[HPforGrownups] Re: Metathinking

Fri Dec 6 21:34:14 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 47861

Carol wrote:
>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.

Me:
This is pretty accurate.  The word "meta" actually means "after": it's of 
Greek origin, and was initially used in the term "metaphysics", which meant, 
literally, "after physics": this branch of philosophy was developed as a 
response to the physical sciences, and dealt with what we could definitely 
know about the more non-physical aspects of the world (emotions, 
spirituality, good, evil etc).  Metathinking is a development of this, an 
attempt to examine the "science" of thinking.  It is, in actuality, the 
purest (and most obscure) area of philosophy.

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

Me:
It's not really.

Bel again:
>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.

Me:
Me too.  I've had a look at the Magic Dishwasher, and while I don't agree 
with it, I have no real problem with it.  However, all this discussion about 
meta-thinking has sort of distorted what's been said.  Meta-thinking as it 
has been described by some on the list is looking at the books, but allowing 
events *outside* the books to be used as influences.  This *is* a valid form 
of literary criticism and interpretation.  But it's *not* necessarilly 
meta-thinking.

Carol wrote:
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.

Me:
This is a good point.  There has been some discussion (especially around the 
guerrilla war, IRA debate) that this is unlikely to have been JKR's intent.  
There is a strong movement in literary and cultural criticism (in 
sociological discourse referred to as *semiology*) which was initially 
developed by a gentleman called Roland Barthes.  Barthes postulated that, in 
the post-modern era, *the author is dead*.  What he meant by this was that 
that the author's intent is pretty much irrelevant once the book is 
published or the movie released.  We all place our own interpretation on the 
story, and are usually happy enough with that.  Most people don't agonise 
over what the author really meant by a line of text or an action by a 
character, they just understand it by using their own experiences and their 
own belief systems, and often project whatever their motivations would be 
onto the characters in the story.  Because the world is now such a small 
place, and books and movies often receive world-wide release, cultural 
differences are now a major aspect of this concept.  An example of this was 
the popularity of the Rambo movies in Japan.  While American audiences saw 
Rambo as a patriotic tale of America reclaiming her veterans and finally 
winning the Vietnam War (albeit a little late) Japanese audiences viewed it 
as a brother saving his siblings from imprisonment - they saw kinship 
obligations where the Americans saw racial and political ties.  Authors 
intent was completely irrelevant in this context.  What was important was 
what the viewers of the movie experienced and understood.

The canon can be interpreted in any way a reader chooses to interpret it, 
and each way is valid.  Magic Dishwasher is an interesting theory, and uses 
a perfectly acceptable form of interpretation, which to me resembles an 
allegorical reading (although I understand that it isn't *quite*).  My own 
interpretations tend to be  based more around the events and motivations 
that can be seen *in canon*.  JKR may well have been influenced by what we 
in Ireland refer to as "the troubles", but then, JKR does not exist in the 
HP universe.  Therefore, I'm not really interested in her intents in my 
interpretations of the text .  On another level, I'm interested in JKR's 
influences, but that's more in my interest in what went into the crafting of 
what I consider to be these great works of art and story-telling.

But that's a seperate issue.

Shane.

Shane Dunphy
Childcare Course Coordinator, MIFET
>From: Carol Bainbridge Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com To: 
>HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Metathinking 
>Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:23:00 -0600
>
>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. > > > >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. 
>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.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus