Questions

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
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.

Carolyn:
Well, the gin seems to have worked anyway..an unusual level of 
agreement ! I was fearing for a dyspeptic diatribe generated by a 
week's gloom in the British courts, but I see that was reserved for 
the main list...<g> 


CATEGORY 0 - REJECTS
(0.5) Listings of personal favourite topics/characters etc

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.

Carolyn:
No, I hadn't intended any of the Reject categories to be searchable. 
The Movie list might be interested in the 0.2 Movie-related category 
I suppose. At the moment we are rejecting approx 75% of posts, which 
is great. If the ratio held throughout the list, we'd only end up 
indexing about 30 000 posts in the end, but I think it will be more 
than that.
>
CATEGORY 1 - TEXT ANALYSIS
(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

Carolyn:
Ok - are other people happy with this ? I think ESE is a particularly 
good addition, although we must remember to code also to the relevant 
character. (I'm also assuming that the ESE theory acronyms would also 
stay with the character and not go here? Eg, Pippin's long and 
redoubtable case against Lupin).
>
>
(1.13) Predictions
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.

Carolyn:
Oh I really love the idea of a reject category called 'sloppy 
thinking' ! However, like Snape being prevented from teaching DADA, 
perhaps we should not give you the temptation. But there is a serious 
point here, which this group might want to consider. At what point 
does un-supported prediction, fluffy bunny or otherwise, become 
acceptable? I have already come across some pretty accurate posts 
about future events, which take the form of totally unsupported 
hunches. With the benefit of hindsight, I am able to click them into 
predictions and give them their due place in posterity. I am also 
doing this with the spectacularly wrong, just for a laugh. The more 
deeply-argued posts I don't click into predictions as a core code, 
but more into the character, chapter or whatever.

>(Carolyn):
A major question is should we remove the theory acronyms? 
>
Barry:
Best to keep them. How they will be dealt with in the Search programme
is worth thinking about though.

Carolyn:
It seems Paul can suppress their appearance on the list, which might 
be useful for the next 20 000 posts or so, until we need to start 
using them.

CATEGORY 2 - CHARACTER ANALYSIS
>
(2.14) RelationSHIPPING
Are there enough options here? 
>

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.

Carolyn:
Ah, but what about LOLLIPOPS etc ? You have to concede that if any of 
the currently adult characters had romantic entanglements, it might 
really impact the plot. We reserve 2.14 entirely for the kids 
presently at school then ?

CATEGORY 3 - WW
Barry:
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.

Carolyn:
Privet Drive has a sort-of box, in the form of 3.15.5 Little 
Whinging, although its a geography category really. I put 3.5.4 
(Blood Protection) under 3.5 (Bloodlines and Inheritance) because of 
what we now know about the family aspect of the protection, but could 
be argued into having it under 3.8.2 (General properties and types of 
magic), if you like. There isn't really any such thing as 'place 
protection' is there ? The protection Harry gets at Privet Drive is 
surely that of being in his aunt's house, and presumably would 
operate wherever Petunia was living ?
>
CATEGORY 4 - OTHER TOPICS
(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.
>
Barry:
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.

Carolyn:
I've been a bit kinder..I've tried to retain the more detailed, 
interesting analyses of the differences on the grounds that whatever 
appears in or on the books could be construed as canon.

Hm.. Saturday lunchtime & tipping down; time I poured a glass of 
something myself.....
Cheers