AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Prince Humperdinck more like Prince Humperdick

Yay finishing The Princess Bride again

I've been meaning to ask... has anyone here read "Dancing with eternity" by John patrick lowrie? It's one of my favorite sci fi books but for some reason nobody seems to have read it

Just re-read Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow because movie.

Dear god these books are great but I just know the movie is gonna be eeeehhhhhhhh

Halfway through A Feast for Crows.

Cersei gets a few POV chapters in this one, it seems. She is actually a lot more stupid than I would have thought from the previous books. The way Tyrion worried about her, I figured she had at least some cunning. I could chalk it up to paranoia purely from Joffrey's death, but even aside from the paranoia she is just plain ignoring some rather importants matters that her court tries to bring to her attention, and lets her petty grievances get in the way of actually managing the kingdom. And then there's the fact that she assumes the people trying to counsel her don't respect her just because she's a woman, and not because she's a fucking idiot. She just takes for granted that she should have the same respect her father commanded, when she is nowhere near as intelligent or powerful.

I'm also loving the little glimpses at Littlefinger's schemes. I knew he and Varys were both much more capable than they appeared, but where Varys liked hinting at his powers in order to ensure his safety, Petyr was just as humble as possible to keep people from seeing him as any sort of threat.

I picked up "What's Wrong With ANZAC" at an backstreet-arcade bookstore a couple of days ago, and I'm only reading the intro just now. The author of that particular part, Lake (other authors in the book include Reynolds, McKenna and Damousi) has some insightful views on how Gallipoli has become corrupted from its original meaning, as well as concise points about the idea that ANZACs were fighting for democracy and freedoms. However, some of it is actual hogwash. There's this one part that just blows me away - a juxtaposition of blogposts: "'Australian troops returning from Vietnam were spat on courtesy of Jim Carisn and the media' wrote Woody in the online debate. But another blogger took issue with this story. Was this simply a new myth in the making that if repeated often enough would become a truth? 'Care to offer any evidence that returning Australian soldiers were actually spat upon by Jim Cairns - or anybody else for that matter?' asked Redsaunas."
What gets me here is that she brings up a negative point, but only picks one that doesn't have any statistical evidence or cognitive appeal. Woody makes a point that the troops were disrespected: "spat on" but then Lake pulls out this pretentious quote that treats the metaphor as if it was a real action and then says nothing on it. It's such a strawman, and it's done so poorly. She could've listed investigations that showed either a very small minority of or no veteran abuse at all, but instead she just skips the subject and all that any reader is left with is the question of her authenticity: why is she avoiding the statistics? It's my biggest problem with this intro. She just pulls these debates out of nowhere and then doesn't discuss them, instead satisfying the reader only with vague conjectures where she pits a somewhat intelligent and supportive quote against an overwhelmingly negative or non-committal argument like the one I quoted.
Nice book,though.

Currently reading Chuck Palahniuk's SURVIVOR, and i's fascinating stuff. I don't want to just equate it to Fight Club, but Chuck has a very distinct way of cataloguing very accurate human thoughts into text, and there's spelling errors I suspect were more intentional than an oversight just to screw with the readers. The POV and dialogue are also transparent yet nonsensical, in a way that makes you linger and reconfirm everything the protagonist says.

It's like listening to Tyler Durden smash his head repeatedly against Benjamin Button's piano.

Finished Artemis Fowl: The Last Guardian recently. It was okay, kind of a bit disappointing. I'm wondering if I'm just better at deciphering the plot after all these years, or if Colfer has just made his foreshadowing more obvious, because all the "twist" elements just screamed at me in the face.

Okay, Genna Lannister gets some attention in like one chapter but she is immediately the coolest cat, just for saying this:



Also, Doran Martell is a pretty cool guy.

finished harry potter and the sorcerer's stone. in less than a day of total reading time.

time to polish off the next in a couple days

Up until Goblet of Fire where the size of the books just explode and don't stop.

i finished a storm of swords in a weekend

don't challenge me

I am looking at the last four books right now and I will issue that challenge because while Storm of Swords is 1,216 pages, I know Way of Kings is 1,007 and the combined width of those four books are over 3 WoK's wide.

I finished the Half Blood Prince in a day. That was back when I still read a lot tho, I read slower these days.

Whenever a book comes out that I need to read and it's popular enough for there to be spoilers all over online, I tend to read it in 1-2 days. I did it for both Deathly Hallows and A Dance With Dragons.

challenge accepted

as long as you count actual amount of hours spent reading and not physical time because i have a job and husband k i can't spend all weekend actually reading