The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Miscellaneous - Archives
>
How Do We Want to Select Group Reads, Frequency, Etc.?
Loretta wrote: "Honestly, I don't think simply requesting that people think before they vote will work.
I didn't vote for CMC, but I've been reading and enjoying it (though I'm a few chapters behind as I find t..."
Wow. If we pruned out the non-participants we'd be down to a very tiny group!!
I didn't vote for CMC, but I've been reading and enjoying it (though I'm a few chapters behind as I find t..."
Wow. If we pruned out the non-participants we'd be down to a very tiny group!!
LOL, I know it's a pretty radical suggestion. If everyone is against this idea, that's fine with me. I have noticed, however, with that other group that I mentioned that if you have an open door policy (i.e. every person who requests to join is accepted, but non-participants, after a couple months, are removed), you eventually end up with about 25-35 people who participate at least several times a week.
But, hey, I'm not a mod for that group (or this one). I've just beenefited from how well that system works. :)
And if we decide to keep it completely public, that's fine too. I would NEVER have picked up CMC on my own (two failed attemps to read Musketeers discouraged me from Dumas), so I'm actually loving that my boundaries were pushed, as I'm enjoying the heck out of the book.
Personally, I kind of like the idea. I've noticed that every group I've been in develops a core group of participants, a few other people who show up off and on and the bulk who just lurk (and vote). This way you effectively eliminate the lurkers.
Off with their heads!
Off with their heads!
Kate Mc. wrote: "Wow. If we pruned out the non-participants we'd be down to a very tiny group!! "Would that be a bad thing? I'm thinking of weeding out the people from my group who have been members for over a year but have never posted.
Looking at those who voted for TCoMC, I see the following:
Two have made posts about the book.
Three have made posts in the group in the past but have not about the Count.
Two have never made even a single post in the group.
Perhaps a somewhat more pointed statement about there being an expectation of participation if the book you vote for wins, and a PM to those who voted for a book but didn't participate as to why they didn't participate, with a deletion from the group if they don't have a decent answer.
I guess in the end we'll have to leave the final decision with Chris (and I'm fine either way, so no pressure!).I just thought I'd throw the option out there.
Mod
It was mentioned above, by Loretta maybe, that we should look at selecting more than just the very next book for group reads; or if the second book in a poll received enough interest, then it would become the next read. Lets give the whole notion of how we select books another go-around among all of us.
Maybe we let group members pick a book? They would moderate the discussion, etc. I don't know, I'm just tossing stuff out for consideration.
Christopher wrote: "I want you all to know that I support the will of the group, especially all of you that have put forth your thoughts, opinions, and participation. I think it does seem pretty fair to expect that i..."The further out you schedule books, the more likely it is that people who voted for them won't be around and interested by the time the books come up. Personally, I think a schedule of voting four to six weeks before a book discussion is to start works pretty well. It's enough time to decide whether you want to read it and get the book. If you're voting on books now to be read in September, do I really know what I'm going to want to or have time to read then?
Based on this discussion, in my group I sent a nice note to the people who voted for the current book but haven't yet shown up for the discussion to remind them that their book one and say that we hope to see them in the discussion.
I'm also seriously thinking of culling inactive members. Many people may think a group looks interesting, sign up for it, then quickly realize it's not for them, but never remove themselves from the group. I'll probably start with a post to the membership encouraging those who are no longer interested to please remove themselves from the group, and see what the response is.
I wish GR were a bit more helpful -- letting us send PMs to selected subsets of our groups, such as those who haven't posted in over a year. But they seem to feel that getting as many people as possible to sign up for as many groups as possible is a good thing whether or not they're active. I think that probably allows them to boost their numbers and charge more for ads, which I do understand because they have to get the momey to support the group, but still . . .
And, of course, whether or not the groups are active -- there are groups out there that haven't had a single post in several years but are still hanging around showing up on searches and getting in the way of active groups.
Sigh.
Christopher wrote: "Maybe we let group members pick a book? They would moderate the discussion, etc. I don't know, I'm just tossing stuff out for consideration. "During the transition on moderators Victorians tried that "only nominate books you're willing to moderate" idea. It bombed; virtually nobody was willing to commit to that, myself included since my moderation time is all tied up in my own group.
Loretta wrote: "LOL, I know it's a pretty radical suggestion. If everyone is against this idea, that's fine with me. I have noticed, however, with that other group that I mentioned that if you have an open doo..."
Kate Mc. wrote: "Personally, I kind of like the idea. I've noticed that every group I've been in develops a core group of participants, a few other people who show up off and on and the bulk who just lurk (and vot..."
Thanks for the excellent suggestion Loretta. I am sorry no-one is now helping you along with CMC:( (including me).
I'd like to say here, sorry for not being able to participate in TCoMC. I made it sound like I would have been able to, but I didn't realize that I'd have no time. During the summer--or probably before--I am definitely going to actively participate in reads (this is a promise!). It is hard for me, because I really wanted to read TCoMC, but when I've got political science papers to write, I have to put that first.
I'm fine with reading CMC on my own, though of course it means I won't be participating in any other group reads until I have finished it (likely by the middle of March, at the rate I'm moving). Perhaps we should self-impose a page limit for our next couple books, to see if shorter novels work better. 500 pages? 600? LOL, I'm just throwing out ideas here. :)
<9>Perhaps we should self-impose a page limit for our next couple books, to see if shorter novels work better. 500 pages? 600?That's a helpful idea Loretta - I personally love big books and feel challenged by them but I know that many folks don't and the last two have been whoppers.
Or perhaps we should only take on long books if we have a dedicated moderator for that particular discussion. It's a lot of work to keep a conversation going and it really helps to have someone prodding and providing discussion topics.
MadgeUK wrote: "Perhaps we should self-impose a page limit for our next couple books, to see if shorter novels work better. 500 pages? 600?That's a helpful idea Loretta - I personally love big books and feel cha..."
Great point, Madge. The same goes here, I love taking on a thick book, but a lot of people would likely prefer Ivan Ilych to War and Peace.
Although this page limit would just be for a while, right? Because, in the future, we may want to take on another longer work (like TBK).
MadgeUK wrote: "I personally love big books ..."There is a group on GR, Reading the Chunksters, specifically devoted to reading big books. I don't follow it that closely, not having the ability at the moment to read those books on top of everything else, but it seems moderately active.
Kate Mc. wrote: "Or perhaps we should only take on long books if we have a dedicated moderator for that particular discussion. It's a lot of work to keep a conversation going and it really helps to have someone pr..."This is a very good point. I know Christopher is buried under work, and appreciate even the time he can spend here with us, but he hasn't been able to actively moderate as he did earlier in the group's history, and nobody seems to have stepped forward. Moderating is a quite different role than participating, though not difficult for anyone willing to spend the time and attention to it. But a good moderator can often winkle out an active discussion where otherwise there might be few active posters.
Until Chris can get unburied and be fully active again, perhaps we should limit or selections to ones where a poster is willing to take on, or at least try to take on, the moderation.
MadgeUK wrote: "Perhaps we should self-impose a page limit for our next couple books, to see if shorter novels work better. 500 pages? 600?That's a helpful idea Loretta - I personally love big books and feel cha..."
I don't see a problem with long books if they are books people want to read and discuss, if there is enough time allowed for the reading, and if there is someone willing to take on an active role in moderating the discussion and bringing out points that encourage people to respond and bring out their own ideas.
I don't think there's inherently a problem with long books. I was merely suggesting that, as we've had difficulties with participation in the past, choosing something that is ~300 pages long might encourage more people to come out of the woodwork and join in. And then, once more people are used to being active participants, they might be more likely to join in for longer works. We don't necessarily have to do this. I just wouldn't be surprised if Ethan Frome ends up having far more readers than CMC did.
Everyman wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Maybe we let group members pick a book? They would moderate the discussion, etc. I don't know, I'm just tossing stuff out for consideration. "During the transition on moderato..."
A while ago in another group, Everyman suggested that those who vote for a book might like to participate in the discussion. I felt chastened, as I had voted previously, then not taken part in discussions. So for a while I didn't vote. Now I vote with the intention of participating, but I don't have time to re-read books I have read but can't recall that well. Also i can't just read something that doesn't appeal to me just because it's the chosen book.
Finally, even if I am reading along, often I really don't think my reflections will add to the discussion, but I still follow the discussions with interest.
This is a long-winded way of suggesting group reads can get complicated. Having said that, i do think if one's vote is successful, a gentle reminder from a moderator that participation is expected is totally reasonable.
Loretta wrote: "I don't think there's inherently a problem with long books. I was merely suggesting that, as we've had difficulties with participation in the past, choosing something that is ~300 pages long might encourage more people to come out of the woodwork and join in. And then, once more people are used to being active participants, they might be more likely to join in for longer works. "That's a good point. Also, we might want to think about choosing a somewhat lighter, more likely to be popular book to follow Ethan to, as you say, draw in more posters.
And perhaps the number of nominations should be limited so as to get a more robust vote for the winner.
Another possibility: after a poll is closed, the moderator could calculate a score for each book based on a weighted voter system: say three votes for any person who has made at least ten posts in the book discussion threads in the past two books, two votes for any person who has made at least two posts in the book discussion threads, and one vote for everybody else. Multiply those out and announce the winner on that basis. That way, we would be most likely to have a book chosen by the more active posters.
Sasha wrote: "Now I vote with the intention of participating, but I don't have time to re-read books I have read but can't recall that well. Also i can't just read something that doesn't appeal to me just because it's the chosen book."
Good post, Sasha. There are many reasons one can't participate as one originally hoped. I hope the messages I've left aren't seen as laying guilt, but as encouraging participation.
I think it's not just the length of the book, but the content. BK was slow slogging, COMC wasn't. About weighted votes, Eman, who's going to start calculating each member's post count?
Here's how I feel about the poll: in the last one,
COMC had 7
EF had 6
13 people didn't want either
112 people didn't vote and are either dead or no longer have a computer or have moved to Antarctica.
In that kind of voting, there's no real majority. That's how presidents get elected by 20% of the electorate. So I suggest fewer allowed nominations.
Did the 7 who voted for COMC participate?
Other Q is, what percentage of people who don't vote for a book will read along with it anyway?. No answer to that.
Wish I had my friend David here, who taught statistics in college. He used to ask me just in ordinary conversation, "What percent of your friends like blue?" or "What percent of the restaurants that we've dined in were mediocre?" Poor David
Everyman wrote: "There are many reasons one can't participate as one originally hoped. I hope the messages I've left aren't seen as laying guilt, but as encouraging participation. ..."I think you've been very hospitable and welcoming in both groups. I'm really surprised. :D
Sasha wrote: "Also I can't just read something that doesn't appeal to me just because it's the chosen book..."That's we we all belong to several groups, and that's also why real-live book clubs never worked for me.
Everyman wrote: "Sasha wrote: "Now I vote with the intention of participating, but I don't have time to re-read books I have read but can't recall that well. Also i can't just read something that doesn't appeal to ..."Not at all! It made me think, rather than be a blockhead :)
Kate Mc. wrote: "...It's a lot of work to keep a conversation going and it really helps to have someone prodding and providing discussion topics. ..."
Yes, Moderators are absolutely essential for a good discussion, I have noticed this time and time again. I do what I can to prod things along as a reader but it has been to no avail:(.
Sasha wrote: Finally, even if I am reading along, often I really don't think my reflections will add to the discussion, but I still follow the discussions with interest. Even though folks don't actually participate in the discussion, I think the odd comment like 'thanks I found that interesting' is helpful and contributes to the momentum.
I have followed many books in these clubs which I haven't liked but because I have signed up as a member, and because I like the interaction with people I have got to know, I like to be a team player if I can. Folks may have noticed, for instance, that where there is a lot of discussion of romance I do not join in but I do contribute other bits and pieces of background info, or I post 'thankyou' comments to others who have helped me appreciate certain aspects of the novel.
Everyman: Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Your group tackles some very difficult and long books - to what particular formula do you attribute its success?
MadgeUK wrote: "Everyman: Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Your group tackles some very difficult and long books - to what particular formula do you attribute its success? "
Mostly, luck.
And, of course, excellent participants who take their reading seriously -- but not too seriously! And who are uniformly supportive and positive. In the end, it's the participants who make the group; the moderator can just try to set a tone and keep things moving along.
I try to keep the group focused on the book at issue, and avoid chit-chat threads as much as possible. I enjoy those in other groups, and a little of it is fine, but I think when people go to a group primarily for the chit-chat aspects, it loses its focus on the book at issue.
But really, it comes back to the posters and their willingness and desire to tackle serious books seriously.
Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Perhaps he has got Chris to make the tea using the willow pattern china from the Welsh dresser:"For this crowd, where discussions are apt to terminate in the propelling of objects..."
I don't mind stuff being thrown at me, I'm hoping it's the next book though, so I know what to start reading, lol :p
Jaime wrote: "Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Perhaps he has got Chris to make the tea using the willow pattern china from the Welsh dresser:"
For this crowd, where discussions are apt to terminate in the prop..."
Well, Madge, others,
I've gone out and purchased Ethan Frome.
For this crowd, where discussions are apt to terminate in the prop..."
Well, Madge, others,
I've gone out and purchased Ethan Frome.
For what it's worth, my position is not that the group is reading Ethan Frome for certain, but that if that should be what the group decides, I'm ready. I picked up a very inexpensive copy.
Adelle wrote: "Jaime wrote: "Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Perhaps he has got Chris to make the tea using the willow pattern china from the Welsh dresser:"For this crowd, where discussions are apt to termi..."
I downloaded it to my Kindle Adelle, so I am ready for off:).
Jaime wrote: "So are we reading Ethan Frome for sure then?"I think that's it, but I don't recall Christopher actually coming out and making it official.
Oh, Christopher ,,,,, Calling Christopher ......
Well I have Ethan Frome in both hard copy and on my Kindle, so I'm also ready if that's what we read. But I'm sure if it is we'll have to pick another as well as it's small. It would go well with The Awakening and/or Summer (just saying, lol). But something totally different would be fun, too:)
I have download Ethan Frome as well, looking forward to reading it.
Mod
Christopher wrote: ""Ethan Frome" is definitely the next book for group read and discussion. I think I can commit to moderating the read/re-read and group discussion. A very interesting little novella that is actual..."That's great! We've really missed you.
Also, since EF is relatively short, should we be getting on with, or have you get on with choosing for us, the following work to read? Since recently voting hasn't seemed to choose a book of great interest to the group, maybe you should try just picking one that you want to moderate and think would attract more interest. Perhaps with people offering suggestions and lobbying, but leaving the final vote up to you. Just a thought.
Everyman wrote: "Christopher wrote: ""Ethan Frome" is definitely the next book for group read and discussion. I think I can commit to moderating the read/re-read and group discussion. A very interesting little no..."Or maybe the other way around? He picks a few and we vote from that very short list?
And yeah on the confirmation of Ethan Frome, I added it to my currently reading list :)
In Chris' absence and as several people (including myself) have now got Ethan Frome, I will put the threads up so that we can make a start, perhaps on Monday. There is only an Introduction and 9 Chapters so it should not prove too onerous - I hope everyone who has expressed an interest will jump aboard. I also hope that Kate Mc will give us the benefit of her excellent moderating skills. Here is a searchable online text:-http://www.online-literature.com/whar...
Thank you, MadgeUK. Color me there.
Thanks Madge. I will definitely be reading EF.
Have your tissues ready folks! Or perhaps we should use the real thing:-http://im2.ebidst.com/upload_big/3/5/...
Mod
I would like all of you to consider reading and discussing one of the following novels--
The Way We Live Now, by Anthony Trollope [This novel published in 1874-1875 is dramatic, slightly mad-cap, loads of romance, and incredibly timely relative to the current financial crisis that we find ourselves in.]
Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte, first published in 1847 [My rationale for this (besides it being one of my favorite novels of all time) is that the new film adaptation is coming out soon (2011) starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbinder.]
Jude the Obscure, by Thomas Hardy, and first published in 1895 [This is nothing more than one of the most important novels I've ever read, and I would love to read and discuss this with a group of like-minded individuals like all of you. There is so much in this book to discuss that it makes my mind spin!]
I am committed to fully engage and moderate the discussion of the book chosen and do my very best to make this a terrific experience for all of us. Do you think we could pick one of these and make it a really great read and discussion? Personally, I believe each of these books to be intellectually challenging on many levels, and each is bound to raise many interesting issues that can be discussed 'until the cows come home.'
So, what say all of you? Are you comfortable choosing a book from this short-list; and, if so, what book what you choose for our next group-read and discussion following "Ethan Frome"?
Please Note--I have cross-posted this posting in a new folder, and I ask each of you to go there and post your thoughts and opinions there. If you approve of my approach, I'll create a poll and we can vote for the selection. Thank you!
I think a lot of us are going to read Jane Eyre anyway...I'd also be open to Jude...
Mod
I wondered about that too, Jaime. Lets see what others think and take it from there. I appreciate your thoughts at this point. Cheers! Chris
All are OK with me - I will go with the flow and will read whatever is chosen.
Great suggestions, Christopher.
I committed to Ethan Frome for Madge.
I would likely read whatever the group chooses...but I'm not a full-blooded group member...I just drop in for an occasional book....So I wouldn't advocate for any book over another.
I committed to Ethan Frome for Madge.
I would likely read whatever the group chooses...but I'm not a full-blooded group member...I just drop in for an occasional book....So I wouldn't advocate for any book over another.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Northanger Abbey (other topics)Jude the Obscure (other topics)
The Way We Live Now (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
Summer (other topics)
More...
I didn't vote for CMC, but I've been reading and enjoying it (though I'm a few chapters behind as I find the schedule to be a bit overambitious.. I'll probably finish it in 8 weeks, rather than 6, which is still pretty good I think, but not quite as fast as our schedule). So I think perhaps part of the discussion should include how quickly people feel that they can read the book? It's not as if I'm being lazy, and that's why I'm behind--I frequently work 12 hour days, and obviously that cuts into reading time.
Also, I'll admit I've grown a bit wary of reading the thread too thoroughly as the thread for Week 1 included a spoiler for something that happened in Week 2. No one's fault but the person who posted the comment, but it still has made me a bit more reluctant to read the thread.
All that being said, the goodreads group I spend the most time with, and the one with the highest level of participation and group-read buy-in, is a private group where the moderator has explicitly stated, in the group description, that she will remove members who haven't participated in 2 months.
I'm fairly certain she's open to requests to put membership on hold (i.e. if you tell her you have a brutal three months coming up, she won't remove you, and I think she also lets members back in if they request to do so, which of course most don't).
Chris might view this as a drastic suggestion, but I'm just putting it out there, as I've seen it work really well.