|
JUST FINISHED:
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1311551112l/6951425.jpg)
Very generic world and story, quick summer fantasy read (only 280 pages, that's like a novella compared to today's standards in fantasy books.), nothing too special. Got this and sequel as a gift.
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1307293119l/8752906.jpg)
Better than the first, really started to come to its won, have some good ideas, will be interested in the sequel when ever it comes out.
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51r%2BXqpc8KL.jpg)
A great set-up and the plot is well paced and though through. The characters are not too original nor engaging (nor likeable) but what really makes this novel are the interesting technologies concepts and the world building involved. Ending bit disappointing since this is only the first of a trilogy, but all 3 books are out so its not too bad. It feels very fresh reading a SF novel not about war, battle, fighting but about corporate boardrooms of the future.
CURRENTLY READING:
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1235174694l/4816238.jpg)
Its a popular free online creative common novel. Thought I should try it out.
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266693969l/2278369.jpg)
Sequel to Infoquake which was pretty great.
TO READ:
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1312077174l/10024937.jpg)
Heard great thing about this book, recommended by many friends.
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1309282201l/41315.jpg)
Re-reading it, loved it the first time.
![[image loading]](http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173372447l/278281.jpg)
I love cyberpunk.
|
On August 12 2011 05:53 godemperor wrote:A great set-up and the plot is well paced and though through. The characters are not too original nor engaging (nor likeable) but what really makes this novel are the interesting technologies concepts and the world building involved. Ending bit disappointing since this is only the first of a trilogy, but all 3 books are out so its not too bad. It feels very fresh reading a SF novel not about war, battle, fighting but about corporate boardrooms of the future.
Looked interesting and researched it a bit. The trilogy sounds like a good read from what I saw. Just put it on my "to read wish list"
It reminded me a bit of Market Forces by Richard Morgan
|
So, last book I finished, Metro 2033
![[image loading]](http://pixie.blogg.se/images/2010/metro-2033-book-cover_113169062.jpg)
A little dissapointed after all the praise I've heard for it, still ok though.
Currently reading, after God knows how many years of waiting, A Dance With Dragons
![[image loading]](http://cinefugue.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dragons05.jpg)
I'm trying my best to savor it, but I'm almost done with it 
Then, a book I've been trying to finish for a while, American Psycho
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2FZLPN_OZMI/Tg6HGKtRUyI/AAAAAAAABJQ/jW0eRI0yvso/s1600/American+Psycho+%2528book%2529.jpg)
I feel like I need a break after every 15 minutes of reading it, it's a pretty messed up book.
I think the next book I'll read will be Shantaram
![[image loading]](http://www.adlibris.com/se/covers/M/9/17/9173370835.jpg)
A friend recommended it to me 2 years ago. I forgot about it then, but last night I was playing Trivial Pursuit with some friends and got a question about this book, and I didn't know the answer. I think that's karma telling me I have to read it. 
|
1) To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
Complete Poems by Marianne Moore
The World of Perception by Maurice Merleau-Ponty
2) Selected Poems by Adonis, trans. Khaled Mattawa (just won the PEN award, deserves it)
À rebours (Against Nature) by J.K. Huysmans
3) Dunno.
|
Expect to get tomorrow via Mail, hope it's good.
![[image loading]](http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/96860000/96864695.JPG)
|
On August 12 2011 07:35 Golden Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 05:53 godemperor wrote:A great set-up and the plot is well paced and though through. The characters are not too original nor engaging (nor likeable) but what really makes this novel are the interesting technologies concepts and the world building involved. Ending bit disappointing since this is only the first of a trilogy, but all 3 books are out so its not too bad. It feels very fresh reading a SF novel not about war, battle, fighting but about corporate boardrooms of the future. Looked interesting and researched it a bit. The trilogy sounds like a good read from what I saw. Just put it on my "to read wish list" It reminded me a bit of Market Forces by Richard Morgan
I read market force as well, Infoquake is less road warrior (the concept of getting promotion in market force still makes me smile) and more corporate intrigue, there are only one or two real action scenes.
Also bio/logic is the coolest piece of technology i have read in SF novels in some time.
|
Just finished:
![[image loading]](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7pztj16m21qaouh8o1_400.jpg)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Reading:
![[image loading]](http://judyoz.com/media/ccp0/prodlg/intelligent-investor-red-me.jpg)
|
Just finished reading
![[image loading]](http://janasto.mobile9.com/download/wmpreview/317/1273595617.jpg)
Started Reading ![[image loading]](http://www.reformation.org/mario-puzo.jpg)
|
I still have some Stephen King short stories left in my bookshelf. Also
Lisa Jackson - Silence
Hunter S. Thompson - The rum diary
Matias Faldbakken - Unfun
Im also excited to see if my favorite writer Mr. Chuck Palahniuk throws something new on the bookmarket!
|
Australia3091 Posts
On August 11 2011 16:17 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 14:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k8R2y.jpg) I'm about 80% done. It's not as good as Atlas Shrugged, but still pretty good. Not as good as Atlas Shrugged? I fear to imagine there could be a book written more poorly.
Well the important thing is that everybody knows you're too cool for either of them.
|
On August 12 2011 22:11 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 16:17 zalz wrote:On August 11 2011 14:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:I'm about 80% done. It's not as good as Atlas Shrugged, but still pretty good. Not as good as Atlas Shrugged? I fear to imagine there could be a book written more poorly. Well the important thing is that everybody knows you're too cool for either of them.
I think the important thing is that people realise what they are actually getting themselves into. It's not, as so often depicted, a great story with a unique political point of view.
Ayn Rand can be applauded for comming up with such a unique approach to politics but she cannot receive any praise for her writing ability wich is at best tedious and poorly edited.
The books are of such intrest because they are largely the foundation of objectivism. That is their value, exploring objectivism.
But if one has to judge the books purely on their quality, they are terrible terrible books. Unless your view of excellent writing is a 50 page long speech drilling into your skull why objectivism is hot stuff. Mind you, a 50 page long speech in a 1000+ page book wich is allready a thinly veiled objectivist flyer.
You can defend the books on several accounts but you can't honestly defend them for being good books.
|
Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins....really interesting book so far.
|
On August 12 2011 23:06 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:11 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On August 11 2011 16:17 zalz wrote:On August 11 2011 14:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:I'm about 80% done. It's not as good as Atlas Shrugged, but still pretty good. Not as good as Atlas Shrugged? I fear to imagine there could be a book written more poorly. Well the important thing is that everybody knows you're too cool for either of them. I think the important thing is that people realise what they are actually getting themselves into. It's not, as so often depicted, a great story with a unique political point of view. Ayn Rand can be applauded for comming up with such a unique approach to politics but she cannot receive any praise for her writing ability wich is at best tedious and poorly edited. The books are of such intrest because they are largely the foundation of objectivism. That is their value, exploring objectivism. But if one has to judge the books purely on their quality, they are terrible terrible books. Unless your view of excellent writing is a 50 page long speech drilling into your skull why objectivism is hot stuff. Mind you, a 50 page long speech in a 1000+ page book wich is allready a thinly veiled objectivist flyer. You can defend the books on several accounts but you can't honestly defend them for being good books.
What I really don't like about Rand's writing is that she always use straw man arguements. In fountainhead, in order to express her view that only objectivity can bring in creativity, originality and progress, rand proceeds to make all all non-objectivist appear like huge douchbags, hypocrite or just mindless pawns. In atlas shrugged, in order to make objectivists boycott of society look good, rand just makes the fictional government look extremely bad.
It like saying objectivists are pretty god, if everyone else are backward thinking asshole with no personal original thinking and that objectivism is pretty good, compared to the most despotic police state. Instead of drawing comparisons with real life counter parts.
|
Australia3091 Posts
On August 12 2011 23:06 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:11 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On August 11 2011 16:17 zalz wrote:On August 11 2011 14:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:I'm about 80% done. It's not as good as Atlas Shrugged, but still pretty good. Not as good as Atlas Shrugged? I fear to imagine there could be a book written more poorly. Well the important thing is that everybody knows you're too cool for either of them. I think the important thing is that people realise what they are actually getting themselves into. It's not, as so often depicted, a great story with a unique political point of view. Ayn Rand can be applauded for comming up with such a unique approach to politics but she cannot receive any praise for her writing ability wich is at best tedious and poorly edited. The books are of such intrest because they are largely the foundation of objectivism. That is their value, exploring objectivism. But if one has to judge the books purely on their quality, they are terrible terrible books. Unless your view of excellent writing is a 50 page long speech drilling into your skull why objectivism is hot stuff. Mind you, a 50 page long speech in a 1000+ page book wich is allready a thinly veiled objectivist flyer. You can defend the books on several accounts but you can't honestly defend them for being good books.
I'm glad you clarified that. I actually can defend the books on being good books because that is the one part of it that is subjective. Am I also wrong for liking donuts? Steak? StarCraft? People have differing criteria which things must meet to qualify as good. Obviously ours are different. I don't see what's left to argue about.
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTi7AIwUADAEImiwC28coyYDnFIQk0U7IM2t3NggfWxLYaXI54P)
&
![[image loading]](http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Thus-Spoke-Zarathustra-by-F.-Nietzsche-ebook-cover.jpg)
|
Reading the last book of The Hunger Games trilogy, Mockingjay.
![[image loading]](http://hollywoodcrush.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/021110_mockingjay2.jpg)
|
On August 15 2011 09:14 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:06 zalz wrote:On August 12 2011 22:11 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On August 11 2011 16:17 zalz wrote:On August 11 2011 14:38 prOxi.swAMi wrote:I'm about 80% done. It's not as good as Atlas Shrugged, but still pretty good. Not as good as Atlas Shrugged? I fear to imagine there could be a book written more poorly. Well the important thing is that everybody knows you're too cool for either of them. I think the important thing is that people realise what they are actually getting themselves into. It's not, as so often depicted, a great story with a unique political point of view. Ayn Rand can be applauded for comming up with such a unique approach to politics but she cannot receive any praise for her writing ability wich is at best tedious and poorly edited. The books are of such intrest because they are largely the foundation of objectivism. That is their value, exploring objectivism. But if one has to judge the books purely on their quality, they are terrible terrible books. Unless your view of excellent writing is a 50 page long speech drilling into your skull why objectivism is hot stuff. Mind you, a 50 page long speech in a 1000+ page book wich is allready a thinly veiled objectivist flyer. You can defend the books on several accounts but you can't honestly defend them for being good books. I'm glad you clarified that. I actually can defend the books on being good books because that is the one part of it that is subjective. Am I also wrong for liking donuts? Steak? StarCraft? People have differing criteria which things must meet to qualify as good. Obviously ours are different. I don't see what's left to argue about.
For what it's worth, the Fountainhead was actually rather entertaining. Rand's writing is rather awkward (russian background), and her characters aren't too original (theatre background, she watched a lot of performances) but Roark was an amazing character. I remember one day, him falling asleep on his drawings, waking up, and just getting back to work. That kind of dedication was really admirable and had a profound effect on me.
|
Still reading Adonis. Starting into Q.E.D. by Gertrude Stein and Sophocles' Theban plays tomorrow.
On August 15 2011 09:14 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I actually can defend the books on being good books because that is the one part of it that is subjective. Am I also wrong for liking donuts? Steak? StarCraft? People have differing criteria which things must meet to qualify as good. Obviously ours are different. I don't see what's left to argue about.
Well, no, because de gustibus non est disputandum on its own isn't a counterargument; it's a cop-out.
The criteria in the judgement of taste are always calibrated towards a given personality - one may hate Joyce, another may like him; one may adore Tolstoy, another may not - but that seeming arbitrariness does not necessarily render all judgements null and void. Otherwise, it would be impossible to discuss art, period. We would all be speaking our private languages without a common ground whereby to extoll its virtues or criticize its shortcomings. The more oriented one is with the variety available in a given medium over its history, the better critical vocabulary one may have to argue qualitatively about one work in that medium.
If one wanted to argue that Starcraft is a good game, one would have to argue this opposed to other good games, moreover RTS games, but that you would equate literature with steak and donuts (as if every steak and donut is alike) says a lot about where you're coming from, and where you lack perspective.
Very, very, very, very few (i.e. no one, but there might be one or two in this thread, so yeah) take Ayn Rand seriously if they seriously loathe her philosophy; her books literally do not exist without Objectivism™. Compare this to Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, gigantic preachy novelists who wrote gigantic preachy novels, and you can see the difference. She's not Knut Hamsen or Ezra Pound; her art does not survive without her soupy worldview anchoring, eliding, justifying every choice on the page. She gives artless, hamhanded, verbose, pedantic, grueling demonstrations of her philosophy by bashing together ragdolls for characters.
It's young adult literature: Everybody Poops rewritten by wannabe Dostoevsky reading Mises. Just abominably bad.
On August 15 2011 12:38 obesechicken13 wrote:
Rand's writing is rather awkward (russian background), and her characters aren't too original (theatre background, she watched a lot of performances)
Writing in a second language does not excuse an author of being bad. Off the top of my head, Joseph Conrad certainly wasn't awful. Samuel Beckett wrote Waiting for Godot in French, and it was lean, lyrical - not awful. Vladimir Nabokov wrote English better than most anglophones.
Theatre demands original characters well-sketched and presented, precisely the opposite of what you're talking about. Unlike novels, prose style can't save a playwright of having badly presented, shoddily sketched, uninteresting characters; it's all in the dialogue and direction.
|
![[image loading]](http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h389/Clockwk/A-Feast-for-Crows.jpg)
Is what I just finished.
![[image loading]](http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h389/Clockwk/a-dance-with-dragons.jpg)
Is what I'm currently on. Started the series this summer and have burned through all of it in the past month. Now I'm going to be waiting multiple years for the next one and my only solace is the show, thank god for that. Have no idea what I will be reading next. My appetite for fantasy is sufficiently quenched, so I might read a John Grisham, I do like those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QqK2D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eBaQf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/p6pwK.jpg)
