Hello there.

Books, books, books. You would think I don't do anything but read. 

And maybe I don't, really. 

What you can see below is old entries to the "Ooook!" page, 
that is little texts about books that I've finished at one time 
or another (no earlier than late January 2001), 
but that no longer qualify for the title "the last book I finished".

I'll just put them up here, one after the other, to begin with. 
Eventually I'll try to find a better way to organize it.

1.The latest book I finished was 
Reaper Man by Terry Pratchett. It was funny. Quite so, in fact.

Ooops... I tell a lie. The last book I finished was actually
"Mellan det triviala och det outsägliga - 
blad ur humanioras och samhällsvetenskapernas historia"
by Sven-Eric Liedman.
That is Swedish, that title. Here comes the (rough) translation:
"Between the Trivial and the Things Impossible to put to Words -
Pages from the History of the Humanities and Social Sciences".
Sounds fun, doesn't it. Actually, it was quite interesting. 
I read it "for school", I've just started Teacher's College and 
it's obligatory litterature for my absolutely first course, 
four weeks of - History of Ideas? Is that the correct term, it's 
a direct translation and I'm not sure at all? I'm pretty sure 
"History of Science" is an accepted term... Hmm.
It seems, from Liedman's book (which also, of course, has a lot 
of interesting "small facts" in it too), that the things now 
known as "the Humanities" and "Social Sciences" was originally 
thought of as opposite sides in a methodological (and ideological) 
debate, rather than different "subjects". The change in our way 
of looking at this, would have come about (as I understand it) 
largely as a result of an administrative action with administrative 
motives, the creation of different faculties for the two areas of 
studies. 

This, I'm sure, is very much a simplification of what Liedman has 
to say. The main reason for this simplification is my own simple 
and nuanceless understanding of the matter. The ideas have been 
simplified, not for any pedagogical reasons, but simply by passing 
through me. Sad but true, but let's just pretend I did it on 
purpose. 

Anyway, I find it all very fascinating. The thought that the 
simple splitting of the University into smaller, easier-to-handle, 
pieces could lead to the (at least seeming) ending of a heated 
debate with a long history in sort of a general state of "Well, 
they're doing their thing and we're doing ours, and that's fine 
of course...(as long as we get our funds!)". 

Since that, for the same course, I've read Foucalt and stuff. 
Reading Foucault (a French Sociologist) can be a _very_ 
interesting and scary experience indeed, and some of that other 
"stuff" was quite heavy too. But I haven't read any more whole 
books, and since this is a "finished books"-page and I have 
finished two (2) books today, I feel I can't write more about 
this right now. 

...Sorry.

(I'm also tired, which is the reason I probably won't write about 
those two books right now. 

PS Why two (2)? Not to be confused with two (3)? I feel like 
Jerry Seinfeld here. I mean come on, people, it's STUPID! You 
know what I mean, right? 
*...and I turn my palms to the roof and I put on that special look 
that says "You DO know what I mean? People? Hey?" 
and it's*
FINE (and that would be as in Italian for "The End", not "good" 
or "monetary punishment" or anything.)

2. Yesterday I finished two books. Comic books. 
Both had Batman stories in them, though one of them not exlusively. 

"Arkham Asylum" is considered a classic.
"Batman/Daredevil" is not, and neither is 
"Green Lantern/Silver Surfer: Unholy Alliances", which was in 
the same book.
And they never will be.

There is a reason for this. 
The reason is simple and has to do with good story versus rather 
uninteresting story, suggestive, painted (mostly, there are some 
collages in there too if I'm not mistaken) images by the great 
Dave McKean and mediocre drawings that seem to have no ambition 
whatsoever to rise above the common DC/Marvel mold (rather the opposite), 
respect for all characters versus "of course the good guys don't 
kill but it would probably be better if they did because the bad 
guys are nothing but evil, soulless monsters and/or despiccable scum", 
abundance of Jungian and occult symbolism that you may think what 
you will of, but that speaks to something rather deep in me at 
least, versus what symbolism there is is there because of the use 
of characters and locations created, and developed through years 
and years, by very much better writers and artists. Etc, etc...

However, though in no way comparable to the other book, 
"Arkham Asylum" was still fun reading for the moment. ;) 

If you want my real opinion, you should let ""Arkham Asylum"" and 
"the other book" switch places in the previous sentence, as I'm 
sure you've already guessed.

I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't think much of the 
litterary qualities of Arkham Asylum after reading it. 
I have all the respect in the world for this. 
I'm not even altogether sure I wouldn't agree after a rereading 
or two (2).
There are also many people who would feel sure there are no qualities 
whatsoever to "Arkham Asylum" without having read it, or any other 
comics, for at least 15 years. 
I have very little, if any, respect for this. 

There are good comics. If you don't read comics, try it. 
If you do, continue and do not be ashamed.

Now, let me finally push for the Great Index of Villains! 
It is a creation of mine which I am very proud of and in which 
you can find (respectful) information about a lot of the people 
in these books.

3. Ooops. I've deleted a perfectly nice text about "The Kindly Ones"
by Neil Gaiman. Well, the point is it's a good book.

 

MHO