|
Post by drawntokatet on May 18, 2021 17:52:20 GMT
I'm into the second book of Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Series. This is called The Words of Radiance.
I'm deep in the Cosmere, chilling out with the honor spren and watching out for the chasmfiends.
|
|
|
Post by neesy on May 19, 2021 4:13:57 GMT
I'm into the second book of Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Series. This is called The Words of Radiance.
I'm deep in the Cosmere, chilling out with the honor spren and watching out for the chasmfiends. Hmmmm - sounds like you've been in a fantasy world - enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by edwardjohn on May 19, 2021 16:13:26 GMT
This is what I've been reading. An interesting, detailed analysis of Otto Von Bismarck, the great German general, from the great historian Steinberg. His military accomplishments are well-accounted for here, Germany's conflict with Denmark, France, Switzerland etc. He truly was one of the most advanced military thinkers of his time, numerous of his tactics would be used by multiple nations during the First World War. I also particularly enjoyed the stuff about Bismarck as a man, his family life etc. There's so many interesting things about Bismarck that aren't very well-known and Steinberg does excellently to make this all interesting. Would thoroughly recommend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2021 20:39:25 GMT
Reading The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore. He is a very good narrator which makes this history covering a lot of time have a great flow. He is very knowledgeable about Russian history and have written excellent books about Stalin and Catherine The Great. Here he tackles a bigger subject. The Romanovs ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917 and without them Russia would have looked much different. When they took over the throne the country was much smaller and they made big land winnings both east, west, north and south and made Russia the gigantic country it is. They reluctantly came to the throne because after Ivan IV,s (The Terrible) cruelties and terror Russia was in chaos. His wife had been a Romanov And Michael I was her Nephew, her brothers son, and he became Tsar mostly because all other candidates with links to the throne was dead and they had to drag him out of a convent where he was hiding to make him Tsar. The bunch of Tsars in these 300 years was a mixed bunch but the Romanovs did produce two truly great rulers (Peter I and Catherine the Great). It is a pity for the Romanovs that the last two were rather subpar (Alexander and Nicholas II). Nicholas was weak, indecisive and narrowminded, he was killed together with all his family in the revolution 1917-18. He was they say a great familyfather and husband but he was far from great as a ruler when the monarchy really would have needed it. A really good book that straighten out some questionmarks i've had on the often rather confusing topic that is Russian history.
|
|
|
Post by neesy on May 22, 2021 0:33:48 GMT
Reading The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore. He is a very good narrator which makes this history covering a lot of time have a great flow. He is very knowledgeable about Russian history and have written excellent books about Stalin and Catherine The Great. Here he tackles a bigger subject. The Romanovs ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917 and without them Russia would have looked much different. When they took over the throne the country was much smaller and they made big land winnings both east, west, north and south and made Russia the gigantic country it is. They reluctantly came to the throne because after Ivan IV,s (The Terrible) cruelties and terror Russia was in chaos. His wife had been a Romanov And Michael I was her Nephew, her brothers son, and he became Tsar mostly because all other candidates with links to the throne was dead and they had to drag him out of a convent where he was hiding to make him Tsar. The bunch of Tsars in these 300 years was a mixed bunch but the Romanovs did produce two truly great rulers (Peter I and Catherine the Great). It is a pity for the Romanovs that the last two were rather subpar (Alexander and Nicholas II). Nicholas was weak, indecisive and narrowminded, he was killed together with all his family in the revolution 1917-18. He was they say a great familyfather and husband but he was far from great as a ruler when the monarchy really would have needed it. A really good book that straighten out some questionmarks i've had on the often rather confusing topic that is Russian history. Sounds like a good book @kurben - anything in there about the mad monk Rasputin?
|
|
|
Post by hilllover36 on May 22, 2021 2:09:57 GMT
I just finished stephen kings Eye of the dragon.. it was really good, i really think this book is a hidden gem. I really think more people should read it, its short but a really soild story. I dont understnd why its not res more, or how it has not been adapted in a movie form. I think i am going to read a dr who book.. one that was written in the 1970's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2021 4:35:04 GMT
Reading The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore. He is a very good narrator which makes this history covering a lot of time have a great flow. He is very knowledgeable about Russian history and have written excellent books about Stalin and Catherine The Great. Here he tackles a bigger subject. The Romanovs ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917 and without them Russia would have looked much different. When they took over the throne the country was much smaller and they made big land winnings both east, west, north and south and made Russia the gigantic country it is. They reluctantly came to the throne because after Ivan IV,s (The Terrible) cruelties and terror Russia was in chaos. His wife had been a Romanov And Michael I was her Nephew, her brothers son, and he became Tsar mostly because all other candidates with links to the throne was dead and they had to drag him out of a convent where he was hiding to make him Tsar. The bunch of Tsars in these 300 years was a mixed bunch but the Romanovs did produce two truly great rulers (Peter I and Catherine the Great). It is a pity for the Romanovs that the last two were rather subpar (Alexander and Nicholas II). Nicholas was weak, indecisive and narrowminded, he was killed together with all his family in the revolution 1917-18. He was they say a great familyfather and husband but he was far from great as a ruler when the monarchy really would have needed it. A really good book that straighten out some questionmarks i've had on the often rather confusing topic that is Russian history. Sounds like a good book @kurben - anything in there about the mad monk Rasputin?
Quite a bit. He is/was a very controversial figure. Many historians say that he was one of the reasons the revolution took place. When WW1 started the Tsar left Moscow to oversee the military efforts. Rasputin managed to get strong influence over the empress Alexandra and both got immensely disliked by the people. They assassinated Rasputin 1916, about 6 months before the revolution started. Rasputin never had an official position in the church, he was a charasmatic mystic and reached as far as he did solely because of his personality. His daughter Maria escaped the revolution to the US where she worked first as a dancer and then as a liontamer. She died 1977.
|
|
|
Post by annamarie on May 24, 2021 19:26:05 GMT
I just finished stephen kings Eye of the dragon.. it was really good, i really think this book is a hidden gem. I really think more people should read it, its short but a really soild story. I dont understnd why its not res more, or how it has not been adapted in a movie form. I think i am going to read a dr who book.. one that was written in the 1970's. I love that book. My son wanted to read SK, so I had him start with that one.
|
|
|
Post by neesy on May 25, 2021 3:24:48 GMT
Anybody heard of a book called “Think Like a Freak”? I am about 1/3 of the way through it and it is very entertaining
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy on May 25, 2021 23:43:58 GMT
I Now Reading Salems Lot By Stephen King. Another of My Favs tbh.
|
|
|
Post by wireman on May 26, 2021 13:06:08 GMT
I just finished stephen kings Eye of the dragon.. it was really good, i really think this book is a hidden gem. I really think more people should read it, its short but a really soild story. I dont understnd why its not res more, or how it has not been adapted in a movie form. I think i am going to read a dr who book.. one that was written in the 1970's. I've got to read this one of these days. There are only 4 or 5 SK books I have not read and Eyes is one of them. Lisey's Story, Thinner and Desperation are 3 more I haven't read and I think there's one more that I can't think of now.
|
|
|
Post by osnafrank on May 26, 2021 13:16:02 GMT
I just finished stephen kings Eye of the dragon.. it was really good, i really think this book is a hidden gem. I really think more people should read it, its short but a really soild story. I dont understnd why its not res more, or how it has not been adapted in a movie form. I think i am going to read a dr who book.. one that was written in the 1970's. I've got to read this one of these days. There are only 4 or 5 SK books I have not read and Eyes is one of them. Lisey's Story, Thinner and Desperation are 3 more I haven't read and I think there's one more that I can't think of now. It took me almost 3 months of picking it up and putting it down before I finished it. It's definitely not a bad story, but it's one of the few King books I just couldn't get into.
|
|
|
Post by edwardjohn on May 26, 2021 13:35:12 GMT
Reading The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore. He is a very good narrator which makes this history covering a lot of time have a great flow. He is very knowledgeable about Russian history and have written excellent books about Stalin and Catherine The Great. Here he tackles a bigger subject. The Romanovs ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917 and without them Russia would have looked much different. When they took over the throne the country was much smaller and they made big land winnings both east, west, north and south and made Russia the gigantic country it is. They reluctantly came to the throne because after Ivan IV,s (The Terrible) cruelties and terror Russia was in chaos. His wife had been a Romanov And Michael I was her Nephew, her brothers son, and he became Tsar mostly because all other candidates with links to the throne was dead and they had to drag him out of a convent where he was hiding to make him Tsar. The bunch of Tsars in these 300 years was a mixed bunch but the Romanovs did produce two truly great rulers (Peter I and Catherine the Great). It is a pity for the Romanovs that the last two were rather subpar (Alexander and Nicholas II). Nicholas was weak, indecisive and narrowminded, he was killed together with all his family in the revolution 1917-18. He was they say a great familyfather and husband but he was far from great as a ruler when the monarchy really would have needed it. A really good book that straighten out some questionmarks i've had on the often rather confusing topic that is Russian history. Did Russia's capitulation to Germany during the First World War have anything to do with the rise of the Bolsheviks? Surely a Russian defeat on their own soil did much to turn the people against the monarchy?
|
|
|
Post by edwardjohn on May 26, 2021 13:36:19 GMT
I've got to read this one of these days. There are only 4 or 5 SK books I have not read and Eyes is one of them. Lisey's Story, Thinner and Desperation are 3 more I haven't read and I think there's one more that I can't think of now. It took me almost 3 months of picking it up and putting it down before I finished it. It's definitely not a bad story, but it's one of the few King books I just couldn't get into. Totally agree, I'm shocked that Sai King considers it one of his greatest works.
|
|
|
Post by neesy on May 26, 2021 16:51:49 GMT
I've got to read this one of these days. There are only 4 or 5 SK books I have not read and Eyes is one of them. Lisey's Story, Thinner and Desperation are 3 more I haven't read and I think there's one more that I can't think of now. It took me almost 3 months of picking it up and putting it down before I finished it. It's definitely not a bad story, but it's one of the few King books I just couldn't get into.Weird isn't it? I sort of felt the same except I just persevered. There were times I caught my mind wandering.
And yet he says it is probably his favourite book; perhaps it's just too personal, as he said he wrote it after he got out of the hospital (after the terrible car accident where he got hit by that van)
By the way I said probably up above because after googling it seemed like it was either Lisey's Story or It that he identified as his fave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2021 16:19:47 GMT
Reading The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore. He is a very good narrator which makes this history covering a lot of time have a great flow. He is very knowledgeable about Russian history and have written excellent books about Stalin and Catherine The Great. Here he tackles a bigger subject. The Romanovs ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917 and without them Russia would have looked much different. When they took over the throne the country was much smaller and they made big land winnings both east, west, north and south and made Russia the gigantic country it is. They reluctantly came to the throne because after Ivan IV,s (The Terrible) cruelties and terror Russia was in chaos. His wife had been a Romanov And Michael I was her Nephew, her brothers son, and he became Tsar mostly because all other candidates with links to the throne was dead and they had to drag him out of a convent where he was hiding to make him Tsar. The bunch of Tsars in these 300 years was a mixed bunch but the Romanovs did produce two truly great rulers (Peter I and Catherine the Great). It is a pity for the Romanovs that the last two were rather subpar (Alexander and Nicholas II). Nicholas was weak, indecisive and narrowminded, he was killed together with all his family in the revolution 1917-18. He was they say a great familyfather and husband but he was far from great as a ruler when the monarchy really would have needed it. A really good book that straighten out some questionmarks i've had on the often rather confusing topic that is Russian history. Did Russia's capitulation to Germany during the First World War have anything to do with the rise of the Bolsheviks? Surely a Russian defeat on their own soil did much to turn the people against the monarchy?The bolsheviks were on the rise earlier and had the power when the peace treaty were signed in Brest-Litovsk in 1918 between Lenin and Germany. That Lenin gave up so much territory in the west was because he needed to free men to fight in a civil war instead. The Tsar family were still alive in march 1918 when the treaty was signed (killed in june i think). Nicholas II had been a rather poor Tsar. The people of Russia had always been on the Tsars side through history. He was revered by them. A tsars problem was his bojars (nobles). But in 1905 something called Bloody sunday happened. A very large numbers of workers marched to the tsars palace to demand better working conditions. The tsar ordered his people to fire on them and many people were killed and injured. From that moment on the bolshevik movement grow by promising better conditions, wages and land. WW1 added to all this when it erupted in 1914 and the Tsar sent totally untrained people from the working class to fight without proper equipment and, in some cases, even shoes. In just a decade he had managed to turn the people from his friend to his foremost enemy. So it was really not so much the defeat that he (Nicholas II) so plainly showed that he didn't care how many workers died. When the revolution occurred in february 1917 the army, that mostly consisted of workers, turned on him and he had to abandon the throne. The government was run by three fractions, army, workers and the earlier government except the tsar. in October the bolshevik took sole power through Lenin. They had originally been just a part of the workers party but now had total control. He did not like the germans but realized he needed fighting people closer to home, not at the borders, so he offered a very good for germany peace treaty and it was signed in early 1918 (march i think). The civil war lasted until 1920 but the bolsheviks won. Say what you want about Lenin but his actions during and after the revolution were sensible from his point of view. If the Tsar had acted more sensible it is entirely possible the revolution hadn't occurred at all.
|
|
|
Post by edwardjohn on May 27, 2021 19:00:05 GMT
Did Russia's capitulation to Germany during the First World War have anything to do with the rise of the Bolsheviks? Surely a Russian defeat on their own soil did much to turn the people against the monarchy? The bolsheviks were on the rise earlier and had the power when the peace treaty were signed in Brest-Litovsk in 1918 between Lenin and Germany. That Lenin gave up so much territory in the west was because he needed to free men to fight in a civil war instead. The Tsar family were still alive in march 1918 when the treaty was signed (killed in june i think). Nicholas II had been a rather poor Tsar. The people of Russia had always been on the Tsars side through history. He was revered by them. A tsars problem was his bojars (nobles). But in 1905 something called Bloody sunday happened. A very large numbers of workers marched to the tsars palace to demand better working conditions. The tsar ordered his people to fire on them and many people were killed and injured. From that moment on the bolshevik movement grow by promising better conditions, wages and land. WW1 added to all this when it erupted in 1914 and the Tsar sent totally untrained people from the working class to fight without proper equipment and, in some cases, even shoes. In just a decade he had managed to turn the people from his friend to his foremost enemy. So it was really not so much the defeat that he (Nicholas II) so plainly showed that he didn't care how many workers died. When the revolution occurred in february 1917 the army, that mostly consisted of workers, turned on him and he had to abandon the throne. The government was run by three fractions, army, workers and the earlier government except the tsar. in October the bolshevik took sole power through Lenin. They had originally been just a part of the workers party but now had total control. He did not like the germans but realized he needed fighting people closer to home, not at the borders, so he offered a very good for germany peace treaty and it was signed in early 1918 (march i think). The civil war lasted until 1920 but the bolsheviks won. Say what you want about Lenin but his actions during and after the revolution were sensible from his point of view. If the Tsar had acted more sensible it is entirely possible the revolution hadn't occurred at all. Completely agree. Regardless of what people think of Lenin's means and ideology, the Russian monarchy had to go after their numerous disasters.
|
|
|
Post by osnafrank on May 28, 2021 21:29:39 GMT
Stieg Larssons The Girl in the Spider's Web.
Fu**n waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by wolf on May 28, 2021 22:29:07 GMT
Stieg Larssons The Girl in the Spider's Web.
Fu**n waste of time. Awwww.....I want to read those. Did you read the first one Frank? If you have, is it any good? 🙂
|
|
|
Post by osnafrank on May 29, 2021 8:38:20 GMT
Stieg Larssons The Girl in the Spider's Web.
Fu**n waste of time. Awwww.....I want to read those. Did you read the first one Frank? If you have, is it any good? 🙂 Yap, i've read them....sort of.
I've never finished one of these books, just not my cup of tea.
|
|