106 new of 207 responses total.
The snake-like aliens were a plot element of "V" the mini-series (or so I gather..) Pynchon's "V." has nothing to do with the miniseries, however at the time I was reading it far more people had heard of the miniseries than Pynchon's book and many assumed they were the same thing. I have no idea how they managed that leap since, if they saw the paperback copy I was carrying around they presumably also saw the cover (which was not science-fictiony in any way.) Pynchon's "V." is a strangely-told story, or perhaps several stories which all involve some person (or rat) with the initial "V.", though it's unclear who the "V." of the title is (if anyone..)
Pynchon was a student of Nabokov's at Cornell. Nabokov said all he remembered about him was that he had the worst handwriting he'd ever seen.
now *that's* a fascinating piece of information - nabokov. wow. what a strange connection. doesn't sound as though nabokov thought much of him, eh?!
Probably not. Nabokov was very generous with praise for writers he loved (Updike, Borges, Robbe-Grillet, etc.), but with a few celebrated exceptions (J. P. Sartre, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound) he avoided discussing any living writers he hated. If he had found anything he thought was valuable in Pynchon's books, I'm sure he would've said so. I'll have to look for Pynchon in the index to Boyd's biography of Nabokov.
ah - well, if he didn't like sartre, which i didn't know, that would put a stop to me feeling i could just get away with accepting nabokov's views... so i *will* have to read Lot 49 after all!
He whom we last as Thurn und Taxis knew,
Now recks no lord but the stilletto's thorn
And tacit lies the gold, once-knotted horn.
gotta love "The Courier's Tragedy".. (it's a story within the story
of "..Lot 49") and a pretty funny one at that..
Lot 49 had some especially powerful imagery that mined a deep vein
of cultural legend. I could almost see the conspiracies congealing around
me after I'd read it.
I have killed a new item 78 offering a pyramid scheme. The item appears in another conference, is illegal, and does not concern books.
It appears in several, possibly many, other conferences. <sigh>
Thanks, Rane. I've forgotten it in several other conferences already. <double sigh>
Ditto. <triple>
Hi I m new arround here! can anybody help me?
What kind of help would you like?
Did I already post? I'm Julie Pratt. My fave kinds of books are Fantasy and Science Fiction, but I also like to read religious literature.
Religious literature meaning Homer, or Dante, or St. Augustine, or ???
Religious literature meaning, the Scriptures, James E. Talmage's Jesus the Christ, or The Ensign magazine. I also like to read the mythos of various cultures, like the greco-roman, egyptian, celtic, or nordic mythos. So I guess you could say I like to read Homer and Dante. You'll have to fill me in on St. Augustine, though. I've never heard of that.
Augustine of Hippo, Catholic saint and extremely influential religious writer. Also notable for an interesting <ahem> personal life. His most cited work is probably "City of God"
Hmm. Think the Library would have some of his work?
Depends on which library, where. But Confessions & City of God are quite likely to be in a good general library. If not, they're widely available & in the public domain (though particular translations will be copyright if done recently). You might start with an encyclopedia for background.
Let's hear it for Hildegard of Bingen!
Augestine had, by many accounts, more influence on the development of Christianity than anyone since St. Paul. My impression is that he's very unpopular with the more liberal and anti-guilt Xianian camps....
I'll check 'im out and let you know what I think.
re #122: That may be true, he's certainly in the running (along with Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a couple others..) re #199: A small public library might not have much Augustine lying around -- it's not the sort of light reading material you stack next to the Wall of Tom Clancy Novels. But a decent-sized library would be likely to have it and a college or university library almost certain. Of course one of the most wonderful things about even quite small public libraries is that even if they *don't* have something they can quite often get it for you, for free, from another library. re #121: I've heard some of Hildegard von Bingen's music. I presume she also wrote, but were you referring to her writings or her music?
coolness!
Re #124: Specifically, her writings and her life.
I didn't know HIldegard von Bingen wrote either...interesting...
hello all,
can somebody help me in finding a goos beginner's book fro java..
Consider visiting a bookstore such as B. Daltons or Waldenbooks. You might also consider asking your local computer sales person to recommend a good book.
Bookworm, have you read any Frank Perretti? "The Oath" is very dark, almost depressing, but his "Darkness" series, is, ironically, much lighter and more accessible. If the characters don't always know what's going on, at least the reader does, most of the time. :-)
No, I can't say as I have. Not much time for that with Finals coming up. Hey you guys. My husband and I will be coming up to visit a week from tomorrow. Looking forward to meeting all of you.
Wow, that's quite a trip from Washington; how did it go? Anybody getting into the summer reading swing?
I picked up "The Street Lawyer" which is something I began last year. I've been reading on the average of a chapter a day. I plan on getting through "The Black Dahlia" By James Ellroy and "Bag of Bones" by Stephen King before the summer is out. Hopefully I can clear those 3 by the end of July. I would like to finish all of my books (8) by the end of August so that I can begin a new crop.
resp:132 It went all right. Been too busy to read much of anything lately. =P
I read "Strategy" by B.H. Liddell Hart. He analyzes every decisive military campaign in European history about which reliable information can be found up to about 100 years ago. He focuses, of course, on strategy, but does not avoid the occasional foray into either tactics or grand strategy. Having made the case that a wide survey is necessary if local conditions are to be factored out of general propositions, he then shows how virtually every decisive campaign depended upon some form of indirect approach. This established, he commences a thorough analysis of WWI strategy, which concluded the first edition, published in the 1920's. This edition also contains a detailed analysis of WWII strategy and grand strategy, in light of his earlier conclusions. (Some key generals even attribute their successful choices in strategy to having read the earlier edition.) The first edition contained a prediction that mechanized forces would become more and more important in future wars. (WWII proved him right). The 1950's edition predicted that the existence of the H-bomb would not preclude low-level and guerilla warfare. (Vietnam, Angola, Guatemala, Nicaraugua, etc, etc). I was impressed.
Hart's _Strategy_ is cool. (I've got the 1967 edition.) My impression is that he's considered one of the top military thinkers of the century (certainly to be studied by all prospective generals).
I believe that is the edition I have. My understanding is that each edition
actually has a slightly different title, so it might be even harder to mix
them up. ("Have" used loosely: it's from the library.)
is there anybody already present in the conference.I am not getting the hang of it can anyone help me out on the various systems that this cyberspace.org thing seems to have.
Picture each conference as a room.
Each room is filled with scrolls. These are the
"items" in the conference.
Each scroll is labeled with an item topic ("Why
books?" in this case.)
If you open up the scroll (ie., read the item), you
will see that many people have written comments in
it, over a span of time ranging from a few days to
many years. These are the "responses." Each of the
comments on the scroll is numbered, dated and signed.
If you see something in a scroll that makes you want
to add a comment of your own, you may do so. This is
"entering a response"
The next time you come back to look at the scroll,
others might have come into the room and added more
comments underneath yours on the scroll. Their responses
might be addressed to you or to other people. New
responses might be added to the scroll within minutes of
the comment you added. Sometimes days will pass before
you find a new comnent when you open the scroll.
Sometimes years. Sometimes, sadly, never at all.
And sometimes (here is where the scroll analogy breaks
down) the item topic is so interesting or controversial
that many people add responses in a very short time,
with the result that an invisible person will add a
comment to the scroll while you are in the process of
writing your own comment! The scroll-keeper, who sees
all, will then alert you to this fact and ask if you
still want to add your comment as written. At that
point you might want to add something to the efect that
"md slipped in."
Cool analogy! I never thought of it quite that way! :-)
Very cool indeed. I like it! To patch up the scroll analogy, imagine that you are writing your response on a scrap of parchment that you obtain from the scroll-keeper. When you hand your completed response to the scroll-keeper, he either copies it to the scroll, or hands it back if other scraps of parchment have been copied to the scroll since he gave you your scrap.
I was under the impression that he pasted it on the end anyway, but let you know that someone else had added something first..
(Depends on whether you're using Picospan or Backtalk.)
Yeah, I like it too. Does a much better job of explaining how a bbs works than the usual "bulletin board" analogy.
Hi
Welcome to grex, splungo! :-)
I don't know about anyone else in here, but i love to read John Grisham and Tom Clancy.
has anyone read fountainhead ?
The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand?
yes the very same
Yup.
I saw the movie, but haven't read the book.
I have the book but I've yet to read it. I saw the movie the other day. It was terrific.
i dont know about this kind of book but i'm sure that this is a great book iwonder that somebody give me a chance to read that book by send me the copy of the book.i'm very greatful if you who read this text do what iwant to. This is my address : m.riza hanafi jalan gejayan gg endra 17 yogyakarta indonesia
[sound of grexers rushing to the post office]
(I might do it just to get that piece of trash literature out of my house.)
<laughs> I'm in agreement with John Remmers. =)
ye gods. /raises hand and confesses -- "i was a teenage randroid" /sob
Boks Books get #25 quit
Books are cool.
New to this place, computer in general actually, just saying hello, I am a big fan of the Lord of the rings and Dune series, along with old classics such as the Illiad and Antigone/Oedipus. Any suggestions on recent books what to read?
sure. you seem to like long books, so check out 'the dollmaker' by harriette arnow. bear with me. it's set in kentucky, and then detroit, which may not be as snugly unfamiliar for you as arrakis or middle earth. but if you read it, then let me know how it is, then i can know whether or not to keep reading it. deal?
Hello. I am new to this discussion forum. I .
'the dollmaker' is pretty good, so far. densely detailed, but not baroque.
anyone here like reading agatha christie?
I always used to. I havent read any in a long time though.
ditto
Hi everybody! Have any of you ever read Harry Potter and do you find them suitable for College analysis? //Daniel
College analysis in what context? They aren't Great Literature; they are either great or unusual and good children's books; they've gained a cult- like following and blown the tops off the sales charts.
Given some of the material I've seen scrutinized, the "Harry Potter" books don't seem especially inappropriate, though that's not a strong endorsement of the idea, either. An analysis of their unprecedented popularity might be an interesting read, however, if the author came to any particularly insightful conclusions..
Well, there's a class we're carrying books for at Shaman Drum that _is_ reading Harry Potter. I don't remember off top of my head what the classis on, though.
Certainly Harry Potter could be interesting if one examined it in contrast with American popular culture, after all the boarding school concept is not common in the US as compared to Great Britain
So this is the item I was remembering and referenced in agora. :)
did you read some book of luxun-the famouse author of china,his books can always arraise people's justice emotion,is that right?
Did any of you guys read the book "Freedom at Midnight" by Dominique Lapierre. I'm searching for a copy of that book. If any of you know about that. Do let me know.
you must be kidding...if a college were to analyze a novel within the fantasy genre i would positively recommend The Lord of the Rings trilogy...Harry Potter in my personal opinion is a childs story used created to appeal to elementary students; it's definitely not on a college level of reading....but that happens to be my thoughts on the matter....
Despite its devoted following, I'm not particularly convinced that "The Lord of the Rings" has deep levels of inner meaning that reward careful study and close reading. In other words, while I wouldn't consider taking a course which proposed to study Rowling's books, I wouldn't take one focused on Tolkien's work either.
The language of both is very interesting, though. Different, of course. Tolkien was a philologist and knew lots about language history and his style rings true (stilted by current standards, but that's what true sounds like). Rowling, on the other hand, is a *very* keen action writer. She uses an *enormous* number of participles, for instance.
i've heard recent positions that Lordo of the Rings is a concoction of northern european runic mythologies with christianity, particularly gnosticism. c.s. lewis didn't feel at ease with the cosmology coming out of Lord of the Rings... i think his objection was to do with the corrupt creator god of gnosticism, and also that Middle Earth is a realm whose destiny is in the hands of its inhabitants, not an overseer. Tolkien's response--this is all in their correspondence, by the way--is probably where the notion that Lord of the Rings was an allegory for WWii took seed. He told Lewis that, given the work and results of the Axis powers, how much devastation they wreaked and how much of it was the result of failure by the Allied nations to act quicker, he felt *compelled* to publish his saga.
My impression is that LotR is a quite unoriginal story that Tolkien just assembled (and told very well indeed) from earlier stories that he knew professionally (as a Prof. of Early English Language & Lit. at Oxford), and that this was trivially obvious in his social circle. This is not to fault Tolkien - retelling an old tale well, to a new audience, is honest & honorable work for an author or scholar. I can easily see Lewis not liking the lack of Xianity in LotR. He sticks closer to the Xian story and worldview in his books than Stalin's favorite authors stuck to the Party line in the 1930's. Tolkien spills a load of words & passion on the LotR/WWII subject in his forward to some later printings of LotR. He denies that his story line is about or influenced by WWII, and pretty much says that LotR would have been the same, but published *earlier*, if there'd been no war. Given the timing of LotR & "epic struggle between good & evil" nature, i don't think anyone would need prompting to compare it with WWII. I don't see anything Gnostic in LotR. Certainly there's no salvation via occult knowledge (more likely to get you damned in LotR), no real dualism (Morgoth & Sauron couldn't dream of challenging the One), and prospects for salvation through simple moral virtue.
This response has been erased.
There's no arguing with gus.
It's like climbing a mountain: if you have to ask, "Why?", you aren't going to do it. It's likely you could suggest a 'must-read' which would arouse in me exactly the same response that _Lord of the Rings_ rouses in you.
This response has been erased.
I have tried to read it several times and never got past the middle of chapter two before getting bored to death. I did enjoy "The Hobbit". STeve and the kids keep telling me that it is a wonderful series and I should really read it. I tell them that I tried, more than once, and there are so many books out there that I will enjoy without having to fight to stay awake that it isn't worth it to me personally. I found the movie ok, not the great cinema that everyone else thought it was. I found myself paying more attention to my homework than to the move and enjoyed the beautiful scenery than I did the action/dialog. I'm glad I did pay to see it in the theater and waited to rent the DVD. Won't go out of my way to see the rest of the movies either.
This response has been erased.
There probably is something you are missing, but I can't describe it, and I wouldn't worry about.
I can't agree with the sentiment that LotR is something that Tolkien
"assembled", though it's clearly syncretic mythology. There's a lot of
mythology out there, and mythology tends to follow certain forms, and have
certain common elements, and wouldn't have the same feel even as fiction
without them.
I'm really wondering what the Christian elements in LotR are. I don't
recall any, though I can clearly identify several elements similar to Norse
or Irish-Celtic beliefs.
The very specifically Christian elements are barely visible, in passing references, in LotR, though they're there; and certainly there's plenty more that's Christian, though not uniquely so, once you start looking. (One example, a pretty major theme, is the corrupting temptation of power.) For more specifically Christian themes in the mythology, you want to look at places where the mythology is the focus - the Silmarillion, e.g. Even there, many of the superficial elements aren't specifically Christian; that wasn't Tolkien's intention, I think.
I suppose I wasn't considering the corrupting temptation of power to
be a Christian theme ...
The corrupting temptation of power is not a Chritian element in origin: it is Greek (or earlier?). For example, "In ancient Greek poetry and drama, Ate is the goddess of foolish or ruinous impulse. When a powerful person is loaded to the gills with hubris, Ate blinds his judgment. His bad judgment then leads him to an action that brings about his downfall." (http://www.odessa.edu/dept/english/dlane/eng2332/Pages/Hubris.html). The particular wording of the popular adage is from Lord Acton, but the concept is ancient.
I said it wasn't uniquely Christian. The way Tolkien used it is quite specifically a result of his particular, Christian viewpoint, but even so it's not something uniquely Christian. (The Greek idea of hubris has almost nothing to do with it, in this case, though.) (As I said, it's one of the main themes of the work, and turns up throughout, but one place it is explicitly developed, in things characters say, is in speeches by Elrond and Gandalf during the Council of Elrond. There are a few other such places; but it's illustrated, rather than said, over and over.)
Boromir and Deneathor, for instance. Bilbo, Frodo and Smeagol more obviously. I just hadn't thought of that as "Christian" theme. Gandalf, Aragorn and Faramir avoiding the corruption are other examples.
Why isn't Tom Bombadil corrupted by the ring? He isn't affected by it in any way at all: e.g., when he puts it on his finger he doesn't go invisible. Either he already has more power than the ring can give, or he isn't human or elf or dwarf or hobbit any of the other corruptible creatures. But why? I remember somebody (Frodo?) suggesting that they give the ring to Bombadil, and someone else (Elrond?) says, no, he'd just lose it. If Lord of the Rings is some sort of allegory about how power corrupts, which I doubt, what does Bombadil stand for?
Well, the standard answer to pretty much all questions about Bombadil is that
he doesn't really fit in at all, in any way. He came into existence in some
verse Tolkien wrote ("The Adventures of Tom Bombadil"), which weren't exactly
part of Tolkien's evolving mythology. Then, when the sequel to _The_Hobbit_
was being developed, Tolkien was thrashing around a bit as to where it was
going (very early), and "visit Bombadil" was one idea. _The_Hobbit_ had some
ideas from the developing mythology sticking out of it, but really wasn't
designed to fit with it at all - wasn't in Tolkien's mind related. So the
sequel (LotR) wasn't either, initially. But as it developed, more and more
of the mythology came to be incorporated - as background, but the background
made a difference, all over the place.
(No, BTW, it wasn't Frodo who suggested giving Bombadil the ring. IIRC, it
was one of the other elves at the council.)
LotR is not "some sort of allegory about how power corrupts", in any case.
Tolkien was, very prominently, on record as entirely hating allegory as such,
and denying that this work was one. The particular allegories being suggested
were of the WWII-Sauron-is-Hitler variety, but now that we have in published
form the history of its writing I'd say we can see clearly that no allegorical
interpretation of it as a whole will ever be any more than someone's reading
something into it that's not there. That just wasn't the way Tolkien worked.
(Tolkien's statement on allegory referred to one exception among his writings,
commenting that the one time he did one no one came forward with allegorical
explanations. But I take it to be "Leaf By Niggle", & I think I'm not the
only one.)
But I was the one who raised the issue of the corrupting nature of power in
this work, & maybe I need to say some more. It's not the issue of hubris Rane
mentioned - though that in a way comes into it. And it's not so simply that
power corrupts, but the way it can. To put it pretty broadly, the issue is
one of goals and choices. The difference between the three rings and the one
ring isn't that they're not powerful, but the goals toward which that power
was designed. The makers of the 3 wanted to make things grow, flourish, and
be healed; to them, *that* was power. But what Sauron wanted was domination.
This made a difference to who could use these rings, and to what they could
be used for.
But secondly, each choice one makes has a kind of power over one's later
choices, and even in some cases over the later choices of others. It makes
a difference to their later choices that Gollum's acquiring of the ring
began with an act of murder, whereas Bilbo's began with an act of pity.
(This example is given in so many words; no chance of my imagining it or
reading it in.)
This is a good example of what I mean by saying that this theme is
Christian, but not uniquely so. Tolkien thought this way because of his
beliefs about sin (and about original sin in particular), and it's pretty
clear to see in many places; but one wouldn't have to be a Christian to
find all the places that exhibit this theme plausible and compelling.
You have to understand, at least to some degree, how Tolkien wrote. Some
writers would have as one of their motives, quite consciously, to show
something they believe to be true. Some of them do it badly, some well. But
that doesn't seem at all to be how Tolkien approached it.
I dunno. Even a writer as thorough and meticulous as Tolkien can't help but leave some loose ends in a work the size of Lord of the Rings, but Bombadil isn't just a loose end. He's an entire chapter. If he doesn't belong, Tolkien could have removed him. Take out his chapter and Old Man Willow and a reference or two elsewhere and he's gone.
My guess would be that that particular kind of consistency was not the goal.
I think Bombadil is a "loose end" only if you subscribe to the rather limiting philosophy that all substantial characters and action in a story must tie into a compact little all-things-brought-together-and- explained-in-the-end bundle. That's not how the real world works, and Bobadil is an un-ignorable reminder that Middle Earth is bigger and deeper than just the story of the Eldar, Enemies, Rings, & Wizards. If that message does not sink in at first, it's reinforced both at the Council of Elrond and when Gandolf leaves the hobbits to visit Bombadil near the end of the book. In a sense, Bombadil is the true unchanging immortality of the good natural earth - existing before the memory of the most ancient of the immortal actors on the stage, and (implicitly) long after those actors are gone & faded from memory.
Well, that's not what I had in mind. He doesn't fit into the cosmology as developed elsewhere. Of course, the same can be said of hobbits and ents, but with them a plausible case can be made for viewing hobbits as just a variety of men (though the hobbits wouldn't agree, perhaps), and for the ents really being trees that have been awakened. That latter is iffy, but not totally unreasonable, I think. (My son, reading over my shoulder, in fact said that it's what Treebeard said. I don't think so, but there you are.)
In Book 3, Chapter 4, Treebeard pretty much implies that the race of ents started with the elves woking trees & taught them language, but the remark is in passing and never made explicit. Treebeard does explicitly compare ents to both elves and men, finding ents more like each in various ways. Yes, both hobbits & ents are relatively removed from the central Eldar, Enemies, Rings, & Wizards story, but both are races of mortal individuals moving & changing over time, especially in response to the central saga, and both move from the shadows to center stage in the final act. Bombadil neither is nor does any of these things.
Note that Dwarves were also separately created, before all others (of Middle Earth), in fact. They were then put to sleep until the rest had been created. The Wizards (Saruman, Gandalf and company) are not of any of the other races. Is Bombadil of their blood, or is he of another class? Or is The One Incarnate? (I doubt the last; it just doesn't fit Middle Earth.)
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm includes a lengthy discussion
of Tom Bombadil's place in Lord of the Rings. A couple of exceprts:
"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always
are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954 ...
and...
Though Tom's insertion into the nascent Lord of the Rings might be
viewed (at least in a sense) as 'accidental', it is certainly no
accident that he remained there. Tolkien reviewed and revised the book
with his customary meticulousness - it is inconceivable that the
character of Tom Bombadil would have stayed in place if Tolkien didn't
see him, in some sense, 'fitting' with the rest of the story. In
Tolkien's own words:
"...I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain
things otherwise left out."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954
In the same letter, he goes on to summarise what these 'certain things'
are. It is difficult to paraphrase his statements here: the suggestion
is that while all sides in the War of the Ring seek, in their different
ways, some sort of political power, Tom is immune from this in the same
way that he is immune from the Ring. He only wishes to understand
things for what they are, and desires no control over them.
[Reminds me of the answer Krug gives to the police in Nabokov's Bend Sinister, when asked why he -- a great philosopher -- would prefer to associate with his academic colleagues than with the country's dictator: "Because they delight in specific knowledge and are incapable of committing murder."]
For what it's worth, #202 is mostly what I was thinking of when I originally answered your question (it was yours, right?) about Bombadil. I didn't say what was said in the third-to-last paragraph, but should have. Yes, Tolkien's way of writing left no room for anything as big as the Bombadil section to be left in anything but deliberately. My point was that Bombadil as described does not fit with anything said (elsewhere than LotR) about the creation of various races; any explanations are speculative to the point of being presumptuous, & I'm uncomfortable with all of them I've heard or dreamt up myself. Regarding ents: what Treebeard says entails that the elves taught ents to speak, and (I think) that they awakened them - presumably making them conscious beings in a way they weren't previously. His comments a bit later on trees and ents - that sometimes trees become awake and alert and entish, while sometimes ents become almost like trees - don't quite say that trees can develop legs, feet, eyes, mouths, etc. like ents. Even taken with the mobility of various trees (both in _The_Two_Towers_ and in the Old Forest episode of _Fellowship_), this seems to be a step away from saying that ents are trees awakened by the elves, IMNVHO. But it's certainly enough to make some kind of case on it, & people have done so.
This is Item 1, the "Why Books" item. A Tolkien item would be very appropriate in this conference.
Sorry, Rane. This comes of not paying attention to item headers. There already is a Tolkien item (#80), and maybe someone would like to paste this discussion there.
Hey .... Let us move out of this LoR stuff...There is a lot of books to look at & share rather than sticking on to one... How about the "My family & other animals" by geral durrell.... I love to read Durrell...for the funny & Down to earth approach he takes...
You have several choices: