I would hate that structure.

I was not advocating it as much as sharing my impression. My impression doesn't matter a bit, as this was neither my idea, nor was it my proposal.

.......................................................

(The follow are general comments to all)

A. Book Club Structure
I think locking a structure down completely before the thread is approved (or before we embark on a club experiment in Literary) is counter-productive. I do think we need to discuss it, and have a loose understanding, but we have to be flexible, such that if we find something else works better as we're going along, we can do it.

1. Our Bureaucratic Blah Blues
I know some people want structure defined before the thread goes to vote, but I'm just looking at our past. The more rigid we are in this thread and bureau, the more people are hurt, upset, angry, turned-off, disgusted. The more we legislate details, the more unhappy everyone seems (at least it seems so to me).

B. Since When Do We Do This?
I have no problem (if this book club thing gets approved), letting whomever is interested, work out the details as they go along. With the exception of our voting process, and with another exception of defining spoilers (and procedures for handling them), when have we made people tell us how they're going to talk in a thread, before the thread is created?

This push for structure definition, is to me, another burden being placed on this proposed thread (the first would be insisting Wolfram insert an I'll-shut-it-down clause), that we never insist upon for other threads.

C. Fragmentation of the Community/Sprawl
I don't like it either, but I don't think the blame can be placed either only or mostly on proliferation. Sprawl happens on linear boards too (one-big-thread style boards). In some ways, it is worse, because people stop talking to the group as a whole, and only talk to certain folks.

1. Fragmentation when everyone is allegedly "together"
You know how whenever we get an influx of Bronzers (from a linear board, btw), there's some Buffista bristling at the posting style that looks like this...

Narrator: I saw Xander in a Speedo. Wet. Last night.

tiggy: When is Kane's new CD coming out?

Kat: My friend is now making her own knitting needles. They sound gorgeous. If I can get her to share a photo, do you want to see?

Plei, amy: Ben wants to start reading Batman comics, where should he start? He's 8 years old, if that makes a difference.

Betsy, deb: I need a good chocolate cake recipe for Scott's birthday. Any suggestions?

Nilly: When are you coming again?

UTTAD: There was a lot of talk about Daleks on LJ the other day. Are you sure you don't want an account? They're free.

Hec, JZ: Scott rented School of Rock. I know you took Emmett to see it. Can you please give me a run down, so I can decide if it's okay for all three of my kids? Is there much innuendo? How is the language?

When everything is kept together and it gets big, people stop reading the board/threads. They start doing a search for their names only (control + F), to find the people they were talking to and the discussions that interested them. As far as I can tell, we're still going to have sprawl. We already do. But without threads, it's harder to find the paths, never mind the highway. It's harder to both initiate and sustain conversation.

I think a lot of the sprawl is a damned if we do/damned if we don't, thing.

2. Admittedly, Thread-divided sprawl is also a problem
If we do thread, there is physical separation. There are cons. There is also the plus that when someone here is looking for a particular topic, the someone has a decent idea of where to find what. I know get bored with the same old threads all the time. Sometimes, I have to be pried out of Natter with a crow bar. Sometimes, I avoid it like the plague.

If we don't thread, there is still conversational separation, and it has the drawback of no organization. We know this. We see this in Natter. I remember times that Natter has gotten prickly, because group A is talking about Serious Subject X, and Group B, doesn't want in, so starts talking about Fluffy Subject Y. Group A feels like its an attempt to shut down their Serious Subject X discussion. And you know what? Sometimes it is. But that's okay, in a general conversation thread. And for people who like general conversation threads, we have Natter, and other non-focused threads.

Some Buffistas do like organization, and want to have a thread, at a threaded board. That's what all this discussion is about--having a thread at a threaded message board?

...

Really? people who were in threads first get to dictate how they run? I think it should be the majority.

Which, I should point out, is how we ended up with the situation in Literary as it stands.

Which, I should point out, is how we ended up with the situation in Literary as it stands.

Michele, please let it go. I'm asking nicely. Every time this gets brought up that there is an atmosphere of anti-deep-discussion, I get more and more insulted.

I absolutely agree with what Miracleman said last night: you want deep discussion in any thread, you start it. If there is anyone else who wants to participate, then that person will. If anyone wants to have a specific conversation, then the burden is on that person to initiate it and move it forward.

Which way, Michele? By letting seniority dictate, or by letting majority dictate? (I'm not taking the piss. I don't lurk there enough to have a clear picture.)

eta...

If answering this question is going to cause more hard feelings, I retract the question.

Well, Steph, every time someone claims that my desire to discuss (to take Consuela's example) Middlemarch is a personal attack on them and what they like to read, I get more and more insulted. So we're even.

Cindy, I meant majority. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Well, Steph, every time someone claims that my desire to discuss (to take Consuela's example) Middlemarch is a personal attack on them and what they like to read, I get more and more insulted.

I feel that they, too, need to let it go.

So we're even.

Petty, much? Does this make you feel better? We're not 5 years old. Discuss Middlemarch. Discuss Foucault. Discuss Robert James Waller. If there are 2 or more people who want to discuss something, in any thread, they should.

Son of a bitch. I had a whole post and I went looking for ita's entities page to do bullets, and the post is gone. Stupid.

I agree that we cold hash structure out in-thread after the vote if it goes in favor, but if people want a bare bones structure suggested to even consider voting yes, then I see no problem. Frame it as, "This is how we'll start, reserving the option to change any damn thing we want as we go:"

My suggestions, if I recall, were:

• Troll for a volunteer or three to wrangle logistics on an ongoing basis.

• To start, solicit suggestions (3 max, with a one paragraph summary of book/why you're reccing it, and whether you want to facilitate a discussion, or just let if flow freely. Other people suggesting the same title? Hash it out with them re: discussion style).

• See what suggestions come in, categorize as seems logical to the wranglers, pick a category for the month. Are there five sci-fi titles? Slap up a poll, and vote. Are there 25 titles? Have one of the trusted wranglers put all the titles in a hat, pull five, slap up a poll and vote.

• One book per month, with a completion/begin discussion date.

• Select the next book two weeks into the current book's reading period.

• Revise and refine as needed.

Wolfram's the one to make the decision about whether to modify the proposal, and, if so, how, right? That's a damn lot of commas right there.

ETA: (Look at those beautiful bullets! Damn.)

I would hate that structure.

I was not advocating it as much as sharing my impression. My impression doesn't matter a bit, as this was neither my idea, nor was it my proposal.

I was stating my reaction to that impression. I would think your impression would at least matter a little bit to you, but that is just me.

____

when have we made people tell us how they're going to talk in a thread, before the thread is created?

This push for structure definition, is to me, another burden being placed on this proposed thread (the first would be insisting Wolfram insert an I'll-shut-it-down clause), that we never insist upon for other threads.

I was reading the inquiries as people wanting to know how it would work so as to decide if they wanted to participate.

Not to this thread issue, but to bookclubs in general. I have heard of bookclub structures that sound horrible to me and I would never want to be in, others that sound very interesting. For me (I love how we have to use qualifiers like that constantly), the structure would be very important.

(Jen, for bullets, all you need is quickedit -- a * at the start of the line gives you

• lovely bulleted text)

If there is anyone else who wants to participate, then that person will. If anyone wants to have a specific conversation, then the burden is on that person to initiate it and move it forward.

or hope that a new thread will fill that need.