|
On July 24 2015 06:18 babylon wrote:I like Tolkien's academic writing more than his fiction writing. It feels like I'm getting a glimpse into the inner workings of a genius madman. He cares so much about fantasy and storytelling, it's infectious. Love him. Every time I try to read Sanderson, I just end up feeling so unimpressed by his writing. (Like, it strikes me as slightly worse than David Gaider-level prose, and Gaider basically writes like he's writing a screenplay!) Add to that the fact that I care very little about magic systems and worldbuilding, and I'm not sure if I should even try anymore. :/ ETA: Show nested quote +I'd love to read me some not-so-high fantasy is all... Not entirely grimdark or anything like that (JRRM is shit, deal with it). Why can't anyone write a good book in a setting like Athas for example? Post-apocalyptic fantasy world where halflings are vicious cannibals, elves are gypsy thieves and assassins, slavery is common, reading is forbidden etc. Just on my mind lately because I've been playing a lot of it, but you find a lot of this in the Dragon Age universe. If you haven't played the series yet and are willing to give approximately 300 hours of your life to the games, I do recommend it. (Not to mention, you can play the first game kind of like a bastardized RTS ...)
Imo if you have a good grasp of what Sanderson's good at (which you seem to) and still don't like it because the weaknesses are too much for you, I wouldn't recommend that you try again indeed :D. Myself as much as I like Sanderson, I'm sometimes disappointed by the "only functional" prose.
But I mean, there has to be a justice somewhere in here, you can't be that productive and also write perfectly ;D.
|
i've read Bad Samaritans twice and am re-reading it for a third time some time soon. It's probably the best book i've read which describes the global economic system. His book 23 things is a decent overview, and economics: a users guide is good too.
Also other good books i've read which are heterodox critiques of economic theory:
Capitalism and its economics: shows how economists have served power throughout the last 200 years and how the economics discipline has changed its theories to serve power.
The endless crisis: Gives a good overview on monopoly finance capital and its effects on the global economic system.
Whose future, Whose crisis? A political scientists view on food and water shortages created by speculators and private food/water companies.
And currently reading "the fire economy", written about new zealands economic system.
going to read "the poorer nations" soon
once you read all these good scholarly books, you begin to see that everything taught in university economics classes is almost a complete waste of time. It really is amazing how academics can live with themselves given the enormous privileges they have.
|
On July 23 2015 03:25 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Been randomly reading some (fringe?) Lovecraft stories that I haven't read before. I find myself once against impressed with how talented of a wordsmith Lovecraft was. Guy wrote some killer descriptions.
Also found this funny line-
"Whilst the greater number of our nocturnal visions are perhaps no more than faint and fantastic reflections of our waking experiences - Freud to the contrary with his puerile symbolism - "
>tfw Lovecraft dropping the mad disses on Freud as early as 1919.
Lovecraft couldn't STAND Freud, if I recall correctly. Though Freud would probably have a thing or two to say about Lovecraft living with his mom his whole life!
But... totally Lovecraft > Freud.
|
On July 23 2015 08:16 farvacola wrote:As a threshold matter, it is probably best to refrain from claiming that you hated Tolkien before the meme took off, as that sort of reasoning is exactly what the meme addresses. You're making a number of arguments in absentia, i.e. claiming that something is "bad" without actually offering forth an accompanying criteria or metric. In a nutshell, 1) you think sci fi is better, 2) that name dropping le Guin and Edding is a worthwhile tactic, 3) that Tolkien's "lengthy passages of world description" are "incredibly boring," 4) that "[t]he characters are bland and one-dimensional," 5) that the fairly clear delineation between good and evil robs Tolkien's work of suspense, and 6) that you have "simply read better things." 1. This one speaks for itself; you clearly have a soft spot for the genre stylizations of sci-fi given your lack of excitement while reading fantasy. This ought to indicate to you that perhaps the fantasy genre itself is a better target for your criticisms, though you'd have to give your words a bit more teeth should that be the case. 2. Why don't you tell us a bit about why those two series of novels pop out to you among other works of fantasy? To be frank, I find the Earthsea books boring, childish, and far more one dimensional than anything Tolkien wrote, save for maybe the Hobbit. le Guin herself wrote the books after being prompted to write fantasy for "older kids" and practically every single character in her works can be boiled down into a single phrase or concept, i.e. Aihal- old, wise, quiet mage dude, Ged- cannot fail, protagonist mage dude who progresses like every single protagonist in every novel ever, and so on. So, if you're going to go down the road of suggesting that what amounts to le Guin's homage to LOTR is actually better than LOTR, you're going to have to do more than point. 3. This begs some interesting questions insofar as genre studies is concerned. There is no doubting that Tolkien's works are full to the brim with lengthy setting descriptions and world-building, and clearly this does not appeal to you. But, who is to say that this is not a strength of the works instead of a weakness? Tolkien's penchant for geography and environmental description is something I and many other fans adore, and it was Tolkien's style in this area that would go on to form a cornerstone of practically every single work of fantasy that would follow. Again, maybe you should just stick to sci-fi? 4. Archetypal characterizations revolve around the archetype existing in the first place, and it is not exactly controversial to suggest that many works of fantasy deliberately de-emphasize characterization in favor of world-building, allegory, and large-scale narrative stabilization. Accordingly, to poke fun at the admittedly stilted nature of many of Tolkien's characters is to miss the forest for the trees and take issue with what clearly seems to be a genre feature rather than a uniquely Tolkien literary decision. Furthermore, there is a discussion to be had in terms of foundational literature and how criticisms of works that form the basis for an entire movement in narrative decision-making should take such things into account. Lastly, and maybe you missed this, but Tolkien deliberately keeps the majority of his characters static so that the fluid ones stick out. I'll let you guess which race these fluid characters tend to be  5. See 4; the same criticisms apply here. Fantasy oftentimes deliberately makes the moral dimensions easy and clear so that the allegorical value of the narrative is more easily communicated. Unrealistic moral signposting is a great way to say something about the real world, you just have to look a little deeper, I think. 6. This one speaks for itself as well. In sum, I think you just don't like fantasy 
I love you for putting my exact thoughts into words
|
On July 25 2015 19:18 ZenithM wrote:
But I mean, there has to be a justice somewhere in here, you can't be that productive and also write perfectly ;D.
Haha, true. There are a couple authors whom I think could afford to be less prolific, though, Naomi Novik being one of them. Whenever I read her books, I feel like she's got the potential to be a great writer in addition to being an accessible one, but she never quite manages to step over that line.
|
On July 25 2015 19:18 ZenithM wrote:
But I mean, there has to be a justice somewhere in here, you can't be that productive and also write perfectly ;D.
Tell that to Saramago.
|
On July 25 2015 20:36 AndreWiles wrote:i've read Bad Samaritans twice and am re-reading it for a third time some time soon. It's probably the best book i've read which describes the global economic system. His book 23 things is a decent overview, and economics: a users guide is good too. Also other good books i've read which are heterodox critiques of economic theory: Capitalism and its economics: shows how economists have served power throughout the last 200 years and how the economics discipline has changed its theories to serve power. The endless crisis: Gives a good overview on monopoly finance capital and its effects on the global economic system. Whose future, Whose crisis? A political scientists view on food and water shortages created by speculators and private food/water companies. And currently reading "the fire economy", written about new zealands economic system. going to read "the poorer nations" soon once you read all these good scholarly books, you begin to see that everything taught in university economics classes is almost a complete waste of time. It really is amazing how academics can live with themselves given the enormous privileges they have.
I'm familiar with "23 Things (...)" and "Economics: User's Guide". I have also read "Kicking Away the Ladder". As for other books in similar vein, you might try "How Rich Countries Got Rich And Why Poor Countries Stay Poor" by Erik Reinert (although I think the book could be trimmed to 50-60% of its length without sacrificing anything - there's plenty of repetition; Ha-Joon Chang definitely has better editors) or "The Entrepreneurial State" by Mariana Mazzucato.
I'm currently considering buying the following:
- "End This Depression Now!" by Paul Krugman
- "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz
- "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Blyth
Any opinions?
|
They're all left wing books / authors. Try out some right wing economists as well for a diferent perspective like Friedman.
|
On July 27 2015 20:20 RvB wrote:
They're all left wing books / authors. Try out some right wing economists as well for a diferent perspective like Friedman.
What do you mean by left-wing? Can you define it? Economics is not a bipolar field. There are many more schools than that. I am more or less familiar with the tenets of all major schools, including the classical and neoclassical ones. I've read the "The Condensed Wealth of Nations" edited by Adam Smith Institute, as well.
The problem with Friedman is that he was a fundamentalist. His approach to economics was dogmatic, almost hegelian ("the worse for the facts!"). I am for example baffled how the current global economic order (shaped by the Washington Consensus) can be based on something as stupid as Ricardo's comparative advantage* and people like Friedman adamantly argued that it should. I am looking for books/authors that are relevant to modern world and economy, and I consider neoclassical dogmatism to be detached from reality (some neoclassical economists boast about it as if it were a virtue). I am a pragmatist, willing to support whichever solution produces desired results.
*Some of the key assumptions of Ricardo's comparative advantage include:
(1) There are no transport costs.
(2) Costs are constant and there are no economies of scale.
(3) There are only two economies producing two goods.
(5) The theory assumes that traded goods are homogeneous (i.e. identical).
(6) Factors of production are assumed to be perfectly mobile.
(7) There are no tariffs or other trade barriers.
(8) There is no cross-border investment.
(9) There is perfect knowledge, so that all buyers and sellers know where the cheapest goods can be found internationally.
Most of these are counterfactual and unrealistic, simply stupid.
|
I'm half through the third part of Seveneves right now, I liked the first two but the third part is really horrible. I don't get Stephenson's weird racial and cultural determinism which was already pretty prevalent in the Diamond Age at all.
|
On July 27 2015 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 20:20 RvB wrote:
They're all left wing books / authors. Try out some right wing economists as well for a diferent perspective like Friedman. What do you mean by left-wing? Can you define it? Economics is not a bipolar field. There are many more schools than that. I am more or less familiar with the tenets of all major schools, including the classical and neoclassical ones. I've read the "The Condensed Wealth of Nations" edited by Adam Smith Institute, as well. The problem with Friedman is that he was a fundamentalist. His approach to economics was dogmatic, almost hegelian ("the worse for the facts!"). I am for example baffled how the current global economic order (shaped by the Washington Consensus) can be based on something as stupid as Ricardo's comparative advantage* and people like Friedman adamantly argued that it should. I am looking for books/authors that are relevant to modern world and economy, and I consider neoclassical dogmatism to be detached from reality (some neoclassical economists boast about it as if it were a virtue). I am a pragmatist, willing to support whichever solution produces desired results. *Some of the key assumptions of Ricardo's comparative advantage include: (1) There are no transport costs. (2) Costs are constant and there are no economies of scale. (3) There are only two economies producing two goods. (5) The theory assumes that traded goods are homogeneous (i.e. identical). (6) Factors of production are assumed to be perfectly mobile. (7) There are no tariffs or other trade barriers. (8) There is no cross-border investment. (9) There is perfect knowledge, so that all buyers and sellers know where the cheapest goods can be found internationally. Most of these are counterfactual and unrealistic, simply stupid.
This is an excellent response to that suggestion lol. Kudos, sir.
|
Finished:
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/FrankHerbert_Dune_1st.jpg)
A couple of nights ago. I was interested by the world that was presented, but felt that many of the characters were mostly flat and boring. Maybe it's a bit of the case that the ideas were interesting, but the execution was weak. I liked it overall, though.
On July 25 2015 18:04 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 11:50 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 24 2015 11:03 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Sheep Chase is good, you should follow it up with Dance, Dance, Dance! Yeah, I might do that for my next Murakami novel. Be careful, I read too much of Murakami at once and I don't feel ready to read some for a while. I think it's also due to the fact I read his masterpieces first.
Yeah, I'm taking it pretty slowly. I believe I've only read three of his novels now (Wind-up Bird Chronicle, Kafka on the Shore, Wild Sheep Chase) over the course of a couple years.
|
On July 27 2015 19:14 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 20:36 AndreWiles wrote:i've read Bad Samaritans twice and am re-reading it for a third time some time soon. It's probably the best book i've read which describes the global economic system. His book 23 things is a decent overview, and economics: a users guide is good too. Also other good books i've read which are heterodox critiques of economic theory: Capitalism and its economics: shows how economists have served power throughout the last 200 years and how the economics discipline has changed its theories to serve power. The endless crisis: Gives a good overview on monopoly finance capital and its effects on the global economic system. Whose future, Whose crisis? A political scientists view on food and water shortages created by speculators and private food/water companies. And currently reading "the fire economy", written about new zealands economic system. going to read "the poorer nations" soon once you read all these good scholarly books, you begin to see that everything taught in university economics classes is almost a complete waste of time. It really is amazing how academics can live with themselves given the enormous privileges they have. I'm familiar with "23 Things (...)" and "Economics: User's Guide". I have also read "Kicking Away the Ladder". As for other books in similar vein, you might try "How Rich Countries Got Rich And Why Poor Countries Stay Poor" by Erik Reinert (although I think the book could be trimmed to 50-60% of its length without sacrificing anything - there's plenty of repetition; Ha-Joon Chang definitely has better editors) or "The Entrepreneurial State" by Mariana Mazzucato. I'm currently considering buying the following: - "End This Depression Now!" by Paul Krugman - "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz - "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Blyth Any opinions?
I've read End this Depression now and the Price of inequality.The Krugman book might not be as interesting now as it was then since we have returned to a stagnant economy. Its a book against arguments from the extreme right basically, and it argues very well. I think his other book 'the return of depression economics' has aged quite well.
The price of inequality was decent, but not a must-read. Ha-joon Chang is Stiglitz protege and has outshined the master imo.
I've also read from many right wing authors,Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, and The world is flat by thomas friedman. The chicago economists are interesting to read in general because they falsified economic history and tried to present capitalism as a world with competitive markets, when in fact that is obviously false (see the endless crisis). Actually George Stigler says that the main goal of the Chicago school of economics was too get rid of the idea that capitalism was monopolistic in his autobiography "the dairies of an unregulated economist". So, i agree that a lot can be learned from reading the chicago economists books. some of Milton Friedmans views of what capitalism is are very accurate. He said It's a system where corporations have zero social responsibility to others. And that is in fact quite an accurate statement, but his value judgement is that this is a good thing, personally my value judgement is that this is a terrible thing.
The difference between Adam Smith and the chicago economists is that Adam smith was a beginner, he had more right to make mistakes, and he made the mistake of assuming that capitalism wouldn't turn into a bunch of oligopolies. Which is a perfectly reasonable mistake to make in the 18th century, or even 19th century. However anyone past the 1930's, where good scholarship was beginning to be done on oligpoplistic capitalism( and has since been forgotten) has no right to make the mistake that Adam Smith made.
The fact of the matter is the chicago school of economics are some of the most violent fundamentalist fanatics who have ever lived, when you take into account the fascist governments they have supported in the name of monetarism (like general pinochet), or democratic governments (like new zealand). Just the scale of destruction and violence, and poverty that has been caused by their fanatic pontificating in the media is not something that is easily matched in history.
Personally in the field of economics i see the following schools as Left, Centre, Right.
Left: Parecon, Marxian, Post-Keynesian Centre: Neo-Keynesian Right: Neoclassical, Austrian.
There are more fields than that, like behavioral economics, development economics ect.
|
On July 28 2015 10:11 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
A couple of nights ago. I was interested by the world that was presented, but felt that many of the characters were mostly flat and boring. Maybe it's a bit of the case that the ideas were interesting, but the execution was weak. I liked it overall, though.
That's how I felt about Dune. Really impressed by the worldbuilding, indifferent towards just about everything else. (Honestly, the fact that Herbert managed to carry the whole book by the sheer force of his worldbuilding says something. I usually don't give two figs about how cool a setting is -- and I usually give approximately zero figs about sci-fi -- but he really knew his desert.) I've never followed up on the sequels, since I've heard they're worse.
|
The sequels (Frank's, not Brian/Others') are crucial to understanding Dune. Dune was never meant to be a standalone. You're doing both yourself and Herbert a great disservice by not reading, at the very least, Messiah/Children/God Emperor.
|
Guy Gavriel Kay announced his next book, Children of Earth and Sky. I think he has some of the best pure prose out there. His characters and plot are a little weak some times, but you get total immersion in his worlds. Like, you look back on the story and it's like "wait, what the plot?", but then you actually read and you stop caring about that.
Fun link:
https://watson-pi-demo.mybluemix.net/
I've been slapping in big chunks of text from novels into it, kind of interesting.
|
|
|
On July 29 2015 02:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The sequels (Frank's, not Brian/Others') are crucial to understanding Dune. Dune was never meant to be a standalone. You're doing both yourself and Herbert a great disservice by not reading, at the very least, Messiah/Children/God Emperor.
I can do myself an even greater disservice by forcing myself to slog through books whose prose, characters, and plot I don't especially care for, no? 
On July 29 2015 03:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
Guy Gavriel Kay announced his next book, Children of Earth and Sky. I think he has some of the best pure prose out there. His characters and plot are a little weak some times, but you get total immersion in his worlds. Like, you look back on the story and it's like "wait, what the plot?", but then you actually read and you stop caring about that.
He's my favorite fantasy author. He more or less writes the same story over and over again, with the same characters (and varying degrees of subtlety), but honestly, he's aces, and I think he will rip apart the Renaissance setting (it's practically made for him).
I still can't pin down what makes his prose so evocative; it's half-rhythm and half-content, I suspect.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On July 29 2015 03:47 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 02:43 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The sequels (Frank's, not Brian/Others') are crucial to understanding Dune. Dune was never meant to be a standalone. You're doing both yourself and Herbert a great disservice by not reading, at the very least, Messiah/Children/God Emperor. I can do myself an even greater disservice by forcing myself to slog through books whose prose, characters, and plot I don't especially care for, no?
Not really no. Get better taste.
|
Finished Mievilles Kraken, almost done with him. not as good as his best but still great. theres no worldbuilding like mieville. i wish he wrote for video games.
Next up is either some Raymond Chandler in spanish in desperate bid to learn the language or Paradiso by Lezama. I also bought Swimmy by Leo Lionni and its wicked. Theres an animated version which is made evne more wicked by a sweet ass gui boratto tune: http://www.youtubemultiplier.com/55b00d1cab479-gui-boratoo-vs-leo-lionni.php (you dont need the audio of swimmy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BQOncnCAL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
