Forgotten Classics and Other Lesser Known Books (or No One Has Read this but Me!) discussion

Since this group is brand spanking new I'm just going to set up some rules and see where that gets us. For now let's stick to books that have less than 100,000 reviews 50,000 ratings or is relatively unknown outside of a certain region. (e.g. well known in China virtually unknown in Europe etc) 5,000 ratings.

We will try to nominate books that are easier to find (Gutenberg Project, Libraries, etc) but will include a pay it forward page for each book where people can trade books or post open source legal links to find the books.

Post comments or feedback below.

Great idea for a group.

Availability is of course going to be a bit of a problem.

But I think 100K reviews is actually a *lot.*

The Jungle Book by Kipling, Rudyard has 79,047 ratings and 2,230 Reviews... and I certainly think of it as Popular book, not a Lesser Known one.

So, even if I have to scour the web to buy a used copy, I'd rather set the bar lower. I'd like us to remember books that are still lots of fun to read but are truly Lesser Known (than they should be).

My opinion. :)

Cheryl wrote: "Great idea for a group.

Availability is of course going to be a bit of a problem.

But I think 100K reviews is actually a *lot.*

The Jungle Book by Kipling, Rudyard has 79,047 ratings and 2,230..."

Hmm food for thought, how low you think maybe 75K or less?

So maybe there are 2 criteria that are in play. Either it is under-rated (a great book that not many people read post the launch of GR), or it used to be widely read in part of the world, at least, but has faded into a form of oblivion. I might put Barbara Pym's and Nancy Mitford's works in this category, as an example.

Maybe we take overall fame and familiarity into account when voting, and express a preference for the less-often-read and -discussed?

American Tragedy might be a good bellwether, since I think most of us would agree that it once was taught and is no more (nor are any of Dreiser's works, which makes me tear up ...). It has 26K ratings.

I propose 50K as a generous maximum.

Carol wrote: "American Tragedy might be a good bellwether, since I think most of us would agree that it once was taught and is no more (nor are any of Dreiser's works, which makes me tear up ...). It has 26K rat..."

Both of these sound like good suggestions.

This is really exciting! I think it will be fun. And I'm glad to be joining in the beginning!

Will you be doing lesser known modern books as well? Perhaps indie authors or just those authors that get hidden in the avalanche of new books. The nomination criteria could include that the person nominating the book has already read and adored it, that way we aren't wasting time on poorly written stuff just because it sounds interesting.

Kristin wrote: "The nomination criteria could include that the person nominating the book has already read and adored it,..."

This is important. I have found a lot of secret gems, but I've been burned often, too.

I agree w/ Carol that 50K ratings (not reviews) is, indeed, a 'generous maximum.'

Cheryl wrote: "I agree w/ Carol that 50K ratings (not reviews) is, indeed, a 'generous maximum.'"

I had meant to do ratings not reviews but due to the feedback I updated above!

Kristin wrote: "This is really exciting! I think it will be fun. And I'm glad to be joining in the beginning!

Will you be doing lesser known modern books as well? Perhaps indie authors or just those authors that..."

I actually had no plans to set a book age limit but we'll see what happens on this one.

If we get too many that are new or two many that are one thing we might add a book to do an old and new or do themes for the months.

I like the idea that the person nominating has already read it but I'd like others to chime in as yay or nay on this one, I want to know if others will find this too restrictive or not.

I am not a fan of that criteria, and suspect it will reduce participation in the nominating process. We have access to a lot of information even about lesser known gems to judge whether we want to read a novel, IMO. There's something about the adventure of experiencing a work for the first time -- with other like-minded readers - that often drives those who nominate. YMMV.

I am an obsessive rereader so would probably only feel comfortable nominating something I already think others will love, but agree with Carol that it might stop others from nominating. Especially if they do NOT reread.

I'm excited to read some new hidden gems! However they get decided on. I have actually found some amazing books through Goodreads Giveaway that I have forced my friends to read from authors I never would have even heard of without the giveaways.

I also found one of my very favorite authors ever because he happened to be giving the first book in his series away for free on Kindle. Since then I've not only read most of his other works, but have helped him self publish his last five or six books by donating to him on Kickstarter.

I love finding that diamond in the rough.

Kristin wrote: "I also found one of my very favorite authors ever because he happened to be giving the first book in his series away for free on Kindle. Since then I've not only read most of his other works, but have helped him self publish his last five or six books by donating to him on Kickstarter. ..."

Who is it?

I'm in the camp who wouldn't nominate if it had to be a reread.

Kristin wrote: "Who is it?..."

Tim Pratt
T.A. Pratt

He goes by both of those names. The first book I read by him was Blood Engines because at the time it was free. I have read so many of his books since then. He actually recently released Closing Doors, which is the last book of that series. But I have avoided reading it because I don't want it to be over.

I would be happier with a much lower limit, say 5000 ratings! I don't reread very often, but I'm not sure I would feel qualified to judge a book I have never read unless I have liked everything else the author has written...

Dianne wrote: "I'm in the camp who wouldn't nominate if it had to be a reread."

Hm. I'm not an avid re-reader, so I almost understand what you're saying.

But the thing is, if it's a gem, worth recommending to the rest of us, even if we have to buy it (because it's obscure and not available at libraries), then isn't it worth a reread?

I don't have time or money to waste on stuff that 'looks interesting' but hasn't been vetted.

Hugh wrote: "I would be happier with a much lower limit, say 5000 ratings!..."

I actually kind of agree with this, though I understand how it might not be a feasible number for older books. I think it would almost make sense to have a higher number for books more than, say, 30 years old, and a smaller number for newer books.

However they get chosen, I'm still excited!

I think it would be interesting to not worry about GR ratings, but rather "travel back in time" and try to get a sense of what was popular. There must be so many books lost in the river of time. I guess we need to do some research?
Gutenberg.org will certainly be an invaluable resource for access!

Cheryl wrote: "I don't have time or money to waste on stuff that 'looks interesting' but hasn't been vetted."

Could one not argue that it has been vetted if it is still in print (in one form or another) and has survived through the decades/centuries?

Haaze wrote: "Cheryl wrote: "I don't have time or money to waste on stuff that 'looks interesting' but hasn't been vetted."

Could one not argue that it has been vetted if it is still in print (in one form or an..."

Well, sure, except that some of the books I'm planning to nominate are *not* in print. And, since Project Gutenberg is rather indiscriminate, I don't count their entire collection as vetted, either.

I don't re-read. Further while another individual reader's recommendation has high value, it doesn't constitute vetting, from my perspective, e.g., its anecdote, not data. All reading carries some risk and -- if you use the best tools that reflect your preferences, your odds of a great reading experience increase. There is, however, no sure thing. sadly. Well, except maybe Hugh's reviews.

Ha good point carol! Hugh has excellent taste!

Hugh does have good taste!

One thing I want to gauge is how many books you would all like to read a month and what type. Not sure what type would be maybe old new wildcard maybe something else. And that could alternate too if need me I'm totally up for suggestions.

I'll likely participate in 4-6 reads per year, at a maximum. I find that my overambitious commitment to so many group reads is limiting my freedom to read what I want, and I'm endeavoring to get a handle on that as this year progresses. Step one is reducing my voting to polls where I am excited about the option for which I vote. It's not you; it's me, as they say.

Like Carol I already feel over-committed to other groups so the higher the number the less likely I will be to participate

Here's what I propose. There is a group I help run where we read one book at a time and vary the weeks according to how long the book is. I really like that set up because it's pretty low pressure. We have posts for each weeks reading along with a reading schedule which is really a guide to what chapters are in each posts, you can post in each week or just skip to the last week's post and write a whole review on it do you guys think that's something that would be okay or did you guys want to follow a different format?

Sounds like a good plan to me

Oh also in that group we the mods pick a theme for the selection and the members suggest a selection based on this theme. This usually lends itself to varied suggestions that at least have to be researched if not read by the nominator. We usually limit it to the first 5 qualifying nominations in that group

Sounds good to me! When are we planning to do the first book?

Another thought - how old does a book need to be to qualify (I can think of some very good forgotten books that were published in the last 20 years!)

Well, ok, I'll let go of the idea that a book has to have been read by the nominator.

But let me suggest something else then. How's about we have at least 2 books a month, but we're not to feel pressure to read them both (all). Instead, we have a choice, then, of which book(s) we feel most excited about.

Also, how's about the nominator leads the discussion? That way there's not pressure on the moderators to read all the books, and the nominator needs to take some extra care to choose books they're truly excited about, and not just "that looks interesting."

Cheryl wrote: "Also, how's about the nominator leads the discussion? That way there's not pressure on the moderators to read all the books, and the nominator needs to take some extra care to choose books they're ..."

I like both of these ideas. Thanks for suggesting them Cheryl and for being flexible!

Yes, I like those too.

Those are excellent ideas, Cheryl! And there's a lot more group engagement if people are taking turns leading discussions.

Agreed.

Just to take the conversation in a slightly different turn - to me "forgotten classics" is one category and "underrated books" is another and very different. The concept of a work being forgotten implies some age, e.g., so perhaps the standard 50 year age minimum makes sense for that category.

In terms of differentiating ourselves from other groups, the opportunity, it seems to me is in the second category. Underrated wonderful books, in my experience, often didn't fit a good marketing category. They aren't "classics". They are marketed as mysteries, but mystery fans don't think they are sufficiently mysterious. They may have a romance as a side event, but they aren't romances, so the romance fans eschew them, and those of us who get hives at the thought of reading a romance avoid them at all costs. I'd propose an age threshold of, say, published somewhere in English at least 3 years from the date of nomination - for purposes of argument - only so we don't hoe the same row of latest lit fiction, which is well-covered elsewhere, but I'm not passionate about that line in the sand. More that we have something that differentiates between a book that simply hasn't been on the market long enough to have accrued 5000 ratings vs. a book that has been around and hasn't yet found the audience it deserves.

just sayin'.

Carol, mis-marketed books that are newer do, imo, definitely deserve some love from us. I would suggest the line be drawn not at a *minimum* of 3 years; I'd prefer longer.

As far as classics - I prefer not 50 years, but the other argument I've heard, which is pre-WWII. The technology developed (including the Bomb) during the war, the fact that it's the last Big War we've had, the development of the Cold War and the Arms Race, and, not but not least, the Baby Boomer generation, are all huge events that make pre-WWII and post-WWII very different eras. And because they're different eras, authors wrote from different perspectives....

Cheryl wrote: "Carol, mis-marketed books that are newer do, imo, definitely deserve some love from us. I would suggest the line be drawn not at a *minimum* of 3 years; I'd prefer longer.

As far as classics - I p..."

This seems like a great voting topic. We can anchor the pole positions of each perspective. They are, indeed, different eras. I'd prefer to include anything pre 1990, given my druthers, lol. To exclude obscure James Baldwin or William Styron works makes me shudder.

Oh wait. Why have missing years at all?

Something can def. be too new. (I say 5 years for that limit.)
But why does anything have to be a certain number of years old?

(I got caught up in defining classics and there's not necessarily a need to. Mea culpa.)

Perhaps two books a month.
One an older book, say older than 25 years. (Just to have a benchmark. This number is just the first that popped into my head.)
And then a newer book that we think needs some love, that is between 3 and 25 years old. (My initial thought was to have even newer books as well, mostly because I have read some lately that I don't think get enough attention. But the argument for having them be at least a few years old is very valid and makes a lot of sense.)

Kristin wrote: "Perhaps two books a month.
One an older book, say older than 25 years. (Just to have a benchmark. This number is just the first that popped into my head.)
And then a newer book that we think needs..."

Love this proposal.

I like a lot of these ideas!

I also like the idea of the nominee moderating the book. We need to decide though will they post the topics or will the mods set up the structure and just keep up with the discussion? I'm fine with either but if the nominee sets up we need to make sure they know when to set up and to let the mods know so we can move around threads and files.

That makes sense too having the different categories too. One for forgotten classics, one underrated books and that way people can choose.

I like for underrated books to be at least 5 years old and for classics like it was said in order to be forgotten they should be older we just have to figure it out what that cut off is. :)

Kristin wrote: "Perhaps two books a month.
One an older book, say older than 25 years. (Just to have a benchmark. This number is just the first that popped into my head.)
And then a newer book that we think needs..."

This is an interesting idea as well.

Which do you guys like better two options one classic, one lesser known or just define it two an older and a newer book and forget about the classic label?

I think we are getting to the point where this is something we can poll and actually get to picking books. :)

I prefer classic as one option myself

Dianne wrote: "I prefer classic as one option myself"

Option one.

I favour a minimum of 5 or 10 years, but if we are splitting, 1945 seems a reasonable end-point for the classic section. Perhaps we need to set up some polls.

I'm still a little fuzzy on what, exactly, the question is. When I see a poll, I'll answer it. :)

Btw, I'm glad we have two mods... good they can check with each other on such things as wording of the poll. I check with my co-mod in Children's Books often and couldn't do without her. So, Welcome, Hugh!