Weasley family/Imperius!Arthur/Authorial Intent

[carolynwhite2]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" <elfundeb at c...> 
wrote:
> Carolyn:
> As you notice later, the general Weasley category is 1.4.7.1 under 
> Family dynamics. I have just de-cluttered the Gred & Forge category 
> on the same principle - ie, only code to the twins where it really 
is a detailed discussion about them, rather than their family 
> relationships.
> 
> Debbie:
> 
> But if you think about it from the perspective of the reader 
searching for posts, does this make sense?   If I were searching F&G, 
I would expect to find posts about their impact on the family 
dynamic, as many of these posts are very much about them.  If I had 
to search family dynamics, I'd have to wade through lots of posts 
about Molly's impact on Percy, Ginny, etc. that have nothing to do 
with F&G.  This is a case where many of the posts *are* about the 
characters and not just the dynamic.

Carolyn:
No, I don't think I do agree about this. I think if I was interested 
in the Weasley family dynamics, I would want to read right through 
that section, looking at all shades of argument about the 
interaction, including F&G's role. If I was looking at F&G, I would 
want to find mainly analyses about them as characters.

However, if people would like to have the Weasley family dynamics 
category sorted into sub-sections, that's ok by me. It wasn't very 
large (226) at the beginning of this process, but it probably should 
not be dealt with until all the Weasley sections are finished, when 
it might be much larger. You could then have Molly, Arthur, Percy, 
Ron etc sub-sections, as you wish.

Sean - could you note this discussion? Thanks!

> 
> Carolyn:
> There are quite regular attempts at ESE!McGonagall. I will add it 
as 
> a sub-category, if people don't mind.
> 
> Debbie:
> Yes, and I'd vote to add Imperious!Arthur, too, which has been 
discussed many times.

Carolyn:
Sean - this would be the place for those great Elkins posts you 
found, for instance. I will add the sub-code - Debbie is right that 
it is a theory which comes up reasonably often. Sorry, this means 
that your Arthur section needs combing over for posts which would fit 
the new sub-category.

Debbie:
> I see no one has claimed Authorial Intent/Reader Response.  
Talisman, are you interested, or are you leaving it to me?
> 

Carolyn:
I am also willing to deal with it if necessary. Suggest we get some 
other stuff done, and come back to it. In truth, it should be closely 
considered alongside the Lit Crit section.