Chaos Reading discussion

Hey, what's up, I've been a member of the group for a while but haven't posted before, but I need some help looking for some books if anyone can help me. I'm writing a piece set in the 1990's, and I need to find some books about the end of the world (mostly non-fiction) that were written in or before the 1990s. So far I have 'Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth' and 'The Late Great Planet Earth' and the other books by Hal Lindsey from the 1970's on, but I could use some more leads.

Depends on when in the 90's but there was a book called 5/5/2000: Ice The Ultimate Disaster. (I hope that's the title) I picked it up in the bookstore once in the 90's and read about 50 pages while standing there. I didn't buy it but I got the gist of it. BTW they were wrong. Going to google it now.

Looks like I found it right here on goodreads.

I have a lot of apocalyptic fiction on my shelf, but not much non-fiction I'm afraid. Just a few (mostly tongue-in-cheek survivalist stuff) is fairly recent too.

There was 88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988 (spoiler alert: it wasn't).

The whole Left Behind series is technically fiction, but the events it depicts are considered prophecy by people whose thinking process isn't overly burdened by reason.

Thanks. I'm asking because I'm having a scene where my character is visiting a kind of 'cult' and some vendors there are selling some books. I know that some kinds of 'cult' would only have their own doctrines available but this one is kind of eclectic and it's more like a crazy youth group with a charismatic leader who embraces all different kinds of fringe beliefs.
I've decided some of the other books available will be 'The Doors of Perception' by Aldous Huxley, 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' and maybe some Timothy Leary books.

In that some others to consider might be Carlos Castenada, Richard Bach or Robert Anton Wilson.

Whitney wrote: "In that some others to consider might be Carlos Castenada, Richard Bach or Robert Anton Wilson."

Hey! Don't lump RAW in with cults!

Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "In that some others to consider might be Carlos Castenada, Richard Bach or Robert Anton Wilson."

Hey! Don't lump RAW in with cults!"

Self-described mystic, conspiracy theorist and Discordianist. Half-assed interpreter of quantum physics for the purpose of shoehorning valid scientific theory into spiritual realms where said theories have no business - he stays!

Meet me behind the jungle gym at recess and we can hash this out the old-fashioned way!

(Do you even call them 'jungle gyms' in Australia?)

Whitney wrote: "Self-described mystic, conspiracy theorist and Discordianist. Half-assed interpreter of quantum physics for the purpose of shoehorning valid scientific theory into spiritual realms where said theories have no business - he stays!"

I don't think I disagree with anything you've just said - it just doesn't make him a cultist!

I'm a Discordian, BTW. Pope Card 'n' all. :)

Whitney wrote: "(Do you even call them 'jungle gyms' in Australia?) "

I don't know, to be honest. I think we do, but who can tell these days if that's an Americanism that's just been adopted or not?

Actually I might disagree with this bit: "shoehorning valid scientific theory into spiritual realms where said theories have no business"

Who's to say that quantum physics and spirituality aren't the same thing? Or at least closely related?

Ruby wrote: "Actually I might disagree with this bit: "shoehorning valid scientific theory into spiritual realms where said theories have no business"

Who's to say that quantum physics and spirituality aren't ..."

No one is to say, or not to say. That's the point. Physics is a science, as such it's backed up by observation and testable hypotheses. In short, any scientific theory can be disproved by the right evidence. Spirituality is not 'testable', which is not to say it's wrong, just that it occupies a different realm. Implying that evidence in quantum theory (which deals with very specific and very small particles) somehow lends credence to one's spiritual beliefs is crap. At best it's a useful allegory.

Ruby wrote: "I don't think I disagree with anything you've just said - it just doesn't make him a cultist!

I'm a Discordian, BTW. Pope Card 'n' all. :)
..."

I won't argue that he's a cultist, if anything on of his main objectives is to make people question cult-like unquestioning belief. But I would still put him in the 'fringe' category. I doubt RAW himself would object too strongly to that.

Bach isn't what I'd call a cultist either. Funny story, my manager and I were yapping away and he asked me if I'd every read Richard Bach. I responded in a slightly disdainful voice "you mean the seagull guy?". Voice from the other side of the office: "I don't usually tell people this but I can see where your conversation is going. He's my father.".

Whoops.