A newbie's Robert Jordan thread is closed, but Murphy's duplicate Gibson thread is okay why? I imagine Panda calling foul, the clique at work.

I posted on The Time Traveller's Wife thread even though I was not and am not part of the book club, and I read the book like a year later, but that certainly doesn't matter, does it?

because murphy didn't duplicate the gibson thread - murphy started a gibson book club - that's a different thing.

and your right
you can post in any thread even if you're *joining in* or not

When the Harry Potter fans descended in droves, some posters said they had wanted to discuss the new book with other members here. I suggested that they start a private discussion, which worked just fine.

But if someone had posted a public thread titled "The Exclusive World's Enders ONLY Harry Potter thread" then that would've been wrong.

Even if anyone can join a book club, anyone can just go ahead and post on a public thread already, one less step. If there's no real distinction between a book club and a standard garden-variety thread, then what's the point?

you're confusing me.

We have threads that are related but different.

There are many threads about stardust that are about different aspects of it, the book, the film, the cinema you saw it at.

We have a thread about an author which discusses all of the authors books, influences, booksignings.

Sometimes people want to go more specific and start a bookclub to discuss, with spoilers, specific books. That is fine too.

I think the Harry Potter thing was quite unique. We wouldn't normally pull something like that in PM's - althought of course there is no reason why not.

But to start another - why I like Terry Pratchett thread, that is just redundent.

Its the difference of having something specific and different to discuss, than adding a comment to a generic ongoing discussion.

and how specific and needing of a new thread...most people here are good and have a good gut instinct - we mods just point new posters (or posters who've missed a thread) in the correct direction.

quote:

Originally posted by ZoneSeek:
If there's no real distinction between a book club and a standard garden-variety thread, then what's the point?

If there has been some general Gibson discussion in the Neuromancer book club thread, then I'd say that's the phenomenon of thread hijack at work. Since when have we ever slavishly kept to the topic in the title?

However, a book club has a distinct function, namely to discuss a specific book. And so far, it's been making a valiant effort to.

ZoneSeek, come on. You're not posting here to helpfully point out a duplicate thread. Are you posting here because you think you have discovered evidence of cliquishness?

quote:

Originally posted by ZoneSeek:
If there's no real distinction between a book club and a standard garden-variety thread, then what's the point?

Mr Zone, what Smaug said: "Its the difference of having something specific and different to discuss, than adding a comment to a generic ongoing discussion." In this case, the *intent* of each thread is what makes them distinct. One is micro and one is macro.

quote:

Originally posted by Babylon the Bride:
Since when have we ever slavishly kept to the topic in the title?

Exactly. The original William Gibson thread is macro, an inclusive discussion of Gibson's works. While there have been book-specific discussions about anticipated or significant releases like Spook Country or the new Potter book, generally threads in Other Writers are under author headings. Maybe I misunderstood, but having a Gibson book club seemed to imply that there would be a sequential series of discussions about Neuro, Count Zero, etc, which would make it a duplicate meta-discussion.

What rankles is people posting "May I join too?" showing that there's a perceived inside and outside. No one asks permission to join a standard author thread, you just go ahead and post, you're part of the discussion solely by having read the books and having something to say.

When I Googled Iain M. Banks and posted on his forum, I had just finished reading the books, while many members there had read them years ago. That didn't matter. Doesn't matter when new people have just discovered Sandman or Stardust, even though to some of us the books are like old friends.

quote:

Originally posted by ZoneSeek:

What rankles is people posting "May I join too?" showing that there's a perceived inside and outside. No one asks permission to join a standard author thread, you just go ahead and post, you're part of the discussion solely by having read the books and having something to say.

To be fair, Mr Zone, only one person asked permission to join, and it was a Wigber. To which Murphy immediately replied that it was open to everyone.

quote:

Maybe I misunderstood, but having a Gibson book club seemed to imply that there would be a sequential series of discussions about Neuro, Count Zero, etc, which would make it a duplicate meta-discussion.

Not quite duplicate meta -- in the book club instance it's a group activity at the same time -- not a normal thread where the discussion can carry on over several years. This is a directed reading activity where one would need a separate thread to keep track of things.

Hope the mods have satisfactorily answered your questions on this one.

quote:

Posted 15 Oct, 2007 14:59
Originally posted by silly widget killing punk:
hmmm...

*contemplates joining*

are you all done or what?

What I liked about the Potter invasion was that the regulars felt marginalized for once, it was a problem from outside the regular context. When the old-timers had their private Potter thread, there was the sense that while it may not have been exactly shameful, it was less than sterling, and would not have been allowed on the public forum. It would seem this is no longer the case, correct? The cliques can step out of the shadows without fear and colonize the outer marches of the board by posting Sandman book clubs and suchlike. Resistance is futile. Certainly still a far cry from the dark ages of the squatter junta on the Pratchett board, but an inch of ground is lost.

I really really think you're reading much more into this than is there.

from reading that quote punky was wondering if it was too late to start reading and join in the conversation - not if she'd be "allowed" to.

we do not have any private public threads.

i started a bookclub to discuss pratchett books (it died a death because i was a bad bookclub organiser) but there was never anything 'cliquie' about it - except it helped to have read/be willing to read the book in question!

*sighs*

get back on IM so I can *fwap* you