New Leaf Welcome to the New Leaf Book Club

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's in the sticky New Leaf Information and Book Selections, under Selections List.

The July theme is Life's a Beach, Water, Water, Everywhere.

Thank you.

[CRussel]

OK, folks. We've played around for several months now with having a nomination plus a second to get to the voting round. This was proposed as an experimental measure, to be re-evaluated after we'd tried it out. It's now time to decide to either keep that, or go back to a nomination plus 2 "seconds".

I'm not going to post a survey, but simply ask folks to weigh in here with your preference, and the reason(s) for that preference. What do you think?



(And, to be clear, I'm not trying to start a whole long discussion around other alternatives or changes, simply get folks opinions on the narrow question asked. I'll be taking all the input for the rest of the week, and making a decision before posting next month's nomination thread on the theme of Life's a Beach: Water, Water, Everywhere.)

[gmw]

Given the current levels of participation I think the new system of nomination of plus one second is proving to be effective.

If participation grows and we start getting 20 or more books through to the vote then perhaps we reconsider.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by gmw

Given the current levels of participation I think the new system of nomination of plus one second is proving to be effective.

If participation grows and we start getting 20 or more books through to the vote then perhaps we reconsider.

I agree.

[CRussel]

I don't want to prejudice others who might want to comment or express a differing opinion. But I do, in general, agree that this is working for our (hopefully temporarily) reduced numbers. I would, however, put the reversion point somewhat lower than gmw has. I'd suggest that no more than 15, and I could argue for 10, fully nominated books to vote on is probably enough.

Oh, and FWIW Jon, I quite like the new avatar.

[Bookworm_Girl]

I’m ok with he new system. No objections from me to keep it going that way.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Oh, and FWIW Jon, I quite like the new avatar.

Thanks. I recently switched to Thunderbird because Outlook 2016 does not work properly with Gmail. I find Thunderbird to be rather good.

[Catlady]

I like the new system as well.

[fantasyfan]

I think the new system is fine.

[CRussel]

As you can see from this month's nomination thread, I'm sticking with the nomination plus a single second, with each participant granted three "tickets" to be used for any combination of nominations and seconds. The consensus agrees with my take -- it's working well.

[gmw]

JSWolf brought up that there have been reports that Jules Verne held antisemitic views. I am not familiar with those reports, nor do I recall seeing overt demonstration of it in Verne's work, but that's largely beside the point (the book is already selected by two rounds of voting, which makes it seems like a pretty firm choice). The point is...

In the brief conversation that followed, JSWolf suggested that he would rather that the club chose books from authors that are not problematic in regard to racism, sexism and so on:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

[...] There is a certain level of these issues that's too much. The Dorthy Sayer, ERB, and H. Rider Haggard are three examples of too much (IMHO). Can we try to go for books that while not perfect, are not so out there?

I largely agree with what issybird said on that thread, that such restrictions would bind the club to mostly very modern works, as authors of old works that held views compatible with modern sensibilities are few and far between. And you don't even have to go very far back to run into trouble, the 1970s was another world as far as a lot of this stuff is concerned.

Nor do I feel that I need to be protected from instances of historical prejudice, particularly where it may be subtle; I'd rather learn to recognise it. If Verne's stories have prejudices that I've missed in the past then I'd like them pointed out. I think it worth reviewing and reflecting on where we have been compared to where we are now.

But there are limits, and it gets complicated because each of us is likely to draw the line in a different place and for different reasons. I certainly don't want to push people into reading material that they might find personally upsetting. (What seems mere politics to one person may be deeply personal to another.)

All in all, I think the current system still covers this well enough. If a participant has problems with a book or author then this can be raised during the nomination process - not by deriding someone else's nomination, but simply by pointing to reports of whatever the issue might be so others can make up their own mind. Then it becomes just something else we each consider while voting.

We do have the rule/strong-guideline/request that people should only vote if they intend to read whatever the selection, however we do understand that circumstances may change to prevent this. I suggest we also consider that finding a book or author to be personally offensive is sufficient reason to back out. (I doubt if any of us would have objected to this anyway, I'm just saying it out loud.)

[CRussel]

Unless we're willing to limit ourselves to books written in the last 20-30 years, we will inevitably run into problems. One mentioned was Dorothy Sayers where, sadly, the MR club read Whose Body. This was a direct result of the insistence that we should always start with the first book in a series. And yes, it is certainly the most blatantly antisemitic of her books, and it is also probably her worst. And yet? I'd hate to have never read Sayers, and I find Lord Peter, and especially Harriet Vane, to be characters I've enjoyed and expect to enjoy again.

So, as gmw says, yes, we expect you to read and participate if you voted. But if you find a particular book offensive, then by all means opt out. This doesn't mean you find a particular book not to your taste -- we've all hit those. But actually offensive? Then please, take a pass that month. And feel free to post a short comment in the discussion thread with an explanation.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by CRussel

it is also probably her worst.

I think Five Red Herrings is her worst.

[CRussel]

Nope. Second worst. But it was close!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by CRussel

I've said this before, and I don't want to have to say it again. The voting and nomination process decides what book we will read. And starting a discussion about a book or author, in the voting thread, to denigrate the book or author, is not acceptable. If you want to start a discussion about bias in our selections, the Welcome thread is appropriate. If you want to discuss a particular book or author, the book's discussion thread is appropriate.

What about the nominating thread? Shouldn't issues be raised there during the nominating process? I would certainly want to know the concerns others might have about a book I nominate, if they have read it or know something problematic about the author. Especially if I'm nominating a book based on a blurb and reviews, and not because I've already read it myself.