What are you reading at the moment?

I'm reading an article on the Wabi Sabi aesthetic and Shamans Through Time edited by Jeremy Narby and Francis Huxley.

"The poisoner of Ptah", PC Dougherty.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. The book is good, but overly filled with assertions not backed by proof! But then again, its pretty tough to back anything we as a race know nothing about, i.e., the beginning of life. It's all educated guess at this point.

Also, I felt the book to be long-winded on its explanations, so much so, that one feels treated like an idiot: "You don't have to explain it to me this many times you know. I get what you're saying..."

An Echo in the Bone
Diana Gabaldon

I've come this far in the series. I'm determined to see it through.

SirLicksAalot said:

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. The book is good, but overly filled with assertions not backed by proof! But then again, its pretty tough to back anything we as a race know nothing about, i.e., the beginning of life. It's all educated guess at this point.

Also, I felt the book to be long-winded on its explanations, so much so, that one feels treated like an idiot: "You don't have to explain it to me this many times you know. I get what you're saying..."

Click to expand...

THE SELFISH GENE is a classic of socio-biology nee evolutionary psychology. Its thesis: Organisms exploit environmental niches and each other, offends virtually every perfesser and Usual Suspect and environ-MENTAL-ist.

Im reading Traitors Gate by Kate Elliott it is the 3rd book in her crossroads series

JAMESBJOHNSON said:

THE SELFISH GENE is a classic of socio-biology nee evolutionary psychology. Its thesis: Organisms exploit environmental niches and each other, offends virtually every perfesser and Usual Suspect and environ-MENTAL-ist.

Click to expand...

Actually, the book was recommended to me by 3 former professors. I didn't even know the author 'til then--but I trusted my professors, so here I am.

Dawkins dealt with a supposedly counter-intuitive notion of altruism when put into the evolutionary context where the principal unit of selection is the gene, not the individual. Today, this is ho-hum theme, anyone who've taken introductory Biology in college pretty much gets it, but I would imagine this assertion must be radical back in 1976.

He he he. If by "Usual Suspect," you meant the Creationists or its modern incarnate Intelligent Design group, heck yes! I have to admit--I feel for them. It's a losing battle, sad thing is that they just don't know it yet; the evidences are piling up, and they're backed into a corner. It's a painful thing. It's like "Santa Claus is not real" all over again. (That actually broke me when I first heard that).

Three Cups of Tea
Greg Morenson and David Oliver Relin

- book 7 of stephen king's 'dark tower' series
- the beautiful and the damned, f.s. fitzgerald
- the end of the affair, graham greene

2 outta 3 are good

A comics day yesterday, with some hits and misses.

Alan Moore proved to be decidedly under-whelming. His writing is not atrocious or stupid; far from it. So long as I compare him to old-school mainstream American comics, I can see why he's acclaimed as the guy who transformed the medium.

When you read V for Vendetta today, though, it seems terribly…unremarkable. It doesn't dazzle with ideas, nor does it do so with graphic solutions. The story is okay, despite some juvenile political pontificating, but not so good as to enthuse at the lack of either visual wonders or strong characters. A couple of scenes that get under the characters' skin make it worth reading, but mostly you're supposed to be moved by the very idea of the totalitarian world the story depicts—and we've all read much better takes on that. V is solidly enough executed, but to my mind, lacks any memorable twists of its own.

Watchmen I've just begun, but I can already tell Moore just doesn't agree with me. A different story, a different graphic artist, yet Moore's writing and sequencing give me the same impression of a not very exciting déjà vu. Possibly his stuff isn't aging too well, and possibly he's just not my cup of tea. A bit of both, I think.

Hypothetical Lizard is a sweet little accidental pick that makes me part from Moore on not entirely lukewarm terms. It's a story about love and betrayal in a fantasy-world brothel. While based on Alan Moore's eponymous story, the graphic novel script was done by someone else. That and a stunning artist lead to an enchanting read. A few blemishes in the conception of the story bothered me not at all, as I was too busy basking in the beauty and lyricism of the images. Lizard is in no way a groundbreaking story, but it is an hour of dreamy, moving, subtly erotic visual delight.

Asterios Polyp, not by Moore, takes all my praise after all. The story is of a know-it-all professor of architecture who has to come to terms with the messiness of life. David Mazzucchelli, the writer and the artist, brings it to life in a cartoonist's style, with lots of unique solutions and painstaking perfectionism. The unsatisfying resolution stops me from calling it the masterpiece the reviewers are calling it everywhere around, but even so, this graphic novel packs so much originality, wit, and humor it just has to be recommended.

Unseen Academicals by the mighty Terry Pratchett

Aesop's Fables

Handley_Page said:

The art of Electronics. Horowitz & Hill.

Click to expand...

A classic. Seriously.

lesbiaphrodite said:

Aesop's Fables

Click to expand...

I read them too, I really liked them. They had real humour. It's surprising what a light touch the ancient Greek writers could have. Even some of Plato's dialogs abound with humour.

Ngaio Marsh: Last Ditch

Russell Thorndike: Dr Syn on the High Seas

Thorne Smith: Topper Takes A Trip

J T Edson: Troubled Range

and for light relief:

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

Og

SirLicksAalot said:

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. The book is good, but overly filled with assertions not backed by proof! But then again, its pretty tough to back anything we as a race know nothing about, i.e., the beginning of life. It's all educated guess at this point.

Also, I felt the book to be long-winded on its explanations, so much so, that one feels treated like an idiot: "You don't have to explain it to me this many times you know. I get what you're saying..."

Click to expand...

The concept is not at all obvious -- and it's still contentious. I was a student when it came out, and, along with many many others, was most impressed by the throwaway chapter where Dawkins coins the term "Meme" and discusses memetic selection and mutation, albeit slightly flippantly

I've always said that any book worth reading is worth re-reading, and in keeping with that, I'm currently reading Roy Porter's London -- A Social History, Zangwill's The King of Schnorrers, and George Borrow's Lavengro. All three books make vivid the rich blend of vibrant cultures that makes the English people.

Umberto Eco's Kant and the Platypus; started it a few years ago, but let it slide. Need to get back to it.

NoJo said:

The concept is not at all obvious -- and it's still contentious. I was a student when it came out, and, along with many many others, was most impressed by the throwaway chapter where Dawkins coins the term "Meme" and discusses memetic selection and mutation, albeit slightly flippantly

Click to expand...

my jaw almost dropped when I you stated: "...impressed ... meme ...". Huh??
The assertion is much too open for "alternative" interpretation and the fact that the unit itself, meme, is not definitely quantifiable leads it stuck to the realm of sociology not biology. That's the politically correct me . . . but

it's hard to argue against the idea. We are all genetically equal, and any chance of it being not true, is moot since airplanes have made it easy for us to virtually fuck anyone, anywhere, at whichever timezone the other person is in. In some cases, it need not even be a person [grin]

but there has to be something unique to a group that leads it to thrive and lead healthy lives compared to others. Genetics? No. Nature? No way! what is it then?? Culture? Hmmm. . .maybe.

it's basically the same thing as saying better parents make better and more successful children. It is exclusive within the community, not subject to extrinsic factors, and therefore a constant. . . How I wish there is a way to measure it.

like what Michael Dell said--founder of Dell computers--"If you can measure it, you can improve it."

Lady_Fiona said:

Unseen Academicals by the mighty Terry Pratchett

Click to expand...

An excellent gift received here also:

Currently reading:

The Blood Detective - Dan Waddell
The Prophet - Kahlil Gilbran
A Brief History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson

plus some new regulatory rules in force from 01/01/10 and wondering how the hell they got through consultation!

Drama, Metadrama & Perception by Richard Hornby

reading

Neil Stephenson ANathem