The State of the List Questionaire - Oct 2007

[Jen Reese]

Annemehr: 
> What really perplexes me is why some people are so upset to see the
> negative analyses. It's almost as though they themselves *know*
> there are plenty of flaws in plot and theme and they desperately
> want everyone to shut up about them so they can go on ignoring them
> as best they can. Okay, I can't say that for a fact, but it really
> seems so if, as they say, such posts are going to "ruin" DH for
> them. Otherwise, why not refute those posts, or pass them by and
> post something to their own taste? How could a post panning DH that
> has no truth in it *ruin* the book for them? It'd be like allowing
> the book-burning, anti-witchcraft loonies ruin the series for you -
> which certainly never happened to any of us before.

"Oh goodie, are we speculating about fans now?"  *Jen, missing all 
the speculation, peers over her spectacles at her current theories.* 

Except...I don't think theories about fans really gets us anywhere as 
a group, darn it.  Lumping groups of 'those people' under one 
umbrella dismisses meaningful experiences and fans the flames of 
resentment imho.  

Annemehr:
> In other words, methinks they do protest too much! Not that I want
> to stop them from protesting, really, but my point is I don't want
> the list censored to make them more comfortable. And the fact that
> this questionnaire is here at all makes me guess that this issue is
> one of the reasons behind it.

Jen: I see no danger that negative analysis is going anywhere!  My 
perception is negative views are the majority view on a list now, 
crowding out a certain segment of members in the middle who want to 
discuss both positives and negatives, but not in the current 
atmosphere.  

About the possibility of censorship, hpfgu is a closed group and 
freedom of speech extends only as far as the rules allow.  So *if* 
there's a decision to be made, it wouldn't be in the realm of 'will 
we become a censored group?' because we already are imo, but 'how do 
we balance freedom of expression with respect for other opinions?'  

> Annemehr:
> But there is another consideration that may be better addressed
> sooner, and that is the possibility of slightly redefining just
> what IS Off Topic.
<snip>
> So, I'm thinking that a conversation about the perception of body 
> size in society that is an outgrowth of a discussion of heavy HP 
> characters ought someday to have a place in HPfGU, because that's 
> part of what literature is *for.*  Meanwhile, knitting patterns for 
> Weasley sweaters and lively exchanges about adapting Susan Cooper's 
> works to the silver screen retain their place in the sister list.

Jen: I agree with your thinking about how to define what's OT and 
which discussions belongs on main vs. OTC.  IIRC, originially that 
was the idea when the sister lists evolved, only topics that were way 
off from book discussion were on OTC  Maybe after OOTP, with the huge 
influx of members and rising post volume, more and more topics were 
funneled off to OTC?  That's my guess, it seems like post-OOTP was a 
turning point for the group.