Grand unified books thread

[Admiral Yi]

Jo Jo's thread inspired me to pick up The Stand.

[CountDeMoney]

Jo Jo's thread inspired me to pick up The Stand.

It starts to get turgid at around 40%;  push through it.

[Syt]

I've started reading the first Harry Potter book. I'm 1/3 in and enjoy it much more than I thought I would.

I haven't watched the movies and have thus far avoided the books, mostly because everyone and their dog was hyping the books to high heavens which I often find off-putting. With the dust now settled I've decided to give them a try.

[CountDeMoney]

I've started reading the first Harry Potter book. I'm 1/3 in and enjoy it much more than I thought I would.

I haven't watched the movies and have thus far avoided the books, mostly because everyone and their dog was hyping the books to high heavens which I often find off-putting. With the dust now settled I've decided to give them a try.

I've never gotten into them either, chalking them up as "Young Adult" Lit.  I mean, I read stuff like Lloyd Alexander as a kid and Tolkien in junior high, so I figured it was simply a modern regurgitation of stuff I'd left behind.  But for reasons unknown to me, people say I would love Voldemort.

[Sheilbh]

I've started reading the first Harry Potter book. I'm 1/3 in and enjoy it much more than I thought I would.

I haven't watched the movies and have thus far avoided the books, mostly because everyone and their dog was hyping the books to high heavens which I often find off-putting. With the dust now settled I've decided to give them a try.

Harry Potter's great.

The film's less so. The first two are particularly bad, the third one is superb, the rest are mostly decent.

[garbon]

I had the reverse reaction earlier this year when I re-read first 4 then finished off series. Well sort of, I remember liking first 3 when I was young but by 4th I felt "too old" and found it boring / gave up. Re-reading them, I found all but book 1 to not be a good use of time.

[Maladict]

Re-reading them, I found all but book 1 to not be a good use of time.

I find this happens a lot with series. When re-reading, more of the same (even if it is good) just doesn't cut it for me.

[Sheilbh]

I avoid that by very rarely re-reading

[garbon]

Re-reading them, I found all but book 1 to not be a good use of time.

I find this happens a lot with series. When re-reading, more of the same (even if it is good) just doesn't cut it for me.

Well I don't know if that's applicable here. I re-read the early books, in this case, because I'd forgotten almost everything about them/had read them more than a decade ago.

[Capetan Mihali]

For reasons I don't fully understand, I am reading a book called What About Tongue Speaking?, published in 1966 by the Dutch-born American Calvinist theologian Anthony Hoekema.  It sets out to refute Pentecostal arguments about the lineage/validity of glossolalia, which is a pretty interesting point-counterpoint history of Christianity through this narrow lens.

Hoekema doesn't fool around, but he does at least embrace the Pentecostals as fellow Christians who just need some guidance in their whacko excesses.  The same cannot be said for the groups he discusses in the other book of his that I bought for no real reason, The Four Major Cults, published in 1963. 

Those four are:  Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists.  He really comes down hard on Mormons, concluding the section by essentially saying they are unmitigated evil and have no right to call themselves Christians.  He's softest on the Seventh-Day Adventists, but ultimately concludes they aren't Christians.

But the book is an interesting relic of essentially the "pre-evangelical" dominant model of Protestantism in 50s-60s America.  Hoekema spends a lot of time analyzing what Christians can learn from the success of the 'cults' in attracting followers -- most centrally that they aren't afraid to say it loud and say it proud; while the Protestant churches suffered from being too quiet, private, and staid in their practice, too afraid to get out there proselytizing and witnessing.  That certainly changed in a big way in the 70s and 80s.

Again, not too sure why I thought these books were crucial enough to actually buy and read, but having done so, I'm pretty satisfied. 

Two recent arrivals: a history of Puerto Ricans in America (forget the title); and a classic work of sociology on criminal justice, developed from the author's observation of thousands of cases as they proceeded through district court (misdemeanors and low-level felonies) in New Haven, Conn. in the mid-70s. 

It has an utterly apt title: The Process Is The Punishment.  I've already read this, but I quote the title line frequently to my clients to give them a context for their frustration, so I wanted to have it in my office.

[The Brain]

Two recent arrivals: a history of Puerto Ricans in America (forget the title);

You didn't forget the title, it was stolen.

[Ed Anger]

Two recent arrivals: a history of Puerto Ricans in America (forget the title);

You didn't forget the title, it was stolen.

[Habbaku]

Anyone have any recommendations that cover the 1848 revolutions?

[Sheilbh]

Eric Hobsbawm - The Age of Revolution.

[11B4V]

Online version of one of the cornerstone studies of the German side.

Moscow To Stalingrad: Decision In The East (1987)
by Earl F. Ziemke and Magna E. Bauer III

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Decision/


Stalingrad to Berlin:The German Defeat in the East (1968)
Earl F. Ziemke

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Defeat/index.html#index