BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

... But American Psycho has the great underlying themes and the resonant social commentary, also. It's not just about grotesque gore description and shocking scandal; Ellis makes some very good points and really explores the bare, rocky jaggedness of modern living in America during the increasingly materialistic and capitalistic era. Increased value of material and meaningless things (in the neo-Platonic view as opposed to just the literal) and the even more advanced devaluing of the human being's worth and value in society. I really rate the book as well, it's far from a cliche Hollywood film.

I've read a ton lately, I'll have a think about what is worth recommending and what could be of interest to other members...

Just finished: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_Hi … Everything

Bryson describes graphically and in layman's terms the size of the universe, and that of atoms and subatomic particles. He then explores the history of geology and biology, and traces life from its first appearance to today's modern humans, placing emphasis on the development of the modern Homo sapiens. Furthermore, he discusses the possibility of the Earth being struck by a meteor, and reflects on human capabilities of spotting a meteor before it impacts the Earth, and the extensive damage that such an event would cause. He also focuses on some of the most recent destructive disasters of volcanic origin in the history of our planet, including Krakatoa and Yellowstone National Park. A large part of the book is devoted to relating humorous stories about the scientists behind the research and discoveries and their sometimes eccentric behaviours. Bryson also speaks about modern scientific views on human effects on the Earth's climate and livelihood of other species, and the magnitude of natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and the mass extinctions caused by some of these events.

Bryson got tried of being embarassed about his science knowledge, so he set out to write this book, improve his own knowledge, as well as write a book anyone could understand.  It's a "lite" science book, since Bryson is really a travel writer, meaning he used common explanations.

For instance: Space is big, but you don't realize how big.  If you were making a scale copy of the solar system where the Earth is the size of the period at the end of this sentence, you would need 42??? pages of paper to include Pluto.

Das Kapital by Karl Marx after an aeon. Brutally dated (except if you're a third world country, although his conclusions ultimately appear to have been proved wrong), full of rants, theoretical jargon and other sleep inducing nonsense. It does however provide some interesting viewpoints and food for thought.

My Sister's Keeper.

Read it.

Uzique wrote:

Harriet Beecher Stowe - Uncle Tom's Cabin
Walt Whitman - Leaves of Grass
Upton Sinclair - The Jungle

you see the theme; you get the idea... read.

The last 10 or so pages of The Jungle were more like a Socialist Party Brochure than the conclusion of a novel.

Uzique wrote:

Muckraking was often (mis)labeled as socialism, communism, subversive literature, over-the-top progressivism etc.

It's blatant but it has to be; Sinclair isn't a dumby, he just knows he's writing to a recalcitrant, dumby audience. I think because of the underlying philosophies and sentiments of American Exceptionalism, satirists and 'dark' writers such as Sinclair often have to exaggerate their points into the obscene-extremes, just to make an impact and impression upon the reader. Otherwise, 'contentious' literature all too often falls into the catch-all trap of the liberal or US-democratized mindset of "Oh well, we still have so many freedoms and liberties". He really had to push the envelope. I think to a lesser, more historical degree, Beecher Stowe and Whitman were the same; they both clearly had ideological arguments or points to make, and both clearly presented their material in a way that was agreeable to their audience, rather than completely agreeable to their own intellect.

Regardless I think that all three are great texts - absolutely key reading for anyone inclined to American literature.

Yeah I clearly recall in the last few pages of The Jungle it specifically tells people to vote for The Socialist Party.

Doesn't make it any less of a book, but Sinclair had no grasp on subtlety at all.

Lai wrote:

Lai wrote:

Some girl is making me read some book about Nigeria. I'll tell you how it is after I've read it.

Half of a Yellow Sun, by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Not bad, but too modern in style to my personal liking. Girl has a thing for Africa and I clearly don't, so it is only natural I am missing part of the point. Well written though and plot twist at the end which is very unsatisfying in a positive way. The problem imo with modern literature is that you read it, think it is good, but it then dies out after a few weeks. It doesn't stay with you.

I have now started in Fathers and Sons, by Turgenev. I don't really like reading in translation, but I do not have much of a choice in this case.

Don't you think that's to do with our conception of the 'canon', though? People with a 'refined' taste in literature always seem to be reading books that are decades or even centuries old; applying old modes of thinking and social convention to the modern day, to appreciate it through a form of historicism. I'm sure there are some 'modern classics' being birthed today, or at least in the last 10 years... it just takes a while for the cultural ball to get rolling, and for everyone to hop on the "Yeah, this is worth reading!" academic/social bandwagon(s).

Uzique wrote:

Don't you think that's to do with our conception of the 'canon', though? People with a 'refined' taste in literature always seem to be reading books that are decades or even centuries old; applying old modes of thinking and social convention to the modern day, to appreciate it through a form of historicism. I'm sure there are some 'modern classics' being birthed today, or at least in the last 10 years... it just takes a while for the cultural ball to get rolling, and for everyone to hop on the "Yeah, this is worth reading!" academic/social bandwagon(s).

No not really to be honest, because I do enjoy reading some modern books. It is not like I haven't given any of them a chance or measure them against archaic standards. I like the way some of them are written, I like the stories they tell etc. It is just that I forget about them within a relatively short period of time while Walter Scott's or even Hemmingway's stay with me indefinitely.

I wouldn't be able to think of one contemporary work that could acquire 'classic' status.

Currently reading 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand. About 200 pages through.

Jean-Paul Sartre - Huis clos

great.

à propos cold war

i recommend:

- john lewis gaddis, the cold war. a new history
- john lewis gaddis, we now know. rethinking the cold war

i didn't like that one. i was hoping he'd break away from the formula that granted has worked well in the past but it's his fifth book, should try something else, but no. even then... i found the characters unconvincing (especially the villian) and the whole plot lacking the fluidity/flency of his earlier works (which, well, worked). an ok book overall but not really one i'd encourage others to spend money on.

currently reading: "the road to reality" by roger penrose. the blurb said it would go through all of nature's laws (read: physics) in detail, and he wasn't joking. i've gotten through about 1/5th of the way through and it's already gone through complex analysis in near-full technical detail (hence the slow speed) and is moving on to manifolds... and i'm not even close to actually starting on the 'physics' bit.

someone recommend some good cold war books to me (apart from the one's already mentioned). quasi-historical accepted/encouraged... as long as they get their facts straight.

Last edited by Spark (2009-11-02 00:17:50)

People love to hate Dan Brown, which is understandable, but the critique can become a bit extreme at times.

I do agree though, he is no literary genius, but he is, imo, a good story teller, at least for simple minds like my own.


PS- "the famous man looked at the red cup" is not a Dan Brown quote, but a Stewart Lee quote, fyi. Which slightly backs up my claim of him being overly laughed at - picking an actual sentence from one of his books wouldn't get near the same response. It seems Stuart Lees act is based on average people laughing at so-called "intellectual jokes", making them feel smarter than they actualy are. One could say the same about Dan Brown's writing, but still.

(though I do get the point, Dan Brown's never been brilliant at 'show, don't tell')