It may not have been a great idea to have an open-ended plan like that. If this were revived, I'd make it a fixed reading, a particular book, or a predetermined selection.
I'm not sure how this open-ended plan was meant to work nor why it didn't work but some of the more structured ones sizzled away to almost nothing as well.
If an Iliad Î² is planned, will it be run like Pharr-a, ie; people entering submissions and guides commenting on them, or will it be the participants commenting on each other's submissions.
What I'm getting at is this; If it is going to be like Pharr-a, I wondered if it would work to have people join whenever they feel like it as long as there are no more than a pre-determined # participating at once.
It has a marked disadvantage, namely; Because there is no group of people at the same point in the book, the "group" discussions won't be as meaningful.
It does have advantages as well;
- People wanting to participate won't have to wait untill a group (that may have dwindled to one or two) has reached the finish line so that another group can start.
- Guides won't have to work their butt of to comment on the work of all 12 or so participants for the first few weeks and then only have 2 people left to finish the group.
The workload would be fairly constant if someone could join as soon as someone else finished or dropped off.
The Mounce-a group had a lot of interest at first but only a few made it as far as the 3rd week. But there have been others wondering if they could join.
Do the pros out-weigh the cons?