And, since the kerfuffle came up, I think the opposite applies...if you want to have a discussion about a book and somebody pops in with "Read that, hated it"...so? Ignore them. You don't have to respond. Edit them out of your personal universe and continue your discussion with whoever you were originally talking to. Had people done that, the kerfuffle wouldn't have happened.

Coming in late, but, no. If every time you try to have a discussion about a certain type of book, multiple people pop in with "Hated it, overrated, gross, monkeypants," then you start to think that maybe this is not a place to have a discussion about a certain type of book. If your deep deconstruction of Dick Grayson's butt as signifier* in the DCU is ignored in Other Media, or met with "I hate deconstructionism!", well, you're not likely to spend the half-hour it took you to write that post again. I am exaggerating here for effect, of course, but I think the point that was getting made was that the general climate in Literary was not hospitable to having in-depth discussions of literary texts.

Also, what JZ said.

Now, as you can see from Consuela's post above, the discussion ended up conflating "literature" and "critical approaches." (I was as guilty of this as anyone, by the way.) Mostly because it started with people turning up their noses at Moby-Dick as boring, as I recall. There's no reason you can't have critical approaches to Georgette Heyer -- heck, a quick Google search turned up an essay called "Georgette Heyer: The Historical Romance and the Consumption of the Erotic, 1918–1939," unfortunately behind a registration barrier.

In another on-line community I'm part of, there's currently a heated but nuanced debate ongoing over what the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy is (my favorite snarky non-answer: bad cover art vs really bad cover art). I have no dog in that particular hunt, but it's been a great read, including cited examples and counter-examples, some talk of the history of both genres, and involvement by "experts" and newcomers. I don't think from what I've seen of it that the Literary thread as currently active would have a debate like that, though you never can tell. A Book Club thread might might maybe fix the critical discussion part of the issue at hand, if it was extremely lucky (i.e., it beat all the reasons people have cited for why it might fail), but as long as people feel looked down upon by other people's desire to discuss Middlemarch**, it's not gonna fix the "literature" part.

• Don't tempt me.
• * Middlemarch sucks. I can say this because amych is too far away to run a sword through me. Thackeray, on the other hand, RAWKS!

I could be wrong, and we could all have a sudden, blinding urge to discuss books, but I suspect that like comics, the OC, Alias, or any of our other subinterests, you're not going to get a huge percentage of board participation, and I don't think that more dedicated server money is worth it in that event.

OK, I didn't get the thrust of this argument.

I think discussing books is something a lot of us want to do, but with all of us reading different things at different times, we couldn't. I think putting a book club in Literary would alter the structure of the thread- which is something else that would have to be discussed if we were going to go that route.

Seems like I counted new threads wrong, but I agree with what Plei said -- most threads that come to a vote, come to pass.

I forgot to note in my last post - I genuinely didn't know numbers, and I stand corrected that anti-proliferation has prevented more threads than have been created.

But the fact that my gut-check flies in the face of actual number bespeaks an effectiveness beyond mere hard numbers. And there's a pretty good reason for that - the one opinion that can be counted on to come up every time, and defended pretty strenuously, is the anti-proliferation argument.

Also, since our continued residence on a dedicated server has come up again, can I ask why we are still here? It seems we've been here far longer than we originally anticipated. I know people have jobs and lives, so really I'm just looking for an update, but seriously - is there anything at all that I or anyone else can do to help speed it up? I thought we'd be long gone by now.

One of the things that has convinced me to stay with this board, since I found it, is that I think pretty much everyone here has interesting and funny things to say. SO many boards become dull, but there's always something interesting going on here. One reason I'd like the book club thread is because I'm genuinely interested in what buffistas think about the books they are reading. I'd like to discuss that in a organized way. (Having said that, the word tautological scares me so I hope I won't have to post with dictionary in hand.)

On an unrelated note, could someone briefly explain the anti-proliferation fears? I gather it has something to do with server limitations and money, but since I've been here, I haven't really understood the impact of adding threads. What is the impact on the board as we add new threads?

Mostly because it started with people turning up their noses at Moby-Dick as boring, as I recall.

Actually, the spark that flamed the discussion initially had nothing to do with that. The whole ball got rolling when people were getting defensive about romance/genre fiction in the context of an article to which someone had linked.

But the fact that my gut-check flies in the face of actual number bespeaks an effectiveness beyond mere hard numbers.

Or it could mean you were just wrong.

why we are still here?

Because we're trying to work out the best way to go off. And I think we committed to a year, but my memory ill serves me there.

I think it's fruitless to try and tote up who resists new threads on principle and who doesn't, and who wins and who doesn't. It's irrelevant and divisive.

I agree with this too. At the same time, I feel like it's often an argument that's always sort of theoretical. Not that us running out of money or needing more is theoretical, but it always seems to be the next thread that will be the straw. I flip-flop between taking it seriously and blowing it off.

Not that us running out of money or needing more is theoretical, but it always seems to be the next thread that will be the straw.

I don't see it that way. I have a two-pronged dislike of additional threads, the first of which is the resource drain issue (where, like anything else, a thread here and a thread there would add up), and the second of which is the one Amych mentioned about fragmented discussion and further divisions in the community. Which is a lot hard to quantify.

And, since the kerfuffle came up, I think the opposite applies...if you want to have a discussion about a book and somebody pops in with "Read that, hated it"...so? Ignore them. You don't have to respond. Edit them out of your personal universe and continue your discussion with whoever you were originally talking to. Had people done that, the kerfuffle wouldn't have happened.

Coming in late, but, no. If every time you try to have a discussion about a certain type of book, multiple people pop in with "Hated it, overrated, gross, monkeypants," then you start to think that maybe this is not a place to have a discussion about a certain type of book.

This isn't the time or place to discuss this issue, but let me just say: no. If there are >1 people who want to discuss the nuances of something as obscure as 12th-century Sanskrit love poetry, then they should by god discuss it.

I don't remember anyone in the Literary thread saying "Hated it, gross, overrated, THEREFORE STOP DISCUSSING IT RIGHT NOW." Ever. If people have a negative opinion, they express it. Unless we need a Literary thread where people must refrain from posting negative opinions.

Maybe it's a case of people having thin skins about a beloved book being dissed.

This is not a board on which people shout others down. It's just not. Despite Hec's strenuous protests and snark, people *will* natter about cats for 300+ posts. His statements of "Cats are gross, overrated, monkeypants," don't stop the discussion about how Flufferkins chases the dust motes.

And there's no need for that to happen in Literary, either. If it's happening, it's because you're* letting it happen.

*(By "you," I mean anyone who thinks that in-depth discussion is continually shut down, not one specific person.)

To be honest, I think the actual DISCUSSION of whatever book we choose could fit into Lit without disrupting the thread too much, However, the endless, "What about this book?" "What week do we start?" I would rather start with something newer." "What abput female authors for the list?""I think those two novels are too close in tone, let's do a non-fiction book in-between" "Should we list previous works or something?" "Does someone want to provide some background information before we start?" will drive people bonkers.