What are you filthy heathens reading atm?

Bannasidhe

keane2097 wrote: »

The scheming and power plays are intricate and clever alright, which is the book's main (only?) real redeeming feature, but this is tempered somewhat by the naivety that some of the characters of necessity display in falling into the various traps which makes the whole thing less believable.

Stark the chief culprit here. "Noble" doesn't have to mean naive and incompetent to the point of stupidity and putting your family in obvious danger. The whole storyline with the horse warriors was very poor IMO, although if there have been societies that would remove a king after decades of being undefeated in battle for falling off his horse while fevered I suppose I could give the whole thing a bit more credit.

Oh I dunno - the sheer naive stupidity of some of the characters is what makes it's ring so true.

Munster was decimated in the late 16th century because Gerald Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond (he was far from being the sharpest knife in the Fitzgerald drawer - but he was the eldest ) allowed himself to be pushed into open rebellion by the likes of Walter Raleigh, Edmund Spenser and Francis Drake. They weren't even subtle about it, everyone warned him except those in his family whose purpose it suited -

Guess who got Large grants of land in Munster...

Any Gaelic chieftain who was unable to lead his people militarily was quickly dispensed with - Gaelic chiefs were elected and ruthlessness, military prowess and having a lot of well armed supporters who would benefit directly were the main selection criteria - supporters could easily become rivals in the right circumstances.
It was this kind of internecine fighting that actually ended the power of the Uí Conchobhair kings - the Normans just exploited it...

keane2097

Yeah but the whole thing doesn't really ring true in the case of

Eddard

does it? As in, he appears to be a perfectly sensible, cautious person until inexplicably developing a previously unseen blindspot at an extremely obvious juncture for no reason other than literary convenience. I don't think it rings very true at all tbh.

I don't think there's much of a comparison between incompetent leaders being disposed of by their enemies and

an extremely competent clan leader being removed from a position of power by his allies because of a "law" against falling off your horse. I don't buy that a rule like that would ever exist and would certainly never be acted on in the case of a strong leader who just happens to fall off his horse one day. An entire populations' loyalty just shifts away from the man who has lead them to prosperity because he took a nosedive off his horse while under the weather one day? It's a cute idea for a kids' book, but for a novel that's meant to be taking itself seriously it's pretty absurd.

Bannasidhe

keane2097 wrote: »

Yeah but the whole thing doesn't really ring true in the case of

Eddard

does it? As in, he appears to be a perfectly sensible, cautious person until inexplicably developing a previously unseen blindspot at an extremely obvious juncture for no reason other than literary convenience. I don't think it rings very true at all tbh.

I don't think there's much of a comparison between incompetent leaders being disposed of by their enemies and

an extremely competent clan leader being removed from a position of power by his allies because of a "law" against falling off your horse. I don't buy that a rule like that would ever exist and would certainly never be acted on in the case of a strong leader who just happens to fall off his horse one day. An entire populations' loyalty just shifts away from the man who has lead them to prosperity because he took a nosedive off his horse while under the weather one day? It's a cute idea for a kids' book, but for a novel that's meant to be taking itself seriously it's pretty absurd.

It does absolutely ring true.

Thomas Beckett was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by Henry II as he was Henry's greatest ally. Once he got the gig he seemed to suddenly develop absolute loyalty to Rome - yet, the clues were there but Henry ignored them. Turned out Beckett took the concept of a 'holy vow' very seriously and he made a vow when he became Archbishop to 'protect' the Church.

Thomas Moore was not only utterly loyal to Henry VIII - he was his official enforcer and Inquisitor and a critic of Rome. Yet, at the crunch moment he refused to back Henry.

Those are just two obvious examples of known character traits suddenly manifesting and causing people to do 'stupid' things.

Who mentioned incompetent? His 'crime' was weakness. For a society based on military prowess where leaders are selected on that basis it is fatal.

For centuries No Gaelic ruler could have a physical 'flaw' - that is the whole basis of the story of Nuada Airgetlám.

Dades

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't think there's much of a comparison between incompetent leaders being disposed of by their enemies and

an extremely competent clan leader being removed from a position of power by his allies because of a "law" against falling off your horse. I don't buy that a rule like that would ever exist and would certainly never be acted on in the case of a strong leader who just happens to fall off his horse one day. An entire populations' loyalty just shifts away from the man who has lead them to prosperity because he took a nosedive off his horse while under the weather one day? It's a cute idea for a kids' book, but for a novel that's meant to be taking itself seriously it's pretty absurd.

It wasn't just that

Drogo "fell off his horse"... it was the fact he had become so weak he couldn't even sit on a horse. Horses were like extra limbs for the Dothraki and also any sign of weakness in your own leader courted hostile takeover from rival clans. If you can't ride a horse you can't lead a khalasar.

Sarky

The book of Irish Mammies.

It's so on the money it's scary. It could have been my own mother.

MagicMarker

Finished off Pet Sematary today, loved it! Unlike most King novels I found it was consistent throughout, always kept me wanting to read more with barely any "boring" parts. One of his best imo.

Now I'm on a horror buzz so I'm going to start on I am Legend next.

Sulla Felix

Disappointing haul of books this year but I've started the one I got, a nice leatherbound Iliad and Odyssey.

Canis Lupus

Am I the only one that finds A Song of Ice and Fire series to just be the same thing over and over in each book? I barely made it through the 3rd one.

Anyway currently onto The Passage by Justin Cronin. Think, The Stand but with vampires. Started with promise but it's getting a bit derailed 3/4s of the way through.

Sycopat

I got a decent haul.

Red Sea's under red skies by Scott Lynch (I really liked the lies of locke lamora) and the entire blade itself trilogy by Joe Abercrombie.

Looking forward to some fairly straightforward fantasy fare to start the year.

keane2097 wrote: »

Eddard

I'm going to assume you mean his gaffe with Cersei? I have to disagree, I expected it of the character tbh. Eddard loves his family more than anything else, even his honour. We're shown this repeatedly (most prominent example: Jon). He would be willing to accept any disgrace to protect them (And eventually he does). He doesn't blab to Cersei out of nobility, he does it because were he in that situation and given the choice to flee or probably see his children killed he'd flee and be thankful for the opportunity.

His mistake is a very human one. He assumes other people think and feel the same way he does. Everyone does that at some point. Cersei does it herself when she thinks Joffrey will realise that leaving Eddard alive is safer than killing him.

PopePalpatine

I'm currently reading "P.S. I Scored The Bridesmaids" by Paul Howard/Ross O'Carroll-Kelly. It's the only book in the series which I haven't read, apart from "The Shelbourne Ultimatum".

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

Finished off Pet Sematary today, loved it! Unlike most King novels I found it was consistent throughout, always kept me wanting to read more with barely any "boring" parts. One of his best imo.

Now I'm on a horror buzz so I'm going to start on I am Legend next.

I am Legend was awesome! What were they thinking when they made the movie?

Next up, Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke.

Andrewf20

I got Dead Aid - Why aid is not working in Africa, and I also go Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demick, about real lives in North Korea. Looking forward to jumping into them soon.

GLaDOS

I got Shaman's Crossing by Robin Hobb (Absolutely love her) and Witches Abroad by TP, have a few other books left to read so shoudl be grand til the end of January!

The Mad Hatter

I got The Master And Margarita, a Russian novel I'd never even heard of. The plot seems to revolve Satan showing up in Soviet Russia and basically having the craic. I've been enjoying it very much so far.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I got The Master And Margarita, a Russian novel I'd never even heard of. The plot seems to revolve Satan showing up in Soviet Russia and basically having the craic. I've been enjoying it very much so far.

Whose translation? I've tried two or three, but all were poor.

The book is very popular in the FSU and in russophile circles elsewhere.

Tar.Aldarion

Lat book I read of note was House of Leaves - Mark Z. Danielewski

There is something endearing about a book that sometimes requires you to use a magnifying glass or mirror to read it, or to spin the book around, or that builds tension by there being a few words on a page, for a series of pages. personally loved it.


Currently reading the last book in the Malazan Book of the Fallen series - The Crippled God. Written by Steven Erickson.

Barr125

Currently reading The Dome by Stephen King. Great start so far, character, setting, and plot wish so far.

ShooterSF

By the way, Mortality is 99 pence on the kindle store atm.

MrPudding

MagicMarker wrote: »

I am Legend was awesome! What were they thinking when they made the movie?

Next up, Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke.

I am legend is one of my favourites. Amazing book, I love the last few lines.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Whose translation? I've tried two or three, but all were poor.

Someone called Michael Karpelson, for Wordsworth Classics. I don't know the book well enough to comment on the translation either way, but it reads very well. The translator notes that there are two canonical versions of the book in print, and that he based his translation on the 1973 version, but included passages which are unique to the 1989 version as an appendix.

The Mad Hatter

ShooterSF wrote: »

By the way, Mortality is 99 pence on the kindle store atm.

It won't let me buy it because I'm in ireland:(

For those who can avail, though, Hitch-22 is also going for under a fiver.

MagicMarker

Just finished Childhood's End, I thought it was incredible!! Crazy to think it was published in 1953.

If you haven't read it then I wholeheartedly recommend it.

Dades

Finally finished The Hydrogen Sonata two days ago. Meh, it was good, but not great. Only because he's set the bar so high with some of his other Culture stuff.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Next up, Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke.

Snap!

After I'd finished 'Sonata', I was trawling the books on my Kindle to see what new book took my fancy. In the end I'm now re-reading Childhood's End which is to me, the one SF book everyone should read. I find with Arthur C. Clarke reading him is like sitting in a favourite armchair.

Also, my new Kindle Paperwhite f*ucking rocks! Reading in the dark has been the most exciting thing I've done all week... thanks Santa!

Dades

MagicMarker - missed your post (was putting on the dinner!)

Glad you loved Childhood's End. It really is brilliant and a concept that the world could learn a lot from.

Turtwig

Heard so many great things about the Paperwhite and my old well worn warrior kindle has a tattered button. Time for an upgrade me thinks.

MagicMarker

I've started on The Three Musketeers, my all time fave book is Dumas' other epic, The Count of Monte Cristo. If this is even half as good then I'm in for a treat, I'm only a few chapters in and already having a ball. Great stuff!

And yeah, the paperwhite is very tempting!!

Aenaes

Currently reading a book of short stories from the World Wars. Consisting of extracts from Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day and James Jones' The Thin Red Line among others, I'm finding it enjoyable.

Just makes me realise how little war books are mentioned in this thread. Are the majority of this forum anti-war?

Hotblack Desiato

The term anti-war is just as moronic annoying as 'pro-life'. IOW if you're not 'pro-life' you must somehow be anti-life, if you're not 'anti-war' then you must somehow be pro-war. It's an appeal to emotion.

Unfortunately like 'pro-life', the people behind it have succeeded in getting it accepted in debate - moulding the language to suit their agenda is half the battle (battle, heh)

To answer your question, I like reading WWII books, that doesn't mean I like war.
Antony Beevor's are particularly good.

swampgas

Some of my reading about war has been related to military strategy, but moistly it's been about the technology. (The history of technology is probably where my real interest lies.) For example the development and use of radar played a huge and often unrecognised role in WWII. Everyone knows about the cracking of the Enigma code, but less about the cracking of the Tunny (aka Lorentz) cipher, which involved the Colossus, which might be considered the world's first electronic computer. I was also fascinated to learn how the Vietnam war was one of the first cases where the US military started to use shipping containers, but then I'm sad like that :-)

Sulla Felix

Aenaes wrote: »

Currently reading a book of short stories from the World Wars. Consisting of extracts from Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day and James Jones' The Thin Red Line among others, I'm finding it enjoyable.

Just makes me realise how little war books are mentioned in this thread. Are the majority of this forum anti-war?

If I had to guess, I would venture that rather than being pro- or anti-war, most of the regulars on here would be interested in history generally, just as as a group they seem be interested in science, technology, cultural matters, politics etc. Really, I've never met a more interested group of people.

For myself, I probably have dozens of books, ranging from Napoleonic military strategy to narrative accounts, that might be placed in the War shelves of a bookstore but I have them on mine in with all the history. I always felt bookshops in particular were erroneous in promulgating that distinction.