1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up

[carolynwhite2]

Debbie reported on 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences:

-Many of the posts (including some of the best) are technically
comparisons, containing no suggestion that JKR was influenced by the
work in question. Don't know if the title can or should be amended
to reflect this ("Literary Sources, Influences and Comparisons").

C: This is fair comment, I'll make this amendment to the title.

-I generally deleted the code from posts that did not either suggest
the work (or genre) as a source or make a substantive comparison
(e.g., posts that said simply "JKR borrowed elements of [insert
mythology/fantasy/etc]")

C: The key word is 'substantive' - I think this is the same in all 
the categories. It's only when you see a whole series of posts 
together that you can make this judgement.

-To what extent should this section overlap with What genre? (Very
pleased that What genre? has been moved to this section.) A reader
looking for posts on, e.g., how well HP fits a detective novel
pattern would likely look under "detective novels," but it seems that
the "Detective Novels" category was made for these comparisons so
I've left posts with detailed comparison of JKR with specific genre
rules in both categories.

C:  I'd personally like to see the posts pushed down into as specific 
a category as possible - so I could easily read all the Agatha 
Christie comparisons in one place, for instance. I suppose the extent 
to which a post defies easy categorisation under these heads, then it 
is a candidate for the more general 'What genre?' heading.

-There are numerous works that could be coded to more than one
category (e.g., fairy tales and children's fantasy lit). The actual
coding was a bit arbitrary, especially between fantasy lit and
children's lit. It might make the decisions easier if we made
Children's Classics disappear altogether. We could move the
children's fantasy to Fantasy Lit, move the children's classics
(Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, etc.) to classic lit and kick
any leftovers to the general category, or to What genre/Are these
kids' books.

C: I dunno. This is the essence of the NY Times bestseller list 
argument, isn't it? That you can't distinguish - the book either 
sells or it doesn't, and over time either drops into oblivion, or is 
seen as capturing eternal truths. I dither - re your examples below. 
I am more comfortable with Lewis Carroll or Pooh as classics, than 
Roald Dahl or Oz. I would be very seriously annoyed to find the 
dreadful Diana Wynne Jones anywhere near Virginia Woolf under the 
W's...  What do others think?

-I recommend that we amend the definitions to list works with
substantial mentions so they are coded consistently to one place.

C: Agreed.

Main heading (32 posts, now 15)
-Thread on extent to which JKR drew on her own life experiences and
ability to convincingly portray abuse and its effects; would like to
move to Abuse, but none of them was coded there. Plus one post on
the Mitfords as influencing JKR's writing.
-Aside from the above, what's left here are (non-fantasy) movie and
TV show comparisons.

C: The abuse thread doesn't sound literary - I would re-code as you 
suggest.

Tolkien (136/112)/CS Lewis (88/78)
-Mostly straightforward except that Tolkien's name is misspelled in
the catalogue and it's driving me crazy!
-The Very Long Thread comparing HP to LotR and Narnia contained many
thoughtful comments on the loose grammar in the series. IIRC, these
were axed from Narrative Style, which makes sense, but is there no
longer a place for discussions of JKR's use of language? (I confess,
I enjoyed reading what people think of JKR's grammar, since it irks
me enough to think it detracts from the quality of the series.)

C: Oops..I'll correct it. I'm no longer much of a fan, so I was 
careless there. Well, now, grammar. If it goes back anywhere near 
narrative style, I insist it has it's quarantined under its own sub-
heading. Before we do, could we hear from Jo, who is tackling 4.1.2.1 
Capitalisation, punctuation ? I think there is more of the same there.

Hm, detracts from the series? How so? 
I caught this unbelievably crass comment on the main list the other 
day: 'If we want the child reader to have a hero that is a good 
example I don't think that we want him to be someone with poor 
grammar and low morals.' 

Give me strength....

Children's Classics (91/71)
-The fairy tales are here. So is Lewis Carroll, Oz, Roald Dahl and
others that are arguably fantasy or legend. Let me know if I should
move them.

C: See comments above.

Science Fiction (64/62)/Fantasy (63/75)
-Though I'm sure SciFi purists would disagree, instead of having to
assign specific works being compared to one or the other category, it
might be easier to combine these two categories.

C: Barry, Sean - what do you think? I suspect you'd like to maintain 
the distinction, but there are not many posts. However, if Debbie is 
also proposing merging some children's classics into Fantasy, it 
becomes more important to keep the categories separate, IMO.

Myths & Legends (136/92)
-I put all references to retellings of the King Arthur legend here,
rather than in classic literature, because the myth predated the
literature.
-Also need to decide whether legends regarding specific creatures,
such as basilisks and phoenixes, belong here or under the specific
beast category. I think they should go under the specific beast
category instead of (rather than in addition to) here, but want a
second opinion before I delete this code. We could cut at least 20
more posts from this category.

C: I would agree, ie, beasts to beasts (!)


Classic Plot Themes (56/47)
-The category now consists of specific discussions (not mere
mentions) of recurring plot themes and devices, including the hero's
journey, deus ex machina, the tragic hero, etc.
-Where a classic plot was described with examples, I deleted all
literary source codes except this one unless the post separately
contained substantive analysis of a particular work.
-Nicholas Flamel is not a legend. But apparently, this is a
legend: "House Elves are too ugly and repulsive for anyone to have
sex with except a big-time pervert. "

C: If you look at my initial review of this section, I thought the 
content was only 70% relevant. My main definition would be the Joseph 
Campbell-type stuff, archetypes and so on. Erm, I don't think he 
addressed the House-Elf question in detail...

Literary Classics (91/80)

What shall I tackle next?
-Portrayal of males/females/gays etc.
-Parameters set by JKR/Authorial intent/What is canon/FAITH
-Longbottoms

I had signed up for the Longbottoms, but if we're not going to finish
before getting back to coding maybe I should focus on something less
straightforward.

C: Would you mind tackling one of the pain categories - I think it 
would be more useful to sort out good working definitions for these 
sections, because they confuse so many people. Section 
1.2.4/1.2.4.1/1.2.4.2 would be helpful. The characters are easy to 
pick off as we go back to coding next week.

My view on the important issue of the day:
Molly is poison to the Weasley family dynamic but the Twins are an
equal but opposite poison; I find I can forgive Molly's bad parenting
more readily than the Twins' cruelty.

C: Alas, I beg to differ. The twins are more or less the only 
characters in the whole sorry saga that give me pure pleasure. They 
are a force of nature, sufficient unto themselves, sharp, savvy, 
totally focused, but discerning enough to lend a helping hand to 
those that are worth the trouble. Unfortunately, they are boys and 
will be eternally hobbled by vague guilt about upsetting their mother 
(she'll make sure of that), but hopefully it won't stop them. 

I think Talisman is extremely accurate as to what is wrong with 
Molly - she is a wrecker and a destroyer of ambition and dreams. 
She's been stupid enough to define herself and her life only as a 
mother and wife, and forgotten her own identity. It is a 1950s 
caricature that it would be nice to see demolished, although Kneasy 
is probably right that JKR has no such plans. 

Carolyn
The drive-by back up, simply boggling at the thought of Talisman as 
either a ballerina or air-hostess. 

Cripes, if I saw her coming down the aisle as trolly dolly, I'd be 
back down those steps even if we were taxiing down the runway, 
assuming I'd accidentally walked in an operation by the para-military 
wing of the Anti-Fluff Brigade.