Quote:
Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks
I disagree about the mandatory reading. For one, you can't police it and this is all in good fun. For two, I might want to vote for an expected good book in a genre. Let's say I haven't read a cozy entry, but that's my favorite genre. Why couldn't I vote just on that expectation?
I mean, sure, it would be nice if we all read what we voted for, but sometimes we might want to vote AGAINST a book we have read and that might mean picking something else for that timeframe that we haven't read. For example, I'd pick just about anything other than Wuthering Heights (I don't think it's in the list anyway, but just for the example).
|
I disagree with this reasoning. As you say, you can't really police it but we can work on a trust system, like we did with nominations. Paul specified you had to read what you nominated and everyone just trusted that everyone nominated things they'd read.
Two, I personally don't think anyone should vote for an "expected good book" no matter what. This will make the results meaningless in my opinion. If I look at a book and see that three people voted for it, I want to know that they've already read it and consider it worthy of their vote, not that maybe they've heard it's good and like the idea of the book.
Three, I don't think we should be voting *against* any book here. Let the votes speak for themselves. Probably no one will be happy with all the winners, and probably the winners will reflect famous and more-read books as well as favourite genres, but that's ok. It's not about making sure a book you think you might like "wins" this, or making sure a book you don't like "loses". This is more about the process, and for me the biggest part of the process after nominations themselves will be looking at vote distribution. Even a book with one vote can be meaningful if I trust that whoever voted for it did it because they read the whole thing and really loved it.