New category on BookTalk - what do you think?

Chris OConnor

I'm thinking of creating a new category on the BookTalk forums. By "category" I mean major forum section. An example of a category is "Current Nonfiction Book Discussions."

The Classics

Classical Literature Discussions

This forum would be for discussing the classics, whether they be books, short stories, plays or poetry. Everything from "Catcher in the Rye" and "Huckleberry Finn" to Dante's "Inferno" and Plato's Dialogues would fit here.

We would attract a different audience with this section, naturally, which would be a good thing in my opinion. I'd look for someone knowledgeable to run this section.

Classical Celt

Chris I like your idea. It may take some time to find those type of readers, patience will pay off eventually.

Chris OConnor

Maybe the key to making that forum a success would simply be to create it and allow members the freedom to add book threads as they see fit. No real structure is necessary.

Some of our past book discussions, typically found in the Additional Book Discussion forums, would fit quite nicely in "The Classics" section. Catcher in the Rye, The Age of Reason, and others, qualify as classics.

MadArchitect

I think the only real problem with adding a category like this is the question of what qualifies a book as a classic. We can all fairly agree that the Iliad is a classic, but what about, say, William Burroughs' "Junk"? Some consider it a modern classic, some don't, and I'm not sure how to mediate between the two views. Some would consider certain Stephen King novels classic. The word gets stretched so much, there would have to be a way of dealing with it.

Chris OConnor

You're right that we'd need a means of defining "classic," but what do you think about the overall idea of such a forum?

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 7/16/06 8:49 pm

MadArchitect

Sounds good to me. My caution is that I wouldn't expect it to be too popular. Not that people here aren't interested in classics, but my experience has been that people are interested in different classics at different times. My counter-suggestion to this is that we look for ways to tie classics suggestions into contemporary events, so that our choices seem relevant to whatever is in the news at the time. That should make it easier for the forum to pick official selections that have a broader potential audience.

tomiichi · Gaining experience Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 99 Gender:

I am not familiar with Classics at all. I have never even read "Catcher in the Rye," but I think this category is a great idea. I would love to browse in on the discussions and learn about classics. Then when I find something interesting people are talking about I can grab a copy and read it. This would be great because I wouldn't know where to start in learning about the classics on my own.

Tomiichi

tomiichi · Gaining experience Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 99 Gender:

By creating this new category, are we going to chose and poll books and have a reading period like the fiction and nonfiction sections. If this is so, I think this would have to be included into the discussion of book reading lengths. People may change their opinions on the reading lengths if we have more sections of books and discussions.

Tomiichi

Chris OConnor

Nothing is firm yet. We're simply tossing around ideas. Mad brings up a good point. This new section would not be very active in the beginning. Reading and discussing the classics is for a niche audience. I'm not sure how to make it a success without adding more to my plate with new suggestion threads, polls and such.

MadArchitect

And since we're just tossing around ideas...

How about a section called "Background Reading", or something along those lines. The books that we read as official selections often make reference to a lot of other books. The "Background Reading" section would be about following up those references, giving special emphasis to books that are regarded classics. It would have to a mid-quarter kind of process, where those who are reading the official election early on would have the most input into what bibliographical reference was chosen.

I see three strengths. 1) is that it puts something new on the plate in the middle of the normal reading period, which means we'll always have options for those joining. 2) is that it makes the selection process easier, since the suggestions would be coming directly from our current reading. 3) is that it gives the "Background Reading" selection instant cache -- we'll presumably be interested in what it has to say because it pertains to what we're already reading -- and it has some potential to breathe some new life into the discussion that's already going.

Just to give an example, "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe" made reference to at least a dozen classic philosophy texts -- Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and G.E. Moore's "Principia Ethica" come to mind. If we wanted a little more variation, we could also pick up "The Brother's Karamazov", which had a rather pivotal role in "Value and Virtue".


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT