Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Or rather, what can it be? What can it encompass? What can it do? How far can it expand?

An open exchange of viewpoints, opinions, musings, observations--with a specific book title at the hub--that's the 'basic' template for a book group. But in what way can discussion be led, directed, orchestrated to go further? Should it be led at all? 'Free-form discussion' has much merit in its own right.

In classrooms, lectures, and workshops--or merely among a loose coterie of casual/informal book-lovers (in-person or on-line) one well-known hindrance of 'group discourse' is that not-everyone-brings-the same 'frame of reference' to the table. This is a bugbear of any kind of training or instruction.

To achieve a viable discussion --one in which everyone profits--a discourse usually winds up in a 'middle ground' which offers the most access to everyone. No instructor or tutor wants anyone in a class to be 'left out'; even if it means students at the more "advanced-end-of-the-class" find the material 'too easy'.

People naturally all have wildly differing backgrounds, educations, experiences. It could hardly be otherwise, or individuals would not be as diverse as we know they are. We all have different mental make-ups; varying strengths-and-weaknesses in our faculties and our cognitive skills. [I myself, have a drastic and severe limitation in any kind of mathematics. I'm so remedial in that area that I can barely calculate a waiter's tip. In any discussion about math, I bow out and stand on the sidelines.]

But in book discussions, I often find myself less-than-challenged. Thus, my reason for joining CatWC in the first place. There are plenty of rich, sprawling discussions here; more so than I usually see anywhere else on Goodreads. Yet I still find myself a little unsatisfied.

It is not the titles selected for the discussions: for, in this group I see many of my favorites featured (Mann, Proust, Melville, Dante). As beloved as these classics are by myself, it is still not their contents which interests me these days.

As much as I admire Dante, I'm not interested in debating his view of God/heaven with a 'Dante expert'. I have my own view of God/Heaven (which Dante has definitely contributed to), and which doesn't need revision or dissection.

And as much as I adore Herman Melville, I wouldn't really enjoy a discussion about how accurately he portrayed the practice of whaling. Nor, would a chat about how exciting/boring/humorous/tedious/profound "Moby Dick" is as a reading experience. Any reader surely has their own judgment as to this admixture.

Rather than all of the above, I am interested in talk about the production of literature itself. The method of writing of the book, the background, its form, its origin, the process-of-how-it-came-to-be, which interests me. How are stories told?

To illustrate my point: I happen to have a college-level guide handy beside me which is a basic teacher's syllabus for leading students in writing their term papers on literary topics. The chapters generally run as such:

Chapt 1. Writing about Character
Chapt 2. Writing about POV
Chapt 3. Writing about Plot & Structure
Chapt 4. Writing about Setting
Chapt 5. Writing about Theme & Idea
Chapt 6. Writing about Imagery
Chapt 7. Writing about Metaphor and Simile
Chapt 8. Writing about Symbolism & Allegory
Chapt 9. Writing about Tone
Chapt 10. Writing about Prosody
Chapt 11. Writing about Two Works Compared/Contrasting
Chapt 12. Writing about Historical/Intellectual/Cultural Context

To me, all this is merely a 'jumping-off' point. I'm keen on #11 and #12 if I'm keen on any of them; but even those topics can potentially run dry.

Now--in this group--I wager that 4:12 are probably touched on in any discussion around here. But I also observe that a lot more time is spent simply talking about the most obvious--and patent--aspects of novels: their plot. The twists-and-turns of the story. 'Who-did-what-to-whom'.

From what I understand, this is the core of this groups philosophy, approach, and manner-of-proceeding at all times. This is called, 'reading directly from the text'.

Concomitantly, there's apparently a leeriness, a suspicion, and a decided lack-of-interest in 'the interpretations of professional critics' ...with the implication that this latter is somehow fanciful and pointless.

Phrasing my next question as politely as possible: Is this another way of expressing a reluctance to engage in anything else except the most patent, safe, 'koffee-klatch' style of book chat? Has there ever been a methodical discussion of a book where at the very least, each of the above prompts were addressed (in turn) and then --the discussion 'moved on' from there? Is a systematic analysis ever embarked on?

To me, chatting about my opinion of a story vs someone else's opinion is nearly a fruitless task; as is debating 'what clue a character in a story discovered'--'when he discovered it'--'whether that knowledge got him killed'--etc etc etc. The first is merely "subjectivity vs subjectivity" and the second is merely a "hashing out of 'plot points'".

So I come back to my earlier question: what can a book discussion group encompass? What can it be? Merely the above?

I am taking the advice of one of the moderators here who encouraged me to air my thoughts in a 'Tea Room' area of this group. I skimmed over existing threads in 'Tea Room' and did not see one which matched my current inquiry, therefore I'm creating a new thread. I see a 'Tea Room 2' and 'Tea Room 3' but they seem to be just 'random topic discussion areas'.

I hope the musings which I have just raised are welcomed in the mild spirit in which I have presented them and that in no way does this paint me as a firebrand or a 'rabble-rouser'. I value my admittance to this reading group and hope my inquiry is seen as the harmless curiosity I feel it to be. I'm not trying to rock anyone's boat. Just asking a question.

p.s. another example: 'close reading'. If you visit 'The Great Gatsby' page on Goodreads, you will see a humongously long thread devoted to solving (once-and-for-all), the mystery of whether the Nick Carraway character is secretly homosexual.

The individuals who run that particular thread are quick to defend the ..err, 'caliber' of the discussion by claiming they are doing 'close reading of Fitzgerald's text' to resolve this burning issue.

Again, this would be a style of discussion which would leave me wholly and thoroughly unsatisfied. In this case, 'close reading' --to pin down something so limited and trifling in scope-- appears to me more like a 'thin' reading.

Feliks -- one writer friend would like to see more of the type of analysis/discussion you describe on these goodreads forums. He has not found such easy to obtain. As most moderators will tell you, just getting a group of people to simultaneously concentrate meaningfully on a piece of literature is no small feat. But, I do think participants can sometimes pull out of a group their own interests, if they are thoughtful, perhaps playful, and certainly exploratory and considerate, open to delight and disappointment as to results.

It seems to me that the "good" discussions are ones of both sometimes giving and sometimes taking on the part of the participants, with perhaps the emphasis on attempting to give.

Feliks wrote: "Is a systematic analysis ever embarked on?"

Speaking for myself, I'd very much like to participate in a systematic book analysis as you outlined briefly, but lack the expertise and knowledge in literary criticism. In particular, I'm more interested in the biographical, as well as historical, intellectual and and cultural, context of the work, how and why the author came to write what he did.

Felix, could you provide some examples of systematic book analysis which you think might serve as templates for book discussions?

Feliks wrote: "Or rather, what can it be? What can it encompass? What can it do? How far can it expand?

An open exchange of viewpoints, opinions, musings, observations--with a specific book title at the hub--tha..."

This is an open forum with no educational prerequisites, which means that anyone can steer the discussion in any direction he or she likes. The responsibility for the quality of the discussion is up to each of us, individually and collectively, regardless of education or familiarity with the reading. It is on the participants to make the discussion what it is. It can be either sophisticated and sensitive, or ridiculous and banal -- this is entirely up to the people who participate. Thankfully our discussions here tend more toward sensitivity and sophistication, but that is due to the high quality of the participants.

We have had arguments for including literary criticism in the past, and I see both the merits and the dangers of doing this. I value the work of good critics, but I also think they are unnecessary. In particular I worry about the first-time reader who feels compelled to know what every detail in a work means and whose confidence is eroded by constant guidance. In most cases the Classics can be read and discussed to great benefit without this assistance. In some cases historical background can be very helpful, but most of the time I think we do the author a service by leaving interpretive material in the library, at least until we have thoroughly examined the original work itself.

Feliks and Nemo, why don't you start a Goodreads group that will cover the things you are interested in? Stay in this group, too, of course, but I'm sure there are others who would be interested in a more in-depth study of the things you are talking about.

Thank you. I'm encouraged by responses so far. The spirit of the replies seems to be that it is uncharitable to elevate a discussion out of the range of the middle-ground. To that extent, I very much agree! I don't *want* to create anything which is 'exclusionary'.

Nevertheless. Even in the ethic of fairness; what I'm wondering is if there is any way to generate a higher level of discussion, without being disenfranchising to anyone. A sort of 'opt-in' component to any particular book which might seem to warrant it (?)

This is difficult to broach, I admit. I'm not trying to dampen or disturb existing practices. I just want to know if ..different discussion tools might be employed; and frankly this group seems the most fertile/febrile in which to raise this kind of curiosity.

I hope that we can accept the consideration of a 'new idea' without taking it as a threat. Otherwise, why read classics at all? If nothing else, they instruct us in this.

Perhaps think of it this way: how many ways --really--can a plot be dissected? How informative is it--what are we really learning--if we stay preoccupied only with plot turns? Plot is the least depthful of any aspect of a novel. Are we really satisfied with starting--and ending--discussion at that level?

Thomas wrote: "This is an open forum with no educational prerequisites, which means that anyone can steer the discussion in any direction he or she likes. The responsibility for the quality of the discussion is up to each of us, individually and collectively, regardless of education or familiarity with the reading...."

That is perfectly true and apparent; what I am asking is, should a reading group always just let discussion fall down to the lowest, easiest, level?

Thomas wrote: "Thankfully our discussions here tend more toward sensitivity and sophistication, but that is due to the high quality of the participants...."

I'm sure that's a fact. I would like to be pointed to such discussions so I can get a better sense of 'normal discourse' here.

But I also ask, are these discussions 'content based' or analysis-based?

After all, there is a clear difference between discussing Dante's 'view' of the Almighty...vs his method and technique of constructing his verses. Are both of these aspects (just as an example) typically delved into, in this discussion group? I'm not saying one way is wrong and one way is right. Just asking: what is the diversity we have to tap into here? Is only 'one style' of study pursued?

Thomas wrote: "We have had arguments for including literary criticism in the past, and I see both the merits and the dangers of doing this. I value the work of good critics, but I also think they are unnecessary...."

'Unnecessary'. Hmmm...but if there had been literary critics in America in the late 1800s, it wouldn't have taken 60 years for Herman Melville to be re-discovered. Criticism is vital in a consumer society. Perhaps--literary critics *are* useless in a 'koffee-klatch' setting. That may very well be true. I wouldn't necessarily object to this finding. After all, most groups have a 'middle-ground' mission. That is very fair, and ethical. Laudable, even.

What I'm doing here, is simply questioning if that is the case with *this* Classics Group. Can a simplistic 'book chat' not co-exist with a more methodical analysis? Is there no benefit to such an arrangement? After all this is 'Classics' we're talking about here. This isn't a 'Twilight' book group. Is a 'more challenging discussion' to be so sharply distrusted?

Thomas wrote: "In most cases the Classics can be read and discussed to great benefit without this assistance. ..."

Reluctantly--but with the utmost politeness--I have to question this rubric. Really, how true is this? How far can discussions go? For new readers vs experienced readers, isn't there a 'gap' inherent to such an approach?

Thomas wrote: "In some cases historical background can be very helpful, but most of the time I think we do the author a service by leaving interpretive material in the library, at least until we have thoroughly examined the original work itself.
..."

Again: How 'thorough' can examination really be if it remains entirely plot-centric? 'Plot' is but the first skein on the outside of the onion, right? All I'm asking, is can these aspects at least be 'thought about'? Can we 'think about what we do', rather than just proceeding to do it?

Feliks wrote: "That is perfectly true and apparent; what I am asking is, should a reading group always just let discussion fall down to the lowest, easiest, level?"

Of course not. And in fact, it does not if those who participate take it to a higher level. As I said before, it is up to the participants to create the discussion they want.

But I also ask, are these discussions 'content based' or analysis-based?

Both, of course. If participants want to discuss content, they discuss content. If they want to analyze, they analyze.

What I'm doing here, is simply questioning if that is the case with *this* Classics Group. Can a simplistic 'book chat' not co-exist with a more methodical analysis?

Of course it can. There's no rule forbidding methodical analysis. If you find it lacking, by all means feel free to provide it.

Thomas wrote: "In most cases the Classics can be read and discussed to great benefit without this assistance. ..."

Feliks wrote: Reluctantly--but with the utmost politeness--I have to question this rubric. Really, how true is this? How far can discussions go?

To be frank, it sounds like what you really want is not a discussion group but a graduate level seminar. It's fair to say that what we do here does not reach that level, though it could. If there are graduate level participants who want to spend some of their spare time doing what they do academically with us here in the group, that would be great.

Obviously you disagree, but I truly don't believe that criticism is necessary to read any part of the Canon. Some of it is quite difficult, I understand, but Melville, to use your example, is perfectly intelligible any competent reader without commentary or criticism. (And I'm afraid I just can't think of the Canon as a consumer product requiring professional evaluation. Shaw might have thought Shakespeare was garbage, but it's fair to say that most of the world disagrees.)

I agree that critics serve a purpose, but that purpose is entirely secondary to what we do here, which is to read the books. The books are great teachers all on their own. It's why we are still reading them.

You've been very cordial and I appreciate your comments, Feliks. But if you find that this group is a koffee-klatch perhaps you should think about Laurel's advice and look into forming a group that meets your specifications.

Feliks wrote: "what I am asking is, should a reading group always just let discussion fall down to the lowest, easiest, level?"

Without meaning to be defensive, I think that is not what has happened in this group in the past. I think that if you go back and read through almost any of our major discussions (the Interim Reads tend to be more lighthearted), you will find that while we are not emulating a graduate level seminar discussion, we go far beyond the "lowest, easiest" level. I suggest that you read through the discussion of, for just two examples, The Divine Comedy and The Magic Mountain, and see whether you think those are discussions on the "lowest, easiest" level.

It's true that we don't generally discuss texts using the modern categories of literary theory -- feminist criticism, Marxist criticism, deconstructionism, structuralism, post-structuralism, and on and on. Not that anybody is prevented from discussing litcrit theory if they choose to, but for myself, I don't find that helpful in garnering from these canonical texts what it is that I want to garner.

Personally, I'm looking for several things. Starting, of course, with a deeper understanding of the ideas carried in the text, the reasons the author wrote it, the reasons it has endured over the centuries, and how those ideas it conveys can help me better understand what it means to be part of this culture, what it means to live a better life, and how these books can help me do that. What they can teach me, and how I can apply that teaching to my life.

I am also interested in understanding how these books fit into the "Great Conversation" which Adler and Buchanan write so wonderfully about. How (and why) Western thought has developed over the millennia.

I am looking for the great ideas which unite these works, and how different authors have dealt with these ideas and built on the work of earlier authors. In this respect, I am sort of trying to develop my own personal Syntopicon of ideas.

I hope to emerge from these discussions with a better idea of how a great mind thought about great ideas and how that thought can inform and improve my life and contribute to my happiness (using that term as Aristotle did).

I frankly don't find Literary Criticism very helpful in this sort of reading. I find that it is focused more on mechanics and minutia than on the rich and valuable ideas which inhabit these minds. And I find that in most case, they look only at a very narrow view of a book and focus not merely on the trees rather than the forest, but on the shape and color of a patch of bark on a tree, disregarding the majesty, beauty, and value of the tree itself.

I have no doubt that others find LitCrit approaches to books of value to them, and I don't mean to denigrate them or their writing or thinking. But for me, and I think for many others here, I am looking more for a personal interaction with the book and its author, which is not, I find, something that LitCrit is at all interested in.



An aside: Russell Fears has published several courses for The Teaching Company which focus on these general concepts: courses such as "Books that have made History: Books that can Change your Life" and "Life Lessons from the Great Books." While I don't always agree with Fears, I always come away from his lectures with one or more valuable ideas. His approach is one I respect and appreciate.

There's something in what you say (both responses). All of these interrogatory approaches to literature have merit. I am definitely not wanting to be combative; and at all times I do want to be cautious and polite when I probe into these 'established practices'. That is my natural attitude towards all this. It's not easy to 'question' --as I am doing--without seeming like a 'reformer' or 'polarizing'; and I am glad you are not taking offense. I'll mull all this over some more and reply in due course. I appreciate your well-considered and thoughtful replies. Perhaps more group members will chime in with their own feelings, too.

Feliks, as a lower-level contributor, I enjoy reading the contributions of those on "higher" ground. Should you choose to share your knowledge and guide some of the threads towards a more critical approach, I (and I am sure, others) would enjoy reading the comments even if I could not join in the discussion.

You could also take Laurele's suggestion and open your own group. If you do that, you could open it to the public, though you would probably gather some beginners, such as myself, bringing the discussion level "down"; or you could make it a private group, inviting only those with some level of expertise in criticism to join (though you might end up with a pretty narrow group of individuals with preassumed critical approaches only interested in pressing their points-or maybe that has just been my personal experience in other forums?).

Feliks wrote: It's not easy to 'question' --as I am doing--without seeming like a 'reformer' or 'polarizing'; and I am glad you are not taking offense. I'll mull all this over some more and reply in due course. I appreciate your well-considered and thoughtful replies. Perhaps more group members will chime in with their own feelings, too.

Feliks, I think you'll appreciate the high level of discussion in this group and I hope you'll contribute. My sense, from being more of a monitor than an active contributor--though I'm committed to upping my participation game with Bleak House--is that our discussions generate a range of smart comments and analyses which, without specifically intending to do so, probably include a range of critical approaches. Personal reactions to the texts are certainly encouraged and I've almost always found the posted reactions from members of this group to be smart and illuminating. I've also seen some gentle and always courteous discouragement of over-reliance on someone else's take on one of our books (e.g., posting references to Wikipedia articles that quote some scholars' explanations of literary allusions in a book). But we never discourage analysis that seeks to understand the work better by placing it in its historical context, or in the context of intellectual movements of the time, etc.

So, I appreciate your cautious and courteous exploration of how we do business here. I certainly think there is room in this group for your thinking and I hope you'll dive into Bleak House and help me and the rest of us figure it out!

True, but why react with fear and dread towards different modes of discussion? These ideas aren't going away; they're in no danger of disappearing. The fate of the free world doesn't hinge on how we choose to chat about Dickens. After all, is this a discussion group or a guerrilla group? (asking this with a little tongue-in-cheek :p).

Another musing: as informed, well-read adults, shouldn't we already be familiar with these great ideas without gripping a copy of Voltaire with white-knuckles? Aren't we reading the classics merely to reinforce notions we already possess? What about reading literature for literature's sake?

My opinion is that all the 'great ideas' are essentially simple ideas. Human truths are generally simple truths. It is their articulation and expression through the arts which makes them resonate, makes them worth savoring. It is artistry and the creative talent which makes them persuasive and convincing; makes us feel the rightness of these ideas.

If we want nothing but the 'great ideas' themselves, why then you might as well suggest that a Classics-book group simply choose dry national charters, parliamentary procedures, and national Constitutions as monthly reading selections instead. (again, kidding to make my point).

I simply mean to say..good books surely have other aspects besides just their 'theme'... and improving one's reading skills can only help one get more out of noble literature.

Feliks, I think you are reading fear where there is none. As I read over the comments, I can only see that everyone has invited you to contribute streams of thought and methods of approach that you think are lacking. Until you decide that you want to give in that way, we wait. :-)

Well someone above just said that what I'm looking for was absolutely antithetical to the usual practice. And earlier, it was characterized as unnecessary. Maybe it is.

Let's say I did attempt to raise a structured discussion. Its the kind of thing which if done by one person alone, winds up being the 'sound-of-one- hand-clapping'. I mean, I already read the books in my own private shelves with these precepts in mind; and I can still do that. What I'm looking for is collaboration with others who are also tuned-in to the value of structure. People who can challenge me and teach me something about it, as well. A balanced exchange. Whereas me going-it-alone, having to lead a whole group of people in a direction they're dubious about heading... sure, I can provide occasional examples of critical analysis, but it probably wouldn't match whatever novel or story might be selected as the monthly read. Would be kinda odd and jarring.

Felix -- please don't beg to be squashed. To this old foggie, you are coming across as a young Turk, in the sense of a rabble-rouser without an obviously implementable plan. (And that's not an insult, even though probably PIC. The world has need of rabble-rousers. But, as you probably realize, it can be a tough journey.) Besides the subject matter, two of the neat things about this particular board are its leadership and its participants. I can only encourage you to interact with us, play with us, in serious ways and with investment of your time, and see if there are steps that you, as a participant, can take to make it more satisfying in the directions you suggest. I don't sense opposition to many of the elements you'd like to bring to discussion. I do feel as if their rigorous implementation could imply a very different board, in which case, Laurel's suggestion of putting your head together with other simpaticoes for a new board probably makes sense, despite all the risks, difficulties, and investment in time and energy such would require.

I can't implement a plan without cooperation and enthusiasm from the folks involved. Otherwise its 'trying to force' it and it'll never work.

Sage counsel otherwise, though. Thanks.

p.s. so can someone link me to places in the group's discussion history where particularly fine examples of dialog are found? Memorable discussions? Highlights? Can someone describe to me, places where some deft conclusion was drawn, some difficult matter was settled; some discovery was corroborated, etc etc etc? Anything like that, I'd be keen to read. I'll go look for it myself if you tell me a little about it..

Feliks wrote: "...I'll go look for it myself if you tell me a little about it.. ..."

I particularly remember some of the insights our European participants brought to the discussion of The Magic Mountain. The differences in perspectives that it sometimes felt as if they avoided confronting each other with is one aspect that I recall -- although I'm not certain I could find an example again. Some of it comes from participating in the movement of a discussion.

So I do think what you seek will take considerable personal investment of time and effort -- probably over time, regardless.

Patrice wrote: "What are the great ideas? Freedom, discovery, respect for the individual, egalitarianism, questioning of authority. Any move away from these, IMO, does nothing to elevate the group."

Adler lists 101 Great Ideas in his Syntopicon (part of the Great Books of the Western World series, available in many libraries.)

His are of a different sort, though, from yours. For example, his first three (listed alphabetically) are Angel, Animal, Aristocracy; that last three are Will, Wisdom, and World.


This site has a list of all Adler's Great Ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Syntop...

Feliks wrote: "Well someone above just said that what I'm looking for was absolutely antithetical to the usual practice. And earlier, it was characterized as unnecessary. Maybe it is. "

If I understand what you're suggesting, and I may well not, it's true that it's not an approach we have emphasized here in the past, but if there are people who are interested in that approach they are welcome to make posts to that effect and see whether or not they engender positive discussion.

Perhaps the best thing now is simply for you, if you want to, to make some posts in the manner that interests you. If other posters find them useful, they will respond to them and proceed to discuss those ideas. If they don't get "traction," then perhaps this is not the best group for that approach. But we won't know until you try.

We still have more than a week discussing The Speckled Band, so it might be a good opportunity for you to make some posts using the approach you are suggesting and see what happens. One thing that won't happen is that you won't get jumped on or criticized for it; our rule here is very clear that posts can disagree cut cannot be disagreeable. So rather than keeping discussing this in theory, why not try it in practice and see what happens?

Thank ya. I will certainly look for any opportunity (picture Feliks with doleful expression on mug), and of course it goes without saying that I appreciate being assured of a safe-conduct pass before trying on anything outlandish around here. Good to know the natives have been pacified beforehand.

p.s. you know..(just another plug) JRR Tolkien investigated the structure of myth and folklore and the result was 'Lord of the Rings'

It is approaching time for this discussion to come to an end. The issues have been put forward and discussed. I am not persuaded that further discussion will be productive or positive.

Thanks to all who contributed. But now let's move on to the specific books we are here to discuss.

I agree the 'basics have been covered'--for the moment-- but what if something occurs to (any of) us later? Moderators don't 'close' threads for good, in this group right? Leaving this debate open doesn't preclude other group business, I hope?

Feliks wrote: "I agree the 'basics have been covered'--for the moment-- but what if something occurs to (any of) us later? Moderators don't 'close' threads for good, in this group right? Leaving this debate open ..."

I have only closed one or two threads in the past, when things got too far out of hand. This one doesn't qualify for that yet, so it will stay open as almost all our threads do.

Thank you! It leaves me a 'space' where I can further fine-tune any particular wrinkle I may want to introduce to a discussion-in-progress without hindering that particular discussion itself with talk of nuts'n'bolts. I appreciate the leeway here.

Patrice wrote: "...of course liberty is the same as freedom..."

Unless discussion leads to discernment and distinction?

Back to my thread topic: I'm satisfied that my original query has been exhausted and can be-put-to-bed. Thank you to everyone who chimed in with their opinion. I'm going to shelve my curiosity about this type of endeavor and let the matter subside. It's all good.

Oh my goodness, Feliks, you do ask the big questions. I have not yet found the time to read even all of the meaty responses to your multi-course Roman dinner.

I, too, find myself unhappy with most book discussions. I try to drag them into the territories you outline and most everyone drops off. You (and I) are looking for context -- "in their time and place", literary, reception studies, wider culture, lit crit theory, writer's craft -- what a massive agenda. Lifetimes.

I was in a discussion group of ordinary people once, one of those great books things, with a friend of mine who had been a university teacher all his life. His turn to lead a discussion came up. He said very little. His talent was instead to ask the perfect question at the perfect time. Every time he spoke it was like setting a match to a firecracker.

I once moderated a Goodreads discussion myself. I tried to follow along the lines you are suggesting. It turned out well -- some people said so, anyway -- but what a lot of work. I can't imagine how some people in these groups have time for anything else -- or for that matter even to read the books, much less talk about them.

I once taught writing classes for beginners. My premise was that intelligent, curious people can absorb the most esoteric material so long as you believe they can. The problem you mention of the distribution of students in a classroom from over-trained to under-read really shouldn't exist, but so many people don't know how to conduct such a discussion. I remember an undergraduate philosophy course where there was one student who had a knack for grabbing onto the most central questions, but could not respond to any discussion -- she could talk, but not converse. Maddening.

I'm sorry in a way that you feel your original query has been exhausted. Is there somewhere a meta-discussion group group?

Particularly I would not like to see a discussion of 'nuts and bolts' -- your #27 -- forgone. But this so often happens at the end (earlier it is a distraction and annoys or bores many people), and then when the book is finished no one sticks around for the dessert -- retires to the smoking room for cigars and port -- whatever, the sort of thing we don't so often do in life anymore, either. Those Sunday morning conversations at the breakfast table which go on into lunch where you find out your partner's secret fears and wishes -- never your children's, they won't sit still.

Well, anyway, you have already entrapped me in several discussions of the sort you like, so keep trying. You have one ink-stained wretch, at least, ready to cross quills with you.

"Hope, it is nowhere and everywhere, like the paths in the world. There were no paths in the beginning, but they materialize when people tread them."

There are a couple more things. One is the use of secondary literature. I know people don't want to be drowned in professorial graduate school drudge (a compulsive habit of mine) but it seems to me that many threads which arise have been so well studied as to make further talk rather pointless, re-inventing the wheel. (I don't speak of cases where someone has discovered something interesting to add to the discussion. "Have you seen ... ?") I hate to see a good discussion get bogged down this way, but I don't want to start a bibliographic war, either. I've never known what to do about this.

The other is the understandable desire to stick to the text -- the New Critic response to the tiresomely disgressive biographical judgmental criticism of the previous generation of Leavis et al -- all that talk of imponderables like authorial intent, and sorting the world into great books and the rest beneath contempt. Connoisseurship.

The thing is, the meaning and significance of what one finds in books is a function of the times in which they were written and have been read since. I once made a great enemy in a discussion of a 50s intellectual who shall be unnamed because I can't remember who it was. This was an author with an agenda, whose every sentence had to be approached not by asking about his meaning but his rhetoric, which in turn required a discussion of the intellectual ferment of the times. Verboten. Like trying to talk about Orwell without mentioning Marxism. Or better, Das Capital.

So about point two -- I don't find very helpful discussions predicated on the idea that books (statements) mean something or other which is fixed or stable. Yet discussions predicated otherwise often get branded as graduate school seminars, quite unfairly closing off a fruitful thread. Not too long ago I had a conversation with a delightful woman about Under the Volcano, which she hated and I thought one of the great books of the last century. The discussion evolved into the question of why did we think so differently about the book? It wasn't good enough to retreat to a position of "everyone to his own taste" -- we had to know what there was in the book which excited these views. Questions like "What is so irritating to some people about Dickens's style" then lead on to statements about digression and fancy mannered prose when then ought to lead on to questions of why these things are good or bad -- but they don't. Because of this relentless focus on the book, because of a general distaste for "theory", because of a wariness of aesthetic or moral judgments.

So two issues -- use of the secondary literature and the cloud of philosophical issues which surround any book. I think Feliks was asking whether these could not be accommodated in some way without hijacking the discussion into areas too risky, boring, or irrelevant to many of the discussants.

More or less what I am just now doing, perhaps.

Sagacious insights. I enjoyed your thought process.

May be there is some place else on Goodreads to discuss 'group techniques'. I'll have to think about that potential.

As far as *this* group--I thank everyone for considering my query and weighing in with their views.

But as was pointed out to me: this group has been highly successful and satisfying to all involved, so far. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a productive system in-place, which already works well. When it comes to delicate group dynamics--which so many other groups strive and fail to 'get right'--why fix it 'if it ain't really broke'.

It ain't broke, indeed. I actually happened on this discussion in looking for a place to ask how the interim reads get picked. What a list they comprise! What other group talks about such a range of stuff? Including how to talk about such a range of stuff?

So: how do they get picked?

I saw a thread recently which suggested 'members-who-show-up-frequently' have 'weighted-votes-for- book-picks' or something. That's all I got.

p.s. I do think the mods put a lot of thought into "what's fair" around here.

Charles wrote: " I actually happened on this discussion in looking for a place to ask how the interim reads get picked. What a list they comprise! What other group talks about such a range of stuff? Including how to talk about such a range of stuff?

So: how do they get picked? "

Most of them, by me. Things that interest, annoy, intrigue, or otherwise affect me and I think might do so to others, also. They aren't intended to provoke prolonged, "deep" discussions, though sometimes (to my surprise) they do (look, for example, at the discussion of Chesterton's "A Piece of Chalk"), but I try to pick things that most here probably don't know (or think they know but haven't read recently, if at all, such as the Declaration of Independence) but will be glad to have read.

Occasionally I will have another moderator pick the Interim Read -- for example, Thomas did last year's wonderful holiday interim discussion of several dialogues about Socrates. But mostly, having the fun of picking them is my personal reward for having founded the group.

BTW, here's a complete list of the Interim Reads:

Antigone 6/2009
Oedipus at Colonus 6/2009
The Blue Carbuncle 12/2009
Tennyson, Ulysses 3/2010
Richard II 5/2010
Essays of Elia, selected 8/2010
by Jenna - Macbeth - 9/2010
Chesterton - A Piece of Chalk 10/2010
Stevenson - An Apology for Idlers 3/2011
King - A Letter from Birmingham City Jail 5/2011
Euripides - The Medea 7/2011
Wordsworth - Tintern Abbey 10/2011
The Declaration of Independence 12/2011
Trojan Women 3/2012
Faulkner - A Rose for Emily 7/2012
Wordsworth - The Old Cumberland Beggar 3/2013
Alice in Wonderland 6/2013
Hazlitt, “Why Distant Objects Please,” 8/2013
Three Views of Socrates: 11-12/2013
Plato’s Apology, Xenophon’s Apology, Plato’s Crito, The Clouds
Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy 4/2014
Doyle, The Adventure of the Speckled Band 7/2014

Feliks wrote: "I saw a thread recently which suggested 'members-who-show-up-frequently' have 'weighted-votes-for- book-picks' or something. That's all I got."

That's correct. We are trying that out, so that those who have shown the greatest support for and interest in the group get a bit more say in what we read, while still encouraging new members to participate in the selection, too.

Sounds reasonable and fair to my ears.