Questions

[Barry Arrowsmith]

Hell's teeth!
I was hoping for a leisurely stroll among the unconsidered aspects of 
HP; giving a judicious nod here, a frown there, sipping a G&T 
between-times. This looks like hard work.

I've combined your mails into one; yes, it's big, but makes 
interpolation easier -  for me anyway.


CATEGORY 0 - REJECTS

 >
(0.5) Listings of personal favourite topics/characters etc
I have been using this for much unsupported `I wish' type posts, eg `I 
hope Harry/Hermione/Ron etc get it together in the end', as well as `I 
love xxx in the books'. The only exception here where someone is 
appreciating the humour in the series, where I have been coding under 
1.3.6 (if I agree!).
 >

I've  rarely used this category so far. The example that you use of "I 
wish.." I tend to mark as Off-Topic. Not that it matters - a reject is 
a reject. Unless you intend to add the Reject categories into the 
eventual Search list. (Not something that would be particularly useful 
IMO.
It would just add thousands of useless posts that are better off culled.

 >
(0.8) Mere agreement/adding nothing new
This category is likely to be increasingly important as we move 
forwards. Should it be split in two? What should our criteria be for 
`adding nothing new'? I have been using it for both factual queries 
like `Where did the twins get the Marauders' Map?/ (answer) From 
Filch's cabinet', and repetitions of common theories like `I think 
Voldemort and Harry are related' (unaccompanied by any detailed 
analysis). However, using it like this will depend on constant review 
of what has already come up.
 >

I concur.

 >
(1.1) Meta-themes
Are these working for people? Personally, I have not used them very 
much so far. They evolved from the boiling down I did of the FAQ topic 
list way back. They may be too vague to be useful.
 >

They probably will be used once the excitement of GoF has subsided and 
posters settle down to the long 3 years of drought that follows. Once 
specifics have been picked to bits it's likely some of these more 
metaphysical considerations will become more popular.
Worth holding on for a while longer and see what happens.

 >
(1.2) Military strategy
See question under character's – maybe 1.2.1 & 1.2.2 should be moved to 
DD and Voldie categories. 1.2.3 (Hogwart's defences) could go
under Hogwarts in section 4; 1.2.4 (spying, espionage & betrayal) could 
become a subset of 1.1.3 (friendship, love & loyalty).
 >

Yes, they can be moved without losing anything, except 1.2.4.
Betrayal and spying are massive themes in the books and the potential 
for various characters to indulge in them seems to occur in every fifth 
post. Is there a named individual in the texts that has not been 
accused at some time? Can't think of one.
Harking back to my post of yesterday, why not  re-vamp  the whole 
section to take into account the popularity of the subjects? Maybe 
thus:
1.2 ........Treason, betrayal
1.2.1 ......Spying, deception, disguise
1.2.2 ......ESE
1.2.3 ......Trust
1.2.4 ......FEATHERBOAS
1.2.5 ......FLYING HEDGEHOGS

 >
(1.3.2) Narrative style
Do we need more categories for arguments about whether the books are 
well-written or not? Ie, separate from whether or not they are 
children's books (which belongs in section 4).
 >

Probably not. Literary criticism can be nailed into this without too 
much angst.

 >
(1.3.4) Foreshadowing, clues & misdirection
How are people using this? I have not used it yet, as have not come 
across posts overtly discussing how she uses this technique in the 
books.
 >

Mostly I've used it when the posters suspect a foreshadowing or clue 
rather than it's other use in retrospective analysis. Works for both 
IMO. Under some circumstances 1.3.3 Plot development is  almost 
indistinguishable.

 >
(1.8 – 1.12) Book/chapter contents
I have been trying to code as much as possible to individual chapter 
discussions, where arguments have raged as to why, how, where things 
happened. But I also code the discussion to the main characters as 
well. However, have had to look up the chapters a lot to ensure I put 
posts in the right place !
 >

Yes, so have I (but see Multiple posts)

 >
(1.13) Predictions
Do we need sub-categories within any of the book categories listed 
here? Whilst 1.13.1 Book 4/GOF is likely to be fairly finite, as the 
predicting had to end as soon as the book was published, mid-way in the 
Yahoo Club postings, the number of predictions put into the other 
categories are likely to be huge.

Second question is what is the difference between a prediction and just 
pure speculation on what might happen in future books? A particular 
difficulty I have had is speculation on what might happen at the end of 
the series. I have been coding this to 1.13.4 (Book 7), plus other 
codes depending on the nature of the theory. A further complication is 
when this includes discussion of plot development in a literary sense, 
ie what is likely from the POV of are the books for children or not, 
meta-themes of good/evil.
 >

Most posters have staunchly held ideas of what happens next but tying 
them to particular volumes is pretty much guesswork.
Speculation without evidence borders on wishful thinking and we've seen 
an awful lot of that posted in the past year - mostly of the fluffy 
bunny persuasion. Theory and speculation should be based on something 
capable of interpretation and discussion. If there's no canon backing, 
extrapolation from canon or argument based on character traits / 
unexplained behaviour or the like, it shouldn't be classed as 
Prediction IMO. Are my prejudices showing? Good. Posts that arbitrarily 
assume that "this must have  happened" to substantiate some belief or 
other with *no* evidence irritate particularly. I'll not name names. 
Category - sloppy thinking.
As to the finale, why not have a category The End? Theory or pure 
guesswork  are the same when there is so much that has yet to be 
revealed.

 >
A major question is should we remove the theory acronyms? Arguments for 
removal: (a) it will speed up scrolling down the list; (b) many of the 
theories only ever had one or two posts associated with them and they 
are likely to be removed eventually because of this.
Arguments for keeping them at the moment: (a) we don't know how many 
posts will be attached to each until we get to them; (b) its kind of
useful to know which theory relates to which character, as its hard to 
remember what they stand for otherwise.
 >

Best to keep them. How they will be dealt with in the Search programme 
is worth thinking about though.

 >
Related to the theory acronym question is what do we do about posts 
which have a consistent theme, but are not specifically linked to named 
theories? Would it be useful to have sub-headings under each character, 
in order to be able to follow streams of ideas? Eg should we move 1.2.2 
(Dumbledore's agenda) to a sub-category under Dumbledore? Should we 
have a box under Snape called `Is he a spy?', and another one to track 
his many hypothetical romantic entanglements? Would it be too difficult 
at this stage to anticipate the many convoluted propositions that have 
been put forward about each character? If we did this, would it cause 
mega-confusion with the text themes listed in Category 1?
 >

For a very few characters it might be useful. For example Dumbledore's 
agenda is obviously linked to DD. Spying is a more general topic (see 
1.2 above).
The acronyms nail the theories quite well, those that say the same 
without the capital letters can be categorised as any other post. No  
sweat.

 >
Also, I have a pretty complete list of all the characters in the books 
– I could expand the names on this list exponentially if anyone
thought it was useful. In the short term I tried to make a selection of 
the most commonly discussed characters.
 >

Best only to add them as and when it becomes necessary.

 >
(2.14) RelationSHIPPING
Are there enough options here? I have been a bit cavalier and have been 
putting some non-Trio speculation (eg Harry/Cho) under 2.14.7 (Trio 
ships), although also under Cho (or whoever), if it blossomed into a 
wider analysis of character and motivations.
 >

Hm. SHIPping is a sad affliction. Poor sods. Let them suffer in peace - 
and whatever you do, don't encourage them. If I had my way they'd be 
classed under Mental aberrations.

 >
How are these different from predictions about what will happen in the 
books ?

(3.8.6.8/3.10.1) Time-turner/Time travel
Should they be together under travel or magic?
 >

Magic.

 >
(3.16/3.4.6) Washing and sanitation
Posts express a perennial interest in the cleanliness (or otherwise) of 
the kids. I have put a sub-heading under 3.16.1 called `Bathrooms
  & loos'..does this cater for the theme ?
 >

Should be OK.

 >
(3.16.4/2.9) Sorting process/school houses/founders I sometimes find it 
hard to decide whether to put stuff about the nature/character of the 
houses under the house codes or the historical character codes. Should 
they be amalgamated?
 >

I wouldn't - but that's because IMO there's going to be a lot more 
about Slytherin and Gryffindor the persons in future books. But what do 
I know?

 >
(4.1) Children or adult's books
I have been putting the religious banning controversies under 4.1.3, 
but this is not really a children/adults question – should we have a
new sub-head here, or should this sort of discussion be moved back up 
to category 1 under 1.1.1 (Good vs evil/religious influences etc).
 >

Keep it in section 4. There haven't been that many controversies that 
they need sub-divisions. Anyway, I'd assumed that 1.1.1 was more for 
philosophical discussions on the nature of evil etc. than for RW 
nutters.

 >
I have also put all the Stouffer case here, but again, it is not really 
children/adult's discussion. Probably should also be separated
from the other types of controversies.

Discussion about splitting the NY Times bestseller lists into children 
and adults, however, does belong here I think.
 >


Yeah, that's how I've classified them as well.

 >
(4.3) Differences between editions
This gets very extensive. I was wondering if the category should be 
split up at all? Also, where it starts to call into question what the 
text means (the ancestor/descendent discussion for instance), I have 
also coded back to the relevant chapters or characters.
 >

Tell  me.  I had an enormous thread discussing the minutiae of cover 
art around the world. (Are you fascinated that Harry's eyes are slanted 
on the Icelandic cover? Neither am I.) They got labeled as Off Topic. 
They'd be treated differently if the translation of the text showed 
something different though.

 >
I notice we don't have a category for FLINTS, which we probably should 
have – but when does something become a FLINT, as opposed to a
difference between editions?
 >

When JKR admits to perpetrating a cock-up.

 >
(5.1) Multiple Posts
I probably have not been clicking this as often as I should, and 
judging by the relatively few number of hits, nor has anyone else.
Really, we should click this every time a post addresses more than one 
topic in a formal way (as opposed to talking about many things in 
relation to one point). However, not sure yet what we are going to do 
about all these – ie how they are to be pulled apart.
 >


Open to interpretation this one.
When a post starts to resemble CatLady's weekly missives, that I think 
is a multiple post. When it covers different actions, persons, 
whatever, no mmatter  how diverse that are contained in one chapter, 
then I check it as a chapter discussion; if it is a post on say, how  
Hagrid got to the Rock, discussing various modes of travel, magic or 
otherwise, it gets Hagrid and travel. To get a Multiple post  from me 
it has had to contain a series of unconnected ideas or actions not 
found in one chunk of text.

 >
(5.4) TBAY
Is everyone clear to tick this if you think a post is TBAY style, but 
this tag has not been used in the post header.
 >

Understood.

3.5.4 Blood protection. The GoF readers are aware of Harry's 
protection, but not what it consists of.
They  are under the impression that 'Privet Drive protection' is 
different from his blood protection that V overcomes at the end of the 
book.
How do you want to handle that?
Place Protection (unspecified) directly under Harry 2.4.3?

Privet Drive deserves a check box too.

I may be back with more.




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 12685 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040507/569670c2/attachment.bin>