The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*)

[severelysigune]

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

Eva:
*Dear* Carolyn, if I am slow, it is not purely because I am so very 
inept - it's because I'm *thorough*, too. - Er - I think that makes 
me *thoroughly inept*, yes? <veg>

 
I 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?>>

Me:
Yes, it's with the Boolean (?) thingy in mind that I checked 
categories like mad when I first started coding... Now, reviewing, I 
kept very strictly to the idea that I was doing a "Character 
Analysis" category, and if the etymology post doesn't add anything 
substantial to an analysis of dear Gildy's character, I'd chuck it 
out.
 
PotionKathy said:
<< 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?>>

Me:
That's what I mean.

 
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.>

Me:
I plead guilty to not knowing what we had decided. I vote for a 
comprehensive catalogue of directions per category :-) - else we are 
(or I am) going to create new messes, though arguably on a smaller 
scale.
It's just that these are such flimsy posts (think one line, to point 
out that 'gild' refers to gold) that really don't *add* anything 
about Gildy. They should end up somewhere, I guess, but really not 
under character discussion.

Carolyn:
<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.>

Me:
System One has my vote.


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)>

Me:
Most don't; but they have made me wonder if we don't need a separate 
category for that general discussion about DADA and other 
appointments. It does keep popping up with the regularity of 
clockwork. Does it go under the general heading of 'Teachers', 
perhaps? Lots will have ended up under 'Snape', too, and 
under 'Trelawney'. I wouldn't want those posts to get lost somewhere; 
but they mostly don't belong under GL because they do no more than 
mention his name. Actually, some don't even do *that* (honest!).

Carolyn:
<- 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.>

Me:
Aye aye.
Er - *puzzled* - have we decided that?


Carolyn:
<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.>

Me:
Hear, hear!


Carolyn:
<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???>

Me:
I have become convinced that readers will do *anything* to explain 
away that an intelligent twelve-year-old Hermione could have a crush 
on a handsome fraud.
BTW: I have once read a fic in which *Snape* was said to have Veela 
blood - that was made to account for his ugliness ("their faces were 
elongating into sharp, cruel-beaked bird heads" etc.)... You'll have 
to admit, it's more original than him being part vampire, no?

Shall I go unchecking now?

Eva