Metal Reviews

His essay on Foucault is in Writing and Difference in discussing madness if I'm thinking correctly. That is the black book with gray and yellow text that says writing and difference multiple times?

And Hegel is obv influential but I just have no desire to read him. It's my own loss.

U-hum. I yet have to reach that chapter in Writing and Difference (I'm not reading the book in an organize manner, I never do). I'll look forward to it and see how he has evaluated Foucault.

Robin Hobb - The Assassins Apprentice

Oh and, have finished all the Ice and Fire books since last time. Clash of Kings and Storm of Swords definitely fun.

yeah, those 2 are my favourites in the series. i imagine that the vast majority of fans agree.

finished A Clockwork Orange. meh. the language is colourful and interesting, but honestly i didn't care much for it. but still, you know, check.

next up:



the movie is one of my all-time favourites but it seems to differ from the book in quite a few aspects, so it should be a good read. and Saramago, well, you know:

Finally done with Les Miz. It got iffy in the last 100 pages. Overall goddamn can M Hugo write though. Reading David Foster Wallace's Consider the Lobster and continuing V. now.

Finished Consider the Lobster. Starting Parting of the Ways by Michael Friedman, about the continental/analytic divide in philosophy, focusing on Carnap, Cassirer and Heidegger.

Churchill: A Life. A fascinating (and in depth) biography of Winston Churchill, but odds are it will take me a long time to get through, simply because it is so long and involves quite a bit of British politics which I am simply unfamiliar with.

Chapters from Books like the Science of Logic, some Eosterics, The lost Keys to freemasonry, The World as Will and Idea among others.

Invisible Man by Ellison.

Emmanuel Levinas - God, Death, and Time
Manly P. Hall - The Lost Keys of Freemasonry
H.P. Blavatsky - The Secret Doctrine

Mostly Nabokov's Pale Fire. It's really good. Cool structure (a novel told via a poem and a fan's commentary on the poem) and beautiful prose. And he keeps the plot clear while doing those two things. Also slogging through James Joyce's Ulysses but it's not as fun.

I've been interested lately in the Freemasonry, so I'll give the Lost Keys a try.

Levinas' book sounds intriguing too. A few years ago I read a philosophical essay about Time, and it was a real trip.

That Levinas book is very, very good. I would also recommend you read upon the Secret Doctrine.

I really enjoyed the First Law trilogy, and so did I with Best Served Cold. The Heroes, imo, depicting a battle from both sides is even better.

Seems interesting. I've nothing to read in the epic fantasy department right now, so I might get the First Law trilogy.

The narrative style is more like George R.R. Martin or J.R.R. Tolkien?
To be more specific, is bloody and gutsy and mature or it is directed towards a more broad audience (kids)?

read the Best Served Cold preview at the end of the last book in The First Law, but never got round to the actual book. will check it out, TFL is cool.

Mentioned Levinas in a discussion. We all agreed: Heidegger, Heidegger, Heidegger, being-with is inherently loving because of the Other's face. Bam! Done.

Well done!

Trapt, do you know Theodor W. Adorno, and if so, what do you think of his critique toward Heidegger and Hegel?

It's violent and vicious, a lot of political plots, betrayal, a little magic, a shitload of blood, guts, sex, etc. Since I haven't read Games of Thrones (to which it's often compared) I cannot really say if it's similar or not. I know I love the vivid battle scenes, dark humour and the fact that even secondary characters are given depth and contraddictions.
Ho, and each book is better than the one before which makes the last chapter of the trilogy a glorious, surprising an epic finale!

I know me some Adorno. my research is Adorno on pop culture, mainly music. he is spot on in his criticisms. I like his curtailing of the dialectic. he stops before synthesis. the value of the dialectic is in how it articulates contradictions, expresses conflict and struggles. I wrote a whole paper on his Heidegger critique. he focuses on authenticity and Adorno gets a little overzealous in writing off Heidi, but he has a point. fundamental ontology is bullshit. it's an ideological myth that becomes unquestionable. and inauthenticity may not exist only within capitalism as Adorno claims, but capitalism exacerbates it most definitely.