MAGIC DISHWASHER (TBAY INTRO): Spying Game Philosophy - The Phoenix must die!

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 81046


I want to start out by complimenting Pip and the MDDT on a job well 
done. Much of what they've written strikes me as incredibly 
perceptive and rings with truth; indeed, it is a high compliment to 
Pip that she was able to discern certain key elements of 
Dumbledore's strategy way back before the release of OoP. Some of 
the stuff that she nailed on the head? Well, I'll use her words:

Pip wrote:
"Between canon for Dumbledore's undercover agents in the MoM, 
Dumbledore's announcement that he had a plan, the on-screen 
discovery that Snape is a superb actor, positive proof that 
Dumbledore has been deliberately withholding information from Harry 
and the DE's using the giants to try and kill Hagrid, the MD team 
felt it had something to celebrate."

Indeed, much of the old MAGIC DISHWASHER was affirmed in OoP. I 
recall during my first read of the book being particularly impressed 
(possibly even against my own will) by Pip's early observation that 
Dumbledore was likely to be working on a "need to know" basis; this, 
of course, is something that Molly Weasley confirms, *verbatim* in 
OoP. Well done!

But I think that we have to discuss MAGIC DISHWASHER *itself* a 
little bit here, and by that I am referring to the *original* 
precepts underlying the theory, which, when explained to a friend of 
mine, resulted in the reply: "That's a *bold* theory." I completely 
concur. It was a bold theory; and that's why it received so much 
attention (and yes, also flack) on the list. I completely agree with 
the notion that a theory itself must evolve with the books, or else 
risk becoming obsolete... so, on that note, I'd reiterate the 
repeated calls for updates to old favorites like Evil!McGonagall 
(good luck with *that* one, Elkins), Evil!Lupin, LOLLIPOPS and so 
forth. I myself plan to update DARK LADLES in light of Lupin's clear 
role as a leader within the context of the Order, which indicates 
both Dumbledore's trust in him as well as his possible agency in the 
Shrieking Shack.

However, it needs to be pointed out that one cannot simply *force* a 
theory's evolution without discussing what it *used* to be. 
Otherwise, we're not *evolving,* but instead, *replacing.* Thing is, 
the latest incarnation of MAGIC DISHWASHER sort of, well...

<Tom glances warily at the Wolf in the corner, from whom ominous 
growls are emanating.>

Alright. It *sidesteps* all of the old messy specifics that were the 
cause of the classic debates, many of which are stored (for your 
viewing pleasure) in Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them.

First off, I want to point out that while the recent post was *so* 
articulate and eloquent, it seems kind of, I dunno, *tautological* 
to me. Let me explain why. 

The fundamental rule of storytelling, according to Robert McKee (the 
delightfully vociferous lecturer in 'Adaptation') is that "your 
characters must change, and that change must come from them." Let's 
take that a step further. As far as I recall, that's basically a 
corollary of the basic premise of epic-telling, namely that the 
characters must change, but also that their *world* must change as 
well. 

Epics are, at base, concerned with fundamental shifts in the status 
quo of whatever world or society with which they're concerned.

So, when we look at any of the great epics in in the past, that's 
precisely what we get: 'The Dark is Rising,' 'The Chronicles of 
Narnia,' 'The Lord of the Rings,' 'Lawrence of Arabia,' 'The Iliad' 
and 'The Odyessy,' 'Beowulf,' 'Star Wars,' 'Braveheart' and so forth 
are focused exclusively on the notion that the world with which the 
story begins is, by the end, going to be replaced with something 
better, but if not wholly better, then at *minimum,* something 
different. Yes, the characters change. But they change the world 
with them. That's what constitutes an epic.

In that sense (and again, I'm not trying to bash the MDDT here - 
that post was really *wonderful*) the recent addition to the Magic 
Dishwasher lore, well... the way I see it, since it's a foregone 
conclusion that Harry Potter is the great epic of our times, it sort 
of... goes without saying. That the Potterverse must change has been 
alluded to repeatedly in the books: goblin rebellions, giant wars, 
house elf slavery, secrecy from muggles, corruption in the Ministry 
of Magic, an underlying racism in the entirety of the WW itself, the 
destruction of the Fountain of Magic Bretheren and Dumbledore's 
commentary on it... *all* of these relate back to the basic epic 
premise, namely that the WW must change by the end.

It cannot stay the same.

I think OoP brought many of us closer to realizing that by the end, 
the house elves (while not freed as a race) will probably be 
presented at least with that choice; that the giants will have to be 
accepted into the society - somehow; the goblins will demand and 
claim the freedoms that the WW has been denying them for centuries; 
the centaurs will seek-out vindication and equal status - and will 
achieve them; muggles may very well become aware of the shift in the 
WW, and even become largely aware of the very WW *itself*; 
werewolves and, indeed, *all* half-breeds (including muggle-born 
wizards and witches) will inevitably be established firmly as on 
equal footing with the rest of the society's entrenched pure-bloods. 
Countless characters, and even Harry himself may die.

But, to return to the point, Magic Dishwasher (Mysterious Agendas 
Generate Interesting Conclusion: Dumbledore Is Secretly Hatching 
Ways to Assure Superiority for Harry in the Emerging Resolution), if 
this latest post is meant to be an addition to its extensive and 
well-defended library of thought, is now something of a misnomer. I 
thought it was sort of a misnomer before (see the posts related to 
DARK LADLES and SUNLIGHT ULTRA), but now, as Fictional!Pippin 
pointed out, it's progressed beyond itself. It really has been 
almost superceded by OoP, which takes for granted spy-lore and 
covert activities. 

*These* were some of the most important premises for the old theory.

Now, it' largely a commentary on the WW ethos, and less focused on 
its original planks. I think, in a way, this is to its own 
detriment, and least as far as continuity between novels is 
concerned.

So, I suppose that we need to ask for a bit of clarification. The 
old theory used to revolve around several basic precepts: one, that 
Snape was in the Shrieking Shack as an agent, acting on behalf of 
Dumbledore, in order to: two) ensure that Pettigrew escaped to 
Voldemort, thereby: three) facilitating (via his severed hand) a 
flaw in the potion "Flesh, Blood, and Bone," which Voldemort used to 
bring himself back to life, therefore: four) this flaw in the potion 
would enable Harry to ultimately triumph over the Dark Lord. Other 
corollaries sprang up over time: that the tasks in PS/SS were 
specifically designed for the Trio+Neville, and so forth. I couldn't 
possibly go into all of them now.

But this latest post doesn't address these at all. What about the 
Prophecy? Hasn't it nullified the "flaw in the potion" line of 
thought, unless we construct an argument that might run thusly: 
that "Albus loves Harry, and Harry's love is the power that the Dark 
Lord knows not, therefore Albus created the flaw due to love for 
Harry and so the flaw in the potion (which is still ultimately going 
to be Voldemort's demise) is completely in line with the prophecy." 
Unless we're using some kind of argument to this effect (or better, 
even) then that's not what canon tells us. It tells us that 
Voldemort will go down because 'the One' has the power to vanquish 
him. We're not even positive that 'the One' *is* Harry; Fallible!
Dumbledore opens up a whole new world of possibilities. 

My point is that the prophecy mentions nothing about a flaw in the 
potion engineered by Dumbledore. And unless we take it very 
liberally and with much salt, the Prophecy seems to nullify a great 
deal of the old MAGIC DISHWASHER in the same fashion that it's 
hobbled 'Heir of Gryffindor.'

The latest post also didn't touch on the questions of agency in the 
Shrieking Shack, as well. Was Snape the agent? Was Lupin? Were they 
coordinating? (See posts #51835 and #52129 for these variations) It 
didn't touch most of the objections to the theory from listies that 
were here long before myself, which, again, I can't go into now as 
there are far too many to do them justice.

I'd say that this is a brilliant analysis of the stories plot-
trajectory, it really is, guys. I've already sent it to a few of my 
friends. The prose is exquisite, the analysis astute and touching, 
the MDDT's understanding of the story's symbolism is both 
comprehensive and admirable. But in my opinion, and if I have any 
understanding of the original basics for it, then it's no longer 
Magic Dishwasher, but something entirely new... which is welcome, 
don't get me wrong, but still, I confess that I was really looking 
forward to the post in which the MDDT would take the canon in OoP 
and make it fall in line with the old theory. Instead, what happened 
is that they took the old theory and made it fall in line with OoP. 

It's just not the same. And in a way, Pip's analysis seems to me to 
be sort of distinct from MD, in that as I pointed out earlier, it 
sort of underlies the basic concept of epics: the world that the 
characters inhabit must undergo a fundamental change; the status quo 
cannot remain.

So, high props for your analysis, guys. Really well done; and that's 
not a clumsy attempt at sarcasm, I promise. ;-) 

But, when you have a chance, do you think that you could address all 
of the *other* stuff that's been bubbling around in our collective 
mind since OoP came out, namely how does the *Prophecy* work with 
the flaw in the potion? If you can work that into MAGIC DISHWASHER, 
then it will have truly and deservedly evolved.

-Tom