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.

By the way, I apologize for being so hard to read this afternoon. I just got back from the optometrist and my eyes are dilated, which makes it hard to see and do text cleanup.

Personally, I'm willing to embrace a very catholic range of material.

So am I. In fact, would prefer a wide range of material.

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

I agree.

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.)

That's not really a fair inference, because what I'd like to see critiqued in the book club is not the sum total of books that are critically worthy, even in my own opinion. And I've never read either Trollope or Chabon (I'm not even sure I've heard of them) displaying once again my total ignorance in many things literary.

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."

This is not, not, not a charter. It's a jumping off point. There is no charter for the thread. I put up a basic framework for the sole purpose of addressing concerns that an unstructured thread is difficult to vote on. But all the items in the framework are totally flexible. If my list in the proposal is going to be given greater weight in the long run just because it was in the proposal, I'm going to have to take it out which will only make things more confusing.

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.

Okey doke. So, if there are 15 people interested in the thread, all or some suggest book titles. Does bullshit consensus make the book o' the month (or week, or year, or however long is decided...also presumably by bullshit consensus)?

And then how long is the book discussed before the next book? Is there discussion-bleed, like from one BtVS ep to the next?

I'm not anti-bullshit consensus, I prefer it, actually. But folks have felt marginalized by it in the past.

Is it Misterpolled? All the suggestions are gathered by, say, Wolfram (until he doesn't want to do it anymore and the next Dread Pirate Roberts takes over), who puts them into a poll, and voting goes on for however long, and then the book gets chosen?

This is what I mean by complex. Bookclubbing happens naturally in Literary when someone suggests a book and a few other people read based on the recommendation, and they all discuss it, keerect?

Or is this all about having a whitefont-free discussion? In which case, why not add a slug to Literary that once a book is in paperback, or been out for six months, it's fair game?

Oh Wolfrm you are truly now feeling the burden of the proposer. As the proposer of the some of the first votes to vote, I feel your pain. Synthesizing the ideas of so many into a coherant proposal is not an easy job!

I say a simple change in your proposal saying that the books will be proposed by the thread, and perhaps done in random order, starting with the bok which recieves the most proposals?

OR

everyone who wants to proposes a book puts n their name. The name is picked in random order. Then they propose a book of their choice, at least one month in advance of the scheduled read?

Is it Misterpolled?

Preferential voting, perhaps?