Subject: (urth) TBOTNS FAQ

From: Christy <cglst7+ at pitt.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:05:49 +0000

I've been eavesdropping on this FAQ conversation (though I fear it's
dying down) and I can't help but feel that there is a skewed approach
being taken to the project.

Is it the duty of the FAQ to initiate one into the "mysteries" of TBOTNS?
Or to initiate one into the method of reading Gene Wolfe? The curious
system of Wolfe infers a lot of assumed knowledge that, time and time
again, we have proved that we don't have. So the chance of a neophyte
having it is even slighter.

So: shan't we we give readers a better sense of Wolfe's background, so we
know the mind we are up against when we interpret? Shan't we quote
interviews and essays when coming up against the rough stuff? Shan't we
familiarize FAQ users with the Gene Wolfe leitmotifs/literary topoi:
ancient Greeks, British Isles mythology, old school SF, Borges and Poe,
etc? Shan't we stick to solid ground rather than the drag-out debates, for
example the continent one?

I would help with the FAQ where needed, and I feel that a lot of us are 
saying the same. I volunteer =mantis= for the chair. If we were in a big
Congress and I were sitting next to him, I would raise his hand forcibly
when the issue was raised. After all, he's the only one here who has got a
book under his belt, vanity press or otherwise.

In any case, I feel like the FAQ should tell us something more of Gene
Wolfe, what he has written, what philosophies he has expressed, who he IS 
and how much of himself he has thrown into his work, before any
speculation is made to who Severian's parents are and what Wolfe's
pantheons consist of.

				-C-

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: William H. Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:41:21 +0000

Christy <cglst7+ at pitt.edu> wrote:

>Or to initiate one into the method of reading Gene Wolfe?

Neither. A FAQ is a list of frequently asked questions and their answers.
It is a device invented to prevent people from posting the same question
over and over in a newsgroup (at which task is has generally been a notable
failure) and to relieve other people from having to reply with the same
answer over and over or ignore the question (at which task it is a fair
success; of course the response, "read the FAQ" must be posted over and
over, but this is a lot less effort).

(I am basing the above on my experiences reading newsgroups back when I
used to do this a lot, years and years ago. Someone else's experiences may,
of course, be quite different.)

What you are talking about, Christy, is not a FAQ. I would say it sounds
like a books or at least a collection of essays. Perhaps it is mantis's
book; I don't know if he covers all the ground you mention, I haven't yet
decided to buy a copy. If it does, perhaps mantis would provide us with a
group discount and send a copy to everyone on this list (lurkers included)
<G>.

William Ansley

---

From: Fr.Inire <inire at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:54:18 +0000

--- "William H. Ansley" <wansley at warwick.net> wrote:
><snippo>

	But I can see where Christy may have gotten that idea
from the 'debate' so far (as i read it, anyway). The
FAQ is starting to sounds like a episode of Dueling
Dogmas for the list and Wolfean knowledge, and not
really an expansive attempt to help experts and
neophytes alike gain some context or coherency when
they have a question about some twist or turn or
another. 
<snip>
> group discount and send a copy to everyone on this
THAT is an excellent idea. I already have my copy,
natch ;->, but it is a useful and comprehensive
listing. Philosophy and generalities are not it's
strength, but for anyone who took the time to sign up
for this list, it is required (IMNSHO).

=====
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Miller
"The idea of verifying facts about the world through controlled repetition seems alien to just about everyone with the _possible_ exception of Fr Inire, and he's a bug-eyed space monster
 . . ."-Jim Henley

Heavy Gear Swap @ http://freecenter.digiweb.com/games/severian/meet.html
Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!        '82 GS650G
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

---

From: Cass Peterson <cpete at nb.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:34:11 +0000

Christy wrote:

>Or to initiate one into the method of reading Gene Wolfe? [...]

The latter, please. Some of us neophytes would prefer to discover the 
mysteries on our own, but would be grateful for any planar or other 
geographies.

 >The curious system of Wolfe infers a lot of assumed knowledge that, time 
and time

That's not an entirely safe assumption, albeit a rational one.

Cass

---

From: Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe at apocalypse.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 19:01:00 +0000

>mysteries on our own, but would be grateful for any planar or other

What people don't seem to realise, and I keep trying to explain, is that it
is possible to have *both* a list of hints for reading Wolfe, and a list of
suggested answers that do not spoil the fun of neophytes, simply by
encrypting the answers. Alternatively, one could have one document for
questions and hints, and publish the suggested answers in another document
altogether -- a low-tech, even no-tech way of assuring that people who want
to see the answers can, and people who don't want to don't have to.

There's no reason to tailor the FAQ only to novices. Some of us want
intelligent discussion of substance to arise from this, not just vague
I-know-more-than-you-do hinting. Those who insist that no answers be
published *anywhere* are declaring, "Someone is having some fun somewhere,
and this must not be." (That's what the Puritan Brother said when he
learned there was dancing in Ceylon.)

Ron
--
Ron Hale-Evans: rwhe at apocalypse.org  ... <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/>
Center for Ludic Synergy:        <http://www.ludism.org/>
Kennexions GBG artgame:          <http://kennexions.ludism.org/>
Hexagram-8 I Ching Mailing List: <http://www.apocalypse.org/~rwhe/hex8.html>
Positive Revolution FAQ:         <http://www.ludism.org/posrev/>

---

From: Fr.Inire <inire at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 21:21:18 +0000

--- Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe at apocalypse.org> wrote:

> encrypting the answers.

    For some reason this in practice may be really
cool, but the I-know-more-than-you thing seems to be
embedded in the idea of encryption. perhaps the
practice will be different. One can hope!

 Alternatively, one could
> have one document for

    I can't speak for Christy, but for myself the
argument is not whether to answer or hint (though
would we call the one version FAH for Frequently
Answered Hints? ;->). It _is_ about making the info
accessible, in whatever form it is portrayed, to
everyone.

> learned there was dancing in Ceylon.)
No Debate there! It should not be dumbed down, but at
the same time it need not all be written  as if the
reader is asumed to have read and memorized all of the
various books and events therein. In some FAQs this is
self regulating; I look for the simple question and
find it, satisfied with the info. The advanced
questions dazzle me, and some part may be recalled for
later, and just having them there makes it accessible.

=====

---

From: Christy <cglst7+ at pitt.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:48:50 +0000

Thanks to Will Ansley for the FAQ definition. There is the certain amount
of questions that we all could plausibly furnish answers to. "Who is Gene
Wolfe? Did he invent Pringles? Are there any Gene Wolfe Reading Aids?
Where do I get his rare books? Bibliography?" etc. I don't think that any
of us are much worried about the answers to these, as they are readily
and happily corrected, and should not involve a lot of ego.

Ah, it is the rest! And here is the heart of the matter: how can we agree
on a body of questions that are indeed pressing, but that can also be
elucidated by the present body, unified? I daresay I think I know the
answer.

There is a point of diminishing returns in this area, and it is most often
where we are not as learned as Wolfe. We of the list have shown that
breaking point, time and time again, sometimes almost comically. Sometimes
where an obscure literary reference or theological wisdom would do, the
OED or a Greek or Latin dictionary will not suffice. This much is clear.
Will we ever know how deep the name of Terminus Est truly goes? Probably
not. With this, as with most topoi Wolfe delights in, we will never know
the whole story, and that's why we love it like children do. And perhaps
we can speculate when we look up the sword in a Latin dictionary. But it
also helps to know that Terminus was the Roman god of landmarks,
boundaries.

Likewise, in the Lexicon Urthus, Mantis speculates as to what Universal
Death is: common sense generates a few possibilities. But if you read
"Universal History" in Borges' Book of Fantasy, as Wolfe no doubt did, you
could eliminate all but one. This is where I feel we have synergy, and
where we can do some real good in interpreting Wolfe: providing a solid
base of information (and not as much speculation) from our varied
backgrounds and erudition.

What I've learned from reading Wolfe is: almost everything, every word,
has its place. Wolfe sometimes assumes we have read everything that he
has, and as such are equipped to unravel his work with a careful reading,
but, more often than not, such is not the case. We do not live in a
perfect world.

Now I've gotten off the beaten path. The FAQ is a good, great idea, it
demands to be done. We already have the Lexicon Urthus and this list.
Perhaps the best first step is to propose a set of questions. Since Will
Ansley knows about such things, I nominate him.

					-C-