EVERYONE Has Read This but Me - The Catch-Up Book Club discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
2173 views
[ARCHIVES] GENERAL > General Questions / FAQ

Comments Showing 1-50 of 400 (400 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

message 1: by Kaseadillla (last edited Mar 13, 2020 08:36PM) (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
Consider this the FAQ section - if you have any questions about the group, feel free to post/ask here!

How many books does the group read a month?
The group will read 4 books a month:
- one classic (published 1969 or earlier),
- one modern classic/best-seller (published 1970 or later), and
- one "bookshelf catch-up" book which is a reread of a book on the club's bookshelf.
- one book from any category considered especially long, to be read over 3 months.
You can find all previously read books on the groups bookshelf. As for current reads, you can find groups discussions here.

4 books? Do I need to read them all?
We have 4 books a month for flexibility, you do NOT need to read them all. In fact, you don't need to read any if you don't have interest or don't have time. There are plenty of other ways to participate!

How and when do I nominate books to be read?
Head on over to the BOTM Suggestions Folder. You can nominate books for different monthly categories there. Suggestion discussions are open for the last two weeks of every month preceding polling.

When are BOTM (book of the month) polls open?
BOTM polls will be open for the first week of every month to decide books for the following month. Ex. Polls are open the first week of February to decide March BOTMs. Vote on polls here.

Other BOTM Suggestion/Polling questions?
Head on over to the BOTM Suggestion FAQs for more info.

Recommendation Requests
If you have a specific request for book recommendations, head on over to the Recommendation Requests folder and scroll through existing topics or start a new topic with your requests!


message 2: by Brady (new)

Brady Do we know what the books for August are yet?


message 3: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 396 comments Good idea Kasey!

Brady wrote: "Do we know what the books for August are yet?"

The August books are Fahrenheit 451 and A Man Called Ove.


message 4: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
Yes, thanks, Sarah! Haven't sent an email to the group yet - my b.


message 5: by Brady (new)

Brady Thanks! Gotta try to get those before Aug 1.


message 6: by Melanie (new)

Melanie Are we only doing 1 book a month now? There is only a classic book poll?


message 7: by Marilyn (new)

Marilyn Melanie wrote: "Are we only doing 1 book a month now? There is only a classic book poll?"

Scroll down the page. The other poll is near the bottom.


message 8: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
What Marilyn said. Not sure why it showed up as pol #11... the links in my previous email message are correct, or you can scroll to the bottom. Thanks!


message 9: by Luella (new)

Luella | 133 comments Kaseadillla wrote: "What Marilyn said. Not sure why it showed up as pol #11... the links in my previous email message are correct, or you can scroll to the bottom. Thanks!"

Hi,

It might have done that because it wasn't "featured" that happened to me a few times when creating polls.

Any word on December books yet. :)


message 10: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
good call, Luella. I tried to feature both polls.... didn't quite work out.

BTW, discussions for December BOTM suggestions are now up!


message 11: by Luella (new)

Luella | 133 comments Kaseadillla wrote: "good call, Luella. I tried to feature both polls.... didn't quite work out.

BTW, discussions for December BOTM suggestions are now up!"


Yay


message 12: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
Kasey, what is the schedule for voting, then for results, in the March poll?


message 13: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
Hi Marcos - voting for the BOTMs for the following month will take place over the first week of the preceding month (aka March BOTMs will be voted on the first week of February). Current polls will be open until end of day February 6th.

You can also see this if you click into the poll - the bottom of the poll provides details on when it was opened and when it will close. Once the polls close, the winners will be added to upcoming reads.

Hope this helps!


message 14: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
Thanks, Kasey!

That's it. In the poll, you have to click on the "comments and details" link first!

But I haven't found the first part of the information (first week of the preceding month as a rule) anywhere. If it really isn't there, maybe you could include it in the general information on the group home page. That would be useful for newcomers. :-)


message 15: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
Now, another schedule question: when will nominations for April close?

I mean, according to my recent suggestion, can I wait until the March voting ends on Feb 6th so that I may eventually renominate a well voted second place?


message 16: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
Suggestion discussions for April BOTMs will be open for the entire month of February, so you have plenty of time!


message 17: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
:-)


message 18: by Brady (new)

Brady Just curious, Kasey, when did you start this group? We've gotta be coming up on its 1 year anniversary because I know I've been a part of it for about 11 months. I think that the 1 year mark is quite the milestone especially considering how much the group has grown from where we started.


message 19: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
Hi Brady - started May 2016, so 1-year anniversary is next month!!! Crazy right?!
Wut should we do to celebrate


message 20: by Brady (new)

Brady I have been thinking about this all day. I have no idea how to celebrate this, but I think it needs to be celebrated. Obviously I'm not creative...I leave that to the authors I read. Haha.


message 21: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments So true, Brady - I'm a reader, not a writer. ;)

But we should do something to celebrate. Even if it's just rolling out a new feature like the Exquisite Corpse game discussed in another thread. Or like having a catch-up month (in June, since May is being planned already) for past reads. Or simply a mass PM announcing the anniversary.


message 22: by Leesa (new)

Leesa I like the idea of nominating in June books from previous polls that have missed out maybe? That seems like fun... seen as we can't celebrate with cake!


message 23: by Roaa (new)

Roaa (roaaexe) Hi, I'm new but I am so excited for the anniversary now! I think, like what Leesa said, having some of the books that didn't make it be nominated for June would be really great.
I also have a question, so lets say you started a book later in the month and you didn't finish it before its deadline, do you complete it (even after the next month started) and then start the next month's book? or do you have to finish it before the next month starts?


message 24: by Brady (new)

Brady You can finish it then start the next months books or put it off until after you finish that next month's books. The great thing is that all of the threads are always open. I am finishing up Lord of the Flies right now....which is from forever ago.


message 25: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
You can do as you like, Roaa! :-) No one actually has to read all of the books. You can establish a challenge for you - or not. You can do as Brady said. You can make you own pace. Very comfortable an free scheduling here.


message 26: by Roaa (last edited Apr 24, 2017 02:39PM) (new)

Roaa (roaaexe) Brady wrote: "You can finish it then start the next months books or put it off until after you finish that next month's books. The great thing is that all of the threads are always open. I am finishing up Lord o..."
Marcos wrote: "You can do as you like, Roaa! :-) No one actually has to read all of the books. You can establish a challenge for you - or not. You can do as Brady said. You can make you own pace. Very comfortable..."

Oh okay that's comforting, I was a little bit worried that the threads would be closed or deleted. But now I know that I can catch up with catch up group. I have set a challenge and for the first time I think I might achieve it. Thank you both so much.


message 27: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
Hi Roaa - Marcos and Brady answered for me, but yes feel free to read on your own schedule and comment whenever. Group is designed to "catch up" so all old threads are open, some more active than others. They can be found in the other discussion folders!
Great question though, should add it to the top.

And keep brainstorming people!! Love these ideas.


message 28: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments Question - how is a book determined to be a 'classic' vs. a 'modern classic?' I think of Agatha Christie and J.R.R. Tolkien's works as classics, but they're not a full century old yet, so, I dunno....


message 29: by Marcos (last edited Apr 25, 2017 12:49PM) (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
No definitive criteria so far, Cheryl. Some books of around 50 or 60 years have been considered a classic here - just like "Catcher in the Rye".

The age criteria alone is not really enough for a "classic", some books of 100 years or much less that have been important in some period sometimes may disappear afterwards and become out of print. So it has been more of the general idea of books that go through the test of time, keeping important, relevant, recognized and / or popular - being repeatedly republished, for instance, or studied or - most important - read!

And it may be a little personal as well. If your're 60, a 50 or 40 year old book looks quite modern! :-)


message 30: by Simon (new)

Simon (escapingexistence) Marcos wrote: "No definitive criteria so far, Cheryl. Some books of around 50 or 60 years have been considered a classic here - just like "Catcher in the Rye".

The age criteria alone is not really enough for a "..."


I think it would be better to set a age criteria tho. WIthout a real creteria it is not easy to know where we should put lots of books.


message 31: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments Yeah, and maybe how they 'feel' too.

I'm 54 myself, so Lord of the Rings isn't that much older than I am.

But somehow it *feels* decades older & more classic, to me. I was very surprised to learn of its date; I would have guessed it to be from the 1920s. Especially because it's got a reputation for being so influential that Tolkien is talked about as the father of fantasy.... But of course there was plenty of fantasy published before 1954....


message 32: by Marcos (last edited Apr 25, 2017 03:18PM) (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
Well, he was fighting in WW I and already writing, so that may convey an impression of really belonging to the early 20th century.

The "father" issue is properly addressed in Tolkien's profile in GR, have a look at that.

As to the "feel" factor, agreed! :-)


message 33: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments Hey Simon, cross-post. You do make a good point!

I did some looking, and there doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon definition, much less one with a specific number of years attached to it. This is the best article I found: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/what_...

I think maybe that anything under 50 yrs is *not* a classic, and anything older than 100 years *is* ... and it's moderator's discretion for those in-between! ;)


message 34: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments Marcos wrote: "Well, he was fighting in WW I and already writing, so that may convey an impression of really belonging to the early 2oth century."

Thank you... that makes wonderful sense.


message 35: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
Simon wrote: "I think it would be better to set a age criteria tho. WIthout a real creteria it is not easy to know where we should put lots of books..."

Simon, I guess the "feel" factor may help here. And if anyone suggests a book in the "wrong" thread, someone else might just say that, or the moderator can make an adjustment. It has happened successfuly.


message 36: by Marilyn (new)

Marilyn Cheryl wrote: "Hey Simon, cross-post. You do make a good point!

I did some looking, and there doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon definition, much less one with a specific number of years attached to it. This is t..."


1961 - then all classics end at To Kill a Mockingbird.


message 37: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
Hehe... Cheryl, the article starts with "What makes a book a classic? That’s one of the most acrimonious, endless and irresolvable discussions in the literary world."

That's what I was trying to say. So, let's not try to resolve it here.

Or, better, we might read Italo Calvino's Why Read the Classics? - this, a classic in itself! :-)


message 38: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments Ok, I'm curious, Simon, why 1961?


message 39: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
That was Marilyn.
My guess: she was born in 1961, so "all classics end at 'To Kill a Mockingbird'" (published 1960).
:-)


message 40: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments Ah, sorry Marilyn. I bet Marco is right. Plz enlighten. :)

Ok, Simon, what year would you pick and why?


message 41: by Kyra (new)

Kyra Keeton | 262 comments Not sure if this would help but wouldn't it be easier to just assume that any work that is generally included in specific literary cannons to belong in the classics section?


message 42: by Cheryl (new)

Cheryl (cherylllr) | 971 comments Ack! You mean, turn to outside sources?! Noo...!
:joke:


message 43: by Simon (new)

Simon (escapingexistence) Cheryl wrote: "Ah, sorry Marilyn. I bet Marco is right. Plz enlighten. :)

Ok, Simon, what year would you pick and why?"


Because I'm only 20, everything older than 40 is like: Wow! that's old! (I'm exaggerating but I think you got what I mean...). Still I feel like evertyghing that is 75 years or older should be considerd as a Classic, while everythign youger than 40 years should be considerd as modern classic. But we still have that gap between then... So I don't really know how to solve this 'problem'. I just felt that some criteria would come in handy.


message 44: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
This is a hard one, and a point I've struggled with since starting the group. Where and how to draw the line between the classics and the modern classics/best-sellers?

Maybe we could put up for a vote? I think a 1960 or 1970 cut-off would make sense.
Would make Catch-22 (1961), Catcher in the Rye (1951), To Kill a Mockingbird (1960), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1962), all Tolkein, etc. Classics; and The Princess Bride (1973), The Shining (1977), The Giver (1993), The Handmaid's Tale (1985), etc. Modern Classics.

What do y'all think?


message 45: by Steffi (new)

Steffi (steffiw) | 24 comments The 1970 cut off works for me :) Though must admit The Princess Bride 'feels' like it should a classic, but we have to draw the line somewhere lol


message 46: by Brady (new)

Brady I am in full support of that line. It looks good to me and makes sense.


message 47: by Kaseadillla (last edited Apr 26, 2017 08:54AM) (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
Steffi wrote: "The 1970 cut off works for me :) Though must admit The Princess Bride 'feels' like it should a classic, but we have to draw the line somewhere lol"

I know! haha. Been free ballin' it pretty much up to now, but makes sense to make a guideline I think?


message 48: by Christine (last edited Apr 26, 2017 07:24AM) (new)

Christine (clarkepopunta) | 122 comments Well here's one hilarious definition of a "modern classic":

The phrase is a bit of a contradiction, isn’t it? “Modern classics” - it’s a bit like “ancient baby,” isn’t it? Haven’t you ever seen babies sporting wise yet cantankerous looks that made them seem like smooth-skinned octogenarians?

Modern classics in literature are like that – smooth skinned, young, yet with a sense of longevity.


But check out the better part of this article (and more to the point):

A modern classic, then, would have to be a book written after WWI, and probably after WWII. Why? Because those cataclysmic events shifted the way the world sees itself in irreversible ways.

Certainly classic themes endure. Romeo and Juliet will still be foolish enough to kill each themselves without checking for a pulse thousands of years from now.

But readers who live in a post-WWII era are concerned with much that is new. Ideas about race, gender, class are shifting and literature is both a cause and effect. Readers have a broader understanding of an interconnected world where people, pictures and words travel in all directions at warp speed. The idea of “young people speaking their minds” is no longer new. A world that has witnessed totalitarianism, imperialism and corporate conglomeration cannot turn back that clock. And perhaps most importantly, readers today bring a hardened realism that stems from contemplating the enormity of genocide and perennially living on the edge of self-destruction. although Moby Dick is certainly a classic, it has a hard time being a modern classic because many of the settings, lifestyles allusions, and even moral codes seem dated to the reader.


So in fairness to all the young-at-heart in this group, I think maybe it's a little harsh to call a classic pre-70s. (P.S. I am NOT one of those Old Farts. Ew).

Source: Feb 2016 article by Esther Lombardi at ThoughtCo.com

my link text


message 49: by Marcos (new)

Marcos Kopschitz | 1863 comments Mod
Kasey, as for a vote, it goes like this: if you put up a vote for who's the prettiest woman of all times, for instance - as some magazines, papers, sites, sometimes do - the results are totally biased. Influenced by the average age of the readers. Even if it is a big international magazine with a wide range of subscribers, people will tend to vote for those actresses, say, with more media exposure today. Just for a name, Angelina Jolie might be voted, but the number of voters for, say, Marlene Dietrich, will tend to be small. Not a fair, universal vote,


message 50: by Kaseadillla (new)

Kaseadillla | 1437 comments Mod
not sure I understand what you're trying to get at... maybe direct message me to discuss.


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8
back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.