I think maybe a better analogy than drabble and foamies would be Press and Angel trying to exist in the same thread.

Maybe trying to do Angel deathmatch in Angel?

JenP has said what I was thinking about saying. I'll just point towards her and nod vigorously.

Heh. My analogy's probably faulty too, but my point is that with one really focused discussion (Angel episodes) and one that bounces hither and thither and yon- the hither and thither one will likely get eaten, and I think the Literary thread as it is does work for some people.

A concern:

Who will lead the duscussions?

Will it be something like Aimee suggests Boox about X, Heather suggests Book Involving Y, and Kat suggests Book Sorta Like Z and then the "participants" do a quick vote/BS concensus and then whose ever book is chosen leads?

I ask because I think that all precautions should be taken so that this thread doesn't turn into someone's personal treehouse and the vibe isn't the same as most of the other threads where enyone has the chance to lead a conversation.

Meaning, I would like to see all books have the chance to be discussed ad nauseum.

I'd say that part of the nomination process might be scrounging up a volunteer to kick-off discussion for a particular book, or something along those lines. I don't think we'll be having Poster X's modern lit seminar if that's what has you worried.

eta, I do think that it might be worth consdering if there's a way to have some overlap on the books we're reading so that we can get a good mix of stuff without it becoming too unwieldy. But that's a discussion that I think would take place in the thread should we get to that stage.

I just want to see if I have this straight.

People want to discuss X book in depth and great detail.

These people think that, far too much the thread gets "hijacked" away from their conversation re: X book.

Question: How is that possible?

I see it like this:

Person A: "I read X book and I loved it."

Person B: "I read X book too! I loved the blah blah thematic blah blah structural blah blah cookies!"

Person C: "I read Y book."

Person A: "Yes, Person B, I too loved the blah blah cookies."

I mean...just ignore the "Y Book" post and continue your conversation. It's not like at a party where Person C would see you roll your eyes or you'd physically turn your body away to block them from your conversation. You're not being rude, here. You're just talking as though Person C were across the room talking to themselves. And, likely, Person D will see Person C talking to themself and respond "Hey, Person C, I read Y book and the blah blah fishsticks and beer really appealed to me. Howzabout you?" etc. etc.

Given this, I don't see the need for a Book Club thread. Continue your conversation about Book X and let other people talk about Book Y in parallel.

I'm guessing the books up for discussion would be like just about any other book club- or see suggestions made in the link upthread. As far as who leads it- I pretty much saw it going down like episodes. Due date would be like the air date, and people would just hop in with "Ok, could Jane please stop addressing the reader!?! It completely takes me out of the moment, and makes me feel like I'm listening to a school girl." And then four posts later you'd have, "I found Jane addressing the reader to be a useful device, because she's telling you what you really want to know, without wasting time on boring exposition. You get caught up in her excitement rather than wondering when she's going to tell you whether they got married or not." And then we'd fight about it. I'm not really partial to anyone leading, but I think discussion will take it's natural course.

These people think that, far too much the thread gets "hijacked" away from their conversation re: X book.

Nono. I don't feel like the thread gets hijacked at all. I feel like we're all reading so many different things that we never really get past Person A and B.

ITA with MM. And I too was curious about the question Jessica brought up and withdrew.