|
|
|
Just got a copy and started reading:
![[image loading]](http://i.datapremiery.pl/4/000/03/823/neal-stephenson-reamde-cover-okladka.jpg)
Reamde by Neal Stephenson
Tingling with anticipation 
|
i like that book it's about different objects whizzing around at different scales and velocities
|
On February 25 2015 09:40 bookwyrm wrote:
i like that book it's about different objects whizzing around at different scales and velocities
This is the bibliophile thread. Please use some capital letters and punctuation...
|
2 pomo 4 u
edit: im reading 'charlotte temple' for seminar. This novel is HORRIBLE
|
Can someone enlighten me on the differences between είδος et γένος in Aristotle ?
|
|
|
Lately I've read Metamorphosis and The Process by Kafka. I really admire his way of creating that "kafkaesque" feeling of hidden/anonymous powers, helplessness and having some kind of "condition" forced upon oneself, with which one has to get by without asking for reasons. What book of him have you enjoyed the most besides those two (I'm thinking about which to read next) and/or do you know any other author who is comparable in that regard?
|
Read In the Penal Colony, A Hunger Artist, The Judgement...actually, just read all of his short stories, there are not that many and all of them are good.
And the most kafkaesque author that's not Kafka I can think of is Gogol, especially in The Overcoat and The Nose. Some people may recommend Borges to you - and they are right to do so; Borges is amazing -, but, even though Kafka was a big inspiration to him, I don't think they're that similar.
|
Philip dick is the american kafka
|
Roberto Bolano's 2666 is not kafkaesque, but read it anyway.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
The Unconsoled is frequently described as Kafkaesque.
I've just finished The Unconsoled, and I think it's one of the best books I've ever read, and I also would not recommend it to anyone. Is that weird?
|
Nope, your fate as a fan of books no normal person likes is now certain. There is no consolation 
|
The Sweetness at the Bottom of The Pie by Alan Bradley
![[image loading]](https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388187001l/6218281.jpg)
A mystery novel starring Flavia de Luce, a super smart eleven year old chemist who especially likes poison. A murder happens on her family's property, and she tries to solve it.
I liked it a lot. I really liked Flavia as a character and her voice was fun, though sometimes I felt like more could have been done to display her cleverness. Perhaps the author wanted to show her eleven-year old side as well, but at times it just serves to make her seem pointlessly arrogant about her intellect.
If you want a fun little mystery then I'd definitely recommend this, even though it does have some flaws.
Shipbreaker by Paolo Bacigalupi
![[image loading]](https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327874074l/7095831.jpg)
It takes a while for us to land on the main conflict for this story. That said, I liked this. The voice, world, and characters are gritty and real without being bogged down in horribleness. The voice and narrative in particular I liked. It just had a nice punchiness to it that I thought worked wonderfully, especially for this world. The plot wrapped up nicely, while leaving enough open to feel real.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond
![[image loading]](https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1385089379l/1839.jpg)
A non-fiction book basically about the development of human societies and the plethora of aspects that contribute to them. He tackles the question of how some societies advanced more quickly than others, and then came to influence other parts of the world, and why Europe came to settle places like America, rather than say, the other way around.
I loved this book, and while I don't posses expertise in any of these fields the arguments seem convincing and well constructed, and I learned many interesting things from this book.
I also read Mitosis by Brandon Sanderson. Which is a short story in the Reckoners universe. It's basically a big fight scene. Some of Brandon's short fiction is really, really good, but this is not one of them. I guess if people were looking for something to fill the gap in between books one and two in the series it might be worthwhile, but meh, I would give it a skip.
|
Dont trust jared diamond!!!!!
|
I read GG&S, what's wrong with Jared Diamond?
|
It's a standard criticism levied against pop scientists - the focus is (understandably) on presenting a compelling narrative rather than rigorously adhering to academic exposition. A lot of academics have criticized the book for being too simplified, for being misleading, or for any other variant of the above in various combinations.
Oh and some people also say GG&S is racist and perpetuates Eurocentrism and the Patriarchy or something like that too. The usual :3
|
On March 03 2015 06:57 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
It's a standard criticism levied against pop scientists - the focus is (understandably) on presenting a compelling narrative rather than rigorously adhering to academic exposition. A lot of academics have criticized the book for being too simplified, for being misleading, or for any other variant of the above in various combinations.
Oh and some people also say GG&S is racist and perpetuates Eurocentrism and the Patriarchy or something like that too. The usual :3
If anything I thought it was too dismissive of genetics as a factor. But whatever, I'm glad there wasn't some huge scandal that I was missing.
|
There are lots of critiques of that book. But mostly im just being snarky
|
On March 03 2015 06:57 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Oh and some people also say GG&S is racist and perpetuates Eurocentrism and the Patriarchy or something like that too. The usual :3
Really? This kind of surprises me. The other criticisms I can definitely see though.
As I feminist I guess I was disappointed that he never really addressed the development of patriarchies (like why did they develop in that particular way in regards to gender) but it didn't surprise me, as it would have seemed slightly off topic to the main question he was addressing. Probably enough to talk about for its own book as well. I suppose their argument is "lacking discussion on the subject constitutes perpetuating it"?
As for the Eurocentric thing, I felt like he painted it in a kind of 'they were in the right place at the right time' kind of way. Dumb luck, if you like. Which doesn't strike me as racist. I guess if one interprets the kind of environmental determinism that he does as racist then I can see where the argument is coming from. But it didn't feel like he was presenting the environmental determinism as a reason to suppose that one kind of people is superior to another, or as an excuse for people with that mentality to use the argument to back up their bigotry.
But I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say the people calling the book racist are wrong, it's just I personally don't know how, where, or why they found it to be so. I'll keep an open mind on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
