Reading the Chunksters discussion

We are nearing the last two weeks of the No Name discussion, so we need to choose another book for next year. This one is limited to contemporary chunksters. One nomination per person plus two seconds. Any book with two seconds will go to the poll, those with one may qualify if the numbers aren't too high. If we allow nominations until January 7th, we may be able to get the poll done in time for a start in mid February.

I'd like to nominate The Last Samurai by Helen DeWitt. Published 2000, 530 pages.

(I've been absent, just rejoined the group {waves excitedly})

Roman Clodia wrote: "I'd like to nominate The Last Samurai by Helen DeWitt. Published 2000, 530 pages.

(I've been absent, just rejoined the group {waves excitedly})"

Hi Roman Clodia!! Welcome back! I'll second The Last Samurai and nominate Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky.

Thanks Dianne, and welcome back to the group RC.

Thanks for the welcome (back), and I'll second Children of Time - the kind of book I'd never pick up on my own but it looks fascinating.

Thanks, Hugh. I’ll need to think of a nomination and see which others come in that I may like to second.

I’ve already read Children of Time and its sequel, I thought both were amazing. I’m planning on reading the third book in the series when it comes out at the end of January.

I like both of the nominations and will throw A Girl Is a Body of Water into the mix.

That book looks really interesting, Paula. I second A Girl Is a Body of Water.

I think I might have nominated this last time, but I didn't get a chance to read it this year so I'm going to try again. I nominate Crossroads by Jonathan Franzen. I didn't realize when I received a copy last year that this is the first of a planned trilogy called A Key to All Mythologies. It's been a few years since I read Middlemarch so I didn't catch onto the title until I read this bit in Wikipedia:

The trilogy, A Key to All Mythologies, is named after Reverend Casaubon's unfinished manuscript in Middlemarch.[6] Franzen has said that the "mythologies" which interest him are "irrational belief[s]"[7] – "the fundamentally irrational basis for everything we think and do and espouse":

And under spoiler tags if you haven't read Middlemarch:

(view spoiler)[I have been thinking a lot about the inescapable nature of religion. Even if it is uncoupled from transcendent beliefs or metaphysical structures, everyone still organizes their life around something that can't be proved. I would say this goes particularly for the virulent atheists... [O]bviously, that phrase ['a key to all mythologies'] came to mind because if everyone has a mythology, it's only a matter of listing what they are, and suddenly you're thinking of a trilogy of novels. Of course, there is the fact that Casaubon dies in Middlemarch before he finishes his project. And undertaking writing three books in my 60s, I thought, 'Well, that's a funny little joke.'[6] (hide spoiler)]

I nominate Ducks, Newburyport by Lucy Ellmann pages 1022 , published 2019

I second Crossroads and The Last Samurai

I second Ducks and Children of Time

I'll second A Girl is a Body of Water.

Would The Magus (1965) qualify as contemporary? If so, I’ll nominate it.

I vote for A Girl is a Body of Water

Good stuff here…

I agree. I have read none of these , so count me in for our next read.

There are two I’m not in for. One I’ve read. The other author…I’ve really tried 🙂. But life is too short and there are so many books…

I nominate Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver: 560 pages, published October 18, 2022, because I'm curious about its transposing David Copperfield to the contemporary Appalachian region of the American South. My wife loved it but had never read David Copperfield. Its getting pretty good reviews and GR ratings.

Thanks Brian. I second Demon Copperhead.

Hi, I’ve been looking for a group like this! I second Crossroads.

Tomorrow is the last day for nominations and seconds - I will try and remember to start the poll on Sunday. Looks a competitive field,

I nominate Book of Jacob by Olga Tokarczuk

I'll second The Books of Jacob

hello all and greetings from california. i third The Books of Jacob (i have it sitting right here.) but i'd be down for reading Children of Time as well. how about Murasaki's The Tale of Genji?

How about The Eighth Life

Nominations are now closed. I will set the poll up later today.

OK, I have included all of the books that had at least one seconder in the poll, which is up here and will run until Sunday 22nd January. Note that this excludes The Magus, The Tales of Genji and The Eighth Life (which would have failed anyway under the one nomination per person rule). This could be a tricky decision, as there are still seven interesting options!

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/2...

I've read The Books of Jacob but it's a book which is so chunky and rich that I'd love to read it again more slowly and with a group.

I am not sure I want to summarise it!

Ha, I can understand that, Hugh! If it wins, maybe we should take it in turns or something?

This brings up an interesting point I have mulled over on occasion. Why should a moderator have to put time into summarizing the assigned reading section? I mean, we have either read it already (in which case we don’t need a summary) or we haven’t - in which case, we should do the reading and come back after we have.

From a moderator, I would prefer 3 or 4 interesting questions or points as a jumping off point for discussion. The moderator may be just as “at sea” as the rest of us, but, to me, it makes the discussion fresher and more dynamic.

Does that make sense or am I just tired from an evening of hospice volunteering?

Your second point is alright. Questions can be put by anyone who has already read the book.

But summaries are good where big books are concerned for readers like me who can't follow the schedule ardently. So in case, after two weeks i pick up the book i go through summary so i can save my time ( and others' also) , by not asking silly questions.
On the other hand if my pace is faster than the schedule , summaries save me from spoiling things for others.

My biggest problem is that once I start taking notes, they get very long very quickly, and don't always know until later which details are important. In some ways I find thinking of starter questions more difficult. My initial comment was a little flippant, but having read it (and I was one of those who loved it) I know that BoJ has a lot of detail and small print!

Yes, starter questions are always more difficult…but they are well worth doing.

You would be great at it, Hugh.

So would Roman Clodia. I can tell because the reviews from you both are not book reports. They are insightful and embrace the work as a whole.

I agree with Paula that starter questions are great. But I also agree with Hugh that I have a hard time coming up with them! :)

Summaries are great too, but maybe they don't have to be so detailed as Hugh has written them up in the past as that looks like a lot of work (but they have been super helpful!). Just a few bullet points to jog the memory of what was included in that week's reading would be sufficient, I think.

I get the impression from Hugh that the thoroughness of his summaries reflects how he takes notes and for him to create less detailed summaries would require a more thorough editing job and would likely take Hugh MORE rather than LESS time. I know how that is because that happens to me when writing the facts for the legal decisions I write in my work.

I've found that most of my moderators don't do more than a cursory fact summary and then either present discussion questions or just open the thread. I have been bemused by how much I have needed and used Hugh's summaries to remind me of what was covered in the section, often surprising me and catching me asking, to paraphrase Urkel, "Did I read that?" So thanks, Hugh, for the needful refreshing of my brain

If it’s less work for Hugh to continue to write up the detailed summaries than to edit them back, then I’m all for it. I know I appreciate the summaries. 🙂

Maybe I don’t place emphasis on them because, for group reads, I don’t read ahead and, if I’m behind, I don’t read entries for an assigned section I haven’t yet read. Since I coordinate my reading with that specific assignment, it’s still fresh in my mind.

But it’s great that Hugh’s hard work is not only appreciated (by all of us) but utilized by many. 🙂

Brian, your comment brought up some good points on how different moderators approach things, well, differently. And then it becomes something the participant has to mull over and decide if that style is going to work for them.

With respect to your two examples, if a moderator opens a section thread and posts nothing but some good discussion questions that show they have done the reading and gleaned some interesting and/or thought-provoking impressions…I will definitely participate if it’s the book I voted for, and I may even be enticed into reading the selected book as opposed to the one I voted for - because I see a really cool discussion going on. I love when that happens!

However, if a moderator does nothing but open a thread, I’ll pass. It’s just not a style I enjoy. I’ll just read the book on my own.

Different strokes…🙂

The Books of Jacob has won the poll. I will put a schedule together when I have worked out how to subdivide it.