What are you reading?

[rocklobster]

Started the third Maximum Ride book, Saving the World and Other Extreme Sports. Seems to be an improvement from the second.

[Kaori]

Finished "The Picture of Dorian Gray" this morning. Unbelievable book. [. . .] I also want to read some secondary literature concerning what critics believe Wilde's book claims about art as such.

You might also want to consider reading Wilde's dialogue "The Decay of Lying"]Dorian Gray.[/I]

Currently reading (and teaching) The Great Gastby. This is my first time rereading the book since I was in tenth grade, and I am now appreciating all sorts of things that I didn't previously notice, like how masterful Fitzgerald's characterization is.

[GhostontheNet]

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

[uc pseudonym]

Hey, Kaori. It's been a while.

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman

I've always found Ehrman to be one of the more cogent critics of Christianity, but his works that I have read are on the problem of pain, which I've never found compelling. It has been my intent to read something in his area of study, textual criticism, and now is the time to do so. Interestingly, I think this book may have been written prior to his de-conversion, though from my perspective this fact is irrelevant.

It's probably easy to figure out his thesis from the title, assuming you know his general stance, and I'm not sure what else to say. Now for the sake of balance I should read a textual critic opposed to Ehrman, though unfortunately I'm not sure who that would be. Suggestions are welcome.

Raising Dragons by Bryan Davis

The first part of my effort to read everything that could be labeled "modern Christian fantasy." I wouldn't call Davis a poor writer by any means, but he has an unusual knack for continually choosing strange turns of phrase. He also makes me wonder how much time he has spent in public schools, given the way he portrays them and the fact that he home-schools his own children.

Content-wise, it's mainstream evangelical urban fantasy, with perhaps a slightly Calvinist bent. Quite aside from that, I'm finding reading it to be incredibly depressing, so I hope that I feel differently about the next two titles I have in mind.

[ich1990]

“Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley (1818 edition)

“Frankenstein” was largely how I remembered it. It is an innovative, romantic, travelogue with plot holes that are virtually impossible to avoid falling into. The dialog is dramatic, the description of scenery is excessive, and the story is one of the earliest examples of science fiction and horror -- giving it a place in literary canon that it probably wouldn't have achieved otherwise. There are a lot of subtleties that I missed during my original read, such as Frankenstein acting out the Greek myth of Prometheus in (then) modern form. Those sorts of details made the otherwise exceedingly slow story much more enjoyable.

As for the 1818 edition, I found it slightly less likable than the 1831 edition. It is closer to Mary Shelley's original idea for the novel, yes, but it is also a much rougher, cruder work. I would have to read the other edition back to back with the original to give specific examples, but on a whole I felt that the polish applied to the second edition was for the better. 6/10 (7/10 for 1831 edition)

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman

I've always found Ehrman to be one of the more cogent critics of Christianity, but his works that I have read are on the problem of pain, which I've never found compelling. It has been my intent to read something in his area of study, textual criticism, and now is the time to do so. Interestingly, I think this book may have been written prior to his de-conversion, though from my perspective this fact is irrelevant.

It's probably easy to figure out his thesis from the title, assuming you know his general stance, and I'm not sure what else to say. Now for the sake of balance I should read a textual critic opposed to Ehrman, though unfortunately I'm not sure who that would be. Suggestions are welcome.

While it has been a while since I have read any Ehrman, and I have never touched the book in question, I have found that Ben Witherington III often does reasonable, scholarly battle with Ehrman and his textual criticism. You could search his books and blog and see if you could find anything appropriate. I believe he has gone chapter by chapter through several of Ehrman's books and dealt with them on a challenge by challenge basis.

N.T. Wright is a first rate historian who does quite a bit work countering Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar movement more generally. From my limited readings, Wright seems to be more concerned with setting up a historically plausible alternative to a liberal interpretation of historical texts than directly attacking Ehrman's ideas, however. Therefore, when he does counter Ehrman and company, he does so on a philosophic and idealogical level rather than a specific one.

His "Christian Origins and the Question of God" series is probably his magnum opus in this genre. In fact, I stopped reading Ehrman when it became clear that he was pretty much ignoring N.T. Wright's alternative to his textual interpretation. If Ehrman is going to continue to make the kind of claims that he has been, he at least needs to keep up with current scholarship on historical and textual criticism and make an attempt to analyze it in his own works. He hasn't, so far as I have read, addressed anything proposed by Wright, and until he does I think many of his criticisms are fairly well hobbled.

Alternatively, there is Colbert, who has done a pretty swell job of dressing Ehrman down.

[yukoxholic]

Currently reading: The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins

[rocklobster]

Reading the Chronicles of Pern: First Fall
Also just finished The FInal Warning and hated it.
Now I'm reading The Lake House.

[Jingo Jaden]

The crusades by Thomas Asbridge

It is amazing.......

[ich1990]

“The Time Machine” by H.G. Wells

Having enjoyed Wells’ other works, such as the “The War of the Worlds” and especially “The Island of Doctor Moreau”, I approached “The Time Machine” hopeful yet cautious. I was mildly aware of the latest Hollywood remake of the story, and frankly it made it look dumb. I am happy to report that book is superior to (what I have seen of) the recent movie in just about every way.

Not only did this book kick start the idea of time travel and coin the term “time machine”, it also contains enough social criticism to kill a small cow. All of this is wrapped in coating of adventure, although I must warn that adventure doesn’t necessarily equate to action when it comes to this story. Anyone looking for movie levels of action should be prepared to be disappointed with this primarily thought driven tale.

Perhaps above and beyond all of this, Wells has the good sense to quit while he is ahead. Thus, what could have been obnoxious over 250 pages (coughFrankensteincough) is perfect for a novella of 120 pages in length.

The social critique of capitalism is an interesting thought-experiment, but seems to be founded on grossly improbable occurrences that render it so fantastic as to be of little value as criticism. By saying that capitalism will lead to a split in humanity (rich/poor) to such an extent as to lead to separate tracks in evolution, Wells is implying that human government and economic policy will stay static long enough to do so. When one considers the amount of change humanity has endured during the last ten thousand years, going from hunter/gatherers to industrial society, it seems unlikely that the next few hundred thousand years will be frozen at 19th century levels of civilization. Before any split occurs, it is more likely that humanity will move in a totally new economic or political direction.

Actually, when you think about it, Wells is almost arguing for capitalism while he thinks he is arguing for socialism. By going to the future and discovering that our descendents are essentially the spawn of a capitalist society, isn’t he implicitly acknowledging that socialism won't work out and that capitalism is the “fittest” and most beneficial economic system?

“The Time Machine” made me think, ignored pitfalls of the pulp adventure genre (unlike the movie), doesn’t have characters that annoy me, was well paced and written, and had scientific plausibility (once one accepts the premise). I can’t ask for much more out of my science fiction. 9/10

[Sheol777]

^
I understand the appeal of Wells' writing, I am just not a fan of his style.

His ideas? Fantastic. I just don't like his presentation and use of the english language, but that is just me I guess.

[the_wolfs_howl]

^ Ooh, I need to pick up The Idiiot again one of these days. I had to step away from it for a while because the Katerina Ivanovna of that story was getting confused in my mind with the Katerina Ivanovna of The Brothers Karamazov. Seriously, he must have particularly liked that name for some reason.

Finished Ender's Game, which was even better than I remembered it. Beautiful little book. Then I picked up The Dark Is Rising by Susan Cooper for a bit of light reading. It's been sitting on my bookshelf for years upon years, but I'd never managed to get past the first part until now. It's an okay fantasy, but nothing to write home about. Though I have to wonder why we have the second book in the series but none of the others

[rocklobster]

Wolf's Howl, Ender's Game is a series. The next book is called Speaker for the Dead.
I'm re-reading Ender's Game myself too.

[mysngoeshere56]

I started The Iliad. Have to read it for a class.

[RainbowSounds]

Just finished the Maximum Ride manga volume 2 and Define Normal by Julie Anne Peters. Almost done with Graceling by Kristin Cashore. Next I will read The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal. Also reading Out of the Dust by Karen Hesse for school. I have to do a very annoying packet of worksheets on it.

[rocklobster]

Just started book 5 in the Warriors books, A Dangerous Path.

[yukoxholic]

Finished: The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins (finally! x_x) and am currently reading: Tales from Japan by Helen and William McAlpine, only 158 pages thank goodness!

[rocklobster]

Now reading Under a Velvet Cloak, by Piers Anthony.

[uc pseudonym]

Dragonspell by Donita K. Paul

As a young adult novel, it had a number of elements I found unpleasant. Once I got past these, however, I was able to enjoy the story somewhat. It's nice to have a cosmopolitan fantasy world in which none of the races is "human" (or any other stereotypical race, though there are some dwarf analogues).

It's nice to see a Christian publisher be accepting of magic, even in a fairly stereotypical sense. But I was concerned to see that invoking the name of this world's God was used like a spell, almost in the same system as your standard fireballs and telepathy. Then again, some real Christian groups tend to treat God this way, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Currently I'm reading something from Marcher Lord, but I'm not far enough in to have an opinion. After this I'm done, so if anyone has suggestions for recent Christian fantasy, I'm listening.

I have found that Ben Witherington III often does reasonable, scholarly battle with Ehrman and his textual criticism.

Thank you for this suggestion. N.T. Wright I have read, but this was a new name to me. Checking his blog for my rule of thumb issues (social justice, feminism, Palestine-Israel, evolution) he comes out well on all but one, so he seems like someone I might want to read more.

His critique of a recent book actually covered the first half of the book I read quite handily, which deals with a number of major textual issues. Unfortunately, the more recent book didn't address the argument about apocalypticism (which doesn't actually stand upon Ehrman's general hermeneutic), so I will have to search further on that account.

As for Colbert... the only interviews of his that I haven't seen are the ones with celebrities I find boring. While I realize you mentioned those tongue-in-cheek, I found the interviews to be another instance where everyone concludes that the side they already agreed with was most convincing.

[That Dude]

Dragonspell by Donita K. Paul

As a young adult novel, it had a number of elements I found unpleasant. Once I got past these, however, I was able to enjoy the story somewhat. It's nice to have a cosmopolitan fantasy world in which none of the races is "human" (or any other stereotypical race, though there are some dwarf analogues).

It's nice to see a Christian publisher be accepting of magic, even in a fairly stereotypical sense. But I was concerned to see that invoking the name of this world's God was used like a spell, almost in the same system as your standard fireballs and telepathy. Then again, some real Christian groups tend to treat God this way, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I started reading this, but dropped it after a few chapters, because, frankly, it was boring. Apparently I might actually know the author without realizing it too...(A friend knows her, and I think that we might have met at some random social function, but I am not sure.)

[MasterDias]

Currently I'm reading something from Marcher Lord, but I'm not far enough in to have an opinion. After this I'm done, so if anyone has suggestions for recent Christian fantasy, I'm listening.

You might give Robin Parrish's The Dominion Trilogy a shot. It's probably not exactly what you meant by "fantasy;" it's really more of a superhero/sci-fi series. The author is obviously a fan of Ted Dekker, comic books, and of twisty shows like Lost.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Wolf's Howl, Ender's Game is a series. The next book is called Speaker for the Dead.
I'm re-reading Ender's Game myself too.

Yeah, I know. But I've always been leery of reading any more, simply because Ender's Game was so good that I'm afraid none of the sequels will be anywhere near as good.


I finished The Fires of Heaven, and was disappointed as for the first time, I didn't think a Wheel of Time climax was very exciting. I've apparently been reading too much FMA, because I've found I won't believe a character's dead until I see his corpse.

So today I'm going to start the sixth WoT book, which is...Path of Daggers? I forget.

I also started reading Sybil by Flora Rheta Schreiber, which is a true story about a schizophrenic woman who was no less than sixteen personalities at once. Everything is accurate, though the names are changed, so it's really just amazing to know that all of this actually happened, when it seems so fanciful. Kinda creepy, to be honest. The writing itself isn't so great, but it's fascinating to anyone who has even a mild interesting in psychology.

[GhostontheNet]

[quote="ich1990 (post: 1378915)"][b]“Frankensteinâ€

[rocklobster]

I will be starting Temple of the Winds part 4 of the Sword of Truth series.

[uc pseudonym]

By Darkness Hid by Jill Williamson

This is the first title I have read from Marcher Lord, the small press proclaiming itself as the premiere publisher of speculative fiction for Christian adults. I haven't read something in that sub-genre since bigsleepj's novel. I could go on about the book for too long, so I'll try to limit my comments to a useful overview.

It took me almost until the end to decide how I felt about the book. Though written well enough, my question is always ideological. Given Christian fiction's tendency to be dogmatic and lacking in nuance, you can imagine that I was mildly apprehensive about a world literally divided between Light and Darkness (as in half of the map, in a straight line, is completely without natural light). For the most part this wasn't much of a concern, given that some of the good characters come from the dark side and that the characters will presumably be spending most of the second book there.

Unfortunately, good and evil are handled rather absolutely. Every character who is the world's equivalent of Christian is good, and everyone else is evil (except for the main character, who is well on his way to belief by the novel's end). Only one of the villains has a complex motivation, suggesting that his plot is for the common good if also his own benefit.

Also:
- Medieval kingship is divinely mandated, which I realize is hearkening back to David, but it's still problematic.
- God talks directly, though most of the time in biblical analogues.
- Spoiler alert, a peasant is actually the true king.
- The good guys, fugitives from a government turned corrupt, are willing to kill guards that aren't even suggested to be villainous, they're just generic knights trying to keep order.
- So I don't give the impression that I'm wholly negative, I'll add that the climax is a trial scene that's mostly pretty good.

I really want to support an effort like Marcher Lord, but based on the summaries I've been hesitant about the operative theology of their books overall. After having read one, I'm still not sure how I feel. It's definitely a world above what you could expect to see from a CBA publisher, but I don't think I see eye to eye with the author.

I started reading this, but dropped it after a few chapters, because, frankly, it was boring. Apparently I might actually know the author without realizing it too...(A friend knows her, and I think that we might have met at some random social function, but I am not sure.)

If you found the ogre attack and aftermath boring, you wouldn't enjoy the book. I think her action scenes suffer from lack of clarity and direction, and I wonder if that's because this was her first attempt to move into a new genre. They probably get better later in the series, but I don't think I'll be spending much more time with young adult books.

[quote="MasterDias"]You might give Robin Parrish's The Dominion Trilogy a shot. It's probably not exactly what you meant by "fantasy]
I will keep this in mind, though I'll be on an apologetics bent for a little while.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Am now 100 pages into...oh, Light, I still can't remember what book 6 of WoT is called Absolutely nothing has happened yet, which has me going

And I'm nearing the end of Sybil. <_< Well. It turned out to be way more intense than I'd ever imagined, so I'm not sure I'd recommend it quite so readily anymore, and definitely not to younger readers. If you can handle Christianity-bashing (even if it's bashing on overly strict and ignorant fundamentalists who obviously know very little about the love of Jesus), and graphic descriptions of child abuse of various kinds, including sexual, then go ahead. It was right at my tolerance level, and when I got to the one chapter that most heavily described the abuse, when I got to the end it hit me that this wasn't some perverted author's idea of a cool backstory for a character, this really happened to someone, and it's one of the most horrible examples of child abuse I've ever heard of...I just broke down and couldn't regain control for a long time. Definitely don't read this book lightly.

[rocklobster]

The movie's pretty gripping too, wolf's howl. Both versions.
Anyway, starting on Going Rogue by Sarah Palin. I except a few hate PM's for this.

[yukoxholic]

Kokoro by Natsume Soseki

[uc pseudonym]

What Have They Done with Jesus? by Ben Witherington

I chose this one because it seemed like the most general of his books, hence the best introduction. For the most part this worked, and he even covers the Jesus dynasty hypothesis that Ehrman also puts forth (though responding to a different author). Unfortunately, it's a very different version relying on different arguments, so I will have to keep searching.

The book is a basic picture of the writers that shape our knowledge of the early church. Though in my opinion Witherington makes a little too much of some simple texts, it's refreshing to have someone often admit that arguments are speculative. There's also less building upon those elements that are speculative, which is welcome.

Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King

This came highly recommended, and I can see why. It's an excellent overview of modern opinions about editing. Even though I might disagree with the authors about some kinds of effectiveness, I will admit they are completely right about the way books need to be today. That's mildly depressing.

[ich1990]

“The Divine Comedy” by Dante Alighieri translated by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

What is there to say about such a colossal work of genius? In the face of such an intimidating piece of writing I fear I have little in the way of commentary to add. Hundreds of years of academic and popular discussion have stolen my thunder, so to speak. So, like I did with Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, I will instead limit my comments. All you really need to hear from me is that the Commedia is, in fact, an incredible piece of literature... and that I still liked “Paradise Lost” better. Two other tips:

I highly recommend that you get a version of the work that has extensive footnotes. I didn’t and it really, really hurt my enjoyment of the Commedia. Half the fun of reading Inferno, for instance, is finding out which politicians Dante decided to throw in Hell and why. Likewise, in Paradiso, there were many instances where I had no idea of whom Dante was speaking. All I knew was that they had an Italian name and were schooling Dante in Medieval Theology. I would really have liked to know more, but often had no way of finding that out. Whereas “Paradise Lost” is understandable if you have some knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Christian mythology, “The Divine Comedy” comes from 14th century Italy and is too far removed from my own culture to be understandable without serious help. Get footnotes.

Second, I recommend avoiding the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow translation. My original plan for this fall/winter was to read “Paradise Lost” and “The Divine Comedy” back to back, so I could compare the two. “Paradise Lost” was easy enough, but reading the Longfellow translation of the “Divine Comedy” was the literary equivalent of swimming through frozen tar. I have no idea, how wordy the original Italian Commedia is, but Longfellow always takes the most roundabout way of saying things physically possible. It gets on a person’s nerves after a while.

Great story, coupled with a fiery political commentary (pun intended) as well as an incredible imagination, all put together made for an great journey. Don't ruin your experience with a bad translation or a lack of supporting references. 6/10 (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Translation)

^
I understand the appeal of Wells' writing, I am just not a fan of his style.

His ideas? Fantastic. I just don't like his presentation and use of the english language, but that is just me I guess.

I admit it is a bit of an acquired taste. Personally, I like his no nonsense, scientific style. It may not be the most realistic (I think that if I were trapped in the future with a bunch of raving cannibals trying to get me I might be thinking about other things sociological theory) but it at least assures me that the protagonist is, in fact, thinking. Sometimes I am not so sure.

Thank you for this suggestion. N.T. Wright I have read, but this was a new name to me. Checking his blog for my rule of thumb issues (social justice, feminism, Palestine-Israel, evolution) he comes out well on all but one, so he seems like someone I might want to read more.

As for Colbert... the only interviews of his that I haven't seen are the ones with celebrities I find boring. While I realize you mentioned those tongue-in-cheek, I found the interviews to be another instance where everyone concludes that the side they already agreed with was most convincing.

Glad that I could be of service. From what you have said I may need to check out Witherington as well. Currently, I have only the vaguest knowledge of his work, although what I do know portrays him in a positive light.

On the Colbert interviews.... From what I can tell there are two main types of debates. The first is when you try to convince your opponent that your view is correct (a Socratic dialog for instance). These involve friendly dialog, mutual willingness to put aside emotions and focus on facts, logic, etc. The other type is where you try to convince your audience that your view is correct. You know that your opponent will never believe you, so you do your best to make him look dumb and logic gives way to mudslinging. If you can't actually convince any of your opponent's followers, at least you can make your own feel better about themselves. I am sure I don't have to tell you which type of debate is more lively and frequently televised. Part of the reason why I found those Colbert interviews so humorous is that they acknowledge that the debate is for show and even makes fun of the fact that this debate is of the second category (Colbert tells Ehrman, "I believe that the Bible is the totally inerrant word of God. Now, let's have a reasonable discussion."). Also, even taking out the celebrities, that is a lot of Colbert interviews.

Wow, major kudos on mentioning Mary Shelley, Ben Witherington III, and N. T. Wright all in the same post.

Heh, thanks, I do what I can.

[Radical Dreamer]

For a class, I'm reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain, and The Once and Future King by T.H. White. But to motivate myself to finish those, I picked up a copy of Shutter Island today, and I am way excited to dive in. XD