So what are you reading now? (Part 3)

[S. Gomez]

Now I can finally read those Escapist comics that were published a few years back to tie in with the novel. I've had them for years but wanted to read the novel first.

Oh yeah, there were comics. Let us know how they are?

 

[Steve Roby]

I read the first one last night and it was fun enough. The first story was the origin story as described in the novel; the others were from different eras in the history of the characters, such as an early '70s Luna Moth story by Jim Starlin in Warlock/Dr Strange cosmic mode. There are also occasional text pieces putting everything in context, some quoting from the novel. Looks like a lot of interesting people from the comics industry got involved in this.

 

[Defcon]

Since it arrived before I could really start with The Sorrows of Empire, I decided to read Inception first.

I have read both in the interim (Review of Inception), and since I already have Treason as TPB, I will go back to my to read pile of older titles and tackle Shards and Shadows next. I have read two of the stories already over the last few month in preparation for interviews, but now I finally will read the whole book.

 

[OverlordSpock]

Currently making my way through Inception. I'm about half-way through and, so far, my reaction is basically: "Meh."

I'm just not feeling for any of the characters. The book is reading as just "First he did this. Then she did this. They they did that. Then they went to this place. And then..." I'm not feeling any sort of emotional connection with anyone in the book.

Maybe it'll get better as I get further into the second half.

 

[trentman359]

Over A Torrent Sea. The Titan series is the only series I am currently following. I want to try to get back into some TNG novels. I'll probably take a trip to Barnes and Noble next weekend.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I finished Second Foundation then, in a post-TMP Trek mood, read Triangle. Sadly the book was buried neck-deep in Sondra Marshak & Myrna Culbreath’s stupid K/S rubbish: pathetic, meek, pandering nonsense abounds between Kirk, Spock, Sola and even Gailbraith. If I wanted crap like this I’d read Mills and Boon. Goes on my Worst Ever list.
I’m now reading DS9: S31: Abyss. It’s alright, and thankfully not as Bashir-centric as the (rubbish) cover would indicate.

 

[Christopher]

^Triangle's Sola Thane is one of the most extreme and blatant Mary Sue characters of Trek Lit. The other is Elizabeth Schaefer from Bantam's Death's Angel. More people are familiar with Piper and Evan Wilson, but their Mary Sue quotient is low compared to those two.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^In my post-TMP mood I knew I should have gone for Ex Machina!

 

[Csalem]

Finished Agatha Christie's 'Crooked House' and now on 'Titan: Synthesis'.

 

[craig keith]

^ synthesis is an amazin novel btw , one of the best of the titan series

Im reading David Mack's original novel The Calling ... very very good i highly reccomend it !

 

[Cap'n Crunch]

I finished off Enterprise Logs the other day. Yesterday I started on Worlds of Deep Space Nine; I'm currently reading Cardassia: The Lotus Flower by Una McCormack.

 

[indianatrekker26]

I'm on a much needed star trek reading break at the moment. Started reading James Rollins. Flew through his first novel, Subterranean and loved it. Currently on his second book, Excavation.

 

[DrCorby]

But the Islamic Republic of Iran is not led by irrational political actors. It's led by rational men who seized power and have been very careful to hold on to it. Furthermore, it's led by men who know that their country is surrounded on two sides by occupying U.S. armies that overthrew the local regimes within weeks of beginning invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) -- and who know that of the list of "Axis of Evil," the United States attacked the weakest state, indicating to them that they needed to develop their own nuclear deterrent to prevent another U.S. invasion.

If the United States can manage its own jingoists and can convince the Iranian regime of its intentions to negotiate in good will, I think that there's no particular reason that we won't be able to eventually convince Iran not to go nuclear -- or, barring that, to manage their rise as a nuclear power peacefully. But the idea that Iran is a dangerous, irrational political actor that will attack the U.S. or Israel with no regard for the consequences to itself is, to me, kinda silly.

A Holocaust denier is rational?! I agree that the ruling regime has been very competent at staying in power, through rigging elections and crushing dissent, but I disagree that they've shown a lot of willingness to engage in real dialogue with the world community over substantive issues. No, not everything coming out of the US government has been helpful to the situation, but I don't think we've seen evidence of a willing partner.

In the book, it was learned that the missles with the warheads had been launched from a Liberian-flagged freighter off the Gulf Coast, by parties unknown. Iran has certainly been very willing to act against US soldiers through covert operatives (in Iraq) and against both the US and Israel through paid intermediaries like Hesbollah. I'm willing to believe they'd be capable of secretly attacking "the Great Satan" in the manner presented in the book if they thought they might get away with it.

I finished the novel last night, and it certainly didn't have a warm & fuzzy ending, but it was very believeable and consistent with the rest of the book. And as a father of two daughters, the storylines concerning the protagonist's daughters certainly struck a chord. I definitely recommend reading One Second After, for the story and the ideas behind it.

 

[Thrawn]

Took a week off from reading to replay Bioshock and play Bioshock 2. Wasn't really worth it; found the second game not nearly as interesting as the first. I'm resuming This Gray Spirit now.

 

[Christopher]

But the Islamic Republic of Iran is not led by irrational political actors. It's led by rational men who seized power and have been very careful to hold on to it....

A Holocaust denier is rational?!

Okay, first of all, you're making the mistake of assuming that Ahmedinejad actually leads Iran. It's not called the Islamic Republic for nothing. It's a theocracy, ruled by the ayatollahs.

Second of all, rationality doesn't require being right. If it is in a leader's political interest to embrace an irrational notion in order to win the support of one's populace and solidify one's hold on power, then it is an entirely rational calculation to do so.

 

[Sci]

But the Islamic Republic of Iran is not led by irrational political actors. It's led by rational men who seized power and have been very careful to hold on to it. Furthermore, it's led by men who know that their country is surrounded on two sides by occupying U.S. armies that overthrew the local regimes within weeks of beginning invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) -- and who know that of the list of "Axis of Evil," the United States attacked the weakest state, indicating to them that they needed to develop their own nuclear deterrent to prevent another U.S. invasion.

If the United States can manage its own jingoists and can convince the Iranian regime of its intentions to negotiate in good will, I think that there's no particular reason that we won't be able to eventually convince Iran not to go nuclear -- or, barring that, to manage their rise as a nuclear power peacefully. But the idea that Iran is a dangerous, irrational political actor that will attack the U.S. or Israel with no regard for the consequences to itself is, to me, kinda silly.

A Holocaust denier is rational?!

President Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran -- Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is. And, yes, Holocaust denial can be a perfectly rational behavior for a politician seeking to manipulate existing anti-Semitic sentiment in the region for his own political benefit.

I agree that the ruling regime has been very competent at staying in power, through rigging elections and crushing dissent, but I disagree that they've shown a lot of willingness to engage in real dialogue with the world community over substantive issues.

Actually, they have in the past. They only began to withdraw and become unwilling to engage in the world community over substantive issues as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq. To them, the fact that Iraq tried to negotiate with Bush and the U.N. and allowed U.N. weapons inspectors in, yet was still invaded and its government overthrown, was evidence that the United States cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith and that they can only hope to defend themselves from the U.S. if they have their own nuclear deterrent.

Iran has certainly been very willing to act against US soldiers through covert operatives (in Iraq) and against both the US and Israel through paid intermediaries like Hesbollah.

Sure, but those are small-scale assaults. They're no more evidence of a willingness to engage in a full-scale war of aggression than the U.S.'s spying missions on China from 2001.

 

[snakespeare]

A Time to Kill by David Mack

 

[ICW]

Sadly, I do not get to do much non-school reading back at college. On top of school work and living the typic dorm life, I've fallen behind on 'Trek reading.

I did come home for the weekend, however, and finished the New Frontier novel The Quiet Place. A decent novel, not the best novel in the New Frontier series in my opinion.

I am now reading Inception (well hopefully I'll get around to reading it)!

 

[Cap'n Crunch]

I just finished the Cardassia portion of Worlds of Deep Space Nine. I'll probably start on Andor: Paradigm tomorrow.

 

[DrCorby]

But the Islamic Republic of Iran is not led by irrational political actors. It's led by rational men who seized power and have been very careful to hold on to it....

A Holocaust denier is rational?!

Okay, first of all, you're making the mistake of assuming that Ahmedinejad actually leads Iran. It's not called the Islamic Republic for nothing. It's a theocracy, ruled by the ayatollahs.

Second of all, rationality doesn't require being right. If it is in a leader's political interest to embrace an irrational notion in order to win the support of one's populace and solidify one's hold on power, then it is an entirely rational calculation to do so.

OK, I knew in the back of my mind if I went for the pithy one-liner, I'd get called on it, but I didn't resist sufficiently. My bad. Yes, I realize Ahmedinejad is only the front man for the ayatollahs, but I can't help but believe that if they didn't want him spewing all this rhetoric, they'd reign him back in. Seems to me it must resonate with them at least somewhat.

Second, is there a difference between rational "in one's right mind" and rational "consistently following a path from a (perhaps incorrect) initial assumption? Seems to me the latter is logic and perhaps efficiency, while the former is what I had in mind. Maybe you're right -- coldly calculating might be more appropriate.

But the Islamic Republic of Iran is not led by irrational political actors. It's led by rational men who seized power and have been very careful to hold on to it. Furthermore, it's led by men who know that their country is surrounded on two sides by occupying U.S. armies that overthrew the local regimes within weeks of beginning invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) -- and who know that of the list of "Axis of Evil," the United States attacked the weakest state, indicating to them that they needed to develop their own nuclear deterrent to prevent another U.S. invasion.

I agree that the ruling regime has been very competent at staying in power, through rigging elections and crushing dissent, but I disagree that they've shown a lot of willingness to engage in real dialogue with the world community over substantive issues.

Actually, they have in the past. They only began to withdraw and become unwilling to engage in the world community over substantive issues as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq. To them, the fact that Iraq tried to negotiate with Bush and the U.N. and allowed U.N. weapons inspectors in, yet was still invaded and its government overthrown, was evidence that the United States cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith and that they can only hope to defend themselves from the U.S. if they have their own nuclear deterrent.

I freely admit some of the US's foreign policy over the past half-century (during & after the Cold War) has been ill-advised and ham-handed in general, and specifically so in Iran's case. We have been the authors of many of our own woes. But beyond that, I believe it's telling that much of the rest of the Arab world is also worried about Iran, over more than just their sectarian conflict. I continue to think the Iranian leadership is capable of many things an average rational person would find horrendous that would be acceptable to the Iranian leadership through their rationalizing.

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread. If you wish, we can continue to discuss this in the NZ. On topic -- I really did enjoy the novel. Now I'm on to The Well of Souls, maybe followed by The Time Traveller's Wife.