What book are you currently reading?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Philosopher B.

I should get around to reading more Vonnegut I suppose ... a man who writes something like The Big Space Fuck is a fine man indeed. The only other works of his I've read would be Slaughterhouse-Five and The Sirens of Titan, both of which were fucking spiffy.

I'm currently in the middle of the first Harry Dresden book, and I also just bought Stephen King's The Stand and Dark Tower II from a lovely little used book store, so I'm-a get to them when I'm finished with Mr. Butcher's debut effort.
 
R

redapples

I wasn't calling out your reading background; sounds like you're quite well-rooted. I'm saying that if you took a poll with the sort of books like East of Eden most people would scratch their head and got wuh-buh?

List the name of a couple World of Warcraft books, however, or fucking Twilight...

It's good that people are still reading. But it's depressing that it's nothing challenging, and probably far from the amazing, beautiful authorship mankind's managed to squeeze out over the years.
I agree. It wasn't an attempt to big myself up more an incredulity that given the types of people giving me recommendations none of them mentioned this. To be fair my mum recommends by buying me books for my birthday or christmas. Recently, The March (E.L. Doctrow), The Border Trilogy (Cormac McCarthy) and in the past Germinal (Emile Zola) and The Ambassadors (Henry James), which if you don't mind sentences that last for pages might be a good read - cant say because I do mind.

My brother's recent recomendation have included Harry Potter (which I include in the list with WOW and Twilight and this from a guy with 3 more degrees to his name than me:facepalm:) and Cloud Atlas (David Mitchel). As for Cloud Atlas we were discussing books for a Globalization module he was teaching, my recommendation was Snow Crash (Neil Stephenson) which ended up in the module I'm pleased to say. Cloud Atlas was a bit disappointing in its conclusion for me but overall a well written and envisioned book.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
Pretty hefty list! I gotta say that, besides Cormac McCarthy and Snow Crash, I haven't heard of anything from that list. I've been itching to read more again lately, but I'm stuck with books I have to finish for school. Right now it's The Woman Warrior. We'll see how that goes--I'm sure there's plenty of multicultural adversity she overcomes. Enlightening! Perhaps more if I don't have a full semester reading, basically, the same damn thing.

About the long sentences--I end up loving and hating authors that do that. Once again, referring back to my current class, we had to read Toni Morrison, who can go onnn and onnnnnn and onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. It's brilliant, but it's also pompous at the same time. I get it, you guys can write long, awesome paragraphs of beautiful prose. Assholes.

As for Harry Potter, I think you can have those books on a slightly separate level than Twilight: one's an obvious children's series, which doesn't really kick the genre off to too many places except for being a pop-culture phenomenon, but is decently written and pleasantly executed nonetheless.

Twilight, on the other hand--from as much time as I've encountered with it--is aggressively aiming (and achieving) pop culture status. That series takes vampire fettishism and sells it to tweens and Great Clips stylists, regardless of its damage to literature at large.

But I dunno *shrug*
 
It may have been wine on the brain, but last night I decided Philip K. Dick is the sci-fi Kurt Vonnegut (not that the latter didn't mix it up a little in the sci-fi realm).
 
R

redapples

It may have been wine on the brain, but last night I decided Philip K. Dick is the sci-fi Kurt Vonnegut (not that the latter didn't mix it up a little in the sci-fi realm).
Wha???? :confused:

Kurt Vonnegut is a Sci-fi writer. Everything I've read of his has been sci-fi. I think that wine was a little on the strong side. In respect of their comparison I would argue that their writing style is very far apart. Dick was perhaps more experimental in his writing than Vonnegut but they both excel at ideas. I personally find Dick near unreadable but (as illustrated by the many films from his books) has the skill at taking a good idea and running with it. Vonnegut is much more penetrable than Dick but what he does really well imho is to make the world he describes very believable, so in Hocus Pocus when he describes Bud as being called 'Wop' ever since the Italian's bought it I actually thought it was true until I reminded myself it was fiction I was reading. I have never found Dick to be this immersive. Vonnegut is also more adept at being comidic than I have found Dick to be. Time Quake, Sirens of Titan and elements of Welcome to the Monkey House are funny. Hocus Pocus and Slaughter House 5 are more serious in tone but still have those dark comdic touches in places.

The Dick I've wrestled with (Do Androids Dream... and A Scanner Darkly, one after the film the other before) have none of the comdey of Vonneguts books.

Better to compare Joseph Heller, so we might say Kurt Vonnegut is the Sci-fi Joseph Heller perhaps?

---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

redapples said:
The Dick I've wrestled with (Do Androids Dream... and A Scanner Darkly, one after the film the other before) have none of the comdey of Vonneguts books.

QUOTE]
:eek:
Ummm some one want to fix that for me?
 
Just finished The Graveyard Book. Very nice for a young adult book. Moving right into Young Boy, Young Girl in an effort to get another ghost story in before Halloween.
 
A

Alex B.

Just finished Perdido Street Station. So so good. Mieville is my new favorite author.

Taking a break from him though, to read the Illuminatus! trilogy. At the rate I read I'll be done sometime in 2013.
 

fade

Staff member
Perdido Street Station was okay. It kept feeling like it was going somewhere, but never got up the steam to move. I kind of think that was the point, but it makes it a frustrating read nonetheless. A good friend loves the book. He loves that it
doesn't have a happy ending, and that things sort of end in the middle of everything
. It's been the source of many a literary argument, because to me, that rather defeats the purpose of telling a narrative. That and Mieville goes a little Rowling on us, and overexplains things to the point that they lose their mystery.
The big reveal on the narrator is a letdown. Woopdedoo. A guy we cared little about did something we care less about. Everything and everybody is dirty and decrepit. Even those who fly above.
Like I say, I get that that's the whole point, but it makes for a blurry muddy read.

Funny thing is, I liked the book. I just don't think it quite deserves all the praise that's been heaped on it.
 
John Hodgeman's "The Areas of My Expertise Which Include: Matters Historical, Matters Literary, Matters Cryptozoological, Hobo Matters, Food, Drink, & Cheese (a Kind of Food), Swuirrles & Lobsters & Eels, Haircuts, Utopia, What Will Happen in the Future, and Most Other Subjects."

just finished Watchmen and before that "The Living Dead", a 500 page collection of zombie short stories.
 
P

Philosopher B.

What! I looked for this thread a day or so ago. Can't believe I couldn't find it. Gonna post something in a bit.
 
P

Philosopher B.

Twilight

Well, my baby sister was reading it, on account of she wanted to find out what all the other girls are squealing about, and when she was done with it, I made the mistake of deciding that I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to observe firsthand what exactly a certain publishing phenomenon was all about. Plus, I thought, how bad could it really be?

I think you can probably guess the answer to that last question easily enough.

To be fair, though, I didn’t start out hating it right away. My hatred sort of came together gradually, the specific ingredients of my dislike forming a kind of repugnance stew, which simmered for several hundred pages until I had a raging boner of detestation, after which I climaxed with a spurt of severe disapproval.

Now … where to begin? I guess a good place would be with Ms. Meyer’s actual writing ability. Well, I mean, she can string a sentence together. The problem lies in the kind of sentence she likes. She has a thing, it would seem, for detailing the current state of her heroine’s lover’s eyes. She is also fond of seeing how many times a page she can tell us that the good vampire Edward has partaken to laugh. Seriously, if anyone laughed that much in real life, their jaw would hurt after a while. Trust me, I know, because I have had this happen to my jaw. And I am only an intermittent laugher, as it were.

One major problem with the book is extremes. No one is merely beautiful, or merely clumsy; instead, they are so motha-fokkin’ beautiful and sniffable that the very scent of them sends the sniffer into a drunken stupor. As for the clumsy part, stars above. Speaking as an insanely clumsy person myself, I was somewhat disturbed at the extent of Bella’s clumsiness. It is so bad that the vampires spend half the book carrying her around like a wishy-washy, bottom-lip biting doll. Jesus McTitty-Christ, can the damned girl not get around herself? I guess it goes along with the whole prince-sweeping-you-off-your feet thing, but I thought that was supposed to be figurative.

The being dragged around business invariably leads us to the competence of the main character. She has none, basically. She is a completely brainless, senseless moron, who can’t get around by herself half the time, is always being saved by her cold-nippled lover boy, and who is never, ever, disturbed by any revelation whatsoever, including the one concerning the aforementioned cold-nippled lover boy spying on her in her sleep and listening to her calling his name. The weird thing is that her lack of sense (and self-preservation) is a major bone of contention between herself and the good Edwardo; it is as though the novel champions the fact that its main character is a weak, senseless twit.

Speaking of bones of contention between Bella and Edward, their conversations almost always include some weirdly halting and odd argument. Edward’s mood swings are, like every other aspect of his character, bizarrely cartoonish in their intensity. I’m not sure how many bleeding times, by the end of the novel, we had to be treated to a bit in which he says something, she says something, he goes off the handle, she says something else, and he comes back to having whatever color eyes he has when he’s thinking of bees, trees, and blue birds doing each other up the drainpipe. He’s not some moody brooding vampire figure; he’s abso-bally-lutely mad off his tits.

Unfortunately that brings us to the subject of the kind of vampires that populate Ms. Meyer’s gooey fantasyland. First I am going to give a disclaimer: I am not one of these purists who has to see certain aspects of a completely fictional creature included in order for a story to satisfy me. When I read this book, even having heard of the infamous sparkling, I did so anyway with an open mind, prepared to give the good Ms. Meyers the benefit of the doubt.

She skunked me again. :(

The sparkling is just the tip of the iceberg, the thing most easily made fun of. I have read in an interview that Meyer was not into vampires and in fact has not even read Dracula. It shows, and in more than the sparkling. Aside from the desire for blood (and even this is treated a tad weirdly), these ‘vampires’ come across more like super-human beauty-pageant winners. They’ve got super-speed, super-sperm, super bear-eating, super car-lifting, super good smexy-ass looks, and (get this) are frequently referred to as moving in a feline-like manner.

Feline.

What are they, fucking cat people? What happened to bats?

I really do think Meyers wanted to be writing Spiderman. Not only did she have Bella jokingly speculate that the reason Edward is so goddamn weird might be on account of he was bitten by a radioactive spider, but there was a near-rape scene in which I half-expected Edward to leap out of the car when saving her, beat the baddies up, and conclude the proceedings by kissing her upside down in the rain.

Also, on the subject of kissing and passion and whatnot. This whole book is one big fucking tease. Whereas I probably would have had them fuck each other’s tits off by page 205, we are treated to more scenes than I’d care for of the protagonists sitting about on beds like big sissies sniffing each other’s sparkly, pearly white skin while ruffling, stroking, and generally touching each other’s mop tops in an entirely inappropriate manner.

Won’t somebody think of the hair strands?!

Though to be fair, the subject of sex isn’t completely sidestepped. It is revealed that, as the conversation about Superman in Mallrats implied, having sex with a magical superbeing is probably not a good idea. Not only might he blast your back out with his sparkly man-juice, he might also forget himself and have you for lunch, your blood being the beverage of choice.

Now, look. I know I’ve yapped on for quite a bit by this point, but to be honest I could almost (emphasis on ALMOST) live with all the aforementioned aspects of the book (and some I haven’t even gone into on account of I haven’t got all bloody week). I would merely pass it off as a haltingly written piece of wish-fulfillment romance for insecure young girls. Offensive, yes, but not the end of the literary world. But the thing that offends me the most deeply manifests itself somewhere nearly four-hundred pages in.

That’s about when she decides she wants a plot. You know, with conflict (that is, conflict other than Edward getting pissed that his girlfriend is such a suicidal, clumsy moron, and the fact that poor Bella is admired by every young boy whose balls ever dropped).

I am of course referring to the scene in which the ‘vampires’ are playing ball, which culminates in a maniac tracker vampire wanting Bella resting sloshily in his guts. This comes so late in the game, that it’s as though an entirely new story is beginning. One is left to wonder where this book’s beginning, middle and end are. As far as story-structure goes, this book is skunked in no uncertain manner. Not only that, but the Cullen family realize exactly what kind of ruffian they are dealing with, and how much he will be after Bella … so why don’t they just hand his ass to him RIGHT THEN AND THERE, with the full strength of the family present? It was, what, five or six well-fed, well-disciplined vamps against three vagabonds? It could have saved the next hundred pages. Unless they didn’t want to fight with Bella around, in which case, they failed horribly, because not only is she in the inevitable fight (which we don’t get to see, by the way!) but she is slapped about like the useless doll-person she is. The whole thing is so ham-fistedly handled that it boggles my mind and makes me worry that this will make the average unwashed wannabe novelist snap his fingers and say ‘Ha! Yes! I have a chance’. To be frank, it almost makes me curious enough to see the movie verison, if only to observe how they handle this badly a structured narrative.

Now, I won’t say I didn’t get a LITTLE enjoyment out of the deal somewhere. I thought the fact that Emmet ate motha-fokkin’ GRIZZLIES was hilariously awesome, if absurd to the extreme, and there was occasionally great fun to be had in unintentionally funny passages of over-wrought descriptions (though mostly, they made me moan). I also got a kick out of the bit in which Edward said ‘I love you’ to which Bella replied ‘I know’, which of course I automatically read in Han Solo and Princess Leia’s voices. Plus, it DID have an ending. Took a little effort to get there, but it existed.

TLDR version: It’s not just that I am clearly not the demographic for this book; the main character is weak and senseless, and the book is offensive in the badness of its story structure. What I’m saying is, I personally thought it sucked a boney.

I should also note my baby sister appeared to like it even less than I.
 
D

Dusty668

Couldn't finish "The Complete Hammer's Slammers: Volume 1" The stories were not arranged in any coherent timewise order, and that just put me off, also it was kind of following the same folks but not really, like in one story a certain tank crew is told about, in the next story they mention one of the crew going by for basic training, the story after that one of the crew is an old officer seen across the room, etc. Dunno why but it just put me off.
So I skipped to
"Future Weapons of War"
Finished it up, pretty nice book and about to read the just released "The Compleat Bolo". It's a rerelease compilation of Bolo and Rogue Bolo, but I like both stories, and it's been a while since I read them.
 
Like I say, I get that that's the whole point, but it makes for a blurry muddy read.
That's one of the things I liked best about it, actually. The writing is somewhat blunt and brutal, much like the world the story takes place in. The setting and style blend together so well that I sometimes have to stop reading and admire it.
 

fade

Staff member
Like I say, I get that that's the whole point, but it makes for a blurry muddy read.
That's one of the things I liked best about it, actually. The writing is somewhat blunt and brutal, much like the world the story takes place in. The setting and style blend together so well that I sometimes have to stop reading and admire it.[/QUOTE]

:p
 
R

redapples

After having enjoyed East of Eden so much and being bummed out by Flag of our Fathers (though I must say reading this and watching Generation Kill simultaneously is very eye opening) I thought I'd try Cannery Row by Steinbeck. I have had this kicking around my shelves for a long time and am not even sure where I got it. Its short 160 pages in big (ish) type. Its also really light and funny not at all what I expected from a book about homeless alcoholics. John Steinbeck is fast becoming one of my favourite authors. Very much recommended.
 
i'm reading babylon babies but i can't seem to finish it because i always get bored or do other things (looking at you Dragon age).
 
I'm picking up Who Censored Roger Rabbit? over lunch from the library today on the suggestion of Steve Napierski. I loved Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as a kid, so I'm curious to see what the book is like.
 
C

chakz

I'm re-reading "Brightness Reef", the first book in David Brin's second Uplift trilogy. Absolutely fantastic series, and I'm especially fond of the blend of ancient galactic level tech and pseudo-steampunk level stuff. I'll finish off the trilogy when I'm done, "Infinity's Shore" and "Heaven's Reach". I'm kind of surprised that I have very little recollection of what happens. Oh well, I'm having a great time being alternately surprised an suddenly reminded.

Next after that I think I'll re-read "Changer" by Jane Lindskold, if I still have it. If not I might re-read "The Practice Effect" by David Brin.
Soon as I get to a library, what he's reading.

Edit: I was also thinking of picking up the last book of the dark tower series.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
I'm picking up Who Censored Roger Rabbit? over lunch from the library today on the suggestion of Steve Napierski. I loved Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as a kid, so I'm curious to see what the book is like.
Is that the sequel? Because apparently it's really, really, really bad. Although the movie is worse.


I just finished Fun Home for class; ditto with A Boy's Own Story, but apparently really important in the realm of gay fiction. After that I have to read The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian to round out my multi-lit class. Then...maybe some other awesome stuff!
 
C

chakz

Prelude to Foundation.

I love this series. :D
If I were you I'd avoid foundation and chaos- should you encounter it. It was written by other author's after asimov's death and its pretty bad.
 
I'm reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It explores the reasons why people do exceptionally well in life. He explains why Bill Gate's success had as much to do with luck as it did with his own ability among other things.
 
I'm picking up Who Censored Roger Rabbit? over lunch from the library today on the suggestion of Steve Napierski. I loved Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as a kid, so I'm curious to see what the book is like.
Is that the sequel? Because apparently it's really, really, really bad. Although the movie is worse.[/QUOTE]

Wait, are you referring to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as a bad movie in this statement? Is that what you're doing? Retract. RETRACT!
 
Dragon Tears by Dean Koontz and Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. After which I plan on buying Xenocide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top