The 'Currently Reading' Thread.

[Carbomb]

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, but you're labouring under the misapprehension I'm comparing them to the Soviets, who, as you've pointed out, already have more than enough in their locker.

I'm comparing them to their own vaunted status as "champions of democracy", etc. Chile's only one example; the US has done this to most of South and Central America, not to mention several countries in Africa, most notably Zaire/DRC. I might understand if they had replaced the governments they'd overthrown with more sympathetic, democratic governments (although the hypocrisy would still be there), but to replace them with murderous fascist regimes makes them absolute hypocrites of the highest order. It's all very well being supposedly pragmatic about the Cold War, but when you actually adopt anti-democratic measures, it all makes the West's positioning itself as being on the side of democracy ring rather hollow.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot this point: I dispute the implicit assumption that Blair's decision was right. He outright lied to parliament, which should never be allowed whatever the intention or the justice of the situation, and the current evidence and scenario in the Middle East is probably worse than it ever was under Hussein, and that is saying something.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Carbomb

[Gus Mears]

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, but you're labouring under the misapprehension I'm comparing them to the Soviets, who, as you've pointed out, already have more than enough in their locker.

I'm comparing them to their own vaunted status as "champions of democracy", etc. Chile's only one example; the US has done this to most of South and Central America, not to mention several countries in Africa, most notably Zaire/DRC. I might understand if they had replaced the governments they'd overthrown with more sympathetic, democratic governments (although the hypocrisy would still be there), but to replace them with murderous fascist regimes makes them absolute hypocrites of the highest order. It's all very well being supposedly pragmatic about the Cold War, but when you actually adopt anti-democratic measures, it all makes the West's positioning itself as being on the side of democracy ring rather hollow.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot this point: I dispute the implicit assumption that Blair's decision was right. He outright lied to parliament, which should never be allowed whatever the intention or the justice of the situation, and the current evidence and scenario in the Middle East is probably worse than it ever was under Hussein, and that is saying something.

Cheers for the response Carbomb. 

I'm putting it in a USSR vs. USA context, because that's what the context was. I don't think that that's misapprehension, so much as necessity for understanding. I feel that not bench-marking US actions to those of the only other realistic alternative leader at the time removes a lot of the importance within decision making and why things happened. I also think ignoring context opens up a bunch of what we would probably all deem 'better/nicer' actions that basically were impossible within that very context. I agree America certainly were hypocritical as 'champions of democracy' in absolute terms, but they were relatively a hell of a lot closer to that label than the alternative. I think that's a really important distinction to make.

I think it's admirable to want the US in the Cold War to have been true bastions of Wilsonian self-determination and the like. Whether it was possible is a question that I wouldn't answer in the affirmative though. It also raises myriad other problems. Would this have meant isolationism? Would a noninterventionist foreign policy was politically viable in the West? What would not challenging the Soviet Union have meant globally? Would the situation have been better in Zaire for example under a Soviet backed government? That last question applies to a lot of the states in all honesty. Would an avowed democratic regime have lasted very long in countries that had never experienced long term democracy? Would the Cold War have ended when it did? 

"It's all very well being supposedly pragmatic about the Cold War". It isn't just the Cold War, it's the entirety of foreign policy. It is horrible, chaotic and it absolutely isn't idealistic. It's shades of grey, but I do think that outlining how black those relative shades are matters.  The west was on the side of democracy, but not in an absolute sense, is essentially my view, which I've blathered out at dullard length, so I will stop!

I also didn't mean to say Blair's decision was right, or imply it. It wasn't. 

One thing on Zaire, it was a proper proxy war and born out of independence/ethnic and other issues, so while it opens it's whole new Pandora's Box of US action/inaction, it isn't that similar to Chile In my view. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by Gus Mears

[Carbomb]

I get what you're saying, and I really do understand the context, but I have to admit I'm not of the viewpoint that the alternative was guaranteed to be worse. The Soviets themselves had a lot to answer for, but it didn't necessarily follow that every socialist government was on course to follow them; one can even point to Tito's Yugoslavia as an example of a Communist state that didn't toe the Moscow line, and was nowhere near as bad as the USSR for depredation. Cuba's another, despite what the press here likes to trot out. And Greece, despite being socialist and friendly with Moscow, was nevertheless a member of NATO and part of the Western bloc.

The entirety of US foreign policy is one of the reasons I take the position I do, which isn't just that the US has been bad at instituting democracy internationally, but that in actual fact it only pursues its own interests, at the expense of democracy where its inconvenient to them, and not just in a war/cold war scenario: it's the wider context of what the US has done not just in the Cold War, but in the era since the West won it, that prompts me to argue this. The adherence to the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Chagos Islands issue, the intervention only in areas where US interests are threatened, the continual pro-Israeli intervention in the Middle East, etc. all contribute to my overall view that in actuality the USA is not a force for good in this world. Between the US, China, Russia, and the second-tier states like the UK, France, and so on, there are times when I wish I could just get off this fucking planet.

As to Zaire, the conditions may have been different, but for me it doesn't change the fact that the US actively intervened in the sovereign affairs of a nation's democratic process and instituted an effectively fascist government that went on to make its people suffer. As far as I'm concerned, they were really no better than the Soviets or Mao; the scale, for me, is irrelevant.

[Chest Rockwell]

Finally got around to starting Charlie and Me by @Astro Hollywood    after having bought it when it came out. It's great so far - that first chapter was a belter and had me totally hooked in from the off. It is a bit weird though that the protagonist's voice in my head flits between an American accent and the usual bum willy head voice.that I have for reading Millard's writing.

Really glad to have him back doing fiction again though.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Chest Rockwell

[NoUseforaUsername]

Just finished "The Real Costanza" about the guy George Costanza was partially based on, Michael Costanza.

At 128 pages it's a breeze. 

The real Costanza is a pretty funny guy and we get a nice window into what Jerry Seinfeld was like before he became famous and a few interesting anecdotes post-Seinfeld fame. It's quite poignant, too, reading about the negative impact having such a schlub named after him had on Michael, allied with the realisation that Jerry had incorporated dozens of real life stories involving Michael into storylines.

As the book ends, it's quite depressing reading how they gradually drift apart as Jerry's fame continues to blow up and he no longer has time for old friends.

 

[NoUseforaUsername]

Almost finished Camino Island by John Grisham. It's pretty pedestrian compared to his usual page turners. Started well but hasn't kept that pace at all.

[NoUseforaUsername]

Reading Bazaar of Bad Dreams by Stephen King.

It's a collection of short stories and I've just finished the best one, "Bad Little Kid".

Very creepy; one that stays with you.. At 40 odd pages long, that one is worth checking out.

A thing I think that always holds King back is the corny, folksy colloquialisms that frequently pepper his dialogue. He's a great storyteller, but people don't fucking talk like Kathy Bates in Misery, like most of his characters are apt to do.

Edited April 11, 2018 by NoUseforaUsername

[Onyx2]

9 hours ago, NoUseforaUsername said:

A thing I think that always holds King back

Yes; if he could only change that he'd finally hit the big time. 

[BomberPat]

Working my way through a book of Ursula Le Guin's non-fiction.

This sort of book (collections of forewords, transcribed speeches/lectures, short articles and whatnot) can be a bit hit and miss, but so far I've enjoyed all of it. Some bits are interesting in that they'll have the main body of an article written in the '60s or '70s, and then add footnotes by Le Guin in the '80s or later, saying what she'd have changed or how her views are different now. Mostly, though, it's just one of the best examples of writing about writing that I've read.

There's a couple of bits of her talking about writing/creating art for children, which is a topic I've been fascinated by for years, and she writes on it about as well as anyone - only possible exception being Hayao Miyazaki

[NoUseforaUsername]

2 hours ago, Onyx2 said:

Yes; if he could only change that he'd finally hit the big time. 

He may be more respected by literary critics.

It's frustrating because you will be totally engrossed by the story but then a piece of bad dialogue will take you out of it.

Case in point. In the book I'm reading ATM there is a scene where a defense lawyer, a priest and a district attorney are present for an execution. The lawyer and priest are talking and the D.A. turns around and tells them to "zip their lips."

I mean, come on.

Sometimes this happens all through his books. Sometimes, like in the aforementioned book, he keeps it to a bare minimum.

[David]

I may be a little late to the dance, but I'm currently reading Ready Player One, and I've found it to be fantastic thus far (although I'm only a few chapters in). Figured I'd read the book before seeing the movie so I'm well placed to moan about the movie not being as good as the book!

[Carbomb]

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

There's a couple of bits of her talking about writing/creating art for children, which is a topic I've been fascinated by for years, and she writes on it about as well as anyone - only possible exception being Hayao Miyazaki

Not to ignore what you've written about LeGuin (was an interesting post, and I've been getting into non-fiction a fair bit recently), but I didn't know Miyazaki had written something about that. That's great, thanks for the reccos.

 

On the Stephen King subject, I was discussing with a friend the other day that, in terms of individual titles, he must be the most cinematised author ever. If not, I imagine only Agatha Christie would beat him. Off the top of my head:

Carrie
Firestarter
Christine
Misery
Needful Things
It
The Shining
The Mist
The Running Man
The Green Mile
The Shawshank Redemption
Cujo
Pet Sematary
The Dark Tower
Creepshow

I'm sure there's a load more I've forgotten.

[BomberPat]

There's a couple of collections of Miyazaki's writing - Starting Point, and Turning Point - in which he talks a lot about the creative process. Really interesting reading.

[Carbomb]

Thanks for that, am definitely going to check those out.

[Chest Rockwell]

2 hours ago, David said:

I may be a little late to the dance, but I'm currently reading Ready Player One, and I've found it to be fantastic thus far (although I'm only a few chapters in). Figured I'd read the book before seeing the movie so I'm well placed to moan about the movie not being as good as the book!

I've read a lot of complaints abbot the book saying it's trashy / twilight for nerdy boys, etc. And fair enough it does rely on some cliches. But it's just damn good fun!

Edited April 12, 2018 by Chest Rockwell