TBAY: STAN'S CARP with DISHWASHERS, Stressed Sirius and Lollipops

[bluesqueak <pipdowns@etchells0.demon.co.uk>]

TBAY: STAN'S CARP. With Dishwashers, lollipops and stressed out 
Sirius

NOTE: Since this particular post has turned out to be more a 
discussion about `ways of approaching canon' rather than canon 
itself, I've decided it might be better to post it on OT chatter.

*********************************************************************

Pip and Sneeky are balanced thoughtfully on top of the DISHWASHER, 
gazing out at the garden. Coney the bunny rabbit is romping around 
happily, occasionally growling at fleeing gnomes.

`So, Sneeky, let's get this straight. We have surveillance equipment 
coming out our ears, we're bristling with can(n)on, we have an 
attack Wolf, we have just acquired TBAY's very first carnivorous 
attack bunny. And we're trying to convince people that we're 
friendly."

Sneeky shrugged. Carefully, in order not to fall off the top of the 
DISHWASHER. "Yes, indeed, Mistress Pip. Sneeky is thinking that the 
Safe House has got something of an image problem. Sneeky is also 
thinking that if Mistress Pip would shift over a little bit, Sneeky 
would be a lot less likely to fall off."

"Sorry, Sneeky. I always did say there was no bloomin' room to move 
on this thing."

Coney the meta-thinking bunny has now wandered back into the 
kitchen. He sniffs thoughtfully at the DISHWASHER and then tries to 
jump on top of it. 

"Sneeky! Just stay still! He can't jump that high! Just stay on top 
of the DISHWASHER and you're perfectly safe!"

"Is Mistress Pip quite sure?" quavered Sneeky. "Sneeky sees sharp 
teeth on that rabbit. Sneeky thinks it wants Sneeky to *be* lunch, 
not Sneeky to *make* lunch."

"Sneeky, you're exaggerating, " said Pip, rather sharply. "I'm sure 
that bunny only wants to play with the DISHWASHER, not destroy it."

"Then could Mistress Pip explain why she is hiding on the top of the 
DISHWASHER with Sneeky?"

"Ah." Said Pip. "Yes. Personally, I feel there's nothing wrong with 
that bunny. Nothing at all. I enjoy playing with meta-thinking bunny 
rabbits; it's just that personally, I think that rabbits don't 
really belong inside kitchen appliances. But somehow, I always seem 
to confuse people when I explain *why*.

Coney the meta-thinking bunny has got bored with trying to get on 
top of the DISHWASHER, and has wandered over to one of the Safe 
House's many replay switches. He presses it with his nose. Suddenly, 
Eloise's voice booms out from the concealed speakers.

"But yes, I think you have put your finger on one of the major 
problems. You 
three *do* use it [Meta-thinking] as a red flag. And we do see it as 
mutable, because we 
never know what the definition of meta-thinking is going to be. 
Except that 
it is bound to include whatever problem we have just articulated. ;-)

"Great." Said Pip." So the problem with this bunny is that it 
doesn't really know what it is. It's a mutable bunny rabbit. So all 
we have to do to be able to stop hiding on this ruddy kitchen 
appliance is to define `meta-thinking' so that the rabbit *knows* 
it's a bunny rabbit. Not a mutated carnivorous attack bunny."

Pip and Sneeky look at each other.

"Mistress Pip, Sneeky is thinking that we are doomed. Sneeky does 
not know how to define meta-thinking. Grey Wolf does not know how to 
define meta-thinking. Melody does not know how to define meta-
thinking. Even you, Mistress Pip, do not know how to define it so 
that everyone understands. We know what *we* mean. But the other 
listies might mean something else. Something mutable. And so we are 
doomed to be stuck on top of the DISHWASHER forever, never again to 
play with other theories, but always having to defend against 
attacks. "

Sneeky pauses. A big sob escapes her, and a tear runs down past her 
squashed tomato of a nose.

"Sneeky wants days off, Mistress Pip!"

Pip sighs. Then looks at Sneeky.

"Sneeky, you know this very powerful House Elf magic that you 
canonically have? Does it include anything that might get us out of 
this?"

"Sneeky could put a hover charm on the DISHWASHER so we could travel 
round the bay. But is that what Mistress Pip means?"

"No. I'm thinking of something that might allow us to get off the 
DISHWASHER."

"Well, Mistress Pip, there is something. It is not canonical
"

"Sneeky, I don't know about you, but I'm beginning to need the 
bathroom. If you know a spell, tell me. Please!

Sneeky looks at Pip. "We both shout `HELP!' very loudly."

Pip looks blankly at Sneeky for a moment, pauses, shrugs, and then 
both she and Sneeky shout, "HELP!"

EFFECT:  Lightning and thunderclap [off].

SCENE ONE: THE SAFE HOUSE KITCHEN. PIP AND SNEEKY ARE TRYING TO FIT 
ON TOP OF A MAGIC DISHWASHER. A RABBIT (CONEY) IS PROWLING AROUND ON 
THE FLOOR

A MAN ENTERS BY THE KITCHEN DOOR. HE IS TALL, HAS DARK HAIR, SHORT 
AT THE FRONT AND LONG AT THE BACK [MULLET/ICE HOCKEY STYLE]. HE HAS 
A LARGE HOOKED NOSE, WHICH SOMEHOW SEEMS TO SUIT HIM. WHEN HE 
SPEAKS, HE HAS A DISTINCTIVE RUSSIAN ACCENT.

STAN: Hello! What are you doing on top of this DISHWASHER?

SNEEKY: We is stuck. We has a problem with mutable definitions. This 
meta thinking bunny does not know what it is. Isn't this so, 
Mistress Pip?

PIP: [GAZING RAPTLY AT STAN]. Wow. You're so attractive


SNEEKY ELBOWS PIP
PIP: [SLIGHTLY EMBARRASSED, TO HERSELF] I didn't say that. I really 
didn't say that. [TO STAN] We can't seem to make this bunny 
immutable. 

STAN: Is this the little bunny? 

HE MOVES STAGE RIGHT AND PICKS UP CONEY.

SNEEKY: Sir should look out! That bunny bites!

STAN PETS CONEY. CONEY IS CALM UNDER STAN'S PETTING.

STAN: Your direction is wrong. You concentrate on the approaches of 
others. On the multiplicity of approaches that are taken on the 
list. How can you define this made-up term of `meta-thinking' when 
meta-thinking includes considerations of plot, of why CoS goes on 
beyond Chapter 8, of JKR's writing style, of her use of stereotypes, 
of narrative structure and the overarching themes of the series. 

Instead you should consider vat is the definition of *your* 
approach. Instead of saying rudely: `This is meta-thinking, and it 
is not valid', you should say politely: `we take this critical 
approach. We prefer to take the approach that Dumbledore and Snape 
and Voldemort are real people in a real world. Vat you are 
commenting about the theme in canon of `killing people is wrong' is 
interesting, but it is not evidence that would be considered under 
the critical approach that *we* take'.

SNEEKY LOOKS AT PIP

STAN: Will the little bunny go play out in the garden now? It is a 
bunny, yes? It wants to eat lettuce and grass, yes? 

HE PUTS CONEY DOWN ON THE FLOOR. PIP AND SNEEKY SHRINK BACK IN 
HORROR, BUT CONEY HOPS OUT INTO THE GARDEN AND BEGINS TO NIBBLE ON A 
BLADE OF GRASS.

STAN: You see? The bunny is happy when it knows what a bunny is and 
does. And you, my friends, will be happy when you come with me to 
the bar of my good friend George. Where I will explain to you the 
theoretical position of S.T.A.N.'S.  C.A.R.P.

PIP:	      ]
              ]  Stan's Carp?
SNEEKY:       ]

STAN: Stanislavskian Theory Applied Novels. Seeing Characters As 
Real 
People.
 An entire critical approach, used far beyond the Bay!

[CURTAIN]

SCENE TWO: GEORGE'S BAR – THE PINK FLAMINGO.

DICENTRA, PORPHYRIA AND CAPTAIN CINDY ARE SITTING AT BAR STOOLS. 
CAPTAIN CINDY HAS HER HEAD RESTING ON THE BAR. SHE IS HOLDING HER 
HANDS TO HER HEAD AND GROANING. GEORGE IS BEHIND THE BAR, SERVING 
DRINKS.

PIP, SNEEKY AND STAN ENTER FROM THE BAR DOORS, STAGE LEFT.


PIP: Cindy! What are you doing here?

CINDY LIFTS UP HER HEAD.

CINDY: Need you ask? In one weekend I have had to try and grapple 
with "meta-thinking," "Intentional Fallacy," ""Stanislavskian 
Theory," and "hermetica". My head hurts. George! I need a drink!

GEORGE SERVES CINDY.

PORPHYRIA: Who's that you've got with you, Pip?

PIP: Sorry. This is Stan. Have you two ever met?

STAN: Ah, yes, I think Porphyria and I have met once or twice. 

PORPHYRIA: Snape as clinically depressed. Yes, that treats Snape as 
a real person, doesn't it?

STAN: Indeed. A literary construct does not get depressed. But to 
discuss that Snape shows symptoms, and whether these symptoms match 
the clinical picture of depression, this is the Stanislavskian 
theory in action. That a character is seen as a real person, with 
real motivations. That you consider that character only from the 
viewpoint of vat they say, vat they do, vat is said about them. That 
you consider only vat knowledge they would have in their world.

PORPHYRIA: I know. It would have been great if this method had been 
brought up early 
on in the Magic Dishwasher discussion. That way we could use it 
instead of 
something awkward and confusing like "non-meta-thinking." 

CINDY: And I'm confused. I am *really* confused.

PORPHYRIA: For instance, if someone said "I think Snape was knocked 
out in the Shrieking Shack for all the discussion of Peter because 
JKR needed it that way for a plot convention," then the MDDT could 
reply: "I prefer to think of Snape and the other characters as real 
people, with real motivations, not the puppets of plot," etc. and 
cite the Stanislavskian method as an accepted, internally coherent 
means of interpreting characters.

STAN: I am used to being cited. It happens a lot.

DICENTRA: Yes, this Stanislavskian approach is used by more than MD, 
to be sure. The recent thread discussing whether Sirius had a 
genuine case of PSTD is not a literary approach. The timelines in 
the Lexicon posit the Potterverse as "real," and most of our FLINTs 
disregard the vagaries of writing and editing as an explanation for
the inconsistencies.

PIP: Uh huh. And my and Cindy's discussion of non-compliant! Lupin 
several months back 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39241
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39257
and following posts
 basically takes a Stanislavskian approach. It doesn't consider that 
Lupin *had* to forget his potion so he could turn werewolf, 
Pettigrew could escape, Sirius could be left without any effective 
witnesses to his innocence. Instead it talks about whether Lupin 
was `forgetful' or `non-compliant' (i.e. his forgetting to take his 
potion was a symptom of his not truly accepting that he *was* a 
werewolf). Lupin is treated as a real person. 

PORPHYRIA: Using the term `Stanislavskian' would have the advantage 
of being clearer to newbies and infrequent list-followers, who would 
either recognize this term from its use in 
acting schools, or be able to look it up independently. It's a 
recognised term. Not list slang.

DICENTRA: Try typing Stanislavskian quickly and accurately. I can't.

STAN: This is why I have come here.  In TBAY you simply use me, the 
personification of the Stanislavskian theory.

CINDY: So you're moving into the Safe House, huh, Mr Stanislavskian 
personification?

PORPHYRIA: [QUICKLY] Oh, I think not. I really think using Safe 
House, as a metaphor for non-meta-thinking is unadvisable, since I 
thought 
Safe House referred to JKR's frequent use of spying as a theme. Two 
of the major villains, Quirrel and Crouch Jr., could be described as 
undercover agents for Voldemort, for example, and Snape of course is 
revealed as a spy in GoF. Surely we can discuss the thematic 
relevance of spying without confining ourselves to one school of 
thought. Wouldn't you say so, Stan? What are you having to drink, by 
the way?

STAN: I always drink Wodka. I am Russian, you know. And spying can 
be discussed thematically, yes, so I do not live in the Safe House. 
I do not take part in thematic discussions, really. People do not 
have narrative functions, you see. Though you might ask me to look 
into a character beforehand if you are planning a thematic approach, 
because sometimes I have interesting insights. For example, do Mr 
and Mrs Dursley have exactly the same attitude to Harry? No. It is 
Mr Dursley who is the bully. Petunia dislikes Harry, but seems to 
make sure that he is clothed and fed, even if it is stale bread and 
cheese because he's being punished [CoS] for threatening Dudley.

THE DOOR TO THE BAR BURSTS OPEN SUDDENLY, AND JUDY RUSHES IN.

JUDY: Stan! So glad to meet you. I think I may have been taking your 
approach in post 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/47623
When I said that we can look at fictional characters in one of two 
ways. 
We can look at them as fictional constructs, in which case we might 
say "Sirius was written a certain way to fit the plot constraints." 
*Or*, we can treat them as if they were real people and ask "If 
Sirius were a real person, would he fit the criteria for PTSD, given 
the behaviours he exhibits?" But, it doesn't make sense to do both 
at the same time. 

STAN: Yes, the first way is my approach. And since I only consider 
what a character says, does or description about them, I do not 
understand consideration of plot constraints. Nor would I understand 
a statement that Uncle Vernon is representative of small-minded 
authority, unless you explained which lines in canon were leading 
you to that interpretation of Uncle Vernon.

PIP: But we could discuss whether Vernon Dursley represents small-
minded authority couldn't we? There's nothing *wrong* with that. 

STAN: Not with me, you couldn't. But you could discuss it with 
someone else, yes. There is nothing wrong with other approaches. I 
do not insist on complete fidelity. I understand that you might 
stray elsewhere.

PORPHYRIA: [GAZING INTO STAN'S EYES] That's handy to know. George, 
could you get Stan's wodka? I mean vodka.

GEORGE SERVES STAN WITH VODKA. HE SLAMS THE GLASS DOWN ON THE BAR 
WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE UNNECESSARY FORCE. PORPHYRIA JUMPS.

STAN: But you have to know which discussion you are having. Would 
PTSD!Sirius fit into JKR's theme of `courage is the greatest 
virtue'? Who knows? But Judy will tell you that this is not the same 
discussion as `does Sirius have PTSD'. `PTSD or not PTSD' is a 
discussion that I am involved in, you see.  And when I am involved 
in a discussion, I only understand certain types of evidence.

STAN PAUSES AND TAKES A SWIG OF VODKA. DICENTRA TAKES THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO ELBOW PORPHYRIA IN THE RIBS

DICENTRA: [WHISPERING] Porphyria! You're one of the major literary 
theorists on the list! Will you stop flirting with Stan?

PORPHYRIA: [SLIGHTLY DREAMILY] He doesn't demand complete fidelity. 
Did you notice that, Dicentra? We can still play around with other 
theories.

GEORGE STARTS TO NOISILY COLLECT GLASSES.


CAPTAIN CINDY: Trouble is, Stan, you're fine and dandy for TBAY. But 
what about outside the BAY? It's been decided that any post that 
makes reference to Hypothetic Alley theories without explaining them 
in the post should carry the TBAY prefix.

DICENTRA: Then we go back to the difficulty of 
typing `Stanislavskian approach', I suppose. 

PIP: Or you could explain what you *mean* by  S.T.A.N. 

PORPHYRIA: Or just say that you are taking an `internal to the 
character's perspectives' reading. 

CINDY [GROANS, AND CLUTCHES AT HER HEAD]: So Stan can roam the Bay, 
and the Stanislavskian approach can roam the rest of the list, I 
suppose. But Stan'd better have a TBAY prefix with him unless the 
author of the post explains what Stan is in the post in question.

PIP: Talking about roaming the BAY


PORPHYRIA: 
 Stan, are you staying at the Pink Flamingo tonight?

STAN: No, I vas going over to the LOLLIPOPS.

PIP:	         ]
	         ] The LOLLIPOPS?
PORPHYRIA:       ] 

STAN: Yes. I vas going to discuss Snape's motivation with Captain 
Tabouli. Whether there is canonical evidence for Snape's love of 
Lily. Whether it might affect his actions in the future. It should 
be an interesting discussion. I think I will be there all night.

PIP: Stan? Is this a private discussion? Or can anyone join in?

[CURTAIN]

See Hypothetic Alley for an introduction to MAGIC DISHWASHER, 
LOLLIPOPS and more:
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html


Pip!Squeak

[Apologies to anyone who gets this post twice - I had Yahoomort 
problems]