Nahsil: Borges rocks as does Camus (even did a capstone paper and class lecture on the fella for the political theory capstone), although I hold the latter to be my favourite writer in fiction and philosophy. What stories have you read? and is it a bluish book with really cool pages? I have that one if you have the same one. my favourite stories are The Immortal, Scar of the Sword (!), and Fuenes.

Abom:Much of my reading list is not as cool as yours, mainly empirical and drier stuff but it site seems like a book version of RYM so i'll make an acc and add you when i get time.

Smith: Pipes is not bad, although understand thats hes part of a certain school of sovietology and that others have offered some great systemic analysis of postrevolution Russia.

Anyone that particularly stands out? Sounds interesting.

In contrast to Pipe's notion that the problems laid at the root, such as the tsarist and conservative elements, I could recommend d'encausse who predicted that the union would fail due the revolt of the "republics".

Although I obviously side with D'encausse, I actually find that Pipes' grand outlook that spans both epochs of russia quite awesome but what I really wanted to point out was that sovietology was broken up into two main schools due to objects of analysis and politics, which later broke up in even more subfields (as always happens in academia). There is also the issue that much of the traditional sovietologists were either white russian emigrees or students of these white russian emigres. An opposing issue for the revisionist school was whether their left wing bias, such as someone like Hobbawsm, blinded them to certain elements (although most frankurt and Western marxists were as anti-soviet as liberals and conservatives).

I'm not sure if you can find this online without a library subscrption but take a brief look at Peter Rutland's "Sovietology: Notes for a Post-Mortem" in The National Interest from 1993. Shows the myopia and fragmentation of the field.


I myself have just started reading Malraux's Man's Fate and the description of the sensory experiences of the characters rivals close to that other postwar French titans such as Sartre or Camus, who Malrux mingled with, but I personally love so far is the way the author uses doubt so often in the main character's internal monologue in the way each act is doubted and mediated on.

Bluish book with uneven pages, yeah.

Holy shit. The stories I'd read were from the very beginning and were historical fiction type stuff, decent enough but nothing outstanding in my eyes. I skipped ahead to "The Circular Ruins" and had my mind blown in five pages. Dude could fucking write! The story made me want to write myself and propelled me to some really cool reflections on things. I should try my hand at fiction again, been too long.

Yeah, just finished "The Man Who Was Killed As A Salmon" and now I immediately ordered "Popularmusic from Vittula". Can't wait to read it.

Summer 2012 reading list:

"2666" by Roberto Bolano
"Suttree" by Cormac McCarthy
"Norwegian Wood" by Haruki Murakami
"Lord of Light" by Roger Zelanzy
"Sanctuary" by William Faulkner
"The Rings of Saturn" by W.G. Sebald

Doubtless I'm forgetting something/will find something else.

Fantastic novel. Loved every goddamn page of it.

Sounds like an awesome list! I've been meaning to read "2666" for some time, but feel that I need to be in the right mindset to tackle lengthier works... Strangely, reaching the point at which I can commit to a long novel is almost a process of 'training' for me, as losing myself in one extensive work makes tackling the next 'brick' easier to face.

Have you read any of Murakami's other novels? I consider him to be one of my favourite contemporary novelists, and have read pretty much all the works that are available in translation, yet found 'Norwegian Wood' to be rather disappointing. I was aware of its 'cult' status, especially among his fans, but - perhaps because I'd read his other, far more surreal works before it - felt that it was lacking something; even though the narrative is less surreal than the other works, the characters feel far less developed and believable.

I haven't, actually. All my friends speak highly of "Norwegian Wood", but of you are more experienced with him and have a different recommendation, I'd gladly hear it.

I have some Murakami book or other sitting on my shelf, can't remember which one, though. I'll probably read it.

I really dig Murakami, one of the better famous contemporary authors.

Bolano, on the other hand, is a phenomenal author. Savage Detectives is one of my favorite novels ever, 2666 is really, really good. But nothing can top Savage Detectives

Well that's exciting, I just got Savage Detectives. NO idea what to expect really. We'll see!

I'm reading an exceptionally bizarre and brilliant Irish novel called The Third Policeman. I vaguely recall someone bringing it up here a few months ago. It's kind of like a more dark Alice in Wonderland, except it's also batshit hilarious. I'm a bit over halfway through and I can't wait to read on because there's so much that needs explaining.

Abom, I think you'll really dig it. There are so many brilliant scenes, and the last third of the book is just non-stop literary excellence. I ended up finishing the book over two days, was hooked.

The Savage Detectives just got on my reading list, I really liked 2666, though The Killings could get pretty... I don't know, lengthy perhaps?

I dislike Murakami, though everybody in Denmark (and the rest of the world apparently) is going nuts about him. Now I've tried three books of his, and it doesn't do much for me. No more for me.

I just started The Karamazov Brothers. I tried reading it a couple years back, but got distracted about 100-120 pages in. I got a good feeling about it this time though, even though there's sooo much to read out there.

Finally finished Dune. Aside from some slow spots with the religious stuff in the middle, awesome book. The last third of the book was just excellent. Even though Paul is a huge dickhead by the end of it, he's still fun in his cockiness. And of course, Harkonnens=awesome.

One of my favorite books. Too bad the series went downhill. I still think the second is worth a read.

One thing I'd say to anyone new to Murakami's style is that "Norwegian Wood" is quite different to his other works. There are a few similarities - the male protagonists tend to be pretty much the same guy over and over again, and that sense of introspective vagueness pervades many of his books - but, thematically, it's almost a-typical; chances are, your opinion of "Norwegian Wood" won't be a good indicator of what you'll think about other writing, so don't use that work as a guide. Generally, I think that the uniquely weird touch that his fans (including myself) like is more a feature of the plot and theme, the content, rather than the style; I think it might be the translation, since I hear that his writing is meant to be great in the original, but don't expect to be blown away by the style itself. There are captivating images, but not necessarily magnificent turns of phrase. Murakami's most famous books, in English at least - "Kafka on the Shore", "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle" - are pretty good places to find out more about his typical style, as is his latest, "1Q84".

I'll look into those, thank you! I was thinking about picking up "IQ84" but I'm already tackling 800 pager with "2666", and am probably not disciplined enough to get through two books of such length in one summer.

Dune is kind of neat, I really like the setting, but honestly Frank Herbert is a generally poor writer. His dialog is crappy, the way he always interjects every character's thoughts into every situation is off-putting and tension-killing, and his style is just clunky as hell. Take this:

"Anything outside yourself, this you can see and apply your logic to it. But it’s a human trait that when we encounter personal problems, these things most deeply personal are the most difficult to bring out for our logic to scan. We tend to flounder around, blaming everything but the actual, deep-seated thing that’s really chewing on us."

Nothing necessarily wrong with the meaning, but Jesus, could he have written it to flow more poorly if he had tried?


That's one of the main reasons the subsequent Dune novels aren't as good; as the novelty of the setting wears off, the series gets less and less interesting.

I’m pretty sure I piped up with this only a few pages back, but I rather like the 5th and 6th books. The scattering, the gholas, the no ships, the bits of transhumanism- all cool concepts. I’d agree his writing is clunky at times, but it was never enough to actually put me off the series.

Back to the Elric books. Really didn't like Weird of the White Wolf. The Dreaming City part of it was good, but the last two stories in it were just slow; and Elric became such a dreary, unlikable character. Gave it up after I finished with that book, but I'm gonna give it another shot.

I read Game of Thrones a few weeks ago, and was slightly underwhelmed by it, but could tell that there was potential there for something fantastic in further books in the series. I finished A Clash of Kings a few days ago and thought it was absolutely superb. There were numerous interesting plot twists, and I found the characters, old and new, to be even more interesting than in the first one. I thought George RR Martin's writing was better somewhat in this book, his use of imagery was much better than in Game of Thrones. I had planned to read some other books before starting the third in the series, but I'm now hooked and have jumped right into the third one. I have been watching series 2 (having not seen the first series of the program) and it doesn't even compare with how good the book is, although it's unsurprising given that it's the case the vast majority of the time.

Recently read:
Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore - Albert Mudrian (Music History)
The Human Cycle - Colin Turnbull (Cultural Anthropology)

Currently reading:
The Denial of Death - Ernest Becker (Philosophy/Psychology)

I've been meaning to read 'The Denial of Death' for a while now. What are your impressions of it so far?

Currently tackling on William Vollmann's You Bright and Risen Angels. Truly a writer's writer, this is some of the most audacious prose I've read in a long while. I'm only about fifty pages in so far and it reads like some bizarre hybrid of Gaddis and Burroughs.

Awesome, a literature thread!
I just finished reading Venus in Furs by Leopold Sacher-Masoch a few days ago.. I Think it's a great read, especially if you enjoy reading non-mainstream literature. another book that I absolutely love is Of The Standard of Taste by David Hume, even though it's more of an essay actually.. The Gay Science, and The Genealogy of Morality by Nietzsche are also great to read. I find Nietzsche's way of writing really interesting, satirical and really provocative in a good way.
Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan is also good, i haven't finished reading it though..
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is definitely one of my favorite books! this book is totally mind blowing. if you like books about atheism, then this book is a must have.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream by Hunter S. Thomson is also great! this novel is totally hilarious, totally psychedelic, and totally addictive.

Got a list of some very interesting books there - not quite sure how "Pilgrim's Progress" fits in with Nietzsche and Dawkins, but it's great to be open to such a broad range of interests! And to someone also interested in philosophy!

Pilgrim's Progress is a good book, even if I care nothing about its Christian message.

Sure; I was just pointing to the discrepancy of the messages. And, like I said, I think it's great to read such different books, be it for their content or their style or whatever.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a lot of time to read for sheer recreational pleasure lately - I do enjoy reading what I have to, but in a different sense. The last novel I finished was Gibson and Sterling's collaboration, "The Difference Engine", widely reputed to be a classic steampunk text. As a fan of Gibson's other work, I have to say I was a bit disappointed - while setting was quite wonderfully created, and there was some of Gibson's wonderful riffing on the nature of memory and identity in some of the transitional scenes, the dialogue felt rather hollow. It had that "what's up, guv'nor?" exaggerated Cockney tone, and I kept hearing the chimney sweeper from "Mary Poppins" saying some of the lines. And, frustratingly, it felt like some of the more interesting characters were either dropped from the narrative or kept in the background, while the least well-drawn figure had the lion's share of the multi-perspectival story.

On the non-fiction side, I've spent the day reading Kant's 'Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals'. Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Actually, though, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in ethics - it's basically a 60-ish page summary of most of Kant's very influential ethical philosophy; it gives brief, almost 'Cliff's Notes'-like insights into his ideas (humans being ends in themselves; the categorical imperative; reason meaning we're only bound by laws that we've created ourselves, etc) without one having to plow through longer works, like the Critiques.

I did a bit of work on Kant last year, I'd imagine heavily based around the Groundwork, although it was almost purely introductory. I've always found the Categorical Imperative a bit demanding, but in juxtaposition, it makes a lot of sense. I definitely feel Kant's view that we should only perform an action if we could also accept it as universal-law is a good general rule, but I also feel that it doesn't work.

haha i know it's a weird list! but i love reading and a good book is always good no matter the content/genre. well to be honest i don't really care for the religious messages of Pilgrim's Progress, but it's a well written classic and it's worth reading no matter what your views are. and if you try reading Richard Dawkins after you read any religious book you'd feel an interesting and exciting sensation.. kinda like listening to metal. so it's totally awesome.
yay philosophy!

agreed. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals is indeed good, and the categorical imperative is definitely one of the most systematical philosophies of ethics ever made. if you like this you'd really enjoy reading John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism." You can see this as a response to Kant (or the other way around), and it's always really interesting to see a different point of view.

Absolutely.

I definitely agree. It makes more sense in the context of Kant's system overall, and - even if you don't accept his characterisation of (a certain type of) reason, which I tend not to do - it does seem like a useful tool when contemplating ethical issues or decisions; yet it doesn't, in the end, really work. Especially in the way that Kant intends it to - as the single, universal principle that not only can but has to (at the risk of self-contradiction, for Kant) ground and determine and guarantee morality, and all moral values and evaluations and decisions. It's interesting, but it doesn't hold water in the end.



Yes, very true. It is fascinating to see such a deep working out of a view that is basically the opposite of Kant's; and it is a great read as well. To anyone unfamiliar with them, reading these two authors together gives you an insight into one of the most divisive and long-running disputes in ethics, between consequentialists (who, like Millian utilitarians, say that the consequences of an action or decision are what counts in evaluating whether it's morally praiseworthy or not) and deontologists (who, like Kant, claim that the consequences are irrelevant in appraising an act/decision, and instead say that the key part is the principle according to which the person was acting/deciding). Definitely worth getting into if you're interested in these topics, particularly since, thanks to people like Peter Singer, they've continued to be very relevant in current debates.

Based on what little I've read of Kant's work on ethics, I prefer Hume.

I'm not a big fan of Hume's - though Kant was. I find both writers interesting, without subscribing to their ideas. I do agree that Hume's notion that "reason is the slave of the passions" certainly seems to me a far more accurate description of human experience than Kant's insistence on the chrystalline purity of rational abstraction from all interests and desires and other motivations.

I respect and admire both philosophers. However, I when I first read about Hume's idea of Emotivism (reason as the slave of passion) I felt really enlightened; because when you think about it we can never escape from our emotions - and ultimately it controls our reasoning (but this does not follow that we should entirely disregard empirical facts). In contrast, Kant's philosophy forces us to curb and even exclude personal desires from influencing any decision-making acts. As admirable and virtuous his ideas are ( for example, to treat other people as goals instead of means) I think Kant's ethics is too strict, even self-destructive at certain levels, to be used as a maxim. I think we should apply Plato's (or Socrates') Golden Means to find the balance between reason and passion because both of them are obviously important. As a matter of fact, I think it is also necessary to have some Utilitarian-even epicurean-aspects in our way of thinking. Moderation is the key.

yeah, when people tell me they worship and live completely based on reason I want to giggle and pat their heads.

and yes, moderation is key. I was just thinking tonight that a moderate stance on the issue of deontological vs consequentialist ethics is the way for me.

both the Orient and the Occident discovered the beauty and wisdom of the middle path.

I quite like virtue ethics in their simplest form - It's not just what you do, It's how your are. It seems quite an open ended system, in which you work with role-models and the like.

Despite getting lectures in a building called the David Hume tower, I haven't actually read any of Hume's stuff - where's a good place to begin?