I 
Made in Chelsea. Ask me any question! I have S Mathews on speed dial.
1 Like
OK, WTF are you two Geyers talking about?
And Sir Stanley is dead, have some respect FFS
1 Like
No currently reading, but just finished reading, The Circle by Dave Eggers. It is a fiction book, but not to far of becoming reality!
There were over 150,000 books published in the UK last year. If you read one book a week every week between the ages of 20-60 you would have read a little over 3000 books in your lifetime.
Assuming I reach that ripe age Iâve got about 2000 books left in me.
I need some life changing fiction and, possibly Bletchâs recommendation aside, Iâve seen nothing that fits the bill so far on this thread. What do I need to read?
No historical fiction, please - Iâm done in with all that.
Finally finished Great Expectations (I really donât sit down, stop and read enough) and have moved on to Chavs: The demonization of the Working Class. Some similar themes really!
In the final volume of Simon Schamaâs History of Great Britain. As I think Iâve remarked before, Iâve also been reading Churchillâs take on our history too, and needed something a little less jingoistic and religiously ordained. If you listened to Churchill, youâd be hard pushed to separate divine providence with our own history. Heâs clearly a believer. Whatâs clear from both works is that religion, far from ever achieving anything, has been one of the key drivers in pretty much every important element of our constitutional makeup. Specifically, sectarianism has been responsible for a hell of a lot.
Itâs an interesting revelation to anyone who lives in this tolerant age of gay marriage and freedom of worship. The age of reason we live in is largely built on religious deviation, and the rights that those deviants were looking for and fighting for within a largely religious framework.
One of the books more controversial sections is on Cromwell. The book argues that the massacre at Drogheda was never a mass cleansing of women and children, citing records after 1649 showing residents living before and after the attack. The oft-repeated claim is that Cromwell ordered his forces to kill everyone, which is incongruent with much of the rest of his character. Itâs definitely true (Cromwellâs own account) that his forces put all of the military to the sword, but Schama argues that this probably saved lives later on as other towns gave up without resistance.
Iâve always been very patchy on certain parts of English history. Iâve enjoyed Schamaâs take immensely.
Iâm about to embark on 'Go Set a Watchman - with trepidation
Just noticed this thread:
I am currently reading (as in have read at sometime in the past month, have not yet finished, but have not given up on)
City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennett
The Apocalypse Codex by Charles Stross
Sports Analytics by Benjamin C. Alamar
Big Data Baseball: Travis Sawchik
The Secret Footballerâs Guide to the Modern Game by Anon
Corsair by James L. Cambias
The Dark Between the Stars by Keven J. Anderson
The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu
The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark
The Yearâs Best Military SF amd Space Opera by David Afsharirad
Dire Predictions by Michael E. Mann and Lee R Kump
I have finished reading in the past month:
Mr. Monk and the New Lieutenant by Hy Conrad
The Fuller Memorandum by Charles Stross
Working for Bigfoot by Jim Butcher
Money and Soccer by Stefan Szymanski
The End of All Things by John Scalzi
What If? by Randall Munroe
Vieled Alliances by Kevin J. Anderson
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time by Mark Haddon
The Game by Jon Pessah
So what are you, Loser D, the professor of reading or something?
I know this might be an unpopular thing to say, but the Atticus Finch of Mockingbird isnât necessarily inconsistent with the one in Watchman. Firstly, heâs a six-year-oldâs interpetation in the orginal. But there was always, in my view, something of the lawyer standing by his principles (fair access to a jury trial, etc) rather than someone acting by his wider social beliefs in Mockingbird.
I read it (a long time ago) thinking how could Atticus take the outcome of the trial, and then the events of that night, with such quiet calm. Not that he would have condoned the murder - but it did seem odd at the time. He clearly wasnât going to find himself on the barricades during any civil rights action (as unlikely as that would have been in the 30s).
He was a good man of his time (and idealised by a child) and the times changed - which is something a great novelist ought to reflect. I donât get the outrage at his portrayal in Watchman.
(Iâve tried writing this without any spoilers - hard work!)
1 Like
Sounds like it was written by a professor of reading.
2 Likes
Schama and Starkey are the best on British history, Starkey is un pc (I love that) but his seriously knows his shit.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Originally posted by @pap
In the final volume of Simon Schamaâs History of Great Britain. As I think Iâve remarked before, Iâve also been reading Churchillâs take on our history too, and needed something a little less jingoistic and religiously ordained. If you listened to Churchill, youâd be hard pushed to separate divine providence with our own history. Heâs clearly a believer. Whatâs clear from both works is that religion, far from ever achieving anything, has been one of the key drivers in pretty much every important element of our constitutional makeup. Specifically, sectarianism has been responsible for a hell of a lot.
Itâs an interesting revelation to anyone who lives in this tolerant age of gay marriage and freedom of worship. The age of reason we live in is largely built on religious deviation, and the rights that those deviants were looking for and fighting for within a largely religious framework.
One of the books more controversial sections is on Cromwell. The book argues that the massacre at Drogheda was never a mass cleansing of women and children, citing records after 1649 showing residents living before and after the attack. The oft-repeated claim is that Cromwell ordered his forces to kill everyone, which is incongruent with much of the rest of his character. Itâs definitely true (Cromwellâs own account) that his forces put all of the military to the sword, but Schama argues that this probably saved lives later on as other towns gave up without resistance.
Iâve always been very patchy on certain parts of English history. Iâve enjoyed Schamaâs take immensely.
Schama and Starkey are the best on British history, Starkey is un pc (I love that) but he seriously knows his shit.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Originally posted by @pap
In the final volume of Simon Schamaâs History of Great Britain. As I think Iâve remarked before, Iâve also been reading Churchillâs take on our history too, and needed something a little less jingoistic and religiously ordained. If you listened to Churchill, youâd be hard pushed to separate divine providence with our own history. Heâs clearly a believer. Whatâs clear from both works is that religion, far from ever achieving anything, has been one of the key drivers in pretty much every important element of our constitutional makeup. Specifically, sectarianism has been responsible for a hell of a lot.
Itâs an interesting revelation to anyone who lives in this tolerant age of gay marriage and freedom of worship. The age of reason we live in is largely built on religious deviation, and the rights that those deviants were looking for and fighting for within a largely religious framework.
One of the books more controversial sections is on Cromwell. The book argues that the massacre at Drogheda was never a mass cleansing of women and children, citing records after 1649 showing residents living before and after the attack. The oft-repeated claim is that Cromwell ordered his forces to kill everyone, which is incongruent with much of the rest of his character. Itâs definitely true (Cromwellâs own account) that his forces put all of the military to the sword, but Schama argues that this probably saved lives later on as other towns gave up without resistance.
Iâve always been very patchy on certain parts of English history. Iâve enjoyed Schamaâs take immensely.
Schama and Starkey are the best on British history, Starkey is un pc (I love that) but his seriously knows his shit.
What would you recommend an American who read all four of Churhillâs volumes (but many years ago) read first from Starkey and Schama. It needs to be available on American Kindle.
Bah just noticed that only one Schama book is kindlized in USA: Rough Crossings. There is a bit more Starkey. In any case, what do you suggest?
Recently finished All the Light we Cannot See by Anthony Doerr.
A thoroughly enjoyable book It intertwines the stories of a young and blind Parisienne (girl), and a young German, solider. It follows their individual stories in alternating chapters from birth as their lives become improbably linked in the dying days of the second world war around St Marlo. Beautifully written though it is, I was slightly put off by a mystical element of the plot. This surrounds a large diamond that the girlâs father is guarding and attempting to keep from the Nazis. The diamond is purportedly able to keep the holder from harm whilst simultaneously ensuring that those close to the owner expire horribly. Thankfully the story doesnât rely on myth, but it was a distraction - purposely so I reckon. A bit of a weak ending, but Iâd still recommend it.
Just finished The Heart of a Dog by Mikhail Bulgakov (A Country\Young Doctorâs Notebook, etc.)
A hilariously dark, short novel that parodies the early days of communism in the Soviet Union.
It follows stray dog who, near death, is befriended by a wealthy and successful professor (surgeon). He is taken back to the professorâs palatial apartment where for a couple of weeks he is treated like a king. Only then does he find out that the professor plans to remove and replace the dogâs testicles and pituitary gland with those of a dead human. The comical effect of this operation, which nearly kills the dog, is that he is slowly transformed into a âhumanâ that calls the professor dad and makes his life hell.
The book was not published in the Soviet Union until the 1980s - 60 years after it was written because the narrative allegorically lays into the concepts around eugenics and the New Soviet Man. Itâs great fun and written with the same sneering honesty as A country Doctorâs Notebook. Worth a read for a chuckle.
Just finished Go set a Watchman by Harper Lee.
I really enjoyed it, although if you come at it from the perspective of To Kill a Mockingbird, then youâre likely to be disappointed in more ways than one. As most people are unsurprisingly coming at it from that perspective, the reviews have been pretty mixed.
Slight spoiler follows.
The issue for me is that some sacred cows are slaughtered in the telling of this story that happens 15+ years after TKAM. Immediately after TKAM, Atticus Finch entered our language as a phrase that describes a man who sees no prejudice and lives and lets live. Without giving too much away, Jean-Louise (Scout) returns home from New York to find that the foundations of her life, which were built on the strength of her fatherâs tolerance, are crumbling.
The book is beautifully written, but some passages dwell too much and others donât dwell long enough. I can see why it has mixed reviews, but I really loved it. This is mainly because itâs wonderfully written and the position Jean-Louise finds herself in looks irreconcilable, yet Lee manages to reconcile that position with credibility.
The Maze Runner By James Dashner.
im looking forward to the 2nd film that is coming out this month.
Just finishing Bernard Cornwallâs book about Waterloo. The battle could have gone either way at any time and both Naploeon and Wellington made mistakes throughout that could have seen a different outcome. The book is littered with anacdotes from those who fought and gives you a real feel for what it must have been like to be there. Interesting to read about the damage a cannon ball could inflict on packed infantry. One shot could kill or maime up to 25 soldiers, knocking them down like skittles with the gunners looking to skim the shot off the ground rather than fire higher. Anyone in the front line would have to face crippling artillary and musket fire and they must have nerves of steel.
How did you get on with the prose? I read Tale of Two Cities earlier in the year and struggled with it. Not read Dickens before and found it hard going.