The Sword and Laser discussion
Renegade read section
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Listen to the podcast and you'd at least know what some of T & V's concerns are. It's not simply a dislike of change (the podcast and forum has changed/been modified many times!), but the decision's up to them.
Jlawrence - of course it's up to them. I'm agnostic as I've said in this thread before. Your difficulty in finding the PoG thread is, ironically, the main argument for such a section and serves as a rather good counterpoint to the "oh just put it in the What Else... section."
And yes, while discussions can linger on the majority of them happen in the month that the read is being done. My point here isn't about the section, really. It's that the section is an organizational tool for discussions which aren't currently taking place. I'd like to see some of the angst and energy about organizing the discussions used to actually *discuss the book*.
Mod
I was mostly responding to "For what it's worth, I think those of you being negative about adding a section have no good arguments..." and all that followed. Just listening to those few mins of the podcast (I provided the exact time where it's discussed) would help clarify T & V's ambivalence towards focusing on renegade reads.
Your difficulty in finding the PoG thread is, ironically, the main argument for such a section and serves as a rather good counterpoint to the "oh just put it in the What Else... section."
No, the argument for "just put in the What Else section" is not that renegade reads there will get the same amount of exposure as they would in their own section. They would definitely get a boost in their own section. The argument for "just put them in the What Else section" is that renegade reads should not get organizational support, but be spontaneous things that live or die on their own (like real renagades.)
The question is whether the group, organizationally, should be officially recognizing and helping to draw attention to renegade reads -- because once officially recognized and structurally called out, are they really renegade then? They're more or less condoned secondary picks then. Even if not literally 'officially endorsed' that what's the structural calling-out of them would do. And it's that question of divided focus that makes it a bit trickier than just adding the section without thinking about it. That's what T & V touch on in the podcast.
So I understand your frustration in wanting more discussion about that particular renegade read. But it would definitely be getting some extra discussion if it had its own section, which is why there is this thread. It a chicken-egg-y type thing.
Renegades could start and follow a thread wherever it lived. I think expecting it to be codified and organized for us defeats the purpose entirely. Also, I read this book on Saturday.
As far as I've noticed, the RRs have been when something interesting or topical comes up (an exciting new book release, an author illness, etc.) and people seem interested in reading it outside of the normal book pick.My concern would be that by giving it it's own section, it's now implied that every month there needs to be a RR in addition to the regular read, therefore eliminating the fun spontaneous well let's read this book too, and changing it to now we need a format to discuss what next months pick is. I think it just rapidly gets overwhelming, and though no one makes you read a book every month, I can see new people getting confused/burned out by the number of books suggested to be read each month. I already struggle trying to keep up with my local book club, this one, i09, plus my normal TBR.
The argument for "just put them in the What Else section" is that renegade reads should not get organizational support, but be spontaneous things that live or die on their own (like real renagades.)
I overstepped when I made the fear of change comment, but this isn't a convincing argument to me. It's reading too much into a whimsical name and goes along the lines of name-as-destiny logic when the issue should be "does the S&L Goodreads community benefit or lose by doing this? If so, does this impose unwanted burdens on T & V or the mods?" Everything aside from that isn't really relevant. If there's upside in the form of a benefit to the community and there's not unwanted work for T&V or you mods, do it. If those aren't true, don't.
So, on benefits... I think the visibility to a RR that's gotten positive reaction (as the Player of Games RR did initially) helps the people who were interested initially to find others talking about the read. It's a way to organize discussions that do take place. However, I think Janet raises an excellent point that the mere existence of a RR section can set an expectation that it's not a sometime thing but a monthly alternate that's quasi-official. The counter to THAT is simple - create a section for RRs as they pop up and get traction and then, at the end of the month, move any discussion threads into the What Else section and remove the forum section. Whether that's super easy in the admin backend or a process fraught with HORROR I can't know. If it's a matter of checking boxes next to all of the threads and clicking a Move to... button and then deleting a section I'd vote yes. But it's possible the forums are held together with baling wire and chewing gum in which case, no. :)
I'll reiterate, though, that I'd much rather be talking about the current read and why Jernau Gurgeh is like Bilbo Baggins than how to organize nonexistent discussion threads...
Just a comment about this particular Renegade Read... I bought Consider Phlebas about a month ago, and when everyone was arguing whether to start there or with Player of Games I decided to start there. But no one's discussing CP, and I haven't started reading it. So my energies aren't behind Player of Games and are extremely unlikely to be this month. I wonder if other people are conflicted about where to start with Banks?
Serendi, As i said in the thread where I proposed Player as a starting place either book serves as a good intro to the Culture. In talking to people over the years I've found that some people read Consider Phlebas, don't get it and never try another Culture novel. I've seen that reaction much less when people start with Player of Game, even among people who go on to read CP and like it better than Player. Which one is the better starter novel for YOU (or any given person) I can't say.
We're not discussing CP because it's not the RR. I'd be totally up for a thread talking about it but it's not what I proposed and I didn't and don't want to split my attention.
Mod
Er, that's exactly what I was saying in the next paragraph of my response ("The question is..." and all that). Substitute 'non-official' or 'group-chosen' or whatever for 'renegade' throughout my comment: it's not about the name, it's about the focus of this group's attention, as supported organizationally by the forums (which ties into Janet's comment) - that's what T & V are considering.
Honestly, I'd NOT add a section like this UNLESS it's done ad hoc and removed after the month is up (see my previous post). Renegade Reads aren't such a regular thing that we need a permanent section in my opinion. However, if people start doing them regularly AND they get actual discussions going, I don't see any reason not to support the community.
What if instead of a new section for renegade reads, there was a notification of sorts by the official pick on tje group home page and the link takes you to the main thread that will be in the What Else Are You Reading section? That way when there is a renegade read (which doesn't always happen) people can see what it is and there's a direct link to participate. I'm not sure if that's possible with the coding or whatnot but just an idea I had while listening to the podcast.
Rick,I know, I just was replying to the perception that hardly anyone's discussing the renegade read with the explanation of why I'm not reading it yet. There were reasons in favor of either pick, and I have no problem with people choosing Player.
As for having an RR section, I have about six opinions, some of them mutually incompatible, so I'm staying out of the discussion.
Maybe for now we should make a bit of a naming standard for renegade reads so that we can easily recognize them. Something like starting posts with RRMay03 or something like that. Maybe if there is enough discussion of a book in the What Else Are You Reading thread that book can be given its own thread. This way only renegades with enough support get their own sections. And it keeps 5 different people from starting renegades in the same month and having to give each its own thread.
Jenny wrote: "I think expecting it to be codified and organized for us defeats the purpose entirely.This argument wins, for me.
I'm sorry, but worrying about how to organize discussions is a waste of time unless people are actually trying to discuss the RR. I take Ruth's point that people read at different rates but the month is 2/3 over. If people were going to read and discuss Banks' Player of Games they'd probably have started by now.
Ah well, there was a lot of interest in Banks as a pick, enough that I thought it would be good to do Player of Games as a RR. Given the complete lack of participation despite people seeming enthused, I personally wouldn't spend any time figure out the mechanics of how to manage them.
For what it's worth, I think those of you being negative about adding a section have no good arguments. The What Else... section gets a fair amount of traffic aside from a RR and there's zero harm in adding another section. Frankly, arguments against this seem to be made out of a dislike of change, a conservative attitude that always surprises me among SFF people. But as I've just argued, the section's irrelevant as it would be empty this month despite there being an active RR.
Jlawrence - I've not listed to the podcast, but I'm simply not seeing an issue in adding the section. Maybe T&V bring up points I've not considered, but if we didn't do RRs for a few months the section would float down and not get in the way. Then again...