Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
ABOUT BOOKS AND READING
>
What are U reading these days? (PART SEVEN) (2011) (ONGOING THREAD for 2011)
date
newest »
newest »
That sounds great, Joy, I'll pass that along also. Thank you.
I finally finished Brisingr. I liked it but not as much as the other two in the series. This one dragged on with nothing of much importance til the last 150 pages. But those last 150 pages made up for the earlier lack, well, almost. Now I want a quick read, I chose Breathless by Dean Koontz. It's holding my attention so far.
Jackie wrote: "I finally finished Brisingr. I liked it but not as much as the other two in the series. This one dragged on with nothing of much importance til the last 150 pages. But those last ..."I often wonder why the authors don't realize that their writing has become draggy. Perhaps they have to lay the groundwork for the big build-up at the end.
As for the Koontz book, I read the GR description (thanks for the link). Perhaps it WILL leave you "breathless". I see that there's a wolfhound in the story. Right up your alley, Jackie!
Joy wrote: I often wonder why the authors don't realize that their writing has become draggy. Perhaps they have to lay the groundwork for the big build-up at the end.This is just a theory, I have no proof, but I think it's the publishers. Their job is to make money, and when a series is popular, one more book means a lot more money.
I have a saying that gives me insight to what people are up to and it's "follow the motivation" which almost always means "follow the money".
Jackie wrote: "... I have a saying that gives me insight to what people are up to and it's "follow the motivation" which almost always means "follow the money"."Jackie, you're spot on! I'm going to save that idea to my quotation file. Thanks!
I read The Radleys which was good. Now I'm reading Dark Emblem, one of the Deathlands bazillion books. And Myths and Truths about Coyotes: What You Need to Know About America's Most Formidable Predator that my neighbor lent me which is most interesting.
I knew Deathlands series had a lot of books but the 103rd in the series is coming out later this year. I had no idea there were that many! Tonight I chose Ware Hawk by Andre Norton, #7 in the Witch World series which I totally love. I can't wait to get started!
That Coyote book looks really interesting, Jackie. Let me know how it is & I might get it.
It is really good and informative, easy to read. I've learned quite a bit about coyotes and I'm only halfway through it.
Jackie, are there many coyotes in the Adirondacks?
They're everywhere in the country, by kiling off the wolves, we left a niche open for coyotes to rise. I saw one once on Route 9. Eastern coyotes are a hybrid of coyote and wolf, they should be a subspecies of wolf and not considered a coyote. They're bigger and look more wolfy.
Hmmm. I hope I don't come across one! Thanks, Jackie.
I'm in the middle of reading State of Wonder (2011) by Ann Patchett. I picked it up from the library's new book section on the spur of the moment. Glad I did. It's just as good as (if not better than) Patchett's Bel Canto.I think it's got a bit of science fiction in it, but who knows... maybe this stuff really exists in the Amazon jungles. The story is a combination of suspense, medical material, and pondering about ethics in the pharmaceutical and medical worlds. The strong character of Dr. Annick Swenson is well drawn; she's intriguing.
A GR member's wrote: "I enjoyed this provocative book very much despite its implausible plot. The exotic setting in the Amazon jungle was both intriguing and unnerving. ... How far should advanced cultures go in attempting to improve the lives of primitive tribal groups? If a drug could be developed that might extend womens child bearing years, would women wish to use it? ... STATE OF WONDER is definitely worth thoughtful attention."
FROM: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Highly recommended.
Jackie wrote: "They're everywhere in the country, by kiling off the wolves, we left a niche open for coyotes to rise. I saw one once on Route 9. Eastern coyotes are a hybrid of coyote and wolf, they should be a..."We didn't used to have many east of the Mississippi until a couple/few decades ago. I heard someone imported them from the west into Maine to help with the deer overpopulation. (I think it was in one of the sheep magazines Mom used to get.) The coyote population certainly exploded back in the 90's. It was one of the reasons we redid several fences for the sheep. We took down old box wire & put up 'predator proof' fencing. Basically high tensile electric fencing with a really nasty electric charger on it.
The coyotes spread amazingly fast & went completely out of control. Haven't noticeably helped with the deer, though. They've sure been a pest. There's a good reason we killed off most of the predators like wolves & hawks. They like to eat our livestock & pets. Around here, they tend to stay well away from humans since most of us shoot them on sight.
There's a section in the book about getting rid of coyotes, Jim. I didn't read that part but it would probably be of interest to you. Coyotes prey on livestock far more than wolves ever did. The real reason wolves were killed off in the 1800s is that they were in direct competition for food and were better at it than people were. Wolves prefer the chase, the hunting of their prey, only in dire circumstances will they go after penned in livestock. All these tales about wolves are myths to demonize them.
Coyotes, on the other hand, prey on livestock frequently; they don't care about the hunt, it is not part of their social order as with wolves.
They should have left the wolves alone, they controlled the coyote population. Too late for that now.
I wouldn't trust wolves, especially in a bad winter. They might not prefer to go after livestock, but folks will do most anything when they're hungry, so I'm not sorry they're gone. Coyotes probably are worse, though. They're too sneaky.
Jim wrote: especially in a bad winter.That's exactly when they go after livestock. And who could blame them, hungry is hungry.
Coyotes are worse because they do not have the strict social order that wolves do, which keeps them in check. I wouldn't call them 'sneaky', just smart, like their wolf relatives. Highly intelligent animals our canines are. ( Yes, I'm speaking like Yoda now, lol )
If it's my livestock, I blame them. Coming on my property to take my property without my knowledge or permission is the definition of sneaky. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.;-)
It's all a matter of perspective. When you put your livestock in their territory, that's what happens. They were here first. From their point of view, we are the intruders, stealing their territory is just as sneaky...payback's a bitch. Their laws are different from out laws, our laws are no more valid than theirs.If someone drops a freezer full of food in my yard, I'm gonna eat it. Same principle.
Now, would I be upset if my livestock were killed? Of course, but it wouldn't be unexpected.
Nope, my land, not theirs. Enforced by any means necessary to prove that I'm at the top of the food chain. That's part of the coyotes' problem & what makes them sneaky. They don't respect men enough while wolves usually do.We've never begrudged any of the animals space on our land, so long as they respected our livestock. We used to have fox & hawks around, which was fine so long as they stayed away from the chickens which ranged free around the house. Once they started going after them, it was war & that would happen about every other year. We'd usually lose a few chickens before we got the offender, but we always got them. Then we'd be at peace again until some new fool was born or wandered in.
We had a pair of Red Tailed hawks that lived up the lane, just a few hundred yards from the chickens for years. They were good neighbors. Every now & then, one of their youngsters would have to be warned off & once I had to shoot one, but normally they just hunted the fields & meadow. Ditto with many fox over the years. Animals aren't stupid, even birds.
I understand your point, Jim, but I doubt animals do. They don't reason the way we do.
Actually, I think they do think like us in most ways, enough to know that humans & human things can be dangerous to poach on. As I pointed out, we lived with predators that respected our territory. Simple, basic stuff is pretty much shared by most mammals I'm familiar with. Kids, puppies, & ponies aren't that much different to raise. Smack them when they get out of line, but otherwise pet & play with them. Keep them busy so they stay out of trouble.
How territorial are coyotes? That's one thing that keeps most predators in line. You show them that this is your territory & they respect that, unless there are extenuating circumstances like a hard winter. Coyotes don't seem to respect territory much, though.
Jackie wrote: "Jackie (thelastwolf) | 2650 comments Coyotes, on the other hand, prey on livestock frequently; they don't care about the hunt, it is not part of their social order as with wolves.
They should have left the wolves alone, they controlled the coyote population. Too late for that now. "
Hunting could also control coyotes in NY, I believe. But sometime in the 70's some land rules were changed. Now every landowner posts his land and the woods are flooded with Environmental Conservation cops to enforce it. The result: loss of interest in hunting. Don't tell me it's all the 'new' interests that draw kids away from it, that's baloney. Kids got hunting interest from their old man, not unlike DNA. There's not a place to hunt anymore, so people DEVELOP other interests.
Now you'll tell me that coyotes are hard to hunt. I admit I've never hunted them. But I met a guy who did, with an electronic call at night, with shotguns in close, and he had pictures of some impressive slaughters.
Deer and goose over-populations are also easily controlled by hunting. The idiots in charge don't know how to skillfully make it happen, AND it's so not-politically-correct these days, they could lose votes!
Jim wrote: enough to know that humans & human things can be dangerous to poach on. Danger, yes, they learn fast what's dangerous. What I mean is, they don't do it out of respect or like, Oh that's Jim's stuff, don't touch it. They do what is best for themselves at that moment. Whether it be staying away or killing livestock.
Earl, Hunting coyotes will have to be implemented across all states, they are overrunning many areas, urban as well as rural. And that is dangerous for both, humans and coyotes.
I have no idea if they're hard to hunt or what the government policies are for hunting them.
I don't hunt but I know many men who do and they do it properly, use every part of the carcass. It is part of our heritage. However, it is not a good idea to hunt to extinction. Nature knows better and has it's balance.
Wolves actually do have respect for territory. Farley Mowatt & his pot of tea proved that. Do coyotes have a similar respect?
It doesn't appear so. The reason the wolves didn't touch Farley's tea is because they 'knew' him. This courtesy would not extend to just anybody. They adhere to a very strict social hierarchy, coyotes do not.
Besides, do you really think they'd want his tea? He should have left out a leg of deer, then we'd have a more accurate experiment.
Juneau is as close as you can get to a wolf and yet be domesticated, he has all the wolf social traits. He won't touch my food, no matter where it's left out but he will go after Eric's if it's left unattended. He will kill over a threat to his food, I'm the only one who can touch his food and touch him while he's eating. My point is that different people evoke different responses according to their hierarchy, their laws.
But as far as I can tell from the book I just read, coyotes do not share the same type of social order than wolves do. Coyotes and wolves cannot be compared as if they are the same. They may all be canids but each group is different from each other.
It's been a long time since I read Never Cry Wolf : Amazing True Story of Life Among Arctic Wolves, but as I recall, they didn't know him when he first staked out his territory. He did that by peeing around his territory which included 50 yards of their trail that they quit using. He was both amused & ticked off that the alpha wolf marked the opposite sides of his markers quickly & efficiently in one pass while it took him hours & a pot of tea.Anyway, territory is something that wolves & people have in common. As we found through the years, even fox & hawks understood the concept. Coyotes, raccoons, possums, & weasels don't. That makes them sneaky thieves in my book & they get shot or the dogs sicced on them on sight.
Jim, your comments about territory are very interesting. I looked for more information about this and found the following:http://www.about-personal-growth.com/...
"Personal Space - How Close is Too Close"
http://changingminds.org/explanations...
(Scroll down to "Space". See "High territoriality" and "Low territoriality".)
I found the charts very interesting and could find my "type" described in them. Somehow it's comforting to know that I belong to a type, as in: "that's just the way I am". It's fun to compare types of personalities.
A lot has to do with the culture we come from.
Understanding Cultural Differences by Edward T. Hall
I've got a question. In the book I'm reading, two people are travelling over the mountains and make a 'dry camp'. I thought that might mean no fire since it was a dangerous place, but later it mentions a fire, so that's not it and I have no idea what else it could mean. Does anyone know what a 'dry camp' is exactly?Did anyone here read Great Expectations by Dickens? I'm considering reading it next.
Dry, no water except what's in the canteens. Sucks for cleaning up.
Oh! Thanks Jim, now it makes sense, as it always does after I hear the answer, lolHappy New Year Everyone!
Jackie, to answer your question, I never read Dicken's Great Expectations. I did watch several film versions:1946: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038574/
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Gre...
(with John Mills as Pip)(directed by David Lean)
1974: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071576/
http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Great...
(with Michael York as Pip)
(This version, directed by Joseph Hardy, shows the the streets of London, complete with detailed period costumes, vehicles and architecture. This wonderful representation enhanced the mood and setting of the film for me. David Lean did this somewhat in his version, but Hardy did it better, owing perhaps to newer technical advances over the years.)
2004: http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Great...
(an animated version which I couldn't find listed at IMDb)
There's a modernized version with Gwyneth Paltrow but the names of the characters are different and the plot is probably only a parallel of the original. I've never watched it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119223/
IMDb lists quite a few other versions at:
http://www.imdb.com/find?q=great+expe...
I liked the 1946 movie with John Mills as Pip, directed by David Lean. It captured the period perfectly.
I haven't seen any of them but I do plan on watching the new one with Gillian Anderson in April on PBS.I'm going to give the book a try. I can always quit if I don't like it.
Jackie, I've read Great Expectations twice, and really liked it. Of course, it has some of the basic traits of Dickens' fiction: wordy, complex Victorian diction, convoluted plotting, and unabashed sentimentality, which not every modern reader appreciates. (It also has two endings, an original "realistic" one and a more romantic alternate ending that Dickens added on the advice of a friend.) Of the many movie/miniseries adaptations, my favorite is the one with Ioan Gruffudd as Pip.
Werner wrote: "... Of the many movie/miniseries adaptations, my favorite is the one with Ioan Gruffudd as Pip. ..."Werner, below are links to the version (1999-TV) of "Great Expectations" you mentioned:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167187/
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Gre...
Unfortunatley, Netflix doesn't have it yet but I've added it to the "Saved" section of my Netflix DVD Queue.
Thanks for pointing out that it has two different endings. At the following Wiki link it gives the 2 endings, the "original ending" and the "revised ending".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ex...
PS-Here's the link to the version Jackie mentioned (TV Series 2012):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1949720/
Gillian Anderson plays Miss Havisham. Douglas Booth plays the older Pip and Oscar Kennedy plays the younger Pip. The older Estella is played by Vanessa Kirby.
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
Great Expectations (other topics)Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans (other topics)
Never Cry Wolf: The Amazing True Story of Life Among Arctic Wolves (other topics)
Bel Canto (other topics)
State of Wonder (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Edward T. Hall (other topics)Ann Patchett (other topics)
Andre Norton (other topics)
Dean Koontz (other topics)
Andrea Mitchell (other topics)
More...
There's another cute game which I recently saw in a catalog. I was wishing I had a little grandkid to buy it for. It's called "Silly Socks":
http://www.kazootoys.com/silly-socks-...
DESCRIPTION: "With Silly Socks Game by Pressman, each player gets three silly socks to start. On your turn take an item from the washing machine. If it's a sock that matches one of your three, put the pair in your laundry basket. But be careful! If you pull out a pair of pants you'll lose one turn until you can try for silly socks again. The first player to collect three matching pairs wins. For 2 to 4 players. Ages 3 and up."
Also, speaking of sock games, I found another one which a little kid can play online, matching colorful socks:
http://www.tastyplay.com/games/funny/...
Looks like fun and they learn to use a mouse at the same time.