28
votes
What are you reading these days?
What are you reading currently? Fiction or non-fiction or poetry, any genre, any language! Tell us what you're reading, and talk about it a bit.
What are you reading currently? Fiction or non-fiction or poetry, any genre, any language! Tell us what you're reading, and talk about it a bit.
Finishing up the Silo trilogy. Watched the first season of the Apple TV show and got hooked, so got the books and started reading!
I've enjoyed reading all the books so far, the story moves along at a pretty steady pace and early on it was fun noticing the differences between the books and TV show.
I just started the third book (Dust). At first, I thought the concept was kind of contrived, but as successive books have revealed more, it ends up having a more realistic / thought out feel than many distopian future novels that center on some kind of arbitrary construct.
I read a wide variety, and I usually get numerous new books at Christmas. Here is what I've read recently and what is on the docket:
The Machine Stops
It is a wonderful Victorian-era imagining of what life would be like if a great machine met all of humanity's basic needs and the slide into complacency. The book is very short, and it is amazing how a story over 100 years old could create so many parallels to modern society.
The Crucible
A haunting play about the Salem witch hunts in the 17th century. I first listened to it on Audible as a full-cast performance and am now reading it myself. I highly recommend the Audible performance, a wrenching emotional production.
The Bed of Procrustes
The Bed of Procrustes is a phrase from Greek myths where an innkeeper promised travelers perfectly fitting beds. Of course, he and his wife would either lop off their feet if they were too tall or stretch them on the rack if they were too short. To say that something, usually an offer, is a Procrustean bed means that it is a false promise to meet your needs. This book is a collection of Aphorisms whose meaning I have not yet discovered or linked to the origins of the phrase and title of the book.
A bunch of math books (re-reading)
Seriously, you probably don't want a play-by-play. I've been re-treading my work from college on vector spaces, analysis, and field functions.
Kids Books
I also received some books I've wanted to read with my kids. The Giver and The Giving Tree in particular.
One Two Three Infinity (re-reading)
A wonderful and accessible exploration of mathematical and physics concepts that are usually buried in pages of equations. In particular, the section on relativity is still the best intuitive explanation that I have found.
I will definitely check this out. About 20 years ago I saw a production at Cincy Playhouse and it was the most riveting, moving play I've ever seen. They had a thrust stage at the time, and I still sometimes think about the up-close, visceral emotion during John Proctor's "God's icy wind" speech that ends act 2.
That sounds amazing; I need to find an in person production!
Been going through the Worm audio book. Made it to 25, unsure if I'm going to finish. It's got some very cool ideas, but some absolutely glaring flaws as well. It's a shame because it has the potential to be so much better, but instead winds up mostly boring and repetitive.
Still working on my /r/fantasy Bingo card where every book has the word "City" in its title. Since my last post, I've read:
I have 3 more books left to read on this card, I want to read City of Pearl by Karen Traviss because I loved her Star Wars work, and another book called City of Lies because then I'll have only 23 unique titles out of 25, just need to find 1 more book after that.
I'm still working on the Murderbot Diaries and the Scholomance series starting with a Deadly Education.
I finished and loved a Gentleman in Moscow and Eleanor Oliphant is completely fine. Both are convincing character studies of people meeting the challenge of hardship. I was also charmed and moved and entertained by My Grandmother Asked me to tell you she's sorry by Backman.
I'm partway through Pachinko, Endurance by Lansing, Small Gods by Pratchett, Grendel by John Gardner, Crook Manifesto by Colson Whitehead.
That's a nice bedside table list! I can say you'd probably enjoy Ryka Aoki's The Light From Uncommon Stars, R.F. Kuang's Babel, Or the Necessity of Violence, Ruth Ozeki's A Tale for the Time Being, and the Max Gladstone Craft Sequence novels, if you haven't gotten to them already.
Thanks for the suggestions! 😊
ok, now i really, really want to follow you somewhere you post a lot. my degree is journalism (got it many years ago) but i went on to be a copy editor. and a reader! who is always on the lookout for my next book. most recently i really enjoyed the murderbot series. my taste is wide ranging. anyway, have a great night. i’m not on here that often. just when i happen to remember it’s a thing.
Thanks for the compliments. I am on Goodreads under this username and open to friend requests...
I also use this username on reddit. I would be open to a blue sky invitation although I don't want to spend all my time online.
Feel free to message if you would like to chat
I will be away from my computer and direct messages for a few days but will respond when possible.
Tildes is a community I value and want to see grow. However, my hobby interests also take me elsewhere
This is where I am most frequently. Im pretty sure you can search my username and see what I am up to.
Read and loved scholomance last year and just getting started on murderbot this month, so this is encouraging to read :)
I'm 3/4s in Uncle Tom's Cabin
I found a copy amongst my father-in-law's collection and thought I'd give it a go, especially to find out why anybody would want to call someone an "Uncle Tom".
The anecdotes about the slave trades in particular are absolutely heartbreaking. Should be a must read for high school.
Ottoman history, actually. Just finished the Ottomans: A Cultural Legacy by Diana Darke. Beautifully illustrated and sorely needed in the West, but man, she really likes the Ottomans, it made me have to double check some grander claims. She also does the normal western thing of vilifying the East Romans to play up whatever the current topic is, is the Ottomans.
To be fair, the Byzantines actually were pretty horrible. And I say that as someone with whom the topic of the Eastern Roman / Byzantine Empire is a longtime passion. E.g. See: Political mutilation in Byzantine culture
But I know comparatively little about the Ottomans, other than their many conflicts with the Byzantines and a bit about their Eunuchs and Janissaries, so I will have to check out that book. Thanks for the recommendation, and also the heads up about its potential bias.
I have to push back a little, if that's alright. I don't think violence against the nobility was the main argument, given that standard protocol for Ottoman ascension was murdering all your brothers. With a similar argument as the Byzantines, it's not actually worse to cut off an emperor's nose than it is to have a despot on the French throne for 50 years. Same for the Ottomans. Strangulating your 12 year old brother reads brutally, but it's not actually more brutal than a civil war, where many 12 year Olds are going to die.
I sympathise with the Ottomans the same way I sympathise with the east Romans. Europeans trace huge parts of their cultural legacies to them, but they don't think about them very much. And their respective heirs define themselves as separate from them.
FMR Magazine Vol. 5 (Oct. 1984) has a neat section pertaining to the Ottomans. It's especially cool if you're interested in art history. Recently found it at a bookstore that I am gatekeeping >:)
Apologies for the unsolicited advice but if you haven't, you should check out Halil İnalcık's books on the Ottoman Empire. He was the scholar on the subject in Turkey.
Funnily enough, History of the Ottoman Empire Classical Age 1300–1600 is on my reading list!
Do you find his work has aged well? I find that in, for example, Byzantine studies, 20th century historians fall into really bad inherited traps and prejudices that 21st century historians are better at identifying and addressing.
I'd be lying if I said I read any of his books. I am Turkish, but I'm not interested in the history of the Ottoman Empire. I hope I didn't give you the impression in my previous message that I'm closely familiar with İnalcık's works.
However, as someone with an MSSc, I have exposed myself to a few of his lectures. Since my knowledge of that period of history is surface level at best, I can't judge the content of his work, but I can tell you that his methods were solid as a social scientist. I also follow closely a couple of his former students (one of which has a book coming up that might be of interest) who're historians by profession but public intellectuals in practice and judging by their intellectual prowess and how much they revere İnalcık, I don't doubt that he's a must read for anyone interested in the subject. But unfortunately that's as far as my advice goes.
One thing I would caution you against would be to keep in mind that Turkish historians, including İnalcık2, have a opinions on the latter parts of the history of the Ottoman Empire that differ from most Western scholars, especially around the time of the Armenian Genocide. This is a very charged subject in Turkey and historians either avoid commenting on it or profess their thoughts in a way that'd be acceptable for the Turkish government, who themselves have ranging opinions on the subject, from outright denial to accepting the events and categorizing it as catastrophe, never using the G word itself.
All this being said, would you mind elaborating on what you mean by your last sentence?
1: You'd be hard pressed to find a prominent historian in Turkey who wasn't taught by İnalcık.
2: I don't know if he deals with the Armenian Genocide in any of his works directly, but I know his opinions on the matter. To put it very shortly, his objection is largely about the misuse of the word genocide. He doesn't deny the atrocities that happened during what he defines as the relocation Armenians and other ethnic groups. But again, you have to take the political climate in Turkey into consideration. One can never really be sure of what a Turkish historian really thinks of the matter because of the government pressure. It's no coincidence that his most encompassing work cuts off right before the year of the genocide.
I am specifically talking about the national mythos reinterpreting old imperial history in a way that makes the dominant ethnic group eternal and the natural possessors of the modern state.
Greece is the example I'm most familiar with. The East Romans were not Greek, did not understand themselves as Greek/Hellenes for most of their history, and even at the end it was a minority view. But the Greek nation state interprets Byzantium as another permutation of the Greek polity, a necessary ones that connects Ancient Greece (the actual polity they derive their legitimacy from) to modern Greece. This results in this funny result where Byzantium is derided and disliked for being a corrupt, decadent and oriental Roman colonial project, and yet absolutely necessary in the state's history to connect them to the era of history they actually like.
This is a phenomenon everywhere in the Balkans, owing to both their Roman and Ottoman history. Five centuries of Ottoman rule are de-emphasised, ignored and often physically destroyed. The Ottomans and Islam are seen as foreign interruptions to the eternal nation state, which always existed and always had the same core characteristics (ie. the modern ones we like). Ottoman contributions, willing conversions to Islam (eg. Crete), Ottomanism, the cooperation of local population with the regime, the integration of the region into the wider empire, these are all ignored because it does not benefit the story of the nation state.
I see a similar thing in Turkey in their relationship to the Ottoman Empire. It was by no means a Turkish empire. It hewed closer to an Islamic empire, and a very tolerant one at that (comparatively). You cannot study Ottoman history and politics by just studying the Turkish ethnic group, such as it is. For most of its history, the bulk of the population, and certainly the bulk of its economy, was European. Albanians, Circassians, Greeks all achieved high office, and led the empire. Arabs, particularly from Damascus, formed a massive intellectual backbone in Constantinople. Indeed, there's a story of (iirc) a Bosnian at court complaining that empire wasn't hiring enough Turks for its bureaucracy, and that they were disadvantaged. The Sultan was Turkish (though he might not have understood himself that way), and that's the extent of codified Turkish control of government. Indeed, most Ottoman Grand Viziers were European.
In my (limited) understanding, many Turks interpret the Ottoman Empire similarly to how Greeks interpret the Byzantines; an earlier stage of the eternal nation state. These were standard views in the 20th Century, and remain standard in nationally approved histories (eg. the ones approved for school curricula). I generally try to avoid histories written to justify the nation state, as they have clear biases and political interests. Such histories also led to war, as every Balkan country saw their imperial maximum extent as justifications for armed conflict, since Greater Serbian and Greater Bulgarian borders aren't compatible.
On the subject of the Armenian genocide... yeah. As I understand it, Turkish historians who push this point too hard quickly find themselves out of a job or blacked out. I mean, it very obviously happened, the people responsible weren't trying to hide it very hard. But it's not usually reading I usually pursue, because it's just so sad.
Sorry, didn't mean to go on a rant, and don't mean to pick on Balkan countries. God knows Western countries have worst myths (eg. the land of the free over there starting as a massive slaver country). But I love the Balkans and its history.
It's kind of funny how you stumbled upon something that's still relevant in Turkish political discourse. It's a cliche but the country's geography, connecting Asia to Europe, very much affects its citizen's ideology as well. Turks have the ability to create divisions over the most trivial stuff, moreso than any other country I've known, but the history of Ottoman Empire and how one interprets it is quite consistent to where they stand on the political spectrum.
The conservatives1, including the politicians who govern the country today, think the Ottoman Empire was formed by pious Turks just like themselves and they almost profess regret for the formation of modern Turkey, hence their dislike or outright hate for its founder, Atatürk. They see the Republic of Turkey as the continuation of the empire -- not just the empire but rather the empires of Turks before it and they shape their politics, image, and aspirations accordingly2. One thing I'd make clear is that their affection for the empire is rooted in Turkish nationalism and not for the empire itself. That's not to say they don't revere the empire, they do, but only because it's seen as the peak of Turkish power, more specifically the reign of Suleiman I. In their mind, state is barely a distinction, it's the ethnicity that matters, because their Kızıl Elma3 is to unify all Turks under the same flag one day, similar to what the Ottomans did.
The liberals4 see the empire as something of the past and partially, if not completely, separate from the Republic of Turkey. It used to be that among this group, the empire and all that came with it was something to scoff at, because the person they revere the most, Atatürk, was a revolutionary who took up arms against the empire and its caliphate5, then consequently transformed the country through reforms inspired by the civilized world.
But I digress. Thank you for your elaboration. I'd again like to apologize as I can't give you a satisfying answer with regards to what you take issue with, but if I were a betting person, I'd say that İnalcık's works probably falls somewhere in the middle, with the small chance of slightly skewing more towards what you described as the 20th century interpretation of history. I'm basing this assumption on the fact that while he was a rigorous scholar of the Ottoman Empire, he was also an ardent defender of Atatürk, his reforms, and the Republic of Turkey.
1: Do not interpret the word conservatism the same as it is interpreted in the US. It's very different.
2: This image says way more than I can.
3: Kızıl Elma, the Red/Golden Apple, is a symbol of ideals that become more alluring the further away they are to achieve. Its roots go back to the legend of Ergenekon, but in the contemporary sense it's used to symbolize an end goal for the Turkish state.
4: Actual liberals in the real sense of the word are few and far in between in Turkey, but I don't know what else to call this group. You can interpret it as "Turks who have affection for the so-called Western values".
5: Strangely enough, with Erdogan's tightening rule and the country's slip into authoritarianism, there grew this small, but sudden interest and even affection for the Ottoman era. Liberals argue against conservatives that their self-proclaimed love for the empire is misplaced, because during its rule, Ottomans were more free than Turks under Erdogan's authoritarian rule. I even encountered this argument among the LGBT+ groups, who put forward homosexual arts in the era as an example of the empire's tolerant way of ruling. Personally, I find this a pitiful attempt at trying to level with Erdogan who rules with Hobbesian absolutism, but I also empathize with it given the fact that the opposition is at the whim of Erdogan, despite making up the half of the country.
I daresay that difficult relationship with the empire is an issue that the Turks share with the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and others. The Turks probably have it worst in that it's possible to see Turkey as not the Ottoman Empire in a way that you can't do in Bulgaria, given that Turkey's history was declaring independence from the Ottomans and then conquering them.
On the Red Apple, I didn't know it was a movable concept! It used to mean Constantinople, at least for the Seljuks and early Ottomans.
The thing about pious Turks kills me, because anyone with cursory knowledge of history knows that that's not true. Weird dervishes absolutely everywhere. As you mention, the poetry. But it wasn't just accepted. Open poetry about how much better the boy's anus is compared to the woman's vagina is the norm. As I recall, it was a 80-20 split or something ridiculous like that, of poetry sexually and openly praising young boys compared to women. I wouldn't even call it gay, it's typical pederasty. Extremely un-Sunni, but the norm.
It's why I find them so fascinating, similar to the east Romans. They are so misunderstood and misremembered because the reality of their rule doesn't fit any modern successor to them.
After a 3-day marathon, I finished The Will of the Many by James Islington, which will probably be a top 10 book for me. Haven’t had this much trouble putting a book down since Mistborn. Would highly recommend for any fans of Cosmere or fantasy/sci-fi in general
This is first on my list once I'm done with my "Cities" bingo card, and I am SO excited based on everything I've seen about it!
I think you’re in for a treat. Let me know how you like it!
If you do like it and can’t wait for the The Strength of the Few, I also recommend the Licanius Trilogy by the same author.
haha I actually didn't like Licanius Trilogy at all, I thought his characters were really flat & his magic system was defined too poorly, and he used way too many deus ex machinas. But, everyone I've asked has said these problems are all fixed in WotM, and his plotting is just exquisite so I'm excited for WotM!!
okay I read it!
Overall enjoyed it quite a bit...and WOW that ending was stellar! I can't WAIT for book 2!My (joking) hot take: The 2nd half of the book is just a crossover fanfic of Ms PacMan x Battleships
This has truly been a year of Brandon Sanderson for me. I have been reading every work in his Cosmere and so far I have loved literally everything. Most recently I read The Bands of Mourning and Mistborn: Secret History. Both of which are great in their own right but I’m most excited about the wider Cosmere reveals.
I’m currently reading Klara and the Sun by Kazuo Ishiguro as a break before finishing catching up on The Stormlight Archive. Kazuo Ishiguro is another author that I have grown to like quite a lot and this book is no exception. I plan on finishing it today and will definitely be getting either 4 or 5 stars depending on how it wraps up.
Iv been reading 1491 by charles c mann. It's a history of the Americas and the arrival of Europeans. It's so damn interesting! Mann is able to convey the history in an interesting way that academics just can't do or at least don't do due to how academic books are written. If you are in any way into history,anthropology, archeology then this book is for you.
I found the book entertaining too, but from reading comments about it I've since come to think it's not actually accurate, so take what he writes with a good pinch of salt.
I was worried about that but when I did a bit of browsing I found that he does a decent job of getting the facts right. Admittedly it was on askhistorians and one comment I think was on askanthropology. Dunno if that makes it more or less reliable.
Anyway I guess it's a start into that part of the world history. Will have to start delving in deeper.
I just finished A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. A bunch of essays on the outdoors and opinions on conservation. The opinions essays were probably my favorite. I'm glad to have read it finally after backpacking the Gila and Aldo Leopold wilderness areas years ago.
Have started the Thursday Murder Club by Richard Osmond - bascially a bunch of oldies in a retirement home get together to solve cold cases - is very fun, refreshing, light (semi sad!) and very easy reading! I got the rest of the series for Christmas so very much looking forward to getting into the rest of them!!
The Seven and a Half Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle. Without spoiling it, it’s essentially a murder mystery with some nonlinear time stuff. Not time travel per se, but something similar that makes for a very unique and interesting read.
Gideon the Ninth. Fantasy/romance and it's got to be the funniest book I've read since Hitchhiker's Guide - there are so many lines out of nowhere that make me do a double take and laugh out loud. I'm not even a quarter of the way through but I just know that it will continue to get better and better, so it's a great choice to get me back into reading since my previous read, She Who Became the Sun, was such a slog and I considered dnf'ing. Not this one! And I'm definitely also getting the second book, plus the third one on its way
I'm reading Stendhal's "The Red and the Black" in translation by Horace Samuel. I'm in chapter 14 of 82, slow going but just what I need in terms of not wanting excitement.
Just started reading "Last Night at the Telegraph Club" by Malinda Lo. So far pretty good (and extremely gay). Will update with a proper review at a later date.
I read Mieko Kawakami's Heaven the other day. I think I liked it, I'm still not sure. It's a story about teenage bullying, very much inspired by Nietzsche's thoughts. Some of the dialogue felt disconnected and I can't quite make sense of its ending (I don't find the answers I come up with satisfying) but I very much enjoyed the reading experience. It's not a long book.
If you think about reading it, keep in mind that it has pretty graphic depictions of torture that might be traumatic.
I'm starting YaÅŸar Kemal's To Crush the Serpent tonight.