Decisions, decisions...

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> OK, promised 'case studies', if that's not too grand.
> 
> 7503 - accept.  Issue - I coded to Voldemort and Blood Protection 
> (2.7.1, 3.5.4) but not Harry.  Should I have checked Harry, too?  
> See below for more on this.

No, I would not code to Harry. This is a good example of where it is 
superfluous. As I said in my definition note on 'Harry' - use him 
sparingly, as otherwise nearly everything might go there.

> 
> 7506 - accept, just, 2.14.7, HRH relationships.  Issue - without 
> going 'up thread' on the list itself it was virtually impossible to 
> distinguish Yael's (the poster) from Jim's contributions.  Should 
it 
> be reject, too badly written (though it may have been an e-mail 
> client formatting problem)?  It also discussed Harry's (potential) 
> propensity to withdraw from close relationships - do we have a 
> category for that, other than 'Harry'?  Perhaps 1.1.3.1 
> Trust/Mistrust?

I would code this also to Hermione if I were feeling charitable and 
maybe Krum (describing her 'intelligence and spirit' as 'sexy' 
mitigates against this, but hey, how would I know!).

No, this one is not so badly written to be rejected on those grounds 
(pity). The difficulty in distinguishing the arguments isn't a reject 
ground either. We are not going to be able to do much about this in 
practice - the probably copyright issues will mean that we either 
display the posts as-is or don't show them at all.



> 
> 7507 - accept, 1.3.1.2 Reader response & subversive readings.  
> Issue - when do threads go OT?  This one is about theories of 
> interpretation and the category was not ideal.  Not too much of a 
> problem in itself but:
> 
> 7508 - reject as OT, despite being interesting and still relevant 
to 
> the thread.  The reason being that 7507 was IMO still discussing 
> ways to approach JKR's work, while 7508 was more generally about 
> approaching literature.

I think I would also have coded 7507 to the header code 1.3 as well. 
I also might have stretched a point and put 7508 there/possibly code 
to Hermione as well. They are talking about what types of analysis 
can legitimately used on the Potterverse, and just about make a canon 
point. Its a contentious area for debate, so worth capturing the 
discussion I think. If this is the same Naama as the one posting now, 
would be amusing to put these old comments up to ask why the sea 
change in approach.



> 
> 7511 - a classic 'is this person saying something?' post.  Accept, 
> 1.3.1.2, Reader response.  Issue - is this a 0.8 or 0.8.1?

Difficult - I think I would have veered towards reject as OT or 
personal opinion. If you want to keep it as a worthwhile reader 
response which adds something to the discussion, I think you should 
also click Narrative style or Plot development, or even 
characterisation, which is the underlying issue being addressed.



> 
> 7543 - rejected (OT, good job I checked this one as I'd 
> inadvertently coded to 0 instead of 'reject').  Issue - this is a 
> question about literary interpretation.

Yes, a reject, OT.

> 
> Something I feel will be an ongoing issue is the categorisation of 
> topics within the major characters (HRH, Neville, Draco, MWPP, 
> Snape, Dumbledore, Hagrid).  ATM we mainly have acronyms or the 
> names of theories (e.g. Stoned!Harry).  I understand there is a 
> process for demoting these, but what should go in their place?
> 
> For example, there was at one time a great deal of discussion of 
> Neville and memory charms, which spawned a number of theories and, 
> no doubt, acronyms.  I feel the topic is 'memory charms', which 
> might pull together a number of acronyms for theories involving the 
> MOM, Neville's grandmother, DEs as perpetrators as well as Cindy's 
> wilder Jobberknoll theories yet is, say, distinct from discussion 
of 
> Neville as mirror to Harry, and distinct from discussion of memory 
> charms in general.



I have asked people to think about this several times. When we come 
to the second review stage I think it will be very helpful to create 
sub-categories within the characters labelled with certain popular 
themes.

Vampire!Snape is one example, MemoryCharmed!Neville is another. I 
think that will be a very helpful way of navigating bunches of posts.

Some of these categories might be lead by certain theory acronymns, 
others will be headings which subsume less-popular acronyms.




> 
> The trouble is, the acronyms might be OK if we knew from memory 
what 
> they all stand for, but it's quite laborious to look them up (I 
have 
> dumped the database, to coin a phrase, into an Excel spreadsheet 
and 
> sorted alphabetically but, for example, suppose I wanted to put 
7506 
> in a 'Harry's unresponsiveness' category or something similar, it 
> means finding all Harry-related acronyms and seeing if one fits.
> 
> This is only one example - we may need to brainstorm topics for 
each 
> of the above characters.


NO NO, please, this is a misapprehension. Please DO NOT code anything 
to a theory code except the posts mentioning that theory. As we have 
not got to any of them yet, we shouldn't be using the theory codes AT 
ALL.

When we get to them, their status will stand or fall by the number of 
direct posts discussing that particular acronym. Dicey has pointed 
out that many lived for no longer than the post that coined them, and 
thus they will be gently folded back into the body of the categories. 
Only relatively few, like LOLLIPOPS, MAGIC DISHWASHER, FEATHERBOA etc 
have had longer lives.

I have simply printed out Inish Alley and find that the easiest way 
to look them up.


> 
> Finally, in my post earlier today (well, yesterday) I wasn't 
> proposing changing the criteria for rejection, just trying to 
> clarify in my own mind and verify the correctness of what I was 
> doing.
> 
> David

No, that's fine, its good to get it discussed. Its an important 
category, and tricksy to pin down.

Carolyn