I'm rereading my way through the Harry Potter series I'm on book two. It's so much fun to reread these, it reminds me of how much I love them, plus its cool to see the progression of characters and writing throughout the series from a different perspective on my part.
I just started rereading Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". I might just go on a bit of a Conrad binge. He's one of my favorites.
Just finished up Clive barker's "Coldheart Canyon". Wonderful work, twisted and disturbing, but absolutely compelling. Every time i read something by Barker he reminds me why he's my favorite author.
About to reread 'Northern Lights' for uni. I was going to reread it again anyway because I don't think I made much sense of it when I first read it years ago.
I am just about to start reading The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold The Fire Eternal by Chris d'Lacey The Host by Stephenie Meyer or Water Gypsies by Annie Murray only I can't decide which I should read first. Has anybody read the books and if so are they good or would I be wasting my time reading them? It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it. Also, does anybody have any suggestions? I will read anything as long as it's good.
Does anybody know if The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is a good book because I was thinking about reading it?
Ice Princess: The only book I've read from that list is 'The Lovely Bones' and I would recommend reading that. Also, reading a bad book isn't necessarily bad, because it can help you identify what made it bad and make sure you don't do it in your own writing. I'd just give all those books a read, doesn't really matter about the order, and if you don't like them then just stop reading it or persevere and hope it gets better.
As writing it's good -- Dawkins is a very effective communicator. It's mainly polemic, though; his actual arguments are as weak as his opponents, and he's mainly knocking down straw men. If you do read it, I suggest you also read Eric Reitan's "Is God a Delusion". From an interview with Reitan: Back in January of 2007, a colleague gave me a photocopied page from a book and asked me to evaluate it as if it were a student paper. The page contained a summary and cursory criticism of the first three of Aquinas’ “Five Ways” (arguments for proving the existence of a transcendent being). As I looked it over, I noticed that the author got Aquinas’ arguments wrong… and then criticized them at precisely those points where he got them wrong. As it turned out, the page was taken from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. And so I bought the book, and as I was reading it I thought that one could write an entire introduction to the philosophy of religion just by correcting all of Dawkins’ philosophical mistakes.According to the book, Reitan graded the photocopied extract as a 'D'. Philosophy Now magazine also strongly praised Peter S Williams' A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism, which is on my shelf waiting to be read: Williams attempts to raise the level of debate not by reciting his own arguments whilst the other side recite theirs, competing to be the loudest voice. Instead he interacts with the New Atheist arguments, evaluating them logically, thus giving us a well-thought-out perspective. This is relatively uncommon at the popularist level.
I got a few pages in and stopped. FWIW I am a strongly committed athiest. The book seemed pointless. If you already agree with his ideas, you will probably like it (unless you're like me, I suppose). If you disagree, you will probably be put off because the tone is not engaging to folks who don't already agree. It was basically preaching to the choir (forgive my little pun) which is something that I don't see much value in.
I've recently read Stephen King's Cell, The Carbon Diaries: 2017, and The Dead-Tossed Waves. I'm planning to start Michael Crichton's Timeline as soon as I have time.
Wrapped up Chamber of Secrets the other day and am now on Prisoner of Azkaban, my favorite book of the series.
I didn't really enjoy the lovely bones. There were alot of good parts, but it wasn't much of a story....more like an examination. I was quite bored actually, which is a shame considering its potential. I guess it was a little too literary for my liking.
Finished up God of Clocks by Alan Campbell and am about to start The Last Argument of Kings by Joe Abercrombie. Both are the final pieces of a seperate trilogy.
I gave up on it after about 50 pages, I thought it was terrible in every respect. Really, really terrible. I'd seen a review where, inexplicably, it had been compared favourably with 'The Time Traveller's Wife', which is one of the best if not the best book I've ever read, and that's why I decided to buy it. Currently I'm reading Aleister Crowley's biography by Alexander (?) Sutin, 'Do What Thou Wilt' (interesting though a not the easiest read), Iain Bank's 'Transition' (well written and terminally boring like his last half dozen books) and 'The Evolutionary Void' by Peter F Hamilton (the sci-fi bits are great, the fantasy parts are dire beyond mortal comprehension, much like the first two in the series). And just finished 'Kraken' by China Mieville, who IMO is without peer when it comes to writing SF or indeed any fantasy but this time has produced a dud, and John Banville's 'The Sea', which I knew didn't have any sort of story or plot when I bought it but still went ahead because he's a technically excellent writer. Oh yes, and recently finished 'The Dome' by Stephen King. I'm still considering writing him a letter complaining about his literary dishonesty in shoe-horning a long-winded social analysis into an arbitrary and appallingly crafted sci-fi framework and pushing it through publication on his name alone.
