Pale Fire

[Paul Mackin]

On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 09:40, Terrance wrote:
> 
> 
> s~Z wrote:
> > 
> > >>> I suggest
> > that we keep the  assigned sections, but the schedule has to go.<<<
> > 
> > How do you think we should schedule the assigned sections then?
> 
> Our little experiment with  bodies smashing into windows demonstrates
> that discussing these texts on a rigid schedules will prove problematic.
> We went round in a circle.  
> 
> body smashes into a window ...  body smashes into window. 
> 
> The obvious way out of the circle is to break it by opening the texts.
> That's what Paul did. He went to the Commentary on Canto I. But the
> schedule we have now discourages what Paul did because the commentary on
> Canto I is to be discussed some weeks later. While we don't want to
> discourage Paul's kind of post we don't want the discussion to unwind
> too rapidly and explode into a chaos. Paul's post could very well be the
> beginning of a wonderful thread on the commentary to Canto I. But if
> that happens the host of the commentary on Canto I (who may very well be
> on holiday, wasting away, sipping  margaritas on some sunny island ...)
> could have his hosting spoiled. 
> 
> We've gotten rid of the spoiler clause, but the schedule we have now is
> still too rigid and closed. We need to open it up. So, we've all read
> (or will have read) the books cover to cover by the start. Good! No
> spoiler clause. Good!  Now we need to think about how we can open the
> discussion of the books and yet maintain some sort of schedule for
> reading them as a group.


It's true that dropping the spoiler clause reduces the degree of
exclusively each of us might hold on the particular block of text signed
up for. But is this bad or merely a useful  evolution of the host
function, which becomes one of oversight and/or further amplification,
serving to remind us of possible points of discussion that so far may
have been missed?

P.