The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*)

[carolynwhite2]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" 
<severelysigune at y...> wrote:
> 

- Etymology of name 
(which I would say doesn't belong under 'characterisation')

Anne:
This brings up a question relating to how the search functions are
going to work in the end product. I've been coding etymology of name 
to the character mentioned with the idea that people would want to 
search the database for "Etymology of name + Gilderoy Lockhart" (or 
whoever). On the other hand, that would be unnecessary if people can 
just go to the etymology category and then search there for the 
character they're interested in. Is that how it's going to work?

Kathy W.
I've taken character's codes out of posts that have to do with 
etymology of names. It's a hard call, but the ones I came across had 
6 or 7 characters listed and I was sure I wouldn't want to find that 
sort of post under a character heading. OTOH, would I want to read 
through all the posts about names to find out that McGonagall was a 
Scottish poet?

Carolyn:
Hm: I thought we had decided to leave etymology of a specific 
character's name in that section, as well as cross-coded to 
etymology. I can see both arguments. Etymology of names certainly 
does give insight into what JKR might have intended, on the other 
hand, it would be more useful to find them all in one place rather 
than trawl through a whole character section to find them.

It seems to me that we have two options. We either have an etymology 
sub-category for most of the big characters, or we break the general 
etymology category into lots of little sections. I slightly favour 
the former solution, which would leave the general etymology category 
for posts that were, well, too general to put under any particular 
character.

On the how the search functions will work, Anne, there will be two 
main approaches. 

First you will be able to drill down, select and click on any one of 
our categories and just read through it. A variation on this is that 
you will be able to select multiple categories and get them to de-
dupe against each other, and then read through the result.

The second approach will be much more like Google - you type in a 
search word and see what comes up. 

There are pros and cons to both. For example, if you typed 'Snape' 
into the Google-type search, you would get so many results it would 
be useless. Much better to go to our selected and organised 
categories. OTOH, if you know just what you are looking for, eg all 
mentions of George, or all posts by a specific poster, then the 
Google approach will be better.

Eva:
- (Very) idle speculations of all kinds, on SHIPs; on what GL 
might be good at in the WW; on marital status; on what house he might 
have been in (no canon + generally flimsy)

- Discussions about Homorphus and Memory Charms
(belong in those respective categories; add nothing about GL)

- GL popping up in discussions about DD's appointment policy
(I plead guilty to sometimes coding this kind of stuff 
to "Dumbledore's Agenda", which is probably not where it belongs - 
where *does* it belong, in fact?)

- An absolutely *fascinating* discussion about the possibility 
of Lockhart sending all the Valentine cards himself, prompted by the 
supposition that Ginny couldn't possibly have composed that idiotic 
poem to Harry

- Likes/dislikes ("I really *can't* stand Lockhart!" "Really? I think 
he's fun!")

- Comparisons with other characters (preferably Trelawney), not 
adding anything

- Passing mention in Chapter Discussion

- Attraction (Molly & Hermione; Veela-like) (seems to belong to 
characterisation of Molly and Hermione, respectively; and what is the 
general feeling about GL speculated to be part Veela? There is *so* 
no canon for that stuff)

- Mention of GL in general reviews of CoS, (dis)likes
(belongs under 'review')

Carolyn:
My thoughts on the above are:
- DADA appointment policy; could be worth keeping some if they 
include any reasonable analysis of GL's actual character/suitability 
for job (or not)
- The Valentine Incident - well, I suppose he could have sent it. 
Might be worth keeping one or two for posterity - or ensuring they 
are cross-coded to the relevant chapter, if that's where we have 
decided that discussion is to be located.

On that topic, and what should or should not be found under the 
chapter codes/general book reviews generally, Talisman suggested a 
while back that we should have a clear list of our decisions on such 
subjects. Jen, could you bear to compile this, as it would be 
helpful ?

I hadn't seen posts suggesting he was part Veela.....erm, curious. So 
the idea is that a man could somehow subvert a magic which women used 
to attract men, to enable him to attract women??? 

Eva:
The fifteen I haven't made my mind up about (out of guilt at 
criticising other people's work) are:
- GL based on JKR's ex (refuted on the website)
- Interview recounting – GL based on an acquaintance (fact, 
though no characterisation)
- Attraction, sexiness (is this character analysis?)
- Teaching abilities (often comp. Trelawney)
- Evil or not? (No great revelations)
- Comparison of GL to Veela / speculation
- GL as stereotype of a gay man? 
- Married or not?

Some of these can also be found in my reject column; but 
the 'pending' ones are generally a bit more substantial.

Carolyn:
- Well, whatever she says on her website, I wouldn't discount the 
possibility. Maybe keep one or two for posterity. 
- Attractiveness - I suppose, if someone can argue a reasonable case 
for it...I've always thought Molly's and Hermione's responses to him 
were particularly well-observed by JKR.
- Teaching abilities - yes, I think I would keep those. Sounds 
relevant.
- gay/married - yes, if any kind of substance to the posts

Erm..you *have* taken to this, haven't you <g>

Carolyn