From: Christy <cglst7+@pitt.edu>
Subject: (urth) TBOTNS FAQ
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 14:05:49 



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/