Defining FPs

[annemehr]

Hello, again, all! Hi, Pip!Squeak! You and Carolyn met personally? <is
jealous>

I'm catching up on the group, forwarding the updates and important
stuff to my email to print out so I know what I'm doing when I start
coding again, and I'm replying here without having read further --
sorry if I don't make sense...

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Carolyn:
> > >  If I were pulling all our contributions together to present to 
> JKR, actually, I think I would want to include it. Its extreme, but 
> not necessarily any more wrong than anything else..
> > >
> 
> > 
> Barry:
>  > He is not a fan, more a fanatic, and unfortunately it's not in his 
> > regard of the Potterverse. HP is just grist for his mill.
> > 
> > Some may  consider him plausible, even entertaining, and yes, he 
> does delve into  minutiae (when it supports his case), but a 
> candidate for inclusion amongst the best that we can provide? Never.
> > 
> 
> Carolyn:
> Well, I agree with you mostly, as you know. Its just that, looking at 
> it dispassionately as an editor, it is difficult to distinguish 
> between what he is doing, and what other posts are doing. Erm, he 
> wouldn't be the first person to selectively quote from canon to 
> support his argument. Nor the first to see support for his theory at 
> every twist and turn of the book [coughs, ESE!Lupin].
> 
> And, looking back at my own self-imposed criteria, I have to say his 
> posts have made me think, if only to conclude that I don't agree. 
> 
> There is no doubt, though, that he is coming at HP from a 
> particularly personal evangelical viewpoint. However, plenty of other 
> people on the list have strongly-held religious beliefs, and insist 
> on reading HP through those lenses, and allow no real argument about 
> the fundamentals of those beliefs. 
> 
> The strongest argument I can think of for not considering him for FP 
> status is that his posts generate almost no responses. Clearly there 
> is a silent consensus that he is too batty to debate with. But that 
> introduces another criteria - should Fantastic Posts be characterised 
> by the amount of response they get?
> 
> It is noticeable that Peg Kerr's essays get very few responses, yet 
> they are generally considered FP's. And I would consider Iris_ft's 
> recent thoughts on HP & Cain worthy of FP-dom, yet almost no one has 
> responded to her.
> 
> Thoughts anyone?
> Carolyn

Anne:

I would have no objection to putting one of Hans' in as an FP (at
least, conditionally -- no one ever answered Jayne's question about
whether the FP designates would be reviewed and refined, at least so
far as I've read). It is very true that he has tunnel-vision as far as
the Potterverse is concerned, yet JKR did give him plenty to go on:
the Philosopher's Stone, Nicholas and Perenelle Flamel (and their
close relationship to Dumbledore), and the name Cassandra Vablatsky,
when Blavatsky is a very relevant name.

Personally, I don't think HP is alchemy/rosicrucianism, Christian
allegory, pagan/wicca, or mere fairy tale. I *think* what JKR has done
is taken her knowledge and research into all of these, put them in a
stew, and used whatever useful ideas bubbled up. Even though I think
it's too narrow to post as if HP was only any one of these, we can't
possibly reject posts that do. For all we know, JKR has read "the
Alchymical Wedding" and used ideas from it, even though I assume she
doesn't believe in it.

The short answer: the books certainly give reason to examine
alchemical influences. Perhaps Hans' definitive post (it may have been
a 2-3 parter) could go into FP as *the* take on HP from the
alchemist's point of view. Personally, I think it's probably as valid
as Granger's book (though I've never read that book - isn't he the one
who sees Christian influences/metaphors in everything?).

Glad to be back and catching up!

Anne