Meta-Thinking and Magic Dishwasher

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 47853

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:

> 
> 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 inthat organization any day soon. (We won't go into 
why exactly here.)<<

Fascinating! It's only considerations of theme and structure that 
make me think LYCANTHROPE  has any possibility of being 
more than a literary parlor trick, despite all the canon I've 
dredged up in support of it.  So even though LYCANTHROPE 
(why didn't I just call it LIE?) can be  derived  from "inside the 
story", I am perfectly willing to discuss it  in terms of theme and 
structure. Whenever you're ready, Eileen. <g>  

I think there are already words, derived like 'canon' from 
theological studies,  for the different types of interpretation we 
are trying to do. For example, exegesis is the interpretation of a 
(biblical) text in order to determine its intended meaning. I think 
what the Magic Dishwasher Defense Team is trying to tell us is 
that they are not interested in any exegesis that relies on a 
general analysis of theme and structure to reveal the author's 
intent. In their view, the author's intent is revealed only by her 
statements. If she makes a statement about theme and 
structure, theme and structure will become 'fair play', just as 
morality is, because JKR has made statements about morality. 

(The study of what sort of exegesis is allowable is 
'hermenuetics'  and is normally limited to biblical studies since 
outside of religion  (and fandom?) it is not an issue whether one 
kind of interpretation is more 'genuine and inspired' than others. 
)

I hope I have got that right, I am not a theologian. 

The MDDT has decided to throw a curtain over theme and 
structure and told us not to pay attention to the little man  behind 
it. <g> Which decision I respect. They've simply served notice 
that *they're* not willing to discuss or defend MD on those 
grounds. That doesn't, or shouldn't, mean that the theory isn't 
open to criticism on a thematic or structural level. But we'll be 
talking to ourselves. <g>

To carry Pip's acting analogy a little further, if her Stanislavskian 
analysis of a character leads her to perform it in some way which 
the director thinks is out of keeping with the theme or structure of 
the play, that doesn't by any means invalidate Pip's interpretation 
or make it less entertaining, but it does mean that the director 
may not approve of it. 

So be it. I'm quite entertained by the discussion though I think  
the whole meta-thinking issue is but a wave of the magician's 
wand to distract us from the sleight-of -hand going on 
elsewhere. But it would be churlish to point that out <g>


Pippin