Meta-Thinking and Magic Dishwasher

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 47820

Blast you, all of you! I was sitting down to write a post on Barty
Crouch Sr. but, of course, this topic would have to come up, and I
would have to respond to it. (And Elkins, WHERE ARE YOU? Yes, I know.
You're writing the LupiFAQ. Keep up the good work, but don't forget
you promised me a massive Crouch post.) 

Pip -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. 

I think this is a reasonable definition of terms, and that a lot of
other definitions being thrown about recently muddy the waters. As the
MD Defense Team have noted, using IRA examples is not metathinking.
Metathinking would be using an argument about the book's theme.

>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.

Now this is where I've never been able to follow the MD-ers. It never
occured to me that criticism of a theory is limited to the theory's
viewpoints. 

Now, I do understand some of what Pip has been saying.

For example, metathinking will not explain the actions of the
characters inside the story. As Pip explained, thematic reasons for
continuing CoS past Chapter 12 will not explain why the characters in
the book did what they did. It won't give us Dumbledore's motivations.

In this respect, MAGIC DISHWASHER dicussion would focus on whether the
MAGIC DISHWASHER theory fits within the canon, provides appropriate
explanations for characters' actions etc. 

However, there's metathinking. A metathinking discussion of MAGIC
DISHWASHER asks whether the theory fits within the thematic, moral
etc. framework of the Potter series. The MD Defense Team seems to
think that a metathinking-based critique is unfair. 

I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to why. The fact that
Pip, Grey Wolf, and Melody do not engage in metathinking when sorting
out Dumbledore's motivations, actions etc. within canon, does not mean
that the theory is immune to critique from a metathinking standpoint,
nor may I add does it make the theory inherently immune from defense
from a metathinking standpoint. 

It makes sense to reject a theory on grounds of metathinking. In fact,
I suspect that's why we, in the end, reject and accept the theories we
do. 

Of course, metathinking is a hazy game. No one on the list engages in
as much metathinking as Captain Cindy. The Big Bang theory is
metathinking taken to the extremes. And you know how often she's
accused of humpty-dumptying the Bangs. Metathinking is a lot less
precise that speculation within canon. However, that doesn't make it
less valuable as a tool of critique. 

In the end, as I said, metathinking makes it or breaks it for me.
LYCANTHROPE I've always found fascinating, and they have heaps of
canon evidence, but it's metathinking that means you won't see me in
that organization any day soon. (We won't go into why exactly here.)
DEVIL is cool, but it disrupts the reading of Crouch and Bagman as
literary doubles. The same goes for MAGIC DISHWASHER. It contradicts
my conception of the framework of canon. (We won't go into why exactly
here, either.)

So, while good discussion can be had within canon, (And PRESSURE
COOKER tried to do this, I think,) metathinking must be recognized as
crucial to any discussion of any theory, whether you care to indulge
in it or not.

Eileen