Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This group started a bit over a year ago -- our first discussion opened on June 21, 2009. I'm very pleased with the group of people who have gathered, and continue to gather, here; with the quality of the discussion; with the tenor of our discussions, which have been robust but friendly; and with the books the group has selected.

I'm not about to make any major changes in what is working well. However, I would invite comments from group participants about a few items which might benefit from a bit of tweaking.

1. For choosing our books to read, I run a random generator on our Group Bookshelf, and also allow each group moderator (at the moment, that's Laurel and me -- the only perk of authority) to add a book to the list. I try not to meddle with the random list -- I even left Newton's Principia in -- though occasionally I need to delete a book because it is too short (a single Conan Doyle story) or too long (the full six-book Proust Remembrance of Things Past, which in any case has its own Goodreads group).

That makes up the first list for voting; if there's a clear winner, that's our selection; if it's close, the top two go for a run-off.

I like the random book process because it tends to bring up a mix of more traditional classics and some books that wouldn't be likely to make the list otherwise. (If you think a book should be considered for reading, and it fits the criteria of our group, you're free to add it to our bookshelf; there are instructions on how to do it somewhere on this board, or if you can't figure it out, ask somebody who knows how to add it for you.) I think that this process has so far given us an excellent set of readings, but if people think this process should be tinkered with, this is your chance to say so.

2. We have not for the most part had formal moderators assigned to run the book discussions in the same sense that other groups have moderators who take responsibility for guiding the discussion, posting discussion questions, and taking responsibility for moving the discussion forward. Sometimes a member kindly steps forward to help out with moderating the discussion, as Amanda did with Paradise Lost, but it's a fairly low key moderation. Our group seems to have enough strong minds that a formal leader is unnecessary. But if there is a feeling that a more hands-on style of moderating would bring more people into the discussion, that's something worth talking about.

3. If there are other things that people think would improve the operation of the group or the quality of the discussion, this one-year (plus a bit) anniversary is a good time to mention it.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the way the group has come together, and haven't seen the need for making any changes. But this is your group, too, so it seems appropriate from time to time to see whether other people have ideas which would make the group even better.

Everyman wrote: "This group started a bit over a year ago -- our first discussion opened on June 21, 2009. I'm very pleased with the group of people who have gathered, and continue to gather, here; with the qualit..."

is Paradise Regained on that list?

Vikz wrote: "is Paradise Regained on that list? "

No, it's not. But it would be if somebody added it.

To check what's on the list, click on the bookshelf link on any group page (right above the discussions and polls links), click on to-be-read, and look through it. You can click on either the title or author headings to sort by those (if they come up backwards alphabetically, just click again and they'll come out on normally).

If you add books, make sure you put them on the "to be read" shelf. Otherwise, they'll wind up on the "read" shelf, which is the default, and people will think we've read them (plus they won't be on the list that I take the random selections from).

Everyman wrote: "Vikz wrote: "is Paradise Regained on that list? "

No, it's not. But it would be if somebody added it.

Thanks for this:)

I love this group. I think it has been run very well (besides feeling a little censored from time to time I have no complaints; I probably need to be censored sometimes)

I do have a couple of suggestions:

1. I noticed the 'to be read' bookshelf has repeats.
2. I noticed a couple of books on the 'to be read' shelf that I don't think would be considered classics of the western canon.
3. Is there a way we can edit the bookshelf so it's more efficient to look at and...
4. I don't know if this idea would work but could we have a place where if a book is on the list and we really want to read it we can put a vote for it on the bookshelf...for example, A Picture of Dorian Grey is on the 'to be read' shelf and it IS a book I really want to read. I wish we could click a little box so the book could show up with how many people really want to read it.

I mean if someone wanted to they could count how many times Huckleberry Finn, for example, is listed and get an idea that it is relatively popular but we have to go through the whole list and that is kind of time consuming.

Dianna wrote: "I do have a couple of suggestions:

1. I noticed the 'to be read' bookshelf has repeats.

Yes, I'll have to go through and delete duplicates.

2. I noticed a couple of books on the 'to be read' shelf that I don't think would be considered classics of the western canon.

I have very occasionally removed books that clearly don't fit our criteria (such as a modern textbook about ancient Greece), but I don't want to be too hasty in removing books that somebody has decided should be considered. One big issue is whether we should include non-Western works. My personal preference is no, but if people vote occasionally to read an ancient text from India or China, I'm willing to try one. But if there are books you think clearly shouldn't be on the list, please send me a private message about them.

3. Is there a way we can edit the bookshelf so it's more efficient to look at and...

I don't think Goodreads offers very many options for editing the bookshelf, other than adding categories to the books (such marking them as as English Literature, philosophy, etc.), but the list isn't (at the moment) so long that one can't skim it in a few minutes. Do you have a more specific suggestion?

4. I don't know if this idea would work but could we have a place where if a book is on the list and we really want to read it we can put a vote for it on the bookshelf..."

I've been reluctant to get into the book nomination process other groups use, for reasons I gave in my original post, but you are free to lobby the moderators privately to use their selection to add something to the list that you really want to read. And of course the likelihood is that any book on the list will come up at some point, at which point you can do all the lobbying you want in its favor!

I have gone through the list and removed the duplicates Dianna mentioned. I also removed a few books that didn't seem to fit our criteria , and moved a few others from the main list to my list of potential candidates for interim reads (such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address).

While I was at it, I added a few that I was surprised to find not already on the list, such as Virgil's Aeneid.

Dianna: I love this group. I think it has been run very well (besides feeling a little censored from time to time I have no complaints; I probably need to be censored sometimes)

A person with the self-awareness/possession to make a statement like this, is a person I truly admire. So glad you are part of this group.

Thank you Zeke; I like you too :)

I was going to add the comment that I posses neither!

Dianna wrote: "I love this group. I think it has been run very well (besides feeling a little censored from time to time I have no complaints; I probably need to be censored sometimes)

Don't we all? Fortunately, I have Laurel to censor me when necessary, though she's kind enough to do it in private. Laurel is the only person I know who doesn't ever need even a little censoring. Amazing woman.

Vikz wrote: "Everyman wrote: "This group started a bit over a year ago -- our first discussion opened on June 21, 2009. I'm very pleased with the group of people who have gathered, and continue to gather, here..."

It would be quite nice to read Paradise Regained with the group who are currently reading Paradise Lost, before we forget all the wonderful things we have learned there!

PL is my first read with this group and I have very much enjoyed the discussion, the people here and the moderate moderation:).

MadgeUK - I agree with both points. The discussion has been really enlightening and has really helped my reading of the poem.

I like the random process combined with votes. Without it, some works might be continually overlooked. This way way, they're brought to the fore so that they can be considered along with those that have a higher profile.

Aranthe wrote: "I like the random process combined with votes. Without it, some works might be continually overlooked. This way way, they're brought to the fore so that they can be considered along with those that..."

Good point

I'm brand new and this is only my second comment in the group, but I have to say that I like the sound of the random process. I'm a mod for another group and the nomination process can be quite difficult because often you feel obligated to vote for what you nominate, even if something even more amazing comes up. Or at least, I do. And your process prevents someone nominating the same book that only gets one vote month after month (after month).

I just did a quick scan of the book list. Amazing! Um, I did notice that there were 3 versions of Huck Finn on the shelf.

Quick question (and maybe it's answered in a different thread) but I noticed that there wasn't a lot of modern classics, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Catch-22, Steinbeck, etc. Is there a reason for that or have they just not been added?

Lori wrote: "Quick question (and maybe it's answered in a different thread) but I noticed that there wasn't a lot of modern classics, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Catch-22, Steinbeck, etc. Is there a reason for that or have they just not been added?
"

That's pretty intentional, at least on my part. I find the term "modern classic" to be a strange concept, because I don't think something becomes a classic until it has stood the test of time, which modern books haven't had a chance to do.

Also, there are plenty of other groups here on Goodreads which will read and discuss Steinbeck, Catch 22, etc., but few if any others that will discuss Paradise Lost, Les Miserables, Don Quixote, the Oresteia, etc.

So I prefer to retain the group as one reading what one might consider "classic classics" if you like that phrase, books which participate in the "Great Conversation" of Western ideas, and books for which this may be the only home they are likely to find on Goodreads.

Lori wrote: " Um, I did notice that there were 3 versions of Huck Finn on the shelf."

Thanks. I've deleted two. I try to weed the list of duplicates, but some slip through, so I appreciate any help in locating duplicates.

Duplicates are an inevitable result of allowing any member to add books to the list, but the openness of the list is vital to the success of the group.

Everyman wrote: "Lori wrote: "Quick question (and maybe it's answered in a different thread) but I noticed that there wasn't a lot of modern classics, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Catch-22, Steinbeck, etc. Is there ..."

Thanks for the explanation. While I do enjoy modern classics, I don't have much of a chance to read the classic classics (great term!) in my real life. Thanks a lot and I am very much looking forward to reading and expanding my horizons.

This isn't a comment on the group as a whole, but I am quite curious what works are on your theoretical list of interim reads. Is there any way you could post a sampling (no obligation to choose them, of course) just to satisfy curiosity?

Pardon my intrusion. How can I view only the Greco-Roman classics on the group shelf?

I don't think we have it set up so that you can view things by subject, since nothing's tagged. I think you'll just have to go through and look.

As a very minor suggestion, I find it a bit confusing that all of the threads about future reads are titled "Planning for out Next Major Read, Part X." If you skip a discussion and come back, or if you're new, it's a little overwhelming to try to find where the group is. I'd find it useful to have the discussion about each new read on a separate thread, with a title that would give some chronological indication of what time frame it's about. For example, if it related to the work we would start discussing in November, the title might be something like "Planning for our Next Major Read, 11/10."

Audrey wrote: "I don't think we have it set up so that you can view things by subject, since nothing's tagged. I think you'll just have to go through and look."

Thanks.

Would anyone mind if I tag the books as "Greco-Roman Classics" or add another shelf?

Nemo wrote: "Would anyone mind if I tag the books as "Greco-Roman Classics" or add another shelf? "

Wouldn't bother me, though you will need to be prepared for possible argument about what does and doesn't belong on the shelf!

Audrey wrote: "As a very minor suggestion, I find it a bit confusing that all of the threads about future reads are titled "Planning for out Next Major Read, Part X." If you skip a discussion and come back, or i..."

Well, of course, the answer is not to skip a discussion!

As a very minor point, I don't always know when the next read is going to start, since I'm never quite sure whether the interim read will be a standard two week, or will be shorter or longer.

The latest thread is almost always at the top of the section, so should be easy enough to find. I don't start a new thread for each reading selection, partly to keep things less cluttered and partly not to break up the discussion into too many little bits. I tend to start a new episode of that general thread when the thread has gotten too long or cumbersome or I think it has drifted too far off topic and we need to refocus back on the main purpose.

One way to figure out what we're reading next or thinking of next is to go to the polls section.

Not sure that answers your concern, but that's how I do it.

Audrey wrote: "This isn't a comment on the group as a whole, but I am quite curious what works are on your theoretical list of interim reads. Is there any way you could post a sampling (no obligation to choose t..."

Without wanting to be too mysterious or secretive, I don't plan the Interim Reads that far in advance, but just have a whole bunch of ideas running around in the back of my head, and when the time comes I pull one that seems to fit the place the group is at the time. Sometimes it'll be something that's been simmering on the potential list for awhile, sometimes it will be a last minute "I think it would fun to stick this in here."

Always, though, it's something that can be read in one sitting, and always something available on the Internet so people can read it immediately if it's not on their shelves.

Everyman wrote: "Wouldn't bother me, though you will need to be prepared for possible argument about what does an..."

I will only copy the Greek and Roman classics to their own sub-shelf, so it's easy to browse. No changes to book selection, no argument. :)

FYI, I copied 24 books from the group shelf to a new shelf "greco-roman classics". Please let me know if it inconveniences you in any way; if you like it, feel free to add whatever I missed.