On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 47594

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

No, because at that point it would be canon. Everything stated by JKR 
(unfortunately) is canon, whether it makes sense or it doesn't. And 
when I say unfortunately, I am refering to the pesky number-of-students 
business, and how a contradiction in canon can lead to lenghthy 
arguments. Which isn't so bad, on second thought. So it could be 
"fortunately", I supose.

> Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking?

No. Metathinking refers to the method of theorizing based on "this is a 
book". For example: "Because it's a book, we can expect a happy ending 
with Voldemort vanquised and Harry victorious. We can expect the hero 
or his sidekick to get the girl. Etc". I don't like metathinking 
because it depends on what book you think you are reading, which is 
what I said when I refered to the three authors. The easiest, I think, 
is Shakespeare: take a look at Romeo and Juliet. Now, supose you've 
only got the first acts. Metathinking will tell you: it's a romantic 
comedy: they fall in love, love conquers all, and they live hapily ever 
after. And then comes the shock - look, the author was leading us down 
the garden path.

Of course, people that do in fact like metathinking are much better at 
it than I am and they might take that sort of thing into account, but I 
am reluctant to believe in their conclussions, because their methods 
are already very doubtful. They can try and convince me that *their* 
view of the books is the correct one, and that they really do know 
where JKR is going, but I'll choose not to believe them - because JKR 
has managed to twist my expectations sistematically in every book, no 
matter how I tried to see it coming.

Authorical intent is another thing: it is what metathinking tries to 
guess by looking at "similar" books (this is subjective: every person 
seems to use different books for that cathegory). The difference 
between one and the other is that only JKR can use authorical intent, 
and is canon. Metathinking is trying to outguess her, and my experince 
says that that particular game is doomed to failure. But, as I've said 
(and you quoted me), that's just me - if you feel you're up to the task 
of outguessing Jo, give it a try. Who knows? you might even get it 
right. I just say that I know *I* won't. (That having said, I do 
indulge in metathinking myself from time to time but, no matter what 
theories came out of it, I always treat them with very high suspicion)

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

Internal evidence is the same thing as canon. JKR's word is *also* 
canon. Thus, if JKR states that there is no MD, there is not: she's the 
one that created the place, she's the one that has power to bring it 
down. Which is not the same as metathinking, I insist.

(On a tangent, there is certain "softness" to JKR's word which makes it 
less "canon" than what is written in the books. If JKR suddenly 
announces in an interview that Hagrid wasn't taken to Azkaban, but to 
another prison, it would drive many people on the list mad, since it is 
a fragant violation of hard canon. And, knowing us, we'd find a 
plausible reason none of us would really believe but would use, for 
sake of our sanity.)

> 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.   
> 
> ~Eloise

Ah, but there's the catch: you've used it yourself. By introducing JKR 
into the equation, you're doing the same thing as if Newton had 
introduced God (i.e. a supernatural entity creator of the universe, in 
case you don't happen to be from a monotheistic religion) into the 
equation. Science assumes that there is no supernatural purpose to the 
Universe, and you'll find that most of my theories in the list follow 
the same path. Now, you may want to think that this is not the case 
(i.e that there are things that happen in the books that are 
plot-driven, or that JKR thinks necessary for character development, or 
for angst building, or whatever), and *that* is what metathinking is. I 
dislike that sort of reasoning intensively, because I prefer my books 
to be free of "authorical intent" (but not in the sense you've used it) 
- that is, that they are not puppets in the author's hands. If that 
happened to be the case, the books would loose all their interest in my 
case.

So, where does that leave MAGIC DISHWASHER? MD was built according to 
scientific principles, taken as many pointers from the books as 
possible to what is going on around Harry without him knowing, and 
putting toghether a theory that will rationally explain it, *without* 
using the will of God Creator (JKR, in this case - do not mistake with 
intra-textual gods, which the fantasy setting may or may not have, and 
which in HP are, so far, absent).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, which want's to insist once more, just in case: Metathinking 
is not wrong. He simply dislikes it and won't accept it's conclusions, 
especially where MD is related.