Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Read the novels and forget everything else

hedgehogreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#101

Post by squigz »

devindotcom wrote: post #6

Excellent books, full of understated spectacle and really excellent wordplay. If you get into them you may want to pick up "A Sea of Words" as a guide to some of the more esoteric terminology. Pretty much guaranteed you'll be stumped quite a few times in every book.

> full of understated spectacle

The scenes with shipwrecks always stood out to me. One ship was lost during a storm with all hands, and he simply ended the chapter with something like "My god, 600 men..."

> really excellent wordplay.

I am a rather simple man, like Jack. One of my favorites remains:

“Two weevils crept from the crumbs.

‘You see those weevils, Stephen?’ said Jack solemnly. ‘I do.’

‘Which would you choose?’

‘There is not a scrap of difference. Arcades ambo. They are the same species of curculio, and there is nothing to choose between them.’

‘But suppose you had to choose?’

‘Then I should choose the right-hand weevil; it has a perceptible advantage in both length and breadth.’

‘There I have you,’ cried Jack. ‘You are bit – you are completely dished. Don’t you know that in the Navy you must always choose the lesser of two weevils? Oh ha, ha, ha, ha!”

-

I've found myself cracking up with Jack so many times. A truly excellent series that I'm actually currently re-reading :)

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#102

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #52
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #33

I find it difficult to understand the immaturity of not being able to separate the art and artist. It’s really not difficult. I think some of it is performative for signaling to one’s peers that they are on the “right side” of some issue or imagined virtue.

What you are doing is not maturity, but compartmentalisation. If you simply refuse to hear a single piece of evidence of, say, Michael Jackson’s pedophilia, or Roman Polanski’s repeated rape accusations, you are choosing willful ignorance, especially since often the artist’s status and fame make their criminal behaviour possible and provides them shelter from prosecution. I myself am far from innocent of this. For mo…

> If you simply refuse to hear a single piece of evidence of, say, Michael Jackson’s pedophilia

Interesting example. There is more credible evidence of parents of “his child friends” being in it for a cash grab than actual wrong doing.

Evidence was your bar there.

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#103

Post by the_af »

fluoridation wrote: post #77
abnercoimbre wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drink it all in. It enhances the art for me while making sure I sharpen my own ethics (“don’t ever wanna believe the B.S. this person did.”)

I couldn't really stand Lovecraft's style, but I'm with you. I'd read it like I read an ironic racist comment on 4chan and chuckle to myself.

I get what you're saying. The problem is that I cannot stand ironic (or otherwise) racists comments on 4chan, so reading it like that wouldn't be a saving grace for Lovecraft. I actually find 4chan more grating.

I appreciate Lovecraft, especially for the influence it had on other writers, on comics, tabletop and video games; and some of this stories are pretty good (e.g. The Color Out of Space, The Outsider). But it's really hard to swallow his racism and xenophobia, especially since as mentioned by others, it cannot simply be excused by saying he was "a man of his time". He was xenophobic even for his time.

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#104

Post by z500 »

ridgeguy wrote: post #18

Sometime in the mid-90s, after I'd read M&C and the two following books, I heard Patrick O’Brian interviewed on the radio as I was driving to work in Sunnyvale. The interview included about 20 minutes of his reading from M&C. After listening to him read for about 30 seconds, I pulled onto the shoulder of 101 around Ames lab, shut down my car and just listened to him. I'd never before heard someone give voice to the E…

> Maybe I should look into training an AI in the audio style of Patrick O’Brian and have it read Shakespeare for me.

That's what you took away from that?!

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#105

Post by philipkglass »

Insanity wrote: post #9
devindotcom wrote: post #6

Excellent books, full of understated spectacle and really excellent wordplay. If you get into them you may want to pick up "A Sea of Words" as a guide to some of the more esoteric terminology. Pretty much guaranteed you'll be stumped quite a few times in every book.

One of the great things about reading on the Kindle is that you can just highlight the esoteric words and the dictionary will explain it to you. Or you can use wikipedia if you need more info. It's genuinely a great feature, especially when reading in non-native languages. (Can also translate the words then as needed)

I read the whole series on the Kindle about 10 years ago and the obscure nautical words were not in the Kindle's internal dictionary. It would try to connect to an online service to look up those words, but that doesn't help if you are on an airplane. Has the dictionary grown more comprehensive in newer Kindle models?

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#106

Post by defen »

saimiam wrote: post #63
fergie wrote: post #62

> O’Brian’s ear for dialogue produced some of his finest comedy. From The 13 Gun Salute (1989): > > “A lovely young woman indeed, Heaven,” said Jack. “Mrs Heaven, if I do not mistake?” > “Why, sir, in a manner of speaking: but some might say more on the porcupine-lay, the roving-line, if you understand me.” > “There is a great deal to be said for porcupines, Heaven: Solomon had a thousand, and Solomon knew what o’clo…

I got the second one. Jack’s saying that since he’s a seafarer, navigating by the moon is important. It’s standard British-understatement-as-comedy trope.

I just read this one. The other thing that's going on is that Stephen has a secret mission that requires him to be put on shore in France, so he wants to do that during a new moon. The question is Stephen's adorable way of "encrypting" that question so as not to reveal the mission to the rest of the crew.

Imagine that you were in a big meeting and you wanted an excuse to leave, so you whispered to your co-worker "Do you think my phone can receive messages in this room?" And he replied "Phones are the foundation of modern telecommunication infrastructure and we're in a large city, I assure you that you will promptly receive any messages that are sent to you."

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#107

Post by squigz »

philipkglass wrote: post #105
Insanity wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the great things about reading on the Kindle is that you can just highlight the esoteric words and the dictionary will explain it to you. Or you can use wikipedia if you need more info. It's genuinely a great feature, especially when reading in non-native languages. (Can also translate the words then as needed)

I read the whole series on the Kindle about 10 years ago and the obscure nautical words were not in the Kindle's internal dictionary. It would try to connect to an online service to look up those words, but that doesn't help if you are on an airplane. Has the dictionary grown more comprehensive in newer Kindle models?

No. I had to find a more complete dictionary to properly enjoy them. (I also added some fantasy dictionaries like for LoTR)

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#108

Post by squigz »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #46

I'm slowly collecting this set of novels from various second-hand book shops, and I'm looking forward to reading them in order, most likely some time in retirement. I'm happy not to know anything about the author, reading is all about the suspension of disbelief, so I will continue to let myself have that outlet. The movie is one of my all time favourites.

I thought the movie was pretty good, but I really wished I enjoyed it more. I think the casting of Jack and Stephen both really didn't work for me.

I really hope they make more movies about them though.

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#109

Post by teddyh »

Nursie wrote: post #67
teddyh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. Your loss. > Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy. But what exactly is your ethics here? Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done…

> Your loss. Seems unlikely. I'd have read an argument but I don't generally consider links-to-youtube to be an argument. > Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad? My point is it's not impossible to make ethical choices about spending, even in a world where you don't have full control. The idea that it is wrong to make ethical decisions about how to spend your money, time or attention, ei…

I think boycotts are effectively useless. If you disagree, can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal? Accomplished by the actual boycott alone, I mean.

Boycotts are, as I understand it, only a way for you to feel that you still are morally pure. But the counterargument is that it is impossible to be actually morally pure. When you last needed, say, a plumber, did you know how they voted before you engaged them? How does your electricity company CEO vote? How about your local grocery store cashier? If you would actually go though every single thing and person that you depend on, and boycotted every one who is a terrible person or organization, you would not be able to live.

Therefore, boycotts are doubly bad: They don’t accomplish anything, but they feel useful, and therefore they rob you of any incentive or energy to do anything actually useful, like changing relevant laws. Also, many people go at least one step further, and denounce people who simply do not participate in their pet boycotts.

Re: Read the novels and forget everything else

#110

Post by Nursie »

teddyh wrote: post #109
Nursie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your loss. Seems unlikely. I'd have read an argument but I don't generally consider links-to-youtube to be an argument. > Is it that nobody should rely on people who have done something bad? My point is it's not impossible to make ethical choices about spending, even in a world where you don't have full control. The idea that it is wrong to make ethical decisions about how to spend your money, time or attention, ei…

I think boycotts are effectively useless. If you disagree, can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal? Accomplished by the actual boycott alone, I mean. Boycotts are, as I understand it, only a way for you to feel that you still are morally pure. But the counterargument is that it is impossible to be actually morally pure. When you last nee…

Who says that avoiding Chinese tomato paste doesn’t accomplish anything? It funnels money to other brands and keeps them going rather than rewarding forced labour and driving other forms of production out of the market. That in itself is an actual, practical effect in a capitalist system.

And doing so certainly wouldn’t make me less likely to vote for a party promising to address the issue.

And I mean, isn’t this just how capitalism works? Buy stuff you want to see more of? Don’t buy things you don’t like. I try to buy local when I can, because I like local produce and I want the local economy to thrive. It’s just taking an active role in the feedback mechanisms that exist around us and deciding where you want to put your very small level of personal influence.

> can you name a few, or even one, consumer-level boycott in, say, the last 50 years, which actually accomplished its goal?

The Bud Light Boycott of 2023 springs immediately to mind. Not that I agree with the people doing the boycotting, or would drink bud light anyway, but it certainly made the company backpedal.

> Boycotts are, as I understand it, only a way for you to feel that you still are morally pure

Then I guess you don’t understand very much, and you certainly don’t understand my posts higher up if you think I’m demanding moral purity of myself or anyone else.

To me, this all just sounds like a justification for your own lack of conscientiousness.

Post reply on HN