<Snipped quote by Inkarnate>
Is your concern that vetoes can't be discussed at all? I think selections should be debated either way.
I think that the reader should have the chance to object and I'd rather create a process for recourse than have them just drift off.
I wasn't going for a system where someone goes, "No, just because" as that is the opposite of "This is my choice, we're reading this book, end of story." I'd prefer to avoid that, because people will peace out at that point if it's a sufficiently distasteful book to them. Also, I think we should avoid putting down titles that are duplicative to the group, so that there aren't several people re-reading a title. That dilutes the value of having a discussion among people reading it for the first time.
(Which was honestly my objection; I already read certain titles once, it's going to be suggested sooner or later, and I'd prefer something new. It has nothing to do with close mindedness and everything to do with having done my time already.)The alternate mechanism I was envisioning was that the person present at least three titles by different authors for vote by the participants with a chance for discussion.
That allows a mutually inclusive process of selection. I mean, end of the day, I do not think we should be just letting someone just pick the books without at least some explanation of what they want to do and there should be a compelling reason for turning it down. But there are good and valid reasons for not wanting to read a book.
Since this isn't a purely academic forum, we should be considering that some reads are not simply asking tough questions, but are genuinely unpleasant. We should be striking the balance between challenging/stimulating and entertaining here, and that means that we shouldn't be just assigning books like this is an undergrad course.
I understand the need for vibrant discussion, but I also feel it should be tempered by the knowledge that it doesn't have to be our jobs to make people read things they wouldn't otherwise, or engage them in unpleasant discussions for their own good. This isn't academia, so we shouldn't be prioritizing intellectual challenge above all other considerations. It honestly should be the other way around -- views should be challenged, but gently. Discussion and debate are two different things with two different goals, sharing vs. winning and I definitely err on the side of sharing.
The person that humorously suggested Mein Kampf definitely hit the note. As an alternative to Mein Kampf, there is always "Eichmann in Jerusalem" (312 pages) or "Night" (175 pages) if Holocaust studies had to happen, rather than the, quite frankly, banal ranting of Adolf Hitler (730 pages) or something more dry and lengthy history like Raul Hilberg's "The Destruction of European Jews." (1300 pages) Kampf and Destruction have a place in academic study (and were assigned reading for me), but seem a little much for book club stuff.
Basically, I don't believe that we should just take a book sight unseen because someone has their turn. Both sides should be getting their say here.
