To the Extreme

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 164911

Magpie:
> > Like, in this theory Merope was supposed to have passed her 
magic to
> Lily 
> > when she died, only the two characters weren't ever on the 
planet at
> the 
> > same time. That ought to nip the theory in the bud right there. 
Instead 
> > Lily's mother becomes a possibility--and now the burden of proof 
is
> shifted, 
> > as if it's up to listeners to prove the theory couldn't happen
> instead of 
> > the theorist proving the theory did happen. The theory's just
> focused on how 
> > to make it (the theory) work as a story in its own right, not
> looking for 
> > action stuff in the story (for instance, the fact that Voldemort
> says he 
> > sees a physical resemblance between himself and Harry is part of 
the
> theory 
> > without explaining why having someone else's magic transferred 
to you 
> > (somehow) would make your two sons look alike physically.


Ken:
> But that is just part of the patch job that usually is needed to
> complete any theory, or to advance it to the point where it can be
> completed without the patch. You don't want to consider the
> possibility that Merope could have passed her powers to Lily's 
mother.
> By refusing to consider that possibility you throw away an entire 
line
> of "research" without giving it proper consideration. 

Magpie:
We're not talking about areas of research or science. This is not a 
real world. If we're talking about predicting where the author is 
going, all these "patches" needed to complete the theory (i.e., to 
make the fanfic story you're writing fit with canon) are getting 
your further from canon, not closer to it (just from the few things 
discussed already we've got problems with canon--people either can't 
have the ages they do or else Lily can't be Muggleborn, both things 
important to the story-so what's it telling us about canon?). It's 
perfectly reasonable, if we're predicting where the *author* is 
going, to ask why we should be considering a possibility.

The good reason for not considering the possibility that Merope 
could have passed her powers to Lily is that *there is nothing in 
canon telling me to consider it.* That's not closed mindedness, it's 
understanding that the story consists of the words on the page and 
that's it. If this idea is introduced later I'll certainly consider 
it, but there is no "real Wizarding World" to appeal to here. Could 
an extreme theory turn out to be true? Sure. Somebody might have 
guessed Scabbers was a wizard pre-PoA. Though that, of course, would 
have drawn on magical things that had already been introduced, and 
the question of *who* Scabbers was-the fun part of the theory-could 
not have been predicted until Peter himself was known to exist. It's 
sticking close to canon.

The trouble with this and other backwards theories is that there is 
no literary reason in canon to begin considering the idea--even if 
it turned out to be true a good case wasn't made for it. It doesn't 
bring anything to canon that I can see. Fiction in this way is less 
like science and more like a murder trial--in fact, this exact kind 
of dishonest reasoning is unfortunately premise in a lot of true 
crime novels that claim to "solve" cases and don't. Like in Patricia 
Cornwell's book about Jack the Ripper. She starts out with a premise 
pulled out of the air (or pulled out of Stephen Knight's book) takes 
evidence, makes it fit her story and explains away evidence that 
doesn't. Or the book about Lindbergh's sister-in-law killing his son 
and his pretending the boy was kidnapped. It's good to develop an 
eye for when evidence is being twisted to fit a theory. That's my 
model for dealing with fiction, not science--it's got more in common 
with that, because it's about finding evidence for a particular 
narrative. It's confusing telling a compellng story with proof.

I don't think it's bad to have fun with theories. Maybe you will 
find something interesting and useful in looking for "proof" of your 
theory so have at it. But you might also--and I see this a lot more 
often--completely distort canon and make it incoherent, or just 
plain make things up. 

It's further, imo, unfair to say that because I see no reason in 
canon to think that this has happened I "don't want" to see it. What 
I want or don't want to see--if other people could actually guess it-
-has no bearing on whether something is true or not. I doesn't seem 
like a scientific idea--more like the kind of thing people accuse 
scientists of when their theories don't hold up. I don't refuse to 
consider Merope giving her powers to Lily. I did consider it, and 
found it lacking in any evidence and too unlikely to be worth 
predicting.


Ken:
It has never
> been explained why splitting your soul makes you look snakelike. It
> has never been explained how Voldemort transferred some of his 
power
> to Harry. It has never been explained how Muggle couples 
occasionally
> have magical children. And yet all of those are found in canon. 
This
> fantastical theory combines some elements of all those and so it 
does
> have some grounding in canon.

Magpie:
And if the turning of Muggle to Wizard via the "gifting" of one's 
status to another were included in canon we'd have some reason to 
consider at least something like this. JKR always introduces a 
magical concept before it becomes important. My problem isn't that I 
can't explain this transfer through magical theory, since magical 
theory isn't a real field of study, it's that it's not ever in 
canon. In fact, it rather destroys one of the main points of canon, 
the Muggle/Wizard separation. That's a major thing to introduce into 
your magical system.


Ken:> 
> The real test of any theory is whether it allows the system under
> study to be explained and whether it allows predictions to be made
> that can be confirmed by observations. At this point in time all we
> can do is to run thought experiments. The experimental results will
> only be available with the release of DH and most of our wacky
> theories will be disproven. Maybe every single one of them. It goes
> with the territory. Personally I'd rather read fantastical theories
> about the plot that to discuss Molly's failures as a
> woman/wife/mother. But surely a list this size is big enough for 
all us.

Magpie:
I still believe it's a bad idea to try to apply the rules of 
scientific theory to a system that by definition is not scientific--
a fictional story. We're not running experiments that will be 
observed in DH, we're predicting where a story is going based on 
what's going on in it now. 

Sure the theory being given here will either turn out to have 
happened or not in DH. The same could be said for a theory that 
Harry and Hermione are really the same person, that Snape is really 
a woman, that Harry and Ron are really twins separated at birth and 
born in Wisconsin. But there's a reason people see some theories as 
actually coming from canon and leading to interesting discussion of 
canon and others being ideas for fanfic. The extreme end of there 
being no difference is that canon might as well not exist at all. It 
doesn't matter what's in the book because we can write it ourselves. 
I do think there's a grey area there, but it's not just all the same.

Ken: 
> If you don't enjoy this kind of speculation that is fine, I'm just
> trying to help you see that some of us do enjoy it and that it 
isn't a
> silly way to try to unravel the plot. 

Magpie:
I totally understand that some people like doing this, and I think 
it's a fine thing to do and have fun with. But often it actually 
does unravel the plot in a bad way, and when it does that, imo, I'm 
going to say so. I think the reason it often does this is for 
exactly the reason the original poster was annoyed with it--that 
canon becomes secondary to making up this alternate story. That's 
when it stops being about predicting things. It's not frustrating to 
me that people enjoy these theories or have ones they'd like to see 
happen--I don't think Pippin is stupid for her ESE!Lupin theory any 
more than people are stupid for thinking Snape is DDM. It does 
frustrate me when people think that stuff they made up is canon, or 
that being able to make a theory fit canon is the same as proving it 
to be true. I'm not at all unhappy at people doing this kind of 
speculating; I think the only time it causes any problems is when it 
claims to be something else. 

-m