The Road by Cormac McCarthy

The Road
Cormac McCarthy
(Movie Tie-In Edition)
(Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group: 2009)

READ: January - February 2009

My first mistake was trying to read this whilst on vacation in Mexico. While it worked well as a book to read on the flight down (indeed, I picked it up in a bookstore only a day or two prior to our departure), the post-apocalyptic desolation of the book did not ring true while on a lush, sunny beach. However, post-vacation, I was able to return to this book.

I had a few friends who had read it and sung its praises, one of the reasons I picked it up. They talked about the nightmarish quality of the book and of the engrossing nature of its writing. I thought the book was good and well-written; however, I wasn't sure why it was so lauded. One of the book's qualities, I think, was in how it keeps feeling like something is about to happen, yet nothing (almost ever) does. The post-apocalyptic world isn't full of monsters and excitement; it is full of day after day spent on the move, trying to find somewhere with enough food to sustain yourself. That was well-done by McCarthy. Maybe it is because I have watched Randal play Fallout 3 too much; maybe I have just spent too much time thinking, reading, or watching things about the apocalypse, but I didn't find McCarthy's vision of the post-apocalyptic world particularly frightening. Yeah, it's quiet, and scary, and hard to find food, and not everyone is out there to help you. It's the post-apocalypse.

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.

Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy by Noam Chomsky

Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy
Noam Chomsky
(Owl Books (Henry Holt and Company), New York City: 2006)

Part of the American Empire Project.

READ: April-May 2008

I studied Mass Communications in my undergrad, and I remember having to read a bit of Chomsky. I didn't like him. I had no idea what he was talking about. Only much later, when I rediscovered Chomsky, did it occur to me - I had only ever been exposed to Chomsky the linguist and never[1] Chomsky the media theorist or Chomsky the political junkie.

There's a number of his books on our bookshelves, and I am looking forward to eventually making my way through them. Chomsky is just too right too much of the time. This was a very good read.

In Failed States, Chomsky traces how the United States is increasingly fitting the profile of what are generally considered to be "failed states". Some salient points that stuck with me:[2]

• US military expenditures approximate those of the rest of the world combined, and the alleged fears over other countries strengthening militarily are likely less of a threat than the fact that the US already controls so much (shipping, etc.);


• the derision and outright aggression directed toward those intelligence experts who have exercised caution or tried to understand the roots of terrorism (i.e., anything beyond an "us versus them" mentality);


• Washington's long-standing habit of exempting itself from international law when appropriate;[3]


• negotiations surrounding the Non-Proliferation Treaties of the late '90s and early '00s;[4]


• the credibility of intelligence in various international conflicts;


• the promotion of democracy and institutionalization of state-corporate control;


• the incredible lack of health care;[5] and,


• the intricacies of country-to-country relations (e.g., NAFTA, Cuba-Venezuela, etc.).
  

I'm a left-leaning small-l liberal who believes that corporate interests have taken over way more of our daily life than is healthy. So needless to say, I agree with Chomsky a lot. But even for those who might not agree so readily, he's pretty hard to argue against. His information is all painstakingly footnoted and documented. While no doubt there is a certain level of spin applied to what he is saying, you can't dismiss him as a crank. He is obviously knowledgeable and clearly interested in the future of the US. He also writes clearly (unlike his linguistics work which, having recently returned to one text out of simple curiosity, I still can't make heads or tails out of) and compellingly. Even for those who may not be hugely political persons, this book will surely interest and captivate.


[1] Or, to be fair to my program, never as far as I can remember, some 15 years later.

[2] Somewhat unfortunately, I am writing this book review almost two years after reading the book. I don't remember many details. However, somewhat fortunately, I did make liberal use of sticky tabs whilst reading this book.

[3] The particular passage that I marked had a mention of Michael Ignatieff, now the leader of the Liberal Party, and his apparent support of some of the violations of the Geneva Convention (see p. 54). I really must learn more about this.

[4] Including a quote from the recriminations from the head of Canada's delegations, Paul Martin (see p. 77). Yay for Canada references!

[5] Keeping in mind I read this book two years ago, that was waaaay before Obama's health care reform was even a twinkle in the electorate's eye. And it was hugely overdue (and one of the better signs of real common sense that I've seen coming out of the US in a really long time).

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
Noam Chomsky
(Henry Holt & Co., New York City: 2003)

READ: April 2008

One of the more rational, clear-headed thinkers out there. Chomsky's book is well-thought out and, in my opinion, fairly uncontroversial - just because you might not agree with him doesn't make him wrong - everything he says is backed up with real evidence, and he's pretty good about showing the evidence in the other direction, too. A must-read.

Noam Chomsky was one of those authors who would show up from time to time on my undergraduate mass communications degree reading lists. Though a linguist and philosophy professor at MIT, he has written many works that also lie firmly in political science and media studies. At the time, however, I remember dreading the Chomsky readings. However, I have grown to truly appreciate much of his work, mostly because I have learned more since then and am now more ready to understand and engage with his work.*

In this book, Chomsky outlines the tactic of "full spectrum dominance" pursued by the American government in its international relations since at least the end of WWII. From the Bay of Pigs, through Nicaragua, Cuba, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and, most recently (at least at the time the book was written, in 2003), Iraq, the U.S. has followed policies and practices geared toward global control, a new kind of colonialism. At the same time, it has fairly consistently worked to undermine certain principles of international law, and refused to recognize many instruments of international justice, such as the World Court and the International Criminal Tribunal.

I'm going to leave the review at that, closing off with a blurb from author Arundhati Roy on the book, because she says it better than I could:

"If, for reasons of chance, or circumstance, (or sloth), you have to pick just one book on the subject of the American Empire, pick this one. It's the Full Monty. It's Chomsky at his best. Hegemony or Survival is necessary reading."

For more on this topic, see the American Empire Project.

* Sometimes I feel that university is wasted on 17-21 year old students. Better we all go at 32, no?

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.

Your Own Worst Enemy : Breaking the Habit of Adult Underachievement by Kenneth Christian

Your Own Worst Enemy : Breaking the Habit of Adult Underachievement
Kenneth W. Christian
(HarperCollins, New York: 2002)

READ: January - February 2008

Not my usual fare, but Randal had picked this up at some point in Japan, upon a number of recommendations, so I figured I'd give it a try.

Well, the book was an interesting read and it certainly gave me a good perspective on some of the habits I have that may not always be the most productive. So I guess it was helpful in that it made me a bit more aware. I mean, most people would probably not consider me to be an underachiever. For all intents and purposes, I come off as an overachiever: I have two graduate degrees, a good job, a stable relationship. But - and Dr. Christian would allude to this again and again in his text - I could have done more. I am happy with where I am, with (most of) the choices I have made, and with what I am doing; however, along the way, I occasionally have made choices that were clear underachiever choices. But this is a book review, not a personal review.

It was hard, sometimes, to see the book as truly relevant when I was consistently being give examples of fairly extreme cases - people who had truly and completely dropped out, either socially or academically, despite having shown great promise, talent, and ambition early on. This was a little disappointing - I think there are probably a lot more so-called adult underachievers who are more like me: borderline underachievers. But maybe that just means I needed to read a different book.

I probably could have gotten more out of the book if I had taken more of the advice given - for example, there were numerous suggested written exercises that I merely read over and did not attempt. All things considered, however, this was still a useful book. If nothing else, it made me more aware and more conscious of how I deal with things, helping me to perhaps fend off potential problems or issues in the future, and also more aware that it's important to be content with where you are in life, something which is often parroted but not often practiced.

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...

Gods of War, Gods of Peace: How the Meeting of Native and Colonial Religions Shaped Early America by Russell Bourne

Gods of War, Gods of Peace: How the Meeting of Native and Colonial Religions Shaped Early America
Russell Bourne
(Harcourt, New York: 2002)

READ: September 2007

I read this faster than I normally would have wanted to (a loaner while I was in Winnipeg this fall), but it was an interesting history of the relationship between the early settlers and the natives in America, and in particular, about the interplay between the settlers' religions and the native religion(s).

I don't have much of a religious background myself, let alone an understanding of the Puritans' and Pilgrims' philosophies. Bourne, however, did a good job of presenting the issues and problems, and, at least from the vantage point of a "newbie" to the topic, he seemed balanced and reasonable. The book was a bit of an eye-opener, and I certainly want to read more on the subject in the future. In particular, I'd be interested in hearing if there are any similar books looking at the interplay between early settlers to Canada (well, before it became Canada, of course) and our First Nations peoples.

Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson

Cryptonomicon
Neal Stephenson
(Avon Press, New York: 1999)

READ: July 2007

Well, the third time's a charm. I first started to try to read this a number of years ago, while still a grad student, and quickly put it aside. Too big, too much. Then I tried again this past Christmas, while on vacation in Bali, but having just finished Simon Winchester's lengthy, though fascinating, book on the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, it was again quickly put aside, again, too big, too much.

But as my time in Japan was winding down, I tried once more. And this time, I couldn't stop reading. In the classic "just one more chapter" routine, I stayed up quite late, night after night, reading on and on, wanting to know and see and hear and experience more and more.

In a nutshell, it's a fascinating (but GIANT) novel, covering over 50 years in cryptography (code-breaking, essentially), from WWII to modern-day. There are three major story lines, but once I got used to who was who (which took a few chapters), I never got lost again. It's an excellent, compelling, fascinating read, and I highly recommend it.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
John Perkins
(Penguin Group, New York: 2006, c2004)

First published 2004.

READ: April-May 2007

John Perkins worked for over three decades at the heart of an international business consulting firm, and claims that the modern American political/economic system is founded on a system which exploits and neutralizes developing nations in ways that force them to remain acquiescent to American economic policies. It's almost a Forrest-Gump-like story - Perkins seems to have been fairly intimately involved with some of the more important political upheavals of contemporary times, including the deaths of Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos and Ecuadorian president Jaime Roldós Aguilera in the early 1980s, and the (as an example of how the "EHM system" occasionally failed) overthrow of the shah in Iran in the late 1970s.

This has been quite a popular book over the last few years, and I don't know how much to believe and how much to disbelieve. The events in this book are either largely and/or entirely true, in which case we should be worried about the sham called democracy in which we participate, or it is the product of a conspiratorial and overly-fertile imagination. While many people, well-educated and otherwise, would argue the latter proposition, I have to admit I tend, most days, toward the former. I think Perkins does have a tendency to dabble in conspiracy theory (especially in other contexts outside this book (just do a Google search for his name)); however, I also think this is definitely a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire."

At the very least, some of the response to this book has at least raised a bit of a debate about global finance and the development of the Third World, bringing these issues beyond the confines of APEC and G8 protests. It's an interesting read, even if you choose to disbelieve most of what he says, and it's well-written, unlike many other books in this genre. It occasionally smacks of conspiracy, but at the very least, it will get you thinking and being more aware.

Things Not Seen by Andrew Clement

Things Not Seen
Andrew Clement
(Penguin Young Reader Group, New York: 2004)

READ: December 2006

This is not the usual kind of book I like to read. I was given the book in September by an American teacher who was at our school for a week as part of a student exchange. Nevertheless, it was good.

Bobby wakes up one morning to find he is invisible. He just isn't there anymore. This, understandably, freaks his parents out. He's a little freaked out, too. His parents don't want to get doctors involved as they fear Bobby will be taken away from them for research purposes, so they set out to do their own investigations. Social services gets involved after Bobby is absent from school for almost two weeks, and many other hijinks ensue. Bobby also makes friends with Alicia, a girl who suddenly went blind about a year earlier, and she also gets involved in trying to figure out how to make Bobby reappear. You can kind of figure out the plot from there.

While the plot is simple, I can see why it's a popular book with its pre-teen target audience (which a quick Internet search indicated). I haven't read enough in the genre to really assess it, but it's kind of entertaining, mildly compelling, and just quirky enough to keep you reading.