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.

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?

No, not correct. Bookclubbing as posited for the Book Club thread is in-depth critical discussion of the sort that we have said on multiple occasions in this very thread, just in the course of today alone, is not easily handled in Literary. For the convenience of both the regular Literary crew--of which I am one--and for those interested in very focused, long-term ("Long" to be defined at a later point, using one of your multiplicity of possibilities which you listed for the purpose of finding asources of complexity) discussion--of which I am one--we thought that, gosh, a separate thread would be the best way to please the most folks.

I love the idea of picking monthly (or whatever time frame) moderators/discussion leaders, who then get to pick the book for that month (or whatever). It would be much less angst-filled, I think, than trying to consense around each book. And of course people could advocate for their book of choice, even if it wasn't their turn. It would also allow for trends, if people liked that. "Hey, we loved the discussion about X, how about similar book Y for next time?" or "Man, it was nearly impossible to get a good discussion going on A, maybe we should try completely different book B next."

I love the idea of picking monthly (or whatever time frame) moderators/discussion leaders, who then get to pick the book for that month (or whatever). It would be much less angst-filled, I think, than trying to consense around each book.

I kind of like this idea too, though it's got problems. There are people that might want to discuss a book, but not lead the discussion. On the flip though, there's an appealing element of the structure we have here for voting: you propose it, you write it up for the vote.

But I know there are books I'd love to lead a discussion on, and I'd feel a responsibility to make sure I was pimping something that I thought people would enjoy/get a lot out of, and be prepared to stoke the conversation along.

And to reiterate a point I made elsewhere, it'd be be swoonworthy to have Jen do Shakespeare's sonnets, or juliana do a Stoppard play, or Micole a classic but less-read fantasy (Lord Dunsany? The Worm Ouroboros? Vathek? George MacDonald?).

Allyson asks questions I've been thinking about, too.

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)?

I'd say, collect the title suggestions, limit to three per person, divide 'em up by category, genre, whatever (I'd have the one or three people who are willing to wrangle logistics do it; they could change from time to time). Then, pick a category, next month, a different category, etc. If there are 25 titles in that category (say, sci-fi), have one of the wranglers throw them in a hat, pick five, set up a Mr. Poll for two or three days.

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'd guess a couple of weeks, but I don't see bleed over as a problem if it happens. I think picking the next book up for consideration should happen about two weeks into the reading period for the current book. Or pick three months at a time or something.

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?

My impression, from what I've read here, is that it doesn't really happen that way. But actual Literary folk can chime in on this one. Or, you could be talking from experience in the thread, but it sounds more like you're asking. To me.

This is what I mean by complex.

Definitley more structured than what we're used to. I don't think it's all that complex, though. There are steps, and a routine that will likely develop.

Or is this all about having a whitefont-free discussion?

It's been mentioned, but lots of other issues are in the mix, too. I don't think the whitefont thing is a major issue. Right now. Though, because I just typed that? Might be now.

Honestly, though, I think trying to winnow, say, 30 book suggestions down to five, or whatever, will be tedious. I'd just as soon make part of it random. Thirty titles? Have someone hat-draw for five, bullshit consense or Mr. Poll those. Or Mr. Poll to get it down to five, and then talk.

("Long" to be defined at a later point, using one of your multiplicity of possibilities which you listed for the purpose of finding asources of complexity)

I listed what for the who, now, Connie? Or were you looking for sources to be a jackass to me?

And to reiterate a point I made elsewhere, it'd be be swoonworthy to have Jen do Shakespeare's sonnets, or juliana do a Stoppard play, or Micole a classic but less-read fantasy (Lord Dunsany? The Worm Ouroboros? Vathek? George MacDonald?).

But even with your vast reserves of charm and persuasiveness, you can't make any of them do it just because you want to. Which is why I like the idea of people volunteering to lead, and then leading on what they want to.