Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
Finished this book the other day and, well, I enjoyed it immensely.Albie said:
What the book centres on is that we have several people been killed in (what can only be described as) a humane way. What each of these dead have in common is that they have been described by folk who knew them as "righteous" (hence the title) although they lead some mundane or unethical existence (i.e. pimps, drug barons or even call centre employees). Nothing seems to fit each murder together. A rookie NY Times reporter is sent on a murder case (the pimp) and is then sent of to do a story in Seattle - he finds another victim here whilst trying to report on freak weather conditions. Whilst away, his wife gets kidnapped by what turns out to be the Hassidic community in Crown Heights (New York).
If you're going to read this book, keep the mouse away from the spoilers:
What these "Righteous Men" turn out to be are based on a Jewish folklore: 36 men who perform righteous acts to others. They themselves may not know that they are one of 36 and will always lead a life so far removed from what they are about. But without these men - the world will not be spared by God. So while the killing continue on what are the real 36, the world (according to this story) is in grave danger. But the killings seem to be made in the name of God but as it is a Jewish story, why would they want this to happen? What it turns out to be is a faction of the Christian Church (The Church of the Reborn Jesus) who hold the notion that the Jews have forfeited their role as the chosen people (replacement theology) and by killing the 36 should bring about the Second Coming (something the Jews do not believe).
I must admit, I got what was meant to be the twist in Da-Vinci Code pretty early on - but I thought I sussed this one too, but I was only half right.
I must admit, I got what was meant to be the twist in Da-Vinci Code pretty early on - but I thought I sussed this one too, but I was only half right.
EDIT: For a more detailed review of this book, click here.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
"Thus Spake Zarathustra" is the English title. A friend of mine is currently reading "The geneology of Morals" and he says it is quite facinating... From what he tells me I think Nietzche would have gotten along with Durkheim, not only because he was Jewish (I've heard that Nietzche admired Jews for their since of "honor" or something), but because of the whole "right", "wrong", "good", "evil" spiel, which Durkheim argued was socially constructed and depended on the level of solidarity of the group in question...Urizen said:
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
I have finished reading Dune. While some parts were interesting, I was not impressed by it overall. I don't see what the big hoopla is about. I've read better fantasy series; George R.R. Martin and Isaac Asimov both come to mind.
All the special prescient abilities and their ilk took away enjoyability from the book. I expected more struggle with taming the land. The hiding from the Harkonnens also took too large a part of the book. I've enjoyed the scenes with Dr. Yueh and the Harkonnen heir the best.
Well, at least now I satiated my curiousity and can understand the Maiden song better.
All the special prescient abilities and their ilk took away enjoyability from the book. I expected more struggle with taming the land. The hiding from the Harkonnens also took too large a part of the book. I've enjoyed the scenes with Dr. Yueh and the Harkonnen heir the best.
Well, at least now I satiated my curiousity and can understand the Maiden song better.
In genealogy of morals Nietzsche among other things presents a following stance:
The Jews are a priest-like people who are the carriers of the slave moral and had tricked us by betraying Jesus. Jews actually made a conspiracy against the heroic, strong people(such were Romans), and used Christ as a tool to achieve their goal, which was prevailing of their own slave, humble, weak moral and their own values which Nietzsche saw as dewastating for mankind. What better way to distract the doubths from themselves for making this conspiracy than renouncing their own tool for achieving it, and especially in such a way(crucification). With Jews began the uprise of slaves in moral. Rome saw its very anti-nature in a Jew, and fought them, but the Jews won. Rome(the Vatican) is bowing his head to Jews today. The mob won, the slaves, the masses.
I didn't saw any admiration for Jewish honor in that book. In The genealogy of morals Nietzsche also attacks christian moral because among many other reasons, the christians talk about love and lack of haith even towards their enemies and yet they anxiously await God's judgment that will punish the unbelievers with horrorfying pain. In this work Nietzsche argues the very origins of moral and the terms right and wrong, the dual origins of good and evil, explains how there were always two main types of moral- the moral of masters which trace its roots in strong personalities, and the moral of the slaves which trace its roots in the weak. Both make their own morals, their own truth. Gods trace their origins in fear in his opinion.
He also speaks of the origin of guilty conscience (he saw guilty conscience as an interpretation of a fact rather than a fact itself).
He looks into the origin of punishment, the ascetic ideal, the dawn of civilisation and how it affected the man among other issues.
This work is mind provocating and makes you to really deeply think about and question variety of issues. I strongly recommend it.
The Jews are a priest-like people who are the carriers of the slave moral and had tricked us by betraying Jesus. Jews actually made a conspiracy against the heroic, strong people(such were Romans), and used Christ as a tool to achieve their goal, which was prevailing of their own slave, humble, weak moral and their own values which Nietzsche saw as dewastating for mankind. What better way to distract the doubths from themselves for making this conspiracy than renouncing their own tool for achieving it, and especially in such a way(crucification). With Jews began the uprise of slaves in moral. Rome saw its very anti-nature in a Jew, and fought them, but the Jews won. Rome(the Vatican) is bowing his head to Jews today. The mob won, the slaves, the masses.
I didn't saw any admiration for Jewish honor in that book. In The genealogy of morals Nietzsche also attacks christian moral because among many other reasons, the christians talk about love and lack of haith even towards their enemies and yet they anxiously await God's judgment that will punish the unbelievers with horrorfying pain. In this work Nietzsche argues the very origins of moral and the terms right and wrong, the dual origins of good and evil, explains how there were always two main types of moral- the moral of masters which trace its roots in strong personalities, and the moral of the slaves which trace its roots in the weak. Both make their own morals, their own truth. Gods trace their origins in fear in his opinion.
He also speaks of the origin of guilty conscience (he saw guilty conscience as an interpretation of a fact rather than a fact itself).
He looks into the origin of punishment, the ascetic ideal, the dawn of civilisation and how it affected the man among other issues.
This work is mind provocating and makes you to really deeply think about and question variety of issues. I strongly recommend it.
Nietzsche's views on these issues are somewhat similar, yes.Onhell said:
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
I dislike Nietzsche's philosophy because he has disdain for reason and bases his strength on blood. If a person is on a given path, he or she has no power to change it, according to him. His scorn for benevolence makes him unsympathetic to struggle. Philosophers like him do a disservice to anyone trying to pursue rational self-interest. In his dying days he must have thought of himself as pitiful if he practiced what he preached. Pretty sad, actually.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Haver you ever tried "H.P. Lovecraft"? It's very good.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Genghis Khan said:
That is somewhat true. Nietzche's philosophy is still very important. My favorite though is the whole Slave-Master mentallity. Why do yo do things? Because YOU want to or becaue you are merely seeking the approval of others, because someone told you so or because you can't think for yourself? Now even though it is nearly impossible to have an original thought or even life (everything has been set in place long ago), it is still important to know what and why you are doing something. Also it is interesting to note that before he went completely insane he did the very thing he scorned in most of his books, he felt compasion for another being (a horse no less). His disaproval of the man whipping the horse was a selfless act, he gained nothing from it except a beating (or maybe just a kick in the nuts....). We all come around eventually
Kynisk Sokol
Ancient Mariner
Yesterday, I finished reading Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. As many of you know, this tragic love story between a forty year-old man and pubescent girl was adapted for the cinema by Stanely Kubrick. As I haven't viewed it, I'm unable to comment on how faithful it was to the original book. But I'm here to comment on the novel itself, reading Lolita takes you on a roller-coaster ride inside the psyche of one person a (wo)man that exists in all human beings, whatever you crave, desire or lust after be it physical, material or spiritual the readers sure to recognise themselves in Humbert Humbert's darkest shadows. The language is mellifluous, the narration superb and the power of his conveyance is unrivalled. All this despite being Nabokov's second language. The novel puts great emphasis on style and language by making the novel a melting pot of many narrative techniques. Although the reader has a difficulty in focusing on the general theme which is condemned to be a small ship among gigantic waves of parodies, pastiches and puns, narrative style of the author and the fluctuations in the tone of the language are successfully amalgamated with the plot. A simple tale of lust this is not and anyone arriving at such a conclusion is sure to have missed the point - maybe they never got out of the rough - never got a clear look at the flag? Lolita is a complex, thought-provoking self-analysis of one immensely intelligent, neurotic and probably insane man. And though we might be inclined to point our fingers or hide behind twitching curtains, gossiping with righteous indignation about the pedophile monster illuminated in the pages before us; again, to reach such an elementary conclusion is to have been deviously led astray. 
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Onhell said:That is somewhat true. Nietzche's philosophy is still very important. My favorite though is the whole Slave-Master mentallity. Why do yo do things? Because YOU want to or becaue you are merely seeking the approval of others, because someone told you so or because you can't think for yourself? Now even though it is nearly impossible to have an original thought or even life (everything has been set in place long ago), it is still important to know what and why you are doing something. Also it is interesting to note that before he went completely insane he did the very thing he scorned in most of his books, he felt compasion for another being (a horse no less). His disaproval of the man whipping the horse was a selfless act, he gained nothing from it except a beating (or maybe just a kick in the nuts....). We all come around eventually
I agree with the idea that we as individuals need to account for the motives of our actions. Better yet, we need to be able to generate evidence which discomfirms the perceived source of our actions and explain the doubts that come with it. Neitzche, however, did not have much respect for doubts, regardless of their source.
In general, I agree with Neitzche on the emotional level only. We do need to be strong, decisive and persistant. The problem lies in the fact that Neitzche was very vague about what constitutes strength, predominately by leaving reason out of arguments and also due to his style of writing. This left room for exploiters, especially the Nazis, to pervert his work into hysteria, hatred and other forms of propaganda[sub]1[/sub]. Had Neitzche has a more social conscience, he could have anticipated that his enemies could turn literary ambiguity into the very thing Neitzche despised.
In this manner, he could have had a more positive impact on the Western civilization. I am all for glorifying heroes when they deserve it, but we need to be careful how and who we label a hero, especially if an author leaves us no rational method of determining this lofty status.
I have heard the horse incident story. Has this been proven to be true or has it simply passed into popular mythos, like many things about this controversial philosopher?
Like most people that have studied Neitzche, I have heard that syphillis cought from prostitutes was the source of his demise. This was tought to me by my professor and his aide. Since then I have heard that this is no more than a smear campaign. I do not know the extend of validity the following article holds by claiming that Neitzche died from a brain cancer.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987652842.html
Can anyone confirm of deny the manner of his death stated in the article?
[sub]1[/sub] I realize that Neitzche despised the gregariousness, blindness to authority and other forms of herd mentality, but it can be extremely hard to prove that someone in acting a certain way due to outside pressure or due to self-directed growth.
Anomica
Trooper
H P Lovecraft wrote a large number of fantasy and horror stories. Some of his story are really scary
Read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H.P._Lovecraft&oldid=21890043 (Wiki is your friend
)
Read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H.P._Lovecraft&oldid=21890043 (Wiki is your friend
)About Nietzsche.
I' ve read in couple of different sources that he was severely ill from his 20's. He was half blind, had contracted diftheria and disentheria in the Franco-Prussian war and seriously injured his chest while trying to mount a running, unruly horse when he was 23. He constantly took various medicaments daily due to his condition through his entire life. It is said that he was in such pains through his whole adult life(he also suffered from headeaches and vomiting) that it is remarkable how he was able to think and write down his thoughts in a condition that would made others uncapable of lifting a pen. He owed that to the great strenght of his willpower.
I've also read that the horse whipping accident happened in Turin in Italy. He collapsed on the streets and spent the last 12 years of his life in mental darkness under the care of his mother and sister. And his sister was the one that first started using his works for nationalistic movements, since she was married for an extreme german nationalist.
Nietzsche despised nationalism because he saw it as man bowing himself to and making another god.
I' ve read in couple of different sources that he was severely ill from his 20's. He was half blind, had contracted diftheria and disentheria in the Franco-Prussian war and seriously injured his chest while trying to mount a running, unruly horse when he was 23. He constantly took various medicaments daily due to his condition through his entire life. It is said that he was in such pains through his whole adult life(he also suffered from headeaches and vomiting) that it is remarkable how he was able to think and write down his thoughts in a condition that would made others uncapable of lifting a pen. He owed that to the great strenght of his willpower.
I've also read that the horse whipping accident happened in Turin in Italy. He collapsed on the streets and spent the last 12 years of his life in mental darkness under the care of his mother and sister. And his sister was the one that first started using his works for nationalistic movements, since she was married for an extreme german nationalist.
Nietzsche despised nationalism because he saw it as man bowing himself to and making another god.
Kynisk Sokol
Ancient Mariner
About a week ago, I read Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, probably his most well known story. As we start this escapade off, we see the traditional Kafka-esque stylings perfectly summarised in the very first line: 'As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning after disturbing dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into an enormous insect'. Bizarre, illogical, yet presented in such an unassuming, deadpan tone. A standard interpretation of this allegorical tale is that Gregor's transformation from hard working travelling salesman, providing for his family, to a grotesque useless insect that provokes disgust and pity and ultimately rejection by his family, represents physical disability, and society's treatment of it. I can see this in the story, but I read Kafka as essentially portraying his nightmare of the barrier between the public and personal inner world being removed, or possibly a powerful and satirical indictment of the bourgeois condition. The private mental life, with its sensitive and raw secrets, its ugly and embarrassing little features, the desires and instincts that we strive to keep hidden, and/or are forced to repress. The bug is the embodiment of the ugly and raw inside turned out, exposed for the entire world to see. Particularly nightmarish for Gregor (Kafka) is the fact that those who see are those he loves and whose rejection he fears most of all - his family. One can find this story bundled with many of Kafka’s other works well worth checking out. Themes covering the grimmer aspects of human life from self-denial and masochism (A Fasting Artist) to corporal punishment (In The Penal Colony).
Tomorrow. I'll start reading Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. It's only about 100 pages, so it shouldn't take me too long.
Tomorrow. I'll start reading Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. It's only about 100 pages, so it shouldn't take me too long.
I recently finished reading 3 books, Hemingways For Whom the Bell Tolls, Tolkien's Smith of Wooton Major and Austen's Northanger Abbey. I'd like to start by recommending all three of them, they are all well worth a read and I enjoyed them all immensely. However, they might not be to everyone's taste. Unless you are a huge fan of fairy tales and/or Tolkien, Smith might seem a little bit silly. It's a fairy tale that is written in language easy enough for a young kid, but it has something a bit more to it than just a cute story. However, I don't think a lot of non-Tolkien fans would really appreciate it. Northanger Abbey is a funny, short, easy novel that is basically a pastiche of horror novels that were written at that time (Frankenstein and the like come to mind). Not everyone, though, will find the 18th century life of a young woman all that interesting, and I would only seriously urge you to read it if you enjoy reading things like Pride and Prejudice. For Whom the Bell Tolls is a classic for a reason. It is a highly compelling, thought-provoking novel that really needs no introduction except: read it.
I recently read Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966), which is widely considered one of his best novels and rightly so too. The book is set in 2075 in the Lunar Colonies, which consists of a number of settlements primarily inhabited by descendants of people transported there from Earth, for criminal or political reasons. The novel deals with a (to begin with) libertarian Lunar rebellion seeking to free the moon from the Lunar Authority and the Earth, and is, like many of Heinlein's works, as much a political essay as a story of fiction, dealing with matters like "rational anarchism", individualism versus government, taxation, polygamy and many others in an intriguing way. Stylistically, it's notable for being written entirely in an invented Russian-English dialect. All in all, it's a powerful story and one I would definitely recommend.
I've also read Last Chance to See (1990) by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine, a book of a quite different nature than the above, documenting a series of journeys looking for endangered animals undertaken by Adams and Carwardine (a zoologist) - they visit a rare lemur on Madagascar, the Indonesian Komodo dragon, gorillas and white rhinos, Kakapos in New Zealand, the Chinese Yangtze River Dolphin (now extinct) and Rodrigues fruit bats and various rare birds on Mauritius. The book (which apart from the epilogue is written by Adams) combines hilarious travelling stories with information about the animals and the efforts made to save them and makes for an inspirational and very enjoyable read, not least because Adams never steeps to tiresome preaching. It was Adams own favourite among his works and worth reading to be sure.
I've also read Last Chance to See (1990) by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine, a book of a quite different nature than the above, documenting a series of journeys looking for endangered animals undertaken by Adams and Carwardine (a zoologist) - they visit a rare lemur on Madagascar, the Indonesian Komodo dragon, gorillas and white rhinos, Kakapos in New Zealand, the Chinese Yangtze River Dolphin (now extinct) and Rodrigues fruit bats and various rare birds on Mauritius. The book (which apart from the epilogue is written by Adams) combines hilarious travelling stories with information about the animals and the efforts made to save them and makes for an inspirational and very enjoyable read, not least because Adams never steeps to tiresome preaching. It was Adams own favourite among his works and worth reading to be sure.
I just finished reading Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. It's a novel which satirizes people who take conspiracy theories too seriously. Not modern theories like Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, but old ones like the Templars had the Grail ... or the earth is hollow, and the interior is inhabited by a Master Race.
It was originally written in Italian, and I read the English translation. But not every word is translated; the novel contains many untranslated segments in Italian, Latin, French, German and other languages. It's full of so many obscure esoteric references that it made my head spin - and that's something, considering that I read about esoteric conspiracies for fun and ought to know quite a bit about the subject.
Let me put it this way: if you enjoy Dan Brown's books (like The Da Vinci Code) but think they're written for the lowest common denominator, try Foucault's Pendulum. The subject matter is similar (though this book focuses on the Templars rather than the Grail), but the writing is complex and challenging. Furthermore, Eco doesn't suffer from Dan Brown's greatest fault - the tendency to wrap up all the loose ends and create a happy ending. This ending isn't happy, and most of the mysteries remain unsolved.
It was originally written in Italian, and I read the English translation. But not every word is translated; the novel contains many untranslated segments in Italian, Latin, French, German and other languages. It's full of so many obscure esoteric references that it made my head spin - and that's something, considering that I read about esoteric conspiracies for fun and ought to know quite a bit about the subject.
Let me put it this way: if you enjoy Dan Brown's books (like The Da Vinci Code) but think they're written for the lowest common denominator, try Foucault's Pendulum. The subject matter is similar (though this book focuses on the Templars rather than the Grail), but the writing is complex and challenging. Furthermore, Eco doesn't suffer from Dan Brown's greatest fault - the tendency to wrap up all the loose ends and create a happy ending. This ending isn't happy, and most of the mysteries remain unsolved.
Raven
Ancient Mariner
SinisterMinisterX said:
I've read it. It was a bit disappointing reading the ending (I was expecting a straightfoward conspiracy-theory novel), but it was very interesting; especially the Kaballah initiate who was a colleague of the main character. That was my first contact with the Kaballah.