What are you reading right now?

Just finished a collection of Robert E. Howard's Solomon Kane short stories. For some reason I'd never gotten around to reading them before. Sorry to say, they were decidedly...meh. Everything seemed rather, well, clunky, written like a writer who's trying to find their voice. Maybe also against submission deadlines to get paid to put dinner on the table, as was the case of a lot of pulp writers of the era. There was something appealing about the stories, or more like the idea of the stories, so I don't regret reading them, but I can't imagine I'll ever want to re-visit them, either. The "tribute" to REH written by HP Lovecraft that served as the edition's forward was interesting, I'd never read that before, either.

As an aside, avoid this edition (the one I read, in e-book form):
1710682052708.png
Lots of typos, even repeating paragraphs. Ridiculous. I'm sure there's better editions of the stories out there. I'm normally not that picky about this kind of thing, so if I'm noticing it, it must be pretty bad.
 
What is the deal with foucault? Does anybody actually understand his writing? I tried reading him awhile ago and didn't get it but some people insist he's a genius. Today I picked up madness and civilization, and was actually pretty friendly to the concept. I thought I read enough books people consider hard, and this topic seemed to be at an intersection of things I thought I understood. But again I found that it's mostly gibberish. He bounces from topic to topic, he uses big words to obfuscate what he's talking about, he invents new meanings for things that already have meanings to argue for something, etc. The book seemed to have a lot of citations, but when I looked at them, they were all to stuff like a line of music, not like, a study or something credible. I don't know, does anybody understand this stuff? Why is he so popular?
First of all, he's french. So he has a tendency to be so far up his own ass, he's liable to start creating another dimension.

Additionally, you are not alone. Foucault is notoriously confusing to read, which is entirely intentional. Don't worry, you didn't miss much. He has a talent for talking at length without really saying anything. Perhaps one of the pioneers of modern "academic writing" in that sense.
 
Welcome to all philosophical writing. The entire genre is notorious for being intentionally obscure, grandiloquent and repetitive so it requires years of study just to get a handle on what the fuck the author is on about. You think Foucault is hopelessly obscure, try Derrida. Even lifelong academics who've spent years reading him can't decide what he was on about.
Isn't this a red flag? I can read plenty of stuff from hundreds or even a thousand years ago that was translated and it's still intelligible. I thought it's a mark of intelligence to be able to explain your ideas clearly. Like i could pick up kant and understand him for the most part. Is it just that common in philosophy so people overlook it? Also, did Foucault do a lot of drugs?
 
Isn't this a red flag? I can read plenty of stuff from hundreds or even a thousand years ago that was translated and it's still intelligible. I thought it's a mark of intelligence to be able to explain your ideas clearly. Like i could pick up kant and understand him for the most part. Is it just that common in philosophy so people overlook it? Also, did Foucault do a lot of drugs?
Yes it is but apparently if you're sufficiently in bed with academia you can write like a literal schizophrenic and be hailed as a genius. Ever read Judith Butler?

I dunno about Foucault and drugs but he was a French academic in the 60s so I'm guessing yes.
 
The Fisherman by John Langan. Finally, got around to reading this after reading some of his short story collections and his novel House of Windows.

It's tale is recounted via a series of nested narratives. Abe recounts certain experiences that he is trying to come to terms with. Abe lives in upstate 1990s New York near the Ashokan Reservoir. He works for IBM, and had been married to his beloved wife Marie for nearly two years when she contracted breast cancer and succumbed very quickly. In his grief, he feels the compulsion to turn to fishing, and finds that it's the thing that he needed to find some level of peace and organization to help him move forward and get him out of his alcoholic funk. As the years pass, his co-worker Dan Drescher loses his wife and two children in a tragic car accident. Abe reaches out to him and invites him along, and the two strike up what is not quite a friendship but a mutual form of recovery, fishing the streams in the woods around Woodstock.

God, but I love that first cast. You pinch the line to the rod, open the bail, lift the rod over your head, and snap your wrist, releasing the line as you do. The motion whips up the rod, taking the pink and green spinner-bait at the end of the line back and then out, out and out and out, trailing line like a jet speeding ahead of its contrail, climbing to the top of the parabola whose far end is going to put the lure right next to those fish.


When Dan suggests that the two head up to an elusive fishing spot called Dutchman's Creek, Abe's intrigued, because he's never heard of it, and Dan is somewhat evasive when it comes to explaining how he learned about it. Yeah, uh, he read about it in a very old edition of a vintage fishing guide. Yeah, that's the ticket. While on their way to the spot, they stop by their usual diner and when their destination comes up, they're treated to a lengthy story from Howard the cook (who originally hails from Providence, wink wink) about the history of Dutchman's Creek and why people avoid it. What follows is a long narrative that makes up the second part of the book, a part that Abe notes he is able to recall with complete clarity. Why, he even remembers information that he shouldn't be able to and details he's certain this cook didn't actually relate to them but he just knows, which Abe admits is very strange and disturbing even as he commits the story to paper...

Howard's story, which is the story of a reverend who became obsessed with the legend of Dutchman's Creek, which is the story related to him by the elderly Lottie Schmidt, who harks back to the days with her father Rainier and their family in the 1900s (like matrushka dolls), and starts with the settlers who inhabited the region a century before the creation of the Ashokan Reservoir that now fills the valley. A mysterious figure on a horse drawn cart appeared in a now long submerged settlement, and somehow ingratiated himself with one of the wealthier locals, the tyrannical landowner Cornelius Dort after the man suffered a tragedy. Cornelius' Guest, he becomes known as, and strange stories dog his presence, of late night visitors, people who walk oddly or look strange.

When the 100+ year old Dort passes away in the 1900s, after futilely attempting to use his money and influence to fight the creation of the Reservoir, he leaves his fortune to this stranger. Further weirdness and unpleasantness occurs in the Reservoir work camps full of Hungarians and Italians and Austrians and so on. After the trampling death of a Hungarian worker's wife, her guilt-ridden husband sought out and made a deal with The Guest.

'The man understands what it is to lose - what it is to lose. He listens. He understands. He doesn't see why a man should suffer for what he didn't mean to do in the first place. Things happened, that was all. He doesn't ask for what you don't have. Strength - to add your strength to his. He gives you his cup. Not compassionate - no, he's not compassionate; he's interested, interested, yes. He will help you if you will help him. Things happened. Why not? Your strength. All he asks is that you drink from his cup. His task is almost done. Why not? He will help you if you help him.' He repeats those words a half-dozen more times, until Italo slaps him. 'He's a fisherman,' George says, and something about that statement strikes him as so funny he starts to giggle, then to chuckle, then to laugh, then to howl. It doesn't matter how many more slaps Italo gives him, he won't stop laughing.'

Rainer Schmidt, a former professor of languages who had to flee Hamburg after a scandal involving his dabbling in more...arcane...studies decides something must be done about this "bad business".

The final third of the book involves Dan and Abe continuing to seek out Dutchman's Creek, even as it becomes more obvious to Abe that Dan knows more about it than could be found in some old guide or tome of local legends...
 
I wonder if the actual "Silence of the Lambs" foster parent plot is better fleshed out in the novel.

It seems really shoehorned in the movie simply to give Lecter a device to manipulate Starling.
I finished it and, no, not really. There's a tiny bit more of Clarice's background here and there but the film is shockingly close to the book, one of the most direct adaptations I've seen.
 
I think Sol Weintraub has the best story in the first book.
I just read that one last night. Beautifully written and probably the first character I'm really rooting for. The other ones are fine and have their reasons but I'm more curious to see what happens to them rather than hope that things work out. Really added a lot of heart to the story. I'll admit it got a sniffle out of me too.

Martin Silenus is still probably my favorite character out of them all. I'm not really rooting for him, because he's a bastard, but I like bastards in fiction the most.
 
Mindswap was alright, but all the funnies were relegated to dialogue and all the scenarios, and any action seperating the dialogue, was just filler to get there. It's only ~150 pages and went by in a blur, but because of so much of it being filler it still felt drawn out.
mindswap.jpg
 
Just finished a collection of Robert E. Howard's Solomon Kane short stories. For some reason I'd never gotten around to reading them before. Sorry to say, they were decidedly...meh. Everything seemed rather, well, clunky, written like a writer who's trying to find their voice. Maybe also against submission deadlines to get paid to put dinner on the table, as was the case of a lot of pulp writers of the era. There was something appealing about the stories, or more like the idea of the stories, so I don't regret reading them, but I can't imagine I'll ever want to re-visit them, either. The "tribute" to REH written by HP Lovecraft that served as the edition's forward was interesting, I'd never read that before, either.

As an aside, avoid this edition (the one I read, in e-book form):
View attachment 5823581
Lots of typos, even repeating paragraphs. Ridiculous. I'm sure there's better editions of the stories out there. I'm normally not that picky about this kind of thing, so if I'm noticing it, it must be pretty bad.
There's a couple collections of letters between Lovecraft and Howard that were annotated and edited by ST Joshi

Might be worth a read if you're interested
 
The Tyrant by Michael Cisco was really good. It's dreamlike weird fiction about a doctor and her assistant, a 15 year old genius girl crippled by polio, who are studying an extraordinarily powerful medium who has to be kept in a massive slab of gelatin as he astral projects himself into the underworld. Reminded me a bit of Ice by Anna Kavan.

I also liked Marjorie Wallace's The Silent Twins, about June and Jennifer Gibbons who stopped talking to other people when they were kids. They were sent to Broadmoor indefinitely when they were 19 after going on a modest theft and arson spree. It's a straightforward account for the most part, but at the end the author (a journalist with a degree in psychology) inserts her agreement with the people who suggest there was something spooky about the twins:
To anyone who has known the twins and their story, there remains a sense of unease. Everything can, of course, be explained by chance. But why have there been so many coincidences? And why have all my encounters with the twins left lesions of belief, where the facts fail to meet fiction? One cannot help feeling there might have been less natural reasons why Jennifer gave June her final release on the very day they left Broadmoor.
Odd. While reading that, I also read The Pepsi-Cola Addict, which June Gibbons wrote when she was 16. Definitely more interesting knowing about the sisters' circumstances and obsessions at the time.
 
Anyone here read and enjoy Red Dragon? About to pick up the full series by Thomas Harris.

Trying to get back into reading fiction, after almost 3 years of reading biographies and historical accounts (except for A Game Of Thrones last year).
I was pretty unimpressed with Red Dragon the first time I read it. The second time was an improvement. I think that it suffers from the same problem that Crichton's Jurassic Park books have for me now: when they were released they were absolute cutting edge and completely new and original, but reading them in present day, all of the novelty and originality is completely stripped away by the passage of time. When I first read Red Dragon, it was after I'd already read a metric fuckton of fiction and non fiction that already used modern profiling methods and psychology, so to a callow youth such as myself, it seemed rather dull and plodding. Some years later when I read it for the second time, I had a lot more appreciation for the history of both criminal psychology and criminal literature, and how this had made Red Dragon so influential when it was first released, so I got much more out of it then. Maybe when I read it the third time around, I will fully appreciate it the way I'm supposed to.
 
Anyone here read and enjoy Red Dragon? About to pick up the full series by Thomas Harris.

Trying to get back into reading fiction, after almost 3 years of reading biographies and historical accounts (except for A Game Of Thrones last year).
Loved Red Dragon and Hannibal. Didn't touch Silence of the Lambs, since I heard it was identical to the movie of the same name.

I think the book kicks ass. I also checked out the Hannibal TV show. Also good af.
 
Thanks to the (excellent) thread on Navy SEAL and other assorted Special Forces cows started by @Justtocheck i picked up "Code over Country: The Tragedy and Corruption of SEAL Team Six" by Matthew Cole. I seldom read non-fiction and this one has been a great read so far, i am only at Ch.4 though. After having been a voracious reader all my life, i read very few books (fewer than i'd like to admit) in the last three years, this one is definitely a good pick to getting me back into reading again.
Anyone here read and enjoy Red Dragon? About to pick up the full series by Thomas Harris.

Trying to get back into reading fiction, after almost 3 years of reading biographies and historical accounts (except for A Game Of Thrones last year).
I read all of Harris' works and am very unimpressed by his writing. Some of the very few books i like the film adaptions better than their source material, especially Hannibal (both the film and the show).
 
Last edited:
I've been going on a Tolkien binge. I started with The Hobbit, read the Silmarillion right after now I'm almost finished Lord of the Rings I'm about halfway through Return of the King. I hadn't read the Hobbit and Lotr since I was a kid and this was the first time I'd read the Silmarillion at all. I've never really been a big Tolkien fan, I didn't like the Lord of the Rings when I first read it and I was actually kind of dreading reading it again. I don't even know why I decided to read through all that shit again but I'm glad I did.

I think I was probably just too young when I read it the first time because it just sucked me in this time. I haven't been able to put it down. His writing, while a bit dry, is actually really good. His use of language is very well done and the descriptions really do come to life. I appreciate the world building a lot more this time and I think reading the Silmarillion first helped. I'd always found Middle Earth to be fairly boring and bleak and never really understood why so many people make such a big deal out of it. I understand now why Tolkien spergs exist and why people get so into his world.
 
A collection of fictional tales based on Shalamov's fourteen year stay in Uncle Stalin's gulag camps in the far east region of Kolyma. I have several thoughts on the tales, namely the Soviets were bastards (as all communists are)
  1. A shame Shalava didn't die.
  2. This just proves how nice the camps were that it lasted 14 years there and lived.
  3. It got a white-collar job after getting out, which proves the Soviets were fucking idiots.
  4. It having to write fiction to condemn the Soviets proves what a subhuman solzhenitsyn Shalava was.
  5. You falling for the same fiction proves the same about you.
  6. Shalava dumped its wife (who hadn't divorced or disowned it through the camps) while forcing her to help it with paperwork and shit (after she'd been stained with collaborationism) and "had a brief affair with" (fucked) its benefactor Pasternak's wife to ruin his life, because it was a thankless, subhuman piece of shit.
  7. The SMO and its consequences proves every muh gulag whiner is a traitor. Not "has different opinions on Russia's best path to greatness and prosperity" but an actual traitor that colludes with pork and wants Russians to die.

---
I'm reading the second new Dragonlance book (Dragons of Fate, by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman) and I want to neck myself.

The backstory is WotC (owners of the Dragonlance IP) hired the original, oldtimey B-level geek-celebrity pair of authors to write a new Dragonlance trilogy that "would be a capstone to their life's work" but then tried to shut the whole thing down. It was hypothesized by Kiwis and elsewhere that WotC wanted to make the thing woke.

That was wrong. Weis and Hickman won the lolsuit, and the two books that are currently out are hot garbage. Volume 1, Dragons of Despair, is the worst book I ever finished. They're horrifically woke, too.
 
Back