What are you currently reading?

[greg]

And? How did it feel to penetrate the secret? 

Today I started reading The Great Gatsby.

Like a great mess of confusion and randomness, as it went on. Pickup artists should never live together, lol.
Though it was very enlightening.... it turns out good for author at the end, too, after all of that... i guess that's really the only thing that matters.

[Benji]

Currently about a third of the way through Earth Abides by George R Stewart. British readers may wonder, as I did, if this is he of 15-to-1 fame, but no, that was William G Stewart.  0:)

It is a tale of one man who has survived a pandemic that rather rapidly killed off almost the entire human race. So far he has picked up a dog, and recently a lady friend / fellow survivor. There is talk of having a baby. The text is peppered with musings / observations / passages from other texts that describe, or cast light on, the way that nature is effortlessly reclaiming the Earth in man's absence.

It's certainly no eco-warrior browbeater; rather it is a touching and thought-provoking study of modern life and how the author imagines we would happily return to a simpler way of life should the social constructions and complexities of our modern society be suddenly removed. For instance, I find it quite amusing, as i'm sure we could all relate, that our protagonist hesitates to break a window to get into a shop, or to drive through a still-functioning red light, despite the complete absence of any other human, let alone law enforcement! Of course the absurdity of it all dawns on him eventually.

I am enjoying this immensely, I don't want it to end. It is a topic I have given a great deal of thought to, even before knowing of this book, and I must admit i've often wondered what it would be like to actually be alone in the world (and maybe briefly even wished for it). I think part of us all wishes for an easier life, maybe even a return to a simpler way of living. But then would any of us voluntarily give up the benefits of modern society - instant information, healthcare and the longer life it affords us, clean water on tap? And of course we are not naive enough to ignore the fact that a 'simpler' way of life would be one of much toil, hardship and uncertainty, but do the corresponding joys of self-sufficiency and balance with nature make up for the hardships? I wish I knew.

(apologies for thinking out loud there!)

So yes, a great book so far. Like all great science fiction it takes on a big question, sparks the imagination and then runs with it.

[DavidW]

Ben, I've been wanting to read that for awhile, with your strong rec I think I will.

[Opus106]

(apologies for thinking out loud there!)

No, please don't. I'll be looking for it in the library next time. (I borrowed some books just yesterday which "maxed out" my membership limit.)

[DavidW]

Ben, I've been wanting thinking about reading that for awhile, with your strong rec I think I will.

Too tired last night to write what I mean.

[DavidW]

This is wicked good, it's been along time since I read an Ian Rankin novel.  Just like I remembered-- dark and moody.  Rebus living with the pain of his past, slugging down whisky and coffee.  He's kind of like Morse but not so aloof and cerebral.

Anyway this particular novel is about a serial killer that kidnaps and murders girls but doesn't rape or molest them in anyway.  The Edinburgh police are all over it, but no matter the man power they keep coming up empty handed...

[Brian]

[Swann's Way] What you call prolixity I call an amazing facility for detail!

I am liking "Combray" a whole lot more than I liked the "Overture"!

This paragraph seemed to me to summarize the narrator's basic problem:

At this date I was a lover of the theatre: a Platonic lover, of necessity, since my parents had not yet allowed me to enter one, and so incorrect was the picture I drew for myself of the pleasures to be enjoyed there that I almost believed that each of the spectators looked, as into a stereoscope, upon a stage and scenery which existed for himself alone, though closely resembling the thousand other spectacles presented to the rest of the audience individually.

[CD]

That one is high on my "to be read" list. Comments will be appreciated!

I enjoyed it quite a bit. The main character of Frederic seemed almost to be a parody of Balzac's romantic "lions" bent on finding position in high society, but it is not so obvious as that would imply. You sympathize with him even though he is callous and self-serving. The narrative contains rather a lot of references to the political troubles occurring at the time of the story (late 1840s) -- my edition had dozens of footnotes, without which I would have been pretty helpless.

I am liking "Combray" a whole lot more than I liked the "Overture"!

This paragraph seemed to me to summarize the narrator's basic problem:

At this date I was a lover of the theatre: a Platonic lover, of necessity, since my parents had not yet allowed me to enter one, and so incorrect was the picture I drew for myself of the pleasures to be enjoyed there that I almost believed that each of the spectators looked, as into a stereoscope, upon a stage and scenery which existed for himself alone, though closely resembling the thousand other spectacles presented to the rest of the audience individually.

His musical sentences take some getting used to. Try reading faster rather than taking it slowly.

Now reading:

[rubio]

I enjoyed it quite a bit. The main character of Frederic seemed almost to be a parody of Balzac's romantic "lions" bent on finding position in high society, but it is not so obvious as that would imply. You sympathize with him even though he is callous and self-serving. The narrative contains rather a lot of references to the political troubles occurring at the time of the story (late 1840s) -- my edition had dozens of footnotes, without which I would have been pretty helpless.

Thank you for your comment, corey! It's still on my "list".

[CD]

Thank you for your comment, corey! It's still on my "list".

What else is on your list?

[rubio]

What else is on your list?

There is plenty on the list, but books certainly are more time-consuming than music/movies. Usually I read one "lighter" and one "heavier" book at the same time. For the latter part the Flaubert, "Idiot" Dostoyevsky, "The Outsider" Camus, "Life: A User's Manual" Perec, "Journey to the end of the night" Celine, Balzac, Stendhal and some Thomas Mann book (I've only read Death in Venedig) are the most tempting ones. Now I read "The Great Gatsby", "Europe" by Geert Maak and a Edward Munch biography in Norwegian. Many of my favourite writers are Norwegians.

[CD]

Thomas Mann [...] (I've only read Death in Venedig)

Start with Buddenbrooks, though any is fine. Mann might be my favorite author, but I haven't read anything by him for some time -- in fact I just bought a few of his novels I don't already know.

[rubio]

Start with Buddenbrooks, though any is fine. Mann might be my favorite author, but I haven't read anything by him for some time -- in fact I just bought a few of his novels I don't already know.

Buddenbrooks suits me excellent as that's the only one I already own . My favourite author is probably Dostoyevsky and I love Murakamis surrealism + some Norwegian authors like Knausgard and Bjornebo.

[secondwind]

I'm beginning to read books that everyone "knows" but no one has actually read.  I just finished Gone with the Wind and started Uncle Tom's Cabin.  Also on this list is Darwin's Origin of Species.

[drogulus]

     

     It's very good so far (Chap. 2).

     Here's a summary:

     The book's 27 chapters are each made up of a previously published work by authors such as Jorge Luis Borges, Alan Turing, Richard Dawkins, Raymond Smullyan, John Searle, Stanisław Lem, Thomas Nagel (as well as Hofstadter and Dennett themselves), each followed up by a commentary by Hofstadter and/or Dennett. Dennett and Hofstadter both support the idea that we can learn much about human minds and souls by exploring human mentality in terms of information processing. Dennett and Hofstadter are both proponents of the idea that the wonders of human mentality can be accounted for by mechanical brain processes — which leaves nothing theoretical to prevent us from building human-like mental processes into our mechanical devices. A few views that run counter to this notion, such as John Searle's widely-known presentation of the Chinese room argument, are included in this book mainly as targets for refutation.

[karlhenning]

Read this just now on wikipedia:

In 2002, [Bugs Bunny] was named by TV Guide as the greatest cartoon character of all time, an honor he shares with Mickey Mouse.

As a sentence, no, it isn't much good at all.

[Franco]

     

     It's very good so far (Chap. 2).

     Here's a summary:

     The book's 27 chapters are each made up of a previously published work by authors such as Jorge Luis Borges, Alan Turing, Richard Dawkins, Raymond Smullyan, John Searle, Stanisław Lem, Thomas Nagel (as well as Hofstadter and Dennett themselves), each followed up by a commentary by Hofstadter and/or Dennett. Dennett and Hofstadter both support the idea that we can learn much about human minds and souls by exploring human mentality in terms of information processing. Dennett and Hofstadter are both proponents of the idea that the wonders of human mentality can be accounted for by mechanical brain processes — which leaves nothing theoretical to prevent us from building human-like mental processes into our mechanical devices. A few views that run counter to this notion, such as John Searle's widely-known presentation of the Chinese room argument, are included in this book mainly as targets for refutation.

It's a good read - which I did a bunch of years ago, but not as good as Godel, Escher and Bach IMO.

[Brian]

The Mind's I

Interesting cover design. Looks like Hofstadter's agent had a lot of pull: he's listed first though he's second alphabetically, and his "author of" is in print as big as Dennett's name! Poor Daniel can't be too happy (well, he can ... he's not too self-important, I don't think, and they paid him for it).

[drogulus]

It's a good read - which I did a bunch of years ago, but not as good as Godel, Escher and Bach IMO.

    I still haven't read GEB. I'm generally familiar with the themes from his other writings. I'm going backwards from Strange Loop to Mind's I to GEB next, I think.

[Maciek]

Interesting cover design. Looks like Hofstadter's agent had a lot of pull: he's listed first though he's second alphabetically, and his "author of" is in print as big as Dennett's name! Poor Daniel can't be too happy (well, he can ... he's not too self-important, I don't think, and they paid him for it).

Well, today Hofstader and Dennett are probably more or less equally well known (though none of Dennett's books has the status of GEB). But The Mind's I was published in 1981, and I don't think Dennett was a very well known author at that point - he had only published 2 books. Hofstader had only published 1, I think (GEB), but did get a Pulitzer for it (in 1980), which makes quite a difference...