Grand unified books thread

[CountDeMoney]

I wonder which Languishite wrote this romance?

Wasn't Ed.  He writes about the lump in the back of his pants.

[Eddie Teach]

How terrible does your name have to be to go by the initials E.B.? Perhaps a dude named Evelyn? 

[Agelastus]

I wonder which Languishite wrote this romance?

Quick googling suggests that before the photoshop the original title was "Drag me Down" published in 1955.


https://www.amazon.com/Drag-Me-Down-B-Stuart/dp/B0085HTAL0

Haven't found what his initials stand for, though.

[Capetan Mihali]

For Christmas, my sister got me that recently translated first volume of a new German biography of Hitler, Ascent: 1889-1939, and I tore through it.  A great read, even though some of the author's claims to novelty vis-a-vis Fest and other prior biographers were rather overstated.  At the end of this first volume, things seem to be going really great for this Hitler guy; I wonder how the second volume will turn out.

The Goebbels diary entries were some of the funniest and most revealing primary source materials used, so it inspired me to pick up a used copy of a (well-reviewed according to blurbs) Goebbels biography from 1993 by Ralf Georg Reuth.

During the relevant chapter in the bio, I tried reading some of Mein Kampf online, too. Adolf Hitler may have had many talents but writing was not among (nor was he a fantastic dancer, it turns out).  Ideological content aside, it's borderline unreadable.  As I'm sure many German readers will discover for the first time this year.

[Capetan Mihali]

Before the Christmas gift, I read a very nice art book with a lot of good quality plates: Degenerate Art: the Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany, 1937.

Does this portrait look uncannily like a contemporary beardless Russian to anyone else?

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/09/portrait-of-real-mr-darcy-unlikely-to-set-21st-century-hearts-aflutter

Portrait of 'real' Mr Darcy unlikely to set 21st century hearts aflutter

Experts believe Jane Austen's ideal Darcy would bear little comparison to the one played by Colin Firth in BBC's 1995 series

A dispiriting portrait of the "real" Mr Darcy, showing Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice hero as a pale, slope-shouldered, weedy character, thin of mouth and chin with his hair powdered white, has been created by a panel of experts through studying contemporary fashions and social history.

Their conclusions have been embodied in a portrait by the illustrator Nick Hardcastle, unlikely to set many 21st century hearts aflutter.

When Mr Fitzwilliam Darcy first walks into literature, at an assembly rooms dance in Meryton, Jane Austen provides remarkably few clues about his appearance. He attracts more admiring glances than his friend Mr Bingley, who is described as "good looking and gentlemanlike". However, with a typically sardonic flourish, Austen writes: "Mr Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien, and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year."

Casting directors have generally interpreted this as tall, dark and ruggedly handsome, personified by Colin Firth in the famous wet shirt 1995 television version. Indeed the screenwriter Andrew Davies recently revealed that Firth was forced to dye his naturally reddish brown hair a darker shade for the role.

The experts, including the academic John Sutherland and the historian and author Amanda Vickery, commissioned by the Drama Channel to come up with the Darcy Austen might have envisaged, conclude that a tanned complexion, broad shoulders and muscular chest would not have been seen as attractive by Austen's Georgians, signifying a hardworking outdoor labourer, not a gentleman of leisure. They do permit him strong muscular legs, toned by horse riding and fencing, as a desirable attribute.

The ideal for gentlemanly good looks in Austen's day, they believe, was a smooth youthful complexion, with a small pointy chin and small mouth, under hair worn long but tied back and powdered white, as seen in many aristocratic portraits.

Vickery says of their version of the character: "As Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in the 1790s, our Mr Darcy portrayal reflects the male physique and common features at the time. Men sported powdered hair, had narrow jaws and muscular, defined legs were considered very attractive. A stark contrast to the chiselled, dark, brooding Colin Firth portrayal we associate the character with today."

Sutherland believes the enigma is part of Darcy's charm: "There are only scraps of physical description of Fitzwilliam Darcy to be found in Pride and Prejudice; he is our most mysterious and desirable leading man of all time. What's fantastic about Jane Austen's writing is that Mr Darcy is both of the era and timeless."

Various historical figures have been suggested as Austen's model for Darcy, including an Irish law student Tom Lefroy – later a judge and MP – with whom she is said to have had a brief youthful romantic attachment. Others believe he was based on the first Earl of Morley, John Parker, married to a friend of the author's. The truth may have been lost in the many letters her sister, Cassandra, burned after her death.

The research on the real Mr Darcy was commissioned by the Drama Channel to launch its Jane Austen season, which starts on Valentine's Day.

[Syt]

Reminds me of Jesus de Sade from the Preacher comics.

[crazy canuck]

I went to the bookstore only to find that Citizen Clem is not yet available in Canada. 

[CountDeMoney]

So I've been fucking around with the Kindle app--I never did any of that e-book bullshit before, because I prefer the old Soviet method of ink on paper--but I was cruising through the Free Downloads, and downloaded A Genius For War:  The German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945 by Trevor Dupuy.  Anybody read it before?

[Ed Anger]

About time you joined us in 2017 old man.

[CountDeMoney]

Fuck you.  Can't underline passages and write in the margins of an e-book.  Well, not in the way I want.    FUCK TRACK CHANGES

[jimmy olsen]

Fuck you.  Can't underline passages and write in the margins of an e-book.  Well, not in the way I want.    FUCK TRACK CHANGES

You can highlight passages in yellow, pink, orange or light blue. You can also write notes. It's way better than the old way, because you'll be able to read your notes easily in times new roman, instead of struggling to make out what you scribbled in chicken scratch in the side margin.

[CountDeMoney]

Fuck off.

[garbon]

Well he is right.

[celedhring]

Leviathan Wakes. #1 of the Expanse books.

Weirdly I believe that the TV series is superior. I thought the writing in the book was particularly weak and the changes made to the plot when bringing it to the TV fixed a lot of the loose plotting, bland dialogue, and plot holes, while enhancing the world-building and overall story. Not often that happens when adapting something to the screen.

Of course, there's a lot of stuff in the book that couldn't make it to TV because of budget, that is nice to see fully fleshed out here (like the biological and habitat differences between the different human subraces).

Another point of note is that season 1 only covers half of the first book (with the caveat that they include things from the second, like the entire Earth subplot). Actually, there's more plot in the series than the equivalent part of the book. Usually, writers have to cut stuff when adapting a book, not the opposite. But as said, the extra material in the series is mostly for the better.