On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 47606

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote:
> Sorry, it's taken a couple of days for me to get around to this.
> 

> > 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. 
> 
Eloise:
> 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.)

Pip:
Um, no, I would say it depended on what someone admitted as 'canon'.

 My view is that any factual detail about the internal world of a 
book or series of books that can be definitely attributed to the 
author is canonical. Hogwarts has 1000 students. Jane Bennet's 
favourite colour is yellow. Both of these points are not in the 
respective books, the first case being from an interview with JKR, 
the second case being from a private letter of Jane Austen's.

MD is an argument based on canon. JKR is the creator of canon, the 
creator of the world of Harry Potter. It is her world, she created 
it, we just get to play around in it. She has the last word.

If she wants it. :-)

[This is my personal view, not the official list view.]

Eloise:
> 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?

Pip:
I don't know, because I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by 
authorial intent [grin]. It sounds suspiciously like some kind of 
technical term? 

Eloise:
> 
> 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?

Pip:
Because I didn't use metathinking tools in creating it. As I said, 
to me the author's factual knowledge of the world they have created 
is canonical. If JKR says Dumbledore never had a plan about the 
rebirthing potion, that is canon to me, whether it appears in the 
printed books or not.
 
>  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).<<
> 

Eloise:
> 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.

Pip:
One could say 'unfair', but mainly one could say 'it's completely 
irrelevant'.

I suspect [I've said this before] that we're coming from completely 
different theoretical backgrounds. The analysis of canon that 
created the Dishwasher is probably closest in theory to a 
Stanislavskian approach, if you want to use one of *my* technical 
terms [grin].

To try and explain this:
You can look at a text, whether novel, play or film script from one 
of two basic viewpoints.

One viewpoint is that of the audience - the 'outside in' approach. 
For that approach the consideration of 'what type of book/play/film 
is it?' is a valid approach.

The other viewpoint is that of the characters within the text (it's 
this viewpoint that an actor who has to perform the text often 
takes). This is the 'inside out' approach. 

This approach considers what do the characters actually do, what do 
other characters say about them, what do they say about other 
characters - in other words, their words and actions.

In a Stanislavskian approach, you would treat the characters as if 
they were real people, with real motivations, in a real world. And 
you would try and work out whether they *are* always saying exactly 
what they mean, or if there is something else going on underneath.

However, the point is, that in this approach an audience 
style 'outside in' point is actually pretty useless. 

For example: 'The Harry Potter books are an example of the Hero's 
Journey'.

So? This is an 'audience' viewpoint. It provides absolutely no 
assistance to an analysis of what Harry says and does, what these 
actions say about his character and motives, whether he has plans or 
is just drifting along. 

It also has absolutely no relevance to an analysis, say, of 
Voldemort's words and actions in the graveyard. Voldemort doesn't 
know he's in a series of books about Harry's journey of self 
discovery. [And he'd probably be very annoyed indeed if he ever 
found out ;-) ]

Or, 'Rowling's use of stereotype characterisation is shown by the 
portrayal of Voldemort as the stereotypical Evil Overlord'.

So? Fine - he's an evil overlord. But what does he do? What does he 
say?

 And if you analyse what he does and says in detail, you discover 
what the analysis of the literary conventions Rowling uses might 
miss: that JKR has broken the stereotypes in certain ways. For 
example: Voldemort isn't stupid. Far from it. And he's not 
overconfident in facing Harry in the Graveyard. He spends 
considerable time and effort there in trying to weaken Harry by 
exhaustion, fear and crucio. [ see 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40044 ]

This is another point, really, about the `looking at it from the 
characters point of view' approach. Literary conventions are not set 
in stone, they are not unbreakable. Treat Voldemort as an Evil 
Overlord straight out of literary convention, and you'll miss [JKR 
probably *intends* you to miss] certain points which may turn out to 
be important.

> 
> Grey Wolf:  
>     >>All MAGIC DISHWASHER tries to do is explain what has 
happened so far, from the most rational point of view possible... <<
> 
> 
Eloise:
> 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?
> 
Ø	~Eloise
Ø	
Yes, I think you may have.

That JKR is the ultimate orchestrator is the view of the *audience*. 
The audience knows they have a book in their hand, and they can see 
JK Rowling on the front cover.

But if I wish to discover Dumbledore's reasons for keeping Hogwarts 
open in CoS, when students were getting petrified right left and 
centre, saying: `because JKR wanted the book to continue beyond 
Chapter 8' is a cop-out. 

Dumbledore lives *within* the books. 
And you can look at him from the outside.
Or you can try and analyse him from the inside.

But you'll find it awfully difficult to do both simultaneously.

And that's why 'metathinking is not fair play'. You're asking me to 
look in two directions simultaneously.

And I go cross-eyed ;-)


Pip!Squeak