"Reader Reactions"

[bluesqueak]

> Anne:

> > Pippin? Are you around? And Jayne? You must remember stuff like 
> this...

> Dave:
> I remember stuff like that, and while the volume was probably 
> small I think there are some Fantastic Posts among them - see for 
> example #34802.  Those related to MD are probably not the best 
> examples as some of them were rather whiny as I'm sure Pip (*not* 
> Pippin) will remember all too well.

I do indeed. Don't worry about the Pippin bit, btw. Somewhere, on 
some website, I have an introduction breakdown with the 
words 'whoever you think I am, I'm the other one.' ;-)

There was a *lot* of whining, and some truly stupid comments by the 
truly stupid section of the English lit brigade (apologies to any 
academics in the group - obviously you will belong to the incredibly 
bright section of the English lit brigade, or you wouldn't be here 
[grin]), along the lines of 'this type of critical approach isn't 
*allowed*, so there'. (I'm afraid I responded at my patronising 
worst [grin]). 

But there was also some really good stuff, as you say Anne, which 
discussed the different ways in which HP can be approached. 'How 
readers interpret'? 'Styles of interpretation'? Either sounds better 
than 'literary interpretation', IMO, since one of my arguments in 
the MD thing was I was using a long established interpretation style 
that came from the world of Theatre, not the world of English lit. 

> 
> I'm not yet sufficiently familiar with the categorisation system 
> to say if it adequately covers this type of post, or where it 
> would go, but I do see it as a significant category.

It is. There was some good stuff there, in amongst the moans.

Pip