What are you reading right now?

It's unfortunate because I was excited for a fantasy series that didn't go into elaborate detail on sex or defecation, and that had generally good-hearted protagonists.
wow it turns out the pinnacle of "edgy humor" for Mormons is poop jokes.
How incredibly disappointing.
Shallan pretending to be a rockeater (horneater or whatever they're called) in Words of Radiance was the most painful and infuriating thing I've ever read.
The only good Shallan chapters are the ones where she faces real consequences for girl bossing around. AKA never
 
Master and Commander:
Very good historical fiction. It describes the adventures of Captain Aubrey and his new friend Dr. Maturin assigned aboard a 73 foot ship in the British Navy in 1800 in the Mediterranean. The Dr is supposed to be the stand in for any reader unfamiliar with the nautical world, however nothing is explained to him until a third of the way into the novel. I felt it was very accurate in its depiction of the sailors' behavior. Captain Aubrey is a fun character, he's a very good captain but somewhat of a buffoon in other aspects of life - he can on occasion sink to excessive drunkenness, he often remains oblivious to personnel issues aboard his ship, and is a poor mind in politicking among the naval officers. These flaws ultimately endeared him to me. My biggest criticism of the book is that our protagonist crew is relegated to the sidelines and watch the final battle from ashore. It was a historical battle so I think the author removed them to keep it more accurate but it was weird reading about our main character watching a battle instead of experiencing it directly.

Jurassic Park:
I decided to pick it up after seeing a quote from it's sequel, The Lost World, about the Internet removing diversity of thought from the world and stagnating the human race. I thought that was a very interesting take to have in the 1990's. I was incredibly surprised by how much I enjoyed Jurassic Park. It somehow felt fresh to me - the criticisms of scientists and the genetics engineering companies they work for/create. I found Crichtons writing very pleasant and easy to understand. The book tracks my memory of the movie pretty closely but I think it is greatly enhanced by the omniscient narrator explaining characters states of mind. Ian Malcolm is simultaneously my most and least favorite character with his soliloquies explaining the themes. The book very regularly compared the dinosaurs to birds and I don't know if that was online with paleontology in the 80's or if it was a call Crichton made but seems pretty spot on with what I've passively seen from articles about dinosaurs in the past 5-10 years. One of the biggest changes from the movie is the handling of John Hammond. From what I remember of the movie he is a sweet yet naive old man enraptured by his desire to construct his imagination into reality. In the novel his depiction begins that way, but he is progressively revealed to be more cynical and calculating. The most extreme example is the reveal of his use of his grandchildren solely as a tool to assuage his investors fears. Easy recommendation from me.
 
Shallan pretending to be a rockeater (horneater or whatever they're called) in Words of Radiance was the most painful and infuriating thing I've ever read.
I did not get that far. Sounds lame.

wow it turns out the pinnacle of "edgy humor" for Mormons is poop jokes.
How incredibly disappointing.
I meant more that it was kind of refreshing to read a fantasy book that wasn't trying to be as edgy as possible.

I decided to pick it up after seeing a quote from it's sequel, The Lost World, about the Internet removing diversity of thought from the world and stagnating the human race. I thought that was a very interesting take to have in the 1990's. I was incredibly surprised by how much I enjoyed Jurassic Park. It somehow felt fresh to me - the criticisms of scientists and the genetics engineering companies they work for/create. I found Crichtons writing very pleasant and easy to understand. The book tracks my memory of the movie pretty closely but I think it is greatly enhanced by the omniscient narrator explaining characters states of mind. Ian Malcolm is simultaneously my most and least favorite character with his soliloquies explaining the themes. The book very regularly compared the dinosaurs to birds and I don't know if that was online with paleontology in the 80's or if it was a call Crichton made but seems pretty spot on with what I've passively seen from articles about dinosaurs in the past 5-10 years. One of the biggest changes from the movie is the handling of John Hammond. From what I remember of the movie he is a sweet yet naive old man enraptured by his desire to construct his imagination into reality. In the novel his depiction begins that way, but he is progressively revealed to be more cynical and calculating. The most extreme example is the reveal of his use of his grandchildren solely as a tool to assuage his investors fears. Easy recommendation from me.
I encourage you to re-watch Jurassic Park and The Lost World. While the general plots are the same, a lot of scenes are different. Many scenes from the JP novel ended up in the TLW movie. Much more family-friendly tone, less philosophical preaching, a lot more character growth for almost every character involved, much less graphic violence. The book and movie TLW are pretty different, however.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vecr
@ScurvyRat I can't reply to your post for some reason, but that reddit post is classic Brandon. He's admitted before (I'm trying to find where, I believe it was in the creative writing lectures he posted on his youtube channel) that he sometimes is surprised by what his audience cares about vs what he cares about. For example, he was surprised by the negative reaction to the reveal of Shadesmar in book 3, because he was like, "I think Shadesmar is really cool why don't people like it?" It's because we're more invested in the shit that's going on in the real world, Brandon. Cut the Shadesmar, Spiritual Realm shit first Brandon. We're more interested in these characters stories than hundreds of pages of lore info dumps.

Speaking of his youtube channel, during the speech he gives and the Wind and Truth release party, he calls for fans of fantasy to be more "inclusive" and not to "gatekeep." Take that how you will.


Not sure if timestamp worked but the gatekeeping stuff starts at 32:00.

It's unfortunate because I was excited for a fantasy series that didn't go into elaborate detail on sex or defecation, and that had generally good-hearted protagonists.
This may shock you, but the newest book has sex and poop in it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vecr
Robinson Crusoe. It's a very good read. At time times the pace feels a bit slow but reading about all the mundane stuff Robinson has to do each day helps you to understand his isolation and thoughts.
I ought to read that one again sometime, think I read Robinson Crusoe back in grade school. The old-timey adventure stuff was really engaging when I was that age. The Mysterious Island by Jules Verne was another one where you're just following these shipwrecked guys doing day-to-day survival stuff and gradually making their life more comfortable and civilized. Not a super exciting novel but interesting and fun in a survival enthusiast way.

Currently between fiction books myself, and haven't touched my non-fiction book in a while, either. Last novel I finished was The Engineer by Will Wright, of Cradle fame. It's the second book in a series that has a goofy magitech setting and goofy characters but I think I'm finally starting to get it and enjoy reading it.

Not sure yet if I want to pick up book number three in that series, start another litRPG or progression fantasy slop book, or change tracks entirely and read something more respectable.
 
Darlymple's The Knife Went In
You should read Dalrymple's Admirable Evasions, which is about how intellectuals have used theories and ideas to escape moral culpability. A great companion piece to The Knife Went In. Its title is from an excellent line from King Lear:
This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune (often the surfeits of our own behavior) we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on. An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star! My father compounded with my mother under the Dragon's tail, and my nativity was under Ursa Major, so that it follows I am rough and lecherous. I should have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardizing.

I ought to read that one again sometime
Robinson Crusoe.
That is quite funny. Last night I took out a copy of Robinson Crusoe from the library. I feel it too much a coincidence (or it is reason enough) for you to both mention it, so it my next reading after I have finished what I have currently.

I am reading Isaiah Berlin's The Hedgehog & The Fox, an essay about Tolstoy's view of history. It might sound dull but it is engaging and I have been quoting it long before I started reading it.
 
Shallan is the weakest part of the series. Perhaps the worst character Sanderson has ever created.
Sanderson‘s writing has this issue in that his male characters are fairly down to earth, but the female characters are all some flavor of super special quirky and/or yass kween kind of character. Worst offenders are Lift, Jasnah and Shallan with her whole YA novel protagonist, more special than everyone else in the setting thing, which gets increasingly baffling as the series goes on, since she doesn't actually do anything, so her contributions to the plot come mostly in the form of revelations about the first 11 years of her life and the whole cringy DID arc.
 
I know a lot of people like Brandon Sanderson's books, but it seems like I keep finding more reasons not to try his series out. Probably just stick to his lectures instead.

I hate the modern DID thing because existential horror about one's identity is right up my alley, but it's all been headmate/system cringe and it's awful. I want writers to write the concept in a fictional way to explore our nature, not to pander to mentally unwell larpers. *sigh*

Ditto other topics that could be fun to dissect in sci fi or fantasy, but have been captured by idpol so now they're "serious" identitarian things that must be treated with a veneer of respect to avoid upsetting the lunatics who use them as a substitute for a personality.

You know, I think I have my dad's old copy of Robinson Crusoe on my shelf, maybe I'll read it again sooner rather than later.
 
Well shit. I haven't really read anything 'proper' in maybe 20ish years and only just started picking up books again. I was looking forward to getting into Sanderson's stuff cause I'd heard he was a Mormon that doesn't include cringe sex scenes. I read Steelheart and enjoyed it as much as you can enjoy YA Superhero stuff but now I'm not sure I should get invested in his other works.
I got pressured into reading A Court of Thorns and Roses cause a woman at work said it was the best thing ever. It was not. Maybe if you're 14 but it seems embarrassing to be in your 30s and this is your reading level, it's like Twilight all over again.

Then I read Bunny, by Mona Awad. Seemed to be about how much of yourself you lose by obsessing over fitting in with people who don't like you. Not sure if it's just some drug trip cause it fell off the rails and took the whole train with it toward the end.

Currently reading Malice, by John Gwynne. So far it's just dudes riding from town to town on horses, some fighting has only just started to break out, and a kid got bullied. I'm only about 90 pages in but I'm enjoying it, no faggotry so far either.

So many books I've looked at seem to feature gays. And there's a new word for lesbians? 'Sapphic'? Everything seems to be a 'sapphic' love story. I'm glad they label it so I can avoid it but what the fuck is wrong with people.
 
Well shit. I haven't really read anything 'proper' in maybe 20ish years and only just started picking up books again. I was looking forward to getting into Sanderson's stuff cause I'd heard he was a Mormon that doesn't include cringe sex scenes. I read Steelheart and enjoyed it as much as you can enjoy YA Superhero stuff but now I'm not sure I should get invested in his other works.
I got pressured into reading A Court of Thorns and Roses cause a woman at work said it was the best thing ever. It was not. Maybe if you're 14 but it seems embarrassing to be in your 30s and this is your reading level, it's like Twilight all over again.

Then I read Bunny, by Mona Awad. Seemed to be about how much of yourself you lose by obsessing over fitting in with people who don't like you. Not sure if it's just some drug trip cause it fell off the rails and took the whole train with it toward the end.

Currently reading Malice, by John Gwynne. So far it's just dudes riding from town to town on horses, some fighting has only just started to break out, and a kid got bullied. I'm only about 90 pages in but I'm enjoying it, no faggotry so far either.

So many books I've looked at seem to feature gays. And there's a new word for lesbians? 'Sapphic'? Everything seems to be a 'sapphic' love story. I'm glad they label it so I can avoid it but what the fuck is wrong with people.

Why are you only reading YA?
 
It consistently appeals to the lowest common denominator who has no power nor should have any.
What, in your opinion, are some better paths to obtaining power? (Not a dig at your response; The book focuses on using social manipulation to get power over people, and with your dislike for that approach, I'm curious to know your alternative methods and/or better resources for obtaining the same results.)
 
Attempted to read All Things Cease to Appear by Elizabeth Brundage. Can't figure out why every female character is so passive and soulless. Serial murders somehow made boring. Can't figure out why so many people revolve around a man who completely lacks charm, charisma or persuasiveness. Bored. Gave up.

So many people rave about this book and I can't figure out what I'm missing.
 
>steelheart
Only thing I've read from Brando Sando that I've genuinely disliked. I was even the target audience when I read it at 17. Super heroes are lame and gay.

I recommend Joe Abercrombie for some more mature fantasy. He does fantastic character work and The Blade Itself and sequels are some of the most fun fantasy I've read in recent memory.
 
Cannot help but dislike that book because of its audience. It consistently appeals to the lowest common denominator who has no power nor should have any. Anyone who follows it should be actively bullied.
I liked the book mostly for the historical stories and tales and legends he used to illustrate his points. Power is a very interesting subject and there’s thousands of books exploring it from all over the place, 48 Laws is just one of them and overall I thought it was pretty good.
It’s like anything else, if you take it as a guidebook to life you’re a retard and if you kvetch about “muh sociopath’s Bible” you’re also a retard. I also don’t know enough about Greene to see why it was so controversial, to be fair.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr and ScurvyRat
Recent find in a little free library. I've never read either, so I'm looking forward to tackling them after I'm done reading a Sheridan Le Fanu collection.
20241220_212228.jpg
 
Back