Franklin Horton both his borrowed world series, and his Mad Mick series. Both take place In his post apocalypse America. The scariest part is his inciting incident is made up of well documented weaknesses I'm the infrastructure.
A Bit of a Stretch: Diaries of a Prisoner by Chris Atkins is one of my current reads. Prison reform is something I've been vaguely interested in for some time, since I worked with serving and former prisoners before I reformed as a lawyer and went into teaching. Teaching criminology (which isn't a real subject) means I've kept in touch with some ideas, but it's been some time since I came across a proper depiction of life inside. It's quite jarring to return to the language of life behind bars. There's something unsettling about it. It's English, but not as we know it. Familiar words have a different meaning. Different jargon controls people's lives. It's a reminder that prison is of our society and yet apart. The familiar is undermined. I can't say it's enjoyable, but it is an important corrective to media narratives about 'cushy' prison life that political parties then seize upon. Prison is an inhumane experience that needs to be reformed if it is to work as anything but a temporary reprieve for society from certain individuals.
I've put a couple more books on my list.... but havent finished the ones already on it. (2 are "homework".... we are preparing an author visit, only we dont know which book we want to choose, so we are doing a ton of reading to vote on a book, so we can book an author. Does "skim reading" count as reading?) So: im at the end of Woman Life Freedom edited by Marjane Satrapi FINISHED! started American Siren by Kevin Hazzard Checked out The Deep by Rivers Solomon I'm 75% done with The Irish Country Village by Patrick Taylor and am starting to reread The Waterless Sea by Kate Constable (because im feeling nostalgic) (I made a Goodreads account fairly recently but keep forgetting to update it -sighs-)
Finished the Skinjacker trilogy last week and then started Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson. It's slowed me down, but I'm not upset about that. Nonfiction tends to do that for me.
After some wavering back and forth I've committed myself to read "Clouds above the hill" by Shiba Ryotaro, in the English translation for those who wonders. I'm very interested in the Russo-Japanese War and cavalry during the long 19th century so I'm looking forward to see if its as good as I've been lead to hope.
I’m a little over a third of the way through World War II at Sea: A Global History by Craig Symonds. What a comprehensive book! Although there are a few areas I wish for a little more detail, this is a massive topic to cover in a single volume, so I can’t complain too much. Currently on the chapter about Malta and Guadalcanal.
Looks interesting. I know that I've had some loose thoughts about reading up on ww2 now and then so this looks like something could be interesting if I would decide to follow that inclination.
Just got done reading this overview of one of the key schools of Chinese Buddhist philosophy. Ziporyn does a good job explaining relevant core concepts of Buddhist thought (e.g. dependent origination and emptiness) in a way relevant to non-Buddhists, and then showing how Tiantai Buddhism teases out some mind-bending implications from them. He explores some of the ethical and practical applications of it (and it gets pretty weird). People who've puzzled over some of the stranger recorded pronouncements of Chan/ Zen masters will find a lot of it has a basis in Tiantai thinking (and the sometimes overlapping, sometimes rival Huayan school).
I like Isaac's Storm and have read it a couple of times. About 1966, I lived across the bridge from Galveston in Texas City. While it's not my favorite place to visit, it does have a fascinating history and some intersting sites. You might be interested in checking out the hurricane photographs and other information at the Rosenburg Library's online site. I do a presentation on the hurricane of 1900 and this was a treasure trove of photographs and information. https://www.galvestonhistorycenter.org/ I'm rereading Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens and listening to The Counterfeit Countess: The Jewish Woman Who Rescued Thousands of Poles During the Holocaust by Elizabeth B. White and Joanna Sliwa. Both are excellent books.
Kind of put Isaac's Storm on the nightstand for later, but today I finished Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman, read through Agustina Bazterrica's short story collection called Nineteen Claws and a Blackbird, and now I'm about to start All my Puny Sorrows by Miriam Toews.
I was 51% through American Siren before I stopped. It was good, but that was one of the books i was only reading for my job, and it was decided that that book was no longer in the running. I'm at the end of The Deep (its a novella... i would have finished sooner, but another book caught me attention). I started and finished Lies of the Ajungo and 5 stars! I found myself holding my breath at moments waiting on the big revelations. It was one big riddle and once the riddle was solved.... well, no spoilers! I recommend it. There is a sequel, Truth of the Aleke, that I'm going to start shortly. Maybe not today, since I took enough worktime reading I also have 4 hours left in the audiobook of The Irish Country Village. Its more of a "feel-good" read/audio. low stakes. no big twists and turns. dont really have to pay attention to know how its going to end. Sorta like Call The Midwife. So, theres no hurry in me completing it. I just have it on whenever.
I'm reading Unruly by David Mitchell. I'm familiar with him from shows like "Would I Lie To You?" and "Upstart Crow", but it's the first time I'm reading one of his books. I've read many other books on the history of English royalty, so I'm quite very familiar with it. But David still (and frequently!) manages to surprise me. Recommended. (Spoiler: the story ends just when it was getting good, with the death of Elizabeth I. Too bad. I wonder what David makes of such 'luminaries' as the Houses of Stuart and House of Hanover, not to mention the utterly useless waste of space also known as 'Bonnie' Prince Charlie).
I've started a major project to, try, and read all the unread books I have home and get rid of those books I don't feel like I would want to re-read in the future. Yes, I have many unread books at home so its good to have decided upon a means to rectify this situation and start to work through the load. I expect my bank account to also be happy as I'll avoid getting new books like the plague while I'm engaged in this. I'm starting with "Tactics" by William Balck in two volumes. I've been looking to read these for some time but never gotten around to it or been unterrupted by one thing or another. But now I'm gonna plow through it, once and for all.
The Wilder Life: My Adventures in the Lost World of Little House on the Prairie by Wendy McClure. A tale of following the path laid out in Laura Ingall Wilder's books and what Wendy learned along the way. If you ever loved the Little House on the Prairie books, you might enjoy this. Black Beauty by Anna Sewell. This book has really worn well. I still cringe when Beauty faces his darkest days, even though I know the ending is happy.
Sorry, of...? *puzzled* The Houses of Stuart and Hanover cover a long period -- almost 220 years (from 1603 to 1821 or so). Let's just say that most Stuart and Hanoverian kings had their failings. James I (aka James VI of Scotland) was a spendthrift. Charles I just couldn't compromise with anyone, and took his "divine right" much too seriously. Charles II couldn't keep it in his pants. James II, again, couldn't compromise with anyone and nearly started another civil war. There's nothing much to dislike about William and Mary (though some might find them objectionable, since they were usurpers -- but then again, the same could be said of Henry IV etc.) The only one that comes out with any credit from the Stuart gang is Queen Anne. She suffered a great deal. I'll say this for Cromwell: he removed a shit king, but turned out to be an even worse "Lord Protector". He was crude, bloodthirsty, religious bigot, and worse -- he couldn't work with parliament any better than Charles I could. As for the House of Hanover ... they never stopped squabbling with each other. George I allowed his two (yes, two) wives to buy stuff they never intended to pay for. He also spoke no English and never intended to learn. (Fun fact: his prime minister, Robert Walpole, spoke no German. So they had to converse in Latin. I wonder when someone's going to make a film of the king and prime minister of England discussing the affairs of state in Latin. Probably never). George I also hated his son, but that's common to all the Georges. George II is famous for dying on the loo, which makes him a figure of fun. I can't think of much objectionable about him. George III, of course, lost the American colonies through his own obstinacy (and that of parliament), which makes them all idiots. Interestingly, Pitt the Elder was a strong advocate for allowing the Americans some leeway, including representation in parliament in exchange for the taxes. If he got his way, America might have remained part of Britain (or the United Kingdom, as it was by then). The depiction of George IV in "Blackadder" is famous, but even Hugh Laurie couldn't make George IV as gross as he actually was. George IV simply couldn't handle money. He was constantly broke and in debt to everyone. To solve this, he had to marry Caroline of Brunswick, who he had a baby with and then immediately cheated on and never saw again until it was time for him to be coronated. When she showed up to become queen, he ordered the doors of Westminster Abbey to be slammed in her face. (She died 3 weeks later. A fun story about that: when Napoleon died, a courtier informed George: "Your Majesty, your greatest enemy is dead." George is reported to say: "Is she, by God!") So, having shut his wife out of Westminster Abbey, George spent the 10 years of his reign eating Westminster Abbey. I'm surprised he didn't explode, like William the Conqueror. The only slightly good thing about George IV is that he gave lots of money to the arts. Not many parliaments do that. The last member of the Hanover house is William IV, who isn't very objectionable because hardly anyone knows anything about him. He's more boring than all four Georges put together. Anyway, that's my impression of them. Let's hear yours! I'm curious now.
Was it? I'm not so sure. There were plenty of times when the American cause was in doubt; take for instance, the events of late August 1776, when -- badly beaten at the Battle of Long Island (Brooklyn, actually), Washington and his small army faced what appeared to be certain annihilation by a larger British army, one of the world's best. Nothing less than the independence of the United States was at stake. All the British had to do was move a few warships into the East River and Washington would be trapped, his escape sealed off. (I'm quoting from What the Fog Wrought, an essay by the historian David McCullough). August 28th. Washington's food supplies were nearly gone, his time clearly running out. His men, for all their bravery and devotion to him, were worn out, hungry, and dispirited ... and it had begun to rain. On August 29, the temperature dropped sharply and the rain came in torrents on the unsheltered army. Muskets and powder were soaked. In some places, men stood in flooded trenches in water up to their waists. Expecting the enemy to attack at any moment, they had to keep a constant watch. Many had not slept in days. A New York man who saw them after it was all over said he never in his life saw such wretched, exhausted looking human beings. But Washington's presence along the lines and his concern for his men were felt day and night. He was seldom out of the saddle. On August 28 and 29, he appears to have had no rest at all. But with misery came salvation. The driving rain and cold were part of a fitful, violent, nor'easter that had been blowing off and on for better thana week, and despite inflicting punishment on the Americans, it kept the British ships from coming upriver with the tide. On the night of the 29th, Washington decided to evacuate his troops across the East River. As the night progressed, more and more troops were withdrawn. However wet and miserable they had been, they more than rose to the occasion. They stood for hours awaiting their turns; then, when told, they moved off like silent ghosts, heading in pitch darkness to the Brooklyn ferry landing, which was about where the Brooklyn Bridge now stands. The front lines were growing perilously thin, to the point where there was almost no-one to stop an attack, should the enemy discover what was happening. The rear guard, staying to the last, kept the campfires burning and making sufficient noise to maintain the illusion of a full army. But troops in substantial numbers still had to be evacuated,and at the rate things were going, day would dawn before everyone was safely removed. But then, a deep pea-souper fog, called at times "providential", "unusual", and "friendly", rolled over the troops. It was so dense that a man could not be seen six yards away. And as daylight came, the fog held, covering the entire operation no less than had the night. Tallmadge would recall later that when the rear guard, at last, received word to pull out, "we very joyfully bid those trenches adieu", and the fog was still "as dense as ever." When the fog lifted at about seven o'clock, the British saw to their astonishment that the Americans had vanished - the entire force, at least 9,000 troops, possibly more, plus baggage, provisions, horses, field guns -- everything, in fact, but five heavy cannon that were too deep in the mud to budge. Everything was transported in a single night with a makeshift emergency armada, assembled in a matter of hours. Not one life was lost, no-one was even injured. And as Tallmadge remembered, Washington -- risking capture -- had stayed until the last boat had pushed off. As it was, the only Americans captured by the British were three who stayed behind to plunder. It was the Dunkirk of the American Revolution, a daring amphibious rescue to save a beleaguered army to fight another day. Tributes to Washington would come from all quarters ... but what a very close call it had been! If there had been no northeast wind to hold up the British fleet, or if the wind had not turned southwest on the night of August 29, or if there had been no lucky fog as a final safeguard when day broke. If the British ships had been present at Brooklyn, Washington and half the Continental army would've been captured, and the Revolution all but finished. Without Washington there would almost certainly have been no revolution, as events were to show time and again. Significantly, the same circumstances would pertain seven years later, in 1783, except that the sides were switched -- the Americans setting the trap, the French fleet under Rochambeau trapping the British -- at Yorktown. Lord North, the British prime minister, is said to have exclaimed "Oh God! It is all over!" when hearing the news from Yorktown. If there had been no fateful wind at fog at Brooklyn, the halls of Congress might well have said the same in the summer of 1776. ============= I'm hoping we can see that very few events in history are inevitable, the Revolution least of all. The inevitable thing about Washington is that he had the knack of seizing the right moments to act. But even Washington didn't win the Revolution by himself. He was assisted by many capable hands, like Ethan Allen and Israel Putnam. The Revolutionary cause was certainly helped when France chose to intervene. The Revolution came closest to failure, most famously, at Valley Forge. The American soldiers were demoralized after a series of stinging defeats, hungry and cold. Public sentiment was wavering. If it wasn't for Washington's daring raids at Princeton and Trenton, the Revolution may well have failed. The two raids put new life into the American cause, and renewed confidence in Washington as a commander. In the short term, Washington plundered the British baggage train and gave his men shelter, fire, and food. In the long term, he conclusively demonstrated that the Continental Army could fight and win against seasoned British troops. To conclude: if anything history was inevitable, it would be boring, and no-one would study it. The reason that people study history is the fact that everything that happened was uncertain and avoidable, and things could easily happen another way -- and if they had, life as we know it would be very different.
Independence was inevitable eventually, had it not been when it was the eastern seaboard of the US would now be part of Canada ( except Florida which would likely be part of Mexico along with California and the rest of Spain’s colonies ) Since the Louisiana purchase wouldn’t have happened the French colonies would likely have become separately independent
I find it interesting that most of the history surrounding the revolutionary war focuses on Washington and the battles in the northern colonies. While the majority of the battles took place in the southern colonies. Mel Gibson did a disservice to the events with the Patriot, which was a remake of brave heart in the colonies. Francis Marion, aka the swamp fox, was a much more interesting figure.
I need to read at least 3 books (not even complete, but read enough to get a sense of it) by mid July..... and i'm wait listed for all 3 in ALL formats
I was just curious. you put quotes around luminaries. I have a favorable opinion of George III. I don’t know how you can really blame him for losing the war.
Despite recurring mental health issues, George III managed to reign for six decades over a mostly prosperous and increasingly industralized Great Britain. He also lacked the personal power of earlier kings and queens. Parliament had the upper hand by the time it invited the Hanovers to London. Both the divine right and sovereign power of kings were fading memories.
