[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Brainstorming Organizational Issues

[Heidi Tandy]

: bounces in without intro post, which I hope to do today

As many of you know, hpfgu predated GoF, so there were tonnes of predictions, in the first 9 months of the list's existence, about what would be in GoF. If those were used in the faqs at all, it was to give historical perspective and show the genesis of some post-GoF theories. So perhaps having a 4-5 para section summarizing some of the pre-ootp theories in the faqs written after ootp would be a good working model?
-----Original Message-----
From: "abigailnus" <abigailnus at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:36:31 
To:HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Brainstorming Organizational Issues

Real-To:  "abigailnus" <abigailnus at yahoo.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> Abigail:
> 
> >I think it only makes sense that when we write new FAQs, 
> > we write them from the perspective of OOP, which means that if 
> > we discover definitively in OOP that Harry is the Heir of 
> Gryffindor, 
> > the rest of the theories regarding him shouldn't go in the FAQ.
> 
> Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I'm still perplexed by the proposal of taking an episodic approach 
to 
> the FPs.  For instance, let's say we don't start writing a Hagrid 
FP 
> until January 2004.  Does it include everything about Hagrid 
written 
> on the list since its inception?  If so, is the Hagrid FP itself 
> divided into pre-OoP and post-OoP?  (If so, that sort of 
requirement 
> might make it difficult to organize the FP efficiently.)  If some 
> theories or topics are settled in OoP, then what?

I think you've raised an important question here.  It's a painful 
truth, but every single FP will have to be updated after OOP to 
reflect the new canon.  In the best cases, updating will "simply" 
include adding new discussions which consider the additional canon.  
I think we can wait on that for a few months, as it will probably 
take that long for truly stand-out, coherent arguments to emerge on 
the group.  However, say we write the Hagrid FP, but because of the 
dearth of good posts on the group we have little to add with regards 
to, say, Hagrid's tearful reunion with his mother is OOP.  Can we 
still post the FP if it ignores such important issues?

In the case of theories, however, the situation is trickier.  OOP 
will do one of three things to any given theory:

1. OOP will disprove the theory, in which case the theory no longer 
belongs in the FP.  I suggested a dead theories basement, to which 
Cindy respnonded:
 
> I think this is another good idea.  This could be part of 
> the "Mysteries FP" perhaps.  And we could call iteither "Azkaban"  
> or the dungeon or something else.  Something silly.  ;-)

(Aside: brilliant!  I tried to find a clever name and somehow I 
missed this one!)

2. OOP will neither prove nor disprove the theory.  In this case OOP 
will provide new canon which will have to be incorporated into the 
theory.  Again, until the group catches up, there's nothing for us 
to do.  

3. OOP will prove the theory.  This is actually the worst case.  If 
a theory has been proven then it is no longer a theory.  Is there 
any need to hold on to pre-GoF messages that suggest that Harry will 
go to the QWC in GoF, or that Cedric Diggory will play a larger role 
in that book?  Disproven theories can be taken apart for spare parts 
and used to fuel new ideas, but a proven theory is simply stating 
the obvious.  In this case, is there any justification for keeping 
the FP or HA essay that mentions this theory?

I've also been wondering when any of you want to get to work.  
Personally, I won't be available to do any work until the end of 
July, so obviously I would prefer that we start then, but that may 
not work for everyone.

Abigail



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/