MWPP/Rosicrucianism/characters' ages/gays/socialist collectives

[carolynwhite2]

Carolyn:
> (1) MWPP code

Anne:
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.

Carolyn:
Ok, since no more comments on this, I'll go ahead and add the code.

> (2) Alchemy/Rosicrucianism

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 

Carolyn:
Ditto, Rosicrucianism is going under alchemy then.

Potioncat:
And here is a technical question. Carolyn, you give the reject rate 
each week when you send out the coding stats. Do the posts we reject 
in the review process get picked up in that reject number? I'm 
surprised the rate isn't higher. 

Carolyn:
Yes, rest assured that anything that is rejected in the review 
process is picked up in those stats. I am surprised that the rate is 
continuing to fall - I'd hoped we'd all be much more ruthless after 
the review experience.

Potioncat:
So, either of these would work in my opinion:
Keep 1.2.12 but do not cross code to character. Any catalogue user 
who needs this code can scan through the subject headings to get the 
posts they are interested in. 

Get rid of the code number 1.2.12, keeping the code to the character 
or school policy for that post.

I recommend the latter. And if we follow that line, I'd suggest 
merging the 1.2.12.1 Weasley age gaps into the Weasley Dynamics.

Carolyn:
Now people - pay attention to this - which would you prefer? My 
preference, like Kathy, is for putting the character's ages posts 
with the character, but within their own mini-subhead under the 
character main head, so they don't get lost.

Debbie:
I'm about halfway done with 1.2.10.9 Portrayal of males/females/gays 
(about 400 posts). It's fairly straightforward, though a bit 
repetitive.

My question is this: should we separate gender from sexual 
orientation? The flavor of the gender posts (are there strong 
female characters, could Harry have been written as a female, is the 
WW sexist, etc.) is quite different than the flavor of the gay 
character posts, which all center on whether she would write such a 
character and how it could be done without offending the religious 
right.

Any thoughts? 

Carolyn:
My vote is yes - it was a stopgap solution that needs sorting out; 
the two things are quite different as you say. BTW, if we create a 
new sexual orientation category in section 1, there is a subset in 
WW - 3.4.5 - which should probably be merged with it. Also, how would 
the new section relate to 2.17.4 Gay SHIPs (Ginger??)


Debbie:
But can someone tell me why Marianne is wearing *Victorian* attire at 
Norland Park?

Carolyn:
Where does it say that? I can only find the bit where she pulls on 
her leather flying helmet and goggles...

..& who wouldn't like to read the lost Jane Austen ms, 'Confusion and 
Conviviality' which got taken over by a socialist collective of 
characters insisting on equal page time