|
On July 21 2013 00:52 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2013 00:01 Shiori wrote:On July 20 2013 23:46 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, and some books are definitely faster to read than others. I'm pretty sure that when I read Martin I'm twice as fast as when I read Proust, and I'm nto even talking about Kant. I took some courses in the Slavic Department for the past couple of years, and had this one really awesome prof in a couple of them. In the Nabokov class that he taught, he would frequently allude to/compliment Proust's In Search of Lost Time, and Nabokov apparently thought it was one of the best things of the 20th century. So I'm sad to say that I haven't read it. I wish I was better at French, honestly; it would be cool to read it in the original language. That said, are the translations good enough that it retains the super-awesomeness that everyone describes it as possessing, since I'm looking for something to read?  Well, I have obviously not read any translation, but I'd probably pick one up if the book thread wass revived and decided to pick up Swan's way. My understanding is that there is an older translations (Montcrieff) that is quite good, and that there is a more recent one in which each volume is translated by a different person. I've heard very good things about the modern Swan's way translation. My advice would be to go to a library or a book shop, read a few pages of each, and pick up the one you like the most. If your French is pretty good, you could even read some passages in parallel in French, I quite like bilingual version when I can pick them up. You can even ask me which passages are worth it if you want  As for wether it's worth it, even translated, my answer is definitely yes, no doubt about it. For one thing, there have been many people who have read it in English and loved it. Secondly, I'm sure some of Proust style is translatable, even though it is very particular. Finally, some people have, and I used to have an image of Proust as someone who liked style over substance. Nothing is further from the truth, it's just that the substance is not for everyone, not because it is particularly obscure, but because it requires a specific form of sensibility I think. But if Proust talks to you, then it's totally worth it. I actually wrote something much more enthusiastic at first, but I don't want to hype you up to a disappointment. Anyway, everyone who likes reading should try Proust in my opinion. At worst it's not your stuff, but if it is... Oh yeah, and 2013 is the 100th anniversary of the parution of the first volume, Du Côté de chez Swann, so that's one more good reason to try it ! Edit : also, if the 2500 pages scare you, you can start by just reading the first's volume second part Un Amour de Swann, which is almost autonomous and avoid having to deal with the young narrator sometimes annoying attitude, which is off putting for some people.
@ bold: I actually really like authors who emphasize style. I feel like modern literature put way too much emphasis on thriller-type plots rather than on an aesthetically pleasing prose style or plot construction. So I'm actually happy to hear that he is heavy on the style and that his substance is esoteric; those are the authors I love best.
2500 pages is a tonne, and unfortunately my French is garbage (though one wonders if it would be worth picking up the bilingual version even just to try and learn some new French words) but I've read long, translated works before, so I'm sure I can do it ^.^. Ty~!
|
On July 21 2013 01:34 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2013 00:52 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 21 2013 00:01 Shiori wrote:On July 20 2013 23:46 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, and some books are definitely faster to read than others. I'm pretty sure that when I read Martin I'm twice as fast as when I read Proust, and I'm nto even talking about Kant. I took some courses in the Slavic Department for the past couple of years, and had this one really awesome prof in a couple of them. In the Nabokov class that he taught, he would frequently allude to/compliment Proust's In Search of Lost Time, and Nabokov apparently thought it was one of the best things of the 20th century. So I'm sad to say that I haven't read it. I wish I was better at French, honestly; it would be cool to read it in the original language. That said, are the translations good enough that it retains the super-awesomeness that everyone describes it as possessing, since I'm looking for something to read? Well, I have obviously not read any translation, but I'd probably pick one up if the book thread wass revived and decided to pick up Swan's way. My understanding is that there is an older translations (Montcrieff) that is quite good, and that there is a more recent one in which each volume is translated by a different person. I've heard very good things about the modern Swan's way translation. My advice would be to go to a library or a book shop, read a few pages of each, and pick up the one you like the most. If your French is pretty good, you could even read some passages in parallel in French, I quite like bilingual version when I can pick them up. You can even ask me which passages are worth it if you want As for wether it's worth it, even translated, my answer is definitely yes, no doubt about it. For one thing, there have been many people who have read it in English and loved it. Secondly, I'm sure some of Proust style is translatable, even though it is very particular. Finally, some people have, and I used to have an image of Proust as someone who liked style over substance. Nothing is further from the truth, it's just that the substance is not for everyone, not because it is particularly obscure, but because it requires a specific form of sensibility I think. But if Proust talks to you, then it's totally worth it. I actually wrote something much more enthusiastic at first, but I don't want to hype you up to a disappointment. Anyway, everyone who likes reading should try Proust in my opinion. At worst it's not your stuff, but if it is... Oh yeah, and 2013 is the 100th anniversary of the parution of the first volume, Du Côté de chez Swann, so that's one more good reason to try it ! Edit : also, if the 2500 pages scare you, you can start by just reading the first's volume second part Un Amour de Swann, which is almost autonomous and avoid having to deal with the young narrator sometimes annoying attitude, which is off putting for some people. @ bold: I actually really like authors who emphasize style. I feel like modern literature put way too much emphasis on thriller-type plots rather than on an aesthetically pleasing prose style or plot construction. So I'm actually happy to hear that he is heavy on the style and that his substance is esoteric; those are the authors I love best. 2500 pages is a tonne, and unfortunately my French is garbage (though one wonders if it would be worth picking up the bilingual version even just to try and learn some new French words) but I've read long, translated works before, so I'm sure I can do it ^.^. Ty~!
Well, esoteric isn't the word, it is complex though. As for the style, it is in my opinion marvelous, but you have to like long sentences, double metaphors and that sort of things^^
Edit : also some people think his style is pretentious, which I can understand, but funnily enough, there is a character in the book that speaks as a caricature of Proust language, and who is very funny.
|
Has anyone here read the Joe Ledger series? for ex: Patient Zero, The Dragon Factory, The King of Plagues? Im already on the 5th book and the series is just great. Pretty undderated
|
On July 20 2013 23:09 Syn Harvest wrote:
Hey packrat quick question.
How are you able to read so quickly? According to your posts since the 14th you have read A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, Alice in Wonderland, Dr. No and are now reading Atlas Shrugged. I thought I read quickly but you take it to another level. I mean The two ASOIAF books plus Alice in Wonderaland alone has to be more than 2000 pages.
So I'm just curious as to how your able to churn through books like that. Is it just alot of free time completely devoted to reading?
Right now I'm in a house on the beach without any internet so I have a shit ton of time to devote to reading atm. I also have been told before that I read quite quickly, as I can usually finish the average book in a day if I try a little bit. As other people have pointed out, it definitely depends on the author/book. ASOIAF reads like a breeze, wheras when I was reading Les Miserable or Lolita it took me much longer. So yeah, I read fast and I have a lot of free time.
OT: I'm 300 pages into Atlas Shrugged, and if it stopped here it would be a nice story about how a pair of industrialists beat all the odds to build a railroad. However there are 900 more pages...
|
Bahaha, Lysander Spooner would be proud of your commitment!
I shall crowd source my next reading. Leibniz, Spinoza, or Descartes. Pick one and say why 
|
On July 21 2013 02:54 farvacola wrote:Bahaha, Lysander Spooner would be proud of your commitment! I shall crowd source my next reading. Leibniz, Spinoza, or Descartes. Pick one and say why
Leibniz because a dirty hippie like yourself could do with learning some calculus
+ Show Spoiler +I know he wrote philosophy and such too, It was just a joke
|
On July 21 2013 02:54 farvacola wrote:Bahaha, Lysander Spooner would be proud of your commitment! I shall crowd source my next reading. Leibniz, Spinoza, or Descartes. Pick one and say why
Descartes bores me to tear, I haven't read Leibniz, but the Monodalogy looks like it could have been written under the influence, plus I can't take Pangloss seriously anymore now, so it leaves Spinoza, who is awesome anyway. Easy choice.
|
On July 21 2013 02:54 farvacola wrote:Bahaha, Lysander Spooner would be proud of your commitment! I shall crowd source my next reading. Leibniz, Spinoza, or Descartes. Pick one and say why
Leibniz. Spinoza is weird and I don't understand anything he says. Descartes is weird because I do understand what he's saying and it's still weird/bizarre.
Leibniz made calculus. That's reason enough to read him. Plus there was that identity of indiscernibles thing that's sorta important + principle of sufficient reason.
|
Guys, there's nothing more boring in maths than calculus, except probabilities. You all crazies.
|
Well I've read a bit of all three, so there's that. I have always been interested in Leibniz's math, as I've only ever read his philosophy, but man does it look boring. When it comes to Descartes, I've had a bone to pick with him ever since I read this excellent Paul Ricoeur essay titled "Consciousness and the Unconsciousness." in which Ricoeur basically pulls the floor out from beneath Cogito Ergo Sum. That leaves me with Spinoza, which I have the least experience with and the most admiration for. His paltry living contrasts very strongly with the other two, and I've always been curious as to how that sort of thing plays into the formulation of philosophical concepts. There is something very "honest" about what little Spinoza I've read, whereas Leibniz and Descartes pretty clearly think that they are fucking awesome and don't mind letting the reader know that through their rhetoric.
Thanks for the help y'all, though I'm still sorta torn. I think I'ma have to read all three
|
On July 21 2013 02:59 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2013 02:54 farvacola wrote:Bahaha, Lysander Spooner would be proud of your commitment! I shall crowd source my next reading. Leibniz, Spinoza, or Descartes. Pick one and say why Leibniz because a dirty hippie like yourself could do with learning some calculus + Show Spoiler +I know he wrote philosophy and such too, It was just a joke
I really would not recommend learning calculus from anyone before Weierstraß. Those guys did not really know what they were doing.
|
is The King Killer Chronicles good? i saw the thread and before the series is done i would like to read the books
|
On July 21 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:Well I've read a bit of all three, so there's that. I have always been interested in Leibniz's math, as I've only ever read his philosophy, but man does it look boring. When it comes to Descartes, I've had a bone to pick with him ever since I read this excellent Paul Ricoeur essay titled "Consciousness and the Unconsciousness." in which Ricoeur basically pulls the floor out from beneath Cogito Ergo Sum. That leaves me with Spinoza, which I have the least experience with and the most admiration for. His paltry living contrasts very strongly with the other two, and I've always been curious as to how that sort of thing plays into the formulation of philosophical concepts. There is something very "honest" about what little Spinoza I've read, whereas Leibniz and Descartes pretty clearly think that they are fucking awesome and don't mind letting the reader know that through their rhetoric. Thanks for the help y'all, though I'm still sorta torn. I think I'ma have to read all three
If it's any consolation, Leibniz had reason to be insecure, given that everyone thought Newton invented calculus instead of him, when really it was simultaneous. Also, Leibniz's philosophy was at least ostensibly an attempt at precision, whereas Descartes employs a lot of...weird analogies and arguments that I don't really follow. As for Spinoza, frankly, I find him somewhat unintelligible, and I think that what he says, while true, is only really true in a sort of literary/metaphorical/"big idea" kind of way rather than in any concrete fashion. I don't dislike that, or anything, but I do think it's more like an informal investigation of reality than hardcore analytic-ish philosophy.
I really would not recommend learning calculus from anyone before Weierstraß. Those guys did not really know what they were doing.
That's sorta inaccurate. They knew what they were doing; they just didn't have a rigorous formulation of every aspect of limits since Cauchy/Weierstrass weren't alive yet. But to say they didn't know what they were doing is really ridiculous; they invented calculus, which is probably the most monumental mathematical revolution in history given how much it impacted everything. Yes, it was imprecise, but pretty much everything back then was imprecise, and that didn't mean the mathematicians didn't know what they were doing. As Newton himself said: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Weierstrass and Cauchy, and Riemann, and Lebesgue, and, really, everyone, were standing on the shoulders of Newton and Leibniz. And in a certain way, everyone was standing on Euclid's broad shoulders~!
If you want to learn calculus, obviously the modern formulation, which is basically the same as Weierstrass's formulation, is the best.
|
On July 21 2013 04:03 Topin wrote:
is The King Killer Chronicles good? i saw the thread and before the series is done i would like to read the books
Yes! (Third (and maybe last) book not out yet)
|
THE BIBLE CUZ IT IS DA BOMB
|
On July 21 2013 04:48 grassHAT wrote:
THE BIBLE CUZ IT IS DA BOMB
That reminds me I have this book "Bible Code Bombshell" on my shelf that I've never read.
|
On July 21 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:Well I've read a bit of all three, so there's that. I have always been interested in Leibniz's math, as I've only ever read his philosophy, but man does it look boring. When it comes to Descartes, I've had a bone to pick with him ever since I read this excellent Paul Ricoeur essay titled "Consciousness and the Unconsciousness." in which Ricoeur basically pulls the floor out from beneath Cogito Ergo Sum. That leaves me with Spinoza, which I have the least experience with and the most admiration for. His paltry living contrasts very strongly with the other two, and I've always been curious as to how that sort of thing plays into the formulation of philosophical concepts. There is something very "honest" about what little Spinoza I've read, whereas Leibniz and Descartes pretty clearly think that they are fucking awesome and don't mind letting the reader know that through their rhetoric. Thanks for the help y'all, though I'm still sorta torn. I think I'ma have to read all three
in germany, Leibniz is more known for cookies, which were named after him, than for his philosophy.
i recommend descartes
|
Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion by Dan Simmons. Soon to be followed by Banks first 3 Culture novels.
|
I think I am keeping the B&N store in business.
![[image loading]](http://img2.imagesbn.com/p/9780465013333_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG) ![[image loading]](http://img1.imagesbn.com/p/9781593081546_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG) ![[image loading]](http://img2.imagesbn.com/p/9780812966183_p0_v1_s260x420.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img2.imagesbn.com/p/9781594204357_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG)
|
So right now I'm reading these next several books
I'm on
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VjqoNff%2BL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
The Counterfeiters
next in the batch is
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/Tristes_Tropiques.jpg/200px-Tristes_Tropiques.jpg)
Tristes Tropiques
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jO5Ss4GlS-Y/TrHCWwxLWvI/AAAAAAAACvo/rEfOodfUXgY/s640/Lolita+2.jpg)
Lolita
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hXOd4Az2L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
The Horseman on The Roof
and then either
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Gravitys_rainbow_cover.jpg/200px-Gravitys_rainbow_cover.jpg)
Gravity's Rainbow
or
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Cohen-Witz.gif)
Witz
I have Witz coming in the mail since my library doesn't have it. I'll probably read that one first, I might give up on it, we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
