What are you reading now?

[Beef Oven!]

THIS is the real "Purple Revolution"
don't trust the shyster fake

[Beef Oven!]

How to ruin a perfectly decent colour.

Thanks, yes, it's a great read.

[MrGongGong]

Thanks, yes, it's a great read.

In a similar vein

[Conchis]

It's been haunting me by sitting unread on our bookshelves for x years. Must dust it off and have a go...I suppose.

I don't know anyone who's read it who has entirely regretted the experience - though 'traditionally-minded' readers get very upset by the end (not to give any spoilers).

[Beef Oven!]

In a similar vein

Funniest character in that is garden Gnome Chomsky The Boring Armchair Socialist.

[Richard Tarleton]

I don't know anyone who's read it who has entirely regretted the experience - though 'traditionally-minded' readers get very upset by the end (not to give any spoilers).

Sorry, the drachma's only just dropped - my mind's been on other things, our bump in the car the other day.....Conchis....The Magus....?

[Pabmusic]

Funniest character in that is garden Gnome Chomsky The Boring Armchair Socialist...

You might have come across these:

http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

http://www.happycow.org.uk/inspiration/quotes_chomsky_random.shtml

[Beef Oven!]

You might have come across these:

http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

http://www.happycow.org.uk/inspirati...y_random.shtml

It's good that there are people out there to look into these things.

[Pabmusic]

It's good that there are people out there to look into these things.

Clearly, any associated supporting element appears to correlate rather closely with a descriptive fact. Nevertheless, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Conversely, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics can be defined in such a way as to impose the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. This suggests that the earlier discussion of deviance is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Furthermore, a descriptively adequate grammar is, apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

Simples.

[Beef Oven!]

Clearly, any associated supporting element appears to correlate rather closely with a descriptive fact. Nevertheless, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is to be regarded as nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Conversely, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics can be defined in such a way as to impose the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. This suggests that the earlier discussion of deviance is not subject to a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Furthermore, a descriptively adequate grammar is, apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

Simples.

[Pabmusic]

Quite pretty design.

[Beef Oven!]

Quite pretty design.

Wrong, have another go.

[Pabmusic]

Wrong, have another go.

No, right. It's quite an attractive design. I suspect it's a language, of course, but I have no idea what it means. Perhaps it means "My lower intestine is badly inflamed with green mucous" but I can't tell. It's still an attractive design. (Though if it really does mean that, I doubt I'll put it up in my dining room.)

[Conchis]

I picked up John Heilpern's biography of John Osborne at an Oxfam the other day and have been ploughing through it. I'm up to the bit where Osborne has had his breakthrough success with LBIA and is just about to go through his doomed marriage to the equally doomed Mary Ure. So far, an excellent and engaging read - it's clear that Osborne was a very typical young person of his time, who embraced 'socialism' without a clear idea of what it really meant and whose 'radicalism' was little more than a reaction to the times he found himself living in (the blue and boring fifties). Looking forward to reading about his years as a Spectator columnist....

[Warwick]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Orwell-Huxley-The-Fallacies-Futurity/dp/1291951555#reader_1291951555

I am reading a new book called , Orwell, Huxley and the Fallacies of Futurity.
By Robert Neville.

For part of the book he imagines a conversation between these two great writers just after 1984 came out, and therefore just before Orwell's own untimely death.
The other bits look at the themes in the book and some of the main ideas.
What I liked about it was that it does not buy into the standard line we seem to get nowadays, that their two great novels are prophetic. Instead, Neville perceptively sees both men agreeing that they are more warnings than anything else. Obviously I can see the writer has done a lot of research, but its engaging and though provoking to read with many, many ideas in it. I bought it on Amazon.