Misc arbitrary decisions, please read..

[a_reader2003]

A couple of points have been raised by Eva (Sigune) and Kelly 
(Corinthum) which need resolving, so I have made the following 
decisions. Please post if you object.

 1. Elizabeth Schafer/Exploring Harry Potter (Beacham Sourcebooks)

Kelly:
I've come across a rather lengthy thread discussing Schafer's Harry 
Potter guidebook (I think that was the Beachum one).  Several 
different ideas are discussed here (her ideas on the possible 
symbolism, origins of names, dating the books, etc.) as well as much 
evaluation of the book itself (does she present new ideas or just the 
same stuff list readers have already discussed, are her ideas valid 
or is she just an academic trying to present as many classic 
connections as possible, is the book worth buying, etc.).  Perhaps 
this topic could use it's own category?  For discussion of published 
analyses of the series?  

CW:
As I remember, everyone thinks the book is a load of rubbish, don't 
they? I believe she made a lot of mistakes (?). We could add a code 
under 'Controversies' perhaps, like we have for Stouffer? Or would it 
be more appropriate somewhere under literary criticism in section 1? 
I'll ask the group and see what they think.
 
Anne:
I would have happily coded it into the new Reader Response category, 
I'm sure.	 

Kelly:
She didn't make mistakes so much as she tried too hard to make 
connections with classical literature and mythology, and took a 
rather arrogant attitude, assuming she was the first to make many 
observations that the list had already discussed repetitively.  The 
overall conclusion was that many of the book's suggestions were 
vaguely possible at best, or already considered pseudo-fact by 
listmembers (dates, for example).  However, there was what I consider 
substantial discussion to reach this conclusion.  I'm not sure it 
really falls into the same category as the Stouffer case.  Did anyone 
in the group have any suggestions?

I remember occasional discussion of the Galadriel Waters book and 
theories, which I thought might go under the same sort of category.  
I really think it could be a useful category; for discussion not of 
the specific theories (those already have plenty of categories to 
take care of them) but rather for the presentation of the theories.  
Are they presented as fact or just hypotheses, are they presented 
well or just haphazardly mentioned, etc.  It might be useful for 
future users who are thinking of buying the books and want to browse 
posts discussing what others thought about them.

CW DECISION:
Change heading 1.3 Literary criticism to: 

1.3 Literary criticism & books about Harry Potter
	
	

2. Chamber of secrets 

Kelly:
Another category dilemma... Where would suggest putting posts which 
discuss the Chamber of Secrets (the room, not the book)?  I've been 
placing them under Salazar Slytherin and the basilisk where 
appropriate, but some don't really fit here (e.g. a post discussing 
when the chamber was built and for what purpose).  Any thoughts?
 
CW DECISION:
new back history category:
1.3.5.3 Chamber of Secrets

3. Questions for JKR

Eva:
> What about posts like 3738, with lists of other possible questions, 
> some of which are still relevant?

Carolyn:
What do other people think? We could have a new category for posts 
like this (which is a list of questions to ask JKR should anyone ever 
get a chance). I have been a bit cavalier and rejected a lot of this 
to 'admin' up to now, certainly not coded to subject matter. (It 
always seemed to be a task that Penny was masterminding).

Carolyn:
I've now had a look at this again, and think that we probably do need 
an extra category. The posts are basically endless lists of short 
questions for submitting to JKR either online or at other interview 
opportunities. Should it go as a subset to 'JKR interviews' down in 
section 4 do you think?

But then people start replying to these questions anyway, so you get 
millions of short little replies in long strings. A nightmare, but I 
think they need to be coded up in the normal way, rather than dumped 
into the new category? Yes/no?

CW DECISION:
New category:
4.5.1 Interview questions for JKR

	
4. Richard Abanes,  'Harry Potter and the Bible'

Dave drew attention to this debate, which raged on for a long time 
(see post 17513). I seem to remember discussion of the book got 
banned from then on as a result.

CW DECISION:
New heading:
4.1.3.1 Abanes/Harry Potter & the Bible