I usually have about three books on the go at any one time. Ive just finished ‘Azincourt’ by Bernard Cornwell and a biography of Thomas Cromwell. Im now re-reading ‘Snuff and Snuff Boxes’ by Hugh McCausland.
And I’ve just started Azincourt!
The Stand by Stephen King. Stefan
I’m just getting into The Histories, by Herodotus. In the last three or four days, I’ve finished Gravity’s Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon, and The Blood of Elves, by Andrzej Sapkowski. Gravity’s Rainbow was quite enjoyable, if a bit mind-boggling. I suspect it’ll warrant a rereading in another 10 years, when I might catch more of the many references. The Blood of Elves was also decent, but being a prequel, it left me wanting more, and not too much of his work has been translated yet, from what I understand.
If you like the classics have you tried ‘The twelve Caesars’ by Seutonius? Very fascinating insights into what made the old despots tick.
No, I haven’t read it, but I was thinking about picking it up some time. At the moment, I have enough of a backlog of books to read, that I can’t really justify buying more.
I just started the 3rd book in Orson Scott Card’s Homecoming Series. GOOD STUFF!!!
and i am re-reading the Wheel of Time series. The final book comes out in a few months. Only 20 thousant pages to get through by then! LMAO.
I am currently reading an excellent book by Bruce Hood title ‘supersense’ this book is about why we have (whether right or wrong) supernatural beliefs and explains the science behind it. Any Skeptics here should check this out. I am also reading ‘Dead Until Dark’ by Charlaine Harris, this is one of the books the vampire show TrueBlood is based on.
These days, it’s all technical handbooks, regulatory guidelines, and crap like that. For enjoyment, I find myself occasionally turning to Hobbes’ translation of Thucydides. Very insightful stuff, and, of course, Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy.
Chronicles of The Cape Fear River by James Sprunt
Noam Chomsky - Rouge States. It’s taking some getting through.
The Analects, Mencius, and Xunzi, all confucian classics. No, I am not reading them for pleasure (hell no). It’s just that I have an overdue paper left over from the spring semester that must be completed…
@Spam: Chomsky is a love-hate thing for me. I’m a fairly liberal guy, but sometimes Chomsky seems to get lost in this academic world, and makes statements that kind of make sense, but aren’t really true in the real world. I’ve got the CD interview of his, “War Crimes and Imperial Fantasies.” I find it interesting, and I’d agree with him that America really does have an empire, although not in the traditional sense of occupying countries as a metropolitan power, but in the way we throw around our military/economic might to try and crush or dominate every country that doesn’t agree with our leadership. Latin America is a great example of this, where the US encourages democracy, and then immediately denounces a country when they democratically elect a leader who won’t screw over his country to benefit the US, like how we treat Evo Morales. Same interview though, and he claims Nixon is guilty of issuing orders for genocide. I understand where he’s coming from, but genocide has become a very charged word. Right now, I’m reading “The Complete Fictions of Jorge Luis Borges.” Interesting book.
I get Chomsky.
Perhaps I missed the mark with how I was saying things. I love him, for the most part. He’s one of a few scholars who actually aren’t on Israel’s side in the Israel-Palestine conflict. If you’re like me, and you share that stance in the US, half the people who hear you say it will almost immediately call you an anti-Semite. It’s just that about once every other publication, he says something that’s just begging to be taken out of context, like his quote about Nixon. Nixon told Kissinger, “I want anything that flies on anything that moves,” or something to that affect. He was talking about a bombing campaign in Burma, I think, where the Viet Cong were crossing the border to smuggle supplies to other parts of the country. Chomsky said it was tantemount to issuing orders for genocide. If you take the orders and the word genocide in their broadest meanings, yes, it was. Nixon wanted to kill everything and everyone in that area. But it wasn’t the sort of program like Hitler implemented in Germany, Pol Pot ran in Burma, what occured in Rwanda, or Darfur. He wasn’t targeting a specific group, and saying, “These guys! Wipe all of them out.” It was a stupid order to issue, and the value of such a program is questionable at best. But what should wind up on the sleeve the disc comes in? “Nixon gives orders for total genocide! We have the proof.” Something like that. It’s those sort of things that the context is vital for. He says some controversial stuff, and almost always has some sort of proof to back it up. But 19 year old gits who fancy themselves savvy and revolutionary tend to find that one quote, and just run with it, without reading any more. In the interview, turns out the whole thing was just an example talking about how the Nuremberg trials had a big stumbling block in that they couldn’t find written copies of orders like that. Yet my father notices that one quote on the dust jacket, and flips out, then goes off on a lengthy argument when I show him the newspaper articles to back it up. He also can’t be bother to listen to the interview, because the thing’s two hours long. I suppose what I really want is to run into someone in real life who also reads Chomsky’s books, and not just the catchy blurbs. If I could talk about him without having to immediately go on the defensive because some guy fancies himself to be some kind of 24 year old intelligentsia and throws out provocative remarks without anything to back them up, and then tries to crawl down my throat about something I say because he doesn’t understand it, it would probably be a very interesting conversation. I also really need to find a university that fits the old idea of it; a place where people go to learn and discuss ideas. At my school, you’d probably be considered a heavy reader if you glanced at the Budweiser label before drinking it. And that just goes to show, they’ve also got no taste in beer.
I see what you mean, and you said a mouthful, shikitohno. I don’t want to go into politcal discourse here, but just one thing I want to mention is that I thought Pol Pot was Cambodian.
I’ve been reading light hearted books this summer while I had some downtime on fire assignments. RIght now I’m reading Christopher Moore’s “Island of the sequined love nun.”
I think you’re right about Pol Pot. My knowledge of Asia barely extends past a brief understanding of Japanese history and politics. Something I need to read up on. Perhaps we just need to find Chomsky some publishers that don’t write up such scandalous blurbs for the outside of his releases.
Controversy sells books. Shock the public with a “what? no way!” response and they buy it. The publisher doesn’t really care if you read it, just that you buy it.