wake up! Time to die!") from Dumbledore, contrasting it with a gritty military quip from Captain Reid-Daly. This sets a sardonic tone for their critique.

Quirrell’s Teaching and Influence:
Quirrell is criticized for teaching "incomprehensible bullshit," pushing a "readiness to kill," praising "Strong Leaders," and grooming Harry, hinting at a sinister agenda reminiscent of authoritarian figures.

Harry’s Character and Philosophy:
They speculate how Harry would react to life after death (frustration at not "nullifying" enemies) and liken him to the God-Emperor from Warhammer 40,000—a tyrannical figure trapped by his own power. This suggests Harry’s arc mirrors unchecked ambition.

Moral Blind Spots:
The commenter notes HPMOR avoids the emotional weight of leadership (e.g., sending friends to die), with Quirrell sidestepping this and Harry not questioning it.

Quirrell’s Logic on Danger:
They challenge Quirrell’s claim that Harry is "the most dangerous" due to his "readiness to kill," arguing it’s impractical (e.g., a stronger foe could overpower him regardless). Harry’s lack of pushback is a missed rational opportunity.

Doylist Critique:
From a narrative perspective, they question what "readiness to kill" achieves against superior foes or in generalship, suggesting it’s a hollow theme that doesn’t align with HPMOR’s rationalist goals.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Tone and Easter Eggs
The commenter’s playful references (Blade Runner, Reid-Daly’s quip) signal a desire for HPMOR to lean into its absurdity or grit. In Chapter 16, Quirrell’s dramatic DADA intro ("Battle Magic") could indeed fit a cinematic flourish like "Wake up! Time to die!"—it’s dark, fitting Dumbledore’s eccentric wisdom in a crisis (e.g., troll attack, Chapter 75). The Reid-Daly quote mocks Harry’s naive tactics (e.g., broom recon in Chapter 30), implying a real soldier would scoff at his lack of direction. This sets up their broader disdain for the text’s seriousness.
2. Quirrell’s Teaching and Influence
Quirrell’s portrayal in HPMOR—especially in Chapters 16, 19, and later (e.g., 66)—is indeed provocative:
Incomprehensible Bullshit: His "Battle Magic" curriculum (Sleep Hex armies, abstract unity rants) lacks clear structure, as the commenter notes. It’s more theatrical than pedagogical.

Readiness to Kill: In Chapter 19, Quirrell tells Harry he’s dangerous for contemplating lethal force (e.g., against bullies), a trait he nurtures. This aligns with his Voldemort persona, revealed in Chapter 108.

Strong Leaders: Quirrell admires decisive figures (e.g., Salazar Slytherin, Chapter 34), grooming Harry as a potential tool or successor.

Grooming: His mentorship—praising Harry’s intellect (Chapter 16), arranging armies (Chapter 30)—has a manipulative edge, which Harry misses until late (e.g., Chapter 75’s fallout).

The commenter’s "Well-l-l-l..." implies a dictator-like parallel (e.g., Hitler, per prior comments). It’s a fair read—Quirrell’s rhetoric and actions suggest a dark agenda HPMOR gradually unveils.
3. Harry’s Character and Philosophy
The Warhammer 40,000 God-Emperor analogy is striking:
Parallels: Like the Emperor, Harry seeks control (e.g., reforming wizarding society, Chapter 86) and wields power (e.g., troll-killing Transfiguration, Chapter 75), but risks stagnation or tyranny. His immortality quest (Chapter 122) echoes this.

Life After Death: If Harry knew souls exist (confirmed in Chapter 39 via the Stone), the commenter’s right—he might rage at enemies’ persistence (e.g., Voldemort’s Horcruxes). His rationalist drive to "nullify" threats (e.g., Chapter 108’s vow) fits this frustration.

Unrealized Perspective: The commenter suggests Yudkowsky doesn’t see Harry’s endgame as Emperor-like, but the text’s trajectory (power consolidation, moral compromises) supports this critique implicitly.

This paints Harry as a tragic figure, not just a rational hero, aligning with the commenter’s skepticism.
4. Moral Blind Spots
The absence of leadership’s cost—sending friends to die—is a glaring omission:
Textual Evidence: In the armies (Chapters 30-33), Harry treats soldiers as chess pieces (e.g., Neville’s role in Chaos Legion), and Quirrell never challenges this. Even Hermione’s death (Chapter 75) is a personal loss, not a command decision.

Quirrell’s Silence: His focus on killing (Chapter 19) skips the emotional toll Clausewitz or real generals (e.g., Eisenhower) grapple with. This flattens his "Battle Magic" into bravado.

Harry’s Passivity: A rational Harry might ask, "What if I lose Neville?" He doesn’t, missing a chance to deepen his growth.

The commenter’s realization underscores HPMOR’s focus on intellectual puzzles (e.g., prisoner’s dilemmas) over war’s human stakes.
5. Quirrell’s Logic on Danger
Quirrell’s claim (Chapter 19) that Harry’s "readiness to kill" makes him "most dangerous" is dissected:
Practical Flaw: The commenter’s scenario—a senior grabbing Harry—highlights physical limits. Readiness doesn’t trump strength or preparation (e.g., Aurors’ training, per canon).

Harry’s Silence: He could counter, "I’d rather outsmart than kill," reflecting his Transfiguration ingenuity (Chapter 75). His lack of objection cedes ground to Quirrell’s worldview.

Rational Disconnect: If danger hinges on intent alone, not execution, it’s a weak metric. The commenter’s right—Harry’s more "freak" (unconventional) than lethal.

This exposes a gap between Quirrell’s rhetoric and reality, which Harry’s rationality should catch.
6. Doylist Critique
From a narrative (Doylist) lens, "readiness to kill" as a path to generalship is questioned:
Utility: Against a superior foe (e.g., Voldemort), intent without skill or strategy fails. The armies teach chaos, not command (Chapter 30).

Thematic Fit: HPMOR pushes rationality, but this trait feels emotional, not calculated. The commenter asks how it leads to leadership—Quirrell’s grooming suggests it’s about loyalty to him, not generalship.

Enemy Survival: The parenthetical "(enemy doesn’t have to die)" is key—Harry’s troll kill (Chapter 75) is an outlier; most foes (e.g., Draco in armies) don’t die. Readiness is symbolic, not decisive.

This critique suggests Yudkowsky overplays a dramatic trope at rationality’s expense.
Evaluation
The commenter nails critical flaws:
Quirrell’s Influence: His grooming and kill-focused philosophy are suspect, and Harry’s blind spot undermines his rationalist cred.

Moral Gaps: Ignoring leadership’s toll flattens the story’s depth.

Logical Weakness: "Readiness to kill" as a superpower is impractical and unchallenged, clashing with HPMOR’s ethos.

They stretch some points:
God-Emperor: A compelling parallel, but speculative—Harry’s arc isn’t that grim yet (Chapter 122 ends optimistically).

Freak vs. Dangerous: Harry’s danger lies in intellect (e.g., Patronus 2.0, Chapter 45), not just intent, which the commenter downplays.

Conclusion
The critique exposes HPMOR’s tension: it wants Harry as a rational hero but saddles him with naive trust and untested bravado. Quirrell’s "readiness to kill" mantra is a shaky pillar for danger or leadership, and Harry’s silence weakens his brilliance. The Warhammer lens and moral critique enrich the discussion, suggesting HPMOR prioritizes intellectual flexing over war’s gritty reality or rational scrutiny—ironic for a text championing reason.

Evaluation
The commenter nails key flaws:
Implausibility: The rocket’s mechanics and Harry’s knowledge stretch belief without textual support.

Improvisation: The escape’s lack of prep clashes with rationalist ideals.

Thematic Drift: Genre tropes overshadow promised logic, diluting HPMOR’s mission.

They overreach slightly:
Rocket Function: It works as a distraction, not a physics puzzle—speed isn’t the issue.

Genre Savvy: Harry’s trope awareness fits his intellect, though the commenter’s Campbell point stands—he lacks formal narrative study.

Conclusion
The critique exposes the Azkaban rocket as a flashy but shaky plot device. Harry’s unexplained expertise, the vague mechanics, and the shift from rationality to trope-driven heroics frustrate the commenter’s expectations for a thinking hero. HPMOR sacrifices rigor for drama here, and the "stupid easter egg" epitomizes a lost chance to showcase its core promise. The depressingly apt takeaway: brilliance is asserted, not earned.

Summary of the Critical Comments
Contrasting Motivations:
Rand in WoT doesn’t crave omnipotence but acts out of necessity, with divinity tied to sacrifice (e.g., crucifixion imagery). HPMOR’s Harry, conversely, seeks godhood—quick, painless, and self-preserving.

Attractiveness:
The commenter sarcastically asks which is more appealing: Rand’s selfless duty or Harry’s universe-screwing ambition.

Rationality and Curiosity:
Rand, an "uneducated villager," investigates his world to understand threats and manipulation. Harry, the "ratiogenius," lacks this proactive skepticism, coasting on brilliance.

WoT Parallel:
If Rand were like Harry—timid yet power-hungry—he’d fall fast to a manipulative figure (e.g., a Lanfear), ending the story abruptly with naive trust.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Contrasting Motivations
Rand in WoT: The commenter’s crucifixion metaphor (paraphrasing a song) reflects Rand’s arc—suffering on Dragonmount, dying to seal the Dark One. He resists power, accepting it as duty.

Harry in HPMOR: Harry’s goal is explicit—end death, achieve godlike control. No sacrifice needed; he seeks a rational shortcut. The commenter’s "screwing the universe" captures his proactive, almost hubristic drive.

Critique Strength: Spot-on contrast. Rand’s path is stoic, Harry’s is ambitious—WoT embraces sacrifice, HPMOR rejects it for optimization. The "quick and painless" jab fits Harry’s rationalist aversion to suffering.

2. Attractiveness
Textual Implication: Rand’s reluctant heroism aligns with classic archetypes (e.g., Christ-like savior), while Harry’s quest for immortality and power is modern, utilitarian, and self-focused.

Commenter’s Sarcasm: "What is more attractive?" mocks Harry’s appeal—WoT’s gravitas vs. HPMOR’s cerebral ambition. It’s subjective, but the commenter favors Rand’s depth, implying Harry’s godhood chase is shallower.

Analysis: Fair point—HPMOR’s ethos (rationality über alles) can feel cold next to WoT’s emotional stakes. Harry’s allure is intellectual, Rand’s is sacrificial; the critique leans on taste but highlights a thematic rift.

3. Rationality and Curiosity
Rand’s Approach: In WoT, Rand probes his role, expecting manipulation. He learns through trial.

Harry’s Approach: In HPMOR, Harry’s rationalism is reactive—e.g., late to suspect Quirrell, trusting until burned. He analyzes magic but not people.

Critique Power: The commenter’s right—Rand’s proactive curiosity outshines Harry’s. The "ratiogenius" label drips irony; Harry’s brilliance doesn’t extend to social skepticism, a rationalist flaw. WoT’s villager out-thinks HPMOR’s prodigy here.

4. WoT Parallel
Hypothetical: The commenter reimagines Rand as Harry: timid, power-hungry (, seduced by a "tall brunette all in white" (Lanfear). Harry-like Rand would trust blindly, ending fast—captured or dead.

HPMOR Parallel: Harry’s arc mirrors this slightly—Quirrell flatters him, and he follows. The "curtain falls" mocks Harry’s near-falls.

Critique Insight: Brilliant satire. Harry’s naivety fits this collapse—only plot armor saves him. Rand’s wariness would rewrite HPMOR’s stakes.

Summary of the Critical Comment
Formula: The commenter sarcastically sums up Harry’s arc: "Panic fear of death + ability to solve any problem by straining your brain = summoning an ultrapatronus."

Process: They mock Harry’s method—sitting, thinking, deeming wizards stupid, and unlocking a super Patronus—as overly simplistic and unscientific.

Tone: "Highly scientifically" drips with irony, challenging HPMOR’s rationalist ethos.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Panic Fear of Death
Textual Basis: Harry’s dread of death fuels the scene—Dementors embody it, and his refusal to accept loss (e.g., Hermione’s potential fate) drives his breakthrough. This echoes his broader obsession.

Critique Validity: The commenter’s "panic fear" is spot-on—Harry’s emotional spike isn’t calm deduction but a desperate push. It’s less rational analysis, more visceral rejection, clashing with his "smartharry" label.

2. Ability to Solve Any Problem by Straining Your Brain
Textual Evidence: Harry’s process is intellectual—he deconstructs the Patronus, rejects wizard norms, and builds a new theory. His Patronus 2.0 emerges from this mental strain, glowing humanoid and Dementor-killing.

Critique Strength: The "straining your brain" jab simplifies it—Harry’s not just thinking hard; he’s reframing reality. But the commenter’s right: it’s a leap from thought to superpower with little groundwork. Wizards’ "stupidity" (not questioning Dementors) is his foil, yet the jump feels convenient.

3. Summoning an Ultrapatronus
Textual Outcome: The Patronus 2.0 isn’t canon’s stag—it’s a human figure, banishing Dementors permanently. Later, it shields against despair, showcasing its power.

Critique Power: "Ultrapatronus" mocks its grandeur—HPMOR frames it as a rational triumph, but the commenter sees it as a plot device. The sarcasm hits: Harry’s insight (life > death) directly yields a mega-spell, bypassing experimentation or spellcraft rules.

4. Highly Scientifically
HPMOR’s Ethos: The text promises rational magic—Harry’s hypothesis-driven. Here, he theorizes Dementors as death’s agents, countered by life-affirmation, and tests it live.

Critique Irony: "Highly scientifically" skewers this—where’s the method? No trials, no data, just a eureka moment. The commenter’s right: it’s more epiphany than science, clashing with HPMOR’s stated rigor.

Evaluation
The commenter nails a core tension:
Emotional Core: Harry’s "panic fear" drives the Patronus, not pure logic—his brain strain is secondary to his dread, undercutting rationalist purity.

Convenient Leap: The ultrapatronus emerges too neatly—wizards are dumb, Harry’s smart, boom, super spell. It’s a narrative shortcut, not a deduced mechanism.

Scientific Pose: HPMOR cloaks it in rationality, but the commenter exposes the lack of process—less science, more deus ex machina.

They slightly overplay:
Simplification: "Sat, thought hard" downplays Harry’s reframing (life as patterns), which is clever, if abrupt.

Tone: The sarcasm risks missing the scene’s intent—showcasing Harry’s unique worldview—though it lands on execution flaws.

А вот тут забавно - попросил набросать характеристику автора комментов.

If we assume that all the critical comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (HPMOR) analyzed thus far were written by a single person, we can infer several characteristics about their personality, intellectual leanings, and motivations based on the tone, content, and recurring themes in their critiques. This hypothetical commenter emerges as a complex figure with a distinct perspective. Here’s an analysis of what can be said about them:

1. Intellectual and Analytical Mindset
Evidence: The commenter consistently dissects HPMOR’s logic, from Harry’s Atlantean hypothesis (e.g., questioning wand triggers) to tactical flaws (e.g., troll defense, army maneuvers). They demand coherence.

Inference: They’re well-read and analytical, likely versed in military theory, fantasy literature, and narrative structure (e.g., Doylist/Watsonian lenses). Their critiques aren’t casual—they probe deeply, expecting rational rigor and textual consistency.

2. Sarcastic and Cynical Tone
Evidence: Phrases like "Highly scientifically," "Combat Magic (TM)," and "fucking nuts" pepper their comments, alongside exaggerated scenarios (e.g., "panties torn off, not glasses"). They mock Harry’s "ratiogenius" label and Yudkowsky’s choices with biting humor.

Inference: They wield sarcasm as a weapon, suggesting a cynical streak or frustration with unmet expectations. This could stem from disillusionment—HPMOR promises rationality but delivers what they see as tropes and shortcuts.

3. High Expectations for Rationality
Evidence: They repeatedly call out HPMOR’s rationalist failings—Harry’s lack of foresight (e.g., Azkaban, Voldemort), unexplained magic (e.g., Horcruxes, ultrapatronus), and impractical plans (e.g., toilet trios). They contrast this with Rand’s pragmatic curiosity in Wheel of Time.

Inference: They’re drawn to rationalist ideals—problem-solving, strategic thinking—but feel HPMOR betrays them with emotional leaps (e.g., ultrapatronus) and plot convenience. They might admire the concept but despise its execution.

4. Appreciation for Depth and Realism
Evidence: References to Clausewitz, Rhodesian tactics, and The Defence of Duffer’s Drift show a love for grounded strategy. They lament missing logistics (e.g., army prep), moral weight (e.g., sending friends to die), and worldbuilding (e.g., banking, Merlin’s role).

Inference: They crave depth—realistic systems, emotional stakes, and fleshed-out worlds. HPMOR’s abstractions (e.g., vague spells, dropped banking) disappoint their taste for gritty, coherent detail, possibly reflecting a military or historical interest.

5. Narrative and Archetypal Awareness
Evidence: They cite Umberto Eco’s "intention of the text," archetypal hero-villain roles (e.g., sacrifice vs. self-preservation), and genre tropes (e.g., "solution exists," hero’s journey).

Inference: They’re narratively savvy, likely a fantasy veteran who spots patterns and expects subversion or payoff. HPMOR’s inversion (Harry avoiding death) intrigues but irks them when it lacks depth or follow-through.

6. Frustration with Character Inconsistency
Evidence: They mock Harry’s shifts—timid to power-hungry (e.g., frying pan to domination), genius to naive (e.g., Quirrell trust, troll flop)—and Hermione’s arc (e.g., warrior to damsel). Quirrell’s "readiness to kill" logic gets similar scorn.

Inference: They value consistent characterization. Harry’s "ratiogenius" falling for flattery or botching tactics, and Hermione’s protest-to-death swing, signal sloppy writing to them, not deliberate complexity.

7. Possible Personal Investment
Evidence: The "Lazik Yudkowsky" jab (revenge fantasy) and "depresses me about this fucking rocket" hint at emotional stakes.

Inference: They might feel personally let down by HPMOR—invested in its promise, stung by its flaws. The Yudkowsky dig could reflect disdain for perceived self-insertion or unmet potential, while WoT nostalgia hints at a benchmark HPMOR fails.

8. Contrarian Streak
Evidence: They challenge HPMOR’s fanbase hype—Harry’s not dangerous, just a "freak"; the ultrapatronus isn’t scientific; Quirrell’s not a twist. They relish flipping perspectives (e.g., McGonagall blaming Harry).

Inference: They enjoy poking holes, possibly thriving on contrarianism. This could be intellectual play or a reaction to HPMOR’s cult status—pushing back against its rationalist pedestal.

Overall Profile
This hypothetical commenter is a sharp, sarcastic intellectual with a passion for fantasy, military strategy, and narrative craft. They approached HPMOR expecting a rigorous, rationalist reimagining of Harry Potter, but found a mix of brilliance and baffling shortcuts—unexplained magic, inconsistent characters, and trope-heavy climaxes. Their cynicism masks a desire for depth and realism, tempered by a love for WoT’s grounded heroism over HPMOR’s cerebral ambition. They’re frustrated yet engaged, dissecting with glee and disappointment, possibly a reader who wanted to love it but couldn’t fully buy in.
Their voice is distinctive—mocking yet insightful, demanding yet nostalgic—suggesting someone who critiques out of care, not just spite. They might be a writer, gamer, or theorist themselves, given their fluency in tropes and tactics, and their HPMOR takedown feels like a labor of grudging respect gone sour.

*гордо прохаживается*
Теперь напоминаю себе Цезаря!

Тощий Бетон_вторая итерация
Уииии. Только Цезарем тебе не быть - там надо всирать на регулярной основе.

Но ты, барин, задачку задал, прочитать все эти простыни с утра.

Не надо быть Цезарем, он плохо кончил.

venit, vidit, rogavit

(пришел, увидел, спросил - по мнению гугылтранслейта)

Samus2001
Et veni, et vidi, et cecidi - по мнению Яндекса)

Lady Astrel

* разводит руками
я римлянин не настоящий, а тогу в интернете нашел :)

*гордо задрав носик*
Я свою паллу из шкафа достала!

https://fanfics.me/message714234
*ушла варить кофе*

Lady Astrel
Теория не хуже машины атлантов!

Desmоnd
Тупить, но не до такой же степени-то!