What Are You Reading? Part Deux

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

The Nameless

The Nameless

M-O-O-N - That spells Nameless
Jul 10, 2011
2,080
8,261
42
The Darkside of the Moon (England really)
I've made a small start on the outside. It's been a while since I have read a new (to me) novel. But I'm kind of toying with the idea of reading heart shaped box by joe hill instead.

I have a bit of an issue with the outsider, I wonder if anyone who has read it can help me. Even though it's very early in the book (30 pages) I've already started to notice a pattern of rambling on in the police interviews. Is this just setting the scene - what the towns folk are like? Because it kind of feels a bit like filler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy, Notaro, kingricefan and 3 others
GNTLGNT

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
The Nameless said:
I've made a small start on the outside. It's been a while since I have read a new (to me) novel. But I'm kind of toying with the idea of reading heart shaped box by joe hill instead.

I have a bit of an issue with the outsider, I wonder if anyone who has read it can help me. Even though it's very early in the book (30 pages) I've already started to notice a pattern of rambling on in the police interviews. Is this just setting the scene - what the towns folk are like? Because it kind of feels a bit like filler.
Click to expand...
...no, while it's not intrinsic to the tale, it does give background to the characters....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy, The Nameless, Notaro and 7 others
Kurben

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
A biography over Richard III by Matthew Lewis. This sounds like an honest try to weigh in both the Rikardian and the Anti-Rikardian views and not paint neither the White Knight nor the Black Devil picture that are all too common. Also it takes in his whole life into the picture and does not focus heavily on the two years he was king.. I have hopes for this one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wayoftheredpanda, kingricefan, GNTLGNT and 3 others
E

Edward John

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
4,004
18,785
24
Kurben said:
A biography over Richard III by Matthew Lewis. This sounds like an honest try to weigh in both the Rikardian and the Anti-Rikardian views and not paint neither the White Knight nor the Black Devil picture that are all too common. Also it takes in his whole life into the picture and does not focus heavily on the two years he was king.. I have hopes for this one.
Click to expand...
Bosworth Field was some victory for the Tudors, Richard was not a great military tactician. As far as the English monarchy goes, they tend to have very interesting kings.I have obvious bias against the Platagenant kings, but if I had to pick a favourite it would likely be Richard I.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingricefan, GNTLGNT and Kurben
Kurben

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
Edward John said:
Bosworth Field was some victory for the Tudors, Richard was not a great military tactician. As far as the English monarchy goes, they tend to have very interesting kings.I have obvious bias against the Platagenant kings, but if I had to pick a favourite it would likely be Richard I.
Click to expand...
One of the big reasons Henry VII won at Bosworth was that Richard was betrayed. Several nobles with their armies showed up and promised to fight with him only to watch from a bit off while richard and his men were slaughtered by A force much stronger than his. If they had fought, as promised, very likely Richard would have won. Even Richards meanest enemies admitted he was a good military man. His main failing as a King was that he wasn't ruthless enough. If youre King of england you have to be ruthless to stay king of england. Both Henry VII and Henry VIII was ruthless enough. Rgey did not leave threats against the throne alive for long. Richard know who his adversaries were both didn't do anything against them. There were short rebellioins in both1483 and 1484 and if he had rgrown them in jail then, as most other kings did in europe, Henry wouldn't have been able to gain as much support as he did in 1485. Richard was naive, not really King material.. He had been exceedingly loyal towards his brother when he was King and Edward trusted him completely. But when he took a step up and tried to rule with all the court jealosies and hatreds that existed he wasn't tough enough to handle that.
When it comes to Richard I, the Lionheart, he was a great commander of armies but as a King of England i wouldn't rank him so high. He spent under a year total in England during the years of his reign. Other wise in the holy land, captured in Germany or in France. He never really cared a lot about england but cared a lot about his duchy in aquitaine that he inherited from his mother. For him it was always Aquitaine first, England second. So, as just Kings of England, i would rank both Edward I and Edward III higher. They were ruthless towards the scots, yes but if we see them just as english monarchs they were extremely successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingricefan, GNTLGNT, Edward John and 1 other person
E

Edward John

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
4,004
18,785
24
Kurben said:
One of the big reasons Henry VII won at Bosworth was that Richard was betrayed. Several nobles with their armies showed up and promised to fight with him only to watch from a bit off while richard and his men were slaughtered by A force much stronger than his. If they had fought, as promised, very likely Richard would have won. Even Richards meanest enemies admitted he was a good military man. His main failing as a King was that he wasn't ruthless enough. If youre King of england you have to be ruthless to stay king of england. Both Henry VII and Henry VIII was ruthless enough. Rgey did not leave threats against the throne alive for long. Richard know who his adversaries were both didn't do anything against them. There were short rebellioins in both1483 and 1484 and if he had rgrown them in jail then, as most other kings did in europe, Henry wouldn't have been able to gain as much support as he did in 1485. Richard was naive, not really King material.. He had been exceedingly loyal towards his brother when he was King and Edward trusted him completely. But when he took a step up and tried to rule with all the court jealosies and hatreds that existed he wasn't tough enough to handle that.
When it comes to Richard I, the Lionheart, he was a great commander of armies but as a King of England i wouldn't rank him so high. He spent under a year total in England during the years of his reign. Other wise in the holy land, captured in Germany or in France. He never really cared a lot about england but cared a lot about his duchy in aquitaine that he inherited from his mother. For him it was always Aquitaine first, England second. So, as just Kings of England, i would rank both Edward I and Edward III higher. They were ruthless towards the scots, yes but if we see them just as english monarchs they were extremely successful.
Click to expand...
No doubt that Edwad I/III were great kings of England, but militarily I wouldn't say they were better than Richard. Richard III is an interesting monarch, but like you said, not great with diplomacy, he should have known who was loyal, but the barons did well to hide their intentions. I don't even think that Richard was king really, he spent so much of his attention in the holy land and France! Always fun to talk history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingricefan, Kurben and GNTLGNT
Kurben

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
I made a detour into the all to real horror cabinett that exists. Read a new book on Jack The Ripper. It has collected a lot articles from many all putting forward their opinion. This after first presenting us with the bare bones of the case. The facts which isn't sadly enough very many. What struck me about the authors that have written these articles was that many had a very arrogant tone. essentially saying "After reading this i have no doubt that everyone will agree with me that XX is the only candidate that fits. XX was Jack The Ripper. How anyone can have any doubt about that is beyond me". I'm qouting. Practically saying thal others that have studied the same facts as he are idiots and that they should all bow to his brilliance. When all he has, or anyone has, is a theory based on some facts and a lot of suppositions, presumptions and possibles. There was also a few that took the, according to me, more correct line of saying "It has gone a long time and we will probably never know the whole truth but to my mind the absolutely most promising candidate is XX because of this and that.
Most theories i knew about, a few new ones but nothing that makes one say. This is it! Finally the riddle is solved. But it was a solid going through facts suspects and theories. What would have fun would have been if after every theory presented someone had written what speaks against it. In these articles we heard the pros for many candidate but not the cons. Some is fairly obvious but some i wish were spelled out by someone who knows more than me. Now it is up to the reader to decide which theory you like best but that is a faulty reasoning since you're (or at least I) dont know enough always to see the the holes or omissions in the theories. Otherwise a good book. If you like true crime that is and if you dont mind being reminded of what humans are capable of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT, kingricefan and Spideyman
fljoe0

fljoe0

Cantre Member
Apr 5, 2008
15,859
71,642
62
120 miles S of the Pancake/Waffle line
The Night Fire - Michael Connelly

It was good but not anywhere near the top of my Michael Connellly list.

I went right from Night Fire and started The Poet by Michael Connelly. I've been wanting to reread this one for a while. This was the very first Michael Connelly book I read and it's been over 20 years. I remember way back I was looking for something to read and I picked up The Poet because SK wrote the introduction to it. I've read several books because SK did an introduction or had a blurb on the cover. I don't think I've been disappointed very often when I've picked up a book because of an SK blurb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT, cat in a bag, kingricefan and 4 others
Kurben

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
fljoe0 said:
The Night Fire - Michael Connelly

It was good but not anywhere near the top of my Michael Connellly list.

I went right from Night Fire and started The Poet by Michael Connelly. I've been wanting to reread this one for a while. This was the very first Michael Connelly book I read and it's been over 20 years. I remember way back I was looking for something to read and I picked up The Poet because SK wrote the introduction to it. I've read several books because SK did an introduction or had a blurb on the cover. I don't think I've been disappointed very often when I've picked up a book because of an SK blurb.
Click to expand...
Coincidence!! I just Started Trunk Music by Connelly!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNTLGNT, cat in a bag, kingricefan and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom