What did you just read?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick

I think this book created a new category in my mind; books that as good as their movie adaptions but for entirely different reasons.

I would recommend it to anyone who likes speculative science fiction.

Lasalle - the Hussar General: the Life and Times of Napoleon's Finest Commander of Light Cavalry 1775-1809 by John H. Lewis

I have a penchant for Napoleonic history, specifically from the perspective of the footsoldiers - the grunts. Too often historians tend to focus on kings and generals. This book (or at least the first half of it) focuses on a young man named Charles Lasalle.

Born into a minor noble family with a long history of soldiering, Lasalle began his military career at the age of 12. He grew into what can only be described as a Napoleonic Rock Star. He lived for the thrill of combat, and could be described as a dandy (he was a hussar after all). But also felt a deep loyalty towards his comrades.

The author succeeds in developing a well-rounded portrait of this officer. The first half of the book excels in this. But in the second half the author seems to become far more engrossed in the campaigns of Napoleon, rather than the actions of Lasalle within those specific campaigns. He picks up the slack in the last quarter, though, when Lasalle marches off to his doom at the field of Wagram.

Would I recommend it? I would if you want to peer into the mind of a human being that was addicted to the crack-cocaine of the Napoleonic Era; a saber fight on horseback.

11-22-63. Was mostly bored. Like half of it was the main character trying to woo some chick in 1950s small town America. Would be hard for me to find a topic I find less interesting.

A Great and Terrible King by Marc Morris

Details the life of Edward I also known as Longshanks, or the Hammer of the Scots. An amazing history book for two reasons; it is easy to follow, and the author tells a great story. I also enjoyed the concise way in which he describes English feudalism in the 1200s. I had no idea how complicated and decentralized it was. For example, there is one part in the book where Edward rides off to Wales to put down a rebellion. It takes about a year, and when he is done he returns to his court at Windsor. As soon as he is gone his borderlords start bickering with each other. How do they do this? They send armed gangs of men to the house of the other with the intention of burning it down. The book is filled with these little scenes and tidbits that make it such a fascinating read. I felt like I was visiting another world.

I found this book to be absolutely amazing and when I finished I went to amazon and bought another one by this fellow, this one about the Norman conquest.

Marengo and Hohenlinden: Napoleon's Rise to Power by James R. Arnold

Whenever you read about the Napoleon's coup it's always described as, "And then he took power." You rarely hear about the other two guys who selected Napoleon to be the poster boy of the coup, but were then pushed aside by his strong personality. This book helps elucidate some of those foggier moments of the end of first republic. All in all, I think it does an amazing job of outlining how Napoleon rose from a popular general to the First Consul of a republic that was no longer a republic. A dictator all but in name. Where this book fails is in the battle scenes. The author does a good job of leading you up to the very field of the battle, but then gets lost in the minutes. The names of both unit commanders and the specific geographically over which they fought all blended together. But as soon as the battle is over we're back into the good stuff; personality conflicts between the different generals (on both the French and Austrian side).

I have to say that I learned some very interesting things about 18-19th century warfare from this book. I'll try to be concise; Napoleonic warfare was less about destroying the enemy, than it was about scaring the enemy into running away before you got too scared and had to run away. It was, in effect, all a game of intimidation. In order to win this game soldiers were often dressed in gallant uniforms with tall hats or plumes. They would march with banners decorated with battle honors. Infantry would fire in mass to create a thunderous atmosphere, cavalry would threaten from the flanks as cannonballs whistled overhead. All together it created a frightening atmosphere for the common foot-soldier. With that in mind it makes sense that in the beginning of the book Napoleon stresses that marksmanship is not an important quality for a soldier, only discipline.

Another interesting thing I learned was the difference between the French and Austrian armies of this time. Kaiser Franz was a real paranoid guy, and routinely dismissed charismatic and successful generals from his service. This led the Austrian Army to be stocked with a bunch of old men who never made waves. On the other side, the French Army had been purged by the Terror. Many of the officers were young guys (almost all of them were in their twenties, I believe the oldest in the Italian campaign was 35 or 37). This led to a meeting of two different armies; one led by young guys who could think on their feet and the other being led by old men who had been trained to await orders whenever something on the battlefield changed. Seeing the results of Marengo and Hohenlinden, you can come to the conclusion of which system turned out to be the most effective.

Ukerric said:

At the moment, bingeing on a few history books:

Napoleon the Great, a general biography of said by Andrew Roberts, which is very great, follows the man with all of its genius and pettiness. Probably a more general (pun not intended) than above.

India: A history on the topic of the second largest nation of today's world, soon to be the first (someone said a few years ago that "the most typical man on Earth until around 2025 should be a chinese rural man working in rice paddies... after that, it has to be an indian peasant working in the same type of fields.").

And finally, speaking of said: China's Last Empire, a concise summary of all the aspects of the Qing Manchu Dynasty, which ended in 1912 (if you've ever watched The Last Emperor movie, that's the last of the Qing, after a century and a half of slow decay and failure)

Click to expand...

I've read that book on India. It's been a while, but I remember being happy with it, and particularly with its balance of time periods covered. I've found that these sorts of overarching national histories can sometimes fall into the trap of over-devoting word count to modern history--if I buy a book on a 4,000-year-old civilization, I don't want a full third of the book to be talking about the last 50 years. The author did a good job making sure that each time period got its fair share of the book.

The author, John Keay, also has a book on China of a similar quality.

The Initiate Brother by Sean Russell. Honestly picked this one up on a whim because I liked the cover art. It's an Asian-themed fantasy story set in a fictional hodgepodge of Chinese and Japanese cultural elements. The titular character is a Shaolin-style (or DnD-style, for that matter) monk sent to serve as the spiritual advisor to one of the most powerful nobles in the not-Chinese empire; and due to that noble's power, he is perceived by the emperor as a threat to his rule. Hijinks ensue. With the main character being a monk, I was expecting this to be Kung Fu Fighting Adventures--and that does show up a little--but it ended up being much more focused on political intrigue than I was expecting. Even so, I ended up liking it, and by the way the book ended, it seems like the next book may be more action-focused (the book I got has both stories in a single volume, but I've only read the first so far).

All said, not bad if you're looking for a fantasy story that isn't so focused on the usual European cultures and mythos.

Just finished Imaginary Friends by Stephen Chbosky. It's pretty good. I didn't care for the ending too much. It's like if a fan of Stephen King was tasked with writing a Stephen King book. I don't know how to explain my issues with the ending without spoiling. It was ok though, lots of interesting imagery to get across some more commonly used imagery. Written by the same guy who did The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which I never read but remember liking the movie.

I will say this about the book:
I also did my semi-annual attempt to get through Anathem. I love Neal Stephenson but jesus christ. Made it further this time though.

Not sure what to get into next. I've still got a couple of LeGuin books to get through before I'm just out of new content. Thinking about picking up Children of Time and Chidlren of Ruin from Adrian Tchaikovsky.

Children of Time was very interesting, I enjoyed the themes it played with, but I was shocked when I learned about how many awards/accolades it had received. Still a good read, though.