On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 47697

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <charisjulia at h...> wrote:
> 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  
> >tolook 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? 
> 
Pip:
You seem to have missed that I used the word *simultaneously* . 
Which according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary means 'occuring, 
operating, or done at the same time.'

If I use my neck to turn my head and look in another directions, I 
am *not* looking at both views simultaneously. I am looking at both 
views in *rapid succession*.
> 
> 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."
> 
I think several people (other than Fitzgerald) have said similar 
things - Walt Whitman amongst others. 

::Grins cheerfully:: And I can also hold several opposing theories 
in my head at the same time. Currently I'm holding the Dishwasher, 
Lollipops (just good friends variant), and CHOP (Cranium of 
Headmaster on a Platter).
<Snip>
> 
> 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.
> 
It is? You mean the Wizarding World isn't real? Oh :-( What about 
Santa Claus, is he not real too?
[Grin]

This is rather like asking why you can't have a game of draughts [US 
Checkers] simultaneously with a game of chess. After all, they both 
use the same board...

> 
Pipsqueak
> >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.
> 
> Charis Julia:
> 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_.<Snip>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".
> 
Pip:
Which was my point, actually. And I've seen that very argument used 
on this list.

> Charis Julia:
> 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. 
> 
Pip:
They are deeply interesting points, and should be discussed. But a 
critique of MAGIC DISHWASHER is not the place to discuss them. 
An 'outside in' argument is valid *in itself*. 

What I was trying to say in my post was that 'outside in' is not 
very valid when used as an argument against a theory based in and 
requiring evidence from the 'inside out' approach.

> Charis Julia:
> 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'.) 

Pip: 
Aren't we all;-). I don't know what Eloise means by 'authorial 
intent' and, despite my repeated attempts at explanations, I admit 
that 99.999% of this list seem a bit confused about meta-thinking.

Charis Julia:
> 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: <snip>They * all* rely  
> 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. 

Pip:
No. I argue below that your own example shows you rapidly switching 
from an 'outside' to an 'inside' view and then back again 
to 'outside'. 'In rapid succession' is not the same thing 
as 'simultaneously'. The outside and inside viewpoints are not the 
same.

Charis Julia:
>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. :--)

Pip:
And what relevance does this have in the sense of *why* Ron has a 
blow up with Harry? Could you tell me which words and actions you 
are pointing to as evidence that this improves their friendship? Is 
there anything in the book which says that Ron's snit comes out of 
nowhere, or is it in fact evidence of a development of Ron's 
motivations and inner emotional life, as shown by the words and 
actions of characters in PS/SS, CoS, PoA, and GoF?

Might I speculate on where Ron's motivations and inner emotional 
life might be taking him? Whether they signify that he has some as 
yet unrevealed plan [involving getting very rich, perhaps?].

>From the 'outside in' approach your comments are valid, and 
perceptive. 

But the point is that I'm saying that Ron is in his snit at this 
point, shown by his behaviour to Harry on such-and-such a page, and 
this is a development of his problem with jealousy of Harry, shown 
by Ron's actions in such-and-such a book and by his comments at p. 
so-and-so of GoF. Saying 'it's in this position in the story because 
of these reasons' doesn't contradict any of the points I've made - 
but it doesn't give me any additional evidence to play with, either. 
As I have said , if I'm working from the 'inside out' position then 
the 'outside in' viewpoint that keeps being used on the Dishwasher 
is largely irrelevant.

Basically, you're saying that the 'outside in' viewpoint is the 
superior one. That it is the position to take. That it trumps any 
use of the character's own 'inside' viewpoint. [card playing 
metaphor this time].

And yes, Ron is behaving like a dork. (But you've actually switched 
to Harry's viewpoint and are still looking at Ron from the outside)
[grin]
> 
> 
Pip:
> >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.
> 
Charis Julia:
> No, but that doesn't mean that it is a totally useless 
> observation. It's a perfectly valid point.

Pip: 
Of course it's a perfectly valid point. And we can have a wonderful 
argument about it sometime. 

*But* if I'm looking at things from the 'inside out' viewpoint IT IS 
USELESS! Because, it tells me nothing about what Harry has said, 
done or acted, or *why* Harry's done the things he's done. Because 
he's on a hero's journey? Does he know that? Is it actually any part 
of his motivation? Does his behaviour in the books change because 
he's on a hero's journey? Could you point to the line [or lines] of 
description or dialogue, please?

[I know you *can* show Harry is on a hero's journey, Charis, I'm 
just making the point that it's not much use from the internal 
viewpoint]

> 
> Pip:
> >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.
> 
Charis Julia:
> 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. 
> 
Pip:
I would argue that you're actually switching from one viewpoint to 
the other without realising it. When you decide that you want to 
examine Voldemort from the Evil Overlord stereotype perspective, you 
are 'outside' the books, when you examine his character by actions, 
words, descriptive text then you are 'inside' the books, then when 
you finally write the paper comparing him to other stereotypical 
evil overlords you've moved to 'outside' again.

Seriously, though, I have so many times seen people using 
the 'outside' view of the books without really examining the 
internal evidence at all. 

Part of the reason I wrote #4044 was because I was getting so 
frustrated at listmembers who kept confidently informing me that 
Voldemort was telling the truth in the Graveyard scene because 'Evil 
Overlords *always* tell the truth at the climax. It's a rule'.

This may be why the Dishwasher Defense Team often seem to get so 
err.. vehement against metathinking. It's very often the posters 
*opinion* about where the books are going, without any evidence to 
back it up with.

Like 'Harry is the centre of the books. They're called 'Harry Potter 
and...'

Yup. From the outside viewpoint, he's the centre. The books are told 
from his pov, for one thing.

But if I was examining *Fudge* from the 'inside' view, trying to 
establish whether his actions, words, text descriptions show an evil 
man, a misguided man, or simply someone stuck in events far too big 
for him, would *Harry Potter* be the centre of that? From Fudge's 
pov? When we've only got to Book 4?

And what relevance does 'Harry is the centre of the books' have to a 
theory about the actions of *Dumbledore* and *Voldemort*? Which is 
what the Dishwasher is?


I'll have to stop here, because I'm going to be away from my 
computer for another couple of days, and must rush off now.

Pip!Squeak