Any of you like to read books?

#26
#26
may pick it up. I haven't read anymore of Johnson's books. I had to read Rassellas in a classics class in college. I am fascinated by Johnson's life story though. Any recommendations?
Click to expand...

Online Listings

Below is an outline of the link above.

Johnson, Samuel (1709-1784)
A Dictionary of the English Language (1755):

The Johnson Dictionary Project (Univ. of Birmingham) — The complete text of Johnson's Dictionary of the English
Language, in both the first and fourth editions, completely searchable. A major scholarly project. O si sic omnes!

The Plan of an English Dictionary (1747) (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)

Preface to the Dictionary (1755) (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)

Preface to the Dictionary (1755) (Gutenberg)

Letter to Chesterfield, 7 February 1755 (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)

Fiction:
The Fountains (1766) (ed. Catherine Dille)

Rasselas:
Rasselas (1759) (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)
Rasselas (Bibliomania)
Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia (Blackmask)
A Journey to the Western Islands:
A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland (Gutenberg)
A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland (Electric Scotland)
Lives of the English Poets (1779-1781):
The Life of Collins (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)
The Life of Gray (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)
The Life of Milton (Jack Lynch, Rutgers) — Full text and an abridgment
The Life of Pope (Jack Lynch, Rutgers) — Full text and an abridgment.
The Life of Savage (Jack Lynch, Rutgers) — Full text and an abridgment.
Lives of the English Poets: Waller, Milton, Cowley (Gutenberg)
Lives of the English Poets: Prior, Congreve, Blackmore, Pope (Gutenberg)

Periodical Essays:
The Rambler and The Adventurer (Virginia) — Selections.
The Adventurer:
Adventurer 137 (Frank Lynch)
Adventurer 138 (Frank Lynch)

The Idler:
The Vulture (the original Idler 22) (Frank Lynch)
The Rambler:
The Rambler (1750-1752) (Virginia) — Selections.
Rambler 60 (Frank Lynch)
Rambler 134 (Frank Lynch)

Poems:
Selected Poems (Toronto)
"Drury-Lane Prologue" (1747):
Prologue Spoken at Drury-Lane (Poetry Archives)
Prologue at Drury Lane (1747) (Florida)
Drury-Lane Prologue Spoken by Mr. Garrick (1747) (Toronto)
London (Jack Lynch, Rutgers) — Annotated.
One-and-Twenty
"On the Death of Dr. Robert Levet":
On the Death of Dr. Robert Levet (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)
On the Death of Dr. Robert Levet, a Practiser in Physic

The Vanity of Human Wishes:
Vanity of Human Wishes (1749) (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)
Vanity of Human Wishes (Oregon) (1749)
The Works of William Shakespeare (1765):
Preface to Shakespeare:
Preface to Shakespeare (1765) (Toronto)
Preface to Shakespeare (1765) (Gutenberg)
Preface to Shakespeare (Blackmask)
Preface to Shakespeare (Jack Lynch, Rutgers) — Abridged.
Selected Criticism on Hamlet (1765) (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)
Selected Criticism on King Lear (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)




Political Writings:
Debates in Parliament (Frank Lynch) — Selections.
The False Alarm (Frank Lynch)
An Introduction to the Political State of Great Britain (1756) (Frank Lynch)
Observations on the Present State of Affairs (1756) (Jack Lynch, Rutgers)
The Patriot (Frank Lynch)
Taxation No Tyranny (1775) (Frank Lynch)
Thoughts on the Late Transactions Respecting Falkland's Islands (1771) (Frank Lynch)

By Others:
Dr. Johnson and Fanny Burney (1842) (Virginia)
Johnston, Charles (1791-1823)
 
#27
#27
Ghandi: An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth



Emotional Intelligence: Goleman



Niemoller, Martin: Any of his books....the author of the poem:

When they came for....then when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

He writes about the quiescence of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of groups.....he also writes about paranoid little boys and their guns and grandiose, hubris thoughts of power and dominance.



Saint Francis Nikos Kazantzakis

Sabbath Wayne Muller

The BoOok of Secrets Deepak Chopra

Anatomy of the Spirit Caroline Myss

Benjamin Franklin Walter Isaacson

Shaman, Healer, Sage Alberto Villoldo

The Soul of Rumi



 
#28
#28
Has anyone read the latest book about Pol Pot and the Khemir Rouge of Cambodia? One of my profs recommended it, but wanted someone else's opinion.


The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons are both GREAT books! Can't wait to see the movie on the 19th!!
 
#29
#29
(SweetGaVol @ Apr 25 said:
Has anyone read the latest book about Pol Pot and the Khemir Rouge of Cambodia? One of my profs recommended it, but wanted someone else's opinion.
Click to expand...

I'd read that one if I could find it.
 
#31
#31
(OrangeEmpire @ Apr 21 said:
I just finished the Newt Gingrich, William Forstchen trilogy on the Civil War: Gettysburg, Grant Comes East and Never Call Retreat, pretty good alternate history that kind of gets what if theory's going.

Just curious if any one else has read any of the books?
Click to expand...

They sound like someting I'd like to read (or listen to as the case may be). I'm interested in the Civil War but haven't read a lot on it yet. Would you recommend I should read a factual history of the battle of Gettysburg before reading this?
 
#32
#32
Speaking of alternate history, I read one several years back called "AMERIKA". It was a "what if" where Germany and Japan won WWII. It was pretty engrossing. The gist of it was that Nazi Germany controlled the Eastern US and Imperial Japan controlled the West. It contained some pretty chilling fictional accounts of life in an occupied USA. I recommend it if you like this sort of thing and if it's still in print. It probably isn't and I can't for the life of me remember the author's name.
 
#33
#33
They sound like someting I'd like to read (or listen to as the case may be). I'm interested in the Civil War but haven't read a lot on it yet. Would you recommend I should read a factual history of the battle of Gettysburg before reading this?
Click to expand...

Personally I would read the alternate history first, and then read what actually happened. I think you would better appreciate the true story.

The true story is filled with massive complications and inactions.

Normally I would say this but the alternate history portrays the effective use of artillery on the battlefield in graphic detail.

It will help you better appreciate the true battle once you learn about the use of artillery especially canister at short ranges...........

If you would ever like suggestions about other Civil War materials I would be happy to suggest some to you. I am past obsessive with the Civil War.
 
#35
#35
(OrangeEmpire @ Apr 27 said:
Is this the book you were talking about?

Amazon
Click to expand...

It probably is. I remember a tv serial called Amerika which dealt with the country being taken over by the Soviet Union but that was way after the book. I'm going to order this and see if it's the one I read before. Thanks for the link. I 'll probably call on you for some references down the road on the Civil War.
 
#36
#36
I have quiet a collection of books at home, mostly on the Civil War. However, I have some books on WW II, sports, biographys and a couple on the Revolutionary War. Must be over 50 books. Currently reading "Omaha Beach." I'm about a dozen books behind in my reading.
Living right in the heart of where a lot of Civil War battles took place (VA), I been to several around the area (Gettysburg -about an 1 1/4 hours away; Antietem (just over an hour); Richmond (2 hours); Sailor's Creek (3 plus hours).
 
#37
#37
yep, i spend alot of time reading actually.


i finished the dark tower series by stephen king recently. that is a must for everyone.


i have started this book about lincoln's assassination called "manhunt" very in depth. goes over every aspect.


i am trying to find a good book on houdini and the civil war. any recommendations???
 
#38
#38
I will recommend it, although I feel that anyone interested in the Civil War has already read it: Killer Angels.
 
#39
#39
Are you looking for a broad overview of the Civil War or something specific.

If you are looking for a broad overview I would recommend Battle Cry of Freedom or Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative.

If you want something more specific let me know.......

Material on Houdini is broad........depends on what you are looking for

May I suggest....

Final Seance
 
#40
#40
My boss gave me a book today at work called Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer. It's about a man that took a sabbatical leave, purchased an RV to seek out the roving community of RVers who follow the crimson tide from game to game, their are references in this book regarding TN fans, which is why he gave it to me. It deals with fan mania and what makes us out as raving lunatics. Take this quis on his website and see what kind of crazed fan you are. I'm not real good with computers I dont know how to set up a link this is the website. Sorry


www.rammerjammeryellowhammer.com
 
#41
#41
I am currently reading Jeff Shaara's book The Glorious Cause about the American Revolution. Good stuff!
 
#42
#42
(OrangeEmpire @ Apr 21 said:
I just finished the Newt Gingrich, William Forstchen trilogy on the Civil War: Gettysburg, Grant Comes East and Never Call Retreat, pretty good alternate history that kind of gets what if theory's going.

Just curious if any one else has read any of the books?
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? That's what Cliff Notes are for! :crazy:
 
#43
#43
(OrangeEmpire @ Apr 21 said:
The Confederacy wins Gettysburg, not necessarily at Gettysburg, ends up taking Baltimore, destroys the Army of Potomac and still loses the war.

There was no way for the South to win other than Lincoln losing his nerve or Lincoln being voted out of office.
Click to expand...


The south could have easily won the war, had it been a short one.

A long war favored the north because of their large advantage of men, as well as their access to better technologies.

If the war had been short, the south would have won. The south had better qualified generals (Lincoln changed his commander eight times during the war), as well as their advantage of fighting on home soil. Almost all of the battles were fought in the south, benefiting the confederacy, as they didn't have to pick up and move all the way up north to fight.

Not to mention, the war's victor seemed imminent until the pivotal point at the Battle of Antietam. The war had been going on for nearly two year's by then, and the south seemed to be winning most of the battles. But, after the Union won that pivotal battle, the south's chance of winning seemed to diminish.


Not saying that the country didn't benefit from a union victory, because it certainly did. Just saying that the south did have a chance of winning the war, had it been 1 to 2 years long, rather than five.





~*Crystal*~
 
#44
#44
While you raise some good poinst there Crystal - the advantages of the Union were much greater than the Confederacy - the industry that they had, control of the US Navy and several other factors played a HUGE role in allowing them to draw out the war and in the end win.

I feel that it was Lincoln's strategy to draw it out as long as possible and choke them out by cutting the south off from ports and rail roads.
 
#45
#45
The south could have easily won the war, had it been a short one.

A long war favored the north because of their large advantage of men, as well as their access to better technologies.

If the war had been short, the south would have won. The south had better qualified generals (Lincoln changed his commander eight times during the war), as well as their advantage of fighting on home soil. Almost all of the battles were fought in the south, benefiting the confederacy, as they didn't have to pick up and move all the way up north to fight.

Not to mention, the war's victor seemed imminent until the pivotal point at the Battle of Antietam. The war had been going on for nearly two year's by then, and the south seemed to be winning most of the battles. But, after the Union won that pivotal battle, the south's chance of winning seemed to diminish.


Not saying that the country didn't benefit from a union victory, because it certainly did. Just saying that the south did have a chance of winning the war, had it been 1 to 2 years long, rather than five.
Click to expand...

I am a Confederate apologist but how would it have been easy?

The North did not have better generals that is a myth, unless you are specifically talking about the Eastern Theater. Johnson, Beauregard and finally Lee had the fortune of going against poor generals. Do you forget about the Generals in the West?

It is unfair to criticize the Army of the Potomac because of Lincoln's ineptitude to find a commander that would fight. (Clerks and Railroad Administrators do not make good Generals.) The Army of the Potomac was the equal of the Army of Virginia in every aspect.

Scott's Anaconda plan was put into effect because the North had yet to establish their armies to that cut Southern supplies and trade from the very beginning of the war.

First Manassas or First Bull Run was not a decisive victory, the Southern Armies were in as much confusion as the then Army of the Potomac.

If you are only going to view the war from the East, the confederate government thought the war would be lost in the first year due to the setbacks in the West. Read the newspaper articles sometimes about the gloom and doom on the Confederacy during the first year of the war.

The only reason the Confederate cause had any small glimmer of hope was Lee's audacity to attack McClellan during the Seven Days Campaign and later checking Pope at Second Manassas or Second Bull Run. Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville brought about no strategic victory for the Army of Northern Virginia, just precious casualties the South could not afford.

The only true threat of winning the war would have been wiping out Pope's army at Second Manassas but that would have only eliminated 1 Union Army and Lincoln would still have the McClennan to come and "save" Washington.

The Confederates could not have won the war through military means as Davis and his government thought.

The Confederates had to either:

1.) Resort to attacking Northern Cities and hope public out cry would force Lincoln to Peace.
2.) Vote Lincoln out of Office.
3.) Assistance from Napoleon the III, but his only interest was securing Mexico into his empire.
4.) Assistance from England, which would never help as long as the Confederacy had the right to keep slaves.
5.) Lincoln losing his resolve.

The South never had a shot at winning the war as long as Lincoln was President.
 
#46
#46
Not to mention, the war's victor seemed imminent until the pivotal point at the Battle of Antietam. The war had been going on for nearly two year's by then, and the south seemed to be winning most of the battles. But, after the Union won that pivotal battle, the south's chance of winning seemed to diminish.
Click to expand...

The Battle of Sharpsburg or the Battle of Antietam was much more than a military victory for Lincoln. After the battle he was able to change the course of the war forever ensuring that a foreign power would not interfere.

The issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation was a stroke of political genius.

*If Lil' Mac would have had any kind of spine he could have ended the war at Antietam. (Yeah, I think I will hold back 20,000 fresh troops while the Confederate center disintegrates.) If the Army of Northern Virginia were destroyed the Confederacy could not recover.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top