Just finished reading Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Really, REALLY good science-fiction.
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
What books are you reading?
Did you know that Lucifer is actually the Roman word/name for the planet Venus, i.e. the Morning Star?
Why the hell is Satan named after the Roman word for the planet Venus? Surely Jesus didn't see the bright planet Venus in the morning, point to it, and say "Lo, SATAN!" If he did, he's a nutjob.
Unless… Satan isn't actually named Lucifer, or there is actually no Satan, and Christianity is just borrowing/inheriting concepts from Roman mythology?
Who named Satan, Lucifer, anyways? Was it in the bible that Satan was originally named Lucifer… or did the name Lucifer come from a "fictional work" such as Paradise Lost. Is it from Paradise Lost? If it's from Paradise Lost, then why the hell are we still calling him Lucifer? Some author writes in his novel that Satan's name is Lucifer, and we all take it as fact???
Finished "skullface". I revise my opinion of it. It WAS racist. :(
Who named Satan, Lucifer, anyways? Was it in the bible that Satan was originally named Lucifer… or did the name Lucifer come from a "fictional work" such as Paradise Lost. Is it from Paradise Lost? If it's from Paradise Lost, then why the hell are we still calling him Lucifer? Some author writes in his novel that Satan's name is Lucifer, and we all take it as fact???As far as I know the name is related to "light", "light bringer" and all that sort of thing… I like to think of him has being another example of the "naughty fire-god", like Loki, or Proteas, they fall out of favour with the ruling god because they disagree with how man should be dealt with. Lots of parallels. :)
Wiki says the usage came about from early bible translations and just basically the general fudging off related mythology and writings.
It's a nice name, it used to be another name for matches ^_^
I going to re read that soon, the tv series has been great and made me want to revisit the series. that and I haven't read feast of crows yet and the new one is either just out or out very soon. After a 6 or 7 year gap since feast of crows.
Hopefully doing the tv series has inspired him to get on and actually finish the series.
"Tuf Voyaging" is the only book by him that I've read.
It's about a huge (about 7 feet tall), overweight, completely hairless, pasty skinned, thoughtful, philosophical man named "Tuf" who comes into possessions of a multi-mile long ancient biological-warfare battleship and how he uses it…
It's really interesting. It was originally written as a bunch of short stories featuring the same character and they were collected together for that novel- so you get a lot of chapters that are beautifully self contained stories in their own right, very tight and well constructed, but they're connected by one overarching theme which is Tuf's personality and his aims and objectives.
Te stories concern ideas of environmentalism, overpopulation, warfare… etc. Overall it's exciting (especially the first story of how he gets the ship), very thoughtful, very entertaining, touching, and even pretty funny (at times).
Well it's my fave at least :)
I got it new in a remaindered book sale back in the early 90's when they still sold decent books that way. I'd never heard of George R R Martin before then. That was a great way to find new cool authors!
————-
Reading The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.
Been meaning to read that since I was a teen when I first saw it in the library, but I always procrastinated because there was always something more interesting. So I got it free via Amazon Kindle now, reading it on my phone and tablet.
It's really not that interesting afterall. It's just political advice to long dead Italian princes based on the exploits of long dead European historical figures.
It has SOME application to today, but the relationship is more philosophical and esoteric than direct because the world has changed so much.
To top it all off his reputation as an evil genius is all a myth (was just a decent civil servant, not even that successful) and his writing, although sort of from experience is more wishful thinking… More like political advice than solid wise council.
At least that's what I'm getting from it so far.
Reading The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.
Been meaning to read that since I was a teen when I first saw it in the library, but I always procrastinated because there was always something more interesting. So I got it free via Amazon Kindle now, reading it on my phone and tablet.
It's really not that interesting afterall. It's just political advice to long dead Italian princes based on the exploits of long dead European historical figures.
It has SOME application to today, but the relationship is more philosophical and esoteric than direct because the world has changed so much.
To top it all off his reputation as an evil genius is all a myth (was just a decent civil servant, not even that successful) and his writing, although sort of from experience is more wishful thinking… More like political advice than solid wise council.
At least that's what I'm getting from it so far.
You obviously haven't reached the chapter on puppy kicking yet.
Reading The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.
… To top it all off his reputation as an evil genius is all a myth (was just a decent civil servant, not even that successful) and his writing, although sort of from experience is more wishful thinking…
That's why he was an evil genius. He told people to say one thing and do another in an age where EVERYBODY was supposed to be god-fearingly honest. He also said to expect that EVERYBODY else would be lying about their intentions as well. It may seem obvious now, but it was a game changer back then. It's like de Sade's Justine, a book that seems almost tame now-a-days, but challenged the Christian ideal that everybody out there was a nice person behaving nicely, and being good would get you your just reward. Machiavelli is saying a 'Prince' should behave in a non-Christian manner in an age when all the lip service was just the opposite. Try reading (or skimming) The Book of the Courtier by Castiglione for the accepted style of advice of the time for a comparison.
(as you can probably guess I studied this sort of stuff)
Anyway, I'm currently reading Gene Wolfe's The Sorcerer's House.
I see what you're saying, but so far he hasn't said anything like that. The most subversive thing is simply that he's very open and honest in his advice, like saying that when you take a city you wish to rule you should exterminate the powerful nobels who're in opposition to you, along with their families so that they can never challenge you… So far he hasn't advocated duplicity, in fact his strongest advice so far is that a ruler should be loved by his people because they're the his real strength, not greedy nobels. He disapproves of duplicity in what I've read so far, but he gives two examples of it anyway. I'll learn more as I read. :)Reading The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.
… To top it all off his reputation as an evil genius is all a myth (was just a decent civil servant, not even that successful) and his writing, although sort of from experience is more wishful thinking…
That's why he was an evil genius. He told people to say one thing and do another in an age where EVERYBODY was supposed to be god-fearingly honest. He also said to expect that EVERYBODY else would be lying about their intentions as well. It may seem obvious now, but it was a game changer back then. It's like de Sade's Justine, a book that seems almost tame now-a-days, but challenged the Christian ideal that everybody out there was a nice person behaving nicely, and being good would get you your just reward. Machiavelli is saying a 'Prince' should behave in a non-Christian manner in an age when all the lip service was just the opposite. Try reading (or skimming) The Book of the Courtier by Castiglione for the accepted style of advice of the time for a comparison.
He disapproves of duplicity in what I've read so far, but he gives two examples of it anyway. I'll learn more as I read. :)
That's his style. He adopts the 'standard morality' but then gives examples of how the Prince may actually want to act immorally. He may say he disapproves of duplicity, etc., but his point is that a 'good' Prince may have to resort to such an immorality to remain in power and gain an advantage over his rivals. 'Old Nick' gave us modern political thinking … smile and nod and talk with a honeyed tongue while lying and stabbing your rivals in the back … but in many ways all he was doing was reporting on what he saw all around him.
That's his style. He adopts the 'standard morality' but then gives examples of how the Prince may actually want to act immorally.No… that wasn't what he was doing in this instance (though he may in others, I haven't read that far).
Basically he was listing and then expanding on a few of the ways someone could become a "new prince". There were about 3 or four ways listed, the last one was the bad one- through treachery. He was definitely NOT focussing heavily on it or pointing that one out above the others.
The thing that got most attention was "be loved by the people", which was a theme he returned to in all of them.
For the last one, which was bad, one example was of some guy in ancient Syracuse who rose from nothing as a soldier, became an officer, got the senate together to discusses important matters and then killed them all with his men, taking power. That act was described as being pretty foul and treacherous, but on the other hand the mad had made himself, which was to be admired, and did rule well, keeping the people on side, which was why he was able to hold onto power.
The other was a contemporary account and a man who was orphaned, bought up by a noble uncle, sent off to war, rose high, became an officer, then organised a glorious home coming with his uncle and the town nobles… Then had his uncle and all the men killed.
It was described as a foul act and he was described as an especially bad example since he didn't bother to win the support of the people and he only lasted in power a year because of that…
Honestly, you may be right and that sort of thing might come up later, but so far it's all been 100% straight forward stuff. It's shaping up to be more like an academic treatise on 14th Century politics, following the old format of discussing a subject, breaking it down, giving examples, citing references etc.
-never immoral, moral, or duplicitous, more sort of academically scientific and sightly detached (on occasion).
Well, I'm not reading anything at the moment, but I've read a good bit in the past year.
-The first two books of the Troy Rising series by John Ringo. Funny, although thinner skinned liberals might want to avoid some of it.
-Reread the first three books of the Legend of Drizzt. I need to start looking for book 4.
-And the entire main series of the Honorverse. That took a little while.
I've read 1984, I can see how it's considered a classic, but I felt hollow after finishing it. I depress myself enough as it is, I don't need to give my overly-pessimistic imagination more fuel.
It's shaping up to be more like an academic treatise on 14th Century politics, following the old format of discussing a subject, breaking it down, giving examples, citing references etc.16th C … keep going, he gets there. My copy is in a box somewhere, as we are renovating at the moment, but from memory he posits things like: is it better to be feared or loved, O Prince? Loved of course, and gives examples, but then the tone changes and by the end of the section you realize he's suggested that being feared is both easier and better than being loved (if you have to pick one) … [ but what you should aim for is being feared while everyone is saying they love you. ]
-never immoral, moral, or duplicitous, more sort of academically scientific and sightly detached (on occasion).
There are a lot of examples from 'antiquity' in The Prince, as that was the Renaissance style … looking back to the Romans and Greeks as moral example. But usually these examples were framed within a Christian moral framework. Mac goes outside that. His Discourses on Livy is a fun (if heavier) read than the Prince.
Already finished Guiellmo del Torro and Chuck Hogan's "The Strain" (from my last post like 2-3 days ago). Excellent for a modern, high-tech vampire novel.
Just started reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson (basically a history of different fields of science such as biology, geology, astronomy and physics, and how our knowledge in those fields have changed over the past several centuries). So far, a very informative- and even entertaining- read.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo