The Book Discussion Thread

[lovejuice]

Hey Milky Joe, have you read Foucault's Discipline and Punish?
i love this book and in fact most of foucault's. "his" panopticon idea is very influential. after reading this book, i notice it's quoted quite a lot in popular culture.

[Benny Profane]

Against the Day is good. REAL good. Though it's a bit disheartening to get through a "tough" 350 pages and know you still have over 700 left. Actually, this is one of the more linear, accessible Pynchon narratives I've read. And I guess I've read them all.

[Milky Joe]

Hey Milky Joe, have you read Foucault's Discipline and Punish? I finished it a few days ago, and given your somewhat paranoid views, I think you might be interested in Foucault's analysis of shifting power structures.

I have not. I've tended to stay away from theory-stuff like that (the lit theory class I just finished taking was excruciating for me) though I've lately started to become more interested in philosophy, so maybe I'll check it out. Honestly, when you said Foucault and mentioned my paranoid views, I immediately thought you were talking about Umberto Eco, whose Foucault's Pendulum I've often thought of reading.

[kuehnepips]

Against the Day is good. REAL good.

That's it. I'm reading this one next.

[Skitch]

Finished Snuff, moved on to Company Man.

[kuehnepips]

Snuff in company? Man.

[Skitch]

Snuff in company? Man.

Pretty much. Need to bathe in bleach after that book.

[D_Davis]

Sweet!

A new Hap and Leonard book is coming out this month:


Last seen in 2001's Captains Outrageous, Lansdale's East Texas twosome of Hap Collins and Leonard Pine, who specialize in daring jobs for hire, are in fine fettle—slightly older and wiser, still prone to down-home philosophical rants and as eager as ever to lead violence by the nose. In their seventh raucous outing, the unlikely partners—Hap's a white, horny heterosexual good ol' boy, and Leonard's a black homosexual Vietnam vet—rescue a friend's daughter from the clutches of drug dealers. Unbeknownst to our heroes, the dealers are part of the Dixie Mafia, which proceeds to send waves of assassins in retaliation, each worse than the last. Joking as they go, Hap and Leonard dispose of each with their usual brand of brutality. Then, the mafia sends its weapon of last resort, Vanilla Ride, a beautiful hit woman. Edgar-winner Lansdale's storytelling skills are as sharp as ever—bursts of action, moments of reflection and lots of shooting the breeze before trouble comes calling again.

Love those dudes.

[lovejuice]

halfway through ulysses. yes, i enjoy it, although since i look at the book as a challenge, my feeling is more akin to "hey, this is not so bad. i think i can do it!" than "gosh, i can't put this thing down."

i'm going to be quite proud when i finish it.

so please tell me, pynchon's is not that harder than joyce's. i know, they are. i just hope they're more similar. ulysses doesn't hit my limit just yet.

[Milky Joe]

so please tell me, pynchon's is not that harder than joyce's. i know, they are. i just hope they're more similar. ulysses doesn't hit my limit just yet.

it isn't that much harder. though I would skip pynchon and go right for Infinite Jest. :)

[Duncan]

it isn't that much harder. though I would skip pynchon and go right for Infinite Jest. :)

This is a terrible idea.


Read Artifices and The Aleph by Borges. lovejuice suggested in the ISOYFDT that he's postmodern-y. I think that's fairly true. His ideas seem to permeate pretty much all of the postmodern fiction I've read. These were both real good, although I wish he wrote a little more about women. His settings and characters are so diverse, but they're almost all male.

Also read The Quiet American by Graham Greene. It was decent. A very concise and perhaps simplistic examination of colonial tendencies. I say simplistic because Alden Pyle is such a fucking idiot, and pretty one-dimensional. I also tire of the cynical-reporter-protagonist-who-occasionally-says-profound-truths as a character type. It's very common. Not as common as the cynical private eye, but still pretty ubiquitous.

[Milky Joe]

This is a terrible idea.

These folks would seem to disagree:
http://infinitesummer.org/

[Kurosawa Fan]

Also read The Quiet American by Graham Greene. It was decent. A very concise and perhaps simplistic examination of colonial tendencies. I say simplistic because Alden Pyle is such a fucking idiot, and pretty one-dimensional. I also tire of the cynical-reporter-protagonist-who-occasionally-says-profound-truths as a character type. It's very common. Not as common as the cynical private eye, but still pretty ubiquitous.

Eh. Pyle is an idiot insofar as he gets caught up in his own ideals and can't see common sense anymore, but that's true of many people. I didn't find his idiocy unrealistic. It's just misguided passion to do what he believes is the right thing.

Also, I think you're judging the novel with 2009 in mind when talking about how tired you are of the cynical journalist with profound moments. I'm not sure how cliche that was when The Quiet American was written, but people latch on to success and imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery. I don't think you can blame Greene for others aping his work (and yes, I'm aware that he wasn't the first to develop a character like Thomas Fowler, but his novel helped push that character type further into cliched territory).

I thought the book was incredible, and still incredibly relevant, which surprised me the most. The entire time I was reading I couldn't help but think that Pyle could, and probably does, exist today, and was somewhere with us in the Middle East these last eight years.

[Duncan]

Eh. Pyle is an idiot insofar as he gets caught up in his own ideals and can't see common sense anymore, but that's true of many people. I didn't find his idiocy unrealistic. It's just misguided passion to do what he believes is the right thing. I see what you're saying, but I find the "innocence" of his character, as Greene puts it, too all pervasive. He was very much a type to me. Loves his mom, respects his dad, believes in the books he reads. I didn't find much depth in him.


Also, I think you're judging the novel with 2009 in mind when talking about how tired you are of the cynical journalist with profound moments. I'm not sure how cliche that was when The Quiet American was written, but people latch on to success and imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery. I don't think you can blame Greene for others aping his work (and yes, I'm aware that he wasn't the first to develop a character like Thomas Fowler, but his novel helped push that character type further into cliched territory). I don't think that's much of an excuse. The problem is, again, that the character feels less like a human than a literary type. There's not much for me to distinguish him from others like him. I've read a lot of old books that don't feel cliched at all.


I thought the book was incredible, and still incredibly relevant, which surprised me the most. The entire time I was reading I couldn't help but think that Pyle could, and probably does, exist today, and was somewhere with us in the Middle East these last eight years.Agree that it's still very relevant. I was actually thinking of Michael Ignatieff (who is the leader of the Canadian Liberal Party) while reading it. Very smart guy who, while running some committee or something at Harvard, came out in support of the Iraq War because of some of the exact same reasons Pyle did.

[D_Davis]

I'm started a book called The Ambient Century: From Mahler to Trance - The Evolution of Sound in the Electronic Age. It sounds fascinating.

[Eleven]

Philip Roth was was taking Nixon down a peg before Watergate; before Agnew resigned; in short, before taking Nixon down a peg was cool. Our Gang is short, bitter, bizarre, and oh-so-funny.

Also taking my time with books of essays by Alfred Kazin, Gary Indiana, and Gore Vidal.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I see what you're saying, but I find the "innocence" of his character, as Greene puts it, too all pervasive. He was very much a type to me. Loves his mom, respects his dad, believes in the books he reads. I didn't find much depth in him.

I don't think that's much of an excuse. The problem is, again, that the character feels less like a human than a literary type. There's not much for me to distinguish him from others like him. I've read a lot of old books that don't feel cliched at all.

If depth is the problem, I think that was intentional. Our perspective is purely that of Fowler, who doesn't like Pyle, and shows us only what he sees in him. I think he makes him more buffoonish as a way of knocking him down, out of jealousy and spite. I don't think Pyle was really that shallow, as some of his devious behavior suggested in the second half. Fowler just didn't want to give him any more credit than necessary.

[Duncan]

Philip Roth was was taking Nixon down a peg before Watergate; before Agnew resigned; in short, before taking Nixon down a peg was cool. Our Gang is short, bitter, bizarre, and oh-so-funny.

I've been thinking of reading some Roth lately. Have you read other books by him? If so, how does it compare?

Anyone else read anything by him?

Also, Don DeLillo. I keep seeing his name places, but whenever I read a quote by him it doesn't seem that interesting.

[Duncan]

If depth is the problem, I think that was intentional. Our perspective is purely that of Fowler, who doesn't like Pyle, and shows us only what he sees in him. I think he makes him more buffoonish as a way of knocking him down, out of jealousy and spite. I don't think Pyle was really that shallow, as some of his devious behavior suggested in the second half. Fowler just didn't want to give him any more credit than necessary. But what I'm saying is that they're both kind of shallow characters.

[Kurosawa Fan]

But what I'm saying is that they're both kind of shallow characters.

Ah. Well, in that case I guess we just disagree. I thought Fowler was well fleshed out.

[Eleven]

I've been thinking of reading some Roth lately. Have you read other books by him? If so, how does it compare?

Anyone else read anything by him?

Also, Don DeLillo. I keep seeing his name places, but whenever I read a quote by him it doesn't seem that interesting.

I like American Pastoral (which I know either KFan or Raiders loathes), Portnoy's Complaint, and The Plot Against America. Other good ones range from witty adolescent realism (Goodbye, Columbus and Indignation to quite interesting meldings of fact and fiction (Operation Shylock and Zuckerman Unbound). I'd start with Portnoy, it's fairly representative, well-regarded, and funny.


As for DeLillo, the conventional starting point is White Noise, which I love, but Libra and Mao II are just as good. Underworld is best to be tackled later.

[Benny Profane]

I wasn't very high on White Noise at all.

As for Roth, I have only read The Plot Against America, which seemed like a pretty pointless exercise.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I like American Pastoral (which I know either KFan or Raiders loathes), Portnoy's Complaint, and The Plot Against America. Other good ones range from witty adolescent realism (Goodbye, Columbus and Indignation to quite interesting meldings of fact and fiction (Operation Shylock and Zuckerman Unbound). I'd start with Portnoy, it's fairly representative, well-regarded, and funny.


As for DeLillo, the conventional starting point is White Noise, which I love, but Libra and Mao II are just as good. Underworld is best to be tackled later.

It's I that hates American Pastoral. It's not insultingly bad, it's just totally pointless. I guess I don't hate it so much as hate that it's so widely praised. It's the only Roth I've read. I've also read White Noise by Delillo, which was solid, but also kind of forgettable. I don't really remember much about it at all.

[Eleven]

Me - 1
Roth writes pointless novels - 2

[Melville]

halfway through ulysses. yes, i enjoy it, although since i look at the book as a challenge, my feeling is more akin to "hey, this is not so bad. i think i can do it!" than "gosh, i can't put this thing down."

i'm going to be quite proud when i finish it.

so please tell me, pynchon's is not that harder than joyce's. i know, they are. i just hope they're more similar. ulysses doesn't hit my limit just yet.
Approaching it as a challenge doesn't seem like a good way to go. Just enjoy the characters, humor, dazzling wordplay and variations in style, and scope of it all. It kind of reminds me of Citizen Kane: it's a very fun, lively book, but people sometimes seem to let its reputation get in the way of that.

Though some of its chapters are admittedly really tough to unravel. I never did finish Gravity's Rainbow—I inexplicably lost interest right after finishing the first section and figured I should wait til I regained interest to read the rest—but from what I've read, it's never as tough as the most impenetrable sections of Ulysses. However, Ulysses is probably easier to read overall, because its frequent changes in style prevent it from ever feeling monotonous (to me, at least).


Also, Don DeLillo. I keep seeing his name places, but whenever I read a quote by him it doesn't seem that interesting.
I'd skip DeLillo. I've only read White Noise, but it didn't inspire me to read anything else by him: while its portrayal of self-aware postmodernity is occasionally amusing, I didn't think it was all that interesting. Though you seem to be reading books at a lovejuician rate, so I guess you may as well give it a shot, given its reputation.

[Duncan]

Ah. Well, in that case I guess we just disagree. I thought Fowler was well fleshed out.

Yeah. I did marginally like it, and I don't mean to rag on it, especially since you liked it so much.

[Duncan]

Thanks for the replies on Roth and DeLillo. Based on my own skepticism and the not so overly enthusiastic comments here, I think I'll put them on the back burner for the time being. I'll probably read something by both of them eventually, though.

[Duncan]

Though you seem to be reading books at a lovejuician rate, so I guess you may as well give it a shot, given its reputation. Yeah, I've been knocking them out pretty quick lately. Already halfway through Kafka's Amerika, and I've been hacking away at Kierkegaard's Either/Or for a few months now. About halfway through that one as well.

[lovejuice]

Approaching it as a challenge doesn't seem like a good way to go. Just enjoy the characters, humor, dazzling wordplay and variations in style, and scope of it all. It kind of reminds me of Citizen Kane: it's a very fun, lively book, but people sometimes seem to let its reputation get in the way of that...However, Ulysses is probably easier to read overall, because its frequent changes in style prevent it from ever feeling monotonous (to me, at least).
Agree with many points you raise here. The book's lively and full of humor. I even :lol: at least once. (It's rare for me to laugh during novel.) And the ever changing style keeps it from getting too tough or boring. Though I doubt if I can read it as anything but a challenge. The book is very different from my usual taste, and I can't see myself writing one or trying to emulate his style.



Though you seem to be reading books at a lovejuician rate, so I guess you may as well give it a shot, given its reputation.
I'm so humored. :)


and speaking of Roth, not a big fan of American Pastoral either. The book has its moments and some very good points, but 200 pages can be easily cut off and only good thing will result. I quite enjoy Sabbath's Theatre. now reading Ulysses, I notice many similarities.

and three cheers for all who ditch white noise.

[Milky Joe]

Delillo is wonderful. I recommend reading his 70s work before anything else: Americana, End Zone, Great Jones Street, The Names, and others. Underworld is a masterpiece.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah. I did marginally like it, and I don't mean to rag on it, especially since you liked it so much.

No worries. Your opinion is just as valid and important as mine. Rag away if you so choose. I don't mind one bit.

[ledfloyd]

i love underworld from delillo, white noise was pretty good, i need to read more. as for roth, i like american pastoral and portnoy's complaint but don't think either are must reads.

[Duncan]

Finished Kafka's Amerika. What totally bizarre book. Funnier than his other works (that I've read, at least) and more optimistic. Part of the humour comes from the fact that almost every detail about America that Kafka gives is completely wrong (like the Statue of Liberty holding up a sword, for example). I don't know if this is intentional or not, but this is definitely a fantasy land, not a representation of the real country. It's an unfinished work, and the last chapter (which is lovely and absurd) doesn't follow what came previously. There are obviously some chapters missing. It's a little frustrating, but on the other hand, it makes the ending all the funnier and more magical.

[EvilShoe]

Read a few books:
Blood Meridian (McCarthy):Brutal and completely engrossing. Really loved the atmosphere in this one. Maybe my fav McCarthy so far (others I read were the Road & No Country for Old Men).

The Collector (Fowles): Chilling, to say the least. Clegg is one of the great psychopaths.

Choke (Palahniuk): Didn't care much for this one. Two novels in and Palahniuk's gimmick is already clearly obvious. It was ok, but seemed to prefer shocks over substance.

Women (Bukowski): Opened a bit weak, but grew better as it continued and finishes strongly.

[Amnesiac]

Quick, can someone tell me if there is a 'definitive' version of Kafka's The Trial? I'm looking to purchase it but I'm not sure if there are translation issues with any of the versions currently out.

For example, I don't know if this new translation (http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Translation-Based-Restored-Text/dp/0805241655/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_4) is better than this one (http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Everymans-Library-Cloth/dp/0679409947/ref=ed_oe_h).

Much thanks to anyone who can help me out, although I imagine this is probably a hard question to answer.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Read a few books:
Blood Meridian (McCarthy):Brutal and completely engrossing. Really loved the atmosphere in this one. Maybe my fav McCarthy so far (others I read were the Road & No Country for Old Men).

Awesome. I have this sitting on my shelf. I'll have to give it a go soon. That's high praise considering the two others of his you've read. Assuming you liked both of those.


Choke (Palahniuk): Didn't care much for this one. Two novels in and Palahniuk's gimmick is already clearly obvious. It was ok, but seemed to prefer shocks over substance.

Yep. Gimmick is the right word. This was the last of his novels I liked. I thought the last thirty pages were very effective, but the bulk of the novel was mediocre. I wouldn't read any others written after this one, as he just progressively gets worse. But Invisible Monsters and Fight Club are both worth reading.

[Sycophant]

I have been reading a bit of Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen by Queen Liliuokalani. Strange book. It's 110 years old, and its perspective is very much the perspective of royalty, and she doesn't exactly make it easy for the reader not already familiar with circumstances in the islands at the time.

Still, though it's occasionally hard to chew her somewhat stilted writing (due in part, of course, to the age of the words), it's providing a good perspective on the end of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

[EvilShoe]

Yep. Gimmick is the right word. This was the last of his novels I liked. I thought the last thirty pages were very effective, but the bulk of the novel was mediocre. I wouldn't read any others written after this one, as he just progressively gets worse. But Invisible Monsters and Fight Club are both worth reading.
Gah, I found Invisible Monsters real cheap but didn't buy because I thought it was one of the bad ones.

[Duncan]

Okay, judging from the thread history, I know that some of the people who replied after my last post (but not to my last post) have read The Trial... can you at least point me toward the versions that you guys read?

I don't have my copy on me and don't remember what translation I read. If you're browsing in a store, you could just read a few pages of each version. Even online you can usually preview a few pages to see which translation reads best for you.

Although, reading its wikipedia entry, this new 2005 version (which I definitely didn't read) sounds pretty neat. New translation, extra chapters, and existing chapters rearranged in order.

[EvilShoe]

Okay, judging from the thread history, I know that some of the people who replied after my last post (but not to my last post) have read The Trial... can you at least point me toward the versions that you guys read?
Sorry, can't help you since I've read a Dutch version.

[Amnesiac]

Thanks a lot, guys. I'll look more into that new version, I guess.

[lovejuice]

i can't remember mine either. and i'll shrug my shoulders and say, just read any version. *not that big a fan*

[MacGuffin]

I started reading Infinite Jest, but I might read Gravity's Rainbow instead. I'm not sure.

[trotchky]

I started reading Infinite Jest, but I might read Gravity's Rainbow instead. I'm not sure.

Other than falling under the broad category of "maximalism" the books don't have much in common; they're very different works with very different styles. Personally I find Infinite Jest to be much, much more accessible, if only because it was written for me while Gravity's Rainbow...wasn't. They come from different epochs, which is as essential to their nature anything else.

[trotchky]

Speaking of Infinite Jest, every time I see Duncan's avatar that's the first thing I think of, even though I know it's from The Royal Tenenbaums.

[MacGuffin]

Other than falling under the broad category of "maximalism" the books don't have much in common; they're very different works with very different styles. Personally I find Infinite Jest to be much, much more accessible, if only because it was written for me while Gravity's Rainbow...wasn't. They come from different epochs, which is as essential to their nature anything else.

I know, but I have both books and want to read both books.

[trotchky]

I know, but I have both books and want to read both books.

I understand that. And in addition to using the opportunity to share my thoughts on the novels, I was also attempting to offer you advice about which I thought you should read first, since you seemed ambivalent about that in your post.

In a nutshell: Stick with Infinite Jest.

[MacGuffin]

I understand that. And in addition to using the opportunity to share my thoughts on the novels, I was also attempting to offer you advice about which I thought you should read first, since you seemed ambivalent about that in your post.

In a nutshell: Stick with Infinite Jest.

I think I will, thanks.

[Milky Joe]

IJ is also a lot more fun than GR. But I'll say no more, I don't want people to think I love it too much. :rolleyes:

[Duncan]

I guess I'll make the obligatory comment that GR is, perhaps more than any other book I've read, written for me. And even though both books are highly informed by their times, I'd never call 1974 and 1996 different epochs. And I find the whole "I only like relatively new things" really bizarre. And GR is a fun book. And IJ, to me, wasn't so fun. In fact, I found it a highly depressing novel about largely depressed people. How many characters commit suicide? How many give extended descriptions of their depression? How fucked up are some of those films Himself makes? Even when GR is being profane or vulgar or whatever, it is almost always in service of a type of liberation; a pure, direct language for the Preterite. And I had something else to say too, but I forget what it was...

But by all means, IJ is worth reading, so I'd just continue on with that since you've already started.

[MacGuffin]

And I find the whole "I only like relatively new things" really bizarre.

Who said this? Thanks for the advice. I'll read bother eventually, I figure.

[Duncan]

Who said this? Thanks for the advice. I'll read bother eventually, I figure.

I don't know that anyone has in those words exactly, but trotchky has made similar comments about films in the past, and it would seem that pretty much all of his favourite music comes from this decade, and I got that vibe from his post here as well what with the epochs and the not written for me thing. Anyway, probably an unnecessary comment on my part.

[trotchky]

I guess I'll make the obligatory comment that GR is, perhaps more than any other book I've read, written for me. And even though both books are highly informed by their times, I'd never call 1974 and 1996 different epochs. And I find the whole "I only like relatively new things" really bizarre. And GR is a fun book. And IJ, to me, wasn't so fun. In fact, I found it a highly depressing novel about largely depressed people. How many characters commit suicide? How many give extended descriptions of their depression? How fucked up are some of those films Himself makes? Even when GR is being profane or vulgar or whatever, it is almost always in service of a type of liberation; a pure, direct language for the Preterite. And I had something else to say too, but I forget what it was...

But by all means, IJ is worth reading, so I'd just continue on with that since you've already started.

It's cool that you feel that way, but I don't know how you got "I only like relatively new things" from my post. I also don't see how preferring one work over another because it speaks more directly to your life, world, concerns, etc. is particularly bizarre. I didn't, by any means, mean to devalue Gravity's Rainbow. And sure, "epoch" was probably the wrong word to use.

Edit: I wrote this post before seeing your previous one. Probably better to just drop the subject entirely; as you said, it's an unnecessary convo.

[Duncan]

Edit: I wrote this post before seeing your previous one. Probably better to just drop the subject entirely; as you said, it's an unnecessary convo. Yeah.

[Milky Joe]

And IJ, to me, wasn't so fun. In fact, I found it a highly depressing novel about largely depressed people. How many characters commit suicide? How many give extended descriptions of their depression? How fucked up are some of those films Himself makes? Even when GR is being profane or vulgar or whatever, it is almost always in service of a type of liberation; a pure, direct language for the Preterite.

True, but it's also absolutely hilarious at the same time. I also found it a lot easier, and thus simply more enjoyable (re: "fun"), to read than the part of GR that I read. It's more lucid, with a lot less "obfuscated horseshit," to use the words somebody else once used to describe/derail DFW.

I also am not sure what you meant by 'Preterite' there, but I'm pretty sure that IJ is at least about the aching need for that kind of liberation from language you mention.

[Duncan]

True, but it's also absolutely hilarious at the same time. I also found it a lot easier, and thus simply more enjoyable (re: "fun"), to read than the part of GR that I read. It's more lucid, with a lot less "obfuscated horseshit," to use the words somebody else once used to describe/derail DFW.

I also am not sure what you meant by 'Preterite' there, but I'm pretty sure that IJ is at least about the aching need for that kind of liberation from language you mention.

Yeah, I think we've jut got different tastes then, because I thought GR was pretty hilarious, and its humour is less transparently structured. What I mean by that is that you can sort of see the some of the jokes being setup in IJ, whereas GR maintains spontaneity. I also find Pynchon's prose to be insanely beautiful and compelling, worthy of reading over and over.

Did you ever finish GR? The idea of a Preterite people is fairly crucial to the whole book. He uses the term to mean those who are passed over.

[Milky Joe]

Yeah, I never finished it. I got to the scat-munching scene and gave up. I agree that his prose is extremely beautiful and incredibly well composed, but never got much of the humour, possibly due to having to parse every sentence just to figure out what he was saying. I own the book, so one day I'll get back to it, as I really do think the book is obscenely well-written. The whole thing just seemed very bleak and cynical to me. It left me cold, whereas DFW warms my heart like a christmas fire (forgive the cliché, I've got a couple of beers in me).

[lovejuice]

oh...those frenchies!

almost finish madame bovary. it's pretty good, but also reminds me of other classic french novels and plays i did read as a student. it's very stereotypically french. passionated, sensual and moralistic. no wonder why my literature preference never gears toward that country.

[EvilShoe]

I'm halfway through Bonfire of the Vanities and am absolutely loving it.
Very clever and funny book. I like how Wolfe takes plenty of time to set up situations and characters, without this leading to dull segments.

[ledfloyd]

tree of smoke was great, possible best of the decade contender. i just started public enemies and i'm already liking it more than the film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The Executioner's Song was pretty great. I'm not going to say it's a flawless book, some masterpiece to behold, but it was certainly a compelling read. Part of me is a bit frustrated with the experience. It's such a deep exploration, and I'm not sure I feel any closer to knowing what made Gilmore do what he did. Glimpses maybe, but it would still be guesses.

One flaw, and Llopin touched on it in another thread, is that at times Mailer's exhaustive investigative journalism was exhausting to read. At times, especially all the details with the lawyers and Schiller, I was bored and distracted, ready to get back to Gilmore. The details were a bit mundane, and some of it felt superfluous. That could have something to do with Mailer's style too, which is very dry.

Still, it was a worthwhile read, and that sounds less impressive than it deserves. Let me put it another way. I was always eager to pick it up when I had the chance, even during it's slower segments.


I think I'm going to move on to Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer, for the sake of comparing two stories about Mormonism. I know precious little about the religion, and while the story itself obviously isn't indicative of the people, I'm sure it will lend some insight into the background of the religion as it goes along.

[Benny Profane]

Krakauer gets pretty in depth on the background of Mormonism. Great book.

[ledfloyd]

yeah, under the banner of heaven is fantastic.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm finding it very difficult to read. Largely because I know that these practices are taking place to this day with nothing being done to stop it. Being a father, reading about what's happened to some of these kids, it's hard to stomach.

[Ezee E]

Everything I wanted was out or couldn't be found. So I went with Richard Matheson's Now You See It.... Digging it.

[Duncan]

Almost done Kierkegaard's Either/Or, but put it on pause to read Brideshead Revisited. A little less than halfway through. Liking it so far. My impression of Waugh from the one book of his that I've read was that he was a purely satirical writer. Good to read something that is still funny, but is also pretty serious.

[lovejuice]

i used to be disappointed by martin amis, but other people is pretty damn great. you guys should try it. kinda remind me of Mulholland Dr..

[Benny Profane]

The Skating Rink, a new book by Roberto Bolano, will be released on August 28th. This is a good thing.

[ledfloyd]

The Skating Rink, a new book by Roberto Bolano, will be released on August 28th. This is a good thing.
how does he keep writing?

[Milky Joe]

It's not "new" really, just new in English. He's got a bunch of books that haven't been translated yet.

[ledfloyd]

It's not "new" really, just new in English. He's got a bunch of books that haven't been translated yet.
i was kidding. it was a bad joke though.

[Milky Joe]

Heh, I probably should have realized that. I am a fan of bad jokes.

[lovejuice]

so i know the movie is much adored around here, but anyone ever read shirley jackson's the haunting of hill house. almost midway through it, and it's...not very exciting. even some of the dialogue tricks she uses seems amusing rather than nerve-tinkling.

[Duncan]

so i know the movie is much adored around here, but anyone ever read shirley jackson's the haunting of hill house. almost midway through it, and it's...not very exciting. even some of the dialogue tricks she uses seems amusing rather than nerve-tinkling.

Did you finish Ulysses?


Finished Brideshead Revisited yesterday. It was good. Sad. Funny. I kind of wish Sebastian had stuck around more for the second half, though. I guess I liked the lost, dissatisfied young person's story better than the lost, dissatisfied middle-aged person's story. And I don't think it totally pulled off the really heavy stuff towards the end. It also felt a bit sketchy at times, like it was rushing through things. But I liked it.

[lovejuice]

Did you finish Ulysses?
yes and i enjoy it a lot. the book has a strong structure which supports all its literature experiments. some chapters i understand less than the other, but i can totally see myself revisit them in the future.

the scene under the fireworks with gerty and bloom are my favorite.

[Hugh_Grant]

so i know the movie is much adored around here, but anyone ever read shirley jackson's the haunting of hill house. almost midway through it, and it's...not very exciting. even some of the dialogue tricks she uses seems amusing rather than nerve-tinkling.
Haven't read it, but I have a soft spot for Jackson's oft-anthologized short story "The Lottery."

[lovejuice]

Haven't read it, but I have a soft spot for Jackson's oft-anthologized short story "The Lottery."
me too, and i believe she's aiming for the same thing here. but the technique is more befitting a short story than a novel.

[Mara]

me too, and i believe she's aiming for the same thing here. but the technique is more befitting a short story than a novel.

I've read a number of Jackson short stories, and they are all very well-constructed. It's possible that the novel is just not her strength.

Guess what? I have a first edition copy of a pulp magazine in which "The Lottery" fappeared. The cover picture is hilarious and misleading.

[lovejuice]

I've read a number of Jackson short stories, and they are all very well-constructed. It's possible that the novel is just not her strength.

Guess what? I have a first edition copy of a pulp magazine in which "The Lottery" fappeared. The cover picture is hilarious and misleading.
wanna see it. can you scan the image?

[Mysterious Dude]

I read Beloved. I think it went over my head. I had a hard time keeping track of what time period it was supposed to be.

Modern literary books like this one often lose me. I think it was written by someone who is smarter than I am.

[Mysterious Dude]

I feel like there is too much emphasis on genre these days. In some ways, I have a lot more choices with new books than I do with older books, since more books are still in print, but they're all so segregated. I've been looking at the New York Times' yearly lists of the best books of the year, and they're generally what would be considered "literary fiction," with no mysteries or science fiction or what have you. When did "literary fiction" become a genre? Can't science fiction be literary? If you look to the past, Brave New World and 1984 are considered great novels, not just by sci-fi fans. Does that ever happen with new books, or are the only "great" new books dense, "literary" works?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I feel like there is too much emphasis on genre these days. In some ways, I have a lot more choices with new books than I do with older books, since more books are still in print, but they're all so segregated. I've been looking at the New York Times' yearly lists of the best books of the year, and they're generally what would be considered "literary fiction," with no mysteries or science fiction or what have you. When did "literary fiction" become a genre? Can't science fiction be literary? If you look to the past, Brave New World and 1984 are considered great novels, not just by sci-fi fans. Does that ever happen with new books, or are the only "great" new books dense, "literary" works?

Sure. The only books that get put in Sci-Fi rather than "Literary Fiction" are the hardcore stuff. 1984 and Brave New World are both considered Literary Fiction. So is something like The Time-Traveler's Wife, which obviously, considering the title, deals exclusively with a man who travels through time. It was a New York Times Best Seller, and is being made into a film (though I wouldn't rush out to read it). Many books that are lumped into "Literary Fiction" contain elements from other genres. I think the difference is that those elements are used as a backdrop rather than being the focus of the novel.

[Mara]

wanna see it. can you scan the image?

I don't have a scanner here, but the internet did not fail me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/maragirl/6a00d8345169e469e2010535c7aa7c 970c-.jpg

[Hugh_Grant]

Ha ha!
One of my favorite student-unprepared-for-a-quiz answers? When asked for the lottery's prize, the student replied, "a washer and dryer."

[D_Davis]

Can't science fiction be literary? If you look to the past, Brave New World and 1984 are considered great novels, not just by sci-fi fans. Does that ever happen with new books, or are the only "great" new books dense, "literary" works?

I think there are some modern literary works that are also works from the ghetto genres.

I'd put Thomas Ligotti and Michael Cisco on par with any writer I've ever read in terms of narrative structure and prose, and they both write "weird fiction" and are often called authors of "literary horror," in the same group as classic authors like Lord Dunsany, Edith Wharton, Algernon Blackwood, Arthur Machen, and HP Lovecraft.

The problem is that a lot of the more literary genre fiction is published through the small independent press because there is not a viable financial market for it, and therefor you won't see these on any top sellers lists, although you will often find literary critics praising these authors.

Up until recently Ligotti's books were almost all out of print; he's only had 2 books that were made easily available at the chain stores. Most of his stuff is printed in small quantities, and is very expensive. He is, however, hailed as being the modern day equivalent of Poe and Lovecraft. He will probably be viewed as the third pillar of American horror in a few decades.

The problem is that the ghetto genres are way more market driven than they are artistically driven. Most of the fans want a seemingly never-ending series of easy to digest books often telling the same story over and over again. Stuff like The Wheel of Time, or The Dresden Files. This is the stuff that sells at stores, the stuff that the masses pay attention to, and thus the entire genre gets tainted in many people's eyes.

Personally, I can do with both. Sometimes I like a supermarket fantasy or sci-fi book, just as sometimes I like a cheesy action flick. However, I also want more in terms of prose and literary importance. Luckily both are available.

[Qrazy]

I think there are some modern literary works that are also works from the ghetto genres.

I'd put Thomas Ligotti and Michael Cisco on par with any writer I've ever read in terms of narrative structure and prose, and they both write "weird fiction" and are often called authors of "literary horror," in the same group as classic authors like Lord Dunsany, Edith Wharton, Algernon Blackwood, Arthur Machen, and HP Lovecraft.

The problem is that a lot of the more literary genre fiction is published through the small independent press because there is not a viable financial market for it, and therefor you won't see these on any top sellers lists, although you will often find literary critics praising these authors.

Up until recently Ligotti's books were almost all out of print; he's only had 2 books that were made easily available at the chain stores. Most of his stuff is printed in small quantities, and is very expensive. He is, however, hailed as being the modern day equivalent of Poe and Lovecraft. He will probably be viewed as the third pillar of American horror in a few decades.

The problem is that the ghetto genres are way more market driven than they are artistically driven. Most of the fans want a seemingly never-ending series of easy to digest books often telling the same story over and over again. Stuff like The Wheel of Time, or The Dresden Files. This is the stuff that sells at stores, the stuff that the masses pay attention to, and thus the entire genre gets tainted in many people's eyes.

Personally, I can do with both. Sometimes I like a supermarket fantasy or sci-fi book, just as sometimes I like a cheesy action flick. However, I also want more in terms of prose and literary importance. Luckily both are available.

The Wheel of Time becomes redundant but Jordan employs amazing scope and world building throughout. It's also not an example of what you're talking about at all since the story changes a great deal over the course of the series. Piers Anthony's Xanth series would be a better example.

[lovejuice]

The problem is that the ghetto genres are way more market driven than they are artistically driven. Most of the fans want a seemingly never-ending series of easy to digest books often telling the same story over and over again. Stuff like The Wheel of Time, or The Dresden Files. This is the stuff that sells at stores, the stuff that the masses pay attention to, and thus the entire genre gets tainted in many people's eyes.

agree that the dresden files is quite a sorry example.

[D_Davis]

The Wheel of Time becomes redundant but Jordan employs amazing scope and world building throughout. It's also not an example of what you're talking about at all since the story changes a great deal over the course of the series. Piers Anthony's Xanth series would be a better example.

I'll read an early Xanth book 5 times before I ever pick up another Jordon book.

[Duncan]

Amazon remotely erases copies of 1984 and Animal Farm from Kindle devices. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?em)Apparently they can remotely delete anything you buy from them. I don't know if they can do the same to e-books you may have downloaded elsewhere.

[Qrazy]

Amazon remotely erases copies of 1984 and Animal Farm from Kindle devices. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?em)Apparently they can remotely delete anything you buy from them. I don't know if they can do the same to e-books you may have downloaded elsewhere.

Fahrenheit 133th4X0r5

[Derek]

Amazon remotely erases copies of 1984 and Animal Farm from Kindle devices. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?em)Apparently they can remotely delete anything you buy from them. I don't know if they can do the same to e-books you may have downloaded elsewhere.

:lol:

[lovejuice]

of grammatology turns out to be not as cryptic or hard as i anticipated. if you are familiar with the texts or thinkers that derrida builds upon, it's fairly breezy. even a bit tiring near the end. i am kinda disappointed that it's not in this book that his most famous term, "deconstruction", is discussed.

[D_Davis]

I started JG Ballard's High Rise this morning. Man, it feels good to be back in the mind of the master of speculative fiction. Although, this feeling is bitter-sweet. This is the first Ballard book I've read after his death. Come to think of it, Ballard is one of the only, maybe the only, authors I've loved while he was alive and who died while I was reading him. He was definitely the only author in my top 5 favorite authors who was still alive while I was reading them.

Sure, there are authors I like who are living and working now (namely Ligotti and Cisco), but Ballard is in a special class of authors; I hold his work in very high esteem, and I've yet to come across another author who does what he does as well as Ballard did. When reading him before, there was always a feeling that he might write something new to replace the book I had just read, but now that is not the case. Once High Rise is read there will not be another new novel to add to my Ballard shelf.

Like with Philip K. Dick and Theodore Sturgeon, I'm going to savor the last few novels and short story collections from Ballard that I have left to read. I'm not going to burn through them, but instead I'm going to space them out, and read them only when I need something truly special.

[Melville]

if you are familiar with the texts or thinkers that derrida builds upon, it's fairly breezy.
:eek:

It's no Phenomenology of Spirit, but it is pretty damn dense.


i am kinda disappointed that it's not in this book that his most famous term, "deconstruction", is discussed.
It's not the subject of the book, but it is the method used throughout. And he explicitly discusses it quite a few times in the book—for example, early on, when he says, "constantly risking falling back within what is being deconstructed, it is necessary to surround the critical concepts with a careful and thorough discourse—to mark the conditions, the medium, and the limits of their effectiveness and to designate rigorously their intimate relationship to the machine whose deconstruction they permit."

[lovejuice]

:eek:

It's no Phenomenology of Spirit, but it is pretty damn dense.
it is. but as said, i used to spend one quarter reading all things rousseau, and am no stranger to levi-strauss and saussure. that really helps since, i think, derrida's reading doesn't deviate too much from the original texts.

phenomenology of spirit, on the other hand...well, we are pretty much on our own, ain't we?

[ledfloyd]

started lethem's 'you don't love me yet.'

[D_Davis]

Whenever I read JG Ballard I get an uneasy feeling, a feeling of unrest, of apprehension about the world in which we live. It's as if the words of his books tune my brain onto a faint but all-too-real frequency broadcasting the fragility of post-modern urban living.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ever since reading Dan Lafferty's account of killing Brenda and Erica (especially Erica), I've been unable to pick up Under the Banner of Heaven. I'm very sensitive over the last 8 years to any type of violence against children, and reading his description of what he did to that child has disturbed me to no end. Just brutal. I'm going to try to read more tonight, but I'm not sure I can handle any more information about what happened to her.

[Sven]

Yeah, Under the Banner of Heaven is effed up. I used to live right near the area where it all happened and some people still recollect the events quite vividly.

Oh, and guys... I think The Wind in the Willows might be my new favorite book.

[Benny Profane]

I finished Against the Day. God, I don't even know where to begin.

[lovejuice]

Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop?

fucking cliche, but slightly relevant since that movie now reigns over the upcoming film thread.

[Duncan]

I finished Against the Day. God, I don't even know where to begin.

Was it good?

[Duncan]

I finished Pale Fire a couple days ago. An interesting book. Structurally, it's set up as an academic poetry book with introduction by a Prof. Kinbote (which I initially skipped, as I always do with introductions to books), then maybe 30 pages of poetry, then 150 pages of comments on the poem, in which Kinbote desperately reads his own life into the poem, using even the faintest suggestion of his former kingdom of Zembla to launch into stories about circus orgies and a Zemblan assassin named Gradus to tell a very slight narrative that we've already pieced together early on in the book. In the story itself, there is very little of interest. It seems like the whole thing is written to make fun of this Kinbote fellow, who is trying to usurp the meaning and (kind of) authorship of this work of art, and whose life has essentially amounted to a bunch of end notes to an unfinished poem. And how sad is that? I guess there's more there, but it seems like an almost purely aesthetic exercise. Unless I've totally missed something. Which is possible...

edit: and it's exquisitely written, being by Nabokov and all.

[Melville]

I finished Pale Fire a couple days ago. An interesting book. Structurally, it's set up as an academic poetry book with introduction by a Prof. Kinbote (which I initially skipped, as I always do with introductions to books), then maybe 30 pages of poetry, then 150 pages of comments on the poem, in which Kinbote desperately reads his own life into the poem, using even the faintest suggestion of his former kingdom of Zembla to launch into stories about circus orgies and a Zemblan assassin named Gradus to tell a very slight narrative that we've already pieced together early on in the book. In the story itself, there is very little of interest. It seems like the whole thing is written to make fun of this Kinbote fellow, who is trying to usurp the meaning and (kind of) authorship of this work of art, and whose life has essentially amounted to a bunch of end notes to an unfinished poem. And how sad is that? I guess there's more there, but it seems like an almost purely aesthetic exercise. Unless I've totally missed something. Which is possible...

edit: and it's exquisitely written, being by Nabokov and all.
I think I liked it a bit more than you, though I only vaguely remember it. The structure certainly struck me as being mostly an aesthetic exercise, but I liked the way it was used to so thoroughly develop the "editor's" character, as well as his relationship with the "author". It seemed like a natural progression of Lolita's use of the unreliable narrator.

[Duncan]

I think I liked it a bit more than you, though I only vaguely remember it. The structure certainly struck me as being mostly an aesthetic exercise, but I liked the way it was used to so thoroughly develop the "editor's" character, as well as his relationship with the "author". It seemed like a natural progression of Lolita's use of the unreliable narrator.

Yeah, and there's also that conversation about pity between Kinbote and Shade, and I guess that's the key to the book. Maybe. We're supposed to pity Kinbote because he's so pathetic? But it's kind of hard since he spends the whole book unwittingly making himself the butt of an extended joke.

[Melville]

Yeah, and there's also that conversation about pity between Kinbote and Shade, and I guess that's the key to the book. Maybe.
Sounds plausible. I read it in high school, so I don't remember any of the details.


We're supposed to pity Kinbote because he's so pathetic? But it's kind of hard since he spends the whole book unwittingly making himself the butt of an extended joke.
I remember pitying him, though I don't know if the reader is "supposed to." He seems pretty pitiable in his apparent lack of self-awareness. But apparently I'm the master of sympathizing with characters who are the butt of jokes. Did you ever read Pride and Prejudice? The only character I sympathized with was the one who the book constantly vilified.

[Duncan]

Sounds plausible. I read it in high school, so I don't remember any of the details.


I remember pitying him, though I don't know if the reader is "supposed to." He seems pretty pitiable in his apparent lack of self-awareness. But apparently I'm the master of sympathizing with characters who are the butt of jokes. Did you ever read Pride and Prejudice? The only character I sympathized with was the one who the book constantly vilified.

I've read the first line of Pride and Prejudice at least 10 times with the intention of reading the book, but I've never made it past that first sentence.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

I don't know if it's tongue-in-cheek or not, but every time I read it all I can think about is how many other books I own that I'd rather read.

[Melville]

I've read the first line of Pride and Prejudice at least 10 times with the intention of reading the book, but I've never made it past that first sentence.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

I don't know if it's tongue-in-cheek or not, but every time I read it all I can think about is how many other books I own that I'd rather read.
It's tongue-in-cheek. But I wouldn't bother reading the rest.

[Duncan]

It's tongue-in-cheek. But I wouldn't bother reading the rest.

Have you read Emma? Because I also have a copy of that lying around, and I feel obliged to read some Austen at some point in my life.

[lovejuice]

Have you read Emma? Because I also have a copy of that lying around, and I feel obliged to read some Austen at some point in my life.
i do. and as far as the genre goes, it's enjoyable, methink.

[Mara]

If one feels compelled to read Austen without really liking the genre, I'm going to go ahead and suggest Persuasion, which I think is her most mature work.

Emma is probably the funniest, though.

[Kurosawa Fan]

If one feels compelled to read Austen without really liking the genre, I'm going to go ahead and suggest Persuasion, which I think is her most mature work.


Val has been begging me to read this for months. Pretty sure I'm going to cave and read it after I finish Krakauer, which should be sometime today.

[Mara]

Given what you've said about the book you're reading, Persuasion might be refreshingly virtuous.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Given what you've said about the book you're reading, Persuasion might be refreshingly virtuous.

I definitely need something... different... after the last two books I've read.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've been reading When the Sleeper Wakes while listening to Carl Sagan's Ghost. I'm taking notes on it, because I plan to write a screenplay for it. Public domain, baby!

Also, it's pretty good.

[D_Davis]

I've been reading When the Sleeper Wakes while listening to Carl Sagan's Ghost. I'm taking notes on it, because I plan to write a screenplay for it. Public domain, baby!

Also, it's pretty good.

Nice! You can use my music for the soundtrack...

:)

[Duncan]

Maybe I'll try Emma then, since I've already got a copy.


Read the first 50 pages of Howard's End last night. Really liking it so far. The image of Beethoven in epic battle with goblins as they walk to the universe from end to end is one of the greatest things I've read in quite some time.

[Mara]

Forster's prose is about as clean and lovely as any I've ever read.

[Mara]

I took a high-level stylistics class in college, and one day the professor asked for someone to hand him a book they had with them. We were all English majors, so there was a great deal of choice, but he happened to take my copy of Forster's A Passage to India.

He opened it at random, and we spent the next hour combing through one sentence:


They exchanged the usual drinks, but everything tasted different, and then they looked out at the palisade of cactuses stabbing the purple throat of the sky; they realized they were thousands of miled from any scenery that they understood.

I'm not sure I've ever studied one phrase so intensely in my life. It still strikes me as oddly beautiful.

[Melville]

Have you read Emma? Because I also have a copy of that lying around, and I feel obliged to read some Austen at some point in my life.
I've read only Pride and Prejudice. Based on that book, I feel obliged to never read anything else by her. You'd probably like it more than I did, but I can't imagine you liking it all that much. If Emma is funnier, it sounds like a safer bet.


Forster's A Passage to India.
I should definitely read that. Lean's adaptation of it was great.

[Hugh_Grant]

He opened it at random, and we spent the next hour combing through one sentence...

What an awesome exercise! I love examining the prose of writers.

Erasmus's Copia is another neat stylistic exercise.

[Mara]

I should definitely read that. Lean's adaptation of it was great.

It's excellent.

I'm ignoring your Pride and Prejudice misanthropy.

[Duncan]

Hmm, "purple throat of the sky..." That's good stuff.

[kuehnepips]

I finished Against the Day.

Guess I never will.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Finished Under the Banner of Heaven and started on Persuasion.

[Benny Profane]

Against the Day, as expected, is one of the most unique books I've ever read. A quick summary is impossible, but I'll try. It starts out at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893 and leads up to World War I, and dances all over the map as it gets there, from a revenge-plot involving Colorado miners/owners who are fighting out a bloody labor conflict, to Venice where a good amount of the art and romance takes place in the story, to Gottingen where a group of mathematicians are studying the fourth dimension, to a quest for the lost city of Shambalah that takes a main character on a captivating journey through Siberia, to the Balkan Peninsula where impending war is causing massive and bloody violence, and many other points on the globe, including following revolutionaries in Mexico and psychics in London.

Thematically the novel is just as scattered as the plot. Pynchon focuses heavily on light, time, other dimensions, photography, capitalism, government bodies and his trademark theme of paranoia. Almost anything goes in the world he sustains, such as bilocation, or a person being two places at once, or aeronauts landing on a counter-Earth, or photographs coming to life, inanimate objects having a mind of their own, ghosts, strange creatures, the works. And mathematical formulas to explain it all, though in the end it makes someone like me just more confused. It's like Gravity's Rainbow on LSD.

However, it's a lot smoother to read, language-wise, than GR, and it also features some of Pynchon's most refined, romantic prose that I've read. Despite the sheer craziness of what happens through a good part of the novel, it is relatively accessible, not that dense, and certainly never boring. It's a major work of art that will be discussed and dissected for years to come. Really top-notch stuff.

[Kurosawa Fan]

My quick thoughts on Under the Banner of Heaven:

This was a very difficult read. Since becoming a father, I'm terribly sensitive to any type of violence against children, and unfortunately this novel is rampant with just such monstrosities, many still be inflicted to this day with no repercussions for the guilty parties. Krakauer did a fantastic job bringing the hypocrisies of Mormondom to light, and not just fundamentalism. What's taking place in Colorado City is sick and vile, and knowing that it's going on unchecked has been haunting for me. The Lafferty brothers, who got just the right amount of attention in this novel, are symptomatic of the types of hate and evil religious indoctrination can unfortunately bring to the surface. Their acts are no more forgivable because of their upbringing, just a bit more understandable considering the history of their religion and the attitudes of those who surrounded them throughout their lives.

I know I'm not saying much about the novel itself, and that's a shame because Krakauer is a fine writer and journalist, but the topic itself was so affecting for me that I have a hard time focusing on anything else. More people should read this novel, because the more aware people are of the atrocities being perpetrated, the closer we should be to eradicating them.

[Mara]

I assumed, from what I read about the book, that is was mostly about fundamentalist Mormons. What did it have to say about the main body of the church?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I assumed, from what I read about the book, that is was mostly about fundamentalist Mormons. What did it have to say about the main body of the church?

It pretty well covers everything to do with Mormonism and fundamentalism.

[Sycophant]

I should read this Krakauer thing. Curious about what it says.

So, a couple years back, I picked up a giant, harbound collected works of Shakespeare volume, with the intention of reading the plays. I tried a few times, but the tissue-thin pages and overall heft of the damned thing prevented me from really cracking any of the plays. Today, I went out and bought four plays in paperback form with the intention of reading them forthwith, those being Hamlet, Macbeth, Pericles, and King Lear.

So I'm interested in reading more plays, and Sam Wellers Zion Book Store is moving soon and has 25% off a lot of their stock. What are urgent must-reads in Shakespeare? What other playwrights and their specific plays should I be checking out.

[Mara]

King Lear and The Tempest are my favorite. Twelfth Night if I'm in a cheery mood.

[Duncan]

Against the Day, as expected, is one of the most unique books I've ever read. A quick summary is impossible, but I'll try. It starts out at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893 and leads up to World War I, and dances all over the map as it gets there, from a revenge-plot involving Colorado miners/owners who are fighting out a bloody labor conflict, to Venice where a good amount of the art and romance takes place in the story, to Gottingen where a group of mathematicians are studying the fourth dimension, to a quest for the lost city of Shambalah that takes a main character on a captivating journey through Siberia, to the Balkan Peninsula where impending war is causing massive and bloody violence, and many other points on the globe, including following revolutionaries in Mexico and psychics in London.

Thematically the novel is just as scattered as the plot. Pynchon focuses heavily on light, time, other dimensions, photography, capitalism, government bodies and his trademark theme of paranoia. Almost anything goes in the world he sustains, such as bilocation, or a person being two places at once, or aeronauts landing on a counter-Earth, or photographs coming to life, inanimate objects having a mind of their own, ghosts, strange creatures, the works. And mathematical formulas to explain it all, though in the end it makes someone like me just more confused. It's like Gravity's Rainbow on LSD.

However, it's a lot smoother to read, language-wise, than GR, and it also features some of Pynchon's most refined, romantic prose that I've read. Despite the sheer craziness of what happens through a good part of the novel, it is relatively accessible, not that dense, and certainly never boring. It's a major work of art that will be discussed and dissected for years to come. Really top-notch stuff.

Sounds cool. I'll definitely get to that eventually, though I might read Vineland first.

[Sycophant]

King Lear and The Tempest are my favorite. Twelfth Night if I'm in a cheery mood.

Thanks. I do need to read some of his comedies. I saw a production of Much Ado About Nothing recently that just killed me.

[ledfloyd]

King Lear is my favorite Shakespeare as well.

[Benny Profane]

I assumed, from what I read about the book, that is was mostly about fundamentalist Mormons. What did it have to say about the main body of the church?

He has a mostly unfavorable view of the church.

[Benny Profane]

Sounds cool. I'll definitely get to that eventually, though I might read Vineland first.

As a mathematician I think you would appreciate it more than most. I think you will really like this one.

Inherent Vice comes out on August 4th. I read a review of it today that compared it to Vineland the most of all his novels. Considering how much I liked Vineland I am definitely looking forward to it.

In other news, I read Breakfast at Tiffanys and enjoyed it quite a bit. Wish it was longer.

[ledfloyd]

Inherent Vice comes out on August 4th. I read a review of it today that compared it to Vineland the most of all his novels. Considering how much I liked Vineland I am definitely looking forward to it.
i didn't realize it was that soon. it's relatively short too. and it's supposedly noir, which intrigues me.

[Kurosawa Fan]

He has a mostly unfavorable view of the church.

Oh, definitely. But it's not just fundamentalism. He pretty much covers the entire history of the religion. But yes, to say he has an unfavorable view is spot on, though to be honest, he makes it pretty clear that he feels that way about pretty much any monotheistic religion.

[Sven]

I think Krakauer's perspective is about as good as any outsider-skeptics could be. Which is to say, workable but flawed.

[Benny Profane]

I think Krakauer's perspective is about as good as any outsider-skeptics could be. Which is to say, workable but flawed.

What is flawed about it?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm very interested as well. He seemed to just lay out the history of the religion without too much editorializing.

[D_Davis]

I'm very interested as well. He seemed to just lay out the history of the religion without too much editorializing.

But does he gloss over the good it has done in people's lives?

I don't agree with a lot of the Mormon doctrine (that's an understatement) but some of the kindest, most caring, generous, and thoughtful people I know are Mormon, and they genuinely love and follow the religion.

[MacGuffin]

If you guys keep talking about Pynchon, I may just have to jump right into Gravity's Rainbow (it's sitting right here on my shelf).

[Derek]

If you guys keep talking about Pynchon, I may just have to jump right into Gravity's Rainbow (it's sitting right here on my shelf).

Did you finish Infinite Jest?

Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare and perhaps the greatest book/play ever written. King Lear and Macbeth are outstanding as well. I really need to read more as I've probably only read 6 or 7 all the way through.

[MacGuffin]

Did you finish Infinite Jest?

No, it's okay, but I definitely see where Duncan is coming from. It's basically an endless cycle of the same things repeated over and over again. The footnotes were starting to hurt. It's structuralism in novel form, but it's not exciting to me (even though it is well-written). Maybe someday I'll take another look at it; I just don't feel in the mood to.

[Milky Joe]

Out of curiosity, how far did you get?

[MacGuffin]

Out of curiosity, how far did you get?

I don't think too far after the scene with the doctor and the lady who wanted shock treatment (By the way, is there any point to all these characters later on? That's one of the things that was really bothering me, aside from the pages of meaningless footnotes about the guy's movies.)

[Milky Joe]

By the way, is there any point to all these characters later on? That's one of the things that was really bothering me, aside from the pages of meaningless footnotes about the guy's movies.)

What you're really asking here is "does the book have a point?" and then assuming that it doesn't, which I gather by your calling the filmography meaningless--unless the point is just to be "structuralism in novel form." Which is just... try a little harder, maybe.

[MacGuffin]

What you're really asking here is "does the book have a point?" and then assuming that it doesn't, which I gather by your calling the filmography meaningless--unless the point is just to be "structuralism in novel form." Which is just... try a little harder, maybe.

No, I'm asking do the thirty-hundred character introductions have a point. Just because I call the lengthy footnotes meaningless doesn't mean that I called the book pointless, and really, there probably is a point to the footnotes in relation to the structural nature of the writing as a whole, but that doesn't make it any more readable for me. I'd liken it to clicking on every movie link on an IMDb page by a director that I haven't any reason to care about, and then reading each plot synopsis and details. This is basically the reason I stopped reading: it's a book of great length, and while I can appreciate the writing, there are books of shorter length that are well-written and that I can also enjoy. I think the fact that I'd been also reading Everything Is Cinema: The Working Life of Jean-Luc Godard by Richard Brody (which, shamefully, I still haven't finished; while his compilation of historical information is impressive, I find the critical portions to be very dry) and had a few other books looking at me. So, overall it's just an overwhelming book and perhaps I should have taken the warnings a bit more seriously before jumping right in. I mean no disrespect to you, because I know that you love the book.

[Milky Joe]

No, I'm asking do the thirty-hundred character introductions have a point.

But what's the difference, really?* Can a book have a point if its characters do not? I suppose, but that book is not this book.


So, overall it's just an overwhelming book and perhaps I should have taken the warnings a bit more seriously before jumping right in. I mean no disrespect to you, because I know that you love the book.

True that, it's a demanding book that really requires one's full attention. But you know, so is Gravity's Rainbow. So I'll be interested to know what you think of that. Have you been following along with the Infinite Summer group-read at all? Seems to be a real boon to a lot of people towards their enjoyment of IJ.

*I mean, come on, do the character introductions have a point? I don't know, maybe to introduce the characters? It's a long book--there are a lot of characters.

[MacGuffin]

But what's the difference, really?* Can a book have a point if its characters do not? I suppose, but that book is not this book.

Well, I was only asking if he was going anywhere. I mean, if every other chapter was going to introduce a new character, I'm not sure I'd be able to remember all of them if it came to a point where I'd have to. They seemed meaningless to me at that point.


True that, it's a demanding book that really requires one's full attention. But you know, so is Gravity's Rainbow. So I'll be interested to know what you think of that.

I've looked at the Quotes thread here, and I know Pynchon's (Pronounced pin-chin, right?) prose is daunting, but it's a shorter book. Admittedly, I've been reading a lot about Pynchon because of his newest, so that has me interested, too.


Have you been following along with the Infinite Summer group-read at all? Seems to be a real boon to a lot of people towards their enjoyment of IJ.

A little at first. I was confused when the main character said that he was becoming an "infantophile".


*I mean, come on, do the character introductions have a point? I don't know, maybe to introduce the characters? It's a long book--there are a lot of characters.

I guess so. I've never really attempted a book this mountainous.

[Milky Joe]

Well, I was only asking if he was going anywhere...

Thank you for proving my point. :)


(Pronounced pin-chin, right?)

Actually I think it's pin-chon, but is mispronounced so often that nobody really cares.


I guess so. I've never really attempted a book this mountainous.

Yeah, I'm reading The Recognitions right now and am having similar problems with characters. Pen and paper is your friend for these books.

[MacGuffin]

Thank you for proving my point. :)


I'm going to assume the book goes full-circle if Hal's only becoming an infantophile at the beginning. I was beginning to wonder if the characters were all apart of the structure of the book.

[Milky Joe]

I'm going to assume the book goes full-circle if Hal's only becoming an infantophile at the beginning.

If you'd have read far enough to get to the chronology of Subsidized Time (or just asked somebody) you'd know that it does. Not trying to be snarky...


I was beginning to wonder if the characters were all apart of the structure of the book.

This seems like a strange thing to wonder.

[MacGuffin]

This seems like a strange thing to wonder.

In other words, the characters were excessive because the book is excessive. And as Duncan writes in a post about the book, it is perhaps intentionally excessive. I was beginning to wonder if the characters played into this excessiveness.

[Milky Joe]

I believe the ten-cent word for that is 'maximalist.' There are more characters in GR than there are in IJ, by the way.

Interesting albeit somewhat trivial aside: in comparing the Wikipedia entries for both books, the "Plot" section for GR is about the same length of the "Characters" section for IJ. There is no Character section for GR and the Plot section for IJ is two sentences.

[MacGuffin]

I believe the ten-cent word for that is 'maximalist.' There are more characters in GR than there are in IJ, by the way.

Interesting albeit somewhat trivial aside: in comparing the Wikipedia entries for both books, the "Plot" section for GR is about the same length of the "Characters" section for IJ. There is no Character section for GR and the Plot section for IJ is two sentences.

I'm going to give Gravity's Rainbow a try nonetheless, not only because I own it, but because I figure the prose may draw me in a bit more than Wallace's.

[Benny Profane]

Gravity's Rainbow has about eleventy seventy thousand characters, so you won't find much relief from that angle.

[Benny Profane]

Speaking of Krakauer, one of my most anticipated books of the year is coming out September 15th. Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman.

[Kurosawa Fan]

But does he gloss over the good it has done in people's lives?

I don't agree with a lot of the Mormon doctrine (that's an understatement) but some of the kindest, most caring, generous, and thoughtful people I know are Mormon, and they genuinely love and follow the religion.

And you think they wouldn't have those traits without the Mormon religion? I guess I'm not seeing your point there.

Krakauer shows one person in particular who is a kind, thoughtful, level-headed person, and he was a fundamentalist for approx. 40 years. He comments on the fact that religion gives people answers they're searching for, and can be helpful in people's lives, but that there seems to be a thin line where people cross from deeply religious to fanatical.


Speaking of Krakauer, one of my most anticipated books of the year is coming out September 15th. Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman.

Oh wow. That'll be a purchase for sure.

[Mara]

Well, this thread probably isn't ideal for this discussion, but I do think my faith makes me a better person. I don't think that phenomenon is limited to the Mormon religion by any means, but I think that religious values are profoundly influential on people who believe in them.

[Benny Profane]

It's been a few years since I've read it, but I remember him saying that the students at BYU are some of the most well-behaved and productive college kids in the country. He has a lot less problems with Mormon practictioners than its secret society at the top of the church.

Basically he lays it out that true Mormonism is fundamentalism, and that the only reason the religion has mutated over the years is for the sake of convenience to keep their sect alive.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, this thread probably isn't ideal for this discussion, but I do think my faith makes me a better person. I don't think that phenomenon is limited to the Mormon religion by any means, but I think that religious values are profoundly influential on people who believe in them.

Really? You think you'd have worse values and be a worse person if you hadn't been raised with religion? That really surprises me. Maybe you'd be a different person with a different perspective, but I have a hard time believing that the kindness and respect that you show others would be any different if you'd been raised in an atheist or agnostic family.

I don't mean to argue with you, that isn't what my post is intending, in case that's how it comes off. I'm just curious. I was raised Catholic and so were my siblings. We are all different people, and a few of us (myself included) have completely abandoned the religion. However (and I don't mean to air my family's dirty laundry), the one brother who's still part of the church is as close to a black sheep as we have. He doesn't speak to my father anymore for pretty shady reasons, he dates strippers and had a terrible gambling habit (that I'm hoping is gone for good). Don't get me wrong, I love him, I only use him as an example in that I truly feel like religion can give someone a perspective on life, but that the personality of any given person is shaped by other things, and if you were to take religion away, they'd have most of the same personality traits.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's been a few years since I've read it, but I remember him saying that the students at BYU are some of the most well-behaved and productive college kids in the country. He has a lot less problems with Mormon practictioners than its secret society at the top of the church.

Basically he lays it out that true Mormonism is fundamentalism, and that the only reason the religion has mutated over the years is for the sake of convenience to keep their sect alive.

Yes. Benny puts things much better than I did. He focused on the fact that Mormonism was founded by John Smith, and that Mormons believe that he was a prophet who had direct communication with God, but the LDS has over the years come to abandon certain things that he said were commanded by God (plural marriage, blood atonement, etc.), and are treating them as though they were a huge mistake. But how can you believe he was a prophet who spoke with God if you think he lied about the things you don't currently agree with? How can you pick and choose from the things he said? That seemed to be Krakauer's main point in believing that practicing fundamentalism is being a true Mormon.

[Mara]

Really? You think you'd have worse values and be a worse person if you hadn't been raised with religion?

Well, yes I do. Or perhaps not "worse" but "different." I think that part of being a genuinely religious person is believing that God changes people. (C. S. Lewis had some great thoughts on this.)

Religion acts on a person like a parent, I think. If your parents stress honesty and integrity, then that influences who you are as a person. You may accept it or reject it, but it has influenced you. Being raised in a faith is the same way. For instance, I'm not naturally a very forgiving person, but I was raised in a faith that stresses that you have to forgive those who have wronged you. And so, whether or not I actually can bring myself to forgive someone, I always believe I am in the wrong if I do not.

I'm not denying that there are hateful, selfish, cruel people who profess any number of religions. I can only speak from my own position.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, yes I do. Or perhaps not "worse" but "different." I think that part of being a genuinely religious person is believing that God changes people. (C. S. Lewis had some great thoughts on this.)

Religion acts on a person like a parent, I think. If your parents stress honesty and integrity, then that influences who you are as a person. You may accept it or reject it, but it has influenced you. Being raised in a faith is the same way. For instance, I'm not naturally a very forgiving person, but I was raised in a faith that stresses that you have to forgive those who have wronged you. And so, whether or not I actually can bring myself to forgive someone, I always believe I am in the wrong if I do not.

I'm not denying that there are hateful, selfish, cruel people who profess any number of religions. I can only speak from my own position.

Fair enough. Perhaps it's because I was raised in a Catholic home, but outside of going to church on Sundays, religion wasn't stressed by my parents. I've never seen my father or mother pick up a Bible and start reading. And I'm not sure they really believe much of what Catholicism teaches. I feel like I'm the person I am because of my parents and because of my friends. Religion had very little influence on that.

I'm very glad that religion had such a positive influence on the person you are today.

[Mara]

But how can you believe he was a prophet who spoke with God if you think he lied about the things you don't currently agree with?

I'm not going to delve into deep theology here, because I'm certainly not qualified. But the Mormon faith has always believed that certain things happen at certain times and not at others. Sometimes, a certain doctrine is considered perfect but cannot be practiced perfectly on earth by imperfect people. (For instance, The United Order... basically, Mormon socialism.) Other times, it is seen as a solution to a short-term temporal problem (polygamy would fit there.)

Mainstream Mormons look at Fundamental Mormons the same way that a generic Christian church would look at a sect that was trying to live the laws of the Old Testament as set out in Deuteronomy. In other words, as a bunch of weirdos.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm not going to delve into deep theology here, because I'm certainly not qualified. But the Mormon faith has always believed that certain things happen at certain times and not at others. Sometimes, a certain doctrine is considered perfect but cannot be practiced perfectly on earth by imperfect people. (For instance, The United Order... basically, Mormon socialism.) Other times, it is seen as a solution to a short-term temporal problem (polygamy would fit there.)

Ah. See, this is something Krakauer didn't touch on at all. Perhaps that's what Sven meant by his outsiders examination being flawed.


Mainstream Mormons look at Fundamental Mormons the same way that a generic Christian church would look at a sect that was trying to live the laws of the Old Testament as set out in Deuteronomy. In other words, as a bunch of weirdos.

This he touched on plenty. He told of the excommunications, and the huge distance that the LDS puts between itself and the fundamentalists, and how they wish they wouldn't be associated with Mormonism at all.

[Mara]

It's like at a family reunion where everyone ignores crazy Uncle Charlie who drinks too much and wonders if his second cousins' daughters have menstrated yet.

We all get embarassed and wish we weren't related.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's like at a family reunion where everyone ignores crazy Uncle Charlie who drinks too much and wonders if his second cousins' daughters have menstrated yet.

We all get embarassed and wish we weren't related.

:lol:

That's almost on the same creepiness level as a lot of what was in Krakauer's book.

[Melville]

I'm definitely not qualified to compare Infinite Jest to Gravity's Rainbow, but the twenty or so pages I read of Infinite Jest had more character development than the 350 or so pages I read of Gravity's Rainbow (which I just got back to reading a few days ago, after putting it aside for a few months). And GR definitely introduces characters willy-nilly.

On a side note, how is Duncan a mathematician?

[Benny Profane]

Should I have said "engineer" instead? I get confused sometimes.

[Melville]

Should I have said "engineer" instead? I get confused sometimes.
Yeah, it just struck me as an odd assignation. There's not much resemblance between the math that a mathematician does and the math that an engineer does.

[D_Davis]

And you think they wouldn't have those traits without the Mormon religion?

Irrelevant. They are Mormon, and therefor that is part of who they are, something that has shaped their being. Can't speculate on an alternate reality in which they are not.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah, it just struck me as an odd assignation. There's not much resemblance between the math that a mathematician does and the math that an engineer does.

I know that. What confused me was whether Duncan was a mathematician or an engineer.

[Melville]

I know that. What confused me was whether Duncan was a mathematician or an engineer.
Ah. Gotcha. Yeah, he's an engineer.

[Duncan]

Yeah, definitely not a mathematician. Never had the intuition required for pure math, but if a problem is explained to me, I can typically use that template to some any similar problems without much difficulty. One of the most disappointing parts of working as an engineer for 8 months was how worthless the math I knew was out in the real world. At an essential level, I don't think you needed to know anything beyond grade 10 level math to do my job. That said, I Against the Day sounds great.

Read a few reviews for Inherent Vice. Seems like it's a genuine noir with a lot of comedy set in L.A., like Chinatown meets The Big Lebowski (which is a great combo, if you ask me). Most reviews suggest it's minor Pynchon, but that's cool with me.

edit: not that someone could just explain some very-high level math problem to me and I would instantly get it. I'm just saying I think I would be capable of understanding if ushered along in a typical academic setting.

[ledfloyd]

Speaking of Krakauer, one of my most anticipated books of the year is coming out September 15th. Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman.
i'm having trouble getting excited about this. it's krakauer so i'll read it. but the subject matter doesn't immediately grab me like his other three books.

[Melville]

Yeah, definitely not a mathematician. Never had the intuition required for pure math, but if a problem is explained to me, I can typically use that template to some any similar problems without much difficulty.

edit: not that someone could just explain some very-high level math problem to me and I would instantly get it. I'm just saying I think I would be capable of understanding if ushered along in a typical academic setting.
The thing about high-level math, though, at least in the academic setting I'm familiar with, is that it becomes less and less likely that you can solve a problem by comparing it to another problem. Usually, though certainly not always, once you've got a problem into a form where you can use a template, you consider the problem solved. Though I guess I'm only thinking about pure math programs; I really have no experience with applied math programs (unless you consider physics applied math). Anyway, I'd be surprised if you couldn't do even the pure math once you learned about it.


So I'm reading Simone Weil's Waiting for God. She was hardcore, like a more devoted, fanatical version of Kierkegaard: the same emphasis on contradictions and suffering, but with none of the irony. Here's a quote:

"If it were conceivable that in obeying God one should bring about one's own damnation while in disobeying him one could be saved, I should still choose the way of obedience."

[Duncan]

The thing about high-level math, though, at least in the academic setting I'm familiar with, is that it becomes less and less likely that you can solve a problem by comparing it to another problem. Usually, though certainly not always, once you've got a problem into a form where you can use a template, you consider the problem solved. Though I guess I'm only thinking about pure math programs; I really have no experience with applied math programs (unless you consider physics applied math). Anyway, I'd be surprised if you couldn't do even the pure math once you learned about it. Yeah, for sure, and that's what I mean by lacking the intuition required for pure math. There's usually some creative leap needed to solve the problems, and I often don't know which direction to leap, I guess. I think with enough time and more practice I could probably get by as a mathematician, but I don't think it would ever be more than getting by. From my own courses, I'm thinking of heat transfer or fluid dynamics problems with odd boundary conditions or geometries that result in complicated integrals that are difficult to solve within an exam's time frame unless you recall some trig identity that you can sub in, and I just wouldn't recognize that sort of stuff immediately.

So I'm reading Simone Weil's Waiting for God. She was hardcore, like a more devoted, fanatical version of Kierkegaard: the same emphasis on contradictions and suffering, but with none of the irony. Here's a quote:

"If it were conceivable that in obeying God one should bring about one's own damnation while in disobeying him one could be saved, I should still choose the way of obedience." Think I might pass on her.

[Melville]

Yeah, for sure, and that's what I mean by lacking the intuition required for pure math.
Oh, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "very-high-level math problem."

Did you ever finish Either/Or?

[Duncan]

Oh, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "very-high-level math problem." I think we were talking about the same thing, it's just that I haven't done any. I don't mean to suggest that something that could be solved within half an hour on an exam is a very-high-level math problem. Nothing I did in math was more advanced than a sophomore-level calc or differential equations or "advanced engineering mathematics" course. I'm just saying that based on those courses, I think being a mathematician would have been tough for me, because I lack whatever intuition pure math requires. And though the problems you solve in those sophomore courses are not unique, they are unique while they are novel to the problem solver. And based on that experience, I'm guessing stuff that was truly unique would be very difficult for me to solve. edit: Also, my interest drops off precipitously when the math isn't applied to something tangible. If it's just pure math it almost seems like the endless semantic arguments we have on this site, which are really, really boring.


Did you ever finish Either/Or?
I'm up to "Equilibrium Between the Aesthetic and the Ethical in the Development of the Personality." Haven't picked it up for a couple weeks, though.

[Melville]

I think we were talking about the same thing, it's just that I haven't done any.
Okay, then I guess I was just confused by how the statement "Never had the intuition required for pure math, but if a problem is explained to me, I can typically use that template to some any similar problems without much difficulty" related to the statements "not that someone could just explain some very-high level math problem to me and I would instantly get it. I'm just saying I think I would be capable of understanding if ushered along in a typical academic setting."

Boy, this conversation is really pushing the limits of being inexplicably confusing for me and presumably boring for everyone.


edit: Also, my interest drops off precipitously when the math isn't applied to something tangible. If it's just pure math it almost seems like the endless semantic arguments we have on this site, which are really, really boring.
I'm actually the opposite. I like the abstract structure of pure math; once it's applied to something tangible, I lose all interest...unless its something crazy like quantum entanglement.

[Duncan]

Okay, then I guess I was just confused by how the statement "Never had the intuition required for pure math, but if a problem is explained to me, I can typically use that template to some any similar problems without much difficulty" related to the statements "not that someone could just explain some very-high level math problem to me and I would instantly get it. I'm just saying I think I would be capable of understanding if ushered along in a typical academic setting."

Boy, this conversation is really pushing the limits of being inexplicably confusing for me and presumably boring for everyone.


I'm actually the opposite. I like the abstract structure of pure math; once it's applied to something tangible, I lose all interest...unless its something crazy like quantum entanglement.
Let's just leave it at I'm not a mathematician and never had the interest or intuition required to be one.

[Melville]

Let's just leave it at I'm not a mathematician and never had the interest or intuition required to be one.
Done and done.

I guess I should post something interesting to make up for that boondoggle...but I've got nothin'.

[Benny Profane]

EVERYBODY DANCE NOW.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I finished Persuasion. I have really mixed feelings about this one. The first forty or so pages are a chore to get through, but once it develops its angle and proceeds, it's quite good. Until the last 10-15 pages. Basically, everything after the love letter was increasingly lame. Austen hands out quite the objectionable message for young men in love back then. Spurned by the woman you love? Go out and make a bunch of money and she'll surely change her mind! Not only that, but Anne's indifference to everyone's problems around her once she learns that Cpt. Wentworth still loves her is troublesome as well.
She goes from being disgusted after learning of Mr. Elliot's and Mrs. Clay's true intentions and conspiring to let all those involved know of their true character, to (after a delay by the arrival of the Musgroves) reading Wentworth's letter and not seeming to care about any of it anymore, and merely being smitten and content. Didn't care for that at all. No matter whether her father and sister didn't have much affection for her, she seemed to have enough integrity to save them from being deceived as they were. Really disappointing.

The fact that the entire novel is tidied up in four pages was a huge disappointment. Love in the Time of Cholera handled a similar story with so much more grace and romance. Seriously, Marquez crushed Austen.


Also, this was the first novel I've read on my computer. I downloaded the Barnes and Noble Reader and grabbed this from manybooks.net. It was... interesting. It's not anything I plan on doing regularly, but it had it's perks. I missed turning pages though.

Anyway, next up is Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, another of those books I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't read.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I guess I have a problem with the fact that Jane Austen seemed to think that nothing in this world is more important than love and marriage. Everything else is just background noise, no matter how much of an impact it may have on someone's life. If it isn't interfering with the love of her heroine, it isn't necessary to her story. This was especially true of several characters in this novel.

[Mara]

I'll admit that the first few chapters of Persuasion aren't too strong. It's almost like it takes that long to find the main character, but I love the book once we start really getting into Ann's perspective. She is, bar none, my favorite Austen heroine.

I think Austen's books need to be read first and foremost as social comedies (not satire, exactly, although she can be quite cutting with those foibles of which she disapproves.) Secondarily, though, they are all romances, and she does tend to end the books somewhat abruptly once the romance is resolved. This is most jarring in Mansfield Park, one of my least favorite of her works. At the time period at which the books were written, the most freedom and excitement a woman would experience took place after she was an adult, but before she was married. The main choice she was given was, as L. M. Montgomery put it, the freedom to choose her prison. I think it's interesting that although this is where Austen always sets her books, she herself never married, and never seemed particularly upset by the fact. My pet theory is that she never found a man as wonderful as those she created in her novels, and so chose to keep her freedom, instead.

The only part of your response that I think is unfair is the idea that Ann's spurning of Captain Wentworth and then her later acceptance of him has anything to do with money. It certainly makes a huge difference to her father, but Ann loved Wentworth and wanted to marry him when he was poor, and the only reason she rejected him was on (bad) advice from her friends. Her flaw was that she allowed herself to be persuaded (like the title of the book!) against her own better judgment, even though she is repeatedly shown to be the most sensible person in the novel.

I'm glad you enjoyed the middle of the book, though. I think it has a lot to offer.

And make sure you also read Alice Through the Looking Glass, which might actually be superior to the first one.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The only part of your response that I think is unfair is the idea that Ann's spurning of Captain Wentworth and then her later acceptance of him has anything to do with money. It certainly makes a huge difference to her father, but Ann loved Wentworth and wanted to marry him when he was poor, and the only reason she rejected him was on (bad) advice from her friends. Her flaw was that she allowed herself to be persuaded (like the title of the book!) against her own better judgment, even though she is repeatedly shown to be the most sensible person in the novel.

Sorry, I tried to word this so that it wouldn't be misunderstood this way. There's no doubt that Anne loved Wentworth, and that money had next to nothing to do with her accepting him a second time. But there was one passage in the novel that seemed to imply that Wentworth thought if he just went out and made more money, everything would work out fine, and Anne backed up that theory without further explanation. This exchange:

Wentworth: "Tell me if, when I returned to England in the year eight, with a few thousand pounds, and was posted into the Laconia, if I had then written to you, would you have answered my letter? Would you, in short, have renewed the engagement then?"

Anne: ""Would I!" was all her answer; but the accent was decisive enough.


Why would Wentworth want to be with someone who he assumed only rejected him because he didn't have enough money for her? That's the part that bothered me. It wasn't Anne's perspective, but Wentworth's. If he thought she felt him not good enough because he wasn't rich enough, how could he want to marry someone like that? It killed a lot of the romance for me that his opinion of himself was so low as to still love a woman who spurned his proposal to her because his pocketbook wasn't big enough.

[Kurosawa Fan]

And make sure you also read Alice Through the Looking Glass, which might actually be superior to the first one.

I certainly will. I have both in my possession.

[Mara]

Why would Wentworth want to be with someone who he assumed only rejected him because he didn't have enough money for her? That's the part that bothered me.

There's a point. I always assumed he realized that money didn't have anything to do with it, but he may not have.

[Benny Profane]

Everybody recommend me a great collection of short stories.

[Melville]

Everybody recommend me a great collection of short stories.
Borges' Fictions.

[Milky Joe]

Everybody recommend me a great collection of short stories.

David Foster Wallace, Oblivion

[Benny Profane]

Borges' Fictions.


If I was very underwhelmed by Dreamtigers, would I like this?

[thefourthwall]

A.S. Byatt Little Black Book of Stories

and if by some chance you haven't read him--pretty much anything by O. Henry.

[D_Davis]

Everybody recommend me a great collection of short stories.

The Best Short Stories of J.G. Ballard.

[Melville]

If I was very underwhelmed by Dreamtigers, would I like this?
Maybe. Dreamtigers made no impression on me, but Fictions is one of my favorite books. Each of its stories basically serves to very precisely and cleverly explore some idea about language or metaphysics, usually to do with various layers of reality and simulations of it. It's a very cold book, with very little plot and few characters; the emphasis is on the ideas. If that sounds interesting to you, you'll probably like it. If not, then you should probably skip it.

[Benny Profane]

Dreamtigers made no impression on me


Yeah, well put. For the life of me I could not figure out why it's such a big deal. Ficciones definitely sounds interesting, thanks for the capsule.

[Eleven]

Everybody recommend me a great collection of short stories.

Borges and Ballard would have been my first choices.

So I'll say either Babylon Revisited and Other Stories by Fitzgerald, or any collection of Chekhov's tales.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've been reading When the Sleeper Wakes while listening to Carl Sagan's Ghost. I'm taking notes on it, because I plan to write a screenplay for it. Public domain, baby!

Also, it's pretty good.

I finished this about an hour ago, and I was pretty unhappy with the ending, which seemed pat and somewhat evasive of the larger questions Wells was asking in his narrative. The story's basically about moving out of the social pressures that produce dystopia/unrest, but the ending instead becomes about action and melodrama.

Apart from that, I quite liked it, found much of it relevant, and I look forward to seeing if I can conquer the bastard.

[Mara]

I'd much rather offer my favorite short stories by individual authors.

[Mara]

The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
The Stone Boy by Gina Berriault
A Good Man is Hard to Find by Flannery O'Connor
The Swimmer by John Cheever
The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
Young Goodman Brown by Nathaniel Hawthorne
An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce
The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe
The Garden Party by Katherine Mansfield
Lamb to the Slaughter by Roald Dahl
The Lottery by Shirley Jackson
A Perfect Day for Banana Fish by J. D. Salinger
A&P by John Updike
The Catbird Seat by James Thurber
Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
The Death of Ivan Ilyich by Leo Tolstoy

Really one of my favorite forms of literature.

Actually, though, I guess I could suggest the book of The Things They Carried as a collection of short stories, as well.

[Kurosawa Fan]

A Good Man is Hard to Find is the best short story I've read. I'm not too well versed when it comes to short stories, but it was flawless. The highest compliment I can pay it is that I read it four or five years ago and still remember it like I finished it yesterday.

[Mara]

It's also a great format for genre pieces: horror, science fiction, mystery, etc. fit better into a short story than a novel, I think.

For instance Rain, Rain, Go Away by Isaac Asimov would have been destroyed if they'd tried to stretch out the premise. Or All Summer in a Day or A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury.

[Mara]

A Good Man is Hard to Find is the best short story I've read. I'm not too well versed when it comes to short stories, but it was flawless. The highest compliment I can pay it is that I read it four or five years ago and still remember it like I finished it yesterday.

I think it contains one of the most chilling, memorable lines of all time:

"She would of been a good woman," The Misfit said, "if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life."

[Eleven]

"Hills Like White Elephants" - Ernest Hemingway
"The Enormous Radio" - John Cheever
"The Balloon" - Donald Barthelme
"Greasy Lake" - T.C. Boyle
"The Company of Wolves" - Angela Carter
"The Veldt" and "The Long Rain" - Ray Bradbury
"The Diamond as Big as the Ritz" and "Babylon Revisited" - F. Scott Fitzgerald
"The Dead" - James Joyce (goes with saying)
"The Laughing Man" - J.D. Salinger

Various by Poe, Bierce, Lovecraft, Borges, Kafka, O'Connor, and Chekhov.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think it contains one of the most chilling, memorable lines of all time:

"She would of been a good woman," The Misfit said, "if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life."

Absolutely. The entire story is haunting, but that line gave me literal chills when I read it.

[Mara]

"Hills Like White Elephants" - Ernest Hemingway
"The Dead" - James Joyce (goes with saying)


These are personal favorites I forgot.

Also, pardon me for saying it because I know he's beloved on this site, but I think Lovecraft is overrated as a short story writer. He is brilliant at creating an atmosphere, but had extremely limited range, and created twenty forgettable stories for every decent one.

Also, his rampant misogyny, racism, classism, etc. are off-putting.

My favorite story of his-- and it is terrific-- is The Rats in the Walls.

[D_Davis]

Best short story I've ever read is Disappearing Act, by Alfred Bester.

Also amazing:

The Secret History of World War III - JG Ballard
The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill Motor Race - JG Ballard
The Enormous Space - JG Ballard
A Good Man is Hard to Find - Flannery O'Connor
Just about anything from Dangerous Visions - ed. Harlen Ellison (should be read by anyone interested in great short fiction)
The Red Tower - Thomas Ligotti
I Have a Special Plan for This World - Ligotti
In a Foreign Town, In a Foreign Land - Ligotti
Microcosmic God - Theodore Sturgeon
Derm Fool - Sturgeon
Bianca's Hands - Sturgeon (there's a reason why one of the most sought after awards in SF is the Theodore Sturgeon award for short stories - the dude was a master)
The Yellow Sign - Robert W. Chambers
The Repairer of Reputations - Chambers
The Great God Pan - Arthur Machen
The Call of Cthulhu - Lovecraft
The Seven Geases - Clark Ashton Smith

Too many more to list...

[Eleven]

Of course I meant "goes without saying." Duh.


Also, pardon me for saying it because I know he's beloved on this site, but I think Lovecraft is overrated as a short story writer. He is brilliant at creating an atmosphere, but had extremely limited range, and created twenty forgettable stories for every decent one.

Also, his rampant misogyny, racism, classism, etc. are off-putting.

My favorite story of his-- and it is terrific-- is The Rats in the Walls.

I think you'll find this with most extremely prolific short story writers, like Wells and Verne and Asimov and Cheever and Carver and Hemingway. Mostly I really like a handful of stories from each of those I put down, no one or two really tower over the rest.

Lovecraft's a tough case from today's perspective, admittedly, but he's definitely quite important in the history of genre fiction. "Rats in the Walls" is pretty great, and I'd put "The Dunwich Horror" and "The Thing on the Doorstep" and of course "The Call of Cthulhu" up there as well.

[Mara]

I think you'll find this with most extremely prolific short story writers, like Wells and Verne and Asimov and Cheever and Carver and Hemingway. Mostly I really like a handful of stories from each of those I put down, no one or two really tower over the rest.

That's an excellent point, but I don't tend to meet "Asimov fans." Lovecraft fans are thick on the ground.

[D_Davis]

but I think Lovecraft is overrated as a short story writer....but had extremely limited range

I'd argue that he had a singular vision. He was a master craftsman of this vision, and honed his skill to perfection.

[Eleven]

That's an excellent point, but I don't tend to meet "Asimov fans." Lovecraft fans are thick on the ground.

It seems to be the whole "mythos" aspect, as well as the "Cthulhu for " movement. I do find myself intrigued sometimes by the interconnectedness and intricacy of his tales, even if those have been overstated and expanded upon by many others in his wake.


Two other things: I'm a moderate fan of Stephen King's stories, much more so than of his novels.

Also, what are short story writers up to these days? The Internet seems to have usurped the forum from the mainstream ([I]New Yorker) and literary (_____ Review) magazines. Is the current generation getting the kind of recognition it should be, in the wake of Harry Potter and Twilight and whatnot?

[D_Davis]

For instance Rain, Rain, Go Away by Isaac Asimov would have been destroyed if they'd tried to stretch out the premise. Or All Summer in a Day or A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury.

It is bad for any story. regardless of genre, to be artificially lengthened. Some premises work better as short stories, some as novellas, and some as novels. However, I've read more novels that I think would work better as novellas or short stories than I have read short stories that would work better as novellas or novels.

[D_Davis]

It seems to be the whole "mythos" aspect, as well as the "Cthulhu for [insert public office here]" movement. I do find myself intrigued sometimes by the interconnectedness and intricacy of his tales, even if those have been overstated and expanded upon by many others in his wake.


Yeah, and you can thank (or blame) August Derleth for that. He turned a small portion of an author's work into an entire industry, influencing dozens of authors, across generations, and generating hundreds of short stories.

[D_Davis]

Also, what are short story writers up to these days? The Internet seems to have usurped the forum from the mainstream (New Yorker) and literary (_____ Review) magazines. Is the current generation getting the kind of recognition it should be, in the wake of Harry Potter and Twilight and whatnot?

In genre fiction, you'll mainly have to turn to the small press for short story collections.

[Ezee E]

I feel like I read a lot more than normal people, but I'm awful in comparison to you guys. The list of books to read is far too long.

[Mara]

But they're just short stories! They're short. Also, the internet has most of them.

[Hugh_Grant]

But they're just short stories! They're short.
This quality, albeit obvious, is one of my top reasons for liking the genre. I've been let down by too many novels. If I'm let down by a short story, I haven't wasted as much time. :)

Here are fifteen I dig:

1. “Sonny’s Blues” – James Baldwin
2. “Battle Royal” – Ralph Ellison
3. “Araby” – James Joyce
4. “Bartleby, the Scrivener” – Herman Melville
5. “A&P” – John Updike
6. “The Management of Grief” –Bharati Mukherjee
7. “Interpreter of Maladies” – Jhumpa Lahiri
8. “Soldier’s Home” – Ernest Hemingway
9. “A Wall of Fire Rising” – Edwidge Danticat
10. “Saboteur” – Ha Jin
11. "A Country Doctor" -- Franz Kafka
12. “Boule de Suif” – Guy de Mauspassant
13. “The Lottery” – Shirley Jackson
14. “Carnal Knowledge” – TC Boyle
15. “Killings” – Andre Dubus

[D_Davis]

Oh man, how could I forget:

I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, by Harlen Ellison

Talk about a classic SF short story. One of the very best. Chilling, haunting, and totally misanthropic.

[ledfloyd]

The Swimmer by John Cheever
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe
Lamb to the Slaughter by Roald Dahl
A&P by John Updike
Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
i agree with all these. i also love the hawthorne short story you posted but 'wakefield' has a special spot in my heart.

i apparently need to read this flannery o'connor short story.

as far as books, i love lorrie moore's 'birds of america'.

[Mara]

i apparently need to read this flannery o'connor short story.

You won't regret it.

[Benny Profane]

FINE. I'LL READ THE O'CONNOR. ASSHOLES.

I finished Fahrenheit 451 this morning. I far preferred the Martian Chronicles, which is the other Bradbury novel I've read. 451 felt very simplistic and almost immature. In the afterword he explains that he rented a typewriter in the basement of UCLA to type this. He inserted a dime and felt the pressure of writing as much as possible before time expired. And that's exactly how it felt to me. The characters and ideas were not fleshed out. I don't see why this one is so popular.

I'm having my wife pick up Inherent Vice at the bookstore today, so that will be next.

[Mara]

FINE. I'LL READ THE O'CONNOR. ASSHOLES.


When you finish it, I would like my rep to come with a humble note of apology. Thanks.

[Benny Profane]

When you finish it, I would like my rep to come with a humble note of apology. Thanks.


http://blog.rifftrax.com/wp-content/photos/ted_knight.jpg

You'll get nothing and like it!

[Kurosawa Fan]

You can continue cursing and calling me names in my rep. I kind of like it.

[D_Davis]

I finished Fahrenheit 451 this morning. I far preferred the Martian Chronicles, which is the other Bradbury novel I've read. 451 felt very simplistic and almost immature. In the afterword he explains that he rented a typewriter in the basement of UCLA to type this. He inserted a dime and felt the pressure of writing as much as possible before time expired. And that's exactly how it felt to me. The characters and ideas were not fleshed out. I don't see why this one is so popular.


Fahrenheit is more popular for its ideas, than it is for its prose.

I prefer Dandelion Wine to both of these. It's a masterpiece. And his short story collection The October Country is remarkable.

[Benny Profane]

Fahrenheit is more popular for its ideas, than it is for its prose.

I prefer Dandelion Wine to both of these. It's a masterpiece. And his short story collection The October Country is remarkable.

I guess these ideas have been so much better handled in other novels that 451 felt juvenile in comparison.

[Mara]

I have always preferred my Bradbury in short story format to novel format.

Ditto Hemmingway.

[Hugh_Grant]

As I once told KF, Flannery O'Connor is very popular here in area of the country where I live. I've included her short stories on my syllabus, and my students have enjoyed them, but for whatever reason, I'm not a big fan. Sorry, y'all.

[Benny Profane]

I have always preferred my Bradbury in short story format to novel format.

Ditto Hemmingway.

I obscenity in the milk of this post.

(holla if it means something)

[Mara]

I obscenity in the milk of this post.

(holla if it means something)

I had to google it. It's been awhile since I read For Whom the Bell Tolls, which I quite liked. But I loooooooove his short stories.

[Hugh_Grant]

Ditto Hemingway.
Yep. I own a couple of comprehensive collections of Hemingway short stories, given to me by students. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy send one your way.

I'm going to take a good look at my book collection in the next few months and get rid of any that I don't use/need/want. Since I'm a packrat, this will be a difficult task.

[Mara]

I'm going to take a good look at my book collection in the next few months and get rid of any that I don't use/need/want. Since I'm a packrat, this will be a difficult task.

BookMooch!

[D_Davis]

I guess these ideas have been so much better handled in other novels that 451 felt juvenile in comparison.

I can see this. I don't hold it in any high regard. To me it's one of those subpar SF books that you read in high school. For some reason, someone somewhere deemed it an important book, and someone else declared it a representative of the genre. It's like Brave New World and 1984 in this regard. Sure, those two novels are OK, but there are hundreds of better written SF novels with far more impact. It's sad to me that so many people begin and end their relationship with SF with these three novels

[Hugh_Grant]

BookMooch!

But what if I don't want anything in return? Is there one-way mooching?

[Mara]

It's like Brave New World and 1984 in this regard.

Hey, I think 1984 is about as influential as any book has ever been. Both it and Brave New World are personal favorites.

[Benny Profane]

1984 and Brave New World are titans for good reason.

Also, there wasn't even much sci-fi-ey about 451.

[Qrazy]

It's like Brave New World and 1984 in this regard. Sure, those two novels are OK.

Yeah, no.

1. 1984
2. Brave New World
3. We

4. Fahrenheit 451

5. The Handmaid's Tale

[D_Davis]

1984 and Brave New World are titans for good reason.

I don't think they're very good. Wouldn't even make it on my top 50 SF.


Also, there wasn't even much sci-fi-ey about 451.

What do you mean by this? What's SF to you?

[Qrazy]

I don't think they're very good. Wouldn't even make it on my top 50 SF.


Make it.

[D_Davis]

Make it.

I will. Although I imagine most of the numbering will be mostly (totally?) arbitrary, and there will be lots of repeats of certain authors.

[ledfloyd]

the killers is my favorite hemingway short story

[Mara]

I hope this doesn't come out as judgmental in any way, but I've definitely noticed a difference in style between what science fiction appeals to me and what appeals to Davis. I'd argue that he's probably the more pure SF fan-- he likes it a little more traditional and iconic than I do.

I like scifi, don't get me wrong. But I tend to like it mixed up with other genres. The story that Davis posted about yesterday, for example-- the one about mouths and screaming-- I read it. It was okay. Nothing too moving. But, while reading it, I could understand why he would like it more than I would. If he hadn't recommended it to me, I probably would have thought on my own that he would have liked it.

I'm not sure how to define the quality that Davis likes more than I do, but I know it when I see it.

[Benny Profane]

What do you mean by this? What's SF to you?

I saw it more as a dystopian novel than a sci-fi. Other than television walls and seashell ear-pieces there wasn't too much that was either futuristic or improbable, given the time it was written.

[Mara]

For instance, I am going to venture a bet that Davis likes the following books I didn't really like:

To Your Scattered Bodies Go by Philip José Farmer
I am Legend by Richard Matheson
Neuromancer by William Gibson

And I'd be curious to know if he liked the following science fiction books that I liked extremely:

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (last time I checked, he hadn't read this yet)
Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood

[D_Davis]

I saw it more as a dystopian novel than a sci-fi. Other than television walls and seashell ear-pieces there wasn't too much that was either futuristic or improbable, given the time it was written.

Yeah, but dystopian fiction is often considered a sub-genre of SF.

[D_Davis]

Mara,

To Your Scattered Bodies Go by Philip José Farmer - liked it quite a bit. It's a better pulpy-adventure story than it is a SF story.

I am Legend by Richard Matheson - It's OK. I didn't love it, didn't dislike it.

Neuromancer by William Gibson - Don't like this at all. Totally overrated, and nearly unreadable today. It's all jargon, no heart, no soul.

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut - Very good. But my favorite Vonnegut is Breakfast of Champions

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (last time I checked, he hadn't read this yet) - Never read it - doubt I ever will.

Oryx and Crake - Never read it.