What book are you reading?

[njkate]

Just finished Fly Away by Kristin Hannah. I actually forgot I had this book, found it when I went digging for Firefly Lane to relook as I watched the show on Netflix and was like that didn't happen etc etc. Fly Away is the sequel to Firefly Lane

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by njkate

Just finished Fly Away by Kristin Hannah. I actually forgot I had this book, found it when I went digging for Firefly Lane to relook as I watched the show on Netflix and was like that didn't happen etc etc. Fly Away is the sequel to Firefly Lane

I wish I hadn't read FlyAway. It was, IMO, so inferior to Firefly Lane.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by njkate

Just finished Fly Away by Kristin Hannah.

Kristin Hannah seems very erratic in her writing.

[njkate]

Originally Posted by old_cold

I wish I hadn't read FlyAway. It was, IMO, so inferior to Firefly Lane.

It was but it did tie up loose ends as far as Tully & Cloud

[pathrunner]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Kristin Hannah seems very erratic in her writing.

Yes I found that to be true. I read 2 or 3 and then stopped.

I'm currently reading Knowing: Memoirs of a Journey Beyond The Veil and Choosing Joy. I found it after watching a YouTube video of Jeffery Olsen, the author. He lost his wife, child and a leg in a terrible car accident in the 1990's. Describes his near death experience (NDE). He's very articulate and easy to listen to. The book is well written and draws you in. Starts with his childhood.

[Taz22]

Just finished Stephen Kings, The Institute. I hadn’t read anything of his for awhile, the last couple of books I read years ago, were full of rambling. He is master of the macabre, but still..he gets really caught up in his own writing. Not so this time, the book was written without pages of excess.

It was believable enough and I agree with the psychological profile of the government lab workers. The kids were endearing and the book kept a fast pace without getting sidetracked on rambling. The hero’s were a little unexpected and I always enjoy when he refers to his previous books, like the Hitchcock cameo he does in his movies. He dedicated this book to his grandkids. How cool to have Stephen King as a grandpa! I’d recommend this book, it’s a good one.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by P 187, 238 of The Swerve

Link below in book title.

All particles are in motion in an infinite void. Space, like time, is unbounded. There are no fixed points, no beginnings, middles, or ends, and no limits. ....
The universe consists then of matter- -the primary particles and all that those particles come together to form-and space, intangible and empty. Nothing else exists….The universe has no creator or designer
****

And Bruno managed to push the scandal of Copernicanism still further: there was no center to the universe at all, he argued, neither earth nor sun. Instead, he wrote, quoting Lucretius, there were multiple worlds, where the seeds of things, in their infinite numbers, would certainly combine to form other races of men, other creatures. Each of the fixed stars observed in the sky is a sun, scattered through limitless space. Many of these are accompanied by satellites that revolve around them as the earth revolves around our sun. The universe is not all about us, about our behavior and our destiny; we are only a tiny piece of something inconceivably larger. And that should not make us shrink in fear. Rather, we should embrace the world in wonder and gratitude and awe. These were extremely dangerous views, every one of them, and it did not improve matters when Bruno, pressed to reconcile his cosmology with Scripture, wrote that the Bible was a better guide to morality than to charting the heavens. Many people may have quietly agreed, but it was not prudent to say so in public, let alone in print.

I just finished reading The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. Don't worry; The Swerve is not about avoiding animals while driving. It is an ingenious history of the demolition of the role of superstition, in particular various religious organizations, in suppressing any scientific understanding of the nature of the world, or of humans. But it is more than that. Any belief that the Pope and other religious authorities was dangerous, subversive and subject to severe punishment, and often death. The author details the early and promising history of scientific thought, in ancient Roman times. Lucretius, a writer and philosopher, built upon the views and science of Epicurus. Epicurus advocated a view that pleasure was a primary objective of people. He advocated living for the present, not the afterlife.

Unfortunately, the Dark Ages curtailed any kind of creative thinking, placing all thought under clerical control. One Poggio Bracciolini, not a monk himself but a member of the priests' body of scribes, laboriously retrieved and copies Lucretius major work, On the Nature of Things. The book lays out in excruciating (perhaps too excruciating) detail about how this work was rescued from the dustbin of history. Even though Poggio, a deeply religious man personally opposed Epicurean doctrine, he had no truck with ignorance. Basically, the genie was out of the bottle, and helped motivate Shakespeare, Galileo, Copernicus and others. The Renaissance replaced the Dark Ages.

There are a few blemishes on an otherwise excellent book. One, which may be unavoidable, is that there is so much new material and fine prose that it is a slow read. One does not skim this book unless part of a university class. Another is harder to fathom. His first mention of the colonies that became the United States, and the United States is on the last page, where he quotes Thomas Jefferson: "'I am,' Jefferson wrote to a correspondent who wanted to know his philosophy of life, 'an Epicurean.'" The book covers plenty of the 17th Century. My own view, as a history buff, is that the opening of the New World played a major role in breaking the hammerlock on thinking held by European clergy.

Perhaps I will email Mr. Greenblatt, the author.

[loves2read]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

I just finished reading The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. Don't worry; The Swerve is not about avoiding animals while driving. It is an ingenious history of the demolition of the role of superstition, in particular various religious organizatio" {cut a lot -sorry}
The book covers plenty of the 17th Century. My own view, as a history buff, is that the opening of the New World played a major role in breaking the hammerlock on thinking held by European clergy.
[/font]
Perhaps I will email Mr. Greenblatt, the author.

Although the Spanish brought the Inquisition to the early part of their exploration and the Puritans brought much of their religious bigotry, I agree that the vast areas of land that were basically open to any one vs the aristocratic and church (Protestant and Catholic ownership and oversight) of the “Old World” meant that people did not have to be bound by what they didn’t like or believe in…
The drive to the West that began as soon as people landed from the East was sponsored as much by drive for monetary success as well as independence—-of mind and body…
Although once any kind of “civilization” managed to establish itself people had a way of institutionalizing certain values and “rules” that others probably took issue with—and started moving West again…

My husband watches “Outlander” which is based on a woman trained as a nurse in WW2 who time travels to the past—the time of Bonny Prince Charlie and British oppression in Scotland—her belief in Science puts her drastically at odds with almost everyone she comes in contact with—
And she apparently can never learn that showing that belief in a myriad of ways is a very dangerous behavior in pre-Revolution America….
One reason I don’t watch it—

[ladyvibrant]

She's a nut and I love her!!!

[jbgusa]

I just finished reading Personal Observations on the Republic of Vermont (Paperback) by Vrest Orton, more of an 86-page pamphlet than a full book. Admittedly, this is a bit quirky. Unlike other reviewers I don't find its political views to be overwhelmingly conservative. The subject is a little abstract. Put simply, Vermont is a small state. There are not many interested in its history. That does not make the converse true, that it's history is not interesting or important. I have such an interest, being a history buff and having family living part-time in Vermont. I have done other reading about this period and Vermont's role, including but not limited to Vermont's Ebenezer Allen: Patriot, Commando and Emancipator by Glenn Fey Jr. and George Clinton: Yeoman Politician of the New Republic by John P. Kaminski. The latter has a lengthy section about New York's battle to retain Vermont, which marked much of Governor Clinton's long career as New York governor.

As some may know, Vermont was not one of the Thirteen Colonies, and was not present at the Constitutional Convention. It's land was claimed, separately, by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Britain (by way of Canada and otherwise) and most importantly New York. Many of the people living in what is now Vermont felt differently. When New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts were royal colonies, Vermont resisted. It resisted New York's incursions more than New Hampshire, which governed with a lighter hand. The Vermonters were particularly turned off by New York's "patroon" system, akin to Russia's tradition of serfdom.

This resistance led, ultimately, to Vermont declaring an independent republic, initially called New Connecticut and later Vermont, in 1777. Vermont had its own Constitution, currency and other attributes of independence. Four year's after writing of the U.S. Constitution, Vermont joined as the 14th state.