What are we reading?

[Toonces]

^ I will never read a post by you again in the same way.  Ay carumba.   ::)

[Toonces]

There is (was) this used bookstore down in the village about a mile from my house that was sort of a community library/bookstore thing.  There were bookcases outside with tons of books that you could buy on the honor system, sort of a pay-what-you-want type of thing, or just borrow if you donated a book.  Of course you could also just take books since they were out there all night with not security or anything, but somehow it just worked. 

Inside the guy had all sorts of antique things, and books that were more valuable; typically classics and limited editions, it was very eclectic.  Then in the backyard there was this courtyard with tables and chairs where you could have coffee, chat, play games, and they'd have live music on Fridays.  Totally chill.

Anyway, the guy got evicted by the land owner and posted up something on instagram that he wanted people to come by and take everything.  My wife let me know so we just got back.  It was pretty picked through but I scored a few nuggets:

The Great Books:
1.  The Conversations
4.  The Iliad of Homer
6.  Herodotus and Thucydides
12. Marcus Aurelius, etc.
13. Virgil
19. Thomas Aquinas
30. Francis Bacon
47. Goethe
52. Dostoevsky
53. William James

Korea The Untold Story of the War by Goulden
The Last Days of Socrates by Plato
Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
The Cold War, a Post-Cold War History
and The Harvard Classics: Elizabethan Drama

As to what I'm reading:
I just finished To the Gates of Richmond by Stephen Sears, and started Return to Bull Run by John Hennessy. 
I'm also working through Black Shoe Carrier Admiral by Lundstrom.

Just got Black May by Michael Gannon in the mail today, so I'll probably start that as well. 

Whew!

[Toonces]

Jarhead,
I read a book on TopGun called Scream of Eagles that I quite enjoyed, but it was a long time ago.  It might be worth looking for a used copy if you're on a TopGun kick.

[Sir Slash]

So THAT'S why Fabio never wrote me back! I was writing to him but got Gus-Jumped instead.  :wow:

[Gusington]

No I definitely wrote you back. But not Toonces 'cause he's a hater.

[Sir Slash]

Whatever ever happened to Fabio? Didn't he end-up selling carpet in Cleveland? "I can't BELIEVE it's not Shag"!

[Pete Dero]

Whatever ever happened to Fabio? Didn't he end-up selling carpet in Cleveland? "I can't BELIEVE it's not Shag"!

https://en.stories.newsner.com/news/where-is-fabio-lanzoni-now-and-whatever-happened-to-fabios-career/

[airboy]

Seems like Fabio did not let fame go to his head and has had a pretty happy life.  Probably because his hair is better than mine.

[Sir Slash]

My hair is still great.. It's just all on my pillow when I wake up in the morning.  :-\

[JasonPratt]

But I guess there was no way for Churchill to see how damaging the reparations would be post-WWI. If anyone could possibly see it, I would think it would be him but's that probably expecting a lot, even for a historical titan.

Eh, yes and no. In 1918 Churchill was sure that crippling reparations would destroy the German people and cause havoc consequentially, so he would have preferred minimal reparations and for Germany to work off their war debt by, essentially, going after the Leninists, giving them a useful and heroic feat of arms to repair their reputation by.

Since that wasn't going to happen, he still agreed reparations ought to be sought, primarily in cash, and that 2 billion was a reasonable penalty because it wouldn't be crippling to the people. He didn't think that was a sufficient penalty but was puzzled about what more could and should reasonably be demanded.

He very much did NOT agree with any of the overtly intentional crippling plans, but understood that a lot of the officials (in Great Britain anyway) calling for such things were bowing to public political pressure and intended, at least at first, to give themselves leeway to be more lenient. Eventually that wasn't possible.

He didn't foresee in late 1918 just how bad the results would be for crippling penalties by the mid-20s; and he didn't foresee in the mid-20s (when writing The Aftermath) what the results would be by the mid-30s, not to say the late 30s! But what he did expect was bad enough that he tried to get people on his side to forego crippling Germany and driving the people to despair and desperation -- not least because he understood Bolshevism to be a deadly danger to civilization and that (according to their own promotional material) they dang well intended to take over Germany as soon as possible, in order to use Germany as a springboard for conquering Europe westward from there (and from there the worrrrld mua ha ha ha.)

He hasn't talked in the Aftermath yet about Lenin striking out in military invasions westward (starting in the Baltics) with a stated goal of reaching and absorbing Germany, less than 48 hours after the November 11 armistice, but that would certainly have been a big factor in his rejection of crippling Germany! (I'm unsure if he'll ever talk about those invasions, as a geo-political factor or otherwise.)

[Gusington]

Have you read William Manchester's The Last Lion?

[JasonPratt]

Not yet. I do however have a 1st edition copy (bought partly by accident last year during my birthday haul at the estate sale) of Churchill's 1902 novel set before and throughout the American Civil War.

No, I'm not kidding.

Yes, it's real a thing.

No, I haven't read it yet. I forgot it even existed and ran across it the other weekend while trying to figure out what was in a box of my books and where to put them.

[Gusington]

 :nerd:

[Toonces]

I already shelved Black May for later.

Ever read a book where the author has some writing trait that drives you utterly crazy?

I can only remember two books where the way the writer wrote killed me from reading the book.

The first was The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge.  He had a habit of using - dashes - all the time.  Like multiple times a page.  It drove me nuts.

The second is Black May.  I'm only 20 pages in, but this guy loves parentheses (because they relate a point he was too lazy to just put in the text I guess).  There is a reason for parentheses (as long as they're used sparingly of course) but if you use them as a lazy way of writing (like this author does) then it just becomes extremely annoying.

Good thing he didn't submit that book for a grade to me.  I would not have been kind.  And did he even have an editor?  I've already been distracted by (LOL) the same thing being in parenthesis on the same friggin' page!  How did nobody catch that?!

Anyway, I've also shelved Black Shoe Carrier Admiral, a bloviated defense of Fletcher's actions in the early war.

I picked back up First Man in Rome by McCullough; I'm determined to finish this book (I understand (from others) that it's really good.)

[Jarhead0331]

^LOL (that was pretty funny).