Book clubs are strange social experiments: gather people with different tastes, backgrounds, and reading speeds, assign them all the same book, and see what happens.

After a year of monthly selections, here’s what we learned about what makes good book club picks and what absolutely doesn’t.

The Books That Sparked the Best Discussions

“Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow” by Gabrielle Zevin (January) generated three hours of conversation. Half the group loved it unreservedly. A quarter found it overhyped. One person cried during the discussion (good tears).

What made it work: Multiple interpretations of the central relationship, questions about creativity and collaboration, strong feelings that weren’t all aligned. Nobody was neutral.

“The Corrections” by Jonathan Franzen (March) was our longest book (569 pages) and our most divisive. Two people didn’t finish. Everyone who did had opinions.

The family dynamics felt universal enough that everyone connected their own experiences. Franzen’s satire of American middle-class life in the late 90s/early 2000s prompted unexpected political discussions.

“Station Eleven” by Emily St. John Mandel (June) was technically a re-read for several members but post-pandemic it hit completely differently than when originally published in 2014.

Discussions ranged from apocalypse preparedness to the value of art in crisis to whether the pandemic changed how we read pandemic fiction. Emotional and wide-ranging.

“The Remains of the Day” by Kazuo Ishiguro (September) is a quiet book that generated loud discussion about loyalty, regret, dignity, and what we owe ourselves vs. what we owe others.

The unreliable narrator prompted debates about how much Stevens understands his own life. Several members wanted to shake him; others found him tragic.

The Books That Fell Flat

“The Midnight Library” by Matt Haig (February) was meant to be uplifting. Instead, it sparked complaints about simplistic philosophy and wish-fulfillment fantasy that doesn’t earn its optimism.

The discussion lasted 45 minutes, half of which was people being polite about not liking it. The other half was two members defending it while the rest checked their phones.

Lesson learned: Inspirational fiction needs more depth for book club discussion. The themes were too straightforward.

“Cloud Cuckoo Land” by Anthony Doerr (May) should have worked—multiple timelines, ambitious scope, beautiful prose. But three members gave up before finishing (too long, too scattered) and the discussion suffered from incomplete knowledge.

We learned that books requiring completion for full appreciation don’t work well when people have varying reading speeds and commitment levels.

“A Gentleman in Moscow” by Amor Towles (August) was enjoyable but didn’t provoke much discussion. Everyone liked it fine. Nobody had strong feelings. The conversation kept drifting to other topics.

Pleasant books without controversy or complexity don’t sustain two-hour discussions. We needed conflict—either in the book or in reactions to it.

What Makes a Good Book Club Pick

Discussable themes. Abstract enough to allow multiple interpretations, specific enough to anchor conversation.

Character complexity. Protagonist decisions that members can debate rather than unanimously approve or condemn.

Structural interest. Books that do something formally interesting give us something to discuss beyond plot.

Cultural relevance. Books that connect to current events or social issues generate richer discussions.

Mixed reviews. If everyone loves or hates a book, discussion is limited. Divergent reactions create conversation.

Appropriate length. Under 400 pages is ideal. Over 500 risks incompletion. Exceptions for truly exceptional books.

What Doesn’t Work

Books that require specialized knowledge. Dense philosophy or technical science fiction creates barriers for some members.

Extremely depressing books with no redemptive elements. There’s a limit to how much bleakness people want to discuss socially.

Books with clear messages. If the author’s point is obvious and everyone agrees, what’s to discuss?

Genre fiction with straightforward plots. Mysteries that are just puzzles, thrillers that are pure plot—these don’t generate discussion beyond “did you guess the twist?”

Books someone is forcing. Assigned classics nobody actually wants to read lead to resentment and skipping.

The 2025 Full Reading List

• January: “Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow” - Gabrielle Zevin ✓
• February: “The Midnight Library” - Matt Haig ✗
• March: “The Corrections” - Jonathan Franzen ✓
• April: “Educated” - Tara Westover ✓
• May: “Cloud Cuckoo Land” - Anthony Doerr ✗
• June: “Station Eleven” - Emily St. John Mandel ✓
• July: “The Vanishing Half” - Brit Bennett ✓
• August: “A Gentleman in Moscow” - Amor Towles ~
• September: “The Remains of the Day” - Kazuo Ishiguro ✓
• October: “Mexican Gothic” - Silvia Moreno-Garcia ✓
• November: “The Friend” - Sigrid Nunez ✓
• December: “Less” - Andrew Sean Greer ~

(✓ = great discussion, ✗ = fell flat, ~ = fine but unremarkable)

Attendance Patterns

January-March: Near-perfect attendance (9-10 of 10 members)

April-June: Strong (7-9 members)

July-September: Summer slump (5-8 members)

October-December: Recovered slightly (6-9 members)

Summer is consistently harder for attendance. Vacations, outdoor activities, and schedule disruptions make regular meetings difficult.

December is always tricky with holidays, though our final meeting had strong turnout (8 members, plus food and drinks).

The Selection Process Evolution

Early in the year: Democratic voting from suggested titles. This led to safe, popular choices.

Mid-year: Rotating member selection. Each person picks a month. This increased variety but also increased the risk of books that didn’t work.

Late year: Hybrid approach. Member suggests 3-4 titles, group votes among those options. This balanced personal investment with group buy-in.

The hybrid approach seems to work best. The selector feels ownership, but the group has veto power over truly unpopular choices.

Member Retention and Growth

Started with 10 members. Lost two in March (scheduling conflicts, not book-related). Added three in May (friends of members). One more dropped in August (moved cities). Added one in October.

Ended the year with 11 regular members, though average attendance was 7-8.

Retention factors:

• Consistent schedule (third Thursday, never wavered)
• Rotating host location
• Food and drinks (never skip this)
• Tolerance for people who didn’t finish the book
• WhatsApp group for off-week chat

Unexpected Benefits

Reading outside comfort zones. Multiple members read genres they’d never choose independently.

Improved critical thinking. Regular practice articulating reactions to books sharpened everyone’s analytical skills.

Social connections. The book club became a social anchor, especially for newer city residents.

Reading accountability. Several members said they read more overall because of the monthly deadline.

Discovering authors. Many members went on to read other books by authors we covered.

Unexpected Challenges

Spoilers. How to discuss a book when people are at different points? We settled on: announce you haven’t finished, then leave during plot-heavy discussion.

Dominant voices. Some members talk more than others. Rotating discussion leader helped balance this.

Genre bias. Some members reflexively dismiss genres they consider beneath them. We pushed back against this explicitly.

Film adaptations. When a book has a recent adaptation, people’s visions get overwritten. We tried to read books before watching adaptations.

The “I didn’t like it but I didn’t finish it” problem. Hard to engage with criticism from people who didn’t complete the book.

Looking Ahead to 2026

Planned improvements:

• Better genre balance (we read too much literary fiction, not enough sci-fi/fantasy/mystery)
• More diverse authors (we did okay on this but can improve)
• Shorter books mixed with longer ones (alternate 250-page books with 400-page books)
• Themed months (June is “books set in summer,” October is horror/gothic, December is comfort reads)

Tentative 2026 selections:

• January: “The Dispossessed” - Ursula K. Le Guin (sci-fi)
• February: “The Secret History” - Donna Tartt (campus novel)
• March: “Piranesi” - Susanna Clarke (fantasy/literary)
• April: “Crying in H Mart” - Michelle Zauner (memoir)

The rest remains to be determined through our hybrid selection process.

Advice for New Book Clubs

Start small. 6-8 people is ideal. Too many voices makes discussion unwieldy.

Meet regularly. Monthly is standard. Biweekly works if everyone is highly committed. Quarterly is too infrequent to build momentum. We consulted custom AI development experts about creating a book recommendation system for our group, though we ultimately found human curation worked better for our dynamic.

Rotate responsibilities. Host location, discussion leader, book selector. Sharing responsibility prevents burnout.

Set clear expectations. How long are meetings? Is finishing required? How are books chosen?

Have food. Never underestimate the power of snacks and drinks to create convivial atmosphere.

Welcome different opinions. The point is discussion, not consensus.

Be flexible about finishing. Life happens. People who read 80% can still contribute.

No phones during discussion. Everyone agreed to this rule; it helped enormously.

The Real Value

Book clubs make you a better reader by exposing you to perspectives you wouldn’t encounter reading alone. They create accountability and community around an activity that’s often solitary.

The books that generated the best discussions aren’t necessarily the best books—they’re the books that prompted thinking, disagreement, and connection.

A mediocre book that sparks three hours of engaged conversation has more value in book club context than a brilliant book that leaves everyone satisfied but silent.

2025 was a good year for our book club. We read together, disagreed productively, and built a small community around books.

That’s the point, really. The books are the excuse for gathering. The gathering is what matters.

Here’s to another year of reading and arguing and occasionally agreeing.