The Books/Reading Thread
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
CiG
Room with a View
... finishing this one up.
I've had that on my list for a while. How is it?
Einherjar86
Active Member
I remember really liking them. Steve Perry was the author, and he's pretty good at doing those franchise-fiction kind of books.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Dak
mentat
CiG
Room with a View
Einherjar86
Active Member
Okay, so I already posted this; but I can't stop thinking about Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. I've been revisiting it lately for my exam prep and it's just a phenomenal book. I know there are lots of people here who love Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian; well, I honestly think that Gravity's Rainbow is on par with that novel, and in fact is far more stylistically/narratively complex.
Of course, that's to be expected: Blood Meridian is a historical novel, and Gravity's Rainbow, while historical to a degree, is far more interested in the unknown and the alien. And this is why I think several readers on this board would find the novel fascinating, albeit challenging. Gravity's Rainbow is a work of, for simplicity's sake, horror in its purest sense: the invasion of the living human world by the world of the inhuman dead. War in Pynchon's novel isn't so much an act of aggression between two (or more) human factions, but an interface between life and death. War is a means of communion, so to speak. This allows Pynchon to make some really sweeping political critiques as far as militarization goes, but he also takes aim at race, gender, sexuality... and in the realm of science he tackles physics, mathematics, cybernetics... he's all over the board.
It's by no means a simple narrative, and I do not claim to have a complete grasp on what exactly happens in it. But every time I go back and look at it, I find something new to underline or notate. It's just an incredible piece of literature.
Of course, that's to be expected: Blood Meridian is a historical novel, and Gravity's Rainbow, while historical to a degree, is far more interested in the unknown and the alien. And this is why I think several readers on this board would find the novel fascinating, albeit challenging. Gravity's Rainbow is a work of, for simplicity's sake, horror in its purest sense: the invasion of the living human world by the world of the inhuman dead. War in Pynchon's novel isn't so much an act of aggression between two (or more) human factions, but an interface between life and death. War is a means of communion, so to speak. This allows Pynchon to make some really sweeping political critiques as far as militarization goes, but he also takes aim at race, gender, sexuality... and in the realm of science he tackles physics, mathematics, cybernetics... he's all over the board.
It's by no means a simple narrative, and I do not claim to have a complete grasp on what exactly happens in it. But every time I go back and look at it, I find something new to underline or notate. It's just an incredible piece of literature.
unknown
fuck ftagn
I've been putting off Gravity's Rainbow and Infinite Jest forever. I guess I'll finally give the former a crack over winter break
Einherjar86
Active Member
Infinite Jest was phenomenal too. This summer has been productive for me as far as major American novels go.
I would recommend Gravity's Rainbow above Infinite Jest though, even though I loved the latter. Both are unrelentingly difficult books, and dark as fuck. But Gravity's Rainbow has a more global and complex feel to it, in my opinion.
I would recommend Gravity's Rainbow above Infinite Jest though, even though I loved the latter. Both are unrelentingly difficult books, and dark as fuck. But Gravity's Rainbow has a more global and complex feel to it, in my opinion.
Dak
mentat
I'm not 100% done with Tragedy and Hope yet but it definitely seems to back up Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
It is quite unfortunate for all involved in the 30s and 40s that the US joined the war in 1917. I'm concerned for a historical repeat.
It is quite unfortunate for all involved in the 30s and 40s that the US joined the war in 1917. I'm concerned for a historical repeat.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I looked that historian up after seeing you post the book. I enjoyed reading about him. Still not a fan of Buchanan thought. 
Dak
mentat
Still not a fan of Buchanan thought.
Yeah, I haven't read anything else he's written, book or otherwise. I think the impetus for him on covering the grimly unfortunate events surrounding WWI and setting the stage for WWII probably was his political views, in being anti-interventionist, a sentiment which I do share to varying degree.
rms
Active Member
What's his alternative to intervention? It seems like a terrible perspective to be arguing from.
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
Your response does nothing to answer my question. Every historian(scholar) knows the Versailles treaty was the most crucial error in producing the environment for Nazi Germany to rise, but what is the alternative?
I enjoyed reading this book.
I enjoyed reading this book.
Dak
mentat
The errors go further back than just the treaty. Furthermore, it is assumed that the loss by the Central powers was a good thing. I can find no evidence for this other than unsubstantiated pro-British or French sentiment. Imperial Germany was, from what I can tell, certainly more admirable than Britain or France or Russia of the era.
rms
Active Member
I'm listening to his comments on the book and it's kind of ridiculous.
He is very confident in his assessment of Hitler which I think is incorrect. And of course he enjoys the "no war in the west" but "Germany vs. Russia" doesn't sound like such a bad thing.
He is very confident in his assessment of Hitler which I think is incorrect. And of course he enjoys the "no war in the west" but "Germany vs. Russia" doesn't sound like such a bad thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dak
mentat
I don't see what's so ridiculous. The extreme focus on Hitler's treatment of the Jews has clouded judgement over the entirety of international history between 1900-1945.
rms
Active Member
Buchanan even cites it himself, "the Judeo-Bolsheviks" to the East. I do not feel like watching all 7 parts or reading his book, but I doubt he mentions whether or not a superior Nazi Germany or a superior Stalinist Russia is better for the World. Then Buchanan attributes the invasion of Greece on the West, which is also out there. Mussolini went first, failed, and then Nazi's went in and took all the Jews out. Hitler was a mad man, and the fact that Buchanan treats him rationally is ridiculous.
