Which books kicked your butt?

[The General]

So, was it worth it?

I probably only absorbed about 10% of it.  It's written in such a way that really hinders comprehension for a poor uneducated farmer's son like myself.  I suppose it was worth it, but it took me a long time.  Small bites made it possible. 

[The General]

Another book that kicked my butt, but was totally worth it was
The Importance of Living by Lin Yutang

[Foodlion]

Tolkien's Silmarillion really kicked my butt.

[WildCard]

I probably only absorbed about 10% of it.  It's written in such a way that really hinders comprehension for a poor uneducated farmer's son like myself.  I suppose it was worth it, but it took me a long time.  Small bites made it possible.

Thank's for talkin me off the edge. Cause I was about to waste a whole bunch of time and energy.

[The General]

Thank's for talkin me off the edge. Cause I was about to waste a whole bunch of time and energy.

No prob.  In the interest of full disclosure, I read the abridged version.  But still... dang.
It was still almost 1000 pages of exquisitely crafted 18th century run-on sentences.

[jazmunda]

No prob.  In the interest of full disclosure, I read the abridged version.  But still... dang.
It was still almost 1000 pages of exquisitely crafted 18th century run-on sentences.

It wasn't written by Falkie was it?

[Kelt]

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon.
I got through it, but damn.  I was a fractured man for weeks.

That book is utter shite.

I'd recommend avoiding Gibbon to anyone wanting to learn about Roman History.

[Catsmile]

It wasn't written by Falkie was it?

Well... it was on topic, and stayed that way from start to finish.
So... doubtful.
Plus no box fans.
So... NO!

[WildCard]

Tolkien's Silmarillion really kicked my butt.

Me three.

It's fantasy fiction. Just amuse me.

I already have way too much useless information. I don't have space for all that.

Stranded on an island and that was the only book then, maybe.

It wasn't written by Falkie was it?

Funny you should mention him.

He wants to know why we aren't joining his forum.

Anticipating, "uhhhh. because you're not that interesting." He asks why do I have 100's of views and the only people here are me and my admin.? (I assume casio.)

Bottom line, a.b. owes him a free lunch. I really hope that's an inside joke. It probably is.

If it's not, we need pool our funds so we can buy him a McDonald's gift card.

#FeedFalkie

[The General]

That book is utter shite.

I'd recommend avoiding Gibbon to anyone wanting to learn about Roman History.

bah

[Jackstar]

Crime & Punishment dominated me to tears, until the second scene with Porfiry, and then my entire appreciation for the book changed. I went back to the very beginning, and tore through it again, so I could get to that part and understand the amazing thing I had just read, because all I knew was that something fundamentally life changing had just happened, and because I had snoozed through the first three hundred pages, I had no Earthly clue what.

Then I finished it, mind blown, and immediately read it again. I've never been the same since. I went to re-read it a third time a couple years later, and then quickly remembered that the first parts of the book are, in fact, quite snooze worthy. So I just read the Porfiry parts again, and threw the book in a closet.

I see Raskolnikov in many people around me, mostly on the television. It's an added level of entertainment that if one has the means, I highly recommend picking up.

[Kelt]

bah

I'm not saying you won't learn anything from Gibbon, just that there are far more productive ways of learning than Gibbon.

Heathers' Fall of the Roman Empire covers much of the same material, only in a format that doesn't first demand decoding the message via 18th Century prose.

Like you I struggled through Gibbons' book, believing the bastards who told me, "Oh, yah... Gibbons is the definitive work. You have to read Gibbons."

The funny thing is that people STILL insist it's THE work you must read when studying Ancient Rome, and they get genuinely pissed if you tell them they're talking out of their arses.

[The General]

I'm not saying you won't learn anything from Gibbon, just that there are far more productive ways of learning than Gibbon.

Heathers' Fall of the Roman Empire covers much of the same material, only in a format that doesn't first demand decoding the message via 18th Century prose.

Like you I struggled through Gibbons' book, believing the bastards who told me, "Oh, yah... Gibbons is the definitive work. You have to read Gibbons."

The funny thing is that people STILL insist it's THE work you must read when studying Ancient Rome, and they get genuinely pissed if you tell them they're talking out of their arses.

I hear ya.  However, I am a big fan of appreciating things in context.  In the context of the times in which it was penned, it's an amazing book.  Gibbon was really a pioneer as a researcher. He relied heavily on first hand sources when possible, and his research and writing methods became a standard for later historians.  He was able to reach a level of objectivity that no one had before.  Calling it utter shite is a little dismissive, don't you think?  It's such a landmark in historical tomes.  Peter Heather would be the first to defend Gibbon, he knows full well that Gibbon laid the groundwork that all other modern Roman historians rely upon.

[ksm32]

Clive Barkers WEAVEWORLD .. When I first considered reading it, as always I flipped right to the last paragraph of the book before anything else..

"..and therefore as this book has no beginning it shall have no end." So I read it and made up my own ending

[zeebo]

..."..and therefore as this book has no beginning it shall have no end." ...

One might say Finnegans Wake also has this feature, with the way the first & last sentences are related.  And of course it's also a worthy mention on this thread, although some folks are still debating whether it's actually a book or not. 

[Jackstar]

also a worthy mention on this thread, although some folks are still debating whether it's actually a book or not. 

[Kelt]

I hear ya.  However, I am a big fan of appreciating things in context.  In the context of the times in which it was penned, it's an amazing book.  Gibbon was really a pioneer as a researcher. He relied heavily on first hand sources when possible, and his research and writing methods became a standard for later historians.  He was able to reach a level of objectivity that no one had before.  Calling it utter shite is a little dismissive, don't you think?  It's such a landmark in historical tomes.  Peter Heather would be the first to defend Gibbon, he knows full well that Gibbon laid the groundwork that all other modern Roman historians rely upon.

There's no doubt it was a great work for its time.  I own a hard copy still.  And it is a seminal work, from which our understanding of Ancient Rome takes much of its wisdom.

On the negative side, as a young student trying to comprehend an 18th century wall of text....

In the two and a half centuries since its writing, though, much greater detail has been uncovered by subsequent archaeologists and researchers, making decline and fall progressively less valid and incrementally more quaint. That's not to say it's completely useless, but that is to say more productive volumes are available.

Another book people are defensive about to a ludicrous degree is Origin of Species. Again, seminal work, even moreso than Decline, but the language is beyond dry.  But If you dare suggest there are better books if someone wants to learn about evolution their reaction is like you've shot their dog.

Again, I have a hard copy, again I've read it, again, there are far, far superior (in terms of basic understanding) works available these days.

[albrecht]

I'm not saying you won't learn anything from Gibbon, just that there are far more productive ways of learning than Gibbon.

Heathers' Fall of the Roman Empire covers much of the same material, only in a format that doesn't first demand decoding the message via 18th Century prose.

Like you I struggled through Gibbons' book, believing the bastards who told me, "Oh, yah... Gibbons is the definitive work. You have to read Gibbons."

The funny thing is that people STILL insist it's THE work you must read when studying Ancient Rome, and they get genuinely pissed if you tell them they're talking out of their arses.

Same said for Plutarch, etc. But there you are dealing with translations of ancient languages into non-modern English (depending on translation you choose) and not "real" history all the time. But it is in the writing and also in the views closer to the times that is golden.

Gibbon is so great because of the prose and writing but, for sure, one can read more direct histories, memorize timelines, etc to get the straight facts but Gibbon is also about the descriptions and writing. And due to its historical influence itself. But it is something, at least for me, that needs to be read slowly in smaller portions than say, a modern history books that read more like a novel and can be read fairly straight thru.

For a good combination of book readability, more modern history, and good writing almost anything by Alistair Horne, esp "How Far From Austerlitz." Fun to read and good history as well.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I have only read specific pieces of Gibbon for things I wanted to know more about. So finishing the whole thing is pretty impressive, General.

Most of the Roman stuff I read was by Samuel Dill.

I also liked the Byzantium history by Norwich.

For a good combination of book readability, more modern history, and good writing almost anything by Alistair Horne, esp "How Far From Austerlitz." Fun to read and good history as well.

Thank you for the rec, it was available for 1 cent on Amazon. Good to know there are still bargains in the world.

Anyone every read any of Harold Lamb's history books? Things like Hannibal, Ghengis Khan, Suleiman, or the founding of Constantinople? I really like all of these. Unfortunately, the prices for Lamb's 40 year old books are the same as modern books.

[albrecht]

I have only read specific pieces of Gibbon for things I wanted to know more about. So finishing the whole thing is pretty impressive, General.

Most of the Roman stuff I read was by Samuel Dill.

I also liked the Byzantium history by Norwich.

Thank you for the rec, it was available for 1 cent on Amazon. Good to know there are still bargains in the world.

Anyone every read any of Harold Lamb's history books? Things like Hannibal, Ghengis Khan, Suleiman, or the founding of Constantinople? I really like all of these. Unfortunately, the prices for Lamb's 40 year old books are the same as modern books.

BTW, "Hardcore History" podcast has some pretty good, funny, or horrible insights on various historical periods, people, and cultures.

ps: what amazes me (and maybe it is the speed of the times or "dumbing down" of society in general) how in the past many of our politicians were well read, even in relatively recent times. I recall that Sen.Russell re-reading Gibbon for fun. Churchill writing a 4 volume "response" to great historian Thomas Babington Mcaulay's analysis of the Duke of Marlborough in one of his histories!! Of course the correspondence between the Founding fathers and through the Civil War. Compared to the stuff (memoirs, letters, speeches, etc) they write now- and in the debates both in oratory and rhetoric (not to mention substance.) I heard somewhere that they have analyzed speeches as to grade level and now we are around ninth grade in a modern, public school. And speeches even by Pres Wilson approach Grad school level by modern standards- but was given as public address back then.

[The General]

ps: what amazes me (and maybe it is the speed of the times or "dumbing down" of society in general) how in the past many of our politicians were well read, even in relatively recent times.

So true, so sad, and volumes could be written on what's caused this phenomenon. 
I call it 'information inflation.'

The first cause that comes to my mind is the fact that information is so readily available now, where in the past it was something that was more difficult to obtain.  It has had the effect of devaluing the quest for knowledge.  I believe the average high school graduate was better educated 100 years ago than your average college graduate is now. 

[Kelt]

The sad fact is that the populace in general is a mass of uneducated goons, few of whom have an attention span beyond that of the 15 minutes necessary to reach the next commercial break.

For this reason it doesn't matter if a candidate for the Presidency, Senate, or Local Water Board, has the finest education imaginable, he or she has to tailor their public persona according to the demands of the audience.

Who do you think will be more accessible to the public?

The candidate who steps to the podium and announces, "I'm reminded of Cicero's  De Re Publica, "Does a mind thus governed and regulated, meet your approbation?"

Or the one in a sharp suit, with a $400 haircut,  and a never-been-opened Bible waving above his head, who announces "Hey, that Snooki! She's some hot stuff!  Now watch me play this saxaphone/hit this golfball! The Troops! God Bless Murca!"

Personally I'd favour a Technocracy, but we're forced to live in a Moronocracy.

A government of the morons, for the morons, by the morons.

[Foodlion]

Me three.

It's fantasy fiction. Just amuse me.

I already have way too much useless information. I don't have space for all that.

Stranded on an island and that was the only book then, maybe.
Funny you should mention him.

He wants to know why we aren't joining his forum.

Anticipating, "uhhhh. because you're not that interesting." He asks why do I have 100's of views and the only people here are me and my admin.? (I assume casio.)

Bottom line, a.b. owes him a free lunch. I really hope that's an inside joke. It probably is.

If it's not, we need pool our funds so we can buy him a McDonald's gift card.

#FeedFalkie

What's the forum name? Sounds like prime time reading entertainment.

[albrecht]

The sad fact is that the populace in general is a mass of uneducated goons, few of whom have an attention span beyond that of the 15 minutes necessary to reach the next commercial break.

For this reason it doesn't matter if a candidate for the Presidency, Senate, or Local Water Board, has the finest education imaginable, he or she has to tailor their public persona according to the demands of the audience.

Who do you think will be more accessible to the public?

The candidate who steps to the podium and announces, "I'm reminded of Cicero's  De Re Publica, "Does a mind thus governed and regulated, meet your approbation?"

Or the one in a sharp suit, with a $400 haircut,  and a never-been-opened Bible waving above his head, who announces "Hey, that Snooki! She's some hot stuff!  Now watch me play this saxaphone/hit this golfball! The Troops! God Bless Murca!"

Personally I'd favour a Technocracy, but we're forced to live in a Moronocracy.

A government of the morons, for the morons, by the morons.

I'm not politically correct but I think a solution (along with eliminating the 17th Amendment and devolving more powers back to state and local governments; and the people) is re-thinking our whole "right to vote" thing. Or maybe different voting "rights" based on different criteria. I could think of various options. Maybe an education requirement, in addition to proof of citizenship and residency (not just a claiming of residency by affidavit or for simply for being alive?) Maybe raise the voting age (considering that, at least according to some sociologists, people aren't "becoming adults until later age?") Maybe, by local option, allowing any resident to vote in local elections (even if illegal, temporary student, etc) but not allowing same types to vote in State or National elections?) Things like voting on property taxes increases only for those who can prove ownership (incl those still having a mortgage) or proven rental/leasing arrangement?)

ps: aren't we already a Technocracy in some ways? The world, basically, moves to the Petro-dollar and the leader of the Technocrat movement wanted to peg economic on energy. So?? Personally, I don't like any utopian, "top-down" political models only because they have failed in the past (how those technocrat economists and leaders working out there, Europe?) In theory a benevolent dictator or King would work out. But that kind of power corrupts people.

[Kelt]

There are Alarm Clock Apps that require the wakee to solve a mathematical problem in order to turn the fucking thing off.

This is to ensure that the wakee is genuinely awake and not just phoning in a Snooze.

Now, really, how difficult would it be for a polling machine to demand the solving of an equation or the answering of a question from a randomly chosen subject before the voter is allowed to vote?

NO multiple choice, either.

ATTENTION VOTER! YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS IN WHICH TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!

CAPITAL OF CHINA?

"Is it Japan?"

YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER A QUESTION ON BASIC GEOGRAPHY. YOUR VOTING RIGHTS ARE RESCINDED FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS. PLEASE LEAVE THE POLLING STATION.

I see no problem in preventing the stupid from deciding who governs us.  This will have the knock on effect of forcing politicians to deal with a smart electorate.

That'll fuck them. 

[albrecht]

There are Alarm Clock Apps that require the wakee to solve a mathematical problem in order to turn the fucking thing off.

This is to ensure that the wakee is genuinely awake and not just phoning in a Snooze.

Now, really, how difficult would it be for a polling machine to demand the solving of an equation or the answering of a question from a randomly chosen subject before the voter is allowed to vote?

NO multiple choice, either.

ATTENTION VOTER! YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS IN WHICH TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!

CAPITAL OF CHINA?

"Is it Japan?"

YOU HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER A QUESTION ON BASIC GEOGRAPHY. YOUR VOTING RIGHTS ARE RESCINDED FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS. PLEASE LEAVE THE POLLING STATION.

I see no problem in preventing the stupid from deciding who governs us.  This will have the knock on effect of forcing politicians to deal with a smart electorate.

That'll fuck them.

Unfortunately "literacy tests" of any kind have been found illegal by the over-arching authority of the Supreme Court due to discrimination or manipulation. Including I think making States provide ballots in other languages including very minority ones if demanded (not sure if that is on a Federal level a Court decision or law but I know in some states and cities it is done). However, maybe if the "literacy test" portion of the vote (regardless if the election is using electronic or paper ballot or voice vote) is done on a computer and has a truly random selection of a number of "approved" questions it would not be discrimination according to the Court because it would not be discriminating against someone based on color, race, etc.?

[Jackstar]

This thread is for books. I'm only going to be polite about this eight or nine times.

[Kelt]

Politics, eh?

You could write a book about it....

[albrecht]

This thread is for books. I'm only going to be polite about this eight or nine times.

Sorry, off on a tangent. Although one could consider "literacy" tests for voting having to do with books. Maybe directly? Maybe some general questions over great American literature as a test before you are able to cast ballots? Nothing hard, revisionist or deconstructed theories "behind" the themes or author, or any obscure references but on basic characters or themes of a select number of works taught in every school. In English, as written, of course.

[Jackstar]

Test to vote bad. Test for citizenship good. Test citizenship to vote good.

Test President for Hulk gene bad! Graaagh!