On the nature of metathinking...

[clicketykeys]

No: HPFGUIDX 47598

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

Wolf:
> 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".

CK:
Actually, metathinking /starts/ with that (as you sort of mention 
later) and goes further. We can't expect any of the above claims just 
because "this is a book," because clearly, there are books that do NOT 
give happy endings.

However, because this is a story - and it seems to be a good story - 
we CAN expect catharsis. In a story, catharsis is the appropriate 
resolution of foreshadowing and payoff.

You want the end of the story to feel "right." This can ONLY happen if 
it is foreshadowed. However, you don't want the payoff to be obvious, 
either. When you have an ending in which everything suddenly falls 
into place in the your mind - when the writer creates that "aha!" 
moment - you have catharsis.

The movie _The Sixth Sense_ dealt with its cathartic moment very 
effectively by using flashbacks, so that the character came to the 
"aha!" at the same time the audience did. In books, we have that same 
freedom on our own - we can flip back to the setup points and reread.

Wolf:
> 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.

CK:
That, however, is shoddy analysis - it was /assumed/ to be a romantic 
comedy. An appropriate analysis takes what is KNOWN and goes from 
there. Had R&J actually /been/ a romantic comedy, an ending that 
killed them both off would have been inappropriate.

We can know, for example, that the Potter books are popular fantasy 
aimed at a certain age group because that is how they are marketed. 
And I think it is fair to make logical progressions from that. In 
fact, I think most of us likely have - we expect Voldemort to be 
defeated, because it is a more reasonable end to the story, based on 
the type of story we know it is, than if Voldemort succeeded in his 
Nefarious Plot.

Other things we can conclude are that Harry will /not/ die in his 
fifth or sixth years at Hogwarts, because this is his story. Likewise, 
Voldemort will not be permanently defeated before book 7, because he 
is the central antagonist. 

> 
> 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.
> 

My argument here is that theories based on solid metathinking are just 
as viable as those based on canon. The difficulty is that you can come 
to irrational conclusions much more easily with metathinking once you 
start moving away from what has been established.

CK
clicketykeys