What are you reading or what books have you read or heard about? (Part TWELVE) Ongoing general thread. Showing 801-850 of 2,793

[Nina]

Did think seeing the Shakespeare plays every night for a six week run helped me understand whether I wanted to or not. I would go to sleep listening the the Bard's words.

[Nina]

Good comments. I once had three haiku's published in an International Literary magazine and that was fun.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina wrote: "I never thought about the book covers being different from Literary novels from the genre type. I did know about the former being character driven and the latter plot driven. Interesting isn't it?"

Nina, I never noticed the difference in book covers either. Perhaps they are referring to the covers on the "bodice rippers". LOL

I'll tell you a funny story. The first bawdy book I ever read was The Postman Always Rings Twice. I was a young teen-ager. When I got to the part about the bodice ripping, I was so upset that I threw the book in the garbage, thinking I had committed a grave sin by reading something like that! The Church trained me well. LOL

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina wrote: "Good comments. I once had three haiku's published in an International Literary magazine and that was fun."

I had a poem published in our church bulletin once. LOL

In 1974 I had a poem published in the official magazine of United States Power Squadron, "The Ensign".

Nothing great. Just fun.

[Jim]

Joy H. wrote: "Jim wrote: "...Funny, I like to read the topics in forward order. I think I'd get confused reading them in reverse order...."

Actually, I read them in the correct order. There are usually just one or two new posts, so I scroll down, then back up. It's more efficient since the last page is displayed immediately rather than making it 2 steps. It's a real time saver at home with my slow Internet connection.

[Jim]

Joy H. wrote: "Jim, you are so well-read, it just bowls me over! ..."

Not nearly as well read as I would like! There are so many fantastic books out there & so much to explore. I recently took a survey of 100 Banned Classics:
http://www.listchallenges.com/banned-...
I've only read 55 of them & would like to read another 2 dozen or so eventually, but I keep finding other books I want to read more. It seems I can't pick up one book without it triggering several others. It might be more books by the same author or, in the case of the current one I'm listening to, explore areas that the author touches on.

Have you ever listened to any of The Great Courses or other lecture series? Some are pretty good. I think I've listened to several. I'm currently listening to 12 Essential Scientific Concepts by Indre Viskontas, a very smart & talented lady. While she's really interesting & full of facts, she's also led me to several questions & then left me hanging which frustrates me to no end, so I'll have to go looking for more articles &/or books to fill in the gaps.

For instance, what is life &/or its purpose? Her first 2 lectures are supposed to address this, but she never really gets into the meat of it. I realize there is no simple answer, but I'd like to hear better definitions & then explore them, especially where they meet the edges of our knowledge & definitions.

For instance, some have defined life & its purpose as propagating DNA, but does that mean a virus is alive? They spread their DNA & some think they should have their own branch on the tree of life, but others think they should be part of the branches of those organisms they use to propagate themselves. Is that a symbiosis? I don't think so by the way I understand the definition because they have no life on their own (a prerequisite) but I'm not sure where that line is drawn. I'm not sure anyone else is either, but I'd like to know their reasoning.

What constitutes 'life' & 'death' in simple colony animals such as sponges & jelly fish? I would think the definition has to take into account that complex organisms, such as humans, are not discrete entities, either. About 90% of our cells (10% of our mass) are bacteria. When a human dies, that 90% live on, at least for a while, some for a long while.

Another interesting question raised by the above definition are who domesticated whom in the case of wheat or corn? Once localized grasses, they have used or worked with us to spread their DNA all over the globe. This was brought up in another book I read about a year ago (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind) & has been haunting me. As a species, we tend to be egocentric & think our intelligence automatically puts us on top. (This is especially evident in the Abrahamic religions, for instance.) But, are we really?

What makes a successful organism? Horseshoe crabs have been around pretty much unchanged since the Ordovician period 450 million years ago. They've survived 5 major extinction events that killed over 3/4 (75%-96%) of the species on the planet each time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...
While they're having a rough time now, they might still make it. I wonder if homo sapiens will be able to make the same boast. We've only been around for about 1/10,000th as long.

Are we doomed to Achilles' Choice? I think so, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing. We're simply the latest species of hominid & have out-competed several other species, killing off the last other one (Homo floresiensis) as little as 12,000 years ago. What will supplant ours?

Our species retains a lot of weird, neat, & limiting factors. Indre Viskontas mentions some of these in the lectures I'm listening to now in relation to the way our brains work. Nicholas Wade explores it in broader strokes in several books, but I've only been able to find one of his in audio so far. I'd really like to find The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures & A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History.

Kurt Vonnegut, a fiction author, says we're something like badly behaving bags of chemicals. We're getting close to being able to upload our minds to computers. If we manage to stuff our consciousness into a machine, will we retain our imagination & free will? How much of our thinking is based on physical factors?

A lot to think about & the more I look into it, the more I find we're having trouble even defining many of the basics. I guess I won't get bored.
;-)

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "Not nearly as well read as I would like! There are so many fantastic books out there & so much to explore. ... I guess I won't get bored. ;-) "

Jim, I doubt if you'll ever be bored. Your curiosity will keep you interested.

You covered a lot of territory in your post #806. I'm still in the territory with A God That Could Be Real: Spirituality, Science, and the Future of Our Planet by Nancy Abrams. I don't buy her idea that GOD will "emerge". I see too many flaws in the "emergence" theories. As examples, she says that the economic market "emerged" with its own rules and the media "emerged" with its own rules, as if they were actual entities. I don't see them as entities. I see them as circumstances.

[Jim]

Joy H. wrote: "Jim, I doubt if you'll ever be bored. Yo..."

Thanks. I hope not.

As for Abrams, I can see her point on both economies & media being entities in the same way governments & religious organizations are. They're not circumstances, but more like Frankenstein's monster. We created them & they have taken on a life of their own.

Money is a shared myth, like both the preceding examples, & it creates economies. Those economies are fairly independent of those that spawned them & they've linked with others. Oh, we have people who think they understand it & can make it do what they want - that's the myth the Treasury of each nation operates on - but in reality no one really does as evidenced by the conflicting, partisan opinions every time there's a major change. Watch it dip & surge in ways the pundits only expected after it happens. The fact is, they can only guess at what will happen when one economy moves & then watch in fascination as the ripples spread throughout interconnected ones.

The media is a bit more of a stretch, but still viable within the current definition, especially now when there are so many vying for the same crumbs with very few rules except getting attention. In the middle of the last century, we had a few giants in the industry backed by strict social rules & fairly good researchers. While there were some outliers, they were mostly fairly responsible businesses. Now everyone with access to the Internet (everyone) seems to be posting every fool thing they want & even the major news outlets are jostling to be the first to put out misinformation. They're a mob mentality, an insane entity.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "... As for Abrams, I can see her point on both economies & media being entities in the same way governments & religious organizations are. ..."

Jim, I still don't see how God can "emerge". I wonder how Abrams would define "God".

[Jim]

IMO, 'god' is a null word, Joy. It has no definitive meaning.

It might help to think about 'god' the way folks think of Santa Claus. As a child, he is an entity, but as we age our reason kicks in & 'it' becomes an idea, an aspiration. Santa kept changing for me, especially once I was a parent myself. It became more of a unifying, yet nebulous, idea for the spirit of giving & the delight of children, a basis for entertainment & sharing. It has been influenced by societal forces as well. Times changed & so did Santa, but it's never been exactly the same for anyone nor will it be.

Traditionally god(s) has been a catchall word unknowable phenomena (magic) generally ascribed to some sort of supernatural intelligence - one or more deities. Animists believe that everything has a spirit similar to people with more or less power - a messy world. Polytheists believe in many gods of varying power & knowledge, still pretty messy, but with a hierarchy of order. Monotheists, like the Abrahamic religions, tried to clean that up into one overriding entity with all the answers. Since these answers were passed down from Iron Age barbarians, they're fairly ridiculous today.

Stories were made up to help make some sense of the magical world about them. Some used these stories to bind & control others - the earliest form of politics according to some. This was responsible for uniting people into larger groups & it holds an emotional appeal, so gave them a common purpose. It was also useful in establishing basic rules of conduct that could make them more successful (e.g., don't kill one another). Prohibitions on certain foods, such as shellfish & pork, were probably good survival strategies at one time, too.

These stories & ideas from before the Scientific Revolution have insurmountable issues for the relatively well-educated person today. Few of us believe in many unknowable things, but only in the unknown or yet-to-be-known, a huge difference in thought, so the idea of 'god' has had to change. It's always been somewhat individualized, but has become more so as individuals become better educated & get to experience other cultures & ways of thinking about similar issues.

Still, we hang on to many of these old ideas & it isn't always rational. For instance, we now know that some food spoils quickly. We understand the process, what bacteria, & diseases are, & we have refrigeration, so we can eat shellfish without ill consequences. We also eat pork, but many still cook it very thoroughly to kill trichinosis. That's no longer really necessary in the US, but it's a tough habit to break - better safe than sorry, right?

Homo sapiens are not rational, but rather are rationalizing beings & that leaves us with unresolved mental issues. Our senses & memories are inherently flawed. For instance, we 'see' something by using 2 different lenses to focus light on rods & cones. That information goes off to 3 distinct portions of our brain & is then assembled for further processing in other areas. There are limits & possible glitches all through the process. Our thought processes are warped by physical processes, drives, & needs (e.g., pain, hormone surges, & hunger) that contribute to our emotions. Old data, memories, are stored in a strange hodge-podge that is related to new data. Our consciousness, with its pretensions of rational, logical thought, sits on top of this mess & we need to reconcile it, which leads us to spirituality.

Religion has traditionally filled this role, but we've also used many other tools & methods. Many don't rely on or require an entity or entities lording it over everything. Psychology & psychiatry are explaining more of the issues, too. These processes can be difficult to learn & complex, so many prefer the old standby of religion. Nicholas Wade thinks we're genetically predisposed to religion & the ideas are deeply entrenched in our society. Each society brainwashes the young with their worldview & religion from birth.

Beliefs, no matter how bizarre, acquired from birth are very difficult to examine objectively. Scientists can literally see physical changes in the brain depending on how & what it learns, especially at a young age. So, the idea of 'god' has stayed around, but has had to change with the times & the person as they gain knowledge of the world about them. Unfortunately, too many don't like change & some remain intentionally ignorant.

So, I'm not surprised that you have trouble reconciling your view of 'god' with hers. I'd be surprised if you didn't & wouldn't take the inability too seriously. That's where much of the trouble in the world stems from - people trying to convince others to believe in their version of a god - a generally undefinable idea that's ludicrous out of context.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "IMO, 'god' is a null word, Joy. It has no definitive meaning. ... Each society brainwashes the young with their worldview & religion from birth."

Jim, that was an excellent post and I appreciate the time and effort which you put into it, as well as the knowledge you've accumulated over the years from your extensive reading.

The "brainwashing" is hard to overcome because our emotions are stronger than our intellect. The emotions should be included as one of the "glitches" you referred to, glitches which interfere with our rational thinking.

Last night, I started listening to a CD you recommended a short time ago: The Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy by Edward J. Larson. There are so many theories about evolution and the idea that stays with me is the problem of "creation":

Do all things have to be "created"?
If so, who or what is the creator?

It seems to me that those questions are at the very core of all arguments about existence. Our minds cannot perceive something that had no beginning; infinity is a difficult concept for us.''

The current scientific consensus is probably that creation began with the "Big Bang". But still, something had to be there to start the "Big Bang." That's the big conundrum.

[PS-You mentioned spirituality. To me that is completely UNRELATED to the above discussion. Spirituality concerns the spirit and it's another word that hard to define. In my mind, ethics are more important than spirituality, deciding what is right and what is wrong and following those codes of ethics (also known as "values", I suppose).]
SEE: http://www.nysec.org/
"The New York Society for Ethical Culture"

[Jim]

Joy H. wrote: "...[PS-You mentioned spirituality. To me that is completely UNRELATED to the above discussion. Spirituality concerns the spirit and it's another word that hard to define. ..."

See? I told you that no one agreed on the definition. Many think spirituality is their connection to their god & is handled through religion.

You're right about brainwashing. As we know, kids pick up a lot from us & not just what we try to teach them. Perhaps the most important skills are curiosity & logic so as times & knowledge change, they can pick the correct & ethical path without our old prejudices & misconceptions getting in the way.

I don't think emotions are inherently glitches. They're like a car motor - they give us drive. It's when we start putting really big motors is little cars that we run into trouble.

As I understand it, the theory of relativity says gravity is space & that energy & matter are the same thing in different states. Note that I left time out. They're beginning to wonder if that's really a property of space. I'm going to start a short lecture on it shortly.

As for your second question, I don't understand why there needs to be a creator. The universe is, so we'll keep looking for its origins, but in the absence of real data, we certainly shouldn't ascribe it to some magical being. People used to think lightening was a ticked off god, a laughable notion now that we understand more, isn't it?

I really liked Larson's book. Glad you're liking it, too.

[Jim]

I see I wasn't very clear about creation & the Big Bang theory. Our universe, the current one we know, started with one, as best we can figure now. A lot of evidence & predictions come true have proved this out. We're not certain how it will end or what will happen when it does & it only listed 3 possibilities. The lecture I just listened to about it didn't mention some new data, unfortunately. (Galaxies further away seem to be accelerating.)

The 4th possibility I read (not sure how serious it was) said that our universe might expand out until the major forces no longer apply at which time space might fold into the point & create another Big Bang. Possible infinite loop.

Anyway, we don't know it all & likely never will, but it's interesting learning. Science is not just about knowing, it's more about finding out. No scientist really wants to redo experiments, they want to explore new hypothesis & try to add to or test present theories.

[Nina]

It must be hard to live without faith. If I ever had doubts and I guess we all do sometimes but after a miracle occurred in our family it would be impossible for me not to believe. it is too long of a story to write about it here but it did involve St. John Vianney, the Cure of Ars and a granddaughter. Perhaps more later on this discussion.

[Jim]

Nina wrote: "It must be hard to live without faith...."

Do you mean living without faith in god(s), magical being(s)? Why? Things happen & I hope they'll work out for the best. That's all anyone does. "God's will" is simply a waste of time used to explain any outcome whether it's good or bad. If it's unlikely, it's a 'miracle', but people gather around caskets on a regular basis because their prayers didn't work.

It's a big universe. We live on one insignificant planet in the arm of one of many galaxies & have only been here for a relative blink of time. If we packed the current life of the universe into a year & just after midnight on 1Jan the Big Bang happened, our galaxy wasn't even created until May, our sun in September. Life on earth wouldn't even start until December & all human history would be packed into the last few seconds of the year.

How big an ego does one need to think that an entity with the ability to create such a thing would have any interest in the well being of one particular life form of the millions on this planet? How ludicrous is it that some human would think he could speak for it or that it would communicate with a few barbarians several thousand years ago in such a shoddy manner?

I wonder why anyone bothers with the idea of such an obviously imaginary construct(s). Why is 'faith', complete trust, a good thing when it is placed in such an obvious fantasy? We regularly laugh at some for it, when we don't cry, or lock them up as crazy.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "... I don't think emotions are inherently glitches. ..."

Our emotions can get in the way of our rational thinking. That's why they can be glitches.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "... our universe might expand out until the major forces no longer apply at which time space might fold into the point & create another Big Bang. Possible infinite loop. ..."

That's mind-blowing!

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina wrote: "It must be hard to live without faith. If I ever had doubts and I guess we all do sometimes but after a miracle occurred in our family it would be impossible for me not to believe. it is too long o..."

Nina, I know that faith helped my mom through many troubles. That's for sure.

[Jim]

The Whole Man by John Brunner was very good. A man is born physically crippled, but has extraordinary mental abilities. While he eventually finds a sense of worth in them, he still needs to find a way to come to enjoy life & become a whole man. I gave it 4 stars in my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Nina]

I once asked our pastor why people always say, "Thank God," when their prayers are answered but he is not to be blamed if the prayers are not answered. His reply was, "You won't know the answer to that until you die."

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "The Whole Man by John Brunner was very good. A man is born physically crippled, but has extraordinary mental abilities. While he eventually finds a sense of worth in th..."

Sounds like a good book, Jim. Thanks for posting.

PS-Would you call it SF, Fantasy, or both?

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina wrote: "I once asked our pastor why people always say, "Thank God," when their prayers are answered but he is not to be blamed if the prayers are not answered. His reply was, "You won't know the answer to that until you die."

Nina, that sounds like the answer I usually got when I asked our priest questions. The answer was usually something like: "It's a mystery."

One of my mom's sayings was: "Do your best and leave the rest to God." When certain amazing things happened, I used to wonder if it was my mom's prayers that made them happen. Most of the time it was probably just coincidence.

[Jim]

Nina wrote: "I once asked our pastor why people always say, "Thank God," when their prayers are answered but he is not to be blamed if the prayers are not answered. His reply was, "You won't know the answer to ..."

That seems like a cop out to me, especially since there is no evidence for life after death, but if it makes you feel better, enjoy.

I like the saying "Do your best and leave the rest to God." Obviously, I don't believe in such an entity, but it works out the same. All we can do is try & let the rest sort itself out. It will anyway & worrying about it doesn't do a lick of good.

[Jim]

12 Essential Scientific Concepts is a lecture series (24 of about 30 min each) by Indre Viskontas. Parts of it are very good, others are OK & a not a bad review. In her own subjects of the brain & the senses, she's fantastic. I've never had a better explanation of hearing & the brain. I gave it 4 stars in my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "12 Essential Scientific Concepts is a lecture series (24 of about 30 min each) by Indre Viskontas. Parts of it are very good, others are OK & a not a bad review. In..."

That's quite a bit of information, Jim! I love learning about the brain. Where did you find this series? My library doesn't have it.

[Jim]

The Reversal by Michael Connelly is the 21st book in the Harry Bosch Universe. It wasn't quite as good as its predecessors, but still very enjoyable. I gave it 3 stars in my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Nina]

Here is a quote I like: "Let us be grateful to the people who made us happy, they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom." Marcel Proust

[Jim]

Solaris by Stanisław Lem is supposed to be one of the classics of SF. I was underwhelmed & could only give it 2 stars in my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina wrote: "Here is a quote I like: "Let us be grateful to the people who made us happy, they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom." Marcel Proust"

I like that quote, Nina. Thank you.

Here's another good one which I just found recently:

"God had infinite time to give us; but how did He give it? In one immense tract of a lazy millennium? No, but He cut it up into neat succession of new mornings, and, with each, therefore, a new idea, new inventions, and new applications."
---Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "Solaris by Stanisław Lem is supposed to be one of the classics of SF. I was underwhelmed & could only give it 2 stars in my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review..."

Jim, "solaris" is a word that I've heard but never bothered to look it up. So after I read your post, I looked it up. Here are the many meanings:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=solaris&...

One of the interesting definitions was: "Solaris (also known as Solaris the Tyrant Sun) is a DC Comics supervillain, who exists in the distant future of the DC Universe."

PS-Here's another: "Solaris is a variety of grape used for white wine."
PPS-Of course, Solaris is a planet in the novel Solaris . (That was news to me too.) LOL

[Jim]

LOL! Yes, Solaris is a DC villain, part of their future universe which is worse than their current one. Hard to believe that's possible. I'm more of a Marvel fan.

They made 3 movies about the book which I just looked up for another discussion. I found it interesting that at least 2 of the movies dropped the psych & science babble to concentrate more on the people, exactly what I thought would have made the book better. Great minds think alike.
:)

[Nina]

Joy H. wrote: "Nina wrote: "Here is a quote I like: "Let us be grateful to the people who made us happy, they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom." Marcel Proust"

I like that quote, Nina. Thank..."I like your quote also. There are good ones out there.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "LOL! Yes, Solaris is a DC villain, part of their future universe which is worse than their current one. Hard to believe that's possible. I'm more of a Marvel fan. They made 3 movies about the book..."

I didn't realize that Solaris was a movie... but now I find that 2 of the movies are in my Netflix queue. One is in Russian. I deleted it. The other isn't available yet. I doubt if I'd enjoy the movie in any case. It's just the word that sounds interesting! :)

[Jim]

Richard Feynman's autobiography, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character, was great. A little long, but quite a journey with this remarkable man. I gave it 5 stars in my review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "Richard Feynman's autobiography, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!: Adventures of a Curious Character, was great. A little long, but quite a journey with this remarkab..."

Wow, 5 stars! You must have really enjoyed that book, Jim. He certainly was a remarkable man! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...

[Jim]

I abandoned The Cabaret of Plants: Forty Thousand Years of Plant Life and the Human Imagination by Richard Mabey. Not what I was hoping for. Too fuzzy. I gave it a 1 star review here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Jim]

The World of Jack London was a wonderful collection of his Alaskan stories. Well, horribly wonderful. Nothing warm & fuzzy about them, for sure. Audio is a perfect medium, too. I almost felt as if I was there, even though it's in the 90s here. I gave it 5 stars in my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Nina]

I so liked your Jack London books reviews. I can't remember which of his stories I read as a child but I was entranced at the time and he was almost an author hero. I even wanted to go to Alaska when I grew up. It is the only state in all the states I've never been to much to my regret. I have a friend who grew up in Alaska and she said much to everyone's surprise when she told them about her mother's warnings when she was going to school, it wasn't bears she was to watch for but holes left from the gold miners.

[Jim]

Thanks, Nina. He was quite the writer & the times were very tough.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "I abandoned The Cabaret of Plants: Forty Thousand Years of Plant Life and the Human Imagination by Richard Mabey. Not what I was hoping for. Too fuzzy. I gave it a 1..."

Here's The Reader's Bill of Rights to help you make the most of that right: Readers have:
1. The right to not read.
2. The right to skip pages.
3. The right to not finish.
4. The right to reread.
5. The right to read anything.
6. The right to escapism.
7. The right to read anywhere.
8. The right to browse.
9. The right to read out loud.
10. The right not to defend your tastes.
—Pennac, Daniel, Better Than Life, Coach House Press, 1996

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "The World of Jack London was a wonderful collection of his Alaskan stories. Well, horribly wonderful. Nothing warm & fuzzy about them, for sure. Audio is a perfect medium, too. I al..."

Jim's review said: "... stories that can be wrenching & revolting at times, but they're also amazing for the sheer will & ferocity of the beasts (especially men) that fought against each other & Mother Nature herself - the general, overall theme. Often, that doesn't work out so well for everyone or even anyone."

Doesn't sound like the book for me. :)

[Jim]

I love The Reader's Bill of Rights & practice them consistently. Through my GR friends & other reviews, I can usually weed out books that aren't to my taste, but occasionally I goof. I'm also fairly picky when it comes to science. I like it straight. Mysticism belongs in fantasy books.

No, I don't think London's stories are for you, either. They're brutal. Good, though.

[Nina]

I like "the right to defend your tastes."

[Jim]

Nina wrote: "I like "the right to defend your tastes.""

I usually don't bother & few make it necessary, thankfully. No one can really understand another's tastes & I often don't know why or have the words to really describe why I like something. Some things just tickle me & I do have a low sense of humor. It's far easier for me to say what I don't like in many cases.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina, the wording was:
10. The right NOT to defend your tastes.

In other words, you don't have to explain to people why you like or don't like a book. It's your own business.

However, sometimes it's interesting to know how another person thinks.

While we're talking of what we like and don't like, I don't like fiction that is vague and hard to understand. I also don't like flashbacks. And I don't like dreams described in a story.

BTW, this group has a couple of topics in this vein:
TOPICS IN THIS GROUP:
"What annoys you in books? - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
"How do you feel about flashbacks? - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "I love The Reader's Bill of Rights & practice them consistently. Through my GR friends & other reviews, I can usually weed out books that aren't to my taste, but occasionally I goof. I'm also fairly picky when it comes to science. I like it straight. Mysticism belongs in fantasy books."

Good reply, Jim!

[Nina]

Of course, if you don't want to listen to what other people think about a certain book then you wouldn't like to be in a book club because that is what it is all about. We choose a book for each month and then discuss it's pro's and cons. There are eight in my book group and all of them are published authors so we discuss often from that point of view. Like for instance someone might say like you did that there were too many flashbacks or the plot was too vague and it seemed like the author gave up and tacked on an ending. Or the middle felt flat or the beginning didn't grab you. The latter one seems to happen often.

[Jim]

Oh, I didn't interpret "defending my tastes" with "discussing a book". To me, they are similar, but entirely different things.

My taste: I like thriller mysteries & don't like kinky romance books. There's nothing anyone can say about that. My taste, my business, probably why I picked the book(s) to read.

My opinion on the books: I liked The Erection Set ( a thriller mystery) because Dog Kelly was a great main character & had a neat love interest with a twisty problem to solve. I didn't like Fifty Shades of Grey (a kinky romance) because I didn't care for either main character nor their problems. Now this is something we can discuss if you've read both books. Dog would have kicked Christian's butt & then gone out bar hopping with his girl. I found Sharon's sexual hangup to be weird, but interesting. Anastasia's was just weird - creepy. Not my thing.

See? Totally different. Now you might have a different take. You might not like a different character or thought the plot was too cheesey in one or the other. No, I don't mind discussing books. I do it all the time on a wide range of genres. I just don't bother defending my tastes.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Nina wrote: "...Like for instance someone might say like you did that there were too many flashbacks or the plot was too vague and it seemed like the author gave up and tacked on an ending. Or the middle felt flat or the beginning didn't grab you. ..."

Nina, those are good examples of critiques. Yes, I agree, it's interesting to read what other people liked or didn't like about a book. It helps us in our own evaluations.

[Joy H., Group Founder]

Jim wrote: "Oh, I didn't interpret "defending my tastes" with "discussing a book". To me, they are similar, but entirely different things. ..."

Good point, Jim! Well expressed.