Oops, sorry. Not being clear.
The single thread, one-book-at-a-time threads I've been a part of or have seen at various different fora haven't worked because it's hard to wrangle all participants, the time overlaps inevitable (if you say 1 book per month, there's a thing that happens that defies all logic and screws up the time) and then conversation piddles and dies out or overlaps and then dies out.
Eventually people get bored/pissed/aggravated and stop participating, in part because with a large group it's hard to come to a series of books that most people are interested in. The social imperative to read and participate, esp. in books you don't give a shit about, is less in an on line world than a meatspace one because it's easier just to opt out by lurking, where in a meatspace world, I find I'm more willing to read books I don't like (yes, you, Alexander Hamilton Bio) because the social compact I've made is such that if I go for months on end without showing up, they kick me out.
So, the result is that after a time people stop participating, or repurpose the thread into something akin to literary junior.
a time people stop participating, or repurpose the thread into something akin to literary junior.
At which point we close the thread. I would rather give it a shot than say "It's never worked anywhere else."
I think it's worth a try. If the discussions don't work for whatever reason, we can close the thread.
A couple of questions, then.
Do we want to open the thread on a trial basis? Say, six months or a year?
Also, how would books be chosen? Calli had some great ideas in the Literary thread on this point.
Also, ita -- how are we doing on board resources? Are we close enough to the limit that we really shouldn't even be having this conversation?
At which point we close the thread. I would rather give it a shot than say "It's never worked anywhere else."
Sure. Since we are so good at closing threads that have small yet vocal groups that hold them near and dear.
A better question might be, how many people are actually going to participate?
I plan on participating. I really like the idea of that if day 1 is the start date , but I don't finish until day three i can jump in then. However, due to the concerns I would like to open the thread on a trial basis for 6 to 12 months with concerns like low participation, board load etc counting.
to do it well we need a definition of low participation.
A better question might be, how many people are actually going to participate?
Hard to say. Even a show of hands doesn't really mean much. Could be it starts out popular and declines. Could be it starts out small and grows.
Also in the would rather give it a shot camp. Trial basis might be a plan. Six months, then put it up for a vote.
Any decision can be revisited after six months, including threads. We don't need to add a special thing for this thread, we just need to remember to think about it in six months.
Good proposal, Wolfram. This site might prove a good resource, if the thread passes, and we need guidance on how to structure it.
I think this is worth a shot, provided it won't cause technical issues. I would like to participate, if it gets off the ground.
Although I have no experience with this sort of thread on other boards, I don't think we're other boards. I have friends from other boards who have good experiences with their online book discussion groups.
Thanks to Mutant Enemy, we already have the [stick to this "episode"/break it down/pull it apart/see what's left/see what fits/where's the subtext/what's the subtext/what analogies does this story bring to mind/what tropes are used--are they used for good or ill/what's the message/what's the point] method of discussion down pat. Furthermore, we're a well read group, with a demonstrable, collective love of
story.
The good books in this world—heck, even in English—are innumerable.
Firefly
only had 16 hours of material (and one not-yet-in-the-can film) and merits two open threads, right now. Only four hours of
Wonderfalls
aired (although people can download some, and others have had access to all--it still only amounts to 13 episodes), yet it has its own thread. In at least a small part, the anticipation of it prompted an entire thread devoted to one Buffista (not saying Tim doesn't deserve a thread, I voted for it, and think he does. I'm just saying that knowing that which turned out to be four hours of entertainment for most of us, did help influence people to approve the thread). We have a whole thread devoted to LotR's series of three, finite films. This isn't a personal slap at those threads, or a request to close them. I lurk in all periodically, and have posted and/or do post in all.
And really? Although
Firefly,
for its 15 minutes, and
Minearverse,
for "Wonderfalls" 15 minutes, fulfilled the "If We Build It, We'll Get a Huge Increase In Traffic" prophecy, the other threads mentioned above have not. I think where both
Firefly
and
Minearverse
are concerned, we can chalk up much of the traffic to the following:
- VIP presence
- Premature cancelations
- VIP-posted cancelation announcements
- Active Buffistas being involved in save-our-show/get us DVDs-type campaigns for both
Firefly
and
Wonderfalls
Finally, from lurking in Literary, it seems like there is a need.* A subset of the regular posters in that thread need* a different sort of discussion than what is typical of Literary. However, another subset is quite satisfied with how the thread works, and it looks to me like those posters would be unhappy if the thread changed. There seems to be some palpable tension and unhappiness spilling out of this disconnect (and I do mean spilling out—I was made aware of it in an unrelated thread here). This tension seems to me to be between valuable members of this community (on both sides)—people who have been around a while (as opposed to people who are still learning how we work, and are trying to change us without knowing us).
Given all the books in the world, and all the bookish Buffistas, I just can't see it as overkill to have two book oriented threads.
That said, I appreciate that we have a controlled philosophy regarding the creation of new threads. I hate those boards where any user can start a new thread, any time his elbow itches. I only want to see us have threads that make sense for us. I don't think we need to be all things to all people. But I don't think our love of story is anything incidental to our identity.
* Granted, "need" is relative. None of us actually needs a message board to begin with. Even if "keeping in touch" is a need, we could all get free LiveJournal accounts, or leave for PF, or WXing, in the next two minutes. Certainly we don't "need" any thread. I am using "need" in the context of the discussion of what gets a thread, and what doesn't.
Cindy wins the Spicy Brains Award for today.
