The Books/Reading Thread

[Einherjar86]

You can create a near infinite amount of metrics by which to judge texts on. Which metrics you find more important is where subjectivity makes a major show.

Differentiation affords a measurable degree of identifiability, however. It isn't all entirely superfluous. Good writing isn't subjective. Proceeding from there, we can judge a good deal about texts based on the styles, forms, themes, etc. that they exhibit.

I think this is pretty interesting. Wasn't Moby Dick considered reasonably forgettable in the 19th century before becoming a classic in the 20 century? I read the book in school and as I remember it deals mostly with existential themes; the book doesn't depend on social context in the same way as for example modernist novels like The Sun Also Rises or The Great Gatsby, so why the sudden change in status at a certain point in time?

Melville wasn't considered a very important writer during his lifetime, if that's what you mean; but I wouldn't say that Moby-Dick doesn't rely on social context. In fact, much of its descriptions of whaling were inspired by Melville's own experience and research. It actually is very heavily engaged with the contemporary American mentality. Moby-Dick is a scathing critique of Western expansionism and American exceptionalism, and it wasn't lauded when it was published because it presented topics and themes that many critics found disturbing and/or offensive. Furthermore, many mainstream readers simply didn't want to read about lengthy descriptions of whale skeletons (which are, in fact, some of the best portions of the novel).

Melville gained literary recognition when the High Modernists and critics of the early twentieth century revisited his works. One of the big reasons for the Melville Revival was that Melville seemed to embody the modernist aesthetics and concerns well before its appearance in America. He was writing before his time, so to speak.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Well, finished Children of Hurin. Excellent stuff. Now back to Westeros...

 

[Einherjar86]

Are you re-reading Martin's series? I tried to do that, couldn't hold my attention a second time.

I finished a post on Dhalgren for those interested in reading a bit about the book. It isn't technically a review, but rather some of my thoughts on what the novel achieves. There are, unfortunately, some minor spoilers, but nothing that would ruin the experience of reading the text.

Simply put, I enjoyed the novel very much. It certainly drags and can wear on your nerves (it's a slog, no doubt), but the writing is gorgeous and Delany's penchant for poetic prose shines through. Be warned, there isn't much of a story to be told, which is why I don't really think my post would ruin the novel. It's more about the experience of reading, and understanding the creative feats that the text performs as you go. It isn't something to be picked up lightly; I'd rank it in terms of density alongside Ulysses, Moby-Dick, and Blood Meridian, and it definitely shares some affinity with all these texts. Actually, I'd say that it is very Joycean; stylistically it's similar to Ulysses, while conceptually it's similar to Finnegan's Wake. You can also see how it has influenced a number of postmodern texts, most noticeably Infinite Jest and House of Leaves. Its enjoyability factor wavers at times, but I would say you will come out the other end glad you put it in the time and effort.

Link to my post is in my sig.

 

[Dak]

I think I might also have trouble re-reading Martin's series, but I have trouble re-reading most narratives.

Ein might find this article interesting:

George Orwell and the Cold War

But most Orwell scholars have ignored the critical permanent-cold-war underpinning to the totalitarianism in the book. Thus, in a recently published collection of scholarly essays on Orwell, there is barely a mention of militarism or war. [8]

In contrast, one of the few scholars who have recognized the importance of war in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was the Marxist critic Raymond Williams. While deploring the obvious anti-Soviet nature of Orwell’s thought, Williams noted that Orwell discovered the basic feature of the existing two- or three-superpower world, “oligarchical collectivism,” as depicted by James Burnham, in his Managerial Revolution (1940), a book that had a profound if ambivalent impact upon Orwell. As Williams put it:

Orwell’s vision of power politics is also close to convincing. The transformation of official “allies” to “enemies” has happened, almost openly, in the generation since he wrote. His idea of a world divided into three blocs — Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, of which two are always at war with the other though the alliances change — is again too close for comfort. And there are times when one can believe that what “had been called England or Britain” has become simply Airship One.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Are you re-reading Martin's series? I tried to do that, couldn't hold my attention a second time.

I finished a post on Dhalgren for those interested in reading a bit about the book. It isn't technically a review, but rather some of my thoughts on what the novel achieves. There are, unfortunately, some minor spoilers, but nothing that would ruin the experience of reading the text.

Simply put, I enjoyed the novel very much. It certainly drags and can wear on your nerves (it's a slog, no doubt), but the writing is gorgeous and Delany's penchant for poetic prose shines through. Be warned, there isn't much of a story to be told, which is why I don't really think my post would ruin the novel. It's more about the experience of reading, and understanding the creative feats that the text performs as you go. It isn't something to be picked up lightly; I'd rank it in terms of density alongside Ulysses, Moby-Dick, and Blood Meridian, and it definitely shares some affinity with all these texts. Actually, I'd say that it is very Joycean; stylistically it's similar to Ulysses, while conceptually it's similar to Finnegan's Wake. You can also see how it has influenced a number of postmodern texts, most noticeably Infinite Jest and House of Leaves. Its enjoyability factor wavers at times, but I would say you will come out the other end glad you put it in the time and effort.

Link to my post is in my sig.

No I'm not re-reading. I make a rule that I don't watch the show until I read the book, so I wanted to finish Storm of Swords before I watched the season, then someone told me that the show is only using half the book, so I figured I'd go and watch it while I finished the last 300 pages. I decided to steamroll through The Children of Hurin to get away from Martin and get a nice change of pace, and now I'm back reading Feast for Crows.

I generally don't re-read narratives either. I can easily do the LOTR series and the Iliad and the Odyssey, but I find myself drawn to other stories instead of the same old ones. Lately, I've been obsessing over fantasy literature. I really just want to finish Martin so I can start the Malazan series.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think I might also have trouble re-reading Martin's series, but I have trouble re-reading most narratives.

Ein might find this article interesting:

George Orwell and the Cold War

Very! Thanks.

It's worth noting that literary criticism has shifted gears significantly even in the last twenty years, and that Rothbard's choice of Orwell criticism - Irving Howe's anthology - is likely viewed as relatively outdated today. But that's only my speculation, as I'm not an Orwell scholar. But I am familiar with Irving Howe's now infamous views on the fiction of Ralph Ellison and James Baldwin, which Ellison discusses in his essay "The World and the Jug." All in all, Howe seems to have a fairly conservative and reactionary position on literature, and Ellison accuses him of believing "that unrelieved suffering is the only 'real' Negro experience, and that the true Negro writer must be ferocious." Not a very enlightened view of black authors, so I'm not surprised that his selections for Orwell's work are less-than-satisfactory.

It's interesting that Raymond Williams is Rothbard's exemplar of a critic who exposes the "perpetual war" aspect of Orwell's fictional vision. Regardless of politics, heavy-hitting Marxist critics tend to be able to identify and analyze subtle strands of their research objects, simply due to the nature of their training. In this case, I don't think the perpetual war theory of 1984 is particularly subtle, but I don't find it surprising that traditional literary criticism ignored it, especially criticism of the Irving Howe (et al) school.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh man, I'm reading this to accompany my current fictional endeavor. It is an absolutely incredible exploration of Science fiction:

 

[Dak]

I bet I would find that interesting.

 

[wandering_taco]

Yeah that looks like an interesting read.
I haven't been spending much time with the Nietzsche I've been reading, it's hard to motivate myself to read philosophy when there will be no discussion about it. And I only really read Japanese Death Poems when I'm on the toilet. But I did also start reading The Picture of Dorian Gray and I am enjoying that.

 

[Einherjar86]

I bet I would find that interesting.

I realize I said exploration; but while there are excurses of specific SF texts, the first half of the book is dedicated to Science fiction's place in the literary canon and its relationship to critical theory.

Freedman makes some assumptions, but if you momentarily forgive him his claims are very interesting. His training is in Marxist analytics and "Critical Theory" in general (meaning, mostly, post-Marxism), but this leads him to draw some cool conclusions. For example, he views Science fiction as an inherently critical praxis, conjoining intense criticism of cultural norms with fictional creation, very similar to what György Lukács argued what the manifest conjoining of Marxism with fictional creation in the historical novel. This, in turn, leads Freedman to erect what appears to be an obvious connection between Science fiction and Historical fiction. I'm fascinated by this, personally, because I tend to operate under the same conclusion (or assumption), which in turn directs my further research.

Yeah that looks like an interesting read.
I haven't been spending much time with the Nietzsche I've been reading, it's hard to motivate myself to read philosophy when there will be no discussion about it. And I only really read Japanese Death Poems when I'm on the toilet. But I did also start reading The Picture of Dorian Gray and I am enjoying that.

The Picture of Dorian Gray is so gorgeous; Wilde is like a tactician with language. And I love his philosophy of art, which is like some kind of debased Platonism.

 

[monoxide_child]

 

[wandering_taco]

The Picture of Dorian Gray is so gorgeous; Wilde is like a tactician with language. And I love his philosophy of art, which is like some kind of debased Platonism.

Gorgeous is a perfect word to describe it. I find the prose to be over the top, poetic, and flamboyant (all in a good way). It's a wonderful read thus far.

 

[Einherjar86]

His comedies are fantastic too; I don't think I've ever laughed out loud as much while reading a play as I did while reading The Importance of Being Earnest. And he was a hilarious person, if history is any indication. That kind of personality lends itself to satire and societal indictment.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

I wasn't a fan of The Importance of Being Earnest. I've been meaning to read the Portrait of Dorian Gray as well. Would a Dickens fan enjoy it?

 

[wandering_taco]

Yeah, I love Dickens. Speaking of Dickens, I've been meaning to tackle David Copperfield at some point this summer.

 

[The Ozzman]

Started reading the Prose Edda at work today. That makes 5 books I am now reading.

 

[monoxide_child]

this one^^ goes into the human soul more so than any other superhero graphic novels

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Free dled, good read. - Blown to Bits: Your Life, Liberty, and Happiness After the Digital Explosion - Hal Abelson

http://www.bitsbook.com/excerpts/

 

[Einherjar86]

^Interesting. Creative Commons is wonderful.

I finished Cloud Atlas. It was a remarkable book, both stylistically and conceptually. I don't want to ruin it for those who are planning on reading it; but I will say that once you realize how Mitchell is structuring the novel, it becomes incredibly fun to read.

Next I'm going into the sequel to Peter Watts's Starfish, called Maelstrom:

 

[wandering_taco]

I finished Dorian Gray. I feel like that's a novel I could go back through and really dissect a lot of out it, but I'm mostly just reading for pleasure lately. Moving on to Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I'm about 30 pages in so far, it's interesting. Very bible-esque.