Sad news, going to make reading his stuff a little melancholy now. I should stop falling in love with the work of great authors. Douglas Adams died shortly after I read H2G2.
I'll give you 10 dollars to not read any of Charles Stross's stuff.
+1
Options
Grudgeblessed is the mind too small for doubtRegistered Userregular
Just finished Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie. My initial impression was that it was ok at most. Rather slow paced - nothing wrong with that - but not exactly gripping me either. Mild curiosity kept me reading. Halfway through it was definitely ok, a solid 3/5, but nothing really special. But as I started to approach the end it started to grow, and that slow, mildly interesting first half started to actually mean something. No huge revelations, just a steady stream of "yes, that makes sense", that kept adding up to a very well constructed, many-layered and interesting story.
It's far future Science Fiction, and although it's not really obvious at first, it is clearly dystopian. Leckie's society is conservative, stratified and rigid, where both humans and AIs are kept in line (if they stray, they are "re-educated") by an almost omnipresent supreme ruler. Interestingly, it is this omnipresence in mind and identity, that turns out to be what the book is about.
This is somewhat of a realization that I slowly grew into, as it not really obvious at first. The usual info-dumps, which are so common in the genre are few and far between, and when they are used, they are not used to carelessly declare to the reader about what a fantastic world the author has constructed, but rather to give subtle hints about either the history of the characters, or about what is really going on in the story.
Subtle is the key word here. The whole thing is very subtly written, so subtly in fact, that I almost missed it and dismissed the whole book, leaving it in the "sure, it won a lot of awards, but really, I don't know what all the fuss was about" pile. That would have been a shame, since this is very much worth reading if you have even the slightest bit of interest in intelligent Science Fiction. It clearly lives upp to the fuss.
Just finished Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie. My initial impression was that it was ok at most. Rather slow paced - nothing wrong with that - but not exactly gripping me either. Mild curiosity kept me reading. Halfway through it was definitely ok, a solid 3/5, but nothing really special. But as I started to approach the end it started to grow, and that slow, mildly interesting first half started to actually mean something. No huge revelations, just a steady stream of "yes, that makes sense", that kept adding up to a very well constructed, many-layered and interesting story.
It's far future Science Fiction, and although it's not really obvious at first, it is clearly dystopian. Leckie's society is conservative, stratified and rigid, where both humans and AIs are kept in line (if they stray, they are "re-educated") by an almost omnipresent supreme ruler. Interestingly, it is this omnipresence in mind and identity, that turns out to be what the book is about.
This is somewhat of a realization that I slowly grew into, as it not really obvious at first. The usual info-dumps, which are so common in the genre are few and far between, and when they are used, they are not used to carelessly declare to the reader about what a fantastic world the author has constructed, but rather to give subtle hints about either the history of the characters, or about what is really going on in the story.
Subtle is the key word here. The whole thing is very subtly written, so subtly in fact, that I almost missed it and dismissed the whole book, leaving it in the "sure, it won a lot of awards, but really, I don't know what all the fuss was about" pile. That would have been a shame, since this is very much worth reading if you have even the slightest bit of interest in intelligent Science Fiction. It clearly lives upp to the fuss.
This is a good way to review/suggest a book, without really giving anything away about the plot. Well done, now I want to read it.
I just started neuromancer 20ish years behind everyone else. It's early but good so far. The world feels lived in and realized and throws a lot of jargon and concepts at me without them being a burden. And it reads quickly which I think is great for the atmosphere of the city and the mindset of the mc
I just started neuromancer 30ish years behind everyone else. It's early but good so far. The world feels lived in and realized and throws a lot of jargon and concepts at me without them being a burden. And it reads quickly which I think is great for the atmosphere of the city and the mindset of the mc
Why not continue your 3-decades-ago-SF kick with Schizmatrix?
Because God damb I love that book and encourage everyone who likes SF to read it.
I just started neuromancer 20ish years behind everyone else. It's early but good so far. The world feels lived in and realized and throws a lot of jargon and concepts at me without them being a burden. And it reads quickly which I think is great for the atmosphere of the city and the mindset of the mc
That's partly coz he's a great writer, partly because the book was so influential. I read it when it came out and I remember having my head blown across the room by it.
I just started neuromancer 30ish years behind everyone else. It's early but good so far. The world feels lived in and realized and throws a lot of jargon and concepts at me without them being a burden. And it reads quickly which I think is great for the atmosphere of the city and the mindset of the mc
Why not continue your 3-decades-ago-SF kick with Schizmatrix?
Because God damb I love that book and encourage everyone who likes SF to read it.
what do you mean? the 80s were only... *trys not to cry* ... *crys a lot*
Just finished Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie. My initial impression was that it was ok at most. Rather slow paced - nothing wrong with that - but not exactly gripping me either. Mild curiosity kept me reading. Halfway through it was definitely ok, a solid 3/5, but nothing really special. But as I started to approach the end it started to grow, and that slow, mildly interesting first half started to actually mean something. No huge revelations, just a steady stream of "yes, that makes sense", that kept adding up to a very well constructed, many-layered and interesting story.
It's far future Science Fiction, and although it's not really obvious at first, it is clearly dystopian. Leckie's society is conservative, stratified and rigid, where both humans and AIs are kept in line (if they stray, they are "re-educated") by an almost omnipresent supreme ruler. Interestingly, it is this omnipresence in mind and identity, that turns out to be what the book is about.
This is somewhat of a realization that I slowly grew into, as it not really obvious at first. The usual info-dumps, which are so common in the genre are few and far between, and when they are used, they are not used to carelessly declare to the reader about what a fantastic world the author has constructed, but rather to give subtle hints about either the history of the characters, or about what is really going on in the story.
Subtle is the key word here. The whole thing is very subtly written, so subtly in fact, that I almost missed it and dismissed the whole book, leaving it in the "sure, it won a lot of awards, but really, I don't know what all the fuss was about" pile. That would have been a shame, since this is very much worth reading if you have even the slightest bit of interest in intelligent Science Fiction. It clearly lives upp to the fuss.
I love this book. It's space opera, but not in your face. Very subtle. And awesome.
The sequel is good too!
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Just started Ready Player One. Chapter 1 was certainly more frank than anything I've read in a while. That's the sort of thing that gets people to call for book bannings and burnings. It's a shame those people still exist, but what are you gonna do?
0
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
I finally finished The Pillars of the Earth. Wow, what a book. I don't know how I feel about there being a sequel, but I'm curious enough to see what it's like.
I started Gardens of the Moon, which I'm about three pages into and I'm already thinking "what did I get myself into?"
Just started Ready Player One. Chapter 1 was certainly more frank than anything I've read in a while. That's the sort of thing that gets people to call for book bannings and burnings. It's a shame those people still exist, but what are you gonna do?
I don't understand. Are you saying you think it's good or bad? Or shocking? I'm just idly curious, really.
I started Gardens of the Moon, which I'm about three pages into and I'm already thinking "what did I get myself into?"
Gardens of the Moon poisoned me on that series. Enough people say it's good that I believe them but the hundred or so pages of Garden I read make me never want to touch another book by him ever. It remains one of a small handful of books I started reading and just put down and never went back to.
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
Glad to hear I'm not the only one. I'll try to tough it out for a little bit, but if I'm still not feeling it in the next few days, I'm going to take @handgimp's advice and grab something different instead/put Deadhouse Gates on my wishlist.
I started reading The Way Of Kings. It's a pretty interestingly alien world he's created. I like it a lot so far.
That book is so badly written compared to even Mistborn.
Like, my god, sections of it read like a badly written RPG source book.
Agreed. Supposedly it was one of his first books written, but it really needed more editing. Compared to some of his other stuff, it really stands out. That said, I enjoyed the ideas contained within and want to continue with the story enough to read the next one and whatever comes next in the series.
Also, Sanderson really does a good job coming up with creative power systems. In his superheroes gone bad series (Steelheart, Firefight) he really showcases this with some of the other powers he comes up with. I also enjoy how the magic systems are well enough defined that you can start predicting what might be possible and not run into the MAGIC! reasoning for why things work.
I'm liking this one so far even if it isn't the height of fiction, but it seems like everyone generally rags on his books while liking him as an author.
I enjoyed the Mistborn series and the post-Mistborn roaring 20's style book set in the same world (The Alloy of Law). If you haven't read it yet, then the Mistborn trilogy will probably be a lot of fun for you. Elantris is a weaker book, but still does interesting things. While I rag on the Way of Kings and the Stormlight Archive series, if you enjoy the first book then by all means read the second. Warbreaker is better written and was also enjoyable. Pretty much all of his fantasy series of books are actually tied together in a way. Pay close attention to the short stringers at the start of each chapter. They often provide clues to the metaplot that will only make sense if you read a lot of the other books.
He actually does a pretty good job with his novellas. The Emperor's Soul is a good read, as is Legion and Defending Elysium.
I'm liking this one so far even if it isn't the height of fiction, but it seems like everyone generally rags on his books while liking him as an author.
The Mistborn and Steelheart/Firefight books are fun. Sanderson's a lot of fun in general. His stuff is pulpy and the characters are often paper thin, but things move quickly. Where he shines, more than anyone else really, is writing vivid superhero battles where the action is fast but clear.
Yeah, I find his books fun. Kind of in a Chris Wooding type of fun. You can see a few seams showing sometimes in the writing, but the structure and imaginativeness are there in droves and its all fairly enjoyable.
I enjoyed the Mistborn series and the post-Mistborn roaring 20's style book set in the same world (The Alloy of Law). If you haven't read it yet, then the Mistborn trilogy will probably be a lot of fun for you. Elantris is a weaker book, but still does interesting things. While I rag on the Way of Kings and the Stormlight Archive series, if you enjoy the first book then by all means read the second. Warbreaker is better written and was also enjoyable. Pretty much all of his fantasy series of books are actually tied together in a way. Pay close attention to the short stringres at the start of each chapter. They often provide clues to the metaplot that will only make sense if you read a lot of the other books.
He actually does a pretty good job with his novellas. The Emperor's Soul is a good read, as is Legion and Defending Elysium.
Ya I enjoyed the Mistborn trilogy, except where I realized about half way through the 3rd book the whole thing was very anime and then it ended in a very anime fashion. But I like both series so far from a world building perspective, very alien but makes sense internally which is great.
I'm definitely going to go back to the Alloy book but I have a whole mess of Pratchett to read after these two and before that.
I'm liking this one so far even if it isn't the height of fiction, but it seems like everyone generally rags on his books while liking him as an author.
The Mistborn and Steelheart/Firefight books are fun. Sanderson's a lot of fun in general. His stuff is pulpy and the characters are often paper thin, but things move quickly. Where he shines, more than anyone else really, is writing vivid superhero battles where the action is fast but clear.
That's kinda where he fails badly too though. He has a really really bad habit of massively overexplaining everything during a fight scene and killing the whole bit.
Sanderson can come up with interesting power systems but he seems to often think that that's enough to carry a book or a scene and it's not. Often it's dragging it down.
First two Dresden Files books done. I wasn't bowled over by them by any means, but they were fun. There definitely no need to think too much when reading them. I'll move onto the rest (especially since I've heard the quality shoots up after the first 2) later. Time to start a re-read of the Discworld books ()
First two Dresden Files books done. I wasn't bowled over by them by any means, but they were fun. There definitely no need to think too much when reading them. I'll move onto the rest (especially since I've heard the quality shoots up after the first 2) later. Time to start a re-read of the Discworld books ()
heads up 3 still has a lot oh him BEING MORE TIRED THEN HE'S EVER BEEN, but the writing does start getting better.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one. I'll try to tough it out for a little bit, but if I'm still not feeling it in the next few days, I'm going to take @handgimp's advice and grab something different instead/put Deadhouse Gates on my wishlist.
Don't bother with Deadhouse Gates either. Just put it down and move on to anything else good.
What else do you like? Maybe we can recommend something.
I'm liking this one so far even if it isn't the height of fiction, but it seems like everyone generally rags on his books while liking him as an author.
The Mistborn and Steelheart/Firefight books are fun. Sanderson's a lot of fun in general. His stuff is pulpy and the characters are often paper thin, but things move quickly. Where he shines, more than anyone else really, is writing vivid superhero battles where the action is fast but clear.
That's kinda where he fails badly too though. He has a really really bad habit of massively overexplaining everything during a fight scene and killing the whole bit.
Sanderson can come up with interesting power systems but he seems to often think that that's enough to carry a book or a scene and it's not. Often it's dragging it down.
You are actually the first person I have ever seen criticize his ability to write action. It's one of the things he's known for, to the point that even people who don't like him usually throw in, "But he can write a great fight scene."
I'm liking this one so far even if it isn't the height of fiction, but it seems like everyone generally rags on his books while liking him as an author.
The Mistborn and Steelheart/Firefight books are fun. Sanderson's a lot of fun in general. His stuff is pulpy and the characters are often paper thin, but things move quickly. Where he shines, more than anyone else really, is writing vivid superhero battles where the action is fast but clear.
That's kinda where he fails badly too though. He has a really really bad habit of massively overexplaining everything during a fight scene and killing the whole bit.
Sanderson can come up with interesting power systems but he seems to often think that that's enough to carry a book or a scene and it's not. Often it's dragging it down.
You are actually the first person I have ever seen criticize his ability to write action. It's one of the things he's known for, to the point that even people who don't like him usually throw in, "But he can write a great fight scene."
Really? Man, that's one of the main criticisms you see. That he can't write an action scene without going RPG-sourcebook on you.
First two Dresden Files books done. I wasn't bowled over by them by any means, but they were fun. There definitely no need to think too much when reading them. I'll move onto the rest (especially since I've heard the quality shoots up after the first 2) later. Time to start a re-read of the Discworld books ()
heads up 3 still has a lot oh him BEING MORE TIRED THEN HE'S EVER BEEN, but the writing does start getting better.
The first two were just ok and I considered dropping them but I already had 3.
But the third was the first time the story was more enjoyable than just the base concept
I'm liking this one so far even if it isn't the height of fiction, but it seems like everyone generally rags on his books while liking him as an author.
The Mistborn and Steelheart/Firefight books are fun. Sanderson's a lot of fun in general. His stuff is pulpy and the characters are often paper thin, but things move quickly. Where he shines, more than anyone else really, is writing vivid superhero battles where the action is fast but clear.
That's kinda where he fails badly too though. He has a really really bad habit of massively overexplaining everything during a fight scene and killing the whole bit.
Sanderson can come up with interesting power systems but he seems to often think that that's enough to carry a book or a scene and it's not. Often it's dragging it down.
You are actually the first person I have ever seen criticize his ability to write action. It's one of the things he's known for, to the point that even people who don't like him usually throw in, "But he can write a great fight scene."
Really? Man, that's one of the main criticisms you see. That he can't write an action scene without going RPG-sourcebook on you.
Yeah, I could not be less interested in seeing yet another action sequence where he doesn't just describe the motion and context of the action, but the specific power used in doing so. As mentioned above, it sounds like a player in an RPG describing their specific turns.
PSN: Kurahoshi1
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Just started Ready Player One. Chapter 1 was certainly more frank than anything I've read in a while. That's the sort of thing that gets people to call for book bannings and burnings. It's a shame those people still exist, but what are you gonna do?
I don't understand. Are you saying you think it's good or bad? Or shocking? I'm just idly curious, really.
@poshniallo
I'm chalking it up to being out of touch with recent literature, but the part where he talks about:
How we live in a cold, uncaring universe, with no god, loving or otherwise, and how everyone participates in a great collective lie to avoid the unfathomable despair of facing this realization.
While I might personally agree with that sentiment, if I gave this book to my mom or any of my aunts or uncles, they would become incredibly livid after reading that passage and probably throw the book against the wall. Based on my general impression of America, I feel that more people would have my family's reaction to the book compared to my own, and was really surprised to see things written that frankly by an author.
Just started Ready Player One. Chapter 1 was certainly more frank than anything I've read in a while. That's the sort of thing that gets people to call for book bannings and burnings. It's a shame those people still exist, but what are you gonna do?
I don't understand. Are you saying you think it's good or bad? Or shocking? I'm just idly curious, really.
@poshniallo
I'm chalking it up to being out of touch with recent literature, but the part where he talks about:
How we live in a cold, uncaring universe, with no god, loving or otherwise, and how everyone participates in a great collective lie to avoid the unfathomable despair of facing this realization.
While I might personally agree with that sentiment, if I gave this book to my mom or any of my aunts or uncles, they would become incredibly livid after reading that passage and probably throw the book against the wall. Based on my general impression of America, I feel that more people would have my family's reaction to the book compared to my own, and was really surprised to see things written that frankly by an author.
I don't think that's recent literature. That's been the message behind all sorts of work, from existentialist French literature to pop songs. It's almost a cliche.
Reviews seem to be evenly split between people who found it a hateful slog through reams of exposition and wooden dialogue, and people who loved it but who give the impression of being particularly into conspiracy novels. By "conspiracy" note that I don't mean Le Carre style thriller, more something that reads like several hundred pages of fan wiki about a fictional secret society.
There are a couple of stabs at subplots of intrigue but they tend to take the form of the whole affair being presented to the reader at their conclusion with a full summary of the events that have already occurred but have not hitherto been mentioned, usually in the form of an unlikely conversation.
Been on a nonfiction kick for a while. Some interesting stuff:
Hiroshima Nagasaki by Paul Ham is a wonderfully wide-ranging book that combines a lot of different previous more focused books by other historians, and looks not just at the dropping of the atomic bombs but at the thinking behind their creation, the development of total war bombing campaigns in the European theater, and the decision-making of American/British, Russian, and Japanese leadership leading up to and following the bombings.
Ham occasionally stretches a bit in trying to make his point, mostly through overrepresenting opposing viewpoints that he himself admits weren't actually that influential or loud, but he is in general an honest sort and really isn't interested in demonizing any particular decision-maker, if anything he's kinder to Truman than many historians I've seen.
Ten Years in Japan was an autobiographical account by Joseph Grew about his 10 years as ambassador to Japan during the leadup of WW2. It's a really interesting as-it-happens account of the political battles in Japan as the military seizes control of the country, as well as just being an interestingly educational perspective on what exactly an ambassador does all the time.
I've got two other books in my reading list after that: Napoleon, A Life, by Andrew Roberts, which is based primarily around Napoleon's personal letters, and Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School, by Shamus Rahman Khan, which is a sociological look at modern elites and their socialization.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Reading Implied Spaces by Walter Jon Williams. It's apparently "singularity-punk" or some other silly attempt to pigeonhole it into some genre. I describe it as post-singularity swashbuckling.
Either way, I've really enjoyed all WJW books I've read.
Posts
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
It's far future Science Fiction, and although it's not really obvious at first, it is clearly dystopian. Leckie's society is conservative, stratified and rigid, where both humans and AIs are kept in line (if they stray, they are "re-educated") by an almost omnipresent supreme ruler. Interestingly, it is this omnipresence in mind and identity, that turns out to be what the book is about.
This is somewhat of a realization that I slowly grew into, as it not really obvious at first. The usual info-dumps, which are so common in the genre are few and far between, and when they are used, they are not used to carelessly declare to the reader about what a fantastic world the author has constructed, but rather to give subtle hints about either the history of the characters, or about what is really going on in the story.
Subtle is the key word here. The whole thing is very subtly written, so subtly in fact, that I almost missed it and dismissed the whole book, leaving it in the "sure, it won a lot of awards, but really, I don't know what all the fuss was about" pile. That would have been a shame, since this is very much worth reading if you have even the slightest bit of interest in intelligent Science Fiction. It clearly lives upp to the fuss.
well I guess I should re-read it then?
This is a good way to review/suggest a book, without really giving anything away about the plot. Well done, now I want to read it.
Why not continue your 3-decades-ago-SF kick with Schizmatrix?
Because God damb I love that book and encourage everyone who likes SF to read it.
That's partly coz he's a great writer, partly because the book was so influential. I read it when it came out and I remember having my head blown across the room by it.
Literally :biggrin:
what do you mean? the 80s were only... *trys not to cry* ... *crys a lot*
That book is so badly written compared to even Mistborn.
Like, my god, sections of it read like a badly written RPG source book.
I love this book. It's space opera, but not in your face. Very subtle. And awesome.
The sequel is good too!
I started Gardens of the Moon, which I'm about three pages into and I'm already thinking "what did I get myself into?"
I don't understand. Are you saying you think it's good or bad? Or shocking? I'm just idly curious, really.
If you're having trouble with Gardens of the Moon, shelve it and hit Deadhouse Gates.
Gardens of the Moon poisoned me on that series. Enough people say it's good that I believe them but the hundred or so pages of Garden I read make me never want to touch another book by him ever. It remains one of a small handful of books I started reading and just put down and never went back to.
Agreed. Supposedly it was one of his first books written, but it really needed more editing. Compared to some of his other stuff, it really stands out. That said, I enjoyed the ideas contained within and want to continue with the story enough to read the next one and whatever comes next in the series.
Also, Sanderson really does a good job coming up with creative power systems. In his superheroes gone bad series (Steelheart, Firefight) he really showcases this with some of the other powers he comes up with. I also enjoy how the magic systems are well enough defined that you can start predicting what might be possible and not run into the MAGIC! reasoning for why things work.
I'm liking this one so far even if it isn't the height of fiction, but it seems like everyone generally rags on his books while liking him as an author.
He actually does a pretty good job with his novellas. The Emperor's Soul is a good read, as is Legion and Defending Elysium.
The Mistborn and Steelheart/Firefight books are fun. Sanderson's a lot of fun in general. His stuff is pulpy and the characters are often paper thin, but things move quickly. Where he shines, more than anyone else really, is writing vivid superhero battles where the action is fast but clear.
Ya I enjoyed the Mistborn trilogy, except where I realized about half way through the 3rd book the whole thing was very anime and then it ended in a very anime fashion. But I like both series so far from a world building perspective, very alien but makes sense internally which is great.
I'm definitely going to go back to the Alloy book but I have a whole mess of Pratchett to read after these two and before that.
That's kinda where he fails badly too though. He has a really really bad habit of massively overexplaining everything during a fight scene and killing the whole bit.
Sanderson can come up with interesting power systems but he seems to often think that that's enough to carry a book or a scene and it's not. Often it's dragging it down.
heads up 3 still has a lot oh him BEING MORE TIRED THEN HE'S EVER BEEN, but the writing does start getting better.
Don't bother with Deadhouse Gates either. Just put it down and move on to anything else good.
What else do you like? Maybe we can recommend something.
You are actually the first person I have ever seen criticize his ability to write action. It's one of the things he's known for, to the point that even people who don't like him usually throw in, "But he can write a great fight scene."
Really? Man, that's one of the main criticisms you see. That he can't write an action scene without going RPG-sourcebook on you.
The first two were just ok and I considered dropping them but I already had 3.
But the third was the first time the story was more enjoyable than just the base concept
Yeah, I could not be less interested in seeing yet another action sequence where he doesn't just describe the motion and context of the action, but the specific power used in doing so. As mentioned above, it sounds like a player in an RPG describing their specific turns.
I'm chalking it up to being out of touch with recent literature, but the part where he talks about:
While I might personally agree with that sentiment, if I gave this book to my mom or any of my aunts or uncles, they would become incredibly livid after reading that passage and probably throw the book against the wall. Based on my general impression of America, I feel that more people would have my family's reaction to the book compared to my own, and was really surprised to see things written that frankly by an author.
I don't think that's recent literature. That's been the message behind all sorts of work, from existentialist French literature to pop songs. It's almost a cliche.
It's pretty bad.
Reviews seem to be evenly split between people who found it a hateful slog through reams of exposition and wooden dialogue, and people who loved it but who give the impression of being particularly into conspiracy novels. By "conspiracy" note that I don't mean Le Carre style thriller, more something that reads like several hundred pages of fan wiki about a fictional secret society.
There are a couple of stabs at subplots of intrigue but they tend to take the form of the whole affair being presented to the reader at their conclusion with a full summary of the events that have already occurred but have not hitherto been mentioned, usually in the form of an unlikely conversation.
There are certain novels that are just a delight to read. This is definitely one of them.
Hiroshima Nagasaki by Paul Ham is a wonderfully wide-ranging book that combines a lot of different previous more focused books by other historians, and looks not just at the dropping of the atomic bombs but at the thinking behind their creation, the development of total war bombing campaigns in the European theater, and the decision-making of American/British, Russian, and Japanese leadership leading up to and following the bombings.
Ham occasionally stretches a bit in trying to make his point, mostly through overrepresenting opposing viewpoints that he himself admits weren't actually that influential or loud, but he is in general an honest sort and really isn't interested in demonizing any particular decision-maker, if anything he's kinder to Truman than many historians I've seen.
Ten Years in Japan was an autobiographical account by Joseph Grew about his 10 years as ambassador to Japan during the leadup of WW2. It's a really interesting as-it-happens account of the political battles in Japan as the military seizes control of the country, as well as just being an interestingly educational perspective on what exactly an ambassador does all the time.
I've got two other books in my reading list after that: Napoleon, A Life, by Andrew Roberts, which is based primarily around Napoleon's personal letters, and Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School, by Shamus Rahman Khan, which is a sociological look at modern elites and their socialization.
Reading Smith is like being cornered by a hysterical laudanum fiend who's been having the most remarkably coherent visions.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Either way, I've really enjoyed all WJW books I've read.