The Iliad is, what, 2700 years old? I think spoilers are fair game at this point. :)

FWIW, here's my mental definition of the 5 star levels when rating a book such as on Goodreads:

1 star = Bad. Didn't finish, or finished but really hated it.

2 stars = Not good. Maybe didn't finish. Had a lot of issues.

3 stars = Fine. May be entertaining but poorly written, or well written but didn't work for me. Had some issues.

4 stars = Good. I really liked it. Not perfect but strengths greatly outweighed the flaws.

5 stars = Excellent. I would read this again. This book has earned a place as a physical copy on my bookshelves. Few or no flaws.

More than 5 and you start to get hung up on distinctions that aren't very meaningful. Sort of like in science class when they teach you about significant figures.

What I think would be cool would be a 2-dimensional scale. Something like separate ratings for "How much did you enjoy this book?" and "How good is this book as a work of literature?" Because there are plenty of books I've read that are high in one or the other of these but not both, and that's where I struggle with a simple 5 star scale.

My wife and I still laugh about his "bri-een" pronunciation years later. We finished the audiobook but phew, that was pretty bad

I have a bunch of leather bound, gold embossed classic sci-fi books that take up about 2 full shelves. Also lord of the rings books in the same style.

Book clubs are interesting because you want to pick something substantial enough to have something to discuss, but you want people to actually read the book, and in most cases you don't want something totally depressing. It partly depends on the "feel" of the club which can be hard to assess if you're new.

I would say pick one book that is more Holocaust focused and two others that would be acceptable to you but which are not about the Holocaust. Give the club some flexibility in what they vote for.

Hi, planetary scientist here. I got my PhD at Cornell and worked down the hall from Sagan's former office. You're partly right: he was a good scientist. Some of his work is still cited today but was not as revolutionary as an Einstein or Darwin or something. But hardly anyone is, and he did do some important work. I've cited his stuff.

But he was the greatest science communicator ever. He synthesized ideas from philosophers and scientists from the ancient to the recent past with modern scientific ideas and was not afraid to embrace the awe and wonder of science. He communicated not just facts but emotion. His impact in terms of inspiring generations of scientists, not to mention science literacy more broadly, is incalculable. Many of my peers are scientists because of him. It's a different kind of greatness than coming up with general relativity, but still great.