October 2016 Open Pick Nominations

[Marc]

Post a nomination below for October's Open Pick! Nominations accepted through the 23rd and we'll vote the week thereafter.

The usual rules: 21st Century work of literature, one nomination per person. Please see the How Things Work post if you are new to the group or need a refresher.

[Marc]

I'll kick things off with an older pick I think members of this group might enjoy if they haven't already: Caramelo by Sandra Cisneros

[LindaJ^]

I will again nominate All the Living by C.E. Morgan. I've now re-read the book and believe the group would enjoy it.

[Dianne]

I will nominate A Heart So White by Javier Marías

[Marc]

I'm predicting another close round of voting! Thanks for the nominations.

[Hugh]

I nominate The Time of Our Singing by Richard Powers which may be the best book I have read so far this year.

[LindaJ^]

Dianne wrote: "I will nominate A Heart So White by Javier Marías"

Query - this book was first published in English in 1997, apparently in the UK, and then in 2002 by New Directions and has been reprinted more recently. Does it qualify as 21st century literature?

[Hugh]

Linda wrote: "Query - this book was first published in English in 1997, apparently in the UK, and then in 2002 by N..."

Linda, well spotted! I think you are right that it should be disqualified

[Dianne]

Oh fine! I withdraw the Marias you rule followers ;) existing options look good so I'm fine with that :)

[Ernie]

I will nominate Stork Mountain by Miroslav Penkov, a book that several of my friends keep telling me is a must-read.

[Michelle]

What about Ruby by Cynthia Bond?

[Viv]

Michelle wrote: "What about Ruby by Cynthia Bond?"

I read this recently and although it's quite a disturbing read, it is also rather beautiful. Whilst I was reading it I thought it would have been good to have people to discuss it with, so I think it would make for an excellent group read.

[Maureen]

Marc wrote: "I'll kick things off with an older pick I think members of this group might enjoy if they haven't already: Caramelo by Sandra Cisneros"

I love Sandra Cisneros but haven't read this book; I'm excited about this pick. I need something different!

[Carol]

I nominate Confessions by Rabee Jaber.

It is set in Lebanon during the War. The premise is that a boy is adopted by one of the assassins who killed his family. It's about identity and memory. Jaber was born in Beirut in 1972 and is an IPAF-Award -winning Lebanese journalist. This one is special.

[Kirsten]

How about Mr. Splitfoot by Samantha Hunt?

[Molly]

Kirsten *Dogs Welcome - People Tolerated" wrote: "How about Mr. Splitfoot by Samantha Hunt?"

Yes!

[Hugh]

This may not be the best place to say this, but I'm not sure how many people ever read the general discussion threads. I see that once again we have another three nominations for books first published in hardback in 2016, which will only be available at premium prices to those of us who are not members of good libraries.

Can we really make any claims about identifying literary merit if we discuss things so soon after the publishing hype? It does seem a bit silly for us to insist on publication after 2000 without any equivalent limit at the newer end of the scale (for me either 12 months after the initial hardback or some evidence that a mass market paperback is available would be workable).

I would love to see a Marías discussion here and I may think about nominating one of his more recent books for a future discussion, though if it's the latest one (Thus Bad Begins) the paperback will probably not appear until after Christmas - the previous one (The Infatuations) seems to have rather mixed reviews...

[LindaJ^]

Hugh wrote: "This may not be the best place to say this, but I'm not sure how many people ever read the general discussion threads. I see that once again we have another three nominations for books first publis..."

After a couple of years in this Group, I've come to the same point. I freely admit to having nominated recently published books in the past, but it seems to me those books are being read in quite a few other groups and if we are looking for those 21st century books that are going to stay around as literature, waiting at least 12 months might well have merit.

[Dianne]

I've committed the same offense also, but don't plan to do so in the future. If accessibility is preventing members from participating, then I think we should limit nominations to older books. What is fair? The year prior or two years prior?

[Hugh]

Dianne wrote: "I've committed the same offense also, but don't plan to do so in the future. If accessibility is preventing members from participating, then I think we should limit nominations to older books. What..."
I can only speak from experience here in the UK, where it is common practice for mass market paperbacks to be delayed until approximately 12 months after the hardback, though this can vary quite a lot and some get released a little earlier than that. I suggested 12 months because the hardback publication dates are usually visible, but there could still be issues of interpretation for translations. Thanks to you and Linda for supporting the idea.

[Lily]

Hugh wrote: "Can we really make any claims about identifying literary merit if we discuss things so soon after the publishing hype?..."

It seems to me your question is really about the objectives of this group, Hugh. Is it a group for readers to share reading 21st century literature, or is it a group that would like to be among those finding and identifying good 21st century literature? When I first joined the group, I sensed it was as much the second as the former, although I personally was enjoying the group more as a reader than as a finder. At that time considerable interest was expressed in finding that "unknown" hidden in the realms of small publishers or that was perhaps an early recognition by independent booksellers. As the membership and leadership have shifted, what you ask seems relevant to put on the table.

[Hugh]

Thanks Lily. As I mentioned when talking about this issue on another topic, I found the introductory paragraph on the group home page very inspiring:

"For people interested in keeping up with the modern literary classics. We will be reading fiction and fine literature from 2000 to present, with the intent of finding those literary gems of timeless and enduring quality. We are not interested in reading the latest bestsellers, nor in discussing books already well-represented in other groups. Rather, our passion is to explore those works of fiction which stand a good chance of being remembered fifty years from now. ".

As Linda has said, there are plenty of other groups here devoted to newly published books. I would be very interested in what everyone else thinks on this whether or not you agree with me.

[Ernie]

I saw that originally when I joined recently, but I noticed that there are a lot of recent books on the list of books discussed and also many that appear to have been recent when they were discussed, so I wasn't sure how closely this group followed that description.

Makes sense though. There are plenty of books out there...lots to choose from. I withdraw Stork Mountain then, as it was published earlier this year. I nominate The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood, which I am sad to say that as a big Atwood fan, I have not yet managed to read. Is it possible I'm the only one? I feel like I'm really behind on this one.

[Hugh]

Ernie, Thanks. The Blind Assassin is on my to-read list too, so if that one wins the vote I'll join the discussion.

[Lily]

Hugh wrote: " ..."

Yes, I went back and reread those paragraphs, too. It was "with the intent of finding" aspect that seemed strong in those long ago days as I "listened" to moderator "talk." I suspected people came from various demands in their everyday lives, some of them even in the publishing worlds. That emphasis on "finding" was likely never true for everyone, even among the moderators. Then, too, any who hoped for such may have decided this is not a place where such is possible -- that may be more a world of the obscure press and of arcs and of....

Now the leaders and the group are ....?

[Viv]

I agree that there are a lot of groups devoted to reading the newest releases. I am lucky that I have access to a relatively good library service and am often able to get hold of hardback copies prior to the paperback release, but I recognise that's not always the case.

I would be happy to support a rule that books should be older than 12 months. Maybe it's worth starting a new thread to discuss this away from the nominations?

[Hugh]

Viv wrote: "I agree that there are a lot of groups devoted to reading the newest releases. I am lucky that I have access to a relatively good library service and am often able to get hold of hardback copies pr..."
Viv, I think you are right, that is a good idea. So I've started a new topic here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Nicole]

Hugh wrote: "Thanks Lily. As I mentioned when talking about this issue on another topic, I found the introductory paragraph on the group home page very inspiring:

"For people interested in keeping up with the ..."

Speaking as a lurker who only joined recently, the appeal of this group for me is its potential sorting function -- being able to use it as a means to find contemporary literature that is good and not just recent. This is purely selfish desire on my part.

How that sorting function might actually work in terms of the group's mechanics is another matter, about which I don't really know enough to say.

[Ernie]

Viv wrote: "..."

I'm in NYC, and the system in place for libraries amazes me these days. I think it is great to have everything digital (online and even an app for the phone) with reserving books and notifications on availability for your books, and you can even check out Kindle books from the library via your digital reading device, whatever that may be.

[Whitney]

Sorry if this post is a little officious, but I have a request to make for book nominations. Whoever sets up the polls goes through these posts and picks out the books that are nominated to add to the poll. Clearly stating things up front makes things much easier for us so we don't have to read through a lot of posts to try and figure out intent.

If you are nominating a book, please put at the very beginning of your post "I nominate XXXXX". Mild variations such as "I will nominate" are fine, too. Nominations shouldn't end with a question mark. A sentence such as "What about such-and-such a book?" leaves us wondering if it's supposed to be a nomination or a solicitation for input.

If you later withdraw a nomination, please edit your original post to add "nomination withdrawn" at the top.

That's it. Extra discussion, advocacy, humor, etc are all still welcome, as long as nominations are clearly stated at the beginning of posts. Thanks, all!

[Portia]

Whitney, if I nominate a book and it "wins", am I responsible for leading the discussion? That's the way it is in other of my groups and I just did that without hesitation for The Secret Chord, but I can see where that requirement might limit nominations.

[Whitney]

No. You are only responsible for reading it and participating in the discussion. Nominators are offered the chance to lead the discussion, but only if they want to.

[Viv]

I will nominate The Night Watch by Sarah Waters from 2006. I haven't read it, but it received a whole bunch of nominations, including for the Man Booker and Orange Prize.

[Hugh]

Viv wrote: "I will nominate The Night Watch by Sarah Waters from 2006. I haven't read it, but it received a whole bunch of nominations, including for the Man Booker and Orange Pr..."
I'll definitely participate if that one wins the vote

[Marc]

As we like to say in America, "vote early and often"... Wait, that doesn't sound quite right.

Just go vote!

The poll is up here:
https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/141136

[Marc]

Ernie, would you like to moderate the discussion on The Blind Assassin? We usually offer first dibs to the person who nominated the winning book but you are under no obligation to moderate the discussion.

[Ernie]

Marc wrote: "..."

To be honest, I'm not really sure what that entails. I'm new to all this. But I'm open to the idea.

[Marc]

Ernie, you would decide how to divide the discussion up (how many threads, how to divide the book up, possibly suggest questions... each discussion moderator handles things a little differently). You can take a glance at some of the other discussions for an idea. You're basically there to make sure discussion starts and doesn't veer too far off topic or spiral out of control, which is something I've never seen happen with this group. Feel free to message me directly or any of the other moderators if you have more questions or just want to talk it over some more.

[Whitney]

Ernie, here's a version of something that I send out to new moderators. I'll get around to proof reading it and posting and linking from our welcome topic eventually for all to see:


A Rough Guide to Moderating

We usually offer the opportunity to moderate discussions to the person who nominated the winning book in the Open Pick. This is intended for people new to moderating discussions in 21st Century Literature and who are looking for a little guidance.

There are no hard and fast rules for moderating. The best thing to do is look through some previous discussions and see how others have done it to get an idea what might work best for you. You’re not expected to explain the book to people, but to keep a good discussion going. Ask some leading questions to get things started, encourage people to expand on or clarify things that they post, etc.

There are usually at least two topics for each discussion, a ‘General, No Spoiler’ thread and an ‘Entire Book, Spoilers Allowed’ thread. Other than that, you can have as many or as few folders as you think will work best. The longer a book is, the more benefit there usually is to breaking it up into smaller sections for discussion.

When the date for the discussion rolls around, a moderator will start a new folder for the book and put one topic thread as a placeholder. After that, you can add whatever topics you’d like into the folder.

A few technical details:

- When you add a new topic, be sure to write something about it in the comments section at the same time, otherwise the topic won't show up.

-Head all new topics with the name of the book first, followed by whatever the name of the new topic is. For example, “Station Eleven - General Discussion, No Spoilers”, “Station Eleven, Chapters 1 – 10”. Also, for EVERY new topic, select the book under discussion in the "this topic is about” box. Following this format, makes it much easier for people to find the discussion in the future.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send a message to any of the moderators.

[Hugh]

Ernie, as an ordinary group member who was in the same position less than a year ago but has now moderated a few times, all I can say is give it a try and you'll be surprised how easy it is - there are plenty of people here willing to help, offer advice and fill any gaps

[Ernie]

Thank you, Marc, Whitney & Hugh. I'll give it a go.

I'm traveling Sept. 30th through Oct. 12th in Europe, but I'll be "wired," so to speak, and can still moderate.

[Marc]

Ernie wrote: "Thank you, Marc, Whitney & Hugh. I'll give it a go.

I'm traveling Sept. 30th through Oct. 12th in Europe, but I'll be "wired," so to speak, and can still moderate."

Wonderful, Ernie! One of the group moderators usually sets up a discussion folder the night before discussion starts (Oct. 1st in this case) and then you can add as many threads as you see fit.