There's a reason for the book's length, and it's to be found on this Goodreads page:

I'm sure it would be interesting, as he's a great author, but it will be a challenge if it wins.

No. I usually skip copyright pages, acknowledgements, ... , so that should bring the length down.

Hen we have a major issue and this vote needs to be scrapped and started over. The problem is that this book was not said to be three books in one. That should never have been nominated that way. This book should have been nominated as JUST THE FIRST BOOK. We don't read multiple books in one month.

Because of the size, this did affect my voting. I may or may not have voted for just the first book. So I want all our votes back so we can do this correctly.

This was misrepresented and thus, even the nomination portion was botched. We should redo this from the start if we want to do it correctly. We didn't have all the correct information to nominate and vote. So I'll give in and just redo the vote as long as this book is pushed as JUST the first book and the description reflects that.

Hope springs eternal, eh, Jon? We have never yet scrapped a nomination process or vote because of defects that have been determined by you.

The reality is that Wind-Up Bird is published as a single volume and it is a book. Those who have nominated and voted for it are fully entitled. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing them all engage in a rousing discussion, because isn't that the point of a book club? Surely it's not just a popularity contest?

It was nominated as a single book and is presented as a single book by the publisher in the English language versions, even if it was published as 3 volumes elsewhere. When the nominator provided the extra detail that someone requested they copied that section from GR as well, so this certainly isn't a misrepresentation or a major issue.

This book is 1/2 the size of the November 2013 selection so it is certainly not without precedent for length too.

And October 2009 and March 2010 would like to have a word with you about reading only one book in a month. March 2010 happens to be the first time Mary Roach was selected ....

Just because you are sore that your preference isn't winning right now doesn't mean the Earth is ending.

It means I wasn't given the correct information to make an informed choice. I won't be reading a 600 page book, but I might have chosen it if it interested me and it was just the first book.

I'm annoyed that I wasn't given the correct information to me an informed vote.

We have never read an omnibus and we have never done more than one book in a month. If that's going to be allowed, then it needs to be allowed before it's in the nomination/vote so we know what's what.

Jon -- I was able to figure out that it was three books. As such, I didn't feel cheated or mis-represented. And if it were to win, I could certainly see those who wanted to participate only doing so on the first book if that was all they had time for. Personally, I'm not particularly interested even at 1/3rd of its length.

I do object to anyone motivating or voting for a book and then not participating in the discussion. We see that too often and it distorts the book selection. (And yes, I get it that sometimes life intrudes. But at least an acknowledgement of the same in the discussion would seem to be called for, IMNSHO.)

As for the voting this time: I've decided to vote for Hidden Figures. I've seen the movie and I really want to read the book to get even more details. (And I strongly motivate folks to at least see the movie if you haven't!) I grew up during the "space race" and followed it avidly, along with all that was going on NASA, and this was totally new to me. Hidden figures indeed. (And I love the double meaning there!)

Oh, but hope springs eternal, issybird, certainly? Or was that internal?

I would hope so. I nominate and motivate for books that I think others will find worth their reading time, and find worthy of a discussion. Or simply because they're favourites of mine that I want to share with my 'friends' here. But in all cases, I hope and expect to participate in the discussion that follows from my votes and nominations.

In the case of Wind-Up Bird, I admit to thirding it without checking the price. That was a mistake, since I can't get it from my local library in a format I will read. (Sorry, DTB is not a choice for me any more. )

I agree that it is a problem where some vote for the winning book and then don't participate. Sometimes if those that do not participate did not vote then a different book would have won.

So please do not vote if you do not plan on participating. Even if you put it on hold at Overdrive and may or may not get it in time, don't vote unless you 100% ae going to participate.

I voted for what I will definitely will read. That doesn't mean I won't read any of the others, but I don't have to because I didn't vote.

Well, it looks like I'd better hurry up and finish this Peter Grant novella I'm in the middle of and get started on Hidden Figures. Thank goodness the UK price is a bit more reasonable, since the backlog at the library is ridiculous. Not as bad as the backlog was for Chris Hadfield's book (that was >120 in front of me, and only 4 copies!:eek:)

Well, it worked out OK from my perspective this month; either of the leading contenders would have been 1 rock tumbling off Mt TBR, and I suspect Hidden Figures will be a much quicker read (although Animal has its charms) :)

I have a hold on both the audiobook and the ebook at my local library. I'll take whichever comes in first.

I'm #44 waiting on 5 copies on Overdrive. Looks like I'll be giving Hoopla a try, no wait there.

No hope for me in Overdrive. 164 people ahead of me for 12 copies of the eBook, no audio book available. I've just taken a quick trip to the UK and bought the eBook and it's WhisperSync Audible version. Started now.

Thank you! I never thought of Hoopla. If my OD audiobook doesn't show up in time, Hoopla can be my fallback. Otherwise, I was going to read the DTB. :eek: