Non-fiction reading - What books are you tackling?

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Hey there Escapists!

I love fiction but in the past 5 years I've really started to enjoy picking up books I used to consider completely dry. History books! Auto-Biographies! All that good stuff. Its interesting to me and I have fun looking into the details of famous figures in history or a breakdown of a military campaign.

So Escapists, what books have you been tackling?

I just came back from the University library and I picked up two non-fiction books to read. My Life by Trotsky and Inside The Third Reich by Speer. Both are figures I've read about in other works but I've been meaning to read from their perspective for a long time. I should be finished them in a few weeks.

Your turn!

 

[Zontar]

What terrorists want. It's an interesting look at the motivations of different organizations as well as the history of terrorism, going as far back as the Ḥashshâshîn.

 

[beyondbrainmatter]

"Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault.

 

[dyre]

Heck yeah, historical non-fiction is a totally underappreciated genre. A book I read awhile ago but absolutely recommend is "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East" by David Fromkin, which follows the Arab Revolt during World War I and the subsequent betrayal of the Arabs by the Allied powers after the war. Another book I read a few months back that I'd recommend is "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" (forgot the author's name, I think his first name was Rajiv) which details the occupation of Iraq in excellent detail, following a number of people who did their best in the reconstruction of Iraq but often fucked up spectacularly (not always their fault). You really get a sense that Iraq didn't have to be a failure, but the way the occupation/reconstruction was mishandled ruined an opportunity to make a lasting positive impact on the country.

Curently I'm reading through "The Forever War" (not to be confused with the excellent science fiction book of the same title by Joe Haldeman) by Dexter Filkins, which is a journalist's collection of his experiences with all kinds of different people involved in the Middle East over the past two decades, from the Mujahadeen to a few years before the end of the occupation.

What terrorists want. It's an interesting look at the motivations of different organizations as well as the history of terrorism, going as far back as the Ḥashshâshîn.

Seems a bit odd to lump the Hashashin with modern terrorism, especially given that the Qutbist ideology that fuels most modern terrorists didn't even exist back then. Also the Hashashin was very un-terroristlike in that it didn't actively target civilians (unlike lots of armies and groups back then).

 

[Zontar]

What terrorists want. It's an interesting look at the motivations of different organizations as well as the history of terrorism, going as far back as the Ḥashshâshîn.

Seems a bit odd to lump the Hashashin with modern terrorism, especially given that the Qutbist ideology that fuels most modern terrorists didn't even exist back then. Also the Hashashin was very un-terroristlike in that it didn't actively target civilians (unlike lots of armies and groups back then).

Actually the Ḥashshāshīn targets where almost exclusively civilians, they just where not as random as modern terrorism. But terrorism isn't about the ideology behind the action, but of the action itself. It's the reason there is a clear divide between a terrorist and a guerilla.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

I'm currently working on Cities in Civilization by Sir Peter Hall. He's trying to determine why certain cities seem to be the center of great economic, technological or cultural development rather than some other places.

Why did so much philosophical development come out of Athens in 500-400 B.C.E.? Why was Manchester the site where the textile industrial revolution kicked off? Why did the automobile industry take off in Detroit instead of Boston or New York? Why did Silicon Valley arise in California if the technology they used came originally from the east coast? Things along those veins. It's a weighty read, but very interesting.

After that, I have a Whole shelf of books I'm planning on tackling, including:
Nothing Like it in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad by Stephen Ambrose
The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and the Golden Age of Journalism by Doris Kearns Goodwin
The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz

Why yes, I do seem to specialize in the history of the United States!

 

[dyre]

What terrorists want. It's an interesting look at the motivations of different organizations as well as the history of terrorism, going as far back as the Ḥashshâshîn.

Seems a bit odd to lump the Hashashin with modern terrorism, especially given that the Qutbist ideology that fuels most modern terrorists didn't even exist back then. Also the Hashashin was very un-terroristlike in that it didn't actively target civilians (unlike lots of armies and groups back then).

Actually the Ḥashshāshīn targets where almost exclusively civilians, they just where not as random as modern terrorism. But terrorism isn't about the ideology behind the action, but of the action itself. It's the reason there is a clear divide between a terrorist and a guerilla.

Yes but under that blanket definition of terrorism you have to cover WAY too many movements/organizations/armies than can be covered in a single book. All kinds of groups from the Roman Army (at times) to almost everyone in the Thirty Years War to US and British WWII bomber pilots would be categorized as terrorists. Unless the author has some kind of specific interest in Arab and/or Muslim terrorists, I don't see why one would lump the Hashashin with modern terrorists and not a near-infinite number of other groups.

 

[Coakle]

White House Years by Henry Kissinger

My knowledge from the 60's and 70's is really spotty, so I'm excited to hear from Kissinger about the major foreign policy programs of the time. I'm still at the part where he's talking about his education, so I have a ways to go.

 

[Zontar]

What terrorists want. It's an interesting look at the motivations of different organizations as well as the history of terrorism, going as far back as the Ḥashshâshîn.

Seems a bit odd to lump the Hashashin with modern terrorism, especially given that the Qutbist ideology that fuels most modern terrorists didn't even exist back then. Also the Hashashin was very un-terroristlike in that it didn't actively target civilians (unlike lots of armies and groups back then).

Actually the Ḥashshāshīn targets where almost exclusively civilians, they just where not as random as modern terrorism. But terrorism isn't about the ideology behind the action, but of the action itself. It's the reason there is a clear divide between a terrorist and a guerilla.

Yes but under that blanket definition of terrorism you have to cover WAY too many movements/organizations/armies than can be covered in a single book. All kinds of groups from the Roman Army (at times) to almost everyone in the Thirty Years War to US and British WWII bomber pilots would be categorized as terrorists. Unless the author has some kind of specific interest in Arab and/or Muslim terrorists, I don't see why one would lump the Hashashin with modern terrorists and not a near-infinite number of other groups.

Terrorists have, in the book, a solid definition. I don't remember it word for word, but it goes along the lines of: targeting civilians to induce fear in the populace for reasons (usually political) by non-state actors.

The book covers organizations which date back decades or even centuries (one which actually lasted centuries in India), but I mention the Hashashin since they are ones used as one of the first large scale terrorist organizations with a clearly recorded history of activity.

 

[dyre]

What terrorists want. It's an interesting look at the motivations of different organizations as well as the history of terrorism, going as far back as the Ḥashshâshîn.

Seems a bit odd to lump the Hashashin with modern terrorism, especially given that the Qutbist ideology that fuels most modern terrorists didn't even exist back then. Also the Hashashin was very un-terroristlike in that it didn't actively target civilians (unlike lots of armies and groups back then).

Actually the Ḥashshāshīn targets where almost exclusively civilians, they just where not as random as modern terrorism. But terrorism isn't about the ideology behind the action, but of the action itself. It's the reason there is a clear divide between a terrorist and a guerilla.

Yes but under that blanket definition of terrorism you have to cover WAY too many movements/organizations/armies than can be covered in a single book. All kinds of groups from the Roman Army (at times) to almost everyone in the Thirty Years War to US and British WWII bomber pilots would be categorized as terrorists. Unless the author has some kind of specific interest in Arab and/or Muslim terrorists, I don't see why one would lump the Hashashin with modern terrorists and not a near-infinite number of other groups.

Terrorists have, in the book, a solid definition. I don't remember it word for word, but it goes along the lines of: targeting civilians to induce fear in the populace for reasons (usually political) by non-state actors.

The book covers organizations which date back decades or even centuries (one which actually lasted centuries in India), but I mention the Hashashin since they are ones used as one of the first large scale terrorist organizations with a clearly recorded history of activity.

Hmm, interesting that the author considers governments/militaries that mass murder civilians to put fear into their enemies to be less of a terrorist group than a small guild of assassins who target specific political/military leaders (heck, was it better when the CIA or the KGB did it than when the Hashashin did it?), but I suppose I'd have to read the book before rendering judgment.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I think the last book I read was The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks for school. I liked it a lot more than most other people who had that class with me. It's a recently published biography about the HeLa cells: how the cells were actually taken by Henrietta Lacks, what her family knows about the cells, the science behind why the HeLa cells constantly reproduce where other cells stop, the cell contamination crisis that spawned a sterilization reform, and a lot more.

I disliked the book was more about the Lacks family than the actual history behind the cells. It did bring up an interesting issue of the Lacks never receiving any compensation due to 50's racism and lowered documentation regulations, but it didn't hold a candle to when it went to the facts.

I'd suggest it.

 

[Ratty]

I've been reading "The Lost One: A Life of Peter Lorre" on and off for a long time. I haven't seen all of Lorre's films yet and I keep being afraid of spoilers. So I haven't moved much past his early stage career yet.

Fascinating stuff though. He was arguably one of the most talented actors of his generation. But he was also not conventionally handsome and was a Jewish Austro-Hungarian immigrant in 1930s and 40s Hollywood, so as you can imagine he never really got the chance to "make it" as a leading man. He also grappled with typecasting in B horror and crime movies for most of his life, unable to escape the shadow of his insane child murdering character in "M".

Today he's mostly remembered for bit parts in "Casablanca"/"The Maltese Falcon" a few Looney Tunes parodies that were made of him, and the fact that the voice of Ren in Ren & Stimpy is an imitation of his voice.

 

[username sucks]

Right now I'm reading "Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer for an English-philosophy hybrid class I'm taking. I've read way ahead of the class because I find it so interesting.

I don't admire Chris McCandless as much as Krakauer does, but I still want to understand him. I think that he was just lost in life, and was trying to find a purpose. The more I read the more I think that it is a tragic story rather than a spiritual adventure that it is made out to be. He wandered from place to place even when he had a good job, friends, and a place to stay. Yet he still felt that there should be more to life, so he kept wandering until he starved to death in Alaska.

To me it seems that he was just trying to run away from his conscience. He started by abandoning his family without a word, and I think he deeply regretted it even if he wouldn't admit it to himself. He thought what he had to so that he wouldn't understand how much he hurt everyone who knew him. He just didn't know what else he should do.

 

[kurokotetsu]

My primary elcture these days is Nate Silver's The signal and the noise, which is an interesting view about forecasting and matehmatics in general. It talks about what makes a good forecaster and the signal and the noise that and common errors done in modelling these complex phenomena. An interesting read, although it is a little too critical on frequentist intepretation of statistics and too convinced of the goodnes of Bayesian way of doing things but it is a nice read.

I've read a fair bit of scientific divulgation texts, form some Hawking and Feynman (although I couldn't take Penrose) to other more math based books, like those of Ian Stewart. I love learning about science so tehy are good fun. The other I just read was Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot which as always makes a compelling case for space exploration (not that I needed convincing).

Also in the non-fiction department is Robert Ressler's I Have Lived in the Monster, a chilling view on serial killers.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I recently Armor and Blood: The Battle of Kursk: The Turning Point of World War II by Denis Showalter. It's a pretty interesting and well-written history of Kursk.

Now, I'm putting off reading because I got lots of it to do for school, but I brought Nietzsche's the birth of tragedy and the genealogy of morals with me.

 

[Hellz_Barz]

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius & Re Di Militari by Vegetius.

 

[Zetatrain]

Poland in World War II: An Illustrated Military History by Andrew Hempel.

Title pretty much says it all; its basically a summary of the Polish military's involvement throughout WWII.

 

[Queen Michael]

The manga Death Note by Takeshi Obata and Tsugumi Ohba.
[small]Shut up shut up shut up, I can dream if I want to.[/small]

 

[Rich Webb]

Currently reading "Thinking fast and slow". It's based on a theory that most major decisions that your brain makes can be categorised into one of two mechanisms: Your system 1 - Reactionary thinking and instant reflexes of thought. System 2 - Your calculations and rational ideas.

What I love about it is the way it goes into such fine detail about how your brain processes very intricate human situations and explains very complex topics. There is a particularly long passage that details the cognitive reasoning behind why we have prejudice. There is also a great deal of fleshed out reasoning behind why we are so susceptible to gambling and other vices.

The double edged sword is however that this book is so dense. I have to take my time and often if I'm not feeling too sharp (perhaps just before bed or during a lunch break) I will have to read a page more than once to take it in.

One thing that I love about fiction (particularly my favourite author Michael Chricton) is that the pace keeps you invested and you don't really have to try.

The non fiction before this was 'Bad Science'. What a fantastic book.

 

[Flatfrog]

Currently reading "Thinking fast and slow"
...
The non fiction before this was 'Bad Science'. What a fantastic book.

Yes, these are both great - Bad Pharma is also a great follow-up, possibly better because it's closer to the author's heart.

I just read Through the Language Glass by Guy Deutscher which was interesting but unsatisfying; but his previous book The Unfolding of Language is excellent - a really well put together examination of how languages develop grammar over time, as a result of two conflicting pressures for brevity and clarity. The section on Hebrew and Arabic is especially interesting as I knew nothing about those languages at all.

I recently got interested in optimism and read three books on the subject - The Better Angels of our Nature by Stephen Pinker, The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch and The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. All of them essentially promote the idea that science and rationality should encourage us to be optimistic, that we're currently living in the best of times and we should stop being so negative. If you only read one of the three, I particularly recommend the third, not because it's the best but because it's the most controversial and confrontational. Ridley is an absolute champion of naked capitalism as a force for good, and he spends most of the book making a strident case against all forms of anti-capitalist protest, with particular vitriol against the green movement which he considers to be completely self-defeating, and he argues that global warming won't be nearly such a disaster as people make out. I think his arguments are wrong, but for interesting reasons that really forced me to challenge my own innately pinko tendencies.