More on MD/ Elkins does it again/Bangs

[elfundeb]

I've had a lovely time revisiting the MAGIC DISHWASHER, and all the thoughts posted here, since I've been puzzled for quite some time about what the current MD enthusiasts see as the essence of the theory.  I did get a bit carried away here, using up valuable coding time but this fascinates me, and it's relevant (or at least I think it is) to the breadth of posts that get assigned the MD tag.

KathySnow wrote:

> Hey who just smacked me up along side my head. That hurt, I was just 
> kidding! I know the boy (150 year old) has a plan. 

Is this it?  As someone who went through the original MD debate in real time, I didn't see that as the essence of MD.  I have always put myself in the MD opposition camp, yet I never doubted that Dumbledore has a plan.  My MD objection was that Pip's original Spying Game post posited a very specific plan in which Pettigrew was intentionally permitted to escape (with or without a flawed potion recipe).  While I thought her theories were quite ingenious, and I marvelled at her skill in weaving the threads together, in the end I found that endorsing it required me to believe just a few too many impossible things before breakfast.

Talisman wrote:

> 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.

Certainly MD engendered a lot of discussion about Dumbledore and his agenda, but I believe that most listmembers at the time would have argued that MD referred to Pip's two Spying Game posts and the embellishments and variations on her theories, even though the OOP update broadened (some will say superseded) the original focus of MD.  I will go with the flow, but think there are so many MD-specific posts in the archives we should be wary of over-coding to the theory for fear that the *true* MD posts will become lost in the forest.

> 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.

I find it intriguing to read this from an MD fan, since my original objections to MD were based on the *specific* agenda that was proposed.  I was quite baffled to discover that the MDDT were quite chuffed over OOP because it proved that Dumbledore has *a* plan.  I thought Tom Wall's response summed up my reaction to the OOP update quite nicely:

"The
old theory used to revolve around several basic precepts: one, that
Snape was in the Shrieking Shack as an agent, acting on behalf of
Dumbledore, in order to: two) ensure that Pettigrew escaped to
Voldemort, thereby: three) facilitating (via his severed hand) a
flaw in the potion "Flesh, Blood, and Bone," which Voldemort used to
bring himself back to life, therefore: four) this flaw in the potion
would enable Harry to ultimately triumph over the Dark Lord. <snip>

But this latest post doesn't address these at all. . . . My point is that the prophecy mentions nothing about a flaw in the
potion engineered by Dumbledore. And unless we take it very
liberally and with much salt, the Prophecy seems to nullify a great
deal of the old MAGIC DISHWASHER in the same fashion that it's
hobbled 'Heir of Gryffindor.'"

KathySnow:
I have Marina as the originator of the actual acronym 
> MAGIC DISHWASHER post 39751.

But Grey Wolf was the creator of the dishwasher, in 39744:

"I believe that there are many options available to recuperate
Voldemort's body. They come in a variable degree of dificulty, but
several do exist. Most of them will give back Voldemort enough power to
start winning again, and some will not, being flawed in one way or
another. Unicorn blood, for example, is flawed, since he has to drink
it continually. The PS was NOT flawed, and that was why the Unicorn's
blood was only interim preparation.

Let's suppose *for the sake of an example* that other perfectly valid
forms include an enchanted dishwasher and the egg of some odd bird
(pick one at random form FB, if you want).

Now, Dumbledore and the old gang had a long talk after Voldemort's fall
and put together as many heads as possible trying to now what his enemy
would do. They came up with a number of possible solutions to his
problems, both flawed and not flawed. But they were greatly amazed to
discover one method that, while indeed flawed, at first glance it did
not seem to be so: the infamous potion."



On a different topic, Miss Carolyn Havisham has commended the following:

> In a completely exceptional post [38398], in which Elkins surpasses 
> even herself [warning - very long], she eventually reasons her way to 
> this point, which has suddenly made me think he could be the HBP 
> after all, but for quite the reverse reasons suggested by most 
> people. 

This is IMO (along with Still Life with Memory Charm) the best post ever written.  If many of you are MD adherents, I am a Memory adherent, and must insist that you read this as well.  

But, why would Neville be the HBP, unless the statements that he's a pureblood are lies?

Jen wrote:

> Some old TBay'ers will probably know best about Bangy, but I think 
> it should only be used for a particular kind of theory and not the 
> Big Bang Destroyer in general. Cindy could make anything sound bangy 
> though, eh? 

I agree.  To take a different example, we don't code all of Tabouli's posts to LOLLIPOPS just because that's where she kept the TAGS machine.  OTOH, there was a point when it became de rigeur to assert that one's theory was *bangy* as though that was additional canon in its favor.  I wasn't thinking that every assertion that a theory was bangy should be coded to the Big Bang, but maybe it should.  Miss Havisham, could you give us a ruling?

Debbie
who promises to get back to work now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20050129/df67ba31/attachment.html>