Longer Reads Definition

[Katy, Quarterly Long Reads]

For 2014 we have added another category for our reads, The Long Read.

For our group, a long read is a book that is over 500 pages. I hope this does not get confusing, but here is the idea.

These reads will be for 3 months and we will do 4 of them a year; thus, the quarterly long read.

Books still must be considered a Classic and must be over 500 pages. The nominations are for books that you want to read over a period of three months. They can be books that we have already read, old school classics, or contemporary classics.

This does NOT mean that any book over 500 pages has to go here. If you feel that you still want to nominate a book that is over 500 pages in our three monthly reads you can still do that. The difference is, "Do you want the longer time period for the read?"

Hope this makes sense.

[Tytti]

I wonder if you can make these "definition" posts stick, so they would stay as first ones in their groups. I might have seen that in other groups... Can't remember for sure, though.

[Katy, Quarterly Long Reads]

Done
Well at least I did what I thought you meant.

[Tytti]

Yep, that's what I meant. I thought that it might be useful.

[Katy, Quarterly Long Reads]

I agree. Thanks for the idea. I had forgotten about that capability.

[Katy, Quarterly Long Reads]

Part of the discussion in the nomination thread is on whether we want our Long Reads to be a single book, or possibly a series.

What do you all think?

[Kelly]

I like the idea of a series thread.

[Daisy]

The idea of a quarterly read for a longer or more difficult book is great and it would be a shame to forgo this. The idea of a series thread could be fun too. But, how many threads could this group maintain with active participation? The monthly (or longer) categories for this group are already four.

Contemporary Classic
Old School Classic
Quarterly Long Reads
Revisiting the Shelf

[Bob, Short Story Classics]

I'm in the single book camp. I think series books will add complications.

[Daisy]

P.S. On a personal note, I really like this group!

[MK]

ps - We are reading Hitchhiker right now, so jump in!! :)

[MK]

Kathy wrote: "Part of the discussion in the nomination thread is on whether we want our Long Reads to be a single book, or possibly a series.

What do you all think?"

I think Single Book. For a Series, the first book could be nominated in either Old School, or Contemporary, Classic, then additional threads in the same folder, for anyone who wants to continue the series (ala Hitchhiker).

Possibly, if Zola's Germinal, or Updike's Rabbit, wins this month, someone might want to read others in the series, and the same thing could happen (additional threads for additional books in the series, perhaps?).

[Tytti]

MK wrote: "I think Single Book. For a Series, the first book could be..."

But books like LotR and Under the North Star (those are the ones I am familiar with) are not series, they are just one novel, albeit sometimes in three books. I think the author's opinion should count, too. They shouldn't be blamed if some marketing people have named the other books, but that doesn't make them stand-alones.

Personally I wouldn't join a reading group that would read just the first book of LotR. I would read it all if I started.

[MK]

Tytti, I wasn't commenting on whether those are one book, or a series. Just on whether I'd prefer long reads to be one work, or a series.

Some books are released serially first, and should be one book. Others really are a series, and should be several books.

An example is Wool. The Silo Saga is a series, of 3 books. I think Wool Omnibus is one book, though, even though it was released serially, first, as five books, first.

[Tytti]

MK wrote: "I think Single Book. For a Series, the first book could be..."

But books like LotR and Under the North Star (those are the ones I am familiar with) are not series, they are just one novel, albeit sometimes in three books. I think the author's opinion should count, too. They shouldn't be blamed if some marketing people have named the other books, but that doesn't make them stand-alones.

Personally I wouldn't join a reading group that would read just the first book of LotR. I would read it all if I started.

I asked my Tolkien freak friend about this and according to him there are actually six books in it that make one "work". Because of the paper shortage it would have been too expensive to publish as one book. (Great, it seems there is no word in English for what I mean...) In case of North Star, one volume is (in Finnish, they are longer then) about 450-550 pages already and there was no way for them to be published as one book. Also both of them have just "one" main story.

[Tytti]

MK wrote: "I think Single Book. For a Series, the first book could be..."

But books like LotR and Under the North Star (those are the ones I am familiar with) are not series, they are just one novel, albeit sometimes in three books. I think the author's opinion should count, too. They shouldn't be blamed if some marketing people have named the other books, but that doesn't make them stand-alones.

Personally I wouldn't join a reading group that would read just the first book of LotR. I would read it all if I started. (I am not interested in all those modern book series so I can't compare but these books are different.)

I asked my Tolkien freak friend about this and according to him there are actually six books in it that make one "work". Because of the paper shortage it would have been too expensive to publish as one book. (Great, it seems there is no word in English for what I mean...) In case of North Star, one volume is (in Finnish, they are longer then) about 450-550 pages already and there was no way for them to be published as one book.

[MK]

Tytti wrote: "I asked my Tolkien freak friend about this and according to him there are actually six books in it that make one "work". Because of the paper shortage it would have been too expensive to publish as one book. (Great, it seems there is no word in English for what I mean...) In case of North Star, one volume is (in Finnish, they are longer then) about 450-550 pages already and there was no way for them to be published as one book. "

I understand what you're saying. I just purchased, last month, Edward Rutherfurd's Dublin Saga. It is two physical books, but one history of Ireland. Well, fictionalized historical drama, really, I think.

Again, I'm not arguing that LOTR is really three books, or Under the North Star is. Or that they're one book. Not having read all of either, I'm agnostic on the matter :).

Maybe a better example is Sherlock Holmes, or the Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer stories. For me, those are series, and not single works.

[Tytti]

MK wrote: "Maybe a better example is Sherlock Holmes, or the Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer stories. For me, those are series, and not single works."

I have never read Finn/Sawyer, don't know anything about them. But I don't think Sherlock Holmes books are either. They are mainly short stories put together. You don't even have to read them from cover to cover. (I did write an essay about Sherlock Holmes, probably on 8/9th grade.)

[MK]

Tytti wrote: "MK wrote: "Maybe a better example is Sherlock Holmes, or the Huckleberry Finn/Tom Sawyer stories. For me, those are series, and not single works."

I have never read Finn/Sawyer, don't know anythin..."

There are a handful of novels in the Sherlock Holmes universe :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock.... Mainly short stories, though.

There are a handful of novels in the Finn/Sawyer universe, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_sawyer

[Kelly]

Alexandre Dumas published The Three Musketeers series in serial form. Whenever someone publishes them the individual books ( anywhere from 3-5 depending on the publisher) stop and start wherever the current publisher decides.
The Game of Thrones series was also intended as one novel, but was broken into four. Any of these novels and the ones others have mentioned could stand alone. I think it is irrelevant whether they were intended as one volume. They are series now.
I love to read a good series, but I don't think they should be classified as one volume regardless of original intent. They are series now because that works.

[Tytti]

MK wrote: "There are a handful of novels in the Sherlock Holmes universe :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock.... Mainly short stories, though."

But I think of them as stand-alones. They are not a series like Harry Potters or A Song of Ice and Fire where you have to read them in order for them to make sense. I still haven't read A Study in Scarlet (wasn't available at the library when I was reading them) but that's not a problem. There is no continuing plot (and I believe Conan Doyle forget some things and made up new ones over the years).

[MK]

Duane wrote: "My point is that true series should not be part of a long novel reading group. Exceptions like LotR is fine. Just one reader/members opinion. "


That was what I was trying to agree with! :)

heh

[MK]

Tytti wrote: "MK wrote: "There are a handful of novels in the Sherlock Holmes universe :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock.... Mainly short stories, though."

But I think of them as stand-alones. They are ..."

I don't think continuing plot is a requirement for a series. Some series must be read chronologically, others don't have to be.

Nancy Drew series, for example. You can read them in any order. Hopefully the Zola series that is included in our current poll, too! Because the one that's currently winning the poll, is number 13 in the series.

[MK]

Also, I'm not sure how I'm caught up in a debate. I'm only expressing that I prefer a novel, to a series of novels, for our long reads. Whatever physical form the novel may take :p

[MK]

Duane wrote: "However, I will happily read almost anything that is selected. ...."

Me too! :D

I even read Frankenstein even tho I was skeered, cuz horror scares me ;-), and whaddyaknow, I loved it.

[Tytti]

Kelly wrote: "The Game of Thrones series was also intended as one novel, but was broken into four. Any of these novels and the ones others have mentioned could stand alone. I think it is irrelevant whether they were intended as one volume. They are series now."

Are you talking about the first novel or the series A Song of Ice and Fire? The series has already five books and more to come.

And the books of Under the North Star can't stand alone. It's a story about the Civil War and the ways it affects people. The war doesn't even happen until in the second book and the aftermath in the third, the reasons for it are told in the first. The same with LotR. There are probably others like them.

[Bob, Short Story Classics]

I sense complications concerning our Quarterly Long Read. I would like to offer a few suggestions.

I think it should be one book with a minimum size of 750 pages. If you break it down 750 pages is 25 pages per day for 30 days. This may seem like a lot, but for most people, this is probably feasible. Besides how often would a monthly selection be that large? For the Quarter Read 750 pages equals about 8.5 pages per day for 90 days and a 1500 page book comes to about 17 pages per day. This pace should allow people to read other books as well as have time to participate in the group discussion.

As to the conflict on series books, how about sticking to the one book and size rule. Lord of the Ring is one book and it’s large enough for the Quarterly Long Read. Fellowship of the Ring is also one book but its size dictates that it must go to the Contemporary Classic section. The same would be true for Sherlock Holmes. The Complete Sherlock Holmes is one book and certainly lengthy enough for the Quarterly Long Read. However the individual books for size alone requires they fall into either Contemporary or Old School.

What do you think? Must be considered a classic, must be of minimum size, and must be in a single book format.

[MK]

Bob wrote: "I sense complications concerning our Quarterly Long Read. I would like to offer a few suggestions.

I think it should be one book with a minimum size of 750 pages. If you break it down 750 page..."

Lovely, yes, that would work well, I think :)

[Connie]

I tend to agree with Bob's criteria. It is very clear then as to what fits the category.

[Katy, Quarterly Long Reads]

Other than Bob thinking the book should be longer than the definition's size in msg #1, what else is not clear in the definition? Or I guess I am asking how do I need to change the definition so that it is clear. I honestly thought that it what the definition stated. As for the size of 500 pages, it doesn't look like much, but when you look at our book reads those over 500 pages tended not to get many comments, so we thought that would be a good number.

Read msg # 1 again and help me get it to say what I meant.

[Connie]

Kathy wrote: "Other than Duane thinking the book should be longer than the definition's size in msg #1, what else is not clear in the definition?"

I just went back and read the original definition. It is clear. Also, 500 pages is long enough as most people are reading at least 2 other books per month during the same time period. A person can always nominate a longer book if he/ she wishes.

[Bob, Short Story Classics]

I do not want to add to the complication and confusion. My thought on a Quarterly Long Read being a minimum of 750 pages is based on the fact that 25% of our current bookshelf consists of books longer than 500 pages. What I hope to avoid is the questioning of our Contemporary and Old School book nominations being called to big and not eligible therefore must go to the quarter read. Our March reads are The Portrait of a Lady (656 pages) and our re-read is Moby-Dick (625 pages). On our current Old School poll, 2 of the 4 books are over 500 pages The Red and Black (607 pages) and Germinal (592 pages). In the future will this mean that this size book must only be nominated in the Quarterly Long Read category? This is the main reason I felt the Quarterly Long Read should have a larger page starting point.

[MK]

I think I may have been the one who first proposed a quarterly long read, and I think I did use the figure of 750 pages. However, seeing that Doctor Zhivago is still engaging/tangling/frying/entertaining my brain ;-), and I'm in my second month of digesting the work, I appreciate the lower 500 pages floor that Kathy went with, as that would allow a book like Doctor Z to be the subject of a long group read.

Also, no, I think the criteria were clear, that tho the length of a book would be a criterion for the quarterly long read, length would not preclude a book from being nominated as, or winning, the old school classic, contemporary classic, or revisiting the shelf, monthly group reads.

Also, Kathy, to answer your clarity question ;-), it appears that the words 'book' and 'classic' might need tightening up, in terms of definition.

I propose that 'book' be defined as any single unit of purchase ;-). If it requires multiple transactions to acquire, it doesn't qualify as 'a book'.

And 'classic' be loosely defined as having to be otherwise eligible for nomination in either the Old School Classic, or Contemprary Classic, polls, with the added stipulation of meeting the length requirement.

[Cathy]

The Way We Love Now by Anthony Trollope or Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

[Bob, Short Story Classics]

Cathy wrote: "The Way We Love Now by Anthony Trollope or Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand"

Cathy I will not be creating a poll till the middle of May I will try and remember these two books, but if you could re-nominate them in the 3rd Quarter Long Read Nomination thread it will be easier.

Thanks