Christoff Yurievich
Member
Started this on the bus ride this morning. I had to stop and just think for a couple minutes at this part:
(Italics are in the paragraph, bolding is mine) And I'm aware it's a reduction of sorts.
What are you reading? (August 2015)
- Thread starter Maklershed
- Start date
- Status
Started this on the bus ride this morning. I had to stop and just think for a couple minutes at this part:
L.B. Jeffries
Member
Been doing a lot of H.P. Lovecraft so I picked this up as a suggested similar type of horror. First four stories were awesomely dark and weird, then the rest of it is this weird Parisian soap opera crap. Plus this weird Brigadoon spin-off.
Carcosa is weird.
You know Carcosa? You rejoice. Death, is not, the e~nd.
Reading about Sensei's courtship with Ojosan contextualizes... a lot of my Japanese animays actually.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Been doing a lot of H.P. Lovecraft so I picked this up as a suggested similar type of horror. First four stories were awesomely dark and weird, then the rest of it is this weird Parisian soap opera crap. Plus this weird Brigadoon spin-off.
Carcosa is weird.
Felt the same about it. Got it as a gift in a better edition so planning on re-reading it (after I'm done with the 50/50-challenge). The first half was fun and spooky. Then it just putters out.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Been doing a lot of H.P. Lovecraft so I picked this up as a suggested similar type of horror. First four stories were awesomely dark and weird, then the rest of it is this weird Parisian soap opera crap. Plus this weird Brigadoon spin-off.
Carcosa is weird.
I read this a few weeks ago. The second half didn't really hold my attention.
Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy
This was a tough read and took almost a month for me to get through. McCarthy's vision of the wild west is not one which I was particularly familiar with before this. There is no glory or sense of adventure in the frontier here, just a child who wanders into the world of grown men in a desolate landscape of brutality and callousness. The violence didn't bother me so much as how it was portrayed and the intent of it in the narrative. At times it can be hard to want to read much of it in succession given the taste each chapter leaves behind.
There are many compelling elements of the book though, which makes it satisfying to finish, just to see the full extent of the tale and the implication it has on the themes established in the narrative. The relationship between the Judge and the Kid is as powerful as the relationship between the Judge and the reader. One is the devil and the other is a person looking for something to make of himself, and later on looking perhaps to seek some form of redemption or meaning for all which has happened. The fact that the Judge is depicted as an eternal elemental force who knows all and is charismatic enough to always have a solution or answer to anything - even if it is the wrong one - makes any scene he is in seductive but sinister. How this relationship concludes and closes the novel pretty much says all there is to say about McCarthy's views on this period of American history - it is a damnation of a time where life was cheap, men were violent, and that sometimes there is no real cause or consequence for such things, and there is no redemption or justice.
The prose is beautiful and there's something majestic about the way he sets the scenery. The way horrific events are told in a matter of fact way reflects the attitude of those committing such acts, but are written almost like poetry. That just adds to the haunting and unsettling nature of the book. I also found it pretty disturbing to learn that the majority of the events in the novel were not exaggerated for any sort of dramatic effect. Reading up about Glanton's gang and knowing that they were real people who really did such things can really change one's perspective of the wild west, especially the romanticized version.
Not something I would recommend for everyone, but yeah, it sure was something. Now the long wait begins for James Franco's epic film adaptation starring Eric Roberts as the Judge. *cough*
---
Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro
This worked as a good palate cleanser for Blood Meridian. The narrative was more personal, less passive, and filled with emotional mood. Not to say that it was a happy story by any means, but it was far easier to relate to and that made it far easier to follow the characters at a brisk pace.
Ishiguro has a natural talent for painting the atmosphere with emotions and letting that set the tone for everything. Kathy's reflection on her life is not just a story she is telling, but an expression of her sense of self, and ultimately her coming to terms with what it means to live. While the setting and her personal situation is something we can never truly relate to, her coming of age journey, her relationships with friends and superiors, and how she sees the world after growing up are all things which have parallels in our world.
One thing which did bother me was the exposition in the final act of the story. I'll use spoilers because there's no easy way to express my specific disappointment without talking about what it is.
All that ranting might make it seem like the end of the novel really turned me off, but that's far from the truth. I enjoyed it all the way to the end, and that was just something which lingers in my mind because of how taken I was by the majority of the story, and I really like how it eventually ended, as a quiet internal protest against an unfair fate. I loved all the little inconsequential things throughout the relationships of the characters, characterizing who they really were, and how much each of them was willing to tolerate of the others. It's an extremely honest telling of friendships and growing up.
This was a tough read and took almost a month for me to get through. McCarthy's vision of the wild west is not one which I was particularly familiar with before this. There is no glory or sense of adventure in the frontier here, just a child who wanders into the world of grown men in a desolate landscape of brutality and callousness. The violence didn't bother me so much as how it was portrayed and the intent of it in the narrative. At times it can be hard to want to read much of it in succession given the taste each chapter leaves behind.
There are many compelling elements of the book though, which makes it satisfying to finish, just to see the full extent of the tale and the implication it has on the themes established in the narrative. The relationship between the Judge and the Kid is as powerful as the relationship between the Judge and the reader. One is the devil and the other is a person looking for something to make of himself, and later on looking perhaps to seek some form of redemption or meaning for all which has happened. The fact that the Judge is depicted as an eternal elemental force who knows all and is charismatic enough to always have a solution or answer to anything - even if it is the wrong one - makes any scene he is in seductive but sinister. How this relationship concludes and closes the novel pretty much says all there is to say about McCarthy's views on this period of American history - it is a damnation of a time where life was cheap, men were violent, and that sometimes there is no real cause or consequence for such things, and there is no redemption or justice.
The prose is beautiful and there's something majestic about the way he sets the scenery. The way horrific events are told in a matter of fact way reflects the attitude of those committing such acts, but are written almost like poetry. That just adds to the haunting and unsettling nature of the book. I also found it pretty disturbing to learn that the majority of the events in the novel were not exaggerated for any sort of dramatic effect. Reading up about Glanton's gang and knowing that they were real people who really did such things can really change one's perspective of the wild west, especially the romanticized version.
Not something I would recommend for everyone, but yeah, it sure was something. Now the long wait begins for James Franco's epic film adaptation starring Eric Roberts as the Judge. *cough*
---
Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro
This worked as a good palate cleanser for Blood Meridian. The narrative was more personal, less passive, and filled with emotional mood. Not to say that it was a happy story by any means, but it was far easier to relate to and that made it far easier to follow the characters at a brisk pace.
Ishiguro has a natural talent for painting the atmosphere with emotions and letting that set the tone for everything. Kathy's reflection on her life is not just a story she is telling, but an expression of her sense of self, and ultimately her coming to terms with what it means to live. While the setting and her personal situation is something we can never truly relate to, her coming of age journey, her relationships with friends and superiors, and how she sees the world after growing up are all things which have parallels in our world.
One thing which did bother me was the exposition in the final act of the story. I'll use spoilers because there's no easy way to express my specific disappointment without talking about what it is.
When Kathy and Tommy finally meet Miss Emily again and she explains to them the truth behind Hailsham and the Gallery, it wasn't just the lazy exposition device which bothered me, but also the contents of the exposition. Before this, we had very little idea as to how much the larger public knew about the nature of the clones, or the historical timeline of this alternate reality. That layer of mystery made it extremely easy to buy into the setting because it was told entirely from the perspective of a clone who has been indoctrinated in this lifestyle from birth. By peeling back the layers and turning Hailsham as a sort of public social experiment, I found it especially hard to believe that any modern society would allow it to continue knowing what clones were really like. Ishiguro clearly intended for this to be a look at how a society could become in these conditions, and he justified it by dangling medical advances like the cure for cancer and so on, but it feels weak.
On an emotional level, the story clearly succeeds, but in terms of speculative fiction, I think it is clear Ishiguro was never particularly concerned about going too deeply into the details of such a setting like a dedicated scifi author would. That's fine though, but I think it would have been more powerful if he then held back a little instead of showing his hand. It would have been enough for them to learn that the Gallery was meant for those running Hailsham to see if clones had "souls" (ie - the ability to be creative and have independent dreams), and perhaps that it closed eventually simply because those running it could no longer tolerate the emotional burden, knowing what would happen to these children. I feel that would have been more satisfying than all the info dump on why public opinion "changed" and all that.
Another thing which bothered me after the info dump was that it seemed very implausible to me that knowing how none of the students were restrained in their interaction with the larger world, that none of them, especially Ruth and Kathy, would have kept abreast of current affairs by reading newspapers or such. If they had done so, surely they would want to know what people at large thought of clones and they would have followed more detailed reports on why schools like Hailsham were closing. Yet they all seemed to continue relying on hearsay from center to center.
On an emotional level, the story clearly succeeds, but in terms of speculative fiction, I think it is clear Ishiguro was never particularly concerned about going too deeply into the details of such a setting like a dedicated scifi author would. That's fine though, but I think it would have been more powerful if he then held back a little instead of showing his hand. It would have been enough for them to learn that the Gallery was meant for those running Hailsham to see if clones had "souls" (ie - the ability to be creative and have independent dreams), and perhaps that it closed eventually simply because those running it could no longer tolerate the emotional burden, knowing what would happen to these children. I feel that would have been more satisfying than all the info dump on why public opinion "changed" and all that.
Another thing which bothered me after the info dump was that it seemed very implausible to me that knowing how none of the students were restrained in their interaction with the larger world, that none of them, especially Ruth and Kathy, would have kept abreast of current affairs by reading newspapers or such. If they had done so, surely they would want to know what people at large thought of clones and they would have followed more detailed reports on why schools like Hailsham were closing. Yet they all seemed to continue relying on hearsay from center to center.
All that ranting might make it seem like the end of the novel really turned me off, but that's far from the truth. I enjoyed it all the way to the end, and that was just something which lingers in my mind because of how taken I was by the majority of the story, and I really like how it eventually ended, as a quiet internal protest against an unfair fate. I loved all the little inconsequential things throughout the relationships of the characters, characterizing who they really were, and how much each of them was willing to tolerate of the others. It's an extremely honest telling of friendships and growing up.
koopathecat
Member
Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy
This was a tough read and took almost a month for me to get through. McCarthy's vision of the wild west is not one which I was particularly familiar with before this. There is no glory or sense of adventure in the frontier here, just a child who wanders into the world of grown men in a desolate landscape of brutality and callousness. The violence didn't bother me so much as how it was portrayed and the intent of it in the narrative. At times it can be hard to want to read much of it in succession given the taste each chapter leaves behind.
There are many compelling elements of the book though, which makes it satisfying to finish, just to see the full extent of the tale and the implication it has on the themes established in the narrative. The relationship between the Judge and the Kid is as powerful as the relationship between the Judge and the reader. One is the devil and the other is a person looking for something to make of himself, and later on looking perhaps to seek some form of redemption or meaning for all which has happened. The fact that the Judge is depicted as an eternal elemental force who knows all and is charismatic enough to always have a solution or answer to anything - even if it is the wrong one - makes any scene he is in seductive but sinister. How this relationship concludes and closes the novel pretty much says all there is to say about McCarthy's views on this period of American history - it is a damnation of a time where life was cheap, men were violent, and that sometimes there is no real cause or consequence for such things, and there is no redemption or justice.
The prose is beautiful and there's something majestic about the way he sets the scenery. The way horrific events are told in a matter of fact way reflects the attitude of those committing such acts, but are written almost like poetry. That just adds to the haunting and unsettling nature of the book. I also found it pretty disturbing to learn that the majority of the events in the novel were not exaggerated for any sort of dramatic effect. Reading up about Glanton's gang and knowing that they were real people who really did such things can really change one's perspective of the wild west, especially the romanticized version.
Not something I would recommend for everyone, but yeah, it sure was something. Now the long wait begins for James Franco's epic film adaptation starring Eric Roberts as the Judge. *cough*
.
Just finished this myself. What an excellent write up of the novel. Bravo sir!
Atraveller
Banned
I'm close to finishing No god but God, it's insightful and interesting, I really learned a lot (also shows how awful my high school history class was).
I tried to follow TolkienGAF's re-read, then I got sidetracked by other books, it's just too slow for me.
Jugendstil
Member
I just finished A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara. I picked it up because of recommendations in a thread on NeoGAF and it did not disappoint, but it is really relentless in its bleakness. I have a pretty high tolerance for such stuff (I love to wallow) but by the end of the novel I felt absolutely gutted. It's odd because I was completely enthralled while I was reading it and I want to discuss it with other people, but its also a book I wouldn't recommend to just anyone because of how harrowing it is. Highly recommended but with about 100 trigger warnings for stuff like rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence.
I started Pale Fire yesterday. I read the Foreword and the first canto of the poem. I had decided to read the book straight through if I could, and if anything, Kinbote saying the reader should skip to the commentary made me more decided; he's been depicted so far as a rather deluded and sad fellow, so I wasn't going to do what he wanted! But he's very entertaining.
Nabokov's prose is often described as sensuous, but it's not one I would readily use myself to describe writing. But the word I would use isn't actually that different: luxurious. The poem (first canto anyway) just seems to luxuriate in the possibilities of language. I'm not much of a poetry reader, but I really like it so far (the rhyming is great!). I don't even know if it's supposed to be a good poem, or if Nabokov is writing it in a certain way...
I haven't had a chance to read any more yet, but I'm thoroughly enjoying it so far, and I think I might end up liking it more than Lolita.
It is amazing. It is relentless, but it has lots of happy bits!*
*to encourage potential new readers.
Nabokov's prose is often described as sensuous, but it's not one I would readily use myself to describe writing. But the word I would use isn't actually that different: luxurious. The poem (first canto anyway) just seems to luxuriate in the possibilities of language. I'm not much of a poetry reader, but I really like it so far (the rhyming is great!). I don't even know if it's supposed to be a good poem, or if Nabokov is writing it in a certain way...
I haven't had a chance to read any more yet, but I'm thoroughly enjoying it so far, and I think I might end up liking it more than Lolita.
I just finished A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara. I picked it up because of recommendations in a thread on NeoGAF and it did not disappoint, but it is really relentless in its bleakness. I have a pretty high tolerance for such stuff (I love to wallow) but by the end of the novel I felt absolutely gutted. It's odd because I was completely enthralled while I was reading it and I want to discuss it with other people, but its also a book I wouldn't recommend to just anyone because of how harrowing it is. Highly recommended but with about 100 trigger warnings for stuff like rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence.
It is amazing. It is relentless, but it has lots of happy bits!*
*to encourage potential new readers.
Jugendstil
Member
It does, but they just make the unhappy bits even more brutal! It is a brilliant novel though, and some of the best writing I've ever encountered about surviving trauma.
I started Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro. It's not a conspiracy book about how this or that eminent Elizabethan or Jacobean figure actually wrote the plays and sonnets, but rather a history of how those conspiracy theories got started. It's actually really interesting because I'm listening to an Open Yale lecture series on the New Testament - and it was the historical-critical method that had developed in that discipline that was first used to shed light on the question of Homer's authorship of the poems attributed to him, and those same methods were later used to question Shakespeare's credit. It seems like it might be rather academic, until you start reading about how Helen Keller gets convinced and Mark Twain is making comments about how Elizabeth (yes, the Queen) was actually a man (the real Elizabeth died as a child due to a fever; she was replaced by an imposter who was actually a boy!). Or how people were convinced that Francis Bacon through the use of elaborate acrostics and hidden messages and ciphers had hidden a whole secret history in the plays, where he was Elizabeth's super secret son (and the Earl of Essex was his younger brother!). And obviously John Milton was also in on it.
It's fascinating, especially how people are so frustrated by the lack of biographical information about Shakespeare (and what information does exist is exceedingly mundane - he seems so ordinary, if perhaps rather litigious). What little was found about him just didn't fit what they were expecting to find, and they went casting about for more suitable alternatives. It's also interesting to see people reading anachronistically, and especially to see how ideological presumptions (like the idea that all literary art is by necessity autobiographical) result in the most tortured imaginings. Anyway, as of our day, the conspiracies have turned from Francis Bacon, but at the turn of the twentieth-century in the book, it's full Bacon Fever (there's a fantastical code whereby he hid the location of the manuscripts!). I'm curious to see how he is supplanted, and if any other royals are secretly women or men.
It's fascinating, especially how people are so frustrated by the lack of biographical information about Shakespeare (and what information does exist is exceedingly mundane - he seems so ordinary, if perhaps rather litigious). What little was found about him just didn't fit what they were expecting to find, and they went casting about for more suitable alternatives. It's also interesting to see people reading anachronistically, and especially to see how ideological presumptions (like the idea that all literary art is by necessity autobiographical) result in the most tortured imaginings. Anyway, as of our day, the conspiracies have turned from Francis Bacon, but at the turn of the twentieth-century in the book, it's full Bacon Fever (there's a fantastical code whereby he hid the location of the manuscripts!). I'm curious to see how he is supplanted, and if any other royals are secretly women or men.
Yeah, I didn't really "get" The Fall of Hyperion. I think that's the name of the second book, anyway. Definitely enjoyed the first one quite a bit, though.
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
My girlfriend is Catholic. I am atheist.
We decided to read books opposing one another's views on life in order to better understand each other. So I need some recommendations on the best book(s) about atheism and the best book(s) about faith or Christianity or what have you.
We decided to read books opposing one another's views on life in order to better understand each other. So I need some recommendations on the best book(s) about atheism and the best book(s) about faith or Christianity or what have you.
Are you looking for non-fiction or fiction?
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
Something like Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark." Hopefully inoffensive and enlightening.
Mere Christianity is a good bet for the Christian side.
It's not really athiest, but it would be interesting for your girlfriend to read Zealot. It talks about the historical Jesus and what evidence says about who he might have been and what he might have been all about.
I can't really think of Jesus in any other way at all after reading it. Great book. Everyone should read it.
Syph Medwes
Member
Give her Ehrman's God's Problem
Actually, you could both read that perhaps
In other news, finally reading the sequel to my favourite work of fiction by diving into Harper Lee's Go Set a Watchman.
I just finished listening to this, and it was pretty good. Some parts where very interesting while other parts just seemed like rather dull political/military history that really did not have much overall consequence. Though that just might be me getting a bit sick of listening to great courses history courses.
Anyway, what I found rather interesting was his explanation for why the Western Roman Empire fell. He argues that the Roman Empire suffered from a few inherent institutional weaknesses, most notably the succession and its defense. I am sure everyone knows about the succession problems, so his argument for defense is that since the army was just so costly to train and maintain that Rome relied on that superiority to be able to beat any other army on the open field, and if things truly went to shit, then you could move an army from the quieter areas to that danger areas.
The problem arises when the Empire is threatened on multiple fronts and succession crises. Well, there were a crap ton of succession crisis in the 3rd century. On the front issue, the German tribes became better organized and, most importantly, the Sassasanid Empire's rise in the East. This was a powerful foe that required the Roman Empire to move troops from the West to the East to be able to defend against this new threat. Problem is, the Germans then started raiding and settling in the West because there was now not sufficient force to beat them back. This was further compounded by Rome's numerous civil wars during the period that absolutely bled them dry. Consequently, Rome was militarily weaker, they had to raise a crap ton of money to raise new armies to defend against their enemies who now were aware of Rome's weakness, which lead to increased taxes, currency debasement and the increasing reliance on barbarians to fill out the ranks. That shit just increases overtime, and bam, fall of Rome.
Personally, I find the ecological, disease and demographic crises as the main reason to be more convincing because it explains so much, but this definitely seems like very good major second reason. I never really liked the whole barbarian argument because it did not make much sense to me, but the Persians being the impetus for that does make a lot of sense.
Onto the Byzantium Empire, I think the reign of Justinian presents a fascinating what if question. During the reign of Justinian, the Byzantium Empire undertook tremendous efforts to re-conquer the Western Roman Empire, basically meaning North Africa and Italy first. While they 'won', they could not hold onto these territories for long, and these military excursions absolutely bankrupted the state, weakened the army considerably, and saw basically all of its territory and power shrink considerably.
One of the major why this was not successful to due a massive demographic collapse during the reign of Justinian due to plague. So, it is interesting to think about what would have happened if the plague didnt hit? Would the Roman Empire have been unified? Would the Byzantine-Sassanid wars been avoided? the Persians were preying upon Byzantine weakness and trying to conquer new territory, but the Byzantines eventually got a brilliant Emperor in charge, reformed the military, and just absolutely crushed the Persians. Right after he did that though, was the rise of the Islamic Empire. Would that Empire have been successful if it wasnt for Justinian's failure, the plague, and the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars that basically destroyed one power and left the other short of manpower and will to do anything (Emperor had a water phobia).
Pretty crazy how a plague at just the right moment might have prevented the re-unificaiton of the Roman Empire and allowed the Islamic Empire to just spread like wildfire over the Middle East and North Africa.
Basil the Bulgar Slayer has to be the best nickname ever (I even made a thread about it!), but he actually did some important non-Bulgar slaying shit. He expanded the borders, kept peace at the borders, and enriched the treasury. Perhaps his most important reforms were his land reforms that tried to get them into the hands of peasants instead of them getting scooped up by powerful Eastern nobles. Not only did this have the effect of reducing the power of the Eastern Nobles (who constantly threatened the power of the Emperor), but it also set the empire on a much better economic and stable footing. Another important reform was his edict that allowed the Orthodox Slavs to be able to worship how they wanted and with their own preachers.
What is amazing is how this all went to shit after he died. The preceding rulers took the exact opposite approach - canceled the land reform, interfered with the religious institutions of the Slavs, spent lavish amounts of money, ruined the army (out of fear of revolt) and turned the political game into even more of a traitorous, backstabbing affair. All of this culminated in the battle of Manzikert that saw the Turks defeat the Byzantines on the field, which started the Turkification of Anatolia. What is crazy is that the Byzantines could have likely won, but due to the back-stabby politics of the Byzantine court, the second army that was supposed to support the Emperor (which was equal in number) never showed up to the battle. Even so, during the battle it was relatively even. The emperor decided to slowly pull back after a day of fighting, but then one of the nobles decided to call out and spread the rumor that the Emperor was dead. This caused the army to flee, a mass route ensued and the Emperor was captured.
This battle right there basically resulted in the Crusades because the Byzantines no longer had the power to fight the Turks on their own, so the Byzantine Emperor called on the Pope to help. Problem is, is that the Crusades were not all that successful for the Byzantine Empire. Essentially, it was really a culture class, conflicting interest and mistrust. Basically, just picture a Germanic tribe (western Europeans) visiting the Roman Senate (Byzantium). This was further exacerbated due to the fact that the Crusaders decided to create Crusader states instead of give those to the Byzantine Empire. This created great distrust and probably disgust on both sides, specifically the cities of Antioch and Odessa, which were considered very Byzantine since Orthodox Greeks lived there.
I should point out that the only reason why the first Crusade was successful was that the Middle East at this time was politically fragmented and weak, so they were able to play off groups off one another. And the Crusades were actually an impetus that caused the Muslims to unite, and when they did they kicked the Latins out.
Well, due to those Crusader states existing, they needed to be defended, which caused more crusades and more distrust, which eventually led to the 4th Crusade and the sack of Byzantium. This basically ended Byzantium as a power and pretty much doomed it to whoever could take it. This does make it amusing that much of the West Bemoaned the fall to the Turks when they were the ones who helped make that happen. Also interesting is that the Greeks likely much preferred the Turks to the Latins, because during the period when the Latins controlled Constantinople and set up feudal states within the Empire, they tried to force Catholicism, Latin bishops etc as well as established feudalism and serfdom. The Turks just left the Orthodox Greeks alone and worked through the existing institutions.
One Interesting consequence of the sack of Constantinople by the Latins and then the fall of the city by the Turks was that Greek culture began to spread more to the West and spread dramatically right before the fall of the city to places like Italy. This allowed the Italian Renaissance, which was mostly just a Latin Renaissance, to have access to Ancient Greek texts and Greek speakers who kept that Classical tradition alive. So yea, he very much discounts the opinion that the Moors or other Muslims were the ones who transmitted classical learning to Europe, and I think that makes a lot of sense. What the Moors did was to spread very technical subjects like Math, geometry, mapmaking, etc and also Aristotle and important commentaries by Avveroes (a Moor) on him. Italy already had access to much of the Classical Latin literature, they simply needed to find it. And the vast majority of Greek literature and knowledge came from the Byzantium Empire. Personally, I think that just makes sense. I mean, why would the Muslim world need to be the ones who transmitted classical learning to Europe when the Byzantine Empire existed?
So yea, an interesting and important period, and, as the speaker notes, that it is kinda funny that the Byzantine Empire might have achieved its greatest influence after its fall since Greek literature and thought became very important to the West and many of the major events, the Renaissance, the Reformation, etc etc.
For the Christian side of things, these are pretty good bets:
-Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
-Radical Gratitude by Mary Jo Leddy (barely a Christian book, but it is one, and I found it very well-written and philosophical at times)
Pope John Paul II also wrote several books that are considered "important" to modern Catholicism, namely The Theology of the Body. I'd read that if you want something that goes into detail regarding one part of Catholic belief and doctrine. It's largely about sex and marriage.
If you're an atheist, you'll undoubtedly find things to say "Oh, come on" to in all of these books, but you'll also find some pretty calming and practical life advice as well.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
The books I am reading:
L.B. Jeffries
Member
On Catholicism in particular, I think Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory was the most profound discussion of the Catholic faith I read in a fictional book, speaking as an outsider to the faith. It was technically banned by the church because it's about a whiskey priest trying to find redemption in a Western setting, but the Pope supposedly told Greene it was one of his favorite books back when it came out.
Very readable and engaging.
Maklershed
Member
^ Speaking of Hyperion - I've only read the first book but do the follow ups ever explain
or should I continue reading the series and just find out for myself?
Also that Marina Keegan cover bums me out
what the Shrike is and where it comes from?
Also that Marina Keegan cover bums me out
i started reading
my girlfriend suggested it. i'm a little bit leery about it tbh. i remember it being very popular back in the day with people who i thought weren't very smart and didn't read many books. was this an oprah's book club book or something? anyway, i'm giving it a shot, looks like it'll be a fast read. 25th anniversary cover is beautiful.
my girlfriend suggested it. i'm a little bit leery about it tbh. i remember it being very popular back in the day with people who i thought weren't very smart and didn't read many books. was this an oprah's book club book or something? anyway, i'm giving it a shot, looks like it'll be a fast read. 25th anniversary cover is beautiful.
Just finished this last night. I thought Pinball 1973 was the better story, though Hear the Wind Sing wasn't bad. Pinball 1973 has stronger hints of the weirdness later found in A Wild Sheep Chase and Dance, Dance, Dance. Really glad I was finally able to read them (though I might pick up the earlier translation done for Japanese students learning English just to see the differences.)
Finished these, enjoying the Deathstalker series so far.
While the majority of impossible situations seem to end up being resolved by undiscovered powers of the Maze it doesn't really bug me because the books are a good mix of scifi, action and humour.
As for The Fools Quest, solid 2nd book of a trilogy, lots of things answered while leaving several things more for me to ponder over before the next book.
I think one of my favorite parts of the book was the return of Fitz as himself to the public eye.
I was slightly disappointed Fitz didn't bond with Fleeter, I miss the relationship between him and Nighteyes. But seeing as it seems the spirit of Nighteyes is still around in some form I can live with it.
I was slightly disappointed Fitz didn't bond with Fleeter, I miss the relationship between him and Nighteyes. But seeing as it seems the spirit of Nighteyes is still around in some form I can live with it.
LordAmused
Member
Almost done with this one:
Going to read the 2nd book after.
Going to read the 2nd book after.
As a Texan, and someone that lived in Galveston for a year, this book is absolutely fascinating. Terrible that so much of the death could have been avoided if most involved in the Weather Bureau weren't stuck up their own ass and listened to Cuban scientists.
I highly recommend it to everyone in the mood for non-fiction.
flatearthpandas
Member
About halfway through Bleak House. As usual, Dickens makes me want to give up on being a novelist.
Also finishing up the second volume of One Piece and trucking through 窓ぎわのトットちゃん. These are less frequently making me want to give up learning Japanese so that's something.
Also finishing up the second volume of One Piece and trucking through 窓ぎわのトットちゃん. These are less frequently making me want to give up learning Japanese so that's something.
i started reading
my girlfriend suggested it. i'm a little bit leery about it tbh. i remember it being very popular back in the day with people who i thought weren't very smart and didn't read many books. was this an oprah's book club book or something? anyway, i'm giving it a shot, looks like it'll be a fast read. 25th anniversary cover is beautiful.
It's overblown self-help that says "Once you decide you want to do something, the whole universe will conspire to make that thing come true." The Secret-level shit. And I haaaated the book's depiction of male and female relationships.
So yeah, pseudo-spiritual stuff that's just...okay, but loved by many.
It's a "Feel Good" book. Fun to read, but doesn't really stand up against a more critical second look.
Also, for the person who was asking about Hyperion and the Shrike. Yup, you get more answers the more you read. Totally worth it. Keep reading.
I read it in one sitting because of how short and briskly-paced it was, but because I disagreed with the worldview and its treatment of male/female relationships, I really didn't like it by the end. 2 stars.
Indeed. It's a quick read. Once you get through it, you'll either love it or ask a bunch of questions about the validity of his philosophy, or just be put off by it for the reasons listed above.
bennywhatever
Member
"The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller is a good one for you to read about Christianity. It's pretty inoffensive, and written around a more modern world than a lot of other Christian novels. It's a good one for Christians, agnostics, and athiests.
Last week in the UK.
bennywhatever
Member
Has anyone found an audiobook for Musashi? I have a hard time sitting down to read 300+ page books, and audiobooks are better for my 1/2 hour drive to & from work.
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
I remember reading Coelho's Alchemist ten-or-so years ago. Really hated it. Strongly disagreed with it. Felt more stupid after having read it. One of the worst experiences from reading I've ever had.
I finished Warbreaker by Brandon Sanderson today. Got quite a few thoughts on it, so I'll try and put those down in some sort of coherent text. I very much enjoyed it though!
Firstly, some of the main POV characters were a bit lacking in some respects. While I enjoyed Lightsong and Vasher, Siri and Vivenna didn't really do it for me, especially Siri. Vivenna's character arc was something at least. Given that Siri and Vivenna are ostensibly meant to be the main characters, that was a bit disappointing.
The secondary characters, however, I adored. Bluefingers, Llarimar, Denth, Jewel, Tonk Fah, Blushweaver and even Nightblood. All were very interesting and I wanted to know more about them. So Sanderson did a good job there, populating the story with a variety of interesting characters for the main POV's to interact with. The world was rather enjoyable to read about as well, especially the political and religious structures. I loved the magic too, felt pretty original. I was reminded of the movie The Fall everytime the story described how holding a large amount of Breath turned the world brighter, with colours more vivid, shades standing out more, contrasting that how the world's viewed by the 'drabs' with no Breath.
Overall, a good enjoyable book. I'd even enjoy a sequel, or preferably another book in the same world.
Next up, I've got a copy of Brandon Sanderson's The Emperor's Soul with Legion as a bonus short story.
Firstly, some of the main POV characters were a bit lacking in some respects. While I enjoyed Lightsong and Vasher, Siri and Vivenna didn't really do it for me, especially Siri. Vivenna's character arc was something at least. Given that Siri and Vivenna are ostensibly meant to be the main characters, that was a bit disappointing.
The secondary characters, however, I adored. Bluefingers, Llarimar, Denth, Jewel, Tonk Fah, Blushweaver and even Nightblood. All were very interesting and I wanted to know more about them. So Sanderson did a good job there, populating the story with a variety of interesting characters for the main POV's to interact with. The world was rather enjoyable to read about as well, especially the political and religious structures. I loved the magic too, felt pretty original. I was reminded of the movie The Fall everytime the story described how holding a large amount of Breath turned the world brighter, with colours more vivid, shades standing out more, contrasting that how the world's viewed by the 'drabs' with no Breath.
Overall, a good enjoyable book. I'd even enjoy a sequel, or preferably another book in the same world.
Next up, I've got a copy of Brandon Sanderson's The Emperor's Soul with Legion as a bonus short story.
I think you are the only other person besides myself that really enjoyed the book.
The emperors soul is fantastic though. Probably my favourite of his.
In my opinion, Sanderson shines the most in short stories and novellas. He gets his worldbuilding and mysteries in, without tripping over his own feet a little.
That's not to say that I don't love his work, but he does have a tendency to strain some peoples' suspension of disbelief with the rule reveals (esp. mistborn), and his characters range pretty dramatically from lame to great.
Enjoy The Emperor's Soul, and Legion is fantastic. Sanderson has something special in the Legion universe, and I hope we get more good stuff out of it.
Also good that you liked Nightblood... 
I finished Kokoro.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. One of the things I like most about Japanese storytelling is the understatedness, and their penchant for atmosphere over content, the archetypal "mono no aware" that is very at odds with typical Western storytelling modes. Even if the emotional impact of Sensei's backstory wasn't heavy, it still drew you in with its steady, rhythmic ennui. I like how every main character was emblematic of a social tug of war. K's was the struggle between ascetic ideals and base, sinful reality. The narrator was caught between the cynical modernity of Tokyo, embodied in Sensei and the myopic provincialism of the country, represented by his father.
And then there was Sensei, a man torn between Meiji Japan's warrior code and the increased westernization of post-Meiji Japan. The real beauty of the metaphor comes from his betrayal of K's trust. By sacrificing K for his own ends, he's displaying the selfish individualism that was infecting Japan at the time. And yet, his crushing guilt can only be attributed to his loyalty to the Confucian, collectivist morals of Meiji Japan. He is literally destroyed by this tension, which could be taken as a warning that Japan might destroy itself in its inevitable transition to an alien culture.
Anyway, great book. Highly recommended if you want a look into the shaping of modern Japan. If anyone knows of a book like this for 20th century China give me a heads up. I'm interested in the psychology of that period as well.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. One of the things I like most about Japanese storytelling is the understatedness, and their penchant for atmosphere over content, the archetypal "mono no aware" that is very at odds with typical Western storytelling modes. Even if the emotional impact of Sensei's backstory wasn't heavy, it still drew you in with its steady, rhythmic ennui. I like how every main character was emblematic of a social tug of war. K's was the struggle between ascetic ideals and base, sinful reality. The narrator was caught between the cynical modernity of Tokyo, embodied in Sensei and the myopic provincialism of the country, represented by his father.
And then there was Sensei, a man torn between Meiji Japan's warrior code and the increased westernization of post-Meiji Japan. The real beauty of the metaphor comes from his betrayal of K's trust. By sacrificing K for his own ends, he's displaying the selfish individualism that was infecting Japan at the time. And yet, his crushing guilt can only be attributed to his loyalty to the Confucian, collectivist morals of Meiji Japan. He is literally destroyed by this tension, which could be taken as a warning that Japan might destroy itself in its inevitable transition to an alien culture.
Anyway, great book. Highly recommended if you want a look into the shaping of modern Japan. If anyone knows of a book like this for 20th century China give me a heads up. I'm interested in the psychology of that period as well.
- Status