Now Reading

Having finished Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, I want to retract my previous negative statements about the book. Yes, not much happened and stuff, but I was completely oblivious to his point. Woosh, over the top of my head. While reading, I thought of selling it after I finished it. But now I'll think I just keep it nicely on my bookshelf. Might pick it up again sometime.

  On 7/20/2011 at 5:23 PM, triachus said:

Having finished Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, I want to retract my previous negative statements about the book. Yes, not much happened and stuff, but I was completely oblivious to his point. Woosh, over the top of my head. While reading, I thought of selling it after I finished it. But now I'll think I just keep it nicely on my bookshelf. Might pick it up again sometime.

Yes. Serious bidness.. a lot of dry spells, but over all, great. Have you read Baudolino? That is probably my favorite of his. Sort of like a weird Baron Von Munchausen/Time Bandits type adventure, just jam packed with odd moments in history. That is simplifying it a bit, but i highly recommend it if you like Eco's style.

I'm not totally sure of the Island of the Day Before yet... it has some brilliant moments but it's also totally steeped in Eco's theories re: semiotics: the text gets a little overwhelmed in a few places. Which is the point, but I don't know if it's completely enjoyable yet. It probably is, and I just need to set aside a chunk of time to give it the full attention deserved.

I still think the Name of the Rose is the best place to start with Eco... it's not a difficult read at all, and it seems universally liked. I haven't read Baudolino, though.

My dad recently gave me this:

... a lifetime of growing up with a pastor father and a religion-teacher mother has largely put me off of both sides - after all, both preach - but it never ceases to amaze me how any contemporary tragedy can be shoehorned into theology.

Right off the bat, though, I'm irked by the fact that atheism is represented as a an anomaly (at its strongest point in the 1950s), which is only now giving way to "reason" - that fucking bugs me to no end, but I still may persist with it

lol

I mean, sorry.

lol

  On 7/21/2011 at 8:08 AM, baph said:

lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol

I forgive you

It's ok. I'm laughing at the apparent argument that a lack of belief in a vengeful, all-powerful, anthropomorphic sky-god (not deliberate denial; just lack of active belief) is an irrational position, but unquestioning belief in a vengeful (sorry, loving), all-powerful, anthropomorphic sky-god is a rational position. I guess you'd be predisposed to taking that at face value if you're predisposed to believing that the bible is the word of god because the bible says it's the word of god.

  On 7/21/2011 at 5:33 PM, baph said:

It's ok. I'm laughing at the apparent argument that a lack of belief in a vengeful, all-powerful, anthropomorphic sky-god (not deliberate denial; just lack of active belief) is an irrational position, but unquestioning belief in a vengeful (sorry, loving), all-powerful, anthropomorphic sky-god is a rational position. I guess you'd be predisposed to taking that at face value if you're predisposed to believing that the bible is the word of god because the bible says it's the word of god.

you misread me entirely. read it again

I meant the book's apparent argument, not yours. I thought I was being bugged by the same thing that's bugging you.

If I'm still misinterpreting, clarifications welcome! I'z not the one reading it (I am currently reading the federal bankruptcy code: please do not do what I'm doing if you'd like to maintain your sanity).

  On 7/22/2011 at 5:39 AM, baph said:

I meant the book's apparent argument, not yours. I thought I was being bugged by the same thing that's bugging you.

If I'm still misinterpreting, clarifications welcome! I'z not the one reading it (I am currently reading the federal bankruptcy code: please do not do what I'm doing if you'd like to maintain your sanity).

at myself on that one. Sorry about that!

Zeitoun by Dave Eggers, it's really good so far

Read this for a postcolonial literature course a couple of years back. Now I'm returning to it because it's an ace novel.

Neuromancer - William Gibson

re-reading the book that brought me to literature

and parallel, some horkheimer

  On 7/25/2011 at 8:12 AM, verticalhold said:

any good?

Zizek really polarizes me. I love his speaking engagements, the documentaries...but half the time I find his books to be drivel hidden behind an overly-worded and somewhat schizophrenic thought process. The other half of the time I find them great inspiration, especially when he is commenting on Lacan or Hegel.

  On 7/26/2011 at 3:22 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/25/2011 at 8:12 AM, verticalhold said:

Slavoj Zizek - Violence

 

 

any good?

 

Zizek really polarizes me. I love his speaking engagements, the documentaries...but half the time I find his books to be drivel hidden behind an overly-worded and somewhat schizophrenic thought process. The other half of the time I find them great inspiration, especially when he is commenting on Lacan or Hegel.

fascinating so far, but I have to agree on the "schizophrenic" part; while he has some truly moving insights (fetishist disavowal, for one), he slides between these so haphazardly that they're dislodged almost immediately. I initially wanted to have a read of The Parallax View after someone posted it in this thread - was that you? - but upon skimming it seemed way above my head... I'm taking relatively light cultural studies at the moment - Stuart Hall, Nikolas Rose, Adorno - so I'm finding this a little hard to stomach, and I don't know much of Hegel (and only baby steps with Lacan). Also picked up this because he gets frequent mention and his discussion of the "essencing" function of language is FUCKING INTENSE!:

Short answer: yes, half way through and it's great

Everyone loves Cormac McCarthy, even Oprah, and if you don't like Cormac McCarthy there's something wrong with you. This is his funniest novel and everybody should read it.

just read game of thrones.

i don't really read books, i used to read them when i was in high school.

but still - i can't say i consider this quality literature. why is everybody so into this? comparing this to tolkien is a crime!

i did kinda enjoy reading it though and it kinda makes me want to read the pt2... but i can't get over how shallow and artificial it feels. like it was written to be reworked into a screenplay.

and no, i haven't watched the show. yet. i'll watch it tonight :)

about 2/3 into the pale king. way better than I worried it would be. some of his finest writing is in there, I think. it's also really hard, which I guess is supposed to happen.

amazing and horrible. i dare you not to be affected.