PRESSURE COOKERs often develop cracks

[Melody]

No: HPFGUIDX 45421

Pushing aside my deep desire to take on GulPlum's biblical
argument...I would definitely get a few howlers from the mods for
getting way too off-topic...I do want to quote one part.

GulPlum wrote:
>>Moldy further said: **blah blah blah what I said**<<

I have had many nicknames over the years....never Moldy.  That one is
new.  Must say I'm quite hurt GulPlum.  Thought we were friends.  I'll
just assume you were tired and your fingers slipped a little while you
walked the moderator's line between HP and OT posts.  ;)


But on to the task at hand...

Marina, patron saint of the oppressed anti-MD activists wrote:
>> Melody, you astonish me!  Such a broad metathinking argument from
an MD supporter.  I am shocked!  Shocked and apalled.<<

Well, it is Grey Wolf's crusade against having meta-thinking and MD in
the same sentence.  Probably from too many run-ins with the wrong
crowd of meta-thinking that set him off.  I think meta-thinking and MD
work can work quite well together, but then again I have an overactive
imagination for bring odd things together.


Marina got down to business then:
> Okay, seriously -- the PRESSURE COOKER in no way enforces a "basic,
> childlike" reading of the text.  All it requires is that deeper
> layers of meaning must be extrapolated from things that we've
> actually seen or be told about in canon -- not from hypothetical
> things that may have happened off-screen but that we don't know
> anything about.  Within that limitation, there is plenty of room to
> speculate about mysteries, double meanings, and hidden motives.

I did have a feeling I was simplifying your arguements to too low a
common denominator.  My main point of wonder is how are we able to
distinguish what is hypothetically and what is honestly done behind
the scenes?  It is our opinion either way.

We do suppose much of the inner working of Hogwarts often.  We have no
proof behind many of the actions and reactions of the staff.  When
Flitwick tells Potter he heard the special circumstances surrounding
him becoming Seeker, we assume that Flitwick was told it off screen in
let's say the faulty lounge.  Not a hard jump to make, but it is a
*logical* jump to make as well.  Now, if I say that Flitwick heard it
from the centaurs...let say he loves to talk philosophy with them at
night by the campfire, that would be wrong by your standards.  That
jump is too broad to make.  Completely legit in imagination, but not
likely due to the fact we have no evidence to the fact that Flitwick
has ever been in the Forest.  Now, most in this groups would laugh at
my statement and brush it off, because it is not based on canon...well
give me a day or so and it might.  ;)

Now from my perspective, MD is based on *a lot* of canon.  Pip!Squeak
has done her homework.  Using pre-given ideas of Snape the spy and
Dumbledore has a plan, she has run with it and tried to find their
tracks left in the sand.  I see not large jump of the imagination in
her line of logic.  Just dialogue taken from a point of view not show
yet in the series.  It seems, to me, that your crusade against MD is
that it takes too many assumptions that are not logical and are just
imagined by us.

I guess that is my question and point.  Where is the fine line in the
sand?  What is hypothetical and what can legitimately be deduced
behinds the paragraphs of Harry Potter?


I am sorry but I have to go to work, but I will take up my line of
thought later today.  I hope this all makes sense.  I will go back and
reread you post so that I can better explain my objections.  Until
then, be kind.  :)

Melody