Drusilla ,'Conversations with Dead People'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
But it had enough that it needed it's own thread. And while it wouldn't be dedicated to one universe it would be dedicated to one book (at a time mostly). With LotR, you have people who are interested in LotR- in either book or movie form. With a book, you'd have people who are interested in reading and discussing many universes. I think that has the potential to be a huge number of posts.
(Glad to be arguing with someone else so it doesn't feel like I'm harping on MM who I adore).
With a book, you'd have people who are interested in reading and discussing many universes. I think that has the potential to be a huge number of posts.
I don't get the feeling that it would, both from the number of people who've seemed enthused about it and from the reasons I listed earlier as to why I didn't feel that posting would get out of hand anymore than it has in the comics thread. Which is yet another reason to try it in the lit thread and see what happens.
The addition of the LotR thread, as MM said, was because it was threatening to swamp something already. In that respect, it was an organic outgrowth of existing discussion.
Book club, well, that's still an untested theory. If you're right, then it will be obvious to many that it needs its own space. If I'm right, then people have found a new way to connect within an existing space.
I can see that, but I'm also seeing a lot of people for it. I am ok with it being wherever, but it seems that a number of people who are for it don't think it will work that way, and it's not my preference. I think I'd rather vote with them since I'd like as many people to participate as possible, and if it's frustrating to the very people who want it that'd be counter-productive.
I don't actually have a position on whether the Lit Thread or a new thread are a more appropriate place to have a book club. Whichever makes it (a) more likely to succeed, and (b) less likely to cause problems for the B.org community as a whole, gets my vote.
But I'm a bit disgruntled at the continued statements about how the Lit thread residents are scared off by the big nasty bugbear of critical thinking. I appear to be in the minority on this, but it continues to rankle. Can we kindly stop patting some of the local residents on the head, saying in effect, "You're so cute, with your Bridget Jones and Georgette Heyer reading. Now go sit at the kiddy table while we grownups talk about Middlemarch."
Yes, I'm sure that's not how it's meant. But that's how it is coming across to me. YBMV.
Can we kindly stop patting some of the local residents on the head, saying in effect, "You're so cute, with your Bridget Jones and Georgette Heyer reading. Now go sit at the kiddy table while we grownups talk about Middlemarch."
I'm sorry if it seems to be coming out that way. In fact, I never saw the choice of reading material as being very relevant even to the original discussion that this idea came out of. It's not (necessarily) that some people want to read things that others don't. Part of why I was hoping that we could have some sort of overlapping structure, rather than one monthly book, was so that different genres or types of book could be on the table.
The issue with the Lit thread and the desire of some people not to mess with its current construction, to my mind, is that some people want a certain type of discussion of the books we're reading; others a) don't want it in that thread, or b) don't want it at all.
If anything I've said has sounded like that I'm sorry. It's not that I think they're scared off by it, it just sounded like something no one was interested in. I'm rereading the Lit thread now, to see how it came up, and why it was suggested as a seperate thread.
Part of why I was hoping that we could have some sort of overlapping structure, rather than one monthly book, was so that different genres or types of book could be on the table.I thought the different genre thing would be taken care of with different people making reccomendations for the books to read. I love the fact that if I were going to read a romance it might be one suggested by Susan.
Oh, I agree, it could be managed in a variety of ways. I'm just impatient.
Yes, I'm sure that's not how it's meant. But that's how it is coming across to me.
'Suela hits the nail on the head for me. Which comes back to what Jessica asked upthread. And yeah, we've gotten an answer that it's not so, but given timing or whatever, this DOES feel like an outgrowth of the argument that happened last week.
Also, people keep saying, "But during the kerfuffle it was clear to me that literary denizens didn't want deep discussion." To which I can only say, "REALLY?!" Cause the only thing that was clear to me was that a very controversial thing was said and people were insulted and were, possibly, reacting to that.
The addition of the LotR thread, as MM said, was because it was threatening to swamp something already. In that respect, it was an organic outgrowth of existing discussion.
And, I can't remember, but did LoTR happen before we moved? In other words, was it before we were paying for the light and electricity or was it after?
Also, I'm kind of offended, Cindy, that you have said that those of us who are against thread proliferation only seem to do so when it's NOT a thread we support being put out there. I'm pretty anti-poliferation. I post about it, inspite of getting shat on for it on a regular basis and I'm irked that I feel compelled to defend myself.
Until we figure out what is going on (and what is going on? How long is our contract for this server for? And how many more months of service can we afford?) and if we are ever migrating off a dedicated server, I'd like for the board to be as lean and fit as possible.
So, I figure it this way. If I'm thinking about voting for a thread, is it one that I would send more money to keep us on a dedicated server for? Is it a thread that fills a need not filled elsewhere?
And yeah, we've gotten an answer that it's not so, but given timing or whatever, this DOES feel like an outgrowth of the argument that happened last week.
Only in the sense that it was brought up as a side item.
Brenda said, "brenda: Am I wrong in thinking there was a certain amount of discussion of Joyce recently? There was a flurry of HP talk recently, too, though not having read the books I pretty much skipped that one. But for outside reasons, these were novels that were occupying the thoughts of a large enough group of people here that a conversation could be sustained. Maybe we need to find a way to encourage that with other works of significance, however you define that category.
But knowing what I know about the people here, their interests, abilities, and personalities, I can't help but think that there's something structurally lacking more than intellectually."
And I pointed out that a book club might help. It was about the structure of the thread itself, not the books that people were talking about.