An Editor on the Comstock Lode by Wells Drury c1936

Volume 4 of this series.. one of my friends is trying to get me into him.

got this today

hell's angels by hst

My AP English class is reading Crime and Punishment, and we read Siddhartha by Hesse earlier.

The other AP teacher is reading Demian. That's funny (in an unfunny way).

He has some good stuff, I love some of his books and poetry, and I always love the down and out vibe you get from his writings. That being said, his stuff is still very hit or miss.

And his paintings are horrible. Same goes for Henry Miller actually.

Wow, everybody's reading such intellekshual stuff. Doesn't anybody besides me read trash anymore?

I'm about to move on to The Man with the Golden Gun by Ian Fleming, by the way.

Do you ever wonder if sometimes people read these books just so they can say they are reading/have read them? I'm not accusing anybody here of that, but sometimes I wonder :)

Yes, I used to do that. Especially back in my English major studies days. At the same time, having been through all the "required reading," I have more confidence admitting I mostly enjoy reading junk.

Let me know how this is - I read the bit on the Bhundu Boys the other day and am interested, but was let down by the other Peel-franchise books.

I'm reading Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, which is the most prickish thing a person can do with eyes and the ability to read.

I finished Chuck Palahniuk's Rant which was a great read. Next is Oryx and Crake but I can't seem to get enthusiastic about it.

There is certainly a fair amount of book-reading wankery that goes on (here).

I've just started reading Absolute Beginners by Colin MacInnes.

 

I've had the book for years but was put off reading it because of the memory of the appalling film.

Just started reading The Ilium by Dan Simmons.

I've never read Hegel myself but I've read enough pre-Hegelian and post-Hegelian philosophy to not want to bother.

I had the same opinion for a long time, but ultimately, if you're studying philosophy, you have to tackle the monster or you ain't worth shit. And there's no monster larger (I have read tractatus as well).

My other answer is: who the fuck are you to think that there's a pre- and post- Hegel? There's no pre- and post-, only sufferance.

And if anyone wants to mention certain analytics they can just fuck a long way off.

I was considering Descartes and Kant epistemology as pre and existentialism and Marxism as post.

Fair enough.

Marxism as post? Please don't follow that route. Wittgenstein, yes, but Marx is not an epistemology (too emotional).