I feel like books are our brain fuel, and sometimes it's fun to read good, provocative books. I know that's a subjective sort of yardstick to use, since tastes and outlooks on the merits of a book vary, but I was still thinking of forming a discussion group on a monthly basis to discuss, yeah, books. One book a month.

Usually, book clubs involve meetings and discussions in person, but I don't see why we can't do such a thing here. I'm curious to know if there is interest and...well, volatile stuff, but what sort of book should we start with? I feel like it's important to pick something influential in its genre, but we shouldn't feel automatically bound to just go for something in Fantasy or Sci-fi simply because it's in the comfort zone.

What are the thoughts? If any? (I mean, I might just be pissing in the wind here.)

Read it.

Read it.

I'm down for this idea. If you've read it already, however, it might help to provide guidance to the discussion.

I've always wanted to do a book club, but I don't have a lot of friends who are big readers. My tastes when it comes to books are pretty varied in both fiction and non-fiction so I'm up for it.

I have a bookshelf to the left of me right now. It would be a fun idea.

I don't have a lot of free time, but I would love to partake with books that I have read and/or have time to read!

Read it.

Not the bread book?

But seriously, I would be down for it when I get back to normal hours.

I'm fine with whichever book gets chosen, honestly. Dinh's book looked like it had a lot to offer, and I think part of the structure has to be that someone familiar with the book has to introduce it to the others.

We could, theoretically, shorten this down to essays or something else if a book feels like too hard of a slog.

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

Not the bread book?

But seriously, I would be down for it when I get back to normal hours.

You might argue Bookchin is more of a contemporary Kropotkin and his writings on Anarchism in general is another attempt to re-examine far-left ideology or the Anarchist and Communist movements in general per the last half of the 20th century. The Conquest of Bread, Mutual Aid, and all of that would be alternatives, but you could argue are fundamentally more than a century out of date.

Bookchin came about and wrote and such during a sort of revival of Kropotkin's thesises among college leftists. That is when he wasn't writing odes to the Spanish Anarchists.

I'm fine with whichever book gets chosen, honestly. Dinh's book looked like it had a lot to offer, and I think part of the structure has to be that someone familiar with the book has to introduce it to the others.

We could, theoretically, shorten this down to essays or something else if a book feels like too hard of a slog.

If it makes it easier, Bookchin - being an anarchist fundamentally - will likely have a lot of his material for free online. You literally just need to follow the meme: Google Bookchin. This sort of ties into Vilage's response at why I didn't suggest Kropotkin, though it's not because of a lack of inaccessibility; you can just as easily find and read the whole of Conquest of Bread online.

That said, I sort of suggested it as a joke and didn't expect it to be taken seriously. Though if we're going along with it then sure, why the fuck not.

As a basic primer Bookchin is a modern-day, contemporary Anarchist; much in the same vein as Noam Chomsky. Both were active in the debate and writing circles on the same time, Bookchin just happened to die first. Bookchin's main thing per Anarchism though is rejecting the anti-structural belief prevalent in present Anarchist society and dismissing spontaneous or isolated action. He firmly believes - in my experience in opinion from listening to interviews - in taking to seeking political change through active participation; primarily through taking responsibility of things at the local level.

His brand of Anarchism has been described today as Municipalism and is the overarching theory in Rojava today, hence why many political anarchists in my experience are keeping a close eye on Syrian Kurds in hopes their great experiment prevails passed the military action phase and we can start seeing things organize in the social, political, and economic sphere to present a final conclusion on the viability of the notion, like America to modern Republicanism in the 18th century. On the whole the notion is community ownership of property as it applies to resources, with direct democratic involvement of all the people in the community to manage or organize things to that end.

Depending entirely on what book is chosen, I may or may not be interested. Of course, I am more than willing to be turned onto new and exciting books, especially those that I wouldn't normally read on my own volition.

Depending entirely on what book is chosen, I may or may not be interested. Of course, I am more than willing to be turned onto new and exciting books, especially those that I wouldn't normally read on my own volition.

Reading new and exciting books is why I wanted to come up with this. I am not sure what mechanism to use for choosing books. I feel like it should be a mechanism where we make suggestions and then make a decision as a group so that no one feels left out. That depends on the size and you can't please everyone but I figure we can try for that and hope it works the first time. :)

The sort of books we look at shouldn't be too large, necessarily, and I think they should have some bearing on roleplaying, though that's a wide mandate with lots of wiggle room. I think it needs to be something we can sink teeth into and have a lively discussion over.

I mean, if I were going to pick books, I'd perhaps throw out some Hannah Arendt or Stanley Milgram because those are works on the underlying human psyche. But that's not to everyone's taste, even if I massively use the thinking their work inspires to inform the RP's I do.

Edit: Of course, to keep it less dry and either philosophical or psychological, I have a fallback of Hunter S. Thompson, as well as a strong belief that he should be read more.

Really cool idea Suess. :D

I think all of us coming in with different tastes is what makes a collaborative club interesting. For example, I'm really a fan of older literature and I would love to turn people on to classics they have not explored that I think has a breadth of value not just for entertainment but merits for writing development such as characterization and narration.

I think all of us coming in with different tastes is what makes a collaborative club interesting. For example, I'm really a fan of older literature and I would love to turn people on to classics they have not explored that I think has a breadth of value not just for entertainment but merits for writing development such as characterization and narration.

I suggest the following: if people nominate a book, we can create a google form and let people vote. The person nominating has to be willing to host the discussion with questions for discussion and moderate the process if they win.

I'm trying to decide which Hunter S. Thompson book I want to put in here. ;)

<Snipped quote by Inkarnate>

I suggest the following: if people nominate a book, we can create a google form and let people vote. The person nominating has to be willing to host the discussion with questions for discussion and moderate the process if they win.

I'm trying to decide which Hunter S. Thompson book I want to put in here. ;)

I like that idea. Give the people what they want!

Perhaps schedule three months out, in order of popularity. But that at least gives people a heads up as to what is coming and so forth. Also means that we aren't always voting on what the next book will be.

But hey, what does everyone else think?

I'll role with it.

<Snipped quote by Inkarnate>

I suggest the following: if people nominate a book, we can create a google form and let people vote. The person nominating has to be willing to host the discussion with questions for discussion and moderate the process if they win.

I'm trying to decide which Hunter S. Thompson book I want to put in here. ;)

I would prefer we rotate choices/people to that, presuming the club is small enough. Voting can ensure nobody gets a turn whilst rotation fixes that issue entirely.

<Snipped quote by HeySeuss>
I would prefer we rotate choices/people to that, presuming the club is small enough. Voting can ensure nobody gets a turn whilst rotation fixes that issue entirely.

I'm okay with whatever structure happens so long as there is an option for veto, otherwise people will simply opt out. A vote might keep someone from having a turn, but it also is possible to structure it so that the voting system can be devised to let one individual have a turn but be required to provide a list of options from different authors that get voted on. They can speak to the merits of their selections.

I'll be blunt; I don't want to be roped into reading "Atlas Shrugged" again and I want to make sure there are ways to keep people from being hit with the inevitable for things they dislike immensely as well.

The point of an open discussion, in my mind, is to discuss things no matter one’s disposition going into them. The process you describe feels to me as exclusionary and seems counterproductive in my view when it comes to approaching discussion. In similar clubs (album discussion, etc.) there has never been option to veto for just this reason. People want to discuss a piece. One does not really want to participate in a group if they are excluded. If this is the system you want to prescribe to, that’s ultimately your decision but my interest in participating is definitely reduced if that is the case.

Isn't the point of a discussion group/club approaching works you might not be interested in or dislike?

If our opinions here in this discussion thread are on how we want to proceed I am a hard ‘no’ on any vetoing/voting system.