Books: Last Book You Read and Rate It

[sr edler]

It always had the reputation of being unreadable. I don't know a single guy who finished it and I studied English literature and culture (this includes American studies). I think I gave up after about 300 pages. It didn't help that I knew the philosophy behind it.

It's not really unreadable in a way that it's hard to understand, or that it's confusing. It just drags. I think the parts that work best are some of the mystery genre stuff. I made fun of it in my review, with the plane chase, but I think that's actually some of the stuff that works to a degree.

For instance there's a scene where the protagonist (Dagny) is sitting outside of an office where the (perceived) bad guy is talking to someone, and she doesn't move in on him although the door is unlocked, and then he moves out of the back door. It's not like it's brilliant or anything, but at least there's something to it that's not terrible. It's a little film noir, I guess.

I also liked how she used the dollar sign on the cigarettes, because it reminded me of the Cigars of the Pharaoh album by Hergé. I wonder if she just ripped that off completely. You know how they say "good artists borrow, great artists steal." Perhaps that's really the problem with this whole book, that it's not enough stealing from great art and way too much personal rambling from the author herself.

As for the whole politics/philosophy thing, yeah, it kinda is what it is. I never arrived at that long famous broadcast/speech somewhere towards the end of it, but it's really pretty clear anyways already prior to that what it's all about. It's not really a subtle book where you have to read much between the lines.

 

[sr edler]

@Eisen

Regarding the politics/philosophy part of it too, I'm also confused as to why the author has gotten such a reputation as a "conservative" as it's pretty clear she's just more of a liberal capitalist, and is intensely popular among liberal globalists (such as Johan Norberg and the like).

I've no idea for instance why say the religious right in the US would like Rand since she wasn't religious and was pro abortion, and didn't like children or the idea of the nuclear family. That's one thing that's very apparent with Atlas Shrugged, that there's no children in the book, despite its 1100+ pages. It's just a bunch of boring adults.

 

[Eisen]

@Eisen

Regarding the politics/philosophy part of it too, I'm also confused as to why the author has gotten such a reputation as a "conservative" as it's pretty clear she's just more of a liberal capitalist, and is intensely popular among liberal globalists (such as Johan Norberg and the like).

I've no idea for instance why say the religious right in the US would like Rand since she wasn't religious and was pro abortion, and didn't like children or the idea of the nuclear family. That's one thing that's very apparent with Atlas Shrugged, that there's no children in the book, despite its 1100+ pages. It's just a bunch of boring adults.

I'm usually not a big fan of children, let alone child protagonists, in books (or shows). Teenies I sort of understand but children (in books) always use sledgehammer virtues, metaphors etc.
And yeah, not conservative, just market fundamentalist. That's not the same.

 

[Eisen]

It's not really unreadable in a way that it's hard to understand, or that it's confusing. It just drags. I think the parts that work best are some of the mystery genre stuff. I made fun of it in my review, with the plane chase, but I think that's actually some of the stuff that works to a degree.

For instance there's a scene where the protagonist (Dagny) is sitting outside of an office where the (perceived) bad guy is talking to someone, and she doesn't move in on him although the door is unlocked, and then he moves out of the back door. It's not like it's brilliant or anything, but at least there's something to it that's not terrible. It's a little film noir, I guess.

I also liked how she used the dollar sign on the cigarettes, because it reminded me of the Cigars of the Pharaoh album by Hergé. I wonder if she just ripped that off completely. You know how they say "good artists borrow, great artists steal." Perhaps that's really the problem with this whole book, that it's not enough stealing from great art and way too much personal rambling from the author herself.

As for the whole politics/philosophy thing, yeah, it kinda is what it is. I never arrived at that long famous broadcast/speech somewhere towards the end of it, but it's really pretty clear anyways already prior to that what it's all about. It's not really a subtle book where you have to read much between the lines.

Indeed, from what I read not hard, just boring. In that way, it reminded me of Middlemarch. Not hard, just so tedious and not interesting.
I know that quote and I mostly agree. Reading excerpts and the first 300 or so pages, yeah, she tries to push her message and it's not very artistic. There are many who have one book in them because they have one story to tell, mostly their's. Great artists have many differing convincing point of views. If not convincing, they at least have good arguments. From the limited things I know about Rand, she doesn't. I honestly can't tell why it's successful, it's like masturbating with a cheese grate (like Middlemarch). Ok, I can tell why, it promotes individualism and cut throat capitalism, a message that modern Western society is build upon. But now it's getting political.

 

[sr edler]

I'm usually not a big fan of children, let alone child protagonists, in books (or shows). Teenies I sort of understand but children (in books) always use sledgehammer virtues, metaphors etc. With the rest I agree.

Yeah, but I didn't mean children as in a participating role, I just meant overall there's simply no children in the book, even in the background.

 

[Eisen]

Yeah, but I didn't mean children as in a participating role, I just meant overall there's simply no children in the book, even in the background.

Perhaps children have too many intrinsic morals for her message.

 

[sr edler]

Indeed, from what I read not hard, just boring. In that way, it reminded me of Middlemarch. Not hard, just so tedious and not interesting.

I have not read Middlemarch, but sometimes I'm interested in reading books, or testing books, just to get a general feel from it, to better understand what it's about, or just from a technical/writing perspective.

After reading Atlas Shrugged (or most of it) I had some middling interest in trying out Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard, which is another bloated work (1000+ pages) from an aging individual with a large cult following, just to see if it's really as bad as its reputation. But I don't want to buy the book, and it's really hard to get a hold on from the libraries here where I live, so it hasn't happened yet. And I also don't think I would finish it anyways. I don't even like science fiction that much.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Read mostly short stories and the odd novel during my forced exile (I really need to stop giving cheap fools the time of day) so I'll make it short:

Alice Munro is great at her best and tedious at her worst, Nabokov has some of the best passages of all-time when he lets himself go, Drive from James Sallis is not the work of a technician but has made me want to give up classics for a while after six years of dedication - I would welcome fast-paced, accessible crime books as a suggestion from the regulars - and David Foster Wallace got ruined by his intellectualism and relatability instead of betting on his humor.

 

[sr edler]

The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark (1995) by Charles E. Sellier & David W. Balsiger – 2.5/5

I picked up this book for free at my former work place, where they had shelves with discarded books, and then read it/skimmed it on a train ride from Gothenburg. From what I understand this book is based on an early 90s television documentary, that's why it says "AS SEEN ON TV!" on the front cover.

The premise of this book is that they've (allegedly, I guess) found Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat in the Armenian Highlands.

Although this book is based on a religious premise, the greater feeling of the book is that of a travel expedition. I think the strongest chapter of the book is the one where the author is chronicling the geopolitical disputes between the different groups in the region (Turks, Kurds, Armenians) with the mountain as a backdrop or stage.

Some of the other stuff is perhaps a bit 'out there', but sometimes surprisingly entertaining.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Oh, and never, ever read Balzac should you not desire death by boredom. Woof!

 

[Thucydides]

Read mostly short stories and the odd novel during my forced exile (I really need to stop giving cheap fools the time of day) so I'll make it short:

Alice Munro is great at her best and tedious at her worst, Nabokov has some of the best passages of all-time when he lets himself go, Drive from James Sallis is not the work of a technician but has made me want to give up classics for a while after six years of dedication - I would welcome fast-paced, accessible crime books as a suggestion from the regulars - and David Foster Wallace got ruined by his intellectualism and relatability instead of betting on his humor.

have you read any Don Winslow ? If not check out his book “the force”. Great , fast paced book about corrupt cops. Couldn’t put it down!

 

[Spring in Fialta]

have you read any Don Winslow ? If not check out his book “the force”. Great , fast paced book about corrupt cops. Couldn’t put it down!

Thanks friend! No I have not. I've seen a couple of regulars here speak highly of him so I'll def pick up your recommendation.

 

[Thucydides]

Read this over the weekend. Enjoyed it . Very well written . Dorian Gray wishes for eternal youth & gets it . A good book about the downfalls when one chases after only pleasure .

8/10

 

[Thucydides]

The Vikings discover North America (nfld) short book , but interesting .

8.5/10

 

[heatnikki]

The Phantom Tollbooth, absolutely loved it. I'm writing an essay about this book. I found writing service here to write my essay for me. These guys are professionals in writing and proofreading. I often use their help when I want to get good grades and save my time.

 

[Babe Ruth]

Released in 2010, but probably the best book I've read in 2021.
Historical fiction, centered around the real historical figure, Luis De Santangel. De Santangel was a Jewish converso, employed by the Spanish monarchs.. who helped to personally underwrite Columbus' first voyage.
In this story, De Santangel is shown trying to survive the Spanish Inquisition.. his personal relationships and suffering, with Columbus working to launch his first trip as backdrop. Pretty intense and sympathetic tale. Very well written, and (impressively) I think this was Kaplan's first book..

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee (1999) - It's a good and very readable book and written by an obviously thoughtful man, but his artistic instincts don't do much for me. The two big gripes is that he abuses the rhetorical question and that for a such a character-driven story, he gets boned by the fact that one of his more peripheral characters (the black farmer Petrus) is the one who is - by far - the most intriguing, but he largely takes a backseat to his main character, David Lurie. Furthermore, Lurie's more interesting qualities (a smart man struggling to change his ways and who questions the worth of doing so at his age) are contrasted with South Africa's peculiar history to lesser, almost privileged effect. With that said, I think Coetzee obviously achieved what he was going for, but I think he's more intelligent than he is artistically inclined (to be fair, Disgrace is the only work of his that I've read). Better and more compact than I remembered it, but I think my gripe as a reader is that what he's more interested in within the story is what interests me a little less, and what I'm more interested in is what he rightfully pinpoints but doesn't focus on as much I would have liked. One of those books where I think more pages would have helped for what he was tackling. Still, its appeal is obvious. I just think it's not really a book for readers who are maybe a bit more of aesthetes than he appears to be. Disgrace just isn't stylistic enough for my tastes. But then again, if there's one country in the 20th century where it might be hard for an artist not to have political/societal inclinations, South Africa might be at the top of the list or damn near.

 

[Thucydides]

Montaigne and his essays were great company over the last two months .

Montaigne retired to his country house in France and devoted himself to reading, thinking and writing . Primarily he studied himself, and in doing so, he studied the inner workings of what it means to be a human being . His essays cover everything from cannibals, educating children, the length of life, anger, revenge, and how to die.

An enlightening read.

5/5

 

[ItsFineImFine]

The Price of Tomorrow (2020) by Jeff Booth - We're f***ed but hey someone will get rich at least. The coverage of AI is quite superficial, the inflation related section is a nice little primer but he skits mentioning bitcoin vs fiat.

Sad Cypress, Hercule Poirot #23 (1940) by Agatha Christie - Solid Christie novel with maybe not enough suspects but a well done murder and a nice trial inside as well which we don't generally get in her books.

Appointment with Death, Hercule Poirot #20 (1938) by Agatha Christie - Another solid Christie novel which takes a bit too long to get going. The final chapters are slightly frustrating as Poirot enjoys basically seating everyone down and going around how each of them might have committed the murder which he often does but he really milks it here.

 

[Thucydides]

The way the author can link trauma to many of our societal issues is mind blowing .

A great psychology book, that is both interesting and speaks to the layman. It’s not written in an academic manner, so is interesting and thought provoking throughout .

anyone interested in mental health, PTSD, trauma, or just in the human condition would get a lot out of this book.

my first and likely favourite book of the year.

5/5

 

[sdf]

Lolita

Since this novel is regarded very highly, I can assume that the characters and dialogues is pretty correct in the way that this novel feels as if its author pretty much could be some American or British, without any Russian origin. This is something that is completely impossible in the opposite direction. When I try to imagine some Western writer who, even if he has reached a fairly good level of the Russian language, is trying to reproduce in his book some situations and characters in Russia, so that it would be without any ridiculous, lame moments, i'm simply fail to do so.

Clare Quilty is funny dude

 

[Pink Mist]

Lolita

Since this novel is regarded very highly, I can assume that the characters and dialogues is pretty correct in the way that this novel feels as if its author pretty much could be some American or British, without any Russian origin. This is something that is completely impossible in the opposite direction. When I try to imagine some Western writer who, even if he has reached a fairly good level of the Russian language, is trying to reproduce in his book some situations and characters in Russia, so that it would be without any ridiculous, lame moments, i'm simply fail to do so.

Clare Quilty is funny dude

Nabokov's English vocabulary and talent for writing in English is far superior to most writers in the English language. Though to be fair, he was first schooled in and exposed to English at a young age before he truly learned to write in Russian at school, since like many aristocratic families his family were cosmopolitan (he also was fluent in French). Still remarkable though.

Joseph Conrad is another author where it is amazing that English was their second language.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Nabokov's English vocabulary and talent for writing in English is far superior to most writers in the English language. Though to be fair, he was first schooled in and exposed to English at a young age before he truly learned to write in Russian at school, since like many aristocratic families his family were cosmopolitan (he also was fluent in French). Still remarkable though.

Joseph Conrad is another author where it is amazing that English was their second language.

I always loved this Nabokov quip: 'I am too old to change Conradically.'

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Lolita

Since this novel is regarded very highly, I can assume that the characters and dialogues is pretty correct in the way that this novel feels as if its author pretty much could be some American or British, without any Russian origin. This is something that is completely impossible in the opposite direction. When I try to imagine some Western writer who, even if he has reached a fairly good level of the Russian language, is trying to reproduce in his book some situations and characters in Russia, so that it would be without any ridiculous, lame moments, i'm simply fail to do so.

Clare Quilty is funny dude

I enjoy Lolita (though I prefer the 1962 film as a work of art) and it has some really electric moments, but I'm one of those (though not sure how common they are) who prefers a number of his other stuff. The one crazy thing about him is how much he gamed his own Russian art when he became famous. If you ever pick up an English translation of his Russian novels, you're not actually reading what Nabokov wrote, in say, 1936. You're reading Nabokov, at the peak of his powers in the fifties and sixties, going back and rewriting his books (some with radical changes) based on 'his present use of English'. I mean, fair game to him, it's his art, but part of me feels it is a loss that readers don't get to read where he was at in his younger years, as opposed to him taking over and placing everything at where his sensibilities were at after he became famous in late middle-age.

 

[sdf]

I enjoy Lolita (though I prefer the 1962 film as a work of art) and it has some really electric moments, but I'm one of those (though not sure how common they are) who prefers a number of his other stuff. The one crazy thing about him is how much he gamed his own Russian art when he became famous. If you ever pick up an English translation of his Russian novels, you're not actually reading what Nabokov wrote, in say, 1936. You're reading Nabokov, at the peak of his powers in the fifties and sixties, going back and rewriting his books (some with radical changes) based on 'his present use of English'. I mean, fair game to him, it's his art, but part of me feels it is a loss that readers don't get to read where he was at in his younger years, as opposed to him taking over and placing everything at where his sensibilities were at after he became famous in late middle-age.

I've read a little of "Mashenka" translation, and there are no changes compared to the Russian version, it's all the same, only in English, so don't quite understand what you're talking about, buddy