What are you reading?

[jesask]

Tina Fey's new book

 

[passionblue22]

A Feast for Crows, by George R.R. Martin.

 

[MetroStyles]

DH Lawrence - Lady Chatterley's Lover

 

[v.freeman]

Just finished reading the '08 Sebastian Faulks James Bond book, Devil May Care. Thought it was pretty entertaining. May have to read Fleming's books for fun when I have the time.

 

[edinatlanta]

So I just finished Area 51 last night. The really good revelation, when I read it had me literally shout out loud "HOLY ****".

And here's the thing...there is no reason to not believe what she said. First, she's a pretty well-established and respected journalist so there's no reason to think she'd risk that. But most important, because the book was so meticulously researched and so thorough, it also wouldn't be consistent that she would just throw this in there if it wasn't true. I mean, she verified literally everything and anything her sources told her, judging from the notes section, down to the name of the bar and what pictures were hanging in there at the time.

Wow.

Now I am reading this:

 

[Reynard369]



So I just finished Area 51 last night. The really good revelation, when I read it had me literally shout out loud "HOLY ****".

And here's the thing...there is no reason to not believe what she said. First, she's a pretty well-established and respected journalist so there's no reason to think she'd risk that. But most important, because the book was so meticulously researched and so thorough, it also wouldn't be consistent that she would just throw this in there if it wasn't true. I mean, she verified literally everything and anything her sources told her, judging from the notes section, down to the name of the bar and what pictures were hanging in there at the time.

Wow.

Are you talking about Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base?

Because that book has been bashed pretty thoroughly for being full of errors, which is why I skipped reading it.

 

[edinatlanta]



Are you talking about Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base?

Because that book has been bashed pretty thoroughly for being full of errors, which is why I skipped reading it.

yeah. IDK dude, considering there is about 40 pages of annotation, I doubt how wrong it could be.

 

[james_timothy]

Scholars are notorious for heavily researched, correctly referenced, totally wrong books.

Though I hadn't heard that about Area 51, in particular.

 

[Reynard369]



yeah. IDK dude, considering there is about 40 pages of annotation, I doubt how wrong it could be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/enter...-military-base/2011/05/26/AGIZPLIH_story.html

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1852/1

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2011/07/area51.html

Many other reviews also cite the book's errors. I'm not saying these reviewers are necessarily correct, but I'd be far more critical of what you've read than you seem to be, when there are so many people who are questioning the veracity of her statements.

 

[Homme]

Sun Tzu - The Art Of War & J M G Le Clezio - Désert

 

[james_timothy]

Dwayne Day, the writer of the second review is someone you can trust.

But note how he goes after the crazy story

Jacobsen claims that children, perhaps as young as 13 years old and genetically or surgically altered by Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele, flew a Nazi “flying disk” into the United States as part of a plan by Joseph Stalin to cause mass panic of an alien invasion.

which is indeed loony. Beyond loony.

What I've read about Area 51 is that, other than that howler, her stuff isn't too bad. Even a blog on Aviation Week, spending most of its time laughing about the howler, doesn't think the rest of it is as crazy as that.

Admittedly, after reading that story, its hard to take the rest of it seriously.

 

[edinatlanta]



http://www.washingtonpost.com/enter...-military-base/2011/05/26/AGIZPLIH_story.html

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1852/1

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2011/07/area51.html

Many other reviews also cite the book's errors. I'm not saying these reviewers are necessarily correct, but I'd be far more critical of what you've read than you seem to be, when there are so many people who are questioning the veracity of her statements.

Well considering
A) I hadn't heard of (or sought) the critiques
B) I have no way of knowing off hand what she says is right or wrong I kind of have to defer to her.
C) I read it to be entertained, nothing else, and I was.

Plus considering Area 51 doesn't officially exist, by writing about it she is inherently incorrect, if you want to be truly technical/pedantic.

 

[edinatlanta]

So I read the first two reviews and they are kinda weak in a way. I mean, as I said, at least with this book I don't really care that much but it may help if you say it is error-laden to at least identify more than one error. Of course that one error is a big one but the point is if it is that bad, you should spend more time debunking the book as a whole, and considering most of her effort and work (about 95% of the book) is on the first 30 years of Area 51, that's something major to completely ignore. Also, I love the line she says the book is well-sourced "it isn't" with no further explanation.

 

[Gus]

Unbroken

 

[Big Pun]

Recently purchased a favorite series I read when I was younger, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. Bunch of short entertaining horror stories. By far the best part was the illustrations, anyone remember these?