[Readalong] Administrivia

Thu Jun 13 11:33:30 PDT 2002

[Good questions, but I think we'll have to answer most of them by
trial an error or on a book by book basis.  That said, I'll give my
tentative preferences.]

Gaertk at aol.com wrote on Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:58:30> 
> How much are we biting off at a time?  I like the idea of
> doing one chapter at a time so we can really delve in and
> analyse the heck out of eveything, 

A chapter at a time sounds good to me, too.

> but there's a total of
> about 250 chapters (including interludes, epilogues, etc)
> which at one a week would take 5 years, even at one a day
> it'd take nearly a year.  

I think we need to resign ourselves to realizing we won't be able to
do that many of these intensive discussions a year.

> A whole book at a time wouldn't
> allow too much depth of discussions before moving on.  So 
> compromise with a few chapters? And how much time between
> chunks?

These are hard questions.  Tentative idea:

Schedule the start of a discussion at least one month into the future,
to give people who want to a chance to make a first pass through it
before going into deep discussion.  Also, I think many of us will want
some breathing room between discussions.

Then, aim to release chapters over the course of either 34 or 17 days,
which comes out to 2 or 1 or .5 new chapter each day.  But I think
this should be subject to adjustment in the middle of a discussion.
> What order do we do them?  Published, chronological, 
> alphabetical, random, Cycle?

I think I'd like to do _Paths of the Dead_ as soon as possible.

Besides that, I guess I don't care too much about the order.

- tky