Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising

[nkafkafi]

> 
> Talisman, rubs her weary eyes and dips her quill in a vile of 
> smoldering liquid:
> 
> Dear Neri,
> 
> Thank you so much for the four lengthy posts you proffered for our 
> illumination.  As I read them I was struck by the subtlety and depth 
> of your workmanship. Knowing that many of the most scandalous 
> theorists have had the dubious benefits of advanced education, you 
> courteously held your rudimentary lessons in the hermeneutic cycle 
> to a minimum within the vast expanses of  "Mind-linked!Snape
> Mk.1," posts 1 through 4.  
> 
> Why then, I paused to ask, did you exert yourself in this extended 
> satire, when you could have initiated the great unwashed to the 
> salubrity of employing a corrigible hypothesis, refined and 
> ultimately validated (or not) by reference to the text, it's 
> structure, and even relevant externalities, in as many words? 
> 
> I think I've finally got it: In comedy, timing is everything.   
> Right? 


Neri takes his own quill, and finds that he's out of smoldering vile
liquid:

Dear Talisman,

You seem to think that these posts were merely an exercise in
educating the masses or, alternatively, masochism. I ensure you I
don't like to be whacked THAT much. However, I know from personal
experience that theorists, and not only HP theorists, typically get
whacked 90% of the time during their regular work. This perhaps
explains why in HPfGU theorizing is currently done mainly by newbies.
It should perhaps clarify that VASSAL (Voldy And Snape Share A Link,
originaly code named Mind-Linked!Snape Mk.1) was not constructed as an
exercise, but as a very honest attempt to solve some of the main HP
mysteries. I thought about this theory for months and then invested at
least three weeks researching and writing, and it was almost complete
when I discovered the critical contradiction with DD words, which was
naturally a bit of a letdown. At this point I had several choices:

1. Despair, quit being an active theorist, and limit my activity in
the list to criticizing the theories (or worse, the ideologies) of others.

2. Continue to develop other theories, but stash this one deep in my
hard disk, with all the research and the ideas that went into it.

3. Post the theory without mentioning the contradiction with DD's
words, and hope no other member in the list will notice this
contradiction.   

4. Post the theory with DD words, but explain them away, probably by
saying that DD lies to Harry and us. The MDDT (to take only one
example) did just that, when their theory did not went well with DD
telling Harry that he didn't know about the Marauders being animagi.
Unfortunately, I happen to think that DD lying to us would be too easy
a solution, both for me as a theorist and for JKR as the author. 

5. Post the theory, explain it as well as I can, and then also explain
the contradiction with DD words, as well as I can. For this I needed
Faith. My dialogue with Faith in those posts closely follows the
course of my reasoning while developing the theory.  

While VASSAL contains this single inconsistency, it still explains a
surprising number of the mysteries while making very few assumptions,
and none of these assumptions requires a grand plot leap or the
complete rethinking of a theme or a major character. I still believe
that JKR's real solution, when it is finally revealed, won't be very
far from it. Moreover, if you personally think that DD does lie to us,
then for you VASSAL is completely watertight and one of the most
inclusive and consistent HP theories around. Unless you can find any
hole in it that Faith didn't. 

> Talisman:
> Another important lesson you brought home with stinging clarity was 
> that endnotes are a deplorable convention to employ in this 
> format.  Although I don't believe I have ever been in danger of 
> committing such an error, I hope that your sacrifice will enable 
> future generations to avoid this pernicious trap for the unwary.
> 

Neri:
Each format has its advantages and disadvantages. I Personally tend to
include all the quotes and comments in the body of the text. However,
in my previous experience in HPfGU I noticed that almost no one had
the patience to read through my very long and complicated posts, so I
tried to introduce the theory in a more accessible form, and leave the
nitpicking to the endnotes. I gather you didn't like the result much.
My apologies.    

> Talisman:
> Moreover, by burying your citations to canon at the end of 
> interminable verbiage (requiring scrolling not to be undertaken 
> without sufficient quantities of Dramamine) and excising all 
> relevant context, you achieved in one swoop a credible mimesis of  
> both those who omit canon altogether, and those who contort it for 
> their own preferences.   
> 
> Additionally, failing to provide page numbers for your cites 
> cleverly reveals this as an annoying roadblock for the reader who 
> wishes to verify your analysis.  Let's just hope you haven't 
> inadvertently encouraged the Philistines by your efficacy. 
> 

Neri:
My apologies again. Being relatively new to the HP fandom, I just used
the common format in the HP Lexicon, which usually doesn't provide
page numbers (perhaps because they are not the same in different
editions anyway). I guess that this unfortunate omission was the only
reason why you could not be bothered, in your whole post, to include
even a single canon-based argument to the point of my theory.  

> Talisman:
> But the coup de grâce, really, is your exposé of Faith for what
> she is.  While she may have started out as a noble ideal, she has 
> long since fallen into the wrong hands. I'm afraid our Faith has an  
> unfortunate tendancy to rely on the intellectual kindness of 
> strangers, which has left her little more than a leering whore, all 
> too willing to satisfy the personal preferences of her instant 
> client.  
>

Neri:
Unlike the mystery of the HP saga, which will (probably) be revealed
in Book 7, Faith is a subjective matter. If your Faith is different
than mine, I would be glad to meet her. 
 
> Talisman:
> Apparently you like a lot of leash in the beginning.  So we see 
> Faith obediently give you as much latitude as you want. She finds 
> some of your most gymnastic syllogisms credible and praises you for 
> spinning pure fan fiction to knit together improbabilities. Indeed, 
> she is most amazingly elastic throughout the arduous labors of your 
> epic. Nonetheless, at the end, when it serves your purposes and 
> pleasure to receive the spanking, she dutifully whacks you in the 
> ass. 

Neri:
In my experience, this is how things usually work. Theorizing would
indeed be MUCH easier if Faith was to whack our ass immediately when
we make the first wrong turn. Unfortunately, she can't be bothered
giving us so much attention. So she gives us free rein to build our
great castles in the air, and only after a lot of work, when we are
really sure we have it all figured out, THEN she whack our ass.    

> Talisman:
> Never was there so clear a demonstration of the dangers of trusting 
> Faith for an honest opinion.  For Faith, all tricked out in the 
> frippery of objectivity and truth, in fact emanates from the minds 
> of individual readers. 
> 
> These readers are products of the prevailing ideology of 
> their society, bound in an inferior position to forces that 
> dictate their mores and attitudes. By and large they conform, 
> thoughtlessly, comfortably, without even perceiving the cage. The 
> ability to achieve freedom, or the individual initiative of an 
> unpolluted perspective, is rare.  To the extent an author is able to 
> exhibit this, it can only be acknowledged by readers who are 
> likewise able to penetrate self-deception at a much deeper level 
> than merely loving their theories too much. 
>

Neri:
Oh, dear. Ideology. This is the kind of threads I learned to avoid in
HPfGU.     

> Talisman:
> In the majority of cases, where readers cannot penetrate the 
> profound saturation of ideology, mistaken as it is for verity, they 
> will merely "appropriate" (a historist's term of art) the
> text, which is to say they will cause it to conform to their own 
> comfortable assumptions and preferences. 
>  
> <snip some more ideology. Or anti-ideology. Whatever> 

Neri:
Erm... I must admit that I spent about an hour now with Webster trying
to decode your argument, but I apparently failed. Unfortunately I'm
not a native English speaker, nor do I have the benefits of advanced
education in philosophy and literature, and thus it probably went over
my head. You seem to be saying that I got it wrong because I'm
mistaking my ideology for verity, but I didn't manage to understand
what my ideology is supposed to be, and where exactly it went wrong. I
certainly did not understand what is the RIGHT ideology, or even if it
exists. Now you had me wondering: is it really necessary to master
this high style of debate, complete with the artistic insults, in
order to penetrate the profound saturation of ideology and solve the
mystery of the HP saga? If so, then I don't stand a chance.

> Talisman:
> Thanks so much for the lovely tips,

Neri:
I managed to gather that you won't be using them much. No problem. It
seems you don't need them anyway, since you clearly had HP and JKR all
figured out. Hmm. Knowing Faith, this is the time to watch your ass...


Neri