[Denerick]

6. The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek.

I remain unconvinced. Hayeks central thesis seems to be that central planning of any kind; be that the relatively benign desire to reduce poverty or the desire to create a classless society will inevitably create a totalitarian society, as planned societies and programmes naturally cannot be reconciled with the principal of competition, which creates the individualism and the system that best allocates resources within a free society. (Long sentance, I know) Also, since all those dispirate groups who want to 'plan' naturally hold differing views of what they should plan, the chaos resulting from this would prohibit competition further, which is supposedly the best means through which individuals can realise their potential.

Its probably important to note that this was written during the Second World War, and that Hayek wasn't alive to see the postwar Welfare State in Europe.

Hayek talks about the liberal tradition and the socialist tradition as if they are two irreconcilable foes. The reality is that the Postwar political consensus combined liberalism and socialism; it divided the economic sphere (Heavy State involvement) and the personal sphere (Little State involvement) On this count, Hayek is fundamentally flawed. Who knows, history may yet prove him right. The last 65 years may have been a collective illusion. Maybe the next generation of Hitlers and Stalins will emerge from our benign system. I doubt it, frankly.

For all that, it was a riveting book. I found myself agreeing with many of his core assumptions, even if I didn't buy into the logical follow on from that. Its Glenn Beckian in some places (If you believe that some sort of centrally directed control of the economy can reduce inequality and reduce poverty it doesn't necessarily follow that you want a Nazi or communist regime; or even that one of those ideologies would reign supreme as a result of our good intentions) But overall, a decent defence of 19th century liberalism.

One little section stuck in my mind as admirable; we are still left with the same curse today in the form of pinkos:

'Many a university teacher... has seen english and American students return from the Continent, uncertain whether they were communists or nazis and certain only that they hated western civilisation' p. 30

If he was writing today, I wonder would he himself revise some of his arguments? He seems like a likable fellow, and I do like the way his brain works (And his writing style is accessible - no meaningless jargon here)

[Denerick]

7.

Contact by Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan was a scientist/astronomor/cosmologist who directed and produced the 'Cosmos' science series. He really was a great man, has an ability to explain tough scientific mumbo to idiots like me. So I decided to read his one and only novel, where he attempts to reconcile science and religion and envisions a post nationalist society where human beings see each other as part of one global whole in the face of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Nice, fluffy story. Some of the characters are well written, others not so much. Sagan is not a novelist, he is a scientist, and there are some aesthetic issues here in terms of writing style. In all, a book designed to promote a vision of earthly harmony and of cosmological order. Never likely to win a nobel prize for it, but hey, who's judging.

[Eliot Rosewater]

Listen, statist! You're not getting away with this! I have refuted all of your points: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...0#post71525470

[Denerick]

8.

Singapore Grip by J.G. Farrell

The third book in the Empire Trilogy, Singapore Grip follows similar patterns and themes as portrayed in Troubles and the Siege of Krishnapur. Of the three, it is the least well written and the most rambling, lacking a coherency or narrative structure in keeping with his worthy attempt to chronicle and describe the disintigration of the British Empire.

Singapore Grip follows the fortunes of the Blackett family, a far eastern rubber baron, as well as a cast of characters that in typical Farrell style, are constructs of an ideological whirlpool in motion.

I'll not go into plot analysis here as I'm really not that bothered. The book is full of witticisms, which are certainly a delight, but I'm reminded of the gloom I felt after reading Closing Time by Joseph Heller, alienated by its inability to follow the brilliance of its prequel, Catch 22.

6/10.

[Eliot Rosewater]

I appreciate your honesty. It's always tough when you read a book by an author you love but are totally under-whelmed. I'm reading Troubles right now!! Well, not right now - 'cause I'm writing this! I will report back...

[Denerick]

9.

The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.

Heather does a good job at putting order to the significant chaos that is the last 150 years of western Roman history. Illuminating in places, providing some excellent analysis and is a worthy exemplar of historical scholarship that can be both engaging and informative.

I'm not informed enough to debate the historiography present, but for someone who knew nothing about the collapse of the (western) Roman Empire, this book is a godsend.

Bloody immigrants. Nick Griffin would love the idea that western civilisation collapsed to barbarism because of a series of population movements from the Steppes to easter Europe...

7/10.

[Denerick]

10.

Count Belisarius by Robert Graves.

What a let down. Right Graves, we get it, Count Belisarius was great and everyone else was a bastard.

4/10.

[Denerick]

11.

The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus.

A supremely interesting book and my first foray into ancient historical writing. There are gaps in the text (His chapter on the reign of Caligula is lost, as is the early reign of Claudius) The natural next step for someone who enjoyed the I, Claudius books by Robert Graves. Also contains the reign of Nero, who was a bit of an arsehole, to put it mildly.

[Denerick]

12.

The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet.

Ken, Ken, Ken. Why do you hold me in such contempt? Do you think I'm a fool, an idiot? Do you think that I am so incapable of understanding subtlety that I require the narrator to reveal the narrative mystery with constant explanation of motive, character, and events?

A great story - in the vein of an amiable grandfather who looses his way every so often - but I didn't care for his style, which continuously insulted my intelligence. This man doesn't do subtlety.

I must restate how much I enjoyed the actual story itself, and I'm glad that the tv series deviated so much from the original novel. It is essentially an old and familiar allegory of good and evil. Its lack of innovation in no way takes away from the general blockbustery feel, and its nice to be able to curl up behind the duvet and retreat into historical fiction. It was also occasionally nice not to have to think too much about the plot.

8/10.

[Denerick]

13. Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

I literally have no fúcking idea what this book was about.

8/10

[Denerick]

14.

Penguin Lost by Andrey Kurkov.

Having read and enjoyed Death and the Penguin, Kurkovs sequel was the obvious next step. It is clever, dark, and quite biting in places. Generally I think the search for his penguin was a search for his conscience (Plenty of grimy portrayals of Ukranian political and underground life in both books) In the first novel he betrays his penguin by taking his passage to the Antartic, in the second he eventually salvages his guilty conscience and sets him free where he belongs.

7/10

[Enkidu]

Originally Posted by Denerick

5. Claudius The God by Robert Graves
...

I quite enjoyed this book myself, particularly because it manages to give you an intuition for Roman cultural views. For example the interaction of Claudius with his physician Xenophon perfectly sums up how the Romans viewed the Greeks.

Also by putting you in Roman society it makes you realise that Livy, e.t.c. were "just" men, not gods with some special knowledge of history and were often completely wrong (e.g. the origins and history of the Etruscans).

[Denerick]

Originally Posted by Enkidu

I quite enjoyed this book myself, particularly because it manages to give you an intuition for Roman cultural views. For example the interaction of Claudius with his physician Xenophon perfectly sums up how the Romans viewed the Greeks.

Also by putting you in Roman society it makes you realise that Livy, e.t.c. were "just" men, not gods with some special knowledge of history and were often completely wrong (e.g. the origins and history of the Etruscans).

Its easy to lionise men like Livy but this is mainly because the sources we consult are themselves various creatures of lionisation and propaganda.

The beauty of historical fiction, when done correctly and with good care, is to create a believable world that feels authentic in its own time, without succumbing to either the cultural or political mores of the age in which the author writes. For example, I was almost dreading the possibility of Claudius denouncing slavery somewhere along the way, as this would be a whollely 21st (In this case early 20th century) cultural preoccupation - there survives (Or was known to be) absolutely no abolitionist movement, no known writings questioning its fundamental morality in any Roman manuscript. (Though the treatment of slaves has had some contemporary discussion) etc. etc.

Graves is an excellent writer and in my view it is difficult to find a better historical novelist (Though Count Belisarius was simply dreadful) Of what I've read, only Eco is superior; but he writes what I would deem to be literary historical fiction, while Graves is stark in his admission that the two Claudius books are potboilers.

[Denerick]

15.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

If you are going to murder someone, you'd better confess to the crime quickly as the guilt will rapidly make you insane (Assuming you are a thoughtfull intellectual like the odd and complex hero of this novel) Or better still, don't commit the deed at all. A fascinating exploration of guilt, redemption and the degrading effects of poverty. It is rightfully regarded as one of the greatest novels of all time.

9/10

[Denerick]

16.

Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin

I owe George R.R. Martin. I once tried to read his Song of Ice and Fire Series and thought it was crap. The reason? I read the wrong bloody book... the third instead of the first! So while we can all agree that Denerick is an idiot, perhaps some of us can also agree that Game of Thrones is a splendid novel and promises an even better fantasy series. The TV series is very loyal to the novel, perhaps the exception is Lord Renly, but for all I know he may turn out to be a homosexual yet...

The plot is intriguing and absorbing, few books will keep you awake until 2AM in the night, making your drowsy and grumpy at work the next day. Fantastic. I'm running out of superlatives here.

9/10.

EDIT: The book is an imagined medieval world, built on the premise of a large unified kingdom with several great houses who are effectively kings in themselves. The central theme is one of power and its acquisition. Even the more noble of the peoples, like the sturdy and virtuous folk of the North (Who remind me of the Ancient Hebrews, for some reason) are not immune to these temptations and their inevitable consequences. Honour is important too, but honour is not always tied with virtue (As it is with say Tolkien) but rather in loyalty and duty to family. The black watch are an interesting exploration of this theme.