What are you currently reading?

[Mickey]

Don't

Do you dislike it because you read it or on principle?

I've not read it, but I know Ocean's other work (bleh) and have it on good authority that it sucks ass.

I don't think I've read anything by Ocean Vuong?

Was he in your class?

Never met the guy!

[epilogue]

Don't

Do you dislike it because you read it or on principle?

I've not read it, but I know Ocean's other work (bleh) and have it on good authority that it sucks ass.

I don't think I've read anything by Ocean Vuong?

Was he in your class?

Never met the guy!

I like his book, so far. I'm only about 50 pages in. Nothing shattering or life changing but it's a fine read.

[4/5]

So this was interesting. I have lots of thoughts on it but I'll just make a few observations.

--The book seemed to be written to convince Marxists of her argument about the origins of capitalism, so I was not her intended audience but it did offer the chance to get a bit of a feel for a small range of Marxist opinions on the subject. At the same time, there's a lot of things that are simply taken as given within that school of thought that weren't defended or explained because that wasn't the point of the book. (That's not a criticism, more of an observation that it isn't an ideal starting point because it has a different purpose so it isn't concerned with defending the orthodox positions that are mentioned in passing as received wisdom.)

--She makes the argument that capitalism requires coercion which made me reflexively recoil, but she did a good enough job explaining what she meant. Insofar as having a government with a judicial system based on the principle of protecting property rights is coercive I'm not as convinced.

--I appreciated the distinctions she draws between capitalism and markets, which I found helpful in understanding why some people oppose capitalism so much. I'd like to know more of her thoughts on markets and decentralized economic decision making because she didn't seem to take the view that markets are inherently a bad thing unlike capitalism.

--She seemed to admit at times that there is something natural about markets/trade but several times she scoffed at the famous Adam Smith quote about the human propensity to truck, barter, and exchange. I found that puzzling. I'm willing to go along with her that capitalism had a distinct origin, but I still believe that trade is essentially natural and I think that when it came to Smith she acted as if he was arguing about a capitalist system being natural when I believe he was talking about markets and trade, the kind of which have happened in basically every society ever.

--The book was extremely redundant. It probably could have been 50 pages shorter without losing a single idea. I wonder if it was written with the thought that specific chapters would be assigned as readings and therefore it was necessary to repeat ideas that had been previously established.

--I'm not sure she was fair to Locke when it comes to imperialism/colonialism. She may have been, I honestly don't know. I went back and read the chapter of the Second Treatise that she referred to (without context) and didn't find it to support colonialism as she suggested. But I don't claim expertise on Locke, so that remains an open question to me. I did find everything else about her deconstruction of Lockean property rights to be pretty interesting, though.

Okay, that's more than enough. Overall, I'm glad I read it. I think I can appreciate that perspective now more than I did previously. Oh, I didn't like how few citations there were. And the last two chapters it was as if she had to get in a few zingers against capitalism and couldn't resist doing so. Those were easily the worst chapters for me. The history stuff and the comparison between the Dutch and Italy and Britain were much better.

[Mickey]

Picked up Robinson's Gilead today and also going to start Laura Van Den Berg's The Third Hotel, probably tonight.

[digster]

I just finished The Third Hotel a few nights ago, having picked it up blindly. I'm currently into Days Without End by Sebastian Barry, who's been a favorite (at times). This is one of his more celebrated books, but it's taking a bit of time for me to get drawn into it.

[knee tunes]

So this was interesting. I have lots of thoughts on it but I'll just make a few observations.

--The book seemed to be written to convince Marxists of her argument about the origins of capitalism, so I was not her intended audience but it did offer the chance to get a bit of a feel for a small range of Marxist opinions on the subject. At the same time, there's a lot of things that are simply taken as given within that school of thought that weren't defended or explained because that wasn't the point of the book. (That's not a criticism, more of an observation that it isn't an ideal starting point because it has a different purpose so it isn't concerned with defending the orthodox positions that are mentioned in passing as received wisdom.)

--She makes the argument that capitalism requires coercion which made me reflexively recoil, but she did a good enough job explaining what she meant. Insofar as having a government with a judicial system based on the principle of protecting property rights is coercive I'm not as convinced.

--I appreciated the distinctions she draws between capitalism and markets, which I found helpful in understanding why some people oppose capitalism so much. I'd like to know more of her thoughts on markets and decentralized economic decision making because she didn't seem to take the view that markets are inherently a bad thing unlike capitalism.

--She seemed to admit at times that there is something natural about markets/trade but several times she scoffed at the famous Adam Smith quote about the human propensity to truck, barter, and exchange. I found that puzzling. I'm willing to go along with her that capitalism had a distinct origin, but I still believe that trade is essentially natural and I think that when it came to Smith she acted as if he was arguing about a capitalist system being natural when I believe he was talking about markets and trade, the kind of which have happened in basically every society ever.

--The book was extremely redundant. It probably could have been 50 pages shorter without losing a single idea. I wonder if it was written with the thought that specific chapters would be assigned as readings and therefore it was necessary to repeat ideas that had been previously established.

--I'm not sure she was fair to Locke when it comes to imperialism/colonialism. She may have been, I honestly don't know. I went back and read the chapter of the Second Treatise that she referred to (without context) and didn't find it to support colonialism as she suggested. But I don't claim expertise on Locke, so that remains an open question to me. I did find everything else about her deconstruction of Lockean property rights to be pretty interesting, though.

Okay, that's more than enough. Overall, I'm glad I read it. I think I can appreciate that perspective now more than I did previously. Oh, I didn't like how few citations there were. And the last two chapters it was as if she had to get in a few zingers against capitalism and couldn't resist doing so. Those were easily the worst chapters for me. The history stuff and the comparison between the Dutch and Italy and Britain were much better.

I read all of this post

[epilogue]

Picked up Robinson's Gilead today and also going to start Laura Van Den Berg's The Third Hotel, probably tonight.

Get ready to hate both.

[Mickey]

Picked up Robinson's Gilead today and also going to start Laura Van Den Berg's The Third Hotel, probably tonight.

Get ready to hate both.

I doubt I'll hate the LVDB, my wife has read everything she's written and we're usually not far off. I expect to dislike the Robinson, and to publicly say so with great aplomb.

[epilogue]

Picked up Robinson's Gilead today and also going to start Laura Van Den Berg's The Third Hotel, probably tonight.

Get ready to hate both.

I doubt I'll hate the LVDB, my wife has read everything she's written and we're usually not far off. I expect to dislike the Robinson, and to publicly say so with great aplomb.

I was kinda making that old joke about our tastes.

Shtick aside, Third Hotel is great. I'm also a big fan of her stuff and it's my personal favorite of what I've read by her.

Gilead is fine. I liked it but didn't love it. I think it helped me with one of my own projects in a subconscious way but it's not a book that resonated or stuck with me. Which surprised me. I was told I'd love it and it left me a bit cold.

[Mickey]

Picked up Robinson's Gilead today and also going to start Laura Van Den Berg's The Third Hotel, probably tonight.

Get ready to hate both.

I doubt I'll hate the LVDB, my wife has read everything she's written and we're usually not far off. I expect to dislike the Robinson, and to publicly say so with great aplomb.

I was kinda making that old joke about our tastes.

Shtick aside, Third Hotel is great. I'm also a big fan of her stuff and it's my personal favorite of what I've read by her.

Gilead is fine. I liked it but didn't love it. I think it helped me with one of my own projects in a subconscious way but it's not a book that resonated or stuck with me. Which surprised me. I was told I'd love it and it left me a bit cold.

Interesting. My wife likes all of LVDB's stuff but thinks her stories are the best. I loved the first 25 pages.

I bought the Robinson because I finally succumbed to everyone talking about how great she is, but man--an Iowa preacher in a book that's described as being about "America's soul" or whatever? Not a big draw.

[epilogue]

To be fair, your wife seems to understand short stories and I suck at them.

[Strat]

man, don't any of you bro's read breezy mystery/thriller novels ever?

[wease]

I do

[Strat]

Hey wease

[wease]

What’s happening?

[dad]

what are y'alls' favorite breezy mystery/thriller novels?

[epilogue]

I do

What's the last great mystery/thriller you read?

[dad]

this, because the intellectual prowess of this thread is overwhelming, and i need simplicity.

[epilogue]

what are y'alls' favorite breezy mystery/thriller novels?

I know we're not supposed to like JK Rowling anymore but the Cormoran Strike books she writes under the name Robert Galbraith are great breezy mystery/thrillers. "The Cuckoo's Calling" is the first in the series. There are five so far.

Stephen King's Mr. Mercedes trilogy is pulpy and weird and so much fun.
"Case Histories" by Kate Atkinson.
"In The Woods" by Tana French (maybe not "breezy" per se but a wonderful, wonderful mystery/thriller that I can't speak highly enough about)
"The Girl on the Train" was better than expected.
"Before the Fall" by Noah Hawley is a must.

[dad]

what are y'alls' favorite breezy mystery/thriller novels?

I know we're not supposed to like JK Rowling anymore but the Cormoran Strike books she writes under the name Robert Galbraith are great breezy mystery/thrillers. "The Cuckoo's Calling" is the first in the series. There are five so far.

Stephen King's Mr. Mercedes trilogy is pulpy and weird and so much fun.
"Case Histories" by Kate Atkinson.
"In The Woods" by Tana French (maybe not "breezy" per se but a wonderful, wonderful mystery/thriller that I can't speak highly enough about)
"The Girl on the Train" was better than expected.
"Before the Fall" by Noah Hawley is a must.

my biggest beef with the bolded is I figured out the whodunit very early on, and i forced myself to keep going.

also, truth...I've only read one Stephen King book, and it's The Outsider. I must try more.

I'll check those others out.