Spoilers What Book Are You Reading?

[yaxomoxay]

• As the previous year, and the year before that, I've read 12 Rules of Life (2018) by Jordan Peterson as my first book of the year.

Books I’ve read since the beginning of the year:

• 12 Rules of Life by Jordan Peterson. Masterpiece.

2020 so far,

12 Rules for Life (2018) by Jordan Peterson.
I read this book for the first time last January, I re-read it this year. I expect to do the same next year. I do not espouse all of Peterson's claims, and I must admit that there are few times in which I find his writing odd, but I just love reading this book. It's full of ideas, sources, common sense, and good ruminations. Rule that hit me the most this year is #4, "Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today".

• Thirteen weeks of hell by Dave Stivason. A short biography about USMC boot camp, it's very interesting to know what my kid is going through...
• A Slap in the Face: Why Insults Hurt and why they shouldn't by William B. Irvine. The author is known in Stoic circles for his Stoicism A guide to the good life. This book is not great but interesting enough. Some good pointers, and some interesting anecdotes.

 

[cdcastillo]

Just started "The Elegant Universe", by Brian Greene. And according to goodreads, I'd already started it 3 years ago (I even have some paragraphs highlighted and everything, but I sincerely don't remember it).

 

[JamesMike]

I added Slow Horses to my read now list. I like the author Mick Herron's characters, should be an interesting read.

I would recommend this book to read.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

A few books by Ken Follett.

 

[JamesMike]

A few books by Ken Follett.

He puts together a good read.

 

[ucfgrad93]

A few books by Ken Follett.

I've never read anything by him. What would be a good one to start with?

 

[Huntn]

Neuromancer (1984), see the related thread. It’s good.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I've never read anything by him. What would be a good one to start with?

The Pillars of the Earth: To my mind, this is the best thing - by far - he has written.

It is one of those books that is just right, - it works - from start to finish. If you read nothing else of his, do read this. A seriously excellent work, actually, a superb book, and I'll be astonished if you don't like it.

And, @Huntn: I must say to you that I have revised my opinion of the "century" trilogy by Ken Follett; I re-read it - in its entirety - last week, and must admit that it is extremely good.

 

[ucfgrad93]

The Pillars of the Earth: To my mind, this is the best thing - by far - he has written.

It is one of those books that is just right, - it works - from start to finish. If you read nothing else of his, do read this. A seriously excellent work, actually, a superb book, and I'll be astonished if you don't like it.

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

I think that you will enjoy it; it is an intelligent, thoughtful, interesting - and exceptionally well-written story, one that seizes you from the first page to the end, with a wonderful narrative arc.

In the beautifully drawn character of Prior Philip, Ken Follett (whose own family background - against which he rebelled - was rooted in the Plymouth Brethren, - and who later married a woman who sat in Parliament for the Labour Party), gives us someone who is the ethical core of the book.

Yes, the main narrative focus is on the construction of the cathedral (which is fascinating and meticulously researched), the wonderful and varied protagonists (and their various lives, and loves, over half a century), the satisfyingly unpleasant and perfectly horrible antagonists, but - to my mind - Prior Philip is what makes the book work, and what gives it such strength, from a moral perspective.

 

[cdcastillo]

I've never read anything by him. What would be a good one to start with?

Fall of giants, the beginning of the century trilogy. It is a great "modern" history fiction book.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Fall of giants, the beginning of the century trilogy. It is a great "modern" history fiction book.

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

Just picked this up from the library this morning:

The Cultural Revolution: A People's History by Frank Dikötter

It's an area of history that I don't know much about and I heard that this book (along with two others that form a Maoist "trilogy") is a good place to start.

 

[Sword86]

I’ m about 3/4 of the way through Edward Snowden’s ‘Permanent Record’.
Good read. S

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Newt's Emerald - Garth Nix

 

[yaxomoxay]

Lives of the Stoics (2020) by Ryan Holiday.
I am not a fan of Holiday as a person (he's using and abusing the term Stoic), but I must say many of his products are good. Lives of the Stoics analyzes, as the title imply, the lives of several Stoics or pseudo-Stoics (such as Cicero). This book is a rare combination of my current interests, namely philosophy, Roman History, and Stoicism.
The good is that I had the opportunity to read more about many unknowns. The bad is that Holiday takes way too many liberties, from nicknames to actual made up stories. Some interpretations are also debatable.
One thing that truly disturbed me was his continued use of the term "king" in relation to Roman rulers during the Republic and the Empire which is incorrect as it can be, and a term that Romans themselves would've never used (it was an insult).

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Lives of the Stoics (2020) by Ryan Holiday.
I am not a fan of Holiday as a person (he's using and abusing the term Stoic), but I must say many of his products are good. Lives of the Stoics analyzes, as the title imply, the lives of several Stoics or pseudo-Stoics (such as Cicero). This book is a rare combination of my current interests, namely philosophy, Roman History, and Stoicism.
The good is that I had the opportunity to read more about many unknowns. The bad is that Holiday takes way too many liberties, from nicknames to actual made up stories. Some interpretations are also debatable.
One thing that truly disturbed me was his continued use of the term "king" in relation to Roman rulers during the Republic and the Empire which is incorrect as it can be, and a term that Romans themselves would've never used (it was an insult).

Point take re the use (misuse) of the word "king" (especially) in the context of the Roman Republic and, also later, the Roman Empire: Very slipshod.

Is this carelessness, or laziness, or deliberate, in your view?

Not something that would recommend the book to me.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Point take re the use (misuse) of the word "king" (especially) in the context of the Roman Republic and, also later, the Roman Empire: Very slipshod.

Is this carelessness, or laziness, or deliberate, in your view?

Not something that would recommend the book to me.

Probably deliberate due to the fact that this book is intended for the generic public, and Holiday is first and foremost a marketer.

Book is worth a read, I got it for cheap and the topic is interesting enough for me to justify the expense in terms of money and reading time. I'd say, if you're mildly interested, just get it from the public library.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Probably deliberate due to the fact that this book is intended for the generic public, and Holiday is first and foremost a marketer.

Book is worth a read, I got it for cheap and the topic is interesting enough for me to justify the expense in terms of money and reading time. I'd say, if you're mildly interested, just get it from the public library.

Well, as someone who has taught, studied, researched and has written about, history, I'd advance the argument that it is perfectly possible to offer an explanation for why the noun/term "king" was so (culturally) repugnant to the citizens of the Roman Republic, and indeed, also to those who lived, subsequently, in Imperial Rome - to such an extent, that the rulers - irrespective of the precise office they held or the extent of their powers they wielded - used terms such as "Consul" and later, "Dictator", and "Emperor" to describe the office of the person (or people) who ruled, rather than using "king", and this applied even when these rulers themselves commanded something approaching absolute power.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Wel, as someone who has taught, studied, researched and has written about, history, I'd advance the argument that it is perfectly possible to offer an explanation for why the noun/term "king" was so (culturally) repugnant to the citizens of the Roman Republic, and indeed, also to those who lived, subsequently, in Imperial Rome - to such an extent, that the rulers - irrespective of the precise office they held or the extent of their powers they wielded - used terms such as "Consul" and later, "Dictator", and "Emperor" to describe the office of the person (or people) who ruled, rather than using "king", and this applied even when these rulers themselves commanded something approaching absolute power.

I know very well that you can Personally I would've loved to Holiday to teach some social history to the casual reader, it doesn't take much to change king to the appropriate term. I guess it goes along with the thesis of Dr. Twenge's study in the Narcissist Epidemic, that is most people love the term "king" or "queen" because that they (or worse, their kids) are entitled to them so everything is deserved to them.

 

[AVBeatMan]

The Hitler Year; Disaster 1940-1945 by Frank McDonough.

 

[scubachap]

Probably deliberate due to the fact that this book is intended for the generic public, and Holiday is first and foremost a marketer.

Book is worth a read, I got it for cheap and the topic is interesting enough for me to justify the expense in terms of money and reading time. I'd say, if you're mildly interested, just get it from the public library.

Good observation to my mind. I think a bit more stoicism would be no bad thing generally, particularly with an increasingly hysterical media so anything that encourages us to be a bit more, um, measured - and to do the right thing when no-one is looking should be applauded.

Is there much nuance in that book? The reason I ask is I do get his occasional emails (Daily Stoic) which can be interesting but I do think that the status that he seems to afford to people like Seneca is a bit weird, after all, he made a fortune pandering to Nero and it's generally suggested that his overnight calling in of enormous loans caused the Boudiccan revolt here in Britannia! (He didn't mention that in his letters!) I do like the book Meditations (Aurelius) because he sort of walked the walk rather than just the talk... And yet he still blindly gave the empire Commodus... (Gladiator and all that...) I suppose recognising we all have feet of clay (apart from Epictetus) is all part of it.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Good observation to my mind. I think a bit more stoicism would be no bad thing generally, particularly with an increasingly hysterical media so anything that encourages us to be a bit more, um, measured - and to do the right thing when no-one is looking should be applauded.

Is there much nuance in that book? The reason I ask is I do get his occasional emails (Daily Stoic) which can be interesting but I do think that the status that he seems to afford to people like Seneca is a bit weird, after all, he made a fortune pandering to Nero and it's generally suggested that his overnight calling in of enormous loans caused the Boudiccan revolt here in Britannia! (He didn't mention that in his letters!) I do like the book Meditations (Aurelius) because he sort of walked the walk rather than just the talk... And yet he still blindly gave the empire Commodus... (Gladiator and all that...) I suppose recognising we all have feet of clay (apart from Epictetus) is all part of it.

I'd say that the book is nuanced in the sense that I wouldn't really rely on it as a historical job. I consider it more a book of trivia and interpretations, some of them interesting, others truly out there. The chapter on Seneca is as interesting as the one on Cicero. Seneca is considered a great Stoic, but I do see your point about him teaching to Nero (although at times it's better to have a measured individual such as Seneca than just the inevitable yes man). However, we also have to consider that Romans loved to re-write and vilify rulers, hence many of the terror stories about both Commodus and Nero. Not saying that Nero was a nice guy, but there is no way that the Romans didn't exaggerate many things that now are considered as true by the vast majority of the population.

I do disagree with the characterization that Marcus Aurelius blindly gave the Empire to Commodus. Not even the Emperor could easily change succession rules, which was a dangerous game anyways with the eternal risk of a civil war. I don't know how much Marcus Aurelius knew or wanted to know about his son, but I don't think that the , the various wars, the schism by Lucius Verus' and all the various administrative problems could lead Marcus Aurelius to any attempt to change in the rules (which would've probably failed anyways). At that point the Empire that was designed by Augustus was more or less static in its structure.

 

[scubachap]

You're right that blindly is probably too strong and your points on succession are well made. I still think there was probably a fair bit of cognitive dissonance (the human condition I guess), going on - particularly in the minds of good men serving the less good. Still it's a good creed to live by and there's a lot of it about (more prosacially - fasting, cold water swimming etc etc) so I think it's gaining traction generally and there will be more books coming...

 

[derekamoss]

2 of my must reads and can only be read in paperback. House of leaves and S. (Ship of Thesus) by J.J. Abrahms. After these two books, you will never be able to read a normal book again.