First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea by Paul Woodruff

First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea
Paul Woodruff
(Oxford University Press, New York City: 2005)

READ: June 2008

Jury's still out on this one. It was ... fine. But I didn't think it was very well-written (still trying to figure out why, however), and it frightened me how often I disagreed with or disputed some of his claims, leading me to wonder if I really believe in democracy at all!

Highlights (?) include:

• The tale of the frog and the snake, one of Aesop's fables, used to illustrate how our laws are often absurd, yet somehow necessary in order to protect from tyranny (p. 211 et seq.). I found this argument unfounded, illogical, and, frankly, ridiculous. I also think the fable was a poor illustration of the point being made.


• The fallacies in the arguments of those who would oppose democracy: mainly, that citizen wisdom will always fail since the ordinary person has neither the time, the education nor the will to make decisions, so best to defer to those with the expertise to do it for them (see p. 159 et seq.). I agree with Woodruff to a point; yet, again, his arguments (remember he is disagreeing with these claims) are not carried out as fully as they should have been.


• In a discussion of whether the United States and other similar so-called "democracies" are ready for actual democracy (rule actually for and by the people), Woodruff has a throwaway paragraph about Canada in which he points to the actions of a citizen activist group in British Columbia as proof that Canada is, in fact, ready for actual democratic reform such as proportional representation (see 213 et seq.). Not likely, Mr. Woodruff. First of all, while proportional representation is a popular idea generally, the chances of it becoming the norm in Canada as a whole is highly unlikely, given the structure of our government. Second of all, a citizen group in B.C. is unfortunately not going to have the leverage to get this idea successfully promoted cross-Canada ... even if they could get the B.C. legislative assembly to agree. Their activism cannot be taken as representative of Canada's prevailing political will.

On the plus side, Woodruff knows a lot about the workings of Greek democracy, and that was fairly interesting. However, there are better books on the origins of democracy, and while this is a short read at just over 200 pages, I'm not sure it's worth the time.

Next by Michael Crichton

Next
Michael Crichton
(Harper (HarperCollins), New York: 2006)

READ: February 2008

I didn't have quite the visceral reaction to this book as I did to The Da Vinci Code, but almost. My mom left this book behind after coming to visit one weekend, and so I figured I'd read it.

In his book, Crichton states that Next is a work of fiction, "except for the parts that aren't." He then leads the reader through a dizzying whirlwind of genetic science events. A drug addict is cured by a gene therapy that causes accelerated maturity. A cancer patient who donated some of his cells for gene therapy to a university loses control over those cells, and those of his descendants. A monkey-boy is created when a researcher injects some of his sperm into an ape. You dream it up, Crichton's probably already put it in his book.

According to a review in the New York Times, "oddity after oddity in 'Next' checks out, and many are replays of real events." To which I respond, "Sure, but so what?" Just because something is true, doesn't make it worth reading. I've studied enough law and read just enough science to know that certain genetic procedures are still currently operating in a Wild West as far as patent law is concerned. I even agree that some, if not all, of these developments are troubling. But if you're trying to bring the issue to the forefront, why not do so in a less tabloid-esque way?

And that, I guess, is my main problem with this book. Fundamentally, I can agree with Crichton's main thesis. A novel with a thesis, you may ask? While certainly not every work of fiction can be said to have a central thesis, in an Author's Note to Next, just in case you didn't "get it", Crichton clearly lays out his five conclusions:

1) Stop patenting genes.
2) Establish clear guidelines for the use of human tissues.
3) Pass laws to ensure that data about gene testing is made public.
4) Avoid bans on research.
5) Rescind the Bayh-Dole Act [which grants universities, small businesses, and non-profit institutions in the U.S. the control and ownership of any intellectual property on inventions resulting from federal government-funded research, rather than the IP rights going to the government].

On their face, these are laudable goals. And a novel, of course, does not have to be neutral in its politics. However, I find Crichton's method of hammering the reader over the head with example after example of why our current legislative scheme (or lack thereof) is faulty, to be tedious, deplorable, and even somewhat insulting. Next is geared to prove that these five conclusions are inevitable. While this may or may not be true, a proper exploration of the issues would have been more appropriate. A proper exploration could very well, in fact, lead to the same five conclusions, but without me feeling like I've been dragged through 300+ pages of bias to get there, leaving me a happier reader as a result, and perhaps more concerned about the issues.

But Next dismisses any need for a proper debate. It says, "It's so obvious," and then throws 37 different examples my way. It portrays the guys (yes, mostly guys) in the biotechnology business as cowboys, bent on getting the results they want at any cost. Everything is black and white. Even those issues that could have been dealt with more subtly are painted with fat brushstrokes: Alex - whose father is the cancer patient mentioned above whose cells, and those of his descendants, are now "owned", as it were, by the university who developed a particular gene therapy - is a lawyer. But wait! - she's not a blood-sucking, money-leaching lawyer, like all the others in the book. She is nice and cuddly, and prefers to settle matters out-of-court whenever possible, rather than dragging everything out into a prolonged court fight. She only starts to get mean when her son is threatened. I mean, c'mon - it's her son! And then there's David, the 4-year-old "monkey-boy", who is rescued by the researcher who created him when it turns out David is scheduled for termination (due to the lab being worried about the ethical ramifications that may arise if David's existence is discovered, though why that hadn't happened earlier when David first started showing signs of being anything other than a regular ape is a good question, but I digress). He is brought to live with the researcher's family in California, and things only come to a head when another young boy starts challenging David. But this boy is not just your average neighbourhood bully, not just that kid who didn't get enough hugs from his mother when he was very young - oh, no, this kid is mean, escalating from a brief schoolyard scuffle to an actual gunfight in the blink of an eye. Shed no tears for the bully; David needs them all.

Crichton dumbs down the issue by using such broad, obvious strokes. In addition, the style of the book, with its short, fast-paced chapters, cutting from storyline to story line, and interspersed fake news articles written to look as if they are real, further debases the actual importance of these issues. Really, all I ever needed to know about cloning, I did not learn from Jurassic Park (to be fair, I have not read the book), and I am dismayed at the thought that people will think they have "learned" about genetic testing from Next.

Final thought: For an example of how to rewrite Next - even in such a way that it has almost exactly the same plotlines - but with less bias and more exploration of actual issues rather than the panic-stricken tone adopted here, take a look at Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. In it, Stephenson clearly and concisely sets out the history of cryptography, and also explores future possible developments of the technology of cryptography, both good and bad. It's a big book, and will take you longer than 3 days to read (which is roughly how long it took me to get through Next, mostly while commuting to and from work), but there are certainly worse things on which you could waste brain-cells and time.

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

The Da Vinci Code
Dan Brown
(Doubleday, New York: 2003)

READ: October 2007

I picked this up because it was cheap and I figured I should see what the buzz is all about.

Well, it was pretty much exactly what I expected it to be - PULP. I guess there's nothing de facto wrong with that, and I guess it's more high-quality pulp than some other pulp (if that makes any sense).

I know the book generated both a lot of excitement and a lot of flack over its actual content. As far as the whole idea of the Holy Grail being the fact that there is a family alive today who is descended from Jesus Christ, and that the Church is deadly afraid of this and has gone to great lengths over the past two millenia to attempt to eradicate both the knowledge and the family - sure, it was plausible enough. I mean, I have no background in this sort of thing. I also don't believe it (or maybe I do, but don't really care), but it's an interesting theory. Why not, right? It was fun to read for that aspect, I guess.

However, I couldn't stand the writing style. I know one of the conventions of novel-writing is to end each chapter with a bit of a cliff-hanger, but here each chapter was about 2-3 pages long (with a few exceptions), and it just became too much. It felt like I was reading the transcript of a really long, fast-paced TV show. A lot of people looking at each other for 4 seconds before the all-too-frequent commercial breaks, after stating (or thinking) "there's something I must tell you" or "but wait! there's more" or "oh, listen! are those police sirens?" It was just too contrived, too formulaic, and I don't want that in the books I read.

Here's an idea: Make it into a movie. It's pacing is such that you'll barely need a rewrite. I suggest Audrey Tautou for the female lead - she's dreamy...

The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century by Thomas L. Friedman

The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century
Thomas L. Friedman
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York: 2006)

Expanded and revised version, 2006; original edition, 2005.

READ: January 2007 (unfinished)

All you need to know about this book is summarized thus: Ugh.

For those of you who feel that isn't an adequate review, read on:

I was looking forward to reading this book. It had been recommended to me by a few people, and I kept seeing it at bookstores - even those bookstores that only sell a handful of English-language books. But the fact it was alongside Danielle Steele and Da Vinci's Code* should have tipped me off.

I made it through 300-some pages, so 2/3 of the way through, before I decided enough was enough, that I had much more worthy books on my shelf, and I wasn't going to read it anymore. The problem was, I didn't like the book from about page 5! I was giving Friedman the benefit of the doubt. I thought he might change! Alas, I can be too patient of a reader sometimes.

Friedman is a columnist at the New York Times and I guess his The Lexus and the Olive Tree is considered (by some, at least) to be the definitive work on the Middle East. Well, all I can say is that I hope it is better-researched and more critical than The World is Flat. This book reads like a long, lengthy, never-ending magazine article. And, with all due respect to magazine writers, here we have an incredibly BAD magazine article. He has lengthy quotes from various players in the global market, but they are all CEOs and other people who have already bought into the "flat world" way of thinking. In other words, Friedman seems to have only spoken to people who already agree with his thesis. That just doesn't "do it" for me.

I need to start reading with sticky-tabs handy. There were many sentences and paragraphs that made me snort derisively, and I wish I could find one now to share with you. The amount of times Friedman pointed something out that was either blatantly obvious or blatantly one-sided just made me cringe. What? He's going to spend another 550 pages telling me businesses need to go global, that they can't do it all themselves and remain economically efficient? Tell me something I don't know. Or at least, tell me in a way that could possibly garner some debate. Maybe - here's a radical idea - maybe tell me what an anti-globalization activist thinks of his "flat world" inevitability. How about those countries who have yet been unable to jump onto the globalization bandwagon (for ex., swathes of Africa)? Oh, the world exists only of the United States, India, China and Bangladesh. I see. Am I really supposed to swallow the line that outsourcing American accounting to Indian accountants is good for everyone because now Indian accountants can stay in India and be employed (the fact that the Indian wage is a fraction of the American wage is discussed no further by Friedman other than as a statement of fact) while the American accountant can exercise his true talents of more complicated accounting (ie., rather than just straightening out Friedman's taxes once a year, he can sit down with Friedman and figure out how to best shelter Friedman's income from taxes). How about paying a bit of lip service to the other side of the coin? Isn't that what journalism should be about??? No, Friedman has already written off anyone who doesn't see globalization as the future. And that's just lazy writing, as far as I'm concerned.

If anyone knows a good book on globalization, please let me know. But this sure ain't it. Keep your $17 (what I wasted on it).

* OK, I'm sure Da Vinci's Code is a good book and shouldn't be tossed in with Danielle Steele. But it's just disgustingly everywhere!!!

No Time: Stress and the Crisis of Modern Life by Heather Menzies

No Time: Stress and the Crisis of Modern Life
Heather Menzies
(Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver: 2005)

READ: December 2005 (incomplete)

I'm going to save us all some time and excerpt from my Thursday, December 29, 2005 blog entry titled "Books I Have Known and Hated" (with an obligatory shoutout to Pierre Berton):

That advice ["Why read a book you don't enjoy?"] was exactly what I heeded about two hours ago when I decided, about 112 pages in (with another 170 or so to go), that I was not going to continue reading No Time: Stress and the Crisis of Modern Life by Heather Menzies. Please note - and rejoice in! - its removal from my "Currently Reading" list. I have decided that I, in fact, have no time to read No Time. You know there's a problem with a book about the need to destress and uncomplicate life when every second sentence is roundabout, confusing and just plain perplexing. The introduction to the book caused me to have a minor panic attack. The sentence that caused me to quit? "The nanosecond speed with which symbols can move, morph and be recombined into new patterns of daunting complexity leaves no pause in which these largely anonymous abstractions can be checked out for their relevance to us personally, or as professional teams or institutions." 'Nuff said.

The book was stressing me out. I found it poorly written, as if the author had run out of time and couldn't edit it properly. And I decided, if there really wasn't enough time to do what I need to do in "modern life", I wasn't going to waste any more of it on this book.