"Meta-thinking" on MD

[Becky <squireandknight@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 47902

Okay, having been quite interested in MD from the first, and 
following the thread with a great deal of interest, I finally 
actually have something to say. (For the sake of this post, I will 
use the term "meta-thinking" as I believe it has been defined by the 
MD crowd.) I, for one, think MD is fairly easily defended even while 
using meta-thinking, but I can understand the reluctance to discuss 
it when you're bringing a theory that is using only canon to the 
table. So, since I actually enjoy meta-thinking to a certain extent, 
I'll endeavor to answer some of the meta-thinking objections to MD 
that I have seen posted. I'll even throw in an explanation on why 
such-and-such an argument is meta-thinking for those who are still 
confused (and so someone can check my opinion of meta-thinking if I 
have managed to define it wrong).

1. MD goes against the theme of "choices" in HP.

First, this is meta-thinking because obviously RL does not have any 
actual clear "themes," and the MDDT is treating MD as RL. So saying 
that Ddore wouldn't mastermind Wormtail's escape because JKR has a 
theme on choices, denies Ddore the right of being an actual RL 3-D 
person, instead turning into JKR's puppet. Which he is, but MD is 
looking at him as an actual human being, with his own moral choices 
to make.

I also disagree with this argument simply because I have yet to see 
any reason to think that JKR is taking a clear stand on having 
unfettered choices, and that no one is trying to manipulate the 
characters into certain decisions.

True, Dumbledore says, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we 
truly are, far more than our abilities." But, I can't take this as a 
sign that Dumbledore will never try to direct anyone into certain 
decisions, because that's not what he says in the first place. He 
simply seems to say that a person's choices are important, not that 
they are never maneuvered into certain ones. I see no reason to 
believe that JKR has taken a clear stance on choices. In fact, there 
is even *precedent* for a certain managing by a third party when 
choices come into play:

a. The whole Quirrelmort incident. Harry even said: "I think he sort 
of wanted to give me a chance." Read *choice.* MD as a theory, 
largely reads as one that has a whole lot of focus on individual 
choices. It has been commented on this list that Dumbledore has given 
a lot of people a chance: Lupin, Hagrid, Snape, and Sirius (the 
chance to prove his innocence). MD really only takes this to a higher 
level.

b. CoS, Chapter Fourteen, Cornelius Fudge: "'...you will find that I 
will only *truly* have left this school when none here are loyal to 
me. You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to 
those who ask for it.'

"For a second, Harry was almost sure Dumbledore's eyes flickered 
toward the corner where he and Ron stood hidden."

CoS, Chapter Eighteen, Dobby's Reward: "You must have shown me real 
loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called 
Fawkes to you."

Once again, it appears that Harry was largely *directed,* otherwise, 
what was the reason for the episode in Hagrid's cabin? I'm not trying 
to suggest that Ddore knew exactly what was going to happen. After 
all, this supports the MD idea that Ddore has a number of back-up 
plans, and this just happened to be the one to bear fruit. <g> But I 
do think that Ddore has been shown trying to lead Harry down a 
certain path.

Last one:

c. GoF, Chapter Thirty-Five, Veritaserum: "Who told Cedric to open it 
underwater? I did. I trusted that he would pass the information on to 
you. Decent people are so easy to manipulate, Potter."

"You told me at the Yule Ball a house-elf called Dobby had given you 
a Christmas present"..."And your little elf friend ran straight to 
Snape's office and then hurried to find you..."

Now I have to wonder, do you think that Cedric's decision to share 
with Harry the secret to opening the egg, was somehow less of one 
because that was what he was supposed to do? That Dobby's bringing 
the gillyweed wasn't quite as much an act of friendship because he 
was manipulated into doing so? I don't. IMO, there is a fairly 
clear "theme" of people making choices with the information that they 
are given - sometimes choices that have, in fact, been orchestrated 
by other parties. I do not think it wipes out the importance of the 
*choice* though. This is most clearly shown to me when Harry's 
honorable decision to share the cup with Cedric - and ignore his own 
jealousy, and desire to win - ends with Cedric being killed in a trap 
set for Harry. Perhaps this has soured some of the readers towards 
Harry's choice itself, however, I still look at the choice, and the 
reasons for it, as, if not completely separate, at least somewhat 
*apart* from the end result.


2. Dumbledore wouldn't manipulate people to deliberately bring back 
Voldemort.

This one kind of fuzzes the line with meta-thinking, depending on the 
source of the objection. On the one hand, if you say that JKR 
wouldn't do that because she's set up Ddore as the epitome of good; 
then that *is* meta-thinking, because you're pushing him as a puppet 
to JKR again, and denying him RL motivations. 

On the other hand, if you say that Ddore wouldn't do such a thing 
because Ddore has been around 150 years, runs a school for children, 
has turned down an opportunity to be in politics, is shown to be 
fairly liberal in his views, and it just seems to be against his 
character; then that is *not* meta-thinking, but analysis. It's also 
something I'm not really going to answer because this post is long 
enough just disputing the meta-thinking arguments, and the MDDT can 
handle it (and has handled it in the past).

To return to JKR and Ddore as the epitome of goodness, I don't know 
if it's even possible to reach anything besides an "agree to 
disagree," simply because this really depends on your world view. 
Myself, I'm Christian and believe God has a "Plan" that is largely 
based on the fact that He knows each of us well enough to know what 
our choices would be in each particular situation that we might find 
ourselves in, and has simply made it so our choices have the best 
possible outcome. To say much more would be getting into unnecessary 
theological explanations, so I'll simply say that having a *good* 
Dumbledore who does his best to get people to make the choices he 
wants them to make, fits quite easily into my world view.

I think the morality of said choices and the comparison to "Decent 
people are so easy to manipulate, Potter" can be made by the MDDT. 
(Read: I'm backing off this one before I get sucked into it ;-))


3. This is a children's book, and having MD Dumbledore is too 
complicated and serious for it.

This is obviously meta-thinking, because Ddore, Voldemort & Co. 
obviously don't know that they're in a children's book and should 
keep their actions appropriate for a 9-12 age range ;-)

I also disagree with it because JKR has said she isn't going to tone 
it down for younger readers, didn't have a target audience in mind 
while plotting the series, and is writing a book that she feels *she* 
would enjoy. There have been several debates in the past about 
whether HP is a "children's series" and I'm one of those who feel 
that the target audience of the book was decided by the publisher in 
response to PS/SS.

Also, for those of you who have written out there, I also find it 
hard to imagine ignoring a plot line - particularly one as 
intricately laid into the framework of the series as MAGIC DISHWASHER 
is making out to be - simply because the series was classified as 9-
12 appropriate. Make it more vague and less explicit, maybe 
(although, once again, JKR said she wasn't toning it down), but I 
have a hard time fathoming JKR throwing it away all together if she 
*is* using it.


4. This is called the *Harry Potter* series, and you're turning it 
into a massive war with Dumbledore and Voldemort as the key players.

Once again meta-thinking, because Ddore and LV don't know they're in 
a series called Harry Potter, and should therefore plan all actions 
accordingly around said person ;-)

I also don't think the MDDT expects to suddenly get the series from 
Ddore's PoV, as he plans his next big offensive. I don't recall 
anyone yelling about the climax in PoA largely being what happened 
between Sirius, Peter, Remus, and the Potters, with Harry barely 
mentioned at all. Why? Because it's *backstory.*

*We* know Harry is going to be the key player, but I'm rather hoping 
Ddore and LV don't. And I see no problem with them including plans 
that exclude Harry, because I tend to find the idea that they're 
completely hanging on a 14-15 year old kinda unappealing. I don't 
particularly like the idea that Dumbledore and Voldemort are sitting 
there, cooling their heels, while they wait on Harry. As much as I 
like Harry, having the *sole* attention fixed on him strikes me as 
not only unrealistic, but quite repellent.


Well, this is the end of my post, and I hope I've managed to at least 
*somewhat* make the MD/meta-thinking stance clear.

Becky (Who hopes she hasn't made any embarrassing canonical errors 
like the last time she posted)