The suggested plan (as far as I can remember) was:

Wolfram would pick book number one. DONE

Heather would pick book number two. DONE

brenda would pick book number three. TO DO

After that, we would randomly select the selector (like out of a hat, or something).

-t's book lists & recs. compliation posts are here:

-t "The Buffista Book Club: Isn't the Point of Computers to Replace Books?" Jul 14, 2004 3:43:11 pm PDT

-t "The Buffista Book Club: Isn't the Point of Computers to Replace Books?" Jul 14, 2004 3:54:19 pm PDT

-t's list of people who had recommended books up until that point is here:

-t "The Buffista Book Club: Isn't the Point of Computers to Replace Books?" Jul 14, 2004 4:02:32 pm PDT

Question/Request:

I think we had decided to link to these lists in the very first post (post #2) in this thread, but we didn't do it. Lilty, the next time you pop by, could you copy the info from this post into your post, please?

Also, I think we decided to post all the chosen books in that post. Only The Intuitionist is linked right now. Since we know the next book, we should put that information in our first post, as well (and once brenda picks book three, ditto).

I am neutral on whether or not we allow the selector of the month to choose one of his own books or not. That is, I think it's a good idea, but I also know we (Buffistas) tend toward getting to nitty gritty in our details, and then building a procedure that drives us batty. Either way though, I'm good.

What about new recommendations?

What about new recommendations?

What do you mean?

Well, we have a list linked of recommendations from the first go-round. Do we need to make any provision for new recommendations - particular days, say, or just a practice of gathering any recommendations that have come in since then before linking again? Or are we just sticking with what we've got for the next while?

I'm okay with whichever, just not clear.

FTR, I have no problem with someone picking their own rec - I just wouldn't really want to, myself.

I thought recs were always open. People should rec carefully though so we don't end up having 100s of books on a list that can only accomodate 12 a year. Should we require new recs to have a second or something?

I have a rec that I mentioned in literary to resounding silence, but it is worth considering and is a recent book (1999). Say Goodbye: The Laurie Moss Story by Lewis Shiner. It is kind of a melancholy rock and roll journal. I liked it very much.

I would say wait until the old ones are used up first, or use them for a set period of time- dump them, and do it over again.

People should rec carefully though so we don't end up having 100s of books on a list that can only accomodate 12 a year. Should we require new recs to have a second or something?

I agree with this. I think it should be made retrospective too.

I would say wait until the old ones are used up first, or use them for a set period of time- dump them, and do it over again.

I think there were like thirty-something recs before. That's 3 years to use 'em up.

What if we limit it to 1 or 2 recs per person until that rec gets used or withdrawn by the suggestor?

I like the idea of adding to the list of recs as we go. This gives the selector a huge list to choose from. If this is too overwhelming, the selector can just look at the first 5, or 10, or whatever.

Regarding Asher Lev, I'm about a third of the way through, and am loving it. Which brings up an interesting thing re: The Intuitionist. Both are pretty completely outside of my experience, and yet I adore Asher Lev. I have always loved Chaim Potok's writing. I've got to think that the reason I didn't like The Intuitionist is because of the way it was written rather than the subject matter. Although I have nothing in common with 1940's and 50's Jewish boys from New York nor with black elevator inspectors who are women, Potok has a knack for drawing me in.