watcha readin, profcrispy?

well the insane fantasy epic "the malazan book of the fallen" by steven erikson. it's like, literally, ten times one thousand pages. it portrays a whole world: continents, conquests, hundreds of thousands of years. it's a bit uneven, like i can't read "oh, whiskeyjack" no more (whiskeyjack being a character who dies; but no one is necessarily dead in erikson's world; they may "ascend" or become gods). it's like george r.r. martin in that it's insanely violent and vicious. but where martin uses magic very sparingly, erikson's world is crawling with it: pantheons of gods, cadres of war-mages, crazy insane surreal realms invading the world, etc. ok so the fact that i'm in the fifth volume should tell you that i think it sustains one's atttention, to say the least. there are moments of really brilliant writing and philosophy, and wonderful homorous characters such a kruppe and tehol.

for a long time i've been fascinated by the shakers: their belief, their craft, their truth. me and my mom just went on a week-long road trip to new england, and among other things visited the hancock shaker settlement, with that beautiful round, stone barn. so now i'm reading work and worship among tthe shakers: their craftsmanship and economic order by the great shaker scholar edward deming andrews and faith andrews. through a description of the economy, you get the whole picture.  obviously what gets us is the celibacy, which was part and parcel of the real feminism. they believed that god  had appeared on earth as a man (jesus) and as a woman (mother ann lee, who had lost four children in infancy).  and they believed that our sins originated in sex, which is not...implausible. but there is so much  of interest: craft as  a form of prayer, working  as though you would live a thousand years and as though you would die tomorrow. the living quarters at hancock were  heartbreakingly good and beautiful, every artifact was true and perfect.

for a long time i've been interested in the folks who opposed the ratification of the constitution, but somehow i never before read saul cornell's the other founders: anti-federalism and the dissenting tradition in america, 1788-1828. it shows some traces of having been a doctoral dissertation: among other things it is weirdly repetitive. but it is also a groundbreaking study which makes much that was previously obscure quite clear. not all these guys were screaming libertarians or anarchists, but they all thought the constitution threatened american liberties. just to remind you: patrick henry, samuel adams, and george mason opposed the ratification of the constitution.