What Are You Reading?

[RNGmaster]

Paused in my quest to read everything by Bill Bryson (who is an amazing author on his own right, but could ascend to godhood if he combined with Stephen Fry). I've decided to pick up 2001: A Space Odyssey. Also got a sci-fi collection by George Alec Effinger, who is probably the single best cyberpunk author ever.

[rancor]

Just finished "Grifters Game" By Lawrence Block. Highly recommended if you like gritty, gang-land style novels set in the 60s. Elevators and telephones had operators, people took new-fangled TWA jet flights to Miami, men wore suits and hats and carried .38 revolvers at all times and drove big-block Fords. Also one of the darkest, most chauvinistic endings I've ever read in a novel. As another reviewer stated:

A book like this could have ended in any of a dozen ways, all of them somewhat predictable, but Block comes up with one that absolutely knocks you to the floor…

Knocks you to the floor indeed - You'll never guess the ending! Amazingly satisfying, sometimes crime and being an asshole pays off.

The first book from the new Hard Case Crime publishing house, this one is easy to read and hard to put down. I finished it in two sittings. Now gaze upon the beautiful cover art!



Just started on "Somebody Owes Me Money" about an hour ago, and it's fantastic so far!

[NTSC-J]

Utsukushii Hoshi by Yukio Mishima

Not sure what I think so far. Its his one and only sci-fi novel and its certainly strange. Has the usual things you`d expect of a Mishima novel: lovely metaphors and contempt for women.

God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

So much pwnage within these pages, I dont know where to start.

[sjewkestheloon]

I'm just a few stories away from finishing up with a complete reading of Borges' fiction. One of my favourite authors whose stories can be revisited endlessly.

I'm also reading William Gass' The Tunnel which is massive in every sense of the word. The narrator is brilliantly horrific, and reading it can be repulsive at times, but the quality of the prose is wonderful and for once we have an author who messes with typography to an ends other than mere shock-factor.

Recently finished B.S. Johnson's Albert Angelo which was all a bit 60s experimental, but held up well due to the mix of comedy and sadness. An interesting author indeed, and almost a forgotten one it seems. I have 2 more if his to read and I look forward to them.

[mouser]

God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

So much pwnage within these pages, I dont know where to start.

Heya, I'm actually reading the antithesis:

Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft

Lots of knowledge in here, relying on logical reasoning rather than the circular "bible verse thumping" commonly associated with Christians. Has arguments concerning the existence of God, nature, morality (such as the "1st Cause" argument, source of conscience, etc). Interesting stuff. Hitchens is probably next for me, gotta see both sides.

[CMoon]

Reading Radical Brewing, Mr. Wilson's Cabinet of Wonder (a book about the Museum of Jurassic Technology) and on to book three of Suzanne Collins' Underland Chronicles. Still pretty much hooked on reading young adult books, but Collins is one of the best authors out there right now for this genre, so it's hard not to want to plow through her books, especially when she refuses to wrap up all the loose ends or do happy endings.

My list of things I want to read (and re-read) keeps growing. Lots of Lem (best thing I've touched in sci-fi), never finished McCarthy's Sutree, Death Ship is calling me back to it's blackest (but still so humorous) pits of hell, plus I'd like to re-read some Huxley at some point.

Mouser & NTSC-J> I think the meeting place between those books you are reading is Jung & Campbell. Then you can both walk away with a handshake

[mouser]

Mouser & NTSC-J> I think the meeting place between those books you are reading is Jung & Campbell. Then you can both walk away with a handshake

This one, right?

Sure, why not? I think people say the Persona games use Jungian concepts, so I'll have a go

Been trying to wrap me head around the Cosmological Argument (1st Cause), and after honest reflection, came up with two conclusions. Either:

1) A higher, eternal intelligence, the uncaused cause, exists. (ie. God).
2) The universe just "is," naturally, without a cause, only possible via a circular universe (Oscillatory Universe, Chaotic Inflationary Universe). Truthfully have some problems with the this one, because even a circular universe has to be caused by something. (ie. Where did the donut come from?) Now we have a donut! And that leads to the Contingency argument....

ugh....my mind is fried, gonna play some Xbox...

[NTSC-J]

mouser, I give you credit for being willing to hear out both sides of the story.

Regarding your thoughts about god and the universe, I think the most unlikely scenario would be that the creating force behind everything resembles a human being. Most of the major religions seem convinced of this fact, but I think people need to be a little more humble and realize that we really aren't so incredible when compared to the wonders of the universe and it isn't always all about us.

And if you're at all on the fence with this stuff, Hitchens will make things very clear. I can't imagine anyone who considers themselves a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever not being a bit shaken by some of the stuff he says.

[CMoon]

Trying to stick more to books instead of what you should or shouldn't believe in (imagine if this forum could ever have a civilized discussion about that?), there is an awful lot of Jung and Campbell and I'm really hesitant to suggest any one starting point, however...



This is a pretty easy introduction to Jung. As an autobiography it is problematic, but gets to some of his more profound ideas. The problem with Jung is that he is a very dense and extremely academic writer (seriously, footnotes a page long, etc.) I've read Symbols of Transformation, which is a key work by him, but don't really recommend it due to the difficulty.

Joseph Campbell on the other hand is extremely accessible. For a single volume, many recommend Hero with a Thousand Faces...



...though if you are more adventurous I'd go to his Masks of God series, which seems to be more what you are looking for:



Both Campbell and Jung are not interested directly in whether or not there is a god in any literal sense. They are interested in the psychological importance of spirituality. They are interested solely in the human experience. Jung, Campbell, et. al will argue that spirituality inherently springs up from man, and that religions are artifacts of that human experience. On the whole this seems to piss off both theists and atheists alike.

Another book I've almost forgotten about is Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy. If you are already familiar with Huxley, this might be a good entry point.

[greg]

Regarding your thoughts about god and the universe, I think the most unlikely scenario would be that the creating force behind everything resembles a human being. Most of the major religions seem convinced of this fact, but I think people need to be a little more humble and realize that we really aren't so incredible when compared to the wonders of the universe and it isn't always all about us.

If this is Hitchens' premise as to why religion is bullcrap, then he's really started out his argument going down the wrong tangent. While the Greco-Roman gods, Egyptian gods, and Hindu gods very much resemble human beings, and are confined to spatial-temporal limitations, the Judeo/Chrisian God and the Muslim Allah are far more intangible concepts, with human-like attributes ascribed to them in order to create a better understanding for the human brain.

Trying to stick more to books instead of what you should or shouldn't believe in (imagine if this forum could ever have a civilized discussion about that?),

Yes, that would be great if it were possible. Alas, on a video game forum, that is a pipe dream, unfortunately.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I can't think of a single cosmogonical myth where creative force resembles a human being.

[CMoon]

Trying to stick more to books instead of what you should or shouldn't believe in (imagine if this forum could ever have a civilized discussion about that?),

Yes, that would be great if it were possible. Alas, on a video game forum, that is a pipe dream, unfortunately.

Pretty much a pipe dream on any forum. There's a reason why religion and politics are taboo topics in polite conversation.

[greg]

Pretty much a pipe dream on any forum. There's a reason why religion and politics are taboo topics in polite conversation.

That's also the reason why a lot of forums that are more strictly moderated forbid discussions about politics, religion, and The Great Pumpkin.

[NTSC-J]

Regarding your thoughts about god and the universe, I think the most unlikely scenario would be that the creating force behind everything resembles a human being. Most of the major religions seem convinced of this fact, but I think people need to be a little more humble and realize that we really aren't so incredible when compared to the wonders of the universe and it isn't always all about us.

If this is Hitchens' premise as to why religion is bullcrap, then he's really started out his argument going down the wrong tangent. While the Greco-Roman gods, Egyptian gods, and Hindu gods very much resemble human beings, and are confined to spatial-temporal limitations, the Judeo/Chrisian God and the Muslim Allah are far more intangible concepts, with human-like attributes ascribed to them in order to create a better understanding for the human brain.

I don't want to misquote or misrepresent what he says since he knows way more about history and religion than I do, but he takes issue with the self-centered nature of religion. I'd suggest either checking out his book or some of his debates on youtube, of which there are many. All are very funny and entertaining.

It was always my impression that the Christian god was something like a human, even if an intangible force. He's referred to as a 'He', we were created in his image, he 'loves' us, etc. I've met all types of Christians, some that are more literal than others, so I'm sure the opinions on this vary a great deal.

But I think we should either make a separate (and hopeless) thread or this will derail the reading thread further.

[mouser]

Admittedly, further discussion will likely lock/derail this thread eventually. Youtubing the authors will provide much more insight than I could ever say, and you'll get the classy youtube comments to boot ^^;

I'm up for a new thread, if people would like to discuss it...though this topic can get pretty vitriolic.

[Skykid]

Hitchens cracks me up. I can sit on youtube for hours watching his interviews cos that wit is so sharp, so dry, and painfully accurate.

The Fox interview on Rev Falwell's death is brilliant. I can't believe he closed with the line "If you gave Falwell an enema you could fit him in a matchbox."

Genius.

[greg]

It was always my impression that the Christian god was something like a human, even if an intangible force. He's referred to as a 'He', we were created in his image, he 'loves' us, etc. I've met all types of Christians, some that are more literal than others, so I'm sure the opinions on this vary a great deal.

Well, the "in his image" doesn't mean that God has arms and legs and is limited to physical space. What being made in God's image means is that we have free will, we have the ability to create and destroy, we have the power to create new life and the desire to care for and nurture it, and that we have the power of reasoning. Basically, the stuff that tends to set us apart from most animals. As for the gender issue, doing a word study of the original Hebrew language used illustrates the concept of God being unisex, having characteristics that are both male and female.

If there are retards out there who believe the earth was created in seven literal days and refuse to believe in dinosaurs and crap like that, or if they justify actions of violence and bigotry with religious scriptures, then that's the fault of religion, not God. If I were to write such a book, it would be called "God is Great, Religion Ain't." I'll check out the guy's YouTube videos sometime, but if he fails to differentiate between God and religion, then he's really missing the mark. Religion is Man's attempt to control God.

Anyhow, that's the last from me in this thread. I just find it sad that people fill their heads with the bigotry of atheism. It's no better than those who fill their heads with the bigotry of religion. The only difference is that as flawed human beings, we tend to believe that our farts don't stink as much as others'. So, we are inclined to think that others stink while we stink too. Thus, there's no sense in pointing fingers and mocking others' beliefs.

...Except for Mormons and Scientologists. I think they deserve being laughed at for their beliefs.

[Never_Scurred]

Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka

[Obiwanshinobi]

[CMoon]

I'm just a few stories away from finishing up with a complete reading of Borges' fiction. One of my favourite authors whose stories can be revisited endlessly.

I just managed to snag that collection. Any particular story you recommend staring with?

Obiwanshinobi> Are you reading a book about corvids?

[Obiwanshinobi]

Kafka is a kafka is a kafka.
South American writers are something I have a beef with. Oddly enough, South Americans are way better at film.

[Skykid]

I just find it sad that people fill their heads with the bigotry of atheism. It's no better than those who fill their heads with the bigotry of religion.

I don't really see atheists as 'filling' their heads, rather they're choosing to clear it. We're born into a society that lives by ancient religious moral codes, regardless of the commitment of parents to a particular faith.

In effect all children are raised with notions of religion and god and educated/indoctrinated with it to varying degrees. They at least have an understanding of religion even if they have no particular allegiance to it.

This is why I consider atheism to be more challenging: you need to investigate why something should be unlearned, rather than accepting things as the way they are.

[CMoon]

Guys, please just stop the religious talk right here. At least try to cleverly disguise your talk in the form of book reviews.

[Never_Scurred]

Kafka is a kafka is a kafka.
South American writers are something I have a beef with. Oddly enough, South Americans are way better at film.

Elaborate, please?
This is my first experience reading Kafka.

[greg]

Does anyone else read Star Wars novels? Serialized fiction is not high literature by any means, but it is a guilty pleasure of mine. I'm currently reading Isard's Revenge in the X-Wing series of books, written by Michael Stackpole. I've read some SW novels written that were pretty bad. Most of them were written in the '90s. Perhaps the writer was just a dolt, or perhaps they didn't get much support from Lucasfilm. Half of Courtship of Princess Leia was crap, and other books like The Crystal Star and Children of the Jedi are complete trash, from what I've read. (I read that The Crystal Star, written by Star Trek writer Vonda McIntyre, was actually a script for a Deep Space Nine episode that was rejected, and she just changed the characters to Star Wars characters.)

Anyhow, Timothy Zahn and Michael Stackpole get it right. They truly capture the feel of the original Star Wars movies, and the established universe from back when being a die-hard Star Wars fan didn't entail turning a blind eye to all sorts of ridiculous crap. I've had the opportunity to meet Michael Stackpole twice already, since he is local to the Phoenix area. The Rogue Squadron comic book series he wrote is absolutely phenomenal, and the artwork on those pages is exquisite.

Once I'm done with this current book, I'm going to take a break from Star Wars. It's a toss up between A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge, or The Engines of God by Jack McDevitt for some more great space opera. I've also been meaning to start reading the Lensman series as well...

[Randorama]

If there are retards out there who believe the earth was created in seven literal days and refuse to believe in dinosaurs and crap like that, or if they justify actions of violence and bigotry with religious scriptures, then that's the fault of religion, not God. If I were to write such a book, it would be called "God is Great, Religion Ain't." I'll check out the guy's YouTube videos sometime, but if he fails to differentiate between God and religion, then he's really missing the mark. Religion is Man's attempt to control God.

Hitchens is deeply pissant about this. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't make a distinction, depending on whether he needs to so to win the argument (eugh!). Hitchens seems to represent a certain old British (or German, Italian, Japanese, etc.) form of reactionary culture that just takes scorn at everything for the sake of it. Melliflous prose, though.

Anyhow, that's the last from me in this thread. I just find it sad that people fill their heads with the bigotry of atheism. It's no better than those who fill their heads with the bigotry of religion. The only difference is that as flawed human beings, we tend to believe that our farts don't stink as much as others'. So, we are inclined to think that others stink while we stink too. Thus, there's no sense in pointing fingers and mocking others' beliefs.

Sorry but... it seems that you're focusing on only as specific sub-set of atheists, e.g. people such as Daniel Dennett and his non-sense such as Breaking the spell. I mean, Dennett even invokes the formation of the bright cult of atheists, so he falls squarely within this group of braindead people.

More in general: atheism is the for the most part a *lack* of beliefs in revealed truths, or creation myths about the cosmos. A negative, "nichilist" atheist can do so just because he finds these mythos to be rubbish, without having valid arguments to do so. A good deal of wannabe atheists, a la Dennett or Dawkins, seem to BELIEVE that science can be the right mythos, so they have this burning need to fight a crusade against religions. Hitchens likes to mock people, and that's it.

More positive atheists can tell you that they don't buy any revealed mythos, and possibly suggest that science seems to be a more promising way to figure out how the universe works. The cool aspect of science is that one can update his beliefs, if they turn out to be wrong. In classical revealed religions, one has to hide the facts under the carpet...

Then, of course, there's the whole can of worms that is Ethics and morality. As far as I am concerned, the debate on whether some all powerful being created the universes can be safely split from whether we need some solid way to interact with fellow human beings.

In a positive sense, organized religions can provide a set of rules to do so, so a person can sit down, choose a certain set of rules as more comfortable with his personality, and stick to these rules for a better tomorrow. Of course, a religion is based on the notion of revealed truth ("it's good because I told you so"), but non-brainwashed, and decently educated believer can actually offer good reasons for why he believes in what he believes. An atheist may do so in the same way, and tell you that he will not kill people for a lot of good reasons, even if they were not argued first by the Christ.

Among other things, if Moral minds by Marc Hauser is on the right track, it is perfectly possible to find out how and why certain moral choices seem to pop up across religions as "intuitions of one that became the dogma of ten thousand"*, since they seem to represent general principles of balanced social life: "do onto others...", for instance. I'd suggest Daniel Harbour's an intelligent person's guide to Atheism on the topic, but I warn that the book is a tad dense, Daniel's prose is straight out of Oxbridge (i.e. highly rhetoric).





I do like pr0n and sex to a certain degree (and when it's the right time), though, so I am certainly going to Hell






*(...to cite Bruce Lee's intuition motto).

[Obiwanshinobi]

Kafka is a kafka is a kafka.
South American writers are something I have a beef with. Oddly enough, South Americans are way better at film.

Elaborate, please?
This is my first experience reading Kafka.

I shoud've posted that in the "I'm drunk" thread. "Kafka" means jackdaw in a couple of Slavic languages. For whatever reason I find it amusing.
The sentence about Latin American writers was a digression regarding Borges.

[maxlords]

Current books on the go:

The Fuller Memorandum by Charles Stross (book 3 of the Laundry Files)
A Young Man Without Magic by Lawrence Watt-Evans (book 1 of a duology)

Just finished:
The Dark Side (NOT a Star Wars novel) by Zach Hughes


Seems like I'm one of the only heavy fiction readers around here....

[CMoon]

Seems like I'm one of the only heavy fiction readers around here....

Nope. Don't let all the non-fic talk fool you.

[CMoon]

If you like YA fantasy you need to try Patrick Ness' Chaos Walking trilogy, starting with The Knife of Never Letting Go. I'm halfway through the second and it is an absolutely stunning romp.

White Noise is great too, kind of an ur-text of American postmodernism and pretty damn funny to boot.

Been digging through this thread for good things to read. Knife of Never Letting Go is selling for $3 as a Kindle download, so I snagged it.

I know some of you are using Goodreads.com I just signed up--how do I use it to find books (I assume it can make recommendations like netflix?)