Rate the last book you read

[SaltwaterServr]

It's worth it. I think book 6 is by far the weakest and even that one isn't bad. It's just a bit slow in spots.

I also started that series when the 3rd book in the series had just reached paperback. If I recall correctly, they were on the air-tram thingy and had no idea if the landing spot was still operating. Big Blaine and Little Blaine is what I remember. A machine with an alter ego?

I might have to pick it up again, but I've got The Shoes of Earhardt to read and 3 Cups of Tea while writing my own. Not enough time in the day.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I just finished The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown.

As the song by Evanescence goes "I know the truth now". Religion is now clear to me.

:laugh2:

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Game of Thrones
10/10

One of the best books I have ever read.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

I also started that series when the 3rd book in the series had just reached paperback. If I recall correctly, they were on the air-tram thingy and had no idea if the landing spot was still operating. Big Blaine and Little Blaine is what I remember. A machine with an alter ego?

I might have to pick it up again, but I've got The Shoes of Earhardt to read and 3 Cups of Tea while writing my own. Not enough time in the day.

Yeah. Blaine the Train. He likes riddles, but hates jokes. The 4th book picks right up where that one left off and then they settle into camp and Roland tells his backstory. Good stuff.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

:laugh2:

laugh all you want, I never thought about why there are life after death beliefs, now I know it is because man is really just not able to face his own mortality. We are the only animals who know we will die someday.

Read it, it will open your eyes to the world beyond the end of your nose.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

laugh all you want, I never thought about why there are life after death beliefs, now I know it is because man is really just not able to face his own mortality. We are the only animals who know we will die someday.

Read it, it will open your eyes to the world beyond the end of your nose.

Dan Brown isn't going to "open your eyes" to anything. He's a fiction writer. By his own admission, nothing he writes has any basis in fact.

Speaking of the world beyond one's nose, you won't learn much looking down yours all the time.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Dan Brown isn't going to "open your eyes" to anything. He's a fiction writer. By his own admission, nothing he writes has any basis in fact.

Speaking of the world beyond one's nose, you won't learn much looking down yours all the time.

how then do you explain the life after death belief (it is not a fact)

 

[ScipioCowboy]

how then do you explain the life after death belief (it is not a fact)

I'm not allowed to answer that question here.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I'm not allowed to answer that question here.

you would agree though that it is a belief, not a fact correct?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

you would agree though that it is a belief, not a fact correct?

Depends on your epistemological framework.

 

[peplaw06]

Just finished "Open," Andre Agassi's autobiography. Thought it was excellent. Agassi is a surprisingly good writer, though he had plenty of help. I'd give it an 8 out of 10.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Didn't Agassi have a ghost writer?

 

[YosemiteSam]

Dan Brown isn't going to "open your eyes" to anything. He's a fiction writer. By his own admission, nothing he writes has any basis in fact.

Speaking of the world beyond one's nose, you won't learn much looking down yours all the time.

This is incorrect. Everything he writes is based on fact, but admits that the book itself is pure fiction. He didn't spend five years researching the Freemasons (The Lost Symbol) looking for non-facts.

Based on fact, doesn't mean everything presented as fact in the book actually is, but the premise behind it is based on some fact. Fiction writers (and sometimes non-fiction writers) take liberties in their writing to make a store more fluid and add interest.

The Lost Symbol talks about Freemasons and I can tell you many things he talked about were certainly true, though not everything. Some of it was obviously fiction and created to add depth to the store or based on rumors of such.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

This is incorrect. Everything he writes is based on fact, but admits that the book itself is pure fiction. He didn't spend five years researching the Freemasons (The Lost Symbol) looking for non-facts.

Based on fact, doesn't mean everything presented as fact in the book actually is, but the premise behind it is based on some fact. Fiction writers (and sometimes non-fiction writers) take liberties in their writing to make a store more fluid and add interest.

The Lost Symbol talks about Freemasons and I can tell you many things he talked about were certainly true, though not everything. Some of it was obviously fiction and created to add depth to the store or based on rumors of such.

According to your above reasoning, Star Trek is also based on fact because there actually is a planet Earth populated by human beings, and Hellraiser is based on fact because puzzle boxes exist.

Many science fiction and fantasy writers also perform extensive research in order to ensure that their stories are feasible; however, this doesn't mean their books are "based on facts."

Brown's books are factual only in the sense that the Catholic Church and Freemasons are real organizations that operate in a certain way; however, the premises upon which his books are based and the narrative situations in which he places the Catholic Church and the Freemasons are, by his own admission, fabricated -- as in, non-factual.

Brown isn't just taking "liberties." He's creating an entire narrative.

 

[YosemiteSam]

According to your above reasoning, Star Trek is also based on fact because there actually is a planet Earth populated by human beings, and Hellraiser is based on fact because puzzle boxes exist.

Brown's books are factual only in the sense that the Catholic Church and Freemasons are real organizations that operate in a certain way; however, the premises upon which his books are based and the narrative situations in which he places the Catholic Church and the Freemasons are, by his own admission, fabricated -- as in, non-factual.

Brown isn't just taking "liberties." He's creating an entire narrative.

I've read the book and I am an active Freemason. (as if my avatar wasn't a clue) I'm well aware what is true in the book and what isn't. I fully noted that the book is fiction and many of the presented facts in the book are fiction. All I said is the book is based on fact which you keep disputing.

One of three things exist here.

1. You are misguided in your view
2. Do understand, but are being extremely overzealous in your argument due to some passion on the subject. (which I can fully understand in many cases, including mine)
3. Just being argumentative because you can.

 

[ethiostar]

I've read the book and I am an active Freemason. (as if my avatar wasn't a clue) I'm well aware what is true in the book and what isn't. I fully noted that the book is fiction and many of the presented facts in the book are fiction. All I said is the book is based on fact which you keep disputing.

One of three things exist here.

1. You are misguided in your view
2. Do understand, but are being extremely overzealous in your argument due to some passion on the subject. (which I can fully understand in many cases, including mine)
3. Just being argumentative because you can.

I guess they aren't as exclusive and selective of their members anymore. :

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I've read the book and I am an active Freemason. (as if my avatar wasn't a clue) I'm well aware what is true in the book and what isn't. I fully noted that the book is fiction and many of the presented facts in the book are fiction. All I said is the book is based on fact which you keep disputing.

One of three things exist here.

1. You are misguided in your view
2. Do understand, but are being extremely overzealous in your argument due to some passion on the subject. (which I can fully understand in many cases, including mine)
3. Just being argumentative because you can.

Actually, there's a hidden fourth option:

4. I understand a book that incorporates facts (i.e. the existence of the Catholic Church and Freemasonry) is not synonymous with a book that is based on fact -- especially when the author himself admits the narrative is entirely fictitious. Answer this question: Is the story in the film Titanic based on fact simply because it incorporates an actual historical event? Of course not.
​

Now, I propose this list to you:

1) Your status as an "active freemason" gives you no more insight into the workings of Brown's narratives than my status as an "active Christian."

2) I suggest looking up the word "overzealous." In doing so, you'll discover that nothing I've said here even remotely classifies.

3) Context is everything! I suggest revisiting the exchange that led to this.​

 

[peplaw06]

Didn't Agassi have a ghost writer?

At the end of the book Agassi talks about a guy who helped him with a lot of it. He said they sat down and recorded conversations and his recollection of certain events, then they put it to paper. But Agassi was definitely a big part of the actual writing too. It's not as though Agassi didn't write any of it.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

He was pretty fair to the masons in the book. His statements that much of masonry is based on symbols and allegory like most religions is pretty much bang on.

The fact the book is fictional does not detract from some of the philosophical comments in it. The fact man created life after death beliefs all the way back to ancient times is likely the result of the fact we cannot face our own mortality. I never thought of it that way until I read the book.

You can learn stuff from fiction.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

At the end of the book Agassi talks about a guy who helped him with a lot of it. He said they sat down and recorded conversations and his recollection of certain events, then they put it to paper. But Agassi was definitely a big part of the actual writing too. It's not as though Agassi didn't write any of it.

ah ok, I have been thinking of buying that book. I didn't like him as a player at first but after he lost his hair, he grew on me

Too bad his second wife is not as hot as his first one.