[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: SnapeFAQ update

[Amanda Geist]

Reading down your thoughts, Cindy....what about classifying the ones we have
now as "Book 1-4 FAQs" and then making sets of FAQs that we come up with
after each subsequent book? We preserve the historical value, we don't end
up with a FAQ that would take a bank of computers to store, and we preserve
any authorial integrity (or some of it...the Snape FAQ update is still "book
1-4").

Thoughts?

~A

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
To: <HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: SnapeFAQ update


> Amanda suggested:
>
> <snip praise for Snape FAQ>
>
> > With respect to (2)--I am unwilling to mess with another author's
> >material without permission, and Porphyria wrote the superb
> >standalone essay.
>
> I'm of two minds about this, honestly.  On the one hand, I like the
> idea of not monkeying around with someone else's original.
>
> On the other hand, I would hate for someone doing an update to feel
> constrained by what is already on the page.  Sometimes I find it
> harder to edit/update/improve what someone else wrote than it would
> be to start from scratch.
>
> On the third hand, some of the existing FAQs won't be strictly
> relevant after OoP, but have historical significance, if you will.
> The "Predictions" and "Mysteries" FPs will be totally different after
> OoP, and it would be nice to preserve the originals because it might
> be entertaining to look back to past theories.
>
> One solution might be to leave it to the discretion of the FAQer
> doing the update.  In some situations, the writer may wish to start
> from scratch, but in others, the original material could be worked in
> as a separate section or, as Amanda suggested, the new material could
> be appended to the old.
>
> On balance, though, my feeling is that the current FAQ writer
> probably shouldn't feel too constrained in how they handle things.  I
> remember that when Pippin and I updated the "Mysteries" FP, we just
> changed it around, continuing to give credit to the original author.
> We didn't keep various theories in the original intact simply for the
> sake of doing so.  Other approaches would have worked, of course, but
> the FPs can be very long, so perhaps there is merit in trying to
> produce one cohesive updated FAQ.
>
> Am I straddling the fence?  Yup.
>
> > And could the management please hurry up and pay for my Kwikspell
> > subscription? I need to know how to embed links and stuff.
> >
> > ~Amanda
>
> Ah.  Another vote for "squib."  ;-)
>
> Cindy
>
>
>
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>