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.

Allyson and others have expressed some interest in how a book club would function before being able to vote on it. That's a really good question, and we have had many good suggestions from people as well as a link provided earlier by Cindy. Honestly, I think the details are best left until after a thread has been created. But since people are concerned about voting for a thread that'll be an unholy mess, I figured it would help to post some type of framework. As a barebones system here's how I envision Book Club working:

1) One book a month. The first 3 books will be chosen at the beginning of the thread by participants in the thread with at least a month of lead time for the first book, and every book thereafter. The method of choosing will be suggestions from participants, narrowed down by consensus and, if necessary, a Mr. Poll. Genre diversity and books from the literary canon that have stood the test of time will be strongly encouraged. Only books that are readily available at your public library are eligible.

2) Books will not be officially moderated. However, I expect there will be a number of books that certain participants will have a distinct familiarity with, and we will all benefit from some forms of benign moderation from those readers.

3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion will be able to participate in the discussion. Natter will be discouraged.

4) Items 1 & 2 are flexible. Item 3 is not.

I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of other necessary details for operation, but I hope this provides some sense of structure.

Just two other quick points.

First, Item 3, which I think is a necessity to a successful book club thread, is mutually exclusive with Literary. Discussion of other books in a book club (except to the extent that they relate to the primary text) is distracting and counter-productive, in my opinion.

Second, Item 3 goes a long way to preventing fragmentation. It's hard to be a subcommunity without natter.

ETA: above link