er...or, I could come back another time...

[Talisman]

Talisman stumbles into the Catalogue office, where the leavings of
yet another party she wasn't invited to are sadly in evidence:

Egad.

I forge through the murky waters of unresolvable inference and
bitter, endless niggling about the Prank, to tell Carolyn that I've
completed my set (though I might not, now that it comes to it) and
find a deluge of messages to catch up with. And what's this? The
dread review is already upon us?

Who instigated this? Kneasy? Is this revenge for the socks?

I was counting on the opportunity to be out of town by the time this
poo-poo came sailing back.

I suppose I'll have to settle for keeping my head down and
suggesting right now that someone else misappropriated my name.

Naturally I call dibs on grooming Snape's, er, category (takes a
look at Eva's epee and tucks a few more grenades in her belt),
`course you'll have to add a reject code for "rude and insensitive
remarks" about His Luscious Darkness.

As to the "morality" category, I believe I *may* (I'm admitting
nothing)have hit that one a few times in the first batch of posts,
but now would only use it if a post were to focus on morality as an 
explicit theme. Otherwise the majority of posts will end up there 
due to the moral questions inherent in characters and events.

>Jen: I would like to get consensus on how to interpret some of the
>more ambiguous categories. Like mine for Reader response/subversive
>reading. In my mind this category is for things like arguing over
>the canon interpretation of ESE!Lupin or wondering if there are
>clues for Draco's redemption. Theories that try to prove that
>certain canon examples are not as they seem, or are leading the
>reader to false conclusions. How do other people view this category?


I would prefer to eliminate this category. I think we all know that
a subversive reading is one that deliberately subverts the author's
intent, as opposed to a perceptive reading that recognizes the
author's subversive message.

Throw in merely bad readings, and you've got the potential for every
reading to be considered subversive/reader-response in someone
else's eyes.

I don't like the idea that some readings end up under this
discredited heading merely because the coder disagrees with the
theory.

Technically, subversive readings require intent, and reader-response
is a process, not a theory, which falls along a continuum depending
on the theory employing it. What they have in common is the idea
that the reader, not the author, is generating the meaning of the
text.

Sorting to this category allows the coder to be the arbiter of what
Rowling means, and to opine that the poster is not true to that
meaning.

If this category is employed at all I think it should be limited to
posts where the authors present their ideas as intentionally
subversive or as having been generated using a reader-response
process. (There was one poster who essentialy used to do this. Was
it linlou?)

But what's REALLY important here, is a little more information on
that whole Kneasy-Lucius-House-elf scenerio. Not that it isn't
perfectly shameful and everything, but how are we to avoid
accidentally doing the same thing if we don't have more details?
Please?


Talisman,
Shifting through sheaves of review documentation in hopes of finding
incriminating video.