Terrorism as an point of reference

[clicketykeys]

No: HPFGUIDX 47759

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> wrote:

<snippage>

> CK wrote:
> >Right. This is the first point made in support of the assumption
> >that the V/P war is that type of war. MD is /founded/ on that
> >assumption.
> 
> 
> Um...no.  MD is not "found" on the assumption that D/V war is *based*
> on the IRA terrorist wars.  MD is founded on the *fact* that those
> type of wars do exist.

Um. Yes. Copy-pasted from the original post:

"One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the 
Voldemort-Potter war?'
"The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A 
modern war."

Thus, MD is indeed founded on the idea that the Voldemort war is an 
undercover war.


> 
> Pip used the example she did to give a type of visual aid as to how
> the war between good/evil was happening so far in the books.  Her
> evidence does not say that the war was a mirror or a parallel to the
> IRA, but rather, a case where this type of war is happening.

If she had used ONLY examples from the books to support that 
statement, I would agree with you.

> Ok, and example from me.  If I were to explain my views that
> Dumbledore's watch is like one of those blinking red light tracking
> devices that are placed on people then I am *not* using meta-thinking.
>  I am only trying to relate to the list how I see the ways
> Dumbledore's watch is used.  I am just using muggle terms.
> 
> Ok, I am a going to have to drag out the definition of meta-thinking,
> aren't I?

Not until you cite where you got it from. I disagree with this 
definition. I firmly believe that discussing Rowling's possible 
inspiration or motivation for what she writes falls WELL within the 
bounds of metathinking.

> 
> Meta-thinking is *not* comparing the book to life adventures but
> making assertions about the book because it is a book.  That is RL in
> this definition.
> 
> I hope that is a better reference for what meta-thinking is.  It
> really is based more on opinion than text, which is why MD Defense
> Team has a hard time with patience with it in relation to MD.  The
> above points are more subjective than objective.  MD is an objective
> theory.
> 
> Ok an example for you CK-
>   If Pip was say, I believe that D/V is fighting a terrorist war
> because their actions parallel the actions of the IRA and English
> gov't, then that would be meta-thinking.  Her evidence would be split
> between RL and the book.  She would be saying JKR is purposely
> attempting to create an allegory of the events.  (Thanks Russ for that
> one).

Oh. Well, she does that too, in the paragraphs following - "What sort 
of tactics do you use in such a war?" (ie, a war such as the RL one 
referenced earlier) and then cites events in the books that support 
parallels. 

I hadn't thought of that.

> 
> But since Pip says JKR is drawing from her life *knowledge* of events,
> then Pip is only saying JKR is doing just that.  She is writing using
> what she knows.  Just like JKR writes about boy's and girl's crushes
> based on life knowledge.

Yup. And, for example, to say that we can make inferences about in-
book events based on Rowling's experiences, because that's the frame 
of reference she's writing from, is also metathought.

> 
> Another example just came to mind-
> If we said that Ginny's crush on Harry is similar to Marianne's crush
> on Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility, and then theorize that Ginny
> will not get Harry but will be the better for it because all Harry
> cares about is money, then that is meta-thinking.  We are taking two
> works of literature and trying to draw a parallel that yes, *could* be
> there [not bloody likely though <g>] but is not as sturdy an argument
> as an in-canon theory.  The meta-thinking would be in saying that JKR
> wrote Ginny's crush to be a direct parallel, or the meta-thinking
> would be that Ginny's crush would turn out that way because Marianne's
> did and JKR likes Jane Austin.

So then, it would /not/ be metathinking to say that Hermione's 
relationsihp with Ron is similar to one Rowling had with a friend of 
hers in school, and make inferences based on that similarity?


> 
> So Pip's example of the IRA is just that - an example.  It is not
> meant to be taken as a literal comparison made by JKR.  Just an
> example to say JKR is *aware* firsthand that these type of wars exist.

No, the comparison wasn't made by Rowling, it was made by Pip. If 
Rowling had made the comparison - say, in an interview, or something - 
then we would be talking about authorial intent.

Again:

"One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the 
Voldemort-Potter war?'

"The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A 
modern war."

[This is Pip's statement, and the first point made in support is /not/ 
anything from the book:]

"Non-British readers may be largely unaware that the 'United' Kingdom 
was embroiled in a low-scale civil war for over 20 years of my and 
JKR's life (1970's to 1990's). It's not surprising that her fictional 
civil war resembles the one she will have seen on the news every day."

Read that last sentence. Pip is CLEARLY making a comparison between 
events in the Potterverse ("her fictional civil war") and events in RL 
("the one she will have seen on the news"). Now this is just a 
comparison. The metathinking occurs when Pip draws conclusions based 
on that comparison:

"In this post I'm discussing the Shrieking Shack from the viewpoint of 
'letting a known enemy agent (Peter Pettigrew) escape' and 'minimum 
necessary bad means (Sirius Black remains unjustly accused) to attain 
good ends (Harry's survival)'."

While it is not directly stated, this perspective, and the rationales 
that follow, make sense ONLY when applied in the context of "an 
undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war."

Thus, Pip draws a parallel betwen the Potterverse and real life, and 
then uses that parallel to draw conclusions.

Now, if the MD supporters are going to say, "well, that's not 
metathinking," that's fine. Clearly we have different ideas on what 
precisely constitutes metathinking, and I'm fine with simply agreeing 
to disagree.

CK
clicketykeys