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

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 47635

I was writing this whilst Pip was responding to my post. I will reply to her 
separately.

Grey Wolf:

> 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.

Eloise:
I beg to differ.

I'm sorry; as far as I'm concerned, *canon* refers to a writer's works, not 
to their opinions of or comments on those works..

"canon (4) the authentic works of a particular author or artist." (Oxford 
definition)

And that, as far as I am aware is the generally accepted view of canon on 
this list.

I know there is some disagreement over this, but we have discussed authorial 
intent before and I am firmly in the camp which believes that once a work is 
in the public domain, it has an independent existence and although its author 
may have interesting things to say about it, his/her interpretation is not 
the only valid one. Just as, to use an analogy I have used before, a 
composer's interpretation of his own composition is not the only valid one.


> 
> > Isn't taking authorial intent into account metathinking?

Grey Wolf:
> 
> No. Metathinking refers to the method of theorizing based on "this is a 
> book". 
> 
> 
Eloise:
Ah...I see. I think.
Metathinking is *theorising* based on "this is a book", but the rejection of 
a theory on the basis of "this is a book" is *not* metathinking. 

You acknowledge that "this is a book" by acknowledging that there is an 
author, whose views could invalidate MD. This is not metathinking.

I acknowledge that "this is a book" by acknowledging the existence of an 
author who brings many (analysable) literary skills and influences to bear on 
her work. But this, you say, *is* metathinking.

Sorry, I'm still confused. The difference is still too subtle for me.


Grey Wolf:
 Could you have 
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.

Eloise:
But I think you'll find that those who don't accept MD are doing quite the 
opposite, pointing out that HP incorporates many different literary genres 
and influences, that there are different themes going one simultaneously, 
that MD actually *limits* the future course of the series, character 
development, etc. There are others who could explain that better than I can.

Those of us who do not embrace the "no metathinking" school of interpretation 
still base our theories strictly within canon. If we don't, someone will very 
quickly throw a yellow flag at us. The difference between us I thought, 
before your stated willingness to accept JKR's potential opinion as canon, 
was merely that we theorise whilst acknowledging that the HP series is a 
piece of literature, and as such has an external context.  

In fact, I personally would go even further and say that even if it were not 
a piece of literature, if it were the 'historical' account of a series of 
events, I would still question  MD, being one of those who fashionably denies 
the existence of objective historical truth (all accounts are subject to the 
interpretation of the narrator.)  (1)

Grey Wolf:
> 
> 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. 


Eloise:
Thank you for that acknowledgement. I think we do have  a modicum of 
sophistication in that direction. The fact that HP is a book in no way 
convinces me that the series is to have a happy ending. I *hope* it will have 
a satisfactory ending, one that makes some kind of logical, thematic and 
emotional sense, that ties up enough loose ends whilst still leaving us to 
ask questions, that avoids cliche. But whether that involves unalloyed joy or 
an element of tragedy, I can't predict.

Grey Wolf:
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.

Eloise:
Has any of us tried to do that? I have never said that I *know* where JKR is 
going. I draw a firm distinction between theorising based on the canon we 
already have and speculation as to what might happen. You may have noticed 
that some of us are very happy to speculate about back stories, try and work 
out what *is* happening, but are much more reluctant to make firm predictions 
about what *will* happen. For example, many of us who are confirmed 
non-SHIPpers are more than happy to speculate about  possible past 
relationships.

But who tries to convince anyone that they ought to accept their views as 
correct? With the greatest respect, Grey Wolf, the only person I can ever 
remember suggesting I should 'convert'  to their own POV, is you.


Grey Wolf:
> 
> 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. 

Eloise:
Well, if that's what metathinking is, then I don't think I or many of MD's 
other critics have anything to worry about, because we're *not* trying to 
outguess JKR, just acknowledging that the books do not exist in a vacuum and 
taking that into account when theorising.

I would have said, to be honest, that *you're* trying to outguess her. You, 
after all, are the one who is saying that JKR could scupper your whole 
theory. I, OTOH, have an open mind about how the series will develop. I 
acknowledge certain themes, I have certain instincts about some things, but 
the only thing I *expect*, or rather hope for, is to be surprised.

I don't really understand what you're saying about authorial intent and 
canon.
Could you re-phrase? 

Grey Wolf:
> (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.

Eloise:
Internal evidence tells us about themes, the author's concerns and attitudes 
as much as it does about possible plot machinations.

We have evidently reached an impasse over authorial intent and canon. *I* 
insist that authorial intent is irrelevant and that JKR's views which are 
published outside canon are not of themselves canonical (although they may 
elucidate canon.)

As for what metathinking means, you're the expert, being the one who, I 
believe, introduced it into the field of literary criticism. I confess I find 
it difficult to follow its vaguely fluctuating nuances.


> (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.)

Look, either JKR's erm, non-canonical word is canon, or it isn't. 

> 
> > 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. 


Are you suggesting that JKR might not exist? ;-)

Science assumes that there is no supernatural purpose to the 
> 
> Universe, 

I thought the duty of science was to be open-minded and to seek to explain 
the universe in the best way it can.
Many scientists *do* believe in an underlying, supernatural causative or 
organising being, directly as a result of their studies.

If the existence of God were a scientifically proven fact, or at least a 
currently accepted scientific paradigm, then scientific investigation would 
have to take that into account. (Since the existence of God cannot be proven 
scientifically, I regard it as a rather unfair comparison.)

OTOH, I believe that JKR exists and is the author of a series of books about 
Harry Potter. I therefore take that into account in interpreting the books.

Grey Wolf:
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.

What is going on here? I'm the one who says that authorial intent is 
irrelevant! You're the one who insists that JKR's opinions of what is 
happening in her books, which surely by any reasonable interpretation means 
JKR's authorial intent, should be taken into account.

'Authorial intent' has an established meaning. Please don't confuse the issue 
by using it to mean something different. If you do that sort of thing 
someone, sooner or later, will accuse you of Humpty Dumptying.

But, given that you do acknowledge that JKR exists and that she has actually 
written and planned these books, how, pray, did she do it without reference 
to developing plots or characters or orchestrating their actions? 

Or to put it the other way round, how did these characters come to act in 
these ways, make these decisions, speak these words, without the creative, 
guiding hand of the author?

Look, let me go back to music.
Take a piece like - oh I don't know, say the first movement of Mozart's 
Jupiter Symphony, or of a Beethoven Symphony or of a Haydn quartet, it 
doesn't matter.

All those pieces of music are different. All are great. When we listen to 
them, we experience something emotional, something satisfying, something 
unique.
But all of them follow the same form. All of them, if you know anything about 
musical form, follow the same formula known as 'sonata form'. Their thematic 
development and tonal structures can be analysed. We can show exactly how 
they're put together and why and admire the craftsmanship.  But like any work 
of art, the sum is much greater than the parts. For me to try and deny that 
sonata form had any relevance to why the first movement of the Jupiter works 
would be arrant nonsense. But the music is far greater than the form which 
frames it. (2)


The same with writing. Of course the author frames the form, takes into 
account character and plot. But the finished work is far more than a formula. 

Ar you really suggesting that JKR *doesn't* take these things into account, 
or is it just that you don't like to think about them, because you think that 
it will spoil your enjoyment (I confess I didn't completely understand your 
last paragraph), as some people say they don't want to analyse a score as it 
will spoil their enjoyment of the music. Personally, it adds to my enjoyment 
to see the skill at work.

Nor is the employment of literary devices necessarily even a conscious 
decision.
To go back to Mozart, he was a consummate master of classical form, yet he 
just wrote music down, fluently as if it were being dictated. The form is 
simply part of the language, just as we might speak a whole paragraph without 
consciously thinking it out in advance. I believe it may be true of authors 
too: the instinct for plot and character development is there. It doesn't 
mean they're not a human construct though. Mind you, in the case of JKR we 
know that there *is* a lot of work involved. Look at the plot hole she 
discovered in Book 4 and the length of time it has taken to complete Book 5. 
Did all this take place without JKR considering or character development?

> 
> 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 together 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).

I understand that, although I am not so sure how scientific it is, or whether 
indeed we can apply scientific principles to a work of literature.

Referring to my own discipline, if I examine an artefact (and a novel is an 
artefact) it is *not* in isolation. In fact it is next to meaningless unless 
I know and take into consideration its context. When I know its context, I 
can tell far more about it and it in turn can tell me about the person who 
made or used it.
> 
> 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.

~Eloise
Who would like to insist that she doesn't think MD is *wrong*, but simply 
disputes its theoretical basis and, having an open mind, will be perfectly 
happy to accept it as a possible interpretation if the next three books don't 
contradict it, no matter what JKR says.
> 
> 
(1) I'm slightly over-stating my case there. My signature file tells you what 
I really think.

(2) I could give a for more extreme example. The serial composers of the 
second Viennese School (Webern, Schoenberg, Berg) wrote music of searing 
emotional intesity, whilst composing to a very strict formula whereby all 
twelve notes of the chromatic scale were used witht he same frequency. No 
keys, no modulation, no major and minor. No melody in the conventional sense, 
just 12 note rows. It sounds like a recipe for complete sterility, yet in the 
hands of a master, real music ensued.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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]