# Literary discussions and reading suggestions



## Moon Palace

Hello everyone, 
I have just read 'this thread is now closed' on one of the threads I started, and I must admit this is not an easy or welcoming experience..   Even though the tactfulness with which it was done is not questioned . 
But this has given me an idea, since I understand well why the thread was closed: the discussion started on a word from a Jane Austen book, and soon drifted towards literary analysis on Jane Austen's writing style. 

Some readers won't be interested in the discussion and will only want to be enlightened on the meaning of the word posing problems. 
Some readers will want to interpret and argue about the literary theory underlying the use of that word. 

I believe I have a solution to allow all readers to be satisfied: in the same way as we have 'cultural threads', couldn't we have 'literary threads'? We would be able to discuss the subjects of our studies, it could provide another academic resource, and foreros could invite others to discover authors and books. As a non-native, I have trouble discovering new English or American or English-speaking authors before they are translated into French, and I would be delighted if I could benefit by some advice given by foreros. I have bought a book by William Frank from an English bookshop, and the salesman has told me it was brilliant, but it is his job, he was not going to tell me otherwise... 

So much for pleading, let other foreros give their opinion on this idea born to frustration... 
​


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Count me in!
You get my vote, Moon Palace...


----------



## TimLA

Brava!!!
You have one more vote!


----------



## Loob

i think that's rather a good idea!

Loob


----------



## emma42

I would love it, but I know from experience that the Mods and MK have thought about this and discussed it at length, and it's just not feasible.  Good luck, but I doubt they will be moved.  My empathy, though.


----------



## The Scrivener

If you type "literary forums" on Google you will find many sites which deal exclusively with literary discussions, reading suggestions, etc.

I agree with others; it would be an interesting addition to WR but, unfortunately, outside its scope, which is "words and cultures".


----------



## JeanDeSponde

The Scrivener said:


> [...]it would be an interesting addition to WR but, unfortunately, outside its scope, which is "words and cultures".


If literature is outside _words and culture_, what is left to talk about, then - football and Paris Hilton?

I would say that a literary forum in WR would be all the more justified, and interesting for me and others, because of the cross-language audience that won't be found in other forums.
To me, books are a chain, where the next link is often inspired by the previous ones. The WR would sort of "widen" the scope of possible next links, by opening borders...


----------



## emma42

Hello friends.  If you type "Literary discussions" into "Search this Forum" you'll find some previous discussions, which you might find interesting.


----------



## Moon Palace

JeanDeSponde said:


> If literature is outside _words and culture_, what is left to talk about, then - football and Paris Hilton?
> 
> I would say that a literary forum in WR would be all the more justified, and interesting for me and others, because of the cross-language audience that won't be found in other forums.
> To me, books are a chain, where the next link is often inspired by the previous ones. The WR would sort of "widen" the scope of possible next links, by opening borders...



Couldn't have said any better.


----------



## geve

Although I can see the usual objection coming that these forums cannot be everything for everyone, I find it consistent with the purpose of these forums to discuss the meaning of a word in light of a specific book (which implies the social context, style of the author and general intent that go with it). Words can carry very different meanings depending on where they appear - I'm not going to teach anyone here about the importance of context.  Further readers who struggle with the same word they read in the same book will be glad to find an answer ready.

So as I see things, a thread like yours, Moon Palace, correctly labelled to make the context clear already fits perfectly on this forum.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

geve said:


> Although I can see [...]


True, Geve - but no problem here : Gonzalo (Gvergara)should soon reach 100.000 posts in "French Only" on Pennac, without having being mod'ed out...

But what could be the arguments against, say, a literary discussion on _Winnie the Pooh_ in the cultural pages?
(Hey, I'm not joking - I _love_ the Pooh books. Anybody knows something in the same vein...?)


----------



## LV4-26

geve said:


> Although I can see the usual objection coming [...]


You're right. But I won't repeat for the nth time what has already been said much better than I ever could....

...HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

plus probably not last and certainly not least HERE ===>


> I. WordReference.com provides Forums for exchanges about translation, word usage, terminology equivalency and other linguistic topics.


There's already plenty to keep us all busy. _Qui trop embrasse mal étreint.  

_Should the situation change,  we'd be happy to inform you as we always do when a new forum opens. But I'm afraid I can't see any squadron of flying pigs on the horizon.


----------



## Moon Palace

LV4-26 said:


> You're right. But I won't repeat for the nth time what has already been said much better than I ever could....
> 
> ...HERE
> 
> HERE
> 
> HERE
> 
> HERE
> 
> HERE
> 
> plus probably not last and certainly not least HERE ===>
> There's already plenty to keep us all busy. _Qui trop embrasse mal étreint.
> 
> _Should the situation change,  we'd be happy to inform you as we always do when a new forum opens. But I'm afraid I can't see any squadron of flying pigs on the horizon.



Thank you for these links, LV24-26. I have spent the last half hour reading them, and I understand the reluctance of WR to open such a forum. 
But (as you may have noticed, this is one of my favourite linkwords ), on top of learning that 'it is too bad to throw the baby along with the dirty water' is a phrase used both in French and Italian  , I have also seen that in all your threads, the only common foreros are moderators. Which leads me to the idea that maybe there are more foreros that would appreciate this kind of forum than originally thought. 
More important still: I don't see the coherence in saying that a literature forum would be difficult to keep an eye on. Not when there is a cultural forum in which political discussions take place, and not when I read in a post only yesterday 'neoliberals are ridiculous'. Whatever one may think of anyone, saying this is not worthy of the forum quality. 
The worth of WR: this is precisely the reason why some WR foreros would like a literature forum to be opened. Using WR convinces us every day of how reliable it is, and it is so thanks to mods and foreros together. THis cannot be outsourced or relocated, and that is why it would be another jewel to add to WR to run the risk of opening a literature sub-forum. 
A risk, a big word. I read recently that fear is fed on the unknown, that the lack of initiative is nurtured by the safety of habit, and that what we don't do because we don't know what will come out of it is tantamount to so many missed opportunities. 

Of course, there is a risk. But I suppose when WR started, the number of risks were much more numerous. It had no serious foreros to rely on. Maybe we could add a rule to that forum, like: foreros that subscribe to this forum committ themselves to reporting ANY thread that goes beyond the limit. I am sure foreros who are interested in literature are not willing to spoil a tool that would provide them with the opportunity to enjoy threads they have desired. 
Besides, I have a hunch reports are helpful, even if too few; and this could be a pledge to ensure the top rate quality of WR is not damaged in the least. 
I don't want to make this post too long, and neither do I want to insist beyond what is sensible, but I am puzzled by the following question:
how can we argue for political and social discussions and resent those on literature?
I can't come to terms with the idea that literature discussions would be more difficult to watch than others. 

I am well aware of the hard work a mod's job stands for, and the number of reports I can be accused of should illustrate this, but I also know that literary skills added to linguistic ones make these discussions utterly different, and I don't think other forums propose such a combination of skills. 
A linguistic question to finish: do we say 'the ransom for success' in English too when we intend to say that the harvest of success may contain elements that we had not foreseen, and that dealing with them may not prove as easy as we had originally thought? 

Of course, I will say again here that this is not a whim or a desire to bend rules. This idea was born on the closing of the JA thread, and I didn't know similar threads already existed. Reading them has only contributed to reinforcing the feeling that trying would be worth the while. But I am only a modest forero and have probably very little idea of what lies behind the screen (or backstage?).


----------



## TrentinaNE

See also post No. 2 in this thread.  The point concerning priorities is also relevant here.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Moon Palace

I know what you mean, but skimming the cultural discussions, I have picked only these three examples, and I would like someone to explain to what extent they are any more difficult to watch, and that their scope is any narrower than what a literature forum could entail. 

racism in the USA (52 answers, 1,244 viewers)
what's wrong with red hair? (105 answers, 7,748 viewers)
religious practices (17 answers, 339 viewers)

(and I could have added another one on the misconceptions of Buddhism)

Of course, we are mainly interested in words, but words matter more than anything in literature, much more so than in politics or religion. in my humble opinion. 
But I'd rather other foreros gave their opinion, if in truth I am Don Quixote, I will leave it at that, I do not fancy windmills that much.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

I concur with all your arguments, Moon Palace. Words put together to create beautyful sentences are worth than those in the mouth of politicians for instance. And I really enjoyed your thread about Jane Austen. 
I think there is a lot of chance that if someone is wondering about the meaning of a word into a literary sentence, another one would want to ask the same question and... would already find it through the WR dic look-up! 
So I don't see any inconsistency there with the aims of this website.
What I understand is the lack of human resources to look after such an hypothetical new subforum. As you are the proposer, wouldn't you apply for this "job", Moon Palace?


----------



## Moon Palace

> What I understand is the lack of human resources to look after such an hypothetical new subforum. As you are the proposer, wouldn't you apply for this "job", Moon Palace?



Thank you Sancho Pansa for the offer, but I believe I lack the skills and I think you are abusing your forero position... 
Yet, I agree the lack of human resources is a hurdle on the path to literary bliss.


----------



## TrentinaNE

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> I think there is a lot of chance that if someone is wondering about the meaning of a word into a literary sentence, another one would want to ask the same question and... would already find it through the WR dic look-up!


There's no prohibition on quoting a literary sentence as the context for a word one doesn't understand -- this happens all the time at WRF.

What Moon Palace proposed in her first post is:


> Some readers won't be interested in the discussion and *will only want to be enlightened on the meaning of the word posing problems. *
> Some readers will want to interpret and argue about the literary theory underlying the use of that word.


Only the part I bolded is within the WRF mission.  There are plenty of other already existing web-sites that are better suited to discussions of literary theory.   

Elisabetta


----------



## LV4-26

The suggestion is indeed interesting and worth considering and I'd be happy to dedicate more time to this discussion...if the horse hadn't been already flogged, killed, resurrected, autopsied, embalmed and put to rest six feet under.

Moon Palace, I share your doubts about some threads in CD. (This has also been debated elsewhere). Here, I'm only expressing my personal opinion (i.e. not necessarily the mod team's): the CD forum, as I see it,  is some kind of "white elephant" (for lack of a perfect equivalent to the French_ usine à gaz_) that raises a lot of moderating problems with each post submitted to a case-by-case examination and rules that are constantly evolving to try and keep that forum within the general scope of the site.

True, a literary forum wouldn't pose the same kind of problem. The only difficulty, in my humble opinion, is that it would have to be as huge, take up as much room as the linguistic forum. In practice, it would lead to creating *a WRF site number two*. At least, that's what I think is needed to treat the subject of literature with the same respect, the same standards of quality we try to maintain for the language topics.

On the other hand,  WRF just can't afford to "double" as a literary board. So let it remain what it was designed to be in the first place, something that is perfectly explained here


> *Supporting the translation dictionaries*, we also have the Internet's premier language forums


(emphasis added) which is the very reason that first brought me here, like most other forer@s, I believe.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

As much I would love to see a literary forum in WR, I have to agree that the infrastructure it needs would make it very difficult to survive and if it did, I'll be afraid it would be at the expense of the other WR forums.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

TrentinaNE said:


> There's no prohibition on quoting a literary sentence as the context for a word one doesn't understand -- this happens all the time at WRF.


Wow! Fortunately! 
I wasn't clear enough: quoting literary sentences is used all the time (see the FS forum!), thanks god, people don't need only newspaper's or politicians' speeches translations... But as soon as the discussion is going deeper into the usage of a word by a precise author and the meaning they usually give... it's not part of the aims of this forum as it's said to not "feed" properly the dic.
OK. I understand.


----------



## panjandrum

Perhaps it would make a certain amount of sense if the mod who closed the Jane Austen thread made a small contribution here.

From my perspective, the thread began perfectly properly - with a discussion about the current use of a word, the variations in its usage over time, speculation about its meaning in and around 1800 and indeed, its use in Pride and Prejudice.

It gradually moved from that very reasonable conversation to a discussion about whether or not Jane Austen was deliberately exploiting the dual meaning of the word, discussion about the varying motifs in the novel, and other themes that were both beyond the original topic of the thread and beyond the scope of WordReference.  So I closed the thread with this comment:





> I think we have gone some considerable distance past the clarification of the meaning of propriety in the sentence, in the 1800s, and in Pride and Prejudice, into a literary analysis that is beyond the scope of this linguistic forum.
> 
> Hence, this thread is closed.
> 
> It's been fun


I'd like to emphasise, and reiterate, that final comment.


----------



## Moon Palace

panjandrum said:


> From my perspective, the thread began perfectly properly - with a discussion about the current use of a word, the variations in its usage over time, speculation about its meaning in and around 1800 and indeed, its use in Pride and Prejudice.
> 
> It gradually moved from that very reasonable conversation to a discussion about whether or not Jane Austen was deliberately exploiting the dual meaning of the word, discussion about the varying motifs in the novel, and other themes that were both beyond the original topic of the thread and beyond the scope of WordReference.



This is exactly what I had said when starting this suggestion, nothing wrong at all with the closing from WR's current perspective. 




> So I closed the thread with this comment:I'd like to emphasise, and reiterate, that final comment.



Thanks Panj for reiterating what made the closing of the thread especially kind.


----------



## Nunty

LV4-26 said:


> The suggestion is indeed interesting and worth considering and I'd be happy to dedicate more time to this discussion...if the horse hadn't been already flogged, killed, resurrected, autopsied, embalmed and put to rest six feet under...



This was not the last post in this thread, but it pretty much says it all.

One question: Why is the thread still open? 

(Well, two questions, then: Why am I contributing to it???)


----------



## Moon Palace

Nun-Translator said:


> One question: Why is the thread still open?



Could 'freedom of expression' fit as an answer to that question? Letting people give their feelings is to me what makes WR particularly worthy.


----------



## Nunty

Moon Palace said:


> Could 'freedom of expression' fit as an answer to that question? Letting people give their feelings is to me what makes WR particularly worthy.


Well yes, but at least two earlier posts refer to this thread as already closed. Hence my confusion.
(Edging ever closer to Chatland, and fully expecting to get deleted.)


----------



## Moon Palace

Nun-Translator said:


> Well yes, but at least two earlier posts refer to this thread as already closed. Hence my confusion.
> (Edging every closer to Chatland, and fully expecting to get deleted.)



No problem, but for your information the closed thread which is alluded to in this thread is this one
(Don't leave for Chatland, stay over here, we're having much more fun )


----------



## nichec

Oh well, one of the threads with the same topic got closed after I posted, let's see if this is going to be the last post in this thread too 

As a huge fan of literature, I am all for it, as I said nearly 2 years ago, but I also understand all the works and risks involved. (I think we never really fully understand how hard the Mods work here just to keep the forums running)

But you know, I think I have already posted in threads on "Pride and Prejudice" "Withering Heights" "Kitchen" and works from Charles Dickens, James Joyce......and so on (even poems sometimes) in the past 3 months on the EO forum, most of the threads and posts stay "alive", and we do get to talk about literature from time to time, as long as it's related to the topic of the thread.

What I am trying to say is, I am really looking forward to have a place to discuss literature with others, but I think I am okay with what we have now


----------



## Loob

How about
*deleting Cultural Discussions
and
*permitting Literary Discussions instead?

Loob


----------



## emma42

Do you mean getting rid of the Cultural Discussions forum and replacing it with  Literary Discussions, Loob?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

emma42 said:


> Do you mean getting rid of the Cultural Discussions forum and replacing it with  Literary Discussions, Loob?


Where else, then, could we learn about showing the testicles of babies? When Jane Austen's books can be found everywhere...
(OK, tongue in cheek)
More seriously, the place for litterary discussion could well be in the CD forum, along with "Singing in the street" - and MoonPalace's thread could have been moved to it.
The big question, it seems, is whether the CD forum would then be flooded by litterary posts - both lengthy (because interesting) and in great numbers.
Has the experience been already made (allowing litterary "chat" in thd CD forum), or is it something that is feared but not tested?


----------



## TrentinaNE

The Cultural Discussions forum was opened almost three years ago. Please read Mike Kellogg's first post here. The CD forum has undergone some modifications over time largely because a very small but persistent number of forer@s can't seem to abide by Mike's primary rule:





> The main rule here needs to be: *Be polite!*


As a forer@, I'm sure I'd enjoy the type of discussions being proposed in this thread. As a moderator, I've seen that the CD forum already consumes (in my opinion) a disproportionate share of resources and creates a disproportionate share of turmoil. Whenever people are passionate about points of disagreement, it is very difficult to maintain order and politeness, especially in a venue where anyone can sign up and moderation does not occur until after the fact.

My advice: let WRF continue to do what it does well. If you don't like the current discussions in the CD forum, start some others that are within the existing guidelines. If you wish to participate in literary discussions, use Google to find some.  (For the record, I love discussing TV, movies, and politics, but I do so at other online venues.)


----------



## panjandrum

JeanDeSponde said:


> [...]
> or is it something that is feared but not tested?


Discussions about literature are not feared, and not tested.  Neither do we fear, or wish to test, forums for swimming, peanuts, voles or bodhran-playing.


----------



## Moon Palace

panjandrum said:


> forums for swimming, peanuts, voles or bodhran-playing.


Nothing here that was suggested in this thread.. How could we expect to deal with nuts allergy? 
What is bodhran-playing please?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

panjandrum said:


> Discussions about literature are not feared, and not tested.  Neither do we fear, or wish to test, forums for swimming, peanuts, voles or bodhran-playing.


Excuse my French - you know I meant _the mere volume of posts_, not discussions _per se..._


----------



## The Scrivener

Moon Palace said:


> Nothing here that was suggested in this thread.. How could we expect to deal with nuts allergy?
> What is bodhran-playing please?


 
The bodhran is a hand-held shallow drum - a circular frame with a skin stretched over it.  It is played by using a double ended piece of wood called a "tipper" which varies the tone produced.

Can we have a slimmers' forum, a gardeners' forum, a how to care for your guinea pigs forum?  I don't think so.


----------



## Moon Palace

The Scrivener said:


> The bodhran is a hand-held shallow drum - a circular frame with a skin stretched over it.



Thank you The Scrivener.  I am enriching my Irish culture by the minute. 
(Could we have a little chat about this 'game'? )


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

panjandrum said:


> Discussions about literature are not feared, and not tested. Neither do we fear, or wish to test, forums for swimming, peanuts, voles or bodhran-playing.





The Scrivener said:


> [...] Can we have a slimmers' forum, a gardeners' forum, a how to care for your guinea pigs forum?  I don't think so.



... But no need to create a new forum for sarcasms practising: it's here! 

 (ok, I understand bodhran-playing IS words & culture related too )


----------



## panjandrum

JeanDeSponde said:


> Excuse my French - you know I meant _the mere volume of posts_, not discussions _per se..._


I'll excuse your French if you'll forgive my sense of humour 

I was back on the theme that WordReference should stick with its core business - the language forums. There are others that deal with other themes.  I happened to pick a particularly facetious set as examples.

(Bodhran-player)


----------



## Moon Palace

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> ... But no need to create a new forum for sarcasms practising: it's here!
> 
> (ok, I understand bodhran-playing IS words & culture related too )



May I play the devil's advocate? (although if this is what the devil looks like, then I am applying for Hell admission )
All kind of humour is fine, and if we use it to complain or suggest an idea, then we ought to accept what the French would call 'le retour de manivelle' (=when it backfires, see thread for more). So, irony is welcome so long as it participates in freedom of expression. In my very humble opinion. 
The definition of sarcasm implies meanness, which I don't believe is anywhere around here. 
And most of all... my joker on the table : if a thread gets tense, it gets closed . So, let's just keep it light and safe, so that foreros can go on giving their opinion away from any pressure. 

Thanks to all for speaking your mind on this topic in spite of it being reheated I have well understood.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Moon Palace said:


> [...] The definition of sarcasm implies meanness, which I don't believe is anywhere around here. [...]


I don't believe it either! 
I didn't know sarcasm implies meanness... 
J'aime l'ironie, m'en amuse et l'utilise moi-même assez souvent, donc mon propos n'était aucunement une critique des deux posts cités ! J'espère n'avoir blessé personne... 

(d'ailleurs, je quitte promptement ce fil avant que mon mauvais anglais ne fasse d'autres dégâts... )


----------



## The Scrivener

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> I don't believe it either!
> I didn't know sarcasm implies meaness...
> J'aime l'ironie, m'en amuse et l'utilise moi-même assez souvent, donc mon propos n'était aucunement une critique des deux posts cités ! J'espère n'avoir blessé personne...
> 
> (d'ailleurs, je quitte promptement ce fil avant que mon mauvais anglais ne fasse d'autres dégâts... )


 
Je me trouve sans blessures. 

No sarcasm intended - just an attempt to introduce a little humour into what is becoming a lengthy discussion which will end in an impasse.

My apologies if anyone took offence.

Scriv.


----------



## kdl77

Going back to the main topic of the thread: I'd love a forum about Literature. Mine was one of the closed-topic about it in the past... I hope one day our dreams will come true!


----------



## Trisia

*kdl77* - Well, one of Mr. Kellogg's posts in the thread Elisabetta linked to sounds quite inviting.  Maybe if you all tried hard enough... (what was that pink thing flying around my window?)

(By the way, I for one am neither for nor against this Literature forum. I would love it if we could have one, but I won't spend much time begging for it. That could change, of course)


----------



## Etcetera

A crazy suggestion: why not give it a try? I'd love to have a literary subforum here.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Mike's "inviting" post occurred almost 3 years ago, when overall forum volume was still low.  The situation has changed radically since then.


----------



## kdl77

In my opinion, all your reason for not to open a literature forum are good and reasonable. BUT, always in my opinion, if everyone is begging for something in spite of rules and suggestions, it could be better to try to do this thing. If it doesn't work, well, then you will close it! Isn't a remorse better than a regret?


----------



## emma42

But kd177, the Moderators have lives and are _volunteers,_ you know.  And they all have to be trained.  Having said that, I would love a Lit Forum!  But I'm not going anywhere else to find it.  I love WR too much.


----------



## kdl77

emma42 said:


> But kd177, the Moderators have lives and are _volunteers,_ you know. And they all have to be trained.


 
Actually, I didn't know they there were all volunteers... But I think that, since there's someone who likes to be a Mod for English or French forums, maybe there can be also someone who would love to be a Literature Forum Mod... Just ask: I'm sure that many senior forum users will answer the call!


----------



## emma42

emma42 said:


> But kd177, the Moderators have lives and are _volunteers,_ you know.  And they all have to be trained.  Having said that, I would love a Lit Forum!  But I'm not going anywhere else to find it.  I love WR too much.



Having thought more about this (my own post) I have had a change of heart.  It's silly not to have a look at other forums which have literary discussions.


----------



## fenixpollo

kdl77 said:


> In my opinion, all your reason for not to open a literature forum are good and reasonable. BUT, always in my opinion, if everyone is begging for something in spite of rules and suggestions, it could be better to try to do this thing. If it doesn't work, well, then you will close it! Isn't a remorse better than a regret?


 We also have a lot of people clamoring for a chat forum, because many users of WR want to practice their second language. Even though many people are begging for a Chat subforum, I don't think it's necessary here. I mean, if everybody was begging you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

If it is logical to start a _Literary_ subforum in WR, it's even more logical (to my mind) to start a _Linguistics_ subforum.  In fact, it was discussed in this thread:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=367085


			
				mike kellogg said:
			
		

> I think some linguistics forums might be helpful here, but to say what Cuchuflete said in my own words: we are swamped (extremely busy) just trying to keep up with our basic mission here, foreign language learning.


I'm not happy about Mike's statement, because I think that WR would be a more interesting and robust place with one or both of these forums, but I agree with it.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

> Originally Posted by *mike kellogg*
> I think some linguistics forums might be helpful here, but to say what Cuchuflete said in my own words: we are swamped (extremely busy) just trying to keep up with our basic mission here, foreign language learning.


Interesting quote from Mike.

I can't forget that most of the English I know I have learned while reading books - not by using dictionaries...


----------



## Loob

JeanDeSponde said:


> But what could be the arguments against, say, a literary discussion on _Winnie the Pooh_ in the cultural pages?


This seems to be the solution...

Loob


----------



## Jana337

JeanDeSponde said:


> Interesting quote from Mike.
> 
> I can't forget that most of the English I know I have learned while reading books - not by using dictionaries...


This is not a fair interpretation. We deal with languages, not with dictionaries. While we are reluctant to open a platform for a chit-chat about books, our language forums certainly will help you read and understand books in foreign languages.


----------



## Punky Zoé

Literary discussions would be a good reason for venturing into the CD forum, and that kind of threads would be, IMHO, far easier to be moderated than most of the current CD threads are.


----------



## kdl77

Punky Zoé said:


> Literary discussions would be a good reason for venturing into the CD forum, and that kind of threads would be, IMHO, far easier to be moderated than most of the current CD threads are.


 
Completely agree.


----------



## mkellogg

Sorry for arriving so late to this thread.  I've been on vacation...  I have to say that I'm amused that in my absence people are pulling out old quotes of mine. 

I think you all have made some good arguments in favor of a literary forum, and it would probably be a low-maintenance forum, too, but I have to go back to my excuse/reasoning from the last time this subject came up.  I want to maintain the focus of these forums on language learning.  That is what WordReference does best and can do better.   If we start opening forums that are unrelated to our core mission, then we (the moderators and I) will probably get distracted from that mission and start doing a bad job of it.

Mike


----------



## Etcetera

mkellogg said:


> If we start opening forums that are unrelated to our core mission, then we (the moderators and I) will probably get distracted from that mission and start doing a bad job of it.


I don't think it possible.

But... Mike's word is law.


----------



## geve

Besides, let's face it: we would never be able to reach the level of some existing resources dedicated to specific writers. Jane Austen readers should try and look up "the Republic of Pemberley" for instance. 

Without calling it "literary discussions" though, maybe the CD forum could do with a few mentions of general literature stuff, as an important part of culture and language learning, without putting at risk the scope of the forum...


----------



## TrentinaNE

Etcetera said:


> Mike's word is law.


Indeed.    And with that, it seems appropriate to now close this thread.

Grazie,
Elisabetta


----------

