What Are You Reading?

[David G]

Brian Klingborg - 'Wild Prey'. A very interesting novel of China, Burma, and 'bush meat'. An enjoyable enough read that I'll circle back and read his one earlier book as well.

[UCanoe_2]

Ralph H. Blum and Mark Scholz, MD. Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers: No more unnecessary biopsies, radical treatment, or loss of sexual potency. New York: Other Press (2010)



Derek J. Lomas, MD and Paras H. Shah, MD. Mayo Clinic on Prostate Health, 3rd edition: Answers to questions about prostate enlargement, inflammation, and cancer. Rochester, MN: Mayo Clinic Press (2022)



Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers gets my vote as one of the most attention-grabbing titles of all time. The Mayo Clinic book is up to date, explores the topic in greater depth, and is a frank and somber medical text for the popular reader. It has lots of pictures, which always help me understand. Mayo Clinic has definitely published the more helpful book.



Millions of men are diagnosed every year with prostate disease, some of it cancerous. Prostate cancer is the leading cause of cancer among American males. In the words of one physician quoted in Prostate Snatchers, "If you are over 70 and don't have prostate cancer, chances are you're a woman."



In the past this form of cancer had a high mortality rate, and the treatments had high rates of morbidity. An elevated level of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) led to a biopsy, which often was painful. If cancer was detected, the standard treatment was a radical prostatectomy. This surgery frequently left the patient sexually impotent, and with bladder and/or bowel incontinence.



Modern advances in diagnosis and treatment have changed this picture. The patient is subjected to fewer invasive procedures, and the side effects have been reduced. In fact, doctors have recognized that most prostate cancers grow slowly, making careful monitoring alone a viable strategy for some patients. It's a cancer guys may die with, but not die from.



So, guys, don't neglect this troublesome little plumbing fixture. Get it checked regularly, but make sure you have an up-to-date doctor who is not mired in Stone Age diagnostic and treatment procedures.

[sandtown]

Reading some more Carl Von Clausewitz, this time The Essential KVC

Militarists are the scourge of humanity.

I'll provide some analysis if anyone is interested.

[rbgarr]

Prostate cancer is the leading cause of cancer among American males. In the words of one physician quoted in Prostate Snatchers, ... don't neglect this troublesome little plumbing fixture. Get it checked regularly....

this-year-thousands-of-men-will-die-from-stubbornness-no-48817903.jpg

[David G]

Reading some more Carl Von Clausewitz, this time The Essential KVC

Militarists are the scourge of humanity.

I'll provide some analysis if anyone is interested.

Interested.

He wasn't just a militarist, though. He was a genius project manager, and a wise man.

His hammering on the difference between strategy & tactics is evergreen. His warnings about the tendency of complicated plans to unravel is worth remembering. His insistence that Type1 thinking is hugely useful, but that Type2 thinking is absolutely critical has universal application.

[john welsford]

I'm browsing through an 1892 edition of the "Admiralty seamanship manual".

Well worth the time to do that. Quite a revelation in terms of ship handling.

John Welsford

[sandtown]

Interested.

He wasn't just a militarist, though. He was a genius project manager, and a wise man. .

OK, I'll put some thoughts together - I do not claim any expertise.

[Keith Wilson]

Guy Gavriel Kay's latest, All the Seas of the World. Not Great Literature, but good fun.

[Yeadon]

C61B6882-FC11-4EA0-9CD0-6BAB000F6C2B.jpg

I'm endlessly reading entrepreneurial books. This one is interesting.

I also really like The Business of Expertise by David C. Baker.

[mike9199]

Peter May , A Winter Grave.Not sure if like it or not, cause I just started. It was my friend's recommendation , so need to get to the end.
Besides that I am reading some translations which were kindly made by these guys https://thewordpoint.com/services/ce...d-translations.
It is for a huge project at my work which had to be finished last week already and was postponed for unknown reasons.

[mike9199]

Anyone read this one?
Is it good?
Screen Shot 2023-01-23 at 15.53.00.jpg

[Norman Bernstein]

Anyone read 'Spare', Prince Harry's memoir? I thought it was terrific... extremely personal and intimate, detailed, etc.

[Hugh MacD]

I just finished, Terry Pratchett, a life with footnotes. Whether you are a Pratchett fan or not it is well worth reading.

Just started reading it and I'm finding it leads to a plethora of other reading mouseholes. Thanks for the tip And yes...Pratchett fan.

[birlinn]

James Joyce, Finnegans Wake.

Three pages worth, anyway.
Took 19 years to write- how many to read?

Shem the pen is puntifficating prattily.

[bamamick]

Re-reading Mark Helprin's 'a soldier of the great war'. It's on my list of favorites.

Mickey Lake

[sandtown]

Over the Edge of the World, on Magellan's voyage.

a bit florid in style, but seems to be very well researched.

[mizzenman]

Origins - how the earth shaped human history.

Just started it. There is something relaxing about looking backwards instead of trying to predict the furure

[stromborg]

Y'all are doing some heavy reading. I'm re-reading this:

In which the author, an accomplished seaman and artist buys a run down Friendship Sloop, rebuilds and spends the next decades sailing her. If you find a copy, buy it.

[Harry Miller]

It gives me a bit of hope.

[WX]

London Labour and the London Poor Vol1 by Henry Mayhew.

[JayInOz]

"Dreamthorp A book of essays written in the country" by Alexander Smith. First published in 1863. My copy was a gift to someone called Annie in 1910- a handwritten note inside the cover. A beautifully written, wonderfully descriptive little work. We probably have more than a hundred books of a similar vintage, and now we finally have time to read them JayInOz

[amish rob]

I just finished The Riddle of the Sands. Neat book.

[bamamick]

Guy Gavriel Kay's latest, All the Seas of the World. Not Great Literature, but good fun.

I’ve got to read this! ‘The Last Light of the Sun’ is a favorite, as well as the Fionavar books.

Mickey Lake

[sonofswen]

A Gentleman in Moscow, Amor Towles

“Spread across four decades, this is in all ways a great novel, a nonstop pleasure brimming with charm, personal wisdom, and philosophic insight…. This is a book in which the cruelties of the age can't begin to erase the glories of real human connection and the memories it leaves behind.

it lived upto the hype.

[David G]

Wanted something lightweight, so re-read some Heinlein 'The Cat Who Walked Thru Walls'.

Later Heinlein - showing him both at his oldphart tendentiously libertarian & sexist... and at his skilled best as an author.

[David G]

Paul Theroux - 'Under the Wave at Waimea'. Great fictional account of the N. Shore, big-wave, surfing culture... and good fiction as well.

[sp_clark]

Neil Gaiman's The Ocean at the End of the Road, John Higgs' William Blake vs. the World, Michael Connelly's Desert Star, and a bit of Reuel Parker's The New Cold-Molded Boatbuilding. I expect word soon that an inter-library loan of Netanyahu's BiBi I'd requested is ready for pick-up tomorrow, or the day after.

(After all it's the pits of winter here now & I have a lot of bookmarks....)

And yes...Pratchett fan.

I do (too) miss him.

[johnw]

John Locke, Economist and Social Scientist, by Karen Iversen Vaughn. Locke's 17th century ideas about economics are no longer groundbreaking, if they ever were, but there's enough biographical information I haven't found elsewhere to make the book worthwhile.

I've re-read Snuff and have nearly finished reading Raising Steam, both by Terry Pratchett. Both are about goblins. One of the bad things about many fantasy novels is reliance on the idea of evil races. You see this in roll-playing games and isekai manga as well. Pratchett's word has no evil races, just races that don't get along. Through the long arc of his novels, the main progression is to recognizing more and more fantasy races as people worthy of citizenship.

[WI-Tom]

John Locke, Economist and Social Scientist, by Karen Iversen Vaughn. Locke's 17th century ideas about economics are no longer groundbreaking, if they ever were, but there's enough biographical information I haven't found elsewhere to make the book worthwhile.

I've re-read Snuff and have nearly finished reading Raising Steam, both by Terry Pratchett. Both are about goblins. One of the bad things about many fantasy novels is reliance on the idea of evil races. You see this in roll-playing games and isekai manga as well. Pratchett's word has no evil races, just races that don't get along. Through the long arc of his novels, the main progression is to recognizing more and more fantasy races as people worthy of citizenship.

Tolkien's orcs were not so evil once they got a bit of the spotlight in The Two Towers. They were just disempowered soldiers working for a mean mean boss, really. Undereducated, perhaps, and a bit rough around the edges. But you can't really see any evil to them.

Role-playing games have been fighting that trope for years, too. Way back in the 70s, the half-orc was already a player character option in D&D. And one of the most popular heroes of D&D-inspired novels was a Drow elf (evil elf).

Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't really remember many (any?) fantasy novels that promote the idea of the evil race. Those that do feature evil races (like Tolkien's orcs, or Terry Brooks' Shannara novels) seem to immediately present an exception--the troll Keltset in Shannara, etc. etc.

The truly evil creatures tend to be one-offs, or nearly so: the Balrog, Lord Soth in the Dragonlance novels, Sauron, the Black Riders...

Interesting to think about.

Edit to add: Tolkien, in particular--his "evil races" tend to be races that have fallen under the influence of a truly evil and destructive power. Like, you know, Trump voters. The poor saps just don't get it.

Another thought: there is plenty of evil in Tolkien's elves, too. You see it much more clearly in his posthumous Children of Hurin (which I'd argue might be superior to LOTR in a lot of ways, and certainly more reliant on dark Germanic myths about fate).

Tom

[johnw]

Tolkien's orcs were not so evil once they got a bit of the spotlight in The Two Towers. They were just disempowered soldiers working for a mean mean boss, really. Undereducated, perhaps, and a bit rough around the edges. But you can't really see any evil to them.

Role-playing games have been fighting that trope for years, too. Way back in the 70s, the half-orc was already a player character option in D&D. And one of the most popular heroes of D&D-inspired novels was a Drow elf (evil elf).

Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't really remember many (any?) fantasy novels that promote the idea of the evil race. Those that do feature evil races (like Tolkien's orcs, or Terry Brooks' Shannara novels) seem to immediately present an exception--the troll Keltset in Shannara, etc. etc.

The truly evil creatures tend to be one-offs, or nearly so: the Balrog, Lord Soth in the Dragonlance novels, Sauron, the Black Riders...

Interesting to think about.

Edit to add: Tolkien, in particular--his "evil races" tend to be races that have fallen under the influence of a truly evil and destructive power. Like, you know, Trump voters. The poor saps just don't get it.

Another thought: there is plenty of evil in Tolkien's elves, too. You see it much more clearly in his posthumous Children of Hurin (which I'd argue might be superior to LOTR in a lot of ways, and certainly more reliant on dark Germanic myths about fate).

Tom

have you forgotten Tolkien's goblins from The Hobbit?

The Lord of the Rings is about a multi-racial empire built on fire and smoke facing off against the horsey set, essentially modern Britain against Arthurian Britain.

[WI-Tom]

have you forgotten Tolkien's goblins from The Hobbit?

No, I wouldn't say "forgotten." Tolkien did write this:

Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones. They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty. Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design, prisoners and slaves that have to work till they die for want of air and light. It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and also not working with their own hands more than they could help; but in those days and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is called) so far. They did not hate dwarves especially, no more than they hated everybody and everything, and particularly the orderly and prosperous; in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them. But they had a special grudge against Thorin's people, because of the war which you have heard mentioned, but which does not come into this tale; and anyway goblins don't care who they catch, as long as it is done smart and secret, and the prisoners are not able to defend themselves.

But The Hobbit is a children's book, and nowhere near in the same league as far as scope, ambition, theme, etc. as LOTR. And the orcs in LOTR are surprisingly sympathetic, as I mentioned before: little guys doing the best they can while working for a mean mean boss.

Now, this:

The Lord of the Rings is about a multi-racial empire built on fire and smoke facing off against the horsey set, essentially modern Britain against Arthurian Britain.

sounds good on the surface as a sort of glib summation, but I think it misses the mark by a fair bit.

There's no doubt that industrial development is squarely depicted as a feature of the bad guys' vision of civilization, but the nostalgia in LOTR doesn't go anywhere as far back as Arthurian myth. The hobbits, and the Shire, are the real vehicles of nostalgia--the common folk of Britain's pre-industrial era. Thomas Hardy, perhaps. Le Mort d'Arthur not so much.

Even so, nostalgia is hardly the driving force of central theme. LOTR is deeply rooted in Germanic myth: Der Ring des Nibelungen comes to mind, with power being gained at the cost of forswearing love. Children of Hurin explores fate and the tragic hero whose strength becomes the cause of his own demise. Nothing vaguely Arthurian about any of it.

But even moreso, when you get into the milieu behind LOTR--the Silmarillion, etc.--it's clear Tolkien's is not a simplistic "horsey set vs. industrialists" narrative. It's really a deep exploration of questions of mortality, immortality, the loss of Paradise, the eternal not-knowing-why-we're-here-and-why-we-die themes that have haunted humanity for as long as humanity has existed. The idea that, given Paradise, humans (and/or elves) inevitably want more, and feel cheated when they can't get it. Which, ultimately, leads to the destruction of so much that is good. Even, with Morgoth and Sauron, a Paradise Lost in a non-Christian tradition.

But most of all, LOTR and all its attached histories simply gave Tolkien a venue for the invented languages that were his real reason for writing.

All of which isn't much to the point, which is:

Fantasy doesn't settle for the trope of the evil race as much as your initial post seems to indicate. The trope has been there for a long time, but resistance to the trope has been there just as long. Pratchett is hardly the first writer to subvert it.

Tom

[johnw]

No, I wouldn't say "forgotten." Tolkien did write this:



But The Hobbit is a children's book, and nowhere near in the same league as far as scope, ambition, theme, etc. as LOTR. And the orcs in LOTR are surprisingly sympathetic, as I mentioned before: little guys doing the best they can while working for a mean mean boss.

Now, this:



sounds good on the surface as a sort of glib summation, but I think it misses the mark by a fair bit.

There's no doubt that industrial development is squarely depicted as a feature of the bad guys' vision of civilization, but the nostalgia in LOTR doesn't go anywhere as far back as Arthurian myth. The hobbits, and the Shire, are the real vehicles of nostalgia--the common folk of Britain's pre-industrial era. Thomas Hardy, perhaps. Le Mort d'Arthur not so much.

Even so, nostalgia is hardly the driving force of central theme. LOTR is deeply rooted in Germanic myth: Der Ring des Nibelungen comes to mind, with power being gained at the cost of forswearing love. Children of Hurin explores fate and the tragic hero whose strength becomes the cause of his own demise. Nothing vaguely Arthurian about any of it.

But even moreso, when you get into the milieu behind LOTR--the Silmarillion, etc.--it's clear Tolkien's is not a simplistic "horsey set vs. industrialists" narrative. It's really a deep exploration of questions of mortality, immortality, the loss of Paradise, the eternal not-knowing-why-we're-here-and-why-we-die themes that have haunted humanity for as long as humanity has existed. The idea that, given Paradise, humans (and/or elves) inevitably want more, and feel cheated when they can't get it. Which, ultimately, leads to the destruction of so much that is good. Even, with Morgoth and Sauron, a Paradise Lost in a non-Christian tradition.

But most of all, LOTR and all its attached histories simply gave Tolkien a venue for the invented languages that were his real reason for writing.

All of which isn't much to the point, which is:

Fantasy doesn't settle for the trope of the evil race as much as your initial post seems to indicate. The trope has been there for a long time, but resistance to the trope has been there just as long. Pratchett is hardly the first writer to subvert it.

Tom

You now seem to think this is only about Tolkien. I'll remind you of the post that set you off:

I've re-read Snuff and have nearly finished reading Raising Steam, both by Terry Pratchett. Both are about goblins. One of the bad things about many fantasy novels is reliance on the idea of evil races. You see this in roll-playing games and isekai manga as well. Pratchett's word has no evil races, just races that don't get along. Through the long arc of his novels, the main progression is to recognizing more and more fantasy races as people worthy of citizenship.

RPGs and isekai manga and Japanese light novels they are based on, especially, tend to focus on quests to kill monsters, usually including orc and goblins.

As for your quote about goblins, let me just highlight a couple phrases from it:

Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted.

goblins don't care who they catch, as long as it is done smart and secret, and the prisoners are not able to defend themselves.

And you say they are not portrayed as an evil race?

[WI-Tom]

You now seem to think this is only about Tolkien.

Nope. I'll remind you of the post that set you off:

Role-playing games have been fighting that trope for years, too. Way back in the 70s, the half-orc was already a player character option in D&D. And one of the most popular heroes of D&D-inspired novels was a Drow elf (evil elf).

Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't really remember many (any?) fantasy novels that promote the idea of the evil race. Those that do feature evil races (like Tolkien's orcs, or Terry Brooks' Shannara novels) seem to immediately present an exception--the troll Keltset in Shannara, etc. etc.

The truly evil creatures tend to be one-offs, or nearly so: the Balrog, Lord Soth in the Dragonlance novels, Sauron, the Black Riders...

Lots of non-Tolkien there.

RPGs and isekai manga and Japanese light novels they are based on, especially, tend to focus on quests to kill monsters, usually including orc and goblins.

No doubt there are evil races in many (not all) fantasy RPGs. I simply pointed out that, while that tendency to reinforce the trope is present, RPGs have been working to subvert that trope for a very long time. Resistance to the idea of evil races did not start with, and isn't limited to, Pratchet. Many novels also subvert that trope. D&D 5E has, I think, gone even further than AD&D from the 70s, which was doing it already. And of course individual groups and players have done the same--the moral dilemma element is common in good games. Should the paladin and cleric permit the party to kill the young orcs? If not, are they endangering their communities?

Many other good gaming groups actively subvert the idea of evil races by creating situations in which players have to work with, and recognize shared interests with, "evil" races. Other groups simply don't use simplistic "evil" races at all.

Now, why do you think I posted that bit from "The Hobbit"? Not to deny that goblins are portrayed as evil, but to agree. And to suggest that this very simplistic "evil race" portrayal is very childish and simplistic as compared to LOTR. So, this:

And you say they are not portrayed as an evil race?

Honestly, how did you get the idea I made any claim that goblins are not portrayed as an evil race? The trope is there. It's common. On this, we agree.

I am merely pointing out that resistance to the trope, and subversion of it, has been around a long long time. It didn't start with Pratchett.

This is a non-controversial claim to make. The evidence is plain to see. I'm not sure why you object to it. Perhaps it's not my ideas, but me, that you take exception to?

Tom

[Osborne Russell]

One of the bad things about many fantasy novels is reliance on the idea of evil races.

Back when, they had no other interpretive framework. Now we do. Time for a new LOTR with that in it.

The way was pointed with the last chapter, which the pinheads left out; thus missing the great point in favor of all the woof woof CGI thundering bass. That's as much as they know.

[David G]

Rereading the Harry Potter books. Such fun!