Rats/acronyms/characterisation

[carolynwhite2]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Anyway, I was looking under 2.15 Beasts for "rats," but it's not
> there.  Do we want one for rats, and a subcode for Scabbers?  In the
> post I was coding, Peter Pettigrew worked fine to handle the
> Scabbers/Peter discussion, but a later post was a discussion about 
how well Ron treated Scabbers and whether magical rats could stand 
rougher treatment than the muggle ones we're used to.  It'd seem 
strange to code it to Pettigrew. I'm rejecting that particular post, 
though, since its logic was a bit mangled.
> 
> Hasn't this come up for anyone before, or are you all happily coding
> all Rat posts to Pettigrew?

Carolyn:
Mm, I thought about this, the solution I have been using is:
- when it is a Scabbers/Peter discussion, click animagi as well as 
Pettigrew
- when it is a discussion about rats & pets, use 3.16.10 Pets allowed 
at school

However, this is slightly illogical as I also have stags, cats and 
dogs under beasts. I will bow to argument and add 'rats' to the 
beasts list if you like (?)


Anne:
By the way, how are we treating posts about anagrams? Coding them
under Foreshadowing, clues and misdirection? I only hesitate to do
that because I don't believe Jo had any intention of making meaningful
anagrams out of most of these.

Carolyn:
Got a whole section for them! See 1.5.9 - it's even got three theory 
acronyms of its own. Not sure we can let her off all that lightly - 
she started the whole business, after all, with 'Tom Marvolo Riddle/I 
am Lord Voldemort'. 


Anne:
One other thought: under the Characterisation section, I wouldn't mind
seeing a code for "believability/exaggeration" or something like that.

Carolyn:
Is this to capture Naama-style arguments about whether a character 
could- or could not do XYZ? I'm coding to 1.3.1 & 1.3.1.2 when these 
threads come up.