The dark horrors and moral calculations of life in a conflict-stricken Syria are woven together with the giddy romance characteristic of a YA novel.
One recurring sentiment that I found particularly striking was the characters’ chronic sense of guilt and sadness at the thought of leaving their homeland, Syria, in hopes for a better life abroad. I’ve realized that possessing such a strong sense of cultural rootedness is hardly observed in societies built around the cornerstone of capitalism.
I’m faaar from being a fan of YA/romance content, but the author did a fantastic job blending the genre’s tropey elements into (what she described as) a “halal love story”.
Started out promising, as one would expect from a dystopian novel about memory and magic. Sadly the magical elements remained largely unexplained, and felt frustratingly random and inconsistent. There were some nice moments that I enjoyed in this one though.
A refreshingly unconventional method of storytelling. Set in Chile, the protagonist imagines vivid scenes and backstories for a military defector she read about as a child, interspersed with her own experience of growing up in the regime.
A highly engaging read from start to finish. Lale's story reflects his incredible resourcefulness and survival instincts, in spite of the unpredictable violence in Auschwitz and Birkenau. The epilogue by Lale's son was also heartwarming, as he described his parents' long and loving marriage for the rest of their lives.
The problematic bit about this story is that it fixated rather heavily and clumsily on the fact that two people found love in a hopeless place. I get that this book is ultimately a work of fiction, but it seems disrespectful to take this much creative license and then brand it as being "based on a true story". It doesn't help that the author later released a controversial sequel to this book, again allegedly "based on a true story". The author didn't even interview the protagonist of her second book. When their family threatened legal action upon its release, her defence was, ironically, that her book was a work of fiction. There is a huge difference between being inspired by true events and being based on them, and given the subject matter it's so important to be precise.
This book is an absolutely fascinating read for anyone with even a passing interest in space tech. And also a somewhat infuriating read when you realize just how aggressively the USA is willing to be to assert itself as THE arbiter of aerospace development worldwide.
The book focuses on 4 companies: Planet Labs, Rocket Lab, Astra and Firefly. Given that Vance has published another book exclusively on Elon Musk, most mentions of SpaceX in this book were focused on the firm and its tech rather than Musk.
I’ve been rooting for Rocket Lab for the past few months, mainly because of Peter Beck’s underdog story in the space race and how he seems like an all-around decent guy from his interviews (unlike pretty much every other space mogul). So it was a real treat to get this journalistic insight into Beck/Rocket Lab's origin story, and I’m an even bigger fan now.
I didn't care for Astra right from the start, and was completely unsurprised by the shitshow that ensued.
Also the USA did Max Polyakov SO dirty. It’s especially maddening after you learn how much leeway they gave the arrogant Kemp/Astra that just talked a big game but had hardly anything to show in the way of real gritty engineering progress. The US government basically bullied Polyakov into handing his company over on the flimsy pretext that he might be a Russian spy, and then shamelessly used the Ukrainian-developed turbopump technology he’d shared with them while declaring the rockets made from “100% American technology”. Not a good look.
This book examines the public arguments put forth by Orwell (an anti-fascist) and Comfort (a pacifist) in response to governmental actions during World War 2.
Ideas that I found fascinating:
There was an argument made that pacifism is a copout stance and effectively pro-fascism. Pacifists do not want to “get their hands dirty” and accept the brutal but necessary realities of war, but the violence of war is inevitable in the fight against fascism.
Civilian bombing is an actual military tactic, ostensibly to pressure everyday folk on the other side to turn against their own government. Mainstream protests against especially cruel practices (e.g. night bombings of non-combatants) are not new. The state military's response to this has remained consistent from then till now: publicly declare that these are "targeted strikes" despite evidence pointing solidly in the opposite direction.
The design of modern state and political systems encourage the selection of “criminal psychopaths” for positions of leadership and power, and reward them for taking aggressive and punitive action. The way to limit the power of delinquent political leadership is to encourage individual autonomy through education based on creativity. Individuals that are taught to think for themselves and practise communal living will be less reliant on the state, thus limiting their reach.
I'm so glad I chanced upon this gem of a book in a secondhand bookstore. It's been immensely helpful in understanding the messaging around the Israel-Gaza conflict today.
This was a beautiful 10-minute read. It's a snapshot of a post-apocalyptic world, set in a deceptively cozy and futuristic home. According to Wikipedia, Bradbury wrote this story as a means of warning people of the potential outcome of nuclear wars, and how technology, no matter how advanced, cannot truly protect us. It was written in 1950 but set in 2026, so it was somewhat amusing to see how people who lived a mere human lifetime ago envisioned the world today.
This feels like trying to read the King James Version of the Bible. I’m sure it has lots of valuable lessons but I can’t understand half of it. I need an eli5 for stoicism.