♡
You triggered a chain reaction Az! Now I remembered Cornelia Funke and started rerereading the ink series: Inkheart, Inkspell and ink death (yet to purchase).
I've currently started to read Inkheart
Which Book Are You Currently Reading?
- Thread starter Joy
- Start date
You triggered a chain reaction Az! Now I remembered Cornelia Funke and started rerereading the ink series: Inkheart, Inkspell and ink death (yet to purchase).
I've currently started to read Inkheart
Been reading Redwall and warrior cat books right now.
I have read all twenty two man.
Cool! Only have read redwall and outcast of redwall so far. Got them recently.
Try reading from Brock tree, Salamandastron........Taggerung. I read it in no order. But I plan to read that series in a chronological order to relish it.
I will, I only have four books, salamandastron, outcast of redwall, redwall, and rakkety tam, all nice hardcover editions. But I will try to get some more
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Gender
- Timecube
Aberration in the Heartland of the Real: The Secret Lives of Timothy McVeigh by Wendy S. Painting.
Incredibly interesting book about the Oklahoma City bombing that is a sort of unauthorized biography of McVeigh, focusing on the vast amount of aliases, false identities and paper trails he left behind leading up to the bombing. Really shows the flaws of the official narrative and puts it in a cultural and historical context of the 90s and the various social and political threads that run parallel to the events of 1995.
Incredibly interesting book about the Oklahoma City bombing that is a sort of unauthorized biography of McVeigh, focusing on the vast amount of aliases, false identities and paper trails he left behind leading up to the bombing. Really shows the flaws of the official narrative and puts it in a cultural and historical context of the 90s and the various social and political threads that run parallel to the events of 1995.
Cfrock
Keep it strong
The Witcher Series
Finished the last of these last night. Started with The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny, then read the main novels, then read the prequel novel.
They're good, but I suspect that I wouldn't have enjoyed them as much had I not played the games. The short stories are all fine, but the novels really read like one novel arbitrarily broken into five parts. I can imagine reading Blood of Elves in 1993 or whenever and not wanting to read the next one since Blood of Elves is pretty much all character development with almost no plot. It never felt like it was going anywhere, and it was only through having a pre-built idea of the characters that I was interested in what the book did contain. The second novel, Time of Contempt, was much better, as was Baptism of Fire.
Overall, it is a good series, but it's definitely going to engage fans of the games more than anyone going in blind.
Finished the last of these last night. Started with The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny, then read the main novels, then read the prequel novel.
They're good, but I suspect that I wouldn't have enjoyed them as much had I not played the games. The short stories are all fine, but the novels really read like one novel arbitrarily broken into five parts. I can imagine reading Blood of Elves in 1993 or whenever and not wanting to read the next one since Blood of Elves is pretty much all character development with almost no plot. It never felt like it was going anywhere, and it was only through having a pre-built idea of the characters that I was interested in what the book did contain. The second novel, Time of Contempt, was much better, as was Baptism of Fire.
Overall, it is a good series, but it's definitely going to engage fans of the games more than anyone going in blind.
Cfrock
Keep it strong
The Madness of Crowds
Douglas Murray's second book and it's a bit of a mess. His first, 'The Strange Death of Europe', was much better researched and much more coherently structured, but this one feels like a rant masquerading as an essay.
First up, it's not about crowds at all. I assumed it would be about how mobs form and how they operate, the way people's individuality melts away when they are part of a mob as a demonstrable, observable phenomenon. But it's actually about how he doesn't like 'SJW' identity politics, how such politics are divisive, and how he doesn't agree with a lot of the foundational dogmas of such politics. Which is all fine for the most part. 'SJW' politics are rife with internal contradictions and unanswered questions. But why then call a book highlighting those contradictions 'The Madness of Crowds' if it isn't focusing on how crowd mentality influences and is influenced by such ideas?
Second, his research is incredibly sloppy and inconsistent. Most of the examples he brings up are movies and music videos. Other times he mentions the Google image search results for certain terms. Some subjects he appears to have almost no understanding of whatsoever. For example, he outright misunderstands what 'toxic masculinity' actually means and erects strawman arguments to paint it as a hostile concept, and his entire chapter on trans people is full of misunderstandings and false equivalences.
Third, there's only the barest idea of structure to his arguments. He covers four major issues (gay people, women, race, and trans people) but within each chapter there isn't really a clear through-line of thought. It's as though he meanders from point to point, almost as they come to mind, and he uses anecdotes and detailed descriptions of Niki Minaj videos and David Letterman interviews to pad things out. The result is that I don't really know what he expects me to take away from what he's said. It feels like he's just complaining, not presenting an argument or counter-point.
Fourth, he doesn't really say anything. He complains a lot about how such ideas and activism is divisive, and he identifies plenty of the internal contradictions, many of them irreconcilable, that make 'SJW' style identity politics vulnerable to scrutiny or application, but he also never actually finishes his thoughts a lot of the time. Like when he explains in detail how searching for terms like 'white couples' on Google returns more images of black and mixed-race couples than white ones he goes as far as to suggest that "something" more than a machine learning algorithm must be going on, but he never takes that next step to suggest what. Why not, Douglas? Why bring it up if you aren't going to just say it? Why does he bring up racial IQ differentials only to then not say anything about them? The wider point of 'people aren't created equal' is fine but why is IQ the thing he specifically brings up, only to then leave the point dangling?
The book does raise some good and interesting points about how the dogmas of the radical left simply don't make sense and how the competing interests of the associated groups lead inevitably to internal conflict and contradiction, but it's mired in a juvenile rant about things Murray doesn't like or simply doesn't understand. A critical examination of the radical left's idealogical contradictions would be worthwhile, not least of all because it could help strengthen the radical left by exposing and helping correct idealogical inconsistencies and highlighting ideas that have become dogma and thus unchallengeable. But this book is not that. It's not a terrible thing to read if you pay attention to when Murray has a point as opposed to when he doesn't, but this is a major step down for him.
Douglas Murray's second book and it's a bit of a mess. His first, 'The Strange Death of Europe', was much better researched and much more coherently structured, but this one feels like a rant masquerading as an essay.
First up, it's not about crowds at all. I assumed it would be about how mobs form and how they operate, the way people's individuality melts away when they are part of a mob as a demonstrable, observable phenomenon. But it's actually about how he doesn't like 'SJW' identity politics, how such politics are divisive, and how he doesn't agree with a lot of the foundational dogmas of such politics. Which is all fine for the most part. 'SJW' politics are rife with internal contradictions and unanswered questions. But why then call a book highlighting those contradictions 'The Madness of Crowds' if it isn't focusing on how crowd mentality influences and is influenced by such ideas?
Second, his research is incredibly sloppy and inconsistent. Most of the examples he brings up are movies and music videos. Other times he mentions the Google image search results for certain terms. Some subjects he appears to have almost no understanding of whatsoever. For example, he outright misunderstands what 'toxic masculinity' actually means and erects strawman arguments to paint it as a hostile concept, and his entire chapter on trans people is full of misunderstandings and false equivalences.
Third, there's only the barest idea of structure to his arguments. He covers four major issues (gay people, women, race, and trans people) but within each chapter there isn't really a clear through-line of thought. It's as though he meanders from point to point, almost as they come to mind, and he uses anecdotes and detailed descriptions of Niki Minaj videos and David Letterman interviews to pad things out. The result is that I don't really know what he expects me to take away from what he's said. It feels like he's just complaining, not presenting an argument or counter-point.
Fourth, he doesn't really say anything. He complains a lot about how such ideas and activism is divisive, and he identifies plenty of the internal contradictions, many of them irreconcilable, that make 'SJW' style identity politics vulnerable to scrutiny or application, but he also never actually finishes his thoughts a lot of the time. Like when he explains in detail how searching for terms like 'white couples' on Google returns more images of black and mixed-race couples than white ones he goes as far as to suggest that "something" more than a machine learning algorithm must be going on, but he never takes that next step to suggest what. Why not, Douglas? Why bring it up if you aren't going to just say it? Why does he bring up racial IQ differentials only to then not say anything about them? The wider point of 'people aren't created equal' is fine but why is IQ the thing he specifically brings up, only to then leave the point dangling?
The book does raise some good and interesting points about how the dogmas of the radical left simply don't make sense and how the competing interests of the associated groups lead inevitably to internal conflict and contradiction, but it's mired in a juvenile rant about things Murray doesn't like or simply doesn't understand. A critical examination of the radical left's idealogical contradictions would be worthwhile, not least of all because it could help strengthen the radical left by exposing and helping correct idealogical inconsistencies and highlighting ideas that have become dogma and thus unchallengeable. But this book is not that. It's not a terrible thing to read if you pay attention to when Murray has a point as opposed to when he doesn't, but this is a major step down for him.
Cfrock
Keep it strong
Nightmare Scenario - Hazel Clarke
This was written by a friend of mine from uni
In all honesty, it's not really my kind of thing. It's a YA dystopian romance, and it's not bad for what it is. The romantic leads actually have scenes where they develop their relationship. It's aimed at a younger audience so I feel a little distant from it. I can see so much of Hazel in it, though, so it's been quite fun as someone who knows her and her writing fairly well already.
The Slow Regard of Silent Things - Patrick Rothfuss
Beautiful. A charming novella that manages to emotionally invest you in inanimate objects and make soap-making engaging. Wraps you up in its atmosphere and is touchingly relatable for all its oddness. I loved it.
This was written by a friend of mine from uni
In all honesty, it's not really my kind of thing. It's a YA dystopian romance, and it's not bad for what it is. The romantic leads actually have scenes where they develop their relationship. It's aimed at a younger audience so I feel a little distant from it. I can see so much of Hazel in it, though, so it's been quite fun as someone who knows her and her writing fairly well already.
The Slow Regard of Silent Things - Patrick Rothfuss
Beautiful. A charming novella that manages to emotionally invest you in inanimate objects and make soap-making engaging. Wraps you up in its atmosphere and is touchingly relatable for all its oddness. I loved it.
Treasure Island
Most of you have probably heard about this book, but if not, it is about a group of sailors that go to find some treasure, and are betrayed by some of their men. They hide out on the island, and fight them, and defend themselves, until the treasure is found. It is centered around a boy that goes with them as cabin boy. I love this book, it is written very well, and the story is really interesting.
Most of you have probably heard about this book, but if not, it is about a group of sailors that go to find some treasure, and are betrayed by some of their men. They hide out on the island, and fight them, and defend themselves, until the treasure is found. It is centered around a boy that goes with them as cabin boy. I love this book, it is written very well, and the story is really interesting.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2019
Few weeks ago I decided to read The Lord of the Rings thriology. Now I'm at the second part