Author Topic: What Are You Reading (Read 4583 times)

The Darklord · « **on:** May 26, 2006, 06:46:03 PM »

Well just thought I'd ask, what book(s) are you reading at the moment and for any recommendations. Mainly cos we dont swop enough ideas on here at the moment.

I'm reading the Golden Fool by Robin Hobb, unfortunatly I dont want to say too much about it as its part of a whole cycle by the same auther and I dont want to spoil the fun. Suffice to say though that the Farseer trilogy which precedes it are great fantasy novels which have that ring of authenticity about them. I know that may seem like a contradiction as they are fantasy but its true. They are also some of the most realistic books to feature assasins I have read. Give em a go and tell me what you are reading too.

alec42 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2006, 02:42:22 PM »

At the moment I'm reading Edward Schillebeeckx, who is a Dutch Catholic Theologian, although I honestly can't recommend him (unless you're really into that whole Vatican II thing).

BUT! If you're looking for something a littel more interesting I cannot speak highly enough of 'The Dark Knight Returns' by Frank Miller. Even if you're not into graphic novels this is a work of genius that explores the themes of vigilantism, mental illness/obsession and social hypocrisy in an incredibly aposite and insightful way. I'm on my third re-reading.

If you can find some Betjeman and read The City, Slough and Senex you'll be peering into my murky subconscious.

I've also got the Odyssey on my bedside table which I think is essential reading for anyone who wants to write; almost all of the archetypes of modern literature are lurking in Homer somewhere.

I have also just re-read Harry Potter 6, which was stupid, as I now want to read the next book which won't be out for ages!

ps. I don't think Snape is on Voldemort's side.

The Darklord · « **Reply #2 on:** May 29, 2006, 01:47:04 PM »

Cool, the dark knight returns was so far ahead of the competition even the other batman stories got left behind. I found the karma sutra kinda dull - I'm not a medieaval indian bloke so marriage customs and when its appropriate for my wife (not married anyway) to visit her parents dont really have a lot of impact. As for the sex bit I find an active imagination and a fun playmate are a lot more inspiring!

raisedwilde · « **Reply #3 on:** June 01, 2006, 01:58:58 PM »

Read The da Vinci code in 6 days. Now hunting for somthing else.

alec42 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2006, 12:27:28 PM »

That's actually quite a coincidence, because I'm reading the Da Vinci code as we speak. It's pretty much a social necessity as mention of the word 'Theology' seems to trigger some sort of reflex in people to ask about popular trash fiction. I've spent the last year being evasive when the Da Vinci code comes up in converstation; now I am equipped to nurture the assumption that I've done a degree in the contents of the Fortean Times, which although it would have been incredibly cool, is not true.

The Darklord · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2006, 04:41:11 PM »

Having read the holy blood and the holy grail and more than my share of fortean times mags I feel in a prime position to be smug and snotty when it come to Dan Brown truth be told though I don't see the problem in someone coming up with a work of fiction based on the idea BUT why on earth try and pass it all off as original when it soooo blatantly wasnt?

alec42 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2006, 10:55:21 PM »

Yes, any implied claims to originality on his behalf are deeply dubious, but then they say that "the secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your sources". I'm more concerned about

Quote

Fact:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture and secret rituals in this novel acurate.

At best this reprents an author overstepping the boundaries between opinion, interpretation and fact; at worst this is a cynical and highly successful attempt to generate history's most lucrative form of publicity, outrage.

Having said this, Dan Brown's books follow a form familiar to anyone acquainted with Pulp/Thriller writing, and it must be admitted that he handles this type of witing with consumate skill. He may be a shameless self-publicist but I cannot accuse him of being a 'bad' writer.

raisedwilde · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2006, 04:44:16 PM »

i hadnt actually given it much thought till I saw it for 99p and couldnt resist.

fact or fiction it asks some interesting questions, such as considering Jewish men had to be married at that time and not having kids was regarded as weird. so why would Christ not marry?

Even religious theory aside its a great thriller.

The Darklord · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2006, 05:12:06 PM »

I have never heard of jewish men "having" to be married ever. I am given to understand that it would be considered wierd enough not to be married by 30 to be commented on but according to jane it may not have been that wierd at all - carpenters may have had to serve a long apprenticeship and men are fertile a lot longer than women tend to be. Apparantly it might not have been so strange for a man to be well established in his career and financially secure before taking a younger bride. Personally I'm not sure either way and as I am not a christian I'm am not sure if the descendants of christ still being wandering around today would have any real effect on the world.

raisedwilde · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2006, 01:33:31 PM »

The theory attacks the idea of Christ being celebate, divine and suggests he was a normal bloke with a kids, not the magical son of God we are led to think.

how far you got alex?

The Darklord · « **Reply #10 on:** June 11, 2006, 11:52:47 AM »

Quote

The theory attacks the idea of Christ being celebate, divine and suggests he was a normal bloke with a kids, not the magical son of God we are led to think.

how far you got alex?

Then it still makes no difference to me does it? More interesting would be if he was divine, not celebate and had kids...

Scaryfatmaniffer · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2006, 09:38:22 AM »

My angle - on that from a slightly unorthodox fundametalist kind of angle.

The whole theory of Jesus was that he was Godwho become man to take the sins of the world.
Having to be without sin, so he could take the sins of others is the fundamental here.
Being married and having children is a God ordained gift (hence not sinful) so I agree with the Darklord on this one - the only essentials for Christian Faith proper are virgin birth and ressurrection.
Traditional Christians may find the idea of Jesus with wife and family difficult to accept but from my angle it is perfectly synonymous with the man who is God - perfect man and perfect God. Surely if you didn't marry and father children you would not be the whole man?

My only difficulty would be reconciling his current descendants (if any) with divinity but that is another story.

alec42 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 16, 2006, 02:22:14 AM »

"only essentials for Christian Faith proper are virgin birth and ressurrection."

Resurrection yes, virgin birth no. What you need is immaculate conception, that is: conception without continuation of the stain of original sin. This can come from virgin birth if you equate origninal sin with sex but you really need to maintain that sex is ok and therefore go for immaculate conception as a seperate myth/faith claim to the virgin birth. This is all of course within a pretty orthodox context (and as Dklord points out is of little interest to non-christians).

The reconciliation of Jesus descendants of with the divinity of Christ isn't really a problem as surely divinity isn't genetic. Jesus was divine (if we claim this) by a mechanism divorced entirely from his biology, so descendants of Jesus would have no more claim to being divine than descendants of Columbus have to discovering America (possibly a deeply flawed analogy).

Of course, it is not at all absurd to suggest Jesus has no descendants. He may have married a sterile woman, he may have been sterile himself, his children may all have been killed or died, he may quite feasibly have been single. After all who can really claim to be a complete expert on what was and wasn't normal c.-10 - 50CE?

Sorry... Theology rant over.

mattd · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2006, 01:36:49 PM »

What worries me most here is the distinction between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth, and what might have happened in those 9 months inbetween. I can't help but think of too many dodgy conversation with Matt Halliday "advising" me on the topic...

I'd agree that the Columbus analogy is shit, I'd say it was more akin to Napoleon's descendants claiming to be master generals without any experience - being a tactician is not necessarily going to be a genetic trait. Interestingly though, I think you could claim that there is a genetic potential for being a master tactician - perhaps the descendants of Christ have the potential to become divine?
It's still not a perfect analogy, but you've gotta say that JC is a bit of a special case, it's hard to draw meaningful comparisons against anything else.

(Incidentally, I'm currently reading Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden and Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche. There's some pulpy alternative-timeline book around as well somewhere, I like to have different books for different moods)

raisedwilde · « **Reply #14 on:** June 28, 2006, 02:01:53 PM »

Oh by the way The da vinci code movie is disapointing it cant make up its mind if it wants to be murder mystery or an RE lesson. Chances to make a top notch thriller are wasted. Tom Hanks isnt comfy in the role. Ian Makellen barely needs to act. Neither does Jean Reno.

And try sitting in the pics watching a gloomy dark lit movie that hasnt figured out arty images that end up simply as you cant actually see the 1st 3rd of the movie.

And thats even if you have yet to read the novel.

If your a fan of the book:

The best bits are cut/left out re: thrilling chase across France is less than 10 minutes. Plot and intrigue cut to basic. Bishop Angarosa being 2nd important character is left on the sidelines so as not to offend the Vatican.

Silas was a do gooder as opposed to a reformed killer and robber.