[39:20] – Contemporary, Fragrant Harbour
generated a kind of (1.0) ad hoc set of (.) inverted commas (.) rules through our experience (0.5) the first rule I have been talking to Colin about (0.5) is we don’t recommend a book that we haven’t read
2 M yes
3 R because reviews don’t (.) reviewers don’t write about the books they have xxxx reviews on (1.0) I remember myself recommending two books because there were glowing reviews in the Guardian and they were (.) appalling (0.5) so that’s the first thing (0.5) the second thing is (.) that the person who recommends the book goes last (.) because we’ve all read [the book 4 M [yeah yeah 5 R =we don’t need to have a great [exposition
6 M [yeah yeah
7 R by the person (0.5)and the third thing is that (.) because some people talk (0.5) less easily than others (0.5) I am on the other end of the spectrum as far as that is concerned (0.5) we make sure that everybody has a chance to speak (0.5) so rather than have a total chaotic discussion everybody has a chance to speak (.) >obviously everybody else can chip in< but we take it in turns to have a little bit of (.) [human talk
8 M [mmm can I say Ben who came in later (.) as it were
9 R =yeah
10 M he is (.) he is very impressed by the way that we (1.0) we communicate
11 R well it is democratic [isn’t it
12 M [that that’s very interesting (.) he said you come (.) and you are subsumed very easily into the group (.) but he said often you go (0.5) because he’s been to a lot of things in the city where you feel (0.5) I don’t belong here at all (.) he said you are brilliant at actually (0.5) getting people to come in (1.0) I don’t know if that is true but that’s [what he felt
13 L [well then xxx hahaha
14 R =can I (.) can I ask (.) Mark just wait 15 M ((Mark walks away)) I am coming back
16 R ok (.) can I just [ask
17 C [I think we followed your rules 18 R =no no I am not saying we had [but last
19 L [we normally do
20 R last time Debbie seemed to give (0.5) >unfortunately she is not here< (.)Debbie seemed to give the
impression (.)that we didn’t have these rules or she didn’t agree with them (.)I just want to ask whether any of you four think it is a good idea to have those (0.5) rudimentary ideas [or not
21 L [I think Debbie might see it a little bit more free flowing in terms of the
conversation
22 R but it is free flowing (.) Mark was talking (.) everybody [else was
24 R =I mean it [is not
25 C [we have been happily interrupting tonight
26 R yes [yes
27 L [yes
28 Lu I don’t feel we should feel naughty if we do interrupt
29 R well no no [exactly
30 Lu [but sometimes that is what it feels like
31 R nobody
32 Lu {deeper voice}=what >are you talking about there< 33 R nobody should feel naughty interrupting absolutely (.)
but everybody should be given a chance to have their own time (0.5) even though people interrupt (.) when they are talking
34 Lu do you think that everyone (.) ought to recommend a book at some stage
35 R oh absolutely (1.0) ought is not the right word [everybody should be given the chance
36 Lu [it is the right word because you make it into too much of a responsibility though
37 L =yes
38 Lu =sometimes you read a book again and think why have I suggested this
39 L =oh I did that yeah
40 Lu and then you feel like it is (.) almost a personal thing (1.0) you are kind of (0.5)
41 C well no one should feel (0.5) discouraged from recommending
42 R no
43 Lu =yeah
44 R =absolutely (.) no I think people should (.) [no I agree with you
45 C [shouldn’t feel obliged
46 R =no no I think people should recommend books (.) but not books that they haven’t read (0.5) erm (.) I am not blaming [you Colin because you
47 L [have we done that recently
48 C apparently I did
49 L oh right (.) what did you recommend 50 C erm [The Lighthouse was mine
51 R [yes
52 Lu [sometimes
53 C which I hadn’t read
54 Lu =sometimes you just want to read a book and you wouldn’t read it unless you had a
55 R =yes but then you should read it first (.) and if you like it (.) recommend it
R = Richard; M = Mark; L = Lizzie; C = Colin; Lu = Lucia
At the start of this extract Richard outlines the group’s rule and asks for the others’ views on these; the other group members offer their opinions and a debate ensues. Some of the other
members criticise the rules, or at least Richard’s application of these rules, and Richard attempts to defend his position.
Richard summarises the rules across Turn 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the extract, describing each rule and providing a rationale for each. Richard seems to be aware of the difficult interactional work he is performing in attempting to defend the rules whilst eliciting opinions on them. He is reluctant to describe the rules as such and describes these procedures as ‘ad hoc... inverted commas rules’ (Turn 1), perhaps because the term ‘rules’ implies that adherence is necessary and that people will be sanctioned for not conforming. These are rules, but the insertion of ‘inverted commas’ suggests that this is not quite the right term. Richard suggests that these rules have been by the group through ‘our experience’, and therefore the rules belong to the group and not just him. He is also self-effacing in his attempt to placate the other members, mentioning mistakes that he has personally made in book selection in the past (Turn 3) and suggesting that he has a tendency to talk too much (Turn 7); Richard’s mentioning of these things demonstrates that he has much to gain from upholding the rules as any of the other members. Mark offers support to Richard, citing the example of fellow member Ben (not present at this meeting), who has previously commented on the accommodating nature of the group (Turn 12); a quality that seems to result from the group’s way of communicating (Turn 10).
The disagreement starts at Turn 15, when Colin interrupts Richard’s attempt to formulate a question to the group. Colin addresses Richard, stating that the group had been following ‘your rules’ this evening , which causes Richard to repair what he has previously said (Turn 18), forcing him to get round to justify why he has brought up this matter. At Turn 20 Richard identifies Debbie as the source of the problem and as the main dissenting voice
against ‘these rules’ – note the shift back to ‘these’ rules from Clive’s ‘your’ rules. As Debbie is absent for this meeting, Lizzie offers a reformulation of Debbie’s position, stating that she ideally sees the reading group discussion as ‘free-flowing’ and implying that the rules do not facilitate this (see also Debbie’s comment at Turn 17 of Extract 3.21). Richard presents a counter-argument, citing that adhering to the rules still allowed for free-flowing talk at the present meeting, with ‘everybody’ talking (Turn 22). At Turn 25 Colin remarks that member of the group have been ‘happily interrupting tonight’; it is difficult to say whether this is offering agreement with Richard’s position, but certainly the idea of interrupting (happily or otherwise) is not in spirit of the rules. This seems to be Lucia’s understanding, as she argues that members of the group should not be made to feel ‘naughty’ if they do interrupt each other (Turn 28), and that, despite Richard’s protestations, that is sometimes what it ‘feels like’ (Turn 30). Lucia goes further at Turn 32, explicitly identifying Richard as the member who is most fastidious about upholding the rules: she adopts a deeper voice, attempting to mimic Richard chastising another member of the group for interrupting. This face threat to Richard is left unmitigated and there does not seem to be any attempt from Lucia to hide this comment behind humour; her quoting only serves to demonstrate, and negatively evaluate, what she sees as Richard’s normal behaviour in meetings. Richard responds by justifying the rule as it allows every reader to ‘have their own time’ to talk, although he prefaces this with an agreement: ‘nobody should feel naughty’ (Turn 33).
Having discussed the one person speaks rule, Lucia moves on to question the rule concerning book recommendations, asking Richard if he feels that everyone ‘ought’ to recommend a book at some stage (Turn 34). Richard agrees but disputes whether the word ‘ought’ is accurate (Turn 35), which causes Lucia to defend her use of the word, stating that Richard makes the act of recommending ‘too much of a responsibility’ (Turn 36) and that, as a result,
she feels personally culpable if she suggests a book that is disliked by the group. Colin offers some conciliatory remarks that suggest agreement with Lucia’s position (Turns 41 and 45) and Richard echoes these (Turn 44). However, Richard still wants to uphold the rule, arguing that members should only recommend after they have read a book (Turn 46). For the few remaining turns of the extract Colin’s book-recommending faux pas is discussed, with Richard citing this as an example of the value of the rule.
This exchange demonstrates the tensions that arise in the Contemporary Group over the group’s rules. There are questions over whose rules these are (Richard’s or the group’s) and how the rules should be applied, if they are to be used at all. From observing and recording the group it is not surprising that Richard is the main advocate of the rules. The interview data and Extract 3.21 demonstrate how wedded he is to the ‘democratic’ nature of the rules, in particular the rule that one person speaks. However, in practice this particular rule is difficult to uphold and in Extract 3.24 Richard has to accept a slightly modified version that allows for some interruption. Richard’s defence of the rules may not have been surprising, but the sources of the attacks on the rules were. As shown in the interview data (Extract 3.18), by Richard’s reckoning at least, Lucia has the most to gain from the rules as she is more reluctant to speak than others. Although Colin does not present his criticism of the rules as strongly as Lucia, he argues for a more flexible application. As a new member of the group it could be seen as bold for Colin to present dissent to the status quo, and to make suggestions for how things might be done slightly differently in the future. In CofP terms, Colin’s attempt to ‘broker’ change within the group is not so surprising given his position. Wenger argues that typical brokers are on ‘the boundaries’ of a CofP and often attempt to avoid ‘being pulled in to become full members and being rejected as intruders’ (1998: 109). According to
member of a group, has little or no vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo group practices but, conversely, has ‘enough legitimacy to influence the development of a
practice’(1998: 109), unlike a marginal member or non-member. If he wants, Colin may well achieve full membership in the future, but at this point he is in a good position to instigate change within the Contemporary Group.
This negotiation over the status of the rules has some important implications for the joint enterprise of the Contemporary Group. There is no dispute that the over-arching aim of the group is to meet and discuss literary texts in a focused and serious way, but there are
questions over exactly how this aim should be carried out. Some members of the group seem to value ‘free-flowing’ conversation and a non-judgemental environment above all else, while others place the highest value on the ‘democratic’ rules that have been developed over time. On occasion, these values are in competition with one another, and the result is dissent from the rules (Extracts 3.22 and 3.23) and the kind of heated exchange seen in Extract 3.24. However, as Mark alluded to in this extract in his paraphrasing of Ben, this group is welcoming and good-natured, and it is testament to this friendly nature that dissent is permitted from full members (i.e. Lucia) and peripheral members (i.e. Colin) and that feelings do not seem to be hurt, even following quite fierce face threats.
3.5 Conclusion
In this chapter we have considered the ways in which reading groups can organise their discussions of texts. Organisation has not referred to how regularly groups meet or where they gather, but rather the focus has been on structural elements within meetings and how talk is managed. For some groups sets of questions positively encourage a structured focus on the text, although these have to be seen as appropriate to the tone and interests of the group. Some groups structure their meetings in more unique ways, such as dedicating a section of their meetings to hearing the views of other, physically absent readers. Other groups organise their meetings in quite elaborate ways, using ‘rules’ that have developed over time, although these structures can be challenged in quite direct ways. Organisation has also been considered on a smaller-scale too, with reader’s responses to texts occasionally structured in light of the tastes of absent voices – those of other, non-academic readers (section 3.3.1) and the voices of professional critics (section 3.3.2). In their organisation reading groups reproduce ‘certain values and conventions of both professional and lay readers’ (Procter and Benwell 2014: 22), and the groups in the present study occupy a space somewhere between the highly
institutional and the very relaxed, problematising any clear distinction between professional and non-professional reading.
The ways in which a CofP is organised will reflect the members’ concept of their joint
enterprise, their task as group. This joint enterprise is clearly to discuss books, but it is also to engage in social relations and to enjoy a relaxed time with friends and acquaintances. Finding a balance between this sometimes competing demands of joint enterprise can be tricky and, as we have seen, different members may disagree over what the group’s joint enterprise and how this should be carried out. This can lead to a kind of ‘amicable disagreement’ that can
actually be highly valued by a reading group or can lead to more fractious debates, as seen in this chapter.