Terrorism as an point of reference/On the nature of theories.

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 47782

Melody:

> Ok, I am a going to have to drag out the definition of meta-thinking,
> aren't I?

I wish we *could* get this defined satisfactorily once and for all!

> 
> Meta-thinking: using RL (i.e. that this is a book written by an
> author) or other authors' books to explain reasons, motives, and
> characterizations of a particular book.  This includes, but is not
> limited to:
> 1.  genre references (this book is a hero's epic so it must keep to
> the style)

Then I don't indulge in that kind of meta-thinking.
I would say that JKR is a aware of and draws on the hero's journey/epic 
tradition.
But there is no rule that says she is slavishly following a formula.

> 2.  comparisons between authors' style (so-and-so writes like this so
> she could too)


She *could*. You cannot prove a negative.
That is different form saying that *because* so-and-so writes like this, JKR 
is doing so too. Again, I don't think we do this.

> 3.  the need for the author to write a story or epic (thus not ending
> the book at a certain time)

I don't think anyone seriously uses this in such a bald way as I think Charis 
Julia explained.

> 4.  the author *is* writing a story knowing where they are wanting to
> "go" with the story and thus factors in foreshadowing and hints (Just
> don't believe JKR is doing that with Dumbledore)

The author is undeniably writing a story knowing where she wants to go. The 
last chapter of Book 7 is written. That, according to the MD Defense (do I 
have to use US spelling?) Team definition is canon.
As you say it is your *belief* that she is not factoring in forshadowings and 
hints regarding Dumbledore and nothing more. 
A recent discussion has focussed on JKR's statement that there are a lot of 
clues in CoS. If those aren't hints, what are they? And why should Dumbledore 
be exempt?

> 5.  this is the author's style (she bangs)

Knowldege of an author's style is, at east to an extent, objective and comes 
from internal evidence. As I have said, I accept that as a fair criticism of 
my Diana theory. There is nothing wrong with someone who approaches something 
from a different angle pointing out a potential problem with the *whole 
basis* my theory. The difference is that I simply say, 'yes, from that point 
of view there's a problem there; you could be right', instead of insisting 
that the criticism is unfair or irrelevant.
> 
> 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 think you here highlight a problem that some of us have with MD.
Every time someone articulates a problem, the MD Defense Team (you don't know 
how hard it is to spell American!) pulls out a new and unexpected definition.
Now you have your own definition of RL.
> 
> 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.

The way you have expressed it, perhaps.

What you basically seem to be saying is that meta-thinking = using any of the 
tools of literary criticism, but then giving only the crudest examples of 
their use, as Grey Wolf did also. As Grey Wolf was courteous enough to 
acknowledge, though,  those who indulge in meta-thinking tend to be a little 
better at it than that.

I personally do not see how objectivity consists in denying the known fact 
that JKR is not writing in a literary vacuum. She is a well-read woman, who 
even if not consciously drawing on pre-existing literary traditions is aware 
of them.
I fail to see how an author can write a book without any consideration of 
plot of character development, pacing or narrative considerations.
Or, to take JKR out of it, how characters can exist without these 
considerations. they are, after all *characters* not *people*.

No, we cannot *know* what JKR's intentions are in all these directions (and 
I've argued that they are in some ways irrelevant anyway), but she must have 
them and it is perverse to persist in saying that we should ignore that fact.

We *do* know that there are certain themes she is exploring. These are 
explicit or implicit within canon (and also stated in interview, which the 
MDDT regards as canon) and I object to the implication that using these as a 
criteria to test a theory is subjective. So if an objector holds that MD 
violates the theme of choices, I cannot see that that is a criticism based on 
meta-thinking: it is based objectively on the internal evidence of the books. 
Even Big Bang is based on the internal evidence of what has happened within 
the text so far.

Using Stanislavskian theory as a basis to understand character, OTOH, seems 
to be making a *subjective* decision only to consider *part* of the canon 
evidence available.

I find it curious that it is legitimate to dismiss part of the canon evidence 
from *within* the texts of the books themselves, whilst at the same time 
accept as canon JKR's opinions stated outside the books themselves.

<snip examples>

> 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.

And JKR is equally aware that myth, epic, fairy tale, the need to write a 
coherent story, etc etc. all exist.

I cannot see how it is legitimate to make assumptions on the basis that she 
is aware of events in what for want of a better term, it having just been 
hi-jacked to mean something else, I shall call Real Life and illigitimate to 
assume that she is aware of literary forms that she has encountered in, err, 
Real Life.

Either both are legitimate, or both are illegitimate.
As far as I'm concerned. :-)

~Eloise



>    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]