Even though I still retain an entire bookcase of novels (mostly sci fi) from my youth, I now find fiction to be, well... boring.
Personally I'd rather read about something that actually exists...
Personally I'd rather read about something that actually exists...
Anyone remember John Phillips?
========
John Aristotle Phillips, founder of political data-analytics firm Aristotle, graduated from Princeton University with a degree in aerospace engineering in the class of 1978. Known as the “A-bomb kid,” Phillips is known for a project he did in a physics seminar in 1976: designing a cost-effective and relatively small A-bomb. While the cost of creating an atomic bomb can vary greatly, most estimates place the cost at well over $1 million; Phillip’s project posited that it was possible to do so for roughly $2,000 and the actual bomb would fit in the size of a U-haul trailer.
A project with frightening connotations, Phillip’s work was confiscated by the FBI, despite the fact that Phillips was able to design his bomb using only his nuclear engineering textbook and two unclassified government documents.
Phillip’s professor has said that the design would likely work, but his design was not actually built. Moreover, in comparison to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, this bomb design has been said to be more sophisticated and complex, implying how easy it would be for political terrorists to make such a devastating weapon. Nevertheless, though Phillips has said, “any other physics major could do this better,” his project was the only one in that seminar to get an A.
========
But, I have for many years been drawn to non-fiction books, typically about WW2, such as the battle of midway (Shattered Sword) or the Guadalcanal campaign. I have also listened to a lot of civil war audio books, including Battle Cry of Freedom and the Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.
I get enough of the real world in the real world, when I read, I want see something new
2. Middlemarch isn't social realism. If you had to put a label on it, it would be psychological fiction a la Stephen King
3. Lolita is DEFINITELY not lolicon (if anything it's the opposite) and it's quite offensive to suggest it is
The point is, OP is complaining about not liking reading, but if he's only read sci-fi, he hasn't read the classics
This avowedly humanist world-building would come to be called realism. Middlemarch is often cited as a template of that now familiar mode.
but I'm more than happy to leave the bunfight of opinions to those more invested.
> Lolita is DEFINITELY not lolicon
Well I wouldn't take that suggestion too seriously although it seems that you have.
Dickens's literary success began with the 1836 serial publication of The Pickwick Papers, a publishing phenomenon that sparked Pickwick merchandise and spin-offs.
His novels, most of them published in monthly or weekly instalments, pioneered the serial publication of narrative fiction, which became the dominant Victorian mode for novel publication.Might also ask their position on taking advice from those that cannot follow it.
Agreed. 'Arrogance' likely refers to attitude and manner.
> This demonisation of
What demonisation?
> is anti intellectualism.
What intellectualism?
Somehow we still read Marquees De Sade too even though everything he wrote is more depraved than most of what goes on 4chan today.
In fact there’s not even a single graphic sex scene in Lolita