Prediction/Verisimilitude Was: Correct forecasts (long)

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 80283

Jim Ferer wrote:
> I think the approach to predicting future events has a lot to do 
> with the accuracy of predictions.

Great post!
  
> In my opinion, Marianne was dead on because she approached her 
> analysis in terms of the characters as humans. Marianne probably 
> knew kids like James and Sirius, knew that kids like them generally 
> are "arrogant little berks," until the grow up, anyway, and so made 
> her prediction on her experience with human nature. We all have 
> skeletons, so why would Prongs and Padfoot be any different? <snip>

To predict effectively, go back to the characters whose behavior you 
have experience with, and think of what they are likely to do next; 
to the degree that events are driven by that character's behavior, 
and to the extent that your analysis of the character is correct, 
allowing for a little Chaos theory (and History), you will probably 
predict correctly.  I am just sort of rephrasing here, I think.

> The "what would you do" test is useful. I once wrote a fic designed 
> to answer a question: how do you get Muggle parents to accept the 
> existence of the wizarding world after their kid gets a Hogwarts 
> letter?

I think the "what would *you* do" test (emphasis added) was useful 
for the Muggle parents' behavior because the "you" being inquired of 
was (I assume) a Muggle.  I cannot predict Snape, for instance, based 
on what I think I would do in his place; for fanfic *or* prediction, 
I would have to "put on" his character and operate it like a hand 
puppet, causing it to speak and behave based on what I (think I) know 
of him.

<snip> I predicted that Voldemort would spend the early stages of the 
War in 1, gathering strength, 2, encouraging the wizard world and the 
MoM that the threat didn't exist, 3, trying to deprive the forces of 
good of their base, Hogwarts, and 4, trying to discredit and 
neutralize his main enemies, Dumbledore and Harry. That's what 
happened <snip>

Very likely JKR used the same historical model you did; so did you 
predict, or did you parallel? <g--kidding!>

<snip> One small, observed fact is parent to a speculation which in 
turn is used as the launching point for another speculation, and 
another, and another, until there's a whole new world cantilevered 
out there – and it doesn't take much for the whole thing to come 
crashing down. <snip>

Inexperienced writers will sometimes get reader (friends, writers' 
groups) reactions of "This doesn't work for me; I don't believe this 
would happen," and respond with, "But this happened to my cousin 
Sid!"  Doesn't matter.  They have built a structure on a wobbly 
base.  Whether you're using what happened to your cousin Sid or a 
speculation on a part of the Potterverse, if it isn't consistent, if 
it doesn't fit, with what we already believe, you have to change our 
beliefs first or risk losing our attention.  (Otherwise known as 
writing with verisimilitude.)

> Occam's Razor admonishes a reasoner to `choose from a set of 
> otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest 
> one.' Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, 
> variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain a 
> phenomenon. 

People use Occam's Razor (great name for a barbershop quartet, no?) 
all the time without even thinking about it.  Switch on lamp; no 
light:  bulb has probably gone bad.  Thoughts of fuse/circuit 
breaker, unpaid electric bill, or power outage come only after the 
bulb is replaced.  *Unless* you notice other appliances down, 
remember that unpaid bill, or see that the whole block is dark, in 
which case "otherwise eqivalent" has changed.

> If you want to suggest that Luna is starting to like Harry, go 
> ahead, make your points and your arguments, and we'll have fun 
> discussing it. It's not a ridiculous notion. <snip> It seems 
> reasonable that anybody with a radical, earthshaking theory should 
> have a much higher wall to climb for acceptance than someone with a 
> more modest suggestion.

What anyone who posts a prediction here is doing is virtual 
continuation of the story; a hint of fanfic in our heads.  Can we 
imagine the story playing out thus?

You cannot fly in the face of your audience's existing expectations.  
They will not go there.  If you really want them to, you have to (at 
least temporarily) change their assumptions.  JKR sprang fake!Moody 
on us and it worked, but she *retroactively* changed our assumptions; 
after we thought back, we saw the clues.  (And Moody was never 
someone we (Harry) really let our (his) guard down with (gonna trust 
someone called "Mad Eye," right!) anyway, so we (he) didn't feel too 
devastated by the betrayal.)

> Never forget that JKR, who always plays fair, is also Knight Grand 
> Commander of the Order of the Red Herring. Many of the little hints 
> and clues are tiny little pills of foolery and double meaning; but 
> if you watch the characters you'll do all right.

I see JKR like a magician (this is about magic, isn't it?); there's 
some prestidigitation going on, some misdirection:  I'm gonna flutter 
this hand right here by my face and you're gonna look at it, that's a 
natural reaction to what I'm doing, and while you're looking here, 
I'm gonna be moving this rabbit from where it's stowed over *there* 
(where you're not looking) so I can pull it out of my hat in a 
minute.  You wanted to "Ooh!" and "Aah!" didn't you?  Note:  the 
magician's intent is to entertain you, not distract you while picking 
your pocket.

Some of the theories like Evil!Dumbledore make me a little crazy; JKR 
spent considerable time and effort grooming our suspension of 
disbelief; I don't see her (or any writer who wants people to pick up 
their next book) blowing that up quite so spectacularly, because what 
it says is:  Hey, you trusted me, and I made you look like an idiot 
(picked your pocket), isn't that funny?  Yes, I see her as playing 
fair (and that goes back to *my* expectations and assumptions).  She 
has so far.

Sandy, aka "msbeadsley"