And what about the argument (though it was in reference to a general tv thread, I think it applies) that general discussions make the conversation unweildy?

I think that this is more on the order of people multitasking in show thread when specific subdiscussions are going on. Like, Poster A is sighing over the angsty hotness of Wes; Posters B and C are arguing about the gender implications of the Wes/Fred romance; Posters D and E are asking the heavens why on earth Spike can't be integrated into the show better, etc.

I'm not actually convinced a book club will be successful, but that's more about the commitment required for people to participate. And if it does work, and/or encourage more in-depth discussion of both assigned and nonassigned books in Literary, then I think that's a success.

I'm speaking up because I, like Consuela and some others, get the distinct impression Literary is being portrayed as something that needs to be left behind for substantive discussion to take place -- and I take issue with that. We've had some regular Lit posters say they *don't* feel comfortable with in-depth analysis, which I entirely support their right to say -- but I'll also say the same thing I say in show threads, which is that I still feel entitled to engage in it.

There's also a set of regular Lit posters who have said they would welcome more substantive discussion taking place.

[edited to clarify what I was responding to]

well uh, ita is not the boss of the board.

No, but I trust her as Chief Engineer about our technical resources.

and letting democracy have its sway are kind of my take on it.

well sure and no one has proposed not taking it to vote.

In terms of technical issues? I think she is.

I'd still say no. She reports things and the whole community decides what to do about it. Now, the fact that most of us do not have the technical skills to code or fix the board, that limits our options.

Oh, and I've been meaning to post : [link]

some thoughts on online book groups as well as some links to some.

I don't think ita is saying that we're facing imminent collapse or even near-future collapse. Just that we may be top-heavy with threads when we switch from a dedicated server, and she's not going to support the creation of any new threads that may contribute to this potential top-heaviness. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, I do what she tells me, because she scares me.

I suppose if she got into a technical smackdown with Gud and DX, I'd have to pick. What a terrible thought.

In a show thread we are all working from the same text, so I don't think it's the same thing as your example. Which is why I feel like literary isn't the place for it- not because of the attitudes or preferences, but because it's a general thread.

oh Dana, fight with her, it's fun.

and letting democracy have its sway are kind of my take on it.

The problem with democracy is an inexplicable unwillingness to let me be a dictator. Also Burrell's law, which at first I didn't like but now I see the wisdom of-- if something is put to a vote, it's likely to pass. Most people without a horse in the race, IMO, will just let buffistazens have what they want, without considering whether it sets a good precedent for the future.

hayden and ita and betsy and others all make good points about taxing resources. But would y'all vote for this thread if it included a provision which stated, unequivocally, that if resources are being taxed (as determined exclusively by ita or whoever is monitoring these things) Book Club thread is the first one on the chopping block?

Because if that's the biggest opposition to this thread, I'll include that clause in a heartbeat. Seriously. I don't want this thread to be controversial solely on resource concerns.

Discussions of other books during a book club discussion is extremely distracting and counterproductive.

As I said before, I feel that's a failure on the part of the posters involved. If a discussion can't be maintained because of something shiny...

Let me repost Connie's analogy: Literary is a big room with an ongoing party/argument/bull session in it. In-depth discussions occasionally break out, and they're quite fun, but it's difficult to concentrate because of all the other things going on. Also, if you leave all your notes and materials on the table in the corner, sometimes they get messed up by the other folks in the room--through no fault of their own, of course. Table gets bumped, a stray breeze catches stuff, a drink gets put down on that carefully crafted comparison of James Joyce and Erica Jong and nobody else can find it.

And in the real world, if you were trying to have a real live book club in a library you'd find a quiet corner. A quiet corner.

I don't feel that asking the proposer to clarify how this new thread is going to work is an unreasonable request. For me, a lot of threads, like the general TV one, sound good in practice. Then we start talking about how it would actually work and I realize it would be, for me, a flipping nightmare and I'd never use it.

Kristen, see my post here.

I'm speaking up because I, like Consuela and some others, get the distinct impression Literary is being portrayed as something that needs to be left behind for substantive discussion to take place -- and I take issue with that. We've had some regular Lit posters say they *don't* feel comfortable with in-depth analysis, which I entirely support their right to say -- but I'll also say the same thing I say in show threads, which is that I still feel entitled to engage in it.

Not to pick on you Micole, but this reason to "speak up" is driving me nuts, and you're not the only one doing it. Book Club is not about Literary, it's not a comment on the level of subsantsiveness of discussion in Literary, and it will have no effect on that level if it's created. So why do people feel that they need to oppose the Book Club thread because it's a slap at Literary? I love Literary. And I want my Book Club.