The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

I kicked this off in the "Ranking the Booker Winners" thread, and Trevor asked me to move the discussion to the general discussion area. Hapoy to do so.

I started by writing:

May I carp for a moment? (He prepares himself to walk into the lion's den...) What's with all this ranking and rating? Serious literature, and even popular literature for that matter, offers a set of discrete and hopefully meaningful experiences that are unique and incommensurable. Surely the ultimate goal of our reading is to meditate on those experiences and their relation to our own lives. Making lists can be harmless enough, but when it becomes the point of the enterprise,

I added that I had encountered "automatic defensiveness before when I raised the same point about obsessional Top Ten listmaking in movie groups." Indeed, I was kicked out of one such group and accused of "triggering" its members! (Swear to God...) Obviously I had touched a nerve.

I also added in a response to Trevor: " I've been subscribing to the posts here for a couple of months. A lot of them are excellent. But the relentless focus on prizes, rankings, and lists frequently does strike me as trivializing, yes. The 'fun' displaces the thoughtfulness instead of providing an entry into it.

I am not trying to be insulting about this. Provoking, yes!"

Ah, I just responded to you again in the other thread. I am glad you moved the conversation here!

I will try to come up with some good reasons, though I don’t have time right now.

Suffice it to say for now that I do not think list making is the end all of this group, though it facilitates discussion.

I am anxious to hear cons. I see none with the way we do it. If this were all we do, I’d agree that it’s trivial. Since it is not, and since the lists give us a sense of perspective that we can agree with or try to shift, I see them as only good.

For the purpose of context, here was my initial response to Patrick's comment:

That is a legitimate question, Patrick, but I hope that you see this group as more than a list making group. If it were only that, I’d agree that it is trivial.

I’d rather you look at the discussions and come to a conclusion about whether we are trivializing things here. Lists and rankings can be problematic, but I have never ever thought they were the goal here in theory or in practice.

The point of them here is to have some fun keeping track and comparing tastes, which all lends itself to perspective in the general discussions.

That’s my perspective, anyway, though I’m happy to see others. But, to the goal of keeping these threads relatively clear of tangents, let’s move any of this discussion to the group’s general discussion thread. We can make a new thread there specifically about list making, pros and cons, or we can just put it in the general suggestions thread. I am curious how people feel this has benefited or detracted.

Is "Mookse Madness" another example of what I am talking about? "Bingo challenges" in other Goodreads groups? I suppose you can guess my answers. It might all seem harmless enough, and I might come across as a spoilsport. But I am perfectly willing to play Theodor Adorno here, because I don't think it is actually harmless. There is too MUCH of it for that. Just as movie awards season and its "narrative" displace attention from actual movies, book games displace attention from actual books.

Patrick wrote: "I added that I had encountered "automatic defensiveness before when I raised the same point about obsessional Top Ten listmaking in movie groups." Indeed, I was kicked out of one such group and acc..."

And here is my (edited) response to this.

There is room for lists and for people who do not like to make lists. This group has been in existence for over a decade, in one form or another. We know each other and welcome new contributors. We are willing to shift things and are flexible about what we do, knowing not all of us are interested or get value out of the same things. Internet forums are like any group. They develop a personality and a niche. I think of them like a group that gets together to talk about baseball every Tuesday. It isn’t appropriate for someone to come in and say baseball is dumb, so let’s talk about basketball.

So I can totally see why groups are defensive. However, with a thread devoted to how we do this, I think we can create a safe place for talking about the value without it feeling like an attack on the ones who create and maintain the lists. They've probably considered whether they are getting value out of it or not since they devote a lot of time to it for the benefit of anyone interested.

To be honest you have a point but I don't think any of us have ever claimed that our rankings had any objective value. In some cases though having some measurement of the collective view of the group can be a useful guide to what is worth reading. I value the opinions of most of the regular contributors to this group. Yes I have probably promoted the ranking threads a little too much but they are much more interesting when more members contribute. I don't mean to create any animosity so apologies if I did...

"I am anxious to hear cons. I see none with the way we do it."

How many threads in the group are NOT related to prizes, lists, rankings, ratings,and book games?

Patrick wrote: "Is "Mookse Madness" another example of what I am talking about? "Bingo challenges" in other Goodreads groups? I suppose you can guess my answers. It might all seem harmless enough, and I might come..."

Please explain the harm, though. For Mookse Madness we are reading 64 short stories that many here have not read before. The format is meant to create discussion, not to crown a winner we all have to agree with or bow to. This is not the Academy Awards! It's for fun, for discussion, not for posterity.

I really don't think anyone here thinks these lists or games are important at all unless they add to our conversations. And they are fun!

Trevor wrote: "Patrick wrote: "I added that I had encountered "automatic defensiveness before when I raised the same point about obsessional Top Ten listmaking in movie groups." Indeed, I was kicked out of one su..."

Of course, I see your point about groups developing personalities and raisons d'être and not taking kindly to criticism of those. On the other hand, I have always found it interesting just how furiously defensive people can get when asked to consider the point of what they are doing.

Philosophical considerations are seldom popular, but one might think that in a group devoted to modern literature...You see where I am going there. 🙂

Patrick wrote: ""I am anxious to hear cons. I see none with the way we do it."

How many threads in the group are NOT related to prizes, lists, rankings, ratings,and book games?"

Lots. And lots are devoted to prizes. You've stumbled on to a place where a lot of us follow book prizes, to get whatever we can from them and to complain about them.

Also, I still don't see the cons in the context of this group. As Hugh said, not one person here is imputing objective value on these lists and rankings. But I have gotten a lot out of the conversations they've inspired. You're new to the group, but if you look at last year's Mookse Madness I think we can show you great examples of the benefits.

Trevor wrote: "Patrick wrote: "Is "Mookse Madness" another example of what I am talking about? "Bingo challenges" in other Goodreads groups? I suppose you can guess my answers. It might all seem harmless enough, ..."

The harm is the implication that UNLESS placed in a fun hobbyist format of games and prizes and lists, reading is such a drag really.

Patrick wrote: "Of course,I see your point about groups developing personalities and raisons d'être and not taking kindlyto criticism of those. On the other hand, I have always gound it interesting just how furiously defensive people can get when asked to consider the point of what they are doing. "

I think the defensiveness may also stem from the assumption that we haven't considered the point of what we are doing. Having someone relatively new come in and cavalierly suggest you are doing things wrong and didn't even know it is off-putting, though I appreciate you've explained your intent above and have agreed that it's a good conversation to have.

I'm not big on general lists. I'm actually not that big on most book prizes. I'm very big on this group, the intelligent perspectives, the pleasant conversations, the opening up of my perspectives, the great private reading experiences that have come by following some advice here. And a lot of that has come because of the fun part of lists and silly games (games we've always considered silly, a thing we've been open about, but that have also inspired some really insightful discussions that do not involve lists at all.

Patrick wrote: "The harm is the implication that UNLESS placed in a fun hobbyist format of games and prizes and lists, reading is such a drag really."

I doubt anyone here thinks reading is a drag but for this group and the existence of lists and games.

I know that you don't actually think that reading is a drag. But from the perspective of this newcomer and outsider, it sure looks like the tail is wagging the dog.

However, you may also be right when you suggest that I've simply stumbled into the wrong room. Long-running parties are seldom very edifying for newcomers, and may in fact seem off-puttingly enclosed and self-referential.

I read some great books as a direct result of last year's Mookse Madness but I have also read a fair few that have not been mentioned in any of the groups I follow. So for me we have space for both. If you take the time to explore our older discussions you will find plenty of inspirational insights. Trevor has been doing a great job too.

Patrick left the group before I was able to shake him with my great defense of how we do things here! Ah well.

But since I have been thinking about it a bit, here goes:

As we've stated above, and elsewhere, the ranking lists we make,, prizes we follow, and games we play here are not the goal of this group. They are not the group's raison d'être, though they serve an important purpose. In fact, many of us originally met in the old Man Booker Forum before Goodreads existed, and I think we've come together again and again because we enjoyed each other's company and valued the conversations we've had about books, even when we've disagreed. Many others came because they read a book, perhaps due to seeing it featured on a book prize, and wanted to see what people thought, and they've stayed and integrated well, sometimes changing the group's personality a bit in the process. While not every thread is an example of the kinds of book discussions we've been up to, there are many that are, ones that include lengthy discussions for and against a book, from a variety of critical perspectives.

Over the years, we've stayed together not to see what the winner of the next Mookse Madness is, or even to see what the next prize winner will be. We have been around long enough to know that that is not what matters. What does matter may be different for each of us, but I really don't think anyone, not one person here, gives extra weight to the lists as lists, to the prizes as prizes, or the games as games. We like them because they curate, they confront, they offer an apparatus for discussion about books we value (or don't) with people we respect.

I think I'm fairly open-minded, and I do see a bit of Patrick's perspective in general. But I don't think Patrick came to the table today in good faith. At the very least, this very thread is an example of a deeper discussion, which will no longer benefit from his perspective.

Again, this is fine. I suspect he was right to leave since I don't think we care about the same things and don't approach things from a compatible viewpoint. For example, if it is his position that these things he complained about are harmful in this context then this group really won't please him. And I cannot get behind his position so nothing will change. Indeed, I suppose I'd say he's guilty of the opposite of what he's saying we're doing: instead of trivializing books, he's sacralizing them. Middlemarch and To the Lighthouse deserve pondering and invoke personal reflection. But they can also withstand Mookse Madness! And if Mookse Madness gets a few people to read them who hadn't before, and I know it did, then that was a success.

Anyway, this thread will remain here for anyone else who wants to weigh in on the topics above.

And if you have thoughts or suggestions or complaints, please go to the suggestion thread or message a moderator. We are happy to reflect on what we're doing here.

Thanks Trevor!

Well that was over before I could weigh in but as a newcomer myself I never saw this group in the same light. I appreciate the lists, analysis of prizes and especially the predictions. I feel way ahead of the game (pun not intended).
Keep up the good work :)

This group is amazing! I laugh! Occasionally argue and learn about new books!

I don't rate the books I read on Goodreads because I think ultimately that's a fool's errand. But I do participate in the list making and ranking here. Why, what's the difference?

I think that the list ranking serves the purpose of putting a few different books in conversation with each other. You might have one analysis of a book read on its own, out of context. When you read it with a set of related books, however, you can have a different sort of discussion. What does the Republic of Consciousness shortlist say about the world last year? What do the Booker choices over time say about the English-language world's response to literature? The ranking provided a framework and mild inspiration for reading the set of books together, but I don't think it's ABOUT the ranking.

Great post Sara.

Sometimes it is about the ranking though, having had to rank the Republic of Consciousness shortlist over the weekend, so as to help pick the winner.

I rank every book I read each year - so my 153 last year were ranked in order 1 to 153 (you can see it if you look at my 2017 folder - no prizes for guessing number 1 or numbers 152 & 153). It is very important to my reading - I have been doing it since well before Goodreads.

And the dynamic rankings threads etc here I think cause a higher quality of conversation in terms of the merits of different books. I find too many other GR forums - including the main (I hate to say it, but it has more members) Booker forum - rather bland in that regard.

I am a newcomer as well and I knew when I joined the group that the focus was on prizes and that there is a fair amount of ranking. It has been my experience that there is a strong correlation between loving books and loving lists. In more than one group we have joked about our love of lists. I don’t know why, but list making seems to be something book lovers enjoy engaging in.
I myself don’t participate in many of the rankings here partly because I don’t read every book the group reads, but I do follow the rankings and the discussions because it helps me discover new books. And without participating in many of the ranking threads I have found this group invaluable. If not for M&G I would not have discovered the RoC Prize, Benjamin Myers, the wonderful Galley Beggar writers, and just the value of small presses in general. I value the opinions of the members here because I know the quality of the books that are celebrated here.

I think the Moookse Madness is great fun and I wish I had time to join in. It is okay to have fun with books and reading! It needn’t always be only a deadly serious endeavor. Reading the books and considering what they mean to us is serious, but some competitive banter doesn’t take away from the value of the reading experience.
The Roundtable has a Tournament of Books going in 2018 and just the nominating of books was a lot of fun and created lots of lively discussions about our favorite books. We finished Round 1 and the voting has started. We can’t vote without having read two of the three books so many members provided well thought out and intelligently defended arguments for the books they championed, including sharing their thoughts on why one book ultimately won their vote. It is certainly not the case that the actual value of the books comes in second to ranking in Mookse Madness or Tournament of Books.

I applaud you both, Trevor and Hugh, for your open minded and kind responses to Patrick. I don’t think he meant to offend, I just think this isn’t the group for him. Hopefully he found one that suits his needs. It is too bad that Patrick didn’t just participate where he wanted to and give this group a chance to see all that it offers. He is missing out on a group of intelligent, open minded readers with an awful lot to offer.

I just posted a comment on Jonathan's insightful review of The Only Story and started my post. "Thanks for sharing"

Due to typing it in a rush one handed on a phone it came out instead as

Ranks for sharing

That could be a description of what in my view is a key element of this excellent forum.

I am relatively new to this group and I LOVE LISTS. I just do. I find them useful in my career, in my day to day life, and in learning about what is "good." This group is wonderful because people are so well read AND they put their favorite books in list form. That makes it much easier, for me at least, to get ideas about what to read next. I already found a favorite book of all time from this group that I wouldn't have tried otherwise.

Like Paul, I now rank all the books I read each year, but I have only done the last five years. I have various ranking lists scattered all over the place, mostly in this group, but I find it very difficult to stop them contradicting each other and often find the ordering very arbitrary. I would like to create a big unified list but it would take a long time, and the longer ago I read a book the more arbitrary its ranking would get! Like others, I feel the primary value is as a tool for deciding what to read, and the collective wisdom of this group is very impressive.

what is your favorite book, Michele?

the one i added to my favorites list is Solar Bones

I still haven’t take a day to read that. I want to read it one or two long sittings. It is one of the very good books I was made aware of by this group, too.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. It came at a time when I really needed it.

I’m sure I will. My TBR is now unmanageable. I’m taking the day off from work tomorrow to get an entire uninterrupted day of reading to catch up. I have Solar Bones on the top of my Don’t Forget You Wanted to Read shelf.

I found this group thanks to Hugh's post about the Golden Booker in another group, so you could say I joined because of a ranking list. The lists are fun, but the main attractions are the book discussions and recommendations.
Solar Bones and Autumn were my favourites from last year's Booker. I think I did rank all the ones I read at the time, but I did not keep the list for future reference.