Very nice. How else - other than the cover - does it differ from the standard edition?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What Book Are You Reading?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Very nice. How else - other than the cover - does it differ from the standard edition?
That is a beautiful edition - long may you enjoy it (and I love hardback editions anyway).
I listen to them when I take exercise walk/jogs. I usually go for an hour after work every day. I find that once I've established a route, I'm able to pay attention to audio books quite well. It does take some getting used to, though.
By the way, I'm not Big Stevie. I just thought I'd reply to your question
Oh wow. I haven't tried but I'm not sure I can exercise and listen to a book at the same time. I should try and see.
By the way, I'm not Big Stevie. I just thought I'd reply to your question
Ah, mea culpa, I hadn't realised that.
When the page turns onto a new page, one doesn't see the person to whom one has responded and I tend to be more focussed on the text. But thank you for replying nonetheless.
Thanks LadyX. Im looking forward to reading this edition.
Its actually one of my Christmas gifts from my mother. I didn't want to risk her getting me the wrong edition and so I bought it myself, it went something like this..
1) Mother asks my wife - 'what do I want for Christmas'?
2) Wife asks me the above.
3) I order the book
4) I pass the book to my wife to give to my mother
5) Mother gives book to me on Christmas day
6) I open it and act surprised.
It sounds complicated, but it means my mother thinks she's bought me a surprise gift, whilst I ensure I get the gift I wanted!!
Ah, thank you for the back story - and yes, it is a bit complicated, perhaps, but ultimately, it will be rather rewarding for everyone concerned, and is an excellent way to do things. Meanwhile, enjoy the book, and it is a lovely edition.
And to complicate things further, my mother will give the money for the book to my wife, thinking that it was her who had bought it (is that phrased correctly?), but I doubt that money will ever find its way back to me
And to complicate things further, my mother will give the money for the book to my wife, thinking that it was her who had bought it (is that phrased correctly?), but I doubt that money will ever find its way back to me
To be honest, whether or not the money makes its way back to you is the least of your problems. This is because - having offered the necessary prompts - you know that you will be receiving something that you yourself have expressed a wish for, and that everyone who is a party (with varying degrees of knowledge) to the conspiracy is happy to have colluded in this, and will feel very good about it.
There are a great many households where even this level of communication cannot be taken for granted .and where misjudged - or worse - unwanted and unwelcome - presents will be exchanged.
Me, I'm very happy to tell people (in advance) what I want and to prime, prompt and subsidise them accordingly. ..
Started a new audiobook tonight: Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion
I've had this one in my audiobook library for quite some time. I've already heard the introduction, chapter one and just got into chapter two. I'm already at a loss for words regarding the biography of L. Ron Hubbard's life into his 30's.
I don't want to get into a big 'ol PRSI thing here, but this book is already, shall we say, interesting. The narration time is over 15 hours too.
I've had this one in my audiobook library for quite some time. I've already heard the introduction, chapter one and just got into chapter two. I'm already at a loss for words regarding the biography of L. Ron Hubbard's life into his 30's.
I don't want to get into a big 'ol PRSI thing here, but this book is already, shall we say, interesting. The narration time is over 15 hours too.
I finished this in one sitting. This doesn't mean that I liked it. Because I didn't. It's a small and very short book. Right after I finished reading the last page I was like what did I just read?? The book was flat, dull, boring, and had no plot. It had random incidents that did not add anything to the story. The author just introduced these odd events and I thought okay maybe they'll mean something in the end but no, they were just that; 'random odd incidents'. Also, no character development whatsoever, therefore I did not care about any of the characters including the protagonist. If I were to praise something it would be the picturesque descriptive prose of the American West and nothing more. I just continued with it because it's a very short book; only 100 pages long. If it were longer I wouldn't have bothered finishing it.
I picked it up because of the great reviews the book (novella?) received. It was a finalist in the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, a New York Times Notable Book, an Esquire Best Book of 2011, a New Yorker Favorite Book of 2011, and a Los Angeles Times Favorite Book of 2011. I won't say that I'm surprised because I know that there are many people who enjoy this type of literature however I'm not one of them.
A damning review - very well argued; I'll steer clear, in that case.
Two books arrived in the post today: One is a book I had some years ago - and indeed, used it when I was teaching Russian and & Soviet history and politics, and thought excellent. Precisely because I thought it excellent, I kept giving it as a gift, or to students, and kept therefore mislaying my own copies of the book.
Anyway, the book is called '"Lenin's Tomb' The Last Days of the Soviet Empire" and is written by David Remnick, possibly the best thing he wrote. As far as I know, he won the Pullitzer Prize for this work (deservedly, in my view). The book in essence is a clued-in, sharply written, highly intelligent & culturally aware journalist's account of the Gorbachev years in the USSR (1985-91), and very well worth reading.
The other book which the post brought is called "The English and their History" by Robert Tombs, which was highly recommended and well reviewed by the 'broadsheet' media in the UK.
Last edited:
Thank you, SS. Yes, I personally wouldn't recommend it to anyone. There are much better books out there waiting to be read.
--------
I'm not sure what to read next. I've received my package from Amazon. I got Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Scott Anderson. This is currently the #1 Best Seller in WWI Biographies on Amazon. And I also got The Romanov Sisters: The Lost Lives of the Daughters of Nicholas and Alexandra by Helen Rappaport.
Reading Abaddon's Gate in the Expanse series
Really enjoyed the first 2
Leviathan Wakes
Caliban's War
Things are getting a little strange for me in this one though
I know that's odd to say with sci-fi but still, I liked the first two better (so far)
But I am still enthusiastic about reading the series
If you like Firefly/Serenity and/or Guardians of the Galaxy then you will enjoy these books
Really enjoyed the first 2
Leviathan Wakes
Caliban's War
Things are getting a little strange for me in this one though
I know that's odd to say with sci-fi but still, I liked the first two better (so far)
But I am still enthusiastic about reading the series
If you like Firefly/Serenity and/or Guardians of the Galaxy then you will enjoy these books
Among other things, I used to teach Russian and Soviet history & politics for a living, and one thing I have never understood is the extraordinary - I would say almost sentimental - interest in Tsar Nicholas II and his family.
Of course the slaughter of the Imperial family in the basement of the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinberg in 1918 was an atrocity and a disgusting act of murder, but Nicholas II - while a loving husband and adoring father - was a perfectly dreadful Tsar.
Most people, given a choice between the right option, a sensible option, and the wrong option, manage to choose the latter only every so often, but Nicholas's catastrophic judgement meant that he unfailingly and unerringly almost always chose the wrong option. The man was a disaster as Tsar.
You noticed too! I know a lot of people who find History to be a boring subject but when it's about the Russian Imperial Romanov family they all of a sudden don't feel that way. I mean there have been numerous executions of many leaders in history but this one for some reason is different, it's fascinating. Non-History lovers (and I know a lot) show a keen interest and curiosity for the Romanovs.
I was looking through the book I mentioned in my last post, The Romanov Sisters and the first part of the blurb reads "They were the Princess Dianas of their day—perhaps the most photographed and talked about young royals of the early twentieth century. The four captivating Russian Grand Duchesses—Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia Romanov—were much admired for their happy dispositions, their looks, the clothes they wore and their privileged lifestyle."
I think many are interested in this subject because they're interested in the Grand Duchesses themselves really rather than the tsar and the shooting. They do not care that he was a bad leader at all.
But if Nicholas hadn't been such a catastrophically appallingly bad leader, it is entirely possible that the Bolsheviks would never have managed to come to power. Between 1905 - in the political responses to the 'first' revolution, that of 1905, and 1914, when the First World War started, Nicholas had at least five opportunities to permit, or enable, some manner of reform through a representative Duma, and instead, happily helped strangle them all, not least by conspiring in the introduction of an increasingly restrictive mandate for the poorest electors, and hobbling any attempt at reform through parliamentary means (which meant that expressions of reform began to find more radical outlets).
That is not to say that the Bolsheviks and what came with them were inevitable, but there were times during those years when reform could have taken a different (and possibly, more positive) direction had Nicholas not been so keen on autocracy as a model of Government.
I find the sentimental adulation of Nicholas and his family deeply depressing; yes, they were murdered cruelly and viciously, and Nicholas's devotion to his family was touching, but the man was utterly useless as a Tsar and his catastrophic judgement and utter inability to learn from his mistakes most certainly harmed rather than helped Russia.
Nevertheless, it is of equal interest to note that few western countries - not least the UK - were prepared to offer him refugee status or asylum after he had been overthrown; he and his form of Government were so dreadful that they had come to be considered something of an embarrassment - by most of the 'liberal' parliamentary democracies or constitutional monarchies which one found in western Europe - by the time he abdicated - or was compelled to abdicate - in 1917. By 1917, Nicholas had few friends abroad, and most 'liberal' Governments in western Europe would have welcomed the formation of the original Provisional Government - run by Prince Lvov, Kerensky and others - which succeeded him.
Of course, Lenin's decision to order the murder has also come under scrutiny. At the time, it seemed that the 'Whites' might capture Ekaterinberg, and mount a successful rescue of the Imperial Family. More to the point, I doubt that Lenin wished to have such a symbol around which conservative forces could rally, and decided to forestall that by ordering that they be killed. Even his warmest supporters found the decision to murder the children difficult to defend, whatever about the Tsar himself.
Indeed, I suspect that he also saw it as a way of compelling the 'waverers' to stay the course - or those who were less committed to the idea of war and revolution - by sending the message that this was a serious business, and that there was no going back to the way things were, irrespective of how the civil war turned out. With the murder of the Imperial family, a step was taken which made things irreversible, and meant that the Bolsheviks (the 'Reds') were obliged to support what had been done in their name.
Last edited:
I completely agree with you. Tsar Nicholas II was a very weak leader. As a result, the Bolsheviks decided he should be executed and like you said, they wouldn't have come to power if it weren't for the fact that he was autocratic and did not care about the citizens of his country. And due to their father's poor decisions and acts the children got executed as well because I think they worried that they'll be able to rise to power later. However, I also believe Empress Alexandra played a big role and was responsible for what happened even more so since Nicholas II was very loyal and loved his wife, she influenced his rule considerably. But in the end, it's the indecisiveness and bad ruling of the tsar.
An interesting footnote to all of this is that the house where the murders took place, the Ipatiev House, was only demolished in 1977, and the local Party leader who carried out this instruction was none other than Boris Yeltsin, then Communist Party (regional) boss in the Sverdlovsk region.
In his memoirs, which I read in 1991, he wrote about carrying out this order, and expressed his gloomy regret, noting, correctly, that it would come to be seen as something akin to an act of historical vandalism.
To a large extent, any answer I give will depend on what you like to read in fiction: Do you like realism, fantasy, rather challenging 'experimental' novels, escapism?
Personally, because I used to be an academic and devoured history books and books about politics (which still I love to read), and latterly, as I am still immersed in history, politics, culture, current affairs, thus, when I really want to switch off, and give my brain a rest, I'll go for fantasy.
Other times, I want 'lite' history, so I also like to read historical fiction. Then if I wish to be challenged, I will tackle some of the more robust works in modern fiction, and so on.
Last edited:
Hum, I know that was a very vague question! Im not sure why but these days I find it harder to get myself to read. I mean, I used to read a book a month, alternating between fiction and non-fiction but now? I don't know what it is. When I did my degree (15 years ago) I used to study, read the Times, Telegraph and Guardian and manage a few books. Now, older, it's harder? Maybe my life was more structured back then? I must admit I did enjoy being told what to to read and having deadlines. Perhaps that's the answer, set myself some goals? I have often thought about taking a year to read only non-fiction (I think I got this idea from my brother), but....isn't the main reason to read to get enjoyment from it, be it a Jackie Collins or a Solzhenitsyn?
I know I've not answered your question but I'm not really into fantasy, more thriller type or (I was going to say horror) but not necessarily so as I love the way Stephen King writes which is not always horror. Anyway, going on a bit so will end. Any recommendations are most welcome!
Okay, you mentioned Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and, as we have been discussing Russian history above, which is something of an interest of mine, let's start with some recommendations on that.
I have read almost all of his oeuvre (I gave up on the pretty tedious 'Red Wheel'), but some of his earlier stuff - above all, 'The First Circle', 'Cancer Ward' and - obviously - 'One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich' are outstandingly good; however, nobody could ever accuse Solzhenitsyn of being easy reading. His work 'The Gulag Archipelago' - which is superb - does not come under the heading of fiction, as it is starkly documented fact.
Now, speaking personally, I don't much like most of his later stuff; he lost the steely discipline which had ensured that he pruned his prose and kept things understated and leavened with bitter irony, rather than the bloated and openly nationalistic and somewhat nostalgic stuff he penned later on.
If you want stuff on Russia, exceptionally well observed, but seriously well written - which, at its best, is an example of simply superb, thriller type fiction, and which - classically uses the thriller & murder mystery format to dissect a culture and society (Russia in all of its changes over the past 40 years), - I cannot recommend Martin Cruz Smith's novels with his extraordinary creation, the Russian police officer, 'Arkady Renko', highly enough. 'Gorky Park' 'Polar Star', and 'Red Square' are the first three and take place - roughly - in the period from the late Brezhnev era (very late 70s) until the collapse of the communist regime in 1991.
Then, there are 'Havana Bay' - which I think is good, but not as good as the earlier novels, 'Wolves Eat Dogs' (set in Chernobyl, excellent), 'Stalin's Ghost' (absolutely superb), 'Three Stations' (the weakest in the entire series, in my view) and a stunning return to form with 'Tatiana', which is very loosely based on the murder of the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
If Russian history - or thrillers based in Russia don't grab you, let me know more about your tastes, and we'll see what we can come up with.