Lit crit/What genre/Constraints due to genre/kiddie lit

[carolynwhite2]

Talisman on section 1.3 Literary criticism & books about Harry Potter:

All in all, I propose leaving the definition as it is with the
exception of adding "& Articles" since people like the moronic
Harold Bloom didn't write books.
<snip>

If anyone wants to save post 5582, a recital of Peg Kerr's personal
experiences with publishing (meant to demonstrate how what we can't
understand in the series may be Rowling screw-ups), speak up now.

Carolyn:
Glad this section held together (up to a point) - will make the title 
amendment that you suggest. 

Hadn't read 5582 before - since I've done my time as a nasty 
publishing editor, frankly I don't know what she is whinging about 
<g>; clearly the process let the truly awful Wild Swans slip through. 
Really, authors... how about clicking 'just for a laugh' in section 
5 - there is quite a lot of OT stuff caught there for posterity, and 
we will probably make that category available for browsing.

Talisman:
>Subject:  Review of 4.1.1. What Genre?

>All seems in good shape. Added 4.1.2. once.
>Definition: posts that query whether HP is Sci Fi or Fantasy,
>Classic or flash in the pan, etc.

>Any questions or comments? (Carolyn: please note any respondants as 
being those without sufficient employment.)

Carolyn, who has more than enough to do nevertheless wonders whether 
this section should be merged with 1.3.1.1 ??

Talisman:
Review of 1.3.1.1. Constraints Due To Genre
Pretty straightforward and only a few chops/modifications.

Defined as exploring genre constraints and that is what posts
explored (mostly): what is allowable in Fiction /Fantasy/ Sci Fi/
Children's Lit.

The last is the only question provoking aspect. I added code 4.1.2.
where the writer was arguing pro/con kiddie lit; but, did not if
they just discussed parameters under the assumption that HP series
is one or the other. We'd just have to code everything there, as
falling to one side or the other, if we're assigning assumptions.
Opinions?

Sean:
Likewise I expect the kiddie lit argument itself to get bigger. I 
agree if the
argument is specifically kiddie lit. to code, but using the argument 
to talk
generally doesn't merit it.

Carolyn: The 4.1.2 section is very large; certainly I am in favour of 
keeping 1.3.1.1 clear of the kiddie lit argument if at all possible. 
(Waiting with bated breath to see what Talisman does to that Stygian 
stable).