Terrorism, Meta-thinking, and MAGICAL D (Oh my.)

[Melody]

No: HPFGUIDX 47816

Ohhh, my head hurts.

Why?  Why, oh why, did I take on the uncertainty of meta-thinking?
How is it that all the educated, well-read minds of HPfGU always
manage to get tripped up on this word.  Probably because it doesn't exist.

And that is where the problem lies.  If I look in my Webster's
unabridged, I find metaphysics, metastable, even metastasis (which I
cannot even pronounce) but not metathinking.  How incredibly
frustrating...for both sides here.

That is why CK I *cannot* give you the citation for my definition of
metathinking as you requested.  It has none.  Only thing I can offer
really is a breakdown of the word which really does not reveal much.

So then, why do we use the word 'meta-thinking'?  We can't be the
first fandom to realize that discussions can be fractured into so many
facets.  Gracious, I would hate to be a part of the Star Wars fandom
when they have books *and* movies in their main canon.  I even heard
there was a discussion whether Jar-Jar Bink's coloring book could be
considered canon.  Found that amusing.  So really, who says which is
*the* canon?   I wonder if they have the problems we do?

Anyway, I digress a bit...like normal, we are trying to hammer down
this meta-thinking definition.  And why is this *so* important?
Probably because, we the MD three, use it so much as a red flag.  And
we don't want to be seen as having a mutable red flag.  ;)

This is also important because I disagree with CK when she said:
>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.

I don't think we can agree to disagree on what this definition should
be.  It is too important.  I mean we *all* use it in sentences, so it
greatly helps if we all know the translation of such a foreign word.

And I thought Pip put it nicely - it is an outside view on a world

A view that removes itself from the rules of *that* world.

Her exact quote from post#47047
>'Metathinking' - it's a question of levels. DISHWASHER is based on
>a 'within the book' viewpoint, where the books and characters are
>treated as if they are real events, real characters, and real
>motivations. In that context, going up a level so you're looking at
>the books from the OUTSIDE is regarded as 'not fair play' simply
>because the theory doesn't have that viewpoint.

So the reason why it is not considered fair to use meta-thinking
against MD is that MD never factors in its equation that the story is
in fact a story written by an author.  MD is purely grounded in the
book text.  On the actions and limits of the world given.  To go
outside the world is an attempt to trump all those rules of a world by
going straight to the maker.  And this trumps the canon, because JKR
is God.  She alone decides what can and cannot happen.  We (MD
Defense) cannot deny that, but we can call "Foul!" ourselves, because
we were playing by different rules.

I ask you.  Do you think we *can't* take MD into the meta-thinking
world?  Pip, Grey, and I are perfectly capable of reading with
meta-thinking glasses (well Grey *says* he can't) but we chose not to
in this instance because we want to discuss the books from within the
books.  It is a much harder feat to limit yourself.


So let's just tackle the questions placed on the table and I think
I'll start with Iris:

Iris wrote:
>We don?t have to forget that writing is an art, and that an artwork
>can?t be understood completely if we separate it from what makes it
>exist: the artist, the society the artist lives in, and the artistic
>sources he or she uses to work.

:)  Iris.  Like all works by man, there are many valid, wonderful
points of views to it.  Let's use sculpture since it works well here.
 One can look at all views, or one can focus on just one.  When
someone focuses on just one view, then it seems only fair that their
critics also hunch down and look from their point of view too.  Then
true critic of just *that* point of view can occur.

This does not deny that other viewpoints exist, but only that this one
is the focus of the moment.

Now when MD says it is based solely on canon, then it is hunching
itself over and looking only from that point of view.  It also asks
that of its critics.  That way, if something is wrong in that point of
view, then the critics are at the right advantage point to find the
critic.


--------

CK's problem with Pip saying:
>[Pip] 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.

Ck said that:
>[CK] thus, MD is indeed founded on the idea that the Voldemort war is
>an undercover war.  If she had used ONLY examples from the books to
>support that statement, I would agree with you that...
>[Melody] Pip's 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.

CK also said (since my point on the subject covers this as well):
>Oh. Well, she does that too [parallel's IRA war with D/V war] - "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.

When Pip tried to show the list that the D/V war is similar to
terrorist wars, she *was* stepping outside the text.  I cannot deny
that.  She did so to show the list what this type of war is and why
the terrorist war Pip sketches out is similar to that type of war.
Why did she do this?  To place all the listees on the same page.
Without it, she would be talking to a select few that actually know
what a terrorist war is.

Now this is not meta-thinking because that fact is there.  It *is* a
terrorist war just like Harry *is* a boy.  It is not an intent by the
author to be a terrorist war no more than it is the intent of the
author that Harry be male.

I think the blasted English language [the stupid, annoying,
words-can-mean-so-many-things language] got in the way of my point
before.  Before I said:
> 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.

To me, the meta-thinking of the above is if JKR purposely has distinct
parallels to the said IRA terrorist war.  If JKR has Dumbledore as a
caricature of such-and-such leader and Voldemort as the other
such-and-so leader, and then proceeded to walk them through the
actions of both leaders [I will confess I know **very** little about
the IRA war], that is meta-thinking in that JKR wrote outside the
world and rules of Harry Potter and brought allegory to the text.  It
is *meant* to be that way.

But by saying JKR wrote about her own knowledge of the world around
her, you are not saying she is trying to write outside the realm of
Harry Potter land.  She is only using facts and figures to make her
world.

Gracious, am I loosing you?  This is so hard to explain, and I *so*
want to explain this correctly.

The reason Pip's terrorist explanation is not meta-thinking is because
the reference to IRA is not in the text.  Pip only used it because
most of the listees would see her point of view.

So, since I doubt I made any sense back there, let me just move on...


----

Melody said:
> 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.

Eliose said:
>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.

Eloise, from my point of view, every time someone attacks MD they
create a new view of meta-thinking that needs to be defined and qualified.

Oh, and spell MD defense team as you will.  Far be it for me to say
how you should and should not spell.  :)


Eloise wrote:
>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.

OK, that hurt Eloise.  I am sorry if my examples were "the crudest
examples" of literary criticism, and I am sorry if I somehow insulted
those who are obviously better at it than I alluded.  Yes I did over
simplify.  Something I *love* to do in Math, but this is English Lit.
 I apologies if anyone was hurt in the process of my examples.  I
meant no harm.  I only wanted to find an example for each point, not
point a finger at each person.

I have no problem with meta-thinking, and support the right for
everyone to use it: walk around the sculpture, and appraise it's
artist's vision, craftsmanship, detail...  Three cheers in fact, but
it does not always apply as a *good* offense to every theory.


-----

So really, all this discussion revolving around whether MD should
allow meta-thinking to be accepted as fair criticism.  A criticism
that could disprove MD.  I mean y'all can place argument after
argument on the table and believe yourself that it disproves MD, but
why must *we the MD three* accept that?  From our "hunched over point
of view," your critic does not apply.  It is not taking into account
what we see.

Now you can attack the reason why we are "hunched over" and you can
say we are silly for limiting ourselves, but that does not create a
good critic of the theory itself.  All we ask is for you to come on
over (I promise we don't bit...well Grey might, and Pip and I might if
provoked <grin>), get hunched yourself, and peer at the HP sculpture
from our point-of-view.  If you still don't see it our way, then that
is fine.  Just expect us to defend our view with gusto.  ;)


Now, did I answer all the questions or did I only cause more to be
posed?  Given that MD never does the previous, then I will stop for
now.  One needs to pace herself and eat dinner to have the strength
for the later.  :)


Melody