Here’s a couple books I’m reading at the moment that are pretty good:
The Name of the Rose by Ubero Eco
Birdseed Cookies by Janis Jaquith
Cyber: Whoops, you’re right, I got the Odyssey and the Aeneid mixed up. I read both at the same time, back in high school. Both are worth reading, thought.
Ren: I don’t know anything about Coelho himself, only his books. And they’re VERY allegorical. While I’m sure many people would hate them, it is a fact many people like them too. I guess one has to decide by oneself.
knowing you, you probably have a liberal bent. You might enjoy reading Shrubs by Molly Ivins. She’s a very witty writer who likes to avoid melodramatic political situations unlike her contemporaries al franken and michael moore, and I think she gives a good analysis of Bush’s gubernatorial reign in Texas.
It’s all quite funny and entertaining…til you realize it’s true.
I doubt theyve been translated into English- but in case you find one: any book by Wolfgang Hohlbein, they kick ass. Theyre fantasy books most of the time, but not those every day crappy fantasy stuff you find at the kiosk around the corner for $0.50.
He wrote a trilogy about the Arthurian legend I think, and “Midgard” is the full tale of Lif and Lifthrasil (you know, their journey and stuff, blahblahblah. The book ends with the Ragnarok and a view into the future) told in a really ool way. I read this book in one day because I just couldn`t let go…
Oh well, this much from me. Might add something later.
May I suggest the Riftwar Series by Raymond E. Feist. It’s several books long begining with my favorite: Magician: Apprentice. It’s slow to start but it gets really good during the second book Magician: Master. It’s got several plot lines but the general thing is that a rift appears between two worlds and a war breaks out.
Originally posted by Merlin
It can be spelt both ways. I think Qu’ran works too.
Funny how you get multiple spellings from languages that use a different alphabet, eh?
I personally found both the Odyssey and the Illiad incredibly boring, as most of the time it was just listings of names and how two warriors were distantly connected as family friends and therefore would not kill each other despite being on opposing forces. On the other hand, I highly enjoy the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which is filled with names in a similar way, but tends to have a bit more political intrigue.
As for Arthurian works:
The original Welsh legends of King Arthur
The History of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth (section on Arthur)
Any romance by Chrétien de Troyes
Parzival by Wolfram von Eschenbach
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight by the Pearl Poet
The Alliterative Morte d’Arthur
The Stanzaic Morte d’Arthur
Le Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory
Otherwise, I suggest a general critical work on Arthurian legends.
Originally posted by Ivan
And it’s not, IMO, well-written, either. It does wonders, however, in pointing out the mindset of some not-so-bright political leaders.
Have you read it in the original Italian? If not, then I suggest finding a better translation.
Originally posted by Cybercompost
They’re both Greek, actually. The Aneid (sp?) is Roman.
The Odyssey and The Iliad were written by Homer. They are Greek.
The Aeneid was written by Virgil. It is Roman.
Originally posted by Ren
I think you think despotism is evil because it’s anti-democratic, but remember that democracy as we know today was only invented by the late 18th century, way after the Prince. Ancient greek democracy was a lot despotic in its ways.
I also think so because I wouldn’t be able to rule as a despot without considering myself evil.
EDIT:
Originally posted by Sir Percival
Have you read it in the original Italian? If not, then I suggest finding a better translation.
I say it is not well-written because of the form of logic that Machiavelli employs, which can largely described thusly: “it is true for one particular case, therefore in general it is so.”
That kind of thing is invariant over translation.
Originally posted by Ivan
[b]I say so because of the form of logic that Machiavelli employs, which can largely described thusly: “it is true for one particular case, therefore in general it is so.”That kind of thing is invariant over translation. [/b]
The use of classical exempla to prove a point was standard classical rhetorical strategy, which Machiavelli and other writers of the time period used. Based on what was standard at the time, I would say that it is well-written.