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.

I'm a card carrying member of the anti-proliferation group/camp/lobby/whatever. Yes, I voted for the Minearverse thread and, I'm not gonna lie, it was for sentimental reasons. If Allyson sells her Bonnie and Clyde show tomorrow, I'm voting for an Allyson thread. I wasn't crazy about the WF Spoilers thread but I honestly can't remember how, or if, I voted on that one.

For me, my AP stance is based on two things. The first being the technical issues, which given our current home is less of an issue but could be an issue once more in the future though I don't know how much of an additional load a Book Club thread would be. It's not like anyone's going to be linking to it on the front page of Whedonesque. I hope.

The second is the community sprawl. We had a discussion fairly recently about threads have turned into subcommunities and what it means for the future of the Buffista Community as a whole. I'm not saying subcommunities are a bad thing but it's a thing.

For me, if this proposal had come to table because there was an attempt to have a Book Club discussion in thread and it failed, I'd be more inclined to say go for it. But, at this point, it's very much an unknown quantity and I feel a little like this is putting the cart before the horse.

Or it could mean you were just wrong.

Okay, wow.

And to think my primary participation in this discussion was to comment about differences in perception, and now I'm getting the big smackdown for it?

Whatev.

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 this one I get really. It was how I felt about the Music thread. I was assured that it wouldn't mean music would only be discussed in that thread, just that people wanted a place to really get down to discussing music. I want a place to really get into discussing a particular book, any book, really. I'll read Spider Robinson if you guys tell me to. Literary hasn't been that place. I suppose it could be, but can we agree that it would change what the thread has been?

I'm probably not reading it correctly, though, so I'll ask for clarification: do you mean that in-depth discussion about books is not happening, and that's what you want to change? (My brain parsed it as "in-depth discussion about books is not happening in Lit, and that's what I want to change.")

My brain intended it as "there is not lenghty discussion of one book at a time, (shorthand, book club), and that's what I want to change by creating a Book Club Thread." My point was, yeah, we could do it in Lit. We could also do it in a separate thread. Kat's question was, would the new thread meet a need that's not being met (not saying it couldnt' be met in a current thread, just that, right now? Not.). For me, the anwer is yes, the new thread would meet that need that is not currently being met (not that it's the only way but it is one way. As it happens, my preferred way). What? You couldn't get all that from what I wrote?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Our situation as a community, and as a board, has changed drastically from the days when the default answer to any interest was to create a thread.

I do, from time to time, support the creation of new threads. Usually if there isn't a space that fits the need exant. But I've been around literary since WX, and believe that not only can it accommodate such discussion, it would be a logical outgrowth of the thread, which has in its time supported extended discussion on the nuances of Trollope.

And, to be fair, I couldn't get all that from "Board not called Bookistas." I didn't get why that would be an argument against a book club thread when the board, called Buffistas, does accommodate so many other interests with individual threads. ETA: Eh, you know what? In re-reading, you actually did explain a bit about what you meant in the next line. I knee-jerked some on that one, I admit.

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.

I think there's some confusion about what different people mean by "in-depth discussion." (Or, at least, I'm confused.) To me, it means people talking for awhile about the same book, and having some sort of sustained discussion going beyond "I like it," "Me too!" "I don't." So, discussing characters, plot, whether it would have been better with a different ending, whatever. Are you using it to mean something more specific?

No Hil, that's what I meant.

ETA- actually perhaps a little deeper than characters and plot. Interpretations, meanings (in all forms) is more what I was going for.

I think I use "I like it" "Me too" as shorthand for the surface discussions that go on in there mostly.