[HPforGrownups] Re: Terrorism, Meta-thinking, and MAGICAL D (Oh my.)

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 47845

Melody:

> 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.
> 
Eloise:
Precisely. You (the MDDT - I know you didn't coin the usage yourself, Melody) 
have introduced a very technical-sounding word that simply does not exist in 
the dictionary and is not normally used outside a very limited (and 
different) field. It is not helpful. I do wonder what newbies who stumble on 
these conversations think.

Melody:
<>> 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.
> 
> <>
> 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.  ;)

Eloise:
Oh no! I've only just found out what a (real) yellow flag is! ;-)
We do things slightly differently over here, you know.

But yes, I think you have put your finger on one of the major problems.You 
three *do* use it as a red flag. And we do see it as mutable, because we 
never know what the definition of meta-thinking is going to be. Except that 
it is bound to include whatever problem we have just articulated. ;-)

And I think that the very existence of a red flag on the list is...
Oh, I don't know how to put this.
I think yellow flags are fine (although I do recall some controversy around 
their first arrival). Yellow flags say simply, your theory depends on 
something for which there is no canon evidence, say an invented spell.

But red flags seem to say, 'You cannot use on MD any of the normal methods by 
which you evaluate a theory. You may only criticise if you adopt our 
viewpoint.' And as it's the viewpoint itself which causes the problem we 
reach an impasse. 

As Eileen said,

>>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. <<

And this is one of the places where I disagree with Grey Wolf's assertion 
that MD is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are open to scrutiny in a 
way in which MD apparently isn't. Yes, experiments are confirmed by 
replication, but they can also be tested by by applying *different* criteria. 


More importantly, I am uncomfortable with the idea of there being any red 
flags on this list at all (other than those applying to the contentious 
issues that we all agree not to discuss). It seems alien to the spirit of the 
list and is likely to stifle discussion as well as cause ill-feeling amongst 
those whose views are dismissed.

Melody:
> 
> 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.


Eloise:
We only use it in sentences because the MDDT do, so we have to. Or at least, 
that's the only reason I do. I suspect I'm speaking for others, but maybe I'm 
wrong. My fear is that it *doesn't* translate into anything we non-MDers 
would recognise as a valid concept.


Melody:
> 
> 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.

Eloise:
Finger on another problem! (Or is it the same one?)
You are playing a game according to 'no trumps' rules that the rest of us 
usually play *with* trumps.

But again, I sense that you're using meta-thinking to equal authorial intent. 
Taking an 'outside' view is not necessarily trying to guess JKR's intent.
Some of what MDers regard as an 'outside' view, which therefore gets called 
meta-thinking is simply the application of information about the themes and 
concerns of the series gleaned from 'inside' the book. 
And I think perhaps 'trumping' is putting it too strongly. It's not so much 
'Our evidence is stronger than your evidence: we're right, you're wrong' as 
asking you to consider other evidence in addition to the 'inside' view.

Melody:
> 
> 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.

Eloise:
No, I don't think you *can't*, but for some reason you won't, which has the 
unfortunate side-effect of tending to make what should be dicussions seem 
more like disputes.


Melody:
> 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.


Eloise:
OK. So we all agree that MD takes a limited viewpoint.
Yes, you can look at a sculpture from just one angle, but who would try to 
interpret what a sculpture meant from just one angle, without considering the 
other sides?

So yes, I'll hunker down and look at canon from you viewpoint - I have - and 
I see that from that viewpoint you have a valid interpretation. I've never 
denied it. But I ask you to do in return to come with me and look at the 
sculpture in the round, to see if that might not add meaning to the view on 
which you've been concentrating.

MD is a theory built on one viewpoint only. One of the distinguishing things 
about the human brain is that it is able to assimilate different views of a 
three dimensional object and put them together to interpret that object in a 
different way from if it was only able to interpret one view at a time.

To use another analogy, it's a bit like one of those puzzle pictures. You 
know, the ones where they have a close up view of something and you have to 
try and work out what it is. They are often very misleading, until you start 
to draw out and view the wider picture.

Yes, you can decide to look at the text from one viewpoint only, but I 
question the validity of constructing a theory based on such a limited 
viewpoint. Yes, I agree, it is much harder to limit yourself in that way; I 
can't see why one should, except as an interesting academic exercise.

You see, if I were writing an essay on all this, I might say something along 
the lines of,
"If we were to confine our view to that of the characters within the book, 
then........."etc, etc, expound MD theory, but then I would be bound to 
counter it by saying, "But...." and giving other perspectives. Otherwise 
there would be no balance.
And being me, I'd probably come to no firm conclusion!

Melody:
> --------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.
> 
> <>

Eloise:
I'm skipping the IRA parallel, because I just can't follow it! My poor brain 
can only cope with so much! I'll leave it to CK, whose baby it is! :-)

Melody:

> ----
> 
> 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.

Eloise:
Only because we don't know what meta-thinking is! I'm not aware of creating 
new views of it. I'm just trying to work out what the devil it means.

For myself, every time I think I've got a handle on it, I find that I'm 
wrong. It's like trying to grasp air.

If meta-thinking is to be a term of any use, it has to be clearly defined in 
a way that we all understand and can agree upon. That is clearly not the case 
at the moment.

And I'm not attacking MD. I'm quite happy to accept it as a view. I will 
defend it's right to be under circumstances in which it's creators will 
abandon it, as I have previously pointed out. What I query are the 
methodology leading to it and the surrounding concepts which seem very hard 
to pin down and which seem to have turned it from one view among many into 
something unassailable. 

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


Eloise:
Thank you! I've got round the problem by abbreviating. That way we can use 
two spellings simultaneously!
I like doing that sort of thing. I think it was before your time that I had 
to enter a parallel universe in search of Fourth Man. That's why there's a 
Parallel Universe Fourth Man Hovercraft (was it a hovercraft, Debbie? I 
forget). I crew on both Fourth Man and Parallel Universe Fourth Man 
simultaneously, as this enables me to carry on believing that Fourth Man both 
is and is not Avery.

Melody:
> 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.


Eloise:
And I apologise too. I had no intention whatsoever of hurting you, Melody. 
But yes, since you mention it, I was a little stung and did find the examples 
given a little insulting. At the time I was trying to avoid using the word 
'insulting' in order not to sound as if I was taking it personally. I'm sorry 
it backfired. Honest. Can we be friends? Pretty please?

I don't regard any of this argument as personal. Please understand that 
though I may be an argumentative old cow, my arguing says nothing whatsoever 
about my feelings about the people with whom I'm arguing. It's about 
theories, not people, as has been mentioned before.

Melody:

> <>
> 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.


Eloise:
You don't have to accept anything whatsoever.
And, as I keep saying, I, for one, am not trying to *disprove* MD.

But I do have problems with the viewpoint it adopts.
I do have problems with red flags being waved in my face.
I do have problems with not being able to hold a discussion where we all use 
words and terms to mean the same thing.
I especially have problems with the introduction and use of a term on this 
list which no-one seems fully to understand (particularly when it doubles as 
a red flag).
I have problems with the (no doubt unintentional) implication that the MDers' 
view is more canonical than my point of view.
I also have problems with the assertion that it's more objective or 
scientific than my point of view.

Let me go back to Pip's explanation of the 'inside out' approach:

Pip:
> The other viewpoint is that of the characters within the text (it's 
> this viewpoint that an actor who has to perform the text often 
> takes). This is the 'inside out' approach. 
> 
> This approach considers what do the characters actually do, what do 
> other characters say about them, what do they say about other 
> characters - in other words, their words and actions.
> 
> In a Stanislavskian approach, you would treat the characters as if 
> they were real people, with real motivations, in a real world. And 
> you would try and work out whether they *are* always saying exactly 
> what they mean, or if there is something else going on underneath.

That is my point. "You would try to work out". Even in the 'inside out' 
approach, at the end of the day it is your subjective *opinion*, as to 
whether the characters are saying exactly what they mean or whether there's 
something else going on underneath. Or is there only *one* Stanislavskian 
interpretation of any piece of writing?
It is the MDers opinion that there is more going on underneath. But you have 
chosen to believe that.  (I know you'll tell me you haven't! ;-) )You have 
decided that characters are dissembling. Is it not possible to view events 
from inside out without that assumption? Wouldn't that alter the theory? In 
other words, couldn't someone else come along and do a Stanislavskian 
interpretation and come to different conclusions? 
(I'm genuinely asking.)

Melody:
> 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.  
> 

Eloise:
No, it doesn't create a good critique of the theory, but it does question the 
methodology behind the theory.


Melody:
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.  ;)


I wouldn't expect anything less, Melody! 
But please don't bite me ;-)

~Eloise



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