All the Literature and Reading Stuff...

[Guard Dog]

I just finished reading an outstanding book called Lonely Vigil: Coastwatchers of the Solomons by Walter Lord. For those who don't know the Coastwatchers were Australian Naval Officers hidden, or more accurately marooned on small islands in the Solomons and around New Guinea with nothing more than a radio and set of binoculars to report on Japanese air and naval movements. They relies on aid from the island natives and their wits to avoid Japanese detection and were crucial to the early Pacific offensive. Great story about an extraordinary group of men. 

 

Also reading The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett. I've been meaning to get to this one for a long time. As historical fiction goes it's pretty good. I think it makes the error of applying modern mores to 12th century characters though. 

[BrotherFerg]

I'm reading Siege of Darkness, a forgotten realm novel about dark elf named Drizzt. There are a lot of books based on his character so I'm between books sometimes I'll pick up something else. I'm also reading Assassins Apprentice by Robin Hobb which I'm enjoying so far.

[Hurlshort]

I'm reading Siege of Darkness, a forgotten realm novel about dark elf named Drizzt. There are a lot of books based on his character so I'm between books sometimes I'll pick up something else. I'm also reading Assassins Apprentice by Robin Hobb which I'm enjoying so far.

 

You might find that Robin Hobb books get better the more you read, while RA Salvatore do the exact opposite.  

[BrotherFerg]

 

I'm reading Siege of Darkness, a forgotten realm novel about dark elf named Drizzt. There are a lot of books based on his character so I'm between books sometimes I'll pick up something else. I'm also reading Assassins Apprentice by Robin Hobb which I'm enjoying so far.

 

 

You might find that Robin Hobb books get better the more you read, while RA Salvatore do the exact opposite.  

Yeah I read Salvatore books mostly for the lore. I like to read about the forgotten realms while I play icewind dale or baldurs gate.

[algroth]

 

I'm reading Siege of Darkness, a forgotten realm novel about dark elf named Drizzt. There are a lot of books based on his character so I'm between books sometimes I'll pick up something else. I'm also reading Assassins Apprentice by Robin Hobb which I'm enjoying so far.

 

You might find that Robin Hobb books get better the more you read, while RA Salvatore do the exact opposite.  

 

Been ages since I've read Salvatore, but I remember his writing improving as the series went on? Or am I just completely misremembering?

[BrotherFerg]

 

 

I'm reading Siege of Darkness, a forgotten realm novel about dark elf named Drizzt. There are a lot of books based on his character so I'm between books sometimes I'll pick up something else. I'm also reading Assassins Apprentice by Robin Hobb which I'm enjoying so far.

 

 

You might find that Robin Hobb books get better the more you read, while RA Salvatore do the exact opposite.  

Been ages since I've read Salvatore, but I remember his writing improving as the series went on? Or am I just completely misremembering?

I'm probably halfway through the Drizzt series and he definitely got better after the Icewind Dale Trilogy (the first series he wrote). I think his depiction of the Underdark is pretty awesome. I kinda wish there were more well written forgotten realms novels as I love the universe.

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jSHKPp-66w

[Hurlshort]

With RA Salvatore and Drizzt, it might just be me.  I started reading them in High School, read them through college, but by the time I got to The Last Drow, I was totally burned out on the series (and a bit on Forgotten Realms.)  

[Raithe]

Similar, I read my first RA Salvatore one years ago and got into it. Originally Drizzt was an interesting character, and the trilogies and sequel trilogies made a nice advance of how adventuring characters can grow and get involved in bigger things over time. Unfortunately, I think the burn out occurs when Drizzt went from an interesting part of the ensemble to a heavy philosophising major part of every story. That, and how much it inspired clichés and power gamers and suddenly "renegade drow" seemed to turn up everywhere from players.

[Guard Dog]

Now reading Black Gun, Silver Star: The Life and Legend of Frontier Marshal Bass Reeves by Art Burton. Bass Reeves was an emancipated slave in Texas at the end of the Civil War. He went on to become a Deputy US Marshal and a very effective one at that. As someone with a passing interest in post Civil War US History I'd heard his name but his actual story is nothing short of extraordinary. Definitely worth checking out.

[Raithe]

Something that might interest a few people..

 

A semi-casual interview between Tom Doherty and L.E.Modesitt.

 

Tor - Tor's Best and Worst Selling Author : A Conversation between Doherty and Modesitt

[the_dog_days]

Finished rereading Dune for what must be the tenth time, and its still the best sci-fi novel ever.

[Guard Dog]

I'm on a little light reading right now. Currently enjoying Circle of Bones by Christine Kling. I've become a bit of a fan on Kling's work. Her Maggie Riley character (that is the protagonist in almost all her books) is globetrotting treasure hunter. A sort of female modern day Indiana Jones. It's fun to read things you don't have to think about sometimes. 

[Guard Dog]

If anyone is looking for a true story about a seriously interesting dude you should check this one out. I finished it in two days: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mercenary-david-gaughran/1119692086?ean=9781500620080

 

 

[Raithe]

Buzzy Magazine interview with Eric FLint..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stKjEC1CZ2k

[Guard Dog]

Now reading SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard. So far it is lively and interesting. But it's also a bit too broad and light on detail for my taste. It's like cliff notes for a history of a thousand years.

 

And since Spring Training is just 25 days away I'm getting in the mood with one of my favorite writers Roger Kahn and Memories of Summer: When Baseball Was an Art, and Writing about It a Game

[Oerwinde]

been reading this:

https://www.amazon.ca/Life-Times-Joseph-McPhee-Courtenays/dp/0969629117

About my Great Great Great Grandfather. I knew I was descended from a prominent family in Courtenay, but didn't realize I was descended from the founder.

[Bartimaeus]

Something that might interest a few people..

 

A semi-casual interview between Tom Doherty and L.E.Modesitt.

 

Tor - Tor's Best and Worst Selling Author : A Conversation between Doherty and Modesitt

I used to really like Modesitt's work, but I guess it was about the 10th novel or so of his that I realized that every single book felt like it read exactly the same way. A main character that is a little stubborn at times, but not too stubborn that you'd call them stupid or unable to adapt, who's always mildly to moderately more intelligent than seemingly most everyone else (but no more than that), who makes all sorts of superficial mistakes and has similarly superficial character flaws, but who never really truly fails at anything or has any sort of real (and never mind fatal) flaws, who always ends up seemingly stronger than most everyone else by the end of the book or series. It plays out the same way, series after series, standalone novel after standalone novel. I like his writing, but I can't stomach reading the same basic narrative over and over like that. In Modesitt's quest for steady, logical, and realistic character and narrative progression, his books start to feel very hollow and unrealistic when it's the same story, again and again. It would be very difficult for me to differentiate between the main characters of his different series, besides very on-the-surface stuff like...whether they're a man or a woman, what kind of things do they like to drink, do they like music, whether they came from humble beginnings or whether they were born into their position, etc. These are not real character differences, Mr. Modesitt: they're just silly superficial details. I want a protagonist that doesn't actually act exactly the same way as every single one of your other protagonists acts like. Gwar.

 

Thanks for the link, though.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Oerwinde]

 

Something that might interest a few people..

 

A semi-casual interview between Tom Doherty and L.E.Modesitt.

 

Tor - Tor's Best and Worst Selling Author : A Conversation between Doherty and Modesitt

I used to really like Modesitt's work, but I guess it was about the 10th novel or so of his that I realized that every single book felt like it read exactly the same way. A main character that is a little stubborn at times, but not too stubborn that you'd call them stupid or unable to adapt, who's always mildly to moderately more intelligent than seemingly most everyone else (but no more than that), who makes all sorts of superficial mistakes and has similarly superficial character flaws, but who never really truly fails at anything or has any sort of real (and never mind fatal) flaws, who always ends up seemingly stronger than most everyone else by the end of the book or series. It plays out the same way, series after series, standalone novel after standalone novel. I like his writing, but I can't stomach reading the same basic narrative over and over like that. In Modesitt's quest for steady, logical, and realistic character and narrative progression, his books start to feel very hollow and unrealistic when it's the same story, again and again. It would be very difficult for me to differentiate between the main characters of his different series, besides very on-the-surface stuff like...whether they're a man or a woman, what kind of things do they like to drink, do they like music, whether they came from humble beginnings or whether they were born into their position, etc. These are not real character differences, Mr. Modesitt: they're just silly superficial details. I want a protagonist that doesn't actually act exactly the same way as every single one of your other protagonists acts like. Gwar.

 

Thanks for the link, though.

 

 

The thing that baffles me about Modesitt's work is how engrossed I become in the mundane. Like nothing really happens through most of the books, but for some reason I'm edge of my seat. Its like somehow he can make cleaning the sewers interesting.

[Ben No.3]

Believe it or not I'm actually reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've been meaning to get around to this one and I saw it in a used book store this weekend. I am a christian and nothing I read here has changed my mind about that. He does make a interesting argument about the evolution of complex systems that refutes the idea that a "fine tuned machine" requires an complex design process. From a theoretical standpoint at least. He is approaching it from from the standpoint of theoretical physics however without any consideration of core engineering principles (which is not his area of expertise, I get that). Although his theory taken at face value (and ignoring that fact that it cannot be taken at face value because it does not match with the second core principle of engineering; maintainability) is a passable hypothesis on how a complex machine can operate and expand by itself without outside influence. However, the notion does no preclude the existence of God. In other words even accepting the universe was not created by God does not mean God does not exist.

 

The rest of the book is really an exposition on how terrible religion is because it drives people to do terrible things. The thing if people were not killing on the name of God wouldn't they be killing in the name of something else? He hits the barbarity of the crusades pretty hard but it seems he failed to consider that although the crusades were, on the surface, about retaking the Holy Land from the Muslims they began because the Muslims shut down the "silk roads" cutting off trade to the east. In the end isn't everything really about money? Once sea routes to Asia were established no one gave a f--k who controlled the Holy Land anymore.

For some very few, it indeed was about money. Yet for the thousands peasants and for many knights and nobles actually, it was about religion exclusively. So while yes, maybe some of the minds behind it (though probably not all) did it for the money, the common "soldier" who chopped of Muslim heads did it for his God. Edited January 30, 2017 by Ben No.3

[algroth]

 

Believe it or not I'm actually reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've been meaning to get around to this one and I saw it in a used book store this weekend. I am a christian and nothing I read here has changed my mind about that. He does make a interesting argument about the evolution of complex systems that refutes the idea that a "fine tuned machine" requires an complex design process. From a theoretical standpoint at least. He is approaching it from from the standpoint of theoretical physics however without any consideration of core engineering principles (which is not his area of expertise, I get that). Although his theory taken at face value (and ignoring that fact that it cannot be taken at face value because it does not match with the second core principle of engineering; maintainability) is a passable hypothesis on how a complex machine can operate and expand by itself without outside influence. However, the notion does no preclude the existence of God. In other words even accepting the universe was not created by God does not mean God does not exist.

 

The rest of the book is really an exposition on how terrible religion is because it drives people to do terrible things. The thing if people were not killing on the name of God wouldn't they be killing in the name of something else? He hits the barbarity of the crusades pretty hard but it seems he failed to consider that although the crusades were, on the surface, about retaking the Holy Land from the Muslims they began because the Muslims shut down the "silk roads" cutting off trade to the east. In the end isn't everything really about money? Once sea routes to Asia were established no one gave a f--k who controlled the Holy Land anymore.

For some very few, it indeed was about money. Yet for the thousands peasants and for many knights and nobles actually, it was about religion exclusively. So while yes, maybe some of the minds behind it (though probably not all) did it for the money, the common "soldier" who chopped of Muslim heads did it for his God.

 

I feel a lot of it falls down to ideology in the end. Ideology can come in the shape of religion or else, and it'll still drive people to conflict. Human beings as a species don't handle disagreements very well.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Believe it or not I'm actually reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've been meaning to get around to this one and I saw it in a used book store this weekend. I am a christian and nothing I read here has changed my mind about that. He does make a interesting argument about the evolution of complex systems that refutes the idea that a "fine tuned machine" requires an complex design process. From a theoretical standpoint at least. He is approaching it from from the standpoint of theoretical physics however without any consideration of core engineering principles (which is not his area of expertise, I get that). Although his theory taken at face value (and ignoring that fact that it cannot be taken at face value because it does not match with the second core principle of engineering; maintainability) is a passable hypothesis on how a complex machine can operate and expand by itself without outside influence. However, the notion does no preclude the existence of God. In other words even accepting the universe was not created by God does not mean God does not exist.

 

The rest of the book is really an exposition on how terrible religion is because it drives people to do terrible things. The thing if people were not killing on the name of God wouldn't they be killing in the name of something else? He hits the barbarity of the crusades pretty hard but it seems he failed to consider that although the crusades were, on the surface, about retaking the Holy Land from the Muslims they began because the Muslims shut down the "silk roads" cutting off trade to the east. In the end isn't everything really about money? Once sea routes to Asia were established no one gave a f--k who controlled the Holy Land anymore.

For some very few, it indeed was about money. Yet for the thousands peasants and for many knights and nobles actually, it was about religion exclusively. So while yes, maybe some of the minds behind it (though probably not all) did it for the money, the common "soldier" who chopped of Muslim heads did it for his God.

I feel a lot of it falls down to ideology in the end. Ideology can come in the shape of religion or else, and it'll still drive people to conflict. Human beings as a species don't handle disagreements very well.

Sadly very true

 

But, and I will say this, religion proved to be an exceptionally powerful and thus exceptionally dangerous ideology

Edited January 30, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Raithe]

 

The thing that baffles me about Modesitt's work is how engrossed I become in the mundane. Like nothing really happens through most of the books, but for some reason I'm edge of my seat. Its like somehow he can make cleaning the sewers interesting.

 

 

I think that's part of what makes Modesitt writing work. In a lot of the cases, the protagonist isn't the important part of the book, but rather the specific philosophy, or interesting idea that's the basis for the book is the important part. 

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure on a few occasions he's pretty much done the same story, but with the central argument reversed so what was considered "good" in the one story is the "bad" in the other.  Like he's done the argument for pre-emptive action versus waiting for evil to act and which is more ethical. Then a few books later, he's run through why the ethical thing is to wait, even if people die. The characters are just a framework for posing the ideas and running through them in a logical manner.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Raithe

[Guard Dog]

Ben & Algroth,

Sorry Gents, but you are wrong. The knights and soldiers might have been fighting for God but the Pope's, kings, and sovereigns who sent them were all about money. And without that none of them would have been there. The Byzantines lost Jerusalem somewhere around the middle 600's AD. For four hundred years after that it was under several different caliphates, Sunni Muslim every one, and nobody gave a damn because pilgrimages and trade with India and Persia still flowed. Then in 1068 the Seljuks closed the land to Christians and cut off the silk roads to the East and the Kingdoms of Europe started to take notice. So take that, the fact the Pope Urban II (who had so little power he could not even enter Rome) needed an "issue" and the opportunity to reunite the Church of Rome and the Greek Orthodox and the Sovereigns of Europe wanting trade resumed and you have the recipe for the First Crusade. Had the Seljuks kept the status quo none of it would have happened.

[Malcador]

Reading Dynasty by Tom Holland. I enjoyed Rubicon, so maybe this will be good. Still early days though.