I'm reading Shadows over Innsmouth, an anthology of short stories in the Cthulu mythos.
I'm also listening to a librivox recording of the Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas.
I'm disappointed by Aquinas so far. I was for some reason expecting to find some respectable philosophy, but instead am finding poor sophistry. He mostly seems to be using complicated Aristotelian terminology in order to rationalize statements made by authority figures like Augustine, particularly where it makes much more sense to assume that those authorities were mistaken. Often the complications are only necessitated by the Vulgate using Latin words not really equivalent to the terms used in the original language of scripture, where a more literal translation would not suggest any need to consider the subject. The objections he addresses frequently make more sense than the positions he defends as orthodox (although some of the objections seem quite silly), and when they make the most sense he does not offer any arguments against them except an appeal to authority. Generally that authority is not even scripture but rather a context-free statement by a fallible mortal like Augustine, a statement that seems no more authoritative than those used as the basis to raise the objections.
Frankly, the Cthulu mythos seems to make more sense.