How to get the group active?

[Robin]

Hi everyone, Marcie has made J. Pearce and I new mods in hopes of getting this group more active. Marcie originally wanted a more open reading format so that not everyone had to read the same book, just the same subject matter. This would be good because it allows everyone more freedom on what to read. I think the trouble with that is that we can't really talk amongst ourselves about the books we're reading since everyone else is reading something different. But we could set up discussions on the subject matter rather than discussing the books.

The alternative is just having your standard book club type monthly reads - everyone nominates books and votes on them and the winning book is the one we read for the month.

So what does the group think? - you can vote here: http://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/61...

Does anyone have any other ideas on how to get the ball rolling?

[Mary]

Theme reads are fun; queens, scientists. 1st ladies. Compare and contrast,, What do you think???

[Susan O]

Mary wrote: "Theme reads are fun; queens, scientists. 1st ladies. Compare and contrast,, What do you think???"

Hi Mary, I just joined and it doesn't look like there has been much activity lately. I like the idea of theme reads. Maybe your comment will spark some interest from others as well. What would be your first pick for a category?

[Lynsay]

Susan wrote: "Mary wrote: "Theme reads are fun; queens, scientists. 1st ladies. Compare and contrast,, What do you think???"

Hi Mary, I just joined and it doesn't look like there has been much activity lat..."

Hi, I just joined. Is there currently any activity here?

[Abbey]

I just joined, too - anyone read 4000 Years of Uppity Women? It's on my to read list but haven't gotten to it yet.

[Jean]

Hello Everyone, I would like to get a discussion going of The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks by Jeanne Theoharis. I have added this book to the group bookshelf and have suggested a date of August 15, 2014 as the deadline for reading the book. I am quite happy to act as a discussion moderator, if needed. Is anyone interested in joining me in reading and discussing this book?

[Maria]

Great. Will read it.

[Jean]

Maria wrote: "Great. Will read it."

Thanks, Maria. Let's see if we can get some others to join us.

[Alex]

There seem to be precious few books on women's history out there...of just about any time period. Why do you think that is?

[Jean]

Alex wrote: "There seem to be precious few books on women's history out there...of just about any time period. Why do you think that is?"
Hi Alex, I don't actually think this is true; women's history seems to me like a very dynamic field. I wonder if your problem in finding books has to do with how you're defining time periods? Joan Kelly's very important 1977 essay, "Did Women Have a Renaissance?" argues that there is s male bias in historical periodization and that looking at history from women's point of view disrupts those divisions into time periods.
My own interest is particularly in U.S. women's history and in the history of women's activism. Some favorite books/authors are Nancy Cott, Anne Firor Scott, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, and Louise Tilly and Joan Scott's path-breaking history of how industrialization changed families, Women, Work, and Family.

[Alex]

Hi Jean, I sometimes get a little hyperbolic and this was one of them. If I had an intention, it was to try to generate a discussion in this group - I had expected more activity in a group on this topic. I am grateful for your having responded.

I am very new to GR groups, having posted my last book on GR and then doing nothing thereafter (except a giveaway that went nowhere). So, I guess it will take me a little time to get the hang of it.

As to the subject I raised, I was referring to my new book and the research I did for it. It is about women in the American Colonial and Revolutionary period(s). There wasn't as much as I expected there to be.

Now, I do most of my work in primary sources, but always like to see how others are interpreting them. As with the histories of men of the period(s), there's a greater percentage of secondary sources interpreting other secondary sources than of interpreting primary sources - just lots more about the men.

I have not read Kelly, but the premise seems right, at least in my experience, but also applies to men, too. The American Colonial and Revolutionary War periods break up much of the exciting things that women did then and I am hard pressed to choose one over the other for both my new book and last one. My editor says they are genre busters - a distinction that I was proud of until I got to the marketplace.