[HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Questions
Barry Arrowsmith
arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com
Sat May 8 18:15:29 UTC 2004
>
> 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).
>
Just remembered - FLYING HEDGEHOGS was the origin of ESE.
Eloise and her merry band scoured canon for dubious or even ridiculous
'evidence' to point the finger of accusation at the most unlikely of
suspects, who they then labeled as ESE. And FLYING HEDGEHOGS isn't an
acronym, it's derived from some weird middle-European saying. These two
could be combined.
>
> 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.
Hm. Hardly fair to those addicted to skull-work, don't you think?
I remember first asking about the compilation of a list specifically as
a way of keeping track of predictions, to be eventually classified as
'Golden Balls' or 'A load of Balls'. (The shape being derived from a
prophesy orb.)
To my mind the deeply argued posts are the predictions, the others are
hunches or guess-work, yet only the guesses will appear in the search
mode when calling for 'Predictions'. Someone searching for an analysis
predicting say, the eventual revelations regarding Snapes memories will
be presented with thousands of posts to search through, most
irrelevant. (Only one can be linked to the Pensieve.)
Sorry, I don't agree.
Yes link to character, chapter etc. but also prediction.
>
> 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 ?
>
LOLLIPOPS? LOLLIPOPS? Deviant perversity, nothing more. A blatant
attempt to sully Snape's good name by linking him to the WW equivalent
of Esther Rantzen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040508/9f96d94d/attachment.bin>
More information about the HPFGU-Catalogue
archive