Am I the only person that enjoys reading nonfiction more than fiction? I read John Dies at the End recently and enjoyed it, but besides that I've read all nonfiction books (The Social Conquest of Earth, Denying Science, Why Darwin Matters, and Survival of the Prettiest).
Actually, now that I look at my reading list, maybe I just really like reading about evolution.
I've also been somewhat interested in reading up on feminist opinions recently, especially regarding the topic of beauty, so I bought Bitchfest (which is a collection of articles from Bitch magazine). I haven't read it yet, but I bet it's going to be a weird experience for me.
Hexmage-PA on
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
I finished off the first of the Night Angel books, The Way of Shadows by Brent Weeks. It's middle of the road super-readable trash fantasy. That's no bad thing, I'll most likely crack on with the rest of the trilogy.
I'd say that if you like Brian Sanderson (beyond his mechanical and fully detailed in the appendix magic systems, which this absolutely does not have) then you'll enjoy it.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Have any of you read Karen Miller's "Godspeaker" trilogy? I grabbed the 3-1 paperback recently and it seems alright so far. Mostly, I liked the idea of doorstop fantasy by a contemporary female author which seems pretty rare these days.
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
The only reason I mentioned it is because I get the impression he has an interest in that culture, but specifically chose to use that particular bit of language in spite of knowing better. So, he's trolling himself? He's in on the joke? I'm not sure, it's just idle thoughts.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Am I the only person that enjoys reading nonfiction more than fiction? I read John Dies at the End recently and enjoyed it, but besides that I've read all nonfiction books (The Social Conquest of Earth, Denying Science, Why Darwin Matters, and Survival of the Prettiest).
Actually, now that I look at my reading list, maybe I just really like reading about evolution.
I've also been somewhat interested in reading up on feminist opinions recently, especially regarding the topic of beauty, so I bought Bitchfest (which is a collection of articles from Bitch magazine). I haven't read it yet, but I bet it's going to be a weird experience for me.
I wish I enjoyed non-fiction as much as fiction. I'd probably read more of it in that case.
As it is I read maybe 40% non-fiction, but it is virtually always a bit of a slog. I mostly read history books of the obscure type, which typically means they are dry dry dry. Earlier this year I read The Selfish Gene however, which was fantastic, and made for a quicker read.
0
Options
BeezelThere was no agreement little morsel..Registered Userregular
Was loaned a kindle short story via a friend called Vallan by Griffin Pelton. Breezy read at below 50 pages. Mixed sci-fi, ships and AI with some knights and old school chivalry aspects to it. Bits and detail made me wish it was a lot longer but it ended up being a fun little read.
Just started 1491 by Charles Mann. Very interesting so far.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I've complained about this before, but I find a lot of nonfiction books stop being interesting around the 2/3rds mark. My totally uneducated guess about this is that the writers are applying the college thesis model (say what you're going to say, say the thing you want to say, then say what you just said) without realizing that at novel length step 3 is like a hundred pages.
Consequently the nonfiction I enjoy most tends to be either in the form of essays and collections of essays, or books with a strong narrative component, like David Simon's Homicide.
I've complained about this before, but I find a lot of nonfiction books stop being interesting around the 2/3rds mark. My totally uneducated guess about this is that the writers are applying the college thesis model (say what you're going to say, say the thing you want to say, then say what you just said) without realizing that at novel length step 3 is like a hundred pages.
Consequently the nonfiction I enjoy most tends to be either in the form of essays and collections of essays, or books with a strong narrative component, like David Simon's Homicide.
You'd probably love Ancestor's Tale then, as it's essentially 3 dozen linked essays.
I've complained about this before, but I find a lot of nonfiction books stop being interesting around the 2/3rds mark. My totally uneducated guess about this is that the writers are applying the college thesis model (say what you're going to say, say the thing you want to say, then say what you just said) without realizing that at novel length step 3 is like a hundred pages.
I'm in the same boat, actually. I often find the premise for non-fiction interesting, and like getting into it, but I often feel that they're padded and divergent in order to make it compelling. I think that's why people have enjoyed some of the more episodic-style non-fiction, like the Freakonomics stuff that's broken up into separate sections, or some of Michael Pollan's work where he spends time on different topics/people as he moves through the text. I personally feel that most non-fiction is read for information purposes, though, and that if I'm looking for information, I'd rather read a critique/analysis of the non-fiction book that's a mere 20-30 pages (or, if it's not that interesting, a wikipedia page) and whenever I've tried to get through a non-fiction book, I end up thinking they should just get to the point.
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I've thoroughly enjoyed this book about Peter the Great. It's taken me some time to work my way through it, but it's been fantastic. Although this last little bit seems to be the author going "and to sum up...."
Which still isn't too bad. Although the book was written before the fall of the USSR, which is interesting in its own right.
I've complained about this before, but I find a lot of nonfiction books stop being interesting around the 2/3rds mark. My totally uneducated guess about this is that the writers are applying the college thesis model (say what you're going to say, say the thing you want to say, then say what you just said) without realizing that at novel length step 3 is like a hundred pages.
Consequently the nonfiction I enjoy most tends to be either in the form of essays and collections of essays, or books with a strong narrative component, like David Simon's Homicide.
You'd probably love Ancestor's Tale then, as it's essentially 3 dozen linked essays.
It is the least-Dawkins of all Dawkins' books which makes it pretty readable no matter what your opinion of him might be
It's a fascinating look at the biology of various organisms both contemporary and historical. Some really great stuff on the mechanics of evolution in there. I should reread it, but that's making quite a commitment. It is not brief.
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I'm reading World War Z, almost as a favor for my zombie-fanatic friend. I myself find zombies to be boring and played out, so it's little wonder that I'm not enjoying it. I'm halfway thru and this book sure is a slog.. Some things, like seeing how various world governments deal with the outbreaks, are interesting, but then there's an action scene of soldiers getting overwhelmed by the zombies and I just zone out.
Ugh. Zombies.
As someone who also doesn't care about zombies anymore and did not like the book, I say you might want to just cut your losses now before you get to the part where you learn how they finally deal with the zombies.
I just read Feed, which was actually a really good zombie novel. I was passed it by a friend, didn't know what it was about, and nearly stopped from 'meh, zombies'. But I continued, and thought it was a very good light-but-not-dumb read, with an excellent ending.
The ending was good enough to make me sad to learn it is part of a 'trilogy'.
I've complained about this before, but I find a lot of nonfiction books stop being interesting around the 2/3rds mark. My totally uneducated guess about this is that the writers are applying the college thesis model (say what you're going to say, say the thing you want to say, then say what you just said) without realizing that at novel length step 3 is like a hundred pages.
Consequently the nonfiction I enjoy most tends to be either in the form of essays and collections of essays, or books with a strong narrative component, like David Simon's Homicide.
You'd probably love Ancestor's Tale then, as it's essentially 3 dozen linked essays.
It is the least-Dawkins of all Dawkins' books which makes it pretty readable no matter what your opinion of him might be
It's a fascinating look at the biology of various organisms both contemporary and historical. Some really great stuff on the mechanics of evolution in there. I should reread it, but that's making quite a commitment. It is not brief.
I've complained about this before, but I find a lot of nonfiction books stop being interesting around the 2/3rds mark. My totally uneducated guess about this is that the writers are applying the college thesis model (say what you're going to say, say the thing you want to say, then say what you just said) without realizing that at novel length step 3 is like a hundred pages.
Consequently the nonfiction I enjoy most tends to be either in the form of essays and collections of essays, or books with a strong narrative component, like David Simon's Homicide.
You'd probably love Ancestor's Tale then, as it's essentially 3 dozen linked essays.
It is the least-Dawkins of all Dawkins' books which makes it pretty readable no matter what your opinion of him might be
It's a fascinating look at the biology of various organisms both contemporary and historical. Some really great stuff on the mechanics of evolution in there. I should reread it, but that's making quite a commitment. It is not brief.
Speaking of Dawkins - I am almost through "The God Delusion". Dude has an axe to grind, thats for sure - still a fascinating read though.
And as far as non-fiction goes. The stuff from Malcolm Gladwell is great, especially Outliers.
I've complained about this before, but I find a lot of nonfiction books stop being interesting around the 2/3rds mark. My totally uneducated guess about this is that the writers are applying the college thesis model (say what you're going to say, say the thing you want to say, then say what you just said) without realizing that at novel length step 3 is like a hundred pages.
Consequently the nonfiction I enjoy most tends to be either in the form of essays and collections of essays, or books with a strong narrative component, like David Simon's Homicide.
You'd probably love Ancestor's Tale then, as it's essentially 3 dozen linked essays.
It is the least-Dawkins of all Dawkins' books which makes it pretty readable no matter what your opinion of him might be
It's a fascinating look at the biology of various organisms both contemporary and historical. Some really great stuff on the mechanics of evolution in there. I should reread it, but that's making quite a commitment. It is not brief.
Speaking of Dawkins - I am almost through "The God Delusion". Dude has an axe to grind, thats for sure - still a fascinating read though.
And as far as non-fiction goes. The stuff from Malcolm Gladwell is great, especially Outliers.
The thing about the God Delusion is that there's not much in it that isn't in his other, earlier books which you can read with a much lighter complement of "fuck religion". Preachiness about preachers is still preaching.
His earlier stuff could be tl;dr'd as "Look we don't need to invoke a magic man in the sky to explain the diversity and wonder of life; here's why"
His latest is more like "Why the fucking fuck are you stupid fuckheads still listening to those fucking preachers or even allowing them near children when I've fucking crushed every argument they've made, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
If I wanted people to tell me I was Doing it Wrong and ask me to consider what the fuck is wrong with me I'd cut out the middle man and just go to church. Or maybe just give me ex a call.
My first book by Dawkins was Blind Watchmaker. It's much more "dense" as far as material goes for alot of his other books but I swear that book changed my life. I've always been interested in the study of evolution for it's own sake, and not for fuel in random arguments with creationists which is the vibe I got from some people that are fans of Dawkins. Never read God Delusion and don't really plan to.
Stephenson was mentioned about a page ago and I'm currently reading The Baroque Cycle. I picked up Quicksilver on a whim at a bookstore that was closing without knowing a single thing about Stephenson or any of his other works (judged it by it's cover).
Was Pleasantly surprised by his writing style that rewards the reader for having random extensive knowledge about stuff noone cares about and the staggering amount of research he does and am now making my way through The Confusion. Everything I see online is saying that if you make it through Quicksilver it just gets better and better until the trilogy concludes. Anyone else read them?
The God Delusion is only worth reading if say, you're new to atheism and want to get a laundry list of ways to argue about it on the internet. As someone who had been an atheist for most of his life when I read it, it just felt like a bunch of things I already knew, and a few that just didn't strike me as particularly worth arguing with anyone.
Stephenson was mentioned about a page ago and I'm currently reading The Baroque Cycle. I picked up Quicksilver on a whim at a bookstore that was closing without knowing a single thing about Stephenson or any of his other works (judged it by it's cover).
Was Pleasantly surprised by his writing style that rewards the reader for having random extensive knowledge about stuff noone cares about and the staggering amount of research he does and am now making my way through The Confusion. Everything I see online is saying that if you make it through Quicksilver it just gets better and better until the trilogy concludes. Anyone else read them?
I really enjoyed them because I am exactly the kind of nerd that's more than happy to give the author space to show off his research and who also loves acquiring vast amounts of useless knowledge.
The God Delusion is only worth reading if say, you're new to atheism and want to get a laundry list of ways to argue about it on the internet. As someone who had been an atheist for most of his life when I read it, it just felt like a bunch of things I already knew, and a few that just didn't strike me as particularly worth arguing with anyone.
I have been an atheist all my life, and I am not arguing this kind of topic with anyone - so I hardly needed convincing. Still enjoyed it so far, if only for the eye-roll-worthy examples he trots out sometimes. Probably have to read the Selfish Gene at some point.
Since we are talking about non-fiction. I still have 1421 by Gavin Menzies on my shelf and haven't read it yet. Can anybody here tell me if it is any good?
I just read Feed, which was actually a really good zombie novel. I was passed it by a friend, didn't know what it was about, and nearly stopped from 'meh, zombies'. But I continued, and thought it was a very good light-but-not-dumb read, with an excellent ending.
The ending was good enough to make me sad to learn it is part of a 'trilogy'.
I wanted to like Feed but too many things about it struck me as completely unbelievable. The entire journalistic system at the core of the book seemed like the kind of thing that someone who was really, really into LiveJournal 5 or 10 years ago would have thought was the inevitable future. As someone who was never into LiveJournal to begin with it all seems a bit far-fetched. And as someone who lives in the age of Twitter it seems a bit quaint, too.
Then there's the fact that the novel's post-post-apocalypse world only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. The moment you prod the surface more heavily than reading the words printed on the page, the whole thing just explodes in a rain of puss and dead poor people. 'cause being not-fabulously-wealthy in that world is simply not an option. You're either extremely rich or dead. Which isn't actually a way that you can run a world that depends heavily on consumer electronics. Someone has to be making all of those disposable zombie test kits.
And then there's (I'm not sure if it qualifies as a spoiler since it's something that Doesn't happen in the book, but just in case)
the whole heavily-implied incest thing. The author explicitly draws attention, repeatedly, to the fact that the two main characters are not-real-siblings who have a closer-than-typical relationship, avoid dating, and are frequently mistaken as lovers rather than (or in addition to) siblings. And it goes nowhere. I mean, I'm not an incest afficianado or anything, but if you're going to introduce a recurring incestuous love story theme to your novel then at least do something with it. Don't just point at it every couple of chapters to remind the reader it's still there without ever picking it up and flipping it around. Either make the characters deal with it or don't bother introducing it in the first place.
I mean, the book doesn't have so strong of a plot in the first place that you can just have a romantic sub-plot that only half-exists and not have it be a big deal. It's essentially a travelogue with a half-baked, not-very-mysterious political mystery on top. The relationship between the siblings is at least as much the central story as the whole whodunnit aspect.
The mechanical aspects of the zombie infection were new and interesting, I'll give the author that, but I found pretty much everything else poorly thought out and written with passable-at-best prose.
Anyway. I'm currently half or so of the way through Tad Williams' The Dirty Streets of Heaven which is...okay. It's very poorly edited (I'd say it averages a wrong-word error (like 'fixing' in place of 'fixed', and one honest-to-god instance of 'your' instead of 'you're') every 20 pages or so. The writing isn't bad and the mythology is at least interesting. It kind of feels like Williams has a high opinion of his own cleverness--repeating nicknames and such for people and groups often enough that he obviously wants you to see them and think about how clever they are. Except that they aren't really that clever, so I just cringe a little instead.
It's also a bit of a slog, despite being a relatively fast-paced action-mystery story. I think this can probably be chalked up to whatever shitty editor they put on the job along with the word errors. If someone had told Williams to cut out the sitreps that the narrator gives every five pages describing, again, his current list of problems, questions, and leads it would have been a much shorter and faster read. I remember that there's a giant hell-beast intermittently chasing the narrator. I don't need him to keep reminding me about it. Nor do I need to be reminded every few pages that there are a number of people and groups that the narrator has no idea the identity or significance of. Just get on with it.
It's okay if you're hard up for some new urban fantasy, but I'd recommend Ben Aaronovich over it in a heartbeat.
I understand that authors are often as much storytellers as writers, but I'm always surprised to encounter an author who writes terribly and relies utterly on an editor. OK, I get it that you can have a great mind and simply not remember that "you are" is shortened to "you're," but c'mon.
John Irving actually wrote a brief snippet for International Paper, or something like that, on "How To Spell." As an author of some renown, it's an entertaining read and it's neat to see him admit to his own troublesome words. Here's a link to a text version of it, for anyone who'd care to read it: http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/801.htm
I understand that authors are often as much storytellers as writers, but I'm always surprised to encounter an author who writes terribly and relies utterly on an editor. OK, I get it that you can have a great mind and simply not remember that "you are" is shortened to "you're," but c'mon.
John Irving actually wrote a brief snippet for International Paper, or something like that, on "How To Spell." As an author of some renown, it's an entertaining read and it's neat to see him admit to his own troublesome words. Here's a link to a text version of it, for anyone who'd care to read it: http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/801.htm
I'm pretty sure it's less a matter of not knowing which word to use and more a matter of typo-ing. I know that when editing my own writing, at least, I often find repeated words, omitted words, or words where I meant to spell one thing and spelled something completely different (but still a valid word) instead on the first pass. A guy who has written 9 or 10 fairly successful novels I'll give a pass on the odd 'your', but his editor really should have caught that. The other sentence I recall from last night included the phrase "already finishing fixing" that is obviously meant to have been "already finished fixing". I'm sure that Williams knows the difference between the past tense and infinitive forms of 'to fix'. It's an easy mistake to typo. But also one that a competent editor should have caught.
I can tell you guys that I have read a ton of english-written ARCs and galleys that broke my heart... Decent books with horrible pacing, terrible endings, a ton of inconsistencies in characterization... but books that could become really fuck good (at least in a entertainment sense) if I were allowed to really WORK the text.
Because I can take the translation and make it better, and you can rest assured I will, but I can't edit the plot or pacing or chapter order or cut the extra fat. I really wish I could. But that simply does not happen.
Also, that link is very interesting to me. Many of those common mistakes in English are less frequent in Latin languages because our spelling is a lot less varied in terms of phonetics, even if not 100% consistent. Sure, French is almost as bad or even worse than English, and Portuguese and Spanish are a bit bad, but AFAIK, "standard" Italian is almost as solid as German.
This is not to say any language is better than other, for Heaven's sake! It's just that English was caught in the middle of a LOT of influences, and it shows.
But, back to the subject: For educated Brazilians, the correspondent version of many of those misspellings are are almost impossible to make, because we're closer to the Latin and Greek radicals and have had a lot less influences. We have our own misspellings though, of course. Especially due to strong reagional phonetical differences.
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
No languages are better than others, but some orthographies make more sense than others. The French, English and Danish are among the more... challenging ones, among the languages I know.
Letting old spellings stand even after sound change has completely mutated a word is nice for historical linguistics, but rather inconvenient in pretty much every other area.
Since we are talking about non-fiction. I still have 1421 by Gavin Menzies on my shelf and haven't read it yet. Can anybody here tell me if it is any good?
My first book by Dawkins was Blind Watchmaker. It's much more "dense" as far as material goes for alot of his other books but I swear that book changed my life. I've always been interested in the study of evolution for it's own sake, and not for fuel in random arguments with creationists which is the vibe I got from some people that are fans of Dawkins. Never read God Delusion and don't really plan to.
The Selfish Gene is similarly awe-inspiring if you're into dense stuff. It really did turn the understanding of evolution on its head. Dry, but worth it.
Stephenson was mentioned about a page ago and I'm currently reading The Baroque Cycle. I picked up Quicksilver on a whim at a bookstore that was closing without knowing a single thing about Stephenson or any of his other works (judged it by it's cover).
Was Pleasantly surprised by his writing style that rewards the reader for having random extensive knowledge about stuff noone cares about and the staggering amount of research he does and am now making my way through The Confusion. Everything I see online is saying that if you make it through Quicksilver it just gets better and better until the trilogy concludes. Anyone else read them?
Quicksilver is by far the hardest to make it through, the first parts of Jack and Eliza's story are the only part that were really interesting. The political stuff Eliza gets into later in the book is a slog but it's setting up some really great stuff in the later books, you just have to learn to like it. And yes Stephenson has always been about rewarding you for being a nerd, whatever your subject of fascination may be.
He's a fun author to read. I didn't get tycho's hate for Anathem I thought it was one of his best books. It has a proper ending, which he was sort of infamous for not having in Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon.
Anathem didn't really have a proper ending, although hit was better then any of his previous efforts.
I guess Stephenson is ok if you are more interested in hearing what blogs he's been reading interspersed with some great ideas and prose then a well constructed story.
My first book by Dawkins was Blind Watchmaker. It's much more "dense" as far as material goes for alot of his other books but I swear that book changed my life. I've always been interested in the study of evolution for it's own sake, and not for fuel in random arguments with creationists which is the vibe I got from some people that are fans of Dawkins. Never read God Delusion and don't really plan to.
The Selfish Gene is similarly awe-inspiring if you're into dense stuff. It really did turn the understanding of evolution on its head. Dry, but worth it.
I'll second this. It is the only Dawkins book I've read, and it was fantastic. I thought I had a decent overall understanding of evolution. Nope. And neither do you, unless you understand the concepts that he is writing about. I read a lot of non-fiction, but this is one of the few books I've read that I can say will actually make you smarter for reading it. It is also the book where he coins the term meme, and so should almost be required reading for the internet.
I wont read his anti-religious stuff, because I've never believed in god and can't imagine his stuff would tell me anything I don't already know.
The only Stephenson book I finished was Cryptonomicon, but I feel like I'm supposed to read the Baroque Cycle and Snow Crash as part of being a nerd.
I'm re-reading Snowcrash right now. I find it less funny than when I first read it, but I'm a much better reader now so I appreciate more of the obscure references he makes. Cryptonomicon.... well, I tried a lot to like it. I really like cryptography! And computer science! And Alan Turing is a character! But it suffers from, well, the author.
Quicksilver is by far the hardest to make it through, the first parts of Jack and Eliza's story are the only part that were really interesting. The political stuff Eliza gets into later in the book is a slog but it's setting up some really great stuff in the later books, you just have to learn to like it. And yes Stephenson has always been about rewarding you for being a nerd, whatever your subject of fascination may be.
.
I read Selfish Gene after Watchmaker. Both great and it's really hard to believe those books are over 3 decades old. I recommend either one to people that want a good comprehensive understanding of evolution without falling prey to making it too "pop sci".
Believe it or not my favorite parts of Quicksilver were Waterhouse palling around with Newton and the Royal Society. It evoked an intense desire to find a peer group like them, similar to what I assume a 15-year-old has when watching Jersey Shore. I'm only in the first 100 pages of Confusion so there's a long way to go before I can give a review.
I always remember teaching English to a large group of mixed nationalities, mentioning I was getting worse at spelling, and them all explaining how weird it was for them to hear an adult say that. That was when I first learnt that most languages across the world are fine for an educated adult to spell, and English is weird.
Anyway, I agree with JK about non-fiction - when I read The Language Instinct recently, I was absolutely blown away by the first third, and then spent the rest of the book wondering why he was telling me the same stuff again.
Posts
Yeah, that's prettymuch the conclusion I came to, lol. I mean, I don't think he's doing it because he doesn't know better, so what's left?
Actually, now that I look at my reading list, maybe I just really like reading about evolution.
I've also been somewhat interested in reading up on feminist opinions recently, especially regarding the topic of beauty, so I bought Bitchfest (which is a collection of articles from Bitch magazine). I haven't read it yet, but I bet it's going to be a weird experience for me.
I'd say that if you like Brian Sanderson (beyond his mechanical and fully detailed in the appendix magic systems, which this absolutely does not have) then you'll enjoy it.
I wish I enjoyed non-fiction as much as fiction. I'd probably read more of it in that case.
As it is I read maybe 40% non-fiction, but it is virtually always a bit of a slog. I mostly read history books of the obscure type, which typically means they are dry dry dry. Earlier this year I read The Selfish Gene however, which was fantastic, and made for a quicker read.
"...only mights and maybes."
Consequently the nonfiction I enjoy most tends to be either in the form of essays and collections of essays, or books with a strong narrative component, like David Simon's Homicide.
You'd probably love Ancestor's Tale then, as it's essentially 3 dozen linked essays.
I'm in the same boat, actually. I often find the premise for non-fiction interesting, and like getting into it, but I often feel that they're padded and divergent in order to make it compelling. I think that's why people have enjoyed some of the more episodic-style non-fiction, like the Freakonomics stuff that's broken up into separate sections, or some of Michael Pollan's work where he spends time on different topics/people as he moves through the text. I personally feel that most non-fiction is read for information purposes, though, and that if I'm looking for information, I'd rather read a critique/analysis of the non-fiction book that's a mere 20-30 pages (or, if it's not that interesting, a wikipedia page) and whenever I've tried to get through a non-fiction book, I end up thinking they should just get to the point.
Which still isn't too bad. Although the book was written before the fall of the USSR, which is interesting in its own right.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It is the least-Dawkins of all Dawkins' books which makes it pretty readable no matter what your opinion of him might be
It's a fascinating look at the biology of various organisms both contemporary and historical. Some really great stuff on the mechanics of evolution in there. I should reread it, but that's making quite a commitment. It is not brief.
hated that book so much.
The ending was good enough to make me sad to learn it is part of a 'trilogy'.
You can read 1 chapter a week.
Speaking of Dawkins - I am almost through "The God Delusion". Dude has an axe to grind, thats for sure - still a fascinating read though.
And as far as non-fiction goes. The stuff from Malcolm Gladwell is great, especially Outliers.
The thing about the God Delusion is that there's not much in it that isn't in his other, earlier books which you can read with a much lighter complement of "fuck religion". Preachiness about preachers is still preaching.
His earlier stuff could be tl;dr'd as "Look we don't need to invoke a magic man in the sky to explain the diversity and wonder of life; here's why"
His latest is more like "Why the fucking fuck are you stupid fuckheads still listening to those fucking preachers or even allowing them near children when I've fucking crushed every argument they've made, what the fuck is wrong with you?"
If I wanted people to tell me I was Doing it Wrong and ask me to consider what the fuck is wrong with me I'd cut out the middle man and just go to church. Or maybe just give me ex a call.
I grabbed the iOS version of it, which has all kinds of interactive stuff. My kids really got into it.
Stephenson was mentioned about a page ago and I'm currently reading The Baroque Cycle. I picked up Quicksilver on a whim at a bookstore that was closing without knowing a single thing about Stephenson or any of his other works (judged it by it's cover).
Was Pleasantly surprised by his writing style that rewards the reader for having random extensive knowledge about stuff noone cares about and the staggering amount of research he does and am now making my way through The Confusion. Everything I see online is saying that if you make it through Quicksilver it just gets better and better until the trilogy concludes. Anyone else read them?
I really enjoyed them because I am exactly the kind of nerd that's more than happy to give the author space to show off his research and who also loves acquiring vast amounts of useless knowledge.
I have been an atheist all my life, and I am not arguing this kind of topic with anyone - so I hardly needed convincing. Still enjoyed it so far, if only for the eye-roll-worthy examples he trots out sometimes. Probably have to read the Selfish Gene at some point.
Since we are talking about non-fiction. I still have 1421 by Gavin Menzies on my shelf and haven't read it yet. Can anybody here tell me if it is any good?
I wanted to like Feed but too many things about it struck me as completely unbelievable. The entire journalistic system at the core of the book seemed like the kind of thing that someone who was really, really into LiveJournal 5 or 10 years ago would have thought was the inevitable future. As someone who was never into LiveJournal to begin with it all seems a bit far-fetched. And as someone who lives in the age of Twitter it seems a bit quaint, too.
Then there's the fact that the novel's post-post-apocalypse world only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. The moment you prod the surface more heavily than reading the words printed on the page, the whole thing just explodes in a rain of puss and dead poor people. 'cause being not-fabulously-wealthy in that world is simply not an option. You're either extremely rich or dead. Which isn't actually a way that you can run a world that depends heavily on consumer electronics. Someone has to be making all of those disposable zombie test kits.
And then there's (I'm not sure if it qualifies as a spoiler since it's something that Doesn't happen in the book, but just in case)
I mean, the book doesn't have so strong of a plot in the first place that you can just have a romantic sub-plot that only half-exists and not have it be a big deal. It's essentially a travelogue with a half-baked, not-very-mysterious political mystery on top. The relationship between the siblings is at least as much the central story as the whole whodunnit aspect.
The mechanical aspects of the zombie infection were new and interesting, I'll give the author that, but I found pretty much everything else poorly thought out and written with passable-at-best prose.
Anyway. I'm currently half or so of the way through Tad Williams' The Dirty Streets of Heaven which is...okay. It's very poorly edited (I'd say it averages a wrong-word error (like 'fixing' in place of 'fixed', and one honest-to-god instance of 'your' instead of 'you're') every 20 pages or so. The writing isn't bad and the mythology is at least interesting. It kind of feels like Williams has a high opinion of his own cleverness--repeating nicknames and such for people and groups often enough that he obviously wants you to see them and think about how clever they are. Except that they aren't really that clever, so I just cringe a little instead.
It's also a bit of a slog, despite being a relatively fast-paced action-mystery story. I think this can probably be chalked up to whatever shitty editor they put on the job along with the word errors. If someone had told Williams to cut out the sitreps that the narrator gives every five pages describing, again, his current list of problems, questions, and leads it would have been a much shorter and faster read. I remember that there's a giant hell-beast intermittently chasing the narrator. I don't need him to keep reminding me about it. Nor do I need to be reminded every few pages that there are a number of people and groups that the narrator has no idea the identity or significance of. Just get on with it.
It's okay if you're hard up for some new urban fantasy, but I'd recommend Ben Aaronovich over it in a heartbeat.
John Irving actually wrote a brief snippet for International Paper, or something like that, on "How To Spell." As an author of some renown, it's an entertaining read and it's neat to see him admit to his own troublesome words. Here's a link to a text version of it, for anyone who'd care to read it: http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/801.htm
I'm pretty sure it's less a matter of not knowing which word to use and more a matter of typo-ing. I know that when editing my own writing, at least, I often find repeated words, omitted words, or words where I meant to spell one thing and spelled something completely different (but still a valid word) instead on the first pass. A guy who has written 9 or 10 fairly successful novels I'll give a pass on the odd 'your', but his editor really should have caught that. The other sentence I recall from last night included the phrase "already finishing fixing" that is obviously meant to have been "already finished fixing". I'm sure that Williams knows the difference between the past tense and infinitive forms of 'to fix'. It's an easy mistake to typo. But also one that a competent editor should have caught.
Because I can take the translation and make it better, and you can rest assured I will, but I can't edit the plot or pacing or chapter order or cut the extra fat. I really wish I could. But that simply does not happen.
This is not to say any language is better than other, for Heaven's sake! It's just that English was caught in the middle of a LOT of influences, and it shows.
But, back to the subject: For educated Brazilians, the correspondent version of many of those misspellings are are almost impossible to make, because we're closer to the Latin and Greek radicals and have had a lot less influences. We have our own misspellings though, of course. Especially due to strong reagional phonetical differences.
Letting old spellings stand even after sound change has completely mutated a word is nice for historical linguistics, but rather inconvenient in pretty much every other area.
It's absolute garbage.
The Selfish Gene is similarly awe-inspiring if you're into dense stuff. It really did turn the understanding of evolution on its head. Dry, but worth it.
Quicksilver is by far the hardest to make it through, the first parts of Jack and Eliza's story are the only part that were really interesting. The political stuff Eliza gets into later in the book is a slog but it's setting up some really great stuff in the later books, you just have to learn to like it. And yes Stephenson has always been about rewarding you for being a nerd, whatever your subject of fascination may be.
He's a fun author to read. I didn't get tycho's hate for Anathem I thought it was one of his best books. It has a proper ending, which he was sort of infamous for not having in Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon.
I guess Stephenson is ok if you are more interested in hearing what blogs he's been reading interspersed with some great ideas and prose then a well constructed story.
I'll second this. It is the only Dawkins book I've read, and it was fantastic. I thought I had a decent overall understanding of evolution. Nope. And neither do you, unless you understand the concepts that he is writing about. I read a lot of non-fiction, but this is one of the few books I've read that I can say will actually make you smarter for reading it. It is also the book where he coins the term meme, and so should almost be required reading for the internet.
I wont read his anti-religious stuff, because I've never believed in god and can't imagine his stuff would tell me anything I don't already know.
I'm re-reading Snowcrash right now. I find it less funny than when I first read it, but I'm a much better reader now so I appreciate more of the obscure references he makes. Cryptonomicon.... well, I tried a lot to like it. I really like cryptography! And computer science! And Alan Turing is a character! But it suffers from, well, the author.
I read Selfish Gene after Watchmaker. Both great and it's really hard to believe those books are over 3 decades old. I recommend either one to people that want a good comprehensive understanding of evolution without falling prey to making it too "pop sci".
Believe it or not my favorite parts of Quicksilver were Waterhouse palling around with Newton and the Royal Society. It evoked an intense desire to find a peer group like them, similar to what I assume a 15-year-old has when watching Jersey Shore. I'm only in the first 100 pages of Confusion so there's a long way to go before I can give a review.
Anyway, I agree with JK about non-fiction - when I read The Language Instinct recently, I was absolutely blown away by the first third, and then spent the rest of the book wondering why he was telling me the same stuff again.