[HPforGrownups] Re: On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 47550

Sorry, it's taken a couple of days for me to get around to this.

Pip:
> Abigail: 
> >In other words, if MD is never addressed by the books and I go to 
> >see JKR and ask her whether she had any MD-like thoughts in the 
> >back of her mind when she wrote the text and she gives me a strange 
> >look and tells me that I'm crazy, that *still* won't invalidate 
> >MAGIC DISHWASHER as an interpretation of the text.
> 
> Pip:
> Well, it would for me, frankly. And as the creator of the theory, I 
> think I'm allowed a say in what invalidates it. 

Well, that kind of depends on your opinion of authorial intent, whether it is 
of any meaning or not, doesn't it? ;-) (And I mean the intent of the authors 
of theories as much as that of the authors of books.)

I'm the first to admit that I don't understand the finer points of MD, so 
this is probably completely wrong, but there's something I don't get.

If you regarded MD invalidated by what JKR said, wouldn't that mean that you 
were taking into account authorial intent?

Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking?

If JKR's authorial intent could theoretically retrospectively *invalidate* 
MD, why, if I understand correctly, has it been sugggested that it is unfair 
*now* to use other 'metathinking' critical tools when evaluating the theory?

To quote Grey Wolf:
>>I want to make this perfectly clear, because I have the feeling that 
people have been misunderstanding me: I don't like metathinking myself, 
especially against MAGIC DISHWASHER, which is based in internal 
evidence (and thus it is not Fair Play), but there is *nothing* wrong 
with metathinking per-se (and I hope I've never implied anything else).<<

If the internal evidence could still support MD, why should JKR's authorial 
intent matter one jot?

OTOH, would it be unfair for me to suggest that I disputed what I *think* is 
the whole basis of MD on the grounds that books, particularly 
adventure/mystery/thriller type books frequently depend on the coming 
together of all sorts of apparent coincidences and chains of events of the 
most improbable nature. It's just literary convention (and convenience) and 
does not imply any orchestrating hand in the background but that of the 
author.

Grey Wolf:  
    >>All MAGIC DISHWASHER tries to do is explain what has happened so far, 
from the most rational point of view possible... <<

And the above, that it is JKR, not Dumbledore, who is orchestrating events is 
*my* most rational point of view.   

Or have I misunderstood this whole metathinking business?

~Eloise

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You think that just because it's already happened, the past is finished and 
unhangeable? Oh no, the past is cloaked in multi-colored taffeta and every 
time we look at it we see a different hue.

(Milan Kundera, Life is Elsewhere)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]