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.

---

Also - I hate to bring up the kerfuffle, but... several people in the current Literary thread have indicated that they're extremely uncomfortable with the kind of discussion Heather is talking about, due to a variety of factors: everything from fear of and discomfort with academic jargon (which I, pro-book club talky meat though I am, also dread - I'd far rather keep it smart but conversational), to an express desire to continue using the thread as a recs-only source, to a strong fear that deep analysis will kill their gut-level heart-and-soul love.

Jacqueline, that last one is me, and probably just me.

But it isn't an issue. I've unsubbed, I'm not going near Literary again, and that last reason, at least, can come off the table. It's a non-factor, unless someone else out there processes it the way I do, and dislikes the decon the way I do. And for some reason, I doubt that.

So, carry on, without that last factor. It's irrelevant.

---

It's a non-factor, unless someone else out there processes it the way I do, and dislikes the decon the way I do. And for some reason, I doubt that.

(I'm like that too. Wanna go have a soda with me??)

---

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.

Huh. This was enlightening to me, at least as far as how heavily perception influences things.

I'm stunned, seriously bowled over, that Kat feels shat on for her anti-proliferation stance. A feeling that seems to indicate a feeling of being in the minority, or at least of feeling beaten up all the time.

This seems so strange to me, as someone who was against some of the thread consolidation we did and who is not anti-proliferation. To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that creating any thread is an uphill battle, only because of the anti-proliferation camp, who has (to me) always felt like the most powerful lobby on the board.

I guess power, as well as being crapped on, is somewhat in the eye of the beholder as well.

Which is not meant to imply you're not beaten up for your opinion Kat, just that I have perhaps overestimated just how much pull the anti-proliferation stance has.

And yet, still.... It's the one argument guaranteed to come up in pretty much every thread proposal.

---

the most powerful lobby on the board

Don't you measure that by results? Results like, say, new threads?

---