TBAY and diversity, continued and long

[Doriane]

Karen wrote :

> You've written some of the most interesting, thought provoking 
> posts in this debate.

(Del blushes deeply) Well thanks Karen !!

> 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...."

Argh, really sorry about that ! I can get stuck in my own logic 
sometimes, and not manage to see whether other people will follow my 
reasoning.

> 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?

My answer to that question is that we weren't aware of the bigger 
picture before. We were aware of the fact that TBAY was a problem, 
but I think we just assumed quite logically that it was its own 
problem, not the most visible example of a bigger problem.

As you said later in your post :

> 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. 

I agree, but :

1. It's pretty rare that *all 3* issues appear at once in a 
discursive post, while it can be pretty common in a TBAY post.
2. And even if they do, they are much less visible in a discursive 
post than in TBAY posts. I'm not saying they are necessarily much 
less *present*, just that it's much harder to figure out they are the 
reasons we might not understand a discursive post. IMO anyway.

Which is why I advocate that we keep TBAY on the list (yes, I changed 
my mind, that's what education does to me ;-), since it is not a 
problem in itself, just the expression of a bigger problem that we 
cannot do much about. 

As you said :

> 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.

Things like that can help shed light on some parts of the problem, 
which is the best we can hope for.

About symbols now :
 
> 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:
>
> Del, I certainly never meant to come across as condescending.

Huh. Sorry I made you feel bad, but I never thought you were being 
condescending, and I didn't mean to sound hurt, not this time 
anyway ;-) I was just trying to explain what my problem was, since I 
realised I hadn't been precise enough. Boy, it's SO HARD to get the 
right nuance of tone through sometimes :-) !

> I see now that perhaps that was a bit of hyperbole.  

Heh heh :-) ! When I read "hyperbole", the first thing that comes to 
my mind is the mathematical concept, not the literary one. Always 
gives me quite a jolt ;-) And it's just another example of how one 
word can translate into different concepts for different people.
But anyway, I'll iron my hands later (need them to type now) for 
having used an hyperbole in a discussion that required precision and 
exactitude. (Just kidding ;-)

About cultural issues :

> 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.

Nah, don't worry, you did a pretty good job :-) But it was a perfect 
opportunity for me to delve deeper into what I know from personal 
experience to be a not-so-obvious problem.

> 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.

The way I see it, there are 2 inter-mingled issues here.

First, you're right of course when you say that JKR is from a WCAS 
(Western Christian Anglo-Saxon, I'm sick to spell it out :-) 
background. Which means that in order to understand her books more 
fully, you have to be familiar with that background.

But her books are famous all over the world, not just in WCAS 
countries. Which means that many readers are not necessarily familiar 
with that background.

So what I was trying to exlain is that we on this list can assume 
that JKR wrote from that WCAS background, BUT we can *not* assume 
that everyone *is from* that background or even *knows* it. There is 
a very fine line here, I'm not sure I'm being clear, but this is 
important.

What matters when we talk to each other is not JKR's background, it's 
OURS. If I dare using my language metaphor again, it's like studying 
Harry Potter in French : we know JKR is British, so we know we must 
be careful not to apply our French background on her *works*. But we 
still study them in French, and we speak French among ourselves. We 
can use French idioms, French symbolism, French whatever you want. We 
can use our French background to talk among ourselves. We don't have 
to use a British background.

It's the same on the list : we each speak from our own background, 
which doesn't necessarily happens to be JKR's.

Of course, one could say that the fact that JKR's background also 
happens to be the background of a majority of listees is enough to 
determine that it is the "official" background of the list. I would 
understand that, and I could live with it. I already did, on other 
occasions, on other lists.

But I think HP is very different from most other lists, because of 
its HUGE international success. It's not like it was a success for 10 
or 20 years in WCAS countries before it became famous in other 
countries. No, the success was almost international right way, in 
barely 3 or 4 years ! So I think it would be doing the list of major 
disservice to make it less welcoming to non-WCAS people. We have the 
unheard of, amazing possibility of discussing a hugely popular work 
in progress with people from all over the world ! Let's make that 
diversity our good fortune. 

> 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. 

Yup, I don't see any other way to go. Any other ideas, anyone ?

> In that spirit, I didn't quite catch this:
> 
> > I am absolutely hermetic to law.
> 
> ???

LOL !!! Well, sorry, my mistake, I think this should have been "Law", 
with a capital L, not just "law". You know, the school subject, the 
stuff lawyers eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner ? I did maths and 
physics in University, so it's amazing to me when people get lost 
with "simple" high school maths, but if you start telling me about 
even the simplest basics of Law, my mind turns blank, and I become 
the female version of Crabbe (or Goyle, pick your favorite :-)

> 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.

Confusion, cacophony, havoc, yeah !!! So, has anyone finally figured 
out that I am a would-be Evil OverLady, trying to crush that list to 
smithereens ?

...

...

Bad Del, bad Del !!! (Sounds of fingers crushed in the door...)