MobileRead July 2010 Mobile Read Book Club Vote

[Ea]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I'm up for it. As strange as American Gods is, I'm sure we can have a lively discussion.

We can always have a lively discussion

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ea

We can always have a lively discussion

Ain't it the truth!

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I even bought American Gods only because I thought it would win!

If you're like me, you'll find it money well spent. And in my humble opinion, based on the few pages from the winning book that I read, American Gods is not in the same league as far as writing style is concerned.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

If you're like me, you'll find it money well spent. And in my humble opinion, based on the few pages from the winning book that I read, American Gods is not in the same league as far as writing style is concerned.

Surely you mean the winning book is not in the same league as "American gods"? (i.e. AG has better writing style - at least I think so )

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ain't it the truth!

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You just answered yourself Was that on purpose?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ea

You just answered yourself Was that on purpose?

Yes it was....for you and Flo!

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Ea

Surely you mean the winning book is not in the same league as "American gods"? (i.e. AG has better writing style - at least I think so )

Well yes, I meant that AG is better (way way way better), but both sentences say the same thing

[Ea]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Well yes, I meant that AG is better (way way way better), but both sentences say the same thing

Perhaps I have an incorrect understanding of the term 'not in the same league', but while they certainly technically (logically) say the same thing, it's my understanding that, for example, 'P is not in the same league as B' implies that P is worse than B - or in a lesser league. So to me, you first said that 'Paksenarrion' was in a higher league than AG.

It's like a double negation, which technically (logically) cancels itself, but it does change the actual meaning of a sentence. Well, it does in Danish - it might be why I apparently got this wrong in English?

BTW, Florence, would you be interested in an AG discussion thread?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Ea

BTW, Florence, would you be interested in an AG discussion thread?

Well, to be honest, I feel a bit uneasy about "discussing" a book, especially if I liked it I feel that reading is basically a private experience, and although I love talking about books and sometimes exchanging impressions, I wouldn't have much to say in a discussion centered on one book, especially a work of fiction. But I could try

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Ea

If there's enough people interested in reading and discussing "American Gods", I wouldn't mind starting a discussion thread in, say, 2 or 3 weeks?

Sorry, I'm not even interested in reading it. I only bought it because I thought it would win. It will probably languish in my To Be Read folder for the next five years. It may be a great book, but I need a huge push to read fantasy. The only reason I'm over a third of the way through The Sheepfarmer's Daughter is because of the Club.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ea

It's like a double negation, which technically (logically) cancels itself, but it does change the actual meaning of a sentence. Well, it does in Danish - it might be why I apparently got this wrong in English?

Too many people assuming that the rules of Boolean logic apply to English. They don't. In English double negatives are often used for emphasis.

However, the use of double negatives in English is now generally considered improper, and is occasionally ambiguous.

So don't use no double negatives.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

T..

So don't use no double negatives.

That should be, "So don't never use no double negatives."

[TimMason]

It may be a great book, but I need a huge push to read fantasy.

Both Gaiman and his friend, Terry Pratchett, use the fantasy genre in ways that raise the game considerably. And they are a lot funnier than the usual fantasy writers are. Their collaboration on 'Good Omens' is a wonderful book. Pratchett's writings should appeal to the philosopher in you: "Small Gods" is perhaps one of the best pieces of (anti)theological writing of the last fifty years. If Dennet, Dawkins and co had his lightness of touch, they'd make a lot more headway.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Well, to be honest, I feel a bit uneasy about "discussing" a book, especially if I liked it I feel that reading is basically a private experience, and although I love talking about books and sometimes exchanging impressions, I wouldn't have much to say in a discussion centered on one book, especially a work of fiction. But I could try

That's perfectly fine - and thanks for explaining why I only wanted to find out if there were any basis for starting a discussion thread about it. So far it's only one more than me.