Thanks for sharing your impressions of each book. All too often people will drop a list without providing any context for what the books actually meant to them, or what they did and didn't like. I've been curious about a few of these, so this was really useful info.
I see that you include two books that were very important for me, in my youth, Pedro Paramo en the invention of Morel. But you didn’t comment. BTW I fully agree with both your assessment of Lord of the flies (dull!) and the suspicion that classic English literature, Austen in particular is a bit too tidy (very remarkable when she offers detailed accounts of how much money each of the main characters has). Thanks for your nice post!
I liked them both. I think I need to read Pedro Paramo again, to be honest—it seemed like the sort of book you would appreciate even more second time round. The Invention of Morel—with this sort of book it’s hard to manage the bit where you reveal what is going on. He did it quite well but I always enjoy the mystery more than the reveal. It’s very clever—I can see why Borges was such a big fan.
I wonder if you have read "Chronicle of an announced death" by Gabriel García Márquez. He starts the novel killing the mistery (El día en que lo iban a matar, Santiago Nasar se levantó a las 5.30 de la mañana para esperar el buque en que llegaba el obispo.) and yet the reader somehow hopes that the announced death never happens. It's a truly masterpiece. Another masterpiece, and very short, "No one writes to the Colonel". I thing both novels are in the same literary heigth than 100 years of solitude, and probably aging better.
One of my favorites is Thomas Hardy, don't know how familiar you are with his novels. He has beautiful descriptions of the collapse of traditional society (not to say he has answers, necessarily...) and I don't think your disdain for English novels would apply to his work.
If you ever read Oliver Traldi's recent Introduction to Political Beliefs, kind of curious about that one too as it seems to be the only other political epistemology intro.
I started it but got distracted by something else. Based on what I read, it assumes less background knowledge, so is more of a genuine introduction. I found the chapters annoyingly short, though I appreciated the fact that it was opinionated.
Thanks! Yeah, sounds like it would be more heterodox in its approach. That's always an interesting question about how opinionated an intro should be, and what makes that more or less successful.
Thanks for sharing your impressions of each book. All too often people will drop a list without providing any context for what the books actually meant to them, or what they did and didn't like. I've been curious about a few of these, so this was really useful info.
Yes that annoys me too. Hope you enjoy some of these.
I see that you include two books that were very important for me, in my youth, Pedro Paramo en the invention of Morel. But you didn’t comment. BTW I fully agree with both your assessment of Lord of the flies (dull!) and the suspicion that classic English literature, Austen in particular is a bit too tidy (very remarkable when she offers detailed accounts of how much money each of the main characters has). Thanks for your nice post!
I liked them both. I think I need to read Pedro Paramo again, to be honest—it seemed like the sort of book you would appreciate even more second time round. The Invention of Morel—with this sort of book it’s hard to manage the bit where you reveal what is going on. He did it quite well but I always enjoy the mystery more than the reveal. It’s very clever—I can see why Borges was such a big fan.
I wonder if you have read "Chronicle of an announced death" by Gabriel García Márquez. He starts the novel killing the mistery (El día en que lo iban a matar, Santiago Nasar se levantó a las 5.30 de la mañana para esperar el buque en que llegaba el obispo.) and yet the reader somehow hopes that the announced death never happens. It's a truly masterpiece. Another masterpiece, and very short, "No one writes to the Colonel". I thing both novels are in the same literary heigth than 100 years of solitude, and probably aging better.
Oh I’ll take a look at them. The last of his I read was Autumn of the Patriarch, which I enjoyed in theory but in practice found very tough going.
One of my favorites is Thomas Hardy, don't know how familiar you are with his novels. He has beautiful descriptions of the collapse of traditional society (not to say he has answers, necessarily...) and I don't think your disdain for English novels would apply to his work.
Yes I’m a fan, at least of the ones I’ve read.
If you ever read Oliver Traldi's recent Introduction to Political Beliefs, kind of curious about that one too as it seems to be the only other political epistemology intro.
I started it but got distracted by something else. Based on what I read, it assumes less background knowledge, so is more of a genuine introduction. I found the chapters annoyingly short, though I appreciated the fact that it was opinionated.
Thanks! Yeah, sounds like it would be more heterodox in its approach. That's always an interesting question about how opinionated an intro should be, and what makes that more or less successful.
I’ve read two novels and one nonfiction book in 2025, giving up on about twice that total 😳
You’ve got more and better hot takes than me so it all evens out.
Reading novels counts as much as hot takes now?
According to some on Substack reading more will prevent the decline of the west.