The Dark Tower series' back end does polarise opinion. The only way to find out how you feel about it is by reading it, I suppose. As for myself, just got going on John Scalzi's Redshirts, and I'm reading a bit of Machiavelli before bed as well. I still can't decide whether Machiavelli was a genius for making insightful observations or a master at stating the sodding obvious and passing it off as remarkable perception.
I don't blame you. The Prince is a very strange book as it pretty much goes against nearly everything else he wrote. There is an idea that it's actually a satire, written with bitter sarcasm and aimed directly at the republic of Florence.
Currently reading Blood Meridian, and The Varieties of Religious Experience. I recently finished A Clash of Kings, but I decided to step away from fantasy again and read some other stuff.
Where did you come across this, and what else have you read by Machiavelli? The Prince is perfectly consistent with the other works I have seen from the Italian genius, especially his political philosophy. Discourses on Livy, for instance, might almost be considered a spiritual successor to the classic. If these are the quality of "arguments" against the last three books, I would suggest any reader ignore them as childish idiocy, and make up his/her own mind on the works.
That is what I intend to do. Besides, I can't stand not to finish a series. The only one I've failed to complete was 50 Shades...ugh.
We studied the text at university as part of a philosophy and literature module. The Machiavelli we read was staunchly in favor of a republic, especally the Florentine council who he apparently aimed The Prince at as a sarcastic satire. More specifically it's said to be aimed directly at the Medici whose return to power in Florence was apparently the reason he wrote the book. It was either satire or Machiavelli trying to get into the Medici's good graces, it's certainly a big departure from what his earlier ideas seemed to be. This is a theory that is also detailed in the introduction to it in Penguin Modern Classics if I remember rightly. Along with it we also read his discourse on the reforming of the Florentine council and parts of Discourses on Livy - including parts of it that say things similar to what is said in The Prince, though I'll admit we didn't read the entire thing. I don't have the time to go fully into the theory here - and frankly I don't want to. For a point of reference, though, check out the article available on JSTOR (a non-fiction and literary essay bank for academic use) called 'Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?'
Just started reading The Kingdom of This World by Alejo Carpentier. This guy is a great writer, but not many people seem to know about him.
Just finished Micro by Crichton and Preston, moving on to...not sure, will spin the wheel of my backlog and find out.
The Sparrow (1996) by Mary Doria Russell. I read an interesting review by China Mieville of another book (The Terror) where he mentioned The Sparrow. The topic of the review was interesting to me, so I though I would give it a read and form my own opinion.
I have always read that The Prince was firmly aimed at the Borgias and getting in their good graces, considering that Machiavelli was the one-time adviser to Cesar Borgia. I'm well aware that Machiavelli liked republics; I don't see the contradiction between that and anything contained in The Prince. Actually, it's probably too simplistic to say that he favored one system of government over another. In Discourses on Livy, he mentions that the cycle of government is dictatorship -> oligarchy -> democracy/republic -> dictatorship, etc. This is a natural evolution, according to him. (And the centuries since then have supported this view) Moreover, what part of The Prince could qualify as satire, aside from his tongue-in-cheek chapter about papal territories? I might check it out, although this seems like the type of revisionism so prevalent in discussions of literature and history these days.
This could also be true, I don't know a lot about the Borgias though (something I might have to do) since my main area of academic interest at the time was Dante Alighieri and the Guelphs and Ghibellines, so I read the entire history of Florentine republic, and the Borgias were only tangentially involved. I know that The Prince was supposed to be also aimed at the Borgias, but to be honest it just didn't come to mind. I remember that part. As I said I've not read all of the Discourses. I think I should before I comment on it, so I'll leave this here. It's more the general tone of the text than any one area, however I'll admit don't actually know this. I can speak/read a little Italian, and an Italian copy of the book has so far been hard to find. Though, not that I've passionately pursued it. While I obviously ascribe to the idea, I did initially call it such to guard my back. You aren't the first person to say this, while doing a little research on the topic while writing this post I came across a post in another forum where a user gave a number of points against the Political Satire interpretation to the effect that Machiavelli pretty much an unknown at the point he wrote The Prince, and his glory days were behind him. I'm not sure if that's true, but fine. We read The Prince as purely pro-dictatorships, but where given the 'satire' reading as an added bonus. Considering it was such a short book we only studied it for a week, and the essay on it was applying it to King Lear if I remember so obviously this debate wasn't the focus.
Well, this is a good point; I have only read the English translation myself, not the Italian original. In terms of his influence on actual politics, that poster is definitely correct. Off the top of my head, I believe The Prince was written in Machiavelli's waning years, after he had been stripped of his position in Florence and imprisoned and tortured. For me, one basic reason I don't see it as satire, beyond it corresponding well with Livy, is how logical and sound Machiavelli's historical examples and arguments are. Compare it to Von Clausewitz's "On War", for instance, and there is a great deal of similarity. Indeed, all this conversation about The Prince has me thinking about reading more of Machiavelli's works, especially his grimly comical plays!
The Hobbit. I've read it several times but I do love the story. I'm a big fan of Lord of the Rings as well though I couldn't pick a favourite from the two.
I've just (literally just) finished reading a small choice of Christina Rossetti's poetry. I actually really like these 100 page things by way of introductions to a new poet. They usually take just an hour or two to read, and give you the best and worst of a poet. And with this collection I couldn't track the 'plot' of Rossetti's work, but some of those poems I really really liked, and most of them I really really disliked/did not care for. It's whetted my appetite to check out more of her stuff I guess, and I honestly am interested in her work, but I can see her being one of those poets I don't feel particularly strongly either way about.
I did. It was the first poem in this collection. I have to admit, I'm not sure what I think of it. When I first read it I didn't enjoy it, and it became that I was just reading it to see where the whole thing was going. Then after reading the entire collection once over I went back to that poem and the second time around I found myself really quite enjoying it. I guess I just didn't know how to read Rossetti's work at that point, she isn't very modern at all and so I was better prepared to just go with it the second time around. I still can't say I like the poem, but I think after a few more readings I can be persuaded. I think my problem with Rossetti's poetry is that she is just so typically Victorian, and Victorian Poetry is the era I least like.
I'm reading Conversations with John Gardner, a book of interviews with a writer I find fascinating and sometimes infuriating. Mostly fascinating, though.
I just finished Heat, which is a recounting of a man's time learning to cook, including in Mario Battali's kitchen, and in Italy. I try to alternate between fiction and non-fiction -- for my next-up slot, I've got four contenders: The Execution of Noa P. Singleton The Dog Stars And the Mountains Echoed Tell the Wolves I'm Home I'm leaning toward Execution.
I'm not a big fan of Victorian poetry either. The only reason I remembered "Goblin Market" is because we had to study it in class. I definitely appreciated it more once I really studied it. It certainly left me with a good impression of Rossetti, though I've never read any of her other poems. It might be worth checking out her brother, Dante Rossetti. I remember liking some of his poems.
