Dilemna with My First FAQ (response and general comments)

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

Hi --

Neil Ward wrote:

> 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.

I like the idea of posing questions that seem to be unanswered for
further discussion points.  And I think you're right that this is
especially true for the character FAQs.  By the by -- I did a brief
character sketch of McGonagall on another listserve (hpanonymous) in
response to someone's argument that JKR's female characters are weak.
Should I forward my thoughts or save it to raise with the group later?

> 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?

That's exactly what I pictured for those FAQs (as well as for
Mythological/Magical Creatures).  I like where you're headed with the
Casting FAQ too.

> 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.

Yes, right now I have it set up: Ron/Hermione, Harry/Herm, Krum/Herm,
Harry/Ginny, Harry/Cho and then "Less Touted Pairings" (Fleur/Ron,
Fleur/Harry, Fleur/Bill, Ginny/Neville).  I wasn't planning to include
Simon's Harry/Hedwig theory or the Crookshanks/Mrs. Norris or
Padfoot/Crookshanks, etc. in the "Less Touted Pairings" though .  <g>

I have an intro paragraph re: romance pairings are all speculative (and
silly to many people since we're talking about teenagers) but a fun
topic for speculation for others.  I wanted to include Ron/Herm first --
even though fanfic authors allegedly prefer H/H, I think the majority of
general readers still prefer R/H (and I didn't want to start out biased
by including my own personal preference up front).  The problem, of
course, is that for many people, they haven't thought too much beyond
personal preference.  People who identify personally with Ginny favor
H/G but they haven't articulated too many reasons *why* this pairing
makes sense.  But, it looks a bit silly to lead off with Ron/Herm and
have the "Arguments Against" section be double or triple the length of
"Arguments For."  <g>

I am a lawyer, and at least at one time, I was reasonably used to
arguing both sides of any given issue.  I suppose I could try that tack
& see if I can come up with creative arguments to support H/G or H/Ch.
I've already been as creative as I can in coming up with some support
for R/H other than "well, they fight alot so clearly they like each
other."  <g>

> 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.

I agree that we shouldn't re-create the wheel -- I wonder if a link to
Jenna's Encylopedia &/or Steve's Lexicon in appropriate places could be
a way to handle it.

Penny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hp4gu-faq/attachments/20000906/4aec7b68/attachment.html>