Support NeoGAF

[Axelstream]

I bought the new Kindle Paperwhite. I've never owned an e-reader before, and I have to say, this thing is pretty awesome. Very comfortable to read, and feels great in your hand. After a couple of false starts on some other books, I ended up downloading the sample of A Little Life... and now I'm 250 pages in and $13 poorer (which I shouldn't really be worrying about, given that I dropped $120 just before!).

But wow. It's really good. What continually impresses me about this book is how little artifice I can sense in the language or the plotting. Usually I stop over sentences and imagine the writer behind his or her computer, refining and refining, but here I haven't done that a single time. There is a magnificent, effortless clarity to Yanagihara's writing that never belabors the novel's moments of profundity, and instead gently but firmly pulls you along. It's also pretty crazy how much knowledge Yanagihara has, and it really gives everything an immaculate verisimilitude. I'm heading up to law school soon myself (also in Boston!) so it's quite interesting to read about Jude's past there.

Equally impressive is that given the academic, bohemian type of the characters, the novel never slips into the pitfall of mean-spirited derision, or the eternal tongue-in-cheek, that modern novels with these kinds of characters usually do. There is a rare kind of compassion that Yanagihara exhibits for all of her cast, even when they misstep and mistreat each other. It makes them feel complex and real, and also makes their mistakes more painful. Save perhaps JB (who I don't even truly dislike) I'm becoming more and more attached to all of these characters.

And speaking of pain, it would appear I have yet to reach said infamous sucker-punching. So bring it on!

 

[thomaser]

You should participate in this month's book club book, then!

I would if that book was part of my unread-books-pile Maybe later, it certainly looks very interesting.

 

[Piecake]

Just finished this and it was excellent. The speaker again stresses the importance of demographics and he makes a very convincing case. It was during the High Middle Ages (1000-1300) that the population boomed. It doubled during the period, which is a marked contrast to what happened to the two periods before. This population growth resulted in the revival of urban life in Europe and the 'commercial revolution' of the High Middle Ages.

He argues that population increased due to several factors that he describes as brakes and engines. The brakes fell off during the High Middle Ages and the engines powered the demographic growth.

The brakes are bubonic plague, foreign invasions, and slavery. One of the brakes that disappeared was the bubonic plague. The bubonic plague did not appear in the High Middle Ages. The second brake that fell off was the lack of foreign invasions. The Viking, Maygyar and Muslim invasions largely disappear, and these invasions are significant because these invaders, especially the Vikings, are looking for slaves to sell. The third brake is the end of slavery. How slavery was practiced during the West meant that the slave population could not reproduce itself. Having a signficant portion of the population not be able to reproduce itself is obviously a huge drag. Serfdom supplants slavery, and serfs can have families and can actually reproduce themselves.

The engines are technological advancement and climate change. Due to technological advancements: the heavy plow, the leather harness, manorial 3-field system, and the water-powered windmill; all advancements that greatly improved agricultural production. The heavy plow was actually able to work the farmland of Northern Europe, which the previous plow was very poor at. The leather harness allowed horses to be harnassed, which are much faster than oxen, and the 3-field system allowed more of the land to be in use. The estimates of farm yield in 1000 is 2:1 while in 1300 it is 4:1. So, in reality the amount of grain that a peasant produced tripled. As for windmill and climate change, windmill obviously frees up labor by grinding grains and the climate just got better for farming.

This surplus allowed more people to not farm. Less people were needed to actually produce what the people consumed. This surplus meant wealth, meant merchants, meant towns, meant increased trade, meant specialization, meant more buying power, etc.

I think this explanation makes a lot of sense, as does his explanation for the fall of Roman Civilization. What I like about it is because it explains so much and removes all of the moral judgments and condemnations that you typically hear when you are discussing the fall of the Roman Empire and the Medieval Period. Frankly, I think moral judgments are more of a reflection on that person's views and biases rather than what is actually happening in society. Of course, that could just be my biases talking. But I think seeing the Fall of the Roman Empire and the early medieval period as a demographic decline and the High Medieval period as a demographic increase (that then saw re-urbanization and commercialization) makes a ton of sense.

While he doesnt really explicitly say it, he also discusses a great deal about technological, intellectual, and cultural changes/advancements(whatever) that you really see the period as somewhat of a continuation and the building blocks of the future. I always hated explanations like the Roman Empire fell, Civilization ended. Nothing good happened until the Renaissance 1000 years later. I mean, shit just doesnt pop out of nowhere.

I think the best example of continuation and building blocks in this period is Scholasticism. This was quite a big break from previous religious study because it stressed debate and argument over random musings. It also relied heavily on Aristotle and Averroes. The church had access to some Latin (and Greek writers translated into latin) before, but the purpose was to just learn how to write Latin well from people who wrote Latin well. Scholasticism was different because that movement was actually using the thoughts and ideas of A and A in their arguments.

So yea, go demographics.

 

[Mumei]

I would if that book was part of my unread-books-pile Maybe later, it certainly looks very interesting.

Do you have an account on Goodreads? Are we already friends? I have forgotten who multiple people are here on GAF, so it's possible. You should add me, if you do and we aren't.

 

[SniperHunter]

Just finished reading the first three chapters of david and goliath. Mindblowing stories and facts so far

 

[Uzzy]

Read a few manga on the bus these past few days, which I've discovered are practically perfect for my commute, taking me the exact length of the journey to finish. Read the last Madoka Magica: The Different Story and a few of Watamote

Anyway, now I've started The Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson. Great stuff so far, love me some cyberpunk.

 

[RELAYER]

All true, though the fact that it was written many decades ago is still relevant.

Of course the history is out of date. The first book came out like 80 years ago. But it's a very well-written series that weaves together many different disciplines in order to create a portrait of history that is vivid, multidimensional, and interesting. It's a much better, more intellectually satisfying version of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History - a good story full of many interesting facts that will hopefully stoke people into taking an interest in some of the subjects it tackles.

"Out of date" is such a favorite criticism applied to works of history that I can never tell quite what is meant.
One could logically expect that historical writings actually become less accurate the further removed in time they are from the events they attempt to describe. If this isn't the case, it's an irony, and worth at least some elucidation.
Has our knowledge and understanding of, for example, ancient greece, really changed all that much in 80 years?

 

[Ashes]

Finished Down and Out in Paris and London. It's George Orwell's other book if you didn't know.

& is exactly what it says it is in the title. A diary of sorts of a man going through poverty in Paris and London.

If you're looking for a really great book, because of the author's calibre, this isn't it. But it is a good book. And very interesting.

---

Talking of recommendations and in lieu of the above I'd really suggest Hunger by Knut Hamsun. The author's history is mired, but, the book it self is amongst the greatest ever written in my eyes.

---

And starting Three men in a Boat, by Jerome K. Jerome - said to be amongst the funniest books every written.

 

[Dr.Horrible]

Finished my first book in ages, At Night She Cries While He Rides His Steed. It's by Ross Patterson, aka, Saint James Street James. It's the guy behind the ridiculous Pool Boy and FDR American Badass movies.

It's hilarious and I loved every part of it. Wouldn't recommend it to most though as his humor is not for everyone. But if you've seen his movies and can appreciate that type of humor, you would not be disappointed.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Just finished one of the most particular books I've ever read, Hummelhonung (Sweetness), by the Swedish author Torgny Lindgren.

It's about two old, dying brothers in the far north of Sweden, who both refuses to die first because of the rivalry and hatred between them. Then one day one of them offers a traveling writer and public speaker to stay the night, and the bizarre story of the two brothers gradually unravels.

 

[Mumei]

"Out of date" is such a favorite criticism applied to works of history that I can never tell quite what is meant.
One could logically expect that historical writings actually become less accurate the further removed in time they are from the events they attempt to describe. If this isn't the case, it's an irony, and worth at least some elucidation.
Has our knowledge and understanding of, for example, ancient greece, really changed all that much in 80 years?

Having read almost nothing in the way of history about Ancient Greece, I couldn't tell you. I must confess I was going off the assumption that if every other historical period I'd read books about had shown major shifts in our understanding (and not just in the answers we find, but the questions we think to ask), it stands to reason that especially in periods in the distant past we would be more likely to have had our understandings changed in radical ways.

But that could be wrong, I suppose.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

"Out of date" is such a favorite criticism applied to works of history that I can never tell quite what is meant.
One could logically expect that historical writings actually become less accurate the further removed in time they are from the events they attempt to describe. If this isn't the case, it's an irony, and worth at least some elucidation.
Has our knowledge and understanding of, for example, ancient greece, really changed all that much in 80 years?

It has changed A LOT, not necessarily most so in terms of new primary sources, but in the sense that historians employ theory and methods from anthropology; generally much more interest in social, cultural and "everyday" history.

There's also constantly new archeological findings etc.

Palmyra in Syria is fantastic example where recent findings have completely changed our understanding about how that ancient city functioned and came to be such an important centre in the middle of the desert.

 

[eznark]

About 5 hours in at it is really, really excellent.

 

[RELAYER]

Having read almost nothing in the way of history about Ancient Greece, I couldn't tell you. I must confess I was going off the assumption that if every other historical period I'd read books about had shown major shifts in our understanding (and not just in the answers we find, but the questions we think to ask), it stands to reason that especially in periods in the distant past we would be more likely to have had our understandings changed in radical ways.

But that could be wrong, I suppose.

Greece is just an example.
I don't question that people 100 years apart from one another understand events in different ways. Is one superior to another?

To say a book is "dated" seems to imply that history proceeds somewhat like technology - that newest is best.
In fact one might even say that our very conception of a book as "dated" may only reveal our own modern prejudices.

That may or may not be true, I was simply just wondering what exactly makes something dated. It's a criticism you hear often of Durant in particular but I've never seen it substantiated with anything, other than a brief one-liner once about how he focuses too heavily on morals. Either way it wasn't very convincing.

I should admit I'm no hardcore historian; a gleaning that provides cultural literacy is enough for me, so in that sense I'm probably the very type most susceptible to an author's thematic prejudices, which I guess is why I'm interested in learning where one might fail and another succeed.

But at this point, it seems as though "dated" is simply a tool of the ever arriving and ever modern historian by which to earn his bread and butter at the expense of his forerunner.

It has changed A LOT, not necessarily most so in terms of new primary sources, but in the sense that historians employ theory and methods from anthropology; generally much more interest in social, cultural and "everyday" history.


There's also constantly new archeological findings etc.

Palmyra in Syria is fantastic example where recent findings have completely changed our understanding about how that ancient city functioned and came to be such an important centre in the middle of the desert.

Isn't this essentially a non-answer?
You say it has changed a lot, because it has changed a lot.

I don't mean to keep bringing up Durant, but as he seems to be the origin of this discussion, your example about anthropology seems particularly inopportune to this theorized evolution of history since his approach 80 years ago was specifically defined by taking every care to depict the social and cultural life of the "everyday", yet this is the very thing you say has changed.

 

[Cade]

Got a $25 Barnes and Noble giftcard for my birthday and I'm trying to figure out what to buy. I can rent almost everything I wanna read from either my local library or the digital ebook library system, so it's tough to figure out what to spend this on. Anyone have any suggestions, preferably some interesting sci-fi or fantasy? I think I might pick up City of Stairs and the eighth Dark Tower book since it's cheap right now, but I don't know what else.
Already read Southern Reach and the first Ancillary book, The Martian, etc.

 

[whatevermort]

Got a $25 Barnes and Noble giftcard for my birthday and I'm trying to figure out what to buy. I can rent almost everything I wanna read from either my local library or the digital ebook library system, so it's tough to figure out what to spend this on. Anyone have any suggestions, preferably some interesting sci-fi or fantasy? I think I might pick up City of Stairs and the eighth Dark Tower book since it's cheap right now, but I don't know what else.
Already read Southern Reach and the first Ancillary book, The Martian, etc.

I think you should read NO HARM CAN COME TO A GOOD MAN by James Smythe. #shill

 

[Cade]

I think you should read NO HARM CAN COME TO A GOOD MAN by James Smythe. #shill

But I haven't even read The Echo yet!

 

[whatevermort]

But I haven't even read The Echo yet!

THEN DAMN YOU YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

About 3/4s of the way through Under The Dome. As a massive fan of his work I'm finding this one tough to get through, it seems really bloated to me. His other big works like The Stand, IT etc were fine. Did anyone else feel like this?

Have you gotten to the source of the dome yet? Because right there is where the book lost me. It was overlong, yes, but I've read so many King books I kind of expected that and have grown accustomed to it. Honestly, that 'twist' or whatever you want to call it was too far out of left field. I suppose it could have been good but he handled it with two catcher mitts instead of fine leather gloves.

 

[whatevermort]

Have you gotten to the source of the dome yet? Because right there is where the book lost me. It was overlong, yes, but I've read so many King books I kind of expected that and have grown accustomed to it. Honestly, that 'twist' or whatever you want to call it was too far out of left field. I suppose it could have been good but he handled it with two catcher mitts instead of fine leather gloves.

I don't love this book. Not at all. And the end is just absolute nonsense, which made the slog - which does have goodness to it, in dribs and drabs - even more painful.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Greece is just an example.

Isn't this essentially a non-answer?
You say it has changed a lot, because it has changed a lot.

I don't mean to keep bringing up Durant, but as he seems to be the origin of this discussion, your example about anthropology seems particularly inopportune to this theorized evolution of history since his approach 80 years ago was specifically defined by taking every care to depict the social and cultural life of the "everyday", yet this is the very thing you say has changed.

I must admit I haven't been paying attention to the discussion in detail, certainly not the things regarding Durant. I only noticed the line about "has much happened to the history of ancient greece in the last 80 years". I work as a University historian, and I have many good colleagues who work with ancient history, so I know for a fact that the field is very vivid and in constant evolution.

That being said, I strongly agree that historical works from a hundred years ago still has tremendous value, and I don't believe in any sort of linear progress in our field, where older knowledge per se is less worth than modern or contemporary works.

We should neither be romantic about old works nor too positivist about modern works.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

Ernest Cline’s Armada is everything wrong with gaming culture wrapped up in one soon-to-be–best-selling novel.

Doesn't look good.

 

[survivor]

Ernest Cline’s Armada is everything wrong with gaming culture wrapped up in one soon-to-be–best-selling novel.

Doesn't look good.

I wonder if Ernest Cline knows how to write a story without any pop culture references

Indeed, after Zack blasts off to join the Earth Defense Alliance, he explains how he feels again and again not by telling us, but by referencing the experiences of main characters from better versions of this story: “I felt like Luke Skywalker surveying a hangar full of A-, Y- and X-Wing Fighters just before the Battle of Yavin. Or Captain Apollo, climbing into the cockpit of his Viper on the Galactica’s flight deck. Ender Wiggin arriving at Battle School. Or Alex Rogan, clutching his Star League uniform, staring wide-eyed at a hangar full of Gunstars.”

 

[Cade]

I wonder if Ernest Cline knows how to write a story without any pop culture references

oh my god :lol

 

[Bladenic]

Is anyone excited for Go Set A Watchman??

 

[Mumei]

I haven't even read RPO, but I rather like BobbyRobert's take on Slate's review for Armada:

Laura Hudson fucking murdered him. Jesus.

Poor guy.

I must admit I haven't been paying attention to the discussion in detail, certainly not the things regarding Durant. I only noticed the line about "has much happened to the history of ancient greece in the last 80 years". I work as a University historian, and I have many good colleagues who work with ancient history, so I know for a fact that the field is very vivid and in constant evolution.

That being said, I strongly agree that historical works from a hundred years ago still has tremendous value, and I don't believe in any sort of linear progress in our field, where older knowledge per se is less worth than modern or contemporary works.

We should neither be romantic about old works nor too positivist about modern works.

Thanks!

I'm not too altogether sure exactly what RELAYER is arguing here (or if I've been clear about my own position), but when I said "outdated", I meant that given its age there would almost certainly be arguments that were wrong in the light of more recent information, and that one should read it in a sort of provisional way - as a sort of synthesis of historical scholarship of the period - but not to be too attached to its conclusions or arguments.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

I haven't even read RPO, but I rather like BobbyRobert's take on Slate's review for Armada:

I love how you can click the > next to the name in the quoted post and see the original. Led me to see the article was posted yesterday...completely missed it. Whoops.

 

[Mumei]

Well, in a different thread.

Yes. Nothing wrong with sharing in the amusement here, too. :3

 

[aidan]

I'm... not struggling, but I'm about 2/3 through The Warrior's Apprentice by Bujold and it's not clicking with me. I like Miles enough--he reminds me of Tyrion Lannister in a lot of ways, enough so that I wonder if Martin didn't draw inspiration from Bujold when first conceptualizing Tyrion--but I can't shake the feeling that I started the series with the wrong book. The universe that Miles lives in feels deep, but with very little exposition in the novel (it's much like a John Scalzi novel, almost like a screenplay in its reliance on dialogue to move the story along), I feel left behind most of the time, like I'm supposed to understand more than I do.

And, while I find the scenario compelling, there seems to be a lot of coincidence and I'm required to really suspend my disbelief when Miles starts coercing hardened military staff and mercenaries. Tyrion is so compelling because he has to fight against a society that abhors him, everything seems easy for Miles, even when people don't know he's from a wealthy/influential family.

That said, after talking to a few folk on twitter, it seems like the Cordelia books might be a better fit for me as a reader, and a suitable (re)introduction to the universe/series. So, I'll likely go back to Shards of Honor and see how that works out for me.

 

[squarerootofpie]

Decided to re-read a whole load of classics I probably was too young to understand, so after finishing A Brave New World, I'm now reading 1984 and will move onto Lord of the Flies.

Also, how awesome is the 1984 cover I currently have? It took em acouple of seconds to get it and be like "Ooooooh it's censored!" (IRL it has 1984/ george orwell embossed so if you shift it you can see it under the black).

 

[Haly]

At this point, the question is: Does Cline have real feelings or does he also think in terms of the 80s?

I'm really happy with the reception of Armada. When I topped the New York Times Best Sellers for 2015 with the story of Zack Lightman, I felt like OSC sending Ender to Battle School, like GRRM giving seven dire wolves to the Stark children, or like Gibson taking Case through the ICE.

 

[Ryan_MSF]

Fantastic book!

 

[Althane]

I'm... not struggling, but I'm about 2/3 through The Warrior's Apprentice by Bujold and it's not clicking with me. I like Miles enough--he reminds me of Tyrion Lannister in a lot of ways, enough so that I wonder if Martin didn't draw inspiration from Bujold when first conceptualizing Tyrion--but I can't shake the feeling that I started the series with the wrong book. The universe that Miles lives in feels deep, but with very little exposition in the novel (it's much like a John Scalzi novel, almost like a screenplay in its reliance on dialogue to move the story along), I feel left behind most of the time, like I'm supposed to understand more than I do.

And, while I find the scenario compelling, there seems to be a lot of coincidence and I'm required to really suspend my disbelief when Miles starts coercing hardened military staff and mercenaries. Tyrion is so compelling because he has to fight against a society that abhors him, everything seems easy for Miles, even when people don't know he's from a wealthy/influential family.

That said, after talking to a few folk on twitter, it seems like the Cordelia books might be a better fit for me as a reader, and a suitable (re)introduction to the universe/series. So, I'll likely go back to Shards of Honor and see how that works out for me.

The Cordelia books are absolutely the right place to enter the universe. Not only do you get a serious exposition dump on the politics and technology of the universe, you get to know the parental characters, and the culture that Miles grew up in a lot more.

Shards of Honor + Barrayar also just plain make a fantastic duology.

 

[Mumei]

I'm... not struggling, but I'm about 2/3 through The Warrior's Apprentice by Bujold and it's not clicking with me. I like Miles enough--he reminds me of Tyrion Lannister in a lot of ways, enough so that I wonder if Martin didn't draw inspiration from Bujold when first conceptualizing Tyrion--but I can't shake the feeling that I started the series with the wrong book. The universe that Miles lives in feels deep, but with very little exposition in the novel (it's much like a John Scalzi novel, almost like a screenplay in its reliance on dialogue to move the story along), I feel left behind most of the time, like I'm supposed to understand more than I do.

And, while I find the scenario compelling, there seems to be a lot of coincidence and I'm required to really suspend my disbelief when Miles starts coercing hardened military staff and mercenaries. Tyrion is so compelling because he has to fight against a society that abhors him, everything seems easy for Miles, even when people don't know he's from a wealthy/influential family.

That said, after talking to a few folk on twitter, it seems like the Cordelia books might be a better fit for me as a reader, and a suitable (re)introduction to the universe/series. So, I'll likely go back to Shards of Honor and see how that works out for me.

You did! You should follow this. I actually thought you were reading Shards of Honor first or I would have said something.

And for what it's worth, it is generally acknowledged that one of the weaknesses of the initial books that focus on Miles is an over-reliance on convenient coincidences that move the plot along.

 

[eznark]

Ernest Cline’s Armada is everything wrong with gaming culture wrapped up in one soon-to-be–best-selling novel.

Doesn't look good.

Sounds like a fitting follow up to Ready Player One

 

[aidan]

You did! You should follow this. I actually thought you were reading Shards of Honor first or I would have said something.

Whoops! I asked around a few places, and WA was recommended as a good starting point. I'll definitely hop back to Shards of Honor and Barrayar. My plan is to alternate Vor books with the rest of my reading. They're quick and easy, which is a bonus.

And for what it's worth, it is generally acknowledged that one of the weaknesses of the initial books that focus on Miles is an over-reliance on convenient coincidences that move the plot along.

That's good to hear. I'm willing to look past rough edges on early books as long as I know that it's not just a weird personal preference getting in the way, and/or the problem is resolved in later volumes.

Seems like most of my concerns with tWA don't necessarily apply across the whole series. I do like Bujold's writing a lot, and I'm a huge fan of The Curse of Chalion, so I was surprised to find myself bouncing off of WA.

 

[Cdammen]

I like the Sedaris book, it's funny. But it's not as good as his previous work, it's more towards bitter-funny than interesting-observation-funny, if that makes any sense.

The Batman novel is great, I'm reading one chapter each week. I need to space it out or it'll be over way too soon. I'm halfway through it and it hasn't really lived up to it's predecessor (yet), Batman: The Long Halloween

 

[Mumei]

That's good to hear. I'm willing to look past rough edges on early books as long as I know that it's not just a weird personal preference getting in the way, and/or the problem is resolved in later volumes.

Seems like most of my concerns with tWA don't necessarily apply across the whole series. I do like Bujold's writing a lot, and I'm a huge fan of The Curse of Chalion, so I was surprised to find myself bouncing off of WA.

Right. Well, keep in mind that The Warrior's Apprentice came out in 1986 and The Curse of Chalion came out in 2001; that's fifteen years and about ten books between them, so there are more rough spots both at the level of plotting and prose. I think her characterization has been consistently great throughout, though.

I also wanted to point out, in response to your observation that Tyrion "has to fight against a society that abhors him, everything seems easy for Miles," that the bulk of The Warrior's Apprentice takes place on Beta Colony, which is - especially when it comes to genetic mutations and / or physical deformity - considerably more relaxed than Barrayar, where it is quite possible that he would have been killed as an infant if he'd been born in a more rural area. You get a better sense of how Miles relates to Barrayan society (and how his own family responded to his physical disabilities) in the other books, and how his family is able to insulate him from that in some, but not all ways. But in TWA, he's not actually in a society that reflexively views him as something unclean; he's on a different planet entirely for most of it.

And as Althane said, reading the earlier books gives you that context for the different cultures.

 

[Nymerio]

Cordelia's such a boss. Going to finish Warrior's Apprentice tonight and use that forward momentum to dive right into the next book.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

"Out of date" is such a favorite criticism applied to works of history that I can never tell quite what is meant.
One could logically expect that historical writings actually become less accurate the further removed in time they are from the events they attempt to describe. If this isn't the case, it's an irony, and worth at least some elucidation.
Has our knowledge and understanding of, for example, ancient greece, really changed all that much in 80 years?

Well, for one thing, time allows a greater number of relevant facts to crystallize. Primary sources get translated, archaeologists and anthropologists uncover new aspects of ruins and of cultures, etc. In a broader sense, though, writing anything about history other than the purely factual relies upon some level of interpretation and simplification. You talk about some things at the expense of others because you, the author, think those things are more relevant than other things. This is partially idiosyncratic, partially determined by the realities of the marketplace, and partially determined by how the values and biases of the culture you exist within shape the kinds of things you pay attention to.

For example, in his podcast about the fall of the Roman Republic, Dan Carlin calls attention to the fact that Julius Caesar appears to have been a part of something that could reasonably have been called a counterculture. If we are to say that Caesar was important to the history of Rome, then the context in which he was acting - including his social circle and the image he tried to project - is quite relevant to the study of Roman history. However, this is an aspect of Caesar's life and perspective that only seemed to have attention paid to it in the last century or so, because we live in a society where countercultural movements are a lot more prominent and a lot more evenly dispersed throughout society because modern media gives them visibility and the less powerful barriers between people of different classes/races/ethnicity/etc. allow them to spread their ideas and aesthetics more equally than in the past. Thus, because we are aware of such things, we are more able to spot them and give them their own due weight in our interpretation of events.

So, yes, it's true that distance from an event can allow the reality of what happened to become distorted and perverted. At the same time, though, those of the future have more knowledge, more distance, and more things to compare it to, so while presentism is a definite risk of history the farther you get away from an event, the present, itself, offers a lot of possibilities to improve the depth, breadth, and complexity of the analysis in other respects. That doesn't mean that earlier histories are necessarily invalid - indeed, they might be better than more modern historiography, on the whole - just that one has to be honest about both the strengths AND the limitations and biases of past historians.

 

[ShaneB]

About 5 hours in at it is really, really excellent.

Yup. Recommended reading for any Football fan, or sports fan in general I think.

At this point, the question is: Does Cline have real feelings or does he also think in terms of the 80s?

This can't be a real quote...

All this Armada stuff makes me wonder how much I would like RPO if I reread it today. It was basically the first book I read on my ereader to get back into reading more, and I thought it was a great ridiculous romp at the time, now I'd probably think it was just ridiculous. I certainly have next to no interest in reading Armada.

Slowly making my way through Count of Monte Cristo. Should read a bit more regularly now that I'm back from vacation.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

That Armada review is very entertaining. I enjoy reading bad book reviews more than other mediums' bad reviews.

Started up The Count of Monte Cristo. As promised, it's very readable and enjoyable.

I'm also reading Labyrinths by Borges. I'm not surprised to find I like it - basically every author I enjoy is usually labeled Borgesian.

 

[Mumei]

Slowly making my way through Count of Monte Cristo. Should read a bit more regularly now that I'm back from vacation.

Started up The Count of Monte Cristo. As promised, it's very readable and enjoyable.

<3!

 

[Dresden]

At this point, the question is: Does Cline have real feelings or does he also think in terms of the 80s?

This makes me feel like the time Jaime told Tyrion the truth, or when Luke learned his father was Darth Vader, or when Snape killed Dumbledore.

 

[Mumei]

Yaaaaaasssssss Based Borges

Go read Six Memos for the New Millennium.

 

[Maklershed]

Saw an interesting question on Reddit that I wanted to run by you brilliant folks here: What are your favorite lesser known works from well known authors?

 

[koopathecat]

Have you gotten to the source of the dome yet? Because right there is where the book lost me. It was overlong, yes, but I've read so many King books I kind of expected that and have grown accustomed to it. Honestly, that 'twist' or whatever you want to call it was too far out of left field. I suppose it could have been good but he handled it with two catcher mitts instead of fine leather gloves.

This is exactly where Iam. Bout a couple of hundred pages to the end with the source of the dome. You're absolutely right, such a fantastic concept that King manages to make into such a slog of a read. I hate giving up on books (especially Stephen king ones) feel kinda glad other people feel the same and I'm not missing anything mindblowing

 

[Mumei]

Ooh, I like it. That's actually kind of tough for me.

The first one that comes to mind is Agyar by Steven Brust. It's a stand-alone work and entirely unrelated to Vlad Taltos or Dragaera, but it might just be his best. Modern day with some fantasy, but I don't want to say too much about it and spoil the joy of working it out for yourself.

Mm. I'm having trouble defining who is a "well-known" author (I didn't know who Steven Brust was until a couple years ago, for instance) and which works count as "not well known." For instance, I think Le Guin is well-known, but I have no idea if The Word for World is Forest or Four Ways to Forgiveness, for example, count as "not well known."

 

[besada]

Saw an interesting question on Reddit that I wanted to run by you brilliant folks here: What are your favorite lesser known works from well known authors?

Vonnegut: Bluebeard

It's one of his least well known books, and least interesting to his traditional early twenties demographic, because it's a book about age and memory and loss. Reading it at forty is a very different experience than reading it at twenty, but that's true of a lot of books.

John Irving: Son of a Circus

There's a section in Son of a Circus where he embeds flashback into flashback into flashback, like an infinitely regressing mirror, but at no time are you confused about when you are, and he pulls out of it as gracefully as he entered it. It's a master craftsman at his peak, in my opinion. I think many of his other novels are friendlier and more entertaining, but his craftsmanship in Son of a Circus is just astonishing.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

People don't tend to talk much about Vonnegut's "Galapagos", but it's a very, very great book.

Re: Bluebeard -

I remember that being good to pretty good, but I recall much of it being something of a retread of themes and ideas from earlier novels and just a general sign of him running out of steam in the latter part of what I guess you could call his fruitful era.