Literature: Rate and Discuss

Not sure if this has been posted but:

A People's History of the United States 1492-Present by Howard Zinn (rip)

this book is excellent...having a hard time putting it down.
 
Neal Stephenson - The Big U - 5/10

According to Wikipedia, this was Neal Stephenson's first published novel, written while he was in college, and he's not proud of it. I can see why. It's not awful, but it's also not great. It's about a bunch of college kids at a giant university (named American Megauniversity) who get involved in some crazy ridiculous situations. His characters basically fall into a few stereotypical categories of college kids (the idiotic frat boy type, philosophy nerds, physics nerds, D&D nerds) except taken to such extremes that they're no longer stereotypical and instead just absurd. Apart from the narrator, who barely does anything, none of the characters are actually normal. Of course, seeing as it's Neal Stephenson, the protagonists happen to be the nerds. Also, seeing as it's Neal Stephenson, everything has to be made to achieve the maximum awesomeness level possible. Whenever I read something that is just completely insane, I imagine Neal Stephenson:

neals.jpg

checking off a list of everything he thinks is awesome/hilarious, which happens to include D&D nerds encountering giant sewer rats when playing their live-action role-playing games; the physics guy building a railgun; lesbians toting shotguns, running down the hallways shooting idiotic frat-boy types; the university secretly being used as nuclear waste-dump, being taken over by foreign janitors wielding machine guns.

Even though it's not his greatest writing, it's interesting to spot elements that he reused in later novels. There's an analogy between organs and computing machines that shows up in Cryptonomicon. The character of S.S.Krupp (president of the university who turns out to be a hardcore fighter) reminds me of Uncle Enzo in Snow Crash. The "university as nuclear waste dump" idea is re-used in Anathem.

But overall, for anyone who hasn't read any Neal Stephenson, I'd recommend reading Snow Crash instead, which pulls off ridiculous awesomeness much more successfully and on a bigger scale, and also has a much better bad guy (dumb frat boys and a bunch of janitors don't come anywhere close to Raven). For people who are already fans of Stephenson and happen to be really bored, The Big U is amusing at times but not very good.

-----------------
Changing gears, wanted to post some pics of an absolutely beautiful, hardcover, watercolor-illustrated 1945 edition of Steinbeck's The Red Pony that I bought at a little used bookstore today. This shop seems to get lots of nice old books -- I've seen an illustrated edition of Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, signed by the illustrator, which I know one of my old English teachers would love. Anyways, since Steinbeck is one of my favorite authors, I had to take a look. It's in completely perfect condition. I expected it to be around $30 so I could say, "Pfft, can't afford that! Besides, I already own a nice old paperback copy of this," but it was only $10 (less than most new paperbacks nowadays!), which was too tempting to resist. It would make an awesome gift, but I don't know anyone else who loves Steinbeck. Now I don't know what to do with it (besides reading it obviously). Anyhow, pics in spoiler, and I wish they still made books like this. Apparently this edition is not uncommon (on Amazon) but it's still pretty cool.

dscf1395.jpg

dscf1396s.jpg

dscf1398w.jpg

Might as well "review" it too. The book is four chapters -- same characters and similar thematically, but each story can stand on its own. It's been a while since I've read it and I only remember the first chapter "The Gift" which is the one they typically have middle school kids read, which is strange considering it's actually a pretty dark story. It's about a boy on a ranch who gets his first pony. Then the pony gets sick, and we can all guess how that ends. In the third chapter, there's another incident where they breed one of their mares to get the boy another pony -- I find that chapter even more traumatic but a perfect complement to The Gift. Like all Steinbeck's works, the writing is completely unpretentious. He takes a concise, literal approach here which is very effective. Random side-note: When I first read McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses, I got a little bit of a Steinbeck vibe from it. Then I re-read The Red Pony, and figured out why. I know McCarthy gets compared more to Melville and Faulkner, but I bet he and Steinbeck would've gotten along pretty well. Steinbeck's writing is certainly not as dark or biblical in tone (although East of Eden is pretty epic), but I have a lot of respect for both guys.

p.s. Sorry, I realize this post is really long :eek:.
 
On the Road is a beautiful mess.

Walden 8.5/10

This book has had the greatest impact on me of any I've read in a long time. Basically just a mix of a philosophy manifesto and a nature journal, it boldly praises idealistic views that occassionally crosses most peoples' minds but we never really stop to consider. The importance of being an individual, the horrible aspect of working your entire life, the pointlessness of material gains, and on and on. Some very great writing and imagery and many interesting things to ponder.

Huckleberry Finn 7.5/10

I've never found Huck Finn to be as monumental or meaningful as everyone claims it to be (I think it's mostly to due with the fact that it was a bold attack on a way of life when it was written, and it just doesn't seem so out there anymore), and it drags a great deal (damn you, Tom Sawyer), but I love its great dialogue, wonderful humor, and lively portrayal of the American south so much.
 
Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoevsky 10/10

I know most of you have probably already read this, but for my fellow illiterates:

This book is a chronicle of all the thoughts that pass through a young and rebellious man's mind as he plans, executes and then atones for his crime, a murder. He commits this murder not for any utilitarian reason, but simply out of his ideology. Along the way we also discover his struggle with the nature of good and evil, God and Satan, and idealism vs. pragmatism.

We experience both the cold, analytical cunning of a man with a purpose, and the depravity of one who has lost his moral guidepost. This book has it all, chills, spills, love and revolution. There is something in here that everyone who has ever reflected on the purpose of life, or rebelled against his station in society can relate to. It raises some good philosophical questions (and also some theological ones), while still being a truly great work of fiction.

Next: The Brothers Karamazov, Slaughterhouse Five

Ennui said:
Razumikhin is one of my favorite Dostoevsky characters period. Raskolnikov is a shitbag but what an interesting shitbag he is!
Click to expand...
:frown: You, sir, are WRONG! On the INTERNETS! This must be settled with a duel.

Seriously though, Raskolnikov (in spite of his megalomania) is IMO the smartest character in the book.
He refuses to abandon the problem of mediocrity vs. greatness even when the others are like, "Who cares?"
 
you can impress even the most dubious and groundless of ideas on the reader if you state it callously and boldly enough.
Click to expand...
Oscar Wilde
Click to expand...
Heh.

I can see what you mean about Thoreau, but I found that most of his ideas (or the ones which I took particular notice of) were actually really grounded in common sense and only silly when compared with the way conventional life pushes us.

Picture of Dorian Gray is awesome, and yeah, Lord Henry has countless lines that are both hilarious and scary to consider.
 
Oh yeah, you definitely have to take Oscar Wilde with a grain of salt.
 
Oscar Wilde's short stories for children were superb, worth checking out if you haven't done so yet.
 
Eejit said:
Oscar Wilde's short stories for children were superb, worth checking out if you haven't done so yet.
Click to expand...

I can't say I have read any of those, though I do greatly admire The Picture of Dorian Grey.
 
I really liked 1984 by Orwell. Reminded me of Half-Life in a lot of ways.
 
Yup, literature is only great when it instills sentiments related to video games.

Also, you mean HL2.
 
No, I would've liked the book whether or not I played HL2, I just thought it was interesting how much the game and book were alike.
 
toaster leigh said:
Oh yeah no Oscar Wilde will totally fall victim to that if you take him seriously, but I think that Lord Henry in particular is obviously supposed to be like some sort of caricature of the public image he had. What I mean to say is bitch be trollinnnnnn
Click to expand...
Wat?

The Picture of Dorian Gray is probably the greatest commentary on society's shallowness I've read.
 
Yorick said:
I ****ing loathe Jack Kerouac.
Click to expand...
It's easier to hate him than to love him. Just remember he didn't ask anyone for all the attention, nor was he terribly concerned with having received it. I'm sure I understand exactly why you dislike him, and it's certainly a valid view (I agree at least that he's overrated by almost everybody) but to loathe him seems a bit strong! Note that I worded this diplomatically enough to avoid arguing about it, tis not worth it :p
toaster leigh said:
I'm not too big on Thoreau, but that could just be that I find most of the Romantics p. boring. For the most part, I think that a lot of his ideas fall victim to what I've lovingly dubbed "Ayn Rand Syndrome": that is, you can impress even the most dubious and groundless of ideas on the reader if you state it callously and boldly enough.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty awesomely succinctly way to put it :D although I am still about 1000x warmer towards Thoreau than I am to Ayn Rand. Admittedly I never could make it all the way through Walden... but I find some of the language in the essay Civil Disobedience to be extraordinary, even if it's a bunch of self-evidently hyperbolic idealism. He's certainly not meant to be followed or interpreted strictly but I think there is still something quite valuable to be gained from it all.
99.vikram said:
:frown: You, sir, are WRONG! On the INTERNETS! This must be settled with a duel.

Seriously though, Raskolnikov (in spite of his megalomania) is IMO the smartest character in the book.
He refuses to abandon the problem of mediocrity vs. greatness even when the others are like, "Who cares?"
Click to expand...
Oh, he's a brilliant character, but evidently that is not enough in Dostoevsky's opinion. I also would argue that Porfiry Petrovich (the detective who figures it all out) is pretty goddamn brilliant too. All I have to say is that despite his brilliance and dedication to his pursuits, he is still fatally afflicted by his moral corruption / self-absorbed attitute. The whole point is that he has to realize his error and seek faith, atonement and redemption in order to ever hope to experience happiness or fulfillment again.
 
I think I finally understand my disconnect with this forum (esp. Toaster and the bookkeeper aka Dodds) and other English majors in general. Everyone else is off reading belles-lettres-era social philosophy while I'm stuck in the Middle Ages. It's my rabbit hole: the further I go the more lost I get, until last year I emerged on the other side of modernism (did I spoil Piers Plowman for you guys? I think I just did.).

The point is: goddamnit I haven't read anything you guys are talking about.* I've dabbled in Kerouac, but it didn't do it for me. I'm actually about 200 pages into Cancer Ward, but I've been busy with mostly tripe Canadian lit.



*But I do know Rand is a big quaint.
 
With Kerouac there's only one book worth dabbling.
 
Ennui said:
It's easier to hate him than to love him. Just remember he didn't ask anyone for all the attention, nor was he terribly concerned with having received it. I'm sure I understand exactly why you dislike him, and it's certainly a valid view (I agree at least that he's overrated by almost everybody) but to loathe him seems a bit strong! Note that I worded this diplomatically enough to avoid arguing about it, tis not worth it :p
Click to expand...

Kerouac and I were born in the same city, and he's basically a folk hero around these parts. It's certainly not easier to hate him (here anyway) - it actually made me a borderline outcast for a few years. (What the **** do you mean you don't like Kerouac? THAT'S DOWNRIGHT UNAMERICAN.)

But I quite simply don't like his writing. I don't like like his style, or substance, or anything about it. I don't care for Orwell either, but at least I can respect him and his ideas and views. It just isn't my thing. You could say the same thing about Tolkien's writing. I would rather injure myself than read through the entirety of The Lord of the Rings.

There's authors I love, like Shakespeare, or Chuck Palahniuk, Vonnegut, Salinger.
There's authors I like, like Ray Bradbury (who I find can be hit and miss), Philip K Dick, Steinbeck.
There's authors I dislike but generally respect, like Tolkien and Orwell.
And then there's authors I hate like Kerouac, Stephenie Meyer, Stephen King, etc.

It's a very complicated system. :p

Also going along with the last few replies so as to stay on topic, Portrait of Dorian Gray is fantastic, and I really need to read more Dostoevsky because goddamn did I enjoy Crime and Punishment. I've heard The Brothers Karamazov is excellent, and I want to pick that up once I get through the few books I'm reading now.
 
Why the hell is Stephanie Meyer even in that list?

...

Just started Sandman and I'm totally loving it.
 
Viperidae said:
I think I finally understand my disconnect with this forum (esp. Toaster and the bookkeeper aka Dodds) and other English majors in general. Everyone else is off reading belles-lettres-era social philosophy while I'm stuck in the Middle Ages. It's my rabbit hole: the further I go the more lost I get, until last year I emerged on the other side of modernism (did I spoil Piers Plowman for you guys? I think I just did.).
Click to expand...
I actually do quite a lot of medieval stuff on my course - it's just not something that's we talk about much here. It's a time I find interesting enough that I'm certainly still going to be reading its products once I'm done with academia. Right now I'm desperately trying to re-familiarise myself with Pearl and Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde (I plan to read Henryson's fanfic as well), but in the past I've done work on breton lai romances, dream vision, the lyrics in the Harley manuscript and the Travels of Sir John Mandeville (which are completely, utterly amazing despite being probably, definitely fake). My exams are in three weeks, so if you want to do a helpful essay exchange or the like I'm up for anything by this point.

Isn't it rather odd, though, to read these things from afar as it were? I mean, when I read Pearl or Gawain I'm thinking "bloody northerners" and have an acute sense of how English geography and history* contributed to the differences between them and, say, the Canterbury Tales. Do you feel part like these things are part of your history?

*I refer partly to the history of the language: Chaucer is more easily readable and his English 'closer' to ours because it was related to the specific but limited bureaucratic standard used by the clerks of Chancery. This was the English that had currency in government and learning within the country's triangular centre (London, Oxford, Cambridge), and in turn ended up being that adopted by Caxton for his pioneering foray into mass production.
 
Heh, you've managed to focus on all that I haven't. I spent most of last term on the alliterative revival (if there is such a thing), with the Pearl poet (if there is such a person), however I found Pearl the most uninteresting in the series, as there is so much academic work on it already. I wrote what I think is a strong thesis on Cleanness which I may develop further in my graduate work, so I'd rather keep it under wraps for the moment. If you're into pre-Chaucer 14th century lit, I recommend Siege of Jerusalem and Piers Plowman. Absolutely amazing stuff, especially the latter, which I don't think I'll fully grasp for another 10 reads.

Pearl I found pretty straightforward: the recurring motifs of perfection: perfection of the pearl, of outward appearance (features very prominently in the rest of the alliterative canon), the impossibility of humanity to be reconciled with such a perfect God. I think the main thing to focus on is the God-daughter-narrator triangle, especially with the image of Jesus being an unwanted suitor to her. You could also keep in mind the formal aspects: there are interesting things to notice such as that the imperfect 'bit of sand' of the Pearl itself, the only stanza group with an even number of stanzas occurs near the middle but not quite--group 15 has six instead of five. Wouldn't it have been nicer if it were number 10, the 'core' of the work? Those kinds of things.

I was considering studying a book on lapidaries just to get a clear history and contemporary science of the role of all the jewels mentioned in the work, but the more I read periphery works that mention jewels, the more I'm convinced that they were already an overwrought trope, and that their role in the poetry of this time was mostly subversive.

If you want more of London, try Saint Erkenwald. It's pretty much a fanfic that ties London's history to that of the divine pagan myth in the same manner that Gawain ties in the Trojan myth, while at the same time canonising a Saint. It's a very, very functional poem.

Sulkdodds said:
I mean, when I read Pearl or Gawain I'm thinking "bloody northerners" and have an acute sense of how English geography and history* contributed to the differences between them and, say, the Canterbury Tales. Do you feel part like these things are part of your history?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I'm assuming you're aware of the Ricardian court theory? It's pretty hard to reject the idea that there is an intense influence from Cheshire's language and politics. I can't say I prefer the London dialect, necessarily, as for me it's mostly a matter of vocabulary. I will say that the poems are bloody irritating for their lack of claimed authorship, but then perhaps that's why they're so fascinating. The political history becomes very interesting: I recall my professor mentioning that there was a popular London priest in the 1370s who used the parable of the vineyard in a diatribe against the 'boy king' Richard. This makes the parable's inclusion in Pearl very... fruitful.

I'll try and PM you one of my papers.
 
I just read Looking for Alaska by John Green, which has joined the ranks of being one of those books that makes me cry like a little girl. The best way that I can think to describe it to someone is that it's honest, in the same way that Catcher in the Rye and The Perks of Being a Wallflower are honest.
 
Sandman: Volume 1 8.5/10

Fantastic art, writing, and fantasy. Loving it.
 
Reading the Collected Tales of Nikolai Gogol at the moment. Actually enjoying him more than Dostoevsky, which I didn't think was possible beforehand. It's the typical biting Russian wit and tragic ridiculousness you'd expect, but he fuses the real and the abnormal in a way I've never encountered: completely matter of factly, while suggesting he himself can't offer any explanation or understanding. He will also occasionally directly refer to the characters as creations, comment on the nature of a novel and his purpose as a writer without breaking out of the narrative at all. Much of his writing was improvised as well, so the stories are entirely unpredictable and even seem to surprise him sometimes.

Quite simply some of the best literature I've ever read and highly recommended to anyone with an interest in Russian works, and a more than worthy place to start if you don't. As with Crime and Punishment, I recommend the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation. My first experience with Gogol was with an inferior translation which was a confusing read, so it's certainly worth putting effort into finding one that is skilfully handled.
 
Blackthorn said:
Reading the Collected Tales of Nikolai Gogol at the moment. Actually enjoying him more than Dostoevsky, which I didn't think was possible beforehand. It's the typical biting Russian wit and tragic ridiculousness you'd expect, but he fuses the real and the abnormal in a way I've never encountered: completely matter of factly, while suggesting he himself can't offer any explanation or understanding. He will also occasionally directly refer to the characters as creations, comment on the nature of a novel and his purpose as a writer without breaking out of the narrative at all. Much of his writing was improvised as well, so the stories are entirely unpredictable and even seem to surprise him sometimes.

Quite simply some of the best literature I've ever read and highly recommended to anyone with an interest in Russian works, and a more than worthy place to start if you don't. As with Crime and Punishment, I recommend the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation. My first experience with Gogol was with an inferior translation which was a confusing read, so it's certainly worth putting effort into finding one that is skilfully handled.
Click to expand...
Thank you for improving my reading list for 2010. :)

EDIT: I guess I should add something... I'm further into the Brothers Karamazov, but I'm not enjoying this as much as Crime and Punishment. The characters in the latter are more or less likeable, decent human beings. Almost every single one in this book is an emotional, shrieking douche (Mrs. Khokhlakov especially)... the only exceptions being Ivan and Alyosha, who don't make me want to slit their throats...
 
"the trees start walking toward the castle like the witches said they would because it's so ****ing stupid will's totally ****ing taking the piss and if he's not he must've been as ****ed up as i am right now"

The soldiers are hiding there numbers behind the trees by chopping them down and carrying them I think.
 
Macbeth was always my favorite Shakespeare play... in no small part for the "Life's but a walking shadow" line. Actually that's the only thing I remember from Macbeth apart from the scene where Lady Macbeth washes blood off her hands, which I guess goes to show how much I (don't) like Shakespeare.
 
I'm on the road to reaching my 2010 goal of reading 666 books.

Right now I'm reading Burning Wild by Christine Feehan and Vampire Transgression by Michael Schiefelbein.
 
Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West - Cormac McCarthy

Jimbo tipped me this book to ease the wait for Red Dead Redemption. What a great read. The story is about 'the kid', a boy in his teens who runs away from home and joins the Glanton Gang, a band of thugs that hunts Indians for their scalps. The kid's journey through the wilds of western America and northern Mexico in the 1850's is truly epic. Due to its somewhat archaic language it reads like a dark version of Jason & the Argonauts or another story from antiquity. The main antagonist, Judge Holden, is an almost mythical figure: a big burly bald man who constantly touts his seemingly vast knowledge, but also displays a lot disturbing and purely evil behavior. The violence maybe be a bit off-putting for some, especially since it doesn't seem to serve a real purpose, but it is countered by McCarthy's marvelous description of the country the gang traverses. Enjoyed this so much that I bought the Border trilogy today.
 
Yeah, I'm in the middle of Meridian right now. Every passage about Judge is phenomenal.
 
Batman: The Long Halloween 4.5/10

I dunno, this just did not do anything for me. I can accept a murder mystery, sure, but nothing drove the plot. Every chapter was just the same thing over and over, some mobsters say some stuff, Batman does some stuff, Harvey and Gordon talk, murder. Events didn't seem to hold any weight (I can maybe understand Harvey secretly being alive and peachy after the explosion, but how the **** did his wife come out okay? When did Harvey switch places with the Irish guy and where the **** was he when it happened? And of course Carmine's son.). The only interesting character/conflict is Harvey, and you feel completely ripped off when you learn that he had been corrupted pretty much from the beginning anyway but NOW HE HAS ACID ON HIS FACE SO IT'S WAY WORSE. And I still don't understand what happened. Why was Carmine still alive if he wasn't really the killer? Why is he NOT the real killer? His conversation with his father is probably the only interesting writing in the whole damn book. Why do I need random twists that aren't really important? Why do we set up these villians to be so important and then Batman just shows up and goes 'caught you lol'? Ugh.
 
All the pretty horses - Cormac McCarthy 7/10

OK book I guess. It is about John Grady and Rawlins, two 16 y.o. boys who run away from home and cross the border into Mexico. They meet a third boy, Blevins, who is a pain in the ass and causes all kinds of trouble. The plot was quite obvious and the main character is a bit too saint-like for my taste. Also the Blevins character I didn't like. He was too deus ex machina to be really believable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminator
Long time...
Replies
10
Views
517
Raziaar
Raziaar
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Chris D
Half-Life: Alyx announced
Replies
32
Views
25K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top