3.8 Magic

[dungrollin]

> Carolyn:
> On Petunia and squibs. I would not cross code to squibs unless the 
post was a substantive discussion about this possibility and what it 
might mean - passing mentions don't count.

Dot: Good-oh. That's what I thought. 

> *******************************
> 3.8 Magic (19 posts which have now disappeared, but I've still got 
a list of them) where nowt should be coded.
> 
> Carolyn:
> The limits on magic ones, I wondered if some of them should belong 
> under 3.3.6 Rules & ethics for using magic ?
 
Dot:
They don't really discuss rules or ethics, it's more about the 
practical limitations on what is and isn't possible. I'll have a 
think, but they may just end up in General Properties and Types of 
Magic, possibly cross-coded to 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR. Unless, 
of course, I find some more in Gen. Prop. Types Magic (there are 
already a handful of posts) in which case I may end up advocating a 
new category... I'll come back to it.

Carolyn:
> The religious ones can be safely sent to 1.1.1.1 or 1.1.1.3 I 
think. Although they are not about HP at all, as I recall, they were 
very detailed lists of references, and presumably of interest to 
someone wanting to research banning HP for religious reasons. I just 
left them cross-coded to a magic category for a second opinion on 
this - over to you.

Dot:
Actually, I just checked and they're only coded to Religious 
banning. Sooo... I'll pretend I didn't notice anything and leave 
them there. (If I was looking for stuff about JKR's take on Magic, I 
wouldn't want to find that kind of thing.)


> **********************
> 3.8.1 Magical ability (395)
> <snip>
> - The End of Magic. The idea (which resurfaces from time to time)
> that Harry can only defeat Voldy by causing magic to disappear from
> the world completely. (There must be a better place to put them 
than here.)
> <snip>
> 
> Carolyn:
> Have no problem with your decisions here, but agree 'End of Magic' 
> needs it's own code, and not in this section. The only possible 
> option would appear to be Dumbledore, since Harry doesn't have a 
plan himself, and it's not likely to be one of Voldy's !
> 
> Boyd - what do you think about this?
> 

Dot:
Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a 
category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy. It might 
mean a lot of rearranging, but it could be useful for nice ideas 
that have nowhere else to go - would it cut down a lot on the 
Voldemort and Harry categories?

Carolyn:
> On the Pettigrew or Neville magic ability, I think they belong 
with character rather than here, even if they are in-depth 
discussions.  Having just sorted through the Peter ones myself over 
the last few days, I know exactly what they contain, and feel sure 
about it for him anyway.
> 
> Debbie - what do you think about Neville?

Dot:
Some of them do discuss the concept of magical ability and how it 
differs between wizards in a more abstract sense, but I'll uncode 
most of those that only talk about a specific character.

> **********************************
> 3.8.1.1 Squibs (80)

> Carolyn:
> I am unhappily aware of this anomaly. Does anyone think that a 
good deal of 3.5 Bloodlines and Inheritance should actually be put 
with 3.8.1 Magical ability? It is quite a sort out, but I would 
rather do it than fudge the issue.
 
Dot:
I'm not in favour, though we could shift Squibs to 3.5.2.2 under 
Bloodlines and Inheritance. That would leave 3.8 Magic really for 
discussion of all things magical. (It's quite difficult to find a 
sensible section to put Squibs in - I'm not sure where I'd first 
look to find them.)

> *******************
> 3.8.2.1 Ancient Magic (69)
> 
> Carolyn:
> I like the idea of having a cleaner 'ancient magic' category as 
you suggest - but note that it is already a sub-category of 3.8.2. 
> However, we probably need to amend another category title to stop 
the confusion happening again in the future. What we could do is 
change:
> 
> 3.5.4 to read 'Blood protection at Privet drive/Lily's sacrifice'
> 
> This would stop this element of the discussion getting lost within 
> 1.3.5.1. - after all, is 3.5.4 really about anything else??
> 

Dot: That sounds good to me.

Carolyn wrote elsewhere:
I am going to leave it to later this evening to find out where we
have all got to, but then from tomorrow, Monday, I think the only
thing we can do is start coding again, and continue to finish the
reviews in tandem - say, split our time 50:50.

I am very keen to try and end up with working definitions for all the
categories so we know what we are doing from now on in.

Dot:
I'd like to finish the section I'm reviewing before going back to 
coding - RL getting in the way a bit, so don't know when it'll be 
finished. Then would be happy to split 50/50 reviewing beasts and 
doing more coding. It would be better to have a good review of the 
category definitions *before* we start coding again, though, 
wouldn't it? 

By the way - does Sean ever sleep?