Preamble

LU: 20220320T213053

I direct a flow of books through my booklog for posterity, thoroughness, bragging rights. It's in TeX, using the glossaries pkg, however, since titles started repeating without the presence of obsequiously long subtitles, I had to switch to authors as entries with their works as subentries. I explored different formats, possibilities. I tried terminal spreadsheet programs: visidata and sc-im, and .tsv files, easily generable via Perl from from .tex ones. If one craves bespoke eyecandy, nothing beats TeX. latex2hmtl was a dumper fire whiles back, and, after switching to tectonic and shell magic, I can't comment on make4ht.

Accumulated titles passed an arbitrary threshold on the second or third paper-based log, so lil' ol' me'd decided to *cough* PASS RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT UPON THEM! Yeah. . . and when the shear stress mixed with the dried finger grease and ball sweat and blood and snot and cum and piss, the and vicissitudinous font-size, baseline, adjustment, indentation/padding, text-direction; presence of boxes, super- and sub-, and microscripting et cetera all got my goat and then some, then did I birth the rating system, shown in the table below. The next section explains the system. Lastly, a month or so in the ordeal, I'd accidentally sorted a part of the list (F9 in Sublime Text; Alt+F9 being the then keybinding to switch to 9. workspace), hence the first 130 items' alphanumerically ascending order.

Regarding taste, I enjoy new knowledge: things I do know know, novel viewpoints ones my head haven't so far put in others accurately or conjured, and good writing—Chuck Palahniuk >>> Tolkien (and lots of other trash writers). Omitting general textbooks and reference material which would nonetheless be a boring reads to anybody, genre-wise this leaves (in no particular order): true crime and thrillers, philosophical works, commentaries, biographies, summaries. I dislike and have little-to-no use for: most short stories, the trivial and known, the lazy, the stupid, the greedy, the easy and comfortable, and predictable, most series, anything by a woman, and jews are have golden apples here and there. Lastly, fuck kiddies on lit; kiddies, women, soyboys, and marxists (pseudointellectual permutations of the latter) on goodreads, anything from reddit, any 'journalist', or anything popular from the past, say 20–25 years. Russian lit—a good 95% of what I've (tried to) read is predictable, stereotypical garbage. Russian 'classics' are overall trash—better trash than other trash, however trash nonetheless. And Japanese lit., explicitly so anything from after the war is utter trash. Could be a translation thing here. Though the aforementioned groups don't read the originals in any fucking case.

As of writing this, 20210417T055800, I've gone through (finished or attempted) some 300 titles starting roughly 20201214. That was when I'd lost my external hard drive with some 1.5 TB of .mp3's and .flac's I'd been collecting, archiving, organizing, listening to. For eight years. Around 2016 (or '17?) I'd been a music reviewer for a growingly popular metal site; I dropped out due to disagreements with management but the experience had only intensified my obsession with music. It is-, or rather was..?, my second passion in life. I lost, as if, a chuck of myself that day. Since realization doesn't impale you from the sky, but weedles in over time, it wasn't really a day, but weeks. But that too shall pass. I've not much changed personality-wise, I think—I'd merely exchanged habits, similarly to addicts or the problemed traversing cognitive behavioral therapy. I've been cramming the then newly created chasm with the thoughts and opinions of others, as well my subsequent own, with fiction and non-fiction (65/35 was my ratio around 202107XX), with ideals, knowledge, opinions, arguments, etc. Although I employ some of what Schopenhauer suggests in The Art of Literature, he might still mightily cringe at my efforts and goingabouts.

I've nobody to talk to regarding books, my opinions, thoughts, so it's rather lonesome when amidst blathering, infantile, predictable children: be it on 4chan, lainchan, leddit, or the rare case of real world reading person. The predominantly posting malignant, human-size tumors on the internet would necessitate daily, hour-long beatings to begin to comprehending basics of how and why the world functions and is where it is.
If you have any objections, rebuttals, contributions, remarks, jokes, or would like to talk to me about a-ny-thing relevant to topics discussed within below titles or my contributions thereto, please do drop a line.

My reading is mainly facilitated through audiobooks at around 1.50–3.25 times the default speed, dependent on reader; or, if no audiobook exists—flite. Anything I fancy, or'd like to better retain or understand (say, an average of 8 out of 10 titles), I'll (try to) download, convert, and pull up text alongside to scroll through (the terminal equivalent of leafing through). This also bolsters concentration on heavier or more tedious books. I've not held a physical book in my hands in quite some time, I've little space as is, and less so spare money for something, I'd argue, should be free. Forbearing completion to savor virginal pleasures with the material happens to me; titles might fall behind or, fuck forbid, be forgotten. Others still will have reviews or remarks: click the equilateral triangle appearing before the title to open these. Titles are in approximate chronological order of completion or addition, unless being presently read. Lastly, if an entry's fourth column is closer to zero, it is unworthy of my time; and if not quite 1, ending or parts have been glanced over or skipped; if greater than 1, whole or sections multiply read.

Lastly, these are non-fiction, yet non-literary works; they're just good reads. I don't know where to put these, so here:

• Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situations. Bettelheim. 1943. URI
• The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870--2015. Oscan Jorda et al. URI
• Information, Impact, Ignorance, Illegality, Investing, and Inequality. Bruce Knuteson. URI
• How to Increase Global Wealth Inequality for Fun and Profit. Bruce Knuteson. URI
• Celebrating Three Decades of Worldwide Stock Market Manipulation. Bruce Knuteson. URI
• They Still Haven't Told You. Bruce Knuteson. URI
• You and Your Research. Dr. Richard W. Hamming. URI

Rating system

Bearing but one change and 2–4 minor additions, it is able to crudely but sufficiently attribute merits where due. The meaning put behind each symbol should be fairly consistent amount adjacent titles (through time). However, pursuing a reread, the title will be pushed to the forefront as if it were new. I don't forgive and I don't forget: often one infringement is sufficient for expulsion from my mind and hard drive. Authors get blacklisted thusly, as well. A good mood might dispose me to mercy, i.e., extending an opportunity for redemption, or another chance to disappoint—people can better themselves, being the reasoning. However, this rarely, if ever, bodes well. Absolutism never is too swell for anything really, so I won't publish a listing all embargoed individuals. Anything Marx-, or Hegel-derived would be there though, along is a bunch of armchain philosophers, along with other self-propagating childish memes and dreams. Ratings are given in nonstrictly monotonically decreasing order of intensity, i.e., the leftmost glyphs constitute larger parts of my overall 'rating'/opinion. Emboldenings serves as intensifiers.

✓✔ A checkmark means 'good' or 'great', so much so that it'd warrant an eventual reread. I firmly believe think and would argue that a 'good' example of any art must also be re-enjoyable.

M I didn't think it necessary to distinguish between 'mediocre' (as in nonexceptional, rather than as with a negative connotation) and 'decent'—completion rates allude to either emphatically. Possibly worth the read, but better exist. If bold, could be 'great', but not rereadworthy.

P 'Predictable' means I've successfully constructed a accurate (>50%) model of any of (in increasing in difficulty): 1. what characters will do and say (narration not exempt); 2. what future text entails; 3. precisely what words, punctuation, and/or wording the writer will use. If everything you want to say on a topic or about a plot (or your whole existence, when speaking more broadly about humans) can be modeled by my brain, you're wasting my time.

G Overt or furtive agenda. Propaganda resides here, as does similar shallow, pseudo-scientific, tryhard, refutable, especially so wherein the instigating party argues from a (false) self-appointed moral superiority—these fall under either pontification or moralistic argumentation. The rest should be kept in mind when reading and thinking about material presented within. In case: if you're trying to sell anything; if you think you're right and/or cannot err; if you're absolutist; then it's agenda—pardon my inability to offer a concise definition instead of examples.

K With known info, I've a higher tolerance—there might be something new. Do we chase the dragon? (obs.?)

F Publishing something, you should've done your homework, so being objectively wrong and spreading falsehood grants a one-way ticket to Fuck-off, where the weather is chilly and windy with a good chance of blacklisting. Back to you, Tom.

W 'Bad writing' is both sub- and objective: just as you don't have to be a master chef with 40 years experience serving worldly gourmands to know a dish is shite and/or not to your taste: there exist commonalities between books widely and/or historically regarded as' good'. Beer may be an acquired taste, but it won't be as revolting to the new triers as diarrhea shakes or period pancakes.

B Is just boring. Snoozefest, slumber-inducing, sleep-inviting; languorously paced or void of action, change; tedious litany. MMMNNEEEEEEXT!

A Itches at my being: active toleration required.

? Unsure as to what I think, requiring more time for material digestion and or opinion crystalization.

J I thought it'd be funny (it isn't), but I don't read much obviously biased things, so it sees little use; implies pushing of jew agenda, jew-apologizing, -enabling, etc., idunno. (obs.)

♀ Reading the descriptions or merely the titles of some 2/3–3/4 of audiobookbay's weekly submissions, one notices a trend: women write horrid shit. Correspondingly, a bag of the above bad descriptors in varying degrees, or symbol for Venus. Note: you don't have to be a woman to get this, neither does being one, necessarily impart you this. Women, they rightfully shamefully (attempt to) hide and deceive by using either fore- and middlename abbreviations, that is, initials; or bad and or conspicuous noms de guerre. Sure as fuck ain't I taking the ~1e-5 chance of tripping over a good book written by a Barbara, Emily, Jessica, Jemima, or Janet, or one named 'The Irresistible Miss Peppiwell', famous for elongating her shitstreak with Scandalous House of Calydon, Book 2. More examples. Omitting chiclit, this still holds. Likely due to the failure of American education, and/or some combination of the success of Marxism-derived drivel, government cronyism, oligarchy, unscrupulous and short-sighted power-/money-grabs. They can compose good stuff, there is historical evidence of this—they should just stick to what they're good at not attempt to compete with men. Same goes for men—don't fucking write gay, furry, tranny, trap shit. Don't write power fantasies, 'LitRPG's, or series when you can't even spell your damn name.
For fuck's sake.

Rating system

Glyph	Meaning
A	annoying
B	boring
C	cringe
F	false
G	agenda/moralistic
K	known
P	predictable
W	bad writing
♀	all of the above
J	jew
?	undecided
M	mediocre–decent
✓✔	good–great
bold	very