The Catholic Book Club discussion
General
>
The Atrium, 2020
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Spain is now the fourth most affected country in the world, and the second (behind Italy) with more new cases every day. We are about to pass the 10,000 detected cases, although some say that, if we include non-symptomatic undetected cases, we must now have around 100,000.
The government has declared the "state of alarm" for 15 days (extendable) and we are forbidden to leave our houses, except to buy food or drugs, and a few other selected reasons, such as working in unavoidable basic presencial services. So we are all put in compulsory quarantine.
By the way, "el Camino de Santiago" has been closed :-)
:( my son had bought tickets in January planning to walk the Camino in May. he's been determined to go and while i feel bad for him I'm very much relieved for us, as i have an immunocompromised husband. thanks for the info.
Mod
Spain is now the fourth most ..."
Yes, stay safe, Manuel. I believe the higher number is correct. Given the testing regime in the US, although we are technically the 7th most affected country, I suspect the actual number of cases may be 2 to 3 orders of magnitude larger. That would put us well beyond China and Korea, both of whom seem to have successfully bent the curve down, and perhaps higher than even Italy, though their actual cases are probably at least an order of magnitude larger as well.
Here is an article on the origins, uses and relations between the words "lent" and "quarantine" :https://aclerkofoxford.blogspot.com/2...
Mod
This made me realize, again, how slow our list progresses. I think it's been a while since we've discussed how our process works, so I thought this would be a good opportunity to do so.
Please share below your thoughts about our process.
Should we leave it the way it is?
Should we come up with a way to accelerate the process?
Sometimes books are published that are "in the moment," though when nominated to our list it is two years or more before they are up for consideration; should we think about a way to address that?
Should we apply a stricter criteria to books that can be nominated?
Instead of a first-come, first-served approach to the nominations process, should we think about moving books from the nominations list to the voting list through random selection?
Feel free to discuss these and any other concerns you may have.
Best regards,
John
Mod
A few suggestions:
a) If after a voting no book would be eliminated according to our present rules, we could select randomly for elimination one of the books that got just one vote.
b) By the end of each year (December 20th, for instance) we could organize a special voting among all the books in the nomination list and re-order them according to the votes received. Each member could select up to five books.
c) Or we could leave things as they are.
d) Or somebody else could make one or more better proposals (:-)
John wrote: "This made me realize, again, how slow our list progresses."Interesting, I thought the opposite, that 2/3 is a good number of books getting dropped. On a given month, I am interested in about 8-10 of the books in the list, and I don't mind waiting till they all come out and we read them. And, of course, there are other members interested in the remaining books, which also stay on the list. I don't mind keeping things are they are, but I know that John has been wanting things to move faster for a while, so here's what I thought:
My suggestion is to replace 3 (or 4 if you want to go faster) books every month. One of them is the winner of the month. The others are as follows.
(1) I would continue to eliminate one book of those that receive zero votes (keeping the "first month in the list" exception).
(2) We replace also the lowest voted in a given month, regardless of number of votes -which could be 0, 1 or 2 votes- till we get to three total books (or to the number of books agreed on). These do not get eliminated, but go back to the nomination list, and are replaced by other books in the nomination list.
This way, even if no book gets zero or one votes, we still replace some and get some fresh books.
As for the current interest books, for example the recent encyclical, I would do one of these two things:
(1) Make it an "add-on" that comes in automatically if there's sufficient interest. Encyclicals are not very long. The October book was short and we could have read both.
(2) I have done this in a different group with "Rosarium Virginis Mariae" : Have a thread where every day a few paragraphs of the encyclical are posted (and commented), so that by the end of the month we have read it all. Again, this would be separate from the "book of the month".
Mod
a) If after a voting no book would be eliminated according to our present rules, we could select randomly for elimination one of the books that got just one vote.
This is a possibility, but I would like to see strong support for it from the group before making a change like this.
b) By the end of each year (December 20th, for instance) we could organize a special voting among all the books in the nomination list and re-order them according to the votes received. Each member could select up to five books.
I like this idea. It addresses several concerns including the problem with a new and timely book having to wait over two years before it can be voted on.
c) Or we could leave things as they are."
Always an option. :-)
Mod
Always a possibility
but I know that John has been wanting things to move faster for a while,
More a concern at how long the nominations list is, which to a significant extent my own fault, and how long it takes to move through it.
so here's what I thought:
(c) My suggestion is to replace 3 (or 4 if you want to go faster) books every month. One of them is the winner of the month. The others are as follows.
(1) I would continue to eliminate one book of those that receive zero votes (keeping the "first month in the list" exception).
(2) We replace also the lowest voted in a given month, regardless of number of votes -which could be 0, 1 or 2 votes- till we get to three total books (or to the number of books agreed on). These do not get eliminated, but go back to the nomination list, and are replaced by other books in the nomination list.
This way, even if no book gets zero or one votes, we still replace some and get some fresh books.
And we would use the randomizer to break ties, presumably. So if there are two eligible books with no votes, the randomizer would select one to be eliminated and the other would go back on the nominations list. And, as I understand the suggestion, if there are no eligible books with zero votes, but several with only one vote, the randomizer would select two, both of which would be returned to the end of the nominations list. I like this as well.
As for the current interest books, for example the recent encyclical, I would do one of these two things:
(d) Make it an "add-on" that comes in automatically if there's sufficient interest. Encyclicals are not very long. The October book was short and we could have read both.
I think not all add-ons would be short. For example, I am thinking of From Fire, by Water: My Journey to the Catholic Faith and Christus Vincit: Christ's Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age, that I think should count. I had a similar idea that I will add as (f) below.
(e) I have done this in a different group with "Rosarium Virginis Mariae" : Have a thread where every day a few paragraphs of the encyclical are posted (and commented), so that by the end of the month we have read it all. Again, this would be separate from the "book of the month"." [I have re-numbered your suggestions so we have a single list numbered down from Manuel.]
I think this works in the case of something like an encyclical, and maybe we should have that as a regular feature. We could leave the encyclical on the nomination list, unless it gets picked up for an "encyclical read." I would think we would want to make sure there was sufficient interest in the group for this. Perhaps we could do an experiment with Fratelli Tutti. If there is good participation we could make it a regular feature for encyclicals which the group wants to read.
Mod
(f) "Current Interest" books (generally books published within the year and of a "timely nature", though I think some flexibility would be appropriate at the beginning as to time since publication) would be an add-on to the voting list. When a Current Interest book is nominated, it would go on two lists, the normal nominations list and a current interest list. Each month a sixteenth book would be added to the voting list from the current interest list. If there are books behind it on the current interest list, it would be on the voting list for only one month. If not, it could stay as an add on for up to three months. If it is not selected as a BOTM, it remains on the nominations list for consideration in the ordinary course.
(g) A combination of (b), (c) and (f), possibly also including (e).
Mod
(g) A combination of (b), (c) and (f), possibly also including (e)."
I think this is the best solution. I offer myself to implement suggestion (b) next December 20th, as it was my suggestion. Suggestion (c) could be implemented in the November voting, if you agree. As to (f), the Current Interest list could be started with "Fratelli tui," which was the first to be proposed in that way (by Jill), and be added as the sixteenth book in next month's voting.
Drop all books with 0 or 1 vote, no exception for first month on the list. When listing books to be voted on, indicate how many votes each got last time.
Jill's suggestion is certainly easier to implement than mine and will also move things faster. However, in the last vote, we would have dropped 6 books (2 got zero votes, and 4 got 1). I am now inclined towards Jill's suggestion instead of mine, but limiting the number of books dropped so that we do not drop six books on months when fewer people vote. And I would keep allowing to renominate, as we have done so far, so that if someone is really interested in a book and it gets dropped, there's a chance to put it back in the nominations list.
Mod
My thought was to go back and apply this to all books that would qualify now, though if we adopt Jill's suggestion, the increased speed at which books will move through the list would make this less of a concern. Perhaps start the list with Pope Francis's encyclical and let people suggest other books on the list that they think would qualify.
Mod
I am now ..."
I actually like the cleanness of this suggested rule - less than 2 votes and a book is dropped, but it can always be re-nominated. I am thinking this would clean up the backlog pretty quickly.
Mod
I actually like the cleanness of this suggested rule - less than 2 votes and a book is dropped, but it can always be re-nominated."
I agree with this, with or without setting a limit to the number of books dropped every month. And we could still re-order the nomination list from time to time, as in my suggestion (b) and have another list for urgent books, as in your suggestion (f).
Mod
I actually like the cleanness of this suggested rule - less than 2 votes and a book is dropped, but it can alway..."
Agreed. I have sent a broadcast message to all members asking them to come discuss this issue if they have any interest, so let's wait a few days before we make a decision.
I will rather the previous system but i Will Accept your decission.
I'd go w/Jill's suggestion. That way we can move along, but still have books renominated.
Mod
Mary wrote: "Other groups do it all sorts of ways. The most common one I've seen is taking nominations every month and voting on them. Clean slate."
This approach isn't uncommon, but it does at least double the work for the moderators. :-(
Mod
Happy Blessed Healthy New Year 2021 to all of you and yours.
The Catholic Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
From Fire, by Water: My Journey to the Catholic Faith (other topics)Christus Vincit: Christ's Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age (other topics)
I hope everyone in countries seriously affected by Coronavirus is hunkering down and staying safe. I have several relatives self-quarantining due to potential COVID-19 exposure, a nephew who was studying in Scotland and went to Barcelona last week for a concert and a soccer game - his parents flew him home Friday after Trump's announcement and they are now all in self-quarantine at their cabin in the North Woods, and a brother whose exchange student went over to a friend's place on Sunday after which they learned that the friend's mother had just returned from visiting her sister who has now been diagnosed with COVID-19.
Our law firm's Seattle and New York offices are basically closed, with everyone working from home. As of yesterday, most attorneys in the firm had decided to work from home as much as possible, some from necessity as their children's schools are closed, and some from precaution.
How are you and your family handling the Pandemic? Has your country been seriously effected?