More on MD..

[carolynwhite2]

Some responses to various MD points:

PRE-MD POSTS & POSTS ON MD THEMES
Jen:
>>I coded a great post from Grey Wolfe yesterday, #38213, that was
almost Trelawney-like in its vision of what would happen in OOTP.
Anyway, there were undercurrents of Spying Game philosophy in it.
And wasn't Grey Wolfe part of the original MD team? I marked it as
my first Fanatastic Post because some of his predictions were so
right on the money.<<

Kelly:
>>Having a bit of trouble deciding where to put #38904, which takes 
note of the fact that many of Voldemort's supporters willingly 
disguise themselves and their personalities for extended periods of 
time, while Dumbledore's do the opposite.

I was thinking maybe 1.1.2 Freewill, choice, and fate, or maybe
character development. Any better ideas?<<

Carolyn:
Up to now, I have been saying don't try and code stuff to acronyms 
unless the acronym is actually mentioned (or as good as) in the reply 
part of the post you are dealing with. For MD, this approach is much 
more difficult than usual, as the theory went under threads with many 
different titles, even after it acquired the MD acronym. 

If I were trying to understand the theory from scratch, I would 
personally find it extremely useful to have precursor posts like Grey 
Wolf's 38213 (agree, FP definitely) to read, before the main theory 
hit. I would like to suggest, therefore, that early posts (before 
39662) by either Pip or Grey that you think fit this bill are coded 
to the MD acronym. 

I don't think we should consider any other author's posts for this 
treatment, however. Just to take Kelly's question about 38904, as an 
example. This is from Amanda, and should probably be coded 
to 'Voldemort's agenda', 'spying & betrayal', maybe 'morality/ 
immorality', 'good & evil' - all codes likely to be in active use in 
coding MD. However, this doesn't make it an MD post (not that Kelly 
was suggesting it was). 

I propose to take the same line with coding ESE!Lupin, which is why I 
have been saying watch out for Pippin's posts on the theme - she took 
agin him a long time before the official launch of the theory at 
39362.

Kelly:
>>Also, hope you don't mind, I uploaded my saved copy of the three 
main MD posts, in Word format, to the files section, in case anyone 
would like easy access or a printable copy (but beware, it prints to 
43 pages).<<

Carolyn:
Really useful! Thanks. I have it on my hard disk to lob at 
unsuspecting enquirers too, but didn't think of this.

CODING MD:

Snow:
>>When we come across these posts that we code under MD, would we also
code them to DD's agenda? But then again it may not be DD's agenda
after all.<<<

Carolyn:
Oh yes, code them up as you would any other post, just remember to 
add the MD acronym code, that's all. I think I might be terribly mean 
and go in and code up Spying Game I in advance, just as a reference - 
but that doesn't mean you use all the same codes all the time for 
every post in the thread, just code as appropriate.

If it's not clear by now, this is a central principle of coding - 
keeping one or two categories as 'backbones' as you pick up different 
posts in a thread, and only abandoning the 'backbone' codes once the 
thread has wandered well and truly away from the original subject.

IS IT A VALID THEORY?


Talisman:
>>As you've shown, it generated an enormous flood of responsive
posts and energized the list for months. Indeed, a fair portion of
the nostalgia folks feel for the "good old days" can probably be
laid at it's feet.

But, if I recall correctly, there are any number of qualifications,
and even a change of course in part the third, that may leave MD
with palpable limitations, after all.

The question of whether MD is the mother of all things after, or
more a step in a progression, is obviously relevant to the scope of
posts that will be coded to the theory as we move forward. I'll
enjoy taking a closer look at this, along with other reviewers, and
coming to conclusions, joint or several.>>


Carolyn:
I'm not such a mad supporter not to agree with this. I think the 
first two parts are quite brilliant insights as to what POA and GOF 
are all about (indeed, the series up to that point). The third (post-
OoP) part leaves a lot of questions, was a bit disappointing, and 
left us all hanging back in 2003. We are still waiting for the next 
installment. If people are interested, some very good posts to read 
about responses to part III are:

81046 from Tom Wall

81067 from:  >>Jen, who wouldn't exactly call herself an MD 
enthusiast but who admires the genius of Pip!Squeak et. al., 
nonetheless.<<<

81074 from Kneasy

Plus 81097 and 81104 from Pip and Melody respectively, explaining 
their intentions a little more.

There is also more merit in the meta-arguments against than I like to 
admit; Boyd recently wrote to me offlist:

>>>Perhaps the real question is whether the fact that such a complex 
theory as MD is possible indicates 1) that it is true, 2) that 
herself has been remarkably adept at intentionally providing us no 
useful information about anything important for some other reason 
central to the plot, or 3) that her style has remained _too_ spare at 
times when more exposition was called for. If the denouement is as 
straightforward as most expect, then I'm afraid we may have a #3 on 
our hands. Of course, she still writes circles around most 
authors....<<<

But Laurasia thinks JKR might still surprise us:

>>>That's the problem with unifying theories, I reckon. If you want 
to explain them you have to stop all the action for a few 
pages/minutes and explain them- eg, Backstory in PoA. I used to be of 
the opinion that JKR could *never* include one, but once I started to 
think that she already has- werewolf, animagi, prank, etc, etc, etc I 
figure that she might. Although, ones that rely on Voldemort spilling 
the beans (eg Changeling) still seem less likely than ones than rely 
on Dumbledore or, even better, Snape after DD's death!<<<

Me?
Well, no surprises here - I will be disappointed if the fantastic 
complexity she has written in just turns out to be window dressing 
for a heart-warming children's tale of a boy who conquers all through 
love. I mean, yick or what. What does worry me is that she has no 
such intentions, but isn't a good enough writer to resolve all the 
fiendish plotting at the same time as delivering moving, more-or-less 
adult novels to end the series. 

After PoA, her finest hour, GoF started out on that path, and kind of 
wobbled on the plot front, but pulled it together emotionally with 
the graveyard scene. Personally, I still find it difficult to know 
what she intended with OoP. Lots of plot information, over-written 
Harry teenage tedium.. small, rather puzzling bangs as Sirius dies 
and DD 'confesses' nothing very amazing. Not memorable.  'Must try 
harder' is my verdict, even after all the oceans of analysis.

One of the things I'd like to do if we ever get this catalogue in 
some sort of shape, and after the end of the series, is to put 
together a selection of our finest posts, bound up together in some 
kind of sensible sequence. We could send it to her to as a memento of 
what people thought might be really going on in the books - in many 
instances, so much more interesting than what is there! A kind of 
festschrift with attitude, you could say.

Carolyn