Subject: (urth) FAQery

From: David Lebling <dlebling at shore.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:42:02 +0000

Perhaps the FAQ idea could be moved along by someone (or several someones)
posting an actual entry or even (heroically) entries for the said document,
in the style which they think would be appropriate.

Most of the things I think about as FAQable are either very simple, with
very short final answers (example: "Who was Severian's paternal
grandmother?"), or require entire essays and even then don't always give a
final answer (example: "Who was Severian's mother?"). (Even the simple
questions could spawn an entire essay, if the author wanted them to).

To my mind, the ideal FAQ entry for one of the complicated questions would
require entensive research in the books and the list's archives to come up
with a comprehensive essay. To cover the range of opinion on even a "simple"
question would be a daunting task (example: Severian said he never forgets
anything. Is this really true?).

I'm not terrifically worried about the idea of a FAQ as a spoiler.  I think
one could easily do a set of hints separately from the longer, more detailed
"spoiler" answers.  I know my enjoyment of Wolfe has been increased by the
collective hive-mind of the list, even though every now and then someone
drops in a "spoiler."

Vis a vis the "Invisiclues" idea, I remember it as being hard work,
especially those first answers that were supposed to give a gentle nudge
without giving anything away.  All too often the first answer was a
wisecrack.

The "How to Read Gene Wolfe" document would also be extremely useful.  In
fact, I'd be willing to bet that NYRSF would publish it in an instant if
someone wrote a reasonably good one.  I'd even guess that if someone wrote
it and successively applied it to each Wolfe book in turn (_Castleview_
comes to mind...) he or she could monopolize NYRSF until their collective
heads exploded.

    -- Dave Lebling
    (aka vizcacha)

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