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?

I think I'm now convinced that this should be tried in-thread first.

I'd be happier with bullshit consensing, perhaps with a time limit, with Mr. Poll as a backup if we haven't gotten there.

Eta: I strongly believe that this will be a lot more difficult in thread (Lit, I mean) given the inherent complications. I'm not really satisfied with the idea of trying it out (though it would be better than nothing) because I think it'll more difficult and frustrating, and even if it then seems like a separate thread might do better, no one will have the energy to go through this again to get there. My two cents.

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?

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?

I think you'd want to build some flexibility into the selection scheme. Maybe select three months worth of books at a time. Then make another selection. Because each discussion might whet the appetite for something related/similar, or conversely exhaust the need for that particular genre/era/style for a bit. The key here would be to have a fairly simple, fair, easy to judge selection system.

I'd say, start by bullshit consensus, winnow to ten or less, then a quick Mr. Poll. Something like that.

Three months might be too few, but do I think it'd be a mistake to lock into a booklist that ran on for a year. I'd get discouraged if I didn't see anything I was interested in for six months, but I'd be more active if it was something we could revisit regularly.