TBAY and diversity, continued and long

[kkersey_austin]

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, delwynmarch at y... wrote:

> OK, so first of all, I'd like to say that I'm not completely
stupid, 
> guys :-)

Of course not! You've written some of the most interesting, thought
provoking posts in this debate.


Del rebuked Eileen, Laura, and myself for pointing out that Pippin's
example did not have TBAY content:

> Well, I was perfectly aware of that, thanks very much :-) ! I used 
> Pippin's post as an example of how literary metaphors and symbolism 
> can get me lost. 

Del, thanks for the clarification. At least three of assumed that you
*were* talking about TBAY; after all, it was the subject of not only
this thread but your post up to that point. Plus, you introduced your
example by quoting (someone or other) asking for a "snippit of TBAY"
in which the "other-than-English words" can be pointed out. I assumed
that you were answering that request when you wrote "To explain my
problem, I'll quote Pippin who wrote...."

So, anyway, the discussion has moved from TBAY to the more general
problem of accessibility of *any* post, in any format, that uses
metaphor or symbols. Which begs the question - why is TBAY in
particular being scapegoated by some (not you, Del, at least at this
point, if I understand you correctly)if this is the problem?


Much later, Del responded to Laura and myself, who had both tried to
shed some light on some of the references / symbols in Pippin's quote:

> (First of all, I'd like to say that I *do* know both "the pen is 
> mightier than the sword" and "faith, hope and charity". What I did 
> *not* understand was how those concepts were applying to the 
> situation at hand).

Del, I certainly never meant to come across as condescending. When you
wrote "I know all the words here, but I don't get the concepts at all"
I took you at your word. You did after all refer to "a whole
background of symbols and concepts I've never even heard of", though I
see now that perhaps that was a bit of hyperbole.  

In any case, the larger issue still stands - 

There is no disputing that some people find TBAY posts hard to
understand. I see three main issues being cited as reasons why TBAY
can be inaccessible for some people:

1. Lack of the right mindset to understand metaphorical discussion.  
2. Unfamiliarity with TBAY (or more general list) list history - i.e.
who is who, various theories, running jokes or themes, and so on.
3. Lack of specific knowledge to understand the particular symbols or
cultural references used.

Seems to me that all of these issues can apply to discursive posts as
easily as TBAY. 

Even in *this* discussion, various metaphors/models have been used to
try to explain the "mindset" issue. The irony has not been lost on Del
and Sandy, at least. And I do find it amusing that Eileen's brother
was wandering through these discussions in way that reminded me a bit
of the nascent TBAY!George... 

Perhaps Eileen's brother is a better example of Issue #2, though, as a
recurring reference, possibly in danger of becoming a running joke. I
really don't see any way that this can be avoided. One of the greatest
strengths of the list, something I greatly appreciate, has been the
effort put into all the accessory files (e.g. Fantastic posts,
Hypothetic Ally) so that newcomers can learn and participate in the
list culture and history.

The third issue, that of cultural or education background, was
addressed eloquently by Del. 


I do want to say in my own defense, though, about this that I said:
> All the concepts and symbols she used were pretty standard to
> English literature and culture.

Del is concerned that people who are not from a Western, Christian,
Anglo-Saxon background are being excluded:

> And I quite resent being told that I am expected to know what an
> American would, or to instinctively react like a Brit would.

Oh dear! I really thought for a long time about how to phrase my
thoughts in inclusive language. I am truly sorry if I did not succeed.
The fact is, the Harry Potter opus *is* a work of English literature,
written by an author who is from a Western, Christian, Anglo-Saxon
background. A certain familiarity with the literary and cultural
context of the books is *not* a huge leap. (I'm thinking about writing
in an exception here for MAGIC DISHWASHER and its Stanislavian MDDT,
but then, would I have to explain that darned appliance, which I don't
understand myself? Or Stanislavian analysis, or whatever it's called?
Too much work! Perhaps I'll just not make that point, in the interest
of inclusivity. Hrmph.) As Del pointed out, if every post was
scrutinized by its author for any trace of possible confusion, if
every cliche had to be explained, I doubt that *anyone* would find
much readable or writeable. But where to draw the line?

I think Del rightly put the responsibility of asking for clarification
and explanation when needed on the reader, and the responsibilty of
being open to such questions on the writer. In my experience, which is
necessarily limited lately, questions of this sort have been answered
graciously. 

In that spirit, I didn't quite catch this:

> I am absolutely hermetic to law.

???

Anyway, I agree with Del's conclusion that diversity is a good thing,
even though if it means that not everyone will always understand 
everything (never an expectation on my part anyway). As long as we are
all doing our best to be welcoming of questions, discussion, and even
a bit of confusion, I think it will be OK.

Karen