Should have read classics discussion

Kerri and I have discussed this and we were wondering if anyone had suggestions for making the group more active and vibrant? Both of us have young families and sometimes it gets very busy in our homes and I don't like that the group suffers so maybe adding some new moderators might help? We are open to ideas so give us some feedback on how to make this group better. Thanks!

I think the all the members should make an effort to get involved in the conversations. I find it frustrating to read a book, but very few want to discuss the book. Perhaps we should focus on some of the easier to read and more understandable classics and work our way up to longer, more difficult tomes!

Hi, great idea, Lisa!

I, too, have noticed the group's lax activity, as of late. Per Emily's past, I'm always up for a good, stimulation discussion of books, and I would do so more often, but without member participation, I don't really know what to say. Besides, having a one-sided conversation is kind of boring.. you know?


Actually, I've been meaning to ask if the group has read The Catcher in the Rye. If not, are we allowed to nominate those books we're interested in?

Dustin wrote: "Hi, great idea, Lisa!

I, too, have noticed the group's lax activity, as of late. Per Emily's past, I'm always up for a good, stimulation discussion of books, and I would do so more often, but wit..."

I am actually reading Catcher in the Rye right now!

I understand the frustration and that is part of the reason for this thread. I will have to admit that I get nervous when I have to direct a discussion. I never was one for English lit and the only similar class that I took in college was a mandatory writing class that all freshman had to take, so when the discussion wanders into that part I get nervous and don't want to look like a fool. I was wondering if we could have a read that centers more on school reads that turned people off from literature? "Catcher" would be an example of that kind of book.

Lisa wrote: "I understand the frustration and that is part of the reason for this thread. I will have to admit that I get nervous when I have to direct a discussion. I never was one for English lit and the on..."

The key, as was noted, is reader participation. Where there is an active discussion going, more people feel it's worthwhile reading the book. If there are only two or three people posting, if that, things die off fairly quickly.

First of all, I apologize for not having been more active recently. I've been working through some issues, including several surgeries, on my eyes, and can't read for more than about 30-45 minutes at a time, so have to limit how much I read. I'm hoping to get that resolved and get back to being a full tie reader, but until then, I'm much more limited.

We have the number and quality of members here to make it work, but it takes time and commitment, as I know well as the moderator of another group. I would offer several suggestions, not in any way trying to be an expert or to say that this is how it should be done, but by way of ideas that I have seen work in other groups.

There are four keys, I think, to success if a group has the right members.

One is the actual books chosen, which I don't see as a problem here.

Two is the reading schedule. If people are going to have a robust discussion, my experience is that the reading needs to be somewhat extended so there is time both to read and to post about the book. That was addressed here by allowing two months for Trollope, and probably Martin Chuzzlewit should also have six weeks or two months.

Third is how the discussion threads are posted. For the past few books, only one thread has been opened for the whole book. I think this is a weakness, because people may not want to participate in the discussion until they've finished the book. There are at least two reasons for this. One, there is the likelihood that there will be multiple spoilers, as people who are further on in the book discuss parts of it that others haven't gotten to yet. Two, if you wait until you're finished to start posting, it's hard to have a robust discussion of earlier sections of the book which you may have read a month or more ago. I have found that discussions work better when the discussion is broken up into sections, so that a poster can read group of say 100 or so pages and then be able to discuss that section right away without having to wait to finish the book or having to encounter spoilers from the later parts of the book. There is a major discussion among moderators about whether these threads should be posted sequentially, say one group of chapters each week, or whether they should be posted all at once and let people post to each group of chapters as they get to them. My preference is for sequential posting, as I believe it tends to keep the group together and more focused, but other moderators like to post all the threads at the beginning so people can read at their own pace. There are pluses and minuses to each approach, and each moderator must decide how they want their group to work.

Fourth, and most important, is an active and engaged moderator. It doesn't require anybody expert in literary criticism, and in fact that often turns readers off. But it is really helpful if the moderator posts a general question or discussion starter at the start of a thread, and then responds frequently, encouraging shy posters, inviting posters to amplify on their points, offering alternatives to some of the ideas put forth, asking open ended questions that can provoke discussion (such as "do you think Dickens intended us to see Mr. Murdstone as a monster outside the bounds of decent society, or was he presenting Murdstone as an example of one fairly common and commonly accepted approach to raising a boy in that day and age?"), and most important, keeping the discussion civil and supportive, encouraging robust discussion which will involve disagreements, but making sure that people disagree without being disagreeable. That all sounds like a lot of work, and it does require checking into the discussion almost every day, but it really doesn't take all that much time; just a commitment to doing one's best to keep an active, interesting, and positive discussion going.

I emphasize that the moderator of the group does NOT need to be the moderator for each book in it. Posters should be encouraged to volunteer to moderate books; often the person who nominates the winning book can be persuaded to moderate the discussion, as long as they understand what is required to make for a good discussion.

In my years in Goodreads, and as a member of a number of groups, a few successful, many not, those are some ideas that I think are common among the most successful groups.

I would add one little thing. I believe that it is helpful to have a short break between books. (In my group, I have a short and usually light two week Interim Read between major reads.) This means that people don't have to start the next book while they're still trying to finish the discussion on the current book. If Book B follows immediately after Book A, I find that the last few weeks of the Book A discussion tend to be pretty weak as people turn their attention to Book B.

Sorry this post has been so long. I want to emphasize that I am not trying to tell the moderators how they should run their group; it's their group, and they can do with it whatever they think works for them. These are just a few comments based on my own experience both as a moderator and as a member of a variety of groups. Use anything you may find helpful; just ignore the rest.

Maybe we could focus for a year on books like that. There are probably at least 12 books that we read in high school that we could reread. Books, other than Catcher, are Great Expectations, The Scarlet Letter, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, The Grapes of Wrath, etc. Other students probably had other books they had to read and either hated them or didn't understand their importance.

I agree with Everyman about discussion being broken into sections with an opening question/s to help kick the discussion off. I find it more difficult,and probably lack the confidence, to put an initial thought or question out there, but enjoy reading and discussing others thoughts etc.

I also like the idea of a short break between books to fully digest the completed book and enable the mind to have a rest.

I agree with most of Everyman's post above. I am also a moderator in another group, and my experiences there are very similar to what Everyman describes. Dividing a discussion into sections makes it easier for readers who are still in the first few chapters to discuss what they are reading, while people much further along can discuss something different. Having a reading schedule helps keep people more or less together, especially if it is a long book. (I'm still only a third of the way through "The Way we Live Now," and I feel bad about that, since there have been some excellent comments, particularly from Emily, that should have sparked more discussion, but I was not there yet.) To keep a discussion active, you need to have someone, such as a group leader, posting regularly. Discussion encourages others to discuss. It helps if a moderator or discussion leader keeps posting comments and questions. These don't have to be great literary insights. Often just posting a quotation from the book will spur some discussion. If you are not getting any feedback, a desperate moderator can look at what others (such as reviewers) have said about the book, or look for online reading guides. The important thing is to keep some level of discussion going by posting something regularly.

One part of our problem, I think, is that many of us belong to multiple groups. I belong to five, and when several of them are reading something I want to read at the same time, I have to juggle. One reason I fell so far behind in "The Way We Live Now" is that there were many May discussions I wanted to participate in, and since this group's discussion was running through June, I moved Trollope down the list. And then life happened, as it has a way of doing, and reading time became a scarce commodity. I think having a schedule that assumes people are going to read 80-100 a week can be very helpful to those of us trying to prioritize what to read next. It's much easier to find the time to read a short block in a particular week than to try to read a whole 500+ page book.

I also like the idea of the short break between books, because it gives stragglers a chance to catch up.

I personally have no interest in rereading Great Expectations, the Scarlet Letter or Catcher in the Rye, and, while Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet are wonderful, I practically memorized large parts of both when I was in high school and college. I do want to read Grapes of Wrath, but didn't this group already read that? One of my groups read it around the time my house burned down, and I was too busy to read it, but I did acquire a copy.

I'm looking forward to Tender is the Night. I will be traveling some in mid-July, so I could not be a full-time discussion leader, but I would be happy to "co-lead" the discussion with someone else.

Looking back, I see it was East of Eden, rather than the Grapes of Wrath, that this group read. But I think the current nomination process is working very well.

Lisa wrote: "I never was one for English lit and the only similar class that I took in college was a mandatory writing class that all freshman had to take, so when the discussion wanders into that part I get nervous and don't want to look like a fool. "

First of all, discussions here are a totally different thing from English lit, in which I have never taken a single class since high school. I think most people here are interested in relating their adult experiences and lives to the books, not doing literary analysis.

Second, and much more important, I have never seen you look anything like a fool, or even close to it. Quite the contrary.

Lisa wrote: "I understand the frustration and that is part of the reason for this thread. I will have to admit that I get nervous when I have to direct a discussion. I never was one for English lit and the on..."

I'd love to read and discuss Catcher with the group, Lisa.:)

Apologies to all. I see I have confused two of my groups, and it is the 1700-1939 Book Club that is reading Tender is the Night next month. Sorry if I appear to be a complete ditz. Anyway, Everyman's advice is good advice.

These ideas are great. I like the idea of more threads for books, and I want everyone to know that the ability is open to members if they would like to open threads. I had to watch that since we had some spammers come in and go nuts with that.
I also like the idea that the nominator might be in charge of the discussion. I don't want to discourage people that don't want to lead the discussion however, but it would be great to have different people to lead discussions.
The concept of taking a break between books is wonderful also. Takes the stress out of things.
Would anyone be interested in becoming a co-mod with us?

I belong to a group where the discussion leader is the person who nominates the book. It seems to work well, but that is a large group. In a small group, people might be reluctant to nominate a book if they feel they have to start the discussion. However, as Everyman mentioned, that person doesn't have to be a literary expert, but someone who asks questions to get the discussion started.

☯Emily wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Hi, great idea, Lisa!

I, too, have noticed the group's lax activity, as of late. Per Emily's past, I'm always up for a good, stimulation discussion of books, and I would do so more..."

That's great, Emily! Are you enjoying it?

Dustin wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Hi, great idea, Lisa!

I, too, have noticed the group's lax activity, as of late. Per Emily's past, I'm always up for a good, stimulation discussion of books, and I w..."

Well, it is a book filled with lots of opportunities for discussions. I, personally, don't enjoy reading books with loads of foul language. This book has so much that several minor characters say, "Watch your language."

My IRL bookclub has a hostess for the month and she supplies the questions and leads the discussion,and it works wonderful. I'm all for the nominator leading the discussion or, or at least, starting it and trying to keep it moving.

☯Emily wrote: "Dustin wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Hi, great idea, Lisa!

I, too, have noticed the group's lax activity, as of late. Per Emily's past, I'm always up for a good, stimulation discussion of..."

Oh, really? That must have been very controversial upon publication in 1951, eh? I haven't started reading it yet, and actually know very little about its premise, other than Holden's narcissism..

☯Emily wrote: "Dustin wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Dustin wrote: "Hi, great idea, Lisa!

I, too, have noticed the group's lax activity, as of late. Per Emily's past, I'm always up for a good, stimulation discussion of..."

Currently 27 pages in, I definitely see what you mean about the language. This doesn't ordinarily bother me, I don't believe fiction should be censored, but this is just blatantly excessive and needless. Otherwise, I'm enjoying it.

Any children's classics reads coming soon? Looks like the last one was a few months ago....

Andrea wrote: "Any children's classics reads coming soon? Looks like the last one was a few months ago...."

What would you like to read?

Wow! So many choices! I love all of the books you listed in the other thread. What about my all time favorite, The Secret Garden? I usually read it every few years. It would be so nice to discuss it with others.

Has this group read the great gatsby? It is one of my favorites, and it is pretty short (probably a one-week type book).

Andrea wrote: "Wow! So many choices! I love all of the books you listed in the other thread. What about my all time favorite, The Secret Garden? I usually read it every few years. It would be so nice to discuss i..."

Sounds good to me, would you like to start it tomorrow or wait until next month?

Benjamin wrote: "Has this group read the great gatsby? It is one of my favorites, and it is pretty short (probably a one-week type book)."

No, but it has been mentioned a number of times. Maybe, we could read it closer to the end of the year?

I think we would want to put some space between it and Tender is the Night.

Let's start The Secret Garden on Aug. 1. That will give everyone time to get it, and fit it into their reading schedule. Can't wait!

Casceil wrote: "I think we would want to put some space between it and Tender is the Night."


Thank you for the reminder of what book was after Martin Chuzzlewitt. I apparently cannot find the thread where we discussed this, did we put in a time line?

I have been deliberating this question and still can't decide if it is a good idea. I think that every mod would like their group to be open, fun and active. I can understand that, but what do you think of the idea that mods delete members that have not commented in a thread for more than 3 months? I can see the thought process behind this, but I also know that many people like to lurk in groups, reading the books, but not commenting. Is that wrong? I don't think so, what do everyone else think?

Lisa, I think you should make the period of time longer, maybe drop people who haven't commented in the last six months. Three months would hit people who just weren't interested in a couple of books in a row. This may be my first post in six months, because I have not been interested in any of the more recent group reads, but I do keep track of what this group is reading, and I wander in and out.

Thanks for your input Casceil! I really had no notion of dropping people from the member's list, I just thought that it was an interesting notion and since most people that commented in this thread, seem to actually monitor this group, I wanted to get everyone's ideas.

I belong to another group that drops people if they don't participate in several months. The moderator explains this policy on the general information page. This is how it is worded: "Anyone who has not participated in 3 months in the group will be deleted. A Moderator will send out a PM to you to notify you that you have not been active. Telling you that you’re in danger of being deleted from the group and that you need to respond back. If you do not respond back you will be deleted."

Whew, just got my comment in!

I don't think it's fair to call it lurking. I monitor the site regularly and rarely have any input, but I appreciate the views people have of the current readings. If that's lurking, so be it, but I believe I'm just being reserved in my opinions. Thanks.

Ed wrote: "I don't think it's fair to call it lurking. I monitor the site regularly and rarely have any input, but I appreciate the views people have of the current readings. If that's lurking, so be it, but I believe I'm just being reserved in my opinions."

I, for one, would be grateful if you (and others in your position) were less reserved i expressing your opinions. If I just wanted to read books, I wouldn't spend time on Goodreads. I'm here because I like to discuss the books with other readers (like yourself). And those discussions are only rich and rewarding if there are a number of participants with a range of opinions. I don't believe that anybody reads these books without having some thoughts about what they are reading; I personally am grateful for those who are willing to share their thoughts with me and so enrich my reading. And perhaps my thoughts can also from time to time enrich somebody else's view of the book.

So whether one calls it lurking, or being reserved, either way you are choosing not to let others benefit from your thoughts and experience with the book. And in my view, that leaves us all the poorer.

❀ Oo ❀ wrote: "What about a monthly classic read, where instead of reading a specific book by an author, members can vote and then read any or as many books as they want by that classics author?

E.g. March could..."

Those are excellent ideas! I like the series read idea. We tried an author discussion a couple years ago, maybe it can be brought back in a different connotation. Thanks Oo!

❀ Oo ❀ wrote: ":) Thanks for not be offending by the overzealous newbie! :)"

I'm just trying to figure out how put all this into play! Would anyone be interested in being a mod? I'm feeling a little overwhelmed.