Finished (E-Reader) - "Dad is Fat" - Jim Gaffigan

Didn't think much of "Dad is Fat" - I expected more laughs.  The book is basically short-story diary entries, all of which are light-hearted, but none of which are really funny.  A few turns of phrase were nice, but nothing you'd really want to remember and tell your friends and family.
A decent book for short reading periods (each chapter is only a few minutes), so it can be read easily on transit etc.

Overall, not a great read.

Finished (E-Reader) - "Silver Linings Playbook" - Matthew Quick

Enjoyed "Silver Linings Playbook" - a very quick read (pun unintended).  Both main characters suffer from psychological issues and are being treated.  It's nice to have a story about mental illness that doesn't involve murders or deranged individuals.  Quick does a good job of illustrating issues in mental health and treatment - the main male character trying to skip medication as he doesn't feel he needs it, lingering fantasies and haunting memories.
The movie based on the book covers much of the same ground, but the book does a better job of showing the "inside workings".  I'd like to watch the movie again, having now read the book.

Finished (E-Reader) - "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre

I reviewed parts of "Bad Science" in an earlier post.

Having now finished the book, I highly recommend it.  An excellent book for the novice scientist to understand research issues.  The focus on health issues makes the content relevant and easy to follow, and the choice of health is easy to justify - high dollars put into research by companies (=potential biased results) lots of public interest (= preliminary release of results and broad reporting without scientific scrutiny).  Nutritionists take the biggest hit, along with the anti-vaccination folks (anybody in the anti-vaccine camp should read the book - the rumour mongering ab out the anti-polio vaccine in Africa caused areas to avoid the vaccine, which caused a very predictable and tragic increase in cases, clearly an outcome significantly out of alignment with the "anti-drug company" fears of the rumour mongers).
Goldacre's position as a critic of research methodology puts him in a good position to assess the rumour-mongering on one side, and the advertising campaigns on the other.  I think he runs a very nice line between them, acknowledging that there is a reason to worry about the research coming out of company-funded labs, but at the same time focusing on the actual clinical outcomes, not the "feared" or "promised" outcomes.

Goldacre does a good job of explaining how research can be perverted and how statistics can be manipulated, both discussions well done, and both with clear examples, and neither requiring a degree in statistics to understand.

Again, a highly recommended book for folks looking for an ancillary text or realistic examples to support a research methodology class or a statistics course.

I"d also make this a mandatory read for any knee-jerk science non-believers, as it showcases nicely the differences between science (as an empirical data-driven enterprise) and more political fields dominated by leaders.  In fact, this is one of the key criticisms of news reporting of science - they tend to rely on "experts" which gives the illusion that there is a natural leadership hierarchy in science.

The "truth" about science is that anybody can knock down a Stephen Hawking or an Albert Einstein with a well designed experiment that directly conflicts with their hypotheses, no public opinion or election required.  Books on Einstein focus on his later years where he was diverging from the mainstream of physics, a field where he made many of the key discoveries his contemporaries were using as a base platform.

Goldacre provides lots of evidence for the misuse and misunderstanding of science, and points fingers in appropriate directions.  He's not campaigning for any particular changes, other than a better educated public in science, so the "power" of sensational media reports or the fear-mongering of small groups can be assessed for their merits, not the degree of attention they generate.  Who can argue against better understanding, other than those profiting form ignorance?

Finished (E-Reader) - "And the Mountains Echoed" - Khaled Hosseini

I read "Kite Runner" also by Hosseini a few years ago and really liked it, as I did his second book "".

"And the Mountains Echoed" is a very good book - the chapters were pretty long, each a self-contained part of the larger piece of family history.  This worked very well in the book - it was very easy to get lost in the particular part of the family and their trials and tribulations in whatever part of the world they were living in.

I typically don't keep track of characters names very well, so biographical-type novels over generations are often problematic for me to follow.  Hosseini's way of focusing on the particular characters in a particular timeframe worked very well for me.  Hosseinin didn't spend a lot of time trying to place the character in the family tree - when you became wrapped up in the story, the placement in the tree became apparent.

All of the characters in the book were well developed and interesting in their own right, and all had compelling, though not epic, stories.  The "non-epic" is not a slam in any way, they had issues. histories, good decisions and bad - not every decision people make causes a war or avoids a nuclear detenation.  The stories felt real, interesting and compelling, exactly what you want in a book.

Reading (iPad) - Civil War - 2006/7 Marvel Comics

I was really hooked on Civil War (Marvel Comics 2006/7) when it was current.  Bought almost every issue in the crossover, company-wide series.  I'm now re-reading the Civil War Chronicles, a 12 issue series which reprints key issues of the series.







What I liked:

• the dynamics of how to play off those who think this is a great idea and those who demand the status quo
• they whole dynamic of the mandatory reveal of identity to the gov't
• the Spider-Man identity reveal and the immediate ramifications of it.  Kingpin's character, and his ability to plan and take advantage of the Civil War was a good use of the character (similar to what he had done to Daredevil when he discovered his identity)
• the counter intuitive Iron Man on the side of the gov't and Captain America in the role of rebel
• Cap's eventual arrest and the follow-up Death of Captain America were well done
• Seeing the rebels in new secret identities as fun
• The Fantastic Four - Sue Storm (Invisible Woman) was given some character depth for a change - questioning Reed, caring for Johnny - good character development.  The "sleep with Reed then run away" revelation was probably an unnecessary plotline.  Johnny came out OK as well - victim of a crowd beating, he was unconscious for much of the start, but seemed clear-headed and driven, once recovered.  Johnny and Sue undercover as a married couple was humorous, and their feeling creepy was apt.  Ben's neutrality was also well played, though a trip to France was maybe overkill and a play to an anti-France bias.  Reed came across as a tool, which is a little stornger than he may have deserved - he's supposed to be smart, so his rigidity was difficult to reconcile.
• Speedball to Penance was a good evolution, and seemed to reflect the magnitude of the story

What I didn't like:

• The relatively quick acceptance of super-villains into the role of super-cops to chase down otherwise-heroic figures who's only "crime" was to not register  (e.g. make a deal with a murderer to catch a jay-walker)
• The Spider-Man revel leading into the "Brand New Day" resolution (the a-hole idea that Peter Parker would make a deal with the devil (Mephisto) to void his marriage to bring back Aunt May from death).
• The vilification of Iron Man - at least in my opinion, Cap kept his morals more or less intact, while Iron Man took his role of super-cop to an unhealthy extreme
• I found the roles on the pro-registration side to be a little too rigid - seemed to belittle Reed Richards and Tony Stark in particular (this may be somewhat the result of my leaning towards the Cap side in the war)
• Iron Man's unethical behaviour vis a vis Peter Parker - aside from trying to get him onside (which I'll accept, particularly if Tony thinks that is the right thing to do anyway), but giving Spider-Man an armoured suit that monitors and undermines his powers is pretty unethical, particularly as Peter was operating as a disciple at the point Tony gave him a suit.  Only a really untrustworthy person would trick and trap somebody who's body and soul onside.  This entire relationship seemed to weaken Peter to a groupie, and made Tony seem to be a Svengali - a little more balance might have made the story a little stronger.
• Not sure what the revelation the reporters had for Iron Man were supposed to reveal.  Is Tony suppose to be a bigger, unethical, immoral person than the entire Registration debacle itself indicates?
• The amount of death, hero, villain and civilian was astounding and didn't seem to appropriately resonate with the characters.  Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic should have been crushed that Bill Foster was KILLED by their cloned Thor. Civilian deaths are rarely mentioned, and usually directly the fault of the villain - never attributable to the "hero".  This change of status should have been a bigger deal.  Think about the Gwen Stacy death or Captain Stacy - these were huge impact events - now 100's of civilians die and the worst that happens is registration.

What really killed me:

• The astounding "revelation" that the hero-vs-hero war in Manhatten, where 53 (57?) civilian people DIED, was required for Cap to realize that there was damage being done and surrender
• Remember, this whole episode was based upon collateral damage done when the New Warriors tried to capture some super-villains for a reality TV show - Nitro exploded and civilians were lost) - why does EXACTLY the same thing need to happen for this realization to come to the fore?
• The story basically called for a "final battle", but maybe when the forces arrayed, Cap could have surrendered because as a former soldier, he'd see what damage would be caused, regardless of who would eventually emerge victorious.  He would have seemed heroic - not so much when the battle has to take down an whole neighbourhood before he clues in.
• Not happy with the outcome of the Spider-Man story line - the "Brand New Day" stuff was a cop-out and a sell-off of the Peter Parker character.

The resolution took me from a renewed, rabid Marvel comic reader, to a very disillusioned one.  The stupidity of the characters destroying Manhattan didn't resonate as ironic, it resonated as merely stupid.  If they are that insane, they might as well be the "next generation" heroes of the Kingdom Come DC story line.  I was really taken with this story line, and was very disappointed with the conclusion.