8 thoughts on “2019: What Are You Reading

  1. I’m currently reading Elmore Leonard’s Road Dogs, and I just wanted to pop into say that Leonard’s prose, particularly his dialogue, is superb and a delight to read. He’s a terrific stylist and also one of the most efficient writers. There are no wasted words, and the pared down quality of the prose is palpable and impressive. This spare style is something I’m oddly enthusiastic about. There’s almost a magical quality about the way he does this, where less becomes more. One way this can be seen is in the sexiness of his female characters. Leonard has written about eschewing descriptive details when wanting female characters to smolder. And it works, at least when he does it. For his voice alone, I think Leonard should be considered one of the great American writers.

    On an entirely different note, I’m also working through Andrew Murray’s With Christ in the School of Prayer, a book that Richard Foster strongly recommends in his classic book on spiritual disciplines. This is an old book (written in the 19th century?), but it’s organized like a modern day devotional. Right now, I’m impressed by the degree to which I’m learning. It’s spiritually very meaty, and I find this very satisfying. At the same time, going through the book has been slow going; you could say it’s taking me a long time to digest it.

  2. Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester

    My understanding is that this ranks among the best sci-fi novels of all time. My opinion on that? I’d say the book, written in the 50s, holds up fairly well. Bester is quite ambitious and is fairly successful in my view. I had little patience for some aspects of the novel, though, and I’ll try to get that later.

    Here’s a brief synopsis. The novel is basically a revenge story, involving a lone survivor of a space craft. In a way, the novel functions like a action-thriller, while throwing in some political commentary.

    It’s the latter that I had little patience for. Without being too specific, I have a very different view of people, especially the way they behave politically. To be more specific,

  3. Road Dogs by Elmore Leonard

    Road Dogs feels like a book conceived on the premise of bringing together some of Leonard’s favorite characters from his previous novels; or characters he wanted to write more about. There are three in this one–Jack Foley (from Out of Sight), Cundo Rey (from LaBrava, and Dawn Navarro (from Riding the Rap). (Karen Sisco, from Out of Sight, is mentioned several times, but doesn’t really make an appearance.) Generally, I’d be leery of a book like this, as right off the bat it seems contrived and might end feeling forced. But I don’t think that’s the case with this book. In a way, Leonard is someone that could pull something like this off, because his books are more about the characters and dialogue than the overall plot.

    The plot and story, which actually develop in a fairly satisfying way, though, involves Foley and Rey meeting in prison, where they develop a bond. Rey has a property out in California and he helps Foley, and they talk about doing something together when they get out. Rey is now married to Dawn, a sexy fortune teller. Anyway, a bunch of other characters get involved and the plot twists and turns with betrayals. Overall, I found the resolution pretty satisfying.

    One thing I’d like to comment on, and that is Leonard’s skill at creating a character that is cool–cool in the sense of the Fonz. John Travolta does a really good job of capturing what I mean in his performance of Chilli Palmer, who is another Leonard creation. In this novel, the cool character is Foley. There is a way this coolness comes out, particularly in tense moments. (Spoiler) For example, there’s a scene that builds to a physical confrontation, but Foley manages to prevent that by suggesting a game of one-on-one basketball. There’s one or two other scenes like this. Foley never seems to get too emotional; he never seems to reach the point of strong emotions like rage, hate, or even deep love. It creates a sense that he’s above it all, and it’s appealing the way Leonard expresses this in the character.

  4. The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui

    This is a graphic novel about the author’s Vietnamese family’s journey to America (in the 70s). The story is a very familiar one, and I would guess many American families could relate to it. This is one reason I think this book is timely–I wish white Americans, especially those who have negative attitudes towards immigrants would read this, as I think they could see their families in this story. It’s also good to read the story and think about Syrian refugees or Central American immigrants. My guess is many of their stories would be similar to Bui’s.

    I do think controlling the flow of immigrants is valid and important, and I can understand those who want to enforce immigration laws. Still, what I find disturbing is the lack of compassion for these immigrants. Many of them are fleeing countries in turmoil or poor economic conditions, and they’re taking courageous steps to make a better life for them and their children–just like many of the Americans whose families have been here for a while now. Bui’s book doesn’t tell a new story per se, but the book does so in a way that I found powerful. I non-Asian Americans would also react in a similar way.

  5. Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth written by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou; illustrated by Alecos Papadatos and Annie Di Donna

    I got this graphic novel a while ago. I thought it was about Bertrand Russell, the great English philosopher/logician, and since I never read any of his work, I held off reading it. But I recently wanted a quick read, so I picked this up. The graphic novel isn’t really about Russell so much as the quest to for a logical basis for basic axioms of math. Early in Russell’s life, the fact that certain math axioms were merely accepted and not proved really bothered him–which made a lot of sense to me. The book chronicles his quest to find an answer to this, meeting up with other famous philosophers along the way. But the novel isn’t just made up of philosophical discussions. Indeed, half the novel seems focused on Russell’s personal life, and I think that makes the novel more interesting and engaging. Additionally, the creators choose to include a meta-quality of the story–where they become part of the novel, discussing themes and topics in the book. This approach can have pitfalls, but I think they do a good job of avoiding this.

    ***
    (Spoilers)

    In this section, as a way to process the novel, I want to write about some random thoughts about the themes and ideas in the novel.

    1. Do the creators have a favorable, negative, or neural view of logic? Padamitriou has a favorable view, while Doxiadis is either neutral (i.e., just reporting the facts) or somewhat negative (cf. his interest in the connection between mental instability/insanity with the serious study of logic). In any event, the book will likely disappoint those who believe logic is the ultimate tool of mankind.

    2. Bringing up God would be beyond the scope of the book, but it make for an interesting part 2. What role does the belief or disbelief in God play in the quest for foundations of logic and math? My guess is that it would play quite a large role. I can’t help but feel the quest is partly driven by atheism, although I suspect theist logicians would also be interested in the quest as well.

    3. What was the larger meaning and significance of Athena and the Furies joining to oversee the Athenians. Athena represents wisdom, or do the creators see her as representing logic (which is something really different in my view) and the Furies representing elements that are not logic–e.g., intuition, emotion, etc.? In the real world, the book seems to suggest that people need to use logic and other tools in order to make the best decisions for the most difficult problems.

  6. Secondhand Time: The Last of the Soviets by Svetlana Alexievitch

    Since 2016, I’ve learned more about the Russian government, specifically their intelligence agency, the FSB. But I realize that I know almost nothing about the Russian people, particularly their political opinions and perceptions of their government. This book seemed like a good place to start, as it is an oral history of Russians (and Soviet people of different ethnicities) who experienced the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s, as well as others who speak about Russia in the 2000s. Some of the anecdotes are about experiences that occur much earlier (e.g., World War II). Alexievitch has spoken to many different people and woven their stories into book. Reading it makes me feel as if I’ve traveled to Russia and other Eastern European countries, and stayed at in peoples’ homes and listened to their stories in the process.

    I should say that many, if not all, the stories are compelling and could rival those found in fiction, particularly tragic, horrific tales. Several of the stories involve romantic love within this context as well. (I’m not sure if or how Alexievich vetted these stories or if she just took them at face value. I wonder about the veracity of some of them.) In my view the anecdotes and characters have a kinship with those found in 19th century Russian literature.

    Some other questions and takeaways:

    • There was one question I had while reading the book–namely, to what degree are interviewees typical Soviets? Did Alexievich do anything to gauge that? I ask this partly because if these people’s lives are fairly typical, that’s quite astonishing. It would mean that it was typical to have a family taken by the government to some camp, never to be heard from for years, and sometimes this would occur because a neighbor (sometimes friendly) informed on that person. As far I recall, in many of the stories, these people were largely innocent of the government’s accusations.
    • The standard of living seemed(seems) pretty low. One illustration is the level of importance many of the interviewees place on access to salami. (Maybe they were referencing access to higher quality salami, but it didn’t seem like it.)
    • There are several stories of ethnic violence, relating to immigration–e.g., Armenians versus Azerbaijanis, Chechens versus Russians, etc. It reminded me of the anti-immigrant sentiments in the U.S. except these stories seem to involve greater brutality and violence.
    • Several of the interviewees seemed genuinely committed to the Communist ideal–where there were no real economic inequality, every citizen would be cared for. That is, they believed this could become a reality, and they were working hard toward it. It is similar to the way some Americans have a strong passion and commitment to our system of government (although nowadays I worry about how big those numbers are). The interviewees were really committed, and reminded me of devout religious people, especially the one of them volunteered to live and work in these tough conditions.

      In any event, when the Soviet Union fell, to have this whole idea taken away must have been really devastating. Imagine if, as Americans, we experienced something that essentially invalidated our entire political system. By the way, when I read a description of this time from Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy, specifically descriptions of Gorbachev, I had a really uneasy feeling. I got the impression that Gobachev thought he could just wipe all the Soviet Union, the ideal and the history, away, and then just start with a blank slate. That is, he never really had anything to replace it. If this was accurate, this seemed really irresponsible. My impression from Alexievich’s book (and other comments I’ve heard about Russians) is that they think of themselves as a great nation, maybe an empire, and the Communist ideal was a big justification for this belief. Moving on from communism was a good thing, but a leader would have to provide an idea and a narrative that could replace it–and for Russians both had to be commensurate with their pride and sense of being a great nation. If I had to guess, I think Russia is going to have a lot of problems and be a problem in the world until they find such narrative that can fill this and not be one that is antagonistic and destructive to other countries.

    • Many of the interviewees describe the time right after the fall as a time when gangsters and politicians (I think) basically stole…maybe resources of the country…and basically committed crimes to enrich themselves. I’ve heard of this from other sources as well. The interviewees talk about this hope of Democracy, and while they acknowledge more and better material goods, overall, their economic and political situation wasn’t very good. Many were steeped in communist ideology, and now they had to function in a capitalist democracy (without strong democratic institutions). It was a mess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *