Fans of British Writers discussion
Group news and business
>
Common reads
message 51:
by
Werner
(new)
Jan 31, 2013 06:37AM
Well, since we've had no objection to the idea, we'll make it official: if you want to take part in our February common read, you can read either Fated or Murder on the Orient Express. (Or both, if you feel like it and have time!)
reply
|
flag
It's been suggested (if I understood James' intention clearly?) that we do a common read/discussion of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility. If that's okay with the rest of the group, I've tentatively scheduled that for next month (participation to be voluntary, of course). Does that meet with general approval?
This month, I've gone ahead and set up Sense and Sensibility as a common read for this group; that idea wasn't discussed on this thread, but I did broach it earlier on the thread for the book itself. There were no objections, and some people have indicated interest. Apologies if anyone feels the decision was too rushed and top-down, being made as it were by fiat and without a poll! Since we had one person really enthused about the idea, I thought that enthusiasm deserved to be encouraged.James MacAlpine volunteered to serve as designated discussion leader for this read. So, James, we'll let you lead off the discussion, on the appropriate thread!
Cleo recently broached the idea, for future reads (if we do any), of having a separate discussion thread for each part of the book during the time frame that we're discussing that particular portion --at least, providing the book is one that lends itself to extensive discussion. She felt it would be easier to follow the comments that way, and keep them straight by what part of the book they relate to.I've taken part, a couple of years ago, in a common read in another group where this method was used. It's not a method you could use for discussing just one chapter a week, IMO, unless the book only had four chapters or so, or unless we were prepared to extend the read for several months; but it's possible to set up separate threads for particular blocs of chapters, and to set up more of them than one a week.
One drawback I see to this approach is that, though it makes for less posts per thread, it makes for a lot more threads per book; the discussion is much less unified, and requires thread-hopping to follow all the way through. Then too, some comments may be more general ones that relate to more parts of the book than just one. This method also presupposes that we'll all read at a fairly unified pace, which I'm not sure always actually happens in practice.
What are your thoughts about this idea? You're all welcome to share now, or just be thinking about it as something we can discuss if we do a common read next year (or whenever). As Cleo indicated, it's not an approach we'd have to use every time; it may depend on what we choose to read.
Werner wrote: "Cleo recently broached the idea, for future reads (if we do any), of having a separate discussion thread for each part of the book during the time frame that we're discussing that particular portio..."I am new to the group...but think Cleo's idea is a good one. I had a hard time figuring out how to post at first. You are probably right about posting threads of blocks of chapters rather than one at a time. Do you only do 1 common read per year? The discussions are sometimes way over my head but i still enjoy them.
Janet wrote: "Werner wrote: "Cleo recently broached the idea, for future reads (if we do any), of having a separate discussion thread for each part of the book during the time frame that we're discussing that pa..."Hi to everyone!
Janet, it happened exactly the same to me. I was unsure on how to post (and the subjects discussed were out of my depth, I read Sense and Sensibility a lot of years ago!).
It would be nice to start a thread for each chapter, at least for me!
Janet wrote: "Do you only do 1 common read per year?". Good question, Janet! Prior to this year, we never did any. :-) When we discussed the future of our group last year, some people indicated it was an idea they'd like to try; so we took a stab at it for the month of February, and wound up with two alternate choices instead of one (mostly because I was asleep at the switch, and discovered that Fated was too new for members to easily get by interlibrary loan only after it was voted in as the first selection). The current common read came about more as a sudden, and top-down, decision; we had one member who was very anxious to do the read and had actually set it up on the "currently reading" bookshelf as one before I knew about it. I thought that since we had at least one person who was that enthusiastic, we'd go ahead and try it; but in the future, I think we'll try to first get more of a consensus before scheduling one.Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for an annual read; if we do them much more frequently, they can interfere with people ever being able to read books of their own choosing, especially if we're also in other groups that do common reads. (True, participating is voluntary; but some folks may feel pressured!) The Supernatural Fiction Readers group does an annual common read every October, with an option for members to suggest other reads at other times if they want to (so far, nobody has). That policy seems to work well for that group. But this is a different group that can have its own policy, depending on what you all want to do!
Thanks for the information about how the group works Werner. Yes, I suggest we do two per year! I have also joined another Group with common reads and of course have my own "To read" list.
Janet, I think most of us have "to read" lists that look about like the accession list for the Library of Congress! :-)
Werner wrote: "Janet, I think most of us have "to read" lists that look about like the accession list for the Library of Congress! :-)"You bet Werner, you bet!
lol....i guess true for all of us...though i doubt mine is that large..Washington D.C. is on my "To See" List though.
Janet wrote, "I suggest we do two per year!"So far in 2013, we've already done two or, depending on how you count them, three. (Of course, the threads stay open, and discussion is still continuing on the Sense and Sensibility thread in particular.) As we look ahead to 2014, I'd propose that we schedule a common read every March, starting then. There's an advantage, IMO, to agreeing beforehand on doing one and when, so that our discussion can focus on what we'll read, not whether or when. :-) That would give us January to brainstorm together about possible titles, and February to post a poll and give people time to get a copy of the winner. (And I'll be better organized at doing my part next year as well!) Later in the year, if anyone would like to do a second common read, he/she can broach the idea on this thread and we'll sound people out and go from there. That, I think, would marry the advantages of flexibility to those offered by a more fixed schedule. How do you all feel about that idea? (Be warned: in legal circles, the rule of thumb is "Silence is consent!")
That sounds fine to me Werner. I'll be looking forward to it!
Our poll on the question of doing an annual common read in March closed earlier this week. (I thought I'd posted about the poll here in this thread when it first went up, but apparently I didn't. :-( I know that everyone got a general invitation to vote as a personal message, though!) With 10 "yes" votes and not a single 'no," the ayes have it. We can start brainstorming about what to read in January, after the holidays.
With our planned common read coming up in March, it's not too early to start to do some brainstorming about what book to pick, or at least what books to put in the poll next month. The nominees that weren't chosen last time we had a poll were The Eyre Affair, Master and Commander, and Great Expectations; but with only one vote apiece, none of them commanded a real groundswell of support. In the discussion on this thread last year, I'd also mentioned Lady Audley's Secret, The Riddle of the Sands, and the series opener (which I no longer own) for Bernard Cornwell's Starbuck Chronicles; but none of those seemed to gain any real traction.Right now, I don't have any books by British authors, in my physical to-read piles, that haven't been mentioned on this thread already. I've got quite a few on my Goodreads to-read shelf, though. But I'd be interested to see what suggestions the rest of you all might have!
Mike, we just did that one last year (February 2012 --see message 51)). I'm inclined to go with new selections, rather than repeat one that was already done so recently.
Okay, just looking for English (British) writers. I'll think on it.
There's also Blood Song which I read this year and is excellent. Anthony Ryan's bio says he lives in London. Might be another option.
Mike, Ryan would definitely qualify as British, and the book looks intriguing to me (I'm a fellow fantasy fan!). But this is another book that's very recent, just published last January. (This year, I've learned my lesson, so I'm checking for that factor more carefully than last time!) Many libraries might be unwilling to lend it by ILL because it's very new; and because it's self-published, most libraries would probably have refused to buy it anyway. As we narrow titles down for the poll, that's something worth considering. :-(
Well there's Tolkien, Moorcock and of course Lewis. I could nominate several there. let me know. I was just trying to expand the list some.
I'm almost always up for fantasy, but since we read Jacka last, perhaps we should consider something a little different. If you haven't read Jasper Fforde, I really think we should give him a try. He's really hard to classify, so he may not be your cup of tea, but I think he's clever and fun.There's also Neil Gaiman, who's a Brit by birth. His books are also fantasy but not genre fantasy. I haven't read his recent novel, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, but I think I'd like to try it.
As a 2013 publication, The Ocean at the End of the Lane is even more recent than Blood Song. Of course, Gaiman has written many other popular books that have been out much longer.I've never read any of Fforde's work, but I do have a copy of The Eyre Affair somewhere in my massive physical TBR mountain range. What do you all think: should we give it another shot in the upcoming poll?
To my mind, Jacka's Alex Verus series is supernatural fiction, rather than fantasy set in a different world. Tolkien's and Lewis' fantasy works, I think, would still be a change of pace. And of course both wrote nonfiction (Lewis a lot of it), and Lewis wrote some science fiction as well. I'm not very familiar with Moorcock's work from experience (I picked up a short story anthology several years ago featuring his Elric character, though mostly written by other writers; but I didn't get into it, and wound up giving it away). But that doesn't mean something by him would be a bad choice, or shouldn't go on the poll. So, Mike, go for it --at this point, suggestions are what we want!
We did a classic, Austen's Sense and Sensibility, in 2013 as well, but I'd say that classics are always in season; all of them have their own distinctive content and voice. There's really no pre-1950 British classic that I wouldn't be willing to read (or at least not very many!). If we pick one I've read already, I'll discuss it from memory if I can, and reread it if I can't. (If I can't, it's probably about time for a reread anyway!)
Over the weekend, when I'll hopefully have more time, I'll try to go through my to-read and "maybe" shelves and see what books by British authors might be there that haven't been mentioned. (I know that Peter O'Donnell's Modesty Blaise is on there; but that's probably one better suited to groups with more of a focus toward that genre, like Action Heroine Fans.)
True, The Ocean at the End of the Lane came out just last year, but I don't have your insider information about ILL. I'd assumed that because Gaiman was a fairly popular author that this title would be available at the local library and hoped that it would be a reasonable choice. I've read Gaiman's Neverwhere, which I don't remember well enough to discuss but I could be talked into re-reading it (as I would have to do for Jasper Fforde and The Eyre Affair). I've also read American Gods, but I think that I'd rather give his Anansi Boys a second chance (I started listening to it on audio in the car, but I'm almost never without my children and wasn't sure it was appropriate for them).I'm reading two C.S Lewis books right now, but since they're more about his theological views and experience as a Christian, I think that they'd fit better in a different discussion thread.
I could be talked into reading Tolkien, but I think I'd like to read some of his essays rather than rereading his fiction (although I haven't read The Silmarillion. My eldest just finished a class on Tolkien's Linguistic Anthropology through the Harvard Extension School, though I don't think that she's read The Simarillion. If we chose to read it, I'd love to ask her to join us. This will be one of my last chances for a discussion like this before she heads off to college in the fall.
Well, my wife gave me a copy of The Silmarillion for Christmas a couple of years ago, so it's on my to-read list. What do you think, Mike (since you mentioned Tolkien) --is that a viable possibility? Obviously his The Lord of the Rings trilogy is more popular; but the three books are so tightly bound together as one whole that just reading the first one wouldn't be a satisfying experience, IMO, and the whole trilogy would be a long read. (Of course, The Hobbit is shorter.)If we include something by Gaiman on the poll, I'd be in favor of narrowing it down to one book by him. That way, he doesn't have to in effect compete against himself.
I agree that nonfiction books that are geared mainly toward readers of one religious group or another aren't a good fit for a common read in a group with a broader membership. Of course, some of Lewis' nonfiction, like the literary essays included (along with a couple of his short stories) in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, are on topics of wider interest.
Dame Edith Pargeter is a quintessential British author, better known under her pen name Ellis Peters, which she used for her mystery writing. Since we just did a mystery last year, that would be an argument for looking outside that genre. But under her own name, she was also a successful writer of historical fiction. (Of course, she eventually married the two interests in her Brother Cadfael series, which created the historical mystery subgenre that has since burgeoned so spectacularly.) I'll put her Sunrise in the West forward as an official suggestion. That's the first book in her The Brothers of Gwynedd Quartet, set in medieval Wales. (I have the whole series in an omnibus volume; don't know why it slipped my mind to mention it before!)
The Silmarillion is an excellent and at times even a beautiful book. That said it's a different animal than the Trilogy and far different from The Hobbit. It's sort of "Genesis" of Tolkien's world and gives us the background for much we saw in those books and tells us about people and events that were referenced. The central story or bulk of the story concerns the Silmarils and Quenta Silmarillion. I think it would be a great choice myself.
We'll keep it in mind, Mike! One other thought I forgot to mention on Gaiman books: has anybody considered The Graveyard Book as a possibility? We have it at the Bluefield College library; it's been recommended to me before (I forget by whom), and several of my friends have rated it with four or five stars.
Could be on the list. I'm not a Gaiman fan per se but many really like him.
I think The Graveyard Book is a children's book. That said, it seems reasonable to put it on the list. As for Sunrise in the West, I'd love to add something historical to the poll.
Yes, LeAnn, The Graveyard Book is definitely a children's book (winner of the Newbery Medal in 2009). But I have the impression that it's the kind of kid's book that can be enjoyed by adults as well. It also won the Hugo Award, which is more of an adult-oriented award, and all of the 4-5 star reviews I mentioned came from adult readers. (Though some of my younger friends may have liked it too!)The great majority of books by British authors that I have on my to-read shelf seem to be older classics. Do we want to put a classic on the poll?
Yes, I think that a classic is a good idea. So far everything appeals to me, so I'm going to have a hard time voting. But that just means I'll be happy with whatever we read!
LeAnn wrote: "So far everything appeals to me, so I'm going to have a hard time voting. But that just means I'll be happy with whatever we read!" Yes, that's me too, LeAnn!Does anybody have a British classic(s) he/she would be more interested in reading soon than others? If so, this is your chance to put in a plea for including it in the poll!
I too will be happy whatever we read, but since you asked for classics for the poll....i'll add 'The Man who was Thursday' - G.K. Chesterson and 'Barchester Tower' - Anthony Trollope. Have read so many other British classics, but never anything by these 2 authors.
Hi, everyone! I did the book-read last year for Sense and Sensibility. I'm still contemplating what was said, and what it really means to literature.
I really like G. K. Chesterton! His books are cheaply available for the Amazon Kindle.
I'm very busy writing my first soon-to-be published works, but expect to follow the March book-read discussion. I bought The Man Who Was Thursday in electronic version. It looks very interesting! His other works look good, too. Any work of G. K. Chesterton's would be great for me!
Also, I really did like Manalive and The Club of Queer Trades.
I really like G. K. Chesterton! His books are cheaply available for the Amazon Kindle.
I'm very busy writing my first soon-to-be published works, but expect to follow the March book-read discussion. I bought The Man Who Was Thursday in electronic version. It looks very interesting! His other works look good, too. Any work of G. K. Chesterton's would be great for me!
Also, I really did like Manalive and The Club of Queer Trades.
Another Chesterton fan here! I'm not familiar with the last two books James mentioned, but I've read The Man Who Was Thursday and would be glad to join in discussing it. (It's a one-of-a-kind book!)I've also greatly liked Barchester Towers (1857). The thing with that book, though, is that it's the second of his Chronicles of Barsetshire series, the sequel of The Warden (1855). I read the two books in an omnibus volume back to back (they were also combined in a wonderful BBC miniseries back in the 80s, with Susan Hampshire). They share a common setting and many of the same characters; for me, reading one (especially the second one) without the other would be only experiencing part of a whole. Janet, what do you think: would you be game to read both back-to-back? They're short, and could be read by most readers in a month, I think.
Yes, true 'Barchester Tower' is part of Series. Thought it could be read independently, but sure you could put the idea of reading the 2 on your poll and see what everyone else thinks.
Okay, Janet, that's probably what we'll do!One thing about The Man Who Was Thursday that I thought of after posting yesterday: it could be hard to discuss without spoilers, because it's a book where nothing is as it at first seems and practically every development is a surprise. Of course, Goodreads has the feature of hypertext spoiler tags, which hide spoilers embedded in a comment unless someone clicks on the link to show them; and those come in handy. For this book, though, we'd likely need a LOT of spoiler tags. Would that be a problem for anybody? (A couple of other Chesterton titles nobody's mentioned so far, which wouldn't pose this problem so much, are The Napoleon of Notting Hill and The Innocence of Father Brown. I've read both and canrecommend them --though, of course, the latter is a collection of mystery stories, and we just visited the British mystery genre last year.)
I've never read any Trollope, but those two sound like fun. I think you might want to extend the reading time, Werner, if we have both on the poll. Or maybe re-poll once we finish The Warden (if it wins the voting) and see how the discussion participants feel about reading Barchester Towers.
Good suggestions, LeAnn! Or possibly, if The Warden wins the poll, we could just ask on the discussion thread, once everyone seems finished with the book or close to it, if they'd like to go on and read Barchester Towers, and act according to the responses. (I'm thinking out loud here.)
I am up for just about anything, but, as my mom mentioned above,I do have some expertise in matters of Tolkien. I would also suggest The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud. Not sure if anyone else on here (except my mom) has read it, since it is YA, but it is one of the better, and funnier, books I have read.
Stroud's The Screaming Staircase (the opening novel for his new series, Lockwood and Co.) is the only one of his books I've read so far. It's too recent to be considered here, but it got five stars from me; so I'd be inclined to think he does quality work!So far, our suggestions look like this: The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud; something by Fforde (possibly The Eyre Affair); something by Gaiman (possibly The Graveyard Book); something by Chesterton (with The Man Who Was Thursday being the most mentioned); The Silmarillion by Tolkien; Sunrise in the West by Dame Edith Pargeter; and The Warden by Anthony Trollope. That gives us seven possibilities. In my experience, six or less work well for a poll; with more than that, you tend to scatter the votes too widely to get much of a consensus. How do we go about narrowing our list down?
Well, perhaps we can consider when something was published. We have three titles that are more modern, two that are early 20th century, and Trollope is early Victorian era (is that correct?). I don't know the period in which Dame Edith Pargeter wrote offhand. We also have three or four fantasy titles (using that genre term loosely and broadly). Maybe one of those should be dropped?
Trollope was a contemporary of Dickens, and The Warden was written in 1855; so yes, early or mid-Victorian would be an accurate description. Edith Pargeter (1913-1995) first published Sunrise in the West in 1974, so it's comparatively modern.Yes, at least four of our titles are speculative fiction (The Man Who Was Thursday is very hard to classify). So I'd agree that one of those might be the best to drop. Anyone have any thoughts as to which one?
How's this for a tentative line-up: The Amulet of Samarkand; The Eyre Affair; The Man Who Was Thursday; The Silmarillion; Sunrise in the West; and The Warden? There's plenty of time for people to suggest additions or deletions to the list; but I'd like to hold it to half a dozen titles if possible. (Ideas that aren't used in this poll can always be saved for the next one!)
Could we consider Blood Song? It's one of my favorite books from the past year. the author Anthony Ryan lives in London. The book is the first in a series (which sent me into a tantrum when I found the next volume wasn't due out until July) and is an excellent read. I'm already trying to make room on my currently reading list to read it again.
Sounds like a lot of fun, Mike. I'm in favor of putting it on the list; however, it's epic fantasy, so we're back to another fantasy title.Werner, I don't really have a suggestion for which title to replace it with. I have already read the Stroud and Fforde books, so I guess if one of those is removed, it wouldn't be so bad. But I did like them a lot and highly recommend them (and Ashlyn suggested Stroud, so I hesitate to recommend it for sure).
Sorry for being so unhelpful!
I've read pretty much the list. I looked back at the books I'd read this year and as far as fiction goes they are pretty much fantasy. science fiction and action with a few odd ones thrown in so a British writer on my list would probably be fantasy...
LeAnn, that feedback isn't unhelpful at all! Before you posted, I'd already dropped The Graveyard Book from the tentative line-up (message 94). I was the one who broached that one in the first place; I don't think it really caught fire with anybody else (and I wouldn't have voted for it as a first choice, myself!) We can always include something by Gaiman in a later poll.Mike, when I responded (message 70) the first time you suggested Blood Song, I only looked at one edition, and I looked at the publishing date wrong. :-( The Kindle edition was actually published in Jan. 2012, not 2013 (and there was an e-book edition out in 2011). BUT, the print editions only came out in July 2013. So, it's still unlikely that readers could get them by interlibrary loan. (And while 429 libraries in the OCLC system have copies, it's unlikely that everybody who wants to join in the read lives close enough to one of them to have borrowing privileges there.) It would really be a much better suggestion for the poll in 2015, IMO. (At that time, I might vote for it myself!)
Werner wrote: "How's this for a tentative line-up... "
Thanks, Werner! I really like the line up. All of the books that I have seen in the discussion are new to me from England. It's a very interesting list, indeed.
I look forward to the final selection. Thanks again for the edification!
Thanks, Werner! I really like the line up. All of the books that I have seen in the discussion are new to me from England. It's a very interesting list, indeed.
I look forward to the final selection. Thanks again for the edification!
You're welcome, James! I'll hope to get the poll up on Feb. 1.
Fans of British Writers
Books mentioned in this topic
Lyrical Ballads (other topics)A Town Like Alice (other topics)
Pied Piper (other topics)
Agnes Grey (other topics)
The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nevil Shute (other topics)John Le Carré (other topics)
John Le Carré (other topics)
G.K. Chesterton (other topics)
Robert Bolt (other topics)
More...
