Shorter reading groups are better -- then space them out. And a separate dedicated blog really fucking kills a reading group, I found (in connection with the now-defunct [OR IS IT?!] University Without Condition). Some kind of moderately free-form, decentered thing will probably work better.
The book kicked my ass. I just didn't want to pick it up again after one of the lulls. I was too lost. I even tried to cheat by reading this book. That guy seemed to believe Heidegger somehow proved the imposibility of strong AI. Pure insanity.
Keeping book postings in the main blog is a good idea. You might consider doing a post to get book suggestions, followed by a post with a poll. There is also no shame in easier books.
I agree. I would have joined, but for fear of not being able to contribute anything meaningful. Seeing as that the few philosophy classes I took in undergrad were totally pansy-ass.
I guess that means I will never be able to post the 7 worst misprints from the first edition of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit? Or did someone beat me to it?
The book kicked my ass. I just didn't want to pick it up again after one of the lulls.
I kept it up longer than most out of sheer bloodymindedness, but this is me. I had no idea what was going on with the damn thing. (I probably would have followed along if there were an otherwise lively discussion, but I didn't have the necessary ego to keep pontificating without understanding what I was talking about.)
if you still want Heidegger, you could try something shorter (10pp?) and a LOT easier: the famous "Thinking Building Dwelling" essay.
or you could all read Michel Houellebecq's Elementary Particles with me. i am only 1/4 of the way in, but i have never read so many cock commentary in my life. my god.
(with the exception of de Sade, Philosophy in the Boudoir, which is always, always an exception)
15: shorter sounds like a good idea; shorter might be more manageable for a lot of reasons/people (e.g., not much time available for the book club; maybe a little rusty wrt philosophy; an article or selection from a book might be less overwhelming; etc.).
Totally OT, but I just realized that if I can find this answer anywhere, I'll find it here: Many years ago, I was looking through a bed & breakfast directly for a place to stay in PA. One place (at which we did not end up staying) seemed very proud of their 'ankestube'. I cannot find out what an ankestube is...it's been bothering me for going on 10 years now! I probably have the spelling wrong; I've long ago recycled the book, so I can't check the spelling nor can I just call these people and ask them. It sounds like an anchor room, but what's an anchor room? Any help putting this to rest will be greatly appreciated!
Funny, it recently occurred to me that an accessible book might make for a better group-- do you have your heart set on academic work? Or would you consider something like Disgrace?
One problem with doing a philosophical text is that it's going to be difficult to keep both professionals and curious onlookers happy.
The advantage to choosing something short (an essay or novella) is that one can read the text multiple times. I found I had much more to say about Jefferson or Charles Taylor (not the dictator) or even Stephen Jay Gould when I could read their works more than once.
Also, works that are routinely read by people in more than one discipline are nice because then you can drag in outside commentary from truly different perspectives.
(N.b.: I never participated in the first reading group.)
19: I was wondering if the book group founder(s) was trying for a certain kind of book group, i.e., is it supposed to be very technical (which would make for a smaller, but denser group) or is accessible okay (which would make for a larger, more diverse group)? Maybe there was no certain kind of book group in mind. In any event, I think accessible is good bc you'll probably get more participation from folks w/more varied backgrounds, which can be fun.
Jeremy - thanks! Now, is there a Rosicrucian in Pennsylvania? I'm looking, but not finding. This place was in a B&B directly, so I don't think it would be a very large place. What do you think?
Agreed. May we not start small, or at least modest, and see how it goes, working up to something more ambitious once the dynamics of the group have become apparent? After all, we know (don't we) that New Reading-flavored Unfogged is supposed to look / sound different than Cool Original Unfogged.
I agree that putting the book group on a separate page makes it less accessible. I'm also curious to know why you chose Heidegger. I don't have a philosophy background. I'd like to read more, but I was scared to start with Heidegger, because I felt that I needed to understand the tradition he was responding to before I could grasp anything at all.
(This is how a Classics education ruins you. Philologists impress on you your ignorance and make clear that you can not contribute anything until you have mastered everything else.)
I had that same reaction, very strongly -- that reading Heidegger was coming in at the end of a long conversation I was unfamiliar with. With more people with stronger phil. backgrounds to lean on, I might have kept up, but as it is the book made me feel like a poorly trained circus chimp trying to read Shakespeare.
Sorry Annie -- I was making a lame joke and ought to have put smilies around it or something to indicate my assertion was not in earnest. Instead I make you waste time looking for a Rosicrucian Hostel in Philadelphia.
Well, Jeremy, I wasn't sure about your answer! I thought maybe he's earnestly trying to be helpful. But maybe he's kidding. I should've gone with my instincts!
If it's any consolation - and it's probably not - every online reading group I've ever known (there have been many) has died in a similar fashion. Even when the book involved was easier. Sincerity and Authenticity (from 10) is a lot of fun, though, and not too long, if you are looking to try again. Reading it has the added benefit of expanding one's opportunities to get all pissy and make allusions to Trilling, Leon Wieseltier-style.
I would agree with the comments that the Heidegger was sufficiently difficult to make it tough to sustain momentum (and nearly impossible to catch up once one had fallen behind).
I would also say, as a participant, that it was hard to know what the expectations were. I think I agree with your comment that it's good for people to share a similar level of confusion or, at least, to be meeting as equals which wasn't really the case in the reading group.
As a note, I find that I'm oddly releaved to hear the reading group officially pronounced dead because part of me genuinely intended to try to catch up, and kept nagging me to read my Heidegger.
Would it be aiming too low to suggest the new, first-ever English translation of E. H. Gombrich's Little History of the World, which everyone else in the civilized world has been learning from for seventy years?
If the reading group wanted to try some legal philosophy, I've more than once attempted to read and lost motivation (for reasons not having to do with the quality of the books) both Hart's Concept of Law and Dworkin's Law's Empire. And the interesection of these two topics should be the unfogged commenteriats' core competence.
It stalled forever and then I had classes and fractured my arm.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:20 PM
Is why I stopped, anyway.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:21 PM
Shorter reading groups are better -- then space them out. And a separate dedicated blog really fucking kills a reading group, I found (in connection with the now-defunct [OR IS IT?!] University Without Condition). Some kind of moderately free-form, decentered thing will probably work better.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:22 PM
a separate dedicated blog really fucking kills a reading group
Huh, wouldn't have thought of that, but it makes sense. Thanks.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:24 PM
I could have stuck it out with a lighter-weight book (I'm ashamed to say) but I had a tough summer / fall at work.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:43 PM
In retrospect I should have joined in. I never did get around to what I thought I'd be doing. I still have the book lying around....
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 10:56 PM
The book kicked my ass. I just didn't want to pick it up again after one of the lulls. I was too lost. I even tried to cheat by reading this book. That guy seemed to believe Heidegger somehow proved the imposibility of strong AI. Pure insanity.
Keeping book postings in the main blog is a good idea. You might consider doing a post to get book suggestions, followed by a post with a poll. There is also no shame in easier books.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:41 PM
I wasn't around when the group was started but admit I would have felt too intimidated to join. Hell, I had to look up the word "precis".
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:56 PM
There is also no shame in easier books.
I agree. I would have joined, but for fear of not being able to contribute anything meaningful. Seeing as that the few philosophy classes I took in undergrad were totally pansy-ass.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-20-05 11:58 PM
Being & Time is actually the only book ogged knows how to read.
I propose something I want to read anyway, like The Ethics of Authenticity, Sincerity and Authenticity, or The Persistence of Subjectivity.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 12:07 AM
Choosing a book that I'd already read (and had lots of help with) was a mistake. We should all be confused together.
Being & Time is actually the only book ogged knows how to read.
I do worry that this might be true. Rather, I'm not sure I know how to read at all anymore.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 12:34 AM
"What went wrong?"
Clearly, not enough Heinlein.
Was there much insulting of books other people liked at all?
If not, I rest my case. It's a tired case, and will appreciate that.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 12:38 AM
I guess that means I will never be able to post the 7 worst misprints from the first edition of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit? Or did someone beat me to it?
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 1:06 AM
The book kicked my ass. I just didn't want to pick it up again after one of the lulls.
I kept it up longer than most out of sheer bloodymindedness, but this is me. I had no idea what was going on with the damn thing. (I probably would have followed along if there were an otherwise lively discussion, but I didn't have the necessary ego to keep pontificating without understanding what I was talking about.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 4:49 AM
if you still want Heidegger, you could try something shorter (10pp?) and a LOT easier: the famous "Thinking Building Dwelling" essay.
or you could all read Michel Houellebecq's Elementary Particles with me. i am only 1/4 of the way in, but i have never read so many cock commentary in my life. my god.
(with the exception of de Sade, Philosophy in the Boudoir, which is always, always an exception)
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 5:17 AM
the readings went too quickly for a text that hard- i missed one, and next thing i knew i was four sections back.
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 7:00 AM
15: shorter sounds like a good idea; shorter might be more manageable for a lot of reasons/people (e.g., not much time available for the book club; maybe a little rusty wrt philosophy; an article or selection from a book might be less overwhelming; etc.).
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:23 AM
Totally OT, but I just realized that if I can find this answer anywhere, I'll find it here: Many years ago, I was looking through a bed & breakfast directly for a place to stay in PA. One place (at which we did not end up staying) seemed very proud of their 'ankestube'. I cannot find out what an ankestube is...it's been bothering me for going on 10 years now! I probably have the spelling wrong; I've long ago recycled the book, so I can't check the spelling nor can I just call these people and ask them. It sounds like an anchor room, but what's an anchor room? Any help putting this to rest will be greatly appreciated!
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:30 AM
Funny, it recently occurred to me that an accessible book might make for a better group-- do you have your heart set on academic work? Or would you consider something like Disgrace?
One problem with doing a philosophical text is that it's going to be difficult to keep both professionals and curious onlookers happy.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:30 AM
Let me choose the book next time. That was your mistake. Heidegger sux, except in the x-rated film clips with Arendt.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:32 AM
The advantage to choosing something short (an essay or novella) is that one can read the text multiple times. I found I had much more to say about Jefferson or Charles Taylor (not the dictator) or even Stephen Jay Gould when I could read their works more than once.
Also, works that are routinely read by people in more than one discipline are nice because then you can drag in outside commentary from truly different perspectives.
(N.b.: I never participated in the first reading group.)
Posted by Philadelphia Lurker | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:35 AM
Annie -- I believe that was the Rosicrucian Hostel, and they were talking about their Ankhstube, which is a room devoted to Egyptology.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:46 AM
19: I was wondering if the book group founder(s) was trying for a certain kind of book group, i.e., is it supposed to be very technical (which would make for a smaller, but denser group) or is accessible okay (which would make for a larger, more diverse group)? Maybe there was no certain kind of book group in mind. In any event, I think accessible is good bc you'll probably get more participation from folks w/more varied backgrounds, which can be fun.
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:53 AM
Jeremy - thanks! Now, is there a Rosicrucian in Pennsylvania? I'm looking, but not finding. This place was in a B&B directly, so I don't think it would be a very large place. What do you think?
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:02 AM
an accessible book might make for a better group
Agreed. May we not start small, or at least modest, and see how it goes, working up to something more ambitious once the dynamics of the group have become apparent? After all, we know (don't we) that New Reading-flavored Unfogged is supposed to look / sound different than Cool Original Unfogged.
Or was that part of the problem, too?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:04 AM
I agree that putting the book group on a separate page makes it less accessible. I'm also curious to know why you chose Heidegger. I don't have a philosophy background. I'd like to read more, but I was scared to start with Heidegger, because I felt that I needed to understand the tradition he was responding to before I could grasp anything at all.
(This is how a Classics education ruins you. Philologists impress on you your ignorance and make clear that you can not contribute anything until you have mastered everything else.)
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:06 AM
I had that same reaction, very strongly -- that reading Heidegger was coming in at the end of a long conversation I was unfamiliar with. With more people with stronger phil. backgrounds to lean on, I might have kept up, but as it is the book made me feel like a poorly trained circus chimp trying to read Shakespeare.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:08 AM
Sorry Annie -- I was making a lame joke and ought to have put smilies around it or something to indicate my assertion was not in earnest. Instead I make you waste time looking for a Rosicrucian Hostel in Philadelphia.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:17 AM
Well, Jeremy, I wasn't sure about your answer! I thought maybe he's earnestly trying to be helpful. But maybe he's kidding. I should've gone with my instincts!
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:34 AM
If it's any consolation - and it's probably not - every online reading group I've ever known (there have been many) has died in a similar fashion. Even when the book involved was easier. Sincerity and Authenticity (from 10) is a lot of fun, though, and not too long, if you are looking to try again. Reading it has the added benefit of expanding one's opportunities to get all pissy and make allusions to Trilling, Leon Wieseltier-style.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 11:26 AM
Is anyone interested in Robert Calasso's Ka?
I'd be up for S&A, I think.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 8:10 PM
Hey, how about something by that guy? Uh. Carlo Ginzburg.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:02 PM
I would agree with the comments that the Heidegger was sufficiently difficult to make it tough to sustain momentum (and nearly impossible to catch up once one had fallen behind).
I would also say, as a participant, that it was hard to know what the expectations were. I think I agree with your comment that it's good for people to share a similar level of confusion or, at least, to be meeting as equals which wasn't really the case in the reading group.
As a note, I find that I'm oddly releaved to hear the reading group officially pronounced dead because part of me genuinely intended to try to catch up, and kept nagging me to read my Heidegger.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:34 PM
Carlo Ginzburg
You mean the Cheese and the Worms guy? I'd probably be interested.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:45 PM
Yeah, that guy. He seems to be pretty prolific.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:48 PM
Would it be aiming too low to suggest the new, first-ever English translation of E. H. Gombrich's Little History of the World, which everyone else in the civilized world has been learning from for seventy years?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:52 PM
I just got a free copy of that book.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 9:54 PM
Well, what do you think?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:11 PM
I haven't read it. Or even read in it. It's very handsome, I'll say that.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:13 PM
If the reading group wanted to try some legal philosophy, I've more than once attempted to read and lost motivation (for reasons not having to do with the quality of the books) both Hart's Concept of Law and Dworkin's Law's Empire. And the interesection of these two topics should be the unfogged commenteriats' core competence.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-21-05 10:29 PM
Just not enough cock jokes
Posted by cock joke enthusiast | Link to this comment | 12-25-05 11:26 AM
I have read Dworkin's Law's Empire which is good. I think that reading Hart's Concept of Law first would probably help.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-25-05 8:44 PM