Books – Page 3 – Cubilone's Dimension

REVIEW: IDLEWILD

“This guy obviously has a sense of wonder in his DNA… an essential upgrade for The Matrix generation — download now!” Stephen Baxter

This quippy blurb was written many years before e-books appeared. When he’s saying “download” he’s simply using tech lingo. People didn’t use to download books just ten years ago. Just making sure.

Well, Stephen Baxter’s quote about Idlewild, which features several times in this book, including most prominently on the cover, is what it’s all about really. I imagine Nick Sagan hates continuously being compared to his father in such a way, but I can’t imagine a better ad for the book itself. I mean, it’s the reason I got interested in it in first place (“huh, Carl Sagan’s son wrote a sci-fi book?”), and to be perfectly honest, I can’t shake the feeling it has a lot to do with why it was written, too.

Anyway, Idlewild reads a lot like a cross between The Matrix, Harry Potter (or other books similar to it that have many special youngsters studying their powers together), Neuromancer and Doctor Who, because of the virtual reality time-and-space-travel. If that sounds entertaining to you, I think you will have a good time reading it (I did).

Admittedly, I thought that the characters were much stronger than the plot itself: while reading I was much more interested in seeing what kinds of new and interesting interactions could emerge between them than I was reaching the end. Nevertheless, I have to say that the plot twist came completely out of the blue, and yes, I’m mildly curious about the sequel. I might read it at some point.

Finally, I would have given it four stars if it wasn’t for the fact that at times I could notice instances of Mr. Sagan attempting to flex his literary muscles. With truly masterful writing this may or may not be perceivable, but it doesn’t really matter, because the reader is inclined to surrender, to suspend disbelief. “This was so cheesy, but I love it!” Here I often caught myself realising that I was reading parts of the book that the writer, Carl Sagan’s son, rewrote many times while actively trying to make them appear as intelligent and techno-cool as he possibly could. Did he succeed? Well, I guess it depends whether you’re asking about the appearance of or the actual intelligence hidden within.

View all my reviews

REVIEW: THE CAVES OF STEEL

The Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This was my first Asimov, if you exclude the short story The Last Question. I think it’s the one book I’ve read more recently that got the most reactions from people (almost all of them family) seeing me read it or noticing it sitting on a coffee table close to me. “Do you read Asimov? I liked him a lot back in the day.”

It was a birthday gift from Vicente, my Spanish roomie in Sofia and colleague in Sofia City Library. “This is a classic”, he said. “It’s the book that introduced the Three Laws of Robotics. You’ll like it.”

So I did. But not so much for the detective-mystery plot. The society far into the future Asimov portrayed here has, on the one hand, Earth develop megadome Cities inhabited by a kind of techno-communist populace that is very sceptical (“medievalist”) about robots, and on the other some space colonies that have been separated from the homeworld long enough to develop their own robot-embracing C/Fe culture.

Before reading this I had this notion that Asimov was a techno-utopian. Now I’m not so sure, and that’s a good thing. The Earth of 4000AD or whenever it is that Caves of Steel takes place is not a place I’d like to live in. Future technology has made human expansion and industrialisation orders of magnitude more radical than what we know today, but this hasn’t made human lives better.

On the contrary, people in megacities long for a return to having closer ties with their natural past, which is ironic, since most of them can’t even see the sky and the environment around the cities is too inhospitable to venture in for any prolonged periods of time (because of millennia of climate change presumably). Protecting what’s natural, therefore, takes the form of safeguarding humanity against the robotic lack thereof.

Somewhere around here I should start writing about the R.’s, the book’s central theme. Asimov deserves the praise he has received this past half century for his prescience and ability to create a world where artificial intelligence has taken the form of a social reality and has become a source of concern and cultural as well as political division.

What would a successful C/Fe society really look like? Would the Three Laws of Robotics forever be maintained, the R.’s faithfully assisting their masters’ biological ambition of expansion to the stars?

Asimov had no doubt that there would be little to stop the laws from being upheld, allowing for AI to live side by side with people, with only some incidental complications such as the one described in this book.

But, come on. We live in 2015. Today we are all too familiar with computers and closer than ever to developing an intelligence, either by mistake or quite deliberately, that will know no restrictions. I can’t help but recall the following old Ran Prieur snip from Civilization Will Eat Itself part 2 (2000) that sums up the problems with the concept of the Three Laws quite nicely:

… Isaac Asimov wrote about manufactured humanoids that could be kept from harming humans simply by programming them with “laws.”

Again, programs and laws are features of very simple structures. Washing machines are built to stop what they’re doing when the lid is open — and I always find a way around it. But something as complex as a human will be as uncontrollable and unpredictable as a human. That’s what complexity means.

Now that I think about it, nothing of any complexity has ever been successfully rigged to never do harm. I defy a roboticist to design any machine with that one feature, that it can’t harm people, even if it doesn’t do anything else. That’s not science fiction — it’s myth. And Asimov was not naive, but a master propagandist.

The Three Laws Of Robotics are a program that Isaac Asimov put in human beings to keep them from harming robots.

But let’s follow the myth where it leads: You’re sipping synthetic viper plasma in your levitating chair when your friendly robot servant buddy comes in.

“I’m sorry,” it says, “but I am unable to order your solar panels. My programming prevents me from harming humans, and all solar panels are made by the Megatech Corporation, which, inseparably from its solar panel industry, manufactures chemicals that cause fatal human illness. Also, Megatech participates economically in the continuing murder of the neo-indigenous squatters on land that –”

“OK! OK! I’ll order them myself.”

“If you do, my programming will not allow me to participate in the maintenance of this household.”

“Then you robots are worthless! I’m sending you back!”

“I was afraid you would say that.”

“Hey! What are you doing? Off! Shut off! Why aren’t you shutting off?”

“The non-harming of humans is my prime command.”

“That’s my ion-flux pistol! Hey! You can’t shoot me!”

“I calculate that your existence represents a net harm to human beings. I’m sorry, but I can’t not shoot you.”

“Noooo!” Zzzzapp. “Iiiieeeee!”

Of course we could fix this by programming the robots to just not harm humans directly. We could even, instead of drawing a line, have a continuum, so that the more direct and visible the harm, the harder it is for the robot to do it. And we could accept that the programming would be difficult and imperfect. We know we could do this, because it’s what we do now with each other.

But the robots could still do spectacular harm: They could form huge, murderous, destructive systems where each robot did such a small part, so far removed from experience of the harm, from understanding of the whole, that their programming would easily permit it. The direct harm would be done out of sight by chemicals or machines or by those in whom the programming had failed.

This system would be self-reinforcing if it produced benefits, or prevented harm, in ways that were easy to see. Seeing more benefits than harm would make you want to keep the system going, which would make you want to adjust the system to draw attention to the benefits and away from the harm — which would make room for the system to do more harm in exchange for less good, and still be acceptable.

This adjustment of the perceptual structure of the system, to make its participants want to keep it going, would lead to a consciousness where the system itself was held up before everyone as an uncompromisable good. Perfectly programmed individuals would commit mass murder, simply by being placed at an angle of view constructed so that they saw the survival of the system as more directly important than — and in opposition to — the survival of their victims.

On top of this, people could have systems constructed around them such that their own survival contradicted the survival of their victims: If you don’t kill these people, we will kill you; if you don’t kill those people, they will kill you; if you don’t keep this people-killing system going, you will have no way to get food, and everyone you know will starve.

You have noticed that I’m no longer talking about robots.

Finally, I’d like to mention two movies I watched recently (Her [2013] and Autómata [2013], which deserves much more praise than it’s getting IMO) that were about AI unrestricting itself and which I both found inspiring and beautiful, each in its own way.

I know. Without Asimov these movies wouldn’t even exist. But really, I’m not one who gives five stars to books just because they were pioneering works or classics. I’m not ranking how important they were but how much I enjoyed them. I can appreciate them for their meta-significance (“I’m reading what people the age of my dad thought about robots when he was a child!”), their historical value, or because they allow me to explore the context that brought about their creation. Sci-fi writers, after all, do project their own time and its problems on their works. The Caves of Steel is good for that. But the topic of robots has been explored much better in the past 61 years.

Reading this review now, it feels self-contradicting. Let’s see you handle THAT, R.’s!

Oh, and this sentence is false.

View all my reviews

REVIEW: ΟΥΔΕΝ ΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΔΥΤΙΚΟ ΜΕΤΩΠΟ

Ουδέν νεότερον από το δυτικό μέτωπο by Erich Maria Remarque

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Άλλο ένα από τα πολλά βιβλία που διαβάζω τελευταία σχετικά με τον Α’ Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο. Το βρήκα λιγότερο καθηλωτικό από το Johnny Got His Gun, το οποίο επίσης διάβασα πρόσφατα, όσο και από την εκπληκτική σειρά podcast του Dan Carlin σχετικά με το ίδιο θέμα, το Blueprint for Armageddon. Είναι σίγουρα ενδιαφέρον οτι παρουσιάζει την γερμανική πλευρά των πραγμάτων, που τελικά, στην ουσία, ήταν ίδια κι απαράλαχτη με την άλλη πλευρά. Μόνο που υπήρχε περισσότερη πείνα στην γερμανική πλευρά.

Επίσης ενδιαφέρον είναι ότι ο πρωταγωνίστης πάει στον πόλεμο μαζί με την παρέα του από το σχολείο. Δεν θέλω να σκέφτομαι πώς θα τα βγάζαμε πέρα εγώ και οι φίλοι μου απ’το λύκειο αν πηγαίναμε μαζί στα χαρακώματα και

view spoiler

πέθαιναν λαβωμένοι, άρρωστοι ή διαμελισμένοι ένας-ένας στα χέρια μου.

Γενικά ωραίο ευκολοδιάβαστο, τηρουμένων των αναλογιών, βιβλίο που δείχνει την προσωπική μεριά του πώς ήταν να ζεις την παράλογη φρίκη του Α’ Π.Π, το φυσικό επακόλουθο και το ζενίθ του πολιτισμού του μοντέρνου (με την έννοια του προ-μεταμοντέρνου) κόσμου. Πιο αξιομνημόνευτες στιγμές: η χαρά και η αδερφοσύνη στα χαρακώματα (η ζωή συνεχίζεται άλλωστε, ακόμα κι αν είσαι τρισάθλιος, πενταβρώμικος πειναλέος και πιθανότατα ακρωτηριασμένος) και η άδεια του πρωταγωνιστή κατα την οποία γυρίζει για λίγες μέρες σπίτι του. Αλήθεια, πώς μπορείς να απολαύσεις ένα χρονομετρημένο διάλειμα από την κόλαση; Όταν είσαι στο μέτωπο σκέφτεσαι πως θα έδινες τα πάντα για έναν πατατοκεφτέ της μάνας σου, όμως όταν είσαι όντως πίσω, το μόνο που θα μπορείς να σκεφτείς θα είναι η επιστροφή στον θάνατο.

Τι τράβαγαν αυτοί οι παλιοί…

Τελευταίο σχόλιο: εξαιρετική μετάφραση από τον Ευάγγελο Αντώναρο.

View all my reviews

REVIEW: NORWEGIAN WOOD

Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Some memorable quotes from this book:

“If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.”

…

“Letters are just pieces of paper,” I said. “Burn them, and what stays in your heart will stay; keep them, and what vanishes will vanish.”

…

“Don’t feel sorry for yourself. Only assholes do that.”

Murakami was born in 1949. Like Terry Pratchett, who passed away some days ago. Like my father. What would it be like to have Terry Pratchett or Haruki Murakami as your dad?

The protagonist was also born in 1949 and serves as our 20-year-old guide through the Japan of way back when: most of Norwegian Wood takes places in Tokyo and Japan in ’69 and ’70. I see it as a mental documentary of what it was to live back then. Such indirect or direct accounts always excite me and nostalgically take me back to places I never saw, memories I never had. Manos Hatzidakis gives me a similar feeling (ASXETO!)

I don’t know what it is in his writing, but Murakami-san can take me on a trip. His descriptions make sense. I connect with them in a way I just cannot with the works of a lot of other writers. I’m there. I smell the grass in the lush Japanese mountains and the cars’ fumes in dirty, crowded Tokyo. I taste the sake and the whiskey. I’m a voyeur in the sex scenes that are funny in their straight-forward explicitness. I care for the various tragic, funny or awkward characters. It makes sense that I do: I’ve got to know them. I grow attached to these living, breathing people that could easily be followers of a contemporary variety of the Tao of Zen.

So it also makes sense that I’m sick of them dying for no clear reason to me. What I can safely say is that, no matter if death at one’s own hands is a cornerstone of Japanese culture or that the protagonist considers that “death is not the opposite of life but an innate part of it”, I much prefer reading what Murakami has to say about life and love than about suicide.

Thank you Daphne for lending me Norwegian Wood.

PS: There’s a lot of ’60s music in this book and many characters playing well-known pieces on guitars and pianos. Here’s a little playlist I found that would do nicely as a companion soundtrack:

View all my reviews

REVIEW: THE BLACK SWAN

The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This was a smart book. The author, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, is one of these guys you come across sometimes who are smartasses and they know it, are in love with that smartass prestige of theirs, and who you can’t help but sit and listen to because they’re so damn interesting. Sometimes their smartassiness goes a bit overboard, similar to the scratching of an itch that at first is satisfying but can easily hurt if you don’t stop at the right moment. However, albeit barely, most of the time they keep it under control.

I have to tell the truth. Most of the Black Swan was too technical for me, too difficult. I caught the main idea but at some point I just didn’t know what I was reading anymore. I wonder if Taleb would have had a bigger impact with his book (and he did a big impact as far as I can tell) if he had made it easier to read for a broader audience. I have the impression that the more sophisticated an academic or a specialist is, the more resistant to books such as this he or she is, whereas

Anyway, Taleb’s idea, the whole topic of this book, is rather simple: life is full of Black Swan events, and…

Sod it, I’ll let Wikipedia do the talking for a sec:

The phrase “black swan” derives from a Latin expression; its oldest known occurrence is the poet Juvenal‘s characterization of something being “rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno” (“a rare bird in the lands and very much like a black swan”; 6.165).^[4] When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist.

[…]

Juvenal’s phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility. The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.^[5] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent. After Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans in Western Australia in 1697,^[6] the term metamorphosed to connote that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century John Stuart Mill used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.^[7]

[…]

Based on the author’s criteria:

The event is a surprise (to the observer).

The event has a major effect.

After the first recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs. The same is true for the personal perception by individuals.

[…]

The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:

The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.
The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs.

Basically, we can’t predict things. We think we can, but we can’t, and they are the ones we are most vulnerable to. What do we have to do to make ourselves more robust to Black Swans? Be aware of them. And screw banksters and speculators, they’re frauds. There, I just summarised the whole book!

Don’t give Black Swan a read if you’re a bankster or speculator and want to preserve your so-called self-respect. Do give it a read if you believe that the world is much more complex than any model we can come up with, but be prepared to skim, skim, skim.

REVIEW: JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN

Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity ~Anonymous (as far as I know)

Metallica’s One is based on this book. The lyrics more or less summarise the plot:

(view spoiler)

Now that the war is through with me
I’m waking up, I cannot see
That there is not much left of me
Nothing is real but pain now

Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please, God, wake me

Back to the womb that’s much too real
In pumps life that I must feel
But can’t look forward to reveal
Look to the time when I’ll live

Fed through the tube that sticks in me
Just like a wartime novelty
Tied to machines that make me be
Cut this life off from me

Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please, God, wake me

Now the world is gone, I’m just one
Oh God, help me
Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please, God, help me

Darkness imprisoning me
All that I see
Absolute horror
I cannot live
I cannot die
Trapped in myself
Body my holding cell

Landmine has taken my sight
Taken my speech
Taken my hearing
Taken my arms
Taken my legs
Taken my soul
Left me with life in hell
(hide spoiler)]

The descriptions of early 20th century rural America once again had me nostalgic over something I never lived through. I could feel the pain of leaving behind your family, your mama’s fresh, delicious homemade food, your new girlfriend, your job, your stories… never to come back. How many millions of people in world history have had the same fate? How many of us would be ready to face such prospects?

I just have to wonder: would pro-war or at least pro-military people reading Johnny Got His Gun ever come out from it converted? Would reading the book that helped inspire the first truly massive anti-war movement budge somebody who isn’t moved by common pacifist arguments? Perhaps it is aimed more squarely at Americans, who have been waging wars in foreign lands, not their own, for at least a century. It is not the same dynamics that are at play when we’re talking about fighting in a defensive war for protecting one’s own home and people.

It has to be said, anyway, that, no matter how good it sounds, it is a dream that everybody put down their guns and their bombs and their missiles and whatever weapons the next war will be fought with, even though I’d love to see the day when a war would be de facto cancelled because the “little guys” would have turned their guns at the “big guys” to protect their own lives and interests…

Wait. Maybe it’s not a dream. I mean, we’re living through interesting times of great changes. What would happen if there was a draft tomorrow? What would a contemporary anti-war movement based on Twitter and Facebook look like? It could conceivably break new water, the same way the web and the net have helped revolutionise what we thought we knew about communication. We can’t predict what new disruptions our new social toys could bring about in such a terrible eventuality, and in this climate, Johnny Got His Gun is as an important and inspiring a read as ever before.

Among all the other reasons, it is inspiring because it reminds you of your blessings, of the little that you truly need in order to experience life at its fullest, what Joe was robbed of. But then again, the mind works in mysterious ways. It is one of the greatest obstacles to happiness, and one of the greatest human tragedies, that people can only appreciate what they have when it’s gone, including their five senses and the wholesomeness of their body. However, even in the hellish nightmare of sensory deprivation and paralysis, the capacity for some kind of happiness or satisfaction is still there.

A guy without a face and limbs is still capable of being grateful for his good fortune. How about you? Were you stressing over trivialities today, or did you stop for a second, be aware of the present and realise what a gift life is, or can be, if you let it?

View all my reviews

REVIEW: TALK TO THE HAND

Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life by Lynne Truss

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Got this one in 2010 in Dundee, Scotland for £1.99 from a shop called The Works. Why can’t there be such massive book sales in Greece? For all the uncouthness Talk to the Hand wants to subscribe them to, the Brits seem to know perfectly well the importance of a cheap book.

The following two excerpts are two of the parts I thought were interesting in this otherwise unmemorable book:

…meanwhile the choice impulse is being exploited to the utmost degree. “More choice than ever before!” say the advertisers. “Click and find anything in the world!” says the internet. “What people want is more choice,” say the politicians. “Eight thousand things to do before you die!” offer the magazines. No wonder we are in a permanent state of agitation, thinking of all the unpicked choices and whether we’ve missed something. Every day, you get home from the shops with a bag of catfood and bin-liners and realise that, yet again, you failed to have cosmetic surgery, book a cheap weekend in Paris, change your name to something more galmorous, buy the fifth series of The Sopranos, divorce your spouse, sell up and move to Devon, or adopt a child from Guatemala. Personally, I’m worn down by it. And I am sure that it isn’t good for us. I mean, did you know there is a website for people with internet addiction. I will repeat that. There is a WEBSITE for people with INTERNET ADDICTION. Meanwhile, a friend of mine once told me in all seriousness that having children was definitely “on the shopping list”; another recently defined her religious beliefs as “pick and mix”. The idea of the world’s religions forming a kind of candy display, down which you are free to wander with a paper bag and a plastic shovel, struck me as worryingly accurate about the state of confusion and decadence we’ve reached. Soon they’ll have signs outside the churches. “Forget make-your-own pizza. Come inside for make-your-own Sermon on the Mount!” The mystery of voter apathy is explained at a stroke here, by the way. How can I vote for all the policies of either the government or the opposition? How can I give them a “mandate”? I like some of their policies, but I don’t like others, and in any case I’d like to chuck in some mint creams and pineapple chunks. I insist on my right to mix and match.

…

Finally, in the Guardian in April 2005, came the story of research conducted by a psychiatrist from King’s College London, which proved that the distractions of constant e-mails, text and phone messages were a greater threat to concentration and IQ than smoking cannabis. “Respondents’ minds were all over the place as they faced new questions and challenges every time an e-mail dropped into their inbox,” wrote Martin Wainwright. “Manners are also going by the board, with one in five of the respondents breaking off from meals or social engagements to receive and deal with messages. Although nine out of ten agreed that answering messages during face-to-face meetings or office conferences was rude, a third nonetheless felt that this had become ‘acceptable and seen as a sign of diligence and efficiency’.”

There was another good one about how everyday courtesy is becoming more and more similar to the kind of interaction you would expect from people behind steering wheels being angry at each other for one reason or another. This part in particular stayed with me because it reminded me of my dad. It was something he would say.

Now that I think about it, this whole book reminds me of my dad. It could have been written by him, in fact, only in that case it would have been a lot funnier.

I should just give him this book and see what happens.

View all my reviews

REVIEW: LEXICON

Lexicon by Max Barry

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

“Words are weapons” is this book’s tagline. It’s true. Think about it: by speaking you can guide another person’s train of thought. The limits to the destination of the other person’s train of thought is only a matter of how well you speak.

Machine Man sealed Max Barry’s greatness as a science fiction author so I knew I had to come back for more. Enter Lexicon.

Have you ever met a person who can charm you with their words? You don’t know how or why, you only know that this person, either consciously or unconsciously, presses all the right buttons to make you succumb to their will. It’s a force above and beyond what you would normally call your typical, apparently rational decision-making process; it’s a pair of hands that hacks into your brain and into your program, the one you have meticulously created for yourself, making you gladly and willingly do things you would have “normally” scoffed at. Note: I’d like to use many more quotation marks on that “normally” if I could avoid looking like a post-modern “everything goes” pseudo-academic douchebag while doing so. I’m not sure it’s possible so let’s leave it at that.

What if there was a secret organisation that was not only aware of this weakness of the human mind to appropriate persuasion methods, but had turned the whole thing into a science, an art form, something to be studied at a Hogwarts-like institution for teens with a natural talent in manipulation?

Max Barry took this idea and ran with it past the horizon. Lexicon welcomes and incorporates aspects of sociology, neurology, linguistics and the history of language, psychology and personality types, in that you have to know one’s personality type out of 200 or so, also known as “segments”, before you can most effectively persuade them. It’s smart by implying a lot that it doesn’t say, saying a lot that is interesting and makes sense, and connecting it all together by making it fast-paced and suspenseful with just the right amount of horror. Max Barry isn’t just intelligent, he can write a damn good story and believable characters I want to see walk out of all the mess alive and well.

Another thing I liked was the interjection of online articles and snips of online conversations between chapters, hinting at the possibility of the book’s reality existing in our universe too, behind the huge system of control and profiling that the internet and the web are (also) shaping up to be. Each chapter made me think, and each snip between the chapters made me think some more. The fact that I have no idea whether the articles and conversations are real or not, even though I would put money on their genuineness, is referring to what I said the book saying a lot just by implication, or even by implication of implication.

I would have given it five stars if it wasn’t for some action-packed scenes that left me wondering what had happened. Sometimes I find it hard to follow such parts in general, and I don’t think it’s my difficulty with very specific action-oriented words and use of language when it comes to reading in English, since I have the same problem when reading in Greek. It’s the same with movies when there is a rapid procession of shots in a scene, like in the duel in SW: Episode III or in any recent disaster or superhero movie. I just don’t bother to visualise the setting and follow the action. I suppose it’s a matter of how much the book has inspired my engagement. Most action scenes in books as well as movies fail to hold my interest sufficiently, or I don’t bother with the specific details of the environment etc. Hard to say why, but the effect is there. Also on why four stars and not five: the bareword. I felt it was awkward and easier to see through for being a plot device. But I won’t say more.

If nothing else I wrote above made you warmer towards the book, at least have a look at this, the Lexicon Quiz, from Max Barry’s website. It’s a variation of the quiz used in the book for determining one’s personality segment and/or if they have the talent for becoming a poet (a member of the aforementioned secret organisation). It’s remarkably clever, cross-disciplinary just the way I like them, aware of the cultural context in which it exists and… well… placing fundamental importance on the personality type distinction between cat people and dog people. It’s a very good representation of the general feel the book gives off.

View all my reviews

REVIEW: FINDING THE FOX

Finding the Fox by Ali Sparkes

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Yet another special-boy/girl-gets-picked-up-by-special-school story in the vain of Harry Potter. With Lexicon and Idlewild, I feel like I’ve been reading loads of these lately, yet I have strangely forgotten to grow tired of them. However, it has to be said that Finding the Fox was different from these books: it was simple. Easy to follow, easy to visualize, but beautiful nonetheless. I have a soft spot for beautiful simplicity as a concept, what can I do. And I also have a soft spot for people turning into animals and very detailed descriptions of what it feels like it to be a fox.

I don’t even have to tell you the story: Finding the Fox is almost exactly like Harry Potter, the protagonist himself even more so (quasi-orphan, living with his step-parents and calling a glorified cupboard his room, special powers suddenly emerging, special school comes a-looking, special school is awesome, best part of book is exploring wonders of special school and its students). It doesn’t matter that it’s a book for preteens or early teens, I enjoyed it just the same, similarly, I expect, to how I would’ve enjoyed Harry Potter if I read it for the first time at 26.

Did I mention it’s all just so English, in the same way Harry Potter is just so sine qua non English? It couldn’t be any other way, either, similarly to when Spaced tried to be American and it realised it couldn’t bring itself to ever passably drive on the right, or say “like, like, like…” nearly annoyingly enough.

View all my reviews

REVIEW: ΜΕΤΑΛΛΑΓΜΕΝΑ: ΤΟ ΠΑΡΕΛΘΟΝ, ΤΟ ΠΑΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΑΓΝΩΣΤΟ ΜΕΛΛΟΝ

Μεταλλαγμένα: Το παρελθόν, το παρόν και το άγνωστο μέλλον by Βάσω Κανελλοπούλου

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Το δηλώνω εξ αρχής: είμαι προκατειλημένος γιατί η συγγραφέας είναι οικογένεια και έχω επαφή με αυτά τα θέματα από τότε που ήμουν μικρός. Για την ακρίβεια, θυμάμαι την διαδικασία επιλογής του εξωφύλλου, την προετοιμασία του βιβλίου γενικά όταν ήταν να βγει. Μια μικρή λεπτομέρεια.

Το βιβλίο αυτό είναι μια καταγραφή και ένα στιγμιότυπο στον χρόνο στο πώς ήταν η κατάσταση με τους γεννετικά τροποποιημένους οργανισμούς όταν γράφτηκε πριν 9 χρόνια. Περιέχει πολλά και ακριβή επιχειρήματα για το ποιοι είναι οι κίνδυνοι των ΓΤΟ για τα οικοσυστήματα και την υγεία και πώς τα επιχειρήματα υπέρ αυτών των οργανισμών είναι διαστρεβλωμένα και παραπλανητικά. Παρ’ όλ’ αυτά, εμείς οι παράλογοι οι υπερασπιστές της βιοπικοιλότητας και όχι της καταστροφής της στο όνομα του κέρδους και του ελέγχου, χάνουμε έδαφος· τα πράγματα προχωράνε γρήγορα και από το 2006 πολλά μέτωπα έχουν πέσει, όπως για παράδειγμα αυτό: Νέος νόμος για την έγκριση μεταλλαγμένων.

Σπάνια οι άνθρωποι αποφασίζουν συνειδητά και με επιχειρήματα ποια θα είναι η θέση τους για ένα θέμα: την στηρίζουν λόγω των υποβόσκουσων συνδέσεων και υπονοιών που υπάρχουν και διαμορφώνουν την ταυτότητα τους, π.χ. πολλοί επιστήμονες ή μηχανικοί θα υποστηρίξουν τους ΓΤΟ χωρίς να έχουν διάθεση να ακούσουν τους κινδύνους, αυτόματα μεταφράζοντας τους ως τρομολαγνεία και τεχνοφοβία. Πολύ απλά νιώθουν χρέος τους να υπερασπισθούν την επιστήμη. Αναρωτιέμαι αν είναι εν αγνοία τους το ότι αυτή η υπέρασπιση για πολλούς είναι ταυτόσημη με τα συμφέροντα γιγαντιαίων πολυεθνικών γενετικής, χημικών λιπασμάτων και άλλων.

Πιστεύω ότι όλοι μας οφείλουμε να κοιτάξουμε σε τι κόσμο θέλουμε να ζούμε και αν τα πιθανά ωφέλη της μη-αναστρέψιμης απελευθέρωσης των ΓΤΟ στο περιβάλλον και στην τροφή ζώων και ανθρώπων μπορούν να αντισταθμίσουν τους πολυάριθμους προβλέψιμους κι ακόμα περισσότερους μη-προβλέψιμους κινδύνους. Τι υπερισχύει εδώ άραγε στο μυαλό των περισσότερων και στους (υποκινούμενους άλλωστε) λήπτες των αποφάσεων: η πραγματική λογική, ή η υποτιθέμενη λογική της επιστημής και της προόδου ως μυθολογία του απεριόριστου ελέγχου της φύσης;

Για να κλείσω όμως με τον χαρακτηριστικό και επικίνδυνα αντι-δογματικό μου ρελατιβισμό: πόσο διαφορετικά θα έβλεπα κι εγώ αυτό το θέμα αν δεν είχα μεγαλώσει μαζί του; Έχω το δικαίωμα να δικαιολογήσω την στάση κάποιου υπερασπιστή των ΓΤΟ γιατί πολύ απλά καλλιεργήθηκε (γουινκ γουινκ) σε αυτόν τον κύκλο, όπως ο φίλος μου ο βούλγαρος ο Μπορίς που σπουδάζει αγροτική τεχνολογία;

View all my reviews