The Mnemonic medium, as presented in Quantum Country (and in Orbit’s initial versions), asks readers to bind themselves tightly to the author, memorizing all their key points in the form they’re presented. This is a significant request, and it’s one which only makes sense when readers are willing to fully defer to the author’s authority, not just on the details of the content, but also on the question of what deserves (recurring) attention.
It’s a powerful stance to take when that really is the reader’s stance—perhaps they really do want to sit at the feet of this author and drink deeply of all they know on this subject (a mechanism for strong teacher–student bonds, as suggested by Gary Wolf). But it’s not a stance I usually want to adopt, and I think the same goes for most people.
As a reader, I do want a medium which supports authors in expressing their views as strongly as possible. I want to (have the option of) understanding exactly what they think is important, and how specifically they think about the material. But I don’t (usually) want to be shackled to that structure. I want my collection of prompts to feel under my control. For more on this: The mnemonic medium should give readers control over the prompts they collect.
Practically speaking, it’s very difficult for authors to write a text which is compatible with this kind of authority: Mnemonic medium readers sometimes feel impeded by authors’ wording choices. But I don’t think the right way to deal with this is with a “trap-door” for readers to use when they don’t like a questions wording. I think we should make the medium less authoritarian at a conceptual level.