Grand unified books thread

[Habbaku]

Bought a pile of books recently:

What has everyone else been reading?  I'm currently about to finish Frances Gies' "The Knight in History", which includes some rather ribald troubadour poetry, among other things.

[Sheilbh]

Enjoyed Jonathan Strange a lot. Looking forward to the BBC adaptation this year, which looks pretty well-cast

I'm reading The Republic: The Fight for Irish Independence 1918-23. Partly because I've always had a slightly odd experience of the Irish civil war in that I know what side my grandfather was on, but I still don't really understand what it was about beyond the most shallow pro-treaty/anti-treaty dichotomy. Got a few more Irish history books to go afterwards too.

Also Colm Toibin - who is an appropriate novelist to read with that. But it was actually accidental. I read the Master years ago and recently read one of his earlier novels. It was incredible. It was one of those books which is very spare and plain and unadorned. The entire tone and style seem natural. Then, two-thirds in, it clicks and you realise how densely structured it is. He's a standing testament to the idea that you need to write emotionally to pack an emotional punch.

[crazy canuck]

I have three books on the go right now.  Strategy by Lawrence Freedman; the Thirteen Gun Salute by O'Brian and The Long Shadow

[The Brain]

Just finished Frankenstein (1818 text).

[Maladict]

Reading four books at the moment:

Dante - Paradiso: It's much more difficult than the previous two, but worth it so far.
Patrick Leigh Fermor - Roumeli: Wanderings in Northern Greece, written like only Fermor can.
Orhan Pamuk - My Name is Red: Whodunnit set in 16th century Istanbul, wonderfully written with lengthy digressions on illuminated texts, religion and relationships. Not an easy book, but very worthwhile.
Peter Humfrey: Painting in Renaissance Venice: Just started, what the title says basically.

[Ideologue]

I read Gone Girl because I liked Gillian Flynn's script for the movie.  I loved it, since it's basically the same thing.

[Malthus]

Orhan Pamuk - My Name is Red: Whodunnit set in 16th century Istanbul, wonderfully written with lengthy digressions on illuminated texts, religion and relationships. Not an easy book, but very worthwhile.

I really, really enjoyed this one. Then, I tried some of his others - found them not the same.

[Malthus]

I'm continuing with the Mayan theme by reading an annotated translation of the Popol Vuh - the Quiche Maya creation myth. Just started the introduction.

Mayan mythology is wacky even by world mythology standards. 

It's as if Christianty revolved around a sacred volleyball court where, between games, they beheaded people. 

A woman being raped by a rotting skull also features prominently. Eeeww.

[Maladict]

Orhan Pamuk - My Name is Red: Whodunnit set in 16th century Istanbul, wonderfully written with lengthy digressions on illuminated texts, religion and relationships. Not an easy book, but very worthwhile.

I really, really enjoyed this one. Then, I tried some of his others - found them not the same.

I thought his memoirs on Istanbul were pretty decent. Haven't read anything else yet.

[The Brain]

Finished The History and Culture of Japanese Food, by Ishige. It was OK as an introduction to the subject.

[Martinus]

Just finished "My Life With Spirits" by Lon Milo Duquette. A truly awesome book.

[The Brain]

I'm reading The Falklands War - The Full Story, by The Sunday Times Insight Team. Well-written page-turner, and very nice for someone like me who remembers the war but never really read anything about it since. The book having been written in 1982 gives it an immediacy that is nice.

One thing that I don't really understand about the war. Did the Argentinians not expect the UK to strike back? If so how the hell did the UK put itself in a position where it wasn't absolutely 110% fucking obvious to everyone that they would defend their territory and inhabitants? Or did the Argentinians expect the UK to strike back and that they would defeat the British in serious combat? Almost as weird.

[Barrister]

I'm reading The Falklands War - The Full Story, by The Sunday Times Insight Team. Well-written page-turner, and very nice for someone like me who remembers the war but never really read anything about it since. The book having been written in 1982 gives it an immediacy that is nice.

One thing that I don't really understand about the war. Did the Argentinians not expect the UK to strike back? If so how the hell did the UK put itself in a position where it wasn't absolutely 110% fucking obvious to everyone that they would defend their territory and inhabitants? Or did the Argentinians expect the UK to strike back and that they would defeat the British in serious combat? Almost as weird.

They expected the UK to do absolutely nothing.

Remember the time - 1982.  UK (and much of the world) was in recession, with high unemployment.  As well, remember that for the last 25 years the UK had been in near-constant withdrawl from its Empire.  One country after another declared independence.  The UK did nothing to stop it's colonies from even declaring independence unilaterally.  Finally, it was not clear whether the UK had the military means to be able to intervene in the faraway Falkland Islands.

That being said of course it was still a very risky move by the Argies - there expectation that the UK would do nothing was reasonable, but of course if they got it wrong it could (and did) blow up spectacularly in their faces.

[The Brain]

I guess. It's just hard to picture the Commons calling for anything less than force after such an attack. Blatant aggression against a territory whose inhabitants (overwhelmingly white inhabitants at that, no colonial guilt aspect) strongly wished to remain British.

[crazy canuck]

I guess. It's just hard to picture the Commons calling for anything less than force after such an attack. Blatant aggression against a territory whose inhabitants (overwhelmingly white inhabitants at that, no colonial guilt aspect) strongly wished to remain British.

Iirc there was wide spread opinion that the Brits lacked the ability to militarily retake the islands and so at the time the risk seemed low.  Also consider it from the Junta's position.  It was worthwhile making a nationalistic gesture to distract the Argentine public from the economic woes of the country.  Ironically there is some suggestion that is the same reason the Thatcher government  went to war.