Books you've read recently and would unreservedly recommend

bruno

est malade
invisible cities, i think idlerich mentioned it and i'm glad i read it, i almost didn't as the other calvino i read bored me to tears. this one brought to mind images of monsù and de chirico, that sort of surreality, and as i was travelling through (unkown to me) places it fit the glove perfectly. i would recommend it.
 

robin

Well-known member
abandoned cities by harold budd is the perfect soundtrack to it too,i only realised afterwards that it wasn't called invisible cities
 

robin

Well-known member
i read the black swan recently and found it fascinating,here is what i wrote about it on a message board me and my friends post on:

"
ok,i'm going to sound evangelical when i talk about this book but fuck it,its worth it.

i just finished reading the black swan by nassim nicholas taleb,best known for writing the finance book fooled by randomness. this book explores similar ideas,and is somewhere in the middleground between maths,philosophy,sociology,politics,and various other disciplines.

the book's central idea is roughly to do with how large a role randomness plays in everything,how little people understand this randomness,and how biases in how we understand things affect all this.its difficult to describe exactly what it deals with,and descriptions of it i have read in reviews make it sounds more trite and gimmicky than it actually is.

the buzzword that the book is built around is the idea of the black swan,an extremely unlikely,impossible to predict event with huge consequences.all the stuff about it is fascinating,but any attempt to describe it without all the other stuff wouldn't really do it justice,and i found a lot of the tangents he goes off on that dance around the main idea to be as interesting as the idea itself.

i think most people we know would find some interesting stuff in the book,and while i was reading it i was constantly reminded of conversations and arguements that i've been involved in over the years that would have been infinitely more interesting if everyone involved had read the book.at times there were sections i wish i could have pointed to in the past that described ideas i was trying to get across,other sections would have humbled me in past debates had whoever i was arguing with been able to point to them.

i'd list the people who would enjoy this book but i'd be sure to leave some of them out,suffice to say if you have ever been deeply involved in a lenghty somewhat abstract conversation that could broadly be described as philosophical,scientific,political,sociological,or any number of variations on the above i think you would love this book. nearly every page has something on it that is worth thinking about,some of it is like reading something you've always vaguely thought described perfectly,other parts reveal huge gaps in our understanding of the world that we (or at least i) would have been unaware of.

the book presumes no real prior knowledge of any of the subjects it deals with,so don't be put off by the seriousness of the subject matter.there were some maths bits that i couldn't understand (although these were prececed by the author's advice that "nontechnical" readers could safely skip them,so i didnt feel like i was missing out on too much) and it certainly made me wish i had a better grounding in numerous intellectual disciplines,but on the whole it is remarkably readable for a book which draws on so many disparate and comlicated areas.

some people have criticised this book for the tone it adopts-certainly the author is somewhat full of himself,but for the most part i felt like i was watching a virtuoso performance by an accomplished thinker,and if this sometimes veers towards a certain intellectual arrogance then so be it,i feel like he earned it,and in general he seems like a good natured and amiable enough chap with just enough charm to get away with what he is saying and how he is saying it.

some of the central conceits of the book feel a bit buzz-wordy and a little lame while you are reading them,but looking back i think they do a very good job of making the often extremely complicated ideas he deals with accessible to the lay reader such as myself,so i think they are fair enough even if they are a little cringe inducing every so often.

i realise that i'm nailing my flag fairly emphatically to the mast of this being a great book,which may be a little naive considering that i amn't fully equipped to provide a comprehensive critique of its ideas,and i could certainly imagine someone who is more involved in some of the areas it deals with finding some flaws in it,but i would be amazed if anyone could read this book without learning something,the areas it covers are so broad that it cannot but be thought provoking no matter who is reading it."
 

zhao

there are no accidents
bruno, which Calvino bored you to tears?

robin, thanks for heads up on the black swan. i'll likely give that a go as randomness is an ongoing preoccupation of mine.

and i know this has been talked about a lot but i just finished The Road, in less than 20 hours, more or less 1 sitting (broken up by sleep). the end actually got some tears out of me, which was very sudden and unexpected.

how do people think Cormack McCarthy's work differs from Ballard? or what do you think Ballard would do differently if he was the author of The Road?

today while walking around i found myself looking at each passer by in the street and wondering which ones would immediately turn to cannibalism... and also, if i would myself. i'm having a little trouble with the way people are divided along the line of cannibalism into the 2 camps of good and bad -- having read some cultural anthropological stuff about how cannibalism has been practiced in the past in the Amazons and such, I don't think it is a good measuring stick or indication of someone being a "good" or "evil".

and to to go further down the tangent: a sociologist in the field found himself talking to a member of a cannibalistic tribe in Brazil (i think it was) about the great world wars, at which point the cannibal asked him "but how do you eat all those bodies!". and when told by the white man that they do not eat the bodies exclaimed in indignant horror: "but that is barbaric! to kill millions for no reason!"

so there are 2 types of non-survival cannibalism: one in which people honor their own dead by eating them, as giving them to worms and rot is viewed as horrific. and another in which people eat their enemies after war. i really have no moral problem with either one of these practices.

but of course it is "survival cannibalism" that the book talks about -- but i'm not so sure i have a problem with that either...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"today while walking around i found myself looking at each passer by in the street and wondering which ones would immediately turn to cannibalism... and also, if i would myself. i'm having a little trouble with the way people are divided along the line of cannibalism into the 2 camps of good and bad --"
Not sure that's the case exactly is it? I mean, every scene describes the conversation between the boy and his father who have (for whatever reason) not become cannibals. It's hardly surprising that they see the cannibals as bad, especially when they run the very real risk of being turned into food themselves. I don't think that that necessarily implies that the cannibals are being judged by the author or that the reader is being asked to view them as "bad".
I'm with you though really, if you accept that sometimes it's ok to kill someone so you survive then why not eat them as well? Bet it's pretty tasty.
 

jenks

thread death
how do people think Cormack McCarthy's work differs from Ballard? or what do you think Ballard would do differently if he was the author of The Road?

..

One of them would be a doctor, another a retired pilot and there would be some reference to dogging or some other risky sex practice:)
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Not sure that's the case exactly is it? I mean, every scene describes the conversation between the boy and his father who have (for whatever reason) not become cannibals. It's hardly surprising that they see the cannibals as bad, especially when they run the very real risk of being turned into food themselves. I don't think that that necessarily implies that the cannibals are being judged by the author or that the reader is being asked to view them as "bad".
I'm with you though really, if you accept that sometimes it's ok to kill someone so you survive then why not eat them as well? Bet it's pretty tasty.

no i think the book is most definitely morally dogmatic and for sure paints a picture of good vs. evil as seen through the eyes of the protagonist. to be honest i think this has to be done in order for anything to get even close to the best seller list (or even to get published at all), because people need to ground their narratives on some sort of basic dualistic assumption.

haha which part have you said too often? "bet it's pretty tasty"? i bet you're right. :D
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"no i think the book is most definitely morally dogmatic and for sure paints a picture of good vs. evil as seen through the eyes of the protagonist."
Well there is no doubt that the protagonists see things as good and evil and there is also no doubt that you are intended to sympathise with them (except possibly when the father steals the thief's clothes and shoes condemning him to certain death) but I think that you can do that without necessarily agreeing with them.

to be honest i think this has to be done in order for anything to get even close to the best seller list (or even to get published at all), because people need to ground their narratives on some sort of basic dualistic assumption.
I think that Cormac McCarthy is in the position where he can write what he likes though isn't he? Surely no-one is going to tell him to re-write it? There isn't much in the way of morality in Blood Meridian and surely there are less pressures on him to write a best-seller now?

"haha which part have you said too often? "bet it's pretty tasty"? i bet you're right."
Yes, that's exactly what I've said too often, at least I'm not alone in my crazed thirst for human flesh though.
 

m77

m77
Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance

A friend gave me this for xmas after we'd spoken about it, and that it sounded great but I'd never read it. Turns out he was right, its great.

 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
A friend gave me this for xmas after we'd spoken about it, and that it sounded great but I'd never read it. Turns out he was right, its great.


YES! I've always thought Dissensus could perhaps be the best place to discuss this book, but Ihad the annoying feeling a lot of people who read 'proper' philosophy might look down their noses at it as sophomoric, a 'student cliché' type book or whatever. But I think it's great.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
got a James Kelman based on someone or other's reccomendation in this thread. "How Late it Was, How Late". and was going to return it on account of the heavy Scottish english but decided to try to get used to it... we'll see how it goes.

but it's as good a place to start as any with this guy yeah?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"i'm having a little trouble with the way people are divided along the line of cannibalism into the 2 camps of good and bad --"
You ever seen A Boy and His Dog Zhao? If not it's a post-apocalyptic kind of black comedy type thing similar enough to the road but instead of a boy and his father scrounging for food there is (guess what?) a boy and his (talking) dog doing the same. The only difference here is that the boy is also looking for women which he plans to rape at gun-point although this turns out to not be necessary because the first woman he meets goes along with it anyway. It definitely avoids moral judgments though because you are expected to identify with the boy who, as well as being very prepared to commit rape, at the end of the film.....



Spoiler








Spoiler









.... kills and eats the woman. It ends with him saying "she loved me" and the dog replies "Well I must say that she had fantastic judgment.... but terrible taste".
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
got a James Kelman based on someone or other's reccomendation in this thread. "How Late it Was, How Late". and was going to return it on account of the heavy Scottish english but decided to try to get used to it... we'll see how it goes.
What I found really interesting is that although it very definitely reads in a thick Glaswegian accent, it does so by the word choice and the rhythm of the speech rather than by loads of really laboured phonetic spelling. I guess I found it got easier to read as I got used to it, too.
but it's as good a place to start as any with this guy yeah?
It's the only one I've read, but it's definitely good.
 

dHarry

Well-known member
YES! I've always thought Dissensus could perhaps be the best place to discuss this book, but Ihad the annoying feeling a lot of people who read 'proper' philosophy might look down their noses at it as sophomoric, a 'student cliché' type book or whatever. But I think it's great.

[takes bait, as HMLT isn't around ;)] I'm surprised at you Mr. Tea, given Pirsig's quaint misrepresentations of science! He sees the scientific method as something that infinitely proliferates hypotheses for a given phenomenon such that discovering the "correct" one seems to be down to nothing but luck, or something. Is that really how science works? Also his ranking of evolutionary development in terms of increasing complexity and quality, according to his definition of Quality as the motor of space-time or whatever, conveniently puts humans on top of the pile as the best (and sounds uncomfortably close to eugenics' misinterpretations of Darwin). This also gives him a simplistic moral look-up table to solve any given issue (killing bacteria is good because it preserves a higher form of life - a human, etc.), but only according to his definitions of course.

Zen... and Lila really show Pirsig to be the sort of anti-science pseudo-philosopher that Sokal et al erroneously imagine all "continental postmodernists" to be. It seems that his youthful desire for the Meaning Of Life lead to mental breakdowns and disillusionment with the sometimes temporary and incomplete nature of scientific knowledge, which he seems to have grossly exaggerated and caricatured due to his unreasonable all-or-nothing demands of it. The baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

All this despite being a nice read and a novel way (pun intended!) to introduce philosophical issues to non-philosophers. Certainly his interest in avoiding the Western subject-object binary is useful, but for me his solution seems half-baked and misguided. Deleuze's, writing solo and with Guattari, inverted Zen concept of the plane of immanence (drawing from Spinoza, Simondon, Bergson and Nietzche) as a kind of virtual but material reality from which objects temporarily come into being ("individuation") as expressions of quantitative tendencies (rather than collections of qualities or properties) seems much more thoroughgoing and is not incompatible with scientific knowledge. Now that I think of it, you could say that Deleuze tries to replace Quality with Quantity in speculating about the nature of reality.

See here for in-depth debunking of Pirsig's MOQ (Metaphysics Of Quality), and more on Deleuze here and here if interested.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, I guess Pirsig's critique of the scientific method *is* problematic - after all, if he were correct, then doing any kind of science would presumably be impossible, since if picking a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon were a matter of luck, chances are we'd get it wrong a lot more often than we got it right, so progress towards a more complete and fundamental theory would be impossible, since it would stand on misplaced foundations. This is going as much on your above summary of his ideas as on what I remember from the book, though, as it was a while ago now that I read it. Having said that, I distinctly remember him describing something rotten, in so many words, at the heart of empirical science, which is an attitude (that I don't agree with, btw) that I've found in a lot of people with a mathematical/theoretical* background...

In a more general metaphysical sense, what I really liked about the book was the transcendence of old dualistics paradigms like romantic/classic thought (his terms for emotional/rational worldviews, very loosely), of culture/counterculture (it is no way a 'hippy' book - a friend of mine had a copy whose cover was done is a nauseating swirly-polychrome-'acid trip' '60s style, which I thought was a travesty) and so on, and also how his personal inquiries led him to conclusions very similar the teachings of the Tao Te Ching, having earlier rejected Hindu philosophy due its detached, unworldly approach. I guess the synthesising nature of the book that really grabbed me. That, and I quite liked the road-trip aspect to it and the parallel story about his son and the boy's incipient mental illness.



*I mean in the philosophical sense, not eg, theoretical physics
 
Top