[HPforGrownups] Re: Metathinking

[Carol Bainbridge]

No: HPFGUIDX 47859

bel wrote:

>According to most of the articles I glanced at (plugging "metathinking" into
>Google search), metathinking is simply "the study of thinking". Thinking
>about thinking, in other words. "Meta-" is basically used to describe the
>thought process of pulling back another level from a study of something to
>study the study itself.

As far as I understand the use of "meta" this is absolutely 
correct.  Metalanguage is language about language and meta-analysis is an 
analysis of analyses.  Metathinking is the thinking about thinking.

>This makes me wonder, in a way, if metathinking is exactly the term we want
>here.

I've stayed away from this discussion so far because I couldn't understand 
the use of the term "metathinking" as it was being used.

>Personally, I feel that when we deal with the books "from the outside",
>we're dabbling in literary criticism. When we deal with them "from the
>inside", we're still indulging in literary criticism (they're still books,
>after all), but with a much more narrowed focus, employing psychology,
>anthropology, sociology, and other hidden talents and interests we have to
>examine motive, responsibility, and plot potential.

Literary criticism consists of looking at a piece of writing using a 
particular framework.  The major framework that most of us older folks 
learned consists of using what's in the text and only what's in the text to 
establish meaning.  However, new frameworks have arisen which allow us to 
look at a piece of writing from a variety of other frameworks and 
discussions of the HP series here have made use of every one of them, even 
if they haven't been acknowledged.  If you use a feminist framework, you 
will look at the books in terms of the way female characters are portrayed 
and the way those portrayals reflect societal attitudes and norms.  If you 
look at the books from a sociological framework, you look at the way 
families behave, both within the family and with other families, and you 
look at the behavior of groups, such as the different houses at 
Hogwarts.  If you look at the books from a political framework, you look at 
how those who rule behave toward those who follow, etc.

But there's more.  The previous methods still use primarily what is in the 
text to establish meaning, although everything is seen through a different 
lens, so to speak.  All these frameworks arose because new critics decided 
that it is absolutely impossible to separate meaning from social 
context.  Other methods take even more into consideration.  One adds 
authorial intent.  The meaning comes, in part, from what the author 
intended the meaning to be.  Another says that the author's intent means 
absolutely nothing because the author is driven by a belief system that he 
or she might not even be entirely aware of.  For example, the author may 
have been an incredible racist, but his or her novel is quite anti-racist 
because quite unintentionally, the book illustrates just how horrible 
racism actually is.  Now it was not the author's intent to illustrate that 
point at all.  Do we say the book is not anti-racist because the author did 
not intend it to be?  In any case, it can include a consideration of the 
author's thought processes.  Yet another method of criticism says that 
meaning is created only through interaction with a reader; that is, the 
reader creates the meaning.

It seems to me that what has been called "metathinking" here is really just 
a form of one of the literary criticisms and is just as valid as one of the 
others.  Of course not everyone agrees on the validity of all of the 
methods, but in my way of thinking, each one adds something to the 
understanding of a piece of literature.  One of the things I find so 
wonderful about this listserv is that people approach the books from such a 
wide variety of viewpoints.  Given that I think a particular way about 
literature, I easily miss some of the things others bring up.  I may not 
ultimately agree with everything that comes up, but everything certainly 
helps me think more about the books and makes me marvel all the more at 
JKR's incredible talent.

>Perhaps it is, because when we're looking at HP as a book, with all of
>the external influences that implies, we're studying JKR's thought processes
>when she writes. On the other hand, we're still studying her mental
>processes, in a way, when we're observing her characters as "people" and
>trying to discern the meanings behind their actions. Are studying the
>characters from the inside and studying the books from the outside BOTH
>metathinking?

I don't think any of that is true metathinking.  Those are just different 
methods of literary criticism.   Now if someone can point me to an article 
that explains metathinking as it's been used here, I'd appreciate it.  I 
even talked this term over with some of my colleagues who teach literature 
(I teach writing) and they hadn't heard of it being used this way either.

I have tried and tried to understand the MAGIC DISHWASHER discussion, but I 
always get bogged down in the "metathinking" discussion.  Perhaps a new 
term for this method would be useful.  I, for one, would like to see a 
description of the method without the use of "metathinking," which to be 
clouds the discussion.  Is it simply using outside events to explain within 
text events?  If so, I don't have a problem with it. I'm trying to find out 
exactly what it is and why some people are so upset with it.  Are people 
upset simply because it strays outside the text?   And in what ways does it 
stray outside?

Should anyone care to answer me, I'd greatly appreciate an answer that 
explains the method rather than attempts to define the term.  I'd like to 
see that term disappear.