Score
Title
208
The /r/books book club pick for September/October is Earthcore by Scott Sigler!
17
Weekly FAQ Thread September 24 2017: How do you discover new books?
15961
J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' Still Matters 80 Years Later
1044
Stephen King's 'It' and the fear of polio: a theory
3159
Red Rising is making me a remember why reading is so great.
273
“Humiliating”: Inside The Latest Controversy To Roil The New York Times
5
Ever read a book that was so on point that it scared you!?
172
How Books Designed for Soldiers’ Pockets Changed Publishing Forever
19
[Spoilers] The Lies of Locke Lakota by Scott Lynch
4
I know I'll get heck for this one... Jack Kerouac overrated?
3
My Roommate Got Weird Books in the Mail
5
Adaptations
4
Autonomous is a sharp thriller about robotic freedom and patent piracy
7
What does it mean when a book has no number line?
4
I can't focus when I read anymore.
6
Is Kindle Bad For My Eyes?
182
What are some of your weird reading habits?
17850
J K Rowling’s reply to my fan letter from 1998 has been published in a series called ‘Letters of Note’
1
Does any one else think that liking Infinite Jest is halfway between an intellectual pissing contest, and a massive circle jerk?
16
Eli Finkel and Mark Regnerus on How Romance in America Has Changed
4
Who knew there was a "lost" Truman Capote book? Insane!
1
A Court of Thorns and Roses readers (Sarah J. Maas)
2
Looking for a great ebook/PDF reader for a windows tablet.
10
What are the books that you know you could never get rid of? These are the ones that stay on the bookshelf just to remind you of how much you love them?
0
How do you decide which stories to read in a short story collection
21
An eye-opening history of chicken dinners and antibiotic resistance
1
I've started reading 'The Shining,' and I'm noticing some striking similarities
0
Where can I get unabridged books?
1
Wanting to start a book club, but don’t know where to begin.
5
Is "RedShirts" by John Scalzi really that funny?
72
Inside the creepy, sleazy, campy world of '70s horror books Paperbacks from Hell
4
Great books to fall for now that summer’s over
7
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", "History of Civilisation" - worth the investment?
6
About to commit to "Murder"
5
So I just finished Lorien Legacies (the I Am Number Four Series)
2
Was anyone else mostly unaffected by the Brothers Karamazov?
1
My friend claims that book most book series tend to get poorer if they have five or more books.
5
Questions regarding Brief History of Seven Killings
2
Upcoming AMAs for Sep 24 - Oct 08: Lauren Oliver, Kaira Rouda, Eric Flint & Alistair Kimble, Amulya Malladi, David Wong
5
Jane Austin, Pride and Prejudice: Weird thing with the shire
4
What do you get from reading a book over listening to an audiobook?
0
Just finished the book thief
14 weeeee_plonk I don't think it's possible to escape all the vitriol that reddit vomits on Hillary, and for that reason I doubt that you'll be able to inspire a meaningful conversation on this subject. That being said, I don't think she's used the analogy correctly; if she had, she would only say that we should trust ourselves. The leaders (ie the Inner Party), the press (ie Ministry of Truth), and the 'experts' (are there any in *1984*?) are all the people Winston Smith should *not* rely on. If you take the literary moment out of the context of the novel, you can understand the point she's trying to make. Attempting to define reality *is* a core feature of authoritarianism, and that *is* what happens with 2+2=5—and the leaders, press, and experts *should* be trusted if they are not a part of the authoritarian gov't trying to convince the people of lies. Unfortunately, as that is not the case in *1984*, the analogy falls apart.
3 MotionBlue No, of course it isn't. Best case scenario, this is the result of poor editing/ghost writing. Worst case scenario, HRC radically misunderstood the point of 1984.
4 krnm No, but that's mainly because in Oceania the Party was also the leaders, press, and experts. Any opposition was quickly crushed.
2 AutoModerator We have noticed your thread's title mentioned a popular book title in /r/books. Please consider visiting some of [these recent threads!](/r/books/search?q=1984&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) You might also enjoy the subreddit /r/1984! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/books) if you have any questions or concerns.*
5 communistdaughters considering the torturer that she mentions is one of those leaders that she entreats people to rely on, i'm not even sure that she's read the fucking book.
2 behemotrakau I'm sure, Orwell would not be happy about mentioning him in such context. I like Orwell for not using the word "trust".
2 HardCheeseForTony Of all of the stale references she could have made...
13 0 weeeee_plonk I don't think it's possible to escape all the vitriol that reddit vomits on Hillary, and for that reason I doubt that you'll be able to inspire a meaningful conversation on this subject. That being said, I don't think she's used the analogy correctly; if she had, she would only say that we should trust ourselves. The leaders (ie the Inner Party), the press (ie Ministry of Truth), and the 'experts' (are there any in *1984*?) are all the people Winston Smith should *not* rely on. If you take the literary moment out of the context of the novel, you can understand the point she's trying to make. Attempting to define reality *is* a core feature of authoritarianism, and that *is* what happens with 2+2=5—and the leaders, press, and experts *should* be trusted if they are not a part of the authoritarian gov't trying to convince the people of lies. Unfortunately, as that is not the case in *1984*, the analogy falls apart.
3 0 MotionBlue No, of course it isn't. Best case scenario, this is the result of poor editing/ghost writing. Worst case scenario, HRC radically misunderstood the point of 1984.
4 0 krnm No, but that's mainly because in Oceania the Party was also the leaders, press, and experts. Any opposition was quickly crushed.
2 0 AutoModerator We have noticed your thread's title mentioned a popular book title in /r/books. Please consider visiting some of [these recent threads!](/r/books/search?q=1984&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) You might also enjoy the subreddit /r/1984! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/books) if you have any questions or concerns.*
6 0 communistdaughters considering the torturer that she mentions is one of those leaders that she entreats people to rely on, i'm not even sure that she's read the fucking book.
0 0 behemotrakau I'm sure, Orwell would not be happy about mentioning him in such context. I like Orwell for not using the word "trust".
1 0 HardCheeseForTony Of all of the stale references she could have made...