in that case I encourage you to get it, is a fantastic book, it teaches you some history (with fictional twists of course)... the spanish in wich is written is in spain spanish so for me some expressions and words were complicated at first, but is an awesome book
I plan on buying a Finnish one when I fully learn it, but who the fuck knows when that'll happen. I can throw a couple sentences together, and I'm not horrible at it.
I can't wait until this semester is over, then I can learn any damn language I want. I got the John Martin Crawford translation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Salem's Lot by Stephen King is one of my favorites. I've read more than a couple of times and I still like it.
If you're into Stephen King or like Horror Novels, definitely check it out.
Just finished 1984. Brilliant novel, definitely one of the best I've ever read.
Quote from name="Except from 1984 »
The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him. In a sense it told him [I]nothing[/I'] that was new, but that was part of the attraction. It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order. It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden. The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already.
Just finished 1984. Brilliant novel, definitely one of the best I've ever read.
It is definitely a brilliant book. Though I've always felt that people took it way too seriously, or even literally. I suppose as a warning the book is extremely poignant. But to all those people who are like, "1984 isn't a warning. It's happening right now!" I'm just like, meh.
What bothers me though is the argument that occurs between Winston and O'brien. Orwell makes O'brien out to be the one who is correct when I think in fact he is not. O'brien believes so much that the Party is this homogenous organization where if you were to cut off the thumb, the rest of the organization would survive. Maybe it would to a point, but he is acting like the Party is such a hive mind, and that everyone is so identical in thought via doublespeak and conformity that they are truly some unified collective. But I think Orwell really underestimates variation among humans. And overestimates how several people within an organization may all think exactly the same.
Winston argues that the Party itself will inevitably fall apart. And it would. But O'brien says it can't possibly because supposedly everyone is essentially the same person, making it so you cannot just kill off a few and have that be a critical blow because the Party itself remains intact and unified.
The thing is, yes, of course we should be worried about what Orwell is talking about. But to the extent that he warns that it could happen, I think only in science fiction can an organization like the Party even exist an account of human variation and nuances of the human brain.
Mm, I do get what you are saying. What's great about Orwell is even though he was off on a few critical things, he was still incredibly clairvoyant. As much as people strive to remain individuals, at a glance our day to day living is nearly identical to everyone else's. And even though in conversations and to some extent in the form of political protest do people take some action against their government, there is very little that citizens can do about what their government does. Even with voting in most democratic systems are our votes so disconnected from directly putting the people we want into office.
In local elections do our votes matter most, but local governments control mostly administrative tasks anyway such as public utilities and law enforcement. Major reforms are made at the national level where people have little control over who gets voted into those offices. So yes, even in a half-assed democracy could a thing such as 1984 happen. But I think globalization, the kind that homogenizes the vast majority of people is found in corporations more than governments. Granted, the line between the two is increasingly fuzzy. But the fact remains regardless, the larger an organization becomes, the more precarious it is.
And such a thing like doublespeak is hardly the adhesive needed to keep such a vast organization bound and unified. I think O'brien, only in his hubris is convinced that the Party is this invincible collective. And he drives his point home because he basically says to Winston after starving him to death and torturing him, "Who's gonna stop us, you?" Then he shows Winston himself in the mirror (a great moment in the book, by the way) and shows him just how weak and emaciated his is. Now Winston loses his faith in people like him to stop people like O'brien. But what pisses me off about this scene is after all of O'brien's fancy arguments about doublespeak and the collective and the severing of the toe, the fact still remains that the Party will simply fall apart on its own one day. So Winston didn't even need to claim it would be people like him that would stop the Party. Instead he could've just been like, "Well, okay you starved me nearly to death, but the fact remains that you guys are gonna implode."
I also felt like Orwell was feeling more like O'brien than Winston in that scene and feeling kind of smug about how profound he thought his warning really was.
I also totally agree about individualism being a bit of a dead word and how Orwell had it right (at least to some extent). Only by understanding that true extreme individualism is impossible while living in the modern society can one try to reach it. Even the modern "individual" sub-cultures ranging from Goths to hip-hoppers are pretty homogeneous.
Yes, and ironically enough, the more people strive to be individuals, the more they tend to be like everyone else.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
The reason why corporations became so big is the scale benefits they offer. And precariousness is one of the cornerstones of a free market, and it's one of the main things differentiating corporations and governments. A corporation will go bankrupt if it does not use its resources wisely, because some more capable competitor will outperform it. The free market is the modern version of the survival of the fittest.
Well yes, that's mostly true of a truly free market. I think you're supposed to assume though that there is no privatization in 1984. That all the business are likely owned by the government. But I do understand what you are saying.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
And this is the main reason why I'm not afraid of corporations, but governments (well, I'm not afraid of them, but more so than corporations). Corporations have all their capital to loose, governments and politicians none. This makes corporations relatively docile. This is because a government (or a country, rather) can only barely go bankrupt (see Iceland, or a number of African governments).
Well hang on there. Governments do indeed run out of money. Up to 80 percent of Haiti's GDP is foreign aid. And with the U.S. government itself, it lives like the American people do: almost entirely on credit. But China wouldn't call in our debt tomorrow because we are too big to fail and they rely on us too much for trade. Eh, not to get into a big rant about foreign debt, but I do think it's important to keep in mind that governments increasingly use business models to run their operations. And the taxpaying citizen is increasingly seen as a customer.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
Sure, a revolution might occur, but those are quite rare in this day and age unless it's a true tyranny. In the countries the citizens are given fairly good safety, rather plenty food and some entertainment, they will not revolt, indifferent to how much they dislike their government.
Well, and I guess all I'm trying to say is perhaps a revolution need not occur at all. Perhaps, just as Winston claimed, the organization, or Party, would fall apart internally on its own just because the bigger it becomes the more difficult it would be to maintain.
Several of Paolo Coelho's books are just great. I specifically liked The Alchemist, The Devil and Miss Prym, and Like the Flowing River. They're books that you just can't let go of. The Alchemist was a story that the school made us read throughout the 10th grade. I wasn't a big fan of books, reading about 10 pages of any school assigned book, then ditching it, and flunking the exam concerning it. The Alchemist was a story that was seriously gripping, that I finished it in 4 days (4 days being too long, but I was a busy dude, y'know) and was seriously bummed that it finished. It was just that great. The Devil and Miss Prym I got a year later, and finished in a couple of days. Not as gripping, but just as great. Like the Flowing River has several short stories, each better than the other, teaching you valuable lessons, and giving you a good read in the process. I really advise you guys to get either of these three books, I promise you won't regret it.
I started A Game of Thrones not too long ago, by George R.R. Martin. So far it's really good. It's a "plotting to take over the kingdom" read with a lot of lords, ladies, soldiers, sorcerers, assassins, bastards, bad omens and supernatural forces with many twists and turns. The author likes to kill off main characters too, he keeps you wondering.
Next up for me will be 99 Coffins (2nd book), by David Wellington, a very bloody and gory vampire series Rykker turned me onto. Twilight this series is not.
Then on to The Phoenix Transformed, third book of The Enduring Flame trilogy by Mercedes Lackey & James Mallory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Smiling is infectious.
Give, expecting nothing thereof. ------------ BoD - Come have some fun! Folks will always come and go, so enjoy them while they're meant to be in your life.
The whole supernatural/bad omen thing killed Martin for me. It was kind of cool to read at first but I read it and the omens started creeping in and I just got "arrrgghh this is so dumb".
The whole supernatural/bad omen thing killed Martin for me. It was kind of cool to read at first but I read it and the omens started creeping in and I just got "arrrgghh this is so dumb".
Ooo don't say that, I just bought the whole series. lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Smiling is infectious.
Give, expecting nothing thereof. ------------ BoD - Come have some fun! Folks will always come and go, so enjoy them while they're meant to be in your life.
Veronika Decides to Die is my favorite Paulo Coelho book, that one is a book that'll make you happy about life in general after reading it, which is a respectable feat. And it made me think about life in general besides being a very cheerful book.
I want to get that book, actually. Did you read the Alchemist? It really is one of those life altering books, if you get the message behind it (which is a somewhat clear one, really).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then I'm going to read Catch-22
Then I'm going to read The Road. I like post-apocalyptic survival stories
Maybe I'll try and write some reviews along the way
Well...
I'm halfway through The Kalevala. It's one of the best pieces of poetry I've ever read, it's just so descriptive and it flows off the pages.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I can't wait until this semester is over, then I can learn any damn language I want. I got the John Martin Crawford translation.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
If you're into Stephen King or like Horror Novels, definitely check it out.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Winston argues that the Party itself will inevitably fall apart. And it would. But O'brien says it can't possibly because supposedly everyone is essentially the same person, making it so you cannot just kill off a few and have that be a critical blow because the Party itself remains intact and unified.
The thing is, yes, of course we should be worried about what Orwell is talking about. But to the extent that he warns that it could happen, I think only in science fiction can an organization like the Party even exist an account of human variation and nuances of the human brain.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
In local elections do our votes matter most, but local governments control mostly administrative tasks anyway such as public utilities and law enforcement. Major reforms are made at the national level where people have little control over who gets voted into those offices. So yes, even in a half-assed democracy could a thing such as 1984 happen. But I think globalization, the kind that homogenizes the vast majority of people is found in corporations more than governments. Granted, the line between the two is increasingly fuzzy. But the fact remains regardless, the larger an organization becomes, the more precarious it is.
And such a thing like doublespeak is hardly the adhesive needed to keep such a vast organization bound and unified. I think O'brien, only in his hubris is convinced that the Party is this invincible collective. And he drives his point home because he basically says to Winston after starving him to death and torturing him, "Who's gonna stop us, you?" Then he shows Winston himself in the mirror (a great moment in the book, by the way) and shows him just how weak and emaciated his is. Now Winston loses his faith in people like him to stop people like O'brien. But what pisses me off about this scene is after all of O'brien's fancy arguments about doublespeak and the collective and the severing of the toe, the fact still remains that the Party will simply fall apart on its own one day. So Winston didn't even need to claim it would be people like him that would stop the Party. Instead he could've just been like, "Well, okay you starved me nearly to death, but the fact remains that you guys are gonna implode."
I also felt like Orwell was feeling more like O'brien than Winston in that scene and feeling kind of smug about how profound he thought his warning really was.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Well yes, that's mostly true of a truly free market. I think you're supposed to assume though that there is no privatization in 1984. That all the business are likely owned by the government. But I do understand what you are saying.
Well hang on there. Governments do indeed run out of money. Up to 80 percent of Haiti's GDP is foreign aid. And with the U.S. government itself, it lives like the American people do: almost entirely on credit. But China wouldn't call in our debt tomorrow because we are too big to fail and they rely on us too much for trade. Eh, not to get into a big rant about foreign debt, but I do think it's important to keep in mind that governments increasingly use business models to run their operations. And the taxpaying citizen is increasingly seen as a customer.
Well, and I guess all I'm trying to say is perhaps a revolution need not occur at all. Perhaps, just as Winston claimed, the organization, or Party, would fall apart internally on its own just because the bigger it becomes the more difficult it would be to maintain.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Next up for me will be 99 Coffins (2nd book), by David Wellington, a very bloody and gory vampire series Rykker turned me onto. Twilight this series is not.
Then on to The Phoenix Transformed, third book of The Enduring Flame trilogy by Mercedes Lackey & James Mallory.
Folks will always come and go, so enjoy them while they're meant to be in your life.
Ooo don't say that, I just bought the whole series. lol
Folks will always come and go, so enjoy them while they're meant to be in your life.
I want to get that book, actually. Did you read the Alchemist? It really is one of those life altering books, if you get the message behind it (which is a somewhat clear one, really).
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions