Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts

1.11.2018

The Great Train Robbery

I've been a longtime Michael Crichton fan, but I've managed to put off reading The Great Train Robbery for years for one reason or another. I've been on a MC kick of recent, rereading some of my old favorites, and decided to give this 40 year old novel another go.

I feel like such a fool. This work of historical fiction, loosely based on real events, was tough to put down. Filled with technical details involving a brilliant heist from over 150 years ago, it hums along and builds to a thrilling and satisfying conclusion. I'd daresay it's amongst my favorite Crichton novels.

4.02.2012

All-Star Superman

With a mythic weight to it that feels epic, Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely's All-Star Superman exceeded expectations.  I didn't know if I was going to be a fan of the artwork, but I've subsequently picked up other comics of Quitely's.  His art careens somewhere between sculpted beauty and the grotesque.

The series opens up with a space mission to the sun that goes awry (thanks to uber-villain Lex Luthor).  Superman, naturally, saves the day, but not before absorbing lethal amounts of solar energy.  It makes him stronger and more powerful than ever, and it will kill him.

Superman, his mortality virtually assured, proceeds to make a living will and resolve some of the things he's put off for so long.  From his engagements with Lois and Jimmy, to final confrontation with Luthor and Bizarro, the story feels urgent.  What it is to be Superman is translated directly for several of the characters, and the results are at times charming and grounding.

I haven't checked out the animated film, but that might be on my list.  The graphic novel series, however, is moving and a keeper in my collection.

(Kindle Fire version -- always handy!)

2.15.2012

The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths

  The Believing Brain is one of the most influential books I’ve ever read.  The science behind just what makes us believe in the supernatural, the odd, the elusive, is a fascinating read that makes sense to someone who struggled his entire life with the amazing pull of the supernatural.

Beliefs themselves are not borne of hard, logical, empirical data:

“Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow. I call this process belief-dependent realism, where our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it. Reality exists independent of human minds, but our understanding of it depends upon the beliefs we hold at any given time…
“The brain is a belief engine. From sensory data flowing in through the senses the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning. The first process I call patternicity: the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless data. The second process I call agenticity: the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency. We can’t help it. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen. These meaningful patterns become beliefs, and these beliefs shape our understanding of reality.”

But why we are be built this way?  It’s an evolutionary survival trait:

“In other words, we tend to find meaningful patterns whether they are there or not, and there is a perfectly good reason to do so. In this sense, patternicities such as superstition and magical thinking are not so much errors in cognition as they are natural processes of a learning brain. We can no more eliminate superstitious learning than we can eliminate all learning. Although true pattern recognition helps us survive, false pattern recognition does not necessarily get us killed, and so the patternicity phenomenon endured the winnowing process of natural selection. Because we must make associations in order to survive and reproduce, natural selection favored all association-making strategies, even those that resulted in false positives. With this evolutionary perspective we can now understand that people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe nonweird things.”

How hard is it to control the body?  The sense of free will itself is very likely an illusion:

“Add to this processing time the other two-tenths of a second to act on the choice, and it means that a full half second passes between our brain’s intention to do something and our awareness of the actual act of doing it. The neural activity that precedes the intention to act is inaccessible to our conscious mind, so we experience a sense of free will. But it is an illusion, caused by the fact that we cannot identify the cause of the awareness of our intention to act.”

Even if you want to change, there are other factors that discourage change:

“On top of this, our brains place a judgment value upon beliefs. There are good evolutionary reasons for why we form beliefs and judge them as good or bad that I will discuss in the chapter on political beliefs, but suffice it to say here that our evolved tribal tendencies lead us to form coalitions with fellow like-minded members of our group and to demonize others who hold differing beliefs. Thus, when we hear about the beliefs of others that differ from our own, we are naturally inclined to dismiss or dismantle their beliefs as nonsense, evil, or both. This propensity makes it even more difficult to change our minds in the teeth of new evidence…
“Belief change comes from a combination of personal psychological readiness and a deeper social and cultural shift in the underlying zeitgeist, which is affected in part by education but is more the product of larger and harder-to-define political, economic, religious, and social change.”

Even if you have a science degree:

“The problem we face is that superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old. Anecdotal thinking comes naturally, science requires training. Any medical huckster promising that A will cure B has only to advertise a handful of successful anecdotes in the form of testimonials.”

It’s one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do with my own belief system.  And I can vouch for the following:

“Rarer still, there are those who, upon carefully weighing the evidence for and against a position they already hold, or one they have yet to form a belief about, compute the odds and make a steely-eyed emotionless decision and never look back. Such belief reversals are so rare in religion and politics as to generate headlines if it is someone prominent, such as a cleric who changes religions or renounces his or her faith, or a politician who changes parties or goes independent. It happens, but it is as rare as a black swan.”

In short, beliefs are created and then rationalized, often as an evolutionary survival mechanism, but hardly ever with the conscious mind.  Quitting those instincts has societal as well as mental hurdles, and even when you’re convinced you are following the logical path, it’s hard to ignore your ancestor’s genetic coding.  Read and enjoy.

9.13.2011

Dracula v. Dracula

This is one of those rare cases where I am going to absolutely champion the film version of the book over the actual book.  After many years of avoidance, I finally read Bram Stoker's classic novel, Dracula, mostly thanks to the fact that Kindle allows you to download and read thousands of books for free.  (Those that have gone out of copywright, for instance.)  And, after being impressed with the opening third, found the book ultimately wanting.  What for, apparently, is the added touch of romance (and a little tidying of plot) that Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (don't quite roll off the tongue) provides.

Why call it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" if it's more like "We started with Bram Stoker's Dracula, but thought it could use a little work, so..."?  Well, the crux of the story is all very Bram Stoker, from the iconic and creepy image of Gary Oldman's (peerless) Count crawling upside-down the castle wall to the seduction and undoing of classic flirt Sadie Frost, is there.  But wasn't in the original is the glue that holds the story together, that of Mina and Vlad's former-life romance.  At first, this might sound a little outrageous, but in the context of the gothic, horror, supernatural tale, it makes complete sense.  And it works.  When I think about the movie, I think of Oldman and Ryder (Winona, sparkling) in their penultimate scene together -- Dracula pulling away from her saying, "I love you too much."  It's some dramatic stuff that is only heightened by the Scooby gang's interruption and the enflamement of their protection.  When Oldman in full man-bat gear scowls, "You think your *symbols* can frighten me?!", it's so on.

Alas, that Dracula that doesn't shrink from godly symbols is reduced to a monster.  A monster whose motivation to move to England seems to only be to find some western flesh to munch on, whereas in film they solve this by, again, linking Vlad to Mina in a past life.  He's in search of her, not just idle destruction.

This is by no means an indite of Bram's original.  The style (told by journals and newspaper clippings) is surprisingly effective and maintains suspense very well.  But, with a richer film to think about, ultimately I ended up getting a little bored with the straightforward nature of the book. Had I read it first, may have been a much different story for me.

So, chalk this one up as an improvement over the book, surprisingly.



9.12.2011

The Time Traveler's Wife


I read The Time Traveler’s Wife years ago, and like all books I loved, I’ve had mixed emotions about seeing it translated to film.  TTTW is told from the first-person perspective from the two lead characters, the titular Clare and the reluctant time traveler Henry.  As with his mutant ability, the episodes are not necessarily told in order, creating foreshadowing and tension.  The book is a story of lifelong romance despite the odds where one partner cannot be counted upon to be there.

Like any translation, the film had to leave out some fleshier subplots in order to streamline the story.  Overall, I found the story to be successful, if a slight lament because the ending was changed.  The final pages of the book were rather sad, but not depressing.  The film changes the end (is it really the end , or they just left off that episode?) to something a little lighter, more wistful, but still very effective.  You really don’t know if Clare and Henry are going to get to embrace, and the payoff works.

It's not really worthwhile to talk about the differences, which could be ticked off in a spreadsheet, but I have a few observations.  One of my favorite scenes in the book is the first one, where Clare has waited her entire young life to meet Henry for the first time in true continuity (he has been coming back in time from the future to visit her for years).  Clare in novel is nearly busting with romantic love, barely able to control her emotions in formally starting her relationship with her future husband -- her future husband who in the timeline hasn't even met her yet.  It's just the right amount of angst, tension, confusion, comedy, and heart.  I was disappointed in the translation to film -- it's a crucial scene to nail and it comes off a little off -- more like a detective mystery as to why she's behaving this way rather than a gushing young woman's first real touch of her true love.  In writing this, I think perhaps the film in parts feels just a little off in the same way.  It's a good effort, but the book will remain the better story.  (Note, WTF on not being available on Kindle!)

8.22.2011

Carte Blanche


Jeffery Deaver’s first foray into James Bond, Carte Blanche, does a 180 from Sebastian Faulk’s fine effort from 2008, Devil May Care and sets the British agent in the modern day.  Not exactly a green reboot agent as in the Daniel Craig reboot, but certainly early in his career, Deaver handles Bond’s character with familiar ease.  The plot was engaging, the characters well-drawn, and there was a real sense of danger and intrigue.  The story was a low-key Bond story, more of the Craig-type rather than one of global domination that seems to be the vogue of the 70’s and 80’s, but not without threatening impact.  Running through the background (and sometimes foreground) was the theme of recycling and “green” products – the tale benefitted greatly from the current-issues incorporation, and its perversion by the arch villain.

The Bond story aside, the lingering takeaway I had from the book was an intrigue into the future of this Bond.  Notsomuch a reboot as a alternate universe re-imagining (think Star Trek) of the character (and characters) was refreshing and felt like it set a new direction for a fresh series of novels.  Really, so much has been written about Bond that it’s impossible to keep the old stories without being tied down to the timeline or the fact that he’d be about 70 years old by now.  If you are going to bring him to modern day and shed some of that history, why not work with the rest of it.  Deaver’s story and loose ends does what it is supposed to do, sell me his *next* book.

8.15.2011

Flashback


Dan Simmons is my favorite author these days, so I picked up (the Kindle version of) his latest, Flashback, without ever reading a jacket synopsis of the novel.  Having finished it on a long plane ride back from Colorado, I’m not quite sure I’ve had enough distance to be objective.  As an unabashed Simmons fan, I’m also not quite sure I’ll ever have the objectivity because of high expectations.  But the instant reaction I had was this: not a top-ten Simmons effort.

It really pains me to say that, because I love his work.  Maybe I’m a little too critical because my expectations are lofty, or the story didn’t resonate with me, or make sense in particular places (unusual for a Simmons story), but I can rattle off six other works of his without hesitation that are better (subjective per my opinion) than this.  And if you aren’t writing something that challenges you to at least  think about where this would wedge in the top five, you aren’t setting or meeting the bar you rose to last time.  (Last time, by the way, was Drood, and that definitely enters into a top five conversation.)

Flashback’s dystopian near-future is one where the United States has cowed (via appeasement) to Islam, been splintered into nation-states, and has a large populace addicted to the drug “Flashback” that allows the user to relive any memory.  Because most of the people in the US had better lives before The Day It All Hit The Fan (as it is known in the book), many choose to rely on the drug to live the past rather than face the present and future.

Set in this time are a Flashback-addicted former cop (Nick), who is hired by a powerful Japanese businessman to reinvestigate his son’s murder six years ago that was never solved – a murder that coincided with his wife’s accidental death and subsequent estrangement from his son and father-in-law.  As you expect from a Simmons tale, there are technological surprises, action, sudden and head-turning deaths, and twists throughout.  Unfortunately, the story spends way too much time figuring out where it is going, or at least revealing it to the audience.  (It is in the last 25 pages that true events are revealed.)  In retrospect, the set pieces and interesting backstory don’t make up for the lack of driving plot events.

Alcestis


An NPR recommendation, of all things that even I find chagrining these days, led me to the enjoyable, Sapphic take on the Greek legend of Alcestis.  Alcestis’ story as passed down by legend (to Wikipedia) is one of female devotion to her husband.  It goes like this:

Alcestis’ newlywed husband Admetus foolishly made the impertinent mistake of not offering a sacrifice to the goddess Artemis on his wedding night.  Gods can be quite temperamental, so upon finding his wedding bed, he found a bed of lethal snakes in addition to his wife.  Another awesome God, Apollo, appeared and graciously said that if anyone would volunteer to die in Admetus’ place, he could live.  After a particularly long and uncomfortable silence from all his gathered friends (I’m not really sure just what was expected there), Alcestis spoke up.  She was whisked away to Hades.  After a period of serious pouting by Admetus, Heracles went down to Hades and rescued her.

Katharine Beutner’s Alcestis is told from the first-person perspective of Alcestis.  From the start, we aren’t greeted by a romantic framing of ancient Greece, but the realistic (albeit, one with Gods who roam about and are their usual prickly, capricious selves) place where woman are objects under control of men, with no rights and very little to say about anything.  Beatner’s Alcestis longs for her long-lost sister in Hades, and tolerates the world of men with a grudging weariness.  Where there is single-minded obedience and sacrifice for her husband in the legend, Beatner creates a multi-dimensional character that craves for more and understands a great deal more than the men around her.  Her journey to Hades, encountering the seductive wife of Hades, Persephone, allows Alcestis to claim more from her return than any woman likely could hope to in that time.  Alcestis is a refreshing, emotional, and thoughtful reboot of the male-fantasy myth.