Scan barcode
ibartleby's reviews
45 reviews
A Smuggler's Bible by Joseph McElroy
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
A Smuggler’s Bible is an original take on empathy, community, love, memory. It’s a challenging read, but definitely worth the effort.
Wittgenstein's Mistress by David Markson
challenging
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
If Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophical ideas (or, at least, David Markson's interpretations of Wittgenstein's ideas) were joined and incarnated, you'd have Kate, the narrator of this book. David Foster Wallace sums it up best, I think, in his afterword when he says, Wittgenstein's Mistress is "an imaginative portrait of what it would be like actually to live in the sort of world the logic & metaphysics of Wittgenstein's Tractatus posits."
I have no doubt DFW is right (I have to trust him here since I'm not a Wittgenstein expert). It's difficult for me to imagine anyone actually enjoying Markson's book without having at least a faint familiarity with Wittgenstein's philosophy. I mean, there's no traditional plot—again citing DFW, "concentric circularity" replaces linear plot, and whatever character development you do get is buried in pages upon pages of gossipy "facts" about famous artists and fictional characters. And facts is an inappropriate word to describe the things Kate writes because Kate is an unreliable narrator who consistently confuses names (of people and places—including the names of her husband and dead son), relies on faulty memories, and may or may not be "mad" (crazy, not angry) and displays some symptoms of early stages of dementia. So basically everything she says is in quotation marks, even when she uses the words/phrases "doubtless" or "as a matter of fact" (and oh boy does she like those qualifiers).
What's brilliant about this book is how Markson manages to convince the reader to care about Kate even though he ignores traditional storytelling techniques. Wittgentstein's Mistress really is an empathy test, I think.
The book is also about language, specifically about how imprecise language is, despite the heavy burden it carries in trying to connect the metaphysical and the physical, the vast and endless nothingness of our minds to the vast somethingness of the world. As Kate often repeats, it's a miracle that we're able to understand eachother, what with one's language being so imprecise. And in connecting these two things (mind & world), language also connects us to one another, temporarily relieving us from feeling the existential aloness Kate experiences in the book. (Hence why Kate has decided to type out her thoughts, because somehow in the conversion of mind to paper there's also an affirmation of existence.) Though, as Kate points out, sometimes that very connector only amplifies the aloness we feel. And I'm not sure which is worse: literally being alone (like Kate) or feeling alone in a world full of people.
Reading Wittgenstein's Mistress wasn't pleasant, but in the end, like a long hike on a hot day, I'm glad I did it.
I have no doubt DFW is right (I have to trust him here since I'm not a Wittgenstein expert). It's difficult for me to imagine anyone actually enjoying Markson's book without having at least a faint familiarity with Wittgenstein's philosophy. I mean, there's no traditional plot—again citing DFW, "concentric circularity" replaces linear plot, and whatever character development you do get is buried in pages upon pages of gossipy "facts" about famous artists and fictional characters. And facts is an inappropriate word to describe the things Kate writes because Kate is an unreliable narrator who consistently confuses names (of people and places—including the names of her husband and dead son), relies on faulty memories, and may or may not be "mad" (crazy, not angry) and displays some symptoms of early stages of dementia. So basically everything she says is in quotation marks, even when she uses the words/phrases "doubtless" or "as a matter of fact" (and oh boy does she like those qualifiers).
What's brilliant about this book is how Markson manages to convince the reader to care about Kate even though he ignores traditional storytelling techniques. Wittgentstein's Mistress really is an empathy test, I think.
The book is also about language, specifically about how imprecise language is, despite the heavy burden it carries in trying to connect the metaphysical and the physical, the vast and endless nothingness of our minds to the vast somethingness of the world. As Kate often repeats, it's a miracle that we're able to understand eachother, what with one's language being so imprecise. And in connecting these two things (mind & world), language also connects us to one another, temporarily relieving us from feeling the existential aloness Kate experiences in the book. (Hence why Kate has decided to type out her thoughts, because somehow in the conversion of mind to paper there's also an affirmation of existence.) Though, as Kate points out, sometimes that very connector only amplifies the aloness we feel. And I'm not sure which is worse: literally being alone (like Kate) or feeling alone in a world full of people.
Reading Wittgenstein's Mistress wasn't pleasant, but in the end, like a long hike on a hot day, I'm glad I did it.
Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead by Olga Tokarczuk
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
3.5
Tenth of December: Stories by George Saunders
dark
funny
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories by Jan-Willem Van Prooijen
informative
fast-paced
2.5
Not sure what I was expecting, but this one was underwhelming.
The author writes clearly and concisely. He substantiates his claims with research and studies. But the psychological processes that he describes and that he asserts contribute to the likelihood someone might believe in conspiracy theories are predictable. According to Van Prooijen, conspiracy theories are the result of natural psychological processes. He mentions patternicity (our brain's ability to notice patterns) and agenticity (a tendency to imbue these patterns with agency or intent). That's interesting.
But he also offers up less interesting explanations like: fear and uncertainty increase the likelihood of belief in conspiracy theories (the theories offer simplistic, if somewhat fanciful/imaginative, explanations. Cohesion and meaning in an otherwise random, meaningless universe); or people tend to be more susceptible to theories when they feel threatened by out-groups (the "us" versus "them" idea); or the painfully obvious observation that the more ideologically extreme someone is (in either direction, left or right) the more likely they'll believe wacko theories. Can that last one truly be classified as a psychological explanation? Seems more like a correlation between types of belief. Like what psychological processes push someone to either ideological extreme? Again, maybe my expectations were skewed going into this book.
Despite all this, I kept reading until the end, which proved to be the most disappointing part. After diagnosing for 85 pages, the author then gives his suggestion on how to reduce conspiracy theories. His solution: emphasize rational arguments (since many conspiracy theories are irrational, he says) and ensure better, inclusive leadership (participative leadership). Involve individual citizens in the decision-making process. This will reduce alienation and cynicism. See? Underwhelming ... I wonder if he’s tried using logic and reason to convince someone that their deeply held (superstitious) beliefs are, indeed, nonsense?
Maybe I'm just in an unforgiving mood. Truth be told, reading this book wasn't a total waste of time. I learned a few things, like the proportionality bias. Even if it had been a total waste of time, at least it's a short book.
The author writes clearly and concisely. He substantiates his claims with research and studies. But the psychological processes that he describes and that he asserts contribute to the likelihood someone might believe in conspiracy theories are predictable. According to Van Prooijen, conspiracy theories are the result of natural psychological processes. He mentions patternicity (our brain's ability to notice patterns) and agenticity (a tendency to imbue these patterns with agency or intent). That's interesting.
But he also offers up less interesting explanations like: fear and uncertainty increase the likelihood of belief in conspiracy theories (the theories offer simplistic, if somewhat fanciful/imaginative, explanations. Cohesion and meaning in an otherwise random, meaningless universe); or people tend to be more susceptible to theories when they feel threatened by out-groups (the "us" versus "them" idea); or the painfully obvious observation that the more ideologically extreme someone is (in either direction, left or right) the more likely they'll believe wacko theories. Can that last one truly be classified as a psychological explanation? Seems more like a correlation between types of belief. Like what psychological processes push someone to either ideological extreme? Again, maybe my expectations were skewed going into this book.
Despite all this, I kept reading until the end, which proved to be the most disappointing part. After diagnosing for 85 pages, the author then gives his suggestion on how to reduce conspiracy theories. His solution: emphasize rational arguments (since many conspiracy theories are irrational, he says) and ensure better, inclusive leadership (participative leadership). Involve individual citizens in the decision-making process. This will reduce alienation and cynicism. See? Underwhelming ... I wonder if he’s tried using logic and reason to convince someone that their deeply held (superstitious) beliefs are, indeed, nonsense?
Maybe I'm just in an unforgiving mood. Truth be told, reading this book wasn't a total waste of time. I learned a few things, like the proportionality bias. Even if it had been a total waste of time, at least it's a short book.
Benito Cereno by Wyn Kelley, Herman Melville
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
"So far may even the best man err, in judging the conduct of one with the recesses of whose condition he is not acquainted. But you were forced to it; and you were in time undeceived. Would that, in both respects, it was so ever, and with all men."
I'm pretty sure the quote above summarizes Benito Cereno effectively. Let me try to explain ...
It's ironic that a slave's humanity is revealed and understood only after a seemingly inhumane and violent act of rebellion. I say seemingly because it's a matter of perspective. For Delano and Benito Cereno, the slaves' rebellion and defiant act is barbaric and brutal and unwarranted. But so is slavery, and so, from the perspective of the oppressed/enslaved, resistance is no longer an inhumane act, but, rather, a biological imperative that affirms the resister's humanity.
It's also ironic that a character like Babo can uphold and exhibit racial stereotypes and, in doing so, subvert them and completely destroy their validity. By acting and performing the stereotypes, Babo effectively fools Delano, thereby not only proving that he possesses the intelligence and cleverness to outwit the "superior" white men, but that he is also much more complex and nuanced than the animals he's compared to. And of course he is. He's not an animal. He's a human being whose intellect is much more terrifying than his meek, diminutive stature because it completely disproves the underlying assumption that morally absolves people from dehumanizing, enslaving, brutalizing, and murdering other humans beings: the assumption being that these slaves aren't human at all but are merely slightly more evolved animals.
So the quote above, initially spoken by Benito Cereno to Delano, has a double meaning: it's about Delano's snap judgement of Benito, but it's equally about his widely-believed assumptions about the slaves and what he believes are inferior races in general. So the story ends up really being a metaphor for a universal tendency to stereotype and assume things about people we know nothing about. It's reductionist when I write it out like that, but I'm pretty convinced this is the point Melville's getting at. Maybe.
Anyway, aside from the powerful message he conveys, Melville also does some pretty innovative stuff structurally: multiple POVs (of course, purposely omitting the most important one, thereby making a powerful point about the silencing of narratives), narrative shifts (e.g. slipping into Free Indirect Discourse from traditional 3rd person), narrator/authorial interjections (narrator often breaking the fourth wall). Also, heavy religious symbolism (of course!).
Definitely worth a read.
I'm pretty sure the quote above summarizes Benito Cereno effectively. Let me try to explain ...
It's ironic that a slave's humanity is revealed and understood only after a seemingly inhumane and violent act of rebellion. I say seemingly because it's a matter of perspective. For Delano and Benito Cereno, the slaves' rebellion and defiant act is barbaric and brutal and unwarranted. But so is slavery, and so, from the perspective of the oppressed/enslaved, resistance is no longer an inhumane act, but, rather, a biological imperative that affirms the resister's humanity.
It's also ironic that a character like Babo can uphold and exhibit racial stereotypes and, in doing so, subvert them and completely destroy their validity. By acting and performing the stereotypes, Babo effectively fools Delano, thereby not only proving that he possesses the intelligence and cleverness to outwit the "superior" white men, but that he is also much more complex and nuanced than the animals he's compared to. And of course he is. He's not an animal. He's a human being whose intellect is much more terrifying than his meek, diminutive stature because it completely disproves the underlying assumption that morally absolves people from dehumanizing, enslaving, brutalizing, and murdering other humans beings: the assumption being that these slaves aren't human at all but are merely slightly more evolved animals.
So the quote above, initially spoken by Benito Cereno to Delano, has a double meaning: it's about Delano's snap judgement of Benito, but it's equally about his widely-believed assumptions about the slaves and what he believes are inferior races in general. So the story ends up really being a metaphor for a universal tendency to stereotype and assume things about people we know nothing about. It's reductionist when I write it out like that, but I'm pretty convinced this is the point Melville's getting at. Maybe.
Anyway, aside from the powerful message he conveys, Melville also does some pretty innovative stuff structurally: multiple POVs (of course, purposely omitting the most important one, thereby making a powerful point about the silencing of narratives), narrative shifts (e.g. slipping into Free Indirect Discourse from traditional 3rd person), narrator/authorial interjections (narrator often breaking the fourth wall). Also, heavy religious symbolism (of course!).
Definitely worth a read.