House of God reads like a porno

[Dr.One]

The books is 20% medicine, 80% him going on about Mollys mons and Runt sex stories. Severely overrated book. Can anyone give me the name of a medical book that isnt just smut?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Depakote]

Really? Sounds like Choke.

I need to pick that book up.

>_>

<_<

 

[Apparition]

I thought it was one of the best written books I've ever read.
"Complications" may suite you better though if you're looking for more realism.

 

[Ashanti Rock]

The books is 20% medicine, 80% him going on about Mollys mons and Runt sex stories. Severely overrated book. Can anyone give me the name of a medical book that isnt just smut?

Try "The Spirit Catches You and You fall Down" by Anne Fadiman ~ really good book that deals with medicine and issues of culture, this one particularly deals with the Hmong, but lessons can be applied very broadly.

 

[MN81]

Try "The Spirit Catches You and You fall Down" by Anne Fadiman ~ really good book that deals with medicine and issues of culture, this one particularly deals with the Hmong, but lessons can be applied very broadly.

Excellent book. I second that opinion.

My poli-sci friend gave me this one, and it was great.

 

[popbirch]

I am in the middle of complications right now it is really good

 

[clicky]

I thought it was one of the best written books I've ever read.

You must not read many books then.

 

[ahumdinger]

I am in the middle of complications right now it is really good

I second that.

also, for those aspiring female surgeons out there, I recommend Joan Cassell's "The Woman in the Surgeon's Body"

also, years ago I read "A not entirely benign procedure" by Perri Klass. It's about the medical school years and how she balanced having a baby while in school. It's a lot older so some of the specifics may be outdated, but still an interesting read.

 

[Apparition]

You must not read many books then.

I have read many, many books. This one stands out as one of the most ironically written ones, with a great play of words and transitions between positive/negative moods.

 

[clicky]

I have read many, many books. This one stands out as one of the most ironically written ones, with a great play of words and transitions between positive/negative moods.

If wordplay and "transitions between positive/negative moods" are what qualify a book as "good" for you, I bet you get your literary socks knocked off on a regular basis.

 

[madi]

If wordplay and "transitions between positive/negative moods" are what qualify a book as "good" for you, I bet you get your literary socks knocked off on a regular basis.

I can't stand trolls.

 

[MrBurns10]

Really? Sounds like Choke.

I need to pick that book up.

>_>

<_<

All of Chuck Palahniuk's are basically satirical pornos...one of the reasons why he's my favorite author. He's even more odd in person, but I love it.

 

[clicky]

I can't stand trolls.

Me neither.

For what it's worth, this is a thread about books, though. The only books I know about trolls are "The Three Billy Goats Gruff" and maybe some of that "Lord of the Rings" business, though I suspect those are orcs, not trolls.

"House of God" is a great example of why doctors should not try to write fiction. Did it really make you think about anything? It was poorly written enough to offer me no escape, and so outdated as to offer no (relevant) information.

 

[Apparition]

If wordplay and "transitions between positive/negative moods" are what qualify a book as "good" for you, I bet you get your literary socks knocked off on a regular basis.

If you take your head out of your... and reread my original post, you will see that I only said that the book is very well written, not "good."

 

[snobored18]

If you want realism and mostly medicine you can't go wrong with "Hot Lights, Cold Steel" it is a memior written by a orthopod about his residency at the Mayo Clinic in the 70's...you'll finish it in a day if you really enjoy medicine.

 

[Rockhouse]

"Emergency Doctor" Is pretty good. Very real... as it is more or less a writer following around the director of Bellevue for awhile.

 

[pinkey]

The books is 20% medicine, 80% him going on about Mollys mons and Runt sex stories. Severely overrated book. Can anyone give me the name of a medical book that isnt just smut?

I really enjoyed "When the Air Hits Your Brain" about a neurosurgery residency.

 

[clicky]

If you take your head out of your... and reread my original post, you will see that I only said that the book is very well written, not "good."

I happen to think it was quite poorly written. Poorly edited, too. That's why I don't think you read many good books. Please explain to me the difference between a well-written book and a good book, in your view. It seems as though you have nuaced definitions that would allow you to say, "That was a good book, but it was poorly-written," or "That book wasn't written very well, but it was really good." Maybe you meant it was well-written for a doctor -- in that case, we might possibly come to terms... I know orthos who have a hard time reading "Garfield" in the Sunday newspaper; if they had produced "House of God" I would advocate strongly that they be awarded the National Book Award for fiction.

 

[Apparition]

I happen to think it was quite poorly written. Poorly edited, too. That's why I don't think you read many good books. Please explain to me the difference between a well-written book and a good book, in your view. It seems as though you have nuaced definitions that would allow you to say, "That was a good book, but it was poorly-written," or "That book wasn't written very well, but it was really good." Maybe you meant it was well-written for a doctor -- in that case, we might possibly come to terms... I know orthos who have a hard time reading "Garfield" in the Sunday newspaper; if they had produced "House of God" I would advocate strongly that they be awarded the National Book Award for fiction.

Well-written book implies a good/interesting/unique writing style, regardless of content. There are people who are so good with words that they can describe a very basic, uninteresting thing and make it intriguing. A good book combines both the quality of writing itself and the value of content. I thought HOG was well written. I wouldn't say it's deep content-wise but it did make me think. A lot of things that an intern goes through in that book are still applicable -- the loss of the first patient, insecurity, inexperience, dealing with gunners, etc.

 

[autoimmunity]

Who gives a flying frock? Some people liked the book. Some people didn't like the book. Is it necessary to go around slamming people for their personal preferences?

 

[clicky]

Well-written book implies a good/interesting/unique writing style, regardless of content. There are people who are so good with words that they can describe a very basic, uninteresting thing and make it intriguing. A good book combines both the quality of writing itself and the value of content. I thought HOG was well written. I wouldn't say it's deep content-wise but it did make me think. A lot of things that an intern goes through in that book are still applicable -- the loss of the first patient, insecurity, inexperience, dealing with gunners, etc.

I disagree with your assessment of what makes a book good. It sounds as if you're saying that the nature of the content must be a factor in the "goodness" of a book, implying that a book about a repugnant subject could not be considered "good."

I think your personal definition of "well-written" was decent. At least now I don't think you meant that "House of God" was punctuated correctly and didn't include run-ons or sentence fragments.

To the "frock" guy: butt out. Your comments could not be considered "good" or "well-written" by any measuring stick.

 

[QofQuimica]

I happen to think it was quite poorly written. Poorly edited, too. That's why I don't think you read many good books. Please explain to me the difference between a well-written book and a good book, in your view. It seems as though you have nuaced definitions that would allow you to say, "That was a good book, but it was poorly-written," or "That book wasn't written very well, but it was really good." Maybe you meant it was well-written for a doctor -- in that case, we might possibly come to terms... I know orthos who have a hard time reading "Garfield" in the Sunday newspaper; if they had produced "House of God" I would advocate strongly that they be awarded the National Book Award for fiction.

On the cover, it says that his work does for medicine what Joseph Heller's Catch-22 did for the military. What on earth did Joseph Heller ever do to deserve being insulted like that???

OP, one of the best medical-themed books I've ever read is "Bad Blood" by James Jones, which is about the Tuskeegee Syphilis experiment. If any of you are chemically or botanically inclined, "The Medical Garden" (about natural products that are used in medicine) and "The Precious Metals of Medicine" (about bioinorganic chemistry in medicine), both by Geoffrey Marks and William Beatty, are also good. "Virus Hunting" by Robert Gallo is an interesting read. If you're ambitious and you're interested in public health, you might try "The Coming Plague" or "Betrayal of Trust," both by Laurie Garrett. "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts talks about the early days and politics of the AIDS epidemic. I'm sure I could come up with some more, but that list would keep you busy for a while.

 

[drmota]

clicky- to each his own, ya? chill out.
-mota

 

[clicky]

clicky- to each his own, ya? chill out.
-mota

Mota, you don't actually look that good in a suit.

 

[drmota]

Mota, you don't actually look that good in a suit.

at least i have the balls and confidence to put up a picture of myself, rather than lurking on the forums with your 10 posts, beating off to pictures of me. f*ck off, son. you're not gonna win this one.
-mota

 

[Apparition]

I disagree with your assessment of what makes a book good. It sounds as if you're saying that the nature of the content must be a factor in the "goodness" of a book, implying that a book about a repugnant subject could not be considered "good."

I think your personal definition of "well-written" was decent. At least now I don't think you meant that "House of God" was punctuated correctly and didn't include run-ons or sentence fragments.

To the "frock" guy: butt out. Your comments could not be considered "good" or "well-written" by any measuring stick.

Where did I say that the topic has to have "goodness" in a sense that you imply? Good content means something that's worth reading about. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a positive topic. Best books that I've read were on negative themes.

Although widespread errors are annoying, I wouldn't evaluate any book on the anality of its editor.

The "frock" guy has a point. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether YOU like it or not.

 

[clicky]

at least i have the balls and confidence to sit in my dorm room and try to reach my own penis with my mouth, rather than lurking on the forums with your 10 posts, beating off to pictures of me. f*ck off, son. you're not gonna win this one.
-mota

You said it, not me.

 

[clicky]

Mota, you don't actually look that good in a suit.

The truth stings, doesn't it? Looked like a pretty cheap suit too.

 

[clicky]

at least i have the balls and confidence to put up a picture of myself, rather than lurking on the forums with your 10 posts, beating off to pictures of me. f*ck off, son. you're not gonna win this one.
-mota

Like I said, it looked like a cheap suit.

 

[Apparition]

I disagree with your assessment of what makes a book good. It sounds as if you're saying that the nature of the content must be a factor in the "goodness" of a book, implying that a book about a repugnant subject could not be considered "good."

I think your personal definition of "well-written" was decent. At least now I don't think you meant that "House of God" was punctuated correctly and didn't include run-ons or sentence fragments.

To the "frock" guy: butt out. Your comments could not be considered "good" or "well-written" by any measuring stick.

Where did I say that the topic has to have "goodness" in a sense that you imply? Good content means something that's worth reading about. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a positive topic. Best books that I've read were on negative themes.

 

[captainbsm]

A book called "When the Air Hits Your Brain" is a pretty good book. It talks about the ups and downs of being a neurosurgical resident.

 

[slickb12]

I happen to think it was quite poorly written. Poorly edited, too. That's why I don't think you read many good books. Please explain to me the difference between a well-written book and a good book, in your view. It seems as though you have nuaced definitions that would allow you to say, "That was a good book, but it was poorly-written," or "That book wasn't written very well, but it was really good." Maybe you meant it was well-written for a doctor -- in that case, we might possibly come to terms... I know orthos who have a hard time reading "Garfield" in the Sunday newspaper; if they had produced "House of God" I would advocate strongly that they be awarded the National Book Award for fiction.

I imagine that you are an extremely talented master of the English language, and that you have made many strides in furthering literature. Yet, I would tend to trust John Updike, one of our greatest authors and winner of multiple Pulitzer prizes, slightly more than you (read his introduction in the new printing).

You've mentioned punctuation, but any lover of literature knows that these technicalities are NOT the essence of writing--it's the content. The rules of grammar are sometimes broken and actually serve a literary purpose, and sometimes the editors simply miss a trivial error. Who cares?

You need to better define "poorly written." This phrase is thrown around way too often by people who believe that they can simply state this and be taken seriously.

 

[slickb12]

I happen to think it was quite poorly written. Poorly edited, too. That's why I don't think you read many good books. Please explain to me the difference between a well-written book and a good book, in your view. It seems as though you have nuaced definitions that would allow you to say, "That was a good book, but it was poorly-written," or "That book wasn't written very well, but it was really good." Maybe you meant it was well-written for a doctor -- in that case, we might possibly come to terms... I know orthos who have a hard time reading "Garfield" in the Sunday newspaper; if they had produced "House of God" I would advocate strongly that they be awarded the National Book Award for fiction.

I imagine that you are an extremely talented master of the English language, and that you have made many strides in furthering literature. Yet, I would tend to trust John Updike, one of our greatest authors and winner of multiple Pulitzer prizes, slightly more than you (read his introduction in the new printing).



You've mentioned punctuation, but any lover of literature knows that these technicalities are NOT the essence of writing--it's the content. The rules of grammar are sometimes broken and actually serve a literary purpose, and sometimes the editors simply miss a trivial error. Really, who cares?

You need to better define "poorly written." This phrase is thrown around way too often by people who believe that they can simply state this and be taken seriously.

 

[paceac]

Hey clicky-

This is not a site for wannabe english majors trying to prove themselves. If Apparition liked the book, you don't have to insult her.

 

[slickb12]

I happen to think it was quite poorly written. Poorly edited, too. That's why I don't think you read many good books. Please explain to me the difference between a well-written book and a good book, in your view. It seems as though you have nuaced definitions that would allow you to say, "That was a good book, but it was poorly-written," or "That book wasn't written very well, but it was really good." Maybe you meant it was well-written for a doctor -- in that case, we might possibly come to terms... I know orthos who have a hard time reading "Garfield" in the Sunday newspaper; if they had produced "House of God" I would advocate strongly that they be awarded the National Book Award for fiction.

I imagine that you are an extremely talented master of the English language, and that you have made many strides in furthering literature. Yet, I would tend to trust John Updike, one of our greatest authors and winner of multiple Pulitzer prizes, slightly more than you (read his introduction in the new printing).

You've mentioned punctuation, but any lover of literature knows that these technicalities are NOT the essence of writing--it's the content. The rules of grammar are sometimes broken and actually serve a literary purpose, and sometimes the editors simply miss a trivial error. Really, who cares?

You need to better define "poorly written." This phrase is thrown around way too often by people who believe that they can simply state this and be taken seriously.

 

[Thundrstorm]

I thought House of God sucked, but, hey, to each his/her own. OP, if you do a search, there are like 50 bajillion threads on this.

 

[slickb12]

I happen to think it was quite poorly written. Poorly edited, too. That's why I don't think you read many good books. Please explain to me the difference between a well-written book and a good book, in your view. It seems as though you have nuaced definitions that would allow you to say, "That was a good book, but it was poorly-written," or "That book wasn't written very well, but it was really good." Maybe you meant it was well-written for a doctor -- in that case, we might possibly come to terms... I know orthos who have a hard time reading "Garfield" in the Sunday newspaper; if they had produced "House of God" I would advocate strongly that they be awarded the National Book Award for fiction.

I imagine that you are an extremely talented master of the English language, and that you have made many strides in furthering literature. Yet, I would tend to trust John Updike, one of our greatest authors and winner of multiple Pulitzer prizes, slightly more than you (read his introduction in the new printing).

You've mentioned punctuation, but any lover of literature knows that these technicalities are NOT the essence of writing--it's the content. The rules of grammar are sometimes broken and actually serve a literary purpose, and sometimes the editors simply miss a trivial error. Really, who cares?

You need to better define "poorly written." This phrase is thrown around way too often by people who believe that they can simply state this and be taken seriously.

 

[blackle]

"mountains beyond mountains" is another good one if you're into international med. or anything actually written by paul farmer.

p.s. you all = crazy.

 

[blackle]

x

 

[junebuguf]

I read 'The Spirit Catches You, and You Fall Down.' As someone whose parents came from a land with a lot of odd beliefs as well, I can relate to it, but after a while you come away thinking the poor girl is going to die unless the state removes her from her parent's custody permanently, which cant happen because of parent's rights laws, so she's stuck in a catch 22 and will probably lose her life for it. After you make that realization, the books becomes excruciatingly painful in its long, tedious expositions on her parent's motives.

So instead, two really good books I'd recommend that are medically related non-fiction, with a tinge of humor are: 'Stiff' about the secret 'lives' of cadavers, and 'The $800 Million Pill' which debunks most of the claims made by pharma companies in justifying the high cost of drugs.

 

[Vox Animo]

I like stories

 

[junebuguf]

repost

 

[runlolarun]

The books is 20% medicine, 80% him going on about Mollys mons and Runt sex stories. Severely overrated book. Can anyone give me the name of a medical book that isnt just smut?

Oh Yeah, I read that one and thought it was a little strange but interesting nonetheless. If you want something that is more about medicine check out Intern Blues. I don't remember the author though.

good luck

 

[junebuguf]

Mota, you don't actually look that good in a suit.

Mota look good in suit--like Bacardi man. Mota need a Cola man for next year haloween. clicky need a hug.

PS I had 'The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down' for being too long and tedious and 'The $800 Million Pill' and 'Stiff' for being informative, medically-relevant and a good, sometimes humorous read (moreso in the case of 'Stiff'), but my review seems to have gotten lost with the problems on SDN.

 

[noonday]

at least i have the balls and confidence to put up a picture of myself, rather than lurking on the forums with your 10 posts, beating off to pictures of me. f*ck off, son. you're not gonna win this one.
-mota

this is where i get the popcorn and beer, sit in my easy chair to watch, and start chanting "mo-ta. mo-ta." quietly until others join in...

 

[kovalchuk]

I thought it was one of the best written books I've ever read.
"Complications" may suite you better though if you're looking for more realism.

I thought Complications sucked. Maybe I'll try House of God.

 

[dbhvt]

at least i have the balls and confidence to put up a picture of myself, rather than lurking on the forums with your 10 posts, beating off to pictures of me. f*ck off, son. you're not gonna win this one.
-mota

mota,

That was beautiful.

I was gonna chew him out, but now there is no need.

All of a sudden I want to go to Tulane.

 

[dbhvt]

I think your personal definition of "well-written" was decent. At least now I don't think you meant that "House of God" was punctuated correctly and didn't include run-ons or sentence fragments.

I guess I couldn't help myself. Clippy's ass-whoopin' got immortalized as the best post of all time, but I thought I'd just point out for any of you who might think well written = the paper that your 4th grade teacher gave an A:

"I looked up at the church first and then at the windows then down
and our eyes met
I felt something go through me like all needles
my eyes were dancing I remember after
when I looked at myself in the glass
hardly recognised myself the change
he was attractive to a girl in spite of his being a little bald
intelligent looking
disappointed and gay at the same time
he was like Thomas in the shadow of Ashlydyat
I had a splendid skin from the sun and the excitement like a rose
I didnt get a wink of sleep"

No, I'm not going to tell you what it's from. If you think you are hip enough to literature that you can criticize someone elses preferences , you better damn well know what it's from.

 

[clicky]

Looked like a really cheap suit, too.

 

[clc8503]

The books is 20% medicine, 80% him going on about Mollys mons and Runt sex stories. Severely overrated book. Can anyone give me the name of a medical book that isnt just smut?

I'd say the book I very realistic. You'd be surprised at how some of the newer nurses (by that I mean the younger ones) throw themselves at some of the fresh doctors, thinking they can bag one in order to bring him home to mommy and daddy. This comes straight from the mouth of an MD I shadowed. He told me that when he was in med school, he walked in on a nurse and a senior general surgery resident getting it own on in the break room of the hospital, similar to that seen within the first few chapters of the book. Yes, the book is smut but such is life. Overall, the book is very depressing and I would not recommend it to fellow pre-meds. It's a book that should be read after one has finished med school. I recommend that you read (or watch) Patch Adams if you want to be inspired. It’s also based on a true story. Yes, Patch Adams is actually a real guy that is still doing amazing thing to date. It contains no smut whatsoever, unless you find the gynecology doorway scene to be vulgar. I found it to be quite humorous.