For Everyman: Chaos [ Edited ]

[pmath]

Thanks, Everyman, for the kind words. It's very chaotic for me, because I'm trying to keep things organized while Liz does the actual moderating, and I just can't keep up if there are going to be even more threads than there already are. I was helping Liz because I had offered to help earlier (when I had asked her to moderate this discussion for us), and she did want me to help.

---

Everyman wrote:
...far from finding this discussion of P&P unreasonably chaotic, I'm finding lots of wonderful posts from great posters with many exciting thoughts, including yours, being exchanged.

---

pmath wrote:
Everyman, since you're the most active participant in the P&P discussion, perhaps you can assist Liz instead. This is all far too chaotic for me.

Message Edited by pmath on 02-18-200701:23 PM

[pmath]

Thanks, Choisya: I was having a lot of fun with the background research! However, this is Liz's show, so I'll just let her run it.

---

Choisya wrote:
Pmath - you are doing a great job as co-Moderator. Don't let anyone put you off as they did at the beginning of the N&S thread. Stand firm!

[LizzieAnn]

Okay folks. Until the last 24 hours or so, I had no idea that the number of threads was a problem. It's never come up in any of the other many discussions that I've been in over the last few months, so I was unware there could be difficulty, especially since several of those boards have had so many more threads than are found here. (Just visit Harry Potter - LOL). Now that I'm aware that there are problems, I will take care not to start any new threads unless absolutely necessary. I didn't realize that I was causing so much chaos - that was never my intent.

I've been enjoying moderating this discussion, and if I fall short - please accept that it's due to inexperience and enthusiasm. I'd like to thank everyone (pmath, Everyman, Laurel, Chiosya, Denise, & everyone else) for all their input - the background links, the information, the research, and, of course, the opinions! After all, every post only adds to the enjoyment of the discussion.

Message Edited by LizzieAnn on 02-14-200704:46 PM

[Choisya]

I don't think Liz needs any co-moderating help. She's doing just great on her own.

This is rather unfair to pmath Everyman as she has been assisting Lizzie-Ann from the beginning, presumably with Lizzie-Ann's cooperation. I don't think pmath was referring to the discussion being chaotic, just the organisation of the threads themselves and their proliferation.

---

Everyman wrote:

---

pmath wrote:
Everyman, since you're the most active participant in the P&P discussion, perhaps you can assist Liz instead. This is all far too chaotic for me.

---

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think Liz needs any co-moderating help. She's doing just great on her own. If she does feel she needs co-moderating assistance and wants to ask for it, either publicly or by PM, I would be glad to assist, but frankly I think it would be redundant and unnecessary.

Where moderating styles are markedly different, sometimes it's better to have only one style prevail. Too many cooks ...

I agree that the format of the new BNBC may tend toward a degree of chaos, and as I have said I hope BNBC staff address this soon. But far from finding this discussion of P&P unreasonably chaotic, I'm finding lots of wonderful posts from great posters with many exciting thoughts, including yours, being exchanged. I think we're doing remarkably well under the limitations of the structure, and look forward to a continuing great discussion of Pride and Prejudice under Liz's able leadership.

Message Edited by Everyman on 02-14-200702:51 PM

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-14-200705:14 PM

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-14-200705:44 PM

[Choisya]

And I am sure your background research has been fun for everyone else, as well as making me cry I remember that you posted the following on 02-13-2007 so I had it in mind that it was a Liz & Phil show :-

Liz is moderating our discussion of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice from February 12 through March 13, 2007 (see the schedule here), and I'm helping her manage the discussion.

I see that Lizzie Ann has commented on the HP proliferation of threads and she is right - that club is a riot in more ways than one! As she also said, it is only a bit of over enthusiasm that has got the ones here into a bit of a tangle and that has been no particular person's fault. Now that everyone is aware of the problem, it will sort itself out.

---

pmath wrote:
Thanks, Choisya: I was having a lot of fun with the background research! However, this is Liz's show, so I'll just let her run it.

---

Choisya wrote:
Pmath - you are doing a great job as co-Moderator. Don't let anyone put you off as they did at the beginning of the N&S thread. Stand firm!

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-14-200705:43 PM

[pmath]

Yes, and I had asked Liz to moderate our discussion of P&P because of her enthusiasm. Her mental stash of JA-related quotes also boggles the mind!

I think the simpler the structure of the discussion, the more freedom we have to concentrate on the novel: Ilana and I created only one thread each for our discussions of Cranford and North and South respectively. Since P&P is a more popular choice, we certainly need more than one thread, but we already have fourteen, and Bob created the same number for our entire discussion of the tome Moby-Dick!

The main problem is that we're not discussing P&P on a dedicated board, so the discussions threads can easily get lost and forgotten, with other British Classics threads still being active.

---

Choisya wrote:
I don't think pmath was referring to the discussion being chaotic, just the organisation of the threads themselves and their proliferation.

---

Everyman wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think Liz needs any co-moderating help.

---

pmath wrote:
Everyman, since you're the most active participant in the P&P discussion, perhaps you can assist Liz instead. This is all far too chaotic for me.

Message Edited by pmath on 02-14-200708:25 PM

[Everyman]

The main problem is that we're not discussing P&P on a dedicated board, so the discussions threads can easily get lost and forgotten, with other British Classics threads still being active.

Yes, that is the main problem. Ilana is aware of it, and I hope that the BNBC administration are working out an orderly process under which reader-moderated books can receive their own boards.

[pmath]

Well, Liz is the director: I'm just the stage manager!

(BTW, this is the Community Thread: everything is off-topic!)

---

Choisya wrote:
I remember that you posted the following on 02-13-2007 so I had it in mind that it was a Liz & Phil show :-

Liz is moderating our discussion of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice from February 12 through March 13, 2007 (see the schedule here), and I'm helping her manage the discussion.

---

pmath wrote:
...this is Liz's show, so I'll just let her run it.

---

Choisya wrote:
Pmath - you are doing a great job as co-Moderator.

[pmath]

On the contrary, you've not only met but exceeded all expectations: kudos, Liz!

I like the reorg, too: I combed through the board, and I think I've got everything, but you and Everyman may wish to check and see that my list of threads is indeed complete, here.

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I've been enjoying moderating this discussion, and if I fall short - please accept that it's due to inexperience and enthusiasm.

Message Edited by pmath on 02-15-200712:05 PM

[LizzieAnn]

You did a great job putting all the threads together - you're only missing 3. They are the following:

Pride & Prejudice

Austen-Related Trivia

Jane Austen

Thank you!

---

pmath wrote:
On the contrary, you've not only met but exceeded all expectations: kudos, Liz!

I like the reorg, too: I combed through the board, and I think I've got everything, but you and Everman may wish to check and see that my list of threads is indeed complete, here.

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
I've been enjoying moderating this discussion, and if I fall short - please accept that it's due to inexperience and enthusiasm.

---

Message Edited by LizzieAnn on 02-15-200710:26 AM

[pmath]

I had caught those, too, Liz, but I put them here instead: divide et impera!

As Mr Bennet says in Vol I, Ch I of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice,

"Depend upon it, my dear, that when there are twenty, I will
visit them all."

It's time to foot it, folks!

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
... you're only missing 3.

---

pmath wrote:
... I combed through the board, and I think I've got everything, but you and Everyman may wish to check and see that my list of threads is indeed complete, here.

Message Edited by pmath on 02-15-200712:33 PM

[Everyman]

I know those of you in the Midwest and Northeast have been having your weather woes, but out here we haven't been totally spared. We've had gale force and higher winds much of the day, coming straight in off the water, whistling past the corners of the house and shaking the windows as the come in. About 2:00, at high tide, we went out to watch the waves coming crashing in over the rocks, dissolving in a frenzy of white and foam and dampening us with blown spray even up on the top of the bank.

I have to admit that I dislike wind more than almost any other weather event, and live in almost constant worry that one of our huge trees will decide to end it life in the middle of our living room. But since I can do nothing about it (except cut down the trees, which my wife and daughters absolutely will not allow), I just listen to the wind howl and leave the rest to Mama Nature.

[LizzieAnn]

I know what you mean about the winds whistling and shaking. The land where I now live is so flat that the wind is a constant companion; and the wind does play havoc on trees. Mother nature seems to be its own worst enemy at times.

Back in October, there was a freak winter storm here - Buffalo & much of the surrounding area were hit with anywhere from 18-22 inches of heavy wet snow. Needless to say this heavy wet snow on big old trees that were still covered with leaves proved to be too much; the weight of it all damaged thousands and thousands of trees. The estimate was somewhere around 33,000. I recently heard that there's a 5-year plan to replace the trees, at the rate of at least 6,000 per year.

The destruction was unbelievable, and for weeks all you saw by the side of the roads were tons of cut down tree branches. Parks particularly suffered a lot of devestation. A Buffalo park (that I believe they said was designed by Frederick Law Olmstead) had damage done to every single tree.

---

Everyman wrote:
I know those of you in the Midwest and Northeast have been having your weather woes, but out here we haven't been totally spared. We've had gale force and higher winds much of the day, coming straight in off the water, whistling past the corners of the house and shaking the windows as the come in. About 2:00, at high tide, we went out to watch the waves coming crashing in over the rocks, dissolving in a frenzy of white and foam and dampening us with blown spray even up on the top of the bank.

I have to admit that I dislike wind more than almost any other weather event, and live in almost constant worry that one of our huge trees will decide to end it life in the middle of our living room. But since I can do nothing about it (except cut down the trees, which my wife and daughters absolutely will not allow), I just listen to the wind howl and leave the rest to Mama Nature.

---

[donyskiw]

You're doing a great job. We're all on a learning curve (the moderators and programmers included) with the new software.

Denise

---

LizzieAnn wrote:
Okay folks. Until the last 24 hours or so, I had no idea that the number of threads was a problem. It's never come up in any of the other many discussions that I've been in over the last few months, so I was unware there could be difficulty, especially since several of those boards have had so many more threads than are found here. (Just visit Harry Potter - LOL). Now that I'm aware that there are problems, I will take care not to start any new threads unless absolutely necessary. I didn't realize that I was causing so much chaos - that was never my intent.

I've been enjoying moderating this discussion, and if I fall short - please accept that it's due to inexperience and enthusiasm. I'd like to thank everyone (pmath, Everyman, Laurel, Chiosya, Denise, & everyone else) for all their input - the background links, the information, the research, and, of course, the opinions! After all, every post only adds to the enjoyment of the discussion.

Message Edited by LizzieAnn on 02-14-200704:46 PM

---

[donyskiw]

We had high winds here (not as high as you did) over night. They died out this morning and now it's warming up again. My body finally lost the battle of trying to go about business as usual with this harsh winter and I caught a cold (unusual for me). I thought I'd catch up with my reading but the only thing I caught up on was sleep. At least the forcast is for higher than freezing temperatures for the next five days.

Denise

---

Everyman wrote:
I know those of you in the Midwest and Northeast have been having your weather woes, but out here we haven't been totally spared. We've had gale force and higher winds much of the day, coming straight in off the water, whistling past the corners of the house and shaking the windows as the come in. About 2:00, at high tide, we went out to watch the waves coming crashing in over the rocks, dissolving in a frenzy of white and foam and dampening us with blown spray even up on the top of the bank.

I have to admit that I dislike wind more than almost any other weather event, and live in almost constant worry that one of our huge trees will decide to end it life in the middle of our living room. But since I can do nothing about it (except cut down the trees, which my wife and daughters absolutely will not allow), I just listen to the wind howl and leave the rest to Mama Nature.

---

[Everyman]

Back in October, there was a freak winter storm here - Buffalo & much of the surrounding area were hit with anywhere from 18-22 inches of heavy wet snow. Needless to say this heavy wet snow on big old trees that were still covered with leaves proved to be too much; the weight of it all damaged thousands and thousands of trees.

We had the same thing in November. Heavy snow, and very high winds -- hurricane force winds, which are very unusual out here; as I recall, the Seattle airport recorded its highest wind speeds ever. The winds were from the south, which are better for us so we didn't lose any trees, though many branches (our pile of branches to chip for mulch when spring comes is about six feet wide, five feet high, and ten feet long, and growing with each windstorm). But down sound lost thousands of trees, and several local parks are still begging for volunteers to help clean up downed trees and branches so they can open their camping areas on schedule in the spring.

At one point the Pacific northwest had over a million and a half people out of power, and in some cases it took over a week to clear all the downed trees and get the power lines back up.

And this was supposed to be a an El Nino winter, milder than usual. Ha.

[pmath]

Everyman, this is fine as long as the PL discussion doesn't extend well beyond April: otherwise, the BC board will be tied up for too long. I was thinking of May for MP anyway.

---

Everyman wrote (here):
Up to now, we have followed a clear pattern of one reader-moderated discussion at a time, and that has seemed to work well for us.

---

IlanaSimons wrote (here):
This space is certainly yours--and you're free to discuss _Mansfield Park_.
...
The Austen discussion has, of course, been one of the best we've had.

---

pmath wrote:
Just as we first discussed Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford and then her North and South, it would be a good idea to discuss another one of JA's novels after our discussion of P&P. Ilana, since the discussion of Paradise Lost will probably be relatively lengthy, is it okay with you if we discuss Mansfield Park here concurrently? (Some readers may also be interested in reading one but not the other.)

[Everyman]

While you and I may have our ideas on how long any discussion should take, pmath, it is really up to a sense of the group to consider how long they want to spend on any given work. When the work was first proposed, several participants specifically mentioned their desire to read it at a slow pace, whatever they meant by that.

Now that we have had some experience with reader-moderated discussions, what do people think would be an appropriate time frame for reading Paradise Lost?

You've done yeoman duty, pmath, in moderating or co-moderating most -- all? -- of the reader moderated books here to date, but perhaps we need to give you a break and encourage some other, perhaps more shy, participants to step forward and volunteer to do some moderating too. When I was teaching I always tried to be sensitive to the talented but shy student lurking in the back of the room who had to be encouraged to come forward and become an active participant, but turned out to have a great deal to offer when they were pressed to.

With the excellent examples you and LizzieAnn have set, I'm sure there are other talented participants here who could also do excellent jobs moderating but may be shy to step forward when others seem to be forging ahead with their own plans.

---

pmath wrote:
Everyman, this is fine as long as the PL discussion doesn't extend well beyond April: otherwise, the BC board will be tied up for too long. I was thinking of May for MP anyway.

---

Everyman wrote (here):
Up to now, we have followed a clear pattern of one reader-moderated discussion at a time, and that has seemed to work well for us.

---

IlanaSimons wrote (here):
This space is certainly yours--and you're free to discuss _Mansfield Park_.
...
The Austen discussion has, of course, been one of the best we've had.

---

pmath wrote:
Just as we first discussed Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford and then her North and South, it would be a good idea to discuss another one of JA's novels after our discussion of P&P. Ilana, since the discussion of Paradise Lost will probably be relatively lengthy, is it okay with you if we discuss Mansfield Park here concurrently? (Some readers may also be interested in reading one but not the other.)

---

[pmath]

Everyman, I always get Ilana's approval and permission first, and she's the boss here. This is supposed to be fun, and I'm tired of all this conflict. I was organizing the discussion of Utopia for Choisya, but whoever would like to take over is free to do so.

[Everyman]

pmath, I'm sorry you feel that there is any conflict. I'm just trying to work with folks here to get the best reading and discussion outcome for everybody. Perhaps sometimes, because of the haste and informality of on-line communications, I put things in ways that are less diplomatic than they should be. If so, I'm sorry.

If I have offended, give me your hand and let all be mended.