Definitions/space aliens/Talisman posts/bribery&corruption

[carolynwhite2]

This is a fascinating discussion...at last, some debate on what my 
categories might mean and how they might be used!

AUTHORIAL INTENT

Debbie:
There were 427 posts ...<snip> did little more than direct the reader 
to one or 
another JKR interview transcript. <snip> A much greater number of the 
early posts were 
almost entirely about other issues (such as whether JKR has or would 
write a gay character, her treatment of women) that have their own 
headings.

Carolyn:
I had intended this category in the strict lit crit sense, for posts 
attempting any kind of formal analysis of what JKR might or might not 
have intended (eg intentional fallacy, ambiguity, reader response, 
deconstruction etc etc). And as I've coded there have been a handful 
of posters who deal with the subject like this - Luke Caliburncy and 
Elkins come to mind, and although we have not got there yet, some of 
Nora's guff probably belongs here. Where I know the category comes 
unstuck is the difference between it and 'reader response/subversive 
readings', because the two are a continuum in theoretical analysis 
terms.

As a compromise, I am probably guilty of putting some of those 'would 
JKR write this' posts there - the kind of furious responses Naama 
puts up to ESE!Lupin, for instance. The rationale for this is that I 
am very conscious that few readers are experts in this area, and this 
isn't a lit crit list. It is not possible to over-satirise academic 
analysis (Fforde does a magnificent job), and what matters at the end 
of the day is making the arguments real and accessible to people. So, 
good, canon-based exchanges on what JKR *may* have intended on XYZ 
subject have crept in there. I would be the first to agree that the 
section could easily be pruned and made more precise.


READER RESPONSE/SUBVERSIVE INTENT

>Jen: 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:
I would prefer to eliminate this category. <snip>

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?)

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

Carolyn:
Debbie's reading is closest to my original thought about this 
category, though Talisman nails what the actual problem is. There is 
a magnificent series of definitive posts from Elkins on the subject 
of when is a reading subversive. Frankly, not a lot else needs to be 
said, IMO. Her thesis - that nothing is subversive until the fat lady 
sings - is not original to Elkins, of course, but she does a great 
job of applying it to the Potterverse.

So, I would be reluctant to lose this category, but I could live with 
it being merged with Authorial Intent, and stripped of anything that 
didn't focus on what the nature of subversion was. We could lose all 
the posts that are simply exercising their right to play with so-
called subversive ideas, because they can be easily coded elsewhere, 
eg to a character, a theory acronym or whatever.

Jen:  
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. <snip>
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. 

Carolyn:
The section should certainly not be used for posts about why the HP 
series is so popular! I have, however, used it sometimes for well-
written whinges about why people *don't* like some aspect of HP, or 
HP fandom - eg that they don't like to see subversive theories 
discussed, or that they think some other types of theory are really 
good. I would not include the theories themselves here, ever.

MORALITY/IMMORALITY

Talisman:
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.

Carolyn:
The problem I know that we will have to sort out are different 
flavours of morality - what is a sin, what is a virtue, are breaking 
rules the same thing or not. Why should rashness & anger always be a 
sin... But I agree the section must be tightly limited to discussions 
about these moral questions, and be pruned of passing references, or 
unfocused examples.

FREEWILL, CHOICE & FATE

Boyd:
Main Topics Covered:
* Does Weapon!Harry really have choices, or is he being connivingly
manipulated?
* Other choices (of good vs. evil, proffered fate vs. chosen reality,
religious/historical/generational parallels).
* Prophecies/dreams, Heirs, the Hogwarts Quill, the Sorting Hat and 
other
expressions of fate.
* _Lots_ of time-travel discussions of "changing the past" or how the 
past
has already been changed. (Is that redundant or an oxymoron?)
* Child development & abuse--what makes someone evil? Did they ever 
really
have a choice?
* House elf servitude--nature or nurture?

Carolyn:
Of the list here, Boyd, in my view the first four are properly 
relevant to the topic. I am not so sure about the child abuse one, 
and I wonder if the elf topic is more thoroughly covered elsewhere.

Boyd:
Questions/Issues:
* Quite a few posts that I would have categorized as 'Adds Nothing 
New.'
Does very short + no new points = Reject?
* How about where the "choices" quote is used to refute another's 
argument,
with nothing else of value in the post? Keep these repeated quotings 
due to
the varying contexts or chuck 'em as saying nothing new?
* A few said essentially, "I think that..." and never supported their
view--at all. Are these keepers if the thought is new?
* A few that were more personal reactions to the whole idea that 
Harry is
the One with the power to defeat LV, lamenting the lack of his choice 
in
that. At what point does such a personal reaction become rejectable 
(from a
coding standpoint)?
* Many posts discussed only time-travel. While the repercussions on 
freewill
of going back in time are obvious, should we continue marking both
categories in such cases? Note that the funniest of these by far is 
Joywitch
in post #1500.
* Post #1350 said in its entirety, "[o]f course Heinlein did a ton of 
stuff
about this in his Future History books." Why keep it?
* Post #18048 was in a good ongoing thread, but the post itself 
contained
rather useless responses/personal reactions. Shall we reject those 
posts
that Add Nothing New even if they come in the middle of a good debate?
[Please say yes!]

Carolyn:
Most of these criticisms would definitely mean that the post should 
be dropped from this category - not necessarily dropped altogether, 
depending on where else it was coded. On the time-travel/freewill 
debate, there are a lot of them, and I think they might justify a new 
sub-category, alongside the prophecy discussions. The general answer 
on when to reject is it depends on context. What we are engaged in 
now is putting a bit bigger context round a post than the day to day 
coding we have been doing up to now. Seen in the context of a whole 
section, many posts are not going to make it through the night, when 
in isolation we may have stayed our hand, just in case...


Boyd (offlist):
Had a thought about the Catalogue codes, BTW: perhaps we could 
rename "Admin Flags" to "Filter Flags" and place there a few other 
categories that folks would like to have as filters as they search 
their results. E.g. "Just The Facts" (no interesting theorization, 
just simple answers to simple questions), "Cites Canon" (which would 
overlap Just The Facts, but include any post that directly quotes 
canon), move the JKR interviews code there (dump the JKR interview 
questions one--it's not terribly useful), and put FILKs in its own 
area (6) or move to a sub-code within rejects, since few FILKs have 
other codes.

Carolyn:
We'd have to go back and look at all the posts we have so far done in 
order to consider them for a 'just the facts' category - how would 
you reckon we should do that ? Actually, I tend to reject all posts 
which just find a canon quote and don't add analysis unless it makes 
a big difference to a thread.

The Filks we have decided to keep just as they are, and we certainly 
don't need to sort them out as Ginger and CMC have done a very good 
job on another site. I never know the songs myself, but lots of 
people do - hey, you're the one with the walkman.

Speaking of which:

Ginger:  I could let you deal with the guy I work with who is 
convinced that I have angered the good space aliens.

Carolyn:
I want to talk to you about space aliens.. the wife of one of my 
business partners has just turned out to be one, judging by her 
emails. What do good aliens do when they are angry? Any different 
from bad aliens, usual death-ray guns etc? I should probably find out 
in advance, as I plan to make her very cross if she carries on much 
longer.


Talisman:
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)


C - Ah..nearly missed this, here you go: 42601-42700


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

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

Carolyn:
There's a couple of nice little lines we've got going. Vids, 
protection rackets, hush money..you name it, someone's suggested it. 
Well, we have to fund it somehow. You see, the whole thing was a 
simple, sure-fire vote winner that went horribly wrong:


Kneasy:
Damn right. If fact righter than you realise.
Long, long ago, on a list far, far away, Kneasy posted a suggestion
to the Elves.

That they create a site prophecy bank and at the end of the series
all prophecies would be assessed and accorded 'Golden Balls' or
'A Load of Balls' status. Something nice and simple. Silly me.
Nothing that happens round here is ever simple.

Carolyn:
It was his stupid suggestion that gave me the beginning of the idea 
for this catalogue. When it comes down to it, most things are his 
fault. Never hesitate to blame him.