|
Finished The Hound of the Baskervilles. It was predictably great. Sherlock Holmes and Watson are probably two of the greatest characters ever written. (By Arthur Conan Doyle, that is. I still don't quite see how everyone is just "allowed" to write their own fan fiction episodes in Holmes' life.)
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2007 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Crooked Little Vein by Warren Ellis. I was considering reading this book, but you just turned me right off to it. I like Ellis, but he's a one-trick pony. Transmetropolitan was loving awesome, but everything else he's done seems to be "Transmet Lite." I gave up after reading a couple more major series' from him. Even Desolation Jones is basically "What if Spider Jerusalem was a secret agent?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2007 17:30
|
|
|
CrimsonGhost posted:Happy Ending by Jim Norton. Be prepared... he's loving PERVERTED. Like all that "I need a woman to use my face as a toilet" joking he does? He's not kidding. It's great. MONSTER RAAAAAIN!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2007 04:26
|
|
|
peanut- posted:I just finished For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway. Really incredible, easily one of the best books I've ever read. I understand why he is so influential now. That's the next one on my list. I actually just finished another Hemingway book, A Farewell to Arms. It was very good, but I'm a far bigger fan of The Old Man And The Sea and The Sun Also Rises.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2007 19:26
|
|
|
Axissillian posted:What did you think of the Nurse Character in Farewell? I remember always disliking that book because she was so stereotypical and two-dimensional in the story. Which nurse? The friend, Ferguson? Or the evil overlord "Nurse Ratched" clone, Van Campen?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2007 19:49
|
|
|
Axissillian posted:Catherine Barkley, the love interest. Oh. I thought you meant a minor character or something. Eh, she was okay. Typical "woman in a love story" kinda thing. Catherine was decent, but she seemed to be more of a plot device than a deeply thought out character. But in Hemingways defense, I feel that happens with female characters a lot though... in all forms of fiction. The plot almost solely focuses on what interesting things are happening to the important men, and then there are these female sideline characters there to occasionally provide supporting statements or objectives.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2007 20:25
|
|
|
CrimsonGhost posted:I forgot to reply to this when I finished. I am unclear how the rules to Monster Rain work so I will just lay back under the porch while you demonstrate, okay? Okay. So that's how you play an-- WAIT A MINUTE! GET BACK HERE! STOP TELLING EVERYONE I'M GAY!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2007 19:41
|
|
|
LooseChanj posted:Robinson Crusoe, Daniel Defoe I agree with all of these points, and particularly your reasons for reading it: You just have to. Like it or not, there is really no option not to at least be familiar with the full story of Robinson Crusoe. It's referenced so drat much. The Christian thing was certainly understandable, but got pretty tedious to me. Robinson Crusoe basically posted:PROVIDENCE. PROVIDENCE. PROVIDENCE. PROVIDENCE. I KILLED SEVERAL NATIVES TODAY. PROVIDENCE. YEE HAW IMPERIALISM!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2007 14:41
|
|
|
Finally finished Ernest Hemingway's For Whom The Bell Tolls. It was terrific. Easily the best "war story" I've ever read. It still can't take the place of The Sun Also Rises, but it was really good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2007 15:28
|
|
|
Just finished Anthony Bourdain’s Kitchen Confidential. It was a pretty good read. I’ve started waiting tables as a second job (because being a magazine writer/editor pays jack poo poo) and instantly was fascinated by the food business. In my quest to learn more, I picked up Bourdain’s book. It’s definitely worth a read. He’s lived a pretty interesting life. His Travel Channel show is pretty cool too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2007 18:39
|
|
|
George Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London. Much better than I thought it would be. I really don’t know what I was expecting, I knew a basic bit about what it would be like, but this book was much more. First of all, Orwell was poor (at that time). Dirt poor. There’s no way you were expecting the author of 1984 and Animal Farm to be this devastatingly impoverished. It’s a really interesting book that puts a human face on the destitute, and certainly something that everyone should have to read in high school.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2007 15:20
|
|
|
perceptual_set posted:My girlfriend gave me a copy of Tuesdays with Morrie that she has told me I have to read so that will be next. You'll be fine. That book is an easy one day read, or over a few days while on the can. It's quick, of little substance and hopelessly sappy. It's definitely forgivable and I didn't really have a problem with it when my mother sucker punched me into reading it. (My grandmother had just died and yadda yadda yadda...) Think every "young man learns from wise old man" movie you've ever seen. A lot of people hate it, but if you didn't pay for it and it only takes you a day it's a really inoffensive book. Plus, if you can still swallow Chuck Palahniuk overexposed tripe, then you've got a fair tolerence for overblown pop-trash. That's right. I took a swipe at Chuck Palahniuk while defending Mitch Albom. Chew on that little conundrum while I go slide a razor over my pathetic veins.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2007 17:13
|
|
|
perceptual_set posted:I understand. I've never pretended either of the two writers was any Bill Shakespeare. I'm a pretty pessimistic person and I really enjoy Palahniuk's shitastic view of the world, that's all. Coming from someone who read nothing but science fiction until this year, this is a big step. I'd love to get into other writers who not necessarily write like Palahniuk but have a similar outlook on the world. JESUS CHRIST! Will you ever stop telling us about your undying love for Mitch Albom and Chuck Palahniuk!? We get it. Nothing can top them. EVER. But yeah, I read it as a favor too. There are infinitely worse books you could be obligated to read for other people. The Secret and any lunatic left wing propaganda books come to mind...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2007 15:41
|
|
|
T. H. White’s The Once and Future King plus the conclusion, The Book of Merlyn. Really really good. I did not expect to enjoy these books as much as I did. I’m taking a month long tour of Europe and trying to read a lot of Europe-related stuff. Plus I love myths and Arthur is pretty much the only thing “Whitey” has. The Sword in the Stone is a whimsical tale of a boy turning into animals and learning from the wise old wizard Merlyn. It’s fun and bears MANY uncomfortable similarities to Harry Potter. Well beyond the point of homage or reference, in fact, and right into “Hey, waitaminute!” territory. The other stories are straight up tragic. Just very sad and powerful, since you know it’s not going to end well. Also, I guess Lancelot was hideous, and not, you know… Richard Gere. The last book is much more philosophical and deals with the concepts of government, might as right, nationalism and anarchism as the perfection of man. Really interesting stuff, but I always love to see someone tackle anarchism in a realistic way, rather than simply dismissing it. White had this great way of injecting humor into the old legends. If you haven’t read this book, you really should. And if you read Stephen King’s The Dark Tower without knowing anything about Arthur, you really owe it to yourself to learn up. Roland and Arthur are intentionally very similar.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2007 15:28
|
|
|
perceptual_set posted:I was thinking about reading that soon, would you recommend it? If you really want your atheistic viewpoint spit back at you, verbatim, then yes. Otherwise you pretty much already read the book. It's a decent book, but nothing you haven't heard before. Plus he's one of those "tee hee Spaghetti Monster!" atheists. Dawkins also wholeheartedly believes that wars would cease to exist if religion was gone. I'm an atheist, so I did mildly enjoy the book verbally calling me awesome over and over. But if you've got better books to read, then by all means, skip this one. You already wrote it in your head.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2007 14:10
|
|
|
Ehhhhhhhhhh... maybe. Since you're on the fence, I say read it. You'll probably get more out of it than most people then. Just remember to keep your own council on the subject and that Dawkins thinks that whole society of atheists (church of atheism  ) is a good idea. It's a decent book and Dawkins isn't stupid, he just wants to take disbelief in a direction I disagree with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2007 15:47
|
|
|
Guy LeDouche posted:I'm getting Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes Enjoy! Don Quixote is actually pretty funny. And not in a "funny for literature" way... he's out of his loving mind and spends 90% of the book attacking innocent people because he thinks they are dragons/ruffians/enemy armies. That's pretty much all the book is. DQ: Look Sancho! A group of dark wizards! (points towards a caravan of priests and nuns) Sancho: No sir, wait! (DQ chops off a priest's arm and is mercilessly beaten by the nuns) Sancho: Jesus Christ... On a personal note, I just finished The Return of Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle. It was great, but so far pretty much all of Holmes has been. What a fantastic character. I'm really not looking forward to the supposed "decline in quality" that I hear is coming.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2007 16:23
|
|
|
Guy LeDouche posted:As far as Sherlock Holmes - where should I start? I'm looking for an unabridged "complete SH" but stuff I've seen is lacking, so I think I'll just buy them in order. Use the wikipedia page as a guide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes You'll want to start with A Study In Scarlet. It's the first appearance of the characters and gives Watson's first account of "I'm living with a mad man." Be warned though, this takes a fairly large detour halfway through and switches to another character's point of view. All the short stories and subsequent novels I've read besides this one remain entirely with Sherlock and Watson. I liked A Study In Scarlet though, I'm just warning you because a buddy of mine was really jarred by the switch. I have them in an all-in-one leatherbound collection from Barnes & Noble. Also, check out these awesome (yet pricey) annotated collections: Short Stories: http://www.amazon.com/New-Annotated...91439219&sr=1-3 and the novels http://www.amazon.com/New-Annotated...91439219&sr=1-5
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2007 20:23
|
|
|
Vampire$ by John Steakley. Now, when I saw that this book used a dollar sign instead of an “S,” I was worried. But a couple goons were really talking it up in the movie thread, so I figured “You know, I usually think vampire books are lame and by far the most pretentious lame-rear end novels of the horror genre. But maybe, just maybe, this one will be different.” Nope. Well, it was SORTA different. Instead of gay “dark yet classy” vampires, this focused on the hunters, who were practically dripping with false character depth. I mean, the book telegraphed everything in point-blank no room for misinterpretation. I mean, every chapter pretty much read like this: Jack Crow was a magnificent bad rear end. But on the inside he wanted to cry. A lot. Like full on “sissy-bitch tears.” Tears of eternal sadness. Like when a puppy is hit by a car, and only an 8 year old retarded boy is there to help. So the simpleton is cradling the dying puppy and weeping… and just then, he drops his lollipop. That’s how Jack Crow felt. That and like an rear end kicker. As he went off to kick rear end, a tear rolled down his cheek. His partner noticed the watery glint in Jack’s eyes… and remembered that there was no Santa Claus. He wanted to die. Oh, and can we agree to stop naming every action hero “Jack” for a decade or so? We have completely exhausted the plausibility of people having that name. I know it’s the most wicked sick name in English, but enough already. In my 25 years, I've only met like three "Jacks" in real life.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2007 16:30
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Ahahaha, I can't believe it, Jack Crow was the name of one of the main characters in Armor as well. (If you've read Armor, are they supposed to be the same person?) I thought the Felix part of the book was a good read, but once Jack Crow's forced-badassness came onto the scene, it was pretty much nonstop eye-rolls. "Ooooh, it's Jack Crow the famous pirate and outlaw! Of course you can hang out at my top-secret government base and have free run of the place, because I'm a nerdy scientest and want to be cool! Don't shut down the shields or nothin'!" Ugh. Jesus Christ... I don't know. I just looked Armor up after reading this and, as far as I can tell, they are different characters with identical names. Ridiculous. I mean: What an Artist! Why oh why won't regular people respect science fiction/fantasy!?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2007 15:08
|
|
|
And I just finished Sherlock Holmes and The Valley of Fear which was the last full length novel of the Great Detective. I'm with Paradoxical, I loving love Sherlock Holmes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2007 05:25
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I liked God Emperor and so did a lot of other people Yeah, in all honesty God Emperor is pretty cool, if only for the main character. Definitely worth a look. It gets a bit nutty after GE, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2007 05:02
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:John Dies At The End by David Wong. Pretty enjoyable horror-comedy read. It falls a little flat at points, but I had fun with it. I'm asking a bunch of folks about this. Would you recommend it to other people, or is it a little too "Internety?" I'm actually fairly curious about this book.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2007 23:25
|
|
|
perceptual_set posted:I am now a devout Bokononist Man, but isn't everyone after reading that? What a loving awesome book. I actually like it a little more than Slaughterhouse V.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2007 05:05
|
|
|
Saw the trailer for the Coen Bros. movie No Country For Old Men, and figured I'd better get off my rear end and finally read some of this "legendary" Cormac McCarthy fellow. It was pretty good. I definitely liked it, and the story takes a direction you wouldn't expect from a typical found money/manhunt plot. Not of the "twist ending" variety, mind you. It's just kinda cool. Worth the read. The Coens will probably turn it into a pretty good movie, too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2007 18:59
|
|
|
I just finished God's Debris by Scott Adams. Yes, the Dilbert guy. I swear it was worth reading. Honest. No, it's not supposed to be funny. Actually it's yet another book questioning the value of religion. I learned about it in another TBB thread. I really liked it because it actually brings some new ideas to the table (at least as far as I've heard). I'm an atheist, but reading atheistic literature is pretty much a waste of time to me. All atheism really boils down to is "everyone else believes in Santa Claus, and one day I decided I don't believe that silly story anymore." That's why Dawkins and Harris and pretty much everyone else seem to keep writing the same book over and over. I agree with them, but I really don't need to keep reading about how smart atheists are. It's kinda worthless. God's Debris is a little different. It tries to take the piss out of both the religious and atheists. The book is a weird thought experiment that tries to break the problems of the universe down to their most simple solutions. Then he questions those simple solutions. Honestly, it's worth reading. I don't agree with Adams 100%, but it's definitely an interesting angle on the big questions. Oh, I almost forgot. You can even download the ebook version for free: https://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/ Zero Karizma fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Nov 27, 2007 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2007 17:58
|
|
|
maxnmona posted:I read a little bit of one of his serious books and he came across as a delusion new ager. Oh it absolutely is new age bullshit, hands down. No contest. God's Debris is barely, barely rewritten/adapted Hinduism. And the more cynical among us know Hinduism is pretty much neck-and-neck with Buddhism as the principle religion exploited by wacky new-age spiritual types. (Ignoring Wicca, because, well... Wicca) But aren't all these "I have the answers to the universe" books full of poo poo? All actual religious texts are pretty much wishful thinking in my mind anyway. Hell, even on the anti-faith side of the coin it's a lot of nonsense posturing. I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but I every single book about Atheism I've read has been: "Man, are we smart! I mean aren't we smart, reader? You know who's dumb? Everyone who's not us." I mean, it's good that they are written and I loved it the first time, but its just gotten tiresome to read over and over. I liked God's Debris not so much as a way to live, but as an interesting alternative to the views I usually have shoved in my face all day. I just found it interesting to read a different opinion on the matter, even if it's from the guy who makes Dilbert. It's not like I believe the book. I just think it's as worthwhile a read as God is Not Great or The God Delusion for alternate takes on the meaning of life. quote:I stopped reading right around the part where he was talking about his belief that if you really really think hard about something happening and write that it will happen a hundred times a day, then we will influence the universe and it will happen. This concept, of course, later being known as THE SECRETTM I kinda forgot this part, but didn't the book said that writing the stuff 100 times to get it to happen was foolish? If I remember correctly wasn't the only reason it occasionally seemed to work was because the people who have the predisposition to devote the energy to writing that stuff are probably the people who would have earned it anyway or something? I could be wrong, but I thought the old guy dismissed this. I thought his main point was something about probability and how science doesn't have full explanations for stuff like "what exactly IS gravity" and "why does probability exist?" and the like. That and how all religion is wrong and we're just trying to reconcile our existence with our available knowledge from century to century. That last part I can definitely agree with. Edit: Oh, and religious folks, I'm not trying to make IM ATHEIST DEAL WITH IT type dick-headed attacks here. Just trying to express my opinions in context. Edit2: Except for the Wiccan comment. gently caress that poo poo. Zero Karizma fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Nov 29, 2007 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2007 04:18
|
|
|
Psmith posted:A Long Way Down by Nick Hornby. I picked it up on a whim because I really enjoyed the film versions of his books High Fidelity and About a Boy. I listened to the audiobook version of this book. It was narrated by 4 separate actors. Very cool how he managed to make it sad and funny at the same time. I decided to check it out after hearing Hornby on NPR talk about how he liked tackling the subject of a woman with the handicapped kid wanting to kill herself to escape the responsibility. It's less depressing than I made it sound though. Worth a look.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2007 07:33
|
|
|
Just finished two. First: Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Seas by Jules Verne I was just in Paris and there's a restaurant called the Jules Verne under the Eiffel Tower. It reminded me how I never read this classic. It's really good. Some parts have become a bit silly with time, usually stemming from the fact that the Nautilus wields electric energy like magic spells. (Disney pretty much handled this problem with their movie version by just changing every mention of "electricity" to "nuclear power.") For the most part it's a light hearted adventure tale similar to the ending of The Life Aquatic, but Nemo himself has some extremely dark overtones that manage to make him fascinating, terrible and admirable at the same time. Second: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn I've seen it mentioned enough that I figured it was time to read it. I really do like these one-sided philosophical lecture type books. Ishmael has a great style to it and is a fun read, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree with a word of it. In my opinion, it's worth checking out, since I always love hearing alternate/interesting theories on life. But it basically can be summed up as: "Civilization is bad. We should become hunter-gatherers again and live like the animals." So, yeah. Idealistic bullshit that could NEVER happen, but it was mildly intriguing. It's short too, like most of these types of books. LooseChanj posted:Only one mention of Cthulu in the whole drat book. Cthulu is probably the most over-referenced character of all time. His actual involvement in the mythos is pretty much 1 major story and a bunch of name-droppings in the others. I always say this in Lovecraft-related threads, but seriously check out some of his non-mythos stuff. Herbert West--Reanimator (sorta kinda the basis for the cult classic cheesy horror flick: Reanimator.) is my absolute favorite story of his. The Rats In The Walls is pretty bad rear end too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2007 20:50
|
|
|
Finished Grendel by John Gardner. It tells the story of Beowulf from the villain's perspective. Sort of like an existential version of Wicked. I really liked it. It's tragic and entertaining at the same time. Grendel reminds me a lot of the Monster from Frankenstein. Definitely worth a read for fans of Beowulf. Oh, and it stays close to the original poem, unlike some OTHER modern Beowulf stories I could mention.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2007 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
LooseChanj posted:You know, if you want something that's as faithful as possible to its source material, go read a history book. < Oh don't get me wrong, I loved Grendel too. The book completely takes it's own spin on the story without wildly altering major plot events from Beowulf. The recent Beowulf animated movie is what I was referring to for being a completely different story. From what I heard, the director really wanted to do a hardcore faithful to the poem "ultraviolent-dicks-swingin'-in-the-wind" NC-17 version, but was pressured by the studio to turn it into the neutered version we have now. I don't mind if the author makes the change, but turning Grendel's Mom into a smokin' hot seductress was a lame by-the-numbers Hollywood choice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2007 05:37
|
|
