HistoryCAT -- General Thread, Part Two, With Voting!

Results are in. The HistoryCAT themes are:

Culture & the Arts
Crimes & Mysteries
Equality & Human Rights
Exploration & Conquest
Immigration & Migration
Myths & Legends
Lifestyles of Ordinary People (Social History)
Plagues & Disasters
Medicine & Disease
Science & Technology
Religion
War & Peace

And now to finalize the time periods. Cyderry came up with this division:

BC - 40AD
40 - 1000
1000 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1500 - 1600
1600 - 1750
1750 - 1840
1840 - 1900
1900 - 1935
1935 - 1970
1970 - 2000
2001 - 2014

Further discussion and voting left us with the decisions that one month should cover all of the BCE time period and there should be two periods covering the twentieth century. So a bit of rearranging is in order. The first thing is to determine a cut-off point. A few have been suggested. Please vote YES to only one of the following options. Please also see >7 PawsforThought: for another possible cut-off date.

The suggestion is that the end point should be 9/11.

Please only vote YES once, and only YES votes count.

Voting will continue until September 30th, at which point we will vote on precise time frames. Please give us you best division of the time periods, and we'll vote on that as soon as votes are counted above.

Next is to get a general idea of how we want to arrange what we have. For the next two options, please vote YES only once, only YES votes will count.

Which will be determined by a mix of voting and discussion.

This would mean that history "ends" with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

For the next two options, please vote YES only once. Only YES votes will count and voting will remain open until September 30.

Paws, if you want to edit >7 PawsforThought: to include a vote to end the time frames in 1990 go ahead. If I put it here it will be lost and out of place. I'll edit the first post to tell people to also look at >7 PawsforThought: for that option.

>10 RidgewayGirl: Done! :)

Thanks for the suggestion, PawsforThouhgt! I changed my vote from 1975 to 1990, because I like the whole Cold War era and I do think it fits with historical.

It's funny, really, when looking at cut-off dates for historical fiction, 1950 is always the first one mentioned. It might be traditional and might have been a good one when it was first used, but time marches on and now I do think the "official" cut-off date should be later. When we'll be reading in 2015, the 1990 date is 25 years ago (!). I would think that's historical enough :D.

>12 Samantha_kathy: Yeah, that was the reason I suggested it way back in the old, old thread. I'm reading one of le Carré's Smiley novels now and I'm hoping to read at least one more of his next year, so that'd fit in great with the latter half of the 20th century.

Laughing - for me History has to fall 'before' my lifetime therefore before WWII.

I'd argue that the time frames should be in order, because people who want to read out of order can already go by the themes instead, or a mix of time periods and themes.

In the suggested time division above, are there significant events at the mid-century cut-off points? Why do the intervals vary so much?

1500-1600 is 100 years, then we have 150 years for 1600-1750, then down to 90 years for 1750-1840. I'd prefer more consistent divisions, or at least consistently decreasing periods.

So I'd rather see something like:

BC to 0
0 to 400
400 to 800
800 to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

Or, if everyone wants to reduce early history to fewer periods:

BC to 0
0 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

>15 _Zoe_: I'm not going to vote on the length of time periods because I don't think I'll be paying much attention to them.
But I do understand why there might be differing lengths and not just the same or reducing ones. Some time periods were (at least in the western world, and sadly most of the history books are very focused on the western world) more "active" (more things happened) than others, and there are more books written about some periods than others. It's not fair, but that's how it is. Having two months devoted to a time period only for people to struggle with finding books to last them two months when you could have one month instead and leave the extra month for a point in history where there was more going on just makes sense.

>15 _Zoe_: I like both those ways of dividing the times.

>16 PawsforThought: I guess it depends whether the goal is to read about western history or world history. I'm really not convinced that there wasn't enough happening between 40 and 1000 to justify two months.

>18 _Zoe_: It's not just a matter of what actually happened, though. As I pointed out, the actual literature about those periods of time might not extend to very much. We all know tons of things happened in the non-western world throughout pretty much ALL of history but there aren't very many boks available on those subjects. The same goes for certain periods of the western history. Like the "dark ages". Compare the amount of books written about that to the amount written about, say, the renaissance. And the dark ages was a REALLY long part of history.

>19 PawsforThought: There are lots of books about the rise of Islam; it's just a matter of whether people are willing to read about a "non-western" topic (and even calling it "non-western" is a bit of a stretch; someone who wanted to stick within the western intellectual tradition could read about how Greco-Roman ideas were preserved and developed in the Islamic world).

>20 _Zoe_: There may be books, but at least to me (and of course I could be the only one with this issue) they aren't as easily available.

>21 PawsforThought: Well, I obviously have no way of refuting that; I expect I wouldn't be able to use your local library catalogue even if I knew what library to check. Can you give me an idea of the numbers? How many books can you find for, say, 1400-1500 vs. 500-1000? Where are you looking? Etc.

Oh, I should also add that one of our categories is "Myths and Legends", so even someone focused on western European history could read about King Arthur in the "Dark Ages".

Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing other suggestions for a distribution of 12 categories. Regardless of where exactly we put the divisions, we have to add two more months to the ones suggested in the first message, since we're reducing the post-1900 period from four months to two.

Zoe, I like your second breakdown quite a bit.

Re #1: Voting results.

The topic beginning Plagues should be Plagues and Disasters (instead of Plagues and Disease). Of course, actually Plagues are diseases and would come under the heading Disease and be part of Medicine.

Disasters would be a separate heading.

>25 sallylou61: Thanks for mentioning that! I was like, we have two categories for plagues/diseases/medicine???

Thanks, Allison. You know, I used to be a proofreader. Apparently, I can do so only after a few cups of coffee.

>22 _Zoe_: It's not just a matter of what's available at my local library, and to be honest I haven't the faintest idea how many books they have on certain historical periods. It's a matter of certain time periods not having as many books written about them as others. It's a widespread trend with some of its roots going back to the Victorian era (the neglect of the dark ages).

Re: plagues... Since plagues is paired with disasters I assumed it was plagues in the more biblical sense (locusts, famine, potato rot, whatever) and not the actual illness called plague. Am I wrong?

>28 PawsforThought: It's whatever you want it to be. I'd count Black Death and Ebola, but you're welcome to interpret it as you see it. Of course, the month's host will give us more to work with.

>29 RidgewayGirl: That interpretation was partly because of the connection to "diasters", and partly because, like >25 sallylou61: and >26 christina_reads: pointed out, there is already a theme for illnesses.

Hey, the vote is what it is. Interpret it as you see fit. It's the wonder of the CATs in action.

>28 PawsforThought: I should think, and would recommend, Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague would fit in that category.

>32 LoisB: I second that recommendation!

>32 LoisB: About plague as a disease, certainly. It's been on my TRB list for years. I'd read that during the medicine & disease theme, if I chose to read it. During the plagues & disasters, I'd pick something about the Irish potato famine or something. That is, if I chose to read anything at all during those months. I have no idea how next year will pan out.

>15 _Zoe_: I really like the second time line that Zoe has posted.

Agreed, I like this one best as well:

BC to 0
0 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

I think it gives those who are not big fans of the ancient times (say, everything before 500) just 2 months they won't like the time period so much, and those who are not big fans of the 20th century would be the same. The other time periods are devided pretty equally over the months, with the 1000-1400 period having a little longer per month as opposed to the 1400-1900 period, but I do think the 1000-1400 period is not as popular among authors as opposed to later centuries, so that will work out just fine, I think.

This all makes me really, really curious to see which themes will be matched up to which time periods. I've started tentatively looking to my TBR books to see which ones fit which themes and the only theme where I've come up completely empty is the migration & immigration one. Since I'll have to look for an entirely 'new' book there, it will probably be the easiest month to read the focus of both time & theme, as I can just pick a book that fits perfectly :D. For the others, I'm hoping the matching process will work out in favor of my TBR books, but we'll see. I am getting more and more excited for this CAT, though, and then remember it's still 3 months off from starting ;)

>36 Samantha_kathy: I tend to think of immigration associated with the 19th century, but this is definitely US-centric thinking. There was a lot of immigration to the US in the latter part of the century, plus westward migration.

>37 sturlington: To me it'd be a 20th century thing. All my relatives who went to America went between the wars. And so much immigration (to Europe) during the 1950s and onwards.

Question: For "Plagues & Disasters" do the disasters have to be natural disasters like earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc? Or can they be disastrous calamities, like the bombing of Hiroshima, the sinking of the Titanic, the Triangle Factory fire, etc.?

Re #39. I think that we can usually apply our own interpretations to topics, etc. However, I would interpret disasters to be very broad to include both natural ones and ones caused by humans. I like the discription used by whitewavedarling in her list (post #180, dated Sept. 13th in the previous thread:
Disasters (environmental, natural, political, etc.)

I think a broad interpretation is especially important since the plague part could easily fit with Medicine and Disease.

I know that we are going to "tinker" with definitions, etc. Are we also going to discuss rearranging any of the elements or changing topics such as putting plagues with Medicine and diseases and labeling "lifestyles of ordinary people" as social history?

Also, colonization which did not win could probably be considered part of exploration and conquest.

Just posting at the moment for ease of following the discussion.

>40 sallylou61: The themes have been voted on and completed, so no, there's no more modifying of them. What can be done is individual interpretation. If you want to do plagues during medicine & diseases, it would obviously fit there as well, and "ordinary people" does deal with social history, so how anyone chooses to interpret it and what they therefore include in it is up to everyone.

Re #42 PolymathicMonkey: I was thinking of the message posted by RidgewayGirl (no. 328, Sept. 24th) in the previous thread.

"Because people have voted on the themes, they can't now be changed, although the titles certainly can. So if the volunteer who hosts the Lifestyles of Ordinary People wants to give it a better name, they are encouraged to do so. At this point, however, the substance of the theme stands as it is."

I know that we have voted. However, this message suggests that titles of themes can be changed. I'm suggesting that Plagues be incorporated with Medicine and Disease and Disasters be considered alone although I'm not opposed to having plagues being housed in two themes. If the change was made, it would be changing the substance of one theme only to eliminate duplication. A number of themes overlapped somewhat.
I think that people could interpret Colonization to be part of Exploration and Conquest although we do not need to incorporate it into the title.

I was also wondering if we wanted the group to change any of the titles instead of having the individual volunteer.

However, in the end, it probably does not make a great deal of difference.

People can always interpret themes.

Also, I do NOT want to dictate how we should handle the themes/topics. It is good to give leeway.

So far, there are two time frame divisions suggested, both in >15 _Zoe_:. Does anyone else have a possible breakdown?

My thought is that WWI and WWII should each have their own time period. I think the 19th century could be divided as well.

Something like:

BC to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1860
1860 to 1900
1900 to 1925
1925 to 1950
1950 to ?

If this violates things already decided on, just ignore me. :) I've tried to follow the discussion but it's entirely possible I missed something.

45 > why use 1860 as the cut-off point in your division of the 19th century? Wouldn't 1850 be more logical?

As an aside, I get why you'd want to have WW1 and WW2 seperated, but this way there's 3 months of 20th century and only 1 month covering the whole of history up to the year 1000. That would shuffle prehistory, ancient civilizations (like Greece, Rome, Egypt, to name a few) and 500 years of the Middle Ages (so the entire Early Middle Ages) into one month. That seems a bit unfair, especially as the 19th century also gets 2 months in your division.

Personally, I would still pick the second option as suggested by Zoe in message 15, with 1 month for history before the year 0 (prehistory and some ancient civilizations), 1 month for 0-500 (ancient civilizations), 1 month for 500-1000 (Early Middle Ages), 3 months covering the period of 1000-1500 (2 of 2 centuries and 1 of 1 century, covering all of the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages), and then 1 month for each century, except for the 20th century which gets 2 months as well.

If we really want to split up WW1 and WW2, I guess we could do it like this:

BC to 0
0 to 500
500 to 1000 (= Early Middle Ages)
1000 to 1300 (= High Middle Ages)
1300 to 1500 (= Late Middle Ages)
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1925
1925 to 1950
1950 to 1990 (depending on vote)

But even though I suggested this, I'd still vote for Zoe's second division, as I like the fact that the 20th century only gets 2 months. I think that's plenty.

>45 Her_Royal_Orangeness: We agreed in the last thread, by vote, to have one period for BC and at most 2 periods for 20th century ...

>46 Samantha_kathy:
why use 1860 as the cut-off point in your division of the 19th century? Wouldn't 1850 be more logical?

1800 to 1860 = beginning of century through beginning of US Civil War
1860 to 1900 = US Civil War through end of century

About the multiple months of 20th century......there are just so many books about WWI and WWII that it seems amazing that we would smash that all together into one month. But perhaps those who love ancient history feel the same about those time periods.

Anyway, my suggestions do apparently go against decisions previously made so....carry on. :)

The original vote was to allow at least two months to be given to the twentieth century, but if we'd like to make that only two months, that's fine, too.

At this point, there are four possible options for our consideration. Any others suggested by the end of the month will also be put up for voting. Everyone, please think about how you'd like to see the time frames fall; Evenly spaced, skewed toward the nearer past, with divisions arranged around large world events, etc… If you don't see what you like, make a suggestion. Just leave a month for BCE and two for the twentieth century.

48 > Ah, that makes sense. Here in the Netherlands you hardly hear anything about the US Civil War. Certainly not enough for me to remember the dates :D

49 > Actually, I'd like to make another suggestion, which is really just a small change from Zoe's 2nd option in message 15:

BC to 1
1 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990
BC to 1990*

*Yes, I am proposing a month where all time periods go - I'm thinking about those sweeping sagas that span the ages. From non-fiction books like A Little History of the World, Magic and Superstition in Europe: A Concise History from Antiquity to the Present, and The Art of War in World History: From Antiquity to the Nuclear Age, to fiction books often called time-sweep novels or family sagas that span multiple centuries in a single book, like A Wayside Tavern, London, or The Blessing Stone.

This is basically the same set-up, only making a minor change for the Middle Ages time spans, so Early, High and Late Middle Ages are each one month. Also, only 2 months for 20th century, because I like that best.

Edited to add: this is going to be though to vote on with everything spread throughout the thread. Will se accumulate all suggestions in 1 post, name (or number) them and have the vote posts below for ease of comparison? Because the variations between the options aren't all that big.

Edited to add 1 other month to make up 12. My bad for forgetting :D Please read the attached note for explanation.

>50 Samantha_kathy: That looks good to me. The Middle Ages are probably the time period I know least about, so I'm happy to see it adjusted into something that makes more sense.

>49 RidgewayGirl: I thought we voted for at most two twentieth-century months.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/180264#4843720

Vote: There should be 2 months at most for 20th century

The yeses won.

Yes we most definitely voted for no more, certainly not "at least."

Also, we are not focusing on US history, so using that as a cutoff makes no sense.

>50 Samantha_kathy: There are only eleven time periods (eleven months) in that suggestion.

And I'm not fond of the idea of using the US Civil War as some sort of cut-off point for this, as it's only relevant for one country, really. Even if many members here are from that country.

Ok. So suggestions should not have more or less than two months in the twentieth century.

By the same token as not having 1860 as a cut-off, is using the European middle age divisions too Eurocentric?

My general feeling is that no division should be longer than a later one.

Also there is no year 0. The year after 1 BC is 1 AD.

(Edited because my first sentence was very mixed up.)

54 > Fixed that problem. Thanks for pointing it out. See my original message for the correct amount of months now and my (somewhat radical) idea for a 12th month.

55 > I don't see it as being too Eurocentric, because it's actually a more even spread of the earlier centuries, without a specific event-centered cut-off date

56 > You'r right, of course. Fixed that too while I was at it :D

>57 Samantha_kathy: I like that time-sweep idea.

>57 Samantha_kathy: Samantha_kathy: I like that time-sweep idea.

So do I.

I like the idea of dividing WWI and WWII. But, I also agree with keeping the 20th century to two months.

Would this be awful?
1900-1935 (includes WWI + the depression)
1935-1990 (or whatever end date is decided?)

>55 RidgewayGirl: It is obviously Eurocentric, but at least it isn't confined to a single country. There are a lot of countries in Europe, after all. Also, I believe the suggestions made focused on centuries which roughly correspond to the Middle Ages but it's still dividing up pieces of time that needs to be divided more or less that way anyway. Is there any other division of time (for that part of history) that would be better?

>50 Samantha_kathy: et al. I don't really see the point of a time sweep-month. Any other month of the year would work for the books that could fit in that category. Literally any other month. Why would it need a month all of its own? We'd be better off dividing up the centuries differently, I think.

I like the second suggestion in >15 _Zoe_: the most of the ones that have been suggested (though obviously it'll be BCE to BCE1/CE1)

>60 LibraryCin: I'd prefer to keep the world wars together because so much of why WW2 happened (well, pretty much everything, really) is tied to WW1. And if we put WW2 in with the rest of the 20th century then I fear it'll just become WW2 month. So much of the other things that happened during the almost 50 years that followed until the cutoff (because right now it looks like the cutoff will be 1990, yay!) will be disregarded.

61 > I like time-sweep because it focusses on 'big history', the large picture, as it were, and developments from one time to another. If I'm reading time periods (as opposed to themes) or want to do the focus, I want to read a book that focusses mostly on that time period.

I could read The Blessing Stone in BC-1, as the very first chapter is prehistoric. However, the rest of the chapters aren't, so to me that would feel a bit like cheating. Likewise, I could read The Blessing Stone for the theme religion, yet again, there's only 1 chapter that's really about religion as it involves nuns. Once again, I feel like I'm cheating. But those kinds of novels would fit perfectly in a time-sweep month.

Time-sweep month could also be very good to couple with themes that are good to look at with a long perspective (the big history thing again). For instance, War and Peace, or Lifestyles of Ordinary People.

To make a long story short, I think time-sweep is markedly different from a time period because the focus of a time period is the exact opposite of the big picture look of time-sweep. Hence a seperate month for time-sweep.

62 > Agreed, only you said it much better than I ever could.

I like the time sweep idea, too.

We'll start voting on time frames in just a few days. Don't forget all the other votes up top in the meantime.

>61 PawsforThought: I think I agree with PawsforThought about the time sweep month. I'm not crazy about it. You could just end up reading any book on any time in history for that.

We should probably have a vote about the time sweep month.

I'm personally in favour of it; it wouldn't be about choosing just any book that could fit into any other month, but about choosing a book that covered an extended period of time. If the book could fit completely into a different month, then it probably wouldn't qualify for the time-sweep month.

I'd rather split the 19th century - but evenly.

66 > Well, my time line suggestion including the time sweep month will be going into the general time periods vote, so I don't think a seperate vote is needed. People will either choose my devision of time periods (including time sweep month) or they won't.

And you're right, only time-sweep novels (aka novels that cover an extended period of time) would qualify.

I like the idea of a very long period, but not defining it solely as a time sweep. I would prefer to have it as a "free" time period in which folks could either read a book that covers part of a time period already (if they wanted to read 3 books from the 20th century for instance) OR read a book covering a long span of periods (as defined by the time sweep).

Another possibility with having a "free" time period: If a person really wanted to read about one of the topics, but did not want to read about the time period with which it was associated, she/he could use the free period to read about the time period "skipped."

Just a thought -- I'm wondering what others would think of it.

(Of course, nobody is limited to reading just one book for the HistoryCAT for any particular month.)

>69 sallylou61: But you don't have to read the themes with the time period it shares a month with! You can choose whether to read by theme, time period or a combination of the two.

#71. PawsforThought: Of course you can read by any of those three ways. However, I like having a "free" time period to read something from any time period. I really don't know how time periods and themes are going to line up; I may sometimes read two books: one for the time period and one for the theme, but I know that I do not want to read 2 books each month. Of course, some months I might read a book that covers both the time period and theme simultaneously.

This was just a suggestion: let's wait to see what other people think.

Also, I thought that we were brainstorming the ideas concerning time periods before the vote is taken.

>71 sallylou61: You wrote If a person really wanted to read about one of the topics, but did not want to read about the time period with which it was associated, she/he could use the free period to read about the time period "skipped." which sounds to me like you thought one had to read books with the time period and theme combined.

And we ARE brainstorming and discussing ideas. No vote has been put up yet so we're all just talking now.

I just think it'd be a shame to "waste" a month for "free reading" or "centuries long sagas" or whatever when there is so much time to comprise anyway. Twelve months is difficult enough without removing one and pressing time even more.

>71 sallylou61:

I like the idea of a free time period.

>72 PawsforThought: I think there's huge difference between "free reading" and "extended time period". I certainly wouldn't call the latter a waste when so much of the most influential current historiography is focused on the "longue durée".

>49 RidgewayGirl:

I like this scheme as well, as it roughly corresponds to the academic periodization of world history:

BCE to 1 CE - Ancient History
1 CE to 500 - Late Antiquity
500 to 1000 - Post Classical Era: Early Middle Ages (including but not limited to the Viking Age)
1000 to 1300 - Post Classical Era: High Middle Ages
1300 to 1500 - Post Classical Era: Late Middle Ages
1500 to 1600 - Modern History: Early Modern Period (e.g. Elizabethan Period, Protestant Reformation)
1600 to 1700 - Modern History: Early Modern Period (e.g. Age of Discovery)
1700 to 1800 - Modern History: Mid-Modern Period (e.g. Age of Enlightenment)
1800 to 1900 - Modern History: Mid-Modern Period (including but not limited to the Napoleonic Era, Victorian Era)
1900 to 1945 - Contemporary History (including but not limited to Edwardian Period, WWI, Interwar Years, WWII)
1945 to 1990 - Contemporary History (including but not limited to Cold War)
BCE to 1990 - Comprehensive History

There seems to be lots of ways to divvy up "Modern History: Mid-Modern Period", so having them set up as two centuries is just as good as any other way, IMO; though depending on the topics that end up being assigned to each time frame, and what I have in my stacks, I may end up jumping out of a time bracket but staying within the spirit of the age (e.g. "The Long Eighteenth Century" which actually spans from 1750 - 1914); or a topic that straddles century marks (e.g. Meiji Era, The Industrial Revolution, The Islamic Golden Age...) But I'll cross that bridge when and if I come to it :-)

I like the idea of a comprehensive level. Since most of my reading is Western-centric, it may be where I choose to explore an Eastern culture (e.g. Byzantine Empire - A Short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich.)

I don't have a lot to add to the general time periods but I'm piping up in favour of an extended time period because there's a lot of mileage in having a month to look at long-game history. Some of the most interesting stuff extends past the discrete periods.

I'm not sure how closely I'm going to be able to stick to a time period-theme match next year. I'm going to do my best and see how it works out.

>74 _Zoe_: I didn't say they were the same thing.
Suggestions have been made both for the 12th month to be a "catch up" month for those who missed out on reading something during the allotted month, and for the month to be set aside for reads covering several centuries or millennia. I don't like either idea as I think we're being flexible enough with the months already. People can either read time periods or themes, or both, and can match their books up to months long in advance. I just don't understand why we have to make a special slot for every single type of book. If the time periods of the book someone wants to read doesn't work perfectly with a months allotted time period, then read that book so it works with the theme of some (other?) month. What is the big issue here?

I'm sorry if my writing was a bit difficult to understand but it was very late at night and I'd had a long day (and week).

We'll vote. People will pick the option they like. Don't worry about it so much. The reasoning for and against a the broad sweep of history month are well stated.

So far, I have >75 Tanya-dogearedcopy: (based on >50 Samantha_kathy:) and the two options in >15 _Zoe_:.

Can anyone propose adjustments (with a full example to go with it, so it can be added to the vote) that they would like to see? Or are we happy with the choices?

It looks like the themes will need to be coordinated to time frames. Are there reasons why this is preferable? Which themes are you eyeing that you want paired with specific time frames?

By free reading I meant a wildcard. For example, if one of the months ended up being "1945-1990 Science and Technology" and I wanted to read neither, I could pick something else and it would still count.

>79 March-Hare: But that wouldn't work. The free reading would be one specific month (I'm assuming December) and all the themes and time periods will have their own months (one of the themes would be paired up with the FR month). So if there WAS a 1945-1990 and/or Science & Technology month you couldn't pick a book that was neither and say it still counted because it was a free reading month.

I suggested the division around the US Civil War, not in an attempt to make this focused on American history, but because it's a hugely popular topic in historical fiction.

I think we should have the 20th century cut-off in 1950 or 1960 which would give us the required "only two" 20th century themes of 1900 to 1925 and 1925 to 1950/60. But I am obviously in the minority in this opinion.

Actually, I seem to be in the minority in a lot of ways about this CAT. Oh well, whatever. It's TIOLI, right? :)

>81 Her_Royal_Orangeness: I think making the 20th century split at the end of WW2 makes the most sense as it keeps the wars together (and as I said earlier, they are very closely connected) and leaves the next time period "free" of that. I don't understand why you'd want the split later, so much of the middle and latter half of the 20th century is tied together (Cold War, etc.) Also, if we go with 1990 as a cutoff point, making the split in 1945 means both 20th century time periods will cover 45 years.

She wants the cut off in the middle of the century, not the split.

But there has been so much history since then, and I've seen a lot of it, from watching the whole space oddysey on television (I would hate to say how often I was late to school because a Mercury takeoff was delayed and I couldn't drag myself away.) and President Kennedy being shot, and Martin Luther King, Jr., to the iron curtain falling (There was a time when you heard more Czech and Polish in Vienna's electronic stores than German.) and the bombing of Libya (That was when they started putting armed guards at my children's schools.)...

Quite honestly, I hate cutting off the past 25 years.

I think that we should go through 1975 so that Space exploration can be included.

>78 RidgewayGirl: The breakdown I posted is Samantha_kathy's, just with labels I put in to help me breakdown what I was seeing. If there's going to be voting, Samanth_Kathy's original should be posted. My descriptors could be seen as leading theme-wise and/or lead to quibbling.

So far, I see a couple of naturals in terms of matching time brackets with themes, though admittedly all the themes are constant factors throughout history:

BCE-1CE: Myths and Legends (e.g. Greek gods, Egyptian views of afterlife)
1300-1500: Culture & the Arts (e.g. Renaissance)
1500-1600: Exploration & Conquests (e.g. Age of Exploration)
1900-1945: War & Peace (WWI, the Interwar Years, WWII)

The one I feel strongest about is 1900-1945 being matched with War & Peace as arguments for that time period are centered on including the two world wars (and the Interwar years.)

Personally, due to my age, everything after WW II is current events! Why not break the twentieth century into 1900-1949 and 1950 -1999.

>83 MarthaJeanne: Sorry, missed that part of the post.

And we're voting on the cutoff so we have to take that into account when deciding how to split up the 20th century.
At the moment the vote looks like this:
1950: 5 yes
1975: 2 yes
1990: 14 yes
2001: 8 yes
2014: 2 yes

I can understand that people feel uncomfortable labelling their own lives as "history", but that's just how things are.

>75 Tanya-dogearedcopy: I like Tanya's "academic" periodization.

ETA: And as I read more, I see that is really Samantha's suggestion. Either way, I like it.

If we're starting to pair things up, Tanya has some good suggestions.

I was also thinking Crime/Mystery in the 19th century (Jack the Ripper, and I'm sure there are others). Without scrolling back, that's my one suggestion off the top of my head.

>85 Tanya-dogearedcopy: I saw that, Tanya. I put it like I did to acknowledge both her original break-down and your amplification of it. I do agree that when it comes time to vote, I'll put that option up without the explanation.

I just changed my "end-time" vote. Originally, I voted for "1975" as that was closest to the end-time that I was personally planning to read up to; Then I voted for "1990" because it made for a neat and even division for the twentieth century; but now I've voted for "2014." The reason I changed it to near-current events was with the idea that if it were chosen, participants could actually choose which year they want to end their reading with, sort of like "choose your own adventure." So, I could still stop at "1965" if I wanted to, while someone who wanted to read a book relating to 9/11 would also have a place in HistoryCAT. Obviously you don't have to read up to the end-time! It doesn't look like "2014" will win; but I like it for its flexibility/accommodation.

>80 PawsforThought:

The "wildcard" would replace the regularly scheduled category. In other words, there wouldn't be any month for "free reading", but anyone could replace any one month with the free read. Sort of like a get out of jail free card.

This wasn't very popular when I mentioned it before, so it's not a big deal if it's not in the voting. I just wanted to clarify what I meant.

>92 March-Hare: Okay. Well, I don't really see the point of it. There's a lot of flexibility as it is with being able to choose either time period or theme. For me, adding another choice just defeats the purpose of having a CAT. If you can read whatever you want whenever you want and still have it count, why have a HistoryCAT?

Has anyone played around with matching all the themes to time periods? I tried a few combinations today, and I can see it's going to be very difficult. There are a few that seem fairly straight forward but others are going to be very hard to agree on.

I will probably end up reading by theme and not worrying about the time period.

I've been playing around with it as well. I don't really care which theme goes with which time period, aside from the fact that I want to be sure there are books that fit both theme and time period readily available to most people, so those who want to can do a focus read. Matching is difficult, because I am tempted to just suggest theme/time matches that fit the books I've got on my TBR stack, which might not be the best matches.

I think a few of the pairings will end up being sort of random no matter what, but that's okay.

Using the last time frame posted by Tanya (which I quite like), I came up with the following but I free admit other than a few that I thought naturally fit, many were simply random.

BCE to 1 CE - Ancient History = Myths & Legends
1 CE to 500 - Late Antiquity = Religion
500 to 1000 - Post Classical Era: Early Middle Ages (including but not limited to the Viking Age) = Exploration and Conquest
1000 to 1300 - Post Classical Era: High Middle Ages (Europe decimated by Black Death) = Plagues & Disasters
1300 to 1500 - Post Classical Era: Late Middle Ages = Culture & Arts
1500 to 1600 - Modern History: Early Modern Period (e.g. Elizabethan Period, Protestant Reformation) = Medicine & Disease
1600 to 1700 - Modern History: Early Modern Period (e.g. Age of Discovery) = Immigration & Migration
1700 to 1800 - Modern History: Mid-Modern Period (e.g. Age of Enlightenment) = Science & Technology
1800 to 1900 - Modern History: Mid-Modern Period (including but not limited to the Napoleonic Era, Victorian Era) = Crime & Mysteries
1900 to 1945 Contemporary History (including but not limited to Edwardian Period, WWI, Interwar Years, WWII) = War & Peace
1945 to 1990 - Contemporary History (including but not limited to Cold War) = Equality & Human Rights
BCE to 1990 - Comprehensive History = Lifestyles of Ordinary People

I think it makes more sense to assign the themes randomly. All of the themes could be covered in just a decade or two so how can anyone say that a certain theme fits most logically with a certain time period?

>98 Her_Royal_Orangeness: I suspect you may be right HRO, it's going to be very difficult to please everyone so perhaps a random assignment might be the best way to go. I am rethinking my vote.

March-Hare, I'll add a vote for the "wild card" idea to the next scheduled vote. Could you give a clear explanation of what you'd like to see? Since, as always, CATs are Optional and are designed as a participate-when-you-feel-like-it activity, I don't see what a wild card would do that just not participating for a month would, but I'm willing to be convinced. I know that the previous CATs probably had people who participated every month, so maybe they could comment on whether a wild card would have meaning for them as well.

We seem to beheading into a teeny bit of a bind if, as voting and posts suggest:

• only one time period for BCE;
• only two time periods for the twentieth century and;
• consensus is built against a comprehensive month

We could break down the Middle Ages a little bit:

OPTION #1:
500 to 1000 - Post Classical Era: Early Middle Ages (including but not limited to the Viking Age)
1000 to 1200 - Post Classical Era: High Middle Ages
1200 to 1400 - Post Classical Era: High Middle Ages
1400 to 1500 - Post Classical Era: Late Middle Ages
To be honest, I find the High Middle Ages to be fairly homogenous, so this might be a fairly boring option

OPTION #2:
500 to 1000 - Post Classical Era: Early Middle Ages (including but not limited to the Viking Age)
1000 to 1300 - Post Classical Era: High Middle Ages
1300 to 1400 - Post Classical Era: Late Middle Ages
1400 to 1500 - Post Classical Era: Late Middle Ages
This might be more interesting as the period transitions into the European Renaissance; though we're still lingering a bit in The Dark Ages.

I would love to hear more suggestions for time breakdowns if a comprehensive month is ruled out.

I don't think a comprehensive month has been ruled out at all. I see more support than not -- just not a spirited. There are two options without the comprehensive month and one with. We'll vote starting tomorrow.

I would rather not vote on each and every theme with each and every time period. Should we vote on complete lists, as in >97 DeltaQueen50:? Or should we give a few options for each theme individually?

We have two good suggestions in >15 _Zoe_:.

If people like the split that reduces the earlier periods still more, then splitting the 19th century would work.

BC to 1
1 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1850
1850 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

(This is >49 RidgewayGirl: with the 19th century split instead of sweep)

I see more support than not

I'm sorry but we've been explicitly told not to voice non-support. So why would you expect to see it? For the record, I do not support a "comprehensive month."

I don't think the comprehensive month has been ruled out at all; we were just told not to keep talking about it, so it happened that a negative position got the last word.

I do think it would be helpful to vote about the comprehensive month separately from a particular time frame, and then see how many other divisions we need.

If we're using the suggestion in >50 Samantha_kathy: as a base and end up needing one more time period, then the obvious options are to divide either the end or the beginning further. So in the first case, we'd get something like >103 MarthaJeanne:. In the second case, we could have three first-millennium months rather than just two:

BC to 1
1 to 350
350 to 700
700 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990
BC to 1990*

Or something like that.

I agree that we should have a separate vote on the comprehensive month. I personally did not comment about it, but I am not in favor.

I also think that we should have lists to vote on rather than each time frame.

Regarding the comprehensive month -- no one has said that it can't be discussed. But it will be voted on along with other things and then we'll know whether it has legs or not. I guess I don't see the problem? If it's unpopular, it won't happen. If people like the sound of it, it will.

We now have five options, the three already mentioned, and >103 MarthaJeanne: and >105 _Zoe_:.

Tanya, would you rewrite yours to be two full options?

That will give us seven options; the first gives us a four month span to cover the years to 1000, the second a three month span (>15 _Zoe_:), then another with three months to get to 1000, but with the comprehensive sweep idea as well (>50 Samantha_kathy:), then another that gives two months to the nineteenth century (>103 MarthaJeanne:) and a fifth option that gives us longer in the earlier years, with four months before 1000 ACE, but also including the comprehensive sweep.

What do you think of having two votes, a favorite (YES) vote and a second favorite (Undecided) vote, with yes weighted at two points and undecided at one point per vote? It would rely on people only voting twice, though.

>106 cyderry: So instead of voting a for a time frame, we should break down the time frames into units and vote accordingly? So one vote would be for three months to get to 1000, another for four months. Then another vote for the comprehensive sweep. Then one for whether the nineteenth century should be split in two, etc…?

No, I think the whole block - from BCE - now

What do you mean? Vote on the full proposals as suggested in >107 RidgewayGirl:?

exactly.

Ok. I didn't want to assume I understood!

>107 RidgewayGirl: I think having two votes will make things difficult to count. It's impossible to keep track of.

Paws, I thought Cheli was proposing a different way to hold the vote.

>114 RidgewayGirl: Yes, but people would have two votes. One "yes" vote and one "undecided" vote.

>107 RidgewayGirl: I don't really see the benefit of limiting the number of votes, especially when we're trying to express our preferences on multiple issues (i.e., both how many months we want devoted to given date ranges, and whether there should be a comprehensive month at all). I'd be happy to say that a Yes vote counts for twice as much as an Undecided vote, but why not just let people vote as much as they want, especially since there's no way of enforcing the restriction anyway?

These are the two alternates that break down the Middle Ages in to four time periods (as opposed to three):

• only one time period for BCE;
• only two time periods for the twentieth century;
• no comprehensive time period and;
• breaks the "1000 CE-1400 CE" down into two time periods:

BCE to 1 CE
1 CE to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990
BCE to 1990

• only one time period for BCE;
• only two time periods for the twentieth century;
• no comprehensive time period and;
• breaks the "1300 CE-1500 CE" down into two time periods:

BCE to 1 CE
1 CE to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990
BCE to 1990

>97 DeltaQueen50: I like this breakdown

I don't think I've voiced an opinion about the comprehensive month, either (or maybe I have). I don't like the idea.

>119 LibraryCin: And yet you just stated that you liked a division that includes the comprehensive month...

Can someone post all of the proposed breakdowns in one message?

Ha! I think I missed that! :-) I was looking at the themes with the years and most of those looked good. I must have not looked close enough at the bottom.

Did we decide to vote separately on whether or not to include a comprehensive month first? Once we know that, then that should be easier to match up themes and time periods, yes?

...although if we did go with a comprehensive month, that is a good theme for it. LOL!

>123 LibraryCin: I also thought that would make it easier, but it seems that the plan is just to include a comprehensive month in about half of the proposed period breakdowns, and vote on everything altogether.

I would like to vote on the comprehensive month idea before voting on breakdowns.

>100 RidgewayGirl:

Let's just drop the wildcard thing.

Agree with hailelib, LibraryCin, and _Zoe_, who said it well. "...it would be helpful to vote about the comprehensive month separately from a particular time frame, and then see how many other divisions we need."

I like the comprehensive month idea. And I like the idea of voting "yes" for 1st choice and "undecided" for 2nd choice. I'm neutral on whether we have a preliminary vote of whether or not to allow a comprehensive month.

Put me down as also liking the comprehensive month, and I think a vote on whether or not to have this prior to voting on the time periods would be helpful.

I agree that a vote on the comprehensive month would be a good idea.

I just read Von Jesuiten, Kaisern und Kanonen about the Jesuits in China. It covered about 1552 to 1773. (Like many such books there was a bit of context at the one end and effects and so on at the other.) I think it would have counted for either 17th or 18th century, but hardly for a comprehensive month. The 16th century part was fairly small.

Let's do a 48-hour vote and figure out what everyone wants to do.

As far as the results from earlier voting: we'll be figuring out where each theme best goes. The time frames will run in chronological order and the time frame will end at 1990. Thanks to all who voted! This would allow readers to choose a book that covers a wider sweep of history or spans two (or more) time frames.

This would have us voting on each portion of the time frames separately. A NO vote indicates a preference to only voting for full time frame proposals. A YES vote has us break-down the time frames into segments, voting, for example, on using three or four months to reach 1000 ACE.

March-Hare, are you sure you don't want a vote on the wild card idea?

Anything I've missed? In >97 DeltaQueen50:, there is a suggestion of how we should pair themes and time frames. How does this look to you? What would you like to change?

>133 RidgewayGirl: I don't quite understand.

>135 PawsforThought: There are a few differences between the options for time frames being suggested besides the comprehensive sweep. For example, some suggestions have us spending four months in the years before 1000 ACE, and others have us only spending three months. One suggestion has us spending two months in the nineteenth century, and the rest have only one month. The idea is to find out if we'd rather sort through the differences between the suggestions or vote on the full suggestions.

I know that when I look at what is essentially a bunch of lists of numbers, I have trouble keeping the differences apart. I was wondering if others wanted the differences spelled out or are the differences in the lists of time frames easily apparent to everyone, so that there will be no confusion as to which list indicates what.

>136 RidgewayGirl: Okay. I just assumed we'd be voting on the actual suggestions themselves and not what type of suggestion PLUS the suggestion.

Me, too, Paws, but I opened my laptop this morning to discussion about voting for the possibility of voting on the comprehensive sweep idea as a separate thing. So that altered the plan.

>134 RidgewayGirl:

I'm sure. Thanks for checking.

>138 RidgewayGirl: I WANT to vote on the sweep thing. But the voting on 3 vs 4 early parts or 1 vs 2 19th century parts is what I'm confused about. Why not just list the possibilities after the sweep vote is done and have at it?

There is sense in a quick vote on the comprehensive month because it'll make the actual voting on lists a lot easier if we know whether that's to be included or not.

I'm just asking while the other vote had to be up. I didn't mean to confuse anyone, but to save someone suggesting that midway through the next vote and having to backtrack. This way it doesn't take any time at all, except in the time we've all spent discussing it now. : )

Because it has never happened that someone makes a suggestion after things were all decided.

>142 RidgewayGirl: Well, sometimes you have to accept that if you're not fast enough with your ideas, people will go ahead and decide without them.

And that would be unfortunate.

Yeah, but a fact of life.

Speaking of which, did you hear that that guy who used to play the handyman in Facts of Life married Amal Alamuddin?

I take it you mean George Clooney (because I've never before heard of Facts of Life, which Google informs me is a TV show).
Yes, I heard that. And read it. In four hundred thousand news outlets. This world is obsessed with celebrity weddings, and I don't understand why.

Oh, you mean the guy in the Nescafe ads. He married someone in Venice. Why this needs to be on the news is beyond me.

I'm looking forward to joining this challenge once all the details are sorted!

>148 MarthaJeanne: Because he's faaaaaaamooooooouuuuuus. And everything famous people do is world news.

>143 PawsforThought: It's a good thing, then, that no final decisions have been made, isn't it? And also that this isn't such a rigid structure that nothing can be changed in mid-stream. I think that's why so many of us like it here - lower stress than real life.

PS - I didn't think George Clooney would ever get married. Bet it doesn't last long.

>151 sjmccreary: Personally, I think one of the flaws of this place is the time it takes for things to be settled because every possible version needs to be suggested and voted on.

>152 PawsforThought: But considering that it's only September and we're making plans for next year, I don't think that's a huge problem.

>153 _Zoe_: I think it's annoying. Which is a problem. The fact that there is a lot of time left before the new years isn't really important. The group was started early because people wanted to plan (and vote, etc.) early. If the group (and the CATs) had started later and we'd had less voting we wouldn't have been any more pressed for time.

>154 PawsforThought: It's only a problem for the few who are annoyed by it. And you're right - even if we'd started later, we still wouldn't be pressed for time. So, what's the real problem? The group was started early because many of us enjoy talking about it, and planning for it, and discussing possibilities, and voting on each detail to be sure everything is just right. There are still 3 months left before the end of the year. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm thoroughly enjoying the slow and relaxed pace. It provides lots of time for new ideas to come out and to consider all the different suggestions. As I said earlier, much less stress than real life decisions.

ETA - I think we're still ahead of last year's pace, I don't understand your rush

>155 sjmccreary: We are ahead! And we're enjoying the discussion and coming up with ideas we wouldn't have if we were in a huge rush.

>155 sjmccreary: Well, as I said, I am annoyed by it so it's obviously a problem for me. I can't (and won't) speak for anyone else.
The process could still have been at a comfortable pace even if this had all been started two months later than it was.
I'm not the one who is in a rush, but I don't like dragging things out for longer than they need to be.
Part of the problem with starting early is getting all hyped up really early in advance (and in the process getting bored with the current years reading, which hurts the current CATs as well as individual challenges) and then have that hype blown over by the time the new year comes around because by then everything's been decided for months and we've just been twiddling our thumbs.
We haven't even reached the fourth quarter of the year yet and we're already pretty much done with the decisions. A couple of week more, at most, and we'll be done. And just waiting. THAT is my problem. The REAL problem.

>157 PawsforThought:, I think planning this far ahead works well for so many people because it leaves them more time to plan and play with their own challenges later on. Knowing the plan for the Cats will affect some folks' plans for their own challenges, so this just saves everything having to happen at once.

>158 whitewavedarling: I'm sure it's great for some people but I think it's stressful for others that it's done so far in advance. This need to be finished and ready ages in advance.

>157 PawsforThought: You're annoyed and so consider this a problem. No one else seems to be annoyed - at least no one else is complaining. What do you hope to accomplish by continually harping on the way the group is going about the business of making decisions and setting up our challenge for next year?

>160 sjmccreary: I am fully entitled to express my opinions about whatever issues I may have with how things are set up in this group. This is a discussion forum and the point of it is to discuss things, not just books but also the challenges we are involved in and how those challenges are set up. If someone has an opinion on that, they are allowed to raise those opinions.
And just because I'm the only one CURRENTLY talking about the early set up doesn't mean I am the only one who has done so or even that I'm the only one who thought it was TOO early. There were several people who thought it was early but because some people wanted to start, it was set up anyway. That's fine, but doesn't mean I can't dislike it - and say that I dislike it.
Finally, referring to someone voicing their opinions and explaining and expanding on those opinions when people respond to them as "harping on" is rude.

Personally, I'm enjoying the leisurely pace of the decision making. I've found in the past that a rush in decisionmaking often leads to regrets because other ideas arise after the decisions have been made.

I'd much rather take time over the discussions, but I'm getting very tired of discussions about the discussions about the discussions.

>163 MarthaJeanne: Amen!

>163 MarthaJeanne:

Yes!

I also appreciate the leisurely way that discussion is allowed to flow while decisions are formulated. As cyderry said, less rush, less regrets. About hurting the current CATS, I find the opposite. Without worrying about hurried decisions for next year, the current year can flow on undisturbed. Gotta be a tough job, RidgewayGirl! I think you're doing great!

Yes, RidgewayGirl--you are doing a great job :) I'd be chiming in more if I weren't just happy to lurk and go with the flow for the most part!

>161 PawsforThought: Alright, let me re-phrase my question. What do you hope to accomplish by repeatedly expressing an opinion that does nothing to move the decision process along? Why do you feel the need to complain over and over about something that the majority of folks here seem to disagree with you about? Do you really think that the entire group will just say "OK - let's do it your way", even though most of us are happy about the way things are being done now?

Look, I get that you're not happy about this process. I understand that. But you're not the only one whose opinion counts. ALL of us have opinions, and they count as much as yours. What good does it do for you to repeat the same objection over and over when it is obviously a minority position? Wouldn't it reflect more favorably on you to gracefully concede the point?

>168 sjmccreary: The discussion started because I stated that if you don't work fast enough sometimes, as it is with all things in life, you lose out on things. As it should be, because you can't always wait for everyone to think things through for days and weeks. And then the discussion (and my stating my opinions) went on from there. I didn't start out trying to be some repetitive talking doll who regurgitates the same phrase over and over. But when asked to explain myself and in discussions I will state what I think.

And I never said my opinions are the only ones who count! Don't put words in my mouth and make it sounds as if I'm saying something I'm most definitely not. If anything, I'm pointing out that others' opinions are in the majority in this group - to my detriment. Thus the way things are run. If my opinion was the only one counted, the group wouldn't even exist yet. As we're all aware by now.
But just because my opinion is a minority one doesn't mean I should just shut up and let others talk. Sometimes, having someone of a minority opinion will enrich the conversation. It might make other people stop and think a little. I HAVE ackowledged that things aren't done the way I'd prefer, and that's fine. I just hope people would stop talking as if my differing opinions and my stating of them is somehow harming the group and the people in it.
I'm sorry if I'm not behaving the way you think I should but I don't respond well to people being patronizing.

And if you don't like what I'm writing you don't have to read it. You can just skip over my posts. I have a feeling that's what a lot of people in this group do anyway.

.
I agree that RidgewayGirl is doing a heck of a job running the CATs. Just because I don't agree with how everything is done doesn't take away from that.

Paws, what do you want? The CATs are something that has been built up over a few years. We've worked together to find a method we enjoy and that gives results we are all happy with. Because we are all different people, none of us gets exactly what we pictured, but the results have been, in my experience, much better than had they been decided by one person or a small group of people.

Since we are all passionate readers, we each have a personal way of going about our reading. Collaborating on a group reading project means that a certain amount of flexibility is required of all of us and, with much discussion and voting, we have found ways that work.

What I see is that you are unhappy with both planning ahead and with the pace of the planning.

We are planning well ahead of 2015 because there are readers who like to plan ahead. It doesn't hurt those who start later to make sure that the planners are able to include the CATs in their planning. They are our friends and I believe that most of the spontaneous readers here are willing to do this now because the CATs are more fun when they are participating with us. The planners are also often the most dedicated followers of the CATs. As someone who doesn't know what book I'll read next until I pick it up, I like knowing that the minute the next month's CATs are posted, there will be people who are ready to post the book(s) they're going to read and I often find the book I'm going to read from those people. There has been much discussion in the past about how to allow for both planners and more spontaneous readers and this is what we've come up with that works.

We are not speeding ahead because the CATs are for everyone, including those who do not visit LT everyday. Votes stay up long enough so that they get a voice as well. We plan ahead so that we have time to discuss and come up with structures that will work. We vote because everyone is equally valuable and that is the best way of giving everyone an equal say. We vote because it's easier to accept a decision that goes against what one person wanted when they can see that their friends wanted something different, that their vote was counted and that whatever it was, it wasn't just some whim from a few people who happened to have time to spend on the internet at the time the question came up or the organizer forcing her views on everyone else.

You've clearly stated that you find this approach babyish and insulting. You would probably have a much better method that would ensure greater participation and happiness. But this is the one we've come up with for this particular side challenge called the CATs. You have a choice here. You can decide that although this process is insulting to you, you are invested enough in the CATs that you'd like to participate, despite your reservations. You can decide that you've made your point and can call a vote on changing the method to one you think would be an improvement. Or you can come up with your own side challenge run your own way. The Category Challenge is certainly large enough to have any number of side challenges, and you wouldn't feel so frustrated and angry.

What is the purpose of your current approach of periodically complaining at length? Could you please come up with a solution that we could discuss and vote on? It may well be that your vision of planning the CATs is one most of us would prefer, so go ahead and lay it out so that we can more forward constructively. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather discuss how we're going to set this HistoryCAT up than endlessly revisit the flaws you see, unless you are willing to propose solutions and allow everyone a chance to decide what to do.

You know, a lot of people here don't like dissenting opinions. Those people have made themselves quite clear over the last month or so. Maybe you should go take a good hard look at all those posts directed at me and Paws and maybe, just maybe, you could see why we might be a bit overly irritated and defensive/aggressive in our approaches at this point. I've essentially quit responding, because the comments above, from the time she started "harping on," many of those are quite nasty and I have no more desire to have them aimed at me, or to interact with the people who would make them. And yet it's us accused of being "unfriendly." At least all we do is voice opinions about ideas thrown out, but instead we get attacked on a personal level for daring to do so. Told we are being rude and unfriendly and driving people off and harping and so on, being completely condescended at. It's really horrible and makes me, for one, want nothing to do with hanging around here.

(For the record, that makes me sad, because I loved this group, and there's a lot of wonderful people here.)

>171 .Monkey.: I'm sorry you are unhappy. You have been able to express your views forcefully. But other people are also allowed to do so, even when they disagree. That's what they are doing. There is a sense of frustration at the repeated complaints because while the complaints make clear how badly this is being done, that the method we have worked out together is childish, there is no corresponding solution.

I've laid out three possible solutions. Of course, a fourth remains -- that every so often we revisit old complaints and then express how unfair it is when people listen and respond. I'd very much prefer to find out what changes you feel would improve things. I'm not going to tell people they can't post. I would suggest that if there is something so wrong it requires several complaints, then a solution should be offered and voted upon. If it's the nature of giving everyone's opinions equal weight through the voting that is the issue, I suggest that a new side challenge be set up and run under whatever process you find better. Other than that, I am at a loss how to make you feel included and heard. I'm sorry you feel that your ideas and opinions are ignored. As far as I can tell, your votes were also anonymous and several of your suggestions were taken and made a part of the CATs.

Other than asking that others not respond when someone tells them their ideas are not worth listening to, or that only some people are allowed to express themselves energetically, what would you like to happen? No one who posted did so with less courtesy than they had received.

...Wow. So calling people names and belittling them is totally cool. Because if someone disagrees with your idea, it's totally a personal attack and you have every right to attack that person back. Well then. Glad I know where things stand here.

I can't find an instance of anyone personally attacking you. If that has happened, please flag the comment as an abuse of the TOS.

I'm a big girl, I do not need to go flagging stupid comments of people getting upset about their ideas.

Tomorrow we'll count votes to see if the comprehensive month makes the cut. I have a huge book about the history of Europe which will live on my shelf unread if this doesn't make it!

When the votes are counted, I'll put together a few options for time frames based on the suggestions already made.

>171 .Monkey.: The thing is, I've seen several instances where you were the one who lowered the tone by getting all snarky and sarcastic rather than responding genuinely. This happened again just now in your following post.

I'm very much in favour of dissenting opinions; I've offered up a lot of them in these discussions. Anyone who's spent much time in RSI or related site groups over the years will know that I'm not at all afraid of heated debate.

And sure, there have been occasional instances in this group where I felt like there was too much focus on presenting only the positive. But there have been way more instances when I felt that your responses were completely inappropriate. I remember at least one case where you posted another comment like this one, saying similarly that other people were being nasty, and yet when I read through the exchange my impression was that you had been the first to depart from respectful discourse.

Basically, I don't think you can use "people don't like dissenting opinions" as a justification for everything. Because I like dissenting opinions, and I still often take issue with your tone. They're two different issues, and the one doesn't excuse the other.

>176 RidgewayGirl: I've got a couple of pretty comprehensive long-game history books that I'd like to slide in that will probably have to live to fight another day if it doesn't but that's balanced by all the other history books I can fit in. I'm really looking forward to getting the full CAT themes & dates sorted so I can start scouring my non-fiction shelves. I'm mulling over dedicating a bookcase to my Category Challenge books this year because I thought it would be fun to see them all lined up come January (so that I can admire them and then select other, totally random and impulsive choices, obviously!).

>177 _Zoe_: "I'm very much in favour of dissenting opinions; I've offered up a lot of them in these discussions. Anyone who's spent much time in RSI or related site groups over the years will know that I'm not at all afraid of heated debate."

You see, I always thought you were a bit of a shrinking violet ;-))

#179 by @klarusu> heh

Claire, the surest way to ensure that I don't read a specific book is to put it on a list. So, for the GeoCAT, I made an enormous list of books that would fit the various months. I've read four of them, and one of those was not read during the appropriate month.

But putting the possible CATs on their own shelves would be fun and necessitate an evening of book rearranging, which, when paired with loud music and a glass of wine, makes for a fantastic time.

>181 RidgewayGirl: You've just described my perfect evening ;-)

I'm not going to comment on specific posts because that's just way too much and I have neither the time nor the energy to do that. But I see several people saying I've said things that I HAVEN'T so I'm going to respond to that.

I didn't say we had to change the way things are done in the group right now. I get that a lot of people like the way things are done. I don't, and you all know that. I am stating this (and repeating it when i feel I need to) because I want people to know that not everyone thinks this layout is perfect. I'm not expecting everything to be done the way I think is best, I'm not naive enough to do that. But I hope people can consider the idea of doing it differently (maybe a bit more like I like, maybe a totally different way that no one has suggested yet) next time.
The CATs haven't been running for several years. It's been running for two years. 2015 will be the third. I know this because they were created at the same time as I joined LT (and joined the CC group). There is no long-running tradition of how to do things in the CATs. Just two years. And even if there had been a long tradition - what's wrong with changin up traditions a bit?
Just because some, or a lot, of people like to plan things out ages in advance doesn't mean it has to be done that way. Maybe it'd be good to try setting things up later. If people want to include CATs in their own challenges maybe they could have a category called "CATs". A lot of people do and it's not very difficult. Doesn't require much planning ahead.

I haven't said that we should bulldoze over people who don't log onto LT every day. I have no problem with keeping votes up for a few days to a week to make sure as many people as possible get to have a say. I do have a problem with voting on every single thing, even when it's crealy not needed.

I have a BIG problem with the way people put words in my mouth and purposefully misconstrue things I've said to make me out as someone who doesn't care about what other people think and feel. I have a really big problem with the victim mentality that is so prevalent in this group and sucking all the joy out of it for me.

>183 PawsforThought: I don't remember how it was determined when to start the official CAT planning this time—was there a vote? If not, I'd suggest that we vote on it next year. (I'm reminded of Churchill here—all this voting may not be ideal, but it's the best system we have.)

>184 _Zoe_: I came about because some people wanted to start early and so it was started early. That's it. There was no vote. One of the few things that haven't been voted on.

Great. We're in agreement then. Please put it up for a vote. If you feel uncomfortable doing so, I'm sure someone else will volunteer. I suggest cross-posting the vote in the SFFFCAT and RandomCAT challenges as well.

I'll do that next year then.

I seem to remember there was quite a bit of contention last year as well. Setting the CATs up caused some folks to leave last year as well, I think.

It's a shame, because for the entire rest of the year, things are terrific, as far as I'm concerned within the group.

Not sure how to change the process though, to avoid hurt feelings and upset.

Last year, the issue was not enough time given to voting and discussion. I'm sure PawsforThought will have a better system in mind and explain it in detail when she feels the time is right. I would rather get this settled now, instead of waiting and constantly mentioning the shortcomings of what we have worked out so far, but it isn't my argument. I'm curious to see what the solutions she proposes are, but given how strongly she feels, I'm confident she will satisfy everyone.

>189 RidgewayGirl: You're very good at being passive-aggressive. And "my system" is simple: start later. Do things quicker. Don't vote on everything. There. That's the system. In great detail.

Oh, and I've specified several times that I KNOW you can't please everyone, and if we change things everyone won't be happy wither. But it doesn't hurt to TRY something different. It might be a complete failure - that's a possibility I'm freely and openly admitting. But it might not be.

>189 RidgewayGirl: To be clear, you want us to vote now about when we should start planning for the year after next, to address the concerns of people who feel that planning started too early this year?

I was optimistic just a few messages ago that we could actually resolve the situation to everyone's satisfaction (in the sense of everyone feeling like their ideas had fair consideration, even if they weren't ultimately chosen), but not so much now.

Zoe, the many problems of how planning has been organized has been brought up as a pressing problem that needs to be raised over and over. Yes, I am surprised that it's now something that can be left until some time next year.

PawsforThought. I will admit that I am frustrated by the repeated derailment of progress in favor of pointing out what a poor job I am doing, only to find that it's just not that important after all.

If it is necessary to discuss how the CATs should be decided on next year, I think that the discussion should be moved to its own topic.

1) So that everyone who might have an opinion can join in, even if they are not following this thread because they are not interested in the History CAT.

2) So that this thread can go back to being about the History CAT.

Maybe I shouldn't jump in here a this point, but I've never been one to do as I should.

It bothers me that so many seem to be unhappy as we try to "perfect" the setup for the HISTORYCAT. I was so excited because I have been working on the US President's Challenge for the past 5 years and I thought that this would help me. I love history but as the HISTORYCAT has been evolving I see that it may not be as helpful as I had hoped. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with it, just that it didn't evolved as I wanted. I may not participate in all the time periods (once they are agreed upon) and I definitely won't read all the themes but I am only one in the crowd, so everyone needs to have a chance to find a time period/theme that suits them.

I've been thinking that I will just take what I want from the HISTORYCAT and leave the rest to someone else. Sort of my own little HISTORYCAT. That's what a TIOLI Challenge is all about - Take It or Leave It.

Alison - I know how much energy you have put into the CATS and I want you to know that I appreciate the tremendous effort that you have made. Hang in there - once all the selections have been agreed upon, hopefully there will be smooth sailing in 2015.

You can't please everyone. It's just that simple. I, for one, would be at least a bit upset if we started the planning later in the year. I like to have everything set up and ready to go.

>169 PawsforThought: I'm going to make one more response on this subject, and then I'll try not to say any more. You're free to either have the final word yourself or leave it here with me.

The discussion started because I stated that if you don't work fast enough sometimes, as it is with all things in life, you lose out on things. As it should be, because you can't always wait for everyone to think things through for days and weeks. The thing you failed to acknowledge, which was pointed out by at least 2 of us, is that HERE we CAN wait days and weeks for everyone to think things through. This isn't real life. The rules can be different. Sure, there comes a time when the decision is made and no changes are allowed, but we haven't gotten there yet.

I never said my opinions are the only ones who count! - No, you didn't. And I don't recall anyone ever claiming you did. No one denied you your opinion. But you forcefully asserted your opinion on several occasions, and your right to have an opinion. Intended or not, that starts to come across as a disregard for the opinions of others.

just because my opinion is a minority one doesn't mean I should just shut up and let others talk - Yes, in polite society, sometimes it does.

Sometimes, having someone of a minority opinion will enrich the conversation. It might make other people stop and think a little. This is absolutely true. Sometimes. However, if that minority opinion keeps repeating the same set of objections, even after it is clear that the majority will not be swayed by it right now, then it just sounds like whining. However, if the minority opinion accepts that the majority will prevail on this point and allows the discussion to move on, they can continue to have valuable input by making thoughtful, constructive comments on other points. That is what a discussion is all about.

I just hope people would stop talking as if my differing opinions and my stating of them is somehow harming the group and the people in it - Maybe some people believe that the stating of your opinions IS somehow harming the group. Shouldn't they be allowed to voice that opinion?

I don't respond well to people being patronizing - And I don't respond well to rudeness, bullying, and obtuseness. So where does that leave us?

if you don't like what I'm writing you don't have to read it. You can just skip over my posts. - And if no one reads your posts, how will that get your point across? Likewise, if you don't like what someone else has posted you can skip over them. There is no reason for you to feel obligated to respond to each point that is made in the conversation. If everyone did that, we really would never reach a decision.

Then, in >183 PawsforThought::

I hope people can consider the idea of doing it differently - Why? Why does it need to be done differently? The system that's evolved over the last couple of years is working and most of us are mostly happy with it. I don't think it's perfect, and I doubt anyone else does either. But it works very well at insuring we arrive at a true consensus. Some of the suggestions that were made earlier (I don't know if they were yours or someone else's) would have taken the voting away from us, would have forced people to openly state their opinions in order for them to be counted, and would have relied on a potentially subjective determination of what the "majority" wanted to do. In the first year of the CATs, we used voting intentionally to avoid those situations. And we've continued to use them for the same reasons - it's important in the culture of this group that everyone gets a vote, even if they don't participate in the discussion.

what's wrong with changin up traditions a bit? - What's wrong with leaving traditions alone? There's a saying here, "if it's not broke, don't fix it"

Just because some, or a lot, of people like to plan things out ages in advance doesn't mean it has to be done that way. - Just because some, or a lot of people don't like planning their reading in advance doesn't mean we can't do the group planning to accommodate those who do. Think of it this way - the planners in the group need time to do their planning. By having the group decisions made well in advance of the new year, their need is met. And it has no effect on the reading "plans" of those who don't do advance planning. An argument can be made that you're effectively asking for the group to be set up to suit your own purpose at the expense of the purposes of many others.

Maybe it'd be good to try setting things up later. - Maybe it would. But I doubt that the "later" many of us would be willing to do is late enough to satisfy you. I don't know - how late do you want to wait to begin planning? I thought we got started earlier than we needed to this year. I would prefer waiting until the first of September. But this entire enterprise depends on the enthusiasm and effort of individuals - not a rigid schedule. So, when someone gets up enough excitement and enthusiasm to begin a thread for the new year, then that's when it begins. Are you suggesting we should quash that effort by refusing to go along?

If people want to include CATs in their own challenges maybe they could have a category called "CATs". A lot of people do and it's not very difficult. - Sure, and a lot of people like to take a little more trouble with their own challenges. I don't want a category called "CATS" until I know what the subject of the CATs will be. I might hate all the CATs and not want anything to do with them. OTOH, I might love all of them and want several categories to accommodate the dozens of CAT books I plan to read. It's not for you to determine how easy or difficult my own categories are to set up.

Doesn't require much planning ahead. - Speak for yourself. For some of us it DOES require a lot of planning. For some of us, that advance planning is a huge part of the fun.

I have no problem with keeping votes up for a few days to a week to make sure as many people as possible get to have a say. - And what if a week isn't long enough? It's not unusual for someone to be away from their usual routine for more than a week. What does it hurt to keep votes open for 2 weeks - or longer - when the decision being made is one that will determine how the challenge will work for the entire year? Some of the smaller, procedural questions have been decided on shorter votes.

I do have a problem with voting on every single thing, even when it's crealy not needed. - I want to refer back to this statement in a moment.

I have a BIG problem with the way people put words in my mouth and purposefully misconstrue things I've said to make me out as someone who doesn't care about what other people think and feel. - "purposefully misconstrue" - well, here is an example of what I'm seeing. In the previous statement, you stated that voting on every question is "not needed". And yet, many of us feel that it IS needed. So, by insisting that all the voting is unnecessary, you are disregarding "what other people think and feel". So, if I'm misconstruing, it is not purposeful. But it sure looks like you aren't overly concerned with the thoughts and feelings of people who disagree with you.

I have a really big problem with the victim mentality that is so prevalent in this group and sucking all the joy out of it for me. - Finally - something we can agree on.

Just a last couple of points.

>192 RidgewayGirl: I have never said that you're doing a bad job of running the CATs. EVER. I may not agree with how the shaping of the CATs is done, but when you said I've said you're doing a bad job overall, you're LYING. I've actually stated the opposite. As evidenced in >169 PawsforThought: I agree that RidgewayGirl is doing a heck of a job running the CATs. Just because I don't agree with how everything is done doesn't take away from that.

>196 sjmccreary: No, you didn't. And I don't recall anyone ever claiming you did. No one denied you your opinion.
Actually, YOU did. In >168 sjmccreary: you said: But you're not the only one whose opinion counts. ALL of us have opinions, and they count as much as yours.
Why does it need to be done differently? The system that's evolved over the last couple of years is working and most of us are mostly happy with it. and hat's wrong with leaving traditions alone? There's a saying here, "if it's not broke, don't fix it"
Sometimes, when you change things, they get even better.

Oh, and congratulations. You're rid of both dissenting voices now so you won't have do deal with people having different ideas. PolymathicMonkey has left the group entirely. I'm still staying with the Challenge group but I'm staying away from the CATs from now on. I'll stay with the Bingo because I'm really excited about that (and I've promised to make one of the bingo cards) and the Horror KIT but other than that I'll just stick to my own thread and those of a few friends.
Hope you all have fun planning.

>192 RidgewayGirl: Well, it sounds like the situation is "resolved" in that people are just giving up and leaving, but I still feel like I need to make one final post for the sake of fairness. I called out PolymathicMonkey earlier today for escalating situations by responding inappropriately, but I think your >189 RidgewayGirl: is just as bad. I feel like the situation could have been defused by just agreeing to vote sometime next year about when the planning should get started, and instead we've ended up losing another participant.

I certainly don't envy you the task of organizing this whole thing—which you've done very effectively—and I understand that it can be frustrating. But I'm not going to hold you to a lesser standard because of it.

Well it's done now, I suppose; I'm not one bit happy about the resolution and what has been an exciting prospect so far, is now just a sad one.

I don't know if I'll participate in the CATs next year after all this. C'est la vie ...

ETA I'm sure that I'll not be participating in the CATs next year.

I've been a regular participant in the Cat Challenges and I would just like to say that although the planning stages can be difficult and upsetting for some, in the long run we will surely have a final product that will work for all participants.

Kay, I believe you have been doing your best to keep things moving forward. I am a long range planner so I appreciate the early start on these challenges. As to all the voting, I can't imagine any other democratic way to move the process along with everyone's input.

Let's carry on and I am sure we will hammer out a great HistoryCat that we will have fun with during 2015.

.......

Twice on LT, I've felt a bit of melancholia.

Once, back before the thread improvements of "More:Add to favorites", I used to leave a "tag" at the bottom of my posts, so that I could do a search on LT and come up with all the conversations pertinent to what I was interested in at the time, about, say, "tag buckets", "group tags", or what-not. Not much different from the posts I sometimes see about "leaving crumbs". It worked so much better for me than the thread-post-favorites which has everything jumbled together. When someone said, that's obnoxious; what if everyone did that, I thought, that would be wonderful; it would be so much easier to find things with succinct thread-tags. But, I am not a hard-shelled person, so with hurt feelings, I went back and deleted all my post-tags, and while I was at it, all my posts. I decided to use the cataloging features of LT and skip the talk. Well, that didn't even last a year; there are too many NICE people on LT that I don't want to miss out on.

And this time. With "play nice" as one of the prominent edicts of LT's TOS, I am always surprised when I see in-your-face kinds of posts, especially when I know that they're not simply trolls, but participating members. I think sometimes some people, especially people of other countries and cultures may see things differently; may not have thought themselves confrontational, even though many, including myself, felt quite the opposite. I don't see how that can be fixed; its like speaking different languages without an interpreter - you can't get on with your business. It's like watching a child continually poking their dog while it's eating; at some point that dog is going to stop what it's doing and address that poking finger. I don't say that Maria and Monk were poking intentionally for the sake of poking. Just that, to me, the words and tone began to feel that way, and that it felt like it was hampering progress. I am too timid to be the speaker, but agreed with everything that Sandy and Alison said. I am sad that it ended as it did, in bad feelings on both sides. But what's done is done. One of the good things about LT is that it's a huge sandbox - there's lots of space for lots of gatherings to play separately or to overlap if they get along.

I've never done the individual category challenge, but just the CATs, and have immensely enjoyed them and the way they were run. Alison, are you the originator of this CAT idea? I think its a great idea, and I really like the way you've organized it for group participation. I can tell that its a labor of love. It must be so frustrating to put so much time and thought into it, and to try so hard to make it work for everyone and then to have incidents like this. Please don't even think about giving up on the CATs! You're doing a great job with it!

Excuse me, but no, just because you do not like or agree with our straight-forward speak-bluntly personalities does not mean that we "are poking." Once again, we debated ideas, and had insults thrown at our personalities. I'm not going to sit there after rationally explaining why I feel an idea won't work, have insults hurled at my person, and then politely respond "thank you for pointing out my personality defects as you see them" and move along with my day, that's bull.

At this point I'm through with being insulted and clicking the red X.

>204 .Monkey.: In any sort of online blow-up, there's blame on both sides. If you consistently refuse to accept any sort of responsibility, it's never going to get better.

It really is possible to debate ideas in blunt, straightforward language without generating so much ill-will.

#205 by @_Zoe_> It really is possible to debate ideas in blunt, straightforward language without generating so much ill-will.

Infinitely harder to do over the internet where you don't have access to 75% of the other person's communication.

>205 _Zoe_: & >206 majkia: I think Zoë & I may just possibly have done that on occasion & we're still speaking ;-)

>206 majkia: Oh, I know. It definitely requires more of an effort, but I do think it can be done if you make an effort to assume goodwill on the part of the other person.

>207 klarusu: Yup :)

Monkey, I'm sorry that my words came across wrongly. What I had tried to say is not that you WERE poking, but that it sometimes FELT like that to other sensibilities. It's the difference in our sensibilities, I think, that are having the trouble. Here is me, who seldom has the nerve to speak up at all, who was just trying to pour a little oil on the waters, and instead I messed it up. I apologize to you and to the group.

>209 countrylife: I don't think your words came across wrongly. I understood perfectly what you were saying. I suspect that everyone else did, too.

I've been holding back my comments, but I feel it's time to enter the fray. Having retired from a career that included 35 years of people and/or project management, I see this CAT as a classic "people" problem. There are many types of people in this world, and we should be very thankful for that! Diversity is what makes the world interesting. When faced with a task to be accomplished, people react in different ways. The first group (which includes a lot of computer nerds) wants to charge ahead with the first solution that comes to mind, get the project done, and move on to something else. At the other end of the spectrum, we have those who will try to "boil the ocean" , looking at every possible solution then trying to reach consensus on the best option (this often includes the academics). Somewhere in the middle are the doers - those who are willing to brainstorm (no idea is a bad idea), select a doable solution that best meets the requirements of the task, and get going on it.

We need each type to get the job done. January 1, 2015 is a hard deadline. If we left it to the first group, we would end up with challenge that probably wouldn't be very challenging. If we left it to the third group, we'd all agree on the perfect challenge somewhere around July 1, 2015. We need to find that middle ground where most of us will have a great time reading about history starting on January 1, 2015. My recommendation at this point is to vote on the time periods and end the discussion period. It is doing nothing but damage to the spirit of the group

In terms of full disclosure, I have to say that I started as a member of the first group, but age and experience drove me to the middle. HistoryCAT was not one of the CATs that I vote for, and I would much prefer it to be topic-oriented rather than time-oriented, but it is what it is.

Let's all remember to respect all opinions and look forward to a fun challenge in 2015.

>211 LoisB: Thank you for that comment, Lois. I'm sure we all hope we fall in the middle group you described, but I know I lean towards the ocean-boiling side. Yesterday was the voting deadline for the questions that were open. How about if we take this evening to review the suggestions and comments that have been made about the CAT and hopefully RidgewayGirl will be ready to take the reins tomorrow to continue steering us forward.

As of right now (considering that technically the vote is closed), there will not be a comprehensive time frame (13 in favor, 16 against). As for the voting on the time frames, almost everyone who voted is against breaking down the time periods in fragments and voting on that (1 yes, 28 no, 1 undecided).

So, state of the HistoryCAT right now is - if I am not mistaken - that we're ready to move on to voting on the time period suggestions made already. We'll be voting for 12 month time period break-downs as a whole and suggestions that included a comprehensive month (like my own) will not be voted on.

Also, I think we decided on 1 BC month and max 2 20th century months. So suggestions containing more than that would also not count for the final vote.

How many suggestions does that leave us with?

Edited to add: not trying to take the reins away from RidgewayGirl here, just eager to get back on track with planning the HistoryCAT.

>212 sjmccreary: I agree.

Just throwing it out there, but how about continuing to a new thread when RidgewayGirl sets up the next votes. Turn over a new leaf?

215 > I think that's a good idea. That would put the vote posts at the top as well, easy to find.

>215 klarusu: Very good idea!

>215 klarusu: an excellent idea

I've done a comparison of the groupings that were suggested, and came up with 4 that meet the criteria of 1 BC month, 2 20C months and no comprehensive. Should I post the groupings for vote and take some of the pressure off of Alison?

219 > Maybe you can post them in one post (not as votes) and we'll see if there are any last minute suggestions that adhere to th criteria. Then when Alison gets back, she can start a new thread with voting?

Here they are. I've bolded the major differences.

BC to 0
0 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

BC to 0
0 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

BC to 1
1 to 350
350 to 700
700 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

BC to 0
0 to 400
400 to 800
800 to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

May I suggest a deadline of Dec. 1, 2014 to firm up the months so the people who like to plan ahead have plenty of time to get their choices lined up for January? (note - I am not one of those by any means)

>222 mamzel: It's hard to imagine that we won't be finished by the 1st of Dec. All that's left to be done is to choose the exact time line and then to match the time period up with themes. Well, and take volunteers for each month. We could be done by early November.

>221 cyderry: Thanks for listing this Cheli. It makes it easier to see them all together. Anyone have any strong preferences and would like to make a case for one or another?

>211 LoisB: Thanks for that Lois, I appreciate the comment (no kidding there). Communication online is hard without the clues given by real life interaction and I was just disappointed that we couldn't reach a compromise and understanding without exasperation.

Your message gives me a new boost but I agree that the idea at the root of the CATs is a good one and that we should concentrate on the theme.

>224 DeltaQueen50: I'm hoping someone can summarize some of the points that were made earlier when these different suggestions were made. To me, they all look so similar! Right now, I'm leaning towards the first or last options, simply because they have regular and gradual reductions in time for successive periods.

The upside to not being able to discern the real differences is that I won't be disappointed in the outcome of the vote. :-)

I threw out the first two options for consideration. Both keep the Western perspective in mind, not because of any sort of snobbishness; but because I sense that most, if not all, readers here are from the West and contextualize other cultures in reference to the West.

"Option A" breaks the "1000 CE-1400 CE" down into two time periods. It has the advantages of breaking down a fairly large chunk of CE history into two more manageable bits of two two-hundred frames each:

BCE to 1 CE
1 CE to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1200
1200 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990
BCE to 1990

A couple of historical highlights:
• Crusades
• Magna Carta
• Robin Hood!

"Option B" breaks the "1300 CE-1500 CE" down into two time periods. It has the advantages of keeping the period of the High Middle Ages (1000 CE to 1300 CE) intact, while breaking down the more dynamic Late Middle Ages into two century-long time frames. The century-long time frames also re-enforce the 100-year pattern of the majority of the table:

BCE to 1 CE
1 CE to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990
BCE to 1990

A couple of historical highlights:
• The Plague(s)
• Part of the Renaissance
• Le Morte d'Arthur

The advantage of both options is that is breaks down the biggest blocks of CE history down into more manageable time frames. The disadvantage is that both options keep us a bit longer in the Middle Ages at the expense of other centuries/frames that may have a bit more going on (e.g. 1800-1900.)

>226 sjmccreary: I'm the same, Sandy. I don't see a lot of difference and I have no real clear idea of which way I want to vote. The differences seem to be mostly in the area of the Middle Ages, so I guess it's a matter of what books you want to read for that time period.

ETA: I posted before I saw your breakdown Tanya. That helps. :)

I have no earthly idea which to use to choose.

My suggestion at >103 MarthaJeanne: isn't on the list.

BC to 1
1 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1850
1850 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

This gives fewer months to the middles ages and two to the 19th century.

Is it maybe a good idea to give everyone just one YES vote? There's only a few options and we only need 1 to win, and since they're so close together I fear we might not actually have a winning vote if we can vote YES to all of them.

Personally, I prefer this option:

BC to 0
0 to 500
500 to 1000
1000 to 1300
1300 to 1400
1400 to 1500
1500 to 1600
1600 to 1700
1700 to 1800
1800 to 1900
1900 to 1945
1945 to 1990

It's the "option B" as Tanya described it. I like it because it does keep the first to Middle Age stages (Early and High) together, each in their own time period. The two options Tanya didn't describe have different time divisions in the pre-500 time period, but I like the fact that 500-1000, which is Early Middle Ages, is all in one month.

I like >230 MarthaJeanne:

>232 LoisB: I'm torn between "Option B" and >230 MarthaJeanne:'s option. There so much that was happening in the 1800s that I could see, despite it "breaking the rhythm," enabling readers to cover more material. Hmmm....

Yes, I like >230 MarthaJeanne: because there are two months for the 19th century...just because I know I have a ton of books that will work for that period!

I really like the >230 MarthaJeanne: option. I have a lot of historical fiction that falls into the 19th century and this might be a better fit for me.

It's a pretty good option.

I also favor the #230 MarthaJeanne option with two slots for the 19th century.

>231 Samantha_kathy: There was some discussion about having a 1st and 2nd choice vote. (Yes and Undecided). Each 1st choice counts twice as much as a 2nd choice, so there is some weighting. But that way options with little or no interest quickly fall to the bottom. Does anyone else still think this is a good idea?

Hi guys. I really should have stopped in earlier today, but we were showing old friends around Munich. But now all the assorted children are in bed, and the adults are all taken care of.

Cheli, thank you so much for moving things forward. I see five options, let me recap them and then start voting on a new thread.

Depending on how much work it is to fit themes into the decided time frames, it shouldn't take us more than the month of October to wrap this all up, but certainly before December.

So, on to a new thread...

>227 Tanya-dogearedcopy: Maybe someone's already noticed this, but both these two options have a BCE to 1990. I think we ruled that out?

>238 sjmccreary: There was some discussion about having a 1st and 2nd choice vote. (Yes and Undecided). Each 1st choice counts twice as much as a 2nd choice, so there is some weighting.

I am ok with this or just one Yes vote per person.

And, once again, I'm posting as I think of things, but before the bottom of the thread to see that a new thread has been started! Off to check out the new thread and vote!