the survey

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

I visited FB now, because I read the announcement, because, while I
still can say nothing about the hard work of the Elves and Moderators
except: "Wow! You manage to keep this list polite and literate!", I am
not totally happy. 

I'm such a verbose reply-er that I'm doing it here, on FB. 

Frank D <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/916>:

<< Just one minor irritant for me is that, in general, too much of the
previous subject matter is being repeated. >>

Yes, I often wish that more listies would learn to snip. But that is
nothing new.

<< When you have two or three paragraphs of quoted text with all kinds
of pov's and topics, and then the current poster says something like,
"Yes, I agree!" or "That's not the way I see it,"  >>

Actually, that's a violation of the rule against one line replies,
especially "I agree" and "LOL". Two paragraphs of quote followed by a
reply doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as an original post and
ten replies dangling on the bottom.

Susan McGee <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/917>:

<< One of the problems with the list is its volume - don't know if you
can do anything about that! >>

Actually, for the last month or so, I've been very happy about the
"Post-DH letdown" because it has shrunk the number of posts to a
manageable size.

This week the Elves could have shrunk the size of Main List a little
by moving all the OT posts to OT list -- whether JKR should just shut
up, whether her statement that DD is gay will make the books less
popular or will give comfort to glbt children, what is the purpose of
sex. Then we could complain about the volume on OT list. But of that
discussion, only whether DD being gay WAS shown in the books or how
does it change what is shown in the books is really about the books.

<< I come and go on the list -- the last time I remember going was
because the level of virulent comments cast by HH shippers towards RH
shippers and vice versa. >>

There have been many episodes of group virulence on list. H/H versus
H/R was only the first I recall (and I think the H/H-ers were very
much more nasty to poor Ron than to H/R-ers). Multiple episodes of
Snape-lovers versus Snape-haters. At least one episode of Sirius-
lovers versus Sirius-haters. An episode of some people expressing
hatred (not merely disappointment) at DH. Quickly followed by the
current flap over the 'Dumbledore is gay' remark. 

I don't think I ever like the virulence, I dislike the nasty tones of
voice, but I more strongly dislike the repetitiveness. Not just the
endless "Is so!" "Is not!" posts, which some people call 'tennis
matches' because of the volleying, but the number of people who feel
compelled to join in. Poo, even I sometimes feel compelled to join in.

Susan McGee <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/920>:

<< I notice that some posters get to insert their political viewpoints
while others do not. >>

If I recall correctly (ELVES?), the rule against giving RL political
opinions on list (when on topic) was repealed about 2 years ago
because someone persuaded that moderators that we're all grown-ups who
can stay polite even when politics is mentioned. Some people CHOOSE to
insert RL political viewpoints and some CHOOSE not to. I choose not to
(except for the very occasional "You know I disagree") because *I*
can't stay polite while discussing politics.

Va32h <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/923>:

<< In your previous post you said the list was a little too mean
spirited for your tastes and now you've just implied that people who
complain about DH are out of touch with reality, emotionally
disturbed, mentally ill, and may very well attack JKR! >>

I don't see that implied there at all. She implied, well, pretty well
stated, that the woman on another list who spent two paragraphs
protesting that JKR mustn't make Dumbledore gay because Dumbledore is
God and a (male) gay God would only care about male created beings is
out of touch with reality -- and not because of that person's theory
about what if God were gay, but because of thinking that Dumbledore is
God, rather than a fictional character in a story. Hey, if DD is God,
does JKR have the power to make God gay?

She implied, well, pretty well stated, that when many adults are
writing hate letters to JKR (which I didn't read in the news because I
am a poor reader of news), some of them might move from writing hate
letters to physically attacking. That is far from implying that
everyone who didn't like DH is writing hate letters to JKR or even
posting "I hate Rowling. I wish she would die and go to Hell" on
maililng lists/chat rooms/etc. 

I fear that every celebrity is in danger of being physically attacked
by a deranged person, and Rowling definitely is a celebrity now. The
reason might be because Jodie Foster told him/her to do it (I'm
fantasizing that you're old enough to get the reference) or because
rich Rowling refused to invest in this person's perpetual motion
invention or because Rowling is pro-gay or anti-capital punishment, or
because Rowling killed Mad-Eye Moody, which whom the assassin was in
love. All deranged reasons.

<< It seems that every month or so we end up back in the eternal
Sirius V. Snape debate and I find that very boring. >>

See my last reply to Susan's first post for my opinion. No, don't,
I'll spout off here, too. It seems to me that Snape lovers versus
Snape haters is more endless than Snape lovers versus Sirius lovers.
*All* the tennis match arguments get boring to me, even the old (and
small) one about whether Hagrid's wand was really broken when he was
expelled or did DD just pretend to break it because he knew Hagrid was
really innocent and didn't want him to be deprived of a wand. (I don't
know why that person was so sure that it was DD who did the alleged
breaking -- Dippet was Headmaster then.)

Sometimes I find non-tennis-match threads boring, not just
tennis-match ones.

But I have this strong irrational emotion that, just as no one is
required to find all the posts on list interesting, no one is required
to post only things that are interesting to ALL list members. I have
such a bad emotional reaction to the word 'boring' that I try not to
use it myself. I get emotional when I read a post that says other
posts are 'boring'.

Carol <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/924>:

<< I expressed unhappiness with all the harping on the main list on OT
Chatter and was criticized for it. >>

I'm sorry, I don't remember that.

I *do* think it's pretty cool how you've come to terms with Snape's
death and post calm and reasoned discussions on the lists. Now I wish
I'd tried harder to work that into one of my list replies so you won't
think I'm just saying that because I'm about to disagree with you.

<< I wish she'd stop giving interviews instead of trying to play God
and control the interpretation of her book. IMO, once the books are in
print, they become the intellectual property of the general public >>

Well, obviously some people do want interviews, or they wouldn't have
entered the competition for tickets to her few live appearances or
read the news articles about what she said in them. 

*I* am one of those some people. I want interviews. I want all her
notes (perhaps turned over to Lexicon Steve to prepare an annotated
edition). I want that Encyclopedia (altho' she should have someone
like Lexicon Steve as editor). To me, so much fascinating stuff came
out of her head onto the pages, I want to check whether the rest of
the stuff in her head is also fascinating.

I agree with what you said about the intellectual public domain
(suppose Shakespeare hadn't been allowed to write about Romeo and
Juliet, or King Lear, or Hamlet, because all those plots were still
under copyright of some Italian, Giraldus Cambrensis, Saxo
Grammaticus; suppose Milton hadn't been allowed to write about Adam
and Eve because that plot was still under copyright to -- God's
lawyer, I suppose).

As intellectual public domain, I don't have to believe anything she
says. Including what's written in the books. 

<< I wanted more analysis of the text, not Wikipedia articles on what
constitutes a psychopath or how Calvinism differs from antinomianism.
Not that it isn't fine to bring in concepts from outside the text, but
it seems to me that it should be in relation to the text.  >>

Some of the quotations from Wikipedia are too long and should be
replaced by a URL. How long is 'too long' is subjective. I think that
the discussion of Calvinism and antinomianism was highly relevant to
the book discussion of whether being Sorted into Slytherin proves
you're evil. I think that discussing psychopathology is highly
relevant to the books in terms of understanding Tom Riddle and whether
he ever did have a choice. I like the range of things I've learned
from these lists.

<< I'd like to see those readers who are still fans of the books
closely examining the texts to see, for example, what motifs and
symbols and themes pervade the books, what we've overlooked, and so on. >>

I might be interested to read what you and others think about motifs
and symbols and themes. I'm not likely to write in that discussion.
Even tho' I read Northrup Frye's ANATOMY OF CRITICISM four times in a
row when my friend lent it to me when I was 30, there is a *reason*
that I've never taken a Lit class that wasn't required and I couldn't
get out of it any other way. I like the fanficcy things, like can we
figure out the principles by which Potterverse magic works.

I have no idea what is now the purpose of this list. I just figured
I'd stick around and find out. If it turns out that the new purpose is
a place for people to vent their hatred, I'll leave.