Generic Business Oriented Website

The Family by Mario Puzo 9/10

This was his last book, and he died before it was finished. The final chapter was completed by Bert Fields.

A fictional account of the Borgia family. For those unfamiliar, the Borgias were a powerful family originating in Spain, but mainly known for their time in Italy during the Renaissance. They were suspected of some truly scandalous behavior, incest, murder, intrigue of all kinds. The book features some other luminaries of the time; the Medicis, Machiavelli, and Brunelleschi.
The book illustrates Pope Alexander VI, the patriarch of the Borgias, and his 3 children influencing the politics of the various independent city states of Italy. At the time the Holy Roman Church was for sale, and the Pope used his power to advance his children as well as his own agendas. The back of the book describes them as the "greatest crime family in Italian history", and that's how the book reads.
I just flew thru it. The only reason I didn't give it a 10/10 was because, in my opinion, there are no "perfect" books.

LolaFaun wrote:The only reason I didn't give it a 10/10 was because, in my opinion, there are no "perfect" books.

hahahaha you have to be this person forever

Don Quixote is a perfect book IMO.

869 - Picking up speed but I still think I wish Schulz or even Turgenev wrote the Search. I should like to return to some Turgenev soon. Proust and Krasznahorkai have amazing inter-personal insight but lack the social intelligence of Schulz and Turgenev. Schulz's crepuscular gauze is something I prefer to occasionally stuffy Proust - so far at least.

Mr. Budd wrote:Don Quixote is a perfect book IMO.

I love that book, but the tangental, stories-within-the-story took away a lot of momentum. And when I reached the end, when Quixote recants, it was one of the biggest disappointments in my life as a reader. Maybe disappointment isn't the right word, but it made me genuinely sad.

spoiler tags!

neckbeard wrote:spoiler tags!

A Feast For Crows

Doad, you must have read something else, because I thought this book was great. Sure it's only the story about what was happening in Westeros, but I thought .it was interesting. I was never bored. The way you wrote, you made it out like it was just Jaime/Cersei/Brienne, but it was a lot lot more than that. I give it 9/10

Mr. Budd wrote:Don Quixote is a perfect book IMO.

Agreed.
However, I would consider Madame Bovary even more perfect.

The World According to Garp by John Irving - 5/10

I don't know. It happened to be among the Contemporary Women's mystery novels in the house that I rented at the shore. I can appreciate Irving's skill, but in this one he struck me as a bit of a try hard.

altars of radness wrote:

Mr. Budd wrote:Don Quixote is a perfect book IMO.

I love that book, but the tangental, stories-within-the-story took away a lot of momentum. And when I reached the end, when Quixote recants, it was one of the biggest disappointments in my life as a reader. Maybe disappointment isn't the right word, but it made me genuinely sad.

Absolutely horrible reasons there. Diversions in Don quixote are the rule, not the exception and "he" didn't "recant" at all the ways I see it.
I was CRUSHED sad at the end of Don Quixote. But why not? The books SHOULD move you, tickle you, enlighten you.

It's perfect really. I guess that's a hard thing to "prove" but it's nearly impossible to find an "educated" person that won't rank it at the top of any list.

Bulghakov's (never will spell that right) Heart of a Dog is also perfect, but very short.

Mr. Budd wrote:

altars of radness wrote:

Mr. Budd wrote:Don Quixote is a perfect book IMO.

I love that book, but the tangental, stories-within-the-story took away a lot of momentum. And when I reached the end, when Quixote recants, it was one of the biggest disappointments in my life as a reader. Maybe disappointment isn't the right word, but it made me genuinely sad.

Absolutely horrible reasons there. Diversions in Don quixote are the rule, not the exception and "he" didn't "recant" at all the ways I see it.

SPOILERSPOILER_SHOW

He even carries different names when he goes goofy. When he steps out of the Don Quixote role it's not a recant but a redressing IMO

I was CRUSHED sad at the end of Don Quixote. But why not? The books SHOULD move you, tickle you, enlighten you.

It's perfect really. I guess that's a hard thing to "prove" but it's nearly impossible to find an "educated" person that won't rank it at the top of any list.

Bulghakov's (never will spell that right) Heart of a Dog is also perfect, but very short.

Goddamn it. I had a fairly reasonable response drawn up, then I started passing out on my keyboard and it disappeared.

DQ is the best novel I've read. Easily. But perfect? There is a definite sag in momentum when the story gets away from Quixote and Sancho and I don't think a novel can be considered perfect if its pacing, its characters or its themes show any sort of inconsistency. I'm no intellectual, and I consider talking lit with you a daunting proposition (and I'm shitfaced right now), but I'm pretty confident in my belief that perfection, especially in such a human endeavor as the novel, is impossible.

Whiffleball Ace wrote: However, I would consider Madame Bovary even more perfect.

interesting choice. i did enjoy reading it quite a bit. but it didn't move me enough to be among my favourites.

Your points are well made. I'm flattered that you think talking lit with me is a challenge. I'm REAL far from snobby, I hope at least, and certainly don't profess to be some amazing intellectual. I think I'm reasonably smart (especially when you consider that I'm the first in my family to graduate college, grew up in relative poverty and have travelled, on my own dime, to about 12 different countries and have a master's degree), with a long attention span and mostly a love of learning that propels me along. I think I'm well-read I guess but am well aware of my limitations. Either way - talk it out man - who cares how you look here? The only way to ACTUALLY get smarter is to ENGAGE this stuff and bounce shit off of other people.


Is PERFECTION possible? Was DaVinci a photo-realist? - nope - but his vision and depth qualify as perfection for most. Nothing perfect about VanGogh or Ensor but I'll be damned if they don't stop me dead in my tracks and completely obliterate any other coherent tought in my head when standing in front of them.

Maybe masterful is a better word.

Eh....whatever. Volume 1 of Proust done at 1018 pages. Taking a break with some Schulz for a bit then back at it.

I wish I could explain to those of you that have never met me what a simpleton I really am. I think I make good drinking company because I actually enjoy learning from others and most of all, I enjoy having a good time...even if that means at the expense of others or even myself.

Cervantes was the man.

Hmmm...MOST perfect novel? That's really difficult. Bovary IS a good choice but it's also a cliche at this point...

Mr. Budd wrote: Nothing perfect about VanGogh or Ensor but I'll be damned if they don't stop me dead in my tracks and completely obliterate any other coherent tought in my head when standing in front of them.

This only works for me with Van Gogh when I can see an actual painting and then observe the texture of it. None of that really comes through in reproductions. When you see the luxuriousness of his obsession, the torment that was in his brush technique...the effect the REAL colors are supposed to have in natural light, then it's one of those "Oh shit, right..." moments and you understand. It's still so new and intense that one feels sorry for painters working today...

Pop1287 wrote:Sounds like the very beginning of D/G's Anti-Oedipus.

I attempted this and I seriously have no idea what they are saying. I want to read more modern philosophy as I've recently gained interest since I haven't read a thing since graduating.

I've read "about" Derrida/Deleuze/Lacan and at quick glance it just seems to be a bunch of post-modern gibberish although it's probably just my own unfamiliarity with 20th century French philosophy. I've read a good amount of Alain Badiou, Deleuze's supposed rival, who I can actually understand and I've tried to approach Deleuze from him. I'll admit that I'm completely clueless on 20th century developments like Phenomenology, Heidegger, (post) structuralism, Derrida etc

What interests me is the disconnect between "Analytic" and "Continental". Alot of the latter is just confusing and reaching while the Anglo-American view is philosophy as just a tool, like a plumber has tools. There's this disconnect where everyone is talking about different things and it pisses me off. There's a video online of an old Chomsky/Foucault "debate" and it's like they're not even talking about the same damn thing.

Fields of Shit wrote: What interests me is the disconnect between "Analytic" and "Continental". Alot of the latter is just confusing and reaching while the Anglo-American view is philosophy as just a tool, like a plumber has tools. There's this disconnect where everyone is talking about different things and it pisses me off. There's a video online of an old Chomsky/Foucault "debate" and it's like they're not even talking about the same damn thing.

yeah, they hate each other. "continental" philosophy has been dead for ages now. analytic ftw.

and i don't really like how you usurp the analytic tradition for america. recent analytic/ scientific philosophy was founded in europe, especially in Vienna. thanks to the nazis you were able to siphon off many of our best brains.

Pop1287 wrote:FINALLY got my hands on a copy of Gibson's "Zero History." Review in three days? I'm studying Java, dammit...

Hubertus Bigend! References to American Spirits and Austin, TX! Fuck yes...

man, i cant wait to read it .

that said, i keep having this problem shaking the feeling that he's just re-imagining "count zero" as a modern trilogy. maybe i'm just pissy because i was underwhelmed by spook country. i mean they're all fun, but not quite exciting anymore.

Phritz wrote:

Fields of Shit wrote: What interests me is the disconnect between "Analytic" and "Continental". Alot of the latter is just confusing and reaching while the Anglo-American view is philosophy as just a tool, like a plumber has tools. There's this disconnect where everyone is talking about different things and it pisses me off. There's a video online of an old Chomsky/Foucault "debate" and it's like they're not even talking about the same damn thing.

yeah, they hate each other. "continental" philosophy has been dead for ages now. analytic ftw.

and i don't really like how you usurp the analytic tradition for america. recent analytic/ scientific philosophy was founded in europe, especially in Vienna. thanks to the nazis you were able to siphon off many of our best brains.

I just referred to it as that because that's how I've heard it called, I know it's misleading.

John Jr. wrote:

Pop1287 wrote:FINALLY got my hands on a copy of Gibson's "Zero History." Review in three days? I'm studying Java, dammit...

Hubertus Bigend! References to American Spirits and Austin, TX! Fuck yes...

man, i cant wait to read it .

that said, i keep having this problem shaking the feeling that he's just re-imagining "count zero" as a modern trilogy. maybe i'm just pissy because i was underwhelmed by spook country. i mean they're all fun, but not quite exciting anymore.

Because he's writing about the present world now. I still love his work but yeah, it's not the Sprawl trilogy.

Edit: I should also add (if I haven't mentioned it before) that's I've just BARELY missed meeting him twice now. I'm not happy about that. He had a reading/signing session once about 200 yards from my house in Austin and I was so drunk I slept through it all...I was legitimately disappointed...and I almost never feel that way. If I did meet him, though, I would be so star-struck (like the time I met Clive Barker in Dallas when Imajica came out) that I would just stand there drooling...derp derp...

Fields of Shit wrote: I attempted this and I seriously have no idea what they are saying. I want to read more modern philosophy as I've recently gained interest since I haven't read a thing since graduating.

Well, that's a really good example of a book that you have to come at it armed to the teeth...if you're just beginning to study contemporary philosophy and anti-psychology it's not going to mean much to you. You should know also that those two guys just LOVED fucking with people...but basically it's an all-out assault on all methods of capitalist/social/psychological control in our society...

Cool to see that Penguin has an edition of it now.

>I've read "about" Derrida/Deleuze/Lacan and at quick glance it just seems to be a bunch of post-modern gibberish

It's not.

>although it's probably just my own unfamiliarity with 20th century French philosophy.

Ease into it with Foucault. His first book, then Discipline and Punish, go back and read Marxism with Louis Althusser, yes, Badiou, read some of the easier Derrida books first (his essay attacking Foucault's first book is where you see deconstruction really at work), read Barthes (all of his stuff), sample Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" (this is where Althusser, Marx and people like Debord come in handy), etc. Personally...I think Deleuze is one of the most difficult. If you handle Lacan (and it helps to go back through all of Freud first) then you should be able to stomach Deleuze...

>I've read a good amount of Alain Badiou, Deleuze's supposed rival, who I can actually understand and I've tried to approach Deleuze from him. I'll admit that I'm completely clueless on 20th century developments like Phenomenology, Heidegger, (post) structuralism, Derrida etc

There are histories of 20th century philosophy that cover all of this. It's not REALLY difficult if it's simply explained to you in the right way. There are various levels of obfuscation: first, the level where like the Frankfurt School these guys were modernists and loved making things complex for complexity's sake, but one can pierce though all the verbiage to root ideas after a bit of practice, and then second: bad translations. You also have those philosophers who were absolutely sick of "dry" philosophy and tried to inject poetry/personality into their writing. People raised in the Anglo tradition often have real problems with that...the French don't.

>What interests me is the disconnect between "Analytic" and "Continental". Alot of the latter is just confusing and reaching while the Anglo-American view is philosophy as just a tool, like a plumber has tools. There's this disconnect where everyone is talking about different things and it pisses me off. There's a video online of an old Chomsky/Foucault "debate" and it's like they're not even talking about the same damn thing.

You're thinking of William James, Bentham, Mill, right? I never liked those guys. SO boring...

RE: the Vienna positivists, god...they were even worse.

Edit: you've probably heard that famous story about when Wittgenstein met some of them in Vienna he was so disgusted by their stupidity that he sat, at tea, with his back to them and refused to even talk to them directly...

Gotta love that guy...

if i ever met william gibson, i think i could keep it short and sweet:

"Hey man, thanks for changing my life. oh yeah, and if you allow keanu reeves to be involved in a Neuromancer film in any way, shape, or form: I'll fucking kill you."

John Jr. wrote:if i ever met william gibson, i think i could keep it short and sweet:

"Hey man, thanks for changing my life. oh yeah, and if you allow keanu reeves to be involved in a Neuromancer film in any way, shape, or form: I'll fucking kill you."

That project went past the script stage, I think. I remember seeing a long time ago certain set/costume designs, etc. I don't know if they were then used for Johnny Mnemonic. I would enjoy reading that script, though.

I'm not a Neuromancer nerd in the sense that I would actually get angry when/if Hollywood fucked it up or anything, but I'm interested in following such things...

It probably won't happen for a number of years, though - I'm guessing the novel would have to be way more than 25 years old...26 now!

At some point people can lock in the retro "future past" angle (Gibson specialized in this in his early short stories), bring in the whole "we're all comfortable with the internet" angle, etc. So maybe in the next 10 years?

hell, the net that he wrote about doesn't seem much like the web to me. more like a bunch of different BBS systems and targets, ala computer fun in the late 80's/early 90's.

Film projects

There have been several unsuccessful initial attempts at film adaptations of Neuromancer, with drafts of scripts written by British director Chris Cunningham and Chuck Russel. The box packaging for the video game adaptation had even carried the promotional mention for a major motion picture to come from "Cabana Boy Productions." None of these projects have come to fruition, though William Gibson has stated his belief that Cunningham is the only director with a chance of doing the film right.[26]

On May 18, 2007 ComingSoon.net reported a film is in the works, with Joseph Kahn, director of Torque, in line to direct.[27] On May 7, 2010 Fangoria reported that Vincenzo Natali, the director of Cube and Splice, had taken over directing duties and will also rewrite the screenplay.[28]
------

man, i would have KILLED to see chris cunningham do it.

John Jr. wrote:hell, the net that he wrote about doesn't seem much like the web to me. more like a bunch of different BBS systems and targets, ala computer fun in the late 80's/early 90's.

He wrote that novel on a manual typewriter with a very basic knowledge of computers. Many of those ideas he had from the late '70s. I'm sure you know this...but that makes his imagination that much more impressive...

One of his early jobs was as a antique finder/junk trawler, he would go out and search through garage sales and things like that for items to sell. That's how he supported himself and his family...way before Ebay. You see that and the entire notion of gomi, what society casts off, throughout his novels.