1.2.4/Gred&Forge/Humor

[Debbie]

Carolyn:

> 1.2.4 Authorial intent/subversive readings - still in progress I 
> think, Debbie (?) NB, Laurasia did some of the acronyms now in this 
> section when she reviewed Anagrams & acronyms (which has now been 
> split across two sections).

Yup, still in progress.  It's slow going, as I'm de-coding or re-coding about 2/3 of the posts.  And you coders keep slipping more posts in, so the number remaining to review keeps going up.

To make sure that posts going in are likely to stay, here's my definition:

For general discussions of reader response to the books, including subversion, subtext, limits on speculation, relationship of fanfic to text interpretation, and approaches to interpretation/discerning authorial intent.

If the post discusses JKR's intent with respect to a specific theme (e.g., morality, rulebreaking, portrayal of females, etc.), or reader responses to specific characters I have taken it out of 1.2.4.

I have moved discussions of JKR's use of language to Narrative Style (but not the grammar ones, which are in its own subcategory) except for the speech patterns ones, which I have coded to Speech Patterns and which IMO should be moved into Characterisation (or Narrative Syle, maybe).

> Jen, wondering exactly how many posts will be in the child abuse 
> category once we've coded up through the last year when this topic 
> seems on the boards ad nauseam.

Very few, I hope.  Surely nothing new is being said (though I can't be sure as I can't bring myself to read another post on this topic).  Though it does reinforce my opinion that OOP ch. 37 is one of the worst JKR ever wrote.

> Sean:
> Oddly enough I'm coming across much the same controversy over the FGB 
> thread
> I'm currently coding (Fred and George are Bas^H^H Bullies). 
> 
> 
> Carolyn:
> Yes, I did some coding yesterday evening and picked up the end of 
> that thread, and thought the same thing. [For those of you who have 
> not seen it, it's continuing the Elkins' SYCOPHANTS-type concern 
> about the victims of practical jokesters].

I dunno.  I don't see this issue as a SYCOPHANTS concern.  I see it as more of an issue of the bleeding hearts vs. comeuppance humor.  If you don't like it, you're not going to respond well to the Twins.  And though bullying victims may well become sycophants, not all of us bleeding hearts can sympathise with them.

> First, is there anything wrong with JKR showing her characters 
> engaging in the various crimes against humanity which she is 
> regularly accused of? What I can't understand is that the logical 
> extension of all these arguments is that all books should only be 
> written from a particular POV [fill in the one you approve of]. In 
> particular, children's lit, or any books involving children should 
> only be filled with squeaky clean role models, sanitised to a point 
> of absurdity, in order to cause no global cultural offence.

That's a big difference between the Bully thread and current discussions.  Most of the posters at the time (not all) understood the difference between arguing whether F&G were bullies and arguing whether JKR should have put bullies into the books at all.

Sean:
> 42701-42800
> scratch that batch :)
> 
> Talisman, you're a bad influence: 32 rejects in this lot :) Some sorry
> theorising here, a LOT of carry-on about US vs. British editions. Some
> interesting thoughts about DADA: why exactly was Voldy so feared? Because DADA
> wasn't on the curriculum? Quite a lot about wand symbolism (and an awful lot
> of Listees got that wrong). Much ado about Moody!Crouch (he really is a
> character in his own right) and magical eyeballs. Why Hermionie doesn't
> deserve friends (but Draco isn't Mr. Popular either). And a few FILKS, my
> favourite being #42792. Not enough G&S FILKS for my liking :)

Having coded the 43000s for the old catalogue (yes, I have a perverse liking for punishment of all sorts), I am avoiding these posts like the plague.  Aside from the bully thread, which was an interesting read even if it degenerated into too much recounting of personal trauma, I recall a great deal of tedium.

Fortunately, the 43000s should be divvied up by the time I get done with my current allotment.

Sean:
> I *have* to mention this: funniest FILK yet, #43517: Skip to the Loo with
> Harry. A litmus test for humour...

Oh, yes!  Forgot this one . . . there are consolations even in the most desultory of list times.

Debbie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20050324/34c6947b/attachment.html>