UPDATE, Sunday, May 1st

[annemehr]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
 
> QUERIES
> As I went through our posts, I came across one or two points that we 
> seem not to have settled. Thoughts please on:
> 
> (1) MWPP code
> (see discussion in Revised Definitions, Section 1 Text Analysis 
> file). Do we want this or not, and if so should it be a sub-head 
> under 1.2.11 Group Dynamics?

Anne:
I see my vote is actually in Revised Definitions.  I still think it's
a useful category and can help control the size of the individual
characters' sections.  These Group Dynamics posts often Add Nothing
New to individual character analyses, yet they take what's already
been said of the characters and combine these ideas in new ways while
analysing the group.

Did that make sense?

Carolyn:
> (2) Alchemy/Rosicrucianism
> I asked whether this should be under 1.1.1.1 Religious influences or 
> 1.2.13.8 Alchemy. I think it should be  under Alchemy - see this link:
> 
> http://www.amorc.org.uk/html/ancient_knowledge.html
> 
> I can't say I study Hans' posts in great detail, but they seem to be 
> adapting bits of Christianity to his own POV rather than vice versa.

Anne:
These posts are, IMO, singular enough to warrant their own
subcategory, which I would like to see put in symbolism under Alchemy
rather than under religious influences (as I sincerely doubt this was
a true *religious* influence on JKR's story).  It works all right,
since Hans speaks of symbolism all the time.

I'm sure we all have an ulterior motive for capturing them (and their
replies) in a separate category -- it is very difficult to understand
exactly what he intends to say.  This is not even meant to be a
criticism (I used to read his posts with interest), it's just a fact.
 Rather than miscode due to misinterpretation, or sprinkle them
throughout the character and event codes, let's just capture them in
their own category.  There are few enough of them that the category
will not be huge, and they will not all be Hans's, as some will be
replies.  Just call it Rosicrucianism for now; we can adjust the title
later if we see a need.

Carolyn:
> (3) Seventh son/missing Weasley child(ren)
> I propose that all these theories go to the Weasley dynamics code 
> 1.2.11.1 for the time being, and then that category can be sorted out 
> in one go.

Anne:
Agreed.