How about changing the policy? Rather than having one person choose a book for the whole group to read, you could have people vote on it. One thing which may work is to e-mail everyone, tell them that as of January, you are changing things up a little, and including a list of five books or so, one of which will be your January book. People who are rarely there will still have a say, but it’s less of an absolute decision.

I’d make sure to add that votes which are not sent in within a certain period of time are not counted.

You have already established the idea that these 16 original participants each get to choose a book. I wouldn’t change that. State simply and firmly that was the original idea, and it will be followed through.

However, you can begin now talking about what you’re going to do after the original 16 have each chosen a book. You could open it up to the group as a whole how they want to proceed. Get ideas from the group. Let the group decide.

What we do in my book group is that the person who is hosting this month’s meeting gets to choose the title for the next month. That would be a possible solution going forward but I wouldn’t deviate from what you’ve set up through May.

@janbb I do think that is a good idea but we meet in the pub which is great as the landlady is part of the group but we can’t do that

@jake I agree that we are sticking with what we’ve got till May and did say that last month as well as the ‘we are inclusive’ bit I mentioned. My worry is that by bringing it up, people will wonder why and what this person has been saying will get around, and more people will react as the January person did ( I don’t want to have to persuade everyone every month to make their choice) but I will try to think of a way to bring it up without causing more trouble. Email, as you say, may be a good method.

I like @longone’s idea of a choice and vote

Any more ideas how to handle the troublesome one?

Ask the troublesome one what they would suggest, and ask them to work out a viable proposal for doing it. Then maybe put that idea to a vote. Either they will come up with a workable plan, or won’t be so quick to criticize.
You don’t need to be confrontational, ask honestly for input.

@Stinley Well, there is always, “I run the group and this is the way I want it run.” Or you could be more diplomatic and say, “We’ll explore other ways to do it in the future but this is working for now.” I think the idea of having a vote on each suggestion would be quite cumbersome. If you do switch to a shorter term for the choice rotation, maybe the people who choose have to be at the meeting.

Following @canidmajor‘s suggestion, you could lead a discussion of the choice issue and see if others are dissatisfied. If it is more than just her, maybe they could come up with other suggestions for methodology. If it is just her, that should shut her up.

I think @canidmajor has an idea that is good to explore. I wouldn’t suggest simply asking the troublemaker for input. Phrase it so that it’s obvious the whole group will know she wants to change the way things are done. That should make her think long and hard about whether or not she wants to make public her complaints.

Possibly a way to gently nudge-
“To exclude anyone might cause us to miss a suggestion/choice that might be the best book of the year! No one would want to cause that to happen, would we?”
Good luck!

And really, unless the choice is really awful, I can’t think how it would matter before May. Isn’t part of the point to discover new stuff? I’m not sure why your Troublesome One would object.

Here’s a format that worked very well:

My friend ran and hosted a book group for several years. Having a consistent location was a definite plus. Some of us hate driving around alone in the dark looking for a strange address.

One person would present the book, giving an overview, perhaps some background on the author or setting, and a few starter questions: five to ten minutes, tops. Then the discussion would proceed, prompted as needed by the presenter with the list of questions.

At the end of two hours, there’d be about half an hour of general socializing, and then we ended.

My friend would gather all book suggestions at the end of the year for the next year’s worth of meetings and then present them by e-mail. People would speak for their choices. The person who proposed a given book was expected to be the presenter. Not everyone could host, but anyone could present.

I’m sure my friend quietly arbitrated among choices and maybe favored some over others, but she just delivered a list of selections—no voting, no vehement crusading, no bitter arguments back and forth. If there was a book you couldn’t stand, you could just skip that meeting.

If someone who’d picked a book actually dropped out, we went ahead and read the book anyway, and someone would volunteer to present.

This combination of structure and flexibility worked very well and avoided competition and contentiousness.

…

You don’t owe someone else the right to define your notion of fairness. And you have not committed the group to following some rigid policy of majority rule. Not every situation lends itself to a strict democratic process, and in fact in a small group a voting structure makes it very easy for a few to dominate and consistently shut others out. A situation of this sort needs a leader and not a ballot box. In my opinion.

You’ve already set the structure, and one noisy whiner doesn’t oblige you to change it. I’d say that if she’s so unhappy with the format and the way you conduct the meetings, perhaps she’d be more comfortable in another discussion group.

How about having a minimum attendance requirement for being allowed to choose a book? I would keep the requirement fairly low, maybe 4 of the 16 book meetings.

I’m also wondering @canidmajor what her problem is. I am coming to the conclusion that she just likes making trouble. She has said a couple of other things – one time her husband wanted to come along because of the book we were reading and she said it would be good as he would ‘shake things up’. Why we needed shaking up or that he was the person to do it, I’m not quite sure.

I had been thinking along the lines of @Jeruba‘s suggestion to say if she’s not happy with the way things are run then she can join/make another group but I kind of feel it is contradicting my point that we are an inclusive group…

I’m not unhappy with the way that the choices are made and actually now feel like digging my heels in because of her. Would that be sensible or childish? She got me so riled up I just don’t know!

The woman may be a trouble maker by nature, but she makes a valid point. If other people read and discuss the book that you choose, you have an obligation to read and discuss other people’s choices. That is why I suggested a modest attendance requirement for the privilege of selecting a book.

Here is another way of looking at it. Your group has 16 members, which is a good choice. Based on my experience in discussion groups, anything over 16 gets to be unwieldy. But that means that people who attend infrequently are depriving someone else from joining who may be a more frequent contributor. Having a minimum attendance requirement for the privilege of selecting a book acts as an incentive to attend more meetings.

I think you should be congratulated on managing to assemble a group of 16 without more fractious disruptions than the one you’ve listed. We had a book club that met monthly. It consisted of folks from the neighborhood and moved from house to house depending on those willing and able to host.Things went well until word got out that a certain celebrity was part of the group. The ensuing madness is a tale suitable for a very funny book or screenplay all by itself. I too agree that @candidmajor strikes the ideal chord by tossing the ball into the whiner’s court. It brings the weight of the group to bear on her peeves.

In the book group I’m in, it’s pretty flexible and casual about what we’ll read next. We talked about it in the summer, and then proceeded from there. There’s no dissension, there’s nobody saying anybody should be excluded from the decision making process. We know ahead of time what book is on the table for the following month, because the leader emails it to everyone. If the person that suggested that book doesn’t attend, then so be it. No biggie.

It would be pretty hard to make a “modest attendance requirement,” @LostInParadise, because if people are going to be obligated to attend, it will cease to be fun and if people are not enjoying themselves, they’re going to drop out. If there were an attendance requirement, how awkward to confront the person who was not meeting the criteria. I say that is not do-able and let that idea go.

I think attendance requirements counterproductive, as are most of the realities reminding us of school or jobs. There are going to be books in which I certainly have not one bit of interest, and this is true for all of us. Besides we all lead busy busy lives. Ideally (to my thinking) the group, like poker night should be large enough to guarantee a quorum even with 2 or 3 missing members.

@Stinley we are an inclusive group

You have to look at both parts of that. You are looking at the “inclusive” part. Also consider the meaning of “group.” Quarreling and divisiveness do not support a group. They break it down. You are going to start losing people, if you haven’t already.

I’ve never known if this saying were true or where it came from, but I know there’s some truth in it: “Every group tends to be dominated by its most neurotic member.” This woman needs something that you cannot supply.

@LostInParadise – I don’t want to impose rules on people’s attendance because I think that might put people off. I had thought to email the members and ask them to respond if they don’t want to choose a book.
@stanleybmanly thanks – it has been a great group so far
@Jeruba – thanks, that’s a really helpful point.

@all Thanks for all your replies. They’ve all been really helpful and given me a bit of perspective that I needed. I will keep you updated!