Booknerd

[PeterL22]

Hey - I love detective stories, so don't claim to be inteletuwal . Talking of which any Chandler or "The Maltese Falcon" by Dashiell Hammett are great fun (and pretty short too).

[catalina2]

imagesasfasfa.jpg (13.84 KiB) Viewed 46 times

Dashell Hamment and Raymond Chandler were the greatest. The Maltese Falcon, even as a child, was a great read and the film, in my estimation, better than Casablanca. My favorite of them, however, was The Big Sleep. The film was pretty mangled and tortuous. It was impossible to follow. The book was quite good. It explained that Carmen was a psychotic nymphomaniac who shot Shaun Reagon. She was also being blackmailed by a pornographer, A. Gwen Geiger who was a homosexual loved by a man called Carol who murdered Joe Brody who was a grafter that stole the pornographic photos of Carmen to blackmail her father who had another daughter that gambled too much and was involved in covering up Shawn Reagan's death with the owner of a gambling house, Eddie Mars who also owned the home Geiger was shot in and the bookstore that Geiger owned...............lmfao, well, maybe the book was a little tortuous too. Re The Maltese Falcon. I once stayed at the Washington Hilton in Dupont Circle in D.C., you know, where Hinckley tried to assassinate Reagan. While strolling to the subway I passed a mystery book store and what was in the window: a replica of the Maltese Falcon. Bought it immediately. Which reminds me of a story Jim Baker was prone to repeat. He said "Reagan asked for Hinckley to be released from St. Elizabeth's Hospital. This was at a time when Gaddafi was driving Reagan nuts with all the posturing and sponsorship of terror. Reagan had sent a missile through his tent and that quieted him a bit but he was still being a pain in the ass. When Hinckley walked into the oval office he fawned all over Reagan to thank him for being released. He said if ever there was anything he could do for the President he would. As Hinckley was leaving Reagan said "Oh, btw, here's a photo of a guy that's dating Jodie Foster. (it was a photo of Gaddafi)

[catalina2]

41qew6pJR7L.jpg (25.17 KiB) Viewed 47 times

want to be proud of your country again? read what a Brit writes about the greatest nation on earth and how it was threatened under the last administration.
It takes a Brit to appreciate what we've created in these United States. It takes a Brit to recognize a politician that wants to destroy the individualism that our founding fathers mandated implicitly in our constitution. The socialists, the communists, the democratic socialists, the social justice warriors, the Wesley Mouches of the world, the takers the looters - they are forever at work, forever eroding our freedoms under the guise of egalitarianism. Read Danial Hannon and bath in the warmth that the United States is STILL a beacon to the world, that it was Not destroyed by the Barack Obamas (thank you Danial for the warning). It's a quick read. Even if you hate this country you might listen to one who is not of this country but who loves it.

41qew6pJR7L.jpg (25.17 KiB) Viewed 47 times

[PeterSwede]

Hmm intresting Catalina, i will sheck it out

[PeterL22]

imagesasfasfa.jpg

Dashell Hamment and Raymond Chandler were the greatest. The Maltese Falcon, even as a child, was a great read and the film, in my estimation, better than Casablanca. My favorite of them, however, was The Big Sleep. The film was pretty mangled and tortuous. It was impossible to follow. The book was quite good. It explained that Carmen was a psychotic nymphomaniac who shot Shaun Reagon. She was also being blackmailed by a pornographer, A. Gwen Geiger who was a homosexual loved by a man called Carol who murdered Joe Brody who was a grafter that stole the pornographic photos of Carmen to blackmail her father who had another daughter that gambled too much and was involved in covering up Shawn Reagan's death with the owner of a gambling house, Eddie Mars who also owned the home Geiger was shot in and the bookstore that Geiger owned...............lmfao, well, maybe the book was a little tortuous too. Re The Maltese Falcon. I once stayed at the Washington Hilton in Dupont Circle in D.C., you know, where Hinckley tried to assassinate Reagan. While strolling to the subway I passed a mystery book store and what was in the window: a replica of the Maltese Falcon. Bought it immediately. Which reminds me of a story Jim Baker was prone to repeat. He said "Reagan asked for Hinckley to be released from St. Elizabeth's Hospital. This was at a time when Gaddafi was driving Reagan nuts with all the posturing and sponsorship of terror. Reagan had sent a missile through his tent and that quieted him a bit but he was still being a pain in the ass. When Hinckley walked into the oval office he fawned all over Reagan to thank him for being released. He said if ever there was anything he could do for the President he would. As Hinckley was leaving Reagan said "Oh, btw, here's a photo of a guy that's dating Jodie Foster. (it was a photo of Gaddafi)

You are right about the films catalina, and I have a soft spot for The African Queen too - mind you what's not to like about any Bogart film?!

If you like the Chandler/Hammett genre, here's one for you - a sort of satire set in Wales (Aberystwyth a seaside town that is the back of beyond). A guy called Malcolm Pryce has written a series about a PI called Louie Knight which is a sort of parody of those books - it may not transfer to a US reader but to me, a Welshman its hilarious - titles include (spot the films)
Aberystwyth Mon amour
Last Tango in Aberystwyth
The unbearable Lightness of Being in Aberystwyth
Don't Cry for me Aberystwyth
From Aberystwyth with love
The Day Aberystwyth Stood Still
If you like Chandler's style and want a laugh worth a try!

[catalina2]

well, as it happens, I Do like the Hammett/Chandler series, Peter. Though I have a ton of "wannna read" books I'll keep your author in mind. Especially intriguing is the one entitled "The Day Aberystwyth Stood Still". Is that a movie or a book??
Please, please don't mention The African Queen. First off it's not a Hammett/Chandler piece. A guy named Forrester wrote it. During what was called "reading period" (a two week period before finals at Harvard) the Brattle Theater on Brattle Street ran 24 hour non stop Bogey films of the noir type. The African Queen was far from "Phillip Marlowe" and was NEVER played. Bogey played Bogey and it was the noir films only that were offered as relief from the monotony of studying organic chemistry.

[PeterL22]

well, as it happens, I Do like the Hammett/Chandler series, Peter. Though I have a ton of "wannna read" books I'll keep your author in mind. Especially intriguing is the one entitled "The Day Aberystwyth Stood Still". Is that a movie or a book??
Please, please don't mention The African Queen. First off it's not a Hammett/Chandler piece. A guy named Forrester wrote it. During what was called "reading period" (a two week period before finals at Harvard) the Brattle Theater on Brattle Street ran 24 hour non stop Bogey films of the noir type. The African Queen was far from "Phillip Marlowe" and was NEVER played. Bogey played Bogey and it was the noir films only that were offered as relief from the monotony of studying organic chemistry.

The Day Aberystwyth Stood Still is a book - they all are (no plans for filming).
I know what you are saying about The African Queen, but I do like it!

[catalina2]

indexdssa.jpg (10.92 KiB) Viewed 32 times

In this comprehensive study of the Soviets in Afghanistan and the United States in Viet Nam, Borer articulates what we all intuitively suspected..... with a twist. The only real critique I have is the manner within which the book is structured. It ricochets between the Soviet situations and the US situation with aggravating regularity. It's needless and manages to confuse the reader rather than inform. That aside, this is an excellent exposition on two wars which involved millions upon millions of dead and/or maimed peoples of the world over the course of approximately twenty years plus. Borer chronicles the two most significant wars since the two world wars of the same century. He presents an elaborate history of both countries, i.e. Viet Nam and Afghanistan. While informative and valuable in placing context, it's mostly a regurgitation of what can be found in other books on the subject.
The most fascinating aspect begins with Borer's invocation of Weber's definition of “legitimacy” and social contracts. Basically Weber postulated that whether at the national or international level, legitimacy is granted by the politic based upon charisma, traditional and legal means. An example of charisma granting legitimacy one can look to Barack Obama. Traditional legitimacy is based upon what has been accepted in the past by the body politic, the Queen would be an example. Legal legitimacy would be the President of the united states, i.e. derives his power from the constitution. It's quite obvious if a national leader or international leader possessed all of these aspects of legitimacy he would be capable of ruling any nation he wished, possibly the world. We've never experienced and hopefully never will see a person or nation achieve this ephemeral trifecta.
The political legitimacy of the Afghan government has been primarily one of tradition. The tradition of being the most conquered nation in the world. ( j/k but true) First it was the Persians, then Greeks, Huns, Kushans, Mongols and most recently the British, Russians and the United States. The incontrovertible explanation for all these conquests and subsequent failures is a matter of geography and a unified national polity which never arose because of the mosaic of language, culture, peoples and customs. Islam was the cross cultural leveler of this complex national character. To this date the structure of Afghanistan is feudal in nature based primarily on the patriarchal aspects of Islam. Political legitimacy existed nationally only on a marginal level. The Anglo-Afghan war was the most humiliating defeat of British history and was emblematic of the failure to be repeated by every subsequent superpower.
Viet Nam had, for the most part, a coherent national identity. It was not bound by a fanatical religion, but by charismatic leaders and “legal” leaders. It's history consisted primarily of a raging conflict with China which constantly attempted to appropriate its territory. The Viet Namese skillfully played one power against the other for decades ( e.g. the French and Chinese).
Both of these countries, between world wars, sought international recognition of their Independence from colonial powers. The Afghans from the British in the Treaty of Ralwapindi, the Viet Namese from the French and later Japanese by the efforts of Ho Chi Min. The Bolsheviks recognized the desire of the Muslim nations for Independence but wanted to impose communism upon them . They believed, to their detriment, that it would be as successful as it had been in Russia. So began the soviet/afghan relationship. Stalin attempted control over the “oppressed “ Muslims by favoring the more moderate ones (read corrupt) in Moscow. Islamic nationalism was crushed by brute force. The afghan king Amanullah's son came to power and played the British against the Russians. The Comintern (the communist international party) began to fight pan Islamism by exploiting dissent in lower classes and aggravating dissent against capitalism (as it was attempting to do across the globe including the USA), Nadir Kahn next arose to power by not antagonizing the clans and using the support of Russia. During this entire period (after the WWI, between WWI and WWII and afterwards, the USA basically ignored Afghanistan. This was understandable as it was geographically legitimately a “satellite” of Russia, a buffer against Pakistan, India, Iran and China. It had no real strategic value as did Viet Nam and Korea as buffers for the US against the advance of communism.
It would be well to stop at this point and reinforce the concept of how imperialist ideological doctrine impacted geopolitical decision making and how geopolitical rivalry manifested itself locally in the polity and political legitimacy,e.g.the Russians and Brits fought over Afghanistan trying to supplant the indigenous leaders. The French and Chinese over Vietnam by forcing Bo Dai by the French as prime minister of Viet Nam and by the Chinese and Russian support of Ho Chi Min and the Viet Minh. Also, it must be kept in mind that prior to WWII it was the Europeans who were the hegemonic powers in the world. After WWII there were only essentially two (excluding China until the later part of the century) Russia and America. Since both were operating under the doctrine of MAD, they, of necessity were compelled to carry out their struggles through proxies or surrogates. Hence, the conflict in Viet Nam and Afghanistan (we could include Korea but this is a book comparing Viet Nam and Afghanistan,i.e. the Russians and the USA, not China).
It is singularly unique to appreciate that 1956 was a seminal year. In that year, the Russians became seriously involved in Afghanistan and the United States became increasingly involved in Viet Nam. The USA involvement in Viet Nam was a consequence of George Kennen's thesis that we “contain” communism,i.e. The Domino Theory. The Russians, using the Warsaw pact nations as we used SEATO, were operating under Brezhnev's theory that “once a country is socialist, it must always be socialist” (directly the opposite of Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost). Brezhnev and Kennan were both disastrously wrong. As for Kennan, Realpolitik is NOT a zero sum game. As for Brezhnev, you cannot control the will of the people All of the time.
To continue, Brezhnev used brutal force to suppress the Afghans. It can be argued WE used brutal force in Viet Nam. Both approaches failed because of the nature of the indigenous population or polity. The Afghans were Muslim. The Viet Namese north were nationalists. In Afghanistan the primary fighters were the Mujaheddin, which means Jihadist's. In Viet Nam they were called Viet Minh,NLF and NVA in the north and the ARVN and Viet Cong in the south. In Viet Nam it was essentially a civil war. In Afghanistan it was the principle that a foreign invader often unites the internecine fighting of the indigent population,i.e. there was Always a civil war in Afghanistan.
So what happened in the respective nations, Afghanistan and Viet Nam. Book upon book has been written on both these subjects. Let me summarize, in Viet Nam there were two Indochina wars lost first by the French at Dienbeinphu and then by the Americans at Tet. At least the French knew what the hell they were doing. They wanted victory and a colony back. We, on the other hand, had no interest in acquiring Viet Nam we just wanted to “attrit” the enemy (McNamara's moronic theory) and “stop the advance of communism in Southeast Asia). We very wrongly thought communism was monolithic which it most certainly is not. We left because of increasing domestic sentiment against the war and the soviets lost by simply redefining the problem, i.e. Gorbachev's Perestroika turned the mujaheddin into an internal opposition force and not external invader imperialist bandits – he redefined the reason to be there. The United States overcame the Viet Nam stigma (somewhat) with the First Gulf War whereas in the Soviet Union the very nature of Perestroika and Glasnost allowed the Russian satellite countries to each revolt. They each established their own home rule from Latvia to Poland to Chechnya. Contrary to the movie “Charlie's War”, one simpleminded congressman did Not defeat the communists. It would have happened if we did Nothing. The Russians would have been bled dry financially and by the growing nationalism within the USSR. In fact, it can be argued that by injecting ourselves into that conflict we encouraged the development of the Taliban, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS. The fact that we didn't “nation build” was the reason for what became of Afghanistan is pure liberal horseshit promulgated by the astounding ignorance of the left re historical facts.
Borer concludes – “whenever a superpower does not have legitimacy and imposes itself on the proxy the proxy combine against it, then fight among themselves afterwards. There is no national unity in Afghanistan. There is unity in Viet Nam. The Viet Nam war fell because of the illegitimacy and lies of the USA and Afghanistan fell because of Gorbachev and his doctrines. Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union and Viet Nam made citizens skeptical of government.” So then, whenever someone states “Afghanistan was the Viet Nam of the USSR” well, in some respects, but in most – it was NOT and the comparison is flawed on a very basic level.
One more chilling thought “wars without politics are murder on a grand level and these wars had no end game”. What were the politics of the wars (Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria) under Obama? What were the end games? Was it really “all Bushes fault”?

Peter, I highly recommend this book. If you're unable to secure it for some reason I'll be posting about more books re the Viet Nam war, e.g. ABOUT FACE by David Hackworth :Colonel Hackworth lied to enlist in the Army at 15 and won a battlefield commission at 20 to become the Korean War's youngest captain. He was America's youngest full colonel in Vietnam, and won a total of 91 medals, including two Distinguished Service Crosses, 10 Silver Stars, 8 Bronze Stars and 8 Purple Hearts.

[PeterSwede]

I dont know which Peter you are recomend it to, But Thanks anyway.

[PeterL22]

indexdssa.jpg

In this comprehensive study of the Soviets in Afghanistan and the United States in Viet Nam, Borer articulates what we all intuitively suspected..... with a twist. The only real critique I have is the manner within which the book is structured. It ricochets between the Soviet situations and the US situation with aggravating regularity. It's needless and manages to confuse the reader rather than inform. That aside, this is an excellent exposition on two wars which involved millions upon millions of dead and/or maimed peoples of the world over the course of approximately twenty years plus. Borer chronicles the two most significant wars since the two world wars of the same century. He presents an elaborate history of both countries, i.e. Viet Nam and Afghanistan. While informative and valuable in placing context, it's mostly a regurgitation of what can be found in other books on the subject.
The most fascinating aspect begins with Borer's invocation of Weber's definition of “legitimacy” and social contracts. Basically Weber postulated that whether at the national or international level, legitimacy is granted by the politic based upon charisma, traditional and legal means. An example of charisma granting legitimacy one can look to Barack Obama. Traditional legitimacy is based upon what has been accepted in the past by the body politic, the Queen would be an example. Legal legitimacy would be the President of the united states, i.e. derives his power from the constitution. It's quite obvious if a national leader or international leader possessed all of these aspects of legitimacy he would be capable of ruling any nation he wished, possibly the world. We've never experienced and hopefully never will see a person or nation achieve this ephemeral trifecta.
The political legitimacy of the Afghan government has been primarily one of tradition. The tradition of being the most conquered nation in the world. ( j/k but true) First it was the Persians, then Greeks, Huns, Kushans, Mongols and most recently the British, Russians and the United States. The incontrovertible explanation for all these conquests and subsequent failures is a matter of geography and a unified national polity which never arose because of the mosaic of language, culture, peoples and customs. Islam was the cross cultural leveler of this complex national character. To this date the structure of Afghanistan is feudal in nature based primarily on the patriarchal aspects of Islam. Political legitimacy existed nationally only on a marginal level. The Anglo-Afghan war was the most humiliating defeat of British history and was emblematic of the failure to be repeated by every subsequent superpower.
Viet Nam had, for the most part, a coherent national identity. It was not bound by a fanatical religion, but by charismatic leaders and “legal” leaders. It's history consisted primarily of a raging conflict with China which constantly attempted to appropriate its territory. The Viet Namese skillfully played one power against the other for decades ( e.g. the French and Chinese).
Both of these countries, between world wars, sought international recognition of their Independence from colonial powers. The Afghans from the British in the Treaty of Ralwapindi, the Viet Namese from the French and later Japanese by the efforts of Ho Chi Min. The Bolsheviks recognized the desire of the Muslim nations for Independence but wanted to impose communism upon them . They believed, to their detriment, that it would be as successful as it had been in Russia. So began the soviet/afghan relationship. Stalin attempted control over the “oppressed “ Muslims by favoring the more moderate ones (read corrupt) in Moscow. Islamic nationalism was crushed by brute force. The afghan king Amanullah's son came to power and played the British against the Russians. The Comintern (the communist international party) began to fight pan Islamism by exploiting dissent in lower classes and aggravating dissent against capitalism (as it was attempting to do across the globe including the USA), Nadir Kahn next arose to power by not antagonizing the clans and using the support of Russia. During this entire period (after the WWI, between WWI and WWII and afterwards, the USA basically ignored Afghanistan. This was understandable as it was geographically legitimately a “satellite” of Russia, a buffer against Pakistan, India, Iran and China. It had no real strategic value as did Viet Nam and Korea as buffers for the US against the advance of communism.
It would be well to stop at this point and reinforce the concept of how imperialist ideological doctrine impacted geopolitical decision making and how geopolitical rivalry manifested itself locally in the polity and political legitimacy,e.g.the Russians and Brits fought over Afghanistan trying to supplant the indigenous leaders. The French and Chinese over Vietnam by forcing Bo Dai by the French as prime minister of Viet Nam and by the Chinese and Russian support of Ho Chi Min and the Viet Minh. Also, it must be kept in mind that prior to WWII it was the Europeans who were the hegemonic powers in the world. After WWII there were only essentially two (excluding China until the later part of the century) Russia and America. Since both were operating under the doctrine of MAD, they, of necessity were compelled to carry out their struggles through proxies or surrogates. Hence, the conflict in Viet Nam and Afghanistan (we could include Korea but this is a book comparing Viet Nam and Afghanistan,i.e. the Russians and the USA, not China).
It is singularly unique to appreciate that 1956 was a seminal year. In that year, the Russians became seriously involved in Afghanistan and the United States became increasingly involved in Viet Nam. The USA involvement in Viet Nam was a consequence of George Kennen's thesis that we “contain” communism,i.e. The Domino Theory. The Russians, using the Warsaw pact nations as we used SEATO, were operating under Brezhnev's theory that “once a country is socialist, it must always be socialist” (directly the opposite of Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost). Brezhnev and Kennan were both disastrously wrong. As for Kennan, Realpolitik is NOT a zero sum game. As for Brezhnev, you cannot control the will of the people All of the time.
To continue, Brezhnev used brutal force to suppress the Afghans. It can be argued WE used brutal force in Viet Nam. Both approaches failed because of the nature of the indigenous population or polity. The Afghans were Muslim. The Viet Namese north were nationalists. In Afghanistan the primary fighters were the Mujaheddin, which means Jihadist's. In Viet Nam they were called Viet Minh,NLF and NVA in the north and the ARVN and Viet Cong in the south. In Viet Nam it was essentially a civil war. In Afghanistan it was the principle that a foreign invader often unites the internecine fighting of the indigent population,i.e. there was Always a civil war in Afghanistan.
So what happened in the respective nations, Afghanistan and Viet Nam. Book upon book has been written on both these subjects. Let me summarize, in Viet Nam there were two Indochina wars lost first by the French at Dienbeinphu and then by the Americans at Tet. At least the French knew what the hell they were doing. They wanted victory and a colony back. We, on the other hand, had no interest in acquiring Viet Nam we just wanted to “attrit” the enemy (McNamara's moronic theory) and “stop the advance of communism in Southeast Asia). We very wrongly thought communism was monolithic which it most certainly is not. We left because of increasing domestic sentiment against the war and the soviets lost by simply redefining the problem, i.e. Gorbachev's Perestroika turned the mujaheddin into an internal opposition force and not external invader imperialist bandits – he redefined the reason to be there. The United States overcame the Viet Nam stigma (somewhat) with the First Gulf War whereas in the Soviet Union the very nature of Perestroika and Glasnost allowed the Russian satellite countries to each revolt. They each established their own home rule from Latvia to Poland to Chechnya. Contrary to the movie “Charlie's War”, one simpleminded congressman did Not defeat the communists. It would have happened if we did Nothing. The Russians would have been bled dry financially and by the growing nationalism within the USSR. In fact, it can be argued that by injecting ourselves into that conflict we encouraged the development of the Taliban, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS. The fact that we didn't “nation build” was the reason for what became of Afghanistan is pure liberal horseshit promulgated by the astounding ignorance of the left re historical facts.
Borer concludes – “whenever a superpower does not have legitimacy and imposes itself on the proxy the proxy combine against it, then fight among themselves afterwards. There is no national unity in Afghanistan. There is unity in Viet Nam. The Viet Nam war fell because of the illegitimacy and lies of the USA and Afghanistan fell because of Gorbachev and his doctrines. Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union and Viet Nam made citizens skeptical of government.” So then, whenever someone states “Afghanistan was the Viet Nam of the USSR” well, in some respects, but in most – it was NOT and the comparison is flawed on a very basic level.
One more chilling thought “wars without politics are murder on a grand level and these wars had no end game”. What were the politics of the wars (Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria) under Obama? What were the end games? Was it really “all Bushes fault”?

Peter, I highly recommend this book. If you're unable to secure it for some reason I'll be posting about more books re the Viet Nam war, e.g. ABOUT FACE by David Hackworth :Colonel Hackworth lied to enlist in the Army at 15 and won a battlefield commission at 20 to become the Korean War's youngest captain. He was America's youngest full colonel in Vietnam, and won a total of 91 medals, including two Distinguished Service Crosses, 10 Silver Stars, 8 Bronze Stars and 8 Purple Hearts.

Catalina - thanks. You have reawakened my interest in Non-fiction. Both Vietnam and (especially) Afghanistan demonstrate that military power doesn't always win in the long term. I will get it in my (large) pile of books to read.
By the way my copy of "Infidel" just arrived with the postman in the last 15 mins.
I'll try and come up with some reasonable recommendations in exchange!

[catalina2]

5113vq5o-WL._SX340_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (35.79 KiB) Viewed 28 times

Hi again. Pete. I KNOW you will “enjoy” Infidel. It will infuriate you. Keep in mind not One person has denied the truth of her recantation of events. She is a heroine of the first order. Can you believe Brandeis, an essentially Jewish school (every Jew goes to Brandeis if they can't get into Harvard), first invited then dis-invited her and reneged on the honorary degree they were to confer upon her?!
On to today's book. The was Ben's first attempt at writing. I say Ben because I met him years ago. He was trying to get background material for this book as he was not a pre-med student. Yes, he wrote this just after graduation. He graduated magna in Social Relations which is kind of a joke at Harvard, but Ben is a smart guy. For a first book it's ok. There are a ton of factual mistakes. He takes on medicine fearlessly but has little knowledge of it. The book is a mystery/sci fi of the Chrichton genre. It starts out dramatically with the secretary of state presenting a speech. During the speech he begins to tear at the flesh of his face until he dies. That's the way the book begins. From then on it's a thriller between the bad guys developing various virus's the government connection and of course, protesters. It was in this book that I first found out what a vegan was. I thought he had made up the term. When I discovered there Were people like this I was astonished. In his subsequent works he deals with primarily semi-fiction. Reaper in which Robert Wagner was the protagonist manged to become a successful teleplay. He also wrote Bringing Down The House and Accidental Millionaires. Bringing down the house was a also a movie about several MIT students developing a system to beat Vegas. It was based upon a true story. Accidental Millionaires is about FaceBook and its disparate founders. Yes, there was quite a scandal about how FaceBook was founded and who had the original concept. As you can see, he stayed in Boston and researched most of his books in the surrounding schools.
They're pretty good reads but my preference was Michael Crichton whom I thought was a genius. He graduated Harvard unergrad and Harvard Med and wrote his first book while in Med school. This guy was amazing. More on Chrichton later.
I have to admit that when the topic turns to mystery novels I tend to prefer the medical mysteries understandably. I have many I'll review for you here as time progresses. I'm sure you'll find one you'll like. I'll give you my preferences. I recommend Ben's first book precisely because it's his first book. You will be able to follow his writing maturity in subsequent books. Always a fun thing to do.

[PeterSwede]

[PeterSwede]

This is Another book, very exciting and easyreading, about a family that doesnt feel very close to God. They dont have any kind of luck, the wife in the family is on the line of mental sick. Their children is getting often sick. But then one day they start to pray and reading the bible and it all getting in to brightness in the family.

[hennar2017]

Another book on that line is "The Shack". It has been made into a movie and I think it is out on Amazon Prime, don't know if it is on Netflix yet. Very thought provoking but you must remember it is fiction. Short summary: It is about a family whose little girl was taken while they were camping and how the father is dealing with the tragedy. He gets a mysterious letter in his mailbox telling him he must go back to the shack where it all took place. I have read this book twice because there is beauty in his story. I want to see the movie also.

[PeterSwede]

From books to films, Netflix has alot of good movies and series. I follow a serie name Outlander. About a british beautiful woman that is living right after the end of worldwar 2 and getting back in time to Scotland 1746. Its good series. It has two seasons and a third is on the way. Its origionally actually from a book by the fantasy author Diana Gabaldon.

[hotjulie]

I'm with Hennar, this is way over my head, so much for another one of my favorites "Where The Wild Things Are"

[PeterSwede]

Yea The Shack seems to be a really good movie. I think Im gonna watch it when it comes out to the cinemas. Its also really good actors.

[hennar2017]

Peter Swede, I checked and The Shack is on Amazon Prime but you have to pay a rental fee. I think I will wait until it comes out on Netflix since I have read the book. I am anxious to see how the movie interpreted the book! I have read the Outlander series. A very good series, I think there were 3 or 4 volumes, I can't remember cause it was a long time ago when I read them. Don't worry Julie, there are plenty of books out there that don't require so much in depth thought!(which is for me) lol What do you like to read?

[PeterL22]

Hey Catalina - just started Infidel - let you know what I think later.

If you want a funny/thought-provoking book on modern medicine and what it does to its young trainees (but I am willing to bet you have read it) is Samuel Shem's "House of God".
The Fat Man in that is a kind of hero of mine and although it has lots of (fairly coarse) humour it does make you think. His follow-up book about psychiatry "Mount Misery" is also a good read. I don't know of any equivalent books set in the UK - there are comedies that are quite good, notably Colin Douglas's "The Houseman's Tale" which is set in Edinburgh in early 1960s about a newly graduated doc and his experiences (and also how he gets, but survives Hep C), but apart from the bit where he's ill its really just a comedy. Very light but dated reading.

[catalina2]

indexdsss.jpg (9.11 KiB) Viewed 7 times

This book is most certainly unique, Peter. I write about it with some degree of ambivalence. The reviews, while mostly positive, substantiate my impression. I don't know that I'd recommend this book to someone completely removed from medicine. Some parts of it, many parts of it would seem macabre and cynical to the average person. I started out liking the protagonist, Roy Basch, but as I read further I began to detest him. The best character in the book is “Fats” or fat man. His narration of how to use the hospital bed is hilarious and, to some extent, very true. He's the one who defines what a “gomer” is (get out of my emergency room” with the female counterpart the “gomere”. “Turfing”, “Buffing” and “bouncers” are described in detail. I won't define them here so as to not disillusion the reader re the practice of medicine in a large institution (Hospital).
It seems the author and I underwent very different experiences as interns. Perhaps he should have completed a surgical internship rather that one in medicine. I say this because of his melodramatic descriptions of life/death situations in the hospital. To be sure, losing a patient because of your best efforts (or worse as the book describes) is traumatic. Does every doc expect his patients to miraculously survive his efforts?! There is a very tragic scene described where an old physician returns to the hospital with terminable cancer and painfully dies in Roy's arms. This is a savagely written scene that brings the question of euthanasia. No, he doesn't offer to his friend but does so later on in the text to another suffering patient. He details how many patients suffer from the “care” of the doctors and who's conditions worsen after their (the docs) efforts. I've seen this myself so it IS true. Docs are human and they do make mistakes,sometimes inexcusable ones. He describes how LOL in NAD (little old ladies in no apparent distress) are often over treated and succumb to the well intentioned care of the staff. In one instance a LOLNAD is admitted and subjected to a dementia work up. She had various skull films taken but the dye used cashes her kidneys, the study of her kidneys overworked her heart, the heart med made her vomit, which threw off her electrolytes which increased her dementia and caused bowel problems for which she was given a “bowel run” which dehydrated her further and shut down her kidneys so she ended up on dialysis which led to an infection and convulsions and then complete stillness as she slowly expired. I've seen similar events that cascaded out of control to the detriment of the patient, all well intentioned of course.
His description of a “large breasted girl guiding us through the maze of paperwork” at the initiation of his internship, her admonition re the parking situation and her caution re the gangs that brought bolt cutters to steal bicycles implies that the hospital was one in New York where such things are commonplace. He describes the “Straight Bendover Nursing Maneuver” which is used to display the nurse's ass at its most attractive. There are many sex scenes which was new to me as I was a MOR (marriage on the rocks) when I was an intern. Apparently the author's experience was something like a Lothario in a house of disrepute or as in the movie TOM JONES. Nurses were “accommodating” but not to the extent he describes in lurid detail. He continues to describe the women of the social cervix (social services) and what their characters are. We are also introduced to the “slurpers” (ass-kissers) and privates of the hospital staff. One of the most hilarious descriptions is that of the gastroenterologist who can establish the dx of steathorrheac malabsorption, bowel carcinoma, superior mesenteric insufficiency giving rise to ischemia and diarrhea and lastly long standing gas passing a fecal impaction. All of these can be dx by the olfactory nerves and flatulence.
As the book gets blacker with sarcasm and attempts at humor it mercifully ends with our “hero” protagonist selecting between the NPC (no patient care) specialties, gas (anesthesia), rays (radiology), pathology, dermatology, ophthalmology and psychiatry. No surprise to me he selects psychiatry.
In summary, the book purports to demonstrate the humanity of the patients and the doctors/staff treating them. My impression was that it was written by a naval gazing liberal not suited to medicine but to psychology/psychiatry. In the end I was exculpated as he DID end up as a shrink. Do I recommend this book? Yes, sort of. It's not your everyday read that's for damn sure.
I would sure like to have some input from Dr. Dave on this one.