[Binder of Demons]

Reading RIVERS OF LONDON by Ben Aaronovitch and so far I'm enjoying it a lot. Plenty of mysteries thus far, so I can't wait to see how it plays out.

My only gripe is that Isaac Newton is being used a name/historical figure that is held in high esteem, to tie together science and magic in Britain from a few centuries back. And my problem with that is that Newton was a monumental douchebag, and I don't like seeing him get any props at all.

Who knows, maybe in the book he'll also turn out to have been a dick, who caused all manner of problems for lots of people he didn't like.

[Abyss]

ASSAIL!

....almost.

[Coco with marshmallows]

Binder of Demons, on 26 July 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

My only gripe is that Isaac Newton is being used a name/historical figure that is held in high esteem, to tie together science and magic in Britain from a few centuries back. And my problem with that is that Newton was a monumental douchebag, and I don't like seeing him get any props at all.

Who knows, maybe in the book he'll also turn out to have been a dick, who caused all manner of problems for lots of people he didn't like.

Because monumental douchebags can't be brilliant?

[QuickTidal]

Most brilliant people ARE monumental douchebags.

[worry]

How dare you!

[amphibian]

Don't pay attention to the plebes, unworthywort, we have to get back to our scheduled shushing of those in the first thirty rows of the One Direction concert.

[Binder of Demons]

Cocoreturns, on 26 July 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

Binder of Demons, on 26 July 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

My only gripe is that Isaac Newton is being used a name/historical figure that is held in high esteem, to tie together science and magic in Britain from a few centuries back. And my problem with that is that Newton was a monumental douchebag, and I don't like seeing him get any props at all.

Who knows, maybe in the book he'll also turn out to have been a dick, who caused all manner of problems for lots of people he didn't like.

Because monumental douchebags can't be brilliant?

Nah, it's just I don't like seeing douchebags getting any more credit than they deserve, especially in a fictional context (which i am reading for enjoyment, and he's spoiling that enjoyment).

[Binder of Demons]

QuickTidal, on 27 July 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

Most brilliant people ARE monumental douchebags.

I wouldn't go so far as to say MOST brilliant people are douchebags. But, sadly it can be a high proportion.

[D'iversify]

I think it's fair to say that many brilliant people WHO GET THE CREDIT are often douchebags, or at the very least skilled politicians and showmen, and that brilliant people who lack these attributes can often either be beaten to the scoop in terms of publicity, even if in actual fact there first, or else fail to package their findings in an easily digestible and sensationalist packaging. Edison, for example, whilst I'm not qualified to judge the extent of his douchebaggery, certainly was a skilled politician who exploited the patent system to ensure he got primary credit in the case of many inventions either first developed by others or developed by his research team. This isn't to say that he didn't make many genuine inventions and innovations, but he was advantaged by his knowledge of how to package and present his creations to get ahead in the market.

[Ukjent]

Done with Soldier's Live by Glen Cook. Feel a bit empty inside now and I think the next book have to be something lighter.

[Serenity]

Finished my third read through Gardens of the Moon. Think I love that book more each time I read it - and I really loved it the first time.

Now I'm reading Patrick Lee's Runner.

[Binder of Demons]

Just finished MOON OVER SOHO by Ben Aaronovitch, second book of his Peter Grant series.

Thoroughly enjoyable urban fantasy, similar in some ways to Butcher's "Dresden", or Jacka's "Alex Verus" series. Though much more low key in terms of the magic output than either of those 2 series. Which is a welcome change in some ways, as you don't always have to have universe imploding consequences in every book. I like Aaronovitch's writing style too, which doesn't seem too forced in the humour department (unlike say, Kevin Hearne's Iron Druid series), and occasionally has me laughing at detective Grant's reactions. The Grant character did seem a bit slower on the uptake in the second book, but I'll ignore that until I see how the 3rd and 4th books play out.

I'm annoyed by the fact that my local bookstores don't seem to have books 3 and 4 in stock at the moment, when they were definitely in last week. How typical is that. Always there before i had read the first one, and now I'll have to wait a bit before they're in again.

[Abyss]

Binder of Demons, on 28 July 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Just finished MOON OVER SOHO by Ben Aaronovitch, second book of his Peter Grant series.

Thoroughly enjoyable urban fantasy, similar in some ways to Butcher's "Dresden", or Jacka's "Alex Verus" series. Though much more low key in terms of the magic output than either of those 2 series. Which is a welcome change in some ways, as you don't always have to have universe imploding consequences in every book. I like Aaronovitch's writing style too, which doesn't seem too forced in the humour department (unlike say, Kevin Hearne's Iron Druid series), and occasionally has me laughing at detective Grant's reactions. The Grant character did seem a bit slower on the uptake in the second book, but I'll ignore that until I see how the 3rd and 4th books play out.

I'm annoyed by the fact that my local bookstores don't seem to have books 3 and 4 in stock at the moment, when they were definitely in last week. How typical is that. Always there before i had read the first one, and now I'll have to wait a bit before they're in again.

I really enjoy this series. Bk 3 was a bit less of a win than the others, but 4 was right back to form and great fun. Aaronovich does a great job with Grant as narrator... his combo of rookie cop, irreverence, 'this is the coolest thing ever' and sheer awe really works nicely. He's like Dresden might be if he hadn't been abused, hunted and generally mistreated as a kid.


Amazon has these available and dl'able, btw.

[Abyss]

Just finished ASSAIL.

Spoiler free first post in an otherwise spoilered thread here...

[Salt-Man Z]

Abyss, on 28 July 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

Just finished ASSAIL.

Spoiler free first post in an otherwise spoilered thread here...

Good to hear you enjoyed it (after Pat's blasting of it.) I just got the notification from Book Depository today that my copy has shipped.

[Abyss]

Salt-Man Z, on 28 July 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Abyss, on 28 July 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

Just finished ASSAIL.

Spoiler free first post in an otherwise spoilered thread here...

Good to hear you enjoyed it (after Pat's blasting of it.) I just got the notification from Book Depository today that my copy has shipped.

I see where Pat was coming from, they're his opinions, very informed opinions at that, and he's more than entitled to them, but he's clearly cold and dead inside a communist a cylon a clone Vladimir Putin from my side of the Malazanfan world, this was a solid and enjoyable book and likely ICE's best.

I hope more forumites agree with me, i guess we'll see.

In any event, when it arrives i hope you (all) enjoy it!

[stone monkey]

Binder of Demons, on 27 July 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Cocoreturns, on 26 July 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

Binder of Demons, on 26 July 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

My only gripe is that Isaac Newton is being used a name/historical figure that is held in high esteem, to tie together science and magic in Britain from a few centuries back. And my problem with that is that Newton was a monumental douchebag, and I don't like seeing him get any props at all.

Who knows, maybe in the book he'll also turn out to have been a dick, who caused all manner of problems for lots of people he didn't like.

Because monumental douchebags can't be brilliant?

Nah, it's just I don't like seeing douchebags getting any more credit than they deserve, especially in a fictional context (which i am reading for enjoyment, and he's spoiling that enjoyment).

To be honest, I'm kind of at a loss about the logic here: in the real world we're very aware that Newton was, at times, a stunningly unpleasant human being, but we also do know he was one of the most brilliant men in the historical record and hold him in the highest esteem for his achievements despite his supremely awful personality. It's not an either/or proposition imo.

I mean, Einstein was a dick to his wife for years, Schrodinger was serially unfaithful to his, Heisenberg was a Nazi collaborator, Lavoisier was a tax collector in Prerevolutionary France (and they were scumbags), Kepler basically looted Tycho Brahe's life's work (almost before the body was cold, because Brahe REALLY didn't want him to have the data he collected)... the list goes on. Geniuses all; not terribly nice guys.

Aaronovitch could have used Robert Hooke (who would have been the smartest man in England, of his day, had Newton not been born), or he could have used Isaac Barrow (Newton's predecessor in the Lucasian Chair, the first person to hold it, and allegedly the man who would have invented the calculus, a generation earlier, had he been able to use the Binomial Theorem). But even to non students of the History of Science Newton bestrides the Enlightenment like a Colossus, so I would argue it's entirely appropriate for him to be given even that fictional prominence for name recognition value alone, never mind his other, more esoteric (nay occult), interests...

btw for another side of Newton, you might want to look at James Gleick's excellent biography of him; especially those parts dealing with his nightmarish childhood, his relationship with his flighty half niece, Catherine Barton, (whom he is supposed to have adored) and also what may have been a doomed affair with Nichalas Fatio de Duiller (which ended in betrayal by Fatio and allegedly left Newton heartbroken and pretty much destroyed mentally, prompting him getting out of the Natural Philosophy business and into his job as Master of the Mint). It's not just as simple as him having been a dick; to quote Ben Goldacre: "It's slightly more complicated than that..."

[amphibian]

Hooke was an even bigger douchebag than Newton.

[QuickTidal]

I dunno about Coco, but my comment about geniuses was a joke.

[Binder of Demons]

Some very good points there by SM, and I'll basically leave it there, but I stand by my earlier comment that while I know Newton was a genius, he was also a spectacular knob, and I just don't like seeing a (seemingly lazy at times) representation of him as Newton the great man in a fictional setting. A personal foible I know, but it follows on for my detesting of bullying and dickish behaviour in real life, which I don't think it should be glossed over regardless of how talented someone is/was. And in these books, it's really just been Newton wasn't he great (so far), and it irks me. I'm sure most other people wouldnt be bothered, but what can i say. Love the rest of the books though so far.

Neal Stephenson did a better job of introducing a fictional version of Newton that was brilliant but flawed in the Baroque Cycle books.