I had an interesting exchange with one of the folks here, which I'll reproduce in part:
"All I can tell you about is whether I can follow the story and if it makes sense. Or if I hit a sentence that I have to read two or three times before I understand it.
Anyway, if you don't think having all this input will just drive you to distraction, then I'd be happy to read the chapters as you go along. I will be reading it on a different level than most of the others. While they will get most of the WN references, and enjoy the book because of them, I will not get most of them and therefore will almost be reading it like someone not familiar with the WNU. It will be interesting to see how the book is when you don't know all the really cool background information.
Does that make any sense? So does Pemberley work if someone only recognizes a few of the WN references and therefore doesn't know all the background of the story."
And my response:
"I think it would be great if you read it from the perspective of, does it tell a good story and does it work if someone is not immediately familiar with all the WN references? Also, I am trying not to overwhelm the reader with too many references, and am trying to slip the background mythology in as part of the natural storytelling.
I think you could also tell me if you think I deviate from Phil's style too much anywhere. It would be interesting to see if you can discern where I start writing. I am not actively and consciously trying to emulate Phil's style, but am hoping to capture or get close to it via osmosis.
I am comfortable enough with the state of the latest chapters to send them Phil and Bette; if I get input from you that calls for changes, I can still make them down the road."
So there you have it. I have two takers for chapters 1-9, so I will send them out today.