[HP4GU-FAQ] Bit of a Dilemna with My First FAQ (response and general comments)

[Neil Ward]

>I want people to perceive the FAQs as neutral & unbiased.  Should I 
>solicit the group for thoughts on topics where we've got holes or
>just post it with the holes (and then people can respond if they so 
>choose)? 

I've just been sketching out all my FAQs and had some similar thoughts about
some of them.  I found myself thinking: 'Are we compiling a summary of the
discussions from the club or an encyclopaedia of the Harry Potter world
annotated by the club's thoughts?'

For example, from memory, I don't think we've discussed Minerva McGonagall
that much, so should I limit her FAQ to a brief character sketch and
discussion about her age, triggered by the fact that some people think
Maggie Smith is a bit old to play her in the film?  With character FAQs,
perhaps we can pose questions that appear not to have been discussed, but
leave them dangling; otherwise, we'll end up having to discuss every
undiscussed point in order to complete the FAQ.  

With some of the other 'item' topics, I guess we have a brief description,
followed by lists, as in Simon's 'Wands' example. These would have to be
drawn from our own research. I intend to do something like that for 'Charms
and Spells' and 'Magical Devices'.  I'll list them alphabetically with a
brief description of each, noting instances of discussion.  Where there
hasn't been any discussion, I will just leave it as a mention.  It doesn't
seem right to leave something out just because we haven't discussed it.
What do you think?

For the Casting FAQ, which is exceptional, I will list all the cast
characters, apart from the minor children, bearing in mind that some of them
haven't generated many suggestions or discussion.  Eventually, each one will
at least include the name of the actor chosen to play the part, and perhaps
a brief biog, but some will include a long list of actors suggested by club
members. 

Getting to the point [do I ever?]:

With your romance pairings, Penny, perhaps you could list those that are
really obvious and, if there is no discussion, just include a brief, neutral
summary of the context. For example, "Bill has been paired with Fleur,
because they made eyes at each other at the Yule Ball, signalling some
interest in each other".  I don't think we should attempt to address every
single undiscussed point or scenario by referring back to the main club.  

As nearly all the romance pairings are speculative, you do have a problem in
deciding where to draw the line with it if you aren't led by those that have
been discussed.  I'd stop well short of raising a Crookshanks/Mrs Norris
hookup, even if it seems possible. <g>   

Perhaps, when the FAQs are done, we could compile a list of questions or
topics that haven't been discussed or resolved and raise them during quiet
periods in the club.  Hopefully, though, as people refer to the FAQs they
will pick up on any 'spare' questions and use them to inject new discussion
into the club area. 

As far as we can, I think we should avoid repeating the work done by, for
example, Jenna's Encyclopedia Potterica and Steve Vander Ark's Lexicon.
However, it's difficult to avoid being a completist with some of these
topics, and there are holes in our discussions. 

Neil

            Flying-Ford-Anglia

 *****************************************

   "Then, dented, scratched and steaming, 
   the car rumbled off into the darkness, 
   its rear lights blazing angrily"

 [Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets]

 *****************************************