The Books/Reading Thread

I'm a Mieville fan, so I'm going to go ahead and answer too... :D

First, if you've tried three of his books and they haven't really clicked, then I'm doubtful that you'll enjoy his other stuff. That caveat aside, I loved Embassytown; but I can see how people would find it unenjoyable. It's not an easy book to read, and the plot details are quite opaque (intentionally so, I think).

I thought Kraken was fun, but it's actually at the bottom of my list. It felt like Mieville just goofing off with a deliciously absurd magical scenario/setting, and showing off how well he knows his Herman Melville, but not doing much beyond that. The thing I love about Mieville is that he's clearly a master of genre fiction conventions, and he's experimented in various categories (as indicated below). I actually haven't read Un Lun Dun yet, so I can't comment on that one. Of the ones I've read, I'd rank them as such:

The City and the City (detective fiction)
Perdido Street Station (weird fantasy/Victorian steampunk)
Embassytown (science fiction)
Iron Council (weird fantasy/steampunk/western)
The Last Days of New Paris (fantasy/alternate history)
The Scar (weird fantasy/nautical fiction)
Kraken (weird fantasy)

I should also say that his collections of short fiction, Looking for Jake and Three Moments of an Explosion, are really good.
 
zipview.php

Finished this yesterday. Very good but now I have to read the sequel.
 
Finished What Does This Button Do. Really interesting to get Bruce's perspective on the ups and downs of Maiden. Also really didn't realize he was a no shit pilot in the sense that it was a full time job threaded in and around touring and recording. I thought he was just licensed and flew the band for kicks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ozzman
Seems interesting. Let me know what you think.

Well, I'm 1/4 of the way in, and it's pretty obvious the author is a (((Marxist))). There's some irony in plainly describing a very worthless, miserable, sickly sort of people with the freedom to do otherwise as somehow being total victims. The (((author))) suffers from a very typical lack of insight (where convenient) even when the facts seem to be mostly in order. I'm actually enjoying the book on a factual presentation level, but the author's implications and likely conclusions I certainly don't share. She's a fine writer, and unless I start tracking her notes to dead ends, seems to be a fine enough investigative scholar. But she's oblivious to her biases to the anti-factual theory.

Edit: I should say she paints a pretty unflattering, and probably legitimately so, picture of a variety of governors for early colonies. That doesn't somehow make the human "refuse" which inhabit the areas near where I hail from as victims. They are still living a sickly, malproductive dream.
 
Last edited:
Finished White Trash. Decent historical coverage, but some suspect assertions at various points make me leary of the overall veracity. Still, I'd recommend it as an exercise.

Now reading:
41M268F988L.jpg
 
I've been a lazyboi since taking the language immersion break from graduate studies and have barely browsed literature related to my field since arriving last summer. I need to get back into shape and read the books of all of my potential advisers for when I'm applying to new PhD programs in the fall. In proper form, I'm putting that off for something else that caught my eye, but which is also in any case right up my alley (if a bit too focused on literature):

9780520201095.jpg
 
Read Hillbilly Elegy and The Death of Expertise recently. Both were very refreshing and much needed reads. Hillbilly Elegy was, admittedly, a bit slow for the first half of the book, and that might be because half of my family is from the south, so it wasn't super unfamiliar to me. That being said, I did consider possibly assigning a few chapters as examples of solid narratives. Once the author joins the Marines and goes to law school, the book became more interesting to me.

The Death of Expertise was interesting. I found out about it because the author was on Sam Harris's podcast about a year ago. One thing I like about the book is that it looks at the issue of the distrust of experts from multiple angles (college, media, other experts...). However, this book, along with many others like it, is largely preaching to the choir (myself). When Nichols rails about why people are more willing to trust Gwyneth Paltrow versus a doctor, I nod my head and say, "Preach!", but the people who would benefit most from the message are least likely to read it. Maybe that's not a huge issue? Maybe he's preaching to the choir so the choir can sing in a different key to better reach the masses' ears? I didn't dislike the book, I highly enjoyed it, but I questioned its effectiveness
 
Finished Eumeswil. Kind of an odd book, definitely an exercise in egoistic expression, but not without a few good snippets for thought. Probably could have been half as long.

Now:

51%2B6srP9pGL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
Just found out that a line from my review appeared in the paperback edition of William Christie's A Single Spy as part of the praise for the book section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Einherjar86