Which book are you reading now? Volume XI

[Flying Pig]

Why everyone reading real books?

Try some Jack Reacher novels or Terry Pratchett books.

I do like Terry Pratchett, but I made the mistake of taking a Jack Reacher novel - a moment of weakness; I'd forgotten to bring a book, stopped off at a charity shop, and thought I'd give it a go - to Bisley with me the other week... dear God, that was awful.

As awful as a Dan Brown book?

Probably in the same league. I ended up reading The Da Vinci Code to see what the fuss was about, finding it predictably bad, and in another display of foolish trust decided to read Deception Point to give the man a fair hearing, before realising that sometimes fairness comes at a price.

 

[JohannaK]

As awful as a Dan Brown book?

 

[Ajidica]

With Dan Brown you can at least pretend you are annoying fundies.

 

[JohannaK]

Probably in the same league. I ended up reading The Da Vinci Code to see what the fuss was about, finding it predictably bad, and in another display of foolish trust decided to read Deception Point to give the man a fair hearing, before realising that sometimes fairness comes at a price.

I think that Deception Point is the only book by Brown I have not finished reading. (I lost it halfway through). My father bought them all for me and I thought it would be rude not to read them. But God, those were bad...

 

[Lillefix]

I think that Deception Point is the only book by Brown I have not finished reading. (I lost it halfway through). My father bought them all for me and I thought it would be rude not to read them. But God, those were bad...

I'd say deception point is the best of the books. He even tried to make one of his characters grow in that one.

 

[JohannaK]

Yes, its the one that was giving me the best vibe. Which is why I actually searched for the book when I realised I had lost it.

 

[cardgame]

T. Rex and the Crater of Doom

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Dan Browns mockery of history disturbs me.

I've started reading The Alchemist, looks like a really promising read.

 

[Arakhor]

I do like Terry Pratchett, but I made the mistake of taking a Jack Reacher novel - a moment of weakness; I'd forgotten to bring a book, stopped off at a charity shop, and thought I'd give it a go - to Bisley with me the other week... dear God, that was awful.

Hey! Bisley isn't that bad!

Probably in the same league. I ended up reading The Da Vinci Code to see what the fuss was about, finding it predictably bad, and in another display of foolish trust decided to read Deception Point to give the man a fair hearing, before realising that sometimes fairness comes at a price.

I read his first four books in the wrong order, so that I read Deception Point last, which was a bad idea, as I correctly guessed the identity of the bad guy within the first couple of chapters.

 

[Flying Pig]

Bisley's fantastic; even Jack Reacher couldn't ruin it, fortunately.

 

[Lillefix]

I read his first four books in the wrong order, so that I read Deception Point last, which was a bad idea, as I correctly guessed the identity of the bad guy within the first couple of chapters.

I read that first and was actually quite surprised who the bad guy was. Then I read Digital Fortress(one if the most badly researched books I've ever read) and began to see a pattern...

 

[Arakhor]

Likewise. I was somewhat shocked by the revelation of the villains in Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons and rather disappointed by the end of the terrible Digital Fortress, so I went into Deception Point, already suspecting that I knew who the villain was,

 

[Mouthwash]

Foundation. Truly awful, and I can say that objectively, not just as a modern, teenage, armchair intellectual. Mr. Asimov is no George Friedman, sorry to say. Maybe I'll do a rewrite one of these days, so that geeks can rant about how far we've come from the fifties while the diehard Asimov fanboys will make excuses for the sheer ineptitude of the science in the original. "Oh, it was written in a different era, and the absurdity of the plot and lack of characters just added to the charm or whatnot..."

 

[Dachs]

re-read: Terence Zuber - Inventing the Schlieffen Plan. Book's grown on me considerably since my first reading. Zuber's kind of a dick, as far as scholarly stuff goes, but his fundamental criticism remains sound.

not a re-read: Edward J. Erickson - Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study. Because why the hell not.

 

[Azale]

not a re-read: Edward J. Erickson - Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study. Because why the hell not.

I know it's one of your core historical interests, but that sounds dry

AS FOR ME

Spoiler :

I love this book. I am around page 200 and I'm devouring 40-50 page chapters in half the time it usually takes. The whole Oxford History of da USA series is a godsend. Wood does not god-worship the FF's but he doesn't slam them for the sake of being controversial. He draws out complexities very well.

A good thing there isn't much war stuff to cover because sometimes the OHUSA series is a little weak in that area.

Spoiler :

This is a (very good) history of the Boxer Rebellion, but more than that it is an exercise in the making of history. It is honestly one of the best books I have ever read. Cohen trifurcates his book into sections on the more traditional historian's retelling of an "event", the "experience" and motivations of those who lived the Boxer Rebellion, and the "myth"making that went on afterwards, especially in subsequent revolutionary moments in 20th century China.

Cohen sees the historian's job as making sense of an event from the past. He also sees this as coming into conflict with the interpretations offered by mythmakers (who take a past event and form it into something for a present purpose) and those who experienced the event. So, while Cohen isn't so naive as to think the historian is or should be an incorruptible paragon of adjudication between the various "views" of the past, he does think the historian should/does have a different motivation for their interpretations of the past.

At least that's what I've gleamed. I've been reading so slow that I might have forgotten the real crux of the thesis

 

[JohannaK]

Foundation and Empire. I liked Foundation when I read it a few years ago, so I got this book of the Foundation trilogy at uni's library. Once I finish it I'm going to start Dune.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Foundation and Empire. I liked Foundation when I read it a few years ago, so I got this book of the Foundation trilogy at uni's library. Once I finish it I'm going to start Dune.

After Foundation and Empire? But then you have Foundation's Edge, Foundation and Earth, and then Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation.

 

[JohannaK]

No, after I finish this book which contains the "original trilogy" of the Foundation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

AS FOR ME

Spoiler :

I love this book. I am around page 200 and I'm devouring 40-50 page chapters in half the time it usually takes. The whole Oxford History of da USA series is a godsend.

True story. I'm reading The Glorious Cause right now. Truly excellent work. Highly erudite, but not dry at all, and very often somewhat witty.

 

[Mouthwash]

After Foundation and Empire? But then you have Foundation's Edge, Foundation and Earth, and then Prelude to Foundation and Forward the Foundation.

Does it get better?