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

[Jen Reese]

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.


Jen: Perish the thought! Nobody in this esteemed establishment is 
guilty of choosing personal preference over critical thinking 
skills ;). 

But seriously, here's the definition we're working with: "What are 
the limits of allowable reader interpretation of JKR's writings?"

I'm wondering if the "Reader Response" aspect needs to be removed or 
made as a category by itself. In my limited review of the "reader 
response/subversive reading" category, many posts discuss why HP is 
so popular and what aspects of HP in particular make the series 
unique. These I would be more inclined to put in plot development, 
narrative style, humour or character development, depending on the 
post (and many are already coded as such, in addition to Reader 
Response.

And as for subversive readings, well it is subjective like Talisman 
said. Many people see no canon whatsoever for Redeemed!Draco and 
others can read the exact same canon and see quite a few reasons why 
this might be true. Which reading is subversive? Aack, frustrating.

Of the 377 posts in this catergory so far, a fair few discuss 
whether fanfic or certain SHIPS are subversive readings. These posts 
will be better served in the SHIP category, authorial intent, 
perhaps the canon category, depending. Rejected as fanfic if no 
canon discussion. 

Talisman:
> > If this category is employed at all I think it should be limited 
> > to posts where the authors present their ideas as 
> > intentionallysubversive or as having been generated using a 
> > reader-responseprocess. 

Jen: Possibly we could do without the category, or prune the posts 
in it. The problem is the range of posts which can conceivably fall 
under it. Right now it looks more like a dumping ground for every 
possible reader response to any part of canon. What we need is a 
more narrow definition. It will be difficult to limit it to posts 
defining themselves as subversive, though. Authors who believe their 
interpretations are a solution to a mystery don't consider their 
reading subversive! And why should they? It could be correct. 

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

Jen: Yes, I've run across several threads about this topic and they 
seem to be around the time TBAY is taking off, perhaps even a 
response to TBAY.

Jen, drowing in relativism.