Book Club Experience

I came to work early to attend my coworker’s book club. They were discussing The Light in the Ruins by Chris Bohjalian, and my answers might have some spoilers for the book itself (fair warning). Aside from the leader (my coworker), Linda (who was also observing), and myself, four other people attended the group. ILoveLibraries estimated about 8-16 people for book clubs, but this size group worked much better than that size would, since it gave everyone ample time to bond and share their thoughts.

http://www.ilovelibraries.org/booklovers/bookclub/start-a-book-club

Who is asking the questions, is there a leader or do people take turns?

My coworker was the conversation leader and asked most of the questions in order to get a discussion going. Some of the other attendees asked questions as they came up, but they were mostly for clarification.

If there is a leader, does the leader answer the questions as well or let the attendees respond first?

The discussion was very open, so my coworker would mostly pose questions to the group and share her impressions once the other attendees had shared theirs. It was very conversational, and she mostly let attendees get their share in. Her style reminded me of Hoffert’s discussion of the leader as a facilitator, as she guided the conversation when needed but could also step back and be a neutral presence too (which allowed the attendees to speak up).

https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=lj190401bookclubs

What type of questions are asked? Any involving just yes or no answers?

Most of my coworker’s questions centered around the attendees’ perceptions of the book (i.e. “What did you think of this book?”, “Did anyone try to figure out who did it? Was anyone right?”, “This character said they had to do this, but do you think they really had to?”, etc.). A few questions (like the last two examples) were yes or no questions, but they invited elaboration. None of the questions were closed to just a yes or no answer. She also shared a few of her own perceptions of the book, which were phrased as non-question questions (i.e. “I had thought this character was going to have a bigger role in the book…” which allowed attendees to weigh in on the character).

Most of the attendees’ questions were to clarify or ask the others’ opinions (i.e. “Was the murderer demented? Why did they do it?”, “This event was during the wartime, right?”, “Why did the murderer remove their hearts?”, “Was this character the one whose father was a surgeon or was that someone else?”, etc.).

Do all attendees actively participate? Do any attendees swoop in and steal all the spotlight?

All of the attendees had a good rapport already, so they were all very enthusiastic in sharing their thoughts about the book. They also jumped to connect the book to their own experiences and really seemed to bond over that personal discussion. No one “swept in” or “stole all the spotlight”- it was a very egalitarian conversation.

What is the atmosphere of the discussion, where is it taking place at?

The discussion was held in my library’s meeting room, and everyone sat in chairs around pushed-together tables. It was a very friendly and informal atmosphere, with a smaller group than usual (four people). Everyone seemed to already know each other (although name tags were still provided), so it felt like a lot like a social meeting even though the discussion was about the book.

Are snacks or drinks provided?

The book group was called the “Coffee Talk” book discussion, so there were snacks and coffee available. My coworker said she tries to go to local businesses for snacks- today was different kinds of candies (truffles, marshmallows, etc.).

What types of books does this book club normally discuss?

This group apparently discusses a variety of books, but mostly historical fiction. They discussed trying more nonfiction at the end of the meeting, offering histories or biographies as options. The books they listed for previous meetings appear to be close to literary or relationship fiction as well (but primarily historical). It reminded me of the Vienna Court Book Club in Goldstein’s article, since everyone’s encouraged to recommend books that align with their personal preferences (33).

https://www.ulib.iupui.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.132845050&site=eds-live

Special Topics Paper- Perceived Bias

There are myriad articles discussing how to recognize one's own bias and how to try and diminish it as much as possible in daily work. However, my library (and I'm sure many other libraries in the United States) has had issues with patrons claiming that having certain materials (almost always on a diversity basis) was "pushing an agenda." This perceived bias ends up creating a lot of confusion, as neutrality can be interpreted either as "showing everything" or "avoiding controversy." I chose to explore how to define neutrality, bias, and how to navigate these perceived biases in readers' advisory.

When I looked into it, the ALA said that "showing everything" is the only way to be neutral, and librarians should actively encourage political discourse and not fear controversy. An editorial in PublicLibrariesOnline argued that libraries should be politically neutral, but defined political neutrality as showing information on all candidates and political parties. It did not go into specific politicized issues, though, which is where the issue of perceived bias lies. Another editorial in SchoolLibraryJournal argued that libraries are inherently biased, as they have clear positions on issues like diversity and inclusion that are often highly politicized. Furthermore (they argued), libraries should embrace this bias instead of creating a false neutrality and clashing with their core beliefs.

My conclusion was that this perceived bias wasn't actual bias, in fact it was the opposite. Making recommendations with a diverse set of creators, subjects, and themes reinforces the ALA's definition of neutrality. As long as the chosen titles are based on the reader's initial requests (appropriate genre, appeal terms, etc.), there is no reason to fear recommending them. When the conversation goes from representing "x" and "y" group to "I think you should represent x and y" and "I don't think you should represent y," neutrality is completely lost. You cannot disguise censorship as political neutrality.