What are you reading?

[revolution saint]

Catch-22 - Joseph Heller

 

I'd forgotten that I had read this book. Must be 20 years ago now.

 

Amusing and confusing, I think it was described as 'mentally gymnastic' on the blurb of my book, which is pretty accurate.

 

If I remember correctly my favourite character was Major Major Major Major who climbed out of the window when anyone came to see him. (unless I am getting mixed up)

 

Great book IMO

 

This goes down as one of those books that I just didn't get on with - I wanted to like it but the style of it made it unreadable for me.

[saintbletch]

Catch-22 - Joseph Heller

 

I'd forgotten that I had read this book. Must be 20 years ago now.

 

Amusing and confusing, I think it was described as 'mentally gymnastic' on the blurb of my book, which is pretty accurate.

 

If I remember correctly my favourite character was Major Major Major Major who climbed out of the window when anyone came to see him. (unless I am getting mixed up)

 

Great book IMO

 

Indeed. One of my favourite books of all time.

 

I think anyone who has ever worked in an intensely bureaucratic environment will relate to the concepts, but the writing style is a little stream-of-conciousness and weird.

 

Major Major is a good character but it's Milo Minderbinder for me. He's the wheeler-deal Quartermaster type who is always looking to buy and sell for a profit. He bought all the cotton in Egypt IIRC and couldn't shift it. So he came up with a deal with the Germans (the enemy) where he contracted to carry out the German's bombing missions if the Germans took the cotton off his hands. He actually bombed its own runway under contract from the Germans. Classic.

 

And the entire catch-22 concept was embodied by the rule that the only way you can be invalided out of the dangerous bombing missions was through madness, but that if you ever asked to be invalided out of the dangerous bombing missions then it proved that you were sane. After all only a sane man would ask not to fly dangerous bombing missions. And if you didn't ask to be invalided out of the dangerous bombing missions, then you kept flying.

 

I love that.

 

Also one of the worst film versions of a book I've ever seen. Looked like someone's college project.

[bridge too far]

Just started reading 'Toxic Children. Lent to me by my SiL who is a teacher.

 

The book examines why there is the perception that there are so many 'feral' children and children with ADHD and dyslexia - an explosion in numbers. I've only just started the book but it considers diet, meal times, couch potato children, children being sheltered from risk and so on.

 

Very concerning, but I feel duty bound, as a grandparent, to consider all this stuff.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins.

 

Although, I think he over eggs the pudding, inasmuch as he is overly repetitive and could cut his books down to about 60 pages each.

 

Another question however. How many people on here have actually read all of 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking? I had the book for years, seemingly as a coffee-table tome but made myself read it all. A brilliant, if difficult, read but well worth it. It took me back to my teens when I took Einstein's book 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory' out of the library. Christ it was hard work.

Edited 30 May, 2011 by Dark Sotonic Mills

[revolution saint]

The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins.

 

Although, I think he over eggs the pudding, inasmuch as he is overly repetitive and could cut his books down to about 60 pages each.

 

Another question however. How many people on here have actually read all of 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking? I had the book for years, seemingly as a coffee-table tome but made myself read it all. A brilliant, if difficult, read but well worth it. It took me back to my teens when I took Einstein's book 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory' out of the library. Christ it was hard work.

 

I think you only ever need to read one Dawkins book on evolution - doesn't really matter which one but once you get the general idea, it does as you say become repetitive. I've never read any Hawkins but he sounds like a Dalek so I assume it's about Glenn Hoddle?

[Hamilton Saint]

I think you only ever need to read one Dawkins book on evolution - doesn't really matter which one but once you get the general idea, it does as you say become repetitive. I've never read any Hawkins but he sounds like a Dalek so I assume it's about Glenn Hoddle?

 

Must be about extermination, then, not evolution.

[saintbletch]

The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins.

 

Although, I think he over eggs the pudding, inasmuch as he is overly repetitive and could cut his books down to about 60 pages each.

 

Another question however. How many people on here have actually read all of 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking? I had the book for years, seemingly as a coffee-table tome but made myself read it all. A brilliant, if difficult, read but well worth it. It took me back to my teens when I took Einstein's book 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory' out of the library. Christ it was hard work.

 

Richard Dawkins is a Fundementalist Atheist. It's not that I have an issue with his negative stance on religion and belief systems - I share some of those negative beliefs myself. The issue for me is that he comes across as so aggressive in his condemnation of religion. And I think that aggression damages his scientific argument.

 

I found The God Delusion to be a fascinating and educational read but I was uncomfortable with its style. Dawkins is an eminent scientist and has done a lot to understand evolution at the cell level, and I would expect any scientist to lay out the facts and let us decide. Instead, his prejudices come through. He tries to maintain a scientific approach but ultimately his own views cloud the way that the material is presented.

 

All this is odd considering, as I mentioned above, I come from the same fundamental (with a small f) position as Dawkins.

 

Also started to read A Brief History of Time 3 times and each time had to give up. Each time I got to the second half of the book, which from memory moves from the study of the big to the small (quantum) world, my brain CTRL+ALT+DEL'd to protect me from melting down.

 

I found QED by Richard Feynman and Schrodingers Kittens by John Gribbin to be much more accessible material on a subject which fascinates me.

[Miffy]

The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins.

 

Although, I think he over eggs the pudding, inasmuch as he is overly repetitive and could cut his books down to about 60 pages each.

 

Another question however. How many people on here have actually read all of 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking? I had the book for years, seemingly as a coffee-table tome but made myself read it all. A brilliant, if difficult, read but well worth it. It took me back to my teens when I took Einstein's book 'Relativity: The Special and the General Theory' out of the library. Christ it was hard work.

 

I've read 'A brief History...' about three times over the last 15 years and always find it fascinating. There are parts where my understanding gets a bit fuzzy, as it is counter-intuitive, particularly the Quantum stuff.

 

Schroedingers Cat was a good book for gaining a basic understanding of Quantum Physics (I've not heard of Scroedingers Kittens, I guess it must be a follow up)

 

Dawkings - Unweaving the Rainbow was a good read on evolution, but (like Saintbletch) I found the God Delusion distorted by opinion over fact, despite agreeing with the general sentiments.

[Hamilton Saint]

Richard Dawkins is a Fundementalist Atheist ...

 

Fundamentalist atheist? What exactly do you mean by that?

[saintbletch]

Fundamentalist atheist? What exactly do you mean by that?

 

I was trying to suggest that the devotion, passion and drive with which he attacks belief systems in the name of science; has a parallel in some of the more violent acts we see committed in the name of religious fundamentalism. It was meant to be oxymoronic - and perhaps a little humorous. Failed.

 

For Dawkins, being an Atheist has almost become a religion in its own right - with him at the head of the church. Don't get me wrong, he's a clever bloke and I agree with many of the principles at the heart of his arguments, but I'm more than happy for others to believe what they want.

[Hamilton Saint]

I was trying to suggest that the devotion, passion and drive with which he attacks belief systems in the name of science; has a parallel in some of the more violent acts we see committed in the name of religious fundamentalism. It was meant to be oxymoronic - and perhaps a little humorous. Failed.

 

For Dawkins, being an Atheist has almost become a religion in its own right - with him at the head of the church. Don't get me wrong, he's a clever bloke and I agree with many of the principles at the heart of his arguments, but I'm more than happy for others to believe what they want.

 

I have to disagree fundamentally (but not in a fundamentalist way!) with the part I've put in bold type. There's no parallel at all.

[saintbletch]

I have to disagree fundamentally (but not in a fundamentalist way!) with the part I've put in bold type. There's no parallel at all.

 

In that case then I'm sorry that you can't see it Hamilton Saint.

 

Whilst this thread is certainly not the right place for this discussion, perhaps I'll have one more go.

 

 

If you changed the words of Pat Condell's brilliant but intolerant monologue, dressed him in khaki, wrapped an explosives belt around his waist and gave him an AK47, it could quite easily be the last recording of a suicide bomber as he ranted against the infidels before he went off to carry out an act of violence en route to meeting his blind watchmaker.

 

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4682-aggressive-atheism

 

Obviously, that is where any parallel (if indeed there is one) stops.

[Hamilton Saint]

In that case then I'm sorry that you can't see it Hamilton Saint.

 

Whilst this thread is certainly not the right place for this discussion, perhaps I'll have one more go.

 

 

If you changed the words of Pat Condell's brilliant but intolerant monologue, dressed him in khaki, wrapped an explosives belt around his waist and gave him an AK47, it could quite easily be the last recording of a suicide bomber as he ranted against the infidels before he went off to carry out an act of violence en route to meeting his blind watchmaker.

 

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4682-aggressive-atheism

 

Obviously, that is where any parallel (if indeed there is one) stops.

 

But if you did change his words it wouldn't correspond to what he was saying. And he's not dressed in khaki, wearing an explosives belt or toting an AK47. That's the point. He may be sat in front of a video camera having a bit of a rant, but he is engaged in rational argument. You might not like his take-no-prisoners style, but he's talking about ideas and cultural trends. He's not attacking individuals. And he is criticising religion in general, not focusing on only one religion.

 

The parallel you try to draw there is a false one, since you are mis-characterising what he's doing.

 

An aggressive debating style is hardly equivalent to a fundamentalist world-view. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to a set of prescribed beliefs or doctrines. And that is the mental attitude this guy is arguing against.

Edited 1 June, 2011 by Hamilton Saint

[saintbletch]

But if you did change his words it wouldn't correspond to what he was saying. And he's not dressed in khaki, wearing an explosives belt or toting an AK47. That's the point. He may be sat in front of a video camera having a bit of a rant, but he is engaged in rational argument. You might not like his take-no-prisoners style, but he's talking about ideas and cultural trends. He's not attacking individuals. And he is criticising religion in general, not focusing on only one religion.

 

The parallel you try to draw there is a false one, since you are mis-characterising what he's doing.

 

All true. And all so obviously true that I'm surprised that didn't think that you must have missed my point. Sorry, perhaps I could have been clearer. Intolerance for others' beliefs, total and absolute faith(*) in his own beliefs(*), anger and perhaps even hatred were the parallels I could see between Condell and a suicide bomber recoding his last message. Not his clothing, weapon or the choice of dual-purpose technology he uses to keep his trousers up.

 

An aggressive debating style is hardly equivalent to a fundamentalist world-view. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence to a set of prescribed beliefs or doctrines. And that is the mental attitude this guy is arguing against.

 

I'm afraid you're taking me too literally Hamilton Saint.

 

See my previous post - I used the term Fundamentalist because when placing it next to Atheist it's oxymoronic. I meant it to be discordant and to challenge a keen eye - and it did.

 

But now that we agree that I'm using the term outside of its literal meaning, I still see parallels, not equivalence, between your religious fundamentalists and my "Fundamentalist Atheists"(*).

 

I'll stretch you're definition to suggest that Fundamentalism is about not straying from a core set of beliefs or principles (your definition is more accurately Religious Fundamentalism to my mind). For such a fundamentalist, certain central tenets of their world view are not up to be challenged. They are immutable.

 

To my mind, these Fundamentalist Atheists also hold their scientific facts as immutable. Their total faith(*) in their own scientific view of the world and the aggression and the anger with which they attack others' beliefs that do not conform to their science-derived world view, shows fundamentalist traits IMO.

 

And I don't have a problem with his aggressive style. As I think I said above I think it's a brilliant monologue and he's arguing my case. I am an atheist but I'm a live-and-let-live-atheist

 

(*) I'm using these terms to be intentionally provocative

 

A good debate and perhaps one that we won't agree on. Perhaps we can continue it on another thread or via PM?

 

Well back on topic and I'm off to read that last part of the Heartstone - the latest book in the Matthew Shardlake series.

[SuperMikey]

Dog Soldiers - Robert Stone

 

No, not the Neil Marshall film. Very good novel based around drug smuggling during the Vietnam war.

Bit of a shame that not more of the book revolved around Vietnam itself, and the story went a bit flatter when it switched back to the US. Still, I enjoyed it very much and would recommend it.

 

Up next: For Whom The Bell Tolls - Ernest Hemingway.

[Hamilton Saint]

Dog Soldiers - Robert Stone

 

No, not the Neil Marshall film. Very good novel based around drug smuggling during the Vietnam war.

Bit of a shame that not more of the book revolved around Vietnam itself, and the story went a bit flatter when it switched back to the US. Still, I enjoyed it very much and would recommend it.

 

Up next: For Whom The Bell Tolls - Ernest Hemingway.

 

Great book! I read it again in Cuba in March. When you've finished it watch the 1940s film version starring Gary Cooper and Ingrid Bergman. Cooper became a good friend of Hemingway.

[Hamilton Saint]

All true. And all so obviously true that I'm surprised that didn't think that you must have missed my point. Sorry, perhaps I could have been clearer. Intolerance for others' beliefs, total and absolute faith(*) in his own beliefs(*), anger and perhaps even hatred were the parallels I could see between Condell and a suicide bomber recoding his last message. Not his clothing, weapon or the choice of dual-purpose technology he uses to keep his trousers up.

 

 

 

I'm afraid you're taking me too literally Hamilton Saint.

 

See my previous post - I used the term Fundamentalist because when placing it next to Atheist it's oxymoronic. I meant it to be discordant and to challenge a keen eye - and it did.

 

But now that we agree that I'm using the term outside of its literal meaning, I still see parallels, not equivalence, between your religious fundamentalists and my "Fundamentalist Atheists"(*).

 

I'll stretch you're definition to suggest that Fundamentalism is about not straying from a core set of beliefs or principles (your definition is more accurately Religious Fundamentalism to my mind). For such a fundamentalist, certain central tenets of their world view are not up to be challenged. They are immutable.

 

To my mind, these Fundamentalist Atheists also hold their scientific facts as immutable. Their total faith(*) in their own scientific view of the world and the aggression and the anger with which they attack others' beliefs that do not conform to their science-derived world view, shows fundamentalist traits IMO.

 

And I don't have a problem with his aggressive style. As I think I said above I think it's a brilliant monologue and he's arguing my case. I am an atheist but I'm a live-and-let-live-atheist

 

(*) I'm using these terms to be intentionally provocative

 

A good debate and perhaps one that we won't agree on. Perhaps we can continue it on another thread or via PM?

 

Well back on topic and I'm off to read that last part of the Heartstone - the latest book in the Matthew Shardlake series.

 

Fair enough. My last word on this topic: I also consider myself a "live-and-let-live-atheist" . But fundamentalist religion (especially the "Bible belt" variety found in the US and the "jihadist" type of Islam) does get me going. I did a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies at university, so I certainly respect people's beliefs and faith - but religious extremism does need to be recognised and condemned.

 

One can understand the scientist's dismay with the sort of religious fundamentalism that rejects obvious scientific fact (creationism, for example). And science, furthermore, does recognise that new theories and new evidence arise to challenge previous understandings.

 

I consider science and religion two distinct versions of reality. When "religious" people deny scientific truth, or scientists deny that human experience contains other "realities" than scientific truth, I think of it as a "category mistake". Often, the so-called conflict between science and religion is based on this failure to recognise that category mistake. Two ways of experiencing the world that should not be confused or conflated.

[saintbletch]

Fair enough. My last word on this topic: I also consider myself a "live-and-let-live-atheist" . But fundamentalist religion (especially the "Bible belt" variety found in the US and the "jihadist" type of Islam) does get me going. I did a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies at university, so I certainly respect people's beliefs and faith - but religious extremism does need to be recognised and condemned.

 

One can understand the scientist's dismay with the sort of religious fundamentalism that rejects obvious scientific fact (creationism, for example). And science, furthermore, does recognise that new theories and new evidence arise to challenge previous understandings.

 

I consider science and religion two distinct versions of reality. When "religious" people deny scientific truth, or scientists deny that human experience contains other "realities" than scientific truth, I think of it as a "category mistake". Often, the so-called conflict between science and religion is based on this failure to recognise that category mistake. Two ways of experiencing the world that should not be confused or conflated.

 

Amen to all that.

[revolution saint]

I bought Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier today. Never read anything of hers before. Hard to believe it wasn't available to download but it did give me an excuse to use up a voucher I'd got for Christmas.

[revolution saint]

Just finished "Innocent man" by John Grisham. It's a non fiction account of two people framed for rape and murder in small town America. I've never read Grisham before but as this was non-fiction thought I'd give it a try. Thoroughly gripping and amazing that this kind of miscarriage of justice can occur, well worth a read.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm half way through 'Agincourt' by Juliet Barker - and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to any reader with even the remotest interest in English history. This superbly researched book is much more than a dry account of the battle itself but rather a glimpse into that lost medieval world of chivalric ideals and how they become mixed up with a level of brutality that reminds the reader of the harsh realities of medieval warfare.

 

I was fascinated to read that after the fall of Harfleur a French knight was captured by Henry V and because we were rather busy at the time he was released with instructions to turn up at Calais months later so that a hefty ransom could be extracted from his family - and he did just that. Can you imagine that happening today?

 

That Lancastrian powerhouse Henry V comes across as almost the model of what the wise enlightened medieval King could/should be (by the standards of the day anyway) and it's almost impossible not to end up convinced of the justice of his cause and rooting for the success of his campaign. I know how this story ends but still I can hardly put it down anyway !

 

1415 - so much more than a quarter past two.

Edited 9 August, 2011 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[miserableoldgit]

Empire of the Summer Moon - Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanche Tribe. A superb read if you are remotely interested in the subject of American history.

[dinger]

The Map That Changed the World, by Simon Winchester. The story of William Smith, who in the late 18th century was the first to recognise the significance of what we now know as strata, single-handedly created a geological map of England and essentially founded the science of Geology.

[Durleyfos]

Keith Moon's Biography.

 

Moon the Loon is a very fitting nickname!

[SuperMikey]

Halfway through Keith Richards' autobiography. F*ck me! How is he still alive?

[saintbletch]

Just finished Great Expectations by Dickens. Never read it before and thoroughly enjoyed it. Great language and character development but probably about 30% too long. He'll have to try harder if he's going to make it as an author!

 

Now reading Sentry by Robert Crais the latest Elvis Cole/Joe Pike novel. Good, non-taxing police procedural fiction.

[Suhari]

Well if you like your apocalypse with a bit of wry humour, and to help you get over "The Road", try "The Gone Away World" the debut novel by Nick Harkaway (His father is John LeCarre).

 

It's totally weird - but in a good way - in a Douglas Adams sort of good way. It's a stream of conciousness that flits from past, to current, to past with some of the most creative plot and narrative ideas I've seen in a long time.

 

I couldn't put it down.

 

Made this my holiday read. Brilliant book: imaginative, funny and with a great twist.

[Danny R]

Half way through Cock and Bull by Will Self. I need a dictionary but is a good read. However, I have got some strange looks from people reading over my shoulder! I tried to read book of Dave on holiday but my head nearly exploded. I'll tackle again...one day.

 

Changing the subject...does anyone else hate Douglas Coupland's characters? are you supoosed too? I like the books but they just need to stop whining.

[Ludwig]

Fair enough. My last word on this topic: I also consider myself a "live-and-let-live-atheist" . But fundamentalist religion (especially the "Bible belt" variety found in the US and the "jihadist" type of Islam) does get me going. I did a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies at university, so I certainly respect people's beliefs and faith - but religious extremism does need to be recognised and condemned.

 

One can understand the scientist's dismay with the sort of religious fundamentalism that rejects obvious scientific fact (creationism, for example). And science, furthermore, does recognise that new theories and new evidence arise to challenge previous understandings.

 

I consider science and religion two distinct versions of reality. When "religious" people deny scientific truth, or scientists deny that human experience contains other "realities" than scientific truth, I think of it as a "category mistake". Often, the so-called conflict between science and religion is based on this failure to recognise that category mistake. Two ways of experiencing the world that should not be confused or conflated.

 

The problem comes when we consider physics to be our metaphysics. To claim that science irrefutably demonstrates 'what there is', would lead to the scientist being right in attacking the religious 'way of viewing reality' (for if we know what reality is ('what there is') and can show it to be incompatible with what another claims it is, then we can dispense with that view). Unfortunately, the scientific method can bear little claim to irrefutable proof, though this doesn't seem to stop many people believing that it does and making fallacious dispensations of the claims of religion.

[ecuk268]

Schrodinger's Kittens : And the Search For Reality

 

Mind-stretching stuff about quantum physics.

 

Does a reasonable job in putting it in terms that a thicko like me can understand.

[Durleyfos]

Just finished Great Expectations by Dickens. Never read it before and thoroughly enjoyed it. Great language and character development but probably about 30% too long. He'll have to try harder if he's going to make it as an author!

 

Now reading Sentry by Robert Crais the latest Elvis Cole/Joe Pike novel. Good, non-taxing police procedural fiction.

 

I've read a couple of these books, good bedtime reading!

[Mattio]

Moon Over Soho by Ben Aaronovich

[HK_Phoey]

I'm half way through 'Agincourt' by Juliet Barker - and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to any reader with even the remotest interest in English history. This superbly researched book is much more than a dry account of the battle itself but rather a glimpse into that lost medieval world of chivalric ideals and how they become mixed up with a level of brutality that reminds the reader of the harsh realities of medieval warfare.

 

Thanks will take that recommendation.

 

Let me return the favor. I have just finished A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the forging of Britain by Marc Morris. another excellently researched account of Edward I life and the wars against the Scots and the Welsh.

 

I am now reading the Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval Britain: A handbook for visitors to the 14th Century by Ian Mortimer. It is written in the way of a travel guide and is an excellent insight into how people lived in the 14th Century. where they lived, what they ate and drank, health, how they traveled, where they stayed and how they entertained themselves. Finding it truly fascinating

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm half way through 'Agincourt' by Juliet Barker - and I can wholeheartedly recommend it to any reader with even the remotest interest in English history. This superbly researched book is much more than a dry account of the battle itself but rather a glimpse into that lost medieval world of chivalric ideals and how they become mixed up with a level of brutality that reminds the reader of the harsh realities of medieval warfare.

 

Thanks will take that recommendation.

 

Let me return the favor. I have just finished A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the forging of Britain by Marc Morris. another excellently researched account of Edward I life and the wars against the Scots and the Welsh.

 

I am now reading the Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval Britain: A handbook for visitors to the 14th Century by Ian Mortimer. It is written in the way of a travel guide and is an excellent insight into how people lived in the 14th Century. where they lived, what they ate and drank, health, how they traveled, where they stayed and how they entertained themselves. Finding it truly fascinating

 

Funnily enough, although I have yet to start on it, my copy of 'A Great and Terrible King' arrived in the post only yesterday - clearly a case of great minds (or not-so-great in my case) thinking alike. Really getting into medieval history now (I blame Simon Schama) and I may well seek out your Time Traveller's Guide' as well. Please let me know what you think of 'Agincourt' - I loved it.

 

PS - does anybody know where the exact site of Southampton Castle is located ?

[HK_Phoey]

 

Funnily enough, although I have yet to start on it, my copy of 'A Great and Terrible King' arrived in the post only yesterday - clearly a case of great minds (or not-so-great in my case) thinking alike. Really getting into medieval history now (I blame Simon Schama) and I may well seek out your Time Traveller's Guide' as well. Please let me know what you think of 'Agincourt' - I loved it.

 

PS - does anybody know where the exact site of Southampton Castle is located ?

 

OK Agincourt ordered from Amazon today, will probably take a few weeks to get here. I love all historical books not just the Medieval History (blame my History teacher, although Schama has not helped either). One of the most interesting books I have read in the last couple of years was The Times Great Lives, 20th Century Obituaries. Sounds a bit morbid but found it really interesting to be reading about Coco Chanel along side Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. I have the Great Vistorian Lives to move onto next, more obituaries from the Times. Will definitaly let you know how I get on with Agincourt. Please also feel free to PM me with other good historical reads you come across.

[ecuk268]

Just got Agincourt from the library and enjoyed what I've read so far.

 

Also reserved the new Stephen King. 11.23.63 about the JFK assassination.

[saintbletch]

I really enjoy this forum when there is more traffic on the 'what are you reading' thread so in an effort to get some more discussions going...

 

Made this my holiday read. Brilliant book: imaginative, funny and with a great twist.

 

Brilliant indeed Suhari. I keep trawling the author's web site looking for a follow-up but in vain. He's a prolific blogger and twitterer(?) and about 9 months or so ago I'm sure I read that he'd handed in a draft of the second book manuscript. But I've not seen anything concrete since. Not sure how you can really follow-up a first novel like that.

 

Best debut novel you've read, anyone?

 

Half way through Cock and Bull by Will Self. I need a dictionary but is a good read. However, I have got some strange looks from people reading over my shoulder! I tried to read book of Dave on holiday but my head nearly exploded. I'll tackle again...one day..

 

Cock and Bull is on my long to-read list but I only read on my Kindle now and as Cock and Bull isn't available I'll either have to wait or go back to the paper world. I've never worked out whether Will Self is brilliant or, somewhere far short of that. I've read The Butt and was struck by how he manages to disorientate you by painting a world that is so similar to the world in which we live but subtlely different enough to make you feel uncomfortable about the assumptions you've made. It permanently keeps you off guard. Clever. I think.

 

Best Dystopian, alternative reality books, anyone?

 

Schrodinger's Kittens : And the Search For Reality

 

Mind-stretching stuff about quantum physics.

 

Does a reasonable job in putting it in terms that a thicko like me can understand.

 

This got a mention lower down in the thread and I really enjoyed it. I don't have the type of brain that easily accommodates weird concepts like this but it fascinates me. So over the years I've masochistically read lots of books on the subject. As I said below Schrodinger's Kittens and QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman have both done a great job in firing my imagination and explaining complex concepts.

 

I have to say that whilst reading Schrodinger's Kittens and whilst contemplating the unbelievable behaviour of electrons it did make me wonder for the first time in many years about the existence of a God. A very spiritual read (for me).

 

I'd also add Simon Singh's Fermat's Last Theorem to my list of books that made complex subjects accessible.

 

Great books that made complex subjects accessible, anyone?

 

I've read a couple of these books, good bedtime reading!

 

I used to be very snobbish about the types of books I read. I considered 'cop fiction' a little demeaning for fictional literature and indeed literature in general. I was wrong.

 

I heard Robert Crais interviewed on Radio 5's old Simon Mayo Book Review program a few years back and I thought I'd give it a go and now I'm hooked. Good bedtime reading as you say Durleyfos.

 

I still like to weave some 'proper' literature into my reading fix but I read a lot of this sort of book. I actually like to read series from start to finish. So off the top of my head I've read all of the series from the following authors.

 

Robert Crais - Elvis Cole/Joe Pike

Lee Child - Jack Reacher

Stuart MacBride - Logan McRae

Peter James - Roy Grace

Harlan Coben - Myron Bolitar (only read the for 3 or 4 - not completely sure about them)

C J Sansom - Matthew Shardlake (Brilliant historical fiction a recommendation from here)

Rory Clements - John Shakespeare (just started)

 

Best investigator / legal / police procedural series you're read, anyone?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

As for crime fiction (if I ignore my deep and long lasting admiration for the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) I rather like Ian Rankin's well known 'Rebus' novels - he's a hard drinking cop who breaks all the rules and is constantly in trouble with his superiors.

 

Aren't they all I hear you say.

[revolution saint]

Personally I find Dennis Lehane's books are very good. I read Mystic River and then the Kenzie & Gennaro series. He's got a good pedigree as well having written a few "Wire" episodes. Oh and also Shutter Island which was a bit of a departure for him but a much better book than the film.

[saintbletch]

Personally I find Dennis Lehane's books are very good. I read Mystic River and then the Kenzie & Gennaro series. He's got a good pedigree as well having written a few "Wire" episodes. Oh and also Shutter Island which was a bit of a departure for him but a much better book than the film.

 

I agree revolution saint. I read The Given Day by Dennis Lehane a few years ago and thought it was a wonderful read. It's set against the Boston Police Dept. strike around about the time of prohibition and tells the story of the struggle within the Police Commissioner's family when his son (also in the police) becomes a union organiser. Powerful, emotional stuff. I must go back and read some of his earlier stuff.

 

Is the Kenzie & Gennaro series good?

 

Mystic River is a stunning film, I wonder if I could read the book after enjoying the film so?

 

As for crime fiction (if I ignore my deep and long lasting admiration for the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) I rather like Ian Rankin's well known 'Rebus' novels - he's a hard drinking cop who breaks all the rules and is constantly in trouble with his superiors.

 

Aren't they all I hear you say.

 

Absolutely right re Conan Doyle Chapel End Charlie. Have you seen the recent BBC re-imagining of Sherlock Holmes. I actually quite like it.

 

Re Rebus, I think because it was on the TV I sort of dismissed it as I've got images of the actors in my mind. But he is very popular. Perhaps I'll try one and see how I get on. Didn't I see that Rebus has now retired? I bought my Mum the latest from Ian Rankin a couple of years ago and he had moved on to write about the Police internal investigations but Rebus was not part of that series. She is a real fan and wasn't best pleased.

 

I can highly recommend Stuart MacBride's series about Aberdeen-based policeman Logan McRae. Very, very dark but very funny. The dialogue is wonderful. Very blue, very creative workplace humour. He has two bosses; a fat, sweet eating male superior who never stops shouting and a complete ***** of a lesbian who gets him to do all the work and has some of the best lines written for her I've ever read. Her language would make you blush.

[pap]

As for crime fiction (if I ignore my deep and long lasting admiration for the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) I rather like Ian Rankin's well known 'Rebus' novels - he's a hard drinking cop who breaks all the rules and is constantly in trouble with his superiors.

 

Aren't they all I hear you say.

 

I would second this. Good characters, decent mysteries and satisfying conclusions. Has a Scottish version of Moriarty too, which is cool.

[bridge too far]

I would second this. Good characters, decent mysteries and satisfying conclusions. Has a Scottish version of Moriarty too, which is cool.

 

I like Rankin too. I think I've read all the Rebus novels published so far.

 

Currently working my way through Tony Parsons (Man and Boy etc.)

[saintbletch]

I would second this. Good characters, decent mysteries and satisfying conclusions. Has a Scottish version of Moriarty too, which is cool.

 

I like Rankin too. I think I've read all the Rebus novels published so far.

 

When does anecdotal become a trend? OK, OK, it sounds like Rankin has to be on the list.

 

Currently working my way through Tony Parsons (Man and Boy etc.)

 

I had a problem with Tony Parsons. I really enjoyed two of his books. Man & Boy and Man & Wife. Anyway, I also used to read his column in the Daily Mirror (when it was a good newspaper) and then he wrote this about John Peel. And I decided I'd ignore him from then.

 

A petty and classless 'tribute' to a great bloke.

 

That said the two books I read are very good. He's unusually in touch with his emotions for a male author.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Although I like to give the impression of being a well read and sophisticated reader, I feel its about time I came clean and confessed to my literary sins. The truth is that in my youth I was a huge fan of the Danish writer Sven Hassel's war novels, indeed during my late teens I read little else.

To those unfamiliar with this writer these books record the (semi-fictional) misadventures of a small group of German soldiers serving in a penal regiment. Told in the first person by 'Sven' (who you can readily tell did actually serve in the German Army during WWII) the memorable 'cast' he assembled for the delight of his readership lives with be still:

 

Porta - The central personalty in many ways, this crooked corporal was always ready with a pair of pliers for pulling gold fillings from the teeth of the dead. He saw no reason why war should be any more dangerous, uncomfortable, or unprofitable than was absolutely necessary.

Tiny (AKA Little John) - A enormous psychotic bear of a man it was best to not to annoy - Porta's chief partner-in-crime. Like his mate best kept away from brothels .....

The Old Man - The veteran sergeant and family man who somehow managed against all the odds to keep most of this motley crew alive and away from the firing squad. The only thing left that could really upset him was the killing of children.

The Legionnaire - A experienced ex French Foreign Legion killer with a fatalistic attitude, "Allah is wise" was his usual response to almost anything.

Heide - The only real Nazi in this squad of misfits and hated by all.

Barcelona - Formally a officers batman who has now fallen on hard times. Always ready with a hilarious tale of his time serving a eccentric Prussian General.

Sven - A lazy incompetent soldier ridiculed for being a foreigner stupid enough to volunteer for the German Army. Lumbered with carting around a heavy machine gun.

The 'Stabs Feldwebel' - Porta's enemy. Corrupt, bureaucratic, and utterly self serving, he made damn sure he was well away from the front line at all times.

 

Cynical, humane, sometimes hilariously funny, very often extremely brutal, these books are most definitely not for the squeamish. Although he has his imitators, I don't think I've ever read anything quite like them.

OGPU Prision, SS General, Legion of the Damned, Blitzfreeze, March Battalion ..... it's all coming back to me now as if I read them yesterday rather than 30 years ago. Are these books the cheap & trashy war 'pulp' they appear to be, or profoundly powerful anti war literature ?

Buggered if I know, but I can tell one thing - they do leave an impression on a lad.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Only read books on holiday and just finished my normal 4 in the 2 weeks I'm away.

 

Great book was "Bill Graham Presents; my life inside rock and out". Born a Jew in Germany he was smuggled out of France to the US, the book takes us from him being a orphan immigrant to becoming the foremost Rock promoter by the time of the helecopter crash that killed him. Through the 60's and Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and the Doors. 70's with the stones, Led Zep (who come across as complete ******s) Dylan, The who ,the Last Waltz and punk rock. Live aid and U2 came later, it's really a who's who of the history off rock and roll.

 

It really is a "warts and all" account as Graham seems to fall out with loads of stars, and some speak ill of him (the book is quite strange in that the story is told in interviews from the people who were there at the time, as well as Graham's accounts).

 

It has everything from the Nazi's killing his family, to trying to run business whilst standing up to Hell's Angels, Police chiefs and some of the biggest stars that have ever walked the planet, I found it a great read.

 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bill-Graham-Presents-Life-Inside/dp/0306813491

[Seaford Saint]

Fair enough. My last word on this topic: I also consider myself a "live-and-let-live-atheist" . But fundamentalist religion (especially the "Bible belt" variety found in the US and the "jihadist" type of Islam) does get me going. I did a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies at university, so I certainly respect people's beliefs and faith - but religious extremism does need to be recognised and condemned.

 

One can understand the scientist's dismay with the sort of religious fundamentalism that rejects obvious scientific fact (creationism, for example). And science, furthermore, does recognise that new theories and new evidence arise to challenge previous understandings.

 

I consider science and religion two distinct versions of reality. When "religious" people deny scientific truth, or scientists deny that human experience contains other "realities" than scientific truth, I think of it as a "category mistake". Often, the so-called conflict between science and religion is based on this failure to recognise that category mistake. Two ways of experiencing the world that should not be confused or conflated.

 

I did not realise that you also have a degree in Philosophy...I also studied religion within my degree too. Uncanny. Oh and I am just reading B B King's autobiography, a book by B B King

[Pugwash]

Sven Hassel's war novels....

 

Cynical, humane, sometimes hilariously funny, very often extremely brutal, these books are most definitely not for the squeamish. Although he has his imitators, I don't think I've ever read anything quite like them.

OGPU Prision, SS General, Legion of the Damned, Blitzfreeze, March Battalion ..... it's all coming back to me now as if I read them yesterday rather than 30 years ago. Are these books the cheap & trashy war 'pulp' they appear to be, or profoundly powerful anti war literature ?

Buggered if I know, but I can tell one thing - they do leave an impression on a lad.

 

I'd forgotten these. I too enjoyed them in my teens. Didn't Legion of the Damned win some award in the sixties?

[LVSaint]

Just started Deadwood by Pete Dexter after still having very strong withdrawal symptoms from the superb HBO series (and recent Black Hills trip)

[Durleyfos]

I still like to weave some 'proper' literature into my reading fix but I read a lot of this sort of book. I actually like to read series from start to finish. So off the top of my head I've read all of the series from the following authors.

 

Lee Child - Jack Reacher

 

As you have read the books, you will be aware that Jack Reacher is a big, tall, heavily built ex military policeman.

 

I read yesterday that a film is going to be made from one of the books (I can't remember which one)

 

Who do you think they cast as Jack Reacher?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Cruise!

 

FFS.

[saintbletch]

As you have read the books, you will be aware that Jack Reacher is a big, tall, heavily built ex military policeman.

 

I read yesterday that a film is going to be made from one of the books (I can't remember which one)

 

Who do you think they cast as Jack Reacher?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Cruise!

 

FFS.

 

Yes I saw that Durleyfos. Utter madness.

 

Lee Child describes Reacher as 6' 5" and 225-250lb.

 

His size is absolutely central to the allure of the books and the credibility of the plot in my opinion. You imagine him as invincible. He never loses a fight which stretches credibility as it is but without his size then it's just unbelievable.

 

Tom Cruise is tiny, he'd be too short to play Bergerac let alone Reacher. Even in his Cuban heels. And his whiny high-pitched voice is too annoying. Mind you as Child's favourite line is "Reacher said nothing" then perhaps that won't be a problem.

 

Actors that could carry off Jack Reacher's size / loner personality.

- Idris Elba (my choice - setting aside the colour of his skin)

- Gerard Butler

- Joe Manganiello

- Verne Troyer?