Read a good book lately?

[Hitcher]

I love it that the reader's not treated like an idiot. In real life characters cross our path every day, they contribute to our lives and we often have no idea where they came from or where they're going. Why should fictional characters be any different? I get sick of authors chasing detail beyond what's either entertaining or pertinent to the plot, it's insulting.

I agree. Producers (particularly of American series and movies) do this way too often to establish their character's credentials. Not that that matters after the first episode! My comment wasn't meant as a criticism, just that Mr Kovaks was a complex dude and I ended up wanting to know more about him. Unlike in real life, I couldn't take him out and buy him a beer.

[Ocean1]

I agree. Producers (particularly of American series and movies) do this way too often to establish their character's credentials. Not that that matters after the first episode!

Ah, well that's different, fit-for-purpose an' all that...

Unlike in real life, I couldn't take him out and buy him a beer.

Most kind, I'll have a Speights. Ta.

[Drunken Monkey]

Yup, can't see it at all.
Some people like football too, I can't stand that either.

Well I see you've managed to elaborate somewhat in the meantime, but honestly, there's nothing to be proud about being a literary ignoramous. I'm not saying you have to like it, but surely you can grasp the concept of why people have such as thing as 'literary fiction' ? Sci-fi is just one genre. A world without fiction, a world without imagination, would never have yielded the mechanical trinkets that you find so interesting.

To continue with the football example. Even if you can't stand it, surely you can appreciate it as a competitive outlet? I can't stand basketball, but I don't go bagging it, I understand it's a sport that, due to location, culture, etc, other people do participate in as one form of competitive outlet.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I have just finished a bunch of James Ellroy books: real hard bitten crime fiction all set in LA in the 1950's. Two of the books at least have been made into films (the one you've seen is LA Confidential with Kim Basinger and Russell Crowe and GUy Pierce). I really like these books but they dont shy away from the seamy side of life thats for sure.

The four Ive just read are:

The Black Dahlia (also a film)
The Big Nowhere
LA Confidential
White Jazz

I also read William Gibson's new book "Spook Country" last week. Excellent: Those of you who read science fiction will have realised that I am a big fan of Gibson (neuromancer is my favourite book probably). His latest two are not science fiction really: set in the present day, and are constructed more like mystery stories. His characters and dialogue, and the intricate plot make them well worth reading.

I am going on to "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins except I have a Performance Bikes (September :thumbsup: ) to finish reading first.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Which reminds me, there is a wonderful short story by Larry Niven about the consequences of Superman actually having his way with Lois Lane......and the machinegun effect of Supermans orgasm.

Ive read that, its funny as hell: I think IIRC that it was penned as the result of late night drunken ramblings with other authors that then got put to paper.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Thank you, and when it comes to escapism perhaps that's what sci-fi is all about. My escapism revolves around getting into fact (specifically engines) and I revel in it when dumb-arses go all gooey about things they don't understand and I can shoot them down in flames. When it comes to Space Station 69 on Planet Wifflebat I have to admit, I know nothing.

With respect, if you think that science fiction, or speculative fiction or whatever is "Space Station 69 on Planet Wifflebat" then you are absolutely correct, you know nothing about science fiction.

Science fiction is nothing more or less than what any other fiction is: its a mirror that is hung up by an author so that we as readers can examine and think about things that the author thinks we should think about.

A couple of examples: George Orwell's "1984": pretty obviously is about state control, authoritarianism and state control vs individual freedom. The fact that its set in an "alternative future" is just window dressing.

Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" is about male and female relationships: the window dressing is "What if there was a possibility that any given individual could exhibit the sexual characteristics of a male or a female?" How would society be different? How would we as individuals react?

Her novel "The Dispossessed" is about society, and political systems: the window dressing being a binary planetary system where one has an evolved anarchic (in the political science sense of no government) society, and the other has a society loosely like ours. One of the questions is "in a society with no laws, how does one become a criminal?"

William Gibson's "Neuromancer" (by the way, he invented the term "Cyberspace" ...... in 1984) is about the way technology is used, and abused, and about the interface between people and the way they use any given piece of technology, which may not be in the way its makers intended.

CJ Cherryh's best books are about society, and people, and the interesting and potentially devastating things that might happen when individuals from societies with widely differing values interact. She studied anthropology so its kind of her specialty.

[Sanx]

For those not too keen on religion, may I recommend two books I've just finished reading:

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
God Is Not Great - Christopher Hitchens

Although the first is probably better argued, the second's an easier read, not least because Dawkins has a habit of repeating himself somewhat, as well as over-quoting his previous books. Both books are a pretty good deconstruction of the whole God argument. They're unlikely to convince anyone who believes that there is no god, if only because (as both books point out) anyone who believes in god has already abandoned logic and reason.

However, both books are a good read and point out in glorious detail the hypocrisy of modern religion, as well as the evil religion has caused both past and present. They also provide some very good information to use against those who might preach at you ...

[Curious_AJ]

For those not too keen on religion, may I recommend two books I've just finished reading:

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
God Is Not Great - Christopher Hitchens

Although the first is probably better argued, the second's an easier read, not least because Dawkins has a habit of repeating himself somewhat, as well as over-quoting his previous books. Both books are a pretty good deconstruction of the whole God argument. They're unlikely to convince anyone who believes that there is no god, if only because (as both books point out) anyone who believes in god has already abandoned logic and reason.

However, both books are a good read and point out in glorious detail the hypocrisy of modern religion, as well as the evil religion has caused both past and present. They also provide some very good information to use against those who might preach at you ...

I was brought up a Catholic, but now i'm not sure what I believe in really... but I don't think putting down someone elses religion is right, reguardless of whether its "bull shyte" or not... who's to say what exists and what doesnt...

no literature can proove anything either way really... it's all a matter of oppinion... in my oppinion...

but back onto the topic... other religious reads DiVinci code, it has to be read, reguardless of religious standings or feelings.

anne rice book called: Christ The Lord, based on Jesus life as depicted in the Bible. yet again a good read, reguardless of religious standing, as it's written in such a non-confronting way.

havn't really read any anti-religion books, I choose not to, because it's wrong to put someone else's beliefs down.

[Hitcher]

it's wrong to put someone else's beliefs down.

Depends what you mean by "put down". Surely any belief system should be able to be challenged by vigorous and robust debate? Anyway, there is a thread specifically devoted to such discussion.

[HenryDorsetCase]

havn't really read any anti-religion books, I choose not to, because it's wrong to put someone else's beliefs down.

Not at all. Hitler believed that it was the right thing to do to eradicate Jews and no one has a problem putting his beliefs down.

[HenryDorsetCase]

. other religious reads DiVinci code, it has to be read, reguardless of religious standings or feelings.

I read the first page and thought it was a lot of tosh, TBH, and his prose style gave me the shits.


Also it has the distinction of being THE WORST film I have ever paid money to see.

[Curious_AJ]

Depends what you mean by "put down". Surely any belief system should be able to be challenged by vigorous and robust debate? Anyway, there is a thread specifically devoted to such discussion.

true hitch, challenging is okay, but not bagging... to clarify.

Not at all. Hitler believed that it was the right thing to do to eradicate Jews and no one has a problem putting his beliefs down.

I don't put hitler's beliefs down.. i think they were a little over the top, btu he had his reasons for believing so... mein kampf... read it, breathe it... lol

I read the first page and thought it was a lot of tosh, TBH, and his prose style gave me the shits.


Also it has the distinction of being THE WORST film I have ever paid money to see.

well,each to their own, i thought it was interesting and thought provoking.

but we aren't talking about the film.. that was a load of bollocks.

[Kickaha]

I read the first page and thought it was a lot of tosh, TBH, and his prose style gave me the shits.


Also it has the distinction of being THE WORST film I have ever paid money to see.

Totally agree, it was shyte

[peasea]

Well I see you've managed to elaborate somewhat in the meantime, but honestly, there's nothing to be proud about being a literary ignoramous.

Would you please wander off somewhere and have sex?

Just because I don't read Sci Fi doesn't mean I'm a 'literary ignoramus' and if SF is all you read then you've got your head stuck firmly in the sand. (Or up your own arse.)

Fact is so often stranger (and more interesting) than fiction.

Pull your head in.

[peasea]

With respect, if you think that science fiction, or speculative fiction or whatever is "Space Station 69 on Planet Wifflebat" then you are absolutely correct, you know nothing about science fiction.

Science fiction is nothing more or less than what any other fiction is: its a mirror that is hung up by an author so that we as readers can examine and think about things that the author thinks we should think about.

A couple of examples: George Orwell's "1984": pretty obviously is about state control, authoritarianism and state control vs individual freedom. The fact that its set in an "alternative future" is just window dressing.

Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" is about male and female relationships: the window dressing is "What if there was a possibility that any given individual could exhibit the sexual characteristics of a male or a female?" How would society be different? How would we as individuals react?

Her novel "The Dispossessed" is about society, and political systems: the window dressing being a binary planetary system where one has an evolved anarchic (in the political science sense of no government) society, and the other has a society loosely like ours. One of the questions is "in a society with no laws, how does one become a criminal?"

William Gibson's "Neuromancer" (by the way, he invented the term "Cyberspace" ...... in 1984) is about the way technology is used, and abused, and about the interface between people and the way they use any given piece of technology, which may not be in the way its makers intended.

CJ Cherryh's best books are about society, and people, and the interesting and potentially devastating things that might happen when individuals from societies with widely differing values interact. She studied anthropology so its kind of her specialty.

Yup, a rather large packet of 'what-if's'.
My point really is; if someone writes a story/article on something in the real world, say an engine or motorcycle for example, if the writer gets one tiny detail wrong the whole thing looks like bollocks and their credibilty goes out the window. SciFi writers can write what the hell they like; it's all fiction. Also, as others have mentioned it here, I can't get my head around religion either; a big punch up to see who has the best imaginary friend? What's that all about?

I'm a hands-on, practical type; if you can't touch it, see it, eat it, ride it or spend it there's a pretty good chance it ISN'T THERE!

It's probably why SciFi and Religion are so close together in the library.

I'm not trying to wind you up my friend, I just don't get it.