What are you currently reading?

[stingo]

Finally started reading the Legends anthology (edited by Robert Silverberg) I'd started when I read George R. R. Martin's first Dunk and Egg tale. So far I've been introduced to Stephen King's Dark Tower series, and had a fantastic Discworld story from Terry Pratchett involving one of his best characters - Granny Weatherwax.

[asin]B005LVO6FS[/asin]

[Artem]

Finished my third Sciascia's book called Equal Danger. I like Sciascia writing very much and this book didn't dissapoint.

[Karl Henning]

See Spot ran run, your Honor.

[North Star]

See Spot ran run, your Honor.

And people in the States wonder what is wrong with their education system. Standardized tests, and directing funding based on success, are not the best way to control the quality of education. Unless by 'control' one means keeping it from improving.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

I've a job interview tomorrow.  If I don't get it, I'll have plenty o' time to read this - so I win either way! 

[asin] 0374522782[/asin]

Fascinating to me, Brendel writes in the same style as his playing!  "Master of narrative line" indeed...

[Artem]

Good luch with the interview. What does Brendel mostly talk about in that book you're reading?

[Karl Henning]

Good luck!

[Wakefield]

I've a job interview tomorrow.  If I don't get it, I'll have plenty o' time to read this - so I win either way! 

[asin] 0374522782[/asin]

Fascinating to me, Brendel writes in the same style as his playing!  "Master of narrative line" indeed...

Good luck with your interview! 

I agree about Brendel. I like to hear his German, too: quiet and a bit professorial, but still impassioned. 

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Merci, mes amis!  I've just dipped into this work (NB: this is the 2nd ed.) so far, but more than anything or anyone, Liszt is the focus of Brendel's attn. here - the why and wherefore and historical significance of his transcriptions, performance style, and approaching Liszt's work.  13 pages are devoted to "Notes on A Complete Recording of Beethoven's Sonatas," three essays on Busoni and several about Brendel's teacher, Edwin Fischer.  There's nothing in this book which does not grab me but I am esp. looking forward to :  "Schubert's Piano Sonatas, 1822-28,"  and "Form & Psychology in Beethoven's Piano Sonatas."  There's also an interview with Brendel and a discussion about coping with different pianos.  A funny thing, to crave text like one's favorite ice cream...

[ritter]

My first approach to this author's work:

Claude Levi-Strauss: Tristes Tropiques
[asin]2070118029[/asin]

[Jaakko Keskinen]

More shakespeare and dickens. Rereadings mostly before moving on to ones I haven't read. Just reread taming of the shrew which is still quite funny play, although many parts of it haven't obviously aged that well. Currently I'm enjoying once again Othello and Hard times.

Iago is probably my favorite Shakespeare character and even the fact that his plan would have failed instantly if not for certain convenient circumstances, this doesn't ultimately matter to me. He is so well written and he is once again one of those characters that even though you realise he is bastard, in this case apparently complete bastard (seemingly without redeeming qualities many other shakespeare villains do have), I still want and will root for him and feel almost sadness when he is led off-stage to torture and possible execution. I agree with very common theory that the true main character in the play is not, despite it's name, Othello but Iago. He even has much more lines than Othello. It doesn't matter that Othello just happens to conveniently miss from Cassio's and Iago's discussion about Bianca the parts that would have instantly burned Iago's ass. This play (and several other of Shakespeare's plays) is to be enjoyed with feeling, not completely with reason (although the devilishly good lines of Iago actually make a lot of sense). Although everyone points out the irony of "honest Iago"-nickname, it should be noted that much of (although not all) what Iago says is actually perfectly honest. He causes much more damage with what he doesn't say than what he does say. Along with Hamlet, this play was the one that really got me into Shakespeare.

With hard times, I sure have had hard times (hardy har) with concentration. Although I like the book, it has (like most of Dickens's books) its good parts and... not so good parts. Reading this book makes me actually think I am getting more and more stupid, not only because DIckens really seems to think of reader as one, at several parts he force-feds his "righteous" views to reader, instead of using some more clever way to make his point. Although this is still much more endurable than Our mutual friend's "my lords and gentlemen and honourable boards"-speeches (and I really hope that Dickens wrote those passages only because he had to fill twenty monthly numbers).

The protagonist, Mr. Thomas Gradgrind senior is one of DIckens's more morally ambiguous (and thus more interesting) lead characters. He seems well-intentioned extremist who means well but ultimately ruins the lives of his children. While I think of Dombey as (anti)villain protagonist, and Pip as flawed righteous protagonist, Gradgrind falls in between them, along with Wrayburn from Our mutual friend. Although I haven't still read Dombey (after I'm finished with these, I'm moving on to it) from what I know about him is that he seems more like villain (albeit pitiable one) than anti hero like Wrayburn and Gradgrind. I may change my mind after I've actually read the book. As for Pip, as much as I like him, I never agreed with Pip's internal judgement of himself in the book. Yes, clearly he is intended to be sympathetic enough to obtain reader's compassion but it seems like Dickens intended him as more flawed character than someone like David Copperfield. Hell, I actually think Pip is more likable than David. Most of his snob behaviour is in his thoughts, rarely in his actions and as such I regard him more as a hero. Actually, the moment he realises his "asshole behaviour" and starts to act "nicer", I start to like him much less and actually think in those parts of him as asshole. Same thing happens with Wrayburn sometimes, when author intends him to be nicer he actually at times seems more like a jerk. I still agree he is anti hero, though, because of reasons I addressed in my previous post about Our mutual friend. Some other heroes of Dickens such as Nicholas from Nickleby and Joe Willet and Edward Chester also seem to me like assholes at some points, although critics usually think of them as morally upright heroes. But it's merely question of interpretation.

Ok, enough about those guys. Onward. Gradgrind's children, particularly two of them, (hell, the other three have so little screentime that you easily forget about them), are superbly portrayed. Their facts only-education from their father affects them in different ways, but in both cases in bad way. Louisa suppresses her emotions, becoming eventually wife of Bounderby, Gradgrind's friend, even though inside she knows she's making a mistake. This makes her more vulnerable when young cynical gentleman James Harthouse sets his eyes on her.

Louisa's brother, Tom, is an example of selfish brother done right (other example would be Tip Dorrit from Little Dorrit). Charley Hexam is crudely painted jerk, Monks vicious melodramatic figure, Frederick Trent hardly worth mentioning. But Tom's negative development is presented completely compellingly and believably. He is ultimately as much of victim of circumstances as Louisa is. His upbringing leads him to a life of gambling and eventually to a path of crime. He doesn't really mean harm to Stephen Blackpool when he frames him for robbery Tom himself has committed. The unemotional upbringing merely has made him unable to understand fully the consequences and it probably lead him to thinking (like Steerforth from David Copperfield) that Blackpool doesn't feel in the same way as other people do. If never taught to do any good to other people, can it be expected that he would do such a thing? He has complex relationship with his sister. She seems to be only person he truly unquestionably cares about and even then he manipulates her and uses her quite selfishly. Yet he in the end repents and it's quite sad he never got to meet again her after been sent to overseas. Thus, he is pretty much only major Dickens villain who could be said to have obtained redemption, even if in the very end and in few sentences. But ultimately there really is no need for his repentance to be more elaborately described, since his earlier selfishness is part of his character development and its natural conclusion is repentance. Denying your emotional and humane qualities ultimately backfires and they come flying out. His selfishness and lecherous behaviour in fact, paradoxically, was already part of his humane attributes trying to force themselves out. To be selfish is to be a human. To be lecherous is to be human. It's merely sad that from his humane qualities the selfish and lecherous attributes came out first and pretty much ruined his life. Wow, I am writing so much irrational and tedious prose here that I am starting to sound like Wagner. Moving on.

Sissy, one of the two moral centres in the book is so tediously emotional and sentimental that it ironically contradicts Dickens's intention to show that suppressing your emotions is a bad thing. I've heard Florence Dombey bursts in tears over 100 times. That's a lot of crying but I can swear that this Sissy girl never keeps her eyes dry either. Pretty much every scene she's on she starts to cry. When describing perfectly good characters Dickens is at his worst.

Which leads us to other morally most upright character, Stephen Blackpool, who seriously gets on my nerves. However, at few parts he actually makes couple of convincing points which makes me like him slightly more than Sissy. But it's at times hard to make out what he's saying, though I am glad that for once Dickens didn't have every poor character inherit upper class King's English.

My favorite character in the book, James Harthouse is ofen compared to Steerforth, often unfavourably. I seem to really like these Byronic heroes. Harthouse is extremely captivating character. However, my rereading of the book still going on, I don't have that much to say about him what I didn't already say when I commented about Steerforth. Yet they are in some ways quite different characters. Let's see if I ever write more about him. One last word about him: if I recall, his letter to his brother, when Harthouse leaves Coketown, is full of blunt hilarity.

One last character I am going to mention is Bitzer, Gradgrind's model student who in one of the greatest scenes in the book turns Gradgrind's own philosophy against him and shoves it down his throat. Pure awesomeness.

I think I'll move to Dombey after Othello and Hard times. I've heard very different opinions about it. Florence Dombey's constant weeping worries me a little though.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Btw, I have hard time understanding why one of Dickens's contemporaries dismissed Hard times as "sullen socialism". Stephen Blackpool refuses to join the Union, for God's sake!

[Drasko]

I was undecided between this one and much more recent one by Scheijen, but in the end price decided.
Captivating, read about third of it in just two sittings.

[Ken B]

Would you do it with a Magic Dragon?
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/08/i-think-i-accidentally-started-an-urban

[Brian]

My friend and I started a Hate Book Club where we read books we hate. Here's my first book report (and a link to hers, also amusing).

The subject of our hate this month: an evangelical Christian manual for marriage.

[Mookalafalas]

My friend and I started a Hate Book Club where we read books we hate. Here's my first book report (and a link to hers, also amusing).

The subject of our hate this month: an evangelical Christian manual for marriage.

  Weird book. Good review.

[Ken B]

  Weird book. Good review.

Well, I wanted to hear more on what he had say about anal. But that was my reaction to A Brief History of Time too.

[Mookalafalas]

Well, I wanted to hear more on what he had say about anal. But that was my reaction to A Brief History of Time too.

I was rather curious on that topic, too, actually, but was too timid to say so

[Brian]

Well, I wanted to hear more on what he had say about anal. But that was my reaction to A Brief History of Time too.

Haven't returned my copy to the library yet, so wish granted! The anal section is two pages long, and, like all the other "Can We Do This in Bed" FAQs, broken into three parts:
- Is it lawful? This is where he says married couples can bang butts because Sodomy is all about being gay, not behinds. For some reason he also parenthetically adds that "burning asphalt" is what killed everyone in Sodom.
- Is it helpful? "Some couples choose to use this method to prevent pregnancy." But generally you must both have "a clear conscience" before trying it.
- Is it enslaving? (That's a real question they ask.) "For men who have had gay sex, if it conjures up for them past fantasies and memories, then, while the act may not be sinful in general, it may be sinful in particular for them."

In answer to a question Al asked, and two questions you guys might ask:
- I take a train to work and have an hour of reading time daily. Last year I read 80ish books; this year I've read 55.
- Yes, I did check out another, more urbane library book because of the judgment I thought I'd incur from the lady at the desk.
- The other "Can We Do This in Bed" things are masturbation, oral & menstrual sex, "Role-Playing", toys, and birth control. Plus bonus sections on abortion and cosmetic surgery. "In purchasing [sex] toys, you may be best served to purchase them from one of the more discreet Web sites, including those overtly run by Christians, where there are not photos of nude people..."

[stingo]

Maybe -phalt was a bid for respectability?

Thread Duty: Not sure if I mentioned finishing Snow by Orhan Pamuk, but I did. Good book even if the last chapter was longer than it needed to be. I've stared reading the Collected Stories v4 of Arthur C. Clarke. Why start at volume 4? Because the book club to which I belong is reading The Wind from the Sun, and volume 4 collects those stories and a few others, albeit in a different order. I've liked what I read so far - the stories are entertaining, thought provoking and just the right length to get me involved, but not so long as to drag on.