Grand unified books thread

[Razgovory]

Nicknames were passed down sometimes.  The Romans had lousy system of naming, they only a had few first names and some first names were excusive to certain families/clans.  In Julius Caesar's case Caesar was the nickname.  Since nicknames were also passed down, people often had another nickname that was exclusive to them, at least until their decedents claimed it as well.  The result was people would end up with a really long names.

The first sentence in Grave's I, Claudius is:

""I, Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus This-that-and-the-other (for I shall not trouble you yet with all my titles) who was once, and not so long ago either, known to my friends and relatives and associates as "Claudius the Idiot", or "That Claudius", or "Claudius the Stammerer", or "Clau-Clau-Claudius" or at best as "Poor Uncle Claudius", am now about to write this strange history of my life; starting from my earliest childhood and continuing year by year until I reach the fateful point of change where, some eight years ago, at the age of fifty-one, I suddenly found myself caught in what I may call the "golden predicament" from which I have never since become disentangled."

[grumbler]

I'm not big on Roman names, but I think Augustus was a title, not a nickname. As was Germanicus, Britannicus etc.
And Julius Caesar was more of a double surname than a nickname, denoting a branch of the Julii. It's odd that Caesar, of all people, never had a personal nickname.

There were cognomen that were awarded by the Senate (Africanus, Asiaticus, Germanicus, etc) after a proconsul won a new province or achieved a great victory in a foreign theater, but they were cognomen, not titles.  They would be passed down to descendants.  Augustus was like that.  It later became a title, as did Caesar (which, as we know, morphed in Kaiser and Czar).

Caesar was a cognomen that did, indeed, distinguish a branch of the Julii, but it still was a cognomen, even though we aren't sure what it meant.  Caesar turned down Gallicus as an awarded cognomen because he wanted to seem humble.

[Maladict]

I'm not big on Roman names, but I think Augustus was a title, not a nickname. As was Germanicus, Britannicus etc.
And Julius Caesar was more of a double surname than a nickname, denoting a branch of the Julii. It's odd that Caesar, of all people, never had a personal nickname.

There were cognomen that were awarded by the Senate (Africanus, Asiaticus, Germanicus, etc) after a proconsul won a new province or achieved a great victory in a foreign theater, but they were cognomen, not titles.  They would be passed down to descendants.  Augustus was like that.  It later became a title, as did Caesar (which, as we know, morphed in Kaiser and Czar).

Caesar was a cognomen that did, indeed, distinguish a branch of the Julii, but it still was a cognomen, even though we aren't sure what it meant.  Caesar turned down Gallicus as an awarded cognomen because he wanted to seem humble.

Using cognomen or agnomen makes it easier, nickname doesn't quite fit as a translation. Interesting how some of the victory title agomina became cognomina and others did not. Africanus was awarded twice to the Scipios and the Aemilii but didn't stick.


Incidentally, I never realized Coriolanus was an agnomen, for the capture of Corioli.

[Malthus]

'The Lord of the Rings'

Well crafted high fantasy.

First re-read in probably 20 years, a bit disappointed that I remembered nearly all of it, the only scene I didn't recall was a chat between Frodo and Gloin at the meal in Rivendell.

I'm a fan of Tolkien, but so much of high fantasy is influenced by Tolkien , it is refreshing to read something that isn't. One recommendation is Gormengast and Titus Groan - a world as immersive as Tolkien's, but utterly different.

[mongers]

'The Lord of the Rings'

Well crafted high fantasy.

First re-read in probably 20 years, a bit disappointed that I remembered nearly all of it, the only scene I didn't recall was a chat between Frodo and Gloin at the meal in Rivendell.

I'm a fan of Tolkien, but so much of high fantasy is influenced by Tolkien , it is refreshing to read something that isn't. One recommendation is Gormengast and Titus Groan - a world as immersive as Tolkien's, but utterly different.

Yes those are good recommendations, been on my reading list for a while. I had Gormengast, but lent it to someone and never got it back. 

[grumbler]

'The Lord of the Rings'

Well crafted high fantasy.

First re-read in probably 20 years, a bit disappointed that I remembered nearly all of it, the only scene I didn't recall was a chat between Frodo and Gloin at the meal in Rivendell.

I'm a fan of Tolkien, but so much of high fantasy is influenced by Tolkien , it is refreshing to read something that isn't. One recommendation is Gormengast and Titus Groan - a world as immersive as Tolkien's, but utterly different.

  Possibly the most over-written fantasy books ever.  By the end, you won't know or care what the original plot was.  There were actually three books in the series, but I can understand your not mentioning Titus Alone.  That book was a bigger mess than the first two (which is saying a lot!)

[grumbler]

People looking for some low fantasy along the lines of Joe Abercrombie's First Law series need look no further than Joe Abercrombie's three subsequent novels in that milieu, Best Served Cold, The Heroes, and Red Country.

BSC is the best of the bunch, followed by Red Country.  I thought The Heroes was just depressing - it is everything you didn't like about the elements of The North in First Law (gloomy character and setting), distilled.  It des have a fair number of characters from the first trilogy.

His new trilogy starts off pretty well (A Little Hatred) but I decided to hold off on the second and third books until the series is finished.

If you like the kind of gritty "realism" and sharp dialogue of GRRM, you might like Daniel Polansky.  His books make no effort to have likable characters or happy endings, but his writing is good and his dialogue terrific. 

[Sheilbh]

I think the best thing with Tolkien is that he really stands up as a writer (I only read LOTR in the last couple of years) which isn't always the case with fantasy writers from just 20 or 40 years ago, far less 90. I also think he's probably very interesting from an eco-criticism perspective.

[Malthus]

'The Lord of the Rings'

Well crafted high fantasy.

First re-read in probably 20 years, a bit disappointed that I remembered nearly all of it, the only scene I didn't recall was a chat between Frodo and Gloin at the meal in Rivendell.

I'm a fan of Tolkien, but so much of high fantasy is influenced by Tolkien , it is refreshing to read something that isn't. One recommendation is Gormengast and Titus Groan - a world as immersive as Tolkien's, but utterly different.

  Possibly the most over-written fantasy books ever.  By the end, you won't know or care what the original plot was.  There were actually three books in the series, but I can understand your not mentioning Titus Alone.  That book was a bigger mess than the first two (which is saying a lot!)

Yes, we have established that we have different tastes in fantasy.

I recommend these as a different take on high fantasy. I do not guarantee that they will please everyone. However, I believe that there is a good reason they are widely considered modern classics.

[FunkMonk]

Piranesi. Very enjoyable.

[Admiral Yi]

Finished SPQR.  Frankly I was expecting more given all the hype.  Decent book and it did fill in a lot of knowledge gaps about early Rome.

[mongers]

'Greybeard' by Brian Aldiss, has some echoes of the odd/extraordinary times we're living through.


A worthwhile read, must have been to finish it within the day. I don't know why it's taken me so long to get around to reading this, given it's been available during nearly all of my lifespan. 

[The Brain]

Today I received Uniforms and Flags of the Imperial Austrian Army 1683-1720, by Hall and Boeri, and Austria's Wars of Emergence 1683-1797, by Hochedlinger. Nice. I've read Duffy's excellent books on the Austrian army of the Seven Years War, but I've been looking for solid info on the earlier period.

[The Brain]

Btw, what's the deal with people writing "Foreward" instead of "Foreword"? I've seen it more than once. Is it some kind of pun crap?

[Habbaku]

Nope, just people not knowing what a foreword actually is.