Take a photo of a barcode or cover
joelogsliterature's reviews
86 reviews
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander
4.0
It's been 14 years since this book released. In that time, attitudes toward the War on Drugs have shifted some, the idea of police abolition or defunding has gained traction, and we can look in retrospect at how much (or how little) having a black president in the Oval Office did to help race relations in America. Still, this is a book worth reading. Through clear organization and helpful repetition, Alexander hammers home her points masterfully. She makes clear the history of mass incarceration in America and its direct connections to the fail of Jim Crow in the south, how it mirrored in some ways the transition from slavery to Jim Crow itself, and how in fact, the current system is more insidious in several ways. The book is focused and at times pragmatic. It surveys how the current system serves to disservice, disenfranchise, and disassociate people deemed criminals from the rest, and how the vast majority of those so-affected are people of color, especially black men, how the vast majority of their charges are minor drug offenses, and how whites---despite greater incidence rates---broadly escape such cruelty. For me, not much of this was new, but it was wonderful to be reminded of it in such a clear exposé. The mounds of statistics and case studies were helpful to reference, and a few points surprised me even in 2024 such as the extent to which stop-and-frisk fourteenth amendment claims are dismissed and the number of black Americans who enjoyed minstrels.
Pfaff's Locked In is essential reading after this to see where this standard narrative can be misleading, even if it retains substantial value.
Pfaff's Locked In is essential reading after this to see where this standard narrative can be misleading, even if it retains substantial value.
The House in the Cerulean Sea by TJ Klune
3.0
tl;dr: Fun, fluffy book with a bit of LGBTQ+ romance and magical kids. Quick read with no real depth, which is OK. There's apparently a sequel coming out, which many will probably like too. I thought it was a bit better than average on the whole, but I know I will not remember much very well before long. There's obvious connections to real-world social issues historical and current. For some people, it is offensive to have such connections in such a fluffy, naively hopeful book. It's like what children animation (Pixar, etc) often does. I don't think this is a totally unfair critique, but there is some resistance and attempt to show the horrors and realities of the situation. There are plenty of serious analyses both in fiction and non-fiction if one wants that.
---
I read this as part of a book club. The intent was to read it over the course of the academic semester, but I pulled very far ahead. On one hand, this is because it was a fun read! On the other hand, this was because it was so fluffy that my reading speed ever-accelerated to keep engaged. I read part of this via audiobook (ratio ~50/50 with all on my Kindle initially and more on audiobook later), and I ultimately ended up listening at ~5x speed. Reading relatively quickly and listening to audio sped-up is not uncommon for me (probably associated with ADHD), but this was an extreme case given the voice-acting was quite good for that audiobook actually. It's just the density of the book is very low, so one naturally is propelled to speedup.
In any case, that is not entirely negative. It was, like I said, a fun read. I agree it's better than average although I can't give it the highest of praise like others seem to. It's all very obvious and unimaginative, but one cannot deny that it feels good, that it is cozy nonetheless. Linus' character is appropriately downtrodden to identify with while allowing for some degree of comedy in the early chapters. The motif of magical children never goes stale in some sense to allow for light exploration of what it means to be different; like most cases, Klune does not shy away from making this an allegory for the real world, specifically Canada's Sixties Scoop, although one can just as well draw comparison to any number of marginalized groups throughout history.
The romance between Arthur and Linus was reasonably developed. They bond over their love of the children, and Linus sees this as a new home, an escape from his soul-crushingly mundane and purposeless life at home. One major wrench in it for me was that Arthur had also taken a liking to the previous caseworker, who betrayed his trust and used the case to get into Upper Management. Tragic for Arthur maybe, but it feels a bit weird that he appears to be suiting every single possible match, which is to say every new man in his life. The people of the village do not trust Arthur or the children, so there is no potential there, and Arthur does not leave the island really, so Linus sort of just fell in his lap. That much is OK, but it's that two out of the two people to fall in his lap he fell in love with that feels simultaneously realistic and strange for a story like this. In any case, the slow development but immediate tension worked well, and Arthur transforming at the rock throw was a nice crescendo before the obvious conclusive return.
[1] Oh, one cannot forget Calliope the cat and Linus' curmudgeonly neighbor either, but Calliope mostly exists (and is lost) and Edith Klapper exists for the same reason as Linus' boss at DICOMY, Ms. Jenkins, which is to say to beat Linus down in ways absurd enough to get a laugh out of them.
---
I read this as part of a book club. The intent was to read it over the course of the academic semester, but I pulled very far ahead. On one hand, this is because it was a fun read! On the other hand, this was because it was so fluffy that my reading speed ever-accelerated to keep engaged. I read part of this via audiobook (ratio ~50/50 with all on my Kindle initially and more on audiobook later), and I ultimately ended up listening at ~5x speed. Reading relatively quickly and listening to audio sped-up is not uncommon for me (probably associated with ADHD), but this was an extreme case given the voice-acting was quite good for that audiobook actually. It's just the density of the book is very low, so one naturally is propelled to speedup.
In any case, that is not entirely negative. It was, like I said, a fun read. I agree it's better than average although I can't give it the highest of praise like others seem to. It's all very obvious and unimaginative, but one cannot deny that it feels good, that it is cozy nonetheless. Linus' character is appropriately downtrodden to identify with while allowing for some degree of comedy in the early chapters. The motif of magical children never goes stale in some sense to allow for light exploration of what it means to be different; like most cases, Klune does not shy away from making this an allegory for the real world, specifically Canada's Sixties Scoop, although one can just as well draw comparison to any number of marginalized groups throughout history.
Spoiler
The characters themselves are Cerulean Sea's greatest assets. Endlessly innocent and whimsical, the children are all distinguished well to be quirky and fun when on page. From the moment Lucy is (indirectly) introduced through to Talia's first meeting with Linus, Chauncey's adorable desire to be a bellhop, and so on, one cannot help but enjoy the cast even if they are not so distinguished from other media to be memorable in the long-term. The other major characters are broadly Management, Arthur, Zoe, and shoutout to Helen too. A few minor village folk play a role to show how---even in their own little world---the children face discrimination, but they're broadly inconsequential. Helen gets a shout just because she is One of the Righteous(TM) and because she contributes to revealing the not-so-surprising secret of Arthur's past. Management serves as an appropriately draconian and dull monolith to counter. No nuance is needed for a tale such as this one. (This is not a slight. I mean this. When one sets up such a story, trying to dip into unwelcome and unfitting details and realism draw from the point.) Zoe is perhaps the most interesting character to me, although she does receive the attention she deserves.[1]The romance between Arthur and Linus was reasonably developed. They bond over their love of the children, and Linus sees this as a new home, an escape from his soul-crushingly mundane and purposeless life at home. One major wrench in it for me was that Arthur had also taken a liking to the previous caseworker, who betrayed his trust and used the case to get into Upper Management. Tragic for Arthur maybe, but it feels a bit weird that he appears to be suiting every single possible match, which is to say every new man in his life. The people of the village do not trust Arthur or the children, so there is no potential there, and Arthur does not leave the island really, so Linus sort of just fell in his lap. That much is OK, but it's that two out of the two people to fall in his lap he fell in love with that feels simultaneously realistic and strange for a story like this. In any case, the slow development but immediate tension worked well, and Arthur transforming at the rock throw was a nice crescendo before the obvious conclusive return.
[1] Oh, one cannot forget Calliope the cat and Linus' curmudgeonly neighbor either, but Calliope mostly exists (and is lost) and Edith Klapper exists for the same reason as Linus' boss at DICOMY, Ms. Jenkins, which is to say to beat Linus down in ways absurd enough to get a laugh out of them.
Locked in: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration-And How to Achieve Real Reform by John Pfaff
4.0
In many ways, I found this book less enjoyable to read than the book it is directly responding to, namely Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow. However, Pfaff directly and convincingly refutes many key points of Alexander's, pointing out that she often cites statistics misleadingly or draws from studies of low quality. He also raises several good points to expand efforts of criminal justice reform, but none are particularly emotionally-tied, so I wanted things to move faster at times. It has certainly changed how I think about some aspects of prison reform, however, especially how local the issue is and how most imprisoned people are there for violent offenses. I'd consider this just about essential reading---but I also think it could be presented fruitfully in many fewer pages.
Pfaff himself---while not emphasizing it for sure---seems to agree with many of the points of Alexander's: race is a part of mass incarceration, imprisoning people for long sentences for drugs via three-strikes is absurd, etc., but he makes clear that most of these issues are actually relatively small and should not continue to receive undue attention at the expense of higher impact areas of consideration.
What are those main points? For my own recollection of this book, I'll talk a bit about that now.
Pfaff calls the idea that long sentences for non-violent drug offenders "The Standard Story." Indeed, this is what we often think of when discussing the errors of the prison system. Many know personally of people who have been imprisoned because of drugs else petty crimes related to drugs. However, the vast majority of people in prison are there for crimes other than drugs, most being violent crimes like murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, or burglary of certain types. While most seem now to agree that people addicted to drugs should not be locked up for years on end and have their lives' further upended, the truth is that such cases are a small minority of prison admissions and prison beds. It is a sensible starting point for reform, one that has made some progress, especially in the case of marijuana (itself on the whole probably "safer" than alcohol); we must go beyond this, however, if we have any hope of reducing America's extraordinary prison population.
There are several points Pfaff emphasizes besides that the Standard Story has its issues. Among them are:
1. Prison issues are local issues.
Far too much emphasis is placed on the federal system. In that system, a large proportion of imprisoned individuals are there for drug crimes, but that is a quirk of how drugs are prosecuted. Moreover, the vast majority of imprisoned people are in state (and county) systems of prisons (and jails). Importantly, this means we cannot be too top-down in our approach. We must tackle the joys of federalism.
2. Prosecutors have all the cards.
Prosecutors have immense power through their ability to pursue or not cases. Moreover, they have broad purview to offer plea bargains (re: threaten with extreme charges), which is often made all the more strong by mandatory sentencing guidelines that restrict judicial discretion.
3. Thanks to the (1), there is a great moral hazard for prosecutors and counties.
Prosecutors often have maligned incentives. First, being seen as soft on crime is terrible; people remember sensational (but exceptional!) cases of where "one got away," but they do not have the same attachment to people over-punished or wrongfully punished. But prosecutors are elected officials, so they are beholden to public opinion. Moreover, criminal justice is a high salience, low information issue: People care greatly but know little. Second, prisons are within specific counties. They employ people mostly of that county. They usually count toward that county population (thus skewing demographics! --- most crimes are urban but most prisons are suburban or rural where space is plentiful). They are managed by the county. Yet, they are often funded by the states, and they imprison people from across the state. In this way, prosecutors are incentivized to be draconian, not to consider the costs to the states but instead to consider the benefits to the county and to their re-election campaigns.
4. Most crimes are violent, so any reform must address these politically unsavory crimes.
Even among drug-offenders, most have associated violent crimes (although most are "mid-level" simple dealers and the like, not "kingpins"). But more fundamentally, there are two big things here. First, we must consider what we think the purpose of prison is. It is clear that we are not reforming. Recidivism rates are terrible, and the result of imprisonment is a sort of detachment, stigma, and struggle that Alexander describes well (albeit sometimes including edge cases, like parolee's being readmitted for reasons other than breaking the law again---though there is some nuance here). Are we really seeking retribution? I think for most, yes. I hate this idea, but it's the oft-unspoken truth. Second, we must acknowledge not commit a fundamental attribution error. People do violent things. Very few people are violent perpetually. Most people "grow out of" crime and violent behavior, with peaks in the 20s and 30s, perhaps as early as teens, and sharp decline by 40s or 50s. Violent crime brings with it somewhat longer sentences, so simply releasing almost all over 50 year olds, for example, would be notable.
5. Private prisons are a small minority with outcomes not substantially different from public prisons. Indeed, the prison problem is a public one, one of local governments and prosecutors and states. While private prisons can be concerning, they are largely a red herring to real progress.
----
Beyond this, Pfaff offers some salient, concrete suggestions.
He posits BRAC-like commissions for prison closures could help, or else a cap-and-trade program. The former appeals to me more because of how badly managed many cap-and-trade programs are, but in principle, both could help force the hand of overzealous prosecutors.
Another move in that direction is simply to change prosecutors from elected officials to appointed ones. While the larger scale politics of prison---Congress and the like---are not amenable to such change, prosecutors and judges are. They could also work along side a commission as several states already have implemented. On the other side, fund the public defenders! Their workloads are insane and funds pitiful. Having a public defender basically means being charged $1000 you cannot afford to get a bad plea bargain. Changing the guidance on those plea bargains would also be nice, although how exactly to handle this and sentencing guidelines both is a tricky matter.
The alignment issue must also be attacked. He cites California's Realignment in addition to the cap-and-trade program mentioned earlier. Relatedly, having specialized zones and anti-gerrymandering measures would be nice, but both seem politically impossible in many places as improving lives and outcomes are not as important as elections to powers at be.
Another important point that he does not discuss at length but nonetheless mentions is that there are much more efficient ways to keep us safe and improve lives than prison. Policing and community outreach are obvious ones. With the defunding trend of late, the first seems dirty to suggest, but policing seems superior to prison still. (cf. Justice Reinvestment Initiative)
Some economics-oriented implementations mentioned are: Analyzing not budget but cost-benefit analysis, incentivizing prosecutors to pursue serious offenses via incentive grants, and offering private investment [social impact bonds] to reduce taxpayer risk (paying out only when benchmarks are met---indeed, expanding private influence, perhaps even private prisons, is something suggested often).
It is also apparent that state and county data are lacking. Even federal data is spotty. If we had more clarity, a great deal more could be said. More data-oriented approaches in general would be nice. For example, in approaching sentencing and parole, the question of the real likelihood one is to re-commit should be considered as well as what marginal effect in prison has on that person's QOL and recidivism odds.
Gradual and flexible change are emphasized. Sunset provisions would help mitigate the salience issue: If crime is peaking (or worries at least), politicians may find it necessary to implement harsher laws, but if these laws need to be "re-upped" every 5 or 10 years to keep going, then it is less likely to do harm due to moral panic. On the other hand, simple gradual reduction in prisons via BRAC-like commissions or policies like "aging out" would allow the public to get used to the idea of deincarceration (even for violent offenders!). Ultimately, hearts and minds must be changed.
Pfaff himself---while not emphasizing it for sure---seems to agree with many of the points of Alexander's: race is a part of mass incarceration, imprisoning people for long sentences for drugs via three-strikes is absurd, etc., but he makes clear that most of these issues are actually relatively small and should not continue to receive undue attention at the expense of higher impact areas of consideration.
What are those main points? For my own recollection of this book, I'll talk a bit about that now.
Spoiler
Pfaff calls the idea that long sentences for non-violent drug offenders "The Standard Story." Indeed, this is what we often think of when discussing the errors of the prison system. Many know personally of people who have been imprisoned because of drugs else petty crimes related to drugs. However, the vast majority of people in prison are there for crimes other than drugs, most being violent crimes like murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, or burglary of certain types. While most seem now to agree that people addicted to drugs should not be locked up for years on end and have their lives' further upended, the truth is that such cases are a small minority of prison admissions and prison beds. It is a sensible starting point for reform, one that has made some progress, especially in the case of marijuana (itself on the whole probably "safer" than alcohol); we must go beyond this, however, if we have any hope of reducing America's extraordinary prison population.
There are several points Pfaff emphasizes besides that the Standard Story has its issues. Among them are:
1. Prison issues are local issues.
Far too much emphasis is placed on the federal system. In that system, a large proportion of imprisoned individuals are there for drug crimes, but that is a quirk of how drugs are prosecuted. Moreover, the vast majority of imprisoned people are in state (and county) systems of prisons (and jails). Importantly, this means we cannot be too top-down in our approach. We must tackle the joys of federalism.
2. Prosecutors have all the cards.
Prosecutors have immense power through their ability to pursue or not cases. Moreover, they have broad purview to offer plea bargains (re: threaten with extreme charges), which is often made all the more strong by mandatory sentencing guidelines that restrict judicial discretion.
3. Thanks to the (1), there is a great moral hazard for prosecutors and counties.
Prosecutors often have maligned incentives. First, being seen as soft on crime is terrible; people remember sensational (but exceptional!) cases of where "one got away," but they do not have the same attachment to people over-punished or wrongfully punished. But prosecutors are elected officials, so they are beholden to public opinion. Moreover, criminal justice is a high salience, low information issue: People care greatly but know little. Second, prisons are within specific counties. They employ people mostly of that county. They usually count toward that county population (thus skewing demographics! --- most crimes are urban but most prisons are suburban or rural where space is plentiful). They are managed by the county. Yet, they are often funded by the states, and they imprison people from across the state. In this way, prosecutors are incentivized to be draconian, not to consider the costs to the states but instead to consider the benefits to the county and to their re-election campaigns.
4. Most crimes are violent, so any reform must address these politically unsavory crimes.
Even among drug-offenders, most have associated violent crimes (although most are "mid-level" simple dealers and the like, not "kingpins"). But more fundamentally, there are two big things here. First, we must consider what we think the purpose of prison is. It is clear that we are not reforming. Recidivism rates are terrible, and the result of imprisonment is a sort of detachment, stigma, and struggle that Alexander describes well (albeit sometimes including edge cases, like parolee's being readmitted for reasons other than breaking the law again---though there is some nuance here). Are we really seeking retribution? I think for most, yes. I hate this idea, but it's the oft-unspoken truth. Second, we must acknowledge not commit a fundamental attribution error. People do violent things. Very few people are violent perpetually. Most people "grow out of" crime and violent behavior, with peaks in the 20s and 30s, perhaps as early as teens, and sharp decline by 40s or 50s. Violent crime brings with it somewhat longer sentences, so simply releasing almost all over 50 year olds, for example, would be notable.
5. Private prisons are a small minority with outcomes not substantially different from public prisons. Indeed, the prison problem is a public one, one of local governments and prosecutors and states. While private prisons can be concerning, they are largely a red herring to real progress.
----
Beyond this, Pfaff offers some salient, concrete suggestions.
He posits BRAC-like commissions for prison closures could help, or else a cap-and-trade program. The former appeals to me more because of how badly managed many cap-and-trade programs are, but in principle, both could help force the hand of overzealous prosecutors.
Another move in that direction is simply to change prosecutors from elected officials to appointed ones. While the larger scale politics of prison---Congress and the like---are not amenable to such change, prosecutors and judges are. They could also work along side a commission as several states already have implemented. On the other side, fund the public defenders! Their workloads are insane and funds pitiful. Having a public defender basically means being charged $1000 you cannot afford to get a bad plea bargain. Changing the guidance on those plea bargains would also be nice, although how exactly to handle this and sentencing guidelines both is a tricky matter.
The alignment issue must also be attacked. He cites California's Realignment in addition to the cap-and-trade program mentioned earlier. Relatedly, having specialized zones and anti-gerrymandering measures would be nice, but both seem politically impossible in many places as improving lives and outcomes are not as important as elections to powers at be.
Another important point that he does not discuss at length but nonetheless mentions is that there are much more efficient ways to keep us safe and improve lives than prison. Policing and community outreach are obvious ones. With the defunding trend of late, the first seems dirty to suggest, but policing seems superior to prison still. (cf. Justice Reinvestment Initiative)
Some economics-oriented implementations mentioned are: Analyzing not budget but cost-benefit analysis, incentivizing prosecutors to pursue serious offenses via incentive grants, and offering private investment [social impact bonds] to reduce taxpayer risk (paying out only when benchmarks are met---indeed, expanding private influence, perhaps even private prisons, is something suggested often).
It is also apparent that state and county data are lacking. Even federal data is spotty. If we had more clarity, a great deal more could be said. More data-oriented approaches in general would be nice. For example, in approaching sentencing and parole, the question of the real likelihood one is to re-commit should be considered as well as what marginal effect in prison has on that person's QOL and recidivism odds.
Gradual and flexible change are emphasized. Sunset provisions would help mitigate the salience issue: If crime is peaking (or worries at least), politicians may find it necessary to implement harsher laws, but if these laws need to be "re-upped" every 5 or 10 years to keep going, then it is less likely to do harm due to moral panic. On the other hand, simple gradual reduction in prisons via BRAC-like commissions or policies like "aging out" would allow the public to get used to the idea of deincarceration (even for violent offenders!). Ultimately, hearts and minds must be changed.
Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak
4.0
I haven’t read this since I was a kid. I didn’t remember anything standing out except the art style, which is still delightful in its hatches, uncanny faces, and mismatched animal parts. Max’s world provided a window into childish imagination. But ultimately, he recognizes correctly that one must come out to reality as well. Thankfully, his is a warm one with a caring family.
I don’t expect to add many children’s books here. I don’t often read them. But I am not opposed to doing so by any means. There is great literature for young people, even the very youngest; though, most is tripe.
I don’t expect to add many children’s books here. I don’t often read them. But I am not opposed to doing so by any means. There is great literature for young people, even the very youngest; though, most is tripe.
Ready Player One by Ernest Cline
1.0
Well, what to say? I read this because 1.) it was one of my friend's favorite books from his early teens, 2.) I wanted to try out the "372 Pages" podcast another friend long ago suggested, and 3.) I watched but barely remembered the movie. This novel was widely acclaimed upon release. It seems now---this was unknown to me at the onset---people who have read it recently agree it is not good. The discourse seems to be to make fun of it. Let me say that this is justified. I read about 80% in audiobook format (shoutout Wil Wheaton) and the other 20% on my Kindle.
This is not irredeemable in all parts. Do you have a geeky, loner 10 year old and this gets them to read? Sure, it's better than nothing! But the reality is that RPO is a half-baked idea used as an excuse for a misanthropic shut-in who loves video games to write his own self-insert story where he gets to be the badass hero. It might get two stars if it weren't for the writing quality though. Among the incredibly popular best-seller machines like Dan Brown or James Patterson, it is clear that the prose is written to grade-level, allowing for maximal reach. I wish that were the case here. Instead, it seems like there's hardly been any editing at all. He regularly says things that are painstakingly obvious to the point of seeming like a mistake. He will write things like "It seemed to me do be a DeLorean. Art3mis said 'Look, it's a DeLorean!' Of course, I already knew this because I had watched the hit 80s classic *Back to the Future* 72 times and memorized every line." I would provide actual examples, but it's too painful to open up my highlights.
The story is entirely formulaic, but it is not offensive. Unfortunately, describing playing 8bit video games in an interesting way is a herculean task, one which Cline certainly never stood a chance at doing. If only he had considered that when coming up with this book. But between that and the often truly horrendous prose, this book was a slog. I could not read quickly enough. I had to force myself not to stop, to overcome the stunned disbelief that this was not some especially crude Wattpad story. (At least the grammar is usually correct, so I guess that is unfair to the editor.)
There could have been something interesting in looking at how a world might shift to a dystopian VR experience, but the setup is not really given any care. The world has fallen apart, yet we seem to have infinite basically-free VR resources, and the uber-company of the day provides them. The references could have also had a purpose, but instead they are just attached. I'm pretty sure this is more-or-less a real example: "And then we bumped fists triumphantly, just like Zan and Jayna from the classic *Wonder Twins* comics!"
As someone who spent his early childhood years very much just engrossed in media and videos games, an awkward kid shut away, this should have resonated with me some, or maybe revolted me entirely, but instead the content was just very meh with no depth and writing offensive to all my sensibilities. I gave it its fair shake, and I considered reviewing it slightly more positively, but then I thought two things: 1.) What could be worse than this? I can't remember a book in the last 100 I've read, so surely this is in the bottom 20%. 2.) Had this not been such a massive sensation, would I have even considered any other rating? Is it really worthwhile to discuss the serviceable nuggets of ideas if they're never followed up on and if the characters, scenes, and writing are all horrific?
This is not irredeemable in all parts. Do you have a geeky, loner 10 year old and this gets them to read? Sure, it's better than nothing! But the reality is that RPO is a half-baked idea used as an excuse for a misanthropic shut-in who loves video games to write his own self-insert story where he gets to be the badass hero. It might get two stars if it weren't for the writing quality though. Among the incredibly popular best-seller machines like Dan Brown or James Patterson, it is clear that the prose is written to grade-level, allowing for maximal reach. I wish that were the case here. Instead, it seems like there's hardly been any editing at all. He regularly says things that are painstakingly obvious to the point of seeming like a mistake. He will write things like "It seemed to me do be a DeLorean. Art3mis said 'Look, it's a DeLorean!' Of course, I already knew this because I had watched the hit 80s classic *Back to the Future* 72 times and memorized every line." I would provide actual examples, but it's too painful to open up my highlights.
The story is entirely formulaic, but it is not offensive. Unfortunately, describing playing 8bit video games in an interesting way is a herculean task, one which Cline certainly never stood a chance at doing. If only he had considered that when coming up with this book. But between that and the often truly horrendous prose, this book was a slog. I could not read quickly enough. I had to force myself not to stop, to overcome the stunned disbelief that this was not some especially crude Wattpad story. (At least the grammar is usually correct, so I guess that is unfair to the editor.)
There could have been something interesting in looking at how a world might shift to a dystopian VR experience, but the setup is not really given any care. The world has fallen apart, yet we seem to have infinite basically-free VR resources, and the uber-company of the day provides them. The references could have also had a purpose, but instead they are just attached. I'm pretty sure this is more-or-less a real example: "And then we bumped fists triumphantly, just like Zan and Jayna from the classic *Wonder Twins* comics!"
As someone who spent his early childhood years very much just engrossed in media and videos games, an awkward kid shut away, this should have resonated with me some, or maybe revolted me entirely, but instead the content was just very meh with no depth and writing offensive to all my sensibilities. I gave it its fair shake, and I considered reviewing it slightly more positively, but then I thought two things: 1.) What could be worse than this? I can't remember a book in the last 100 I've read, so surely this is in the bottom 20%. 2.) Had this not been such a massive sensation, would I have even considered any other rating? Is it really worthwhile to discuss the serviceable nuggets of ideas if they're never followed up on and if the characters, scenes, and writing are all horrific?
The Complete Maus by Art Spiegelman
5.0
Holy shit. I did not know what exactly to expect of this. I knew nothing except what Shaun said in a video, the video that prompted me to read this. (Decent watch but he focuses only on one aspect of Maus and his particular interpretation is not the only possible one. Spiegelman himself seems to suggest there is no lesson here per se.)
The font and relative lack of shading was a bit harsh to adjust to, but I imagine it's much more readable in print. It's ultimately a memoir of just one experience, but many points echo still. I understand why many Jewish commentators were upset with it initially (it is understandable for them to "want good PR," as it were, given their ongoing persecution by some). Still, it does not seem unfair. Biased? Sure, but only in the most honest of ways.
The second part or book is far more engaging than the first. Spiegelman is experimental without feeling pretentious. The people behind the story are given proper respect in the narrative. Spiegelman's own grief and conflict about profiting from the story are compelling.
The font and relative lack of shading was a bit harsh to adjust to, but I imagine it's much more readable in print. It's ultimately a memoir of just one experience, but many points echo still. I understand why many Jewish commentators were upset with it initially (it is understandable for them to "want good PR," as it were, given their ongoing persecution by some). Still, it does not seem unfair. Biased? Sure, but only in the most honest of ways.
The second part or book is far more engaging than the first. Spiegelman is experimental without feeling pretentious. The people behind the story are given proper respect in the narrative. Spiegelman's own grief and conflict about profiting from the story are compelling.
Ready Player Two by Ernest Cline
1.0
My completionist streak compelled me to speed through this. Not even light could move quickly enough. Throw out any semblance of plot the first book had while redoing all the same things. Make it even more unaware and sexist. Ugh.
The Mona Lisa Vanishes: A Legendary Painter, a Shocking Heist, and the Birth of a Global Celebrity by Nicholas Day
4.25
I grew surprisingly enamored with this book. I came in expecting a quick, short read of little consequence, but 1.) this story is fabulously filled with coincidences and curiosities, 2.) the narrative structure is superb, and 3.) Day's charmingly straightforward prose combined with Helquist's fun illustrations made for something quite special. A five star for me only indicates approximately a book in the 80th percentile and up among those worth reading, as it were, but I do think this book reaches that. You get a wonderful little look at 19th century criminal justice and journalism, the role of art in wealth and cultural heritage, the arbitrariness of shifting perspective, and the apotheosis of conception over being all in a fun little crime thriller featuring a stunning cast ranging from the obvious (da Vinci et al.) to the perhaps unexpected (Picasso, Sherlock Holmes, et al.). The events of the Mona Lisa's theft are healthy parts hilarious, appalling, and intriguingly coincidental. I'm very glad to have gotten a more complete picture of it.
Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin A. Abbott
5.0
As a mathematician-in-training, it's a wonder it took so long to read this. I read G.E.B. as a kid but somehow missed Abbott. I had not expected to, but I saw the free Prime edition recommended in my Kindle app, and I realized it could easily be read in an hour sitting. I then realized it had an audiobook version, so I just played that throughout commute and downtime today (i.e., between doing math).
In any case, I expected to like it based on the subject matter, but I expected it to have sort of one trick: To introduce the notions of dimension in a playful narrative form. That's worthwhile of a short story at least, but Abbott expands much beyond this to something special. The language and mores present are dated even for 1920, but---independent of Abbott's beliefs, about which I know nothing---the society of Flatland can clearly be seen as satire. The all-important system of caste, both the marginalization and danger of women, the means of moving up in caste (namely, likely killing your child), the using of "lessers" (irregulars essentially serving as experimental subjects in schools until they starve to death), the emphasis on regularity, and much more have parallels with the real world that are not revolutionary but provide good humor. Moreover, the society of Flatland is cohesive and well thought-out, which is itself an accomplishment.
I can understand how some could be turned off by the tiny bit of (easy but insightful!) math in this book. I too can see how the language reduces the audience, it being of a classically educated man of the 19th century basically. Further still, some of the social elements can be jarring when discussed so plainly. But I would argue each actually enhance the book if approached with an open-mind. Once one gets over this bit of friction, it is a seamlessly fun, elegant, and singular story.
In any case, I expected to like it based on the subject matter, but I expected it to have sort of one trick: To introduce the notions of dimension in a playful narrative form. That's worthwhile of a short story at least, but Abbott expands much beyond this to something special. The language and mores present are dated even for 1920, but---independent of Abbott's beliefs, about which I know nothing---the society of Flatland can clearly be seen as satire. The all-important system of caste, both the marginalization and danger of women, the means of moving up in caste (namely, likely killing your child), the using of "lessers" (irregulars essentially serving as experimental subjects in schools until they starve to death), the emphasis on regularity, and much more have parallels with the real world that are not revolutionary but provide good humor. Moreover, the society of Flatland is cohesive and well thought-out, which is itself an accomplishment.
I can understand how some could be turned off by the tiny bit of (easy but insightful!) math in this book. I too can see how the language reduces the audience, it being of a classically educated man of the 19th century basically. Further still, some of the social elements can be jarring when discussed so plainly. But I would argue each actually enhance the book if approached with an open-mind. Once one gets over this bit of friction, it is a seamlessly fun, elegant, and singular story.