What are you reading?

[ShiftyPowers]

I just read Grapes of Wrath. Thought it was very good. As with most realistic/modern American Dream books it is depressing, but I thought it was well written and interesting.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

I actually havent read Grapes of Wrath yet. I read East of Eden, which is an entertaining, expansive and impressive work without quite attaining the flair and panache of some of the European epic novels. I have also read Cannery Row and Tortilla Flat which are entertaining light reads.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

I didn't care for Svejk after the first book, to be honest. It gets awfully repetitive. The only thing I'd suggest it for is your reading it at a bar trick, because out east I'm sure you'll get people making comments.

I see exactly what you mean. I really enjoyed part one, but, whilst I still found frequent flashes of quality (and laugh out loud moments) in part two, it is very repetitive, and there is only so much of the cycle of 'angers superior, gets arrested, gets drunk in tavern, gets locked up, angers interrogator, gets back to superior', all punctuated with sometimes overly extended tangental storytelling, that one can take. It picked up for me again in book three, and I was really back into full enjoyment mode once it came to it's abrupt, unfinished end. I am happy to have read it, but yeah, there were frequent drags. Because it's an unfinished work anyway I don't think it would necessarily be that wrong to recommend to people to just read part one.

I've now started a german novel called Iron Gustav, by Hans Fallada, and it's good so far.

 

[chygry]

I have this book The Son by Nesbo or something laying around in my flat. Just holding this book for somebody. I've never been really interested in bestsellers plus the book was originally written in Danish I think. I like to read books in the language they're written in so I could actually enjoy the writing style. Should I have a go at it or not?

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

I'm not at all into 'Scandinavian Noir', as it is so called. I mean, it's trashy detective fiction (admittedly slightly less trashy than some of the english language thriller writers), so I would advise against reading it as opposed to reading something more substantial, but if, as I suspect, it is a choice for you between reading that or reading nothing, then by all means give it a go. My father, formerly a voracious reader of high brow literature, became massively fond of scandinavian detective fiction in his later years, but I think that is just because he over saturated himself with quality stuff.

 

[chygry]

Mmm thanks for the good advice I guess. But I really feel like this book isn't for me, but yet again I might give it a go. Couldn't hurt. I'm not really into these kinds of books either. For some reason I like biographies, because they're about persons' lives, and if you pick an interesting one you're in for a good ride. :P

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I see exactly what you mean. I really enjoyed part one, but, whilst I still found frequent flashes of quality (and laugh out loud moments) in part two, it is very repetitive, and there is only so much of the cycle of 'angers superior, gets arrested, gets drunk in tavern, gets locked up, angers interrogator, gets back to superior', all punctuated with sometimes overly extended tangental storytelling, that one can take. It picked up for me again in book three, and I was really back into full enjoyment mode once it came to it's abrupt, unfinished end. I am happy to have read it, but yeah, there were frequent drags. Because it's an unfinished work anyway I don't think it would necessarily be that wrong to recommend to people to just read part one.

I've now started a german novel called Iron Gustav, by Hans Fallada, and it's good so far.

Book Three is a radical shift IMO. All of a sudden Svejk seems like the smartest guy in the room, the only one who actually knows what is going on.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

Book Three is a radical shift IMO. All of a sudden Svejk seems like the smartest guy in the room, the only one who actually knows what is going on.

Part of me thinks that this was the case all along, he was just deliberately playing the fool and pouring sarcastic scorn on everything from the start, but that Hasek intended for us to only work this out slowly.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

I really hope that some enterprising soul has started a traditional-style pub in Prague called The Chalice.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Part of me thinks that this was the case all along, he was just deliberately playing the fool and pouring sarcastic scorn on everything from the start, but that Hasek intended for us to only work this out slowly.

I've considered that, but at the beginning you don't see any asides from him to others, he never takes charge. In book three he's all of a sudden being responsible for others and saying things like "do this so we don't get in trouble". I guess you're probably right that Hasek wanted to bring us around to the point of view that he was faking all along, but it seems hard for me to understand why a smart person who is faking imbecility would do some of the things he did. He escaped some pretty bad punishments by pure luck.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

I suppose, though I also think of him maybe as a sarcastic nihilist that wasnt particularly bothered about the trouble he could potentially get into. The extremely love/hate nature of his relationship with Lt Lukas swings back and fourth quite wildly and randomnly, also.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I liked Lukas a lot. I like anyone who has that much random sex, especially in the early part of the 20th Century.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

I really want to attempt his pick-up techniques - for example I think a modernized version of the letter he sends to that guys wife, sent to a random married female, would be an interesting experiment.

 

[Back Door Skip]

I really want to attempt his pick-up techniques - for example I think a modernized version of the letter he sends to that guys wife, sent to a random married female, would be an interesting experiment.

There was this sort of technique that a friend of mine used a couple of times. He would have a posted envelope and hand it over to a chick at a bar, and tell her to write him. I'm not sure if they ever actually wrote to him, but the chick always wanted to know why he chose to give it to her specifically. I always wanted to copy it but I didn't have the balls to do it.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

Hahaha, very interesting. Would he have had any conversation with them at all, or just completely out of the blue? Did he do it as he was leaving, to prevent any request for explanation, or was that all part of it?

 

[Back Door Skip]

He would generally just approach and give it to the chick before leaving, and to chicks whom he wouldn't talk to all night. The couple of times it happened the chick basically chased him down in the parking lot to ask why, and eventually got her number. The other seemed flattered, but not sure if anything happened past that.

 

[Sir Didier Drogba]

If I tried it I Eastern Europe they would steam off the stamp and sell it

 

[newbie original]

He would generally just approach and give it to the chick before leaving, and to chicks whom he wouldn't talk to all night. The couple of times it happened the chick basically chased him down in the parking lot to ask why, and eventually got her number. The other seemed flattered, but not sure if anything happened past that.

She wouldn't have felt flattered. She would have felt sorry for him.

To understand the actions of a member of the opposite gender who is in that particular position in life, you have to think like one in their state of mind at the time of their action(s).

Not all the time ofcourse. Because you are in fact a member of of your own gender and/or not in that state of mind.

 

[Mandieta6]

I missed you.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

She wouldn't have felt flattered. She would have felt sorry for him.

To understand the actions of a member of the opposite gender who is in that particular position in life, you have to think like one in their state of mind at the time of their action(s).

Not all the time ofcourse. Because you are in fact a member of of your own gender and/or not in that state of mind.

I forgot how clueless you are about women.