Marcus

In a world where translucency is valued and opaqueness is a social sin, a man finds himself convicted of a crime he didn't commit, but can't plead innocent to. In Invitation to a Beheading we get to spend some time with him as he awaits his impending decapitation.

I don't think anyone else could have pulled this off, but Nabokov brilliantly, as usual, blurs the lines between fiction and science fiction and delivers a great story.

Wow! What a story. I was warned by numerous reviews that it wouldn't be easy–it wasn't. My approach to it was to read the Wikipedia summary and get the basic plot along with all the characters straight in my head before diving in. It worked out pretty well. Faulkner gives away most of the plot within the first 20 pages which has the great upside of rendering spoilers impotent. Knowing the basic plot I felt like I could sit back and enjoy the tale without being paranoid that I was missing something crucial to understanding the rest of the book. And wow, it is a tale to savor.

Absalom Absalom! shows the inconsistencies, layers and complexities of the Civil War South as they should be portrayed–from multiple and personal perspectives. It is in no way the trite and axiomatic history of textbooks. There is pride, secrets and hidden motives. Love and war, murder, justice and redemption. The complexity of the story fits the time and subject perfectly.

The writing is as intricate and beautiful as the story. It often feels like Faulkner is purposefully obfuscating his sentences while as the same time superficially clarifying them by expanding pronouns. At times the language is so convoluted that it seems that Faulkner is parodying himself, parodying the English language. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, either way the book lands almost perfectly in my sweet spot. I love the South, paradoxes and all, I like thick, rich language–some of my favorites are Rushdie, Lowry, and McCarthy. I like long books and books that can be, or even need to be, re-read to be understood. I savor the moment when I'm reading a book and I realize that it's one of those books that if I was stranded on the proverbial desert island with just it, that I could find enjoyment in it for a long, long time. Absalom, Absalom! is all of that.

I just didn't get this book. Some of that, I'm sure, comes from the fact that I read it in Spanish, and while I like to tell myself that I speak excellent Spanish, reality would probably wound my ego, so I'm going to ignore that and focus on the book itself.

The plot–it moves so fast you feel like you're a dog with your head out the window of a car on a Utah freeway, the only ones where you can go 80 legally. You're driving through the state and trying to take in everything you see but it's just moving by so fast and your tongue, which you normally never have any problem keeping nice and wet, is somehow drying out in the wind and your eyes are flipping back and forth, grasping things that shine or glitter but not fast enough, you can just never quite get a good look at anything. What I mean by that, in case the metaphor missed, is that Every Sentence moves the plot forward and it is utterly exhausting.

The characters are flat and weird. They never change, are never motivated by anything other than their widely varying versions of human nature which they are born and die with and never evolve.

A lot of the time it is hard to discern the magic from the realism. Neither are very convincing, making the magic less magical and the realism less real. I've read that the 100 Years was influenced by Faulkner and I believe that, but wow, the worst parts of Faulkner. It feels like it's all the confusion and it tries to capture all the types and symbolism but it lacks the beauty and the depth. Just when you are getting used to a character or, for that matter, a generation of characters, suddenly so much time has gone by that you're now dealing with a whole new group of people, a new war, new relationships and the only things that give the book any continuity at all are Macondo and Ursula and the family names which repeat and add to the confusion.

If you want magical realism, and I know this is blasphemous, especially for someone who minored in Spanish, I'd say read Salman Rushdie or, if you really want Spanish, Borges or Carlos Fuentes. They represent the genre better. Maybe my opinion will change after I revisit Cien Años in English sometime in the future, but for now I really don't have much of a desire to do that at least not for the next 100 years or so. Oh yes I did.

I get what Greene is going for here. He gives us an imperfect vessel persecuted by a secular society who, despite some serious opposition and shortcomings, manages to do some good, show some humanity and represent Catholicism and God in a way that ultimately redeems both.

It just didn't resonate with me. The story is too short on miracles and manliness, and the depth of character we get from the whiskey priest felt too one dimensional to me. I don't think it's necessarily a bad book but it isn't one I'd recommend.

This is a tough book to read. An argument for anarchy is an argument against statism, including democracy and the whole range of government run and sponsored organizations that are and have been a part of our lives basically forever. It would be easy to dismiss anarchy as completely unfeasible, the realm of angst ridden, anti-authority teenagers most often seen protesting in black outside of international meetings.

In reality, the case for anarchy is much more complex. It is founded on principles of non-violence and non-coercion. This doesn't mean extreme pacifism; self-defense is appropriate, but initiating violence is immoral.

Once you've accepted that the initiation of violence is immoral, Molyneaux argues convincingly that the state can't exist without initiating violence. He then argues that a society without a state and the violence inherent in statism is possible and desirable.

Not all of my concern were, or could possibly be, handled in one book. I felt that there were several statements that Molyneaux took as axiomatic that I could argue with. Even so, it's a short book and it presents its case well. One complaint I have with it is that some of his arguments unnecessarily attacked religion. This seemed to detract from their effectiveness by introducing a controversial subject into an a topic that is plenty controversial on its own. Anarchism doesn't always equal atheism.

Everyday Anarchy isn't angry, empty rhetoric. It isn't alternate-reality thinking (“if the world and human nature were different it might work”) and it isn't the ramblings of an extremist. It's a well thought out, compelling argument that is worth the consideration of anyone interested in society and the way it is organized.

Playfully erudite. Semi-permeable fourth-wall. Historical fiction? Not for the squeamish. Set in a Postmodern far-left milieu, appropriate for today's sociopolitical climate.

It reminded me of Hesse's Glass Bead Game.

This book is a follow-up to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity with a much stronger emphasis on science and religion, especially on evolution and religion.

Collins lays out and dispels common criticisms of belief in God and religion by people like Richard Dawkins, Cristopher Hitchens and others who have taken it upon themselves to disparage religion and promote atheism.

Collins also explains the various religions positions on evolution from new-earth creationism to intelligent design to theistic evolution and illustrates which are tenable with science and why. He talks about the dangers of a belief in a “God of the gaps” (a God that fills in where science leaves off) and what faith is and how it has a role alongside things discoverable through the scientific method.

It's a sincere and interesting book, full of great quotes and jumping-off points for further reading and research.

Unbearably bad writing.

The book is okay, not particularly memorable I thought, especially when held up to the Neal Stephenson standard. The chatty AI was silly and kind of killed any serious aspect of the story for me.

The real winner here was Rob Reid's After On podcast. He's a great host and his guests are very good as well.

Surprisingly good.

This is a Pretty Good™ book. It's essentially a biography of Percy Fawcett, a fascinating British explorer who made several trips into the Amazon rainforest and eventually made a final trip with his son and a friend from which they never returned. The Amazon rainforest is a crazy place. It's so unlike the Arctic where you can a. freeze, b. starve or c. fall into a crevasse. Adventuring into the Amazon means a likely encounter with any one of a thousand exotic deaths. You might starve, but it's just as likely that you'll be creatively tortured (or bluntly shot) to death by natives harboring a righteous indignation towards the whites who invaded their lands and enslaved their relatives to extract rubber. You might also face death by malaria or dysentery or fever. You could get eaten by piranhas or ants or stung to death by bees or mosquitos. Then again, you could get lucky and make it out only to die months or years later of side effects related to your trip. Whatever the case, it's a dangerous place and the people who make it out (and those who don't) generally have some extraordinary stories to tell about their experiences.The author of The Lost City of Z is no exception. Although Grann's Amazon story pales in comparison with that of Fawcett, it's interesting to read about a guy with no experience whatsoever heading down to Brazil to research Fawcett's expedition then enter the jungle himself in search of Fawcett's bones (or at least his legacy). The Lost City of Z has quite a bit of trivia (for example there is a significant amount on spiritualism) and history, a few interesting side stories and a decent description of the perils exploring the Amazon. It's not a Great™ book, the writing is fairly bland and the story wanders a bit too much but it's probably worth reading. If I were to do it again though, I'd probably go to the source and read [b:Exploration Fawcett 1297201 Exploration Fawcett Percy Fawcett http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1182572451s/1297201.jpg 1286347] and get it in his own words.

Shantaram is not what I would call literary fiction. It's something similar, which is probably why it gets a lot of flack. People seem to read it expecting flawless style and writing, and while there's no doubt that the writing is better than many similar books, you shouldn't read it for style.

Read it because it is an expansive story in so many ways. Read it for the vivid descriptions of Bombay, war-torn Afghanistan and many other places. For the range of the human condition that is explored, the very believable portrayal of the life of an escape prisoner at the edges of society and the multitude of characters he encounters. All these are bright and believable. It's more than that though. Scattered among the sometimes trite aphorisms are some real gems. There are lessons hard learned that are painful and powerful in their retelling.

I was captivated by Shantaram. While the book is not strictly autobiographical, the storytelling is convincing enough that it feels like it could be. You can tell that Roberts is, in a montaignesque way, really trying to know and represent himself as faithfully as possible. It's impressive how he is able to return to his past self's state of mind–it reminds me of Proust in that sense, the realization that who he is now isn't who he was, but at the same time, trying to accurately identify with that past self.

Clever at times but ultimately predictable.

I'm bailing on it before getting halfway through. It's not a bad book, it's just not holding my attention. The story is interrupted too many times with tangential information and the plot hasn't captured my imagination; maybe it's not supposed to. I guess since I live half the stuff in this book every day it's just not enjoyable reading about it when I'm not at work.

I really enjoyed this book. It's fast paced, conversational and exploratory. My favorite parts were the philosophizing about the nature of beauty. For example, de Botton discusses how we subconsciously humanize almost everything we see. We give buildings and sculptures personalities then judge them based on these projected human traits.

He talks about how the buildings and art we find appealing reflect the fulfillment of our desires, not what we are or have, but the ideals we aspire to. Because of this, the context of the viewer and the location of the piece become key contributors to determining its beauty and success. For example, churches should be capable of inspiring feelings of reverence or devotion in even non-religious people. Ornamental architecture has its place, as do the clean lines of modern architecture. In context, each serves a purpose and shouldn't be written off in favor of some non-existant universal ideal style.

De Botton has interesting opinions on how to integrate historical styles with modern buildings and he spends some time critiquing existing architects and buildings based on those standards. He feels that it's important to try to incorporate some of the unique historical aspects of the region's architecture but to also take into account modern needs and to be practical in choices. His approach to bad architecture is basically that it should be treated like any other bad art–get rid of it and start over. At times, there was a definite air of snobbishness about it, for example he takes a pretty broad swipe at all of Tokyo, but I didn't mind it too much. Snobbery can sometimes be productive. Perhaps his destroy and rebuild approach isn't always practical but despite my reservations about his implied methods of implementation, I admire the idealized goal of elevating beauty everywhere possible.

The Architecture of Happiness is written like an essay meant to to raise for discussion both new and old-but-forgotten ideas as well as to inspire us to change and improve our environment. In that, I believe it succeeds.

This book is excellent. It's fascinating, insightful, sometimes even shocking and always entertaining. If you don't read it, you're really missing out on some great research and writing.

Why four stars? In my less-than-humble opinion this book, or rather this author, has the same problem as other books I've read by smart, insightful authors, I agree with their research methods and findings and even most of their conclusions, then they step into the realm of political or economic policy and I go nuts.

In this case it didn't happen until the interview after the epilogue in the audio version of the book. Gladwell, who by the way, is an excellent narrator (it makes me slightly sick that he is so good at everything he does) is explaining his premise–that success is not entirely the result of an individual's grit and brilliance, but is also heavily influenced by their ancestors and environment. Fine. I have read the book and it's a position that I understand and respect. Then he says something along the lines of:

“the idea if that if you make it to the top of your profession you deserve a salary of $20 million a year because you're the one responsible for getting to the top, why shouldn't you be richly rewarded? ... and I think that idea is completely false, it's completely false and it's dangerous.”

This is part of his “bedrock philosophy as a human being.” Again, I agree with him on the point that people who end up at the top of their careers were likely helped by environmental factors similar to those that helped Bill Gates, Rockefeller etc. But to say that we, the people who weren't in their position and didn't make it to where they are, have some right to say what amount of money they should or shouldn't earn or possibly even a right to some of their money is ridiculous! Sure, they had help along the way, but their success is still fundamentally their success. Bill Gates could have had all the same luck but still never made anything of his life. Instead he, and not anyone else, recognized an opportunity and took advantage of his position for his, and all our benefit. Limiting his salary doesn't mean that there is less money to go around for everyone else.

If you boil it down, what Gladwell is basically saying is the same thing you hear on an elementary school playground “NO FAIR!” Nothing in life is fair. Everyone knows it. You make the best of what you have and try to be happy for, and learn from, those who have more.

It is disappointing to me that Gladwell uses such a well written and otherwise brilliant book as a thinly veiled justification for income redistribution.

We Are Legion is a nice start to a casual sci-fi series. It's an exploration of AI, digital cloning, post-apocalyptic civilization, and an especially fun dive into self-replicating Von Neumann probes. The book's characters are almost all digital copies of Bob, an erstwhile Silicon Valley tech startup founder. Each Bob comes, rather inexplicably, with minor differences from the original, who started it all after having been restored from his long-term cryogenically preserved state.

While I can see how some might love the dry, geeky humor, it didn't resonate much with me. Also, coming so recently off having read Cixin Liu's beyond good Remembrance of Earth's Past series, Bob was a good distraction but probably not too memorable.

After the first 50 pages confused me to the point of almost shelving it, Under the Volcano's spiraling mix of numbing vice and intoxicating prose slowly sucked me in. It reminds me of Nabokov's Lolita. They have the same unbearable depravity; appalling for the degeneracy, appealing for the luxurious narrative. Both have endings that leave you gasping.

“What for you lie?” the Chief of Rostrums repeated in a glowering voice. “You say your name is Black. No es Black.” He shoved him backwards toward the door. “You say you are a wrider.” He shoved him again. “You no are a wrider.” He pushed the Consul more violently, but the Consul stood his ground. “You are no a de wrider, you are de espider, and we shoota de espiders in Méjico.”

Under the Volcano

What White People Will Learn:
-That everything you do to be different makes you the same as everyone else.
-Whether or not you're ‘the right kind of white person'
-What other white people are doing that you could be doing to become even whiter.

What People of Color Will Learn:
-How to become friends with/manipulate white people
-How to make sure you only befriend/manipulate ‘the right kind of white person'
-How to talk to white people and have them think that you are cool/smart/fun/romantic

As funny as the book is, it's also an eye-opener. It made me consider the motivation and value behind a lot of the things that I do without having ever thought twice about why I do them. It helped me see how others might perceive me and white people in general.

It's a great book about race and culture that isn't racist.

[b: A Room With a View 5186938 A Room With A View E.M. Forster http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414bhJIYP6L.SL75.jpg 4574872] is a late victorian novel, which means of course that it's about a young and beautiful, but modern, mind you, British girl who constantly frets over if and who she should marry. She shares the challenges of her fellow Victorian heroines as she struggles between what's proper and following her instincts.   I found the descriptions of Italy and England vivid and stunning, the irreverent humor great and the ending straight out of a Dashboard Confessional song. What's not to like?

This turned out to just be the second half of Mere Christianity but it was good to read again. C.S. Lewis' lecturing writing style isn't my favorite, but his ability comprehend and explain complex religious topics is amazing.

This book just came at the right time for me. Huxley's ingenious weaving of his philosophy of life into a story told by an old guy sitting down with his buddies made for a fun afternoon of reading and pondering.

For a book that was written so long ago, this book is amazingly relevant to today. It clearly explains how things like stimulus packages, government subsidies, nationalization, currency inflation etc., aren't, and can't be, magic solutions that fix the economy. It gives examples of times these types of things have been tried in the past and haven't worked and why they won't work today and will never work. If you are skeptical of the hundreds of billions of dollars being printed and shuffled around from tax payers to businesses, but can't quite explain exactly why it's wrong, this book is a great way to solidify your thoughts.

I wish all programming books were this concise and relevant, I'd probably read more of them if they were. This is a great book to get you up and running in one of my favorites languages, the much under-appreciated JavaScript.

I read the first volume and started the second. The first volume is the allegorical dream of the adventures of Christian on his journey to heaven. The second volume starts with several pages of Bunyan talking about how fantastically well the first volume sold and how much it changed the world and how many copycats there were. He then proceeds to tell the story of the journey of Christiana, Christian's wife. As awesome as that sounds, I'm going to save it for another day.

As far as allegories go, this one's pretty transparent. With characters named things like Mr. Worldly Wiseman it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to get the point. I didn't dislike the book, I just didn't find it particularly compelling or inspiring. My favorite parts were the creative ways he integrated Bible passages and even more so, the awesome tidbits of poetry that popped up occasionally. I wish he'd written the whole thing in verse...