December 2013 Open Pick - Nominate our next read here

[Daniel]

It's time to start nominating books for our December 2013 Open Pick group read. Everyone is allowed one nomination, but remember that eligible books must be works of fiction published from 2000-2013. Selections that are overly genre or fail to meet the group standards of literary quality will not be permitted in the final poll.

Nominations will wrap up late next week and the poll will run for about a week following. Happy nominating!

[Zulfiya]

I know that it is a long shot because in the USA it was published in October 2013 and it is so monumental (more than 800 pages), but I really want to read The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton

[Casceil]

Zulfiya, I want to read it, too, but I have held off on nominating it because I think it is too recent for copies to be available from libraries. One of the lessons from the Night Film discussion is that very recent releases have waiting lists at the library. Would you consider holding off on this nomination for a bit?

[Zulfiya]

Sure, Casceil, feel free to delete the message if you can as a moderator. I will nominate something different. If you own the book, would you like to do a buddy read?

[Zulfiya]

Please ignore my earlier post about Catton's novel.
How about The Children's Book by A.S. Byatt?

[Sophia]

Now that is a seriously good book! I second this.

[Sophia]

I'd like to nominate

The Blue Book



by A.L. Kennedy

This was one of the best books I read in 2012

[Jason]

since I'm already 50 pages into it, I'd vote for The Luminaries. I'd leave it as a nomination or I'll nominate it if you want to choose something else.

[Deborah]

Jason, I think it's a great nomination. Here's the thing, we've found that when stuff is brand new, the conversation suffers. People (and a lot of people prefer to borrow rather than buy) end up on waiting lists and don't get to participate in the conversation until the month is over or the next month.

You're certainly welcome to nominate it immediately. You might get a bigger pay off waiting even just a month or two.

[Terry]

I'd echo what Deborah said by highlighting its length as another factor. Longer books are a bigger investment of time, and so it tends to be the case that there's a correlation between length of book and lower discussion numbers. If you further squeeze that with a book that's not very widely available, you're likely looking at a poorly subscribed discussion where the same discussion a couple of months later could be a lot better subscribed, and so more inclusive and more dynamic.

[Mark]

I'd like to nominate Pow! by Mo Yan.

[Casceil]

Here is the link for Mark's nomination: Pow!

[Ben]

So much good stuff to choose from I will go for Arcadia by Lauren Groff I have not checked it out yet but it sounds very interesting with plenty to discuss.

[LindaJ^]

I nominate The Flamethrowers by Rachel Kushner. It came close last month so thought I'd toss it back in.

[Cordelia]

Casceil wrote: "Zulfiya, I want to read it, too, but I have held off on nominating it because I think it is too recent for copies to be available from libraries. One of the lessons from the Night Film discussion ..."

I agree. It was published in August in NZ. Our library has 40 copies and it has taken until now for me to get thru the reserve queue.

[Deborah]

Linda, thank you! I am hoping we do this one soon!

[Deirdre]

Hi all, I'd like to nominate The Hunger Angel by Herta Müller. The Land of Green Plums is one of my all-time favourite books, so really looking forward to this one.

[[deleted user]]

Hi all. I love Roberto Bolano's Amulet, but since I've read it already, I'm not sure I should nominate it. So instead I'd recommend By Night in Chile. It was his first book published in English (in 2000 :-)).

[Sophia]

Here's the link for Liam's nomination, By Night in Chile

[Lily]

Liam wrote: "Hi all. I love Roberto Bolano's Amulet, but since I've read it already, I'm not sure I should nominate it. So instead I'd recommend By Night in Chile. It was his first book published in English (in..."

Liam -- not sure I follow your logic. My f2f book club once had a rule (since abandoned) that no book was selected until at least one member had read it. I think it was a good rule for sustaining the quality of what we read. Although I'm not suggesting its adoption for online clubs, I certainly don't think having already read a book should be a reason for not nominating, except for self-interest in wanting to move on to other books! (If it wouldn't dilute interest in your nomination, I'd consider nominating Amulet on your recommendation. [g] But I won't, at least not this month.)

[Daniel]

I can understand both points of view on the read/unread nomination, but I do agree with Lily that having read a book makes for a much more persuasive recommendation. With Amulet, though, the point is moot, since it was originally published in 1999. So By Night in Chile it is!

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "Liam -- not sure I follow your logic. My f2f book club once had a rule (since abandoned) that no book was selected until at least one member had read it. I think it was a good rule for sustaining the quality of what we read..."

Oh, that's grand, and a good point. To be honest, I didn't know what the etiquette was. I just presumed I'd be expected to read alongside everyone else. Especially, if I nominated the text.

[Casceil]

We do expect that anyone whose nomination wins will at least participate in the discussion. If they want to, they can lead the discussion.

[Lily]

Daniel wrote: "I can understand both points of view on the read/unread nomination, but I do agree with Lily that having read a book makes for a much more persuasive recommendation. With Amulet, thoug..."

Daniel -- do you always base on first publication date in original language?

[Deborah]

Yes.
Original publication date in original language.

[Daniel]

Nominations will be wrapping up shortly, and the poll should be going up tonight. If anyone has been procrastinating, be sure to get your nomination posted this afternoon!