Joshua
4.5.
A great book. I don't believe that by judging the book for its outdated language and understanding of the world is useful. Conrad I argue sympathises with the African people - Marlow is told they are barbaric, it is not something he concludes himself, rather he concludes that in the seeming barbarity there is human connection that is very possible to be deciphered.
Kurtz is the most interesting character here. He's certainly a villain for his high likelihood of crimes in the region (he threatened the Russian for his ivory) and the only praises he really receives are from strange people - the Russian adores him but it can be inferred that it's a kind of Nightingale Syndrome where he essentially fell in love with his patient, that being Kurtz. The fiancé is also deeply in love with him but she is obviously biased as he believes to know him extremely well despite spending years abroad and nobody knowing what he really does for a living.
The book as a result does two things: a critique on colonialism and a ambiguous critique on the hunter-explorer. I think it does it well in great prose as well. I certainly look forward to my re-read.
4.5.
I really enjoyed this book! It's more familiar of the first book in which we see more of Thrawn's character and personality. For instance, knowing now that Thrawn sees people as assets is a really good bit in how he interprets the world. Thrawn's failure of understanding politics is also well noted here which makes for good stakes politically. The military battles also felt great because there was stakes - we don't know whether Yiv would succeed or not, it's good storytelling!
The use of flashbacks is really good and develops Thrawn and Ar'lani well and adds that their relationship is really close and by the time of Treason we can assume they had a falling out. I also love how this book crossovers with Alliances, that's a really good scene.
Thalias and Che'ri are secondary characters but are rather good. It shows how being around Thrawn can change you in an interesting way.
I don't really have any criticisms of this book, it's really well made.
3.5.
This book is alright. It's better than Alliances but way worse than the first book in the series. Thrawn essentially has to share his story here with Eli Vanto. Vanto is a great character and I'm happy to see him return but his lack of interaction with Thrawn is disappointing. Vanto's relationship with the Chiss borders on interesting but I feel like the Chiss are being hyped up with very little tangible information given about them. There's a lot of setup but little pay off.
The overall plot of Thrawn being played by Tarkin and Krennic is interesting and shows how intelligent Thrawn is through his utter dedication to detail and data. However Ronan is a terrible character and mostly acts as the audience who constantly challenges Thrawn for no reason beyond ‘that's not what I would do!”
The space battles are fine but the stakes are so low I feel it doesn't really matter. I don't really care about Chiss girls being enslaved so why should I care about these minor skirmishes? Thrawn versus Savit was a cool battle but ultimately it was inevitable nobody was going to die so the stakes were low and inconsequential.
Zahn wrote a story here that doesn't really matter. So the book as a whole while decently written is irrelevant.
Livy is particularly fantastic at the rhythm of history. His writing is not of a historian but rather a masterful author who knows how to make a brilliant story. There's so much to say about this book from how patrician/plebeian relations are still relevant today and perhaps a lesson in progressive politics. In how war is not necessarily a glorious affair but a mundane one with terrible consequences if not given immense detail.
What I love is Livy's use of set pieces. You have a whole drama between the plebeians and patricians but then suddenly you have a whole storyline with a great general or statesman. Figures like Verginius who killed his daughter to prevent her debasement under a decimvir or Coriolanus who fought Rome in his exile or most recently Camilus who captured Veii not through force but through planning and strategy. This shows that Livy perhaps like a moderate balance between great men and long-term structures that created Rome.
Livy is not exactly a brilliant historian. He relies on authorities but does not analyse the sources himself, a severe lack of primary source analysis. Futhermore he refuses to cut out mythology which might show him as more of a propagandist rather than historian. This is apparent to me with the recapture of Rome when he critiques the generals for not carrying out religious rituals before battle (Camilus also argues this later). A serious historian would not rely on religious arguments for a defeat in battle, especially when he himself loved Camilus who argued for strategy and planning that affects fortune.
Regardless of my views of Livy as a historian, this is still an excellent book for its wide array of stories that capture a sense of historical rhythm I haven't seen elsewhere.
This is my favourite book without a doubt. Its focus on the political and military situation is exceptional. What really got me into the book was the realisation that this was not just a war between Sparta and Athens but a massive war between the Greeks (and by extension the Persians who sought to reinstate their old empire). Futhermore the generals on each side were immensely competent and showed how close this war was, even with the Sicilian blunder Athens was still not out of the war entirely. I love the use of speeches as a way to break up the text. So many good case studies from the Melian Dialogue, to the oligarchic coup of Athens and the democratic resistance at Samos. Such a good book and one I will plan to reread over and over to really understood the extent of the war and the various details between the issues of various Greek polities.
Brilliance! The opening with Telemachus is great mystery to what happened to Odysseus. The middle of what happened to Odysseus as flashbacks while he's on his travels to Ithaca is brilliant writing. The ending of dealing with the suitors is great and very familiar of the Iliad. Overall the characters of Odysseus, Telemachus, Penelope and Athena were very well written and acts as a superb sequel to the Iliad. I cannot be happier I read this book.
There is two possibilities; either I am bored of the productivity genre or this book is not great. Ultimately it could be both; perhaps I have gotten all the productivity advice I needed and now the step forward is actually working instead of trying to hack my work process that usually does not exist. I'm a big fan of Deep Work by Newport and that was a big step in my career in thinking deeply about my work process, unfortunately this book has failed to reach the same bar.
He posits a theory that knowledge workers have been treated poorly; too much work and an emphasis on busyness & quantity of work. As a result, workers have been overloaded, on the edge of burnout and the noticeable lack of quality content. As a result, he argues workers ought to take more breaks, do less work and focus on the quality of work. He proceeds to spend about six to seven hours to argue this when it could have been done in about three or less. That is my issue with the productivity genre, too long is spent on unnecessary details and examples when more time ought to be spent dealing with the philosophical logic; explain to me why I ought to be listening to you instead of a strawman evil manager who wants me to work twelve hour shifts or my academic rival who works constantly and produces more work. He tries to argue his point by using the examples of others, from writers to musicians but it feels so irrelevant I'm bored throughout most of this book. The work feels too easy and not challenging enough - I would hope that Cal Newport would evolve as a writer; away from the middle ground of Stephen Covey and Malcolm Gladwell and into a writer befitting a philosopher of productivity. It seems that Newport is basically just rehashing the same couple ideas he has and writing more books unnecessarily. I read Deep Work, why read anything else from Newport if it's just more of the same?
It is comical how many of these ideas I have already implemented in my life. I have listened to a fair view episodes of Newport's podcast as well as being interested in the whole productivity genre so perhaps I came into this book expecting more for intermediates whereas it seems to focus more on an introduction.
It seems to me that the idea of the philosophy is to be deliberate with your time. If you feel like you're spending too much time on your phone, you probably are and should change things. He goes a bit further arguing that some things aren't really necessary for us as humans. In that sense it does seem that he's a sceptic of technology instead of a technology enthusiast. What I felt missing was why or what led him to not using social media initially? Sure we waste time there and it benefits only corporations but was that what he was thinking in the early 2010s? As a result his theory is more so based on the experiences of others in an okay way but not particularly hard hitting. It does seem this genre suffers from a lack of complexity and deep thinking - I'm sure he would love to go deeper but perhaps he is limited by the constraints of productivity literature.
It's not a bad book but not life changing. It's alright.
I enjoyed the interaction between Vader and Thrawn and the juxtaposition between the Anakin/Vader character adds a lot to the story as a whole. I've never really felt Anakin was Vader until this book surprisingly.
The stormtroopers were used well and I actually enjoyed Kimmund as a character.
I didn't care for the Padme storyline. She was never really my favourite character and this book didn't really change my opinion on her.
I think too much of the book was unnecessary and probably could have enjoyed a tighter plot. Thrawn didn't feel like the main character but rather Anakin/Vader did.
The reveal that the Chiss have force sensitives and that the Chiss are in the process of civil war is interesting.
Pettit argues that he wants a republic that brings the best of the old republican tradition and interpret it with a radical theory of freedom as non-domination. His theory is alright but falls flat when he tries to bring the theory into a practical framework. He has suggestions for how a republic that espouses non-domination but nothing concrete. Perhaps my reading of political philosophy is too limited and this is a flaw of the literature but it did not feel as he was initiating a plan of action but rather an ideal theory. When he tries to talk practically it seems that his suggestions were not all that radical indeed but rather a retelling of any republican system we have today.
There is also something to be said in that he avoids the question of economic dominance. He covers it briefly when he tries to absorb socialists into his worldview but he focuses more so on the employers rather than the role of capitalism upon society which I would argue is a greater threat to republicanism than he gives credit for.
Ultimately he does not give much practical room for his theory and when he enters the practical realm he falters.
I read this book because my friend idolised Switzerland for its political system. As a result I was going in to see if his preconceptions were accurate and to argue under better knowledge.
This book is well written. It is not particularly dry or boring but keeps your interest despite the boring topics like old age pensions. It actually made me appreciate the boring aspects of politics more and made me think less about grand political theory and the actual realities of a political system. It does a good job at showing that Switzerland is unique and possibly more democratic but it is not a utopia and still runs into the same issues of religious and political division.
If a book brings more nuance to a conversation I always welcome it. A good read.
Ravenhill has shown himself to be quite the strong author with writing in such a way that you want to immediately follow his advice. I have found my prayer life to be quite poor recently and this book gave me a good push towards rectifying this.
I rather like his style of personal anecdotes and referencing great figures of the faith. It shows him as a learned and experienced individual rather than a textbook preacher.
This pairs nicely with his most famous book, Why Revival Tarries, and compliments one another with this book mentioning and elaborating the role of prayer from the individual to the preacher.
This short book discusses the theory and the shortcomings of its interpretations by some. Marx presents a rather radical solution and it ought to be followed without modifications that dilute the theory. His observations are rather apt arguing that capitalism will eventually ruin everything in the attempt to constantly produce more and more leading to the cultural destitution of everything.
I can agree with his observations arguing that the bourgeoisie are incompetent at ruling but the solution Marx presents is that the proletariat ought to rule themselves without religion. As a Christian myself I cannot agree and his firm stance on the removal of religion is where he lost me. He makes an interesting argument that Christianity and Marxism seem to be compatible but it only benefits the aristocracy; perhaps it is so. The revolution is perhaps not for the Christian who already believe there was a revolution with Jesus.
It is an interesting short read. It is not exhaustive and I fail to see how this would motivate the Chinese into being better revolutionaries. It reads more of Mao wanting everyone to own the book for the sake of political uniformity rather than wanting people to understand communist theory.
What I got from it was an understanding of radicalism. The Chinese who would have seen the Party as good would certainly find this book as motivating in their ever increasing radicalism. If the communists can find such radicalism in a theory, why do Christians stay so lukewarm in the absolute truth? A communist can stop being a communist once he no longer believes the theory but a Christian cannot stop being a Christian unless they renounce the faith entirely. Why is it so easy for a theory to find radicalism but Christianity, a truly radical belief sees such little radicalism? Perhaps we should learn something from Mao in how he talks about poverty; in poverty you seek change. Christians thus are too comfortable when the early CCP were being persecuted by the authorities or starving from no food. It is comfort that is antithetic to radicalism. I would argue that this book does a good job at showing this radicalism but certainly not in the more eloquent or groundbreaking way Marx did in the Communist Manifesto.
A rather brilliant book for how short it is. Boia shows his ability to analyse historians and the various themes that arise while also writing in an engaging (and often humorous way!). What I came for was a debunking of nationalist myths and left with an immense contextualisation on why my nation would act in such a way. It is rather infuriating to live with nationalists and be shown that others have the same gripes: Boia and the Junimea group. It is particularly coincidental that he wrote this book during the 1996 elections and I'm reading it during the 2024 elections. Yet despite two decades apart the issues remain constant; Romania wants an authoritarian saviour which panders to an autochthonous glorious past that never existed. Is there hope for Romania? Perhaps in the slow work of serious historians who do not acknowledge the role of contemporary politics as necessary in their work.
It was a march indeed. One through military life and all its inadequacies (Carl Joseph drank miserably in the military but did not even need a cup in his civilian life) arguing that the military as an institution is devoid of anything good; the Kaiser was saved thanks to the military but to what end? Even the Kaiser recognised that war is a sin! Why must people acknowledge their sins on their deathbed when they can contemplate on it while alive? The march also shows the futility of pointless relationships with women already married; Old Trotta was instructed to avoid women and his life was all the better, Carl Joseph did not listen and he ruined the life of two people. This march shows us the beauty in an emotional father and son relationship that only came about due to mistakes in the son's life. Why can't people just think life through before acting on their impulses?
Miklós Bánffy did not write a simple story here; he wrote something so genuine that pulled at my heartstrings. You see these characters constantly over the many hours it took to read these books and you hope for a good ending. Bánffy does not give anyone a good ending. Countess Roza dies from a stroke, Laszlo Gyeroffy dies bankrupt and ruined, Pal Uzdy dies from a mantic episode, Margit Miloth likely loses Adam in WWI and most sad of all, Adrienne does not marry Balint after all these years because he wants to take care of her dying child, essentially choosing Pal Uzdy over Balint. Balint having no joy left in his life decides to commit suicide by joining WWI instead of taking an office job. These last hundred pages really pack in death and misery and I cried quite heavily the moment I finished the book. Truly a brilliant piece of literature.
There are some criticisms I can point out however. The biggest gripe I have is that Balint does not particularly grow as a character; his moods are mostly based on how his relationship with Adrienne is; if it's good then he is happy, if it is bad then he is sad. The book does not really go beyond that. He is ultimately a character that views the world around him and changes very little. The book is also rather shy about talking about his downsides; the only instance of a criticism of Balint is that he is too generous regarding the Co-operative. There is also the instance where Balint is trying to justify to himself that he is still a Christian despite committing adultery with the argument that his love is pure and God will accept that; this shows a rather poor understanding of the faith. It is likely that Bánffy was not much of a Christian in that the only other religious character is Father Timbus, a corrupt Orthodox priest.
It has been a long journey and I am finally finished with my first foray into Hungarian literature. I genuinely enjoyed it and I might explore the genre further in the future. I have come out stronger from this book knowing that my life is so precious to not be bogged down in gambling, alcoholism, infatuation of women, adultery and pointless discussions. This book dealt with every one of these themes heavily and thus, I have come out all the better.
Lewis makes the argument that the Devil's work is never truly over, they can always find something to use against us to make us reject God as he intends. He focuses on a lot of different aspects but relationships tend to be one. He notes how humans interact can lead to conflict and this conflict is what the Devil exploits. Thus it seems Lewis is directing us towards not a worldly ideal human relationship but towards what the Bible views as the ideal relationship between people.
There are also some great ideas such as selfishness of time and unselfishness differing between the genders.
I will likely revisit this.
This is a so-so book. It has some good ideas and discusses issues in politics clearly and step-by-step with plenty of contemporary examples. One thing I found is how relevant many of his ideas are today such as the army being mainly defensive force and how civilization ought to think of peace and leisure which has really only come to fruition in the last decades.
The parts I didn't like are just rather boring technical discussions such as the last couple chapters talking about musical education in children which is tangentially related to the topic. Furthermore it's hard to agree with his stances on abortion, marriage, slavery and Greek supremacy.
This is a great book! I was not expecting to be so pro-Christianity but I suppose it makes sense for 1860s Russia. However it is not a Christian book outright; the book deals with suffering, whether it be self-inflicted or not. Christianity is viewed as a solution to suffering; but paradoxically will lead to suffering. Raskolinov was given the choice to hold the suffering within by committing suicide or running off to America (which might be Savidrigaliov for committing suicide) or embrace eight years of suffering in Siberia to which Christianity supports what is just by confessing one's sins.
There were so many emotional moments from Raskolinov's discussion with Marmeldov and his whole miserable life story to Raskolinov's final meeting with his mother. The characters were very well developed and even antagonists like Luzhin were given time to explore their mentality and why they are doing it. Raskolinov can be considered the antagonist but those around him do not want him to suffer without God but to suffer with God as Porfidry suggests. This shows that suffering does not have to be in isolation.
Dostoevsky likely experienced much suffering in his life to speak of it in such raw and illogical methods.
Really important book. Christian books can sometimes be hit or miss and this was a ‘hit'. The main theme of this book is why we lack a Christian revival. Now he was writing this in the 1950s and this question still applies today. There has not been a great Christian revival and my generation is the most ungodly group of people ever I would say. Thus, he argues that this is the fault of the Christians themselves; while he does criticise Catholics and communists (definitely feeling the 1959 vibe!), he reasons that the issue is that Christians are too inactive and apathetic, mainly that they do not pray. He argues that we do not pray enough, we should be praying people, and not just pray, but pray in faith and the Holy Spirit. This was a bit of a wake-up call to me as I've only been praying for about two or three minutes every day which is not enough. He notes that a preacher ought to be praying two hours minimum! If the preacher is to pray for two hours minimum, the congregation should not be left behind. The preacher does not bring us to heaven but rather helps us get there.
Really important book in terms of my spiritual development.
I read about half of it. The writing itself is pretty mediocre. I was mostly interested in the medieval history stuff which is only ~50 pages out of a 330-page book. Half of this book is set after the French Revolution which I do not particularly care about, thus I decided to finish just before the French Revolution started.
It was a strange book at times. It attempted to argue that modern ideas of capitalism, identity and nation could be present in the 1500s which I disagree with. These are modern terms for modern concepts; attempting to graft these modern concepts onto the past is just anachronistic. It feels that most of the interest was placed in modern history and not in medieval history.
Do I recommend it? Not really. I read it to see if I was interested in medieval French history and I am so I suppose I got that but I do not think I needed to read half a book for that, I could have been fine if I read a Wikipedia article most likely. It is not bad, just not a great use of time.
I really enjoyed the political realm, it wasn't given a lot of attention but it was given enough to be interesting and also works well for Balint's characterisation who doesn't really care about politics despite being a politician. I also really enjoyed Balint's side adventure in developing his lands and the co-operative. The intrigues between Azbej and Simo in how lower level individuals gain power in an aristocratic world. The short but ever present shadowy appearance of Slawata was really interesting and really emphasised how scary it must have been for Hungarian nobility to be deprived of their privileges if Austria wanted to enforce direct rule. The Romanian lawyer was also really interesting and his idea on creating a Romanian middle class was fascinating. So there is a lot of meat in this book.
However, most of this book is ultimately a love story. Gyeroffy's story with Klara was great and it showed how a gambling addiction can ultimately ruin everything from your true love to your social status. Balint's story with Adrienne however was infuriating. He should not be with her. I deeply understand why he loves her but he shouldn't be with her when she's so unwilling to be passionate with him and is so reluctant to bring the relationship further. I'm glad they decided to split up and her decision to not commit suicide (as her sister Judith attempted) but to keep on living.
The Wickwitz storyline was interesting as well. He's most certainly the ‘villain' in this book but the book does a good job in showing his side of the story and how it's not exactly an easy choice to make if you have debts but still want to be in the position you're in - he didn't lack morals outright, he just approached dealing with his debts in the worst way of trying to get marriage and let them pay off his debts. I suppose that's pretty immoral actually. He was a great character I think.
Balint is a great character, I just didn't like him very much when he was with Adrienne and I think he knows that himself, especially all the instances of wondering if he can break free of her spell. Overall he's a great character.
Great book overall and a great snapshot in 20th century Hungarian aristocracy.
Brilliant book. Jake was very well written and the characters of Deke, both Miz's, Mike, Al and so on were great. Lee Oswald was great and his relationship with Marina was intriguing. I also loved the minor once offs like Silent Mike or the Jump Rope Girls. King does a great job at painting the picture of what exactly is happening. I think my favourite part of the book was the whole Jodie arc - it really felt that Jake was at his peak and the blossoming relationship with Sadie was great. Unfortunately I can't give this 5/5 as I think Sadie didn't get a whole lot of time as a character and I felt she was more of a love interest rather than her own individual - these grievances are minimal as she does show individuality following the Clayton incident and the whole 11/22/63 scene. I also felt the alternate history was undercooked with only ~10 pages given to a scenario in which JFK lives - basically it's bad, not because of him as a president but as the rules of time travel which the book argues that time travel is not good, but sort of is for love? It's not really an alternate history, sci-fi book but more of a 1950s, 1960s period, romance drama. I think the book was at its best when it did that versus the time travel of the Card Men which was not well written I feel. The fact that the alternative wrong timeline was given such little time shows that it wasn't really ever a sci-fi book but rather a ‘foreigner in a strange land' story. It's definitely interesting because it shows how different the 2010s are to the 1950-60s. The high intensity scenes like the Dunning, Clayton and Kennedy incidents are well written but ultimately feels more drama and detective novel rather than something we'd see in sci-fi. It uses time travel as a means to talk about a different period in our lives, and a well written one at that, but falls flat on alternative history, sci-fi and explanation of time travel.