Lots of replies...

[carolynwhite2]

Carolyn Havisham staggers back to the catalogue office late at night, 
and slams the Prose Portal shut behind her. Enough of so-called 
reality for one day. If she *ever* catches the little ....who slashed 
the tyres of all the cars in the street last night...well, crucio 
would be a bit too good for them. A couple of months as extras in 
Nicholas Nickelby with Mr Squeers would soon sort 'em out; easily 
arranged with her contacts.

She looked down in some surprise at the tottering pile of papers on 
her desk.. this was turning into quite some management job. A good 
deal more complex than sorting out Wuthering Heights.. although that 
had had its moments, she thought, remembering the time she'd held a 
gun to Heathcliff's head; Jurisfiction's Rage Counselling classes 
really were extremely effective...

But the Council of Genres would certainly raise their eyebrows over 
what was going on here; renegade readers interacting with live 
characters, alternate Potterverses existing side by side. Private 
armies, pitched battles with canon. Mr Fforde couldn't have made it 
up if he'd tried.

Ah! Let's start with this sensible answer from Anne, who, despite a 
raging cold thought:

>>Anyway, I'd guess a TBAY scene merely located on the Destroyer 
without really being about Big Bangs, can be regarded as being 
located in TBAY in general. Meaning I'd probably not use 1.3.3.5 for 
location only, but for subject matter. After all, there are thousands 
of posts where George the bartender appears which are not remotely 
about the theory called "George."<<

Debbie agreed:
>>>there was a point when it became de rigeur to assert that one's 
theory was *bangy* as though that was additional canon in its favor.  
I wasn't thinking that every assertion that a theory was bangy should 
be coded to the Big Bang, but maybe it should.  Miss Havisham, could 
you give us a ruling?<<<

Carolyn: well, it seemed clear to me temporarily, and I was all ready 
to go back and take bangs & ambushes off some of the Destroyer TBAY 
posts then. But wait a minute... George is not so clear cut, what 
about 39590, where he is asked his opinion as a Snape theory, but 
whilst sipping martinis in the bar? And what about the games of 
Flying Hedgehog, played with the one remaining flamingo ? And all the 
lifts Stoned!Harry gives people across the Bay..

When to code to an acronym, and when not, that is the 
question...erm...

Feeling one of her heads coming on, Miss Havisham turned quickly to 
the next item:

Kelly:
>>1) Found a post comparing plot lines of HP and The Aeneid; would 
you consider The Aeneid a literary classic or myth/legend? Both?<<<

Dot said:

Since The Adenoid has a named author I would put it under 'literary
classics', reserving myth/legend for unattributed traditional
stories. At least, if I were specifically looking for it, I'd look
under Literary Classics first.

Carolyn: I might have gone for myth/legend first, but either category 
is correct really. One of those ones where we will have to make a 
final decision at second edit stage, and sort all refs into one group 
or another.

Debbie further queried the myth/legend category:

>>And the Bible, for a post discussing JKR's use of biblical
symbolism? Neither really fits, at least from my perspective.
Though I accept that there are those who would happily consign the
Bible to the myth/legend category, I can't bring myself to do it.<<

Dot said rebelliously, puffing on her cigarette:

Yeah, I've got some of those posts, too. If Alchemy's under
symbolism, I suppose the Bible should be too, though for the moment
I'm ticking religious influences and symbolism. A separate box for
the Bible under symbolism would mean fewer posts coded to these
general themes. Or should we still tick religious influences?

Carolyn, deeply tempted by the idea of putting the Bible on a par 
with alchemy, regretfully advises: 

Anything to do with The Bible goes first of all under 1.1.1.1 
Religious influences.  If they are talking about biblical symbolism, 
eg animals, plants, whatever, additionally tick those boxes 
plus 'symbolism' generally.

Meanwhile, the acronyms are beginning to give other people nightmares 
too:


Kelly:
>>>2) I got dropped into the middle of the Neville Memory Charm
Symposium, and just read Cindy's MATCHING ARMCHAIR with Jobberknoll
variant. Do Jobberknolls need their own category under beasts? I
don't remember whether they were ever discussed outside of this
context, but they do appear several times in this thread.<<<

Carolyn: 
Aagh, damn her. My thoughts are NO, on the basis that Jobberknolls 
are the product of Cindy's excitable imagination and not Potterverse 
creations. Ticking MATCHING ARMCHAIRS will be *quite sufficient*.

Ginger, well and truly ensnared, woke up with a start claiming she 
had a new acronym:

>>>The acronym wouldn't work because ANTIREPO4TSSISESSUS isn't a real 
word.

And I was so distraught, because I knew *exactly* how to code it up
for the catalogue."

Ginger pauses, looks at the gaping faces of her cohorts, and asks
Miss Carolyn, "May I have another batch of posts, or do you think I'm 
off my bat? Or both?"<<<

Carolyn: 
Alas, you obviously haven't yet encountered 
TNRAMCNTSHPBTAFASETUDWOIT. I like to think this one is a tongue-in-
cheek joke, but there is the possibility that it isn't. Your sleeping 
nightmares may yet become reality.

Of course you can have some more - always best to get straight back 
on your bike after falling off you know: 39701-39800. This is post-
Spying Game I, BTW, so you are now officially in MD-territory. Take 
rations and a gun.

Anne made a good point about the Philip Nel posts:
>>>I just thought I'd remind people to look out for these
"official discussion questions" as being from him (though Penny
Linsenmayer added a *lot* more to think about in her original post,
which I went back to find). In fact, IIRC from when I checked back,
the beginning of the thread, post #37242 (and I forget who coded it, 
sorry, but it wasn't me or Carolyn) was not coded to Philip Nel and 
should be.<<<

Carolyn: 
This is my fault, I should have thought to add the Philip Nel code 
earlier. We better check forward from 37242 onwards, to make sure we 
haven't missed any. If I have a moment I will go into the real Yahoo 
archives and see if I can pick up the post numbers by following 
threads.

Anne went on:
Another possible category we might need (sorry, Carolyn) is under
Other Sources and Influences. Every possibility underneath is a
literary one, except maybe for "old myths and legends". Wouldn't we
like to have one called "history/current events" for coding up such
things as how purebloods look at blood purity or how Lupin's
lycanthropy may be a reflection of how people with AIDS are treated?
I realise these also code up to other categories, but as RL history
seems to have *influenced* JKR's writing, I do so much want to code
them here, too.

Carolyn:
I code these types of issue using a selection from these codes:

1.1.4.1 Inequality, bullying & discrimination
1.4.3 Portrayal of males/females/gays
1.4.5 Racial & cultural diversity
3.2.2 Relationship with the muggle world
3.2.6 Class system, racism & bigotry
3.4.4 Lycanthropy

Do people want more options, if so what do you suggest? The other 
sources & influences section is really for comparisons with other 
sorts of books, rather than RL things, so I wouldn't want to put the 
codes there anyway.

Carolyn, feeling quite proud of herself for having dealt with all 
these queries so efficiently, was about to pour herself a well-earned 
nightcap when she noticed a rather lengthy document underneath all 
the others entitled 'More on MD/ Elkins does it again/Bangs'.

Debbie said:
>>I find it intriguing to read this from an MD fan, since my original 
objections to MD were based on the *specific* agenda that was 
proposed.  I was quite baffled to discover that the MDDT were quite 
chuffed over OOP because it proved that Dumbledore has *a* plan.  <<<

Carolyn:
Well, I entirely agree with them that OOP proved he had a plan, and 
that he had been running a huge clandestine undercover war. You 
cannot deny that MDDT were spot on there.  The bit I was disappointed 
over was Pip's theory as to why DD was doing it all - a sort of 
altruistic trying to change the world through the minds of children 
number. That I found rather soppy to be honest, and as our trusty 
Arrowsmith pointed out, with a poor likelihood of working out in 
reality. I also agree with you that Tom Wall's points were valid - 
there needed to be another post working through the plot detail to a 
third level. It's that one we are still waiting for. Doesn't mean MD 
is invalid - just that MDDT have taken a long time off !

On coding MD, Debbie said:
<< Certainly MD engendered a lot of discussion about Dumbledore and 
his agenda, but I believe that most listmembers at the time would 
have argued that MD referred to Pip's two Spying Game posts and the 
embellishments and variations on her theories, even though the OOP 
update broadened (some will say superseded) the original focus of 
MD.  I will go with the flow, but think there are so many MD-specific 
posts in the archives we should be wary of over-coding to the theory 
for fear that the *true* MD posts will become lost in the forest.<<

Carolyn:
This is a discussion worth having as we get beyond, say, post 85000. 
There are specific outbreaks of MD discussion after this, which do 
definitely belong under the MD code. Others broaden out more 
generally into what Dumbledore's is doing.

However, the list of 100+ posts I made this week do directly relate 
to the original two Spying Game posts and should all be considered 
for coding under this heading (if they are worth keeping in 
themselves, of course). At one point they drift off into a time-
travel discussion, for instance, so that's the kind of cut-off we are 
looking for.


Pausing for a swig, Carolyn stopped and exclaimed, 'take a team point 
Debbie!'

>>But, why would Neville be the HBP, unless the statements that he's 
a pureblood are lies?<<

Carolyn couldn't believe no one else had picked her up on this. She'd 
expected about 14 rather cutting posts the next morning, putting her 
right and making none-too-veiled suggestions about her suitability 
for doing this cataloguing job if she couldn't remember something 
this obvious. Lucky then that she had kept the rebuttal to hand.

JKR's own definition on her website reads:
'Therefore Harry would be considered only half wizard because of his 
mother's grandparents'.

Apart from the fact she *presumably* meant his mother's parents, half-
blood just seems to indicate some admixture of muggle down the line - 
speculation is that you are not considered pureblood until you have 
had no muggles for at least nine generations (according to Ernie 
Macmillan).

What Neville says is in PS is:  'my gran brought me up and she's a 
witch...but the family thought I was all Muggle for ages...nothing 
happened till I was eight'

What Ron says in CS is: 'Look at Neville Longbottom, he's a pureblood 
and he can hardly stand a cauldron the right way up'

I don't think there is any other statement anywhere from an adult 
confirming Ron's remark, which is a sort of sweeping statement that 
he could easily have assumed and not know the truth of - after all, 
he knows nothing about the torture of Neville's parents, so the 
Longbottom family is evidently not much discussed at the Weasleys. 

We are told the Longbottoms were much loved and their torture caused 
great anger, and we can perhaps guess that Frank is pure wizard 
family because we have seen the grandmother and heard about great 
uncle Algy, but we don't know for sure that Alice Longbottom's 
ancestry, in particular, had no muggles in it. Perhaps Neville didn't 
make a mistake in his remark.

And in checking all this, I found another little contradiction. She 
says 'everyone who shows magical ability before their eleventh 
birthday will automatically gain a place at Hogwarts: there is no 
question of not being 'magical enough'; you are either magical or you 
are not'.

Yet in PS, Neville says (of his family): 'they thought I might not be 
magical enough to come, you see..'

Make up your mind, Jo.