Common Sense-23

The pamphlet that was one of the things that started the American Revolution. I was never much of a history fan, but I was interested to see how much common sense was in "Common Sense."

Thankfully, both for the sake of the book being interesting enough to read and for the sake of preserving my last shreds of hope that humanity isn't completely comprised of idiots, the title of the book was an accurate description of it's contents.

As for the things discussed in themselves, I didn't find them particularly interesting. It quite simply an appeal using common sense as it's basis to split from Britain. Logic and common sense were really all it was, no politics or deceit or exaggeration. Thomas Paine simply presented the view that union with Britain was detrimental to the American colonies, and provided logical reasons as to why he reached this conclusion.

The question that comes to mind is, "why is Thomas Paine the ONLY one who does this? Why can't modern speakers take the same approach?"

A lot of problems today are caused by stupidity, wishful thinking, illogical and irrational decisions, and overall just a plain lack of common sense. If people could learn to set aside their emotions, optimism, and personal bias when making important decisions then we'd find that our world would become a much better place.

The question remains, WHY can't anyone do this? I try and act without bias, debate with logic and experience, and make common sense take precedent to emotion. For the most part I am successful. This does not mean I am without bias, do not sometimes debate based on ideals, and do not sometimes let my emotions override my rationality. I'm only mortal, so I can't claim I'm perfect, and I can't expect perfection from others. However, I do believe that if someone like me, a person who used to be very emotional and had very poor control over said emotions, can achieve this level of detachment and control, then it is not unreasonable to expect similar results from others. Particularly the people in positions of power who make the most critical decisions.

In a system where politics has degenerated into a democrat vs republican cold war, it seems that common sense has died. Now would be a great time for another Thomas Paine to surface, but now regular people are just as caught up in this lack of common sense as the politicians, so the number of people who could possibly be the next Thomas Paine are few and far between.

As always, I present such cheery thoughts in these blog posts, and all without any sarcasm. It's a grim situation though, and I'm not going to be focusing on the silver linings. I feel obligated to point out that the silver lining is just the edge of a giant lump of coal, that's just how I view things. I hope that people like me become more common, that way we can make the entire thing silver instead of just the linings. Then we can look at the gold linings without feeling guilty.

A Christmas Carol + Bloom's Guide to A Christmas Carol-24

Even with the guide and all the research and such included in it, I am finding it hard to figure out what I should blog on.

The story of "A Christmas Carol" has been told, retold, made into a movie and play, retold a few more times, had the movie remade, told again, had the remake modernized, and so on and so forth. The point is, there isn't anything about this story that hasn't been analyzed, broken down, or theorized about by thousands upon thousands of people before me, and will likely continue to do so long after I'm done here.

I'm trying to think of something insightful to say about the book, but the story seems rather straightforward to me.  An old miser is shown the error of his ways by divine intervention. So maybe three spirits that may or may not be  figments of Scrooge's imagination aren't quite divine intervention, but you get the picture.

The morals brought to attention by the spirits are not new concepts to me. I am aware of the fact that charities are necessary in order to help the unfortunate lower class. I'm constantly pelted with people encouraging me to be more sociable and less solitary. I understand the value of education and the danger of ignorance presented by the Spirit of Christmas Present, as demonstrated by my pursuing my own education rather than remaining ignorant in incompetent public schools. All of these are things I knew about already, and having them repeated doesn't really cause me to think about them more.

After realizing that there were no new concepts for me to think about, I am forced to wonder why this book made the list. I'm usually rather generous, and I am far from ignorant. Admittedly I do have a bit of a solitary nature, but I'm far from being or even becoming another Scrooge. Whatever solitary tendencies I have can easily be explained by the fact that I'm in the middle of my teenage years. Combine that with the fact that my social experiences from most of my childhood were unpleasant, to put it lightly, and I'm actually pretty sociable overall.

So I have now somehow managed to create a blog post for a book about how there isn't much to blog about. I'm not sure if I should be proud that I salvaged my situation or disturbed that I'm this good at beating around the bush and expanding what should be a one or line statement into several paragraphs.

There isn't really much else for me to say. I'd just like to point out that the time I received and read "A Christmas Carol" is coincidentally the beginning of the Christmas season, my mom probably planned this, but it's fun to believe otherwise.

I guess it's time for me to wrap things up and pray for insightful comments to save this post from patheticness.
Happy Holidays!

Bright-Sided-25

This book was particularly amusing to me, after so many years of my mom trying to convert my pessimism to optimism (often to my chagrin), this book that explains all the negative aspects of an optimistic view on things was quite entertaining.

The book provided a detailed history of optimism and it's roots. It appears this philosophy stemmed from religion. It started in Calvinism, a religion that believed that humans were predestined to go to heaven or hell, and that our entire lives should be spent working or reflecting on our flaws. The religion encouraged self-loathing and reportedly caused sickness among its practitioners. This eventually led to other views that eventually led to optimism.

The book also shows how optimism has infected every aspect of our society on a very basic level. Scientists  promote positive thinking as a key to longevity, health, success, social affluence, and just about everything else. Business owners subject their employees to constant pep-talks, and apparently "not being positive enough" is an acceptable reason to fire someone. The words "positive" and "good" are now interchangeable, and negativity has seemingly replaced sin in many churches.

When looking at this from a third person perspective these things seem so obvious that you wonder how you never noticed it before. The answer is simply that you haven't noticed it because you;re caught up in it too. How often do you connect pessimism with anything good? Have you ever thought that a negative outlook on something might work better than a positive one? If so, when was this? More importantly, how did the other members of society treat your negativity?

An example of how bad things have gotten that struck me as significant was an example where a worker for a company who was supposed to decide which stock options to buy, hold, or sell was fired for putting something in the "sell" category. He put it there because the stock was losing money and showed very little promise for a future comeback, meaning that it would, from a realistic standpoint, be a good idea to sell it. Apparently optimism disagrees, and so good decisions are rewarded with punishment.

I have never fully converted to optimism, despite my mom's best efforts. However, I did manage to shake my constant pessimism, something that the book also says is bad. I take the stance that is encouraged by this book, realism. I consider both positive and negative and make my decisions with common sense and logic. It's disturbing to see that I am part of a dying species. I have met very few realists, a couple of pessimists, a few pessimists who claim to be realists, but very few actual realists. The difference between realists and pessimists who claim to be realists is slight, but important. Pessimists focus on the negative parts of a situation, realists focus on the situation as a whole. The reason the words have become interchangeable for most people is that the state of the world doesn't leave many positive things to be considered by realists. That, and the fact that anybody who dares to consider a negative thing is arbitrarily labeled as a pessimist by the majority of optimists.

If any of the things said here strike anywhere close to home for you, read this book and see if you should reconsider your worldview to be more realistic. For now I take my leave, food for thought should not be force-fed, otherwise it soils the flavor and gives one indigestion. Also metaphors should not be created by teenage scholars, otherwise the sound corny like the one above.

Joking aside, give these things some thought. See you next time! Farewell!

Still Life With Woodpecker-26

This book was a nice break from all the serious, historical, non-fiction stuff I've been reading as of late. It didn't give me a lot of inspiration for a blog post, but it was enjoyable.

The story itself was rather simple, almost cliched. A princess falling in love with a ruffian and the subsequent complications of such a relationship. It's nothing special when you break it down to that level. The main focus of the book was the philosophical outlooks on life that the ruffian, and eventually the princess, posses. In my opinion the "outlaw" philosophy of the "woodpecker" was somewhat insane. However, in saying that I actually give some credibility to it. Bernard (the "ruffian" mentioned earlier) chooses to be an outlaw in order to shake things up in society, and because he places himself outside of society he is viewed as insane. So by saying his philosophy is insane I have now justified that part of it.

I think that the only topic that can be discussed in length is the question posed at various parts of the book. The question is "how does one make love stay?" Obviously not many people know the answer, the divorce rate is so high it makes one wonder why people bother getting married in the first place.

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't have a clue as to what the answer might be. I don't really understand emotions all that well, especially ones as complicated as love. I would say that if there is chemistry between two people, neither one mistreats the other, and nothing stops them from being together, then there would be no reason for divorce. Obviously there has to be more to it than that.

An important part of solving this riddle is defining what exactly is meant by the word "love." Too often in today's society "love" and "lust" are interchangeable terms. However, the two words have different meanings, and should be treated as such.

When I think about it, love is a word that can mean different things to everyone. It may be something that can't be defined, in which case the question of how to make love stay can't be answered.

For the sake of continuing this blog post, I'll try to define love based on what it means to me. To care for someone above all other things, including yourself. To be willing to sacrifice anything and everything for that person, be it money or your very life. To want to shield that person from harm simply because seeing them hurt is painful to you. To be happy just because that person is with you. That is what the word love means to me. It sounds almost poetic now that I think about it.

With that definition in hand, then comes the question of how to make that emotion stay. In a world where such idealist notions are so rare I'm not sure how to get the love to come in the first place. Assuming that kind of love was shared between two people, could anything actually make love go away? My thoughts are going in circles now, I keep having to go back the the definition of love. Is my definition even possible in anything outside of anime, fantasy novels, and manga? Maybe the definition of love in real life is different?

Now that I've gotten started trying to figure out the answer to this question it's driving me nuts. I guess it serves me right for trying to find the solution by systematically analyzing something like love.

I forget exactly what the book said the answer was, it had something to do with keeping the mystery alive in the relationship. I guess that might be part of it, but the relationship in the book seems to be mainly sexual, rather than emotional. I guess there's emotion involved as well, but it didn't seem like it was predominant to me.

I'm getting nowhere with this, I guess this question simply can't be answered. Love will come when it comes, and go when it goes, and all this discussion about how to make it stay is pointless. Perhaps the divorce rate is so high because people don't have the right definition of love when they marry, perhaps it's something else that causes it. Whatever it is that causes the problem, and whatever the solution is, is beyond my ability to make out.

Since I've run dry of my own ideas, I'll end things here and wait for a comment to get me rolling again. So goodbye, and good luck in your love-lives.

Thanks To My Mother-27

The Holocaust story is one we've all heard more times than we can count. "Thanks To My Mother" is another Holocaust story, but with a few things that aren't included in most other survivor stories. Most Holocaust stories are practically identical at the middle, and very similar at the beginning, and the endings are only somewhat different. Therefore I'm going to focus on the things that I had not encountered in these stories before and let you fill in the blanks about what else happened.

The major difference I encountered was that this story was told by a girl, previous stories had led me to believe that all the women, especially the children of elderly, were killed upon arrival at concentration camps. This apparently was not the case here, this girl and her mother must have went to a camp that used women for labor as well as men, provided they were strong enough. Through the ingenuity of her mother the storyteller was able to pass for a healthy adult and avoid the gas chambers.

The next new thing was the sea trip to a different camp. The death marches were nothing new to me, but this was the first time I encountered one of those marches involving being shipped over sea back to Germany. The conditions on the boat were, as to be expected from things of the Holocaust, terrible.

Aside from those things the story was just another retelling of the horrors of the Holocaust, a topic of which nothing can be said that hasn't been said a million times before by historians.

I'm not sure what else I can say about this book, so I'll wrap things up now and hopefully a comment will provide some inspiration.

The Band That Played On-28

When the Titanic sunk, the musicians of the ship decided to play music until the very end, making them heroes in the eyes of the survivors. This book details the investigation on who those people might have been, since only one body was recovered and identified the identities of the famous musicians were never discovered.

Even after the investigation I noted that the book was still very uncertain about many, if not most, of the details about the musicians that it said were probably the ones playing on the Titanic when it sunk. So the accuracy of the information is uncertain at best.

Rather than focus on the questionable accuracy of the entire book, I think this blog post should address the thing that made those musicians famous enough for a book to be written on them. While the ship they were on sank, these musicians played on rather than do anything to preserve their lives.

I'm torn between calling that action brave or calling it stupid. Certainly I wouldn't expect them to force their way onto a lifeboat at the expense of others, but I also can't help but feel there might have been some course of action that wouldn't end in death. If nothing else, the musicians should have played for a while and then got clear of the ship so as to avoid getting sucked underwater by the suction. It wasn't as if they were able to play their music when the ship went vertical and started sinking straight down. They might as well have left the ship at that point and tried to survive the cold water until rescue arrived, the odds of surviving at that point were slim, but still much better than staying on the ship.

Apart from that, since the floorboards of the deck were probably wooden, the musicians could probably have worked together and made a makeshift raft, thus keeping themselves out of the cold water and almost guaranteeing survival. A few boards tied together with strings from one of their instruments would have worked, and depending on their instruments they might have been able to play some music from their raft. 

Other things could have been used as flotation devices, such as their hollow instrument cases. Or empty boxes and barrels of food or drink. Perhaps a bed mattress might have floated, add some rigid boards of wood and the need for string might have been eliminated from the raft creation plan.

I could go on thinking of ideas to survive, but the point is simple. In half an hour I came up with several ways to increase the musicians chances of surviving by myself. If they had put their heads together over the several hours it took for the Titanic to sink they could have certainly come up with these same ideas and more. One of my ideas even left the option of surviving AND also playing music to comfort others open. So I think in the end I have to dub their course of action as stupid rather than brave.

I think my point is made, and I have to be ready to go somewhere in about 5 minutes, so farewell until next time.

The Blind Side-29

I was very skeptical about this one being on the list, a book about football doesn't exactly seem like it should be placed in the curriculum of an English course. Thankfully the book wasn't really about football, it just so happens that the people it was actually about were heavily involved in football.

The book seemed to be split into two topics, and switched between them seemingly at random, which was rather confusing. Sometimes it was about Lawrence Taylor, a football player who was so deadly he revolutionized the NFL's view of offensive linemen and their value to the teams the played for.

The other topic was about Michael Oher, a kid who pretty much embodies the "poor black kid" stereotype. He was one of god only knows how many children, and he lived a nomadic existence, living at a different person's house each night.

The dominant topic was unclear at first, but eventually it is revealed to be Micheal Oher. He was adopted by a rich family, and they turned his life around. It was a real task, Micheal had to go to high-school, but his education would have made a third grader seem like a college graduate in comparison. He also had a learning disability and didn't seem to know how to learn in a classroom setting. It didn't help that his school had only grudgingly accepted him and intended to just let him fail.

The two topics, a football revolution and a black boy becoming an educated member of the rich-white society would seem to be completely unrelated topics, and in most cases they would be. However, Michael Oher weighed over 300 pounds, over 6 feet tall, and he was still as fast as someone half his size. In other words, a born offensive lineman, the position undergoing massive reevaluation in the NFL and college football.

Michael's incredible physique made him a target for pretty much every college offering football scholarships, which enabled him to go to college for free, as well as get other benefits the colleges offered in desperate attempts to influence his decision on which school he would attend. All of the attention probably also earned him a pro football career, though I forget if the book actually ever said he joined the NFL. This is what makes the whole football thing relevant to the main theme of the book.

This book touches on a social issue that's been largely ignored for a long time, we've freed black slaves and given them equality, but it still takes a lot more work for a black person to become successful. All the time spent in oppression has left a lot of blacks in a situation where they have no education, are poor, live in poor neighborhoods, and overall have lifestyles that aren't helping to change any of these things. Some blacks rise above this and become huge successes (Barack Obama is a good example), but many, if not most, blacks simply take the most straightforward path available to them. They join gangs and wind up dead or in jail.

It's not their fault, they live in a situation where that's all they know, public schools are simply white organizations filled with police officers and other things that someone from this background would hate and distrust. It's no wonder that the "gangster" stereotype is practically identical to the "black" stereotype.

There are exceptions to this rule of course, as many people that I meet that fall into the black stereotype, there are some people I have met who are studious, hardworking, intelligent, and black. However, these examples, at least in my experience, have represented a minority. Perhaps a growing minority, but a minority nonetheless.

As for what can be done about this problem, to be perfectly honest I have no clue. I'm a white kid growing up in a pretty good neighborhood. I have parents who stress the value of education, and my family is financially secure enough that I can most certainly get into a college, the prestige of which is dependent on my performance. So anything I could suggest would be practically valueless, since I am incapable of viewing things from the perspective of the ones I would be trying to help.

The only thing I can think of to do is to aid those few blacks who are an exception to the stereotype in every way possible. If they grow up and become successful, then their kids will be on the same level as white kids are now. Those kids can then grow up to be successful as well, and so the cycle would continue, and the minority of successful blacks could become the majority through society's very own natural selection process.

The only other thing to do is to somehow dispel the illusion that every black kid seems to have. That they are, as black kids, so naturally talented at sports that a professional sport career is guaranteed. It may seem ridiculous that this would be a universal view among black kids, since simple logic disproves it. However, from my encounters with black kids and their dreams of being in the NFL or NBA or some other professional sport, it's going to take a lot more than simple logic to get them to accept reality and look at more feasible career options. My high-school football team is awful, they lose every game by large margins, and yet every person on the team is convinced that they are future NFL stars. So apparently we need more than logic and a harsh slap in the face from reality to change this stance, exactly what we need is a mystery to me.

I think that here is a good place to stop, I would just like to provide a disclaimer of sorts before I end. If anyone reading this post is offended by the views presented about blacks, please accept my sincere apologies, I can only draw conclusions from what I have seen, even if what I have seen might not reflect the reality of the rest of the world. I do not in any way intend for views of this post to be racist, and will be happy to be proven wrong at any time by the black community. If you feel that my conclusions are incorrect feel free to say so in comment form, provided you do so in the same academic manner as I have posted the views themselves and provide reasons for your disagreement.

With that done, I bid you all farewell.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn-30

I hav to admit, based off the title I wasn't very ecited to read this book, I thought it would be quite boring. Fortunately it wasn't quite as bad as I had originally suspected, even if it wasn't the most exciting book I've ever read.

I wonder if the author of this book grew up poor, or if she is just a very imaginative person. The amount of detail and description of just how bad things were for the poor in that time period is astounding.

When I think about it more, I don't think it's possible to just imagine all the little things that make up this book, the family relationships and how they were strained by poverty, the events to show the bad neighborhood, and the fact that the main character is also a writer make me believe that this is more of a autobiography rather than a fictional story.

It was interesting to see how hard it was for parents to send children to high-school in the book, when education is supposed to be free you would think that it would be easy to send children to school even if the parents are poor. Apparently this is not the case, poor people can't afford to lose the income from their children working and can't afford to send the children to school.

It's a sad thought that people have it this bad, it;s sadder that it's these people politicians today want to start taxing. When people go for days without food, lack basic comforts, and are in so much financial trouble that they can't afford free education, how can you justify taxing them? After reading this book I m forced to despise Republicans, anyone who would think that this is fair, or even humane, doesn't deserve my support. What's worse is the reason they propose taxing the poor is so that they can keep money in their own pockets and stop the tax rate from being returned to the level it was a couple years ago. I find it quite infuriating that people like this have power in our government, and I find it more infuriating that there isn't anything that can be done about it unless you're part of the upper class, and then most people wouldn't want to do anything about it.

Unfortunately now I have to eat lunch and then get ready for my college class, so I'll have to stop here for now, I may edit this post and add to it in the future if I can figure out how this blog site works.

The Long Walk-31

The story told in this book was rather unbelievable, but it is supposed to be true.


The book tells the story of how the author was arrested, tortured, deported to a Russian labor camp, and of how he escaped the Russian labor camp he was imprisoned in. The whole ordeal seems unbelievable, it is hard to imagine how anybody could suffer through it and survive. Personally I think I would have died at the torture part, the things the author suffered through were brutal. I'm not so sure how badly the isolation part of the torture would affect me, I usually prefer to be alone, but the beatings and other methods of torture would likely drive me insane before too long.

Assuming I survived the months of torture and the mockery of a trial, next up would be the deporting to the labor camp. I think that if I had made it past the torture then that part probably wouldn't finish me off. According to the author the young and healthy men were taken care off during the journey, at least more so than the other prisoners. I'm young and healthy, so I would most likely survive that. It is still amazing that the author survived though, the conditions were only slightly better than the conditions that a Jew being deported in Germany had to put up with.

Unlike the concentration camps in Germany, the labor camp the author was sent to in Russia was actually not akin to hell on Earth. It was by no means a pleasant place, but if you were willing to work hard you could take care of yourself fairly well. So again I think I could bear it, though with the lack of ways to entertain myself I'd probably be pretty miserable.

The most incredible part of the journey was the escape, the only reason it was feasible to attempt escape was because of the author befreinding the wife of the camp's commander. Even with her help, it wasn't easy to gather a group of people to escape with, and it wasn't easy to gather supplies. Seeing as I'm not so great with people I don't think my journey would progress past this point.

The author did progrees past this point, he escaped, and then he survived the journey back to freindly landss and freedom. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say that the author being able to do what he did is incredible. I won't go into the details of all the trials he and his group suffered through, but there were many, and most of them seem like things that would be insurmountable to the average person.

After reading this, I am forced to wonder what exactly drove these men to survive the thigns they did. None of them were anything out of the ordinary, but they did things that ordinary people would be to terrified to even try. Whatever it was that drove them I don't know, but it is certainly interesting.

The last thing I'll say on this post is something that both the author and myself found to be ironic. In the labor camp prisoners could earn larger rations by performing different jobs. At the same time the officials in the camp were trying to convert all the prisoners to communism, the system that is supposed to eliminate barriers between people and make it so that everyone gets the same treatment. The contridiction was quite amusing in my opinion.

Time for me to wrap it up now, so until next time, farewell!

10 cent plague-32

This was another book that I'm skeptical of it's worthyness to be on the list, a history of the rise and fall of comic books hardly seems like must-read material.

Comic books used to be a popular form of entertainment among kids, but they were incredibly violent and bloody. As a result religious groups denounced comics and said they were corrupting the minds of children. They backed this up with the rising juvenile delinquency rate, which incidentally was rising during wars where the father figure was away and a lot of stress was placed on kids. A connection between those two things can easily be drawn, but the conncetion between delinquency and comics was drawn instead.

The whole history of comics revolves around the religious conservative types and their crusade against the comic book industry.

The story itself doesn't give much food for thought, but certain things struck me as worth delving deeper into.

Firstly, when delinquency rates rise, the first instinct of parents across the country seems to be find something to blame, not try to fix the problem. The idea that perhaps the delinquent children aren't getting enough attention or that the parents may be somewhat responsible for their behaivor is completely thrown out the window. Instead of considering that possibility (which is far mroe likely) parents across the country pinned the blame on comics.

The second thing that struck me as interesting was the way the opinons of the kids in question were completely ignored unless the kids were instructed by adults to voice "their" (a.k.a. the adult's) opinions

Even when a 14-year old boy named David Wigransky wrote an intelligent and well written letter to a newspaper on the topic of comics and children's capacity for independent thought he was immediately disregarded. Some took the stance that, as a very intelligent boy, David could not possibly be representing the comic book industry. Everyone else took the stance that, as a reader of comic books, David cold not be a intelligent boy. Nobody took the stance that what David said had merit, because that would entail admitting that children are human beings capable of independent thought.

I don't really think that view has changed all that much, we may have come a long way from the time where children were used as expendable cheap labor, but we're a long way off from the time where children are treated like human beings.

If you think about it, how often do you talk about a group of children and refer to them, in any way as "people?" Probably not all that often, you make a point of calling them "kids" or "children," because somewhere deep down in your adult mind, you don't recognize them as human beigns like yourself. Adults consider themselves superior to children on quite and astonishing level. Think about all the legislature that gets passed that directly affects children, do they ever get a voice in that decision? They don't, because "children" can't possibly have an opinion on things that nvolve them, they're too young to seriously think about such things.

So maybe  this viewpoint has it's base in reality, children are much easier to persuade or mislead, the younger the easier. In fact at the very young ages they might actually be incapable of independant thought, either that or they stubornly refute any reality their than their own.

However this view has spiralled out of porportion, I'd say that by ages 10-12 (possibly younger) children are more than able to think for themselves. Will they make bad decisions? They probably will sometimes, they will still be selfish and somewhat impulsive. However, at this point they are capable of having opinions, and if they were to present a well thought out and intelligent opinion on something then it should be acknowledged as such.

It seems that the fact that children are just young versions of adults gets lost a lot of the time. The adults see the antics of children and get swelled heads, then they start to condescend and act superior to the children that are so far beneath them. If a child disagrees with an adult enough to argue about it they are brushed off with a "you're too young to understand" type line, even if they are actually correct.

I think this contrast between adult and child is the centerpiece of the anti-comic movement. The goal was to "protect our children from corruption by these insidious comics" or some other emotion packed slogan along those lines. As if children need "protection" of that kind. Saying that children need to be protected from comics is implying that children are nothing more than blank slates that will automatically imitate everything they see without any independent though on the matter.


I think my point has been made, so I'll end this post here, see you next time.

Always Looking Up33

Written by the same author as Lucky Man, and still an autobiography, I have to say I was kind of worried that it was just a rewrite of an old book. Luckily this one covers the things in the 10 years after Lucky Man leaves off.

The things in this book are slightly different than the last one, "Lucky Man" was about Michael Fox learning to accept and cope with his condition, this book was more focused on his new outlook on life now that he has accepted it, optimism. Strangely enough, nowhere in the book (except on the cover) did I see Michael Fox refer to himself as an optimist. He simply details the things he did and how he refuses to give up on Parkinson's disease research.

It is agreed in the medical field that a cure for Parkinson's diesease is not a question of "if" it's a matter of "when." The key factor in the answer is government assitance, or at least the government getting out of the way. The best hope for a cure lies in stem-cell research, but there is a lot of contrversy about that research among religious conservatives.

I've already expressed my distaste for people who use religion as an excuse to hinder the acquisition of knowledge, and that same distaste carries over here, even more so now because of the complete idiocy of the arguements.

The religious arguement, in order to get the stem cells used for research scientists destroy embryos, which they argue is the same as murdering babies. Nothing more, no facts, no logic, just connecting two dots that don't really match up that well.

Now the evidence making that arguement rather invalid, scientists are not taking the embryoes from the stomachs of pregnant women, these embryoes are not born, they're made, and that is done in a test tube.

In addition to the fact that the fertilized eggs are in a sense artificial, whatever purpose they're made for never requires every created embryo to be used. There are thousands of embryoes that serve no purpose, they aren't allowed to become human beings, so they are marked for destruction.

So the "people" we "kill" are going to "die" anyway, whether or not we use their cells to further our research.

It's like when a pet is dying and we give it a lethal injection to end it's suffering, are we "murdering" the dog by doing so? Of course not, we're doing it a kindness and ending it's pain because it's going to die anyway. News flash: the embryoes are going to die anyway, by using them for research we're doing a kindness by working to end the suffering of millions of humans who  are not doomed to die.

Apart from Parkinson's disease, stem cell research could lead to a cure for Alzhiemer's, ALS, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Millions of people would find their lives much easier if these diseases were cured, and many would actually have their lives saved by these cures. ALS is a horrible disease just to think about, it's a condition in which your body's muscle tissue slowly degenerates, it's a slow death, but a certain one. Depending on which muscles die first, the disease could drag on for years, but eventually the disease kills you. Remember that the heart, lungs, brain, and all your other vital organs are all muscles. They degrade as well.

Imagine how horrible it would be to sit there helpless as you felt your heart slowly degrade away, or to starve to death because you no longer have a stomach. Meanwhile you have no way of telling which organ will go first, your life is on a ticking clock, and there isn't much time left before you die an unpleasant death.

Stem cell research might be able to cure that disease. Yet religious conservatives still say that it's wrong to use the cells of the embryoes that are already doomed to die in order to try and find this cure. They call this stance "pro-life"

The fact that they call it pro-"life" makes me seethe with rage, if they were ignorant about these diseases then calling it that might be justified, but knowing about them and still having the nerve to call opposition to researching the cures "pro-life..." I can't describe those people in words apropriate for any academic writing, let it suffice to say that I think that stance is the most despicable thing I can imagine.

I'm not saying that the view is entirely wrong, I don't think we should extract embryoes from pregnant women  and use them in tests, those ones can be argueable called human beings, but artificial ones would not exist but for the scientists who created them, those scientists should be able to use their creations to help milions of people around the world.

calling the stance "pro-life" also implies that any other stance would be "anti-life," the negative connotations with that name are sickening. Therefore, Micheal Fox wisely dubs the pro-stem cell research stance "pro- LIVING," a name that I think is quite appropriate.

Another quote that popped into my head that fits here is "The needs of the many exceed the needs of the few." How can you say that the lives of a few hundred thousand unborn humans are more valuable than the lives of the millions of people with uncurable diseases? If you can somehow justify that statement I'd be very impressed, because I don't think it's possible to justify it well enough to stop me from slugging you in the face to beat some sense into you. Is that harsh? Perhaps, but if you try to justify that statement and fail it means that you're wrong, you know you're wrong and that your stance is one that causes suffering for millions of humans, and you simply don't care. Those people can suffer and die, just so long as you make sure that these unborn humans who are doomed to die one way or another die without purpose. If that's the stance you take you can think my reaction is as harsh as you like, and you can complain to my fist as it slugs you.

Alright so I wouldn't actually punch you, the legal issue that would cause would probably not be worth the satisfaction it granted. Still, I wouldn't push my luck with that, even if I don't lash out physically you'll probably feel the sharp side of my tounge, and if my anger is half as unpleasant as that of a certain parent whose blood runs in my veins then it's an experience worth avoiding. Insert a sweet, innocent, and unnerving smile along with that previous statement.

Well I really went off on a rant there, back to business, Michael Fox is heavily involved in the politics concerning the stem-cell debate, and towards the end I believe he said he won that battle, which means stem-cells are no longer banned, which is good, yippie!

Michaeo Fox also talks about his family life, and does so in a much more joking matter than the politics, though he inserts his fair share of jokes there as well.

A particular favorite of mine occured when he was talking about his kids and the cannon they were using.

"now, if you're a father reading this, you're probably asking "why didn't Mike help Sam fire the cannon? (too shaky) If you're a kid and you're reading this, which is okay, I guess you're probably asking "where do I get a cannon?" (from a pirate.) If you're a mother, you're probably screaming "You let them play with a freaking cannon?!" (... What cannon?)"

He's a funny one for sure. In all seriousness though the book is overall about his determination to not give up on his battle for a cure, to support his family, and to live life as best he can, which is admirable. Most people would despair if they had an incurable disease, but not him.

I'd continue writing about the determination thing, but I've been writing for about two hours, it's almost 8:30 P.M, and I have yet to eat dinner, so I hope you'll forgive my premature ending of this post. Farewell

Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"34

The book title wasn't kidding, this book covers a lot of scientific topics.

I found the reason Bill Bryson wrote this book interesting. He wrote it because all the science books already written don't do anything to make science as interesting and fun as it should be. They have colorful pictures that would grab his attention and get him excited to learn about science, but when he began to read "It wasn't exciting at all. It wasn't actually altogether comprehensible. Above all, it didn't answer any of the questions that the illustration stirred up in a normal inquiring mind... " (pg5)

Bill Bryson had simillar experiences with future books, "There seemed to be a mystifying universal conspiracy among textbook authors to make certain the material they dealt with never strayed too near the realm of mildly interesting and was always at least a long-distance phone call from the frankly interesting" he joked

He went on to say that there are a bunch of science writers who write clear and interesting books, but none of them ever wrote any textbooks that he ever used. All of his were "written by men (it was always men) who held the interesting notion that everything became clear when expressed as a formula and the amusingly deluded belief that the children of America would appreciate having chapters end with a section of questions they could mull over in their own time."

All those quotes are written in a joking manner, but they're true, textbooks are nightmares to read when being forced to, and are at the bottom of the to read lists of...well pretty much everyone, I don't know anybody who actually enjoys reading textbooks. I know people who can tolerate it more than others, but nobody who would, given a choice, read a textbook in preferance to a different book on the same subject. Science is one of the worst subjects in this regard, as Bill Bryson has noted.

So in short, Bill Bryson wrote this book to present scientific knowledge in an understandable and interesting manner so that the common people can understand at least a little science. Kudos to you Bill

As for the content itself, well it's quite disturbing. There must have been at least 5 things that could wipe humanity off the planet, at least two of which would do so before we even knew we were about to go extinct. The good news is that one of those is going away, or at least evidence makes us hopeful that it is going away. Yellowstone park is a supervolcano that, if it were to erupt, would probably bring about another ice age and wipe out most, if not all, of the human race. Based on the patterns of it's eruptions, Yellowstone is due for another explosion. However, the amount of volcanic activity in the park actually puts scientists at ease. They say that since all the geysers and vents and the like are spewing out so much stuff it means pressure in the volcano itself is not increasing. In order for Yellowstone to erupt the pressure would have to build to extraordinary levels, it tkes a lot of pressure to blow up a few miles of solid rock. Evidence also shows that the lava chamber of the supervolcano seems to be cooling and crystalizing. If that happens then the volcano would become extinct, or at least dormant for a very long time.

One apocalypse scenario down, who knows how many others to go. Catastrophic meteors, evolving diseases, global warming, the list goes on. Cheery thoughts aren't they?

Other topics are covered as well, and something that caught my eye was a quote from someone that all scientific discoveries, when put through the scientific community, go through three stages. First people deny it is true, then they deny that it is important, and then they credit the wrong person.

Judging by historical evidence, I'd say that pretty much sums it up, if you want to win a Nobel Prize in a science field you should consider proving that what someone said before you is true and/or that it is important. If you make discoveries of your own somebody else will likely get the credit. It sounds wrong, but based on history that's the truth, take it or leave it. As for me, I think I'll leave it, someone else can go through the ordeal of getting their research accepted.

One last thing before I wrap up today, here's a subject we know incredibly little about. If you ever wondered what the coding of your DNA looks like, well in a sense it looks like this

dhfksdhjdhdflkadsjflkasdjflkasdjflakdjflkdjgljiwriovnxcnvheroiq

Does that make sense to you? If you can see how a jumble of random amino acids (or in this case letters) somehow makes a coherant blueprnt for a human being you should call a scientific institution immediately, they could use your help. With the amount fo research done on DNA you would think we would have begun to crack the code of the stuff that makes us tick, but no, we're still just about as clueless about it.

Well This blog post has been going on forever, and I have other work that is in need of doing, so I'm afraid it's time to end this post. Goodbye!

A Prayer for Owen Meany-35

This one was a somewhat enjoyable read. Unfortunately all the morals and things in the book that I would normally blog on are religious things, which I refuse to blog on. I dislike any form of religion being inserted into anything involving education, particularly my education, and I especially despise Christianity, the religion that deliberately hindered the acquisition of knowledge with threats, assasinations, bribes, and other forms of corruption. In addition the supposedly "good" Christians have massacred millions, perhaps billions, of people throughout history simply because they didn't share the same beliefs and then said they were justified because they were doing "the will of god." I put the Holocaust on their death toll as well, since the religion Germany was trying to promote by slaughtering the Jews was Christianity, and so far as I know the Christian church didn't exactly oppose these actions.

Therefore I outright refuse to discuss the religious concepts discussed in this book in this blog, which is part of my schoolwork and thus part of my education. This might be slightly irrational or unreasonable, but I will in no way involve religion in my education, and that goes for all religions that exist today, even the ones I don't have any reason to loathe. The only exception I can think of is to talk about religions in a historical context, and that's not talking about the religion that's talking about history.

Moving on, the book was rather enjoyable when the religion is taken out of the picture. I found some parts funny and some parts to be ridiculous, but touching nonetheless. My only real complaint about the book (apart from the constant you know what) was that whenever Owen Meany speaks the writing is in all capital letters. Being accustomed to an all caps sentence indicating somebody was yelling and was angry and trying to pick a fight with me, the all caps sentences in the book inspired feelings of anger and frustration in me, even though I was aware that nobody was actually screaming or angry.

TAKE THIS SENTENCE FOR EXAMPLE, YOU PROBABLY THINK I'M SHOUTING AND AM ANGRY RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT, BUT DEEP DOWN THIS PROBABLY IRRITATES YOU IF YOU'RE USED TO CHATTING OR WRITING ON THE INTERNET. Logically processed the sentence simply is an indicator of Owen's strange voice, but regular people have half a brain that processes things logically and half a brain that doesn't. Those halves don't work in completely different worlds, they both play a role in processing information, so no matter how much you rationalize the all capital letter sentences, if you are used to all caps indicating anger and people yelling at you (and people screaming at you irritates you, which for most of you I'm sure it does) then you will involuntarily feel slightly irritated of angry. The book is jam packed with Owen Meany speaking in all capital letters, and it forced me to stop and let my logic oriented brain rationalize the information and calm me down. Seemingly stupid as it may be, I would have enjoyed the book more if the author had italicized the words or written them in a different font size or something other than hitting the caps lock button on the keyboard.

Well I would say more about the morals in the book, but now that I think about it I realize they were ALL religion based. So now that I have given at least a little material to think about after reading this post I think it would be a good time to call it quits for this blog post.

Sorry that I can't bring myself to ponder the merits of these religious morals, but the anger religions inspire in me is so great it borders on being irrational, despite my good reasons. So until next time farewell (the next one will be science based, so I'm sure it will turn out much better than this)!

Gilgamesh-36

Another example of ancient literature that has persisted through time. However, this one introduced a theme that affected more than just literature, the quest for immortality.

Immortal, a strange word to try and wrap your mind around. Never aging, never dying, living forever, how can any mortal being comphrehend the implications of that? We mortals can't, and that's what makes the idea so intriging. That intrigue has persisted throughout history, in lliterature as well as other subjects.

Most notably, the pursuit of life everlasting has left it's mark on science. Alchemy, the practice of attempting to take one thing and transmute it into another. Most people believe the main objective that alchemists pursued was the ability to turn lead into gold. Ignoring the fact that succesfully doing so would make gold essentially worthless, the actual goal of alchemy was a little less materialistic.

Alchemy was researched in the hope of creating the Philosopher's stone, a substance that could, in theory, provide immortality to whomever possesed it. Alchemists never succeeded in this endevor of course, if they had we'd be studying alchemy, not physics and biology and the like. However this shows how the pursuit of immortality shaped the world as we know it

Today alchemy is generally written off as superstitious nonsense, and those who used to practice it are thought to be insane, ignorant, or just plain dumb. In reality though, alchemists were at the cutting edge of science at the time, they essentially invented the scientific process we use today in modern science. Without that where would science be today? Take that idea a bit further, without the science we have today where would we be technolgically? Then ask, without our technology where would WE be today?

 So in a sense every bit of scientific knowledge we have today stems from alchemy, which stems from the pursuit of eternal life, which is first demonstrated in writing in Gilgamesh. I've gone through one subject so far, and this immortality thing has already taken a central role in the development of the modern world. What would we be able to conclude if we did a solid investigation of how this theme affected history? Surely some rich and powerful people got the idea that they'd like to live forever, perhaps those people ruled nations and invaded other nations to gain the knowledge of immortality they thought was there. That speculation has no actual research behind it, but I bet you can see how that could be a very realistic scenario.

The pursuit of immortality isn't quite finished with humanity yet. Just yesterday I looked in on a TV show that was talking about discoveries scientists have made that may be setting us down the path to eternal life. The part I saw described a discovery that I had learned about in a podcast quite a while back (I'm guessing about half a year.) that had progressed quite beyond what I had heard off back then. Before the discovery had only been applied to simple creatures such as worms, in this show they had applied it to mice, quite a step up from worms in biological complexity. So humans are still driven by the pursuit of life unending, we're just a lot more advanced in our methods of pursuing it.

Gilgamesh is the oldest written epic poem in existance, and is the first story based on this concept we have found in writing. In light of this, it is impossible to argue that this story is unimportant.


On a completely unrelated note, alchemists might have been on to something with that transmutation concept. Everything is made up of the same atoms, which all fall into the same periodic table of elements. So you could, in theory, take the atoms of one thing, deconstruct them into their base form of protons and electrons and the like, and then subsequently reconstruct them into anything else of equal mass. You certainly can't do it with fancy circles and arcane writings on the floor of a basement with no modern technology or science, but with science and technology the way it is... Well it's a lot more realistic than it sounds. To think of the implications of being able to transmute substances into other substances, nonrenewable resources like oil could be supplemented with renewable resources transmuted into them. Economies could be stableized with secret addition of transmuted gold to the nation's treasury. It's an interesting thought to say the least.

Well now that I have gone off on a tangent and explained in detail how this classic has persisted through time I think it would be a good idea to wrap up this post. So until next time, goodbye!

The Illiad/Oddessy-37

This one I had practically read already, I used to be obssesed with Greek mythology. So I had heard of most of the things from this out of context, reading them in their original form was interesting though

It's impossible to say that this book isn't a classic, it's so well known that almost everyone has heard of it, and many have read it. As for why it's a classic, well I suppose it is for largely the same reasons as Beowolf.

The stories themselves are interesting though, religious myths come from humanity trying to explain the things around them that they don't understand by attributing them to the gods. The siege of some city named Troy would hardly seem to be something unexplainable, wars aren't something you need gods to explain. Unless some unbelievable things happened in this siege. The fact that it lasted 10 years certainly seems unbeleivable, name one city that has ever had the provisions to feed it's entire population for 10 years straight without being able to resupply. I bet you can't, even with modern technology making it easier to store food for long periods of time, it's simply preposterous.

To add to that the battles that are described are ripe with divine intervention. Certainly some amazing things must have been happening to invoke the names of all these meddling gods at once. What could possibly have inspired these myths? Certainly these things couldn't actually have happened, but then where is the basis for these fantastic tales of this old religion?

I don't remember any details, but I vaugely remember this topic being covered on the History Channel, where they had found a city that resembled what might have once been Troy. It was patchy guesswork at best I assume, but I never watched the program. It does mean that there are researchers who are curious about what this book was based on though, so it isn't just me drawing these conclusions.

Well that's all I have to say about this one, so farewell!

E=MC squared-38

Finally, a book that explains Einstein's famous equation in plain English. It's about time somebody came up with that idea.

The book breaks down the equation into small parts and explains each of them in detail. Even the = sign has a brief history included. I always wondered how the = sign came to be the universally accepted sign in mathematics.

In addition to breaking down how the formula works, the book also gives a historical account of how Einstein came up with the formula, how it was accepted, and how it affected history.

I found it interesting that Einstein didn't actually create most of his most famous formula, he simply took the research of past scientists and put it together in a new way, that nobody else had bothered (or dared) to think of. It was rather like a simple math equation, 2+2, some scientists created one of the 2s and other scientists came up with the other 2, but none of them decided to throw in the + sign and get the result of 4. I blame the Church's tyrannical rule over every aspect of life back in those times. To go against the teachings of the church was to volunteer for a long and tiresome battle that usually ended in defeat and occasionally assasination. So these researchers managed to get their findings accepted and won the battle against the church, but didn't pursue that research further.

Einstein was simply the scientist that "threw in the + sign" as I put it, and the "4" he came up with was his formula. So a large portion of the credit for the formula goes to his predecessors. Not to undermine Einstein's greatness, he did, after all, come up with the links between the researcher's results, and that takes a high level of intellegence. In addition most science builds upon discoveries made in the past, so  it's still fair to say Einstein's formula is his own.

I was also struck by the fact that one of the world's greatest scientific discovries is made, and what is the first thing we do with it? We create a bomb and blow up two cities and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees a problem with that. Of all the things we could have used that discovery for, we use it to kill our own kind. I'm no pacifist, but that seems fundamentally wrong to me. Even more disturbing was that Einstien himself sent a letter to the president suggesting that his formula be used to create a bomb. So even scientists who should be seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge are instinctively thinking of ways to kill human life with their discoveries. An earth shattering thought for those of us who are convinced that human nature is anything but evil, and a confirmation of the obvious to those of us who already believe that humanity is evil.

Being somewhere down the middle of those two viewpoints this thought doesn't sit well with me, but it doesn't surprise me either, which is a fact that also doesn't sit well with me. I'd love to believe that human nature is good at heart, but the more I see of this sad world we live in the more I am forced to accept that this is not the case...

Candide-39

I'm not sure exactly what to say about this one, not only is this an old story, but it was originally in another language. So it's like watching a foreign Shakespeare play and trying to read the poorly translated english subtitles. As a universal rule translations never turn out as well as the original, and the formating is almost always messed up due to grammer differences.

So while the book was readable, the format was strange and distracting to me, and that made it hard to focus on the concepts presented.

From what I was able to make out despite my distraction, the book is a mockery of optimism as it was back in Voltaire's time. Optimism  was the belief that this was the best of all possible worlds and everything that is... is as it should be.

The characters in Candide are initially nobles in England who are pretty well off and have no real issues to speak of at the time. So it's easy for them to embrace the concept of optimism.

When Candide is kicked out of his home and exposed to the real world he see many things showing that the world is NOT all good and perfect, quite the opposite in fact. His noble attitude and ignorance of how things work in reality lands him in hot water frequently.

The other characters in the book who started off well are also exposed to the cruelties of the world when the castle they live in is attacked and overrun. So now all the characters in the book are given a reality check. The world does not fit into the idea of optimism very well at all, if this were the best of all possible worlds woe be to people living in other worlds.

The book to me seems to be a slap in the face to the well off nobles of Voltaire's time who hoarded their wealth while other people suffered. It seems to accuse them of being ignorant and complacent, as if they think that there are no problems in the world simply because they have no real problems.

Well it wouldn't surprise me if that's how nobles acted back then, they were born into wealth and power and never experienced anything else, so they wouldn't know about what the common people suffered through. It's pretty much the same thing today, only now it's worse because the people in power come from the common people and DO know about our problems, but now that their rich and powerful they don't care.

There might be other implications in this book, but I did not see them. So I'm gonna wrap up now. Goodbye until next time!

Born on a Blue Day-40

Another memoir of a person with asperger's. Still interesting, but I think need a change of pace now.

This book was about Daniel Tammet, who falls a little more towards the deeper end of the asperger's spectrum mentioned in previous books. But he also has landed close enough on the right end of the scale to be independent, and he has, like other asperger cases mild enough to be independent, is a savant.

In this case however, savant may not be a sufficient term to describe Daniel Tammet's abilities. He not only has the savant abilities that asperger's is thought to bring out, but he also has an ability called synesthesia. This syndrome links words and numbers to feelings and colors in his mind. The word Wednesday, for example, is blue to him, as is the number 9. The title of the book is derived from the fact that to Daniel the date January 31st, 1979 is blue, hence "Born on a Blue Day."

Daniel Tammet's synesthesia makes him a mathmatical and a lingual savant. He can solve complex mathmatical equations mentally in a process that he tries to desribe in the book that I couldn't explain very well without quoting the entire section he describes it in. In addition, languages come to him easily, so easily in fact, that he can begin learning a language and have a respectable cnversation with you in that language a week later (this was proven in an experiment where he tried to learn Icelandic in one week while being recorded the whole time, he succeeded).

On the other side of his asperger's syndrome, Daniel Tamet has several quirks that set him apart from normal people. He has a complusive need for routine and order, he eats the same amount of food for breakfast every day, drinks tea at set times during the day, and can't leave the house without counting how many articles of clothing he is wearing. Also the sound of a toothbrush scratching against teeth causes him physical pain, and other noises are simillarly uncomfortable.

Strange as these things are I can kind of relate. I follow a routine each day, and when I'm done with it and something gets added that I had not accounted for in the routine so far I get very annoyed, partially because of the work that I still need to do before relaxing for the rest of the day, but also possibly because it upsets the order of things I'm doing that day. I also do my chores in the same order every day, and often forget to do some of them if circumstances force me to do them out of that order.

As for the sounds, I have found that the sound of something scratching against the material used to make an image appear different from various angles is incredibly uncomfortable to me. I wouldn't call it pain, but I cringe a little whenever I hear that sound. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but I bet there are other sounds that grind my nerves in a simillar way.

I can also understand how the synesthesia works. I would not say I have it myself, or at least not at the level he does, but I find that certain words, or specific sounds in words, seem somehow... better to me than others. I hesitate because I can't really describe it. I also find that when I am trying to solve problems mentally I can often make it easier by picturing shapes that somehow fit together and form the answer in my head. Again I can't really explain how it works, and it doesn't always work.

One example of how the shapes help me process some things appears in my karate class. My current pattern that I need to master consists of 19 movements, normally I would never be able to memorize that many movements in the correct order while memorizing all the little details I need to watch in order to perform each move correctly, at least not without an insane amount of practice. However when I was trying to learn the movements I looked at them in my mind from what is simillar to a bird's eye view, and I saw that I was moving in the shape of an hourglass for all but the last 3 movements. For some people this would have no signifigance, but for me it allowed me to memorize all 19 moves practically on the first try (though the fine details of the moves still needed work, I'm not saying I mastered the pattern instantly, I just memorized it).

I can't provide examples other than that, because it's so spontanious that I can't pin down any other times where I used a simillar technique.

So the book was particularly interesting to me since I could relate in so many ways. Yet another enjoyable read.

A spontanious thought before I post this, I wonder how easily Daniel Tammet would learn a language that has a different aplhabet such as Japanese or Chinese. Since the letters themselves would be different it may have an effect of the synesthesia that enables Daniel to learn other languages so easily. based on how he describes the process it seems that his connections to the letters is a critical part of his learning the language. If the letters are new and unrecognizable I would hypothesize that it would be much harder for Daniel to learn the language.

Now that I have that out of my system I bid you all adieu until next time

Beowolf-41

I read this story that is considered a classic among classics, and I didn't see anything extrodinary about it. it seemed like a run of the mill hero vs monster strory. This put me off writing a blog post on it for a while, but I'm going to write it now before I forget about the book and have to re-read it

I could not imagine why this story was so highly regarded, so I did some research on it. I learned that this is the first epic poem written in English that we have discovered. So it marks the beginning of English literature. So I guess it wins points for blazing a trail for others to follow.

On further thought about how Beowolf seems like a basic hero fights monster story, and I realized that since every other book that has that type of theme is, in some small way, based off Beowolf. So the fact that this story doesn't have any of the other twists or surprises of other stories is irrelevant, since this is the foundation on which those books are built.

So beowolf itself isn't impressive to me, but the fact that it spawned all of the books I now read and enjoy today is worthy of praise.

Alice's Adventures Underground-42 to go

Yes I am aware that the commonly known title is "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." But The original story is titled "Alice's Adventures Underground" and that is what I read

I found the book rather confusing, reading it was like stepping into the mind of a madman and trying to see everything from a sane point of view. Practically impossible to do and rather infuriating.

Supposedly the story was created as a fairy tale made up on the spot for the author's niece or some other young relative over the course of several trips to a lake. Which largely explains the sporratic and confusing nature of the story. Reading the stories in their original form when they were made up spontanously on several occasions makes them inherriently confusing, since they wouldn't have been created with any sort of real plot in mind. To make things worse the character Alice was far from helpful, and was quite ridiculous, and seemingly insane. Her talking to herself and sporratic trains of thought matched the rest of the book in their ability to confuse and hinder comprehension

I was also thrown by the difference between the original story and the story most people have seen. I couldn't find any mention of the Cheshire Cat, or the Mad Hatter, or many of the other characters associated with "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland."

There was one moral I was able to extract from the insanity. In her interactions with various creatures Alice says things that, to her, are perfectly innocent, but are actually rather insulting or disturbing to the creature she is speaking to (talking about her cat to a rat for instance).

The same thing can happen with people in real life, if you don't think carefuly about what you are saying you could inadvertantly insult someone without even realizing it. Not the most earth-shattering moral I've encountered so far, but considering how confounding the story was I'm proud of my being able to extract any sane moral from it.

Perhaps reading the story that was originally published and made famous would be in order, since the original stories were only released after "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland" had been out for some time. If the more popular version became so famous I would assume it makes a little more sense, and perhaps I would then be able to enjoy the story a little more. However, as of right now I walk away from this book with my head spinning.

Look me in the eye- 43 to go

Another enjoyable read, this one was a memoir written by John Elder Robison a person with asperger's syndrome, a special form of autism that impairs the ability to interact with others normally

The book takes the reader through the life the author led as he dealt with this syndrome that, until he was fully grown for some time, nobody knew existed.

Living with an undiagnosed mental illness was difficult for the author, nobody else understood him, and he didn't really understand other people either, such was the nature of his affliction. Unlike many cases of people with asperger's syndrome, the author actively tried to fit in and develop relationships with others. These attempts were, more often than not, complete failures, but at least the attempts were there.

Despite the author's lack of social skill, which was improving, even if it wasn't on par with normal society, the author became quite famous. He had discovered in his youth that he had a savant-like ability to manipulate machines, especially where electronics were concerned. This talent was originally directed towards pranks and other childish fancies (that I found incredibly funny and ingenious, despite their childish nature ). However, as the author grew up his talents were dedicated to refining, creating, and repairing sound systems. His skill at creating these systems made his services very desirable in the music industry, eventually landing him a job with KISS, a band that was a worldwide sensation. The author was the designer of most of KISS's most memorable special effects (the burning guitar, for example).

However the author drifted away from the music industry and moved to being a designer of electronic toys, where he excelled once again. He rose through the ranks of the company he worked for, but then quit because working as an administrator didn't satisfy his creative urges, despite the good pay (I reference the concepts presented in Drive here, as this is a prime example)

His final profession was repairing high-end cars, he started his own business and did very well. His social skills had developed to the point that even though he wasn't exactly normal, he didn't stand out so much as a social misfit any longer.

The author reflected on his affliction after it became diagnosed for the first time. He speculates that aspergians ( the name he gives to people with asperger's) fall into a scale. There are people like him towards one end who struggle socially because their focus is more inward, but can still manage to cope in society, and these people are the ones who become savants. On the other end are those who become completely absorbed in their own world and never learn to socialize (the stereotypical aspergian).

This analysis stood out to me, as a person who frequently encounters difficulty in socializing, I am forced to consider if perhaps I fall on the aspergian scale towards the more outgoing end. I don't consider myself a savant, so I must be even further towards the right side of this scale than the author, but I can easily see myself on the scale. I have always had a hard time interacting with my peers, and I often prefer solitude over company. I have little control over my facial expressions, another symptom of asperger's, and I can't seem to fit in with the rest of society as easily as other people. Popular fads fly way over my head and are outdated long before I catch on, local slang terms baffle me, and I generally feel awkward in any social situation, even among friends and family sometimes.

Therefore if I were ever diagnosed with asperger's I would not be shocked in the least. However, I don't think that I am incapable of ever overcoming this, I have made many friends, and I continue to learn how to overcome my difficulties in interacting with others. Actually I do not believe that the realization that this condition might apply to me changes anything, whether or not I have aspergian characteristics doesn't change the fact that I am working to learn how to cope with them, and it certainly doesn't help or hinder me from doing so. It is ironic that I would make this observation that I may have a condition after I noticed and began to solve the symptoms, whereas most people operate in reverse.

This book provided an interesting topic to reflect on, and I am happy to have read it even if the reflection doesn't significantly alter my life.

Me Talk Pretty One Day-44 to go

I enjoyed reading this book, the writer is quite funny.

The book was a memoir of the writer's life, giving details on all the funny, and sometimes ridiculous, things that happened to him as a child.

This memoir was unlike any I have ever read, not in quality of writing (though it was stellar, make no mistake about that.), but in the purpose of it's composition. It wasn't some run of the mill success story, and it wasn't a tragic tale of the author rising to fame and then failing for some reason. It was simply a memoir writen by the author to tell the story of his life, and hopefully make the reader laugh while doing so.

The deeper meaning of this book may not be immediately apparent, it is such a comical book, and it isn't a story of someone who survived some sort of disaster (like the book "Into thin air") or someone dealing with an incurable disease (like in "Lucky Man," didn't blog on that one yet, but I'm getting there), but I think I can see what may be the underlying purpose of the book.

The author, throughout the book, tries and fails at many things, and overall seems like a talentless, largely unintelligent, social outcast who won't amount to anything. The lack of intellect is confirmed by an IQ test towards the end of the book, but then the test is explained to be an inacurate measurement, since it only tests logical thinking, which the author does not do much of.

So the image you get of the person the author is writing about is, all in all, a moron, but that "moron" is the author who is writing this quality (and hilarious) book you are reading!

So what constitutes intelligence? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I could never write a memoir of my life so far and make it as enjoyable as this. So am I actually less intelligent than this person who seems, in most cases, stupid?

The answer is no of course, but that answer doesn't solve the problem that created that question does it? So deeper thought is required.

The answer is revealed in something the author's boyfriend says (not word for word) "everyone thinks in different ways."

So while I excel in logical thinking, strategy, and simillar things (as well as writing fantasy, which doesn't really fit with the other things, but still...) the author excels in comedey and writing.

So we are both "smart." But my type of "smart" is different from the type of smartness the author clearly posseses.

I had always vaugely understood that some people who seemed stupid when directly compared to me in some things might very well be very talented in other areas, but I've never been presented with a solid example of that concept that could be related to me.

So this book was very entertaining, and it made me do some thinking, so I am happy to say that this book deserved it's spot on my 52 (er... 57) list.

Into Thin Air-45 to go

First, let me say that the 52 list has undergone drastic changes, it now has 56 books and not all the ones that were there before are there now. I will need to update the list on here eventually, but I can't do it this very instant so it will have to wait.

Now that I've covered that. I shall move on to the book

Into Thin Air was a firsthand account of what happened on Mount Everest in 1996, the year of the deadliest climbing season in the history of Everest, or at least Everest as we know it.

Written by Jon Krakauer, the book provides a detailed account of the expedition, as well as giving the history of other expeditions, most of them unsuccessful.

I found it incredible that, despite the vast experience of the Sherpas and expedition guide, and the extensive amount of equipment designed for high-altitude climbing, that Everest is still such a dangerous task

I also find it strange that people are seemingly compelled to undertake this seemingly suicidal task, whatever novelty they find at having climbed to the top of the world is lost on me, but evidently not on them. So kudos to you, Everest climbers, you have more guts than I will ever have, I wish you luck on your endeavor, even if I can not comprehend it.

Another thing that struck me as odd was the author's guilt at surviving. In the condition he was in there was no way he could have saved anybody who had died, yet he still feels guilty. Perhaps that's just my usual coldness speaking, but I don't see why he blames himself for the deaths of his comrades.

This story is tragic, but it is also a risk that every person who climbs Everest takes. It comes with the territory, if you climb Everest, there is a good chance something will go wrong and you will die, no matter what you do to reduce that chance. So I find the media's heavy involvement in the tragedy to be rather silly, they don't cover every successful expedition, but the one time something goes horribly wrong they swarm the mountain like ants on an anthill. That's the media for you, but it still seems silly.

Catcher In the Rye-46 to go

OK, before I continue with this post, I would like to establish that I am speaking with a somewhat biased opinion, the title did not intrigue me, and then after all the high praise for the book that I heard when I noted the boring title I had set my expectations rather high.

The entire book was about a boy named Holden Caulfield, a person who recently got kicked out of Pency academy. The book tells the story of his leaving Pencey and heading home, and taking his time doing it.

Holden is a very peculiar person to say the least. He is almost perpetually depressed, and can't make up his mind about anything. He is also a a self-confessed compulsive liar, which raises the question of if any of this actually happened. It COULD be one huge lie that Holden is telling for his own entertainment, or for some other random reason that may or may not exist, an interesting thought isn't it? Unless Holden was lying about his being a compulsive liar, which would make the story true. Which would mean he IS a compulsive liar...

Despite the little paradox I just presented, the entirety of the book was rather unexciting for me. Despite Holden being so peculiar, I didn't much like his peculiarity, and his manner of speech was odd, and rather dirty, I'd get myself into a lot of trouble if I suddenly started speaking like Holden.

However, perhaps my perception of the book would have been different if I wasn't looking for the reason a friend of my Dad named his son Holden to honor the book. After hearing THAT my expectations were somewhat on a god-like writing level, seeing as even my favorite books would never inspire me to do something like that. Since the writer of this book was obviously not god I guess I was setting myself up to be disappointed.

Salem's Lot-47 to go

This one is on the list!? I would have read this book even if it wasn't, Stephen King is an awesome writer, I have enjoyed all of the books by him that I have read, and this one is no exception

This book was about a small town called Salem's Lot that a vampire comes to feed in. The characters in the story eventually realize something is wrong and try to stop the vampire. The characters consist of Ben, a writer who returned home to use an old haunted mansion as inspiration, Susan, Ben's recently acquired girlfriend, Mark, a kid obsessed with monsters, Father Callahan, a drunken priest, and Mike, an English teacher.

Other characters are introduced, but mainly they just turn out to be vampire food. None of them play a major role in the story.

The story begins rather slowly as the vampire moves in and establishes his cover and takes in his first few victims. At that point nobody realizes what is happening, but slowly the pace picks up as several people have unexplained deaths (and become vampires) and the main characters get suspicious. Then accelerates more as the number of vampires practically doubles each night.

Towards the end of the story the characters do battle with the original vampire, named Barlow (and who claims to be older than the church, and thus has a over sized ego. A vampire's age is an indicator of superiority and power, that's not said in the book, that is just me having read so many vampire books that I am pretty much the ultimate authority on them. The same goes for most monsters in books, but I digress).

I won't spoil the outcome of the battle(s), nor will I say what the fates of each character was.

All things considered, I'm not sure what to reflect on here, it seemed to me that this was just a very good vampire novel, and it isn't even the original vampire novel (even though it is good enough, but Dracula is probably the first popular vampire themed novel, and legends of vampires go back so far before books that determining the original source of the legends is impossible.

I guess I will end now and allow comment questions to provoke deeper thought about this one, but I can't think of what they will be.

So good night, don't let the vampires bite. *insert evil laugh here*

1984-48 to go

This book was surprisingly well known, two teachers on two separate days commented on me reading it. One of them said I need to understand the Russian Revolution in order to truly understand the book.

I don't know the first thing about the Russian Revolution, (or about almost anything involving Russia for that matter, though I know about the cold war because it involved the USA and was briefly covered in my World History class, but I digress...) so I am guessing I won't get as comprehensive of an understanding of this particular book as I did the other books so far.

The book was about this "negative utopia" (term used in book synopsis, and i can't think of a better term for it) that wasn't a utopia in the classical sense (no war, high quality of life, freedom, etc...), in fact it was the exact opposite of a standard utopia. It is hard to describe the lack of intellectual freedom the characters posses. The "thought police" arrest the citizens of the negative utopia if they even begin to think of things that go against "the party" that rules it.

Also the concept of "big brother" is used throughout the book in a very literal sense. The concept that the government is always watching everything we do is made literal. Every house has what is called a "telescreen," which is like a television, only it goes both ways in order to monitor people. Also the icon of big brother is used in posters that are designed so that the eyes of the poster look like they are following and watching you (and judging by the theme of the book I guessed that they might actually be watching you, even though the book never says it).

This society uses propaganda in the extreme, It is currently allied with one of the other two societies and is at war with the other, four years ago they were at war with their current ally and allied with their current ally, but    propaganda is used to the point where most people, if asked, will say that the situation has always been as it is now and that it never could be otherwise, even if they were alive four years ago when this was not the case.

Another defining factor is the new language that people use called "Newspeak," English is refered to as "Oldspeak." Usually new languages are designed to have multiple words for as many things as possible, "newspeak" is designed to have as few words as possible (e.x. there is no horrible or terrible, or even bad, they simply call a bad thing "ungood" and say "doubleungood" to say something is really bad)

Finally the purpose of all the war and propaganda is to keep the population mindlessly living (with the thought police arresting anyone who thinks) and to keep the quality of life as close to barely surviving as possible. The book has a section that explains the system very completely, but it still seems somewhat ridiculous even in that context.

Overall the whole governmental system seems like it should collapse, but amazingly the citizens are kept so ignorant that the system works. The fact that the thought police arrest people for even thinking anti-government things helps, but it all seems very unreal to me.

All in all this book was very strange, and I am almost in agreement that I can't understand it without something to compare it with, it is just that foreign to me. Though I was getting a communism vibe from the book due to everyone calling each other "comrade" and the structure of the governments seeming similar. Perhaps the Russian Revolution my teacher mentioned is when Russia became the communist Soviet Union? That would explain why I was getting the communist feel from the book.

I'm typing up a lot of "maybes" and "I don't knows" so I think I will stop speculating, perhaps I will re-read the book after learning about that Russian Revolution in history class and then come back to this post and revise it with my new understanding, but right now the whole book seems far-fetched and ridiculous, and for someone like me who reads a dozen fantasy books a week that's saying something. I could go on and give you a book report on this book and tell you exactly what happened, why it happened, and all the positive and negative connotations of each event, but I can not understand how such a government could ever come to be and continue to work.

Drive

Firstly, this book is not on the 52 list, but I recently heard that I should include as many books on my reading list that I send to colleges as possible, and this one was pretty darn interesting, so I am going to give it it's own blog post.

I'm also considering creating another blog for my non-classic books, but it will not be as sophisticated as this one, since I read books so fast that if I did a post like this for every one and then answered thought provoking questions afterwards that blog would consume my life!

Now to get on topic

The book "Drive" is about what motivates humans to do things and how that relates to business.

It says that businesses today operate on what it calls "Motivation 2.0," which is essentially a basic carrot and stick reward system, you do what the company wants, the company gives you money and benefits.

It goes on to say that people can not operate efficiently using this system because it does not provide intrinsic motivation, which is an actual enjoyment of the task at hand. It provides extrinsic motivators like money, but those motivators actually wind up providing a negative effect on our motivation.

The book then proposes the concept of a system upgrade to "Motivation 3.0," where extrinsic rewards are given, but intrinsic motivators are also incorporated through various methods. The main method of doing this is to encourage autonomy, also known as self direction. Basically the book says that if someone isn't pressured to do something a specific way and are allowed to engage their creativity then they will not only do the work, they will do it efficiently and enthusiastically.

An example of how this would work is given. Imagine that it is Friday and a large batch of posters that need to be packaged into tubes so that they can be mailed out by Monday, so your workers need to work on the weekend, which is something they don't normally do. In "Motivation 2.0" we would simply see a increase in pay for the work, and a set method of how and when the posters should be packaged (e.x. work from 3:00-6:00 p.m, and roll the posters up exactly like this) . In "Motivation 3.0" you allow the employees to work out how they do the work, just so long as they get it done by the deadline. Allowing workers to control how they get this work done makes it seem like less of a big hassle, and by extension motivates the workers to do it more than just giving them a bigger paycheck.

The book also goes into numerous experiments that were used to discover that offering money as a reward for tasks can actually decrease motivation. One such experiment was performed with puzzles and  two groups. The first group was offered a reward for  solving puzzles, the other wasn't. After a certain time the researchers said they would need to leave in order to get another puzzle, but actually they left in order to observe the test subjects. The group getting paid for each puzzle they completed continued to do puzzles for a little while, but soon stopped. The group with no rewards continued solving puzzles for the fun of it for almost three times as long as the reward group.

The results of this test indicate that people motivated by intrinsic motivators are more motivated than people encouraged by extrinsic motivators.

That was just one example of a test backing these conclusions, there were plenty others proving that intrinsic value increases efficiency and motivation.


As I read this book I thought about my own job working as a secretary of sorts for my Mom so that I could afford certain things that I want to buy. I Always find the work incredibly dull and tiresome, all it requires of me is the repetition of the same actions over and over. I can't manage to do that work without having music playing to engage my creativity. Even with music I am sick of the work after a few hours, and the motivator of money is barely enough to keep me working.

I imagine that if the work allowed more creativity that I would be almost eager to work, how that could be accomplished is beyond me, but the point remains that if there was any intrinsic value in the work I would be a much happier worker. I would also be a better worker, I start my day working at a very fast pace, but as I grow bored I slow down substantially.

I also connected this to my love of science fiction and fantasy novels, they engage my creativity just because of their nature, whereas non-fiction or historical fiction novels that I dislike with a passion do not engage creativity, again due to their nature.

This book gave me a lot to chew on, and I am mulling over ways to implement intrinsic motivation into my business, but seeing as I'm not sure what type of business I will run most of my ideas end in "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it." I believe there was a section about how this could potentially be applied to business, but I only skimmed that part since it wasn't actually part of the book (it was an extra thing added to boost sales, and those are usually almost worthless, though if there was an exception it probably would have been this...)

Brave New World- 49 to go

This book has been switched on and off the 52 list countless times, so my blog post here has been delayed since I didn't know if it was a blog book or not

Brave New World is a book that describes a "perfect" society, Things such as poverty, starvation, war, etc... have all been eliminated. On the other hand, things such as creativity, personality, free will, etc... have also been crushed

People in this society aren't born, they're made. Thousands of clones are created to have specific levels of intelligence and physical strength. They are then conditioned from the day they are "born" so that they will be perfectly content with the job they have been created for. They are also conditioned to hate books and nature, because the books may ruin their other conditioning, and nature lovers don't increase production, so there is no reason to let them love nature.

I could go on and explain the system for the duration of a book, but that's been done by the author already, so I think I've given a basic overview.

One more aspect worthy of note, people are conditioned to not only love their work, but to love "erotic play" and "soma." Erotic play is just a fancy way of saying flirting and seducing. Soma is a drug that everyone takes in order to have a drug induced vacation.

The conflict in this book occurs when a man from the "savage reserve," which is closer to our society in structure, and closer to an Indian technology level, is brought into the "civilized world"

Obviously problems occur when someone without all the conditioning others have is brought into this conformist society. This is the thing driving the plot of the book onward to it's eventual conclusion.

Now that I have given a book review of the book, lets move on to a question that I know my mom will ask in her comment if I don't answer it now.

"Would you be happy in this perfect world?"

My answer is that I don't know. I imagine that if I received all the conditioning of someone in Brave New World I would be happy. That's the point of the conditioning, but this happiness is artificial and thus false. As someone from the outside of this world looking in, I can't imagine being happy in it. Sure the constantly having girls trying to seduce me would be nice, but everything else would be miserable unless I was conditioned to love it.


The thing I liked most about this book is that it offered a glance at a world that is, in a sense, perfect, but at the same time it made that world seem so strange that it becomes repulsive to the reader, when the society doesn't really have anything wrong with it, it's just so different from what we know that our minds refuse to accept it.

I would certainly recommend this book to a sci-fi reader, it can be confusing at times, but all in all it was a good read.

Warning, this book is suggestive, parental discretion advised

I always wanted to say that

Until next time folks
cmd1095