Your current book...

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I hate other people's Fiction, but right now I am being forced to read "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Slinger for English.

... And I don't like it so far... The guy in the book is such a jerk.

YES! Another person gets it!

This is the post that made me stop lurking and arsed me into posting something. Continue reading it and you'll get it that Holden is not a jerk, just out of touch from our concept of reality and it's norms. Books, movies, games, and all art really, is not only about liking the character, the setting, the period it was made in and stuff like that, it's about the message it's conveying, what that piece of art is trying to tell you by the characters, setting, period, motifs and style the author is using, all these things together try to pass on to you, the reader, a message, or an emotion, or jsut something. And that's all what most of the art's about. I'm not gonna get into l'art pour l'art right now. All in all Salinger is widely praised as a notable writer and for laying out some interesting ideas on the "scene" in his time, and in my opinion it is justified.

I'm reading Demons by Dostoyevsky, and I'm almost done with it, thank god. Not that I don't like it, the story is really interesting, but there's so much back story to everything that I've gotten lost a few times.

A lot of people have that problem with Dostojevkski and realism in general. The point of all these back stories is in immersion and conveying all possible sides to the story there are, so as to remain objective as much as possible. French realists did this much better (with Tolstojs ridiculously long sagas being an exception) than the Russians or Ukrainians, because Russian realism (and Ukrainian with Gogolj) didn't really buy in to the whole objective thing, but instead took the concept and used it to try and create surreal immersion and deliver a ton of ideas and messages without you even noticing it.

With my rant done all I have left to add is that I'm reading Kafka on the shore by Haruki Murakami and it's damn interesting.

I love Dostoyevsky mainly for his arguments on realism. I guess I didn't fully explain why I had troubles, my problem was that I would go days without reading it and I couldn't remember what was going on and I had to re-read sections to get caught up again. I agree about the French portraying realism better, and about the Russians immersing their ideas better. Frankly, I don't understand how there isn't a happy medium with all this, I suppose fiction portraying philosophical ideas weren't meant to be easy to read, but oh how I love it so.

 

[Mikeyfell]

"Of Truth and Beasts" by Barb and JC Hendee

I'd recommend it but it's the ninth book in a series so I recommend reading them in the proper order.

Basically if you're pissed off that Vampires have all become sparkling fagots ever since people realized that marketing to the Twilight audience is easy, this series should cheer you up a little.

 

[Layzor]

whoops, mispost.

 

[The_Echo]

I'm reading John Dies at the End by David Wong.

HIGHLY recommended.

 

[Jerej]

I love Dostoyevsky mainly for his arguments on realism. I guess I didn't fully explain why I had troubles, my problem was that I would go days without reading it and I couldn't remember what was going on and I had to re-read sections to get caught up again. I agree about the French portraying realism better, and about the Russians immersing their ideas better. Frankly, I don't understand how there isn't a happy medium with all this, I suppose fiction portraying philosophical ideas weren't meant to be easy to read, but oh how I love it so.

Now that you explained it I can understand completely, had the same problem with The Master and Margarita (or however it's called in english, don't care really).
And about the second part, there always is a "happy middle ground", in case of realism it being Gogolj, but in most cases it being the style that comes after it, or the very beginning of the style itself, before it splits into tons of branches, each grabbing a piece of the original idea and sticking with it. Hell Dostojevski isn't even a "realistic" writer in the strict sense of the phrase, he's practically a style of his own.

And almost all art portrays philosophical ideas, it's just that some make it blatantly obvious, while others put a little more trust in their readers (Oscar Wilde, Jonathan Swift, Goethe, folk tales etc etc).

 

[ScarletScapegrace]

"Watership Down" by Richard Adams: I'm a sucker for decent odyssey stories, even if the main characters are rabbits.

When I'm done with that, I think I might move onto reading "The Alchemist."

 

[theevilsanta]

I just finished Matterhorn by Karl Marlantes, a fictional novel about a lieutenant (well, several men) in the Vietnam war.EDIT - It was good. First novel to get me emotional since my adolescence.

I'm still in the midst of Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. That man just writes longer and longer novels. I do know exactly how a simple Turing machine works now .... and so, so much more.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I love Dostoyevsky mainly for his arguments on realism. I guess I didn't fully explain why I had troubles, my problem was that I would go days without reading it and I couldn't remember what was going on and I had to re-read sections to get caught up again. I agree about the French portraying realism better, and about the Russians immersing their ideas better. Frankly, I don't understand how there isn't a happy medium with all this, I suppose fiction portraying philosophical ideas weren't meant to be easy to read, but oh how I love it so.

Now that you explained it I can understand completely, had the same problem with The Master and Margarita (or however it's called in english, don't care really).
And about the second part, there always is a "happy middle ground", in case of realism it being Gogolj, but in most cases it being the style that comes after it, or the very beginning of the style itself, before it splits into tons of branches, each grabbing a piece of the original idea and sticking with it. Hell Dostojevski isn't even a "realistic" writer in the strict sense of the phrase, he's practically a style of his own.

And almost all art portrays philosophical ideas, it's just that some make it blatantly obvious, while others put a little more trust in their readers (Oscar Wilde, Jonathan Swift, Goethe, folk tales etc etc).

I've heard of Gogol, but I've never read any of his stuff, so I will have to look into his works. I suppose I'm just used to having the idea first and then it branching off into a ton of instances, and I guess that I'm a little tired of it, only because of how they are portrayed or stylized.

I do agree that almost all art portrays philosophical ideas, and I think they should be subtle and not obvious, otherwise I think the book is more like a soapbox rather than an actual story, perish the thought. Swift and Goethe I do enjoy, and mostly for that reason, they know I do have a brain and I don't want to be spoon feed ideas, especially not boldly told them.

 

[Brendan Main]

All in all Salinger is widely praised as a notable writer and for laying out some interesting ideas on the "scene" in his time, and in my opinion it is justified.

God bless you, Mr. Only Person On The Escapist I've Ever Seen To Stick Up For Salinger. It's a lonely, bananafishless world out there.

French realists did this much better (with Tolstojs ridiculously long sagas being an exception) than the Russians or Ukrainians, because Russian realism (and Ukrainian with Gogolj) didn't really buy in to the whole objective thing, but instead took the concept and used it to try and create surreal immersion and deliver a ton of ideas and messages without you even noticing it.

Whenever Gogol is mentioned, even in passing, I am compelled to recommend The Overcoat, readable here. Any insomniacs looking to fritter away a couple of hours could do a lot worse. It is about ghosts, coats, and fine moustaches.

http://www.horrormasters.com/Text/a0857.pdf

I realize that mentioning The Overcoat in a discussion of Russian realism is like entering into a conversation about classic film by saying "Wow yeah there's this one movie I like it is called Citizen Kane you should Netflix that shit." The people that know, they know. And the people that don't... well, some folks, if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

I've just started The Sworn by Gail Z. Martin, except the people who actually made the book (The paper and bindings w/e) did a terrible job and all the pages arn't attached from the middle to the top, so I can't open it all the way without fucking the book up. Good book, book 1 in a series that is a sequel to another that she wrote. Not sure why they had to be seperate.

 

[Jerej]

I've heard of Gogol, but I've never read any of his stuff, so I will have to look into his works. I suppose I'm just used to having the idea first and then it branching off into a ton of instances, and I guess that I'm a little tired of it, only because of how they are portrayed or stylized.

I do agree that almost all art portrays philosophical ideas, and I think they should be subtle and not obvious, otherwise I think the book is more like a soapbox rather than an actual story, perish the thought. Swift and Goethe I do enjoy, and mostly for that reason, they know I do have a brain and I don't want to be spoon feed ideas, especially not boldly told them.

Well you damn well should, Gogolj is the father of Russian and Ukrainian realism and a damn genius, if you want to get started go grab his novel The raincoat. Like right now.

And well, the idea first and then it branching out is a classic for all instances of human behaviour, be it art, politics, philosophy, warfare or just history in general. Luckily those things tend to be constricted by the geopolitical range of the idea of the time and period. For example, there wasn't a realism in the USA, because they had an isolationist policy, or there wasn't a romantic movement in Abu Dhabi, because they had no idea what was happening. Thanks to that we get a ton of diversity, by looking at different cultures of the same period, or, as always, looking for that one brilliant man over whom people are still fighting what he was trying to say.

 

[Raiha]

the art of immersion, and i forget who the author is and am too lazy get up and look at the book. quite an interesting book.

 

[Ham_authority95]

I'm kind of reading three at the moment.

-Kaffir Boy: A school assignment.

-The Bookseller of Kabul: A great look at Afghan culture within the last twenty years. Its message ambiguous, so you can finish reading with a different outlook each time.

-The Communist Manifesto: Why not? Might as well educate myself on what the all the fucking fuss with Communism is about...

 

[Jerej]

God bless you, Mr. Only Person On The Escapist I've Ever Seen To Stick Up For Salinger. It's a lonely, bananafishless world out there.

I give credit where it's due, and Salinger is a brilliant man, my love of his Nine stories put aside, he's one of the reasons people can't bash American literature (not even after Stephen King or Stephanie Mayer).

I realize that mentioning The Overcoat in a discussion of Russian realism is like entering into a conversation about classic film by saying "Wow yeah there's this one movie I like it is called Citizen Kane you should Netflix that shit." The people that know, they know. And the people that don't... well, some folks, if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.

The only reason why i disagree with this is because, from my experience with Gogolj in schools, is that people take to him really, really easy. The man knew how to write, it's written as easy as Harry Potter, and it means something.

And damn, I knew i forgot to mention the moustaches, but hey, Russians and Ukrainians should be synonyms for them eh? Dem crazy Slavs.
And be sure to check out his other works, namely They or Others (again, don't know the english name, don't care) was written as he was going SLIGHTLY mad and started seeing ghosts everywhere, it's a spiritual twin brother to Diaries of a madman.

 

[toothofymir]

Legion.

Book 15 of The Horus Heresy Series.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Just wondering what all the Escapists are currently reading... pretty simple right?

So, what book are you currently reading? Is it good? Would you suggest it?

Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk, for the nth time.
Would I suggest it? Yes. It's one of the most important and powerful pieces of literature ever written. It's also a lot of fun. Check it out, and any of Palahniuk's other works.

Before that...

My Horizontal Life, by Chelsea Handler. It's basically the sexual exploits of a slutty stand-up comedian. It's complete fluff, but it makes me laugh.

Oh, and technically, also Flipside [http://www.flipsidecomics.com], a really cool webcomic which may become my new avatar at some point. Not a book per say, but close.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Just started "The Power of Weakness" by Ding Ling and Lu Xun for a class. Not far enough along to know what I think, but it's definitely significant from a cultural and historical perspective. If you're interested in Chinese literature you've probably already read it, and if you're not you probably don't care.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I've heard of Gogol, but I've never read any of his stuff, so I will have to look into his works. I suppose I'm just used to having the idea first and then it branching off into a ton of instances, and I guess that I'm a little tired of it, only because of how they are portrayed or stylized.

I do agree that almost all art portrays philosophical ideas, and I think they should be subtle and not obvious, otherwise I think the book is more like a soapbox rather than an actual story, perish the thought. Swift and Goethe I do enjoy, and mostly for that reason, they know I do have a brain and I don't want to be spoon feed ideas, especially not boldly told them.

Well you damn well should, Gogolj is the father of Russian and Ukrainian realism and a damn genius, if you want to get started go grab his novel The raincoat. Like right now.

And well, the idea first and then it branching out is a classic for all instances of human behaviour, be it art, politics, philosophy, warfare or just history in general. Luckily those things tend to be constricted by the geopolitical range of the idea of the time and period. For example, there wasn't a realism in the USA, because they had an isolationist policy, or there wasn't a romantic movement in Abu Dhabi, because they had no idea what was happening. Thanks to that we get a ton of diversity, by looking at different cultures of the same period, or, as always, looking for that one brilliant man over whom people are still fighting what he was trying to say.

I will when I get done with Demons, I've been meaning to get to him anyways.

True, and I think what's boring me is when I read that flow of thought is when it's done poorly, I've read a few books like that and I find it almost insulting. I'm not trying to sound superior, but I just don't like being told the main idea and the branches are too simplistic, and I have these 'what if' thoughts.

And that's the best part, looking for that one brilliant man or idea that speaks volumes because of what i it, and I think that's why Karl Marx, regardless of his ideals, was so popular in his time, a radical idea clashing against current situations.