On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

Wed Dec 4 05:01:07 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 47694

Pip wrote:

>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 ;-)

And that is why it is to be rejoiced that man was given the gift of a 
neck. How about simply trying to * turn* your head to the one 
direction after you've taken in all you need from the other? 

F. Scott Fitzgerald said that  "The test of a first--rate 
intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at 
the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

----------------------
" Wha--!"

Charis Julia starts up sharply. "Hang on! That. . . I mean, I know 
where. . . Just wait one minute." 

And jumping up from her chair she rushes purposefully towards a 
rather dark corner at the other end of the Royal George, opens a 
small, hidden door, stumbles up the rickety, winding staircase 
behind, dashes through the narrow, unlit passage above, climbs 
through the trap door in the ceiling and emerges right in front of an 
old, battered wardrobe. She flings it open. The rusty hinges creak in 
un—oiled protest. Peering into the darkness inside the listies can 
just make out her bleary form rummaging wildly about, while 
indistinct mumblings drift up from the gloom.  "Just be a sec . . . 
I'm * sure* it's in here somewhere . . . specifically remember 
tossing it into the back here after the last time I. . . Aha! Here we 
go!" She drags out a rather wonky and somewhat rusty and altogether 
quite blurry * something* and proudly holds it up for inspection. "My 
intelligence you know."

Pause.

"Oh. Yes. Err, well, I know it doesn't look like much right now. But, 
I do assure you that once you dust it off and tune it up and find the 
lost screws an' all it really is quite first—rate . . ."

----------------

I really can't see why we cannot use both the inside—out * and* the 
outside—in approaches to literary analysis simultaneously. Surely 
after all that is exactly the point at which we, the readers, have 
one up on both the characters inside the book and the actual, 
objective reality that this is, after all, really just a * book*. A 
fantasy. Fiction.

>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.

Well, that particular comment is indeed a cop—out, if not for any 
other reason then because it is ludicrously obvious. It is of course 
_ true_. JKR's intention to write a book numbering more than 8 
chapters was indeed one of the (very basic) reasons that Hogwarts 
didn't close in the middle of CoS. From my point of view at least I'm 
afraid that that is an undeniable fact. It's just that I also think 
it a rather boring and barren fact. It doesn't lead us anywhere. It 
is a conclusion (and a self—evident one at that) in and of it's 
self. "JKR wrote CoS in the way she did because that's the way she 
wanted it". The only further comment one can make, really, is "Duh".

However, that doesn't mean that we cannot examine * why* JKR wanted 
CoS to continue past the point of the first petrification. Or what 
made her choose those especial plot devises she made use of in so 
continuing. Or how the decision to keep the school open contributes 
to the development of Dumbledore's character. And these (I think) * 
are* interesting points. 

But why should indulging in all of this, well, I guess, meta—thinking 
(sorry Grey Wolf. I have to admit I too like Eloise am currently 
rather hazy on the distinction between `meta--thinking' 
and `authorial intent'.) prevent us from accepting * at the same 
time* your Stanislavskian method of examining the text, Pip? This 
list surely has never heretofore enforced any such prohibition. 
Theory Bay at any rate should be the supreme proof that both 
approaches can harmoniously co—exist. In fact what we do do in T—Bay 
most of the time is precisely that: we choose a particular plot –
devise or literary convention or desirable ending  or, well, theory 
of any kind, and then see how it fits in with the interior logic of 
the book. That is why we can freely discuss whether a particular 
scenario "Bangs" or whether Pettigrew will be "redeemed" while at the 
same time enjoying a nice, quiet cup of tea with Avery. It is also 
why we can sport swanky FEATHERBOAS, plot Bloody Ambushes or go out 
hedgehog hunting. We do not dream up our theories out of thin air. 
Some, of course are wilder than others, but they all have to have a 
basis in Can(n)on. They * all* relay on "internal evidence". If not, 
as Eloise said, someone or other will gleefully turn up waving a 
yellow flag in our faces. 

In fact I would actually go further than that and suggest that it not 
only desirable but also * necessary* to take both these two views 
simultaneously into consideration. Every action depicted in the books 
has to make sense both from the outside and from the inside. 
Otherwise the very plot just won't work. A character's actions have * 
got* to make sense from the point of meta—thinking. If not your whole 
book is in danger of ending up in the SCOW. At the same time, 
however, the work has to have interior life, your characters have to 
come alive, your plot has to seem believable, indeed * be* believed. 
Otherwise it will be boring and has no pull. 

For example: I can say that Ron had to have a blow up with Harry in 
the middle of GoF because this introduces an interesting element to 
the balance in their relationship, it fortifies the feeling of 
seclusion Harry experiences in the work up to the First Task, it 
enriches Ron's character and expands it's dimensions, it gives a 
touching little lesson about the value of friendship and so on and so 
on. This explains how this plot twist fits in the story. And it * 
does* have to fit in the story. You can't just say that the boys 
happened to get out of the wrong side of bed that morning and this 
comes out of the blue and leads to nothing. The scene has to be * 
worthy* of being mentioned. There are limitations to how much one can 
treat the book as if it actually were a reality. * Co--
instantaneously * however to recognising this fact, I can say that 
Ron is behaving like a dork and that someone ought to give him a good 
butt on the head. But it doesn't matter. We love you anyway, Ron. :--)

>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.

No, but that doesn't mean that it is a totally useless observation. 
It's a perfectly valid point.

>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.

Beginning from the idea that Voldemort is an Evil Overlord does not 
necessarily have to lead you to a narrow—minded interpretation of 
Canon based solely on stereotypical literary conventions. How about 
starting off from the idea that "most Evil Overlords are stupid" and 
then comparing Voldemort to this stereotype and trying to see how he 
matches up to it? That would be examining the text "from the outside 
in", but it needn't blind you to a more original analysis. 

***************

Grey Wolf wrote:    

>Grey Wolf, who won't bother with the rest of the post - the 
viewpoints 
>are simply too different and he know no easy way of explaining his 
>point of view to Eloise

Aw, come on Grey Wolf! Won't you at least try? Pretty please? Because 
I must say, almost all of Eloise's questions can be seconded by 
myself.

***************

Oh. And maybe this would the right time to introduce my main 
objection to MAGIC DISHWASHER. No, I haven't got any can(n)onical 
problems with the theory. I can't find anything in Can(n)on to 
contradict it in any way. What I don't understand however, and maybe 
you can explain this to me, is * why* JKR would choose to follow this 
scenario. Why would the reader wish her to do so? What satisfaction 
is derived from it? What catharsis do we achieve at the end? I'm not 
criticizing. I'm just trying to understand. What's the appeal of the 
theory?

Pippin wrote that she

>honestly doesn't think that Dishwasher proponents have 
>horns and tails, but is still trying to understand exactly how JKR's 
>interview statement that "Dumbledore is the epitome of 
>goodness" 
>
>http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html
>
>works with the MD theory if "goodness" is neither relative (all 
>burning building illustrations) nor compromised. The idea that 
>one can be just a little bit unprincipled *is* the Devil's argument, 
>no? 

The way I understand it MD forces Dumbledore to stop being "good" 
and "wise" in favour of "very clever". So, well, what is the moral 
behind it all? What message is MD supposed to be sending off? What 
end does it pursue? I'm afraid I just don't get it.

Charis Julia, who actually doesn't get a lot of things about MAGIC 
DISHWASHER, *despite * having a first rate intelligence buried 
somewhere in the back of her wardrobe  ;--)

Hypothetic Alley:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html

Inish Alley:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=13