Had to drop the newest Murakami after reading 30% of the book, his quality has dropped quite a bit since 1Q84, this meditative side is very boring to me. — Manuel

I remember getting very sad and disappointed after finishing the book. He admitted in the book (Tusquets Spanish edition) that the new novel was a "cut and copy" from Crónica del pájaro que da vuelta al mundo.

I haven't read anything again from him since last year...

I think I remembered you saying you liked Los años de peregrinación del chico sin color (Colorless) and La muerte del comendador.(Commendatore)

But the peregrinación book looked to me to be much less "magical realist" than usual, and comendador sounded a lot like Cronica del Pajaro, which was my least favorite book of his - a minority stance.

I loved his Baila, baila, baila (Dance) , El fin del mundo y un despiadado país de las maravillas (Wonderland), Kafka en la orilla, La caza del carnero salvaje (Sheep).

Norwegian Wood was just...ok.

But after 1Q84 (which I though was one book too long - the 3rd volume) it's as if what made him fun for me just kind of vanished.

But I think this latest one is copied from el fin del mundo- it's the exact same town. Minus the extremely interesting connection he made with the other story.

But I think this latest one is copied from el fin del mundo- it's the exact same town. — Manuel

Yes, that's true. I confused the titles of the books, sorry.

Absolutely, I enjoyed reading "comendador" and "crónica". I think "After Dark" is also really nice, and I've never read Norwegian Wood, which is one of his most famous works.

To be honest, I think Murakami is very good at writing short stories and essays. I read "Underground" last year, and it was amazing. He did a great job interviewing all the victims of the 1995 Tokyo Underground terrorist attack. However, when it came to novels, I (sometimes) believed that he wrote solely to please his fans and the Western market.

[

However, when it came to novels, I (sometimes) believed that he wrote solely to please his fans and the Western market. — javi2541997

Maybe, but if what he want to write is stuff like his last book, then I just find it very boring. I might try After Dark someday, looks interesting.

The Book of Laughter and Forgetting by Milan Kundera.

Same Bed Different Dreams by Ed Park

Waking, Dreamimg, Being - Evan Thompson

I’m reading a good book - “The Smoke Thieves” by Sally Green. A fantasy. It’s very well written. I’ve read other books by her and they are also very well written. Sometimes when I’m in the middle of a book and the quality of the writing draws me in and moves me along, I think to myself - what makes this writing good? And I don’t really know. I guess I should spend time figuring that out.

And then there are other books I’m told are very well written, but which don’t move me or draw me in. And I can’t tell you why that is either.

Donna Haraway --- A Cyborg Manifesto

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cyborg_Manifesto

(RIpping read.)

Genghis Khan’s Greatest General: Subotai the Valiant by Richard A. Gabriel

Less than Nothing: Zizek

The sample is 300 pages long. 'Nuff said.

Started "The Ant Trap" by Brian Epstein. A book on social ontology. If I'm following (and there's always that), his thesis is that marriage (for example) is valid if (1) there is grounding by my having met the requirements of marriage like an officiant married me, a filed a license, etc, and (2) there is anchoring by society having accepted and created rules as to what that marriage means. This supposedly offers a better explanation from the traditional individualistic versus holistic theory that says you are married if (A) you as an individual hold yourself out to be and believe yourself to be married and (B) the community a a whole recognized you as married. The limitation of A is that it doesn't allow an explanation for how you can believe yourself to be married but not be married because you don't have a license and the limitaiton of B is that it doesn't explain how the license doesn't get tied back to the community rule.

It's interesting because it's not the standard "language is use," but it's trying to explain the ontology of marriage (or any social event) itself, making it modern day analytic metaphysics far removed from the Cartesian type.

Marble House Murders by Anthony Horowitz

Same Bed Different Deams was phenomenal. :ok:

The Petty Demon by Fyodor Sologub.

It's interesting because it's not the standard "language is use," but it's trying to explain the ontology of marriage (or any social event) itself, making it modern day analytic metaphysics far removed from the Cartesian type. — Hanover

Is it metaphysics or is it sociology?

They intersect in the field of social ontology, which SEP says can be considered as a branch of metaphysics and which is, I suppose, a philosophy of sociology.

Is it metaphysics or is it sociology? — T Clark

Metaphysica of sociology. As in, what is a society (or subpart) composed of. The "ant trap" (name of his book) is the error (his thesis) of falling into the trap (as he says many social theorists do) of thinking of society as an aggregate of its individuals (i.e. a bunch of ants making a colony).

The SEP was written by this same author.

They intersect in the field of social ontology, which SEP says can be considered as a branch of metaphysics and which is, I suppose, a philosophy of sociology. — Jamal

Metaphysica of sociology. As in, what is a society (or subpart) composed of. — Hanover

Thanks for the link Jamal. Interesting. I’m partway through. It still strikes me as kind of a mishmash of sociology, psychology, social criticism, moral philosophy, political philosophy, and philosophy of science. As is my wont, I find myself wondering how much of it is metaphysics and how much of it is science. As you probably know, I make efforts to keep the two separate.

One thing it does show me is that I need to spend more time understanding how to think about the metaphysics of science and in particular social science.

Thanks.

I'm very sceptical of the approach outlined in the article. But...it's a thing.

Just finished The Magician of Lublin. The metaphor of self-imprisonment as an obstacle for atonement was truly brilliant.

Yes, it is a sprawling mess.
I view it as one stop shopping. All of his stuff in one location.

You Must Change Your Life by Peter Sloterdij

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.

A Short History of Decay by Emil Cioran (rereading)

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Skylark of Space
by E.E. "Doc" Smith

Hegel's Philosophy of Mind
William Wallace

I know many of you here are well read in novels - probably much more so than me. But having just finished The Brothers Karamazov I must say, what an absolute miracle of book! Certainly, among my top 5 books of all time.

I have no more words to say, because they will be meaningless.

Recently: Plato's Gorgias, parts of Epictetus's Discourses.

Currently: David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, for the second time in way too many years. Zane Grey, Riders of the Purple Sage.

Selected Works and Personal Notes (1880 - 1885) by Anton Chekhov.