Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[ClarissaMach]

Could somebody help me out understanding the sentence in bold?:

The first two were the easiest. Without any question my first stop would be the Lonely Planet and the Rough Guide series. I couldn�t, and wouldn�t, choose between them in advance. There is more between titles within the series than there is between the series themselves. If both covered my destinations (as they usually do), I would want them both in my hand luggage.


(By the way, this is the context: the author is trying to draw up a shortlist of the best guide book series).

[CP]

The sentence means that there is a greater difference between any two "Lonely Planet" books (and between any two "Rough Guide" books) about two different destinations than there is between a "Lonely Planet" book and a "Rough Guide" book for a particular destination. That is why the author would not and could not choose one ahead of time; he would want them both.

Hope that helps.
_________________
You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb

[ClarissaMach]

So it's like we're suppose to guess that "There is more [[difference, different things]] between..."?

Thanks very much, by the way!

[CP]

The author left something out, so, yes, the reader has to guess. The author could have (should have) been more explicit, to eliminate the ambiguity.

But now that I look at the paragraph more closely, I am wondering whether I made a mistake in my reading of the sentence. Perhaps the author meant to say that there was more in common among the books in one series than there is between the "Lonely Planet" and "Rough Guide" books for a given destination. That would be just the opposite of what I said earlier.

This interpretation makes more sense, by the way, since the author is saying that he knows his top choices would be "Lonely Planet" and "Rough Guide," but until he had seen the books themselves, he could not know which would be better for that destination. If he could, he would take both, presumably because each would have something missing in the other.

I hope I haven't created confusion myself! Maybe other people will be able to help interpret the author's meaning. Did the rest of the article say anything that would help us out?
_________________
You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb

[ClarissaMach]

Here you are:



I have this problem with guide books. I read too many hurriedly (usually on a plane) and then forget them and my debt to them. When I�m travelling, I soon learn which to reach for first (perhaps the safest indicator of which is best). But a few countries later I have forgotten perhaps not which I chose, but almost certainly why. Good ones are the kick-start for the experience, rather than the experience itself.

So, drawing up a shortlist of the best guide book series seemed a touch high-handed � especially when you add the vagaries of the series to the equation, for even the best produces its share of hopeless volumes.

What turned it into the confident work of minutes rather than days of agonising was a simple and, once I had thought of it, obvious test. All that was necessary was to imagine I was going some-where I knew absolutely nothing about and ask myself what guide books I would look at first. The efficacy of this ploy was such that, when I asked a few other people to do the same, it came as no surprise to find that we were in almost total agreement.

The first two were the easiest. Without any question my first stop would be the Lonely Planet and the Rough Guide series. I couldn�t, and wouldn�t, choose between them in advance. There is more between titles within the series than there is between the series themselves. If both covered my destinations (as they usually do), I would want them both in my hand luggage.

Both are practical and tell you the things you really want to know (such as where to get a good cheap meal, and the bus to your next destination). Both started with the young backpacker in mind, and both are now broadening their target readership to include the more affluent 30- plus reader.

The Rough Guides, perhaps the more even of the two series, tend to be stronger on Europe and the cultural background, and the more obsessed with what is now termed political correctness (yet they rarely have anything to do with politics).

The Lonely Planets are usually stronger east of Suez, and capture the sheer joy of travelling somewhat better. Neither object to the generalisation that the Rough Guides are travels by writers, whereas their Australian rivals are written by travellers.

To complain, as critics occasionally have, that these guides are guilty of attracting too many people to unspoiled spots, is to miss the point. It proves that both series are good guide books.

The Rough Guide empire emerged from unpromising beginnings. The very first one, written 10 years ago, was the book on Greece its young authors wanted, but couldn�t find. It had many defects not worth dwelling on now (the current edition is excellent), but for similar reasons I was slow to appreciate the value of the Cadogan series. Its Greek volume, by its most prolific author, is widely admired. But I have rarely found it worth consulting.




I guess my great doubt here is: the titles are part of the series or the series are part of the titles?

And thanks once more for trying to help me! It seems that the words are never that clear anyway, isn't it?

[CP]

By "series," the author seems o mean the books of a given publisher; hence, the "Lonely Planet" series and the "Rough Guide" series.

By "titles," he means the various volumes within each series. Each one has a volume for Greece, as he says; those would be the Greece titles.

Anyway, he and his friends seem to think both series are excellent.
_________________
You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb