cavalary's reviews
269 reviews

[EN: (RO below)]
This is a collection of texts from the Starea Natiei (State of the Nation) show, and I rather added it to get free shipping for the other books ordered, though supporting a rather good show and maybe the only remaining Leftist TV show host around here was a nice bonus. The texts are from five years ago, but while the details refer to that period, the general ideas are just as true now, and in some cases unfortunately even more so. Yes, the texts are short and therefore don't go in depth or offer detailed arguments, but they tackle important topics, are written well and make points I can get behind. And since I prefer to read, not caring to watch or listen to people speaking, and definitely don't want to waste time with skits, this also allowed me to see that the quality I had seen when I somehow happened to catch a piece of the show is the rule for them. That doesn't change the fact that I disagree on some topics, mainly their support for the "right" to not vote and yet still complain afterwards, or for the most part their opposition to deficit limits or military spending and exercises, but those, while important, are just a few issues among many and, if anything, the fact that they don't change my overall opinion only proves that it's not solely a result of agreeing with everything.
But I used the plural and this leads me to the one thing that did make me raise an eyebrow: The show's host is the only author listed on the cover and spine, and apparently also in the National Library's records, yet the first page lists him and [a:Mihai Radu|6949655|Mihai Radu|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] as authors, and the foreword not only does the same, but actually states that the texts on the show are written by Mihai Radu and Gabi Drogeanu, while Dragos just edits them. Sure, it's a matter of marketing, and in the end between him and his team, but it strikes me as particularly unfair from someone who otherwise so firmly advocates fairness.

[RO:]
Aceasta este o colectie de texte din emisiunea Starea Natiei, si am cam adaugat-o ca sa primesc transport gratuit pentru celelalte carti comandate, desi sustinerea unei emisiuni destul de bune si poate a singurului prezentator TV de stanga ramas pe aici a fost un bonus frumos. Textele sunt de acum cinci ani, dar desi detaliile se refera la acea perioada, ideile generale sunt la fel de adevarate acum, si in unele cazuri din pacate si mai si. Da, textele sunt scurte si astfel nu ajung in profunzime si nu ofera argumente detaliate, dar abordeaza subiecte importante, sunt scrise bine si prezinta pozitii pe care le pot sustine. Si cum prefer sa citesc, neinteresandu-ma sa privesc sau sa ascult oameni vorbind, si cu siguranta nu vreau sa pierd timpul cu scenetele, asta mi-a permis si sa vad ca acea calitate pe care o vazusem cand s-a intamplat sa prind cumva o bucata din emisiune este regula pentru ei. Asta nu schimba faptul ca nu sunt de acord legat de unele teme, in principal sustinerea lor pentru "dreptul" de a nu vota si totusi de a te mai plange dupa, sau in cea mai mare parte opozitia lor fata de limitele de deficit sau cheltuielile si exercitiile militare, dar acestea, desi importante, sunt doar cateva teme intre multe altele si, mai degraba, faptul ca nu-mi schimba opinia generala doar dovedeste ca nu este doar un rezultat al faptului ca-s de acord cu toate.
Dar am folosit pluralul si asta ma duce la singurul lucru care m-a facut sa ridic o spranceana: Gazda emisiunii este singurul autor listat pe coperta si cotor, si se pare ca si-n inregistrarile Bibliotecii Nationale, insa prima pagina ii listeaza pe el si [a:Mihai Radu|6949655|Mihai Radu|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] ca autori, iar cuvantul inainte nu doar face acelasi lucru, ci chiar spune ca textele din emisiune sunt scrise de Mihai Radu si Gabi Drogeanu, in timp ce Dragos doar le editeaza. Sigur, e o problema de marketing, si in final e intre el si echipa sa, dar imi pare in mod deosebit incorect din partea cuiva care in rest sustine asa ferm corectitudinea.

[EN: (RO below)]
This is just sick. Looked when I saw here that a friend had read and liked it and the description stating that it’s about a young man drifting into madness after losing his lover and depicting a bleak view of the human condition got me interested, striking close to home. However, it was not what I expected… Not based on that description, at least, because it is what one might well expect after seeing that the author described it as distilled poison.
Maybe I should have given my thoughts a little time to get distilled as well, but that’d probably be unwise, even for one such as me. So I’ll just say that both of those words used by the author are perfectly accurate, The Blind Owl being probably too short to be considered an actual book but highly concentrated, purified, and meant to clutch the reader in a sickening, poisonous grasp on a profound level. That even applies to the first section, but the conclusions one is likely to draw from it will be negated by the stream of consciousness that follows… Not that “consciousness” is in any way the correct term for this depiction of such mental and spiritual destruction.
Admittedly, what got lost in translation is a question, and the translator also stated, in this edition’s rather lengthy foreword that also included some comments which would have been better left for an afterword, that the work is considered nearly untranslatable. But he also states that, after 27 years and 15 versions, he’s finally content that it’s close enough, and I’m thinking that the original would be more confusing and sickening than any translation. As such, perhaps the only valid conclusion would be that it’d be folly and presumptuous to think that you can draw a conclusion, can tell what’s “real” and what’s not and what it means. And, again, it’d probably be unwise to even try.

[RO:]
Este o lucrare bolnava. M-am uitat cand am vazut aici ca o prietena a citit-o si i-a placut si descrierea care spunea ca este despre un tanar care aluneca in nebunie dupa ce si-a pierdut iubita si prezinta o viziune sumbra asupra conditiei umane mi-a trezit interesul, sunand familiar. N-a fost ce asteptam, insa... Nu bazandu-ma pe acea descriere, cel putin, pentru ca e ceea ce s-ar putea cineva astepta sa fie dupa ce vede ca autorul a descris-o ca otrava distilata.
Poate ar fi trebuit sa dau si gandurilor mele putin timp sa se distileze, insa asta poate n-ar fi fost intelept, nici pentru unul ca mine. Asa ca voi spune doar ca ambele cuvinte folosite de autor sunt perfect corecte, Bufnita oarba fiind probabil prea scurta ca sa fie considerata o carte propriu-zisa dar foarte concentrata, purificata, si menita sa prinda cititorul intr-o stransoare maladiva, otravitoare la un nivel profund. Asta se aplica chiar si primei sectiuni, dar concluziile pe care cineva ar fi probabil sa le traga din aceasta vor fi negate de fluxul de constiinta care urmeaza... Nu ca ar fi "constiinta" in orice fel termenul potrivit pentru aceasta prezentare a asa unei distrugeri mentale si spirituale.
Desigur, ce s-a pierdut in traducere e o intrebare, si chiar si traducatorul a spus, in cam lunga prefata a acestei editii care a inclus si niste comentarii care ar fi fost mai bine sa fie lasate pentru o postfata, ca lucrarea este considerata aproape intraductibila. Dar tot el spune ca, dupa 27 de ani si 15 versiuni, este in sfarsit multumit ca este destul de aproape, si consider ca originalul ar fi mai derutant si maladiv decat orice traducere. Astfel, poate ca singura concluzie valida ar fi ca ar fi o dovada de prostie si ingamfare sa consideri ca poti trage o concluzie, ca poti determina ce e "real" si ce nu si ce inseamna. Si, din nou, probabil nici n-ar fi intelept sa incerci.

It's an enjoyable and quick read, but you do need to know what to expect. Randall likes taking things to extremes, the answers often leading to scenarios that range from deadly to depicting widespread devastation or even the destruction of the Earth, while at the same time making a point of not taking many things seriously. That works in a webcomic and in answers posted on that comic's site, but may bother in a book, unless you know exactly what you're going to get.
Some of those "weird (and worrying) questions" didn't strike me as being worse than those that were answered. As for some some of the answers that stood out to me, the one about the common cold definitely seems different now than when it was written, while the one about Facebook was unusually considered. And ending on a, shall I say, low note, going to the other extreme, describing the low end of the scale when the question had actually been about a planet-destroying scenario, was somewhat comforting.

At times the writing itself makes me feel less bad about my own, but it reads quickly enough and it's quite decent if you don't expect too much from it. Admittedly, the action is largely an excuse to get the reader to the final chapter, but at least it makes a point of the need to use what nearly everyone else would consider excessive force if you want to get any good things done, which is a view that needs to be promoted far more.
In truth, I wouldn't say it was a necessary part of the series, but it works well enough as one, offering a personal closure for the characters. The final chapter mentioned above deals with most of that, and I'll say that what's written there is pretty much the whole point of the book. It certainly is what made me stop considering giving it a lower rating, as that thought had crossed my mind a few times while reading.

The ideas are certainly interesting, though I'm not exactly fond of the whole religious note. The writing can occasionally leave a little to be desired, but there are also really nice moments, especially during dialogs. In all, not exactly something I ended up being enthusiastic about, but a good book nevertheless, and one that I'm sure was a whole lot more work than it appears, as alternative history always is, even when you don't try to turn all known science on its head, create your own and actually have it make sense while still roughly sticking to the world we live in!

I am noticing more issues with the writing, but that may well be because I'm looking for them more. Otherwise, it's still a very ambitious story that required an immense amount of work. This time around, the number of answers seems to slowly start to exceed that of new questions, and those answers do make quite a lot of sense, so I'm looking forward to the final book in the series, even though at the same time I dread a potentially disappointing ending or even worse writing.

This book is just a maelstrom. It brings the whole series together, all the characters together, for one fight, one purpose, one deciding moment. There are still far too many lucky coincidences, far too many characters survive when they shouldn't have, too many things happen that shouldn't happen, the writing still isn't as good as it should be... But there comes a moment when none of that matters anymore, when you see how everything comes together and are drawn inside that maelstrom yourself. The ending may be something of a disappointment for some, myself included, but... One hell of a ride. One hell of a ride.

Interesting, but not much more than that. Too short to be deep...