Leo Ou-fan Lee. Voices from the Iron House: A Study of Lu Xun. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.
In this compelling study Leo Ou-fan Lee sets out to complicate our understanding of Lu Xun, both as a human being, and in terms of the literature he produced. Focusing on such an extensively studied figure is not an easy starting point. Any scholar attempting to make true inroads into understanding Lu Xun is confronted with a seemingly insurmountable amount of secondary material on the subject. Yet the daunting task of providing new analysis is handled readily by Lee. The study is driven by Lee’s powerful conviction that Lu Xun, the deified writer of modern China, “has been essentially misunderstood in this process of deification” (p. vi). Lee’s mission is thus to rescue Lu Xun from previous scholarly interpretations which contribute to his misunderstanding. Combining biographical elements with convincing new interpretations of major themes running through Lu Xun’s work, Lee’s picture aims to restore “the artistic dimensions of his writings as literature, not ideology” (p. 191). This is the key in his attempt to “de-deify” Lu Xun. Such a picture, for Lee, returns Lu Xun to mortal status, full of “internal paradoxes and contradictions” (p. 191). What such contradictions reveal about Lu Xun and the time in which he lived are teased out in the chapters of this wonderful study.
The books ten chapters are broken into three sections. In Part One, although covering well-known facts about Lu Xun’s life, Lee skillfully fleshes out key influences on the early writer, including his research in traditional fiction. Part Two provides the bulk of Lee’s literary analysis, with three chapters that focus on the major literary styles employed by Lu Xun. It is here that Lee illuminates themes that he finds consistently in Lu Xun’s work. One such theme, captured by the brilliant title of the book, is that of the loner versus the crowd. Lee sheds light on Lu Xun’s personal affinity to the solitary loner figures, which are often contrasted with images of the crowd throughout much of his work. For example, Lee reads Lu Xun’s Madman in terms of this loner/crowd motif and concludes: “the Madman’s enlightenment becomes the curse of his existence and dooms him to a paradoxical state of alienation– rejected by the very people whose minds he wishes to transform” (p. 71). Lee finds this theme in many places, including the passage from which his title is drawn, with the “awakened few” struggling to wake up the “sound sleepers” suffocating in the iron house (p. 87). Lee concludes that the house is a double metaphor for both Chinese society and Lu Xun’s own mental state as one of the “awakened few” wondering how to “wake up” his countrymen, and for what purpose (p.194).
The final section of the book deals with this issue as it focuses on the relationship between literature and revolution. Challenging widely held views about Lu Xun’s position as a revolutionary, Lee points out that Lu Xun was a writer first, and a revolutionary second. Moreover Lee argues that in his early three-stage conceptualization of the role of literature in revolution, Lu Xun “in fact saw literature as being irrelevant to revolution” (p.136). What Lee uncovers is the tension that men like Lu Xun faced as they increasingly came to terms with revolution. This then is another major theme Lee finds in Lu Xun’s work, that of the struggles of the transitional intellectual. Lu Xun, he argues, was himself a man caught in an age of transition, and was very much “born into an old society and reluctantly drawn into the birth pangs of the new” (p. 194).
Rather than simply fitting Lu Xun into the teleology of CCP revolutionary victory, Lee discovers that his relationship to revolution was far more complex and fraught with tension (p. 149). What Lee finds is a man unable to place all of his hopes in the future, but who lived in the “dark present, on the eve of revolution” (p.173). This is extremely revealing, for it allows Lee to contribute a better understanding of Lu Xun’s ideas on revolution. Lee concludes that revolutionary victory simply did not enter into Lu Xun’s picture, rather he shows that for Lu Xun (in a striking similarity to later Maoism) “it is the prolonged process of revolution itself which defines the existential meaning of revolution” (p.188). Reviewers praised Lee’s groundbreaking analysis, particularly his ability to focus on archetypes in Lu Xun’s thought. Dolezelova-Velingerova appreciated Lee’s abandonment of prior secondary studies to forge his own view of Lu Xun’s psychological processes, but hoped for more discussion of his poetic language (Journal of Asian Studies, 47.3:604-606). Regardless, Lee has succeeded in doing something few other Lu Xun scholars have; to take Lu Xun off his pedestal and reveal the dark tensions he and other creative intellectuals faced as they braced and positioned themselves for the changes emerging on modern China’s historical horizon.
Emily Honig. Sisters and Strangers: Women in the Shanghai Cotton Mills, 1919-1949. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986.
In this brief but extremely detailed book Emily Honig examines several understudied aspects of the history of labor movements in Shanghai. As she discusses in her introductory chapter, previous scholarship on labor during the Republican period has focused on the emergence of new social relations and institutions as evidence for a new proletarian consciousness through which labor movements grew in strength and number. Honig argues that the role of women laborers in this process has been overlooked. Such neglect is particularly obvious in the case of Shanghai, where women workers constituted the majority of the labor force in its largest industry, the cotton mills. By focusing on this group, Honig reveals the complex process through which women workers developed the foundations of a new class consciousness. “Working-class consciousness, if it has any meaning, must be able to embrace multiple loyalties” (249). As this study illustrates, whom these women were fighting, and how and why they developed loyalties with one another reveals that the formation of this consciousness was as much a product of traditional loyalties and organizations as it was a response to a harsh new urban working environment.
That these women were exploited, often terribly, is clearly reflected in Honig’s carefully crafted chapters which portray these women’s lives inside and outside of the mills. Yet she reveals that relations between women and mill owners and managers were complex. Neither of these two groups was monolithic in its composition. Women came to the mills from different regions, and were segregated on the basis of native place. This division was further complicated by imperialism, “which served to intensify the antagonism among the mill workers” (76). Subei workers, for example, were more likely to take jobs in the Japanese-run mills where they did not receive the poor treatment they received in Chinese-managed mills. Moreover, Honig considers a third force in her analysis: the Green Gang. She argues that as operators of kidnapping rings and labor contract syndicates the Green Gang was as likely to be the target of protest as were foreign or domestic capitalists (247).
In her final chapter, Honig presents a vivid narrative of a violent protest that occurred in 1949 at a major mill in Shanghai. Women at the mill acted together, and were supported by workers at other mills and by women in other occupations such as dancehall workers. This event, led by women laborers, stands out for Honig as “a transcendence of the parochialism that had inhibited women’s movements in the past” (245). They had first developed quasi-traditional organizations like ’sisterhoods’ (jiemei hui), through which they aided and protected on another. The change that occurred in the late 1940s that enabled these small, native-place based organizations to develop into more politically conscious groups, Honig argues, was the vision and training provided by such new institutions as the YWCA. Honig reveals that the YWCA in particular provided women with political education through its night school, and held numerous solidarity-building social events (222-3). At the same time, the CCP made new efforts to work within traditional women’s organizations and spread the party’s vision (229).
The book’s organization and Honig’s presentation of her arguments are extremely clear. Her chapters build logically from one another and construct pictures of women’s working conditions that are not burdened by excessive analysis. Reviewing the book, Mary Rankin’s only issue takes issue with this parsimony, in that she finds that Honig’s “concluding chapter does not do full justice to the analytical possibilities of the material.” Rankin does, however, praise Honig’s use of such diverse source materials as sociological surveys, newspapers, and personal interviews that she conducted with former workers from Shanghai (The American Historical Review, 92,4:1016-7). Most importantly, Honig succeeds in crafting a study that brings to light women’s actions and agency in the formation of Chinese modernity, thereby adding considerably to knowledge of the historical experiences of this very understudied segment of China’s population.
Here is a little something something I wrote after reading a chapter from Wild at Heart:
I am in a battle for the heart: a battle for my own heart to be set ablaze with love. I am also in a battle for the hearts of my generation to be set from all the chains that weigh them down. That their hearts would truly find themselves in God. Lastly, I am in a battle for the Lord’s heart. The longing of his heart is to show compassion on his people, that Israel would be saved, for his plan for the world to come to fruition, and for to be fully destroyed.
I am truly in a real battle. Not with bullets or swords, but with the power of prayer, love, and the word of God. This is for the sake of real people’s hearts and the fate of the world. I am in a battle for the heart.
The Wind Singer by William Nicholson is the first book in the trilogy. There are three main characters, twins named Kestrel and Bowman, and their friend, Mumpo who live a utopian society, or at least that is the idea. Everyone gets rankings, and can build up their status and wealth by succeeding in the tests taken every year. Obviously, there are leaders who have to work to keep this world working, so that there are no rebellions. Kestrel and Bowman’s family is one of the few who speak out against the community. One day, Kestrel angers the leaders, and has to hide, because she is wanted by the police figures. So Kestrel and Bowman, who are then followed by Mumpo have to flee the city and free everyone from the hold of the Morah, the evil force that causes unequality, hatred, injustice, and everything wrong about the world.
The first book may seem a bit childish but the later ones are much more complex, because the characters grow older physically and mentally as they undergo many challenges and hardships. I suppose I like it more than others because I read the first one when I was young, adn the later ones as I got older, so I kind of grew with the characters.
As a random comment about William Nicholson and his books, they are unusually difficult to find. The second one in the series is no longer being published, it is not sold in normal stores, and the other books/series he writes are also difficult to find, they are not in many stores, but I’m pretty sure that they are still in print.
I finished reading Moby-Dick mid-January as one of the goals I set myself for a New Year’s Resolution. Moby-Dick is one of those books you promise yourself you’ll read but never get around to it.
But if you do get around to it, Moby-Dick delivers a novel on an epic scale which rewards patient readers. It’s long and it’s hard to get into at first, because the opening chapters deal mainly with just Ishmael setting the scene for what happens in the rest of the novel – as well as his musings on the lives and times of his fellow whalers.
The novel is larger than life but contains a lot of realism about the details of maritime whaling history – references to maritime law, the process of whaling and the actual extraction of whale oil from the animal. It doesn’t sound like riveting reading but Melville is such a skilled writer that he ties together references to Shakespeare and the Bible with what is essentially a historically accurate (yet fictionalised) account of whaling times.
When I read a novel on the first go, I don’t normally go into too much detail lest I spoil the ending or something, but what I can say about the book outside of a literary appraisal is that if you have a young man who is getting into reading books in your family, they would do well to read this book out of the personal growth and perseverance they will develop over the course of reading and finishing one of the great novels of American literature. It’s not for everybody, and squeamish people who enjoy the idea of whales not suffering might be put off by it. But I’d definitely recommend reading it, because by teaching yourself to develop an attention span long enough to read an entire novel of this size and literary depth, you’re learning a skill you should be developing over the course of your entire life. Oh, and there’s musings on the human condition too. I give this book five stars.
J. D. Salinger on Time Magazine September 15, 1961
J. D. Salinger, American storyteller, who was born on January 1, 1919, died three days ago at his home in New Hampshire, at the age of 91. (Have you noticed how long people are living nowadays? Isn’t it great!) Salinger’s stature rests primarily on one novel, three novellas, and a handful of short stories, and while the literary world is holding its collective breath over the possibility of new posthumous works, Salinger’s status as one of the giants of American letters is secure, even if nothing new is ever forthcoming.
Salinger’s greatest strength as a writer was his ability to create flesh and blood characters, and breathe life into them. I know of no other author whose characters come to life more vividly than Salinger’s. If I were asked to name just a few of his greatest creations, I would begin with Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye, the title characters from Franny and Zooey, Seymour and Muriel Glass from A Perfect Day for Bananafish, and Boo Boo Tannenbaum from Down at the Dinghy. I could go on and on, and it pains me not to mention a whole host of his minor characters, all of whom are drawn with unerring accuracy and attention to detail. I must mention, however, the extraordinary success that Salinger achieved in his portrayals of children. If you have read his short stories, take another look at Sybil in Bananafish, at Lionel in Down at the Dinghy, and at Teddy and Booper in Teddy. In his portrayals of children at least, Salinger’s achievements have not only never been exceeded, they are unequaled.
A key component of Salinger’s success in characterization was his uncanny ear for dialog. If there is a writer’s equivalent of perfect pitch in a musician, Salinger had it in spades. When his characters speak, we can see right into their souls. We learn at least as much about them from how they speak as from what they say.
To illustrate this, I have reproduced below a short excerpt from A Perfect Day for Bananafish. One of Salinger’s most compelling stories, Bananafish is my idea of the perfect short story. If you haven’t read it, you should run – not walk – to your nearest library or bookstore, pick up a copy of Nine Stories, and read the first story.
A Perfect Day for Bananafish (excerpt)
There were ninety-seven New York advertising men in the hotel, and, the way they were monopolizing the long-distance lines, the girl in 507 had to wait from noon till almost two-thirty to get her call through. She used the time, though. She read an article in a women’s pocket-size magazine, called “Sex Is Fun-or Hell.” She washed her comb and brush. She took the spot out of the skirt of her beige suit. She moved the button on her Saks blouse. She tweezed out two freshly surfaced hairs in her mole. When the operator finally rang her room, she was sitting on the window seat and had almost finished putting lacquer on the nails of her left hand.
She was a girl who for a ringing phone dropped exactly nothing. She looked as if her phone had been ringing continually ever since she had reached puberty.
With her little lacquer brush, while the phone was ringing, she went over the nail of her little finger, accentuating the line of the moon. She then replaced the cap on the bottle of lacquer and, standing up, passed her left – the wet – hand back and forth through the air. With her dry hand, she picked up a congested ashtray from the window seat and carried it with her over to the night table, on which the phone stood. She sat down on one of the made-up twin beds and – it was the fifth or sixth ring – picked up the phone.
“Hello,” she said, keeping the fingers of her left hand outstretched and away from her white silk dressing gown, which was all that she was wearing, except mules – her rings were in the bathroom.
“I have your call to New York now, Mrs. Glass,” the operator said.
“Thank you,” said the girl, and made room on the night table for the ashtray.
A woman’s voice came through. “Muriel? Is that you?”
The girl turned the receiver slightly away from her hear. “Yes, Mother. How are you?” she said.
“I’ve been worried to death about you. Why haven’t you phoned? Are you all right?”
“I tried to get you last night and the night before. The phone here’s been – ”
“Are you all right, Muriel?”
The girl increased the angle between the receiver and her ear. “I’m fine. I’m hot. This is the hottest day they’ve had in Florida in – ”
“Why haven’t you called me? I’ve been worried to – ”
“Mother, darling, don’t yell at me. I can hear you beautifully,” said the girl. “I called you twice last night. Once just after – ”
“I told your father you’d probably call last night. But, no, he had to – Are you all right, Muriel? Tell me the truth.”
“I’m fine. Stop asking me that, please.”
“When did you get there?”
“I don’t know. Wednesday morning, early.”
“Who drove?”
“He did,” said the girl. “And don’t get excited. He drove very nicely. I was amazed.”
“He drove? Muriel, you gave me your word of – ”
“Mother,” the girl interrupted, “I just told you. He drove very nicely. Under fifty the whole way, as a matter of fact.”
“Did he try any of that funny business with the trees?”
“I said he drove very nicely, Mother. Now, please. I asked him to stay close to the white line, and all, and he knew what I meant, and he did. He was even trying not to look at the trees – you could tell. Did Daddy get the car fixed, incidentally?”
“Not yet. They want four hundred dollars, just to – ”
“Mother, Seymour told Daddy that he’d pay for it. There’s no reason for – “
“Well, we’ll see. How did he behave – in the car and all?”
“All right,” said the girl.
“Did he keep calling you that awful – ”
“No. He has something new now.”
“What?”
“Oh, what’s the difference, Mother?”
“Muriel, I want to know. Your father – ”
“All right, all right. He calls me Miss Spiritual Tramp of 1948,” the girl said, and giggled…
Isn’t that amazing? Don’t you feel like you know these people, after just a few minutes of dialog? This is Salinger’s great gift: He creates real people. Characterization is far more important to him than plot. The plot serves primarily as a way for him to reveal his characters. We, the readers, feel that we know them. Within a few lines, their issues, their lives, become important to us, and we care about them.
If you haven’t read Salinger, I would begin with The Catcher in the Rye. It is a classic, and mandatory reading for everyone. Then I would pick up his volume of his Nine Stories, and read A Perfect Day for Bananafish, Down at the Dinghy, and Teddy. For your next course, read Franny and Zooey, and if you still hunger for more, read Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymore – An Introduction and the rest of Nine Stories. You may get hooked on Salinger, but you will never regret a single minute of the time you spend with him.
I can see you now, “What’s with this dude and British authors, anyway?” Or perhaps you’re saying. “Hey. Alex. You’re from America. Read American.” To which I say, “Ptttttttthhhhh.” Just for that, I’m reading Nail Gaiman next. Serves you right!
Anyway, this review will only encompass the first installment in this series, because if you want the other books reviewed, you’ll just have to wait for the future. I’m not at your every whim, you know.
“A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” chronicles the worst day of Arthur Dent’s life. He wakes up to find a construction crew set up outside his home, preparing to demolish his house. While objecting to this development, his friend Ford Prefect drops by in order to take him to a noontime drink. At this noontime drink, Arthur learns that the impending demolition of his house is the least of his problems.
See, Ford Prefect is an alien from the planet Betelgeuse 7, who happens to have been stranded on Earth fifteen years ago while updating the planet’s entry in “the most remarkable book ever to come out of the great publishing corporations of Ursa Minor” – The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. To top it all off, Earth is scheduled for destruction in order to build an Interstellar bypass, which will occur in 12 standard Earth minutes. Which leaves Ford with only one real decision – grab his friend Arthur and hitch a ride with the Vogon Construction Fleet as it swings by to wipe out our “Mostly Harmless” planet.
“A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” is a journey aboard stolen space ships, with the President of the Galaxy, as they journey to the planet Magrathea and discover the nature of their home planet and the Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything – the answer of which is “42.” Don’t Panic.
“I mean, here we are are on the run and everything, we must have the police of half the Galaxy after us by now, and we stop to pick up hitchhikers. Okay, so ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, yeah?” — Zaphod Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy to Trillian, one of the last 2 humans in the Galaxy.
January is almost over, and I’ve just started to feel as though I’ve recovered from the holidays. The process of getting here has left me with that special mid-winter variety of brain drain that makes me want to read a lot and do very little else. And now, with snowpocalypse 2.0 on the horizon, there is a very real chance that I’ll spend the next several days curled up with a book. Nothing to complain about there, but the growing pile of books to be reviewed makes me antsy. So here’s what I’ve been reading lately.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
I read this for the LOST Books Challenge, and I have to say it was very interesting to revisit a story that I seem to have learned by heart without ever having read it. And the whole thing begins with Alice declaring that she is bored and uninterested in the book she’s been given to read because “What is the use of a book…without pictures or conversations?”
You know the story, too. Alice falls down the rabbit hole, finds a bottle marked “drink me,” and proceeds to grow and shrink and almost drown in a pool of her own tears, then she unlocks a little door and walks right into Wonderland. There’s the mad hatter whose clock is stuck at tea time and the caterpillar who makes her recite poems that she can’t seem to get right and the cheshire cat with his riddles and the queen whose response to just about everything is “Off with her head!”
Since I’m addicted to introductory material, notes, and bookish extras, the best part of revisiting this story was learning more about Lewis Carroll (whose real name was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) and the deeper themes of this work inspired by his relationship with ten-year-old Alice Liddell and her sisters. Though the introduction to this Barnes & Noble classics edition describes Dodgson’s relationship with the girls as “by all accounts innocent and kindly,” it also notes that Dodgson was barred from the Liddell household before Alice’s story was even completed. Definitely makes you wonder if something dodgy were going on.
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is an allegory for growing up and a snapshot of the nineteenth-century tendency to “disregard disorder and chaos as problems to be tucked away in regressive moments of dreaming and remembering,” and I enjoyed the opportunity to read this story for what lies beneath its surface. And the LOST tie-in felt obvious: just as Alice stumbles through Wonderland trying to impose order on chaos and make sense of her encounters with nonsensical characters, so the survivors of Oceanic flight 815 struggle to do the same on their mysterious island. See Lostpedia for more of the direct literary tie-ins.
The Wordy Shipmates by Sarah Vowell
Blame it on Nathaniel Hawthorne and that fantastic Jonathan Edwards sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” but I just can’t help loving the Puritans. That’s right. Loving them. I am fascinated by these people who were so convinced they were God’s chosen that they left their families and communities for what can only be described as a harrowing journey across the Atlantic to a new world of unknowns. Sure, they also believed this destiny entitled them to kill the natives, take the land, and impose their religious beliefs, but doesn’t that make them interesting?
This was my first time reading Sarah Vowell, and it was pretty much love from page one. Focusing on John Cotton, John Winthrop (author of the famous exhortation to be “as a city upon a hill”), and the social, political, and religious motivations of the people who founded America, Vowell brings to light the petty arguments, deeply felt convictions, complex relationships, and community values that, whether we acknowledge it or not, continue to form the basis of our society today. And yes, Vowell has her own political agenda here, occasionally pointing out that the things that make the Puritans sound crazy are not so different from the things that motivate members of other exremist religious groups to attack and criticize America today.
The post-9/11 context gives The Wordy Shipmates added depth, and Vowell presents her research and her just-subtle-enough jabs with a snappy pace and a hefty portion of snark. But the book is really all about the story behind the story, the seldom told history of the people who came after the Mayflower, and the complexities of their inner lives and their relationships with each other. The blurb on the back of The Wordy Shipmates calls Vowell’s Puritans “highly literatate, deeply principled, and surprisingly feisty,” and that sums it up nicely. The story is so interesting, in fact, that I didn’t even notice it is written as one long piece—no chapter divisions here—with just the occasional paragraph break.
Where the God of Love Hangs Out by Amy Bloom
I finished this book a week ago, and I’ve been trying to find a way to write about it ever since. My first experience with Amy Bloom has left me flummoxed and rendered me inarticulate. The stories in this collection are crafted so beautifully and packed with such emotional power that I am just in awe. But I’m going to try to talk about them because how else will I convince you to READ THIS BOOK NOW!
Where the God of Loves Hangs Out is comprised of twelve short stories, but it’s really more like two novellas plus four stand-alone stories. The first four stories of the collection present William and Clare, best friends who are married to other people but embark on a romantic relationship that will define the final chapter of their lives. Bloom alternates between Clare’s narrative voice in the first story “Your Borders, Your Rivers, Your Tiny Villages” and close third-person for the remaining three and paints a remarkably full picture of these two people and their families and the larger narrative of their lives at four distinct moments.
This section is followed by two stand-alone stories that I remember enjoying but that I didn’t find nearly as compelling as the William and Clare pieces. Then comes a four-story block about Julia and Lionel, a middle-aged woman and her stepson, who sleep together the day after Lionel’s father’s funeral and spend the rest of their lives trying to make amends for the mistake and repair their relationship. Bloom shows deft narrative skill in writing stories from Julia’s perspective, Lionel’s perspective, and close third-person, and I could not turn away from Julia and Lionel’s struggle to navigate the complex and long-lasting effects of one moment of confusing, desperate sadness.
I recently completed the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig, which, contrary to its name, is not a book about Zen or motorcycle maintenance, except in a very roundabout way.
The book is set in the motorcycle roadtrip of a father, the narrator, and his son, Chris, but the real meat of the book is contained in a series of chataquas, or talks, investigating a philosophical conundrum central to Western thought. Actually, it is the philosophical conundrum that defines Western thought, at least according to the narrator. The whole book is about the conflict between Value and Reason, and how reason came to be the dominant mode in Western thought and action. To explain this point, the narrator takes us through his past life as a philosophical genius-turned insane, as well as a quick journey through the development of Western rationality with the Greek philosophers.
I found this book riveting. You would think that a book that was essentially the absent-minded philosophical musings of a guy on a motorcycle tour would be pretty dull, but he relates the conflict between Value or Quality and Reason to everyday life and behavior so strongly that you feel like you are a part of the ongoing war. The absolute supremacy gained by Rationality in our society has had some pretty brutal aftereffects, but it wasn’t until I read this book that I began to understand the origins of the problem.
Pirsig does a great job of helping you take a step back not only from society, but from the whole mythos of Western thought, that great edifice of rationality that has become so powerful as to be accepted as the norm. The thing is, reason was not always the basis for making a decision. Scientific thought was not always the end-all-be-all of truth seeking. Of course, we would say that before then, people simply weren’t enlightened enough to use it, relying instead on inadequate forms. But Pirsig opens the reader’s eyes to the possibility that all this was just the result of some Ancient Greek mind games set amidst a great academic debate. It’s impossible to convey even the gist of the argument in a summary, and Pirsig not only does a good job explaining it, but also of setting it up. There is a lot of set up required to see the charade of Rationality, which is why it’s a long book.
If anything, this book really made me think. The truth is, I had always had misgivings about this blind reliance on reason, but it’s very difficult to argue against the variety of thought that is now taken as the definition of thought. I’m glad I finally sat down and read this book, and I will certainly think differently about my life and the most basic assumptions of the way I form my thoughts. I recommend this book to anyone who has ever had even a passing interest in philosophy or psychology, especially artistic types who have been frustrated by the argumentative, hyper-rational sciency friends. This book doesn’t repudiate science and reason, but it seeks to return them to their proper place as one of many tools in the great human endeavor of truth and meaning seeking, not basis for defining that endeavor.
This book was published in 1967 so it rather dated but the stories are not. The list of stories involved in this book are:
We Can Remember It For You Wholesale – Philip K. Dick
Light of Other Days – Bob Shaw
The Keys to December – Roger Zelazny
Nine Hundred Grandmothers – R. A. Lafferty
Bircher – A. A. Walde
Behold the Man – Michael Moorcock
Bumberboom – Avram Davidson
Day Million – Frederik Pohl
The Wings of a Bat – Paul Ash
The Man From When – Dannie Plachta
Amen and Out – Brian W Aldiss
For a Breath I Tarry – Roger Zelazny
I do actually wonder about the science fiction published in that year as Roger Zelazny features twice in this anthology, were the stories just not good enough or was Zelazny’s writing that much better than the competition? Don’t get me wrong, Zelazny’s writing is very good I did enjoy his stories, I just have to wonder, that’s all.
We Can Remember It For You Wholesale by Philip K. Dick was adapted into a movie called Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Reading the story again after all these years made me understand why Arnold Schwarzenegger got the role, he was just right for the part at the time. There are now other actors who would do a better job, I name Matt Damon as one, but Schwarzenegger was the best at the time. The only thing I have against Schwarzenegger in this role is his too memorable face. A secret agent shouldn’t look too distinctive as they need to fade into the background, or at least that’s what I’ve been taught by reading spy books by Robert Ludlum and John le Carre, and he just doesn’t do that whereas Matt Damon does. Anyway, this is meant to be a comment on the story, not the casting of the movie. If you’ve seen Total Recall you will have some idea of the story except in the story we don’t see the hero actually leaving his home town.
While I was reading the first part of Bumberboom by Avram Davidson I was also composing a blog in my mind all about books that have rather a large proportion of non-dictionary words that really need translating in order to be able to understand it. The story came good in the end and I was able to get the gist of what happened in the first half of the story but it was still hard going. I think I read the same page three times because I was so bored with it I kept putting it down after only a couple of paragraphs, it had so many words that didn’t make sense that I just couldn’t cope. I did make it through but it was slow going. The story was a lesson in reading instructions in full before using a dangerous machine.
Anyway, that’s just a taste of the stories in this book and now I’ve scribbled a little about it and recommended it to you I’m going to put it back on my shelf as I have no intention of selling it.
Author: Robert A. Pape Copyright: 2005 Copy: Paperback used during last year of graduate school while studying with Brian Houghton.
Gist: Pape is a social scientist that went about collecting data on every known suicide terrorist attack since 1980. He paid a bunch of college students to punch the info into some charts and then tried to make something out of all the data. In the end, what Pape identified from his research was that suicide terrorism is not the result of uneducated religious fanatics. He suggests that the tactic of suicide terrorism is a strategically logical technique used more so by non-religious terrorist groups to overpower otherwise superior entities. He cites the now defunct nationalistic LTTE terrorist group from Sri Lanka as well as some of the early Hezbollah suicide attackers who were non-religious, educated, and a handful of them were women. Ultimately, Pape tries to turn most of the Western preconceived notions of what a suicide terrorist is upside down based on his immense data.
My Ideas: There is a lot in this book that I could talk about. It was one of the most influential books for me while I was studying at the University of Hawaii doing my masters degree in political science. One little tidbit that I fascinated me was that Hezbollah is credited with being the first to develop the suicide bomber tactic, where one person blows himself/herself up to kill others. From there, members of LTTE were trained by Hezbollah in the Bekka Valley in Lebanon and the technique transferred to Sri Lanka where it was improved upon and elsewhere. Most people believe LTTE or others were the first, but Pape proves otherwise with convincing clarity.
But that’s not what I want to write about. I think the most important idea in this text is that suicide terrorism is almost always the result of one group of people reacting to a perceived existential threat that is brought about due to occupation. In other words, suicide terrorism is the result of occupation. I’ll write a few words about that and then I’ll talk about my definition of suicide terrorism.
It’s All About Occupation
If we were to look at almost every scenario where suicide terrorism is used, it is most often that the conflict is centered on the issue of occupation. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil minority that created LTTE felt threatened by the “occupying” Sinhalese majority. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Al Qa’ida (AQ) is reacting to a military occupation by the U.S. In the conflicted land of Pakistan, a number of militant groups feel the civilian government is not the true Islamic government that should be in power so the civilian government is “occupying” a position and land unrighteously. There are a number of other conflicts that all seem to center on the same issue. It seems that this sense of occupation is so frightful because it causes the minority, or those who feel their land is being occupied, to feel that their identity is being threatened. For example, by having American troops in one of the holiest of Islamic lands, Mecca, Muslims around the world to include Usama bin Laden (UBL) feel that Muslims and Islam itself is being threatened. This is a perfect example of what is meant by a perceived existential threat. Those who feel they are being occupied feel that their existence, their identity, is ultimately being threatened and they are on the verge of being labeled invalid by an occupying and often militarily superior power.
What I noticed about this idea of an occupying existential threat is that in order for the occupiers to be considered a threat, in most cases they have to have a religion that is different than those whose land they are occupying. Christian Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan or Israeli Jews in Muslim Lebanon are easy examples. Each of these cases involves an occupier with a different religion causing a perceived existential threat. Similarly, I have often wondered why the nationalistic issue of the Hawaiian Nation has not become violent. One of the reasons I’ve come up with is that those who feel they are being threatened by an occupying Western power notice that they can too easily relate to the “occupying power” on Christian religious grouns. The religion and language have become the same. If there were a more drastic contrast between the religion of the Hawaiians and that of the Western “occupiers” it is likely that conflict would have escalated to violence years ago. But, you don’t see many people who still worship Pele on the islands causing a sense of tension over religious differences. That makes it very difficult to feel threatened by those who you consider to be an occupier because there is too much common ground.
So how does this relate to our world in 2010 and the global terrorist threat? Pape suggests that in order to mitigate the threat of suicide terrorism the U.S. needs disregard what President Bush has said on the issue. Pape suggests that Bush was wrong when he stated AQ attacked us on 9/11 because of who we are and what we believe. Pape says that had nothing to do with it – it has everything to do with what we as a country are doing. It has to do with foreign policy, it has to do with military forces “occupying” Muslim lands – it has to do with our actions and not our beliefs. So, in that sense Pape suggests that we as a country need to reevaluate our foreign policy and the placement of our troops to see if they are contributing to or inhibiting our national security. We need to remove any troops of U.S. personnel who may be seen as “occupiers.”
However, this isn’t as easy as it sounds. By doing so we will have taught those who use suicide terrorism that it is an effective means of forcing the United States to bend to the will of terrorists. We as a country cannot allow ourselves to be coerced into taking action via a threat of suicide terrorism. It is extremely difficult to mitigate every terrorist threat because it means we have to stop every threat that exists, using every available means to thwart threats to the country, and that burns a lot of money and man power. Also, by showing terrorists that suicide is an effective means of dealing with the U.S. it proves to other nations and groups that they can use this technique in the future. Just like the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Lebanon in the 80’s. In the end the U.S. pulled our embassy out of the country. This was a huge win for terrorists because it proved that they were able to cause the mighty U.S. to leave the country. It caused the U.S. to de-occupy a location where the Lebanese felt an existential threat from the Israelis. Hezbollah saw the U.S. as the power behind the Israeli’s so they attacked us and won the fight. We cannot give into suicide terrorism like this again! It gives a false sense of victory to those who espouse terrorism.
What is suicide terrorism?
I have had a number of discussions on this topic with people who are supposed to be “in the know” but I’ve often come away disappointed with their definition. Here’s my contribution to the definition of suicide terrorism: any terrorist act where the willful and intentional taking of ones own life (not death by cop style) in turn takes the lives of those around you. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai on Nov 08 were not suicide attacks they were fedayeen attacks. These are attacks where the likelihood of survival is slim and the deaths of others were not dependent upon the attackers taking their own lives.
To be honest I don’t know why I make such a distinction and big deal about this issue. One thing is for sure, there is something very frightening and overwhelming when you know that an attacker is willing to take his own life in order to kill you. You know that his death equals your death as well. This isn’t the same with a fedayeen attacker (death by cop style). If I were in the middle of a fedayeen attack I know that if I can put the attacker down then I will have saved mine as well as others’ lives. If you try to take down a suicide bomber with an explosive laden vest it’s very possible everyone including yourself could die. At any rate, suicide terrorism is any terrorist act where the willful and intentional taking of ones own life in turn takes the lives of those around you. If you have questions about my definition I highly encourage you to leave a comment and we can keep this discussion going through the rest of the week.
Comments: That’s enough on this subject I think. I know I’ve bored my wife on this issue on more than one occasion – I hope I haven’t done the same to you my dear reader. It’s one of my personal favorites because the reality of the issue is often the opposite of what the usual Westerner thinks.
Next Book Review: I’ve taken the rest of the books I want to review and started placing them into more of a decent order for the following reviews. I’ve only got about 22 left on my blue book shelf. I either need to start reading again or find copies of books I’ve already read so I can be reminded of what I’ve read and thought about in the past. For next week I’ll be writing about a book entitled “Leadership on the Line.” I took a political leadership class at the University of Hawaii and had to read this little nugget. It has a few great ideas that I want to write about. The main idea will be about fear of loss vs faith in principle.
I am currently beginning a program that offers a free book and in exchange I am to write an open and honest opinion about the book whether good or bad. I am hoping to be able to join more sites which do this. I am waiting on my first book: Nelson’s Complete Book of Bible Maps and Charts, 3rd Edition. I’m looking forward to doing this as I love reading and writing so this will give me a chance to do both.
Rock superstar of U2 Bono published his 10 ideas for the next decade in the New York Times. I selected a few of these ideas with comments.
Half a million children in developing countries died of diarrhea this year. There is a vaccine for antirotavirus that could save millions of children. The vaccine can be delivered with the other available inoculations. Super rich Bono has established many humanitarian associations such as ONE and the label of RED products to fighting tuberculosis, paludism, and AIDS. Super rich and supper motivated Bono can start this campaign of vaccination and then play the catalyst for other billionaires, public figure personalities, and international organizations to taking over the movement.
Soccer “world cup” games for 2010 are organized in South Africa. During the games, many African civil wars will declare cease fire for the event. Between now and then, soccer is enflaming enmities among peoples instead of letting politicians fight it out: it is a shame that Egyptians feel so strongly of Algerians simply for a soccer game. In this century, people can still exhibit small mindedness; as if knowledge and simple common sense decency have never touched them.
Each individual should have the right to sell his polluting conduct to the heavier polluters and receive the money for his sustainable life behavior. The Ethiopian who is polluting the environment with 200 kilos of CO2 related chemicals per year should be paid by the US polluter of 20 tons.
I love the European Union dynamism: Do you remember the “Spanish auberge” movie where European students study in any EU State? Well, there is an extension to that program for small entrepreneurs. The Erasmus program offers stipends for entrepreneurs who manage to contact skilled entrepreneurs to be mentors and learn new techniques in administration and managing their business. Damn, I love to have dual citizenship with any EU state.
For example, the Netherland allocated one billion to cover salaries of part time workers so that companies retain qualified employees for better economic periods. What a better strategy to keeping people off the street and feeling worth as a person during downturn period. It is amazing that small Netherland, with no raw materials, and with flat land under sea water level can progress as a super wealthy society. The EU should move most of its institutions to the Netherland and be kept up to date to notion of courage and organization.
What I’m Reading Handle With Care by Jodi Picoult A Reliable Wife by Robert Goolrick
This is going to be a quick post, because I spent a lot more time talking about me and why I’m doing this than I had planned. But while reading today, there were two things that really stuck out to me.
I’m in the middle of Handle With Care, and the part that I read today just screamed my life. The two main characters, Charlotte and Shawn (I apologize if I misspell the names, by “reading,” I’m actually listening to the audio book) were fighting, and I had such a similar argument with my boyfriend just hours prior, that I had to force myself not to cry. The careless words that Shawn throws at Charlotte hurt me too, and they hurt when my boyfriend says them also. But my boyfriend thinks I can’t see his point of view, and he’s so wrong. I can understand where Shawn is coming from, just as I can understand where the basis my boyfriend’s opinions and thoughts are rooted. I wish he could only see and understand that, though I may not articulate myself well when I feel pressured and threatened, I really do understand. I probably understand more than he’ll ever know.
I just started A Reliable Wife today, and there was one quote that really stabbed my heart: “You can live with hopelessness for only so long before you are, in fact, hopeless.” Is that what’s become of me? Lately, I feel so detached from life. I hoped for quite awhile that things would get better, and when I didn’t start seeing results, I waited, without much faith, that things would get better on their own. Now, I don’t see things improving. Now, I’m not sure what I can do to work my way out of this mess. And I don’t care. I may still cry, but it’s over the emptiness I feel, not because of my hopelessness. Does that make me, in fact, hopeless?
In this video Sue Monk Kidd shares her journey of creative writing. It is shown that creativity is a rewarding process that one takes it with passion and watching for synchronicity.
Ten years ago Sue Monk Kidd was a traditionally grounded Christian writer. But like her engaging narrator Lily Owens, Kidd is on a spiritual journey, heralded by her 1996 nonfiction work The Dance of the Dissident Daughter and confirmed in this captivating first novel [The Secret Life of Bees] about love and forgiveness. Guided by bees and a group of women devoted to a black Madonna, 14-year-old Lily Owens embarks upon a spiritual quest that carries her through the shadow of racism and her own spiritual suffering and brings her to adulthood.
Title: Review of the Secret Life of Bees
Author(s): Ann-Janine Morey
Publication Details: Christian Century 120.4 (Feb. 22, 2003): p68-70.
Source: Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Jeffrey W. Hunter. Vol. 267. Detroit: Gale, p68-70. From Literature Resource Center.
Cover credit: Wasim Hetal. I've read the book on the top of the central pile (Amitav Ghosh's The Calcutta Chromosome).
There are two ways to parody a genre. One is to make a genre piece that continuously winks at the audience by breaking the prevalent rules, like the ______ Movie franchise. The other, superior, way is to make a piece that sticks slavishly to its rules, taking them to their logical extremes, as done most memorably by Samit Basu’s GameWorld trilogy (fantasy) and the movie Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (Hollywood buddy comedies); breaking rules is the job of genre artists (artistes?) who want to extend the genre.
When I use the word genre, most people will think of science fiction/fantasy (it’s just one genre, popularly known as SF/F) or crime fiction, and with good reason, for these are the biggest ones, the ones with the most devoted cults. There has recently, however, cropped up a new genre, which tends to write books that sound like J. M. Coetzee and T. S. Eliot having a joint colonoscopy; which is, down to every last example, heavily post-modern; which, in other words, has been desperately calling out for a parody. Even those that we enjoy, we enjoy because they make the colonoscopy sound mild. The genre is the ‘identity’ branch of Indian English literature, and the parody is Prashant Bhawalkar’s Unruly Times.
“Prashant Bhawalkar was” – as is written on the back of the book – “born in Mumbai and studied English Literature at St. Xavier’s college. Upon graduation, he worked briefly as a journalist and went on to study journalism at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) in Sydney, Australia. A naturalised Canadian, he has lived and worked in Sydney, Toronto, Singapore and New York where he currently resides. He enjoys reading the classics in translation (Greek, Latin and Sanskrit) and playing truant from work to go to the museums.”
Dushyant, the protagonist of Unruly Times was born in Mumbai, did his post-graduation in Sydney, is a Canadian national, lives in New York, and … enjoys reading the classics in translation (Greek, Latin and Sanskrit). I was wondering why there was no mention of Singapore or museums. Which is beside the point; the story is about him writing a novel which stars Advaita who does his college in Mumbai and post-grad in journalism in Sydney, gets Canadian citizenship … and enjoys reading the classics in translation (Greek and Latin only, but wants to branch out into Sanskrit). Thankfully, Advaita isn’t writing a book. If he is going to, it’s after the end of Unruly Times.
There’s three sorts of parts of the narrative at the Dushyant level, the parts where he’s writing, the parts where he’s reminiscing about his life, and the parts where he’s being criticised by an unnamed American woman-friend. In his writing moments, he is joined by the colourful and imaginary pair of Bhavabhuti, Dushyant’s fictional ancestor, and Macrobius, a symbol for Greek/Latin classic writers. In his comparatively rare reminiscing moments, he is… well, reminiscing about his experiences to get himself clear for writing his book. It is the third sort of part where Prashant (I feel like I’ve broken some unnamed barrier by calling him this, but I’m determined to, even if just for fun) really shines. His relationship with the woman is, down to every last detail, real. The fakeness of their political discussions, the hypocrisy of their acknowledgement of their hypocrisy, the metaphorical sense replacing logical sense for no other reason than to support one’s argument, I’ve been (note tense) these two. Take a look at the time when she first appears in the book.
They greet each other in French.
‘Bonjour, Mademoiselle’, he greets her.
‘Bonjour, Monsieur’, she responds, seemingly charmed that he has called her mademoiselle. Not only does it have more syllables (anything that has more syllables in French is charming), but it also makes her appear younger.
Dushyant begins with a diatribe against the unfortunate nature of modern civilisation and modern literature in particular.
‘You’re too young to be cynical. Lighten up’, she teases.
‘That is the problem with everything. Everyone has lightened up a little too much. It is why the world is in the mess it is in. Everyone feels entitled to their two-bit opinion, however stupid it may be.’
‘Stupidity – that great equaliser. It is what makes life worth living. If there wasn’t so much of it around, we wouldn’t appreciate the rare glimpses of brilliance.’
It is her criticisms of Dushyant’s writing (Dushyant hates the idea of having to produce post-colonial literature) as ‘not Indian enough’ – she repeatedly urges him to include a wedding –, and not in his ‘true voice’ (“It’s somewhat hoarse…”, he weakly replies) and his conversations with the ancient pair in which the satire really comes out (the book is a parody; the points are satirical). It is after one of these criticism sessions that the line that formed the title of my review came.
The rest of the book, especially Advaita’s story – written in a different, more rounded, font –, is a direct parody of the writing I mentioned. It uses a similar voice, the points made in all the discussions are a perfect mockery of what you get to see there, and Dushyant’s book veers into a more and more post-colonial mould as time goes on, though the ending gives hope for the future.
The structure is of Advaita’s story intercut with Dushyant’s tribulations during writing it. As I went further and further into the book, I was reminded of the Kurosawa quote “Take me, subtract movies, and the result is zero.” Finally, it is the last fifty pages, when Advaita’s story gets increasingly ponderous whereas the cutting to and from Dushyant’s story gets more and more hurried, that really got me laughing, with wierd situations, blind alleys and great misquotes (the pinnacle being one of T. S. Eliot’s about pants).
While there is a lot to be said about the book – chief being that his parody of the rather irritating style is never allowed to go on for too long –, there are problems. The first is the editing; I understand that the publisher Rupa is dedicated to providing cheap novels (this one cost around Rs. 200/$ 4, and it’s one of the most expensive I’ve seen them sell), but that shouldn’t mean that they don’t provide their writers with editors, though I do have to commend the cover they provided; a better edition to own than read. The second is that parts of the end are too preachy; the mockery is left behind to ‘seriously’ articulate some learnings about identity, which didn’t really connect. Of course, this may just be me because I read the book in four widely-spaced bursts and missed out on some continuity.
You must be thinking, ‘I thought it was a parody, why are there serious teachings about identity?’ The answer is that because it is the superior type of parody; the type of parody that is a quintessential example of the genre. You know, too quintessential. And, after all, Prashant only wrote it to write an Indian identity novel that wouldn’t be ignored by readers, like me, who are jaded and cynical about ‘identity’ novels. And you know what? It worked.
Pizza and pie lovers: Problems of etiquette and equitable portions; (Jan. 27, 2010)
This article explains how it took 11 years for the two mathematicians, Rick Marby and Paul Deiermann, to come up with a satisfactory resolution of how to split a round (circle) pizza or a pie equitably between two eaters. Marby stated what amount to this: “If a mathematician is unable to solve a problem then, it would be stupid to take on the challenge. We decided to play stupid. Paul and I are the kinds of mathematicians who take pleasure in the beauty of the demonstration: we care less for applicability of the concept.”
There are many cases of mathematicians working on problems that “consciously” have no practical applications; they do take the time to demonstrate their concepts and theorems and produce functions: applications materialize much later for the benefit of sciences. For example, the Italian Guiseppe Peano described in 1890 a function that filled entirely a finite space (a square in that case). A century later, this function turned out to be fundamental in fractal theory (applied in biological structures, in economics, and meteorology). Personally, I think that no one invest time on a project if there was no personal practical interest; the initial interest is so personal and feels un-important to colleagues that the mathematician is shy to state his “secret” interest.
Let us try to expose the problem. First, the two eaters have to abide by the etiquette that you cannot get another slice before the other has finished his slice. The portions are picked up clockwise for easy visualization one after another. Another restriction: all slicing lines cross a single point if the server is lousy enough not to cut along the center of the perfectly circle (geometrically) pizza.
Now, if one of the lines cross the center then, there is no problem of equitable portions (in the final quantity of devouring pizza), regardless of the design on the number of lines of slicing. If the pizza is cut in two parts then you know which part is larger when the line does not cross the center. Otherwise, for any even numbers of lines the equitability is restored, assuming you are abiding by the etiquette rule.
The problem gets nasty if the number of lines is odd. If the number of lines is 3, 7, 11, or 15 then the one eating the piece including the center will be at an advantage (this advantage is relative to the quantity and not what happens after eating!). If the number of lines is 5, 9, 13, or 17 then the advantage is reversed. That should cover the equitability problem.
Now for the remaining story: In 1967, the mathematician LJ Upton resolved the problem with four lines; then he threw the challenged to resolve the problem along that concept of equitable portions. In 1968, the problem of 8 lines was solved (mathematically) and for all even numbers of lines. In 1994, Marby and Deiermann accepted the challenge to study the odd number of lines slicing the pizza and not passing by the center. For lenient practical eaters it should not matter that much if the point is close to the center: the problem is to convince mathematicians.
Paul quickly found a “gorgeous” demonstration for three lines and it got nastier later on. The problem can be solved easily by induction using the current technology of measuring areas: in this case, induction reasoning on the possibilities is accurate since we are not taking samples in complex experiment with many variables (all we have is number of odd lines as variable). Rick and Paul wanted a classical mathematical demonstration, preferably the simpler and most beautiful demonstration. They had to skim the Internet for theorems and functions and discovered that in 1979 a mathematician got fun demonstrating the complex algebraic problem of rectangular strips (don’t ask me for further details).
If you ask me to take on the psychological characters of Rick and Paul, I may venture to say that this couple is voracious but pretty cheap.
The Bloody Jack series by L.A. Meyer has been on my list of books to read for a very long time now. Well, I have some good news-RRPL finally has the complete series, including the most recent installment of the series, book 7, Rapture of the Deep: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of Jacky Faber, Solider, Sailor, Mermaid, Spy. The first book in the series, Bloody Jack: Being an Account of the Curious Adventures of Mary “Jacky” Faber, Ship’s Boy, is also available on CD (but not now because I am listening to it). I just started it this morning and I really like it so far. I am making it my goal to complete the series this year, which shouldn’t be hard to do because I already love Jacky and can’t wait to read about all of her adventures as a cabin boy for the Royal Navy. What’s not to love? Incredibly long and descriptive titles? Girls disguised as boys? High Seas Adventures? Pirates? Sounds good to me! Check them out with me.
Award-winning writer Marcus Chown is on a blog tour down under to promote his latest book, We Need to Talk About Kelvin. And guess what – the man himself was kind enough to drop by to answer a few questions about his book, his writing, and his views on the universe!
Marcus is one of a handful of guys in the world that can make science sound interesting without making your head explode trying to understand it. He is currently the cosmology consultant of the weekly science magazine New Scientist, and is the author of hugely successful books such as The Universe Next Door, Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You and Felicity Froshiber and the Three-Headed Aldebaran Dust Devil.
In We Need to Talk About Kelvin, Marcus takes familiar features of the mundane world and shows, how in the light of our current scientific knowledge, they tell us profound truths about the ultimate nature of reality. For example, did you know that:
the reflection of your face in a window is telling you that the universe at its deepest level is orchestrated by chance? or
the iron in a spot of blood on your finger is telling you that somewhere out in space there is furnace at a temperature of 4.5 billion degrees? or
your TV tuned between the stations is telling you the Universe had a beginning?
Don’t worry, I didn’t know either.
Well, without further ado, let’s get this Q&A started!
Marcus Chown
1. Let’s get straight to the question everyone has been asking – just who or what is Kelvin and why do we need to talk about him/it?
Let’s hope you are right that everyone is asking that question! Because – well – that’s what I hoped. My book, in common with the books of every other author, has to compete with thousands of others in a bookstore. Why should anyone else stop for a moment and pick it up and read what it’s about? Well, maybe because the title intrigues them, because they think What’s that about? Who is Kelvin? Why do I need know about him? It seems to have worked with you, which I am very happy about!
I picked the title because, in the UK, Lionel Shriver’s novel, We Need to Talk About Kevin, about an American boy who massacres his schoolmates and half his family with a crossbow (!), was a huge best seller (Reading your question, I worry it might not have been so big in Australia!). People who recognise the pun, laugh, which again makes them stop and pick up the book. On 20 December, The UK’s Independent newspaper wrote: “The award for the cleverest title of the year goes to the popular science writer Marcus Chown for We Need to Talk About Kelvin.” But, actually, it doesn’t matter whether you recognise the allusion and chuckle, or whether you don’t recognise the allusion and just wonder Who the hell is Kelvin? The point is that you notice my book. Or, at least that’s the hope!
(Lord Kelvin was actually one the greatest physicists of the 19th century. He invented the “absolute” temperature scale which bears his name and was even involved in the laying of the first undersea telegraph cable between England and America – it snapped! – a task comparable to the Apollo program. Oh, and he spent much of his life trying to figure out why the Sun is hot, which is the subject of one of the chapters of my book, and why I sneaked him into the title. The book is subitled by the way “What everyday things tell us about the Universe”. And one of those everyday things is the Sun being hot)
[Editor's note: for the record, I did 'get' the title of the book. I just thought it was a funny thing to ask.]
2. You were formerly a radio astronomer at the California Institute of Technology – what made you decide to become a writer?
I always wanted to be a writer. But, when I was at school, I liked English – writing stories – and I liked science. Unfortunately, in the British system – and I hope it isn’t the same in Australia – it’s not possible to do both beyond 16. Personally, I think it’s stupid that you can’t do arts and science. But that’s we way it is. So I had to choose. And I chose physics, first going to university in London, then, as you say, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena. But I kept writing stories and I always wanted to get back to writing. So I decided to give up research in the US and come back to England and see if I could be a science journalist. And I’ve been working my way towards being a writer ever since. I’ve gone from science journalism to writing popular science books to fiction. The book I am most proud of and had the most fun writing is actually Felicity Frobisher and the Three-Headed Aldebaran Dust Devil, which is for kids – from 5 to 85. As a plot device it does use “wormholes” – shortcuts through space-time which are permitted to exist by Einstein’s theory of gravity. But, actually, it’s about having a very bad school friend who gets you into loads of trouble and it was just an opportunity to be very, very silly. It’s also autobiographical!
[Editor's note: luckily, in the Australian system, you can do both science and English. I didn't do science after 15 because I sucked at it and my science teachers (when they were not throwing dustpans at our heads) bored me to death. Funnily enough as a child, the first thing I wanted to be when I grew up was a scientist. If only I had Marcus Chown to explain stuff to me, then maybe my life could have been different.]
3. You have written books about the origin of atoms, quantum theory and a little girl by the name of Felicity Frobisher. Where do you come up with the ideas for your books?
The ‘origin of atoms’ book you are referring to is The Magic Furnace. I happened to go to some lectures while an undergraduate at the University of London. They were on “nucleosynthesis”, how the atoms in our bodies were forged inside the furnaces of exploding stars and the big bang. It blew my mind. We all think of the Universe as out there, not at all connected to our everyday lives. But it isn’t. The big and far away is directly connected to the small and close to home – the atoms in your body. The iron in your blood, the calcium in your bones, the oxygen that fills your lungs each time you take a breath – all were forged inside stars that lived and died before the Earth was born. If you want to see a piece of a star, hold up your hand. You are stardust made flesh. All this stayed in my head. Then, one day, I thought, I could write the story of how we made this discovery. Unfortunately, I didn’t realise how complicated it was and how long it would take me. However, The Magic Furnace is in my opinion my best book.
The other book you mention is Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You. It’s about the two major developments in physics of the past century: quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity. Quantum theory is our theory of very small things – our very best description of atoms and their constituents. It has given us lasers and computers and nuclear reactors, not to mention an understanding of why the sun shines and why the ground under your feet is solid. Einstein’s theory of gravity is our theory of big things – stars, black holes and the whole Universe. The reason I wrote about them was that, as cosmology consultant of New Scientist magazine, I’m often given books to read with titles like Quantum Physics for Dummies or Einstein for Dummies. And they baffle me, even though I have a physics background! So I thought I’d try and see if I could do better. The result was a slim, 200-page book, with no equations or anything like that. Writing it helped me understand quantum theory better. And it has surprised me and my publisher by selling far more copies than any of my other books.
Now to Felicity Frobisher and the Three-Headed Aldebaran Dust Devil! Well, as I said before, I always liked writing imaginative stories. So I thought I would write a children’s book. Because it’s a very competitive field, I thought: How can I be different? What can I do that other children’s writers cannot? And I thought: I can use things that I know about because I have a science background. That’s why I used “wormholes” as a plot device. They are shortcuts through space-time, which are permitted to exist by Einstein’s theory of gravity. But, actually, Felicity Frobisher is really not a science book. As I’ve said, it’s about having a very bad friend who gets you into loads of trouble. And it was an opportunity for me to be very silly (This reviewer really got what it was about… http://tinyurl.com/ylxeb6p). I had no idea what to expect. But I had an overwhelming response from children. And The Sunday Times, which never reviews my popular science books, called it: “One of the books most likely to fire children’s imaginations”. I had so much fun writing Felicity Frobisher that I am writing a sequel at the moment called Felicity Frobisher and the Newly Weeded Capellan Toast Weevil.
4. How long does it usually take for you to write a book? Is a lot of research involved? You don’t just make things up…do you?
Normally a year – although The Magic Furnace took me about 4 years and nearly drove me to drink! One problem was that I had left my staff job on New Scientist and gone freelance. I kept waking up in the middle of the night and thinking: How am I going to pay the electricity bill? Consequently, journalistic jobs that paid within a few weeks always took priority. And, when I got back to writing the book, I couldn’t remember where I’d got to. It didn’t help that the story of how we discovered where the atoms in our bodies came from was a complicated one, spanning astrophysics and nuclear physics and geology and chemistry. As I’ve said, teasing out a linear narrative was like trying to unknot a very knotted ball of string. To add to this friends kept saying to me: “You really want to finish that book, Marcus!” They thought they were helping but it was infuriating. I wanted to finish the book. Even worse, friends would come around and drink coffee with me and say: “You really want to finish that book!” They were drinking coffee with me, taking up valuable time when I could be finishing the book, while telling me I should finish the book! Anyhow, I did finish the book. And it’s still my best book, I think. But I vowed never to spend so much time writing a book again.
Actually, the idea for the next book occurred to me while I was writing The Magic Furnace. I noticed that, when I wrote articles for New Scientist or newspaper, I usually got no letters from readers. But, occasionally, I got an avalanche of letters. So I thought: Why don’t I write a book about the subjects that trigger an avalanche of correspondence? Can time run backwards? Are there multiple universes in which all possible histories occur? Was our Universe made as an experiment by aliens in another universe? The book became The Universe Next Door. It’s from a line of poetry by e. e. cummings:
Listen, there's a hell of a
good universe next door: let's go!
5. Do you have any quirky writing habits?
I can’t do it unless I’m stark naked with bells on my toes. No, I have all my clothes on! I just said that to make myself more interesting since my writing habits are so dull and boring. Basically, I sit with a notepad and write, crossing out most of it and throwing it in the bin with disgust. It’s actually my non-writing habits which are more interesting. Like most writers, I am constantly looking for some distraction. When my wife comes home from work – I work at home – I always tell her I’ve been slaving all day. Unfortunately, I give myself away with my comprehensive knowledge of which celebrities have appeared on daytime TV that day!
6. Tells us the story of how you got your first book published. And make it exciting (embellish if necessary).
I was chatting to Spielberg about the big bang and Spielberg said: “You wanna write a book about that, Marc.” And I said “You know, Steve, I’ve never thought of that. What a great idea. I think I’ll do it!”…
Actually, it was duller than that (isn’t it always!). In the early 1990s, a NASA space experiment called the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) observed the “afterglow” of the big bang fireball, effectively taking a “baby photo” of the Universe. So what? you might think. Well, after one of the scientists involved said “It’s like seeing the face of God” and Stephen Hawking said “It’s the discovery of the century, if not of all time”, the international media went wild. In the aftermath, the face of God man reportedly got a $2 million advance to write a book. At the time I was working as science news editor at New Scientist and I followed the story. Someone said: you could write about that. You see, I knew a bit about the background. So I wrote two A4 pages with bullet points about what was so interesting about the afterglow of the big bang and why it would make a great book and sent it to one publisher after another. They all rejected it, saying the $2 million guy was writing a book, why write another?
Then, finally, my proposal fell on the desk of Neil Belton at Random House. He said, yes there is this guy with the $2 million advance but we could get a book out quicker and ride on the coat tails of the publicity. So Afterglow of Creation was born (Actually, the best review was from The Australian, which said “Beautiful science, beautifully told”). But the fantastic thing is that my current publisher has let me update it and the new edition is published on 21 January 2010! It means a lot to me because in the Foreword I write about my dad, who had a quite ridiculous amount of faith me. It just so happened that, when I came to write the Foreword, it was the 10th anniversary of my dad’s death. I sat under a tree in London’s Hyde Park and just wrote. I couldn’t think of a better way to mark the anniversary. So it’s a very personal book. If you read it, you’ll also learn how I was Margaret Thatcher’s “first success”!
7. You’ve been called the Katie Price of science writers. Why do you think other science writers make science so bloody hard to understand? And do you like Peter Andre?
That’s me calling myself that! You see, I read that one of Katie Price’s books outsold all 100 books on the Booker Prize long list (That’s the most prestigious book prize in the UK) and she never wins any awards for her writing. I thought, I never win any awards either, and my books outsell just about every other science writer (except people like Richard Dawkins). So I thought, for a bit of fun, I’d call myself the Katie Price of science writing!
Peter Andre seems like a nice bloke.
I don’t know why “other science writers make science so bloody hard to understand”. Do you think they all are? Or just some? What I would say is that many scientists popularise. Some are very good, like Steven Weinberg, and some are not. What distinguishes the good from the bad is the time and effort they put in, which is a function of how seriously they view popularising. Weinberg takes it very seriously and even takes a year off research to write a popular science book. Others think they can dash something off in a spare moment. But I blame the editors. If they were doing their job, they would not be intimidated by big-shot scientists and would say: “What’s this? I don’t understand? What are you talking about?”
8. What advice or tips would you give to aspiring writers?
Be persistent. Never give up. It took me 5 years to get Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You published. Publishers rejected it, telling me it was “unmarketable”. It has outsold all my other books.
And lastly…just out of interest…in your opinion, what are the odds intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, and what are the chances that they have or will visit us on Earth?
I believe the chances of intelligent life existing somewhere else in the Universe is 100 per cent. It’s a numbers game. At least 10 per cent of nearby stars has planets. There are 200 billion stars in our Galaxy and about 100 billion galaxies. That comes to 2 billion billion planetary systems, or to put it another way, 2,000,000,000,000,000,000. I cannot believe that we are the only intelligence to have arisen in all those planetary systems.
The fact remains, however, that we have seen no sign of intelligence – though we have been scanning the Heavens for 50-odd years – and there is no sign that any ETs have been here (I write about this in my book, We Need to Talk About Kelvin).
Many believe that, depressingly, we are the first intelligence to arise in our Milky Way galaxy. However, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. ETs could be out there but difficult to spot. But, as the Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi pointed out, one of the most important scientific questions – perhaps the most important – remains: Where is everybody?
[Editor's note: I knew it!]
Well, that’s that! Thanks to Marcus Chown for stopping by. You can check out the rest of his blog tour spots at his website, marcuschown.com
Are you all done cleaning up from the Holidays? Did you receive a gift or two that you don’t know quite what to do with? Perhaps it is a vase that does not fit your decor, or a sweater that is not your color. Or maybe it is that other item that every time you look at it, you shake your in amazement that the giver actually thought this would be something you would love and enjoy!
If that ’special something’ is an item that cannot be returned, then you naturally think about RE-GIFTING. A Harris poll found that over 70% of us think that re-gifting is OK, and over half of us have re-gifted something.
There is an art to re-gifting, and some rules to follow according to Jodi R. R. Smith who wrote From Clueless to Class Act: Manners for the Modern Woman. She suggests that re-gifting is OK if the following criteria are met:
The item is new and has never been opened. My husband and I received a wedding gift of some lovely crystal. It fit the box but the description did not coincide with the contents. It could have been an honest oversight at the store, but it is something that I will always remember.
It is something you would have bought for the person anyway. If you don’t like it would you really pick it out as a gift for someone else? *Read on for another suggestion.*
The original giver and the new recipient don’t know each other at all. Oh my, how embarrassing that would be! In our house we re-use gift bags. Once my daughter exclaimed “Wow, that is the same gift bag that she used to give you your birthday present last year!” Who remembers those things anyway!!?? Might be a good idea to attach a note when you use one of these items to stock your gift area.
You have completely re-wrapped the gift. Also make sure there are no gift card inserts or other identifying information.
*My husband’s office holds their Annual Holiday Party in January. December is just too stressful and busy, and everyone is more relaxed in the new year. The highlight of this party is the gift exchange. Everyone brings a gift that is tastefully wrapped in holiday paper. The rule is that this is a gift, given to you, and for which you have no use or desire. Based upon some formula that we create each year, we choose a gift. No gift is opened until everyone has chosen from the pile or chosen a gift that someone else selected (they then pick again).
And every year the most amazing thing happens….there is always someone who absolutely loves their gift! One year a pediatrician received a Loony Tunes tie that he knew his patients would love, and another year someone else loved the whimsical corkscrew. If the gifts are not loved, they go directly to charity and we all know someone will be happy.
I have gotten obsessed with the show, ‘Hoarders’ on A&E (at least I think it’s A&E…). It’s all about people who collect and keep things until the things control their lives. It’s rather scary, but I watch the show to encourage me & myself to take a keen eye to our own clutter. Books, hair clips, shoes, casserole dishes, letters, hotel lotions, charity walk t-shirts. It all starts to pile up after awhile. Loss of control isn’t all that out of the ordinary.
I’m feeling a little disheveled when it comes to the Book Challenge. Old blogs aren’t filed properly. They don’t follow format and are missing valuable tags. There is no order to the older stuff. At the same time, I have the sudden obsession to call Ms. Pearl out on a few things. Like, why are (nearly) whole chapters in More Book Lust made up of books already listed in Book Lust? There are over 100 titles listed in both books. Some have triple or even quadruple mentions.
In an effort to organize this whole project I am taking a closer look at all of the older book review blogs. I am cleaning up tags (and adding missing ones), including a BookLust Twist to the really old posts, and taking note of repeat titles. I realize this is going to be really annoying for anyone with an RSS feed to this blog. You’ll think I’m writing up a storm when really, all that’s happening is an update here or there. I am really, really sorry about that. I just need a little mis en place in my life.
If the title of this book alone won’t get you, then I’m pretty sure that the first chapter will. I just finished reading memoirist Lac Su’s book I Love Yous Are For White People and I have nothing but all stars, positive remarks and a (hopefully) persuasive recommendation to give.
Without trying to give too much away, I want to emphasize that this book rejuvenates a love for reading and it can inspire generations who have ever wondered about their estranged relationships to Asian immigrant relatives (especially parents).
Love persists, throughout Su’s journey from Vietnam to the Southern Californian streets of Los Angeles, despite its presence underlining numerous scornful beatings from his father, in noteworthy and futile runs away from gangsters and busters, and even in advances to steal money his family’s food stamps for the sake of friendship. Su’s narrative reveals the hard knock mentality of a boy enduring pain due to the taboo silencing that seems normative in his family.
His story is telling of the cross-cultural cauldron that exists in California; it is oftentimes quite a shocking sight to see for newly immigrated individuals. Becoming acquainted with the law of the land is a constant theme. I Love Yous Are For White People is an internal exploration for any explanation, or a hint towards understanding the plexus of present space – where one comes from, where they are, how they got there and how to be brave enough to go back.
This book caters to those who identify with the acts of service love language. It recognizes the hardship of various forms of “work” like the daily grind that Su’s father (affectionately characterized by the name ‘Pa’ throughout the story) put in while they lived in a rat-infested cell block-like apartment in the projects, like the mental labor that Su himself put in when accounting for his early educational experience or like his mother’s routinized efforts to appease her family. But just like the things that I am trying to figure out about the way this love language operates, Su leaves the narrative with more lessons to ponder and a desire for the reader to learn more.
A well-written book and definitely one that I just couldn’t put down until I ran out of things to read. I even read the interview information and then friended the man on Facebook. It’s a must-read! Lac Su, a work of art well done!
Oh, and here’s a picture I stole off of Facebook with Lac and his father. Hope that’s not too invasive! =P
Gramsci stated: “We may confirm that much of Nietzsche superman concept originated not from Zarathustra but from the hero of Alexander Dumas’s Count of Monte Cristo. Superman replaces or enhances the imagination of little people: a real waking up dream. Imagination is thus dependent on social inferiority complex that determines in our lengthy dreams ideas of vengeance, punishment of the guilty for inflicted harms done to us”
Many superman heroes preceded the Count of Monte Cristo; there are Athos in “The three musketeers”, Joseph Balzamo and Vaudrin in Balzac novels, and most influential of all maybe Rodolphe de Gerolstein by Eugene Sue in “The mysteries of Paris”, first published as a serial novel. All these heroes were well off financially, they had received extensive educations, they had power to exercise and influence people. All these supermen had no qualm exerting extreme vengeance and extricate justice outside the laws of the land; their law is founded in super moral world that they believed applied to all mankind.
Superman has this knack to be transformed from God the father to an ordinary worker, or to an ordinary citizen
Serial novels that dug up the miseries of little people and recounted their daily hardship affected and encouraged people to read and asking other to read to them about stories they associated with their experiences. Successful serial novels have characteristic attributes; first, select an everyday reality that is not sufficiently considered and where tensions were not resolved. Second, posit an element of resolution that contrasts with the previous reality; this draft resolution must be simple and naïve to impress with its quick results; the result must thus console immediately the little people. Otherwise, a fantastic resolution can be as expeditive and efficacious since it works without going through limiting mediations of concrete events.
The story in serial novel is a succession of repeated cycles of tension-relaxation; thus, it should not obey the classical structure of accumulating tensions up to the last chapter for tensions to be released. Repetition of describing miseries in the real world has the benefit of attracting attention and permitting focus on a particular misery that coincides closest to your condition. Repetition of miseries is meant to exasperate the sensibility of little people. Surprises have to be many and varied. Redundancy is an excellent technique is serial novels: the reader has to identify with the initial characters (reality) and the resolution characters; it is kind of becoming totally familiar with repeated surprises.
Sudden revolts were never initiated by high caliber critical thinkers; they were the results of long period of gestations by little people reading about the varied miseries and possibility of quick revenge. Little people comprehended that the characters in the serial novel never changed even if they experienced some surprised transformations by an unexpected benevolent superman: the good character remains good and the bad character reverted after transformation. In all the story, events and resolutions are within the social structure of classes and thus, society never changes by all these surprised transformation. It is this realization that infuriates little people in the long run even if they don’t feel the energy or determination to change: they want quick sort of change even for a brief moment.
this was a book I once had on how to “Move upper class” by getting the accent right. It’s a little dated nowadays, when aristo’s seem to try to talk like Bob Hoskins. But not in Eastbourne. Eastbourne is a whole other kettle of fish.
www.visiteastbourne.com/
Am I twirly?
I think I blogged about this before – apparently in Liverpool bus drivers call pensioners “twirlies” because they arrive before the appointed time and say, in mock-surprise: “Oh! Am I twirly?”
It wouldn’t work in Eastbourne. In Eastbourne, pensioners arrive much too early, stick their hand out and shout: “Tex-yeh!” *
Daniel;s party today. I’ve no idea how many people are coming, since in Home Ed circles, RSVP seems to stand for Do whatever you feel like doing on the day.
Arrrgh!
I know at least five people are coming, including Daniel’s new girlfriend. So he’ll be happy.
I’ll be honest, I hesitated about posting this update because I’m not very proud of my progress this week. But I’m hoping this serves as a good reminder that progress doesn’t have to mean perfection and having an ‘off’ week isn’t the end of the world. And maybe it’ll just serve as good motivation for this coming week! I present my 2010 goal update, week 2:
1. New 1/2 marathon PR – Still haven’t logged any long runs. Last weekend was SO cold so I skipped out on what should have been my last long run pre-half marathon. Whoops! However, I did bank an awesome 5-miler with Lindsey, and enjoyed a quick and dirty run on Friday afternoon. Maybe I’ll squeeze 6-8 in on Sunday morning and I’ll feel a bit more on track!
2. Run 9 NYRR races and volunteer for 1 – The upcoming half marathon is finally becoming very real, which is probably a good thing since it’s NEXT WEEKEND! I’m already looking forward to the next races I’m going to register for, so let me know if anyone wants some running company here in NYC.
3. 200 blog posts – This week, I posted 7 times, between Saturday and Friday. Funny, I was getting stressed earlier this week about not having enough to write about, but now I just can’t seem to stop!
By the way, if you missed them, I wrote about:
Book Review #1 – My Life In France Recipe – Chickpea and Pasta Rosemary Soup An Improvised Dinner and Blogger Run Book Review #2 – The Art of Racing In The Rain The Huz Becomes a Food Blogger Taking Time For Breath and Prayer
And even if you didn’t miss this post, you should check out the comments from each! I really loved all your reading list suggestions and I’ve already tried a new wrap combination, as you saw this morning!
4. Read 8 books – In case you hadn’t noticed from #3, I’ve already finished book #2 and am so happy to be back into a reading groove! Once A Runner is on my nightstand and I have big plans for a Sunday afternoon of reading
5. Lose 10 pounds – I mentioned last week that my goal was to just stay on track with my .8lb/week goal. Since I’d already lost 2.2lbs by last Friday, I only needed to not gain .6lbs. This goal was definitely a success. While I didn’t lose any weight (what with the not working out much), I stayed exactly the same. Guess that means I’ll have to get back to the gym a few times next week to start losing again!
6. Eat vegetarian at least 4 days/week – Epic FAIL. Actually, that’s not totally true. While my only completely vegetarian days were last Saturday and yesterday, every meal except dinner each day was vegetarian. In fact, it was vegan! The Huz made the lamb roast on Sunday so we had leftovers that needed to be eaten. My improvised wrap was such a success on Monday that I ended up repeating it each night this week. The wraps proved to be portable, which was a huge plus since I was out of the house Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, and they were very satisfying. And now I don’t have to worry about wasting food since I definitely won’t be consuming lamb this week while on the Spark! cleanse!
So there you have it, a full disclosure update on my goal progress. Hope you’re staying on track and feeling great! If you’re struggling, how do you fight the negative self-talk? I often beat myself up for not reaching a goal but I’ve found that reminding myself of the mantra I learned from Gena (It’s about the big picture, not daily perfection) has been a tremendous help.
Check back soon for my Spark! cleanse prep pictures and a recap of my day with Miss Happy Herbivore!
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
Where the God of Love Hangs Out by Amy Bloom
Are you all done cleaning up from the Holidays? Did you receive a gift or two that you don’t know quite what to do with? Perhaps it is a vase that does not fit your decor, or a sweater that is not your color. Or maybe it is that other item that every time you look at it, you shake your in amazement that the giver actually thought this would be something you would love and enjoy!
If the title of this book alone won’t get you, then I’m pretty sure that the first chapter will. I just finished reading memoirist Lac Su’s book I Love Yous Are For White People and I have nothing but all stars, positive remarks and a (hopefully) persuasive recommendation to give. 
