RugbyRebels

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:He's got a point Rowan. How do you know an article about Kenya is good if you've never been there? It could be a complete load of bollocks. Well written, but a complete load of bollocks nonetheless?

Anyway, you read any of Doug Beatties books? No bias reviews if you have

rowan wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:He's got a point Rowan. How do you know an article about Kenya is good if you've never been there? It could be a complete load of bollocks. Well written, but a complete load of bollocks nonetheless?

He doesn't have a point, and you know it well. The article was interesting, that makes it good. An article about Kenya can be exceedingly interesting, even if you haven't been there, and that makes it good. It was a very, very stupid comment to make, and juvenile to boot.

It really makes me wonder how people who claim to have read so many books can be found so wanting in wisdom...

Doug Beatties books - never heard of him, sorry.

rowan wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:He's got a point Rowan. How do you know an article about Kenya is good if you've never been there? It could be a complete load of bollocks. Well written, but a complete load of bollocks nonetheless?

He doesn't have a point, and you know it well. The article was interesting, that makes it good. An article about Kenya can be exceedingly interesting, even if you haven't been there, and that makes it good. It was a very, very stupid comment to make, and juvenile to boot.

This is the point where we differ. What you or I may find 'interesting' does not by default equate to 'good.' To be good an article must be interesting and written in a style to capture the imagination of the reader - but it must also be objectively accurate.

I have no problem with you saying that the review on a couple of Orhan Pamuk books that you haven't got round to reading yet is 'interesting' or 'well-written', but until you have read them you can not make even a subjective assessment of whether the review is good or not.

I have been to Kenya by the way. Some of it is good, some of it is meh and other bits are absolutely fecking dire.

rowan wrote:

rowan wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:He's got a point Rowan. How do you know an article about Kenya is good if you've never been there? It could be a complete load of bollocks. Well written, but a complete load of bollocks nonetheless?

He doesn't have a point, and you know it well. The article was interesting, that makes it good. An article about Kenya can be exceedingly interesting, even if you haven't been there, and that makes it good. It was a very, very stupid comment to make, and juvenile to boot.

It really makes me wonder how people who claim to have read so many books can be found so wanting in wisdom...

Doug Beatties books - never heard of him, sorry.

Why would you have heard of him? You tend to read very little except online reviews and I don't imagine Dougie has that many of those floating around the excitable eddies of the web in which you wallow.

To OJ - Dougie is a friend and I have read both his books. I had to read the second to ensure it didn't contravene the OSA or compromise the security of anyone he mentions. I would say that both are worth a read but you won't get as much out of them if you didn't know how much the events described in them took out of a genuine and dedicated man

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

rowan wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:He's got a point Rowan. How do you know an article about Kenya is good if you've never been there? It could be a complete load of bollocks. Well written, but a complete load of bollocks nonetheless?

He doesn't have a point, and you know it well. The article was interesting, that makes it good. An article about Kenya can be exceedingly interesting, even if you haven't been there, and that makes it good. It was a very, very stupid comment to make, and juvenile to boot.

This is the point where we differ. What you or I may find 'interesting' does not by default equate to 'good.' To be good an article must be interesting and written in a style to capture the imagination of the reader - but it must also be objectively accurate.

I have no problem with you saying that the review on a couple of Orhan Pamuk books that you haven't got round to reading yet is 'interesting' or 'well-written', but until you have read them you can not make even a subjective assessment of whether the review is good or not.

Pure drivel again. Good or bad is a matter of opinion, can be based on a variety of criteria, and reviews are obviously subjective. I happen to be very familiar with the author and the themes he writes about, and was personally inspired to read his most recent works by the review. A very stupid and somewhat juvenile response was made to my harmless comment that it appeared to be a 'good' review (I didn't trouble you with the text, only the link, so you could decide for yourselves whether to take a look or not) - and we all know it was a stupid and juvenile comment. So just let it go.

Nearest I've been to Kenya is Tanzania and a quick trip up to Mombasa had figured in my planning at one point. But people who'd been there advised against it, so I didn't go - and spent the week on a beach in Zanzibar instead

Mombasa is a part of the country I would put in the dire bracket; as too is the majority of Nairobi. The true beauty of Kenya lies outside of its cities and away from its beach resorts on the Mombasa coast. You didn't miss out. I've not been to Zanzibar, but I've heard good things from people I'd trust.

As for the other, please don't think that this is just a case of ganging up; it isn't. Also, please don't dismiss my point as drivel or juvenile; it isn't. As a graduate historian and as a professional soldier I am trained to judge evidence on its provenance and balance it against my existing knowledge. I don't think that you have done either of these things with the Pamuk review and, while you may find it interesting, I'd suggest that this is primarily because you are based in Turkey and have a localised interest.

I have read the review and will now apply a direct challenge based on the undeniable bias of the author. When I read comments such as, "The former [refering to Pamuk's 2009 novel, The Museum of Innocence] - which I believe is the finest novel written by anyone during the past decade ...", it clearly indicates that this review is written from a highly subjective position. As an historian, I would not entirely dismiss this evidence, but it would lead me to consider it flawed. The objectivity, and therefore the quality of the review is further compromised when Larson states, "Pamuk—whom I regard as the greatest living novelist ..."

I would therefore contest that the link you have posted refers to a review that I, like you, find interesting. But it is written from a very subjective bias and therefore cannot be considered 'good.'

Even if you had got round to reading these books (I wonder if you might ever tear yourself from the online reviews long enough to do so) I would suggest that the most accurate comment you could have made would have been to say the Larson's review chimes with your own opinion. But unless the bias is acknowledged, the review and any recommendation based on it is flawed.

Come back when you've read them and let us know what you thought. I am genuinely interested.

I think I already answered that adequately. Pure drivel again. Good or bad is a matter of opinion, can be based on a variety of criteria, and reviews are obviously subjective. I happen to be very familiar with the author and the themes he writes about, and was personally inspired to read his most recent works by the review. A very stupid and somewhat juvenile response was made to my harmless comment that it appeared to be a 'good' review (I didn't trouble you with the text, only the link, so you could decide for yourselves whether to take a look or not) - and we all know it was a stupid and juvenile comment. So just let it go.

Sounds like I made the right choice not to hit Mombasa then

rowan wrote:

rowan wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:He's got a point Rowan. How do you know an article about Kenya is good if you've never been there? It could be a complete load of bollocks. Well written, but a complete load of bollocks nonetheless?

He doesn't have a point, and you know it well. The article was interesting, that makes it good. An article about Kenya can be exceedingly interesting, even if you haven't been there, and that makes it good. It was a very, very stupid comment to make, and juvenile to boot.

It really makes me wonder how people who claim to have read so many books can be found so wanting in wisdom...

Doug Beatties books - never heard of him, sorry.

It's apt you've replied to your own post with that.

Quite clearly the question wasn't to you.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

rowan wrote:

rowan wrote:
He doesn't have a point, and you know it well. The article was interesting, that makes it good. An article about Kenya can be exceedingly interesting, even if you haven't been there, and that makes it good. It was a very, very stupid comment to make, and juvenile to boot.

It really makes me wonder how people who claim to have read so many books can be found so wanting in wisdom...

Doug Beatties books - never heard of him, sorry.

Why would you have heard of him? You tend to read very little except online reviews and I don't imagine Dougie has that many of those floating around the excitable eddies of the web in which you wallow.

To OJ - Dougie is a friend and I have read both his books. I had to read the second to ensure it didn't contravene the OSA or compromise the security of anyone he mentions. I would say that both are worth a read but you won't get as much out of them if you didn't know how much the events described in them took out of a genuine and dedicated man

I've read a few articles/blogs he's written. Comes across as genuine and a man that was deeply affected and cared for what he was doing and his lads.

Also, please don't dismiss my point as drivel or juvenile; it isn't.

The point I'm dismissing as drivel, yours or anyone else's, is that one cannot judge a review on its own merits. Of course you can. Once again, there are any number of criteria upon which the reader may base an assessment, not all of which involve having read the book beforehand, and the idea of a review is solely to provide insight.

As a graduate historian and as a professional soldier I am trained to judge evidence on its provenance and balance it against my existing knowledge.

Historian, fine. But I've never met a soldier with a balanced perspective, I'm afraid. Most of them have been arrogant, high-minded, dismissive of others' views and basically plain stupid. I was a literary major in the US and worked for several years as a journalist in NZ. I've actually written book reviews professionally, and also blogged for publications both here and in SA.

I don't think that you have done either of these things with the Pamuk review and, while you may find it interesting, I'd suggest that this is primarily because you are based in Turkey and have a localised interest.


Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not a huge fan of Pamuk or Turkish literature in general. I've read about half a dozen of his books and enjoyed perhaps two or three. My Name is Red, the one that got the Nobel, is a pretentious borefest, IMHO. Snow, The White Castle and his memoirs of Istanbul had a lot more to say about Turkey, and were therefore of far greater interest to me.

"The former [refering to Pamuk's 2009 novel, The Museum of Innocence] - which I believe is the finest novel written by anyone during the past decade ..."Pamuk—whom I regard as the greatest living novelist ..."



Subjective. In fact, by the very act of judging the review yourself - without having read the books first - you are confirming my original point that an assessment of the article can indeed be formed solely on the basis of its content. It was the dismissal of this point, which we evidently agree upon, that I described as stupid and juvenile in the first place - because it clearly was.

Even if you had got round to reading these books (I wonder if you might ever tear yourself from the online reviews long enough to do so) I would suggest that the most accurate comment you could have made would have been to say the Larson's review chimes with your own opinion.

No, you've got it completely wrong. I had no prior opinion on the books until I read the review, which gave me enough insight to decide whether or not I wanted to go ahead and read them - which I did. I simply haven't found them yet (barring an expensive hardback version of one), so it's not really a case of tearing myself away from the online reviews at all.

But unless the bias is acknowledged, the review and any recommendation based on it is flawed.


Now that much would require reading the books first - which neither you nor I have.

Rowan, you truly are a beguiling twat.

It is over a year since you made a post on this thread about a book that you had actually read; and even then it was a list of books that you had read at some time in the past. The purpose of this thread is to discuss books and I would suggest that to make a contribution of any value you would need to read one or two, rather than merely posting the thoughts of others who have.

Once again I intend to end my contribution to this nonsensical squabble and concentrate on doing some reading and sharing my views on the books I have read.

Not true, I've made regular comments about books I'd read and was currently reading right up until the beginning of this month - when I commented on Neanderthals Rediscovered. For the moment I've put that aside, however, and fully intend to finish it at a future time.

I wasn't aware there were rules on this thread barring links to book reviews. I would've thought anything related to the topic of literature would've been welcome. The hostility with which my comments about a review of two new Orhan Pamuk novels was met seemed more out of place here, I would've thought.

But this discussion never had anything to do with my contributions at all. It was about a very silly comment another user made in response to one, without any provocation, and which you disingenuously chose to defend - and no doubt with similar motives.

So, let's move on, shall we . . .

Andrew Michael Hurley's The Loney. Winner of The Costa and The British Book Awards Book of the Year in 2015, The Loney was a pretty big word of mouth seller. It promised a lot more than I found it delivered. There's a bit of supernatural weirdness about it that appeals to many but I find a bit too fantastic. It is, nonetheless, a well written thriller that does quite a good job of insinuating much and leaving enough unsaid to exercise the imagination of the reader.

Not for me, but worth a look if you enjoy a page-turner.

Downloaded an Ordinary Soldier for my night shift tonight. I'm off to a wee county station so hopefully plenty of time to wire into it.

Does good reads work like Spotify for books? i.e. you can enter 20 books you like and it'll spit out a reading list for you???

It works better than Amazon. I bought a pair of socks (Bridgedales) 10 years ago and the feckers still e-mail me once a week suggesting I might like to treat myself to a luxury foot spa.

OptimisticJock wrote:Downloaded an Ordinary Soldier for my night shift tonight. I'm off to a wee county station so hopefully plenty of time to wire into it.

Probably fishing in the dark as I know that once you get north of the Trossacks there's no guarantee of electricity let alone tinterweb, but how you getting on with Dougie's book?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Downloaded an Ordinary Soldier for my night shift tonight. I'm off to a wee county station so hopefully plenty of time to wire into it.

Probably fishing in the dark as I know that once you get north of the Trossacks there's no guarantee of electricity let alone tinterweb, but how you getting on with Dougie's book?

Really enjoying it so far, comes across as an honest genuine bloke. Only a third of the way through as a load of Jack bastards decided they were ill. The ANA have just decided to assault the wrong position just outside Garmsir.

Geraint Jones, Blood Forest. Roman fiction written by a modern day veteran. Check it out on Amazon. Written by a family friend and I loved it. Most like.....Bernard Cornwell.

Read a few Conn Iggulden books this year, historical fiction, and loved them. Trilogy on Caesar/Rome and an even better series on the great Mongol Khans.

Just finished Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. Excellent book on the psychology of trusting your gut instinct. Pulling examples from medicine, war zones, policing and jam selling, its an illuminating study on what drives us to instinctive reactions, how we can control and improve our unconscious decision making, and how too much information isn't necessarily a help in making the right decision.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Norman Stone The Eastern Front: 1914-17. Ordinarily I hate giving up on a history, particularly one that is so widely regarded as being the definitive account. While the decision to drop Stone's Eastern Front was largely taken out of my hands (I accidentally left it on the plane last night), the probability is that I would not have persisted with it much further.

Accepting that any understanding of the lesser studied Eastern Front will entail coming to grips with unfamiliar geography and names, Stone did little more than add to the sense of bewilderment that was fostered by my earlier reading of Lieven's Towards the Flame. There were one or two real gems of colour and insight in the first 100-or-so pages, such as the Russian general who demanded half a million pairs of new boots, while in the same report declaring that his command was reduced to 40,000 men. But these snippets were buried beneath a deluge of unfathomable names of generals and places and a catalogue of divisional, corps and army numbers. I was seldom confident as to whether Stone was describing the movements of a German, Russian or Austria-Hungarian formation and turning to the plentiful maps for help proved entirely futile as these simply added to the level of confusion and lack of clarity.

I can't recommend this to anyone, not even a student of the campaigns in the east.

Donny osmond wrote:Read a few Conn Iggulden books this year, historical fiction, and loved them. Trilogy on Caesar/Rome and an even better series on the great Mongol Khans.

Just finished Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. Excellent book on the psychology of trusting your gut instinct. Pulling examples from medicine, war zones, policing and jam selling, its an illuminating study on what drives us to instinctive reactions, how we can control and improve our unconscious decision making, and how too much information isn't necessarily a help in making the right decision.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Outliers is also enjoyable from Gladwell (you do have to suspend disbelief a little)..

On serj's suggestion I read em both

Makine - A lifes music loved this, great story well told 5/5

Seethaler - A whole life, much less impressed, just thought it was too sparse, would have liked to know what anders thought of the major events of his life just not enough character in this for me 3/5, stoneresque without gripping you

paddy no 11 wrote:Seethaler - A whole life, much less impressed, just thought it was too sparse, would have liked to know what anders thought of the major events of his life just not enough character in this for me 3/5, stoneresque without gripping you

Strange how it was the novel's very sparseness that I found to be its greatest strength. The largely absent characterisation of all but the central character served to emphasise his solitude and his relationship with the mountains. It is a relationship that so few of us can ever experience today.

Glad that you liked the Makine, sorry to have steered you onto the Seethaler if it didn't bang your triangle as rigorously as it banged mine.

It was still worth reading