1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR/Authorial Intent

[carolynwhite2]

Debbie:

1.2.4 PARAMETERS SET BY JKR/AUTHORIAL INTENT (was 480, now 296 and
shrinking):

This was a bloated, overstuffed category, enough to daunt any would-
be searcher. I am deleting 1.2.4 for any post that is appropriately
coded to other, more appropriate lit-crit categories, such as:

<snip list which I agree with>

Another collection of posts shade into Reader Response/Subversive
Readings (Are our theories outside the scope of JKR's intent;
reading subtext, does JKR adequately convey her intent, etc.). My
inclination is to put them into a renamed Authorial Intent/Reader
Response/Subversive Readings category (most are already coded there,
so it would not be a significant increase in number of posts).
Thoughts?

Carolyn:
It seems a reasonable decision to merge these two categories. As I 
said in earlier posts, they are part of a continuum anyway, so I 
would support this.

Debbie:
That leaves the following categories of posts that don't have a
clear other home:

JKR's writing process (fan influences on her writing)
Use of language, sloppiness (including a short but very good thread
on her use of distinctive speech patterns for different characters)
These include the grammar posts I commented on the other day. I'd
like to find a home for these posts, but don't think there is one.

Talisman, waxing lyrical as usual, declaims:
Grammar, capitalization and punctuation are PURE aspects of
Narrative Style. They belong under that heading as no other, without
qualification.

Word choice is an essential part of an individual author's style.
Do they have a jingoistic fervor for the stolid Anglo-Saxon, as
Orwell did? Or, do they embrace the affectations of the upstart
Norman tongue? How about the systematically sultry southern
sibilance of William Faulkner?

You sneeze at Capitalization? Can You Say Emily Dickinson? How about
e.e.cummings?

And punctuation? Compare Rowling's complex sentences, rife with
subordinate clauses, with Hemingway's staccato punctuation. This is
the very core of narrative style.

Imagery, meter, pattern, sound, use of trope, etc. are in there too,
but grammar, capitalization, and punctuation are ground zero.

Please, let us put all those good things right back where they
belong. (acknowledging that I haven't read the posts, and maybe they
are just so bad that they aren't recognizable as being pertinent to
the topic.?)


Carolyn:
OK OK, I agree! (Ahem - see my original definition to Barry as what 
Narrative style is really all about). It's just that a lot of these 
posts are not about anything so exciting, but instead whinging about 
how she doesn't adhere to whatever the writer thinks is 'good' 
English. Suggest a new sub-category under Narrative Style, called 
1.2.6.8 Grammar, capitalisation & punctuation to capture them. The 
speech patterns thread is, IMO, not the same thing at all, and as I 
said, we already have three categories for handling this type of 
analysis (4.1.1/4.1.1.1/4.1.1.2) which Jo is reviewing. If you like, 
those sections could also be moved up into narrative style from 
section 4.

As for fan influences on her writing - suggest we fudge this slightly 
and include it in the merged authorial intent/subversive readings 
category.

Debbie:
There are also some, but not many, posts discussing JKR's rules of
magic and whether they work (the Parameters Set by JKR portion of
the category). Dot suggested with respect to a similar batch of
posts (actually, they're probably the same ones).

> 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.

I'm with you on the new category. The posts discussing the
parameters set by JKR on WW magic, i.e., the rules of magic and
whether they work, seem very different from the other posts I want
to leave here. They are a distinct breed from the rest of the
content.

Carolyn:
I don't mind a new category, but feel it belongs in the WW section, 
under 3.8 Magic. Shall we just call it 'JKR's rules for magic' ??

1.2.4.2 FAITH (12/12)

We're not coding every mention of FAITH, are we? I did not delete
anything because FAITH seems to have been cited primarily for
Neville theories, and the 2 brief mentions were in Neville posts. I
may revisit this; the FAITH reference doesn't exactly jump out of
the Memory Charm Symposium posts.

Carolyn:
No, we shouldn't code every mention. The purpose of this section is 
just so people can see the development of the Faith concept, and how 
she evolves through the TBays.

Debbie:
Careful mathematicians will have noticed that the numbers add up to
about 590 posts, while the database claims there are 1088 posts. Do
I assume correctly that the other 498 posts are in 1.2.5 Reader
Response/Subversive Readings and its associated acronyms (which I
can't find in the database)? They do add up to about this number.
I suspect I've read a lot of these posts already. There are 2
distinct types: posts that discuss this as a concept and examples,
in which posters acknowledge that their reading is likely
subversive. Shall I ax the examples? Or keep them in a
subcategory? It would be a handy little reference for some of the
more outlandish theories to have graced the list.

Carolyn:
You are right Debbie, the section got split in two at the last sort 
out. Sorry, I thought I had tidied up the dbase, but obviously missed 
this one. The subversive section as it currently exists runs from 
1.2.5 through 1.2.5.7, however, it contains one or two acronyms which 
Laurasia dealt with because at that point they were part of an 
anagrams & acronyms section within symbolism (for some reason which 
now escapes me). There are currently 534 posts within this whole 
section as it is currently structured.

As I understand what you are saying, most of the posts currently 
under 1.2.4 Authorial intent are also cross-coded to 1.2.5 Reader 
response? If we go along with the merge plan, I can do that 
automatically for you, saving you a lot of fiddly work. Merging one 
category into another only affects the two categories concerned, and 
does not affect the other coding on the posts.

I dither over the examples..not so sure they are so distinct from 
discussion of subversion as a concept. But, OTOH, we don't want great 
chunks of theories or character discussions to sit here, cluttering 
up the section.