Deficiencies in online book discussions

I love to read, having (according to my mother) taught myself how to read when I was around 5 years now.  I like to discuss things, either with friends I've grown up with, or with people I had classes with, co-workers, students, or most anyone that I've met and known for more than a few minutes.  Discussion is great.  New ideas, discovering how you arrived at a process through interactions with others, learning how to express yourself.  All great and wonderful things.

I especially remember how wonderful it was being in my undergraduate and graduate history (as well as my undergrad lit courses), reading a text, having a question or two posed, and bam!  off we were, like hungry pit bulls lusting to close our jaws around the throats of those pernicious questions.  But yet despite our eagerness to argue and to posture and to hold out in the face of counterarguments, what made the discussions so valuable was that there was a sense of respect for Authority.  Not an unconditional respect; oh, we would debate our professors on various stances or schools of thought, but rather that any information provided by the instructors (or from fellow grad students who had done some prior research in such an area) was not immediately discarded nor were they looked upon as being detriments to our discussions.  If anything, a learned perspective was valued as being something that we could test and see if our own takes were better, or if they proved the worthiness of those experience-tested opinions and evidence. 

It is much easier to respect received Authority when people are discussing face-to-face, or at least have quite a bit of knowledge of each other.  It is a very different matter to discuss things, especially if they are things read in books, with a group of strangers.  Humans are very hierarchical in nature; a lack of leadership can be a very bad thing in group settings.  Even in discussions of ideas or stories found in books, generally most discussions break down quickly if there is not a perceived "leader," someone who is more experienced in discussing the material at hand and whose perspective may be based on prior experiences with the material. 

It has been my experience over the past 10 years (nearly 8 of which served as being a moderator and occasional "book club" leader at wotmania) that online book discussions in general fail beyond a certain surface level.  It is a reluctant admission, one that I still continue to resist today, but it is one that unfortunately is grounded in a wealth of hard-earned experience.  When I used to lead discussions, I first tried the old "pose some categorical questions about favorite characters, plot points, etc." in order to give just a bit of guidance, but nothing that would impinge upon the readers' initial experiences with the work.  Almost inevitably, the discussions would rarely go beyond, "well, I like this point, but didn't like that other one," with very little to nothing in the way of the group as a whole expanding upon this; typically, the points were left unaddressed, or only 1 and maybe 2 others would address another.

At times, it felt as though there were a dozen or more detached statements about a surface quality, but no real discussion of the story.  People said their peace and that was it.  Next.

Of course, this is if the so-called online discussion was "good."  Sometimes, things would go bad.  If some were to discuss how a particular book was non-enjoyable and gave detailed reasons as to why,  then there might be more of a focus on issues of persons involved rather than the text itself.  Or perhaps someone were to discuss something from his/her experience, and it was too refined, too much like an academic discussion, or just plain outside what another person or sub-group wanted.  You then might get accusations of being "elitist" or having "pretensions" of being "a teacher lecturing to students."  In other words, those who have prior experience/perspective would not have those experiences or perspectives valued, but instead, regardless of actual intent on the part of the participant, might find their takes and manner of presentation disparaged because there is a real or perceived difference in knowledge and understanding.

That last bit I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of times over the years.  Sometimes, I receive such accusations.  Instead of getting frustrated by it anymore, I just tend to shake my head ruefully, bow out, and watch the near-inevitable implosion of discussion threads into individualized declarations of what they liked, disliked, all without much in the way of questioning one's own and others' takes on the matter.  After all, doing such would be "pretentious" and being a bit "arrogant," I suppose, whatever the hell that might mean.

A few, rare occasions, some limited success can be achieved.  Generally, this seems to occur when there is a perceived "leader" who is both knowledgeable and open-minded.  With a few people participating who are willing to question their own assumptions, sometimes you can get a bit of real dialogue established, which I believe is the cornerstone of actual discussion.  Unfortunately, this is rare in discussions of more than 2-3 people and it rarely lasts long.

Sometimes, essays can generate discussion in the form of comments or other essays.  This is a time-honored tradition that dates back centuries and to a degree, something more lasting is achieved when this occurs.  However, the inevitable time lags can lead to delays and the loss of immediacy, while the changes in reader habits, especially when it comes to online scribblings, often leads to comments or unspoken thoughts of "too long, didn't read."  Discussion dies here as well.

So is there much hope for online book discussions?  Outside of general Q&As sometimes posted in reviews or maybe a discussion between a handful of people who've read the same book and who are willing to admit that there may be those who have better perspectives than their own, not really.  The online discussion formats are just too deficient for such a person-necessary thing such as actual discussion to occur.  At best, a simulacrum might be created, but more often, a very faint shadow of the participants' stated goals ever occur.