The Unknown Masterpiece is like an intellectual episode of the Twilight Zone only written in the 19th Century. Leaves much to interpretation, very welThe Unknown Masterpiece is like an intellectual episode of the Twilight Zone only written in the 19th Century. Leaves much to interpretation, very well done. 4 stars.
Gambara, hmmm, if you take out the musical theory mumbo jumbo it鈥檚 a pretty interesting little story. Problem is if you take that out, there鈥檚 not much left. 3 stars.
I read this a long time ago but re-read to see if appropriate for my 9 year old. It was, and he liked it. Obviously funny and lots of classic lines/thI read this a long time ago but re-read to see if appropriate for my 9 year old. It was, and he liked it. Obviously funny and lots of classic lines/thoughts/humor. Would recommend to all. That said, still don鈥檛 feel compelled to read the next one for some reason (maybe because it can鈥檛 get better?). Maybe one day. 炉\_(銉�)_/炉....more
Le Monde calls this 鈥淭he novel of the decade鈥� but I am not sure this is even a novel. I am not sure quite what it is (though I am pretty sure it is no Le Monde calls this 鈥淭he novel of the decade鈥� but I am not sure this is even a novel. I am not sure quite what it is (though I am pretty sure it is not a pineapple, mmmm pineapple). It is kind of a bunch of vignettes that are sort of linked together about the residents of an apartment building in Paris. It took me about 100 pages to get in to it (~1/5th of the book) and I almost stopped reading after the first 50 pages or so, but it gets really good. Strange and fascinating stories. Apparently the book is some giant puzzle with the chapters laid out based on the movement of a knight chess piece on a grid, but f if I know. And apparently there are also tons of literary and scientific and whatever else references, and loads of word puzzles somehow in the writing (maybe some get lost in the translation), but I enjoyed the book without seeing any of them. 炉\_(銉�)_/炉.
Worth a read. Don鈥檛 let a 500 page book with an appendix scare you off. This feels sort of like an adult Brother鈥檚 Grimm book of fairy tales....more
This is a good book and you should read it. 聽It's like if Paul Beatty were 80% as funny, a little more classically philosophical, and Australian (and This is a good book and you should read it. 聽It's like if Paul Beatty were 80% as funny, a little more classically philosophical, and Australian (and that is all meant to be a compliment). 聽The book gets a little one note in the middle and you're not sure exactly where it is going but by the end it finds itself and everything kind of ties together. 聽But who knows if the plot is even relevant here (though it is pretty good). 聽This is mainly the bonkers ramblings of people against society (though mainly the ramblings of sort of protagonist Martin Dean). 聽The only reason not to read this is if you hate fun....more
Meh. This is sort of like if The Book of Ebenezer Le Page and Something Happened had a baby, and that baby was really whiny and annoying.
The book follMeh. This is sort of like if The Book of Ebenezer Le Page and Something Happened had a baby, and that baby was really whiny and annoying.
The book follows the protagonist, a relatively young, disaffected irish scottish teacher and his ongoing existential crisis which leads to his inability to do anything.
The most interesting part of the book is the narration as it is told from the third person point of view which morphs in and out of first person. Is the narrator actually the protagonist? Will the protagonist make a decision? Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? All questions I had while reading this, the last one only because I was bored and my mind went elsewhere.
This book is perfectly fine if you like psuedo intellectual ennui told in an irish scottish dialect with plenty of f-bombs. Yawn....more
Apparently magical realism is a euphemism for just make shit up. Strange book to rate. On one hand, it's a page turner and there are some legitimatelyApparently magical realism is a euphemism for just make shit up. Strange book to rate. On one hand, it's a page turner and there are some legitimately interesting parts. On the other hand, the plot is not so relevant and doesn't always exist and important characters just fade away and then stuff just kind of happens for no reason. Shrug.
I guess it's not a bad read (hence the page turning) but also frustrating in that the thing you are turning the pages to see conclude (spoiler alert) not only doesn't really get concluded but also just keeps zigging or zagging all willy-nilly. Really kind of strange book (though I bet a lot gets lost in translation) but it's not Kafka....more
Better written than most science books (and less science-y, so maybe that's why). Quammen lays out the thesis that the tree of life is not really a trBetter written than most science books (and less science-y, so maybe that's why). Quammen lays out the thesis that the tree of life is not really a tree, it's more like a blob or a bush, or a bushy blob (and perhaps even a blobby bush, who knows!). Thanks to something called horizontal gene transfer, bacteria/viruses can insert their DNA into the DNA of a host's cells, and thus evolution can happen non-linearly. It's kind of like the movie Alien, only slightly less gory and perhaps with a better ending.
The story is told through the story of Carl Woese, a University of Illinois scientist, who determined through the genetic code of RNA that there is a third domain of life and not just the previously thought of two domains. Quammen uses Woese as his pseudo-protagonist and relays how the thesis of evolution evolved from Darwin, to Woese, to the scientists after Woese who developed the notion of horizontal gene transfer.
It's a decent read, more of a biography than a deep dive into the science, which is fine....more
The Magus is a high brow page turner that is also kind of a thriller in the great tradition of other highbrow page turning thrillers such as, um, hmmmThe Magus is a high brow page turner that is also kind of a thriller in the great tradition of other highbrow page turning thrillers such as, um, hmmm.... While the main character is horribly egotistical and flat out unlikeable (maybe that is the point), and the Shakespearean references come at you faster than whatever it was that poor Yorick didn't see that finally got him, the book is hard to put down (all 650 pages of it). There are so many twists and turns that even a contortionist would be incredulous and yet Fowles does such an amazing job of setting tone and feeling that you are sucked in to the craziness of it all.
While the book gets more than a little weird (to use an understatement) as it goes on, while the ending is a little wonky, and while I am not sure what the final message was other than maybe be a better person, this is worth a read if you want to go on a wild (and spoiler alert: maybe somewhat unfulfilling) ride....more
I am pretty sure I should have liked this more than I did but it just felt like homework for most of the time (and the really crappy kind of homework,I am pretty sure I should have liked this more than I did but it just felt like homework for most of the time (and the really crappy kind of homework, like chemistry lab write-ups, research papers, or anything that got in the way of not doing homework). It was all just kind of OK-ish.
There were some humorous parts and dialogue (especially between father and son), but something just felt missing here, like there was no soul to it all. It was all just kind of white noise, which maybe was the point on a meta-level, but I don't think so. Meh....more
Highly touted books with rabid intellectual fan bases like the Wall Creeper are almost always more disappointing than take-out chinese food or politicHighly touted books with rabid intellectual fan bases like the Wall Creeper are almost always more disappointing than take-out chinese food or politicians, but this wasn't one of those disappointments.
Nell Zink absolutely kills it here in so many different ways that it doesn't even make sense that she supposedly wrote this in three weeks (and yes, I am calling BS on the myth of Nell Zink, not that it matters). The plot is strangely interesting, the themes are palpable, and Zink weaves in literary references with the ease and rapidity of Kobayashi at the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest.
There is a line in the book about Henry Adams which cuts right to the heart of his autobiography that is amazingly brilliant and worth the read alone.
It's not easy to pack the entire history of Rome into 440 pages, after all, Rome wasn't built in a day (thanks, I'll be here all review, and don't forIt's not easy to pack the entire history of Rome into 440 pages, after all, Rome wasn't built in a day (thanks, I'll be here all review, and don't forget to tip your waiter), but Michael Grant attempts to do that here.
While I am not a Roman historian (nor do I play one on TV), my sense is that this is a really good cursory run through of 1000+ years of Roman history and then from there you can focus in on more specific time periods if you want.
That said, I read this a year ago so don't have a great recollection of the entire history but I do have exactly one line of notes from when I read this book which I think sums up all of ancient Rome pretty nicely: "everyone killed each other." ...more
Meh. I was expecting a lot more as I really liked Hemon's first novel, The Lazarus Project, but as for this book, well, I'm not 100% sure why it exisMeh. I was expecting a lot more as I really liked Hemon's first novel, The Lazarus Project, but as for this book, well, I'm not 100% sure why it exists.
It's kind of not really all there and it takes way too long to develop any kind of almost plot and the main character/protagonist is unlikable for many reasons (the word dipshit comes to mind, which may be the point, but who wants to read that?) including that his actions just seem bizarre.
It's supposed to be a farce but it just kind of misses and when going for farce, even a slight miss is too much. The characters are one dimensional, the plot is goofy (if there is one), and the story abruptly zigs without ever zagging back.
It's not un-entertaining, but it's just kind of weird that this is the product Hemon came up with after a break from novels. It seems like a writing experiment or an Augie March literary exercise gone wrong (though one could argue that Augie March itself was a literary experiment gone wrong). ...more
I'm not sure what to make of this strange, somewhat otherworldly piece of fiction. The book is a series of short stories/fables about the creation andI'm not sure what to make of this strange, somewhat otherworldly piece of fiction. The book is a series of short stories/fables about the creation and evolution of the universe but all told as part of mythical, almost what seems like Native American, lore.
One could probably spend hours on each story trying to understand all of the meanings (both philosophically and scientifically) that Calvino hid in them. It's almost like reading a cloud (and not a dark rainy one, but a smart fluffy one with just a hint of gray). ...more
I could review it and tell you it is a series of biographical stories by chemist/writer Primo Levy where in each chapter he linksJust read this book.
I could review it and tell you it is a series of biographical stories by chemist/writer Primo Levy where in each chapter he links an element in the periodic table with his life leading up to and through the holocaust and he does it in such plain, clear, simple, awakening prose, but that wouldn't do the book justice.
This is a fantastic biography and not just because Grant led a bizarrely incredible life but because of the author's not well hidden disdain for GrantThis is a fantastic biography and not just because Grant led a bizarrely incredible life but because of the author's not well hidden disdain for Grant (no really, he kind of hates the guy). Even so, it is exceptionally well written and focuses more on the big picture of the United States during Grant's life and how Grant fit in to it rather than just a boring recitation of what Grant did everyday like such banalities as what kind of oatmeal he ate on some October morning in 1874 which many other biographers tend to do (and maybe you should take note of that for your next biography Mr. Chernow).
As for Grant, like many mid to late 19th century presidents (Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, etc.), he was a Horatio Alger rags to riches story (though the riches never quite really came) with the slight twist that he was pretty much a failure at everything but war (and drinking). To say he lucked in to his success is a bit disingenuous (because he was really good at killing soldiers, both his and those of the enemy, and he was really good at preparing and running a war), but without the Civil War, he would have just been a failed destitute farmer.
When the war broke out, the Union needed trained military men and Grant fit the bill having graduated undistinguishingly (and that probably isn't a word) from West Point, having served in the army during the Mexican War (though as a quartermaster, not even a frontline soldier), and having stayed in the army for a couple years after that though without rising at all through the ranks. It's amazing, the Union needed men and he was a man. But they didn't just need men, they needed men to lead so pretty much anyone with any military experience was made a General. Thus all of a sudden Grant went from poor failed farmer to General in the Union army (though one of hundreds I believe, and in charge of a nothing little regiment in the now Midwest).
It was then that Grant became Grant. While he started as a General in an out of the way location, he gradually won confrontations and battles and built up his reputation to the point that he became commander of the entire army where he was supposedly a brilliant military strategist with an ability to see the big picture (ie. we need to kill a lot of Southerners) which seems at odds with his inability to succeed in private business. The author lauds Grant for his ability to keep everything in his head and hand write all of his orders himself with little input from others.
Anyway, you all know what happened in the war (spoiler alert: the Union won) and Grant became the face of victory as the conquering General with the folksy ways and he rode the wave of popularity all the way to an ineffective presidency. The eight years Grant was in office were marked by a failure to deliver real reconstruction (or even try to) and a cabinet filled with graft and scandal. Maybe the country needed a kind of ineffective figurehead to heal over those years, but it seems like a wasted opportunity where someone could have created real change.
Post-presidency Grant toured the world, drank, and got swindled (and you all should really read this book ) only to save his family by publishing his memoirs before he died which proved to be lucrative. A truly amazing life.
As for the author's interpretation, he paints Grant as a bit of a simpleton in everything but war. He is almost astounded by Grant's success and yet has a lot of respect for Grant the General and Grant's ability to see many steps ahead. The author's biggest criticism of Grant seems to be that he was a common man and yet left the common man when he became president, preferring to hobnob with the rich in his lifelong attempt to be a social climber and to be accepted by high society businessmen (and perhaps to prove himself to his father). It's quite a psychological profile.
Answer: Dubliners, Naked Lunch (twice), Gravity's Rainbow, and What If.
Question: What are the only four books I have ever started and not finished. SoAnswer: Dubliners, Naked Lunch (twice), Gravity's Rainbow, and What If.
Question: What are the only four books I have ever started and not finished. So congratulations Randall Munroe on joining an esteemed list of authors.
To say I hated this book would be a strong statement, to say I really hated it would be stronger, but feel free to use either. And the weird part is, I should have really liked this book. In theory It's a smart-ish/funny-ish book where the author answers bizarre science questions. The problem is, it's not really that funny and the answer to every question the author answers (after he takes it to the extreme) is "the world will blow up and we'll all die."
This book is more one note than a single key piano. The author takes a question like: "what if I tried to fill a periodic table using the actual elements?" or "what if I tried to launch myself in the air by shooting guns in to the ground?" or "what if the moon were really made of green cheese1?" and then answers them by taking the science to an absurd extreme that involves the world blowing up and all of us dying2.
Not only that, but the humor is relentlessly repetitive with jokes sometimes recycled and made worse by the annoying habit of having footnotes littering the answers that lead to extraneous one-liners which are supposed to be acutely funny (guess what, after the 4th time, they're not). Some of the science is interesting but I understand that when you shoot a ton of rocket fuel at something, it will blow up (citation needed) and thus reading this answer 100 times over doesn't make it any funnier.
Maybe it's my fault for sitting down and reading this as a book when really it should probably be left in the bathroom for someone to read it one question at a time and thus forget the repetitiveness of it.
1. Ok, I made up this last one, but maybe it was in there and I just didn't read far enough. Either way, the answer would be "the world would blow up and we'd all die3."
Loading...
