In fact, Baz Ehrman seems to have several books on early Christianity all of which look appealing! And I'm thinking that some of this stuff may make for a good Red Room thread. Maybe I'll create one later in the week.
The Conspiracy against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti. I came to this book, strangely through watching True Detective and discovering that much of what Rust Cohle was spouting came from its pages. It's a work of philosophical pessimism by horror-writer Thomas Ligotti which argues that human life is "malignantly useless", and that we'd all be better off putting an end to it. The eponymous conspiracy is that which has existed throughout history to deceive us and hide the fact from us. It manifests itself in religion, art, politics and just about anything else that tries to provide meaning. Obviously I don't agree with this and Ligotti does little to change my mind. Much of his thesis appears to me simply to be "assumed", and he dismisses opposing philosophies in short order. That said, the nihilistic perspective is interesting, particularly in the early chapters, and he links a lot of what he's saying to horror fiction such as that of Lovecraft which I now might be inclined to take a look at. But ultimately it all becomes a bit repetitious and labored. There's simply not enough content for the books moderate length. Once the reader is told once that he's a puppet on a string hiding from the horror of reality, it adds little to say the same thing ten further times.
You are just a puppet on a string hiding from the horror of reality. Other authors have said as much, and were just as repetitive. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Following on my review of How Jesus Became God, I read a couple more of Bart Ehrman's books. The three books cover a lot of the same ground, so I'll just hit the highlights here... Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman addresses a claim that has a lot of currency right now: that Jesus is a complete myth, and that the Jesus story really mirrors those of several other divine figures (Osiris, Dionysus, etc.). Right away, Ehrman reviews the early historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and shows that, while pagan sources are few and late (Pliny, Tacitus, etc.), the New Testament itself contains several independent references to Jesus, namely: Mark's gospel, Q (a lost collection of Jesus' sayings which has been reconstructed), L (material unique to Luke's gospel), M (material unique to Matthew's gospel), John's gospel (doesn't use Mark as a source), the letters of Paul (our closest witness, who knew Peter and James), and a handful of non-canonical gospels. Although everything in these texts cannot be taken at face value, they are sufficient to establish that Jesus almost certainly was a real person, and Ehrman says no credible 1st Century scholar accepts the Jesus-as-myth theory. Ehrman then shows claims that Jesus is just a re-telling of some other myth (you've probably seen the "Jesus-is-Osiris" meme going around) are largely stretching the similarities, and ignore the large differences. All-in-all, I think Ehrman's case is solid: there was a real Jesus of Nazareth, upon whom the early Christian texts are based. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium Probably the best summation of current scholarly thought on the historical Jesus. If you want to read a single Ehrman book, this is probably the one. Did Jesus Exist? is necessary only if you have some lurking suspicion that historians are out to lunch on the existence of the historical Jesus; otherwise, just take it on faith that he was a real person. And From Jesus to God is interesting to follow the evolution of Jesus from proclaimer to proclaimed, but that's more about what happened after Jesus. To get a good mental picture of what the historical Jesus (real Jesus? as close as we can get) was like, read this. When you follow the principles that historians use to filter out the fact from scripture, a most interesting and strangely unfamiliar portrait of Jesus emerges:
Since we were buzzing about it earlier in the thread, I've been re-reading Thoreau's Walden lately. So much good stuff in there . . .
Still reading Bourdain. This time the companion book to his first teevee series, A Cook's Tour. It's much better than the series because, being a novice at that point, Bourdain comes across much worse on camera/recorded than he does in print. His voiceover work on the series is very stiff and stilted. The book reads like his later voiceovers (and all of his on-camera bits) sound, which is a good thing. It also gives some good behind the scenes details that weren't included in the series. I think I have three(?) more of his books in the to-read pile.
Anything about adjusting pH levels? I've been adding a new waterfall section to my pond and I think the cement/sand mix in the base of it may have gotten my pH too high, though the bluegill don't seem to mind.
Well I've never read his book, but I assume that a do-it-yourselfer writing about a pond would at some point offer some useful tips.
Reading some old fantasy that I had recommended to me a while back, finally getting around to it - Robin Hobb's assassin's series. She does a great job with characterization, but the protagonist can get pretty whiney at times. I'm on book 5, and I damn near stopped after book 2 - while this guy is an antihero at best, its hard to watch a character so bound up by his own BS to watch his loved ones die - and that's pretty much all of book 2 - hero told not to hero, everybody dies. The rest of the books are very good though, and always interesting to watch a woman write a from a male POV for the protagonist. A couple of times I just had to laugh - no, he wouldn't have shared his feelings at that moment, he would have killed what needed to be killed. LOL. But still very good, and some good world building in the fantasy genre. After this I think I'll go with the Quantum Thief, get back into scifi.
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon This is an abridged version of the gigantic work of 18th century historian Edward Gibbon, originally published in several volumes. It focuses on the slow decline of the empire in the west in its various forms before describing the rise of Islam, the crusades and the final fall to the Ottoman Turks. The abridgement omits much of the history of the Eastern Empire and some chapters of less import. It's magnificent. The scope is staggering, as Gibbon goes way beyond the requirement of his title and relates most of the history of western civilisation for over a millennium. The causes of the downfall of the empire are diagnosed to be the increasing tyranny of the emperors, the decadence of the population, subsequent resort to the protection of barbarian mercenaries, and negative effects of the rise of Christianity. The literary achievement alone is impressive. It reads in the beautiful and ornate way that the best 18th century English does. There's barely a single date mentioned throughout as Gibbon switches between delightful irony (both the Christian and Islamic religions take a pounding), immensely learned and thoroughly researched storytelling (Gibbon refused to rely on secondary sources and contradicts them throughout, demonstrating how many things still revered as received truth are fictions or exaggerations) and laudable pathos (I defy anyone at the end of a thousand pages not to be moved by the final fall of Constantinople). Historically I'm sure it's been eclipsed by this stage, in authoritativeness if not in breadth, though anyone isn't a student in ancient history is unlikely to know or care. There are nitpicks that one could raise, owing to the biases of Gibbons time - some national stereotypes, a tendency to see history as belonging in cause and effect only to the most famous and powerful, and an exaggerated disregard for less "enlightened" cultures. I recommend this to anyone with the time necessary to savour it.
You'd like this one: The History of Islamic Political Thought Also good is The Third Reich: A New History, though I'm not finished with it yet. It's almost a thousand pages.
The Godfather by Mario Puzo. Just about everyone is familiar with the Godfather movies, but probably less so with the 1969 novel that spawned them. This covers the material that was used for the first movie and some of what was used in the second movie. It's simply written, a little pulpy and reads almost like a novelisation. Some character insights and additional background is welcome. One aspect in which the novel is superior to the movie is in the character of Luca Bracci. His fearsome reputation wasn't really conveyed by Copolla and co. - he only had two scenes, and the impact of his murder in the latter of these is dulled by our not knowing much about him. Here he's a force of nature and a malevolant psychopath. Less welcome than this however, are two lengthy subplots involving peripheral characters - one concerning Johnny Fontane and the ups and downs of his Hollywood career, the other with the mistress of Sonny Corleone and (bizarrely) the sexual difficulties she is caused by her unusual vagina! With regard to the Mafia and the figure of the Godfather, I find myself reminded of some politics and anthropology I've read, which describe the role of the "Big Man" in patrimonial tribal societies, and how this form of social organisation tends to reassert itself wherever modern systems break down. Such is the position of Don Corleone, revered as an almost sacred power by his community. There's a very powerful scene early on, left out of the movie, where a dying associate begs Corleone to subvert divine judgement and assure his place in the afterlife. Overall, knowing the story obviously robs the reader of some of the impact, but it's worth it if you're a fan as I am.
The structure of the modern crime family organization is very reminiscent of the patronage networks built by prominent Romans in classical times. A powerful man does you a favor/fixes your problem, you're obliged to back him when he makes some power play. It's also how a lot of things in China are done today...
Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson. An awkward tale that's equally about the starship as the people in it. Some biting views on interstellar travel and terraforming with almost an apology for the Mars trilogy hidden in one of the chapters. A good read but not great. I picked this up after loping through Iain Banks' Culture series. It was pleasantly refreshing to read some hard science fiction after Banks.
Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell. Having read Orwell's main stuff and concluded that he's one of my favourite writers (as well as one of my favourite people from the 20th century), I've decided to read through his lesser known works as well. This was his first published book and tells of his time living in destitution in the French and British capitals. Apparently it's part-fictionalised, or may not have happened quite as he records, but retains the essence of his experiences. This is in a time before the welfare state when poverty was terrifying and where slave-like conditions were attached to casual work. The story is told in an illuminating and human way, even if it lacks the ambition and some of the bite of what was to come from Orwell.
"!" Yes, it's partly fictionalized but essentially true. Orwell might have been the first gonzo journalist. Check out part 2 of The Road to Wigan Pier for more background.
Jesus and Paul by James Tabor I read Tabor's earlier book The Jesus Dynasty and really enjoyed it, even though I found it highly speculative in places, and, since I've been on an early Christian history kick lately, I breezed through this one, an historical examination of Paul the Apostle. As is pretty clear from any study of the period, our modern received Christianity is very different than what was preached by Jesus of Nazareth (see my earlier reviews of Zealot and Jesus: Apocalyptic Preacher of the New Millennium in this thread), in some ways alarmingly so. It's often said that Paul is really the co-founder of Christianity, since so much of it is shaped by his interpretation of Jesus' message. What Tabor's reconstruction of Paul's Christology leads me to believe is that, while Paul is indeed the progenitor of the dominant stream of Christ worship, HIS teachings have been mis-transmitted as well. First, it's clear that Paul, like Jesus, was an apocalyptic, one who believed that a radical reordering of the world by God was about to take place. Christianity has almost completely evolved away from this apocalyptic outlook. Yes, many Christians today still imagine that there will come an "end of days," but few believe it is imminent. Paul did and that's what he preached. When the apocalypse seemed to take a long time in coming, Paul's message evolved, too: those who are spiritually connected to Christ--i.e., who believe Paul's theology--have already begun the transformation to a higher (non-physical) form, even though there is not yet any obvious sign the apocalypse has arrived. Next, consider the resurrection of the dead. For Paul, the (worthy) dead are to be resurrected at the apocalypse, and NOT by regeneration of their decayed Earthly bodies, but rather by a sorta "re-clothing" in a new spiritual body. This is consistent with Jesus' reputed appearances to Paul in a transcendent, non-physical way--that is, in a spiritual form. After Paul, Gospel writers interpreted resurrection to be that of revival of the dead body, hence Jesus still has wounds in his post-resurrection appearances. Christians have, from very early on, operated under the mistaken belief that Paul's gospel entailed physical resurrection of dead bodies. Not so. For Paul, the flesh was corrupt and despised; a person brought into Christ's kingdom would dispense with it altogether. Finally, Jesus' role and the role of believers is also a somewhat different. Jesus, though ultimately lord of the universe, is just the first of this new wave of luminous beings; ultimately, all who are chosen--that is, all who are "in Christ"--will become judges over the remainder of humanity. As strange as it sounds, Paul's perspective is that everyone who believes will become like Christ and will join him in an (apparently) long-lasting battle to re-conquer the Earth from evil forces for God. (The book of Revelation begins to make sense.) This, too, has been lost in transmission. Although Christians believe in an eternal life in Christ's kingdom, they don't envision themselves as becoming "peers" of Christ. But this may be what Paul believed and preached. Is Tabor's recounting of Paul's perspective correct? He certainly supports it well, and I'll be keeping these ideas in mind as I learn more. I enjoyed the book and found it a quick read. For myself, I vacillate between thinking Paul a con man or a mad man, and, given the circumstances of his life, am inclined toward the latter.
A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss Lawrence Krauss has lately become one of the leading figures in the "new atheist" movement. In this, he attempts to explain using cutting edge physics how the universe could have arisen from nothing without the intervention of a creator. In my view he's partly successful. The main idea is that due to the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics, uncertainty is the rule and any region where there is "nothing" is unstable. As such the universe has a net energy of zero and arose out of quantum fluctuations - time and space coming first, with all matter and energy following out of a period of cosmic inflation. Some of this is quite speculative, with the underlying ideas being only dimly understood. There are lots of if's and maybe's. However it's just possible that these explanations are on the right track, which is encouraging. Overall I found it fairly interesting, if a little facile compared to something by Brian Greene for instance and the only thing that grated a little was his point-scoring against creationists, which surely is a tad superfluous to anyone reading a popular physics book in the first place.
The Mote in Gods Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle Back to some overdue sci-fi. This comes with a strong reputation and I can't say it's undeserved. The story concerns a human civilisation in the 31st century making first contact with an alien race they name the "Moties", and how the relationship between the two species develops. It's not quite a "realistic" vision of the future, there being a handful of pulpy contrivances that move things along. The Moties are a fascinating construct whose influence you can see in a lot of later (inferior) sci-fi. I did find the attitude of the humans in the book (and I'm not sure if this reflects the feelings of the authors) to be overly militaristic and paranoid. However at times I found it hard to put down. The story is well constructed with lots of twists and turns throughout. At its best moments it becomes quite profound and tragic.
Different Seasons by Stephen King This is a collection of (non-horror) short stories from King's early career. Three of them have since been made into movies, of which I'd seen two. The Shawshank Redemption: The prison story, a little different here - the characters are a little rougher and the prison staff aren't as well defined. Familiarity probably robs it of some impact. Apt Pupil: A young boy gets mixed up with a Nazi war criminal. Dark, intriguing stuff that keeps you guessing. The Body: A group of twelve year olds go on an adventure along the railways lines to find a dead body. (Stand by Me is the movie.) I found it a bit long-winded. The Breathing Method: A man joins a gentlemans club at which odd tales are told. The shortest and probably the best of the four. Quite unsettling - there's something just under the surface that isn't explained. In general, I remain of the view that King is better writing about the real world than the supernatural (those have always been the least interesting parts of his writing to me) but also that he has a tendency to ramble such that some of his writing could do with more editing.
The History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky I've always been fascinated by Russian history, and how tragic it is. The revolution and the subsequent civil war are perhaps the most tragic episodes. As a key player in these events, Trotsky has a unique perspective writing as a historian 15 years later. Trotksy is an impressive figure who deserves to be taken seriously, in spite of my thorough ideological disagreement. This is a long, well-written and exacting work which appears to possess factual reliability even as it dispenses with any veneer or objectivity. Its high level of detail is at times absorbing and at times ponderous, and while the overbearing tone and bias in favour of the Bolsheviks grows wearing, it also provides a useful perspective. The narrative begins with the February Revolution and ends with the October Revolution (or coup?) taking in all intermediate episodes including the April Days, July Days and the Kornilov Revolt. Throughout, the position of the Bolsheviks with the Russian people improves, from a minor fringe grouping to one capable of seizing power. It does appear however that Trotsky continually overstates the popularity of the Bolsheviks. Their eminent position among the industrial workers and soldiers by October was decisive, but it was hardly as unchallenged as presented here, and in an all-Russian context was still a small minority, the population being comprised mostly of peasants. Trotsky (following Lenin) excuses this by appointing the Bolsheviks as the "vanguard" of the revolution, but the inevitable (and real) end-point of that is one-party rule. Unexamined, in fact, is Trotsky's own opposition to this principle pre-1917 (he didn't join the Bolshviks until that year), describing it as "Bonapartism". Here his fanatical enthusiasm for the idea, and for the principles of dialectic materialism (also extremely questionable) lead to all sorts of historical conclusions that I find indefensible. Unexamined also are the extent to which Lenin's own positions taken in 1917 are a divergence from those expressed both before and after, not to mention his actions in power, which expose him in my view as an opportunist. Yes, power to the soviets in 1917 was probably a noble aim, if something that was going to prove difficult in the heat of wartime. The problem with the Bolsheviks is that they identified soviet power with their own power, and with it would very quickly move to build the first totalitarian state and to rebuild the Tsarist machinery of repression in a much more severe form (see the Cheka, Red Terror, war communism, the closure of the Constituent Assembly, the progressive outlawing of opposition parties, the subjugation of the soviets to the party...) All said, these are criticisms of the Leninist doctrines found in the book, but it's an intriguing read for all that.
Trotsky is a fascinating individual, but you kind of have to be wary of his historical stuff. He was after all writing about events that he personally had a hand in, so there's undoubtedly lots of bias.
http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...n.publishing.house.awaiting.release/69474.htm The next game of thrones book will be released this month.
I did a Dan Simmons stretch where I read the Hyperion Quartet of stories followed up by The Ilium and it's sequel Olympos which I highly recommend. With the 2nd two, you almost don't need to read The Iliad afterwards. He really did his research on that one. Nice mix of sci-fi and historical poetry. Got a third of the way through Kim Stanley Robinson's "2312" but gave up. Went through The Giver and The Martian pretty quickly, both are good. I'm now almost halfway through Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" which seems to be pretty good so far.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2548365/wi...ushed-but-promises-fans-a-bittersweet-ending/ GRRM still will not comment on status but he has said the Winds of Winter ending will be bitter sweet. Many folks are predicting a bloodbath as there are so many point of view characters still out there and as we go into the final two books their numbers will need to decrease. What do you folks think will happen? I predict the wall falling to the others, the Night's Watch being disbanded (what little is left of them), that Aegon will be exposed as a Blackfire, that R+L=J, naturally Joan must die, hopefully Sansa kills Little Finger, Princess Perky Tits finally makes it to Westeros but just in time to find the Others sweeping south with their Zombie hoards. Oh, and the dickless wonder earns some type of redemption possibly by killing the Boltons while Jamie makes good as the Lannister with a heart. Will Trion be found out to be a Targarian? I think so because it explains the fall out Twin had with the mad king and his insistence that Trion was not his son.
The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson I've been curious for some time about the phenomenon of psychopaths, particularly the difference between those who commit crimes and those who function more normally. Here, Jon Ronson (of The Men Who Star at Goats) explores the issue in its various forms, chatting with patients in mental institutes, CEO's who exhibit the traits, psychiatrists, conspiracy theorists and Scientologists. It's a fairly easy read in a conversational style. Unfortunately the issue is explored in little depth and ends up trivialising the whole thing, with the take-away message that there are "degrees" of madness and that psychiatry isn't a particularly developed or reliable discipline are hardly world-shaking. I'll probably look elsewhere for something better on the subject before long.
Letters from the Earth by Mark Twain. This is a very short book that was published posthumously by Twain's daughter, never released during his lifetime because of its controversial contents. It consists of a series of satirical letters by an angel exiled on earth, describing his opinions on the Christian religion. The biblical tales are related, along with an astonished and angry commentary at their inconsistent, illogical nature and the depravity of the "God" that they describe. It's amusing, if nothing particularly new in to an age where Dawkins and Hitchens are widely read.
