REVIEW: CITY

CityCity by Clifford D. Simak

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is what I couldn’t help but imagine the talking dogs in this book looked like (together with the robotic “hands”). Minus the gun, cause dogs in City never kill.

Read this in audiobook form. I think it was the same guy who narrated the Replay audiobook. Maybe, can’t bother to check.

City is 8+1 connected stories passed down to the dogs of the future that tell of Earth and man (if such a being ever existed and isn’t just a product of legend). There’s a quasi-logarithmic time interval between each of the stories: the first takes place in the ’90s, the second somewhere in the 21st century, the last is something like 17,000 years in the future.

Even though dogs, robots and ants appear as successors to human civilization on Earth, with each species following a different philosophy inspired by or directly influenced by mankind, and although the stories are supposed to be retold by talking dogs of the far future, this is basically still a story about humans. Make no mistake, people in the future will obviously instill the same kind of vain belief in the march of progress and Prometheanism to any and all prospective “managers” of Earth. Under the dogs, who are first charged to follow mankind’s footsteps when our foolishness won’t allow us to “reach our true potential”, a “brotherhood of animals” is formed to unite all mute animals and make them useful, i.e. workers. That’s progress.

Really?

I don’t blame Mr. Simak. This is quite old sci-fi and it makes sense that works from the ’50s would succumb to such, ahem, easy ideas, or at least outmoded to our eyes. While listening, I caught myself often thinking “no, Cliff, you’re going too big on this. You’re missing the trees for the supposed forest. This future feels lifeless, lost in the blur of abstracted big idea”. And true, I was not sure what in the end was the point of it all, even with the added story which served as an epilogue and which was added decades later.

I don’t feel as if I caught any kind of glimpse of alternative universes, worlds or future societies: just a curious collection of stories based on ’50s American/Western ideals projected to the blank canvas of times yet unseen. At some point there is the notion in the book that humans would invent the bow and arrow in all possible timelines, and that, if given the opportunity, they would always go all the way from there to the atomic bomb. Humanity’s free, as long as they go down this predetermined path. Like in my last game of Civilization.

However, I must admit that the segment on Jupiter alone pushes Cities up a star for me. I found it much more innovative, prescient of trends in what’s been passed down as the changing collective human consciousness and culture in ways the rest of the book just wasn’t.

I’m closing with this little segment that explains parallel dimension beautifully:

He patted Ebenezer’s head and pulled Ebenezer’s ears.

“Look here, Ebenezer, I don’t seem to place these cobblies.”
“They aren’t any place,” said Ebenezer. “Not on this earth, at least.”
“I don’t understand.”
“Like there was a big house,” said Ebenezer. “A big house with lots of rooms. And doors between the rooms. And if you’re in one room, you can hear whoever’s in the other rooms, but you can’t get to them.”
“Sure you can,” said Webster. “All you have to do is go through the door.”
“But you can’t open the door,” said Ebenezer. “You don’t even know about the door. You think this one room you’re in is the only room in all the house. Even if you did know about the door you couldn’t open it.”

View all my reviews

Midway: a Message from the Gyre

MIDWAY a Message from the Gyre : a short film by Chris Jordan from Midway on Vimeo.

I dare you to watch this without having it pluck at your heart. Heeey, it’s okay to shed a tear or two, no-one will think worse of you.

Review: Ishmael

Ishmael
Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

First of all: I read this in its abridged, audiobook edition. I don’t think if it had been longer my opinion might have been any different but I had to share the fact for what it might be worth for. Maybe it influenced more than it would have the impact of what I perceived the book’s short-comings on me. Maybe it being an audiobook pronounced the book’s obvious shortcomings I detail below.

Why 2 stars:

The main point of Ishmael, the gist, the essence, the core of it I agree with. The agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago changed everything for Homo Sapiens. It began the era of the manipulation of other species, be it floral or faunal, it made people settle down and (as Jean-Jacques Rousseau would have it), “enclose a piece of ground and call it theirs[…]”; it created private ownership. It moved people away from their earlier “primitive communist” ways of living and finally it founded civil society and cities. As one can thus etymologically deduce, this event created what we tend to call civlization today.

All this I heartily agree with. A great deal, if not all, of humanity’s problems and imbalances that are now reaching their logical climaxes were created back then, thousands of years before people had even begun making writing stuff down a habit.

What’s wrong then?

-This book is NOT a novel. Why does it pretend to be one? Why does it have a story? Why does it have a stupid guy as its protagonist that answers to every question with a “yes” or a “no”? Why even a guy in the first place with whom practically no-one out of the book’s target audience would be able to identify? Do we have to read these discussions? I honestly grew tired of them very quickly.

In my opinion the Socratic method doesn’t work for written teachings for it does not let the reader figure their own answers out; they only have to keep reading to “get it”, not to say that they might have different answers than the, frankly, unimaginative ones the student comes up with. At the same time as the students don’t really have to think their answers out at all, the teacher gets all condescending and irritating.

-Wouldn’t you say it’s a failure of a book structure?
-Yes.

The wise gorilla, the book’s namesake. This wise gorilla, complete with his own needless backstory and apparently symbolising the whole of nature apart from humans, has the ultimate solution. His ultimate solution though depends on every student spreading the message to not one, not two, but one hundred others. Really? A hundred? I don’t even have this many acquaintances I am on speaking terms with, if facebook is to be trusted; how would anyone in this age of pluralism of opinion but monolithicism of practice take such bold and life-changing decisions just by listening to me? To return to the subject of the gorilla: he is the front for the writer himself, but his temper with the arbitrarily dim student is short, his arrogance annoying and his bullheadedness and sporadic refusal to teach, completely out of character. Why the whole blasé air?

A funny personal sidenote: because the gorilla was of the talkative kind, I imagined him as wearing clothes, glasses and a hat. Cultural conditioning much.

TLDR: the book has a valuable message but the presentation takes almost all of the value away from it.

View all my reviews

Review: Last Chance to See

Last Chance to See
Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Douglas Adams proved with this book that he wasn’t just a brilliant science fiction writer with a virtually unrivalled wit and sense of humour; it went to show that he had an admirable, enviable even, sense of social and ecological responsibility, taking him, as far as I am concerned, from the “brilliant writer” tier, to the “paradigm of humanity” club, reserved only for those people (and there’s not a lot of them around) that can work as sources of true inspiration for me. Last Chance To See is a manifesto on almost everything that’s wrong or imbalanced in the world today — and it was written more than 20 years ago. The Douglas Adams impish vibe that is so cherished by many serves as little more than a tasty side dish for this book. It is that good.

My edition has a foreword by Richard Dawkins who has a similar opinion of the late man as I do. While I do not really agree with his flagship Atheist views (even if I would much sooner classify myself as an Atheist than a “Creationist”), he does do a magnificent job of summing up the point of this book in just a few words:

Of the endangered animals that Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine set out to see, one seems to have gone for good during the intervening two decades. We have noew lost our last chance to see the Yangtze river dolhpin. Or hear it, which is more to the point, for the river dolphin lived ina world where seeing was pretty much out of the question anyway: a murky, muddy river in which sonar came splendidly into its own — until the arrival of massive noise pollution by boat engines.
The loss of the river dolphin is a tragedy, and some of the other wonderful characters in this book cannot be far behind. In his Last Word, Mark Carwardine reflects on why we should care when species, or shole major groups of animals and plants go extinct. He deals with the usual arguments:

Every animal and plant is an integral part of its environment: even Komodo dragons have a major role to play in maintaining the ecological stability of their delicate island homes. If they disappear, so could many other species. And consercation is very much in time with our own survival. Animals and plants provide us with life-saving drugs and food, they pollinate crops and provide important ingredients for many industrial processes.

Yes, yes, he would say that kind of thing, it’s expected of him. But the pity that we need to justify conservation on such human-centered, utilitarian grounds. To borrow an analogy I once used in a different context, it’s a bit like justifying music on the grounds that it’s good exercise for the violinist’s right arm. Surely the real justification for saving these magnificent creatures is the one with which Mark rounds off the book, and which he obviously prefers:

There is one last reason for caring, and I believe that no other is necessary. It is certainly the reason why so many people have devoted their lives to protecting the likes of rhinos, parakeets, kakapos and dolphins. And it is simply this: the world would be a poorer, darker, lonelier place without them.

[…]

He [Douglas Adams] saw with his own eyes how quickly such painstaking edifices of evolutionary artifice can be torn down and tossed to oblivion. He tried to do something about it. So should we, if only to honour the memory of this unrepeatable specimen of Homo Sapiens. For once, the specific name is well deserved.

My respect also goes to Mark Carwardine, who has continued to bring the word out all these years, as well as to all the people all over the world, described in the book or not, that have devoted their lives to noble and moving ideals.

View all my reviews

Είναι όντως οι μπάτσοι τα γουρούνια;

Το γνωστό σύνθημα (δεν χρειάζεται σε -όνοι να τελειώνει, μπάτσοι-γουρούνια δολοφόνοι) μου φαίνεται εδώ και καιρό κάπως άκυρο. Βασικά, απο τότε που διάβασα την Φάρμα των Ζώων, του George Orwell. Το βιβλίο, όπως μπορεί ή και όχι να ξέρετε, είναι μία ευθύς αλληγορία στην Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση και στο τι επακολούθησε, μέχρι τον Στάλιν: τα ζώα της φάρμας, καθοδηγούμενα απο τα γουρούνια, πατάσσουν την κακιά εξουσία των ανθρώπων για μία αυτοδιαχειριζόμενη φάρμα, απο τα ζώα για τα ζώα! Μόνο που σύντομα, τα γουρούνια γίνονται χειρότεροι απο τους ανθρώπους…

Τα γουρούνια ΔΕΝ είναι οι μπάτσοι. Τα γουρούνια είναι οι άνθρωποι οι όποιοι ελέγχουν τους μπάτσους σαν μαριονέτες. Και πέρσι, που ένας μπάτσος πυροβόλησε τον Αλέξη Γρηγορόπουλο, αυτό δεν ήταν κίνηση γουρουνιού, αλλά ηλιθιότητα του μπάτσου… Δεν φταίει η δημοκρατία, ή το σύστημα, για τον τυχαίο ανθρώπινο παράγοντα ο οποίος μπορεί να πονοκεφαλιάσει τα γουρούνια και να δώσει ακόμα περισσότερη τροφή σε όσους στρέφουν τα πυρά τους προς αυτούς και ΟΧΙ στα γουρούνια.

Στην Φάρμα των Ζώων, τα σκυλιά είναι αυτά τα οποία προστατεύουν τα γουρούνια, θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε ότι οι μπάτσοι είναι τα σκυλιά. Τα ίδια όμως είναι εκπαιδεύμενα για να κάνουν ακριβώς αυτό. Ποιό είναι το παράπτωμα τους; Απο την άλλη, ποιός είναι ο καλύτερος τρόπος να στοχεύσεις τα πραγματικά γουρούνια, τα οποία πλέον δεν ήταν όσο εμφανή όσο ήταν ο Στάλιν; Είναι οι μεγαλοεπιχειρηματίες, οι μεγαλομέτοχοι, οι άνθρωποι που ελέγχουν τα μέσα… Άνθρωποι αφανείς, οι οποίοι κάνουν ακόμα και τους τάχα πολιτικούς “ηγέτες” ό,τι θέλουν πίσω απο τα παρασκήνια.

Οι μπάτσοι δεν είναι παρα το χέρι, το εκτελεστικό όργανο της εξουσίας… Είναι εκεί για να μισούμε αυτούς και όχι την πραγματική εξουσία. Ποιά όμως είναι, εν τέλει, η πραγματική εξουσία;

ΠΟΙΟΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΑ ΓΟΥΡΟΥΝΙΑ;