Books

[peener weener]

Roald Dahl! I've only ever read his children's works (The BFG, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, etc.), but he's great.

Currently, I'm reading Golden Arches East: McDonad's in East Asia - James. L. Watson

You should read his adult works. It is a twisted kind of black humor, in a way. It is good, believe me.

[Le Communard]

Yes, I’m reading Lacan’s The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis along with Foccoult’s Madness and Civilization, and Žižek’s The Sublime Object of Ideology. Not that, of course, any of you plebs know anything about Continental Philosophy or the ontological principles of neo-psychoanalysis, but that’s not my problem. Your concepts of reactionary teleology amount to little more than intellectual masturbation. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any of you could even unpack the simplest dialectic.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Le Communard

[peener weener]

Yes, I’m reading Lacan’s The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis along with Foccoult’s Madness and Civilization, and Žižek’s The Sublime Object of Ideology. Not that, of course, any of you plebs know anything about Continental Philosophy or the ontological principles of neo-psychoanalysis, but that’s not my problem. Your concepts of reactionary teleology amount to little more than intellectual masturbation. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any of you could even unpack the simplest dialectic.

That... would probably be fun, actually.

Also, I hate my brother so much. I walk into his room and look at his bookshelves. In the first two piles, I see a Shakespare compilation, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Space Oddyssey: 2001.

MOTHERFUCKERRR

Needless to say, I stole them all, and will read in short.

[Le Communard]

That... would probably be fun, actually.

You wouldn't say that if knew:

There are statements, for example, that are quite obviously concerned and have been from a date that is easy enough to determine - with political economy, or biology, or psychopathology; there are others that equally obviously belong to those age-old continuities known as grammar or medicine. But what are these unities? How can we say that the analysis of headaches carried out by Willis or Charcot belong to the same order of discourse? That Petty's inventions are in continuity with Neumann's econometry? That the analysis of judgement by the Port-Royal grammarians belongs to the same domain as the discovery of vowel gradations in the Indo-European languages? What, in fact, are medicine, grammar, or political economy? Are they merely a retrospective regrouping by which the contemporary sciences deceive themselves as to their own past? Are they forms that have become established once and for all and have gone on developing through time? Do they conceal other unities? And what sort of links can validly be recognised between all these statements that form, in such a familiar and insistent way, such an enigmatic mass?

First hypothesis - and the one that, at first sight, struck me as being the most likely and the most easily proved: statements different in form, and dispersed in time, form a group if they refer to one and the same object. Thus, statements belonging to psychopathology all seem to refer to an object that emerges in various ways in individual or social experience and which may be called madness. But I soon realised that the unity of the object 'madness' does not enable one to individualise a group of statements, and to establish between them a relation that is both constant and describable. There are two reasons for this. It would certainly be a mistake to try to discover what could have been said of madness at a particular time by interrogating the being of madness itself, its secret content, its silent, self-enclosed truth; mental illness was constituted by all that was said in all the statements that named it, divided it up, described it, explained it, traced its developments, indicated its various correlations, judged it, and possibly gave it speech by articulating, in its name, discourses that were to be taken as its own. Moreover, this group of statements is far from referring to a single object, formed once and for all, and to preserving it indefinitely as its horizon of inexhaustible ideality; the object presented as their correlative by medical statements of the seventeenth or eighteenth century is not identical with the object that emerges in legal sentences or police action; similarly, all the objects of psychopathological discourses were modified from Pinel or Esquirol to Bleuler: it is not the same illnesses that are at issue in each of these cases; we are not dealing with the same madmen.

~Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge

Edited October 28, 2010 by Le Communard

[Griulf]

The Discworld books I can find in the library.

[Flashpoint_1230]

You wouldn't say that if knew:

There are statements, for example, that are quite obviously concerned and have been from a date that is easy enough to determine - with political economy, or biology, or psychopathology; there are others that equally obviously belong to those age-old continuities known as grammar or medicine. But what are these unities? How can we say that the analysis of headaches carried out by Willis or Charcot belong to the same order of discourse? That Petty's inventions are in continuity with Neumann's econometry? That the analysis of judgement by the Port-Royal grammarians belongs to the same domain as the discovery of vowel gradations in the Indo-European languages? What, in fact, are medicine, grammar, or political economy? Are they merely a retrospective regrouping by which the contemporary sciences deceive themselves as to their own past? Are they forms that have become established once and for all and have gone on developing through time? Do they conceal other unities? And what sort of links can validly be recognised between all these statements that form, in such a familiar and insistent way, such an enigmatic mass?

First hypothesis - and the one that, at first sight, struck me as being the most likely and the most easily proved: statements different in form, and dispersed in time, form a group if they refer to one and the same object. Thus, statements belonging to psychopathology all seem to refer to an object that emerges in various ways in individual or social experience and which may be called madness. But I soon realised that the unity of the object 'madness' does not enable one to individualise a group of statements, and to establish between them a relation that is both constant and describable. There are two reasons for this. It would certainly be a mistake to try to discover what could have been said of madness at a particular time by interrogating the being of madness itself, its secret content, its silent, self-enclosed truth; mental illness was constituted by all that was said in all the statements that named it, divided it up, described it, explained it, traced its developments, indicated its various correlations, judged it, and possibly gave it speech by articulating, in its name, discourses that were to be taken as its own. Moreover, this group of statements is far from referring to a single object, formed once and for all, and to preserving it indefinitely as its horizon of inexhaustible ideality; the object presented as their correlative by medical statements of the seventeenth or eighteenth century is not identical with the object that emerges in legal sentences or police action; similarly, all the objects of psychopathological discourses were modified from Pinel or Esquirol to Bleuler: it is not the same illnesses that are at issue in each of these cases; we are not dealing with the same madmen.

~Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge

Oh my goodness... What is that?!?! It sounds like a good way to give someone an aneurysm. I mean, I consider myself to be intelligent, and yet I'd never want to read that. EVER.

[Le Communard]

Oh my goodness... What is that?!?! It sounds like a good way to give someone an aneurysm. I mean, I consider myself to be intelligent, and yet I'd never want to read that. EVER.

That, good sir, is Theory. Welcome to college.

[мпд]

Can theory be a little shorter?

[Le Communard]

Can theory be a little shorter?

Frankly, then it wouldn't be Theory anymore.

[Flashpoint_1230]

Theory? Is that required? I'm taking Sociology right now and will take Philosophy next semester (I'm in high school), and I know that those are intro-level college courses, but please tell me that Theory isn't required until at least Sophomore year... Of course, I may have enough credits to enter college as a Sophomore. Oh my goodness. I'm scared.

[Le Communard]

Theory? Is that required? I'm taking Sociology right now and will take Philosophy next semester (I'm in high school), and I know that those are intro-level college courses, but please tell me that Theory isn't required until at least Sophomore year... Of course, I may have enough credits to enter college as a Sophomore. Oh my goodness. I'm scared.

Facetiousness aside, most Theory is the realm of upper division courses, which you'll probably only take in your own (humanities) major. In reality, Theory with a capital T is not really that important, and most of its Marxist, Nihilist, or Post-modernist quack anyways. On the other hand, in context it makes a lot more sense, although it really isn't any easier to read.

[lolDeath]

"Be wordy"

[Guy Starwind]

Le Comte de Monte-Cristo is my all time favorite book! :D However, I hate the newest movie they made !!!

Second(and a close second) would be Les Misérables

[kasumi]

Currently reading Brave Story by Miyuki Miyabe, and close to finishing Mockingjay of the Hunger Games Trilogy, and Mata Hari by Remi Silado.

[Death']

I've been reading "Oblivion" by David Foster Wallace for the past month. (I'm a slow reader. & still not finished. :P)

I thought he was really confusing at first, with his run on sentences and technical vocabulary and whatnot, but now I've pretty much fallen in love with him. Oblivion is really depressing and makes you cynical about the entire human race. Probably isn't for everybody.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Read "Welcome to the NHK", it was fantastic. From what I've heard about the anime/manga, they are far different, and I would say, inferior. I would highly recommend this novel to everyone, but since I know not everyone will actually enjoy it, I'll just narrow it right down now by explaining that the main character of the novel has at least one major psychological condition (and it's pretty clear), and uses a variety of drugs throughout the novel. I feel that these add a great deal to the story, but others may be turned off immediately.

[Inactive Account]

Haven't had much time to read this semester and am looking for a few books for winter break (besides Les Miserables, I still owe that one about 1,000 pages.) Anyone got any generally interesting recommendations?

Hm, I also need to finish that Jasper Fforde book I failed to complete on the drive out here...

[Original Alear]

Read "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe and find out all about my awesome namesake!

[Ashadelo]

I read the bible everyday and currently reading Warcraft: Cycle of Hatred

[lolDeath]

Are you being serious? Either way that's pretty funny to me.

for the topic, I just finished me some Paradiso

[peener weener]

Just finished reading 2001: A Space Odyssey the other day.

Holy fuck.

[Le Communard]

On a bit of an East Asia kick lately. Currently working though The Analects as well as the I Ching. Also, just starting Postwar Japan as History, Revolution and Subjectivity in Postwar Japan, Organizing the Spontaneous: Citizen Protest in Postwar Japan, The Anime Machine, and Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams: Japanese Science Fiction from Origins to Anime.

[Original Alear]

On a bit of an East Asia kick lately. Currently working though The Analects as well as the I Ching. Also, just starting Postwar Japan as History, Revolution and Subjectivity in Postwar Japan, Organizing the Spontaneous: Citizen Protest in Postwar Japan, The Anime Machine, and Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams: Japanese Science Fiction from Origins to Anime.

If you're reading chinese stuff, you should do Shi Ji. Guy who wrote them got castrated, he's a real man.

[kasumi]

On a bit of an East Asia kick lately. Currently working though The Analects as well as the I Ching. Also, just starting Postwar Japan as History, Revolution and Subjectivity in Postwar Japan, Organizing the Spontaneous: Citizen Protest in Postwar Japan, The Anime Machine, and Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams: Japanese Science Fiction from Origins to Anime.

Maybe you would want to try Natsume Soseki's and Haruki Murakami's works, which are fairly easy to get access to. If you can get Kanbayashi Chohei's Hadae no Shita (Under the Skin) too, I'll recommend that one too.

I've been reading Gollding's Lord of the Flies - I'm tons behind classic literatures, plus Toshokan series by Hiro Arikawa.

[Original Alear]

Maybe you would want to try Natsume Soseki's and Haruki Murakami's works, which are fairly easy to get access to. If you can get Kanbayashi Chohei's Hadae no Shita (Under the Skin) too, I'll recommend that one too.

Ya, all of these are good. (I haven't heard of Kanbayashi actually)

I recommend Murakami's Underground, it's about the sarin (sp?) gas attacks on subways in Japan. Pretty grim but interesting stuff in it. Of course, it's not like it's the most typical Murakami story, I'm sure most others would go with Wind Up Bird Chronicle or Kafka on the Shore to start.

Edited December 11, 2010 by SeverIan