So what are you reading, now? Part V
- Thread starter DimesDan
- Start date
- Status
Reading and enjoying two history books. With Wings Like Eagles (Korda) and The History of Japan (Latourette).
I just finished Stargate Atlantis - Angelus. It's obvious the author was going for a horror vibe, but it just didn't fit the tone of the show. A lot of the characterizations and dialogue just didn't feel right. There where also quite a bit of spelling and grammar errors that the editor apparently missed. One thing I did like was that Col. Ellis was given more characterization than he ever got on the show.
I've now started on James Swallow's Seeds of Dissent from Star Trek: Myriad Universes - Infinity's Prism.
I've now started on James Swallow's Seeds of Dissent from Star Trek: Myriad Universes - Infinity's Prism.
In hard print, I just finished Alistair Reynold's Pushing Ice. If you are a fan of hard sci-fi I highly recommend this book, it's just jam-packed with fascinating science, philosophy, interesting characters and fascinating aliens. Get to it!
With that finished, I started reading Ian McEwan's Black Dogs. I am a huge fan of McEwan and he's never disappointed me- am looking forward to this one immensely.
On my iPhone, I just finished Death in Winter (Meh. To quote Jammer: If I never see another 'hostage situation' again in Trek it will be too soon.") and have just started Resistance, which I have trouble reading because I just start singing Muse everytime anyone says "Resistance".
With that finished, I started reading Ian McEwan's Black Dogs. I am a huge fan of McEwan and he's never disappointed me- am looking forward to this one immensely.
On my iPhone, I just finished Death in Winter (Meh. To quote Jammer: If I never see another 'hostage situation' again in Trek it will be too soon.") and have just started Resistance, which I have trouble reading because I just start singing Muse everytime anyone says "Resistance".
I just did that and couldn't determine what you are referring to. Are you talking about The Omega Glory?
Well, unless I've suddenly became senile, I do recall going through several exhaustive back and forth posts with other members
, not just in regards to 'The Omega Glory,' but the questionable portrayals of Asian Americans in Star Trek franchise; so I'm pretty sure those posts are there in the search index.Too, since I'm in the middle of something right now...i.e. working on essay about the aforementioned questionable portrayals of Asian Americans in Star Trek, which mirrors how Asian Americans as well as African Americans are portrayed in the 'real world,' as well as sleepy; also, killing time on Trektoday, I don't really wish to go into depth right now; moreover, I don't want to derail the thread.
However, if you want to shoot me a PM, maybe I can link you to past conversations/debates, and so forth, in due time.
Last edited:
Just finished Jake Arnott's novel The Devil's Paintbrush. It's far removed from the books he's best known for (a trilogy of crime novels set in England from the 1960s onwards), being set in Paris in 1903. A disgraced Scottish war hero encounters Aleister Crowley, who's yet to gain infamy as a prominent Satanist. Not a whole lot happens but it was a fascinating read nonetheless, playing with historical reality, tossing in literary and historical allusions, verging on magical (or magickal) realism, and yet presenting a poignant character study too. And loosely based on a true story.
Next up: Blue City, an early noir-looking novel by Ross MacDonald, better known for the Lew Archer private eye novels.
Next up: Blue City, an early noir-looking novel by Ross MacDonald, better known for the Lew Archer private eye novels.
Is there a difference between the two, beyond pretentiousness?
I finally finished Sarek. It was quite enjoyable. The Sarek/Amanda stuff was better than the Peter/Valdyr stuff. The end of the Sarek/Taryn story was quite Sybokian. I only wish there were some scenes between Sarek or Amanda and Sybok in the flashbacks. Peter's Kobayashi Maru at the end was well done - it could have easily come across as a farce. As I say so often when reading older novels - it'd be nice to find out what became of Peter Kirk and Valdyr.
I've now started Titan: Sword of Damocles. We join the action right after shuttle crash #96,321...
I've now started Titan: Sword of Damocles. We join the action right after shuttle crash #96,321...
Just finished up rereading Section 31: Abyss (the DS9 entry). I still liked Cloak better, although Abyss was definitely better than Rogue.
Moving on to Shadow (the VOY entry in the series). I seem to recall not really liking this book when I read it the first time, but don't recall much of the story, or why I didn't like it. Guess I'll find out soon...
Moving on to Shadow (the VOY entry in the series). I seem to recall not really liking this book when I read it the first time, but don't recall much of the story, or why I didn't like it. Guess I'll find out soon...
I'm now reading Treasure by Clive Cussler and rereading The Eugenics Wars by Greg Cox.
Yes.
Crowley didn't practice "magic." He practiced "magick." With a k.
It seems obvious to me that a book starring Crowley and dealing with magical things would be, well, magickal.
Moving on to Shadow (the VOY entry in the series). I seem to recall not really liking this book when I read it the first time, but don't recall much of the story, or why I didn't like it. Guess I'll find out soon...
It was okay. I reread it a few months ago and had the same reaction I did when I had first gotten it. The plot was plausible, but the ending a little too melodramatic (and, unfortunately and obviously, didn't have any reflection in any episodes).
I'm currently reading Me: Stories of My Life by Katharine Hepburn.
I repeat the question. Is there a meaningful difference between the definitions of the two forms of the word?
Yes.
Magic is conjuring and tricks. Magick is a system for getting at the underlying structure of the universe through occult methods.
I finished the third volume and am halfway through volume 4 (Miles Errant).
Exactly. You don't have to take magick seriously (I don't) to understand that a lot of people are going to have a very different thing in mind if you call it magic. It's useful to have different terms, and it's also useful not to surrender the original word completely by coming up with a new name for it.
The literary term magical realism applies because the book features strange events that are seemingly intended to be understood as real, though you can choose to interpret them as drug-induced hallucinations if you don't like fantasy elements in your historical fiction based on real people and events.
Anyway, I've started reading Rewired: The Post-Cyberpunk anthology, edited by James Patrick Kelly and John Kessel. How can it be almost 26 years since I first read Neuromancer? That's as old now as Philip K. Dick's Time Out of Joint and William S. Burroughs's The Naked Lunch were then...
Most people use the same spelling for both prestidigitation and supernatural power, and can easily enough tell them apart by context. Using the archaic spelling "magick" is evidently favored by Wiccans, and if that has some special meaning within their belief system, I can respect that; but for the rest of us to use it is simply an affectation.
The name of the genre is magic realism, and if anyone's so ignorant of the genre to think that it's about stage magicians, then sticking a K in there isn't going to make things any clearer for them. And for those of us who are not totally ignorant of the genre, it's perfectly clear that the term "magic" in that context refers to the supernatural.
My understanding is that "magic realism" refers to fantasy literature set in a "realistic" present-day world rather than an exotic alternate reality or mythic past, and presented in a realistic, grounded style rather than something romantic and larger-than-life. Although naturally there's a variety of definitions.
- Status
