A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson I often read a lighter book while tackling something heavy to give me a break when I feel like it. This was the one I used during Les Miserables. Travel writer Bill Bryson runs through the major science subjects (including physics, cosmology, evolution, geology and so forth) giving a brief run-through of their histories and of their major discoveries. It's all a bit facile with no real depth - he declines to say anything about quantum physics on the ground that it would get too complicated for example. So while I didn't really learn much, it was an entertaining and well-written jaunt, and certainly would make a good introductory book for someone starting to read some popular science.
The Small Bachelor - P.G. Wodehouse Not one of his Jeeves books, this is about a lovestricken introvert and his antics with his beloved's family, a policeman, and a man with very strict ideas about living. The absurdity of the frequency with which all these people run into each other is part of the fun. Quite funny in narration, plot, and characters, and I hope to read more of his novels in the future.
I just Read the Jeffersonian Bible and the Adam and Eve Diaries by Mark Twain. Good reads, both of them, for the heretical minded.
I read excerpts from "Adam's Diary" and really enjoyed it. I also laughed a lot reading Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses."
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert M Price Next up another one searching for the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Robert M Price is a prominent advocate of the Christ-myth theory, holding that there never was a historical Jesus and that he is entirely a literary and mythological creation. Here he deconstructs the New Testament stories, stripping away the layers of embellishment, plagiarism and sectarianism. It's an impressive feat, ending with the conclusion that none of the material is historical, and that if there is a historical figure at the root, nothing about him has been preserved. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced - some of Price's conclusions arrived at using his "criteria of dissmilarity" don't seem to follow - just because the gospel writers use texts that exist elsewhere or because the beliefs of proto-Christians overlap with those of cynics, stoics and so forth, don't seem to me to preclude them being historical in essence. That said, some of his arguments concerning for example, the nativity and the resurrection entirely debunk orthodox doctrines and provide a fascinating explanation for how and why they came into being in the decades following the origins of Christianity. Overall Price has convinced me that this is an intriguing possibility, and I've learned a great deal about the whole area which I hope to continue with.
Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist provides a pretty strong case that Jesus was an actual historical figure, and why most historians are convinced. One thing I took from that book is that historians don't view the Gospels as a single source. Mark is one source. The unique material in Matthew ('M') is another source. The unique material in Luke ('L') is another source. The sayings of Jesus in Matthew and Luke ('Q') is another source. John is a source. The authentic Pauline epistles are another source. So, Jesus is multiply attested by documents that date within a few decades of his life. To be sure, much of what appears in the Gospels *is* myth, but Jesus himself was almost certainly a real person (albeit a bit different than the one transmitted to us through the ages).
Ehrman is near the top of my list at the moment. However, I'd urge you to read Price to see what you think. To whittle down your list a little, almost all of the material unique to Luke and Matthew can be dismissed as invention (with obvious motives), John is too late and to the limited extent that the Epistles make historical claims, those can be argued to be later interpolations. That leaves Mark, Q and very little else - which can be chipped away at further. I agree that there's probably some historical figure, but I'm less sure than I was. I'll be posting in The Red Room about this, which may be a better place to continue the discussion.
Night by Elie Weasal The sequence is too familiar by now - pogroms, ghettos, deportation, concentration camps, selections, gas chambers, death marches. But this was one of the first widely read accounts of the holocaust, from the perspective of a Hungarian Jew, recounting the events as they happened in particular to himself and his father. It is, as I say, well-known by now, but the details still don't fail to shock. I'm thinking of the authors anger at his father for drawing the anger of the SS as he is beaten to death. The hanging of a child. Words of encouragement from SS guards who also shoot dead stragglers. It's short and simply written, with Weasal also recounting the effect of these horrors on his Jewish faith. It appears that despite declaring the God of Israel to be dead here, that he did nevertheless retain his belief afterwards. I'm at a loss to know how.
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner A short novel with a reputation for both merit and difficulty. The story is about a family of rural Missispians travelling across the country in an effort to bury their dead mother. Each chapter is narrated by a different person, with little in the way of context. It's at first a disorienting and opaque approach, with some effort and thought required to figure out what is going on, much less to draw any conclusions from events. But it does begin to pay off, with the story in turn humorous and profound. By the end you begin to understand the characters complexities with earlier events put into some context. And then it ends. Now this leads me to believe that a second (or even third) read-through would be much more rewarding. And I understand that that gives Faulkners work some value as a literary artifact, much in the sense that Joyce's more difficult output has. And I might return to it at some stage, but as a casual reader with limited spare time, I'm not sure that I can necessarily justify studying the likes of this to the extent that is required to fully appreciate it.
Ring for Jeeves - P.G. Wodehouse Shockingly, this one has Jeeves in it (but not Wooster). It also has horse racing and ghosts and is just about as enjoyable as the other one I read. There's the same pattern of new plot threads appearing and immediately entangling with others to comedic effect, which helps to keep things moving quickly.
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway This is Hemingway's novel set during the Spanish Civil War, again based on his own experiences. It's the story of an American fighting for the International brigades, sent behind enemy lines to destroy a bridge in an effort to assist with an offensive that is planned by the Republican side. It's not overtly political, more concerned with the war than the politics behind it. I'd say it's the best I've read by him to date - beautiful and tragic and alive. Certain sequences are harrowing to read, the characters are fascinating and multifaceted - capable of the most extreme cruelty, bravery and cowardice, but kept relatable and sympathetic throughout. Some of the linguistic choices are strange - the characters speak Spanish and he translates it literally throughout - with 'thou' and 'thee' and other oddities. He also censors the swearing - "I obscenity your mother". But they don't really detract. Great stuff from a fascinating period of history.
The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia by Angus Roxburgh This is a history of Russia since the fall of communism, primarily focusing on the rise and rule of Vladimir Putin. It's an interesting overview, with some of the particular stories and insights being revealing in terms of the reasons why Russia has lurched back into authoritarianism - although the general picture of corruption and autocracy that it paints is hardly all that ground-breaking. The author is a former PR consultant to the Putin government and while one suspects that this might align him with them in some sense, the reality is quite different. My main criticism in particular is that it's quite western-centric, limited in the extent that it portrays the Russian point of view, or the experience of the Russian people, and far too uncritical of the policies of the west.
The View From the Cheap Seats by Neil Gaiman A nonfiction collection of book introductions, lectures, essays, and so forth written (or spoken) over the years by Gaiman. A bit uneven, actually, since there's no theme to it other than the nature of the pieces included. Also a rather surprising amount of references to all the awards and accollades Gaiman has accumulated over the years, which seem uncharacteristic of him. Still and all, if you're a fan there's a lot to like in this volume. Gaiman pontificates on many and diverse topics in his dry British way. It's like when you see an artist's sketchbook instead of a collection of finished works. I always love that kind of stuff. AND, reading it actually snapped me out of my writing slump. I got about 5/8s thru it and suddenly found myself compelled to sit at my desk and start writing again. So I count it a major success.
I am currently reading The Crisis by Winston Churchill (no, not that Winston Churchill) which was originally published in 1901. It is a bit of historical fiction set in St. Louis immediately before the start of the Civil Wars so you see the building up of tensions in a border state. The novel has four main characters who all end up on different sides of the civil war and it seems rather interesting so far.
The Disposessed by Ursula Le Guin Nominally science fiction, this one is actually a political exploration. The main character Shevek belongs to a planet of peaceful anarchists, and travels to nearby moon where capitalism is the norm. Le Guin constructs a plausible working model of an anarchist society and examines its strengths and weaknesses, and those of its rival in a mature and balanced way. At its best this leads to some quite profound observations about human beings and human society. At its worst its slightly dated, some of the cold war era tropes and allegories no longer relevant.
The Amazing Colossal Apostle by Robert M Price. Another book by the most prominent proponent of the Christ-myth theory, this one aims to determine what can be said, if anything about the historical Paul. The conclusion, unsurprisingly is that Paul is every bit a literary creation as Jesus is and that if there was a real historical figure at all we can only speculate broadly about him, the Christian Paul being entirely a fabrication. Largely this is done by deconstructing the Pauline epistles and attempting to demonstrate that they could not have been written by Paul or any other individual. They are instead pseudo-biographical works which have been edited and redacted repeatedly by religious authorities possessing various motivations, starting with gnostics, then Marcionites and finally Catholics. Their current form was arrived at well into the 2nd century. While historians (as opposed to fundamentalists) now take some of this for granted with several of the epistles, Price demands that we see them all in this way. The real Paul is hypotheticised to have been a gnostic leader, nothing to do with any Jesus movement and potentially having been deified to some extent himself. He survives in Christian tradition only as Simon Magus, an evil sorcerer, with the character of Saul/Paul being the version co-opted and domesticated by the emerging Catholic church in order to heal the divides between Jewish and Marcionite branches of Christianity. The logic here is impressive, the depth and breadth of Price's learning remarkable. It's difficult not to be convinced by the thrust of his argument, even if there are details that one might quibble with and questions I still have. I'm probably not familiar enough with mainstream scholarship to come down firmly on one side or the other but this is serious stuff that ought to require a massive effort to refute.
I'm dubious about theories claiming Jesus is a fictional character. I'm almost hostile to theories Paul is. Although mainstream scholars think a number of letters attributed to Paul are not authentic, most believe that a core few are. But even if NONE of them were, they would still be useful as evidence: they show that people in the early church tried to bank on Paul's authority. And since the letters were addressed to multiple churches, that's indicative that this authority had some widespread basis.
@Paladin: The supposition is not so much that he's a "fictional character" but that we can say little about him and that at the least he was very different than the NT (which is in effect highly edited Catholic-approved propaganda) portrays. You should read this stuff.
Oh, I'd agree we know little about Paul and that the theology he preached is quite different from later orthodoxy.
I'm going to read Ehrman soon, and possibly one of the direct critiques of the mythicist theories. Finding this stuff all highly fascinating. Another one is Karen Armstrong, who apparently argues that Judaism still wasn't yet fully monotheistic in the first century and that that had a role to play in the development of Christianity too.
I suppose that depends on how one defines "monotheistic." Judaism certainly has other divine beings. An idea that had currency in Jesus's time was The Son of Man, a divine being that Yahweh was going to send to straighten out the world, a sort of apocalyptic angel. Jesus makes reference to the Son of Man on several occasions in the NT, and (it appears) the theology evolved so that Jesus was retconned as this being.
That's part of it, yeah. It's also the case that the establishment orthodoxy represented by the Sadduccees and relying principally on the Torah had limited reach. Those in the backwaters such as Galilee mixed it up with older beliefs remaining from the first temple era and new apocalyptic stuff imported from Zoroastrianism and elsewhere.
Thirteen Detectives - G.K. Chesterton A collection of detective stories by Chesterton. The preface makes it clear that Chesterton had Ideas about what makes a proper detective story, and in that context, some of these stories felt more like demonstrations or exercises than yarns. Quite a different feel from my current Christie rereading binge . But they are inventive, amusing, and very readable. I think my favorite was "The Hole in the Wall" for its atmosphere, but special mention to "The Donnington Affair", where Chesterton provides the solution to another author's setup so thoroughly that the reader is left without any doubt that this must have been what the original author meant all along. It was also interesting to come across a story that possibly was the source material for one of Christie's books.
The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty by G.J. Meyer. English history is something I have only a partial understanding of, so I've set out to rectify that. This is a fairly heavy tome charting the history of the infamous Tudor Dynasty of the 16th century. After a brief section on Henry VII (who by most measures after an improbable rise to power ruled in a reasonably prudent way) most of the book is dedicated to the tumultuous reign of his son, his well-known marital intrigues, his tyranny and his destruction of the old church. It's then followed by short sections on Edward VII and Mary I (each who only ruled briefly) before finishing with a somewhat longer section on Elizabeth I. It's interesting and entertaining throughout, pitched at a level that I found appropriate with some knowledge taken for granted, but with intermediate chapters explaining background topics (the reformation, the role of parliament, contemporary lifestyles and so forth). I would perhaps have liked some more attention paid to the underlying social trends - the new landowning class created by Henry's confiscation of church property and the new Protestant merchant class whose ideas were spread by the printing press are mentioned but they would have a huge role to play in future centuries that isn't really appreciable here. I come away from it all with a profoundly negative view of Tudor England. The Catholic Church is portrayed as being nowhere nearly as decadent as one might have thought and Henry's actions are shown as entirely opportunistic and brutal. Living standards are shown to have declined throughout, the relatively prosperous medieval kingdom degenerating into a heavily-tiered society with a minority living in opulent wealth and a majority in grinding poverty. Even the international standing of England is depicted as suffering, with the Crown lurching from one financial crisis to another. This all holds even during the time of Elizabeth, who to my uninformed mind would have at least have had at least as many positives as negatives. But here she's just another despot, petty and cowardly, who just managed to live a little longer. And yet it would, in a few short decades, lead to the beginnings of the modern parliamentarian system and thereafter to the industrial revolution. Omelettes and eggs maybe? Fascinating stuff.
The author's foreword indicates that Crooked House was one of Christie's favorites, and I agree it's a standout. I wouldn't bring it up, as it's another reread, but somebody wrote in the library copy I'm reading. They're discussing the case with the family Nannie (Christie's spelling) and she refuses to believe that the murder was committed by a family member: That's underlined in ink and below it is written "* Best line ever". Then at the top of the next page, Nannie continues: which is underlined in pencil and arrowed with "new Best line". One wonders if it was the same person. I think it was, as the n's connect to the e's the same . . . he or she just used a different instrument each time.
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte The three Bronte sisters are famed 19th century writers with a whole list of classics to their names. This one is the only novel by Emily Bronte, who had a short life and poor health but it's reputed by many to be the best of them all. Set in rural northern England, it tells of the doomed romance of Heathcliff and Catherine, and its effects on their families and associates. I was taken aback at how dark it is - at turns violent, ugly, misanthropic, stark and cruel. The characters lead miserable lives and go out of their way to inflict misery upon others. Heathcliff in particular is vindictive and obsessed with revenge, not only against his enemies but against their families. He destroys his own and their lives pursuing it. A very long way from what one expects from genteel 19th century society. One imagines that some of it might be drawn from the authors own experiences, her ill health and frustrations. There's just a hint of the supernatural (verging on horror at times). Perhaps an unreliable narrator. Certainly hints of a proto-feminism and class politics. All very far ahead of its time.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari The scope here is considerable - the entire history of our species. It starts well, and the first few chapters covering human evolution followed by the cognitive revolution and then the agricultural revolution are intriguing and offer an interesting perspective. Unfortunately as it moves on, the author appears to lose track of his task, and the narrative degenerates into a series of dubious opinion pieces about politics and philosophy. (Political philosophies are equated with religious creeds for example.) It's still reasonably well written with some thought-provoking ideas, but as it staggers towards its conclusion, it begins to dawn that perhaps Harari wished he had written a different book. His last chapter about cybernetics and AI anticipates the follow-up Homo Deus which is about the future of our species. That might be worth a follow-up some time if he can restrain himself a little better.
Lest Darkness Fall by L. Sprague de Camp Alternative history this time - I found the premise intriguing, concerning a 20th century man who travels back to 6th century Rome and attempts to prevent the Dark Ages from happening. It's quite short and reads almost like a fable (or a thought experiment) rather than realistic history. The protagonist, Padway, displays an uncommon resourcefulness, having little trouble adjusting to the wildly different society and it's language and in short order inventing the printing press, telegraph and various other improvements. Still, it's an entertaining flight of fancy that lays proper credit at the feet of the engineers who built both the classical and modern worlds.
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens It's Christmas, so why not? I may have read it as a child, but can't remember.It has had an enormous effect on culture and I'm certainly familiar with all of the story beats - Scrooge, Marley, Tiny Tim and the various ghosts. So while it's hard to come to it new, one as usual appreciates Dickens' prose, his usual outrage against poverty and injustice and the elements of the story that aren't so ubiquitous. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos by Brian Greene Brian Greene is a leading proponent of string theory and this is his third popular science book. This one focuses on the various parallel universes that have been implied by modern physics. I found it a welcome refresher for a lot of that material, although I would suggest that the substance of the book is highly speculative to say the least, and probably treated with unwarranted regard. Greene himself makes the distinction between scientific realists like himself who suggest that their theories actually represent reality and scientific instumentalists, who regard them only as tools useful only insofar as they yield accurate predictions. I lean to the latter camp, and with the likes of string theory itself being untested (and perhaps untestable) I find speculations upon its possible further-reaching implications which are also untestable to be a step too far.
The Stand by Stephen King IFC has been running the mini-series a lot lately, so I bought a paperback copy of the expanded edition, with what, 500 extra pages or so. Some of Bernie Wrightson's pen & ink art is still in the paperback, and that's the best of the longer version of the book, in my opinion. Some the plot points, like the hard economic times made sense when the book was set in the 1970s, not so much in 1990. I still enjoy the characters on the whole, (except for Larry, but I'm not sure we're supposed to like him right off), but King's insistence that anyone in a military uniform is nothing more than a criminal is getting old, thankfully, I've made to end of the plague, so that part should be done with by now. I haven't read this one in at least a decade, but I was motivated to pick up a second hand hardbound copy of the original length novel, that I plan of re-reading next, if only for the comparison of the two books.
