Peşaver Geceleri ücretsiz kitap indir

Trish Scelfo trish85e3 — I've read the book a couple of times, but not since middle school, so I decided to re-read before watching the movie. Less than a day later, I finished it. Still a great book; somewhat disturbing on many levels, but great.

Andrea Garcia garciandreae — What I learned from this book? Exactly what can happen with a great concept meets an unfinished idea. Great start...and then the author just... meanders off...somewhere... leaving me with nothing that interests me WHATsoever.

Muralight Team muralight — A rather strange experience: here is a book which possesses many great qualities--it is well written, has a gripping story, and a great depth of psychology--but it ultimately falls into that secondary tier of modern novels that fail to make a full philosophical exploration of their quandries. Perhaps the relative slimness of this book--often cited as the best novel of the Twentieth--is related to that shortcoming. While the political message is powerful and the philosophical questioning interesting, both are infrequent and less profound than I grew to wish. It has always been my preference that a book lay out the whole case, giving both sides of the issue and inviting the reader to think things over and come to some conclusion. I am much less fond of works with 'a message', even if that message is fairly strong, since issues tend to be far too complex to admit a straightforward answer. As one commentator pointed out, this book's central thesis was not merely an idea at the time of writing, but a worldwide 'experiment in progress'--the experiment of Socialism. But I never felt that the book proved its dour case that the regretable outcome was actually caused by Socialism. There are very few cases where man has even tried to develop some other form of governance, and even after a revolution succeeds, idealism invariably devolves into another oligarchy. This book has often been compared to 1984, which tackled the same theme, and it's true that Koestler outdoes Orwell in precision of structure, fineness of language, realism, and character psychology, but I still prefer 1984 as an exploration, because it showcases a greater depth and variance of ideas, and has a speculative outlook. Koestler wrote a proof of what had already happened, while Orwell was more concerned with what our past would do to our present, and our future. Without an influx of progressing ideas to match the deep human conflict, Darkness at Noon became superficial and tedious. Even with good writing, a matching understanding of psychology, and a complex story, without grubbing at deeper concerns a book may inform, but will not inspire. The birth of Socialism was marked by The Communist Manifesto, but its scope was too narrow, and falling to Hume's is/ought dilemma, the philosophies Marx outlined were never really given form--proving once again there is noting inevitable about an ideal. But this book of its demise shares a similarly narrow view--a gravestone may be a monumental sign, but the dates it gives are not the story of a life.

David Alvarez _ersie — Estimated only Huis Clos. I have not Les Mouches yet because I have not read this edition.

Claudio Ripoli napiermkt — hahahhahha.. kata orang ini jelek.. kata orang ini biasa ajah.. tapi gw suka... ^^