What are you currently reading?

[NikF]

The Lover by Marguerite Duras.

[Bogey]

Another from Donald Westlake.

[Bogey]

Wow, that looks great.

A bit slow to start, but then it grinds into pulpy crime squalor with no sap running from the pages.  Only 120 plus pages for this one, but I am looking into Rabe's next book in his Daniel Port series.  You can get the first three (including this one) here for $0.79 plus shipping:



https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933586656/ref=x_gr_w_bb?ie=UTF8&tag=x_gr_w_bb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1933586656&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2

Donald Westlake and W. R. Burnett are right now my favorites for this genre, but I can see Rabe moving up.

[NikF]

Harpo Speaks!


[asin]0879100362[/asin]


Rereading.

[aligreto]

Just began to read The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho....

[ritter]

Letters by Marcel Proust to the duc de Valentinois (later to be Prince Pierre of Monaco), recently released by the Monaco palace, scrupulously edited by Jean-Marc Quaranta, and lovingly prefaced by Jean-Yves Tadié.

[Kontrapunctus]

http://images.gr-assets.com/books/1426804837l/25177983.jpg

[Spineur]

This will make Florestan very happy:

As I will spend 3 weeks in Myanmar over christmas, I need to brush up on my Buddhism.



By the way, this is the best book that was ever written on the ideas behind religions, and yes, Mircea Eliade is a Romanian.

[SimonNZ]

Mircea Eliade is someone I've been meaning to read for a long time, particularly his The Sacred And The Profane. Perhaps I should take this as a reminder and a nudge. Is it one of his you'd also recommend?

[Ken B]

By the way, this is the best book that was ever written on the ideas behind religions, and yes, Mircea Eliade is a Romanian.

How many victims did he have?

[Spineur]

Mircea Eliade is someone I've been meaning to read for a long time, particularly his The Sacred And The Profane. Perhaps I should take this as a reminder and a nudge. Is it one of his you'd also recommend?

If I recall correctly, this is a shorter more acessible book, less centered on the history of religion.  I would recommend sticking to the big book on the history of religions.  It is segmented in 3-4 pages sections each of which can be read in a short time.  Usually, one is not interested to read everything.  The  beginning of the first volume deals with the prehistoric stuff and human sacrifice.  It is useful only when you read about the Inca and Aztec.  Not for far-east or western religions.

[NikF]

Strait is the Gate by Andre Gide.

[asin]0141185244[/asin]

[Mister Sharpe]

Strait is the Gate by Andre Gide.

[asin]0141185244[/asin]

+1

[Mister Sharpe]

I am a big fan of the crotchety Julian Barnes.  Just began his short novel about Shosty:

[Sergeant Rock]

Poems by Bukowski: What Matters Most Is How Well You Walk Through the Fire, 409 pages.




Sarge

[Brian]

Just finished a history of the crusades...



...now:



Antal Szerb - Journey by Moonlight

[Florestan]

Just finished a history of the crusades...

How, and why, is this more authoritative than Steven Runciman's? 

[Brian]

How, and why, is this more authoritative than Steven Runciman's? 

There is a difference in opinion; Runciman, I feel, portrayed the crusaders as greedy, horrible cynics, and Asbridge captures both this quality and the genuine piety & religious fervor felt by many of them. He makes an earnest effort to re-evaluate every figure, comparing his assessments with those of Runciman & other western figures, along with a consideration of the Muslim historians from c. 1200 to the present day. Another difference of opinion - Asbridge believes, against the propaganda of al-Qaeda and American right-wing Christians, that the crusades have almost no relevance to 21st century geopolitics, and that the Crusades did not create a "culture clash" of centuries-long religious hatred, for the simple reason that the Muslim world thought of the wars as a sideshow to the real wars - their internal power struggles between Ayyubids, Fatimids, Mamluks, and Mongols - and quickly forgot about what they called the "Frankish wars."

[Ken B]

There is a difference in opinion; Runciman, I feel, portrayed the crusaders as greedy, horrible cynics, and Asbridge captures both this quality and the genuine piety & religious fervor felt by many of them. He makes an earnest effort to re-evaluate every figure, comparing his assessments with those of Runciman & other western figures, along with a consideration of the Muslim historians from c. 1200 to the present day. Another difference of opinion - Asbridge believes, against the propaganda of al-Qaeda and American right-wing Christians, that the crusades have almost no relevance to 21st century geopolitics, and that the Crusades did not create a "culture clash" of centuries-long religious hatred, for the simple reason that the Muslim world thought of the wars as a sideshow to the real wars - their internal power struggles between Ayyubids, Fatimids, Mamluks, and Mongols - and quickly forgot about what they called the "Frankish wars."

Thanks! a useful answer, sounds interesting.

[Florestan]

Thanks! a useful answer, sounds interesting.

Yes, + 1, thank you very much!