Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I'm not sure I really see much point in worrying too much about how many of the nominated books a voter has read.
|
It's a voluntary activity, and will capture data abut the poll that adds to the general interest, and perhaps help to explain voting outcomes, imo. No different in that respect from the bio data that Paul's poll is capturing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I've been curious to see a number of comments on the 1901..1910 thread where people indicate that they are effectively discarding one or more genres (eg: children's books) from their consideration for best. I didn't want to derail that thread, so making my observation here - I hope that's okay.
Disclaimer: As already discussed here, we are each using our own rules for choosing what "best" means for each of us, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone using whatever rules they see fit. I just found it ... odd, interesting, curious
|
My voting choice is limited to 3 books (currently) read for the 1901-1910 period - Grahame, Montgomery, and Richardson. So that means that my choice for 'best' will only considered as a children's or young adult book. (I've posted before that I'd read only two books, I miscounted
)
That doesn't concern me because I chose my book based on what 'best talked to me about my country, my people and their thoughts and attitudes', and can now, in the final vote, choose to retain my original premise, or consider another premise for this (and ensuing) decade/s. (gmw, you'd be aware that as a nation we don't seem to discuss and seriously consider our own authors works as frequently as we do other authors works, so for this vote I changed the balance. And I guess that some may consider that as a xenophobic attitude - nope!)
For those prospective voters who have read a lot of the list, say half and above, well they seem, to me, to be in a position to identify 'best' according to a more stringent criteria. And I don't necessarily envy that!!
