UPDATE, Sunday 9th May

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"
> <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> 
> > CATEGORY 1 TEXT ANALYSIS
> > 1.13 Predictions

> 
> I still have a question about how to code predictions that can't be
> pinned to a certain book.  For instance, after GoF we got a lot of
> "Ron will betray Harry" posts.  Some of those placed the predicted
> event in book 7, but others left the time wide open.  For those with
> no projected book, are they coded as 1.13 and left at that as far as
> the prediction category goes?

Carolyn:
If we code just to the main category number, we lose the distinction 
between unsupported hunches/closely argued predictions. I think I 
would tend to put such posts into Book 6 predictions, on the grounds 
that we will find out so much more when that is published, and the 
goalposts will move again. Mostly, I am only putting definite 'The 
End' predictions into the Book 7 slot at the moment.
> 
> 
> > CATEGORY 3 THE WIZARDING WORLD
> > 3.15.5 Rename Little Whinging: 'Privet Drive'.
> 
> I haven't used the Geography section yet.  My impression was that it
> was for discussions on where places are located, local landscape,
> customs, characteristics, etc., e.g. a post about Surrey as an
> affluent suburb of London would go here.  I have not been using it 
for discussions of the Dursleys' treatment of Harry; those I have been
coding under Harry, Petunia, Vernon, and sometimes Dudley. Do you
agree with that?

Carolyn:
Yes, you are quite right, it is supposed to be a geography category, 
and that is how I have used it. Maybe I should call it 'Little 
Whinging/Privet Drive'.

IIRC, Barry's original query was where to put stuff about the nature 
of the protection offered to Harry at Privet Drive, especially as at 
the point of GOF we did not know about the family blood protection 
angle. Its not really a good idea to put these in 3.15.5, and I guess 
what we do is use the benefit of hindsight and code these sort of 
posts to 3.5.4 (Blood Protection) under the heading 3.5 (Bloodlines & 
Inheritance). That will make sense to later readers, even if it would 
not have done at the time they were written.
> 
> > 
> > CATEGORY 4 OTHER TOPICS
4.1 (Childrens' or adults' books ?)  
Going to add a new section 4.1.4 Stouffer legal case
> 
> Uh oh. Most Stouffer posts I've rejected as off-topic (although 
really most were, just assessments of the personal character of Nancy
> Stouffer). The few more serious ones I did code, but I forget 
where. I guess it just points out that we are going to have to review 
our work so far and make adjustments, eh?

Carolyn:
Ok, what we can do is run up and down the threads when this section 
gets sorted out into its own Stouffer section, and see if any of 
those posts need reinstating to make sense of a run of comments. 
There were some good legal opinions put forward by members that I 
particularly coded there.
> 

Anne:
> I got some decent posts about the similarities between HP and some 
of Diana Wynn Jones (sp?) works, which seemed to fit under literary
influences as all seemed to agree that the similarities were due to
the "fairy tale" format.

Carolyn:
Yes, that's exactly what that section is for - especially children's 
classics in this instance. Have to say I was so disappointed with 
Diana Wynn Jones, when I bought a couple to see what people were on 
about. Gave them to a charity shop in disgust!