What's Wrong With Metathinking? (WAS:Why Snape may know what he knows )

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 45197

Let me say in advance that I buy lots of "I Want You To Die Mr.
Potter" or whatever it's called these days, and very little of SPYING
GAMES. However, I love both these theories. They make my head ache,
'tis true, but they're very nice. 

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> wrote:
> Hmmm... unfortunately lit-crit tends to provoke strange growling 
> noises from me, but could you possibly explain how a reader is *not* 
> supposed to interpret a text through their own knowledge and 
> understanding? And why this is supposedly less canonically rigorous 
> than interpreting it through, say, Freudian psychology. 

I think it's obvious that we interpret a text through our own
knowledge and understanding. However, I think that metathinking is an
important part of that knowledge and understanding.
 
> For example: I support my reading of Snape's goading of Harry in PoA 
> Ch. 19 by making reference to his similar behaviour in Ch.14 (where 
> he also goads Harry into losing his temper) and argue that Snape in 
> Ch.19 knows from his previous experience in Ch.14 that insulting 
> Harry's parents will make him lose his temper. That is MORE 
> canonically rigorous than supporting a different reading of Snape's 
> goading of Harry by saying that at this point in the Story it is 
> essential that Harry take independent action and learn that 
> sometimes we have to defy those in authority.

I think you would have to assume that "canonically rigorous" can only
refer to a treatment of the characters in the story as real people. 

> The one points to what the characters have said and done in the 
> text. The other uses a theory of what the story is about as its 
> supporting evidence. 

True, but where does the theory of what the story is about come from?
Canon, that's where. 

One doesn't sit down and say "MAGIC DISHWASHER is out b/c the book's
genre does not permit it" without having decided what the genre is
from having read the book and observed how closely it sticks to the
genre's rules. In other words, metathinking can be as canonically
rigorous as anything else. 

For example, in this recent discussion, MAGIC DISHWASHER supporters
have been arguing from Snape's CANON actions. People who disagree with
MAGIC DISHWASHER have been arguing from what the story is about,
giving examples from CANON. 

>They are not equally canonically rigorous nor 
> are they on the same level; I can never, however much I argue, say 
> that Snape in Ch.19 had *no* knowledge that insulting Harry's 
> parents would make Harry lose his temper; I *can* argue that Harry's 
> need for independent action is met earlier, or later, or is not 
> needed in PoA at all because the Story is about his growth to 
> manhood, and the independence will come later...

You are right that the limits on metathinking are not as strict as the
limits on discussing a canon incident. However, that does not mean no
limits exist. If someone comes to the list with the idea that there
will be no deaths in the following books b/c the Harry Potter series
is obviously a children's comedy, the limit on acceptable metathinking
will kick in pretty quickly. We would challenge them rightly to show
what in canon leads them to believe that Harry Potter is a children's
comedy, what precludes death in a children's comedy, and how they
reconcile this theory with what's already happened in the series.
These questions are all rooted in the text itself: canon. They will
most probably not have answers.... Unless it Elkins, of course.

But should someone come up with answers rooted in canon, then I would
say we would have to accept their opinion as canonically rigorous. As
canonically rigorous as if they had come to their opinion by analysing
Voldemort and Dumbledore's stated wishes on the subject of killing people.

(And of course, such a theory wouldn't stand up for a second under any
method of examination. It's just an example. :-) 

> [Rant mode on]
> Marina, of course I know it's a literary text. It has a cover, and 
> pages, and words printed on the pages; I bought it from 
> the 'fiction' section of the bookshop - these are some of the clues 
> which tell me that it is a literary text.
> 
> And I pay the entire list the compliment of assuming that I do not 
> *need* to acknowledge that it is a literary text, because they too 
> have picked up on these clues. Far from being 'artificial', assuming 
> that the fact that a literary text *is* a literary text is 
> understood by everyone (other than English Lit professors) and thus 
> requires no acknowledgement within a theory is the beginning point 
> of analysis.
> [Rant mode off]

I too think it is dangerous not to pay attention to the fact that this
is a literary text. I also think it's dangerous to dismiss out of hand
English Lit. professors. Otherwise why am I paying them so much money
for this degree? :-)

I'll give an example of where you have to take into account that the
book is a book, written in a certain place, in a certain time, in a
certain culture, and a certain genre. 

Beowulf

Now, a lot of people have had a lot of fun with Beowulf. MAGIC
DISHWASHER sort of fun. They've come up with some lovely theories. 

You see, there's this character named Unferth who dislikes Beowulf.
They get a bit snippety with each other early on in the story. Beowulf
ends up completely humiliating Unferth. Then, at the crucial point in
the story, when Beowulf is about to plunge down into the depths of the
sea to enter the lair of the monster Grendel's mother, Unferth offers
Beowulf his sword Hrunting. Hrunting comes to a quick end against
Grendel's mother and Beowulf ends up killing Grendel with a blade he
finds in the cave: "ealdsweord eotenisc," that is "old sword of giant
make." That blade pierces through Grendel's mother. Her blood then
melts the blade. (If it sounds familiar, this is the inspiration for
the climax of BOOK V of the LotR.) 

Well, naturally, there's a temptation to say Unferth gave Beowulf a
faulty sword so that Beowulf would fail. And people have had a lot of
fun saying it.

But you have to remember that this is a text written in a time when
that sort of plot twist wasn't employed. That when the Beowulf poet
goes on and on in the sword's praise, it's not really possible that
he's tongue-in-cheek reporting Unferth's clever machinations. That's
just not how it works. That's metathinking. And it's completely valid. 

Most metathinking isn't as conclusive as that, of course. When it
comes to a book like Harry Potter, no one right solution is going to
appear, but the solutions that do appear through metathinking are
valid and canonically rigorous. 
 
> Personally, my goal is fun. 

And MAGIC DISHWASHER is fun, no doubt about that. 

>My secondary goal is to be able to 
> say 'I TOLD YOU SO!' when Book 5, 6 or possibly 7 comes out. [grin]

As an aside, can MAGIC DISHWASHER be disproved btw? 
 

> You mean that stories follow certain rules, and that an examination 
> of which rules the author is following will allow you to predict 
> where the story will go.
> 
> Unfortunately, this mostly only works with second-rate writers. The 
> Rules say that Frodo either a)should have died heroically succeeding 
> in his task (theme of courage against certain death) or b)have 
> miraculously survived to a happy retirement (theme of grace) or c) 
> failed completely, with death and despair all round (theme of 
> despair). In fact, Tolkein is a good enough writer that none of 
> these happened - though there were a few chapters where the reader 
> was fooled into thinking it was going to be ending b).

Yes, that metathinking fails. But... (everyone on the list backs up as
they see a glint in Eileen's eye that spells 'TOLKIEN FANATIC)

Let's pretend I am sitting here with the first two volumes of LotR.
Tolkien is fiddling away making changes to the appendixes on RotK to
the horror of his publishers and readers. I log onto 'Lord of the
Rings for Adults" and the discussion is what's going to happen in the
end to Frodo and his task. 

There's a lot of talk on the list about the Rules (as you suggested.)
Some people are talking about what we can deduce from Sauron and
Gandalf's strategies and what situations will result from them. Other
people are rigorously analysing Frodo's character for clues. 

And I say, "Let's examine J.R.R. Tolkien's underpinning rules."

I'm not going to come up with the ending of LotR. But I could
establish certain things about Middle Earth. I could establish that
it's not going to all end in Frodo miraculously surviving and living
happily ever after. I would point out the pessimistic philosophies of
Gandalf and Galadriel, for instance, the discussions of Lorien and the
three Elven rings, the theme of a grander past from which the present
has fallen, the idea all through the first two books that nothing will
ever be as it was, all summed up in Galadriel's line: "Through all the
ages of the world I have fought the long defeat." 

That's metathinking. And it's very valid. 

<Pip went on to discuss MAGIC DISHWASHER specifically, which this post
doesn't seek to address, only the issue of whether metathinking is
valid, and how it stands in comparison to other ways of approaching
the books.>

And why am I so anxious to rescue metathinking?

Well, because the Big Bang Theory is metathinking, obviously! And what
would we do without the Big Bang Theory? ;-)

Eileen, off to the Destroyer