ESE! headings, sexual orientation review & sundry responses

[Debbie]

Popping in like Peeves with wads of gum for all the keyholes --

Carolyn:
> I would still prefer not to put the actual ESE! theories here, but 
> leave them under an ESE! heading with the character.

Potioncat nods:
>   I think ESE headings under characters would make a lot of sense. 
If the posts are pretty much like the ones I've seen for ESE!McG. I 
would think if there are only one or two for a character, or if the 
poster wasn't really serious they could just go >into the 
character's heading without a special code of their own.

Debbie:
This would be my preference (I see from what Carolyn quoted I have a 
few selective memory problems), but some of the subcodes would only 
have 1-2 posts in them, which is why I thought it might be nice to 
collect all of the ESE! accusations in one place.  I think it would 
be nice to know the universe of people against whom accusations have 
been leveled.   

Potioncat:
>   Are there any posts about the process of determining ESE in 
general? Would it merit its own ESE code or would it fit under one 
of the Lit Crit categories?

Debbie:
IIRC there were no posts that I found defining what it means to be 
ESE, so if we don't use it to capture the original accusations, it 
will probably end up being empty.  I think people were saying Ever 
So Evil and it just gradually got shortened.  I believe that there 
may be a little bit of ESE in the Reader Response category.

Ginger:
> I just coded a post in which the poster provided a transcript of 
an 
> entire JKR interview. Does copying the entire interview (as 
opposed 
> to a bit of it) violate any copyright laws? It was copied from a 
> website. Does this make a difference?
> 
> The original was not deleted, so I kind of assumed it was ok, but 
I 
> just wanted to double check. If it is not, I have written the post 
> number down and I will uncode it.

Carolyn:
> I feel a bit uneasy about this. Admin might have missed it at the 
> time. Better to be safe than sorry and reject this - after all, it 
> can always be looked up on Quick Quotes or whatever, who have 
sorted 
> out their copyright situation in each case.

Debbie:
The lawyer in me (though I learned everything I know about IP law 
from Heidi) agrees with Carolyn's conclusion that the post should 
not be coded.  Admin doesn't catch everything.

Carolyn:
> In a fit of irritation today I finished off all the coding for 
people 
> who are not currently working on that task, and cleaned up the 
dbase so 
> it only shows current allocations. [snip]   Doing this also saves 
time going to the last entry in that dbase.

Debbie:
Oh, yes, much cleaner, though it wasn't hard to get to the end by 
clicking "last" before.  I guess it would be too confusing for us to 
delete our entries as we finished them, wouldn't it?

Carolyn: 
> Re Fforde, yes, it's not in my edition..not fair! Is it good?

Debbie:
Not bad, except that it seemed weirdly tacked onto what I had 
expected to be the end of the novel.

I have finished reviewing the reconstituted 1.2.10.10 (Sexual 
Orientation) category.  The only question concerns a few posts 
included there relating to pedophilia, rape etc.  There doesn't seem 
to be anyplace else for them and since there are less than 10 
altogether, I don't know if a new subcategory is warranted.  2.17.3 
(Sex in the WW) didn't seem appropriate because the focus of the 
posts was on the reader picking up the clues.  I thought it was ok 
to leave them where they are, since they include a couple of posts 
specifically distinguishing pedophilia from consensual same-sex 
relationships.  Any objections?

I did, however, move the posts discussing the unique problems raised 
by cross-gendered Polyjuiced characters having sex and getting 
pregnant to Sex in the WW. ;-)

On to 1.2.10.6, racial and cultural diversity, and wondering about 
potential overlap with 3.2.6, Class system, racism and bigotry

Debbie
wishing she knew how to help Magda