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 :) )

Personally, I'm willing to embrace a very catholic range of material. You can have substantive book club discussions on genre books too - as long as the text will support it. How do you determine which books have the necessary complexity and depth to encourage deeper discussion? I think that will be part of the advocacy of the person recommending that book, and they need to back that action in the thread.

"Chandler's mysteries are one of the cornerstones of the hard-boiled genre, but his use of simile, and attention to language, and his dark portrayal of capitalist culture distinguish his works from his pale inheritors. In his famous essay on the subject, Chandler said, 'Down these mean streets a man must walk who is not mean...'" La la la, like that.

Better not to have a hard rule, but more of a "show me this can sustain discussion" attitude.

I inferred that you considered some books more critically worthy because only some books would be permitted to be critiqued. If the book club is allowed to critique Trollope but not to critique Chabon, that's what I meant by judging T but not C critically worthy. (And I chose that example because I like both writers, but do not consider the second canonical.)

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.

If it's part of the group's charter that it's focusing on the canon, then there's more going on than "ultimately the group will decide."

I agree with Plei; I don't like the precedent of starting a non-administrative thread with the idea that natter is explicitly forbidden. Note that we just spent a happy afternoon in Movies discussing the historicicity of stirrups and of the various King Arthur legends; this was sparked by the forthcoming King Arthur movie, which none of us have actually seen. This sort of thing seems to be explicitly forbidden in the proposed Book Club.

Hate to say it, but this is all sounding a bit... bureaucratic.

Let me posit this: perhaps this whole endeavor should be "field tested" for a little while, in Literary, LJ, e-mail or wherever, get an idea of what you want to do, how it actually works and where the two hit a groove, and worry about making it "formal" later.

Because my suspicion is we'll go through a lot of burnout and effort for very little if we try to work it all out in advance.

I've incorporated the recent changes suggested into the amended proposal here

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?

Betsy, please ignore my previous snippiness. I've changed the line to read and/or in the proposal.