Tagged: Nonfiction
Democracy–The God That Failed
Democracy–The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, 2/5
This series of essays starts out strong, with the author daring to question the hallowed concept of democracy and finding it severely lacking in several easily demonstrable ways. However, common sense and strong opinions can only take you so far when it comes to formulating complicated theories of politics and economics. As Hoppe’s ideas became more and more bizarre, I became increasingly angered by his failure to provide convincing supporting arguments or hard data of any kind. I couldn’t figure out why an obviously intelligent academic would present his opinions so insultingly, through shallow reasoning, cheap rhetoric and gross oversimplification. After quite a lot of teeth gnashing, I finally realised the problem was identified right in the first sentence of the book’s introduction: the essays were originally speeches written for Libertarian conferences. The whole point was to fire up sympathetic audiences, not necessarily to convince anyone of anything. I wish I’d known this ahead of time, because maybe then I’d have been spared the prospect of Hoppe’s horrifying “solution” to the problem of democracy: an “anarchic” private law society, overseen by military-grade private insurance corporations.
[Why I read it: it came up in conversation with my brother.]
Rich Dad’s Guide to Investing
Rich Dad’s Guide to Investing: What the Rich Invest In, That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not! by Robert T. Kiyosaki, 2/5
Given this book’s large size, I hoped to find a lot of helpful, practical information in it that would help me learn the basic concepts and vocabulary of investing and perhaps give some direction on how to best invest any “excess” cash I might accumulate. Disappointingly, Kiyosaki’s anecdotal style, focus on generalities, and avoidance of technical terminology rendered the book almost completely unhelpful. There are a couple interesting concepts, such as creating valuable businesses yourself instead of simply investing in other people’s businesses and using your business to purchase assets so that you can stay poor on paper and avoid paying tax. Unfortunately, much of the information seemed pretty sketchy and the author provides very few examples of his ideas in action. Overall, this book felt like a waste of time and casts a rather charlatan shade over Kiyosaki’s whole financial self-help enterprise.
[Why I read it: I’ve read several of Kiyosaki’s books and this one looked interesting.]
Got Fight?
Got Fight? The 50 Zen Principles of Hand-to-Face Combat by Forrest Griffin, with Erich Krauss, 4/5
This in-your-face manliness manifesto was much, much funnier than the front cover lead me to expect, what with its bashed-up author and stupid title (to which Griffin vociferously objected, to his credit). What it is: an R-rated, surprisingly witty, expletive-filled, laugh-inducing series of ramblings that are mostly centered on martial arts and dubious advice about being a Man. What it is not: a martial arts how-to guide or factual account of Griffin’s MMA experience.
[Why I read it: I love MMA and pounced on this after my dad picked it up at the thriftstore.]
Deeper Thoughts
Deeper Thoughts by Jack Handey, 5/5
This is a hilarious collection of random, unreasonably funny quotes, such as:
“Probably the earliest fly swatters were nothing more than some sort of striking surface attached to the end of a long stick.”
“I wish my name was Todd, because then I could say, ‘Yes, my name’s Todd. Todd Blankenship.’ Oh, also I wish my last name was Blankenship.”
“Sometimes I think I’d be better off dead. No, wait. Not me, you.”
[Why I read it: I came across the book in the thrift store and recognized the author from reading his stuff online. I bought the book for my brother, Samuel, but had to read it before sending it to him.]
Alex & Me
Alex & Me: How a Scientist and a Parrot Uncovered a Hidden World of Animal Intelligence–and Formed a Deep Bond in the Process by Irene M. Pepperberg, 2/5
Readers looking for more than a heartwarming animal story will be disappointed by this relentlessly unscientific book. Pepperberg spends more time complaining about being unappreciated by the scientific community, blatantly anthropomorphizing her parrot and giving unsubstantiated anecdotes of Alex’s human-like behaviour than providing anything of academic interest. I was annoyed right from the beginning of the punishingly emotive first chapter, which is all about the emotional trauma that Alex’s death caused the author. Pepperberg appreciatively quotes a letter from a lady who said the parrot’s demise caused her as much grief as the death of her only child, even though this long-distance sympathiser had never even met Pepperberg or Alex! Now that’s just crazy talk, but the author treats it as a matter of course. While some interesting comments are made about the model/rival method of teaching (where the learner observes two trainers interacting), no satisfying explanation is given of the time between Alex being taught, with difficulty, his first word and Alex spontaneously spouting grammatically correct, complete sentences in response to complex social scenarios. Given Pepperberg’s credentials, I can only assume that she is a legitimate scientist, but this book is not at all convincing.
[Why I read it: frustratingly, this book has been sitting by my bed for so long that I can’t even remember why I ordered it from the library in the first place. I think it might have been mentioned in some other book I read.]
Which Lie Did I Tell?
Which Lie Did I Tell? More Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman, 4/5
This substantial follow-up to the hilarious, brilliantly-structured Adventures in the Screen Trade focuses rather more on the trade and less on the adventures, a fact that will please those looking for practical insight into the realities and technicalities of screenwriting, but perhaps disappoint those looking for pure entertainment.
This book is packed with information, opinions and examples, but there are three basic concepts that remain with me most vividly a few days later:
1. Screenwriters should enter a scene (and by extension, the story) as late as possible. Scenes should generally be crafted to communicate as concisely and efficiently as possible, taking every opportunity to utilize context and subtext without wasting time on the page. I know this is probably the first thing you learn in Screenwriting 101, but it was a novel concept to me.
2. Directors are overvalued and writers are undervalued. Goldman is not unbiased on this point, of course, but there is a lot of evidence that directors often receive excessive, exclusive praise for aspects of a film that were almost entirely the result of someone else’s work. For example, a writer can create a powerful scene, specifying every detail from the timing to the camera angles, but once filmed, the scene becomes inextricably tied to the director. The example Goldman uses is the famous crop duster sequence in Hitchcock’s North By Northwest. It is clear from the script that Hitchcock contributed almost nothing, creatively, to the scene, but what was the writer’s name? I certainly don’t remember.
3. Protect the spine at all costs. Goldman believes that every story has a spine–an irreducible core that should not be altered, no matter how much the surrounding details might change. I thought it was fascinating how, in his example, he boiled each vital part of a book down into one word, creating a short list of essential words that drive the story. His goal, when translating a book to film is to find and preserve the intent of the original material, which allows a great deal of latitude in how the peripheral aspects are treated. This idea will provide much food for future thought whenever I encounter films based successfully or, more likely, unsuccessfully on books.
[Why I read it: I enjoyed Goldman’s first book, Adventures in the Screen Trade, very much.]
A Guide for the Perplexed
A Guide for the Perplexed by E.F. Schumacher, 4/5
Decrying modern science and philosophy’s complete inadequacy to answer such endemic existential questions as “What does it all mean?” or “What am I supposed to do with my life?”, Schumacher creates a short but convincing argument for a more spiritual approach to life that transcends fact-based logic and the “nothing-but-ness” that characterizes modern thinking.
The backbone of the book is Schumacher’s categorization of “levels of being” into four vertical dimensions and the human experience into four “fields of knowledge” as follows:
Four Levels of Being:
Mineral = m
Plant = m + x
Animal = m + x + y
Man = m + x + y + z
(Where m=physical existence, x=life, y=consciousness and z=self-awareness)
Four Fields of Knowledge:
I–inner; that is, “what do I feel like?”
The world (you)–inner; “what do you feel like?”
I–outer; “what do I look like?”
The world (you)–outer; “what do you look like?”
As I understand, Schumacher basically argues that the mysterious, fundamental differences between levels of being, which science is unable to explain or reproduce, are evidence that life is bigger than logic and man is more than a favorable arrangement of atoms and random chemical reactions. He points out that by allowing science to overstep its bounds by making philosophical, ontological claims, and by limiting philosophy to proof-based, rigorously logical, “dead” arguments, human existence is robbed of richness and mankind renders itself unable to realise its full potential and humanity. According to Schumacher, an enlightened person who believes that “the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things” (3) is more equipped to deal with the many and varied divergent problems in life (“divergent” meaning polarizing issues for which logical solutions are difficult or impossible to find).
Despite a powerful opening, I found some parts of the book to be unconvincing and outdated; also, I was hoping to find something a bit more practically helpful than being told that happiness and a rich, fulfilling life can be achieved by cultivating the four fields of knowledge and striving towards levels of being above myself. However, the whole effect was undeniably challenging and uplifting–it is refreshing to read a philosophical treatise written to the end of ennobling man and celebrating the mysterious, temporary and fragile existence we each call life.
[Why I read it: I enjoyed Schumacher’s philosophy much more than his economics in Small is Beautiful, so this book sounded appealing.]
It’s Not About the Shark
It’s Not About the Shark: How to Solve Unsolvable Problems by David Niven, Ph.D., 3/5
Everyone likes a good story and this book is full of them, from Steven Spielberg’s broken mechanical shark to the unintuitive results of a psychological study involving marshmallows and SAT scores. However, the point of the book is ostensibly to enlighten, not just entertain, and this is where the weaknesses start, in my opinion. Every couple of anecdotes, Niven stops to draw conclusions and give tips about problem solving which tend to be counter-cultural and surprising, such as “when you are stuck, find a good distraction that takes you away from your problems” (22) or “don’t follow the leader…[who] in many cases is just the person with bad ideas who has been around the longest” (182). These tips are generally supported by two or three cherry-picked examples or studies and represent a gross oversimplification and overly-broad application of psychological findings. For example, just because doctors in a study who were given candy made more accurate diagnoses doesn’t necessarily mean “eat a candy bar” is helpful advice (though, in case you needed an excuse to break your diet, this advice can be found on page 40).
[Why I read it: I think my friend Joy mentioned it, but I’m not sure. I also had a good feeling about the author’s name, which I thought I recognized, but it turns out I was thinking about a different David Niven (the English actor).]
The Design of Everyday Things
The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition by Don Norman, 2/5
This soporific book is a sort of spiritual antithesis to Brian Hayes’ Infrastructure: A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape: while the latter opened my eyes to the surprising truth that good writing can make even the most seemingly boring topic an absolute delight, the former reveals that other styles of writing can make even the most interesting topic a dreary chore to read about. And the topic is interesting: who hasn’t felt like an idiot when struggling with an object that was created without regard to the principles of human-centered design (I’m thinking of you, shower faucets at a friend’s house)?
Following the author’s preface, which revels unbecomingly in the previous edition’s alleged popularity, influence and inspiring effect on readers, comes pages and pages of unmemorable text about the “seven stages” of this and “three levels” of that–a sort of flow-chart in prose (almost as tedious to read as you might imagine). Interesting examples of good and bad design feel few and Norman seems to spend more time criticizing designs than offering any creative solutions. For example, he repeatedly states that one human mistake should never be enough to cause a catastrophe in, say, a chemical processing plant, but he doesn’t give many realistic ideas for how a sufficiently complicated, resilient system, run by humans could actually live up to his criteria.
All in all, it is difficult to say what it is about Norman’s writing style that grates on me so strongly. He is the kind of author who briefly mentions a subject, then stops to tell you that more info can be found about it online (which is already reasonably obvious), then goes on to say that you could use Google to find the info (who doesn’t?), and then gives you the specific words you should use in Google to find the information, being sure to remind you to use quotation marks around your search phrase (we get it already! Google it!). In addition, I suspect that there is something about his general sentence formation that tends toward the mind-numbing. It’s not that he uses difficult words or concepts, it’s just that I seemed to lose interest about three-quarters through many of his sentences. I literally spaced out twice while reading the following gem and have still failed to process its main meaning: “Like prototyping, testing is done in the problem specification phase to ensure that the problem is well understood, then done again in the problem solution phase to ensure that the new design meets the needs and abilities of those who will use it” (229). There, I zoned out again, mid-sentence. It’s magical.
In the acknowledgments, Norman thanks his wife for telling him when he was “stupid, redundant, and overly wordy” (303). Ironically, two-thirds of those words are ones I would still use to describe the book (in case you’re curious which two words, please know that the author is definitely not stupid). Looks like Norman needs another wife or two.
[Why I read it: my friend, Joy, mentioned reading it in her book club and the topic sounded interesting so I ordered it from the library.]
Increase Your Financial IQ
Increase Your Financial IQ: Get Smarter with Your Money by Robert T. Kiyosaki, 3/5
This book is a good follow-up to the too-anecdotal Rich Dad Poor Dad because it provides a variety of practical details and observations that give the reader an increased understanding of Kiyosaki’s financial philosophy. Some of his ideas make sense immediately (e.g. your house is not an asset, protecting your money with smart tax strategies, the power of information) but other concepts are still hazy to me (e.g. what is “leverage,” viewing bank loans as tax-free money).
Kiyosaki makes a couple of points that I found very depressing but illuminating. First, he advocates working for a network marketing company in order to learn sales skills and how to build a business. Network marketing gives me the creeping horrors and if that’s what it takes to be an entrepreneur, I might not be cut out for it. Secondly, he quotes a friend who says “Entrepreneurs have two characteristics…ignorance and courage” (194). This is a phenomenon I’ve noticed in many areas of life, not just business-building. It’s the blindly optimistic and self-confident who go out and do things successfully, not necessarily the people with real talent or skills.
[Why I read it: Kiyosaki doles out the info pretty thinly in his books and you need to read a few to get a handle on his ideas.]
OmniRambles 