It seems like you had a great reading month--for the most part! I am all in on _Egypt's Golden Couple_ & _The Betrothed_. Thank you for a great BookTube video!
Ha, yeah. The more I learn about the whole Delia Owens situation, the creepier it gets! But even without the whole author theory, I wouldn't have liked the book.
Every time I hear Balzac I can’t help but think of the Pick-a-little talk-a-little song from The Music Man!🤭 Also I kept checking to see if you had uploaded the past two days!😂
I almost picked up Fox Hunt from the bookstore two days ago, and then I decided to wait to finish the books I'm currently reading before I start another one. After your video, I'll make it a point to read it for sure. If you are interested in WWII topics, I'd like to suggest (if you haven't read yet) The Nuremberg Trial. I'm not sure about other books and if there are better books out there, but the one I happen to get and read is The Nuremberg Trial by John Tusa and Ann Tusa. I found it very interesting! It was not an easy reading for me as is packed with information and in small font too, but I couldn't put it down. I do plan to reread it someday. It goes through so much about what was happening, the creation of the International Court, trial transcripts, names, reactions of the accused, etc.... One of the things that really shocked me in a way was that England in particular did not want the trial to take place. It seems that they had the attitude of whatever happened, happened, let's move on. The other thing, which I knew, but reading it again is always mind boggling. None of the Nazis on trial had even the slightest trace of remorse or even the slightest thought of even maybe they've done something wrong. Everyone blamed someone higher than them and that they simply obeyed orders. Others they blatantly kept saying they did it for Germany. Even one that might had something there as possibly a trace of guilt, still would not admit the wrong. From their reactions, their words, they were all really psychopaths.
Yes! My sister read The Nuremberg Trial and loved it! I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, but it's on my TBR! Such a difficult book to read, going into the minds of people who committed such atrocities.
Arthur's Britian was a brilliant work. Alcock (who is a he by the way) had that comprehensive scholarship. Geoffrey Ashe, Norris J. Lacy, Roger Sherman Loomis, and Richard Barber are also good authors to look up. I'm not surprised you'd have mixed feelings about The Fountainhead. I've found good Catholics generally hate it. So I have no desire to even pick it up.
I don't know why I thought Leslie was a girl, lol. I suppose a century ago Leslie was more common as a boy's name. Ah, well. And I'll look up all those authors! Thank you! And yeah...I'm glad I read The Fountainhead, but it's definitely not a book I loved or agreed with.
I remember picking up Rise & Fall as a historical, "I should read this", chore. I was shocked when I couldn't put it down! It was incredible. Arthur's Britain sounds fascinating. I have always wanted to learn more about the historical Arthur. (Again, if there even was such a person.) I had to laugh at your comments about The Fountainhead. (Which I have not read.) It mirrors my experience with Atlas Shrugged. I hated so many of those characters. It went in a direction I was not expecting. (Not in a good way.) The characters were just mouthpieces for her views. They were constantly speechifying in ways that normal humans don't speak. And her philosophy of life made me want to throw things. One good thing I can say about AS is that it made me see cities in an entirely new way. I'll leave it at that. I greatly appreciated that. It was a permanent change to my thinking and it comes to my mind often as I live in my city. For that alone, I am glad I read it.
Black Stallion sounds so cute! Have you been to Colonial Williamsburg? I haven't been in a while and I live so close 😅 I work a colonial dance night with the county and everyone comes from Williamsburg 🤣 they're kinda weird 😆
I completely agree with you on Ayn Rand's philosophy that she has a point, but she takes it way too far. I think Ayn Rand was so embittered by her personal experience in Soviet Russia that she developed a dangerous philosophy by leaving the one extreme only to land herself to the other side of another extreme. I think that for her there is not a medium, there is not moderation. In a way, I think her thinking process is overtaken by the either or fallacy. It is either you lose yourself by giving all of yourself to the state and others, or you give nothing in order to keep your identity. She doesn't seem to understand that you don't necessarily lose your individualism by giving to others. One can give to others and still have personal boundaries and take care ourselves also. In one of her other books, We, The Living, which I read years ago and I loved it, she says in the prologue? or introduction? that she wrote it as a warning to Americans. It's been too long since I read it and I'd love to reread it now that I think about it, but if I remember correctly, we see the characters taking different political approaches and trying to navigate their familial relationships and friendships or intimate relationships through these differences. Please, don't take my word for it because it has been years and I don't remember it well. I do remember that I felt was fantastic (even though I didn't like some characters), I did like seeing all these characters close to each other take these different approaches to life and politics as it seemed very realistic in that sense, and the end was heartbreaking. It has been said that We, the Living is the closest to an autobiography that Ayn Rand would write. The only other book I have read also years ago by her and I liked a lot is Anthem, a short book that thematically had reminded me a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron (or something like that). Anthem is about a dystopian society where the individual does not exist. Everyone is "equal" in every sense imaginable, people have no names, but numbers. I think Ayn Rand was expressing that one extreme side she feared the most--Allowing the state to strip away the individual personalities of people in favor of a uniform expression and thought that doesn't leave space for personal expression and free thinking. She is not wrong to condemn this ideology, but she is wrong in her own extreme ideology.
I've already added both We, The Living and Anthem to my TBR! And your analysis is fascinating! I suppose somebody who grew up in such a harsh climate like the Soviet Union might want to separate herself so much for its ideology that she moved too far the other way. And your points make sense, that she didn't believe in moderation and only saw the worst in one side, not the other.
@@AnneEWilliamson I'm looking forward to your thoughts on these books when you get to read them. I'll definitely reread them in 2023. I think Ayn Rand leaving one extreme for another extreme is a very common human phenomenon, not exclusive to her. I believe that if we look through history most tragedies have taken place because people fear something so much that they move to extremes of either side erroneously thinking they're protecting themselves when in fact, they just found a different way to destroy themselves and those around them. This is also what happened with the Nazi ideology. A few twisted, evil individuals in power manipulated the fears of the common German and pushed them to the extreme side they wanted them to be. Without the help of the common German, Hitler and his Nazis wouldn't have stood a chance. In our society today, this phenomenon is also common. Many people are not able to have a healthy debate because they have dragged themselves to one or the other extreme and there is no space left for discussion of a different approach. It's either this or that. No space for other views in between. Ayn Rand is like that. When fear (reasonable or irrational) takes over, logic goes out of the window.
This is not the best Bhagavad Gita translation as the author is the head of ISKON. Thus the commentary is very much one sided and chooses to interpret the text in only one way. If you ever attempt to reread it, I would recommend the gita press version
Slightly embarrassed that I had thought King Arthur was absolutely deemed a true historical person! 😂 i had no idea that people were undecided on that…🤭
I think there's enough evidence to say he existed, just most of the stories about him were created centuries later. So it's impossible to know if characters like Gawain, Merlin, Lancelot, etc. existed.
@@AnneEWilliamson Yeah, I have definitely heard some interesting theories about Merlin and Lancelot! Also now that were are discussing characters who may or may not have existed, I am curious do you think Robin Hood existed?
@@JoelleGrace I think so. But he was probably just a thief and not the hero we see him as today. I mean, Prince John definitely wasn't the villain as depicted in Robin Hood.
I loved your critique of Where the Crawdads Sing. As you started talking about it, I was like hmmm that's so odd considering the allegations against the author. And you wrapped it up perfectly. it makes it seem just a bit too sketchy for me. Fox Hunt sounds like such a good book!
Yeah, it's definitely a controversial book, and I see why so many people struggle with Where the Crawdads Sing (and its author). And the Fox Hunt is so good!
Oh! I was just reading up on the mythology surrounding King Arthur! I never came across "Arthur's Brittan" but I would be interested in hearing more about that one! "too perfect" characters in the sense described here for "Egypt's Golden Couple" bothers me, too. In fact, the more flawed, the better haha😅 If I were to be objective as possible (ironically), I would agree with the 3/5 for Fountainhead, but for reasons that I think you are spot on here, I just can't give it to Rand haha. Which, as you say here, and I completely agree--it is too bad, because there is something more there and it is not completely baseless. I could go on, but I think I would just be expanding on what you put very clearly here. Haha
Lol, I agree about Rand! She's got some good ideas, but she just goes too far. And I don't even study philosophy as much as you do, so I feel like your analysis of her writing would be far more nuanced then mine. And the myths surrounding King Arthur fascinate me, especially where myth and reality meet.
