Reading the Chunksters discussion

I am very excited that we are gathering a core group of dedicated members and I think it will really revitalize chunksters!

Let's start brainstorming about what we want this group to be.

1. My first question is, do we want it to stay a 'chunksters' group? We can revamp it any way you want! What would you like the group to read?

2. Do we want to have one monthly read or more?

3. Do we want to have any challenges?

4. Do we want to discuss any other topics that I should create a thread for? General discussion about whatever, other books you are currently reading, buddy reads, personal threads for each member, anything else?

what other ideas do you all have?

I joined to get help with chunksters- thick books I've wanted to read but never gotten around to, but I am certainly not attracted to ALL thick books.

My hope would be that there is enough of a mix of the real "lifetime achievement" WHALES and the new stuff that there would be something for everyone.

My main reason for joining was chunksters, so I would like to see us continue with them.

As to any additions, I'm game -- short stories, novellas, essays, etc. We could have intermissions between chunksters where we read several shorts or even a small novel.

Not one much for year-long challenges. Not that the idea isn't fun, but I have no discipline at all and so can't see myself sticking to a list of reads predetermined at the beginning of the year. In other words I'd always lose.

I joined to do chunksters. There are plenty of other groups that seem to cover everything else.

One thing I would like to see are discussions sparked by insightful observations, interesting food for thought, etc. by the moderator for that book. I've noticed that discussions flounder in all groups when all the moderator does is open a thread and says "post your thoughts here" or "what did you think".

It's a lot of work so maybe the participants for that book could each take on doing this for different pieces of the schedule. It would share the work and also provide cool initial remarks for the rest to start chewing on.

I belong to a couple of groups who really do a good kickoff for each book section assignment, and they seen to get tons of good discussion.

Just my thoughts.

Do we want 2 reads each month, one classic and one modern? Or just one of those ? Or switch off?

I really haven't contributed to this group, so feel silly adding my thoughts to this discussion. Having said that, I've actually read through several past discussions threads this year to supplement my reading (and enjoyment!) of various chunksters.

I would like this to remain a chunksters group. I'm open to non-chunksters side reads, but don't see them as a priority for this group. One monthly read sounds good. I'd definitely be interested in a buddy reads section. Not sure about yearly challenges either – I find it hard to stick to them!

Overall, this group is great as it is and I'm excited for 2018.

Paula wrote: "I joined to do chunksters. There are plenty of other groups that seem to cover everything else.

One thing I would like to see are discussions sparked by insightful observations, interesting food ..."

Paula I agree with you 100%. I think the discussion needs to be active, and the mod needs to host or assign a host. I love the idea of weekly discussion leaders that rotate if people are game. Personally I found I was too overextended and so I am
slashing my participation in groups to focus on a few. Also I think it is key to have those that pick the books actually read them. To me it’s disheartening when people vote and then don’t join.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "My main reason for joining was chunksters, so I would like to see us continue with them.

As to any additions, I'm game -- short stories, novellas, essays, etc. We could have intermissions between..."

I’m not into the challenges either.

Hi Everyone, Like most people I joined to read my way through the chunksters. What appealed to me most was the structured reading and breakdown of each monthly choice into manageable chunks and then a chance for us to regroup and discuss. I find this process insightful and the best way for me to understand and appreciate much longer novels which I have a tendency to lose interest in part way through!
I suspect that most members will also be members of other groups, which would probably impact on the amount people could and would actually read. Maybe if the group sets off with a monthly and buddy read and then reassess a few months on to see if it's working or if members want change or the choice of additional reading might be an option.

I think we have already decided we are PRO CHUNKSTER! so that will remain the plan.

So I think one book a month is probably the way to go, and people can buddy read as they like.

Personally, Iean heavily to classics but I don't know if folks want a classic chunkster only group. I did find myself like sea of poppies and fingersmith though, so I am open minded about it. What do you guys think?

Also, should we have weighted voting based on participation? With the group trimmed down we may not need that I am thinking?

Hmmm, do we want to keep the group public?

Yay for Chunksters! That's the reason I initially joined the group, because of the size of the books, so I'm glad we are staying with that criteria.

I'm not sure about the time frame for each book. Initially I liked having each book broken down into smaller parts, even if it meant reading the book for 3+ months. But that was years ago and I now find myself reading much more and so sometimes reading one book for that long is too drawn out for me. However, I fear that depending on the book that is chosen, that a month might be too short of a time to read a chunkster in, especially if I'm committed to reading other books that month as well. I'm sure there must be a happy medium in there, though, and maybe each book can have its own timeline.

I'll read anything - classics and new stuff. :)

I like the idea of weighted voting because that is one of my biggest pet peeves - people voting on books and then not participating in the discussions (of course barring things that happen in the meantime that prevents someone in participating). But, you might be right that we won't need to do that given a trimmed group.

Dianne wrote: "Do we want 2 reads each month, one classic and one modern? Or just one of those ? Or switch off?"

I like the idea of having two reads going at one time, then it gives the option of choosing one or the other for readers (like me!) who can not read everything. However, depending on how many people vote and participate, having two books going on at once might dilute the participation of each book? So, not sure...

Linda wrote: "Yay for Chunksters! That's the reason I initially joined the group, because of the size of the books, so I'm glad we are staying with that criteria.

I'm not sure about the time frame for each book..."

Maybe instead of going with a month to complete a book, we could discuss it once the book is chosen? Not all chunksters are created equal. Some may be 600 pages, and others 1000. And some are breezy reads where you have to read them in large chunks - because otherwise there wouldn't be much to talk about - whereas others are very dense and need a good bit of unpacking. So maybe we could play it by ear?

Having two reads going on at the same time might dilute the discussions for each.

I'm happy to have a mix of modern and classic chunksters. I'd also like a faster timeframe of a month - though, as others have said, that could be adjusted on a book-by-book basis.

One of the reasons that I ended up dropping out of the Kristin Lavransdatter discussion was that I'd raced ahead of the schedule and then couldn't remember what had happened when and was anxious about accidentally revealing spoilers!

I wonder if it would work to open up all the section discussion threads in advance so that we could post immediately as we read, and have the discussion build up as people reach that section?

I don't know what I want the group to read, I think that will happen organically. I just want a face to associate with the group, a consistent moderator who genuinely cares about the longevity of the group and the participation of its members.

This is the first group I too joined on GR, so it's a bit sentimental for me because it's where I met some great reading enthusiasts who have all impacted the way I read and approach books...They know who they are.

If 2018 is "really" going to be a revamping year for the Chunksters, then first and foremost, it has to have the face of a dedicated moderator; not an unreliable one handing off the baton left and right; we need somebody with integrity, somebody who isn't going to get the group all razzled and dazzled with ideas galore, and then missing in action when it comes time to delivering (late in opening threads, no input in discussions, a moderator who has 76+ "currently reading" books while floating around the GR platform posting in every thread except for the book discussion threads, etc...), or worse, a moderator who just abandons a group without leaving any word. It's not a matter of a one time incident either, when there is a consistency in this type of behavior, it leaves a terrible stain on the group as a whole. Everybody has different moderating styles, but the successful groups on GR are run by moderators who practice consistency and have integrity, they are the face(s) of their group, and most importantly, they know how to manage their time. You have to admit, a lot of this has been missing in The Chunksters for a very long time.

One Moderator...For now
In the initial phase of re-establishing the group, I think the moderator needs to host the discussions to re-establish a baseline for any new endeavors for the group; so I echo Julie's post and yours (with caveats), a monthly group read (established group moderator led) and buddy reads (not necessarily led by an established moderator for the group) for whoever wants to pursue it.

I know you've streamlined your groups, and I hope it will be beneficial to you freeing up some time, allowing you to pursue whatever it is with The Chunksters. If you're taking it upon yourself to sit at the helm of this group, Dianne, then I know the core group of participants, those that have been around over the years, we all want "you" and the group to succeed...But you have to be present. Having different people hosting multiple reads, when participation is waning or non-existent, it just feels chaotic because there's no standard in place, discouraging input in the discussion threads instead of encouraging it. If moderators perfunctorily participate, it's no wonder that members would also follow suit.

Can we keep it simple and just read with you for a while, and as the group strengthens, to then pursue simultaneous monthly (Classic/Contemporary) group reads with group appointed moderators to support you down the road? Moderating isn't easy, especially in this group at present. I'm just saying that we don't make moderators out of people who have no business being a moderator, making your life more cumbersome than it already is. If you can't get to a thread, for whatever reason, then I'm positive a fellow member in the discussion would be willing to help you out, here and there.

Switching between Genres
How about we read a classic one month and a contemporary the next, to not streamline our chunksters...Giving us the ability to read across all themes within those genres?

Weighted Votes
Considering the #'s of those remaining in the group, you're right, a weighted vote may not be required. However, why not implement it anyway and create a new standard for the group, grow from that...You said, "re-vamp," didn't you? It's also a great incentive, encouraging participation for newer members while rewarding the dedicated members who do/have participate regularly.

Public vs. Private
As far as public vs private, if you decide to implement the weighted vote, is it really going to matter? I guess I should ask what exactly is your vision for the re-vamped group, and how would a public vs private group benefit it? Also, if we go private, what is it that you would be looking for in new members, if they are wanting to join?

Excited for you
Thank you for taking the lead on this, Dianne, I hope it all pans out for you...For us!

Ami wrote: "I don't know what I want the group to read, I think that will happen organically. I just want a face to associate with the group, a consistent moderator who genuinely cares about the longevity of t..."

ha ami, love it, you always do call a spade a spade. and while I did experiment with having different co-hosts during fingersmith and poppies, that was to see how that would go and because I wanted to read both books but was not 'sure' that I could and also because I knew I was entering into a chaotic time at work. AND I am not the person currently reading 76 books. just saying. I'll assume it is not my integrity you are critiquing :)

with that said, yeah, I was spread way too thin this year, and it didn't do the group any favors. I didn't do me any favors. It seemed to be that the group was being led by voters who didn't really join in, and that lost its lustre for me. With that said, I love chunksters, especially classic ones, and am invested in seeing where this group can go. I 'know' from GR almost everyone who is staying in the group, and I know they are all lovers of books, and kind souls, and warm spirits, and insightful and thoughtful in their comments. I'm game to read a single classic with just me as mod for January, but I'd like to keep this discussion going about everyone's ideas and see where it leads.

For the january read, let's try weighted voting. We can figure out how exactly that will work in this thread, but the basic idea is that the more you post the more your vote will count for future reads. I'm good with keeping the group public now, especially with the weighted voting. I just don't want non-participants skewing the poll results, basically. And Ami, thank you, I know you a driven person and an avid reader with brilliant comments, and I hope you will share them as we go along. I would like to immerse myself in these books, and really gain the benefit of them and the benefit of the discussion, and that can only happen, as you say, with dedication. Which is the reason for the revamping, from my end and for the group as a whole.

I agree with many of the comments and here's my 10 cents:

a. alternate between a classic book one month and a contemporary book the next.

b. Have all the threads open for a book at the beginning so people can post according to their rate of reading

c. The person who nominates a book should moderate and participate as much as they are able, with everyone else chipping in as much as possible also. I don't think any of us are claiming to be experts in this field; well I certainly am not lol. I just want to be better educated and to share with like minded people.

d. We all have issues going on in our life so positive and supportive posts. Lets make this a great place to learn and uplifting at the end of a hard day.

Tracey, thanks for aggregating and summing up
the comments. We will proceed with all of the points you have made reflecting what people would like.

Dianne wrote: "Ami wrote: "I don't know what I want the group to read, I think that will happen organically. I just want a face to associate with the group, a consistent moderator who genuinely cares about the lo..."

Multiple Moderators/Simultaneous Reads
Absolutely not, Dianne... This wasn't about any one person in particular, but about practices that continue to be in place for groups that experience minimal to no participation...The 76+books (LOL!) was some hyperbole for you, but it happens. ;)

Integrity
Life or whatever doesn't just happen to moderators responsible for a reading group, it happens to everybody, as you know. If you've found yourself in a position where you're not meeting the expectation and take for granted there "really" aren't any "real" repercussions from it, then yes, it applies to you. I personally, have not experienced this with you as my moderator, nor do I expect to. As a moderator, if you're falling short somewhere, you always find somebody to pick up the slack for you so your readers aren't too affected, which is the responsible thing to do, I would think.

Poppies/Fingersmith
See, I said, moderating wasn't easy, especially when the selections are so difficult to say "no" to. I get it. Again, it wasn't a pointed comment at any one person, but a consistent practice that doesn't seem to be working here, currently...Or rather, has not for a long while.

It seemed to be that the group was being led by voters who didn't really join in, and that lost its lustre for me.
A problem with the majority of groups across this platform, even the intimately small, unfortunately. But you're in a great position to "finally" do something about it wanting to implement weighted votes.

I'm game to read a single classic with just me as mod for January, but I'd like to keep the discussion going and see where it leads.
Goodness, of course not, you're going to have to have support down the road...Absolutely! I'm just asking that you give it at least a couple of months to establish yourself in the group as lead moderator; giving us time to read, discuss and re-acclimate ourselves within the constraints of a re-vamped group, with members new and old, who may want to pursue a moderator's status in the group?

Weighted Votes
It's understandable why you would want to implement it at this time...Go for it!

And Ami, thank you, I know you a driven person and an avid reader with brilliant comments, and I hope you will share them as we go along.
Oh Lord...I have my moments, but most of the time I just remain eternally confused. LOL!

This group just needs a consistent moderator(s), the members will come. It's a cycle, and you've just hit the refresh button. So, good on you. You've got ideas, now it's time to put them into practice...Somebody "has" to do it. Let it be you...

Just picking up on an idea that's been mentioned a couple of times. If you have chosen a big chunkster and you open all the threads simultaneously at the start of reading and with people reading at different speeds,there may be a tendency for discussion to drop off as readers may just jump to later comments to fill them in on events happening as the book progresses. Personally, I would prefer to just work through the book and meet target dates then discuss but I'm willing to go with the general consensus.

Sorry for such a long winded essay on a Monday morning!

I agree with Julie that this is not ideal for the reason she states and there may be less discussion as the book reading is ongoing but I believe more people will commit to read the book if all the threads are open. The reason being it allows for all reading rates/schedules. Thus there should be more discussion at the end. So I suppose the group will become more of a once a month book club in general with fewer people discussing throughout the month.

There are some great comments here :)

I think whether all of the threads are opened at the beginning or not, we do need a clear schedule of when different sections will be discussed for the whole book from the beginning, and not drag them out too long. I found it frustrating with Kristin Lavransdatter having to keep checking with no idea when a new section might open up.

Having said that, I know it's difficult to know how much of a "fast read" a book may be before we start, but often reviews can give a hint on that.

Going forward I think it's important to have more than one group moderator, if dedicated and willing people can be found, or even if there's someone willing to be a backup moderator in a crisis. This is because there are administrative things, like setting up polls, that only a group moderator can do, and unavoidable crises do come up in people's lives.

I've been in groups with a single moderator that came to a halt for this reason and through no fault of the moderator. E.g. sickness or accident can make it physically impossible for someone to get online. Eventually I think you can apply to Goodreads to appoint a new moderator, but by that time activity in the group has often faded out completely.

Regarding leading discussions, I think it's good to have one nominated person leading the discussion for the whole book. It wouldn't have to be the/a group moderator every time, but it's probably best if the person has experience of taking part in a discussion in this group before (and following through to the end of that discussion). So I don't think it should automatically be the person who nominated the book.

Then if the group moderator(s) keep an eye on the threads with a view to stepping in if the nominated person disappears, we should have some insurance.

I agree with Rosemary that we should have a back up mod if possible. Life gets in the way and stuff does happen! Regarding the reading format, I think it should be a case of try it and see if it works. With a relatively small group it will become clear quite early on if something isn't working. Also as members,to keep it dynamic we need to keep commenting! I am guilty 100% about keeping up to speed with this!

I won’t set up a separate thread for mod volunteers just yet but please message me if you are interested :)

Julie wrote: "Just picking up on an idea that's been mentioned a couple of times. If you have chosen a big chunkster and you open all the threads simultaneously at the start of reading and with people reading at..."

I agree. It scatters the discussions. With readers all over the place, it's hard to really enjoy an ongoing discussion. I like a back and forth discussion, not reading postings from someone who has posted remarks way ahead of time and then perhaps moved on to another book and never comes back. And to me, the whole point of a group read is to dialogue with each other as we read, not just show up at the end. It's always great to have that ongoing discovery of the book, the sharing of thoughts and impressions as we are experiencing them, and then the final overall wrap up. I guess I like to have it all. 🤗

Plus, what my favorite groups have in common are engaged mods who kick off the current reading section with a concise summary (which gets the readers focused) and some insightful comments or questions. It seems to really spark the discussions.

I think, with a schedule of reading a chunkster in one month, there will be enough pages of reading per week to keep everyone in one place at the same time.

Anyway, just wanted to share what I enjoy, thanks!

I find the longer running discussions rather frustrating - I get confused if I have too many books on the go at the same time, so on the whole once I have started a book I like to finish it all in one go - it is pretty unusual for me to spend more than two weeks reading anything. This would not prevent me reading discussions and chipping in later...

Paula wrote: "Maybe instead of going with a month to complete a book, we could discuss it once the book is chosen? Not all chunksters are created equal."

I like this suggestion. I fear that a month might too short for certain books (for me, anyway), but the ~50 pages a week or so that was normal for this group in the past feels too drawn out to me.

Threads could always stay open and be semi moderated until say 5 months after the start date? I have moderated in other groups before and done this as long as that was the decision at the beginning. Maybe once a week for months 2 and three and then once a month for months 4 and 5. I would look back in and keep moderating until that deadline.

1. I'm new to this group, so I still love the idea of being a group devoted to tackling longer novels that are normally pushed aside due to their size (guilty!)

2. Monthly works for me!

3. Yes Yes Yes to challenges!

Since I am new to the group I don't know yet what has worked/hasn't worked, but I am open to new ideas :)

Welcome Brittany and thanks for sharing your thoughts!

I read a lot of other books around the major ones I am reading but I am hoping to not do that so much this year and focus more on great works. 20 pages a day I think are doable and that would be 600 a month.

Is 600 pages a good size for a chunkster for one month and anything bigger requiring maybe a little longer?

So for instance, if Buddenbrooks won the poll this month, at 731 pages that would be 37 days, and The Deptford Trilogy at 874 pages would be 44 days. All threads open at once so people can finish in whatever time it takes but the expected time is 20 pages /day with maybe a 5 month closing date for those who start late or read slower? Thoughts...

Maybe the runner up of the poll could be automatically entered into next months poll or used as a buddy read?

Julie wrote: "Just picking up on an idea that's been mentioned a couple of times. If you have chosen a big chunkster and you open all the threads simultaneously at the start of reading and with people reading at..."

perhaps a way for this to work for everyone is to be absolutely sure that the threads to are opened on time, and to not have the reads be too slow?

Let's use january as a test case and if people request next week's thread to be open early I am happy to do that. in my view it's ideal if we just open one per week, but if that's not working for people we can change it.

Rosemary wrote: "There are some great comments here :)

I think whether all of the threads are opened at the beginning or not, we do need a clear schedule of when different sections will be discussed for the whole ..."

this whole experience was a bit unusual for me, I joined some others who had been at the helm and then they disappeared. Finally I just said, well, let's just move on. I'd like to solicit interest in moderators now and through january, and announce new additions Feb 1. So I will take us through the January read and then we will see where we are. Does that work for everyone? It's so critical to have really dedicated moderators, so passion is key, in my view. Message me if you would like to be added as a moderator :)

At this time it looks like we will rotate one month classic, one month contemporary. We can look at if we want to revise any of the current group guidelines, but for now the definitions of those books can stand.

Paula wrote: "Julie wrote: "Just picking up on an idea that's been mentioned a couple of times. If you have chosen a big chunkster and you open all the threads simultaneously at the start of reading and with peo..."

this is helpful paula and I agree a running dialogue is why we are here! I think the goal will be for whoever is running the discussion to respond to every post. I think the nominating person should have the option to run the discussion but not the obligation. And I think a moderator should participate in all of the discussion, and lead if the nominator does not want to.

Does everyone else like a summary and then some questions for discussions as a lead? I think this is an important point as we structure new group reads.

Hugh wrote: "I find the longer running discussions rather frustrating - I get confused if I have too many books on the go at the same time, so on the whole once I have started a book I like to finish it all in ..."

all of the pushback on the longer time frame is so interesting to me! I had thought people would like that. But message received! We will review timeframes by book on a case by case basis, with the goal being to keep things moving, especially, I expect, for the contemporary books.

Linda wrote: "Paula wrote: "Maybe instead of going with a month to complete a book, we could discuss it once the book is chosen? Not all chunksters are created equal."

I like this suggestion. I fear that a mont..."

it's tough to even come up with a guideline of pages per week, since some books are so much more dense than others. I think case by case is the way to go, although maybe we can have a general guidepost and then adjust it by book. is tracey's suggestion of 20 pages a day, 140 pages a week ok as a preliminary target? is that too much or too little?

Tracey wrote: "Threads could always stay open and be semi moderated until say 5 months after the start date? I have moderated in other groups before and done this as long as that was the decision at the beginning..."

yes even though we will have a timeline and stick to it, discussions will stay open. I am fine to keep them open indefinitely.

Brittany wrote: "1. I'm new to this group, so I still love the idea of being a group devoted to tackling longer novels that are normally pushed aside due to their size (guilty!)

2. Monthly works for me!

3. Yes Y..."

does anyone else like the challenges idea? I'm not sensing a ton of traction on this.

Julie wrote: "Maybe the runner up of the poll could be automatically entered into next months poll or used as a buddy read?"

I suspect if the polls are close we may end up with buddy reads of the runner up. While I read both books this past nov-dec, I can't commit to that in the future. So that will basically mean I'm reading the voted book and probably won't participate in buddy reads. With that said, I'd like the focus to be on the voted group read, so if it is close I will likely set up a run off poll so we don't dilute the group read too much.

Dianne wrote: "Does everyone else like a summary and then some questions for discussions as a lead?"

Yes, definitely. And that means that if I have read ahead (I sometimes can't help myself!) it gives a clear lead on where the group progress is up to in the story.

If we're speeding up the reading anyway, I will try to stick with the group schedule.

I'm ok with challenges which Brittany has mentioned, but I think we need to sort out the basics first and then possibly introduce something later on next year if there is a consensus.

Julie wrote: "I'm ok with challenges which Brittany has mentioned, but I think we need to sort out the basics first and then possibly introduce something later on next year if there is a consensus."

yes, I agree. so if we do that, it won't be for awhile.

Just thinking about monthly choices, would it add a bit of interest if they were themed? I know this happened in the old Chunksters or is it too much of a brain strain!

i like the idea of themes. Maybe prize winners or countries or to do with a particular celebration/seasonal event.

My goal in 2018 is to get more out of my reading; quality rather than quantity. To understand deeper. To dig out the gems buried in the text and the meaning the author was striving to impart to the readers. This will require focused reading, note taking and active discussion, which I hope this group will provide. I would rather read and savour 10 great works that will stay with me than speed read and mildly enjoy 50 mediocre ones.

Looking back over the old stuff, polled reads didn't happen every month so I'm assuming the books were read over a much longer period. Could that be a reason why people dropped off? I only joined in when Kristin Lavransdatter was selected so don't really know what the format was.

Would it be possible to state here what the group's definition of the following is?

a. How many pages to make a chunkster?

b. What age makes a classic vs contemporary?

Tracey wrote: "Would it be possible to state here what the group's definition of the following is?

a. How many pages to make a chunkster?

b. What age makes a classic vs contemporary?"

Tracey the current guidelines are here but I am open to ideas about changes :

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Dianne wrote: "Tracey wrote: "Would it be possible to state here what the group's definition of the following is?

a. How many pages to make a chunkster?

b. What age makes a classic vs contemporary?"

Tracey the..."

Thanks :) I was wondering if you would have an age limit for classic vs contemporary. Most other groups have books that are first published either 40 or 50 years ago to be classed as a classic. Could we have something like this and if we have themes change them every two months? Therefore, for example, we would have Nobel Prize literature Classic book one month (more than 40-50 years ago ) followed by Nobel Prize contemporary (more recent)