Reading list

[Doc Holliday]

duster said:

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Doc...

I'll admit I have mixed feelings about Dan Brown. While the "Da Vinci Code" is entertaining fiction, it is being portrayed by some (including the author) as being authentic which, in my humble opinion, is not the most ethical thing to do. Mind you, many think "I Claudius" is authentic and I have the highest respect for Robert Graves.

I have no problem with your comment, as I said, you can freely epress your opinion as long as you do it with respect.

About the books:

...to me it was entertaining fiction. I didn't approach that book thinking I was going to go through an historical or factual report and it was not advertised to me as such either. To me, the books were a fiction novel and how Brown twists and ties common legends together in order to devellop a story line in a treasure hunt fashion entertained me. Mind you I didn't think Vampires existed after I read Dracula and I didn't think Tommyknockers existed after reading that book either.

[PTH]

What I disliked about Brown is how he takes little-known facts and then ties them in with his theories, and long afterwards we can discover the facts were false.

IE, he can spin a story and interpret historical events as he wishes, but claiming that the French president insisted on the Louvres pyramid having 666 panes of glass whereas it has another number and the president wasn't involved, that gets to me because it's the kind of historical tidbit that people assume is true when reading any book, even a work of fiction.

I read another book of Brown's, about code cracking, and I barely got past page 30 or so, because the story is just as weak as Da vinci Code, only in this case it was about things I know about. Man was it weak.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

I don't hear an Eco.

[franko]

Kata what's going on in this thread, it's amazing that anyone has time for anything either than posting or reading! ;D

Having said that, I'm about to start Freakonomics [Levitt and Dubner].

[Toronthab]

docholliday said:

tattac said:

I thought the same of Brown's The Da Vinci Code and The Angels and Demons (I believe it's the name of the book in English). I read The Code and started reading the Angels but thought that they were way too similar and stopped. Perhaps I'll give it one more try later.

Same here. I liked them both but had to put a few books between them.


TorontoHAB, you're entitle to your opinion on books and not everyone likes the same things, but I will ask you to avoid insulting every readers of a book you did not like.

Sorry to be so long in responding to this..just noticed this.

I was unaware of having insulted anyonel Still am.

If you are one of a great many who has read it and believed it to be a fact-based novel, with a plausible story line, then there is neither offence nor insult in stating the obvious gullibility and credulity inherent in such a view.

Brown's piece is up there and beyond holocaust deniers as the thesis, bigotted and malicious as it is deceitfully attempts to recast a couple of thousand years of history.

Many are duped into buying his crap, and they are gullible and credulous in the extreme, or stunningly ill-versed in the history of western civilization. And that is the evil of this fraud's "novel" based upon his publihed list of supposed "facts." The creep.

I wrote a public service and warning, and have insulted no one. I included a link to a review of the dishonest thing which should be sufficient to warn anyone off the creep's work. And, Dan Brown is a deceitful creep.

www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

I don't hear an Eco.

Now you do. I'm reading (and have been reading for some time) his book on semiotics "Kant and the Platypus" The postmodernists' dilemna. It was a gift. I pulled a Dan Brown and gulled someone into thinking I am smarter than I am. Hence Umberto's pitard and I swim with the platipi. The issues are so very subtle and with literally everything we think in the balance.

The other day (well, month actually) I came across a reference to something you posted on the "Bit in the it" or vice=versa which I think works almost as well. I'd be interested in reading that post again if you have it, or perhaps I can dig it out of the past.

[Tattac]

toronthab said:

If you are one of a great many who has read it and believed it to be a fact-based novel, with a plausible story line, then there is neither offence nor insult in stating the obvious gullibility and credulity inherent in such a view.

I am not one of a great many. But I think you could have expressed your view (no matter how close to the truth it is) in a more polite way.

There is a reason why it is called FICTION by the way.

[franko]

tattac said:

There is a reason why it is called FICTION by the way.

May I quote you? Great comment.

Unfortunately some are duped by the quasi-historical nature and the fictional embellishments and distortions presented as fact in the of the book.

Unfortunate, too, that THab presents himself so severe as resident defender of all things Catholic.

[Tattac]

franko said:

tattac said:

There is a reason why it is called FICTION by the way.

May I quote you? Great comment.

Quote me? Yes, please do!

[Toronthab]

tattac said:

toronthab said:

If you are one of a great many who has read it and believed it to be a fact-based novel, with a plausible story line, then there is neither offence nor insult in stating the obvious gullibility and credulity inherent in such a view.

I am not one of a great many. But I think you could have expressed your view (no matter how close to the truth it is) in a more polite way.

There is a reason why it is called FICTION by the way.

I really do understand where you are coming from Tattac, and I would ordinarily, agree. I should perhaps agree notwithstanding my motivations. I futher should and do thank you for taking the time to respond as you have, and reasonably.

I am compelled to believe and I mean rationally compelled to believe that the creep I mentionned is an offensive, deceptive, bigotted, slandering, decieving fraud, who has created a fictional work and consistently misrepresented it. And he has not done so without maligning, misrepresenting and slandering real people. I think he's a sleazebag, and the review I posted presents a number of reasons why I hold that to be true.

I believe that many things are more important than fear of offending, and particularly when it comes to seminal ideas of world history, and it is this that the sleazebag manipulates. His irresponsibility staggers me. And his misreprepresentations do deceive otherwise intelligent people into actually buying it.

Incidentally, I have never intended to label all who have read it as dumb and easily gulled. That would however apply to a very great many. It is only a service to them to point this out.

He's got much more in common with the Zundels of the world, and I am hard-pressed to come up with other parallels. I doubt that Zundel is but a pschiatricly disturbed innocent. I know Brown is not. There is an illuminating documantary on Brown and his "novel", and "facts.

Rest assured I am extraordinarily aware that the work is FICTION. It is however a malicious fiction that intentionally seeks to present the utterly ridiculous premise and "facts" as having a basis in reality. That is how the slimeball got the big numbers.
My calling the slimeball creep as such is of course also not an insult and certainly not gratutous.

His work insults and offends me and my culture, and has resulted in me spending valuable time in responses to his culpable horsehip.

Again however, in closing, I again thank you for responing to what you perceived as an injustice in what I wrote.

[Toronthab]

pth said:

What I disliked about Brown is how he takes little-known facts and then ties them in with his theories, and long afterwards we can discover the facts were false.

IE, he can spin a story and interpret historical events as he wishes, but claiming that the French president insisted on the Louvres pyramid having 666 panes of glass whereas it has another number and the president wasn't involved, that gets to me because it's the kind of historical tidbit that people assume is true when reading any book, even a work of fiction.

I read another book of Brown's, about code cracking, and I barely got past page 30 or so, because the story is just as weak as Da vinci Code, only in this case it was about things I know about. Man was it weak.

You see the lying fraud correctly. I was fortunate to have caught what I considered to be an excellent documentary looking into the "FACT" list the liar presented and proved that he wasn't just an incompetent bogus researcher, but had actually been told personally and presented with proof of the falseness of key claims. The slimebag.

He has utterly no qualms about grossly and malliciously distortin reality. The guy's a puke. I hope (and doubt) that he'll come to be seen for what he is by his dupes.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

tattac said:

There is a reason why it is called FICTION by the way.

May I quote you? Great comment.

Unfortunately some are duped by the quasi-historical nature and the fictional embellishments and distortions presented as fact in the of the book.

Unfortunate, too, that THab presents himself so severe as resident defender of all things Catholic.

You may well be right there Franko, but a little of my fire is based upon a fair chunk of research, and you're quite correct that while the "holy grail" has lovely poetic use and history as the vessel Christ used to drink from at the "last supper", the institution of the mass, incidentally, I don't apologise for a powerful sense of repugnance and offence.

Read Zundel instead of Brown, and my comments will appear modest and to the point. Admirers will of course feel that I've gored their oxen. And so I have. Appropriately.

I would hope that I am only or at least mostly a defender of reality insofar as it is given me to grasp it. My Catholicism is culturally unfashionable, especially insofar as sexual issues are concerned. I forget how it came up originally in fact, lo these many months of no hoceky ago, but it's true that poor example though I be, I think the church and her (yes, her) sacraments and teaching are absolutely spot-on true, rational and reasonable and calling forth the best in us. There is absolutely nothing cooler.

I do rather hope, though that I am not severe. I'm a fairly average Joe. but when I hear something stupid, malicious or ill-informed about my brother, habs fans or my church, you're damn right I respond as I am able, just as people feel called upon to defend Dan Brown or their beliefs. The church is made up of a buch of sinners and had and has regular failings, but failings are extremely far from the whole story of what has so defined western culture. The good is staggering and utterly beyond calculation as should be the case if her claims, which I accept are true.

Popular critiques, be it on the Crusades (initiated after HALF of the Christian world had been attacked and conquered by an agressive acquisitve Islam) I usually find pretty lacking, one-sided and often perjorative. The popular take on the Spanish Inquisiton is pulp fiction. It is attributed to the church, for instance when it was a usurpation of church offices by Aragon and Castille, blown to insane proportions of horror despite the fact that all of the records of the proceedings are right there for anyone to view (if interested).

Witches did get buned in Europe. But not 3 million!! And in static feudal societies, witches were often heavily relied upon for the poisons that facillitated social mobility, as in the case of Athenais in France with one of the Louis'. They were also often the abortionists.

Oh ya! Then there's all the "Godess" crowd....giver me a break! 21st century women conned by 19th century male author's fabrication.


On of my favourite rants is the incomprehensibility of live since Descartes and Kant (I hear an Eco) cut themselves off from existence and locled themselves forever in their heads.
Crazy. Now people say things like "That's true for you" and other signs of madness.

What could be more fun than to get down and drity with these things?? The Biggies!

Reality.

But, thanks for the good advice not to be severe. (Now, given a choice between that and dull....maybe I shouldn't go there, lest I learn something equally unflattering.

[Doc Holliday]

toronthab said:

I was unaware of having insulted anyonel Still am.

TorontoHAB don't fiddle diddle with words. Your post assumes that anyone who liked the book are guillible, probably uneducated, and most certainly female in majority.

Rip the book apart all you want but refrain from qualifying it's readership.

That's it.

[Toronthab]

docholliday said:

toronthab said:

I was unaware of having insulted anyonel Still am.

TorontoHAB don't fiddle diddle with words. Your post assumes that anyone who liked the book are guillible, probably uneducated, and most certainly female in majority.

Rip the book apart all you want but refrain from qualifying it's readership.

That's it.

You may well be right there. I may be trying to castigate, without castigating. My suspicion is that a lot of Zudel followers aren't really nice folks I'd like to chat there.

While I can't say that anyone who liked the book was probably gullible, credulous and if not uneducated, abysmally innocent of knowledge of western history, and lastly given, as are many to (like Brown himself) an uncritical and naive acceptance of feminists who were described by Christiana Hoff Sommers in "Who Stole Feminism" as man-hating gender feminists who have spewed an incredible ammount of garbage into eager minds.

To them, in this cultural diaspora, the idea that the Holy Grail wasn't the chalice shared by Christ at the Last Supper, but was rather the body of Mary Magdeline, Mrs. Jesus. Give me a break.

As a fable from an imagined planet, it might have been captivating. As it sits, however it is very much an immense insult, a blasphemy, use an unfamiliar word. And who better to be the evil conniving malfeasants depperately conspiring to trample the "Godess" and keep the REAL TRUTH down, than those nasty sneeks and secret societies, the cardinals of the Catholic Church, who admittedly look askance at a lot of contemorary "culture".

I repeat that the worst crime of the fraud (Dan Brown) is his outright lies as to what he says is true which he says is most of what he wrote .

Given the above, but allowing for the fact that most readers don't really expect even in a novel to be outrageously lied to on a page that is set apart in the book to declare "FACTS".

In my experience, and especially in the case of gullible thirtyish women with some time on their hands, which was the target market and writing strategy, people who thought the book was really great, have more than a few defficiencies on a few levels.

The "novel" made malicious, slanderous, bigotterd and lying, not just inaccurate or childishly stupid historical claims, and offered them up as fact.

Part of its evil, is that it has wasted a coulple of days of mine and will waste more.

So, not to fiddle diddle, if a person really thought there was a lot of really interesting stuff well told with a perhaps a significant portion that was credible and soundly reasearched (As apparently claimed a reviwer in The New York Times (God people can be dumb.)) then I would have to consider such a reader to be rather easily duped, given to conspiracy theories at a moronic level, and with deep-seated and unattractive biases butressed with a near invincible ignorance of western history, psychology and human nature. And not to mince words, I find an awful lot of people exactly like that, as did Dan Brown.

Why would it be wrong to characterize dupes as dupes? Isn't that doing them a favour?
Books like THe Da Vinci Code, don't leave you with many plausible alternatives, unpalatable though they may be.

Latly, I'm not the guy who did all the duping, and I'm not one of the duped. I'm the canary in the cave. Reader beware of real lies, real conspiracies, and own proclivities to embrace them.

[clear observer]

toronthab said:

docholliday said:

TorontoHAB don't fiddle diddle with words. Your post assumes that anyone who liked the book are guillible, probably uneducated, and most certainly female in majority.

Rip the book apart all you want but refrain from qualifying it's readership.

That's it.

You may well be right there. I may be trying to castigate, without castigating. My suspicion is that a lot of Zudel followers aren't really nice folks I'd like to chat there.

While I can't say that anyone who liked the book was probably gullible, credulous and if not uneducated, abysmally innocent of knowledge of western history, and lastly given, as are many to (like Brown himself) an uncritical and naive acceptance of feminists who were described by Christiana Hoff Sommers in "Who Stole Feminism" as man-hating gender feminists who have spewed an incredible ammount of garbage into eager minds.

To them, in this cultural diaspora, the idea that the Holy Grail wasn't the chalice shared by Christ at the Last Supper, but was rather the body of Mary Magdeline, Mrs. Jesus. Give me a break.

As a fable from an imagined planet, it might have been captivating. As it sits, however it is very much an immense insult, a blasphemy, use an unfamiliar word. And who better to be the evil conniving malfeasants depperately conspiring to trample the "Godess" and keep the REAL TRUTH down, than those nasty sneeks and secret societies, the cardinals of the Catholic Church, who admittedly look askance at a lot of contemorary "culture".

I repeat that the worst crime of the fraud (Dan Brown) is his outright lies as to what he says is true which he says is most of what he wrote .

Given the above, but allowing for the fact that most readers don't really expect even in a novel to be outrageously lied to on a page that is set apart in the book to declare "FACTS".

In my experience, and especially in the case of gullible thirtyish women with some time on their hands, which was the target market and writing strategy, people who thought the book was really great, have more than a few defficiencies on a few levels.

The "novel" made malicious, slanderous, bigotterd and lying, not just inaccurate or childishly stupid historical claims, and offered them up as fact.

Part of its evil, is that it has wasted a coulple of days of mine and will waste more.

So, not to fiddle diddle, if a person really thought there was a lot of really interesting stuff well told with a perhaps a significant portion that was credible and soundly reasearched (As apparently claimed a reviwer in The New York Times (God people can be dumb.)) then I would have to consider such a reader to be rather easily duped, given to conspiracy theories at a moronic level, and with deep-seated and unattractive biases butressed with a near invincible ignorance of western history, psychology and human nature. And not to mince words, I find an awful lot of people exactly like that, as did Dan Brown.

Why would it be wrong to characterize dupes as dupes? Isn't that doing them a favour?
Books like THe Da Vinci Code, don't leave you with many plausible alternatives, unpalatable though they may be.

Latly, I'm not the guy who did all the duping, and I'm not one of the duped. I'm the canary in the cave. Reader beware of real lies, real conspiracies, and own proclivities to embrace them.

As Mario Tremblay once said to Larry Robinson, who at the time had Dave Schultz's throat clenched in a tight grip with head dangling to-and-fro, "Knock it off, Bird...KNOCK IT OFF".

It's Christmas, be merry, please.

Thanks,
CO

[Skilly]

tattac said:

skilly said:

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince by JK Rowling

It's a great idea for vacation! Too bad it's still not out in Russian.
Did you like it?

Sorry for the late replay .... loved every one of the books so far. And the movies are pretty much identical to the books.

[Skilly]

Btw ... anyone have a resource or a link to the inaccuracies presented in "The Da Vinci Code". Would be nice to have once I start reading.

[Toronthab]

admin said:

toronthab said:

You may well be right there. I may be trying to castigate, without castigating. My suspicion is that a lot of Zudel followers aren't really nice folks I'd like to chat there.

While I can't say that anyone who liked the book was probably gullible, credulous and if not uneducated, abysmally innocent of knowledge of western history, and lastly given, as are many to (like Brown himself) an uncritical and naive acceptance of feminists who were described by Christiana Hoff Sommers in "Who Stole Feminism" as man-hating gender feminists who have spewed an incredible ammount of garbage into eager minds.

To them, in this cultural diaspora, the idea that the Holy Grail wasn't the chalice shared by Christ at the Last Supper, but was rather the body of Mary Magdeline, Mrs. Jesus. Give me a break.

As a fable from an imagined planet, it might have been captivating. As it sits, however it is very much an immense insult, a blasphemy, use an unfamiliar word. And who better to be the evil conniving malfeasants depperately conspiring to trample the "Godess" and keep the REAL TRUTH down, than those nasty sneeks and secret societies, the cardinals of the Catholic Church, who admittedly look askance at a lot of contemorary "culture".

I repeat that the worst crime of the fraud (Dan Brown) is his outright lies as to what he says is true which he says is most of what he wrote .

Given the above, but allowing for the fact that most readers don't really expect even in a novel to be outrageously lied to on a page that is set apart in the book to declare "FACTS".

In my experience, and especially in the case of gullible thirtyish women with some time on their hands, which was the target market and writing strategy, people who thought the book was really great, have more than a few defficiencies on a few levels.

The "novel" made malicious, slanderous, bigotterd and lying, not just inaccurate or childishly stupid historical claims, and offered them up as fact.

Part of its evil, is that it has wasted a coulple of days of mine and will waste more.

So, not to fiddle diddle, if a person really thought there was a lot of really interesting stuff well told with a perhaps a significant portion that was credible and soundly reasearched (As apparently claimed a reviwer in The New York Times (God people can be dumb.)) then I would have to consider such a reader to be rather easily duped, given to conspiracy theories at a moronic level, and with deep-seated and unattractive biases butressed with a near invincible ignorance of western history, psychology and human nature. And not to mince words, I find an awful lot of people exactly like that, as did Dan Brown.

Why would it be wrong to characterize dupes as dupes? Isn't that doing them a favour?
Books like THe Da Vinci Code, don't leave you with many plausible alternatives, unpalatable though they may be.

Latly, I'm not the guy who did all the duping, and I'm not one of the duped. I'm the canary in the cave. Reader beware of real lies, real conspiracies, and own proclivities to embrace them.

As Mario Tremblay once said to Larry Robinson, who at the time had Dave Schultz's throat clenched in a tight grip with head dangling to-and-fro, "Knock it off, Bird...KNOCK IT OFF".

It's Christmas, be merry, please.

Thanks,
CO

That was a great illustrration.

End of rant.

I'm such a Ho.

[Skilly]

Well I bought the illustrative version of "The Da Vinci Code" today. Have read as far as Chapter 5 and am at a loss as to how anyone could consider this anything but an entertaining novel. Right from the first page I never thought it was going to be a factual account of history.... I am only at the beginning so forgive my ignorance with what the big deal is with the novel. In the author's note he states ......(speaking about the illustrative version)

"It is my hope that these images shed new light, spark new questions, and, above all , serve as an entetaining companion to the story."

I get the impression that Brown never intended this to be taken as the truth.

[Tattac]

skilly said:

Well I bought the illustrative version of "The Da Vinci Code" today. Have read as far as Chapter 5 and am at a loss as to how anyone could consider this anything but an entertaining novel.

Exactly! I have yet to meet a single person who thought it was anything more than an entertainment.

I was very reluctant to read it at first as I prefer a bit different literature but it is still a good book. I mean...I understand why it is a bestseller no matter how far from the truth and real history it is.

(if anyone knows anything about the real history, it is written by the winners as we all know)

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

tattac said:

(if anyone knows anything about the real history, it is written by the winners as we all know)

Same as it ever was. History as recounted by the "losers" is often dismissed as fabrication and/or does not receive broad exposure.

[Tattac]

mrbozo said:

tattac said:

(if anyone knows anything about the real history, it is written by the winners as we all know)

Same as it ever was. History as recounted by the "losers" is often dismissed as fabrication and/or does not receive broad exposure.

I often wonder how different it was from what is written in our history books. And how much is lost forever? I studied the US history (including the WWII and the Cold War) both in the US and Russia. What a difference 8 thousand miles make!

[Skilly]

tattac said:

skilly said:

Well I bought the illustrative version of "The Da Vinci Code" today. Have read as far as Chapter 5 and am at a loss as to how anyone could consider this anything but an entertaining novel.

Exactly! I have yet to meet a single person who thought it was anything more than an entertainment.

I was very reluctant to read it at first as I prefer a bit different literature but it is still a good book. I mean...I understand why it is a bestseller no matter how far from the truth and real history it is.

(if anyone knows anything about the real history, it is written by the winners as we all know)

Well I don't know a whole pile about art, or histroy (Although I did take a university course in Roman Art and Architecture) .... but the one thing I know a great deal about is math.

I am slightly past the part of the book where Brown's main character infers that Mitterand insisted on the pyramid having 666 panes of glass. OK. The pyramid by defintion (although the picture in the book helped) has a square base with four triangular sides. From pictures I have seen of the pyramid it looks symmetrical .... so one simple calcualtion 666/4 proves that this is incorrect unless the pyramid is not symmetrical.

Being the anal fool I am ..... well I tried counting the panes of glass. There are 18 rows of panes that decrease by one each row ..... s0 the summation of n where n = 1 to 18 = 171. 171 times 4 is 684.

Even that proved to be wrong when I googled it. Apparently there are "603 diamond-shaped and 70 triangular panes of 21 millimetre thick glass,". So 673 panes of glass? So it isn't symmetrical? hmmmm interesting.

[Rimmer]

yes, but 666 panes of glass make for a better story

I'm currently reading Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" (thanks, Tattac ) and "Scotty Bowman, A Life In Hockey", written by Douglas Hunter. both are great reads, at least IMHO.

the next one in line is probably "Tough Calls" by Dick Irvin. has anyone read it? is it any good?

R.

[Skilly]

Finished the "Da Vinci Code" and now almost finished "Angels and Demons".

As I have been reading I have been doing my best to cross reference most of the claims made in the story. A good deal of his suppositions (I will call them) are in fact based on truth to varying degrees. Some things he appears to stretch a little too far and others leave you wondering ....

They are very thought provoking books and leave you wondering why the church is so secretive and why they feel they must protect the "truth".

It isnt something to be taken as a end and an be all of the religious debates (they are only novels afterall) but they are interesting in so much that they "could" be possible (nobody knows what happened so far back in history) and are worth debating for fun.

[franko]

How to Be a Canadian by Will and Ian Ferguson seems to fit the HabsRus psyche to a tee.

[duster]

tattac said:

mrbozo said:

Same as it ever was. History as recounted by the "losers" is often dismissed as fabrication and/or does not receive broad exposure.

I often wonder how different it was from what is written in our history books. And how much is lost forever? I studied the US history (including the WWII and the Cold War) both in the US and Russia. What a difference 8 thousand miles make!

There is not such thing as history, only biography.

Take France and England. 22 miles (distance from Calais to Dover) makes a huge difference on how events are or were viewed.

On a different note. Presently reading "The curious incident of the dog in the night time" by Mark Haddon. Wow...

[franko]

skilly said:

Btw ... anyone have a resource or a link to the inaccuracies presented in "The Da Vinci Code". Would be nice to have once I start reading.

Try here, here, and here

[Skilly]

franko said:

skilly said:

Btw ... anyone have a resource or a link to the inaccuracies presented in "The Da Vinci Code". Would be nice to have once I start reading.

Try here, here, and here

LOL ... I read the books and then went looking myself ....

I enjoyed the books. But once I went researching the "truth" I found myself leaning towards the church side on some issues and on others not accepting but wanting more "proof" from Brown et al.

I saw a program on the History channel the other night called "The Da Vinci Code Truth" (or something like that). It was highly critical of the book and its research (a little one sided I thought on some issues, but pretty fair on others). I found the reporter's conclusion rather apt ...... he said the novels "The Da Vinci Code" , "Holy Grail Holy Blood", and "The Woman with the Athabascar Jar" (?? is that the title) are so well liked by society becuase we want to believe they could be true ..... thought that was rather interesting.

[Tattac]

duster said:

On a different note. Presently reading "The curious incident of the dog in the night time" by Mark Haddon. Wow...

I finished it about a week ago. Good read.
I have lots of thoughts about it but don't know where to start.