Finally finished Dune. Has anyone ever read the other books? Have to say that I got really weary of that arrogant prick that Paul turned into in the end.
Just finished The Silo trilogy, A+ i wish there was more. Excited to see how the TV series continues the adaption.
Really enjoyed Dune but quit book 2 halfway through.
The other books start getting very trippy very quickly. Iâve never recommended reading them.
Visiting friend. His 13 y/o daughter was finishing 4th Clan of the Cave Bear book, like 1k pages. I remembered liking at least the first two books around the same age.
Yeah, think Dune starts getting pretty weird. Think I read like two of them. Could be interesting to revisit but I donât usually read fiction.
I should probably read War and Peace just to understand Russia better.
I got into the third one. Then it was too much jandar penis for me
I remember rereading the sex scenes a lot at around that age.
1 Like
I interviewed a literary agent
A fresh take on fantasy tropes. Itâs essentially the same setup as 11.22.63, but with the main character able to cross over into a fantasy dimension. I listened to it on audiobook so must give a lot of credit to the narrator. I also applaud any King book where he avoids the aliens did it at the end.
1 Like
Iâve noticed lately that thereâs a good number of audiobooks, such as history and biography, available on YouTube. If you have a YouTube subscription thereâs no commercials. Probably worth checking out for some.
For example, Dune.
2 Likes
Finished Ed Yongâs âAn Immense Worldâ, which was wonderful - itâs a dive into how animalsâ senses differ from ours. Lots of brilliant little stories - my favorite chapter was about echolocation and how bats make adjustments to how they use it depending on the situation.
This type of book can also be depressing to me, learning about all these wonderful animals, and knowing weâre destroying them.
Finished the three-volume series by Ian Toll on the war in the Pacific in WWII. Took a while, volume III (âTwilight of the Godsâ) is 800 pages and the others are almost as long. Itâs quite comprehensive. I donât care too much about the details of the battles, which Division went up which beach, that type of thing, but the books didnât get too bogged down in that. The volume I (âPacific Crucibleâ) history of how Japan got turned into a right-wing military state is pretty interesting.
I knew the broad contours of the war, but some things I didnât know:
âThe author claims that the Japanese treated prisoners and civilians very wellâexceptionally wellâin the war against Russia in early 1900s. For example only 1% of Russians prisoners died. Itâs not entirely clear why this changed by the 1930s, although nationalism and right-wing military culture changed a lot of it. Also, maybe itâs easier to be gracious when you win decisively, as Japan did in 1905.
âYamamoto was very much against the war, as were many other liberals. But again the liberals were mostly pushed out by the right-wing military. Yamamoto correctly determined that Japan couldnât match the US war economy, once it got going.
âYamamoto was behind the Pearl Harbor strategy, even though he was against the war. This was obviously very successful, although his same desire for a decisive battle got Japan in trouble at Midway.
âI knew the Japanese soldiers werenât into surrender, for various military/emperor/cultural reasons. But itâs hard to realize the extent of it, until you see the details. At Guadalcanal, almost 20,000 Japanese soldiers died, with only 1,000 captured alive (many of these were not actual surrenders). Peleliu, 12,000 dead, only 360 captured. Iwo Jima, 22,000 dead Japanese soldiers, a few hundred prisoners. Okinawa, where Japanese soldiers and civilians died in the tens of thousands rather than surrender.
âI didnât realize how extensive and effective the kamikaze flights were.
âThe Japanese general ordered to leave Manila by his superior refused (or maybe didnât receive the order). The remaining troops fought to the death and committed many Rape-of-Nanking style atrocities against the civilians.
âI didnât realize that by July 1945, US naval forces were just hanging out on the Japanese coastline, bombing industrial targets on the coast at will (although the kamikaze attacks continued). The US had pretty much complete control over the sea and air by this point. This naval-to-land bombardment was happening all up and down the length of the east coast of Japan.
Given all this, as I was reading about the various island battles, I was thinking âwell of course the US would have to bomb Japan to win the war, thereâs no other way.â But then as I read the actual details of the firebombing of Japanese cities, I swung the other way: I thought âwell of course this is a war crime, it was solely targeted at civiliansâ. What is a war crime, if not for the firebombing of Tokyo (never even mind the A bombs)? So there is that tension that I donât have a good answer for.
But⌠but⌠but⌠even after the firebombing, and after the extensive naval bombardment of the Japanese mainland, and even after the two atomic bombs: the pro-surrender plan in Japan was on a knifeâs edge, with the military trying to enact a coup. So maybe the US war crimes were needed to force a surrender?
In the end I feel dumb for trying to apply morality to war. âGentlemen, you canât fight in here, this is the war room!â
Anyway, I thought the books were very good. Definitely worth reading if you have any interest in the subject.
7 Likes
Fire bombing was a war crime. Nukes are war crimes ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Just imagine a military went door to door and shot 50,000 civilians in the face. Thatâs what they did.
1 Like
Fire bombing wasnât always a war crime.
Robin
by David Itzkoff
7/10
A biography of Robin Williams. The book was OK, but Robin Williams oddly enough, is not a good source for a biography. He wasnât an ideas comedian, nor did he really lay the behind the scenes of his work. He didnât have a philosophy per se, what made him special was being in the moment with him and thatâs an ephemeral moment that canât really be captured in a book.
That kind of leaves this book to be a more extensively researched Wikipedia article.
Some interesting things was that his mom was pretty funny, a raconteur and a party host. He went to Juliard but got cut. He struck out to be an actor first but didnât get very far so he switched to stand up and was great at it. His shot to fame was being a guest on Happy Days. Lots of better known people dropped out so he got the call at the last moment to be a guest because one of the producers saw his stand up.
His choices as an actor werenât amazing. He actually messed up a lot of roles by improving when it didnât call for it. He did shoot to fame but his role choices were hit and miss. As he slowed down with age his choices got worse and worse. The book talked about his addictions and his infidelity but didnât dive into the details. Like I said a more deeply researched Wikipedia article.
I get shit for it but one of my favorite movies is What Dreams May Come.
2 Likes
I love What Dreams May Come. Who is giving you shit for this wonderful movie??!
Itâs a bit schmaltzy. My bit of meta thinking about the biography was that Williams was criticized for playing in schmaltzy movies and he was worried that he didnât have the skill to be a real actor because he played those parts, but now that heâs gone can we really say we had too many of those kinds of movies?
1 Like
Are schmaltzy movies really that easy? Itâs harder to elevate a schmaltzy movie than to ham up a classical Serious Dramatic role.
1 Like