On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[Porphyria]

No: HPFGUIDX 47909

I wanted to weigh in on the meta-thinking issue myself. I know this post 
will overlap much of the discussion that has already taken place, but I 
did have some specific questions and comments to address to Pip (and 
anyone else who cares to join in).

This latest discussion came up when Eloise asked Pip why she felt JKR's 
word could invalidate the Magic Dishwasher theory, and how come this 
wouldn't constitute meta-thinking -- thinking about the books from outside 
the internal world of the characters. Pip replied:

> My view is that any factual detail about the internal world of a
> book or series of books that can be definitely attributed to the
> author is canonical.

Unfortunately, this discussion got a little bogged down in the question of 
what constitutes canon. I think this sidetracked it a lot, since the canon/
non-canon issue is considerably different from the meta-
thinking/non-meta-thinking issue. Canon, for instance, takes into account 
"meta" issues such as theme, tone, metaphor, allegory, plot constructions,
  the name of the books, etc.; MD is not based on any of these. Canon, 
however, is typically not considered to include the authors word in 
interview, letters, notes, etc.

So, I ask Pip the same question that Eloise did, but I'm phrasing it 
differently:

MD, as I understand it, is based on the following, helpfully supplied in 
Eileen's latest post:

 > Pip -post#47047
 > >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.

So my question is, if JKR addresses an issue relevant to the point of view 
of the characters, then this is fair game for your analysis. For instance,
  if JKR says that Dumbledore is 150 years old, this is fair (i.e. relevant 
to the internal perspective) since *Dumbledore knows he is 150 years old.* 
However, if JKR says that Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness, this is 
irrelevant to MD's internal perspective because it treats Dumbledore as a 
character -- Dumbledore the person, taken internally, has no idea he's 
supposed to be the epitome of anything. (Leaving aside how we interpret 
"epitome of goodness.")

Is this correct, Pip, or does JKR's word simply, in your opinion, trump 
all our theories? :-)

Regarding "meta-thinking." I do regret that this term has come into 
existence on the list, since it confuses more than it clarifies, and it 
has the unfortunate effect of leading people to believe that it's a term 
from literary theory, which is most definitely is not. It is, in this 
context, a homegrown HPfGU term.

More recently, Pip has cited the Stanislavskian method in defense of 
non-meta-thinking:

> 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.

Ideally, it would have been great if this method had been brought up early 
on in the Magic Dishwasher discussion. That way we could use it instead of 
something awkward and confusing like "non-meta-thinking." For instance, if 
someone said "I think Snape was knocked out in the Shrieking Shack for all 
the discussion of Peter because JKR needed it that way for a plot 
convention," then the MDDT could reply: "I prefer to think of Snape and 
the other characters  as real people, with real motivations, not the 
puppets of plot," etc. and cite the Stanislavskian method as an accepted, 
internally coherent means of interpreting characters.

This would have the advantage of being clearer to newbies and infrequent 
list-followers, who would either recognize this term from its use in 
acting schools, or be able to look it up independently.

This would also have the advantage of admitting that MD's 
"non-meta-thinking" school of interpretation is but one method among many.
  It is no more scientific, conservative or accurate than any other method,
  but it is internally consistent and worthy of consideration. Literature 
is a slippery, ever-shifting entity; there is no sure-fire means of 
interpretation as much as many of us would be tempted to have one.

I personally must agree with Charis Julia, Clickety, Eileen, Eloise, and 
others who feel (in essence) that a variety of methodological approaches 
can be applied to a given theory and there is no particular value to 
adhering strictly to one, unless you are simply doing it as an 
intellectual exercise, premise for an AU fanfic, or fun topic of 
conversation. In order for a theory to be valid, IMO, it must 
simultaneously make sense both internally and externally, even if the 
human mind (waves at Charis Julia) is only capable of focusing on one at 
once. I also agree that MD can be frustrating for those of us who disagree 
with it because of the prohibition on arguing from our chosen methodology.
  Still, I've never *demonized* someone over it. :-) But Theory Bay has 
produced a variety of wild and subversive theories, and no one else yet 
has declared a method of interpretation "unfair" to apply to a theory of 
their own.

Lastly, a note on authorial intent: this is aimed playfully at Shane. I 
was under the impression that authorial intent went the way of the dodo 
back when the New Critics declared the Intentional Fallacy to be erroneous,
  back in the 1930's, and long before Barthes wrote in the 50's and beyond.
  :-) In any case, the author has been dead for a long time.

~Porphyria


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