"Reader Reactions"

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> 
> > 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

Carolyn:
Its a subject which interests me a lot as well (& Barry, have you 
read 34802? Dave referred to it a while ago on the main list). We had 
a couple of codes that were relevant to cover these type of posts, 
but I have done some sharpening up, as follows [changes in square 
brackets]:

1.3 Literary techniques [now called: Literary criticism]
1.3.1 Parameters set by JKR[/authorial intent]
1.3.1.1 Constraints due to genre
1.3.1.2 [Reader response & subversive readings]
1.3.1.3 [What is canon?]

NB, the last used to be in section 4, but I realised it was more 
relevant here, so moved it and the two posts so far classified to it, 
to here.

Hope this covers the options.