Reading Journal

[Torontonian]

Suppose we start a sort of reading-journal thread. There are, after all, many book-lovers on the forum. We can keep each other up to date on our current readings, listing only the more pertinent info and reserving full-fledged reviews for separate posts. (Similar threads in 'the waterhole' are inevitably left by the wayside, but maybe we can survive in this less-populated sub-forum.)

[Torontonian]

Reading:

• Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, Harvard, 1973. Reread. New translation (S.J. Tester) with parallel Latin text. My favourite translation thus far, having read those of V.E. Watts and D.R Slavitt.
  
• Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness:An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, Washington Square, 1993. First-time read. Savoured Sartre's dramas, novels, and essays . . . thought it was time to sink my teeth into this his philosophical testament.
  
• C.S. Lewis, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, Cambridge, 1998. First-time read. Wonderful, eye-opening essays by prof. Lewis.
  
• Søren Kierkegaard, Stages on Life's Way, Princeton, 1988. Reread. Volume eleven of twenty-six in the Princeton collection - not including the voluminous journals. My favourite writer. Superb as always.
  
• Ernst Krenek, Tonal Counterpoint In the Style of the Eighteenth Century, B&H, 2004. First-time read. Theorists are helpful but practitioners know best.
  

[Peter11216]

I've tried to keep a list of stuff I've read, but it has never worked out. I think it's because it would force me to acknowledge how many books I start and don't finish.

The one book I'm really excited about right now is Imperial, by William Vollmann. I'm not very far into it, but it is a fantastic read. This one had been sitting on my shelf, for a year since it first came out, and I'm only now setting aside sometime to read it.

Best,

Pete

[Puros Y Vino]

Just finished.

The Tipping Point - Malcom Gladwell.

Halfway through.

What The Dog Saw - Malcom Gladwell.

I recommend Blink by the same author as well.

[Peter11216]

Reading:

• Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, Harvard, 1973. Reread. New translation (S.J. Tester) with parallel Latin text. My favourite translation thus far, having read those of V.E. Watts and D.R Slavitt.
  
• Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness:An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, Washington Square, 1993. First-time read. Savoured Sartre's dramas, novels, and essays . . . thought it was time to sink my teeth into this his philosophical testament.
  
• C.S. Lewis, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, Cambridge, 1998. First-time read. Wonderful, eye-opening essays by prof. Lewis.
  
• Søren Kierkegaard, Stages on Life's Way, Princeton, 1988. Reread. Volume eleven of twenty-six in the Princeton collection - not including the voluminous journals. My favourite writer. Superb as always.
  
• Ernst Krenek, Tonal Counterpoint In the Style of the Eighteenth Century, B&H, 2004. First-time read. Theorists are helpful but practitioners know best.
  

I'm familiar with the middle three, and have read about half of one of Sartre's plays, but nothing else. I doubt I would have the patience for Kierkegaard. I'm really unsure about C.S. Lewis. He was a convert to Catholicism, is that correct?

I still have a minor interest in Catholics. Conversion strikes me as pretty weird. Torontonian's great discussion of the Magic Mountain reminded me of my feelings about Naphta, who comes to a nasty end. Not sure what this says about Mann's attitude toward Catholicism.

Anyone, if they've read Brothers Karamazov, have any thoughts about Naphta and the Grand Inquisitor? It just occurred to me that there might be some interesting things to compare between the two characters.

How about Flannery O'Connor, by the way? Another convert. I used to say she was one of my favorite authors, but now I'm not so sure.

[Peter11216]

Just finished.

The Tipping Point - Malcom Gladwell.

Halfway through.

What The Dog Saw - Malcom Gladwell.

I recommend Blink by the same author as well.

I like the articles he writes, but haven't got to any of his books yet.

[Puros Y Vino]

I like the articles he writes, but haven't got to any of his books yet.

I'll warn you now. What The Dog Saw is a compendium of some of his articles for NYT.

[Puros Y Vino]

I guess I should probably start a sub sub thread for the books that I read because I mainly read books that lower my I.Q.

Anyhoo just finished the 4th installment of the Dark Tower series (Wizard and Glass) and it was great, can't wait to start the next one. Yep...I'm no scholar.

No need to be ashamed. My next book is Under The Dome by Stephen King. That's going to be a workout carrying that sucker to and from work on my commute. Unless there's a Jackass series of books I doubt what you're reading will lower your IQ. Hold on..add the Twilight series to that list.

[Peter11216]

I guess I should probably start a sub sub thread for the books that I read because I mainly read books that lower my I.Q.

Anyhoo just finished the 4th installment of the Dark Tower series (Wizard and Glass) and it was great, can't wait to start the next one. Yep...I'm no scholar.

I'm sure I have a long list of spy novels that would compete with King for IQ diminishing capacity. I like 70's era Cold War stuff, but haven't read anything for a while.

Best,

Pete

[CBL]

Just finished.

The Tipping Point - Malcom Gladwell.

Halfway through.

What The Dog Saw - Malcom Gladwell.

I recommend Blink by the same author as well.

Love his books! Read The Tipping Point and Outliers last year and they're amazing!

Right now I'm reading The Stones by Philip Norman and Decoded by Jay-Z both great reads about some of my favorite artists.

[Torontonian]

The one book I'm really excited about right now is Imperial, by William Wellman. I'm not very far into it, but it is a fantastic read. This one had been sitting on my shelf, for a year since it first came out, and I'm only now setting aside sometime to read it.

He's new to me, but when it comes to contemporary fiction I'm woefully out-of-date. What's he like? (Maybe I'm too hard to please, but I've yet to come across a present-day novelist I really enjoy.)

I doubt I would have the patience for Kierkegaard.

He's certainly prolix, there's no point denying that, but it's a marvellous prolixity. What not try, say, book one of Either/Or. It has nine stand-alone parts, so if/when impatience comes you can skip ahead to something new.

I'm really unsure about C.S. Lewis. He was a convert to Catholicism, is that correct?

To Protestantism, rather. Tolkien was instrumental in Lewis' conversion and was a little miffed when the latter opted for Protestantism over Tolkien's own Catholicism.

Lewis is remembered chiefly for his novels and popular-level religious works. But his overlooked scholarly efforts - on history, criticism, language, etc - are first-class. His Poetry and Prose in the Sixteenth Century (Oxford) is really exemplary.

Anyone, if they've read Brothers Karamazov, have any thoughts about Naphta and the Grand Inquisitor? It just occurred to me that there might be some interesting things to compare between the two characters.

I'll have to think more on this. It's been awhile since I read either of the two. Dostoevsky is my favourite of the Russians. Love Notes from Underground.

How about Flannery O'Connor, by the way?

New to me, again, I'm afraid.

[Torontonian]

I guess I should probably start a sub sub thread for the books that I read because I mainly read books that lower my I.Q.

We all have our guilty pleasures. I just picked up some Rider Haggard for a fourteen-year-old boy's birthday and couldn't resist burning through one of the stories myself beforehand - King Solomon's Mines. (He'll never know that the book's now slightly-used ).

[Peter11216]

He's new to me, but when it comes to contemporary fiction I'm woefully out-of-date. What's he like? (Maybe I'm too hard to please, but I've yet to come across a present-day novelist I really enjoy.)

...

New to me, again, I'm afraid. ...

Vollmann is a little difficult to describe. Imperial is a work of nonfiction, in fact. His fiction often gets mentioned alongside of William Gaddis and David Foster Wallace. My guess would be that critics would feel relatively comfortable putting Gaddis's work The Recognitions up alongside Joyce's Ulysses. I'm not sure how far back you like to go. If you don't like or read Joyce - it is a little tough to describe Vollmann, who, as I'm saying is a few steps away, anyways. Maybe one could put it this way - Vollmann's fiction is as difficult to describe as Joyce's Ulysses or Gaddis's The Recognitions.

Vollman's nonfiction is spectacular. He writes long, highly meditative, thoroughly researched essays. Imperial clocks in at more than 1200 pages, and his study of violence, Rising Up, Rising Down, runs seven volumes. I'm saving up for the latter, because it is rather expensive to buy the set.

Flannery O'Connor was a U.S. Southern writer. She specialized in the short story. Many of her stories had theological themes, although mostly relating to Southern fundamentalism. She isn't quite contemporary. I think she was writing in the 1940's and 50's. I no longer really like work - and for US southern writers probably gravitate more toward Carson McCullers. I think I used to appreciate O'Connor's investigation of misery and violence, but now find it too wearying.

Best,

Pete

[mazolaman]

The Steel Bonnets George MacDonald Fraser.

I read this recently,and thouroughly anjoyed it.

It is relevant to me,as I am from the Border region of England and Scotland.

It is an acount from Fraser,based on his great interest in the frontier Border region.

The non fiction book details the endless wars and feuds between the families and clans of the Border region,and is often quite bloody,demonstrating how this area was a lawless zone for hundreds of years.....even the Romans couldn't really tame it,the wall was only there to collect taxes!

These families were called the Reivers.Their name was taken as another name for murder,to be "bereived".

The families allied themselves to suit their changing needs,and surprisingly,often not by nation.English formed allegiances with Scottish families and vice versa,usually to aid in sheep raiding.

The acounts of the feuds and battles in the harsh landscapes are quite chilling,with much treachery and villainy.

It is also interesting as many of the family names live on,and are present in most of the societies who read this forum.

eg

There is no doubt that Neil Armstrong originated from the Armstrong family,one of the largest and most feared.

Also Richard Nixon from the Nixons...one of the most violent!

So if your name is

Armstrong,Nixon,Dixon,Bell,Elliot,Fenwick,Graham,Gilchrist,Hall,Johnstone,Kerr,

Maxwell,Robson,Scott...etc

Without much doubt..this is where you came from,even if it was a while ago.....

Cheers,Kevin.

[Torontonian]

Readings going in to April:

• Diogenes Laërtius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, (Harvard, 1972). Reread. R.D. Hicks translation. The work of an early-medieval pasticheur. Desultory, anecdotal, historically-unreliable, and a lot of fun.
  
• Eric Chafe, Analysing Bach Cantatas, (Oxford, 2000). First-time read. A top-notch work from one of the foremost Bach scholars. It follows on the heels of his insightful Tonal Allegory in the Vocal Music of J.S. Bach (1991).
  
• Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game, (Picador, 1990). First-time read. R. and C. Winston translation. Good thus far - forgetive, captivating, anti-reductionist. For me Hesse is a hit-and-miss novelist. Gertrude was, I thought, exquisite throughout, while Beneath the Wheel and Steppenwolf waned somewhat after promising starts.
  
• Kenneth Konyndyk, Introductory Modal Logic, (Notre Dame, 1986). First-time read. Introductory? Yes. Elementary? No.
  

[Puros Y Vino]

Read that one a few months ago, was pretty good. It sort of had the feel of one of his made for tv movies. I think my favorite from King would be The Stand, have you read it?

I've read The Stand at least 3 times. Epic work of fiction. Stephen King truly belongs up there with the greats. To me, the scariest read was Pet Cemetary. Creepy as all hell...

[CanuckSARTech]

I've read The Stand at least 3 times. Epic work of fiction. Stephen King truly belongs up there with the greats. To me, the scariest read was Pet Cemetary. Creepy as all hell...

Best thing I've read from him was the first three books of "The Dark Tower" series. Very cool. Not what you'd associate Mr. Blood-and-guts-horror with. It's a different take on a Western, combined with a magical/fantasy aspect, and a post-apocalyptic-type of theme. Very unique and something that draws you in - something that attracts both the Stephen King lovers and haters alike. Shows that he really has some varied literary genious to him.

[Torontonian]

I've read The Stand at least 3 times.

One of the hallmarks of a really good book, it seems, is that it suffers re-readings. Whereas some books - perhaps most - are one-time-use things, I find myself returning to certain books every five or six years.

[Peter11216]

I read The Glass Bead Game several years ago, on a recommendation from a friend. I don't remember it very well at all. I was never exactly sure how to take it. To me, the glass bead game seemed like a nightmarish endeavor. Was Hesse criticizing intellectuals, or academics, for doing stuff that is complicated nonsense, removed from the real world?

The game reminded me of, for example, U.S. constitutional law scholarship, and many U.S. Supreme Court decisions too: a complicated and convoluted mess, that is impenetrable to the uninitiated. And worse, such scholarship says nothing of any depth, though it successfully portrays itself as such.

I'd be curious to know what you think about the book.

Modal logic? Why are you reading that?

Readings going in to April:

• Diogenes Laërtius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, (Harvard, 1972). Reread. R.D. Hicks translation. The work of an early-medieval pasticheur. Desultory, anecdotal, historically-unreliable, and a lot of fun.
  
• Eric Chafe, Analysing Bach Cantatas, (Oxford, 2000). First-time read. A top-notch work from one of the foremost Bach scholars. It follows on the heels of his insightful Tonal Allegory in the Vocal Music of J.S. Bach (1991).
  
• Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game, (Picador, 1990). First-time read. R. and C. Winston translation. Good thus far - forgetive, captivating, anti-reductionist. For me Hesse is a hit-and-miss novelist. Gertrude was, I thought, exquisite throughout, while Beneath the Wheel and Steppenwolf waned somewhat after promising starts.
  
• Kenneth Konyndyk, Introductory Modal Logic, (Notre Dame, 1986). First-time read. Introductory? Yes. Elementary? No.
  

[Torontonian]

To me, the glass bead game seemed like a nightmarish endeavor . . . The game reminded me of, for example, U.S. constitutional law scholarship, and many U.S. Supreme Court decisions too: a complicated and convoluted mess, that is impenetrable to the uninitiated. And worse, such scholarship says nothing of any depth, though it successfully portrays itself as such.

This sort of interpretation never occurred to me. The novel is somewhat surreal, but I didn't find it disturbing or caustic. Initially I thought it redolent of Kafka, who I do think disturbing and caustic, but the association was soon dispelled. I found the whole Castalian world - that was the name of the place you'll remember, Castalia - rather enchanting. The game itself, in my view, is a sort of syncretic vehicle for aesthetic contemplation, informed by most any field of human endeavour. Hesse, it seems to me, is trying to underscore the confluence of all things - art, philosophy, mathematics, and so on.

The more inquisitive players would presumably be discomfited by the game's many undergirding presuppositions - metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological - which they are not at liberty to investigate in-house. Yet they don't seem to mind too much.

Was Hesse criticizing intellectuals, or academics, for doing stuff that is complicated nonsense, removed from the real world?

This hit me early on too, that here Hesse animadverts against the ever-broadening gap between the popular and the academic realms. But it doesn't look to me like he's censuring anything more than the gap itself.

On another note, I was with the principal character, with him in spirit I mean, up until his resignation interview where he lost me completely. Instead of defending his abdication, he merely - and to me unexpectedly - took refuge in the incommunicability of his convictions. (Yet he had been communicating them well enough all along.) I thought, perhaps, his reasons were like Pascal's 'reasons which the reason doesn't understand' - that is, intellectual instincts which superficially clash but deeply accord with reason. But he goes on to say that his notions are 'extra-rational.' And I for one can't fathom what it means for something to be extra-rational. So, the episode left me a little bemused about the whole novel.

[Torontonian]

Modal logic? Why are you reading that?

For two primary reasons, I suppose: to tidy some loose ends in my own thinking and, as you surmised, to better equip myself to deal with analytic philosophy. The initial discovery of possible-worlds notions really nourished me intellectually, everything so neat and tidy and in its place, but my grasp of modal logic is still fairly rudimentary. Of course, I've studied propositional and symbolic logic, but I find these alethic ideas especially useful.

I'm also a fan of classical logic, the good ol' Aristotelian stuff. It has been superseded in many ways, of course, but it isn't obsolete or irrelevant. In some ways it is superior to symbolic logic - for example, in circumventing the so-called paradoxes of material implication - though it can't vie with the latter for precision.

[Peter11216]

Thanks for your take. I think I was in what you might call a "bad mood" when I was reading this one. Whatever good Hesse was identifying in the deep contemplation the central character goes through ended up being lost on me. I would guess that your reading of Hesse's purpose, or one of them, at any rate, makes more sense than what I was saying. Having had some undergraduate experience with the English Department, and certain studies in philosophy, I very much dislike anything that even hints at deliberate obfuscation. It is so, so easy to write is a complicated and confusing way that sounds erudite to the outsider. It is much harder to think and write clearly.

The novel reminded me of the kind of endeavor, for example, many French intellectuals are involved in. I tried reading Derrida, with an open mind. But when I couldn't figure out what he saying, and anything that I did think I understood, seemed to be obvious or wrong, I gave up. I was also not impressed with people telling me that I simply hadn't spent enough time studying.

Best,

Pete

This sort of interpretation never occurred to me. The novel is somewhat surreal, but I didn't find it disturbing or caustic. Initially I thought it redolent of Kafka, who I do think disturbing and caustic, but the association was soon dispelled. I found the whole Castalian world - that was the name of the place you'll remember, Castalia - rather enchanting. The game itself, in my view, is a sort of syncretic vehicle for aesthetic contemplation, informed by most any field of human endeavour. Hesse, it seems to me, is trying to underscore the confluence of all things - art, philosophy, mathematics, and so on.

The more inquisitive players would presumably be discomfited by the game's many undergirding presuppositions - metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological - which they are not at liberty to investigate in-house. Yet they don't seem to mind too much.

This hit me early on too, that here Hesse animadverts against the ever-broadening gap between the popular and the academic realms. But it doesn't look to me like he's censuring anything more than the gap itself.

On another note, I was with the principal character, with him in spirit I mean, up until his resignation interview where he lost me completely. Instead of defending his abdication, he merely - and to me unexpectedly - took refuge in the incommunicability of his convictions. (Yet he had been communicating them well enough all along.) I thought, perhaps, his reasons were like Pascal's 'reasons which the reason doesn't understand' - that is, intellectual instincts which superficially clash but deeply accord with reason. But he goes on to say that his notions are 'extra-rational.' And I for one can't fathom what it means for something to be extra-rational. So, the episode left me a little bemused about the whole novel.

[Peter11216]

I think there is some fun to be had studying possible world semantics, and such. It can, however, get a bit tedious. I found it most interesting just for its own sake. Its implications for the philosophy of mind, I believe, are rather shallow.

I'm just surprised that anyone would read this stuff outside of a classroom.

For two primary reasons, I suppose: to tidy some loose ends in my own thinking and, as you surmised, to better equip myself to deal with analytic philosophy. The initial discovery of possible-worlds notions really nourished me intellectually, everything so neat and tidy and in its place, but my grasp of modal logic is still fairly rudimentary. Of course, I've studied propositional and symbolic logic, but I find these alethic ideas especially useful.

I'm also a fan of classical logic, the good ol' Aristotelian stuff. It has been superseded in many ways, of course, but it isn't obsolete or irrelevant. In some ways it is superior to symbolic logic - for example, in circumventing the so-called paradoxes of material implication - though it can't vie with the latter for precision.

[Wiley]

Currently reading One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. (Along with a half dozen books for work.) Also, the First Book of Samuel.

Just finished The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafon.

Read The Brothers Karamazov last summer. Personally, I found the Grand Inquisitor piece to be the least interesting. My sister-in-law informed me it was the only part worth reading, so go figure.

I really enjoyed the Dark Tower series. It's been a long time though.

[mazolaman]

Currently reading One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. (Along with a half dozen books for work.)

I read this a while ago.

One of my favourite novels.Beautifully written,so poetic and song like.

It felt like a parable about the formation of a South American state.

Are you enjoying it?