Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
ABOUT BOOKS AND READING
>
What are you reading these days? (Part ELEVEN (2015) ongoing thread for 2015
Here's a pic of Wonder Woman around 1941, according to the NY Times.http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...
See the NY Times article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/boo...
I guess I wasn't into fantasy when I was fourteen. I had really liked the Wizard of Oz as a young child, however. I think I mostly liked "LIttle Women," and books based on teen age girls or animal stories.
I think the reason the homes and those people living in them in the movies is like you are being invited to visit and I guess that is like when you are having company you straighten your house more than if it was just your daily family living there. I was already married and having bablies when those type of women were protrayed and I never aspired to become one of them. It would have been impossible as none of them had three babies age two and under. But, I have to say I really did enjoy their stories; far cry from what is supposedly funny now days. Actually I miss the Mary Tyler Show and Bob Newhart and I Love Lucy among others.
Joy, I mentioned that I didn't like the author, Ken Follett and you wondered why. First off, now I forgot what was a very bad mistake in his first novel, "The Fall of Giants," and I wish I had written it down. But, what really decided me against him and I know it was fiction but, and I usually don't get into politics in our diecussions but no matter to have the character call one of our preidents(Regan) a murderer was a bit much and it read like it was a fact and chapters on Jack Kennedy's mistress/yes, I do know he probably had affairs but this too was a bit much. I almost got the feeling the author was pro-Communist, yet, probably not. He certainly gave no credit for the US to help win WWII. According to him, Russia defeated Germany. Yes, thay were most helpful but I just think his ideas were the opposite of mine and I don't just mean Republican or Democrat; I mean he seemed to point out all the bad things the US ever did and none of the good. I rest my case. Hope this explains it.
Nina, I guess the expression "cherry-picking" is applicable when only one side of a story is told. I like the saying that there are 3 sides to every story... his side, her side, and the truth.Below is a wonderful quote about truth:
==================================================
"...the collision between truth and the world can only have one outcome, since the world will put on any mask, stoop to any deception, to protect itself, and truth cannot..."
-The New Yorker 10/28/91
-Louis Menand, New Yorker Mag., Talk of the Town, Notes and Comment, Issue of 1991-10-28
=========================================
Joy, your quotes ware very applicable. I don't mind a e slant but when the entire story is slanted, I think what does the author have in mind for his readers? This wasn't pro-Republican or Democrat just anti-American. Your three sides comment is great; because someone else, a thiird party might not come away with the same impression as I did.
Nina, your impression is the right one for you. We are all different and have different perspectives. That's why I like the way Goodreads lets us filter the user-reviews so that we can see the one-star reviews grouped together and also all the the other reviews as well, grouped according to the number of stars given. That way it becomes obvious that there is a huge spectrum of reactions to books. While one person LOVES a book, another person HATES the same book!To tell the truth, I tend to believe the one-star reviews more. They point out the flaws that I'm liable to meet in various books. I think the 5 star reviews are more apt to over-rate a book. I don't know why I feel that way, but I do.
Nina wrote: "...According to him, Russia defeated Germany...."I read an article about WWII recently that said the same thing. Based on the amount of men & material involved on the Russian (Eastern) Front, it's not an outlandish statement. While our news made our battles seem pivotal, most of them were fairly small compared to many of theirs.
They were definitely rolling in to crush Germany whether we were there or not. It took a while to arouse the Bear after Germany launched the largest surprise attack in history, but winter blasted the Germans & the Soviets stopped them. Eventually their war machine did get churning & they rolled the Germans up in the biggest rout in history.
According to this site:
http://www.history.com/news/history-l...
Of the estimated 60-70 million deaths caused by World War II, around half occurred on the Eastern Front. The struggle was especially hard on the Soviets, who may have seen as many as 25 million troops and civilians killed—nearly 15 percent of their entire prewar population. The Eastern Front was also responsible for the lion’s share of the German military deaths. All told, eight out of every ten German troops killed in World War II perished while fighting the Soviets.
Jim and Nina, funny you should mention the Russians playing a large part in defeating Germany in WWII. In the movie I just mentioned (in our movie thread), General Patton got into trouble by not giving Russia much credit for her part in the war. His mouth got him into a lot of trouble. In the movie, "Patton", it was almost funny the way he was portrayed by George C. Scott.
I watched Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States. I highly recommend it. The first episode tells how WW2 couldn't have been won without the Russians. Americans like to think we're the center of the universe, the greatest, the best, so when we're told we are exactly that, we don't question it. It's good to learn from other sources, to keep an open mind. History will always be skewed in favor of who's writing it.
That's interesting, Jackie. Unfortunately, Netflix doesn't offer that series and I'd have to pay to watch it at Amazon. :)"The Untold History of the United States"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1494191/?...
http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Two/d...
"Oliver Stone's re-examination of under-reported events in American history."
PS-I see it's available as an audio at YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEiFm...
PPS-Here's Episode 3 at YouTube:"Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States: Episode 3, The Bomb"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVLYy...
Many other episodes are at YouTube. Heavy stuff!
Jackie wrote: "...Americans like to think we're the center of the universe, the greatest, the best, so when we're ..."Exactly. We also assume our news to be true & unbiased, at least when it agrees with our own biases. There are also the problems of immediacy & transparency. All of these heavily skewed the initial reports of WWII even from sources like Walter Cronkite. He could only report what he could see & by all accounts, he saw only what they wanted him to see. He could only be in one place at a time, too.
WWII wasn't a popular war at first. If Pearl Harbor hadn't been followed by Hitler's declaration of war 4 days later & their continued aggressive behavior, we might not have taken part at all. Civilians had to sacrifice a lot during the war - rationing, for instance. Both of these meant the media was pressed to swing civilian support to the war & they did. The history most of us learned or saw was based on these 'reports' which were badly skewed in terms of the war as a whole & in specific instances. Secrets in the name of security & all that.
On top of all that, Stalin & his Russia were not good allies. We needed them, but the atrocities they committed were awful. They gave the worst of the Nazis a run for their money in that department. There was very little news, just propaganda coming from them, too. It hasn't been until recently that we even had access to their records of what really happened.
The media is a propaganda tool for the govt. I thought we had a free and unbiased media when I was younger, but I quickly found out that simply wasn't true. It's just much more obvious now.
It so happens that I'm currently reading The Best Laid Plans (1997) by Sidney Sheldon. The plot concerns the machinations of politicians for power. Although it's fiction, it does remind us of the practices of crooked politicians and of the related role of the media. At least it's a good suspense story and is amazingly easy to read, in spite of the large number of different characters and the time and place shifts. I'm amazed at the clarity of the writing. I usually am confused by complicated plots but this book shows that skillful writing (and the arrangement of scenes) can make all the difference.PS-One comment at Amazon.com says: "superb plot development". I agree. That's a good way to put it! I love it when something is well-said! I struggle with that task!
I read a lot of Sidney Sheldon when I was younger, he does know how to tell a tale. I always enjoyed his books. I'm slowing getting through Forever King, it's good but I just don't have the time to sit down and read a good chunk of it.
Jackie, I'm going to look into more of Sidney Sheldon's books. I hope I don't tire of the theme of his books. At Amazon, his work is described as follows: "full of manipulators, dirty dealers, and dastardly rascals, all snatching at power--political, financial, sexual..."THE QUOTE IS FROM: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Laid-Plans...
I might tire of all that. It might become "old" after a while.
As for The Forever King, I see that it's "Arthurian". I'll make a confession here. Until last week when I watched the movie "Robin and Marian" (1976) with Sean Connery http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075147/?... , I didn't realize that Robin Hood is usually considered to exist around the 12th century, whereas King Arthur existed around the 5th & 6th centuries. In other words, I was putting Robin Hood in the same era as Lancelot, which of course is incorrect. I was also confusing Marian with Guinevere, again both of different eras.
I looked all the above information up at Wiki. Now I have my orientation correct when it comes to the time-frame of Lancelot & King Arthur as opposed to that of Robin Hood & King Richard the Lionheart.
PS-Of course, you knew all this already. LOL
I just finished listening to Old Venus, a bunch of new stories about the old Venus that SF used to romp around on. Overall, I gave it 3 stars. There were some great, fun, & bad stories. Uneven. I rated each story individually in my review with explanations here:https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Oh, I agree that the war against Germany wouldn't have been won without Russia but what I don't agree with is that they alone defeated the Germans. Britain and the US had their part also. Like how many Americans and others were killed in the "Battle of the Bulge?"
Years ago Sidney Sheldon was one of my favorite authors but forgot the title of the first book I read of his.
I'm currently listening to an audio CD of The Man Who Saw a Ghost: The Life and Work of Henry Fonda by Devin McKinney. It's pretty depressing. So is the narrator's delivery! I intend to read the GR reviews soon to see if any of them agree with my take.PS-I still don't know what ghost he saw. LOL
PPS-Thanks for your postings, Jim and Nina.
Yes, sometimes the news is truly biased and I too didn't realize that when I was young and innocent.
PS-About the Henry Fonda biography mentioned above in Message #373:I found the following comment in a GR review:
==============================================
"Pretentious in the extreme...some interesting information about a fascinating subject buried so deep in blowhard rhetoric spewed by an obnoxious author it's almost not worth retrieving."
FROM: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
===============================================
Well, that certainly validates my opinion! "blowhard rhetoric" LOL I love it!
It's a shame so much you read is about "Me," and so the content is lost in the muddle.
Nina, the Henry Fonda biography which I'm listening to now is by Devin McKinney. It was published in 2012.I've ordered Fonda's autobiography from our public library. It's called: Fonda: My Life and was published in 1981. Fonda was a very complex man. Born in 1905. Died in 1982 at age of 77.
Joy, after I Googled Sidney Sheldon I found the book I so enjoyed of his was "The Other Side of Midnight." It, too, was a page turner. Now I am currently reading, "A Map of Betrayal," by Ha Jin. I will quote the review by the NYT as I totally agree so far with what they say about this book. "Powerfully moving...Brilliant and original...Timelesss and universal...nearly perfect." Fun to read a really good book, don't you agree?
Nina, thanks for mentioning The Other Side of Midnight by Sidney Sheldon.GOODREADS DESCRIPTION: "An innocent American girl becomes a bewildered pawn in a game of vengeance and betrayal." --- Sounds spine-tingling!
My old notebook records show that I read but did not like Sheldon's Windmills of the Gods.
I also read his: Bloodline but have no notes about it. I read the books a long time ago. So if I read them again, it would be like reading the books for the first time.
I finished reading Sheldon's The Best Laid Plans. Whadayaknow! It had a surprise ending! I never guessed... so it was really a surprise. I wonder if all his books have surprise endings.
YES, I agree it's grand to read a really good book! Such a wonderful escape from the daily humdrum.
Did anyone watch the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on TV last night? Good timing for me since I had just finished reading The Best Laid Plans which is about a fictitious president. I'm not informed enough about current events. So I didn't get many of the jokes at the dinner, even though the audience was laughing. I enjoyed watching the show anyway. For me, it was a peek into a different level of existence.
The only thing I know about it is that Doctor Who #10 was there. I haven't had a chance to watch clips yet.
Jackie wrote: "The only thing I know about it is that Doctor Who #10 was there. I haven't had a chance to watch clips yet."Jackie, I guess you mean David Tennant. I found out via the following article at: http://deadline.com/2015/04/white-hou... . It says: "In fact, the Guardian table will be a bit of Potter reunion as Tennant was in the fourth pic in the hugely successful franchise. The actor played Barty Crouch, Jr. in 2005’s Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Tennant played Doctor Who from 2005 to 2010 and appeared in the 50th Anniversary special in 2013."
I got a kick out of the President's "anger translator", Luther. An online article says: "Yes, President Obama brought the Key & Peele character Luther, played by Keegan-Michael Key, to join him at the podium during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. As always, Key was hilarious in the role as the energetic embodiment of Obama’s inner anger."
FROM: http://entertainthis.usatoday.com/201...
I've never heard of Key & Peele. Now I'll have to look that up. LOL
I looked up Key & Peele at Wiki: "Key & Peele is an American sketch comedy television show. It stars Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_%26_...
About the character "Luther": "Luther [is] President Obama's "anger translator," played by Key, who works to interpret the President's low-key statements into raging tirades."
Key was really funny at the correspondents' dinner. He certainly is good at projecting anger! What a face! While Key raged on, President Obama kept an immobile straight and serious face. Commentators marveled at his ability to do that. They say the President has a talent for humor. I agree.
Yes, David Tennant. I heard of Key & Peele but haven't watched them. Our president has a talent for acting, lol
He sure knows how to keep his cool.
Never heard of it but sounds interesting to watch.
Nina wrote: "And it is always fun to Eavesdrop."I wondered about the origin of that word. I found:
Origin of EAVESDROP: "probably back-formation from eavesdropper, literally, one standing under the drip from the eaves" --- First Known Use: 1606
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
Interesting how that word, "eavesdrop," started out and how we think of it in terms now.
I found this: "'Eaves' are the edges of a roof that project past the exterior walls of a building, usually designed to carry rain water away from the foundations. The "eavesdrip" in Old English was a specific place -- the outside area from the walls of a house to the edge of the roof -- a space to shelter oneself from the rain or, if one were sneaky, where conversations within the house could be overheard rather clearly. "Eavesdrip" eventually became "eavesdrop," and by the late 15th century the noun had become a verb, meaning to secretly listen to someone else's conversation."FROM: http://www.word-detective.com/back-k2...
I love learning that definition on eavesdropping. When we are sometimes watching a movie the plot thickens when someone is eavesdropping. And we wonder where it would go if it weren't for someonen always eavesdropping. Thanks for posting that info..
Nina, in message 378 above, you mentioned A Map of Betrayal by Ha Jin. They describe it as "spy novel". Is it complicated to read or is it easy to follow?
Joy, so far it is easy to follow but I'll let you know more about that as I get further along in it. The characters seem intriguing.
OK, Nina. Thanks. Today I just started reading Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet by Jamie Ford. It's a work of fiction and is about what happened to the Japanese Americans in Seattle during WWII. I first heard about the book when I was participating in the GR Constant Reader group in 2011. It was their group read around that time. It's taken me a long time to get to it. :) So far, it's holding my attention. I'm on page 116. Seems very well written.
Joy wrote (message 369): "I didn't realize that Robin Hood is usually considered to exist around the 12th century...."Our extant sources for the Robin Hood legend are the various Middle English folk ballads from the 14th and 15th centuries, but which probably reflect an earlier tradition. None of them hint at an actual date; the pop culture association of Robin with the time of Richard the Lion Hearted (late 12th century) was started by Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe, published in 1819. Some more recent novelists, like Parke Godwin (Sherwood), think that if he really lived, it was more likely in the 11th century after 1066, when the Norman vs. Saxon antagonism was much fresher. Stephen Lawhead's King Raven trilogy makes a convincing case, in the historical Afterword, for dating him in the reign of William II (late 1000s), and for his provenance originally being Welsh.
Werner, I realize there are various time frames given for Robin Hood. I latched on to the one linking him with Richard the Lionheart just to orient him in my mind. Wikipedia was clear on the point that there are various time frames. However, trying to remember them all (or even figure them out) seemed a bit confusing. Mainly, I wanted to clarify to myself that he was not linked with the Arthurian legend.Thanks for pointing out that it was Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe which placed Robin Hood in the time of Richard the Lionheart.
PS-Your explanation of the various possible time-frames is excellent!
Thanks, Joy! Yes, you're right that Robin's time was definitely much later than Arthur's. (I figured you already knew about the various proposed time frames, from Wikipedia --and I was aware that Jackie knows, since she and I buddy-read the King Raven trilogy-- but I threw that information in for anybody else who might not have run across it yet. :-) )
Werner, thanks for posting the info re Robin Hood. I appreciate your wealth of knowledge on so many things.
You're welcome, Werner. About the King Raven Trilogy by Stephen R. Lawhead, was King Raven a real historical figure?I realize now that you and Jackie have posted here about the trilogy and now it's all beginning to make sense. I looked it up at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Rav...
As Wiki says: "The trilogy consists of three books named Hood, Scarlet, and Tuck."
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Deathcats of Asa'ican and Other Tales of a Space Vet (other topics)Misunderstood (other topics)
2015 on Goodreads (other topics)
The Paying Guests (other topics)
James Herriot's Dog Stories (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Sarah Waters (other topics)Donna Foley Mabry (other topics)
Yuval Noah Harari (other topics)
Yuval Noah Harari (other topics)
Charles Darwin (other topics)
More...
Yes, even today Hollywood tends to give us movie and TV characters whose grooming, and home decor, is unrealistically immaculate and perfect. They and their surroundings may get a bit (or a lot) messed up in action sequences; but by the next scene, or next week's episode, everything's back to photo-spread quality perfection. But I guess nowadays we're more apt to recognize that as an exercise in make-believe!