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

[Debbie]

Debbie enters the Catalogue office, knowing she is way too far 
behind on her coding to be writing TBAY style, especially for such 
mundane topics as this. 

Potioncat, theorizing about coding philosophies, wrote:

Now I'm looking at a 
> post as "this is perfectly valid, and well stated, but it's all 
been 
> said before," and possibly rejecting it.  I'm also thinking, is 
this 
> a post I'd want to see if I clicked this heading?....does that 
sound 
> about right?  

That's what I do.  Except I do find that some seeming retread thread 
on a topic often approaches that topic from a unique angle, so I'm 
less likely to reject if I'm not certain.  [At this, the other 
cataloguers nudge one another, whispering "So *that's* why her 
reject rate is so low!] I also ask whether the post only provides 
information I could get from another source, and if it does, I give 
it the axe.

> >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?

Talisman:
> 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.
 
> 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?)

Or for threads discussing reader response and subversive readings as 
a concept.  

In addition to Joe Average Reader using the catalogue to look up 
posts, if there's ever enough time to update the Fantastic Posts 
essays, I think this category could be very useful, if its use is 
properly limited as Dungrollin suggests.  I tend to do this with 
other categories, too; for example, I use Authorial Intent only for 
posts that actually discuss what they believe JKR intended and why.  
And, it seems to make more sense applied to Big Themes rather than 
plot-based theories.


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

Incriminating videos?  Where?

Debbie
imagining a grainy videotape in which shadowy cataloguers pick up 
bags of unmarked bills as consideration for their seemingly 
arbitrary cataloguing decisions