For people who read ePub files on their eReaders, what are your preferences for the format? I'm converting Creative Commons writing into ePub files, but I want to make sure they're reader-friendly. So I'm wondering:
I use a nook touch
Times or Palatino. They're the standard because they work well. Anything else is distracting.
I guess textbooks and so on can use unusual fonts and layouts though. And scientific papers pretty much have to use Computer Modern. But I doubt you're writing either of those.
I want to know more about this but the thread is 2 years old.
This is a nice thread. Let's have a book edition.
I just read my first book by Haruki Murakami, "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle". Murakami gets a lot of praise in these parts, and after reading this book, I can confirm that it isn't unfounded. The book to me felt a bit weaker towards the end, but I really liked hearing the stories of Nomonhan, Siberia, and such.
Finished The Wall by Jean Paul Sartre. I haven't read fiction in a while and my critical reading skills have gone to shit. Did enjoy several of the character studies though.
[i]No simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945[/i]
Norman Davies REALLY hates Stalin. And Norman Davies REALLY wants to let you know all about it. Over and over and over again.
Excellent and balanced analysis of the wartime situation. Bleeding heart commemoration of every boy and his dog killed by the soviet regime. Occasionally it fits, most of the time it is just anecdotal irrelevancies. He also has a soft spot for Poland, you'd think there were more poles in the western armies than Canadians and Free French.
Don't get me wrong, the book is extremely detailed and deserves reading if you want a political evaluation of the war. The evidence is certainly well-researched and certainly not distorted. Davies just happens to really hate the soviets
somehow I knew that was going to happen. Hey, can't say I tried
roujinkai dip.jp pass//// 4rfv6yhn1qak
Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman.
Zipped through it. It was fun what with the Niel Gaiman and mythology and gods intersecting with real life.
My Name is Red by Orhan Pamuk.
It's a murder mystery novel set in Istanbul in the 1500s, and every bit as bizarre as that sounds. I rather enjoyed it, despite the bits about sticking needles in people's eyes.
The Man in the High Castle
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Flow My Tears, Said the Policeman
A Scanner Darkly
Philip K Dick is the only author who matters
We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver.
It was horrible. Very well written and all, but the subject matter was just relentlessly miserable.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Time Out of Joint. Thanks >>69, I was looking for more Philip K. Dick to read.
Well I mean, there's always ThePirateBay...
Okay, anyone here read that shit? I gave up on it when Dominique got raped and liked it.
Fuck Ayn Rand. Her characters suck.
and I for one am quite shocked at how people here write baseless fan-fiction about Kant.
I mean no offence >>42, but one has to wonder whether you ever read a single line of Kant in full. Kant very much acknowledges human nature as what it is; however the Categorical Imperative's primary purpose is to liberate people from reliance on an external authority (God, Scripture, Tradition, Priesthood, Monarchs) when it comes to judging one's own actions as to whether they are morally "good" or "bad": By applying the Categorical Imperative to your own actions, he asserts, you can find out whether they are morally flawed or not, by yourself, instead of having someone else impose their judgment upon you (sapere aude!). How so? Because the Categorical Imperative is an effective logical apparatus to judge whether an action will benefit you and the social group around you. Seeing how man very much operates as a zoon politikon, that ends up being less unrealistic than the reductionist Randian self-interest as a moral imperative. Kant may seem naive at first glance, but he was well aware of "how the world works", videlicet "Towards Eternal Peace"...
No, Kant's imperative is irrational. In his article 'On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives' (http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/80130/part1/sect4/lie.html), he was in favor of Absolute Principles (e.g. never lie) regardless of the context of reality.
Rand saw Kant as a destroyer of reason, reason being the thought process required for understanding reality. Since Kant's imperative departs from reality, Kant's ethics are unsound.
Master and Margarita... Mikhail Bulgakov
Both Rand and Kant are stupid. They each tell you that you don't have to rely on authority, yet they presuppose having authority to tell you that. This is also why relativism is not true.
Also, spoiler for every Rand book: They include mediocre plots and Mary Sue characters that are used as Rand's mouthpieces. Least thinly veiled books ever.
Kant isn't stupid, his ideas are just dated. People like Hegel built upon them, though.
Rand is just an idiot.
I think Rand's error is that she simply takes the default of human nature and says "that's natural, therefore it's good", which isn't true. For example, human nature is to basicly take as much as you can get away with, yet no human society could run that way, as those who aren't getting a "good deal" will refuse to play.
Kant's deontology ignores human nature, however, it does provide a really useful social "rule of thumb" that Rand cannot. Rand cannot tell you if something you really really want is good for the society you live in. She sees us as loose atoms in a sea of other atoms, so no act that you do is going to negatively affect another person. If I own a company town in West Virginia, I can effectively have slave labor -- I simply make sure that the charges for necessities and rent are greater than the paycheck -- Rand cannot tell me that I'm wrong to do it. Kant would ask the question "what if everyone in society did that", and you would quickly see that such a system is unjust and unsustainable, so it would be a bad idea to do it.
I know you wrote this four years ago and you'll never read my response, but this comment was so stupid I can't help myself.
>For example, people have asserted that a work of fiction is bad because no one in their personal lives act like the novels' characters. Yet, they make no attempt to back why this makes it bad, just leaving it up in the air, a hanging non-sequitur.
If a work of fiction has characters who aren't realistic, it is probably a self-indulgent piece of shit. Lots of godawful writers love to write characters who epitomize what they consider to be the good and the evil, the strong and the weak, etc. Inevitably, the character that results will seem plastic and fake, because he has been written purely to represent an idea and not to be a believable human being. This fakeness will be evident in the character's actions, his inner monologues and his dialogue with other characters. If your characters act all weird and plastic and fake, they're not relatable to the reader as human beings, and they don't draw the reader in. A character should only seem unrealistic if that's the way he is meant to seem, and in that case other characters should recognize it (see Brave New World for a good example of this.)
So yes, characters who don't act like human beings are generally not effective characters. And it doesn't matter whether Ayn Rand was trying to prove a point about independence or reliance on others or any of that. The Fountainhead is a novel, so it should have characters who fucking act like people and not robots with pre-programmed responses. If Rand couldn't handle not writing a preachy political/philosophical text, she should have stuck with her essays.
Art isn't nearly that clear-cut. There are countless great works that feature characters who are "weird and plastic and fake" and yet pull it off. Ayn Rand's novels are a bad example, I grant, but that doesn't mean that a work of literature can only function with characters who meet the standard of "realism".
It's funny how the conservatives can overlook the fact that Ayn Rand was a militant atheist that hated god and loved abortion.
after gandalf rejected the terms set by the mouth of sauron the Mouth became enraged and fearful at the same time, and the Mouth fled back to the Gate and set Mordor's forces upon the West. He was not seen again.
i am sorry to disappoint you but there is no defined ending for the mouth and what happened to him after the war of the ring was never truly revealed
（ ﾟ ∀ﾟ ） < http://www.amazon.com/The-Cats-Table-ebook/dp/B005GOSTQC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1324015089&sr=8-7
／ | ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
/ "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
＿＿ | .ノ | || |＿＿
. ノく＿＿つ∪∪ ＼
￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
Sometime in the future a person who has attained omniscience within the bounds of his mind forms the council of omnis with several others/version of himself. HE has split himself into many with varying traits and cooperative and competitive natures but who as a whole are omniscient. The story traces how they make mental decisions as to how Omnis, the person's name for himself, behaves in the external human reality.
ladies and gentleman this is your sneak peak at a future peace prize for literature
honestly it sounds like it'll be lame and overly look into obvious things
iotw, you'll get awards and then be community college literature 50 years down the road
high school literature if you delve into a topic that's currently controversial
Has anybody here read it? I discovered it earlier this year and loved it.
I kept hearing good things from 4chan's /x/ board a few years ago, but I never got around to reading it.
Should I give it a shot? Wasn't there some particular edition of the book most people recommend?
I had the "full colour" edition, which I'd recommend, but it doesn't really make any difference overall and it's kinda expensive.