The benefits of metathinking

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 42361

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" <bard7696 at a...> wrote:
> I realize metathinking is a bit of a dirty word, but let me speak 
> in favor of it.
> 

I think metathinking is only a dirty word when people misuse it.

For example: one of the spirited responses to my floating the idea 
that Snape was present when James and Lily died was that canon 
already provides us with forensic spells (Priori Incantatum), so 
there need not have been a witness at all.

Now if I'd posted my *reaction* to that; which was that handing Harry 
the forensics report about his parents death wouldn't be half as 
interesting as Harry finding out that the much disliked Snape tried 
to save his parents, or interesting as Eloise's *even better* theory 
that Snape was there undercover and so had to stand there and do 
nothing; THEN I would have been indulging in 'metathinking isn't fair 
play'. Or equally, it would have been unfair if I'd used an even 
higher level argument; that an author should 'show, not tell'.

Because the starting post was based on the *internal*, canon evidence.

To use my reader reaction is to take the argument up a level, to the 
external world of the reader interacting with the text. To use a rule 
of good writing is to take the argument even higher up, to the world 
of the author's technique in creating the text. The original posts 
weren't working on that level, weren't intending to consider/use as 
evidence the reader interaction, or the authorial technique and 
so 'it isn't fair play'.

On the other hand, when you start off a post considering your reader 
reaction to 'Snape is acting', then we know from the start that we're 
playing around on one of the higher levels. And that's ok.

> There have been a lot of great theories floated the last few days, 
> especially regarding the night James and Lily died. And the MAGIC 
> DISHWASHER theory still pokes its head up from time to time.
> 
> Canon can be interpreted in many different ways, 

Yup. I could probably give you a plausible, canon based argument that 
Snape is a psychotic sadist who is allowed to continue at Hogwarts 
because Dumbledore is also secretly a sadist. Dumbledore is Ever So 
Evil, in fact, and plans to use the potentially-more-powerful-than 
Dumbledore Harry to kill the equally-powerful-as-Dumbledore 
Voldemort, using a plan which will inevitably kill Harry, leaving 
Dumbledore free to take over the world! [Cue high pitched evil 
laughter].

Heck, I could probably prove that Godric Gryffindor's sword is really 
Excalibur, retrieved by Gryffindor from the Hogwarts Lake, and so 
Harry is ... er, no, hang on, I probably CAN'T prove that one. But 
Ever So Evil Dumbledore is a snap. (or a Snape).

[No, of course I don't believe Dumbledore is Ever So Evil. What d'you 
take me for? [grin] ]

<Snip>

> 
> So, we are left with a bunch of different theories, each plausible 
> and each fitting with what we know about characters. <Snip> 
> Even the DISHWASHER, in all its glory, works.
> 
> So we are left with what makes a good story.

Which is where the problems start; because what makes a good story to 
*me* is not necessarily what makes a good story to you. I enjoy 
characters who appear to be one thing and are in fact another. Poor 
stuttering Professor Quirrel turning out to be the villain is my idea 
of fun. Snape as an actor is more interesting to me than Snape-with-
no-subtext - because trying to work out what's really going on in 
that greasy head is a challenge. 

I certainly do read novels where the characters are all exactly what 
they seem; but I see that as a weakness in a writer's skill set; not 
a strength. 

> 
> I disapprove of DISHWASHER not because it doesn't work, but because 
> I do not want to see a tortured, ambigious character like Snape 
> become cleaner, which is what happens. The whole idea that he is 
> able to operate on six different mental levels WHILE pretending to 
> be so  furious he can't see straight cheapens, not strengthens the 
> character. It takes away what makes him so interesting -- he's a 
> tragic and heroic figure who hates most of the people he's fighting 
> with and truly despises the boy who he knows will probably be the 
> linchpin in his battle. 

OK, let's take the worst case assumption. Snape is sweet.

Snape, in reality, underneath the constraints put on him by his cover 
story, is a sweet, loving, kind person. He has a pet kitten, who he 
loves [sorry, can't remember whose idea that was]. He adores 
teaching, and enjoys nothing more than helping less-competent 
students grasp his difficult subject. He cried real tears at Lily and 
James's death, and wants to give Harry some of the hugs he has never 
received from his cruel aunt and uncle. In fact, he wants to adopt 
Harry. And as for poor, brave Neville, he just wants to tell him that 
no-one can do well in every subject, and ...

[Pause]

Could you excuse me a minute? I think I'm going to throw up.

[Even Longer Pause. With Sound Effects.]

Ah, that's better. I may like my coffee with cream, but I DON'T want 
sugar in it. ;-)

But the point is, that the revolting Sweet!Snape is going to be MORE 
tortured, MORE ambiguous, than the straightforward I-hate-everyone!
Snape. Because he's still having to do things he really doesn't want 
to do. And he knows he's probably going to die [I'd rate Snape's 
chances of surviving to the last page of Book 7 as 50/50 at best] 
with people believing that he was a nasty, horrible, sadistic
 git; and what exactly is THAT thought making him feel like? 

Still tragic, still heroic. More heroic in fact, because he's willing 
to sacrifice not only his life, but his good name to the cause, and 
instead of fighting with people he despises, he's willing to let 
people he really respects despise HIM.

But in fact, I don't believe in Sweet!Snape, and I have *never* 
intended to argue that Snape is 'nice'; only that we should take his 
apparent hatred of Harry with a generous pinch of salt. The fact that 
Snape seems to have wandered into Hogwarts via Dostoevsky's Russia 
makes him more interesting to me as well - it's just that I see him 
coming from the 'redemption' section of "Crime and Punishment" rather 
than from the earlier chapters.

<Snip>
> But to have the anger be an act takes the interest out of the 
> character.
>

Again, it's a matter of what's not interesting to one person might be 
really interesting to another. Nor does 'the anger is an act' rule 
out Snape being a genuinely angry person who is deliberately 
directing and controlling his *real* anger - using it against Harry, 
for example, instead of against, say, the real targets of Lucius 
Malfoy and his spoilt little son. Acting quite often uses real 
emotions  - it just directs and controls them.

<Snip>
 
> ...the machinations of Dumbledore, which frankly, takes the focus 
> away from Harry. He becomes a pawn in a giant game between D-Dore 
> and V-Mort, INSTEAD of the wild card who changed the game 
> completely, surprising both sides. By having D-Dore engineer the 
> thing, or at least partially do so, HE becomes the true epicenter 
> of the story, not Harry.
> 
> Unacceptable. 
>

No, I would argue against that. There's a long tradition in 
literature of a wise mentor who spends the first part of the story 
(and we're only just over half-way through) directing, controlling 
and even deceiving the hero. For his/her own good, of course. [grin] 
Think Merlin, and Arthur growing up not knowing who he was. Think 
Star Wars and 'Darth Vader killed your father'. 

The point Harry starts becoming an adult is the point when he starts 
to refuse to be directed, controlled and deceived - even when it 
is 'for his own good'. When Dumbledore finds he has to STOP moving 
his little knight about the chessboard, because Harry IS the 
epicentre of the story.
 
> A little metathinking goes a long way.
> 
> Darrin

-- Yeah, but I prefer using enough freshly-washed can(n)on to refight 
the battle of Trafalgar.

Pip

Squeak!