|
|
Take it all the way up to the finish on 2003 with this thread, then.
Cryptonomicon 'overwritten'? Blasphemy! I loved the style of the book, actually, and almost wished it was more descriptive, cos I just wanted it to go on and on.
I've got "Quicksilver" by my bedside now, waiting to start. Probably won't get tackled until my next major airplane journey. It's interesting that Stephenson has chosen to go historical with Quicksilver - kind of what he was hinting at with Cryptonomicon, I guess. Except this time its alchemy. Should be a very Barbelith read, anyhow. I'm all for sci-fi authors doing history - they always seem to do it well, eg "Days of Rice and Salt"...
My last major airplane journey involved reading Vernon God Little this year's booker prize winner cover to cover. Nice book, but really, there are so many books like this, that it seems an awful choice for the booker. The milieu of Texas small town full of fuck-ups is straight out of Joe Lansdale, Carl Hiaasen et al. The hero, a confused teenager trying hard to get by and conspired against by fate is identical to the central character in Tietam Brown and loads of other books I can't think of just now. I mean, it's funny, but the targets (fat people, consumerism, reality tv culture) are pretty easy ones and it just didn't seem that insightful or fresh to me.
The best thing I'm reading just now is John Gray - "Straw dogs". I've been meaning to get this for ages and it really hasn't disappointed. Gray basically takes apart all aspects of culture and philosophy which rely on a needlessly anthropocentric view of the world. He constantly exposes the assumption that humans are different and special, and takes aim at the idea of 'progress' in general, continuing the thread he started in "Al quaeda and what it means to be modern". The book is not perfect - Gray has an irritating habit of dismissing ideas because they are popular or reflect religious beliefs, and he makes a lot of assertions about language and neuroscience that I think are just plain wrong. But it is a great polemic, genuinely thought-provoking and really challenges a lot of assumptions you didn't know you had.
Other stuff I'm reading: "You can't eat GNP", "101 experiments in philosophy" by Roger Pol Droit |
|
|