Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
I was excited when my 7-year-old daughter brought this home from the library - finally something I wanted to read too! We could read it together (other than fables, fairy tails, and the like)! So I started reading it right away, and it was pretty good!
It's still a children's book, the plotting and characterization are fun, but not amazingly good; the premise is good, but somewhat childish (it's a book about Elves as international secret agents and a 12yo super-villain). It's probably not for a 7yo - my daughter ended not reading it, she will get back to it when she is older…. Although there isn't much violence or anything really bad, it has a lot of geographical, historical and social detail that are more accessible to older readers (and adults). It also has quite a bit of worldbuilding, and it's the kind of worldbuilding that I like - instead of inventing its own fantastical world from scratch, it uses traditional myths and legends (in this case, fairies, dwarves, goblins, trolls, etc…), and makes them real (with many twists). It feels like you're learning something (despite the changes and twists).
I was surprised that the protagonist is not really the protagonist - that is, the protagonist is not Artemis Fowl, but Holly Short, the Elf Secret Agent. The book makes no secret of this - Artemis is the villain, he refers to himself as the villain, he is definitely the villain of this story through-and-through. Usually when a story centers on a "villain", he is the anti-hero, or the lesser of two evils. The protagonist might be a "bad" guy (for example, a thief, like in Robin Hood or Ocean 11), but the "good" guys are way worse. But no, in this case, the good guys are definitely the good guys - Holly Short is a great character! And although Artemis is not really that bad, he is a brat, and is not likable at all!
View all my reviews
Thursday, December 22, 2022
Thursday, November 24, 2022
Review: The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, #1) by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
It did not disappoint!
The narration sometimes meanders, and there is a lot of stuff that just seem to be "extra" to the story - like scenes and characters that feel more like deviation from the plot, perhaps it's just some niche worldbuilding. There is a lot of poems and songs, that are not always interesting; and there are some chapters that go nowhere (I am looking at you, Tom Bombadil!), and a lot of what are essentially descriptions of hiking (going up the hill, down the hill, passing woods, it's nighttime, and so on and on).
I had already seen the Peter Jackson movies, and now that I have read the book, I have to say that this is one of the rare cases in which the book was not far superior to the movie - there were just good in different ways! While the book expands a lot on the lore, which I like, the movie streamlines the story, and this is very welcome. It removes a lot of the "extra" material, it shortens the hiking, and simplifies the dialog. The movie also improved on two aspects of the book that I didn't like. First, I didn't particularly like the relationship between Frodo and Sam in the book - the way Sam is a servant and Frodo is his master. Sam was too subservient, only thought of pleasing or helping his master, he was not his own person. The most positive reading of their relationship is that it's similar to Batman and Alfred, master and butler, but still doesn't feel right. Second, I didn't like how the "Fellowship" of the ring didn't seem to have any obligation to their mission. In the Council of Elrond, Elrond tells the members of the fellowship that they were selected to go with Frodo - but they are under no obligation to go with him to the end, to see the mission through. They specifically talk how they can leave at any time they feel like; they don't need to swear to help, there is no oath or code of honor. And at times they even indicate that they go with Frodo because at most they feel bad about leaving him alone; they never really see this as *the mission to save the world*. It's just weird. The movie does change this, making the Fellowship more committed to the cause. For example, the movie adds the memorable sentence, "You Have My Sword, and My Bow, and My Axe", so that at least they swear some sort of loyalty to Frodo, while that doesn't really happen in the book.
But on the whole, the descriptions, though long, were interesting; the action was good; and lore was intriguing. It was a good read.
Finally, I just wanted to add that I "read" the audiobook version, and the narration by Andy Serkis was fantastic! Even the parts that would be dull were given a lot of life by the narrator. I think that it made a huge impact on how much I appreciated the book.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
It did not disappoint!
The narration sometimes meanders, and there is a lot of stuff that just seem to be "extra" to the story - like scenes and characters that feel more like deviation from the plot, perhaps it's just some niche worldbuilding. There is a lot of poems and songs, that are not always interesting; and there are some chapters that go nowhere (I am looking at you, Tom Bombadil!), and a lot of what are essentially descriptions of hiking (going up the hill, down the hill, passing woods, it's nighttime, and so on and on).
I had already seen the Peter Jackson movies, and now that I have read the book, I have to say that this is one of the rare cases in which the book was not far superior to the movie - there were just good in different ways! While the book expands a lot on the lore, which I like, the movie streamlines the story, and this is very welcome. It removes a lot of the "extra" material, it shortens the hiking, and simplifies the dialog. The movie also improved on two aspects of the book that I didn't like. First, I didn't particularly like the relationship between Frodo and Sam in the book - the way Sam is a servant and Frodo is his master. Sam was too subservient, only thought of pleasing or helping his master, he was not his own person. The most positive reading of their relationship is that it's similar to Batman and Alfred, master and butler, but still doesn't feel right. Second, I didn't like how the "Fellowship" of the ring didn't seem to have any obligation to their mission. In the Council of Elrond, Elrond tells the members of the fellowship that they were selected to go with Frodo - but they are under no obligation to go with him to the end, to see the mission through. They specifically talk how they can leave at any time they feel like; they don't need to swear to help, there is no oath or code of honor. And at times they even indicate that they go with Frodo because at most they feel bad about leaving him alone; they never really see this as *the mission to save the world*. It's just weird. The movie does change this, making the Fellowship more committed to the cause. For example, the movie adds the memorable sentence, "You Have My Sword, and My Bow, and My Axe", so that at least they swear some sort of loyalty to Frodo, while that doesn't really happen in the book.
But on the whole, the descriptions, though long, were interesting; the action was good; and lore was intriguing. It was a good read.
Finally, I just wanted to add that I "read" the audiobook version, and the narration by Andy Serkis was fantastic! Even the parts that would be dull were given a lot of life by the narrator. I think that it made a huge impact on how much I appreciated the book.
View all my reviews
Sunday, October 09, 2022
Review: A Closed and Common Orbit (Wayfarers, #2) by Becky Chambers
A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
This is a sequel to the excellent "A long way to a small angry planet", and it's difficult to talk about it without comparing it to the first one. This story is at the same time more intimate and emotional, but also more expansive and with more worldbuilding; sounds contradictory, but it does manage to do both at the same time. First, it tells the stories of Sidra and of Jane, really focusing on the characters, how their stories parallel and orbit each other (the revelation of who Jane is happens right at the start). This story is not only intimate, but also very emotional - specially the one of Jane, it is sad and delivers some gut punches. But on the other hand, this novel also feels like a pause in the series, so that while it stops to tell a much simpler story of two people, it also takes it time to do some worldbuilding, diving deep into some miscellaneous aspects of this universe where they inhabit. This second part is not particularly exciting, nothing mind-blowing nor revolutionary, but still interesting.
In general, I like the message that it carries, about kindness about "paying forward", and about community. But I am not sure I like the anti-government stance, and how it focus only on circles of friends and commune-like social structures as the best possible arrangement of people (both for humans and aliens). I guess the message is that chosen families are the best families (which is not wrong). In the end, this book is truly about relationships, rather than any aspect of sci-fi, technology, or philosophy. There are also some thoughts on the nature of sentience, and rights of Ais - but I think it was done in a very superficial way. I think the AIs are really there to showcase the "humanity" of those interacting with them (like, how do we treat people who are different?); to serve as metaphors for minorities - link in the case of Sidra, of LGBT people trying to fit in or find their place in the world.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
This is a sequel to the excellent "A long way to a small angry planet", and it's difficult to talk about it without comparing it to the first one. This story is at the same time more intimate and emotional, but also more expansive and with more worldbuilding; sounds contradictory, but it does manage to do both at the same time. First, it tells the stories of Sidra and of Jane, really focusing on the characters, how their stories parallel and orbit each other (the revelation of who Jane is happens right at the start). This story is not only intimate, but also very emotional - specially the one of Jane, it is sad and delivers some gut punches. But on the other hand, this novel also feels like a pause in the series, so that while it stops to tell a much simpler story of two people, it also takes it time to do some worldbuilding, diving deep into some miscellaneous aspects of this universe where they inhabit. This second part is not particularly exciting, nothing mind-blowing nor revolutionary, but still interesting.
In general, I like the message that it carries, about kindness about "paying forward", and about community. But I am not sure I like the anti-government stance, and how it focus only on circles of friends and commune-like social structures as the best possible arrangement of people (both for humans and aliens). I guess the message is that chosen families are the best families (which is not wrong). In the end, this book is truly about relationships, rather than any aspect of sci-fi, technology, or philosophy. There are also some thoughts on the nature of sentience, and rights of Ais - but I think it was done in a very superficial way. I think the AIs are really there to showcase the "humanity" of those interacting with them (like, how do we treat people who are different?); to serve as metaphors for minorities - link in the case of Sidra, of LGBT people trying to fit in or find their place in the world.
View all my reviews
Friday, September 30, 2022
Review: Making Money (Discworld, #36; Moist Von Lipwig, #2)
Making Money by Terry Pratchett
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Lots of fun! This is the second Discworld novel featuring Moist Von Lipwig, a former con-man turned "hero of the city". And in fact, it reads a lot like the previous novel (Going Postal), which is good because I liked the first one a lot! This story has the same elements of adventure and of "how is he going to solve that?" to it. The novel also features the Patrician, who is great as always, very Machiavellian.
The one bad thing is a jarring switch of the plot in the second half, when a subplot about golems takes front stage. Suddenly, Moist is the hero at the center of the golem crisis - but there is no reason for this, no set up. With all the heroes in Discworld, and a big crisis happening in Ankh-Morpork, why is he the hero? Why isn't anyone else doing anything? Eventually the novel connects this subplot to the main plot, but still feels forced. Also, at that point the main plot starts getting more and more convoluted, and the mysteries are multiplied and dragged out as much as possible. It's a bit frustrating, really. The reveal of Mr. Bent's secret was absolutely ridiculous, which is perfect for Discworld. But I have to say that I was disappointed, I was expecting something more serious, grander, because of the tone of the narrative around this.
In the end, it was still a good adventure, with some good challenges and solutions, quick thinking to get out of sticky situations, and a good ending.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Lots of fun! This is the second Discworld novel featuring Moist Von Lipwig, a former con-man turned "hero of the city". And in fact, it reads a lot like the previous novel (Going Postal), which is good because I liked the first one a lot! This story has the same elements of adventure and of "how is he going to solve that?" to it. The novel also features the Patrician, who is great as always, very Machiavellian.
The one bad thing is a jarring switch of the plot in the second half, when a subplot about golems takes front stage. Suddenly, Moist is the hero at the center of the golem crisis - but there is no reason for this, no set up. With all the heroes in Discworld, and a big crisis happening in Ankh-Morpork, why is he the hero? Why isn't anyone else doing anything? Eventually the novel connects this subplot to the main plot, but still feels forced. Also, at that point the main plot starts getting more and more convoluted, and the mysteries are multiplied and dragged out as much as possible. It's a bit frustrating, really. The reveal of Mr. Bent's secret was absolutely ridiculous, which is perfect for Discworld. But I have to say that I was disappointed, I was expecting something more serious, grander, because of the tone of the narrative around this.
In the end, it was still a good adventure, with some good challenges and solutions, quick thinking to get out of sticky situations, and a good ending.
View all my reviews
Saturday, September 24, 2022
Review: Sea of Tranquility by Emily St. John Mandel
Sea of Tranquility by Emily St. John Mandel
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Good book, but challenging to review - it feels like anything I say about it, it will be a spoiler! So be warned!
The story is non-linear, and somewhat convoluted. The book blends historical fiction and sci-fi to tell a mystery unravelling across centuries. It also blends both classic sci-fi (e.g. time-travel), with the more recent themes, such as living in a simulation. But it's also a book about the pandemic, or actually, different pandemics in the past and in the future, talking about our current pandemic, complete with discussions about safety, isolation, homeschooling, and zoom meetings (holographic, of course). It's just missing the crazy anti-vax/anti-mask element and rise of fascism, which is unfortunate, since to me those are the most striking elements of our pandemic.
It has a weird start, going all the back to the start of the 20th century, where it touches on themes of colonization and manifest destiny (although it takes place in Canada, not the US). It is well told, with elements that did not feel like cliches. It then unspools slowly into an intriguing mystery, telling the stories of several people in different centuries, until it reveals their connection. The main strength of the book is definitely the story-telling, not the sci-fi nor the world-building. The end is semi-satisfying - the solution to the mystery is satisfying, but not the end of the story, I actually would like to know more about what happened to some of the supporting characters.
I liked the story of one of the main characters, Olive, an author who wrote about a fictional pandemic right before a real-life pandemic struck. The book tells about her experience in the book circuit (before the pandemic) and the life as an "expert" (but not really) during the pandemic, going on virtual interviews and lectures - I wondered how much of it was autobiographical! (a lot of it mirrors Emily St. John Mandel, this book's author)
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Good book, but challenging to review - it feels like anything I say about it, it will be a spoiler! So be warned!
The story is non-linear, and somewhat convoluted. The book blends historical fiction and sci-fi to tell a mystery unravelling across centuries. It also blends both classic sci-fi (e.g. time-travel), with the more recent themes, such as living in a simulation. But it's also a book about the pandemic, or actually, different pandemics in the past and in the future, talking about our current pandemic, complete with discussions about safety, isolation, homeschooling, and zoom meetings (holographic, of course). It's just missing the crazy anti-vax/anti-mask element and rise of fascism, which is unfortunate, since to me those are the most striking elements of our pandemic.
It has a weird start, going all the back to the start of the 20th century, where it touches on themes of colonization and manifest destiny (although it takes place in Canada, not the US). It is well told, with elements that did not feel like cliches. It then unspools slowly into an intriguing mystery, telling the stories of several people in different centuries, until it reveals their connection. The main strength of the book is definitely the story-telling, not the sci-fi nor the world-building. The end is semi-satisfying - the solution to the mystery is satisfying, but not the end of the story, I actually would like to know more about what happened to some of the supporting characters.
I liked the story of one of the main characters, Olive, an author who wrote about a fictional pandemic right before a real-life pandemic struck. The book tells about her experience in the book circuit (before the pandemic) and the life as an "expert" (but not really) during the pandemic, going on virtual interviews and lectures - I wondered how much of it was autobiographical! (a lot of it mirrors Emily St. John Mandel, this book's author)
View all my reviews
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
Review: What the Hex by Alexis Daria
What the Hex by Alexis Daria
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
I picked this audiobook up for Hispanic Heritage Month, it seemed appropriate to listen to something that read like a "telenovela". But I was pleasantly surprised that the story had more depth than just the romance: it's a full-blown fantasy story, with witches fighting demons! The romance is there too, but it's contrived and exaggerated, with some very forced lines - the banter and flirting doesn't seem very natural, but it is fun nonetheless. It has a couple of racy scenes, but it's not the most explicit book I have seen. I like the latinx/hispanic connection, with an okay (if superficial) depiction of modern hispanic-american family life.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
I picked this audiobook up for Hispanic Heritage Month, it seemed appropriate to listen to something that read like a "telenovela". But I was pleasantly surprised that the story had more depth than just the romance: it's a full-blown fantasy story, with witches fighting demons! The romance is there too, but it's contrived and exaggerated, with some very forced lines - the banter and flirting doesn't seem very natural, but it is fun nonetheless. It has a couple of racy scenes, but it's not the most explicit book I have seen. I like the latinx/hispanic connection, with an okay (if superficial) depiction of modern hispanic-american family life.
View all my reviews
Thursday, September 15, 2022
Review: Driving the Deep (Finder Chronicles, #2)
Driving the Deep by Suzanne Palmer
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A fun sci-fi adventure! The second book in the Finder series by Suzanne Palmer (and I think this is her second novel, too), it actually feels less finished than the first book. The sci-fi aspect is less solid and detailed, and the plot relies too much on lots of coincidences. Also, I am not a big fan of the "wild west" feel of Finders universe. But once you get past that, with a little bit of suspension of disbelief and a willingness to just go with it, the story is entertaining and the near-future sci-fi is good enough. There are some funny moments, and the protagonist is usually joking (although the other characters only *try* to be funny). The action is fast-paced and well done, and the "detective mystery" aspect of the book is very engaging. I like that the It had an "adventure game" component to it - the protagonist goes around, finds weird items, collects them, then uses them to solve a puzzle. Broken equipment? Collect it. Maps? Collect it. Frozen meatball?? Collect it. Then use each item for some specific contrived action, to get to the next part - it feels a lot like an adventure game :D
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A fun sci-fi adventure! The second book in the Finder series by Suzanne Palmer (and I think this is her second novel, too), it actually feels less finished than the first book. The sci-fi aspect is less solid and detailed, and the plot relies too much on lots of coincidences. Also, I am not a big fan of the "wild west" feel of Finders universe. But once you get past that, with a little bit of suspension of disbelief and a willingness to just go with it, the story is entertaining and the near-future sci-fi is good enough. There are some funny moments, and the protagonist is usually joking (although the other characters only *try* to be funny). The action is fast-paced and well done, and the "detective mystery" aspect of the book is very engaging. I like that the It had an "adventure game" component to it - the protagonist goes around, finds weird items, collects them, then uses them to solve a puzzle. Broken equipment? Collect it. Maps? Collect it. Frozen meatball?? Collect it. Then use each item for some specific contrived action, to get to the next part - it feels a lot like an adventure game :D
View all my reviews
Tuesday, September 06, 2022
Review: Tales of the Alhambra
Tales of the Alhambra by Washington Irving
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A surprisingly good read. I picked this up to read as I was traveling to Granada, Spain, and wanted to read something sited in the city. It was perfect!
The Alhambra is a huge palace complex atop a hill next to the city of Granada, with many gardens, small palaces, a fort, towers, a huge wall encircling everything. Supposedly, there are many legends surrounding the place, and I wanted to learn about them. The book narrates a some of these legends, and some of the history behind them, but it's actually mostly talking about the people and the place as a whole, about what it looks like and what it feels to be there. It talks about the trip of the author to Granada and his stay at the Alhambra in 1828, and about the people he met there. It's very straightforward, without much dramatization. It reads as a product of the time, with conservative views on the roles of nobles, the working classes, and of women, but taken as a historical product, it's understandable. Some of the stories were interesting, and at least one of them (about Philip V and his hypochondria) was very funny.
I am not sure I would recommend it normally, but if you are traveling to Spain, this is a must-read!
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A surprisingly good read. I picked this up to read as I was traveling to Granada, Spain, and wanted to read something sited in the city. It was perfect!
The Alhambra is a huge palace complex atop a hill next to the city of Granada, with many gardens, small palaces, a fort, towers, a huge wall encircling everything. Supposedly, there are many legends surrounding the place, and I wanted to learn about them. The book narrates a some of these legends, and some of the history behind them, but it's actually mostly talking about the people and the place as a whole, about what it looks like and what it feels to be there. It talks about the trip of the author to Granada and his stay at the Alhambra in 1828, and about the people he met there. It's very straightforward, without much dramatization. It reads as a product of the time, with conservative views on the roles of nobles, the working classes, and of women, but taken as a historical product, it's understandable. Some of the stories were interesting, and at least one of them (about Philip V and his hypochondria) was very funny.
I am not sure I would recommend it normally, but if you are traveling to Spain, this is a must-read!
View all my reviews
Monday, May 16, 2022
Review: The Spanish Love Deception
The Spanish Love Deception by Elena Armas
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
It's a funny, enjoyable romantic comedy - it's not what I understood to be romance novel at all, it really reads like a romcom, at least for most of it. The "sexy parts" start only at about 75% of the way (that's where the drama also starts). I really liked it - I devoured it in just a few days, way faster than any other book I have read recently!
The protagonist and narrator of the story is Catalina (Lina to her friends), a Spanish woman who is the maid of honor for the upcoming wedding of her sister, back in her hometown in Spain; where her Ex is the best man. She is freaking out that she has no one to go with her, and is running out of time. Enter Aaron, her aloof and inimical colleague, offering to be her date for the wedding. Shenanigans ensue.
Aaron characterization is a bit weird. He speaks very little, and when he does, it's usually a grunt, or at most 1 or 2 words. He never explains anything, he never just comes out and says what he wants. Lina calls him Mr. Robot, and that seems to fit, at least for the first half of the book; but he starts to be more human and communicative in the second half. This is typical romance fare - at least one of the protagonists is usually terrible at communication, which causes conflict.
Although his characterization is weird, one thing that jumped at me was how the source of "conflict" in the story is actually *realistic*! In general, this type of story always rely on miscommunication or coincidences or accidents to give it a plot. In this case, the conflict is because the Catalina and Aaron are inimical *at work*. (view spoiler)[ Since she is the narrator, we only get her side of the story; how he humiliated her in her early days at work, and he is in her black list, and they are constantly bickering. Except that as we read, it start dawning on me that maybe she was imagining slights, and projecting her dislike of him to his actions. No matter how nice Aaron is to her, she always takes it the wrong way; she flips the actions on their heads, assuming bad intentions. She simply cannot accept that he is being nice to her! But unlike in other romcoms, this is not maddening! It actually makes sense - that's exactly how a lot of workplace conflict arise! People have "archnemesis" and "feuds" at work over nothing! Just a series of small slights that keep propelling themselves and compounding over time! And most of the time it's all imagined - one person just thinks the other person hates them, then retaliate, then the other person gets annoyed, then retaliates, and so on, on a completely made up vicious cycle. So yeah, I can totally see conflict like this happening in real life! (hide spoiler)]
Another thing that struck me is how one-sided it is on the "sexy" part too: it's very female centric, with many and long descriptions of Aaron, and almost nothing on Lina. He is described very well, physically, emotionally, psychologically, mannerisms, expressions; on the other hand, I came out of the story without a good sense about Lina, except for how she talks. That's really the only characterization we have of her. The book goes to great lengths to show how great Aaron is, and how good of a person and a partner he is. Again, we don't have much on Lina. We know she is funny from the dialogue, and that she is smart because she couldn’t have her job if she wasn't, but that doesn't say much. In which way is she smart? How does she think? It's like if someone just described the main character as beautiful and left it at that. And incidentally, what does she look like? Other than the extremely generic "typical Spanish woman" we are told at the start?
The book should also be commended for two - what do I call them, "technical"? - achievements.
First, it's always annoying in romcoms (in movies and TVs) when the characters seem to be living beyond their means - they are a barista but have a swanky apartment in Manhattan! They have nice clothes, go out all the time, have fancy dates! How do they have the money? But in this book, it almost seems like it goes the other way. The protagonist is a high level engineer in a big tech consulting company, a team leader, near the top of the org chart - someone who presumably makes a lot of money! But she has a cramped studio apartment in Brooklyn, takes public transport, has trouble finding nice clothes, works like crazy, worries about money constantly. It's either spot on, or even exaggerated in the opposite direction!
Second, the action takes place over a long period of time - *because* people are actually busy working! In a lot of rom-coms, it's weird how much time people spend in the romance part, going out, hanging out, making plans and schemes - and a very reasonable reaction by any reader/watcher should be" "who has the time for *that*?!"; "don't these people have to *work*?!". But in this book, the people do work! Weeks go by between "scenes" (very explicitly), because people are too busy with work and getting on with their lives. Yes, they will have schemes and shenanigans and hang out, but at a more reasonable rate. That part actually makes sense.
A note about the narration: I liked it! The narrator was female, which is an obvious choice for a book narrated by a female protagonist. Although her “male voice” was wholly unsuitable for Aaron’s character, making for a confusing characterization at times, I still wouldn’t change it, since everything is supposed to be filtered through Lina’s perception, so the voice works. Finally, her voice and accent when she spoke Spanish was really great!
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
It's a funny, enjoyable romantic comedy - it's not what I understood to be romance novel at all, it really reads like a romcom, at least for most of it. The "sexy parts" start only at about 75% of the way (that's where the drama also starts). I really liked it - I devoured it in just a few days, way faster than any other book I have read recently!
The protagonist and narrator of the story is Catalina (Lina to her friends), a Spanish woman who is the maid of honor for the upcoming wedding of her sister, back in her hometown in Spain; where her Ex is the best man. She is freaking out that she has no one to go with her, and is running out of time. Enter Aaron, her aloof and inimical colleague, offering to be her date for the wedding. Shenanigans ensue.
Aaron characterization is a bit weird. He speaks very little, and when he does, it's usually a grunt, or at most 1 or 2 words. He never explains anything, he never just comes out and says what he wants. Lina calls him Mr. Robot, and that seems to fit, at least for the first half of the book; but he starts to be more human and communicative in the second half. This is typical romance fare - at least one of the protagonists is usually terrible at communication, which causes conflict.
Although his characterization is weird, one thing that jumped at me was how the source of "conflict" in the story is actually *realistic*! In general, this type of story always rely on miscommunication or coincidences or accidents to give it a plot. In this case, the conflict is because the Catalina and Aaron are inimical *at work*. (view spoiler)[ Since she is the narrator, we only get her side of the story; how he humiliated her in her early days at work, and he is in her black list, and they are constantly bickering. Except that as we read, it start dawning on me that maybe she was imagining slights, and projecting her dislike of him to his actions. No matter how nice Aaron is to her, she always takes it the wrong way; she flips the actions on their heads, assuming bad intentions. She simply cannot accept that he is being nice to her! But unlike in other romcoms, this is not maddening! It actually makes sense - that's exactly how a lot of workplace conflict arise! People have "archnemesis" and "feuds" at work over nothing! Just a series of small slights that keep propelling themselves and compounding over time! And most of the time it's all imagined - one person just thinks the other person hates them, then retaliate, then the other person gets annoyed, then retaliates, and so on, on a completely made up vicious cycle. So yeah, I can totally see conflict like this happening in real life! (hide spoiler)]
Another thing that struck me is how one-sided it is on the "sexy" part too: it's very female centric, with many and long descriptions of Aaron, and almost nothing on Lina. He is described very well, physically, emotionally, psychologically, mannerisms, expressions; on the other hand, I came out of the story without a good sense about Lina, except for how she talks. That's really the only characterization we have of her. The book goes to great lengths to show how great Aaron is, and how good of a person and a partner he is. Again, we don't have much on Lina. We know she is funny from the dialogue, and that she is smart because she couldn’t have her job if she wasn't, but that doesn't say much. In which way is she smart? How does she think? It's like if someone just described the main character as beautiful and left it at that. And incidentally, what does she look like? Other than the extremely generic "typical Spanish woman" we are told at the start?
The book should also be commended for two - what do I call them, "technical"? - achievements.
First, it's always annoying in romcoms (in movies and TVs) when the characters seem to be living beyond their means - they are a barista but have a swanky apartment in Manhattan! They have nice clothes, go out all the time, have fancy dates! How do they have the money? But in this book, it almost seems like it goes the other way. The protagonist is a high level engineer in a big tech consulting company, a team leader, near the top of the org chart - someone who presumably makes a lot of money! But she has a cramped studio apartment in Brooklyn, takes public transport, has trouble finding nice clothes, works like crazy, worries about money constantly. It's either spot on, or even exaggerated in the opposite direction!
Second, the action takes place over a long period of time - *because* people are actually busy working! In a lot of rom-coms, it's weird how much time people spend in the romance part, going out, hanging out, making plans and schemes - and a very reasonable reaction by any reader/watcher should be" "who has the time for *that*?!"; "don't these people have to *work*?!". But in this book, the people do work! Weeks go by between "scenes" (very explicitly), because people are too busy with work and getting on with their lives. Yes, they will have schemes and shenanigans and hang out, but at a more reasonable rate. That part actually makes sense.
A note about the narration: I liked it! The narrator was female, which is an obvious choice for a book narrated by a female protagonist. Although her “male voice” was wholly unsuitable for Aaron’s character, making for a confusing characterization at times, I still wouldn’t change it, since everything is supposed to be filtered through Lina’s perception, so the voice works. Finally, her voice and accent when she spoke Spanish was really great!
View all my reviews
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Review: The Bird King
The Bird King by G. Willow Wilson
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This book takes place around the time of the fall of Granada, Spain, the last emirate in the Iberian peninsula, in 1492; and it tells the story of Fatima, one of the Sultan's concubines, and of Hassan, the royal mapmaker with magical abilities, as they flee Granada to escape the incoming Spanish Inquisition.
I listened to the audiobook version of this book, and normally I wouldn't make a big deal of that, but in this case that forces me to address a big problem with it: the narration is very slow, kind of like a drawl, oscillating between languid and downright sleepy, making the book seem slower and boring. All the characters sounded wrong - her voice work for the protagonist (Fatima) didn't fit with the character at all! I had to listen at higher speed (at least 1.1x) so it wouldn't be so tedious.
The terrible narration makes it very difficult not to find the book slow and boring. It doesn't help that the plot is actually slow too. Most of the book concerns the escape of Fatima and Hassan from the Alhambra (the royal palace complex in Granada) after the arrival of the Castilian representatives, from Granada to the coast, over a period of 3 days. That is, the book really drags out the description of the escape of a fairly short distance (a couple of hours drive today) in a fairly short time. That's it, that's most of the book. And despite being slow, I actually thought it should have taken its time being a little more descriptive at the start, describe the places and people more, taking time to set the stage better. The narration is mostly action and dialogue, except that it's trivial action and boring dialogue. The characterization work was also extremely weird, it was difficult to understand the people and their motivations, who they were, what they wanted. On the other hand, the characters (with the exception of Fatima) all seemed to have a big sense of history, as if they already knew what was going to happen, and kept reflecting on it constantly. It was annoying, breaking with the realism of people. The ending is fantastical, in the "fantasy"-related meaning of the word; but the book is too mysterious and precious about it.
Despite these flaws, the story on the whole was interesting, with a cool setting. In fact, I must confess that this last point was what I liked most - because I actually have been to Granada, and I liked recognizing the places in the stories, because it's still all there, the Alhambra, the Nasrid palaces, the gardens - more than 500 hundred years later! I also liked that the story weaved some real fables and myths in, which I always prefer to wholly made-up fantasy worlds. I also liked the relationship between Fatima and Hassan, even if I didn't like their dynamic towards the end.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This book takes place around the time of the fall of Granada, Spain, the last emirate in the Iberian peninsula, in 1492; and it tells the story of Fatima, one of the Sultan's concubines, and of Hassan, the royal mapmaker with magical abilities, as they flee Granada to escape the incoming Spanish Inquisition.
I listened to the audiobook version of this book, and normally I wouldn't make a big deal of that, but in this case that forces me to address a big problem with it: the narration is very slow, kind of like a drawl, oscillating between languid and downright sleepy, making the book seem slower and boring. All the characters sounded wrong - her voice work for the protagonist (Fatima) didn't fit with the character at all! I had to listen at higher speed (at least 1.1x) so it wouldn't be so tedious.
The terrible narration makes it very difficult not to find the book slow and boring. It doesn't help that the plot is actually slow too. Most of the book concerns the escape of Fatima and Hassan from the Alhambra (the royal palace complex in Granada) after the arrival of the Castilian representatives, from Granada to the coast, over a period of 3 days. That is, the book really drags out the description of the escape of a fairly short distance (a couple of hours drive today) in a fairly short time. That's it, that's most of the book. And despite being slow, I actually thought it should have taken its time being a little more descriptive at the start, describe the places and people more, taking time to set the stage better. The narration is mostly action and dialogue, except that it's trivial action and boring dialogue. The characterization work was also extremely weird, it was difficult to understand the people and their motivations, who they were, what they wanted. On the other hand, the characters (with the exception of Fatima) all seemed to have a big sense of history, as if they already knew what was going to happen, and kept reflecting on it constantly. It was annoying, breaking with the realism of people. The ending is fantastical, in the "fantasy"-related meaning of the word; but the book is too mysterious and precious about it.
Despite these flaws, the story on the whole was interesting, with a cool setting. In fact, I must confess that this last point was what I liked most - because I actually have been to Granada, and I liked recognizing the places in the stories, because it's still all there, the Alhambra, the Nasrid palaces, the gardens - more than 500 hundred years later! I also liked that the story weaved some real fables and myths in, which I always prefer to wholly made-up fantasy worlds. I also liked the relationship between Fatima and Hassan, even if I didn't like their dynamic towards the end.
View all my reviews
Saturday, April 30, 2022
Review: At the Existentialist Café
At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails by Sarah Bakewell
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
I had been going through a streak of existentialist books for the past year, and I chose this book to cap it - it looked like it would be a good overview of the philosophy and history of existentialism, and serve as a fine conclusion. Although the book was good, it was a little disappointing.
I think the book fell short on two regards: First, I think I expected a more dramatized take on the lives of the existentialists - that is, still real, but with more life. Something like "The Agony and The Ecstasy" or "The Origin" by Irving Stone - biographical, but still mesmerizing. Instead, it's a dry accounting of the philosopher's lives and histories.
Second, I didn't like much the choice of which "characters" to focus on, Heidegger and Sartre. I was expecting the book to focus on Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus - I mean, they (and only they) are right there on the cover! So the focus on Heidegger was a little puzzling. I understand that he preceded the others, and was incredibly influential at the time, but he is not exactly an existentialist like the others, he is primarily a phenomenologist. I must also admit that I dislike his philosophy, specially the later stuff with a focus on rustic living and luddism. As the book progresses, it does start giving some focus to the other characters, although it feels more superficial, never delving too deeply into what made them tick. De Beauvoir got some attention, but Camus was definitely a secondary character in this book. Towards the end, the sequence of events and the cast of characters become a sprawling mess, as the author rushes to include every other existential philosopher into the book.
The explanations of the philosophy themselves also felt underwhelming. The part in which the books talks about the early existentialists and phenomenologists makes it sound like they were just trying to philosophize about things that feel more like behavioral psychology, sociology, or even psychiatry - like anxiety and depression. It also makes it sound like most of the time, philosophy is just an exercise in ignoring science. Philosophy questions "being", but not minds, brains, consciousness. The book spent a lot of time talking about "being"; it spent a lot less time dealing with the ethics and humanism of existentialism.
I was a bit annoyed with the Anglo-American, the right-leaning attitude of the author. It comes across when she talks about communism, and the struggles of existentialists in embracing and disavowing communism; she readily dismisses communism as an *obviously* wrong ideology, without ever explaining why. At a late point in the book, she mentions how the belligerent and bellic attitude of a communist country impugns communism, but never explains why when a capitalist country does the same, it doesn't impugn capitalism… But then again, it seemed that even the existentialist philosophers had a problem grasping the concept that authoritarian governments are bad no matter what form of economic system they pretends to spouse.
One more aside about existentialism, not really about this book: When reading the existentialists ideas about being, I kept thinking, "What about animals?". Not how existentialism applies to animals, but what do is it learn from animal - from modes of being that are not human, but are not also as simple as that of a tree. Some do think and have feelings, and have societies. But no existentialist seem to pay much attention to that - they don’t seem to learn anything from other minds, they just take the human adult brain fully formed and call that a mind, everything else is irrelevant. They ignore that humans are just an instance of animals. If their theories don’t generalize, then how meaningful can they be? How are they more than navel gazing and self aggrandizement?
Despite these disappointments with the book, it was still interesting, and covered a lot of ground, ideas, and lives. It starts with a nice review of existentialism and a brief overview of the lives of Sartre and de Beauvoir (before diving into phenomenology, existentialism's precursor). It was actually interesting, despite the long list of misgivings listed above.
One clear takeaway from the book for me is that Existentialism is perfectly suited to the 2020s - with the pandemic, war breaking out in eastern Europe, rise of white-nationalism and fascism, it feels like we are right back to the 1920s-1930s, and the philosophy of freedom, responsibility and social engagement advocated by existentialism is increasingly urgent.
It also cemented my opinion that the best philosophers of the century (and top 5 ever) were definitely de Beauvoir and Camus, because they were the ones whose philosophy really focused on ethics, on *how* to lead a meaningful life.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
I had been going through a streak of existentialist books for the past year, and I chose this book to cap it - it looked like it would be a good overview of the philosophy and history of existentialism, and serve as a fine conclusion. Although the book was good, it was a little disappointing.
I think the book fell short on two regards: First, I think I expected a more dramatized take on the lives of the existentialists - that is, still real, but with more life. Something like "The Agony and The Ecstasy" or "The Origin" by Irving Stone - biographical, but still mesmerizing. Instead, it's a dry accounting of the philosopher's lives and histories.
Second, I didn't like much the choice of which "characters" to focus on, Heidegger and Sartre. I was expecting the book to focus on Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Camus - I mean, they (and only they) are right there on the cover! So the focus on Heidegger was a little puzzling. I understand that he preceded the others, and was incredibly influential at the time, but he is not exactly an existentialist like the others, he is primarily a phenomenologist. I must also admit that I dislike his philosophy, specially the later stuff with a focus on rustic living and luddism. As the book progresses, it does start giving some focus to the other characters, although it feels more superficial, never delving too deeply into what made them tick. De Beauvoir got some attention, but Camus was definitely a secondary character in this book. Towards the end, the sequence of events and the cast of characters become a sprawling mess, as the author rushes to include every other existential philosopher into the book.
The explanations of the philosophy themselves also felt underwhelming. The part in which the books talks about the early existentialists and phenomenologists makes it sound like they were just trying to philosophize about things that feel more like behavioral psychology, sociology, or even psychiatry - like anxiety and depression. It also makes it sound like most of the time, philosophy is just an exercise in ignoring science. Philosophy questions "being", but not minds, brains, consciousness. The book spent a lot of time talking about "being"; it spent a lot less time dealing with the ethics and humanism of existentialism.
I was a bit annoyed with the Anglo-American, the right-leaning attitude of the author. It comes across when she talks about communism, and the struggles of existentialists in embracing and disavowing communism; she readily dismisses communism as an *obviously* wrong ideology, without ever explaining why. At a late point in the book, she mentions how the belligerent and bellic attitude of a communist country impugns communism, but never explains why when a capitalist country does the same, it doesn't impugn capitalism… But then again, it seemed that even the existentialist philosophers had a problem grasping the concept that authoritarian governments are bad no matter what form of economic system they pretends to spouse.
One more aside about existentialism, not really about this book: When reading the existentialists ideas about being, I kept thinking, "What about animals?". Not how existentialism applies to animals, but what do is it learn from animal - from modes of being that are not human, but are not also as simple as that of a tree. Some do think and have feelings, and have societies. But no existentialist seem to pay much attention to that - they don’t seem to learn anything from other minds, they just take the human adult brain fully formed and call that a mind, everything else is irrelevant. They ignore that humans are just an instance of animals. If their theories don’t generalize, then how meaningful can they be? How are they more than navel gazing and self aggrandizement?
Despite these disappointments with the book, it was still interesting, and covered a lot of ground, ideas, and lives. It starts with a nice review of existentialism and a brief overview of the lives of Sartre and de Beauvoir (before diving into phenomenology, existentialism's precursor). It was actually interesting, despite the long list of misgivings listed above.
One clear takeaway from the book for me is that Existentialism is perfectly suited to the 2020s - with the pandemic, war breaking out in eastern Europe, rise of white-nationalism and fascism, it feels like we are right back to the 1920s-1930s, and the philosophy of freedom, responsibility and social engagement advocated by existentialism is increasingly urgent.
It also cemented my opinion that the best philosophers of the century (and top 5 ever) were definitely de Beauvoir and Camus, because they were the ones whose philosophy really focused on ethics, on *how* to lead a meaningful life.
View all my reviews
Tuesday, April 12, 2022
Review: The Trial
The Trial by Franz Kafka
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
The Trial is the quintessential "Kafkaesque" story, in which a man called Josef K is accused of a crime, but is never told what crime he committed; and is then tried in secret, in absentia, and without recourse; all the while he tries to either ignore or take action against the trial; until (view spoiler)[ he is ultimately condemned (hide spoiler)]. (I will note that although I marked this as a spoiler, the preface/introduction itself already spoils the ending - it was pretty annoying actually!). It is a caricature of an inefficient, corrupt justice system, and a metaphor for inhumane government bureaucracies all over the world.
The book was put together by Kafka's friend after his death. It was assembled from several passages, ordered and edited to try to make a cohesive story. I am not sure it did. In fact, after the conclusion of the story, there are a number of "fragments", additional chapters or scenes that didn't make the cut; and they point to a lot more story and character development for the protagonist. Some of the parts that are in the main narrative also seem to point to a larger story, that just didn't get written. For example, there is a passage about a visit to the cathedral that brings a whole new dimension to the story, linking the court with the church; but that just ends abruptly.
On the whole, it is a very strange piece of literature, mainly because the way the characters behave is weird. Examples: the way they talk about the court, always in a non-committal way; how the issue of what K is accused of is dropped right after chapter 1, and never brought up again; how he has forced himself on a woman (his neighbor), out of nowhere; how most of the women in the story (with the exception of the neighbor) are constantly throwing themselves at him. This last one is particularly mystifying; how is that happening? Is that normal for the author? Is this protagonist supposed to be irresistibly attractive? At least K (the protagonist) and his lawyer remark on that, so I guess it is meant to be weird. It's also surprisingly sexist, I think. Sometimes I think it might be because it's calling attention to sexism, as a criticism of sexism; other times it's hard not to take it at face value, so it feels very sexist.
At first, due to a remark made by one of the characters, I thought the point of the book was going to be that even normal, good people, can make an inhumane machine in the name of some ideology (similar to the concept of "the banality of evil"). But then I realized that it was not that - or at least not just that. I started seeing that the way that the characters behaved was not only weird, but absurd. The judges are absurd, the process is absurd, the lawyer is absurd. Everyone behaves in a childish way, don't know really know what is going on, and more importantly, don't care - this is how it is and that's it. This made difficult for the book to convey any message about the real world. I then started to realize that this is not purely absurd, but *modern*, in the *modern art* sense of the word - in which the reader's interpretation is crucial to what the piece of work conveys. Hence the absurdism of the story and characters - it's exactly so that this cannot have a singular interpretation, a single meaning. It's like one of these modern paintings, that looks like just a bunch of random strokes of paint on canvas, until you look at it long enough that you start seeing the patterns and the meaning - even if it's your own mind projecting this meaning on the piece. It's also a discussion piece - exactly because it defies singular interpretation, it invites the readers to not only figure out what it means, but to discuss what it all means. I realized this exactly when, while reading, it conjured up in my mind a period in my life that had very strong parallels to this, and I thought this work was a pretty good metaphor for it. I then realized that I was projecting, and no way that this was a universal interpretation.
(for reference: I saw the similarity of the trial to when people are gossiping behind your back. You get accused of something, but you don't know what it is, because no one will tell you what it was said. They say it's not their place. There is just the rumor that you have done something, but you have no idea what people are talking about. Once the "court" makes the accusation, you're done for, there is no acquittal. Any effort to clear up your name will just backfire - "he does protest too much" kind of thing. But if you try to ignore it, it doesn't go away either, it just keeps popping up again. See? It kind of fits the narrative. But I also know it's not the point of the book.)
I also thought it was noteworthy that the main character was a fairly well-off guy - he was the CFO for a bank, a man of some importance, going up in the world. He is arrogant, elitist, and sexist (i.e. forces himself on women). It's not easy to sympathize with such a character like that, if you want to cast him as the hero fighting against an inhumane bureaucracy.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
The Trial is the quintessential "Kafkaesque" story, in which a man called Josef K is accused of a crime, but is never told what crime he committed; and is then tried in secret, in absentia, and without recourse; all the while he tries to either ignore or take action against the trial; until (view spoiler)[ he is ultimately condemned (hide spoiler)]. (I will note that although I marked this as a spoiler, the preface/introduction itself already spoils the ending - it was pretty annoying actually!). It is a caricature of an inefficient, corrupt justice system, and a metaphor for inhumane government bureaucracies all over the world.
The book was put together by Kafka's friend after his death. It was assembled from several passages, ordered and edited to try to make a cohesive story. I am not sure it did. In fact, after the conclusion of the story, there are a number of "fragments", additional chapters or scenes that didn't make the cut; and they point to a lot more story and character development for the protagonist. Some of the parts that are in the main narrative also seem to point to a larger story, that just didn't get written. For example, there is a passage about a visit to the cathedral that brings a whole new dimension to the story, linking the court with the church; but that just ends abruptly.
On the whole, it is a very strange piece of literature, mainly because the way the characters behave is weird. Examples: the way they talk about the court, always in a non-committal way; how the issue of what K is accused of is dropped right after chapter 1, and never brought up again; how he has forced himself on a woman (his neighbor), out of nowhere; how most of the women in the story (with the exception of the neighbor) are constantly throwing themselves at him. This last one is particularly mystifying; how is that happening? Is that normal for the author? Is this protagonist supposed to be irresistibly attractive? At least K (the protagonist) and his lawyer remark on that, so I guess it is meant to be weird. It's also surprisingly sexist, I think. Sometimes I think it might be because it's calling attention to sexism, as a criticism of sexism; other times it's hard not to take it at face value, so it feels very sexist.
At first, due to a remark made by one of the characters, I thought the point of the book was going to be that even normal, good people, can make an inhumane machine in the name of some ideology (similar to the concept of "the banality of evil"). But then I realized that it was not that - or at least not just that. I started seeing that the way that the characters behaved was not only weird, but absurd. The judges are absurd, the process is absurd, the lawyer is absurd. Everyone behaves in a childish way, don't know really know what is going on, and more importantly, don't care - this is how it is and that's it. This made difficult for the book to convey any message about the real world. I then started to realize that this is not purely absurd, but *modern*, in the *modern art* sense of the word - in which the reader's interpretation is crucial to what the piece of work conveys. Hence the absurdism of the story and characters - it's exactly so that this cannot have a singular interpretation, a single meaning. It's like one of these modern paintings, that looks like just a bunch of random strokes of paint on canvas, until you look at it long enough that you start seeing the patterns and the meaning - even if it's your own mind projecting this meaning on the piece. It's also a discussion piece - exactly because it defies singular interpretation, it invites the readers to not only figure out what it means, but to discuss what it all means. I realized this exactly when, while reading, it conjured up in my mind a period in my life that had very strong parallels to this, and I thought this work was a pretty good metaphor for it. I then realized that I was projecting, and no way that this was a universal interpretation.
(for reference: I saw the similarity of the trial to when people are gossiping behind your back. You get accused of something, but you don't know what it is, because no one will tell you what it was said. They say it's not their place. There is just the rumor that you have done something, but you have no idea what people are talking about. Once the "court" makes the accusation, you're done for, there is no acquittal. Any effort to clear up your name will just backfire - "he does protest too much" kind of thing. But if you try to ignore it, it doesn't go away either, it just keeps popping up again. See? It kind of fits the narrative. But I also know it's not the point of the book.)
I also thought it was noteworthy that the main character was a fairly well-off guy - he was the CFO for a bank, a man of some importance, going up in the world. He is arrogant, elitist, and sexist (i.e. forces himself on women). It's not easy to sympathize with such a character like that, if you want to cast him as the hero fighting against an inhumane bureaucracy.
View all my reviews
Friday, April 08, 2022
Review: The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings
The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings by Karl Marx
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This book consists of the "The Communist Manifesto" itself, plus a few other essays. The manifesto is short, making a quick read of historical significance, and its first section is immensely interesting! It is written in a very grandiose style, it makes it sound epic - which I guess it really is!
The first section is impressive in how it describes capitalism, and how disruption and globalization are essential features of capitalism. It's remarkable that these are buzzwords of 21st century capitalism, but they were already old news for Marx! In fact, he sounds very anti-globalization in the manifesto. He predicts the cycle of progress and crises (bubbles and bursts), and predicts the gradual “sinking” of the "lower middle class" into the proletariat - both essential features of capitalism. I was surprised to see that, contrary to criticism I hear, the manifesto explicitly states that middle-class professionals are paid-laborers, not bourgeoisie; it lists them by name: doctors, lawyers, even scientists; we are all eventually proletariat! The bourgeoisie are really the rich - and by that he means the very, very rich (he even explicitly calls them "millionaires").
The second part, however, was kinda weird. The part in which he explains about the abolition of private property was very puzzling, because the authors didn’t explain at all what they meant - that is, they tried to explain, with examples and arguments, but in the end I was left completely confused. Do they want to abolish all private property? Including small personal property? Or just “bourgeoisie” property (like industries, stores, etc…)? It seemed that they were trying to draw a distinction between some property that was to be abolished and some that wouldn’t, but it was not clear at all where the line was drawn.
He then launches into answering criticisms of communism, and quick superficial rebuttals of competing ideologies. Here, he seems more focused on mentioning that this and that movement simply petered out, and didn't get anywhere. Sometimes he tried to explain why other movements got it wrong. One particular criticism stood out to me, about the "bourgeoisie socialism", which is the socialism of improving workers lives so that revolution was not needed. Although I get his point that this still leaves room to abuse, or that the bourgeoisie might do just enough to prevent revolution and no more, his criticism felt very superficial - it never rally explains what is wrong with it in principle. That is, sure, it could be badly implemented, but if it is well implemented, what is the problem?
Overall, I think that this work started really well, but then it does have two big flaws in it. First, when it calls for the change in the status quo, it's very explicit that it should be by any means necessary; and that if it creates an intermediate state of strife and suffering, it's fine, because it will all work out in the end. Unfortunately, that's exactly what gave cover for many dictators to steal the movement from the workers and institute horrible regimes, based on personality-worship and oppression of its citizens, completely anathema to Marx's ideal of communism - for how can a society call itself communist when its workers are living in miserable conditions? There never was in history any real communist country, only dictatorships that looked more like feudalism, with leaders pretending to be communist while enriching themselves, brutalizing their people, taking advantage of the believers, and never actually giving power to the people.
Second, the manifesto doesn't explain what the new society (that would replace the current one) would look like - in their eyes, it would be paradise; but how? Well, this is a manifesto, so it can't be too long, so maybe this kind of explanation doesn't have a place here. But we do know that Marx never did manage to describe his worker's paradise in any other work either, only that it would be the final outcome of his revolution. It's a pity, because it is a promising idea.
The other writings in the book were less interesting. They felt more historical in nature, harder to generalize to our time and society. They consisted of a lot of analysis of specific ideas and conditions of the time, with criticism of the contemporary society, politics, and philosophers. Some good points were made, like the harsh treatment of the poor and how simply changing who is in charge does not fundamentally change society. I think the only weakness was that these are overshadowed by a lot of play on words, on superficial arguments, trying to convince you that all roads lead inevitably to communism, but without any really compelling logic to it. However, they still offer a great historical perspective an excellent political and economic analysis of the 18th and 19th century.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This book consists of the "The Communist Manifesto" itself, plus a few other essays. The manifesto is short, making a quick read of historical significance, and its first section is immensely interesting! It is written in a very grandiose style, it makes it sound epic - which I guess it really is!
The first section is impressive in how it describes capitalism, and how disruption and globalization are essential features of capitalism. It's remarkable that these are buzzwords of 21st century capitalism, but they were already old news for Marx! In fact, he sounds very anti-globalization in the manifesto. He predicts the cycle of progress and crises (bubbles and bursts), and predicts the gradual “sinking” of the "lower middle class" into the proletariat - both essential features of capitalism. I was surprised to see that, contrary to criticism I hear, the manifesto explicitly states that middle-class professionals are paid-laborers, not bourgeoisie; it lists them by name: doctors, lawyers, even scientists; we are all eventually proletariat! The bourgeoisie are really the rich - and by that he means the very, very rich (he even explicitly calls them "millionaires").
The second part, however, was kinda weird. The part in which he explains about the abolition of private property was very puzzling, because the authors didn’t explain at all what they meant - that is, they tried to explain, with examples and arguments, but in the end I was left completely confused. Do they want to abolish all private property? Including small personal property? Or just “bourgeoisie” property (like industries, stores, etc…)? It seemed that they were trying to draw a distinction between some property that was to be abolished and some that wouldn’t, but it was not clear at all where the line was drawn.
He then launches into answering criticisms of communism, and quick superficial rebuttals of competing ideologies. Here, he seems more focused on mentioning that this and that movement simply petered out, and didn't get anywhere. Sometimes he tried to explain why other movements got it wrong. One particular criticism stood out to me, about the "bourgeoisie socialism", which is the socialism of improving workers lives so that revolution was not needed. Although I get his point that this still leaves room to abuse, or that the bourgeoisie might do just enough to prevent revolution and no more, his criticism felt very superficial - it never rally explains what is wrong with it in principle. That is, sure, it could be badly implemented, but if it is well implemented, what is the problem?
Overall, I think that this work started really well, but then it does have two big flaws in it. First, when it calls for the change in the status quo, it's very explicit that it should be by any means necessary; and that if it creates an intermediate state of strife and suffering, it's fine, because it will all work out in the end. Unfortunately, that's exactly what gave cover for many dictators to steal the movement from the workers and institute horrible regimes, based on personality-worship and oppression of its citizens, completely anathema to Marx's ideal of communism - for how can a society call itself communist when its workers are living in miserable conditions? There never was in history any real communist country, only dictatorships that looked more like feudalism, with leaders pretending to be communist while enriching themselves, brutalizing their people, taking advantage of the believers, and never actually giving power to the people.
Second, the manifesto doesn't explain what the new society (that would replace the current one) would look like - in their eyes, it would be paradise; but how? Well, this is a manifesto, so it can't be too long, so maybe this kind of explanation doesn't have a place here. But we do know that Marx never did manage to describe his worker's paradise in any other work either, only that it would be the final outcome of his revolution. It's a pity, because it is a promising idea.
The other writings in the book were less interesting. They felt more historical in nature, harder to generalize to our time and society. They consisted of a lot of analysis of specific ideas and conditions of the time, with criticism of the contemporary society, politics, and philosophers. Some good points were made, like the harsh treatment of the poor and how simply changing who is in charge does not fundamentally change society. I think the only weakness was that these are overshadowed by a lot of play on words, on superficial arguments, trying to convince you that all roads lead inevitably to communism, but without any really compelling logic to it. However, they still offer a great historical perspective an excellent political and economic analysis of the 18th and 19th century.
View all my reviews
Friday, April 01, 2022
Review: Existentialism is a Humanism
Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Having just finished Nausea, which I didn't like, I started on this essay (a lecture, actually), and I was impressed at how different it was. This is well-written, well-explained, really clear and to the point, with good arguments, straightforward explanations - and some good quotes to boot ;) ! How did Sartre write both Nausea and "Existentialism is a Humanism"? Clearly he is better at philosophy than novels…
This book defines succinctly what is existentialism, and explains how to apply it to ethics, and how it can help us think about decisions. Now I appreciate how important his maxim is, "existence precedes essence". It was striking how the author emphasizes not freedom, but responsibility. That the ultimate consequence of existentialism, and of the proposition that there is no God (at least not the personal God envisioned by most religions), is not that we are free to do anything, but that we are ultimately responsible for everything we do. Also, I was particularly surprised that the essay reads like a call for action - that all idealism, well-wishing, hoping, potential, it's all useless unless it's backed up by action!
I had read elsewhere criticism that Sartre's existentialism is useless as an ethics framework because it does not give advice on what to do in certain situations - like the example given in the essay, in which a student asks Sartre what to do in a specific situation (no spoilers!), and Sartre only tells him he is free to choose. The criticism is the kind of "of course he is free, that is useless advice!". But I don't think that's fair criticism. First, Sartre explicitly explains how existentialism is not meant to provide answers for specific problems, only a framework on how to think about the problems; second, the answer is actually useful: it dispels the notion that there is a correct answer, like it would be given by a priest or by a Marxist revolutionary (two examples he uses throughout the text), which are easy to guess what they would be in the situation. Sartre is very pointedly saying that neither is correct - which is a definite and informative answer. Although ultimately this doesn't resolve the student dilemma, it clarifies that other systems of ethics don't solve it either!
One thing that was unclear is how establishing the existence of the self also establishes the existence of others. That that part seems to call out to previous work - he seems to allude to something that was said before but I couldn't tell what, so maybe in a previous book? It was not ever clear what he was referring to.
Although I do like his position that existentialism is not meant to provide a framework for making decisions, it is still a weak point of his concept of existentialism. In contrast, I think that de Beauvoir exploration of existentialism is way better because it does address this point; that is, it still does not make easy decisions, but it gives a framework, that can help an individual to think about how to make the best decisions, how to select between one choice and another - in de Beauvoir's case, roughly speaking, the ethical choice is about increasing the freedom of *others*.
Towards the end, Sartre also states the point that to will freedom for yourself, authentically, requires you to will freedom for others - the same as the thesis of De Beauvoir's Ethics. However, while I do find this point very appealing, he doesn't make it clear how to go from one to the other - there is a leap in logic, same as when he states that recognizing the existence of the self implies that of others, and now the will to freedom for the self implies that of others. It's possible that he explores this is explored in more detail in his longer works, but here, it feels like a tenuous link.
At the very end, Sartre makes the case that existentialism is a type of humanism. First, he addresses the fact that in his most famous work, Nausea, he attacks (makes fun? humiliates?) humanism. But here he says that in Nausea, he was attacking the usual formulation of humanism, but not humanism as he sees it. And then he tries to explain his view of humanism, and completely loses me, because he tries to define as the "relation of transcendence […] with subjectivity […]", while trying to explain what these mean, but it's just very opaque what he means. But then he brings it back to something more approachable, that existentialism is the notion that man is the only one who can decide for himself what to do (and is thus *responsible* for man), that it is a call to action, and it is ultimately optimistic, because it drives man to find and realize himself.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Having just finished Nausea, which I didn't like, I started on this essay (a lecture, actually), and I was impressed at how different it was. This is well-written, well-explained, really clear and to the point, with good arguments, straightforward explanations - and some good quotes to boot ;) ! How did Sartre write both Nausea and "Existentialism is a Humanism"? Clearly he is better at philosophy than novels…
This book defines succinctly what is existentialism, and explains how to apply it to ethics, and how it can help us think about decisions. Now I appreciate how important his maxim is, "existence precedes essence". It was striking how the author emphasizes not freedom, but responsibility. That the ultimate consequence of existentialism, and of the proposition that there is no God (at least not the personal God envisioned by most religions), is not that we are free to do anything, but that we are ultimately responsible for everything we do. Also, I was particularly surprised that the essay reads like a call for action - that all idealism, well-wishing, hoping, potential, it's all useless unless it's backed up by action!
I had read elsewhere criticism that Sartre's existentialism is useless as an ethics framework because it does not give advice on what to do in certain situations - like the example given in the essay, in which a student asks Sartre what to do in a specific situation (no spoilers!), and Sartre only tells him he is free to choose. The criticism is the kind of "of course he is free, that is useless advice!". But I don't think that's fair criticism. First, Sartre explicitly explains how existentialism is not meant to provide answers for specific problems, only a framework on how to think about the problems; second, the answer is actually useful: it dispels the notion that there is a correct answer, like it would be given by a priest or by a Marxist revolutionary (two examples he uses throughout the text), which are easy to guess what they would be in the situation. Sartre is very pointedly saying that neither is correct - which is a definite and informative answer. Although ultimately this doesn't resolve the student dilemma, it clarifies that other systems of ethics don't solve it either!
One thing that was unclear is how establishing the existence of the self also establishes the existence of others. That that part seems to call out to previous work - he seems to allude to something that was said before but I couldn't tell what, so maybe in a previous book? It was not ever clear what he was referring to.
Although I do like his position that existentialism is not meant to provide a framework for making decisions, it is still a weak point of his concept of existentialism. In contrast, I think that de Beauvoir exploration of existentialism is way better because it does address this point; that is, it still does not make easy decisions, but it gives a framework, that can help an individual to think about how to make the best decisions, how to select between one choice and another - in de Beauvoir's case, roughly speaking, the ethical choice is about increasing the freedom of *others*.
Towards the end, Sartre also states the point that to will freedom for yourself, authentically, requires you to will freedom for others - the same as the thesis of De Beauvoir's Ethics. However, while I do find this point very appealing, he doesn't make it clear how to go from one to the other - there is a leap in logic, same as when he states that recognizing the existence of the self implies that of others, and now the will to freedom for the self implies that of others. It's possible that he explores this is explored in more detail in his longer works, but here, it feels like a tenuous link.
At the very end, Sartre makes the case that existentialism is a type of humanism. First, he addresses the fact that in his most famous work, Nausea, he attacks (makes fun? humiliates?) humanism. But here he says that in Nausea, he was attacking the usual formulation of humanism, but not humanism as he sees it. And then he tries to explain his view of humanism, and completely loses me, because he tries to define as the "relation of transcendence […] with subjectivity […]", while trying to explain what these mean, but it's just very opaque what he means. But then he brings it back to something more approachable, that existentialism is the notion that man is the only one who can decide for himself what to do (and is thus *responsible* for man), that it is a call to action, and it is ultimately optimistic, because it drives man to find and realize himself.
View all my reviews
Tuesday, March 29, 2022
Review: Nausea
Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
Apparently, this book was originally meant to be titled "Melancholia", and I think that is a far more fitting title to the book. The protagonist is definitely melancholic, probably depressed, and the whole book drips with melancholia, with sentimentalism, with pseudo-nostalgia. The writing as a whole seems way too sentimentalist. In fact, the narrator/protagonist says that himself - he comments in a passage that his latest writing is too sentimental and pompous! But he continues with it anyway.
Despite the over-sentimental style, the content itself is mostly a description of mundane everyday events and settings. Is this what existentialism novels are supposed to be like? An endless description of mundane events? As if to say everything is meaningful, and thus everything is meaningless? And then it has one or two significant events buried inside, for us to find and then re-cast the rest of the story, give meaning to everything that came before? So that the structure of the novel itself is a metaphor for life? If so, I don't like it.
At the end of the book, there is a bit of a discussion on existence, its value, the meaning of existence, and on the possibility that the meaning of life is given by history and collective memory. But the discussion is very weak, and obviously a red-herring, it doesn’t go anywhere. The whole book doesn't really seem to go anywhere. I really couldn't see why this is such a foundational book for existentialism.
One last thought: I was surprised by the number of mentions of pedophilia - there are at least 3 cases of it in the book, which is rather a lot considering the story has nothing to do with it.
View all my reviews
My rating: 2 of 5 stars
Apparently, this book was originally meant to be titled "Melancholia", and I think that is a far more fitting title to the book. The protagonist is definitely melancholic, probably depressed, and the whole book drips with melancholia, with sentimentalism, with pseudo-nostalgia. The writing as a whole seems way too sentimentalist. In fact, the narrator/protagonist says that himself - he comments in a passage that his latest writing is too sentimental and pompous! But he continues with it anyway.
Despite the over-sentimental style, the content itself is mostly a description of mundane everyday events and settings. Is this what existentialism novels are supposed to be like? An endless description of mundane events? As if to say everything is meaningful, and thus everything is meaningless? And then it has one or two significant events buried inside, for us to find and then re-cast the rest of the story, give meaning to everything that came before? So that the structure of the novel itself is a metaphor for life? If so, I don't like it.
At the end of the book, there is a bit of a discussion on existence, its value, the meaning of existence, and on the possibility that the meaning of life is given by history and collective memory. But the discussion is very weak, and obviously a red-herring, it doesn’t go anywhere. The whole book doesn't really seem to go anywhere. I really couldn't see why this is such a foundational book for existentialism.
One last thought: I was surprised by the number of mentions of pedophilia - there are at least 3 cases of it in the book, which is rather a lot considering the story has nothing to do with it.
View all my reviews
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Review: Blindsight
Blindsight by Peter Watts
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
This was a very captivating mystery sci-fi - the story really pulls you in, trying to figure out what is going on. That is, chronologically, you get told what is happening, but not what is behind it all - only glimpses, hints, foreshadowing. There is an alien - that is clear from the cover - but what kind? what is it doing? What does it want? I like that this is the kind of story in which the alien is completely different from human it is, not only morphologically, but even logically - a completely alien mind.
It has a very dark beginning, right off the bat, it does not seem like it's going to be a nice story. And as you dive deeper into it, you see it's not. Towards the middle, I started to realize that it has gone from "hard sci-fi" to something more like "horror sci-fi" - it most reminded me of "Event Horizon" (the movie, not the book, I never read the book). I don't think there will be gateway to hell here, but that's what it feels like.
But then you get a lot of discussion of neuroscience, neurological syndromes, "fun facts" about the brain its inner workings, about intelligence, sentience, consciousness - it becomes a full-fledged discussion of philosophy of the mind! In fact, I think the "hard sci-fi" part is not really about the space travel or computers or electronic technology at all - it's exactly about the neuroscience part of it. It is very different, and very interesting.
It ends with a kind of twist about the alien, and then a plot twist about what is happening on Earth. The one about the alien is very interesting, and makes you think; the one about Earth is just weird, feels like it was just tacked on to the story at the last minute. Although I saw that there is a second book to the series, I felt that the story had enough closure that I will not be picking up the next book of the series.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
This was a very captivating mystery sci-fi - the story really pulls you in, trying to figure out what is going on. That is, chronologically, you get told what is happening, but not what is behind it all - only glimpses, hints, foreshadowing. There is an alien - that is clear from the cover - but what kind? what is it doing? What does it want? I like that this is the kind of story in which the alien is completely different from human it is, not only morphologically, but even logically - a completely alien mind.
It has a very dark beginning, right off the bat, it does not seem like it's going to be a nice story. And as you dive deeper into it, you see it's not. Towards the middle, I started to realize that it has gone from "hard sci-fi" to something more like "horror sci-fi" - it most reminded me of "Event Horizon" (the movie, not the book, I never read the book). I don't think there will be gateway to hell here, but that's what it feels like.
But then you get a lot of discussion of neuroscience, neurological syndromes, "fun facts" about the brain its inner workings, about intelligence, sentience, consciousness - it becomes a full-fledged discussion of philosophy of the mind! In fact, I think the "hard sci-fi" part is not really about the space travel or computers or electronic technology at all - it's exactly about the neuroscience part of it. It is very different, and very interesting.
It ends with a kind of twist about the alien, and then a plot twist about what is happening on Earth. The one about the alien is very interesting, and makes you think; the one about Earth is just weird, feels like it was just tacked on to the story at the last minute. Although I saw that there is a second book to the series, I felt that the story had enough closure that I will not be picking up the next book of the series.
View all my reviews
Friday, March 11, 2022
Review: The Ethics of Ambiguity
The Ethics of Ambiguity by Simone de Beauvoir
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
This was an excellent, truly essential read! Of the few existentialism books I have read, this is by far the one that best describes its aims, that best explains what is trying to say - it should be considered the pinnacle of existentialist thought, and is the best book on ethics and morality I have read! I was amazed by all the themes discussed within it - this is a really important book, it should be required reading for life!
First, de Beauvoir is by far the most readable of all existentialists, none of the other writers even comes close to being as easy to understand as she is (not that she’s easy to understand, just easier).
Second, I was surprised by the themes that were discussed in this book. I was expecting more about ethics of personal matters, but instead most of the book is about discussions of politics and sociology, and how philosophy can inform us how we should during extreme historical events - it's mostly about political activism and related activities, revolution, and war. The author presents great historical and political analyses from a philosophical point of view, to be contrasted, as the author does, with Hegel and Marx. The discussions are centered on citizenship and also what a person should do in the face of war, dictatorships, fascism, right-wing government, and other extreme ideologies and situations, such as slavery, paternalism, and anti-feminism.
I like a digression she had about the "adventurer", who detaches himself from the world, in search for adventure, glory and riches, which is kinda like the right-wing hero: "It is not a matter of chance, but a dialectical necessity which leads the adventurer to be complacent regarding all regimes which defend the privilege of a class or a party, and more particularly authoritarian regimes and fascism. He needs fortune, leisure, and enjoyment, and he will take these goods as supreme ends in order to be prepared to remain free in regard to any end." - An adventurer is actually an accomplice of the tyrants and dictators, if only by taciturn acceptance so that they can retain their privileged position.
The book is clearly a product of its time. It discusses freedom, oppression, capitalism, and conservatism in the context of totalitarian regimes and wars, which was very relevant to the time existentialism flourished, during WWII. I initially thought this made this discussion less universal, but then as I read more and more, and I saw how the author explored these themes, I realized that it was actually extremely relevant, as it applies directly to our time, with the ongoing anti-vax and anti-mask movement, the rise of right-wing governments and fascism all over the world, and with Russia starting its war on Ukraine. The political aspects of existentialism are, sadly, as relevant today as they were when written.
Part 2 elaborates on what it means "to will freedom" - to me, this finally resolved what Nietzsche had been talking about, with that whole “impose your will on the world” stuff he kept going on about in his books. Here we arrive at the main theme of de Beauvoir's ethics, which is very humanistic - that although there is nothing uniting us a priori, we are still bound together. "that the ethics which have given solutions by effacing the fact of the separation of men are not valid precisely because there is this separation. An ethics of ambiguity will be one which will refuse to deny a priori that separate existants can, at the same time, be bound to each other, that their individual freedoms can forge laws valid for all." Also, my freedom requires that it emerges into an "open future" - and it’s others that open this future for me. Part 2 concludes with the central tenet of de Beauvoir ethics is thus: "to will oneself free, is also to will others free".
The end expands on this proposition, and it does include a discussion about personal ethics. The author specifically mentions that ethics is not about telling you exactly what to do in a given situation, but it’s about giving you a framework with which you can make decisions. Further, she uses existentialism to inform us how to make this kind of ethics, and it’s not that she’s trying to develop whole new set of rules or guidelines on how to behave, but more like she is just trying to ground existing guidelines or existing rules or just common sense using existentialism as a framework for those rules and guidelines. Which I do find extremely interesting because it’s all about the question why should we behave a certain way, why do we have to be good, what defines being good? In the framework of extentialism, with the whole Nietzschean notion that "God is Dead", what is the standard for what is good? And here Simone De Beauvoir makes a very compelling case that existentialism can be standard of what is a good, can help you think about what is good, that you don’t need a God to ground your ethics: "It is not a matter of being right in the eyes of a God, but of being right in his own eye"; [Man] "bears the responsibility for a world which is not the work of a strange power, but of himself".
I also like that the author has a good grasp of the role science: it fails to fulfill one’s life, but it’s extremely successful in giving means to fulfill one’s life (specially when it comes to extending it, and increasing its reach).
One last interesting passage I wrote down:
"For, in a metaphysics of transcendence, in the classical sense of the term, evil is reduced to error; and in humanistic philosophies it is impossible to account for it, man being defined as complete in a complete world. Existentialism alone gives — like religions — a real role to evil, and it is this, perhaps, which make its judgments so gloomy. Men do not like to feel themselves in danger. Yet, it is because there are real dangers, real failures and real earthly damnation that words like victory, wisdom, or joy have meaning. Nothing is decided in advance, and it is because man has something to lose and because he can lose that he can also win."
View all my reviews
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
This was an excellent, truly essential read! Of the few existentialism books I have read, this is by far the one that best describes its aims, that best explains what is trying to say - it should be considered the pinnacle of existentialist thought, and is the best book on ethics and morality I have read! I was amazed by all the themes discussed within it - this is a really important book, it should be required reading for life!
First, de Beauvoir is by far the most readable of all existentialists, none of the other writers even comes close to being as easy to understand as she is (not that she’s easy to understand, just easier).
Second, I was surprised by the themes that were discussed in this book. I was expecting more about ethics of personal matters, but instead most of the book is about discussions of politics and sociology, and how philosophy can inform us how we should during extreme historical events - it's mostly about political activism and related activities, revolution, and war. The author presents great historical and political analyses from a philosophical point of view, to be contrasted, as the author does, with Hegel and Marx. The discussions are centered on citizenship and also what a person should do in the face of war, dictatorships, fascism, right-wing government, and other extreme ideologies and situations, such as slavery, paternalism, and anti-feminism.
I like a digression she had about the "adventurer", who detaches himself from the world, in search for adventure, glory and riches, which is kinda like the right-wing hero: "It is not a matter of chance, but a dialectical necessity which leads the adventurer to be complacent regarding all regimes which defend the privilege of a class or a party, and more particularly authoritarian regimes and fascism. He needs fortune, leisure, and enjoyment, and he will take these goods as supreme ends in order to be prepared to remain free in regard to any end." - An adventurer is actually an accomplice of the tyrants and dictators, if only by taciturn acceptance so that they can retain their privileged position.
The book is clearly a product of its time. It discusses freedom, oppression, capitalism, and conservatism in the context of totalitarian regimes and wars, which was very relevant to the time existentialism flourished, during WWII. I initially thought this made this discussion less universal, but then as I read more and more, and I saw how the author explored these themes, I realized that it was actually extremely relevant, as it applies directly to our time, with the ongoing anti-vax and anti-mask movement, the rise of right-wing governments and fascism all over the world, and with Russia starting its war on Ukraine. The political aspects of existentialism are, sadly, as relevant today as they were when written.
Part 2 elaborates on what it means "to will freedom" - to me, this finally resolved what Nietzsche had been talking about, with that whole “impose your will on the world” stuff he kept going on about in his books. Here we arrive at the main theme of de Beauvoir's ethics, which is very humanistic - that although there is nothing uniting us a priori, we are still bound together. "that the ethics which have given solutions by effacing the fact of the separation of men are not valid precisely because there is this separation. An ethics of ambiguity will be one which will refuse to deny a priori that separate existants can, at the same time, be bound to each other, that their individual freedoms can forge laws valid for all." Also, my freedom requires that it emerges into an "open future" - and it’s others that open this future for me. Part 2 concludes with the central tenet of de Beauvoir ethics is thus: "to will oneself free, is also to will others free".
The end expands on this proposition, and it does include a discussion about personal ethics. The author specifically mentions that ethics is not about telling you exactly what to do in a given situation, but it’s about giving you a framework with which you can make decisions. Further, she uses existentialism to inform us how to make this kind of ethics, and it’s not that she’s trying to develop whole new set of rules or guidelines on how to behave, but more like she is just trying to ground existing guidelines or existing rules or just common sense using existentialism as a framework for those rules and guidelines. Which I do find extremely interesting because it’s all about the question why should we behave a certain way, why do we have to be good, what defines being good? In the framework of extentialism, with the whole Nietzschean notion that "God is Dead", what is the standard for what is good? And here Simone De Beauvoir makes a very compelling case that existentialism can be standard of what is a good, can help you think about what is good, that you don’t need a God to ground your ethics: "It is not a matter of being right in the eyes of a God, but of being right in his own eye"; [Man] "bears the responsibility for a world which is not the work of a strange power, but of himself".
I also like that the author has a good grasp of the role science: it fails to fulfill one’s life, but it’s extremely successful in giving means to fulfill one’s life (specially when it comes to extending it, and increasing its reach).
One last interesting passage I wrote down:
"For, in a metaphysics of transcendence, in the classical sense of the term, evil is reduced to error; and in humanistic philosophies it is impossible to account for it, man being defined as complete in a complete world. Existentialism alone gives — like religions — a real role to evil, and it is this, perhaps, which make its judgments so gloomy. Men do not like to feel themselves in danger. Yet, it is because there are real dangers, real failures and real earthly damnation that words like victory, wisdom, or joy have meaning. Nothing is decided in advance, and it is because man has something to lose and because he can lose that he can also win."
View all my reviews
Wednesday, March 02, 2022
Review: The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays
The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays by Albert Camus
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Wow! The book is quite a tour de force, going from how life is inherently meaningless, the the human condition is absurd, to how that is exactly the reason to live, to how suicide (and murder, and death in general) is not acceptable! It's strange that a question about suicide leads to an inquiry into the meaning of life.
I was initially struck by how well Camus writes - the beginning is lyrical, flowing with relative ease; but he immediately morphs into the usual existentialist writer. The first chapter is dense, hard to follow; it's full of name-dropping and quotes from other philosophers, and Camus seems to think that is makes for good arguments; he is also full of quotable sentences, phrases that sound great and profound, but when you try to make sense of he is saying outside of a single sentence, any meaning is lost; it's like each sentence is on its own, a text full of disjointed sentences without connection to what came before and what comes after. It looks to me that the author makes his arguments basically through two techniques: repetition and metaphor. First, he repeatedly mentions "absurd", and "reasoning", and "meaning", and related things, that by the end it feels like he must have made an argument about it, even if we didn't get it. Second, he makes lots of similes and metaphors for what the absurd means, that again by the end of it we think we should understand it.
But despite the confusing and meandering way he goes about it, the point of the book is fascinating. Towards the end of the first essay, almost by surprise, he arrives at the main statement of the book: “This is where it is seen to what a degree absurd experience is remote from suicide. It may be thought that suicide follows revolt—but wrongly.” […] “That revolt gives life its value”. The meaning of life is to revolt against the absurd! (the absurd that is human life).
This is a quite an intriguing and really brilliant concept! If the reader digs through the book, it is possible to glean several places where he expands on this idea, and it shines! I liked one metaphor Camus used: Sisyphus is all of us - all our work comes to nothing. "Sisyphus is the proletariat of the Gods". In the end, though, I am left unsatisfied: WHY is it that the revolt against the absurd is what gives life its value? The answers, as I mentioned, come from metaphors, never from a good explanation.
After the philosophical essays, there is a sort of weird travel guide, in which he basically reviews a number of travel destinations. I am being only a little facetious - he describes his city and a few neighbors, but it feels like a high-minded, pedantic travel guide. He is not entirely pedantic - his writing here makes him look like a humanist, and this is specially and weirdly true in his weird essay on a boxing match. It's an interesting read, even if he is trying too hard to be poetic. After that, there are some more semi-philosophical musings on history and life.
Rating this book is pretty difficult; on one hand, the writing is difficult, confusing, wanders all over the place, sometimes in very incoherent ways; on the other hand, once in a while coherent statements and even arguments break through, and when they do, they are brilliant.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Wow! The book is quite a tour de force, going from how life is inherently meaningless, the the human condition is absurd, to how that is exactly the reason to live, to how suicide (and murder, and death in general) is not acceptable! It's strange that a question about suicide leads to an inquiry into the meaning of life.
I was initially struck by how well Camus writes - the beginning is lyrical, flowing with relative ease; but he immediately morphs into the usual existentialist writer. The first chapter is dense, hard to follow; it's full of name-dropping and quotes from other philosophers, and Camus seems to think that is makes for good arguments; he is also full of quotable sentences, phrases that sound great and profound, but when you try to make sense of he is saying outside of a single sentence, any meaning is lost; it's like each sentence is on its own, a text full of disjointed sentences without connection to what came before and what comes after. It looks to me that the author makes his arguments basically through two techniques: repetition and metaphor. First, he repeatedly mentions "absurd", and "reasoning", and "meaning", and related things, that by the end it feels like he must have made an argument about it, even if we didn't get it. Second, he makes lots of similes and metaphors for what the absurd means, that again by the end of it we think we should understand it.
But despite the confusing and meandering way he goes about it, the point of the book is fascinating. Towards the end of the first essay, almost by surprise, he arrives at the main statement of the book: “This is where it is seen to what a degree absurd experience is remote from suicide. It may be thought that suicide follows revolt—but wrongly.” […] “That revolt gives life its value”. The meaning of life is to revolt against the absurd! (the absurd that is human life).
This is a quite an intriguing and really brilliant concept! If the reader digs through the book, it is possible to glean several places where he expands on this idea, and it shines! I liked one metaphor Camus used: Sisyphus is all of us - all our work comes to nothing. "Sisyphus is the proletariat of the Gods". In the end, though, I am left unsatisfied: WHY is it that the revolt against the absurd is what gives life its value? The answers, as I mentioned, come from metaphors, never from a good explanation.
After the philosophical essays, there is a sort of weird travel guide, in which he basically reviews a number of travel destinations. I am being only a little facetious - he describes his city and a few neighbors, but it feels like a high-minded, pedantic travel guide. He is not entirely pedantic - his writing here makes him look like a humanist, and this is specially and weirdly true in his weird essay on a boxing match. It's an interesting read, even if he is trying too hard to be poetic. After that, there are some more semi-philosophical musings on history and life.
Rating this book is pretty difficult; on one hand, the writing is difficult, confusing, wanders all over the place, sometimes in very incoherent ways; on the other hand, once in a while coherent statements and even arguments break through, and when they do, they are brilliant.
View all my reviews
Sunday, February 20, 2022
Review: The Stranger
The Stranger by Albert Camus
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
The book starts out as a slice of life in Algiers in the 1930s, until a crime is committed and we follow the trial. The narrator/protagonist is indeed strange, as he seems indifferent to most things and people, just going through the motions of life, with little empathy and care, and the only time he seems to care about something is about sex with his girlfriend. Spoilers below:
(view spoiler)[I will admit that it took me a while into the book to realize that the narrator/protagonist is a psychopath, and only then I started to see the point of the book. Maybe this is the literary groundbreaking aspect of the book, that it was being told from the point of view of a psychopath? Otherwise, I cannot see how it was philosophically groundbreaking or even remarkable. It seems to me that philosophically, the only important part of the book is a single conversation that happens at the very end of the book, when there is finally some sort of vindication to the story being told, when the authors ideas are exposed; and I guess it has some weight precisely because of the framing as being the words of a psychopath, who is free to say things like that; who is free to ponder the meaning of life without consideration for the psychological and social (including religious) aspects, as he really doesn't care for that. Then finally, it makes you think. And maybe you can go back and appreciate some of the subtleties of the earlier parts of the story. (hide spoiler)]
But it's likely that this novel had such a big impact because of the novelty at the time, because of the context in which it was written. I think that today, almost 80 years after it was first published, after we are familiar with existentialism, it is hard to feel the shock and impact that the novel delivered at the time it came out.
One more thing that I found interesting is the fact that a lot of descriptions of the novel point out that it came out in Germany-occupied France (Algiers was a colony) during WW2, and that remarkably, the German government did not censor it. I really do not see what it could possibly have found to censor - the novel does not feel subversive at all. At best there is a clear anti-church message to it, but that's not something Nazis would be necessarily against. Other than that, you need to do a lot of interpretation and read a lot of commentary to get any subversive meaning out of this novel.
Well, at least it was short.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
The book starts out as a slice of life in Algiers in the 1930s, until a crime is committed and we follow the trial. The narrator/protagonist is indeed strange, as he seems indifferent to most things and people, just going through the motions of life, with little empathy and care, and the only time he seems to care about something is about sex with his girlfriend. Spoilers below:
(view spoiler)[I will admit that it took me a while into the book to realize that the narrator/protagonist is a psychopath, and only then I started to see the point of the book. Maybe this is the literary groundbreaking aspect of the book, that it was being told from the point of view of a psychopath? Otherwise, I cannot see how it was philosophically groundbreaking or even remarkable. It seems to me that philosophically, the only important part of the book is a single conversation that happens at the very end of the book, when there is finally some sort of vindication to the story being told, when the authors ideas are exposed; and I guess it has some weight precisely because of the framing as being the words of a psychopath, who is free to say things like that; who is free to ponder the meaning of life without consideration for the psychological and social (including religious) aspects, as he really doesn't care for that. Then finally, it makes you think. And maybe you can go back and appreciate some of the subtleties of the earlier parts of the story. (hide spoiler)]
But it's likely that this novel had such a big impact because of the novelty at the time, because of the context in which it was written. I think that today, almost 80 years after it was first published, after we are familiar with existentialism, it is hard to feel the shock and impact that the novel delivered at the time it came out.
One more thing that I found interesting is the fact that a lot of descriptions of the novel point out that it came out in Germany-occupied France (Algiers was a colony) during WW2, and that remarkably, the German government did not censor it. I really do not see what it could possibly have found to censor - the novel does not feel subversive at all. At best there is a clear anti-church message to it, but that's not something Nazis would be necessarily against. Other than that, you need to do a lot of interpretation and read a lot of commentary to get any subversive meaning out of this novel.
Well, at least it was short.
View all my reviews
Saturday, February 12, 2022
Review: A Mind of Her Own
A Mind of Her Own by Paula McLain
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
I really liked the premise of the story - the love story between Marie and Pierre Curie! Sure, you could see it as minimizing the story of a great woman by focusing on her relationship with a man; but I was rather focusing on the elevating of a romantic story with an infusion of science and revolving around someone so amazing and intriguing!
However, it was a bit disappointing. While it was mostly well written, a lot of the internal monologue was hinting at Marie Curie's future, but in a way that was completely out of place (it was her "present" voice, talking about the present, but then making allusions to things that would occurs in the future). Also, and more importantly, it was too short - it didn't cover nearly enough to be able to say that this was about their love story - it was only a very brief look at their initial meeting. But the part that was there was good, and was interesting, so I would still recommend it.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
I really liked the premise of the story - the love story between Marie and Pierre Curie! Sure, you could see it as minimizing the story of a great woman by focusing on her relationship with a man; but I was rather focusing on the elevating of a romantic story with an infusion of science and revolving around someone so amazing and intriguing!
However, it was a bit disappointing. While it was mostly well written, a lot of the internal monologue was hinting at Marie Curie's future, but in a way that was completely out of place (it was her "present" voice, talking about the present, but then making allusions to things that would occurs in the future). Also, and more importantly, it was too short - it didn't cover nearly enough to be able to say that this was about their love story - it was only a very brief look at their initial meeting. But the part that was there was good, and was interesting, so I would still recommend it.
View all my reviews
Thursday, February 10, 2022
Review: A Meeting with Medusa
A Meeting with Medusa by Arthur C. Clarke
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Fun short story! It starts slow, the interesting part only starts in Chapter 2. Initially I thought it was going to be weird to hear a story about human exploration of Jupiter, but they make some good arguments for it. Despite some dated concepts, I always like alien contact stories in which the Aliens have wildly different biologies. I was also surprised to see the "Prime Directive" here - I wonder what is the connection with Star Trek? Finally, the ending chapter was interesting, seems to be pointing out to a greater story and larger themes, but then it just ends. Still good though!
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Fun short story! It starts slow, the interesting part only starts in Chapter 2. Initially I thought it was going to be weird to hear a story about human exploration of Jupiter, but they make some good arguments for it. Despite some dated concepts, I always like alien contact stories in which the Aliens have wildly different biologies. I was also surprised to see the "Prime Directive" here - I wonder what is the connection with Star Trek? Finally, the ending chapter was interesting, seems to be pointing out to a greater story and larger themes, but then it just ends. Still good though!
View all my reviews
Monday, February 07, 2022
Review: Atomic Adventures
Atomic Adventures: Secret Islands, Forgotten N-Rays, and Isotopic Murder by James Mahaffey
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A good number of interesting stories and anecdotes about physics during the 20th century - some giving a good look behind-the-scenes for well known stories and almost-discoveries - there is some really fascinating stuff in there. It's really made for people interested in physics, as it can get very technical sometimes.
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
A good number of interesting stories and anecdotes about physics during the 20th century - some giving a good look behind-the-scenes for well known stories and almost-discoveries - there is some really fascinating stuff in there. It's really made for people interested in physics, as it can get very technical sometimes.
View all my reviews
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Review: Dona Flor e Seus Dois Maridos
Dona Flor e Seus Dois Maridos by Jorge Amado
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Great story, a delicious slice-of-life of Brazil in the 60’s, and surprisingly still relevant to today’s Brazilian society. I am now convinced Jorge Amado is one of the top 3 chroniclers of Brazilian life (at least during his time)! I was surprised to see so many similarities to my favorite (Brazilian) author, Luiz Fernando Veríssimo, in Amado’s writing - looks like Amado was a very strong influence of Veríssimo’s.
The book is very non-linear, with stories within stories, and “parenthesis” that lasts for pages and pages, telling the backstory of this and that character, or this custom or that legend. It makes for a very layered and complex read. In fact, it almost feels like the main story is secondary, just an excuse to weave together a lot of other stories, tales, anecdotes, and footnotes. But still, the main story is great!
There is, perhaps not surprisingly, a lot of talk about sex (although it's not a "romance" novel), so I imagine this was quite scandalous when it first came out in 1966; and given the language sometimes used, I bet it can still be quite scandalous today! On the other hand, it is overall very conservative - after the death of the first husband, the only solution is marriage again. It all revolves around marriages. Sex outside the marriage is taboo - I mean, it happens a lot in the book, but it's just not *right*, not something good people do. So it's both scandalous and very conservative - in typical Brazilian fashion!
One negative comment - the part between the two marriages of Dona Flor is somewhat boring - there is a lot of talking and proselytizing about desire and marriage and morality, with not much happening, no good tales woven in. It's feels like a different book.
The final of the book part does a quick dive into the world of Macumba, the African-Brazilian religion that is usually depicted as black magic. It doesn't go very deep into it, but still fascinating!
View all my reviews
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Great story, a delicious slice-of-life of Brazil in the 60’s, and surprisingly still relevant to today’s Brazilian society. I am now convinced Jorge Amado is one of the top 3 chroniclers of Brazilian life (at least during his time)! I was surprised to see so many similarities to my favorite (Brazilian) author, Luiz Fernando Veríssimo, in Amado’s writing - looks like Amado was a very strong influence of Veríssimo’s.
The book is very non-linear, with stories within stories, and “parenthesis” that lasts for pages and pages, telling the backstory of this and that character, or this custom or that legend. It makes for a very layered and complex read. In fact, it almost feels like the main story is secondary, just an excuse to weave together a lot of other stories, tales, anecdotes, and footnotes. But still, the main story is great!
There is, perhaps not surprisingly, a lot of talk about sex (although it's not a "romance" novel), so I imagine this was quite scandalous when it first came out in 1966; and given the language sometimes used, I bet it can still be quite scandalous today! On the other hand, it is overall very conservative - after the death of the first husband, the only solution is marriage again. It all revolves around marriages. Sex outside the marriage is taboo - I mean, it happens a lot in the book, but it's just not *right*, not something good people do. So it's both scandalous and very conservative - in typical Brazilian fashion!
One negative comment - the part between the two marriages of Dona Flor is somewhat boring - there is a lot of talking and proselytizing about desire and marriage and morality, with not much happening, no good tales woven in. It's feels like a different book.
The final of the book part does a quick dive into the world of Macumba, the African-Brazilian religion that is usually depicted as black magic. It doesn't go very deep into it, but still fascinating!
View all my reviews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)