Which book are you reading now? Volume XI
- Thread starter NedimNapoleon
- Start date
- Status
Verarde
Pondering Wearing A Hat
I finished A Time To Betray by Reza Kahlili. Now I'm starting The Secret Sentry by Matthew Aid.
Once school starts tomorrow, I'll be reading Coming to America by Roger Daniels.
Once school starts tomorrow, I'll be reading Coming to America by Roger Daniels.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
My one complaint about The Missing Risk Premium is its subpar writing; Falkenstein's style of prose works better in blog format than book format.
Despite that, it's not bad though it presumes a fairly high level of familiarity with both economics and finance.
Despite that, it's not bad though it presumes a fairly high level of familiarity with both economics and finance.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Finished The Missing Risk Premium. I'll write a blurb once I've finished digesting his empirical chapters.
I am eagerly awaiting my copy of Boom and Bust Banking. It's a timely counterweight to John Taylor's new book, Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery which sounds more political than economic.
I am eagerly awaiting my copy of Boom and Bust Banking. It's a timely counterweight to John Taylor's new book, Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery which sounds more political than economic.
Just finished Power and Plenty. Lots of interesting stuff. One thing in recent history that I found so shocking I have a hard time believing that it's true is the claim that freight transport costs have not declined in the post WWII era. 
I haven't posted here in a long while. So Truman was awesome, and I also read Mawdsley's The Russian Civil War. There's not much on the lead-up to the war nor on the social aspects of the revolution; it focuses almost exclusively on the military maneuvers, campaigns, and strategy, and it starts up around the October Revolution (so don't bother if you want to read about the Kerensky government and the end of WW1 for Russia). However, it covers what it intends to cover quite well. I'd view it more like Longest Night than Battlecry of Freedom, if that analogy makes sense.
Currently, I have Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire and Hobsbawm's Age of Capital on my nightstand.
Currently, I have Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire and Hobsbawm's Age of Capital on my nightstand.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Time for Richard Gott's Cuba. Chock full of footnotes that aren't just citations. Just the way I like it.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Getting into Speaker for the Dead. It will be my third Ender book.
Luttwak's The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire was both hilarious and deleterious to the understanding of the topic. It's pretty transparently clear that the Roman military lacked a concept of grand strategy, and that their army dispositions did not reflect "defense in depth", "preclusive defense", or a "cordon" - or, at least, not the intention to create any of the above. Luttwak was a Pentagon man, and his book was tied into the debate over NATO in Europe at the time, with Luttwak showing a development of grand strategy towards his preferred version, defense in depth, to provide tried-and-true historical grounds for the idea. One wonders what his explanation for the fifth century might have been (he never went into it). The book still has a fair amount of influence among the hobby-historian set and many of the military history types, which is annoying.
In The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire Luttwak did significantly better in some respects. He looked at institutional changes and continuity and went fairly deep into the historiographical debates surrounding some of the Byzantine tactical manuals. But there's still not much to evince a "grand strategy" - the book would be more aptly titled The Military Culture of the Byzantine Empire, but that would prevent them from cashing in on the market of "guys who liked the last book". Also, the book basically ignores everything after the reign of Basileios II. There are a couple of mentions of the Komnenoi and some vague praise for Michael VIII Palaiologos (no word on Ioannes III Doukas Vatatzes but whatever). Just like with the first part of the Roman Empire, Luttwak more or less ignored the parts of Byzantine history that don't make its army look so good.
You'd probably be better served to read Haldon or Treadgold's books on the early Byzantine army, and Bartusis' work on the later Byzantine army.
Damage is sadly done: I'm around page 250. I've definitely picked up the disjointed nature of the work--he has 3-ish major sections (I'm in the section on tactical manuals now). The military culture title definitely sounds more appropriate (and would have been for the former book as well--he's applying far-to-modern ideas to the era).
Best and worst thing about my college schedule is that it makes me go far away from my dorm, and doesn't give me enough time to get back before my next class starts. This has given me a hella lot of time to actually start reading books. It's been 3 weeks and I'm almost done with my second read.
First book I read was the classic Brave New World. I thought it was pretty good, even though the characters weren't all too developed and there was a major shift in the plot like halfway through. Also it was funny reading Brave New World Revisited 60 years after its publication date
Now I'm about two-thirds through A Canticle for Leibowitz, which is a fantastic read so far. One of the few post-apocalyptic stories I've seen that doesn't go nuts "mutations" and "monsters", and sticks to humanity's story, which I like.
First book I read was the classic Brave New World. I thought it was pretty good, even though the characters weren't all too developed and there was a major shift in the plot like halfway through. Also it was funny reading Brave New World Revisited 60 years after its publication date
Now I'm about two-thirds through A Canticle for Leibowitz, which is a fantastic read so far. One of the few post-apocalyptic stories I've seen that doesn't go nuts "mutations" and "monsters", and sticks to humanity's story, which I like.
I hated having little hour-gaps throughout my day. I'd rather go to class for a couple hours straight and then have the rest of the time to myself to concentrate on any given task.
I'm just starting my third book (it's common for me to read 3 at once, other two were mentioned above): The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris. First of three hefty tomes on the big man himself.
I'm just starting my third book (it's common for me to read 3 at once, other two were mentioned above): The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris. First of three hefty tomes on the big man himself.
I kind of like it, gives me time to finish the reading for the class I just came from, and get some leisure reading it. If I had the time to get back to my dorm, I'd just waste it on the internet
I kind of like it, gives me time to finish the reading for the class I just came from, and get some leisure reading it. If I had the time to get back to my dorm, I'd just waste it on the internet
But it drags out your classes all day! My favorite semesters in undergrad were where I could take 2-3 classes in the MWF 9-12 block, maybe one after lunch if scheduling didn't work out. If I had to take stuff on Tuesday and Thursday, I'd try to keep it to the same time periods. I'd have labs 2-6 in the afternoon (Thursday if possible because I didn't want to do jack Thursday evening, so it was "forced productivity"), rest of the time was free.
I was pretty disciplined back then, though. I'd get up early, go to class, eat lunch, then go to the ChBE computer lab and study until dinnertime. Then I'd go home, read, workout, etc. It was great.
Yeah, the dragging out part is true. Mondays I'm stuck out of my dorm from 12 till 9 at night, with only an hour in between each class.
Just finished Empire of Illusion: the End of Literacy and Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges a day or so ago. I'm now starting No Logo by Naomi Klein.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Finished Cuba. I enjoyed learning about Cuba's expeditionary brand of revolution. Disappointed though that Batista's rule and the connection with the mafia wasn't explored that much.
Anyway, half-way through "Strange New Worlds" by Ray Jayawardhana. Bite-sized reading about extrasolar planets to tide me until I have access to the university library. Very accessible to the layman but doesn't dumb things down too much.
Anyway, half-way through "Strange New Worlds" by Ray Jayawardhana. Bite-sized reading about extrasolar planets to tide me until I have access to the university library. Very accessible to the layman but doesn't dumb things down too much.
Eh, the whole Batista/Mafia link is mostly an American concern. It wasn't all that big an issue for Cubans because it was among the least objectionable features of dictatorship. Torture, arrest, disappearances, lack of basic services and endemic corruption at a human level were far more significant.
Did it happen to mention William Alexander Morgan?
Did it happen to mention William Alexander Morgan?
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I don't think it did, no.
It just kind of glossed over Batista's rule in general. Castro's the star of the show. Actually, I didn't hear too much mention of detainment, torture, and human rights violations throughout the book. Just mentions of them.
It just kind of glossed over Batista's rule in general. Castro's the star of the show. Actually, I didn't hear too much mention of detainment, torture, and human rights violations throughout the book. Just mentions of them.
- Status
Similar threads
