Love the Lord with All Your Mind discussion

We've all probably noted by now that this is a relatively low-participation group. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I think we generally understand that people will post if they feel that they actually have something to say. But it's occurred to me that one possible way of, at least, opening up more topics of conversation might be to do an annual group read. (Participation would be strictly voluntary!) Several groups I'm in do such a read every year (some actually do group reads every month, though I think that's too often.) It can be a good way of getting people to think, and talk, together.

To understand the nuts and bolts of how this idea might work, groups that do this every year usually do it in the same month each time, so that the schedule is predictable. Two months before the appointed time, they begin to brainstorm seriously about what book to read (we could keep this thread as a continuing venue for those discussions). At the beginning of the month preceding the read, a poll is set up, and the book with the most votes is picked. Each chosen book gets its own discussion thread.

The months from August on into December are months other groups I belong to already have picked for their reads (and I typically also use December to catch up on other reading plans and commitments I want to keep before the year ends). So if we do this, my suggestion would be to start it in January 2026, and make it a way of kicking off each coming new year (while the Lord tarries). But the prior and more important question is, is this something that any of the rest of you would like to do?

One other quick point should be made at the outset: in the groups I'm in that do this, to avoid possible abuses, books written by group members aren't eligible to be picked as group reads, and I'd recommend that we adopt the same policy. They are eligible to be read as "buddy reads" (see this thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... .)

I've just heard from one member (by personal message), who was very favorable towards this idea!

Hey all,

I've been in cancer treatment, and now cancer recovery for quite a long while now. Even today, the meds keep from engaging in things that take too much concentration, but as the recovery passes and I gain more and more faculty, I have a lot to catch up on.

My book 2 is close to release and getting a lot of my energy and I am still looking to get my book 1 up to 25 reviews. To that aim, I have joined a readers circle which should run for a while.

But...by the time January comes around, I should be free and able. I am in, with whatever we come up with. I recommend my 2 books :)

Okay, not really...but I will be in.

Thanks, Patrick, that feedback is helpful. (Thoughts and prayers!)

Just to keep everyone in the loop, I've just received another favorable response to the idea by personal message.

If it helps, all of the goodreads groups I am a part of have lack luster participation. The only ones generating a lot of new content are my reading rounds group (cause they have to organize the reading round), and the group 'Faith and Fantasy' cause it is mostly young women playing forum games.

Goodreads does not really seem a good play ground for member participation. I get much more energy, and spend much more of my time on my writers website, which is a fantasy site just dedicated to fantasy writing.

The thing that hurts participation on Goodreads, probably more than anything else, is the fact that the management no longer proactively notifies members about comments they'd be interested in. There are still notifications, but you have to seek them out and click on them (and know where to click), rather than them being sent to you. And providing you with comment notifications on your reviews and threads you've posted on is no longer the default; you have to ask for them (and Goodreads never bothered to announce the change).

I am not sure I agree with that. I think you put too much upon yourself to say it is your fault.

Goodreads has a lot of faults that I dont know how could be overcome. One thing that drives comments on a forum site is new and changing content, but goodreads by design, keeps this few and far between. I dont think its a secret but I post up a lot of content, and in many places outside of goodreads, I can kick up enough dust to drive in new comments and new members, but it of no avail here on goodreads. By making members segregate into the little holes of very specific types of interest, no one sees the dust being kicked up. Instead, what I type will not be seens by 99.99% of the good reads membership, and of those that do see it, it wont be seen by many of those in a timely fashion.

Goodreads seems to have a permanent model of post something today, and replies will drift in over very long gaps.

You should not blame yourself for this Werner. You have gone above and beyond in some of the many posts I have seen from you. Goodreads just doesn't have the stage to drum up a lot of life. Even those, like me, who can be very active, may be years apart in their appearance in the thread.

I just dont know what can fix it. Forum games are kind of useless drivel. I'd rather have big topics with thoughtful replies than forum games. Least is content worth spending time with.

I forgot...I get the notifications. I click on all that red tags on the bell, and read most everything people post up. I dont always have the energy to reply, lease not of late. But I see them. 90% of them are people posting up book no one will read, or saying hi in a new group. I pity them. They dont know yet that Goodreads is like a pond you cannot fish in.

So many people wanting people to read their books and not magic way to do it. It takes a lot of believing against the odds to stick with this writing thing. There is very little reward.

P. Pherson wrote: " I think you put too much upon yourself to say it is your fault.... You should not blame yourself for this Werner. You have gone above and beyond in some of the many posts I have seen from you."

Patrick, thanks for your kind words! To clarify, when I refer to "the management," I don't mean group moderators like myself. I meant the executive team in San Francisco that Amazon pays to manage Goodreads, and the branch of the Amazon management that the team answers to and that makes the policies it has to implement.

I dont know anything about them. So, I will take your word for it, they could do better.

I think Goodreads could do a lot to improve things. Like cleaning up all the dead groups. Removing redundancy. If I am out looking for a fantasy group, it would be nice if the ones listed were actually active.

P. Pherson wrote: "I think Goodreads could do a lot to improve things. Like cleaning up all the dead groups. Removing redundancy. If I am out looking for a fantasy group, it would be nice if the ones listed were actually active."

Very good point, Patrick! But, to my personal knowledge, the Goodreads management team has steadfastly rejected some direct appeals to delete inactive groups (even, in one case, when the few members voted unanimously to request it be deleted). The team didn't explain their reasoning. But in its own advertising (and doubtless in its pitches to attract advertiser's revenue), Goodreads makes a bragging point of how many "groups" it has. Deleting the big percentage of those groups that are in fact, as you put it, "dead" would put a crimp in that strategy. :-( (A group can be deleted by its founding moderator; but that privilege is forfeited if he/she leaves Goodreads before deleting it, or simply resigns from that moderating role.)

Ah....they are living a lie. Why does the truth will set you free seem so hard to grasp.

But investors are not stupid. They know Goodreads is mostly a ghost town of empty groups. I mean...Heck, I know it and I am not an investor.

They dont have to delete, just archive and remove from the feed.

So far, we have four people who have expressed an interest in doing a common read in January. Since that's actually more people than generally ever comment on any single thread in this group, I'd say that's enough interest to warrant trying it. :-) So the question before the house now becomes, what book should we read together? Does anybody have one in mind?

I'm gonna give it my best shot. But I am a slow reader. I may not keep up with others.

P. Pherson wrote: "I'm gonna give it my best shot. But I am a slow reader. I may not keep up with others."

All you need to do is give it your best shot, Patrick, and nobody figures that we're all going to be reading this book (whatever it will be) absolutely in tandem. (A couple of groups that I belong to only discuss a chapter a day in their group reads, with intermittent breaks, and most members read the book that way; but I don't myself.) Just start when you can, and read at your own speed. (If you don't finish the book in January, there's no harm done; the discussion thread will stay open for comments indefinitely.)

In my other groups that do annual reads, to pick the book, we usually post a poll on the first day of the month before the read, with no more than six nominees at the outside (anything more than that scatters the votes too much, and I really prefer fewer options). Books which are self-published, or very recent (as in, published in the past year), are typically excluded from consideration, because they're too hard to get by interlibrary loan. (We don't want anyone to feel forced to buy a copy of the book just to take part!)

The month prior to the posting of the poll is typically a time for kicking around various suggestions, to see whether or not any of them get traction. In our group's description. its areas of interest are demarcated as "theology, Bible interpretation, Christian thought, life and ethics, Christian response to current cultural, socio-economic and political issues, and literature and history in Christian perspective. " So books nominated should have some reference to one or more of those topics.

My to-read and "maybe" shelves have a fair number of books that would fit that bill, as does my "to-reread" shelf (and of course I can comment on any book I've already read). But not all of these are necessarily of broad interest. How about the rest of you? Is there a book that might be of interest to the group in general on your TBR?

For reference, I'm including the following relevant information from our group's rules (posted on the homepage):

"If the group ever does group reads, books written by group members will not be considered for these. (They may be considered for multi-person buddy reads.) Also, self-published and very recently published books will not be considered."

Since no one else in the group has floated a trial balloon so far, I'll venture one. Has anyone in the group read The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation by Rod Dreher? Would anyone be interested in it as a possible group read? (It's not actually on my shelves, but it's been on my radar for some time.) One possible downside, though, is that it has a strong focus on the U.S., but this is an international group. What do you all think?

To add a bit of information to the previous post, Rod Dreher is an American journalist (though currently living in Budapest, Hungary), editor at large of The American Conservative, and a member of the Eastern Orthodox church since 2006. He's written a number of books; I believe Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (2020) is the most recent. (I suggested The Benedict Option, published in 2017, partly because the BU library has a copy of it, but not of the more recent book.)

Just because I suggested the Benedict Option, that doesn't mean it has to be the one that we read! We're perfectly open to other suggestions as well.

Nobody but me has commented on this thread for over a month, and my tentative suggestion of The Benedict Option got no response. I'm not sure if this is because of limited interest, or because (with Goodreads' current gutted notification system! :-( ) people just don't know that anything has been posted. But either way, it would be impossible to claim that there's any consensus for that book, and there are no other suggestions. I'd say we should just put this whole idea aside for now until there's more response.