Been rereading Kathy Reichs' Temperance Brennan series, Agatha Christie's Poirot & Miss Marple books, and reading an Austrailian mystery series Miss Phryne Fisher. All mysteriesand all written very differently.
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens This is my fourth Dickens novel and longer by some distance than the others. There's definitely some padding in there, Dickens tending to run away with the flowery prose at times. But it was definitely worth it - it's at times funny (Micawber is hilarious throughout) at times moving (character deaths, Davids plight when he runs away) at times shocking (Creakle, Steerforth). Overall it's an entertaining portrait of a life not dissimilar to Dickens' own, vividly portraying society in early-mid 19th century England in all its variety.
I don't think the current Western system is going to last the next hundred years. The flaws are already showing. I think short to mid term we will devolve into pure oligarchy, enhanced by major technological breakthroughs that put far more power into the hands of those with capital than the previous 250 years of history allowed for: robotics, genetic engineering, expert systems, enhancement to life expectancy, etc. I hope that ends with a revolution - but I acknowledge the fact that we may see a hegemony of families that make the Roman dictators look egalitarian.
Over the holiday break I finished the second book in the trilogy, Dust World. Another $5 Kindle download. While not quite as captivating as the original, it still kept my interest while presenting the hero and his cohorts in an adventure on another alien planet. Several plot twists and some reckless heroics/stupidity later, Specialist James McGill saves the day again for Legion Varus. Yet there are inklings of bigger goings-on with the Galactics. I guess I'll just have to read the third book to find out what happens!
The End of History and The Last Man by Francis Fukuyama This was released over 20 years ago, just after the end of the Cold War and has achieved a certain notoriety since then. It's central thesis is that the liberal/capitalist system of government has defeated all ideological rivals and that history in the sense of struggles between these rivals has ended. It goes on to argue that this situation gives rise to Nietzsche's "Last Man", a rather boring creature who we can unfortunately recognise, one who cares only for material comfort and toleration but who is devoid of creativity and who avoids risk. Unfortunately and in contrast to Fukyama's later more mature work, I found that its arguments were historically selective and used a very broad brush, essentially knocking down a series of straw men. Troublingly, "democracy" is used throughout virtually as a synonym for capitalism, but it's clear that Fukuyama prefers a form of democracy in which actual participation is very limited, and at times he even refers favourably to paternalistic authoritarianisms. There's no consideration given to what I would consider more substantial criticisms of the status quo, such as the environmental one, or the anti-corporatist one. The central philosophical forbear that he identifies is Hegel. I'm only aware of Hegel from secondary sources, having never read him myself, but my understanding of him is not positive, and his identification by Fukuyama as a champion of freedom makes little sense to me. Fukuyama invokes Heglels pre-Marxist dialectic repeatedly, despite it being completely ahistorical, and brushes over or excuses his corporatist, militarist and monarchist ideals. I won't deny that it was all very interesting, and thought-provoking, even as I was disagreeing with most of it. And it's good to know that he eventually backed away from this, to develop the more nuanced theories that we've seen in his more recent books.
Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick This one is about six ordinary people who lived most of their lives in North Korea, only to escape to China and South Korea in the aftermath of the enormous famine that occurred there in the 1990s. North Korea is most often regarded with contempt and ridicule in the west, but this does a good job of showing the human stories hidden behind all of the slogans and posturing of the regime. Mainly focusing on Chongjin, a regional city that is very different from the showpiece of Pyongyang, it starts off in a time when NK was a stable, middle-income country (however bizarrely it was run) and gradually takes us through the fall of communism, when the lights started going out, through to the death of Kim-il-Sun and the famine that followed. Along the way there is romance, family feuding, ambition and all of the things that one expects from human beings, culminating in some heartbreaking stories of people dying in the streets and the heroic efforts that were required of the survivors. There's not much in it that is going to be a surprise to anyone with an interest in North Korea, although the personal stories do drive home the human impact of totalitarianism. But I found it quite powerful and affecting, putting a lot of stuff into perspective and renewing my hope for a better future on the Korean peninsula.
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien I read this one more for the sake of completism than anything else. I was already very familiar with the plot and its place in the middle earth universe, but somehow had never read the book. That probably ruined it a bit for me. It's fairly light stuff of course. I found the confrontations with Gollum and Smaug to be the best parts.
I've started several books this year, but so far this seems to be my go to Read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle (for probably the 3rd time) And I'm currently reading How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
Tarry Flynn by Patrick Kavanagh. Patrick Kavanagh was one of the foremost Irish poets of the 20th century, and this is one of his few works of prose. Set in rural Ireland in the 1930s, it concerns the life of the eponymous small-holding peasant farmer Tarry Flynn. It's at least partially based on Kavanagh's own experiences. Tarry is an aspiring poet in a world that is too small for him, hemmed in by sexual frustration, a domineering mother, bickering neighbours and the Catholic church. Present throughout is the contrast between the restrictive, sexually repressive social mores and the beautiful, overflowing fertility of the natural world that these people farm for a living, and are actually experts in. It's a lifestyle and society that is only now receding from view as modernity takes over in this country. The story is set only a short distance from where I grew up, and as such the attitudes and types are not that different to what I can remember among older people, down to some of the curious regional ways of speaking. Tarry Flynn deserves to be considered a classic - there are moments of profundity, along with others of humour, sadness and regret.
The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution by Patrick Cockburn Patrick Cockburn is a journalist based in the middle-east and I'd previously read his two books about Iraq, which I found to be excellent. This one's about the recent upheaval involving ISIS. It's pretty disappointing overall, as it seems to be a collection of journalist pieces and talks that Cockburn has given on the subject collated together in a book. As a result it's too short, there's little narrative flow between the chapters and there's quite a bit of repetition. It does provide an interesting perspective on events that speaks to the shallow way that this is all covered in the mainstream media. In particular, ISIS is shown in the context of ongoing Sunni-Shia struggles and other regional rivalries. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, while not supporting ISIS directly, have priorities other than defeating them, the efforts of the west are typically heavy-handed, and the moderate Syrian opposition barely exists any more. I'd prefer, however, if each of these items had been explored in more detail, and the history of the group explored in a more structured way.
The Story of Spanish by Jean-Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barlow This book details the historical development of the Spanish language. 10 interesting points from the book (#1 is a summary): 1. The modern Spanish language evolved from the common street Latin--greatly simplified from the more eloquent Classical Latin--spoken in Spain in the 2nd Century B.C. The language was somewhat influenced by Arabic during the 800 years Muslims controlled much of the Iberian peninsula; the historical trend toward making Spanish orthography (writing) match pronunciation has its origins in Arabic's similar facility. The Castilian dialect, which became prominent when Castile took the lead in the Reconquista, was considered a low dialect unworthy of poetry or formal rules of grammar until King Alfonso X of Castile systematized the language for administrative use in the late 13th Century. Speaking correctly has been ingrained in Spanish culture ever since, and the Spanish established an academy for their language very early (before either the French or English). The Spanish started a worldwide empire, but for centuries Catholic missionaries spoke to indigenous peoples in their own language; the widespread use of Spanish by the people in South and Central America is a much more recent development (18th Century). The collapse of Spain's worldwide empire at the start of the 20th Century spawned many new Spanish-speaking countries which have since diverged in their vocabulary and grammar, though there are long-standing efforts to keep the language unified. Spanish remains the third most influential language in the world (after English and French, but ahead of Mandarin) and the rising numbers and economic strength of Spanish-speaking people in the U.S. ensure that it will continue to be so. 2. The modern name for Spain (España) comes from the Phoenicians, who had economic ties to the land in the first millennium B.C. They called the country I-shepan-ha, which means "land of the hyraxes," but it's actually a misnomer: they mistook the rabbits that filled the countryside with the Middle Eastern hyrax. So it's actually kindof "land of the rabbits." The Romans latizined the word to Hispania. When the Byzantines tried to reconquer the fallen Western Roman Empire, they referred to the country by the Hellenized name: Spania. The medieval French adopted a variation of this word (España) for all the kingdoms of Spain and, eventually, the Spanish themselves embraced the word for their own national identity. 3. The name "America" comes from the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. Vespucci's charts were used by the cartographer Martin Waldseemüller to prepare a map of the New World (a term Vespucci used for his own account of his explorations) for a book in which he gave credit to Vespucci for its discovery. The book sold well and, though Waldseemüller eventually realized Columbus was the true discoverer and corrected later editions, the name had already stuck. 4. Ever wonder why pirates are always after dubloons and pieces-of-eight? These were Spanish coins. The dubloon (Spanish dublon) was worth two (double) escudos (silver coins). The real a la 8 was a coin worth 8 reals (gold coins); the English took "a la 8" and translated it directly as "of eight," of which one coin was one piece. 5. Spanish in the New World is heavily influenced by the Spanish spoken in Andalusia (southern Spain), because all ships in the early colonial period departed from Seville and many of the colonists were from the surrounding area. This is why Mexicans say "cinco" and Spaniards say "thinco." 6. Coronado explored as far into North America as Kansas and, on his return trip, many of the horses the Spaniards brought were inadvertently run off. These horses--the species is not indigenous to North America--bred and multiplied in the wild and were later domesticated by American Indians. So, when you see an Apache or Sioux on horseback, remember that the Indians had no horses before Coronado. 7. A particular type of cowboy hat was considered tan gelan ("so handsome") by Mexicans. In English, it's called a ten gallon hat which, of course, makes no sense. 8. The Mexicans once pronounced the letter x as sh. Mexico was pronounced "Meshico" in the 18th Century. And the Mexicans living in Texas were called Texicanos ("Teshicanos"). Texicano is the origin of the modern word Chicano, and is appropriately applied only to Mexicans. 9. Spain expelled all the Jews about the same time Columbus was discovering the New World. Jews with origins in Spain are called Sephardic Jews, and they include British statesman Benjamin Disraeli, Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, French philosopher Jacques Derrida, and American actor Hank Azaria (I thought his inclusion in the list put him in pretty good company). 10. Thomas Adams, a secretary to exiled Mexican General Santa Anna (yes, the one from the Alamo), was looking for an industrial use for the gum from the chicle tree, when he noticed that the General would chew on it for hours. This was the beginning of the chewing gum industry. The first brand? Chiclets. Being a language geek, I enjoyed the book considerably and found that it gave a complete and interesting history of the development of this important world language. The later chapters get more into modern social and political affairs which interested me less, but were still worthwhile reading.
Traci Lords: Underneath It All by Traci Lords. I don't read very many books written by women (Garamet excepted) so I thought I should in case I'm every confronted by a feminist, letting me at least see the female perspective on things. This book was that and more, from an icon whose underage antics and Congressional testimony changed the face of an entire industry. Stories I Only Tell My Friends by Rob Lowe Growing up with the Sheens, banging movie stars as a teen, banging Princess Stephanie of Monaco, Demi Moore, and countless others, while working with some of the top old guard talent in the industry (one of whom remarked at a major charity event "gentlemen, I believe that man has fucked every one of our daughters."), he is talent personified, and very humble, an unmatched role model for young men today.
Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev A return to the Russian classics. This is set in 1862, at a time when the Russians had just lost the Crimean War and also just freed its serfs. The country was in the midst of much soul-searching, having fallen badly behind the rest of Europe in terms of its modernisation. The story (which is fairly thin) concerns the difference between the ideas of the fathers (liberals of the 1830s) and the sons (radicals of the 1860s), focusing on the families of two central characters, Arkady and Bazarov. The latter in particular is an ardent nihilist, who (inconsistently) rejects all authority. He's treated sympathetically, but he comes across as a "rebel without a cause", perhaps one of the first such in literature. If it's a type that's old hat nowadays that probably goes some way to explain why I didn't quite grasp why he was received with such shock when this was first published. There's much here that's evocative, and you can see the huge influence that Turgenev had on both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. There are traces of Bazarov in Raskalnikov and Ivan Karamazov, and given the way Russian history developed 50 years later, concern about these kinds of extremist ideas was certainly warranted.
Trigger Warning, Neil Gaiman's latest short story collection. Includes a new American Gods tie-in with his character Shadow.
The Dark Tide by Andrew Gross I picked this up because I was looking for a diversion from something heavier I've been reading, an inconsequential thriller - maybe something akin to John Grisham. The story concerns an investor who fakes his own death, and the cop who tries to untangle the web left behind with other shady characters coming into play as well. Unfortunately it's downright awful. The plot is uninteresting, the romantic stuff is not credible and - in particular - the dialogue is painful to read. Nobody talks like this. Perhaps a better editor could have salvaged it. As things stand it appears to have been churned out in a weekend. I surprised myself that I persevered at all, which I only did because I was once in the habit of not finishing books and don't wish to be again.
Just finished Zealot by Reza Aslan. The book examines the historical context of 1st Century Judea in order to paint a picture of the historical Jesus. I don't think there's anything Earth-shaking in the book--Aslan himself has stated that most of the material is pretty mainstream among scholars--but it was an interesting summation nonetheless. Some interesting things (some of which I knew and some of which I didn't): 1. In the early 1st Century, Galilean farmers were under enormous economic pressures and there was much resentment of wealthier people in the cities. Galilee was a hotbed of zealotry and produced many would-be messiahs and revolutionaries in Jesus' time. Several were far more well known than Jesus. None were successful. Zealots after Jesus would spark revolutions that invited crushing Roman responses. 2. "The Kingdom of God" would've been understood as an Earthly kingdom, and "the Son of Man" as an Earthly ruler by Jesus' listeners. 3. Faith healers were commonplace; Jesus was notable for not charging for his services. 4. "Render (give back) unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's," takes on a more political dimension when you realize that Jesus may be slyly referring to the land. It reflects a disdain for wealth and presents a nationalistic outlook by setting the two in opposition. Kinda like: "You can have this wealth, or you can live in this land as God intended. Which do you choose?" 5. Jesus was almost certainly illiterate and would've been a day laborer--perhaps a stone mason--and would likely have worked in Sepphoris (near Nazareth), where he might've seen Herod Antipas on a near daily basis. 6. Jesus was a disciple--formally or informally--of John the Baptist. The early Christians are clearly trying to establish Jesus as the spiritual heir to John. 7. Jesus believed he was the messiah--an Earthly king--sent to liberate the Jews from Rome through zeal. The gospels portray this as a kept secret, known only to Jesus' inner circle, but in the final days of his life, Jesus made it known that this was his intent. And that's what got him executed. Not by the Jews for blasphemy, but by the Romans for sedition. 8. Many of the details of Jesus' biography are fiction. He was probably born in Nazareth; the birth in Galilee is a later invention to give him messianic cred and, in any event, the census story is both unsupported by evidence and ridiculous. His trial before Pilate is unlikely; Pilate ordered men killed routinely, would've had no time to waste on Jesus, and would certainly not have been conflicted about it. Mary's perpetual virginity was a much later doctrinal change that required de-emphasizing James as Jesus' brother. 9. On Paul's final visit to Jerusalem, he is forced by the Jerusalem Church to undertake a purification ritual intended to demonstrate his adherence to Christianity's Jewish roots, roots which he has previously renounced. Paul's theology was a fringe belief and it came to the fore mainly because Jewish Christianity was essentially wiped out by the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD. I enjoyed it and found it a good overview on both Jesus and the tumultuous times of 1st Century Judea.
Good summary; I posted about that earlier in the thread when I read it. Would have liked a little more detail, but it is what it is.
Ah, I'd forgotten you'd read it. You might've been the source of the impulse that made me read it. I knew I'd heard about it, but couldn't recall from where.
There is some thought that Jesus may have been part of a deposed royal lineage, as his brother James was allowed into a very sacred part of the temple where only people of such high rank could go. That would explain the gifts arriving for the first born of Joseph and Mary and the worries that a rival claimant to the throne had been born, along with why Jews were expecting a king who would take charge. I also saw some work that suggested "carpenter" should be interpreted as "builder", and that Jesus father may have been in charge of the construction of major sacred religious structures as the family business.
Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty This is a challenging tome that charts the history and the evolution of the structure of income through capital and wages for the past two centuries - mainly concerning itself with the extent of inequality. The central finding is that inequality tends to increase over time, with the rich becoming richer and rentiers coming to dominate the economy. The world wars, the Wall Street crash and other shocks in the first half of the 20th century have disguised these historical processes by essentially hitting the reset button. But we're now once again approaching a level of inequality last seen in the 1910s, and if the things allowed to continue we will exceed that with worrying consequences. Picketty outlines various solutions, principally that of a global tax on capital to arrest or reverse the trend. As might be expected with the statistical subject matter, it can all get a bit dry but Piketty keeps it interesting, for example making reference to the lifestyle of characters in various historical novels to illustrate his concepts. Critics will argue that Piketty never explains why high inequality is necessarily a bad thing - he unabashedly assumes it as such, also clearly being in favour of the social state, citizen democracy and other concepts that right-wingers might take issue with. But it's a view that corresponds broadly with my own, and his rendering of the situation we find ourselves in and the direction we're headed is impressive and ominous.
The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler This is the first and reputed to be the best of Chandlers' series of hardboiled detective novels featuring private detective Philip Marlowe. It's a short but complex tale of blackmail, murder and vice in 30s LA. The plot is difficult to follow at times but it's not really the point. It's all about the atmosphere, the dialogue and the characters. I found it a fairly enjoyable read.
Picked up some fantasy for the first time in years - reading the Assassin's Apprentice by Robin Hobb. Pretty well written, but I can almost always tell when a woman writes a male character from 1st person. There is a distinct lack of directness - everything is oblique, issues are rarely taken head on. She isn't up there with Lois McMaster Bujold, CJ Cherryh, or Ursuala K. Leguin IMO, but still pretty good. Compelling story, if occasionally frustrating, well written, a rich world and good characters.
How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman After reading Aslan's Zealot, I was hungry for more early Christianity, so I picked up this book that answers the question "How did an apocalyptic preacher from the backwater of Galilee come to be considered God?" The short answer, according to Ehrman, is: even though Jesus's first followers thought of him as human, early post-crucifixion Christians came to believe Jesus had divinity conferred on him (an exaltation Christology), and succeeding generations moved the start of his divinity further and further back--eventually to his birth--and from there the leap was made to the belief that Jesus had always been divine (an incarnation Christology). Jesus went from being fully human to fully God with increasing divinity. But could a person fall somewhere between man and god in the 1st Century CE? Ehrman points out that the hard division that we modern people see between humans and gods wasn't really a thing even among Jews of Jesus's time and there was a spectrum of possible forms between man and god, so that, over time, a person like Jesus could go from being seen as one to the other. So what did Jesus's followers think while he was still alive? An idea with currency in Jesus's time was that a divine figure--The Son of Man--was going to be sent by God to sort out the intolerable world the Jews were living in. Neither Jesus nor his followers believed that Jesus was the Son of Man, but rather that Jesus's mission would fire up so much belief that God would send this being. Jesus was the messiah, the king who would rule in the Kingdom of God that would result, but still just a man. But then their messiah was executed, so early Christians had to revise their views. Which they did, and continued to do. To illustrate the progression, Ehrman fleshes out a pattern that I never noticed, but, in retrospect, is pretty obvious. Let's start with the question: when, according to the gospels, does Jesus become divine? Let's go in reverse... According to John (the latest gospel, written around 95 CE), he always was. Jesus is the divine Logos--sorta the "personification" of the wisdom of God--who has always existed. According to Luke and Matthew (written around 75 CE), Jesus was divine from birth. Both of these gospels have "birth narratives" which are clearly inventions, not history. According to Mark (written around 65 CE), Jesus becomes divine after his baptism by John ("You are my Son. Today have I begotten you [emphasis mine].") So, what did the earliest post-crucifixion Christians believe before the gospels? It's hard to uncover, but an analysis of creeds and hymns--oft-repeated statements that express belief as part of ceremony--quoted in Paul's letters (the earliest Christian documents) are evidence of a pre-literary belief that Jesus was exalted at his crucifixion. That is, the early Christians believed that Jesus achieved divinity ONLY after he fulfilled some part of God's plan by suffering execution. That was the meaning they found in his death: he wasn't merely the messiah; he had been made something far, far greater. Going forward in time, then, the progression is clear: from exalted sufferer on the cross, to adopted Son of God, to divinely conceived product of a virgin birth, to the eternal logos through which all things were created. Christians saw Jesus becoming/being divine earlier and earlier until, eventually, he ALWAYS was, at which point he had to BECOME GOD to avoid breaking with monotheism. Although there were heresies that saw Jesus as a second or subordinate God, these were all eventually suppressed. So why did early Christians begin believing Jesus had been exalted in the first place? Ehrman is unable to give us a definitive answer, but he states that the belief that Jesus had appeared in some way after his death took root VERY early in Christianity. He surmises that someone must've had a vision--delusion, dream, or miracle--but can't say exactly how this occurred. However, he does state that the "empty tomb" business of the gospels is probably a literary device that doesn't reflect real events; those crucified by the Romans were generally left strung up to rot and be eaten by wild dogs and birds. The answer to the question "What REALLY happened in the days following Jesus's execution that not only kept his followers together but, apparently, reinvigorated them?" still waits to be recovered from history... Ehrman goes on to discuss the orthodoxies and heresies that evolved in the first few centuries of Christianity. The conflicting views of Jesus that were raised by the Gospels created contentious theological issues that weren't (mostly) resolved until 300 years later, by which time the Jesus-is-human views had become heretical. At the Council of Nicea--called by the Roman emperor Constantine to get all the Christian churches on the same theological page--everyone knew that Jesus was God, they just didn't all believe it in the same sense. The Trinity is the Council's way of addressing the contradictions that the disparate views of Jesus engendered. I enjoyed the book very much and found it enlightening and informative. I liked it so much, I'm reading another Ehrman book Did Jesus Exist? and will report on it when I'm finished!
You just have to read the Bible. Jesus gets more magical superpowers with each gospel. It's like little kids going "oh yeah!! Well MY Jesus is 50 feet tall!!". "Oh yeah? Well MY Jesus is 200 feet tall, and has force-fields, and MX-missiles that come out of his pee-pee!". "Oh yeah!? Well my Jesus is 500 feet tall, has MX-missiles in his pee-pee, and your dad is a fag!!". "Stupid....head!! ". *They fight*
Actually, he wrote Did Jesus Exist? first, I'm just reading them out of order. And he doesn't doubt Jesus existed. Did Jesus Exist? is intended to address those who claim that Jesus never existed, but is instead a myth, with no historical support. I'm only a little ways in to it and he's already pretty much destroyed the claim that there is no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. Incidentally, Ehrman is an agnostic/atheist and has no (apparent) theological ax to grind.
In the Bible the gospels are not presented in the order they were written. But, yes, by the time you get to John (last written, last presented in the Bible), Jesus is pretty much the cosmic kwisatz haderach. And STILL manages to get nailed to a tree.
Most recently I've read It's Your Ship: Management Techniques from the Best Damn Ship in the Navy, The Searchers: The Making of An American Legend and, currently, Medium Raw: A Bloody Valentine to the World of Food and the People Who Cook. I bought the first book in anticipation of moving into management and, while it's a good read, not all of it is applicable to my situation. The second book was a gift and is a good read as well. The last book is Bourdain and, so far, is his typical great stuff.
@Paladin : Great review. I didn't know most of that so that book is another one for my list. Coincidentally I'm reading Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, and there's a lot of good stuff in there too about early Christianity. One main point is that the alleged persecution of Christian by the Romans want actually that bad. It was sporadic but usually fairly minor. The claims of terrible persecution are mostly invention and most of the stories of martyrdom never happened.
