Main

August 01, 2007

My Least Favorite Harry Potter Criticism

Well, there are better books out there

No, really, there aren't. There are no books better at being Harry Potter books than Harry Potter.

Yes, there are books that are better written. Yes, there are authors you like better (and why you think other people ought to like them better I don't know). Yes, there are other wizard boy in school books. Yes, there are books where whatever thing you don't like about the Harry Potter books did/didn't happen. And yes, I'm sure there are books which you wish had been as widely-read and their authors as well-rewarded as the Harry Potter books and J. K. Rowling.

But, so? None of those books are Harry Potter. And it's Harry Potter that sold 80 gazillion books and inspired people to go to bookstores at midnight. And while some of those people are almost certainly Very Stupid People (I mean, odds are), lots and lots of them are not reading Harry Potter because they're too dumb to read/appreciate/understand anything else.

I don't know why this particular criticism bothers me . Partly, because it implies that all those Harry Potter readers are too dumb to know that other books exist. Or that reading Harry Potter is any kind of judgment on any other book (it's not).

I think, say, Perfect Circle is 500 times better than The Da Vinci Code but I still enjoyed reading The Da Vinci Code (yes, I know this makes some of you think that I am nuts--that's why I used it as an example :-)

This exercise in crankiness is brought to you by the letter 'H.' Or maybe 'P.'

March 11, 2007

Mockingbird

mockingbird.jpg

I used to write about books on here from time to time. And then I didn't. It may have been because I wasn't finishing anything. Or I got lazy. Or I had nothing interesting to say.

Who knows.

But anyway.

I just finished Mockingbird, which is a bio of Harper Lee. As you all surely know, Harper Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, was a longtime friend of Truman Capote, and helped him with the interviews and research in Kansas when he was working on In Cold Blood. To Kill a Mockingbird was her first novel and she never published another one.

Nelle Harper Lee is in her eighties, reclusive and didn't participate in any way in the writing of this book and the book itself mostly ends where her public life ends, when she's about forty. It's still fascinating. There's some very interesting stuff about Nelle as a child (who swore and punched boys and was quite a lot like Scout--as her father was a lot like Atticus and the town she grew up in was much like Maycomb). The section on Kansas and the research for In Cold Blood is another perspective on that moment in history to be linked with and compared to In Cold Blood itself and the Capote movie (and presumably Capote, the book, though I haven't read it). But as a writer it's most interesting to see the time her agent and editor spent with her getting the book ready to publish, to see things take off in ways none of them anticipated, to see the sales and the movie and Gregory Peck coming to a small Southern town, to see Harper Lee in later life, to see her become not so much a writer anymore as someone who has written.

July 22, 2006

Soon

...I will be editing an anthology called The Year's Best Fantasy and SF: I Really, Really, Really Mean It.

Also, I have been to Lowe's five times today.

May 18, 2006

Life in the World in Genre

I'm re-reading West of Everything by Jane Tompkins, which I read several years ago and quite liked and which I still like and am getting new things out of since, like the river of Time, I am different than I was back then.

I will probably have several comments to make on it as I go (or then again I could drop out of sight once again and forget to post anything), but here's a good quote from early in the book on living in a Western (or, I would contend, living in a lot of genre worlds):

Ordinary work--in fact, ordinary life--is too much like shopping. It never embodies what the hero's struggle to get out of the blizzard embodies: the fully saturated moment. But this is not because life in the twentieth century involves people in all those transactions the Western hero traditionally rejects--the acquisition of material goods, the desire for social status, the search for luxuries, technology, laws, or institutions per se, but the sense that life under these conditions isn't going anywhere. If Westerns seem to long for the out-of-doors, for a simplified social existence, for blizzards and shoot-outs and fabulous exploits, it isn't because their readers want to give up TV and computers and fast foods and go back to life on the frontier. It's that life on the frontier is a way of imagining the self in a boundary situation--a place that will put you to some kind of ultimate test. What distinguishes the life of the L'Amour hero from that of his readers isn't that he can build a fire in the snow, kill ten bandits with six bullets, or get on his horse and ride out of town whenever he wants to; it is that he never fritters away his time. Whatever he does, he gives it everything he's got because he's always in a situation where everything he's got is the necessary minimum.

I think this gets at the thing (and much better than I've ever said it) that I'm always trying to talk about when I talk about characters who do things that matter (not necessarily 'perfect heroes;" I'm totally in favor of flawed and complex characters). Mainstream and literary fiction, even when well-written, often seem to me about people doing things that make no impact on the world. I live my whole life making no impact on the world--I don't want to spend my precious reading time reading about my boring stupid life. And I think that it may also be related to why I find alot of current F&SF so tedious. There's too much something that feels to me like navel-gazing rather than engaging in doing things that matter (and I'm not going to make a sort of attempt to define 'things that matter' except to say I know it when I see it). I read more non-fiction these days--non-fiction tends to be about people doing things that matter.

April 30, 2006

Books

I used to write more about the books I was reading and I'm going to try to get back to that, because although I haven't been writing about them, I have been reading them. Although many of them have not been very good.

However, let's start on a postive note.

Lisa loaned me Perfect Circle by Sean Stewart and I loved it. Loved it. It's not perfect (in spite of its title) but it's very good.

Sometimes I read small press books and think--they should have just resisted the urge to publish this book at all--but not this one. This is a good book.

The main character in Perfect Circle is Will "DK" Kennedy who sees ghosts. "DK" stands for "Dead Kennedy," which is an urge the author should have resisted, though it does have its moments. Will doesn't drive because at night he can't tell the ghosts from the people (the ghosts are black and white, but it's harder to tell at night). He has a basically hosed-up life--dead-end jobs, lousy apartment, ex-wife--which he blames mostly on the ghosts. The family relationships are terrific, most of the characters are more complex than they may seem at first, and the story is about life and living it, about different ways of dying, about how important the way we see things can be, about happiness, about death, and about family.

It reminds me a lot (and not in a plagerism sort of way) of a book I read and loved a good few years ago--Almost Famous by David Small, which I found on a drugstore book rack in some town I don't even remember. Almost Famous is not at all fantastic and isn't, really, even my sort of book, but I loved it a lot when I read it. It was one of those books that you feel different after reading and you're not even sure why (this is as opposed to books that you feel different after reading and you do know why--and I don't mean the ones that make you stupider). Almost Famous is about a guy who was destined for baseball superstardom, got in a near-fatal accident, and has been pissed off about it ever since--without admitting in any way that he's pissed off and pretending that he doesn't care.

December 05, 2005

Fifteen Things

...about me and books

This is a meme going around Live Journal and it's a great one so I figure I'll take a stab at it.

1. I learned to read when my brother went to kindergarten, which meant I could already read when I went to kindergarten. I went to kindergarten in the Masonic Temple because the school was too crowded and kids had to sleep in the hallway for nap time because the Masonic Temple was too crowded too. Eventually, they sent me to a psychologist, who I disliked intensely but when he asked me if I was uncomfortable I told him no, I was hungry and it was lunch time and I was missing lunch, which apparently cued him to the fact that not only could I read, but I could tell time too and they skipped me up to first grade.

2. In my family the prevailing wisdom is that you can learn anything from books. My father and my uncle when they were (I have no idea how old, but let's say early twenties) decided that they could learn to butcher a steer with a book from the library. I have no memory of how this story turns out, but since it's one my dad used to tell a lot, I presume they actually managed to do it--though I have no idea what kind of shape the book was when they returned it to the library.

3. My whole family reads (or did when we were younger, I'm not sure whether a couple of my brothers read all that much now). Our idea of a really great Sunday afternoon would be for everyone to be curled up somewhere reading a book (if we were at my grandmother's it also involved watching Elvis Presley movies). You can never go wrong in my family by giving someone a book as a gift (unless it's one they already own).

4. I have no idea what the first book I ever read was, though we once owned a Dick and Jane-ish book which consisted only of the word 'Oh' repeated as appropriate throughout the book.

Page 1: Oh!

Page 2: Oh, oh!

Page 3: Oh! Oh! Oh!

Page 4: Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!

Page 5: Oh.

5. When my sister was about three, she memorized one of the Dr. Suess books (I can't for the life of me remember which one), which she would 'read' to the babysitter when she came. The babysitter had no idea what to make of this.

6. My father read us a story every night. My mother would read to us when my father wasn't there, but we really preferred him although my mother put more emotion into the stories and read the dialogue as if it was actually dialogue. My father just read in a metronomic monotone. It was great.

7. My brother once lived in a small-ish town with a used bookstore. The store had two portable racks of paperback books they put outside the front door after they closed at night in case anyone had a book emergency at two o'clock in the morning.

8. Our local library when I was a kid was very small (I didn't think this at the time, but, really, it was tiny). They had a limit on how many books you could take out as a kid (somewhere between 7 and 10) but if we wanted more, we just gave them to my mother to sign out. My mother, who thought The Wonderful World of Disney was suspiciously violent for children to watch, believed that kids should read any book they thought they were ready for. The only books I remember reading too soon (aside from books that just turned out to be really boring) were Hawaii by James Michener, where I got as far as the bashing in heads scene right at the beginning of the book and A Town Called Alice by Nevile Shute where it was the crucifixtion scene that did me in. I'm pretty sure I was in sixth grade when I read both those books and the school librarian was the one who gave me A Town Called Alice.

9. My grandmother bought books by the bag full, especially romance novels and mysteries. She had this little room off her living room that was floor to ceiling filled with books. My sister and I would bring home a bag of books every time we went there. She had a basket full of books by the front door and would press them on you when you left, along with twenty dollar bills and giant molasses cookies. She also had a book of Shirley Jackson stories, The Magic of Shirley Jackson, that you would see right when you walked into her living room. When she died and my brother asked me what I wanted from the house, I told him that book because it feels like my grandmother to me.

10. When I was in graduate school I lived for a year in a big old house in the country with a bunch of other people. The house belonged to some nameless, faceless professor and was filled with bookshelves filled with books. The bookshelves all had books two deep on every shelf which, for some reason, I found fascinating. At our house, we stacked books and put them in baskets and stored them in paper bags, but we never double-upped books on bookshelves.

11. Books are my addiction. Other people shop for shoes or technology toys. I had a student tell me once that he can never go into Best Buy without buying something. That's how Border's is for me, I told him. I have tons of books I haven't even read but I can't stop buying books. Occasionally I declare a book buying sabbatical but it never lasts as long as I say it will.

12. When I go away, even if it's just overnight, I rarely take fewer than four books with me. I have to have one fiction and one non-fiction (for when I get tired of reading one or the other) and then I have to have a backup book for each--because not every town has emergency book buying contingencies (see number 7). When I go, like, to a cabin for a week or someplace else relaxing, I take a whole bag of books and I start collecting them several months in advance and setting them aside so I don't accidently read them some day and ruin the whole vacation. Right before I leave I have to be careful about what books I start reading and when. It's no good taking a half-finished book on vacation because it's taking up good space a whole unstarted book could be packed in.

13. I love owning books. It's one of the greatest things about being an adult with my own money. I remember where books are by their shape and color and position on the book shelf and can almost always go right to the book even if I haven't looked at it in a long time. I can only remember where books are when they're out on bookshelves or in stacks though. Once I pack them away in boxes, I have no idea where they are and I have to go through every single box to find them.

14. Unlike many people I did not start writing when I was young. I made up stories a lot but it was enough just to store them in my head. I used to always try to sit by the window on the school bus so I could stare out the window and daydream the whole ride. My brothers and sister and I did occasionally write plays which we performed on the front porch for my mother and our neighbor down the road. It didn't actually occur to me to be a writer until graduate school when I learned (and, yes, i know this sounds goofy) that it was actually possible to revise things and make them better. Up until then--and this includes all the way through undergraduate college--I figured that what you put down on paper was what you had, with occasional corrections of spelling and grammar.

15. The best presents I ever receive are books that I didn't know existed or didn't know I wanted or hadn't thought of getting.

November 26, 2005

First Novels that Really Aren't

You know, I don't at all mind that writers publish books under new names in an attempt to get back into the market and escape the death spiral. I don't even mind when they write something in the author's bio like, "The Totally Generic Story of Kings and Queens is Jane X's first novel," because at some level (the level that treats a name as if it can write a book) it's true. It's the first novel published under that name at least.

What I do object to is then blurbing the book as if it's a great first novel. Because it's not. It's a fifth or sixth or tenth novel. And everyone who's blurbing it and many of the people reviewing it know perfectly well who the author is behind the pseudonym and they know that it's not a first novel. And they still write things like:

This remarkable debut novel captured my imagination.

or

This is [blah-blah's] debut novel and it ranks with the works of [greats of the field].

Those are just lies (it is possible some reviewers don't know, but it is absolutely not true for all of them. When I know that someone's using a pseudonym, it's pretty much a guarantee that everyone in the genre and most everyone outside it also knows.). Say it's a pretty good novel. Say you're sure we'll be seeing lots more of Jane X. But don't say it's an exceptional first novel if you know that it's not a first novel at all. It's annoying.

July 29, 2005

Books

I am currently reading some or all of the following more or less at the same time:

Deception on His Mind by Elizabeth George
Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku
Slack by Tom DeMarco
The Journey of Crazy Horse by Joseph M. Marshall III
French Women Don't Get Fat by Mirelle Guiliano

July 25, 2005

Anecdotal Leads for News Stories Reporting the End of the World.

From McSweeney's Internet Tendency:

With a broad smile emerging from his salt-and-pepper beard, gas-station attendant Earl Talbot hailed the little man in the shiny red Porsche that had pulled up to pump No. 3 and demanded, "Fill 'er up!"

Without skipping a beat, Talbot unveiled the sawed-off shotgun he kept behind his back and blasted four bullets into the unidentified driver's skull. Then, with a tortured howl directed at the sky, Talbot placed the muzzle of the gun in his wide mouth and pulled the trigger.

For the Exit 41 Kwik Fill, the final exit had come.

July 24, 2005

About Americans

I've just started reading a collection of Alastair Cooke's Letter(s) from America and the very first essay in the book, produced in 1946 says:

If you feel baffled and alarmed at the prospect of differentiating one American type from another, you can take heart. You have more hope of success than Americans, who shuffle through every stereotype of every foreign culture as confidently as they handle the family's pack of cards. Americans are not particularly good at sensing the real elements of another people's culture. It helps them to approach foreigners with carefree warmth and an animated lack of misgiving. It also makes them, on the whole, poor administrators on foreign soil. They find it almost impossible to believe that poorer peoples, far from the Statue of Liberty, should not want in their heart of hearts to become Americans. If it should happen that America, in its new period of world power, comes to do what every other world power has done: if Americans should have to govern large numbers of foreigners, you must expect that Americans will be well hated before they are admired for themselves.

July 16, 2005

What's the point of hating Harry Potter?

More specifically, what's the deal with hating the people who like Harry Potter? If you read any of these rants (and I don't feel like linking to them--they're easy enough to find), you'll usually find that the ranter hasn't read Harry Potter. But it's children's literature, they say. And adults are reading it. And enjoying it! That can't be right. The rant usually ends with--why can't they read stuff I like (or at least stuff I say I like).

First of all, if you're going to whine about it, read it.

Second, here are the two things I like about Harry Potter (and I've read them :-). So far, Harry Potter books have at least been among the very few books that I know when I buy them I'm going to be able to relax and honestly enjoy. I won't hate the characters, I won't fall asleep waiting for something to happen, I won't end up cross-eyed with boredom from pages and pages of too many words that don't do anything, and it won't be a story that ends up illustrating the uselessness of modern living and the despair of the comfortably well-off. I could tell you about all the big books with big words that I've read, but, you know, assume instead that I have a tiny brain because I like different things in my books than you do. Jeez!

The second thing I like about the Harry Potter books is that, taking the series as a whole (through book 5, since I haven't read book 6 and won't for awhile), I would describe them as subversive literature masquerading as phatic discourse, which I think is cool.

So, read Harry Potter books or don't read them. But if you don't read them, don't rant about how you know that they're ruining civilization and turning adults into extended adolescents who have no responsibility for anything and don't know the world is, like, all complex and stuff.

Hey, guess what, I watch cartoons, too.

July 10, 2005

The Prodigal Troll

I finished this book a while ago, but as you can tell from the fact that I haven't posted anything in a couple of weeks, I've got some catching up to do.

The Prodigal Troll is the story of a boy raised by trolls and his return to the human world. It's a world not our own and not a stereotypical fantasy world either though it uses many (most?) of the tropes of stereotypical fantasy and turns them slightly, playing with gender roles and culture and laws. It's a destiny story that takes nothing for granted, including that Destiny Boy will actually want the destiny that awaits him.

Several years ago I was in a bookstore and overheard an older man with an Irish accent talking to a store clerk about the fact that very very few science fiction novels deal with democracies. The Prodigal Troll does, though. The trolls are all about the voting:

"We took a vote and voted you should put the baby down."

"The vote was a tie, so I can do what I want."

Ragweed ground his jaws together until they squeaked. "But the baby's dead--that's why you should let go of it."

"Let's have another vote."

Ragweed smiled broadly, showing off his gray, cracked teeth. "That's a good idea. All those in favor of you putting down the dead baby?" He raised his hand. "And those against?"

Windy raised hers. "It's a tie. So I can do what I want."

The main flaw in the story, for me, is that some of the characters and their motivations are not at all clear to me and we end up being told (and somewhat late in the game) what these characters are like and what their motivations might be rather than seeing them act. But I think this feeling--that I don't always know who these characters are--is a limitation of the primary POV character. Maggot, coming as he does from the land of Troll, doesn't always understand what's going on and doesn't see some of these characters in circumstances where we, if not he, might get a better understanding of their motives and of who they are.

It's not a fatal flaw, though. The story is compelling. The prose is readable. And it's an interesting book which offers some new takes on old tropes while remaining accessible and readable. Plus, the trolls are cool.

May 17, 2005

Georgia O'Keeffe Says

I'm reading Full Bloom by Hunter Drohojowska-Philip, which is a new-ish biography of Georgia O'Keefe. It has some neato quotes.

On creativity:

Whether you succeed or not is irrelevant, there is no such thing. Making your unknown known is the important thing--and keeping the unknown always beyond you. Catching, crystalizing your simpler clearer vision of life--only to see it turn stale compared to what you vaguely feel ahead--that you must always keep working to grasp.

On being a woman and an artist and learning to listen to yourself:

I grew up pretty much as everybody else grows up and one day seven years ago found myself saying to myself--I can't live where I want to--I can't go where I want to--I cna't do what I want to--I can't even say what I want to--. School and things that painters have taught me even keep me from painting as I want to. i decided I was a very stupid fool not to at least paint as i wanted to and say waht I wanted to when I painted as that seemed to be the only thing I could do that didn't concern anybody but myself--that was nobody's business but my own. So these paintings and drawings happened and many others that are not here--I foudn that I could say things with color and shapes that I coudln't say in any other way--things that I had not words for. Some of the wise men say it is not painting, some of them say it is. Art or not art--they disagree.

March 15, 2005

one more time

I'm really testing a different weblog that isn't working right...

January 16, 2005

The Wisdom of Twelve Angry Men

The Despair, Inc demotivational poster for Meetings says:

None of us is as dumb as all of us.

James Surowecki says in The Wisdom of Crowds, ok, yeah, maybe sometimes that's true, but not always. And, in fact, particularly in large, independent groups, the many are way smarter than the individual expert:

At 11:38 AM on January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger lifted off from its launch pad at Cape Canaveral. Seventy-four seconds later, it was ten miles high and rising. Then it blew up. The launch was televised, so news of the accident spread quickly. Eight minutes after the explosion, the first story hit the Dow Jones News Wire.

The stock market did not pause to mourn. Within minutes, investors started dumping the stocks of the four major contractors who had participated in the Challenger launch: Rockwell International, which built the shuttle and its main engines; Lockheed, which managed ground support; Martin Marietta, which manufactured the ships external fuel tank; and Morton Thiokol, which built the solid-fuel booster rocket. Twenty-one minutes after the explosion, Lockheed's stock was down 5 percent, Martin Marietta's was down 3 percent, and Rockwell was down 6 percent.

Morton Thiokol's stock was hit hardest of all. As the finance professors, Michael T. Maloney and J. Harold Mulherin, report in their fascinating study of the market's reaction to the Challenger disaster, so many investors were trying to sell Thiokol stock and so few people were interested in buying it that a trading halt was called almost immediately. When the stock started trading again, almost an hour after the explosion, it was down 6 percent. By the end of the day, its decline had almost doubled, so that at market close, Thiokol's stock was down nearly 12 percent. By contrast, the stocks of the three other firms started to creep back up, and by the end of the day their value had fallen only around 3 percent.

What this means is that the stock market had, almost immediately, labeled Morton Thiokol as the company that was responsible for the Challenger disaster....As Maloney and Mulherin point out, though, on the day of the disaster there were no public comments singling out Thiokol as the guilty party....Savvy insiders alone did not cause that first-day drop in Thiokol's price. It was all those investors--most of them relatively uninformed--who simply refused to buy the stock.

He goes on to say:

The market was smart that day because it satisfied the four conditions that characterize wise crowds: diversity of opinion (each person should have some private information, even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of known facts), independence (people's opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them), decentralization (people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge); and aggregation (some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision).

This afternoon, I happened to turn on the television and Twelve Angry Men was playing on (I think) Turner Classic Movies. Twelve Angry Men is one of my great favorite movies. It's about justice and doing what's right and the transcendence of ordinary people. Plus, it has great speeches just littered all through it. It's also a classic example of the wisdom of crowds. One of the things I noticed this time through--maybe because I'd just finished reading The Wisdom of Crowds is how much depends on the different experience and knowledge of the men in the room--the old man(Joseph Sweeney) knows what it's like to be a forgotten old man, Jack Klugman knows how to use a switchblade, Henry Fonda used to live next to the El. They were poor men and immigrants and business men and laborers. They each brought knowledge with them that others didn't bring. They each observed different things in the courtroom, they each had different prejudices (which meant that their prejudices would be questioned, not just taken for granted.

They were diverse. They were independent--they had never met before their jury duty and they didn't even know each other's names until Henry Fonda and Joseph Sweeney introduce themselves as they're leaving the courthouse. Henry Fonda broke them out of 'groupthink' and gave them the opportunity to bring their special knowledge to bear on the situation. And they were locked in a room until they came to an agreement--making aggregation a necessity.

May 02, 2004

Reading Lolita in Tehran

Once evil is individualized, becoming part of everyday life, the way of resisting it also becomes individual. How does the soul survive? is the essential question. And the response is: through love and imagination. Stalin emptied Russia of its soul by pouring on the old death. Mandelstam and Sinyavsky restored that soul by reciting poetry to fellow convicts and by writing about it in their journals. "Perhaps to remain a poet in such circumstances," Bellow wrote, "is to reach the heart of politics. The human feelings, human experiences, the human form and face, recover their proper place--the foreground."

On Gatsby:

Imagination in these novels is equated with empathy; we can't experience all that others have gone through, but we can udnerstand even the most monstrous individuals in works of fiction. A good novel is one that shows the complexity of individuals, and creates enough space for all these characters to have a voice; in this way a novel is called democratic--not that it advocates democracy but that by nature it is so....

..."You don't read Gatsby," I said, "to learn whether adultery is good or bad but to learn about how complicated issues such as adultery and fidelity and marriage are. A great novel heightens your senses and sensitivity to the complexities of life and of individuals, and prevents you from the self-righteousness that sees morality in fixed formulas about good and evil..."

On Jane Austen's novels:

All tensions are created and resolved through dialogue. Austen's ability to create such multivocality, such diverse voices and intonations in relation and in confrontation within a cohesive structure, is one of the best examples of the democratic aspect of the novel. In Austen's novels, there are spaces for oppositions that do not need to eliminate each other in order to exist. There is also space--not just space but a necessity--for self-reflection and self-criticism. Such reflection is the cause of change. We needed no message, no outright call for plurality, to prove our point. All we needed was to read and appreciate the cacophony of voices to understand its democratic imperative. This was where Austen's danger lay.

It is not accidental that the most unsympathetic characters in Austen's novels are those who are incapable of genuine dialogue with others. They rant. They lecture. They scold. This incapacity for true dialogue implies an incapacity for tolerance, self-reflection and empathy...

One of the most powerful things that Azar Nafisi talks about in Reading Lolita in Tehran is the ability of literature to illuminate our lives, to help us see that nothing is black and white, and even so, we manage to do good, to progress, to make a better life. Literature shows us that perfect and good are not the same, that we can love other flawed and broken people, that we can strive beyond our fears, and that all of us can aspire to something beyond what we know.

Read this book.

February 29, 2004

Book Reports for the Short Attention Span

Great Gatsby:
My next door neighbour has led a pretty strange life, but he lies half the time. Also, I am a bit strange.

Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
I'm stupid, I'm smart, I'm wicked smart, I die. And I have a pet mouse named Algernon.

The Lovely Bones.
I was raped and murdered. Still, look on the bright side.

Animal Farm
All revolutions devour their young, especially when they taste like chicken

All that and more at Summarise a Novel in 25 Words.

December 15, 2003

BTW

I have been reading the following:

  • Beyond Fear by Bruce Schneir
  • Georgia O'Keeffe by Roxanna Robinson
  • Holes by Louis Sachar (this was a re-read, actually)
  • Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by you-know-who
  • a couple of mysteries that are packed away because I took my bookshelves down temporarily
  • and a couple of other things that I can't think of right now, but will post on later
  • I'll followup on many or all of these later as I really do have something to say about most of them and that will give me topics for other posts besides writing and dogs (though, really, aren't writing and dogs enough?)

    June 22, 2003

    Recent Reading

    Seabiscuit by Laura Hillenbrand
    Awesome book! Awesome writing! I hadn't really paid much attention to this book because it didn't seem like my kind of thing, but it was recommended to me by a good friend so I tried it. You don't have to care about racing or horses (though everyone cares about horses, don't they). It's good.

    And a bunch of entertaining but more or less forgettable mysteries:

    The Pillow Book of Lady Wisteria by Laura Joh Rowland
    Okay, this one's good and I'd recommend the whole series. They take place in Japan in the seventeenth century.

    Murder of a Snake in the Grass and
    Murder of a Sleeping Beauty by Denise Swanson
    These are about a school psychologist who lives in one of those small towns where people are always dying under suspicious circumstances. The world of school and kids is fun and interesting.

    Murder in Hell's Kitchen by Lee Harris
    I admit, I had to look at the back cover blurb to remember what this one was about, but it was decently written. Plus, I liked the part where she went to Omaha.

    Equivocal Death by Amy Gutman
    If you're young and beautiful, bad things may happen to you, but everything will be all right in the end, particularly (and of course, completely surprisingly, as one cannot be crass) financially.

    May 05, 2003

    Currently Reading

    Detective Inspector Huss by Helene Tursten
    (translated from Swedish by Steven T. Murray)

    Savage Beauty -- The Life of Edna St. Vincent Millay by Nancy Milford

    Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy edited by James B. South

    April 04, 2003

    Recent Reading

    I've been meaning to write about these books in more detail, but haven't gotten to it, so here's a list of books I've finished recently:

    • The Frailty Myth by Colette Downing
    • Secrets Never Lie by R. Robin McDonald
    • The Way You Look Tonight by Carlene Thompson
    • Warriors Don't Cry by Melba Patillo Beals

    I will mention briefly that Warriors Don't Cry is wicked excellent. It's a memoir written by one of the nine black students who integrated Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. Melba Patillo was fifteen years old when she went to Central High. Her mother, a school teacher, was divorced so her household consisted of Melba, her mother, her grandmother, and her younger brother. They were threatened by phone, by men with shotguns, by rocks thrown from cars and by threats of bombs. Melba and the other students were harassed every single day and their lives were often in real significant danger. The teachers and administration did little to support them, the only time they felt even a modicum of safety was when the 101st Airborne was walking them to class--protection that was pulled out as quickly as possible. None of them reported how really bad things were because they were afraid the whole thing would be shut down and the chance might never come again. And yet, those nine students (only one didn't finish the year) managed in spite of everything to go to school and to survive and they made it through the school year more or less intact.

    Sometimes you read about historic decisions like black students at Central High or young women at the Citadel and you think that it's pretty much over when the students finally get their chance to walk through the door. The rest of us--those who aren't right there--move on to other things, and we don't always know what happens afterward. These young men and women, the first ones, like Melba Patillo Beals, never really get their dream, the school is never for them what it is for those who have always belonged there, it's worse, in fact, that what they left and it the opportunities it offers others (the ones who 'belong') will never be offered to them. But because they are willing to make the sacrifices they make, they change the world and the future for the rest of us.

    March 31, 2003

    Current reading

    I actually have finished several books lately (er, that is, in the last month or so...) and I intend to blog on them eventually. However...

    I'm currently reading, Secrets by Daniel Ellsberg (subtitled: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers) and, given the war in Iraq and all the conflicting reports, things-we-can't-tell-you, and decisions that make no sense, it's a profoundly unsettling experience.

    January 31, 2003

    Recent Reading I

    Blinded by the Right by David Brock

    There's a certain knowledge that you can't escape while reading this book--the fact that Brock has proven himself a big, fat, unscrupulous liar over and over. I mean, he confesses to it all through the book as you're reading, just in case you're inclined to forget. But the other thing is that he was in a position to know a great many things, much of what he talks about here makes himself look as bad as anyone, and what he says helps make sense of things that otherwise are too nonsensical to entertain.

    David Brock, for those who don't know was a right-wing journalist who wrote The Real Anita Hill and breaking articles on 'Troopergate,' Paula Jones, and other 'scandals' of the Clinton presidency.

    But he's a changed man, now. In a nutshell, according to Blinded by the Right, Hillary Clinton was right--there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to ruin the Clinton presidency. And though, at times, it looked more farcical than effective, its success is illustrated every time someone says, 'Al Gore, well, you know he's a liar,' or 'Hillary only married Bill because she wanted power,' or 'Bill Clinton had to have done something wrong or they wouldn't have spent so much time and money trying to 'get' him.' But, of course, in the latter case in particular, the point was to spend that much money whether there was anything or not, the idea was to invoke the 'where there's smoke there's fire' mindset. Most people can't even recognize how it colors their perceptions because it was been so thoroughly ingrained in every public discussion, the regular imperfections of humans blown up and exaggerated and downright lied about until we can't stand to look at them anymore. And there was so much discussion. Even Brock can't seem to come up with an explanation for why so much of the so-called 'liberal media' participated in the pecking party, too.

    What annoys me the most about this is that a bunch of sulky eighth-grade boys could bring our government--you know, the one that's of, by, and for the people--to a virtual halt for years. Health care reform? We need it desperately. People are miserable, people are dying, people have lost their voice in their work place over health care. We pay more for less than Canada and France (though we think we pay less and get more). People against health care reform try to scare us by telling us that we won't get to choose our own doctors anymore. What planet are these people living on? Hardly anyone gets to choose their doctors freely anymore anyway. It's the rule of HMOs and PPOs and managed care. Health care reform was a real possibility at the beginning of Clinton's presidency, but it got buried under bad reporting and scare tactics and, quite frankly, stupid stuff that doesn't matter.

    The right wing conspiracy is real, says David Brock, much of it made up of a bunch of unprincipled young (or, by now, formerly young) people making a lot of money and laughing at the rest of us, and it's pushing us in a direction most of us don't want to go. And yet, we watch it, our country, being slowly pulled away from us because for one thing we can't believe people would act as these people have acted. We think--no one would talk this much about Whitewater or Troopergate or chocolate chip cookies if there wasn't something there. What's there is this--virulent hatred and too much money and access.

    January 20, 2003

    Recent Reading--Thurgood Marshall

    I recently finished reading--Thurgood Marshall, American Revolutionary by Juan Williams.

    Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court justice. He was the lead lawyer for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education. He had a voice in many of the important segregation cases in this country in the 40s and 50s. He was a federal circuit court judge and Solicitor General under President Lyndon Johnson.

    Marshall was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1908. He had a brother, Aubrey, who became a doctor, a mother who was a school teacher and a father worked on the railroad as a waiter. When he was in college he worked summers as a waiter at an all-white club on Chesapeake Bay. He attended Howard Law school in Washington DC (the University of Maryland law school was not an option--it hadn't admitted a black man since 1890). He worked many years for the NAACP before accepting a judgeship.

    Thurgood Marshall was not a perfect man, either personally or professionally. But he was tremendously energetic, successful in the things he set out to do, and dedicated to the cause of improving the lot of individuals in this country according to the promises set out in the Constitution. His accomplishments were myriad and significant, though he, unfortunately, also lived long enough to see the gains he fought for chipped away in ways that still threaten to undermine the principles on which his successes were founded.

    When Marshall was about to move to New York to take a position with the NAACP, his brother was diagnosed with tuberculosis and his father was out of work. The best TB hospitals in Maryland, admitted only whites:

    ...Norma Marshall with tears in her eyes, told Thurgood and Buster that her troubles should not be their troubles. With a plainspoken approach, she said Thurgood's future was in New York and the family owed him as much support as they were giving Aubrey...staying in a failing law practice wasn't going to help Aubrey or anyone else.

    Later, as a representative of the NAACP working to promote equal rights for all:

    When Marshall spoke to NAACP youth groups and asked the youngsters what they were going to do when they grew up, the kids answered: "I'm going to be a good butler" or "I hope I might be able to get in the post officce." he thought to himself, That was it for them. He understood he was watching their lives get shut down before they were even grown up. He wanted to unravel this rope that was choking so many.

    Trent Lott talks about being lynched as he sits in his office in his comfortable chair surrounded by supporters and synchophants. In the south in the 1940s, the issue was a bit more immediate:

    ...This time the policemen ordered Marshall out and pushed him into their car. They told him he was under arrest for drunken driving. The lawyer protested that he hadn't had a drink in several days. The police told him to shut up, then ordered Looby and the others to drive away.

    ....

    [Looby] watched with growing horror as the car turned off the highway and headed down a dirt road toward the river....Pulling over, one policeman got out shouting, his face red in anger, and ordered Looby to get back on the highway and drive to Nashville. Speaking slowly out of fear, Looby said he wasn't leaving until he saw Marshall.

    ...

    With Looby still driving his car behind them, the police drove back to town. When they got to the square, they ordered Marshall out of the car and told him to go to the judge's chamber on the second floor of the courthouse by himself. Marshall told them he would walk over, but only with them. "You ain't gonna shoot me in the back. We'll go together," he said.

    It's important to note in reading the above passages that Thurgood Marshall at that time (1946) had considerable power for a black man. He was recognized by blacks as "their top criminal defense lawyer and a civil rights leader." He had a network of friends that included Eleanor Roosevelt and other prominent figures. And yet, he was still someone who couldn't spend the night in many towns and who could be taken away and shot if the right people decided it needed doing.

    And here, among other things, is why all of this matters:

    In the thirty-nine years between his triumph in the Brown case and his death, Marshall saw the nation go from complete segregation through halting attempts at integration to occasional resegregation. When he first joined the high court in the late 1960s, almost two thirds of black students were in integrated schools. When he died, however, two thirds of black students were in mostly segregated schools.

    January 08, 2003

    Neuromancer on the Internet

    William Gibson has a blog

    For some reason, I find this is worth knowing.

    Recent Reading

    Them:Adventures with Extremists by Jon Ronson.
    I sort of didn't get this book. Was it trying to educate me about what's going on in the world? Did it have some sort of over all messsage for me about extremists and the world we live in? Was it trying to be funny? And who were we supposed to be worried about at the end of the book? The extremists? Or 'Them'? (Them being the 'international bankers' who rule the world from a small room in some unnamed city).

    And yet, it was an interesting book. I was reminded as I was reading it of a conversation I'd had recently with a friend of mine about people who throw themselves enthusiastically into turtle worship or animal magic or the seven secret senses (I'm making these things up, but it wouldn't actually surprise me to find you could google for them and find something). These people are looking for something and they often find it in enthusiastic words or promises that almost speak to that empty thing inside them or explanations that make a certain kind of sense out of inexplicable events. And they grab onto these things because they want something so badly that means something. That was the sense I got from many of the extremists Ronson talks to in his books. Their searching, though, has turned to hatred and anger and a need to strike at something, which makes them dangerous, in my book, and not particularly amusing.

    And one of Ronson's points (at least I think this was a point) is a good one, that there is much to be worried about in the world and even if it's not 'international bankers,' there is consolidation and globalization and corporatization and those are problems that we shouldn't ignore simply because terrorism and extremism is also a problem.

    January 05, 2003

    Maybe This

    Per our discussion of why I don't read fiction anymore, Dawn sends me this

    In a New York Times article (yes, you have to register, but registration is free) from around this time last year, Chitra Divakaruni writes about serving as a judge for the National Book Awards and reading 300 novels all at once. It gave her new insight, she says, into what distinguishes a great novel from a merely mediocre one.

    It is this resonance, finally, that separates the successful novel from the others. The cast of major characters may be small or large, clowns or kings. The backdrop may be modest (a room) or ambitious (a continent). The vocabulary may be simple or flamboyant, literary or colloquial. The melody may be created by a single flute, or performed by an entire orchestra. But through it all, there's a sense that what we're seeing is not all that this is about.

    The novel continuously opens into something larger than the specifics that form the boundaries of the story, though paradoxically these specifics must be concrete and convincing if we are to intimate a larger truth through them. Reading it becomes a three-dimensional experience, beginning in the book and ending in ourselves. Such a novel, while it is a mirror of, and a commentary on, a particular event, people, country or time, is on some level about each one of us, our central truth. Each successful novel gives a special flavor and shape -- and tone -- to this truth, but does not limit it to these. In this it is similar to the bell, which shapes sound without enclosing it.

    Resonance and truth. Definitely things worth aspiring to.

    January 03, 2003

    Why I Don't Read Fiction Anymore

    I wish someone would tell me the answer to this question.

    Because right now most everything I do read strikes me as:

    Stories about people I don't like doing stuff I don't care about

    And don't tell me I should read genre fiction because that's what I'm talking about.

    Literary and/or mainstream fiction strikes me as:

    Pointless stories about people I don't like doing stuff I don't care about

    And don't suggest specific books to me because I consider a lot of books and what I'd really like to know is why I pick up so many and put them down, why I stop reading halfway through, why I get to the end and feel completely unsatisfied. Is it me or the books?

    I still watch movies, not a lot of movies, but there are plenty that I like.

    I read a lot of non-fiction which I do find engaging, often for its storytelling.

    I don't watch much series television anymore because I don't care to get involved with shows (Firefly) that the network moves around (Firefly) and then yanks from the schedule (Firefly) before it can develop its rhythm and its following.

    So why?

    Mystery novels, it seems to me, are usually more full of gimmicks and annoying personality traits than mystery. For one thing, there are often all these other people--friends, family, spouses, children--who spend a great part of the novel arguing with the protagonist and interfering with their concentration and their confidence and their intelligence to no apparent purpose except to make the mystery last longer. No wonder so many mystery characters didn't have family in the 'old days.' Science fiction novels have characters who aren't engaging or complex in interesting ways and the novels are busy being plausible in ways I don't care about and implausible in ways I do. Fantasy is, well, people I don't like doing things I don't care about and, again, too much attention spent on why things are and how things came and what went on before. I care that things are and I care that how they are is plausible, but unless it's critical to the resolution, I don't care why. I don't. There's also a fair portion of fantasy that's about wish-fulfillment in areas I don't seem to have wishes anymore. This wouldn't necessarily be a show stopper, but these stories very often involve people I don't like getting things I don't see that they deserve (possibly because I don't like them).

    The writing in these books is all serviceable, some is good, some is very good. I presume they're well constructed though I don't always make it far enough through to know for sure. In addition to not finding much fiction I like, I don't find much I dislike (although there's some out there). It's all just...there.

    I'm not a big Harry Potter fan, don't rush out and buy the new book in hardcover as soon as it's out. But I read the books and enjoy them when I read them. Harry Potter is engaging, engaging enough to overcome the annoying bits. And I haven't figured out the difference. I have no desire to read a bunch of books like Harry Potter. But I'd like very much to read a bunch of books as engaging as Harry Potter.

    I think about this for three reasons:

    • I miss reading good, engaging fiction.

    • I wonder how much my tastes have in common with other people's tastes and if more people than just me are looking for something they're not finding

    • I'm a writer. I want to know why the good stuff works and why the not-so-good stuff doesn't.

    I do think a large part of it is me--I'm looking for something that fiction can't give me anymore, maybe something that it never had to give. But I think it's partly the fiction too, that something is missing. What is it that makes me go 'ho-hum, yeah, yeah, don't care'? And how many other people are doing it too? If I tried to name it, the missing thing, I'd suggest that it might be wildness and joy and optimism and adventure, but I'm sure as soon as I apply those names someone will jump in and give me a whole list of books that, at least for them, contains those things.

    Here's the bottom line to all that ramble, in case anyone wants to speculate:

    I don';t read fiction anymore, I don't find anything I like or care about, I'd sure like to figure out why.

    December 29, 2002

    What we're Reading

    All Consuming has a list of the Top 100 Books mentioned on Weblogs in 2002.

    December 21, 2002

    I am...

    reading (among other things) Mrs. Pollifax on the China Station. And boy, is Mrs. Pollifax in some trouble this time!

    December 19, 2002

    Other reading

    I forgot to mention in the last post that I've also been reading Mrs. Pollifax. I was cleaning out a closet last week and found six Mrs. Pollifax books in a bag. I have no idea where they came from, but I thought, what the heck, and read three of them:

    The Elusive Mrs. Pollifax
    A Palm for Mrs. Pollifax
    Mrs. Pollifax on Safari

    Written by Dorothy Gilman, Mrs. Pollifax is a grandmother who lives a quiet life growing night-blooming cereus and visiting with her friends, children, and grandchildren. Except...she is occasionally called upon by the CIA to do little jobs for them. Reading three Mrs. Pollifax books in a row causes them to suffer somewhat from series sameness, her karate skills are a little unbelievable, and I never did figure out where the 'palm' figured into A Palm for Mrs. Pollifax, but I like her character. Mrs. Pollifax pays attention wherever she goes, asks questions, makes diverse friends, helps people in trouble, enjoys the moments there are to enjoy, is resourceful, doesn't mind how other people treat her, and thus has totally unexpected resources at her disposal when crunch time comes.

    December 16, 2002

    Reading

    A couple of books I've finished lately:

    Inviting Disaster: Lessons from the Edge of Technology by James R. Chiles

    This is a book about catastrophes, mostly technological, and some of the reasons they happen. It was originally published in 2001, but this edition has a new introduction that talks about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. The author does a terrific job of describing the details of disasters like Three Mile Island, Apollo I, the Hubble Space Telescope, Chernobyl, the Texas City explosion and many others. It's not about 'who the bad guy is' as much as it's about how these things happen and why. It's sobering to realize that so many big disastrous moments had much of the information available, just waiting for someone to use it.

    And it's vastly sobering to me to realize that while there are certain crises I'm very good at, in the something-goes-wrong-that-doesn't-seem-important-at-the-time category, I'd be so the person that ignored the warning signs or jury-rigged a temporary solution because a deadline was looming or something equally bad in retrospect.

    The book sums up well in this paragraph:

    Even the best-run systems always have something off-line or running out of tolerance, out there in the wilderness of high-pressure piping, wires, and cable trays. No force on earth can get everything to stay in balance all the time. To insist on perfection is to shut the whole thing off. And the people who run the systems wouldn't pay attention, anyway. As sailors say, this would be seen as another stupid order from "the beach," meaning from people who don't know how the machine works out in the theater of action and haven't the courage or will to master it.

    There's no such thing as perfect safety and pretending that there is can get us in much deeper trouble than facing up to the issues at hand in the first place.

    Chiles tells us that Admiral Rickover, who was responsible for developing, testing, and deploying the Navy's nuclear submarines, had seven principles for the safe operation of reactors and they apply pretty well to a lot of other things:

    1. Have a rising standard of quality as time goes on, well beyond the minimum required for licensing or permitting
    2. Have highly capable people trained for all conditions by people who've actually 'been there'
    3. Face bad news when it comes
    4. Have a healthy respect for the dangers
    5. Train constantly and rigorously
    6. All functions--repair, quality control, safety, and technical support--must fit together (and, like, you know, talk to each other)
    7. The organization must have the ability and willingness to learn from mistakes of the past.

    Too bad we can't put him in charge of the 9/11 investigation.

    Also read:
    The Introvert's Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World by Marti Olsen Laney

    I have always been the introvert's introvert. In fact, a few years ago, I realized that I am much smarter when I've been in a cabin by myself for a week, with limited contact with other people. In fact, toward the end of the week, I'm damned brilliant.

    There's a science fiction short story (which I'm sure someone out there knows the title of) where an astronaut heading to Mars discovers that parasites have been sitting in his brain. They drop out when he leaves Earth's (atmosphere?, gravitataional pull?) and he's delighted and astounded at how easy it is to think with them gone, how clear everything seems. He's planning how to transform all of Earth by getting rid of these brain leaches when he enters the influence of Mars and discovers these parasites live on other planets too.

    That's how I feel when I get time alone and how it feels when I come back--like I was brilliant for a little while, but can't be brilliant any more.

    The Introvert Advantage talks about the 'why' of this, about the need for energy renewal that extroverts get from other people and introverts get from not-other-people. It also explains to me (finally) why I can't answer questions like, 'what's your favorite movie,' or 'name three things you like about Christmas.' There's not a lot that's totally new to me here, though I found the theories about different brain workings in extroverts and introverts very interesting.

    Introverts need a lot of 'down time.' Laney says, "If you feel any of the sensations listed below, take time out to restore yourself."

    • Anxious, agitated, irritable, and snappish
    • Unable to think, concentrate, or make decisions
    • Confused and discombobulated, as if you are dashing from thing to thing in a blur
    • Trapped and wondering what is the meaning of life
    • Drained, tired, put-upon, and pooped
    • Disconnected from yourself

    I say--Ha, ha, ha! Welcome to my life, baby!

    November 13, 2002

    Synchronicity and stuff

    I'm currently reading Emergence by Steven Johnson (I'm also reading The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig at the same time, which is an interestingly weird experience), so I thought it was kind of neat to find out that Steven Johnson has a brand new blog.

    ...via BoingBoing

    November 07, 2002

    Reading

    Finished

    The Cluetrain Manifesto by Rick Levine, Doc Searls, David Weinberger, Chris Locke
    Roshomon Gate by I. J. Parker
    The Art of Possibility by Rosamund Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander
    Understanding Arabs: A guide for Westerners by Margaret K. (Omar) Nydell


    Started

    The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig
    Emergence by Steven Johnson
    A Killing Sky by Andy Straka

    October 16, 2002

    What We See

    I've just started reading The Art of Possibility by Benjamin Zander and Rosamund Stone Zander.

    In chapter 3, there is this passage:

    Michelangelo is often quoted as having said that inside every block of stone or marble dwells a beautiful statue; one need only remove the excess material to reveal the work of art within. If we were to apply this visionary concept to education, it would be pointless to compare one child to another. Instead, all the energy would be focused on chipping away at the stone, getting rid of whatever is in the way of each child's developing skills, mastery, and self-expression.

    This is the way I've trained dogs for years. Every dog is different. Every dog responds to different things, dislikes different things, wants different things. It's the way I try to teach other people to train dogs, too. It's a perspective that allows for potential in everyone.

    September 21, 2002

    A Beautiful Mind, Take Two

    As the 1950s continue, the boy scientists undertake experiments with real people to advance their game theories. 'They don't act rationally,' the scientists say of their subjects, when the experimental results aren't what they expected. Rational and 'without heart' are not synonyms. The narrow definition of rational, that seems to believe it means 'without heart,' doesn't encompass the world. The people who appear to wish it did don't act any more 'rational' than the rest of us, but they're not afraid to use the word against their opponents if it helps to win arguments or at least shuts people up.

    And John Milnor agrees with me about game theory:

    As with any theory which constructs a mathematical model for some real-life problem, we must ask how realistic the model is. Does it help us to understand the real world? Does it make predictions which can be tested?...

    First let us ask about the realism of the underlying model. The hypothesis is that all of the players are rational, that they understand the precise rules of the game, and that they have complete information about the objectives of all of the other players. Clearly, this is seldom completely true.

    September 17, 2002

    Vacation Reading

    While I was on vacation last week, I read three mysteries, a media tie-in novel, two true crime books, and A Beautiful Mind (which I'm still reading).

    The three mysteries:

    Garden View by Mary Freeman
    A Sensitive Kind of Murder by Jaqueline Gardner
    All Signs Point to Murder by Kat Goldring

    were decent and I mostly enjoyed reading them, but they were not a good choice to read one right after the other. Each of them involved at least some characters more quirky than sympathetic, telegraphed the 'bad guy' by paying too much attention to them in ways calculated to raise the sympathy of readers, and had distractions typical of 'cosies' (mother trouble, sibling trouble, spouse trouble), which get on my nerves after awhile, said distractions usually coming right when the main character is about to ask a critical question or finally open the mail, or make that one all-important call that will Reveal All.

    The media tie-in was Little Things a Buffy the Vampire Slayer book in which the central MacGuffin was vampire fairies. Cool idea. Plus, you know, Spike was in it.

    That leaves:

    A Warrant to Kill by Kathryn Casey
    A Death in White Bear Lake by Barry Siegal

    Not a bad weekend, reading-wise.

    September 16, 2002

    A Beautiful Mind

    I've seen the movie and now I'm reading the book. The movie wasn't bad, but the book is really excellent. It has marvelous research and takes good, careful time to show us the world where Nash lived, the people he knew, the time in which he lived and finally, in great complicated detail, Nash himself.

    Notes I've made so far:

    When mathematicians with no social skills eliminated the public good. Boys without women remake the world by pretending it's all brain and no heart. That's what it feels like reading the game theory part of A Beautiful Mind. It's as if they remade the world the way they wished it worked or the way they worked and somehow it made greed and stomping on people to get ahead and using people to make more money for yourself because, by god, those great Princeton mathematicians say that's the way the world works anyway.

    But it's clear that the world doesn't work that way, that a great many people act with their hearts ahead of their mind. And, geez, what were we thinking, listening to them--boys living with boys--no real world anywhere near them.

    And I can't say I'm not jealous of what they had there in Princeton in the 40s and 50s--time and space and encouragement. My god, I'd kill for that, right now. I'd be so goddamned brilliant if I got a year of that, six months. If I got two years of time and space and encouragement, I'd remake the goddamned world.

    And, later, this:

    I'm still working my way through Nash's bio which is fascinating, even though it's pissing me off. Apparently, the mathematics of economics pisses me off. Because it's stupid. You can't take people out of equations that have people in them just because it's convenient. You can't say, well, if we make the scale big enough...because there will still be people in it. You can't say because I act like a son of a bitch all the time, other people will act like sons of bitches given half a chance.

    But, of course, you understand why they think like that, because the world rewards smart sons of bitches even when they're killing us. Even when we know the world doesn't work that way, we say, oh yeah, must be right because the smart sons of bitches say so.

    The only reason--only reason--any smart son of a bitch theory ever worked for even a fraction of a second is because someone--often equally as smart--who actually cares about people--is walking around cleaning up their stupid messes. Sacrificed their life, probably, to clean up the messes of smart sons of bitches who don't care about people.

    People count. Not how much you can steal at the expense of others. Not what super slick thing that makes no one's life but your own better and is rilly rilly cool...

    People.

    Count.

    And don't tell me that this guy you're admiring worked oh, so, hard and was oh, so, smart. If he had no conscience and was willing to use those who did, That's not deserving. And it's not truly smart.

    More to come....

    August 20, 2002

    Perdido Street Station

    I'm reading Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. I keep it in my car and I've been mostly reading it when I go out to lunch, which is maybe once a week or so. For that reason, I haven't gotten very far into it yet and I haven't really reached any conclusions about whether I like it or not.

    It has awesome description. And beyond that, the world he's created is rich and deep and textured. He has a handy way with words and worldbuilding and there is depth and substance to what he's created.

    But...it dwells way too much on bodily fluids. By this I mean not just that there's a lot of description of sweat and snot and spit (a lot of description of spit), though there is, but that all the description, even of more mundane things, has some sort of lingering sense of slime and fluid and gunk.

    For example...

    Swelling flatly above the low houses beside her was the Flyside militia tower. A vast, filthy pudgy pillar, squat and mean, somehow, for all its thirty-five stories.

    And...

    The converging rivers on either side ran sluggishly and the water streamed here and there as its currents mixed nameless chemicals into potent compounds. The slop from failed experiments...

    And even...

    Oozing obscenely over the top of the Flyside tower was a half-inflated dirigible. It flapped and lolled and swelled like a dying fish.

    If I wrote a description of the same places, it would sound completely different, possibly dirty, even filthy, but not so slimy. I don't say this is good or bad, though you notice who has published a novel (him) and who hasn't (me). Still and all, I could use a lot less about spit and slime and dripping.

    August 06, 2002

    Reading

    Just Finished
    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J. K. Rowling
    Black Lotus by Laura Roh Rowland

    Just Started
    Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace by Lawrence Lessig
    To Perish in Penzance by Jeanne M. Dams

    August 04, 2002

    Echoes of Mystery

    I was reading a book by Jo Bannister called Echoes of Lies. I can't say I finished it because I didn't, but I'm through reading it. Here's what happened: A young man is kidnapped, tortured for two days, then shot and left for dead. As far as the men who kidnapped him are concerned he is dead. They meant to kill him. They shot to kill. They are murderers.

    Turns out the men who kidnapped him and tortured him and killed him are the father and grandfather of a little girl who has also been kidnapped and is currently being held for ransom. They have been joined in their efforts by a professional man specializing in torture. At the end (yup, skipped to the end again) the father (who, it turns out, is also the kidnapper) gets off pretty much scot free. The tortured guy lies to the police and refuses to turn either the father or the grandfather into the police. The professional man who specializes in torture, on the other hand, gets beaten within an inch of his life and will go to jail for a long long time--something he deserves, but not, in my opinion, any more than the others.

    Continue reading "Echoes of Mystery" »

    July 19, 2002

    Still Reading

    • On Science by B. K. Ridley
    • The Careless Society by John McKnight

    Reading Now

    • Echoes of Lies by Jo Bannister
    • Wisdom, Information and Wonder by Mary Midgley

    Recently Read

    • Justice by Dominick Dunne
    • Every Breath You Take by Anne Rice

    July 06, 2002

    What I'm Reading Right Now

    • FlowerNET by Lisa See --A mystery about modern-day China
    • On Science by B. K. Ridley --The place of science in the world; what it can explain and what it can't
    • The Careless Society by John McKnight --About community and institutions and change