What book are you reading, and what do you think of it?

[ZLoth]

Just finished Octopussy and The Living Daylights, and Other Stories. This completed the Ian Flemming 007 books. of the short stories, The Living Daylights short story was used as the beginning of the actual film with some differences. Again, I went into the book series expecting a different book Bond than the movie Bonds.

Now, to tackle a new series.... Fourth Wing from the The Empyrean. The first two books are currently available, with the third coming out January 21st.

[Scott5114]

This thread seems to have a lot of answers for "what book are you reading?" and few for "what do you think of it?"

[J N Winkler]

This thread seems to have a lot of answers for "what book are you reading?" and few for "what do you think of it?"

"Book you are reading" is factual; "What do you think of it" means sticking your head above the parapet.

Now, to tackle a new series.... Fourth Wing from the The Empyrean. The first two books are currently available, with the third coming out January 21st.

I have had Onyx Storm, the third in the trilogy, on my library hold list since December 7.  Audience response to the Empyrean books tends to be polarized.  I liked the first two, though I was not blind to opportunities for editorial improvement, but I've seen comments in my local reading group along the lines of "I'm not a prude, but . . ."

[kphoger]

I recently started reading The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius (in the 520s), as translated by Victor Watts.  I haven't actually started in on the text yet, because the foreword is quite substantial and rather dense.  I had asked for the book for Christmas.

Last Christmas, I asked for and received Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem:  How religion drove the voyages that led to America by Carol Delaney, and I read it during the summer.  This is a well-researched non-fiction book that avoids the now-popular broad-stroke demonization of Columbus.  I think the author's main thrust is correct, even if the book occasionally fills some gaps in the supporting evidence with 'one can only imagine that' type of stuff.  The footnotes are robust and, between them and the text itself, I found myself quite convinced of the book's thesis.  I highly recommend it.

[1995hoo]

For Christmas, my mother gave me a book called A Place Called Ilda. It's about a late-1800s neighborhood here in Fairfax County that was near the intersection of Little River Turnpike (what is now VA-236) and Guinea Road. I grew up (and my mother still lives) not far from that intersection. I just started reading the book last night and while my initial impression is that the author has a little too much of a left-wing style to his writing, it's an interesting read primarily because it's about an area that's so familiar to me. Ilda was established by freedmen after the War Between the States but became a mixed-race neighborhood. It no longer exists other than an historical marker next to Route 236 and a neighborhood pool named the Ilda Pool. I haven't read far enough yet to learn what led to the neighborhood's demise, but I assume it was a combination of racism and the land becoming too valuable for the residents to continue living there.

This isn't the type of book I normally read, but it's interesting to me because of the geographic focus.

[ZLoth]

Now, to tackle a new series.... Fourth Wing from the The Empyrean. The first two books are currently available, with the third coming out January 21st.

I have had Onyx Storm, the third in the trilogy, on my library hold list since December 7.  Audience response to the Empyrean books tends to be polarized.  I liked the first two, though I was not blind to opportunities for editorial improvement, but I've seen comments in my local reading group along the lines of "I'm not a prude, but . . ."

I'm about 5 hours and 35 minutes into this 21 and a half hour audiobook, so my decision is still out. It's clearly a dystopian society, but different from the Song of Ice and Fire book series.

[ZLoth]

This thread seems to have a lot of answers for "what book are you reading?" and few for "what do you think of it?"

It's a bit hard when there isn't active feedback on the posts. And, I was pushing to finish the Fleming 007 series which I completely expecting to be different from the film versions and are, unfortunately, a product of their time.

[J N Winkler]

I'm about 5 hours and 35 minutes into this 21 and a half hour audiobook, so my decision is still out. It's clearly a dystopian society, but different from the Song of Ice and Fire book series.

As this is the canonical example du jour of romantasy (romance + fantasy), the focus is going to be on the central love relationship.  This is very much not the same kind of fantasy as, say, Song of Ice and Fire, Wheel of Time, or Lord of the Rings.

Before Fourth Wing, Rebecca Yarros was known as an author of military romances, consisting of the Flight and Glory series focusing on Army helicopter pilots, as well as a couple of standalones featuring veterans recently separated from the military.  (Her husband apparently flew helicopters in the Army for about 22 years and was seriously wounded in Iraq; in acknowledgments she has alluded to his being posted at Fort Rucker in Alabama, and I suspect they decided to settle in Colorado after another posting to Fort Carson.)  The academy in Fourth Wing strikes me as West Point with dragons.

The thing I like best about her books is that she sustains narrative tension well.

And, I was pushing to finish the Fleming 007 series which I completely expecting to be different from the film versions and are, unfortunately, a product of their time.

I tried to start on one of Fleming's Bond novels long ago and had to give up within a few dozen pages--it just wasn't pulling me in.  I've always felt the Bond franchise worked better on celluloid than in print.

In terms of spy fiction, my tastes run much more toward John le Carré's Smiley books (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) and Jason Matthews' Red Sparrow trilogy.  They offer taut storytelling in combination with psychological realism, texture, and depth.

[ZLoth]

And, I was pushing to finish the Fleming 007 series which I completely expecting to be different from the film versions and are, unfortunately, a product of their time.

I tried to start on one of Fleming's Bond novels long ago and had to give up within a few dozen pages--it just wasn't pulling me in.  I've always felt the Bond franchise worked better on celluloid than in print.

I feel it's best to treat the film Bond and the book Bond as two completely separate universes and as two seperate people, and in some cases, the film bares little resemblance to the books. The books were released between 1953 and 1966, which was a different world than one which we live in now. From Russia With Love is considered one of the best books in the series, so I would start with that even though it's the fifth book in the series. 

Would I recommend the James Bond books? Good question. The answer would be "No unless you put aside your pre-conceived notions based upon the films."

In terms of spy fiction, my tastes run much more toward John le Carré's Smiley books (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) and Jason Matthews' Red Sparrow trilogy.  They offer taut storytelling in combination with psychological realism, texture, and depth.

The first Red Sparrow book is on my wish list, and John le Carré's Call for the Dead is in my library thanks to a sale last November.

[index]

I was reading The Bridge at Andau not that long ago, I only have a little bit left to finish. Interesting on how many people behind the Iron Curtain still identified as socialists in spite of their government's abuses. And it makes it especially sad with how Hungary seems to be turning to authoritarianism again.

[kphoger]

And it makes it especially sad with how Hungary seems to be turning to authoritarianism again.

Perhaps Hungarians' moral depravity has been increasing, and they hear James Madison's words ringing true?

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

[index]

And it makes it especially sad with how Hungary seems to be turning to authoritarianism again.

Perhaps Hungarians' moral depravity has been increasing, and they hear James Madison's words ringing true?

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

Can you expand on what you mean by this a little? I understand the quote, but what specifically are you applying it to when it comes to current issues in Hungary?

[kphoger]

Can you expand on what you mean by this a little? I understand the quote, but what specifically are you applying it to when it comes to current issues in Hungary?

I was just wondering if conservatives in Hungary were wishing for a more authoritarian government because they see certain moral decay in their society and see no way of slowing or stopping it without a strong-armed government.  I don't know if that's true or not.  But it's something I've sensed among Trump-era conservatives in the USA, so it seemed like a reasonable possibility.

We should probably stop the political talk, though.  Sorry for heading down that road.

[ZLoth]

I was reading The Bridge at Andau not that long ago, I only have a little bit left to finish. Interesting on how many people behind the Iron Curtain still identified as socialists in spite of their government's abuses. And it makes it especially sad with how Hungary seems to be turning to authoritarianism again.

Sounds interesting. I will add it to my wish list.

[index]

Can you expand on what you mean by this a little? I understand the quote, but what specifically are you applying it to when it comes to current issues in Hungary?

I was just wondering if conservatives in Hungary were wishing for a more authoritarian government because they see certain moral decay in their society and see no way of slowing or stopping it without a strong-armed government.  I don't know if that's true or not.  But it's something I've sensed among Trump-era conservatives in the USA, so it seemed like a reasonable possibility.

We should probably stop the political talk, though.  Sorry for heading down that road.

Things don't need to be heated. As a general analysis of the topic (Not to address anyone in particular) (I have too much time on my hands today):

What we're seeing is indeed sad. If you ask me, the moral problems, the moral decay in society lies with mistrust and fear of groups that might be perceived as "immoral." And when a society loses the virtue of mutual respect and respecting the individual freedom of others, when they start lumping people up into groups that are doing/have done XYZ bad thing, when they become fearful of others and bitter about the past, that is a virtue that leads into more authoritarian governance, since liberal government relies on mutual trust to stay free. By betraying western ideals of individualism, live-and-let-live, and mutual respect, that's how we get to this point. The one fundamental moral is the golden rule. And notably, the golden rule does not say "treat others as you have been treated," because today, it seems we have a politics of retaliation, regardless of whether that retaliation is towards real or imagined grievances. What we get here thanks to that is a breakdown of societal cohesion and freedoms.

To keep it more philosophical/analytical and less politically opinionated - this can go both ways.  We see this with Hungary and the current extolling of "family values" as an antidote to LGBT topics. We have seen some problems with "political correctness" having similar effects on the way people feel in society. Certainly, we've seen unfair derision of groups among the likes of "white/christian people did x bad thing" or "gay/trans people are doing y bad thing." Most people, with their rationality, don't think this way of course. But the loudest voices in the room saying these things often dictate the dialogue for everyone else, and we all get roped in whether we like it or not. A lot of this derision comes from one side saying something negative about what they see as "the other side."

Take the example of someone who is more extreme saying, 'white people did this to us.' While this sentiment might come from legit grievances, like the mistreatment of black people and its lasting societal impacts, it's misguided. No demographic group acts collectively or has collective guilt, only individuals and movements do, even if they're dominated by a certain demographic. Similarly, the response from another extreme person, 'they hate you for being white,' arises from feeling unfairly targeted for something beyond individual control. But it's also flawed because it also feeds into an us-versus-them mentality, and it snowballs from there. And it is just as guilty since it assigns collective blame on a "them." What we have right now all across the West, from Hungary to the US, is a hijacking by those that are selfish and greedy, of legitimate concerns and sincere feelings about things to push insane ideological narratives that distract us from real issues. It isn't a mystery that culture wars and moral panic are often accompanied by economic trouble.

In order to preserve the values and freedoms of republican government that Madison preaches, the only solution is to chill out, talk, and trust one another, i.e. to put the positive aspects of human nature first. People should stop listening to what politicians are saying and focus on seeing others as humans with needs and wants and concerns. People ought to focus not on the garbage they see on the internet and TV but what they and their neighbor are struggling with. No rational person should want to stop people from having a nuclear family and going to church every Sunday, or to stop people from dressing and presenting a certain way. I would only hope it doesn't get to the point where that starts happening, I certainly don't want people taking action against my freedom to marry because they've been radicalized into thinking all LGBT people are pedophiles. And I want people to keep being Christian and straight and going to church as much as they want, because part of the social contract is individualism and mutual respect. That should go without saying, and it almost sounds like virtue signaling for the other side of things, but in our current political climate, that might need to be emphasized.

This might be a little fence-sitty, wishy-washy, whatever someone might want to call it. You get a lot of "well they started it" thrown around. Could one "side" be more guilty than "the other side?" Maybe. But it would be best to abandon viewing it righteously like that and to start thinking practically, to focus on being the bigger person. With those that are in power now, for the opposition, regardless of how wrong the other side is or how wrong they might seem, it wouldn't hurt to try and extend an olive branch to the angry and indignant. Is someone concerned about "wokeness" in response to current movements? Are they concerned about their rights, their faith, etc? If you're legit and truly care about freedom, it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge how they feel and try to lower the temperature. Feelings, opinions, and concerns come from real places. This certainly goes for the other side too, although someone has to go first. Saying this is a lot easier than anything actually being fixed though.

And I should emphasize, a lot of this should have to happen in the real world. The internet is kind of a cesspit. To speak on my own perspective, I spend a lot of time in very conservative, red areas. I've talked to a lot of people from there, for most of my life I've lived in those areas. And to a lot of other people, it would come as an absolute shock that I, as an LGBT, non-white person, who is not exactly red, get along absolutely fine if politics ever comes up, and it does a lot today. A lot of people would be surprised at how much we end up agreeing on.

I won't deny that this won't work on everyone. Some people are nuts and will always be, nothing we can do about that. You probably won't get far with someone who yells insults from their car covered in crazy bumper stickers, or with someone who condones violence against the innocent. But in general, for this to work and for things to heal, which will not happen overnight, you need to trust that most people are good-natured, or if they seem nuts to you, that they have a human side that someone just needs to reach. You have to be less afraid of "them." Surprisingly, when you treat people as human, the temperature in the room lowers.

[kphoger]

I really am going to avoid getting political.  Except to say...

We have seen some problems with "political correctness" having similar effects on the way people feel in society. Certainly, we've seen unfair derision of groups among the likes of "white/christian people did x bad thing" or "gay/trans people are doing y bad thing." Most people, with their rationality, don't think this way of course. But the loudest voices in the room saying these things often dictate the dialogue for everyone else, and we all get roped in whether we like it or not. A lot of this derision comes from one side saying something negative about what they see as "the other side."

I think most/many people really do think that way, but to a much smaller degree than the loudest voices in the room.  They really have lumped people into groups and have a bone to pick with some group or another, but they're actually quite willing to tolerate and at least superficially respect 'the other side'.

In order to preserve the values and freedoms of republican government that Madison preaches, the only solution is to chill out, talk, and trust one another ... stop listening to what politicians are saying ... focus not on the garbage they see on the internet and TV but what they and their neighbor are struggling with.

It's amazing how your respect for someone's position can increase, if only you stop and actually listen to what they're saying—and not just to what someone else tells you their position is, or what you assume their position is.

This might be a little fence-sitty, wishy-washy, whatever someone might want to call it. ... But it would be best to abandon viewing it righteously like that and to start thinking practically, to focus on being the bigger person. ... Is someone concerned about "wokeness" in response to current movements? Are they concerned about their rights, their faith, etc? If you're legit and truly care about freedom, it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge how they feel and try to lower the temperature. Feelings, opinions, and concerns come from real places. This certainly goes for the other side too, although someone has to go first.

You are giving voice to what I've been thinking for a few years now.  I find myself in the Center a lot (rather than the far Right or far Left), because I strive to actually understand each side's position and reasoning.  I don't write off someone who disagrees with me as stupid or evil, but instead I assume their position has grown out of a good value they hold, and probably a value we hold in common, but that their hierarchy of values has led them in a different direction than mine.  And I've generally found that every American values liberty, life, responsibility, the equitable treatment of others, etc.  And it's really discouraging and frustrating when others vilify someone on 'the other side', whether I'm on that side or not.

The internet is kind of a cesspit

Yep.  I've been known to unfriend family members on Facebook, just because I want to avoid the political muck they throw.  It's also half the reason I ditched my smartphone several years ago:  too much of my YouTube consumption was political, and it was turning me into someone I didn't want to become.

To speak on my own perspective, I spend a lot of time in very conservative, red areas. I've talked to a lot of people from there, for most of my life I've lived in those areas. And to a lot of other people, it would come as an absolute shock that I, as an LGBT, non-white person, who is not exactly red, get along absolutely fine if politics ever comes up, and it does a lot today. A lot of people would be surprised at how much we end up agreeing on.

Same here.  I am generally a conservative, but I've found that it's actually the 'not exactly red' folk whose opinions I often respect the most.  Or rather, I often can't stand what people on 'my own side' say, even if their final position aligns with mine.  I really wish this country could get back to striving for compromise.  Did that use to be a thing?  I seem to recall that it did.  We really do, most of us, have a lot that we agree on, but so many of us simply refuse to believe that for some reason.

[NE2]

For Christmas, my mother gave me a book called A Place Called Ilda. It's about a late-1800s neighborhood here in Fairfax County that was near the intersection of Little River Turnpike (what is now VA-236) and Guinea Road. I grew up (and my mother still lives) not far from that intersection. I just started reading the book last night and while my initial impression is that the author has a little too much of a left-wing style to his writing, it's an interesting read primarily because it's about an area that's so familiar to me. Ilda was established by freedmen after the War Between the States but became a mixed-race neighborhood. It no longer exists other than an historical marker next to Route 236 and a neighborhood pool named the Ilda Pool. I haven't read far enough yet to learn what led to the neighborhood's demise, but I assume it was a combination of racism and the land becoming too valuable for the residents to continue living there.

This isn't the type of book I normally read, but it's interesting to me because of the geographic focus.

>Complains about left wing
>Calls it the war between the states

Uh huh.

[Scott5114]

The problem with chasing after "moral decline" as a society is that not everyone has the same morals.

At the grocery store that I go to, there are a large number of customers who, rather than put their cart back in the corral where it goes, will just lift it up over the curb and leave it in the landscaping. That makes unnecessary work for the employees. Also, since the employees seem to rarely have time to actually collect these stray carts, the sand often gets in the wheels and makes them pull to one side. This is a huge pain whenever I'm buying a five-gallon jug of drinking water, as I get an upper-arm workout keeping the cart from running into shelves or other customers. (I have to imagine my wife wouldn't be able to push the cart at all.) So, yep, these people are saving a few seconds of their own time by not putting the cart up and causing a lot more aggravation to everyone else who comes after them—that's immoral in my book.

You'll never see anyone advocating for morality police to make arrests at the Summerlin WinCo, though.

[vdeane]

Yep.  I've been known to unfriend family members on Facebook, just because I want to avoid the political muck they throw.  It's also half the reason I ditched my smartphone several years ago:  too much of my YouTube consumption was political, and it was turning me into someone I didn't want to become.

There should be an option on someone's post to mute them from your feed, either temporarily or permanently, without going as far as a block or unfriending.  Or at least there used to be.

The problem with chasing after "moral decline" as a society is that not everyone has the same morals.

I think the existence of a moral decline is probably one of the few things everyone can agree on, but yeah, people don't agree on which morals, hence why things are so heated in the world right now.

[Big John]

^^ On FB, snooze to stop reading their posts for 30 days. Unfollowing stops their posts on your feed without unfriending nor blocking.

[1995hoo]

>Complains about left wing
>Calls it the war between the states

Uh huh.

Well, if I had called it the Late Unpleasantness, a fair number of people wouldn't have known what I meant.

[kphoger]

The problem with chasing after "moral decline" as a society is that not everyone has the same morals.

At the grocery store that I go to, there are a large number of customers who, rather than put their cart back in the corral where it goes, will just lift it up over the curb and leave it in the landscaping. That makes unnecessary work for the employees. Also, since the employees seem to rarely have time to actually collect these stray carts, the sand often gets in the wheels and makes them pull to one side. This is a huge pain whenever I'm buying a five-gallon jug of drinking water, as I get an upper-arm workout keeping the cart from running into shelves or other customers. (I have to imagine my wife wouldn't be able to push the cart at all.) So, yep, these people are saving a few seconds of their own time by not putting the cart up and causing a lot more aggravation to everyone else who comes after them—that's immoral in my book.

You'll never see anyone advocating for morality police to make arrests at the Summerlin WinCo, though.

As someone whose first job was pushing shopping carts full-time at a Target in soccer-mom suburban Chicago...  I kind of like the idea of shopping cart morality policing.

(FWIW, I always straighten up the cart corral whenever I put mine away.  I separate the regular ones from the smaller ones, each into its own row.  I make sure none are likely to roll away in a wind gust.)

There should be an option on someone's post to mute them from your feed, either temporarily or permanently, without going as far as a block or unfriending.  Or at least there used to be.

^^ On FB, snooze to stop reading their posts for 30 days. Unfollowing stops their posts on your feed without unfriending nor blocking.

Forgive me, but what would be the point?  The only reason I'm friends with anyone on Facebook is to see their posts.  Isn't that the whole point of Facebook?  What would be the point of blocking their posts but not un-friending them?

I think the existence of a moral decline is probably one of the few things everyone can agree on, but yeah, people don't agree on which morals, hence why things are so heated in the world right now.

That's a very insightful comment.

[vdeane]

Forgive me, but what would be the point?  The only reason I'm friends with anyone on Facebook is to see their posts.  Isn't that the whole point of Facebook?  What would be the point of blocking their posts but not un-friending them?

I mean, you'd avoid any social fallout over unfriending them and you'd still be able to manually view their profile if you knew they posted photos.  They'd also still be able to see your posts and like/comment.  And I'm guessing you don't use the messenger part, but that would still be available as well.

[Molandfreak]

Forgive me, but what would be the point?  The only reason I'm friends with anyone on Facebook is to see their posts.  Isn't that the whole point of Facebook?  What would be the point of blocking their posts but not un-friending them?

I mean, you'd avoid any social fallout over unfriending them and you'd still be able to manually view their profile if you knew they posted photos.  They'd also still be able to see your posts and like/comment.  And I'm guessing you don't use the messenger part, but that would still be available as well.

Plus a mute can be used as a means of blocking out posts about a specific event or heated topic for a set amount of time. Sometimes I will utilize mutes even when I agree with what the person is saying because I simply don't want to hear about a topic or read comments, either until I know a sufficient amount of facts or until the person I have muted hasn't posted about that topic for a while.

[ZLoth]

Now, to tackle a new series.... Fourth Wing from the The Empyrean. The first two books are currently available, with the third coming out January 21st.

I'm almost halfway through this book. It is holding my attention and is interesting. Problem is, I can't say too much because of spoilers. This is also my longest listen in some time as it has been several years since I listened to the Song of Ice and Fire books.

Will I have listened to both books when the third one drops on Tuesday? Nope. But, when I'm listening to a series, I try to insert some non-related books.