The Books/Reading Thread
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
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
Juggalo
Einherjar86
Active Member
The nature of the books.
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
mentat
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 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.
Einherjar86
Active Member
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.
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.
Dak
mentat
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
Active Member
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.
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.
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
Juggalo
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.
Dak
mentat
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
Active Member
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:
Now I'm leaping back a few decades and taking on this beast:
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
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.
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
Member
Read Transfigurations, a very good sci-fi that centres around an in depth study of an alien race and their evolution.
Einherjar86
Active Member
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:
Einherjar86
Active Member
Can't believe it, but I found this bad boy in the library. Only read the preface and first chapter so far, and some of the second; it is awesome. Those of you who enjoy horror fiction and Lovecraft's work, this is the epitome of horror philosophy:
