« first day (2445 days earlier)      last day (2191 days later) » 

3:33 AM
I am so confused by what people define as Afrofuturist novels. I think I’ll just define them as “Some books by black folks that you want to read” and move on. https://t.co/2Y2QTWSmYS
....Suddenly a lot more of the novels on my TBR are Afrofuturist.
Look, there's one now:
YAAAHHH! SNARL Antar #1 L: Thomas Mauer P: Eric Battle W: Nnedi Okorafor
 
 
3 hours later…
6:28 AM
0
Q: Heine: Frühlingsbotschaft... Blumen or Veilchen?

Bill in AustralienKling' hinaus bis an das Haus, wo die Veilchen sprießen: Wenn du eine Rose schaust, sag', ich lass sie grüßen. "Veilchen spriessen" or "Blumen spriessen" I have seen both versions.

 
 
1 hour later…
 
1 hour later…
8:35 AM
@BESW I sent on your link to "And Then There Were (N-One)" to two friends: one fan of detective fiction and one voracious reader/writer in need of inspiration. Still haven't got round to starting the other one: it's longer than I realised at first, so I'm going to need more time if it turns out to be another unputdownable thing.
 
Earlier today I had two friends reading Wind Will Rove at the same time, and both said it was unputdownable.
 
 
1 hour later…
9:51 AM
 
 
5 hours later…
2:23 PM
Have you ever wondered what exactly #steampunk is? We're exploring the world of genres! https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/6401/what-is-steampunk
 
 
6 hours later…
8:29 PM
It's for films, not books, but this is still an excellent example of reader-response analysis combined with cultural and historical context: "Celebrating Thirty Years of My Neighbor Totoro and Grave of the Fireflies," by Leah Schnelbach for tor.com.
 
 
1 hour later…
9:45 PM
Okay, I get it. Twilight was too much for a lot of people, but let's not belittle a book that helped grow YA publishing. You don't like Twilight? fine. You once loved it but now question your teen life choices (ahem, moi)? fine. But, unpopular opinion, it's still a great read.
"The Universe of Xuya" is a recurring universe in the alternate histories (mostly short stories) of Aliette de Bodard: the premise is that China discovered the Americas before the West, and that this led to a global Asian domination of the globe rather than the Western one–and to a space age initially dominated by Confucian powers (basically, Chinese and Vietnamese galactic empires).
 
user15026
@Randal'Thor It very much was that for me
 
user15026
@BESW This sounds like it will be SO GOOD
 
@Ash [bounces impatiently]
....Is there an easy way to remove a GoodReads book from your TBR?
The only way I can find seems unnecessarily convoluted.
 
user15026
10:04 PM
My Books -> Want to Read Shelf (left hand menu) -> scroll til you see the book, click the little X beside it -> It will tell you it will remove it from all shelves, click OK
 
user15026
Boom, book gone
 
[blink]
 
user15026
(if you want to do a pile, you can use their batch edit function but it is a little more persnickety)
 
...Ooooh, table view.
 
user15026
Yep. Cover view is nigh on useless
 
10:06 PM
But iss pritty.
 
user15026
It is, but I generally only look at table view because I am usually only there to like rate crap I read or to remove stuff from my TBR
 
Pritty! [sulks]
 
user15026
You can have the pretty but the pretty isn't useful so you have to use the useful and then put it back to pretty. headpats
 
user15026
GR lists are the bane of my existence because its so easy to add things from them to my TBR
 
10:20 PM
Duly noted.
 
user15026
@BESW Yep, it me
 
user15026
I am reading a book right now that I don't really love because it's not what it said it would be - I like the idea of what it is about (poking sticks at big data to see what sort of trends it shows about people) but the author makes a lot of weird conclusions and also all the stuff he talks about is from OKC (which makes sense, he works there, that's what he had access to), but the book presents as if it is speaking from more than just dating site data
 
user15026
So I kinda want to keep reading but also the style of it is offputting and the data set is not as widely encompassing of humanity as teh author keeps claiming
 
Oof.
 
user15026
As usual with books like this, it's overhyped pop-psych stuff and it doesn't really tell me what it purports it does
 
user15026
10:30 PM
(also it is doing some messy correlation equals causation stuff, I don't think that's intentional)
 
user15026
I just...I want to read it partially because I hope it stops being bad but also because sometimes I get all weird in my head over the fact all that I tend to read is fluffy romance and such so I try to pick "smarter" things
 
...pick better.
 
user15026
I thought I had :(
 
"The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think," by James Somers also for The Atlantic.
If you want an impenetrably dull treatise on a fascinating psychosocial topic, Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time, by Gary Saul Morson.
Or something accessible and well-researched about the impact of tech on our lives and identities, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, by Joseph Weizenbaum.
If you must read something where the author disappears entirely up his own... assumptions... Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare, by Stephen Greenblatt, is at least entertaining as you watch someone desperately creating new conspiracy theories in order to disprove an existing one.
 
user15026
10:44 PM
@BESW O.o That sounds ungood
 
Nothing associated with The Authorship Question is good. It's like a memetic virus which turns otherwise reasonable people into petulant didacts... and it's arguable whether Greenblatt was ever a reasonable person.
 
user15026
@BESW "So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism. Perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proved correct, and from our hyperactive, data-stoked minds will spring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom. Then again, the Net isn’t the alphabet, and although it may replace the printing press, it produces something altogether different. "
 
user15026
I applaud them for this bit
 
user15026
(and for including the whole idea that we've been bemoaning new tech in this sense for forever)
 
Greenblatt was a creator/advocate for a particular brand of literary theory which states that literature emerges from its cultural and societal context--if one particular author didn't write a particular work, another author would have written something functionally identical.
 
user15026
10:48 PM
@BESW eeeeeeeergh no
 
And then he wrote more than 450 large pages detailing exactly why only William Shakespeare could have possibly written the plays attributed to him.
 
user15026
But....but...but...augh no you just contradicted.... throws up hands
 
And even setting that aside, it's baaaad. He takes a handful of scant evidences and extrapolates entire worlds from them.
 
user15026
(I looked at my "read" list on GR and the last few "smart" (aka non-fiction) things I've read were mostly 2 stars (with the exception of Scott Kelly's book about his time in space)
 
user15026
I am bad at picking non-fiction for myself, it seems
 
10:51 PM
Well, Will in the World has four stars.
But it features gems like: we know the name of a teacher in a school in young Shakespeare's area, which it's likely he attended but we don't know exactly when so even if he did it's unsure if he ever met this teacher. Someone with the same name as the teacher was arrested for Catholic conspiracy several years later in a different town.
Therefore William Shakespeare was taught by a Catholic conspiracist.
 
user15026
Oh, I mean mostly I've given them 2 stars when I've finished, despite other people raving over them
 
user15026
@BESW Because no two people could have the same name!
 
A big part of Greenblatt's "proof" of Shakespeare being Shakespeare involves the supposed Catholic subtext interpretation of the plays--which is itself largely wishful thinking--and various flimsy evidences that Shakespeare was Catholic, or at least had Catholic sympathies.
(Because all the popular proposals for alternative authorship were strongly associated with the British nobility and therefore had self-interest in not having Catholic sympathies.)
 
user15026
It all sounds like a wet pile of cardboard in terms of it actually standing up to scrutiny
 
The thing is, inasmuch as I care about having an opinion at all, I'm a Stratfordian. The simplest explanation with the most existing evidence is that Shakespeare wrote most, if not all, of the plays accorded to him. "Evidence" to the contrary is largely an absence of evidence which isn't particularly surprising given the context of the era.
But folks like Greenblatt put that reasonable opinion in very bad company.
The Authorship Question is largely a matter of classist prejudices, in which a bunch of highly-educated dudes decided later that nobody with a middle-class schooling could have written such great stuff.
Throw in some rather depressingly transparent fanfic about which royal family they think should be on the throne, and BAM you've got yourself a conspiracy theory in which the author of the plays was a tragically wronged (and probably incestuous) member of royalty.
 
user15026
11:01 PM
I did not know this was so complicated
 
Oh, a lot of folks have put in a lot of work over the hundred years or so to make it seem more respectable.
But really, the Authorship Question is based in about as much rationality as the conspiracy theory that Jack the Ripper was an occult murderer covering up a sex worker's pregnancy by a duke.
(Alan Moore's From Hell is "wall of newspaper clippings and pinned yarn lines" crazy, even for Alan Moore.)
 
user15026
11:17 PM
O.o
 
user15026
All of that sounds ridiculous
 
Meticulously researched, carefully cited, absolutely ridiculous.
As AJ Hall said in Dissipation and Despair, it's not "so much leaping to conclusions as building elaborate cantilevered structures so as to reach conclusions more efficiently for prolonged periods."
(You still haven't read Lust Over Pendle.)
 
user15026
11:45 PM
I have not, no
 
user15026
I should.
 

« first day (2445 days earlier)      last day (2191 days later) »