New Leaf Welcome to the New Leaf Book Club

[Victoria]

I haven’t read Jules Verne and wasn’t aware of the critique. I’m glad Jon raised it, but I must have missed his comment somehow, because I would have been fine changing my nomination. I considered other books for the theme, such as Mark Twain, and ruled them out for this very reason.

I agree that it difficult to find older books that adhere to modern sensibilities..I have my own criteria for assessing whether or not I feel comfortable with a particular author, but of course, that’s every subjective. I take everyone’s point about the freedom to sit out a particular month. But I’d also be ok with moving to the next book on the list.

[Victoria]

Sorry I cross posted with Catlady. I agree that the issue should be raised during the nomination process. I must be missing something - where was the point raised?

[CRussel]

Yes, certainly the point can be raised during the nomination process, but, and I can't over emphasize this, I will not allow repeated denigration of a book or author in any thread of the New Leaf Book Club. Full stop. We went through that with the MR Book Club, and I, for one, am not willing to have the NLBC side tracked by that kind of behaviour.

The proper way to handle books you don't want to read is to not vote for them. Further, the voting thread is not the appropriate place, especially after the voting is finished, to bring up your concern.

[Victoria]

Thanks Charlie - I wasn’t sure when / where the issue came up. I agree that the nomination process is the best avenue for raising a concern.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Victoria

I haven’t read Jules Verne and wasn’t aware of the critique. I’m glad Jon raised it, but I must have missed his comment somehow, because I would have been fine changing my nomination. I considered other books for the theme, such as Mark Twain, and ruled them out for this very reason.

I agree that it difficult to find older books that adhere to modern sensibilities..I have my own criteria for assessing whether or not I feel comfortable with a particular author, but of course, that’s every subjective. I take everyone’s point about the freedom to sit out a particular month. But I’d also be ok with moving to the next book on the list.

I wouldn't want a nomination to be rejected out of hand for being offensive to modern sensibilities.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

What about the nominating thread? Shouldn't issues be raised there during the nominating process? I would certainly want to know the concerns others might have about a book I nominate, if they have read it or know something problematic about the author. Especially if I'm nominating a book based on a blurb and reviews, and not because I've already read it myself.

I didn't know about Verne until after the nominating. I read about it in the introduction in the Penguin Classic published version.

Hector Servadac is a poor and highly unlikely story. I read it in an abridged version, published by Ace Books in New York under the title Off on a Comet. (Perhaps it was abridged because of its anti-Semitism.) This is a good example of how many of Verne’s novels have been chopped about and mistranslated; sometimes the ‘scientific’ passages have been removed for a juvenile audience. It is true to say that some at least of Verne’s longevity as a writer is owed to mistreatment!

If a winning book or author is found to be offensive after the vote, does the rule of having to read the winning book if you vote still apply?

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I wouldn't want a nomination to be rejected out of hand for being offensive to modern sensibilities.

Yes, I can see how that might become a slippery slope.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't know about Verne until after the nominating. I read about it in the introduction in the Penguin Classic published version.



I know this idea might not be one that may go over well, but how about vetting what we nominate so we know what's what before the process. The problem then becomes that if someone doesn't want to read a specific book because of the author, then rule of reading the winning book if you vote should it win isn't a good idea. I don't know the best way to handle this. Too many books (for me) are spoiled by these sorts of things in the book.

I do vet books before I nominate them. However, the problem, as others have noted, is that most books reflect social attitudes prevalent during the time they were written, that at a later date are recognized as prejudiced.

It’s not possible for any of us to completely escape this, even today. All books, tv, movies, etc can be deconstructed and shown to have some questionable underlying assumptions. Unconscious bias is part of the human condition, and is very different from deliberately promoting hatred and bigotry. So the challenge for a book club is determining where to draw a line.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If a winning book or author is found to be offensive after the vote, does the rule of having to read the winning book if you vote still apply?

See my post above. I think that's as clear as I can make it. But in the case of Jules Verne's 80 Days -- why not give it a try, and if you find it unsupportable, then drop it. However, fair warning* -- my willingness to be flexible is directly related to how annoyed I am at the time.



*In the current time we live in, I find my tolerance for anyone trying to "find a loophole" of ANY sort is just about zero. So, therefore, my fair warning.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I wouldn't want a nomination to be rejected out of hand for being offensive to modern sensibilities.

Agreed. And I won't ever do so, except by how I vote. That's one of the many reasons we vote, after all. If enough of us think a particular work or author is beyond what we can tolerate, it won't get through the voting process. Given that we're a pretty broad spectrum here, from at least 3 different continents, I think we constitute a reasonable filter.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by CRussel

See my post above. I think that's as clear as I can make it. But in the case of Jules Verne's 80 Days -- why not give it a try, and if you find it unsupportable, then drop it. However, fair warning* -- my willingness to be flexible is directly related to how annoyed I am at the time.



*In the current time we live in, I find my tolerance for anyone trying to "find a loophole" of ANY sort is just about zero. So, therefore, my fair warning.

I am reading Verne and so far so good.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Agreed. And I won't ever do so, except by how I vote. That's one of the many reasons we vote, after all. If enough of us think a particular work or author is beyond what we can tolerate, it won't get through the voting process. Given that we're a pretty broad spectrum here, from at least 3 different continents, I think we constitute a reasonable filter.

I think that if we know ahead of time (if possible), then we can make up our minds and decide with out nods/votes.

[CRussel]

OK, folks. I've had enough. I'm tired, worn out, and dealing with too many things at home to deal with the bickering and general attitude here. So I suggest that if anyone cares enough to run this club, go for it. Cause I can't do it any more. I just can't.

Charlie.