Anybody read a good book lately?

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

What a silly name for a bookstore!

[mussa]

never heard  of it

[Geowhizzer]

Finished An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek.

It's an interesting read in that it deal with Washington's struggle with the nation's, as well as his own, hypocrisy of trying to start a nation based on democratic principles while at the same time taking steps to protect the right to own slaves.

It also shows the slow evolution of Washington from one who did not bat an eye at selling slaves and splitting families, to one who made certain that his own slaves would be emancipated in his will - even detailing how they were to be taken care of by Washington's heirs.

Not an easy read, but one I did enjoy.

[Phanatic]

Finished An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek.

It's an interesting read in that it deal with Washington's struggle with the nation's, as well as his own, hypocrisy of trying to start a nation based on democratic principles while at the same time taking steps to protect the right to own slaves.

It also shows the slow evolution of Washington from one who did not bat an eye at selling slaves and splitting families, to one who made certain that his own slaves would be emancipated in his will - even detailing how they were to be taken care of by Washington's heirs.

Not an easy read, but one I did enjoy.

That does sound interesting. I loved the HBO John Adams series for the window it provided into the founding fathers lives. Jefferson was brilliant and seemed to know that slavary was wrong yet kept his slaves till the end. Emancipated his closest after his death but had to sell the rest to pay his debts I think. Adams who you might think would go the other way loathed slave ownership and never owned any himself. Of course he was from the north I guess.

[ice grillin you]

the constitution was written to ensure that the upper class (of which the founding fathers belonged of course) stayed caked off...slavery was a huge part of that...many were clearly racist but most of them had money on their minds more than enslaving blacks

[Diomedes]

what what!

[Geowhizzer]

the constitution was written to ensure that the upper class (of which the founding fathers belonged of course) stayed caked off...slavery was a huge part of that...many were clearly racist but most of them had money on their minds more than enslaving blacks

And the north-south delineation wasn't there yet.  Many of the founding fathers from New England also owned slaves.

[Diomedes]

nevertheless, New England kicks ass

farg Florida, Texas, California

[rjs246]

I am slowly slogging through The Hamlet by Faulkner.

I never read Faulkner and always assumed that he would be a typical turn of the century writer who was overly wordy, overly serious and unreadable.

I was right about him being overly wordy, which is why it's taking so long to read, but was very wrong on the other two points. I'm actually enjoying the book quite a bit and will almost certainly check out The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying at some point...

[Phanatic]

Faulkner ignores punctuation and writes in a stream of consciousness style like your favorite author McCarthy. Hard to get into.

[rjs246]

There are actually a fair number a parallels between the two authors in terms of style. The major difference of course is that McCarthy uses an economy of words to get his story across while Faulkner is a whole lot more verbose. Anyway, as I said, I'm enjoying it even if it is taking me forever to get through.

[Rome]

Speaking of McCarthy, Entertainment Weekly did its "best of the past 25 years" issue this past week and The Road was judged to be the best novel of that period.

I actually giggled a little when I saw it because I knew I'd be able to mention it here.

[Phanatic]

Parallels aside I could easily read McCarthy but I struggled with Faulkner.

[rjs246]

Parallels aside I could easily read McCarthy but I struggled with Faulkner.

Completely understandable. Like I said, Faulkner's wordiness makes a hell of a lot more work to read than McCarthy.

[Rome]

Faulkner's style is often tedious to read.  His sentences usually drag on forever and he often interjects statements from characters who haven't even been introduced yet.  Eventually he gets around to explaining them (usually) but it is taxing especially considering he wrote in a southern dialect that was very specific to the era in which he wrote.  I like his stream of consciousness narrative style, personally, but Faulkner just beats you over the head with it as if he's challenging you to stay with him.

I do like his short stories, though, especially "A Rose For Emily".