One of the great books of the 20th century.

If not for the PC police in the west and the islamic world’s occaisional homicidal nuts, this book would be taught in every literature class for the questions it raises.

Despite all the hoopla due to the fatwa, this is really a thoughtful book and dense with literary symbolism, allusions, and themes. From the first assertion regarding the height of Mt. Everest, all truth (including the truth in this novel) is called into question. It is timely in examining the products of fanatical belief and modern skepticism.

Belief and skepticism, reality and illusion, good and evil are all contrasted. And in the contrasting Rushdie muddies the waters to show that good and evil aren’t as obvious to the beholder as our religions might have us believe.

Someday I will finish this. If not in this, then in a future lifetime.

Too long. S.O.S… shoot me!

Nearly died of exhausting reading this. Ok I guess it’s experimental literature… but if it’s experimental it would have been much more scientifically elegant if only it was shorter. Please god, in his next life let Proust find an editor.

It took me a whole summer to get through this book. This book, along with Master and Margarita (Bulgakov) helped me to believe in God again. Can’t say I’m convinced, but open to it now.

Dostoevski proves the need for God in this work. In the absence of God, any Crime is possible (similar to the theme in Crime & Punnishment).

While on the subject, Bulgokov finished the Russian argument in favor of God by showing that proof of God is not necessary.

This is likely Vonnegut’s swan song in literature since he’s probably too old to write another “great” work. He was very powerful in his recent set of essays… but that’s another entry.

In Bluebeard Vonnegut again fleshes out one of his stock characters – this time Rabo Karabekian in old age. In doing so he tells us something we might not have known about modern art – that some of those folks – including fictional Rabo – really could draw and paint. He also sheds light on why they chose not to.

This ranks with the best of Vonnegut. And it has – if such a thing exists in a Vonnegut book – a happy ending!

Camus’ best. It is to literature what “Casablanca” is to movies – full of one-liners, aphorisms and black humor.

The theme sneaks up on you. It isn’t until nearly the end of the book that you discover that you are reading the 20th century’s version of “Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner” (if killing the gull was replaced by complicity in the holocaust).

Promises, platitudes, lies, drugs, scandals, everything you could want in a political campaign except a good outcome.

Come to think of it, 72 was a lot like 04… except that the Democrats of two years ago couldn’t nominate a candidate with ideals, and the Republicans of yesteryear couldn’t avail themselves of the gay-marriage wedge issue or electronic ballot tampering :)

This is the most extremely violent, repulsive and sick book I’ve read in ages. It is also, as a result, screamingly funny!

The characters are all stupid and utterly pathetic. They include: a psycho gangsta hit-girl, a dealer wanna-be who never will, a whiney little black guy who can’t stand his job, an arabic convenience store clerk, a drugged out Marylin Manson type, a pimp, a host of ho’s, the whole shee-bang… er gang-bang.

And the ending is worth the trip. Read it.

Interesting liberal approach to economics. Written very conversationally – was probably dictated.

Intended by Galbraith to defend New Deal/Great Society approach to macroeconomic engineering and provide a modern argument for pursuing such a society. Also seeks to define what a “good society” would be, contrasting it against “utopia’s” by describing how it (unlike utopia) can realistically be achieved.

Is very cutting in it’s many jabs and insults at free-market and other Neo-classical economic approaches. It proposes to be practical rather than ideological (which is a fault he attibutes to neoclassical economics). But his Marxist views on history and determinism show through in many places. It is surprising that he didn’t seem to question them. I guess he’d believed them too long, as he wrote this book in his 80’s, I think.

Worth the read. I’d like to check out the books he wrote when he was younger, more vigorous and more rigorous in his analysis.