Official Book Thread

im about halfway to 3/4 through the 3rd book of Dune now. :content:

Right now I'm reading House on the Strand by Daphne du Maurier and I'm really struck by how similar her style is to mine in a way I've never seen, lol. Not sure if that's good or bad.

Just finished 'keep the aspidistra flying' by George Orwell. I liked it and was debating between 3 and 4 stars on goodreads but went with 3 because it felt like beating a dead horse sometimes and the ending was a little too easy and neat (i could see that being part of the satire though). It's about a guy who wages war against the 'money god' by quitting his good job and refusing to be successful and then is completely miserable and blames lack of money for all of his problems. I may have sympathized with him more than i was intended to, I'm not sure, even though i thought his choices were clearly foolish...he would blame money for things like being obnoxious with his friends or having writers block and id think 'i can see that' (when perhaps i was supposed to think it was stupid). But this was my favorite excerpt from the book:

"He wondered about the people in houses like those. They would be, for example, small clerks, shop-assistants, commercial travellers, insurance touts, tram conductors. Did they know that they were only puppets dancing when money pulled the strings? You bet they didn’t. And if they did, what would they care? They were too busy being born, being married, begetting, working, dying. It mightn’t be a bad thing, if you could manage it, to feel yourself one of them, one of the ruck of men. Our civilization is founded on greed and fear, but in the lives of common men the greed and fear are mysteriously transmuted into something nobler. The lower-middle-class people in there, behind their lace curtains, with their children and their scraps of furniture and their aspidistras — they lived by the money-code, sure enough, and yet they contrived to keep their decency. The money-code as they interpreted it was not merely cynical and hoggish. They had their standards, their inviolable points of honour. They ‘kept themselves respectable’— kept the aspidistra flying. Besides, they were alive. They were bound up in the bundle of life. They begot children, which is what the saints and the soul-savers never by any chance do.

The aspidistra is the tree of life, he thought suddenly."

http://www.amazon.com/Keep-Aspidistr.../dp/150289159X

Presently reading "The Cuckoo's Calling" by Robert Galbraith (J. K. Rowling alias). It's good. The main character seems LIE/SLE, he makes me think of Adam a lot. Overall I'd say the characters are Ni/Se and maybe more Gamma as, IMO, the main character has strong Te, low Fi, more in an Te lead way. I could be wrong.
What type is J. K. Rowling? I think I had seen ESI some places on this forum. Anyway, overall, do you think writers often create characters of their quadra or characters they could fancy IRL? I think so.

Finished ‚The Art of Loving‘ by Erich Fromm. I think what draw me to it, was the question of your capability to love. I think, I felt a resonance with loving as something active, as a expression of will, a decision. I mean ... I sometimes wondered. I never really felt open when it came to ... you know ... love as feeling, this whole goey goey whatever. I think deep down, I guess, I never understood. But I understand to decide. When I read it, the parts about producing, about giving, about making this your decision and owning your decision, I think maybe .. yeah I felt more a connection to it. I mean, I can never help with these books/these kind of things. Is it juts some nice ideal, that nobody can ever reach, all just nice theory and talk?

I think that was, why I just can’t connect with ... some of the fuzzy-fuzzy talking. Idk, these kind of things, when I just think people are just rambling or whatever. It’s always this feeling of getting irritated. I mean I just don't like it when I get the feeling it's too romanticized. It doesn' feel real/realistic to me. I can understand the content, but it leaves me cold. I feel no connection to it. I feel, I can understand somebody who shows things through his actions, through his decisions, because that’s the testing stone and all the talk in the world means nothing, if yeah... there is nothing really giving, producing. It's difficult to put into words for me. It's more like you just feel it when sth. strikes a chord with you. I think some parts did and and they were interesting for me therefore:

I shall become a master in this art only after a great deal of practice, until eventually the results of my theoretical knowledge and the results of my practice are blended into one—my intuition, the essence of the mastery of any art. But, aside from learning the theory and practice, there is a third factor necessary to becoming a master in any art—the mastery of the art must be a matter of ultimate concern; there must be nothing else in the world more important than the art.

In all types of creative work the worker and his object become one, man unites himself with the world in the process of creation. This, however, holds true only for productive work, for work in which I plan, produce, see the result of my work

The most important sphere of giving, however, is not that of material things, but lies in the specifically human realm. What does one person give to another? He gives of himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his life. This does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices his life for the other—but that he gives him of that which is alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of his sadness—of all expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life, he enriches the other person, he enhances the others sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving is in itself exquisite joy. But in giving he cannot help bringing some thing to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him; in truly giving, he cannot help receiving that which is given back to him. Giving implies to make the other person a giver also and they both share in the joy of what they have brought to life. In the act of giving something is born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life that is born for both of them. Specifically with regard to love this means: love is a power which produces love; impotence is the inability to produce love.

To respect a person is not possible without knowing him; care and responsibility would be blind if they were not guided by knowledge. Knowledge would be empty if it were: not motivated by concern. There are many layers of knowledge; the knowledge which is an aspect of love is one which does not stay at the periphery, but penetrates to the core. It is possible only when I can transcend the concern for myself and see the other person in his own terms. I may know, for instance, that a person is angry, even if he does י not show it overtly; but I may know him more deeply than that; then I know that he is anxious, and worried; that he; feels lonely, that he feels guilty. Then I know that his anger is only the manifestation of something deeper, and I see him as anxious and embarrassed, that is, as the suffering person; rather than as the angry one.

Knowledge has one more, and a more fundamental, relation to the problem of love. The basic need to fuse with another person so as to transcend the prison of one's separateness is closely related to another specifically human desire, that to know the "secret of man." While life in its merely biological aspects is a miracle and a secret, man in his human aspects is an unfathomable secret to himself—and to his fellow man. We know ourselves, and yet even with all the efforts we may make, we do not know ourselves. We know our fellow man, and yet we do not know him, because we are not a thing, and our fellow man is not a thing. The further we reach into the depth of our being, or someone else's being, the more the goal of knowledge eludes us. Yet we cannot help desiring to penetrate into the secret of man's soul, into the innermost nucleus which is "he."

There is one way, a desperate one, to know the secret: it is that of complete power over another person; the power which makes him do what we want, feel what we want, think what we want; which transforms him into a thing, our thing, our possession. The ultimate degree of this attempt to know lies in the extremes of sadism, the desire and ability to make a human being suffer; to torture him, to force him to betray his secret in his suffering. In this craving for penetrating man's secret, his and hence our own, lies an essential motivation for the depth and intensity of cruelty and destructiveness. In a very succinct way this idea has been expressed by Isaac Babel. He quotes a fellow officer in the Russian civil war, who has just stamped his former master to death, as saying: "With shooting—I'll put it this way—with shooting you only get rid of a chap. . . . With shooting you'll never get at the soul, to where it is in a fellow and how it shows itself. But I don't spare myself, and I've more than once trampled an enemy for over an hour. You see, I want to get to know what life really is, what life's like down our way.

In children we often see this path to knowledge quite overtly. The child takes something apart, breaks it up in order to know it; or it takes an animal apart; cruelly tears off the wings of a butterfly in order to know it, to force its secret. The cruelty itself is motivated by something deeper: the wish to know the secret of things and of life.

The longing to know ourselves and to know our fellow man has been expressed in the Delphic motto "Know thy- self." It is the mainspring of all psychology. But in as much as the desire is to know all of man, his innermost secret, the desire can never be fulfilled in knowledge of the ordinary kind, in knowledge only by thought. Even if we knew a thousand times more of ourselves, we would never reach bottom. We would still remain an enigma to ourselves, as our fellow man would remain an enigma to us. The only way of full knowledge lies in the act of love: this act transcends thought, it transcends words. It is the daring plunge into the experience of union. However, knowledge in thought, that is psychological knowledge, is a necessary condition for full knowledge in the act of love. I have to know the other person and myself objectively, in order to be able to see his reality, or rather, to overcome the illusions, the irrationally distorted picture I have of him. Only if I know a human being objectively, can I know him in his ultimate essence, in the act of love.

Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one "object" of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is a proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person. This is the same fallacy which we have already mentioned above. Because one does not see that love is an activity, a power of the soul, one believes that all that is necessary to find is the right object—and that everything goes by itself afterward. This attitude can be compared to that of a man who wants to paint but who, instead of learning the art, claims that he has just to wait for the right object, and that he will paint beautifully when he finds it. If I truly love one person I love all persons, I love the world, I love life. If I can say to somebody else, "I love you," I must be able to say, "I love in you everybody, I love through you the world, I love in you also myself.

we are not always "equal"; in as much as we are human, we are all in need of help. Today I, tomorrow you. But this need of help does not mean that the one is helpless, the other powerful. Helplessness is a transitory condition; the ability to stand and walk on one's own feet is the permanent and common one.

One neglects to see an important factor in erotic love, that of will. To love somebody is not just a strong feeling—it is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise.

The difficulty of the problem is enhanced by the fact that most people today, hence many readers of this book, expect to be given prescriptions of "how to do it yourself," and that means in our case to be taught how to love. I am afraid that anyone who approaches this last chapter in this spirit will be gravely disappointed. To love is a personal experience which everyone can only have by and for himself;

Yet, he is not thinking about all these factors; his mind is in a state of relaxed alertness, open to all relevant changes in the situation on which he is concentrated

Wrapping up Troubled Sleep (Jean Paul Sartre) soon. Recently started Eichmann in Jerusalem (Hannah Arendt) and Herculine Barbin (Michel Foucault).

dune done. not sure what's next, but i'm thinking either The Dark Tower or The Stand again. (leaning towards The Stand)

Lol @ dumbass @suedehead reading such difficult authors like foucalt and arendt, i think i made it about five pages into one of her books once.

Probably the best books I've read recently were the autobiography of malcolm x and the god of small things by arundhati roy.

I'm currently reading shampoo planet by Douglas coupland and confused about why he's such a popular author because i think it's all so contrived and second rate..but its an easy breezy read and I'm not far enough in to write it off.

The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt

Great book!

I tried reading God of Small things, couldn't read it, I could appreciate it as something different but couldn't do it... teach me how!

I started reading Slaughterhouse 5. I never read it and somebody said a character in it reminds them of me.

Finished The Trial (Kafka). Recently started these:

The History of Sexuality (Michel Foucault)
Pulp (Charles Bukowski)
The First Man (Albert Camus)

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...pspxnbros4.jpg

Finishing Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" turned out to be a chore, but I did it. Now reading Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". I'm five chapters in and, contrary to my expectations (and personal opinion of Rand's philosophy), it is quite enjoyable.

Finished recently:

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Hunter S. Thompson)
Pulp (Charles Bukowski)
Herculine Barbin [as far as I'm concerned] (Michel Foucault)
The First Man (Albert Camus)

Currently reading:

Caligula and Three Other Plays (Albert Camus)
Justine (Marquis de Sade)
Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus (Mary Shelley) - just finished the prologue, which is probably the most resonant piece of prose I've ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suedehead

Finished recently:

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Hunter S. Thompson)
Pulp (Charles Bukowski)
Herculine Barbin [as far as I'm concerned] (Michel Foucault)
The First Man (Albert Camus)

Currently reading:

Caligula and Three Other Plays (Albert Camus)
Justine (Marquis de Sade)
Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus (Mary Shelley) - just finished the prologue, which was probably the most resonant piece of prose I've ever read.

---

Justine was a very interesting read. At times too much for me.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps2gdvkps6.jpg


thinking about reading Neal Stephensons books next (at least his cyberpunk stuff), for some reason i never tried him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps2gdvkps6.jpg


thinking about reading Neal Stephensons books next (at least his cyberpunk stuff), for some reason i never tried him.

---

I liked "Snow Crash" and its follow-up "the Diamond Age" the best. After that, he became famous and his editors stopped editing his stuff for brevity and plot direction, which his stories sorely need.
If you want to see what he did when his unbounded imagination was teamed with a disciplined author who believed in plot, read Interface, by Stephen Bury (more recently attributed to Stephenson and George). Stephenson wrote it with his uncle, and it reads like a novel, rather than a drug-crazed party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

I liked "Snow Crash" and its follow-up "the Diamond Age" the best. After that, he became famous and his editors stopped editing his stuff for brevity and plot direction, which his stories sorely need.
If you want to see what he did when his unbounded imagination was teamed with a disciplined author who believed in plot, read Interface, by Stephen Bury (more recently attributed to Stephenson and George). Stephenson wrote it with his uncle, and it reads like a novel, rather than a drug-crazed party.

---

i should just start reading them to find out, but how does he compare to Gibson and Sterling? They have always been my main cyberpunk staples/favorites besides some more one off authors in the genre.

I'm a fan of PKD so drug-crazed writing doesn't really bother me as long as it has good dialogue, cool themes, and something that sinks into your backbrain to simmer away after you're done :)

I just finished reading Nicholson Baker's The Mezzanine.
Otherwise known as, "Introverted Sensing: The Book".

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...eMezzanine.jpg

JP Sears said it is an essential reading http://www.creativegrowth.com/bradshaw_shame%201.pdf

Anything by Robert Greene. The book Ronda Rousey wrote.

I just started reading this: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...ackwash-of-war
kind of trauma porn. but very engrossing. i was thinking of ashton when i started it this morning.

Last book I was reading was Francis Bacon's Novum Organum. It is rather tedious in places, but a significant work.

Just finished Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Still digesting it.

I'm a bit into reading Lolita now. I felt nervous about reading it, afraid that I would empathize too much with the main character and it would fuck with me, but that hasn't been an issue so far. the way he describes his internal struggles and desires is human and sympathetic independent of the subject matter but I don't see him as fatalistically compelled by nature to make the decisions that he does, so it hasn't impacted me in any moral crisis sort of way. he expresses more clarity about the source/nature/psychology of his desire than I expected, and the passages reflecting that are pretty interesting. the prose is sparkly, musical, engaging, I really like it.

I'm only about 90 pages in atm so maybe there's still a shitstorm coming for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lungs

I'm a bit into reading Lolita now. I felt nervous about reading it, afraid that I would empathize too much with the main character and it would fuck with me, but that hasn't been an issue so far. the way he describes his internal struggles and desires is human and sympathetic independent of the subject matter but I don't see him as fatalistically compelled by nature to make the decisions that he does, so it hasn't impacted me in any moral crisis sort of way. he expresses more clarity about the source/nature/psychology of his desire than I expected, and the passages reflecting that are pretty interesting. the prose is sparkly, musical, engaging, I really like it.

I'm only about 90 pages in atm so maybe there's still a shitstorm coming for me.

---

This is interesting. I have been wanting to read it, but have had similar reservations. I would be curious to hear how you feel about after you finish. I recently heard a paper about it at a conference and the discussion afterwards was pretty contentious...

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is a very good book (albeit in script form). It has some surprising characters appearing in it, which gives extra depth to the other seven. I cannot say anything else without it being a spoiler.

A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped The World by William Bernstein is a splendid book.

Started reading a thousand splendid suns by khaled hosseini last night and its hard to put down. On da verge of tears every other page ;_;

Currently reading: Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb

I had 2 books in the last week, that really really resonated with me. I’m not reading much, because it really has to really catch me, otherwise I cannot finish a book.
(I’m also not reading a lot of what people would consider ‘high quality’ literature. I love other books much more. Honestly I gained more things from them.)

Also I’m not really a sucker for stuff, coming from this angle… omg do this for growth and development etc. I have a deep seated hatred for this narrative.
Like with these articles, things 'developed people' do or you have to do to tick of more boxes or to fit into a mold (10 things you should do to… whatever).

An impression you might get at first, with this antifragile stuff. But that was not really what catched my curiosity, because good ol’ robustness is fine with me.
I actually really liked the parts about randomness, about ‘predicitions’, about complexity (the first 1/4 of the book) and later parts about not quantifiable knowledge.

Or parts about simplicity (parts that striked me about a more natural way of going about making decisions). Also funny parts about procrastination, 'flaneur'. Like how
he could articulate, how I feel about some things. I really resonated with that. But later on there were parts, were I thought… idk… things became a bit too 'high' for me.

Like parts where it might came across to me as idk … too philosophical, technical and these were paragraphs were I kinda drifted. Were I would also see it differently.
That’s where I have to admit I read it as skipping some parts and stopping at some that interested me more. But just my opinion. It’s still one interesting book.

I just picked up a couple of books from the LIIbrary.

I had to admit the titles themselves intrigued me:

Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Familiy and Culture in Crisis
The Hidden Life of Trees- What They Feel, How They Communicate

I haven't read them yet, I'll let you know if there is anything interesting in them.

Red Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle again. Equally if not more impressed this time around.

I just finished A Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire, Book 1) by George R. R. Martin and Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer.

I quite liked A Game of Thrones. I haven't seen the show and wasn't planning on reading it, but I was stuck at work with my husband one day and he had a copy lying on his desk. Now that I've read the first one I'll probably continue with the series at some point.

I enjoyed Into the Wild, but liked the movie more (LOVED the movie). The book did help to clarify Christopher McCandless's motivations and give more insight into the family dynamics, which were essential in the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lungs

Probably the best books I've read recently were the autobiography of malcolm x .....

---

One of my favorite books :love:

A list of books I've been reading semi-recently, of those I give 10 out of 10. I decided to omit fiction books, which I don't tend to read so many of in any case.

Arts
David Dubal: The Essential Canon of Classical Music
Michael Schmidt: Lives of the Poets
Marilyn Stokstad: Art History

Economics
Charles Wheelan: Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science

Economics & History
Thomas Piketty: Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Economics, History, Philosophy, Politics
Matt Ridley: The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves

History
David Abulafia: The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean
Juliet Barker: Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England
Robert Bartlett: The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization, and Cultural Change, 950-1350
Robert Bartlett: England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225
Jacques Barzun: From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present
Susan Wise Bauer: The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome
Susan Wise Bauer: The History of the Renaissance World: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Conquest of Constantinople
Susan Wise Bauer: The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade
Piers Brendon: The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997
Norman Davies: Europe
Norman Davies: Vanished Kingdoms: The History of Half-Forgotten Europe
Norman Davies: The Isles: A History
Modris Eksteins: Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age
Robin Lane Fox: The Classical World: An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian
Tom Holland: Forge of Christendom
Tom Holland: Persian Fire
Tony Judt: Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945
David Kennedy: Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945
Ian Kershaw: ******
Ian Mortimer: The Perfect King - The Life of Edward III
Michael Prestwich: Plantagenet England 1225-1360
David Reynolds: America, Empire of Liberty: A New History
Hew Strachan: The First World War
Jan Swafford: Beethoven
Barbara Tuchman: A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century
Barbara Tuchman: The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914
Joyce Tyldesley: Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh
Odd Arne Westad: Restless Empire: China and the World Since 1750
Toby Wilkinson: The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt: The History of a Civilisation from 3000 BC to Cleopatra

History & Economics
William Bernstein: A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World from Prehistory to Today
Ian Morris: Why the West Rules—for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future

History & Science
Cynthia Stokes Brown: Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present
Bill Bryson: A Short History of Nearly Everything
Richard Holmes: The Age of Wonder
Steven Johnson: Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation

Philosophy
Simone de Beauvoir: The Second Sex
Carl von Clausewitz: On War
David Deutsch: The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World
Mark Twain: Letters from the Earth

Poetry
Lucretius: On the Nature of Things
Ovid: Metamorphoses
Shelley: The Complete Works

Psychology, Philosophy
Steven Pinker: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

Science
Theodore Brown: Chemistry: The Central Science
Neil Campbell: Biology
David Halliday: Fundamentals of Physics
Elaine Marieb: Human Anatomy & Physiology

Science, Astronomy, Philosophy
Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy
Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

If I was to recommend just a few of these, I would suggest the "Philosophy" books, for being particularly mind-expanding. The Steven Johnson book (Where Good Ideas Come From) I felt I could have classed under "Philosophy", and would highly recommend it (although I would highly recommend any of these books - but most of them are fairly self-explanatory about their subject area, and thus you are likely to know if it is of any interest :p). The books listed under the Arts and Science categories I found to be exceptional in their respective fields - most of them are textbooks (i.e. for university curricula) and appear in many editions, of varying cost. I would also recommend Ian Morris: Why the West Rules—for Now as a good general book about history and economics (and as a good companion, William Bernstein's A Splendid Exchange), and also Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence.

The Clausewitz book is ostensibly about military strategy, but I think it has wider interest. Similar perhaps to Machiavelli's The Art of War, but I think it is greater than that.
The Joyce Tyldesley book Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh is more than just a biography, it covers a whole period of Egyptian history.

The Norman Davies book "Europe" is quite an abrupt title, so I should mention it is an excellent history of Europe.

Caution: Personality may emerge somewhat changed (!)

House of Leaves
The Wasp Factory
Satan Burger
What Do You Care What Other People Think?
Nausea
The Metamorphosis
The Strange Library
The Book
Kafka on the shore
Infinte Jest

I just started memories, dreams, reflections by carl jung. I'm not sure how interested I am in his life and I'm nervous about his writing style but I wanna give it a shot and see what gleaming rocks of insight I can pluck out.

I just finished reading Stephen king's lisey's story. I hadn't read a Stephen king novel in years and didn't know if he'd still do it for me, but it was cool. even kind of romantic. I liked how the alternative universe (boo'ya moon) reminded me of the territories in my favorite novel of his - the talisman - and then he even referenced the territories once. (I want to re-read the talisman now.)

before that, it was the bell jar, which I was embarrassed to read because I thought it was for emo teenage girls but it was actually fantastic, whether it is or not (I wouldn't know - it spoke to me, but I am kind of an emo teenage girl.) I gave it 5 stars on goodreads, which I rarely do.

before the bell jar, it was the lord of the flies (sort of a short classics kick)- also solid. a little heavy on the environmental detail for my sensibilities but the last 1/3 had me riveted, and you know, thinking about the Depressing Take on the Human Condition.

i'll round it out w/ the one that I didn't like so much, and read before the lord of the flies. bookcase by john marshall tanner. it was a mehh (decent I guess) suspense story (the answer to the puzzle was a mystery to me but I'm not hard to mystify). but the main character and the 15 female characters who were there for no other reason than to show what a fuckin stud he was annoyed me. (15 might be exaggerating)

@lungs I thought The Bell Jar was fantastic when I read it many years ago - I also give it 5 stars on goodreads!

The decile ranges of goodreads ratings based on the average ratings for the 1000+ books in my Canon of Humanity ebooks thread (I actually have it at 1150 on one of my goodreads shelves but that will not exactly tally for various reasons):


10 stars >4.20
9 stars 4.20 (6 books out of 11), <4.21
8 stars 4.08 (actually 4.09, 3 of 14), <4.09
7 stars 4.00 (22 of 22), <4.01
6 stars 3.94 (actually 3.95, 1 of 13), <3.95
5 stars 3.87 (actually 3.88, 6 of 13), <3.88
4 stars 3.81 (actually 3.82, 6 of 24), <3.82
3 stars 3.74 (11 books of 12) <3.75
2 stars 3.66 (11 books of 21), <3.67
1 star 3.51 (3 books of 6), <3.52

(I worked from the bottom, so for example, there were 112 books with ratings <3.51, plus 6 books that had a rating of 3.51. I went with the score that was closest to the decile mark).

I recently read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Fooled by Randomness, and give it a 10 out of 10. I think it is far better than his more well known book Black Swan.

Reading The Rabbit Hunter by the Lars Kepler duo. I have a man crush on the protagonist.

Just finished Homo Dues by Yuval Noah Harari.

Now I am doing my best to ward of the existential crisis it caused.

Finishing up The Dragon Factory by Jonathan Maberry. I really like the static of transgenics as described by the author. It's like, always in the backseat of my mind as I read the book. Suggesting anything and everything in the context related to genetics and virology is possible in a scifi envieroment that is still heavily defined by occurances in the here and now. Giving off a sort of blurred line to reality.

Woman at Point Zero by Nawal El-Saadawi. "based on a true story" about an Egyptian woman facing execution for murder, the horrible trials of her life, and what led her to that point. The authors style of prose and the way she kept repeating certain things didn't really do it for me, but it was still a well written and very emotionally engaging book. I think I gave it 4 stars.

The Family by Mario Puzzo. A fictional rendering of the life of the Borgia pope and his family. I don't really get into the dry, matter of fact style of writing. I was moved along by the twisty, fast moving plot, out of curiosity, even without caring much one way or the other about what would happen. I had trouble keeping track of the various allegiances, fights, and significance of all the cities and leaders in the book. I gave it 3 stars.

Little Bird of Heaven by Joyce Carol Oates. A woman is murdered, and her son and the daughter of the accused are drawn into each other's lives. At times in the first half, I got impatient because I felt like it hovered too long sucking every last drop of meaning out of every mundane event, but as the book progressed I fell more deeply into the story. The prose is pretty incredible and quotable and I can't remember the last time I've read a book with characters that felt so full and "real." I gave it 4 stars but it made me want to read more Oates.

So, First Love by Joyce Carol Oates. A Gothic short story, marketed on the back cover as " incestuous forbidden love" but actually about child molestation. So beautifully written,which i expected. A lot is hinted at and skirted around, engaging the imagination for better or worse. A very distinct mood. My only complaint is that it felt sort of light and one dimensional for a book with such a heavy and disturbing topic. But to be fair Im not sure how much more could have been accomplished in 70 some pages. 4 stars again, but I was considering giving it 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reverie

Alright. I finished In the Shadow of Blackbirds. 5 stars. Really great book. I liked it so much I'm now reading The Cure for Dreaming by Cat Winters, and so far I like it a lot, too. Books I'm thinking of reading next...I was thinking either Neil Gaimans American Gods, or Daphne Du Mauriers My Cousin Rachel. I must stay off the internet and fill my free time with reading. I have a goodreads reading goal to meet and I have 32 more books to go till January 1st... I'm taking this very seriously :lol:

I'm also in the middle of reading my kids Gregor the Overlander by Suzanne Collins. It's ok. I have The House with a Clock in its Walls by Lewis Barnavelt on hold for when we are finished with Gregor the Overlander. I think it sounds pretty awesome. I also have Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (Collected by American Folklore) by Alvin Schwartz to start after that is done. They both got pretty good reviews, so... (Is obviously ready for Halloween :lol:)

---

Awesome. I started American Gods, but had to take a break to read A Storm of Swords. I will make my way back to it though. I also read Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House. I thought it was really good. Much better than the movie, as is usually the case. Glad to meet a fellow horror fan!

i'm reading The Stand for my third time, loving the ominous creep of the superflu through the first section of the book (and savoring the foreshadowing of things to come).

The "Knowledge Trilogy" (The Discoverers, The Creators, The Seekers) by Daniel J. Boorstin is incredible. I've read few books greater, and many books lesser. It is a history and biography of knowledge in "Western Civilization", with many biographies and histories of notable people intertwined. It is like an encyclopedia in terms of its scope, but something you can actually read from beginning to end.

I journey onwards into the realms of Jonathan Maberry. Only to follow Joe Ledger. Reading Assassin's Code right now. The Narrative is close to what Alex DeLarge would describe as ultra-violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reverie

I started on Stephen Kings Salems Lot. Took me a while to get into. I noticed it takes me a while to get into any Stephen King book. Like at least 60 pages. But I usually start appreciating them half way through. 11/22/63 and It were both enormous books, and anyone who can write a book in which I read a book that long is seriously talented, me thinks. I think he just takes his time in setting things up, maybe that's what it is. Now I'm going to have to read The Stand, too, since @bgdjf brought it up. I keep hearing good things about it!

---

And Hearts in Atlantis! Then The Dark Tower. If you miss any of the characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reverie

I started on Stephen Kings Salems Lot. Took me a while to get into. I noticed it takes me a while to get into any Stephen King book. Like at least 60 pages. But I usually start appreciating them half way through. 11/22/63 and It were both enormous books, and anyone who can write a book in which I read a book that long is seriously talented, me thinks. I think he just takes his time in setting things up, maybe that's what it is. Now I'm going to have to read The Stand, too, since @bgdjf brought it up. I keep hearing good things about it!

---

11/22/63 i had a bit of a slog to get through, i enjoyed it in the end but it never truly grabbed me like The Stand (especially) and The Dark Tower did.

Time to tackle Dostoyevsky

I read White Oleander by Janet Fitch and liked it a lot. I would love to read more fiction but I find it difficult to predict what I would enjoy.

Think I'll try Vernor Vinge next, in the mood for sci fi.

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (who won the Nobel prize) is one epic book. It has more insight into the human mind than the entirety of Socionics.

It also explains why we tend to believe in Socionics explanations.

Reviews:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-slow-tributes

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...aniel-kahneman

I haven't been reading much lately because I started interview with the vampire by anne rice which is like, just interesting enough for me to not want to ditch it, but not interesting enough to usually be in the mood to read it....

anybody able to tell me if pretty much stays at the same level throughout or if it picks up? I'm on about page 40 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lump

I haven't been reading much lately because I started interview with the vampire by anne rice which is like, just interesting enough for me to not want to ditch it, but not interesting enough to usually be in the mood to read it....

anybody able to tell me if pretty much stays at the same level throughout or if it picks up? I'm on about page 40 or so.

---

I would say it is basically the same tone and pace all the way through. I personally thought it was very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reverie

I finally finished Mary Shelley's Frankenstein yesterday. I gave it 5/5. I really liked it, but thinking about the classic Frankenstein movie, I'm really glad they made Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, because I feel like it captures the books atmosphere perfectly and was much closer to the book. I can't even look at the classic the same again because I feel like they really butchered Frankenstein's monster. It still has a sentimental and nostalgic appeal, but I feel like they really just didn't do it justice. I'm kind of disturbed about it after reading the book. It seemed more like a shallow rendition that doesn't capture the complexity of Frankenstein's monster. Kind of insulting. Evidently Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein at the age of 18. I think that is really incredible. She was with Lord Byron, Pery Shelley, and a few others at the time, and they were bored because of the weather, and Byron challenged that they all write a ghost story. :content:

---

I liked The Last Man by her also, although this seems to be an atypical view.

George Orwell- 1984. Read and wonder and think and analyse.
I love Jack London- White Fang, Martin Eden and stories. He is one of my favourite writers.
Paris Wife- Paula McLain- story of one of Hemingways wifes.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...ub-custom1.jpg

Hard Times in Paradise by David and Micki Colfax

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....4,203,200_.jpg

Even though I am an Agnostic, I am reading this Hitch book because I LOVE Hitch.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.R...=0&w=300&h=300

Also....

http://www.dailyherald.com/storyimag...H=800&noborder

.....because it looked interesting

My ADD progression right now is:
Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger - exploring how the self manifests
Deep Learning by Goodfellow et al - well-written exposition of "deep" learning concepts
Adults in the Room by Varoufakis - talking about the Greek Debt Crisis and the way the insider politics worked during that
Plus about ten other books as I cycle through unfocused interests.
Then I just got Peterson's 12 rules yesterday.. all good so far.

I'm "reading" a book of essays by Camille Paglia but it's taking me 12 million years bcuz I don't want to let my team down in tri-peaks solitaire.

https://gsngames.com/wp-content/them...es/pr_tiki.png

Her arrogant trolliness makes her an entertaining writer, though, and she's thought-provoking, even when her essays are reviews of books I've never heard of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aster

I finished The Secret History today and I'm still reeling. I'm in love. I'm stunned. I'm mind blown. I think I adore Donna Tartt. One of my new favorite books.


The beginning, I thought was wonderful, and then the second part, I started reading and couldn't stop and I was dying with anticipation, and then one part, I was so overcome with embarrassment I couldn't read, I covered my shirt over my head, and I was like oh no, I can't watch this go down. And now I'm just stunned, I'm sad, I'm nostalgic. And it was horrible and beautiful and intense and I just loved it.


I need to find someone else that has read it that loves it to gush about it with. God. I don't think I know anyone that likes this kind of stuff irl.

---

https://community.qvc.com/t5/Book-Cl...t/td-p/3434898 ? .... except the conversation's a little old.

A recent one: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/what_we...ut-time-travel mumsnet haha, no idea if the conversation is indepth at all.

http://covers3.booksamillion.com/cov...0684834235.jpg

Richard Noll’s ‘New Preface’ for ‘The Jung Cult’

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 BY ADMIN

ABSTRACT: Richard Noll is a historian of psychiatry who wrote two controversial volumes on C.G. Jung in the 1990s: The Jung Cult (1994) and The Aryan Christ (1997). A third volume, Mysteria, was also set for publication by Princeton University Press (1994/1995), but was suppressed at the behest of the Jung family. Noll has previously made his ‘New Preface’ to the paperback edition of The Jung Cult available to scholars through gated communities such as Academia.edu and ResearchGate. However, with the permission of the author, the ‘New Preface’ for ‘The Jung Cult’ (1997) is now made available in an ungated format for the first time. – OJJT.
Preface to the New Edition

IT IS WITH great pleasure that I introduce this first paperback edition of my book to readers who may have had a difficult time finding the hardcover edition in bookstores.
When The Jung Cult appeared in September 1994 it was met by tremendous international controversy. Within a few weeks of its appearance, its publisher, Princeton University Press, was inundated with telephone calls and letters from around the world expressing objection to the conclusions I reached in this book. These conclusions were reached only after a careful analysis of published and archival sources on C. G. Jung. Many people who objected to the book never read it, and their reactions came from what others—often their Jungian analysts—told them was in it. The strong reaction to what many heard was in this book still, unfortunately, echoes the opinions of many who consider themselves “Jungians.” A typical reaction was that of a close associate of Jung’s later days who described my work as lacking “even a hook for projection.”
My hope is that this new paperback edition will find its way into the hands of those who find C. G. Jung a fascinating—or perplexing—figure and who want to learn more about the historical context of his ideas. No other book currently exists that can give you, the reader, an inside look into the historical reality of C. G. Jung’s world during the most creative years of his life (1913-1925). But be warned: this is a book that the Jungian analytic community and the Jung family consider to be forbidden fruit.
Despite its portrayal as such in Jungian journals, this book is not an exercise in debunking Jung. There is much that I admire about Jung and I owe much—personally and professionally—to some aspects of his work. I am not a fundamentalist Christian (nor a Christian of any sort) looking to burn Jung at the stake for his polytheism and paganism, and I am not a Freudian out for revenge, as some reviewers have incorrectly surmised. What I have tried to do is what Jung himself said many times he preferred: to be seen as the vividly unconventional man that he truly was, warts and all. If there are those who read this book and feel a sense of disappointment, it is because my attempt to put Jung back into history, to show how his ideas were rooted in the cultural currents of his age, conflict with the usual spiritualized—and highly unreal—images of Jung that are found in Memories, Dreams, Reflections. MDR is a book falsely passed off as his autobiography, and its contents are widely disseminated in a vast Jungian literature which uncritically accepts this distorted picture.
For those who are not scholars and who rely only on what they are told about C. G. Jung in Jungian books and journals, I can understand how some of the material I present in this book may be shocking. If so, the fault lies not in these pages but in the implicit conspiracy of silence concerning the historical truth about Jung and his movement One of the critical issues I raise early in this book is that for generations those near Jung knew the truth behind the distortions that were deliberately presented to the public concerning him; and yet, for various reasons, they kept their silence. The truth about Jung’s conscious falsification of his evidence for a collective unconscious, or about his racialist attitudes and anti-Semitism, or about his lifelong practice of polygamy were all known by people like C. A. Meier and Aniela Jaffé and many others who were in his inner circle for decades — but, to preserve the image of Jung as a guru-like holy man or god-man, they all kept quiet or lied about the evidence. It is ironic that a movement priding itself on making the unconscious conscious can continue to be so resistant to accepting Jung as a human being who lived in a particular cultural context and in a particular era of history. For a variety of complex reasons, there seems to be a great need on the part of not only Jungian analysts but also Jung’s family to keep him out of historical view.
Why should a historical work on C. G. Jung be so controversial?
Let me see if I can explore some of the reasons that have made The Jung Cult a topic of hot debate in newspapers throughout Europe, England, South America, and the United States, where a front-page story on the controversy appeared in the New York Times on June 3, 1995.
The first reason may seem innocuous initially, but it draws our attention precisely to the greater problem at hand: this book is the first comprehensive treatment of the historical context of the early life and work of C. G. Jung. True, there have been books on Jung before this one; however, without exception, they have all imprisoned him within the context of his relationship with Sigmund Freud. Although this was a very important relationship for Jung, his life both before and after Freud has been sorely neglected by scholars because of the almost exclusive focus on his Freudian years. This is true even for a useful book on Jung by Peter Homans, Jung in Context, which unfortunately is ahistorical in its approach and now seems quite out-dated because of this characteristic. But other than the work of Homans and an excellent book by John Kerr, who again puts Jung under the Freudian lens, there is nowhere for an intelligent person with an interest in Jung to go for serious scholarly information. There are armies of Freud scholars; it is a very telling fact that only now, 35 years after Jung’s death, are Jung historians beginning to appear. As I point out in The Jung Cult, Jungians as a rule have always been metaphysicians, not historians. Like Jung, they have traditionally been much more interested in mystery than in history.
And when believing in myth becomes more important than attempting to discern historical fact, we have a very serious problem indeed.
Because most Jungians seem to have little interest in history — including their own — they were shocked by what I uncovered and presented in this book. In particular, many expressed disbelief (again, without sifting the evidence for my argument) in my hypothesis that during the years of the Great War Jung deliberately set out to form a religious cult based on Aryan mysticism and polytheistic paganism. In December 1913 Jung had an experience (documented in this book) in which he underwent a visionary initiation into the Hellenistic mysteries of Mithras — the oldest of all the Aryan mystery cults of the Hellenistic world. At the climax of his initiatory experience he became a god — but not just any god: he became the Aryan Christ. Jung believed and acted — consciously — like a religious prophet who sought to bring about a new spiritual age. His “psychological” theories and his therapeutic techniques were based on these core experiences. I argue in this book that his psychological theories of the collective unconscious and the archetypes are essentially masks, a pseudoscientific cover to hide the practices of what was essentially a new religious movement in which Jung taught people to have trance visions and to contact the “gods” directly.
Jung was a bitter enemy of the orthodoxies of Judeo-Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because— and this is what his disciples have long forgotten—Jung believed that Christianity was a Jewish cancer, a “foreign growth” imposed on the Germans (such as himself), which cut them off from their biological and spiritual roots and made them ill. Jews were too “civilized,” too cut off from the natural religion of the sun and sky that the Germans practiced only a thousand years ago. They had no concept of “rebirth” nor any mystery cults, and therefore they could not be redeemed. To maintain the racial purity of his cult in Switzerland, he denied membership to Jews for decades, and in later years maintained a quota on their membership. As late as 1944 Jung’s closest associates, including C. A. Meier, drew; up a secret document which set a “Jewish quota” to Jung’s Psychological Club in Zurich. Jolande Jacobi, Aniela Jaffé, and many other familiar Jungian authors and analysts knew of this and kept silent. Not surprisingly, there was much pro-Nazi sentiment among those in Jung’s Psychology Club in the 1930s. To my knowledge, even as of this late date (1996) no one in Zurich—certainly no one in the Jung family—has ever attempted to make a formal apology for these attitudes or actions.
Raising such issues only served to open old wounds that Jung’s disciples and his family would have rather kept closed. Although they had been apprised of The Jung Cult and its contents and conclusions many months before it appeared, no one in Jung’s family seemed to take much notice until the hardcover edition of my book finally appeared in September 1994. And then Jung’s family pressured Princeton University, the publisher of that edition, to stop its publication and distribution.
Princeton University Press is the publisher of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung and of many occultist works of pseudo-scholarship that promote Jungian ideas. Books like the I Ching, Esther Harding’s The 1 and the Not-1, and Erich Neumann’s bizarre works of mystical/Jungian archaeology are, like the Collected Works, part of the publishing program that has earned Princeton—and the Jung family substantial sums over the years. Given the fact that the Jung family and the Jung estate are important to this Ivy League publisher, when complaints about my book came from Switzerland, the editors of Princeton University Press took it quite seriously — so seriously, in fact, that in February 1995 the director of Princeton University Press, two editors, and a retired consultant all flew to Zurich for a weekend of meetings with the Jung family, the agents of the Jung estates (Niedieck Linder), and the keepers of the flame at the Psychological Club in Zurich.
As I was told by my editor after her return from Zurich, Franz Jung—C. G.’s 86-year-old son—and others in Zurich demanded that The Jung Cult be immediately taken out of distribution. This demand was refused. However, a planned anthology of Jung’s writings on the ancient mysteries, which I edited and to which I had contributed a lengthy introduction, was soon cancelled. Although from a legal point of view the cancellation of the book was entirely legitimate, these actions raised ethical issues which affect not only me but all scholars who may want to do serious scholarly research on C. G. Jung.
One of the most distressing subtexts to the controversy surrounding The Jung Cult involves the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. In the course of polishing The Jung Cult for publication, I learned that a photocopy of the copious clinical notes (and other materials) belonging to an early associate of Jung’s had been deposited at the Library of Congress. These documents were the personal papers of J. J. Honegger, a young physician and assistant to Jung who committed suicide in the spring of 1911. Honegger left no legal provisions for the disposition of his papers, and they subsequently came into the possession of C. G. Jung. Jung kept them for decades, and then one day turned them over to his associate, C. A. Meier. Meier sat on them for years, and then finally deposited them in the archives of the E. T. H. university library in Zurich, where many of Jung’s professional papers are housed. A Jungian disciple in America got possession of photocopies of these documents, kept them himself for some time, and then in November 1993 deposited them in the Library of Congress.
However, when the Jungians in Switzerland learned that these papers had been deposited in the Library of Congress without their prior knowledge or permission, they demanded that Honegger’s papers be immediately sent back to Switzerland. For two years the Library of Congress refused to send them back to Switzerland, and it was ultimately able to keep them, subject to certain restrictions imposed by the Jung family and their associates. Thus, the Library of Congress refused access to the papers unless the permission of certain Jungians in Zurich was first gained in writing. This proved to be an insurmountable problem. My letters to the Jungians in Switzerland went unanswered—not surprisingly, for apparently they didn’t want anyone to read these documents. I also made persistent requests to the Library of Congress. After the flap over the proposed Freud exhibit that was “postponed,” the Library of Congress answered my requests with a letter stating that the documents were being sent back to the American Jungian from whom they had been received. Case closed.
Why are Honegger’s papers so important that the Jung inner circle does not want anyone to see them? I believe, and I argue in this volume, that it is because they contain the clinical notes of 1909-1910 on the famous case history of the Solar Phallus Man, which Jung pointed to as the most convincing evidence he had ever encountered of the collective unconscious. The Solar Phallus Man was an institutionalized patient who saw a phallus hanging from the sun. Jung argued throughout his life that this patient was describing an image from an ancient mystery cult liturgy that had only been translated and published in 1910— supposedly years after the delusion had been reported. Jung thought the delusion was based on material arising from an archaic, phylogenetic layer of the unconscious mind. As I demonstrate in this book, Jung had a tendency to lie about many, indeed most, of the details of this case over the course of his career. These clinical notes likely contain the truth — but it is perhaps a truth that the Jung family and Jung’s remaining disciples do not want revealed. There is a distinct possibility that the publication of the Honegger papers will demonstrate conclusively not only that C. G. Jung was mistaken about his idea of a collective unconscious but that he lied about this case later in order to cover up his mistake.
Unless and until the Jung family releases Honegger’s papers, the public will not know the facts of the matter.
That said, there is much work yet to be done for young scholars who want to fill in the missing parts of the story of C. G. Jung. I wrote The Jung Cult with future generations of scholars in mind. There is no need to wait for the Jung family to open Jung’s personal documents to historians. Tucked away, unread, in archives all over the world is a wealth of material that can add to our woefully incomplete knowledge of this extraordinary man and his life. Jung had not only colleagues to whom he wrote but also several generations of disciples, many of whom kept dream diaries and other documents. Since the latter were generally wealthy and had a sense of history, they were able to provide for the safety of this material, so that a surprising number of such items have survived.
This volume, then, is a beginning. I leave it to others to complete the story.
Richard Noll, Ph.D.

http://ojjt.org/2015/09/richard-noll...the-jung-cult/

I am about done reading this and I think the main character's POV is Fi (or at least introverted feeler) https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/48253660-borne

@ouronis, I started reading a book in the trilogy by Jeff VanderMeer and got to page three before I abandoned it. I thought it might be a fluke and felt I should give his writing another chance and I found this: https://www.tor.com/2017/11/08/this-...l-of-monsters/,
but this time I again only got about to page three.

Even though the guy seems to be getting awards, I find him to be unreadable.

I don't think the problem is his Fi-base, if he is Fi-base. I picked up a book called "Linger" by Maggie Stiefvater and immediately recognized it as a clear window into the mind of an ESI. VanderMeer's writing is just unreadable to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

@ouronis, I started reading a book in the trilogy by Jeff VanderMeer and got to page three before I abandoned it. I thought it might be a fluke and felt I should give his writing another chance and I found this: https://www.tor.com/2017/11/08/this-...l-of-monsters/,
but this time I again only got about to page three.

Even though the guy seems to be getting awards, I find him to be unreadable.

I don't think the problem is his Fi-base, if he is Fi-base. I picked up a book called "Linger" by Maggie Stiefvater and immediately recognized it as a clear window into the mind of an ESI. VanderMeer's writing is just unreadable to me.

---

I found the writing to be stilted, not the best I've ever read. The story too. The setting is mostly mangled tropes. But ultimately I was able to immerse anyway. All in all I've enjoyed it as a light read.

The character's pov reads like Fi, with the character being EII and the author interjecting the vivid descriptions of things.

Ultimately, I read for edification and I prefer that the author have some style and grace. The number of authors whose stories meet those criteria for me is almost nil now.

Snow Crash and The Diamond Age and Interface were the last books I read that approached that standard.

I just read a short story by Neil Gaiman which was very readable and meant nothing.
Gun, with Occasional Music, by Jonathan Lethem, is a tour de force of style and is lots of fun, but is just a pleasant way to waste time.

I just read The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which was both readable and enjoyable. I think the girl is clearly ILI and Mikael Blomkvist is clearly SEE. I enjoyed spending time with them, but I didn't learn anything.

A friend gave me a copy of The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354-378) by Ammianus Marcellinus, and I found it to be not that great stylistically, but was very interesting from the standpoint of what the author thought was worth reporting. It is very hard to find books which combine style and information.

The problem might be with me.

I've gotten back into the habit of reading for the last few days and I finally finished paglias "sex, art, and American culture." I've talked about her in a few posts already so maybe it's overkill but I like the closure of talking about something after I read it. She's a good author for where I am internally right now, wanting to kinda shake some dust bunnies loose in my head, get things moving, you know, because she's challenging and her polarizing, hyperbolic style makes her impossible to brush off or read without thinking. The thing I really took away from the book as useful in that respect is this idea of eclecticism and historical context, seeing things as they have developed and continue to within this huge timeframe of human history and accounting for the things you feel in your gut, the sex of it, less intellectualized, and pulling from various areas without too much specialization. I guess this is why she focuses so goddamn much on her generation in the 60s and how the postmodernist French intellectuals in the 70s fucked everything up, blah, blah, but it can feel kinda like the 50 yr olds I know who only listen to 80s music and just can't get over their youths lol. My favorite part of the book was the transcript of people asking her questions and her answers because seeing her in a position where she's sort of defending her ideas in a dialogue in a way where she's not being *totally* polarizing bcuz of due respect to the people listening to her I felt like I was getting where she stands better than when she's waving her arms around to get attention. As entertaining as she is when she's being a complete bitch, I wish there was more of that.

This year:

Against the Ethicists by Sextus Empiricus
Skin in the Game by Nassim Taleb
The Master and His Emissary by Iain Mcgilchrist (re-read but did not finish re-read)
Aesop's Fables (currently reading)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aster

Haven't read that one, but I read her Raven Cycle series, and they seemed so Gamma to me. I think her main character Blue was ESI E4 and her love interest, Gansey, was LIE-Ni 8w7.

---

Many thanks, @aster. Now I have something else to read.

It is really interesting and odd to spend time inside the head of a dual. :)

I've been really enjoying Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Idea" especially since it inspired Jung to create his typology.

Finished James Baldwin's If Beale Street Could Talk. I'm not blown away by his novels as much as I am by his social essays (with the important exception of Giovannis Room), but of course it was solid. I found myself oddly relieved when it ended before the resolution and then realized I didn't really want to know what was going to happen.

About to start Petersons 12 Rules and find out what the big deal is about lobsters.

War and peace - it's like watching a period TV show but a lot better. :thumbsup:

@aster When I read the first Throne of Glass book, I almost sent one of the romantic banter scenes to my SLE friend b/c I felt she would love it. :) It is actually exactly like how her real relationships are.

I'm reading the Burrow and other short stories by kafka, I love kafka. He is like a spiritual guide, artistic mentor, parent figure all in one. When I read him I feel nourished beyond anything I've ever experienced. The most moving things I read of his were actually his diaries and Conversations with Kafka by Gustav Janouch. Both of them had me breaking down and laughing out loud in cafes.

the shadow of the wind by carlos ruiz zafón

https://i.imgur.com/zS46qQO.png

https://i.imgur.com/E4Se0EP.png

I love Asian literature. I finished The House of Sleeping Beauties by Yasunari Kawabata. Now I'm reading:

Spring Snow by Yukio Mishima
Moshi Moshi by Banana Yoshimoto

I also love books on self-improvement & psychology. I enjoyed Don't Shoot The Dog by Karen Pryor, and I'm also reading Marsha Linehan's work on DBT on people with BPD.

Other authors I like are Kurt Vonnegut and Milan Kundera.

the biography of James de Rothschild (lol I can't drop it!)

Osamu Dazai is the Japanese Bukowski - short novels about loser protagonists with ... life ... problems. Anyway, I find that sort of novel a very compelling read and I blazed through No Longer Human and then picked up The Setting Sun, which I'm reading now.

https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1...45l/566087.jpg

Alchemy - an introduction to the symbolism and the psychology

I finished M-train by Patti smith, was easy to read and beautiful, ne-filled, reflections on her life in non-linear way as well as relating different trips and small adventures. Filled with her soul in a gentle honest unpretentious way. Mainly I think it was her coming to grips with losing her husband.

Read part 1 on Born to Run, nice to hear Springsteen's voice more intimately, it is more linear and conventional building up tension bit by bit all along the journey of how he became who he did and how his career took flight in incremental ways and what he had to do to keep his dreams going.

@aster if you like norwegian wood, then I recommend checking out kafka on the shore. it's my favorite murakami book even though I never finished it.

here's a short story by him, if you're curious about his writing style: https://harpers.org/archive/2003/07/birthday-girl/

Homo Deus, by Yuval Noah Harari
https://www.amazon.de/Homo-Deus-Yuva...sap_bc?ie=UTF8

I haven't been this disappointed with a book for quite some time. I'm halfway trough and instead of a fresh new look on human beings, our world and history I got a bed time story for adults. The author is cherry picking from science and history to support his notion, that where the world and humanity is heading isn't as bad is it appears to be. I tried hard to read this book to the end but I can't help but think how much the author is removed from reality.

I'm not happier having read this book. But it's a pretty good book, albeit intense.

Attachment 13573

Reading Fear, by Bob Woodward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallmo

https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1...45l/566087.jpg

Alchemy - an introduction to the symbolism and the psychology

---

just ordered a used copy of amazon, cant wait :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

just ordered a used copy of amazon, cant wait :biggrin:

---

I like her discussing, informal style. Lots of stuff in there to think about.

Let me know if you find something interesting. I've also been reading this book lately.

oh the places you'll go by Dr. Seuss

Currently reading Eighty-Sixed by David Feinberg. Its engaging and an interesting uncensored look into the 80s NYC gay scene but the humor is kinda kitschy and cutesy for me. The protagonist doesn't have AIDS yet though so I don't know if this tone will continue.

The last book I really, really enjoyed was Rule of the Bone by Russell Banks. I don't know if this is a sparkling recommendation though because I eat up any and all coming of age novels.

"Ambulance Girl" by Jane Stern

I started reading kerouacs the subterraneans, i've never read anything from him before and maybe this was the wrong one to start with. I'm distracted from his world by my judgements of him being a fuckboy. A "product of his time" yeah yeah. I really have to gear up my brain to make it through his frenetic prose and im not sure the payoff is worth it. Should I read on the road instead?

I doubt if his type changed much between books.

When you read an author, you are basically spending time inside their heads. I find the inside of some author's heads to be interesting places to spend time and look around, and some are not.

I wouldn't say its not interesting. I just think i'm not being fair in my reactions. When he actually hits on something kind of beautiful to me I imagine him flexing in front of Ginsberg and Burroughs and kissing his biceps while he recites it or something. But maybe I'll warm up to him, I haven't finished the book yet

Reading Lair of Dreams by Libba Bray currently, about 35% in. It's the second book in the Diviners series. Think I might end up liking this one better than the first, and I gave the first 5 stars on GR. Even though I can't stand the MC, Evie, I still to seem like it...atmospheric and fits perfectly for around this time of year....

I started on the road and I like it much better already.

I started reading a book about insider trading at a hedge fund and it was sociopathic and repetitive so I switched to reading a book about the catholic church(...) I read an amazon preview of "Crime and Punishment."

I'm still savoring LET THERE BE LIGHT: MODERN COSMOLOGY & THE KABBALAH. Reading it in my environment has oftentimes seemed like a downright mystical experience.

De La Démocratie en Amérique

i gave away half my dune books and my kindle is unrepairably fucked so i tried starting to reread the first three prequal dune books about the butlerian jihad but jesus christ this is horrible writing. there's plot holes and contradictions literally from page to page and it reads like the weird 5th grade kid drawing stick figure wars while making explosion sounds. i didn't remember them being this bad, but it's jarring af going directly from a frank herbert dune to his sons.

Checked out Kingdom of Ash (Throne of Glass #7) by Sarah J. Maas. I'm really tired of Maas anymore. In the beginning I really liked her books, but now the attitude of the MC's in a few of her book series started grating on me. Books getting really good reviews, and I've read the other 6, so I figured I'd give it a go. Unfortunately it's abt a 1000 pages. This better be damn good. lol I've only made it 2 chapters in. I've been busy. :shrug:

Also checked out The Mysterious Affair at Styles. This will be my first Agatha Christie book :)