On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER--Some calming thoughts

[fun_n_games_2663]

No: HPFGUIDX 47721

I'm not really responding to any particular post on this subject.  
All posters have valid points, and I think I can find agreement among 
them if you will let me try.

MD supporters have based their theory on what has gone on in the 
books.  The actions of the characters, how they speak, how they act, 
either support or do not contradict the theory.  That's what makes it 
a good theory!  They are asking those who oppose the theory to find 
canon evidence--what the characters say or do--to oppose the theory, 
and they are right in doing so.  To say that MD doesn't work because 
JKR wouldn't do such a thing or that's not how books in this genre go 
begs the question of whether the books support the theory.

On the other hand, I whole heartedly agree with MD detractors that 
JKR would not set up Dumbledore as a coniver.  My belief that she 
would not do this, however, takes nothing away from the MD theory.

One of our problems in this debate is that we are waiting (ever so 
long!)for the final three books.  When we postulate about what will 
happen in those books, we can go about it either from the inside out 
or the outside in.  We can say "here is what Dumbledore has done in 
the past, so I believe this is what he will do in the future."  A 
different argument (which does not detract from the first) is 
that "these books are from this type of genre or JKR has this 
personality, therefore I believe that this will happen."  The first 
argument (inside out) should be debated from the inside out ("but 
Dumbledore did this as well, so your theory doesn't wash").  The 
second argument (outside in) should be debated from outside in (but 
sometimes books of this genre do this, so you are wrong").

I really think I'm going to become known as the guy who keeps using 
Lord of the Rings analogies, but I can't help it.  My son and I are 
doing LOTR right now.  Anyway, here is the analogy.  Tolkein 
vehemently denied that LOTR was an allegory.  He said he hated them.  
Nevertheless, readers of LOTR can find all kinds of internal and 
external evidence that the story is an allegory for the World Wars.  
A reader can postulate on the allegory based upon the internal 
evidence, and that postulation will not be refuted by the mere 
statement that Tolkein hated allegories.  If the book shows an 
allegory, it's there whether Tolkein wanted it or not.  If reader 
wants to defend Tokein's hatred of allegories, he will have to go to 
the books to prove the allegory isn't there.

In sum, I think MD is an elegant theory based on the internal 
evidence of the books,which I can't fight except for coming up with a 
better theory (see my counselor Dumbledore theory)or evidence from 
the books that prove the spy war is not occurring (I haven't found 
any of this) even though I can also say it won't be borne out because 
I don't believe JKR will go there.

See?  We *can* all get along!

Russ--fun_n_games