The Books/Reading Thread

[waif]

Yeah. So far only Forge of Darkness has been released, but I thought it was great. The prose is in a different style from the main series, and I loved it.

I've read everything that's been released to date. The Esslemont novels are markedly inferior to Erikson's in every way. Stonewielder in particular was an absolute slog. His first two, Night of Knives and Return of the Crimson Guard, are actually pretty good, which is fortunate as they're by far the most important.

Assail is coming relatively soon, but I can't say I'm particularly worked up over it. I just hope Esslemont's got a better editor this time around.

 

[Zephyrus]

 

[Einherjar86]

Has anyone here read R. Scott Bakker's fantasy series? I mean, there haven't been any bands or songs inspired by it, but it's far superior to the Malazan books. The darkest fantasy I've ever read.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

The Prince of Nothing series? I've heard nothing but good things.

And y u no liek Malazan?

 

[Einherjar86]

How so in reference to Dubois or to the nature of the books (or both)?

The nature of the books.

The Prince of Nothing series? I've heard nothing but good things.

And y u no liek Malazan?

Honestly, I think it's personal preference. The world-building is fine, but I think they're mostly fluff and entertainment. Bakker's books inject a fair amount of philosophical introspection and meta-generic exploration, which (for me) makes for a more interesting read.

And, on top of that, there are some EPIC moments in the Second Apocalypse series (which is the name for the combined Prince of Nothing and Aspect Emperor trilogies) that outshine anything in what I've read of Jordan, Martin, or Erikson.

 

[Dak]

The nature of the books.

Washington offered a very individualistic perspective, both his own exclusive situation (his struggles and direct treatment) or his perspective of struggle and outcome of Tuskegee and for students of his school. He championed the necessity of personal effort and both mental and physical industry, as well as a PMA (positive mental attitude).

Dubois attempted to provide a broader picture (yet still highly individualistic) of the national/historical situation which Washington and those students struggled under, and offered the qualification to Booker's work that the desirously industrious and the schools needed teachers from universities. He also was a champion of the ballot box, but we can forgive that error as almost universally common in the last century, and even Dubois fled the ballot box for radicalism he warned against when the ballot box failed(as it will). It is unfortunate he withdrew rather than engage as Booker did.

 

[waif]

Honestly, I think it's personal preference. The world-building is fine, but I think they're mostly fluff and entertainment. Bakker's books inject a fair amount of philosophical introspection and meta-generic exploration, which (for me) makes for a more interesting read.

I think you stopped reading at the wrong time. From House of Chains onwards philosophical introspection and subtle deconstruction of genre tropes becomes a major theme. Probably most notable in House of Chains and Midnight Tides.

And, on top of that, there are some EPIC moments in the Second Apocalypse series (which is the name for the combined Prince of Nothing and Aspect Emperor trilogies) that outshine anything in what I've read of Jordan, Martin, or Erikson.

I'll have to give it a try, but since you stopped before reading Chapter 5 of The Bonehunters your opinion isn't entirely valid.

 

[Einherjar86]

Washington offered a very individualistic perspective, both his own exclusive situation (his struggles and direct treatment) or his perspective of struggle and outcome of Tuskegee and for students of his school. He championed the necessity of personal effort and both mental and physical industry, as well as a PMA (positive mental attitude).

Dubois attempted to provide a broader picture (yet still highly individualistic) of the national/historical situation which Washington and those students struggled under, and offered the qualification to Booker's work that the desirously industrious and the schools needed teachers from universities. He also was a champion of the ballot box, but we can forgive that error as almost universally common in the last century, and even Dubois fled the ballot box for radicalism he warned against when the ballot box failed(as it will). It is unfortunate he withdrew rather than engage as Booker did.

I think they're both certainly humanistic, but if there's a primary and fundamental difference it lies in the fact that Washington implies success and failure find their sole origin in an individual's effort, while DuBois acknowledged the restrictions that quantifiable material conditions dictate. They both were fans of education, but DuBois knew that education was only available to a small number. Washington made admirable strides toward providing education to black children, but also overestimated the impact of his efforts.

I think you stopped reading at the wrong time. From House of Chains onwards philosophical introspection and subtle deconstruction of genre tropes becomes a major theme. Probably most notable in House of Chains and Midnight Tides.

I'll have to give it a try, but since you stopped before reading Chapter 5 of The Bonehunters your opinion isn't entirely valid.

That's fair. I probably should read the entire series, I just simply don't have enough time to devote to such a long work. And, as I said earlier, I think a lot of it has to do with style preference. Having read the first two books of Erikson's series, I can tell you that his style is very different from Bakker's, and I prefer the latter's.

 

[The Butt]

I just received "I Am Better Than Your Kids" by Maddox. I am thrilled.

 

[Dak]

I think they're both certainly humanistic, but if there's a primary and fundamental difference it lies in the fact that Washington implies success and failure find their sole origin in an individual's effort, while DuBois acknowledged the restrictions that quantifiable material conditions dictate. They both were fans of education, but DuBois knew that education was only available to a small number. Washington made admirable strides toward providing education to black children, but also overestimated the impact of his efforts.

I don't think that Washington denied that the situation can make success more difficult. Rather that there are constructive and profitable ways to overcome these difficulties, as opposed than resigning oneself to either being a permanent victim or ceaseless political agitator.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, this is the conundrum, and the issue in literary studies is a generic one.

Washington's realism can be read as submission to Euro-American forms of representation, right down to his deployment of black dialect (this southern black slang speech is often used to mark a distinction between educated and uneducated characters, usually blacks). On one hand, he's attempting to express the real conditions of blacks in America; but on another hand, he can be read as perpetuating the stereotype of the uneducated, unsuccessful black. There's a reason why Washington was popular among whites will DuBois was less so.

DuBois, of course, had his problems too; but his Marxist background allowed him to observe the formal limitations built into something as staunchly realist as European naturalist literature.

 

[waif]

That's fair. I probably should read the entire series, I just simply don't have enough time to devote to such a long work. And, as I said earlier, I think a lot of it has to do with style preference. Having read the first two books of Erikson's series, I can tell you that his style is very different from Bakker's, and I prefer the latter's.

I won't tell you not to, but if you're not that interested in worldbuilding then it's probably not a great use of your time. Erikson has plenty of things to say, and he says them well, but the primary appeal of the series has always been its remarkable world-building.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

If anything, I keep reading the Malazan books because I don't understand what the fuck is going on half the time. Erikson's prose has a way of not explaining anything and leaving the reader to interpret as is, which I love.

 

[waif]

The only reason he can get away with it is that it's a consistent world and mythology, so it never feels like an ass-pull.

 

[Dak]

Well, this is the conundrum, and the issue in literary studies is a generic one.

Washington's realism can be read as submission to Euro-American forms of representation, right down to his deployment of black dialect (this southern black slang speech is often used to mark a distinction between educated and uneducated characters, usually blacks). On one hand, he's attempting to express the real conditions of blacks in America; but on another hand, he can be read as perpetuating the stereotype of the uneducated, unsuccessful black. There's a reason why Washington was popular among whites will DuBois was less so.

DuBois, of course, had his problems too; but his Marxist background allowed him to observe the formal limitations built into something as staunchly realist as European naturalist literature.

A conundrum indeed. Looks more like insisting Washington was "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't". Where's the justice in that?

I think the "proof is in the pudding" as it were, regarding personal path choices chosen and propounded by Washington and Dubois. Washington spent his life building and growing and teaching others to build and grow. Even if more than that is needed, it is something, and Tuskegee has helped an untold number of people since inception (especially considering the partnership with GWC and those agricultural and other advancements)- and continues on today. Contrast that with Dubois "going Galt" in a communist fashion when his political efforts were unfruitful.

 

[Einherjar86]

I recently finished Tom McCarthy's Men in Space; it was a phenomenal novel. For those interested in contemporary fiction, this guy is on another level. Definitely one of the premier novelists of the twenty-first century.

Now I'm leaping back a few decades and taking on this beast:

 

[The Ozzman]

Finished The Hobbit. Next up:

 

[Addo_Of_Nex]

I have a copy of Gravity's Rainbow lying around, been meaning to dive in.

Currently slugging through Sellars' Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind for at least the 7th time. Of the "big three" works of proto-analytic philosophy that put the final nail in the coffin of logical positivism (Philosophical Investigations and "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" being the other two), this might be my favorite.

 

[Westsiyeed]

Read Transfigurations, a very good sci-fi that centres around an in depth study of an alien race and their evolution.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have a copy of Gravity's Rainbow lying around, been meaning to dive in.

Currently slugging through Sellars' Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind for at least the 7th time. Of the "big three" works of proto-analytic philosophy that put the final nail in the coffin of logical positivism (Philosophical Investigations and "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" being the other two), this might be my favorite.

I've never read Sellars! Brassier's Nihil Unbound opens with a discussion of the manifest and scientific images, but that's about the extent of my exposure.

I love Wittgenstein though; in fact, I read his philosophy as somewhat complementary to Derridean deconstruction (not entirely, but certain aspects definitely overlap).

Gravity's Rainbow is good, but slow-going; mainly because I'm currently also reading a couple nonfiction texts that I checked out from the library: