Now Reading...

traptunderice · **Posted:** Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:04 pm

EdgeOfForever wrote:

I wrote an article about Disgrace during my first course in the teacher program. It was aight I guess. The book, I mean. The article was shit.

I appreciate how he didn't bask in the home invasion's violence. and I like the philosophical point of how the suffering of animals expands our moral considerations. but ultimately the professor was loathsome and not really relatable in his debauchery.

DevotedWalnut · **Posted:** Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:46 pm

Only 100 pages left then onto book 3... Oh my.

Azrael · **Posted:** Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:48 am

read "painfully awkward" by an anonymous author, the house owner left it here. easily one of the very worst books i've ever read. probably unedited, with several typos, grammar mistakes and sentences that don't make sense.

generally it's just poorly written, like a high-schooler's first attempt at a novel, trying to sound witty and eloquent, and just exposing every piece of the character's thought processes, it couldn't be any less subtle in that or in its supposedly sharp criticisms of the "characters" of new york city.

still don't know why i finished it. then again it only took 3 days of train rides so could've been worse.

trapt, thanks for the tip. yeah it does seem to have really slow parts. 2666 seems longer but also better paced, judging from the reviews.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:11 am

going to a book club Monday night that read Chopin's Awakening. couldn't find it in town so bought American Psycho and reading that instead. it's such a good book. I think my cousin had my copy.

noodles · **Posted:** Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:53 am

I made a list of books to read in the new year

Nabokov - Ada, Or Ardor: A Family Chronicle
Nabokov - The Originals of Laura
Pynchon - Against the Day
Tolstoy - War and Peace
Dostoeyevsky - Brothers Karamazov
Emile Zola - La debacle
Melville - Moby Dick
Cormac McCarthy - The Crossing
(Kingsley) Amis - Green Man
Samuel Beckett - Watt
Proust - A l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleur
(Martin) Amis - The Information
(Martin) Amis - The Rachel Papers
D.T. Max - Every Love Story is a Ghost Story (DFW bio)
David Foster Wallace - The Pale King
David Foster Wallace - Girl With the Curious Hair
Homer - The Odyssey
Wilde - Picture of Dorian Grey
Carroll - Alice in Wonder + Adventures Through the Looking Glass
Swift - Gulliver's Travels
Mann - Magic Mountain
Barthelme - Overnight to Many Distant Cities
Dumas - Le compte de Monte-Cristo
Shakespeare - Two Gentlemen of Verona
Love's Labours Lost
Much Ado About Nothing
Henry the Sixth Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Julius Caesar
Timon of Athens
Macbeth

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:58 am

Rio recommended me Zola's Germinal and I loved it so I won't comment on that, but besides Dostoevsky I want nothing to do with that list.

and seven years later I now get so many more of the American Psycho jokes and references, I'm absolutely loving it.

noodles · **Posted:** Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:47 pm

Finished Proust's Du cote de chez Swann, (2 months to finish the first part, only seven more parts to go!). The last couple pages are obscenely beautiful. Started The Pale King by David Foster Wallace. Damn he is good, damn I wish he'd finished this book.

noodles · **Posted:** Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:38 am

Work reading: Finished Gulliver's Travels. It wasn't thrilling but some of the satire in the second half made me chuckle and it was entertaining throughout. Started The Picture of Dorian Gray. Can't tell if it's the book or just Lord Henry who is cranking out the witticisms.

Azrael · **Posted:** Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:06 am

started Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

will try to pick something up before i leave as well but really doubt i'll have time... shit.

EdgeOfForever · **Posted:** Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:31 am

noodles wrote:

Work reading: Finished Gulliver's Travels. It wasn't thrilling but some of the satire in the second half made me chuckle and it was entertaining throughout. Started The Picture of Dorian Gray. Can't tell if it's the book or just Lord Henry who is cranking out the witticisms.

Lord Henry is pretty funny, he definitely got me through that book.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:41 pm

Azrael wrote:

started Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

One of my favorites!

Read an essay recently about how classic rock's persistence as popular culture, the way Black Sabbath, Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin songs find find their way into television ads and young kids' ipods, different than how most musical shifts occur throughout American history, i.e., disco died and kids wouldn't be caught dead listening to Sonny and Cher these days, defies how we conceptualize capitalism in a post-modernist era as something which constantly pushes new things onto us that we must purchases. Instead, classic rock represents a moment where past authentic moments can rejuvenate affect to drive sales. Kinda fun.

Now reading Foucault's Discipline and Punish, Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

North From Here · **Posted:** Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:11 pm

traptunderice wrote:

Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

Well, he certainly has his angle, but I do like him as a historian from the other pieces I've read. His periodization of the "short 20th century" is often taken as fact in historian circles, though I see possible rival periodizations.

Does that book talk much about the totalitarianism thesis, or totalitarianism generally?

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:36 am

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

Well, he certainly has his angle, but I do like him as a historian from the other pieces I've read. His periodization of the "short 20th century" is often taken as fact in historian circles, though I see possible rival periodizations.

Does that book talk much about the totalitarianism thesis, or totalitarianism generally?

He has his angle, but I think he rides it properly. I've been focusing on the colonialism stuff, but I think he does it in a way that is balanced, leaning left but in such a way that saying it framed in such a way is better than it not being said at all.

The bits on totalitarianism itself are few and far between. He mentions it here and there as a word that national socialists conferred on themselves, thematized through 1984, and never coming about in the USSR. He makes a hard case that the USSR was never totalitarian, because it never brainwashed people. It never controlled people. It was never supposed to aspire to totalitarinism and by the time, Stalin took power the people weren't hoping for anything better. They were just trying to get by, unlike Germans who truly thought they were entering into a new historical era.

North From Here · **Posted:** Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:37 pm

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

Well, he certainly has his angle, but I do like him as a historian from the other pieces I've read. His periodization of the "short 20th century" is often taken as fact in historian circles, though I see possible rival periodizations.

Does that book talk much about the totalitarianism thesis, or totalitarianism generally?

He has his angle, but I think he rides it properly. I've been focusing on the colonialism stuff, but I think he does it in a way that is balanced, leaning left but in such a way that saying it framed in such a way is better than it not being said at all.

The bits on totalitarianism itself are few and far between. He mentions it here and there as a word that national socialists conferred on themselves, thematized through 1984, and never coming about in the USSR. He makes a hard case that the USSR was never totalitarian, because it never brainwashed people. It never controlled people. It was never supposed to aspire to totalitarinism and by the time, Stalin took power the people weren't hoping for anything better. They were just trying to get by, unlike Germans who truly thought they were entering into a new historical era.

Yeah, I read the summary of his take on colonialism and was intrigued--not what I expected him to say. I'm not a fan of the totalitarianism thesis generally, but Stalinism scholarship has really moved past his summary of ideas right there. Anyway, a fair number of Soviets seemed quite entranced by the "new man" thesis and remaking of the historical era: one reading suggestion I'd give is "Revolution on My Mind" by Jochen Hellbeck. He looks at a ton of 1930s era Soviet personal diaries, some in extraordinary depth.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:57 am

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

Well, he certainly has his angle, but I do like him as a historian from the other pieces I've read. His periodization of the "short 20th century" is often taken as fact in historian circles, though I see possible rival periodizations.

Does that book talk much about the totalitarianism thesis, or totalitarianism generally?

He has his angle, but I think he rides it properly. I've been focusing on the colonialism stuff, but I think he does it in a way that is balanced, leaning left but in such a way that saying it framed in such a way is better than it not being said at all.

The bits on totalitarianism itself are few and far between. He mentions it here and there as a word that national socialists conferred on themselves, thematized through 1984, and never coming about in the USSR. He makes a hard case that the USSR was never totalitarian, because it never brainwashed people. It never controlled people. It was never supposed to aspire to totalitarinism and by the time, Stalin took power the people weren't hoping for anything better. They were just trying to get by, unlike Germans who truly thought they were entering into a new historical era.

Yeah, I read the summary of his take on colonialism and was intrigued--not what I expected him to say. I'm not a fan of the totalitarianism thesis generally, but Stalinism scholarship has really moved past his summary of ideas right there. Anyway, a fair number of Soviets seemed quite entranced by the "new man" thesis and remaking of the historical era: one reading suggestion I'd give is "Revolution on My Mind" by Jochen Hellbeck. He looks at a ton of 1930s era Soviet personal diaries, some in extraordinary depth.

Idk what the totalitarianism thesis is. Is that just that the USSR was totalitarian? Did you ever have to read Susan Buck-Mors Dreamworld and Catastrophe?

North From Here · **Posted:** Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:01 am

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

Well, he certainly has his angle, but I do like him as a historian from the other pieces I've read. His periodization of the "short 20th century" is often taken as fact in historian circles, though I see possible rival periodizations.

Does that book talk much about the totalitarianism thesis, or totalitarianism generally?

He has his angle, but I think he rides it properly. I've been focusing on the colonialism stuff, but I think he does it in a way that is balanced, leaning left but in such a way that saying it framed in such a way is better than it not being said at all.

The bits on totalitarianism itself are few and far between. He mentions it here and there as a word that national socialists conferred on themselves, thematized through 1984, and never coming about in the USSR. He makes a hard case that the USSR was never totalitarian, because it never brainwashed people. It never controlled people. It was never supposed to aspire to totalitarinism and by the time, Stalin took power the people weren't hoping for anything better. They were just trying to get by, unlike Germans who truly thought they were entering into a new historical era.

Yeah, I read the summary of his take on colonialism and was intrigued--not what I expected him to say. I'm not a fan of the totalitarianism thesis generally, but Stalinism scholarship has really moved past his summary of ideas right there. Anyway, a fair number of Soviets seemed quite entranced by the "new man" thesis and remaking of the historical era: one reading suggestion I'd give is "Revolution on My Mind" by Jochen Hellbeck. He looks at a ton of 1930s era Soviet personal diaries, some in extraordinary depth.

Idk what the totalitarianism thesis is. Is that just that the USSR was totalitarian? Did you ever have to read Susan Buck-Mors Dreamworld and Catastrophe?

Sorry, I should clarify what it means in history debates. Basically it means that the Nazis and the Soviets were the same, or at the least, far more alike than different. I haven't read that one trapt, description looks promising though.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:28 am

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

Well, he certainly has his angle, but I do like him as a historian from the other pieces I've read. His periodization of the "short 20th century" is often taken as fact in historian circles, though I see possible rival periodizations.

Does that book talk much about the totalitarianism thesis, or totalitarianism generally?

He has his angle, but I think he rides it properly. I've been focusing on the colonialism stuff, but I think he does it in a way that is balanced, leaning left but in such a way that saying it framed in such a way is better than it not being said at all.

The bits on totalitarianism itself are few and far between. He mentions it here and there as a word that national socialists conferred on themselves, thematized through 1984, and never coming about in the USSR. He makes a hard case that the USSR was never totalitarian, because it never brainwashed people. It never controlled people. It was never supposed to aspire to totalitarinism and by the time, Stalin took power the people weren't hoping for anything better. They were just trying to get by, unlike Germans who truly thought they were entering into a new historical era.

Yeah, I read the summary of his take on colonialism and was intrigued--not what I expected him to say. I'm not a fan of the totalitarianism thesis generally, but Stalinism scholarship has really moved past his summary of ideas right there. Anyway, a fair number of Soviets seemed quite entranced by the "new man" thesis and remaking of the historical era: one reading suggestion I'd give is "Revolution on My Mind" by Jochen Hellbeck. He looks at a ton of 1930s era Soviet personal diaries, some in extraordinary depth.

Idk what the totalitarianism thesis is. Is that just that the USSR was totalitarian? Did you ever have to read Susan Buck-Mors Dreamworld and Catastrophe?

Sorry, I should clarify what it means in history debates. Basically it means that the Nazis and the Soviets were the same, or at the least, far more alike than different. I haven't read that one trapt, description looks promising though.

That's kinda what I assumed.

Dreamworld and Catastrophe is a beast of a text, but it's always interesting. It's unique in its form and its argument are interesting in a way that tries to describe the US and the USSR as dialectical inverses, two sides of the same coin in a way that I think would make the totalitarian thesis a little awkward to hold. USSR=Nazis maybe, but if USSR=US then Nazis=US might be a little hard to stomach for some people. I'm not saying that is as simple as her argument is, but it makes a hearty step towards reconceptualizing the Cold War. The move is that the USSR's ideological fixation on production was a type of Eastern embrace of what they perceived as occurring in the US in terms of Fordism. The workers aren't being brainwashed as much as they think they are working towards the mode of production that makes the US's wealth possible.

I don't think Stalinism and Nazism are comparable enough to warrant the reduction. Arendt always lined them up as the former succumbing to History and the other to Nature, and that is hard to argue against but my question becomes how is the faith in History of the USSR different than the faith in the Manifest Destiny or something to that effect. The Stalinist purges, the Holocaust and the genocide of Native Americans all seem eerily parallel, following that rabbit hole. If brainwashing occurs in the so-called totalitarian regimes, what is operating in America if not that? Is it simply ideology minus the pejorative title? Is it simply not as penetrating in America? You mention Soviet diaries, but I wonder if we had access to diaries during the push west if we would not find similar claims to land, rather than an historical era.

Edit: I am a few beers in mind you.

Azrael · **Posted:** Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:39 am

traptunderice wrote:

Azrael wrote:

started Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

One of my favorites!

Read an essay recently about how classic rock's persistence as popular culture, the way Black Sabbath, Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin songs find find their way into television ads and young kids' ipods, different than how most musical shifts occur throughout American history, i.e., disco died and kids wouldn't be caught dead listening to Sonny and Cher these days, defies how we conceptualize capitalism in a post-modernist era as something which constantly pushes new things onto us that we must purchases. Instead, classic rock represents a moment where past authentic moments can rejuvenate affect to drive sales. Kinda fun.

sounds like a cool essay. as for the book, figured you'd be into it, so far it reads like a feminist 1984 or something. not so much feminist i guess but focusing on the plight of womens in that book's universe. i'm about 100 pages in btw.

North From Here · **Posted:** Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:43 am

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

North From Here wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes (great historicizing of the 20th century).

Well, he certainly has his angle, but I do like him as a historian from the other pieces I've read. His periodization of the "short 20th century" is often taken as fact in historian circles, though I see possible rival periodizations.

Does that book talk much about the totalitarianism thesis, or totalitarianism generally?

He has his angle, but I think he rides it properly. I've been focusing on the colonialism stuff, but I think he does it in a way that is balanced, leaning left but in such a way that saying it framed in such a way is better than it not being said at all.

The bits on totalitarianism itself are few and far between. He mentions it here and there as a word that national socialists conferred on themselves, thematized through 1984, and never coming about in the USSR. He makes a hard case that the USSR was never totalitarian, because it never brainwashed people. It never controlled people. It was never supposed to aspire to totalitarinism and by the time, Stalin took power the people weren't hoping for anything better. They were just trying to get by, unlike Germans who truly thought they were entering into a new historical era.

Yeah, I read the summary of his take on colonialism and was intrigued--not what I expected him to say. I'm not a fan of the totalitarianism thesis generally, but Stalinism scholarship has really moved past his summary of ideas right there. Anyway, a fair number of Soviets seemed quite entranced by the "new man" thesis and remaking of the historical era: one reading suggestion I'd give is "Revolution on My Mind" by Jochen Hellbeck. He looks at a ton of 1930s era Soviet personal diaries, some in extraordinary depth.

Idk what the totalitarianism thesis is. Is that just that the USSR was totalitarian? Did you ever have to read Susan Buck-Mors Dreamworld and Catastrophe?

Sorry, I should clarify what it means in history debates. Basically it means that the Nazis and the Soviets were the same, or at the least, far more alike than different. I haven't read that one trapt, description looks promising though.

That's kinda what I assumed.

Dreamworld and Catastrophe is a beast of a text, but it's always interesting. It's unique in its form and its argument are interesting in a way that tries to describe the US and the USSR as dialectical inverses, two sides of the same coin in a way that I think would make the totalitarian thesis a little awkward to hold. USSR=Nazis maybe, but if USSR=US then Nazis=US might be a little hard to stomach for some people. I'm not saying that is as simple as her argument is, but it makes a hearty step towards reconceptualizing the Cold War. The move is that the USSR's ideological fixation on production was a type of Eastern embrace of what they perceived as occurring in the US in terms of Fordism. The workers aren't being brainwashed as much as they think they are working towards the mode of production that makes the US's wealth possible.

I don't think Stalinism and Nazism are comparable enough to warrant the reduction. Arendt always lined them up as the former succumbing to History and the other to Nature, and that is hard to argue against but my question becomes how is the faith in History of the USSR different than the faith in the Manifest Destiny or something to that effect. The Stalinist purges, the Holocaust and the genocide of Native Americans all seem eerily parallel, following that rabbit hole. If brainwashing occurs in the so-called totalitarian regimes, what is operating in America if not that? Is it simply ideology minus the pejorative title? Is it simply not as penetrating in America? You mention Soviet diaries, but I wonder if we had access to diaries during the push west if we would not find similar claims to land, rather than an historical era.

Yeah, I think the general success of the left leaning "Wisconsin school" in diplomatic history has been to focus more attention on American tendencies towards Empire as its 'cultural project'. Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right, by Anders Stephanson, is a very short (140 pages), but provocative book that might interest you. Or from my own department, Empire for Liberty, by Richard Immerman, looks in detail at 6 Americans that most influenced the American imperial drive.

A very fascinating, but unfortunately probably impossible exercise, would be able to do such a diary comparison in search of the same Utopian language that you mentioned. In fact, I'm now reminded of how similar the American drive West and Russian drive East were, in roughly similar timeframes, too.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:45 pm