A new term for metathinking?

[dicentra63 <dicentra@xmission.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 47914

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:

> 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.

Can we come up with a better term, then?  It seems to me that
"metathinking" would more appropriately describe what we do when we
analyze the different approaches to the Potterverse (though
"meta-analysis" might be more precise).

I am bothered by the "meta-" prefix, as many are, because it suggests
"going outside of" or beyond something.  If I understand the dichotomy
correctly, we've got those who analyze the Potterverse as a literary
artifact and those who set aside the literary nature of the
Potterverse.  Because the Potterverse is, indisputably, a literary
construct, those who approach it thus are not going outside of
anything: there's nothing "meta" about it.  Those who set aside the
literary character of the Potterverse are the ones who are playing by
a specialized set of rules: their method should therefore get the
special term. (Ironically, the "meta-" prefix applies to the literary
approach *only* if you've situated yourself within the non-literary
paradigm to begin with; I guess it makes sense that for the MDDT, the
literary approach *is* "metathinking.")

Hmmm.  If we consult Elkins's seminal text on approaches to texts,
39196 (and which of Elkins's posts isn't seminal?), she calls the
non-literary approach the "fan" or "fannish" approach. (And as we are
doing now, she laments the lack of a better term.) Other terms that
come to mind are "historical" or "literal," but these terms are
unsatisfactory because they already name an approach, neither of which
is the non-literary approach.

If we want to coin a term for HPfGU, we could call it the "safehouse"
approach, and create "safehousing" as a neologism, but if we want
something we can use in any fandom, we might want to use "hermetic,"
because the approach is impermeable to all literary considerations.

At any rate, this safehouse/hermetic/fannish approach is used by more
than MD, to be sure.  The recent thread discussing whether Sirius had
a genuine case of PSTD is not a literary approach.  The timelines in
the Lexicon posit the Potterverse as "real," and most of our FLINTs
disregard the vagaries of writing and editing as an explanation for
the inconsistencies.

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

<snip>

Yes, I'd say that the Stanislavskian method is a valid analogy, but
try typing Stanislavskian quickly and accurately.  I can't. :D

> 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.

I don't know.  If MD posits a non-literary Potterverse, you can
certainly say "I don't think MD is accurate because of XXX literary
consideration," but you're criticizing MD based on a premise it
doesn't accept.  That's like saying that something in RL will or will
not happen based on literary convention, e.g., "yes, you're stranded
in a snowstorm, but don't worry: your worst enemy will save you right
before you freeze to death and you'll become the best of friends." 
True, such a thing *could* happen in RL, but it's not more likely to
happen because that's how it often happens in stories.  As someone
once said, "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to be
plausible, a restraint truth does not have" (or words to that effect).

> 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.

That's because in TBAY people are playing by the same set of rules. 
It would not be difficult to go into TBAY and be the ultimate wet
blanket, saying that SECOND FLAMINGO and TOADKEEPER and the TEWWWW
EWWWW Trilogy are WAY too speculative and ridiculous and not worth
consideration on a list of this caliber and besides, this business
about romping around in a fictional space that has Nothing To Do With
The Potterverse is childish and off-topic.  There are those who feel
that way about TBAY, but they're too sporting to rain on our picnic
(the prefix allows them to skip the nonsense and be content).

Oh, and by the way, MAGIC DISHWASHER is now in Hypothetic Alley, now
found at its new location (Stoned!Harry is almost there, too!):

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html

Porphyria:
> 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. 

I sympathize with the MDDT.  They're inhabiting the particular
theoretical space that MD posits and prefer to argue the merits of the
theory from within the confines of that non-literary space.  For fun,
and as an intellectual exercise, and all that stuff.  So yeah, if you
counter a hermetic argument with a literary argument, you aren't
playing by their rules, and there's no reason why they should give
weight to your argument in the context of that particular discussion. 

That's frustrating to some, but either you play their game or you
start your own. If you want to analyze MD from a literary standpoint,
go ahead--then the MDDT's hermetic approach will be invalid on that
thread.  There's plenty of room on HPfGU for both approaches. 
Yahoomort hasn't set a limit on how many threads we can start.  Yet. :D

Poyrphyria:
> 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 don't know if I'd limit the term "valid" that much, at least not as
far as the list as a whole.  If we're examining theories and trying to
determine which one is "correct," that is, which one is successfully
played out through Book 7, then perhaps "valid" should be thus
delimited.  OTOH, if "valid" simply means "an interesting reading that
is loads of fun to play with," then a non-literary perspective such as
MD certainly merits "valid."

--Dicentra, preferring the more generic term "hermetic" to
"safehouse," but only by a little