What are you currently reading?

[knight66]

Currently I am wading through a text book on Social Policy, set for a course I am starting shortly.

But for pleasure, I am reading Mary Beard's Pompeii.

Very readable, she is clear eyed and non-sensationalist. The opening explains about the dead who were found with their possessions. So many carried keys, clearly thinking they would be coming back, but in reality they probably only managed a street or so. It is also interesting to learn that the town was by no means caught completely unawares and frozen in its normal 'life'. A lot of evidence suggests that many rich had moved out of the town after an earlier earthquake 17 years before and that of those left, many had taken the early warning rumbles and small quakes seriously and had escaped, taking piles of valuables with them.

I thought that I had quite a good knowledge of this event.....I certainly did not.

Mike

[Jo498]

Robert Harris has a nice (and I believe well researched) novel "Pompeii" that I'd recommend if you have not read it. Although it might be a little redundant if read shortly after a scholarly book on the subject.

[knight66]

Thanks, I have read it and enjoy his work a lot. Only a moment ago on radio he was discussing his latest Conclave, about the election of a pope. It is on my list for when I can get it a whole lot cheaper.

Mike

[zamyrabyrd]

I read it many years ago and found it difficult going at the time. I wonder if I could read it with more ease now?

Back then, I found the exhaustive (for his time) "compleat whale" tedious but now find the meeting of the two worlds, human and leviathan, fascinating. Melville has quite a sense of humor and profound understanding of human psychology, much of it derived from being confined in a small space with a few people for long stretches of time. Personality traits, good and bad, become magnified.

I still don't understand how ships were able to carry supplies for years on end (this voyage was supposed to take three), notably fresh water. Also I don't get why they had to go around Africa to follow whales after furnishing a good description of those in northern waters, as around Greenland. OK, the Captain felt compelled to follow one in particular, the premise of the story...

[SimonNZ]

Pliny the Younger's first-hand description of fleeing Pompeii, which can be found in the Penguin Classics edition of his letters, is essential reading, though doubtless Mary Beard referred to it and quoted from it.

Speaking of Mary Beard: just today I finished watching her four-part documentary on "Rome: Empire Without Limit", and am considering pushing her book SPQR to the top of the pile.

[knight66]

Simon,

Yes re the younger Pliny, I have read what he wrote and Beard does mention it. The SPQR is well worth reading. She is very good at clearing the rubble of legend, then examining why that legend became important. I enjoyed the book, though she does repeat one or two points, a small issue when there is such a lot of absorbable scholarship. And although her TV programmes can concentrate a bit on the salacious, her books treat the readers as adults rather than teens who need to be kept amused. The nature of TV up to a point.

Mike

[knight66]

Anthony Powell
..... with the first chapter is concerned, or I have simply entered the Acceptance World myself, and come to terms with Powell's style of endless hedging, double negatives, and subordinate clauses and endless asides. How this was ever considered good writing is entirely lost on me. I'm with V.S.Naipaul on this. Got them, because Wodehouse wrote enthusiastically about these books to Powell himself... but either he was being nice or he liked the sentimental all-English aspect that flooded him with fond memories from the world that Wodehouse had left behind. Endlessly, characters are yanked back into the narrative that really have no place being there [constant discussion how a third party would have commented upon the things currently happening], there's that typically odd mix of total memory, down to the last phrase and casual "I don't know if she said anything else that night; at least I don't remember anything being said" dismissal. But the fact that he can't just write a simple sentence is absolutely unnerving me. Here's a fine example:

"In spite of the apparently irresistible nature of the circumstances, when regarded through the larger perspectives that seemed, on reflection, to prevail - that is to say of a general subordination to an intricate design of cause and effect - I could not help admitting, in due course, the awareness of a sense of inadequacy. There was no specific suggestion that anything had, as it might be said, 'gone wrong'; it was merely that any wish to remain any longer present in those surroundings had suddenly and violently decreased, if not disappeared entirely. This feeling was, in its way, a shock. Gypsy, for her part, appeared far less impressed than myself by consciousness of anything, even relatively momentuous, having occurred. In fact, after the brief interval of extreme animation, her subsequent indifference, which might almost have been called torpid, was, so it seemed to me, remarkable. This imperturbability was inclined to produce, more or less, an impression that, so far from knowing each other a great deal better, we had progressed scarcely at all in that direction; even, perhaps, become more than ever, even irretrievably, alienated. Barbara's recurrent injunction to avoid any question of 'getting sentimental' seemed, here in the embodiment of Gypsy, now carried to lengths which might legitimately be looked upon as such a principle's logical conclusion." ("A Buyer's Market")

So there you have it: "extreme animation", reflected upon somberly, while dragging secondary characters back into the contemplation of the state as such, is the extent to which Powell, hiding the act, if an act you can call it, in sub-clauses and draping it with not entirely irrelevant double negatives, goes into the explicit description of carnal lust and passion.

But I'll get all the way through, now that I've started.

Well congratulations Jens. When I was about 20 I waded through the first volume and was horrified by the clotted locutions. I imagine there is a certain aesthetic that finds this mode of writing to be clever,clever. But I could not stand the Russian doll-like style which makes plain things complicated.

It did not help that, assuming the writer liked Poussin, he got me off to a bad start; as I can't stand his wet, romanticised, muscleless paintings. I eventually watched the TV adaptationand enjoyed it a good deal. As to the books, even a long life is too short.

Mike

[Karl Henning]

Finally getting around to Moby Dick, appreciate it better now than when I was in high school.

That was one of the books which I didn't bother reading (for the most part) when my class was covering it.

Later, I picked up the Norton Critical Edition at the UVa bookstore, and I couldn't put it down.  I just love that book inordinately.

[Brian]

[knight66]

Brian, Are you going to enlighten us? Without copying across any of the illustrations of course.

Mike

[Brian]

Brian, Are you going to enlighten us? Without copying across any of the illustrations of course.

Mike

The book seeks to establish a consensus definition for assholes, so we can judge peoples' behavior and decide whether or not they qualify. It then goes into follow-up questions: why are most assholes men? What, if anything, can be done to reduce asshole behavior? How should we properly deal with assholes in everyday life?

Chapter 2, which I'm about to start on, looks promising: it's called "Naming Names" and includes dozens of real-life examples! Of people, not anatomy.

The book was published in 2012 and, interestingly, suggests that Donald Trump is a textbook case - unless (the author says) he is actually an "assclown", which is a different type entirely.

[knight66]

Brian,

Perhaps when you finish with it, we could circulate it round the Mods.....just to self-check our own behavious of course.

Interesting that Trump gets a dishonourable mention.

Mike

[Ken B]

The book seeks to establish a consensus definition for assholes, so we can judge peoples' behavior and decide whether or not they qualify. It then goes into follow-up questions: why are most assholes men? What, if anything, can be done to reduce asshole behavior? How should we properly deal with assholes in everyday life?

Chapter 2, which I'm about to start on, looks promising: it's called "Naming Names" and includes dozens of real-life examples! Of people, not anatomy.

The book was published in 2012 and, interestingly, suggests that Donald Trump is a textbook case - unless (the author says) he is actually an "assclown", which is a different type entirely.

Sounds recursive.

[Brian]

Sounds recursive.

Well, I'll tell you the definition he suggests. (He, I should note, is a philosophy professor.)

"In interpersonal or cooperative relations, the asshole: (1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunized by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.

"So, for example, the asshole is the person who habitually cuts in line. Or who frequently interrupts in a conversation. Or who weaves in and out of lanes of traffic. Or who persistently emphasizes another person's faults. Or who is extremely sensitive to perceived slights while being oblivious to his crassness with others*. An insensitive person - a mere "jerk" - might allow himself to so enjoy such "special advantages" in such interpersonal relationships. What distinguishes the asshole is the way he acts, the reasons that motivate him to act in an abusive and arrogant way. The asshole acts out of a firm sense that he is special, that the normal rules of conduct do not apply to him. He may not deliberately exploit interpersonal relations but simply remains willfully oblivious to normal expectations. Because the asshole sets himself apart from others, he feels entirely comfortable flouting accepted social conventions, almost as a way of life. Most important, he lives this way more or less out in the open. He stands unmoved when people indignantly glare or complain....Indeed, he will often himself feel indignant when questions about his conduct are raised."

*not unheard of on GMG, this

[Ken B]

Well, I'll tell you the definition he suggests. (He, I should note, is a philosophy professor.)

"In interpersonal or cooperative relations, the asshole: (1) allows himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically; (2) does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and (3) is immunized by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.

Interesting. 2 and 3 seem to overlap. But on to "recursive":
1. Calls people who cannot respond assholes by name in print. CHECK.
2. Does so under the rubric of a "public intellectual" credentialed by a PhD. CHECK.
3. No direct evidence just from what you quoted but I'd bet the house on this, as it flows naturally from the conditions I cite in 2. PROBABLY CHECK.

[Brian]

Interesting. 2 and 3 seem to overlap. But on to "recursive":
1. Calls people who cannot respond assholes by name in print. CHECK.
2. Does so under the rubric of a "public intellectual" credentialed by a PhD. CHECK.
3. No direct evidence just from what you quoted but I'd bet the house on this, as it flows naturally from the conditions I cite in 2. PROBABLY CHECK.

Aha! I see what you mean. Apparently this, too, is discussed later on in the book. There is a praise quote on the back cover saying that the author confronts the issue of how big of an asshole he is, himself.

[jlaurson]

Well congratulations Jens. When I was about 20 I waded through the first volume and was horrified by the clotted locutions. I imagine there is a certain aesthetic that finds this mode of writing to be clever,clever. But I could not stand the Russian doll-like style which makes plain things complicated.

It did not help that, assuming the writer liked Poussin, he got me off to a bad start; as I can't stand his wet, romanticised, muscleless paintings. I eventually watched the TV adaptationand enjoyed it a good deal. As to the books, even a long life is too short.

Mike

I'm just so glad I'm not the only one to think that this is NOT good writing. There are other things, too, that are a bit annoying. The overt and ostentatious name-dropping of paintings ("the banana peel on the pavement, forlorn, or rather: lost to its own account of existence, if you can call it that, as it were, struck me immediately as representing the discarded hulls of fruit in Plátanombre della Oxordista's La Fruitage de Amor Pintura, for its grays and, seagull-like spots of yellow and white notwithstanding, dark tan stripes...")
...and a few other things. That said, I find that "An Acceptance World" is much less tedious than "A Buyer's Market", style-wise!

[bhodges]

I'm just so glad I'm not the only one to think that this is NOT good writing. There are other things, too, that are a bit annoying. The overt and ostentatious name-dropping of paintings ("the banana peel on the pavement, forlorn, or rather: lost to its own account of existence, if you can call it that, as it were, struck me immediately as representing the discarded hulls of fruit in Plátanombre della Oxordista's La Fruitage de Amor Pintura, for its grays and, seagull-like spots of yellow and white notwithstanding, dark tan stripes...")
...and a few other things. That said, I find that "An Acceptance World" is much less tedious than "A Buyer's Market", style-wise!

That paragraph you cited is terrible. This is just a personal thing, but I get highly annoyed by a blizzard of commas, creating sentences that are inordinately tedious to read. A writer I know -- who is generally excellent at his craft -- now and then drops positively Brucknerian sentences, with too many clauses balancing precariously on exquisite use of commas, semicolons, and the occasional dash. He sometimes makes it work, but the effect is far too delicate to be appreciated by most readers.

My feeling: if you have to read a paragraph more than once to grasp it, that's once too many.

(That said, your descriptions of the Powell are somewhat tempting.)

--Bruce

[Jo498]

There is nothing wrong with long sentences per se. As almost everything in art it mainly depends if one can pull it off. There are great authors who use long sentences for a kind of breathless intensity (in German one of the most famous examples is the early romantic Heinrich von Kleist). Or for elaborate detailed descriptions (e.g. Thomas Mann although I think he is overdoing it sometimes).
But the example from Powell is indeed horrible, not only or mainly because of the sheer length.

[zamyrabyrd]

That was one of the books which I didn't bother reading (for the most part) when my class was covering it.
Later, I picked up the Norton Critical Edition at the UVa bookstore, and I couldn't put it down.  I just love that book inordinately.

There is something Dickensian in the approach - psychological depth, sophisticated literary constructions and sense of humor, too. Or maybe they are general features of mid-19th century English literature.

I think Melville tried to convey in words (a partial reason for the extra padding of esoteric information about whales), the vastness of the sea and the monumental creatures that inhabit it. Something similar to Sibelius in depicting expanses of Arctic tundra in musical notes.