Mal ,'Out Of Gas'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
3) Only folks who have read the book under discussion should participate in the discussion. Unrelated natter may be gently discouraged. (This item is not subject to change.)
Still sticks in the "this is not a moderated forum" craw.
Because, push to shove, this is not a moderated forum outside of the right-hand threads.
Common sense would suggest that if someone were in the thread, it's because they're wanting to discuss a book. There doesn't seem to be any reason to have CC&Rs about it.
Genre diversity and books from the literary canon that have stood the test of time will be strongly encouraged.
One of these things is not like the other.
You won't find a hell of a lot of science fiction that has stood the test of time. Or magic realism. Or anything written after 1980. Is the claim that no critically worthy books fall into these categories?
How's about I take it out of the proposal completely, but if the thread gets created we use Hec's language or something similar as a thread slug?
You won't find a hell of a lot of science fiction that has stood the test of time. Or magic realism. Or anything written after 1980. Is the claim that no critically worthy books fall into these categories?
I believe the "stood the test of time" belongs with the "literary canon," whereas your sci-fi and magic realism suggestions are perfectly copacetic with the "genre diversity" proviso.
Wolfram, I second that. If we don't tell them they can't natter, perhaps the atmosphere will make it obvious. Then we can practice forum moderation without saying we're doing it.
I believe the "stood the test of time" belongs with the "literary canon," whereas your sci-fi and magic realism suggestions are perfectly copacetic with the "genre diversity" proviso.
I took the clauses as being additive rather than independent. We support genre diversity, but only within books that have stood the test of time and are part of the canon. Did I misunderstand?
I think it's more of a union, so I guess it ought to be an "or".
But that might just be my tastes interfering with interpretation.
How's about I take it out of the proposal completely, but if the thread gets created we use Hec's language or something similar as a thread slug?
I like that better.
Genre diversity and books from the literary canon that have stood the test of time will be strongly encouraged.
You won't find a hell of a lot of science fiction that has stood the test of time. Or magic realism. Or anything written after 1980. Is the claim that no critically worthy books fall into these categories?
I'd like there to be an aim towards literary classics, with an eye on keeping the reading list diverse. But ultimately the group will decide what books to choose and how.
And, not to sound snippy, but I don't know where you got my opinion on "critically worthy books" from, because I'm pretty sure I've never stated it anywhere since I'm not really competent to have such an opinion.
What about the idea of the participants submitting lists of books for consideration? If we get duplicates, we'd have a good idea of where to start.
For the record, I'm thinking we test the system with something common and fairly well known, like "Jane Eyre" or "Wuthering Heights" or something. (Please not "Ulysses," I need to get my critical facilities ramped up first :) )